The projects were located in Puerto Rico, Idaho, Phoenix, Ariz., Hennepin County, Minn., and Los Angeles. All five sites had undergone significant changes in the legal or judicial system or had developed innovative approaches for handling drunk driving cases. Evaluations were based on review of existing information, reveiw of literature on the programs, and onsite observation and interviews. In addition to drawing conclusions about individual sites, the study team developed 21 hypotheses concerning sanctions, the adjudication process, statutes' effectiveness, and court management and administration. For example, changes in legislation alone were felt to be insufficient to effect changes in judicial systems. The evaluation did not provide definitive answers to questions about improving the handling of drunk driving cases, but it indicated that ASAP's will help provide a data base with which to answer the questions. Reports and evaluations generated by the projects were not as helpful as they might have been, however. Instead of supporting duplications of weak ASAP's, future funding should be targeted to programs built on successful ASAP innovations. Improved ties between agencies at all levels of government and continuing support to States by Federal experts are needed. A systems approach to ASAP should be supported and further developed. With the aid of the legal profession, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should use its expertise to develop national policy on drinking drivers. Findings of the five ASAP case studies are summarized. Tables and figures are included. For the individual case studies, see NCJ 72945-49.