To determine what experts and the available research indicate about the types of reentry programs and substance abuse programs that are effective or cost beneficial for juvenile offenders, we reviewed relevant literature, studies, and federal resources for juvenile justice programs, and interviewed federal officials and 26 juvenile justice experts. Specifically, to identify the types of programs to review, we conducted a literature search for studies and articles, including evaluations of juvenile reentry and juvenile substance abuse programs in the United States that were published from May 30, 1999, through May 30, 2009. We chose this time frame, the past 10 years, because it provided us with an overview of the available research, including unpublished and ongoing studies, which assesses the effectiveness of reentry and substance abuse programs. We also consulted with OJJDP officials who coordinate research on juvenile justice programs and Department of Health and Human Services officials who oversee substance abuse and adolescent programs to obtain their recommendations for repositories—online databases that contain information on effective programs—and research studies and relevant Web sites for identifying types of reentry and substance abuse programs. Using these recommendations, information from relevant literature, and categories of program types used by OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide, we identified five types of juvenile justice programs that are used to address reentry issues and five types of programs that are used to address substance abuse issues for juvenile offenders. Specifically related to substance abuse, we focused on substance abuse programs that involved relapse prevention treatment for juvenile offenders with substance abuse histories. After consulting with experts and reviewing the literature, we excluded juvenile alcohol abuse programs and substance abuse programs for the general juvenile population as well as at-risk juveniles who are prone to, but have not yet developed, substance abuse problems. For instance, we excluded after school or recreation programs, conflict resolution programs, and school or classroom programs. While all of these programs may have a substance abuse component, this component is not designed to address juvenile offenders’ actual substance abuse problems. After identifying the types of programs to be reviewed, we looked at online databases, academic research, and professional organizations to select subject matter experts—researchers and practitioners—to obtain their views on the types of programs that have been shown to be effective or cost beneficial and the basis they used for making such determinations. We specifically identified researchers who focus on juvenile reentry issues or substance abuse issues and practitioners who operate programs that address these issues. We chose 26 experts to interview as a result of this process. Specifically, we selected 13 individuals with expertise related to juvenile reentry programs, 7 individuals with expertise related to juvenile substance abuse programs, and 6 individuals with both juvenile reentry and substance abuse program expertise. We selected these experts based on several criteria, including their employment histories related to juvenile reentry and substance abuse programs and the number of years they spent studying, evaluating, or managing programs addressing juvenile reentry or substance abuse issues. We evaluated their experience by reviewing the studies the researchers had completed and determining the experience the practitioners had managing the types of juvenile reentry and substance abuse programs selected for our review. See appendix I for the list of experts we interviewed. We asked these experts to provide their views about the effectiveness of program types (e.g., drug courts), rather than about the effectiveness of individual intervention programs (e.g., a specific drug court program that was implemented in one county). Because the Model Programs Guide, like other online repositories, contains information about the effectiveness of individual intervention programs, it does not provide information about the effectiveness of program types. As a result, we were interested in obtaining the experts’ consolidated views of the effectiveness of program types. We also asked the experts to identify other program types—in addition to those that we explicitly asked about—that they considered to be effective or cost beneficial, but no additional program types were mentioned. In addition, we asked the experts to identify factors that in their view could help programs to achieve intended outcomes, such as reducing participants’ recidivism, which are summarized in appendix II. While the results of these interviews cannot be generalized to reflect the views of all experts knowledgeable about juvenile reentry or substance abuse programs, we believe the interviews provided us with a good overview of the available research and valuable information about what program types are considered to be effective by subject matter experts. In addition, while we did not assess the methodological rigor of studies and evaluations in our review, we corroborated expert testimony by reviewing and summarizing the studies or evaluations that experts cited as the basis for their opinions. We also provided the experts with a summary of their opinions to review in order to ensure that we correctly captured their views. To identify the extent to which OJJDP has efforts under way to disseminate information about effective juvenile justice programs and assess the extent to which OJJDP ensures the utility of the information provided, we reviewed documentation, such as OJJDP’s annual reports outlining information dissemination efforts, OJJDP publications, and a contract related to disseminating training information on effective programs. We interviewed knowledgeable OJJDP officials, such as the Training Coordinator and communications policy personnel, about OJJDP’s efforts to disseminate information about effective programs. We selected two of OJJDP’s efforts through which it disseminates information about effective programs—the Model Programs Guide and the National Training and Technical Assistance Center (NTTAC), which provides training and support to the juvenile justice field in identifying and implementing effective programs—because they provide information about effective programs across the range of issue areas in which OJJDP is involved, including reentry and substance abuse programs. We then compared these efforts to guidance articulated by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), which oversees OJJDP, and in prior GAO reports that stresses the importance of assessing whether the information disseminated is meeting the needs of its users. We also interviewed representatives from the two organizations that manage these two information dissemination efforts. Additionally, we asked the 26 juvenile reentry and substance abuse experts we interviewed about their views regarding OJJDP’s information dissemination efforts and their opinions about the effectiveness of these efforts. Although their views cannot be generalized to the entire juvenile justice field, we believe that the experts provided us with a good overview of the utility of the information disseminated by OJJDP. We did not contact recipients of the information OJJDP disseminates for their views on the usefulness of the information provided because of the large volume of recipients and the resulting cost that would be incurred to obtain this input. To assess the extent to which OJJDP has plans in place for its research and evaluation efforts, we reviewed relevant laws related to the office’s role in supporting research and evaluations of juvenile justice programs. We also reviewed relevant DOJ and OJJDP documentation, such as annual reports and strategic plans that contain information on OJJDP’s research and evaluation goals and plans. We interviewed cognizant OJJDP officials about the office’s planning efforts related to research and evaluation. We also reviewed criteria found in standard practices for program management and our prior products that highlight the importance of developing plans to meet goals and help ensure that resources are used effectively, and then compared these criteria to OJJDP’s stated plans. Additionally, we analyzed OJJDP funding and staff data for fiscal years 2005 through 2009 to better understand the resources the office has had available to support its evaluation activities. We chose these years because they provide the most recent overview of OJJDP’s research and evaluation funding. We conducted this performance audit from April 2009 through December 2009 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 audit objectives. Within states’ juvenile justice systems, reentry aims to promote the effective reintegration of juvenile offenders back into communities upon release from residential facilities. Reentry is a process that incorporates a variety of programs to assist juvenile offenders in the transition from residential facilities to communities. In addition, reentry is intended to assist juvenile offenders in acquiring the life skills needed to succeed in the community and become law-abiding citizens and can incorporate the use of education, mental health, drug rehabilitation, or vocational training programs. While reentry begins after a juvenile is released back into the community, to help ensure a seamless transition, a reentry process begins after sentencing, then continues through incarceration, and into the period of release back into the community. According to OJJDP, juvenile justice practitioners and researchers believe that providing supervision and services to juvenile offenders returning to the community will reduce the high rate of recidivism among these juveniles. Several types of programs address juvenile reentry issues, as described in table 1. Substance abuse includes, but is not limited to, the use or abuse of illegal drugs (e.g., heroin), prescription drugs, and nonprescription drugs (e.g., over-the-counter medications available without a prescription, such as cough suppressant). Treatment of substance abuse may occur in a variety of different settings, such as in clinics on an outpatient basis or at a hospital. Treatment can also occur in short- and long-term residential facilities that range from secure environments where juveniles’ activities are physically restricted, to group homes, which are nonsecure settings where juveniles live and receive services in a homelike environment. According to the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, juveniles with addictions to substances can be helped through programs that specifically target the factors associated with substance abuse—such as a family history of such abuse. For example, substance abuse intervention programs, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and family therapy, aim to change a juvenile’s behavior by focusing on improving a juvenile’s response to situations that contributed to prior substance abuse. Substance abuse intervention programs can be provided to juvenile offenders throughout the juvenile justice system: after sentencing, during incarceration, and after release back into the community.