This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-434
entitled 'Drug Courts: Better DOJ Data Collection and Evaluation
Efforts Needed to Measure Impact of Drug Court Programs' which was
released on April 18, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the
printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact
electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback.
Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility
features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
April 2002:
Drug Courts:
Better DOJ Data Collection and Evaluation Efforts Needed to Measure
Impact of Drug Court Programs:
GAO-02-434:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DOJ Has Not Sufficiently Managed the Collection and Utilization of
Performance and Outcome Data Collected from Federally Funded Drug
Court Programs:
DOJ's Effort to Complete a National Impact Evaluation of DCPO-Funded
Drug Court Programs Has Fallen Short of Its Objective:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Operating Drug Court Programs by Location as of December
31, 2001:
Appendix III: Drug Court Programs by Target Population as of December
31, 2001:
Appendix IV: Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by
Jurisdiction as of December 31, 2001:
Appendix V: Number, Amount, and Type of DCPO Grants Awarded to Drug
Court Programs:
Appendix VI: Timeline of NIJ's Effort to Complete National Drug Court
Impact Evaluation:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Justice:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VIII: Comments from RAND:
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: DCPO Drug Court Program Appropriations, Grant Awards, and
Other Obligations:
Table 2: Universe of Operating and Planned U.S. Drug Court Programs by
Target Population (Based on information available as of December 31,
2001):
Table 3: Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by
Jurisdiction (Based on information available as of December 31, 2001:
Table 4: Drug Court Program Grants and Awards Administered by DCPO
(fiscal years 1995-2001):
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Drug Court Programs Operating Between 1989 and
December 31, 2001:
Figure 2: Number of Drug Court Programs Started by Calendar Year 1989
through December 31, 2001:
Figure 3: DCPO's Semiannual Data Collection Survey Response Rates:
Figure 4: Number of U.S. Operating Drug Court Programs as of December
31, 2001:
Abbreviations:
DCPO: Drug Courts Program Office:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
NIJ: National Institute of Justice:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
April 18, 2002:
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs:
Committee on the Judiciary:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Jeff Sessions:
United States Senate:
This report responds to your request that we assess the Department of
Justice's (DOJ) efforts to collect data on the performance and impact
of federally funded drug court programs. The main purpose of a drug
court program is to use the authority of the court to reduce crime by
changing defendants' substance abuse behavior. Under this concept, in
exchange for the possibility of dismissed charges or reduced
sentences, defendants are diverted to drug court programs in various
ways and at various stages in the judicial process. Judges generally
preside over drug court proceedings; monitor the progress of
defendants; and prescribe sanctions and rewards as appropriate in
collaboration with prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment
providers, and others. While some basic requirements are set at the
federal level, most decisions about how a drug court operates are left
to local jurisdictions.
This report follows up on our 1997 report,[Footnote 1] which concluded
that (1) many drug court programs were not maintaining follow-up data
on program participants' criminal recidivism or drug use relapse after
they have left the program and (2) differences and limitations in the
objectives, scope, and methodology of existing evaluation studies,
among other things, did not permit firm conclusions to be made on the
overall impact or effectiveness of drug court programs. In our 1997
report, we recommended that DOJ-funded drug court programs be required
to collect and maintain post-program follow-up data on program
participants' criminal recidivism and, to the extent feasible, post-
program follow-up data on drug use relapse. To improve the
methodological soundness of future federally funded impact
evaluations, we recommended that these impact evaluations include post-
program data and comparison groups within their scope. In 1998, DOJ
implemented our recommendations and, beginning in 1999, required its
DCPO-funded programs to periodically provide performance and outcome
data on their drug court programs. In addition, in 1998, DOJ undertook
an effort, through NIJ, to conduct a national impact evaluation using
14 DCPO-funded drug court programs. These efforts included the
collection of post-program data within their scope.
As agreed with your staffs, this report focuses on DOJ's (1) Drug
Courts Program Office's (DCPO) efforts to collect performance and
outcome data from federally funded drug court programs[Footnote 2] and
(2) National Institute of Justice's (NIJ) efforts to complete a
national impact evaluation of federally funded drug court programs.
[Footnote 3] To achieve these objectives, among other things, we (1)
interviewed appropriate DOJ officials and other drug court program
researchers, stakeholders, and practitioners; (2) reviewed DCPO
program guidelines to determine grantee data collection and reporting
requirements; (3) conducted structured interviews with a
representative sample of DCPO-funded drug court programs; and (4)
analyzed data from recently completed surveys conducted by other drug
court community stakeholders. A more detailed description of our scope
and methodology is contained in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
Although requiring that DCPO-funded drug court programs collect and
provide performance measurement and outcome data, DOJ has not
sufficiently managed this effort. The factors contributing to
insufficient management included the (1) inability of DOJ to readily
identify the universe of DCPO-funded drug court programs, including
those subject to DCPO's data collection reporting requirements; (2)
inability of DOJ to accurately determine the number of drug court
programs that responded to DCPO's semiannual data collection survey;
(3) inefficiencies in the administration of DCPO's semiannual data
collection effort; (4) elimination of post-program impact questions
from the scope of DCPO's data collection survey effort; and (5)
insufficient use of the Drug Court Clearinghouse.[Footnote 4]
In addition, various administrative and research factors have hampered
DOJ's ability to complete the two-phase NIJ-sponsored national impact
evaluation study. These included (1) DCPO's delay in notifying DCP0-
funded drug court programs of the NIJ grantee's plans to conduct site
visits; (2) the grantee's lateness in meeting task milestones; (3)
NIJ's multiple grant extensions to the grantee that extended the
timeframe for completing phase I and further delayed NIJ's subsequent
decision to discontinue phase II; and (4) the inability of the phase I
efforts to produce a viable design strategy that was to be used to
complete a national impact evaluation in phase II. DOJ's alternative
plan for addressing the impact of federally funded drug court programs
is not expected to provide information on the impact of federally
funded drug court programs until year 2007. As a result, DOJ continues
to lack vital information that the Congress, the public, and other
program stakeholders may need to determine the overall impact of
federally funded drug court programs and to assess whether drug court
programs are an effective use of federal funds.
We make recommendations in this report for improving DOJ's efforts to
collect performance and outcome data on federally funded drug court
programs and to address the need for more immediate data on the impact
of these programs.
In its April 3, 2002, written comments on a draft of this report, DOJ
noted that we make several valuable recommendations for improving the
collection of data on the performance and impact of federally funded
drug court programs and outlines steps it is considering to address
some of the recommendations we make for improving its collection of
data on the performance and impact of federally funded drug court
programs.
Background:
Since 1989, when the first drug court program was established, the
number of drug court programs has increased substantially. In
addition, DCPO's oversight responsibilities and funding to support the
planning, implementation, and enhancement of these programs have
increased.
As shown in figure 1, the number of operating drug court programs has
more than tripled since our prior report from about 250 in 1997 to
almost 800 in 2001 based on information available as of December 31,
2001.
Figure 1: Number of Drug Court Programs Operating Between 1989 and
December 31, 2001:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Calendar year: 1989;
Number of Drug Court programs operating: 2.
Calendar year: 1990;
Number of Drug Court programs operating: 2.
Calendar year: 1991;
Number of Drug Court programs operating: 6.
Calendar year: 1992;
Number of Drug Court programs operating: 13.
Calendar year: 1993;
Number of Drug Court programs operating: 23.
Calendar year: 1994;
Number of Drug Court programs operating: 44.
Calendar year: 1995;
Number of Drug Court programs operating: 86.
Calendar year: 1996;
Number of Drug Court programs operating: 152.
Calendar year: 1997;
Number of Drug Court programs operating: 254.
Calendar year: 1998;
Number of Drug Court programs operating: 371.
Calendar year: 1999;
Number of Drug Court programs operating: 501.
Calendar year: 2000;
Number of Drug Court programs operating: 675.
Calendar year: 2001;
Number of Drug Court programs operating: 791.
Source: GAO's analysis of data obtained from the Drug Court
Clearinghouse.
[End of figure]
The number of operating programs that received DCPO funding, and thus
were subject to its oversight, has also grown—from over 150 in fiscal
year 1997 to over 560 through fiscal year 2001.[Footnote 5]
As shown in figure 2, the number of drug court programs started by
calendar year since our prior report has also increased. Although the
number of drug court programs started in 2001 dropped, over 450
additional programs have been identified as being planned based on
information available as of December 31, 2001.
Figure 2: Number of Drug Court Programs Started by Calendar Year 1989
through December 31, 2001:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Calendar year: 1989;
Operating: 2.
Calendar year: 1990;
Operating: 0.
Calendar year: 1991;
Operating: 4.
Calendar year: 1992;
Operating: 7.
Calendar year: 1993;
Operating: 10.
Calendar year: 1994;
Operating: 22.
Calendar year: 1995;
Operating: 42.
Calendar year: 1996;
Operating: 66.
Calendar year: 1997;
Operating: 103.
Calendar year: 1998;
Operating: 117.
Calendar year: 1999;
Operating: 132.
Calendar year: 2000;
Operating: 180.
Calendar year: 2001:
Operating: 118;
Planned: 452.
Source: GAO's analysis of Drug Court Clearinghouse data.
[End of figure]
Based on information available as of December 31, 2001, drug court
programs were operating in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico. Only New Hampshire and Vermont had no operating drug
court programs.[Footnote 6] Six states (California, Florida,
Louisiana, Missouri, New York, and Ohio) accounted for over 40 percent
of the programs. Appendix II provides information on the number of
operating drug court programs in each state.
Although there are basic elements common to many drug court programs,
the programs vary in terms of approaches used, participant eligibility
and program requirements, type of treatment provided, sanctions and
rewards, and other practices. Drug court programs also target various
populations (adults, juveniles, families, and Native American tribes).
Appendix III provides details on the number of drug court programs by
targeted population, and appendix AT provides details on the drug
court programs by jurisdiction and the types of funding, if any, the
programs have received from DCPO.
Federal funding for drug court programs has also continued to
increase. As shown in table 1, congressional appropriations for the
implementation of DOJ's drug court program has increased from about
$12 million in fiscal year 1995 to $50 million in fiscal years 2001
and 2002. Since fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated about $267
million in Violent Crime Act[Footnote 7] related funding to DOJ for
the federal drug court program. DCPO funding in direct support of drug
court programs has increased from an average of about $9 million in
fiscal years 1995 and 1996 to an average of about $31 million for
fiscal years 1997 through 2001.[Footnote 8] Between fiscal years 1995
and 2001, DCPO has awarded about $174.5 million in grants to fund the
planning, implementation, and enhancement of drug court programs.
About $21.5 million in technical assistance, training, and evaluations
grants were awarded. About $19.6 million were obligated for management
and administration purposes and to fund nongrant technical assistance,
training, and evaluation efforts. Since the inception of the DCPO drug
court program, a total of $3 million in prior year recoveries have
been realized. About $4.5 million through fiscal year 2001 had not
been obligated. Congress appropriated an additional $50 million for
fiscal year 2002. At the time of our review, DCPO was in the process
of administering the fiscal year 2002 grant award program.
Table 1: DCPO Drug Court Program Appropriations, Grant Awards, and
Other Obligations:
Fiscal year: 1995;
Unobligated balance carried forward: $0.0;
Appropriation amount: $11.9 million;
Drug Court Program grant awards: $9.4 million;
Technical assistance, training, and evaluation grants: $0.8 million;
Management and administration, and other obligations[A]: $0.4 million;
Prior year recoveries: $0.0;
Unobligated balance remaining: $1.3 million.
Fiscal year: 1996;
Unobligated balance carried forward: $1.3 million;
Appropriation amount: $15.0 million;
Drug Court Program grant awards: $8.3 million;
Technical assistance, training, and evaluation grants: $0.3 million;
Management and administration, and other obligations[A]: $0.0;
Prior year recoveries: $0.0;
Unobligated balance remaining: $7.7 million.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Unobligated balance carried forward: $7.7 million;
Appropriation amount: $30.3[B] million;
Drug Court Program grant awards: $28.2 million;
Technical assistance, training, and evaluation grants: $2.5 million;
Management and administration, and other obligations[A]: $0.9 million;
Prior year recoveries: $0.1 million;
Unobligated balance remaining: $6.5 million;.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Unobligated balance carried forward: $6.5 million;
Appropriation amount: $30.0 million;
Drug Court Program grant awards: $30.7 million;
Technical assistance, training, and evaluation grants: $4.5 million;
Management and administration, and other obligations[A]: $1.1 million;
Prior year recoveries: $0.2 million;
Unobligated balance remaining: $0.4 million.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Unobligated balance carried forward: $0.4 million;
Appropriation amount: $40.0 million;
Drug Court Program grant awards: $37.3 million;
Technical assistance, training, and evaluation grants: $0.9 million;
Management and administration, and other obligations[A]: $1.8 million;
Prior year recoveries: $1.2 million;
Unobligated balance remaining: $1.6 million.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Unobligated balance carried forward: $1.6 million;
Appropriation amount: $40.0 million;
Drug Court Program grant awards: $27.0 million;
Technical assistance, training, and evaluation grants: $7.0 million;
Management and administration, and other obligations[A]: $3.3 million;
Prior year recoveries: $0.4 million;
Unobligated balance remaining: $4.7 million.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Unobligated balance carried forward: $4.7 million;
Appropriation amount: $49.9[C] million;
Drug Court Program grant awards: $33.6 million;
Technical assistance, training, and evaluation grants: $5.5 million;
Management and administration, and other obligations[A]: $12.1 million;
Prior year recoveries: $1.1 million;
Unobligated balance remaining: $4.5 million.
Fiscal year: Total;
Appropriation amount: $217.1[D] million;
Drug Court Program grant awards: $174.5 million;
Technical assistance, training, and evaluation grants: $21.5 million;
Management and administration, and other obligations[A]: $19.6 million;
Prior year recoveries: $3.0 million;
Unobligated balance remaining: $4.5 million.
[A] Other obligations include nongrant obligations (contracts,
purchase orders, etc.) which could include technical assistance,
training, and evaluation efforts.
[B] Includes $339,000 in appropriation funds transferred by the Office
of National Drug Control Policy to DOJ.
[C] DCPO's fiscal year 2001 appropriation amount was reduced by a
0.0022% congressional recision.
[D] Congress appropriated an additional $50 million for fiscal year
2002. At the time of our review, DCPO was in the process of
administering the fiscal year 2002 grant award program.
Source: Public Laws and DOJ's Office of Justice Programs' Office of
Budget and Management Services.
[End of table]
Appendix V provides details on the number, amount, and types of grants
DCPO awarded since the implementation of the federal drug court
program.
DOJ Has Not Sufficiently Managed the Collection and Utilization of
Performance and Outcome Data Collected from Federally Funded Drug
Court Programs:
Since 1998, DCPO implementation and enhancement grantees have been
required to collect, and starting in 1999, to submit to DCPO, among
other things, performance and outcome data on program participants.
DCPO collects these data semiannually using a Drug Court Grantee Data
Collection Survey. This survey was designed by DCPO to ensure that
grantees were collecting critical information about their drug court
programs and to assist in the national evaluation of drug court
programs. In addition, DOJ intended to use the information to respond
to inquiries regarding the effectiveness of drug court programs.
However, due to various factors, DCPO has not sufficiently managed the
collection and utilization of these data. As a result, DOJ cannot
provide Congress, drug court program stakeholders, and others with
reliable information on the performance and impact of federally funded
drug court programs.
Factors Contributing to Insufficiencies in DOJ's Management:
Various factors contributed to insufficiencies in DOJ's drug court
program data collection effort. These factors included (1) inability
of DOJ to readily identify the universe of DCPO-funded drug court
programs, including those subject to DCPO's data collection reporting
requirements; (2) inability of DOJ to accurately determine the number
of drug court programs that responded to DCPO's semiannual data
collection survey; (3) inefficiencies in the administration of DCPO's
semiannual data collection effort; (4) the elimination of post-program
impact questions from the scope of DCPO's data collection survey
effort; and (5) the insufficient use of the Drug Court Clearinghouse.
DOJ Has Been Unable to Readily Identify the Universe of Drug Court
Programs It Has Funded:
DOJ's grant management information system, among other things, tracks
the number and dollar amount of grants the agency has awarded to state
and local jurisdictions and Native American tribes to plan, implement,
and enhance drug court programs. This system, however, is unable to
readily identify the actual number of drug court programs DCPO has
funded. Specifically, the system does not contain a unique drug court
program identifier, does not track grants awarded to a single grantee
but used for more than one drug court program, and contains data entry
errors that impact the reliability of data on the type of grants
awarded. For example, at the time of our review, the system contained
some incorrectly assigned grant numbers, did not always identify the
type of grant awarded, and incorrectly identified several grantees as
receiving a planning, implementation, and enhancement grant in fiscal
year 2000. These factors made it difficult for DCPO to readily produce
an accurate universe of the drug court programs that had received DCPO
funding and were subject to DCPO's data collection reporting
requirement.
Although DOJ has been able to provide information to enable an
estimate of the universe of DCPO-funded drug court programs to be
derived, the accuracy of this information is questionable because DCPO
has relied on the Drug Court Clearinghouse to determine the number of
DCPO-funded drug court programs and their program implementation
dates. One of the Drug Court Clearinghouse's functions has been to
identify DCPO-funded drug court programs. However, the Drug Court
Clearinghouse has only been tasked since 1998 with following up with a
segment of DCPO grantees to determine their implementation date. Thus,
the information provided to DCPO on the universe of DCPO-funded drug
court programs is at best an estimate and not a precise count of DCPO
drug court program grantees. Noting that its current grant information
system was not intended to readily identify and track the number of
DCPO-funded drug court programs, DCPO officials said that they plan to
develop a new management information system that will enable DOJ to do
so. Without an accurate universe of DCPO-funded drug court programs,
DCPO is unable to readily determine the actual number of programs or
participants it has funded or, as discussed below, the drug court
programs that should have responded to its semiannual data collection
survey.
DOJ Has Been Unable to Accurately Determine Response Rates for Its
Data Collection Survey:
According to DCPO officials, grantee response rates to DCPO's
semiannual survey have declined since DCPO began administering the
survey in 1998. As shown in figure 3, the information in DCPO's
database indicated that grantee response rates declined from about 78
percent for the first survey reporting period (July to Dec. 1998) to
about 32 percent for the July to December 2000 reporting period.
However, results from our follow-up structured interviews with a
representative sample of the identifiable universe of drug court
programs that were DCPO grantees during the 2000 reporting periods
revealed that DCPO did not have an accurate account of grantees'
compliance with its semiannual data collection survey.[Footnote 9]
Based on our structured interviews, we estimate that the response rate
to the DCPO data collection survey for the January to June 2000
reporting period was about 60 percent in contrast to the 39 percent
response rate DCPO reported. Similarly, the response rate to the DCPO
survey for the July to December 2000 reporting period was about 61
percent in contrast to the 32 percent response rate DCPO reported. The
remaining programs did not respond or were uncertain as to whether
they responded to DCPO's data collection survey for each of the
reporting periods in 2000. DOJ officials said that some of the surveys
they did not receive may have been mailed to an incorrect office
within DOJ. DCPO officials acknowledged that this type of error could
be mitigated if DCPO routinely followed up with the drug court
programs from which they did not receive responses.
Figure 3: DCPO's Semiannual Data Collection Survey Response Rates[A]:
Reporting period: July-December 1998;
Response rate provided by DPO: 78%.
Reporting period: January-June 1999;
Response rate provided by DPO: 46%.
Reporting period: July-December 1999;
Response rate provided by DPO: 42%.
Reporting period: January-June 2000;
Response rate provided by DPO: 39%;
Response rates based on GAO interviews: 60%.
Reporting period: July-December 2000;
Response rate provided by DPO: 32%;
Response rates based on GAO interviews: 61%.
Source: DCPO data and GAO follow-up interviews with DCPO grantees.
[A] Percentages are rounded.
[End of figure]
Furthermore, based on our follow-up structured interviews with a
representative sample of DCPO-funded drug court programs that were
listed as nonrespondents in DCPO's database, we estimate that about 61
percent[Footnote 10] had actually responded to DCPO's survey for the
January to June 2000 reporting period. About two-thirds[Footnote 11]
of these programs could produce evidence that they responded. For the
July to December 2000 reporting period, we estimate that about 51
percent[Footnote 12] of the DCPO-funded drug court programs that were
listed as nonrespondents in DCPO's database had actually responded to
the survey. About two-thirds[Footnote 13] of these programs could
produce evidence that they responded.
Drug Courts Inefficiencies Existed in the Administration of DCPO's
Semiannual Data Collection Effort:
The requirement for grantees to submit DCPO's semiannual survey is
outlined in DOJ's grant award notification letter that drug court
program grantees receive at the beginning of their grant period. In
addition, the survey is made available in the grantee application kit
as well as on DCPO's website. However, other than these steps, DCPO
has not consistently notified its drug court program grantees of the
semiannual reporting requirements nor has it routinely forwarded the
survey to grantees. At the time of our review, DCPO had taken limited
action to improve grantees' compliance with the data collection survey
requirements. DCPO officials said that they generally had not followed
up with drug court program grantees that did not respond to the survey
and had not taken action towards the grantees that did not respond to
the semiannual data collection reporting requirement. Results from our
follow-up structured interviews showed that DCPO had not followed up
to request completed surveys from about 70 percent[Footnote 14] of the
drug court program grantees that were nonrespondents during the
January to June 2000 reporting period and from about 76 percent
[Footnote 15] of the nonrespondents for the July to December 2000
reporting period.
DCPO has had other difficulties managing its data collection effort.
Specifically, (1) DCPO inadvertently instructed drug court program
grantees not to respond to questions about program participants'
criminal recidivism while in the program; (2) confusion existed
between DCPO and its contractor, assigned responsibility for the
semiannual data collection effort, over who would administer DCPO's
data collection survey during various reporting periods; and (3) some
grantees were using different versions of DOJ's survey instruments to
respond to the semiannual data collection reporting requirement.
DCPO Eliminated Post-Program Data from Its Data Collection Effort:
The overall success of a drug court programs is dependent on whether
defendants in the program stay off drugs and do not commit more crimes
when they complete the program. In our 1997 report we recommended that
drug court programs funded by discretionary grants administered by DOJ
collect and maintain follow-up data on program participants' criminal
recidivism and, to the extent feasible, follow-up data on drug use
relapse. In 1998, DCPO required its implementation and enhancement
grantees to collect and provide performance and outcome data on
program participants, including data on participants' criminal
recidivism and substance abuse relapse after they have left the
program. However, in 2000, DCPO revised its survey and eliminated the
questions that were intended to collect post-program outcome data.
The DCPO Director said that DCPO's decision was based on, among other
things, drug court program grantees indicating that they were not able
to provide post-program outcome data and that they lacked sufficient
resources to collect such data. DCPO, however, was unable to produce
specific evidence from grantees (i.e., written correspondence) that
cited difficulties with providing post-program outcome data. The
Director said that difficulties have generally been conveyed by
grantees, in person, through telephone conversations, or are evidenced
by the lack of responses to the post-program questions on the survey.
Contrary to DCPO's position, evidence exists that supports the
feasibility of collecting post-program performance and outcome data.
During our 1997 survey of the drug court programs,[Footnote 16] 53
percent of the respondents said that they maintained follow-up data on
participants' rearrest or conviction for a nondrug crime. Thirty-three
percent said that they maintained follow-up data on participants'
substance abuse relapse.
Recent information collected from DCPO grantees continues to support
the feasibility of collecting post-program performance and outcome
data. The results of structured interviews we conducted in the year
2001 with a representative sample of DCPO-funded drug court programs
showed that an estimated two-thirds of the DCPO-funded drug court
programs maintained criminal recidivism data on participants after
they left the program. About 84 percent of these programs maintained
such data for 6 months or more. Of the remaining one-third that did
not maintain post-program recidivism data, it would be feasible for
about 63 percent[Footnote 17] to provide such data. These estimates
suggest that about 86 percent of DCPO-funded drug court programs would
be able to provide post-program recidivism data if requested.
The results of structured interviews we conducted in the year 2001
with a representative sample of DCPO-funded drug court programs also
showed that about one-third of the DCPO-funded drug court programs
maintained substance abuse relapse data on participants after they
have left the program. About 84 percent of these programs maintained
such data for 6 months or more. Of the estimated two-thirds that did
not maintain post-program substance abuse relapse data, it would be
feasible for about 30 percent to provide such data. These estimates
suggest that about 50 percent of DCPO-funded drug court programs would
be able to provide post-program substance abuse data if requested.
According to survey results collected by the Drug Court Clearinghouse
in 2000 and 2001, a significant number of the drug court programs were
able to provide post-program outcome data. For example, about 47
percent of the DCPO-funded adult drug court programs that responded to
the Drug Court Clearinghouse's 2000 operational survey[Footnote 18]
reported that they maintained some type of follow-up data on program
participants after they have left the program. Of these drug court
programs, about 92 percent said that they maintained follow-up data on
recidivism and about 45 percent said that they maintained follow-up
data on drug usage.
Of the DCPO-funded adult and juvenile drug court programs operating
for at least a year that responded to the Drug Court Clearinghouse's
annual survey that was published in 2001,[Footnote 19] about 56
percent were able to provide follow-up data on program graduates'
recidivism and about 55 percent were able to provide follow-up data on
program graduates' drug use relapse.[Footnote 20]
DCPO Has Not Sufficiently Utilized the Drug Court Clearinghouse's Data
Collection Efforts:
Operating under a cooperative agreement with DCPO, the Drug Court
Clearinghouse has successfully collected performance and outcome data
through an annual survey of all operating adult, juvenile, family, and
tribal drug court programs, including those funded by DCPO. In
addition, as previously noted, the Drug Court Clearinghouse has
generally administered an operational survey to adult drug court
programs every 3 years, including those funded by DCPO. The Drug Court
Clearinghouse annually disseminates the results from its annual survey
and has periodically published comprehensive drug court survey reports
that provide detailed operational, demographic, and outcome data on
the adult drug court programs identified through its data collection
efforts. Although funded by DOJ, the Drug Court Clearinghouse has not
been required to primarily collect and report separately on the
universe of DCPO-funded programs. In addition, no comprehensive or
representative report has been produced by DCPO or the Drug Court
Clearinghouse that focuses primarily on the performance and outcome of
DCPO-funded drug court programs. Instead, DCPO instructed the Drug
Court Clearinghouse, in July 2001, to eliminate recidivism data from
its survey publications. Although the Drug Court Clearinghouse has
developed and implemented survey instruments to periodically collect
and disseminate recidivism and relapse data, the DCPO Director had
concerns with the quality of the self-reported data collected and the
inconsistent time frames for which post-program data were being
collected by drug court programs.
DOJ's Effort to Complete a National Impact Evaluation of DCPO-Funded
Drug Court Programs Has Fallen Short of Its Objective:
In response to recommendations in our 1997 report, DOJ undertook,
through NIJ, an effort to conduct a two-phase national impact
evaluation focusing on 14 selected[Footnote 21] DCPO-funded drug court
programs.[Footnote 22] This effort was intended to include post-
program data within its scope and to involve the use of nonparticipant
comparison groups. However, various administrative and research
factors hampered DOJ's ability to complete the NIJ-sponsored national
impact evaluation, which was originally to be completed by June 30,
2001. As a result, DOJ fell short of its objective, discontinued this
effort, and is considering an alternative study that, if implemented,
is not expected to provide information on the impact of federally
funded drug court programs until year 2007. Unless DOJ takes interim
steps to evaluate the impact of drug court programs, the Congress, the
public, and other drug court stakeholders will not have sufficient
information in the near term to assess the overall impact of federally
funded drug court programs.
The Objectives of DOJ's National Evaluation Effort:
The overall objective of the NIJ-sponsored national evaluation was to
study the impact of DCPO-funded drug court programs using comparison
groups and studying, among other things, criminal recidivism and drug
use relapse. This effort was to be undertaken in two phases and to
include the collection of post-program outcome data. The objectives
for phase I, for which NIJ awarded a grant to RAND in August 1998,
were to (1) develop a conceptual framework for evaluating the 14 DCPO-
funded drug court programs, (2) provide a description of the
implementation of each program, (3) determine the feasibility of
including each of these 14 drug court programs in a national impact
evaluation, and (4) develop a viable design strategy for evaluating
program impact and the success of the 14 drug court programs. The
design strategy was to be presented in the form of a written proposal
for a supplemental noncompetitive phase II grant.
The actual impact evaluation and an assessment of the success of the
drug court programs were to be completed during phase II of the study
using a design strategy resulting from phase I.
Various Administrative and Research Factors Hampered Completion of the
National Impact Evaluation:
NIJ's two-phase national impact evaluation was originally planned for
completion by June 30, 2001. Phase I was awarded for up to 24 months
and was scheduled to conclude no later than June 30, 2000. However
phase I was not completed until September 2001--15 months after the
original project due date.[Footnote 23] Phase II, which NIJ expected
to award after the satisfactory submission of a viable design strategy
for completing an impact evaluation, has since been discontinued.
Various administrative and research factors contributed to delays in
the completion of phase I and DOJ's subsequent decision to discontinue
the evaluation. The factors included (1) DCPO's delay in notifying its
grantees of RAND's plans to conduct site visits; (2) RAND's lateness
in meeting task milestones; (3) NIJ's multiple grant extensions to
RAND that extended the timeframe for completing phase I and further
delayed NIJ's subsequent decision to discontinue phase II; and (4) the
inability of the phase I efforts to produce a viable design strategy
that was to be used to complete a national impact evaluation in phase
II.
Administrative Delay in Notifying Grantees:
Phase I of the NIJ-sponsored study was initially hampered by DCPO's
delay in notifying its grantees of plans to conduct the national
impact evaluation. In November 1998, DCPO agreed to write a letter
notifying its grantees of RAND's plan to conduct the national
evaluation. The notification letters were sent in March 1999. As a
result, drug court program site visits, which RAND had originally
planned to complete by February 1999, were not completed until July
1999.
Lateness in Meeting Task Milestones:
Although RAND completed most of the tasks associated with the national
evaluation phase I objectives, it was generally late in meeting task
milestones. The conceptual framework for the evaluation of 14 DCPO-
funded drug court programs, which RAND was originally scheduled to
complete by September 1999, was submitted to NIJ in May 2000-8 months
after the original task milestone. This timeframe, according to RAND,
was impacted by the delay in DOJ's initiation of site visits. NIJ
officials said that RAND also did not deliver a complete description
and analysis of drug court implementation issues to NIJ, which was
also due in September 1999, until it received the first draft of
RAND's report in March 2001.[Footnote 24] The feasibility study, which
was originally scheduled to be completed by RAND in September 1999,
was provided to NIJ in November 1999. This study informed NIJ of
RAND's concerns with the evaluability of some of the 14 selected DCPO
sites. The viable design strategy proposal for evaluating program
impact at each of the 14 drug court programs, which RAND was
originally expected to complete by May 1999, was not completed. In
addition, as discussed below and detailed in appendix VI, RAND was
consistently late in meeting the extended milestones for delivery of
the final product for phase I.
Multiple Grant Extensions:
Although RAND raised concerns in November 1999 regarding the
feasibility of completing a national impact evaluation at some of the
14 selected DCPO sites, NIJ continued to grant multiple no-cost
extensions that further extended the completion of phase I. The first
no-cost grant extension called for phase I of the project to end by
September 30, 2000; the second no-cost extension called for phase Ito
end by December 31, 2000; and the final extension authorized
completion of phase I by May 31, 2001. Despite the multiple extensions
and RAND's repeated assurances that the phase I report was imminent, a
final phase I report was not completed until September 18, 2001-21
months after the original milestone for completion of phase I. NIJ
officials said that, in retrospect, they should have discontinued this
effort sooner. Appendix VI provides additional details on the phase I
delays in the NIJ-sponsored effort to complete a national impact
evaluation.
Lack of a Viable Design Strategy:
Phase I of the NIJ-sponsored national impact evaluation did not
produce a viable design strategy that would enable an impact
evaluation to be completed during phase II using the selected DCPO-
funded drug court programs. RAND did offer an alternative approach.
However, this approach did not address the original objective—to
conduct a national impact evaluation. During its feasibility study,
RAND rated the evaluability of the 14 program sites as follows: 4 -
poor or neutral/poor, 5 - neutral, and 5 -neutral/good or good. In
response, NIJ and DCPO asked RAND to consider completing the
evaluation using those DCPO-funded program sites that were deemed
somewhat feasible. RAND, however, was not receptive to this suggestion
and did not produce a viable design strategy based on the 14 DCPO-
funded programs or the subset of DCPO-funded programs that were deemed
feasible to use in phase II to evaluate the impact of federally funded
drug court programs.[Footnote 25] As a result, DOJ continues to lack a
design strategy for conducting a national impact to enable it to
address the impact of federally funded drug court programs in the near
term.
DOJ's Alternative Plan for Completing a National Evaluation Will Not
Provide Near-Term Answers:
To address the need for the completion of a national impact
evaluation, DCPO and NIJ are considering plans to complete a
longitudinal study[Footnote 26] of drug-involved offenders in up to 10
drug court program jurisdictions. The DCPO Director said that the
study would be done at a national level, and the scope would include
comparison groups and the collection of individual level and post-
program recidivism data. DOJ expects that this project, which is in
its formative stage, if implemented, will take up to 4 years to
complete—-with results likely in year 2007. We recognize that it would
take time to design and implement a rigorous longitudinal evaluation
study and that if properly implemented, such an effort should better
enable DOJ to provide information on the overall impact of federally
funded drug court programs. However, its year 2007 completion
timeframe will not enable DOJ to provide the Congress and other
stakeholders with near-term information on the overall impact of
federally funded drug court programs that has been lacking for nearly
a decade.
Conclusions:
Despite a significant increase in the number of drug court programs
funded by DCPO since 1997 that are required to collect and maintain
performance and outcome data, DOJ continues to lack vital information
on the overall impact of federally funded drug court programs.
Furthermore, the agency's alternative plan for addressing the impact
of federally funded drug court programs will not offer near-term
answers on the overall impact of these programs. Improvements in
DCPO's management of the collection and utilization of performance and
outcome data from federally funded drug court programs are needed.
Additionally, more immediate steps from NIJ and DCPO to carry out a
methodologically sound national impact evaluation could better enable
DOJ to provide Congress and other drug court program stakeholders with
more timely information on the overall impact of federally funded drug
court programs. Until DOJ takes such actions, the Congress, public,
and other stakeholders will continue to lack sufficient information to
(1) measure long-term program benefits, if any; (2) assess the impact
of federally funded drug court programs on the criminal behavior of
substance abuse offenders; or (3) assess whether drug court programs
are an effective use of federal funds.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the Department of Justice's collection of data on the
performance and impact of federally funded drug court programs, we
recommend that the Attorney General:
* develop and implement a management information system that is able
to track and readily identify the universe of drug court programs
funded by DCPO;
* take steps to ensure and sustain an adequate grantee response rate
to DCPO's data collection efforts by improving efforts to notify and
remind grantees of their reporting requirements;
* take corrective action towards grantees who do not comply with DOJ's
data collection reporting requirements;
* reinstate the collection of post-program data in DCPO's data
collection effort, selectively spot checking grantee responses to
ensure accurate reporting;
* analyze performance and outcome data collected from grantees and
report annually on the results; and;
* consolidate the multiple DOJ-funded drug court program-related data
collection efforts to better ensure that the primary focus is on the
collection and reporting of data on DCPO-funded drug court programs.
To better ensure that needed information on the impact of federally
funded drug court programs is made available to the Congress, public,
and other drug court stakeholders as early as possible, we also
recommend that the Attorney General take immediate steps to accelerate
the funding and implementation of a methodologically sound national
impact evaluation and to consider ways to reduce the time needed to
provide information on the overall impact of federally funded drug
court programs. Furthermore, we recommend that steps be taken to
implement appropriate oversight of this evaluation effort to ensure
that it is well designed and executed, and remains on schedule.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Attorney
General. We also requested comments from RAND on a section of the
draft report pertaining to its efforts to complete phase I of NIJ's
national evaluation effort.
On April 3, 2002, DOJ provided written comments on the draft report
(see appendix VII). The Assistant Attorney General for the Office of
Justice Programs noted that we made several valuable recommendations
for improving the collection of data on the performance and impact of
federally funded drug court programs and outlined steps DOJ is
considering to address two of the six recommendations we make for
improving its collection of data on the performance and impact of
federally funded drug court programs. However, concerning the
remaining four recommendations for improving DOJ's data collection
effort, DOJ does not specifically outline any plans (1) for taking
corrective action towards grantees who do not comply with DCPO's data
collection reporting requirements; (2) to reinstate the collection of
post program data in DCPO's data collection effort, despite the
evidence cited in our report supporting the feasibility of collecting
post program data; (3) to analyze and report results on the
performance and outcome of DCPO grantees; and (4) to consolidate the
multiple DOJ-funded drug court program-related data collection efforts
to ensure that the primary focus of any future efforts is on the
collection and reporting of data on DCPO-funded programs.
Although DOJ points out in its comments that a number of individual
program evaluation studies have been completed, no national impact
evaluation of these programs has been done to date. We continue to
believe that until post-program follow-up data on program participants
are collected across a broad range of programs and also included
within the scope of future program and impact evaluations (including
nonprogram participant data), it will not be possible to reach firm
conclusions about whether drug court programs are an effective use of
federal funds or whether different types of drug court program
structures funded by DCPO work better than others. Also, unless these
results are compared with those on the impact of other criminal
justice programs, it will not be clear whether drug court programs are
more or less effective than other criminal justice programs. As such,
these limitations have prevented firm conclusions from being drawn on
the overall impact of federally funded drug court programs.
With respect to our recommendations for improving DOJ's drug court
program-related impact evaluation efforts, DOJ, in its comments,
outlines steps it is taking to complete a multisite impact evaluation
and its plans to monitor the progress of this effort and to provide
interim information during various intervals. As discussed on page 18
of this report, this effort is intended to be done at a national
level, and the scope is to include comparison groups and the
collection of individual-level and post-program recidivism data.
On April 1, 2002, RAND provided written comments on the segment of the
draft report relating to DOJ's efforts to complete a national impact
evaluation (see appendix VIII). In its comments, RAND, as we do in our
report, acknowledges the need for improvements in the data collection
infrastructure for DCPO-funded drug court programs. RAND notes its
rationale for why it views the deliverables associated with phase I of
the NIJ-sponsored national impact evaluation as being timely and notes
that researchers generally have discretion to revise timelines and
scopes of work, with the agreement of the client. However, as we point
out in our report (pp. 17-18 and appendix VI), RAND requested several
no-cost extensions to complete the deliverables for various task
milestones and did not produce a viable design strategy for addressing
the impact of DCPO-funded drug court programs. In addition, NIJ
officials said that RAND also did not deliver a complete description
and analysis of drug court implementation issues to NIJ until it
received the first draft of RAND's report in March 2001. The
deliverable RAND refers to in its comment letter was a paper that RAND
had prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which NIJ never
considered to be a product under the grant to evaluate the impact of
DCPO-funded drug court programs. As we also pointed out in our report
(p. 17 and appendix VI), NIJ was not amenable to RAND changing the
scope or methodology of the national impact evaluation effort. In
addition, RAND commented that a "simple" evaluation design was
expected. NIJ's original objective, however, never called for a simple
evaluation design, but rather a viable design strategy involving the
use of comparison groups and the collection of post-program data.
We conducted our work at DOJ headquarters in Washington, D.C., between
March 2001 and February 2002 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly release its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its issue date. At that time, we will provide copies of this
report to the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, and other interested parties. We will also make
copies available to others upon request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact Daniel C. Harris or me at (202) 512-2758 or at
ekstrandl@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report are acknowledged in
appendix IX.
Signed by:
Laurie E. Ekstrand:
Director, Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our overall objective for this review was to assess how well the
Department of Justice (DOJ) has implemented efforts to collect
performance and impact data on federally funded drug court programs.
We specifically focused on DOJ's (1) Drug Courts Program Office's
(DCPO) efforts to collect performance and outcome data from federally
funded drug court programs and (2) National Institute of Justice's
(NIJ) efforts to complete a national impact evaluation of federally
funded drug court programs.
While there are drug court programs that receive funds from other
federal sources, our review focused on those programs receiving
federal funds from DCPO, which is DOJ's component responsible for
administering the federal drug court program under the Violent Crime
Act. The scope of our work was limited to (1) identifying the
processes DCPO used to implement its semiannual data collection
effort; (2) determining DCPO grantees' compliance with semiannual data
collection and reporting requirements; (3) determining what action, if
any, DCPO has taken to monitor and ensure grantee compliance with the
data collection reporting requirements; (4) identifying factors and
barriers that may have contributed to a grantee's nonresponse and to
delays in and the subsequent discontinuation of the NIJ-sponsored
national evaluation of DCPO-funded programs; and (5) identifying
improvements that may be warranted in DOJ's data collection efforts.
To assess how well DCPO has implemented efforts to collect performance
and outcome data from federally funded drug court programs, we (1)
interviewed appropriate DOJ officials and other drug court program
stakeholders and practitioners; (2) reviewed DCPO program guidelines
to determine the drug court program grantee data collection and
reporting requirements; (3) analyzed recent survey data collected by
DCPO and the Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project
(Drug Court Clearinghouse) to obtain information on the number of drug
court programs that have been able to provide outcome data; and (4)
conducted structured interviews with a statistically valid probability
sample of DCPO-funded drug court programs to determine (a) the
programs' ability to comply with DCPO's data collection requirements,
(b) whether the programs had complied with the data collection
requirements, and (c) for those programs that did not comply with the
data collection requirements, why they did not comply and what action,
if any, DCPO had taken.
For our structured interviews, we selected a stratified, random sample
of 112 DCPO-funded drug court programs from a total of 315 drug court
programs identified by DOJ as DCPO grantees in 2000. We stratified our
sample into two groups based on whether the programs were listed in
DCPO's database as respondents or nonrespondents to the required DCPO
semiannual data collection survey in year 2000. To validate the
accuracy of the list provided by DCPO, we compared the listing of 315
drug court programs identified as required to comply during a year
2000 reporting period with information on drug court program-related
grant awards made by DCPO that was provided by OJP's Office of the
Comptroller to determine if the program was a DCPO grantee during the
year 2000 reporting period. We defined a respondent as any drug court
program grantee that was identified in DCPO's database as having
responded to the DCPO survey during each applicable year 2000
reporting period. We defined a nonrespondent as a drug court program
grantee that was identified in DCPO's database as not having responded
to the DCPO survey during any applicable year 2000 reporting period.
We used a structured data collection instrument to interview grantees.
We interviewed 73 nonrespondents and 39 respondents. All results were
weighted to represent the total population of drug court programs
operating under a DCPO grant in year 2000.
All statistical samples are subject to sampling errors. Measures of
sampling error are defined by two elements, the width of the
confidence intervals around the estimate (sometimes called the
precision of the estimate) and the confidence level at which the
intervals are computed. Because we followed a probability procedure
based on random selections, our sample is only one of a large number
of samples that we might have drawn. As each sample could have
provided different estimates, we express our confidence level in the
precision of our sample results as a 95 percent confidence interval.
This is the interval that would contain the actual population value
for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn. As a result, we are
95 percent confident that each of the confidence intervals based on
the structured interviews will include the true value in the study
population. All percentage estimates from the structured interviews
have sampling errors of plus or minus 10 percentage points or less
unless otherwise noted. For example, this means that if a percentage
estimate is 60 percent and the 95 percent confidence interval is plus
or minus 10 percentage points, we have 95 percent confidence that the
true value in the population falls between 50 percent and 70 percent.
We performed limited verification of the drug court programs in our
sample that were identified as non-respondents in DCPO's database to
determine whether they were actually DCPO grantees in 2000. Data
obtained from the drug court programs was self-reported and, except
for evidence obtained to confirm grantee compliance with DCPO's year
2000 reporting requirements, we generally did not validate their
responses. We also did not fully verify the accuracy of the total
number of drug court programs, or universe of drug court programs,
provided to us by DCPO and the Drug Court Clearinghouse.
To assess DOJ's efforts to complete a national impact evaluation of
federally funded drug court programs, we interviewed officials from
(1) NIJ, who were responsible for DOJ's national evaluation effort;
(2) DCPO, who were responsible for administering the federal drug
court program under the Violent Crime Act; and (3) RAND, who were
awarded the NIJ grant to complete phase I of the national evaluation
effort. To identify the various administrative and research factors
that hampered the completion of DOJ's national impact evaluation, we
(1) interviewed NIJ and RAND officials who were responsible for the
research project; (2) reviewed project objectives, tasks, and
milestones outlined in NIJ's original solicitation and the NIJ
approved RAND proposal and grant award; (3) reviewed correspondence
between NIJ and RAND from 1998-2001; and (4) reviewed various project
documents, including (a) RAND's evaluability assessment, (b) progress
reports submitted to NIJ, (c) RAND's requests for no-cost extensions,
(d) NIJ grant adjustment notices, (e) RAND's phase I draft report, and
(f) RAND's phase I final report. Additionally, we compared project
task milestones included in the NIJ approved RAND proposal with the
actual project task completion dates.
To determine the universe and DCPO funding of drug court programs, we
(a) interviewed appropriate DOJ officials and other drug court program
stakeholders and practitioners; (b) reviewed and analyzed grant
information obtained from DOJ's Office of Justice Programs grant
management information system and DCPO; (c) reviewed and analyzed
information on the universe of drug court programs maintained by the
Drug Court Clearinghouse; and (d) reviewed congressional
appropriations and DOJ press releases.
We attempted to verify information on the universe of DCPO-funded drug
court programs, but as the findings in our report note, we were unable
to do so due to inefficiencies in DOJ's drug court-related grant
information systems. We were able to validate and correct some of the
information provided by the various sources noted above through a
comparison of the various databases noted and the primary data we had
collected from drug court programs during our 1997 review and during
our year 2001 follow-up structured interviews with a stratified,
random sample of DCPO-funded drug court programs.
We conducted our work at DOJ headquarters in Washington, D.C., between
March 2001 and February 2002 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Operating Drug Court Programs by Location as of December
31, 2001:
Based on information available as of December 31, 2001, drug court
programs were operating in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico. New Hampshire and Vermont were the only states without an
operating drug court program but both have programs being planned.
Guam also has programs being planned. California, Florida, Louisiana,
Missouri, New York, and Ohio account for 344, or almost 44 percent, of
the 791 operating drug courts. Figure 4 shows the number of operating
drug court programs in each jurisdiction.
Figure 4: Number of U.S. Operating Drug Court Programs as of December
31, 2001:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map of the U.S.]
Number of U.S. Operating Drug Court Programs:
Alabama: 12;
Alaska: 4;
Arizona: 22;
Arkansas: 4;
California: 122;
Colorado: 3;
Connecticut: 4;
Delaware: 7;
District of Columbia: 2;
Florida: 60;
Georgia: 10;
Hawaii: 3;
Idaho: 13;
Illinois: 15;
Indiana: 16;
Iowa: 5;
Kansas: 1;
Kentucky: 25;
Louisiana: 33;
Maine: 13;
Maryland: 8;
Massachusetts: 15;
Michigan: 20;
Minnesota: 3;
Mississippi: 3;
Missouri: 42;
Montana: 7;
Nebraska: 6;
Nevada: 15;
New Hampshire: 0;
New Jersey: 10;
New Mexico: 27;
New York: 44;
North Carolina: 18;
North Dakota: 5;
Ohio: 44;
Oklahoma: 25;
Oregon: 22;
Pennsylvania: 7;
Puerto Rico: 6;
Rhode Island: 6;
South Carolina: 11;
South Dakota: 4;
Tennessee: 8;
Texas: 9;
Utah: 11;
Vermont: 0;
Virginia: 12;
Washington: 21;
West Virginia: 1;
Wisconsin: 1;
Wyoming: 6.
Source: GAO's analysis of Drug Court Clearinghouse data.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Drug Court Programs by Target Population as of December
31, 2001:
Populations targeted by U.S. drug court programs included adults,
juveniles, families, and Native American tribes. Table 2 shows the
breakdown by target population of operating and planned drug court
programs.
Table 2: Universe of Operating and Planned U.S. Drug Court Programs by
Target Population (Based on information available as of December 31,
2001):
Target population: Adults;
Operating: Non-tribal: 510;
Operating: Tribal: 22;
Operating: Subtotal: 532;
Planned: Non-tribal: 225;
Planned: Tribal: 42;
Planned: Subtotal: 267;
Total: 799.
Target population: Juveniles;
Operating: Non-tribal: 196;
Operating: Tribal: 12;
Operating: Subtotal: 208;
Planned: Non-tribal: 115;
Planned: Tribal: 6;
Planned: Subtotal: 121;
Total: 329.
Target population: Adults/juveniles;
Operating: Non-tribal: 2;
Operating: Tribal: 5;
Operating: Subtotal: 7;
Planned: Non-tribal: 1;
Planned: Tribal: 1;
Planned: Subtotal: 2;
Total: 9.
Target population: Families;
Operating: Non-tribal: 41;
Operating: Tribal: 0;
Operating: Subtotal: 41;
Planned: Non-tribal: 58;
Planned: Tribal: 2;
Planned: Subtotal: 60;
Total: 101.
Target population: Adults/juveniles/families;
Operating: Non-tribal: 1;
Operating: Tribal: 1;
Operating: Subtotal: 2;
Planned: Non-tribal: 0;
Planned: Tribal: 0;
Planned: Subtotal: 0;
Total: 2.
Target population: Adults/families;
Operating: Non-tribal: 0;
Operating: Tribal: 1;
Operating: Subtotal: 1;
Planned: Non-tribal: 1;
Planned: Tribal: 0;
Planned: Subtotal: 1;
Total: 2.
Target population: Juveniles/families;
Operating: Non-tribal: 0;
Operating: Tribal: 0;
Operating: Subtotal: 0;
Planned: Non-tribal: 1;
Planned: Tribal: 0;
Planned: Subtotal: 1;
Total: 1.
Target population: Total;
Operating: Non-tribal: 750;
Operating: Tribal: 41;
Operating: Subtotal: 791;
Planned: Non-tribal: 401;
Planned: Tribal: 51;
Planned: Subtotal: 452;
Total: 1,243.
Source: GAO's analysis of Drug Court Clearinghouse data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by
Jurisdiction as of December 31, 2001:
As Table 3 shows, drug court programs in the United States vary by
target population and program status and have received various types
of grants from the DOJ Drug Courts Program Office (DCPO).
Table 3: Status and DCPO Support of Drug Court Programs by
Jurisdiction (Based on information available as of December 31, 2001):
State: Alabama;
City: Anniston;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alabama;
City: Anniston;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alabama;
City: Atmore;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Alabama;
City: Bessemer;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/3/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alabama;
City: Birmingham;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Alabama;
City: Birmingham;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Alabama;
City: Columbiana;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alabama;
City: Columbiana;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alabama;
City: Cullman;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alabama;
City: Cullman;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/15/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Alabama;
City: Fort Payne;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Alabama;
City: Greenville/Haynesville/Luverne;
Target population: Adult; Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alabama;
City: Greenville/Haynesville/Luverne;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alabama;
City: Gunterville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Alabama;
City: Hamilton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alabama;
City: Huntsville;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alabama;
City: Mobile;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1993;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Alabama;
City: Montgomery;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Alabama;
City: Russellville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/15/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Alabama;
City: Russellville;
Target population: Adult; Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 12/15/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Alabama;
City: Tuscaloosa;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alabama;
City: Tuscaloosa;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Alabama;
City: Tuscaloosa;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alaska;
City: Anchorage;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Alaska;
City: Anchorage;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/21/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Alaska;
City: Anchorage;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Alaska;
City: Barrow;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alaska;
City: Bethel;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Alaska;
City: Bethel;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alaska;
City: Chevak;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Alaska;
City: Chickaloon;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alaska;
City: Gambell[A];
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alaska;
City: Gokona/Anchorage;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alaska;
City: Juneau;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Alaska;
City: Juneau;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alaska;
City: Kake;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alaska;
City: Kawerak;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alaska;
City: Ketchikan;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alaska;
City: Kwethluk;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Alaska;
City: Napaskiak[A];
Target population: Adult; Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planned.
State: Alaska;
City: Quinhagak;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alaska;
City: Sitka;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Alaska;
City: Unalakleet;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Arizona;
City: Bisbee;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Arizona;
City: Camp Verde;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 3/21/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Arizona;
City: Chinle;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Arizona;
City: Flagstaff;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Arizona;
City: Globe;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Arizona;
City: Havasupai;
Target population: Adult; Juvenile; Family; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Enhancement.
State: Arizona;
City: Kayenta;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Arizona;
City: Peach Springs;
Target population: Adult; Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Arizona;
City: Phoenix;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Arizona;
City: Phoenix;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1992;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Arizona;
City: Phoenix;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Arizona;
City: Phoenix;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Arizona;
City: Pipe Springs[B];
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Arizona;
City: Prescott;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Arizona;
City: Prescott;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Arizona;
City: Redhills/Pipe Springs[B];
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Enhancement.
State: Arizona;
City: Sacaton;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Arizona;
City: Scottsdale;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Arizona;
City: Snowflake;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Arizona;
City: Tuba City;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Arizona;
City: Tucson;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: 6/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Arizona;
City: Tucson;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Arizona;
City: Tucson;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Arizona;
City: Tucson;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 8/31/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Continuation.
State: Arizona;
City: Tucson;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Arizona;
City: Tucson;
Target population: Family; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Arizona;
City: Window Rock;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Arizona;
City: Yuma;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/26/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Arizona;
City: Yuma;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Arkansas;
City: Benton;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Arkansas;
City: El Dorado;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Arkansas;
City: Fayetteville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received:
State: Arkansas;
City: Fort Smith;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Arkansas;
City: Hope;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Arkansas;
City: Little Rock[C];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Arkansas;
City: Little Rock;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Arkansas;
City: Magnolia;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/20/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Arkansas;
City: Stuttgart;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Arkansas;
City: Texarkana;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Auburn;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Auburn;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Auburn;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Bakersfield;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Bakersfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1993;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Barstow;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Belmont/South San Francisco;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/17/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Berkeley;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Big Bear;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/21/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Blythe;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Chico;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Chulla Vista;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement;
Continuation.
State: California;
City: Clearlake;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/6/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Compton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/27/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Crescent City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/6/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Crescent City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/6/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Delano;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: East Lake;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: El Cajon;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement;
Continuation.
State: California;
City: El Centro;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: El Monte;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Eureka;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Fairfield;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Fairfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/14/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Fontana;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Fort Bragg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Fresno;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Fresno;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Fresno;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/13/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: California;
City: Fresno;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: California;
City: Fullerton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/15/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Hanford;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Hanford[A];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Hayward;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/5/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Hoopa;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Huntington Park;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Indio;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/5/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Ingelwood;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Joshua Tree;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Laguna Niguel;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Lakeport;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Lompoc;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/24/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Long Beach;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Los Angeles;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Los Angeles;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/20/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Los Angeles;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Madera;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Madera;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/5/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Mariposa;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Marysville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Marysville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/31/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Merced;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/4/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Merced;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/2/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Modesto;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement;
Continuation.
State: California;
City: Modesto;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 6/3/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Napa;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/20/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Napa;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Needles;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Nevada City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Nevada City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Newport Beach;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Oakland;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Oakland;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: 1/1/1991;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Oroville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/16/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Pasadena;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Placerville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Pleasanton/Dublin/Livermore;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Pomona;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/14/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Porterville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Quincy;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Quincy;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Rancho Cucamonga;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Redding;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/24/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Redding;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Redlands;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Redwood City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/5/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Redwood City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Richmond;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: California;
City: Richmond/Martinez;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement;
Continuation.
State: California;
City: Ridgecrest;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Riverside;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/20/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Riverside;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 10/4/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Sacramento;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Sacramento;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Salinas;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: San Bernardino;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: San Diego;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/12/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: California;
City: San Diego;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement; Continuation.
State: California;
City: San Diego;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement;
Continuation.
State: California;
City: San Francisco;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: San Francisco;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 12/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: California;
City: San Jose;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: San Jose;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: San Jose;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: San Luis Obispo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: California;
City: San Luis Obispo;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: San Rafael;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: California;
City: San Rafael;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: California;
City: Santa Ana;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Santa Ana;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/15/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Santa Barbara;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: California;
City: Santa Barbara;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Santa Cruz;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/15/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Santa Cruz;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Santa Maria;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Santa Maria;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/24/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Santa Monica;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Santa Rosa;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Santa Rosa;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Shafter;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Sonora;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/20/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Stockton;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Stockton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/3/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: California;
City: Sylmar;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Tahoe;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Tahoe;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Tulare;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Ukiah;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/18/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement;
Continuation.
State: California;
City: Ukiah and Fort Bragg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Continuation.
State: California;
City: Vallejo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/27/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Van Nuys;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Ventura;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Ventura;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Victor Valley;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/6/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Visalia;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Visalia[A];
Target population: Family;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Visalia;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Vista;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Walnut Creek;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Weaverville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Weaverville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Westminster;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Willows;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Westminster;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Willows;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Willows;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/15/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Enhancement.
State: California;
City: Woodland;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Woodland;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/3/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Woodland;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Woodland;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/9/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: California;
City: Yreka;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Yreka;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: California;
City: Yreak;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: California;
City: Yuba City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/24/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Colorado;
City: Colorado Springs;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Colorado;
City: Colorado Springs;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Colorado;
City: Denver;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Colorado;
City: Denver;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Colorado;
City: Fort Collins;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Colorado;
City: Fort Collins;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Colorado;
City: Fort Collins;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/14/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Colorado;
City: Ignacio;
Target population: Family; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Connecticut;
City: Bridgeport;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Continuation.
State: Connecticut;
City: Hartford;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Connecticut;
City: Mashantucket;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Connecticut;
City: New Haven;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Connecticut;
City: Waterbury;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Connecticut;
City: Willimantic/Danielson;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Delaware;
City: Dover;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Delaware;
City: Dover;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Delaware;
City: Georgetown;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Delaware;
City: Georgetown;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Delaware;
City: Wilmington;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Delaware;
City: Wilmington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Delaware;
City: Wilmington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: District of Columbia;
City: Washington;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning;
State: District of Columbia;
City: Washington;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/25/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning. Implementation.
State: District of Columbia;
City: Washington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/1/1993;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Federal District;
City: Hawaii;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Federal District;
City: San Diego[A];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Federal District;
City: Yosemite[B];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Bartow;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Bartow;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Bartow;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Bradenton;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Brooksville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/4/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Daytona;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Daytona/Deland;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/12/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Florida;
City: Fort Lauderdale;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Fort Lauderdale;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Fort Lauderdale;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Fort Lauderdale;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Fort Meyers;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Fort Meyers;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Fort Meyers;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 12/24/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Ft. Pierce;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: V10/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Gainesville;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 1/19/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Gainesville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Gainesville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/2/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Green Cove Springs;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Inverness;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/14/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Florida;
City: Inverness;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Inverness;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Jacksonville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Jacksonville;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Jacksonville;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: {Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Key West;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Key West;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1993;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Kissimmee;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Florida;
City: Kissimmee;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Kissimmee;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: La Belle;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Florida;
City: Lake City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Lake City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Manatee/Bradenton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Florida;
City: Marathon;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Marathon;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Marathon;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Marianna;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Marion;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Miami;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 3/8/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Miami;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1989;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Moore Haven;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Florida;
City: Naples;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/14/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Ocala;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/14/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Ocala;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Ocala;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/14/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Okeechobee;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Orlando;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Florida;
City: Orlando;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/11/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Florida;
City: Orlando;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Florida;
City: Palatka;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Florida;
City: Panama City;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Panama City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Panama City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Pensacola;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Pensacola;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1993;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Pensacola;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Plantation Key;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Plantation Key;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Plantation Key;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Punta Gorda;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Sanford;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/12/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Sarasota;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Florida;
City: Shalimar/Crestview;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1993;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: St. Augustine;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: St. Petersburg;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: St. Petersburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/16/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Stuart;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/2/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Stuart;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/2/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Tallahassee;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Tallahassee;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Tampa;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1992;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Tampa;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Florida;
City: Tampa;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Florida;
City: Tampa;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1992;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Florida;
City: Vero Beach;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Vero Beach;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: Viera/Rockledge;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Florida;
City: West Palm Beach;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/6/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Georgia;
City: Athens;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Georgia;
City: Atlanta;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Georgia;
City: Brunswick;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Georgia;
City: Columbus;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Georgia;
City: Covington;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Georgia;
City: Cuthbert;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/18/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Georgia;
City: Dalton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Georgia;
City: Decatur;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Georgia;
City: Gainesville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/21/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Georgia;
City: Macon;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Georgia;
City: Macon;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Georgia;
City: Marietta;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1992;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Georgia;
City: Marietta;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Georgia;
City: Ogeechee;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Georgia;
City: Woodbine;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Guam;
City: Hagatna;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Guam;
City: Hagatna;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Hawaii;
City: Hilo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Hawaii;
City: Honolulu;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/30/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Hawaii;
City: Honolulu;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Hawaii;
City: Kealakekua;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Hawaii;
City: Lihue;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Hawaii;
City: Wailuku;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/24/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Idaho;
City: Balckfoot;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/26/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Blackfoot;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Blackfoot;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Boise;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/24/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Idaho;
City: Boise;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/15/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Enhancement.
State: Idaho;
City: Caldwell;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Coeur D'Alene;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Idaho;
City: Coeur D'Alene;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Fort Hall;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Idaho;
City: Idaho Falls;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Idaho Falls;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/23/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Idaho Falls;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Idaho Falls;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Lewiston;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Malad City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Pocatello;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Rexburg/St. Anthony/Driggs/Rigby;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Rexburg/St. Anthony/Driggs/Rigby;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Rupert;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Salmon/Challis;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Salmon/Challis;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Salmon/Challis;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Sandpoint;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Idaho;
City: Twin Falls/Burley;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Illinois;
City: Bloomington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Illinois;
City: Chicago;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Illinois;
City: Chicago;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Illinois;
City: Chicago[D];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1989;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Illinois;
City: Danville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Illinois;
City: Decatur;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/6/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Illinois;
City: Edwardsville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Illinois;
City: Edwardsville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Illinois;
City: Harrisburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Illinois;
City: Jerseyville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Illinois;
City: Joliet;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Illinois;
City: Kankakee;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Illinois;
City: Kankakee;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Illinois;
City: Markham;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Illinois;
City: Markham;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Illinois;
City: Maywood;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Illinois;
City: Maywood;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Illinois;
City: Peoria;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/3/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Illinois;
City: Rock Island;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Illinois;
City: Rockford;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning, Implementation; Continuation.
State: Illinois;
City: St. Charles[A];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Illinois;
City: Urbana;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Illinois;
City: Wheaton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/20/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Illinois;
City: Woodstock[A];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Indiana;
City: Anderson;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Indiana;
City: Bedford;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Indiana;
City: Bloomington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/9/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Indiana;
City: Crown Point;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Indiana;
City: East Chicago;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/14/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning;
State: Indiana;
City: Elkhart;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Indiana;
City: Evansville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Indiana;
City: Fort Wayne;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Indiana;
City: Gary;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/16/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Indiana;
City: Gary;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Indiana;
City: Greenfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1991;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Indiana;
City: Greenwood;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/15/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Indiana;
City: Indianapolis;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/13/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Indiana;
City: Indianapolis;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Indiana;
City: Jeffersonville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Indiana;
City: Kokomo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Indiana;
City: Lafayette;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Indiana;
City: Lawrenceburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Indiana;
City: Lawrenceburg;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 4/8/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Indiana;
City: South Bend;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Indiana;
City: Terre Haute;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Indiana;
City: Terre Haute;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Indiana;
City: Versailles;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Iowa;
City: Council Bluffs;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Iowa;
City: Des Moines;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Iowa;
City: Marshalltown;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Iowa;
City: Sioux City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Iowa;
City: Sioux City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Kansas;
City: Horton;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kansas;
City: Kansas City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Kansas;
City: Wichita;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Kentucky;
City: Albany;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Kentucky;
City: Benton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Bowling Green;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Bowling Green;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Cadiz;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Cadiz;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Kentucky;
City: Catlettsburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Corbin;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/25/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Kentucky;
City: Covington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Kentucky;
City: Covington;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/2/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Elizabethtown;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/16/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Kentucky;
City: Frankfort;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Kentucky;
City: Frankfort;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Greenup;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Greenville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Hartford;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Hawesville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Hazard;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Hazard;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Henderson;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Hickman;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Kentucky;
City: Hopkinsville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Hopkinsville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 4/6/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Kentucky;
City: Labanon;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Lexington;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/18/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Kentucky;
City: Lexington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Kentucky;
City: Lexington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Kentucky;
City: Liberty;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: London;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Kentucky;
City: Louisville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Kentucky;
City: Louisville;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Louisville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1993;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Kentucky;
City: Mayfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Murray;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Newport;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Newport;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Kentucky;
City: Nicholasville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Nicholasville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Owensboro;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Kentucky;
City: Owensboro;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Paducah;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Paintsville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Paris/Georgetown/Versailles;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Pikeville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Pikeville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Prestonsburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Providence;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Richmond;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Shelbyville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Shelbyville[A];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Somerset;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Kentucky;
City: Wickliffe/Bardwell;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Kentucky;
City: Winchester/Richmond;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Alexandria;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Louisiana;
City: Alexandria;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/20/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Baton Rouge;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Louisiana;
City: Baton Rouge;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Benton/Bossier City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Louisiana;
City: Benton/Bossier City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Louisiana;
City: Breaux Bridge;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Louisiana;
City: Breaux Bridge;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Louisiana;
City: Covington;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Covington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Covington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Edgard;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Louisiana;
City: Franklin;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/15/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Frankin;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Gretna;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Hahnville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/7/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Louisiana;
City: Harvey;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 12/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Houma;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Lafayette;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Lake Charles;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Lake Charles;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/15/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Leesville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Louisiana;
City: Livingston/Amite;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/7/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Louisiana;
City: Mansfield;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Mansfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Monroe;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Louisiana;
City: Monroe;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Louisiana;
City: New Iberia;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: New Iberia;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/22/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: New Orleans;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Louisiana;
City: New Orleans[E];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Louisiana;
City: New Orleans;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Oak Grove;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Louisiana;
City: Oberlin;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Louisiana;
City: Shreveport;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Louisiana;
City: Shreveport;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Louisiana;
City: Slidell;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: St. Martinville;
Target population: Adult; Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Louisiana;
City: Thibodaux;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Louisiana;
City: Vidalia;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Louisiana;
City: Webster;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Louisiana;
City: Webster;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/3/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Maine;
City: Alfred;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Maine;
City: Augusta/Waterville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maine;
City: Bangor;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/15/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received:
State: Maine;
City: Bangor;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maine;
City: Biddeford;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/15/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maine;
City: Calais;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/15/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maine;
City: Lewiston;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/15/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maine;
City: Machias;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/15/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maine;
City: Old Town;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Maine;
City: Portland;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/15/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maine;
City: Portland;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maine;
City: Portland[F];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Maine;
City: Princeton;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Maine;
City: Rumford;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 3/15/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maine;
City: South Paris;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maine;
City: West Bath;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maine;
City: York;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty]
State: Maryland;
City: Annapolis;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Maryland;
City: Annapolis;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maryland;
City: Baltimore;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/15/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Maryland;
City: Baltimore;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maryland;
City: Baltimore;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maryland;
City: Baltimore;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1994.
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maryland;
City: Bel Air;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maryland;
City: Bel Air;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Maryland;
City: Easton;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maryland;
City: Edgewood/Bel Air;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Maryland;
City: Ellicott City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Maryland;
City: Ellicott City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Maryland;
City: Rockville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Maryland;
City: Towson;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Maryland;
City: Upper Marlboro;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Ayer;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Barnstable;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Brighton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/6/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Cambridge;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Cambridge;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Massachusetts;
City: Chelsea;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Dorchester[C];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Massachusetts;
City: Dorchester;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/19/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Massachusetts;
City: East Boston;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Framingham;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/15/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Greenfield/Orange;
Target population: Adult; Juvenile; Family;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Haverhill;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Lawrence;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/14/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Massachusetts;
City: New Bedford;
Target population: Implemented 9/1/2000;
Court status: Planning; Implementation.
Type of DCPO grants received:
State: Massachusetts;
City: Quincy;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Roxbury;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/19/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Massachusetts;
City: Salem;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Massachusetts;
City: South Boston;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Springfield;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Wext Roxbury;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Massachusetts;
City: Worcester;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Michigan;
City: Bloomfield Hills;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Charlotte;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Michigan;
City: Charlotte;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Michigan;
City: Charlotte;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Michigan;
City: Charlotte;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Detroit;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Michigan;
City: Detroit;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Detroit;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Flint;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Flint;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Michigan;
City: Grand Rapids;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Michigan;
City: Grand Rapids;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Hastings;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Hastings;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Howell/Brighton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Howell/Brighton;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Kalamazoo;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Kalamazoo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Kalamazoo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1992;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Michigan;
City: Lansing;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Michigan;
City: Lansing;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Lapeer;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Monroe;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Mt. Clemens;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Mt. Clemens;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Michigan;
City: Mt. Pleasant;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Muskegon;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Novi;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/5/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Peshawbestown;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Petosky;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Pontiac;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/29/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Pontiac;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Sault Ste. Marie;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning, Implementation.
State: Michigan;
City: Southfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: St. Joseph;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1992;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Michigan;
City: St. Joseph;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Michigan;
City: Traverse City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Troy;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: Warren;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/27/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Michigan;
City: Waterford;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/14/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Michigan;
City: West Branch;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Minnesota;
City: Minneapolis;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Continuation.
State: Minnesota;
City: Red Lake;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Minnesota;
City: St. Paul;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Minnesota;
City: St. Paul;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 6/21/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: {Empty].
State: Minnesota;
City: White Earth;
Target population: Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Mississippi;
City: Greenville;
Target population: Adult;;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Mississippi;
City: Gulfport;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Mississippi;
City: Jackson;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Mississippi;
City: Magnolia;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Mississippi;
City: McComb;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Mississippi;
City: Ridgeland;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Missouri;
City: Andrew;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Ava;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Benton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Benton;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Continuation.
State: Missouri;
City: Bloomfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/11/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Butler;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Charleston;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/19/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Chillicothe;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/10/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Clayton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: 4/12/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Clayton;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Clinton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Columbia;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Missouri;
City: Columbia;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Forsyth;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Fulton/Columbia;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Gainesville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Harrisonville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Hartville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Hillsboro;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/13/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Jackson;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Jefferson City;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Jefferson City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Jefferson City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/13/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Joplin;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Kahoka;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Kansas City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Kansas City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Kansas City;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Missouri;
City: Kansas City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1993;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Missouri;
City: Kennett;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Missouri;
City: Kirksville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Lexington;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: lexington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Liberty;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Marshall;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Maryville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Mexico;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Mississippi;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Montgomery City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Neosho;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Neosho;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Neosho;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Nevada;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/18/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Ozark;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1998.
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Pineville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Poplar Bluff;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Poplar Bluff;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Savannah;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Sedalia;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: Springfield;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Springfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Missouri;
City: St. Charles;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Missouri;
City: St. Charles;
Target population: Juvenile; Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Missouri;
City: St. Charles;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Missouri;
City: St. Joseph;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: St. Joseph;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Missouri;
City: St. Louis;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/21/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: St. Louis;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 1/2/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: St. Louis;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Missouri;
City: St. Louis;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement;
Continuation.
State: Missouri;
City: Union;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Union;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Missouri;
City: Warrenton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Montana;
City: Billings;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 6/14/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Montana;
City: Billings;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Montana;
City: Box Elder;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Montana;
City: Bozeman;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Montana;
City: Browning;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Montana;
City: Browning;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Montana;
City: Crow Agency;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Montana;
City: Great Falls;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Montana;
City: Harlem;
Target population: Adult; Family; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Montana;
City: Lame Deer;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Montana;
City: Missoula;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Montana;
City: Poplar;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement;
Continuation.
State: Montana;
City: Superior;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/14/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nebraska;
City: Grand Island;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nebraska;
City: Lincoln;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/18/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Nebraska;
City: Lincoln;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Nebraska;
City: Macy;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nebraska;
City: Omaha;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nebraska;
City: Omaha;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement;
Continuation.
State: Nebraska;
City: Omaha;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 2/26/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Enhancement.
State: Nebraska;
City: Papillion;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/6/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nebraska;
City: Sidney;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/4/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nevada;
City: Carswon City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nevada;
City: Duckwater;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
City: Duckwater;
Target population: Adult; Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nevada;
City: Elko;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nevada;
City: Elko;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nevada;
City: Elko;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nevada;
City: Gardnerville;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nevada;
City: Henderson;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
City: Henderson;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
City: Las Vegas;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1992;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Nevada;
City: Las Vegas;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
City: Las Vegas;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
City: Las Vegas;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
City: Las Vegas;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
City: Laughlin;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
City: Mesquite[E];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
City: Nixon;
Target population: Adult; Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Nevada;
City: North Valley;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
City: Reno;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nevada;
City: Reno;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
City: Reno;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nevada;
City: Reno;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
City: Sparks;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nevada;
City: Tonopah;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Nevada;
City: Yerington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/17/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Hampshire;
City: Concord[A];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Hampshire;
City: Laconia;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Hampshire;
City: Plymouth;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Jersey;
City: Asbury Park;;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Jersey;
City: Bridgeton[A];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Jersey;
City: Camden;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Jersey;
City: Camden;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Continuation.
State: New Jersey;
City: Camden;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New Jersey;
City: Elizabeth;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New Jersey;
City: Freehold;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Jersey;
City: Hackensack;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Jersey;
City: Jersey City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: New Jersey;
City: Long Branch;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New Jersey;
City: Middletown;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Jersey;
City: Mt. Holly;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Jersey;
City: Newark;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Continuation.
State: New Jersey;
City: Newark;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Jersey;
City: Newark;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Jersey;
City: Paterson;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Jersey;
City: Paterson;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/15/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New Jersey;
City: Paterson;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New Jersey;
City: Tom's River;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Jersey;
City: Trenton;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Jersey;
City: Trenton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
City: Alamogordo;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
City: Alamogordo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
City: Albuquerque;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Albuquerque;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: New Mexico;
City: Albuquerque;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/26/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Albuquerque;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
City: Aztec;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Aztec;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Mexico;
City: Aztec;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
City: Bernalilo;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Mexico;
City: Bernalilo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/21/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
City: Crownpoint
Target population: Adult; Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Espanola;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
City: Farmngton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
City: Farmington;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Gallup;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
City: Gallup[B];
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Mexico;
City: Las Cruces;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
City: Las Cruces;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: New Mexico;
City: Las Cruces;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Las Cruces;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Mexico;
City: Las Cruces;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
City: Las Vegas;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Mexico;
City: Los Lunas;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Mexico;
City: Lovington;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Mexico;
City: Lovington;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Mexico;
City: Mescalero;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Mesilla;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
City: Mesilla;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
City: Pueblo of Acoma;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Mexico;
City: Ramah;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New Mexico;
City: San Juan Pueblo[A];
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Mexico;
City: Sante Fe;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Santa Fe;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New Mexico;
City: Santa Fe;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement;
Continuation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Shiprock;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Sunland Park[G];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Taos;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Taos;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Taos[A];
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New Mexico;
City: Zuni;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Albany;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/28/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: Albany;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Albany;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/28/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: Amherst;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/9/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implemented; Enhancement; Continuation.
State: New York;
City: Amsterdam;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Batavia;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/22/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation;Enhancement.
State: New York;
City: Bath;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Beacon/Poughkeepsie;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Bethlehem;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/20/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: Binghamton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Bronx;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: New York;
City: Bronx;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Brooklyn;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: Brooklyn;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New York;
City: Brooklyn;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Brooklyn;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Brooklyn/Red Hook[A];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Buffalo;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Buffalo;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: Buffalo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement;
Continuation.
State: New York;
City: Buffalo;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Buffalo;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Canandaigua;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New York;
City: Central Islip;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Central Islip;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 12/10/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: Central Islip;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/9/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Continuation.
State: New York;
City: Cheektowaga;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/2/2998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: New York;
City: Colonie[F];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/28/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: Cooperstown;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/20/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New York;
City: Dunkirk;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planing.
State: New York;
City: Fort Edward;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planing.
State: New York;
City: Goshen;;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planing.
State: New York;
City: Greenburgh;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planing.
State: New York;
City: Hamburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planing.
State: New York;
City: Harlem;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planing.
State: New York;
City: Hudson;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planing.
State: New York;
City: Ithaca;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Ithaca;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: New York;
City: Ithaca;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: Johnstown;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New York;
City: Kew Gardens;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Kew Gardens;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New York;
City: Kingsbury;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: Kingston;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/6/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Lackawanna;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Lackawanna;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: New York;
City: Lake George;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Lockport;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/5/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Manhattan;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/9/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: Manhattan;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/21/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New York;
City: Manhattan;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: Manhattan;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 3/8/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: New York;
City: Manhattan;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New York;
City: Mayville/Jamestown;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning;
State: New York;
City: Mineola;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Monticello;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Mt. Vernon;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/12/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New York;
City: New City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New York;
City: New City;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: New Rochelle;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Niagara Falls;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: New York;
City: Niagara Falls;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: North Tonowanda;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Oswego;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New York;
City: Oswego;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Plattsburgh;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Queens;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Rochester;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Rochester;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/30/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: New York;
City: Rochester;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 6/6/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: New York;
City: Schenectady;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/16/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Staten Island/New York City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Syracuse;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Continuation.
State: New York;
City: Syracuse;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Tonawanda;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: New York;
City: Tonawanda;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Troy;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: New York;
City: Troy;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: New York;
City: Utica;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: White Plains;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: New York;
City: Yonkers/Elmsford;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/2/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Carolina;
City: Ashville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Carolina;
City: Ashville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Carolina;
City: Bayboro;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Carolina;
City: Bladen;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: North Carolina;
City: Charlotte;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 11/30/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: North Carolina;
City: Charlotte;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/10/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: North Carolina;
City: Charlotte;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: North Carolina;
City: Charlotte;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: North Carolina;
City: Charlotte;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: North Carolina;
City: Charlotte;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Enhancement.
State: North Carolina;
City: Charlotte;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: North Carolina;
City: Durham;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Enhancement.
State: North Carolina;
City: Durham;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Carolina;
City: Fayetteville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Carolina;
City: Greensboro;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: North Carolina;
City: Hickory;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/29/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Carolina;
City: Hillsboro;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Carolina;
City: Jacksonville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Carolina;
City: Raleigh;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/30/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: North Carolina;
City: Raleigh;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: North Carolina;
City: Raleigh;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: North Carolina;
City: Roxboro/Yanceyville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: North Carolina;
City: Salisbury;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Carolina;
City: Smithfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Carolina;
City: Warrenton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: North Carolina;
City: Wilmington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: North Carolina;
City: Winston Salem;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Carolina;
City: Winston Salem;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: North Dakota;
City: Belcourt;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 8/15/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: North Dakota;
City: Belcourt;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: North Dakota;
City: Bismarck;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: North Dakota;
City: Fargo;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Dakota;
City: Fort Yates;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Dakota;
City: Ft. Totten;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 1/12/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: North Dakota;
City: Grand Forks;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: North Dakota;
City: New Town;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Ohio;
City: Akron;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Akron;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Ohio;
City: Akron;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Athens;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Batavia;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/23/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Ohio;
City: Bucyrus;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Bucyrus;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Canfield/Sebring;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/7/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Canton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Chillicothe[A];
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Ohio;
City: Cincinnati;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/22/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Circleville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Cleveland;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/2/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Cleveland;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Dayton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Continuation.
State: Ohio;
City: Dayton;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Ohio;
City: Delaware;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Delaware;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Elyria;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Elyria;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Hamilton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Ohio;
City: Hamilton;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Lancaster;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Lebanon;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Ohio;
City: Lima;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Ohio;
City: Logan;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Logan;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Mansfield;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Mansfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/14/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Ohio;
City: Mansfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/14/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Ohio;
City: McArthurl
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Mt. Gilead;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Mt. Gilead;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Mt. Gilead;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Mt. Vernon;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Norwalk;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Norwalk;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Saint Clairsville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 2/6/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Ohio;
City: Saint Clairsville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Enhancement.
State: Ohio;
City: Sandusky;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/15/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Ohio;
City: Springfield;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Steubenville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/15/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Ohio;
City: Toledo;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Ohio;
City: Toledo;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Toledo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Ohio;
City: Troy;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
City: Troy;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Ohio;
City: Troy;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Ohio;
City: Uhrichsville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Ohio;
City: Warren;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Ohio;
City: Youngstown;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; implementation; Enhancement.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Ada;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
City: Binger[A];
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: {Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Bristow/Sapulpa;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Chickasha;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
City: Claremore;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Claremore;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Concho;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oklahoma;
City: El Reno;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oklahoma;
City: El Reno;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
City: Elk City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Enid;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/12/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Enid;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: 4/12/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Guthrie;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
City: Holdenville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Oklahoma;
City: McLoud;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Muskogee;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Norman;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Oklahoma City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Okmlgee;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 6/22/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Pauls Valley;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Juvenile;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implemented 5/1/1998;
State: Oklahoma;
City: Pawhuska;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Pawnee;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Perkins;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Poteau;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/15/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Purcell;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Red Rock;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Sallisaw;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
City: Seminole;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
City: Seminole;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Seminole;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Shawnee;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Shawnee;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Stillwater;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
City: Stillwater;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Stillwater;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Tahlequah;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/22/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
City: Tahlequah;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/15/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Tulsa;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Oklahoma;
City: Tulsa;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
City: Tulsa;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
City: Tulsa;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oregon;
City: Astoria/Tillamook;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Astoria/Tillamook;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Astoria/Tillamook;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Bend;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Bend;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning;
State: Oregon;
City: Coquille/Gold Beach;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Coquille/Gold Beach;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Corvallis;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oregon;
City: Dallas;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Enterprise;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Eugene;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/29/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oregon;
City: Eugene;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Oregon;
City: Grants Pass;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Oregon;
City: Grants Pass;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Hillsboro;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Klamath Falls;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Oregon;
City: La Grande;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Madras;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/29/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oregon;
City: Madras;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Oregon;
City: McMinnville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Oregon;
City: McMinnville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Medford;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oregon;
City: Medford;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Oregon City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/10/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Oregon;
City: Oregon City;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Pendleton;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oregon;
City: Pendleton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oregon;
City: Portland;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/10/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oregon;
City: Portland;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1991;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Oregon;
City: Portland;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: Prineville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Oregon;
City: Prineville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oregon;
City: Roseburg;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oregon;
City: Roseburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Oregon;
City: Roseburg;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oregon;
City: Salem;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Oregon;
City: Salem;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: St. Helens;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
City: The Dalles;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Oregon;
City: Vale;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Oregon;
City: Vale;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Pennsylvania;
City: Erie;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Pennsylvania;
City: Erie;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Pennsylvania;
City: Hollidaysburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Pennsylvania;
City: Philadelphia;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Continuation.
State: Pennsylvania;
City: Pittsburgh;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Pennsylvania;
City: Saegertown;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Pennsylvania;
City: Scranton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Pennsylvania;
City: Scranton;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Pennsylvania;
City: Scranton;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Pennsylvania;
City: West Chester;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: Pennsylvania;
City: Williamsport;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Pennsylvania;
City: York;;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/2/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Puerto Rico;
City: Arecibo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Puerto Rico;
City: Bayamon;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Puerto Rico;
City: Carolina;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Puerto Rico;
City: Fajardo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Puerto Rico;
City: Guayama;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Puerto Rico;
City: Humacao;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Puerto Rico;
City: Ponce;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Puerto Rico;
City: San Juan;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement;
Continuation.
State: Puerto Rico;
City: Utuado;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Rhode Island;
City: Bristol;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Rhode Island;
City: Kent;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Rhode Island;
City: Newport;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Rhode Island;
City: Providence;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 12/6/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Rhode Island;
City: Providence;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Rhode Island;
City: Providence;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Rhode Island;
City: Westerly;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: South Carolina;
City: Aiken;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
City: Anderson;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
City: Anderson;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: South Carolina;
City: Beufort & Hampton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
City: Charleston;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: South Carolina;
City: Charleston;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: South Carolina;
City: Charleston;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: South Carolina;
City: Columbia;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
City: Columbia;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
City: Darlington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: South Carolina;
City: Edgefield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
City: Florence;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: South Carolina;
City: Greenville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: South Carolina;
City: Kingstree;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: South Carolina;
City: Lancaster;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: South Carolina;
City: Lexington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/25/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Continuation.
State: South Carolina;
City: Lexington;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/3/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
City: Manning;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: South Carolina;
City: Manning;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: South Carolina;
City: North Charleston;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
City: Orangeburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
City: Rock Hill;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: South Carolina;
City: Spartanburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: South Carolina;
City: Spartanburg;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
City: York;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: South Carolina; 7/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: South Dakota;
City: Agency Village;
Target population: Adult; Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: South Dakota;
City: Flandreau;
Target population: Adult; Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implemented.
State: South Dakota;
City: Lower Brule;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: South Dakota;
City: Marty;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: South Dakota;
City: Pine Ridge;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: South Dakota;
City: Rosebud;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 5/8/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Tennessee;
City: Alamo;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Athens;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Charlotte;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Chattanooga;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Clarksville[A];
Target population: Adult;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Tennessee;
City: Columbia;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Cookeville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Tennessee;
City: Decaturville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Elizabethton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Erin;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Tennessee;
City: Erwin;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Franklin;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Gallatin;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Tennessee;
City: Greeneville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Johnson City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Knoxville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Tennessee;
City: Lawrenceburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Maryville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Maryville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Memphis;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Tennessee;
City: Murfreesboro;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 12/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Tennessee;
City: Nashville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Nashville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Tennessee;
City: Sevierville;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: South Cumberland;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Springfield[A];
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Tennessee;
City: Union City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Texas;
City: Austin;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 5/23/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Texas;
City: Austin;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1993;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Texas;
City: Beaumont;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/93;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Texas;
City: Conroe;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/23/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Texas;
City: Dallas;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Continuation.
State: Texas;
City: El Paso;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Texas;
City: El Paso;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Texas;
City: El Paso;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Texas;
City: Fort Worth;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Texas;
City: Fort Worth;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Texas;
City: Houston;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Texas;
City: Laredo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Texas;
City: McAllen;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Texas;
City: San Antonio;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Utah;
City: Castle Dale;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Utah;
City: Farmington;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Utah;
City: Farmington;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Utah;
City: Manti;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Utah;
City: Ogden;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Utah;
City: Ogden;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: implementation.
State: Utah;
City: Orem;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Utah;
City: Provo;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Utah;
City: Provo;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Utah;
City: Provo/Springfield;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Utah;
City: Richfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Utah;
City: Salt Lake City;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Utah;
City: Salt Lake City;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/15/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Continuation.
State: Utah;
City: Sandy;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Utah;
City: St. George;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Utah;
City: Vernal;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Vermont;
City: Newport;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
City: Alexandria;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 8/30/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Alexandria;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
City: Amherst/Lynchburg;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
City: Charlottesville;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Virginia;
City: Chesapeake;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Chesterfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/5/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Virginia;
City: Chesterfield;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Chesterfield;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Colonial Heights;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
City: Danville;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Fredericksburg;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 11/3/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Virginia;
City: Fredericksburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/21/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Virginia;
City: Fredericksburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
City: Hampton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Hanover;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Manassas;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
City: Manassas;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Newport News;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Virginia;
City: Newport News;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/9/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Virginia;
City: Norfolk[A];
Target population: Family;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Norfolk;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
City: Petersburg;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
City: Portsmouth;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/4/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Virginia;
City: Prince George;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Radford;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Richmond;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Virginia;
City: Richmond;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Virginia;
City: Richmond;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Richmond/Oliver Hill;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Roanoke;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/1/1995;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Virginia;
City: Rocky Mount;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Staunton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Suffolk;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
City: Suffolk;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
City: Virginia Beach;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Virginia Beach;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Virginia;
City: Virginia Beach;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Bellingham;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 7/8/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Washington;
City: Bellingham;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Bellingham;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Everett;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Washington;
City: Everett[A];
Target population: Family;
Court status: [Empty];
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Everett;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Kelso;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/13/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Washington;
City: Kennewick;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Kennewick;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Mt. Vernon;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Washington;
City: Neah Bay;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 3/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Washington;
City: Olympia;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Olympia;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Washington;
City: Port Angeles;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Washington;
City: Port Angeles;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 9/9/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Port Orchard;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Washington;
City: Port Orchard;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Washington;
City: Port Orchard;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Seattle;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Washington;
City: Seattle;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Washington;
City: Seattle;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Washington;
City: Shelton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Spokane;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 9/9/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Suquamish;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Tacoma;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Implemented 3/15/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Tacoma;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Tacoma;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/1994;
Type of DCPO grants received: Enhancement.
State: Washington;
City: Tokeland;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Toppenish;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 10/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Washington;
City: Toppenish;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Washington;
City: Vancouver;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 5/19/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Washington;
City: Wellpinit;
Target population: Juvenile; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Washington;
City: Wellpinit;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 7/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation; Enhancement.
State: Washington;
City: Yakima;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 2/15/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: West Virginia;
City: Hamlin;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: West Virginia;
City: Huntington;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1999;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Wisconsin;
City: Bowler;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wisconsin;
City: Keshena;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Wisconsin;
City: La Crosse;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wisconsin;
City: Madison;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 6/1/1996;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Wisconsin;
City: Madison;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Wisconsin;
City: Milwaukee;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wisconsin;
City: Odanah;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wisconsin;
City: Sparta;
Target population: Family;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wyoming;
City: Afton;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Wyoming;
City: Casper;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wyoming;
City: Cheyenne;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wyoming;
City: Cody;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wyoming;
City: Evanston;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 11/1/1997;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Wyoming;
City: Ft. Washaskie;
Target population: Adult; Tribal;
Court status: Implemented 11/14/2001;
Type of DCPO grants received: Implementation.
State: Wyoming;
City: Gillette;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
State: Wyoming;
City: Gillette;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wyoming;
City: Kemmerer;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 4/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wyoming;
City: Lander;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wyoming;
City: Lander;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wyoming;
City: Laramie;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wyoming;
City: Powell;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Planned;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning.
State: Wyoming;
City: Sheridan;
Target population: Juvenile;
Court status: Implemented 1/1/2000;
Type of DCPO grants received: [Empty].
State: Wyoming;
City: Sheridan;
Target population: Adult;
Court status: Implemented 8/1/1998;
Type of DCPO grants received: Planning; Implementation.
Notes:
[A] Drug court planning suspended.
[B] Drug court activities suspended in 2000.
[C] Drug court activities consolidated in 1999.
[D] Drug court activities suspended in 1994.
[E] Drug court activities consolidated in 2000.
[F] Drug court activities consolidated in 2001.
[G[ Drug court activities consolidated in 1997.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Number, Amount, and Type of DCPO Grants Awarded to Drug
Court Programs:
Table 4 shows the number and total amount of DCPO grants awarded to
plan, implement, or enhance U.S. drug court programs from fiscal years
1995 through 2001.[Footnote 27]
Table 4: Drug Court Program Grants and Awards Administered by DCPO
(fiscal years 1995-2001):
Fiscal year: 1995;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Number of grants: 52;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Amount awarded: $1.6 million;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Number of grants: 9;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Amount awarded: $4.7 million;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Number of grants: 9;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Amount awarded: $3.1 million;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Number of grants: 0;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Amount awarded: $0.0;
Total: Number of grants: 70;
Total: Amount awarded[E]: $9.4 million.
Fiscal year: 1996;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Number of grants: 0;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Amount awarded: $0.0;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Number of grants: 9;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Amount awarded: $3.5 million;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Number of grants: 7;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Amount awarded: $4.8 million;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Number of grants: 1;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Amount awarded: $0.0;
Total: Number of grants: 17;
Total: Amount awarded[E]: $8.3 million.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Number of grants: 80;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Amount awarded: $1.5 million;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Number of grants: 83;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Amount awarded: $22.3 million;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Number of grants: 17;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Amount awarded: $4.2 million;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Number of grants: 1;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Amount awarded: $0.2 million;
Total: Number of grants: 181;
Total: Amount awarded[E]: $28.2 million.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Number of grants: 75;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Amount awarded: $2.0 million;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Number of grants: 55;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Amount awarded: $18.9 million;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Number of grants: 25;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Amount awarded: $5.7 million;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Number of grants: 22;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Amount awarded: $4.0 million;
Total: Number of grants: 177;
Total: Amount awarded[E]: $30.7 million.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Number of grants: 83;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Amount awarded: $2.2 million;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Number of grants: 64;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Amount awarded: $20.4 million;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Number of grants: 37;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Amount awarded: $6.6 million;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Number of grants: 45;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Amount awarded: $8.0 million;
Total: Number of grants: 229;
Total: Amount awarded[E]: $37.3 million.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Number of grants: 30;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Amount awarded: $1.2 million;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Number of grants: 27;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Amount awarded: $10.6 million;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Number of grants: 48;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Amount awarded: $15.0 million;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Number of grants: 4;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Amount awarded: $0.3v
Total: Number of grants: 109;
Total: Amount awarded[E]: $27.0 million.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Number of grants: 20;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Amount awarded: $1.4 million;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Number of grants: 51;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Amount awarded: $22.1 million;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Number of grants: 24;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Amount awarded: $9.0 million;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Number of grants: 4;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Amount awarded: $1.0 million;
Total: Number of grants: 99;
Total: Amount awarded[E]: $33.6 million.
Fiscal year: Total;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Number of grants: 340;
Type of grant: Planning[A]: Amount awarded: $9.9 million;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Number of grants: 298;
Type of grant: Implementation[B]: Amount awarded: $102.5 million;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Number of grants: 167;
Type of grant: Enhancement[C]: Amount awarded: $48.4 million;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Number of grants: 77;
Type of grant: Continuation[D]: Amount awarded: $13.5v
Total: Number of grants: 882;
Total: Amount awarded[E]: $174.5 million.
Note: A number of jurisdictions or programs have received more than
one type of grant or several of the same type of grant since the
implementation of the federal drug court program. As such, the figures
shown in this table represent the number of drug court program grants
awarded and not the number of individual drug court programs that have
received a DCPO grant.
[A] Planning grants are for those jurisdictions that are interested in
establishing drug court programs and are in the early planning stage
for that effort. Beginning in fiscal year 2000, DCPO limited the award
of these type of planning grants to Native American tribes and
substituted the availability of such grants to state/local
jurisdictions with planning-related training initiative grants.
[B] Implementation grants are for those jurisdictions that have
already made a commitment to develop a drug court program and have
already identified the target population to be served and the case
processing procedures that will be used.
[C] Enhancement grants are for those jurisdictions with established
drug court programs to improve or enhance existing services.
[D] Continuation grants were awarded to continue or supplement drug
court programs that previously received implementation or enhancement
grants in fiscal years 1996 or 1997.
[E] Total figure differs from sum of components due to rounding of
actual amounts.
Source: DOJ's Office of Justice Programs, Office of the Controller.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Timeline of NIJ's Effort to Complete National Drug Court
Impact Evaluation:
December 1997:
Activity: NIJ issues solicitation for national evaluation of drug
court programs.
March 13, 1998:
Activity: Grant application deadline.
August 21, 1998:
Activity: NIJ awards grant to RAND.
November 12, 1998:
Activity: RAND requests DCPO to write letters to 14 DCPO-funded sites
regarding site visits for the national evaluation.
January 29, 1999:
Activity: RAND submits written progress report to NIJ (no problems or
changes were noted).
January 31, 1999:
Activity: Scheduled milestone for completion of site visits.
February 16, 1999:
Activity: RAND informs NIJ that it was still awaiting DCPO
introductory letter to 14 DCPO-funded sites.
March 5, 1999:
Activity: DCPO sent letter notifying 14 sites of the national
evaluation.
April 30, 1999:
Activity: Scheduled milestone for completion of phase II design
strategy.
July 14, 1999:
Activity: Site visits completed.
July 30, 1999:
Activity: Written progress report submitted by RAND (no problems or
changes were noted).
August 31, 1999:
Activity: Scheduled milestone for completion of conceptual framework.
November 1999:
Activity: RAND provides evaluability assessment of 14 sites to NIJ
noting feasibility concerns.
December 6, 1999:
Activity: RAND requests conference with NIJ to discuss evaluability
assessment.
January 11, 2000:
Activity: NIJ informs RAND that DCPO still wants impact evaluations on
some of the 14 sites.
May 2, 2000:
Activity: RAND submits conceptual framework for 14 sites to NIJ.
May 2-3, 2000:
Activity: NIJ and DCPO review the conceptual framework.
May 5, 2000:
Activity: NIJ informs RAND that the report on the results of phase I
must be submitted prior to the submission of a phase II proposal.
May 18, 2000:
Activity: DCPO requests findings from RAND.
May 22, 2000:
Activity: RAND requests guidance about conceptual framework paper.
June 27, 2000:
Activity: RAND requests the first no-cost extension through September
30, 2000.
July 16-19, 2000:
Activity: NIJ informed RAND that phase I findings should be submitted
in writing before RAND submits a proposal for phase II. RAND informed
NIJ that a report on phase I findings would be completed by November
2000.
July 20, 2000:
Activity: RAND submits written progress report to NIJ noting their
findings, an alternative strategy, and their request for a no-cost
extension to enable RAND to bridge the time period between phase I and
phase II.
August 1, 2000:
Activity: NIJ grants RAND its first no-cost extension through
September 30, 2000.
August 11, 2000:
Activity: DCPO and NIJ inquire about the status of the phase I draft
report. NIJ reminds RAND of the original project requirements for an
impact evaluation in phase II.
September 11, 2000:
Activity: RAND inquired about whether the phase I grant would be
extended beyond September 30, 2000.
September 12, 2000:
Activity: NIJ asked RAND to complete the phase I report by September
30, 2000, and reiterated to RAND that any proposals for phase II
should address original solicitation objectives.
September 19, 2000:
Activity: NIJ gives RAND the option to (1) let the phase I grant end
and prepare the phase II proposal for a new grant or (2) extend the
phase I project timeline to allow time for review of a phase II
proposal.
September 27, 2000:
Activity: RAND requested second no-cost extension.
September 29, 2000:
Activity: NIJ grants no-cost extension to RAND extending completion of
phase I until December 31, 2000. NIJ also inquires about status of
draft and reminds RAND that draft must be submitted before a phase II
proposal is accepted. RAND agreed.
November 14-18, 2000:
Activity: RAND presented results from phase I at American Society of
Criminology Conference noting that the phase I report would be
available by the end of December.
December 8, 2000:
Activity: In response to an NIJ inquiry, RAND informs NIJ that a phase
I draft report would be completed by the end of January 2001 (NIJ did
not extend the grant).
January 5, 2001:
Activity: In response to an NIJ inquiry, RAND informs NIJ that the
phase I draft report would be completed in February 2001.
January 31, 2001:
Activity: Written progress report submitted by RAND noting that a
draft report will be submitted to NIJ in February 2001 (no problems
were noted).
February 12, 2001:
Activity: RAND informs NIJ that a draft phase I report will be
completed in March 2001. NIJ grants third no-cost, extension to RAND
extending completion of phase I until May 31, 2001 to allow for peer
review of the forthcoming draft report.
March 14, 2001:
Activity: NIJ receives draft phase I report and submits draft to peer
reviewers.
May 29, 2001:
Activity: NIJ informs RAND that phase II plans are uncertain.
June 22, 2001:
Activity: NIJ sends peer review results to RAND and inquires as to
when final report could be expected. NIJ provides RAND with specific
instructions to eliminate the alternative phase II proposal from the
final phase I report noting that RAND's alternative proposal was so
different from the project objective that it would be inappropriate to
continue the effort.
July 22-25, 2001:
Activity: RAND meets with NIJ to discuss phase I effort and completion
of final report. RAND informs NIJ that the final report will be
completed by the end of July 2001.
August 7, 2001:
Activity: Written progress report submitted by RAND (no problems or
changes noted).
August 20, 2001:
Activity: NIJ and RAND discuss completion of final report.
September 18, 2001:
Activity: RAND submits final phase I report to NIJ.
October 2001:
Activity: NIJ decides that phase II will not be initiated.
Source: GAO-generated based on information provided by DCPO, NIJ and
RAND.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Justice:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at
the end of this appendix.
U.S. Department of Justice:
Office of Justice Programs:
Office of the Assistant Attorney General:
Washington, D.C. 20531:
April 3, 2002:
Laurie Ekstrand:
Director, Justice Issues:
Tax Administration and Justice:
General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW, Room 2A38:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ekstrand:
This letter is in response to the General Accounting Office's (GAO's)
draft report entitled, "Drug Courts: Better DOJ Data Collection and
Evaluation Efforts Needed to Measure Impact of Drug Court Programs."
The report makes several valuable recommendations for improving the
collection of data on the performance and impact of DCPO-funded drug
court programs and ensuring that information on the impact of DCPO-
funded drug court programs is made available to the Congress, the
public, and other drug court stakeholders as early as possible. The
recommendations are re-stated in bold, followed by the Office of
Justice Programs' (OJP's) response.
Data Collection Efforts:
To improve the collection of data on the performance and impact of
federally funded drug court programs, the General Accounting Office
(GAO) recommends that the Attorney General:
* develop and implement a management information system that is able
to track and readily identify the universe of drug court programs
funded by DCPO;
* take steps to ensure and sustain an adequate grantee response rate
to DCPO's data collection efforts by improving efforts to notify and
remind grantees of their reporting requirements;
* take corrective action toward grantees who do not comply with DOJ's
data collection reporting requirements;
* reinstate the collection of post-program data in DCPO's data
collection effort, selectively spot checking grantee responses to
ensure accurate reporting;
* analyze performance and outcome data collected from grantees and
report annually on the results; and;
* consolidate the multiple DOJ-funded drug court program-related data
collection efforts to better ensure that the primary focus is on the
collection and reporting of data on DCPO-funded drug court programs.
The Drug Court Program Office (DCPO) is in the process of developing a
management information system that will include functions for tracking
the universe of drug court programs funded by DCPO. This database may
also be a vehicle for collecting baseline data about drug court
programs that are funded by the grants. In addition, we are
considering joint efforts with other agencies to collect drug court
data. Efforts are also underway to develop an OJP-wide comprehensive
grant management system with ad hoc reporting capability for all OJP
offices.
The DCPO is in the process of reviewing its current data collection
efforts, including efforts to ensure grantee compliance with data
collection reporting requirements and efforts to capture appropriate
post-program data for measuring and reporting program impact. The new
data collection method will ensure accuracy of data received and
improve response rates to data collection instruments. We are
committed to providing quality data and will concentrate efforts on
continuing to fund individual evaluations and improving the quality of
those evaluations so that the growing body of knowledge about outcomes
of individual drug courts will improve.
The DCPO has developed and delivered training on how to conduct
program evaluations for drug courts, and continues to fund individual,
statewide, and national scope evaluations. Beginning in Fiscal Year
2001, DCPO required all recipients of implementation grants to conduct
both process and outcome evaluations and to have their research
designs approved by experts [identified by the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ)] before embarking on the evaluations. In furtherance of
our commitment to provide comprehensive data about the drug court
impact, DCPO is planning two new projects with NIJ.
Although a recidivism rate for every DCPO-funded drug court cannot be
produced, recidivism data exist for some drug courts as reported
through the DCPO data collection surveys and Clearinghouse surveys
(documented by GAO), as well as through individual drug court
evaluations. However, as discussed with GAO during the review, we are
concerned about the quality of the recidivism data reported on the
surveys. The information currently reported on the surveys is not
reliable or comparable between programs because of the variation in
definitions of recidivism, the sources of information consulted by the
jurisdictions, and the lengths of time graduates are tracked. It is
also impossible to know how the self-reported post-program recidivism
data might compare to recidivism rates for non-drug court participants
in each jurisdiction.
It has been our experience that the information survey respondents
actually reported about recidivism differs from GAO's projections
about the potential for respondents to report recidivism data. The
overall response rate for the first administration of the DCPO data
collection survey for the time period of July to December1998 was 80%,
which dropped to 47% for the next time period of January to June 1999.
For both of these time periods, only about one third of the respondent
programs were able to provide post-graduation drug offense recidivism
information. Of those that did report such information, almost half
said that they had zero recidivism at the six month follow up.
As part of OJP's reorganization efforts, we have proposed moving DCPO
under the umbrella of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). While
training and technical assistance for drug courts is primarily
provided by DCPO, many drug courts also are funded through BJA's block
grant programs. By consolidating drug court programs within BJA, we
can better coordinate our efforts, including data collection efforts,
and maximize our effectiveness in delivering these services to the
field.
Evaluation of DCPO-Funded Drug Courts:
To ensure that information on the impact of federally funded drug
court programs is made available to the Congress, the public, and
other drug court stakeholders as early as possible, the GAO recommends
that the Attorney General:
* take immediate steps to accelerate the funding and implementation of
a methodologically sound national impact evaluation and to consider
ways to reduce the time needed to provide information on the overall
impact of federally funded drug court programs; and;
* take steps to implement appropriate oversight of this evaluation
effort to ensure that it is well designed and executed, and remains on
schedule.
The NIJ and DCPO are taking steps to address the recommendations.
First, NIJ has already received applications for a short-term, quick
turn-around recidivism study. This study, using a consistent
definition across all selected DCPO-funded drug courts, will develop a
recidivism rate for drug court graduates one year out of the programs.
This information should be available in six to nine months. Based on
the results of this study, we will consider the frequency of similar
studies in the future.
In addition, as GAO reported, NIJ is developing a plan for a multi-
site impact evaluation using a longitudinal, offender-based design.
The proposed study will use a rigorous, methodologically sound design--
as GAO urged NIJ to pursue in another recent GAO report--and will
include drug court participants as well as a comparison group in 6 to
10 sites. The solicitation for such a study is currently being
prepared and will involve several phases, allowing interim reports at
appropriate intervals throughout the multi-year study. NIJ plans to
release the solicitation within the next two to three months.
The OJP has a strong financial commitment to sponsor a rigorous
evaluation, and as such, neither the amount of funding nor its timing
are an issue. However, it is important to note that rigorous
longitudinal studies require extensive time for meaningful results.
NIJ intends to require the grantee receiving the award to evaluate
these programs to design its study so as to provide information at
regular intervals throughout the project and to provide appropriate
milestones so that NIJ can effectively monitor the progress of the
independent research.
With respect to the report's conclusion that DCPO continues to lack
vital information on the overall impact of federally funded drug court
programs, we believe that there are numerous outcomes that, at least
in part, evidence the successes of DCPO-funded drug courts. The DCPO
has provided grant funding to support over 500 of the approximately
800 known existing drug courts, and grant funding for technical
assistance and training to most of the remaining drug courts.
Individual drug courts have compiled data about their participants and
graduates, such as cost savings to the community, jobs
obtained/retained, reunification of parents with children, child
support payments brought up to date, and drug free babies born. The
following are samples of research findings and data collected about
drug courts:
* In studies of four of the oldest drug courts, funded by NIJ/DCPO,
Abt Associates and the Crime and Justice Research Institute found
lower post program recidivism rates on the part of drug court
graduates of the Pensacola, Kansas City, Portland and Las Vegas adult
drug courts, as contrasted to comparison groups.
* Of 28 drug court evaluations that included post-program recidivism
data with a comparison group, reviewed by Dr. Steven Belenko, of the
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University, 20 found lower recidivism for drug court clients. [See
comment 1]
* Dr. Belenko's reviews of 96 drug court evaluations revealed the
effectiveness of the drug court model on offenders while in a drug
court program, as compared to other forms of community supervision.
Given that most drug court participants are under the supervision of
the court while living in the community for a minimum of 12 months,
and many for 18 to 24 months, it is not insignificant that their
recidivism rates improved for this time period when compared to others
on other forms of community supervision. [See comment 3]
* Information reported to the DCPO Drug Court Clearinghouse operated
by American University reveals: (1) 78% of drug court graduates have
retained or obtained employment; (2) more than 3,500 drug court
parents have regained custody of their children and more than 4,500
became current in child support payments while participating in drug
courts; (3) more than 2,100 drug-free babies have been born to drug
court participants; and (4) drug courts report saving over 9,000 jail
or prison days.
OJP appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Additional specific comments are enclosed for GAO's consideration.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Deborah J. Daniels:
Assistant Attorney General:
Enclosure: [We did not reproduce the enclosure]
The following are GAO comments on DOJ's letter of April 3, 2002.
1. In his reviews, Dr. Belenko noted that the long-term post-program
impact of drug courts on recidivism and other outcomes are less clear—
pointing out that the measurement of post-program outcomes other than
recidivism remains quite limited in the drug court evaluation
literature. He also noted that the evaluations varied in quality,
comprehensiveness, use of comparison groups, and types of measures
used and that longer follow-up and better precision in equalizing the
length of follow-up between experimental and comparison groups are
needed.
2. Dr. Belenko noted that the evaluations reviewed were primarily
process, as opposed to impact, evaluations. He also noted that a
shortcoming of some of the drug court evaluations was a lack of
specificity about data collection time frames—pointing out that
several studies lacked a distinction between recidivism that occurs
while an offender is under drug court supervision and recidivism
occurring after program participation.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from RAND:
RAND:
1700 Main Street, PO Box 2138:
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2133:
Tel: 310-393-0411:
Fax: 310-393-4818:
April 1, 2002:
Laurie E. Ekstrand:
Director, Justice Studies:
United States General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Ekstrand:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to GAO's draft report, "Drug
Courts: Better Dal Data Collection and Evaluation Efforts Needed to
Measure the Impact of Drug Court Programs."
This GAO report discusses, in part, a research project that RAND
conducted for the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). Under this
project, RAND provided four research products that addressed four key
issues about drug courts. The dates that these products were delivered
are in parentheses:
* A conceptual framework for evaluating the 14 DCPO-funded drug courts
(May 2000);
* A description and analysis of drug court implementation issues
(August 2000);
* The feasibility of including the 14 courts in a national impact
evaluation (November 1999);
* A design strategy for evaluating the impact of the 14 drug courts
that would potentially be funded in a non-competitive phase II process
(November 1999).
The only project deliverable produced later than initially anticipated
was the final consolidated report that closed out our grant with NIJ.
More generally, we would like to put the GAO's analysis of RAND's drug
court research grant in the context of two points:
* The critical deliverables for developing a drug court evaluation
process were the design strategy and the conceptual framework. After
visiting each of the 14 drug courts, RAND concluded in early November
1999 that a simple evaluation design would not support scientifically
valid conclusions about the effectiveness of drug courts. RAND
explained the inadequacy of the available drug court data to NIJ and
DCPO at that time.
* The project was funded as a research grant, not a contract. With
research grants, researchers generally have discretion to revise
timelines and scopes of work, with the agreement of the client, as the
research process unfolds and new insights are gained into the nature
of the problem studied. In the case of our drug court grant, the
schedule for and scope of certain activities, particularly the phase
II evaluation, was affected by the findings from phase I.
RAND believes that a proper, scientifically-valid evaluation of the
effectiveness of drug courts should be among the highest research
priorities of the drug policy community. As we documented in reports
from our drug court grant, the courts we visited do not have adequate
research infrastructure to support this important endeavor. RAND
strongly endorses improvements in the data collection infrastructure
for drug courts that will allow for definitive evaluation of the
courts' effects.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jack Riley, Ph.D.:
Director, RAND Criminal Justice:
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Laurie E. Ekstrand, (202) 512-2758:
Daniel C. Harris, (202) 512-8720:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Charles Michael Johnson, Nettie Y. Mahone, Deborah L. Picozzi, Jerome
T. Sandau, David P. Alexander, Douglas M. Sloane, and Shana B. Wallace
made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Drug Courts: Overview of Growth,
Characteristics, and Results, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-97-106] (Washington, D.C.: July
31, 1997).
[2] While there are drug court programs that receive funds from other
federal sources, our review focused on those programs receiving funds
from DCPO, which is DOJ's component responsible for administering the
federal drug court program under the Violent Crime Act.
[3] NIJ is the research component of DOJ.
[4] The Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project
(Drug Court Clearinghouse) at American University was established and
has been funded by DOJ's Office of Justice Programs to assist state
and local justice system officials and treatment professionals in
addressing issues relating to planning, implementing, managing, and
evaluating drug court programs. It provides clearinghouse and
technical assistance services and other support to jurisdictions
planning, implementing, or expanding drug court programs. Priority for
such services is given to jurisdictions that have received or applied
for funding under DCPO's grant program.
[5] The number of DCPO-funded drug court programs was based on our
analyses of information provided by the Drug Court Clearinghouse. This
figure may not be an accurate representation of the universe of DCPO-
funded drug court programs. As discussed later, the Drug Court
Clearinghouse does not follow up with all DCPO-funded drug court
programs.
[6] New Hampshire has plans to start two drug court programs, and
Vermont has plans to start one drug court program. In addition, Guam
has plans to start two drug court programs.
[7] Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, P.L. 103-
322 (1994).
[8] Drug court programs have also received funding from other federal
sources, state and local governments, private sources, and/or fees
collected from program participants. We do not include these figures
in our report.
[9] Our interviews were limited to the year 2000 reporting periods to
avoid any potential problems with drug court program staff's ability
to recall details prior to 2000. Also, at the time of our follow up
efforts, these were the most recent reporting periods for which the
survey deadlines had passed.
[10] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate ranges from
45 to 75 percent.
[11] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate ranges from
44 to 82 percent.
[12] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate ranges from
41 to 62 percent.
[13] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate ranges from
51 to 84 percent.
[14] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate ranges from
47 to 87 percent.
[15] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate ranges from
57 to 90 percent.
[16] The 1997 survey collected information from non-DCPO and DCPO-
funded drug court programs operating as of December 31, 1996.
[17] The 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate ranges from
45 to 78 percent.
[18] The Drug Court Clearinghouse's operational survey was
administered to various adult drug court program stakeholders;
including the judge/court officials, treatment providers, prosecutors,
defense counsel, and participants. The response rate for this survey
was 88 percent.
[19] The Drug Court Clearinghouse administers an annual survey to
operating adult, juvenile, family, and tribal drug court programs. The
survey response rates for these surveys were 89 and 87 percent,
respectively.
[20] Use of "relapse" in this report refers to an arrest or conviction
for a drug possession or other drug-related offense.
[21] The 14 jurisdictions include: Tuscaloosa County Commission and
University of Alabama-Birmingham, Alabama; Riverside County,
Sacramento County, and Santa Barbara County, California; Hillsborough
County (Tampa), Florida; Fulton County (Atlanta), Georgia; Kankakee
County and Cook County, Illinois; Douglas County (Omaha), Nebraska;
New York State Unified Court System-Brooklyn; Mental Health and Anti-
Addiction Services (San Juan), Puerto Rico; Virginia Supreme Court
(Roanoke), Virginia; Spokane County, Washington. These programs were
the first 14 DCPO implementation and enhancement grantees.
[22] While a limited number of individual drug court program impact
evaluations had been completed, an overall national impact evaluation
had not be done.
[23] Although the phase I grant award period was from July 1, 1998 to
June 30, 2000, NIJ initially expected, and RAND agreed in its
proposal, to complete phase I tasks in 18 months-—by December 31,
1999. Applying this timeframe would result in the project being
completed about 21 months after the original agreed upon milestone.
[24] In August 2000, RAND provided NIJ with a linkages paper entitled
Drug Courts: A Bridge between Criminal Justice and Health Services
that was prepared for the National Institute on Drug Abuse that
provided some information on the implementation of the 14 DCPO drug
court program sites. However, the document primarily focused on health
service related issues and NIJ did not consider this a deliverable for
the task milestone associated with its national impact evaluation
effort.
[25] NIJ asked RAND not to include its alternative proposal, which was
included in a March 2001 draft report, in the final report because it
did not address the original objectives for an impact evaluation.
[26] A longitudinal study involves the collection of data at different
points in time and assesses the change of an individual or group.
[27] DCPO also awarded technical assistance and training grants and
provided funding for evaluation of drug court programs between fiscal
years 1995-2001. At the time of our review, DCPO was in the process of
administering the fiscal year 2002 grant award program.
[End of section]
GAO’s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: