The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Pub.L. 100-690), signed into law on November 18, 1988, established grant programs for the purpose of funding drug control and justice system improvement projects at the state and local levels. Title VI, Subtitle C of the Act establishes the Drug Control and System Improvement Grant Program, which provides "formula" grants to state governments. The purpose of the formula grant program is "to assist States and units of local government in carrying out specific programs which offer a high probability of improving the functions of the criminal justice system, with special emphasis on a nationwide and multilevel drug control strategy by developing programs and projects to assist multi-jurisdictional and multi-State organizations in the drug-control problem and to support national drug control priorities." Title 6 also establishes authority for discretionary grants to public and private agencies or organizations, issued directly by the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, to further any of four purposes enumerated in the Act.
The Act also established requirements that the activities funded by these grants be evaluated. With respect to formula grants, it mandates that "Each program funded ...shall contain an evaluation component, developed pursuant to guidelines established by the National Institute of Justice, in consultant with the Bureau of Justice Assistance." In the Program Guidance announcing the formula grant program, the Bureau adds that the "purpose of evaluating each program is to assess how well it has been implemented and to assess the extent to which the activities funded have achieved the program's goals. Such assessments should be designed to provide administrators and policy makers with an improved understanding of whether specific activities accomplish their desired results of furthering the state strategy." The Bureau's Program Guidance also announces that states may choose form among many different assessment methods in designing their evaluation efforts, and it encourages states to undertake "intensive evaluations" where appropriate. (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1988; emphasis added.)
Not all projects or programs must be evaluated. The Act permits the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance to waive this requirement "when in the opinion of the Director - (1) the program is not of sufficient size to justify a full evaluation report; or (2) the program is designed primarily to provide material resources and supplies, such as laboratory equipment, that would not justify a full evaluation report."
With respect to projects funded under the discretionary grant provisions of the Act, the Act establishes that applicants must "describe the method to be used to evaluate the program or project in order to determine its impact and effectiveness in achieving its stated goals; and ...[must] conduct such evaluations according to the procedures and terms established by the Bureau."
The Uses of Evaluations
Although the Act establishes the necessity of evaluating federally-funded programs in order to ensure their accountability, evaluation activities provide other important benefits as well. State administrators and planners need feedback to determine how effectively their strategies achieve the established drug control and system improvement goals. Information about how their plans were implemented and the results of these activities can be used by planners to revise strategies to strengthen their chances of success. This information is also useful for determining whether to expand the project, to undertake similar projects in other jurisdictions, or to spend scarce resources for other purposes altogether. Similarly, project managers can use the results of evaluations to strengthen their ability to achieve their project's goals.
The federal government is interested not only in assisting law enforcement but in supporting the states to act as laboratories for innovations. Because many of the practices developed at the state and local level are new and relatively untested, evaluations are especially suited to distilling the lessons of these experiences for other jurisdictions.