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: