Last reviewed: September 2026
If your jurisdiction runs an adult drug court, veterans treatment court, mental health court, or a justice and mental health collaboration program, begin work now on the next round of Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) funding. BJA posted the FY 2026 Adult Treatment Court Program and Veterans Treatment Court Program solicitations on September 21, 2026, with Grants.gov deadlines of October 30 and October 29. The Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Program (JMHCP) solicitation has not posted as of this review. Applicants have about five weeks.
Some Department of Justice (DOJ) programs do not ask for an evaluation plan and do not let award funds pay for one. BJA treatment court solicitations do both. Applicants who prepare that section ahead of time can use it to gain points. The sections that follow cover BJA’s evaluation requirements, what belongs in a strong treatment court evaluation plan, the mistakes that cost points, and why you should engage an evaluator this week.
I’m Dr. James Pann, principal consultant at EvalNetwork. I have spent more than 25 years as the external evaluator on federally funded justice system and behavioral health programs, including programs funded by DOJ. Treatment courts combine the justice system and behavioral health. That is where I have spent my career.
Where BJA funding stands going into FY 2026
BJA started posting its FY 2026 solicitations in summer 2026. Deadlines run from late August through mid-October. BJA posted the FY 2026 Adult Treatment Court Program (Grants.gov deadline October 30, 2026; JustGrants deadline November 6, 2026) and Veterans Treatment Court Program (Grants.gov deadline October 29, 2026; JustGrants deadline November 5, 2026) solicitations on September 21, 2026. JMHCP has not posted as of this review. Juvenile drug treatment courts apply to OJJDP instead, and our OJJDP guide covers that solicitation. Another route is open indirectly: the BJA FY 2026 Byrne State Crisis Intervention Formula Program, posted August 27, 2026, funds state crisis intervention court proceedings along with mental health courts, drug courts, and veterans treatment courts, with a Grants.gov deadline of October 6, 2026. Courts should ask their state administering agency about subaward plans. Our guide to the two open BJA crisis solicitations covers Byrne SCIP and the Crisis Response Training Program in detail. The FY 2026 Public Safety and Mental Health Initiative closed in Grants.gov on September 25, 2026, with a final JustGrants deadline of October 2, 2026. In mid-August, BJA also posted the Comprehensive Opioid, Stimulant, and Substance Use Site-Based Program (COSSUP) and two Second Chance Act reentry programs.
The FY 2026 treatment court windows run about six weeks from release to the Grants.gov deadline. You can adapt a prepared evaluation plan to the posted solicitation in that span. Writing the evaluation plan from the beginning, while you also write the rest of the application, is much harder in that window.
Several application pieces do not depend on the solicitation text: the program model, the logic model, the data agreements, and the evaluation design. Those pieces carry over directly into the posted solicitation. The same preparation logic applies across this funding cycle. For JMHCP, which has not posted, subscribe to OJP funding alerts and check the BJA funding page so that release day is spent fitting existing material to the solicitation, not writing it for the first time. Our OJJDP guide makes this same argument for juvenile justice applicants.
BJA programs that typically call for an evaluator
BJA still funds programs that connect the justice system with behavioral health, and it has done so across repeated cycles. If your program fits one of these areas, prepare on the assumption that a relevant solicitation will appear:
Adult treatment courts. These are drug courts and hybrid dockets for participants with substance use disorders. In recent solicitations, BJA has required applicants to show they can collect and analyze client-level demographic, performance, and outcome data, and to set out a performance management and evaluation plan.
Veterans treatment courts. These specialty dockets serve veterans in the justice system and often coordinate with Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) services. The evaluation plan has to handle cross-system data. VA treatment records are part of that, and they require their own agreements.
Justice and mental health collaboration. Under JMHCP, criminal justice agencies and mental health agencies work as partners. Funding covers co-responder models, crisis intervention, corrections-based treatment, and reentry coordination. Evaluation of JMHCP is about system change as much as it is about individual outcomes.
Overdose and substance use site-based programs. Through COSSUP and related efforts, agencies fund jail-based treatment, diversion, and community overdose response. Many of the same agencies already run SAMHSA-funded work, and the two funding streams are often used together.
What BJA actually requires on evaluation
In these program areas, the solicitation requires a narrative on how you will collect the data behind the performance measures. Recent treatment court solicitations go further. They ask you to describe the steps you will take to build a performance management and evaluation plan, including how you will collect data, review it, and use it to improve the program. Grantees report through BJA’s Performance Measurement Tool and file semiannual progress reports through JustGrants.
On funding, BJA is one of the permissive offices at DOJ. Applicants may use award funds to conduct project evaluations, following OJP’s guidance on when an evaluation constitutes research under DOJ’s human subjects regulations. You can name an external evaluator in a treatment court application, put a real evaluation in the budget, and be rewarded for both. See our DOJ grant evaluation page for how these rules differ across DOJ’s offices. Our companion post on whether DOJ grant funds can pay for program evaluation covers the details.
What a strong treatment court evaluation plan looks like
Reviewers already know that treatment court evaluation has a mature evidence base. The plans that score well contain these core pieces:
A logic model that matches your court’s actual operations. Build it from how the court actually runs. Tie docket structure, phase requirements, treatment dosage, supervision intensity, and incentives and sanctions to the outcomes you claim.
Fidelity to best practice standards. Published best practice standards describe how treatment courts work best. Coverage includes target population, treatment quality, judicial interaction, and more. Measure fidelity to those standards, not only participant outcomes. Reviewers and technical assistance providers look at fidelity first.
Outcomes beyond graduation. Graduation rate is a program statistic, not an outcome. Track in-program indicators such as retention, drug test results, and phase progression. Track post-program outcomes such as recidivism, employment, and treatment engagement.
A defensible comparison strategy. People enter treatment court through screening, so a comparison that ignores screening makes the program look better than the design supports. Use a well-justified comparison group, a historical cohort, or a matched design. Do not promise a randomized trial you cannot deliver.
Data agreements named and underway. Getting court records, state criminal history repositories, and treatment provider data each takes its own access path. Show reviewers that conversations about data access have already started.
A named evaluator in the management plan. Put that person on the staffing chart, on the timeline, in the budget, and in the meeting structure. Attach a biosketch and a letter of commitment. Our guide on how to choose a program evaluator covers what to look for.
Common weaknesses that cost treatment court applicants points
I have read and written evaluation sections for many years. The same problems appear in those sections:
- The evaluation budget is missing, or it is token. BJA allows evaluation spending. A defensible external evaluation typically runs 8 to 12 percent of the award. A two percent line item signals the plan will not be executed.
- Graduation rate is treated as the outcome. Screening out harder cases can raise that rate, and reviewers know it. Plans built on graduation alone read as unserious.
- Fidelity goes unmeasured. Tracking participants without ever assessing the court’s own adherence to best practice standards misses what the field considers the strongest predictor of results.
- The comparison ignores selection. Volunteers who completed the program are then compared with everyone else. That is the standard selection mistake. State how your design handles who gets into the court in the first place.
- Cross-system data is assumed. Treatment records, court data, and criminal history live in different systems, each with its own gatekeeper. Name the agreements you need and where each one stands, so a reviewer can see that the plan can be carried out.
When BJA applicants should engage an evaluator
Now. The FY 2026 Adult and Veterans Treatment Court solicitations posted September 21, and the first Grants.gov deadline is October 29. An evaluator engaged this week has about four weeks to shape the performance management and evaluation plan. For JMHCP, the preparation window is still open.
This week: choose your evaluator. Draft the logic model. Assess fidelity against best practice standards. Inventory your data systems. Open data-sharing conversations with the court, with treatment providers, and with the state repository.
Next: the evaluator reads what the solicitation requires, adjusts the design, and writes the evaluation and performance management sections. The grant writer works the narrative at the same time.
Before submission: the evaluator provides a biosketch and a letter of commitment, reconciles objectives with the logic model and the budget, and checks the timeline for feasibility.
What evaluation looks like after award
On a typical BJA-funded engagement, the evaluator sets up data collection in the first quarter and aligns it with Performance Measurement Tool requirements so staff do not enter the same data twice. After setup, the work runs on a regular cycle. The court team gets implementation and fidelity findings on a regular cadence, help with semiannual reporting, and analyses of the questions the team actually debates, such as which participants the program serves well and where they leave the program.
If the evaluation is run well, you also get the evidence base needed for sustainability, for the next application, and for state or local funding requests. Treatment courts that can show their results tend to keep their funding.
How EvalNetwork supports treatment court and JMHCP applicants
A treatment court evaluator is an evaluation professional who designs the performance management and evaluation plan in your BJA application, measures fidelity and outcomes after award, and manages Performance Measurement Tool reporting so the court team can focus on running the court.
EvalNetwork is a program evaluation consulting firm. For more than 25 years, we have evaluated justice system and behavioral health programs, including work on programs funded by DOJ, SAMHSA, and other federal agencies. Our DOJ grant evaluation page covers all four of DOJ’s grant-making offices. We serve as the external evaluator named in grant applications. We write the evaluation and performance management sections with your grant writer. We then carry the evaluation through the life of the award. If you expect to apply when the FY 2026 treatment court or JMHCP solicitations post, we can help you prepare the evaluation materials now.
Frequently Asked Questions About Treatment Court Evaluation
Does BJA require an evaluation plan for treatment court grants?
Recent treatment court solicitations from BJA have required a description of your capacity to collect and analyze client-level data, plus a performance management and evaluation plan. Grantees report performance measures through BJA’s Performance Measurement Tool and submit semiannual reports through JustGrants.
Can BJA grant funds pay for an external evaluator?
Yes. The solicitations state that award funds may be used to conduct project evaluations, following OJP’s guidance on project evaluations and DOJ’s human subjects regulations. Among DOJ offices, BJA is one where naming a real external evaluation and putting it in the budget is both allowed and rewarded.
How much should a treatment court budget for evaluation?
Plan on 8 to 12 percent of the total award for a defensible external evaluation. The exact share depends on the design, how many data systems you must use, and the comparison strategy. Read the posted solicitation for any caps before you finalize the budget.
What outcomes should a treatment court evaluation measure?
Track retention, phase progression, and drug test results while people are in the program. After the program, track recidivism, employment, and continued treatment engagement. Also assess fidelity to treatment court best practice standards. Graduation rate alone is not a sufficient outcome.
Can the same evaluator cover our JMHCP and treatment court programs?
In most cases, yes. One evaluator often strengthens both programs, because they share data systems, partners, and populations. That partner can build a single data infrastructure that serves both grants and the reporting each one requires.
Ready to prepare for the FY 2026 treatment court cycle?
If you plan to apply for the Adult or Veterans Treatment Court Program by the October 29 or 30 deadline, or for JMHCP when it posts, now is the time to bring in an evaluator. Schedule a free 30-minute consultation. We will look at your program model, your data, and what your evaluation plan needs.
