Recommendations of the Texas Comptroller

Expand a Statewide System of Drug Courts for Nonviolent
Juvenile and Adult Offenders

Summary

Texas’ number of arrests for drug offenses has increased continuously since 1990. More than 32,000 inmates —25 percent of Texas’s total prison population in 1998— were incarcerated because of drug-related offenses. Drug court treatment programs are being used in many states as a cost-effective alternative to incarceration. More such programs in Texas would give prosecutors another option for dealing with drug offenders.

Background

Drugs and alcohol play an ever-increasing role in criminal activity in Texas. The state’s number of arrests for drug offenses has increased continuously since 1990. More than 92,000 adults were arrested in 1998 for drug-related offenses, about 10 percent of all arrests for adults over 17.[1]

In 1998, more than 32,000 inmates, or 25 percent of Texas’ total prison population, were incarcerated because of drugs or drunk driving offenses.[2] Many of these are low-level drug offenders convicted of possession or delivery of a controlled substance. Judges can order probated sentences for these offenders or sentence them to serve up to two years in state jails. In fiscal 1998, putting a drug offender in State Jail cost about $11,340 a year, an average cost per day of $31.07.[3]

Some states are examining other ways to treat and rehabilitate drug offenders. Many states, including Texas, are using “drug courts” as a cost-effective alternative to incarceration. These are special courts that have the responsibility to handle cases involving drug-addicted offenders through an extensive supervision, rehabilitation and treatment program. They force the offender to deal with his or her substance abuse problem and provide immediate sanctions for offenders who fail to comply with program requirements. In Texas, the average cost for the treatment component of a drug court program is $3,500 annually per offender, compared to more than $11,000 a year for State Jail incarceration.[4]

At this writing, there are more than 455 drug courts in the US.[5] Five are in Texas, in Dallas, Jefferson, Montgomery, Tarrant, and Travis Counties (Exhibit 1). Webb County is in the final planning stages for a drug court that will target individuals on probation. Almost 38 percent of the state jail offender population was convicted in Harris County in 1999, yet the county has no drug court program.[6] Consequently, Harris County prosecutors have few sentencing options for nonviolent drug offenders.

The drug court programs in Dallas, Jefferson and Travis counties operate under county court administration. The Montgomery County drug court, the Court Assisted Rehabilitation Experience, operates as an ancillary court to the district system under the local Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD). The Tarrant County drug court treatment program is reorganizing and will be administered by the local CSCD (commonly called the probation department).

Types of Drug Courts

Since drug courts were first introduced in Dade County, Florida in 1989, they have been hailed as a step forward in reducing drug-related crime.[7] Some researchers credit drug courts with giving addicts access to treatment they would not otherwise have had, thereby breaking the cycle of drugs and crime. The most common types of drug courts are pre-plea, post-plea, and post-adjudication.

Pre-plea models offer first-time drug offenders a stay of prosecution if they participate in court-supervised treatment. Post-plea drug courts require defendants to enter a guilty plea before receiving treatment; the criminal charges are dismissed if the defendant successfully completes the program. Post-adjudication models allow repeat drug offenders to enter treatment after conviction but prior to serving their sentence. Offenders can serve their sentence in treatment if they successfully complete the drug court program.

Probation departments often lack the resources and staff needed to provide probationers with the level of supervision they need. Jurisdictions that require completion of a treatment program as a condition of probation often conduct little follow-up to determine whether defendants who complete these programs actually stop or reduce their drug use.[8] One Texas drug court director believes that drug courts give participants eight times as many contacts with treatment counselors and judges as people on probation receive.[9] Drug court treatment costs average about $3,500 per participant compared to probation costs of around $700 per probationer.

A 1998 drug court survey conducted by the Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University indicated that drug courts provide more comprehensive and closer supervision of drug-using offenders than other forms of community supervision, including probation.[10] Another recent report concluded that probation all too often fails to help probationers avoid drugs, learn to read, obtain jobs, or otherwise get their lives together. The data show that almost half of today’s probationers were under the influence of alcohol or drugs when they committed their last offense.[11]

The Maricopa County, Arizona First Time Drug Offender program is not a diversion program, like many other drug courts, but a type of enhanced probation. It is a post-adjudication program for offenders sentenced to probation for a felony drug offense.[12]

Drug Court Activities

Drug court treatment programs include multiple weekly (often daily) contacts with the treatment provider for counseling, therapy, and education; frequent random urinalysis (usually at least weekly); frequent status hearings before the drug court judge (biweekly or more often at first); and a rehabilitation program that includes vocational, education, family, medical and other support services.

DIVERT, the Dallas Initiative for DiVersion & Expedited Rehabilitation and Treatment, drug court program is typical of the activities in drug courts. It is a three-phase, highly structured program lasting from one year to 18 months, depending upon individual progress. Each phase consists of specified treatment objectives, therapeutic and rehabilitative activities and requirements for “graduation” into the next phase. Sanctions, including jail, are administered by the judge for non-compliance.

Education and vocational goals are emphasized in Phase III of the DIVERT program. Phase III also includes 15 weeks of substance abuse education. Outpatient substance abuse treatment is provided by counselors in the community licensed by the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. Participants are required to submit to random urinalysis testing, attend self-help group meetings such as Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous, and attend court as directed by the case manager.[13]

Sanctions and Rewards

Typically, drug courts’ costs include monitoring by the drug court judge, weekly supervision by probation officers, and frequent drug tests and treatment sessions. Immediate rewards or sanctions are an integral part of the program. If participants fail to comply with program requirements they are immediately subjected to sanctions that can include enhanced treatment services, more frequent urinalysis (daily, if necessary), additional community service, and finally, incarceration.

When participants repeatedly fail to comply with program requirements, and public safety is considered to be at risk, they can be terminated from the drug court and referred for traditional trial and sentencing.

Offenders participating in drug court programs often have been abusing substances for years but have had little prior treatment. A 1998 drug court survey found that only 26 percent of drug court participants had been treated for substance abuse before, while 72 percent had been in jail or prison.[14]

Drug courts give participants a chance to have their charges dropped and avoid jail. Participants also receive treatment for their drug problems and are given an incentive to quit using drugs.[15] Another motivating factor is that participants do not have to pay attorney fees while in the program.

Texas Drug Courts

Most drug courts target nonviolent offenders and use the same procedures for identifying and recruiting eligible offenders, placing them in a treatment program, and monitoring their treatment progress.

With only five operating drug courts, Texas lags behind other large states such as California, Florida, and Louisiana. As of June 2000, fewer than 2,800 offenders had participated in Texas drug court programs.[16] Nationwide, an estimated 200,000 people have enrolled in adult drug court programs since 1989, and more than 140,000 have successfully completed a program or are currently enrolled.[17]

The Travis County Drug Diversion Court operates the System of Healthy Options for Release and Transition (SHORT) program, at a cost of about $3,500 annually for each program participant.[18] The SHORT program fits into the traditional model of drug courts and follows standard guidelines (Exhibit 2).

Exhibit 2

Drug Court Guidelines

• Drug courts integrate alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing.
• Prosecution and defense counsel promote public safety while protecting participants’ due process rights.
• Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed in the program.
• Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug, and other related treatment and rehabilitation services.
• Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug testing.
• A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance.
• Ongoing judicial interaction with each participant is essential.
• Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of program goals and gauge effectiveness.
• Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations.
• Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based organizations generates local support and enhances drug court effectiveness.

Source: US Department of Justice.

Drug Court Program Savings

Savings from drug courts can be measured by the number of participants who have been successfully diverted from prison and probation. In addition, prosecutors report that drug court programs reduce police overtime and witness costs, as well as grand jury expenses for those jurisdictions with an indictment process.[19]

Over its seven-year history, the Travis County SHORT program has enrolled 983 adults arrested for felony possession of a controlled substance. An estimated 35 percent of these graduates would have been incarcerated in state jail at an estimated annual cost of $11,340 per person.[20] The State Jail or prison costs for these 224 persons is estimated to be $5.3 million, one and one-half times the $3.4 million cost of the SHORT program.[21]

Other savings from drug courts can be realized from the early disposition of cases. The Maricopa County, Arizona drug court estimates that Arizona saves more than $600,000 annually in pre-trial expenses because the drug court procedure combines arraignment, change of plea, and sentencing in one hearing held within 14 days of arrest. The need for multiple court hearings, court-appointed counsel, police interviews, trials, and presentence reports is thereby eliminated.[22]

Some jurisdictions that have reported annual savings include: Albuquerque, New Mexico, $612,000 based on 90-day jail sentences at $68 a day; Kalamazoo, Michigan, $100,485 based on 4,785 jail days at $21 a day; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, $2,073,643 based on 33,120 jail days at $62.61 a day; Los Angeles, California, $2.5 million based on a 2 year average sentence at $25,000 per year; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, $2.8 million based on 1,350 months at $70 a day.[23]

Reducing Criminal Recidivism

Another way to gauge whether a drug court program is successful is to assess the recidivism (or rearrest) rates of its participants. A small-scale outcome evaluation for the Travis County program included these key findings:

• Graduates of the SHORT program are less likely to be arrested again than those who do not participate in the program or who fail to complete it.
• SHORT graduates had no subsequent arrests for drug offenses.[24]

The Jefferson County Drug Intervention Court Program had 171 graduates as of August 1999. Of this group, just 41 (or 24 percent) were rearrested for felonies and misdemeanors. In 1998, after five years of operation, outcomes have shown recidivism to be three times higher for non-graduates.[25]

In the Dallas Drug Diversion Court program, only two of the 24 graduates in 1999 had been rearrested for misdemeanor offences, which represents an 8 percent one-year recidivism rate.[26]

Out of 264 participants in Tarrant County’s drug treatment program through fiscal 1998, 38 or 14 percent were rearrested one year after they ended their contact with the program.[27] Program dropouts had much higher rearrest rates (21.2 percent) than program graduates (2.8 percent).

Benefits to Families and Children

Drug court treatment programs also benefit families and children. Many of the parents in drug courts have lost or are in danger of losing custody of their children because of their drug use. This led San Diego, California, to establish the Dependency Court Recovery Project.

Judge James R. Milliken of San Diego has said that he expects the project to substantially reduce the time children spend in temporary foster care while their parents are involved in alcohol and drug treatment programs.[28] Since the program began in April 1998, more than 850 dependency parents were active participants, and 82 percent completed their treatment plans and tested negative for alcohol or drug usage.[29]

A large number of people who come into the drug court program are unemployed and some are on public assistance. An important requirement of most programs is that participants must obtain their general equivalency diploma (GED), if applicable, and find employment. A government report found that many individuals who participate in drug court programs are able to either retain their jobs or obtain employment as a result of drug court participation.[30]

Many drug court participants are young women who are in their child-bearing years. One benefit to drug courts is the avoidance of medical and social service costs for drug-addicted babies which are estimated to be $250,000 a year per child.[31]

Avoided Costs

A research study on the Multnomah County, Oregon S.T.O.P. drug diversion program focused on avoided costs on two levels: those to county taxpayers and those to state taxpayers. Avoided costs are those costs that would have accrued if the program participants had not received treatment. For this approach, the researcher used costs that directly affect the average citizen. For example, criminal justice system costs which include police protection services, prosecution, adjudication, public defense, and incarceration and parole were assessed in the avoided costs tabulation. The researcher concluded that the drug program avoided county criminal justice system costs of nearly $2.5 million over a two-year period.

In addition, the report showed state wide savings to Oregon taxpayers as a result of the S.T.O.P. program. These are costs that would have been assumed by governmental budgets if treatment had not occurred. Examples of these are criminal justice costs, victimization costs, theft costs, public assistance costs and estimated medical claims costs. The report estimated that the S.T.O.P. program produced savings to the state of more than $10 million over two years.[32]

Funding for Drug Courts

Federal funding is available for creating drug courts under Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, but state and local government funds are needed to maintain the operations.[33] Texas’ drug courts have sought funding from state and federal grants as well as from counties and even from civic organizations. “The biggest challenge to operating a drug court is funding,” Travis County Court Magistrate Joel Bennett has said.[34]

Montgomery County’s drug court program, CARE (Court Assisted Rehabilitation Experience), began with a federal grant in 1999 which was extended to September, 2001. The grant extension required that the program have a 25 percent local match which was made with equipment, phones and office space. The court coordinator reported that they applied for a federal enhancement grant but did not receive it. They will continue to apply for other grants in an attempt to keep the program going.[35]

Funding was the biggest handicap for the Tarrant County drug court program in Fort Worth. The program ended its operations covering more than 100 participants in July, 2000 because of funding problems.[36] The drug court recently began operating again as a post adjudication program with one district judge volunteering his time. The program is receiving limited funding from local law enforcement block grants.

Funding in Other States

State funding for drug court programs usually is tied to some statutory authority. For example, the North Carolina Drug Treatment Court Program was established under the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The AOC funded pilot drug courts in two judicial districts in 1995. These were upgraded to full drug court status in 1998, and the state’s General Assembly increased the annual program budget to support up to eight new drug court programs.[37]

California’s Drug Court Partnership Act of 1998 appropriated $4 million of state general funds in fiscal 1998-99 and $8 million in 1999-00. As of July 1999, the state had 34 counties operating 48-month drug court partnership programs. The legislation requires an outcome study from the drug courts to continue funding.[38]

New York will use a mix of state and federal funding to pay for drug courts statewide over the next three years. The state Medicaid program will pay for the treatment component. Offenders who test positive for drugs and plead guilty will be eligible for treatment, and prosecutors will have the option to send defendants to treatment who plead not guilty but test positive for drugs.[39]

Several drug courts are working to create a nonprofit organization to attract funding. Madison County, Illinois’ drug court has been operating for more than three years. The court has permanent county funding but found that these funds did not cover items such as clothes for clients to wear to job interviews. A task force connected to the drug court became a nonprofit organization so that it could hold fund-raisers and accept donations for such items.[40]

Similarly, the Pima County, Arizona drug court receives funds from a nonprofit organization for aftercare and mentorship programs. Judge Leslie Miller reports that these programs are not an intrinsic part of the drug court, but add to its value.[41]

Participant Fees

Since many drug courts are pre-trial diversion programs, they rely on fees from participants to pay for some of the treatment and counseling services they provide. At this writing, the fee assessed to a person in a Texas pre-trial intervention program cannot exceed $500.[42] The money is deposited in a special fund of the county treasury for the probation department.[43]

The Travis County drug court program collects an average of $40,000 a year in participant fees, or about 6 percent of its total budget in fiscal 1999.[44] Jefferson County’s participant fees totaled $20,360 in fiscal 1999, about 5 percent of its total revenue. Dallas County’s participant fees of $77,269 accounted for 4.5 percent of the drug court program’s total revenue through June 2000.[45]

Although many drug court participants have no funds, some judges require that they pay a sliding-scale fee for their treatment or perform community service hours. “It’s a matter of pride for the participants to be able to pay a fee or perform some community service,” one court director noted, “and it makes them feel accountable for their treatment.”[46]

Statutory Framework

Texas’ five drug courts each reflect the unique circumstances of their communities. All drug courts, nonetheless, require the cooperation of judges, district attorneys, prosecutors, substance abuse treatment professionals, law enforcement, educational systems, vocational entities, and community organizations.

A lack of definitive regulations is an obstacle to expanding drug courts in Texas. Texas drug courts derive their statutory authority from Chapter 76 of the Government Code relating to Community Supervision and Correction Departments (or probation departments). Specifically, Article 76.011 gives probation departments the authority to “operate programs for the supervision and rehabilitation of persons in pretrial intervention programs. Programs may include testing for controlled substances.”

However, this statute does not identify drug courts as such. Drug courts must be identified and defined in law so that appropriate guidelines can be established for participant fees, funding, and local control issues.

Recommendations

Fiscal Impact

The general revenue appropriation would help to stabilize funding for the five existing drug courts. The estimated cost to the General Revenue Fund is the result of additional appropriations to drug courts suggested in Recommendation D for the 2002-03 biennium. The cost increase beginning in 2004 represents funding for additional drug courts.

This estimate assumes that the five existing drug courts would increase their current participation by 25 percent beginning in fiscal 2002. This increase would be held constant each year thereafter. Beginning in fiscal 2004, new drug courts would be established based on task force recommendations that would serve an additional 1,000 participants each year. The fiscal impact of expanding existing drug court participation and establishing new drug courts would be felt at both the state and county levels.

General revenue costs would be avoided primarily from participant diversions from state jails. Based on a Travis County estimate, 35 percent of drug court participants would have been sentenced to an average of 13 months in state jails if drug court participation had not been an option.

Probation costs would increase as a result of these recommendations, since drug court participation costs an average of $3,500 per year, compared with traditional probation costs of about $700 per year. The state pays nearly 49 percent of the average cost of traditional probation.

The local share of probation costs in this calculation assumes that the state appropriation to drug courts is approved. The fiscal impact to counties would result from the drug court costs for additional participants and from reduced probation costs for those participants who otherwise would have been sentenced to probation in their communities. Counties share in the cost of both. Since drug court participation and program costs are greater than the cost of traditional probation, total probation costs would increase under these recommendations.

The new drug courts could attract federal startup funds from Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, but these gains cannot be determined. New drug courts would receive these funds directly beginning in fiscal 2004.

The calculations for the amounts shown below do not include increased participant fees. The amount of these fees cannot be estimated, but is not anticipated to be significant.

To achieve the General Revenue Fund savings, appropriations to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice should be reduced by the amounts shown below.

[1] Criminal Justice Policy Council, Sourcebook of Texas Adult Justice Population Statistics 1988 – 1998, by Andrew Barbee, Eric Benson, Pablo Martinez, Michelle Munson, and Lisa Riechers (Austin, Texas, November 1999), p. 11.

[2] Criminal Justice Policy Council, Sourcebook of Texas Adult Justice Population Statistics 1988 – 1998, by Andrew Barbee, Eric Benson, Pablo Martinez, Michelle Munson and Lisa Riechers, p. 62.

[3 ] Criminal Justice Policy Council, The State Jail System Today: An Update, by Michelle Munson and Regina Ygnacio (Austin, Texas, March 2000), p. 20.

[4] US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University, Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts (Washington, DC, 1999), p. 7; and telephone interview with Montie Morgan, CSCD director, Jefferson County Drug Intervention Court, Beaumont, Texas, August 14, 2000.

[5] US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University, Drug Court Activity Update: Composite Summary Information (Washington, DC, February 29, 2000), p. 1.

[6] Criminal Justice Policy Council, The State Jail System Today: An Update, by Michelle Munson and Regina Ygnacio, p. 7.

[7] The Urban Institute, Understanding the Impact of Drug Courts, by Adele Harrell (Washington, DC, September 1999), p. 1.

[8] US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University, Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts (Washington, DC, 1999), p. 3.

[9 ] Telephone interview with Rod Gustafson, director of court management, Travis County, Austin, Texas, April 27, 2000.

[10 ] The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, by Steven Belenko (New York, New York, June 1998), p. 23.

[11 ] Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute, “Broken Windows” Probation: The Next Step in Fighting Crime (New York, New York, August 1999), p. 4.

[12 ] RAND Reprints, Drug Court or Probation? An Experimental Evaluation of Maricopa County’s Drug Court by Elizabeth Piper Deschenes, Susan Turner and Peter Greenwood (Santa Monica, California, 1996), p. 57.

[13] Dallas County DIVERT Court Program, Dallas, Texas. (Handout.)

[14 ] The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, p. 20.

[15] Interview with Judge Joel Bennett, Travis County Drug Court Judge, Austin, Texas, April 27, 2000.

[16 ] Texas Association of Drug Court Professionals, telephone survey by Comptroller staff, June, 2000.

[17 ] US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University, Drug Court Activity Update: Composite Summary Information (Washington, DC, February 29, 2000), p. 1.

[18 ] Telephone interview with Patricia Greenspan, program manager, Travis County Drug Court program, Austin, Texas, April 27, 2000.

[19 ] US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University, Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts, p. 7.

[20] Criminal Justice Policy Council, Sourcebook of Texas Adult Justice Population Statistics 1988 – 1998, by Andrew Barbee, Eric Benson, Pablo Martinez, Michelle Munson, and Lisa Riechers (Austin, Texas, November 1999), p. 96.

[21] Travis County, Justice and Public Safety, Short Program Cost Benefit Information (Austin, Texas, June 28, 2000), p. 1.

[22 ] Letter from Leslie Miller, superior court judge, Pima County, Arizona, July 12, 2000.

[23] US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University, Looking At a Decade of Drug Courts (Washington, DC, 1999), p. 12.

[24 ] Travis County, Texas, Evaluation Report: Recidivism (Austin, Texas, May 2000), p. 1.

[25 ] Jefferson County Drug Intervention Court Program, Statistical Summary (Beaumont, Texas, May 2000). (Summary page.)

[26] Drug Diversion Courts, DIVERT Court Program (Dallas, Texas July 2000), p. 29.

[27 ] Tarrant County Drug Impact and Rehabilitation Enhanced Comprehensive Treatment Program, D.I.R.E.C.T. Project Program Evaluation (Fort Worth, Texas, December 28, 1998), p. 2.

[28 ] Superior Court, San Diego County, The Dependency Court Recovery Project, by James R. Milliken (San Diego, California, May 2000), pp. 1-2.

[29 ] Superior Court, San Diego County, The Dependency Court Recovery Project, by James R. Milliken, p. 8.

[30] US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University, Looking At a Decade of Drug Courts (Washington, DC, 1999), p. 12.

[31] US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project at American University, Looking At a Decade of Drug Courts (Washington, DC, 1999), p. 8.

[32] Michael Finigan, “A Program Prepared for Multnomah County Department of Community Corrections” (West Linn, Oregon, January 6, 1998), pp. 5-6. (http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/justice/multeval.htm). (Internet document.)

[33] The Urban Institute, Understanding the Impact of Drug Courts, by Adele Harrell, p. 2.

[34 ] Interview with Judge Joel Bennett.

[35] Telephone interview with Rusty Smith, coordinator, Montgomery County Drug Court, Conroe, Texas, July 3, 2000.

[36] Telephone interview with Cheryl Bennett-Wright, Tarrant County Commissioners Court, Fort Worth, Texas, August 4, 2000.

[37 ] “North Carolina Drug Treatment Counts,” May 26, 2000 (http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/dtc/description.html). (Internet document.)

[38 ] California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, “Fact Sheet: Drug Court Programs,” Sacramento, California, February 2000. (Pamphlet.)

[39] “New York to Offer Treatment to all Nonviolent Offenders,” June 27, 2000 (http://www.jointogether.org/sa/wire/features/reader.jtml?Object_ID=263614). (Internet document.)

[40 ] Telephone interview with Terry Sorger, coordinator, Madison County, Illinois drug court, Edwardsville, Illinois, June 30, 2000.

[41 ] Telephone interview with Leslie Miller, superior court judge, Pima County, Arizona drug court, Tucson, Arizona, July 12, 2000.

[42 ] Vernon’s Ann. C.C.P. art. 102.012.

[43 ] V.T.C.A., Government Code §76.011 (b).

[44] Travis County Drug Court budget, (Austin, Texas, July 2000).

[45] Dallas County DIVERT Court Program (Dallas, Texas, July 2000), p. 43.

[46 ] Telephone interview with Carol Todd, DIVERT Court Program director, Dallas, Texas, August 22, 2000.

e-Texas is an initiative of Carole Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Post Office Box 13528, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas

Privacy Policy