Results of the IPTC tracking were essentially the same as what was reported to the State legislature in 1997. Offenders who completed the IPTC programs had lower recidivism rates than comparison offenders who did not participate in the program. However, the higher recidivism rate of offenders who participated but did not complete the program negatively affected the overall recidivism rate of all participants and the cost-effectiveness of the program. Therefore, the State lost $1 for each $1 of program costs. The results of the SAFP tracking differed from what was previously reported to the legislature in 1997. Program participants had a higher recidivism rate than a comparison group that did not participate in the program, although program completers had a lower recidivism rate than noncompleters and nonparticipants. Nevertheless, the State lost $1 for each $1 of program costs. However, SAFP diverted offenders from a more costly prison sanction and made the program cost-effective despite the failure to reduce overall recidivism rates. The diversion savings meant that the State saved 56 cents for every dollar spent on the program. In addition, the program has corrected some of the implementation problems that affected these participants in the initial IPTC and SAFP programs. Finally, caution should be used in comparing outcomes in Texas with outcomes in other locations, because a careful review of research methods is essential for meaningful comparisons. Tables and figure