Detailed Information on the
Drug Courts Assessment

Improve the program design and implementation of the program by improving the coordination between the Office of Justice Programs' internal components, as well as with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Conduct a comprehensive needs analysis to determine how future funding should by allocated: geographically and by type of drug court (adult, family, and juvenile).

Complete a rigorous evaluation of outcomes associated with OJP drug court grantees.

Measure: Percent of drug court participants who reoffend one year post-program completion

Explanation:Program completion is defined as "successful graduation from the drug court program." Reoffending is defined as "arrest or appearance at court for a new criminal or delinquent offense." OJP is utilizing the data reported for annual measure #2 ("Percent of drug court participants who reoffend while in the drug court program") as the baseline. The 2007 data indicate that 41 percent of drug court participants reoffend while in the drug court program. In 2009, OJP intends to implement a new long-term measure for drug court grantees to report the number of drug court graduates who are rearrested within one year post-program completion. At that point, targets may need to be readjusted, depending upon initial findings. Target is a 2 percentage point decrease. 2008 data is interim estimate data with actuals being used to project out final numbers.

Measure: Percent of drug court participants who graduate from the drug court program

Explanation:2008 data is interim estimate data with actuals being used to project out final numbers. Target is a 2 percentage point increase.

Measure: Percent of drug court participants who exhibit a reduction in substance use while in the drug court program.

Explanation:This measure determines the extent to which drug court programs are facilitating a reduction in substance use among participants (a primary goal of the drug court, and a necessary outcome for successful program completion and reoffending reductions). Target is a .5% increase 2008 data is interim estimate data with actuals being used to project out final numbers.

Measure: Percent of drug court participants who reoffend while in the drug court program.

Explanation:This measure determines the extent to which drug court participants are able to turn around their lives by refraining from criminal activity. Target is a 2 percent yearly reduction.

Measure: Program costs per drug court graduate.

Explanation:The amount of grant funds distributed per drug court graduate. The target is a $1000 decrease in amount of grant funds spent per graduate. 2008 actuals calculated after 2008 awards are made.

Measure: Ratio of Program Expenditures to Management and Administrative (M&A) Expenditures

Explanation:The M&A percentage is not calculated by the program offices administering the drug court program (BJA, OJJDP) therefore it is difficult to establish a realistic target. The target is a two dollar increase in the ratio, meaning an increase in two more program dollars would be spent per year for every one dollar of M&A. 2008 actuals calculated after 2008 awards are made. OMB Note: M&A Expenditures should include "taxes" paid by the components for IT & OAAM. Actuals have been adjusted for data reported by OJP Budget Office.

Measure: Total number of drug court graduates (cumulative).

Explanation:2008 data are interim, using actuals to project complete 2008 totals.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the OJP drug courts program is to provide financial and technical assistance for state, local, and tribal governments to break the cycle of substance abuse and crime by implementing drug courts, which employ the coercive power of courts to subject non-violent offenders to an integrated mix of, substance abuse treatment, drug testing, and graduated incentives and sanctions. Drug courts are intended to divert non-violent, substance abusing offenders from prison and jail into treatment. By increasing direct supervision of offenders, coordinating public resources, and expediting case processing, drug courts can help break the cycle of criminal behavior, alcohol and drug use, and incarceration. Drug courts are intended to promote better outcomes by reducing re-arrest and conviction rates and improving substance abuse treatment outcomes.

Evidence: The Drug Court Program was established by Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (September 13, 1994). Congress authorized the U.S. Attorney General to award grants to states, state courts, local courts, units of local government, and Indian tribal governments to establish drug courts. The program was reauthorized under the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Public Law 107-273, 116, Stat. 1758 (November 2002) as Part EE of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Acts of 1968, as amended. 42 U.S.C. 3797u (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t41t42+4252+0++%2742%20USC%20Sec.%203797u-1%27). For specific guidelines, goals, and purposes of the Drug Courts Discretionary Program, see the following program solicitations: 1) BJA FY 08 Drug Court Solicitation (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/08DrugCourtsSol.pdf). 2) OJJDP FY07 Juvenile Drug Court/Reclaiming Futures Solicitation (see http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/JuvDrugCourt.pdf). 3) OJJDP FY07 Family Drug Court Solicitation (see http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/familydrugcts.pdf). Background information, guidelines, and principles of the OJP drug courts program (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/drugcourts.html) and the and the OJJDP Drug Courts program summary (at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/programs/ProgSummary.asp?pi=44&ti=3&si=&kw=drug+court&PreviousPage=ProgResults). For general information on what drug courts are expected to accomplish, also see the web page maintained by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/enforce/drugcourt.html).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The latest data from the National Survey on Drug Abuse and Health found that 7 million Americans abuse or are dependent on illicit drugs, and another 15.6 million abuse or are dependent on alcohol. Among the greatest impact in which the substance abuse problem is felt is upon the nation's justice system. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) study found in 2002 that 50% of jail inmates were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time they committed the offense for which they are incarcerated. The cost impact of this problem is substantial. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) reported, for example, that illegal drug use cost the United States $181 billion in 2002. According to ONDCP, "this value represents both the use of resources to address health and crime consequences as well as the loss of potential productivity from disability, death and withdrawal from the legitimate workforce." Within state prisons, approximately 20% of inmates are incarcerated for drug offenses. Within county and local jails, the proportions jailed for drug offenses are similar. Within the criminal and juvenile justice systems, there are significant numbers of non-violent offenders who are dependent on or abuse drugs. Incarcerated drug offenders occupy costly jail and prison space. Research also has shown that the traditional criminal justice approach to addressing non-violent substance abusing offenders has not worked. Instead, overcrowding and lack of treatment options create a criminal justice revolving door where substance abusing offenders continue to commit non-violent crimes while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, often as a way to support their addiction. Furthermore, child abuse and neglect courts continue to encounter an increasingly large amount of abuse and neglect cases that are directly linked to the substance use disorders of the primary caregivers. Drug courts were designed to target resources more directly and effectively to non-violent substance abusing offenders, to use the coercive power of the court to link offenders to treatment, and to monitor and hold them accountable over the long term to prevent recidivism. Drug court participants undergo an intensive regimen of substance abuse treatment, case management, drug testing, supervision and monitoring, and immediate sanctions and incentives while reporting to regularly scheduled status hearings before a judge with expertise in the drug court model. The criminal justice system representatives and the treatment providers develop a series of complementary, measured responses that will encourage compliance. A written copy of these responses, given to participants during the orientation period, emphasizes the predictability, certainty, and swiftness of their application. Drug courts control participants' drug usage and activity through frequent drug testing, intensive supervision and judicial monitoring, and immediate sanctions that may include terms of incarceration to respond to program violations. The implementation of drug courts through the Drug Court Discretionary Program allows states to provide non-violent offenders with an alternative to incarceration through their participation in drug courts and provide them with treatment and supervision.

Evidence: The report "Substance Dependence, Abuse and Treatment of Jail Inmates, 2002," Bureau of Justice Statistics. July 2005 reports the percentage of jail inmates who were under the influence of drugs/alcohol at the time they committed their offense (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/sdatji02.pdf). In 2002, 23% of those in local jails were held for drug offenses (see Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, "Profile of Jail Inmates, 2002" at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf). As reported in the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National Findings, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (see http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k6nsduh/2k6results.pdf), 111.8 million Americans have used illicit drugs in their lifetime, 35.8 million have used drugs in the past year, 7 million abuse or are dependent on illicit drugs, and another 15.6 million Americans abuse or are dependent on alcohol. ONDCP reports in "The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992-2002" that the economic cost of drug abuse in 2002 was $181 billion (see http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/economic_costs/economic_costs.pdf).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Another Federal agency, HHS's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA), funds drug courts through its Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT). However, the programs do not duplicate each other in terms of what they fund or emphasize. Whereas OJP's Drug Court Program has focused on planning and implementation grants for new drug courts and enhancement grants to expand the operation of existing drug courts, and does not pay for treatment services, CSAT's program focuses on building treatment capacity for drug courts. Both addressing drug court operations and treatment are essential elements for successful implementation of drug courts. States and local court systems also supply most of the funding for the operation of drug courts across the country. However, since OJP's program is designed to expand such efforts, it is not redundant or duplicative of such efforts.

Evidence: The difference in focus of OJP's drug courts program from CSAT's program is seen the outline of the programs described on each agencies websites. For example, see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/drugcourts.html for a description of OJP's adult drug courts program and http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/programs/ProgSummary.asp?pi=44&ti=&si=&kw=&PreviousPage=ProgResults for a description of OJP's juvenile justice drug courts program, and http://www.samhsa.gov/Grants/2008/ti_08_007.aspx for a description of the purpose of CSAT's grants. According to the National Drug Court Clearinghouse, 1,264 drug courts currently are operating or in the planning stages (see http://spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2361.pdf). While many of the drug courts have received various forms of OJP grant assistance back to 1995, most do not receive funds in any given year and are dependent on state and local sources of funding.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The administration of OJP's grant programs is too fragmented and split between seven different program offices, each of which is responsible for issuing solicitations, managing grant selection and award recommendations, and performing grant monitoring and technical assistance. Fragmentation reduces efficiency and very likely raises the cost for administering programs. Though OJP's Drug Courts Program is appropriated as a single budget line item, it is administered by two different program offices, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). While there clearly is some coordination between the respective offices, program design could be improved by moving to a more centralized model for grant administration with support from BJA and OJJDP as policy offices. BJA's policy focus is the adult portion of the criminal justice system, while OJJDP's focus is the juvenile justice system. Currently, both BJA and OJJDP issue separate solicitations for adult, family and juvenile drug courts. The solicitation requirements are similar, though not wholly consistent. For example, one of the key features of a drug court is judicial supervision of offenders, including scheduling of regular hearings or meetings with offenders as both a monitoring and intervention tool. While BJA's 2007 solicitation for the adult drug court program included a requirement that applicants describe drug court operations, including judicial supervision, OJJDP's 2007 solicitation for juvenile drug courts requested detailed information from applicants on the frequency of judicial hearings, criteria for adjusting the frequency of such hearings, and the nature of what is expected to take place at such hearings. This is just one example. Some of differences in solicitation requirements are not easily explained by the differing nature of the potential grantees. In addition, the timing of the issuance of solicitations does not appear coordinated. System-wide planning for drug courts at all levels (adult, family, and juvenile) in the state and local criminal justice system could be improved by better coordinating the timing and nature of solicitations for these grants, as well as application requirements. At the same time, BJA and OJJDP do share funding decisions and strategic plans. Both use a similar peer review and grant selection process, although it is unclear the extent to which information is shared during the selection process, prior to award. A centralized OJP grants management IT system, as well as centralized OJP grants management training helps to promote some uniformity in program administration, although it falls short of a centralized grant administration model.

Evidence: The Justice Office of Inspector General has raised issues involving fragmentation of grant management. See for example: Streamlining of Administrative Activities and Federal Financial Assistance Functions in the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Audit Report 03-27, August 2003 (see http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/plus/a0327/final.pdf). The Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act Of 1999 (Public Law 106-107) attempted to improve the coordination and streamlining of Federal grants management efforts, which has led to the establishment of a Federal Grants Management Line of Business interagency working group, the establishment of grants.gov, and other improvements (see http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ107.106.pdf). In 2007, the Justice Office of Inspector General confirmed improvements to OJP's grants management practices and systems, including: (1) an enhanced Grant Management System; (2) a standard grant monitoring tool with programmatic, financial, and administrative components; and (3) an OJP-wide grant assessment tool that will be used to target grantees needing on-site monitoring. OIG Top Management and Performance Challenges in the Department of Justice, Memorandum to the Acting Attorney General, June 2007 (see http://www.justice.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2007/sect4/p15-32.pdf). Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components The Ten Key Components remain an integral building block of the current drug court model that ensures integrity to the model amid changing conditions in types of addictions and variations in local needs. This document is currently being updated (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/DrugCourts/DefiningDC.pdf). Juvenile Drug Courts: Strategies in Practice (see http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/197866.pdf). OJP's recent accomplishments for the implementation of a centralized grants management system, centralized training, and revision of the Grant Managers' Manual are shown on its website (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/about/offices/oaam_accomplishments.htm). The following are examples of recent drug courts program solicitations: OJJDP FY 2007 Family Drug Courts Program (see http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/familydrugcts.pdf). Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program FY 2007 Competitive Grant Announcement (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/07DrugCtsol.pdf). OJJDP FY 2007 Juvenile Drug Courts/Reclaiming Futures (see http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/JuvDrugCourt.pdf).

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: OJP conducts a planning process, but has not demonstrated how limited program resources flow to the grantees most in need of assistance. Approximately 40% of U.S. counties have some form of drug court - adult, juvenile, family, combination, or all types - either operating or in the planning stages. Most counties do not. While some rural counties may lack the resources to sustain such programs, OJP needs to demonstrate that the limited resources available for this program are flowing to (1) areas most in need of drug court programming, and (2) areas that will be able to sustain drug courts after inception. Further, since most of the existing drug courts were established without substantial Federal assistance, OJP needs to demonstrate that its program is not simply subsidizing the establishment of programs that were likely to have been established without Federal assistance. OJP conducts annual strategic planning to chart the course of programs to best link needs with resources. Within BJA, the substance abuse and mental health policy area conducts an annual assessment of emerging and system needs, current strategies, and gaps in programming. These plans inform recommendations to BJA's Director on funding priorities for targeting resources. The planning process is based upon collaborations with partners on national, state, tribal and local levels, providing ongoing opportunities for field input. As an example of beneficiary input into resource allocation, BJA refocused the funding from start-up courts to ongoing, complex training issues for existing mature courts as requested by the field. Recently, BJA learned intended beneficiaries needed more enhancement funding for drug courts, services for rural communities, and for meth addicts. As a result, BJA awarded more enhancement grants than implementation grants, factored in geographical distribution to provide assistance to rural communities, and provision of meth services to participants. Once funding priorities are set, OJP implements a selection process to enhance the potential for success in accomplishing program goals. Drug court applications are reviewed and scored by independent peer reviewers such as treatment providers and law enforcement. These reviews are intended to ensure that resources address the program purpose and reach appropriate beneficiaries.

Evidence: As of March 18, 2008, 1,264 of 3,155 U.S. counties had some form of a drug court operating or in the planning stages. Summary of Drug Court Activity by State and County, BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project, March 18, 2008. (see http://spa.american.edu/justice/documents/2361.pdf) As of December 31, 2007, there were 2,147 operational drug courts across the United States. The number of operational drug courts has increased by 11 percent in the past year alone. Nearly 20,000 participants graduated from drug courts in 2005. (Painting the Picture, Vol. 2, No 1) The information is based on the most recent National Survey on Drug Courts. As with previous editions of Painting the Picture, NDCI sent a National Survey Instrument to state Point of Contacts such as drug court coordinators, and other persons in the state most familiar with the state's drug court operations. The latest survey was completed in 12/31/07, and the information will be printed in Vol 2. No.1 of Painting the Picture. This volume is currently being reviewed by OJP before being published.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The drug courts program is using three long-term measures that tie directly to the goals and purposes of the program to gauge performance. Long-term measure #1: Percent of drug court participants who graduate from the drug court program. Drug Court graduation is defined as "drug court participants that successfully completed their drug court requirements relative to the number of clients enrolled in the program". This measure provides information about the program's success in working with drug court participants to access services and successfully complete program requirements. This is appropriate for a long term measure as it will track the successful implementation of drug courts over time (as graduation rates increase or decrease). Long-term measure #2: Percent of drug court participants who reoffend one year post-program completion. Program completion is defined as "successful graduation from the drug court program." Reoffending is defined as "arrest or appearance at court for a new criminal or delinquent offense." Long-term measure #3: Total number of drug court graduates (cumulative). This measure, related to #1 above, provides information on the success of the program in increasing the numbers of people who have successfully completed program requirements. To comply with grant requirements, OJP's drug court grant recipients report performance measures to OJP as part of their periodic progress reports. In theory, diversion of drug offenders into the drug court model should result in lower criminal justice system costs, as drug offender behavior is mediated without resort to incarceration. There is some evidence from studies that this may be true. OJP should explore the possibility of developing one or more additional outcome-oriented measures that attempt to quantify criminal justice system savings associated with diversion. Additional recurring data collection from grantees about their costs as well as comparable court/incarceration costs in their jurisdictions for drug offenders not handled by the drug courts may be necessary to develop such measure(s).

Evidence: Authorizing Legislation (Section 2201 of the 1994 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (42 USC 3797u(a)) 42 U.S.C. 3797u. http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t41t42+4252+0++percent2742percent20USCpercent20Sec.percent203797u-1percent27 OJP's drug courts program is currently using performance measures reviewed and agreed to as part of the PART process. The measures are for the most part based on data already being collected. OJP's drug court grantees are required to report on performance, as indicated in program grant solicitations (see for example Bureau of Justice Assistance 2008 Adult Drug Court Solicitation: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/08DrugCourtsSol.pdf; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 2007 Juvenile Drug Court/Reclaiming Futures Solicitation: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/JuvDrugCourt.pdf; OJJDP 2007 Family Drug Court Solicitation: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/familydrugcts.pdf). A number of cost benefit analyses of specific drug courts have found net positive economic benefits associated with diversion of drug offenders from the traditional criminal justice system; see Steven Belenko, with Nicholas Patapis and Michael T. French, Economic Benefits Of Drug Treatment: A Critical Review Of The Evidence For Policy Makers, Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, February 2005; http://www.tresearch.org/resources/specials/2005Feb_EconomicBenefits.pdf

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Ambitious targets and timeframes have been established for the drug courts program's long-term measures. The targets for the long-term measures were established based on a review of current performance data, and the research and evaluation literature conducted of drug courts over the past decade. Long term measure #1: By 2013, 77 percent of drug court participants will graduate from the drug court program. The baseline for this measure is 65%. The annual target for this measure is a two percentage point increase. Long term measure #2: By 2013, no more than 30 percent of drug court graduates will reoffend one year post-program completion. The annual target is a two percentage point decrease. Long term measure #3: OJP has been setting targets of 6% increases in cumulative drug court graduates per year, but most recently dropped the annual target to 5% for 2008 based on funding limitations for the program. Still, reported performance exceeds the targets, which may need to be revised. The targets for the long-term measures targets were formulated using an analysis of performance measure data collected to date from OJP's drug court grantees, as well as a review of evaluations of drug court programs that have demonstrated effectiveness in successful program graduation, and in reducing reoffending. These recommended targets are based on several factors: 1. the successful graduation and recidivism rates from a number of drug court evaluations; 2. data collection challenges given the fact that post-program tracking has not historically lasted a full year since the courts no longer have jurisdiction over the program participants; and 3. the fact that the targets take into account the range of settings and systems where the drug court model is applied: adult criminal, tribal, juvenile, family and traffic court systems; in urban, suburban and rural settings; and addressing the needs of a range of offenders. Due to these variations in the model, the targets are generally ambitious, yet achievable, and will demonstrate a high level of performance in drug court programming.

Evidence: The reported targets have been reviewed and agreed to by OMB. Some of the literature considered in the setting of targets includes: Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes, February 2005, GAO-05-219; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05219.pdf Truitt, et al. (2002). Evaluating Treatment Drug Courts in Kansas City, Missouri and Pensacola, Florida: Final Reports for Phase I and Phase II. (NCJ 198477); http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/198477.pdf. Finigan, M., Carey, S. M., & Cox, A. (April 2007). The Impact of a Mature Drug Court over 10 Years of Operation: Recidivism and Costs. Portland, OR: NPC Research, Inc.; http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219224.pdf (Executive Summary) and http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219225.pdf (Final Report).

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: OJP has implemented three major annual performance measures for the Drug Courts Discretionary Grants Program. These annual measures are directly linked to the long-term measures outlined in 2.1. In addition, all three measures have been mandatory performance measures for grantees of the Drug Courts Discretionary Grants program since 2007 (both juvenile and adult drug court grantees). Annual measure #1: Percent of drug court participants who exhibit a reduction in substance use while in the drug court program. This measure determines the extent to which drug court programs are facilitating a reduction in substance use among participants (a primary goal of the drug court, and a necessary outcome for successful program completion and reoffending reductions). Annual measure #2: Percent of drug court participants who reoffend while in the drug court program. This measure determines the extent to which drug court participants are able to turn around their lives by refraining from criminal activity. Annual measure #3: Percent of drug court participants who graduate from the drug court program, defined as the "number of drug court participants that successfully completed their drug court requirements." Graduation indicates a positive response to the drug court program.

Evidence: OJP's drug courts program is currently using performance measures reviewed and agreed to as part of the PART process. The measures are for the most part based on data already being collected. OJP's drug court grantees are required to report on performance, as indicated in program grant solicitations (see for example Bureau of Justice Assistance 2008 Adult Drug Court Solicitation: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/08DrugCourtsSol.pdf; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) 2007 Juvenile Drug Court/Reclaiming Futures Solicitation: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/JuvDrugCourt.pdf; OJJDP 2007 Family Drug Court Solicitation: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/familydrugcts.pdf).

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Baselines and targets have been established for the Drug Courts Discretionary Grants Program, as well as targets that provide for continuous program improvement expectations. Annual measure #1 is percent of drug court participants who exhibit a reduction in substance use while in the drug court program. The baseline for 2007 is 86 percent. OJP has set a target for improvement of a .5 percentage point increase per year. For example, the target for 2008 is 86.5 percent, and 87 percent in 2009. Annual measure #2 is percent of drug court participants who reoffend while in the drug court program. The baseline for 2007 is 42 percent. OJP has set a target for improvement of a two percentage point reduction per year. Annual measure #3 is percent of drug court participants who graduate from the drug court program. The target for this measure is a two percentage point increase per year.

Evidence: The reported targets have been reviewed and agreed to by OMB.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All drug court program grantees are required to commit to the program's performance goals and report data in support of the program's mandatory performance measures by accepting the award. All OJP drug courts program solicitations provide clear guidance to grant recipients about compliance with the drug court key components, including performance reporting. Applicants are required to comply with funding provisions, including reporting data outcomes for mandatory performance measures and the submission of progress and financial reports. Grantees also agree and adhere to the requirement to provide letters of support outlining each partner's roles and responsibilities in developing or enhancing the drug court. OJP also has developed a partnership with the SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse and Treatment (CSAT), which functions particularly well for the juvenile drug court grants. In 2006, OJP entered into discussions with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and CSAT about a collaborative effort to strengthen the effectiveness of juvenile drug courts. OJP was aware of the success of the Reclaiming Futures initiative in delivering services to substance abusing adolescents through a systems approach. One of the original ten Reclaiming Futures sites built their model around a juvenile drug court. In addition, OJP was aware of the need to deliver evidence-based, age-appropriate treatment to adolescents participating in juvenile drug court. A memorandum of understanding was signed by OJP, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and CSAT in 2007. The collaborative effort came together in the form of a 2007 solicitation calling for applicants to implement a juvenile drug court incorporating the Reclaiming Futures principles as well as the drug court approach, and to accept technical assistance from CSAT for the delivery of appropriate treatment. Applications were reviewed by the three agencies and three sites were chosen. Although the focus of SAMHSA's drug courts program is not identical to OJP's, focusing on treatment services rather than establishment and expansion of drug court infrastructure, it would be worthwhile for the agencies to explore opportunities for implementation of common performance measures. The programs do share one similar measure--percent of drug court participants who exhibit a reduction in substance abuse-which OJP and SAMHSA should ensure is comparable (e.g., uses similar data definitions). The non-federal partners of the drug courts program support the goals of the program by providing drug court training and technical assistance to help grantees with implementation challenges and achieve better outcomes. Technical assistance providers provide support through OJP's Drug Court Planning Initiative (DCPI) and the Drug Court Technical Assistance (DCTA) program. DCPI provides training to drug court teams seeking to implement a drug court program and DCTA provides training to operational drug courts on a variety of issues. OJP's DCTA providers also help grantees achieve the drug court program goals and assist with meeting reporting criteria. OJP has also taken steps to better track and evaluate training and technical assistance (TTA) strategies. In 2007, OJP developed consistent performance measures for all TTA partners, to ensure that TTA activities are consistently documented and to require assessment of TTA through surveys, follow up and pre/post testing of knowledge. A database for the TTA partners has been developed and piloted that will enhance OJP's ability to track data about TTA activities and outcomes.

Evidence: Evidence that illustrates OJP's commitment to grantee accountability is in all OJP Drug Courts Discretionary Grant Program solicitations. They specify the required performance measures and the data that grantees will be expected to report. Recent solicitations include: BJA Drug Court Solicitation: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/08DrugCourtsSol.pdf OJJDP Juvenile Drug Court Solicitation: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/JuvDrugCourt.pdf OJJDP Family Drug Court Solicitation: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/familydrugcts.pdf Training materials on performance measures: BJA Performance Measurement Tool (PMT) Drug Court User's Guide http://www.bjaperformancemeasures.org/help/BJA-DrugCourtusersguide.pdf OJJDP DCTAT User's Guide http://www.ojjdp-dctat.org/help/discretionarydctatuserguide.ppt An example of the collaborative relationship that has been established by OJP, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and CSAT can be found in their Memorandum Of Understanding (with amendment), which has been provided to OMB; Drug Court Technical Assistance (DCTA): http://dcpi.ncjrs.gov/dcpi/index.html Additional evidence is provided through a grant Special Condition included in the grant award documentation and signed by award recipients. The following are the special conditions attached to the OJP drug court grant awards: (1) BJA Special Condition for Adult Drug Courts -- "The award recipient agrees to participate in a data collection process measuring program outputs and outcomes. The data elements for this process will be outlined by the Office of Justice Programs." (2) OJJDP Special Condition for Juvenile/Family Drug Courts -- "The recipient agrees to report data on the grantee's OJJDP-approved performance measures as part of the semi-annual categorical progress report. This data will be submitted on line at OJJDP's Performance Measures website (http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grantees/pm/index.html) by July 31 and January 31 each year for the duration of the award. Once data entry is complete, the grantee will be able to create and download a "Performance Measures Data Report." This document is to be included as an attachment to the grantee's narrative categorical assistance progress report submitted on GMS for each reporting period."

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: OJP's drug courts program is a small one in terms of funding. Small programs often have difficulty funding rigorous impact studies to evaluate program outcomes, and have difficulty doing so on a regular basis. Nonetheless, there has been considerable research on drug court outcomes, some of which has been funded by OJP, much of which points to the continuing relevance of drug courts as a means to reduce drug offending and recidivism. Further, research -- including OJP-funded research - is continuing. GAO reported in 2005 on its review of 27 relatively rigorous evaluations of drug courts (experimental and quasi-experimental controlled group studies) that the reviewed drug court programs led to the following impacts: (1) lower percentages of drug court program participants than comparison group members were rearrested or reconvicted, (2) program participants had fewer recidivism events than comparison group members, (3) recidivism reductions occurred for participants who had committed different types of offenses. While suggestive that OJP's program may yield similar impacts by assisting in the establishment of new drug courts and enhancing existing ones, evaluation is needed to show that OJP-assisted drug courts obtain similar results. Since its 1993 evaluation of the first Miami-Dade County Felony Drug Court, OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has sponsored research examining drug court processes and outcomes. One project funded evaluations of four established adult drug courts in Pensacola, FL, Kansas City, MO, Las Vegas, NV, and Portland, OR. These single-site studies used court, arrest, and other archival data since program inception to build samples sufficient for analysis, employing statistical techniques to reduce the threat of program selection bias in comparing outcomes to similar probationers. A recently completed project used similar archival data and statistical techniques to evaluate the Multnomah County Adult Drug Court, comparing participants to similar pre-plea offenders over 10 years. Currently in progress is a quasi-experimental Multi-site Adult Drug Court Evaluation to examine the influence of offender, court, and community characteristics on offender perceptions (e.g., motivation), service access, compliance, relapse, recidivism, and other functional areas (e.g., employment). Data for about 1800 probationers in several rural/suburban/urban regions of the U.S include: three waves of interviews using Computer Aided Personal Interview technology, administrative records on treatment and recidivism, and drug detection tests for offenders; court observation and interviews with site staff and other stakeholders; and detailed budget and other information for cost studies. OJP also recently funded an outcome evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts to examine the influence of delinquent characteristics and programming on relapse, recidivism, and other functioning areas (e.g., school).

Evidence: GAO's 2005 review of rigorous evaluations provides good evidence suggestive of positive drug court outcomes, as well as points the way to additional research needed. Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes, February 2005, GAO-05-219 (see http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05219.pdf). OJP funded evaluations include the following: (1) Assessing the Impact of Dade County's Felony Drug Court by J.S. Goldkamp and D. Weiland, 1993, NCJ 145302 (see http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/145302.pdf). (2) Evaluating Treatment Drug Courts in Kansas City, Missouri and Pensacola, Florida: Final Reports for Phase I and Phase II, by L. Truitt et al., March 2002, NCJ 198477 (see Executive Summary at http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/es-eval_treatment.pdf). (3) Assessing the Efficacy of Treatment Modalities in the Context of Adult Drug Courts, by D.F. Anspach and A.S. Ferguson, April 2003, NCJ 202901 (see http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/202901.pdf). (4) Impact of a Mature Drug Court Over 10 Years of Operation: Recidivism and Costs, by M.W. Finigan et al., July 2007, NCJ 219225 (see http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219225.pdf). (5) Final Report from Whether to How Drug Courts Work: Retrospective Evaluation of Drug Courts in Clark County (Las Vegas) and Multnomah County (Portland), by J.S. Goldkamp et al., 2001, NCJ 194125 (see http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/194125.pdf). (6) New York State Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Policies, Participants and Impacts, NCJ 203603. Michael Rempel, et. al.; October 2003 (see http://www.courts.state.ny.us/whatsnew/pdf/NYSAdultDrugCourtEvaluation.pdf). (7) Carey, S. M., Finigan, M., Crumpton, D., & Waller, M. California Drug Courts: Outcomes, Costs, and Promising Practices: An Overview of Phase II in a Statewide Study (2006) Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, SARC Supplement 3, 345-356. (see http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/California_Drug_Courts_Outcomes_Costs_and_Promising_Practices_An_Overview_of_Phase_II_in_a_Statewide_Study.pdf). OJP also has published a summary of what the research shows about the effectiveness of drug courts -- Drug Courts: The Second Decade, an NIJ Special Report, June 2006, NCJ 211081 (see http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/211081.pdf). OJP has provided summary information about its Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) on the internet (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/courts/drug-courts/madce.htm). Included on the website is a link to preliminary results from the MADCE evaluation. OJJDP Juvenile Drug Court Evaluation -- In 2007, OJJDP made a competitive award to University of Cincinnati to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of OJJDP's Juvenile Drug Court program. This study will attempt to add to the existing juvenile drug court literature by providing a national multi-site outcome and process study of selected juvenile drug courts from across the country. The proposed study will assess the relative effect of each court as well as their combined effectiveness in reaching the overall goal of reducing recidivism and improving youths' social conditions. It will also identify the characteristics of both the youth and programs most associated with successful outcomes. Study results are anticipated in 2011. The OJJDP 2007 Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts Program Solicitation can be found at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/2006juvdrugcts.pdf.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: OJP's budget requests do present both budget and performance information, although the presentation could be organized better to show actual and planned performance along with the narrative for each discrete program, including the drug courts program. Additional explanation of how specific budget increments relate to expected performance also would be helpful. For OJP's 2008 budget submission to OMB, both requested resources for the drug courts program as well as expected performance improvements were clearly displayed. The 2008 and 2009 President's Budgets proposed to consolidate the drug courts program with other priorities into a single consolidated grant, a competitive Byrne Public Safety and Protection Program. OJP's congressional budget submissions continued to display planned performance for continued priorities that would be funded through the new program. In discussions, OJP has indicated that it is committed to improving the performance discussion in its budget requests. During the annual budget formulation process, the Assistant Attorney General and senior leadership review the OJP strategic goals, discuss new statistical and evaluation findings on OJP performance, and determine what programs and resources are needed to support OJP's long term goals. As new initiatives are conceptualized and designed, OJP's leadership and budget office work with the program offices to incorporate best practices and evidence based program strategies, identify and articulate the intended outcomes, develop supporting performance measures, and ensure that each program is focused on accomplishing the agency's strategic goals. Upon approval of the President's Budget, the program offices develop performance-based solicitations with guidance to assist applicants and grantees in developing proposals that implement the latest evidence-based approaches. The program offices track and collect performance data over the life of the grant to ensure that performance information is documented to support future years' budget decisions. These efforts are supported by OJP's ongoing commitment to program evaluation and best practices research. Through studies funded by BJS and NIJ, as well as program evaluation research mandated by authorizing legislation, OJP carefully examines the efficiency and effectiveness of key programs. The main goals of this process are to determine if there are successful approaches and models to duplicate, as well as weaknesses that can be addressed or avoided. This evaluation research, combined with statistical data collected by BJS, provide OJP management with a clear, unbiased assessment of program performance and useful insights on how performance can be improved.

Evidence: The 2009 OJP congressional budget submission contains the OJP budget request and provides information on performance results as well as planned performance for drug courts and other priorities: U.S. Department of Justice, FY 2009 Performance Budget: Office Of Justice Programs (see http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2009justification/pdf/fy09-ojp.pdf). The 2007-2012 DOJ and OJP Strategic Plans outline the short-term and long-term goals of the agency and the office (see DOJ plan at http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/strategic2007-2012/index.html and OJP plan at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov//about/pdfs/strategic_plan.pdf).

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: OJP conducts an annual planning process that attempts to identify and correct strategic planning deficiencies in the drug court program. The policy office in OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) oversees this planning process. This planning process is used to ensure that the program is being implemented as intended, anticipates weaknesses by reviewing performance data, and considers activities of partners to avoid duplication. This planning is reflected in an annual strategy that is reviewed by BJA's Director prior to implementation. In recent years, this planning process was used to make adjustments in program strategy following significant reductions in appropriations. The planning also supported efforts to revise performance measures. On a yearly basis, OJP convenes a meeting with the state drug court coordinators for performance updates and feedback, and then uses that information to budget and plan for the upcoming year. The drug court spending plans incorporate information from the field, and the yearly priorities also are adjusted accordingly. Recently, the adult drug court program refocused funding from start-up implementation to sophisticated training needed by existing, mature drug courts, based on the recommendations from the state coordinators. In addition, OJP has committed to work to strengthen the linkage between performance results and budget requests.

Evidence: Performance Measures Business Process Improvement (BPI) Recommendations Report 9.6.07 (provided to OMB). The Policy Advisor Performance Work Plan (PWP) details the procedures members of BJA's policy office follow to manage programs strategically (document provided to OMB).

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Performance data are being collected from all drug court grantees on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. OJP grant management staff conducts program monitoring visits to drug court grantees on a periodic basis and also conducts semi-annual desk monitoring reviews of each grant. The staff maintains frequent telephone and e-mail contact with grantees and convenes regularly scheduled conference calls with grantees to monitor implementation and performance. Through such frequent contact and oversight of grant activities, OJP staff is able to make mid-year adjustments or take appropriate actions to improve grantee program performance. The drug courts program also has a contract with CSR, Inc. to oversee performance measures training for drug courts grantees, manage the online collection of performance measure data, and the analysis of data. CSR provides frequent data summary reports which are used to obtain baseline and yearly data. This information can then be used for target setting. The migration to this system has meant more accurate performance results that are used to better manage the program. Grant managers are able to determine, based on performance results, whether grantees may need additional technical assistance or a longer award period. The new performance measures system has various electronic checks and balances to enhance data quality. OJP has established parameters on the type of information that can be entered for each field, and the system automatically calculates formulas, eliminating human error. Every field must be populated, and grantees receive prompts to correct errors before the system will allow them to mark the data as complete. Grantee accountability is important, and OJP recognizes this with a quick outreach to delinquent grantees. The new system for collecting data has reports that allow grant managers to view the report submission status of grantees on an individual or state basis. On a yearly basis, OJP convenes a meeting with the state drug court coordinators for performance updates and feedback and then uses that information to budget and plan accordingly for the upcoming year. The drug court spending plans incorporate this information from the field, and the yearly priorities also take this meeting's results into account. For example, recently, the adult drug court program refocused funding from start-up implementation to sophisticated training needed by existing, mature drug courts, based on the recommendations from the state coordinators. In addition, existing drug courts expressed a demonstrated need for increased funding for methamphetamine courts and courts in rural areas. OJP responded by giving agencies addressing those needs higher priority for funding. Another management action that OJP has taken in response to performance information is the provision of technical assistance and training to grantees when performance data indicate areas of concern.

Evidence: OJP maintains a web-based application with assistance under its contract to CSR, Inc. for collecting performance data from its grantees, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Performance Measurement Tool (http://www.bjaperformancemeasures.org) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency (OJJDP) Prevention Data Collection and Technical Assistance Tool (http://www.ojjdp-dctat.org). The following sites provide OPJ-CSR performance measure training materials for drug court grantees: the BJA Performance Measurement Tool Drug Court User's Guide (http://www.bjaperformancemeasures.org/help/BJA-DrugCourtusersguide.pdf) and the OJJDP DCTAT User's Guide (http://www.ojjdp-dctat.org/help/discretionarydctatuserguide.ppt). A State Drug Court Coordinators' Agenda was provided to OMB, which provides evidence of the extent to which performance updates and feedback are considered in operating the program.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: To ensure that grantees comply administratively and programmatically and fulfill program goals, OJP uses the OJP Financial Guide 2006, which contains all statutory requirements for the program. To hold grantees accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results, OJP implements special conditions that grantees must satisfy including submission of financial and progress reports. These reports provide information about program implementation status and performance results at regular intervals. For grantees with delinquent reports, OJP adds a special condition to the subsequent year award to restrict drawdown of funds. If there are questions regarding grant expenditures or fulfillment of a match requirement, OJP conduct audits of the involved grantees and works to reach satisfactory resolutions. OJP staff is held accountable through individual Performance Work Plans (PWP) and supervisory review for adhering to schedules and professionalism. Grant managers have a standard PWP OJP-wide. This ensures timeliness in reviewing, approving, managing, monitoring, and closing grant awards, and improvements or innovations in program administration. OJP has implemented multi-level PWP's that include cascading tasks that are linked to the OJP and DOJ Strategic Plans. OJP has implemented performance appraisals that hold employees accountable for results appropriate to their level of responsibility, differentiate between levels of achievement, and provide consequences based on performance. OJP grant managers monitor grant progress and hold grantees accountable for programmatic and fiscal requirements. To ensure accountability, current and future grant funding is contingent upon performance. Poor performance can lead to denial of funding during the application review process and freezing of current funding. All grantees are required to submit a project timeline delineating objectives, activities, and persons responsible for completion of each task. Applicants are made aware of the performance metrics they must collect in the solicitation. Grantees must provide a 25% in-kind or cash match, which assures local buy-in and sustainability. During the grant life, grant managers review the project timeline, performance metrics, progress reports, and financial status reports, and periodically contact grantees by phone/e-mail. Grant managers use either the Enterprise Reporting Tool (ERT) or the Financial Management Information System (FMIS2+) to review drawdown activity (spending of grant awards). OJP staff may conduct site monitoring visits to ensure grant recipients are in compliance with guidelines, and are performing in accordance with their approved application. To determine which programs to monitor onsite, staff use the results of the Grant Assessment Tool. OJP requires a minimum of 10 percent of grants are monitored each year by each program office. On-site monitoring is determined as a result of the grant manager's desk monitoring, which occurs semi-annually for each award. If project changes are requested (e.g., change in scope, budget revision, project period extension) a Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) is submitted through OJP's grant management system (GMS). Grant managers review the requested changes based on past performance of the grant as well as other factors. OJP will not process grantee requests to modify grants if they are programmatically or fiscally noncompliant. GMS automatically freezes grant funds for delinquent progress or financial reports, including performance metrics. Grant monitors have live access to the performance data entry status and data of their grantees. If misuse of funds is suspected, grant managers work with OJP and Office of Inspector General auditors and review staff to investigate and resolve the issue.

Evidence: An example of individual BJA Grant Manager and Policy Advisor Performance Work Plans (PWP) has been provided to OMB and indicates that grant program managers are held responsible for a variety of grant management and oversight tasks. The OJP Financial Guide 2006 provides grantees and OJP staff with timelines for activities (e.g., grantees must submit the closeout package within 90 days of the end of the grant), financial guidelines, and other formation (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov//financialguide/index.htm). For evidence of holding grantees accountable for delinquent financial/progress reports, see a sample list of special conditions (submitted to OMB) in a 2007 Bureau of Justice Assistance Drug Court Award Package (see Special Conditions, page 8 with a drawdown restriction resulting from delinquent financial/progress reports). If special conditions are not met, grantee funds can be frozen. Special conditions that pertain to grantee reporting are as follows: (1) Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Condition: "The award recipient agrees to participate in a data collection process measuring program outputs and outcomes. The data elements for this process will be outlined by the Office of Justice Programs." (2) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Special Condition: "The recipient shall report data on the grantee's OJJDP-approved performance measures as part of the semi-annual categorical progress report. This data will be submitted online at OJJDP's Performance Measures website by July 31 and January 31 each year for the duration of the award." Please see Special Conditions, pages 6-7 in the FY07 OJJDP Drug Court Award Package (submitted to OMB). Chapter 8 of OJP Grant Manager's Manual (submitted to OMB) provides guidelines for conducting performance monitoring of grantees. To determine which programs to monitor onsite, staff use the results of the Grant Assessment Tool (copy provided to OMB). OJP's Office of Chief Financial Officer Financial Monitoring & Technical Assistance Site Visit Review Guide (provided to OMB) provides guidelines for financial monitoring of grantees and guidelines for site visits to grantees. See a sample nationwide Performance Measure results report that OJP Grant Managers can download from online reporting systems to monitor grantee performance (provided to OMB). See the Enterprise Reporting Tool (ERT) Functions document (submitted to OMB) for examples of the online reporting features available for grant management within the Grants Management System (GMS)

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: The Office of Inspector General rates grants management as a continuing top challenge for the Department of Justice, indicating continuing concern about proper use of grant funds by grantees, among other issues. While the concern is not specific to OJP's drug courts program, the repeated findings from grantee and program audits for all of Justice's grant-making components point to the need for continuing attention to ensure that grant funds are used properly by all grantees and that funds left unspent at the end of the grant period are promptly deobligated. OJP has taken steps to improve grant monitoring and grant closeout, and has begun to staff an Office of Audit, Assessment and Management, which should lead to improvements in grant monitoring. In recent years, most funding has been obligated in the year for which it was appropriated. For example, in FY 2006, 93 percent of the Drug Courts Discretionary Grant Program multi-year funds were obligated, and 100 percent in FY 2007.

Evidence: Data provided by OJP shows that of the $9.872 million of drug courts funds in 2006, $9.134 million - or 93% - was obligated the same fiscal year. For 2007, of the $9.325 of drug courts funds, more than 100% was appropriated the same fiscal year, reflecting in part the obligation of some prior year funds. The Inspector General annually raises concerns about grant management, including grantee use of funds. The most recent example is the 2007 OIG Top Management and Performance Challenges in the Department of Justice, Memorandum for the Acting Attorney General, page. IV20 (see http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2007/sect4/p15-32.pdf). OJP's Office of Audit, Assessment and Management (OAAM) has been gradually stepping up its activities related to grant compliance, auditing and monitoring during 2007 and 2008 (see for example http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov//about/offices/oaam_accomplishments.htm). Among other activities, OAAM has revised OJP's Grant Manager's Manual, integrated a grantee financial reporting module into the Grants Management System (GMS), and modified GMS to freeze grantee funds 91 days after the end of the grant and generate a close-out package. The Inspector General has noted progress in the close-out of expired grants following the issuance of its 2007 audit of the grant close-out process. Progress is noted in the 2007 OIG Top Management and Performance Challenges in the Department of Justice, Memorandum for the Acting Attorney General, page. IV20 (see http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2007/sect4/p15-32.pdf).

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The drug courts program has two efficiency measures: 1) program costs per drug court graduate, and 2) ratio of program expenditures to management and administrative (M&A) expenditures. The ratio of total program costs to administrative costs reported by OJP was $16.44 in 2006 and $17.05 in 2007. The change shows that administrative funds for managing the program were stretched further in 2007 than in 2006. To ensure accountability, revised estimates (and past year actuals) each year will be provided for each OJP program with the OJP budget submission to OMB and incorporated into the congressional submission. Although OJP's M&A expenditures by program basis are estimates, OJP will need to continue to strive to ensure that its estimates accurately represent actual program management expenses. In 2007, OJP consolidated five separate application peer review contracts into one contract that uses teleconferences and online tools, rather than lengthy and expensive site panels for awards. OJP further increased efficiency by enhancing the grants management system (GMS) to interface with Grants.gov for receipt of all applications online; provide grantees with online training and help managing their awards; automatically freeze grant funds for delinquent reports; and enable grantees to submit reports directly into GMS. OJP automated the grant adjustment notice (GAN) module, reducing the number of GAN processes from 27 to 13 and reducing processing time and staff workload. The module provides automatic workflow routing and notification of a GAN activity, audit records of each transaction and automatic updates between GMS and FMIS2+ (OJP's financial accounting system). Improvements in accuracy also include pre-validation of change requests against current data. In 2007, OJP worked with the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) to develop management reports using the Enterprise Reporting Tool (ERT) to track workload and processing times for GANs and progress reports, allowing grant managers to manage their grants more efficiently. Another open issue is whether OJP could improve efficiency, while maintaining functionality and system responsiveness, by allowing its grant management system needs to be cross-serviced by another Federal agency. Discussions with OMB on this issue are continuing.

Evidence: OJP submitted M&A estimates by program with its congressional budget submissions through the FY 2008 Budget (see FY 2008 OJP Congressional Budget Submission, Appendix, pp. 99-104; http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/40_ojp.pdf). Additional estimates were provided to OMB during PART discussions and will continue to be submitted with future OJP budget submissions to OMB. The Office of Audit, Assessment and Management web site details the major activities with OJP during FY 2007 related to improving monitoring, agency efficiency, etc. (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov//about/offices/oaam_accomplishments.htm#07). The OJP Grant Manager's Manual (GMM) describes the policies and procedures for OJP grant managers (document submitted to OMB). See the Enterprise Reporting Tool (ERT) Functions document (submitted to OMB) for examples of the online reporting features available for grant management within the Grants Management System (GMS).

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: OJP's drug courts program has not demonstrated that it collaborates and coordinates sufficiently with SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) drug courts grant program, particularly with respect to adult and family drug courts. SAMHSA's program is the other principal Federal source of funding for drug courts grants, although it the grants are focused on treatment services rather than the criminal justice side of the drug court. Both agencies share the common goal of supporting the establishment and expansion of the nation's drug court infrastructure, while both have fairly limited funding for advancing this goal through grant assistance. Better coordinating this limited assistance can ensure the full functioning of drug court programs that receive assistance. A good model for collaboration across related programs can be found within the relationship established by OJP's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), CSAT, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for awarding juvenile drug court grants. Under the interagency agreement, CSAT provides technical assistance to each OJJDP grantee drug court site about the treatment component of the juvenile drug courts funded under their joint initiative. Unfortunately, this level of coordination is found within other portions of the program (e.g., grants for adult and family drug courts). While OJP and CSAT consult and meet with each other from time to time with respect to adult and family drug courts, the collaboration does not appear to extend to coordinated grant solicitations, joint consideration of grant applicants/awards, and joint efforts to ensure that drug courts receiving OJP assistance also receive consideration for CSAT grant assistance. Coordinated OJP/CSAT assistance could be used to establish or expand model drug courts, which are not just fully functional from a criminal justice perspective, but also provide a full range of treatment services. Another good model for collaboration across agencies that may suggest a good approach for the drug courts program is the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative (PRI). As is the case with effective drug courts, prisoner re-entry programs ideally include a variety of components and provide access to a range of services. In the Federal context where the goal is to expand such programs with funding that ultimately is fairly constrained, both the Departments of Justice (through OJP and DOJ's Faith Based Task Force) and Labor (through its Employment and Training Administration as well as its Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives) have made coordinated grant awards to criminal justice agencies across the country. OJP's most recent grant solicitation for the PRI program highlights the coordination and indicates that the Labor grants are to be made to organizations in the same jurisdictions as those receiving the OJP grants in order to assure comprehensive and coordinated service delivery.

Evidence: Recent press releases (see for example Labor's press release on prisoner reentry grant awards: http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20080458.htm) and grant solicitations (see for example page 5 of OJP's most recent prisoner reentry program grant announcement: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/08PRIsol.pdf) point to extensive collaboration on prisoner reentry grant awards that could be a model for the drug courts program. A memorandum of understanding between OJJDP, CSAT, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (submitted to OMB) points to extensive collaboration and coordination for juvenile drug court grants and assistance, and the most recent OJJDP solicitation highlights the collaboration (see http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/JuvDrugCourt.pdf; pg. 3) as does a separate call for proposals issued by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (see http://www.rwjf.org/files/applications/cfp/cfp_ReclaimingFutures08.pdf; pg. 3). In 2007, OJP signed a Memorandum of Understanding with SAMHSA's CSAT and Center for Mental Health Services (submitted to OMB) intended to formalize and regularize the relationships among the OJP and SAMHSA components on drug courts programming. The MOU committed the participating agencies to develop an interagency Statement of Work for collaborative efforts through the end of FY 2009. However, it is not yet clear how the MOU has improved collaboration and coordination.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: According to the Inspector General's audit report of OJP's FY 2007 Annual Financial Statement, OJP received a clean audit opinion of its 2007 financial statements with no material weaknesses and no material noncompliance with significant provisions of law and regulation. While not rising to the level of materiality for purposes of the financial statement audit, the auditors did identify a number of significant deficiencies that merit continued attention, including problems in the information systems control environment, the process for estimating grant advances and payables (especially quarterly accruals), and the deobligation and closeout process for undelivered orders (portions of grant awards not spent). In response to the deficiency findings, OJP has made improvements in the grant closeout process, including the deployment of a formal grants closeout module in its grants management system in 2007. In 2007, OJP also closed out 7,000 grants. With a balance of 1,600 grants pending closeout at year end, OJP is continuing to work down its grant closeout backlog in 2008. By the end of 2007, OJP also devised new procedures for estimating the grant accrual for grants with expired end dates. OJP plans to refine these estimation techniques further in 2008. In addition, OJP is responding to various weaknesses in the information systems control environment. OJP's Office of Audit, Assessment and Management (OAAM) updated all of OJP's significant business processes and tested all of the internal controls that impact financial reporting to ensure compliance with OMB Circular A-123. OAAM concluded that there were no significant or material weaknesses in terms of internal controls, nor were any programs at risk for serious erroneous payments.

Evidence: The Inspector General's audit report of OJP's FY 2007 Annual Financial Statement (summary available at http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0811.htm) discusses the basis for the unqualified opinion rendered on OJP's financial statements. The report also discusses the three significant deficiencies identified by the auditors, as well as OJP's response to the deficiencies. The annual report of the newly created OJP Office of Audit, Assessment and Management also details a number of OJP actions to improve internal controls (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/about/pdfs/07_oaam_annual_report.pdf).

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Correction of program level deficiencies has focused on improving monitoring of grantees, grant closeouts, program evaluation, and technical assistance. Proper management of the drug court program involves determining whether onsite monitoring and/or technical assistance is needed. Grant managers conduct semi-annual desk monitoring of each grant as well as on-site monitoring based on the results of a risk-based assessment (Grant Assessment Tool). Both types of monitoring occur to ensure programmatic and fiscal compliance with the grant award guidelines and special conditions. Grant managers institute numerous post-monitoring requirements, including post-visit letters and reports documenting onsite findings; the submission of corrective action plans if any problems with management or operation of the grant are discovered; coordination with OJP's Office of Chief Financial Officer to recommend financial monitoring; and notification when training and technical assistance (TTA) needs are identified. Past audits have stated that grant managers fail to "consistently close out grants in accordance with existing policy" or "adequately document justification for delays." OJP has instituted a closeout module within its grants management system (GMS) that automatically initiates a closeout 91 days after the end of an award. GMS notifies grantees both 60 days and 30 days before the grant expires. GMS' closeout module automatically generates closeout packages 91 days after grant end date. In addition, any remaining grant funds are frozen 91 days after grant end date. GMS ensures grants are closed out efficiently and any remaining funds are deobligated in a timely manner (within 180 days of the grant's end date). It uses up to date closeout reporting capabilities in the Enterprise Reporting Tool (ERT) to closely track efforts. OJP also resolved the two recommendations by GAO in its 2002 audit of drug courts. The first resulted in enhancements related to performance measures within the Grant Management System (GMS). The second led to funding being made available to conduct a national impact evaluation study (MADCE). OJP ensured that this study was well designed and executed, and that it remained on schedule. OJP has also taken steps to better track and evaluate TTA strategies. In 2007, OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) developed consistent performance measures for all TTA partners, to ensure that TTA activities are consistently documented and to require assessment of TTA through surveys, follow up and pre/post testing of knowledge. A database for the TTA partners has been developed and piloted that will enhance OJP's ability to track data about TTA activities and outcomes. GMS has been enhanced to allow for automatic freezing of funds for grants that are delinquent in the submission of programmatic and financial reports. The audit liaisons work with OJP staff to address audit issues and ensure timely and accurate responses to audit inquiries. The liaisons ensure audit objectives are met by coordinating with the appropriate offices to provide documentation, reports, and responses to GAO and/or OIG. There are no open audit recommendations for drug courts. Due to technological shortcomings with the GMS data collection system, OJP experienced difficulties with aggregating, collecting, and updating performance measures data. To address this significant deficiency, an external performance metrics system was created and implemented to collect quarterly data. This allows OJP to identify programmatic strengths and deficiencies on a more frequent basis than the GMS semi-annual Progress Reports.

Evidence: Information on BJA Training and Technical Assistance can be found at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/tta/index.html. Additional Drug Court Planning Initiative resources (menu of training opportunities and law enforcement specific training opportunities) can be found at: http://dcpi.ncjrs.gov/dcpi/index.html. Related drug courts training and TTA publications can be found on BJA's drug courts web page under Related Publications at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/ drugcourts.html and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP) drug courts web page at: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/programs/ProgSummary.asp?pi=44&ti=3&si=&kw=drug+court&PreviousPage=ProgResults. The performance measures system web sites for the Drug Courts Discretionary Grant Program are: BJA Performance Measurement Tool (PMT) http://www.bjaperformancemeasures.org and OJJDP Data Collection and Technical Assistance Tool (DCTAT) http://www.ojjdp-dctat.org. The most recent version of the OJP Financial Guide, which includes information on reporting deadlines and the freezing of funds, can be found at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov//financialguide/index.htm. The SF 269A with instructions can be found in Appendix II. The GAO 2002 Drug Court Report referenced can be found here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02434.pdf. Various GMS screenshots documenting system improvements have been submitted to OMB. The Grant Assessment Tool provides a risk-based assessment of programs to be monitored (a copy has been submitted to OMB). The Grant Monitoring Tool (GMT) includes monitoring checklists, letters, corrective action plans, and other pertinent monitoring criteria (a copy has been provided to OMB). OJP's Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) evaluation was undertaken in response to the above referenced GAO audit. Summary information is available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/courts/drug-courts/madce.htm. Examples of the Enterprise Reporting Tool (ERT) online reporting functionality that is available to grant managers have been submitted to OMB. The OJP Grant Monitoring Business Process Improvement (BPI) charter has been provided to OMB. It describes the objectives and work products undertaken by the BPI.

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: OJP indicates that all of the grant funds under the drug courts program are awarded competitively, using a standardized process for peer review, however it is not clear the extent to which the peer review process guides awards, as OJP considers the peer review to be advisory only. While a competitive process may include some degree of agency discretion, considerable weight in award decision-making should be given to the peer review process. Further, any criteria used by the agency as it exercises its discretion should be clearly understood at the outset by potential grantees and outlined clearly in the grant solicitations. OJP indicates that past performance is a factor in determining awards as the programmatic and fiscal compliance is considered during the review. Funds are awarded through a solicitation that is posted on the Office of Justice Program's website for a set time period. The drug court solicitations detail the various requirements that the applicant must address along with the scores associated with each section. Once applications are received, the applications are scored by a three-member panel of peer reviewers representing various disciplines from the drug court field such as treatment providers, law enforcement, etc. The independent evaluations guide the funding decisions to make sure that resources will address the program's purpose and reach intended beneficiaries. Peer reviewers are screened by the OJP based on of their subject matter expertise. Once approved, they are selected based on eligibility and the need for their services (e.g. the number of reviewers needed). There also is a mandatory requirement each fiscal year that at least a fourth (25%) of the peer reviewer pool be new (meaning never having reviewed a solicitation by OJP), which helps to ensure that the pool of reviewers is constantly being refreshed. While peer reviewers' ratings and any resulting recommendations are advisory, OJP also considers underserved populations, geographic and strategic priorities, past performance, and available funding. All solicitations for competitively awarded programs are announced through OJP's web sites, as well as through alerts to the drug prevention, treatment, and court community. For example, OJP's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) alerts the juvenile justice community to new funding opportunities through its "News @ a Glance" bi-monthly newsletter with more than 16,000 subscribers, and through its JUVJUST listserv of more than 18,000 members. All OJP drug courts solicitations are posted on www.grants.gov.

Evidence: Recent OJP drug courts solicitations do not indicate the extent to which the peer review process will be considered in making grant awards. A recent juvenile justice drug courts solicitation indicates that the peer review process is advisory only (see page 16 of: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/FY2007/JuvDrugCourt.pdf), which provides little assurance that the resulting grant awards will be determined by an openly competitive process. OJP supplied OMB with examples of peer review scoring sheets used by the peer reviewers when reviewing the applications.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: There are several ways in which the OJP maintains strong oversight of grant progress and grantee activity. In the initial application phase, award funding is contingent upon both the merit of the application, as well as past performance (including grant compliance and effective program implementation). In the post-award phase, grant managers work to ensure grantees understand and meet their financial and progress reporting requirements. If a grantee does not report in a timely manner, award funds are automatically frozen by the grant management system (GMS). In addition the more compliance-oriented oversight functions, grant managers are responsible throughout the life of the grant for reviewing project timelines, the content of progress reports, and quarterly performance metrics to identify areas where grantees may require assistance. This review is accomplished both at the time of documentation submission, as well as through semi-annual desk reviews. In addition, grant managers conduct site visits of 10% of open award funding annually. In these site visits, grant managers go to the office or project site of the grantee to verify that submitted documentation is accurate, based on observation of grantee activities, files, etc. Site visits also result in the provision of technical assistance, or the identification of areas in which the grantee may benefit from more intensive assistance from trained technical assistance providers in a given subject-matter area. In addition to identifying areas for improvement or increased support, grant managers may also request that funding be frozen for a particular award when necessary because of programmatic or fiscal noncompliance. In addition to the direct oversight provided by the OJP grant managers, the Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management (OAAM) was established to a) ensure financial grant compliance and auditing of OJP's internal controls to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse by OJP staff and grantees; b) conduct programmatic assessments of DOJ grant programs; and, c) act as a central source for grant management policy. Through these core mission areas, OAAM ensures, for example, that: the proper controls and failsafes are integrated into the Grant Management System; grant managers are trained on core and advanced grant management skills and techniques; and, OJP maintains a high-risk grantee list for those grantees that demonstrate egregious non-compliance or a consistent and significant pattern of non-compliance. In addition, OAAM oversees and coordinates grant monitoring activities across bureaus and program offices, mandating streamlined and consistent grant monitoring practices and quality levels. OAAM also conducts assessments of OJP programs at large to determine whether programs funds are being used for their intended purpose and achieving their goals and objectives.

Evidence: Examples of individual OJP Grant Manager Performance Work Plans (PWP) have been provided to OMB. The OJP Financial Guide, which provides grantees and OJP staff with timelines for activities (e.g., grantees must submit the closeout package within 90 days of the end of the grant), financial guidelines, and other resources for information, is available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov//financialguide/index.htm. Screenshots of the Enterprise Reporting Tool (ERT) function, which pulls information from various sources to create a complete picture of the grant, including drawdown activity, have been submitted to OMB. Examples of OJP monitoring protocols (Grant Managers Manual, Grant Assessment Tool, and Grant Monitoring Tool) have been submitted to OMB. Screenshots of various GMS functions such as reporting, closeouts, special conditions, etc. have been provided to OMB. The Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program Resource Guide provides a sample project timeline (see page 20 of http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/05DrugCtResGuide.pdf). Grant management tools such as the Desk Review Form and the Drug Court Program Checklist have been provided to OMB. OAAM's web site includes a description of its review activities and accomplishments (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/about/offices/oaam.htm).

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: OJP is not yet making available full reports to the public on drug courts grantee performance, but plans to do so in the future. To improve the quality and usefulness of progress/performance reports required of all grantees, OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) implemented online performance data collection for drug court grantees beginning in 2007. Grantees are required to collect and report such data through the most recent solicitations, and have recently begun reporting data to OJP online. OJP has posted recent performance measures results on the BJA drug courts web page and presented them to grantees at regional training meetings. Although OJJDP has not yet done so, it plans to make performance data available to the public on the web. In addition, grantees using the BJA and OJJDP online performance measures systems have access to OJP's national drug courts data via an online report that allows them to compare the results of their measures to the national averages.

Evidence: OJP has begun to post some performance data (2007 reports) for drug court grantees administered by BJA on the web (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/DC_Imp_Perf_12_07.pdf). No public data has been made available on the web for drug court grantees administered by OJJDP as of yet. OJP maintains two websites for collecting performance data from the grantees, located at http://www.bjaperformancemeasures.org and http://www.ojjdp-dctat.org. The sites allow grantees to compare their PMT and DCTAT performance measure results to the nationwide aggregate for that reporting period and they will be provided electronically.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The drug courts program has demonstrated some progress toward achieving long-term performance goals. OJP has implemented activities that will ensure data will be available to report performance measure data for the long-term measures, although full year actual performance data is not available for all measures for 2008. For long term measure #1 (Percent of drug court participants who graduate from the drug court program), OJP is using data from 2007 as the baseline data, and is able to report interim results for 2008. The interim data reflect 3 months of reporting (January through March). More complete data will be available later in the year. For this measure, OJP has established a baseline of 65% in 2007 and a long term goal (by 2013) of 77%. The interim 2008 data reflect a graduation rate of 48%. It is anticipated that as additional data are submitted, that the rate will increase and final 2008 data will reflect the desired increase of 2 percentage points. For long-term measure #2 (Percent of drug court graduates who reoffend one year post-program completion), OJP is using performance data for 2007 as the baseline. The 2007 data indicate that 42 percent of drug court participants reoffend while in the drug court program. Interim data for 2008 indicate a reoffending rate of 26%, which reflects a considerable improvement over the previous reporting period, far exceeding the annual target of a 2 percentage point decrease. However, these are interim data and do not reflect the entire reporting period. In 2009, OJP intends to require that drug court grantees report the number of drug court graduates who are rearrested within one year post-program completion. At that point, targets may need to be readjusted, depending upon initial findings. For long-term measure #3 (Total number of drug court graduates), OJP has established 2005 as the baseline and has results from 2006 and 2007 that show progress far in excess of targets.

Evidence: The performance results reported are based on data submitted by OJP to OMB.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: For two of the three annual measures, OJP has received one full year of data from drug court grantees, which constitutes the established baseline. For these two annual measures, OJP has provided partial year data and anticipates receiving 2008 data from grantees in mid-summer 2008 and should be able to report year two data to OMB in August 2008. For one of the annual measures, OJP has three years of data (2005, 2006, and 2007). However, OJP has provided partial year data for 2008; full year data also will be available in August 2008. For annual measure #1 (Percent of drug court participants who exhibit a reduction in substance use while in the drug court program), partial year data indicates that the target for 2008 has not been met, although it is too early to indicate what the results for the full year will be. For annual measure #2 (Percent of drug court participants who reoffend while in the drug court program), partial year data indicates that the target for 2008 is being exceeded, although it is too early to evaluate full year results. For annual measure #3 (Percent of drug court participants who graduate from the drug court program), full year performance results for 2006 and 2007 show the targets being exceeded, while partial year data for 2008 do not (although this may change once the full results are in).

Evidence: The performance results reported are based on data submitted by OJP to OMB.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The drug courts program has demonstrated improved efficiency. For example, OJP reported a change from $16.44 in 2006 to $17.05 in 2007 for its efficiency measure - ratio of program expenditures to management and administrative expenditures. The change shows that administrative funds for managing the program were stretched much further in 2007 than in 2006. To ensure accountability for tracking such efficiency improvements in the future, revised estimates (and past year actuals) will be provided for each OJP program with the annual OJP budget submission to OMB and incorporated into the congressional budget submission.

Evidence: OJP submitted M&A estimates by program with its congressional budget submissions through the FY 2008 Budget (see FY 2008 OJP Congressional Budget Submission, Appendix, pp. 99-104; http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/40_ojp.pdf). Additional estimates were provided to OMB during PART discussions and will continue to be submitted with future OJP budget submissions to OMB.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The performance of OJP's drug courts program compares favorably with other federal, state and local programs with similar goals. In general, independent local and statewide evaluations of drug courts around the country, some funded by OJP and some not, demonstrate positive outcomes for drug court participants. Evaluations of the program have shown that graduates from drug court programs have fewer re-arrest and conviction rates. In 2005, the U.S. GAO conducted a review of adult drug courts and concluded that most adult programs yielded lower post-program re-arrest and conviction rates of drug court participants than comparison group members. Other studies using retrospective data found drug courts reduced recidivism among participants in contrast to comparable probationers. One study found that within a 2 year follow-up period, the felony re-arrest rate decreased from 40% before the drug court to 12% after the drug court started in one county, and the felony re-arrest rate decreased from 50% to 35% in another county (Truitt, et al., 2002). In one longitudinal study accumulating recidivism data for cohorts over 10 years, researchers found drug courts may lower re-arrest rates for 5 or more years later compared to re-arrests for similar drug offenders within the same county (Finigan, et al., 2007). This program also compares favorably to similar programs like the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program, which has shown an increase in the number of treatment slots available for offenders. In addition, the program favorably compares to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Drinking While Intoxicated (DWI) courts. The DWI courts evaluation demonstrates that increased supervision and treatment produce better outcomes for participants and reduce recidivism. A California study (Carey, et. al.) tracked the outcomes of drug court participants versus Proposition 36 offenders (who received probation and treatment) participants in the same jurisdiction, and the drug court model obtained better results. OJP compared the results of the Drug Courts program with two major categories of programs: (1) CSAT Program; and (2) Programs which provide an alternative to traditional court processing for non-violent/first time offenders who have a demonstrated substance abuse treatment need ("Alternative to Traditional Court Programs"). Comparing the results of OJP's program to CSAT for annual measure #1 (Percent of drug court participants who exhibit a reduction in substance use while in the program), OJP's results are good. OJP's rate of 86% for 2007, is higher than CSAT's "Rate of abstinence among clients" of 71%, although the measures do not appear to be fully identical in terms of definition or method of reporting. OJP also compared results of OJP's Annual Measure #3 (Percent of drug court participants who graduate from the program) to the same results from a number of "Alternative to Traditional Court Programs." A critical review of 37 published and unpublished evaluations of drug courts (including 7 juvenile, 1 DUI and 1 family drug court) found that, on average, 47% of participants graduate (compared to OJP's graduation rate of 65% in 2007). Several other studies had similar findings, all reflecting graduation rates lower than OJP's Drug Courts.

Evidence: The performance of OJP's drug courts program compares favorably with other federal, state and local programs with similar goals. In general, independent local and statewide evaluations of drug courts around the country, some funded by OJP and some not, demonstrate positive outcomes for drug court participants. Evaluations of the program have shown that graduates from drug court programs have fewer re-arrest and conviction rates. In 2005, the U.S. GAO conducted a review of adult drug courts and concluded that most adult programs yielded lower post-program re-arrest and conviction rates of drug court participants than comparison group members. Other studies using retrospective data found drug courts reduced recidivism among participants in contrast to comparable probationers. One study found that within a 2 year follow-up period, the felony re-arrest rate decreased from 40% before the drug court to 12% after the drug court started in one county, and the felony re-arrest rate decreased from 50% to 35% in another county (Truitt, et al., 2002). In one longitudinal study accumulating recidivism data for cohorts over 10 years, researchers found drug courts may lower re-arrest rates for 5 or more years later compared to re-arrests for similar drug offenders within the same county (Finigan, et al., 2007). This program also compares favorably to similar programs like the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program, which has shown an increase in the number of treatment slots available for offenders. Also, the program favorably compares to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Drinking While Intoxicated (DWI) courts. The DWI courts evaluation demonstrates that increased supervision and treatment produce better outcomes for participants and reduce recidivism. A California study (Carey, et. al.) tracked the outcomes of drug court participants versus Proposition 36 offenders (who received probation and treatment) participants in the same jurisdiction, and the drug court model obtained better results. OJP compared the results of the Drug Courts program with two major categories of programs: (1) CSAT Program; and (2) Programs which provide an alternative to traditional court processing for non-violent/first time offenders who have a demonstrated substance abuse treatment need ("Alternative to Traditional Court Programs"). Comparing the results of OJP's program to CSAT for annual measure #1 (Percent of drug court participants who exhibit a reduction in substance use while in the program), OJP's results are good. OJP's rate of 86% for 2007, is higher than CSAT's "Rate of abstinence among clients" of 71%, although the measures do not appear to be fully identical in terms of definition or method of reporting. OJP also compared results of OJP's Annual Measure #3 (Percent of drug court participants who graduate from the program) to the same results from a number of "Alternative to Traditional Court Programs." A critical review of 37 published and unpublished evaluations of drug courts (including 7 juvenile, 1 DUI and 1 family drug court) found that, on average, 47% of participants graduate (compared to OJP's graduation rate of 65% in 2007). Several other studies had similar findings, all reflecting graduation rates lower than OJP's Drug Courts.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Validation of outcomes from OJP-funded drug courts using a rigorous experimental or strong quasi-experimental impact analysis is needed, although research to date suggests that drug courts appear to be an effective strategy for reducing criminal offenses. GAO reported in 2005 on its review of 27 relatively rigorous evaluations of drug courts (experimental and quasi-experimental controlled group studies) that the reviewed drug court programs led to the following impacts: (1) lower percentages of drug court program participants than comparison group members were rearrested or reconvicted, (2) program participants had fewer recidivism events than comparison group members, (3) recidivism reductions occurred for participants who had committed different types of offenses. However GAO found mixed results for other outcomes. While suggestive that OJP's program may yield similar impacts by assisting in the establishment of new drug courts and enhancing existing ones, evaluation is needed to show that OJP-assisted drug courts obtain similar results. Further, additional work is needed to show that drug court outcomes are likely to be lasting ones - beyond one year. Limited preliminary results are available from OJP's Multi-site Adult Drug Court Evaluation and are suggestive of more positive outcomes for participants than non-participants. However, these are self-reported data and may not be indicative of actual behavioral outcomes. A fuller set of results are anticipated in 2009. At six-month follow-up, drug court participants reported less drug use, and drug-related or other criminal activity. Results from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Outcome and Process Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts are anticipated in 2011. A variety of other studies have examined the impact of drug courts in single or limited numbers of sites and are suggestive of potential outcomes for drug courts, although are less definitive than a multi-site impact analysis. For example, using retrospective data, researchers found that drug courts reduced recidivism among program participants in contrast to comparable probationers. One study found that within a two-year follow-up period, the felony re-arrest rate decreased from 40% before the drug court to 12% after the drug court started in one county, and the felony re-arrest rate decreased from 50% to 35% in another county. In a one county longitudinal study that accumulated recidivism data for drug court cohorts over 10 years, researchers found that drug courts may lower re-arrest rates five years or more later compared to re-arrests for similar drug offenders within the same county. However, the drug courts' impact on recidivism varied by year as a result of changes in programming and judge assignments over time; reductions in recidivism ranged from 17% to 26%.

Evidence: GAO's 2005 review of rigorous evaluations provides good evidence suggestive of positive drug court outcomes, as well as points the way to additional research needed. Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes, February 2005, GAO-05-219 (see http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05219.pdf). OJP funded evaluations include the following: (1) Assessing the Impact of Dade County's Felony Drug Court by J.S. Goldkamp and D. Weiland, 1993, NCJ 145302 (see http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/145302.pdf). (2) Evaluating Treatment Drug Courts in Kansas City, Missouri and Pensacola, Florida: Final Reports for Phase I and Phase II, by L. Truitt et al., March 2002, NCJ 198477 (see Executive Summary at http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/es-eval_treatment.pdf). (3) Assessing the Efficacy of Treatment Modalities in the Context of Adult Drug Courts, by D.F. Anspach and A.S. Ferguson, April 2003, NCJ 202901 (see http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/202901.pdf). (4) Impact of a Mature Drug Court Over 10 Years of Operation: Recidivism and Costs, by M.W. Finigan et al., July 2007, NCJ 219225 (see http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219225.pdf). (5) Final Report from Whether to How Drug Courts Work: Retrospective Evaluation of Drug Courts in Clark County (Las Vegas) and Multnomah County (Portland), by J.S. Goldkamp et al., 2001, NCJ 194125 (see http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/194125.pdf). (6) New York State Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Policies, Participants and Impacts, NCJ 203603. Michael Rempel, et. al.; October 2003 (see http://www.courts.state.ny.us/whatsnew/pdf/NYSAdultDrugCourtEvaluation.pdf). (7) Carey, S. M., Finigan, M., Crumpton, D., & Waller, M. California Drug Courts: Outcomes, Costs, and Promising Practices: An Overview of Phase II in a Statewide Study (2006) Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, SARC Supplement 3, 345-356. (see http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/California_Drug_Courts_Outcomes_Costs_and_Promising_Practices_An_Overview_of_Phase_II_in_a_Statewide_Study.pdf). OJP also has published a summary of what the research shows about the effectiveness of drug courts -- Drug Courts: The Second Decade, an NIJ Special Report, June 2006, NCJ 211081 (see http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/211081.pdf). OJP has provided summary information about its Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) on the internet (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/courts/drug-courts/madce.htm). Included on the website is a link to preliminary results from the MADCE evaluation. OJJDP Juvenile Drug Court Evaluation -- In 2007, OJJDP made a competitive award to University of Cincinnati to conduct a process and outcome evaluation of OJJDP's Juvenile Drug Court program. This study will attempt to add to the existing juvenile drug court literature by providing a national multi-site outcome and process study of selected juvenile drug courts from across the country. The proposed study will assess the relative effect of each court as well as their combined effectiveness in reaching the overall goal of reducing recidivism and improving youths' social conditions. It will also identify the characteristics of both the youth and programs most associated with successful outcomes. Study results are anticipated in 2011. The OJJDP 2007 Evaluation of Juvenile Drug Courts Program Solicitation can be found at http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/grants/solicitations/2006juvdrugcts.pdf.