been remarkable. Both Dr. DuPont and Mayor Walter Washington should be strongly commended for their leadership on this critical issue. Yet we all know that these programs, forward-looking though they may be, constitute only a beginning.

The cost of drug-related crime is staggering. Accepting the more conservative among the published estimates, it may be assumed that the approximately 17,000 drug addicts in the District of Columbia spend about $50 a day on narcotics, and, to pay that price, steal merchandise worth close to $400 million per year. This purely financial cost does not, of course, fully describe the damage done by drug-related crime. At least as important are the intangibles-increased violence, decline of public safety, fear, loss of confidence in the ability of the Government to protect law-abiding citizens from the criminal element, as well as the human suffering of those who are afflicted with addiction and their families.

It is because we feel so strongly that the fight against drug addiction is a matter of the highest priority, the Superior Court has not simply taken the passive role of adjudicating controversy and rendering judgments, but trying to take some degree of leadership in developing and implementing drug treatment and testing programs. Drug addiction is a matter of great complexity and our approach has been a varied and pragmatic one.

In April of 1970 the court working closely with the Narcotics Treatment Agency, inaugurated what I believe to be the first complete drug testing program to operate within a court system anywhere in the United States. Under that program all arrested persons are interviewed within the court lockup prior to arraignment and persons who are regarded as likely to be drug abusers are recommended for urine testing. Defendants upon whom presentence investigations are conducted and those who are on probation are also routinely tested for drug use.

Since August of 1970 the court's narcotics testing unit has interviewed 11,989 persons in prearraignment status, and has recommended drug testing for 7,403 of these persons. About 34 percent of the persons tested for narcotics addiction at the pretrial stage were reported back as drug users; this is 25 percent of all defendants coming before the court during this period.

While these statistics are certainly interesting in themselves, the greatest value of narcotics testing has been the identification of addicts. and their referral for appropriate treatment, and many have been so referred. The court has a systematic program of referring any addict who shows positive on the test to the Narcotics Treatment Administration.

One difficulty has been that up to now test results have not been available until about 36 hours after the tests have been administered. As a result of this time lapse, many defendants have been lost to rehabilitation since often they could not be found after they had left the court builidings, and they did not voluntarily report for treatment. We are moving in cooperation with the Narcotics Treatment Administration to solve this deficiency. The administration will now, itself, assume responsibility for the operation of the court drug testing program, which so far was handled by the probation department of the court. The Narcotics Treatment Administration has been allocated space in the court building for a drug testing laboratory and a centralized intake center for drug treatment.

When the new procedures begin, probably before the end of the summer, the in-court laboratory capacity will enable us to receive test results within a maximum of 2 hours from the time the test is administered. With that capability, it may be possible for a judge to have the results of the narcotics test before him when the individual defendant appears for arraignment and bail setting. The judge will then be able to order participation in an appropriate drug treatment program as a condition of pretrial release. When treatment is ordered the individual will be taken directly to the intake center within the court and immediately entered into the Narcotics Treatment Administration. So the loss of many of the individuals will be minimized and perhaps eliminated completely.

As the Narcotics Treatments Administration assumes responsibility for administering the adult drug testing program, we plan to move the court narcotics testing units to the juvenile branch of the court and begin a comprehensive narcotics testing program there. Accurate figures as to the incidence of drug abuse among youngsters are presently lacking. This new testing program will thus supply a vital need in that regard. Once we are able to determine with some accuracy the extent of drug abuse among juveniles, we will then be much better able to assess our needs in terms of juvenile treatment programs.

A small drug-related program was begun last week in the juvenile branch. On the basis of interviews, by selected former addicts, urine tests, and followup counseling, some juvenile drug users are being entered into a drug treatment program within 3 to 5 days after they first appear in court. To carry out this new effort the judges have been working very closely with a project called Project CREATE, a program sponsored by Federal City College.

A child is placed in the custody of Project CREATE on condition that he participate in drug treatment and education, job training, or such other rehabilitative services as seem relevant to his individual case. The members of Project CREATE exercise extremely close supervision over those youngsters who are released into their custody, and if a child does not abide by the terms of release, the Project CREATE team asks that the release be revoked.

Another innovative drug-related program which is currently underway within the court is the Narcotics Addicts Legal Services program. This project, funded by a grant from the Law Enforcement Assistance Association is a pilot study to determine the effect on rehabilitation of assigning members of the private bar to represent selected drug addicts who are entering treatment programs as a condition of pretrial release. Attorneys so assigned are concerned both with providing representation on the basic criminal charge and with providing comprehensive legal and other services to their addict clients. It appears that noncriminal matters such as employment difficulties, housing problems, and domestic crises often interfere with the successful rehabilitation of drug addicts, and this program seeks to deal with these problems in a manner which will enable the addict to remain in treatment.

The Superior Court is also cooperating with the Office of the U.S. Attorney, the Narcotics Treatment Administration, defense counsel, and other interested groups in developing a pretrial diversion program for selected narcotics addicts. It is anticipated that first offenders charged with such offenses as possession of drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia, or presence in an illegal establishment will be entered

into a counseling and treatment program similar to that operated by Project Crossroads. The criminal case against such an offender will be continued for a predetermined period of time, and if the individual is successful in his treatment, the criminal charges against him will be dropped. The initiative for developing this program, and for using it in any individual case, is with the Office of the U.S. Attorney, but I strongly believe that such a program merits support, and I will cooperate fully in planning and carrying it out. Present court figures suggest that perhaps as many as 20 percent of the total number of cases prosecuted annually might be diverted from the criminal justice system if a narcotics pretrial diversion program were fully implemented. I expect that such a program will be begun on a limited scale, with no more than 50 defendants initially, and that if it proves successful, funds and personnel will be sought to expand it.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated at the outset, some may feel that a court of law ought to confine itself to trying controversies and issuing judgments. We view our role in this community as a broader one. The problem of drug abuse and drug addiction in the District is a very serious one with tremendous impact on public safety and which for this reason alone deserves an extremely high priority of attention. I believe the court system and the District of Columbia government are providing that priority. I also respectfully suggest that the efforts being made in this field deserve full support from the Congress as well as from the citizenry of this District.

Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much, Judge.

I was very interested in your remark regarding the pretrial diversion program. Perhaps 20 percent of the cases could be taken out of the court if you had the use of the pretrial diversion program. Is that done under the inherent authority that the courts have or did this require special legislation to accomplish this program?

Judge GREENE. It would not require special legislation. I think it would basically be up to the prosecuting authorities to dismiss the charges if they see fit. Under Project Crossroads, which now operates to divert others from the courts, say a shoplifter caught for the first time, a young person who has no other record will typically be referred to Project Crossroads. If, within 90 days or some such period, the defendant shows signs of being rehabilitated then the prosecutor simply drops the charges with the consent of the court.

Senator TUNNEY. What program is there within the District of Columbia, to your knowledge, that provides job opportunities for addicts?

Judge GREENE. Well, I don't know. I would think Dr. DuPont would be better capable of answering that.

Senator TUNNEY. It is not coordinated with the court.
Judge GREENE. No. It is not.

Senator TUNNEY. What about follow-through treatment for an addict is that coordinated with the court system?

Judge GREENE. To the extent that persons who are on probation are referred to the Narcotics Treatment Administration, of course, followup reports are given. Followup reports are also given to those addicts who are referred to the pretrial release status but that, I must say, is more on the basis of whether that pretrial release should be revoked rather than any other beneficial purpose.

Senator TUNNEY. Do you feel the relationship between the treatment center and the court is a good one and one that does not need to be improved or do you feel that has to be

Judge GREENE. Initially we had difficulties in communication and administrative difficulties of various kinds with the Narcotics Treatment Administration. However, Dr. DuPont and his subordinates have shown a very cooperative and understanding attitude. While there is no program that cannot be improved or no coordination between two Government departments that cannot be improved-I have no complaints.

Senator TUNNEY. Can you recommend to this committee any change in the law dealing with addicts which the Congress might initiate for the District of Columbia?

Judge GREENE. I suppose the Congress might consider more mandatory type of pretrial diversion of first offenders. Perhaps even penalties for the first offenders or those who are found to be clearly having narcotics only for their own use. They might be treated differently than others. As presently pending litigation, at various levels in the District of Columbia courts, as to whether a person who has narcotics only for his own use can be prosecuted at all under the rationale of the Robinson case in the Supreme Court where the court held an addict cannot be punished for being an addict. That might be an area which the Congress might look into as well as the courts are doing now.

Senator TUNNEY. Thank you very much.

Senator Stevenson?

Senator STEVENSON. Judge, you mentioned 25 percent of all defendants in the Superior Court, according to the evidence you now have, are drug users. I suspect, probably, the actual figure is probably higher than that. Those statistics are based on your knowledge showing the recent use of drugs but in any event of the 25 percent many are convicted, and many are assigned to the Department of Corrections. What I don't understand is the relationship between NTA and the Department of Corrections. Does NTA run programs for the care of drug users and drug addicts who are entrusted to the custody of the Department of Corrections? If not, what happens with these people within the Department of Corrections?

Judge GREENE. I can't speak with complete assurance on this, but my understanding is there is inadequate coordination between. NTA and the Department of Corrections. That the Department of Corrections is simply, in most cases, providing abstinence. As I say, I am not entirely certain of this since it isn't directly within our jurisdiction. But my impression is NTA is not as active within the Department of Corrections as perhaps it should be.

Senator STEVENSON. I don't have any other questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like to join you in thanking the judge for coming here and also compliment him for the great work he has been doing within the court in this terrible affliction in our society.

Senator BUCKLEY. I come from New York, which unfortunately seems to have been the mecca for the drug industry, if you want to call it that, and certainly have a lot of sad experience in recent years. To what extent have you, and the members of your bench, consulted with your colleagues in New York and other States to see what you can learn from their experience?

Judge GREENE. We have not directly consulted with them at all. Dr. DuPont's program, under the Narcotics Treatment Administration, as I understand it, is based on certain experiments conducted in New York City. They have learned a great deal from the treatment aspects of the experts in New York.

Insofar as court run programs, operated programs, programs for channeling addicts into treatment is concerned, it is my impression that we are far ahead of what is being done in New York. Perhaps that is a somewhat weak excuse for not consulting with them but that is the excuse.

Senator BUCKLEY. Do you feel it would be useful for New York to consult with you?

Judge GREENE. That might be true.

Senator BUCKLEY. I have had the impression that in too much of our concern with narcotics, and the drug problem as a whole, that people are operating in isolation from one another and that we don't have closer fertilization of ideas and techniques which might advance our national effort.

Judge GREENE. I think that is true to a large extent. It certainly isn't true within this little community. I think all of those involved with narcotics and have to deal with narcotics; such as in the NTA, the courts; the prosecutors; the defense bar to some extent; and others are cooperating. And there are various coordinated groups that are getting together and discussing these things. I can't speak on a national scale because narcotics is, of course, only one of somewhat collateral problems of our court and I have not participated in any national effort to discuss it.

Senator BUCKLEY. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.

Senator TUNNEY. Senator Weicker?

Senator WEICKER. I, too, apologize for not coming here during the beginning of your testimony, but I would like to know this: How much of the judicial process do you think goes on in your courtroom relative to the narcotics offender? And how much do you think takes place out on the streets insofar as the law enforcement entity is concerned? Isn't this one of the problems? Isn't there a great deal of courtroom activity thrust into the province of the policeman on the beat aside from that which eventually reaches you?

Judge GREENE. It certainly is true to the extent that crime is drug related and a great deal of crime is obviously drug related. The addiction problem puts a tremendous burden on the court system and I would suspect it puts an even greater burden on the police department.

Senator WEICKER. Let me be more specific. Don't you think, as to the possession and the use of narcotics, that the policeman on the beat many times makes a decision right then and there who is going to go free and who is going to go to court, et cetera? This is what I am really talking about.

Judge GREENE. I would say it is really the policeman on the beat who makes more significant decisions than does the Supreme Court. Because if he decides not to arrest the case never goes any place. This is true, I am sure, of narcotics as of everything else. When there is a quarrel between the husband and wife and one uses some physical violence on the other, the policeman has to decide is this