It examines the following: (1) in-house performance measurements; (2) contacts, services, and background variables; (3) outcome measures; (4) clients' recidivism; (5) clients' criminal behavior; (6) clients' positive adjustment; (7) probationers' employment; (8) commitment reduction; and (9) cost. Some conclusions reached are that the IDU staff matched extremely well in selecting and matching a comparison sample of reqular probationers. The IDU sample had higher needs at program entry, with only 25 percent of these clients employed, in contrast to 41 percent of the comparison group. The IDU clients received significantly more contacts than the comparison sample. Tables, figures, and footnotes are included. (Author summary modified)