GAO
December 2011

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

ADULT DRUG
COURTS
Studies Show Courts
Reduce Recidivism,
but DOJ Could
Enhance Future
Performance Measure
Revision Efforts

GAO-12-53

December 2011

ADULT DRUG COURTS
Highlights of GAO-12-53, a report to
congressional committees

Studies Show Courts Reduce Recidivism, but DOJ
Could Enhance Future Performance Measure
Revision Efforts

Why GAO Did This Study

What GAO Found

A drug court is a specialized court that
targets criminal offenders who have
drug addiction and dependency
problems. These programs provide
offenders with intensive court
supervision, mandatory drug testing,
substance-abuse treatment, and other
social services as an alternative to
adjudication or incarceration. As of
June 2010, there were over 2,500 drug
courts operating nationwide, of which
about 1,400 target adult offenders. The
Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau
of Justice Assistance (BJA)
administers the Adult Drug Court
Discretionary Grant Program, which
provides financial and technical
assistance to develop and implement
adult drug-court programs. DOJ
requires grantees that receive funding
to provide data that measure their
performance. In response to the Fair
Sentencing Act of 2010, this report
assesses (1) data DOJ collected on
the performance of federally funded
adult drug courts and to what extent
DOJ used these data in making grantrelated decisions, and (2) what is
known about the effectiveness of drug
courts. GAO assessed performance
data DOJ collected in fiscal year 2010
and reviewed evaluations of 32 drugcourt programs and 11 cost-benefit
studies issued from February 2004
through March 2011.

BJA collects an array of data on adult drug-court grantees, such as drug-court
completion rates, and during the course of GAO’s review, began expanding its
use of this performance data to inform grant-related decisions, such as allocating
resources and setting program priorities. For example, during September 2011,
BJA assessed a sample of adult drug-court grantees’ performance across a
range of variables, using a new process it calls GrantStat. BJA developed
recommendations following this assessment and is determining their feasibility.
In addition, in October 2011, BJA finalized revisions to the performance
measures on which grantees report. BJA’s process of revising its performance
measures generally adhered to key practices, such as obtaining stakeholder
involvement; however, BJA could improve upon two practices as it continues to
assess and revise measures in the future. First, while BJA plans to assess the
reliability of the new measures after the first quarter of grantees’ reporting,
officials have not documented, as suggested by best practices, how it will
determine if the measures were successful or whether changes would be
needed. Second, should future changes to the measures be warranted, BJA
could improve the way it documents its decisions and incorporates feedback from
stakeholders, including grantees, by recording key methods and assumptions
used to guide its revision efforts. By better adhering to best practices identified by
GAO and academic literature, BJA could better ensure that its future revision
efforts result in successful and reliable metrics—and that the revision steps it has
taken are transparent.
In the evaluations that GAO reviewed, drug-court program participation was
generally associated with lower recidivism. GAO’s analysis of evaluations
reporting recidivism data for 32 programs showed that drug-court program
participants were generally less likely to be re-arrested than comparison group
members drawn from criminal court, with differences in likelihood reported to be
statistically significant for 18 of the programs. Cost-benefit analyses showed
mixed results. For example:


Across studies showing re-arrest differences, the percentages of drugcourt program participants re-arrested were lower than for comparison
group members by 6 to 26 percentage points. Drug court participants
who completed their program had re-arrest rates 12 to 58 percentage
points below those of the comparison group.



GAO’s analysis of evaluations reporting relapse data for eight programs
showed that drug-court program participants were less likely than
comparison group members to use drugs, based on drug tests or selfreported drug use, although the difference was not always significant.



Of the studies assessing drug-court costs and benefits, the net benefit
ranged from positive $47,852 to negative $7,108 per participant.

What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that BJA document
key methods used to guide future
revisions of its performance measures
for the adult drug-court program. DOJ
concurred with GAO’s
recommendation.

View GAO-12-53. For more information,
contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or
maurerd@gao.gov.
United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

Letter

1
Background
BJA Is Expanding Use of Grantee Performance Data but Could
Enhance Processes as It Continues to Refine Performance
Measures
Drug Courts Were Associated with Lower Recidivism and Relapse
Rates for Program Participants Than Criminal Courts
Conclusions
Recommendation for Execution Action
Agency Comments

19
26
27
27

DOJ Has Fully Implemented Most of Our 2002 Recommendations
and Plans to Address the Remaining One

29

MADCE Is the Most Comprehensive Study of Drug Courts to Date,
but Generalizability of Findings May Be Limited

32

Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

37

Appendix IV

Overview of Drug Court Program Characteristics

43

Appendix V

Ten Key Components of a Drug Court— Developed by BJA in
Collaboration with The National Association of Drug Court Professionals

46

BJA Offers Solicitations in Four Broad Drug-Court Grant
Categories—Implementation, Enhancement, Statewide, and Joint

47

Key Management Activities Identified for Which Performance
Information Can Be Most Useful

48

Appendix I

Appendix II

Appendix VI

Appendix VII

Page i

5
9

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix VIII

Appendix IX

Comments from the Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Assistance

49

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

51

Bibliography

52

Tables
Table 1: List of the Seven Questions to Which Adult Drug Court
Grantees Must Submit Narrative Responses
Table 2: Types of Information BJA Officials Reported Using or
Planning to Use When Performing Key Management
Activities for the Adult Drug Court Grant Program
Table 3: Differences in Reported Rearrest Rates between Drug
Court Program Participants and Comparison Group
Members
Table 4: Drug Use Relapse Results of Evaluations GAO Reviewed
Table 5: Cost Conclusions of the 11 Drug Court Program
Evaluations in Our Cost-Benefit Review
Table 6: Status of DOJ’s Efforts to Address Recommendations We
Made in 2002 on DOJ’s Collection of Performance Data to
Measure the Impact of Federally Funded Drug Court
Programs
Table 7: Methodological Quality Categories for Evaluations of a
Drug Court Program
Table 8: Five Criteria for Assessing a Cost-Benefit Analysis of a
Drug Court Program
Table 9: General Description of Drug Court Program Components
Table 10: Ten Key Components of a Drug Court
Table 11: Adult Drug-Court Discretionary Grant Program—Grant
Type and Description
Table 12: Definitions: Key Management Activities Identified for
which Performance Information Can Be Most Useful

Page ii

10
13
21
24
26

29
39
41
43
46
47
48

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Figures
Figure 1: Number of Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant
Program Awards Increased 588 Percent from Fiscal Year
2006 Through 2010

8

Abbreviations
BJA
DOJ
GPRA
GMS
MADCE
NADCP
NIJ
OJP
PMT
SAMHSA

Bureau of Justice Assistance
Department of Justice
Government Performance and Results Act
Grants Management System
Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation
National Association of Drug Court Professionals
National Institute of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Performance Measurement Tool
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

Page iii

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

December 9, 2011
The Honorable Patrick Leahy
Chairman
The Honorable Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
The Honorable Lamar Smith
Chairman
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Drug court programs were established beginning in the late 1980s as a
local response to increasing numbers of drug-related cases and
expanding jail and prison populations nationwide. A drug court is a
specialized court-based program that targets criminal offenders who have
alcohol and other drug addiction and dependency problems. Drug courts
have implemented deferred prosecution or post-adjudication caseprocessing approaches, or have blended both in their organizational
structures. In drug courts using deferred prosecution, defendants waive
rights to a trial and enter a treatment program shortly after being charged;
those who subsequently fail to complete the treatment program have their
charges adjudicated, while those who complete the program are not
prosecuted further, or have their charges dismissed. In post-adjudication
case processing, defendants are tried and convicted, but either have
deferred sentences or suspensions of incarceration until they complete or
withdraw from the treatment program. The first approach offers
individuals the opportunity to obtain treatment and avoid the possibility of
a felony conviction, while the second provides a rehabilitation incentive
because treatment progress is factored into the sentencing determination.
As of June 2010, there were over 2,500 drug courts operating throughout

Page 1

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

the United States, of which about 1,400 of these target adult offenders.1
Drug courts are generally based on a comprehensive model involving


offender assessment;



judicial interaction;



monitoring (e.g., drug testing) and supervision;



graduated sanctions and incentives; and



treatment services.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), through its Office of Justice Programs’
(OJP) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), administers the Adult Drug
Court Discretionary Grant Program, which provides financial and
technical assistance to states, state courts, local courts, units of local
government, and Indian tribal governments to develop and implement
drug treatment courts.2 The total amount BJA has awarded in grants
through the program increased from about $2 million in fiscal year 2006 to
$29 million in fiscal year 2010, and the number of grants it has awarded
during the same period increased 588 percent. Pursuant to the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), DOJ requires
applicants that receive funding through the program to provide data that
measure the results of their work.3

1

The types of drug courts include adult drug courts, juvenile drug courts, family drug
courts, tribal drug courts, designated Driving Under the Influence (DUI) courts, campus
drug courts, reentry drug courts, federal reentry drug courts, veterans drug courts, and cooccurring disorder courts—for offenders with mental health and substance addiction
issues.

2

The Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program was originally authorized under Title
V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322,
108 Stat. 1796,1955-59, and subsequently reauthorized by Title II of the 21st Century
Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Pub L. No. 107-273, § 2301, 116
Stat. 1758, 1794-99 (2002) (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3797u- u-8). Drug court programs
have also received funding from other federal sources, and state and local governments.

3
BJA’s grant solicitation states that to assist DOJ in fulfilling its obligation under GPRA,
grantees must provide certain requested data. GPRA was intended to address several
broad purposes, including, among other things, improving federal program effectiveness,
accountability, and service delivery; and enhancing congressional decision making by
providing more objective information on program performance.

Page 2

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

In April 2002, we reported that DOJ had not sufficiently managed its
efforts to collect performance measurement and outcome data from
federally funded drug courts.4 We recommended that DOJ take actions to
address these concerns, and DOJ agreed with our recommendations and
took actions in response. Appendix I provides information on the status of
these recommendations. In February 2005, we studied drug courts again
and reported that in most of the 27 drug-court program evaluations we
reviewed, adult drug-court programs led to recidivism reductions—that is,
reductions in new criminal offenses—during periods of time that generally
corresponded to the length of the drug court program.5 We also reported
that the evidence about the effectiveness of drug court programs in
reducing participants’ substance-use relapse was limited and mixed.6
This report responds to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which directed
GAO to report on drug court programs.7 We briefed your offices on our
preliminary results on July 18, 2011. This report includes our final results
related to the following questions: (1) What data does DOJ collect on the
performance of federally funded adult drug courts, and to what extent has
it used these data in making grant related decisions? And (2) What is
known about the effectiveness of adult drug courts in reducing recidivism
and substance-abuse relapse rates, and what are the costs and benefits
of adult drug courts? In addition, appendix I of this report provides
information on the extent to which DOJ has addressed the
recommendations that we made in 2002 regarding drug court programs.
To address the first question, we analyzed: the reporting guidance and
requirements that BJA provided in fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to
grantees applying for Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program
funds;8 BJA-generated grantee performance data reports from October to

4

GAO, Drug Courts: Better DOJ Data Collection and Evaluation Efforts Needed to
Measure Impact of Drug Court Programs, GAO-02-434 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 18, 2002).

5

We use the term recidivism to refer generally to the act of committing new criminal
offenses after having been arrested or convicted of a crime.
6

GAO, Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for
Other Outcomes, GAO-05-219 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2005).

7

Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-220, § 9, 124 Stat. 2372, 2374-75.

8

Grantees are defined as states, state courts, local courts, units of local government, and
Indian tribal governments acting directly or through an agreement with other public or
private entities that receive funding under the drug court program. 42 U.S.C. § 3797u(a).

Page 3

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

December 2010; and BJA’s guides for managing grants and enforcing
grantee compliance that were issued in fiscal year 2011. We selected
2007 as the starting point for our review because BJA implemented its
Performance Measurement Tool (PMT)—an online reporting tool that
supports BJA grantees’ ability to collect, identify, and report performance
measurement data activities funded by the award—in fiscal year 2007.
We also reviewed our prior reports and internal control standards as well
as other academic literature regarding effective performance
management practices.9 Further, we interviewed cognizant BJA officials
about the extent to which they use grantees’ performance data when
engaging in these management activities, any challenges faced with
ensuring grantee compliance, ongoing efforts to revise program
performance metrics, and the extent to which BJA’s revisions incorporate
best practices we previously identified.10
To address the second question, we conducted a systematic review of
evaluations of drug court program effectiveness issued from February
2004 through March 2011 to identify what is known about the effect of
drug court programs on the recidivism of and relapse of drug involved
individuals as well as the costs and benefits of drug courts.11 We also
reviewed DOJ’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ)-funded Multi-Site Adult
Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), a 5-year longitudinal process, impact,
and cost evaluation of adult drug courts that was issued in June 2011, a
summary of which we provide in appendix II.12 We identified the universe
of evaluations to include in our review using a three-stage process. First,
we identified evaluations by searching databases and Web sites. Second,
we selected evaluations of adult drug court programs in the United States
that report recidivism, substance use relapse, and/or costs and benefits.
Third, we screened the selected studies to determine whether each met
criteria for methodological soundness based on generally accepted social

9

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-AIMD-00-21.3.1
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).

10

GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Season Performance
Measures, GAO-03-143, (Washington, D.C.: November 2002); and GAO, Recovery Act:
Department of Justice Could Better Assess Justice Assistance Grant Program Impact,
GAO-11-87 (Washington, D.C.: October 2010).

11
In February 2005, we studied evaluations of drug court programs that were published
from May 1997 through January 2004.
12

NIJ is the research, development, and evaluation agency of DOJ.

Page 4

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

science principles or cost-benefit analysis criteria. From more than 260
studies in our initial group, we assessed the findings of 44 studies that
met our criteria and reported on the effectiveness of 32 drug court
programs or sets of programs. See appendix III for additional details on
our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2010 through
December 2011 in accordance with generally accepted governmentauditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the
audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our objectives.

Background

Drug court programs are designed to address the underlying cause of an
offender’s behavior—alcohol, drug addiction, and dependency problems.
Drug court programs share several general characteristics but vary in
their specific policies and procedures because of, among other things,
differences in local jurisdictions and criminal justice system practices. In
general, judges preside over drug court proceedings, which are called
status hearings; monitor offenders’ progress with mandatory drug testing;
and prescribe sanctions and incentives as appropriate in collaboration
with prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment providers, and others.
Drug court programs vary in terms of the substance-abuse treatment
required. However, most programs offer a range of treatment options and
generally require a minimum of 1 year of participation before an offender
completes the program.
Practices for determining defendants’ eligibility for drug court participation
vary across drug court programs, but typically involve screening
defendants for their criminal history, current case information, whether
they are on probation, and their substance use, which can include the
frequency and type of use, prior treatment experiences, and motivation to
seek treatment. In 2005, we reported that based on literature reviewed,
eligible drug-court program participants ranged from nonviolent offenders
charged with drug-related offenses who had substance addictions, to
relatively medium risk defendants with fairly extensive criminal histories
and who had failed prior substance-abuse-treatment experiences.
Appendix IV presents additional information about the general
characteristics of drug court programs. As shown in appendix V, BJA, in
collaboration with the National Association of Drug Court Professionals
(NADCP), identified The Key Components, which describes the basic

Page 5

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

elements that define drug courts and offers performance benchmarks to
guide implementation.13
BJA administers the Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program to
provide financial and technical assistance to states, state courts, local
courts, units of local government, and Indian tribal governments to
develop and implement drug treatment courts.14 Through the Adult Drug
Court Discretionary Grant Program, BJA offers funding in four broad drugcourt grant categories. See appendix VI for a more detailed discussion on
each of the following grant categories.


Implementation grants: Available to jurisdictions that have completed
a substantial amount of planning and are ready to implement an adult
drug court.



Enhancement grants: Available to jurisdictions with a fully operational
(at least 1-year) adult drug court.



Statewide grants: Available for two purposes: (1) To improve,
enhance, or expand drug court services statewide through activities
such as training and/or technical assistance programs for drug court
teams and (2) To financially support drug courts in local or regional
jurisdictions that do not currently operate with BJA Adult Drug Court
Discretionary Grant Program funding.



Joint grants: In fiscal year 2010, BJA, in collaboration with the
Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), offered a joint

13

NADCP is a national membership and advocacy organization of drug court professionals
that provides for the collection and dissemination of information, technical assistance, and
mutual support to association members.
14
42 U.S.C. §§ 3797u- u-8. Drug courts funded by BJA are required to involve mandatory
periodic drug testing, graduated sanctions for participants who fail drug tests, and
continuing judicial supervision over offenders, among other requirements. Id. Federal drug
court grants have a matching requirement. Drug court grants are not permitted to cover
more than 75 percent of the total costs of the project being funded. Grant applicants are
required to identify a nonfederal source of 25 percent of the program’s cost with cash or
in-kind services, or some combination of both. 42 U.S.C. § 3797u-5.

Page 6

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

grant program for the enhancement of adult drug court services,
coordination, and substance-abuse treatment capacity.15
From fiscal years 2006 through 2010, Congress appropriated about $120
million for DOJ’s administration of all drug court programs.16 Of this
amount, $76 million was used for the Adult Drug Court Discretionary
Grant Program, which includes funding provided to grantees through the
previously mentioned grant categories. The grant award totals for the
Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program increased from $2 million
in fiscal year 2006 to $29 million in fiscal year 2010.17 Correspondingly,
the number of Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program awards
increased from 16 in fiscal year 2006 to 110 in fiscal year 2010—an
increase of 588 percent, as shown in figure 1.18

15
This joint program offers grantees the opportunity to design a comprehensive strategy
for enhancing drug court capacity while accessing both criminal justice and substanceabuse treatment funds under a single grant application. These grants are authorized
under section 509 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 290bb-2) to
provide Adult Treatment Drug Court grants.
16

The appropriation amounts include adult drug courts, juvenile drug court programs,
training and technical assistance, and other related expenses, among other things.
17

For fiscal year 2011, the number of Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program
grantee awards and award amounts were not available at the time of our review.
18

The average Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program award amount totals ranged
from $122,000 in fiscal year 2006 to $267,000 in fiscal year 2010.

Page 7

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Figure 1: Number of Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program Awards
Increased 588 Percent from Fiscal Year 2006 through 2010

With regard to drug courts’ effectiveness, however, drug courts have
been difficult to evaluate because they are so varied, and the resources
required to conduct a study that would allow conclusions about the
effectiveness of drug courts can be substantial. In particular, while drug
courts generally adhere to certain key program components, drug courts
can differ in factors including admission criteria, type and duration of drug
treatment, degree of judicial monitoring and intervention, and application
of sanctions for noncompliance. In February 2005, we studied drug courts
and reported that in most of the 27 drug-court program evaluations we
reviewed, adult drug court programs led to recidivism reductions during
periods of time that generally corresponded to the length of the drug court
program.19 Several syntheses of multiple drug court program evaluations,
conducted in 2005 and 2006, also concluded that drug courts are
associated with reduced recidivism rates, compared to traditional
correctional options. However, the studies included in these syntheses

19

GAO-05-219.

Page 8

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

often had methodological limitations, such as the lack of equivalent
comparison groups and the lack of appropriate statistical controls.20

BJA Is Expanding Use
of Grantee
Performance Data but
Could Enhance
Processes as It
Continues to Refine
Performance
Measures
BJA’s Ongoing Data
Collection Efforts

BJA collects an array of performance data from its adult drug court
grantees through its Performance Measurement Tool (PMT) and OJP’s
Grants Management System (GMS). Since fiscal year 2008, BJA has
required grantees to submit quantitative performance data on a quarterly
basis and qualitative performance information on a semi-annual basis.
The quantitative information grantees submit to BJA varies depending on
the type of grant awarded. For example, information that BJA can
calculate based on what Implementation grantees have been required to
submit quarterly includes “the percent of drug court participants who
exhibit a reduction in substance use during the reporting period,” “the
percent of program participants who re-offended while in the drug court
program,” and “the number and percent of drug court graduates.”
Information that BJA can calculate based on what Enhancement grantees
have been required to submit includes “the increase in units of substanceabuse treatment services” and “the percent increase in services provided

20
See Jeff Latimer, Jeff, Kelly Morton-Bourgon, and Jo-Anne Chrétien. A Meta-Analytic
Examination of Drug Treatment Courts: Do they Reduce Recidivism? (Ottawa, Ontario:
Department of Justice Canada, 2006), 12. Christopher T. Lowenkamp, Alexander M.
Holsinger, Edward J. Latessa. “Are drug courts effective: A meta-analytic review,” Journal
of Community Corrections. (Fall 2005), 8, 9, 28. David B. Wilson, Ojmarrh Mitchell, and
Doris L. Mackenzie. “A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism.” Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 2(4) (2006), 468-469.

Page 9

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

to participants.” In addition to the quarterly reporting of quantitative
performance data, all adult drug court grantees must submit progress
reports semi-annually. As part of these progress reports, grantees provide
qualitative or narrative responses to seven questions. Table 1 shows the
seven questions to which grantees must submit narrative responses
when completing their semi-annual reports.
Table 1: List of the Seven Questions to Which Adult Drug Court Grantees Must
Submit Narrative Responses
1.

What were your accomplishments within this reporting period?

2.

What goals were accomplished, as they relate to your grant application?

3.

What problems/barriers did you encounter, if any, within the reporting period that
prevented you from reaching your goals or milestones?

4.

Is there any assistance that BJA can provide to address any problems/barriers
identified in question number three above?

5.

Are you on track to fiscally and programmatically complete your program as outlined
in your grant application?

6.

What major activities are planned for the next 6 months?

7.

Based on your knowledge of the criminal justice field, are there any innovative
programs/accomplishments that you would like to share with BJA?

Source: BJA.

Recent Steps to Improve
Use of Performance Data

BJA officials told us that grant managers regularly review individual
grantees’ quarterly performance data and semi-annual progress reports
and use this information to determine whether additional training or
technical assistance could improve their performance. However,
according to BJA officials, resource constraints in the past had prevented
staff from fully analyzing the performance data BJA collects from all adult
drug court grantees—specifically the analysis of grantees’ answers to the
seven narrative questions—to identify more effective program
approaches and processes to share with the drug court community. In
early fiscal year 2011, BJA officials initiated a new process called
GrantStat to maximize the use of performance information by leveraging
the resources of other BJA divisions,21 BJA’s training and technical

21

BJA officials stated that its Policy, Programs, and Planning Offices participate in the
GrantStat reviews.

Page 10

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

assistance partners, its contractor, and other key stakeholders.22
GrantStat provides an analytical framework to assess grantee
performance data and other relevant information on a semi-annual basis
to determine the effectiveness of the grant programs in BJA’s portfolio.
In September 2011, BJA officials applied GrantStat to a review of the
Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program. As part of the process,
they collected, reviewed, and analyzed performance data and other
relevant information from a cohort of Implementation grantees to
determine the overall effectiveness of the adult drug court program and to
identify grantees that might need additional technical assistance to
improve their outcomes. BJA officials told us that as part of the GrantStat
review, they and their technical-assistance provider’s staff reviewed
selected Implementation grantees’ responses to the seven narrative
questions and discussed common issues they each identified. For
example, BJA identified that a number of grantees had lower-thanexpected capacity because drug court stakeholders (e.g., district
attorneys) were referring fewer drug-involved defendants to these drug
courts. BJA also reported reviewing and discussing other qualitative
information, such as the training and technical assistance provider’s sitevisit reports, to determine grantees’ fidelity to the 10 key components.23
BJA officials acknowledged that prior to GrantStat, they had not
leveraged the summary data that its technical assistance providers had
previously compiled from grantees’ narrative responses to these seven
questions and indicated that future iterations of GrantStat would continue
to include both qualitative and quantitative performance data reviews.
Our prior work has emphasized the importance of using performance data
to inform key decisions24 and underscored that performance measures
can be used to demonstrate the benefits of a program or identify ways to

22

According to BJA officials, the contactor provides a range of data collection, technical
assistance, analytical, and research services to BJA and its grantees. This includes
developing and maintaining the PMT and providing a user support help desk and formal
training to grantees regarding their reporting requirements. In addition, contractor analysts
review, analyze, and report on BJA grantees’ performance data to BJA.
23

See appendix VI for more information regarding the 10 key components.

24

GAO, Managing For Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for
Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005).

Page 11

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

improve it.25 In addition, we also have reported that effective performance
measurement systems include steps to use performance information to
make decisions. In doing so, program managers can improve their
programs and results.26 Recognizing that BJA is working through
GrantStat to improve its use of performance data in managing the drug
court program, we identified six management activities for which
performance information can be most useful to decision makers and
benchmarked BJA’s practices against them.27 The six activities are:
(1) setting program priorities, (2) allocating resources, (3) adopting new
program approaches, (4) identifying and sharing with stakeholders more
effective program processes and approaches, (5) setting expectations for
grantees, and (6) monitoring grantee performance. See appendix VII for
the definition of the six management activities. As illustrated in table 2,
BJA has current and planned efforts underway across all six activities.

25

GAO, Justice: A Time Frame for Enhancing Grant Monitoring Documentation and
Verification of Data Quality Would Help Improve Accountability and Resource Allocation
Decisions, GAO-09-850R (Washington, DC: September 2009) and GAO, Performance
Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, GAO-05-739SP
(Washington, DC: May 2005).

26

GAO, Drug Control: DOD Needs to Improve Its Performance Measurement System to
Better Manage and Oversee Its Counternarcotics Activities, GAO-10-835 (Washington,
D.C.: July 2010).

27
We identified the first four management activities in table 1 as relevant from
governmentwide surveys of federal managers that GAO conducted in 1997, 2000, and
2003. See GAO-05-927. The remaining two activities we identified, in part, by reviewing
performance management literature. BJA staff confirmed each of these six to be relevant
to managing the drug court program.

Page 12

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Table 2: Types of Information BJA Officials Reported Using or Planning to Use When Performing Key Management Activities
for the Adult Drug Court Grant Program
Key management
activities GAO identified

Current or prior use of performance
grantee data

1. Setting program
priorities

BJA officials reported using a range of
information when setting program priorities
including NIJ-sponsored research, other drug
court evaluations, NADCP’s annual problemsolving court census, input from state drug
court coordinators, and grantee quantitative
performance data to set program priorities.

BJA officials stated that they have finalized grantees’
quantitative performance measures and plan to use
GrantStat to identify the most effective grantees and
their common characteristics. They told us that through
GrantStat they plan to systematically assess
performance information to prioritize which types of
drug courts BJA should fund in future grant
solicitations.

2. Allocating resources

BJA officials reported regularly using grantees’
quantitative performance data when deciding
the level of funding to be allocated toward
technical assistance annually and the types of
technical assistance grantees need to improve
their performance.

BJA officials reported the revised quantitative
performance measures will allow BJA to analyze
information across all grant categories (e.g.,
Enhancement, Implementation, and Statewide) to
determine how grantees are performing relative to one
another and then allocate funding and other resources
accordingly.

Planned or proposed use of grantee data

3. Adopting new program
BJA officials reported that they use grantees’
approaches or changing quantitative data to revise training courses for
work processes
the program and in drafting the program’s
grant solicitations.

BJA officials stated the revised quantitative measures
will allow them to conduct more sophisticated analyses
through GrantStat. As a result, BJA officials expect to
be able to identify not only the grantees that are
underperforming, but also the reasons why, and then
target the appropriate technical assistance to those in
the most need. For example, BJA officials reported that
the revised measures will help determine the extent to
which grantees have adopted evidence-based
practices, such as the seven design features
highlighted in the MADCE study.a

4. Identifying and sharing
with stakeholders more
effective program
processes and
approaches

BJA officials stated that GrantStat will address BJA’s
difficulties with collectively analyzing grantee
performance data on a regular basis by leveraging
internal and external resources. They also stated that
future GrantStat reviews will allow BJA to identify highperforming grantees and share their success stories
with other grantees.

According to BJA officials, because of
resource constraints, BJA had been unable to
conduct analyses across all grantees’
responses to the seven narrative questions in
their semi-annual progress reports. As a
result, the officials had not used this qualitative
data when carrying out this activity. Instead,
they reported using information gathered in
site visits, desk reviews, and technical
assistance assessments, as well as MADCE
and other NIJ-sponsored research and drug
court evaluations to identify effective drug
court processes and procedures. BJA officials
stated that information from NIJ-sponsored
research and drug court evaluations is
disseminated to stakeholders through the
BJA-NIJ Research to Practice initiative.b

Page 13

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Key management
activities GAO identified

Current or prior use of performance
grantee data

5. Setting expectations for
grantees

BJA officials said that they have been unable
to utilize adult drug-court program grantees’
quantitative performance data to set grantees’
expectations because the measures lacked
benchmarks against which to gauge grantee
performance.

BJA’s revised quantitative performance measures
include benchmarks and other performance indicators
allowing BJA to use grantees’ data to establish the
targets and goals that grantees are expected to
achieve. According to BJA officials, some of these
performance indicators were established as part of
GrantStat’s first review of the program and will be
communicated in the 2012 Adult Drug Court
Discretionary Grant Program solicitation
announcement. These indicators are based on grantee
cohort averages, individual grantees’ 4-year data
averages, and adult drug court averages obtained from
adult drug court research.

6. Monitoring grantee
performance

According to BJA officials, they have analyzed
individual grantees’ performance data on a
regular basis and provide training and
technical assistance as warranted. However,
according to BJA officials, because of
resource constraints, BJA had been unable to
conduct analyses across all grantees’
responses to the seven narrative questions in
their semi-annual progress reports. As a
result, they had not used this qualitative
information when carrying out this activity.
They also acknowledged that prior to
GrantStat, they had not leveraged the
summary data that its technical assistance
providers prepared based on grantees’
responses, despite recognizing its utility.

BJA officials reported the revised quantitative measures
will improve BJA’s ability to compare grantees’
performance results with established targets and goals
to determine the extent to which grantees have met
them and, if necessary, to target program resources
(e.g., technical assistance) to improve underperforming
grantees’ performance. BJA officials also told us that
GrantStat’s review included an assessment of the
narrative responses and would continue to include it in
the future.

Planned or proposed use of grantee data

Source: GAO analysis of types of information BJA officials reported using when performing management activities.
a

The seven design features include: (1) screening and assessment, (2) target population, (3)
procedural and distributive justice behavior, (4) judicial interaction, (5) monitoring, (6) treatment and
other services, and (7) relapse prevention and community integration. According to DOJ officials, the
seven principles were developed with NIJ on the basis of MADCE, and other rigorous research
studies. The language used to describe the seven principles was determined in consultation with
BJA’s drug court training and technical assistance providers.
b

The Adult Drug Court Research to Practice Initiative is a joint partnership between the National
Center for State Courts and the Justice Programs Office of the School of Public Affairs at American
University, with the purpose of disseminating information to drug court practitioners about current
research relevant to the operations and services of adult drugs. The initiative was co-funded by BJA
and NIJ.

According to BJA officials, after the GrantStat review, they identified
trends and developed several potential findings and action items for
program design changes. However, BJA officials added that since the
action items originated from GrantStat’s first review, they are not
implementing them immediately. Instead, BJA plans to evaluate the
action items over the next 6 months to ensure they are feasible and
effective alternatives for improving grantee outcomes. We are

Page 14

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

encouraged by BJA’s recent efforts to regularly analyze grantee
performance data to determine whether the program is meeting its goals.
We also are encouraged that BJA is using this information to better inform
its grant-related management activities, such as setting program
priorities, identifying and sharing effective processes and approaches,
and setting expectations for grantees.

BJA Recently Revised Its
Drug Court Performance
Measures

During the course of our review, BJA revised its adult drug court program
performance measures to improve their reliability and usefulness. BJA
provided us with the revised measures on October 28, 2011. According to
BJA officials, unclear definitions of some of the previous measures
confused grantees about what data elements they were expected to
collect. For example, officials told us that grantees may have been
confused with how to measure “the number of participants admitted” and
“the number of drug court participants.” Specifically, BJA officials added
that their analysis of several years of data shows that some grantees
reported the same number for these two measures, some grantees
reported a higher number than were admitted, a few grantees reported a
lesser number for the number of participants than the number admitted,
and some grantees reported these two measures in each of these three
ways over multiple reporting periods. According to BJA officials, such a
wide degree of variability made these measures unreliable, and BJA was
thus hindered from comparing grantee performance data across grantee
cohorts.
BJA’s performance measure revisions resulted in the following:


All grantees are required to report on “participant level” measures.
Examples of these measures include the demographic make-up of
their drug court participant populations, the amount of service
provided to their participants, and the geographic location of their drug
courts;



Enhancement, Joint, and Statewide grantees are required to report on
participant level outcomes, such as graduation rates, to ensure
consistency with measures BJA collects from Implementation
grantees;



Measures previously excluded from the PMT, such as retention rates
and outcomes of participants once they complete the drug court
program, are now included;

Page 15

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts



BJA has established two sets of benchmarks as points of reference
against which to gauge grantees’ performance. The first set of
benchmarks requires a comparison of grantees’ performance against
averages of drug court performance derived from research. The
second set of benchmarks requires a comparison of grantees’
performance to historical performance data reported to BJA by adult
drug court grantees; and



BJA revised the descriptions and the definitions of the measures to
help ensure their clarity.

To revise the performance measures, BJA officials consulted with
technical assistance providers and a drug court researcher to discuss
possible improvements to the performance measures, reviewed drug
court literature, and reviewed and analyzed BJA grantees’ clarification
and information requests to identify the most common problems adult
drug court grantees historically experienced submitting performance
information to BJA.28 In addition, BJA obtained comments on the
proposed measures from BJA staff and other DOJ stakeholders, as well
as Enhancement, Implementation, Joint, and Statewide grantees.29 BJA
officials also invited all current grantees to participate in four
teleconferences to obtain their feedback on the feasibility of collecting and
reporting the new measures and their suggestions to improve the clarity
of the measures’ definitions and descriptions. BJA officials finalized the
new measures in October 2011 and plan to closely monitor grantees’
performance data submissions to ensure the reliability and usefulness of
the measures and then revise as necessary after the first reporting
period. BJA officials also stated that they expected to review the
measures’ overall reliability and validity after the first reporting period—
October 1, 2011, through December 30, 2011.
BJA officials reported that the revised measures will strengthen the
reliability and improve the usefulness of grantee performance data in

28
The technical assistance providers included: American University, Tribal Law and Policy
Institute, Center for Court Innovation, the National Association of Drug Court
Professionals, the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Center for State
Courts.
29
BJA reported that DOJ stakeholders consulted included staff from NIJ, OJP, DOJ’s
Policy, Management, and Planning Branch, DOJ’s Chief Financial Officer, the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs, and BJA’s Director.

Page 16

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

making grant-related decisions. For example, BJA officials stated that
reliable and useful data would help them to identify the most effective
grantees and common characteristics these courts share to inform the
types of drug courts the officials choose to fund in future grant
solicitations. BJA officials also reported that as a result of the revision,
they expect to be able to conduct more sophisticated analyses using
GrantStat that are needed to inform grant-related decisions. For example,
BJA officials told us that implementing benchmarks and participant level
measures will enable the agency to compare similar drug courts (e.g.,
large-urban jurisdictions of similar size, demographic make-up, and
geographic context) to one another and across jurisdictions, thereby
improving BJA’s understanding of grantees’ impact on the populations
they serve.

BJA Could Enhance Two
Key Practices as It
Continues to Review and
Revise Its Adult Drug
Court Performance
Measures

BJA’s process to revise its performance measures generally adhered to
some of the key practices that we have identified as important to ensuring
that measures are relevant and useful to decision-making. These key
practices included obtaining stakeholder involvement30 and ensuring that
the measures have certain key attributes, such as clarity.31 The key
practices also describe the value of testing the measures to ensure that
they are credible, reliable and valid32 and documenting key steps
throughout the revision process.33 However, BJA could take actions to
improve its efforts in these two areas. For instance, BJA officials told us
that after the grantees’ first reporting period concludes, they plan to assess

30

GAO, Information Security: Concerted Effort needed to Improve Federal Performance
Measures, GAO-09-617 (Washington, D.C.: September 2009); GAO, Results-Oriented
Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual Performance and Organizational
Success, GAO 03-488 (Washington, D.C.: March 2003); and GAO, Managing for Results:
Measuring Program Results That Are Under Limited Federal Control GAO/GGD-99-16,
(Washington, D.C.: December 1998).
31

These attributes are clarity, reliability, linkage to strategic goals, objectivity, and
measurable targets. See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax
Filing Season Performance Measures, GAO-03-143, (Washington, D.C.: November 2002);
and GAO, Recovery Act: Department of Justice Could Better Assess Justice Assistance
Grant Program Impact, GAO-11-87 (Washington, D.C.: October 2010).
32

GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability Provisions Could
Lead to Better Results, GAO-06-1046 (Washington, D.C.: September 2006).

33

GAO-09-850R; GAO, Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and
Validation of Agency Performance Information, GAO/GGD-99-139 (Washington, D.C.:
July, 1999).

Page 17

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

the data that grantees submitted to ensure that the measures produce
reliable and useful data over at least the first quarter of fiscal year 2012.
They stated that if necessary, at that point they will then further revise the
measures. Nevertheless, BJA officials have not documented how they will
determine if the measures were successful or whether changes would be
needed. In addition, BJA officials did not record key methods and
assumptions used to guide their revision efforts, such as the feedback
stakeholders provided and BJA’s disposition of these comments. For
example, BJA officials provided a document generally showing the original
performance measure; whether it was removed, revised or replaced; and
BJA’s justification for the action, but this document did not demonstrate
how BJA had incorporated the stakeholder feedback it considered when
making its decisions. The document also did not include a link to a new
performance measure in instances where an older one was being replaced.
Further, BJA’s justification did not include the rationale for the changes it
made to 22 of the 51 performance measures. According to BJA officials,
they did not document their decisions in this way because of the rapid
nature of the revision process and limited staff resources. They also told us
that maintaining such documentation and providing it to stakeholders held
little value.
Our previous work has shown the importance of documentation to the
successful development of effective performance measures.34 In the past,
we have reported that revising performance measures involves a number of
aspects needing to be carefully planned and carried out and that by
documenting the steps undertaken in developing and implementing the
revised measures, agencies can be better assured their revisions result in
effective performance measures.35 In addition, academic literature on the
best practices for developing effective performance measures states that
agencies should develop products to document and guide their revision
efforts. These products, among other things, can include plans for ensuring
the quality and integrity of the data for full-scale implementation of the
measures.36 Further, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government call for clear documentation of significant events, which can

34

GAO-05-927.

35

GAO/GGD-99-139.

36
Theodore H. Poister, Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations.
The Jossey-Bass Non-Profit and Public Management Series (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2003).

Page 18

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

include assumptions and methods surrounding key decisions, and this
documentation should be readily available for examination.37 As BJA moves
forward in assessing the revised measures and implementing additional
changes, if it deems necessary, BJA could better ensure that its efforts result
in successful and reliable metrics and are transparent by documenting key
methods used to guide revision efforts and an assessment of its measures.
This would also help bolster the integrity of its decisions.

Drug Courts Were
Associated with
Lower Recidivism and
Relapse Rates for
Program Participants
Than Criminal Courts

In the evaluations we reviewed, adult drug-court program participation was
generally associated with lower recidivism. Our analysis of evaluations
reporting recidivism data for 32 programs showed that drug court program
participants were generally less likely to be re-arrested than comparison
group members drawn from the criminal court system, although the
differences in likelihood were reported to be statistically significant in 18
programs.38 Across studies showing re-arrest differences, the percentages
of drug court program participants rearrested were lower than for
comparison group members by 6 to 26 percentage points. One program
did not show a lower re-arrest rate for all drug-court program participants
relative to the comparison group within 3 years of entry into the program,
although that study did show a lower re-arrest rate for drug court
participants who had completed the program than for members of the
comparison group. In general, the evaluations we reviewed found larger
differences in re-arrest rates between drug-court program completers and
members of the comparison group than between all drug-court program
participants and the comparison group members. The rearrest rates for
program completers ranged from 12 to 58 percentage points below those

37

GAO-AIMD-00-21.3.1.

38

We report findings to be statistically significant only if they were significant at the 95percent, or greater, level of statistical significance, even though some studies reported
findings to be statistically significant at the 90-percent level. In general, the evaluations we
reviewed reported differences in overall rearrest rates—that is, the percentage of a group
rearrested for any new offense in a given period of time—although some evaluations
reported differences in the number of re-arrests or the relative odds of re-arrest. Of the 32
programs reviewed, 31 showed lower recidivism for drug court program participants, and
for 18 of these programs, the differences were statistically significant. The findings for the
remaining 13 programs were either not statistically significant or the significance of their
findings was not reported.

Page 19

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

of the comparison group.39 The completion rates reported in the
evaluations we reviewed ranged from 15 percent to 89 percent.
Included among the evaluations we reviewed was the MADCE, a 5-year
longitudinal process, impact, and cost evaluation of adult drug courts. The
MADCE reported a re-arrest rate for drug court participants that was 10
percentage points below that of the comparison group; specifically, 52
percent of drug court participants were re-arrested after the initiation of
the drug court program, while 62 percent of the comparison group
members were re-arrested.40 However, the 10 percentage point difference
between these rearrest rates for the samples of drug court participants
and comparison group members was not statistically significant. The
MADCE study also reported that drug court participants were significantly
less likely than the comparison group to self-report having committed
crimes when they were interviewed 18 months after the baseline (40
percent vs. 53 percent), and drug court participants who did report
committing crimes committed fewer than comparison group members.
We assigned a numerical rating to each evaluation to reflect the quality of
its design and the rigor of the analyses conducted. Our methodology for
rating the evaluation studies is detailed in appendix III. After assigning the
rating, we grouped the studies into two tiers. Tier 1 studies were the most
carefully designed and incorporated substantial statistical rigor in their
analyses. Tier 2 studies, while still meeting our basic criteria for
methodological soundness, were relatively less rigorous in their design and
analyses. Both tier 1 and tier 2 studies reported differences between drug
court participants and comparison group members and both sets of studies
found that some but not all differences were statistically significant.41
Table 3 shows whether a difference in recidivism rates was reported for
each program—expressed as the difference in the rate of re-arrest

39
It is important to note that the studies we reviewed did not include treatments other than
drug court; for example, they did not measure the relative effectiveness of drug treatment
programs administered outside of a drug court.
40

These percentages were adjusted for differences in the baseline characteristics of the
individuals in the two groups compared as well as differences in the baseline
characteristics of the programs they were in.
41
The range of percentage differences for re-arrest rates was narrower for higher quality
studies as a group than for lower quality studies, and the differences for higher quality
studies did not range as high.

Page 20

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

between all drug court program participants and the comparison group. In
some cases the difference in recidivism was reported as something other
than a difference in the re-arrest rate, such as a difference in the number
of arrests or the relative odds of an arrest. In those cases, table 3 notes
that a difference was reported, but does not include the difference in rearrest rates. For example, the evaluation of the Queens Misdemeanor
Treatment Court reported that the re-arrest rate for program participants
was 14 percentage points lower than the re-arrest rate of comparison
group members up to 2 years after participants entered into the program,
and 10 percentage points lower at 3 or more years after entry. Similarly,
the evaluation of the Hillsborough County Adult Drug Court reported a
statistically significant difference in the relative odds of an arrest after
drug court program enrollment but did not report the difference in rearrest
rates, therefore table 3 indicates a statistically significant reduction in
rearrest rates but does not show the difference in rates.
Table 3: Differences in Reported Rearrest Rates between Drug Court Program Participants and Comparison Group Members
Percentage point difference in rate of
re-arrest where reported, time frame covered
Reduction
reported?

Reduction
statistically
a
significant?

Breaking the Cycle Program (Florida)

Yes

No

Hillsborough County Adult Drug Court (Florida)

Yesc

Yes

Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court (Maryland)

Yes

No

Queens Misdemeanor Treatment Court (New York)

Yes

Yes

Drug court program (state)

Up to 1 year
after entry

Up to 2 years
after entry

3 or more
years after
entry

Tier 1 Evaluations

e

Multnomah County Drug Court (Oregon)

Yes

MADCE (Multiple States)

Yes

Breaking the Cycle Program (Washington)

-10%b
-9%
-8%d
-14%*

-10%*

Yes
No

-10%
f

Yes

Yes

-10%*

Multiple Drug Courts (California)

Yes

Not reported

Sacramento Drug Court (California)

Yes

Not reported

Guam Adult Drug Court (Guam)

Yes

Yesg

-20%

Ada County Drug Court (Idaho)

Yes

Yes

-25%*h

i

Tier 2 Evaluations
-12%
-20%

Multiple Drug Courts (Idaho)

Yes

Yes

Monroe County Drug Treatment Court (Indiana)

Yes

Not reported

-16%

St. Joseph County Drug Court (Indiana)

Yes

Not reported

-16%

Page 21

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Percentage point difference in rate of
re-arrest where reported, time frame covered
Reduction
reported?

Reduction
statistically
a
significant?

Vanderburgh County Day Reporting Drug Court
(Indiana)

Yes

Yesj

Baltimore City Circuit Court Adult Drug Treatment
Court and Felony Diversion Initiative (Maryland)

Yes

Yesj

Baltimore City District Court Adult Drug Treatment
Court (Maryland)

Yesk

No

Harford County District Court Adult Drug Court
(Maryland)

Yes

Yesj

Howard County District Court Drug Treatment Court
(Maryland)

Yes

No

-13%

-10%

Montgomery County Adult Drug Court (Maryland)

Yes

Yes

-26%*

-19%*

Prince George’s County Circuit Court Adult Drug
Court (Maryland)

No

No

Wicomico County Circuit Court Adult Drug
Treatment Court (Maryland)

Yes

Yes

Suffolk County Drug Court (Massachusetts)

Yes

Yes

Drug court program (state)

Up to 1 year
after entry

Up to 2 years
after entry
-9%

0%
-24%*

-6%*

Yes

Not reported

-24%

Kalamazoo County Adult Drug Treatment Court
(Michigan)

Yes

Yesj

-14%

Unnamed Drug Court (Midwest)

Yesl

No
Yes

+1%

-18%

Barry County Adult Drug Court (Michigan)

Kings County District Attorney’s Office Drug
Yes
Treatment Alternative to Prison Program (New York)

3 or more
years after
entry

-22%*

-18%*

-22%* (3 yrs)
-26%* (4 yrs)

Multiple Drug Courts (Ohio)

Yesm

Yes

Multnomah County Clean Court (Oregon)

Yes

Not reported

Marion County Adult Drug Court (Oregon)

Yes

Not reported

Multiple Drug Courts (Oregon)

Yes

Yes

-12%*

Yes

Yes

-23%*

Rutland County Adult Drug Court (Vermont)

-18%*
-16%
-14%

Source: GAO analysis of drug court program evaluations.

*The difference was reported to be statistically significant.
a

Indicates whether a reduction in any measure of recidivism reported by the study was statistically
significant.
b

Study reported a difference in recidivism of -9% for self-reported criminal acts.

c

Study reported a statistically significant difference in the relative odds of an arrest between 12 and
18 months after drug court program enrollment.
d

Reflects findings from 2 studies of the same drug court by the same author. See, Gottfredson et al.

e

Study reported a 17% reduction in re-arrest rates over 5 years, but the difference in rates was not
reported.
f

Study reported a difference in recidivism of -15% for self-reported criminal acts.

Page 22

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

g

Study reported a statistically significant difference in the average number of arrests resulting in court
filings after program initiation between the treatment and comparison groups, but did not report the
significance of the difference in rates of arrest resulting in court case filings.
h

Study reported a statistically significant difference in the rate of new court filings following program
initiation. Statistical controls, if any, were not presented.
i

Study reported a statistically significant difference in the rate of new court filings following program
initiation for program completers. Statistical controls, if any, were not presented.

j

While the differences in rearrest rates were not reported as significant, or not reported at all, study did
report a statistically significant difference in average number of re-arrests between the treatment and
comparison groups.
k

Re-arrest rates for drug court participants were lower than for comparison group members for some
years over a 10-year period, but none of the differences was statistically significant.

l

Study reported a difference in re-arrest rates of -12% for program completers vs. the comparison
group, which was not statistically significant.

m

Findings reflect a comparison group that combines multiple courts.

The evaluations we reviewed showed that adult drug-court program
participation was also associated with reduced drug use. Our analysis of
evaluations reporting relapse data for eight programs showed that drug
court program participants were less likely than comparison group
members to use drugs, based on drug tests or self-reported drug use,
although the difference was not always significant.42 This was true for
both within-program and post-program measures, and whether drug use
was reported as the difference in the frequency of drug use or the
proportion of the treatment and comparison groups who used drugs.
The MADCE concluded drug courts produce significant reductions in drug
relapse. Specifically, MADCE reported that “drug court participants were
significantly less likely than the comparison group to report using all drugs
(56 vs. 76 percent) and also less likely to report using ‘serious’ drugs (41
vs. 58 percent), which omit marijuana and ‘light’ alcohol use (fewer than
four drinks per day for women or less than five drinks per day for men).
On the 18-month oral fluids drug test, significantly fewer drug court
participants tested positive for illegal drugs (29 vs. 46 percent). Further,
among those who tested positive or self-reported using drugs, drug court
participants used drugs less frequently than the comparison group.”
Regarding post-drug court program relapses, the MADCE concluded that
participation in drug court—along with less frequent drug use among
offenders prior to arrest, and the absence of mental health problems—

42
We are reporting on the eight programs for which drug -relapse data from drug court
participants were compared with a comparison group. Evaluations of other programs
included information on drug-relapse only for drug court participants.

Page 23

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

were the strongest predictors of success against relapses. Table 4
summarizes the results of drug-use relapse reported in the evaluations
we reviewed.
Table 4: Drug Use Relapse Results of Evaluations GAO Reviewed
Drug court program (state)

Results of drug use relapse

Drug tests
Barry County Adult Drug Court (Michigan) Reduction within-program: Drug court participants generally had fewer positive drug test
results than the comparison group in the 12-month period following program initiation.
St. Joseph County Drug Court (Indiana)

Reduction within-program: At all times during a 12-month period following program
initiation, the drug court participants had a lower percentage of positive urine drug screens
than the comparison group sample.

Vanderburgh County Day Reporting Drug
Court (Indiana)

Reduction within-program: At all times during the 12-month period following program
initiation, the drug court participants had a lower percentage of positive urine drug screens
than the comparison group.

Methamphetamine Treatment Project
(California)

Reduction within-program: Results show that drug court participants were significantly
more likely than comparison participants to provide a higher proportion of clean urine
samples, 97.3 percent versus 90.5 percent, respectively.
Reduction post-program: There were substantial reductions in methamphetamine use
over time for drug court participants compared to non-drug court comparison participants
at program completion, and at 6 and 12 months following program completion.

Self-reported drug use
Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court
(Maryland)

Reduction post-program: Participants in the treatment group had about 27 fewer days of
alcohol use, 19 fewer days of cocaine use, and 28 fewer days of heroin use on average
compared to the control group. The differences were statistically significant only for the
effect on cocaine. Among participants originating in the circuit court, the average number
of days of cocaine use was 50 days lower in the treatment group than the control group.

Breaking the Cycle (Florida)

Reduction within-program: Approximately 9 months after the initial arrest, drug court
participants were less likely to report drug use in the past 30 days (24 percent) than the
comparison group (33 percent); however, this difference was not significant at the 95
percent level.

Breaking the Cycle (Washington)

Reduction within-program: Approximately 9 months after the initial arrest, there was no
significant difference between the percentage of drug court participants (50 percent) and
the comparison group (51percent) who self-reported drug use in the past 30 days.

Both drug tests and self-reported use
MADCE (Multiple States)

Reduction 18 months after program initiation: 56 percent of drug court participants
reported using any drugs compared with 76 percent among the comparison group; 41
percent of the drug court participants reported using “serious” drugs (not marijuana or light
alcohol use) compared with 58 percent among the comparison group. 29 percent of drug
court participants tested positive for illegal drugs compared with 46 percent of the
comparison group. Among those who tested positive or self-reported using drugs, drug
court participants used drugs less frequently than the comparison group.
Source: GAO analysis of adult drug court program evaluations.

Page 24

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Drug Court Programs Were
Associated with Both
Positive and Negative Net
Benefits

Of the studies we reviewed, 11 included sufficient information to report a
net benefit figure. Of these studies, the net benefit ranged from positive
$47,852 to negative $7,108 per participant. The net benefit is the
monetary benefit of reduced recidivism accrued to society from the drug
court program through reduced future victimization and justice system
expenditures, less the net costs of the drug court program—that is, the
cost of the program less the cost of processing a case in criminal court. A
negative net benefit value indicates that the costs of the drug court
program outweigh its estimated benefits and that the program was not
found to be cost beneficial. Eight of the studies reported positive net
benefits—the benefits estimated to accrue from the drug court program
exceeded the program’s net costs. Three of the 11 studies reported
negative net benefits. We did not attempt to determine whether the
differences in the reported values were because of differences in study
methodology or the attributes of the drug courts themselves. The
environment in which the drug court operates may also be important. For
example, the largest net benefit reported was for Kings County, in which
members of the comparison group were incarcerated, in contrast to other
programs in which members of the comparison group were given
probation, which is less costly. The more costly the alternative, such as
incarceration, the more likely a drug court will have positive net benefits.
In this case, the study reported that society would accrue $47,852 in
benefits relative to conventional court processing.
Table 5 below shows whether, based on the available information, the
study was shown to be cost beneficial. It also shows the net benefits per
participant of the drug court study. For example, MADCE found that the
drug court participants led to a net benefit of $6,208 per participant—
within the range of the other studies.43 The MADCE analysis of costs and
benefits is discussed further in appendix II.

43
The estimate of $6,208 reflects the hierarchical modeling used in the MADCE study.
However, according to NIJ officials, the estimated net benefits could be as low as $5,680,
under different assumptions.

Page 25

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Table 5: Cost Conclusions of the 11 Drug Court Program Evaluations in Our CostBenefit Review
Program shown
to be cost
beneficial?

Net
benefits

Kings County District Attorney’s Office Drug Treatment
Alternative to Prison Program (New York)a

Yes

$47,836

Multiple Drug Courts (Maine)

Yes

$42,177

Drug court program (state)

Douglas County Drug Court (Nebraska)

Yes

$11,336

Multnomah County Drug Court (Oregon)

Yes

$10,826

MADCE (Multiple States)

Yesb

$6,208

Multiple Drug Courts (Kentucky)

Yes

$5,446

St. Joseph County Drug Court (Indiana)

Yes

$3,148

St. Louis City Adult Felony Drug Court (Missouri)

Yes

Vanderburgh County Day Reporting Drug Court (Indiana)

No

($1,640)

$2,615

Barry County Adult Drug Court (Michigan)

No

($3,552)

Monroe County Drug Treatment Court (Indiana)

No

($7,108)

Source: GAO of drug court program evaluations.
a

Comparison was to prison population.

b

Because of the variability in the estimate, the MADCE study could not determine that the net benefits
were statistically significant. Most other studies did not report on whether differences in cost were
statistically significant.

Conclusions

During the course of our review, BJA made strides in managing its adult
drug court program, including implementation of the GrantStat process
and recent revisions to the grantee performance measures. Given that
BJA has committed to testing its new measures during this first grantees’
reporting period, enhancements could be made to facilitate this
assessment. By documenting how it plans to assess the measures and
determine any changes that may be needed and providing the rationale
for future revisions, BJA could bolster the transparency and integrity of its
decisions. Doing so could also improve the reliability of the data it
collects, its usefulness to managers in guiding the program, and the
success of its measures.

Page 26

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Recommendation for
Execution Action

Recognizing that BJA has recently revised the adult drug-court
performance measures and has plans to assess their utility, we
recommend that BJA’s Director take the following action to ensure that its
revision process is transparent and results in quality and successful
metrics to inform management’s key decisions on program operations:


Agency Comments

Document key methods used to guide future revisions of its adult
drug-court program performance measures. This documentation
should include both a plan for how BJA will assess the measures after
conclusion of the grantees’ first reporting period and a rationale for
why each measure was refined, including a discussion of the scope
and nature of any relevant stakeholder comments.

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for review and comment. On
December 1, 2011, we received written comments on the draft report
from DOJ, which are reproduced in full in appendix VIII. DOJ concurred
with our recommendation and described actions under way or planned to
address the recommendation. DOJ also provided technical comments,
which we incorporated as appropriate.
DOJ stated that BJA will continue to document grantee feedback and will
ensure that revisions to the measures are documented in accordance
with GAO’s best practices standards. In particular, DOJ stated that BJA
will document (1) whether the name and definition of the measure is
consistent with the methodology used to calculate it; (2) whether the
measure is reasonably free from bias; (3) whether the measure meets the
expectation of the program; and (4) its rationale for why each
performance measure was refined, including the scope and nature of any
relevant stakeholder comments. We believe that such actions would
improve the reliability of the information collected, its usefulness to
managers in making key decisions on program operations, and the
success of its measures.

Page 27

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General and
interested congressional committees. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-9627 or by e-mail at maurerd@gao.gov.
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to
this report are listed in appendix IX.

David C. Maurer
Director, Homeland Security
and Justice Issues

Page 28

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix I: DOJ Has Fully Implemented
Most of Our 2002 Recommendations and
Plans to Address the Remaining One
Appendix I: DOJ Has Fully Implemented Most
of Our 2002 Recommendations and Plans to
Address the Remaining One

The following provides the current status of the seven recommendations
we made in 2002—which have since been closed—on DOJ’s collection of
performance data.1 Specifically, DOJ has fully implemented six of them
and partially implemented one.2 DOJ has plans to fully address the
remaining recommendation related to analyzing performance and
outcome data collected from grantees and reporting annually on the
results. Table 6 reflects this status.
Table 6: Status of DOJ’s Efforts to Address Recommendations We Made in 2002 on DOJ’s Collection of Performance Data to
Measure the Impact of Federally Funded Drug Court Programs
Recommendation

Actions to address recommendation

Statusa

1. Develop and implement a
management information system
that is able to track and readily
identify the universe of drug court
programs DOJ funds.

BJA is currently using OJP’s GMS to track and identify the
b
universe of BJA funded drug court programs. In 2009, BJA also
developed the Enterprise Reporting Tool, an internal system,
which allows BJA to query most, if not all, BJA databases,
including GMS. BJA officials said this tool allows them to run
reports on the universe of drug court programs funded by grant
type, amount awarded, status, year awarded, and jurisdiction.

Fully implemented

2. Reinstate the collection of postprogram data, selectively spot
checking grantee responses to
ensure accurate reporting.

On October 28, 2011, BJA provided us with the revised
performance measures for the Adult Drug Court Discretionary
Grant Program—which includes the data requirement for
grantees to track drug-court program participants following their
program completion. According to BJA officials, data collection
on the revised measures will take effect with grant activities on
October 1, 2011, through December 30, 2011. Data entry and
reporting by grantees in the Performance Management Tool
(PMT) will begin on January 1, 2012.c BJA officials reported
concerns regarding the usefulness and reliability of postprogram data, emphasizing that once the drug court grants
expire, drug courts are no longer required to track participants or
report their status to BJA. BJA reported that it will test this new
measure (post-program data), along with all other revised
measures, and monitor for reliability in the data it receives from
grantees. Having these new measures in place could help
ensure BJA has the program management data it needs to
make informed grantee decisions.

Fully implemented

1

GAO tracks recommendations for implementation and has closed these as either being
fully or partially implemented.

2

GAO-02-434.

Page 29

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix I: DOJ Has Fully Implemented Most
of Our 2002 Recommendations and Plans to
Address the Remaining One

Recommendation

Actions to address recommendation

Statusa

3. Take immediate steps to accelerate
the funding and implementation of a
methodologically sound national
impact evaluation and consider ways
to reduce the time needed to provide
information on the overall impact of
federally funded drug court
programs.

In 2002, NIJ commissioned the adult drug court evaluation
(MADCE) that selected multiple sites from across the country for
review. In June 2011, MADCE was issued, and the main
objectives were to: (1) test whether drug courts reduce drug use,
crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse,
in comparison with similar offenders not exposed to drug courts;
(2) address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key
individual and program factors that make drug courts more or
less effective in achieving their desired outcomes; (3) explain
how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are
exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the
effectiveness of drug court programs; and (4) examine whether
drug courts generate cost savings. The evaluation found that
drug courts prevent crime and substance use and work equally
well for most participant subgroups. See appendix II for a
summary of the study.

Fully implemented

4. Take steps to ensure and sustain an
adequate grantee response rate by
improving efforts to notify and
remind grantees of their reporting
requirements.

In fiscal year 2007, BJA began using GMS to send notifications
to remind grantees of upcoming due dates for progress reports.
If a progress report is more than 15 days late, GMS
automatically freezes the grantee’s available funding until the
report is submitted. Similarly, the grantee is unable to draw
down funds on a grant if a financial report is more than one day
late. BJA officials said that these procedures provide an
additional tool to assist grant managers in providing adequate
oversight of grantees’ reporting activities to ensure compliance
with reporting requirements.

Fully implemented

5. Take corrective action toward
grantees that do not comply with
data collection reporting
requirements.

In fiscal year 2007, OJP implemented a policy whereby available
grant funds are frozen for noncompliant grantees that are
delinquent in submitting semi-annual progress reports or
quarterly financial reports. In addition, BJA has the ability to
designate a grantee as high risk if the grantee continues to be
noncompliant in reporting requirements. Once grantees are
notified of their high-risk designation, all new awards to the
grantee include high-risk special conditions that provide for
additional oversight, as necessary, and restrict the grantee from
obligating, expending, or drawing down funds under the new
awards from DOJ.

Fully implemented

Page 30

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix I: DOJ Has Fully Implemented Most
of Our 2002 Recommendations and Plans to
Address the Remaining One

Recommendation

Actions to address recommendation

Statusa

6. Analyze performance and outcome
data collected from grantees and
report annually on the results.

Since 2007, using PMT, BJA has collected quarterly quantitative
performance data from federally funded drug court grantees.
Semi-annually, BJA also collects responses to seven narrative
questions that grantees provide using PMT. BJA officials said
they regularly analyze the numeric data and publish the results
of the performance measure reporting on BJA’s Web site. BJA
does not fully analyze and report on the grantees’ responses to
the narrative questions. As mentioned, on October 28, 2011,
BJA provided us with the revised adult drug-court program
performance measures, which include measures previously
excluded from PMT, such as retention rates and outcomes of
participants once they complete the program. As noted, BJA
plans to reassess the reliability of the measures after the initial
grantee reporting period concludes. After this period, BJA
officials explained that they will make any necessary revisions or
changes to the measures—then analyze and report on the
results. As mentioned previously, BJA initiated a new process
called GrantStat to maximize the use of performance
information—providing an analytical framework to assess
grantee performance data and other relevant information on a
semi-annual basis to determine the effectiveness of the grant
programs in BJA’s portfolio.

Partially
implemented; BJA
plans to fully
implement

7. Consolidate the multiple DOJ-funded
drug-court-program-related data
collection efforts.

BJA has been using PMT to consolidate data collection efforts
since 2007. According to officials, PMT allows for grantees’
online performance measurement data submission and
enhanced capacity for BJA to (1) aggregate grantee data across
performance measures, (2) distill performance by the type of
adult drug court grant, and (3) more quickly “error check” the
reliability of grantees’ data submissions. BJA officials said PMT
allows them to query results and assess performance outcomes,
which helps them make decisions when designing future grant
solicitations. According to BJA officials, using PMT to
consolidate the federally funded drug court program data
collection efforts enables DOJ to better manage the programs.

Fully implemented

Source: BJA.
a

The following explains the definitions we used in assessing DOJ status in addressing the
recommendations. Fully implemented—DOJ provided evidence that satisfies the entire
recommendation. Partially implemented—DOJ provided evidence that satisfies about half of the
recommendation. Not implemented—DOJ provided no evidence that satisfies any of the
recommendation.

b

GMS is an online system designed to make the grant application process easier and more efficient
for grantees. GMS allows grantees to fill out forms and submit application materials online.
c

PMT is an online reporting tool that supports BJA grantees’ ability to collect, identify, and report
performance measurement data activities funded by their award.

Page 31

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix II: MADCE Is the Most Comprehensive
Study of Drug Courts to Date, but Generalizability
of Findings May Be Limited
Appendix II: MADCE Is the Most
Comprehensive Study of Drug Courts to Date,
but Generalizability of Findings May Be
Limited

NIJ’s MADCE was conducted by the Urban Institute, Center for Court
Innovation, and Research Triangle Institute.1 Data were collected from
1156 drug court participants in 23 different drug courts in 7 geographic
clusters and from a comparison group of 625 drug-involved offenders in
six different sites in four geographic clusters. Data collected included:
three waves of interviews; drug tests; administrative records on treatment,
arrests, and incarceration; court observation and interviews with staff and
other stakeholders; and budget and other cost information. The
evaluation was designed to address the following four questions:
(1) Do drug courts reduce drug use, criminal behavior, and other
associated offender problems?
(2) Do drug courts generate cost savings for the criminal justice system
and other public institutions?
(3) Are drug courts especially effective or less effective for certain
categories of offenders or program characteristics?
(4) Which drug court policies and offender perceptions explain their
overall impact?

MADCE Found
Reductions in
Recidivism and
Relapse, but
Generalizability May
Be Limited

The MADCE’s major findings can be summarized as follows:


Drug courts produce statistically significant reductions in self-reported
crime. While both the drug court participants and comparison group
participants reported large numbers of crimes in the year preceding
the 18-month follow-up, drug court participants reported statistically
significantly fewer than the comparison group members. Drug court
participants were less likely than members of the comparison group to
report committing any crimes (40 percent vs. 53 percent) and drug
court participants reported committing fewer crimes in the preceding
12 months than comparison group members (43 criminal acts vs. 88
criminal acts). The difference between the two groups in the

1

The Urban Institute is a nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization.
The Center for Court Innovation functions as the independent research and development
arm for the New York State court system and provides criminal justice consulting services
to jurisdictions outside New York. The Research Triangle Institute is an independent,
nonprofit institute that provides research, development, and technical services to
government and commercial clients.

Page 32

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix II: MADCE Is the Most
Comprehensive Study of Drug Courts to Date,
but Generalizability of Findings May Be
Limited

probability of an official re-arrest over 24 months was not statistically
significant, though the percentage of individuals rearrested was lower
for the drug court group than the comparison group (52 percent vs. 62
percent), as was the average number of re-arrests (1.24 vs. 1.64).2


Drug courts produce statistically significant reductions in drug use.
Drug court participants were less likely than members of the
comparison group to report using any drugs (56 percent vs. 76
percent) and any serious drugs (41 percent vs. 58 percent), and less
likely to test positively for drugs at the 18-month follow-up (29 percent
vs. 46 percent). Furthermore, the large difference in self-reported
relapse rates is evident at 6 months (40 percent vs. 59 percent), so
the impact of drug courts on alcohol and other drug use is sustained.
The interview data also indicate that among the drug court
participants and comparison group members that were using drugs,
the drug court participants, on average, were using them less
frequently.



Drug court participants reported some benefits, relative to comparison
group members, in other areas of their lives. At 18 months, drug court
participants were statistically significantly less likely than comparison
group members to report a need for employment, educational, and
financial services, and reported statistically significantly less family
conflict. However, there were modest, non-significant differences in
employment rates, income, and family emotional support, and no
differences found in experiencing homelessness or depression.



Regardless of background, most offenders who participated in drug
courts had better outcomes than offenders who were in the
comparison programs. However, the impact of drug courts was
greater for participants with more serious prior drug use and criminal
histories, and the impact was smaller for participants who were
younger, male, African-American, or who had mental health problems.

2

Numbers, percentages, and differences in the foregoing and following bullets, are
adjusted (or estimated), as opposed to raw (or observed) numbers, percentages or
differences; that is, they were obtained by the MADCE researchers from statistical models
that estimated them after adjusting for differences in the baseline characteristics of the
individuals in the two groups compared as well as differences in the baseline
characteristics of the programs they were in.

Page 33

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix II: MADCE Is the Most
Comprehensive Study of Drug Courts to Date,
but Generalizability of Findings May Be
Limited



While the treatment and service costs were higher for drug court
participants than treatment and service costs associated with the
alternative “business-as-usual” comparison programs, drug courts
save money through improved outcomes, according to the
researchers, primarily through savings to victims resulting from fewer
crimes and savings resulting from fewer re-arrests and incarcerations.

The authors of the study assert that their findings have strong internal
validity—that is, that the findings were actually produced by the drug court
programs—and external validity—that is, that the findings can be
generalized to the population of all drug court participants and potential
comparison group members. The claim to strong internal validity is not
without merit, given the high response rates, low attrition, propensity
score adjustments, and conservative estimates produced by the
hierarchical models used.3 The claim of high internal validity is also
supported by the sensitivity analyses undertaken for several outcomes
using other models and methods of adjustments that produced little or no
change in conclusions. The claim to strong external validity, which relates
to the generalizability of the results beyond the sample of courts and
comparison sites and specific offenders considered, may be somewhat
overstated. The authors note that the 23 drug courts included in the study
represent “a broad mix of urban, suburban, and rural courts from 7
geographic clusters nationwide,” but that doesn’t assure that, collectively,
the drug courts that were included resemble the hundreds of drug courts
that were not included, especially since they were not chosen at random.
It also seems unlikely that the six comparison sites from four states are
representative of all potential controls, or all alternative programs in all
states, and it is potentially problematic that all of the selected sites,
including drug court and comparison sites, were alike in their willingness
and interest in participating. Those concerns notwithstanding, this is the
broadest and most ambitious study of drug courts to date; it is well done

3

Propensity score adjustments are a statistical approach to control for baseline differences
between the drug court and comparison groups and to correct for attrition and selection
biases by effectively giving greater weight to underrepresented categories of offenders
and lesser weight to overrepresented categories of offenders. Hierarchical linear models
are used to take account of the nesting—or clustering—of participants within the different
sites. These statistical adjustments were necessary as a result of baseline differences
between specific drug court and comparison groups and the specific individuals in them,
and because of the attrition that occurred in both the drug offender and comparison
samples over time.

Page 34

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix II: MADCE Is the Most
Comprehensive Study of Drug Courts to Date,
but Generalizability of Findings May Be
Limited

analytically; and the results, as they relate to the impact of drug courts,
are transparent and well described.

MADCE’s Cost
Benefit Analysis
Focused on
Individuals

The MADCE cost benefit analysis approach differed from most of the
other studies we reviewed. In most of the other studies, the average cost
and benefit of a drug court participant was compared to the average cost
and benefit of normal court processing. In contrast, the MADCE obtained
a separate net benefit figure for each individual. The net benefit was
obtained by tracking each individual’s use of resources, such as hearings
or meetings with case managers, and program outcomes like use of
public assistance. The MADCE also tracked each individual’s rates of rearrest, number of crimes, and time of incarceration. The crimes are
multiplied by cost to victims per crime to obtain the cost to society. The
difference between the net benefits of the drug court participants and the
comparison group were obtained using a hierarchical model similar to the
one used for program outcomes. After applying the method, the MADCE
found that the drug court participants led to a net benefit of $6,2084 to
society per participant, as compared to the comparison group. However,
due to the variability in the estimate, the study did not find that the net
benefits were statistically significant.
The lack of a statistically significant difference may be because of greater
variability in the MADCE approach than the approach used in other
studies. Specifically, the MADCE did not assume identical costs for each
participant. As a result, costs may be higher for individuals who have
lower rates of re-arrest, perhaps because those individuals received more
treatment. According to the study’s authors, by assuming identical costs
for each participant, the standard approach understates the variance in
the computed net benefit figure by not including the variability in cost.
However, the MADCE authors assumed that the prices of services were
consistent across sites by using a weighted average. In contrast, some
studies generate site-specific cost figures. In this way, the MADCE
approach did exclude one source of variation that is present in some
other studies.

4

The estimate of $6,208 reflects the hierarchical modeling used in the MADCE study.
However, according to NIJ officials, the estimated net benefits could be as low as $5,680,
under different assumptions.

Page 35

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix II: MADCE Is the Most
Comprehensive Study of Drug Courts to Date,
but Generalizability of Findings May Be
Limited

In addition to tracking costs and benefits at the individual level, the
MADCE also included some effects of drug court participation that some
other studies omit. This is consistent with OMB guidance that states that
studies should be comprehensive in the benefits and costs to society
considered.5 One of the benefits considered by the MADCE, sometimes
omitted elsewhere, is the estimated earnings of the drug court participant.
However, it is unclear that the full value of earnings should have been
considered a net benefit to society. For example, to be comprehensive, a
study should also consider the cost to society of providing that benefit.
The net benefit would account for the value of production from this
employment less the wages paid. Although in this case, it is unlikely that
this would affect the result of the analysis, as the earnings are similar for
drug court participants and the comparison group.

5

Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-94 Guidelines and Discount Rates for
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs (Washington, D.C.: 1992.) p 4.

Page 36

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

To determine what data DOJ collects on the performance of federally
funded adult drug courts and to what extent DOJ has used this data in
making grant-related decisions, we analyzed the reporting guidance and
requirements that BJA provided in fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to
grantees applying for Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program
funds;1 BJA-generated grantee performance data reports from October to
December 2010; and BJA’s guides for managing grants and enforcing
grantee compliance that were issued in fiscal year 2011. We selected
2007 as the starting point for our review because BJA implemented its
Performance Measurement Tool (PMT)—an online reporting tool that
supports BJA grantees’ ability to collect, identify, and report performancemeasurement data activities funded by the grantees’ awards—in fiscal
year 2007. We also reviewed our prior reports and internal control
standards as well as other academic literature regarding effective
performance-management practices.2 We then used this information and
BJA officials’ statements to identify and define six management activities
for which performance information can be most useful in making grantrelated decisions.3 Further, we interviewed cognizant BJA officials about
the extent to which they use grantees’ performance data when engaging
in these management activities, any challenges faced with ensuring
grantee compliance, ongoing efforts to revise program performance
metrics, and the extent to which BJA’s revisions incorporate best
practices we previously identified.4
To determine what is known about the effectiveness of adult drug courts
in reducing recidivism and substance-abuse relapse rates and what the

1

Grantees are defined as states, state courts, local courts, units of local government, and
Indian tribal governments acting directly or through an agreement with other public or
private entities that receive funding under the drug court program. 42 U.S.C. § 3797u(a).

2

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-AIMD-00-21.3.1
(Washington, D.C.: November, 1999).

3

The management activities include: (1) setting program priorities; (2) allocating
resources; (3) adopting new program approaches or changing work processes; (4)
identifying and sharing with stakeholders more effective processes and approaches to
program implementation; (5) setting expectations for grantees; and (6) monitoring grantee
performance.

4

GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season
Performance Measures, GAO-03-143, (Washington, D.C.: November 2002); and GAO,
Recovery Act: Department of Justice Could Better Assess Justice Assistance Grant
Program Impact, GAO-11-87 (Washington, D.C.: October 2010).

Page 37

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

costs and benefits of adult drug courts are, we conducted a systematic
review of evaluations of drug-court program effectiveness issued from
February 2004 through March 2011 to identify what is known about the
effect of drug court programs on the recidivism of and relapse of druginvolved individuals as well as the costs and benefits of drug courts.5 We
also reviewed DOJ’s NIJ-funded MADCE, a 5-year longitudinal process,
impact, and cost evaluation of adult drug courts that was issued in June
2011. We identified the universe of evaluations to include in our review
using a three-stage process. First, we (1) conducted key-word searches
of criminal justice and social science research databases;6 (2) searched
drug court program-related Web sites, such as those of BJA and NADCP;
(3) reviewed bibliographies, meta-analyses of drug court evaluations, and
our prior reports on drug court programs;7 and (4) asked drug court
researchers and DOJ officials to identify evaluations. Our literature search
identified 260 documents, which consisted of published and unpublished
outcome evaluations, process evaluations, commentary about drug court
programs, and summaries of multiple program evaluations.8 Second, we
reviewed the 260 documents our search yielded and identified 44
evaluations that reported recidivism or substance use relapse rates using
either an experimental or quasi-experimental design, or analyzed

5

In February 2005, we studied evaluations of drug court programs that were published
from May 1997 through January 2004.
6

We searched the ERIC, Biosis Previews, Social Scisearch, Gale Group Magazine
Database, Gale Group Health & Wellness Database, Gale Group Legal Resource Index,
Wilson Social Science Abstracts, and Periodical Abstracts PlusText.

7

Prior GAO reports included, GAO, Drug Courts: Information on a New Approach to
Address Drug-Related Crime, GAO/GGD-95-159BR (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 1995);
GAO, Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics, and Results, GAO/GGD-97-106
(Washington, D.C.: July 31, 1997); and GAO, Drug Courts: Better DOJ Data Collection
and Evaluation Efforts Needed to Measure Impact of Drug Court Programs, GAO-02-434
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 18, 2002); GAO, Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates
Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes, GAO-05-219
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2005).

8
A process evaluation assesses the extent to which a program is operating as it was
intended. It typically assesses program activities’ conformance to statutory and regulatory
requirements, program design, and professional standards or customer expectations.

Page 38

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

program costs and benefits.9 Third, we used generally accepted social
science and cost benefit criteria to review the 44 evaluations.
To assess the methodological quality of evaluations that reported on
recidivism or relapse rates, we placed each evaluation into one of five
categories, with category 1 evaluations being the most rigorous and
category 5 the least, as outlined in table 7.
Table 7: Methodological Quality Categories for Evaluations of a Drug Court
Program
Category Required methodological elements
1

Random assignment to drug court or control group, drawn from local
offenders eligible for the program. The sample: (a) is of sufficient size to
ensure that randomization balances all covariates (e.g., potential predictors
of outcomes, such as past criminal history); or (b) has constrained key
covariates to balance in small samples through stratification (e.g., sampling
subpopulations independently to improve representativeness) or through
other adjustments. Randomization occurs after eligible offense, not after
screening or other self-selection. Drug court is compulsory if assigned, and
rates of attrition from the program are low.

2

Either
Random assignment with several factors in group 1 missing, such as small
sample sizes or some amount of pre-screening of eligible participants;
or
Nonrandom assignment, but analysis models or controls for the specific
process used to assign participants to the drug court when constructing a
longitudinal comparison group. Alternatively, assignment to the program was
nonrandom but clearly exogenous to the outcomes. The comparison group is
similar to the treatment group on any variables the program explicitly uses to
screen participants, such as “readiness for treatment” or “likely response to
treatment.” Comparison group is matched on multiple years of pre-treatment
data.

9

An experimental design is one in which eligible offenders were randomly assigned to
different programs. A quasi-experimental design is one in which (1) all drug-court program
participants were compared with an appropriate group of comparable offenders who did
not participate in the drug court program, and (2) appropriate statistical methods were
used to adjust, or control, for group differences.

Page 39

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

Category Required methodological elements
3

Either
Problematic random assignment: extremely small sample sizes, many large
differences between treatment and control groups, randomization that occurs
after all important forms of self-selection or screening;
or
Nonrandom assignment, and the analysis controls for pre-treatment
outcomes and participant demographics without considering the specific
process used to assign participants to the program being evaluated.
Comparison group is used, but has limited pre-treatment covariate data for
construction. Comparison or treatment groups are constructed in ways that
could have a clear impact on the outcomes (e.g., truncating the sample).

4

Nonrandom assignment. Comparison group constructed with few controls for
pre-treatment outcomes or shows covariate differences with the treatment
group. Several plausible sources of selection bias, such as preexisting
differences between the two groups in the degree of substance use.

5

Nonrandom assignment. Cross-sectional design with few controls, pre-post
design with no comparison group and few controls, or treatment group that
includes only program graduates.

Source: GAO.

We excluded studies that were placed in category 5 in the table above or
studies in which the comparison group was not drawn from a criminal
court. We were left with 33 studies, plus the MADCE, that reported on the
effectiveness of 32 drug court programs or sets of programs.10 As noted
in our report, we then grouped the 34 studies, including the MADCE, into
two tiers according to their quality category, Tier 1 studies were those that
fell into categories 1 or 2, Tier 2 studies were those that fell into
categories 3 or 4.
Observed differences in recidivism could arise from measured and
unmeasured sources of variation between drug court participants and
comparison group members. If comparison group members differed
systematically from drug court participants on variables that are also
associated with recidivism, such as the degree of their substance-abuse
addiction problem and these variables were not accounted for by the
design or analysis used in the evaluation, then the study could suffer from
selection bias wherein observed differences in recidivism could be
because of these sources of variation rather than participation in the drug
court program. As indicated in table 7, our evaluation of the methods

10

Some studies reported results that were aggregated from multiple drug court programs.

Page 40

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

used to deal with selection bias was reflected in the quality categorization
of each study.11
To assess the methodological quality of evaluations that reported on drug
court program costs and benefits, we assessed them according to the five
criteria we developed and outlined in table 8 below.12
Table 8: Five Criteria for Assessing a Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Drug Court
Program
Criterion

Description

1.

States the
program’s
purpose

In general, the purpose of a drug court program is to reduce
repeated criminal behavior—to reduce recidivism—by reducing
offenders’ substance-using behavior.

2.

Identifies the
baseline

The baseline, or alternative, is what would happen to an offender
if the drug court program did not exist.

3.

Assesses all
relevant costs

The costs involved in a drug court program are those associated
with the program’s operation and those associated with the
baseline.

4.

Assesses all
Benefits usually attributed to drug court programs are costs
relevant benefits avoided because of reduced recidivism; they accrue to the
criminal justice system and potential victims of crime. Other
benefits an analysis could consider include reduced medical
costs and successful program participants’ increased
productivity.

5.

Assesses
uncertainty in
cost and benefit
estimates

Most cost and benefit estimates entail uncertainty from
imprecision in the data underlying the analysis and the
assumptions built into the analysis. Assessing uncertainty
enhances confidence in the estimates used in evaluation.

Source: GAO-05-219.

We determined that an essential criterion for reporting a net benefit of
drug courts was that the costs of the drug court were assessed against a
baseline (i.e., “business-as-usual” or traditional court processing). Eleven
studies met this essential standard and were used to report on program
costs and benefits. We excluded other studies not meeting this standard
even though they may have met others.

11
For a summary of how drug court studies have addressed selection bias in the past, see
GAO-05-219, p 16-24.
12

GAO-05-219, p 27.

Page 41

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology

To obtain information on our outcomes of interest—that is, recidivism,
substance use relapse, and costs and benefits—we used data collection
instruments to systematically collect information about the methodological
characteristics of each evaluation, the drug court participants and
comparison group members studied, and the outcomes of the participants
and other comparable groups reported. Each evaluation was read and
coded by a senior social scientist, statistician, or economist with training
and experience in evaluation research methods. A second senior social
scientist, statistician, or economist then reviewed each completed data
collection instrument to verify the accuracy of the information included.
Part of our assessment also focused on the quality of the data used in the
evaluations as reported by the researchers and our observations of any
problems with missing data, any limitations of data sources for the
purposes for which they were used, and inconsistencies in reporting data.
We incorporated any data problems that we noted in our quality
assessments.
We selected the evaluations in our review based on their methodological
strength; therefore, our results cannot be generalized to all drug court
programs or their evaluations. Although the findings of the evaluations we
reviewed are not representative of the findings of all evaluations of drug
court programs, the evaluations consist of those evaluations we could
identify that used the strongest designs to assess drug-court program
effectiveness.
To identify the extent to which DOJ has addressed the recommendations
that we made in 2002 regarding drug court programs, we interviewed
cognizant DOJ officials and obtained and reviewed documentation (e.g.,
drug-court program grant solicitations and grantee-performance reporting
guidance) on the actions taken to address and implement each of our
prior recommendations. We conducted this performance audit from
November 2010 through December 2011 in accordance with generally
accepted government-auditing standards. Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
objectives.

Page 42

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix IV: Overview of Drug Court
Program Characteristics
Appendix IV: Overview of Drug Court Program
Characteristics

This appendix provides a general description of drug court program
components (see table 9). Drug court programs rely on a combination of
judicial supervision and substance-abuse treatment to motivate
defendants’ recovery.1 Judges preside over drug court proceedings,
which are called status hearings; monitor defendants’ progress with
mandatory drug testing; and prescribe sanctions and incentives, as
appropriate in collaboration with prosecutors, defense attorneys,
treatment providers, and others. Drug court programs can vary in terms of
the substance-abuse treatment required. However, most programs offer a
range of treatment options and generally require a minimum of about 1
year of participation before a defendant completes the program.
Table 9: General Description of Drug Court Program Components
Drug court elements

Description

Drug court program approaches

Drug court programs generally have taken two approaches to processing cases: (1) deferred
prosecution (diversion); and (2) post-adjudication. In the diversion model, the courts defer
prosecution dependent on the defendant’s agreement to participate in the drug court program.
Deferred adjudication models do not require the defendant to plead guilty. Instead the
defendant enters the drug court before pleading to a charge. Defendants who complete the
treatment program are not prosecuted further and their charges are dismissed. Failure to
complete the program results in prosecution for the original offense. This approach is intended
to capitalize on the trauma of arrest and offers defendants the opportunity to obtain treatment
and avoid the possibility of a felony conviction. In contrast, defendants participating in a postadjudication (post-plea) drug court program plead guilty to the charge(s) and their sentences
are suspended or deferred. Upon successful completion of the program, sentences are waived
and in many cases records are expunged. This approach provides an incentive for the
defendant to rehabilitate because progress toward rehabilitation is factored into the sentencing
determination. Both of these approaches provide the defendant with a powerful incentive to
complete the requirements of the drug court program. Some drug court programs use both
deferred prosecution and post-adjudication approaches and assign defendants to an approach
depending on the severity of the charge. Additionally, drug court programs may also combine
aspects of these models into a hybrid or combined approach.

1

Drug courts funded by BJA are required to involve mandatory periodic drug testing,
graduated sanctions for participants who fail drug tests, and continuing judicial supervision
over offenders, among other requirements. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3797u- u-8.

Page 43

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix IV: Overview of Drug Court Program
Characteristics

Drug court elements

Description

Screening process and participant
eligibility criteria

Defendants reach the drug court program from different sources and at varying points in case
processing. Screening defendants to determine eligibility for a drug court program generally
includes assessing their criminal history and current case information (e.g., charging offense,
prior convictions, pending cases, and probation status). Depending on the program, an
assistant district or prosecuting attorney, court clerk, or drug court coordinator typically
conducts the review. Drug courts generally accept defendants charged with drug possession
or other nonviolent offenses such as property crimes. Some drug court programs allow
defendants who have prior convictions to participate, and others do not. Federal grants
administered by BJA may not be awarded to any drug court program that allows either current
or past violent offenders to participate in its program.a
After defendants are determined to be legally eligible for the program, treatment providers or
case managers will typically determine defendants’ clinical eligibility. This can be determined
through structured assessment tests, interviews, or even preliminary drug test results. While
drug courts generally only accept defendants with substance-abuse problems, they vary in the
level of addiction or type of drug to which defendants are addicted. For example, some
programs do not accept defendants who only have addictions to marijuana or alcohol, while
others do.
Clinical eligibility can also include factors such as medical or mental health barriers and
motivation or treatment readiness. In several drug court programs in our review, the drug court
judge’s satisfaction with or assessment of an offender’s motivation and ability to complete the
program was a factor used to screen defendants.

Program completion requirements

Drug court programs typically require defendants to complete a 1-year treatment program in
order to graduate from or complete the program. Some programs impose other conditions that
participants must meet in addition to treatment. These conditions could include remaining
drug-free for a minimum amount of time, not being arrested for a specified period of time,
maintaining employment or obtaining an educational degree or certification, or performing
community service.

Judicial supervision and status
hearings

The central element of all drug court programs is attendance at the regularly scheduled status
hearings, at which the drug court judge monitors the progress of participants. Monitoring is
based on treatment-provider reports on such matters as drug testing and attendance at
counseling sessions. The judge is to reinforce progress and address noncompliance with
program requirements. The primary objectives of the status hearing are to keep the defendant
in treatment and to provide continuing court supervision. More broadly, judicial supervision
includes regular court appearances and direct in-court interaction with the judge, as well as
scheduled case manager visits.

Drug-testing requirements

Monitoring participants’ substance use through mandatory and frequent testing is a core
component of drug court programs. Programs vary in the specific policies and procedures
regarding the nature and frequency of testing. For example, in some programs in our review
participants were required to call to find out whether they are required to be tested in a given
period or on a randomly selected day of the week. The frequency of testing generally varied
depending on the stage or phase of the program that participants were in.

Page 44

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix IV: Overview of Drug Court Program
Characteristics

Drug court elements

Description

Treatment components

In most drug court programs, treatment is designed to last at least 1 year and is generally
administered on an outpatient basis with limited inpatient treatment, as needed, to address
special detoxification or relapse situations. Many of the programs operate with the philosophy
that because drug addiction is a disease, relapses can occur and that the court must respond
with progressive sanctions or enhanced treatment, rather than immediate termination.
Treatment services are generally divided into three phases. Detoxification, stabilization,
counseling, drug education, and therapy are commonly provided during phases I and II, and in
some instances, throughout the program. Other services relating to personal and educational
development, job skills, and employment services are provided during phases II and III, after
participants have responded to initial detoxification and stabilization. Housing, family, and
medical services are frequently available throughout the program. In some instances, a fourth
phase consisting primarily of aftercare-related services is provided. The objectives of drugcourt program treatment are generally to (1) eliminate the program participants’ physical
dependence on drugs through detoxification; (2) treat the defendant’s craving for drugs
through stabilization (referred to as rehabilitation stage) during which frequent group or
individual counseling sessions are generally employed; and (3) focus on helping the defendant
obtain education or job training, find a job, and remain drug free.
Drug court programs can also either directly provide or refer participants to a variety of other
services and support, and they may include medical or health care, mentoring, and educational
or vocational programs. The use of community-based treatment self-help groups, such as
Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, and aftercare programs also varies across
drug court programs.

Sanctions for noncompliance

Judges generally prescribe sanctions and incentives as appropriate in collaboration with
prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment providers, and others. Typical sanctions for program
noncompliance include oral warnings from the judge; transfer to an earlier stage of the
program; attendance at more frequent status hearings, treatment sessions, or drug tests; and
serving jail time for several days or weeks. The approach or philosophy for how a drug court
judge prescribes sanctions can vary. For example, some judges use a graduated sanctions
approach, where sanctions are applied in increasing severity. Other judges may use discretion
in prescribing sanctions, assessing participants’ noncompliance on a case-by-case basis.

Termination criteria

Drug court programs typically use various criteria for ending a defendant’s participation in the
program before completion. These criteria may include a new felony offense, multiple failures
to comply with program requirements such as not attending status hearings or treatment
sessions, and a pattern of positive drug tests.
Before terminating a defendant for continuing to use drugs, drug court programs generally will
use an array of treatment services and available sanctions. There are no uniform standards
among all programs on the number of failed drug tests and failures to attend treatment
sessions that lead to a participant’s termination. Drug court program judges generally make
decisions to terminate a program participant on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the
recommendations of others, including the treatment provider, prosecutor, and defense
counsel. Relapses are expected, and the extent to which noncompliance results in
terminations varies from program to program. Once a defendant is terminated, he or she is
usually referred for adjudication or sentencing.
Source: GAO-05-219.
a

42 U.S.C. § 3797u-1- u-2. Violent offenders generally include those who have been charged with or
convicted of an offense that is punishable by a term of imprisonment of greater than one year, and
the offense involved a firearm or dangerous weapon; death or serious bodily injury; or the use of
force. Past violent offenders include those who have one or more prior convictions for a felony crime
of violence involving the use or attempted use of force against a person with the intent to cause death
or serious bodily harm. § 3797u-2.

Page 45

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix V: Ten Key Components of a Drug Court—
Developed by BJA in Collaboration with the
National Association of Drug Court Professionals
Appendix V: Ten Key Components of a Drug
Court— Developed by BJA in Collaboration
with the National Association of Drug Court
Professionals

Table 10: Ten Key Components of a Drug Court
1. Integration of substance-abuse treatment with justice system case processing.
2. Use of a non-adversarial approach, in which prosecution and defense promote public
safety while protecting the right of the participant to due process.
3. Early identification and prompt placement of eligible participants.
4. Access to continuum of treatment, rehabilitation, and related services.
5. Frequent testing for alcohol and illicit drugs.
6. A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance.
7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each participant.
8. Monitoring and evaluation to measure achievement of program goals and gauge
effectiveness.
9. Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective planning, implementation,
and operation.
10. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based
organizations generates local support and enhances drug court program
effectiveness.
Source: BJA.

Page 46

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix VI: BJA Offers Solicitations in Four
Broad Drug-Court Grant Categories—
Implementation, Enhancement, Statewide,
and Joint
Appendix VI: BJA Offers Solicitations in Four
Broad Drug-Court Grant Categories—
Implementation, Enhancement, Statewide, and
Joint

As mentioned, the Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program
provides financial and technical assistance to states, state courts, local
courts, units of local government, and Indian tribal governments to
develop and implement drug treatment courts. There are four different
types of awards that BJA makes to adult drug-court grantees through the
program. Table 11 provides a description of the grant types.
Table 11: Adult Drug-Court Discretionary Grant Program—Grant Type and
Description
Grant type

Description

Implementation grants

Available to jurisdictions that have completed planning and
are ready to implement an adult drug court. Grantees may
use their awards to fund various court operations and
services including offender supervision, management, and
services; provision and coordination of non-treatment
recovery support services; and childcare and other family
supportive services.

Enhancement grants

Available to jurisdictions with fully operational adult drug
courts. Applicants may use funding to expand their target
population, enhance court services, or enhance offender
services.

Statewide grants

Used to improve, enhance, or expand drug court services
statewide by encouraging adherence to the evidence-based
design features and through activities such as: training and/or
technical assistance programs for drug court teams geared to
improve drug court functioning and to increase drug court
participation and participant outcomes; tracking, compiling,
coordinating, and disseminating state drug court information
and resources; increasing communication, coordination, and
information sharing among drug court programs; conducting a
statewide drug court evaluation; or establishing a statewide
automated drug-court data collection and/or performance
management system.

Joint grants

BJA, in collaboration with the Department of Health and
Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA), offers a joint grant
program for the enhancement of adult drug court services,
coordination, and substance-abuse treatment capacity.a
Successful applicants are awarded two grants: an
Enhancement grant from BJA and a Behavioral Health Court
Collaboration Grant from SAMHSA. This joint program offers
grantees the opportunity to design a comprehensive strategy
for enhancing drug court capacity while accessing both
criminal justice and substance-abuse treatment funds under a
single grant application.

Source: BJA.
a

SAMHSA is authorized under section 509 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
§ 290bb-2) to provide Adult Treatment Drug Court grants.

Page 47

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix VII: Key Management Activities
Identified for Which Performance
Information Can Be Most Useful
Appendix VII: Key Management Activities
Identified for Which Performance Information
Can Be Most Useful

Table 12: Definitions: Key Management Activities Identified for Which Performance
Information Can Be Most Useful
Key management
activities

How performance information may be used to support
the activity

a. Setting program
priorities

Performance information is used to set priorities in
budgeting and to target resources. Agencies can also use
this information to identify priorities on which to focus their
efforts. For example, targeting grants to address
“underserved” client groups.

b. Allocating resources

Performance information is used to compare results of
agencies’ programs with goals and to identify where
program resources should be targeted to improve
performance and achieve goals. When faced with reduced
resources, such analyses can assist agencies’ efforts to
minimize the impact on program results.

c. Adopting new program
Performance information is used to assess the way a
approaches or changing program is conducted and the extent to which a program’s
work processes
practices and policies have or have not led to
improvements in outcomes. Such information is used to
identify problems and consider alternative approaches and
processes in areas where goals are not being met and to
enhance the use of program approaches and processes
that are working well.
d. Identifying and sharing
with stakeholders more
effective processes and
approaches to program
implementation

Performance information is used to identify and increase
the use of program approaches that are working well and
share these effective processes and approaches with
stakeholders.

e. Setting expectations for
grantees

Performance information is used to establish the targets
and goals that grantees are expected to achieve. These
targets and goals can be used as the basis for corrective
action (e.g., technical assistance, freezing of funds) or to
reward high performing grantees.

f.

Performance information is used to compare grantees’
performance results with established targets and goals to
determine the extent to which grantees have met them
and, if necessary, target program resources (e.g.,
technical assistance) to improve grantees’ performance.

Monitoring grantee
performance

Source: GAO analyses.

Note: We identified the first four management activities above as relevant from governmentwide
surveys of federal managers conducted in 1997, 2000, and 2003. See GAO-05-927. The remaining
two activities we identified by reviewing performance management literature. In defining the
management activities, we reviewed the literature identified and met with BJA officials to determine
the extent to which they agreed with our definitions. BJA staff confirmed each of these six to be
relevant to managing the drug court program.

Page 48

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix VIII: Comments from the
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Assistance
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Page 49

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Page 50

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov

Staff
Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Joy Booth, Assistant Director and
Frederick Lyles, Jr., Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment.
Christoph Hoashi-Erhardt, Michael Lenington, and Jerry Seigler, Jr.,
made significant contributions to the work. David Alexander, Benjamin
Bolitzer, Michele Fejfar, and Doug Sloane assisted with design and
methodology. Pedro Almoguera, Carl Barden, Harold Brumm, Jr., Jean
McSween, Cynthia Saunders, Jeff Tessin, Susan B. Wallace, and
Monique Williams assisted with evaluation review. Janet Temko provided
legal support, and Katherine Davis provided assistance in report
preparation.

Page 51

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Bibliography

Bibliography

Bouffard, Jeffrey A., and Katie A. Richardson. “The Effectiveness of Drug
Court Programming for Specific Kinds of Offenders: Methamphetamine
and DWI Offenders Versus Other Drug-Involved Offenders.” Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 18(3) (September 2007): 274-293.
Carey, Shannon M., and Michael W. Finigan. Indiana Drug Courts: St.
Joseph County Drug Court Program Process, Outcome and Cost
Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007.
Carey, Shannon M., and Michael W. Finigan. Indiana Drug Courts:
Vanderburgh County Day Reporting Drug Court Process, Outcome and
Cost Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007.
Carey, Shannon M., and Michael W. Finigan. “A Detailed Cost Analysis in
a Mature Drug Court Setting: A Cost-Benefit Evaluation of the Multnomah
County Drug Court.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20(3)
(August 2004): 315-338.
Carey, Shannon M., Michael W. Finigan, et. al. Indiana Drug Courts:
Monroe County Drug Treatment Court Process, Outcome and Cost
Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007.
Carey, Shannon M., Michael Finigan, Dave Crumpton, and Mark S.
Waller. “California Drug Courts: Outcomes, Costs and Promising
Practices: An Overview of Phase II in a Statewide Study.” Journal of
Psychoactive Drugs (November 2006).
Carey, Shannon M., Lisa M. Lucas, Mark S. Waller, Callie H. Lambarth,
Robert Linhares, Judy M. Weller, and Michael W. Finigan. Vermont Drug
Courts: Rutland County Adult Drug Court Process, Outcome, and Cost
Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2009.
Carey, Shannon, and Gwen Marchand. Marion County Adult Drug Court
Outcome Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2005.
Carey, Shannon M. and Mark S. Waller. Oregon Drug Court Cost Study:
Statewide Costs and Promising Practices-Final Report. Portland, OR:
NPC Research, 2010.
Carey, Shannon M., and Mark Waller. California Drug Courts: Costs and
Benefits-Phase III. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2008.

Page 52

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Bibliography

Carey, Shannon M., and Mark S. Waller. Guam Adult Drug Court
Outcome Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007.
Dandan, Doria Nour. Sex, Drug Courts, and Recidivism. University of
Nevada, Las Vegas: 2010.
Ferguson, Andrew, Birch McCole, and Jody Raio. A Process and SiteSpecific Outcome Evaluation of Maine’s Adult Drug Treatment Court
Programs. Augusta, ME: University of Southern Maine, 2006.
Finigan, Michael W., Shannon M. Carey, and Anton Cox. Impact of a
Mature Drug Court Over 10 Years of Operation: Recidivism and Costs
(Final Report). Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007.
Gottfredson, Denice C., Brook W. Kearley, Stacy S. Najaka, and Carlos
M. Rocha. “How Drug Treatment Courts Work: An Analysis of Mediators.”
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(1) (February 2007): 335.
Gottfredson, Denice C., Brook W. Kearley, Stacy S. Najaka, and Carlos
M. Rocha. “Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug
treatment court: Results from an experimental study.” Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 2(1) (January 2006): 67-98.
Gottfredson, Denice C., Brook W. Kearley, Stacy S. Najaka, and Carlos
M. Rocha. “The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: 3-Year Self-Report
Outcome Study.” Evaluation Review, 29(1) (February 2005): 42-64.
Krebs, C.P., C.H. Lindquist, W. Koetse, and P.K. Lattimore. “Assessing
the long-term impact of drug court participation on recidivism with
generalized estimating equations.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 91(1)
(November 2007): 57-68.
Labriola, Melissa M. The Drug Court Model and Chronic Misdemeanants:
Impact Evaluation of the Queens Misdemeanor Treatment Court. New
York, NY: Center for Court Innovation, 2009.
Latimer, Jeff, Kelly Morton-Bourgon, and Jo-Anne Chrétien. A MetaAnalytic Examination of Drug Treatment Courts: Do They Reduce
Recidivism? Ottawa, Ontario: Department of Justice Canada, 2006.
Listwan, Shelley Johnson, James Borowiak, and Edward J. Latessa. An
Examination of Idaho’s Felony Drug Courts: Findings and

Page 53

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Bibliography

Recommendations-Final Report. Kent State University and University of
Cincinnati: 2008.
Logan, T. K., William H. Hoyt, Kathryn E. McCollister, Michael T. French,
Carl Leukefeld, and Lisa Minton. “Economic evaluation of drug court:
methodology, results, and policy Implications.” Evaluation and Program
Planning, 27 (2004):381–396.
Loman, Anthony L. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the St. Louis City Adult
Felony Drug Court. Institute of Applied Research. St. Louis, MO: 2004.
Lowenkamp, Christopher T., Alexander M. Holsinger, Edward J. Latessa.
“Are Drug Courts Effective: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Journal of
Community Corrections. (Fall 2005): 5-28.
Mackin, Juliette R., Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan. Harford
County District Court Adult Drug Court: Outcome and Cost Evaluation.
Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2008.
Mackin, Juliette R., Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan. Prince
George’s County Circuit Court Adult Drug Court: Outcome and Cost
Evaluation. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2008.
Mackin, Juliette R., Lisa M. Lucas, Callie H. Lambarth, Mark S. Waller,
Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan. Baltimore City Circuit Court
Adult Drug Treatment Court and Felony Diversion Initiative: Outcome and
Cost Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2009.
Mackin, Juliette R., Lisa M. Lucas, Callie H. Lambarth, Mark S. Waller,
Theresa Allen Herrera, Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan.
Howard County District Court Drug Treatment Court Program Outcome
and Cost Evaluation. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2010.
Mackin, Juliette R., Lisa M. Lucas, Callie H. Lambarth, Mark S. Waller,
Theresa Allen Herrera, Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan.
Montgomery County Adult Drug Court Program Outcome and Cost
Evaluation. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2010.
Mackin, Juliette R., Lisa M. Lucas, Callie H. Lambarth, Mark S. Waller,
Theresa Allen Herrera, Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan.
Wicomico County Circuit Court Adult Drug Treatment Court Program
Outcome and Cost Evaluation. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2009.

Page 54

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Bibliography

Mackin, Juliette R., Lisa M. Lucas, Callie H. Lambarth, Mark S. Waller,
Judy M. Weller, Jennifer A. Aborn, Robert Linhares, Theresa L. Allen,
Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan. Baltimore City District Court
Adult Drug Treatment Court: 10-Year Outcome and Cost Evaluation.
Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2009.
Marchand, Gwen, Mark Waller, and Shannon M. Carey. Barry County
Adult Drug Court Outcome and Cost Evaluation-Final Report. Portland,
OR: NPC Research, 2006.
Marchand, Gwen, Mark Waller, and Shannon M. Carey. Kalamazoo
County Adult Drug Treatment Court Outcome and Cost Evaluation-Final
Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2006.
Marinelli-Casey, Patricia, Rachel Gonzales, Maureen Hillhouse, Alfonso
Ang, Joan Zweben, Judith Cohen, Peggy Fulton Hora, and Richard A.
Rawson. “Drug court treatment for methamphetamine dependence:
Treatment response and posttreatment outcomes.” Journal of Substance
Abuse Treatment, 34(2) (March 2008): 242-248.
Mitchell, Ojmarrh, and Adele Harrell. “Evaluation of the Breaking the
Cycle Demonstration Project: Jacksonville, FL and Tacoma, WA.” Journal
of Drug Issues, 36(1) (Winter 2006): 97-118.
Piper, R. K., and Cassia Spohn. Cost/Benefit Analysis of the Douglas
County Drug Court. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2004.
Rhodes, William, Ryan Kling, and Michael Shively. Suffolk County Drug
Court Evaluation. Abt. Associates, Inc., 2006.
Rhyne, Charlene. Clean Court Outcome Study. Portland, OR: Multnomah
County Department of Community Justice, 2004.
Rossman, S., M. Rempel, J. Roman, et.al. The Multi-Site Adult Drug
Court Evaluation: The Impact of Drug Courts. Washington, D.C.: Urban
Institute, 2011.
Shaffer, Deborah K., Kristin Bechtel, and Edward J. Latessa. Evaluation
of Ohio’s Drug Courts: A Cost Benefit Analysis. Cincinnati, OH: Center for
Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, 2005.

Page 55

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

Bibliography

Wilson, David B., Ojmarrh Mitchell, and Doris L. Mackenzie. “A
systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism.” Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 2(4) (2006): 459-487.
Zarkin, Gary A., Lara J. Dunlap, Steven Belenko, and Paul A. Dynia. “A
Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Kings County District Attorney’s Office Drug
Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) Program.” Justice Research and
Policy, 7(1) (2005).

(440998)

Page 56

GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts

GAO’s Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions.
GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports and
Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon,
GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website,
http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in
Federal Programs

Contact:

Congressional
Relations

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548

Public Affairs

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, DC 20548

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Please Print on Recycled Paper