ADULT DRUG 

COURTS 

Studies Show Courts 

Reduce Recidivism, 

but DOJ Could 

Enhance Future 

Performance Measure 

Revision Efforts 

Report to Congressional Committees

December 2011 

GAO-12-53 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO 
 United States Government Accountability Office 

Highlights of GAO-12-53, a report to 

congressional committees 

December 2011 

ADULT DRUG COURTS

Studies Show Courts Reduce Recidivism, but DOJ 

Could Enhance Future Performance Measure 

Revision Efforts 

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 grantrelated decisions, and (2) what is 

known about the effectiveness of drug 

courts. GAO assessed performance 

data DOJ collected in fiscal year 2010 

and reviewed evaluations of 32 drugcourt programs and 11 cost-benefit 

studies issued from February 2004 

through March 2011. 

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. 

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: 

 Across studies showing re-arrest differences, the percentages of drugcourt program participants re-arrested were lower than for comparison 

group members by 6 to 26 percentage points. Drug court participants 

who completed their program had re-arrest rates 12 to 58 percentage 

points below those of the comparison group. 

 GAO’s analysis of evaluations reporting relapse data for eight programs 

showed that drug-court program participants were less likely than 

comparison group members to use drugs, based on drug tests or selfreported drug use, although the difference was not always significant. 

 Of the studies assessing drug-court costs and benefits, the net benefit 

ranged from positive $47,852 to negative $7,108 per participant.

View GAO-12-53. For more information, 

contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 

maurerd@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Letter 1 

Background 5

BJA Is Expanding Use of Grantee Performance Data but Could 

Enhance Processes as It Continues to Refine Performance 

Measures 9

Drug Courts Were Associated with Lower Recidivism and Relapse 

Rates for Program Participants Than Criminal Courts 19

Conclusions 26

Recommendation for Execution Action 27

Agency Comments 27

Appendix I DOJ Has Fully Implemented Most of Our 2002 Recommendations 

and Plans to Address the Remaining One 29 

Appendix II MADCE Is the Most Comprehensive Study of Drug Courts to Date, 

but Generalizability of Findings May Be Limited 32 

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 37 

Appendix IV Overview of Drug Court Program Characteristics 43 

Appendix V Ten Key Components of a Drug Court— Developed by BJA in 

Collaboration with The National Association of Drug Court Professionals 46 

Appendix VI BJA Offers Solicitations in Four Broad Drug-Court Grant 

Categories—Implementation, Enhancement, Statewide, and Joint 47 

Appendix VII Key Management Activities Identified for Which Performance 

Information Can Be Most Useful 48 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Appendix VIII Comments from the Department of Justice, Bureau of 

Justice Assistance 49 

Appendix IX GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 51 

Bibliography 52

Tables 

Table 1: List of the Seven Questions to Which Adult Drug Court 

Grantees Must Submit Narrative Responses 10

Table 2: Types of Information BJA Officials Reported Using or 

Planning to Use When Performing Key Management 

Activities for the Adult Drug Court Grant Program 13

Table 3: Differences in Reported Rearrest Rates between Drug 

Court Program Participants and Comparison Group 

Members 21

Table 4: Drug Use Relapse Results of Evaluations GAO Reviewed 24

Table 5: Cost Conclusions of the 11 Drug Court Program 

Evaluations in Our Cost-Benefit Review 26

Table 6: Status of DOJ’s Efforts to Address Recommendations We 

Made in 2002 on DOJ’s Collection of Performance Data to 

Measure the Impact of Federally Funded Drug Court 

Programs 29

Table 7: Methodological Quality Categories for Evaluations of a 

Drug Court Program 39

Table 8: Five Criteria for Assessing a Cost-Benefit Analysis of a 

Drug Court Program 41

Table 9: General Description of Drug Court Program Components 43

Table 10: Ten Key Components of a Drug Court 46

Table 11: Adult Drug-Court Discretionary Grant Program—Grant 

Type and Description 47

Table 12: Definitions: Key Management Activities Identified for 

which Performance Information Can Be Most Useful 48
Page iii GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Figures 

Figure 1: Number of Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant 

Program Awards Increased 588 Percent from Fiscal Year 

2006 Through 2010 8

Abbreviations 

BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance 

DOJ Department of Justice 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

GMS Grants Management System 

MADCE Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation 

NADCP National Association of Drug Court Professionals 

NIJ National Institute of Justice 

OJP Office of Justice Programs 

PMT Performance Measurement Tool 

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

December 9, 2011 

The Honorable Patrick Leahy 

Chairman 

The Honorable Chuck Grassley 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Lamar Smith 

Chairman 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

Drug court programs were established beginning in the late 1980s as a 

local response to increasing numbers of drug-related cases and 

expanding jail and prison populations nationwide. A drug court is a 

specialized court-based program that targets criminal offenders who have 

alcohol and other drug addiction and dependency problems. Drug courts 

have implemented deferred prosecution or post-adjudication caseprocessing approaches, or have blended both in their organizational 

structures. In drug courts using deferred prosecution, defendants waive 

rights to a trial and enter a treatment program shortly after being charged; 

those who subsequently fail to complete the treatment program have their 

charges adjudicated, while those who complete the program are not 

prosecuted further, or have their charges dismissed. In post-adjudication 

case processing, defendants are tried and convicted, but either have 

deferred sentences or suspensions of incarceration until they complete or 

withdraw from the treatment program. The first approach offers 

individuals the opportunity to obtain treatment and avoid the possibility of 

a felony conviction, while the second provides a rehabilitation incentive 

because treatment progress is factored into the sentencing determination. 

As of June 2010, there were over 2,500 drug courts operating throughout 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

the United States, of which about 1,400 of these target adult offenders.1

Drug courts are generally based on a comprehensive model involving 

 offender assessment; 

 judicial interaction; 

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

 graduated sanctions and incentives; and 

 treatment services. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), through its Office of Justice Programs’ 

(OJP) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), administers the Adult Drug 

Court Discretionary Grant Program, which provides financial and 

technical assistance to states, state courts, local courts, units of local 

government, and Indian tribal governments to develop and implement 

drug treatment courts.2

 The total amount BJA has awarded in grants 

through the program increased from about $2 million in fiscal year 2006 to 

$29 million in fiscal year 2010, and the number of grants it has awarded 

during the same period increased 588 percent. Pursuant to the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), DOJ requires 

applicants that receive funding through the program to provide data that 

measure the results of their work.3

 

1

The types of drug courts include adult drug courts, juvenile drug courts, family drug 

courts, tribal drug courts, designated Driving Under the Influence (DUI) courts, campus 

drug courts, reentry drug courts, federal reentry drug courts, veterans drug courts, and cooccurring disorder courts—for offenders with mental health and substance addiction 

issues. 

2

The Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program was originally authorized under Title 

V of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 

108 Stat. 1796,1955-59, and subsequently reauthorized by Title II of the 21st Century 

Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Pub L. No. 107-273, § 2301, 116 

Stat. 1758, 1794-99 (2002) (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3797u- u-8). Drug court programs 

have also received funding from other federal sources, and state and local governments. 

3

BJA’s grant solicitation states that to assist DOJ in fulfilling its obligation under GPRA, 

grantees must provide certain requested data. GPRA was intended to address several 

broad purposes, including, among other things, improving federal program effectiveness, 

accountability, and service delivery; and enhancing congressional decision making by 

providing more objective information on program performance. 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

In April 2002, we reported that DOJ had not sufficiently managed its 

efforts to collect performance measurement and outcome data from 

federally funded drug courts.4

 We recommended that DOJ take actions to 

address these concerns, and DOJ agreed with our recommendations and 

took actions in response. Appendix I provides information on the status of 

these recommendations. In February 2005, we studied drug courts again 

and reported that in most of the 27 drug-court program evaluations we 

reviewed, adult drug-court programs led to recidivism reductions—that is, 

reductions in new criminal offenses—during periods of time that generally 

corresponded to the length of the drug court program.5

 We also reported 

that the evidence about the effectiveness of drug court programs in 

reducing participants’ substance-use relapse was limited and mixed.6

This report responds to the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which directed 

GAO to report on drug court programs.7

 We briefed your offices on our 

preliminary results on July 18, 2011. This report includes our final results 

related to the following questions: (1) What data does DOJ collect on the 

performance of federally funded adult drug courts, and to what extent has 

it used these data in making grant related decisions? And (2) What is 

known about the effectiveness of adult drug courts in reducing recidivism 

and substance-abuse relapse rates, and what are the costs and benefits 

of adult drug courts? In addition, appendix I of this report provides 

information on the extent to which DOJ has addressed the 

recommendations that we made in 2002 regarding drug court programs. 

To address the first question, we analyzed: the reporting guidance and 

requirements that BJA provided in fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to 

grantees applying for Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program 

funds;8

 BJA-generated grantee performance data reports from October to 

 

4

GAO, Drug Courts: Better DOJ Data Collection and Evaluation Efforts Needed to 

Measure Impact of Drug Court Programs, GAO-02-434 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 18, 2002). 

5

We use the term recidivism to refer generally to the act of committing new criminal 

offenses after having been arrested or convicted of a crime. 

6

GAO, Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for 

Other Outcomes, GAO-05-219 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2005). 

7

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

8

Grantees are defined as states, state courts, local courts, units of local government, and 

Indian tribal governments acting directly or through an agreement with other public or 

private entities that receive funding under the drug court program. 42 U.S.C. § 3797u(a). 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

December 2010; and BJA’s guides for managing grants and enforcing 

grantee compliance that were issued in fiscal year 2011. We selected 

2007 as the starting point for our review because BJA implemented its 

Performance Measurement Tool (PMT)—an online reporting tool that 

supports BJA grantees’ ability to collect, identify, and report performance 

measurement data activities funded by the award—in fiscal year 2007. 

We also reviewed our prior reports and internal control standards as well 

as other academic literature regarding effective performance 

management practices.9

 Further, we interviewed cognizant BJA officials 

about the extent to which they use grantees’ performance data when 

engaging in these management activities, any challenges faced with 

ensuring grantee compliance, ongoing efforts to revise program 

performance metrics, and the extent to which BJA’s revisions incorporate 

best practices we previously identified.10

To address the second question, we conducted a systematic review of 

evaluations of drug court program effectiveness issued from February 

2004 through March 2011 to identify what is known about the effect of 

drug court programs on the recidivism of and relapse of drug involved 

individuals as well as the costs and benefits of drug courts.11 We also 

reviewed DOJ’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ)-funded Multi-Site Adult 

Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE), a 5-year longitudinal process, impact, 

and cost evaluation of adult drug courts that was issued in June 2011, a 

summary of which we provide in appendix II.12 We identified the universe 

of evaluations to include in our review using a three-stage process. First, 

we identified evaluations by searching databases and Web sites. Second, 

we selected evaluations of adult drug court programs in the United States 

that report recidivism, substance use relapse, and/or costs and benefits. 

Third, we screened the selected studies to determine whether each met 

criteria for methodological soundness based on generally accepted social 

 

9

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

10GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Season Performance 

Measures, GAO-03-143, (Washington, D.C.: November 2002); and GAO, Recovery Act: 

Department of Justice Could Better Assess Justice Assistance Grant Program Impact, 

GAO-11-87 (Washington, D.C.: October 2010). 

11In February 2005, we studied evaluations of drug court programs that were published 

from May 1997 through January 2004. 

12NIJ is the research, development, and evaluation agency of DOJ. 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

science principles or cost-benefit analysis criteria. From more than 260 

studies in our initial group, we assessed the findings of 44 studies that 

met our criteria and reported on the effectiveness of 32 drug court 

programs or sets of programs. See appendix III for additional details on 

our scope and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from November 2010 through 

December 2011 in accordance with generally accepted governmentauditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our objectives. 

Drug court programs are designed to address the underlying cause of an 

offender’s behavior—alcohol, drug addiction, and dependency problems. 

Drug court programs share several general characteristics but vary in 

their specific policies and procedures because of, among other things, 

differences in local jurisdictions and criminal justice system practices. In 

general, judges preside over drug court proceedings, which are called 

status hearings; monitor offenders’ progress with mandatory drug testing; 

and prescribe sanctions and incentives as appropriate in collaboration 

with prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment providers, and others. 

Drug court programs vary in terms of the substance-abuse treatment 

required. However, most programs offer a range of treatment options and 

generally require a minimum of 1 year of participation before an offender 

completes the program. 

Practices for determining defendants’ eligibility for drug court participation 

vary across drug court programs, but typically involve screening 

defendants for their criminal history, current case information, whether 

they are on probation, and their substance use, which can include the 

frequency and type of use, prior treatment experiences, and motivation to 

seek treatment. In 2005, we reported that based on literature reviewed, 

eligible drug-court program participants ranged from nonviolent offenders 

charged with drug-related offenses who had substance addictions, to 

relatively medium risk defendants with fairly extensive criminal histories 

and who had failed prior substance-abuse-treatment experiences. 

Appendix IV presents additional information about the general 

characteristics of drug court programs. As shown in appendix V, BJA, in 

collaboration with the National Association of Drug Court Professionals 

(NADCP), identified The Key Components, which describes the basic 

Background 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

elements that define drug courts and offers performance benchmarks to 

guide implementation.13

BJA administers the Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program to 

provide financial and technical assistance to states, state courts, local 

courts, units of local government, and Indian tribal governments to 

develop and implement drug treatment courts.14 Through the Adult Drug 

Court Discretionary Grant Program, BJA offers funding in four broad drugcourt grant categories. See appendix VI for a more detailed discussion on 

each of the following grant categories. 

 Implementation grants: Available to jurisdictions that have completed 

a substantial amount of planning and are ready to implement an adult 

drug court. 

 Enhancement grants: Available to jurisdictions with a fully operational 

(at least 1-year) adult drug court. 

 Statewide grants: Available for two purposes: (1) To improve, 

enhance, or expand drug court services statewide through activities 

such as training and/or technical assistance programs for drug court 

teams and (2) To financially support drug courts in local or regional 

jurisdictions that do not currently operate with BJA Adult Drug Court 

Discretionary Grant Program funding. 

 Joint grants: In fiscal year 2010, BJA, in collaboration with the 

Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), offered a joint 

 

13NADCP is a national membership and advocacy organization of drug court professionals 

that provides for the collection and dissemination of information, technical assistance, and 

mutual support to association members. 

1442 U.S.C. §§ 3797u- u-8. Drug courts funded by BJA are required to involve mandatory 

periodic drug testing, graduated sanctions for participants who fail drug tests, and 

continuing judicial supervision over offenders, among other requirements. Id. Federal drug 

court grants have a matching requirement. Drug court grants are not permitted to cover 

more than 75 percent of the total costs of the project being funded. Grant applicants are 

required to identify a nonfederal source of 25 percent of the program’s cost with cash or 

in-kind services, or some combination of both. 42 U.S.C. § 3797u-5. 
 

Page 7 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

grant program for the enhancement of adult drug court services, 

coordination, and substance-abuse treatment capacity.15

From fiscal years 2006 through 2010, Congress appropriated about $120 

million for DOJ’s administration of all drug court programs.16 Of this 

amount, $76 million was used for the Adult Drug Court Discretionary 

Grant Program, which includes funding provided to grantees through the 

previously mentioned grant categories. The grant award totals for the 

Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program increased from $2 million 

in fiscal year 2006 to $29 million in fiscal year 2010.17 Correspondingly, 

the number of Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program awards 

increased from 16 in fiscal year 2006 to 110 in fiscal year 2010—an 

increase of 588 percent, as shown in figure 1.18

 

15This joint program offers grantees the opportunity to design a comprehensive strategy 

for enhancing drug court capacity while accessing both criminal justice and substanceabuse treatment funds under a single grant application. These grants are authorized 

under section 509 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 290bb-2) to 

provide Adult Treatment Drug Court grants. 

16The appropriation amounts include adult drug courts, juvenile drug court programs, 

training and technical assistance, and other related expenses, among other things. 

17For fiscal year 2011, the number of Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program 

grantee awards and award amounts were not available at the time of our review. 

18The average Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program award amount totals ranged 

from $122,000 in fiscal year 2006 to $267,000 in fiscal year 2010. 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Figure 1: Number of Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program Awards 

Increased 588 Percent from Fiscal Year 2006 through 2010 

With regard to drug courts’ effectiveness, however, drug courts have 

been difficult to evaluate because they are so varied, and the resources 

required to conduct a study that would allow conclusions about the 

effectiveness of drug courts can be substantial. In particular, while drug 

courts generally adhere to certain key program components, drug courts 

can differ in factors including admission criteria, type and duration of drug 

treatment, degree of judicial monitoring and intervention, and application 

of sanctions for noncompliance. In February 2005, we studied drug courts 

and reported that in most of the 27 drug-court program evaluations we 

reviewed, adult drug court programs led to recidivism reductions during 

periods of time that generally corresponded to the length of the drug court 

program.19 Several syntheses of multiple drug court program evaluations, 

conducted in 2005 and 2006, also concluded that drug courts are 

associated with reduced recidivism rates, compared to traditional 

correctional options. However, the studies included in these syntheses 

 

19GAO-05-219. 
 

Page 9 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

often had methodological limitations, such as the lack of equivalent 

comparison groups and the lack of appropriate statistical controls.20

BJA collects an array of performance data from its adult drug court 

grantees through its Performance Measurement Tool (PMT) and OJP’s 

Grants Management System (GMS). Since fiscal year 2008, BJA has 

required grantees to submit quantitative performance data on a quarterly 

basis and qualitative performance information on a semi-annual basis. 

The quantitative information grantees submit to BJA varies depending on 

the type of grant awarded. For example, information that BJA can 

calculate based on what Implementation grantees have been required to 

submit quarterly includes “the percent of drug court participants who 

exhibit a reduction in substance use during the reporting period,” “the 

percent of program participants who re-offended while in the drug court 

program,” and “the number and percent of drug court graduates.” 

Information that BJA can calculate based on what Enhancement grantees 

have been required to submit includes “the increase in units of substanceabuse treatment services” and “the percent increase in services provided 

 

20See Jeff Latimer, Jeff, Kelly Morton-Bourgon, and Jo-Anne Chrétien. A Meta-Analytic 

Examination of Drug Treatment Courts: Do they Reduce Recidivism? (Ottawa, Ontario: 

Department of Justice Canada, 2006), 12. Christopher T. Lowenkamp, Alexander M. 

Holsinger, Edward J. Latessa. “Are drug courts effective: A meta-analytic review,” Journal 

of Community Corrections. (Fall 2005), 8, 9, 28. David B. Wilson, Ojmarrh Mitchell, and 

Doris L. Mackenzie. “A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism.” Journal of 

Experimental Criminology, 2(4) (2006), 468-469. 

BJA Is Expanding Use 

of Grantee 

Performance Data but 

Could Enhance 

Processes as It 

Continues to Refine 

Performance 

Measures 

BJA’s Ongoing Data 

Collection Efforts 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

to participants.” In addition to the quarterly reporting of quantitative 

performance data, all adult drug court grantees must submit progress 

reports semi-annually. As part of these progress reports, grantees provide 

qualitative or narrative responses to seven questions. Table 1 shows the 

seven questions to which grantees must submit narrative responses 

when completing their semi-annual reports. 

Table 1: List of the Seven Questions to Which Adult Drug Court Grantees Must 

Submit Narrative Responses 

1. What were your accomplishments within this reporting period? 

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

3. What problems/barriers did you encounter, if any, within the reporting period that 

prevented you from reaching your goals or milestones? 

4. Is there any assistance that BJA can provide to address any problems/barriers 

identified in question number three above? 

5. Are you on track to fiscally and programmatically complete your program as outlined 

in your grant application? 

6. What major activities are planned for the next 6 months? 

7. Based on your knowledge of the criminal justice field, are there any innovative 

programs/accomplishments that you would like to share with BJA? 

Source: BJA. 

BJA officials told us that grant managers regularly review individual 

grantees’ quarterly performance data and semi-annual progress reports 

and use this information to determine whether additional training or 

technical assistance could improve their performance. However, 

according to BJA officials, resource constraints in the past had prevented 

staff from fully analyzing the performance data BJA collects from all adult 

drug court grantees—specifically the analysis of grantees’ answers to the 

seven narrative questions—to identify more effective program 

approaches and processes to share with the drug court community. In 

early fiscal year 2011, BJA officials initiated a new process called 

GrantStat to maximize the use of performance information by leveraging 

the resources of other BJA divisions,21 BJA’s training and technical 

 

21BJA officials stated that its Policy, Programs, and Planning Offices participate in the 

GrantStat reviews. 

Recent Steps to Improve 

Use of Performance Data 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

assistance partners, its contractor, and other key stakeholders.22

GrantStat provides an analytical framework to assess grantee 

performance data and other relevant information on a semi-annual basis 

to determine the effectiveness of the grant programs in BJA’s portfolio. 

In September 2011, BJA officials applied GrantStat to a review of the 

Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program. As part of the process, 

they collected, reviewed, and analyzed performance data and other 

relevant information from a cohort of Implementation grantees to 

determine the overall effectiveness of the adult drug court program and to 

identify grantees that might need additional technical assistance to 

improve their outcomes. BJA officials told us that as part of the GrantStat 

review, they and their technical-assistance provider’s staff reviewed 

selected Implementation grantees’ responses to the seven narrative 

questions and discussed common issues they each identified. For 

example, BJA identified that a number of grantees had lower-thanexpected capacity because drug court stakeholders (e.g., district 

attorneys) were referring fewer drug-involved defendants to these drug 

courts. BJA also reported reviewing and discussing other qualitative 

information, such as the training and technical assistance provider’s sitevisit reports, to determine grantees’ fidelity to the 10 key components.23

BJA officials acknowledged that prior to GrantStat, they had not 

leveraged the summary data that its technical assistance providers had 

previously compiled from grantees’ narrative responses to these seven 

questions and indicated that future iterations of GrantStat would continue 

to include both qualitative and quantitative performance data reviews. 

Our prior work has emphasized the importance of using performance data 

to inform key decisions24 and underscored that performance measures 

can be used to demonstrate the benefits of a program or identify ways to 

 

22According to BJA officials, the contactor provides a range of data collection, technical 

assistance, analytical, and research services to BJA and its grantees. This includes 

developing and maintaining the PMT and providing a user support help desk and formal 

training to grantees regarding their reporting requirements. In addition, contractor analysts 

review, analyze, and report on BJA grantees’ performance data to BJA. 

23See appendix VI for more information regarding the 10 key components. 

24GAO, Managing For Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005). 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

improve it.25 In addition, we also have reported that effective performance 

measurement systems include steps to use performance information to 

make decisions. In doing so, program managers can improve their 

programs and results.26 Recognizing that BJA is working through 

GrantStat to improve its use of performance data in managing the drug 

court program, we identified six management activities for which 

performance information can be most useful to decision makers and 

benchmarked BJA’s practices against them.27 The six activities are: 

(1) setting program priorities, (2) allocating resources, (3) adopting new 

program approaches, (4) identifying and sharing with stakeholders more 

effective program processes and approaches, (5) setting expectations for 

grantees, and (6) monitoring grantee performance. See appendix VII for 

the definition of the six management activities. As illustrated in table 2, 

BJA has current and planned efforts underway across all six activities. 

 

25GAO, Justice: A Time Frame for Enhancing Grant Monitoring Documentation and 

Verification of Data Quality Would Help Improve Accountability and Resource Allocation 

Decisions, GAO-09-850R (Washington, DC: September 2009) and GAO, Performance 

Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, GAO-05-739SP

(Washington, DC: May 2005). 

26GAO, Drug Control: DOD Needs to Improve Its Performance Measurement System to 

Better Manage and Oversee Its Counternarcotics Activities, GAO-10-835 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 2010). 

27We identified the first four management activities in table 1 as relevant from 

governmentwide surveys of federal managers that GAO conducted in 1997, 2000, and 

2003. See GAO-05-927. The remaining two activities we identified, in part, by reviewing 

performance management literature. BJA staff confirmed each of these six to be relevant 

to managing the drug court program. 
 

Page 13 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Table 2: Types of Information BJA Officials Reported Using or Planning to Use When Performing Key Management Activities 

for the Adult Drug Court Grant Program 

Key management 

activities GAO identified 

Current or prior use of performance 

grantee data Planned or proposed use of grantee data 

1. Setting program 

priorities 

BJA officials reported using a range of 

information when setting program priorities 

including NIJ-sponsored research, other drug 

court evaluations, NADCP’s annual problemsolving court census, input from state drug 

court coordinators, and grantee quantitative 

performance data to set program priorities. 

BJA officials stated that they have finalized grantees’ 

quantitative performance measures and plan to use 

GrantStat to identify the most effective grantees and 

their common characteristics. They told us that through 

GrantStat they plan to systematically assess 

performance information to prioritize which types of 

drug courts BJA should fund in future grant 

solicitations. 

2. Allocating resources BJA officials reported regularly using grantees’ 

quantitative performance data when deciding 

the level of funding to be allocated toward 

technical assistance annually and the types of 

technical assistance grantees need to improve 

their performance. 

BJA officials reported the revised quantitative 

performance measures will allow BJA to analyze 

information across all grant categories (e.g., 

Enhancement, Implementation, and Statewide) to 

determine how grantees are performing relative to one 

another and then allocate funding and other resources 

accordingly. 

3. Adopting new program 

approaches or changing 

work processes 

BJA officials reported that they use grantees’ 

quantitative data to revise training courses for 

the program and in drafting the program’s 

grant solicitations. 

BJA officials stated the revised quantitative measures 

will allow them to conduct more sophisticated analyses 

through GrantStat. As a result, BJA officials expect to 

be able to identify not only the grantees that are 

underperforming, but also the reasons why, and then 

target the appropriate technical assistance to those in 

the most need. For example, BJA officials reported that 

the revised measures will help determine the extent to 

which grantees have adopted evidence-based 

practices, such as the seven design features 

highlighted in the MADCE study.a

4. Identifying and sharing 

with stakeholders more 

effective program 

processes and 

approaches 

According to BJA officials, because of 

resource constraints, BJA had been unable to 

conduct analyses across all grantees’ 

responses to the seven narrative questions in 

their semi-annual progress reports. As a 

result, the officials had not used this qualitative 

data when carrying out this activity. Instead, 

they reported using information gathered in 

site visits, desk reviews, and technical 

assistance assessments, as well as MADCE 

and other NIJ-sponsored research and drug 

court evaluations to identify effective drug 

court processes and procedures. BJA officials 

stated that information from NIJ-sponsored 

research and drug court evaluations is 

disseminated to stakeholders through the 

BJA-NIJ Research to Practice initiative.b

BJA officials stated that GrantStat will address BJA’s 

difficulties with collectively analyzing grantee 

performance data on a regular basis by leveraging 

internal and external resources. They also stated that 

future GrantStat reviews will allow BJA to identify highperforming grantees and share their success stories 

with other grantees. 
 

Page 14 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Key management 

activities GAO identified 

Current or prior use of performance 

grantee data Planned or proposed use of grantee data 

5. Setting expectations for 

grantees 

BJA officials said that they have been unable 

to utilize adult drug-court program grantees’ 

quantitative performance data to set grantees’ 

expectations because the measures lacked 

benchmarks against which to gauge grantee 

performance. 

BJA’s revised quantitative performance measures 

include benchmarks and other performance indicators 

allowing BJA to use grantees’ data to establish the 

targets and goals that grantees are expected to 

achieve. According to BJA officials, some of these 

performance indicators were established as part of 

GrantStat’s first review of the program and will be 

communicated in the 2012 Adult Drug Court 

Discretionary Grant Program solicitation 

announcement. These indicators are based on grantee 

cohort averages, individual grantees’ 4-year data 

averages, and adult drug court averages obtained from 

adult drug court research. 

6. Monitoring grantee 

performance 

According to BJA officials, they have analyzed 

individual grantees’ performance data on a 

regular basis and provide training and 

technical assistance as warranted. However, 

according to BJA officials, because of 

resource constraints, BJA had been unable to 

conduct analyses across all grantees’ 

responses to the seven narrative questions in 

their semi-annual progress reports. As a 

result, they had not used this qualitative 

information when carrying out this activity. 

They also acknowledged that prior to 

GrantStat, they had not leveraged the 

summary data that its technical assistance 

providers prepared based on grantees’ 

responses, despite recognizing its utility. 

BJA officials reported the revised quantitative measures 

will improve BJA’s ability to compare grantees’ 

performance results with established targets and goals 

to determine the extent to which grantees have met 

them and, if necessary, to target program resources 

(e.g., technical assistance) to improve underperforming 

grantees’ performance. BJA officials also told us that 

GrantStat’s review included an assessment of the 

narrative responses and would continue to include it in 

the future. 

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

a

The seven design features include: (1) screening and assessment, (2) target population, (3) 

procedural and distributive justice behavior, (4) judicial interaction, (5) monitoring, (6) treatment and 

other services, and (7) relapse prevention and community integration. According to DOJ officials, the 

seven principles were developed with NIJ on the basis of MADCE, and other rigorous research 

studies. The language used to describe the seven principles was determined in consultation with 

BJA’s drug court training and technical assistance providers. 

b

The Adult Drug Court Research to Practice Initiative is a joint partnership between the National 

Center for State Courts and the Justice Programs Office of the School of Public Affairs at American 

University, with the purpose of disseminating information to drug court practitioners about current 

research relevant to the operations and services of adult drugs. The initiative was co-funded by BJA 

and NIJ. 

According to BJA officials, after the GrantStat review, they identified 

trends and developed several potential findings and action items for 

program design changes. However, BJA officials added that since the 

action items originated from GrantStat’s first review, they are not 

implementing them immediately. Instead, BJA plans to evaluate the 

action items over the next 6 months to ensure they are feasible and 

effective alternatives for improving grantee outcomes. We are 
 

Page 15 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

encouraged by BJA’s recent efforts to regularly analyze grantee 

performance data to determine whether the program is meeting its goals. 

We also are encouraged that BJA is using this information to better inform 

its grant-related management activities, such as setting program 

priorities, identifying and sharing effective processes and approaches, 

and setting expectations for grantees. 

During the course of our review, BJA revised its adult drug court program 

performance measures to improve their reliability and usefulness. BJA 

provided us with the revised measures on October 28, 2011. According to 

BJA officials, unclear definitions of some of the previous measures 

confused grantees about what data elements they were expected to 

collect. For example, officials told us that grantees may have been 

confused with how to measure “the number of participants admitted” and 

“the number of drug court participants.” Specifically, BJA officials added 

that their analysis of several years of data shows that some grantees 

reported the same number for these two measures, some grantees 

reported a higher number than were admitted, a few grantees reported a 

lesser number for the number of participants than the number admitted, 

and some grantees reported these two measures in each of these three 

ways over multiple reporting periods. According to BJA officials, such a 

wide degree of variability made these measures unreliable, and BJA was 

thus hindered from comparing grantee performance data across grantee 

cohorts. 

BJA’s performance measure revisions resulted in the following: 

 All grantees are required to report on “participant level” measures. 

Examples of these measures include the demographic make-up of 

their drug court participant populations, the amount of service 

provided to their participants, and the geographic location of their drug 

courts; 

 Enhancement, Joint, and Statewide grantees are required to report on 

participant level outcomes, such as graduation rates, to ensure 

consistency with measures BJA collects from Implementation 

grantees; 

 Measures previously excluded from the PMT, such as retention rates 

and outcomes of participants once they complete the drug court 

program, are now included; 

BJA Recently Revised Its 

Drug Court Performance 

Measures 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

 BJA has established two sets of benchmarks as points of reference 

against which to gauge grantees’ performance. The first set of 

benchmarks requires a comparison of grantees’ performance against 

averages of drug court performance derived from research. The 

second set of benchmarks requires a comparison of grantees’ 

performance to historical performance data reported to BJA by adult 

drug court grantees; and 

 BJA revised the descriptions and the definitions of the measures to 

help ensure their clarity. 

To revise the performance measures, BJA officials consulted with 

technical assistance providers and a drug court researcher to discuss 

possible improvements to the performance measures, reviewed drug 

court literature, and reviewed and analyzed BJA grantees’ clarification 

and information requests to identify the most common problems adult 

drug court grantees historically experienced submitting performance 

information to BJA.28 In addition, BJA obtained comments on the 

proposed measures from BJA staff and other DOJ stakeholders, as well 

as Enhancement, Implementation, Joint, and Statewide grantees.29 BJA 

officials also invited all current grantees to participate in four 

teleconferences to obtain their feedback on the feasibility of collecting and 

reporting the new measures and their suggestions to improve the clarity 

of the measures’ definitions and descriptions. BJA officials finalized the 

new measures in October 2011 and plan to closely monitor grantees’ 

performance data submissions to ensure the reliability and usefulness of 

the measures and then revise as necessary after the first reporting 

period. BJA officials also stated that they expected to review the 

measures’ overall reliability and validity after the first reporting period—

October 1, 2011, through December 30, 2011. 

BJA officials reported that the revised measures will strengthen the 

reliability and improve the usefulness of grantee performance data in 

 

28The technical assistance providers included: American University, Tribal Law and Policy 

Institute, Center for Court Innovation, the National Association of Drug Court 

Professionals, the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Center for State 

Courts. 

29BJA reported that DOJ stakeholders consulted included staff from NIJ, OJP, DOJ’s 

Policy, Management, and Planning Branch, DOJ’s Chief Financial Officer, the Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs, and BJA’s Director. 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

making grant-related decisions. For example, BJA officials stated that 

reliable and useful data would help them to identify the most effective 

grantees and common characteristics these courts share to inform the 

types of drug courts the officials choose to fund in future grant 

solicitations. BJA officials also reported that as a result of the revision, 

they expect to be able to conduct more sophisticated analyses using 

GrantStat that are needed to inform grant-related decisions. For example, 

BJA officials told us that implementing benchmarks and participant level 

measures will enable the agency to compare similar drug courts (e.g., 

large-urban jurisdictions of similar size, demographic make-up, and 

geographic context) to one another and across jurisdictions, thereby 

improving BJA’s understanding of grantees’ impact on the populations 

they serve. 

BJA’s process to revise its performance measures generally adhered to 

some of the key practices that we have identified as important to ensuring 

that measures are relevant and useful to decision-making. These key 

practices included obtaining stakeholder involvement30 and ensuring that 

the measures have certain key attributes, such as clarity.31 The key 

practices also describe the value of testing the measures to ensure that 

they are credible, reliable and valid32 and documenting key steps 

throughout the revision process.33 However, BJA could take actions to 

improve its efforts in these two areas. For instance, BJA officials told us 

that after the grantees’ first reporting period concludes, they plan to assess 

 

30GAO, Information Security: Concerted Effort needed to Improve Federal Performance 

Measures, GAO-09-617 (Washington, D.C.: September 2009); GAO, Results-Oriented 

Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual Performance and Organizational 

Success, GAO 03-488 (Washington, D.C.: March 2003); and GAO, Managing for Results: 

Measuring Program Results That Are Under Limited Federal Control GAO/GGD-99-16, 

(Washington, D.C.: December 1998). 

31These attributes are clarity, reliability, linkage to strategic goals, objectivity, and 

measurable targets. See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax 

Filing Season Performance Measures, GAO-03-143, (Washington, D.C.: November 2002); 

and GAO, Recovery Act: Department of Justice Could Better Assess Justice Assistance 

Grant Program Impact, GAO-11-87 (Washington, D.C.: October 2010). 

32GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability Provisions Could 

Lead to Better Results, GAO-06-1046 (Washington, D.C.: September 2006). 

33GAO-09-850R; GAO, Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and 

Validation of Agency Performance Information, GAO/GGD-99-139 (Washington, D.C.: 

July, 1999). 

BJA Could Enhance Two 

Key Practices as It 

Continues to Review and 

Revise Its Adult Drug 

Court Performance 

Measures 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

the data that grantees submitted to ensure that the measures produce 

reliable and useful data over at least the first quarter of fiscal year 2012. 

They stated that if necessary, at that point they will then further revise the 

measures. Nevertheless, BJA officials have not documented how they will 

determine if the measures were successful or whether changes would be 

needed. In addition, BJA officials did not record key methods and 

assumptions used to guide their revision efforts, such as the feedback 

stakeholders provided and BJA’s disposition of these comments. For 

example, BJA officials provided a document generally showing the original 

performance measure; whether it was removed, revised or replaced; and 

BJA’s justification for the action, but this document did not demonstrate 

how BJA had incorporated the stakeholder feedback it considered when 

making its decisions. The document also did not include a link to a new 

performance measure in instances where an older one was being replaced. 

Further, BJA’s justification did not include the rationale for the changes it 

made to 22 of the 51 performance measures. According to BJA officials, 

they did not document their decisions in this way because of the rapid 

nature of the revision process and limited staff resources. They also told us 

that maintaining such documentation and providing it to stakeholders held 

little value. 

Our previous work has shown the importance of documentation to the 

successful development of effective performance measures.34 In the past, 

we have reported that revising performance measures involves a number of 

aspects needing to be carefully planned and carried out and that by 

documenting the steps undertaken in developing and implementing the 

revised measures, agencies can be better assured their revisions result in 

effective performance measures.35 In addition, academic literature on the 

best practices for developing effective performance measures states that 

agencies should develop products to document and guide their revision 

efforts. These products, among other things, can include plans for ensuring 

the quality and integrity of the data for full-scale implementation of the 

measures.36 Further, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government call for clear documentation of significant events, which can 

 

34GAO-05-927. 

35GAO/GGD-99-139. 

36Theodore H. Poister, Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. 

The Jossey-Bass Non-Profit and Public Management Series (San Francisco: JosseyBass, 2003). 
 

Page 19 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

include assumptions and methods surrounding key decisions, and this 

documentation should be readily available for examination.37 As BJA moves 

forward in assessing the revised measures and implementing additional 

changes, if it deems necessary, BJA could better ensure that its efforts result 

in successful and reliable metrics and are transparent by documenting key 

methods used to guide revision efforts and an assessment of its measures. 

This would also help bolster the integrity of its decisions. 

In the evaluations we reviewed, adult drug-court program participation was 

generally associated with lower recidivism. Our analysis of evaluations 

reporting recidivism data for 32 programs showed that drug court program 

participants were generally less likely to be re-arrested than comparison 

group members drawn from the criminal court system, although the 

differences in likelihood were reported to be statistically significant in 18 

programs.38 Across studies showing re-arrest differences, the percentages 

of drug court program participants rearrested were lower than for 

comparison group members by 6 to 26 percentage points. One program 

did not show a lower re-arrest rate for all drug-court program participants 

relative to the comparison group within 3 years of entry into the program, 

although that study did show a lower re-arrest rate for drug court 

participants who had completed the program than for members of the 

comparison group. In general, the evaluations we reviewed found larger 

differences in re-arrest rates between drug-court program completers and 

members of the comparison group than between all drug-court program 

participants and the comparison group members. The rearrest rates for 

program completers ranged from 12 to 58 percentage points below those 

 

37GAO-AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

38We report findings to be statistically significant only if they were significant at the 95-

percent, or greater, level of statistical significance, even though some studies reported 

findings to be statistically significant at the 90-percent level. In general, the evaluations we 

reviewed reported differences in overall rearrest rates—that is, the percentage of a group 

rearrested for any new offense in a given period of time—although some evaluations 

reported differences in the number of re-arrests or the relative odds of re-arrest. Of the 32 

programs reviewed, 31 showed lower recidivism for drug court program participants, and 

for 18 of these programs, the differences were statistically significant. The findings for the 

remaining 13 programs were either not statistically significant or the significance of their 

findings was not reported. 

Drug Courts Were 

Associated with 

Lower Recidivism and 

Relapse Rates for 

Program Participants 

Than Criminal Courts 
 

Page 20 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

of the comparison group.39 The completion rates reported in the 

evaluations we reviewed ranged from 15 percent to 89 percent. 

Included among the evaluations we reviewed was the MADCE, a 5-year 

longitudinal process, impact, and cost evaluation of adult drug courts. The 

MADCE reported a re-arrest rate for drug court participants that was 10 

percentage points below that of the comparison group; specifically, 52 

percent of drug court participants were re-arrested after the initiation of 

the drug court program, while 62 percent of the comparison group 

members were re-arrested.40 However, the 10 percentage point difference 

between these rearrest rates for the samples of drug court participants 

and comparison group members was not statistically significant. The 

MADCE study also reported that drug court participants were significantly 

less likely than the comparison group to self-report having committed 

crimes when they were interviewed 18 months after the baseline (40 

percent vs. 53 percent), and drug court participants who did report 

committing crimes committed fewer than comparison group members. 

We assigned a numerical rating to each evaluation to reflect the quality of 

its design and the rigor of the analyses conducted. Our methodology for 

rating the evaluation studies is detailed in appendix III. After assigning the 

rating, we grouped the studies into two tiers. Tier 1 studies were the most 

carefully designed and incorporated substantial statistical rigor in their 

analyses. Tier 2 studies, while still meeting our basic criteria for 

methodological soundness, were relatively less rigorous in their design and 

analyses. Both tier 1 and tier 2 studies reported differences between drug 

court participants and comparison group members and both sets of studies 

found that some but not all differences were statistically significant.41

Table 3 shows whether a difference in recidivism rates was reported for 

each program—expressed as the difference in the rate of re-arrest 

 

39It is important to note that the studies we reviewed did not include treatments other than 

drug court; for example, they did not measure the relative effectiveness of drug treatment 

programs administered outside of a drug court. 

40These percentages were adjusted for differences in the baseline characteristics of the 

individuals in the two groups compared as well as differences in the baseline 

characteristics of the programs they were in. 

41The range of percentage differences for re-arrest rates was narrower for higher quality 

studies as a group than for lower quality studies, and the differences for higher quality 

studies did not range as high. 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

between all drug court program participants and the comparison group. In 

some cases the difference in recidivism was reported as something other 

than a difference in the re-arrest rate, such as a difference in the number 

of arrests or the relative odds of an arrest. In those cases, table 3 notes 

that a difference was reported, but does not include the difference in rearrest rates. For example, the evaluation of the Queens Misdemeanor 

Treatment Court reported that the re-arrest rate for program participants 

was 14 percentage points lower than the re-arrest rate of comparison 

group members up to 2 years after participants entered into the program, 

and 10 percentage points lower at 3 or more years after entry. Similarly, 

the evaluation of the Hillsborough County Adult Drug Court reported a 

statistically significant difference in the relative odds of an arrest after 

drug court program enrollment but did not report the difference in rearrest 

rates, therefore table 3 indicates a statistically significant reduction in 

rearrest rates but does not show the difference in rates. 

Table 3: Differences in Reported Rearrest Rates between Drug Court Program Participants and Comparison Group Members 

 

Percentage point difference in rate of 

re-arrest where reported, time frame covered 

Drug court program (state) 

Reduction 

reported? 

Reduction 

statistically 

significant?a Up to 1 year 

after entry 

Up to 2 years 

after entry

3 or more 

years after 

entry

Tier 1 Evaluations 

Breaking the Cycle Program (Florida) Yes No -10%b 

Hillsborough County Adult Drug Court (Florida) Yesc Yes 

Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court (Maryland) Yes No -9%

 -8%d

Queens Misdemeanor Treatment Court (New York) Yes Yes -14%* -10%*

Multnomah County Drug Court (Oregon) Yese Yes 

MADCE (Multiple States) Yes No -10%

Breaking the Cycle Program (Washington) Yes Yes -10%*f 

Tier 2 Evaluations 

Multiple Drug Courts (California) Yes Not reported -12%

Sacramento Drug Court (California) Yes Not reported -20%

Guam Adult Drug Court (Guam) Yes Yesg -20% 

Ada County Drug Court (Idaho) Yes Yes -25%*h

Multiple Drug Courts (Idaho) Yesi Yes 

Monroe County Drug Treatment Court (Indiana) Yes Not reported -16% 

St. Joseph County Drug Court (Indiana) Yes Not reported -16%
 

Page 22 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

 

Percentage point difference in rate of 

re-arrest where reported, time frame covered 

Drug court program (state) 

Reduction 

reported? 

Reduction 

statistically 

significant?a Up to 1 year 

after entry 

Up to 2 years 

after entry

3 or more 

years after 

entry

Vanderburgh County Day Reporting Drug Court 

(Indiana) 

Yes Yesj -9%

Baltimore City Circuit Court Adult Drug Treatment 

Court and Felony Diversion Initiative (Maryland) 

Yes Yesj 

Baltimore City District Court Adult Drug Treatment 

Court (Maryland) 

Yesk No 

Harford County District Court Adult Drug Court 

(Maryland) 

Yes Yesj 

Howard County District Court Drug Treatment Court 

(Maryland) 

Yes No -13% -10% 

Montgomery County Adult Drug Court (Maryland) Yes Yes -26%* -19%*

Prince George’s County Circuit Court Adult Drug 

Court (Maryland) 

No No 0% +1%

Wicomico County Circuit Court Adult Drug 

Treatment Court (Maryland) 

Yes Yes -24%* -18% 

Suffolk County Drug Court (Massachusetts) Yes Yes -6%*

Barry County Adult Drug Court (Michigan) Yes Not reported -24%

Kalamazoo County Adult Drug Treatment Court 

(Michigan) 

Yes Yesj -14%

Unnamed Drug Court (Midwest) Yesl No 

Kings County District Attorney’s Office Drug 

Treatment Alternative to Prison Program (New York) 

Yes Yes -22%* -18%* -22%* (3 yrs)

 -26%* (4 yrs)

Multiple Drug Courts (Ohio) Yesm Yes -18%*

Multnomah County Clean Court (Oregon) Yes Not reported -16% 

Marion County Adult Drug Court (Oregon) Yes Not reported -14%

Multiple Drug Courts (Oregon) Yes Yes -12%*

Rutland County Adult Drug Court (Vermont) Yes Yes -23%*

Source: GAO analysis of drug court program evaluations. 

*The difference was reported to be statistically significant. 

a

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

significant. 

b

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

c

Study reported a statistically significant difference in the relative odds of an arrest between 12 and 

18 months after drug court program enrollment. 

d

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

e

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

reported. 

f

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

Page 23 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

g

Study reported a statistically significant difference in the average number of arrests resulting in court 

filings after program initiation between the treatment and comparison groups, but did not report the 

significance of the difference in rates of arrest resulting in court case filings. 

h

Study reported a statistically significant difference in the rate of new court filings following program 

initiation. Statistical controls, if any, were not presented. 

i

Study reported a statistically significant difference in the rate of new court filings following program 

initiation for program completers. Statistical controls, if any, were not presented. 

j

While the differences in rearrest rates were not reported as significant, or not reported at all, study did 

report a statistically significant difference in average number of re-arrests between the treatment and 

comparison groups. 

k

Re-arrest rates for drug court participants were lower than for comparison group members for some 

years over a 10-year period, but none of the differences was statistically significant. 

l

Study reported a difference in re-arrest rates of -12% for program completers vs. the comparison 

group, which was not statistically significant. 

mFindings reflect a comparison group that combines multiple courts. 

The evaluations we reviewed showed that adult drug-court program 

participation was also associated with reduced drug use. Our analysis of 

evaluations reporting relapse data for eight programs showed that drug 

court program participants were less likely than comparison group 

members to use drugs, based on drug tests or self-reported drug use, 

although the difference was not always significant.42 This was true for 

both within-program and post-program measures, and whether drug use 

was reported as the difference in the frequency of drug use or the 

proportion of the treatment and comparison groups who used drugs. 

The MADCE concluded drug courts produce significant reductions in drug 

relapse. Specifically, MADCE reported that “drug court participants were 

significantly less likely than the comparison group to report using all drugs 

(56 vs. 76 percent) and also less likely to report using ‘serious’ drugs (41 

vs. 58 percent), which omit marijuana and ‘light’ alcohol use (fewer than 

four drinks per day for women or less than five drinks per day for men). 

On the 18-month oral fluids drug test, significantly fewer drug court 

participants tested positive for illegal drugs (29 vs. 46 percent). Further, 

among those who tested positive or self-reported using drugs, drug court 

participants used drugs less frequently than the comparison group.” 

Regarding post-drug court program relapses, the MADCE concluded that 

participation in drug court—along with less frequent drug use among 

offenders prior to arrest, and the absence of mental health problems—

 

42We are reporting on the eight programs for which drug -relapse data from drug court 

participants were compared with a comparison group. Evaluations of other programs 

included information on drug-relapse only for drug court participants. 
 

Page 24 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

were the strongest predictors of success against relapses. Table 4 

summarizes the results of drug-use relapse reported in the evaluations 

we reviewed. 

Table 4: Drug Use Relapse Results of Evaluations GAO Reviewed 

Drug court program (state) Results of drug use relapse 

Drug tests 

Barry County Adult Drug Court (Michigan) Reduction within-program: Drug court participants generally had fewer positive drug test 

results than the comparison group in the 12-month period following program initiation. 

St. Joseph County Drug Court (Indiana) Reduction within-program: At all times during a 12-month period following program 

initiation, the drug court participants had a lower percentage of positive urine drug screens 

than the comparison group sample. 

Vanderburgh County Day Reporting Drug 

Court (Indiana) 

Reduction within-program: At all times during the 12-month period following program 

initiation, the drug court participants had a lower percentage of positive urine drug screens 

than the comparison group. 

Methamphetamine Treatment Project 

(California) 

Reduction within-program: Results show that drug court participants were significantly 

more likely than comparison participants to provide a higher proportion of clean urine 

samples, 97.3 percent versus 90.5 percent, respectively. 

Reduction post-program: There were substantial reductions in methamphetamine use 

over time for drug court participants compared to non-drug court comparison participants 

at program completion, and at 6 and 12 months following program completion. 

Self-reported drug use 

Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court 

(Maryland) 

Reduction post-program: Participants in the treatment group had about 27 fewer days of 

alcohol use, 19 fewer days of cocaine use, and 28 fewer days of heroin use on average 

compared to the control group. The differences were statistically significant only for the 

effect on cocaine. Among participants originating in the circuit court, the average number 

of days of cocaine use was 50 days lower in the treatment group than the control group. 

Breaking the Cycle (Florida) Reduction within-program: Approximately 9 months after the initial arrest, drug court 

participants were less likely to report drug use in the past 30 days (24 percent) than the 

comparison group (33 percent); however, this difference was not significant at the 95 

percent level. 

Breaking the Cycle (Washington) Reduction within-program: Approximately 9 months after the initial arrest, there was no 

significant difference between the percentage of drug court participants (50 percent) and 

the comparison group (51percent) who self-reported drug use in the past 30 days. 

Both drug tests and self-reported use 

MADCE (Multiple States) Reduction 18 months after program initiation: 56 percent of drug court participants 

reported using any drugs compared with 76 percent among the comparison group; 41 

percent of the drug court participants reported using “serious” drugs (not marijuana or light 

alcohol use) compared with 58 percent among the comparison group. 29 percent of drug 

court participants tested positive for illegal drugs compared with 46 percent of the 

comparison group. Among those who tested positive or self-reported using drugs, drug 

court participants used drugs less frequently than the comparison group. 

Source: GAO analysis of adult drug court program evaluations. 
 

Page 25 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Of the studies we reviewed, 11 included sufficient information to report a 

net benefit figure. Of these studies, the net benefit ranged from positive 

$47,852 to negative $7,108 per participant. The net benefit is the 

monetary benefit of reduced recidivism accrued to society from the drug 

court program through reduced future victimization and justice system 

expenditures, less the net costs of the drug court program—that is, the 

cost of the program less the cost of processing a case in criminal court. A 

negative net benefit value indicates that the costs of the drug court 

program outweigh its estimated benefits and that the program was not 

found to be cost beneficial. Eight of the studies reported positive net 

benefits—the benefits estimated to accrue from the drug court program 

exceeded the program’s net costs. Three of the 11 studies reported 

negative net benefits. We did not attempt to determine whether the 

differences in the reported values were because of differences in study 

methodology or the attributes of the drug courts themselves. The 

environment in which the drug court operates may also be important. For 

example, the largest net benefit reported was for Kings County, in which 

members of the comparison group were incarcerated, in contrast to other 

programs in which members of the comparison group were given 

probation, which is less costly. The more costly the alternative, such as 

incarceration, the more likely a drug court will have positive net benefits. 

In this case, the study reported that society would accrue $47,852 in 

benefits relative to conventional court processing. 

Table 5 below shows whether, based on the available information, the 

study was shown to be cost beneficial. It also shows the net benefits per 

participant of the drug court study. For example, MADCE found that the 

drug court participants led to a net benefit of $6,208 per participant—

within the range of the other studies.43 The MADCE analysis of costs and 

benefits is discussed further in appendix II. 

 

43The estimate of $6,208 reflects the hierarchical modeling used in the MADCE study. 

However, according to NIJ officials, the estimated net benefits could be as low as $5,680, 

under different assumptions. 

Drug Court Programs Were 

Associated with Both 

Positive and Negative Net 

Benefits 
 

Page 26 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Table 5: Cost Conclusions of the 11 Drug Court Program Evaluations in Our CostBenefit Review 

Drug court program (state) 

Program shown 

to be cost 

beneficial? 

Net 

benefits

Kings County District Attorney’s Office Drug Treatment 

Alternative to Prison Program (New York)a Yes $47,836

Multiple Drug Courts (Maine) Yes $42,177

Douglas County Drug Court (Nebraska) Yes $11,336

Multnomah County Drug Court (Oregon) Yes $10,826

MADCE (Multiple States) Yesb $6,208

Multiple Drug Courts (Kentucky) Yes $5,446

St. Joseph County Drug Court (Indiana) Yes $3,148

St. Louis City Adult Felony Drug Court (Missouri) Yes $2,615

Vanderburgh County Day Reporting Drug Court (Indiana) No ($1,640)

Barry County Adult Drug Court (Michigan) No ($3,552) 

Monroe County Drug Treatment Court (Indiana) No ($7,108)

Source: GAO of drug court program evaluations. 

a

Comparison was to prison population. 

b

Because of the variability in the estimate, the MADCE study could not determine that the net benefits 

were statistically significant. Most other studies did not report on whether differences in cost were 

statistically significant. 

During the course of our review, BJA made strides in managing its adult 

drug court program, including implementation of the GrantStat process 

and recent revisions to the grantee performance measures. Given that 

BJA has committed to testing its new measures during this first grantees’ 

reporting period, enhancements could be made to facilitate this 

assessment. By documenting how it plans to assess the measures and 

determine any changes that may be needed and providing the rationale 

for future revisions, BJA could bolster the transparency and integrity of its 

decisions. Doing so could also improve the reliability of the data it 

collects, its usefulness to managers in guiding the program, and the 

success of its measures. 

Conclusions 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

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. This documentation 

should include both a plan for how BJA will assess the measures after 

conclusion of the grantees’ first reporting period and a rationale for 

why each measure was refined, including a discussion of the scope 

and nature of any relevant stakeholder comments. 

We provided a draft of this report to DOJ for review and comment. On 

December 1, 2011, we received written comments on the draft report 

from DOJ, which are reproduced in full in appendix VIII. DOJ concurred 

with our recommendation and described actions under way or planned to 

address the recommendation. DOJ also provided technical comments, 

which we incorporated as appropriate. 

DOJ stated that BJA will continue to document grantee feedback and will 

ensure that revisions to the measures are documented in accordance 

with GAO’s best practices standards. In particular, DOJ stated that BJA 

will document (1) whether the name and definition of the measure is 

consistent with the methodology used to calculate it; (2) whether the 

measure is reasonably free from bias; (3) whether the measure meets the 

expectation of the program; and (4) its rationale for why each 

performance measure was refined, including the scope and nature of any 

relevant stakeholder comments. We believe that such actions would 

improve the reliability of the information collected, its usefulness to 

managers in making key decisions on program operations, and the 

success of its measures. 

Recommendation for 

Execution Action 

Agency Comments 
 

Page 28 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

We are sending copies of this report to the Attorney General and 

interested congressional committees. In addition, this report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Should you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, 

please contact me at (202) 512-9627 or by e-mail at maurerd@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to 

this report are listed in appendix IX. 

David C. Maurer 

Director, Homeland Security 

 and Justice Issues 
Appendix I: DOJ Has Fully Implemented Most 

of Our 2002 Recommendations and Plans to 

Address the Remaining One 

Page 29 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

The following provides the current status of the seven recommendations 

we made in 2002—which have since been closed—on DOJ’s collection of 

performance data.1

 Specifically, DOJ has fully implemented six of them 

and partially implemented one.2

 DOJ has plans to fully address the 

remaining recommendation related to analyzing performance and 

outcome data collected from grantees and reporting annually on the 

results. Table 6 reflects this status. 

Table 6: Status of DOJ’s Efforts to Address Recommendations We Made in 2002 on DOJ’s Collection of Performance Data to 

Measure the Impact of Federally Funded Drug Court Programs 

Recommendation Actions to address recommendation Statusa

1. Develop and implement a 

management information system 

that is able to track and readily 

identify the universe of drug court 

programs DOJ funds. 

BJA is currently using OJP’s GMS to track and identify the 

universe of BJA funded drug court programs.b

 In 2009, BJA also 

developed the Enterprise Reporting Tool, an internal system, 

which allows BJA to query most, if not all, BJA databases, 

including GMS. BJA officials said this tool allows them to run 

reports on the universe of drug court programs funded by grant 

type, amount awarded, status, year awarded, and jurisdiction. 

Fully implemented 

2. Reinstate the collection of postprogram data, selectively spot 

checking grantee responses to 

ensure accurate reporting. 

On October 28, 2011, BJA provided us with the revised 

performance measures for the Adult Drug Court Discretionary 

Grant Program—which includes the data requirement for 

grantees to track drug-court program participants following their 

program completion. According to BJA officials, data collection 

on the revised measures will take effect with grant activities on 

October 1, 2011, through December 30, 2011. Data entry and 

reporting by grantees in the Performance Management Tool 

(PMT) will begin on January 1, 2012.c

 BJA officials reported 

concerns regarding the usefulness and reliability of postprogram data, emphasizing that once the drug court grants 

expire, drug courts are no longer required to track participants or 

report their status to BJA. BJA reported that it will test this new 

measure (post-program data), along with all other revised 

measures, and monitor for reliability in the data it receives from 

grantees. Having these new measures in place could help 

ensure BJA has the program management data it needs to 

make informed grantee decisions. 

Fully implemented 

 

1

GAO tracks recommendations for implementation and has closed these as either being 

fully or partially implemented. 

2

GAO-02-434. 

Appendix I: DOJ Has Fully Implemented 

Most of Our 2002 Recommendations and 

Plans to Address the Remaining One 
Appendix I: DOJ Has Fully Implemented Most 

of Our 2002 Recommendations and Plans to 

Address the Remaining One 

Page 30 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Recommendation Actions to address recommendation Statusa

3. Take immediate steps to accelerate 

the funding and implementation of a 

methodologically sound national 

impact evaluation and consider ways 

to reduce the time needed to provide 

information on the overall impact of 

federally funded drug court 

programs. 

In 2002, NIJ commissioned the adult drug court evaluation 

(MADCE) that selected multiple sites from across the country for 

review. In June 2011, MADCE was issued, and the main 

objectives were to: (1) test whether drug courts reduce drug use, 

crime, and multiple other problems associated with drug abuse, 

in comparison with similar offenders not exposed to drug courts; 

(2) address how drug courts work and for whom by isolating key 

individual and program factors that make drug courts more or 

less effective in achieving their desired outcomes; (3) explain 

how offender attitudes and behaviors change when they are 

exposed to drug courts and how these changes help explain the 

effectiveness of drug court programs; and (4) examine whether 

drug courts generate cost savings. The evaluation found that 

drug courts prevent crime and substance use and work equally 

well for most participant subgroups. See appendix II for a 

summary of the study. 

Fully implemented 

4. Take steps to ensure and sustain an 

adequate grantee response rate by 

improving efforts to notify and 

remind grantees of their reporting 

requirements. 

In fiscal year 2007, BJA began using GMS to send notifications 

to remind grantees of upcoming due dates for progress reports. 

If a progress report is more than 15 days late, GMS 

automatically freezes the grantee’s available funding until the 

report is submitted. Similarly, the grantee is unable to draw 

down funds on a grant if a financial report is more than one day 

late. BJA officials said that these procedures provide an 

additional tool to assist grant managers in providing adequate 

oversight of grantees’ reporting activities to ensure compliance 

with reporting requirements. 

Fully implemented 

5. Take corrective action toward 

grantees that do not comply with 

data collection reporting 

requirements. 

In fiscal year 2007, OJP implemented a policy whereby available 

grant funds are frozen for noncompliant grantees that are 

delinquent in submitting semi-annual progress reports or 

quarterly financial reports. In addition, BJA has the ability to 

designate a grantee as high risk if the grantee continues to be 

noncompliant in reporting requirements. Once grantees are 

notified of their high-risk designation, all new awards to the 

grantee include high-risk special conditions that provide for 

additional oversight, as necessary, and restrict the grantee from 

obligating, expending, or drawing down funds under the new 

awards from DOJ. 

Fully implemented 
Appendix I: DOJ Has Fully Implemented Most 

of Our 2002 Recommendations and Plans to 

Address the Remaining One 

Page 31 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Recommendation Actions to address recommendation Statusa

6. Analyze performance and outcome 

data collected from grantees and 

report annually on the results. 

Since 2007, using PMT, BJA has collected quarterly quantitative 

performance data from federally funded drug court grantees. 

Semi-annually, BJA also collects responses to seven narrative 

questions that grantees provide using PMT. BJA officials said 

they regularly analyze the numeric data and publish the results 

of the performance measure reporting on BJA’s Web site. BJA 

does not fully analyze and report on the grantees’ responses to 

the narrative questions. As mentioned, on October 28, 2011, 

BJA provided us with the revised adult drug-court program 

performance measures, which include measures previously 

excluded from PMT, such as retention rates and outcomes of 

participants once they complete the program. As noted, BJA 

plans to reassess the reliability of the measures after the initial 

grantee reporting period concludes. After this period, BJA 

officials explained that they will make any necessary revisions or 

changes to the measures—then analyze and report on the 

results. As mentioned previously, BJA initiated a new process 

called GrantStat to maximize the use of performance 

information—providing an analytical framework to assess 

grantee performance data and other relevant information on a 

semi-annual basis to determine the effectiveness of the grant 

programs in BJA’s portfolio. 

Partially 

implemented; BJA 

plans to fully 

implement 

7. Consolidate the multiple DOJ-funded 

drug-court-program-related data 

collection efforts. 

BJA has been using PMT to consolidate data collection efforts 

since 2007. According to officials, PMT allows for grantees’ 

online performance measurement data submission and 

enhanced capacity for BJA to (1) aggregate grantee data across 

performance measures, (2) distill performance by the type of 

adult drug court grant, and (3) more quickly “error check” the 

reliability of grantees’ data submissions. BJA officials said PMT 

allows them to query results and assess performance outcomes, 

which helps them make decisions when designing future grant 

solicitations. According to BJA officials, using PMT to 

consolidate the federally funded drug court program data 

collection efforts enables DOJ to better manage the programs. 

Fully implemented 

Source: BJA. 

a

The following explains the definitions we used in assessing DOJ status in addressing the 

recommendations. Fully implemented—DOJ provided evidence that satisfies the entire 

recommendation. Partially implemented—DOJ provided evidence that satisfies about half of the 

recommendation. Not implemented—DOJ provided no evidence that satisfies any of the 

recommendation. 

b

GMS is an online system designed to make the grant application process easier and more efficient 

for grantees. GMS allows grantees to fill out forms and submit application materials online. 

c

PMT is an online reporting tool that supports BJA grantees’ ability to collect, identify, and report 

performance measurement data activities funded by their award. 
Appendix II: MADCE Is the Most 

Comprehensive Study of Drug Courts to Date, 

but Generalizability of Findings May Be 

Limited 

Page 32 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

NIJ’s MADCE was conducted by the Urban Institute, Center for Court 

Innovation, and Research Triangle Institute.1

 Data were collected from 

1156 drug court participants in 23 different drug courts in 7 geographic 

clusters and from a comparison group of 625 drug-involved offenders in 

six different sites in four geographic clusters. Data collected included: 

three waves of interviews; drug tests; administrative records on treatment, 

arrests, and incarceration; court observation and interviews with staff and 

other stakeholders; and budget and other cost information. The 

evaluation was designed to address the following four questions: 

(1) Do drug courts reduce drug use, criminal behavior, and other 

associated offender problems? 

(2) Do drug courts generate cost savings for the criminal justice system 

and other public institutions? 

(3) Are drug courts especially effective or less effective for certain 

categories of offenders or program characteristics? 

(4) Which drug court policies and offender perceptions explain their 

overall impact? 

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

 Drug courts produce statistically significant reductions in self-reported 

crime. While both the drug court participants and comparison group 

participants reported large numbers of crimes in the year preceding 

the 18-month follow-up, drug court participants reported statistically 

significantly fewer than the comparison group members. Drug court 

participants were less likely than members of the comparison group to 

report committing any crimes (40 percent vs. 53 percent) and drug 

court participants reported committing fewer crimes in the preceding 

12 months than comparison group members (43 criminal acts vs. 88 

criminal acts). The difference between the two groups in the 

 

1

The Urban Institute is a nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization. 

The Center for Court Innovation functions as the independent research and development 

arm for the New York State court system and provides criminal justice consulting services 

to jurisdictions outside New York. The Research Triangle Institute is an independent, 

nonprofit institute that provides research, development, and technical services to 

government and commercial clients. 

Appendix II: MADCE Is the Most Comprehensive 

Study of Drug Courts to Date, but Generalizability 

of Findings May Be Limited 

MADCE Found 

Reductions in 

Recidivism and 

Relapse, but 

Generalizability May 

Be Limited 
Appendix II: MADCE Is the Most 

Comprehensive Study of Drug Courts to Date, 

but Generalizability of Findings May Be 

Limited 

Page 33 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

probability of an official re-arrest over 24 months was not statistically 

significant, though the percentage of individuals rearrested was lower 

for the drug court group than the comparison group (52 percent vs. 62 

percent), as was the average number of re-arrests (1.24 vs. 1.64).2

 Drug courts produce statistically significant reductions in drug use. 

Drug court participants were less likely than members of the 

comparison group to report using any drugs (56 percent vs. 76 

percent) and any serious drugs (41 percent vs. 58 percent), and less 

likely to test positively for drugs at the 18-month follow-up (29 percent 

vs. 46 percent). Furthermore, the large difference in self-reported 

relapse rates is evident at 6 months (40 percent vs. 59 percent), so 

the impact of drug courts on alcohol and other drug use is sustained. 

The interview data also indicate that among the drug court 

participants and comparison group members that were using drugs, 

the drug court participants, on average, were using them less 

frequently. 

 Drug court participants reported some benefits, relative to comparison 

group members, in other areas of their lives. At 18 months, drug court 

participants were statistically significantly less likely than comparison 

group members to report a need for employment, educational, and 

financial services, and reported statistically significantly less family 

conflict. However, there were modest, non-significant differences in 

employment rates, income, and family emotional support, and no 

differences found in experiencing homelessness or depression. 

 Regardless of background, most offenders who participated in drug 

courts had better outcomes than offenders who were in the 

comparison programs. However, the impact of drug courts was 

greater for participants with more serious prior drug use and criminal 

histories, and the impact was smaller for participants who were 

younger, male, African-American, or who had mental health problems. 

 

2

Numbers, percentages, and differences in the foregoing and following bullets, are 

adjusted (or estimated), as opposed to raw (or observed) numbers, percentages or 

differences; that is, they were obtained by the MADCE researchers from statistical models 

that estimated them after adjusting for differences in the baseline characteristics of the 

individuals in the two groups compared as well as differences in the baseline 

characteristics of the programs they were in. 
Appendix II: MADCE Is the Most 

Comprehensive Study of Drug Courts to Date, 

but Generalizability of Findings May Be 

Limited 

Page 34 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

 While the treatment and service costs were higher for drug court 

participants than treatment and service costs associated with the 

alternative “business-as-usual” comparison programs, drug courts 

save money through improved outcomes, according to the 

researchers, primarily through savings to victims resulting from fewer 

crimes and savings resulting from fewer re-arrests and incarcerations. 

The authors of the study assert that their findings have strong internal 

validity—that is, that the findings were actually produced by the drug court 

programs—and external validity—that is, that the findings can be 

generalized to the population of all drug court participants and potential 

comparison group members. The claim to strong internal validity is not 

without merit, given the high response rates, low attrition, propensity 

score adjustments, and conservative estimates produced by the 

hierarchical models used.3

 The claim of high internal validity is also 

supported by the sensitivity analyses undertaken for several outcomes 

using other models and methods of adjustments that produced little or no 

change in conclusions. The claim to strong external validity, which relates 

to the generalizability of the results beyond the sample of courts and 

comparison sites and specific offenders considered, may be somewhat 

overstated. The authors note that the 23 drug courts included in the study 

represent “a broad mix of urban, suburban, and rural courts from 7 

geographic clusters nationwide,” but that doesn’t assure that, collectively, 

the drug courts that were included resemble the hundreds of drug courts 

that were not included, especially since they were not chosen at random. 

It also seems unlikely that the six comparison sites from four states are 

representative of all potential controls, or all alternative programs in all 

states, and it is potentially problematic that all of the selected sites, 

including drug court and comparison sites, were alike in their willingness 

and interest in participating. Those concerns notwithstanding, this is the 

broadest and most ambitious study of drug courts to date; it is well done 

 

3

Propensity score adjustments are a statistical approach to control for baseline differences 

between the drug court and comparison groups and to correct for attrition and selection 

biases by effectively giving greater weight to underrepresented categories of offenders 

and lesser weight to overrepresented categories of offenders. Hierarchical linear models 

are used to take account of the nesting—or clustering—of participants within the different 

sites. These statistical adjustments were necessary as a result of baseline differences 

between specific drug court and comparison groups and the specific individuals in them, 

and because of the attrition that occurred in both the drug offender and comparison 

samples over time. 
Appendix II: MADCE Is the Most 

Comprehensive Study of Drug Courts to Date, 

but Generalizability of Findings May Be 

Limited 

Page 35 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

analytically; and the results, as they relate to the impact of drug courts, 

are transparent and well described. 

The MADCE cost benefit analysis approach differed from most of the 

other studies we reviewed. In most of the other studies, the average cost 

and benefit of a drug court participant was compared to the average cost 

and benefit of normal court processing. In contrast, the MADCE obtained 

a separate net benefit figure for each individual. The net benefit was 

obtained by tracking each individual’s use of resources, such as hearings 

or meetings with case managers, and program outcomes like use of 

public assistance. The MADCE also tracked each individual’s rates of rearrest, number of crimes, and time of incarceration. The crimes are 

multiplied by cost to victims per crime to obtain the cost to society. The 

difference between the net benefits of the drug court participants and the 

comparison group were obtained using a hierarchical model similar to the 

one used for program outcomes. After applying the method, the MADCE 

found that the drug court participants led to a net benefit of $6,2084

 to 

society per participant, as compared to the comparison group. However, 

due to the variability in the estimate, the study did not find that the net 

benefits were statistically significant. 

The lack of a statistically significant difference may be because of greater 

variability in the MADCE approach than the approach used in other 

studies. Specifically, the MADCE did not assume identical costs for each 

participant. As a result, costs may be higher for individuals who have 

lower rates of re-arrest, perhaps because those individuals received more 

treatment. According to the study’s authors, by assuming identical costs 

for each participant, the standard approach understates the variance in 

the computed net benefit figure by not including the variability in cost. 

However, the MADCE authors assumed that the prices of services were 

consistent across sites by using a weighted average. In contrast, some 

studies generate site-specific cost figures. In this way, the MADCE 

approach did exclude one source of variation that is present in some 

other studies. 

 

4

The estimate of $6,208 reflects the hierarchical modeling used in the MADCE study. 

However, according to NIJ officials, the estimated net benefits could be as low as $5,680, 

under different assumptions. 

MADCE’s Cost 

Benefit Analysis 

Focused on 

Individuals 
Appendix II: MADCE Is the Most 

Comprehensive Study of Drug Courts to Date, 

but Generalizability of Findings May Be 

Limited 

Page 36 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

In addition to tracking costs and benefits at the individual level, the 

MADCE also included some effects of drug court participation that some 

other studies omit. This is consistent with OMB guidance that states that 

studies should be comprehensive in the benefits and costs to society 

considered.5

 One of the benefits considered by the MADCE, sometimes 

omitted elsewhere, is the estimated earnings of the drug court participant. 

However, it is unclear that the full value of earnings should have been 

considered a net benefit to society. For example, to be comprehensive, a 

study should also consider the cost to society of providing that benefit. 

The net benefit would account for the value of production from this 

employment less the wages paid. Although in this case, it is unlikely that 

this would affect the result of the analysis, as the earnings are similar for 

drug court participants and the comparison group. 

 

5

Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-94 Guidelines and Discount Rates for 

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs (Washington, D.C.: 1992.) p 4. 
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 37 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

To determine what data DOJ collects on the performance of federally 

funded adult drug courts and to what extent DOJ has used this data in 

making grant-related decisions, we analyzed the reporting guidance and 

requirements that BJA provided in fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to 

grantees applying for Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program 

funds;1

 BJA-generated grantee performance data reports from October to 

December 2010; and BJA’s guides for managing grants and enforcing 

grantee compliance that were issued in fiscal year 2011. We selected 

2007 as the starting point for our review because BJA implemented its 

Performance Measurement Tool (PMT)—an online reporting tool that 

supports BJA grantees’ ability to collect, identify, and report performancemeasurement data activities funded by the grantees’ awards—in fiscal 

year 2007. We also reviewed our prior reports and internal control 

standards as well as other academic literature regarding effective 

performance-management practices.2

 We then used this information and 

BJA officials’ statements to identify and define six management activities 

for which performance information can be most useful in making grantrelated decisions.3

 Further, we interviewed cognizant BJA officials about 

the extent to which they use grantees’ performance data when engaging 

in these management activities, any challenges faced with ensuring 

grantee compliance, ongoing efforts to revise program performance 

metrics, and the extent to which BJA’s revisions incorporate best 

practices we previously identified.4

To determine what is known about the effectiveness of adult drug courts 

in reducing recidivism and substance-abuse relapse rates and what the 

 

1

Grantees are defined as states, state courts, local courts, units of local government, and 

Indian tribal governments acting directly or through an agreement with other public or 

private entities that receive funding under the drug court program. 42 U.S.C. § 3797u(a). 

2

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November, 1999). 

3

The management activities include: (1) setting program priorities; (2) allocating 

resources; (3) adopting new program approaches or changing work processes; (4) 

identifying and sharing with stakeholders more effective processes and approaches to 

program implementation; (5) setting expectations for grantees; and (6) monitoring grantee 

performance. 

4

GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season 

Performance Measures, GAO-03-143, (Washington, D.C.: November 2002); and GAO, 

Recovery Act: Department of Justice Could Better Assess Justice Assistance Grant 

Program Impact, GAO-11-87 (Washington, D.C.: October 2010). 

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 38 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

costs and benefits of adult drug courts are, we conducted a systematic 

review of evaluations of drug-court program effectiveness issued from 

February 2004 through March 2011 to identify what is known about the 

effect of drug court programs on the recidivism of and relapse of druginvolved individuals as well as the costs and benefits of drug courts.5

 We 

also reviewed DOJ’s NIJ-funded MADCE, a 5-year longitudinal process, 

impact, and cost evaluation of adult drug courts that was issued in June 

2011. We identified the universe of evaluations to include in our review 

using a three-stage process. First, we (1) conducted key-word searches 

of criminal justice and social science research databases;6

 (2) searched 

drug court program-related Web sites, such as those of BJA and NADCP; 

(3) reviewed bibliographies, meta-analyses of drug court evaluations, and 

our prior reports on drug court programs;7

 and (4) asked drug court 

researchers and DOJ officials to identify evaluations. Our literature search 

identified 260 documents, which consisted of published and unpublished 

outcome evaluations, process evaluations, commentary about drug court 

programs, and summaries of multiple program evaluations.8

 Second, we 

reviewed the 260 documents our search yielded and identified 44 

evaluations that reported recidivism or substance use relapse rates using 

either an experimental or quasi-experimental design, or analyzed 

 

5

In February 2005, we studied evaluations of drug court programs that were published 

from May 1997 through January 2004. 

6

We searched the ERIC, Biosis Previews, Social Scisearch, Gale Group Magazine 

Database, Gale Group Health & Wellness Database, Gale Group Legal Resource Index, 

Wilson Social Science Abstracts, and Periodical Abstracts PlusText. 

7

Prior GAO reports included, GAO, Drug Courts: Information on a New Approach to 

Address Drug-Related Crime, GAO/GGD-95-159BR (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 1995); 

GAO, Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics, and Results, GAO/GGD-97-106

(Washington, D.C.: July 31, 1997); and GAO, Drug Courts: Better DOJ Data Collection 

and Evaluation Efforts Needed to Measure Impact of Drug Court Programs, GAO-02-434

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 18, 2002); GAO, Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates 

Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes, GAO-05-219

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2005). 

8

A process evaluation assesses the extent to which a program is operating as it was 

intended. It typically assesses program activities’ conformance to statutory and regulatory 

requirements, program design, and professional standards or customer expectations. 
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 39 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

program costs and benefits.9 Third, we used generally accepted social 

science and cost benefit criteria to review the 44 evaluations. 

To assess the methodological quality of evaluations that reported on 

recidivism or relapse rates, we placed each evaluation into one of five 

categories, with category 1 evaluations being the most rigorous and 

category 5 the least, as outlined in table 7. 

Table 7: Methodological Quality Categories for Evaluations of a Drug Court 

Program 

Category Required methodological elements 

1 Random assignment to drug court or control group, drawn from local 

offenders eligible for the program. The sample: (a) is of sufficient size to 

ensure that randomization balances all covariates (e.g., potential predictors 

of outcomes, such as past criminal history); or (b) has constrained key 

covariates to balance in small samples through stratification (e.g., sampling 

subpopulations independently to improve representativeness) or through 

other adjustments. Randomization occurs after eligible offense, not after 

screening or other self-selection. Drug court is compulsory if assigned, and 

rates of attrition from the program are low. 

2 Either 

Random assignment with several factors in group 1 missing, such as small 

sample sizes or some amount of pre-screening of eligible participants; 

or 

Nonrandom assignment, but analysis models or controls for the specific 

process used to assign participants to the drug court when constructing a 

longitudinal comparison group. Alternatively, assignment to the program was 

nonrandom but clearly exogenous to the outcomes. The comparison group is 

similar to the treatment group on any variables the program explicitly uses to 

screen participants, such as “readiness for treatment” or “likely response to 

treatment.” Comparison group is matched on multiple years of pre-treatment 

data. 

 

9

An experimental design is one in which eligible offenders were randomly assigned to 

different programs. A quasi-experimental design is one in which (1) all drug-court program 

participants were compared with an appropriate group of comparable offenders who did 

not participate in the drug court program, and (2) appropriate statistical methods were 

used to adjust, or control, for group differences. 
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 40 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Category Required methodological elements 

3 Either

Problematic random assignment: extremely small sample sizes, many large 

differences between treatment and control groups, randomization that occurs 

after all important forms of self-selection or screening; 

or 

Nonrandom assignment, and the analysis controls for pre-treatment 

outcomes and participant demographics without considering the specific 

process used to assign participants to the program being evaluated. 

Comparison group is used, but has limited pre-treatment covariate data for 

construction. Comparison or treatment groups are constructed in ways that 

could have a clear impact on the outcomes (e.g., truncating the sample). 

4 Nonrandom assignment. Comparison group constructed with few controls for 

pre-treatment outcomes or shows covariate differences with the treatment 

group. Several plausible sources of selection bias, such as preexisting 

differences between the two groups in the degree of substance use. 

5 Nonrandom assignment. Cross-sectional design with few controls, pre-post 

design with no comparison group and few controls, or treatment group that 

includes only program graduates. 

Source: GAO. 

We excluded studies that were placed in category 5 in the table above or 

studies in which the comparison group was not drawn from a criminal 

court. We were left with 33 studies, plus the MADCE, that reported on the 

effectiveness of 32 drug court programs or sets of programs.10 As noted 

in our report, we then grouped the 34 studies, including the MADCE, into 

two tiers according to their quality category, Tier 1 studies were those that 

fell into categories 1 or 2, Tier 2 studies were those that fell into 

categories 3 or 4. 

Observed differences in recidivism could arise from measured and 

unmeasured sources of variation between drug court participants and 

comparison group members. If comparison group members differed 

systematically from drug court participants on variables that are also 

associated with recidivism, such as the degree of their substance-abuse 

addiction problem and these variables were not accounted for by the 

design or analysis used in the evaluation, then the study could suffer from 

selection bias wherein observed differences in recidivism could be 

because of these sources of variation rather than participation in the drug 

court program. As indicated in table 7, our evaluation of the methods 

 

10Some studies reported results that were aggregated from multiple drug court programs. 
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 41 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

used to deal with selection bias was reflected in the quality categorization 

of each study.11

To assess the methodological quality of evaluations that reported on drug 

court program costs and benefits, we assessed them according to the five 

criteria we developed and outlined in table 8 below.12

Table 8: Five Criteria for Assessing a Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Drug Court 

Program 

Criterion Description 

1. States the 

program’s 

purpose 

In general, the purpose of a drug court program is to reduce 

repeated criminal behavior—to reduce recidivism—by reducing 

offenders’ substance-using behavior. 

2. Identifies the 

baseline 

The baseline, or alternative, is what would happen to an offender 

if the drug court program did not exist. 

3. Assesses all 

relevant costs 

The costs involved in a drug court program are those associated 

with the program’s operation and those associated with the 

baseline. 

4. Assesses all 

relevant benefits 

Benefits usually attributed to drug court programs are costs 

avoided because of reduced recidivism; they accrue to the 

criminal justice system and potential victims of crime. Other 

benefits an analysis could consider include reduced medical 

costs and successful program participants’ increased 

productivity. 

5. Assesses 

uncertainty in 

cost and benefit 

estimates 

Most cost and benefit estimates entail uncertainty from 

imprecision in the data underlying the analysis and the 

assumptions built into the analysis. Assessing uncertainty 

enhances confidence in the estimates used in evaluation. 

Source: GAO-05-219. 

We determined that an essential criterion for reporting a net benefit of 

drug courts was that the costs of the drug court were assessed against a 

baseline (i.e., “business-as-usual” or traditional court processing). Eleven 

studies met this essential standard and were used to report on program 

costs and benefits. We excluded other studies not meeting this standard 

even though they may have met others. 

 

11For a summary of how drug court studies have addressed selection bias in the past, see 

GAO-05-219, p 16-24. 

12GAO-05-219, p 27. 
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 42 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

To obtain information on our outcomes of interest—that is, recidivism, 

substance use relapse, and costs and benefits—we used data collection 

instruments to systematically collect information about the methodological 

characteristics of each evaluation, the drug court participants and 

comparison group members studied, and the outcomes of the participants 

and other comparable groups reported. Each evaluation was read and 

coded by a senior social scientist, statistician, or economist with training 

and experience in evaluation research methods. A second senior social 

scientist, statistician, or economist then reviewed each completed data 

collection instrument to verify the accuracy of the information included. 

Part of our assessment also focused on the quality of the data used in the 

evaluations as reported by the researchers and our observations of any 

problems with missing data, any limitations of data sources for the 

purposes for which they were used, and inconsistencies in reporting data. 

We incorporated any data problems that we noted in our quality 

assessments. 

We selected the evaluations in our review based on their methodological 

strength; therefore, our results cannot be generalized to all drug court 

programs or their evaluations. Although the findings of the evaluations we 

reviewed are not representative of the findings of all evaluations of drug 

court programs, the evaluations consist of those evaluations we could 

identify that used the strongest designs to assess drug-court program 

effectiveness. 

To identify the extent to which DOJ has addressed the recommendations 

that we made in 2002 regarding drug court programs, we interviewed 

cognizant DOJ officials and obtained and reviewed documentation (e.g., 

drug-court program grant solicitations and grantee-performance reporting 

guidance) on the actions taken to address and implement each of our 

prior recommendations. We conducted this performance audit from 

November 2010 through December 2011 in accordance with generally 

accepted government-auditing standards. Those standards require that 

we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

objectives. 
Appendix IV: Overview of Drug Court Program 

Characteristics 

Page 43 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

This appendix provides a general description of drug court program 

components (see table 9). Drug court programs rely on a combination of 

judicial supervision and substance-abuse treatment to motivate 

defendants’ recovery.1

 Judges preside over drug court proceedings, 

which are called status hearings; monitor defendants’ progress with 

mandatory drug testing; and prescribe sanctions and incentives, as 

appropriate in collaboration with prosecutors, defense attorneys, 

treatment providers, and others. Drug court programs can vary in terms of 

the substance-abuse treatment required. However, most programs offer a 

range of treatment options and generally require a minimum of about 1 

year of participation before a defendant completes the program. 

Table 9: General Description of Drug Court Program Components 

Drug court elements Description 

Drug court program approaches Drug court programs generally have taken two approaches to processing cases: (1) deferred 

prosecution (diversion); and (2) post-adjudication. In the diversion model, the courts defer 

prosecution dependent on the defendant’s agreement to participate in the drug court program. 

Deferred adjudication models do not require the defendant to plead guilty. Instead the 

defendant enters the drug court before pleading to a charge. Defendants who complete the 

treatment program are not prosecuted further and their charges are dismissed. Failure to 

complete the program results in prosecution for the original offense. This approach is intended 

to capitalize on the trauma of arrest and offers defendants the opportunity to obtain treatment 

and avoid the possibility of a felony conviction. In contrast, defendants participating in a postadjudication (post-plea) drug court program plead guilty to the charge(s) and their sentences 

are suspended or deferred. Upon successful completion of the program, sentences are waived 

and in many cases records are expunged. This approach provides an incentive for the 

defendant to rehabilitate because progress toward rehabilitation is factored into the sentencing 

determination. Both of these approaches provide the defendant with a powerful incentive to 

complete the requirements of the drug court program. Some drug court programs use both 

deferred prosecution and post-adjudication approaches and assign defendants to an approach 

depending on the severity of the charge. Additionally, drug court programs may also combine 

aspects of these models into a hybrid or combined approach. 

 

1

Drug courts funded by BJA are required to involve mandatory periodic drug testing, 

graduated sanctions for participants who fail drug tests, and continuing judicial supervision 

over offenders, among other requirements. 42 U.S.C. §§ 3797u- u-8. 

Appendix IV: Overview of Drug Court 

Program Characteristics 
Appendix IV: Overview of Drug Court Program 

Characteristics 

Page 44 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Drug court elements Description 

Screening process and participant 

eligibility criteria 

Defendants reach the drug court program from different sources and at varying points in case 

processing. Screening defendants to determine eligibility for a drug court program generally 

includes assessing their criminal history and current case information (e.g., charging offense, 

prior convictions, pending cases, and probation status). Depending on the program, an 

assistant district or prosecuting attorney, court clerk, or drug court coordinator typically 

conducts the review. Drug courts generally accept defendants charged with drug possession 

or other nonviolent offenses such as property crimes. Some drug court programs allow 

defendants who have prior convictions to participate, and others do not. Federal grants 

administered by BJA may not be awarded to any drug court program that allows either current 

or past violent offenders to participate in its program.a

After defendants are determined to be legally eligible for the program, treatment providers or 

case managers will typically determine defendants’ clinical eligibility. This can be determined 

through structured assessment tests, interviews, or even preliminary drug test results. While 

drug courts generally only accept defendants with substance-abuse problems, they vary in the 

level of addiction or type of drug to which defendants are addicted. For example, some 

programs do not accept defendants who only have addictions to marijuana or alcohol, while 

others do. 

Clinical eligibility can also include factors such as medical or mental health barriers and 

motivation or treatment readiness. In several drug court programs in our review, the drug court 

judge’s satisfaction with or assessment of an offender’s motivation and ability to complete the 

program was a factor used to screen defendants. 

Program completion requirements 

Judicial supervision and status 

hearings 

Drug-testing requirements 

Drug court programs typically require defendants to complete a 1-year treatment program in 

order to graduate from or complete the program. Some programs impose other conditions that 

participants must meet in addition to treatment. These conditions could include remaining 

drug-free for a minimum amount of time, not being arrested for a specified period of time, 

maintaining employment or obtaining an educational degree or certification, or performing 

community service. 

The central element of all drug court programs is attendance at the regularly scheduled status 

hearings, at which the drug court judge monitors the progress of participants. Monitoring is 

based on treatment-provider reports on such matters as drug testing and attendance at 

counseling sessions. The judge is to reinforce progress and address noncompliance with 

program requirements. The primary objectives of the status hearing are to keep the defendant 

in treatment and to provide continuing court supervision. More broadly, judicial supervision 

includes regular court appearances and direct in-court interaction with the judge, as well as 

scheduled case manager visits. 

Monitoring participants’ substance use through mandatory and frequent testing is a core 

component of drug court programs. Programs vary in the specific policies and procedures 

regarding the nature and frequency of testing. For example, in some programs in our review 

participants were required to call to find out whether they are required to be tested in a given 

period or on a randomly selected day of the week. The frequency of testing generally varied 

depending on the stage or phase of the program that participants were in. 
Appendix IV: Overview of Drug Court Program 

Characteristics 

Page 45 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Drug court elements Description 

Treatment components In most drug court programs, treatment is designed to last at least 1 year and is generally 

administered on an outpatient basis with limited inpatient treatment, as needed, to address 

special detoxification or relapse situations. Many of the programs operate with the philosophy 

that because drug addiction is a disease, relapses can occur and that the court must respond 

with progressive sanctions or enhanced treatment, rather than immediate termination. 

Treatment services are generally divided into three phases. Detoxification, stabilization, 

counseling, drug education, and therapy are commonly provided during phases I and II, and in 

some instances, throughout the program. Other services relating to personal and educational 

development, job skills, and employment services are provided during phases II and III, after 

participants have responded to initial detoxification and stabilization. Housing, family, and 

medical services are frequently available throughout the program. In some instances, a fourth 

phase consisting primarily of aftercare-related services is provided. The objectives of drugcourt program treatment are generally to (1) eliminate the program participants’ physical 

dependence on drugs through detoxification; (2) treat the defendant’s craving for drugs 

through stabilization (referred to as rehabilitation stage) during which frequent group or 

individual counseling sessions are generally employed; and (3) focus on helping the defendant 

obtain education or job training, find a job, and remain drug free. 

Drug court programs can also either directly provide or refer participants to a variety of other 

services and support, and they may include medical or health care, mentoring, and educational 

or vocational programs. The use of community-based treatment self-help groups, such as 

Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous, and aftercare programs also varies across 

drug court programs. 

Sanctions for noncompliance Judges generally prescribe sanctions and incentives as appropriate in collaboration with 

prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment providers, and others. Typical sanctions for program 

noncompliance include oral warnings from the judge; transfer to an earlier stage of the 

program; attendance at more frequent status hearings, treatment sessions, or drug tests; and 

serving jail time for several days or weeks. The approach or philosophy for how a drug court 

judge prescribes sanctions can vary. For example, some judges use a graduated sanctions 

approach, where sanctions are applied in increasing severity. Other judges may use discretion 

in prescribing sanctions, assessing participants’ noncompliance on a case-by-case basis. 

Termination criteria Drug court programs typically use various criteria for ending a defendant’s participation in the 

program before completion. These criteria may include a new felony offense, multiple failures 

to comply with program requirements such as not attending status hearings or treatment 

sessions, and a pattern of positive drug tests. 

Before terminating a defendant for continuing to use drugs, drug court programs generally will 

use an array of treatment services and available sanctions. There are no uniform standards 

among all programs on the number of failed drug tests and failures to attend treatment 

sessions that lead to a participant’s termination. Drug court program judges generally make 

decisions to terminate a program participant on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the 

recommendations of others, including the treatment provider, prosecutor, and defense 

counsel. Relapses are expected, and the extent to which noncompliance results in 

terminations varies from program to program. Once a defendant is terminated, he or she is 

usually referred for adjudication or sentencing. 

Source: GAO-05-219. 

a

42 U.S.C. § 3797u-1- u-2. Violent offenders generally include those who have been charged with or 

convicted of an offense that is punishable by a term of imprisonment of greater than one year, and 

the offense involved a firearm or dangerous weapon; death or serious bodily injury; or the use of 

force. Past violent offenders include those who have one or more prior convictions for a felony crime 

of violence involving the use or attempted use of force against a person with the intent to cause death 

or serious bodily harm. § 3797u-2. 
Appendix V: Ten Key Components of a Drug 

Court— Developed by BJA in Collaboration 

with the National Association of Drug Court 

Professionals 

Page 46 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Table 10: Ten Key Components of a Drug Court 

1. Integration of substance-abuse treatment with justice system case processing. 

2. Use of a non-adversarial approach, in which prosecution and defense promote public 

safety while protecting the right of the participant to due process. 

3. Early identification and prompt placement of eligible participants. 

4. Access to continuum of treatment, rehabilitation, and related services. 

5. Frequent testing for alcohol and illicit drugs. 

6. A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to participants’ compliance. 

7. Ongoing judicial interaction with each participant. 

8. Monitoring and evaluation to measure achievement of program goals and gauge 

effectiveness. 

9. Continuing interdisciplinary education to promote effective planning, implementation, 

and operation. 

10. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based 

organizations generates local support and enhances drug court program 

effectiveness. 

Source: BJA. 

Appendix V: Ten Key Components of a Drug Court— 

Developed by BJA in Collaboration with the 

National Association of Drug Court Professionals 
Appendix VI: BJA Offers Solicitations in Four 

Broad Drug-Court Grant Categories—

Implementation, Enhancement, Statewide, and 

Joint 

Page 47 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

As mentioned, the Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program 

provides financial and technical assistance to states, state courts, local 

courts, units of local government, and Indian tribal governments to 

develop and implement drug treatment courts. There are four different 

types of awards that BJA makes to adult drug-court grantees through the 

program. Table 11 provides a description of the grant types. 

Table 11: Adult Drug-Court Discretionary Grant Program—Grant Type and 

Description 

Grant type Description 

Implementation grants Available to jurisdictions that have completed planning and 

are ready to implement an adult drug court. Grantees may 

use their awards to fund various court operations and 

services including offender supervision, management, and 

services; provision and coordination of non-treatment 

recovery support services; and childcare and other family 

supportive services. 

Enhancement grants Available to jurisdictions with fully operational adult drug 

courts. Applicants may use funding to expand their target 

population, enhance court services, or enhance offender 

services. 

Statewide grants Used to improve, enhance, or expand drug court services 

statewide by encouraging adherence to the evidence-based 

design features and through activities such as: training and/or 

technical assistance programs for drug court teams geared to 

improve drug court functioning and to increase drug court 

participation and participant outcomes; tracking, compiling, 

coordinating, and disseminating state drug court information 

and resources; increasing communication, coordination, and 

information sharing among drug court programs; conducting a 

statewide drug court evaluation; or establishing a statewide 

automated drug-court data collection and/or performance 

management system. 

Joint grants BJA, in collaboration with the Department of Health and 

Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration (SAMHSA), offers a joint grant 

program for the enhancement of adult drug court services, 

coordination, and substance-abuse treatment capacity.a

Successful applicants are awarded two grants: an 

Enhancement grant from BJA and a Behavioral Health Court 

Collaboration Grant from SAMHSA. This joint program offers 

grantees the opportunity to design a comprehensive strategy 

for enhancing drug court capacity while accessing both 

criminal justice and substance-abuse treatment funds under a 

single grant application. 

Source: BJA. 

a

SAMHSA is authorized under section 509 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

§ 290bb-2) to provide Adult Treatment Drug Court grants. 

Appendix VI: BJA Offers Solicitations in Four 

Broad Drug-Court Grant Categories—

Implementation, Enhancement, Statewide, 

and Joint 
Appendix VII: Key Management Activities 

Identified for Which Performance Information 

Can Be Most Useful 

Page 48 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Table 12: Definitions: Key Management Activities Identified for Which Performance 

Information Can Be Most Useful 

Key management 

activities 

How performance information may be used to support 

the activity 

a. Setting program 

priorities 

Performance information is used to set priorities in 

budgeting and to target resources. Agencies can also use 

this information to identify priorities on which to focus their 

efforts. For example, targeting grants to address 

“underserved” client groups. 

b. Allocating resources Performance information is used to compare results of 

agencies’ programs with goals and to identify where 

program resources should be targeted to improve 

performance and achieve goals. When faced with reduced 

resources, such analyses can assist agencies’ efforts to 

minimize the impact on program results. 

c. Adopting new program 

approaches or changing 

work processes 

Performance information is used to assess the way a 

program is conducted and the extent to which a program’s 

practices and policies have or have not led to 

improvements in outcomes. Such information is used to 

identify problems and consider alternative approaches and 

processes in areas where goals are not being met and to 

enhance the use of program approaches and processes 

that are working well. 

d. Identifying and sharing 

with stakeholders more 

effective processes and 

approaches to program 

implementation 

Performance information is used to identify and increase 

the use of program approaches that are working well and 

share these effective processes and approaches with 

stakeholders. 

e. Setting expectations for 

grantees 

Performance information is used to establish the targets 

and goals that grantees are expected to achieve. These 

targets and goals can be used as the basis for corrective 

action (e.g., technical assistance, freezing of funds) or to 

reward high performing grantees. 

f. Monitoring grantee 

performance 

Performance information is used to compare grantees’ 

performance results with established targets and goals to 

determine the extent to which grantees have met them 

and, if necessary, target program resources (e.g., 

technical assistance) to improve grantees’ performance. 

Source: GAO analyses. 

Note: We identified the first four management activities above as relevant from governmentwide 

surveys of federal managers conducted in 1997, 2000, and 2003. See GAO-05-927. The remaining 

two activities we identified by reviewing performance management literature. In defining the 

management activities, we reviewed the literature identified and met with BJA officials to determine 

the extent to which they agreed with our definitions. BJA staff confirmed each of these six to be 

relevant to managing the drug court program. 

Appendix VII: Key Management Activities 

Identified for Which Performance 

Information Can Be Most Useful 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Page 49 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance 
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department 

of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Page 50 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 
Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 51 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

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

In addition to the contact named above, Joy Booth, Assistant Director and 

Frederick Lyles, Jr., Analyst-in-Charge, managed this assignment. 

Christoph Hoashi-Erhardt, Michael Lenington, and Jerry Seigler, Jr., 

made significant contributions to the work. David Alexander, Benjamin 

Bolitzer, Michele Fejfar, and Doug Sloane assisted with design and 

methodology. Pedro Almoguera, Carl Barden, Harold Brumm, Jr., Jean 

McSween, Cynthia Saunders, Jeff Tessin, Susan B. Wallace, and 

Monique Williams assisted with evaluation review. Janet Temko provided 

legal support, and Katherine Davis provided assistance in report 

preparation. 

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Bibliography 

Page 52 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Bouffard, Jeffrey A., and Katie A. Richardson. “The Effectiveness of Drug 

Court Programming for Specific Kinds of Offenders: Methamphetamine 

and DWI Offenders Versus Other Drug-Involved Offenders.” Criminal 

Justice Policy Review, 18(3) (September 2007): 274-293. 

Carey, Shannon M., and Michael W. Finigan. Indiana Drug Courts: St. 

Joseph County Drug Court Program Process, Outcome and Cost 

Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007. 

Carey, Shannon M., and Michael W. Finigan. Indiana Drug Courts: 

Vanderburgh County Day Reporting Drug Court Process, Outcome and 

Cost Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007. 

Carey, Shannon M., and Michael W. Finigan. “A Detailed Cost Analysis in 

a Mature Drug Court Setting: A Cost-Benefit Evaluation of the Multnomah 

County Drug Court.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20(3) 

(August 2004): 315-338. 

Carey, Shannon M., Michael W. Finigan, et. al. Indiana Drug Courts: 

Monroe County Drug Treatment Court Process, Outcome and Cost 

Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007. 

Carey, Shannon M., Michael Finigan, Dave Crumpton, and Mark S. 

Waller. “California Drug Courts: Outcomes, Costs and Promising 

Practices: An Overview of Phase II in a Statewide Study.” Journal of 

Psychoactive Drugs (November 2006). 

Carey, Shannon M., Lisa M. Lucas, Mark S. Waller, Callie H. Lambarth, 

Robert Linhares, Judy M. Weller, and Michael W. Finigan. Vermont Drug 

Courts: Rutland County Adult Drug Court Process, Outcome, and Cost 

Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2009. 

Carey, Shannon, and Gwen Marchand. Marion County Adult Drug Court 

Outcome Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2005. 

Carey, Shannon M. and Mark S. Waller. Oregon Drug Court Cost Study: 

Statewide Costs and Promising Practices-Final Report. Portland, OR: 

NPC Research, 2010. 

Carey, Shannon M., and Mark Waller. California Drug Courts: Costs and 

Benefits-Phase III. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2008. 

Bibliography 
Bibliography 

Page 53 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Carey, Shannon M., and Mark S. Waller. Guam Adult Drug Court 

Outcome Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007. 

Dandan, Doria Nour. Sex, Drug Courts, and Recidivism. University of 

Nevada, Las Vegas: 2010. 

Ferguson, Andrew, Birch McCole, and Jody Raio. A Process and SiteSpecific Outcome Evaluation of Maine’s Adult Drug Treatment Court 

Programs. Augusta, ME: University of Southern Maine, 2006. 

Finigan, Michael W., Shannon M. Carey, and Anton Cox. Impact of a 

Mature Drug Court Over 10 Years of Operation: Recidivism and Costs 

(Final Report). Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2007. 

Gottfredson, Denice C., Brook W. Kearley, Stacy S. Najaka, and Carlos 

M. Rocha. “How Drug Treatment Courts Work: An Analysis of Mediators.” 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(1) (February 2007): 3-

35. 

Gottfredson, Denice C., Brook W. Kearley, Stacy S. Najaka, and Carlos 

M. Rocha. “Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug 

treatment court: Results from an experimental study.” Journal of 

Experimental Criminology, 2(1) (January 2006): 67-98. 

Gottfredson, Denice C., Brook W. Kearley, Stacy S. Najaka, and Carlos 

M. Rocha. “The Baltimore City Drug Treatment Court: 3-Year Self-Report 

Outcome Study.” Evaluation Review, 29(1) (February 2005): 42-64. 

Krebs, C.P., C.H. Lindquist, W. Koetse, and P.K. Lattimore. “Assessing 

the long-term impact of drug court participation on recidivism with 

generalized estimating equations.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 91(1) 

(November 2007): 57-68. 

Labriola, Melissa M. The Drug Court Model and Chronic Misdemeanants: 

Impact Evaluation of the Queens Misdemeanor Treatment Court. New 

York, NY: Center for Court Innovation, 2009. 

Latimer, Jeff, Kelly Morton-Bourgon, and Jo-Anne Chrétien. A MetaAnalytic Examination of Drug Treatment Courts: Do They Reduce 

Recidivism? Ottawa, Ontario: Department of Justice Canada, 2006. 

Listwan, Shelley Johnson, James Borowiak, and Edward J. Latessa. An 

Examination of Idaho’s Felony Drug Courts: Findings and 
Bibliography 

Page 54 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Recommendations-Final Report. Kent State University and University of 

Cincinnati: 2008. 

Logan, T. K., William H. Hoyt, Kathryn E. McCollister, Michael T. French, 

Carl Leukefeld, and Lisa Minton. “Economic evaluation of drug court: 

methodology, results, and policy Implications.” Evaluation and Program 

Planning, 27 (2004):381–396. 

Loman, Anthony L. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the St. Louis City Adult 

Felony Drug Court. Institute of Applied Research. St. Louis, MO: 2004. 

Lowenkamp, Christopher T., Alexander M. Holsinger, Edward J. Latessa. 

“Are Drug Courts Effective: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Journal of 

Community Corrections. (Fall 2005): 5-28. 

Mackin, Juliette R., Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan. Harford 

County District Court Adult Drug Court: Outcome and Cost Evaluation. 

Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2008. 

Mackin, Juliette R., Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan. Prince 

George’s County Circuit Court Adult Drug Court: Outcome and Cost 

Evaluation. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2008. 

Mackin, Juliette R., Lisa M. Lucas, Callie H. Lambarth, Mark S. Waller, 

Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan. Baltimore City Circuit Court 

Adult Drug Treatment Court and Felony Diversion Initiative: Outcome and 

Cost Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2009. 

Mackin, Juliette R., Lisa M. Lucas, Callie H. Lambarth, Mark S. Waller, 

Theresa Allen Herrera, Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan. 

Howard County District Court Drug Treatment Court Program Outcome 

and Cost Evaluation. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2010. 

Mackin, Juliette R., Lisa M. Lucas, Callie H. Lambarth, Mark S. Waller, 

Theresa Allen Herrera, Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan. 

Montgomery County Adult Drug Court Program Outcome and Cost 

Evaluation. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2010. 

Mackin, Juliette R., Lisa M. Lucas, Callie H. Lambarth, Mark S. Waller, 

Theresa Allen Herrera, Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan. 

Wicomico County Circuit Court Adult Drug Treatment Court Program 

Outcome and Cost Evaluation. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2009. 
Bibliography 

Page 55 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Mackin, Juliette R., Lisa M. Lucas, Callie H. Lambarth, Mark S. Waller, 

Judy M. Weller, Jennifer A. Aborn, Robert Linhares, Theresa L. Allen, 

Shannon M. Carey, and Michael W. Finigan. Baltimore City District Court 

Adult Drug Treatment Court: 10-Year Outcome and Cost Evaluation.

Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2009. 

Marchand, Gwen, Mark Waller, and Shannon M. Carey. Barry County 

Adult Drug Court Outcome and Cost Evaluation-Final Report. Portland, 

OR: NPC Research, 2006. 

Marchand, Gwen, Mark Waller, and Shannon M. Carey. Kalamazoo 

County Adult Drug Treatment Court Outcome and Cost Evaluation-Final 

Report. Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2006. 

Marinelli-Casey, Patricia, Rachel Gonzales, Maureen Hillhouse, Alfonso 

Ang, Joan Zweben, Judith Cohen, Peggy Fulton Hora, and Richard A. 

Rawson. “Drug court treatment for methamphetamine dependence: 

Treatment response and posttreatment outcomes.” Journal of Substance 

Abuse Treatment, 34(2) (March 2008): 242-248. 

Mitchell, Ojmarrh, and Adele Harrell. “Evaluation of the Breaking the 

Cycle Demonstration Project: Jacksonville, FL and Tacoma, WA.” Journal 

of Drug Issues, 36(1) (Winter 2006): 97-118. 

Piper, R. K., and Cassia Spohn. Cost/Benefit Analysis of the Douglas 

County Drug Court. Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska at Omaha, 2004. 

Rhodes, William, Ryan Kling, and Michael Shively. Suffolk County Drug 

Court Evaluation. Abt. Associates, Inc., 2006. 

Rhyne, Charlene. Clean Court Outcome Study. Portland, OR: Multnomah 

County Department of Community Justice, 2004. 

Rossman, S., M. Rempel, J. Roman, et.al. The Multi-Site Adult Drug 

Court Evaluation: The Impact of Drug Courts. Washington, D.C.: Urban 

Institute, 2011. 

Shaffer, Deborah K., Kristin Bechtel, and Edward J. Latessa. Evaluation 

of Ohio’s Drug Courts: A Cost Benefit Analysis. Cincinnati, OH: Center for 

Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati, 2005. 
Bibliography 

Page 56 GAO-12-53 Adult Drug Courts 

Wilson, David B., Ojmarrh Mitchell, and Doris L. Mackenzie. “A 

systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism.” Journal of 

Experimental Criminology, 2(4) (2006): 459-487.

Zarkin, Gary A., Lara J. Dunlap, Steven Belenko, and Paul A. Dynia. “A 

Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Kings County District Attorney’s Office Drug 

Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) Program.” Justice Research and 

Policy, 7(1) (2005). 

(440998)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper