THE COST PART OF THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF COURT CONSULTATION PROGRAMS OF COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS IS THE EASIEST TO HANDLE. THIS WOULD INCLUDE DIRECT LABOR COST OF A COURT CONSULTATIVE STAFF, TRANSPORTATION COSTS TO AND FROM COURTS, MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES, EQUIPMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS COST, AND OVERHEAD COSTS. THE DETERMINATION OF BENEFITS PRESENTS THE GREATEST PROBLEMS, PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON WHAT THE BENEFITS ARE AND HOW TO MEASURE THEM. A DEFINITIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR EVALUATING THE ABSOLUTE IMPACT OF BENEFITS FROM COURT CONSULTATION IS NOT YET AVAILABLE; HOWEVER, PRESENT TECHNOLOGY DOES PROVIDE APPROACHES FOR RANKING BENEFITS WITHIN AND ACROSS PROJECTS AND DETERMINING THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF ONE PROJECT WITH RESPECT TO ANOTHER PROJECT. WITH THESE MEASURES, IT IS POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE WHICH PROJECTS ARE OPERATING MOST EFFECTIVELY WITH RESPECT TO THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT CATEGORY BEING INVESTIGATED. AT THE STATE LEVEL, WHAT IS NEEDED IS A SYSTEM STUDY OF COST BENEFIT THAT ANALYZES THE COSTS OF SUPERVISING AND TREATING A JUVENILE IN THE COMMUNITY IN RELATION TO THE BENEFITS PROVIDED THE COMMUNITY BY SUCH TREATMENT. IN THE AREA OF PROGRAM EVALUATION, EACH CORRECTIONAL AGENCY SHOULD MAKE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AT TWO EVALUATION LEVELS--OVERALL PERFORMANCE ACHIEVEMENT OF LONG-TERM GOALS AND PROGRAM REVIEW THAT EMPHASIZES MEASUREMENT OF IMMEDIATE GOALS. THE BEST MEASURE OF OVERALL PERFORMANCE IS THE RECIDIVISM RATE AS DEFINED BY THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND GOALS. PROGRAM REVIEW WOULD MEASURE THE FOLLOWING: (1) ACHIEVEMENT OF SHORT-TERM GOALS; (2) ADEQUACY OF PERFORMANCE AS DETERMINED BY INDIVIDUAL FOLLOWUP ANALYSIS; (3) EFFICIENCY, AS DETERMINED BY COMPARING PERFORMANCE FOR VARIOUS GROUPS; (4) EFFORT, IN TERMS OF TYPES OF PERSONNEL COSTS, ETC.; AND (5) FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUCCESS AND FAILURE OF A PROGRAM, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE FOLLOWUP OF A COHORT OF TERMINATED CLIENTS. (RCB)