A performance audit of the Pima and Maricopa County treatment alternatives to street crime programs

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
of
THE PlMA AND MARICOPA COUNTY
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES TO
STREET CRIME PROGRAMS
AUGUST 1 980
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 80- 2
STATE OF ARIZONA
DOUGLAS R NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
August 14, 1980
The Honorable Bruce B a b b i t t , Governor
Mem~ ers of the Arizona L e g i s l a t u r e
M s . P a t r i c i a A. Mehrhoff, Pima County TASC Director
Ms. Barbara Zugor, Maricopa County TASC Executive Director
Mr. St even Radvick, Statewide TASC Coordinator
Mr. Kenneth P. Geis, CODAC, Executive Director
Transmitted herewith is a r e p o r t of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Pima and Maricopa County Treatment A l t e r n a t i v e s t o S t r e e t
Crine Programs. This r e p o r t is i n response t o Senate B i l l 1226 of t h e
34th L e g i s l a t u r e , F i r s t Regular Session.
. A summary of t h i s r e p o r t is found on the blue pages at the f r o n t of the
r e p o r t . Responses t o t h i s r e p o r t by the TASC D i r e c t o r s , t h e Statewide
TASC Coordinator, and the Executive Director of CODAC a r e found on t h e
yellow pages preceding the appendices.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be happy t o meet with a p p r o p r i a t e l e g i s l a t i v e
committees, i n d i v i d u a l l e g i s l a t o r s o r o t h e r S t a t e o f f i c i a l s t o d i s c u s s o r
c l a r i f y any items i n t h e r e p o r t or t o f a c i l i t a t e implementation of the
recommendations.
Respectfully submitted,
~ 6ugl& CR; . Norton
Auditor General
S t a f f : Gerald A. Silva
J e r r y L. M i l l s
LEGISLATIVE SERVICES WING SUITE 200 STATE CAPITOL PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007 255- 4385
O F F I C E OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF
THE PIMA AND MARICOPA COUNTY
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES TO S T R E E T CRIME PROGRAMS
REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 80- 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
FINDINGS
FINDING I
TASC p a r t i c i p a t i o n d i d n o t r e s u l t i n reduced recidivism.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
FINDING I1
Improvements needed i n c l i e n t record- keeping procedures
f o r the Maricopa and Pima County TASC programs.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
A S t a t i s t i c a l P r o f i l e of TASC C l i e n t s
A Survey of Persons Involved i n the Maricopa and Pima County
Criminal J u s t i c e Systems Revealed t h a t TASC is Perceived a s
an Important Adjunct of those Systems.
WRITTEN RESPONSES TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT 47
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - March 4 1980, l e t t e r from the Pima County TASC
Director regarding a n c i l l a r y s e r v i c e s performed by
TASC personnel
APPENDIX B - Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t form
APPENDIX C - Maricopa County TASC 4" x 6" c l i e n t card
APPENDIX D - Sample of survey form used t o survey crimincl
j u s t i c e system elements
APPENDIX E - A glossary of terms
SUMMA X Y
In accordance with Senate B i l l 1226 of the 34th L e g i s l a t u r e , F i r s t Regular
Session, the Office of the Auditor General has conducted 3. performance
a u d i t of the Treatment A l t e r n a t i v e s t o S t r e e t Crimes ( TASC) programs i n
Pima and Maricopa Counties.
TASC was conceived by two F e d e r a l a g e n c i e s , t h e S p e c i a l Action Office f o r
Drug Abuse Prevention and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,
a s a means of i n t e r r u p t i n g the a r r e s t - r e l e a s e - r e a r r e s t c y c l e experienced
by many drug- dependent persons. The TASC concept is comprised o f t h e
following major assumptions:
- Many drug abusers commit crimes i n order t o o b t a i n the money
required t o support t h e i r drug h a b i t .
- If a r r e s t e d and subsequently released t o the community while
awaiting t r i a l , drug a b u s e r s n o t channeled i n t o treatment a r e
l i k e l y t o continue abusing drugs and committing crimes t o support
t h e i r h a b i t .
- Providing treatment and removing a drug a b u s e r ' s need t o o b t a i n
money f o r t h e purchase of drugs would solve r e l a t e d c r i m i n a l i t y
problems.
- A formalized mechanism is needed t o i d e n t i f y a r r e s t e d drug
abusers, r e f e r them t o a p p r o p r i a t e treatment programs and monitor
t h e i r treatment progress.
- Progress i n treatment should be monitored and reported t o the
c o u r t , so t h a t drug abusers may be i n s p i r e d t o perceive a r e a l
i n c e n t i v e t o succeed i n treatment.
- If treatment is s u c c e s s f u l , t h e r e w i l l be l e s s crime i n t h e
community than t h e r e would be otherwise, since former drug
abusers w i l l no longer commit crimes.
- If treatment is s u c c e s s f u l , the processing burdens on the
criminal j u s t i c e system w i l l be reduced, since former drug
abusers w i l l no longer be p a r t of t h e a r r e s t - r e l e a s e - r e a r r e s t
cycle.
Accordingly, TASC progrdams generally perform t h r e e b a s i c f u n c t i o n s :
- I d e n t i f y i n g drug abusers i n c o n t a c t with the criminal j u s t i c e
system and o f f e r i n g those e l i g i b l e the opportunity of TASC
p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
- Diagnosing the drug a b u s e r ' s problems and treatment needs and
recommending a p p r o p r i a t e treatment.
- Monitoring the performance of TASC c l i e n t s ( according t o l o c a l l y
determined treatment o b j e c t i v e s and criminal j u s t i c e system
o b l i g a t i o n s ) and r e t u r n i n g v i o l a t o r s of t h e conditions of program
p a r t i c i p a t i o n t o the criminal j u s t i c e system f o r a p p r o p r i a t e
a c t i o n .
The Pima County TASC program began operation i n July 1975 and, a s of March
1980, has served 1-, 083 c l i e n t s . The Pima County TASC 1980- 81 budget is
$ 187,876. The Maricopa County TASC program began operation i n J u l y 1977
and, a s of March 1980, has served 805 c l i e n t s . The Maricopa County
1980- 81 budget is $ 195,000.
Our review of the Pima and Maricopa County TASC programs revealed t h a t :
1 ) t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n recidivism between Maricopa
County TASC c l i e n t s and a comparable non- TASC group, and 2) the Pima
County TASC c l i e n t s had a h i g h e r r a t e of recidivism than a comparable
~ O ~ - T A S C group. In a d d i t i o n , a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f t h e Pima and Maricopa
County TASC programs and c i i e n t s revealed t h a t the primary causes f o r the
d i f f e r e n c e i n recidivism between t h e two programs appear t o be: 1) Pima
County has used r e s i d e n t l a l c a r e a s a treatment modality f a r more
e x t e n s i v e l y than Maricopa County, and 2) Maricopa County is f a r more
r e s t r i c t i v e than Pilna County regarding TASC e l i g i b i l i t y . ( page 20)
Our review of the Maricopa and Pima County TASC programs a l s o revealed a
need within both progrzms f o r formal w r i t t e n c r i t e r i a regarding c l i e n t
terminatLons. In . ~ d d i t i o n , each TASC program has developed independently
some valuable c l i s d t record- ki. eping procedures t h a t should be edl pied by
the other program. ( pagc 23)
The r e p o r t contains a s t a t i s t i c a l p r o f i l e of the 411 Pima County TASC
c l i e n t s who entered the program between July 1975 and December 1977 and
the 247 Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s who entered t h e program between July
1977 and December 1978, which revealed t h a t :
- The v a s t majority were heroin abusers. ( Table 7)
- Most were a r r e s t e d f o r burglary o r possession of drugs. ( Table 8)
- Most of the TASC c l i e n t s who were a r r e s t e d more than once were
r e a r r e s t e d f o r burglary o r possession of drugs. ( Table 9)
- Years of substance abuse varied from l e s s than one year t o 40
y e a r s , with the average being 6.1 years. ( Table 10)
- The most f r e q u e n t l y used drug treatment modality was drug- free
o u t - p a t i e n t . ( Table 11)
- Approximately 28 percent of Pirna County TASC c l i e n t s received
employment counseling from TASC personnel. ( Tab12 12)
- More than half t h e TASC p a r t i c i p a n t s were i n TASC f o r l e s s than
t h r e e months. ( Table 13)
- Less than 20 percent of TASC p a r t i c i p a n t s s u c c e s s f u l l y completed
t h e i r treatment programs. ( Table 14)
- Approximately 80 percent had an a r r e s t record before entering
TASC. ( Table 15)
- Approximately 1 4 p e r c e n t of Pima County TASC c l i e n t s and e i g h t
percent of Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s were a r r e s t e d while still
i n TASC. ( Table 16)
- Approximately 17 percent of Pima County TASC c l i e n t s and four
percent of Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s were program r e p e a t e r s .
( Table 17)
- Approximately 75 percent of Pima County TASC 2lient. s and 61
percent of Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s had been i l l drug
treatment before entering TASC. ( Table 18)
- Approximately h a l f the Pima County TASC c l i e n t s and one f o u r t h of
Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s were a r r e s t e d a f t e r e n t e r i n g TASC.
( Table 19)
- Approximately 33 percent of Pima County TASC c l i e n t s and 19
p e r c e n t of Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s were a r r e s t e d w i t h i n one
year a f t e r t e r m i n a t i n g from TASC. ( Table 20)
- Thirty- seven percent of Pima County TASC c l i e n t s and 17 percent
of Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s were convicted of a crime a f t e r
e n t e r i n g TASC. ( Table 21)
- Approximately 24 percent of Pima County TASC c l i e n t s and t e n
percent of Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s were convicted of a
crime w i t h i n one year a f t e r t e r m i n a t i n g from TASC. ( Table 22)
F i n a l l y , t h e r e p o r t c o n t a i n s t h e r e s u l t s of a survey of persons involved
i n t h e Maricopa and Pima County c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e ' systems which revealed
t h a t TASC is perceived as an important a d j u n c t o f t h o s e systems. ( page 37)
It is recommended t h a t :
- The D i r e c t o r o f t h e Pima County TASC program c o n s i d e r :
1 ) R e f e r r i n g TASC c l i e n t s t o r e s i d e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t programs
only after o t h e r d r u g t r e a t m e n t modality o p t i o n s have been
exhausted, and
2 ) Adopting more s t r i n g e n t TASC e l i g i b i l i t y requirements.
- The D i r e c t o r s o f t h e TASC programs i n Pima and Maricopa Counties
and t h e Statewide TASC Coordinator develop formal, w r i t t e n
c r i t e r i a r e g a r d i n g c l i e n t t e r m i n a t i o n s . Such criteria should be
s p e c i f i c r e g a r d i n g l e n g t h o f TASC p a r t i c i p a t i o n , number and
frequency of r e q u i r e d u r i n e samples, percentage of r e q u i r e d c l e a n
u r i n e samples, frequency of TASC c o u n s e l i n g and subsequent
a r r e s t s .
- Pima County TASC adopt t h e c l i e n t form and 4" x 6" card f i l i n g
system developed by Maricopa County TASC.
In accordance w i t h S e n a t e B i l l 1226 of the 34th L e g i s l a t u r e , F i r s t Regular
Session, the O f f i c e o f the Auditor General has conducted a performance
a u d i t of the Treatment A l t e r n a t i v e s t o S t r e e t Crimes ( TASC) programs i n
Pima and Maricopa Counties.
TASC was conceived by two Federal agencies, t h e S p e c i a l Action Office f o r
Drug Abuse Prevention and the Law Enforcement A s s i s t a n c e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
a s a means of i n t e r r u p t i n g the a r r e s t - r e l e a s e - r e a r r e s t c y c l e experienced
by many drug- dependent persons. The TASC concept is comprised of the
following major assumptions:
- Many drug abusers commit crimes i n order t o o b t a i n t h e money
required t o support t h e i r drug h a b i t .
- I f a r r e s t e d and subsequently released t o t h e community while
awaiting t r i a l , drug abusers not channeled i n t o treatment a r e
l i k e l y t o continue abusing drugs and committing crimes t o support
t h e i r h a b i t .
- Providing treatment and removing a drug a b u s e r ' s need t o o b t a i n
money f o r t h e purchase of drugs would solve r e l a t e d c r i m i n a l i t y
problems.
- A formalized mechanism is needed t o i d e n t i f y a r r e s t e d drug
abusers, r e f e r them t o a p p r o p r i a t e treatment programs and monitor
t h e i r treatment progress.
- Progress i n treatment should be monitored and reported t o t h e
c o u r t , s o t h a t drug abusers may be i n s p i r e d t o perceive a r e a l
i n c e n t i v e t o succeed i n treatment.
- If treatment is s u c c e s s f u l , t h e r e w i l l be l e s s crime i n the
community than t h e r e would be otherwise, s i n c e former drug
abusers w i l l no longer commit crimes.
- I f treatment is s u c c e s s f u l , the processing burdens on the
c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system w i l l be reduced, s i n c e former drug
abusers w i l l no longer be part of fhe a r r e s t - r e l e a s e - r e a r r e s t
cycle.
Accordingly, TASC programs generally perform t h r e e b a s i c f u n c t i o n s :
- I d e n t i f y i n g drug abusers i n contact with t h e criminal j u s t i c e
system and o f f e r i n g those e l i g i b l e the opportunity of TASC
p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
- Diagnosing the drug a b u s e r ' s problems and treatment needs and
recommending a p p r o p r i a t e treatment.
- Monitoring the performance of TASC c l i e n t s ( according t o l o c a l l y
determined treatment o b j e c t i v e s and criminal j u s t i c e system
o b l i g a t i o n s ) and r e turning v i o l a t o r s of the c o n d i t i o n s o f program
p a r t i c i p a t i o n - t o the criminal j u s t i c e system f o r a p p r o p r i a t e
a c t i o n .
The basic TASC model involves t h r e e components: 1) a screening u n i t which
attempts t o i d e n t i f y drug abusers e n t e r i n g t h e criminal j u s t i c e system,
P1.) an l n t a k e u n i t t o whlch e l i q i b ~ e r r e c flo r diagnosis of a
the drug problem involved and r e f e r r a l t o an a p p r o p r i a t e treatment
program, and 3) a t r a c k i n g u n i t t o monitor t h e progress of TASC c l i e n t s
and ensure t h e i r compliance with s u c c e s s / f a i l u r e c r i t e r i a of t h e i r
r e s p e c t i v e programs.*
Nationally, the TASC concept has been a n e v o l u t i o n a r y one. O r i g i n a l l y
designed f o r o p i a t e abusers only, some TASC programs now a l s o accept
persons with o t h e r drug abuse problems. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e major t h r u s t of
TASC has, by n e c e s s i t y , changed a d i v e r s i o n program t o an i n t e r v e n t i o n
program.
Diversion
Diversion is a prcgram wh~ ch d i v e r t s criminal cases from the usual
criminal j d s t i c e processing and d i s p o s e s o f them i n a n o n t r i a l ,
nonconvict- on s e t t i n s . Ususl- ly, prosecution is d e f e r r e d , pending a
d e f e n d a n t ' s co~ npliance i n the c e r t a i n e s t a b l i s h e d conditions of a p r e t r i a l
probation. I f the defendant complies, the case is, i n e f f e c t , malle
prosse, and t h e reco- d of t h e a r r e s t is expunged.
* TASC personnel a r e a l s o involved i n s e v e r a l community a c t i v i t i e s not
d i r e c t l y relakzd t o TASC. Appendix A is a statement from the Director
of the Pima County TASC progrlam regarding t h e s e a n c i l l a r y a c t i v i t i e s .
In s- eligible f a - d i v e r s i o n a per- wn PZS~;: 1 ) bve
felony c o n v i c t i o n s , and 2 ) e n t e r i n t o a signed agreement with t h e County
Attorney t h a t s t i p u l a t e s the d u r a t i o n and c o n d i t i o n s of TASC- monitored
drug treatment. I n r e t u r n , t h e County Attorney agrees t o join with t h e
a r r e s t e d persons1 a t t o r n e y i n a p e t i t i o n t o t h e court t o have a r r e s t
charges dismissed.
I n t e r v e n t i o n
TASC i n t e r v e n t i o n can be applied on a p r e t r i a l o r p o s t - t r i a l b a s i s .
P r e t r i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n occurs when a p o t e n t i a l TASC c l i e n t is i d e n t i f i e d
soon a f t e r a r r e s t , screened f o r e l i g i b i l i t y , released from custody on h i s
or her own recognizance and diagnosed f o r r e f e r r a l t o treatment. While
the c l i e n t is i n treatment, TASC monitors h i s progress and r e p o r t s such
progress t o a p p r o p r i a t e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e systerll o f f i c i a l s . I f t h e c l i e n t
is brought t o t r i a l and found g u i l t y , TASC- documented treatment progress
is provided f o r consid e r a t i o n i n sentencing. Claimed b e n e f i t s o f p r e t r i a l
i n t e r v e n t i o n t o the criminal j u s t i c e system a r e a r e d u c t i o n i n t h e
p r e t r i a l d e t e n t i o n population and the provision o f c l o s e supervision f o r
an a r r e s t e e population awaiting t r i a l . A c o r o l l a r y b e n e f i t of p r e t r i a l
supervision is the opportunity t o t e s t the s t a b i l i t y of the offender
within the community p r i o r t o t r i a l and p o s s i b l e sentencing. The b e n e f i t s
t o t h e defendant a r e r e l e a s e from custody and a r e h a b i l i t a t i o n opportunity
p r i o r t o t r i a l .
P o s t - t r i a l i n t e r v e n t i o n is s i m i l a r t o p r e t r i a l except t h a t TASC
involvement begins a f t e r t h e c l i e n t 1 s t r i a l has been completed.
Prospective c l i e n t s may be r e f e r r e d t o TASC f o r d i a g n o s i s and development
o f a treatment recommendation which t h e court may consider i n making the
sentencing d e c i s i o n ; they may be r e f e r r e d byA the court or probation
department a f t e r sentencing; o r they may be r e f e r r e d by t h e parole
department a f t e r i n c a r c e r a t i o n .
I n a11 c a s e s , TASC conducts its d i a g n o s t i c a c t i v i t i e s , r e f e r s t h e c l i e n t
t o a p p r o p r i a t e t r e a t m e n t , m o n i t o r s p r o g r e s s and r e p o r t s on c l i e n t ,
performance. The o r i g i n a l TASC concept was a c l a s s i c d i v e r s i o n model.
However, on a n a t i o n a l l e v e l t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e
p r o s e c u t o r ' s o f f i c e , has not been w i l l i n g t o d i v e r t drug- involved
i n d i v i d u a l s . I n e f f e c t , a d i v e r s i o n o p t i o n f o r drug a b u s e r s h a s not been
accepted by t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system. Thus, a v a s t majoricy of TASC
involvement has been on an i n t e r v e n t i o n b a s i s , n o t d i v e r s i o n .
The Pima and Maricopa County TASC programs, l i k e a v a s t m a j o r i t y o f TASC
programs i n o t h e r s t a t e s , have few d i v e r s i o n c l i e n t s . For example, t h e
Pima County TASC Diversion Program is r e s t r i c t e d t o f i r s t - t i m e
p r e s c r i p t i o n p i l l o f f e n d e r s . I n Pima and Maricopa Counties t h e County
Attorney is t h e p r o s e c u t i n g arm of t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system and
A - determines who is e l i g i b l e f o r d i v e r s i o n . Both t h e Pima a d Maricopa
County Attorneys have adopted p o l i c i e s t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y l i m i t t h e
a v a i l a b i l i t y o f d i v e r s i o n f o r persons a r r e s t e d f o r d r u g - r e l a t e d crimes.
Thus, TASC c l i e n t s i n Pima and Maricopa County r a r e l y q u a l i f y f o r
d i v e r s i o n .
Pima County TASC
The Pima County TASC program began o p e r a t i o n i n J u l y 1975.
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y , it is p a r t of t h e Community O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Drug Abuse
Control ( CODAC) of Pima County, I n c . , which is t h e d e s i g l l a t e d umbrella
agency i n Pima County f o r drug pro3rams. During its 1979 f i s z a l year,
CODAC of Pima County, I n c . r e c e i v e d $ 1,623,828 from t h e following s o u r c e s :
Sources o f CODAC Funding f o r
t h e 1979 F i s c a l Year
The Arizona Department of Health S e r v i c e s
The National I n s t i t u t e on Drug Abuse
The Arizona Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s
The City o f Tucson
Pima County
Local community funds
Percentage
of Funding
A s of March 1, 1980, the Pima County TASC program had interviewed 12,392
a r r e s t e d persons, of whom 2,996 i n d i c a t e d they had a drug problem and 1,083
subsequently became TASC c l i e n t s . Table 1 summarizes a c t u a l and budgeted
expenditures f o r t h e Pima County TASC program from July 1, 1975, t o June 30,
1981.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF ACTUAL AND BUDGETED EXPZNDITURES
FOR THE PIMA COUNTY TASC PROGRAM FROM
JULY 1, 1975, TO JUNE 30, 1981
EXPENDITURES
ACTUAL BUDGETED
7/ 1/ 75 12/ 1/ 76 7/ 1/ 78 7/ 1/ 79 7/ 1/ 80
t o t o t o t o t o
Expense Items 11/ 30/ 76 6/ 30/ 78 6/ 30/ 79 6/ 30/ 80 6/ 30/ 81
Personnel
Fringe b e n e f i t s
Rent
Tra ve 1
Consultation and
t r a i n i n g
Telephone
Sustenance Fund*
Laboratory t e s t s
Equipment
Evaluation
R e s i d e n t i a l
d e t o x i f i c a t i o n
Other 13,141 8,218 5,267 5,516 - 12-, 260
$ 267,232 $ 275,373 $ 134,169 $ 139,992 $ 187 _, 876
* Food, s h e l t e r and c l o t h i n g f o r TASC c l i e n t emergency needs.
Maricopa County TASC
The Maricopa County TASC program began o p e r a t i o n i n J u l y 1977.
O r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y it is p a r t o f t h e Community O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Drug Abuse,
Mental H e a l t h , and Alcoholism S e r v i c e s , Inc. ( CODAMA). I n 1977, CODAMA
evolved from CODAC t o become t h e d e s i g n a t e d u m b r e l l a agency i n iJlaricopa
County t o f u n c t i o n as t h e funding mechanism f o r mental h e a l t h and a l c o h o l
abuse, a s w e l l a s drug a b u s e , s e r v i c e s . During its 1979 f i s c a l year
C03AMA r e c e i v e d $ 3,290,980 from t h e following s o u r c e s :
Sources o f CODAMA Funding f o r
t h e 1979 Calendar Year
P e r c e n t a g e
of Funding
Grants and c o n t r a c t s from governmental a g e n c i e s 96%
Methadone revenues from s u b c o n t r a c t o r s 3
C o n t r i b u t o r s , i n t e r e s t income and c l i e n t f e e s - 1
100%
A s of March 1, 1980, t h e Maricopa County TASC program had i n t e r v i e w e d
13,079 a r r e s t e d p e r s o n s , o f whom 891 i n d i c a t e d t h e y had a drug problem and
805 s u b s e q u e n t l y became TASC c l i e n t s . Table 2 summarizes a c t u a l and
budgeted e x p e n d i t u r e s f o r t h e Maricopa County TASC program from J u l y 1,
1977, t o J u n e 3 0 , 1981.
TABLE 2
Expense Items
Personnel
SUMMARY OF ACTUAL AND BUDGETED EXPENDITURES
FOR THE MARICOPA COUNTY TASC PROGRAM FROM
JULY 1, 1977, TO JUNE 30, 1981
ACTUAL BUDGETED
7/ 1/ 77 12/ 1/ 78 2/ 15/ 80 7/ 1/ 80
Fringe b e n e f i t s 18,578 20,548 6,648 18,412
Trave 1 1,591 3,580 1,260 2,400
Equipment 5,594 850 1,680
Supplies 1,339 715 1,500
Accounting/ audit f e e s 7,700
Other operating expenses 26,418 43,293 10,495 10,595
$ 221.997 $ 257,008 $ 74,806 $ 195,000
( 1) Accounting f e e s , u r i n a l y s i s , " auto l e a s e , e d u c a t i o n a l v a l u a t i o n
system a u d i t .
( 2) Rent expense was included i n " Other operating expenses" p r i o r t o
2/ 15/ 80.
* See Appendix E f o r a glossary of terms.
Audit Scope and Objectives
Senate B i l l 1226 of the 34th L e g i s l a t u r e , F i r s t Regular Session, s t a t e s
. . . the Auditor General s h a l l conduct pi oqram a u d i t s a; provided i n T i t l e
41, Chapter 7, A r t i c l e 10.1, Arizona Fievised Statutes, on a l l ( TASC)
programs and r e p o r t t o t h e J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Bud5eL Committee on the
r e s u l t s of the a u d i t s . . . ."
I n accordance with the above requirements, the O f f i c e o f t h e Auditor
General conducted a u d i t s of the Pima and Maricopa County TASC programs to:
- Provide the L e g i s l a t u r e with a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f TASC program
c l i e n t s , and
- Assess the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of these TASC programs by: 1) comparing
t h e recidivism r a t e of TASC c l i e n t s t o a s i m i l a r non- TASC group,
and 2) surveying elements of the criminal j u s t i c e system
regarding these TASC programs.
The Office o f t h e Auditor General expresses its g r a t i t u d e t o t h e following
persons and e n t i t i e s f o r t h e i r cooperation, a s s i s t a n c e and c o n s i d e r a t i o n
throughout the course of our a u d i t :
- The D i r e c t o r s and personnel o f t h e TASC programs i n Pima and
Maricopa Counties,
- The Statewide TASC Coordinator,
- The Arizona Department of Public S a f e t y , Criminal Information
Section,
- The County Attorneys and t h e i r s t a f f s i n Pima and Maricopa
Counties, and
- The Director and s t a f f of the Pima County P r e t r i a l Release
P r o j e c t , C o r r e c t i o n a l Volunteer Center.
FINDING I
TASC PARTICIPATION DID NOT RESULT I N REDUCED RECIDIVISM.
A s part o f o u r assessment of TASC e f f e c t i v e n e s s , a s t u d y was conducted t o
t e s t the hypothesis t h a t TASC reduces recidivism. The basic study design
was t o i d e n t i f y and determine r a t e s of recidivism f o r : 1 ) Pima County
TASC c l i e n t s , 2) Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s , and 3) a comparable group
of persons who met t h e e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a but d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n
TASC. The r e s u l t s of t h i s study were t h a t : 1 ) t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e i n recidivism between Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s and a
comparable non- TASC group, and 2) the Pima County TASC c l i e n t s had a
higher r a t e of r e c i d i v i s m t h a n a comparable non- TASC group. I n a d d i t i o n ,
a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of the Pima and Maricopa County TASC programs and
c l i e n t s revealed t h a t t h e primary causes f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n recidivism
between t h e two programs appear t o be: 1) Pima County has used
r e s i d e n t i a l c a r e a s a treatment modality f a r more e x t e n s i v e l y than
Maricopa County, and 2) Maricopa County is f a r more r e s t r i c t i v e than Pima ,
County regarding TASC e l i g i b i l i t y .
Study Methodology
Several problems needed t o be resolved i n order t o complete our study of
TASC versus non- TASC recidivism. These problems were:
- I d e n t i f y i n g a comparable non- TASC group.
- Obtaining c r i m i n a l h i s t o r i e s o f t h e persons included i n t h e study.
- Defining recidivism f o r t h e purposes of t h i s study.
The methods used t o resolve the above problems a r e d e t a i l e d below.
A Comparable Non- TASC Group
Perhaps a l e t h a l t h r e a t t o the v a l i d i t y and i n t e g r i t y of o u r r e c i d i v i s m
study was t h a t members bf a non- TASC group would not be comparable t o TASC
c l i e n t s . A s a r e s u l t , g r e a t c a r e was taken t o ensure t h a t t h e non- TASC
group s e l e c t e d : 1) met a l l t h e TASC e l i g i b i l i t y requiretnents, and 2) had
the same o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o commit crimes during the period they were
monitored a s TASC c l i e n t s had. In order t o achieve those o b j e c t i v e s t h e
following procedures were followed.
One of the basic TASC functions is i d e n t i f y i n g drug abusers i n c o n t a c t
with the criminal j u s t i c e system and o f f e r i n g those e l i g i b l e the
opportunity of TASC p a r t i c i p a t i o n . In order t o f a c i l i t a t e t h a t function
TASC personnel i n Pima County v i s i t the Pima County j a i l every morning,
seven d a y s a week, and interview persons brought i n during t h e previous 24
hours. Those persons interviewed a r e categorized a s e i t h e r TASC- eligible
o r TASC- ineligible i n accordance with TASC e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a . " A t the
time o f t h e screening interview an i n i t i a l interview form is prepared,
which includes information such a s name, age, sex, d a t e of a r r e s t , d a t e
of b i r t h , drug- usage h i s t o r y and previous a r r e s t s . When the i n i t i a l
interview form is completed, t h e TASC r e p r e s e n t a t i v e determines t h e
i n t e r v i e w e e ' s e l i g i b i l i t y and a n o t a t i o n is made on t h e interview form
i n d i c a t i n g TASC e l i g i b i l i t y o r i n e l i g i b i l i t y .
The Pima County TASC program r e t a i n s a l l i n i t i a l interview forms,
including forms f o r i n d i v i d u a l s who were i d e n t i f i e d a s being e l i g i b l e f o r
TASC but, for unknown r e a s o n s , d e c l i n e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e program.
Those persons formed t h e nucleus f o r our cornparable non- TASC group. We
i n i t i a l l y i d e n t i f i e d 423 such persons who were interviewed by TASC
personnel from July 1975 through December 1976.
The group of 423 persons eventually was reduced by 2/ 46 t o a r r i v e a t 177
non- TASC p a r t i c i p a n t s who were compa~* ablet o the TASC c l i c n t s i n the study.
* See page 21 f o r a n e x p l a n a t i o n of Fima and Maricopa County TASC
e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a .
These 246 e l i m i n a t i o n s from our non- TASC study group were made t o exclude
those persons who were: 1 ) held i n custody f o r more than 30 days a f t e r
a r r e s t , and 2) sentenced t o i n c a r c e r a t i o n a s a r e s u l t of t h e i r a r r e s t s .
Additionally, the TASC study groups were s i m i l a r l y modified t o eliminate
those persons who were sentenced t o i n c a r c e r a t i o n a s a r e s u l t of t h e i r
a r r e s t s .
It should be noted t h a t the above e l i m i n a t i o n s were made t o ensure t h a t
t h e non- TASC study group members and TASC c l i e n t s were not only s i m i l a r a s
t o TASC e l i g i b i l i t y but had t h e same o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o commit crimes during
t h e follow- up period as well. Thus, t h e o r e t i c a l l y , both groups were not
i n c a r c e r a t e d during t h e follow- up period; a t l e a s t , not a s a r e s u l t of the
a r r e s t t h a t caused them t o be included i n the study i n i t i a l l y .
Obtaining Criminal
History Information
In order t o measure recidivism, it was necessary t o o b t a i n information
regarding subsequent a r r e s t s and convictions f o r TASC c l i e n t s and the
members o f t h e comparable non- TASC group. This proved t o be d i f f i c u l t i n
t h a t a r r e s t and conviction information is not e a s i l y o b t a i n a b l e . For
example, the Department of Public Safety ( DPS) maintains a computerized
a r r e s t information system ( Criminal I d e n t i f i c a t i o n System) i n t o which is
put a r r e s t d a t a received from t h e Federal Bureau of I n v e s t i g a t i o n ' s
National Criminal Information Center ( NCIC). However, t h e DPS system was
not s u f f i c i e n t f o r our purpose because, u n t i l June 1977, DPS input only
one percent of the a r r e s t d a t a received from NCIC i n t o its system, and DPS
has not input - any - NCIC a r r e s t information i n t o its system s i n c e June
1977. T h i s h a s occurred because DPS does not have personnel t o input the
NCIC information i n t o its system, according t o DPS o f f i c i a l s .
A s a r e s u l t , it was necessary t o r e f e r t o o t h e r sources and hand- searcn
for criminal h i s t o r y information. These other sources included: DPS
manual f i l e s , the Maricopa County Attorney's O f f i c e , the Pima County
A t t o r n e y ' s O f f i c e , and the Pima County P r e t r i a l Release P r o j e c t ,
Correction Volunteer cknter.
Defining Recidivism
C r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n s t h a t needed answers i n o r d e r t o complete our r e c i d i v i s m
study were: what is r e c i d i v i s m and how can it be e q u i t a b l y measured?
With regard t o a d e f i n i t i o n o f r e c i d i v i s m , two o p t i o n s were a v a i l a b l e :
r e a r r e s t o r subsequent c o n v i c t i o n .
D i s c u s s i o n s with TASC p e r s o n n e l r e v e a l e d t h a t subsequent c o n v i c t i o n was a
more v a l i d measure o f r e c i d i v i s m t h a n r e a r r e s t because r e a r r e s t c h a r g e s ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r drug a b u s e r s , are o f t e n dropped o r dismissed.
F u r t h e r , it was concluded t h a t t h e f a i r e s t way t o measure r e c i d i v i s m was
t o p l a c e a l l persons being monitored on an equal time b a s i s . Thus, each
person i n our study was monitored f o r one y e a r , e i t h e r a f t e r : 1 ) leaving
TASC, f o r TASC p a r t i c i p a n t s , o r 2) r e l e a s e from c u s t o d y , f o r non- TASC
p a r t i c i p a n t s .
Study R e s u l t s
By employing t h e above p r o c e d u r e s , t h e O f f i c e of t h e Auditor General
c a l c u l a t e d r e c i d i v i s m r a t e s f o r : 1) Pirna County TASC c l i e n t s who entered
t h e program between J u l y 1975 and December 1977, 2) Persons e l i g i b l e f o r
TASC i n Pima County from J u l y 1975 through 1976 who d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e
( non- TASC), and 3) Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s who e n t e r e d t h e program
between J u l y 1977 and December 1978."
The r e s u l t s of t h i s r e c i d i v i s m s t u d y are summarized below:
- There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between Maricopa TASC c l i e n t s
and t h e non- TASC group. ( Table 3)
-
a
The non- TASC group had a lower rate of r e c i d i v i s m than Pima
, County TASC c l i e n t s . ( Table 3)
- Pima and IYIaricopa County TASC c l i e n t s who s u c c e s s f u l l y completed
t h e i r TASC programs d i d have a lower rate of r e c i d i v i s m t h a n t h e
members of t h e non- TASC group. ( Table 4)
* The Pima County TASC program began o p e r a t i o n i n J u l y 1975, while t h e
Maricopa County TASC program d i d not begin clperaation u n t i l J u l y 1977.
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF RECIDIVISM FOR PIMA AND MARICOPA COUNTY TASC
CLIENTS AND A COMPARABLE NON- TASC GROUP
Study Group
Number of Convictions Within One
Year of TASC Termination o r
Release From Custody
No One Two
Convictions Conviction Convictions Total
Percentage of Pima
County TASC c l i e n t s 76.5% 21.6% 1.9% 100.0%
Percentage of Maricopa
County TASC c l i e n t s 90.3
Percentage of Non- TASC 88.1 10.8 1.1 100.0
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF RECIDIVISM RATES FOR PIMA AND MARICOPA COUNTY
TASC CLIENTS WHO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED TASC AND A
COMPARABLE NON- TASC GROUP
8
Study Group
Percentage of Pima
County TASC c l i e n t s
who s u c c e s s f u l l y
completed TASC
Number of Convictions Within One
Year of TASC Termination o r
Release From Custody
No One Two
Convictions Conviction Convictions Total
Percentage of Maricopa
County TASC c l i e n t s
who s u c c e s s f u l l y
completed TASC 92. 3
Percentage of non- TASC 88.1 10.8
A d d i t i o n a l Recidivism
Analysis
F u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of Pima and Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t r e c i d i v i s m
revealed t h a t :
- Years of drug abuse, d r u g t r e a t m e n t involvement b e f o r e TASC,
arrests p r i o r t o TASC, c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system r e f e r r a l and p r i o r
TASC p a r t i c i p a t i o n do n o t appear t o be f a c t o r s t h a t are
p r e d i c t i v e o f subsequent r e c i d i v i s m . ( Table 5)
- Type o f TASC t e r m i n a t i o n and drug t r e a t m e n t modality appear t o be
f a c t o r s t h a t are p r e d i c t i v e o f subsequent r e c i d i v i s m . ( T a b l e 6)
A d d i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e Pima and Maricopa County TASC programs revealed
t h a t t h e primary c a u s e s f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n r e c i d i v i s m between t h e TASC
programs appear t o be: 1) Pima County has used r e s i d e n t i a l c a r e a s a
t r e a t m e n t modality f a r more e x t e n s i v e l y t h a n Maricopa County, and
2) Naricopa County is far more r e s t r i c t i v e t h a n Pima County regarding TASC
e l i g i b i l i t y .
A s is i n d i c a t e d i n Table 11, TASC c l i e n t s i n both programs who were placed
i n methadone- maintenance and d r u g - f r e e o u t p a t i e n t c a r e had r e l a t i v e l y low
r e c i d i v i s m rates, while p a t i e n t s placed i n r e s i d e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t had
r e l a t i v e l y high r e c i d i v i s m r a t e s . The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h i s phenomenon
lies i n t h e fact t h a t t h e Pima County TASC program has u t i l i z e d
r e s i d e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t f a r more e x t e n s i v e l y t h a n Maricopa County and,
c o n v e r s e l y , Maricopa County has used methadone- maintenance t r e a t m e n t f a r -
more e x t e n s i v e l y than Pima County, as shown below:
Percentage of TASC c l i e n t s
placed i n t r e a t m e n t :
Pima County TASC
Maricopa County TASC
R e s i d e n t i a l
Treatment
Methadone
Maintenance
F u r t h e r , it appears t h a t Maricopa County TASC has been f a r l e s s w i l l i n g t o
accept c l i e n t s than has Pima County TASC, a s is shown below:
Pima County TASC Maricopa County TASC
from October 1975 from January 1977
through December 1977 through December 1978
Number Percent Number Percent
Interviewed by TASC personnel 7,240 100% 9,554 100%
Not e l i g i b l e for TASC because
interviewee was accused of
committing a v i o l e n t crime - 0- - 0- 4,702 4 9
Interviewee i d e n t i f i e d a s
drug abuser 1,775 25 30 3 3
Volunteered f o r TASC
p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1,067 15 299 3
I d e n t i f i e d as TASC- eligible 1,067 15 245 11
Admitted t o TASC 639 9 188 2
8 The reason f o r t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between Pima and Maricopa Counties
i n the percentage of interviewees admitted t o TASC shown above is t h a t
Maricopa County TASC e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a a r e more s t r i n g e n t than Pima
County's. For example, Pima County TASC e l i g i b i l i t y requirements a r e : 1)
t h e c l i e n t must admit t h a t he o r she has a substance abuse problem, and
2) the c l i e n t must volunteer t o e n t e r TASC.
Maricopa County TASC, on t h e o t h e r hand, g e n e r a l l y w i l l n o t a c c e p t a p r e t r i a l
person i n t o TASC who has been a r r e s t e d f o r any of t h e following o f f e n s e s :
Aggravated a s s a u l t ,
Aggravated b a t t e r y ,
Armed robbery,
Child abuse,
Indecent a s s a u l t upon a c h i l d ,
Child molesting w i t h v i o l e n c e ,
Rape,
Kidnapping, and
Homicide ( including manslaughter) .
Because of Pima County TASC1s paucity of c l i e n t e l i g i b i l i t y requirements, it
appears t h a t Pima County TASC can accept higher r i s k c l i e n t s than Maricopa
County TASC. F u r t h e r , according t o the Director o f t h e Pima County P r e t r i a l
3elease P r o j e c t , Correctional Volunteer Center, many of these higher r i s k
Tima County TASC c l i e n t s would be put back on t h e s t r e e t and placed i n a
p o s i t i o n t o commit a d d i t i o n a l crimes were it not f o r the TASC
p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Thus, by adopting s t r i c t e r Pima County TASC e l i g i b i l i t y
requirements the r i s k of crime t o the community may be lessened.
CONCLUSION
The r e s u l t s of a recidivism study t o t e s t the hypothesis t h a t TASC reduces
crime revealed t h a t t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n recidivism
between Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s and a comparable non- TASC group and
t h a t Pima County TASC c l i e n t s had a higher r a t e of recidivism than a
comparable non- TASC group. In a d d i t i o n , it appears t h a t t h e Pima County
TASC program's frequent usage of r e s i d e n t i a l drug treatment programs and
a
r e l a t i v e l y f l e x i b l e e l i g i b i l i t y requirements may account f o r its higher r a t e
of recidivism.
RECOMMENDATION
- The Director o f t h e Pima County TASC program should c o n s i d e r :
1) Referring TASC c l i e n t s t o r e s i d e n t i a l treatment programs only
a f t e r other drug- treatment modality options have been
( I
exhausted, and
2 ) Adopting more s t r i n g e n t TASC e l i g i b i l i t y requirements.
FINDING I1
IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED I N CLIENT RECORD- KEEPING PROCEDURES FOR THE PIMA AND
MARICOPA COUNTY TASC PROGRAMS.
Our review o f t h e Pima and Maricopa County TASC programs revealed a need
within both programs f o r formal w r i t t e n c r i t e r i a regarding a l l types of
c l i e n t terminations. In a d d i t i o n , each TASC program has developed
independently some valuable c l i e n t record- keeping procedures t h a t should
be adopted by t h e o t h e r program.
Client Terminations
Both the Pima and Maricopa County TASC programs c l a s s i f y c l i e n t
terminations a s s u c c e s s f u l complete, s u c c e s s f u l incomplete, n e u t r a l ,
f a i l u r e o r f a i l u r e r e a r r e s t . However, n e i t h e r program has e s t a b l i s h e d
formal w r i t t e n c r i t e r i a t o f a c i l i t a t e proper c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s f o r TASC
terminations. A s a r e s u l t , c l i e n t t e r m i n a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e Pima and
Maricopa County TASC programs a r e c l a s s i f i e d i n c o n s i s t e n t l y and
comparisons a r e d i f f i c u l t t o make between t h e two TASC programs regarding
the r e l a t i v e percentages of su. ccessfu1 versus unsuccessful c l i e n t s .
For example, s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s were noted within both TASC programs i n
which i d e n t i c a l termination circumstances r e s u l t e d i n d i f f e r e n t
termination c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .
F u r t h e r , what may be a f a i l u r e termination i n one TASC program may be
c l a s s i f i e d as a n e u t r a l o r a s u c c e s s f u l incomplete termination i n the
other TASC prggram.
A s a r e s u l t , the usefulness of termination s t a t i s t i c s generated by both
TASC programs is diminished. Perhaps the need f o r e s t a b l i s h e d TASC
t e r ~ i n a t i o n c r i t e r i a is best i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e case of a TASC c l i e n t who
died of a d r u ~ ov erdose and was c l a s s i f i e d a s a n e u t r a l termination.
Pima and Naricopa County
TASC Client Records
The Pima and Maricopa County TASC programs have independently developed
unique c l i e n t forms, records and f i l i n g procedures. C l i e n t r e c o r d s i n
both programs could be improved i f some record- keeping a s p e c t s of each
program were adopted by the o t h e r .
Both the Pima and Maricopa County TASC programs keep d e t a i l e d information
on each c l i e n t who e n t e r s TASC. Both programs g e n e r a l l y o b t a i n c l i e n t
information such as c l i e n t name, b i r t h d a t e , sex, r e f e r r a l source, a r r e s t
charges, m a r i t a l s t a t u s , p r i o r a r r e s t s and c o n v i c t i o n s , drug dependency,
p r i o r drug- treatment programs, name of a t t o r n e y and vocational s k i l l s .
However, both programs e i t h e r : 1) o b t a i n c l i e n t information t h a t the
other program does n o t , o r 2) record c l i e n t information i n a more useable
format t h a n d o e s t h e o t h e r program. For example, Pima County TASC records
the d a t e t h e c l i e n t f i r s t and l a s t used the substance of abuse, whereas
Maricopa County TASC does not.
Maricopa County TASC, on the other hand, has developed a c l i e n t form* t h a t
s p e c i f i c a l l y asks f o r c l i e n t information such a s r e f e r r a l s o u r c e , c r i m i n a l
j u s t i c e s t a t u s , court/ judge, a t t o r n e y , probation/ parole o f f i c e r , r e a r r e s t
charges and sentencing. Maintaining such c l i e n t information on a s i n g l e
form a i d s i n : 1) ensuring t h a t t h e information is recorded, and 2 )
obtaining a complete c l i e n t p r o f i l e . It should be noted t h a t Maricopa
County TASC has a l s o adopted a 4" x 6" card f i l i n g srstem** t h a t
d u p l i c a t e s t h e information on the c l i e n t form. This systeni allows for
quick and easy r e t r i e v a l of p e r t i n e n t c l i e n t information.
CONCLUSION
Both Pima and Maricopa TASC programs need t o develop formal, w r i t t e n
c r i t e r i a regarding c l i e n t terminations. In a d d i t i o n , both TASC programs
have developed methods of recording c l i e n t information t h a t should be
adopted by the o t h e r program.
* Appendix B is a sample of the Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t form.
** Appendix C is a sample o f t h e 4 I r x 6" card used by Maricopa County
TASC.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended t h a t :
1. The D i r e c t o r s of the TASC programs i n Pima and Maricopa Counties,
and the Statewide TASC Coordinator, develop f o r m a l , w r i t t e n
c r i t e r i a regarding c l i e n t terminations. Such c r i t e r i a should be
s p e c i f i c regarding l e n g t h of TASC p a r t i c i p a t i o n , number and
frequency of required u r i n e samples," required percentage of
c l e a n u r i n e samples, frequency of TASC counseling and subsequent
a r r e s t s .
2. Pima County TASC adopt the c l i e n t form and 4" x 6" card f i l i n g
system developed by Maricopa County TASC.
* See Appendix E f o r a g l o s s a r y of terms.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
A STATISTICAL PROFILE OF TASC CLIENTS.
Our a u d i t of the Pima and Maricopa County TASC programs included a
d e t a i l e d review and a n a l y s i s o f t h e 411 Pima County TASC c l i e n t s who
entered the program between July 1975 and December 1977 and t h e 247
Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s who entered the program between July 1977 and
December 1978." T h i s p r o c e s s generated a s t a t i s t i c a l p r o f i l e of TASC
c l i e n t s which revealed t h a t :
- The v a s t majority were heroin abusers. ( Table 7)
- Most were a r r e s t e d f o r burglary o r possession of drugs. ( Table 8)
- Most of t h e TASC c l i e n t s who were a r r e s t e d more than once were
r e a r r e s t e d f o r burglary o r possession of drugs. ( Table 9)
- Years of substance abuse varied from l e s s than one year t o 40
y e a r s , with t h e average being 6.1 years, ( Table 10)
- The most f r e q u e n t l y used drug- treatment modality was drug- free
o u t - p a t i e n t . ( Table 11)
- Approximately 28 percent of Pima County TASC c l i e n t s received
employment counseling from TASC personnel. ( Table 12)
- More than h a l f t h e TASC p a r t i c i p a n t s were i n TASC f o r l e s s than
t h r e e months. ( Table 13)
- Less than 20 percent of TASC p a r t i c i p a n t s s u c c e s s f u l l y completed
t h e i r treatment programs. ( Table 14)
- Approximately 80 percent had an a r r e s t record before e n t e r i n g
TASC. ( Table 15)
- Approximately 1 4 p e r c e n t of Pima County TASC c l i e n t s and e i g h t
percent of Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s were a r r e s t e d while still
i n TASC. ( Table 16)
* The Pima County TASC program began operation i n July 1975 and t h e
Maricopa County TASC program began operation i n July 1977.
- Approximately 17 percent of Pima County TASC c l i e n t s and four
percent of Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s were program r e p e a t e r s .
( Table 17)
- Approximately 75 percent of Pima Councy TASC c l i e n t s and 61
percent of Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s had been i n drug
treatment before entering TASC. ( Table 18)
- Approximately h a l f t h e Pima County TASC c l i e n t s and one f o u r t h of
Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s were a r r e s t e d a f t e r e n t e r i n g TASC.
( Table 19)
- Approximately 33 percent of Pima County TASC c l i e n t s and 19
percent of Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s were a r r e s t e d within one
year a f t e r terminating from TASC. ( Table 20)
- Thirty- seven percent of Pima County TASC c l i e n t s and 1 7 p e r c e n t
of Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s were convicted of a crime a f t e r
e n t e r i n g TASC. ( Table 21)
- Approximately 24 percent of Pima County TASC c l i e n t s and ten
percent of Maricopa County TASC c l i e n t s were convicted of a
crime within one year a f t e r terminating from TASC. ( Table 22)
It should be noted t h a t t h e d a t a presented i n the following t a b l e s is for
informational purposes only and is not intended t o compare the Pima County
TASC Program with the Maricopa County TASC Program. Such a comparison
would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e i n view of the d i f f e r e n t time periods involved f o r
each program. However, f o r the purpose of our r e c i d i v i s m s t u d y , both
programs were based on an equal time b a s i s . ( See Finding I).
TABLE 7
PROFILE OF TASC CLIENTS BY TYPE OF DRUG ABUSED
TYPE OF DRUG ABUSED
Multiple
Drug With Other Multiple
Heroin Heroin Alcohol B a r b i t u a t e s Amphetamines Cocaine Marijuana Hallucinogen Drugs Total
Percentage of
Pima County TASC
c l i e n t s 50.9% 45.5% 0.2% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 2.0% 100.0%
Percentage o f
Maricopa County
TASC c l i e n t s 73.5 5.7 1.6 2.4 0.4 0.4 2.4 0.4 13.2 100.0
TABLE 8
PROFILE OF TASC CLIENT ARREST CHARGES
ARREST CHARGES
Possession
Armed Possession Shop of Drugs Not
Burglary Robbery Assault Homicide Of Drugs P r o s t i t u t i o n L i f t i n g For S a l e Forgery Other DWI Known Total
Percentage of
Pima County
TASC c l i e n t s 33.9% 1.3% 1.0% 0.5% 17.2% 0.8% 4.2% 20.9% 1.3% 14.4% 0.0% 4.4% 100.0%
Percentage o f
Maricopa County
TASC c l i e n t s 34.1 0.8 2.0 0.4 22.8 1 . 2 1 . 6 16.7 0.8 19.5 0.0 0.0 100.0
X
u
h c
01 0 3 m x u 0 u
~ I J C m u c
O C P )
3 4 Y m . 2
u o r l uarl
c u o C O O
m m o
o m u o. rlu
h E m L L V l
m 4 - z a r m 4 a a w a x -
Percentage of
Pima County
TASC c l i e n t s
Percentage of
Maricopa County
TASC c l i e n t s
TABLE 11
PROFILE OF DRUG TREATMENT MODALITIES TO WHICH TASC CLIENTS WERE REFERHED
TYPE OF DRUG TREATMENT MODALITY"
Met had one Drug- Free Multiple
Detoxification Maintenance Out Patient Residential Other Treatment Total
TABLE 12
PROFILE OF TASC CLIENTS WHO RECEIVED SUPPORTIVE SERVICES WHILE I N TASC
TYPE OF SUPPORTIVE SERVICE PROVIDED*
Employment Employment Educational Educational Housing Food Welfare Emergency
Counseling Placement Referral Placement R e f e r r a l R e f e r r a l Transportation Referral Funds
Percentage of
Pima County
TASC c l i e n t s 28.5% 1.7% 1.5% 1.0% 2.2% 2.0% 2.7% 0.5% 5.6%
Percentage of
Maricopa County
TASC c l i e n t s 7.3 7.3 1.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 .8
See Appendix E for a glossary of terms.
U" 4 YX
~ m c m
3 m
3c m c3, 9 %
m c,
> L C O L C
o w m n w w
U En OL V0E0T0.
O 3 a l 4 3 w
E Z ~ r z a
4
a 2
X
b
0
b c
o m o 3 m
Xc, 0 c, a u c a v c
852 %' a,.:
c) 0- 4 C " " 2 g :
w o
%.. m. euS oL L. " 4 ~
W O 4
a a E - a x -
TABLE 15
Percentage of
Pima County
TASC c l i e n t s
Percentage of
Maricopa County
TASC c l i e n t s
PROFILE OF TASC CLIENT ARREST HISTORIES
Arrest Histories
Prior No Prior
Arrest
Record
Arrest
Record Total
X
Y
v4 c
0 3 m
0 Y w u C
%' a3
0 a4
C O O a 0
0 . d 0
L La
w m 4
azc
Percentage of
Pima County
TASC c l i e n t s
Percentage of
Maricopa County
TASC c l i e n t s
Percentage of
Pima County
TASC c l i e n t s
Percentage of
Maricopa County
TASC c l i e n t s
TABLE 17
PROFILE OF TASC PROGRAM REPEATERS
Previous TASC P a r t i c i p a t i o n
- Yes - No Total
TABLE 18
PROFILE OF TASC CLIENTS WHO HAD BEEN I N DRUG
TREATMENT PROGRAMS PRIOR TO ENTERING TASC
Participated i n Drug Treatment
Programs Prior t o Entering TASC
- Yes - N 0 Total
TABLE 19
SUMMARY OF TASC CLIENT ARRESTS AFTER ENTERING TASC
Number of Arrests After Entering TASC
- Zero One Two - Three - Four - Five - Seven - Total
Percentage of
Pima County
TASC clients* 50.4% 33.6% 10.2% 3.6% 1.0% 0.7% 0.5% 100.0%
Percentage of
Maricopa County
TASC clients** 75.3 24.7
TABLE 20
SUMMARY OF TASC CLIENT ARRESTS WITHIN ONE
YEAR AFTER TERMINATING FROM TASC
Number of Arrests After
Terminating From TASC ( Years)
Zero - One - Two Total
Percentage of
Pima County
TASC clients* 62.5% 33.1% 4.4% 100.0%
Percentage of
Maricopa County
TASC clients*"
* Clients who entered Pima County TASC from July 1975 through December
1977.
f* Clients who entered Maricopa County TASC from July 1977 through
December 1978.
TABLE 21
SUMMARY OF TASC CLIENT CONVICTIONS AFTER ENTERING TASC
Number of Convictions
Zero One Two Three Four Five Six Total
Percentage of
Pima County
TASCclients* 63.0% 28.5% 5.8% 1.5% 0.7% 0.2% 0.2% 100.0%
Percent age of
Maricopa County
TASC c l i e n t s * * 83.0 17.0
TABLE 22
Percentage of
Pima County
TASC c l i e n t s *
Percentage of
Maricopa County
TASC c l i e n t s * "
SUMMARY OF TASC CLIENT CONVICTIONS WITHIN ONE
YEAR AFTER TERMINATING FROM TASC***
Number of Convictions
Zero - One - Two Total
100.0%
* C l i e n t s who entered Pima County TASC from July 1975 through December
1977. ** C l i e n t s who entered Maricopa County TASC from July 1977 through
December 1978.
*** See Table 3.
A SURVEY OF PERSONS INVOLVED I N THE MARICOPA AND PIMA COUNTY CRIMINAL
JUSTICE SYSTEMS REVEALED THAT TASC IS PERCEIVED AS AN IMPORTANT ADJUNCT OF
THOSE SYSTEMS.
A s a means of evaluating t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e Pima and Maricopa County
TASC programs, t h e O f f i c e o f the Auditor General surveyed* t h e following
persons i n the criminal j u s t i c e system:
- Judges,
- County a t t o r n e y s ,
- P u b l i c d e f e n d e r s ,
- Probation o f f i c e r s ,
- Parole o f f i c e r s ,
- C o r r e c t i o n a l volunteer c e n t e r personnel ( Pima County),
- Appearance and indigency determination personnel ( Maricopa
County), and
- Diversion personnel.
The r e s u l t s of the survey i n d i c a t e d s t r o n g support f o r t h e TASC program
from a l l t h e respondents i n both counties.
Survev Results
In March 1980, the Office of t h e Auditor General d i s t r i b u t e d 367 survey
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s regarding the Treatment A l t e r n a t i v e s t o S t r e e t Crime ( TASC)
programs t o judges, county a t t o r n e y s , p u b l i c d e f e n d e r s , c o r r e c t i o n a l
volunteer c e n t e r o f f i c e r s , probation o f f i c e r s , parole o f f i c e r s , appearance
and indigency determination o f f i c e r s and d i v e r s i o n o f f i c e r s i n Maricopa
and Pima Counties. A t o t a l of 164 ( 45 percent) responded t o t h e survey.
The r e s u l t s of the survey follow.
* Appendix D c o n t a i n s a sample o f t h e survey form used.
i ) ~ e r ? L' i~ 1 ; i l !!- itln< s
1 :. I silrvey r e v e a l e d widespread support :' or TASC througnout t n e
. - r i : n i n ? l j u s t i c e systems surveyed. ? or exampln, o f t h e : survey r e s p o n d e n t s :
- 31 3 e r c e n t were o l t h e r very f a m l i l a r o r a d q u a t e l y f a n i l i a r l.~ lcn
- 16 n e r c e n ~ s a i d t h a t TASC was e s s e n t i a l , very i x ~ o r t a n t o r
z o d e r ~ c ? i y i m p o r t a n t ,
- 38 percent r a t e d TASC a s e i t h e r e x c e l l e n t o r s a t i s f a c t o r y , and
- only eiight p e r c e n t s c a t e d t h a t d i s c o n t i n u a n c e of t h e TASC program
xould 5e b e n e f i c i a l .
Table 23 sumnarizes t h e survey r e s u l t s r e g a r d i n g TASC f a m i l i a r i t i e s ,
i n p o r t a n c e , pnrforrnance and consequences o f d i s c o n t i n u a n c e .
Survey Responses Resarding
COtlS3UUENCES SF
fAMILIARITY IMPOR rANCE PERFOliMAtlCE DISCOIJTINUAIJCE
Not Totally Very Modestly Not Needs
' iery Mdsstly Very Unfa- Essen- Impor- Impor- Impor- Unneces- Excel- S a t l s - Irr~ prOVe- ddne-
Survey Questions - Famlll3r - F a n l l l a r Famlllar inlllar t i a l t a n t tant tant sary l e n t factory rnent Poor Adverse f l c l d l
How familiar are you
with the TASC Progra: n?
Maricopa 3 4 57 10 14
Pimn 20 25 4
How important do yo^
feel a program such 3s
TASC is to the Crlm~ nal
J u s t l c e System?
Maricopa
w
UI Pima
How do you r a t e thz
TASC program?
Maricopa
Pima
What dould be the
consequences of dlscon-t
i n u i r q the TASC program!
Mar~ copa
P lnla -
Maricopa County p-;. i'centd: e 30
Pima County percent,: i< e 4 1
Most Important TASC Functions
Of t h e s u r v e y r e s p o n d e n t s , 77 p s r c e n t commented on t h e r e q u e s t , I1Please
list t h o s e TASC f u n c t i o n s , i f any, t h a t you f e e l are t h e most important o r
h e l p f u l . " The responses a r e summarized below i n t o g e n e r a l c a t e g o r i e s with
t h e number of respondents i n d i c a t e d i n p a r e n t h e s e s .
TASC f u r n i s h e s a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o i n c a r c e r a t i o n . ( 5)
The TASC r e p o r t f u r n i s h e s t h e necessary i n f o r m a t i o n
t o r u l e on a motion o f r e l e a s e without bond. ( 1 )
TASC provides p r e t r i a l s u p e r v i s i o n and r e p o r t s t o
t h e c o u r t on t h e d e f e n d a n t s 1 p r o g r e s s and a t t i t u d e s . ( 20)
TASC h e l p s d i r e c t t h e l i v e s of d e f e n d a n t s w i t h d r u g
problems. ( 2)
TASC i n t e r v i e w s d e f e n d a n t s a t a time when they are
most r e c e p t i v e t o a s e l f - h e l p and guidance program.
I n f o r m a t i o n l e a r n e d from such c o n t a c t sometimes is
h e l p f u l i n d e c i d i n g plea- bargain o p t i o n s . ( 1)
TASC provides u r i n a l y s i s f o r t h e c l i e n t s . ( 35)
TASC provides drug c o u n s e l i n g f o r t h e c l i e n t s . ( 34)
TASC r e f e r s c l i e n t s t o t h e proper t r e a t m e n t programs.
( T e r r o s , e t c . ) ( 17)
TASC h e l p s with job r e f e r r a l s and job placement. ( 19
TASC h e l p s g i v e testimony i n c o u r t . ( 4)
TASC provides a d i v e r s i o n program a l t e r n a t i v e f o r
c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n .
TASC a d v i s e s t h e p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r o f u r i n a l y s i s
r e s u l t s and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n counseling.
TASC a s s e s s e s a c l i e n t ' s s u b s t a n c e a b u s e problem. ( 12)
TASC i s s u e s monthly p r o g r e s s r e p o r t s on c l i e n t s
t o t h e p a r o l e o f f i c e r .
TASC acts as a l i a i s o n between c r i n i n a l j u s t i c e
a g e n c i e s and t h e t r e a t m e n t programs. ( 3)
TASC provides Qrcgrams i n m e d i a t e l y t h a t would t a k e
s e v e r a l weeks f o r p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r s t o s e t up. ( 1 )
C l i e n t s may r e l a t e more i n f o r m a t i o n t o a TASC
nember t h a n they would t o a p r o b a t i o n o f f i c e r .
TASC provides monetary s u p p o r t f o r emergencies. ( 2 )
TASC d i v e r t s drug u s e r s from crime and drug usage,
thus reducing t h e crime r a t e . ( 1 )
One Phoenix d e f e n d e r s t a t e d t h a t TASC If.. . p r o v i d e s a s t r u c t u r a l progran
f o r the r e p e a t - r e l a t e d o f f e n d e r . It a l l o w s a person with a poor record
b u t w i t h good i n t e n t i o n s t o d i s p l a y h i s i n t e n t i o n s through an agency t h a t
is p a r t of t h e j u d i c i a l system and is r e s p e c t e d by t h e court^.'^
Least I r n ~ o r t a n t TASC Functions
Surveyed persons were asked:
" Please list t h o s e TASC f u n c t i o n s , i f any, t h a t you
f e e l a r e t h e l e a s t important o r unnecessary."
Responses t o t h i s q u e s t i o n are summarized below:
Maricopa County
The TASC d i v e r s i o n program.
The recommendations o f r e l e a s e s t a t u s at i . a .
( i n i t i a l appearance) c o u r t .
TASC a l c o h o l i s m t r e a t m e n t and r e f e r r a l s .
P o s t s e n t e n c e s u p e r v i s i o n , excluding r e s o u r c e a v a i l a b i l i t y . ( 1 )
D u p l i c a t i o n of e f f o r t s by e x i s t i n g a g e n c i e s . ( 1)
TASC r e f e r r a l s e r v i c e s t o t h e Maricopa s k i l l c e n t e r . ( 1)
Pima CounCy
D u p l i c a t i o n of work of t h e C o r r e c t i o n a l Volunteer
Center and l a c k o f c o o r d i n a t i o n o f t h i s e f f o r t .
The e x i s t i n g r e p o r t forms f o r p r o b a t i o n ( which were
c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s n e a r l y u s e l e s s ) .
D u p l i c a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n .
Consequences of Discontinuing TASC
Surveyed persons were asked t o respond, i n t h e i r own words, t o t h e
following question.
":.] hat i n your opinion would be t h e consequences, e i t h e r
adverse o r b e n e f i c i a l , of d i s c o n t i n u i n g the TASC
program?"
O f 164 respondents, 57 percent answered the q u e s t i o n . T h e i r r e s p o n s e s a r e
summarized below i n t o g e n e r a l c a t e g o r i e s and t h e number of respondents is
indicated i n parentheses.
Adverse Consequences
The c o u r t s would lack f a c t s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e i r
d i s c r e t i o n .
There still would be a need f o r a l t e r n a t i v e programs
i f TASC were discontinued.
It would remove counseling o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r
r e h a b i l i t a t i n g t h e defendant.
There would be l o s s of an a l t e r n a t i v e t o
i n c a r c e r a t i o n .
It would p u t a f u r t h e r burden on t h e criminal
j u s t i c e system.
There would be no place t o r e f e r c l i e n t s who a r e
awaiting t r i a l f o r adjustments t o drug problems.
More defendants would be i n jail, and c o s t s t o
the S t a t e would be higher.
Many defendants might never i n i t i a t e c o n t a c t
with a drug r e h a b i l i t a t i o n c e n t e r .
It would place a heavier burden on t h e probation
department.
Less information would be a v a i l a b l e t o t h e probation
o f f i c e r .
Presentence substance- abuse information would not
be a v a i l a b l e .
There would be an i n c r e a s e i n crime due t o abusers
having been i n jail without counseling.
denex'ic is1 Consequences
There would be f i n a n c i a l s a v i n g s by c o n t r a c t i n g
uork t o o t h e r drug a g e n c i e s .
3 e l e a s e of p a r o l e e s on t h e i r own recognizance
who a r e under s u p e r v i s i o n would be stopped.
Again, n o t e t h a t an i n c r e a s e i n crime was i d e n t i f i e d by only one
respondent as a consequence of d i s c o n t i n u i n g TASC.
A d d i t i o n a l Comments
Regarding TASC
Surveyed persons were asked t o list a d d i t i o n a l comments. Respondents'
comments a r e summarized below.
P o s i t i v e Comments
Maricopa County
TASC is b e n e f i c i a l t o t h e community.
TASC employees appear t o be p r o f e s s i o n a l and
competent.
TASC is a very good program with q u a l i f i e d ,
d e d i c a t e d s t a f f . The program has a r e p u t a t i o n
o f h o n e s t , open r a p p o r t w i t h t h e p r o b a t i o n
d e p a r t m e n t , a r e l a t i o n s h i p which is uncommon
with o t h e r drug a g e n c i e s i n Maricopa County.
TASC provides a r e l i a b l e biography of t h e
d e f e n d a n t .
TASC should be givet, more funding.
? o s i t ive Connents
Pima County
A TASC s t a f f member has been appointed t o sit on t h e
J o i n t Committee of the Adult Probation Department.
This p a r t i c i p a t i o n has s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased the
e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the committee's a c t i o n s . ( 1)
It is important t h a t TASC is involved with the
defendants e a r l y a f t e r t h e a r r e s t , providing
c o n t i n u i t y a s the c l i e n t goes through the criminal
j u s t i c e system. ( 1)
TASC is the only program t h a t terminates f a i l u - e s
on a timely b a s i s .
TASC has kept s a t i s f a c t o r y c o n t a c t w i t h p r o b a t i o n
o f f i c e r s when problems a r i s e with t h e c l i e n t s .
TASC employees appear t o be p r o f e s s i o n a l and
competent.
TASC should be given more funding.
Negative Comments
Yaricopa County
Ti he program d o e s n ' t seem t o be very a c c e s s i b l e
o r p r e v a l a n t .
TASC handles a v e r y small number o f c a s e s and
has no e f f e c t on t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system.
It is b u r e a u c r a t i c , p o l i t i c a l , n o n e s s e n t i a l and
d u p l i c a t e s ( t h e ) county a t t o r n e y d e f e r r e d - p r o s e c u t i o n
program. ( 1 )
The TASC d i v e r s i o n program needs t o be dropped. ( 1)
The i n t a k e c r i t e r i a a r e t o o r e s t r i c t i v e . ( 1 )
TASC needs b e t t e r cornmunication with t h e
r e g u l a t o r y a g e n c i e s .
TASC needs t o provide more d e t a i l e d r e p o r t s
t o t h e r e g u l a t o r y a g e n c i e s .
N e ~ aitv e Comments
Pima County
TASC should minimize c l i e n t d i s t a n c e and t r a v e l
t i n e by d i f f u s i n g i n t o o t h e r a r e a s of t h e c i t y . ( 1 )
One Maricopa County judge wrote, " TASC s u p p l i e s a r e l i a b l e biography
of t h e d e f e n d a n t s . A judgment based on f a c t and n o t c o n j e c t u r e is
always p r e f e r a b l e .
However, a Maricopa County p u b l i c defender wrote, " The i n t a k e c r i t e r i a
a r e s o r e s t r i c t i v e t h a t I have not had a s i n g l e c l i e n t q u a l i f y f o r t h e
Program - and a s a p u b l i c d e f e n d e r , approximately 1 / 2 o f my p r a c t i c e
d e a l s with s t r e e t crime."
CONCLUSION
I n g e n e r a l , t h e r e is s t r o n g s u p p o r t w i t h i n t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system f o r
t h e TASC prosrams i n Maricopa and Pima Counties. Surveyed r e s p o n d e n t s
i n d i c a t e d many s e r v i c e s t h a t TASC provides are p o s i t i v e and h e l p f u l t o t h e
d e f e n d a n t , as w e l l as t o t h e e n t i r e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e process. Progratns
were c l e a r l y i d e n t i f i e d as important l i n k s among t h e v a r i o u s c r i m i n a l
j u s t i c e system e n t i t i e s .
" UNDER THE AUSPICES OF CODAC OF PlMA COUNTY, INC."
I)
July 30, 1980
Mr. Gerald Silva
Manager, Performance Unit
Auditor General's Office
Arizona State Capitol
Legislative Wing, Suite 200
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Mr. Silva:
In general, i t appears that the draft report prepared by the Auditor
General's office represents a detailed, well thought out and researched
response to questions regarding the overall effectiveness of both Mari-copa
and Pima County TASC programs. I have a few minor points which I
would like to raise as well as some coments on the stated TASC goals.
In the section entitled INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND, there is no mention
made of the services provided to the Courts, probation departments, and
the Arizona State Department of Corrections. Tucson TASC's caseload i s
currently made up of 66% referrals from Department of Corrections.
Certainly, this was not the case five years ago, but by completely ignoring
the service requi reriients of probationers , par01 ees , and cl i ents on work
furlough, the picture i s not complete.
I have to take issue with the statement on page 3, " The original TASC
concept was a classic diversion model." I assisted i n preparing the grant
for the f i r s t TASC project in the State and a t no time was the TASC project
intended to be a diversion project. In point of f a c t , i t has only been
recently that the local prosecutors have been willing to look a t the
possibilities of diversion for drug offenders. In Tucson, diversion i s
limited to prescription p i l l abusers who have no prior a r r e s t record.
I believe the time has come to expand t h i s narrow and r e s t r i c t i v e view,
and perhaps this audit report will a s s i s t to help accomplish this.
A t some point i n the audit, i t should clearly be pointed out that the
Pima County TASC client pool included a l l clients during a time period of
two years and five months, whereas Maricopa County TASC's time period
i s only one year and five months. I think that both projects should have
been evaluated using, i f not the same time period, then a t the very l e a s t ,
209 S. TUCSON BLVD. SUITE B TUCSON, ARIZONA 85716 ( 602) 795- 6430
July 30, 198G
Mr. Gerald Sil va
Page 2
comparable lengths of time. I believe the reasons for this ( the nature
of the client population, e t c . ) are obvious.
Table I1 ( Profile of TASC Client Arrest Histories) i s unclear as to
whether the arrests refer only to misdemeanors or both. Additionally,
the audit report l a t e r s t a t e s , " Discussion with TASC personnel revealed
that subsequent convictions was a more valid measure of recidivism than
arrests because rearrest charges, particularly for drug abusers, are often-times
subsequently dropped or dismissed." Therefore, I question whether
Table I1 should even be included in the report since everyone agreed that
arrest data, no matter i f i t be felony or misdemeanor, i s not really
useful information for assessing c l i e n t s , e i t h e r before entrance into
TASC or after leaving TASC.
I t should be noted also, that there i s no data on Maricopa County persons
who, for one reason or another having nothing to do with e l i g i b i l i t y , did
not enter the program. The TASC group i s made up solely of Pima County
residents and the Maricopa TASC project i s being compared against these.
As to suggested improvements, i t i s unclear as to what i s meant by a
" lack of formal written c r i t e r i a regarding client termination." I know
that the Tucson TASC project has these, both in their grant applications
as well as in our written policies and procedures. Even the example given
in the audit report i s not a very good one as we do not know the circum-stances.
Lastly, i t should be kept i n mind that since 1977, the year after
which the auditors stopped a t clients and program results, many changes
have taken place. As mentioned previously, our target population has
shifted from pre- trial to work furlough and parolees.
Our result in this change i s that the number of residential placements
has been drastically reduced. Since the study ends in 1977, this i s not
reflected. Currently, our drug- free outpatient referrals are by far the
1 arges t s i ngl e category .
Perhaps, with the i n i t i a t i o n of a statewide TASC program, uniform termina-tion
c r i t e r i a will become a possibility. However, I would caution against
all TASC's being carbon copies of each other. Each program must, by
necessity, operate within certain constraints imposed by everyone from
county attorneys to treatment agency el igi bil i ty requirements, from differ-ing
client populations and different judges. Each TASC should respond to
the unique needs of the area in which i t operates, and therefore, the
unique needs of i t s clients.
Lastly, the National TASC concept i n i t i a l l y embraced the idea of " reducing
the cycle of drug use, a r r e s t , release, and subsequent arrest." This
concept was acceptable, indeed quite fashionable in the early 70' s when
the f i r s t TASC projects started in c i t i e s such as Philadelphia and Miami.
Since those days, we have a l l come to realize that a1 though occasionally
July 30, 1980
Mr. Gerald Silva
Page 3
that might be a helpful, if not, desirable outcome, i t is simply not
a realistic goal for TASC in the 80' s. The time has come to reassess
the overall mission of TASC and re- state i t s policies and goals. I
believe this audit report reinforces this conclusion.
In conclusion, this report represents the sum total of at least six
months' effort by the Performance Unit of the Auditor General's office.
I t was a lengthy, exhausting and oftentimes overwhelming study to
research and write, and I think that i t presents a fairly honest and
perceptive picture. The report will certainly be of assistance in
future program planning and development, and the staff of the Performance
Unit is to be commended for a job well done.
Sincerely ,
Patricia A. Mehrhoff
Di rector -,:
PAM: jao
Treatment Alternatiues to Street Crime
of Maricopa County, Inc.
1313 N. 2nd Street, Suite 25
Phoenix, AZ 85004 Tel: ( 602) 254- 7328
August 12, 1980
Mr. Douglas Norton
Auditor General
Arizona State Capitol
Legislative Wing, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85007
This letter is written as a response to the performance
audit of the Pima and Maricopa County Treatment Alte, va-tives
to Street Crime Programs.
As ~ xecutive Director of the Maricopa County TASC Program,
I have grave concern for Finding I presented in the Audit
that, " TASC participation did not result in reduced reci-divism."
The above finding was ascertained by comparing
a Pima County TASC Control Group, a Maricopa County TASC
Control Group and a Non- TASC Group.
TASC is a voluntary program designed to afford an oppor-tunity
to those individuals who are felony offenders invol-ved
with substance abuse. The purpose of TASC is to
refer these individuals to treatment and monitor their
progress for the Criminal Justice System. Great emphasis
is placed on the fact that all TASC clients have VOLUNTEERED
for the program. In the Audit, the Non- TASC Group which
was used as the comparison group was composed of individuals
identified as TASC eligible but " for unknown reasons declined
to participate in the program." This fact in itself makes .
the Non- TASC Group different from the Pima County and
Maricopa County TASC Groups, hence, it is my opinion that
these groups should not have been compared to each other.
Many possibilities arise as to the differences between the
Non- TASC Group and the Pima County and Maricopa County TASC
Groups. For example, individuals in the Non- TASC Group may
not have felt a need for TASC services or treatment. The
Non- TASC Group may not have viewed TASC as a needed support
system. Individuals in the Non- TASC Group may have viewed
Page 2.
Norton
8/ 12/ 80
their drug usage as situational, or an isolated incident,
rather than an overwhelming problem of drug addiction. The
point I am trying to make is that no one knows why the Non-
TASC Group d- id - not v olunteer for the TASC Program. It is
therefore my opinion that the composition of the Pima County
and Maricopa County TASC Groups cannot and should not be
compared to the Non- TASC Group, as these groups could be
so vastly different, thereby negating the validity of the
, recidivism study.
The Auditor General's Office distributed a Criminal Justice
Survey in Pima County and Maricopa County. The survey in-dicated
that a vast majority of the respondents, 96% ( includ- ( I
ing judges, county attorneys, public defenders, correctional
volunteer center officers, probation officers, parole officers,
appearance and indigency determination officers and diversion
officers) said that " TASC was either essential, very important,
or moderately important." The Office of the Auditor General
also stated in their audit that " TASC is perceived as an
important adjunct of those systems." ( Criminal Justice System).
This factual information is pertinent in that the key Criminal
Justice representatives in Pima County and Maricopa County view
TASC as an important functional program in their communities,
serving the needs of an extremely difficult target population.
TASC,. over the past several years, has served as a viable
operational alternative to street crime. Had this not been the
case, a11 the respondents to the Criminal Justice Survey would
not have rated it so highly.
Sincerely,
Barbara Zugor
BZ: te
cc : Jerry Silva
Jerry Mills
STATE OF ARIZONA
ELLIS C. MarDOUCALL
Dirertor
C
August 12, 1980
Mr. Douglas Norton
Auditor General
Arizona State Capitol
Legislative Wing, Suite 200
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Dear Mr. Norton:
Thank you for letting me have a copy of the draft
report of the audit of the Treatment Alternative
to Street Crime programs in Pima and Maricopa Counties.
It is a thoughtful document which shows the
professional and skilled approach used by the
auditors who have obviously got a good grasp of
what is a complex subject. As always, when one
is evaluating human behavior, its multifactorial
nature makes quantification extremely difficult
and perhaps inevitably controversial. I feel
that your staff deserves congratulations for the
way in which they handled this troublesome issue.
I would like to make the following comments on the
draft:
While great pains were taken to insure that the
control group was truly representative in that
they were identified as being eligible for TASC
the fact that they declined to participate in
the program does raise the possibility that they
were inherently different with the comparison group
volunteering for treatment while the control group
did not. I feel that before conclusions can
properly be drawn that the reasons why the control
52
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION / EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Fir. Douglas Norton
Page two
August 12, 1980
group declined should be evaluated. I feel some of
the reasons which come to mind include their not
feeling that they need treatment; they did not have
the time necessary for program participation ( Perhaps
because of work or school requirements) and that
they had other support systems including employment
and family which they felt lessoned the need for
participation in TASC. These factors would, of
course, reflect recidivism. Other factors in this
cortext are the differences in when their involvement
occurred. The control group was selected from
eligible arrestees in Pima County only and from
1975 through 1977. One must therefore, question
comparison with the Maricopa County group selected
from TASC clients entering the program in 1977 and
1978.
Turning now to another aspect of evaluation, the
question of recidivism being the major index used
gives one pause. A different though obviously not
necessarily better index might have been to assess
compliance with the objectives outlined in the
original funding proposal submitted in September
1977. By these criteria TASC programs achieved
their goal.
Furthermore, I would like to draw attention to
Table 16. This shows that the arrest rate for TASC
clients while in TASC is 14.1% for Pima County and
9.7% for Maricopa County. Also, I believe that
considering the TASC client population is made up
of 91% heroin addicts ( table 7), that an average
recidivism rate of 7.5% ( table 4) for those clients
who successfully complete TASC and an average 15.6%
recidivism ( 7.7 for Maricopa and 21.6 for Pima) for
all TASC clients one year after termination from
TASC is very encouraging.
Once again let me express my gratitude for this
opportunity to comment on this draft report.
Sincerely,
&* J;&
Steve Kadvick
Statewide TASC Coordinator
L of Pima County, Inc.
Community Organlzat~ onlo r Drug Abuse Control J 151 S. Tucson Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 85716 ( 602) 327- 4505
CODAC CREATES ALTERNATIVES
0
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PAUL A RlCH
CHAIRMAN
SONJA ADAMS
1ST VICE- CHAIRMAN
JOHN DAVIS
2ND VICE- ChAIRMAN
CHRIS COCHRAN
TREASURER
DIANE CEIZYK
SECRETARY
CINDY ALlBRANDl Ph D
' KAY BAKER
EDWARD G BEJARANO
GLENDA BONlN
CEPHAS BOWLES
* RICHARD J BOYKlN
' A BATES BUTLER Ill
JOSECARDENAS
ERIC CARVER
NELBA CHAVEZ Ph D
ARMAND0 M ESPINOZA
I) * KAREN FELDKAMP
CAROLYN FORD
ANN GEIGER
* STUART GHERTNER Ph D
I STEVEN GOLDSTEIN
PATRICIA GREEN
' PAT GREGORY
MARTI JONES
DAVID KENNON
JASPER KINSLEY
* TOM KORFF
* JON MILLER
STEPHEN NEELY
JOHN NElS
* RAY NOVAK M D
VICTOR ONG
Lt Col DONALD S PALMER USAF
* LAMOND B PRESTON
SHELLEY RlCH
MARTY ROSS
ANTHONY ROSSETTI
Ib ' JOSE SANTIAGO M D
SAT NAM SlNGH
EVYE STRONG
* RUDY WAGNER
TOM WELCH
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
HONORARYMEMBERS
MARILYN OIJRKEL
IiONORABLE JOHN P COLLINS
HARRY DAVIS
SENATOR DEluNlS DECONClNl
CHIEF WILLIAM GlLKlNSON
STEVEN W LYNN
WESLEY MARSHALL
0 JUNE MORRISON l't, D
MARCHA 01 LASON
ANN SOELTER
JAMES Wll KFS
July 30, 1980
M r . Gerald S i l v a
Manager, Performance U n i t
Auditor General ' s O f f i c e
Arizona State Capi to1
L e g i s l a t i v e Wing, Suite 200
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Mr. S i l v a :
I am i n agreement with most o f the comments made by Ms. Mehrhoff
regarding the Auditor General's performance a u d i t o f both Pima
and Maricopa County TASC programs. I would l i k e t o stress the
importance o f Ms. Mehrhoff' s comment regarding the two d i f f e r e n t
time frames used t o evaluate performance, i. e., 29 months f o r
Pima County TASC and 17 months f o r Maricopa County TASC. Ob-viously,
data was available f o r a longer period here i n Pima
County since t h i s TASC had been i n operation several years p r i o r
t o the establishment o f t h a t i n Maricopa County. However, I
t h i n k t h i s issue i s important i n terms o f Tucson TASC's higher
r e c i d i v i s m r a t e . A good percentage o f criminals are repeaters,
and the longer you f o l l o w c l i e n t s i n the subpopulation, the
higher percentage o f recidivism you w i l l obviously have.
Also, I t h i n k it i s worth n o t i n g t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n the choice o f
treatment modalities. I n i t i a l l y , Tucson TASC r e l i e d heavily on
r e s i d e n t i a l placements, which i s the most structured and r e s t r i c -
t i v e kind o f treatment available f o r drug abusers. Residential
treatment i s considered the appropriate modality for c l i e n t s who
have no support system o r a negative support system when coming
i n t o treatment. Obviously, these c l i e n t s represent a higher r i s k
category, and therefore, we should a n t i c i p a t e a higher f a i l u r e
r a t e when working w i t h them.
One a d d i t i o n a l comment would be t h a t I am somewhat suspicious o f
KEYNETH P GElS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
a r r e s t records as an i n d i c a t i o n o f criminal a c t i v i t y . Once a
c l i e n t i s i d e n t i f i e d as a heroin abuser, especially a c l i e n t who
has been previously incarcerated, law enforcement o f f i c i a l s are
CODAC IS an EEOIAA Employer and does not dlscr~ mlnateo n the basls of sex age race reltgton color natlonal orlgln Vietnam Era
VPIerans status or handlcapplng Condition in 11s admtsslon treatment employment and educational programs or ac~ livltes
July 30, 1980
Mr. Gerald Silva
Page 2
often apt to pay very close attention to this individual. I would
not go as far as to say that former addicts are often harrassed by the
police, but they are many times picked up on suspicion of a crime
and subsequently released. Since I think our judicial system i s based
on the premise that everyone i s considered innocent until proven guilty,
measuring convictions i s a much more useful tool in t h i s area.
I do think the report was well p u t together and will be very helpful
to us in assessing possible programmatic adjustments in the coniing
months.
Yours sincerely, ,-,
Kenneth P. Geis
Executive Director
KPG: jao
APPENDIX A
" UNDER THE AUSPICES OF CODAC OF PlMA COUNTY, INC."
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Gerald Silva
Performance Unit Manager
FROM: Patricia A. Mehrhoff
D i rector
RE: TASC Program Audit
DATE: March 14, 1980
The Tucson TASC project performs a number of ancillary services which are
not reflected in s t a t i s t i c a l compilations. I t i s the feeling of the staff
that these services are an integral part of our project and are important
enough to merit mention in your audit report.
One caseworker, Mr. Glenn Brasch, has been working one day per week a t the
Arizona Correctional Training Faci 1 i ty, the medium security prison. Working
out of the Pre- Release Unit, Glenn acts as the Substance Abuse Specialist
on the Review Committee which screens a l l applicants for work furlough. In
addition, Glenn does staff development and training, large group information
meetings for the residents, and conducts a weekly counseling group with
residents who have had drug and alcohol problems.
The TASC Supportive Services Specialist, Mr. Gary Hardy, also works a t the
Arizona Correctional Training Facility one day per week. He does employa-b
i l i t y s k i l l s training and conducts workshops for both staff and residents.
He also works on a one- to- one basis with residents who are getting ready to
be re1 eased.
We have also done drug and alcohol education classes once a week a t the
Arizona Youth Center, the Department of Correction's main f a c i l i t y for
juvenile male offenders. These were done a t the request of the AYC psycho-logist
as the faci 1 i ty did not have the knowledge and resources to deal
with substance abuse information.
We offer a mini - diversion program for f i r s t time prescription pi1 1 offenders.
Basically, the County Attorney's office contacted TASC and asked i f we could
a s s i s t then in dealing with these cases, as most of the defendants were
" non- criminal" types who did not have histories of hard core drug abuse.
By placing these people in TASC, the County Attorney's office f e l t that the
209 S. TUCSON BLVD. SUITE B TUCSON, ARIZONA 85716 ( 602) 795- 6430
Memorandum
Gerald Silva
March 14, 1980 - Page 2
needs of the criminal justice system would be met ( diversion clears the
court calendar) and the needs of the defendant would be niet ( treatment
for the abuse problems would result in healthier, constructive 1 ifestyles).
Since we see ourselves as the substance abuse resource for the Department
of Corrections, we provide just about any service the Department asks for
in this area. We do all of the urinalysis for all branches of the Department
( institutions, juvenile and adult half- way houses, parole) and will do a
diagnostic evaluation on any individual referred to TASC by Department of
Corrections .
Whenever an individual is close to his/ her parole date and i s in need of
a substance abuse program as part of the parole plan, wego tothe institu-tion,
interview the person and work up an appropriate plan for release.
Letters with this information are sent to the parole board, the parole
office in the city where the person will be residing and the potential
client.
Mr. Glenn Brasch also s i t s on the Pima County Adult Detention Center's
Review and Classification Committee. The committee meets weekly to review
and approve applications by inmates at the Detention Center for furlough
releases. He i s the resource person who prepares plans for individuals
with a history of substance abuse.
In addition, Glenn s i t s on the Board of Directors for Alternatives to
Incarceration, an agency which does pre- parole planning for all inmates.
Again, he functions as a resource person for that agency providing their
staff with information and resource ideas. He also is involved on a
volunteer basis with the Victim- Wi tness Program and is on call to provide
that agency with crisis counseling for appropriate drug and alcohol emer-gencies.
He has been instrumental in the creation and maintenance of a
local self- help support group called TROT ( Teenagers Reaching O u t Together)
and in this way interfaces with the youth of our community.
I am currently a member of the Arizona State Behavioral Health Advisory
Council and chair the Nominating Committee and the Seryices Committee.
I am also a niember of the Arizona State Task Force on Women and Behavioral
Health and act as a resource person providing inforniation about women in
the criminal justice system.
Inconclusion, TASC, as an agency, does much more for the community than
simply interview persons at the j a i l , place them in treatment and monitor
their progress. I t is our philosophy that we will make a greater impact
on the substance abuse problems if we are involved at many different levels
with our clients, the treatment programs, the criminal justice system and
the communi ty .
PAM: jao
Attachments
DRUG EDUCATION GROUP
The PtJrpOSc of this group is to provide an environment where information can
be shared in a non- judgemental fashion re substance use/ abuse.
The format involves the use of a drug IQ survey to be conipleted by the group
members and then used as a- springboard to clarify soriie drug myths, provide ,
factua! i. nformation about drug's contents and effects, and exsrnine group members I
relationships with drugs.
The goal of this group is to provide as much factual information as possible
C
to the members about drugs, in hopes of enabling them to make wiser and more
8
I)
responsible decisions concerning their future relationship with both licit and
illicit substances.
ALCOHOL EDUCATION/ AWARENESS GROUP
Thc purpose of this group is threefold:
- Educate the members about alcoholism
- Educate the members about the psychological and physical
effects of alcohol
- Encourage the members to examine their relationship with
alcohol in hopes that they vri 11 choose to use it more re- . sponsibly
The group meets for four ( 4) sessions..
SESSION 1: ORIENTATION:
Members view a film about an adolescent alcohoJic and discuss
various topics that arise from it.
Members discuss " What is alcohol ism?" : '
Members di'scuss whether or not alcohol was a contributing
factor to their being at Arizona Youth Center
SESSION 11: PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS:
Members are educated on the effects that alcohol has on various
organs, emotions, inhibitions, behavior, and abilities.
Also discussed is the difference between use and abuse of alcohol
and myths surrounding alcohol.
SESSION I l l : A PERSONAL VIEW OF ALCOHOL:
Members discuss where alcohol is in their lives and how it -
affects various aspects of 1 iving ( i . e., fami ly, school, community, a
work, health). Also discussed are the Steps of AA and why people
drink.
SESSION IV: SUMMERIZATION:
Members are asked to discuss what they have learned'in the group
and whether this knowledge will have any effect on their- future
use of alcohol.
Also discussed are community resources for alcoholic related
problems and any final questions are addressed.
APPENDIX B
MARICOPA TASC CLIENT FORM
) N, S\. e\ xlt -: \ I Ace l . . . ~ > , h lA1R. lNTeAvLer SmTaA, rTrt ) UrdS 3. Srpar~ tcd
D,\ TE : iUORI. SS / zip code PHONI..
4. DIVOFI- ed
2. Marr~ ed
5. Widowed -
17
/ /
LIVING WITH. Hsl3lion
f / . { 1
/ / - r ELLPLOYMENT:
/ f - 1. Unemployed 3. Put- tune - 2. Disabled 4. Full- time
/ / -- EMPLOYER ADDRI- SS
I f
RkFERRAL SOURCE f
1. Jnll lntcrvirw 3. P~ role 0. 2. Probation 4. Other
[ I !
CRL\ IINA L JUSTICE STATUS
1. P. T. I. 4. Paxolr -
1 1 I
2. Court Cond~ tion 5. Dkvcrsion
3. l'rob~ tion 6. Other
/ l
/ / I
CL; RRLNT C1IAHGl. Sl& UhllitK 0I: COUNTS PRIOR TRADE TR, ZINING
Spcclfy:
CURRENTLY IN SCIIOOL:
0. No.. I T r , S i l n Stud1s
PRlSlAKY DRCG PROBLEh1
1. Op~ ate 3. Polydrug
2. Alcohol unly 4. Other
PRIOR TRI. AT\ ltNTS
Number 0 st ~ ocatlon:
KU\. IBI. R 01. I'lllOK i\ UI:(. T: y, u, tlons
hl# dfmeanor
Felony
Coun? cior
DATrS
-,-(
, t r r o u x l Y --
I'KOII.\ I I~ J\~ I',\ KOI. I, 0 1 IbIC': I< k'honc -- L
-
COI: KTIJLLXII~.
-
I). itc :
1 / / [
/ / I
/ / i
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
UIL I HSION RFOlJlS'Tf D Approved B~
Not hpprovrd
bPf ( I \ I.( OkDlllO\ b:
-
I'TI CO\ lPI ITION
Report R~ tu, e: D. tli 1- 1
1. Vcry lavoralrlc
2. F~ vnrable 4. Cnl. luoratllc
3. No chance 5. Ler, unlauor~ lrlz
Kt \ & K t hi \ I t> < 11 \ K,, l >
/ /
I wn! ncnrs.
m -
{ It F<: O\ lI : Conr~ nurd
SI YTrNCf ' T.\ SC
C. J. Irnpdct ('<, rnrnents.
APPENDIX C
MARICOPA COUNTY TASC
4" x 6" C L I E N T CARD
1 1 1
Lart First 51.1. 0t. t. 1 TASC So.
DOB Phone
OLIT L) ay , Yea
I'rogram Referral IN
1 I
I TASC ............
D I
Total
Client Day:
Comments:
Current Charges/ Number of Charges
P. T. I. Outcome
Sentence:
Retrrebt. New Clltrges:
APPENDIX E
SAMPLE O F SURVEY FORM USED
TO SURVEY CRIMINAL J U S T I C E SYSTEM ELEMENT
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Survey Questionnaire
Concerning the Impact of
Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime ( TASC)
on the Criminal Justice System
1. What is your involvement in the criminal justice system?
Judiciary
Prosecutor ( County Attorney)
El Defender ( Public Defender)
G2ippearance and Indigency Determiniation
El Probation
O Parole
E Diversion
2. How familiar are you with the TASC Program?
Every familiar
UModerately familiar
C N Ov~ er y familiar
UTotally unfamiliar
( If totally unfamiliar, disregard
the remaining questions)
3. How important do you feel a program such as TASC is to the criminal
justice system?
Essential
Very Important
DModerately Important
U Mot Important
El Unnecessary
How would you rate the performance of the TASC Program?
DExcellent
Dsatisfactory
ONeeds Improvement
Q Poor
5. Please list those TASC functions, if any, that you feel are the most
important or helpful.
6. Please list those TASC functions, if any, that you feel are the
least important or unnecessary.
7. What in your opinion would be the consequences, either adverse or
beneficial, of discontinuing the TASC Program?
8. Please list any additional comments you wish to make.
Please return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed, self- addressed
stamped envelope by March 21, 1980, to:
Office of the Auditor General
112 North Central, Suite 600
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Attn: Ils. Virginia Kotzmann
Thank you for your assistance.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Survey Questionnaire
Concerning the Impact of
Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime ( TASC)
on the Criminal Justice System
1. What is your involvement in the criminal justice system?
E Judiciary
2 Prosecutor ( County Attorney)
C Defender ( Public ~ efender)
C Correctional Volunteer Center
ti Probation
C Parole
2. How familiar are you with the TASC Program?
Every familiar
UModeratelv familiar . L
n ~ o vte ry familiar
n~ otally unfamiliar
( If totally unfamiliar, disregard
the remaining questions)
3. How important do you feel a program such as TASC is to the criminal
justice system?
aEssentia1
every Important
n~ oderately Important
ENot important
nunnecessary
4. How would you rate the performance of the TASC Program?
a~ xcellent
Satisfactory
ONeeds Improvement
CI Poor
5. Please list those TASC functions, if any, that you feel are the m- ost important or helpful.
6. Please list those TASC functions, if any, that you feel are the
least important or unnecessary.
7. P7hat in your opinion would be the consequences, either adverse or
beneficial, of discontinuing the TASC Program?
--
8. Please list any additional comments you wish to make.
Please return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed, self- addressed
stamped envelope by March 21, 1980, to:
Office of the Auditor General
112 North Central, Suite 600
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Attn: P? s. Virginia Kotzmann
Thank you for your assistance.
APPENDIX E
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
A. D e f i n i t i o n s of Termination C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s :
1. Successful complete -
A c l i e n t who has s u c c e s s f u l l y completed the requirements s e t by
the TASC program.
2. Successful incomplete -
A c l i e n t who had been progressing towards a s u c c e s s f u l completion
but did not f i n i s h the TASC program due t o a p o s i t i v e reason such
a s d i s m i s s a l of a r r e s t charges.
3. Neutral -
A c l i e n t who has n e i t h e r progressed i n treatment nor v i o l a t e d
TASC conditions f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . This termination is given i n
order t o q u a l i f y t h e c l i e n t f o r TASC e l i g i b i l i t y within one year
a f t e r t h e termination d a t e .
4. F a i l u r e -
A c l i e n t who has f a i l e d t o meet TASC requirements.
5. Neutral i n c a r c e r a t e d -
A c l i e n t who entered TASC but who r e c e i v e s an i n c a r c e r a t i o n
sentence from the c o u r t .
6. F a i l u r e s p l i t -
A c l i e n t who has agreed with TASC t o e n t e r a r e s i d e n t i a l program
and l e a v e s without a u t h o r i z a t i o n p r i o r t o t h e s t i p u l a t e d d a t e .
B. Types of Drug Treatment Modality:
1. D e t o x i f i c a t i o n -
D e t o x i f i c a t i o n programs u s u a l l y provide gradually decreasing
dosages of methadone over a period of seven t o 21 days i n o r d e r
t o f a c i l i t a t e physical withdrawal from heroin. Such programs may
be run on an o u t p a t i e n t , i n p a t i e n t o r r e s i d e n t i a l b a s i s .
Sometimes d e t o x i f i c a t i o n is considered the f i r s t s t e p i n longer
term treatment, such a s residence i n a t h e r a p e u t i c community o r a
program of p e r i o d i c o u t p a t i e n t counseling. Other times
d e t o x i f i c a t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s the t o t a l treatment program, with
d e t o x i f i e d a d d i c t s expected t o maintain t h e i r heroin- free s t a t e
without f u r t h e r i n t e r v e n t i o n .
2. Methadone Maintenance -
Methadone maintenance programs s t a b i l i z e c l i e n t s on methadone,
which is dispensed a t the treatment c l i n i c . Typically, c l i e n t s
must come t o the c l i n i c t h r e e t o seven t i n e s per week t o o b t a i n
methadone, which must be taken d a i l y . C l i e n t s u s u a l l y r e c e i v e
counseling a t l e a s t once a week and a r e s u b j e c t t o random urine
t e s t i n g t o check on drug- abuse a c t i v i t i e s . Although some
methadone programs have adopted a goal of eventual d e t o x i f i c a t i o n
from methadone and a completely drug- free l i f e f o r t h e i r c l i e n t s ,
o t h e r programs contend t h a t c l i e n t s probably w i l l have t o be
maintained on methadone f o r l i f e i n order t o avoid reversion t o
heroin a d d i c t i o n .
3. Drug- free Outpatient -
The c l i e n t is allowed t o l i v e a t home. He must submit t o urine
t e s t i n g a t t h e TASC o f f i c e and must receive counseling at a
drug- free o u t p a t i e n t c e n t e r .
4. R e s i d e n t i a l -
A 24- hour- a- day drug- free treatment s e t t i n g f o r drug abusers.
Typically t h e programs use a v a r i e t y of encounter and o t h e r group
therapy techniques t o a c h i e v e b e h a v i o r a l change among t h e i r
p a t i e n t s . These programs u s u a l l y r e q u i r e residency f o r periods
ranging from s i x months t o two years i n order t o complete the
program s u c c e s s f u l l y ( " graduateft).
5. Other -
a. J a i l treatment - i f a c l i e n t is r e a r r e s t e d during TASC he is
terminated only i f he d o e s n o t r e t u r n t o t h e TASC o f f i c e
within 30 days of h i s a r r e s t and/ or i f t h e probation o f f i c e r
requests the termination.
b. TASC s u r v e i l l a n c e - A c l i e n t may be permitted t o provide
urine samples and r e p o r t on h i s / h e r s t a t u s a t the TASC
o f f i c e .
6. Multiple Treatment -
Any combination of the above modalities.
C. Types of Supportive Services Provided :
1. Employment counseling -
I f t h e c l i e n t needs a job, the Supportive S e r v i c e s S p e c i a l i s t
a s s e s s e s t h e c l i e n t ' s job experience and t r a i n i n g . The c l i e n t is
r e f e r r e d t o jobs t h a t the S p e c i a l i s t has developed o r from t h e
job bank. The S p e c i a l i s t w i l l w r i t e a r e f e r r a l o r give the
c l i e n t p e r t i n e n t information such a s the address o f t h e job and
how t o fill out the job a p p l i c a t i o n c o r r e c t l y . The S p e c i a l i s t
w i l l provide t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o and from job interviews i f
necessary. The S p e c i a l i s t w i l l follow up t h e outcome of t h e
c l i e n t ' s interview.
2. Zmployment Placement -
Successful employment of a c l i e n t who receives employment
counseling from TASC.
3. Educational R e f e r r a l -
I f the c l i e n t is i n t e r e s t e d i n job t r a i n i n g , t n e Supportive
Services S p e c i a l i s t determines the f i e l d i n which t h e c l i e n t
would l i k e t o be t r a i n e d and a l s o a s s e s s e s the c l i e n t ' s
background, schooling and previous job t r a i n i n g t o help d i r e c t
tne c l i e n t i n t o a program i n which he/ she can succeed and develop
a marketable s k i l l . The S p e c i a l i s t then r e f e r s the c l i e n t t o an
a p p r o p r i a t e t r a i n i n g f a c i l i t y t o be t e s t e d o r t o f i l l out an
a p p l i c a t i o n . The t e s t is an in- depth evaluation of t h e c l i e n t ' s
a b i l i t i e s . It is not t h e determining f a c t o r a s t o whether o r not
the c l i e n t is r e f e r r e d t o t r a i n i n g a t t h e S k i l l Center, as t h e
f i n a l , decision l i e s with the S p e c i a l i s t , who a t t h i s time makes
r e f e r r a l t o t h e S k i l l Center o r places t h e c l i e n t on t h e t r a i n i n g
list f o r the S k i l l Center.
4. Educational Placement -
The placement of a c l i e n t i n an educational system.
5. Housing R e f e r r a l -
C l i e n t s i n need of s h e l t e r e i t h e r w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a
contracted agency, o r a Supportive Services S p e c i a l i s t w i l l use
o t h e r s o u r c e s t o help the c l i e n t o b t a i n adequate housing.
6. Food R e f e r r a l , Transportation, Welfare R e f e r r a l and Emergency
Funds -
I f the c l i e n t is i n need of supportive s e r v i c e s such a s food,
c l o t h i n g , d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e o r h a i r c u t f o r purposes of applying
for or obtaining a job or o t h e r s e r v i c e s t h e S p e c i a l i s t deems
necessary, the S p e c i a l i s t w i l l supply t h e c l i e n t with them.
D. Standard Operating Procedure For U r i n a l y s i s of TASC C l i e n t s :
C l i e n t s a r e required t o provide two specimens a week, on Monday and
Thursday, u n l e s s otherwise d i r e c t e d by t h e case manager. Frequency of
u r i n a l y s i s a t the TASC o f f i c e s w i l l depend on each c l i e n t ' s l e n g t h of
time i n TASC, h i s o r her progress i n t r e a t m e n t , frequency of
u r i n a l y s e s a t h i s treatment agency and i f s p e c i a l u r i n a l y s i s
requirements have been imposed by t h e r e f e r r i n g criminal j u s t i c e
agency. TASC c l i e n t s a r e required t o submit t o u r i n a l y s i s on t h e day
they s i g n a c o n t r a c t t o e n t e r t h e program.
A d a i l y log is kept. It includes the d a t e , c l i e n t ' s name and TASC
number, and whether u r i n a l y s i s r e s u l t s were p o s i t i v e o r negative.
These r e s u l t s a r e noted i n t h e U r i n a l y s i s Log as soon a s they a r e
a v a i l a b l e from the lab. P o s i t i v e r e s u l t s a r e phoned i n by t h e lab.
Besides noting t h e s e p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s i n the U r i n a l y s i s Log, the
s e c r e t a r y a l s o informs t h e c l i e n t ' s case manager immediately. C l i e n t s
with a p o s i t i v e drug- content r e p o r t a r e required t o come i n t o t h e TASC
o f f i c e s a s soon a s possible t o submit t o another t e s t and t o meet with
h i s o r h e r c a s e manager. It is t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l
ease manqer t o make s u r e t h a t u r i n a l y s i s i n f o r n a t i o n is included i n
the c l i e n t ' s case notes.
Yhen a c l i e n t comes i n f o r u r i n a l y s i s , he o r she should be i n s t r u c t e d
t o f i l l the b o t t l e almost t o t h e top. Urinations a r e monitored by a
s t a f f nember of the same sex a s t h e c l i e n t . Information is recorded
i n the U r i n a l y s i s Log. Before a sample is obtained, a l a b e l should be
f i l l e d out and attached t o t h e b o t t l e . I n the space f o r t h e name on
the l a b e l , only t h e c l i e n t ' s TASC number is used. The l a b o r a t o r y ' s
c o n t r o l s h e e t is completed on each c l i e n t a s samples a r e taken.
Samples a r e r e f r i g e r a t e d as soon a s they a r e c o l l e c t e d .