Department of Justice Drug Demand Reduction Activities

Report No. 03-12
February 2003
Office of the Inspector General


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

I. DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION RESOURCES

The drug demand reduction programs reported to the ONDCP do not accurately reflect the DOJ's drug demand reduction efforts. In our judgment, of the 19 DOJ drug demand reduction programs included in the $336 million in FY 2001, 10 programs with obligations of $223 million were not directly related to drug demand reduction. We identified an additional program administered by OJP, with total reported FY 2001 state and local assistance obligations of $50 million that should have been reported as drug demand reduction. Therefore, the DOJ efforts directly related to drug demand reduction consisted of 10 programs with total reported FY 2001 obligations of $163 million. Additionally, our analysis of the methodologies used to prepare drug-related financial information reported to the ONDCP revealed that the estimates used by the COPS Office, DEA, and OJP were not adequately supported.

DOJ Drug Demand Reduction Programs

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 1704 (d), federal agencies are required to submit to the ONDCP, not later than February 1 of each year, a detailed accounting of all funds expended by the agencies for National Drug Control Program activities during the previous fiscal year. These detailed accountings are reported to the ONDCP in each component's Management Assertion Statement. Although, the December 1999 ONDCP Accounting Circular was revised effective May 30, 2002, the financial information included in this report was prepared in accordance with the December 1999 ONDCP Accounting Circular.12

We reviewed the FY 2001 DOJ Management Assertion Statements submitted to the ONDCP to identify total DOJ drug demand reduction programs and obligations. From the Management Assertion Statements, we identified four DOJ components reporting drug demand reduction obligations: the BOP, COPS Office, DEA, and OJP. The four components identified 19 programs, as discussed in Finding I of this report, with total reported FY 2001 drug demand reduction obligations of $336 million, as shown in the table below.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
FY 2001 DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION OBLIGATIONS
($ millions)

DOJ Components & Programs FY 2001
Obligations
Federal Bureau of Prisons $ 38.233
  • Drug Abuse Education Program
  • Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program
  • Non-Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program
  • Transitional Drug Abuse Treatment Program
 
Community Oriented Policing Services 64.207
  • COPS in Schools Program
  • Safe Schools Initiative
 
Drug Enforcement Administration 3.012
  • DEA Demand Reduction Section
  • Integrated Drug Enforcement Assistance (IDEA) Program
 
Office of Justice Programs 230.833
  • Byrne Discretionary Grant Program
  • Byrne Formula Grant Program
  • Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Demonstration Program
  • Criminal Records Upgrade Program
  • Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program
  • Correctional Grant Programs
  • Weed and Seed Program
  • Safe Start Program
  • Juvenile Justice Discretionary Grant Program
  • Title V - Tribal Youth Programs
  • Drug Prevention Demonstration Program
 
Total DOJ Obligations $ 336.285

Analysis of Program Missions, Strategic Goals and Objectives

For each of the programs listed in the above table, we identified the program's mission, strategic goals, and objectives. We reviewed the strategic goals and objectives to determine whether they were consistent with the DOJ and ONDCP strategic plans, listed respectively in Appendix V and Appendix VI of this report. Additionally, we reviewed each program's strategic goals and objectives, in conjunction with the program's mission, to determine whether the program was directly related to drug demand reduction. As stated previously, drug demand reduction efforts, as defined by the ONDCP, include those policies and programs dealing with drug abuse education, prevention, treatment, research, rehabilitation, drug-free workplace programs, and drug testing with an emphasis on reducing the use of illicit drugs. The results of our review are detailed in the following sections for each of the four components.

Federal Bureau of Prisons

According to the BOP, its mission is to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens. The BOP consists of 102 institutions, 6 regional offices, a headquarters office, 2 staff training centers, and 29 community corrections offices. The BOP is currently responsible for the custody and care of approximately 165,000 federal offenders.

Since the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, both of which included increased emphasis on and resources for drug treatment, the BOP has enhanced its treatment programs. With the assistance of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the BOP has instituted a drug treatment strategy that attempts to incorporate "proven effective"13 treatment methods designed to provide treatment to federal offenders. In FY 2001, the BOP reported total obligations for its drug demand reduction programs of $38.2 million to the ONDCP, less than 1 percent of the BOP's $4.3 billion total agency obligations.

The stated missions of each of the four drug demand reduction programs reported by the BOP are:

  • Drug Abuse Education Program provides inmates with specific instruction on the risks involved in drug using and abusing behaviors, presents strategies toward living a drug free lifestyle, while introducing the inmate to the concepts of drug treatment and motivating the inmate to enter and participate in the BOP's Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program.
  • Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program is designed for intensive drug abuse treatment. Inmates are housed separately in residential drug abuse treatment units for up to 12 months. The specialized drug units provide extensive assessment, treatment planning, and individual and group counseling.
  • Non-Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program consists of both group and individual therapy delivered through the psychological services department in each institution. This program offers flexibility of service delivery to inmates who are not eligible for or do not choose to enter the BOP's Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program. Non-residential treatment services are also provided as a follow-up to the BOP's Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program while inmates are awaiting release.
  • Transitional Drug Abuse Treatment Program was developed for successful Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program graduates who are released to the community under the BOP custody. The continuation of treatment, through community-based drug treatment is required of these inmates during this period of the inmate's transition back to society. Additionally, the community transition program now accepts inmates who have not participated in a Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program, but have later been identified to be in need of drug abuse treatment.

As stated in the BOP strategic plan, the goal of the BOP's four drug demand reduction programs listed above is "to provide services and programs to address inmate needs, providing productive use-of-time activities, and facilitating the successful reintegration of inmates into society, consistent with community expectations and standards." The strategic objective of the four BOP drug demand reduction programs is "to provide residential drug abuse treatment for all inmates with a substance use disorder who volunteer for treatment, encourage treatment participation, and provide program completers with quality drug abuse treatment when transferred to a Community Corrections Center."

Based on our analysis, the strategic goals and objectives for the four BOP drug demand reduction programs are consistent with both the DOJ and ONDCP drug demand reduction strategic goals and objectives. Specifically, the programs fall under the DOJ strategic objective No. 6.4, "to provide services and programs to facilitate inmates' successful reintegration into society, consistent with community expectations and standards"; and the ONDCP strategic objective No. 2.4, "to break the cycle of drug abuse and crime." Further, we determined that the four BOP programs, with total reported FY 2001 obligations of $38 million, are directly related to drug demand reduction. The primary focus of the BOP's drug demand reduction programs includes drug abuse education, prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation efforts, which directly address drug demand reduction as defined by the ONDCP.

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

The COPS Office was created by the Attorney General as a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (the 1994 Crime Act). The 1994 Crime Act contained provisions for grants to states and local municipalities across the country to focus on violent crime. The purpose of the grants was to increase the hiring and deployment of police officers and to advance community policing nationwide. The COPS Office administered $8.8 billion in grants over a period of 6 years.

Three primary goals of the COPS Office programs are to: (1) promote the implementation of department-wide community policing in law enforcement agencies across the country; (2) help develop an infrastructure that will institutionalize and sustain community policing after federal funding has ended; and (3) demonstrate and evaluate the ability of agencies practicing community policing to significantly improve the quality of life by reducing the levels of violence, crime and disorder in their communities.14 The COPS Office has instituted a wide variety of grants, including officer hiring programs and other initiatives. In FY 2001, the COPS Office reported total obligations for its drug demand reduction programs of $64.2 million to the ONDCP, about 6 percent of the COPS Office's $1 billion total agency obligations.

The stated missions and purposes of the two drug demand reduction programs reported by the COPS Office are:

  • COPS in Schools Program provides grant funding to state and local law enforcement agencies to fill school resource officer positions and enhance ongoing school safety programs. A requirement of the grant is that the law enforcement agency partner with a school in an effort to create a safe school environment. The partnerships between the law enforcement agencies, schools, and communities focus on developing strategies to utilize program solving and community policing techniques to prevent school violence and the implementation of school safety plans. As defined by the COPS Office, school resource officer activities include efforts that: (1) address crime and disorder problems, gangs, and drug activities affecting or occurring in or around the school; (2) develop or expand crime prevention efforts; (3) educate school-aged students in crime prevention and safety; (4) develop or expand community justice initiatives for students; (5) train students in conflict resolution, restorative justice, and crime awareness; (6) assist in the identification of physical changes in the environment that may reduce crime in or around the school; (7) assist in developing school policy that addresses crime and recommend procedural changes.
  • Safe Schools Initiative provides grant funding to state and local agencies to assist in delinquency prevention, community planning and development, school safety resources and technology development. According to the COPS Office, the funding allows recipients to purchase safety equipment in support of the continuation or enhancement of child welfare efforts within the community. The grant requirements are not specific as to what equipment will be funded under the grant; rather each item is considered on a case-by-case basis during the budget review process.

The COPS Office has not developed its own strategic plan. Instead the COPS Office stated in its FY 2003 OMB budget submission that the COPS in Schools Program falls under the DOJ strategic objective No. 3.5, "to support innovative cooperative and community-based programs aimed at reducing crime and violence and promote resolution of racial tension."

Based on our analysis, the DOJ strategic goal and objective for the COPS in Schools Program does not directly support any of the drug demand reduction goals and objectives established in the ONDCP Strategic Plan. The activities of school resource officers funded under the COPS in Schools Program focus primarily on crime prevention and awareness, enforcement efforts, and school safety, which do not specifically address any of the ONDCP drug demand reduction efforts defined previously. Therefore, we determined that COPS in Schools Program, with total reported FY 2001 obligations of $57 million, is not directly related to drug demand reduction.

In its FY 2003 OMB budget submission, the COPS Office did not identify any DOJ strategic goals or objectives for its Safe Schools Initiative. The COPS Office officials stated that the Safe Schools Initiative funding is earmarked and appropriated by Congress on a year-to-year basis; therefore, the program was not included in the COPS Office budget request. Based on our analysis of the mission for the Safe Schools Initiative, we determined that the program does not directly support any of the drug demand reduction goals and objectives established in the ONDCP Strategic Plan. The primary focus of the Safe Schools Initiative is to fund equipment that assists in school safety, which does not specifically address any of the ONDCP drug demand reduction efforts defined previously. Therefore, we determined that the Safe School Initiative, with total reported FY 2001 obligations of $7 million, is not directly related to drug demand reduction.

The COPS Office agreed with our conclusion that the COPS in Schools Program and the Safe Schools Initiative were not directly related to drug demand reduction. The COPS Office officials stated that the programs were initially reported as drug demand reduction based on a verbal agreement between the ONDCP and COPS Office; however, none of the current COPS Office officials responsible for reporting to the ONDCP were involved in the initial agreement. As a result, the COPS Office officials could not provide any explanation as to why the COPS Office initially agreed to report a portion of these programs as drug demand reduction.

Drug Enforcement Administration

The DEA was established by Executive Order in July 1973 to create a single federal agency to consolidate and coordinate federal drug control activities. The creation of the DEA was in response to the growing availability of drugs in most areas in the United States, the perceived lack or coordination between the United States Customs Service and the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (which was replaced by the DEA), and the need for better intelligence collection on drug trafficking organizations.

According to the DEA, its mission is to enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States; to bring to the criminal and civil justice system of the United States, or any other competent jurisdiction, those organizations and principal members of organizations involved in the growing, manufacturing, or distribution of controlled substances appearing in or destined for illicit traffic in the United States; and to recommend and support non-enforcement programs aimed at reducing the availability of illicit controlled substances on the domestic and international markets.

In FY 2001, the DEA reported total obligations for its drug demand reduction programs of $3 million to the ONDCP, which equates to only 0.2 percent of the DEA's $1.4 billion total agency obligations. See Finding IV for additional information related to the DEA's drug demand reduction activities and funding.

The stated mission of the drug demand reduction program reported by the DEA is:

  • Demand Reduction Section is a unit within the DEA's Office of Congressional and Public Affairs established to implement DEA's drug demand reduction efforts, including: (1) establishing an aggressive program of public awareness education for opinion and community leaders; (2) reaching millions of school-aged children with appropriate and specific drug education and prevention programs; (3) providing support to re-energize the national "parents movement"; and (4) providing businesses and other employees with the tools necessary for establishing and maintaining drug-free workplaces.

In the DEA Strategic Plan, the DEA Demand Reduction Section falls under the strategic goal "to reduce drug-related crime in American communities by utilizing expertise as required by local situations." The specific DEA strategic objective related to the DEA Demand Reduction Section is "to educate local audiences with aggressive drug demand reduction programs."

Based on our analysis, the strategic goal and objective for the DEA Demand Reduction Section are consistent with both the DOJ and ONDCP drug demand reduction strategic goals and objectives. Specifically, the DEA Demand Reduction Section falls under the DOJ strategic objective No. 3.3, "to break the cycle of drugs and violence by reducing the demand for and use and trafficking of illegal drugs." Additionally, the DEA Demand Reduction Section falls under the ONDCP strategic objectives No. 1.1, "to educate parents and other care givers, teachers, coaches, clergy, health professionals, and business and community leaders to help youth reject illegal drugs and underage alcohol and tobacco use"; No. 1.4, "to provide students in grades K-12 with alcohol, tobacco, and drug prevention programs and policies that are research based"; and No. 3.3, "to promote national adoption of drug-free workplace programs that emphasize a comprehensive program that includes: drug testing, education, prevention, and intervention." Further, we determined that the DEA Demand Reduction Section, with total reported FY 2001 obligations of $3 million, is directly related to drug demand reduction. The primary focus of the DEA Demand Reduction Section includes drug abuse education, prevention, and drug-free workplace efforts, which directly address drug demand reduction as defined by the ONDCP.

We also identified an additional drug demand reduction program administered by the DEA. The Integrated Drug Enforcement Assistance (IDEA) Program was not initiated until December 2001; as a result, it was not included in the FY 2001 DEA Management Assertion Statement. The stated mission of the program is:

  • IDEA Program is designed to combine the DEA's enforcement efforts with existing community coalitions to have a long-lasting impact to reduce demand through drug prevention and treatment programs. To accomplish this integrated approach the DEA states that it plans to identify drug trafficking targets and work with state and local law enforcement to develop and execute enforcement operations against the groups identified. The DEA also plans to work with community groups to identify local drug abuse problems, barriers to dealing with the problems, and solutions for these problems. At the time of our audit, the IDEA Program was in the pilot stage; therefore, we could not determine if the planned program approach was implemented.

The IDEA Program was not included in the DEA's OMB budget submission or Strategic Plan; therefore, strategic goals and objectives have not been identified for the program. Based on the planned mission for the IDEA Program, we determined that the drug demand reduction portion of the program falls under ONDCP strategic objective No. 1.6, "to encourage and assist the development of community coalitions and programs in preventing drug abuse and underage alcohol and tobacco use." However, the IDEA Program is still in the development stage; therefore, we could not determine if the planned program approach related to drug demand reduction was implemented or whether the IDEA Program is directly related to drug demand reduction. Based on the planned activities, it appears that IDEA could be a dual-purpose program and could be scored as both enforcement and drug demand reduction.

Office of Justice Programs

The OJP was established in 1984 to provide federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge about crime and related issues, and assist crime victims. The OJP consists of five bureaus, six program offices, and seven agency-wide support offices.15 Within OJP, drug demand reduction programs were included in the: (1) Bureau of Justice Assistance, (2) Bureau of Justice Statistics, (3) Corrections Program Office, (4) Executive Office for Weed and Seed, (5) Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Programs, and (6) Drug Courts Program Office. In FY 2001, OJP reported total obligations for 11 drug demand reduction programs of $231 million to the ONDCP, about 6 percent of OJP's $4.2 billion total agency obligations.

The stated missions of the 11 drug demand reduction programs reported by OJP are:

  • Byrne Discretionary Grant Program provides grant funding to assist states and local units of government to control and prevent drugs and violent crime, and to improve the functioning of all components in the criminal justice system.
  • Byrne Formula Grant Program provides grant funding to assist states and units of local government in carrying out programs that offer a high probability of improving the functioning of the criminal justice system, with a special emphasis on drug and violent crime control strategies.
  • Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Demonstration Program provides grant funding designed to reduce violent and non-violent crimes associated with the distribution and use of alcohol and controlled substances in tribal communities.
  • Criminal Records Upgrade Program provides grant funding to assist states in improving the automation, accuracy, and completeness of criminal records including records of protective orders involving domestic violence and stalking; developing complete and accurate sex offender registries; and facilitating the interstate exchange of such records through national systems.
  • Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program provides grant funding to enhance the capability of states and units of local government to provide residential substance abuse treatment for incarcerated inmates.
  • Correctional Grant Programs provides grant funding for the construction of correctional facilities for the incarceration of offenders.
  • Weed and Seed Program provides grant funding to communities to help develop and implement comprehensive strategies to "weed out" violent crime, drug and gun trafficking, and gang activity and "seed" the neighborhood with programs that achieve and maintain crime prevention and economic revitalization.
  • Safe Start Program provides grant funding to improve the accessibility, delivery, and quality of services for young children (primarily from birth to age 6) and their families who have been exposed to violence or are at risk of exposure.
  • Juvenile Justice Discretionary Grant Program provides grant funding in accordance with Part C of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended. Part C provides the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention with the authority to support research, evaluation, information dissemination, training and technical assistance, statistics, program development and demonstration, and the replication of promising delinquency prevention programs.
  • Title V - Tribal Youth Programs provides Title V grant funding, technical assistance, and training for local delinquency prevention programs. In addition to Tribal Youth Programs, Title V includes grant funding for the following: (1) School Safety Initiative, (2) Safe Schools Task Forces, (3) programs to combat underage drinking, and (4) community prevention grants.
  • Drug Prevention Demonstration Program provides grants designed to develop, demonstrate and test programs to increase perception among children and youth that drug use is risky, harmful and unattractive; and establish a rational framework for preventing and responding to adolescent problem behavior that is substantiated by years of research focused on risk-focused prevention.

During our review of OJP's Management Assertion Statement, we noted that the Drug Courts Program, with $50 million in total reported FY 2001 obligations, was reported as state and local assistance to the ONDCP. The stated mission of the program is:

  • Drug Courts Program provides grant funding and technical assistance for states, state courts, units of local government, local courts, and Indian Tribal governments to develop and implement treatment drug courts that employ the coercive power of courts to subject non-violent offenders to an integrated mix of treatment, substance abuse testing, incentives, and sanctions to break the cycle of substance abuse and crime.

Based on our analysis of the mission, strategic goal, and objective of the Drug Courts Program, we determined that the program was incorrectly classified by OJP and should be classified as drug demand reduction because the program directly relates to drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration. The OJP agreed with our assessment of the Drug Courts Program and had plans to reclassify the Drug Courts Program in its next ONDCP budget submission. As a result, our audit included a total of 12 OJP programs with reported FY 2001 obligations of $281 million.

In addition to the above programs, OJP administers the ONDCP's Drug-Free Communities Grant Program.16 Under an agreement with the ONDCP, OJP provides all administrative functions related to the grants; however, these grants are approved at the discretion of the ONDCP. The grants provide funding to increase citizen participation and strengthen community anti-drug coalition efforts to reduce substance abuse among youth in communities throughout the United States and, over time, to reduce substance abuse among adults.

The OJP has not developed its own strategic plan. Instead OJP stated in its FY 2003 OMB budget submission that:

  • The Byrne Discretionary Grant Program, Byrne Formula Grant Program, Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Demonstration Program, Criminal Records Upgrade Program, and Correctional Grant Programs fall under the DOJ strategic objective No. 3.1, "to improve the crime fighting and criminal justice administration capabilities of state, tribal, and local governments."
  • The Drug Prevention Demonstration Program, Title V - Tribal Youth Programs, and Safe Start Program fall under the DOJ strategic objective No. 3.2, "to reduce youth crime and victimization through assistance that emphasizes both enforcement and prevention."
  • The Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program and Drug Courts Program fall under the DOJ strategic objective No. 3.3, "to break the cycle of drugs and violence by reducing the demand for and use and trafficking of illegal drugs."
  • The Weed and Seed Program falls under the DOJ strategic objective No. 3.5, "to support innovative cooperative and community-based programs aimed at reducing crime and violence and promote the resolution of racial tension."

The OJP FY 2003 OMB budget submission did not identify any strategic goals or objectives for the Juvenile Justice Discretionary Grant Program as a whole.

Based on our analysis of the strategic goals and objectives for the OJP programs shown on the previous page, we determined that the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Demonstration Program, Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program, and Drug Courts Program support ONDCP strategic goal and objective No. 2.4, "to break the cycle of drug abuse and crime." Additionally, we determined that the Drug Prevention Demonstration Program supports the ONDCP strategic goal and objective No. 1.4, "to provide students in grades K-12 with alcohol, tobacco, and drug prevention programs and policies that are researched based." Further, we determined that the four OJP programs, with total reported FY 2001 obligations of $122 million, are directly related to drug demand reduction. The primary focus of the programs includes drug abuse education, prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, and research, which directly address drug demand reduction as defined by the ONDCP.

However, based on our analysis we determined that the remaining eight programs are not directly related to any of the drug demand reduction goals and objectives established in the ONDCP Strategic Plan. Further, for the reasons stated below, we determined that the following programs, with total reported FY 2001 obligations of $159 million, are not directly related to drug demand reduction.

  • The primary focus of the Byrne Discretionary Grant Program includes crime and drug enforcement, as well as criminal justice system improvements, which does not specifically address any of the ONDCP drug demand reduction efforts defined previously.
  • The primary focus of the Byrne Formula Grant Program is to improve state and local criminal justice systems, which does not specifically address any of the ONDCP drug demand reduction efforts defined previously.
  • The primary focus of the Criminal Records Upgrade Program is to assist states in improving criminal records systems, which does not specifically address any of the ONDCP drug demand reduction efforts defined previously.
  • The primary focus of the Correctional Grant Programs is to provide funding for the construction of correctional facilities, which does not specifically address any of the ONDCP drug demand reduction efforts defined previously.
  • The primary focus of the Weed and Seed Program is to enforce and prevent violent crime, which does not specifically address any of the ONDCP drug demand reduction efforts defined previously.
  • The primary focus of the Safe Start Program is to provide services to children exposed to violence, which does not specifically address any of the ONDCP drug demand reduction efforts defined previously.
  • The primary focus of the Juvenile Justice Discretionary Grant Program is juvenile delinquency prevention, enforcement, and improving the juvenile justice system, which does not specifically address any of the ONDCP drug demand reduction efforts defined previously.
  • The primary focus of the Title V - Tribal Youth Programs is juvenile delinquency prevention, which does not specifically address any of the ONDCP drug demand reduction efforts defined previously.

The OJP agreed with our conclusion that the above programs were not directly related to drug demand reduction. In fact, with the exception of the Weed and Seed Program, these programs were eliminated from OJP's FY 2003 budget submission to the ONDCP. The Weed and Seed Program was included in the budget submission as directed by the ONDCP because Weed and Seed is categorized as drug control funding in the President's Budget.

Conclusion - Analysis of Program Missions, Strategic Goals and Objectives

For each of the 19 DOJ programs reported as drug demand reduction in the DOJ Management Assertion Statements submitted to the ONDCP, with total reported FY 2001 obligations of $336 million, we analyzed the program's mission, strategic goals, and objectives. Based on our analysis the programs reported to the ONDCP do not, in our judgment, accurately reflect the DOJ's drug demand reduction efforts. Of the 19 DOJ programs included in the $336 million, we identified 10 programs with total reported obligations of $223 million that were not directly related to drug demand reduction, as shown in the following table.

LISTING OF DOJ PROGRAMS NOT DIRECTLY
RELATED TO DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION

DOJ Components & Programs FY 2001 Obligations
Community Oriented Policing Services $64 million
  • COPS in Schools Program
  • Safe Schools Initiative
 
Office of Justice Programs $159 million
  • Byrne Discretionary Grant Program
  • Byrne Formula Grant Program
  • Criminal Records Upgrade Program
  • Correctional Grant Programs
  • Weed and Seed Program
  • Safe Start Program
  • Juvenile Justice Discretionary Grant Program
  • Title V - Tribal Youth Programs
 
Total DOJ Obligations $223 million

Additionally, the Drug Courts Program, with reported obligations of $50 million in FY 2001, was reported as state and local assistance to the ONDCP. In our judgment, the Drug Courts Program was incorrectly classified by OJP and should have been included as drug demand reduction. As a result, the DOJ efforts directly related to drug demand reduction consisted of 10 DOJ programs with total reported FY 2001 obligations of $163 million, as shown in the following table.

LISTING OF DOJ PROGRAMS DIRECTLY
RELATED TO DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION

DOJ Components & Programs FY 2001 Obligations
Federal Bureau of Prisons $38 million
  • Drug Abuse Education Program
  • Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program
  • Non-Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program
  • Transitional Drug Abuse Treatment Program
 
Drug Enforcement Administration $3 million
  • DEA Demand Reduction Section
  • IDEA Program
 
Office of Justice Programs $122 million
  • Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Demonstration Program
  • Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program
  • Drug Prevention Demonstration Program
  • Drug Courts Program
 
Total DOJ Obligations $163 million

However, as described in the next section, our analysis of the methodologies used to prepare drug-related financial information reported to the ONDCP revealed that the estimates used by the COPS Office, DEA, and OJP were not adequately supported.

Analysis of Financial Reporting Methodologies

The drug-related financial information included in our report was prepared by the DOJ components using the December 1999 ONDCP Accounting Circular. This circular provides guidance for the methodology by which each component should calculate its drug-related financial information. Each component's drug methodology should provide a reasonable basis for consistent estimation, and financial information derived through the application of the methodology should fairly quantify the component's involvement in the National Drug Control Program. The components may use a variety of reasonable methods, including workload data, grants data, statistical data, or professional judgment to estimate the drug-related portion of its programs. However, once initially established, any material modification to a component's drug methodology must be submitted to the ONDCP for review and approval before it can be implemented.

We reviewed each component's Management Assertion Statement in order to determine the components' methodologies for reporting drug-related financial information and whether the basis for the methodology used was adequately supported.

Federal Bureau of Prisons

The BOP reported total FY 2001 obligations of $38.2 million for its drug demand reduction programs. We obtained the BOP Management Assertion Statement submitted to the ONDCP for FY 2001, the Attestation Report prepared by the certified public accounting firm, and supporting documentation. The BOP's methodology for reporting drug demand reduction financial information to the ONDCP is to report 100 percent of its recorded drug treatment obligations, which consists of drug treatment staff salaries and benefits, and operating costs, including supplies, printing costs, and other miscellaneous expenses. The BOP's drug treatment funding is a separate budget item and program obligations are recorded in its financial system. In our judgment, the methodology used by the BOP for reporting drug demand reduction financial information to the ONDCP is reasonable and complies with the December 1999 ONDCP Accounting Circular.

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

The COPS Office reported total FY 2001 obligations of $64.2 million for its drug demand reduction programs. We obtained the COPS Office Management Assertion Statement submitted to the ONDCP for FY 2001, the Attestation Report prepared by the certified public accounting firm, and supporting documentation. The COPS Office's methodology for reporting drug demand reduction financial information to the ONDCP is to apply an estimate of one-third to the recorded obligations for the Safe Schools Initiative and the COPS in Schools Program. The COPS Office could not provide us with any information to support the rationale used in developing the one-third estimate or the relationship between the estimate and its drug demand reduction activities. In our judgment, the COPS Office does not appear to have a reasonable basis supporting its methodology for reporting drug demand reduction financial information to the ONDCP. As a result, the financial information reported to the ONDCP might not accurately reflect the COPS Office's drug demand reduction efforts.

Drug Enforcement Administration

The DEA reported total FY 2001 obligations of $3 million for its drug demand reduction programs. We obtained the DEA's Management Assertion Statement submitted to the ONDCP for FY 2001, the Attestation Report prepared by the certified public accounting firm, and supporting documentation. The DEA's methodology for reporting drug demand reduction financial information to the ONDCP applies an estimate of 3 percent to its recorded obligations for the Management and Administration decision unit. To determine the percentage of Management and Administration obligations related to drug demand reduction, the DEA calculated the average salaries and benefits for 21 Special Agents designated as DRCs, added this amount to the drug demand reduction operating budget and divided the total by the total obligations for Management and Administration. Using this formula, the DEA determined that about 3 percent of its obligations for Management and Administration are related to the DEA's drug demand reduction programs. In our judgment, the methodology used by the DEA does not accurately reflect its drug demand reduction financial obligations. The DEA's 3 percent estimate of Management and Administration obligations is understated because it does not include 8 Demand Reduction Section headquarters staff and 6 of its 27 DRCs. As a result, the financial information reported to the ONDCP does not accurately reflect the DEA's drug demand reduction efforts. We also identified concerns related to the DEA Demand Reduction Section FY 2001 operating expenditures, which are discussed in detail in Finding IV of this report.

Office of Justice Programs

The OJP reported total FY 2001 obligations of $231 million for 11 drug demand reduction programs. We obtained OJP's Management Assertion Statement submitted to the ONDCP for FY 2001, the Attestation Report prepared by the certified public accounting firm, and supporting documentation. The OJP's methodology for reporting drug-related financial information varies depending on whether the program is entirely or partly drug-related. For those programs that are entirely drug demand reduction related, OJP reports 100 percent of the recorded program obligations. For those programs that are partly drug demand reduction related, OJP applies an estimated percentage to the reported program obligations. The percentages established by OJP for its drug demand reduction programs are shown in the table on the following page.

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
PERCENTAGES USED FOR REPORTING
DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION FINANCIAL INFORMATION

OJP Bureau/Office & Programs Drug
Related
Prevention Treatment
Bureau of Justice Assistance
  • Byrne Discretionary Grant Program
90% 10% 10%
  • Byrne Formula Grant Program
80% 10% 10%
  • Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Demonstration Program
25% 100% ---
Bureau of Justice Statistics
  • Criminal Records Upgrade Program
Unknown 20% ---
Corrections Program Office
  • Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program
100% --- 100%
  • Correctional Grant Programs
10% --- 100%
Executive Office for Weed & Seed
  • Weed and Seed Program
50% 10% ---
Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Programs
  • Safe Start Program
25% 100% ---
  • Juvenile Justice Discretionary Grant Program
Unknown 100% ---
  • Title V - Tribal Youth Programs
23% 100% ---
  • Drug Prevention Demonstration Program
100% 100% ---
Drug Courts Program Office
  • Drug Courts Program
100% --- ---

The OJP officials stated that for the nine programs not entirely related to drug demand reduction, the percentages in the above chart (highlighted in blue) were developed "a number of years ago" and have not been revised since they were originally developed. Further, OJP could not provide us with any information to support the rationale used in developing the estimated percentages or the relationship between the percentages and its drug demand reduction activities. In our judgment, for the nine programs not entirely related to drug demand reduction, OJP does not have a reasonable basis supporting its methodology for reporting drug demand reduction financial information to the ONDCP. As a result, the financial information reported to the ONDCP might not accurately reflect OJP's drug demand reduction efforts.

Revisions to the ONDCP Circulars

Attachment A of the May 1999 ONDCP Budget Circular17 lists the components for each federal agency that are required to provide drug control financial information, including 14 components within the DOJ. Subsequent to the start of our audit, the ONDCP issued four revised circulars on May 30, 2002. The May 2002 ONDCP Budget Circular included a significant restructuring of the ONDCP's National Drug Control Budget. To the maximum extent possible, resources identified in the ONDCP Drug Budget are now required to be tied directly to identifiable line items in the components' budgets. Unless otherwise noted only those programs (budget decision units) consisting of 100 percent drug control funding will be included in the National Drug Control Budget. As a result, based on Attachment A of the May 2002 Budget Circular only five DOJ agencies will be required to submit drug control financial information to the ONDCP. Further, Attachment B of the May 2002 Budget Circular lists those programs for which each component is required to report as drug-related funding. Our review of Attachment B disclosed that 10 DOJ programs would no longer be reported to the ONDCP as drug demand reduction, as shown in the table on the following page.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
NOT REQUIRED TO REPORT TO THE ONDCP
EFFECTIVE MAY 30, 2002


DOJ Components & Programs

Community Oriented Policing Services
  • COPS in Schools Program
  • Safe Schools Initiative
Office of Justice Programs
  • Byrne Discretionary Grant Program
  • Byrne Formula Grant Program
  • Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Demonstration Program
  • Criminal Records Upgrade Program
  • Correctional Grant Programs
  • Safe Start Program
  • Juvenile Justice Discretionary Grant Program
  • Title V - Tribal Youth Programs

As previously stated, we identified 10 programs that, in our judgment, were not directly related to drug demand reduction. Because of the revisions in May 2002 ONDCP Budget Circular, this audit report does not contain any specific recommendations related to those programs that are no longer required to be reported to the ONDCP as drug demand reduction. The Attachment B of the May 2002 ONDCP Budget Circular still requires that all Weed and Seed Program funding be reported; therefore, this report includes a recommendation related to the methodology used to report drug-related financial information for the Weed and Seed Program.

Conclusion

Although the DOJ FY 2001 drug-related financial information reported to the ONDCP was prepared in accordance with the December 1999 ONDCP Accounting Circular, in our judgment, the information reported to the ONDCP does not accurately reflect the DOJ's drug demand reduction efforts. Of the 19 DOJ programs included in the reported $336 million FY 2001 drug demand reduction obligations, we identified 10 programs with reported obligations of $223 million that were not directly related to drug demand reduction. Additionally, in our judgment, the Drug Courts Program, with reported obligations of $50 million in FY 2001, was incorrectly classified by OJP as state and local assistance and should have been included as drug demand reduction. As a result, the DOJ efforts directly related to drug demand reduction actually consisted of 10 DOJ programs with total reported FY 2001 obligations of $163 million.

Additionally, our analysis of the methodologies used to prepare drug-related financial information reported to the ONDCP revealed that obligations reported by the COPS Office, DEA, and OJP were not adequately supported. The COPS Office could not provide any documentation to support the percentages of obligations reported as drug demand reduction. The DEA's estimate of Management and Administration obligations does not include all Demand Reduction Section staff. The OJP could not provide any documentation to support the percentage of obligations reported as drug demand reduction for nine of its programs. As a result, the financial information reported to the ONDCP might not accurately reflect the DOJ's drug demand reduction efforts.

Based on the revisions included in the May 2002 ONDCP Budget Circular, the following recommendations only include those programs that are still required to be reported to the ONDCP as drug demand reduction.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Administrator, DEA, in conjunction with the ONDCP:

  1. Ensure that the estimates used to report the Demand Reduction Section obligations to the ONDCP are reasonable and supported.

We recommend that the Assistant Attorney General, OJP, in conjunction with the ONDCP:

  1. Ensure that the Drug Courts Program is reported as drug demand reduction in future ONDCP submissions.
  2. Ensure that the estimates used to report the Weed and Seed Program obligations to the ONDCP are reasonable and supported by adequate documentation.

II. EFFECTIVENESS OF DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION EFFORTS

We found that none of the current performance indicators used by the BOP, COPS Office, or OJP are adequate to measure program effectiveness. Additionally, the DEA has not established any performance indicators for its drug demand reduction programs. We also identified weaknesses related to the data used to report on the performance indicators for the BOP, COPS Office and OJP.

Overall Effectiveness of Federal Drug Control Efforts

Over the past 20 years, the federal drug control budget, which includes those resources dedicated to both supply reduction (enforcement) and drug demand reduction, has increased by over $16 billion. The current drug control budget is more than 10 times the drug control budget in 1981, as shown in the following chart.

FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL BUDGET
FY 1981 - FY 2000
($ billions)

Bar chart of the federal drug control budget for the last 20 years.  Click on the graphic for a table with text equilivants
Source: ONDCP Drug Policy, Strategy and Implementation.

However, despite significant increases in federal drug control budget, based on the ONDCP's FY 2001 Performance Report18 there appears to have been little progress towards achieving the National Drug Control Strategy goals and strategic objectives developed by the ONDCP. Specifically, the ONDCP's FY 2001 Performance Report states:

  • Since 1996 (base year), there has been no progress overall toward achieving goal one, Reducing Youth Drug Use.
  • Overall progress toward achieving goal two, Reducing Drug-Related Crime and Violence, is on track for the reduction in drug-related crime; however, the targets for reducing the quantity of illicit drugs available in the United States has not been met for the second consecutive year.
  • There has been no progress overall toward achieving goal three, Reducing the Health and Social Costs of Illegal Drug Use, for the second consecutive year.
  • Overall progress toward achieving goal four, Stopping Drug Shipments En-Route to the Unites States Border, is on track for reducing the rate in which cocaine successfully enters the United States, but is unknown for reducing the rate of other drugs (i.e., marijuana, methamphetamine, heroin, and MDMA).
  • There has been minimal progress overall toward achieving goal five, Breaking the Sources of Supply, for cocaine and unknown for other drugs.

The ONDCP FY 2001 Performance Report further states that unless progress is escalated, the drug control community is not likely to achieve the national goals and strategic objectives by FY 2007.

Overall Effectiveness of Federal Drug Demand Reduction Efforts

As stated previously, of the $18.1 billion budgeted for federal drug control efforts in FY 2001, approximately $5.9 billion was dedicated to drug demand reduction efforts. Despite the fact that significant resources have been allocated to drug demand reduction activities, the demand for drugs, as percentage of the population, has not significantly decreased since 1989. As shown in the chart below, the percentage of the population reporting past month drug use remained relatively the same since 1990.

PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION REPORTING PAST MONTH DRUG USE

Graphic is not available electronically
Source: The HHS, SAMHSA, 1998 Household Survey on Drug Abuse.

Additionally, according to the HHS SAMHSA 2001 Household Survey on Drug Abuse, the percentage of the population reporting past month drug use increased from 6.3 percent in 1999 to 7.1 percent in 2001.

Further, drug use among youths between the ages of 12 to 17 has increased since 1992, and drug use among young adults between the ages of 18 to 25 has remained relatively constant, as shown in the chart on the following page.

PERCENTAGE OF YOUTHS REPORTING PAST MONTH DRUG USE
(Any Drug)

Graphic is not available electronically
Source: The HHS, SAMHSA, 1998 Household Survey on Drug Abuse.

Additionally, according to the HHS SAMHSA 2001 Household Survey on Drug Abuse, past month drug use among youths aged 12 to 17 increased from 9.7 percent in 1999 to 10.8 percent in 2001. Further, past month drug use among young adults aged 18 to 25 increased from 16.4 percent in 1999 to 18.8 percent in 2001.

In fact, the ONDCP FY 2001 Performance Report indicates that there has been no progress towards reducing overall drug use nation-wide, and as a result the drug control community is not likely to reach its drug demand reduction goals for 2002 through 2007. Specifically,

  • youth use of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin has remained relatively constant since 1996 (the base year);
  • the average age of first use of marijuana, cocaine, or heroin has remained essentially the same since 1996;19
  • the percentage of youths who perceive risk or disapprove of regular use marijuana, cocaine, or heroin has remained unchanged since the 1998 baseline;
  • past month use of any illicit drug (age 12 and older) remained relatively constant since 1996; and
  • current drug use among full-time workers increased slightly, while use among part-time workers remained constant since 1996.

Further, the demand for "club drugs," such as Ecstasy, that are currently not included in the ONDCP FY 2001 Performance Report, have increased by as much as 71 percent.20

Effectiveness of DOJ Performance Indicators

As stated above, federal drug demand reduction efforts during the past 12 years have not been effective in reducing the demand for drugs. However, these statistics do not necessarily reflect the impact that individual programs may have in reducing the demand for drugs. In order to determine the effectiveness of the DOJ drug demand reduction efforts, we analyzed the performance indicators established by the components for each program to determine if they adequately measure program effectiveness and whether the data reported for the performance indicators was adequately supported.

The Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA) of 1993 (P.L. 103-62), requires agencies to develop strategic plans that identify their long range strategic goals and objectives; annual plans that set forth corresponding annual goals and indicators of performance; and annual reports that describe the actual levels of performance achieved compared to the annual goal.

A key purpose of the GPRA is to improve federal program effectiveness by focusing on results and help federal managers improve service delivery by providing them with information about program results. Therefore, in addition to measuring the number of tasks or activities of a program (output measures), performance indicators should focus on the results and outcomes of program activities (outcome measures).

We reviewed the performance indicators to determine whether they were: (1) supported with adequate data; (2) consistent with the program's strategic goals, objectives and mission; and (3) output based, measuring the number of tasks or activities of a program or outcome based, measuring results and outcomes of program activities.

Federal Bureau of Prisons

The BOP developed performance indicators for its drug demand reduction programs in response to the GPRA reporting requirements. From the BOP's FY 2003 OMB budget submission, we identified the established performance indicators and reported results for its drug demand reduction programs, as shown below.

PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR
FY 2000
Actual
FY 2001
Plan
FY 2001
Actual
FY 2002
Plan
Drug Abuse Education
Program
Number of counseling hours 540,000 545,000 545,000 720,000
Number of participants 15,649 16,200 17,216 18,000
Residential Drug Abuse
Treatment Program
Number of counseling hours 6,270,000 7,000,000 7,720,500 8,000,000
Number of participants 12,541 14,000 15,441 16,000
Number of programs 44 47 50 55
Percentage of eligible
inmates receiving treatment
100% 100% 100% 100%
Non-Residential Drug Abuse
Treatment Program
Number of counseling hours 50,203 56,000 67,914 69,000
Number of participants 7,931 8,000 10,827 11,500
Transitional Drug Abuse
Treatment Program
Number of participants 8,450 9,023 11,319 13,000

The BOP's performance indicators listed above are consistent with the BOP's drug treatment programs strategic goals, objectives, and mission, identified in Finding I with respect to program outputs. However, the current performance indicators do not adequately measure program effectiveness. The performance indicators established are output based, measuring the number of participants and drug counseling hours, rather than measuring the results and effectiveness of the drug treatment programs.

In our judgment, to adequately measure the effectiveness of its programs, the BOP needs to establish measurable outcome based performance indicators. In developing outcome performance indicators, the BOP should consider available information that directly relates to the program objectives and program benefits. For example, in the DOJ FY 2001 Performance Report,21 the BOP indicated that its drug treatment programs are effective in reducing recidivism and substance abuse. The report also states that offenders who complete the drug treatment program are less likely to be rearrested or test positive for drug use than those who do not receive treatment.

Program evaluations are an additional example of available information that should be considered in developing outcome performance indicators. For instance, the BOP has conducted an evaluation of its Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program, designed to monitor inmates up to 3 years following release from BOP custody. Based on the results of this evaluation, BOP issued the following reports:

  • TRIAD Drug Treatment Evaluation Project, Six-Month Interim Report, dated January 31, 1998. This interim report is based on inmates who had been released from BOP custody into the community for 6 months. The report revealed that inmates who completed the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program and had been released to the community for a minimum of 6 months were 73 percent less likely to be re-arrested and 44 percent less likely to use drugs, within the first 6 months after being released, than those inmates who had not received treatment.
  • TRIAD Drug Treatment Evaluation Project, Final Report of Three-Year Outcomes, dated September 2000. This report is based on inmates who had been released from BOP custody into the community for 3 years. The report revealed that male inmates who completed the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program and had been released to the community for a minimum of 3 years were 16 percent less likely to be re-arrested and use drugs, within the first 3 years after being released, than those inmates who had not received treatment. Further, female inmates who completed the Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program and had been released to the community for a minimum of 3 years were 18 percent less likely to be re-arrested and 17 percent less likely to use drugs, within the first 3 years after being released, than those inmates who had not received treatment.

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

The COPS Office developed performance indicators for its Hiring Programs, including the COPS in Schools Program, in response to the GPRA reporting requirements.22 Performance indicators have not been established for the Safe Schools Initiative. The COPS Office officials stated that the Safe Schools Initiative funding is earmarked and appropriated by Congress on a year-to-year basis. Therefore, the program was not included in the COPS Office budget request where the component would normally report on any performance indicators, if applicable.

From the COPS Office FY 2003 OMB budget submission, we identified the performance indicators and reported results for its COPS in Schools Program, as shown in the following table.

PERFORMANCE
INDICATOR
FY 2000
Actual
FY 2001
Plan
FY 2001
Actual
FY 2002
Plan
COPS Hiring Programs23
Number of grants awarded 1,462 1,034 1,002 1,294
Number of police agencies funded 12,250 13,317 12,552 12,775
Number of additional police officers funded 7,414 6,902 6,543 3,602
Cumulative number of police officers funded 109,212 116,299 114,124 117,726
Percentage of grantees in compliance with programmatic reporting requirements (progress reports) for the current year 98% 98% 99.56% 98%

As stated in Finding I, our audit revealed that the strategic goals, objectives, and mission of the COPS in Schools Program were not directly related to drug demand reduction. In addition, the performance indicators used by the COPS Office do not adequately measure program effectiveness. In our judgment, the performance indicators were all output based, measuring the number of grants awarded, number of police officers funded and the percentage of grantee progress reports submitted, rather than measuring the results and effectiveness of the program.

In order to adequately measure the effectiveness of its programs, in addition to the output performance indicators currently in use to measure program activities, the COPS Office needs to establish measurable outcome based performance indicators for all programs, regardless of whether they are related to drug demand reduction. In developing outcome performance indicators, the COPS Office should consider available information that directly relates to the program objectives and program benefits. For example, in the DOJ Performance Report, the COPS Office indicates that the school resource officers hired under the grant program have played an integral role in ensuring a safe environment for students by defusing potentially dangerous situations.

Drug Enforcement Administration

The DEA's Strategic Plan for FY 2001 through FY 2006, includes a strategic objective to educate local audiences with aggressive drug demand reduction programs. Despite the fact that drug demand reduction is included as a strategic objective in the DEA Strategic Plan, we determined that the DEA has not established any performance indicators for its drug demand reduction programs. DEA officials told us that performance indicators had not been developed because the DEA Demand Reduction Section is small in comparison to the rest of the DEA's funding. As stated previously, the total reported FY 2001 obligations for the DEA Demand Reduction Section consisted of about 0.2 percent of DEA's FY 2001 total agency obligations. Additionally, we determined that the program was not listed as a "program activity" in the DEA's FY 2003 budget submission for the OMB.

Nonetheless, we believe the DEA should develop performance indicators for its drug demand reduction programs, since drug demand reduction is one of the DEA's strategic objectives. Additionally, the DEA has announced plans to double the number of DRCs in its field office locations.

Although performance indicators have not been established for its drug demand reduction programs, the DEA does maintain statistics on the DRC's activities. The statistics maintained are included in the following table.

DRC STATISTICS FY 2000
Actual
FY 2001
Actual
DEA Demand Reduction Section
Number of Attendees 10,453,711 10,807,340
Media Products Produced 2,991 538
Number of Videos Distributed 16,789 4,044
Number of Publications Distributed 1,461,887 287,228
Number of Work Hours Involved 28,688 26,143
Cost to DEA $450,986 $443,432

In our judgment, the statistics used by the DEA do not adequately measure program effectiveness. The statistics are all output based, measuring the number of people reached, videos and publications distributed, rather than measuring the results and effectiveness of the programs.

In order to adequately measure the effectiveness of its programs, the DEA needs to establish measurable outcome based performance indicators. In developing outcome performance indicators, the DEA should consider available information that directly relates to the program objectives and program benefits. According to the DEA Drug Demand Reduction Program, Report of Fiscal Activities, Fiscal Year 2000, the DEA's strategies for achieving its drug demand reduction goals and objectives rely primarily on DRC presentations and interactions with community organizations. The DEA currently counts the number of DRC presentations and contacts with community organizations but does not have a system in place to measure the impact of these activities. Since the DEA drug demand reduction program has a limited operating budget, the DEA might consider requiring that all DRCs distribute participant feedback surveys at its presentations and use the information obtained to evaluate program effectiveness.

Office of Justice Programs

The OJP developed performance indicators for all the programs identified in Finding I, except for the Juvenile Justice Discretionary Grant Program, in response to the GPRA reporting requirements. From OJP's FY 2003 OMB budget submission, we identified the performance indicators and reported results of the 11 OJP programs, as shown in Appendix VII.

As stated in Finding I, our audit revealed that only four OJP programs reported to the ONDCP were directly related to drug demand reduction. Nonetheless, we noted that generally the performance indicators used by OJP do not adequately measure program effectiveness. Although a few outcome based performance indicators have been developed for the Weed and Seed Program, OJP's performance indicators were generally all output based, measuring the number of programs funded, number of participants, and number of sites, rather than measuring results and effectiveness of the program.

In order to adequately measure the effectiveness of its programs, in addition to the output performance indicators currently in use to measure program activities, OJP needs to establish measurable outcome based performance indicators. In developing outcome performance indicators, OJP should consider available information that directly relates to the program objectives and program benefits. For example, in the DOJ Performance Report, OJP indicates that offenders treated through its Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program are less likely to use drugs upon release, which will enable them to become more employable and less of a strain on community resources. The DOJ Performance Report further states that programs, such as drug courts that combine criminal justice sanctions with substance abuse treatment are effective in decreasing drug and alcohol use and related crime.

Data Reliability

For each performance indicator reported in the FY 2003 ONDCP budget submissions, we identified the source of data used to report results and determined whether the data reported was supported. Based on our analysis we identified the following problems related to the data used to report results on the performance indicators.

In its FY 2003 OMB budget submission, the BOP identified its Sentry system as the data source for all of its drug demand reduction performance indicators. Our audit revealed that the BOP Sentry system contains information on the number of participants in each of the four drug treatment programs, tracks the number of BOP facilities with Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Programs and calculates the percentage of eligible inmates receiving residential drug treatment. However, the Sentry system does not contain information related to the number of counseling hours provided for each of the four drug treatment programs. We determined that BOP officials estimate the number of drug counseling hours provided based on the number of program participants using the minimum required number of counseling hours for each drug treatment program. In our judgment, the BOP should, at a minimum, revise its performance indicator table in its budget submission to disclose that the data source for the number of drug counseling hours provided is based on estimates made by program officials rather than data maintained in the Sentry system.

In its FY 2003 OMB budget submission, the COPS Office identified its COPS Management System (CMS) as the data source for all the performance indicators for its hiring grants. We determined that the data reported could not be verified. The COPS Office officials stated that the original CMS data used to report on its performance indicators was not retained. Further, they could not recreate the data reported since the CMS is a real-time system and does not have the capability of generating reports as of a specific point-in-time. However, the COPS Office recently implemented a protocol that includes procedures to ensure that data is consistent and accurate, as well as a means to reconstruct data for audits and congressional requests.

We identified OJP's data sources for its performance indicators, as shown in Appendix VIII. We determined that OJP only verified the accuracy of the data used for the four performance indicators that were included in the DOJ Performance Report.24 The OJP Office of Budget and Management Services traced the data reported for the four performance indicators listed below to the source documentation; however, OJP did not verify the accuracy of the remaining 38 performance indicators included in its FY 2003 OMB budget submission.

  • Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program: Number of offenders treated for substance abuse (cumulative).
  • Drug Courts Program: Number of new DCPO-funded drug courts.
  • Weed and Seed Program: (1) Percent of participants who feel safe havens are working to reduce crime and (2) participants who feel that community policing is working to reduce crime (percent of responses from customer survey).

Conclusion

We determined that none of the current performance indicators used by the BOP, COPS Office or OJP are adequate to measure program effectiveness. Generally, the performance indicators used by the three DOJ components are output based, measuring the number of tasks and activities, rather than, outcome based, measuring the results and effectiveness of program activities. Further, the DEA has not established any performance indicators for its drug demand reduction programs, even though drug demand reduction is one of the DEA's strategic objectives.

Recommendations

We recommend that the Director, BOP:

  1. Ensure that verifiable and measurable outcome based performance indicators are established for its drug demand reduction programs.
  2. Ensure that the performance indicator table in its budget submission for the OMB is revised to adequately disclose the data source for performance indicators related to the number of drug counseling hours provided.

We recommend that the Director, COPS Office:

  1. Ensure that verifiable and measurable outcome based performance indicators are established for its COPS in Schools Program.

We recommend that the Administrator, DEA:

  1. Ensure that verifiable and measurable performance indicators are developed for its drug demand reduction programs.

We recommend that the Assistant Attorney General, OJP:

  1. Ensure that verifiable and measurable outcome based performance indicators are established for each of its 12 programs identified in this report.

III. COORDINATION OF DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION ACTIVITIES

We found that that multiple DOJ programs address similar drug demand reduction purpose areas; however, most of these programs provided services to different categories of recipients or different geographical locations. Although our audit did not disclose any significant duplication of drug demand reduction activities among the DOJ components, since multiple programs address similar purpose areas, the components should have a mechanism for sharing information, resources, and technical assistance. Currently, there is no formalized mechanism within the DOJ for sharing drug demand reduction information among the components.

Analysis of DOJ Drug Demand Reduction Activities

To identify those DOJ programs that address similar drug demand reduction activities, we distributed questionnaires to program officials for each of the DOJ drug demand reduction programs. The questionnaires asked each of the program officials to identify those programs that addressed eight purpose areas identified as drug demand reduction. Additionally, we compared the strategic goals, objectives, and mission of each program to determine those programs that directly addressed similar purpose areas. We obtained completed questionnaires for 9 of the 10 DOJ drug demand reduction programs. We did not receive a completed questionnaire for the DEA IDEA Program despite numerous requests to the DEA. Based on our analysis and the responses in the completed questionnaires, we identified the number of programs that addressed the eight drug demand reduction purpose areas, as shown in the table on the following page.

Purpose Area Number of
DOJ Programs

Drug prevention education for youth, parents, teachers, employers, community leaders, offenders, and other service providers 4
Drug treatment and rehabilitation for adult and juvenile offenders25 5
Assistance for communities in developing and implementing a community-wide approach to drug demand reduction efforts26 1
Assistance for communities in anti-legalization efforts 1
Assistance for employers in drug-free workplace efforts 1
Assistance for communities in developing or implementing accountability-based sanctions for non-violent offenders as an alternative to incarceration 2
Development, testing, and evaluation of promising drug demand reduction programs 1
Research and data collection for the analysis of drug use, prevention efforts, and treatment programs 1

Specifically, the responses to our questionnaires indicated that the BOP Drug Abuse Education Program, DEA Demand Reduction Section, and OJP Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program and Drug Prevention Demonstration Program all provide drug abuse education. The four BOP drug demand reduction programs, OJP Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program, Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Demonstration Program and the Drug Courts Program all provide drug treatment for offenders.

We further analyzed the programs that addressed similar drug demand reduction purpose areas to identify any duplication of efforts. Our analysis did not disclose any significant duplication of drug demand reduction activities among the DOJ components. Generally, we found that most of the programs provided services to different categories of recipients or different geographical locations. For example,

  • The BOP Drug Abuse Education Program and OJP Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program both provide drug abuse prevention education to inmates; however, the BOP provides services to federal inmates while OJP's Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program provides grants for services to state and local inmates.
  • The BOP Residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program, Non-residential Drug Abuse Treatment Program and Transitional Drug Abuse Treatment Program, and OJP Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program and Drug Courts Program all provide drug treatment to offenders. However, the BOP provides services to federal inmates, OJP's Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program provides grants for services to state and local inmates, and OJP's Drug Courts Program provides grants for services to state and local offenders as an alternative to incarceration.
  • The DEA IDEA Program and OJP Weed and Seed Program both include enhanced enforcement in conjunction with the development and implementation of a community-wide approach to prevention efforts. Albeit, the OJP Weed and Seed program is related to violent crime as a whole, while the DEA IDEA program focuses on drug related crime and prevention. Our audit disclosed that neither program provided services to the same site during the same fiscal year. However, the DEA IDEA Program is still in the early stages of development with only three pilot sites selected; therefore, coordination among the two components is necessary to avoid any duplication of efforts.

Coordination of DOJ Drug Demand Reduction Efforts

To identify the extent of coordination of DOJ drug demand reduction efforts within and among the BOP, DEA, and OJP related to the 10 DOJ drug demand reduction programs, we interviewed program officials and distributed questionnaires to program officials for each of the programs. Based on our review, we determined that generally, each component had a mechanism in place for coordination and information sharing within the component.

We also determined that on occasion the DOJ components appear to coordinate specific drug demand efforts. For example:

  • According to DEA officials, the DEA Demand Reduction Section has received training and technical assistance from OJP.
  • Weed and Seed Program officials stated that the Executive Office for Weed and Seed worked with DEA on the development of its IDEA Program.

However, these coordination efforts appear to be ad hoc, occurring only when one of the participants requires additional financial or technical resources. The responses to our questionnaires also indicated that there is no formalized mechanism in place for information sharing among the components. All the components believed that it would be beneficial to meet on a regular basis with representatives from other components who are involved in drug demand reduction programs, in order to share information, resources, and technical assistance.

During the course of our audit, we determined that the OLP is in the process of developing a DOJ drug control strategy. The mission of the OLP is to plan, develop, and coordinate the implementation of major policy initiatives of high priority to the DOJ and its administration. We discussed coordination of the DOJ drug demand reduction programs with OLP officials, and they agreed that a formalized process for sharing information among the components is necessary.

Recommendation

We recommend that the Director, BOP; the Administrator, DEA; and the Assistant Attorney General, OJP:

  1. Work with the OLP to develop a formalized mechanism for coordinating and sharing information related to drug demand reduction activities among the components.

IV. DEA DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION ACTIVITIES AND FUNDING

We found that the DEA's FY 2001 obligations dedicated to demand reduction consisted of only $3 million (0.2 percent) of the DEA's total obligations of $1.4 billion. In our judgment, the DEA should evaluate what impact it can achieve on its stated objective "to educate local audiences with aggressive drug demand reduction programs" with such a small percentage of its funding devoted to drug demand reduction activities.

DEA Drug Demand Reduction Activities

The DEA Demand Reduction Section was established in 1986 to support and coordinate the DEA's prevention activities throughout the nation. The Demand Reduction Section is located within the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, which also includes the (1) Museum Staff, (2) Information Services Staff, (3) Congressional Affairs Section, (4) Public Affairs Section, and (5) Audio Visual Staff. As stated in Finding I, in the DEA's Strategic Plan the specific strategic objective related to the DEA Demand Reduction Section is "to educate local audiences with aggressive drug demand reduction programs."

During the period covered by our audit, the DEA's Demand Reduction Section consisted of 8 headquarters staff and 27 DRCs. The DEA Headquarters Demand Reduction Section staff oversees the development of prevention and public awareness strategies, directs field division prevention activities and initiatives, and coordinates national drug demand reduction conferences and training. In each of the DEA's 22 field divisions, and other operational units throughout the country, there were a total of 27 DRCs, primarily DEA Special Agents. The DRCs are responsible for providing timely, accurate, and persuasive information that builds support for effective drug enforcement and educates the public of the dangers of drugs and the effects of drug use and abuse on the nation.27

The DEA has established goals and objectives for its Demand Reduction Section, as shown on the following pages.

Goal I: Establish an aggressive program of public awareness education for opinion and community leaders by:

  • educating them about the current drug threat and the linkages between drugs, violence and crime; and
  • providing accurate, complete, and current information on why legalization or liberalization of the nation's drug policy is ill-conceived and dangerous.
Goal II: Reach millions of school-aged children with appropriate and specific drug education and prevention programs by:

  • supporting well-designed youth programs, for example, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), and Law Enforcement Explorers, that provide children with the tools they need to resist drugs and offer positive alternatives to drug use;
  • providing drug education and prevention training and materials to teachers, coaches, counselors, and volunteers who work with children; and
  • providing accurate, complete, and current prevention publications and other materials to schools and youth programs.
Goal III: Provide support to reenergize the national parents' movement by:

  • making parents aware of the dangers of drug use to their children;
  • heightening parents' awareness of current and emerging drug use trends;
  • equipping parents to teach like skills and drug resistance to their children; and
  • educating and motivating parents to take a proactive role in their communities to address the issue of drug legalization.
Goal IV: Provide businesses and other employers with tools necessary for establishing and maintaining drug-free workplaces by:

  • helping employers to understand and identify drug use on the job and to develop prevention programs for their employees;
  • working in cooperation with national and local organizations of employers, (for example, Chambers of Commerce) to provide drug-free workplace training seminars; and
  • providing initial training and assistance to help local groups of employers form coalitions and organizations to address work place issues and provide low-cost support services for smaller employers.

According to the DEA, each DRC reports to the Special Agent in Charge of the field division and directs his or her own drug demand reduction activities. The DRCs' activities should fall within the four goals of the Demand Reduction Section. The DRCs' activities generally focus on drug demand reduction presentations to students, parents, law enforcement officials, employers, and community leaders, but there is a wide range in the variety of activities performed by the DRCs. The Demand Reduction Quarterly Reports for the first quarter of 2001 include examples of the variety of DRC drug demand reduction activities:

  • The DRC for the Miami Field Division coordinated a Youth Leadership Retreat in Pensacola, Florida. The retreat included a private Blue Angels air show, a tour of the National Naval Air Museum, a beach barbeque, and a graduation dance. Classroom topics included information related drug pharmacology, leadership skills, public speaking, conflict resolution, raves, and ecstasy.
  • The DRC for the Phoenix Field Division reported efforts to encourage citizens and civic groups to oppose state efforts to legalize any form of marijuana use and the legalization of hemp cultivation.
  • The DRC for the Denver Field Division conducted several presentations to state and local law enforcement agencies on the issue of club drugs and raves.

DEA Drug Demand Reduction Resources

The DEA Demand Reduction Section is not included as a separate budget decision unit within the DEA's OMB budget submission. Instead the Demand Reduction Section is funded from the DEA's Management and Administration budget decision unit. In FY 2001, the DEA reported to the ONDCP total obligations for its Demand Reduction Section of about $3 million, which comprised 3 percent of the $100 million total Management and Administration obligations, and 0.2 percent of the $1.4 billion total agency obligations. As stated in Finding I of this report, we noted concerns related to the DEA's estimates used to report drug demand reduction obligations. As a result, the financial information reported to the ONDCP might not be accurate. Also as stated in Finding II, the DEA has not developed adequate performance indicators to measure the success of its drug demand reduction activities. Based on our review of the DEA's drug demand reduction strategic objective, and financial information, we believe the DEA should evaluate what impact it can achieve on its stated objective "to educate local audiences with aggressive drug demand reduction programs" with such a small percentage of its funding (0.2 percent) devoted to drug demand reduction activities.

In recent DEA statements, it appears that the DEA plans to devote additional resources to its drug demand reduction efforts in the future. In December 2001, the DEA Administrator announced plans to double the number of DRCs in the field and other operating divisions. Also in December 2001, the DEA Administrator announced the creation of the IDEA Program to enhance the DEA's existing drug demand reduction activities. In announcing the establishment of the IDEA Program, the Administrator stated that "the DEA's mission to eliminate the supply of drugs in America through law enforcement is the backbone of the anti-drug effort." However, the Administrator also stated that, "the DEA also recognizes and values the importance of prevention and treatment in dealing with a community's drug program."

At the time of our audit, the IDEA Program was in the initial development stage. For its IDEA Program the DEA plans to combine its enforcement efforts with existing community drug prevention and treatment programs to reduce the demand for drugs. To accomplish this objective the DEA plans to identify drug trafficking targets and work with state and local law enforcement to execute enforcement operations against the groups identified. The DEA also plans to work with community groups to identify local drug abuse problems, and solutions for these problems.

Since the IDEA Program was not initiated until December 2001, the program was not included in the DEA's FY 2003 OMB budget submission or the DEA Management Assertion Statement; as a result, funding amounts had not been established for the program.

DEA Drug Demand Reduction Expenditures

We reviewed the FY 2001 DEA Demand Reduction Section headquarters expenditures. The headquarters expenditures totaled $485,519 of the $1 million total operating budget for the DEA Demand Reduction Section. The remaining funds were allocated for the DRCs in the DEA field offices. We determined that $184,332 (38 percent) of total headquarters expenditures was related to food for conferences and training or DEA promotional materials and souvenirs. These expenditures consisted of $71,469 for food for conferences and $112,863 for promotional materials and souvenirs. The conferences included DEA sponsored Club Drug Conferences, Methamphetamine Summits, Drugs in the Workplace Seminars, and training with the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. According to DEA officials the attendees included law enforcement officials and prevention and treatment specialists from federal, state, local, and nonprofit organizations.

The $112,863 for promotional materials and souvenirs included t-shirts, tote bags, baseball caps, pins, key holders, golf balls, and pencils. The DEA officials stated that the promotional materials and souvenirs are used as a public awareness tool to get the message of the dangers of drugs to children. However, our review revealed that the promotional materials and souvenirs included in the $112,863 of headquarters expenditures were provided to conference attendees. As stated above, the conference attendees included law enforcement officials and prevention and treatment specialists. In our judgment, the DEA is expending a large portion of its limited drug demand reduction operating budget on promotional materials and souvenirs for other drug demand reduction professionals, rather than their target audience of children, parents, community leaders, and employers.

Conclusion

The DEA has established specific goals and objectives for its Demand Reduction Section. However, each DRC directs his or her own drug demand reduction activities and reports to the Special Agent in Charge of the field division; as a result, there is a wide range in the variety of activities performed by the DRCs. We found that the DEA's FY 2001 obligations dedicated to demand reduction consisted of only $3 million (0.2 percent) of the $1.4 billion in total obligations. Of this amount, the Demand Reduction Section headquarters spent $184,332 on food for conferences and training or DEA promotional materials and souvenirs.

Recommendation

We recommend that the Administrator, DEA:

    10. Evaluate what impact it can achieve on its stated objective "to educate local audiences with aggressive drug demand reduction programs" with such a small percentage of its funding devoted to drug demand reduction activities.


Footnotes

  1. ONDCP Circular titled, Annual Accounting of Drug Control Funds, dated December 17, 1999, (December 1999 ONDCP Accounting Circular).
  2. The BOP Substance Abuse Treatment Programs, in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Fiscal Year 2001 Annual Report to Congress, dated January 2002.
  3. The COPS Office COPS in Schools 2001, Application Instructions.
  4. See Appendix IV for a complete listing and the purpose of each OJP bureau, program office, and agency-wide support office.
  5. The funding for the ONDCP Drug-Free Communities Grant Program is not included as a part OJP's drug demand reduction obligations reported to the ONDCP, since the grant funding is under the direct control of the ONDCP.
  6. The ONDCP Circular titled, Budget Instructions and Certification Procedures, dated May 5, 1999, (May 1999 ONDCP Budget Circular).
  7. The ONDCP, Performance Measures of Effectiveness, 2001 Annual Report (ONDCP FY 2001 Performance Report).
  8. The information related to the age of first use is based on 1998 data, since the data from 1999 was not available at the time the ONDCP report was issued.
  9. The Partnership for a Drug Free America, National Survey, February 2002.
  10. The DOJ FY 2001 Performance Report and FY 2002 Revised Final, FY 2003 Performance Plan, (DOJ FY 2001 Performance Report)
  11. The performance indicators reported in the COPS Office FY 2003 budget submission to the OMB combine all of the COPS Office Hiring programs, including the COPS Office in Schools program. As a result, the numbers reported in the performance indicator table are the combined numbers for all COPS Office Hiring programs.
  12. As stated previously, the numbers reported in the performance indicator table are the combined numbers for all COPS Office Hiring programs including the COPS in Schools Program.
  13. The OJP attempted to verify the Byrne Formula Grant Program performance indicator for the funding directed toward Byrne Formula supported multi-jurisdictional task force projects as projected/allocated by states (includes drug task forces); however, the data source no longer existed.
  14. Drug treatment for offenders includes aftercare services once an inmate has been released.
  15. This includes supporting or developing community coalitions, enhanced enforcement in conjunction with increased prevention and treatment efforts, and supporting community-based service providers.
  16. Demand Reduction Program, Report of Fiscal Activities, FY 2000.