BJA officials reported that the revised measures will strengthen the  reliability and improve the usefulness of grantee performance data in  making grant-related decisions. BJA Could Enhance Two Key Practices as It Continues to Review and Revise Its Adult Drug Court Performance Measures

BJA’s process to revise its performance measures generally adhered to  some of the key practices that we have identified as important to ensuring  that measures are relevant and useful to decision-making. Nevertheless, BJA officials have not documented how they will  determine if the measures were successful or whether changes would be  needed. In addition, BJA officials did not record key methods and  assumptions used to guide their revision efforts, such as the feedback  stakeholders provided and BJA’s disposition of these comments. As BJA moves  forward in assessing the revised measures and implementing additional  changes, if it deems necessary, BJA could better ensure that its efforts result  in successful and reliable metrics and are transparent by documenting key  methods used to guide revision efforts and an assessment of its measures. Drug Courts Were Associated with Lower Recidivism and Relapse Rates for Program Participants Than Criminal Courts

In the evaluations we reviewed, adult drug-court program participation was  generally associated with lower recidivism. Our analysis of evaluations  reporting recidivism data for 32 programs showed that drug court program  participants were generally less likely to be re-arrested than comparison  group members drawn from the criminal court system, although the  differences in likelihood were reported to be statistically significant in 18  programs. Across studies showing re-arrest differences, the percentages  of drug court program participants rearrested were lower than for  comparison group members by 6 to 26 percentage points. The  MADCE reported a re-arrest rate for drug court participants that was 10  percentage points below that of the comparison group; specifically, 52  percent of drug court participants were re-arrested after the initiation of  the drug court program, while 62 percent of the comparison group  members were re-arrested. Our analysis of  evaluations reporting relapse data for eight programs showed that drug  court program participants were less likely than comparison group  members to use drugs, based on drug tests or self-reported drug use,  although the difference was not always significant. Of these studies, the net benefit ranged from positive  $47,852 to negative $7,108 per participant. Recommendation for Execution Action

Recognizing that BJA has recently revised the adult drug-court  performance measures and has plans to assess their utility, we  recommend that BJA’s Director take the following action to ensure that its  revision process is transparent and results in quality and successful  metrics to inform management’s key decisions on program operations:    Document key methods used to guide future revisions of its adult  drug-court program performance measures. Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To determine what data DOJ collects on the performance of federally  funded adult drug courts and to what extent DOJ has used this data in  making grant-related decisions, we analyzed the reporting guidance and  requirements that BJA provided in fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to  grantees applying for Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program  funds; BJA-generated grantee performance data reports from October to  December 2010; and BJA’s guides for managing grants and enforcing  grantee compliance that were issued in fiscal year 2011. To determine what is known about the effectiveness of adult drug courts  in reducing recidivism and substance-abuse relapse rates and what the  costs and benefits of adult drug courts are, we conducted a systematic  review of evaluations of drug-court program effectiveness issued from  February 2004 through March 2011 to identify what is known about the  effect of drug court programs on the recidivism of and relapse of drug- involved individuals as well as the costs and benefits of drug courts.
Why GAO Did This Study

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

What GAO Found

BJA collects an array of data on adult drug-court grantees, such as drug-court completion rates, and during the course of GAO's review, began expanding its use of this performance data to inform grant-related decisions, such as allocating resources and setting program priorities. For example, during September 2011, BJA assessed a sample of adult drug-court grantees' performance across a range of variables, using a new process it calls GrantStat. BJA developed recommendations following this assessment and is determining their feasibility. In addition, in October 2011, BJA finalized revisions to the performance measures on which grantees report. BJA's process of revising its performance measures generally adhered to key practices, such as obtaining stakeholder involvement; however, BJA could improve upon two practices as it continues to assess and revise measures in the future. First, while BJA plans to assess the reliability of the new measures after the first quarter of grantees' reporting, officials have not documented, as suggested by best practices, how it will determine if the measures were successful or whether changes would be needed. Second, should future changes to the measures be warranted, BJA could improve the way it documents its decisions and incorporates feedback from stakeholders, including grantees, by recording key methods and assumptions used to guide its revision efforts. By better adhering to best practices identified by GAO and academic literature, BJA could better ensure that its future revision efforts result in successful and reliable metrics--and that the revision steps it has taken are transparent. In the evaluations that GAO reviewed, drug-court program participation was generally associated with lower recidivism. GAO's analysis of evaluations reporting recidivism data for 32 programs showed that drug-court program participants were generally less likely to be re-arrested than comparison group members drawn from criminal court, with differences in likelihood reported to be statistically significant for 18 of the programs. Cost-benefit analyses showed mixed results. For example: (1) Across studies showing re-arrest differences, the percentages of drug- court program participants re-arrested were lower than for comparison group members by 6 to 26 percentage points. Drug court participants who completed their program had re-arrest rates 12 to 58 percentage points below those of the comparison group. (2) GAO's analysis of evaluations reporting relapse data for eight programs showed that drug-court program participants were less likely than comparison group members to use drugs, based on drug tests or self- reported drug use, although the difference was not always significant. (3) Of the studies assessing drug-court costs and benefits, the net benefit ranged from positive $47,852 to negative $7,108 per participant.

What GAO Recommends

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