Conference participants from the nine most populous States (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, California, Florida, Michigan, Texas, and Ohio) established that the basic responsibility of the judiciary in drug cases is no different than in any other criminal case. They also determined that the ability of State courts to perform their role is greatly affected by executive and legislative policies and programs. They expressed concern about the lack of information on increased drug caseloads and suggested the regular and standardized collection of data to document the seriousness of the drug problem, to define trends, to establish and justify resource needs, and to permit cross-jurisdictional comparisons. Judges representing juvenile and family courts noted an increase in drug-related crime in their jurisdictions. Conferees warned of either an existing or imminent caseload crisis and a possible system breakdown with the increased number of drug cases. A further concern related to the impact of drug cases on the civil justice system. Conferees reported that resources were being diverted from the civil caseload to meet the drug emergency. Conference participants were additionally concerned about the lack of realistic sentencing options and the scarcity of drug treatment facilities. Some questioned whether it was sound public policy to emphasize criminal sanctions as the primary focus in the war on drugs. All conference participants agreed on the need for better information about the courts' role in dealing with drug cases, and they emphasized the importance of coordinating drug case management strategies. 1 reference.