Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTO's) were introduced as a new community sentence under the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998. The orders were established in response to growing evidence of the link between problem drug use and persistent acquisitive offending. Orders target serious drug misusing offenders aged 16 and over, with the dual aim of treating their drugs use in order to reduce the amount of crime committed to fund a drug habit. The order requires the offenders to undergo regular urine tests, and unique to community sentences, court reviews to monitor progress. The evaluation examined the three pilot sites as well as four additional projects that used probation orders in ways that resembled DTTO's. The results covered the full period of the DTTO pilot projects, which ran from October 1998 to March 2000. All three sites had a slow start, although the pace of referrals picked up half way into the pilot period. Reports from 2,555 urine tests showed that many tests were positive for opiates and cocaine; however as drug-using offenders continued on a DTTO, the rate of testing positive for opiates decreased; the impact on cocaine use was less clear. The three sites had widely differing approaches to warnings, breaches, and revocations. In all three sites, offenders quite often failed to meet the conditions of the order. The main form of noncompliance was failure to attend; many continued to use illicit drugs, especially near the start of their order. On the basis of self-report data, there were substantial reductions in drug use and offending near the start of the order. The average weekly amount spent on drugs decreased from 400 pounds before arrest to around 25 pounds. Polydrug use had become much less common. Typically, people stopped using crack or amphetamines, but continued to use opiates, albeit at a reduced level. There were commensurate reductions in acquisitive crime. The 6-monthly interviews showed that these reductions were largely sustained over time. This implies that if DTTO's succeed in retaining offenders within the program, they are likely to contain drug use and offending. Suggestions are offered for future evaluations, with attention to the use of some form of comparison group not exposed to the programs under DTTO's. Extensive tables and figures and 15 references