MENU TITLE: National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant Program . 

MENU TITLE: National Assessment of the Byrne
Formula Grant Program

Series: NIJ Research in Brief
Published: June 1997
19 pages
39,302 bytes

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included
in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this
document in its entirety, download the Adobe
Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site
or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420.

Research in Brief
Jeremy Travis, Director

June 1997

National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant
Program
by Terence Dunworth, Peter Haynes, and Aaron J.
Saiger 

The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance Program makes Federal aid
available to State and local criminal justice
agencies. Established by the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse
Act (ADAA-88), the Byrne Program is designed to
help these agencies control violent and
drug-related crime, improve operations, and build
coordination and cooperation among the components
of the criminal justice system. (See "What Is the
Byrne Program?") In 1991, 2 years after the first
grants were awarded, an assessment of the Program's
effectiveness began. The findings of that
assessment are summarized in this Research in
Brief.[1] 

Research objectives, scope, and limitations

The goals of the national assessment were to
examine both the way that Federal, State, and local
activities have been shaped by the Act and the
effectiveness of those activities. These broad
goals led to identification of several specific
issues as the most appropriate focus of the
research. (See "How the Study Was Conducted.") 

It was not possible to consider the Program's
direct impact on violent and drug-related crime at
the national level because of the magnitude of
effort needed to assess the thousands of
initiatives supported by ADAA-88, the difficulty of
isolating specific effects of Program funding
(particularly because it is only a very small
proportion of State and local criminal justice
expenditures), and the complexity of the task of
distinguishing Program effects from those of myriad
factors outside the criminal justice system. Thus,
the study focused on operation and management of
the Program at the Federal level and State and
local responses to it. 

Program funding history, structure, and process

Fluctuations in Federal assistance. In strategy,
objectives, and funding, Federal support for
criminal justice has fluctuated significantly over
the past three decades. The high points in
appropriation levels were reached under the two
major programs of Federal assistance--the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)
program from 1968 to 1980 and the Byrne formula
grant program (and its immediate predecessor) from
the mid-1980s to the present.

Federal assistance as measured in annual dollar
expenditures was highest in the mid-1970s under
LEAA. Comparison of Federal law enforcement
assistance with total State and local criminal
justice expenditures in the past three decades
illustrates the limits of the Federal contribution.
In fiscal year 1994 the Byrne Program contributed
less than 1 percent of State and local criminal
justice expenditures.[2] Moreover, Federal aid has
been a declining proportion of the Nation's efforts
to manage crime. (See exhibit 1.)

Because even the most generous Federal funding has
comprised a small percentage of anti-crime efforts,
it cannot be expected to have much of a detectable
impact on crime nationally. Rather, its effects
should be examined in terms of influence on
criminal justice operations and success in
stimulating change through seeding new programs and
promoting innovation. 

Program goals. In addition to retaining the
drug-related focus of its 1986 predecessor, ADAA-88
emphasized violent crime, improving the criminal
justice system, and enhancing
coordination/cooperation among its various
elements. Other goals included: 

o Developing multijurisdictional drug control
strategies.

o Using strategic plans to target resources on
geographic and substantive areas of greatest need.

o Promoting coordination between Byrne and national
drug control programs. 

Recognizing the broad societal basis of the drug
problem, ADAA-88 transcended criminal justice by
also providing assistance for drug treatment
services (administered by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services), school-based prevention
(administered by the U.S. Department of Education),
and drug control in public housing (administered by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development). 

Federal management and oversight. Although ADAA-88
follows the block grant approach, it also
establishes a number of controls. The most
significant are the requirements of a strategic
plan from the States, a "pass-through" to local
governments of a certain percentage of the award, a
local match of 25 percent of Byrne funds, a 4-year
time limit on projects other than
multijurisdictional task forces, an evaluation
component, and a 10-percent cap on administrative
expenditures. 

Overall, the research suggests that Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA) and Byrne fund recipients
have met or exceeded the statutory requirements
imposed by ADAA-88. This can be said of the States'
strategic planning, review and approval of plans by
BJA, and States' compliance with regulations on
passthroughs and other conditions. 

The assessment concluded that the planning
requirement has been successful in several
respects.

In complying with the legislative mandate to
interpret ADAA-88 and manage the Program, BJA
issues program guidelines that track ADAA-88,
imposes other requirements, and makes other
recommendations to recipients concerning overall
grant administration. The agency's guidance
articulates national priorities that it urges the
States to consider and specifies the steps they
must take to develop their strategies, including
gathering and annually reporting a variety of
crime-related data.

To help identify and replicate successful programs,
ADAA-88 requires that the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ) develop evaluation guidelines and
conduct "a reasonable number" of comprehensive
evaluations of Byrne projects funded by the formula
and discretionary grant programs. A local
evaluation component is also required for each
project, and the States must evaluate, audit,
assess, and account for their programs yearly. 

ADAA-88 also requires that BJA and NIJ report
annually to Congress on program activities and
achievements.[3] Their reports have the potential
to shape future congressional decisions on the
Byrne Program and other forms of Federal criminal
justice assistance. 

Strategic planning

Although States that receive Byrne grants have
considerable independence in allocating funds, they
must submit a statewide strategic plan for
controlling drug-related and violent crime. The
plan must describe the State's drug and crime
problems, current efforts to deal with them, and
the resources needed to do so. It must also explain
how Federal funds will be used. 

Why planning is necessary. The planning requirement
has a number of objectives, among them the need to
carefully target Program funds to ensure they are
not lost among other criminal justice activities,
and to "balance" the discretion given to the States
with documentation that the funds are spent
effectively. Planning can also be justified as a
rational undertaking that helps promote
coordination and order in a criminal justice system
that has traditionally been fragmented. 

Challenges of the planning requirement. One
complication confronting planning results from the
tension between comprehensiveness and
manageability: the more a plan must cover, the
greater the risk it will lose focus and become
difficult to implement. Another complication stems
from the gap between expectation and authority:
plans must embrace the entire State criminal
justice system and coordinate activities outside
it, yet program administrators report they often
have authority only over what is funded by the
Byrne Program. The focus on drugs widens the gap
because most States' drug control agencies are
completely separate from Byrne. 

While meeting the need for comprehensiveness,
planners must follow detailed rules for Program
conduct. These and similar issues explain why BJA
has long emphasized ongoing technical assistance
and held workshops devoted to planning at its
regional conferences. The States' responses to this
assistance have been very positive. 

Benefits of the planning requirement. The
assessment concluded that the planning requirement
has been successful in several respects. It has
provided some Federal control and supervision over
State use of funds through BJA review. Many States
acknowledged that the act of planning confers
credibility on proposed activities, and many said
that planning should continue even if it ceases to
be a Federal requirement.[4] The requirement offers
a valuable opportunity for the States to introduce
strategic considerations into their criminal
justice systems. 

Patterns of funding--dominance of MJTFs

The "purpose areas." Although ADAA-88 gave the
States the latitude to determine specific projects
for which Federal aid could be used, it also
established a set of authorized "purpose areas."
Consistent with the legislative goals, the 21
areas[5] emphasized drug-related programs,
including multijurisdictional task forces (MJTFs)
that integrate Federal, State, and local anti-drug
activities. 

Since grants were first awarded in fiscal year
1989, the commitment of funds has been
overwhelmingly to MJTFs. They received
approximately 40 percent of all subgrant funds in
the period from 1989 to 1994. (See exhibit 2.)
Because projects are allowed 4 years of funding,
and MJTFs have no time limit, the funding pattern
has been stable from FY 1989 through 1993. In both
1989 and 1993 MJTFs dominated the subgrant
awards,[6] and the proportions of next most funded
and least funded "purpose areas" were also similar
in both years. 

That no other purpose area has received more than
10 percent of the total is not, however,
inconsistent with the distribution of criminal
justice funds generally. The share of State and
local criminal justice expenditures allocated to
law enforcement is also large (more than 50
percent), and the Byrne allocation merely echoes
this pattern. 

Among other purpose areas there has been
considerable variation in allocation of funds.
Corrections and drug testing/information systems
have received relatively large proportions: 10
percent and 8 percent, respectively, of all program
grants. Purpose areas such as property crime
prevention, prison industries, public housing, and
project evaluation have rarely been used.

Trends in the overall pattern. The proportion of
funding for corrections and drug
testing/information systems has increased
substantially, while certain areas related to
policing saw substantial proportional decreases
(although with one exception, dollar amounts
remained stable or grew). Community policing and
several areas involving law enforcement innovation
and adjudication and corrections saw strong gains. 

Shift from creation to maintenance of MJTFs. By
1993 the primary focus of innovation had turned to
drug testing and information systems development,
and few new MJTFs were being created. In addition,
funds were allocated to a number of areas that
previously had attracted almost no attention:
community crime prevention, family violence, and
alternative sanctions. The shift to new areas is
consistent with the 4-year limitation on funding,
which made 1992 the final year of possible funding
of projects begun in 1989. 

Few new MJTFs may be created in the future and
maintenance of task forces has become the dominant
concern. Most awards for task forces now support
existing operations, which can continue
indefinitely under current rules. 

Interagency coordination and cooperation 

ADAA-88 addressed the longstanding concern about
fragmentation of the criminal justice system partly
by encouraging multijurisdictional efforts and
partly by promoting statewide integration of
criminal justice system functions. This has
resulted in advances in coordination and
cooperation that seem clearly attributable to the
Byrne Program. (See "Benefits of
Multijurisdictional Task Forces.")

Law enforcement, prosecution, and forensics.
Because most States recognized that
multijurisdictional law enforcement against drugs
requires prosecutorial support, many jurisdictions
included dedicated drug prosecutors as fully
participating MJTF members. Assigning a prosecutor
to the MJTF is an approach that appears to have
worked well. It is not the only successful
arrangement, however. Several jurisdictions
established separate prosecution units that
cooperated effectively with MJTFs.

Because investigators and prosecutors depend on
forensic laboratories, a number of States promoted
coordination of forensic services with MJTFs and
prosecutors. The States studied commonly reported
decreases in turnaround times for laboratory
analyses and better outcomes in cases.

Courts and corrections. Establishing cooperation
between courts and enforcement agencies proved
difficult partly because judges interpreted their
constitutional role as requiring independence from
law enforcement. Overall, the extent of their
participation with other agencies has not been
high.

The same is true of corrections, where cost
considerations have created obstacles. Coordination
and cooperation rarely translate into support for
the many new beds needed as a result of more
convictions of drug offenders. Funding needed for
beds generally exceeds what can be provided on the
small programmatic basis offered by the Byrne
grants. 

Evaluation of Byrne projects 

Evaluation is difficult and complex under any
circumstances, but the abundant difficulties and
complexities involved in evaluating the Byrne
Program are multiplied and magnified by the number
of levels of government participating, the
nationwide scope of the Program, and the myriad
individual projects funded. For individual
projects, BJA and NIJ take several approaches that
include full process and impact evaluations,
program assessments, monitoring, and reporting.
Chief among these approaches are federally funded
studies by independent researchers and assistance
to States for development of in-house evaluation
capabilities. 

Evaluation of individual projects. The greatest
strength of the traditional approach to evaluation
is its methodological rigor. By supporting this
process, NIJ and BJA seek to build a reliable body
of knowledge about Byrne interventions and
programs. This is a valuable and necessary
function, and many of the most salient questions
about the long-term merits of Byrne projects may
not yield to any other approach. 

However, rigorous evaluations take time, and the
evaluated projects are sometimes already completed
by the time final reports are released. A second
consideration is high cost, which limits the number
of evaluations that can be conducted. Between 1989
and 1994, NIJ and BJA were able to fund fewer than
150 evaluations of the more than 5,000 Byrne
Program projects.[7] 

Finally, even well-designed evaluations often
produce equivocal findings because it is difficult
to ensure methodological integrity, the environment
tends to change without warning, and some aspects
of a program are likely to work well while others
do not. Also, more reliable findings generally
emerge from a body of research comprising many
studies rather than from a single study. Taken
together, these factors limit the contribution the
traditional evaluation approach can make to
understanding at the national level.

Evaluations conducted by the States. NIJ and BJA
have actively promoted the idea of increasing the
States' involvement in project evaluation as a way
to compensate for the limited number of evaluations
that the Federal agencies can sponsor. When States
were invited to submit proposals for evaluations to
NIJ in 1990, however, most were methodologically
weak, and as a result few were funded. 

Not surprisingly, this suggested that many State
agencies did not have the research staff necessary
to conduct evaluations. In response, NIJ and BJA
undertook technical assistance programs to expand
State evaluation capabilities. States with strong
evaluation programs have actively participated in
these programs. NIJ's and BJA's aim was not to
transform State agencies into research
organizations, but to increase their awareness of
and sensitivity to methodological issues and to
help them better identify the effects of their
activities. The results of both programs have yet
to be assessed systematically. Currently, BJA and
NIJ are developing new strategies to enhance State
evaluation capability. (See "Update: The Byrne
Program Today.") 

The balance sheet 

Program management and operations. The national
assessment concluded that Federal, State, and local
activities met the statutory requirements of ADAA-
88 with respect to State strategic planning, BJA
review and approval of the strategic plans, and
compliance with regulatory constraints. Interaction
and cooperation between State recipients of Byrne
funding on the one hand and BJA and NIJ on the
other have been effectively developed and have
produced excellent working relationships. 

Strategic planning. Strategic planning, modified
incrementally over time, has proved flexible and
adaptable to many different environments. There is
evidence that many States have come to see planning
as much more than compliance with Federal rules.
For instance, more than 80 percent of the people
who responded to a 1989 survey of all 56 Byrne
Program recipients were confident that strategic
planning would likely continue even if Federal
funding ceased. All seven States participating in
the national assessment affirmed this view.

Most State administrative agency (SAA) officials
suggested the strategic plans be submitted every 3
years, coupled with reports submitted annually. In
fact, this recommendation was anticipated by BJA
and adopted. 

Evaluation. The difficulty in generating
satisfactory evaluations of the program in a
specific State or the Program as a whole is due
largely to structural factors in the Program. Four
factors are particularly relevant. 

One is that ADAA-88 authorizes rather than requires
States to spend a certain amount of their funds on
evaluation. A number of pressures may prevent SAA
officials from committing funds to evaluation. Many
State legislators believe Federal funds should be
used for program purposes. 

Another is that the Act provides no funding to NIJ
and BJA for Byrne evaluations: the agencies must
draw resources from their general appropriations
for that specific purpose. From 1989 to 1994, the
average annual evaluation budget for Byrne Program
research from discretionary BJA funds and
base-budget NIJ funds totaled less than 1 percent
of formula grant funding. (For the States'
contribution to evaluation funding, see "Update:
The Byrne Program Today.") 

The third structural factor consists of the limits
of the classical research model, which, as noted
above, consumes time and other resources and often
produces equivocal results. 
The final structural factor is information
shortfalls. Within BJA and its parent agency, the
Office of Justice Programs, data on subgrants have
contributed little to the achievement of evaluation
objectives. However, since this study began, BJA
has taken several steps to improve these processes.

Notes

1. The initial award by NIJ was given to the RAND
Corporation. Subsequently, project director Terence
Dunworth joined Abt Associates Inc., and the work
was completed there. Four reports of the study are
available: An examination of Federal records of the
State and local projects supported by the Program
from fiscal years 1989 to 1994, a historical review
of Federal legislation that provides criminal
justice assistance, State and local views of the
Program, and a general summary.

2. This exhibit is based on State and local
expenditures in 1990, the latest year for which the
data are available.

3. BJA's most recent report is Bureau of Justice
Assistance Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1994, U.S.
Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice
Assistance, October 1995; NIJ's is Searching for
Answers: Criminal Justice Research, Development and
Evaluation: National Institute of Justice 1995
Annual Report to Congress, U.S. Department of
Justice: National Institute of Justice, July 1996.

4. Such observations come from many sources: the
seven States participating in this evaluation,
attendees at national and regional conferences, and
people who responded to a survey conducted before
this evaluation among the 56 Byrne Program
recipients.

5. In 1993, the number of purpose areas increased
from 21 to 26.

6. Between fiscal years 1990 and 1993 there were
900 to 1,100 of these task forces.

7. Of these 150 evaluations, one-third were for the
formula grant projects; the rest were for
discretionary grant projects.

------------------------------

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Research in Brief: An
NIJ-sponsored national assessment of the Byrne
Program, established by the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse
Act to provide Federal assistance to the States and
local jurisdictions in controlling drug-related
crime and violent crime. 

Key issues: Issues examined were the legislative
foundations of the Act and the level of funding
provided, and trends in funding the several
"purpose areas" for which grants can be made; the
levels of interagency cooperation the Byrne Program
has generated; the degree to which resources have
been more rationally used; the potential for
permanent adoption of innovations the Program has
stimulated; and the extent to which the monitoring,
reporting, and evaluation systems satisfactorily
assess the Program and its projects. The direct
impact of the Program on crime was not examined. 

Key findings:

o The amount of Federal assistance for criminal
justice has historically been small compared to
State and local expenditures, suggesting its
influence would be on operations and that its
impact on crime cannot be easily determined. 

o The Byrne Program has been well implemented at
the State level: there has been compliance 
with statutory requirements for strategic planning
and for Federal review of these plans, and
regulatory constraints have been observed. 

o The strategic planning required by the Act has
resulted in better use of resources. It provides a
valuable opportunity for States to introduce
long-term considerations into their criminal
justice systems. 

o There have been advances in coordination and
cooperation that seem clearly attributable to the
Byrne Program. Multijurisdictional task forces, the
most commonly funded programs, are examples. 

o Structural factors in the Program have made it
difficult to meet the evaluation requirements.
These include lack of a statutory requirement for
evaluation funding, the limits of the classic
evaluation model, and shortfalls in information
gathering. 

o During the study, BJA and NIJ took steps to
improve the States' ability to conduct their own
evaluations. BJA also improved the information
collecting and reporting system. 

Target audience: State and local policymakers, law
enforcement agencies, and researchers.

------------------------------

What Is the Byrne Program?

Through the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local
Law Enforcement Assistance Program (the Byrne
Program), the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA),
U.S. Department of Justice, provides leadership and
guidance in crime and violence prevention and
control to States and local communities. Created by
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and named for a New
York police officer who was killed in the line of
duty, the Byrne Program emphasizes drug-related
crime, violent crime, and serious offenders. It
encourages multijurisdictional and multi-State
efforts to support national drug control policies. 

Two types of funding. BJA makes Byrne Program funds
available in two ways. A discretionary grant
program awards funds directly to public and private
agencies and private nonprofit organizations. A
formula grant program, designed as a working
partnership among Federal, State, and local
governments, awards funds to the States, which in
turn make "subawards" (or subgrants) to State and
local units of government. The formula refers to
the method of determining State award levels. Each
State that applies for funds receives a base amount
of 0.25 percent of the total legislative
allocation, and the remaining funds are allocated
on the basis of the State's population. With an
allocation of $475 million in fiscal year 1996, the
formula grant program is by far the larger of the
two. It is the subject of this assessment. 

Program areas. The formula grant program makes
funds available to improve the functioning of the
criminal justice system and to enforce State and
local laws related to substance abuse. Grants may
be used for personnel, equipment, training,
technical assistance, and information systems. They
can be applied to apprehend, prosecute, adjudicate,
detain, and rehabilitate offenders and provide
victim assistance. There are 26 legislatively
authorized "purpose areas" for which assistance may
be used. (Initially there were 21 areas. These are
listed, along with the area of "administration," in
exhibit 2.) 

Oversight. Each State must develop a statewide
strategy to improve its criminal justice system,
match at least 25 percent of program costs with
non-Federal funds, submit reports for each
subgrant, designate a certain share of the funds
for local jurisdictions, and assign priority in
distributing funds to jurisdictions with the
greatest need. The authorizing legislation mandates
evaluation to identify subgrant programs of proven
effectiveness.

For more details, see Edward Byrne Memorial State
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance, Fact Sheet,
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Assistance, June 1995 (FS000071).

------------------------------

How the Study Was Conducted

The present study is the third in a series of
assessments of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. The
first study examined State responses to the
strategic planning mandate of the Act; the second
examined how States managed and monitored the
subgrants they awarded. The current study is an
overall evaluation of the Act.

Issues studied in the assessment: 

o The legislative foundation of the Program.

o Expenditure of Byrne funding by "purpose area." 

o The cooperation that the Program has engendered
among criminal justice agencies at different
government levels. 

o The degree to which criminal justice system
resources have been more rationally used as a
consequence of the Program.

o The potential for permanent adoption of
successful innovations and strategies that the
Program has stimulated. 

o The extent to which the Program's monitoring,
reporting, and evaluation systems are a
satisfactory means of assessment. 

Reviewing the enabling legislation. The legislation
establishing the Byrne Program was examined to
supply information for later stages of the
assessment. The examination covered the history of
Federal aid to criminal justice, up to and
including the initial Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986
and its reauthorization as ADAA-88, which
established the Program. This longitudinal analysis
helped create a framework for documenting some of
the legislation's strengths and weaknesses.

Determining where the money went. The States'
disbursement of Byrne funding by program and
jurisdiction was examined using the Individual
Project Reporting System (IPRS), BJA's in-house
data base on individual project awards (subgrants).
The IPRS was the most accessible and accurate
information available for the study period. As the
States made subgrants for specific projects, they
submitted reports to BJA containing basic
information about the awards. The resulting data
base constituted the IPRS. The data used for the
assessment covered fiscal years 1989 through 1994
(although only partial data were available from BJA
for 1994). 

Studying the effect on the States. The assessment
examined the extent of change resulting from the
Byrne Program at the State and local levels by
focusing on 7 of the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and 5 territories receiving aid: Arizona,
California, Delaware, Iowa, New York, South
Carolina, and Washington. The States were chosen to
illustrate the matters at issue but not necessarily
to be representative of all jurisdictions. Visits
to these sites took place in 1993 and were followed
up with telephone and written contacts the
following year.

State administrative agency directors and staff in
each State provided information used to assess how
Federal evaluation, training, and technical
assistance have influenced State and local (county)
efforts to control illicit drug use. At the local
level, subgrantee directors were interviewed to
obtain insights about specific projects.
Supplementary information came from document
reviews and regional meetings organized by BJA. The
end result comprised a series of linked case
studies from which general conclusions were drawn.

------------------------------

Benefits of Multijurisdictional Task Forces 

Enhanced operations. By bringing different
enforcement agencies together under one
organizational rubric, the multijurisdictional task
force (MJTF) enables law enforcement agencies to
combine efforts to combat problems arising from the
cross-national and cross-jurisdictional nature of
illicit drug distribution. Though it is difficult
to determine which task forces predated the Byrne
Program, there is little doubt that Program funds
dramatically increased the number of MJTFs
dedicated to the drug problem and enhanced
operations of existing task forces. 

Better coordination. Though an MJTF comprises a
wide variety of agency groupings, a "core"
arrangement generally brings together the
sheriff(s), police departments, and occasionally
special police agencies from one or more counties.
Many MJTFs also include State and Federal
enforcement agencies. 

For the core arrangement, coordination is generally
excellent. Program administrators in the seven
States visited as part of the study were virtually
unanimous in believing that real cooperation had
been achieved. These States considered the MJTF
particularly beneficial for smaller agencies and
believed that contributions at the State level were
an important element of MJTF success. In some
instances, State agencies appear to have provided
the "glue" holding the entire arrangement together.
Their assistance has consisted of much more than
assigning agents who are unknown locally. State
agencies have often offered specialized services
not otherwise available and may have helped upgrade
practices by developing training manuals and
transferring skills among jurisdictions. There is
also evidence that the benefits of this
coordination were spread by rotating officers
through the MJTF. 

Many MJTFs appear to have dealt successfully with
common problems of distributing credit for jobs
well done and sharing forfeited resources. And many
Program participants cited enhanced coordination
between their staff on the one hand and State and
Federal intelligence system operators on the other
as a collateral effect. 

Enhanced coordination has produced synergistic
effects that have transcended individual efforts of
task force members. Although such task forces
existed in some locations before the Byrne Program,
and others were created outside it, the fact that
Byrne funding has supported so many is an
impressive testimonial to what is probably the
Program's most profound and lasting impact. What
has not yet been possible is to assess in any
comprehensive way the impact of MJTFs on the drug
problem. 

------------------------------

Update: The Byrne Program Today 

Even before the national assessment was completed,
both the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the
National Institute of Justice had made changes to
enhance program operations. Many of these changes
anticipated the opportunities for improvement cited
in the assessment report. 

Better administration. Steps taken by BJA include:

o Shifting from requiring annual submission by
States of strategic plans to reduce drug use and
violent crime to requiring submission every 3
years. The States also must submit annually a
report on strategy implementation and evaluation
results. 

o Adopting a more flexible approach to collecting
data for developing strategic plans. BJA no longer
requires standardized data forms, but permits the
States themselves to identify and use data they
believe can best inform the plans. 

o Developing a consistent and effective reporting
system. BJA has improved reporting system
components and ways to link them. The mechanism by
which States obtain approval for funding now
emphasizes performance rather than administrative
compliance.

The Individual Project Reporting System (IPRS),
which records information on subgrants, was
modified to serve as a pointer to the compliance
and performance information. A real-time,
electronic link was created between the IPRS data
base and information about States' progress in
funding projects developed as part of their
strategies. 

Building States' evaluation capacity. BJA and NIJ
have worked together since the early 1990s to build
a firm foundation of evaluation capability for the
States. One measure of success is the increased
amount the States have made available for
evaluation from their formula grants: from 2
percent of formula grant funding in 1990 to 3.6
percent in 1995. 

Since 1990 NIJ and BJA have cosponsored an annual
conference to present ongoing and completed
evaluation research. Held in conjunction with the
conference are workshops on evaluation strategies,
techniques, and funding. NIJ has conducted focus
groups among criminal justice practitioners and
researchers to identify ways to further enhance the
evaluation capabilities of the States and has
recently refocused on encouraging local
practitioner-researcher partnerships. 

Many States are now producing strong evaluation
plans and high-quality evaluations. All States have
improved their data collection, reporting, and
monitoring--steps necessary for better assessments.
Both the State grant recipients and their
subgrantees have benefited from training and
technical assistance in conducting evaluations.
State and local agencies are forging partnerships
with local research organizations and universities
to conduct evaluations of subgrant projects.

------------------------------

Full Reports of Byrne Assessment

Copies of the full reports are available through
the National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS). They are:

National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant
Program, Report #1: Where the Money Went--An
Analysis of State Subgrant Funding Decisions under
the Byrne Formula Grant Program, by Terence
Dunworth and Aaron J. Saiger, unpublished report
submitted to the National Institute of Justice,
December 1996, NCJ 163381. 45 pages.

National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant
Program, Report #2: The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988--A Comparative Analysis of Legislation, by
Terence Dunworth, Scott Green, Peter Haynes, Peter
Jacobson, and Aaron J. Saiger, unpublished report
submitted to the National Institute of Justice,
December 1996, NCJ 163382. 63 pages.

National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant
Program, Report #3: A Seven-State Study--An
Analysis of State and Local Responses to the Byrne
Formula Grant Program, by Terence Dunworth, Peter
Haynes, and Aaron J. Saiger, unpublished report
submitted to the National Institute of Justice
(includes separate executive summary), December
1996, NCJ 163383. 164 pages.

National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant
Program, Report #4: A Policy Maker's Overview, by
Terence Dunworth, Peter Haynes, and Aaron J.
Saiger, unpublished report submitted to the
National Institute of Justice, December 1996, NCJ
163384. 111 pages.

National Assessment of the Byrne Formula Grant
Program: Executive Summary, by Terence Dunworth,
Peter Haynes, and Aaron J. Saiger, unpublished
report submitted to the National Institute of
Justice, December 1996, NCJ 163385. 49 pages.

For information about how to obtain copies, call
NCJRS at 800-851-3420, write to NCJRS at P.O. Box
6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, or e-mail
askncjrs@ncjrs.org Hard copies are available on a
cost-recovery basis for photocopying or through
interlibrary loan. 

------------------------------

This study was conducted by Terence Dunworth,
Ph.D., currently Senior Associate with Abt
Associates Inc.; Peter Haynes, Ph.D., of Arizona
State University; and Aaron J. Saiger of Princeton
University. Assistance was provided by Scott Green,
currently with the Lafayette Group, and Peter
Jacobson, currently with the School of Public
Health, University of Michigan. Support for the
study was provided by NIJ (grant number 91-IJ-CX-
K024) and BJA. The RAND Corporation conducted the
study, with Abt Associates involved in later
stages. For an online version of this document, go
to http://www.ncjrs.org.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported
here are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

The National Institute of Justice is a component of
the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes
the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for
Victims of Crime.

NCJ 162203

Quick Access to NIJ Publication News
For news about NIJ's most recent publications,
including solicitations for grant applications,
subscribe to JUSTINFO, the bimonthly newsletter
sent to you via e-mail. Here's how: 
n Send an e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.orgn Leave the
subject line blankn Type subscribe justinfo your
name  (e.g., subscribe justinfo Jane Doe) in the
body of the message
Or check out the "What's New" section at the
Justice Information Center homepage:
http://www.ncjrs.org