Creating a 

New Criminal 

Justice System 

for the 21st Century:

Bureau of Justice Assistance Monograph

Findings 

and Results

From State

and Local

Program

Evaluations

Creating a 

New Criminal 

Justice System 

for the 21st Century:

Monograph

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance
This document was prepared by Justice Research and Statistics Association, under grant

number 95–DD–BX–K011, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily

represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Daniel Marcus

Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. Gist

Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice Programs

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance

World Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For grant and funding information contact

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also

includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
Monograph

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Creating a New Criminal Justice

System for the 21st Century:

Findings and Results From

State and Local Program Evaluations

Effective Programs Monograph No. 2

April 2000 NCJ 178936
iii

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Improving the nation’s criminal justice system is the central mission of the

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). Building safer, less violent communities

is a major challenge all states and local communities are facing. Real progress can be achieved only if we demonstrate and confirm “what works,” so

we can all profit from the impact of more than 10 years of federal funding

through the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement

Assistance Formula Grant Program. In the year 2000, our knowledge of

effective programs will continue to be critical as we solve one of the nation’s

toughest problems. 

Underlying our ability to gain reliable knowledge and disseminate information on effective programs and activities is our commitment to evaluating

and publicizing those programs and activities as we implement our plans

and strategies. Evaluation done right permits program managers to find out

what is and is not working, and why. BJA carries the responsibility of building the capacity of state and local governments to design and conduct their

own assessments and evaluations of criminal justice programs. BJA’s handbooks and technical assistance help to provide a systematic, disciplined

framework that focuses on performance and results, both quantitative and

qualitative, to be measured and evaluated. This initiative also represents

an area of close participation with the National Institute of Justice to build

federal, state, and local evaluation systems over the past decade. 

BJA is pleased to present this monograph, Creating a New Criminal Justice

System for the 21st Century: Findings and Results From State and Local Program

Evaluations. It is the second in a series of reports to highlight and document

approaches and results of evaluations funded at state and local levels. The

first report, Improving the Nation’s Criminal Justice System: Findings and Results

From State and Local Program Evaluations, Effective Programs Monograph No.

1, was published in December 1997. Six demonstration projects affecting

many components of the criminal justice system were the focal point of the

evaluations presented in the previous monograph. Having been identified

as effective, these programs have become models for other states and localities to replicate. 

This monograph has been produced to make proven state and local programs more accessible to planners and practitioners alike. The document is

divided into two parts. Part One provides descriptions and evaluations of

programs in seven states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Hampshire, Oregon,

Illinois, Utah, and Oklahoma. Part Two is a summary of evaluations of state

and local multijurisdictional task forces funded by BJA.

Foreword
iv

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Future reports in the series will continue to communicate the results of

strong federal, state, and local partnerships that are enhancing the role of

evaluation, building excellent evaluation systems, and reporting on the

impact of efforts to combat crime in America. BJA is proud of its work of

identifying effective drug abuse and violent crime prevention programs and

communicating lessons learned at state and local levels that can be shared

nationally to ensure that the most promising approaches have a broad

impact. 

Nancy E. Gist 

Director 
v

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Acknowledgments

This second monograph on effective state and local program evaluation is a

product of a cooperative effort by the states and the Bureau of Justice Assistance as part of the State Evaluation Development Program, coordinated by

the Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA).

The State Evaluation Development Program relies on the expertise of the

State Planning Agencies to ensure the success of its publications. The following State Planning Agencies contributed their knowledge and time to make

this monograph a success:

❑ Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.

❑ Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services.

❑ New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General.

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

❑ Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority.

❑ Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.

❑ Oklahoma District Attorneys Council.

The Justice Research and Statistics Association prepared this document under

the direction of Joan C. Weiss, Executive Director. JRSA staff who worked

on this publication, under the supervision of Michael Connelly, Director of

Special Projects, include Kate Ahern, Craig Cussimanio, Nancy Michel, Laura

Parisi, Marylinda Stawasz, and Kate Wagner.
vii

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Part One: State Program Evaluations ....................................................................1

State and Local Evaluations and the Effective Programs Initiative ......3

Pennsylvania: School-Based Probation ......................................................7

Virginia: Detention Center Incarceration Program ................................19

New Hampshire: Merrimack County Adult Diversion Program ........27

Oregon: The Multnomah County STOP Drug Diversion Program....39

Illinois: Homicide and Violent Crime Strike Force in Madison 

and St. Clair Counties....................................................................................49

Utah: The Utah Day Reporting Center—Success With 

Alternative Incarceration ..............................................................................61

Oklahoma: Drug Court Program ................................................................67

References ........................................................................................................75

Part Two: Multijurisdictional Task Force Evaluation......................................77

Multijurisdictional Task Forces: Synthesis of State and Local 

Evaluation Findings ......................................................................................79

Multijurisdictional Evaluation Findings ..................................................81

References ........................................................................................................91

Appendix A

Identifying Effective Criminal Justice Programs: Guidelines and 

Criteria for the Nomination of Effective Programs ................................97

Sources for Further Information ........................................................................103

Contents
Part One

State Program Evaluations 
The Bureau of Justice Assistance’s (BJA’s) evaluation strategy is designed to

determine the effectiveness and impact of BJA’s grant programs. The goal

is to confirm whether performance objectives established by the states are

being achieved and, if they are, what critical elements were responsible for

success. Hence, the overall goal of the evaluation program is to identify programs of proven effectiveness so that they can be publicized and replicated

in other jurisdictions. By building strong assessment and evaluation foundations in the 50 states and 6 territories, BJA can account for the efforts of programs funded by its grants and add to the knowledge of what works and

what does not work throughout the criminal justice system. 

BJA relies on data and the results of research and evaluation to monitor 

program development under the discretionary program and provide guidance and model programs under the formula and block grant programs. 

BJA uses evaluation results to guide the formulation of policy and programs

within federal, state, and local criminal justice agencies and to ensure that

policies and funded programs are based on proven results. The required

state annual reports are useful in working toward this goal, but BJA intends

to go further to capture both quantitative and qualitative measures of program performance. 

As part of a continuing effort to provide the criminal justice community with

improved access to information on successful programs dealing with problems of drug abuse and/or violent crime, BJA is publishing this second volume highlighting innovative state and local programs. The evaluations, as

well as the programs being evaluated, reflect the results of program development and implementation activities funded under BJA’s Formula Grant

Program to state and local governments and organizations. 

Lessons learned at state and local levels can be shared nationally to ensure

that the most promising approaches have a broad impact. In addition to

wanting to know about successful initiatives, justice system planners and

managers need to understand the scope and level of effort required for innovative approaches. Readers of this report will observe that state and local

agencies are actively funding, implementing, and evaluating a broad range

of programs to deal with drug abuse and violent crime. 

Enhancing state and local assessment and evaluation capabilities is a very

high priority. The success of federal, state, and local partnerships yielded

many results within the states. The Effective Programs Initiative is designed

3

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

State and Local Evaluations 

and the Effective Programs 

Initiative
to develop or enhance drug control and system improvement strategy performance monitoring, measurement, and evaluation capacities in the states

and territories. 

BJA believes that setting standards for evaluation will have major benefits,

while informing the public about how federal dollars are spent. Evaluation

requires establishing new partnerships among funding agencies, program

managers, and evaluators. No longer the sole domain of academic researchers, evaluation is making a real difference in the ability of the criminal justice

community to base policy and decisions on accurate and useful information.

This is the result of the strong relationships formed between evaluators and

practitioners. 

In response to the Attorney General’s charge to “find out what works and

spread the word,” BJA began this new initiative with the goal of creating a

mechanism for enhancing the design, implementation, measurement, evaluation, and dissemination of information on programs in high-priority program areas.

The objectives of the Effective Programs Initiative are to:

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

❑ Identify and document useful approaches for designing and conducting

evaluations at state and local levels.

By identifying effective state and local criminal justice programs, practices,

and products and disseminating this information to policymakers and practitioners, BJA will help to improve the criminal justice system at the national

level. Through this approach, which might be called “leading by example,”

information on successful programs will be disseminated to the field in a

credible and timely fashion. The assessment and evaluation results from the

56 laboratories (50 states and 6 territories) put in place under the Byrne

Formula Grant Program are the products of this initiative.

See appendix A, Identifying Effective Criminal Justice Programs: Guidelines

and Criteria for the Nomination of Effective Programs, for instructions on

submitting potential programs. Once the effective programs have been

approved, additional BJA monographs and bulletins will be published.

Identifying and promoting sound programs is essential to developing effective strategies at federal, state, and local levels. BJA wants to enhance the

criminal justice system in general, while recognizing the many exceptional

state and local advances that have been made in combating violent crime

and drug abuse through the use of federal funds. 

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is an active participant in BJA’s evaluation program. BJA and NIJ develop evaluation guidelines and conduct

4

Bureau of Justice Assistance

By identifying effective state and local

criminal justice programs, practices,

and products . . .

BJA will help

improve the criminal justice system

at the national

level.
5

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

comprehensive evaluations of selected programs receiving Byrne Discretionary Grant Program and Formula Grant Program funds. BJA worked

closely with NIJ to develop the guidelines and criteria for documenting the

seven program evaluations presented in this monograph. 

A program development model that tests innovative state and local ideas in

action and then shares the information gained with the broadest audience

has proved promising in discovering what works and what does not work at

state and local levels.
7

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Pennsylvania: School-Based

Probation

This summary was adapted from the report School-Based Probation in Pennsylvania, which presents evaluation research conducted by David S. Metzger, Ph.D.,

Principal Investigator, and Danielle Tobin-Fiore, B.S., Project Coordinator, the

University of Pennsylvania Center for Studies of Addiction.

School-based probation (SBP) is an approach to supervising youth that shifts

the primary location of probation operations to the school environment. The

first SBP program was established in 1990 in Lehigh County with pilot funding provided by the Juvenile Court Judges Commission (JCJC). Since its

inception, the program has expanded rapidly, supported by grants from the

Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD). By the end

of 1995, SBP programs were in place in more than 40 counties.

Program Overview

Traditionally, juvenile probation officers in Pennsylvania have been based

in county offices, often located in the county courthouse. Under this model,

juveniles are seen by their probation officers in the county office, at home or

in school during periodic visits, or in various other community locations.

Consequently, contact and “supervision” most often occur in brief, planned

encounters with defined purposes. 

The SBP program was developed in response to the recognized need for

closer communication between probation officers and school staff. Although

the shift in location to the school environment is rather simple, it has significant “systems” implications. SBP involves the integration of the juvenile justice system with the educational system at the local level and is believed to

enhance both.

Goals and Objectives

The goals and objectives of the program are to:

❑ Reduce disciplinary referrals in school.

❑ Reduce the frequency and length of detentions.

❑ Improve attendance and academic performance.

❑ Decrease dropout rates.

❑ Reduce recidivism and out-of-home placements resulting from 

delinquent behavior. 

The SBP program

was developed in

response to the recognized need for

closer communication between probation officers and

school staff. 
Program Activities/Components

SBP is a community-focused approach in which a juvenile probation officer

is housed in the school building to provide direct supervision of juvenile

offenders on probation. This allows the officer to spend more time on the

case and less time traveling and doing intake paperwork. The configuration

provides more contact with the offender’s family and gives the probation

officer more involvement in the student’s life and the opportunity to routinely observe the youth in his or her peer group and social environment.

Two basic strategies are used by probation officers to manage cases assigned

to SBP—single case management and dual case management. In the single

case management approach, completion of all work required for an assigned

case is the responsibility of the school-based officer. In the dual approach, the

responsibility for the case is shared with other probation officers; the division of labor is intended to allow the school-based officer to remain in the

school while “nonsupervision” activities are completed by other probation

staff.

Performance Measures and 

Evaluation Methods

The overall objective of the SPB program evaluation was to build a foundation upon which future experimental studies, designed to objectively 

evaluate program outcomes, could be constructed. To this end, a series of

descriptive studies were completed between January 1996 and July 1997.

Phase I

The first phase of the evaluation focused on the production of a demographic profile of the youth who had been assigned to SBP. Data from existing

PCCD SBP reporting forms were linked with the JCJC statistical card database, allowing the profile to include both demographic and arrest data.

Descriptions of cases assigned to SBP were derived from SBP reporting

forms compiled for youth who completed probation in 1993, 1994, and

1995—4,159 cases from 31 counties. All PCCD-funded SBP programs are

expected to forward completed forms to PCCD annually on all youth completing probation during the reporting period. Between 1993 and 1995, 43

counties had been awarded grants to support 5,398 cases.

The SBP reporting forms include basic identifying and demographic information (e.g., name, gender, race, date of birth, date of assignment to SBP) as

well as performance characteristics such as school attendance, academic performance, in-school and out-of-school suspensions, and enrollment status at

the end of SBP.

8

Bureau of Justice Assistance

The overall objective of the SPB program evaluation

was to build a foundation upon which

future experimental

studies, designed

to objectively evaluate program outcomes, could be

constructed.
A database was created from all valid forms received from PCCD. To ensure

the integrity of the database, several steps were completed in the review of

the form and during the entry processes. Prior to data entry, each form was

screened for completeness, legibility, and validity (i.e., that values fell within

valid ranges). All omissions and notations were marked and, when possible,

corrected. Data from these forms were then entered into two separate data

files and cross-checked for accuracy. All mismatched entries were identified,

inspected, and, when possible, rectified. Approximately 694 forms from 170

cases were not able to be entered into the database. (The majority of these

were from one county that submitted forms on a quarterly basis for all active

cases.) Forms on 4,159 cases were received; of these, 3,913 (94 percent) were

determined to be valid and were entered into the database for subsequent

analyses. The breakdown by year was: 555 (14 percent) of the cases were

assigned in 1993, 1,982 (51 percent) in 1994, and 1,376 (35 percent) in 1995. 

A number of cases from counties that did not return valid reporting forms

were omitted from the database. Thus, analysis of the data that were included should be interpreted with some caution because of the possibility of

selection bias. These data did, however, represent 93 percent of cases and

collectively formed the largest existing database on juveniles assigned to

SBP; as such, the data provide an opportunity to gain some important

insights into the characteristics of the youth assigned to SBP in Pennsylvania.

While the descriptive data noted above provide information on the demographic characteristics of the youth served by SBP programs, they do not

address the important issue surrounding the nature of the offenses that

brought the juveniles into the system—are the charges in cases assigned to

SBP programs different from those assigned to other forms of probation? 

To compare the criminal justice characteristics of SBP cases with the characteristics of the cases assigned to “traditional” probation, data from the SBP

reporting forms were matched with data from the “statistical card” database.

A form known as the statistical card must be completed for each youth who

enters the Juvenile Court System in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; it

contains information on the youth’s involvement with the juvenile court system, including the nature of the offense that brought him or her into the SBP

program. The form is completed by the county staff and forwarded to the

Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research for entry into a uniform

database that includes important information regarding charges and dispositions for more than 30,000 cases annually. 

The matching process was complicated by several factors, but most significantly by the lack of a uniform identification number on both the statistical

card and the PCCD form. This necessitated scanning by name. Minor differences in spelling or the use of different versions of first names, errors in data

entry, and other differences between the two databases further contributed to

the difficulties in matching, even by name. Given these challenges involved

in achieving matches between the two databases and the size of the statistical card databases, the search was restricted to the 1993 database, the first

9

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century
year of the program. A total of 451 cases in the statistical card database were

matched to SBP cases, which represented 81 percent of the total number of

1993 SBP cases with valid PCCD forms. 

Phase II

In the second phase of the evaluation, site visits were conducted to develop

an operational understanding of the programs delivering SBP in the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The goal of these site visits was to better

understand how programs differ and to help identify specific program features that may affect the youth they serve. To accomplish this goal, comprehensive interviews were completed during site visits scheduled between

March and July 1996.

Each county that had been implementing the program for at least 1 year was

scheduled for a site visit. This resulted in visits to 29 (89 percent) counties

with PCCD-funded SBP programs operating for more than 1 year. With

input from the project’s technical consultants and advisory board, semistructured interview guidelines were developed for each of the three respondent

groups: probation officers, school administrators, and juveniles assigned to

SBP. Each interview was designed to collect both objective information about

program operations and subjective data regarding perceptions of program

performance. The interviews were conducted by technical consultants and a

team of six interviewers; the latter participants were probation officers who

were selected on the basis of their experience and training. Prior to the onsite

visits, the interviewers participated in a 1-day training session during which

each interview item was reviewed and discussed to assess its intent and the

method of questioning.

In addition to being asked about how they spent their time and what type

of case management system they used, probation officers were also asked

about how their role was perceived by others in their work environment—

school faculty, administration, their cases, the parents and guardians of their

cases, and the community at large. Officers were asked to select the role that

best described their view of how they were seen by members of these other

constituency groups. Officers also assessed their own roles. The interviews

concluded with a series of questions regarding the officers’ views of the

effectiveness of the SBP program in four key areas—academic performance,

school attendance, delinquent behavior, and disciplinary referrals (in-school

and out-of-school suspensions).

School administrators selected for interviews were those who worked most

closely with the SBP officers and thus had responsibility for and familiarity

with the program in their school. The administrators were asked to assess

the range of involvement of the officers, the performance of the program,

and the effectiveness of the program in the same four areas as the SBP

officers.

10

Bureau of Justice Assistance
A total of 111 youth assigned to school-based probation were interviewed

during the site visits. Students completing these interviews were randomly

selected onsite by the interviewers from a list supplied by the probation officer prior to the visit. To ensure unbiased selection and adequate representation of both genders, interviewers were instructed to interview the third

male and the third female on the list from each school visited. 

Phase III

The third phase of the evaluation was devoted to the completion of a casecontrol study comparing program impact in 75 randomly selected SBP cases

with 75 non-SBP cases matched according to age, gender, race, crime, and

county of supervision criteria. Rates of rearrest, placements, and cost of

placement were used as outcome measures. For those with multiple charges,

the most serious charge was used as the basis for matching. This process,

although retrospective in nature, was a strategy designed to identify youth

who are equivalent in every way except in the type of probation to which

they were assigned. Controls were selected from the statistical card database.

In selecting counties for this study, several requirements had to be met. First,

potential counties must have had an SBP program in operation since 1994

to allow 18 months of followup on each individual selected for the study.

Counties also had to have sufficient numbers of cases to select 25 schoolbased cases and 25 matched controls. Finally, potential counties needed to

have documentation accessible to the study staff. Five counties met all criteria, and three counties were included in the study—Erie, Lehigh, and

Somerset.

For each of the participating counties, data for 18 months from the date of

assignment to probation were examined for both cases and controls. This

time interval provided an adequate period of observation during which 

rearrests, probation violations, and placements would be expected to have

occurred. These outcomes were assessed through onsite review of case

records of the participating counties, with case data documented on structured recording forms developed by the project staff.

The primary outcomes measured in this pilot study were related to reinvolvement with the court. The specific events that were monitored for both

cases and controls were: (1) arrests for probation violations and new charges

and (2) placements made by the courts. Originally, this study had planned to

include data from the schools, including attendance reports, behavioral histories, and academic performance records. However, participating schools

had a variety of approaches to the collection, retention, and storage of such

data with none of these data elements recorded in a consistent manner by all

schools.

11

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century
Program Evaluation Findings and Results 

Phase I 

The majority (80 percent) of cases, both SBP and non-SBP, were male. The

proportion of female cases assigned to SBP increased over the period of

observation—from 16.8 percent in 1993 to 22.2 percent in 1995. The racial 

distribution in SBP and non-SBP cases was not significantly different. When

comparing the ages of SBP and non-SBP youth, important differences can be

found, with SBP serving younger youth. This difference is most obvious in

the 1995 reporting year in which 58 percent of school-based cases were youth

aged 13 to 15, while only 40 percent of the non-SBP cases were from this age

group. Since both age and gender showed changes over the reporting period, the relationship between these two variables was evaluated. A significant

correlation was identified reflecting a higher representation of female cases

among younger age groups. Since the increased representation of female

cases was not seen in the general population of cases, it is likely that the

younger ages of those being served by SBP account for the increased proportion of female cases. While the proportion of youth assigned to SBP from

grades 7 to 9 increased during the study cases, the proportion of cases from

grades 10 to 12 declined.

Data from the statistical card database reveal that these 451 cases had 1,694

allegations of crimes, 25 percent (n=428) of which were against persons, 44

percent (n=746) related to property, and 4.5 percent (n=77) related to drugs.

These allegations resulted in 875 (52 percent) substantiated charges, of which

26.6 percent (n=233) were crimes against persons, 42.3 percent (n=370) were

property crimes, and 6.3 percent (n=55) were drug-related crimes. In examining the five most common crimes among these cases, theft was the most

common substantiated charge (n=79) followed by simple assault (n=72),

receiving stolen property (n=65), burglary (n=43), and conspiracy to commit

theft (n=34).

Summary

These data suggest that the program served a diverse population of youth

who were somewhat younger than their non-SBP counterparts. The average

age of the youth assigned to SBP was just over 15. Given the association

between age and gender found in this data set, the SBP cases were also more

likely to be female.

With respect to the criminal charges that brought these youth into the juvenile court system, there appeared to be few differences between SBP and

non-SBP cases. Nearly identical rates of personal, property, drug, and other

crimes were found when the juvenile court data for these two groups were

compared. 

In conducting these descriptive analyses, it became apparent that no existing

data systems could be used to monitor even the most basic characteristics of

12

Bureau of Justice Assistance
the juveniles assigned to SBP. Despite the fact that a significant amount of

probation officer time was devoted to the completion of forms documenting

the characteristics of the cases assigned to SBP, the forms were not routinely

compiled or reviewed. 

As currently designed, the retrospective completion of performance data

regarding behavior, school attendance, and academic performance yields

unusable evaluative data at the aggregate level. The validity and reliability

of these data are compromised by a variety of problems. In some situations

and locations, information required to complete the form was not available.

Methods for completing and submitting the forms were not standardized,

which resulted in great variations in procedures for completion of the forms.

Consequently, a significant amount of evaluative data could not be used.

It was recommended that the data collection system be redesigned into a

two-part process. The first form would be completed as the youth begin their

school-based probation and the second completed at the close of supervision. Both assessments should report on verifiable information for the same

intervals. To maximize the value of these data, a numerical identifier common to the statistical card should be included on the form.

Phase II

School-Based Probation Officer Interviews

The 51 SBP officers who were interviewed had an average of 5.6 years

(range=0.3 to 25) of probation experience and an average of 1.8 years

(range=0.1 to 5.5) of experience as school-based probation officers. Although

they reported an average caseload of 26.7 cases (range=6 to 78), 60 percent

of these officers also maintained caseloads that were not school based. Those

with only school-based cases carried an average caseload of 29, while those

with both carried an average of 31.

Seventy-three percent of the officers interviewed reported using the single

case management model, in which they complete all work related to each of

their assigned probation cases. Officers using this management approach

spent an average of 66 percent of their time in the school environment compared with 81 percent for those using the dual case management approach,

where casework is shared among probation officers. The differences were

statistically significant and translated to officers using the dual case management approach being in school an average of 75 percent of a day per week

longer than their single-case cohorts.

Probation officers reported spending an average of 48 percent of their time in

direct case contact and 18 percent in contact with case collaterals, 10 percent

in court, 10 percent in travel, and the remainder in training and intake.

Although the median percentage of time spent in school was reported to be

70 percent, the percentage ranged from a low of 25 percent to a high of 95

percent. The percentage of time spent in school correlated to the amount of

13

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century
time spent in direct client contact. The range of activities in which SBP officers reported involvement included: visiting the parents of juveniles participating in SBP (94 percent); participating in the disciplinary decisions of

assigned cases (84 percent); attending nonacademic school activities (84 percent); giving presentations in classes and monitoring the lunchroom, hallways, and study hall (76 percent); and serving as active participants in the

school’s Student Assistance Program (68 percent). Seventy-eight percent of

the officers interviewed reported that they had developed, or helped to

develop, special programs in their schools, including support groups, tutoring services, and mentoring programs. Drug testing was reported to have

been used in probation programs by 86 percent of the SBP officers and electronic monitoring, by 79 percent.

The majority of officers saw their primary role as advocating, arranging

for, and delivering needed services for their cases (75 percent). Responses

revealed inconsistencies between the self-defined role and the perceived

role of the officer, with others more likely to define the role of the SBP officer

as one of police, security, and surveillance.

While four areas—academic performance, school attendance, delinquent

behavior, and disciplinary referrals—were viewed as being positively affected by the program, the area perceived to have been affected the most was

school attendance. Nearly 50 percent viewed the program as extremely 

effective in this area.

School Administrator Interviews

Fifty-two school administrators were interviewed during site visits. Like the

probation officers, the administrators reported a range of officer involvement

within their school environment. Administrators described the officers as

having full access to school documentation (academic and disciplinary

records) for the cases they supervised. The majority of respondents, 85 percent (n=44), indicated that the officers participated in making decisions

regarding formal disciplinary actions to be taken with students on probation

but were not overly involved.

Although ratings in five areas of performance for the school-based program

were extremely positive, ranging from a low of 85 percent to a high of 98

percent, it is important to note that the concerns expressed by those who

were not satisfied seemed to reflect a desire for the probation officers to fill

a policing function. The positive assessments were reflected in the overall

ratings of the working relationship with the school-based officer: 87 percent

indicated that they had an excellent relationship and 12 percent indicated

they had a good relationship. No one indicated a poor working relationship.

Eighty-five percent of the administrators believed the program was such an

important part of the school environment that it deserved financial support

from the school district. Thirty-three percent believed that their school

boards would be willing to provide such support. 

14

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Consistent with

the ratings of the

probation officers,

school administrators saw school

attendance as the

area that had been

affected the most.

The majority of 

officers saw their

primary role as

advocating, arranging for, and delivering needed services

for their cases (75

percent).
Consistent with the ratings of the probation officers, school administrators

saw school attendance as the area that had been affected the most.

SBP Case Interviews

Of the 111 SBP youth who were interviewed, 67 percent (n=75) were male

and 32 percent (n=36) were female; 65 percent (n=72) were Caucasian, 26

percent (n=29) African-American, and 5 percent (n=6) Hispanic. The average

age of these students was 15 years, and the median grade level was ninth.

These cases had been under supervision for an average of 9.4 months, and

78 percent (n=86) of those interviewed were on probation for the first time.

Thirty percent (n=33) had been in some form of out-of-home placement (e.g.,

foster home, residential center) prior to being assigned to SBP.

Frequency of contact with probation officers reported by respondents was

found to be significantly associated with the integration of the officer into

the school environment. Twenty percent of the youth (n=22) were required

to report to their officers daily; overall, the youth reported seeing their probation officer an average of 2.7 times per week.

Respondents were also asked a number of questions about the impact the

program had had on their behavior. Unlike the probation officers and the

school administrators, these respondents reported that the greatest impact

of the program had been on their behavior both in and out of school.

Summary

Assigning the probation officer to the school allowed much greater opportunity for the establishment of relationships that facilitated supervision and an

understanding of the needs of the youth. The percentage of time spent in the

school environment may have been the best indicator of this opportunity.

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

may have been the defining characteristic of the program, it was recommended that a minimum standard be established for the percentage of time

an officer must be present in the school environment for the probation program to be considered school based. 

The presence of the officer in the school was also perceived as directly responsible for improvements in attendance by the youth assigned to SBP. The

attainment of this goal was important not only because school attendance is

a prerequisite for academic success, but also because school was the primary

location of the probation supervision. Thus, a juvenile attending school was

exposed to an educational environment as well as the behavioral controls

inherent in the frequent contact with their probation officer.

15

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

[R]espondents

reported that the

greatest impact of

the program had

been on their

behavior both in

and out of school.

More time spent in

the school environment was not only

a logical prerequisite for building

strong working

relationships; it was

also statistically

associated with the

amount of direct

case contact.
Phase III

The subjects in the case-controlled study had an average age of 14 years at

the time of their assignment to school-based probation. Eighty-six percent of

the subjects were male (n=129), 54 percent (n=81) were Caucasian, 23 percent

(n=34) were African-American, and 19 percent (n=29) were Hispanic. The

characteristics of the school-based cases and control sample were statistically

equivalent on all of the basic demographic measures.

Thirty-two percent (n=48) of the control sample had charges filed during the

18-month study period. There were no significant differences between the

school-based probation cases (36 percent) and the controls (28 percent) in the

number of individuals who were charged with crimes. For those who had

any charges filed against them (n=48), the average number of charges was

somewhat lower in the SBP group (1.6) compared with the matched controls

(2.1). The group average, including all subjects, for number of charges was

0.55 and 0.53 for SBP and controls, respectively.

Although no differences existed between these groups with respect to the

number of new charges accrued, significant differences existed in the severity of the charges and the time to first charge. Charges were classified by the

following types of offense: (1) probation violations and status offenses and

(2) all other charges. Consistent with increased case contact, the SBP group

had significantly more charges of probation violation and status offenses

than did the non-SBP controls—50 percent versus 18 percent, respectively.

Additionally, the time between assignment to probation and the date of the

first charge was significantly longer for those assigned to SBP—271 days for

SBP cases and 206 days for the controls.

Overall, 27.6 percent (n=21) of the SBP cases and 29.7 percent (n=22) of the

controls were assigned by the court to some form of placement during the

18-month study period. Placements included detention centers and secure

placements, drug and alcohol programs, general residential placements, and

a number of less restrictive community-based placements such as foster and

group homes. Among those who were placed, SPB cases had a significantly

longer period of time until first placement than controls—118 days versus

300 days, respectively. SBP cases also had significantly fewer days in placement than controls: 35.7 days versus 83.8 days.

Differences in placements between the two groups resulted in dramatically

different costs for placements. Cost of placement was determined using the

authorized per diem rate schedule. The average cost of placement for the

matched controls in the study was $39,314.86, while that for SBP cases was

$17,701.44. To estimate overall program costs, the average cost per individual

assigned to each condition was computed, which revealed a significantly

lower cost for placing offenders in SBP than in other probation programs

($5,023.38 versus $11,688.20). This estimate could be used to project cost 

savings for counties adopting school-based probation.

16

Bureau of Justice Assistance
The number of placements had a direct impact on the amount of time the

subject was in the community without additional supervision. Youth

assigned to SBP spent more days in the community than controls who were

assigned to traditional probation (448 days versus 400 days). Once placement

occurred, the potential for rearrest was also altered. To account for the different rates of placement, rates of charges for new offenses, excluding probation

violations and status offenses, were calculated as a function of time in the

community. These rates, expressed as number of events per person year in

the community, reflect a 43-percent lower rate for SBP cases (0.23 events per

year for SBP and 0.40 events per year for controls).

Summary

The data presented show important differences between a group of randomly

selected SBP cases and their matched counterparts who were assigned to

more traditional forms of probation. It cannot be stated with certainty that

the observed differences in charges and placements are due to the SBP program. The data can only suggest a program effect. Although the case control

design is a powerful quasi-experimental approach, it is retrospective in

nature and does not involve the random assignment of subjects to experimental and control conditions. Also, these data are derived from only three

counties; therefore, the current study cannot address their generalizability

to other counties. To confirm these findings, larger prospective studies are

required. Despite the limitations of this approach, the findings are very

encouraging. In addition to cost savings, reductions in the destructive effects

of extended placements and less emphasis on the more restrictive components of the juvenile justice system can be expected. 

17

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

In addition to cost

savings, reductions

in the destructive

effects of extended

placements and

less emphasis on

the more restrictive

components of the

juvenile justice 

system can be

expected.
19

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Virginia: Detention Center

Incarceration Program

This summary was adapted from the report Detention Center Incarceration Program, which presents evaluation research conducted by the staff of the Planning,

Research and Certification Unit, Virginia Department of Corrections. 

The Detention Center Incarceration Program was implemented in the

Commonwealth of Virginia in 1995 to provide an effective intermediate sanction for adult probationers. The creation of the program was stimulated by

the determination that younger, nonviolent offenders must be assigned to

less secure, shorter term programs to reserve the more costly and more

secure prison-bed space for violent offenders whose prison terms were expected to lengthen with the abolition of parole. The source of funding was

state general revenues. 

Program Overview

The Detention Center Incarceration Program includes two primary components and is patterned after programs in Georgia. The first component is a

short residential phase that emphasizes military-style discipline, physical

work, and intense educational and treatment services. The second component provides intensive supervision coupled with treatment and transitional

services in the community. The philosophy of the program is based on the

rationale for the earlier Boot Camp Incarceration Program, which is generally

regarded as successful in Virginia. The Detention Center Incarceration Program is designed for newly convicted felony offenders or probation violators

who meet the following criteria: convicted of nonviolent felony offenses,

determined by the court as needing more security or supervision than that

provided by the Diversion Center Incarceration Program (similar to work

release), and disqualified by age or physical condition from the Boot Camp

Incarceration Program. The offenders are also seen as possibly benefiting

from a regimented environment and structured program. Program participation is voluntary; therefore admissions are gender, race, and age neutral. 

Two features make Virginia’s program unique: (1) the strong emphasis on 

substance-abuse education and treatment in the facility phase and (2) solid

community transitional services and followup by probation and parole field

staff. The potential for program replication is also a major consideration.
Goals and Objectives

The goals of the Detention Center Incarceration Program are to safely divert

nonviolent felony offenders from long-term incarceration, to avoid the costs

of building and operating correctional facilities, and to reduce recidivism.

Objectives for achieving these goals include:

❑ Shifting nonviolent offenders and probation violators from long-term

incarceration to shorter term incarceration coupled with community

supervision.

❑ Reducing the targeted offender group’s criminal activity.

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

Program Activities/Components

Detention Center Incarceration Program activities include 20 weeks of 

military-style management and supervision, physical labor in organized

public works projects, counseling, remedial education, substance-abuse testing and treatment, and community reentry services. Nonviolent felony

offenders may volunteer for the program in lieu of imprisonment at the time

of initial sentencing or a probation violation. Their acceptance depends on

an evaluation and recommendations made by probation/parole officers to

the court. If accepted, an offender receives a suspended prison sentence and

is placed on probation supervision with a special condition to complete the

program. Transportation to the facility is provided by local correctional facility and center staff. Physical examinations are conducted immediately upon

arrival. Platoons are formed at intake, and the introduction to military-style

discipline and general orders begins.

The average day begins at 0550 and concludes at 2200 hours. Daily activities

include personal hygiene and area cleanup, military drill, supervised work

details at nearby state prison or public service sites, individual and group

treatment and education, and brief moments of free time. The environment 

is spartan; there is no television; and visitors are permitted only on alternate

weekends. A graduation ceremony to which friends and family are invited

concludes the residential phase of the program. As graduation day approaches, the program probation and parole officers begin developing transitional

plans with the detainee’s assigned community probation/parole officer. The

transition plans address living arrangements, employment, payment of

court-ordered fines, costs, restitution or community service, and substanceabuse or other treatment services. Upon return to the community, the

detainee is assigned to intensive supervision for a period of time specified

by the sentencing judge. The supervision is supplemented as needed with

treatment or transitional services from community or contractual service

20

Bureau of Justice Assistance

The goals of the

Detention Center

Incarceration

Program are to

safely divert nonviolent felony offenders from long-term

incarceration, to

avoid the costs of

building and operating correctional

facilities, and to

reduce recidivism.
providers. Once the detainee has successfully completed intensive supervision, he or she is placed on a regular supervision caseload for at least 1 year.

There are currently three detention centers for men, with a fourth to be

opened in 1999, and one center for women. Additional centers are in the

planning stages. A staff of 45 include the superintendent, 5 probation and

parole officers and counselors, 31 correctional officers, and other maintenance and administrative workers. Their activities include general management and direction; information dissemination to the public and education

for field staff and judges; provision of individual and group assessment,

treatment, and rehabilitative services; transportation; and other maintenance

services. The program also provides training for staff to meet the basic and

specialized requirements established by the Department of Corrections

(DOC) for their respective positions. Additionally, staff must participate in

training in the proper use of military-style maneuvers and discipline. Care

must be taken to ensure that the forceful disciplinary approach does not

degenerate into detainee abuse. Monitoring and evaluation procedures and

instruments include an offender database in each center, consolidation of

data into a monthly management summary report, program reviews and

audits, and evaluation of program outcomes (requested by the executive

staff), as needed.

Performance Measures and 

Evaluation Methods

The purpose of the report Detention Center Incarceration Program was to

address the following questions:

❑ What is the offender profile of detention center participants?

❑ What are the program outcome rates (i.e., successful completion versus

dropout)? What is the average length of stay for offenders completing the

program versus dropouts?

❑ What percentage of detention center participants commit new offenses

following release or have a subsequent probation/parole revocation 

within the 12 months following release?

❑ How many program participants were diverted from prison or were

included in the program as a result of net widening?

❑ Is the program cost effective compared with prison incarceration?

To analyze the issues, the Planning, Research and Certification Unit at the

Department of Corrections collected profile and recidivism information on

all offenders who cycled through the program during calendar year 1996

and used the following methodologies to complete this research project:

❑ Review of existing community corrections programs.

21

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century
❑ Analysis of detention center participant and completion data compiled

and maintained by detention center staff.

❑ Development of a computer program to merge data obtained from detention center staff with data of all probationers and parolees maintained in

DOC’s automated database.

❑ Development of a survey instrument for use by probation and parole 

officers to compile recidivism and probation/parole revocation data.

❑ Review of budget reports prepared by the DOC Budget Unit to obtain per

capita costs for prisoners and detainees.

The sample consisted of all offenders (n=425) who cycled through the

Southampton Detention Center, Nottoway Detention Center, and

Southampton Detention Center for Women during calendar year 1996.

Completed survey instruments were received for 87 percent of this cohort,

or 368 of the 425 offenders.

The survey instrument collected the following data elements: type of obligation (parole, probation, or both), referral source, location prior to program

admission, reconviction data, and sanction and revocation data. In addition,

a question was included to determine whether the offender was sanctioned

to the Detention Center Incarceration Program as a last resort prior to beginning the revocation process. To ensure consistent coding and reliable data, an

instructional booklet listing available codes was disseminated to the probation and parole officers responsible for completing the survey instrument.

The first phase of data collection began with compiling the offender’s name,

identification number, supervising probation/parole officer, admission date,

exit date, and reason for admission from detention center staff. These data

were then merged with the probation and parole automated database to

extract demographic variables, including date of birth, gender, race, marital

status, number of children, educational level, and most serious offense. The

second phase of data collection, which began in June 1997 and lasted for 1

month, concentrated on the completion of survey instruments by the supervising probation and parole officers. Data collected during the first phase of

the project were included and were supplemented with information provided by the officers or the researchers. Once completed, the survey instruments

were faxed or mailed back and entered into a database for analysis and interpretation. After all data were entered into the database, file edits were run to

ensure data consistency.

The data analysis phase of the project conducted by the Planning, Research

and Certification Unit focused on completing offender profiles and assessing

program outcomes for offenders who successfully completed the Detention

Center Incarceration Program and for those who dropped out. Program outcome was cross-tabulated with gender, age at admission, race/ethnicity, and

obligation type. Additional analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of the

program with that of prison incarceration.

22

Bureau of Justice Assistance

The sample consisted of all offenders . . . who cycled

through the

Southampton

Detention Center,

Nottoway Detention Center, and 

Southampton

Detention Center

for Women during

calendar year 1996.
Characteristics of the study population were as follows:

❑ Almost all detention center participants were probationers referred by 

circuit court judges.

❑ The vast majority of program participants were single African-American

males with no children.

❑ The average (mean) age at time of admission to the Detention Center

Incarceration Program was 27 years. The youngest participant was 17 at

admission, and the oldest was 57.

❑ Just over 25 percent were high school graduates or had received a general

equivalency diploma (GED).

❑ Almost half (48 percent) of the detention center participants were drug

offenders; 68 percent of this group were convicted for drug distribution.

❑ The second most prevalent offense was a probation/parole violation,

followed by burglary.

❑ The average (mean) sentence was 5 years.

Program Evaluation Findings and Results 

Program Outcome Rates

Nearly 8 out of 10 offenders (78 percent) admitted to the program successfully completed it. The mean length of stay for this group was 134 days; the

average length of stay for dropouts was 41 days. There were no absconders.

For those who dropped out of the program, the following reasons were

recorded: medical/psychological (42 percent), disciplinary infractions

(29 percent), voluntary withdrawal (18 percent), and other (11 percent).

Parolees exhibited lower success rates than probationers: 78 percent of probationers successfully completed the program compared with only 43 percent of parolees. However, the vast majority of detention center participants

were probationers; only seven parolees were in the program, and they were

under concurrent probation supervision to meet the required eligibility 

criterion.

When program outcome was measured by race/ethnicity, little difference

was found in the success rates for African-American and Caucasian offenders with success rates of 76 and 80 percent, respectively.

Release Outcome Rates

The Detention Center Incarceration Program was effective in reducing reconviction and subsequent probation/parole revocation rates for those who

completed the program—only 15 percent (42 out of 286) had a subsequent

probation or parole revocation. Dropouts had a rate of 63 percent.

23

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

The data analysis

phase of the project conducted by

the Planning,

Research and

Certification Unit

focused on completing offender

profiles and assessing program outcomes for offenders

who successfully

completed the

Detention Center

Incarceration

Program and for

those who dropped

out.

Parolees exhibited

lower success rates

than probationers:

78 percent of probationers successfully completed the

program compared

with only 43 percent of parolees.
Only 3 percent of the offenders (9 out of 286) who successfully completed

the program had been reconvicted for new offenses (2.4 percent felony

conviction and 0.6 percent for misdemeanor conviction). Offenders who

dropped out of the program exhibited a slightly higher rate of felony 

reconviction (4 percent).

For those who had successfully completed the program and subsequently

received a probation/parole revocation, almost 70 percent (29 out of 42) of

this group were assigned for technical violations rather than new crimes.

Prison Diversion/Cost-Effectiveness

Alternative placement programs are most effective when participating

offenders would, absent these programs, be incarcerated in prison at a much

higher cost. To assess whether the offenders studied were true prison diversions or were in the program as a result of net widening, a question was

included on the survey instrument to determine whether the offender was

assigned to the program as a last resort to prison incarceration. Probation

and parole officers completing the survey instrument indicated that 128 

(35 percent) of those assigned to the Detention Center Incarceration Program

were prison diversions. Since probation/parole revocation was the most serious sanction for 57 of the 368 participants and these offenders accounted for

45 percent of the 128 offenders identified as prison diversions, it is reasonable to expect that, at minimum, these offenders were assigned to the program as a last resort to prison incarceration.

To address the question of whether detention centers are cost effective, the

per capita cost for detention center placement was compared with the per

capita cost of prison incarceration. Data prepared by DOC’s Budget Unit in

November 1996 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1996, indicated that the

per capita cost for detention center placement was $14,186, compared with

$16,590 for prison incarceration (a cost differential of $2,404). Diverting 128

offenders from prison resulted in a cost savings of $307,712.

The findings of this research study suggest that the Detention Center

Incarceration Program was successful in meeting its intended goals and

objectives. The program’s strong discipline and physical requirements,

focused treatment services, and period of intensive probation supervision in

the community served to divert offenders from prison incarceration, thus

resulting in cost savings to the Commonwealth of Virginia, reduced felony

and misdemeanor reconvictions, and fewer subsequent probation and parole

revocations.

Offenders who cycled through the program in 1996 have outcome rates 

(successful completion versus dropout) that are similar to those for boot

camp participants during the same time period. Seventy percent of the boot

camp participants successfully completed their program, compared with 78

percent of the detention center participants. Furthermore, subsequent probation/parole revocation rates are comparable for detention and boot camp

24

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Alternative placement programs 

are most effective

when participating

offenders would,

absent these programs, be incarcerated in prison at a

much higher cost.
participants. Sixteen percent of those successfully completing the boot camp

program had a subsequent probation/parole revocation hearing compared

with 15 percent for the detention center program. However, for those who

dropped out of the boot camp program, 51 percent had no subsequent probation/parole revocation, compared with only 28 percent for detention center dropouts.

In 1998, the Department’s Planning, Research and Certification Unit conducted a followup study of the 1996 participant cohort and found that 80 percent

of the participating offenders had not returned to jail or prison. 

Overall, the results of these evaluations to date suggest that this intensive,

short-term program is an effective and safe alternative for selected offenders.

25

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Overall, the results

of these evaluations suggest that

this intensive,

short-term program

is an effective and

safe alternative for

selected offenders.
This summary was adapted from Evaluating the Merrimack County Adult

Diversion Program: Final Report, which presents evaluation research conducted

by D. Alan Henry and Spurgeon Kennedy of the Pretrial Services Resource Center

in Washington, D.C. 

Under an agreement dated December 12, 1996, the Pretrial Services

Resources Center (PSRC) agreed to conduct process and outcome evaluations of the Merrimack County (New Hampshire) Adult Diversion Program.

The process evaluation would assess:

❑ Whether the program’s operations and procedures comply with standards for pretrial diversion adopted by the National Association of

Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA), the National District Attorneys

Association, and the American Bar Association.

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

❑ How other criminal justice officials, program clients, and program alumni

view the diversion program.

The outcome evaluation would determine:

❑ Rates of recidivism and defendant compliance with conditions of 

diversion.

❑ Performance of program defendants compared with similar defendants

remaining in existing case processing.

Program Overview

The Merrimack County Adult Diversion Program was established in 1992

under grant number 209–619–02 from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, 

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

The diversion program was originally part of the County Attorney’s Office

but was moved in 1994 from Concord to its current location in Boscawen

with the Department of Corrections (DOC). The program’s full-time staff consist of a director, programs coordinator, and receptionist. A DOC employee

serves as the program’s substance-abuse counselor, and a contracted social

worker assesses potential diversion clients. In addition, an advisory board

helps establish the policy direction and actively reviews client participation.

27

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

New Hampshire: Merrimack

County Adult Diversion

Program 
The program accepts defendants aged 17 years and older who are charged

with nonviolent felony offenses and have no history of violent criminal

behavior. Consistent with accepted standards, there are no restrictions on

program participation except for current and past criminal history and a

defendant’s receptiveness to the program. A guilty plea is not required for

diversion participation. 

Diversion program placement is a three-step process:

1. Local arresting agencies determine initial eligibility using a Diversion

Offender Profile. Defendants identified as eligible for diversion are

referred to the Merrimack County attorney.

2. The county attorney, after discussing the referral with the arresting

agency, determines the strength of the case and whether diversion from

conventional case processing is appropriate. If charges are filed and

diversion appears suitable, the charging documents are completed, the

defendant’s case is placed on a suspended calendar, and the defendant is

referred to the program for a final assessment.

3. The diversion program conducts an assessment that includes an investigative interview with the defendant, a substance-abuse evaluation to

determine current drug use and appropriate monitoring or treatment, and

a social work evaluation to identify potential clients whose mental or

emotional problems make them unsuitable for diversion and determine

an appropriate alternative program.

The Diversion Offender Profile was created by Merrimack County police

agencies and the county attorney during the program’s development phase

to identify nonviolent, nonhabitual defendants eligible for referral. According to the profile, defendants are ineligible if they meet any of the following

criteria:

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

❑ Have a previous conviction resulting in an incarceration of more than 

7 days.

❑ Have already participated in diversion.

❑ Are charged with an offense that “represents a major threat to society or

requires general deterrent.”

❑ Are charged with a crime whose conviction “would justify” a prison 

sentence.

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

The program has an automated management information system containing

data on all referrals, accepted clients, rejected defendants, and program outcomes (successful completion or termination). 

28

Bureau of Justice Assistance

The Diversion

Offender Profile

was created by

Merrimack County

police agencies and

the county attorney

during the program’s development

phase to identify

nonviolent, nonhabitual defendants

eligible for referral.
Goals and Objectives

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

Divert nonviolent offenders from the criminal court docket into a rigorous, comprehensive, community-based rehabilitation program. . . . To

assist in this self-rehabilitation, the program provides opportunities for

treatment, community service, restitution, counseling, and education.

Program Activities/Components

Diversion program assessment takes 138 days on average and uses two

main screening instruments—substance-abuse and social work assessments.

The substance-abuse assessment, performed by a DOC substance-abuse

counselor, includes evaluations based on a drug-abuse test and an alcoholscreening test. Based on the results of these tests, the counselor recommends

placement in one of three supervision groups:

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

❑ Level Two—for participants assessed as having substance-abuse problems. Besides the workshops mentioned above, these clients are required

to attend 90-minute group sessions and submit to regular substanceabuse testing.

❑ Level Three—for participants whose substance-abuse problems require a

level of inpatient treatment. Upon successful inpatient treatment, these

clients are referred to Level Two supervision. 

The social work assessment gauges a defendant’s current and prior mental,

emotional, and behavioral conditions. It is performed by a licensed social

worker and is extensive, focusing on a defendant’s self-perception, problems

that may contribute to negative behavior, and past and present mental and

emotional problems and treatment.

The program director and program coordinator make the final decision to

accept or reject a defendant based on the results of the initial social work

assessment, a drug-abuse test, and an alcohol test.

Once a defendant is accepted into the Merrimack County Adult Diversion

Program, he or she and his or her defense attorney meet with the program

director or a designated staff member for a program review during which

the defendant’s conditions and responsibilities under direct supervision are

presented to the defendant as a written diversion contract. After thorough

review, the document is signed by the program director, the defendant,

defense counsel, and the county attorney.

29

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century
Program supervision includes four mandatory conditions:

❑ 600 hours of community service work.

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

❑ Restitution payments, if ordered by the county attorney.

❑ 10 hours of substance-abuse classes to be completed within 6 months of

program acceptance.

Specific diversion program conditions are categorized under the life skills

component. This consists of educational classes and 2-hour workshops, and

clients must complete a total of 30 hours. Programs are selected through joint

consultation between a client and the program coordinator and include topics such as conflict resolution, stress management, domestic violence, job

search skills, parenting skills, wellness, communication skills, and AIDS/sexually transmitted diseases. Classes are open to a client’s family members and

partners to enhance the classes’ rehabilitative effects.

Performance Measures and 

Evaluation Methods

Process Evaluation

The process evaluation was based on PSRC’s onsite inspection of the diversion program using a checklist of diversion program policies and procedures

drawn from relevant criminal justice standards and onsite interviews with

the program director, staff, and advisory board; county DOC administration;

county attorney; defense bar; and program clients and alumni. Diversion

program procedures also were compared with those of 20 similar programs

surveyed by PSRC. The evaluation focused specifically on:

❑ Client eligibility and enrollment. 

❑ Supervision services and conditions.

❑ Organizational structure.

Client Eligibility and Enrollment

Criminal justice standards recommend that eligibility criteria for pretrial

diversion be stated in writing. They should include all defendants who

might benefit from diversion and should ensure that program placement is

not denied to a client because of race, gender, sexual preference, economic

status, disability, or inability to pay restitution or potential program fees. In

addition, criteria should not require a guilty plea and the defendant’s participation should be voluntary. 

30

Bureau of Justice Assistance

The evaluation

focused specifically

on:

• Client eligibility

and enrollment.

• Supervision 

services and 

conditions.

• Organizational 

structure.
Supervision Services and Diversion Conditions

Diversion standards suggest that diversion conditions address specific client

needs, particularly addressing behavior that may lead to criminal activity.

These conditions should be specific, achievable, and as minimally restrictive

as possible to achieve the goals of rehabilitation and deterrence. An appropriate diversion service plan also may include voluntary community service,

restitution, and drug testing as general conditions.

Diversion standards also recommend that supervision include clear time

limits for program completion and a mechanism for reviewing and possibly

revising conditions as needed to achieve contract goals. NAPSA standards

also encourage supervision time that is neither longer nor more costly than

necessary to achieve the goals of rehabilitation and deterrence. Most diversion programs surveyed had supervision times of 6 months to 1 year.

Finally, diversion standards suggest that programs not release client-based

information without the client’s knowledge or consent and have in place

written agreements with the courts, prosecutors, and service providers

detailing the type of information the program will release and under what

circumstances. 

Organizational Structure

NAPSA standards suggest that diversion programs have a written mission

statement or statement of goals and objectives, an information system that

allows program information to be recorded and managed, and a staff sufficient in size and experience to help clients meet program requirements.

Outcome Evaluation

The outcome evaluation sought to identify differences in recidivism rates

among defendants completing the diversion program successfully, those terminated from the program, and those who withdrew during the assessment

phase and to determine if these differences could be explained wholly or in

part by program participation.

A quasi-experimental design was used due to problems implementing an

experimental design—that is, a smaller sample size and a shorter duration.

This method constructed comparison groups (rather than control groups)

from program records of defendants who closely matched diversion participants. The groups included defendants who either failed or withdrew during assessment and clients terminated from the program. These groups were

then matched against successful program participants by the variables studied, with differences attributed in some degree to diversion program participation. The design allowed PSRC to consider all defendants referred to or

accepted by the program as comparison or program group participants. In

most cases, the evaluation also allowed more time to track behavior after

program development.

31

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

The outcome evaluation sought to

identify differences

in recidivism rates

among defendants

completing the

diversion program

successfully, those

terminated from

the program, and

those who withdrew during the

assessment phase

and to determine 

if these differences

could be explained

wholly or in part 

by program 

participation.
32

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Group One included successful program participants; Group Two, defendants who dropped out during assessment; and Group Three, program 

terminations. Each group was originally screened through the Diversion

Offender Profile, which ensured similarity in categories such as type of

charge, prior criminal history, prior diversion program participation, and circumstances regarding the most recent offense. To further evaluate similarities, PSRC compared each group by characteristics found in the database,

including age, gender, race, professional status, marital status, and educational level. 

Due to the small number of cases in the overall sample, PSRC evaluated all

defendants and clients considered for diversion. Because sampling was not

used, measures of association could not be applied; differences between the

groups were therefore presented in percentages.

Program Evaluation Findings and Results 

Process Evaluation

PSRC found that the Merrimack County Adult Diversion Program met the

guidelines for client eligibility and enrollment by having no restrictions on

program participation except current and past criminal history and a defendant’s receptiveness to the program. 

Client Eligibility and Enrollment

The evaluation suggested that the profile categories “offense represents a

major threat to society or requires general deterrent” and “prison-bound

offender” required prosecutorial input. From interviews with police officials

and the prosecutor, PSRC could not determine whether these categories were

ever used by arresting agencies and, if so, whether the agencies defined

these categories consistently. If they did not, it was possible that similarly situated arrestees in separate police districts were not being screened for diversion in the same way. Other profile categories seemed inconsistent or vague.

For example, while the profile excluded defendants with prior jail incarcerations of more than 7 days, past sentences such as probation, fines, and restitution were not considered restrictions. Additionally, there were no time 

limits on the prior jail time restriction. For example, a defendant who served

a 30-day jail sentence 10 years ago apparently would score the same as a

defendant who served a similar sentence within the past 3 months. 

PSRC recommended that the Diversion Offender Profile be used by arresting

agencies to gauge only a defendant’s current and past criminal behavior and

that the following restrictions be used to ensure that exclusions to diversion

eligibility were specific and less restrictive:

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

❑ No prior felony convictions.

PSRC found that

the Merrimack

County Adult

Diversion Program

met the guidelines

for client eligibility

and enrollment by

having no restrictions on program

participation except

current and past

criminal history and

a defendant’s receptiveness to the 

program.
33

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

❑ No prior misdemeanor convictions within a specified period of time (for

example, the past 2 years).

❑ No prior diversion participation.

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

The 138 days needed for assessment was longer than the 1- to 3-month

assessment period noted by most survey diversion programs. According to

data from 160 reviews, the diversion program offered 110 defendants contracts after the screening period. For cases for which substance-abuse evaluation data were available (n=104 cases), 50 screened defendants (48.1 percent)

were placed into Level One supervision and 53 (50.9 percent) into Level Two.

This suggests that a significant number of screened defendants have substance abuse-related issues that can be addressed through counseling and/or

regular drug and alcohol testing. After assessments of 20 defendants who

failed during this period for reasons other than rearrest or withdrawal were

reviewed, it was found that only three exhibited mental or emotional problems, making them inappropriate for placement. This finding suggested that

most defendants who had been assessed would not require extensive social

and psychological screening to determine needed services. PSRC recommended that the diversion program consider replacing the substance-abuse

assessment with a procedure based on a defendant’s current and prior drug

use and results from drug and alcohol tests. Placement into drug monitoring

or treatment would depend on a defendant’s admitted drug or alcohol

usage, test results, and the circumstances of the current charge. PSRC also

recommended that the diversion program consider discontinuing the social

work assessment since the county’s population eligible for diversion does

not exhibit emotional or mental problems requiring such a lengthy screening

process.

Client Supervision and Diversion Conditions

PSRC found that none of the four mandatory diversion conditions addressed

specific client needs. Rather, as expressed in interviews with criminal justice

personnel, these conditions are meant to have an overall rehabilitative effect

and serve as community service and restitution to allow the clients to

“repay” the community during their time in diversion. While mandating

these conditions runs counter to the diversion standards’ recommendation

for voluntary participation, each condition appears designed to meet diversion goals. However, PSRC cautioned that diversion, as a sanction, was not

intended as punishment and, therefore, its conditions should not carry a

potentially punitive effect, which may be the case with an across-the-board

community service requirement. Most surveyed diversion programs that

include a community service requirement limit the condition to a 50-hour

maximum. PSRC recommended that the diversion program drop its policy

of a uniform 600-hour community service condition and adopt a “sliding

scale,” with hours based on a client’s overall supervision plan, employment
34

Bureau of Justice Assistance

status, and schedule, and limit the maximum community service hours to a

total more in line with current diversion program practices nationwide.

The specialized courses under the life skills component appear to provide an

excellent avenue for addressing specific client behavior that may lead to

future criminal behavior and meet the standards’ requirement for establishing conditions suited to client needs.

Diversion program time is open-ended, depending on the client’s completion of diversion classes, community service, and restitution payments. Data

supplied by the program show that the median supervision time was 660

days for clients successfully completing the program and 224 days for clients

terminated for noncompliance. The bulk of supervision time is spent meeting community service obligations. PSRC recommended that the diversion

program limit supervision to 1 year (since most diversion conditions could

be completed within that period) and extensions be made on a case-by-case

basis.

The program releases client data only to agencies providing services to

clients, such as substance-abuse treatment or testing facilities; however, no

formal written agreements exist regarding release of such data. To avoid the

possibility of problems and to be consistent with standards, PSRC recommended that the program enter into written memoranda of understanding

with service providers outlining appropriate release and use of program

data.

Organizational Structure

The program has a clear mission statement and an automated management

information system. However, PSRC believes the staffing levels make maintaining adequate supervision and the current level of services problematic

and expansion impractical. Accordingly, PSRC recommended that the program use its existing budget allocation for contracted social work to hire a

part-time programs coordinator. 

PSRC also noted in several onsite interviews that the Boscawen location was

inconvenient. Program data showed that nearly a third of the clients are

from Concord or surrounding townships, and most of the service providers

are in the Concord area. Given Concord’s location within the county, easier

access, and proximity to most program clients and services, PSRC recommended that county officials move the diversion program back to the

Concord area. 

Conclusion

The Merrimack County Adult Diversion Program is an established and wellrespected component of the county’s efforts to address and deter criminal

conduct. According to criminal justice officials as well as current and past

clients, the program has a definite and positive effect on defendant behavior.
35

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

With certain revisions to its policies and expansion to other appropriate

defendant populations (such as misdemeanor and juvenile offenders), the

program will continue to maintain its current high level of service to its

clients and the criminal justice system. 

Outcome Evaluation

In evaluating variables that favorably affected recidivism rates, PSRC found

the following:

❑ Recidivism: There is a notable difference in recidivism rates by group;

there were no rearrests in Group One after program completion as compared with the rearrest of 22.7 percent of Group Two cases and 24.1 percent of Group Three cases.

❑ Recidivism and Diversion Participation Points: Most clients or defendants involved with the diversion program were arrested before 1995. In

both Groups Two and Three, recidivism occurred within 1 year of program or assessment termination.

❑ Recidivism and Age: Younger clients and defendants were rearrested

more often than older: 22.7 percent of clients and defendants between

ages 18 and 25 were rearrested, compared with 11.1 percent of those

between ages 26 and 34, 5.9 percent of those between ages 35 and 40, and

none of those over 40.

❑ Program Compliance and Recidivism Rates: Of the 67 program clients

in the sample, 56.7 percent (38) successfully completed supervision and

10.4 percent were rearrested after program termination.

From an initial database of 160, 111 defendants were assigned to an “evaluation group” resulting in 38 diversion program clients successfully completing supervision; 44 defendants from 1 of 2 “comparison groups” dropped

from consideration following the program’s initial assessment; and 29 program clients terminated from supervision.

Conclusion

The outcome evaluation of the Merrimack County Adult Diversion Program

yielded the following findings:

❑ There is a marked difference in recidivism rates between persons successfully completing diversion and other similar defendants not participating

in or having been terminated from diversion.

❑ The relationship between diversion completion/recidivism weakens

when variables such as age, educational level, and marital status are used

as controls.

There is a notable

difference in recidivism rates by

group; there were

no rearrests in

Group One after

program completion as compared

with the rearrest of

22.7 percent of

Group Two cases

and 24.1 percent

of Group Three

cases.
36

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❑ Although successful diversion program participation may have some

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

These findings are tempered by the limitations of the research design and the

data sample. The quasi-experimental design relied heavily on crafting comparison groups that closely matched the evaluation group. While Groups

Two and Three were similar enough in many respects to Group One, the differences in educational levels and marital status leave room to reasonably

question whether these groups were similar enough to compare. Despite

these limitations, certain definite conclusions about diversion in Merrimack

County were reached following the process and outcome reviews and

included:

❑ A well-defined defendant subgroup exists in Merrimack County that is suitable

for diversion placement. County officials managed to identify a stable and

well-defined defendant population eligible for diversion consideration.

The relatively low failure rate for those accepted into the program,

defined through recidivism, and the willingness of most clients to comply

with supervision appear to justify the use of diversion for this population.

❑ The diversion program has established itself as an effective and needed component

in the county’s continuum of sanctions to address and deter criminal behavior. In

their onsite interviews with PSRC, county criminal justice officials stated

that the diversion program had become an effective sanction for eligible

defendants. The combination of supervision, life skills and services, and

community service work gave participants the means to address circumstances in their lives that might lead to future criminal behavior while

“paying back” the community for the privilege of participating in diversion. Most interviewees also believed the defendants eligible for diversion

benefited more from their program participation than they would have

through other more expensive sanctions such as incarceration or 

probation.

❑ The diversion program operates in compliance with nationally recognized diversion standards. With certain noted exceptions, the Merrimack County

Adult Diversion Program conforms to national criminal justice standards.

It has written guidelines that identify eligible defendants and that determine each client’s eligibility and specific program needs. A defendant’s

decision to participate in diversion is voluntary and is made with the

advice of defense counsel and after a thorough review of general and 

specific program requirements. An admission of guilt is not a program

requirement; moreover, successful program participation results in dismissal of charges. Most conditions and services are specific, reasonable,

and, with certain exceptions, geared to a client’s needs. Finally, the program regularly reviews each client’s progress and has specific in-house

sanctions to address minor rule infractions.

There is a marked

difference in recidivism rates between

persons successfully

completing diversion and other 

similar defendants

not participating 

in or having been

terminated from

diversion.
37

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

❑ The diversion program is in a good position to apply services that may help

reduce future recidivism. The outcome evaluation appeared to show that

educational level has a controlling effect on, though not a direct relationship to, reduced recidivism. Defendants with higher educational levels

who are subject to criminal justice supervision may be less involved in

future crime. This finding suggests that future supervision efforts should

include education components, such as GED instruction, or encourage

continued school enrollment. As the sanction applied earliest in case 

processing, the diversion program is in an excellent position to promote

education to its participants.
This summary was adapted from the report An Outcome Program Evaluation of

the Multnomah County STOP Drug Diversion Program, which presents evaluation research conducted by Michael Finigan, Ph.D., Northwest Professional

Consortium, developed under technical assistance grant SJI–96–06X–T–A–174

from the State Justice Institute.

The STOP (Sanction-Treatment-Opportunity-Progress) Drug Diversion

Program was initiated in 1991 to reduce the increasing backlog of drug cases

in Multnomah County and to encourage treatment for those with firstoffense drug charges.

Program Overview

The Multnomah County STOP program includes the following components:

❑ Court oversight and active judicial case management.

❑ Immediate access to a dedicated treatment resource.

❑ Drug testing.

❑ A range of intermediate sanctions.

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

Goals and Objectives

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

Objectives for the first goal included the diversion and treatment of up to

700 clients from the drug court docket in 1994 and 1995, successful program

completion by 65 percent of program participants, and the delivery of drugfree babies borne by all pregnant women in the program. Objectives for the

second goal included a recidivism rate of no more than 15 percent, a conviction rate of no more than 10 percent within 1 year following program completion, partnership and funding with an outside institution to complete

process and outcome evaluations, 1-year followup on participants by program staff, and opportunities for program staff to provide technical assistance to other Oregon jurisdictions wishing to implement similar programs.

39

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Oregon: The Multnomah

County STOP Drug Diversion

Program

STOP program

goals were to

reduce substance

abuse by improving

treatment outcomes and to

reduce recidivism

by improving program impacts.
40

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Program Activities/Components

Judicial Process

After review by the district attorney, defendants are offered the opportunity

for drug court diversion at their first appearance before the court; they are

eligible only if the charge is for possession of a controlled substance (PCS)

(not distribution or manufacturing), preferably in small quantities. If there

are additional nondrug criminal charges, individuals are eligible provided

conditions of probation do not interfere with participation in the program.

Between 900 and 1,100 cases per year are first-time appointments from district court to petition for the STOP program, with from 400 to 700 actually

being admitted and participating in part of the program.

The STOP program is voluntary; when defendants petition to enter the STOP

track, they agree that if they fail the program, they will be tried solely on the

basis of the police report. This “stipulated facts” trial is brief with a swift and

sure sanction resulting from program failure. One negative side of this

process is that some of the “front-end” costs savings expected by a diversion

program are lost since legal representation and judicial time are required

throughout the process. Nonetheless, it clearly adds a powerful incentive to

remain compliant in the program, because a violation of any rule involves,

at minimum, an appearance before the judge who oversees the program.

Treatment

Treatment is provided by InAct, Inc., a private, nonprofit agency that provides outpatient, multiphased intervention, including group counseling sessions and acupuncture treatments. STOP clients are required to engage in

group and individual counseling sessions at InAct every weekday during

the initial phase of the program and once or twice a week during the final

phases. The court provides active case management involving monthly status hearings at which time the court reviews drug test results and treatment

progress. Other specialized services are also available, including women’s

services, Hispanic services, and a literacy program. The level of intervention

and accountability for STOP clients far exceeds what is typical in outpatient

treatment. About 46 percent of admitted cases graduate from the program.

Performance Measures and 

Evaluation Methods

The evaluation had two major goals: 

❑ Assess whether program participants have positive outcomes particularly

focusing on outcomes related to criminal recidivism (e.g., lower subsequent arrests and convictions and more compliant probation or parole

supervision).

About 46 percent

of admitted cases

graduate from the

program.
41

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

❑ Assess the ratio of the program’s cost to the avoided costs resulting from

the program’s positive outcomes (if any). 

The study sample included all cases—those who graduated and those who

did not complete the program but received partial treatment; incompletion

could be due to either drug test failure or failure to appear (FTA) at a status

hearing. Because the period from 1991 to 1992 was the early implementation

phase, a period often premature for reviewing an innovative program such

as this, the sample was taken from the 1994 to 1995 period to study results

of the fully implemented program. The sample included 150 subjects who

were diverted and graduated and 150 subjects who were diverted but did

not graduate, which included those who received a great deal of treatment

and those who received little; random selection was used for both the graduate sample and the nongraduate sample. The groups did not differ significantly in gender, age, or race/ethnicity composition. Both groups were

approximately 72 percent male, the average participant age was 33, and the

proportion of nonwhites was 23 percent. Hispanic clients were excluded due

to a preponderance of Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) holds.

Because the groups differed, however, in the number of prior arrests, this

category was used as a control variable. The mean number of prior arrests

for all program participants was 2.5; however, graduates averaged 1.6 prior

arrests, while nongraduates averaged 3.4.

The selection of a comparison group is a critical element in a nonrandomized

research design. In this case, the best comparison group for the STOP program graduates was a contemporaneous sample of arrestees who were eligible for the program but were not able to participate. These individuals

needed to meet the following criteria: a charge for PCSI or PCSII (preferably

not with large amounts of the drug in possession) and eligibility but not

entrance into the STOP program. Figures given by the Metropolitan Public

Defender’s Office indicated that approximately 2,400 individuals were

arrested each year with drug offenses as the primary charge and 4,400 were

arrested with drug offenses as the secondary charge. Because 400 to 500

defendants, out of an estimated 1,100 first-time appointments from district

court to petition for the STOP program, were actually admitted to the program, the comparison group was rather large. The reasons for nonentry into

STOP included withdrawal, client refusal (choosing trial instead), court

denial, and prior bench warrants. These reasons had the potential to introduce a bias that may have made these clients unfit to be part of a comparison

group; to offset this bias, a representative matched sample approach was

used. County and state databases were used to compile a pool of eligible

clients who were randomly selected to be representative of program participants based on the following: gender, age, race/ethnicity, and prior criminal

history. This effort produced a sample of 150 individuals with backgrounds

similar to those who had entered the program. There were no statistically

significant differences between the two groups on these critical control 

variables.

Data were collected

on the three study

groups (graduates,

nongraduates, and

comparison group)

on treatment outcomes for 2 years

before and 2 years

after the respective

criterion dates.
Data were collected on the three study groups (graduates, nongraduates,

and comparison group) on treatment outcomes for 2 years before and 2 years

after respective criterion dates. The criterion date for graduates was the date

the client graduated from the STOP program; for nongraduates, the date the

client left the program; and for the comparison group, the date the client

received the STOP appointment. Data were collected using various sources

including but not limited to Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS), Client

Process Monitoring System (CPMS), and Adult and Family Services.

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

societal outcomes:

❑ Subsequent arrests.

❑ Subsequent convictions.

❑ Subsequent incarcerations.

❑ Types of crime committed.

❑ Supervision experiences.

❑ Use of public assistance resources, including food stamps.

Supervision focused on providing a positive reentry of the criminal into

the community. Signs of positive adjustment included finding employment,

receiving training and education, receiving substance-abuse treatment and

counseling, finding housing, and using other services to develop a noncriminal lifestyle. To assist in the analysis of these positive adjustment outcome

measures, a scale of positive adjustment for parolees was designed, adapted

from Latessa and Vita (1988). Data collection staff used this scale to measure

each client’s adjustment in becoming a productive member of society after

examining the client’s supervision officer file. 

Outcome data were also used to assess the relative cost/benefits of the STOP

program to the taxpayer. This study focused on “avoided costs” or costs to

taxpayers had the participants not received treatment. The cost-to-taxpayers

approach measured the costs related to untreated substance abuse that was

paid by taxpaying citizens. Avoided costs were assessed for Multnomah

County taxpayers and Oregon taxpayers and included criminal justice system costs (police protection from crime, adjudication, jail, supervision), victim losses, theft losses, health-care services, and public assistance. 

The primary analysis strategy was to examine each outcome measure for all

three sample groups and analyze a covariance model with prior arrests as

the chief covariate. If statistical significance was gained for the model, individual comparisons (e.g., graduates versus eligible candidates) were tested

for significance. This method was preferred since a series of bivariate tests

can occasionally produce spurious statistical significance.

42

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Supervision focused

on providing a positive reentry of the

criminal into the

community.

Substance abuse is

one of the strongest motivating 

factors for an individual to continue

criminal activity.
43

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Program Evaluation Findings and Results 

Substance abuse is one of the strongest motivating factors for an individual

to continue criminal activity. A study of substance use, abuse, and dependence in the Multnomah County Justice Center found that approximately

two-thirds of those arrested were recent users of drugs (based on urinalysis)

and that about half could be classified as clinically dependent on either alcohol or drugs. Drug use played a major role in the life of this population.

Reducing substance abuse should have had a positive effect on reducing

criminal recidivism.

Subsequent New Arrests

Participants Versus Comparison Group: Those who participated in STOP

had 61 percent fewer subsequent arrests over a 2-year period than the control comparison group.

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: Program graduates had

49 percent fewer subsequent new arrests than nongraduates over a 2-year

period.

Amount of Program Completed: For those who completed less than onethird of the program, the rate of subsequent arrests was more than twice that

of those who completed at least a third of the program (139 rearrests versus

62 rearrests per hundred participants). Participating in a substantial portion

of the program had positive effects on recidivism. 

Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: Program graduates had

76 percent fewer total subsequent arrests than the comparison group over a

2-year period.

Completing and graduating from the STOP program had the most positive

effect on reducing recidivism.

Subsequent Serious Arrests (Felony Type A and B)

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: Clients who participated

in the STOP program had 64 percent fewer subsequent felony arrests than

the comparison group over a 2-year period.

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: Program graduates

had 56 percent fewer subsequent Class A and B felony arrests over a 2-year

period than program participants who did not graduate.

Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: STOP graduates had 80

percent fewer total subsequent felony arrests than the comparison group

clients over a 2-year period.

Completing and

graduating from

the STOP program

had the most positive effect on reducing recidivism.
44

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Subsequent Convictions

In Oregon, new arrests are a better measure of recidivism than convictions

or incarcerations for two reasons: (1) most new arrests reported in LEDS are

felony arrests and most lead to some kind of conviction and (2) actual adjudication outcomes are dependent on variables that are difficult to interpret as

outcome measures. A combination of plea bargaining, jail release or transfer

programs, and prior bench warrant issues complicate sentencing and incarceration in any given case. Nonetheless, it is interesting to examine the rates

of conviction among the three groups.

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: There was a 57-percent 

difference between the two groups in total convictions over a 2-year period,

with those participating in STOP having fewer total convictions than the

comparison group.

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: There was a 51-percent

difference between the two groups in total subsequent convictions over a 

2-year period, with a conviction rate of 59 per 100 nongraduates compared

with 29 per 100 graduates.

Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: Program graduates were

convicted at a rate of 29 new convictions per 100 participants in a 2-year

period compared with 111 per 100 for the comparison group. This was a 

74-percent difference between graduates and the comparison group in total

subsequent convictions in a 2-year period.

Subsequent Drug Arrests

Since a drug-related arrest was the chief criterion for eligibility in the STOP

Drug Court Diversion Program, and since drug treatment was a central part

of the diversion, examining the rate of subsequent arrests for drug-related

crimes was of particular interest. All subsequent drug-related arrests collected from LEDS for each group were felonies.

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: There was a 72-percent

difference between participants and the comparison group in total subsequent drug-related arrests over a 2-year period (22 new drug-related arrests

per 100 participants compared with 78 per 100 of the comparison group).

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: There was a 56-percent

difference between graduates and nongraduates in total subsequent drugrelated arrests over a 2-year period (12 rearrests per 100 graduates and 27

rearrests per 100 of nongraduates).

Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: There was an 85-percent

difference between the two groups in total subsequent drug-related arrests

over a 2-year period (12 rearrests per 100 graduates compared with 78 rearrests per 100 of the comparison group).
A substantial difference between program participants and the comparison

group existed in the rate of drug-related arrests in the 2-year period after the

program. The difference in drug-related arrests between groups was greater

than the difference in total new arrests. The STOP program appeared to have

its greatest effect on reducing subsequent drug arrests. 

Subsequent Property Crime Arrests

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: There was a 58-percent 

difference between program participants and the comparison group in total

subsequent felony property arrests over a 2-year period. STOP participants

had a rate of 13 new arrests per every 100 participants after leaving the program compared with 31 per 100 of the comparison group. STOP program

participants had a total of 2 new subsequent serious property crime arrests

per 100 participants compared with 6 per 100 of the comparison group.

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: Program graduates

were rearrested at a rate of 7 new felony property crime arrests per 100 participants compared with 10 per 100 of nongraduates. This was a 30-percent

difference between the two groups over a 2-year period. STOP program

graduates had a total of 2 new subsequent felony property crime arrests

per 100 participants compared with 3 per 100 nongraduates.

Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: Graduates were rearrested

at a rate of 7 new felony property crime arrests per 100 compared with 29

per 100 of the comparison group who were eligible but did not participate

in the program. This is a 76-percent difference over a 2-year period. STOP

program graduates had a total of 2 new subsequent felony property crime

arrests per 100 participants compared with 6 per 100 of the comparison

group.

A substantial difference in the rate of all property crime arrests existed in the

2-year period after the program for program participants compared with the

comparison group. Graduates, in particular, had far fewer subsequent property crime arrests than the comparison group. The percentage differential in

property crime arrest was similar to the difference in total new arrests for all

comparisons.

Subsequent Personal Crime Arrests

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: STOP participants had

subsequent felony (Class A and B) arrests at a rate of 1 per 100 participants

in a 2-year period compared with 4 per 100 of the comparison group. This

was a 75-percent difference over a 2-year period.

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: No graduates were

rearrested for serious personal crimes. But the rearrest rate was 2 per 100 in

the nongraduate group. This represented a 100-percent difference over a 

2-year period. 

45

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century
46

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: No graduates were rearrested but the rearrest rate was 4 per 100 of the comparison group. This was

a 100-percent difference in total subsequent serious personal crime arrests

over a 2-year period.

A substantial difference in the rate of all personal crime arrests existed in the

2-year period after the program for participants compared with the comparison group. Graduates, in particular, had far fewer subsequent personal crime

arrests than the members in the comparison group. The percentage differential in total personal crime arrests was similar to the difference in total new

arrests for all comparisons; however, the percentage difference in serious

personal crime arrest was greater than the difference in total new arrests for

all comparisons. 

Subsequent Parole Violation Arrests

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: STOP participants had

subsequent probation or parole violation arrests at a rate of 2 new arrests per

100 participants compared with 10 per 100 of the comparison group. This

was an 80-percent difference over a 2-year period.

Program Graduates Versus Program Nongraduates: There was no difference

between the two groups in a 2-year period. Rearrests for new probation

or parole violations were 2 per 100 graduates compared with 2 per 100 

nongraduates. 

Program Graduates Versus Comparison Group: Graduates were rearrested

at a rate of 2 new probation or parole violations per 100 whereas 10 per 100

of the comparison group were rearrested for violations, representing an 

80-percent difference over a 2-year period.

A substantial difference between program participants and the comparison

group existed in the rate of parole or probation violation arrests in the 2-year

period after the program. Graduates and nongraduates, however, showed no

difference in subsequent parole or probation violation arrests. 

Positive Adjustment Score of 1 or More

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: More than half of STOP

participants for whom supervision records were available scored at least 1

point on the Positive Adjustment Scale, a set of indicators measuring factors

such as employment, enrollment in school, standard of living, participation

in self-improvement programs, and other important variables of positive

community adjustment and successful supervision. Just under 40 percent of

the comparison group individuals scored as well. 
47

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Positive Adjustment Score of 4 or More

Program Participants Versus Comparison Group: Twenty-seven percent of

program participants for whom supervision records were available scored 4

or more points compared with 10 percent of the comparison group.

Cost Analysis

The STOP Drug Diversion Program saved the Multnomah County Criminal

Justice System $2,476,795 per cohort during the 2 years of data collection

after participation in the program. The study estimated the avoided costs to

the taxpayers of Oregon to be $10,223,532 over 2 years. Every taxpayer dollar

spent on cohorts of clients who participated in the program produced $2.50

in cost savings to the taxpayers of Multnomah County. The ratio of benefit to

the Oregon taxpayer was $10 saved for every $1 spent.

Advantages of the STOP Drug Diversion Program

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

In court management:

❑ A judge overseeing the process, creating a continuity in the judicial

process.

❑ A “stipulated facts” trial, allowing for swift and sure punishment for 

program failure.

❑ Careful court monitoring with frequent drug testing and frequent 

appearances before the judge.

In substance-abuse treatment:

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

❑ A multiphase, multiaspect 12-month treatment program.

❑ Frequent drug testing.

❑ Court-enforced attendance and progress.

Summary

This study had certain limitations. Because it was retrospective, random

assignment to treatment and control conditions was not possible (and probably not possible even if it had been a contemporaneous sample). Therefore,

some unmeasured (and possibly unmeasurable) differences may have existed among the three groups that affected the study outcomes. Nonetheless,

the comparison group was matched on all critical variables, removing possible sources of bias. 
48

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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

and had lower rates of drug-related arrests—both of which suggest that the

program may have had an effect on lowering participant involvement with

drugs.

This lower rate of recidivism, in turn, affects public safety and public costs.

Fewer arrests and convictions lessen the pressure on the criminal justice system, particularly the jail system, and can lead to more reasonable loads on

the current system, fewer future expenditures, or both. Lower rates of recidivism can also result in savings to taxpayers in terms of costs for dealing with

new offenses, treating victims, and improving safety. 

This study found

that program participants, especially

graduates, had 

significantly fewer

subsequent arrests

and convictions.
49

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Illinois: Homicide and Violent

Crime Strike Force in Madison

and St. Clair Counties

This summary was adapted from the report An Evaluation of the Homicide and

Violent Crime Strike Force Program in Madison and St. Clair Counties, 

which presents evaluation research conducted by Richard Schmitz, J.D., and 

Pinky S. Wassenberg, Ph.D., J.D., Center for Legal Studies, University of Illinois 

at Springfield. 

Madison and St. Clair Counties experienced severe levels of violent crime

during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The cause of the influx of crime may

have been due to educational inadequacies, loss of industry, and the lack of

funding to local law enforcement. In response to this epidemic, the Homicide

and Violent Crime Strike Force (hereinafter referred to as the “task force”)

was created by the Illinois State Police (ISP) Department and the Illinois

Attorney General’s (AG’s) Office. 

Program Overview

The task force was designed as a joint venture between ISP and the Illinois

AG’s Office. The ISP program component was made up of one supervisor

and four case agents who were experienced homicide investigators with

strong community ties to the selected counties. The AG’s Office program

component, made up of two attorneys, one investigator, and one secretary

who served both agencies, was designed to assist local prosecutors in the

prosecution of task force cases and give legal advice to the State Police component. It was anticipated that task force attorneys would occasionally take

a lead role in the prosecution of task force cases. Resources and personnel

levels were consistent throughout the program, but there were changes in

task force operating procedures and interagency relationships. These are discussed in detail under Program Activities/Components on page 51. 

This study focuses on St. Clair and Madison Counties in Illinois, which are

located in the southwestern section of the state and share a border with

Missouri. Their combined population in 1992 was approximately 516,000.

More than two-thirds of all persons residing in St. Clair County are white,

as are 90 percent of those in Madison County; during the past 30 years, both

counties experienced increases in nonwhite populations. Both counties

report more female residents than male: 52.2 percent in St. Clair and 52.1

percent in Madison. Less than 15 percent of the population in either county

possess a bachelor’s or higher degree.

The task force was

designed as a joint

venture between

ISP and the Illinois

AG’s Office.
50

Bureau of Justice Assistance

According to the Regional Economic Information System, St. Clair County

residents reported a 1994 per capita personal income (PCPI) of $18,452, compared with $20,530 reported by Madison County residents. This placed St.

Clair County 52nd (out of 102) in the state for income level and represented

approximately 78.2 percent of the state average ($23,611) and approximately

85 percent of the national average ($21,696). Madison County was ranked

22nd in the state, and its PCPI was 87 and 94.6 percent of state and national

averages, respectively. Of all St. Clair families, 13.9 percent reported an

income below the poverty level; 43.4 percent of all single female head-ofhousehold families lived in poverty. In Madison County, fewer families (8.5

percent) reported an income below the poverty level with 32.9 percent of

households headed by females falling into that category. In both counties,

the majority of residents were employed in wholesale and retail trade industries: 22.5 percent for St. Clair and 21.9 percent for Madison. In St. Clair, 14.0

and 10.7 percent were employed in manufacturing and health care, respectively; in Madison, the percentages for manufacturing and health care were

21.3 and 8.6 percent, respectively. 

Two indicators are commonly used to report levels of crime and subsequent

police response: the number of crimes known to law enforcement as having

occurred within a particular jurisdiction and the number of arrests made.

Both of these indicators were considered for the jurisdictional area covered

by the Homicide and Violent Crime Strike Force. During 1991, 25,504 serious

crimes were known to police working in the 2 counties as having occurred

within their jurisdictions. Of these, 14.2 percent were violent and 85.8 percent were property related. From 1982 to 1995, a sizable increase in the number of serious crimes known to law enforcement was observed in St. Clair

County (40.6 percent), while Madison County experienced a decline. During

the same period, the majority of violent crimes that occurred within these

two counties occurred in St. Clair County; on average, less than 20 percent of

all violent crimes known to police over this time period occurred in Madison

County. Based on Illinois Uniform Crime Reports (IUCR) data, law enforcement agencies within the 2 counties arrested an average of 5,073 individuals

each year for serious crimes between 1982 and 1995. The majority of individuals arrested each year were from St. Clair County. Similar findings were

revealed when only violent crime arrests were considered—that is, while

the 2 counties averaged 1,163 arrests involving violent crimes each year, the

majority of such arrests originated in St. Clair County. Madison County

reported a higher incidence of arrests for criminal sexual assault while St.

Clair County reported higher numbers of arrests for murder, robbery, and

aggravated assault.

During the years 1992 through 1996, the territory covered by the Homicide

and Violent Crime Strike Force weathered congressional redistricting, loss of

industries (plant closings and the flood of 1993) in the region, political scandals, and acknowledgment of educational inadequacies. In 1994, the East St.

Louis (ESL) School District 189 was taken over by the state of Illinois after it
51

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

was revealed that the district was operating $2.7 million in debt and holding

classes in unsafe, dilapidated buildings. However, it also received millions of

dollars in revenue generated by gambling in the most impoverished city,

East St. Louis, and a new railway system that linked St. Clair County with

downtown St. Louis and the St. Louis airport (Metro-Link Rail). Each of

these factors may have affected the ease with which the task force was able

to interact with communities and their political leaders. Also during these

years, other law enforcement initiatives operating throughout the area may

have affected the impact of the task force in realizing its goals.

Goals and Objectives 

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

❑ Select experienced homicide investigators who also had significant ties to

the communities in which the task force operated.

❑ Obtain the involvement of local law enforcement officers, especially those

of the ESL Police Department.

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

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

❑ Give legal advice to the State Police component.

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

The objectives of the evaluation of the Homicide and Violent Crime Strike

Force in St. Clair and Madison Counties included: 

❑ Documenting and examining the original goals of the task force, its initial

operating procedures, practices, organizational structure, and resource

allocation, as well as its internal and external relationships.

❑ Documenting and examining changes in the structure, procedures, 

practices, resources, and relationships that occurred over time.

❑ Documenting and examining the impact of the task force on cases, law

enforcement, prosecutors, the judicial system, and the communities in

which it operated. 

Program Activities/Components

The main activity of the task force was investigating homicides and other

violent crimes (which had already been investigated by other agencies in the

two counties) by combining the resources of ISP and the AG’s Office. The

AG’s Office investigator was the primary source for the selection of cases for

the task force. The investigator reviewed unsolved homicide and violent

crime cases and then selected cases to be moved directly to the ISP squad

leader. The perceived solvabililty of a case was the greatest determinant in

The main activity of

the task force was

investigating homicides and other violent crimes (which

had already been

investigated by

other agencies in

the two counties)

by combining the

resources of ISP and

the AG’s Office.
52

Bureau of Justice Assistance

whether the case was accepted by the task force. As the task force evolved,

cases were also referred by local law enforcement agencies.

The task force, however, did engage in other activities. For example, it investigated four shootings by local police officers. In addition, investigators from

the task force rendered assistance to ISP, federal law enforcement agencies,

and local police departments. Because this assistance did not entail extensive

involvement of the task force, neither the task force nor the evaluation counted these “assist cases” as task force cases. 

The task force experienced relative stability in both resources and personnel.

Two ISP case agents and one AG’s Office attorney transferred out of the task

force. One of the case agents and the attorney left during the first year of

operations. The other case agent left in 1995. There were no other personnel

changes. Resources were also stable and generally deemed adequate to

accomplish the job.

As the two components of the task force adjusted to and more clearly

defined their roles in the internal operations of the task force, operating 

procedures changed. The original design called for joint decisionmaking

between both components regarding whether to initiate investigation, proceed further with a case, or ask for an arrest warrant and prosecution of a

case. During the first year of task force operations, the process moved away

from attorney participation in these decisions in all cases to consultation of

the attorneys by the ISP component on an as-needed basis. Within the first

year of operations, an understanding was reached whereby the ISP component controlled task force activities up to the point of arrest and the AG’s

Office component controlled task force activities after arrest.

The task force was unable to realize its goal of local law enforcement participation from the ESL Police Department. At the time of task force initiation,

the department was understaffed and coping with the demands of high 

violent crime rates. On the one hand, the city was financially unable to contribute resources to replace any officers who might join the task force; on the

other hand, the task force was not able to pay any local officers who wanted

to participate in task force activities and was thus only able to obtain the

services of one local officer from the Alton Police Department. He was

recalled after 9 months.

Performance Measures and 

Evaluation Methods

The evaluation included four parts. First, the evaluation team evaluated the

process through which the task force was designed and implemented. This

evaluation was divided into two sections—one describing the initiation and

design of the task force and one describing the evolution of the task force

since its inception. Second, the team examined the impact of the task force

on the cases handled, law enforcement and the judicial process, and the 
53

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

larger community. Third, by combining the information gained in the implementation and impact evaluations, the team assessed whether the task force

was a viable approach to the investigation and prosecution of homicides and

violent crimes. Fourth, the evaluation team made recommendations for the

future development of the task force in Madison and St. Clair Counties and

for those interested in starting similar task forces elsewhere.

A variety of strategies was used to obtain the information needed to describe

the operating procedures and practices of the task force. Two sources of

information were central to the evaluation: task force program documents

maintained by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA)

and interviews with task force participants. The program documents

obtained from ICJIA included task force grant applications, correspondence

between ICJIA and the task force, and the task force’s monthly data reports.

UCR data were also used in the evaluation. Additional information was

obtained from personal interviews with ISP and AG’s Office administrators,

task force personnel, and other agencies or individuals involved in the creation and development of the program. These interviews were based on

written protocols developed by the evaluation team in conjunction with

ICJIA. 

The impact portion of the report relied on quantitative and qualitative data

collected to describe the effectiveness of the task force program. This threepart analysis investigated the impact of the task force on the cases chosen for

investigation; law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts; and the broader

community.

The goals of the case analysis were to describe the cases handled by the task

force and to examine the movement of those cases through critical decision

points in the criminal justice process. 

In assessing the impact of the task force on both criminal justice staff and the

broader community, evaluation project staff interviewed task force personnel, local law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys,

and community leaders. Areas of inquiry included their impressions of the

effect of the task force on the behavior of local law enforcement agencies

and prosecutors, the ability of these local entities to deal with homicide and

violent crime, and the perceptions of the public.

Program Evaluation Findings and Results 

Task Force Impact on Cases

The task force handled 72 cases involving the investigation of crimes in St.

Clair and Madison Counties. The majority of these cases involved crimes

that eventually produced charges of first-degree murder against suspects.

Most of these cases were investigated to a conclusion, and most defendants

charged as the result of task force investigations were either convicted or

In assessing the

impact of the task

force on both criminal justice staff and

the broader community, evaluation

project staff interviewed task force

personnel, local law

enforcement personnel, prosecutors,

judges, defense

attorneys, and community leaders.
54

Bureau of Justice Assistance

pled guilty and received sentences harsher than state averages. Given that

the task force accepted cases that other law enforcement agencies felt were

not progressing, the task force had a clear, positive impact on the cases it

chose to handle. 

Fifty-seven of the task force cases involved murder, and another 10 involved

assault or battery. The task force experienced great success in obtaining

arrests and convictions in these cases. The impact was more strongly felt in

St. Clair County, which was the source of more than 90 percent of the task

force cases. In 43 percent of the cases, one or more defendants had either

pled guilty or been convicted. In another 11.1 percent of the cases, one or

more suspects had been arrested, but the cases had not progressed beyond

that stage. In 16.7 percent of the cases, a suspect had been identified but was

deceased. Of the 33 task force cases that went to trial, 30 resulted in convictions and 3 resulted in mistrials. 

However, it should be noted that cases were not always concluded due to

task force efforts. For example, 12 cases were closed because the defendant

or defendants died. Incomplete information regarding the extent to which a

case had progressed prior to being assumed by the task force made it impossible to determine the relative impact of the task force’s investigation on case

resolution compared with the efforts of the law enforcement agency initially

responsible for the investigation. In addition, the task force did not prosecute

most of the court cases generated by task force investigations. Most of the

court cases were prosecuted by a lead prosecutor from a state’s attorney’s

office with some level of assistance from the task force attorneys. No documentation existed to allow the evaluation team to assess the extent of the

assistance provided by task force attorneys in these cases. 

Task Force Impact on Law Enforcement, the Courts,

and Communities

Those interviewed generally agreed that the work of the task force enhanced

the ability of local prosecutors to gain convictions in homicides and serious

crimes. Prosecutors, from both the local state’s attorney’s office and the AG’s

Office program component, were especially appreciative of the efforts of case

agents in locating witnesses and ensuring their presence for trial as well as

other trial preparation assistance. The ability of the case agents to deal with

witnesses was also highly regarded by prosecutors and judges who felt the

work of some local departments closely approximated the work of the task

force case agents while other departments fell far short due to either lack of

expertise or lack of resources. All agreed some undeterminable number of

cases would not have been prosecuted but for the task force.

The impact of the task force on the work of local law enforcement, particularly the ESL Police Department, is difficult to assess, other than anecdotally.

The addition of four homicide investigators into an area with an understaffed police department should have helped relieve the pressure on the

Those interviewed

generally agreed

that the work of

the task force

enhanced the ability of the local prosecutors to gain 

convictions in homicides and serious

crimes.
55

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

local department. In fact, most task force personnel believed their presence

allowed the department to focus more resources on current cases. Other factors may also have allowed the department to focus on “hot” cases. During

the period of the grant, the ESL Police Department was able to make significant additions to its forces, and the homicide rate in the city decreased.

These factors may also have freed up time for police officers to investigate

other crimes.

Those interviewed regarding the impact of the task force on the homicide

rate in Madison and St. Clair Counties were nearly unanimous in their

agreement that the task force was a factor in the decline in the number of

homicides in the two-county region. They were also near unanimity in their

belief that the precise impact of the task force was unmeasurable. Along with

the task force, the freeing up of staff of the ESL Police Department, the infusion of funds from river boat gambling, the installation of Metro-Link Rail

commuter train service, and the plethora of other law enforcement initiatives

operating in the area were mentioned as factors in the improved outlook for

the area.

Several explanations of the task force’s role in the declining homicide rate

were offered. First, the task force was responsible for removing from the

streets several persons suspected of killing more than one person. Thirty suspects had killed two or more people, and six suspects appeared in more than

one task force case, indicating a pattern of homicidal conduct. Second, as

stated above, not only did the task force clear cases, it gave the ESL Police

Department an opportunity to react more effectively to new cases by freeing

up the local department’s resources from some time-consuming cases.

To assess the impact of the task force on the court system and the judiciary,

the project staff interviewed task force personnel, as well as prosecutors,

judges, and defense attorneys who were involved in task force cases. The

staff inquired about the general behavior of the judiciary and differences in

sentencing practices compared with similar cases handled by local law

enforcement. Members of the judiciary were also asked for their impressions

of the work of the task force. None of the individuals interviewed identified

any differences in general behavior or demeanor on the part of the judiciary

in task force cases when compared with other cases of similar magnitude.

However, most task force members felt that their cases, in some measure,

obtained harsher sentences than similar cases emanating from other agencies; they felt the sentences were harsher because their cases were better

investigated and organized. 

The prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges interviewed generally disagreed with this assertion; they felt too many variables influence sentencing

to allow any judgment about the impact of the task force on sentences. The

nature of the crime and the past criminal history of the defendant were frequently cited examples of important variables that influenced sentencing. 
56

Bureau of Justice Assistance

These professionals agreed that the extent to which a case was investigated

and prepared influenced the likelihood of a guilty verdict. There was also

general agreement that task force cases were well prepared, witnesses were

present at the trial, and task force witnesses were poised and prepared for

testimony. Also, one trial judge revealed a way in which the clarity of guilt

has an impact upon sentencing—the degree to which guilt is clear makes

handing down a severe sentence easier, he indicated, because there is less

concern about the verdict being overturned. Any error at trial would most

likely be deemed a harmless error by an appellate court.

The degree to which the number of task force requests from local law

enforcement changed over time is difficult to ascertain. The task force did

not keep records of the number of requests; only the number of cases opened

by the task force was available as a limited indication of the number of

requests received. When task force members were asked about changes in

the number of local referrals, responses were inconsistent. Those who

believed requests increased thought that increased local awareness of the

task force accounted for the change. Those who believed requests decreased

gave one or more of the following reasons for their belief: the task force

reduced the number of unsolved cases, so the pool of potential task force

cases was depleted; local law enforcement was better able to handle cases

because of better staffing or other reasons; local law enforcement wanted to

keep the cases local because of competition with the task force; or homicide

was down in the area, thus reducing the pool of potential cases. 

Community members from Madison and St. Clair Counties were interviewed regarding awareness of the task force and the perceived impact it

had in their communities. The initial design of the evaluation project expected surveys of community leaders, but because of the small number of persons involved, interviews were used as a means of obtaining more detailed

and complete information. The majority of community members stated that

they were aware of the task force; however, perceptions of its purpose varied

and included conducting undercover police work to seize drugs and recover

automobiles acquired through drug trafficking, investigating all major

crimes, assisting smaller cities that lacked the resources and personnel to

handle major crime investigations, investigating homicides and domestic

abuse that leads to homicide, and clearing homicides that were left unsolved

due to insufficient evidence. Of those interviewed, most rated the task force

as very important and necessary. The consensus was that many old cases

would have remained untouched without the task force initiative. Regarding

the task force’s impact on the communities of the two counties, responses

ranged from having no impact to having significant impact. When asked for

suggestions regarding the task force, community members suggested involving more resources and people.
57

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Conclusions and Recommendations

Task force participation resulted in several benefits to the participating agencies. All task force personnel identified one or more of the following three

items as a benefit: clearance of cases that otherwise would have remained

unsolved; enhanced recognition and prestige for law enforcement in general

and the Illinois State Police Department and Attorney General’s Office in

particular; and additional experience conducting homicide investigations or

prosecutions.

Among those interviewed, there was a strong perception that the task force

had an impact on the homicide and violent crime rates in both counties but

particularly in St. Clair, the source of most task force cases. This impact cannot be empirically verified because multiple initiatives designed to reduce

violent crime in St. Clair County operated simultaneously with the task

force. Also major economic and demographic changes in East St. Louis at

this time may have had an impact on the crime rate. 

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

❑ Experienced homicide investigators who had the added advantage of

being familiar with the communities in which they operated.

❑ Resources for investigators to travel to conduct interviews and collect 

evidence. 

❑ The ability of investigators to concentrate on a case without having to be

diverted to more recent crimes, which allowed a level of concentration

and specialization usually not possible in police departments.

❑ Modification of a pool of potentially solvable cases by an AG’s Office

investigator who had been a homicide investigator in ESL law enforcement long enough to be familiar with cases that he believed could have

been solved had sufficient resources been available.

❑ Early successes that gave the task force a reputation for reliability, which

led to more case referrals and enhanced credibility with prosecutors and

judges.

Evaluation of future initiatives similar to the task force would be aided by

establishing an evaluation team early in the history of the unit. The evaluation team would then be able to have input regarding the data collection

protocols to be established. In spite of the task force secretary’s substantial

efforts to anticipate evaluator data needs, much of the data needed to analyze this task force’s impact on its cases had not been collected and could not

be reconstructed in a timely fashion due to their dispersal among local law

enforcement, the task force, and local prosecutors.

While the task force experienced many successes, its original vision fell short

in two areas: participation from local law enforcement and the use of the

Among those interviewed, there was a

strong perception

that the task force

had an impact on

the homicide and

violent crime rates

in both counties

but particularly in

St. Clair, the source

of most task force

cases.
58

Bureau of Justice Assistance

AG’s Office attorneys. Jurisdictions contemplating similar initiatives should

carefully consider this experience.

All parties involved in the initiative agreed that the primary focus of task

force operations should be on East St. Louis due to its high per capita homicide rate and its high number of unsolved homicides. It was felt the task

force could help address the crime problem with its resources and skilled

personnel and also assist in improving the ability of the various police

departments to deal with serious crimes by bringing local officers into the

task force operation. Although the program narrative provided for the fulltime assignment of two ESL police officers, the program budget did not

allow any grant funds to pay the salaries of local officers. During the conception and beginning operation of the task force, the ESL Police Department

was understaffed, overwhelmed with a serious crime wave, and poorly

financed. Interviews with officials in more financially resourceful communities revealed that they could not afford to lose officers and generally felt they

should not be responsible for assigning officers to a task force they perceived

was primarily concerned with another city’s crime problem. If similar initiatives are undertaken in the future and local participation is regarded as

important, provision must be made for the payment of salaries for assigned

officers.

While the underrepresentation of local law enforcement appears to be mostly

a financial issue, the reduced use of the AG’s Office attorneys by local prosecutors and by ISP seems to have been more complex and subject to various

interpretations. The original task force design specified a very active role for

the AG’s Office attorneys in supporting local prosecutors and even managing and leading some prosecutions—a role that was realized in Madison

County. However, the bulk of the task force investigations and prosecutions

involved St. Clair County cases; during the course of the grants, only two St.

Clair cases involved an AG’s Office attorney as the lead prosecutor. 

One possible explanation for the difference in use by Madison and St. Clair

Counties may be related to familiarity with the AG’s Office lead prosecutor.

Whereas the initial lead attorney for the AG’s Office component had no

criminal prosecution experience, the subsequent lead prosecutor had been

employed as a special prosecutor in homicide and other serious cases in

Madison County (state’s attorney’s office) before joining the task force. No

attorney had a similar prior association with St. Clair County, although

familiarity with and respect for the lead prosecutor’s credentials was evinced

by the representatives of the St. Clair County state’s attorney’s office. The

more likely explanation for the lack of use of the AG’s Office attorney by

St. Clair County appears to be a philosophical preference for using local

prosecutors.

Two recommendations may help similar future initiatives avoid some of the

frustrations experienced by the AG’s Office attorneys. First, prior to initiation

of the project, the parameters and conditions for assistance should be clearly
59

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

established between the local prosecutor and any entity offering assistance to

the prosecutor. It appears that this was not accomplished in the case of the

task force. Second, outside assistance to local prosecutors may be of more

value in counties with staff too small to handle current caseloads or where

specialized expertise is not available in the local office.

The initial task force design also envisioned a substantial role for the AG’s

Office attorneys in initial case screening and in decisionmaking regarding

whether to proceed with case investigations. After less than a year, the

involvement of the attorneys moved from regular to as needed, as determined by the case agents or their squad leader. Several factors appear to

have contributed to this change. The initial staffing of the AG’s Office component with a lead attorney who had no criminal prosecution experience

eroded the faith of the ISP component in the ability of that attorney to make

a positive contribution to the process. Even after the replacement of the lead

prosecutor with an attorney whose credentials were respected by the ISP

personnel, the AG’s Office attorneys were still involved only on an asneeded basis. The initial staffing does not, however, provide an explanation

for the continually limited role of the attorneys in case-screening and investigation processes. Two factors appear to account for the permanent nature of

the change. First, while the lead prosecutor’s abilities were widely respected,

he was not always available to the task force. Eventually, the ISP component

controlled the case up to an arrest warrant, after which control of task force

activity shifted to the AG’s Office component. Second, as the task force

developed, even the ISP component moved away from roundtable decisionmaking to a model that centered on joint consultations between the investigator and the squad leader in the early phases of case development and

between the case agent and the squad leader for decisions after assignment

to a case agent.

The internal decisionmaking process that eventually took hold in the task

force seems to have worked well. The division of labor complemented the

areas of expertise of each component. In addition, the ISP component valued

access to legal advice when needed. The source of the legal advice and the

amount of resources devoted to the legal component were matters of disagreement among task force members. In future projects, a careful appraisal

should be made of potential sources of legal consultation and the costs and

benefits associated with various sources. For example, using the local prosecutor for regular legal consultation could result in a closer liaison; frequent

contact could also increase tension by providing opportunities for disagreement. Also, assignment of a particular member of the prosecutor’s office as

legal counsel to a task force might breed jealousy and resentment among

other members of the prosecutor’s office. Each situation should be evaluated

individually, taking into consideration historical relationships and personal

dynamics.

The internal decisionmaking process

that eventually

took hold in the

task force seems to

have worked well.
61

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Utah: The Utah Day Reporting

Center—Success With

Alternative Incarceration

This summary was adapted from the report The Utah Day Reporting Center:

Success with Alternative Incarceration, which presents evaluation research conducted by Edward I. Byrnes and Russ Van Vleet, Social Research Institute,

Graduate School of Social Work, University of Utah. The report A Review of the

Salt Lake Day Reporting Center, by Jan Solomon, Utah Department of

Corrections, Division of Field Operations, also provided information for the Program

Activities/Components and other sections.

Day reporting centers (DRCs) are a relatively new addition to the continuum

of intermediate sanctions for criminal offenses. They began in the United

States during the 1980s as a means of reducing rising jail and prison populations and the huge costs associated with those rising populations. The Utah

Department of Corrections (UDC) opened its first DRC in Salt Lake City in

1994. 

Program Overview

The Utah DRC administers an intermediate sanction program geared to the

offender in need of additional structure and assistance beyond normal probation or parole supervision. The program blends high levels of control with

intensive delivery of services needed by the offenders in the program, who

are referred from several sources for a variety of reasons. The program was

designed to serve high-risk/high-need offenders with drug and alcohol

problems who have committed a new offense or technical violation while on

probation or parole. Offenders are served in a manner that reduces the likelihood that they will be incarcerated; by maintaining them in a community

setting, the costs of corrections in Utah are reduced. 

Goals and Objectives

The goals of the day reporting center are to reduce offender recidivism and

improve the ability of offenders to conform to community norms. Methods

to achieve these goals include providing therapeutic intervention to offenders having difficulty succeeding on probation or parole and providing intensive community supervision.

The Utah DRC

administers an

intermediate sanction program 

geared to the

offender in need 

of additional structure and assistance

beyond normal 

probation or parole

supervision.

The goals of the

day reporting center are to reduce

offender recidivism

and improve the

ability of offenders

to conform to community norms.
62

Bureau of Justice Assistance

These methods are achieved for probationers and parolees by:

❑ Enhancing coping skills.

❑ Decreasing substance-abuse relapses.

❑ Increasing their ability to find work and stay employed.

❑ Structuring activities within the community. 

❑ Providing increased documentation for their supervising agents.

Program Activities/Components

The day reporting center offers probationers and parolees:

❑ Educational opportunities.

❑ Development of employable skills.

❑ Psycho-educational programming.

❑ Substance-abuse treatment.

❑ Intensive mental health therapy.

❑ Increased contact between the offender and UDC staff.

❑ Daily structure.

The DRC is open 6 days a week with flexible hours to accommodate both

offender and programming needs. It is located in central Salt Lake City on

public transportation lines and is near services offenders need. Transportation is provided for offenders residing in release facilities and halfway

houses, and offsite outreach sessions have been conducted to accommodate

offenders. No one set of services fits all offenders; services are rendered on

an individual basis to meet the needs of the offender, increase the potential

for success, and reduce recidivism. Some offenders are regularly or randomly tested for drugs. All offenders receive more services than they would

under normal probation or parole, and the referring agent is kept informed

of the offender’s progress or problems. Although operations have changed

only slightly since the inception of the program, additional treatment groups

dealing with domestic violence and sexual orientation have been added.

Performance Measures and 

Evaluation Methods

An evaluation of Salt Lake City’s DRC was conducted to inform UDC staff

about policy decisions regarding other day reporting centers. As part of its

mission, the Division of Field Operations operates community programs that

fall on a continuum between routine supervision and highly structured community residential programs. Since 1994 the Field Operations’ continuum

No one set of services fits all offenders; services are 

rendered on an

individual basis to

meet the needs

of the offender,

increase the potential for success, and

reduce recidivism.
63

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

has included a day reporting center for probationers and parolees in the Salt

Lake City metropolitan area. The main questions to be answered by this

evaluation were:

❑ How much does participation in the day reporting center program help

reduce the number of criminal charges made against clients?

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

As a theoretical framework for the evaluation, the restorative justice model

(Bazemore and Malony, 1994) was employed. The three major elements of

this model include public safety, accountability, and competency development:

❑ Public safety was assessed in two ways. In addition to the basic question

of recidivism (i.e., whether program participants returned to criminal

activity), the question of reduced criminal activity by individuals served

by the program was addressed. The amount of criminal activity engaged

in by subjects prior to and subsequent to receiving services was compared.

❑ Accountability was assessed through subjects’ DRC discharge status and

compliance with the substance abstinence requirements of the program. 

❑ Competency development was assessed by examining the length of participation in the program and the frequency of participation in group

intervention programming. The relationship between competency development and criminal activity outcome was also evaluated. Characteristics

related to involvement with DRC, including parole or probation status,

referral source, and recent incarceration history, were also inspected for

their relationship to subject outcomes. 

Subjects

Subjects of the evaluation were 312 clients of DRC who were served and discharged between July 31, 1995, and July 31, 1996. Of these, 13 (4.2 percent)

were excluded because of excessive incarceration during the followup period

and 2 were unable to be located within the UDC database, leaving 297 subjects who were included in all data analyses. The male and female subjects

ranged in age from the early twenties to the fifties. A total of 124 (41.7 percent) were probationers, and 173 (58.3 percent) were parolees. All data were

collected from UDC and DRC archives; subjects were not contacted directly

during the study.

Data Collection

Arrest records were examined to determine the number of criminal charges

for a period of 1 year prior to and subsequent to receiving DRC services.

These data were used to calculate the recidivism rate within 1 year and to

make pre- and post-DRC comparisons.

Arrest records were

examined to determine the number of

criminal charges for

a period of 1 year

prior to and subsequent to receiving

DRC services.
64

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Charges were categorized as being:

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

❑ Alcohol and drug related.

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

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

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

Arrest records included UDC custody data, which were used to determine

whether a subject had been incarcerated at the Utah State Prison (USP) within a year before or after receiving DRC services. Evaluators obtained information about dates of registration at DRC, referral sources, probation or

parole statuses, and DRC discharge statuses (successful, unsuccessful, other,

or referred). Data were also collected on the number of DRC intervention

activities subjects participated in, the educational tutoring received, and 

urinalysis results. 

Program Evaluation Findings and Results

Of the 297 subjects included in the analysis, 133 were charged in some category within 1 year of receiving DRC services. This resulted in a recidivism

rate of 44.8 percent, with 55.2 percent of subjects remaining free of any

charges for 1 year after receiving DRC services. When recidivism is examined in terms of technical versus criminal charges, a different picture develops. Of the 133 subjects who had post-DRC charges, 34 (26.6 percent) had

charges that were only technical, leaving 99 with criminal charges. Therefore,

of the original 297 subjects, only 99 recidivated on criminal charges, resulting

in a recidivism rate of 33.3 percent. Thus, two-thirds of all the subjects

remained free of criminal charges for 1 year subsequent to receiving DRC

services.

Study results indicate three main findings:

❑ Subjects displayed a statistically significant reduction in alcohol and drug

use, property crime offenses, and overall criminal charges during the first

year subsequent to receiving DRC services.

❑ The duration of DRC services was significantly related to the reduction in

alcohol and drug and overall criminal charges during that period, though

some of this effect decreased as DRC services duration increased beyond

120 days.

❑ The relationship between a subject’s success at discharge from the DRC

(as assessed by DRC staff at the time of discharge) and reductions in the

number of his or her post-DRC alcohol and drug charges was statistically

significant.
65

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

The statistically significant reduction in alcohol and drug use, property crime

offenses, and overall criminal charges among subjects illustrates the achievement of the DRC mission and at least one requirement within the restorative

justice framework. In this framework, public safety is a key element, and

with the reduction in criminal activity that DRC clients demonstrated, the

public safety requirement of restorative justice appears to have been met.

Moreover, the expectations of the retributive model of justice, emphasizing

public safety, were also met (Umbreit, 1989).

The relationship between competency development variables and reduced

criminality initially appeared to be slight, as only duration of services significantly predicted reduced criminality. This may have been due to the different

categories of duration of service to which offenders were assigned: less than

or equal to 90 days; 91 through 120 days; 121 through 180 days; and greater

than 180 days. The separate DRC groups that resulted were exposed to multiple rehabilitative themes; it may be that the staff who implement the different groups used an underlying process that is somewhat effective with their

particular client population over the time period provided.

DRC services are equally effective with clients regardless of their probation

or parole status, prior USP incarceration, or source of referral to DRC. These

referral characteristics did not significantly determine the reduction in postDRC charges; however, subjects’ discharge status did significantly relate to

outcome in terms of alcohol and drug use. This suggests that DRC staff do

an exceptional job assessing the subjects’ quality of program participation. 

Study limitations and strengths 

The study’s primary limitation was the absence of a control group, which

limits the ability to make clearly causal statements from the data. The threat

of regression to the mean, a statistical artifact in pre/post designs, also exists. 

The study’s primary strength was the outcome data—the presence or

absence of criminal charges. This was a strength for two reasons: (1) the data

are observations of actual behavior, which is less susceptible to inaccuracies

that might occur were the data self-reports of behavior or measures of subjects’ perceptions and (2) the occurrence of criminal charges is an easily

understood variable that interests both policymakers and the public at large. 

Summary

DRC services appear to assist in reducing the number of criminal charges,

particularly those for alcohol and drug use and property crimes, that subjects face subsequent to program participation. It also seems that DRC staff

can be relied on to assess the quality of subject participation in a way that is

useful for determining the likelihood of subsequent criminal charges for

alcohol and drug offenses. Finally, the duration of DRC services appears to

be the most strongly predictive among the competency development factors

for alcohol and drug use, property, and overall offenses.

DRC services

appear to assist in

reducing the number of criminal

charges, particularly

those for alcohol

and drug and property crimes.
66

Bureau of Justice Assistance

The study recommended that the Salt Lake DRC increase its staff to improve

the availability of services for offenders and that additional DRCs be opened

in other areas of the state.
67

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Oklahoma: Drug Court

Program

This summary was adapted from the following reports: An Evaluation of the

Freedom Ranch Inc. C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program and the Impact of Moral

Reconation Therapy (MRT) and Quality Control Systems, which presents evaluation research conducted by William Nichols, M.S.W., and Travis Nelson of ND

Enterprises in Oklahoma City; and A Summary of An Evaluation of the

Freedom Ranch Inc. C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program and the Impact of Moral

Reconation Therapy and Quality Control Systems, by Kenneth D. Robinson.

Portions of this summary are excerpted from Moral Reconation Therapy and

Problem Behavior in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, by Doris L.

MacKenzie and Robert Brame with Arnold R. Waggoner and Kenneth D. Robinson.

The National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) defines a

drug court as follows: a special court given the responsibility to handle cases

involving less serious drug-using offenders through a supervision and treatment program. These programs include frequent drug testing, judicial and

probation supervision, drug counseling, treatment, educational opportunities, and the use of sanctions and incentives. 

A drug court is responsible for all drug rehabilitation cases until all treatment requirements are completed. The defendants are placed in the drug

court program for rehabilitation with frequent monitoring. A single judge

provides leadership and direction, which includes the supervision of the

defendant’s participation in treatment. 

In September 1993, Freedom House opened its first outpatient alternative

sentencing program, A.T.T.A.C. (Alternative Training, Treatment, and

Corrections) in Stillwater, Oklahoma. The A.T.T.A.C. Program was initially

created in conjunction with the district attorney (DA) and judiciary to offer

an alternative to prison sentences for nonviolent, drug-abusing/drug-using

offenders. The A.T.T.A.C. Program, which was later renamed C.B.T.I.

(Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Institute), became the first freestanding

alternative sentencing model to use a unique cognitive behavioral program

called moral reconation therapy (MRT). In 1995, to further lower rearrest

rates, the A.T.T.A.C. Program gained the backing of judiciary leaders to

become the first drug court in the state.

Program Overview

The C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program defines its target population as repeat

adult felony offenders with identified substance-abuse problems. The core

treatment modality of the C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program is MRT, an objective, 

The C.B.T.I. Drug

Court Program

defines its target

population as

repeat adult felony

offenders with 

identified substanceabuse problems.
68

Bureau of Justice Assistance

systematic treatment system designed to enhance self-esteem and promote

social, moral, and positive behavioral growth in a progressive, step-by-step

fashion. MRT has from 12 to 16 steps, depending on the treatment population. MRT attempts to change how drug abusers and alcoholics make decisions by raising their moral reasoning. The program, developed by Dr. Greg

Little and Dr. Ken Robinson after years of research with felony drug offenders in a therapeutic community, addresses the specific needs of the treatmentresistant populations. In addition, C.B.T.I. uses cognitive models to address

other needs—character development, relapse prevention, parenting, and job

readiness. Other services include drug education, judicial supervision, urine

drug screens, and frequent supervision and contacts by C.B.T.I. staff.

Goals and Objectives

The goals of the C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program are to reduce overcrowding in

jails, provide treatment to offenders, and decrease crime. To achieve these

goals, the following program objectives were set:

❑ Reduce rearrest and recidivism rates in Payne and Logan Counties

through incentive-based treatment opportunities.

❑ Address offenders’ psychological, social, vocational, and educational

needs through screening evaluations, recommendations, and referrals,

giving special attention to histories of chronic substance abuse and social

dysfunction.

❑ Facilitate increases in social skills, moral reasoning, identity growth, and

life purpose and decreases in sensation-seeking behaviors through the use

of MRT.

❑ Increase child support collections in Payne and Logan Counties through

the use of the cognitive, behavioral Family Support and Parenting

Program.

Program Activities/Components

The drug court has three supervisory tracks a defendant may follow. Each

track has specific eligibility criteria:

Track I—Prosecution Diversion Agreement (PDA) or Motion to Strike,

Subject to Call. This track is designed for:

❑ Drug-related or drug-motivated offenders (e.g., those charged with possession of a controlled dangerous substance, burglary, possession of drug

paraphernalia, possession of stolen property, shoplifting, forging checks).

❑ First- or second-time felony offenders.

❑ Those who are at low risk of reoffending based on assessments by the 

district attorney, C.B.T.I. staff, and questionnaire results.

The goals of the

C.B.T.I. Drug Court

Program are to

reduce overcrowding in jails, provide

treatment to

offenders, and

decrease crime.
❑ Defendants motivated to deal with their substance use and abuse.

❑ Defendants admitting guilt and desiring change.

❑ Defendants agreeing to participate in drug court procedures/phases,

including clinical assessment, urine drug testing accountability, completion of Phases I through V of the program, payment of fee for services

and restitution (as applicable), and completion of community service 

(as applicable).

Track II—Condition of Deferred Sentence or Condition of Suspended

Sentence. This track accepts:

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

possession of drug paraphernalia).

❑ Second- to multiple-time felony offenders.

❑ Those who are considered appropriate by the DA’s office based on

C.B.T.I. assessment, questionnaire results, Oklahoma Department of

Corrections (DOC) presentencing reports, and alcohol assessment reports

by the local treatment provider.

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

❑ Defendants agreeing to participate in Drug Court procedures/phases,

including clinical assessment, urine drug testing accountability, completion of Phases I through IV of the program, payment of fee for services

and restitution (as applicable), and completion of community service (as

applicable).

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

❑ Those whose condition of probation is overseen by DOC; those who have

been referred by DOC and the parole board; or those who have been

referred by DOC to male or female boot camps.

❑ Those who have been referred by the Department of Human Services to

treatment or those with drug- and/or alcohol-related problems and/or

offenses.

❑ Defendants agreeing to participate in drug court procedures/phases,

including clinical assessment, urine drug testing accountability, completion of Phases I through V of the program, payment of fee for services

and restitution (as applicable), and completion of community service (as

applicable).

The treatment component of the C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program has five phases, all lasting at least 90 days and having differing frequency of contact and

attendance requirements for program sessions. To graduate from each phase,

the defendant must complete program requirements, judicial requirements, 

69

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century
70

Bureau of Justice Assistance

urine drug testing, and education and training courses and be current on all

required court fines and fees.

❑ Phase I (stabilization and adjustment) includes an initial assessment of

the defendant and treatment plan, urine drug testing, and participation in

an MRT group, drug education group, and job-readiness group. Specific

graduation requirements of Phase I include the completion of drug education and job-readiness training and step 3 of MRT.

❑ Phase II (recovery and issues resolution) includes MRT group participation, a treatment plan update, a 12-step support group, progress reports,

and urine drug testing. Minimum requirements to graduate are similar to

those of Phase I. 

❑ Phase III (sobriety maintenance) includes relapse prevention treatment,

12-step support groups, drug court appearances, urine drug testing,

progress reports, and individual counseling. Specific graduation requirements of Phase III include attendance on all group session and court

dates and completion of relapse prevention training.

❑ Phase IV (application of principles) includes character development

groups, 12-step support groups, individual counseling, urine drug testing, etc. Specific graduation requirements include completion of character

development or completion of posttesting, completion of discharge summary, and completion of graduation testimony in drug court.

❑ Phase V is the aftercare phase. Minimum requirements include participation in any and all uncompleted, required counseling sessions of the drug

court and progress reports; there are no minimum drug court appearances unless for disciplinary reasons. To graduate from Phase V, the client

must attend all group sessions as scheduled, attend all court dates, pass

all urine tests, be current on restitution (as applicable), pay the entire balance of drug court fees, and complete the requirement checklist signed by

the counselor.

Performance Measures and 

Evaluation Methods

In 1996, William Nichols and Travis Nelson of ND Enterprises of Oklahoma

City conducted a program evaluation to determine whether the implementation of the planned treatment model was effective with its target population

and whether the program was meeting its objectives. In addition, information on the following indicators was sought:

❑ Program impact as measured by pre- and postscales.

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

❑ Use of MRT in an intervention environment as a comparative measure of

recidivism among the target population.
71

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

❑ Effectiveness of the drug court compared with the first year’s voluntary

program implementation. (Recidivism and pre- and postmeasures would

be used as measurements of impact.)

Two areas of concern arose regarding the methodology of the evaluation.

First, there had been a lack of urine drug testing during the first 2 years of

the program. Urine drug testing data collection began in 1995, the third year

of program operation, but the evaluators opted to exclude that year because

of the lack of data from the first and second years. Second, there had been a

lack of significant data for 1993 due to incomplete data logs. The data logs

were not kept for the first 6 months of the program. In addition, until 1995,

referrals versus treatment start dates were not clearly recorded. As a result,

the evaluators had to exclude seven of the clients admitted to the program

from the evaluation.

C.B.T.I. staff developed the initial data collection system, and the data were

submitted in raw format to the evaluators. The data were compiled and

grouped into several demographic groups (age, ethnicity, and so on). For this

evaluation, only the defendants who had taken the pre- and posttests were

used in the sample. All clients who participated in treatment were included

in the recidivism study. The samples were placed in one of three categories

for analysis:

❑ A.T.T.A.C. Program.

❑ C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program.

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

In the analysis of the A.T.T.A.C. Program pre- and posttests, the evaluators

used three instruments. The first instrument was the Life Purpose

Questionnaire, an instrument used to estimate the client’s perceived purpose

in life. The scores ranged from 0 to 20 (higher scores show a greater perceived purpose in life), with a normative mean of 10.8 and a standard deviation of 4.3. The second instrument was the Coopersmith Self-Esteem

Inventory, which measures the participant’s self-concept. The normative data

of self-esteem is scored by gender, ethnicity, and age (see table 1). The third

instrument was the Short Sensation-Seeking Scale, which measures hedonistic orientation and correlates with antisocial personality. The scores range

from 0 to 10, with a normative mean of 5.12 and a standard deviation of 1.82.

The total number of participants in the A.T.T.A.C. Program from September

1, 1993, through March 1, 1995, was 88; 38 completed the program, and 50

did not. Of the 38 who completed the program, 8 were female and 30 male.

Their ethnic makeup consisted of 32 Caucasians, 1 Hispanic, 4 NativeAmericans, and 1 African-American. The total number of participants in the

C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program from March 1, 1995, through March 1, 1996,

was 110; 43 completed the program: 13 females, 30 males, 38 Caucasians, 1

Hispanic, 3 Native-Americans, and 1 African-American.
72

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Program Evaluation Findings and Results 

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

Offenders in the A.T.T.A.C. Program sample (n=38) were in treatment for

191.7 days. The Life Purpose Questionnaire had a standard positive variance

of 1.06, meaning the graduates’ perceptions of how they viewed their purpose in life had improved significantly. The Coopersmith Self-Esteem

Inventory had a positive variance of 1.7, showing an increase in the graduates’ self-esteem from pre- to posttest. The Short Sensation-Seeking Scale had

a standard positive variance of 1.7, showing a decreased hedonistic orientation and an increased ability to delay gratification.

Offenders in the C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program sample (n=43) were in treatment for 179.2 days. The Life Purpose Questionnaire had a positive variance

of 6.175, which was statistically significant. The Coopersmith Self-Esteem

Inventory had a positive variance of 2.4, showing an increase in the selfesteem of defendants. The Short Sensation-Seeking Scale had a positive variance of 2.2, indicating an even greater reduction in hedonistic orientation

than that found in A.T.T.A.C. participants.

Comparison of the findings regarding the A.T.T.A.C. and the C.B.T.I. Drug

Court Programs and summary results from the national level revealed the

following:

❑ The program completion rate was higher among C.B.T.I. Drug Court 

participants than among A.T.T.A.C. participants. 

❑ Dropout in treatment tended to occur earlier the C.B.T.I. Drug Court

Program than in the A.T.T.A.C. Program.

Table 1 Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory Normative Data

Demographic Mean Standard Deviation

Female 71.6 19.5

Male 68.4 18.5

Caucasian 72.3 18.3

African-American 71.2 18.4

Hispanic 64.0 19.2

Ages 16–19 66.7 19.2

Ages 20–34 71.7 18.8
73

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

❑ The MRT treatment model impact evaluation showed that participants

in other, non-MRT programs had recidivism rates that were higher by at

least 9 percent.

❑ On the national level, the Stillwater, Oklahoma, retention rates fell within

the national averages.

❑ Recidivism rates are high when compared with the national average of

graduate recidivism rates: 26 percent for program graduates versus the

national average of 9.5 percent.

❑ In examining drug court programs that have control groups, the 10-

percent completion difference falls within the norms of drug court versus

control group on the national level, according to the Office of Justice

Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse.

In addition to these evaluations, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation

conducted a full criminal inquiry report on all A.T.T.A.C. and C.B.T.I. graduates and terminations. Recidivists were defined as any client having an arrest

resulting in a conviction. Recidivists did not necessarily serve any portion of

their sentence in a county jail or state prison. In the A.T.T.A.C. Program,

offenders who were discharged from the program had a higher recidivism

rate than those who completed the program (39 percent versus 26 percent).

In the C.B.T.I. Drug Court Program, a client who was successful was four

times less likely to reoffend than a client who was unsuccessful (18 percent

versus 4 percent).

These findings support the shift from the current alternative sentencing

model to a drug court model for the Stillwater community. The treatment

modality—MRT—was shown to be an effective drug court therapy, as

well as an alternative sentencing tool, by reducing hedonistic behaviors,

increasing self-esteem, and increasing life purpose in the treatment-resistant

population. These findings support the effectiveness of the judiciary’s

involvement in a properly constructed treatment model for felony offenders.

In the C.B.T.I. Drug

Court Program, a

client who was successful was four

times less likely to

reoffend than a

client who was

unsuccessful (18

percent versus 4

percent).
75

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

References

Bazemore, G., and D. Malony. “Rehabilitating Community Service: Toward

Restorative Justice Sanctions in a Balanced Justice System.” Federal Probation

58(1): 24–35, 1994.

Latessa, E.J., and G.F. Vita. “Effects of Intensive Supervision on Shock

Probationers.” Journal of Criminal Justice 16(4): 319–330, 1988.

Umbreit, M.S. “Crime Victims Seeking Fairness, Not Revenge: Toward

Restorative Justice.” Federal Probation 53(3): 52–57, 1989.
Part Two

Multijurisdictional Task Force Evaluation
Multijurisdictional Task Forces:

Synthesis of State and Local

Evaluation Findings

Multijurisdictional task forces (MJTFs) have become vital elements in the

national effort to reduce the availability and use of illegal drugs and to

reduce levels of violent crime. Because most law enforcement authority is

limited to specific jurisdictions, but criminal activity is not, it is possible for

large criminal enterprises to commit crimes beyond the scope of power of a

particular law enforcement agency. Dealing with this problem requires cooperation among numerous law enforcement agencies. 

BJA’s grant programs promote the development of MJTFs that combine the

talents of a variety of organizations and eliminate procedural barriers that

prevent criminal justice system efforts from crossing jurisdictional lines.

Specifically, BJA guidelines recommend that task forces combine and coordinate the capabilities of otherwise disparate elements of the criminal justice

system, such as law enforcement, prosecution, and the courts. 

Through previously conducted assessments, evaluations, and surveys, BJA

has learned the following about task forces:

❑ Task force organizations have been set up quickly to respond to the need

for reactive apprehension by law enforcement. Increased use of planning

has become the mode of operation for most task forces. Emphasis has

expanded from limited apprehension activities to all elements and support needed for successful prosecution.

❑ Formerly, information and intelligence gathering systems were almost

nonexistent or, at best, weak and fragmented. Establishment of intelligence systems is a major result of federal funding of MJTFs. It is unlikely

that this could have been achieved by individual agencies. Now, jurisdictions involved in many MJTFs have access to vastly improved information resources.

79

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

BJA’s grant programs promote the

development of

MJTFs that combine

the talents of a variety of organizations

and eliminate procedural barriers

that prevent criminal justice system

efforts from crossing jurisdictional

lines.

This summary on state and local evaluations of multijurisdictional task forces is a product of

a cooperative effort by the states, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and BJA-funded task forces,

as part of the State Evaluation Development Program that is coordinated by the Justice

Research and Statistics Association.

It is the final synthesis by BJA in response to requests from Attorney General Janet Reno.

Robert A. Kirchner, BJA’s Chief of Evaluation and Analysis, is the principal author and was

assisted by Jill Kateman, formerly of the Evaluation and Analysis Branch. Invaluable contributions to the report were also made by Dr. Donald Rebovich and Dr. James Coldren, Jr., with

assistance from the following JRSA staff: Kellie J. Dressler, Deputy Director, who supervised

compiling and editorial efforts; Terrylynn Coffin, Program Assistant; Tara O’Connor, Program

Assistant; and Nancy Michel, Editor/Writer.
80

Bureau of Justice Assistance

The Edward Byrne

Memorial State and

Local Law Enforcement Assistance

Program has provided substantial

resources to state

and local law

enforcement and

prosecutorial agencies. Under the

Byrne Formula

Grant Program,

states have allocated a significant portion of their funds

to MJTFs, substantially affecting the

development and

maintenance of

such task forces.

❑ Little, if any, consideration was initially given to the impact task force

arrests have on other components of the criminal justice system. Participation on task forces and direct coordination of MJTFs with probation,

prosecution, courts, and community groups have evolved over time.

Today many task forces are managed by prosecutors.

❑ Guidelines for MJTF development, implementation, and evaluation were

initially not available. As a result of efforts by BJA, the National Institute

of Justice, and others, the steps necessary to establish MJTFs, as well as

the critical elements to ensure successful implementation, are widely

accepted and have become the basis for guidance, training, and technical

assistance.

❑ Federal participation was initially limited and involved primarily the U.S.

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). As the popularity of MJTFs

grew in the fight against drugs and violent crime, the number and types

of federal agencies directly involved have likewise grown. 

The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance

Program has provided substantial resources to state and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies. Under the Byrne Formula Grant Program,

states have allocated a significant portion of their funds to MJTFs, substantially affecting the development and maintenance of such task forces. In

1995, BJA created the MJTF Working Group. Participants include MJTF 

commanders, Byrne State Planning Agency program managers and evaluators, and BJA and NIJ staff. The purpose of the group is to discuss how federal, state, and local partnerships can assist in future initiatives to enhance

the role of MJTFs, while improving their effectiveness and reinforcing

accountability.

On October 24, 1995, BJA mailed a survey to formula grant-funded MJTFs in

29 states. The survey results provided comprehensive information on task

force organization and operations, including the amount of task force expenditures per budget category (including overtime), information about whether

federal agencies participate in or coordinate with specific task forces, and

data on a number of other programmatic issues and concerns. A parallel

analysis of MJTFs funded under the Byrne Discretionary Grant Program was

conducted in FY 1994. In addition, BJA has synthesized the results from the

RAND reports that make up the National Assessment of the Byrne Formula

Grant Program, including information about the funding, importance, and

impact of MJTFs.

BJA’s Multijurisdictional Task Force Working Group came to a consensus

and produced the following definition of an MJTF:

Cooperative law enforcement efforts involving two or more criminal justice 

agencies, with jurisdiction over two or more areas, sharing the common goal

of impacting one or more aspects of drug control and violent crime problems.
81

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Multijurisdictional Evaluation

Findings

Determining the Effectiveness of

Multijurisdictional Task Forces

State Planning Agencies assess and review task force performance quarterly

and annually, resulting in revisions to the states’ Byrne Formula Grant Program strategies. BJA encourages the adoption of a continual self-evaluation

process in the management of MJTFs, including those funded under the

Byrne Discretionary Grant Program. This practice is designed to ensure the

establishment of goals, objectives, and performance measures. A central purpose of the evaluation function is accountability and feedback to improve

operations, as well as reporting requirements.

Although self-evaluation has proved its worth to individual MJTFs, its most

important result has been to provide lessons learned and information about critical components or elements that are essential for MJTF success and/or maintenance. The following section summarizes the most often cited critical elements. They are based on the findings compiled by BJA from project 

assessments and the many national evaluations reviewed.

Consensus on Critical Elements of Success

for Multijurisdictional Task Forces

The Bureau of Justice Assistance compiled and reviewed all existing assessment and evaluation reports from BJA’s Discretionary Grant and Formula

Grant Programs. This systematic search resulted in the identification of 12

critical elements that lead to the accomplishment of both programmatic and

organizational objectives of MJTFs. The reports presented discussions on

both the establishment and implementation of MJTFs. BJA’s review identified an emerging consensus about what program elements and activities are

essential to maintain (1) successful management and performance and (2)

institutionalization and future sustainability. The 12 critical elements of

MJTFs presented below have been confirmed by a number of task forces

as “what works.”

Critical Element 1: Written interagency agreements adhered to by all participating agencies establish broad objectives and funding methods for the task

force. Well-thought-out written agreements can minimize future questions

about activities and responsibilities and serve as a strong statement of the

task force’s intention to set aside turf issues and work as a unit for the benefit of all agencies. A supportive feature of many successful task forces is the

The Bureau of

Justice Assistance

compiled and

reviewed all existing assessment and

evaluation reports

from BJA’s Discretionary Grant and

Formula Grant

Programs. This 

systematic search

resulted in the identification of 12 critical elements that

lead to the accomplishment of both

programmatic and

organizational

objectives of MJTFs.
82

Bureau of Justice Assistance

establishment of an advisory board or group to guide decisionmaking and

oversight processes. This “board of directors” can play a number of critical

roles, including policy development, support for long-term funding, and

coordination with external officials and other agencies.

Critical Element 2: Prosecutor involvement, either as the “lead agency” or

as a direct member and participant on a task force, is common and has

improved a task force’s ability to process cases and evidence, planning and

tactics used in pursuing cases, and law enforcement linkages to other components of the criminal justice system.

Critical Element 3: Computerized information/intelligence databases and

systems of the agencies involved in task forces have become increasingly

sophisticated. The development and maintenance of intelligence networks

have become key components in the task force maturation process and have

resulted in establishing capabilities in the individual participating agencies

that few could have managed on their own. Enhanced investigative capabilities have led to expansion of task force objectives and activities to include

financial investigations and surveillance of racketeer-influenced and corrupt

organizations (RICOs). These networks often result in agencies avoiding

duplication of investigative efforts.

Critical Element 4: Target decision, case planning and selection, and

enhanced investigation tactics are now based on clear, specific criteria that

focus the procedures used by task forces members. Initially task force participants agree upon and describe offenses and offenders for priority apprehension. All participants work together as a team when deciding on tactics to be

used, both investigative and prosecutorial. This also leads to enhanced ability to coordinate the efforts of task force agencies with other agencies.

Critical Element 5: Communication among task force participants and their

sponsoring agencies, other responsible officials, and other components of the

criminal justice system is critical to the sustenance of the task force. Task

forces should never become isolated or outside the reach and direction of

their home agencies. Continually open channels for communication are critical to MJTF acceptance and support externally and meeting objectives internally. Many states are using the framework of statewide cluster meetings for

all task forces to share information on improvements and modifications that

produce more effective results. Frequent, regular meetings help keep task

force officers focused on overall direction and program goals and objectives.

By building relationships among agencies, the meetings minimize organizational problems. They also promote improvements through feedback to the

group and reinforce the roles of various participants. Occurring weekly or

more frequently, these meetings provide a venue in which to review current

cases, planned arrests or surveillance projects, or other developments. An

unanticipated result of communication concerning task force activities is better overall communication among agencies.
83

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Critical Element 6: Coordination of task force activities often determines the

long-term acceptance and, hence, viability, of the task force. Many studies

have produced innovative means to promote coordination given the objectives and activities involved. Larger, urban task forces are more complex and

must put in place multiple forms of coordination. Specialized task forces

(gangs, border crimes, rural) often rely on coordination to gain resources 

critical to the success of their operations on an as-needed basis. Many task

forces now hold meetings, at least on a monthly basis, with all local, state,

and federal entities operating within their jurisdiction.

Critical Element 7: Establishing the basis for a task force’s budget is the central feature of interagency agreement and is predicated on a consensus to

support the cost of operations across the jurisdictions involved, including

any federal funding that may be included. Reliable, long-term funding

sources are crucial to a task force and, if found, often indicate that a task

force has institutionalized itself. Funding must match the complex needs

most task force operations have if they are to meet their objectives. The availability of advanced technology and computerized systems has created everincreasing pressures to find funding to support more than the salaries and

benefits of task force participants. Training, the need for external expertise,

and the use of overtime during periods of surveillance require additional

resources. Long-term funding allocations would alleviate many funding

issues, but too often task forces exist on a year-to-year basis.

Critical Element 8: Clearly formulated goals, objectives, and performance

measures are often a challenge to develop in the creation of a task force but

are critical to success in the future. When task forces achieve their goals, they

gain specificity about what is to be accomplished, with objectives that are

both measurable and observable. Numerous examples of task force objectives and performance measures exist, making this exercise much less difficult and creating opportunities for comparing results across task forces. At

the time task forces apply for continuing funding from outside or within

their jurisdictions, the results of assessments and evaluations become critical

and often determine if they will receive support. 

Critical Element 9: Monitoring and evaluation should be constant throughout the implementation of a task force and throughout its lifetime as these

assessment tools are key to revising task force goals, targets, procedures, and

related activities. Strong management practices, including evaluation, lead

to the long-term institutionalization of task forces within their environment.

This, in turn, often leads to changes in their objectives and adaption of tactics

but does not undercut their ability to serve unique and essential functions.

Critical Element 10: Staffing and recruitment begins with the recognized

need for experienced leadership and supervision. Supervisors often seek seasoned officers to work for them but often recruit younger, less experienced

officers or even prosecutors who need training. Most task forces set limits on

the length of time individuals, including supervisors, can participate in a
84

Bureau of Justice Assistance

specific task force. Individual agencies often profit greatly when task force

members return to their home agencies to use their new skills. Numerous

task forces depend on part-time members, working when needed for special

duties or on overtime from their regular positions. The flexibility required

when faced with limited resources explains both the success and fragile

nature of some task force configurations. 

Critical Element 11: Effective asset seizure and forfeiture activities are not

critical for all task forces because of the differences in constraints and applicability in individual jurisdictions. In general, however, offenders’ forfeiture

of assets seized in drug arrests benefit task forces both as a practical enforcement tactic and as a means of ensuring financial viability of the task force. 

Critical Element 12: Technical assistance and training programs that draw

on the experiences of current and former task force participants are critical to

the maintenance and continuity of task force operations. Federal sources

often provide funds for personnel training. Such training may be replaced in

the future with existing guidelines and manuals and successful train-thetrainer programs that provide cost-effective opportunities for training at

local levels. The success of many task forces relies on supervisory experience

and sufficient expertise to accomplish objectives. However, effective training

programs are critical to ensuring that personnel at all levels will be able to

contribute to the success of the task force.

Multijurisdictional Task Forces 

Then and Now: 1986–1997

In 1995 BJA initiated its most recent in a series of analyses of formula-funded

programs, which included an analysis of more than 34 percent of all Byrnefunded task forces. BJA’s Discretionary Grants Program Division (DGPD)

conducted a parallel analysis of discretionary-funded multijurisdictional task

forces in FY 1994. The findings and conclusions added to current understanding of MJTFs, while complementing previous studies and evaluations.

Task forces vary in size, number of assigned personnel, and diversity of agencies involved. Hence, task force operations can be very complex. Analysis of

the formula-funded task forces revealed the following: 70 percent ranged in

size from 1 to 10 members; 20 percent ranged in size from 11 to 22 members;

and the remaining 10 percent ranged in size from 23 members to Connecticut’s statewide task force of 355 members. During FY 1994, the total amount

of BJA formula funds going to task forces in the study was $45.504 million,

or just over 17 percent of the total formula budget. The vast majority of task

forces are small, comprising 10 or fewer staff members. These small organizations are likely to be more dependent (sometimes totally) on federal funding than larger task forces.
85

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Task forces have enabled agencies to dedicate personnel full-time to such

activities as drug enforcement, gang abatement, and major financial investigations. The use of such dedicated personnel permits task forces to increase

the size of caseloads and obtain better equipment. Undercover operations are

improved by the facilitated exchange of undercover officers among agencies.

Task forces generally adopt a problem-solving approach that includes targeting and apprehending higher level criminals, deterring distributors from

entering markets, and making movement across jurisdictional boundaries

more difficult.

Analysis of task force budgets revealed that personnel costs (wages and benefits) accounted for 63.4 percent of the total amount of a task force’s budget.

Other budget item costs included: confidential funds (7.2 percent), overtime

(2 percent), equipment and supplies (1.85 percent), and travel (0.5 percent).

The final category combined all other expenses, including training, office

space, outside contractors, and other costs (25.05 percent). The MJTF Working Group noted that in most cases, task forces also receive in-kind contributions, such as materials, equipment, and other support. These contributions

are not represented in their budgets but nevertheless are critical to the operation of task forces. Although some of this support comes from state and federal agencies, most comes from community associations and groups.

Almost 65 percent of the formula-funded task forces stated they would shut

down if Byrne funding were discontinued. Additionally, many of the remaining task forces reported that they would continue to operate but with diminished capability. The dependence on federal dollars is not limited to newly

formed task forces; nearly half of the task forces that were in existence before

receiving federal funding reported that their operations would shut down if

federal funding were discontinued.

These findings may be explained by the local use of federal funding to keep

a task force operating. In terms of participation and coordination, federal

funding supports cooperative agreements across jurisdictional boundaries in

a horizontal task force organization by forming partnerships across contiguous jurisdictions. Federal funds also provide a means for supporting local,

county, state, and federal participation. Finally, these funds are directed

specifically at providing means for linking law enforcement with other agencies or organizations, both public and private. Conversely, MJTFs enable federal agencies to operate more efficiently in certain settings, such as rural

jurisdictions. 

According to BJA’s telephone followup to the survey, as well as other MJTF

evaluations, the following would likely occur with the withdrawal of federal

funds:

❑ Services critical to task force objectives would no longer be available,

(e.g., a financial investigator working across jurisdictions or a hot-spot

mapping system shared by all).

Almost 65 percent

of the formulafunded task forces

stated that they

would shut down

if Byrne funding

were discontinued.

Additionally, many

of the remaining

task forces reported

that they would

continue to operate

but with diminished

capability.
86

Bureau of Justice Assistance

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

❑ Undercover operations would be difficult without “on-loan” personnel

from other jurisdictions.

❑ Readily accessible legal expertise, especially from prosecutor’s offices,

would be discontinued, leading to a decrease in the quality of casework.

❑ The “cross-designation” capability would likely disappear, diminishing

the ability of local and federal authorities to seek increased penalties and

prosecutorial options.

❑ The ability to pool the resources of individual agencies that make unique

contributions to a task force would decrease as agencies withdrew their

support.

Federal funding is an important “seed” in initiating MJTFs and in generating

specific innovative activities. Federal funds are also critical to the sustenance

of task force operations. If federal dollars were to disappear, some task forces

could become financially self-sufficient, but the large majority could not.

MJTFs changed the enforcement model that instructed an individual agency

to be responsible for task force resources by requiring that the resources of a

number of agencies be strategically pooled. This permitted medium-size and

small rural departments, as well as part-time prosecutors, to receive the benefits of specialized enforcement. Generally, MJTFs have led to improved

cooperation among agencies, enabling the agencies to work as a single unit

across jurisdictional boundaries. Smaller departments have been able to

engage in undercover activities that they could not perform solely with their

own resources. 

Municipal agencies were participants in 88 percent of the task forces surveyed, making them the most common agency type funded through the

Byrne Formula Grant Program, followed closely by county agencies (83 percent). Clearly, a major result of MJTF funding has been increased direct assistance to local agencies, which is a primary goal of the legislation (Omnibus

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 3711, et seq.).

State law enforcement agencies and state prosecutors have increased their

roles and activities in support of MJTFs over time. Task force members interviewed reported that whether state agencies provide direct personnel support or specialized assistance, or play lead roles on task forces, many new

and lasting relationships have been forged between state and local jurisdictions and agencies.

BJA encourages the establishment of a formal structure for coordination to

assist in the management and direction of MJTFs. BJA also recommends

the inclusion of members of federal agencies on the coordinating bodies as

well as their direct participation on state and local MJTFs. BJA’s guidelines
87

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

specifically identify the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the DEA,

as well as other federal agencies and offices, such as the U.S. Attorney’s

Office, United States Customs Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms (ATF), and the U.S. Department of Defense.

In some instances, intelligence and information sharing may be preferable to

full participation in MJTF, because state and local task forces typically have

different objectives than federal task forces. A major conclusion of the evaluations is that state and local MJTFs perform a complementary function to

federal activities, especially in rural areas.

Federal law enforcement agencies serve as members on 24 percent of Byrnefunded task forces, and 8 percent include a federal prosecutor. Federal participation also occurs when a task force with no federal members conducts

joint investigations and operations with one or more federal agencies that

may provide equipment and/or share intelligence. The survey revealed that,

of all federal agencies participating, the DEA is the agency most involved

with task forces (34 percent). This was to be expected since the primary

objectives of Byrne MJTFs are to address drug-abuse and control problems.

Almost a quarter of the task forces included ATF, a somewhat higher level

than expected by the Working Group. Although the level of participation

with the FBI is approximately what the Working Group expected (18 percent), the level of involvement by the U.S. Attorney’s Office was higher than

expected (almost 20 percent).

Task forces and federal agencies may communicate and cooperate regularly,

even though they do not conduct operations jointly. This type of coordination remains high across the major federal agencies. The DEA (71 percent) is

reported as being most involved with these task forces, followed by the FBI

(54 percent), ATF (53 percent), and the U.S. Attorney’s Office (53 percent).

These and other findings are the result of MJTF analyses and evaluations

and have helped identify common characteristics and experiences of MJTFs.

As with most programs and organizations that support them, MJTFs continually evolve from their initial implementation into mature programs. Table 2

presents a summary of improvements and changes in MJTFs reported and

analyzed between 1986 and 1997.

Future Directions

State and local agencies, with assistance from BJA, are committed to conducting more analytical work on task force structures, the roles of task force

participants, and the long-term impact of task force activities on law enforcement and local jurisdictions. Future process and impact evaluations will also

include non-law enforcement issues, since many MJTFs target communitywide problems. Improved quantitative and qualitative measures of performance and impact have opened the door for more longitudinal research and

If task forces are to

be successfully sustained, they must

be able to integrate

themselves into the

existing criminal

justice system and

adapt to changes in

their environment.

Federal leadership

should emphasize

documenting, evaluating, and disseminating information

to assist MJTFs.
88

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Table 2 Multijurisdictional Task Forces Then and Now: 1986–1997

1986 1997

1. Task force were focused primarily 

on drug control targets. Some task 

forces were created to investigate 

career criminals or conspiratorial 

financial investigations.

2. Task force organizations were set 

up to ensure quick response by 

law enforcement to identified 

needs.

3. Task forces had weak and fragmented information and intelligence gathering systems.

4. Target areas included urban or 

primary suburban locations, leaving 

out rural jurisdictions.

5. Little, if any, consideration was 

given to the impact task force 

arrests have on other components

of the criminal justice system.

6. Jurisdictional members usually 

included those within a single 

county or state or even an area or 

region within a single county or 

state.

1. Task forces have expanded their 

focus to include reducing specific 

types of violent crimes, controlling 

gang activity and firearms trafficking, etc.

2. Increasingly, planning and specific 

criteria for pursuing cases, by both 

priority and impact on objectives, 

have become the mode of operation for most task forces. Emphasis 

has expanded from apprehension 

alone to the enhancement of evidence and case credibility and to 

prosecution.

3. Establishment of intelligence systems is a major result of federal 

funding of MJTFs. This could not 

have been achieved by individual 

agencies. Now, the majority of 

jurisdictions involved in MJTFs 

have access to vastly improved 

information resources.

4. Numerous MJTFs now cover 

expansive rural areas, with the 

purpose of not only controlling drug 

use in their jurisdictions but also 

abating drug trafficking through 

these areas. Like other MJTFs, 

rural task forces also address 

violent crime issues.

5. Participation in task forces and 

direct use of and coordination with 

MJTFs by probation, prosecution, 

and court staff, as well as community groups, have evolved over 

time.

6. The complexity of many MJTFs 

and their problem-oriented 

approaches require membership 

from a number of states and counties, as well as local and federal 

agencies.
89

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Table 2 Multijurisdictional Task Forces Then and Now: 1986–1997

(continued)

7. Initially, few task forces had developed operational procedures or 

interagency agreements.

8. Training for task force members, 

as well as supervisors and managers, was generally unavailable.

9. Developing goals and objectives

and monitoring, assessing, and 

reporting on task force activities 

were not high priorities.

10. Model guidelines for multijurisdictional task force development, 

implementation, and evaluation 

were not available.

11. The need for regular coordination

meetings within the task force, and 

with other agencies operating in 

the same jurisdictions, was not 

given high priority.

12. Federal participation, in terms of 

both number and types of agencies 

involved, was low and primarily 

focused on the DEA in larger 

jurisdictions.

7. Formal procedure manuals help to 

establish MJTFs and clearly articulate their purposes and activities.

Interagency agreements go further 

to build consensus on task force 

membership, leadership, and, 

especially, budgeting.

8. Many states have instituted training 

courses for both new members and 

current and future managers of 

MJTFs. Options often include training from a number of federal agencies, including a diverse set of 

training programs provided by the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance.

9. At national, state, and local levels, 

MJTFs have recognized the need 

to provide direction to attain 

expected results—agreed on by 

responsible officials and task force 

managers. BJA can provide hundreds of state and local evaluation 

reports on the operation and 

impact of task forces.

10. The steps necessary to establish 

MJTFs, as well as the critical elements to ensure successful implementation, have been identified 

and have gained wide acceptance.

11. Well-executed and well-maintained 

coordination activities are essential 

to both short- and long-term success. Evaluations have concluded 

that coordination is critical to task 

force success.

12. As MJTFs grew in number and 

popularity as a tactic to fight drugs 

and violent crime, the number and 

types of federal agencies directly 

involved or coordinating their activities have likewise grown to produce 

enhanced operations.

1986 1997
90

Bureau of Justice Assistance

analysis. Completing this summary is a comprehensive reference section

highlighting national, state, and local research and evaluation efforts to date.

This synthesis identifies the need for fine-tuning policies, leadership intervention, and/or procedures to direct future MJTF implementation by state

and local agencies. If task forces are to be successfully sustained, they must

be able to integrate themselves into the existing criminal justice system and

adapt to changes in their environment. Federal leadership should emphasize

documenting, evaluating, and disseminating information to assist MJTFs.
91

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

References

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

Assistance, 1992.

Birkbeck, Christopher, Michelle Hussong, Gary Lafree, and Nora Wilson. An

Evaluation of Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces. Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico

Statistical Analysis Center, 1995.

Brockway, Al. Eight-Year Statistical Report of Montana Multi-Jurisdictional Task

Forces. Helena, MT: Montana Board of Crime Control, 1995.

Brockway, Al, and Fred Fisher. An Evaluation of the Effects of MBCC’s Task

Force Policies and Procedures on Local Task Force Operations. Helena, MT:

Montana Board of Crime Control, 1995.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. A Report to the Attorney General: Bureau of Justice

Assistance Support for Multijurisdictional Task Forces FY 1989–1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1995.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Audit Report: The Drug Enforcement Administration’s and the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s State and Local Task Force Efforts.

Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, 1994.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Multijurisdictional Drug Control Task Forces: A

Five Year Review 1988–1992: A Report of the State Reporting and Evaluation

Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Assistance, 1993.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Multijurisdictional Narcotics Enforcement Task

Forces: Lessons Learned from the OCN Program Model. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Narcotics-Related Financial Investigations: Lessons

Learned from the Finvest Program Model. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Law Enforcement Task Force Evaluation Projects:

Results and Findings in the States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1992.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Multijurisdictional Narcotics Enforcement Task

Forces: Lessons Learned from OCN Program Model. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1992.

Burns, Dawn. Evaluation of Drug Forces in Idaho. Meridian, ID: Idaho

Department of Law Enforcement, 1990.
92

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Chaiken, Jan, Marcia Chaiken, and Clifford Karchmer. Multijurisdictional

Drug Law Enforcement Strategies: Reducing Supply and Demand. Cambridge,

MA: Abt Associates, 1990.

Coldren, James R., Jr. Drug Control Task Forces: Creating and Implementing a

Multijurisdictional Unit. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, 1993.

Coldren, James R., Jr., and Melissa A. Ruboy. Focus on What Works: Law

Enforcement Task Force Evaluation Projects Results and Findings in the States.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance,

1992.

Coldren, James R., Jr., Edmund F. McGarrell, Michael Sabath, Kip Schlegel,

and Lisa A. Stolzenberg. Multijurisdictional Drug Task Force Operations: Results

of a Nationwide Survey of Task Force Commanders. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1993.

Coldren, James R., Jr., et al. Multijurisdictional Drug Task Force Operations:

Results of a Nationwide Survey of Task Force Commanders. Washington, DC:

Justice Research and Statistics Association, 1993.

Dewey, Jennifer. Combining Qualitative Data in an Evaluation of MultiJurisdictional Drug Enforcement Units. Carbondale, IL: Center for the Study

of Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections, 1995.

Dizon, Jesus. Washington State Patrol Multi-Jurisdictional Regional Narcotics

Task Force Participation and Support Program. Olympia, WA: Washington State

Community, Trade and Economic Development, 1996.

Doyle, John, and M. Steven Meagher. Asset Seizures and Forfeitures, 1990

through 1994: An Examination of Task Forces Funded Through the Indiana

Criminal Justice Institute. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana Criminal Justice Institute,

1994.

Draper, Gene. Arrests and Disposition of Persons Arrested by the Texas Anti-Drug

Abuse Task Forces. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council, 1990.

Dunworth, Terence, Peter Haynes, and Aaron J. Saiger. National Assessment of

the Byrne Formula Grant Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1995.

Dunworth, Terence, Peter Haynes, and Aaron J. Saiger. State and Local

Responses to the Byrne Formula Grant Program: A Seven State Study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1995.

Farabaugh, Donald. Evaluation of Drug Task Forces in Maryland. Towson, MD:

Maryland Office of Justice Assistance, 1990.
93

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Gilsinan, James F., and Mary Domahidy. Multijurisdictional Drug Enforcement

Task Forces in Missouri: What Works and Doesn’t Work. St. Louis, MO: Department of Public Policy Studies, St. Louis University, 1991.

Gray-Ray, Phyllis, Anitta Bledsoe, Gregory Dunaway, Terri Earnest, Robert

Frese, Christopher Hensley, and Melvin Ray. An Impact Analysis of Mississippi’s Multijurisdictional Drug Task Forces on Drug-Related Crime and Violence:

Year Five. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi Crime and Justice Research Unit,

Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University, 1996.

Holmes, William M., and Elizabeth Dillion. Joint State/City Task Force on

Drugs and Violence: Analysis of a Multi-Level Task Force. Boston, MA:

Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice, 1991.

Holmes, William M., and Teresa Mayors. The Analysis of Intervention Impacts

and Change in Crime: A Task Force Analytical Exemplar. Boston, MA:

Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice, 1990.

Jackson, Robert A. An Evaluation of the Oregon National Guard’s Participation in

Statewide Drug Law Enforcement. Salem, OR: Oregon Criminal Justice Services

Division, 1990.

Jones, David. Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Forces: A Policy Impact Assessment 

for the Governor’s Crime Commission. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Criminal

Justice Analysis Center, 1994.

Justice Research and Statistics Association. Multijurisdictional Drug Enforcement Task Forces: Accomplishments Under the State and Local Formula Grant

Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice

Assistance, 1992.

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

Information Authority, 1995.

Leonardson, Gary R. Evaluation of Drug Task Forces in South Dakota. Pierre,

SD: South Dakota Attorney General’s Task Force on Drugs, 1990.

Lewis, Ray. 1994 Narcotic Task Force Data Book. St. Paul, MN: Criminal Justice

Center for the Minnesota Office of Drug Policy and Violence Prevention,

1994.

Mande, Mary J., and Suzanne Pullen. Colorado Multi-Jurisdictional Task Forces:

A Multi-Theoretical Approach to Evaluation. Denver, CO: Colorado Division of

Criminal Justice, 1990.

Mayors, Teresa, Pamela Lemoine, and Elizabeth Dillion. Program Implementation: First Year of the 1986 State and Local Narcotics Control Assistance. Boston,

MA: Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice, 1990.
94

Bureau of Justice Assistance

McGarrell, Edmund, and Kip Schlegel. An Evaluation of the South Central

Indiana and Tri-County Narcotics Task Forces. Indianapolis, IN: Center for

Criminal Justice Research and Information, Indiana Criminal Justice

Institute, 1990.

Moran, Patrick. Washington State Patrol Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Enforcement

Task Force Participation Program: An Evaluation. Olympia, WA: Washington

State Department of Community Development, 1993.

Overton, Michael, and Michele B. Evans. Multijurisdictional Drug Task Forces

in Nebraska: The Implementation and Activities of Federally Funded Projects.

Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal

Justice, 1991.

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

Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1991.

Paciocco, Robert J. An Evaluation: Narcotics Task Forces in North Carolina. 

Washington, NC: Mid-East Commission, 1991.

Rebovich, Donald. Approaching a Model for Multi-Jurisdictional Narcotics Task

Forces: An Examination of Characteristics Associated With Local Drug Enforcement

Implementation Effectiveness. Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research

Institute, 1994.

Rebovich, Donald, Christine Harttraft, John Krimmel, and Pamela Shram.

Examining Multi-Jurisdictional Narcotics Task Forces: An Evaluation of New Jersey

Projects Funded Under the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988. Trenton, NJ:

New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice, 1990.

Sabath, Michael J., John P. Doyle, and John W. Ransburg. Multijurisdictional

Drug Task Forces in Indiana: The First Two Years of Operations. Indianapolis, IN:

Center for Criminal Justice Research and Information, Indiana Criminal

Justice Institute, 1990.

Sabath, Michael J., John P. Doyle, and John W. Ransburg. Multijurisdictional

Drug Task Forces: An Enforcement Approach to Drugs in Indiana. Indianapolis,

IN: Center for Criminal Justice and Information, Indiana Criminal Justice

Institute, 1989.

San Diego Association of Governments. Assessment of a Multi-Agency

Approach to Drug Involved Gang Members. San Diego, CA: San Diego

Association of Governments, Criminal Research Division, 1996.

Silva, Roberta K., and Steve Peters. Multijurisdictional Task Forces in Idaho.

Meridian, ID: Idaho Department of Law Enforcement, 1990.

Storkamp, Daniel, and Michelle Powell. Minnesota 1990 Narcotic Task Force

Survey. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Criminal Justice Statistical Analysis Center,

1991.
95

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Wiggins, Dennis. Multijurisdictional Drug Law Enforcement Task Forces: A

Description and Implementation Guide. Des Moines, IA: Iowa Division of

Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, 1991.

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

Statistical Analysis Center, 1996.
97

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

The Bureau of Justice Assistance has created the Intensive Program Evaluation (IPE) Initiative to respond to the Attorney General’s charge to “find

out what works and spread the word.” This new initiative establishes a

mechanism to validate the effectiveness of criminal justice programs based

on published criteria, including evaluation results, and to disseminate information about effective programs through U.S. Department of Justice networks

directly to practitioners. Dissemination approval for effective programs is

based on peer review conducted by the Program Effectiveness Review Panel.

This independent panel is rigorous in its recommendations to the BJA

Director of the panel. In the development of the guidelines, BJA relied heavily on the panel and on past activities of the National Institute of Justice to

identify exemplary, model programs. 

The program objectives are to: 

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

❑ Identify and document useful approaches to designing and conducting

evaluations at state and local levels.

BJA needs to identify effective state and local criminal justice programs,

practices, and products as part of broader efforts at the national level to

improve the criminal justice system by disseminating useful program information to policymakers and practitioners. It is an approach that might be

called “leading by example.” Through this approach, information on successful programs is disseminated to the field in a credible and timely fashion. The effective programs monographs from this initiative communicate

the results from the 56 laboratories (50 states and 6 territories) put in place

under the Byrne Formula Grant Program.

The following guidelines and criteria, to be used for submitting information

about potential programs, are also used by the Program Effectiveness Review

Panel in its review of nominated programs. The panel reviews the programs

and submits its recommendations to the BJA Director of the panel. Once

Appendix A

Identifying Effective Criminal

Justice Programs: Guidelines

and Criteria for the 

Nomination of Effective

Programs
98

Bureau of Justice Assistance

effective programs have been approved by the BJA Director, BJA monographs describing these programs are published.

I. Abstract

To be considered by the panel, the appropriate state agency must submit an

abstract about the program. The abstract should be a concise, 1-page statement (200–300 words) of concrete, observable program outcomes delineating

the following aspects of the program: goals, purposes and needs addressed,

method of operation, audience, and expected result(s).

II. Basic Information

Basic information should be approximately one page. 

A. Project Title

Applicant Agency

Contact Person 

Give the title of the project (including any acronym or abbreviation), the

name of the applicant agency, and the address and a daytime telephone

number of a contact person within the applicant agency. 

B. Original Developer

Mission of Applicant Agency

Provide the name(s) and title(s) of those who originally developed the 

program. Describe the mission of the applicant agency.

C. Project Dates

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

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

Dissemination Funding

List sources of funding for the project and amounts by year. Categories of

sources include federal, state, local, and other.

III. Description of Program

Describe the program in approximately five to six pages.
99

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

A. Background

Foundation

Theoretical Framework

Discuss briefly the history of how and why the program was developed.

Present the theoretical or empirical framework upon which the program is

based.

B. Purposes and Needs Addressed/Problem Statement

Describe the specific needs the program was designed to address. Needs

should be linked to the target audience and special features of the program.

C. Goals

Provide a clear and concise statement of the program’s goals. Include only

those goals that relate directly to claims of effectiveness. In the case of evaluation models designed to meet intermediate objectives, link the objectives to

the ultimate purpose of the program.

D. Objectives

Objectives are the intermediate effects or results to be achieved by the program in pursuing its ultimate goal(s). Objectives measure the extent to

which program goals are being accomplished. Identify appropriate objectives that logically flow from program goals. Objectives should be stated in

terms of outcomes (expected effects or results). A distinction should be made

between outputs (quantities produced) and effects/results.

E. Intended Audience

Identify the relevant demographic characteristics of the population for

which program objectives are designed.

F. Features: How the Program Operates

Provide a complete description of how the program actually operates, identifying all features critical to its implementation. Include the following topics

as they apply to the project: scope (Does the project supplement or replace

an existing program, or is it a component of a larger program?), staff activities and staffing patterns, staff development activities, management activities, and monitoring and evaluation procedures.

G. Significance of Program Design Compared With 

Designs of Similar Programs

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

Note innovative or unique features.
100

Bureau of Justice Assistance

IV. Potential for Replication

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

A. Settings and Participants (Development and 

Evaluation Sites)

Briefly describe the community(ies) where the intervention was developed

or field tested. Socioeconomic, ethnic, and geographic descriptions are

appropriate. 

B. Replicable Components and Documentation

Indicate which aspects of the program are appropriate for replication at

other sites. If the program has developed support materials for dissemination, indicate the type of documentation available.

C. User Requirements

Describe the minimum requirements necessary for implementing the project

at another site (e.g., special staff, facilities, staff training time).

D. Costs for Implementation and Operation

Present a brief explanation of the recurring and nonrecurring costs associated with replicating the project. Discuss costs for personnel, special equipment, and materials and supplies that are necessary for installing and/or

maintaining the program at an adopting site. Costs associated with the

development of the original program should be excluded from this 

discussion.

V. Evidence of Program Success

Provide evidence of the program’s success in approximately six to eight

pages.

A. Impact Statement(s)

The impact statement should include: the target group for which results are

available, the nature of the change effected by the program, the process and

evaluation methods used for measuring the impact of the program, and the

standards used to determine whether the gains achieved are significant.

A clear impact statement is critical, because the panel judges the adequacy of

evidence based on the claim. Further, the statement identifies the project

objectives/outcomes that will be approved for dissemination (i.e., only those

objectives/outcomes reflected in the impact statement and supported by

convincing evidence will be approved).
101

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

B. Description of Methodology

1. Design

An evaluation design usually addresses three factors: the timing of data collection (e.g., pretests and posttests or different points in a time series), the

groups involved (e.g., a group receiving the program and a comparison

group receiving an alternative program), and the way in which a standard of

comparison will be determined (e.g., a treatment group’s gain or change will

be compared with national or state benchmarks).

Describe the type of design used for each claim and the reason for the

choice. Address any assumptions or problems inherent in the research

design that was used.

2. Sample

The discussion of sampling procedures should answer four questions: Who

participated in the study? How was the sample selected? How many participants were included in the final sample? How representative is the sample

of the target population and program participants as a whole?

3. Instruments and Procedures

This section should describe the evaluation instruments and/or procedures

and how each assessment technique relates to program outcomes. Provide

sufficient information so that a judgment can be made about the technical

strength and appropriate use of the measure (e.g., validity, reliability, levels,

subscales).

It is especially important to describe validity and reliability procedures for

project-developed instruments. In such cases, the procedures for instrument

development and field testing should also be explained.

4. Data Collection

Describe the procedures used to select and train reliability testers and the

actual strategies used to ensure quality control during data collection. Indicate the periods of data collection, the persons responsible for supervising

data collection, and the scoring and data summary procedures. It is especially important to describe in detail the data collection and quality control procedures for qualitative evaluations.

5. Data Analysis

If data are quantitative in nature, indicate the statistical technique(s) and 

levels of significance used in the analysis.

If data are qualitative in nature, describe the procedures used to code and

categorize or reduce information for summary purposes. Describe ways in
102

Bureau of Justice Assistance

which linkages were made across data elements to draw and verify 

conclusions.

C. Description of Results

Present detailed results of analyses in table or chart form, if appropriate.

Sufficient detail should be provided for the reader to check conclusions separately. Also, summarize the results for the claims in narrative form, relating

the specific outcomes to the accomplishment of goals.

D. Summary of Supplementary Evidence

Provide additional evidence that supports the results, including anecdotal

information, perceptions of quality, and levels of satisfaction. Supplementary

evidence can also be evidence of the program’s generalizability.

E. Interpretation and Discussion of Results

1. Relationship Between Effect and Treatment

Summarize the results of all data related to the claim that the treatment was

effective. Link the results to specific features of the program design.

2. Control of Rival Hypotheses

Provide evidence of program attribution—that is, evidence that suggests that

the effects can be attributed to the program and not to some other equally

plausible factor. As appropriate to the design, show how the following alternative explanations can be eliminated from consideration: maturation, other

treatments, historical factors, statistical regression, attrition, differential selection of groups, and testing. (Note: Sound evaluation design can control most

rival hypotheses; however, other data may be used to show attribution of

effects.)

F. Significance of Results

1. Relationship of Results to Needs

Demonstrate the importance of the results obtained: How do these results

show that the needs for which the project was designed were met? Establish

the importance of the needs, and demonstrate that the results are broad

enough and powerful enough to be viewed as significant.

2. Comparison of Results With Results From Other Program 

Results

Compare the program results with results of similar projects or national or

statewide initiatives, if appropriate.
103

Creating a New Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century

Sources for Further Information

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

Bureau of Justice Assistance

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

202–514–6278

World Wide Web: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

1–800–688–4252

World Wide Web: www.ncjrs.org

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770 or 202–307–1480

Resources on evaluating criminal justice programs may also be obtained by visiting the 

BJA Evaluation Web site:

www.bja.evaluationwebsite.org
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Information

General Information

Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general information or specific needs,

such as assistance in submitting grants applications and information on training. To contact the Response Center,

call 1–800–421–6770 or write to 1100 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities, requesters can call the

BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service

(NCJRS), shares BJA program information with state and local agencies and community groups across the

country. Information specialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distribution,

participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities. The Clearinghouse can

be reached by:

❒ Mail

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit

2277 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone

1–800–688–4252

Monday through Friday

8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.

eastern time

❒ Fax

301–519–5212

❒ Fax on Demand

1–800–688–4252

❒ BJA Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS World Wide Web

www.ncjrs.org

❒ E-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.org

❒ JUSTINFO Newsletter

E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

Leave the subject line blank

In the body of the message,

type:

subscribe justinfo 

[your name]