National Drug Control Strategy.

Strengthening Communities Response to Drugs and Crime

Message From the President

To the Congress of the United States:

I am pleased to transmit today to the Congress and to the
American people the 1995 National Drug Control Strategy, which
confirms our resolve, identifies my priorities for addressing
this Nations continuing drug problem, and further defines my
Administrations plan for reducing illegal drug use and drug
trafficking.

The 1995 Strategy comes at a time of enormous change and new
challenges for our country.  Societies around the globe are
shifting from the Industrial Age to the Information Agefrom the
Cold War with its global division to a world united in economic
cooperation and hope for the future.  This is a time of new
beginnings and of great hope, but also a time of tremendous
uncertainty.  During this period, we must make sure that we
remain the strongest country in the world and its most profound
force for peace and freedom.  Our greatest challenge, however,
will be to keep the American dream alive for all our citizens.

These challenges give the 1995 Strategy new and added importance. 
We cannot keep the American dream alive for working families if
our youth are turning to illegal drug use, or if the violence
spawned by drug use and trafficking continues unabated.  We
cannot compete in the new world economy and foster economic
cooperation among nations while international drug trafficking is
rampant.  We cannot enter the new millennium as the strongest
country in the world unless we continue to lead the way against
illegal drugs and the terror they bringboth here at home and
abroad.

The 1995 Strategy responds to the need for a new economy and a
new government.  It recognizes that drug use and trafficking
drain our economy of billions of dollars and prevent millions of
Americans from achieving their full potential.  This Strategy
also recognizes that the drug problems of today and tomorrow will
not be solved by yesterdays government.  Our solutions must be
less bureaucratic, more creative and flexible, and the 1995
Strategy starts us down that path.

Most importantly, the Strategy responds to the need for a new
covenant between the American people and their governmentone
that matches more opportunity with more responsibility.  This
Strategy gives those who have fallen prey to drugs the
opportunity to change their behavior, and it gives these youths
who are at risk for starting to use drugs positive alternatives. 

This Strategy  sends strong messages of responsibility on all
fronts: to the international community that all nations must work
together to reduce the supply and demand for illegal drugs; to
traffickers and criminals that they will pay a stiff penalty for
destroying our childrens futures; and to our Nations youth that
drugs are not only illegalbut that using them is dumb,
dangerous, and likely to get you hurt, and maybe even killed. 
Legalization is a formula for disaster.  And it is precisely
because of the damage that drug use causes that I am, and will
remain, unequivocally opposed to the legalization of any of the
drugs that are currently illegal.  

The government cannot solve this Nations drug problem, or any
other social ill, alone.  But neither can we shirk our
responsibility.  That is why this 1995 Strategy extends the hand
of partnership to all Americansconcerned citizens, community
leaders, teachers, law enforcement officers, parents, and leaders
of the faith communityand asks them to begin anew the process of
engaging all Americans in addressing this important issue.

Bill Clinton

Table of Contents

Presidents Message

I.   Strategy Overview
     Principles for Responding to Illicit Drug Use
     Drug Facts  
     Action Plans for Responding to Americas Drug Problem       
     Conclusion     

II.  Drug Use in America 
     Casual Drug Use     
     Hardcore Drug Use  
     Emerging Drug Use Trends

III. Drug Use and its Consequences 
     Drugs, Crime, and Violence 
     Drug Arrests
     Drugs and Health 
     Targeting Chronic, Hardcore Drug Use 
     The Case for Treating Hardcore Drug Users
     Addressing the Shortage of Drug Treatment Capacity     

IV.       Illicit Drug Availability 
     Shifting the Focus of the International Program Strategy    
     
     Achieving Supply Reduction Through Domestic Law Enforcement
          Activities 

V.   Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for Illicit Drugs  
     Progress Toward Meeting the Goals for Reducing the Demand
for       Illicit Drugs
     Reducing the Demand for Drugs by Reducing Chronic, Hardcore
Drug           Use
     The Role of Drug Prevention Efforts
     12-Month Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for Illicit
Drugs

VI.       Action Plan for Reducing Crime, Violence, and Drug
Availability
     Progress Made Toward Law Enforcement Goals  
     Domestic Law Enforcement Efforts 
     12-Month Plan for Reducing Crime, Violence, and Drug
Availability

VII. Action Plan for Enhancing Domestic Drug Program Flexibility
          and Efficiency at the Community Level 
     Progress Made Toward Enhancing Domestic Drug Program
Flexibility         and Efficiency 
     National and Regional Consultation
     Streamlining Federal Drug Control Grants  
     ONDCP Requested Audits of Federal Drug Control Programs
     12-Month Action Plan for Enhancing Domestic Drug Program
          Flexibility and Efficiency at the Community Level  

VIII.     Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction and
International Efforts
     Progress Made Toward Strengthening Interdiction and
International       Efforts
     A Successful International Certification Process 
     The International Cocaine Strategy  
     Summit of the Americas
     The International Heroin Strategy  
     12-Month Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction and
          International Efforts

IX.       Federal Drug Control Resource Priorities

X.   Conclusion
Appendix A:  Research, Data, and Program Evaluation
Appendix B:  Drug-Related Information
Appendix C:  Consultation 

I.  Strategy Overview

In 1995 the crime-drug cycle continues.  No community is
untouched.  More teenagers are smoking pot.  Less of them think
cocaine use is dangerous.  Drug-using adults from every social
strata are clogging court dockets, crowding emergency rooms, and
abusing their innocent children.  

Thousands of miles from U.S. shores, cocaine traffickers are
charting a route for their next smuggling operation.  Opium
dealers are ranking this years harvest and projecting their
profits.  Money launderers are plotting a course for traffickers
ill-gotten gains to wash through legal banking establishments.

Drug use and trafficking threaten the American way of life.  All
Americans should enjoy the fruits of their labor in a community
free of crime and drugs.

This Strategy takes the brutal realities of the crime-drug
linkage to task.  Things must change.  Drug traffickers and
dealers must be arrested and prosecuted.  Prevention efforts must
be refined to fit the mindset of todays youth.  Chronic drug
users must receive the effective treatment they require to get
off drugs and become taxpayers, instead of tax takers.

This Strategy is a map.  It provides all Americans with a way to
protect those innocent victims whom drug use and trafficking
violate, to cope pragmatically and rationally with an insidious
disease known as drug addiction, and to enforce the rule of law
over the tyranny and cruelty of lawlessness.  This is a task upon
which Americas future depends.
     
No community in America can escape the problems surrounding drug
abuse and its consequences.  Americans pay a large price for
these problems.  Moreover, drug abuse undermines the ability of
hard-working Americans to live in safe communities, send their
children to good schools, and have their tax dollars used for
enhancing their quality of life.  As long as drug dealers
continue to sell drugs and users continue to buy them, Americans
will facemany of them firsthandthe crime, violence, and health
consequences that surround the illicit drug trade.

Despite years of concentrated effort by all levels of government
and by numerous antidrug organizations, the cycle of drug abuse
continues.  Previous progress in reducing casual drug use1 gave
many people the impression that drug prevention efforts had
solved the problem.  But in some areas, the situation is
worsening.  Young people from all economic and social strata are
using drugs in increasing numbers, in spite of our best antidrug
efforts.  Furthermore, the crimes associated with the illegal
drug trade continue to threaten domestic security and safety.  

According to the most recent National Household Survey on Drug
Abuse, roughly one in three Americans has used an illicit drug
sometime in his or her lifetime, and roughly one in nine
Americans has tried cocaine at least once.  The Monitoring the
Future (MTF) study indicates that nearly one-half of the Nations
high school seniors, regardless of gender, race, or location,
have tried an illicit drug, and one in five has used illicit
drugs on a regular basis.  Furthermore, chronic, hardcore drug
use2 is widespread, and casual drug use is increasing among our
youth.

The activities of the chronic, hardcore drug user directly and
indirectly account for high rates of crime, violence, and
negative health consequences in this country.  Addicted drug
users also account for more than two-thirds of the illicit drugs
consumed.  Unless the number of addicted drug users can be
reduced, the tranquility and safety of American communities will
be jeopardized.  Drug traffickers will continue to supply drugs
to addicted drug users but will also seek to develop a new
generation of users to support their criminal infrastructure and
provide profits into the next century.  Clearly, all of Americas
youth must be educated against the dangers of drug use.  This
Nation cannot afford to turn its attention from the time bombs of
drug use, drug trafficking, and related crime and health
problems.

PRINCIPLES FOR RESPONDING TO ILLICIT DRUG USE

This National Drug Control Strategy is built on the following
principles:

    Because it is linked to the Nations efforts to promote
economic growth, empower communities, curb youth violence,
preserve families, and improve access to health care for all
Americans, drug policy is a cornerstone of U.S. domestic policy
in general and U.S. social policy in particular.

    A key response to drug use and trafficking is an aggressive
and coordinated law enforcement effort.  Americans have the right
to feel safe in their homes and secure in their communities.

    The Nation must address drug-related violence by expanding
community policing, putting more police on the streets, and
removing guns from the hands of criminals.

    To ensure the safety of our communities, certainty of
punishment must be promoted for all drug offendersparticularly
young offenders.  All offenders must receive appropriate
punishment when they first encounter the criminal justice system.

    Prevention programs must reach all youth and target special
populations that are at risk, such as inner-city youth, pregnant
women, and women of childbearing age.

  Drug treatment must target chronic, hardcore drug usersboth
within and outside the criminal justice systemto reduce their
drug use and its consequences.

    Antidrug strategies must be supported by knowledge gained
from research.

    International narcotics control is a major foreign policy
objective, and the international commitment to narcotics control
must be expanded.  The United States must work with other nations
that demonstrate the political will to attack illegal drug
production and trafficking.

    Legalization does not provide an answer to the problems of
drug use and crime.  Rather, it is a formula for self-
destruction.  The Administration is unequivocally opposed to any
reform that is certain to increase drug use.

DRUG FACTS

The drug problem is national in scope.  Drugs are not a problem
solely of the poor, or of minorities, or of inner-city residents. 
In fact, the majority of these citizens do not use illicit drugs,
and they are often victims of those who do.  Drug users come from
all walks of life and from all parts of the country.  The drug
problem affects everyone, and all Americans must be involved in
its solution.

Americas future depends on how the Nation chooses to respond to
the following facts:

FACT:          Everyone is a potential victim of a drug-related
crime.  Drug use and the crime that surrounds it are enveloping
entire communities.  In 1993 an estimated 1,123,300 individuals
were arrested for drug offensesincluding sale, manufacture, and
possessionmore than 2 arrests every minute.  Drug tests
confirmed recent use of illicit substances in the majority of
those arrested each day.

FACT:          Homicide rates by youth ages 18 and younger have
more than doubled since 1985.  Drug-involved youth are arming
themselves and killing one another over drug money and drug turf. 
The ruthlessness and guns that are part of the drug trade have
infected entire neighborhoods.  Children not involved in the
drug trade are carrying guns and resolving disputes through
violence over seemingly trivial matters, such as an imagined
insult or disagreement regarding the color of a jacket.

FACT:     Fewer youth report a clear understanding of the risks
associated with drug use.  

FACT:     Marijuana is increasingly available, potent, and cheap,
enticing a new generation of drug users, most likely the children
and grandchildren of working families.

FACT:     Drugs are readily available to anyone who wants to buy
them.  By historical standards, cocaine and heroin street prices
are low and purity is high, making their use by any mode of
administration both more feasible and affordable than ever
before.

FACT:          Drug use is weakening the fiscal health of the
public sector.  Federal, State, and local governments spend
roughly $25 billion on drug control efforts, or $0.50 for every
dollar spent by drug consumers in the illicit drug trade. 
Approximately 60 percent of the Federal drug control budget is
directed to law enforcement programs, and the balance is directed
to treatment and prevention programs.  Most State and local
government spending is directed to the criminal justice system
(79 percent), and the balance is directed to education and
rehabilitation (21 percent).

FACT:          Drug use is straining the Nations health care
system.  The costs of treating drug users are passed on to hard-
working Americans through increased insurance premiums.  In 1993
almost 500,000 drug-related emergencies occurred nationwide. 
More than one-third of all AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome) cases were associated with the reckless, self-
destructive behavior of drug users.

FACT:     The illicit drug trade is a drain on the U.S. economy. 
In 1993 the retail value of the illicit drug business totaled $50
billion.

ACTION PLANS FOR RESPONDING TO AMERICAS DRUG PROBLEM

This years Strategy presents a new and key element to respond to
Americas drug problema concise and action-oriented approach to
the drug problem.  A range of Federal prevention, treatment, and
law enforcement efforts will be coordinated by the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).  The Crime Control Act
enhanced ONDCPs mission and authorities to confront the problems
of illicit drug use and its consequences.  The legislation
reauthorized ONDCP through September 30, 1997, and strengthened
ONDCPs ability to manage drug control resources.  In addition,
to improve monitoring of progress in achieving the goals and
objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy, the Crime
Control Act requires that ONDCP conduct evaluations of the
measures of effectiveness pertaining to drug availability and the
consequences of drug use.  

Over and above this coordination, ONDCP will spearhead four
Action Plans for (1) reducing the demand for illicit drugs; (2)
reducing crime, violence, and drug availability; (3) enhancing
domestic drug program flexibility and efficiency at the community
level; and (4) strengthening interdiction and international
efforts aimed at disrupting the production and flow of drugs into
the United States.  Each Action Plan includes specific targets,
individual steps to achieve the targets, and proposed completion
dates.  The four Action Plans are discussed in detail in Chapters
V through VIII.  These Action Plans are designed to achieve the
following objectives:

    Combat drug traffickers who prey on people for the sake of
money and power;

    Use the authority of the criminal justice system to require
drug-using offenders to stop taking drugs;

    Punish the criminal activities of drug users and sellers;

    Support the efforts of source and transit nations against
illicit narcotics trafficking;

    Interdict illicit drugs en route to America;

    Provide treatment for those addicts who want to reform their
lives, and employ forced abstinence programs where possible;

    Raise public awareness of two factsthat relapse is not an
indication of treatment failure when the consequences of drug use
are lessened,3 and that law enforcement sanctions can motivate
addicts to enter and complete treatment;

    Protect each generation by ensuring that children understand
and appreciate the dangers of intermittent or hardcore drug use
so that fewer and fewer children will initiate illicit drug use;

    Support research efforts to develop new knowledge about the
causes, consequences, prevention, and treatment of drug abuse;
and

    Persuade the American people that everyone must be involved
in solving the drug problem because drug use and its related
crimes affect everyone.

This years Strategy stresses both prevention and treatment
efforts.  It also continues the redirection of interdiction
efforts to source countries, which is consistent with experience
that shows it is more effective to reduce illicit drug
availability by concentrating resources in a small geographic
area rather than primarily attacking transshipment over a vast
and unregulated transit zone.  At the same time, this Strategy
provides for smarter and tougher enforcement activities in U.S.
ports of entry and at U.S. borders.  Domestic law enforcement
effortswhich have been greatly expanded in recent years and
which now comprise the bulk of the Nations antidrug law
enforcement effortsremain central to supply reduction efforts
that seek to keep the streets free of illicit drugs; they
continue to assist in achieving demand reduction goals.

The Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for Illicit Drugs
emphasizes drug prevention as the ultimate key to ensuring the
future of the Nations children.  New generations must not become
drug users, and existing users must be convinced to stop.  The
recent increase in marijuana use among adolescents, as well as
changes in their attitudes about the dangers of drug use, is
alarming and underscores the need for educating each generation
about the consequences of drug involvement.  To prevent drug use,
a nationwide media campaign will be launched to deglamorize drug
use in the mind of every child in America.  This public
information effortSave Our ChildrenSave Our Futurewill
address drugs, alcohol, and tobacco and will use a range of
resources, including entertainment and professional sports
figures.  This campaign will complement existing efforts,
including those of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America and
the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America.  The Action Plan
for Reducing the Demand for Illicit Drugs also includes new
opportunities for breaking the cycle of intergenerational drug
use and promoting the research and evaluation of a wide spectrum
of drug prevention programs.

The Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for Illicit Drugs
emphasizes drug treatment.  It views addiction as a chronic,
relapsing disorder, with treatment and aftercare as appropriate
and pragmatic responses to this disorder.  However, treatment
alone as a panacea is not promoted.  This Strategy recognizes
that drug users first step to recovery is to take personal
responsibility for their actions, and this Strategy equally
promotes drug prevention programs and the unique capabilities of
law enforcement officers to reduce drug use and its consequences. 
The Administration will continue to have a firm response to the
irresponsible behaviors of drug users and the predatory
activities of drug trafficking organizations and money laundering
networks, both here and abroad.

The Action Plan for Reducing Crime, Violence, and Drug
Availability will make communities safer through an integrated
approach of efforts that range from prevention programs to anti-
money-laundering initiatives.  Even the best prevention programs
will fail without effective law enforcement efforts, including an
increase in the number of police officers on the beat and
interdiction and source country programs to curb the flow of
drugs into the United States.  Otherwise, neighborhoods will face
a plentiful supply of illicit drugs that will tempt new people to
become users.  A large part of prevention is to make sure that
children are never exposed to drugs, an end which is served by
international efforts to reduce drug production and availability.

The Action Plan for Reducing Crime, Violence, and Drug
Availability highlights strong enforcement, including tough
measures and punishments for drug offenders.  Habitual criminals
will be identified and dealt with through tough criminal justice
sanctions.  Enhanced linkages between the criminal justice and
treatment systems will address the criminal activities of drug-
dependent offenders.  And because most convicted criminals are
eventually released back into the community, the release of
illegal drug users will occur only after they successfully
complete drug treatment.  In addition, they will be monitored
after release to ensure that they remain drug free.  If not, a
valuable opportunity to break the drug use and incarceration
cycle will be squandered.

The Action Plan for Enhancing Drug Program Flexibility and
Efficiency at the Community Level addresses ongoing concerns
among antidrug grassroots practitioners and national
organizations.  Included in this plan is a proposal to
restructure U.S. Department of Health and Human Services programs
that provide Federal grant funds to States under a new
consolidated block grant, which will give States and localities
maximum flexibility in designing drug programs to best meet their
own needs.  This Action Plan also seeks to identify and remove
Federal obstacles that impede drug program delivery.  The
Administration will pursue a Cut the Red Tape deregulation
campaign to eliminate or waive existing regulations to better
facilitate local service delivery.  In addition, the Federal drug
grant application process will be streamlined with the objective
of implementing a universal grant application.  Data collection
efforts and the dissemination of program effectiveness
information will be expanded to help antidrug efforts at the
local level. 

The Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction and International
Efforts encourages other nations to take a strong stand against
illicit drugs and promotes the inclusion of contingencies within
international economic agreements to encourage efforts by
individual nations to combat drug trafficking.  It also includes
a plan for convening a ministerial antidrug summit as a followup
to the Summit of the Americas, convened by President Clinton in
Miami, Florida, in December 1994.  The objective of all
international narcotics control efforts supports a basic
conviction that drug trafficking presents a tangible threat to
national security and should be universally condemned.

This Strategy recognizes that Americans make a distinction
between drug dealers and drug users when stating how policies
should be developed and carried out.  Recent public opinion polls
indicate that Americans believe that drug dealers deserve tough
criminal sanctions and that drug users should have the
opportunity for intensive treatment to break their dependence on
drugs.  Furthermore, this Strategy recognizes that Americans want
the revolving door of criminal justice brought to a halt, with
criminal offenders who are drug users receiving drug treatment
only under the watchful eye of the criminal justice system.

This Strategy responds to the fears of many Americans.  A recent
survey4 revealed that 4 in 10 Americans had taken safety
precautions because of the threat of drug-related crime,
including making their homes more secure, staying inside at
night, and avoiding areas they consider to be unsafe.  Drug
activity devastates neighborhoods and fuels a sense of disorder,
anger, and distrust among law-abiding residents.

This Strategy supports comprehensive initiatives to make
communities safer, including many that will be facilitated by the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law
103-322, hereafter referred to as the Crime Control Act).  The
Crime Control Act prioritizes prison space for violent drug
offenders and provides for the addition of 100,000 police
officers in communities across the country.  In addition, the 
Crime Control Act expands drugs courts to reduce the drug use and
criminality of crime-committing addicts.  These initiatives will
be further supported by a Break the Drug Use Cycle pilot
program (modeled after the concept behind the prototype
Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
Program) to help law enforcement officials work hand in hand with
prevention and treatment authorities in select communities. 
Finally, to attack drug traffickers and their hierarchies, the
cooperation of the financial services community will be enlisted
to identify drug money launderers and prevent the abuse of global
financial systems by financial crime perpetrators.

CONCLUSION

Last years Strategy established 14 aggressive goals for
achieving the overall aim of reducing drug use and its
consequences.  Table 1-1 presents these goals, which still stand
as valid measures of progress for this Strategy, and must be
achieved if this Nation is to successfully address its drug-
related problems.  Chapters V through VIII present the four
Action Plans for achieving these goals.  These Action Plans are a
response to the impassioned pleas of Americans across the Nation
asking for help to protect their children, their neighborhoods,
and the Nation.  Finally, it must be understood that while the
Federal Government has a vital role to play, the problems of
drugs and violence can best be solved at the local level by
individual citizens taking individual actions.  

ENDNOTES

1    Casual drug users use illicit drugs once per month or less
and have yet to cross the line into drug dependency.

2    Chronic, hardcore drug users are addicted drug users who
consume illicit drugs at least on a weekly basis and exhibit
behavioral problems stemming from their drug use.

3    Relapse is not a failure as long as it occurs within a broad
continuum of drug abuse treatment that immediately registers the
relapse, assesses the need for modification or intensification of
the treatment regimen, and implements a seamless response to the
relapse and the ongoing need for treatment.  Relapse is a failure
only when there is no timely, appropriate treatment system
response to that relapse.

4    Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Survey of Adults,
February 2-3, 1994.

Table 1-1
Goals of the 1995 National Drug Control Strategy

II.  Drug Use in America

The news is not good.  Even though total casual use remains
stable, more kids are using drugs than last year, especially more
marijuana.  Simplistic prevention messages of the past appear not
to work for todays young people.

Crack cocaine users, burned out on the drugs stimulating
effects, are turning to opiates.  Heroin dealers are luring them,
as well as first-time drug users, by packaging the drug for
snorting and smoking.  Hardcore drug users are continuing to
commit crimes, drive health care costs upward, and give dealers
more reasons to fight over drug market turf, often with violent
and terrible consequences.

Even though there is less casual drug use today than in years
past, the increase in use among the nations youth adds another
ingredient to the volatile mix of drug trends that already
threaten the Nations stability.  Increasing rates of drug use
among young people, coupled with the continuation of hardcore
drug use, present a challenge that, if unmet, will severely
undermine the gains made by working class Americans in recent
years.

Illicit drug use continues to be one of the Nations most serious
problems.  Although considerable progress has been made in
reducing the number of casual drug users, much remains to be done
to reduce the number of chronic, hardcore drug users.  Compared
with the casual drug user, the chronic, hardcore drug user
consumes substantially more drugs and is responsible for the
preponderance of crime and other negative social consequences.
Today, there is increasing evidence of two disturbing trends. 
First, rates of illicit drug use are rising among the Nations
youth and second, rates of heroin use are increasing,
particularly because existing drug users are adding heroin to the
list of drugs they consume.  In addition, there are new users of
heroin, many of them youth.  The increase of drug use among youth
threatens previous progress made against casual drug use and
ultimately could lead to an upsurge in the number of chronic,
hardcore drug users and the problems they create.  This chapter
discusses these trends and the evidence that supports them.

CASUAL DRUG USE

According to the 1993 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse
(NHSDA), more than 77 million people reported that they had used
illicit drugs at some time during their lives.  Almost 70 million
of these people reported using marijuana, 23 million had tried
cocaine, 4 million had tried crack-cocaine, 18 million had tried
hallucinogens, and more than 2 million had tried heroin.  Figure
2-1 shows that in 1993, 37.2 percent of the civilian
noninstitutionalized population ages 12 and older reported
illicit drug use in their lifetimes.  Almost 11.8 percent
reported using illicit drugs within the past year, and 5.6
percent reported using illicit drugs within the past month.1

Marijuana was the most frequently used illicit drug, with 33.7
percent of the civilian noninstitutionalized population reporting
its use some time during their lives.  Nine percent reported
marijuana use within the past year, and 4.3 percent reported use
within the past month.  Marijuana use is considered problematic
because it long has been considered a gateway drug.  Like alcohol
and tobacco, marijuana use can lead to the use of stronger drugs
such as cocaine and heroin.2  Furthermore, the National Institute
on Drug Abuse reports that marijuana use interferes with short-
term memory, learning, and motor skills performance.  There also
is the evidence that regular marijuana smoking harms the
pulmonary function.
Cocaine was the next most frequently used illicit drug, with 11.3
percent of the civilian noninstitutionalized population reporting
its use within their lifetimes.  Past-year use of cocaine was 2.2
percent, and past-month use was 0.6 percent.  It is important to
note that the actual use of these drugs by the total U.S.
population is probably higher, both because survey respondents
underreport drug use and because chronic, hardcore drug users
probably are not well represented in drug prevalence surveys.3 
The Office of National Drug Control Policys (ONDCPs) most
recent Pulse Check4 for the quarter ending December 1994 reports
cocaine use and availability have stabilized in most areas of the
country.  However, cocaine, especially crack-cocaine, continues
to be in high demand throughout the country, and in some areas,
cocaine use is reported to be on the rise.

Figure 2-2 shows that since 1985, past-month use of illicit drugs
has declined significantly.  The total number of individuals from
the NHSDA reporting current illicit drug use declined from 22.3
million users in 1985 to 11.7 million users in 1993.  A decline
in marijuana use that began after 1979 accounts for most of this
success.  The total number of current marijuana users has
declined from 22.5 million users in 1979 to 9 million users in
1993.  During that same period, current cocaine use declined from
4.2 million to 1.3 million.  Although this long-term trend is
encouraging, the results from the 1993 NHSDA suggest that the
general decline may have ended.  No significant changes in
illicit drug use, up or down, were reported in 1993, compared
with 1992.  The net effect is that current drug use appears to
have stabilized in the general population during 1993.  However,
as mentioned in this chapters outset, illicit drug use by
adolescents is increasing.  

HARDCORE DRUG USE

Currently, national surveys such as the NHSDA are limited in
their ability to accurately estimate the number of chronic,
hardcore users of illicit drugs.5  In an effort to gain needed
knowledge about this population, ONDCP has initiated a major 2-
year research project, the Hardcore User Survey Pilot Study. 
This project will test the efficacy of a new methodology to
derive estimates of the number of hardcore drug users, using an
application of mathematical models that represent the processes
by which people who use drugs make contact with various elements
of the criminal justice, drug treatment, and health care systems. 
The study is being conducted in Cook County, Illinois, and the
results of the test phase should be available by the fall of
1995.

Until the results of the Hardcore User Survey Pilot Study are
available, ONDCP is estimating the size of this drug user
population by using a statistical estimation technique using data
drawn from several sources.6  The results indicated by this
method suggest that the numbers of hardcore drug users of cocaine
and heroin have remained relatively unchanged since 1988, and the
total population of chronic, hardcore drug users was 2.7 million
in 1993with about 2.1 million people using primarily cocaine and
600,000 using primarily heroin.

Chronic, hardcore drug users continue to be responsible for the
bulk of illicit drug consumption in America today.  Figure 2-3
illustrates the disproportionate amount of drugs they consume. 
For example, chronic usersonly 20 percent of the drug-using
populationconsume about two-thirds of the total amount of
cocaine in this country.  The large amount of cocaine consumed by
a minority of users makes one thing clear:  The goal of reducing
the overall rates of illicit drug use in this country cannot be
achieved without targeting the chronic, hardcore-drug-using
population with intensified programmatic efforts.

EMERGING DRUG USE TRENDS

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, two alarming
trends are emerging.  Of greatest concern are the trend
indicating the increase in adolescent drug use and the changes in
young peoples attitudes about the dangers of illicit drug use
and the acceptability of such use.  Use of marijuana shows the
most increase, and while other illicit drugs do not yet appear to
be following the same track, marijuana often is a gateway to
other drugs, such as cocaine and heroin, both of which are
readily available on the streets of the Nations cities.

Adolescent Drug Use

Antidrug messages are losing their potency among the Nations
youth.  Drug use surveys report that adolescents may be
increasing their use of illicit drugs, particularly marijuana and
hallucinogens.  Figures 2-4 through 2-7 show drug use trends
among the adolescent population.  The data are from the 1994
Monitoring the Future (MTF) study, which provides information on
drug use trends and patterns by students in the 8th, 10th, and
12th grades.  The 1991 MTF study found evidence that attitudes
against regular use of marijuana were weakening among youth.7 
This attitude change was followed by an increase in reported drug
use in the 1992 MTF study, a trend that is continuing into the
present.  For the second year in a row, past-month use of
marijuana as well as of other drugs such as stimulants,
hallucinogens, and inhalants continued to increase among this
particular population.8  The 1994 MTF study reported that
lifetime, annual, and 30-day prevalence of drug use increased
between 1993 and 1994 for 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students. 
Findings concerning drug use include the following:

    Lifetime, annual, 30-day, and daily use of marijuana
increased significantly for 8th, 10th, and 12th grade students
between 1993 and 1994.

    Annual use of LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) increased
significantly for 10th grade students between 1993 and 1994.

    Lifetime, annual, and 30-day use of cocaine powder increased
significantly for 8th grade students between 1993 and 1994. 
Cocaine powder use also increased significantly for 10th graders
for reported lifetime and annual use.  Crack-cocaine showed a
similar pattern, except for the 10th grade students, who reported
significant increases in annual use only.

    The prevalence of other drug use (e.g., stimulants and
inhalants) increased between 1993 and 1994.  However, these
increases were not statistically significant.
The 1994 MTF study also reported a further deterioration in
attitudes about and perceptions of risks associated with drug
use.  Trends in perceived harmfulness of drugsdefined by the
percentage of students saying there was great risk associated
with drug useshowed declines in many areas.  Findings concerning
attitudes about the harmfulness of drug use include the
following:

    Eighth and 10th grade students reported statistically
significant declines in marijuanas perceived harmfulness.

    Eighth and 10th grade students reported statistically
significant declines in LSDs perceived harmfulness.

    Eighth grade students reported statistically significant
declines in the perceived harmfulness of cocaine powder and
crack-cocaine use.  Twelfth grade students perceived cocaine use
to be more harmful, but the increase was not statistically
significant.

Trends in disapproval of drug use, as defined by students saying
they disapprove or strongly disapprove of people who use
drugs, also showed deterioration; these findings include the
following: 

    Eighth, 10th, and 12th grade students reported significant
declines in disapproval rates for students who use marijuana.

    Tenth and 12th grade students reported significant declines
in disapproval rates for those students who use LSD once or
twice.

    Eighth and 10th grade students reported significant declines
in disapproval rates for students who use crack-cocaine or
cocaine powder. 

The 1993 NHSDA confirmed the decreases in disapproval rates for
those within the 12 to 17 age bracket.  The national Parent
Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE) survey, another
survey of students, also reported a similar trend in its review
of drug use within selected school systems for the school years
1992-93 and 1993-94.9  
Upsurges in illicit drug use among adolescents are linked to
their use of alcohol and tobacco.  The Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University performed a study that
found evidence to suggest a consistent statistical relationship
between adolescents smoking tobacco cigarettes and drinking
alcohol and their subsequent smoking of marijuana, and between
adolescent use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana and their
subsequent use of illicit drugs such as cocaine and heroin.10 
The study includes the following findings:

    Eighty-nine percent of those who tried cocaine had first
used alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana.

    Ninety percent of youth (ages 12 to 17) and adults who used
marijuana had first smoked cigarettes or drank alcohol.

    Youth who used the gateway drugs (alcohol, tobacco, and
marijuana) were 266 times more likely to use cocaine than were
youth who had never used a gateway drug.

Unless the increased marijuana use by the Nations youth is
reversed, it is likely that new, younger users will progress into
more severe and debilitating drug use.  ONDCPs Pulse Check, a
quarterly research report on trends in drug abuse as observed by
drug ethnographers, epidemiologists, treatment providers, and
police, has noted the beginnings of this process.

Heroin Consumption

The increased availability of heroin has the potential to attract
new users who have forgotten or ignored the messages about
heroins addictive properties.  As long as heroin continues to be
inexpensive, abundant, and highly potent, there is a threat of
increasing rates of heroin use, or even another heroin
epidemic.11

The strongest sign of an epidemic is the entry of a large number
of new users (new initiates) into illicit drug use.  There is no
systematic evidence that this is the case with heroin, even
though ONDCPs Pulse Check is reporting an increasing number of
new initiates into heroin use in some areas.  New users are of
particular concern, because they tend to instigate drug use among
their friends and peers.  New users, especially those in their
first year of use, are more likely to get others to use drugs
because they have not begun to suffer the health and legal
consequences of their drug use.  Long-term users, especially
chronic, hardcore drug users, are the least likely to initiate
new users into illicit drug use.12  

There are clear indications that heroin consumption is
increasing, especially among existing heroin users (i.e., the
amount consumed per user is going up).  This trend is normal
among older, long-term heroin users and can explain some
consumption rate increases.  However, heroin use also is on the
rise among drug users whose prime drug of abuse is not heroin. 
The heroin-cocaine link is especially strong for long-term
cocaine users, particularly long-term crack-cocaine users.  These
users often move into combined use with heroin because they find
that it softens the impact of the crash that often follows a
crack-cocaine binge.  Furthermore, evidence suggests that heroin
snorting has become more commonplace in those areas of the
country in which high-purity heroin is readily available,
primarily in the northeastern United States.  

The Pulse Check has been the most useful source of information
about current heroin use trends.  It has reported that heroin use
nationwide is still low but is increasing.  Heroin use is
generally higher in most areas of the Northeast and Midwest then
in portions of the South and West.  The majority of heroin users
are reported to be in their 30s or older, and they inject the
drug.  Also, an increasing number of adolescents and young adults
now are beginning to use heroin, and some are shifting from
inhaling to injecting the drug.  Heroin dealers are trying to
encourage this trend by packaging heroin for those who inject and
for those who inhale in different ways.  In some areas, heroin
dealers have begun tempting new users by first offering the drug
processed for smoking rather than injecting.  Throughout the
country, treatment providers are reporting an increase in persons
seeking treatment for heroin, with most new clients being males
older than 30 years of age who inject the drug.

The observations of the Pulse Check are supported by another
ONDCP report, Tracking the Incidence of Heroin Use, which found
evidence of increased heroin use among the same populations.13 
ONDCP will monitor the heroin situation closely to ensure that it
appropriately responds to any signs that the situation is
worsening.14 

Emerging Drug Use Trends

The Pulse Check has reported that the use of other illicit drugs
also is on the rise in certain areas of the country. 
Hallucinogens are increasingly popular in some cities, including
Atlanta and New York.  In other citiesincluding San Francisco,
Denver, and Los Angelesthere are reports that amphetamine use,
especially in combination with other drugs, is becoming a
significant problem.  In Florida and Texas, teenagers and college
students are reported to be using ephedrine, a chemical precursor
of amphetamine and a component of over-the-counter cold
medications.  It is often taken as a substitute for amphetamines,
and its use could presage an increase in amphetamine use.  Nearly
all illicit drug users continue to combine alcohol with other
drugs.  The most recent Pulse Check found that nationwide,
hallucinogens and amphetamines are now the most common among
emerging drugs.

ENDNOTES

1    For a long-term perspective of trends in drug use, see
Harrison, L., and Kopstein, A.  A Twenty-Plus Year Perspective
on Adolescent Drug Use.  Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American Society of Criminology, November 9-12, 1994,
Miami, FL.

2    Califano, J.  Cigarette, Alcohol, Marijuana:  Gateways to
Illicit Drug Use.  Columbia University Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse.  New York:  October 1994.

3    Drug Use Measurement:  Strengths, Limitations, and
Recommendations for Improvements.  United States General
Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman, Committee on
Government Operations, House of Representatives, June 1993. 
(GAO/PEMD-93-18)

4    ONDCPs Pulse Check is a quarterly report that summarizes
and reports on the observations of street ethnographers, police
officials, and treatment providers.  It provides the only source
of current, subjective information on drug use and availability. 
This information is in contrast with the comparatively out-of-
date, objective profiles provided by drug surveys.  Pulse Check
data are intended to complement, not substitute for, traditional
data sources.  The value of Pulse Check lies in its timeliness. 
Information for the end of a particular quarter is available for
use by policymakers within 30 days.

5    Existing prevalence surveys tend to produce unreliable
estimates for this user population of chronic, hardcore drug
user.  For many reasons, chronic, hardcore drug users are
difficult to locate and contact for interviews.  Even if they are
located and interviewed, a large portion of hardcore drug users
often are involved in significant criminal activity and are prone
to denial as a defensive technique, so they tend to downplay all
of their negative behaviors, including drug use.

6    For a discussion of the methodology used to estimate the
number of hardcore users of cocaine and heroin, see the report by
Abt Associates, Inc., What Americas Users Spend on Illegal
Drugs, 1981-1991, prepared under contract to ONDCP, July 1993.

7    The 1991 MTF survey reported that the percentage of students
disapproving of regular marijuana use declined from the previous
year, reversing a 13-year trend.

8    The Pulse Check also reports marijuana use is on the rise,
particularly among teenagers and persons in their early twenties. 
Use is reported to be on the rise everywhere in the country. 
Most users are young, but marijuana also is being used by older
heroin and cocaine users.  Individuals seeking treatment
generally consider marijuana to be a secondary drug to alcohol
and other drugs.  However, users seeking treatment in many areas
of the country have begun to indicate that they have problems
with marijuana on its own.

9    Each school year, PRIDE, a private national drug prevention
organization based in Atlanta, GA, interviews more than 200,000
junior high and high school students about the use and
availability of drugs and alcohol.  Although the data are not
nationally representative, the information collected by PRIDE
provides much insight into drug use patterns and trends among the
Nations youth.

10   Califano, J.  Cigarette, Alcohol, Marijuana:  Gateways to
Illicit Drug Use.  Columbia University Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse.  New York:  October 1994.

11   In general, national prevalence surveys are of little value
in exposing the nature and extent of heroin use in the United
States.  The 1993 NHSDA reported a decline in the number of past-
month users, but the decline was not judged to be statistically
significant.  

12   For more discussion about the conditions for a heroin
epidemic, see BOTEC Analysis Corp.s Heroin Situation
Assessment, a report prepared for the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, January 1992.

13   Hunt, D., and Rhodes, W.  Tracking the Incidence of Heroin
Use.  Abt Associates, Inc., 1993.

14   ONDCP is reviewing the heroin situation and developing a new
heroin strategy.  For more discussion, refer to Chapter VIII,
Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction and International
Efforts.

III.  Drug Use and Its Consequences

Drugs = Crime = Violence = Health Costs = Chronic, Hardcore
Addicts = Drugs.  The math is simple.  The cost is unacceptable. 
A close look at the serious consequences of drug use makes one
thing clear:  America cannot afford to not treat the chronic,
hardcore drug-using population.

The revolving door of criminal justice must be brought to a halt. 
Too many people move through the insidious cycle of drug use-
crime-imprisonment-release-drug use.  Neighborhoods cant take
anymore.  Neither can the children.  Drug use clouds the mind and
poisons the spirit.  The cycle must be broken.  Working families
must regain their communities so they can live without fear or
threat to their security.

The heavy toll drug use exacts on the United States is most
easily measured by the criminal and medical costs imposed on and
paid for by the Nations taxpaying citizens.  One estimate places
the total cost of drug use at $67 billion.1  Almost 70 percent of
this is attributable to the costs of crimes; the remainder
reflects medical and death-related costs.  Research has shown
that drug users, especially those who are most severely addicted,
are responsible for many of these crimes.  Furthermore, the
expense of building new jails and prisons adds to this estimate
because the bulk of the incarcerated population growth stems from
drug law violations.  A large percentage of the increase in drug-
related homicides, especially among youth, is also related to
drug use and drug trafficking.  Any reasonable strategy aimed at
reducing the crime, violence, and health consequences related to
drug use must include steps to address the full range of problems
associated with chronic, hardcore drug use.

DRUGS, CRIME, AND VIOLENCE

Nowhere are the consequences of illicit drug use and drug
trafficking more visible than in the magnitude and pattern of
drug-related violence.   Nationally, the number of drug-related
murders has risen steadily since the mid-1980s, peaking at 7.4
percent of all murders in 1989 (see Table 3-1).  Since then the
rate has declined to 5.2 percent of all murders, but this level
of drug-related violence still is unacceptable.

More troubling is the change in the age-specific pattern for
murders during this period.  A recent study on youth, violence,
and the illicit drug industry identified two major changes that
have occurred between 1985 and 1992.2  Age-specific statistics
indicate the following:

    The number of homicides committed by youth ages 18 and
younger has more than doubled, while there has been no growth in
homicide rates by adults ages 24 and older.

    The number of homicides committed by juveniles involving
guns has more than doubled, while there has been no change in the
number of homicides committed by juveniles not involving guns.

The study speculates that these changes may relate to the nature
of illegal drug markets, the predatory practices of drug dealers,
and the inability of the juvenile justice system to adequately
deal with violent juvenile offenders.  The study notes with
particular concern the practice of drug dealers actively
recruiting juveniles and arming them with guns because they are
not subject to the same criminal penalties as older individuals. 
This practice in large part is responsible for todays high
levels of drug-related violence among juveniles.

The Parent Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE) has
investigated the correlation between violent behavior and the use
of various drugs.  The most recent PRIDE survey demonstrated
strong supporting evidence for a link between drug use and
violent crime among the Nations youth (see Figures 3-1 and 3-
2).3  The survey reported that students who bring guns to school,
participate in gang activities, threaten a teacher or another
student at school, contemplate suicide, or are in trouble with
the police, are more likely to use drugs than are students who do
not engage in these behaviors.  In addition, the study found the
following:
     
    A relationship exists between cocaine use and violence.  Of
the students surveyed, 4.3 percent of those in junior high school
and 7.4 percent of those in high school reported that they
carried guns to school.  Of those in high school who reported
having carried guns to school, 31 percent used cocaine; of those
who never carried guns to school, only 2 percent used cocaine. 
The same relationship was found among junior high school
students:  27 percent of those who had carried guns to school
reported using cocaine, whereas less than 1 percent of those who
never carried guns to school reported using cocaine.

    An ever stronger relationship exists between marijuana use
and violence.  For high school students, 66 percent of those who
had carried guns to school used marijuana.  For junior high
school students, 56 percent of those who had carried guns to
school used marijuana.

    Marijuana and cocaine use and gang activity also were highly
related.  Fourteen percent of high school students and 15 percent
of junior high school students claimed to have participated in
some type of gang activity.  Nineteen percent of those in gangs
reported cocaine use, compared with 2 percent of those who were
not in gangs. 

Drugs, drug use, and crime are inextricably linked, and progress
in reducing drug use will have a direct and positive impact on
reducing criminal activity.  Drug users often commit criminal
offenses such as theft and prostitution to support an existing
drug habit.  There also is a certain amount of violence
associated with the drug market, both violence from the effects
of the drugs, such as cocaine-induced psychosis, and violence
between rural distributors competing for market advantage.  Of
those incarcerated for violent offenses in Federal and State
prisons in 1991, 55 percent of Federal inmates and 57 percent of
State inmates reported regular use of an illicit drug at some
point in the past.  One-quarter of inmates in prison for violent
offenses committed the offenses while under the influence of
drugs.  Many of these inmates reported commiting crimes to obtain
money for drugs.4

The National Institute of Justices (NIJs) Drug Use Forecasting
(DUF) program also has demonstrated the strength of the
drugcrime relationship.5  The DUF program assesses drug use
among those arrested and charged with crimes by taking urine
specimens from a sample of arrested individuals and testing the
specimens for the presence of 10 drugs.  In 1993 the 23 DUF sites
around the Nation reported that more than 50 percent of arrestees
tested positive for an illicit substance.6  Among the sites,
positive tests for cocaine ranged from 19 to 66 percent in males
and from 19 to 70 percent in females.  Tests showed that heroin
and opiate use ranged from 1 to 28 percent for males and from 3
to 23 percent for females.  Not surprisingly, the DUF sites that
experienced the highest rates of drug prevalence are located in
cities with high crime rates.

An independent study by the National Institute on Drug Abuse
(NIDA) also presents data on the extent of illegal activity among
drug users.7  Figure 3-3 indicates a high incidence of criminal
activity among drug users who are not in treatment. 
Approximately one-half of the respondents in the study reported
legal sources of income, but one-half also reported illegal
sources.  Of those reporting legal income, 38 percent reported
receiving support from family and friends, 46 percent reported
some work-related income, and 47 percent reported that they
derived income from public assistance.  Of those reporting
illegal sources of income, 42 percent reported drug-related
income, 30 percent reported income from property crime, and 23
percent reported income from prostitution.  

The following study findings indicate the key role drug use plays
in the total number of accidental deaths due to driving under the
influence of alcohol and other drugs each year:

    From January 1988 through July 1989, 18.2 percent of the 643
New York City drivers who died within 48 hours of being involved
in an automobile accident tested positive for cocaine.8

    Almost 60 percent of reckless-driving arrestees in Memphis,
Tennessee, who were not under the influence of alcohol tested
positive for illicit drugs33 percent for marijuana, 13 percent
for cocaine, and 12 percent for both drugs.  Of those who were
intoxicated, 85 percent also tested positive for marijuana and
cocaine.9

To reduce the rate of criminal activity associated with chronic,
hardcore drug use, the Nation must address the problems of the
chronic, hardcore user.  The fastest and most cost-effective way
to accomplish this objective is to force more chronic, hardcore
drug users into treatment.10

DRUG ARRESTS
     
The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported an estimated
1,126,300 total arrests for drug law violations in the United
States in 1993.  These offenders are straining the criminal
justice system and in some instances taking up prison space that
is needed to incarcerate violent offenders.  Table 3-2 shows that
this is below the peak level of arrests of 1,361,700 in 1989;
however, it should be noted that arrests in 1993 represent the
second highest level on record.  Arrests for drug offenses
accounted for 8 percent of all arrests nationwide.

The growth in the number of persons arrested for drug law
violations is the principal reason for the growth in the prison
population.  In turn, the increase in the number of persons
arrested for drug law violations reflects increasingly stringent
drug laws, and in particular, the enforcement of mandatory
minimum sentences.  According to the Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in 1994 the Nations Federal
and State prison population exceeded 1 million for the first time
in history.11  At the end of June 1994, State prisons held
919,143 inmates, and Federal prisons held 93,708 inmates.

DRUGS AND HEALTH

The health costs of drug use are growing quickly, especially as
an increasing number of chronic, hardcore drug users seek medical
attention for health problems relating to their long-term drug
use.  Nowhere is this growth in health costs more clearly visible
than in the Nations hospitals.  For example, 466,900 drug-
related hospital emergency room (ER) episodes were reported to
the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN)12 in 1993.  The rate of
drug-related ER episodes per 100,000 of the total U.S. population
increased 22 percent, from 167 in 1990 to 204 in 1993.  Nearly
one-half of all episodes involved the use of two or more drugs. 
The increase in cocaine-related ER episodes is the principal
reason for increased total drug-related ER episodes from 1985
though 1993 (except for 1990).  The percentage of drug-related ER
episodes caused by cocaine use increased from 1 percent in 1978
to 26 percent in 1993.  During the same period, heroin-related ER
episodes increased from 4 to 13 percent of total drug-related ER
episodes.

A drug-related hospital ER episode represents a valuable
opportunity for referring drug abusers to appropriate treatment
programs.  Unfortunately, the present lack of drug treatment
capacity prevents inpatient hospital services from helping drug
users in their care and making referrals to treatment facilities. 
ERs across the Nation are burdened with these types of medical
cases.  This issue is discussed in more detail later in this
chapter.  

Figure 3-4 shows that in 1993 the most frequently cited reason
for a drug-related ER visit was overdose, accounting for 53
percent of all drug-related ER episodes.  Unexpected reaction
and chronic effects were the next most frequently cited
reasons.  Figure 3-5 shows recent trends in heroin and cocaine ER
episodes.  Heroin-related episodes have been increasing steadily
since the early 1980s, and they reached their highest level in
1993.  DAWN study findings for heroin-related ER episodes include
the following:

    In 1993, 41 percent of heroin-related episodes occurred
among individuals between the ages of 34 and 44.  Heroin episodes
have more than doubled for this age group since 1988.

    An analysis of the heroin data13 suggests that the record
number of cases of heroin-related ER episodes could be the result
of the cumulative adverse health effects of prolonged heroin use. 
The analysis also suggests that heroin-related episodes will
continue to increase as long as chronic, hardcore heroin use
continues unabated.

DAWN reports that the strong upward trend in cocaine-related ER
episodes has stabilized, but the episodes remain at record
levels.  For example, an estimated 123,300 cocaine-related
episodes were reported in 1993.  DAWN reports the following
findings:

    In 1993, 43 percent of cocaine-related episodes occurred
among individuals between the ages of 26 and 34.  

    Seeking detoxification was the most commonly cited reason
for an emergency department visit by cocaine users, followed by
unexpected reaction and chronic effects.

    Since 1990 the number of cocaine-related ER episodes for
those older than 35 years has more than doubled.  As is the case
for heroin, it appears that prolonged cocaine use has an adverse
effect on the health of its users.

The number of marijuana-related ER episodes has increased rapidly
in recent years.  Total episodes rose from 20,000 in 1990 to
29,200 in 1993a 46-percent increase.  Marijuana was likely to be
mentioned in combination with other drugs, particularly alcohol
and cocaine.  In 1993 alcohol and cocaine were mentioned in 50
percent of marijuana-related episodes; only 20 percent of
marijuana episodes involved marijuana alone.
A strong linkage exists between certain diseases and illicit
intravenous (IV) drug use; this type of drug use and the
behaviors related to it harm users mostly by exposing them to HIV
(Human Immunodeficiency Virus), hepatitis, and other diseases. 
However, chronic, hardcore drug users also exhibit high-risk
sexual behaviors that are associated with transmission of certain
diseases.  A recent study that compared crack-cocaine users with
nonusers found that users high-risk sexual practices accounted
for their having higher rates of HIV infection.14  According to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), almost one-
third of AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) cases were
associated with IV drug users.  The CDC also reports that almost
60 percent of children under age 13 with AIDS contracted the
disease from mothers who were IV drug users or who were the sex
partners of IV drug users.  

TARGETING CHRONIC, HARDCORE DRUG USE

Chronic, hardcore drug use is clearly related to the high levels
of crime, health problems, and violence in cities, towns, and
neighborhoods across the Nation.  This Strategys immediate
priority, therefore, is to target the problems created by this
population of drug users.  The following evidence supports this
prioritization:

    Chronic, hardcore drug users account for two-thirds of the
total amount of cocaine consumed in the United States, even
though they comprise only 20 percent of all cocaine users. 
Therefore, it is the chronic, hardcore drug users who keep the
major drug traffickers in business.

    Chronic, hardcore drug use causes severe and long-term
health consequences.  A Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) study of the record number of heroin medical emergencies in
1993 suggests that prolonged heroin use produces cumulative
adverse health effects. 

    When a user is going through periods of heavy or addictive
drug use, the frequency and severity of his or her criminal
activity rises dramatically.  Drug-related criminal activity is
one of the main reasons for the substantial growth of U.S. prison
and jail populations.

THE CASE FOR TREATING HARDCORE DRUG USERS

When effectively administered, drug treatment can reduce the
consequences of illicit drug use.  It has been proven that when
drug-dependent individuals receive appropriate treatment, they
decrease their drug use, decrease their criminal activity,
increase their employment, improve their social and interpersonal
functioning, and improve their physical health.   

Reducing health care costs created by illicit drug use requires a
comprehensive response.  First, drug prevention efforts must
increase their focus on populations who are at risk for drug use. 
Making individuals aware of the health consequences of illicit
drug use may ultimately prevent the onset or continuation of
chronic, hardcore drug use and related health-threatening
behaviors.  Second, the chronic, hardcore drug users, who are
suffering the health consequences of prolonged drug use, must be
provided access to effective treatment for their addiction and
related health problems.

Numerous studies confirm the fact that treatment of chronic,
hardcore addicts, both within the correctional setting and in
community-based programs, is the most cost-effective response and
the course of action that makes the most practical sense.  

The most compelling demonstration of the cost-effectiveness of
treatment is from a recent California study assessing drug and
alcoholism treatment effectiveness.15  This study found that in
1992 alone, the cost of treating approximately 150,000 drug users
in California was $209 million.  Approximately $1.5 billion was
saved while these individuals were in treatment and in the first
year after their treatment.  Most of these savings were in the
form of reductions in drug-related crime (a two-thirds decline in
the level of criminal activity among these drug users was
observed from pretreatment to posttreatment).

Even if incarcerating drug addicts on a long-term basis were
feasible or affordable for States and localities, such a measure
would not address the addicts drug habit and its destructive
consequences.  Drug treatment must be available for chronic,
hardcore users, whether they are inside or outside the criminal
justice system, to ensure that progress is made in reducing the
negative health and crime consequences of drug use.

The Nation must utilize every opportunity to get chronic,
hardcore drug users into treatment.  Locking up drug users and
drug addicts does not go far enough to protect communities from
the problems created by drug use.  The Nation must recognize
that, eventually, most of these users will be released back to
the communities from which they came, and unless they have
received treatment for their problems, many will continue to prey
on others to support their drug habit or to continue drug-dealing
activities.  Clearly, drug treatment is vital to protecting
Americans from the serious and violent consequences of illicit
drug use.

ADDRESSING THE SHORTAGE OF DRUG TREATMENT CAPACITY

The United States currently lacks adequate treatment capacity to
treat all those individuals who need drug treatment.  According
to HHS estimates, more than 1 million people who need some type
of drug treatment are unable to access programs.  Closing the
treatment gap is a national priority, and the Administration
continues to press for more treatment capacity, especially within
the criminal justice system.

As the success of managed care has shown, treatment capacity can
be allocated more efficiently.  For example, managed care in
Massachusetts has demonstrated that more efficient use of
resources increases access to treatment and reduces costs. 
Programs in Minnesota similarly have shown that by managing care,
costs can be contained, and resources can be applied more
effectively.

HHS estimates that more than 3.8 million users of illicit drugs
exhibit behavioral problems or physical manifestations resulting
from their illicit drug use.  For some users with less acute
problems, testing and monitoring are enough to reduce or
eliminate their drug use.  Others are able to end drug use on
their own with the support of family and friends.  However, some
chronic, hardcore users need more intensive treatment.  HHS
estimates that 2.4 million of the more than 3.8 million users
need some type of drug treatment program.  As the next section
shows, the current treatment system lacks the capacity to treat
this number of users.

Treatment Capacity Outside the Criminal Justice System

HHS estimates that in 1994 the drug treatment system had the
capacity to provide specialized drug treatment services to about
1.4 million individuals.  Therefore, out of the 2.4 million drug
users who could benefit from specialty drug treatment, about 1
million (or 40 percent) could not access such treatment at any
time during the year.

According to the 1992 National Drug and Alcohol Treatment
Utilization Survey (NDATUS), an estimated 945,000 clients were
involved in specialty drug abuse treatment as of September 30,
1992.16  Outpatient services accounted for 87 percent of all
client services.  Most outpatient clients were enrolled in drug-
free programs or programs not utilizing pharmacological
interventions such as methadone (74 percent).  Some, however, did
receive methadone (14 percent).  Twelve percent of clients were
in 24-hour treatment11 percent in rehabilitation and 1 percent
in detoxification.  The 1992 NDATUS also revealed the following:

    Although the number of providers and clients reporting to
NDATUS has increased substantially since 1980, the broad
characteristics of treatment services and clients in treatment
have stayed relatively the same.  

    Of those in treatment, 60 percent were white, 22 percent
were African American, and 15 percent were Hispanic.  The racial
and ethnic composition of clients changed very little between
1980 and 1992.

    The ratio of males to females in treatment was more than 2
to 1.

The Federal Government also provides treatment for military
personnel and veterans.  In 1993 the Department of Veterans
Affairs provided substance abuse treatment for almost 160,000
patients in 327 programs.  Of these programs, 196 specialized,
inpatient programs served 54,195 drug users, while the 131
outpatient programs served 105,800 drug users.

Treatment Capacity Inside the Criminal Justice System

The most recent DUF data indicate that the criminal justice
system offers an opportunity to identify those individuals who
need treatment and to match their specific needs with appropriate
drug treatment programs.  On any given day, more than 4 million
people are under the care or custody of a correctional agency,
either on probation, on parole, in jail, or in Federal or State
prisons.    

The criminal justice system can intervene to affect an
individuals drug use through a variety of means.  In some cases,
drug testing is adequate to deter continued drug use, especially
when it is a condition of probation or parole.  For those in jail
or prison, drug treatment programs may involve individual
counseling, group counseling, or support group participation. 
Treatment for this population is discussed in detail in Chapter
V.

A 1991 BJS survey reported that of those inmates sentenced for
violent offenses, 55 percent of Federal inmates and 57 percent of
State inmates reported using drugs regularly, and 43 percent of
Federal inmates and 46 percent of State inmates reported using
drugs in the month prior to their offense.17  Twenty-five percent
of Federal inmates and 28 percent of State inmates reported that
they were under the influence of drugs while committing the
offense for which they were incarcerated.  Many of these inmates
were receiving treatment while in prison.  At the time of the
survey, about 43 percent of Federal inmates and 48 percent of
State inmates who had used drugs in the month prior to their
offenses had been enrolled in prison treatment programs at some
point during their incarcerations.  More than 20 percent in each
population had completed treatment programs since admission to
prison.

Enrolling more drug users in treatment programs is one of the
surest ways to counter the severe, negative effects on the U.S.
economy, health care system, and quality of life that result from
illicit drug use.  More than 1 million chronic, hardcore users
are caught in the gap in available treatment services; many of
the available programs rely on modalities of treatment that do
not address these users problems.  If this treatment shortfall
remains unaddressed, the economic, health care, and social
problems created by chronic, hardcore users will become even more
expensive and complex in the years to come.

ENDNOTES

1    Substance Abuse:  The Nations Number One Health Problem,
Key Indicators for Policy.  Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis
University.  1993.

2    Blumstein, A.  Youth, Violence, and the Illicit Drug
Industry.  H. John Heinz II School of Public Policy and
Management, Working Paper Series.  July 1994.  

3    PRIDE Questionnaire Report, 1992-93 National SummaryUSA,
Grades 6 to 12.  PRIDE, Inc.  August 3, 1994.

4     Harlowe, C.W.  Comparing Federal and State Inmates, 1991. 
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics.  NCJ-145864.  Tables 13-15.  September 1994.

5     DUF data clearly are useful for exposing the link between
drug use and other criminal activities.  Beyond this, DUF data
also reveal much about the extent of drug use in the United
States.  The data show steady levels of cocaine use and
increasing levels of marijuana usetrends confirmed by other data
sources.

6    Drug Use Forecasting 1993 Annual Report on Adult Arrestees: 
Drugs and Crime in Americas Cities and Drug Use Forecasting 1993
Annual Report on Juvenile  Arrestees/Detainees:  Drugs and Crime
in Americas Cities.  Washington, DC:  National Institute of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

     According to the 1993 DUF Reports, there were increased
rates of marijuana use, largely unchanged rates of cocaine and
opiate use, and slightly increased rates of multiple drug use
among male arrestees.  Cocaine remains the principal drug of use
among male arrestees.  Young males were less likely to test
positive for cocaine than older males.  Among females, the data
show a slight decline in the prevalence of cocaine, largely
unchanged rates of marijuana and opiate use, and a slight
increase in multiple drug use.

7    Needle, R., and Mills, A.  Drug Procurement Practices of the
Out-of-Treatment Chronic Drug Abuser.  U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse.  National
Institutes of Health Publication No. 94-3820.  1994.

8    Drugs, Crime, and The Criminal Justice System:  A National
Report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.  U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics.  NCJ-133652.  December 1992.  p. 13.

9     Testing Reckless Drivers for Cocaine and Marijuana. 
Abstract, New England Journal of Medicine. 

10    NIJ and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
plan to work closely to pursue a research agenda focusing on
issues of drug procurement and drug use.  The DUF program offers
tremendous possibilities as a research platform.  NIJ and ONDCP
will work closely to develop assessment and interview strategies
that capitalize on the opportunity DUF presents to interview
approximately 30,000 arrestees within hours of their apprehension
in jails throughout major U.S. cities.

11   State and Federal Prison Population Tops One Million. 
Department of Justice, BJS Advance Release.  October 27, 1994.

12   Estimates from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, Advance
Report No. 8.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office
of Applied Studies.  October 1994.

13   Based on analysis conducted by the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Service Administration, Office of Applied Studies.

14   See Edlin, B., Irwin, K., et. al.  Intersecting Epidemics
Crack Cocaine Use and HIV Infection Among Inner-City Young
Adults.  New England Journal of Medicine, November 1994, pp.
1422-1427.

15   Evaluating Recovery Services:  The California Drug and
Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA).  July 1994.

16   Overview of the National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment
Utilization Survey (NDATUS):  1992 and 1980-1992.  Advance Report
Number 9.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 
January 1995.  This survey classifies drug users into three
groups:  alcohol only, drug only, and both.  The survey provides
a snapshot of treatment providers and clients on September 30,
1992.

17   Harlow, C.W.  Comparing Federal and State Inmates, 1991. 
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, BJS. 
NCJ-145864.  Table 15.  September 1994.

IV.  Illicit Drug Availability

Drug traffickers are shrewd.  They stockpile their drugs and
increase production to keep pace with increased seizures and
worldwide demand.  As a result, cocaine, marijuana, and heroin
remain readily available in the United States.

It is imperative to continue to attack the supply of drugsat
their source, where traffickers are most vulnerable, in transit,
and on the street, where the cost to traffickers per seized gram,
ounce, and kilo is highest.  Drug seizures at all levels disrupt
drug trafficking empires, and these international entities
threaten not only the United States but democracies all over the
world.  Aggressive enforcement and interdiction are the first
line of defense in preventing the Nations youth from ever being
exposed to drugs in the first place.  A strong productive America
is a country free of drugs.

The overarching goal of the National Drug Control Strategy is the
reduction of illicit drug use and its consequences.  This goal is
served by both foreign and domestic supply reduction activities. 
Studies have shown that any reduction in the available drug
supply in a given geographic area can have an immediate and
direct impact on the number of users and the amount of drugs they
consume as well as on the consequences of drug use to the local
community.

To date, the efforts of the U.S. Government to reduce
availability of drugs have met with some success.  A study by the
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) found that between
1989 and 1991, U.S. cocaine availability declined and cocaine
prices increased, resulting in fewer drug use consequences.1 
Furthermore, coca cultivation declined somewhat between 1991 and
1992 from its peak level in 1990 of 220,850 hectares,2 according
to the 1994 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report
(INCSR); coca cultivation then decreased dramatically in 1993
because of a fungus affecting the coca plant in Peru.  While
there should have been a resulting decline in the supply of
cocaine reaching the United States, U.S. cocaine availability in
1993 remained unchanged compared with 1992 levels.  Independent
evidence suggests that cocaine producers drew upon stockpiles of
the drug located in the United States and Mexico to cover the
market shortfalls that would normally have resulted in higher
cocaine retail prices.  

An assessment of current potential coca production is not
encouraging.  By most accounts, current coca cultivation is three
times what is necessary to supply the needs of the U.S. drug
market.3  During the past few years, coca producers have
increased their production, both to replace losses due to
increased seizures and to provide for a growing worldwide demand. 
There also is evidence that the amount of marijuana and heroin
available in the United States for domestic consumption may have
increased in 1993.  Clearly, reducing drug availability remains a
critical mission, with much yet to be accomplished.  Unless more
effective supply reduction strategies are developed and
implemented, the chances of reducing U.S. illicit drug
availability to any meaningful extent are limited.  One of the
most promising means to reduce this supply of drugs is a strong
source country strategy.  

SHIFTING THE FOCUS OF THE INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM STRATEGY

In 1993, the National Security Council (NSC) concluded a lengthy
review of the international drug trafficking situation that
determined that to reduce cocaine availability more effectively,
a stronger focus on source countries was necessary.  The NSC
determined that a controlled shift in emphasis was requireda
shift away from past efforts that focused primarily on
interdiction in the transit zones to new efforts that focus on
interdiction in and around source countries.  This new focus on
source countries reflects the view that it is potentially easier
and more practical to attack traffickers at the source, where
they are most visible and vulnerable to counternarcotics efforts.

The Presidential Decision Directive4 (PDD) that resulted from the
NSC review called for a three-pronged international drug control
strategy that emphasizes (1) providing assistance to those
nations that show the political will to combat narcotrafficking
through institution building, (2) conducting efforts to destroy
narcotrafficking organizations, and (3) interdicting narcotics
trafficking in both source countries and transit zones.  The PDD
also called for a controlled shift in interdiction operations
from programs that focus primarily on transit zones to a strategy
that focuses on both sources and transit zones and that can also
respond to changing situations.  It should be clearly recognized,
however, that without effective transit zone programs in place,
the smooth implementation of the new source country program will
be severely inhibited.

An essential component of the new source country focus is the
creation of a sustained economic development program within the
source countries themselves.  Such programs can create permanent
job alternatives to illegal drug activities, offering the best
long-term strategy for reducing source country drug crop
cultivation.  These alternate development programs, combined with
U.S. demand reduction efforts, will serve the objective of Andean
countries to move away from drug production while at the same
time reducing the impact of drug use in the United States.    

ACHIEVING SUPPLY REDUCTION THROUGH DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES

An analysis of the illicit drug price structure suggests that the
bulk of the increase in drug prices occurs once the drugs arrive
in the United States.5  By reducing the available supply and sale
of illicit drugs at or within U.S. borders, domestic law
enforcement efforts can have a dramatic impact on the
profitability of the illicit drug trade.

A set of studies recently released by ONDCP6 clearly demonstrated
the positive effect of domestic law enforcement on drug
availability.  Although the study specifically measured the time
heroin users spend searching for heroin and the effect of that
time on their levels of use, its findings are nevertheless
relevant for the larger illicit drug market.  The study indicated
that the degree of availability of illicit drugs has a
significant effect on drug use rates for current users and
especially for those who are beginning to use drugs.  By stepping
up high-visibility enforcement operations on the street and
within known drug markets, domestic law enforcement programs can,
in effect, reduce drug consumption rates and further help to
reduce profits for traffickers and dealers.

The Administration supports law enforcement activities for their
combined effect on reducing both the supply and demand of illicit
drugs.  The 100,000 police officers provided for by the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Action of 1994 (Public Law 103-
22, hereafter referred to as the Crime Control Act) will, along
with increased funding for Federal, State, and local law
enforcement coordination efforts, help to arrest dealers, disrupt
drug markets, and reduce overall rates of use.  Furthermore,
Federal cooperation, which has improved at U.S. borders and ports
of entry, will lead to further reductions in the profitability of
the illicit drug trade.
Cocaine Availability

The cocaine targeted for consumption by the U.S. market comes
from coca plants grown in South America.7  In 1993 the total
production of coca leaf in South America was 271,700 metric tons
(mt).  This harvest required the cultivation of 198,893 hectares. 
Table 4-1 shows that coca production decreased between 1992 and
1993.  Coca cultivation declined from a total of 217,808
hectares, which produced an estimated 333,900 mt of leaf8 in
1992, to a total of 198,893 hectares, which produced an estimated
271,700 mt of leaf in 1993.  This was due principally to the
abandonment of some fields in Peru, resulting from the fortuitous
infestation of a naturally occurring fungus, which made it
impossible to grow coca plants.  Other factors, such as soil
depletion and the movement of farmers to safer areas, also
contributed to this decline in cultivation.9  The coca harvested
in 1993 could potentially provide 683 to 813 mt (metric tons) of
cocaine.10  

Not all of the cocaine that is produced is destined for the U.S.
market.  Some of the supply is consumed in source countries, and
some is shipped to Europe and other countries.  ONDCP estimates
that 243 to 340 mt of cocaine could have been available to supply
the U.S. drug market in 1993 from the cocaine produced in South
America that year.11  These figures represent a decrease from
1992, when an estimated 376 to 539 metric tons were available. 
The decline in 1993 is a positive result of the counternarcotics
efforts of the United States and its allies.  However, as
discussed below, there is evidence that producers were able to
compensate to prevent a shortage of cocaine in the market from
occurring.

The price and purity of cocaine provide another indication of
availability.  Therefore, it is important to observe how the
price and purity of cocaine have fluctuated over time.  The
following facts demonstrate the fluctuation and indicate the
availability of cocaine:

    According to reports from the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), during 1993 the price of cocaine was low
while purity was high (both price and purity were stable
throughout the year).

    Table 4-2 shows that the estimated price for a pure gram of
cocaine has generally declined between 1988 and 1993.

    The most recent drug use indicators, discussed in Chapter
II, show little change in the demand for cocaine in the United
States between 1992 and 1993.

    Estimates suggest that coca cultivation availability
declined between 1992 and 1993.

When these points are examined concurrently, there emerges an
unanswered question about the price of cocaine in recent years: 
If coca cultivation decreased in 1993 and consumption remained
stable, the price of cocaine should have increased; why did it
stay the same?  
One explanation is that overall cocaine availability may not have
actually decreased in 1993.  This may have been the case if the
decrease in cultivation was plannedin other words, if it
occurred in those areas scheduled for abandonment by the drug
traffickers.  In this case, they likely would have compensated by
increasing production elsewhere.  Another possibility may be that
cocaine is being stockpiled or kept in storage with inventories
sufficient to cover shortfalls in the market.  By some accounts,
there are substantial stockpileseasily adequate to cover a
market shortage until a new coca crop matures.12  

Another possible explanation lies in the retail end of the
market, specifically in changes to the levels of profit accepted
there.  One prominent researcher has hypothesized that there may
be barriers to exit in the illicit drug market.  Low-end
dealers have no other source of livelihood to fall back on, so
increasing competition among a larger pool of sellers for a
stable or decreasing pool of users forces sellers to absorb
higher costs of doing business, meaning lower profits.13  This
hypothesis can reconcile the competing facts of decreased
availability in 1993, constant consumption, and stable prices: 
Simply put, dealers were forced by changing market conditions to
settle for lower profits for the same amount and purity-level of
cocaine.  During 1995 ONDCP will initiate a research project into
this area in an effort to better provide a cogent and supportable
explanation.  

Heroin Availability

Although cocaine still poses the greatest threat to this Nation
and must remain its most immediate concern, the Administration
also is concerned about heroin availability and use, both of
which appear to be on the increase.  During the past 8 years,
reports of increasing purity and lower prices and of dramatic
increases in seizures appear to indicate that heroin availability
in the United States is on the rise.  There also are reports that
heroin use is increasing, mostly among existing chronic, hardcore
drug users.  

Opium poppies are currently grown in four major regions in the
world.14  The products from these poppies are consumed in various
forms (e.g., opium, morphine, and heroin) around the globe.  As
Table 4-3 shows, opium production has increased dramatically
since 1988.  According to the 1994 INCSR, 3,699 mt of opium were
produced in 1993, up 43 percent from the 2,590 mt produced in
1988.  In 1993, Southeast Asia accounted for 76 percent of total
worldwide production (2,797 mt) due mostly to opium production in
Burma (2,575 mt).  Estimates of the amount of heroin available in
the United States range from 3.8 to 11.4 mt.15

The U.S. heroin market is dominated by heroin from Southeast
Asia.  According to the DEAs Heroin Signature Program (HSP),16
approximately 68 percent of the heroin analyzed in DEA
laboratories was determined to be from Southeast Asia.  Of the
balance of the heroin analyzed by the DEA, 15 percent originated
in South America, 9 percent in Southwest Asia, and 8 percent in
Mexico.17

The United States clearly faces an ominous threat from the newest
opium cultivating regionSouth America.  The DEA reports that
heroin is now being shipped to the United States from Colombia in
increasing quantities.  The El Paso Intelligence Center reports
that the number of Colombian couriers flying on commercial
airlines who were arrested for smuggling heroin into the United
States was 41 in 1991, 263 in 1992, and 232 in 1993.  Reportedly,
Colombian traffickers also have established distribution outlets
in the northeastern regions of the United States and are offering
free samples of heroin to potential distributors and requiring
established cocaine distributors to sell heroin as a condition of
continuing to do business.18

Heroin prices declined throughout the 1980s and increased
slightly in 1989 and 1990.  Since then, prices have again
declined and are now at their lowest levels ever.  Along with
this decline in price has come an increase in the purity of the
heroin.  The street price of heroin varies widely, but the
typical heavy user might pay about $1.70 per milligram and expect
the heroin to be about 30-percent pure.  The lower price and
higher purity indicate that the supply of heroin in the United
States is abundant.

Increased availability of higher purity heroin enables the user
to inhale or smoke the drug rather than inject it.  This may
result in more users (i.e., those who would not have used heroin
if the only method of administration were through injection).  At
present, while there does not appear to be a dramatic increase in
the number of heroin users, there are signs that some young
people are initiating heroin use.19 

Marijuana Availability

Marijuana is cultivated in many regions of the world, both for
consumption within those regions and for export.  Production
estimates for marijuana are difficult,20 but current estimates
indicate that there has been a slight increase in the amount of
marijuana produced abroad14,407 mt in 1993 compared with 13,058
mt in 1992.  Estimates of domestic production were between 2,595
and 3,095 mt for 1992, a decrease from 1991 estimates of 3,615
and 4,615 mt.21  This level of production does not seem
plausible, given various estimates of consumption.22  In any
case, marijuana clearly continues to be readily available, and
its use appears to be on the rise.23

The DEA reported that most of the foreign marijuana available in
the United States during 1993 originated from Mexico, even
though, according to the National Narcotics Intelligence
Consumers Committee (NNICC), cannabis cultivation there dropped
significantly.  A continued increase in Colombian, Venezuelan,
and possibly Jamaican marijuana shipments to the United States
also was noted.  At the same time, domestic production accounted
for a considerable portion of the market.  It is difficult to
estimate the amount of marijuana produced in the United States,
because there are no national surveys conducted of cannabis
cultivation.24  Outdoor marijuana production is reported to be
especially prevalent in the western and southeastern United
States.  In addition, the DEA has reported an increasing trend
toward indoor domestic marijuana production.  However, no data or
models are available to estimate the full extent of either
outdoor or indoor domestic cultivation.

One study found that prices for marijuana have remained constant
since the mid-1980s, after controlling for inflation and
potency.25  The purity, or potency, in the case of marijuana, is
reported to have steadily increased for both commercial-grade
marijuana and the sinsemilla variety.  Although marijuana has
been readily available for a long time, its use over the last
decade has been declining until recently.  Currently there are
troubling indications that marijuana use may be increasing among
U.S. teenagers and young adults. 

Illicit Drug Seizures

One means by which U.S. supply reduction programs work to reduce
availability is by increasing the difficulty for drug traffickers
to ship drugs into the United States.  In this regard, the United
States has posted an impressive record, at least for cocaine.  By
most accounts, almost one-third of the potential supply of
cocaine ultimately is seized worldwide, with U.S. efforts
accounting for about one-third to one-half of these seizures.26  

The number of international drug seizures reported by the U.S.
State Department has increased erratically for all types of
illegal drugs since 1989.  As indicated in Table 4-4 below,
international cocaine seizures increased from 250 mt in 1989 to
345 mt in 1991 and then decreased to 265 mt in 1993.  During the
same time period, poppy/opium seizures rose from 30 to 41 mt, and
marijuana/ hashish seizures rose from 1,496 to 2,886 mt.

As indicated in Table 4-5, seizures by the Federal Government
have played an increasingly important role over the years. 
According to Federal seizure statistics, heroin seizures have
increased in recent years from roughly 1.1 mt in 1989 to 1.6 mt
in 1993.27  The data for the first half of 1994 show a minimal
decrease over the first half of 1993.  Cocaine seizures increased
between 1989 to 1992 and fell thereafter.  The numbers for the
first half of 1994, however, are somewhat higher than those
reported for the first half of 1993.  Cannabis seizures dropped
significantly between 1989 and 1990 from 338 to 250.2 mt.  Since
1990 the amount seized has risen, reaching almost 361.6 mt in
1993.  Data for the first half of 1994 are similar to those
reported for the first half of 1993.

Although overall seizures remain high, there is concern that the
interdiction effort has had limited effect on overall illicit
drug availability and consumption in the United States.  Cocaine
seizures undoubtedly constitute a substantial share of total
cocaine production, but the desired effects on U.S. price,
purity, and availability have not been seen.  Accordingly,
cocainealong with other illicit drugsremains available in
sufficient quantities to satisfy demand, with relatively low
prices and high purities.  This should not be understood to mean
that law enforcement should no longer conduct seizures as part of
its operations.  If law enforcement efforts focusing on reducing
drug availability in the United States were reduced, in all
probability, there would be even greater drug availability and
even lower prices and higher purities in the market, which would
lead to increased use.  Instead, seizures should be viewed not as
an end in themselves but rather as part of the larger whole. 
More often than not, seizures result from an extensive law
enforcement investigation targeting a drug trafficking
organization.  Clearly, the arrest, prosecution, and
incarceration of drug criminals is an important objective of drug
law enforcement, and efforts to dismantle drug trafficking
organizations will often result in drug seizures.  Hence,
seizures should be viewed not simply on the basis of their share
of the total production in question, but as a measure and direct
result of other efforts focused on the criminal organizations
that take part in the illicit drug trade.

ENDNOTES

1    ONDCP report, Price and Purity of Cocaine:  The Relationship
to Emergency Room Visits and Deaths and to Drug Use Among
Arrestees.  October 1992.

2    A hectare is a metric unit of area equal to 2.471 acres.

3    Generally speaking, about one-third of the estimated 900 to
1,000 mt of cocaine produced is consumed in the United States,
about one-third is seized, and the balance is assumed to serve
other countries demand for cocaine.  (A metric ton equals 2,205
pounds.)

4    A Presidential Decision Directive is a document, signed by
the President, that conveys a decision on a major policy issue to
the executive branch departments and agencies and includes
appropriate implementing instructions.

5    In 1993 the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) provided an
example of the markup in cocaine pricing from the source country
to the United States.  Based on GAOs 1991 report, the price for
enough coca leaf to produce 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of cocaine
was between $65 and $370.  The finished product entering the
United States is    valued between $800 and $5,000 per kilogram. 
This product is then diluted and eventually culminates in a
street price of between $70,000 and $300,000 per kilo gram. 

6    See the ONDCP reports Measuring Heroin Availability in Three
Cities and Heroin Users in New York, Chicago, and San Diego.
November 30, 1994.

7    I.e., Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and Venezuela.

8    International Narcotics Control Strategy Report.  U.S.
Department of State.  March 1994.

9    The NNIC Report 1993:  The Supply of Illicit Drugs to the
United States.  NNICC, August 1994, DEA-94066, p. 2.

10   Not all coca is converted into cocainepeople in the
cultivating countries consume coca leaves.  For a detailed
description of cultivation and processing, see Coca Cultivation
and Cocaine Processing:  An Overview.  Drug Enforcement
Administration.  February 1991.

11   ONDCP developed a model that begins with estimates of coca
cultivation and ends with an estimate of the amount of cocaine
reaching the United States for consumption.  The model computes
the inputs and outputs of several different steps in the
processing of cocaine.  For more information, see Rhodes, W.;
Scheiman, P.; and Carlson, K. What Americas Users Spend on
Illegal Drugs.  Abt Associates, Inc., February 1991.

12   One source suggests that as much as 200 tons of cocaine was
inventoried in Mexico last year.  If this is correct, it would
explain why cocaine prices did not decline. An inventory of this
magnitude constitutes about two-thirds of the estimated U.S.
annual consumption of about 300 tons.

13   Based on remarks made by Dr. Peter Reuter at the Conference
on the Economics of the Narcotics Industry, Loy Henderson
Conference Room, State Department, November 21-22, 1994.

14   Southeast Asia (Burma, Laos, Thailand, and China), Southwest
Asia (Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan), Central America, Mexico,
and South America (Colombia and Peru).  Geographical breakouts
are from DEAs Heroin Signature Program.

15   The Retail Value of Drugs Sold in the United States.  Abt
Associates, Inc., 1993.

16    Worldwide Heroin Signature Report1992.  Drug Enforcement
Administration.  March 1994, p. 13.

17   The NNICC Report 1993:  The Supply of Illicit Drugs to the
United States.  NNICC, DEA-94066, August 1994, p. 32.

18   The NNICC Report 1993:  The Supply of Illicit Drugs to the
United States.  NNICC, DEA-94066, August 1994, p. 40.

19   See Pulse Check: National Drug Trends.  ONDCP, July 1994.
Also see the forthcoming National Institute of Justice bulletin
Heroin Prices and New Addicts: 1981-1994.
20   For a discussion of the problematic nature of production
estimates, see Marijuana Situation Assessment.  ONDCP, September
1994, pp. 46-47.  The INCSR reports marijuana production, but for
purposes of reviewing trends in marijuana, it is of questionable
value.  This problem particularly pertains to marijuana
statistics reported for Mexico.  According to the 1994 INCSR,
Mexico produced between 6,000 and 8,000 mt of marijuana each year
between 1991 and 1993.  This level is down considerably from the
30,000 mt reported for 1989 and the 20,000 mt reported for 1990. 
However, it appears that the decline is spurious, because the
estimates for these 2 years are grossly overstated.

21   The NNICC Report 1992: The Supply of Illicit Drugs to the
United States.  NNICC, September 1993.  There is no explanation
of how these estimates were derived.  No information on the land
under cultivation is given.

22   See Marijuana Situation Assessment and What Americas Users
Spend on Illegal Drugs; both are ONDCP publications.

23   See ONDCPs Pulse Checks as well as the most recent PRIDE
(Parent Resource Institute for Drug Education) and Monitoring the
Future reports. 

24   It is very difficult to estimate the amount of marijuana
actually produced in the United States in 1993 because there are
no national surveys conducted of outdoor cannabis cultivation. 
In 1992 there was an estimated gross of 6,000 to 6,500 mt
cultivated (does not include low-potency wild ditchweed plants). 
However, this figure is considered to be inexact.  Approximately
1,840.2 mt representing 4.04 million cultivated plants were
eradicated in 1993.  Domestic seizures of cannabis and marijuana
totaled 394 mt compared to 347 mt in 1992.  Many of the cannabis
plants eradicated during 1993 were sinsemilla plants.

25   See the ONDCP report, Marijuana Situation Analysis. 
September 1994.

26   It should be noted that seizures are not the whole story. 
Significant quantities of cocaine are jettisoned by the
traffickers in the transit zones so that they will avoid arrest
by interdiction forces.  To provide a more complete picture of
the impact law enforcement efforts have on the traffickers
operations, estimates of the type and quantity of drugs being
jettisoned are being developed.

27   This information comes from the Federal-wide Drug Seizure
System (FDSS), which contains information about drug seizures
made within the jurisdiction of the United States by the DEA, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Customs Service and
about maritime seizures by the U.S. Coast Guard.  The FDSS was
established to avoid double counts of seizures when two or more
agencies are involved in the same activities and both report the
amount of drugs seized.  However, the FDSS may actually
undercount seizures nationally.  Drug seizures made by other
Federal agencies, such as the Immigration and Naturalization
Service or the Secret Service, are included only when custody of
the drug evidence is transferred to one of the four agencies
identified above.

V.  Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for Illicit Drugs

Studies and statistics indicate that the fastest and most cost-
effective way to reduce the demand for illicit drugs is to treat
chronic, hardcore drug users.  They consume the most drugs,
commit the most crimes, and burden the health care system to the
greatest extent.  Without treatment, chronic hardcore users
continue to use drugs and engage in criminal activity, and when
arrested, they too frequently continue their addiction upon
release.  The cycle of dependency must be broken and the
revolving door of criminal justice brought to a halt.  Chronic,
hardcore users will be treated at every possible juncture,
especially through drug courts, where judges can leverage
sanctions to promote treatment compliance.

In the long run, prevention in schools, communities, and
workplaces is the key to reducing the demand for illicit drugs.  
This Action Plan aims to deglamorize drugs in the minds of all
American children, with the media playing a critical role.  A
National Drug Prevention System also is proposed to coordinate
all drug prevention efforts and ensure that time and money are
used on efforts that work, especially for high-risk youth.

The demand for illicit drugs is fueled by two groups of drug
users:  (1) chronic, hardcore users who consume the bulk of
illicit drugs in the United States, and (2) casual drug users. 
The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) will continue
to work closely with Federal departments and agencies to reduce
the demand for drugs by coordinating and improving ongoing
prevention, treatment, research, and law enforcement efforts. 
These efforts involve a range of comprehensive initiatives,
including a treatment improvement protocol initiative to improve
treatment capacity in the Nations drug abuse service system; a
multisite study to investigate the consequences of prenatal drug
exposure; a new National Resource Center to provide information
to the public on issues relating to women and substance abuse;
and a nine-State demonstration program to provide treatment for
substance-abusing women and their children.  Over and above these
ongoing efforts, the Administration will implement a targeted
Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for Illicit Drugs.

The Administration will continue to address the demand reduction
goals set forth in the 1994 National Drug Control Strategy,
listed below:

    Reduce the number of drug users in America (Goal 1).

    Expand treatment capacity and services and increase
treatment effectiveness so that those who need treatment can
receive it.  Target intensive treatment services for hardcore
drug-using populations and special populations, including adults
and adolescents in custody or under the supervision of the
criminal justice system, pregnant women, and women with dependent
children (Goal 2).

    Reduce the burden on the health care system by reducing the
spread of infectious disease related to drug use (Goal 3).

    Create safe and healthy environments in which children and
adolescents can live, grow, learn, and develop (Goal 5).

    Reduce the use of alcohol and tobacco products among
underage youth (Goal 6).

    Increase workplace safety and productivity by reducing drug
use in the workplace (Goal 7).

PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING THE GOALS FOR REDUCING THE DEMAND FOR
ILLICIT DRUGS

Attaining these measurable goals was contingent on congressional
adoption of and funding for the 1994 Strategys policies and
programs.  Full support was not received.  Many promising
programs and efforts have been set in motion during Fiscal Year
(FY) 1994; however, they have not been under way for a long
enough time to have any measurable effect.  Current information
has revealed the following:

    The number of drug users in America remains unchanged.

    Treatment capacity has been expanded modestly.  The modest
increase in the FY 1995 block grant program and the programs
included in the recently passed Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322, hereafter referred
to as the Crime Control Act) are being aggressively implemented
but have yet to take effect.

    Reducing the burden on the health care system that results
from infectious diseases is dependent both on expanding treatment
capacity for chronic, hardcore users and on health care reform. 
Neither change was supported in Congress, so the desired changes
have not occurred.  

    The Nation has made some progress in reducing alcohol use
among young people, including teenagers and preteens, but such
progress has been countered by the endemic nature of binge
drinking among adolescents, especially on college campuses. 
Furthermore, tobacco use has increased among the Nations youth. 

REDUCING THE DEMAND FOR
DRUGS BY REDUCING CHRONIC, HARDCORE DRUG USE

The best way to reduce the overall demand for illicit drugs is to
reduce the number of chronic, hardcore drug users.  To accomplish
this, communities, jails, and prisons must provide effective drug
treatment.  Current treatment capacity falls well below the
resources the country needs to address the problems of chronic,
hardcore drug use.  To increase treatment capacity, State and
local officials must more effectively use available Federal
treatment grant funds to direct drug users into treatment, and
the criminal justice system must use the sanctions at its
disposal to provide drug treatment for as many chronic, hardcore
users under their authority as possible.  Only by satisfying
these requirements can the United States hope to provide adequate
treatment to drug users and reduce the prevalence of drug use,
especially among chronic, hardcore addicts.

Managed Care and State Health Care Reform

As the growth of additional funding for substance abuse treatment
has slowed, States and businesses throughout the country have
experimented with ways to control costs and increase efficiency
of treatment services.  By controlling access to expensive
inpatient treatment, closely monitoring patient progress, and
negotiating reduced service charges from treatment providers,
managed care firms consistently have often been able to (1)
reduce per person costs for substance abuse treatment, (2)
increase the percentage of people who receive care, (3) maintain
high levels of satisfaction with care, and (4) achieve positive
treatment outcomes.  Although corporations have been the first
organizations to see substantial health insurance savings from
intensively managing substance abuse care, States are
increasingly requiring patients who receive Government-funded
treatment to use managed care systems.  States are expanding
managed care and are requesting waivers of Medicaid regulations
to experiment with numerous strategies for reducing unnecessary
and costly care.  Massachusetts, for example, reduced expected
Medicaid costs by 22 percent by reducing the use of general
hospitals for detoxification and treatment, increasing the use of
less expensive residential services, and dramatically expanding
day treatment and outpatient methadone treatment.

The Administration encourages States to experiment with managed
care so that funds for treatment can be used as efficiently as
possible.  At the same time, it is important to monitor the
impact of managed care on chronic, hardcore drug users and to
provide technical assistance to States and community providers
that use these new treatment funding systems.  The Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will
assist States in evaluating the impact of State health care
reforms, including managed care, to identify effective strategies
for reducing treatment costs and improving treatment outcomes.

When chronic, hardcore drug users are treated, communities become
better places to live.  A drug user entering treatment
immediately results in a reduction of drug use and criminal
activity.  Furthermore, the longer a person stays in treatment,
the more likely it is that he or she will remain drug free. 

The Role of Treatment in Reducing Chronic, Hardcore Use

Chronic, hardcore drug use is a disease, and like anyone
suffering from a disease,1 addicts need treatment.  But many
addicts also are criminals who infringe on or violate the rights
of others.  In these instances, there should be a balance between
sanctions for criminal activity and treatment of an addictive
disease.

There is compelling evidence that treatment is cost-effective and
provides significant public safety benefits.  In June 1994 the
RAND Corporation reported that drug treatment is the most cost-
effective drug control intervention, compared with other
potential drug strategy program options, such as interdiction.2 
In September 1994 a comprehensive study of drug treatment in
California concluded that for every dollar invested in drug
treatment in 1992, taxpayers saved $7.  The savings was
attributed to decreased use of drugs, including alcohol, and
significantly reduced costs related to crime and health care.3 
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) reported similar
findings last year.

     Criminal acts, on the other hand, must be punished and tough
sanctions often are needed to force drug-addicted criminals to
stop using drugs and committing crimes.  The Crime Control Act
created programs to support both treatment and punishment.  This
Administration will use both these tools in a coordinated fashion
to improve public safety and to give chronic, hardcore drug users
a chance to recover from addiction.

Linking Criminal Justice and Treatment

Society must be protected from violent and predatory people, even
if much of their behavior stems from drug addiction.  The United
States must recognize that when an unrehabilitated offender is
released unsupervised into the community, he or she represents a
serious and continuing threat to public safety.  Drug treatment
can break this destructive cycle.  The courts and the
correctional system must use their power to convince drug-using
offenders to clean up their actto the fullest extent possible
for the benefit of all citizens.  If drug addicts within the
criminal justice system are treated effectively, they will pursue
more productive interests, and the streets will be safer.  The
Crime Control Act formalizes the linkage between the criminal
justice and treatment systems and empowers judges to use a
valuable range of treatment and punishment options.

Despite increases in prosecutions and convictions, drug-using
offenders all too often pass through the criminal justice system
without having been encouraged to stop using drugs.  It is
imperative that this Nation take advantage of the criminal
justice systems ability at all levels of government to break the
cycle of drug dependency and criminal activity.  Breaking this
cycle will require appropriate treatment, aftercare, and
habilitation and rehabilitation services, as well as a commitment
to assist users in rebuilding their lives.  Once drug-addicted
criminals have been helped to remain drug free and to rebuild
their lives, Americas neighborhoods and communities will be
safer and more productive.

Fundamental to maximizing the drug treatment benefits through the
criminal justice system is the concept of coerced abstinencethat
is, using the limitations the criminal justice system inherently
places on a persons freedom of action to force positive changes
in drug use behavior.  Several related steps at different stages
of the criminal justice process must be taken to effect such
change.  For example, drug testing a person at the time of his or
her arrest can help determine who needs supervision and treatment
and who needs the threat of further punishment as an incentive
for getting straight.  Those who are charged with drug offenses
not involving violence and who have no prior history of violent
offenses could be diverted through drug courts or other
alternative sanction programs that use the threat of
incarceration to enforce abstinence and change.4

The Drug Courts Initiative within the Crime Control Act
establishes drug courts and similar offender management programs
at the State and local levels.  Existing drug court programs have
been tested and proven effective in jurisdictions across the
Nation.  They ensure certainty and immediacy of punishment for
nonviolent arrestees with substance abuse problems who might
otherwise go unpunished or receive only unsupervised probation or
a minimal sentence.  Such programs free up jail and prison space
for violent, predatory criminals.  

However, to be effective, drug courts and offender management
programs must provide integrated services and sanctions that
include continuing close supervision; mandatory periodic drug
testing, treatment, and aftercare services; and a system of
escalating sanctions for those who fail to meet program
requirements or do not make satisfactory progress.  Offender
management programs, such as Treatment Alternatives to Street
Crime, enable courts to divert users into treatment, to condition
pretrial release or probation on participation in drug treatment,
and to monitor treatment progress.  Such comprehensive programs
can reduce drug-related recidivism and break the cycle of drugs
and crime.

This reasonable but tough treatment for drug offenders can help
ensure that drug-addicted criminals do not revert to the same
criminal activity and continue to pass through the criminal
justice system.  Progress has been made by drug court programs in
Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Miami, Florida; Oakland, California;
Portland, Oregon; New York City, New York; and the District of
Columbia.  These programs have demonstrated that closely
supervised, court-ordered rehabilitation can be successful in
reducing drug use, alleviating correctional overcrowding, and
freeing prison space for more serious, more dangerous offenders. 
Simply put, with proper linkages established between the criminal
justice and treatment systems, drug-using offenders are given one
of two choicescommunity rehabilitation or incarceration.  

As enacted, the Crime Control Act includes the Administrations
Drug Court Initiative, authorizing $1 billion over 6 years to
provide competitive grant assistance to jurisdictions planning,
establishing, or improving judicially supervised, integrated
sanctions and services.  In addition, the Department of Justices
Drug Court Resource Center now is available to assist State and
local criminal justice systems in planning, implementing,
managing, and evaluating the effectiveness of drug court
programs.

Sound institutional management also is essential to conducting
effective drug treatment programs, and such management is found
in the substance abuse treatment program of the Federal Bureau of
Prisons (BOP).  The BOP program includes drug education,
nonresidential treatment, residential treatment, and transitional
services and community supervision for inmates under BOP custody. 
Cooperative working arrangements with the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts, which is responsible for Federal
probationers and parolees, have led to joint identification and
use of private treatment resources in communities.

There is evidence that prison-based drug treatment is an
effective means of controlling recidivism to criminal behavior
and that intensive programs such as therapeutic communities (TCs)
are well suited for serious drug abusers while they are
incarcerated.  Studies of the prison-based Stayn Out TC shows
that the program is effective in reducing recidivism rates.5 
Another study of prison-based TC programsincluding the
Cornerstone program in Oregon; the Amity program in San Diego,
California; and the Key program in Delawareindicate similar
effectiveness in reducing recidivism.6  Furthermore, all the
studies indicate that the longer the inmates spend in treatment,
the lower their rates of recidivism.

The role of structural aftercare in further reducing rates of
recidivism is becoming increasingly important.  For example, the
Amity program in Pima County, Arizona, reported a 21-percent
differential in women inmates who continued treatment after they
were released into the community versus those that did not.  The
Key program in Delaware reported a 23-percent differential
between the two populations, and the Amity program in Donovan
prison in San Diego, California, reported a 26-percent
differential.

In 1994 more than 11,500 BOP inmates participated in drug
education, more than 3,750 in residential drug treatment, and
nearly 2,000 in nonresidential treatment.  On any given day in
1994, an average of 750 inmates were participating in
transitional services, the final stage of successful treatment
completion.

The number of Federal inmates receiving residential drug
treatment will grow significantly in the years ahead.  The Crime
Control Act provides that all eligible inmates must receive 6
to 12 months of residential drug treatment.  The schedule
requires that 75 percent of eligible inmates receive this
treatment by 1996, and 100 percent by 1997.  A total of $112.5
million over 5 years, beginning in 1996, is authorized for this
purpose.

The BOP targets chronic, hardcore drug users for treatment, which
is consistent with the National Drug Control Strategy.  The BOP
also has begun to target other most in need of treatment
populations, including offenders diagnosed as having both a
substance abuse problem and mental health disorders.  An
evaluation of the BOPs residential drug treatment programs
currently is under way in conjunction with NIDA, and interim
results are due in late FY 1995.  The BOP programs already are
serving as a model for several State and local jurisdictions and
will continue to do so.

The Crime Control Act directly addresses the need for adequate
resources for correctional expansion in order to provide space
for incarcerating serious, violent offenders and to give meaning
to truth in sentencing at the State and local levels.  The
Crime Control Act also ensures that State offenders will have
expanded access to residential substance abuse treatment by
authorizing $383 million to support a treatment schedule covering
all drug-addicted inmates by the end of FY 1997.

Finally, this Strategy seeks to advance the linkage between the
criminal justice system and drug treatment in the following ways: 

    The BOP drug treatment program will be offered to States as
a working model.  The National Academy of Corrections will
sponsor training, transfer of policy and procedural documents,
and technical assistance to help States implement the model.  In
addition, exemplary community and institutional programs at the
State and local levels will be recognized, documented, and
offered as host sites for visits by other jurisdictions.7

    Methadone treatment regulations will be reviewed and common
outcome measures will be established to help State regulators
assess the effectiveness of heroin treatment programs.
Treatment Research

This Nations treatment research efforts to identify and develop
effective drug treatment strategies are, and must continue to be,
based on the complexity of drug abuse.  Treatment strategies must
be tailored to the drug(s) of abuse and the characteristics of
the client and treatment provider.  Strategies must address many
providers needs to treat a drug users concurrent mental and
medical disorders.  

The Treatment, Prevention, and Medical Research Subcommittee, as
part of ONDCPs Research, Development, and Evaluation Committee,
will pursue the following research priorities:

    The development of effective recruitment and retention
strategiesthat is, ways to direct those who need treatment to
enter and stay in treatment;

    More and better outcome studies comparing the different
modalities of treatment; 

    Rigorous evaluation of behavioral and counseling approaches;

    Development, testing, and dissemination of specialized
treatment interventions for populations such as adolescents,
women, and minorities;

    Review treatment modalities and maintain the status of
medications development;

    Pharmacologic research focusing on developing new
medications for cocaine and heroin addiction.  This
Administration seeks to have an effective cocaine medication
available for clinical use before the turn of the century;
methadone or LAAM (levo-alpha-acetylmethadol hydrochloride) for
opiate addiction should be used as the practical standard for
effectiveness;

    Further development of alternative modalities, such as
acupuncture; and 

    Investigation of the integration of behavioral and
pharmacologic approaches to treatment.

The Treatment, Prevention, and Medical Research Subcommittee also
will work to foster comprehensive training and continuing
education for treatment professionals, as well as training on the
nature of addiction, treatment, and recovery for all other health
professionals.

THE ROLE OF DRUG PREVENTION EFFORTS

There now is common agreement among those working in the demand
reduction fieldfrom social workers to law enforcement
officialsthat only prevention efforts can bring about a long-
term solution to the problem of illicit drug use and its
consequences.  There also is common agreement that prevention
efforts are difficult to evaluate.  Although recent data on
adolescents show drug use increasing and attitudes against use
declining, there has been significant progress since 1979 in
reducing the overall number of individuals who use illicit
drugsfrom 24 million to 12 million.  The Nation must clarify
which measures have been effective and examine why the alarming,
recent upturns in drug use have occurred.

Prevention is critically important to keeping new users from
entering the pipeline to chronic, hardcore use.  Prevention must
aim to break the intergenerational cycle through which many
children of addicts become users.  Equally important is a
heightened focus on the workplace, where many current drug users
can be identified and motivated to stop using drugs through
employee assistance programs that offer cost-effective prevention
and intervention services.  The workplace provides an excellent
forum to educate parents on how to help their children avoid
drugs, as well as a means to provide concerned employees with
information on community drug use issues and on how to get
involved in preventing drug use.

The prevention field is maturing in terms of its activeness,
applied technology, and a growing body of literature.  Hard
evidence that supports drug use prevention is beginning to
emerge.  The National Structured Evaluation (NSE), a recently
concluded comparative analysis of hundreds of prevention
efforts,8 provides some much-needed positive guidance for
prevention practitioners.

The challenge is to marshal and leverage these positive forces to
shape public policy and keep the field of prevention moving
forward.  One key to progress is focused, systematic, expert
leadership at all levels of governmentFederal, State, and local. 
Information on existing programs, initiatives, and knowledge must
be gathered, organized, and shared.  All existing programs should
be analyzed to determine which approaches are most effective.  It
is valuable to include programs that are less effective in these
efforts because the reasons for their lack of success and
possible solutions might be identified.  This will reduce the
usage of approaches that have proven ineffective in the past. 
There also is a need to reach consensus on major policy questions
and set the direction of the national drug abuse prevention
agenda.9  This gathering, sharing, collaboration, and leadership
within the Federal sector is the basis of the newly proposed
National Drug Prevention System (NDPS) discussed later in this
chapter.

Drug Prevention Program Evaluation

Measuring and evaluating the impact and effectiveness of
prevention programs poses particularly complex problems. 
However, recent evaluations of drug prevention efforts have found
certain programs to be effective in the following outcome areas:
(1) reducing risk factors, increasing protective factors, or
both; (2) improving knowledge and attitudes about drug or alcohol
use; and (3) reducing drug or alcohol problem behaviors.

Prevention research has made it clear that, at a minimum, the
Nations young people need the following:

    Community settings that protect and promote drug-free
living; 

    Educational, workplace, and social settings that impart and
reinforce accurate drug information and no use attitudes; and

    Social sanctions and rewards that discourage drug use and
other serious risk behaviors.  

To link specific prevention efforts to specific outcomes,
analysts must ask not simply What works? but also What
specific programs are effective, what approaches do they use, and
with which populations will they be effective?  Once the answers
are obtained, the information must be shared.

The NSE makes a significant contribution to the knowledge of drug
prevention programs in the United States by identifying effective
approaches and making essential observations of outcomes sought
and populations served by prevention efforts.  Table 5-1 presents
an overview of typical prevention approaches used to organize the
NSE.

Many of the findings of the NSE will be useful at both the
Federal and local levels.  Its findings include the following:

    For younger children and adolescents, prevention approaches
that emphasize personal skills development and task-oriented
skills trainingpsychosocial approacheswere shown to be the
most consistently effective in reducing alcohol and drug use.

    For adolescents at significant risk for problem behaviors,
professionally administered individual and family counseling
demonstrated effectiveness in influencing long-term risk and
protective factors related to drug use and alcohol abuse.

    For adults, prevention approaches that change the community
environment, often in concert with interventions targeted to
specific individuals, were shown to be effective in reducing drug
and alcohol problem behaviors.

    Programs that are sensitive to and reflect the cultural
values of the targeted group are more effective.

These findings will be further evaluated, combined with other
relevant findings, and shared systematically with local
communities.  These findings are consistent with those of the
broader prevention research that underpins the social development
strategy now being employed in about 100 communities across the
country.10  Under the Department of Justices Communities That
Care program, communities are employing approaches to interrupt
the processes that produce problem behaviors, such as crime,
violence, and substance abuse.  

Other relevant evaluation studies now under way are expected to
yield findings of significant importance over the next 2 years. 
These studies include cross-site evaluations of Pregnant and
Postpartum Women and Infants grants, Community Partnership
grants, and High Risk Youth grants.  In addition, the Department
of Education is  supporting a study designed to examine the
effectiveness of comprehensive prevention programming in school
settings which is funded by its Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities program. 

Targeting Alcohol Abuse by Minors

Alcohol is the single most abused substance throughout the
Nation, especially among young people in secondary schools and
colleges and universities.  Because underage drinkingespecially
binge drinkinghas extremely serious consequences for students
health, safety, and school performance, and because underage
drinking is so frequently a forerunner or companion to illicit
drug use, this Strategy includes a strong alcohol prevention
component (targeting youth under age 21) in the media campaign
discussed in Target No. 3 at the end of this Chapter. 

Federally funded prevention programs will continue to provide
young people with clear messages about the dangers of the
underage use of alcohol and tobacco.  The Departments of Health
and Human Services, Education, Transportation, and Treasury will
continue to place a high priority on programs that discourage the
use of alcohol and tobacco by minors.   

Safe and Drug-Free Schools

The educational system will continue to be a vital means of
conveying the prevention message to young people.  One of the
Federal Governments most important prevention initiatives is the
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program, administered
by the Department of Education since 1987.  With every national
indicator of adolescent drug use trends continuing to point to an
increase in drug use by young people, this important program has
taken on added significance.  

Experts agree that school-based drug prevention programs, such as
those supported through the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act (SDFSCA), help stop young people from using
drugs.  Recently authorized, the SDSFCA has been expanded to
address violence prevention, to provide better accountability and
enhanced coordination and community linkages, and better target
funding to areas in need.  If the United States is to succeed in
preventing the onset of a new wave of drug use, schools must
continue their drug prevention efforts.

In addition to continuing support of existing school-based
programs, the Department of Education will implement the new
Family and Community Endeavor Schools (FACES) grant program, and
the Department of Health and Human Services will implement the
Community Schools and Youth Services and Supervision grant
program.  Both programs are authorized under the Crime Control
Act.  The FACES program will support programs in high-poverty and
high-crime areas to improve the academic and social development
of at-risk students through such activities as afterschool
programs, mentoring, family counseling, and parental training. 
The Community Schools and Youth Services and Supervision Grant
Program will support similar activities in areas of high poverty
and juvenile delinquency.  Public school buildings will be open
after hours, on weekends, and during the summer months as a home
base for these activities.  Through these programs, along with
the other programs of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act, the Administration will seek to enhance schools
ability to present a firm no use prevention message to youth,
especially those who are at greatest risk of becoming involved
with drugs, gangs, and violence.

Community-Based Programs

Community-based initiatives, whether at the national or local
level, require planning and intensive cooperation between law
enforcement (e.g., police, prosecutors, courts, and the
corrections system), schools, private institutions, the faith
community, other community organizations, citizens, and others. 
Several current initiatives foster collaboration at the Federal,
State, and local levels.  One key initiative at the local level
is the Administrations Community Oriented Policing Services
initiative to put 100,000 new police officers on the beat.  In
many communities, these police officers will work to encourage
residents to come forward with information pertinent to criminal
investigations and to transfer relevant intelligence into the
hands of drug enforcement operations personnel.  They also will
serve as role models in their communities and will initiate or
take part in education and prevention programs, including Project
D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) and the General
Response Action Tracking System.  Police officers also will work
to identify drug use and trafficking trouble spots, coordinate
related crisis intervention services, and act as visible
deterrents to street-level drug dealing.  

Operation Weed and Seed also plays an important role in
empowering communities to develop and implement area-specific law
enforcement and demand reduction strategies.  Operation Weed and
Seed integrates law enforcement and criminal justice efforts at
all levels of government services and private-sector and
community efforts to maximize the impact of existing programs and
resources.  This program has been successful in allocating
resources to people and programs that can best address the
communitys specific problems and concerns.

The Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Communities Initiative, the
Pulling Americas Communities Together Program, and the
Presidents Ounce of Prevention Council also assist communities
and use this collaborative approach.  DOJ and other agencies will
be involved in implementing a series of coordination-oriented
initiatives to revitalize American communities and enable them to
more effectively combat drugs, crime, and violence. 

Community Antidrug Coalitions and Partnerships

Experience has shown that for drug prevention to be effective,
drug distribution and use must be addressed by comprehensive,
inclusive, balanced responses at the community level.  These
responses should involve the coordinated activities of as many
sectors of the community as possible, including schools, parent
associations, faith organizations, local police, health care
providers, service and civic organizations, and private
businesses of all sizes.  Community-based prevention efforts
mobilize individuals, organizations, and systems to act in
concert to address the multitude of problems associated with drug
abuse in American neighborhoods and communities.

A cornerstone of the Administrations drug policy is to work with
community partnerships and antidrug coalitions.  To encourage
this cooperation, the Administration will focus on achieving the
following goals:

    Work in partnership with such national, prevention-related,
coalition-building efforts as the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundations Fighting Back and the Community Anti-Drug
Coalitions of America; 

    Develop and expand the number of enforcement officers on the
streets and encourage stronger community support of local police
efforts; 

    Develop effective models for community action; and

    Target resources toward programs that address youth and
high-risk populations. 

The Administration intends to increase the number of community
partnerships around the Nation.  As communities understand that
large amounts of initial funding are not required to establish
strong partnerships, there should be a marked increase in
partnerships.  Furthermore, given the wealth of knowledge
provided by the 253 communities that already have participated in
the program, technical assistance and information can enable new
participants to move quickly and inexpensively to identify local
resources and plan and implement actions that address local
needs.

Drug-Free Workplaces

Drug use in Americas workplaces has severe negative consequences
and should be viewed as a bottom-line issue for the business
community.  Drug use threatens the safety and personal health of
workers and consumers and degrades worker effectiveness.  For
businesses, it means higher injury rates, increased workers
compensation claims, reduced efficiency, and diminished
productivity and competitiveness.  Beyond the workplace, drug use
also has played a powerful role in the disintegration of American
communities and families.  Community-based substance abuse
initiatives should involve businesses as vital partners in
helping communities design efforts to strengthen their overall
ability to address substance abuse problems.

Given that approximately three-fourths of adult men over the age
of 16 and more than one-half of adult women in the United States
are employed, the workplace offers a key arena in which to
educate Americans about positive lifestyles, attitudes, and
behaviors.  To have maximum effectiveness, workplace programs
must begin with a policy that clearly states that drug and
alcohol use on the job is not acceptable.  Drug-free workplace
programs should include supervisor training and employee
education programs as well as the means to identify those workers
who abuse substances.  For certain workplace environments, such
as those involving safety-sensitive duties, workplace programs
should include a reasonable program of drug testing.  Finally,
workplace programs should include the means to assist employees
who do use drugs to become drug free.11

It is Administration policy to help keep Americas workplaces
free of the problems of drug abuse.  This includes the Federal
Government, which is the Nations largest employer and which has
a special responsibility to set an example for other employers by
eliminating their employees drug use.  This responsibility is
given greater urgency by the fact that many Federal agencies,
Federal employees, and federally regulated industries are
entrusted with public safety and welfare as well as with national
security.  For these reasons, the Administration strongly
supports, and is making every effort to achieve, full
implementation of Executive Order 12564, which prohibits illicit
drug use by employees of Executive Branch agencies and requires
all agencies to adopt comprehensive drug-free workplace policies
and programs.  The Administration urges Congress to adopt a
similar program for its employees so that it can ensure that its
workplace is drug free.

To encourage drug-free workplace programs, ONDCP has established
a Drug-Free Workplace Working Group composed of representatives
from Federal agencies to recommend actions providing employers
with (1) incentives to adopt drug-free workplace policies and
programs, (2) information on model programs shown to be
effective, and (3) specific knowledge that can support efforts to
establish and maintain drug-free environments.  The Drug-Free
Workplace Working Group will remain in effect to oversee and
advance implementation of its recommendations.  The workplace
will be a major focus of the Administrations drug efforts in
1995.

Faith Community Involvement

Americas faith community can play an important role in finding
solutions to the related issues of drugs and violence.  Places of
worship are the spiritual centers of many communities. 
Individuals and families turn to their religious institutions for
healing, hope, and guidance in difficult social and personal
matters, including the distribution, use, and impact of drugs on
their communities.  The faith community can help prevent drug use
and can serve as a familiar community advocate against violence.

In the past year the Administration began exploring ways to
effectively coordinate its efforts and those of the faith
community.  Two major steps were taken toward this end:

    ONDCP endorsed the national One Church, One Addict program
to encourage every religious institution in America, regardless
of faith or denomination, to adopt one recovering addict and help
him or her develop and sustain the ability to live drug free.

    ONDCP made a decision to hold a major meeting of faith
community leaders from across the Nation to reach consensus on
specific steps to take to reverse the impact of drug use and
drug-related violence.  This meeting of faith community leaders
is expected to take place before the end of 1995.

These efforts and others will encourage partnerships among many
concerned organizations.  Members of local community partnerships
and coalitions already are working within their communities and
neighborhoods to develop faith-based strategies to address
alcohol and drug abuse.  As new community leaders emerge and join
with established leaders, community partnerships and coalitions
will draw on the strengths of various religious faiths to provide
training and information about effective faith-based strategies
for the prevention and treatment of alcohol and other drug
problems.

Meetings with the leaders of various religious faiths have been
held periodically by ONDCP to address issues of prevention and
treatment, violence, drug abuse, and other related problems. 
Specialized technical support and training also have been
provided to faith community leaders and seminaries including
identifying Federal resources and providing pertinent information
about the relationship between substance abuse and violence.

African American Male Initiative 

ONDCP has established a special initiative to study the special
problems facing African American males, especially those problems
relating to drugs and violence, and to develop a range of
responses and an action agenda to begin dealing with the most
serious of those problems.  A key component of the initiative
will be the development of a matrix of Federal programs and
leadership, so that the problems identified and potential
solutions can be directed to the appropriate level for decisions
and cross-departmental actions.  

National Service Program

Research on drug abuse prevention shows that high-risk youth are
better able to withstand the lure of drugs and gangs when they
develop strong ties to social and community organizations and
when they learn discipline and self-respect through work and
achievement.  The Corporation for National Service, now in its
second year, is making a significant contribution to the National
Drug Control Strategy through a variety of programs that harness
the energy, enthusiasm, and commitment of young people in service
to their Nation, their community, and their fellow youth.

During the summer of 1994, the Summer of Safety Program enabled
thousands of young people, who serve for 2 years, to work with
local programs to enhance school readiness and promote school
success; help control crime and reduce violence by improving
community services, law enforcement, and victim services; rebuild
neighborhoods by renovating and rehabilitating aging housing
stock; improve neighborhood environments; and provide better
health care in Americas communities. 

To provide explicit recognition for young people who lead the way
in saying yes to a drug-free and productive life, the Director
of ONDCP will develop a program to recognize outstanding children
and adolescents who exhibit courage and the spirit of citizenship
in service to their peers, through example and leadership, and to
their communities, through contributions to anti-drug and healthy
alternative endeavors.

Prevention Research

Prevention is a newer discipline than treatment, and in many
ways, more complex.  Its promises are evident, but its results
can be difficult to document.  For example, a recently released
report from the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment
concluded that Current drug prevention programs lack
scientifically accepted standards for determining their success
or failure...12  Yet, as noted earlier, there is a significant
body of research findings regarding violence, crime, substance
abuse, and other problem behaviors.  Once understood, the
interrelationships among these findings should guide the
implementation of community programs.  

The interrelationships of risk and protective factors, knowledge
and attitudes, and drug use behaviors highlight the potential for
building an effective prevention model.  Such a model will allow
communities to identify drug use and take appropriate action
based on sound planning.  This process will require the kind of
systematic approach envisioned by the NDPS and will require
discipline to avoid inflated claims and expectations for any one
program.13  Although reduction or increase in drug use is the
basic measure for success, no one program can or should be an
exclusive panacea.  To be effective, any comprehensive prevention
strategy must address long-term risk and protective factors,
improve knowledge and attitudes, and intervene in drug use
behaviors.  In addition, individual components that comprise the
strategic whole should be tightly targeted and coordinated so
they contribute to, rather than attempt to accomplish on their
own, all the goals of prevention.

Another priority area for prevention research is examining the
effects, both positive and negative, of media influence on the
social environment.  Positive environmental change efforts are
generally evaluated as likely to be effective with those of high
school age and older.  These broad-based community efforts seek
to reduce risk factors and increase protective factors, often
through tightly focused, specific efforts.  The effects of
specific actions appear to be cumulative, with concrete changes
felt in the broader community.  On the other hand, there clearly
exist environmental inducements to drug use, to other negative
behaviors, and to underage alcohol and tobacco use.  The role and
impact of the media on the community environment have been
measured and evaluated.  This effort to evaluate the role of the
media in the drug problem must be continued and refined, and the
media must continue to act responsibly.

In addition to the long-term need for a systematic approach,
there is the need to keep existing programs focused to ensure the
greatest cumulative effect.  The differing impacts of specific
drug use and violence prevention programs, as well as the need
for all prevention programs to be properly coordinated and
targeted, make it clear that a proactive Ounce of Prevention
Council14 is critical both to effective implementation of the
Crime Control Acts violence prevention programs and related drug
prevention programs and to the application of existing research
to the design of all prevention programs.

National Drug Prevention System:  A Shared Responsibility

At the community level there is a groundswell of support for
prevention.  Local leaders, parents, youth, law enforcement,
faith community leaders, and professional prevention specialists
are recognizing prevention as the only long-term answer to drug
abuse and its negative consequences.  The prevention field is
maturing.  Solid data help determine which programs are
effective, which programs have promise, and which programs should
be eliminated.  There is a growing body of literature, including
literature on studies such as the NSE, which demonstrates how
programs can fit together and contribute to an effective
community strategy.

Consequently, this Administration supports the development of the
NDPS built on the knowledge gains of the past several years and
designed to leverage Federal resources and influence to forge,
promote, and sustain strong prevention partnerships among
Federal, State, and local entities.  The NDPS will unite various
drug prevention sectors and programs and serve as a comprehensive
system to address the drug abuse prevention needs of the Nations
diverse population.  It also will facilitate identification of
major gaps and overlaps in prevention, and it will promote
optimum planning for the most effective use of drug prevention
resources.

The Federal Government can best provide leadership to this
initiative by modeling collaboration and joint planning among the
32 Federal agencies with demand reduction responsibilities. 
ONDCP will lead this effort by convening a roundtable discussion
of demand reduction agencies as part of the NDPS.  The NDPS will
provide an inventory of existing drug abuse prevention
initiatives and programs, identify major gaps and areas of
overlap, and plan the most effective use of resources.  Major
prevention agencies in the Departments of Education, Health and
Human Services, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and
Labor, as well as planning and coordination agencies such as
ONDCP, the Office of National AIDS Policy Coordination, and
National Performance Review will be involved.  The NDPS also will
report to the Presidents Ounce of Prevention Council and will be
chaired by ONDCPs Office of Demand Reduction.

The NDPS will include the following ongoing and new initiatives:

    Encouraging private-sector drug prevention organizations to
share information and work together to heighten prevention
efforts nationwide;

    Encouraging community-based prevention services in all
communities to include services for at-risk youth;

    Encouraging community partnerships to coordinate prevention
programs at the local level so as to provide comprehensive
services throughout communities;

    Supporting State organizations to provide a statewide
network of community partnerships;

    Convening a forum to address national prevention policy
matters; 

    Encouraging public and private efforts to create
dissemination systems to transmit the latest knowledge and
prevention methods to the field;

    Developing Federal capacity to generate and evaluate
innovative prevention strategies and to replicate promising
strategies;

    Encouraging the expansion of prevention training systems,
including the development of academic training programs in
colleges and universities;

    Enhancing workplace programs to make comprehensive
information on drug-free workplace programs available to all
businesses; and 

    Promoting a special national partnership between law
enforcement (especially community policing) and community-based
prevention services.

The NDPSs challenge is to unite all these components into an
interactive, synergetic system that will make a permanent impact
on drug abuse in America.

12-MONTH ACTION PLAN FOR REDUCING THE DEMAND FOR ILLICIT DRUGS

The Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for Illicit Drugs
consists of three targets:  (1) develop the NDPS, (2) develop
model provider training and certification guidelines for
treatment and prevention professionals, and (3) launch a Save
Our ChildrenSave Our Future Media Campaign.

Target No. 1:  Develop the NDPS

Steps:

    Identify key personnel from Federal agencies with drug
prevention responsibilities and initiate the NDPS by convening
these personnel in monthly meetings (Completion Date:  February
1995).

    Develop a plan to use previously planned national
conferences and workshops in the drug abuse prevention field to
discuss and develop the NDPS (Completion Date:  March  1995).

    Perform an inventory of federally sponsored substance abuse
prevention efforts to promote initiatives involving program
coordination, streamlining, and interaction at these monthly
meetings (Completion Date:  July 1995).

    Develop common themes that Federal agencies will carry
forward in their projects to prevent drug abuse (Completion Date: 
July 1995).

    Encourage technology transfer among private-sector
organizations working in the drug abuse prevention field
(Completion Date:  August 1995).

    Support annual workshops to enhance the state of the art and
national awareness of applied prevention programming (e.g., a
research and evaluation workshop to assess the prevention
knowledge base and to recommend directions for new studies, or a
public awareness workshop to assess current public messages and
to recommend new themes based on current national interests)
(Completion Date:  December 1995).

    Encourage substance abuse prevention conferences to enhance
the prevention field (Completion Date:  December 1995).  

Completion Date:  December 1995

Target No. 2:   Develop Model Provider Training and Certification
Guidelines for Treatment and Prevention Professionals

This target is intended to further the level of excellence among
drug abuse prevention and treatment professionals, with the goal
of engendering and maintaining consumer confidence in the quality
of services delivered by the prevention and treatment systems.  

Several States have skills-based certification processes, and
others have education- or credential-based systems.  This target
will identify the state of the art in provider training and
certification, and using models from across the Nation, develop
model provider training and certification guidelines for
treatment and preventional professionals.  

Steps:

    Expert advice will be sought to identify and define the
current provider training and certification systems.  Recommended
guidelines for providers to use in the training and certification
process will be provided.

    Federal agencies will solicit input on the guidelines.

    A provider preparation document will be produced and
disseminated to the field.

Completion Date:  December 1995

Target No. 3:  Launch a Save Our ChildrenSave Our Future Media
Campaign

This campaign will have two components:  media messages and the
Media Literacy Program.  ONDCP will invite major media
organizations to join ONDCP and the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America to develop several media messages intended to discourage
youth from using drugs.  The Media Literacy Program trains young
people to analyze media messages critically, whether commercial
or entertainment, with the theme that one can and should think
for oneself.

Steps:

    Deglamorize drug use (including tobacco and alcohol) in the
minds of American children.  The Administration will target cable
television networks, major television networks, corporations and
industries, and other media organizations. 

    Disseminate to parents, community partnerships, antidrug
coalitions, and other community groups the information provided
to media leaders as well as a report on the response of the
media.

    Recognize media programs and messages that honestly and
thoughtfully instruct and challenge children regarding drug use.

    Work with SAMHSA to implement the Media Literacy Program.  

    Encourage SAMHSA to develop specific plans to train youth
workers enrolled in the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
program in drug prevention strategies.

Completion Date:  December 1995

ENDNOTES

1    Drug addiction is a debilitating condition with physical and
mental causes and consequences.  Diagnostic criteria for
addiction, agreed upon by the American Psychiatric Association
and the World Health Organization, include physical effects, such
as marked tolerance and symptoms of withdrawal, and psychological
consequences, including craving and a mental focus on obtaining
and using drugs.  Addiction fuels destructive behavior patterns
that are exceedingly difficult to break.

2    Rydell, C.P., and Everingham, S.S. Controlling Cocaine: 
Supply Versus Demand Programs.  RAND report.  1994. 

3    Evaluating Recovery Services:  The California Drug and
Alcohol Treatment Assessment.  National Opinion Research Center
at the University of Chicago and Lewin-VHI, Inc., for the State
of California, Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.

4    A telephone survey of Maryland households shows that a
majority (59 percent) of Marylanders believe that individuals
convicted for the first time should be sent to treatment
programs.  Source:  Center for Substance Abuse Research (CSAR)
facsimile (FAX), University of Maryland at College Park, Vol. 4,
Issue 2, January 16, 1995.

5    Wexler, H.K.; Falkin, G.P.; and Lipton, D.S.  1988.  A Model
Prison Rehabilitation Program:  An Evaluation of the Stayn Out
Therapeutic Community.  Final Report to the National Institute on
Drug Abuse.  New York:  Narcotic and Drug Research, Inc.

6    Wexler, H.K.; Falkin, G.P.; and Lipton, D.S. 1990.  Outcome
Evaluation of a Prison Therapeutic Community for Substance Abuse
Treatment.  Criminal Justice and Behavior 17(1):71-92.

7    The BOP program is well established and widely respected. 
Documents, information, and assistance are provided informally to
treatment and corrections experts.  ONDCP will help the BOP
become more actively involved in transferring the technology it
has developed as well as in using the existing expertise and
infrastructure to provide recognition for exemplary local
programs and to involve them in transferring their ideas.

8    The National Structured Evaluation of Alcohol and Other Drug
Abuse Prevention.  The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention,
Department of Health and Human Services.  Washington, D.C.  1994.

9    In the 1994 National Drug Control Strategy, ONDCP announced
its intention to convene a panel of national scholars and experts
in substance abuse prevention to ensure that prevention efforts
play an appropriately important and visible role in the Nations
demand reduction efforts.  The expert panel included research,
practitioner, and evaluation authorities.  It has met three times
to ascertain, to the best of its ability, why the adolescent data
sets are reporting an increase in adolescent drug use and a
softening of attitudes about use.  In order to begin
counteracting these emerging trends, the panel developed a series
of recommendations.  Included among these recommendations are
specific steps that ONDCP already has implemented, such as the
formation of an adolescent advisory panel being convened as the
NPS.  Another recommendation concerned implementating programs
that foster greater school and community involvement, such as the
FACES grant program, administered by the Department of Education. 
Another recommendation was to develop a media strategy to
convince parents and youth that drug use is dangerous.  These
plans are in development and are reflected elsewhere in the
action plans within this Strategy.

10   See, for example, Preventing Serious, Violent, and Chronic
Juvenile Offending:  Effective Strategies From Conception to Age
Six.  National Council on Crime and Delinquency.  Working Draft,
August 1994.

11   During 1994, the Department of Transportation implemented
new rules on alcohol misuse mandated by the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991.  This act required
alcohol and drug testing of safety-sensitive employees in the
aviation, motor carrier, railroad, and mass transit industries. 
More than 7 million employees will be affected by the
legislation.

12   Technologies for Understanding and Preventing Substance
Abuse and Addiction.  Office of Technology Assessment, U.S.
Congress.  Washington, D.C.  September 1994.  Page 21 of the
executive summary.  GPO Document S/N 052-003-01388-6.

13   The recent public discussion about Project D.A.R.E. is a
case in point.  In essence, the evaluations suggest that D.A.R.E.
is not, by itself, a sufficient community response to the drug
problem.  Knowledge and attitudes do not appear to be clearly
linked to (risky) behaviors in the younger student populations. 
Some studies question the value of increasing knowledge of drug
consequences and creating antidrug attitudes among students who
do not (and will not soon) face choices about drug use.  One
implication is that programs such as D.A.R.E. might be more
appropriate for older children.  Another implication is that
because the effects of such programs do not last long, their
messages should be reinforced periodically.

14   The Presidents Ounce of Prevention Council, established in
Title III, Subtitle A, of the Crime Control Act includes the
Secretaries of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and
Urban Development, Agriculture, the Treasury, and the Interior;
the U.S. Attorney General; and the Director of ONDCP in a joint
effort to address more thoroughly the issue of crime prevention. 
The mandate of the council includes efforts to better coordinate
planning, develop a comprehensive crime prevention catalog,
provide assistance to communities and community-based
organizations seeking information about regarding crime
prevention programs, integrate service delivery, and develop
strategies for program integration and grant simplification.

VI.  Action Plan for  Reducing Crime, Violence, and Drug
Availability

Few efforts are as important as law enforcement in controlling
drug use and related crime.  This Action Plan targets those who
attempt to bring illegal drugs into this country and sell them on
the streets of this Nations cities and towns.  Its key
priorities are to disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking
organizations, and investigate, arrest, prosecute, and imprison
drug traffickers, and seize their assets.  It is based on a firm
conviction:  Drug traffickers are predatory toward individuals
and parasitic toward society, and should be pursued until they
are stopped.

Trafficking organizations will be attacked at every level, from
drug kingpin down to street corner dealer, through a careful
coordination of Federal, State, and local law enforcement
efforts.  Through community policing, the beat cop will be back
on the street.  And money laundering and border control efforts
will be expanded through major initiatives.

In spite of intensified drug awareness, law enforcement, and
rehabilitation efforts, the United States still is plagued with a
severe drug problem.  International drug trafficking
organizations continue to transport thousands of kilograms of
illicit drugs across U.S. borders into cities and towns, and
domestic drug dealers use violence and intimidation to control
illegal neighborhood drug markets.  Although levels of casual
drug use have decreased since 1985, there still are 
approximately 2.7 million chronic, hardcore drug users of heroin
and cocaine, a large percentage of whom engage in a variety of
criminal activitysome of it violentto support their drug
addictions.  Perhaps most distressing, drug use among the
Nations youth is on the increase.

The trafficking and consumption of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin
present an enormous challenge for U.S. law enforcement.  Although
stopping the trafficking and distribution of cocaine is law
enforcements top drug priority in most areas of the country,
extensive resources also are focused on stopping the trafficking
of heroin and other dangerous drugs such as marijuana, PCP
(phencyclidine), LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide),
methamphetamine, and methcathinone.  In addition, law enforcement
also must address the abuse of legitimately manufactured
controlled substances, which are a major source of drug-related
addictions or dependencies, medical emergencies, and deaths.

The illicit drug problem, though international in scope, is most
dramatically characterized by the social decay and violent crime
that it creates in this Nations cities and towns.  In its
efforts to best address this problem, the Administration
recognizes the following: 

    Federal investigative and prosecutive efforts help keep
drugs out of communities.  These efforts include focusing on
international drug trafficking and money laundering organizations
and investigating major regional and inter-State drug trafficking
organizations;

    Federal efforts alone will not solve this Nations drug
problem.  The development of regional and community solutions to
drug abuse, crime, and violence is a critical element of the U.S.
antidrug effort; and 

    Collaboration among Federal, State, and local law
enforcement is essential to successfully address those aspects of
the drug trade inflicting the greatest harm on communities.

     
PROGRESS MADE TOWARD LAW ENFORCEMENT GOALS
     
The law enforcement goals of the 1994 National Drug Control
Strategy included three critical law enforcement missions:

    Reduce domestic drug-related crime and violence (Goal 9).

    Reduce all domestic drug production and availability, and
continue to target for investigation and prosecution those who
illegally import, manufacture, and distribute dangerous drugs and
who illegally divert pharmaceutical and listed chemicals (Goal
10).

    Improve the efficiency of Federal drug law enforcement
capabilities, including interdiction and intelligence programs
(Goal 11). 

The Nation took a major step forward in reducing drug-related
crime and violence when it passed the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; hereafter,
referred to as the Crime Control Act).  The Crime Control Act
builds on the essential elements of the Presidents National Drug
Control Strategy by authorizing additional police officers,
police sanctions, and treatment and prevention programs.  The
Crime Control Act will put 100,000 new police officers on the
Nations streets; provide treatment for chronic, hardcore drug
users incarcerated in prisons; expand the use of drug courts;
support multijurisdictional drug enforcement task forces; and
provide crime and drug prevention programs in schools and
communities.   

The Crime Control Act includes important provisions to address
drug-related violence.  It includes an assault weapons ban that
increases the safety of police officers and citizens by banning
19 listed weapons; copycat weapons; and other clearly defined
semiautomatic assault weapons that are the weapons of choice of
drug dealers, gang members, and mass murderers.  Furthermore, the
Crime Control Act makes it illegal for young people to carry
handguns except with parental authorization.

DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS

The domestic law enforcement response to the drug problem must be
predicated on a coordinated attack1 on drug trafficking
organizations.  These organizations, though largely headquartered
outside the country, supply the drugs that are sold on the
streets of U.S. cities and towns.  They conduct vast operations
within the United States, either directly or through U.S.-based
associated entities such as transportation networks, financial
service or money laundering organizations, and independent
distribution mechanisms.  Highly sophisticated in their
operations, these organizations are nevertheless vulnerable in
several ways, and it is on these vulnerabilities that Federal,
State, and local efforts must concentrate.2

Effective attacks on drug trafficking organizations are not
limited to law enforcement operations against the upper echelons
of the organizations; rather, they include investigative
approaches that work to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually
destroy entire organizations.  Through these efforts, law
enforcement can dramatically reduce the amount of drugs reaching
the streets.  Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies
must continue to target for arrest and prosecution those within
the United States who manage drug trafficking organizations and
their associates who cultivate, produce, transport, and
distribute illegal drugs.  Furthermore, law enforcement agencies
must continue to disrupt the operations of drug trafficking
organizations by dismantling the communications, production,
transportation, and money laundering components that make up the
infrastructure of these illegal operations.

Domestic law enforcement efforts must go beyond the prosecution
and imprisonment of drug traffickers and drug-related money
launderers.  These efforts also must disrupt and dismantle
criminal enterprises by stripping away the material assets
necessary to sustain illicit drug activity.  Asset forfeiture is
among the most effective and powerful tools in the fight against
drug trafficking and money laundering and, as such, is a critical
component of this Nations antidrug efforts.  The ability of the
Governmentas part of its investigative and prosecutive
strategyto remove the proceeds of crime from individuals and to
destroy the economic infrastructure of criminal organizations is
essential to effective drug law enforcement.

Current law provides for the forfeiture of the proceeds of
illegal drug trafficking as well as the property used to
facilitate such activity.  Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies will continue to identify and seize
forfeitable property and to initiate criminal, civil, and agency
administrative forfeiture proceedings.  Once forfeited, property
is sold or retained for official use by law enforcement.3  The
Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury have the
authority to make equitable payments to State, local, and foreign
law enforcement agencies for their assistance and participation
in successful forfeiture cases.  To date, the program has
distributed hundreds of millions of dollars to State and local
law enforcement agencies to fund drug law enforcement endeavors.  

Federal Enforcement Efforts Against Trafficking Organizations

Federal criminal investigative agencies play a significant role
in reducing the amount of illicit drugs reaching the streets of
U.S. cities and towns.  These agencies interdict drugs at U.S.
borders,  investigate drug trafficking organizations, investigate
money laundering and financial institutions, and collect and
disseminate drug law enforcement intelligence.

Border Control

Most of the illicit drugs consumed in the United States are
produced in other countries.  Traffickers must smuggle them
across the Nations borders to get them to their ultimate
destinationthe American drug abuser.  Of particular concern is
the flow of drugs across the Southwest Border, nearly 2,000 miles
in length.  Current estimates indicate that as much as 70 percent
of all cocaine coming into the United States is trans-shipped
through Mexico and then across the U.S.Mexico border.  By
identifying smuggling organizations through investigative
activity, intensified cargo inspections, controlled deliveries,
proactive undercover operations, and effective analysis of drug-
related intelligence, the countrys principal border control
agencies, the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) (which includes the U.S. Border
Patrol), have expanded and enhanced their capabilities to manage
the threat posed by the large numbers of people and vehicles that
cross the border daily, both through the legitimate ports of
entry and across the vast, unpopulated areas between ports.  
  
Other agencies, such as the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), along with
the relevant U.S. Attorneys Offices, also have focused much of
their investigative and prosecutive efforts in the Southwest
Border area.  These two agencies have initiated a joint
investigative strategy to combat the major Mexican drug
trafficking organizations responsible for transporting much of
the drugs across the border.  This effort combines investigative
expertise and prosecutorial talent to provide the maximum impact
possible. 

As part of its drug control efforts, the Department of Defense
(DOD) has continued its support of domestic law enforcement.  DOD
provides a wide array of expertise and often unique capabilities
not usually found in law enforcement agencies.  This assistance
includes improving the physical aspects of border control (e.g.,
fences, barriers, and detention facilities) and providing vital
intelligence analysis and translator support. 

Because protecting the Southwest Border is so important in the
fight against drug trafficking, the Administration will continue
to improve Federal efforts in this region.  During Fiscal Year
(FY) 1995, the Border Patrol will add about 700 Border Patrol
agents, and the U.S. Customs Service will continue to expand its
efforts to better address the flow of drugs through U.S. ports of
entry.    

Focused, intelligence-based interdiction that concentrates on the
transportation and storage smuggling functions of major
organizations involved in the importation of drugs must be a
fundamental part of this Nations domestic law enforcement
effort.  The response to the threat of drug smuggling must extend
beyond simply seizing drugs as they enter the United States. 
Each seizure must be seen as part of an overall goal to prosecute
those criminal organizations that pose the greatest threat to
this country.

Successfully coordinated, intelligence-based investigations of
trafficking organizations that transport drugs across
international borders almost always will have important
interdictive effects, most notably a decrease in the amount of
drugs reaching the streets.  To this end, Federal law enforcement
agencies will enhance and better coordinate efforts to
investigate, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy trafficking
organizations responsible for moving substantial quantities of
drugs across this Nations borders.

In January 1995 the Administration announced the Valley Project. 
This operation coordinates the efforts of 17 Federal, State, and
local law enforcement agencies as well as the military to crack
down on and seriously disrupt and deter the flow of drugs into
the United States through the Imperial Valley, California, region
on the Southwest Border.  Investigative efforts are supported by
a Combined Intelligence Center, staffed by investigators and
intelligence specialists, which coordinates interdiction
activities and works to link each drug seizure to a drug
smuggling organization.4

Interdiction Command and Control

During the past year, the Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) and key Federal interdiction agencies completed a review
of the interdiction command and control system, including the
centers and their responsibilities.  Following the review, the
Administration promulgated the National Interdiction Command and
Control Plan.  This plan, implemented in 1994, streamlines the
command and control structure by eliminating one facility and
consolidating its essential functions into other centers,
eliminating the interdiction coordination functions of two other
operational elements, and delineating clearly the operational and
geographical responsibilities of each of the command and control
centers.  The plan also directs the use of a common
communications and computer system to ensure that coordination
and information sharing can be implemented effectively.  

Effective tactical operations are based on timely and accurate
intelligence.  To ensure that the appropriate operational
commanders receive timely and accurate intelligence, the drug
intelligence community developed the Interdiction Intelligence
Support Plan.  This plan identifies the information needed by the
operational commanders, including where and how the information
will be obtained and how it will be disseminated.  Similar to the
National Interdiction Command and Control Plan, the Interdiction
Intelligence Support Plan builds on efforts already proven to be
effective and expands both the capabilities and organizational
responsibilities of drug control agencies.  The plan unites the
intelligence and analysis abilities of all the drug control
agencies to maximize the level of support. 

Investigation of Drug Trafficking Organizations

Federal investigations in this country must focus on those
organizations that account for the largest quantities of drugs,
that traffic in the most dangerous drugs, and whose activities
are accompanied by the most violence.  Although efforts will vary
from region to region, Federal investigative resources will focus
primarily on one or more of the following categories of drug
trafficking organizations:

    Domestic components of South American criminal
organizations;

    Mexican drug trafficking organizations (both their domestic
components and transborder segments);

    Major national gangs (e.g., outlaw motorcycle gangs, Los
Angeles-based Crips and Bloods, Jamaican drug trafficking
organizations, or other significant emerging gangs whose
principal criminal activities are drug trafficking and related
violence);

    Asian criminal organizations involved in drug trafficking
(e.g., Chinese and Vietnamese street gangs and similar emerging
criminal groups);

    West African, particularly Nigerian, drug trafficking
organizations;

    La Cosa Nostra and related organizations (e.g., Sicilian
Mafia, La Camorra, Ndrangheta and Sacred Crown); and

    Other major criminal organizations that are well organized,
multijurisdictional in operational scope, and of national
significance and influence.

Federal law enforcement agencies can fortify the National
antidrug effort by strengthening their commitments and working
with State and local counterparts in a coordinated and
cooperative manner.  Emphasis must be placed on enforcement
efforts directed against those local or regional trafficking
groups that use violence.  For this reason, the Federal
Governmentand in particular the U.S. Attorneys and Federal law
enforcement agenciesmust be attentive to local needs in
attacking significant gang activity and gang-related violence,
including the implementation and use of the Criminal Street Gang
and Youth Violence provisions of the Crime Control Act and other
initiatives.  Furthermore, by working together, all levels of law
enforcement can make maximum use of Federal investigative tools
such as court-authorized electronic surveillance, analysis of
compulsory financial reporting, investigative grand juries, and
Federal evidentiary rules and criminal statutes (e.g.,
conspiracy, the Continuing Criminal Enterprise and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization laws, firearms, money
laundering, and tax statutes).  

Investigation of Money Laundering and Financial Institutions

Significant and sustained progress in attacking drug trafficking
will not occur unless the United States continues to take strong
steps to prevent, detect, and enforce the laws against money
laundering.  Money laundering involves disguising the funds
derived from narcotics sales and other crimes so they can be used
without detection of the illegal activity that produced them.5 
The laundering of drug-generated money is sophisticated and
highly compartmentalized.  Traffickers now hire professional
money launderers to manage one of the two riskiest parts of their
operationsmoney laundering (the other area is the transport of
narcotics).  These money launderers are generally businessmen,
bankers, and other financial specialists who can guarantee
delivery of the illicit funds in some formgoods, investments, or
deposits on accountsat the lowest cost to the trafficker.

Money laundering operations in the United States include a number
of techniques at the initial stage.  Besides structuring deposits
to financial institutions to avoid triggering currency reporting
obligations, which occurs throughout the country, money
launderers ship large amounts of unsigned U.S. Postal Money
Orders overseas through express mail companies.  Illegal proceeds
in bulk currency form also are reportedly shipped out of the
country in cargo containers.  Still more sophisticated methods
include the use of front companies and remittance corporations,
which use wire transfers and corresponding accounts to send
narcotics proceeds out of the United States.

The enormous size and complexity of the U.S. financial system
complicate the prevention and detection of money laundering.  The
more than 25,000 depository institutions in the United States
range from major financial institutions with hundreds of branches
to single-branch thrifts, bringing the total number of offices to
more than 100,000.  In addition to the depository institutions,
hundreds of thousands of nonbank financial institutions now are
engaged in a variety of financial services ranging from check
cashing to money transmittals.  Utilization of money transmittal
services to move illicit funds and the number of institutions
providing this type of service have increased steadily in recent
years.  The relative success of U.S. law enforcement and bank
regulators in clamping down on narcotics-related money laundering
at financial institutions has not only forced money laundering to
move to less regulated areas (e.g., nonbank financial
institutions) but also appears to have caused traffickers to
diminish, or at least to compartmentalize, their involvement in
the money laundering business.

In the near term, attention will be focused on initiating a
comprehensive national financial investigative effort that
effectively consolidates U.S. financial drug evidence and
intelligence collection.  Increased efforts will be made to
identify, trace, and freeze drug trafficker assets.  Critical to
this effort is identifying and targeting the financial associates
and drug distribution cells of the major organizations for arrest
and prosecution.

Federal law enforcement agencies will continue to conduct
undercover money laundering operations under closely monitored
and circumscribed conditions, simultaneously employing an array
of other investigative techniques in order to identify the
personnel, sites, methods, and assets of the target group as
efficiently as possible.  These undercover investigations will
continue to rely on the expertise and assistance of other Federal
agencies, as well as State, local, and foreign law enforcement
authorities.

Furthermore, the Treasury Department will continue to invigorate
its partnership with financial institutions and other elements of
the private sectorthe first line of defense in the battle
against money launderingby streamlining and retooling existing
anti-money laundering regulations.  The goal is to weed out
unduly burdensome requirements that have little or no utility for
law enforcement, to enlist the involvement of financial
institutions in more effective measures to detect potential
launderers, and to stress those procedures that will provide law
enforcement access to essential customer and account information. 
Important components of this strategy include enhanced suspicious
transaction reporting and know your customer procedures.

In the short term, a strong investigative and analytical
capability will be developed and maintained to overtake and
surpass the technological advances that are being made by drug
trafficking hierarchies and their organizations.  To capitalize
fully on the Nations own technological advances, emphasis will
be placed on collecting, analyzing, and disseminating sensitive
financial and related operational intelligence so that law
enforcement can react fully and rapidly.  Efforts will be made to
identify new and emerging money laundering techniques developed
by the major drug trafficking organizations to avoid or
circumvent financial investigative efforts and undercover
operations.  Additionally, the interagency (Federal, State, and
local), interdisciplinary (law enforcement, banking, and other
regulatory entities) approach will be expanded domestically to
meet the national goals of identifying, disrupting, seizing, and
forfeiting illicit drug proceeds.

Finally, U.S. antinarcotics-related money laundering initiatives
will be linked to similar initiatives worldwide.  Multinational
cooperation in intelligence gathering, information exchange, and
enforcement operations is the best way to attack the nerve
centers of the money laundering organizations, often located in
source countries.  Through the use of the Treasury Departments
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the Department
of Justices Multi-Agency Financial Investigative Center (MAFIC),
the resources of several Federal agencies are coordinated and
directed toward battling the worldwide money laundering
operations of major drug trafficking organizations.  The
investigative leads of the participating agencies, coupled with
the worldwide intelligence gathering capabilities of all U.S.
entities, will facilitate the identification of traffickers and
their financial advisors for prosecution and the seizing and
forfeiting of their ill-gotten assets.  Furthermore, the United
States will continue to explore diplomatic opportunities to
promote greater cooperation with other nations in anti-money
laundering efforts, and the United States will continue to
encourage other nations to bolster their money laundering
regulatory and enforcement operations.  

Collection and Dissemination of Drug Law Enforcement Intelligence
and Information Sharing

Drug traffickers commonly operate across jurisdictional borders
and are capable of rapid and significant changes in methods used
to produce, transport, and distribute large amounts of drugs and
to launder their illegal profits.  For law enforcement agencies
to effectively and efficiently carry out the mission of
disrupting these criminal activities, they must have the
capabilities to collect, index, verify, and analyze intelligence
information.  Law enforcement officials must be able to evaluate
the extent of drug trafficking activities within and immediately
surrounding their jurisdictions, to identify the hierarchy and
methods of operation of a drug trafficking organization, and to
assess its potential vulnerabilities.  

The need for Federal, State, and local law enforcement to share
pertinent intelligence information is clear.  Unfortunately, this
sharing of information has been somewhat limited.  In response to
this situation, the Administration has taken steps to
significantly improve information sharing among Federal law
enforcement agencies.  With the creation of the Office of
Investigative Agency Policies (OIAP), DOJ has made significant
strides in facilitating the sharing, and often the integrating,
of important investigative information among its principal law
enforcement agencies.  Other developments, such as the
establishment of the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC),
have provided significant increases in the levels of
sophisticated technical and analytic support available to develop
a comprehensive understanding of major drug trafficking
organizations.  The technical and analytic capabilities of the
multiagency El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) also have been
significantly upgraded, enhancing its ability to serve as the 
principal tactical analysis and support center.6

During the past several years, significant improvements have
occurred in the Nations capability to direct national security
intelligence resources toward counternarcotics activities. These
resources primarily impact the Nations foreign antidrug and
interdiction efforts; however, these resources have provided
valuable insight into the activities of major drug trafficking
organizations, which allows domestic law enforcement agencies to
more effectively address those activities conducted in the United
States.  During the past year, the foreign and defense
intelligence communities have reviewed their information
collection and analysis programs.  That review has helped them
refocus their efforts on collecting foreign intelligence
information consistent with the Nations international and
domestic law enforcement efforts.

Information sharing among the Federal agencies and their State
and local counterparts also has been improving.  State and local
agencies continue to be significant consumers of information from
EPIC and the Treasury Departments FinCEN.  Joint law enforcement
intelligence elementssuch as the Joint Drug Intelligence Groups
(JDIGs), the Unified Intelligence Divisions, and the state-led
Post Seizure Analysis units established along the Southwest
Borderhave united law enforcement investigators and analysts to
share information and to combine their knowledge on a regional
basis.  Coordination mechanisms, such as Operation North Star and
Operation Alliance, also have enhanced efforts to share
information across geographical and organizational boundaries.

The Administration will continue to develop measures that expand
on these efforts.  Particular emphasis will be placed on sharing
information electronically to improve both the scope and speed of
information sharing.  There already are several prototype or
developmental efforts under way.  For example, the Southwest
Border Governors Coalition between the four States along the
Southwest Border is developing an integrated computer and
communication system that will enable member agencies in all four
States to share investigative information and criminal
intelligence electronically.

The law enforcement community must continue efforts to develop a
fully integrated drug intelligence base; therefore, instead of
merely reacting to drug activity, agencies will be in a position
to more proactively identify the nature and scope of drug
trafficking problems and to prioritize investigative targets
based on analyses of all available data.  To realize an effective
drug intelligence base, efforts must be made to complete the
following:

    Provide investigative agencies immediate access to a drug
law enforcement pointer system to allow more effective
coordination of individual agents efforts;

    Set priorities for collecting and analyzing drug-related
data to develop useful and predictive strategic organizational
studies;

    Increase the level of coordination of drug intelligence
initiatives among Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies; and
     
    Increase the sharing of information technology among all law
enforcement agencies.    

State, County, and Local Law Enforcement Efforts

The activities of State, county, and local law enforcement
agencies remain a critical element of the Nations antidrug
efforts.  Uniformed patrol officers make drug arrests on
community streets and interdict shipments of drugs hidden in
trucks and automobiles on the highways.  Many local police
departments have investigative units that devote resources
exclusively to the investigation of narcotics offenses.  Through
community policing programs, law enforcement officials and
members of the community work together to deter illicit drug
trafficking and related crime, prevent drug use, and create more
vibrant, citizen-involved, and thriving neighborhoods.  State,
county, and local police officers and investigators work
togetheroften with Federal law enforcement agentsas part of
multijurisdictional task force operations to investigate, arrest,
and prosecute violent drug traffickers and to dismantle drug
trafficking and money laundering organizations. 

Community Policing

However diligent their efforts, police alone, using only
traditional policing techniques, will be unable to eliminate drug
trafficking and related crime from the Nations communities.  The
Administration recognizes the critical need for an almost
symbiotic relationship between the efforts of law enforcement and
the activities of drug treatment providers, other government
agencies, prevention specialists, teachers, religious groups, and
the business community to deter criminal activity and revitalize
the Nations communities.  Community policing offers the
collaboration that is needed between police and the community to
identify and solve community problems.  Because it combines the
efforts of law enforcement and other organizations and
individuals, community policing is a critical part of this
Nations antidrug effort. 

Community policing is not simply a local law enforcement program;
it is an operational philosophy for neighborhood problemsolving
in which police officers interact with all residents of a
specific neighborhood or patrol area on an ongoing basis and in
such a manner as to establish and maintain open communication and
create a trusting relationship.  Communication and trust are
important elements of this initiative because they provide the
foundation for an ongoing community partnership that works
proactively and reactively to address serious crime, reduce fear,
and improve the quality of life for all residents. 

In the fight against drug trafficking and other crime, police can
(1) encourage community members to share relevant information
pertaining to criminal activity, (2) take part in educational and
drug prevention programs in schools, (3) provide a variety of
crisis intervention services, (4) provide in-depth information
regarding drug-dealing activities to investigative components of
their agencies, (5) act as a deterrent to open-air drug markets,
and (6) identify and address developing drug use and drug
trafficking-related problems.  

The Crime Control Act will place 100,000 new police officers on
the streets and work with citizens to prevent and solve crime. 
DOJs Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
already has awarded 392 grants totaling $200 million to counties,
cities, and towns across the country to hire more than 2,700
officers.  In addition, COPS has given approval to 631 large
police jurisdictions (those serving populations of more than
50,000) to begin hiring and training more than 4,600 officers. 
COPS also has begun a hiring program for smaller jurisdictions
(those serving populations of less than 50,000).  Known as COPS
FAST (Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns), this program will
place another 4,000 police officers on the streets.  

Reducing Gun-Related Crime and Violence

Every night, in every major city, the sound of gunfire can be
heard.  Handgun crime is increasing throughout the country,
especially in the inner-city areas, where youth homicide rates
have skyrocketed.  Drug trafficking organizations use guns to
carry out the violence and intimidation that are integral parts
of their day-to-day operations.  

Citizens and police face a growing risk of injury or death
inflicted by well-armed drug dealers.  To decrease gun violence,
the numbers of guns on the streets must be decreased.  It must
become a major priority for police to confiscate guns from those
who illegally carry them, particularly in jurisdictions facing
high rates of gun-related violence and crime.

In 1991 the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department, using funds
secured from DOJs Operation Weed and Seed, implemented a program
to reduce gun-related crime.  This initiative called for patrol
officers to aggressively focus on seizing guns from those who
carry them illegally.  Proactive patrol procedures such as
vehicle and subject stops were used in a specific target area to
accomplish the departments goal.  The initiative resulted in a
significant increase in the number of guns seized as well as a
related reduction in gun-related crime, including homicides and
drive by shootings.  The U.S. Attorney in Washington, D.C.,
recently announced that he intends to implement a similar
program.

The Administration intends to immediately implement an aggressive
gun reduction program in several communities around the country. 
Police jurisdictions that criminal justice and other data show to
be areas of significant gun-related criminal activity will be
chosen for program implementation.  DOJ, through the COPS office,
will provide support and followup consultation so these
communities can identify suitable strategies and implement
programs modeled after the Kansas City Police Department
Initiative.

Coordination of Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Efforts

Federal law enforcement agencies typically target the upper
echelons of drug trafficking organizations.  Local police forces
traditionally deal with local drug organizations and drug
retailers.  Mid-range offenses and offenders often are
overlooked, but collaboration between Federal, State, and local
agencies can bridge this gap in drug law enforcement.  A
coordinated approach among Federal, State, and local entities can
ensure that a full range of experience and expertise is applied
efficiently across all levels of the drug trafficking continuum.

The work of Federal law enforcement agencies in cooperative
ventures allows Federal agencies to help local communities in
need.  Cooperative ventures also can provide on-the-job training
and supplemental resources to assist local law enforcement
agencies in investigating of complex cases.  Federal agencies
will continue to provide increased resources to State and local
agencies to address drug trafficking and associated violence
through programs such as the FBIs Safe Street Initiative, DEAs
Mobile Enforcement Teams (METs),7 and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms Violence Reduction Alliance and Armed
Career Criminal programs. 

In addition, the Administrations National Anti-Violent Crime
Initiative, announced by the Attorney General on March 1, 1994,
directs Federal law enforcement capabilities toward violent crime
in the Nations cities, suburbs, and rural areas.  The initiative
stresses the need for coordination and consultation between
Federal, State, and local agencies without the creation of new
task forces or other bureaucratic entities.  Furthermore, this
coordination and consultation are explicitly intended to
complement, rather than supplant, efforts of State and local law
enforcement.  This initiative represents an effort to form
Federal partnerships with State and local authorities in those
areas where, consistent with existing obligations, Federal
resources and authorities can help address crime problems endemic
to their respective jurisdictions.

Striking the appropriate balance in allocating resources to that
which is uniquely Federal and that which is of critical State and
local concern is difficult and can be achieved most effectively
through a regional or community-based evaluation and strategy
development process.  Regional planning efforts can be critical
to long-term success because they improve communication and
enhance cooperation among agencies at all levels.  Furthermore,
they allow for more rapid and accurate problem identification and
can facilitate the swift modification of operations to better
address changing patterns of drug abuse and related criminal
activity.  

Many State jurisdictions participate in Criminal Justice
Coordinating Councils in which State and local law enforcement,
prosecutorial, treatment, and prevention officials meet on a
regular basis to develop and ensure the implementation of
jurisdiction-based strategies.  One example of how the Federal
Government has worked to improve the regional strategy
development process is its establishment of Law Enforcement
Coordinating Councils.  These councilschaired by the local U.S.
Attorney and composed of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement and prosecutorial officialsfoster cooperation and
communication between the various law enforcement entities
operating in a particular area.  

Multijurisdictional Task Forces 

Federal, regional, or other multijurisdictional task forces play
a significant role in reducing drug availability in communities
and, therefore, are a critical element of the Nations antidrug
effort.  Multijurisdictional task forces help bridge the gaps in
enforcement between these enforcement areas that are uniquely
Federal and those that are most successfully undertaken by State
and local authorities.  These programs combine the resources of
Federal, State, and local law enforcement investigative and
prosecutorial authorities to eliminate all levels of drug
trafficking from the street corner retailer to the international
wholesaler.

The law enforcement response to the task force concept has been
so enthusiastic that some small and medium-sized police
departments have eliminated their own specialized narcotics
bureaus in favor of active participation in a county or regional
task force operation.  In some jurisdictions, particularly in
rural areas of the country, multijurisdictional task forces are
the only existing investigative entities capable of addressing
the diverse and constantly changing challenges presented by drug
traffickers and their related criminal activities.  

Federal grant programs, such as the Edward Byrne Memorial State
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, provide seed money
to start task force operations in many jurisdictions and funds to
continue the operation of existing programs.8  The Crime Control
Act authorized $1 billion for 25 categories of law enforcement,
including State and local drug task force efforts through the
year 2000.  This authorization recognizes the critical importance
of enforcement programs such as the Byrne program in assisting
State and local law enforcement agencies to battle the illicit
drug trade.9

Other task force programs, such as the Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Forces and the task forces operating as part of
the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) programs, bring
together as partners Federal, State, and local law enforcement
officials and prosecutorial officers for a common purpose and
cause them to work in a common direction toward the same goals. 
These joint efforts utilize the full range of Federal
investigative and prosecutive tools, as well as associated
seizure and forfeiture laws; facilitate cooperation among all
levels of government; and provide a means of combining skills and
resources to achieve the greatest effect against drug offenders. 

     
As important as this collaboration is, recent years have clearly
brought an expansion in the number of multijurisdictional task
forces operating in the United States.  Due to this
proliferation, Federal, State, county, and regional task forces
have concurrently operated in the same geographical areas.  This
occasionally has led to duplication of effort, a lack of
intelligence sharing, and competition between agencies for the
seizure of drugs and the assets of drug law violators. 

Task forces require clear mission statements and must be
carefully structured and coordinated to prevent duplication and
overlap with other law enforcement efforts.  It is critical for
Federal, State, and local authorities to consolidate and more
closely and coordinate task force collaboration to reduce
unnecessary duplication of efforts and to enable greater impact
with existing resources.  The Federal Government will take steps
to eliminate duplication among task forces at all governmental
levels by conducting an interagency review of Federal task forces
that will determine ways to enhance collaboration and
interoperability with State and local partners.

Advanced Officer Training

Advanced or continuing specialized officer training can play a
key role in making Federal, State, and local drug enforcement
operations more cost-effective.  Furthermore, drug law
enforcement personnel with advanced linguistic capabilities are
vital to Federal, State, and local law enforcement efforts that
target the increasing number of foreign nationals who speak their
native languages.  

Many State and local agencies expend considerable resources on
basic and advanced investigative training for narcotics officers. 
This training includes programs sponsored by States or such
special interest groups as law enforcement officer associations. 
Furthermore, many State, county, and local law enforcement
agencies take part in Treasury and Justice Department programs,
which offer specialized training programs for State, county, and
local law enforcement personnel.  These programs are designed to
meet training needs not generally available to State and local
agencies and to enhance networking throughout the law enforcement
community.10 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas

Since 1990, seven regions have been designated as critical drug
trafficking areasor High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
(HIDTA).11  As such, these regions receive additional coordinated
Federal assistance.  The HIDTA program encourages the forming of
Federal, State, and local partnerships within the designated
areas and translates goals of the National Drug Control Strategy
into regional solutions.  At its current level of development,
the HIDTA program supports joint12 efforts featuring
interdiction, investigation, prosecution, treatment, and
prevention initiatives.

To tailor its combined efforts to these unique regional
requirements, each HIDTA has its own Executive Committee and a
regional strategy, one that prioritizes the collaborative efforts
of its member entities, including several colocated task forces
and an intelligence sharing center.  

The HIDTAs of large metropolitan areas are focused on dismantling
the most significant drug trafficking and drug money laundering
organizations operating at the National, regional, and local
levels.  HIDTAs in the Southwest Border and Puerto Rico/U.S.
Virgin Islands concentrate on interdiction systems, which include
interdiction operations, intelligence, investigations, and
prosecution.

In February 1994, ONDCP launched the new concept of a
distribution HIDTA in response to the conclusion drawn by many
law enforcement executives that their efforts, taken in isolation
from other activities, may produce immediate, but often
temporary, reductions in drug trafficking.  Many believe that the
knowledge base of other disciplines must be used to attack the
drug problem if lasting results are to be achieved.  The
Washington, D.C./Baltimore, Maryland, HIDTAcoming online
nowwill address both the drug distribution networks and their
chronic, hardcore clientele simultaneously.  The regional
intelligence and information center in this distribution HIDTA
also will include the electronic networking of major treatment
providers, regional drug courts, and criminal justice components.

The Washington, D.C./Baltimore, Maryland HIDTA treatment
initiatives will be monitored in order to establish a central
repository of treatment data.  This data will be electronically
accessible by the criminal justice system and will be accessed in
accordance with clients rights to confidentiality.  Two
gateway HIDTAsMiami and Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islandsalso
are implementing treatment, prevention, and related data systems
on a limited basis.   
  
Executive Committees in the seven HIDTAs will continue to receive
priority Federal support.  Each HIDTA Executive Committee will do
the following:

    Upgrade its organizational threat estimate of its regional
strategy; 

    Improve the regional intelligence center to ensure the
provision of actionable and predictive intelligence to the joint
task forces; 

    Develop requirements and prioritize military support
requests for joint task forces and the intelligence center within
each HIDTA; and

    Designate its own chairperson and select a program manager
who will be directly responsible to the committee.

The National HIDTA Committee,13 a body that makes program
recommendations to the Director of ONDCP, will shift its major
evaluation criterion from the achievement level of individual
initiatives to the overall impact of the collaborative efforts of
each HIDTA on drug trafficking.

12-MONTH ACTION PLAN FOR 
REDUCING CRIME, VIOLENCE, AND DRUG AVAILABILITY

The 12-month Action Plan for Reducing Crime, Violence, and Drug
Availability consists of three targets:  (1) develop a domestic
law enforcement plan, (2) expand efforts to address money
laundering, and (3) expand border control efforts.

Target No. 1:  Develop Domestic Law Enforcement Plan

Steps:

    ONDCP will coordinate and oversee the development of a
Domestic Drug Law Enforcement Plan in collaboration with Federal,
State, county, and local law enforcement agencies.  The plan will
build on existing efforts and address the full range of domestic
drug law enforcement issues and problems.  Specific issue areas
will include the following: 

      Review the current structure of multijurisdictional task
forces throughout the Nation to increase efficiency and eliminate
duplication of effort; 

      Articulate the role of Federal drug law enforcement in
local community policing efforts;  

      Identify steps to enhance coordination of regional law
enforcement, treatment, and prevention resources;  

      Develop a comprehensive initiative to decrease the
cultivation and use of marijuana; and 

      Assess the intelligence, technology, and advanced officer
training needs of State and local enforcement.
 
Completion Date:  May 1995

Target No. 2:  Expand Efforts To Address Money Laundering   

Steps:    

    ONDCP will coordinate and oversee development of a money
laundering Action Plan.  This plan will be developed through the
collaboration between the Treasury and Justice Departments. 
Development of this plan will be coordinated with other
appropriate Federal, State, and local government agencies, as
well as private organizations, such as banks and other financial
institutions.  

    This Action Plan will provide a framework for coordinating
domestic drug law enforcement, regulatory, and private industry
efforts to accomplish the following:

      Arrest and prosecute those who launder the ill-gotten
proceeds of drug trafficking;

      Reduce the amount of drug-related proceeds laundered
domestically; and 

      Increase the amount of drug-related proceeds interdicted
prior to their leaving the United States.

    Coordinated law enforcement efforts and private industry
initiatives will aim to reduce overall drug-related proceeds
laundered in the United States by creating regulatory,
enforcement, and industry barriers to this activity.  In
addition, Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies will
refocus their efforts to dismantle money laundering components of
drug trafficking organizations by arresting and prosecuting those
who are involved in money laundering and to identify and
interdict a larger percentage of drug-related proceeds.

    This Action Plan will include performance measures for anti-
money laundering efforts.

Completion Date:  June 1995

Target No. 3:  Expand Border Control Efforts

Steps:

    ONDCP will coordinate and oversee a review of current drug
enforcement efforts at the Southwest Border and determine the
steps law enforcement should take to effect a measurable
reduction in the amount of illegal drugs smuggled across the
border and a measurable reduction in incidence of border
violence.
  
    The U.S. Customs Service will maintain the reduction of drug
smuggling across the Southwest Border as a top priority.  The
U.S. Customs Service will devote increased resources to seizing
illegal drugs, arresting drug smugglers, reducing acts of border
violence, and installing and testing cargo inspection technology
at appropriate locations.  Through proactive and reactive
narcotics investigations, the U.S. Customs Service will launch a
reinvigorated effort to fully identify and dismantle the
organizations involved in these struggling ventures.

Completion Date:  August 1995

ENDNOTES

1     Within DOJ, considerable efforts have been made to increase
the efficiency of law enforcement operations and to eliminate
duplication of effort by its criminal investigative components. 
DOJ has established OIAP and named the Director of the FBI to the
directorship of OIAP.  One of his initial tasks was to review and
make recommendations about drug intelligence coordination and
sharing within DOJ, among the FBI, DEA, INS, and U.S. Marshals
Service.  As part of this initial effort, the OIAP also worked to
further define the roles of the National Drug Intelligence Center
(NDIC) so that it can coordinate and provide strategic
organizational drug intelligence and EPIC so that it is best able
to provide tactical drug intelligence.

     This commitment to maximizing availability and use of law
enforcement intelligence information extends beyond DOJ.  Thus,
for example, the Director of OIAP has begun discussions with the
Under Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement, who has
established a Treasury Law Enforcement Council as an internal
coordinating mechanism for Treasury law enforcement policy and
operations, to establish a similar mechanism for coordinating the
efforts of law enforcement agencies of the two departments. 
Moreover, Federal law enforcement entities are enhancing links
with their State and local counterparts through regional
intelligence centers such as the JDIGs and facilities operating
under the auspices of the several HIDTAs; affiliations with
multi-State Regional Intelligence Sharing Systems; and
involvement of State and local authorities in NDIC strategic
studies.

2    The role of emerging technologies in developing ways to
attack drug trafficking organizations cannot be overstated. 
These technologies include mobile x-ray inspection systems for
use at airports, seaports, and land border ports of entry for the
inspection of bulk cargo and baggage; truck x-ray systems for x-
raying of tractor-trailers crossing a land border; and the
fiberscope, which provides a nondestructive visual inspection
system for detecting hidden contraband in inaccessible areas
behind and beneath door panels, container walls, boat decks, and
fuel storage areas conducive to contraband concealment.  The need
for enhanced technology is particularly acute due to the limited
resources available to Federal, State, and local law enforcement. 
Law enforcement must now do more with less, both at the
investigative and prosecutive levels.  At the same time, as
criminals are becoming more sophisticated and better financed,
law enforcement is losing ground.  In the areas of funds tracing,
court-authorized electronic surveillance, and narcotics
detection, advanced technology can help law enforcement address
these problems.

3    As stated in A Guide to Equitable Sharing of Federally
Forfeited Property for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
(March 1994), the current policy of DOJ is that up to 15 percent
(or 25 percent in forfeiture cases, which represent more than 25
percent of a State or local agencys annual budget) may be
transferred to governmental departments or agencies to support
drug abuse treatment, drug and crime prevention and education,
housing and job skill programs, or other community-based
programs.

4    The Valley Project is operated by the California Regional
Border Alliance Group, which consists of the following agencies:

         The U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of
California, which is responsible for strategies guidance and
prosecutorial support.

         The U.S. Border Patrol and the Imperial County
Sheriffs Office, which are responsible for tactical control of
the operation.

         The DEA and San Diego/Imperial County Regional
Narcotics Intelligence Network, which are the lead agencies for
intelligence gathering.

         The California National Guard and DOD Joint Task Force
Six (JTF6), which provide infrared scopes and sensors and conduct
border flights as required.

         The INS and U.S. Customs Service, which provide
surveillance and inspection control of the ports of entry.  INS
and U.S. Customs inspectors interdict and seize narcotics at the
U.S. Calexico and Andrade ports.  Customs Special Agents conduct
followup criminal investigations of ports of entry drug smuggling
violations.

         The California Highway Patrol, which provides enhanced
patrol response to the area.

         The FBI, San Diego County Sheriffs Department, Bureau
of Land Management, California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement,
Imperial County District Attorneys Office, Arizona Alliance
Planning Committee, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service,
which provide support to the overall operation.

5     Estimates of the amount of proceeds generated by the
illegal drug industry in the United States vary considerably.  A
study done for ONDCP estimated that Americans spend almost $50
billion per year on illegal drugs.

6    A National Drug Pointer Index system, being developed by
DEA, will allow Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies to determine if participating agencies have drug-related
information relevant to a particular investigation.  With the
large number of agencies currently enforcing State and Federal
narcotics laws, it is vital to operational efficiency and
personnel safety that such a system be established.

7     DEAs MET Initiative (announced in November 1994) is
designed to help State and local police departments combat
violent crime and drug trafficking in their communities.  Ten to
12 regional METs will be strategically based in as many DEA
divisions around the country as possible.  At the request of any
police chief, sheriff, or district attorney, a MET team will
target violent traffickers threatening the requesting community
at whatever level.  The MET will remain in place and collect
intelligence and cultivate investigations and arrests until DEA
determines that the objectives of the development have been met. 

8    The Byrne program is intended to assist State and local
governments in enforcing State and local drug laws and improve
the functioning of the criminal justice system, with emphasis on
violent crime and serious offenders.  The funds are distributed
to the States by a formula consisting of a $500,000 base plus
share of the balance determined by population.  Each State is
required to develop a statewide drug control and violent crime
strategy as part of its application for formula grants. 
Strategies are developed in consultation with State and local
criminal justice officials and are coordinated with the treatment
and prevention block grant programs (a portion of the funding is
provided directly to cities).  In FY 1993 (latest data) 35
percent of the funding was utilized for multijurisdictional task
forces, 16 percent was utilized for corrections and treatment, 11
percent was used for improved information and technology, 7
percent was used for demand reduction/crime prevention, 6 percent
was used for administration, and 5 percent was used for
adjudication.  The remaining 20 percent of funds was distributed
among the other purpose areas designated by the Byrne grant
program.

9    This is important because reductions in available funding
for State and local law enforcement could have a detrimental
effect on  partnerships that have been and are being forged among
Federal, State, and local governments.

10   Advanced training also can lead to enhanced cooperation
between law enforcement entities, which in itself can multiply
manpower and save money.  Advanced officer training promotes
Federal, State, and local cooperation because law enforcement
officers who possess a high level of training are better able to
collaborate in their efforts to fight drug trafficking, and
advanced officer training programs allow individual officers from
different agencies to meet and develop personal relationships,
which in turn fosters professional collaboration.  

11   Pursuant to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the designated
HIDTAs are Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Puerto
Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, the Southwest Border, and Washington,
D.C./Baltimore, Maryland.  Each HIDTA has an Executive Committee,
made up of Federal, State, and local officials.  These Executive
Committees develop and update the policies and objectives for
that HIDTA region.

12   The term joint includes, at a minimum, the Departments of
Justice and Treasury, as well as State and local law enforcement
agencies.

13   The National HIDTA Committee is composed of representatives
from ONDCP and the Departments of Justice, Treasury, and Health
and Human Services.

VII.  Action Plan for Enhancing Domestic Drug Program Flexibility
and Efficiency at the Community Level

Drug dealers are flexible.  However insidious their business,
they market their wares with ingenuity and tenacity.  Drug users
are efficient, saving tiny bits of their powders and scraping
crack-cocaine and opiate resins from the inside of homemade
pipes.  Addicts adapt.  When one crack house closes, they move to
another.

Antidrug efforts must be more flexible, more efficient, and more
tenacious than drug dealers, users, and addicts.  It is critical
that the criminal justice system communicate with treatment
professionals, that neighborhood residents coordinate with local
police, and that parents know how to access the right prevention
programs to keep their children from ever trying drugs in the
first place.

Communities need to work together.  This means fighting against
burdensome regulations and other restrictions that hamper timely
and effective service delivery.  A range of initiatives is
presented to enhance the smooth operation of antidrug programs
and organizations in every community, including the streamlining
of Federal grant applications and a Cut the Red Tape
Deregulation Campaign.

Developing solutions to Americas drug problem requires
cooperation and coordination across a wide range of professions,
agencies, and public- and private-sector organizations. 
Treatment providers must work with criminal justice personnel to
properly monitor the progress of clients they both serve. 
Prevention professionals in school-based and community-based
programs must communicate with law enforcement officials to
coordinate activities and leverage resources.  Local antidrug
partnerships must unite every sector of their communities,
including schools, police, civic organizations, local government
offices, youth groups, health care services, economic developers,
faith organizations, and business groups to fight against drug
abuse.

Antidrug organizations and systems in every community must not
only be properly linked, they also must be allowed flexibility to
respond to changes in the local drug situation as well as to
fluctuations in available resources.  It is imperative to
identify Federal, State, and local obstacles to antidrug progress
and remove regulations that hamper service delivery.

PROGRESS MADE TOWARD ENHANCING DOMESTIC DRUG PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY
AND EFFICIENCY

The Administration intends to continue addressing the following
goals related to community programs set forth in the 1994
National Drug Control Strategy:

    Assist local communities in developing effective prevention
programs (Goal 4).  

    Create safe and healthy environments in which children and
adolescents can live, grow, and develop (Goal 5).

    Increase workplace safety and productivity by reducing drug
use in the workplace (Goal 7).

    Strengthen linkages among the prevention, treatment, and
criminal justice communities and other supportive social
services, such as employment and training services (Goal 8).

During the past year, progress toward these goals was mixed. 
There has been significant progress in establishing better
program linkages.  In December 1994 the President designated nine
Empowerment Zones, each featuring a multifaceted and
interconnected plan for addressing drug use and trafficking in
the communities within the zones.  The Department of Housing and
Urban Development will monitor and report on the progress made in
the Empowerment Zones during the coming year.

In 1994 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
continued its major linkage effort, first launched by the Center
for Substance Abuse Treatment in 1993.  The program links
community-based primary care, substance abuse, HIV (Human
Immunodeficiency Virus)/AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome), and mental health services.  So far projects have been
funded in 10 States and the District of Columbia, with most of
the programs targeting substance-abusing and homeless women as a
key population.

Operation Weed and Seed has played and will continue to play an
important role in linking law enforcement and drug prevention
activities across the country.  A basic tenet of the Weed and
Seed approach is that communities can best identify the problems
they face and develop solutions that will be most effective.  The
goal is therefore to deliver adequate resources to those best
equipped to address the drug problem in their communities.  Built
into the very fabric of the Weed and Seed approach is a firm
reliance on linkages between the criminal justice system and drug
treatment and prevention programs; among Federal, State, and
local leaders; and between the public and private sectors.

The passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
in 1994 (Public Law 103-322, hereafter referred to as the Crime
Control Act) will provide support for drug courts and highlight
the effective linkage of treatment programs and the criminal
justice system.  Furthermore, this linkage will ensure that the
offender management structure is properly developed and
maintained in an increasing number of communities across the
Nation.

Progress has been made in drug-free workplace programs.  In the
past year the Administration conducted various activities to
reduce workplace substance abuse in the Federal Government,
including developing new rules to combat alcohol misuse.  The
Administration required alcohol and drug testing for safety-
sensitive employees in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad,
pipeline, maritime, and mass transit industries.  In addition,
the Department of Labor provided a grant to the George Meany
Center for Labor Studies to establish a Substance Abuse
Institute.  Also in 1994 a Federal Departmental and Agency Drug
Free Workplace Working Group was established and tasked with
actions to encourage the expansion of private-sector workplace
programs, including transmission of drug-free workplace concepts
and behavior to communities, families, and individuals.  The
activities of this working group are discussed in more detail in
Chapter V.

NATIONAL AND REGIONAL CONSULTATION

In a 1994 series of conferences held around the Nation, the
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) met with more than
1,400 individuals involved in all aspects of drug control to
discuss their perspectives concerning drug control efforts at the
State and local level.  Appendix C discusses this consultation in
more detail, but the theme was resoundingly clear:  Stay the
Coursethe National Drug Control Strategy is correctly focused;
however, the Federal Government must take steps to streamline the
flow of funds from the Federal Government to State and local
recipients in order to give local communities the needed
flexibility to respond to the drug problems in their
neighborhoods.  The following sections of this Strategy discuss
an aggressive response to this consultation process.

STREAMLINING FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL GRANTS

Federal grants are intended to provide funds to States and
localities for a variety of purposes.  Most are intended to allow
State and local governments to properly address problems that
they otherwise would be forced to give a lower priority or
perhaps not address at all.  Federal grants also are provided to
guarantee a minimum standard of living by providing direct
Federal transfers to individuals.  Furthermore, they provide a
more equitable distribution of revenues among the States for
national program priorities.

The Crime Control Act provides additional funding to help States
and localities meet the challenges of reducing illicit drug use
and its consequences.  Funds totaling more than $30.2 billion
over a 6-year period are authorized for programs such as the
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Program, the Drug Courts Program, Residential Substance Abuse
Treatment for State Prisoner Grants, Public Safety and Community
Policing Grants, and so forth.1  Therefore, it is clear that
Federal grants-in-aid for drug control purposes will become
increasingly important to the delivery of services for community-
based drug control programs.  It is important that these grants
be provided to recipients with Federal guidance and a minimum of
regulation that promote the direct use of these funds to reduce
illicit drug use.

The Administration is committed to increasing the level of
cooperation between individuals and organizations as they seek to
address the problems of drug use, distribution, and related
violence.  For that reason, this Strategy includes a series of
aggressive steps to enhance drug program flexibility and
efficiency at the community level.  To empower State and local
governments to provide more effective services at the community
level, as well as to reduce administrative burden, the
Administration is proposing a consolidation and restructuring of
public health programs.  This proposal includes streamlining
prevention and treatment funding provided through HHS Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.  Consolidation
and restructuring will give States and localities more
flexibility in addressing local problems while maintaining the
needed focus on nationwide priorities.

This proposal to streamline treatment and prevention funding
would eliminate many Federal mandates and restrictions, giving
States the needed flexibility to target funding to high-priority
communities (those most in need of drug control programs) and to
programs of proven effectiveness.  This proposal also would shift
the focus from regulatory compliance to outcome and performance
measures.  The Administration recognizes that the States need
flexibility to allocate funding to the most successful programs,
which enhance community-based treatment and prevention services
and reduce the violence that prevails in the Nations
communities.  More information about the Administrations
proposed consolidation of HHS drug control resources may be
found in Chapter IX.

ONDCP-REQUESTED AUDITS OF FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

The Federal drug control program for Fiscal Year (FY) 1995
allocates more than $13 billion to support the efforts of more
than 50 agencies, bureaus, and departments that conduct programs
directed at both demand reduction and supply reduction.  The
funding supports many diverse drug control programs, ranging from
grants to communities for demand reduction programs to programs
in source countries that reduce the production of illicit drugs. 
With drug use among adolescents again on the rise, it is now more
critical than ever to have reasonable and supportable evaluations
of drug control programs so that the Nation may identify ways to
improve and enhance program performance and efficiency. 
Therefore, ONDCP, in consultation with the Federal drug control
departments and agencies and through the Presidents Council on
Integrity and Efficiency, will recruit agency Inspectors General
to conduct program performance evaluations during FY 1995.

12-MONTH ACTION PLAN FOR ENHANCING DOMESTIC DRUG PROGRAM
FLEXIBILITY AND EFFICIENCY AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL

The 12-month Action Plan for Enhancing Drug Program Flexibility
and Efficiency at the Community Level consists of five targets: 
(1) expand and improve data collection and distribution efforts
at the local level, (2) simplify Federal drug grant applications,
(3) fund a pilot program to develop comprehensive community-based
approaches in select communities, and (4) facilitate delivery and
linkage of community-based services. 

Target No. 1:  Expand and Improve Data Collection and
Distribution Efforts at the Local Level

Steps:

    ONDCPs Data and Evaluation Subcommittee of the Research,
Data, and Evaluation Committee will conduct inventory, evaluate,
and make recommendations on improving Federal drug-related data
systems for drug policy purposes.  This effort will include
convening a national Drug Prevalence Estimation Conference to
identify public concerns and recommendations on needed
improvements to Federal drug-related data systems for local
policy and analysis purposes.

    The Data and Evaluation Subcommittee will strive to provide
the widest possible distribution of drug-related data to the
community level.  Central to this effort is identifying the
titles of upcoming Federal reports that will benefit the data
collection and analysis efforts of local communities.  A Federal
Directory will be produced that lists titles and descriptions of
Federal drug-related data systems.

    ONDCP will promote Pulse Check as a policy and planning tool
and suggest that local communities use a similar approach.  This
effort will culminate in a manual titled How To Do A Pulse Check
to help communities assess their local drug situations. 

Completion Date:  September 1995

Target No. 2:  Simplify Federal Drug Grant Applications

There are numerous sources of Federal grants-in-aid to support
drug control efforts.  To access these, States must submit plans
to HHS, the Department of Education, or the Department of Justice
(DOJ), depending on the drug grants for which the State is
applying.  Each application contains common reporting
requirements.  During consultation that ONDCP held with State and
local antidrug professionals and public interest groups to
develop the National Drug Control Strategy, it became clear that
there was considerable interest in simplifying Federal drug grant
applications.  ONDCP will work with HHS, the Department of
Education, and DOJ to identify options to simplify applications.

Step:

    ONDCP will convene a Common Grant Application (CGA) Working
Group to examine the advantages of a universal grant application
for community-based organizations.  The objective of this working
group will be to formulate a universal grant application.  One
example of the advantage of a universal grant application is that
one-stop grant shopping may increase access to resources and
reduce administrative costs through universal forms, measures,
and reporting procedures.  Recommendations from the CGA Working
Group will be provided to the Director of ONDCP for action.

Completion Date:  September 1995

Target No. 3:  Fund a Pilot Program To Develop Comprehensive
Community-Based Approaches in Select Communities

Step:

    ONDCP will implement a Break the Cycle of Drug Abuse pilot
program to enable select communities to develop comprehensive
community-based approaches to confronting the problem of drug
abuse.  This pilot effort will encourage a systematic response to
the problems of chronic, hardcore drug use by integrating local
health, education, housing, labor, and justice systems.  Funds to
establish local infrastructure and coordinate the program will be
obtained from the widest possible range of sources, including
forfeiture and gift authorities. 

     This pilot effort will be national demonstration of a
systems approach to managing the drug problem at the local level. 
ONDCP will produce a manual titled How To Break the Cycle of Drug
Abuse to assist community-based organizations in their efforts
against drug abuse and crime.  Key elements of the pilot effort
include the following:

      Target City sites will use forfeiture laws to reclaim
neighborhoods taken over by drug traffickers;

      Law enforcement officials and local health officials,
especially those in the treatment community, will work together
to manage nonviolent drug users inside and outside the criminal
justice system;

      Every arrestee entering the criminal justice system will
be tested for drug use.  Tests will be presented to the court,
which will determine whether treatment is warranted.  Treatment
will be offered independent of the courts decision regarding
pretrial release.  Aftercare will include drug testing to
identify individuals who relapse;

      Local prevention providers will be encouraged to serve
children of addicted parents to stop the intergenerational nature
of addiction;

      Sanctions will be developed for those individuals who are
enrolled in a criminal justice system treatment program and who
fail to move toward abstinence; and

      Those not involved in the criminal justice system will be
identified though various outreach programs (e.g., AIDS outreach)
for drug treatment.  A neutral party will monitor the individual
to ensure that all services are being used to assist him or her
in becoming drug free.

    ONDCP will produce and distribute a directory titled Anti-
Drug Programs That Work at the Community Level. 

Completion Date:  September 1995

Target No. 4:  Facilitate Delivery and Linkage of Community-Based
Services

Step:

    ONDCP will conduct a Cut the Red Tape Campaign to examine
possible regulation deletions or waivers to improve community-
based service delivery.  New deregulation guidelines will be
distributed to community-based entities by the appropriate
agencies.  Options to be considered include the following:  

      Identify Federal obstacles that impede drug program
delivery;

      Consider revisions to the Food and Drug Administration
regulations for methadone and LAAM (levo-alpha-acetylmethadol-
hydrochloride) in favor of clinical protocols, standards, or
guidelines; and

      Encourage States to adopt the Federal Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) to facilitate timely availability of
addiction treatment medications.2

Completion Date:  December 1995

ENDNOTES

1    For more information about Federal drug grants funded
through FY 1995, see Responding to Drug Use and Violence: 
Helping People, Families, and Communities.  Office of National
Drug Control Policy, January 1995.  This report is a directory
and resource guide of public- and private-sector drug control
grants.

2    The CSA, Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Prevention and
Control Act of 1970, is a consolidation of numerous Federal laws
regulating the manufacture and distribution of narcotics,
stimulants, depressants, and hallucinogens.  Drugs are placed on
one of five CSA schedules, in accordance with their relative
abuse potential, currently accepted medical use, and accepted
safety for use under medical supervision.  Registration is
required for anyone who handles a scheduled drug, but
requirements regarding recordkeeping, distribution, dispensing,
and security measures differ according to the schedule on which
the drug is placed (e.g., Schedule I drugs are the most tightly
controlled).

     Many States have created additional controlled substance
regulations, which differ in specific ways from State to State
and from State to Federal.  One practical impact of these
differences is that drugs approved by the Federal Government as
safe and effective can be subjected to additional, long, and
often cumbersome regulatory and/or statutory processes.  As the
Administration continues with actions under the Reinventing
Government umbrella, consideration should be given to
streamlining governmental processes where the Federal and State
interests are essentially the same.  There clearly is a common
interest in encouraging medications development research,
especially the development of medications to treat addiction. 
There also clearly is a common interest in controlling drugs with
abuse potential, to avoid diversion and abuse.  Common
regulations would remove obstacles to private researchers, reduce
research costs, and foster communication and progress in both
enforcement and treatment.

     The benefits of a uniform approach are evident, the costs
are not.  This Strategy encourages adoption of the CSA by all
States, and ONDCP will lead consideration of the best means for
accomplishing this.

VIII.  Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction and
International Efforts

Strong interdiction capability in both the source countries and
the transit zones is required to disrupt the flow of drugs to the
United States.  At the same time, the United States must work
with source countries to strengthen their counternarcotics
programs.  The form of interdiction that is most cost
effectiveand the one that makes the most sense strategicallyis
not a random effort, but rather one based on timely intelligence. 

The aim of source country programs is to assist host nations to
destroy drug trafficking organizations, to destroy drug crops, to
level drug production facilities, to track and seize drugs
scheduled to be shipped to the United States, and to develop
alternative economic projects that will relieve the local
farmers dependency on drug crops.

The international drug trade poses a direct threat both to the
United States and to international efforts to promote democracy,
economic stability, human rights, and the rule of law.  An
unabated flow of drugs to the United States will undercut the
effectiveness of domestic efforts to reduce illicit drug use. 
Strong action must continue so that through interdiction and a
reduction of drug cultivation and production in the source
countries, the flow of drugs into the United States can be
reduced.

PROGRESS MADE TOWARD STRENGTHENING INTERDICTION AND INTERNATIONAL
EFFORTS

The Administration intends to continue addressing the following
international goals set forth in the 1994 National Drug Control
Strategy:

    Strengthen international cooperation against narcotics
production, trafficking, and use (Goal 12).

    Assist other nations to develop and implement comprehensive
counternarcotics policies that strengthen democratic
institutions, destroy narcotrafficking organizations, and
interdict narcotrafficking in both the source and transit
countries (Goal 13).

    Support, implement, and lead more successful enforcement
efforts to increase the costs and risks to narcotics producers
and traffickers to reduce the supply of illicit drugs to the
United States.  (Goal 14)

U.S. drug control agencies have developed an aggressive,
coordinated response to the cocaine, heroin, and marijuana
threats facing this Nation, which will remain in the Action Plan
for Strengthening Interdiction and International Efforts.  This
response requires an effective interdiction capability in the
transit zones,1 while developing effective initiatives in source
countries focused on illicit cultivation and drug production
areas.  The Action Plan is multifaceted and involves six
important and interrelated thrusts:

    Strengthen the interdiction capacity in the transit zone to
disrupt the flow of drugs from the source countries into the
United States.  

    Build strong intelligence capacities within source
countriesworking closely with host nation governments to
identify, track, and disrupt drug shipmentsto ensure that
information about drug shipments is available as soon as
shipments move through the source nations to the transit zones. 
This capability will increase the success of interdiction efforts
at all points in the trafficking chain.

    Strengthen enforcement capacities in source countries so
that major drug trafficking organizations are targeted, their
leaders imprisoned for terms commensurate with the seriousness of
their crimes, their activities disrupted, their drugs
interdicted, and their financial assets seized.

    Foster and build democratic institutions and strengthen law
enforcement and judicial systems so that (1) drug trafficking
organizations can be dismantled, (2) intelligence for
interdiction operations can be systematically developed, and (3)
public support for drug control programs can be maintained.

    Support assistance to source countries to move toward
eliminating illicit crops through intelligence-driven disruption
of drug trafficking, eradication, and development of alternative
income programs.  

    The Administration is committed to upholding human rights
both in the United States and abroad.  The Administration will
increase the ability of the U.S. Government to monitor drug
source and transit countries to ensure that counter-drug
operations are free of human rights violations and that dedicated
counter-drug units are models for other law enforcement and
military units to follow.2

In countries such as Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, Venezuela,
Panama, and the Bahamas, the U.S. Government has provided
training, technical guidance, information, and other assistance
to support interdiction, conduct investigations, and build more
effective criminal cases.  The United States also has encouraged
the enactment of stronger drug-related laws so that source and
transit nations have the legal tools they need to investigate and
prosecute trafficking organizations and destroy their financial
base. 

The U.S. Agency for International Development has funded
alternative development projects and programs to assist with the
improvement of judicial systems in foreign countries.  U.S.
Government support of the United Nations Drug Control Program
contributed to the establishment of the Caribbean Regional Legal
Reform Training Center.  Additionally, steps have been taken to
enlist the involvement of the Dublin Group member countries, the
Major Donors Groups, and other governments to promote more
effective drug control initiatives in the source and transit
nations.  

Successful international money laundering investigations have
dealt significant blows to the narcotics industry while bringing
worldwide attention to the economic problems caused by drug money
laundering.  These operations also produced significant
intelligence on cartels money laundering operations.

Improvements were made in the interdiction program last year
though a number of actions, beginning with ONDCPs designation of
the U.S. Interdiction Coordinator (USIC).  The USIC is
responsible for monitoring and overseeing the U.S. interdiction
program in the Western Hemisphere, both source and transit zones,
to optimize program effectiveness.  Other important achievements
last year included the implementation of a National Interdiction
Command and Control Plan, improved coordination among Federal
interdiction program agencies operations, better reliance on
intelligencemuch of which comes from strengthened source country
initiativesto reduce costly random patrols, and the development
of a list of interagency priorities to enhance initiatives
focused on the source countries.  Cooperation among the
Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and
the Drug Enforcement Administration has led to more effective,
intelligence-driven interdiction operations leading not only to
seizures but also to other trafficker losses through the jettison
of drug loads or aborted smuggling activities. 

Internationally, the Summit of the Americas has ushered in a new
era of cooperation in narcotics control in the Western
Hemisphere.  In addition, the first steps toward a new, more
active counternarcotics strategy to deal with Burma were taken
last year as part of an interagency review of international
heroin policy.  

A SUCCESSFUL INTERNATIONAL CERTIFICATION PROCESS

The long-term objective of the United States and of this Action
Plan is to encourage all nations, especially the major drug
producing and drug transit countries, to meet all their antidrug
obligations under the 1988 United Nations Convention.  To move
closer toward this objective, the 1994 National Drug Control
Strategy called for a more aggressive use of the congressionally
mandated certification process that conditions economic and
military assistance on counternarcotics performance.3  The
Presidents 1994 decision to deny certification to four countries
and grant only national interest certification to six countries
reflects this tough approach.4  The President made his decision
based on recommendations developed by the Department of State,
the National Security Council (NSC), and ONDCP.

The Department of State strengthened the certification process in
1994 by establishing specific criteria for judging the
performance of the major drug producing and transit countries. 
By means of periodic diplomatic demarches based on these
criteria, the Department of State consults with the relevant
governments throughout the certification process, stressing
expectations and reviewing progress.  This procedure minimizes
the grounds for misunderstandings when the certification
decisions are made annually on March 1.  

By establishing realistic performance objectives and consulting
on them throughout the year, a useful and functional framework
for achieving progress in international drug control has been
established.  These specified objectives, consultations
throughout the year, and a clear statement of the rewards or
sanctions involved have made the certification process into what
it was originally meant to be:  a credible and effective
diplomatic instrument for progressing toward the common goal of
ending the illicit international drug trade.5  

To ensure that all drug producing and drug transit countries meet
their antidrug obligations, this Action Plan will continue the
aggressive use of the certification process. 

THE INTERNATIONAL COCAINE STRATEGY
     
In 1993 ONDCP and NSC conducted a comprehensive interagency
review of the international cocaine situation.  This review,
which provided the foundation on which this Administrations
international strategy was built, resulted in a Presidential
Decision Directive (PDD) stating that the international cocaine
industry represents the following:

    A serious national security threat requiring an
extraordinary and coordinated response by all agencies involved
in national security;

    A threat that is severely damaging the social fabric of this
and many other nations societies; and

    A threat to democracy, human rights, and the environment
that requires a major foreign policy response by the United
States.

The PDD directed a three-pronged international drug control
strategy that emphasized assisting institutions of nations
showing the political will to combat narcotrafficking, destroying
the narcotrafficking organizations, and interdicting narcotics
trafficking in both the source countries and transit zones.  The
PDD called for a controlled shift in focus of cocaine
interdiction operations from the transit zones to source
countries.  The logic behind this shift is that it is more
effective to attack drugs at the source of production rather than
once they are in transit to the United States.  The
Administration now is implementing this new cocaine strategy.  To
be successful, the United States must strengthen and build
greater counternarcotics cooperation bilaterally and regionally
with its Latin American partners.  This will require the
requisite levels of funding to support full implementation of the
international drug control program, including the interdiction
component.  Interdiction program capability must be maintained
until source country program capability has become effective.  In
the past, erratic funding has inhibited the ability to fully
implement the international drug control strategy.  These
fluctuations also have shaken the faith of Americas
counternarcotics partners in Americas reliability as a
dependable partner.  This faith must be restored.  

The Controlled Shift

In the 1994 National Drug Control Strategy, the Administration
announced its intention to begin a shift in interdiction
emphasis, from activities primarily focused on the transit zones
to a stronger focus on the source countries.  This shift has
begun, and will continue in this Action Plan.  It is intended to
provide a more targeted and better focused effort in areas where
the drug industry is more concentrated and most vulnerable.  
     
The controlled shift underscores the commitment to maintain a
tough stance against the international narcotics trade in an era
of tighter budgets and changing trafficking patterns.  Instead of
relaxing efforts, the Federal agencies have responded with steps
to optimize the use of existing interdiction assets.  For
example,

    Intelligence capacity has been improved to better support
and focus U.S. interdiction efforts.  Random air or sea patrols
to locate drug smugglers, which are very expensive and produce
limited results, have been reduced.

    Interdiction resources, especially maritime assets, have
been better deployed to allow a more timely response to
intelligence-cued targets.

    Detection and monitoring capabilities have been improved by
replacing transit zone surveillance systems in the Caribbean
Basin Radar Network with a radar sensor system (the Relocatable
Over the Horizon Radar [ROTHR])6 that covers a wider area. 

    The cost of detecting and monitoring drug trafficking
aircraft has been decreased through the use of radar-equipped
vessels that are significantly cheaper to operate than the U.S.
Navy vessels previously used for this purpose.

However, the shift in focus so far has not included any direct
shift in resources from the transit zones to the source nations. 
In fact, Congress has acted to reduce both the international and
interdiction budgets by more than $500 million since Fiscal Year
(FY) 1994, leaving insufficient funds to expand source country
initiatives while attempting to sustain existing transit zone
programs.7  In addition, some critics of the Administrations
international strategy have noted the reduction in Federal drug
control resources from their peak in FY 1992.  This decline is
misleading in that it reflects mostly nuances of the Federal
budgeting cycle rather than a real decline in resources for
program operations.  A substantial level of capital procurement
and operating resources was included in earlier interdiction
budgets.  Some of what appear to be reductions in interdiction
funding in current budgets actually reflect the natural end of
capital acquisition programs begun in the mid-1980s.8  

International Cooperation

In addition to the controlled shift in the focus of interdiction
activities to source countries, emphasis on international
cooperation will continue as a key to this comprehensive Action
Plan for Strengthening Interdiction and International Efforts. 
The United States has sought efforts to enhance international
cooperation in Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, Mexico, and Caribbean,
Central American, and spillover countries.

     Peru

     Any consideration of counternarcotics policy in Latin
America must begin with the understanding that Peru is central to
the illegal cocaine industry.  More than 60 percent of the
worlds supply of coca is grown in Peru.  So long as coca
production remains this concentrated, counternarcotics success
will require progress in Peru.  While the Fujimori Administration
has taken steps in the right direction, Peru must seriously
intensify its counternarcotics effort.

     Peru has for the first time adopted a comprehensive national
counternarcotics strategyan important step in the further
development of a successful counternarcotics program.  This
strategy calls for strengthening the judicial system; building
counternarcotics institutions; reducing coca cultivation through
alternative development; and increasing emphasis on prevention,
treatment, and rehabilitation.  Implementation of this Peruvian
strategy will begin this year.  Its goals include initiating a
campaign aimed at reducing the level of addiction in 1996;
designating areas for limited legal coca cultivation in 1996;
providing alternative economic development to 50 percent of the
current coca growers by the year 2000; and achieving a 50-percent
reduction in the current level of addiction by the year 2000.

     Peru also has outlawed the cultivation of opium poppy and
has been strong and decisive in its efforts to contain poppy
cultivation.  With the assistance of Colombia, the kingpin Carlos
Demetrio Chavez Penaherrera (a.k.a. El Vaticano) was arrested,
convicted, and sentenced to a 30-year prison term.  The
government of Peru has pursued joint police-military
counternarcotics programs, which have increased its capability to
disrupt the traffickers operations by denying them the use of
numerous airports and seizing substantial quantities of cocaine
base and precursor chemicals.  

     The government of Peru is working to address the problem of
corruption and has taken actions against several senior military
officers involved in corruption.  Peruvian authorities are
working hard to exercise more control over their air space to
prevent narcotraffickers from having unrestricted use of light
aircraft to transport their cocaine base.  The decision by Peru
to allow the use of potentially deadly force against aircraft
suspected of narcotics trafficking in Peruvian airspace made
real-time intelligence sharing by U.S. personnel a problem under
U.S. law.  This required, in response, a change in U.S. law to
allow for continued support of the Peruvian air interdiction
efforts.  The Administration joined with Congress in making the
necessary legislative change, and the United States again is able
to fully support this aspect of the Peruvian counternarcotics
program.   
     
     While Perus accomplishments during the past year are
encouraging, the country remains the worlds largest producer of
coca, and there continues to be concern over reports that
cultivation is spreading outside traditional growing areas. 
Seedbed eradication is a first step, but it must be followed by
efforts that will reduce and eventually eliminate illegal coca
cultivation.  Peru must begin to take these steps if it is to
gain the support of the United States and the international
community in providing alternative development as an integral
part of its eradication program.  Strong law enforcement efforts
in coca growing areas will create the incentives for successful
alternative development.  
     
     Colombia

     Colombia has been an important ally of the United States in
the fight against the cocaine cartels.  However, Colombia is now
at a crossroads and must intensify its efforts against the drug
trade.  In 1994 Colombia continued its efforts to develop the
capability of its own law enforcement institutions to conduct
independent operations against drug traffickers.  In 1994 these
law enforcement organizations seized 60 metric tons of cocaine
and cocaine base and destroyed 434 cocaine-processing
laboratories, both of which are increases over 1993 performance
but fall short of the levels in 1991.  

     Colombia has recently stepped up its poppy eradication
program and begun an aerial coca eradication program that is
strongly opposed by the traffickers, who have organized farmer
demonstrations against it.  However, Colombia must persist
because its eradication efforts establish an important precedent
for the entire region.  Continuation of these efforts will be an
important test of Colombias political will to conduct a serious
counterdrug effort. 

     Colombia also has taken positive steps to develop a chemical
control program.  In 1994 a successful raid on a major
international chemical supplier resulted in (1) significant
seizures that caused shortages in the supply and availability of
essential and precursor chemicals, and (2) short-term drastic
increases in the prices of those chemicals that remained
available.  

     Narcotics-related corruption remains a major concern in
Colombia, and the Colombian Government must be relentless in its
efforts to reduce and eliminate the drug organizations ability
to intimidate and corrupt government officials.  

     Colombia is working to exercise control over its airspace
and prevent unrestricted use by traffickers of light aircraft to
move cocaine products.  However, Colombias lack of direct
investment in the procurement of equipment to accomplish this
remains a weakness.  As was the case with Peru, Colombias
decision to use potentially deadly force against suspected
narcotics trafficking aircraft required a change in U.S. law to
allow for continued U.S. support of these efforts.   

     There are other areas of serious concern.  In a decision
rendered by the Colombian Supreme Court, the use and possession
of user amounts of some drugs was, in effect, legalized.  This
action creates a dangerous climate for the health and well-being
of Colombian citizens.  Attempts by the Samper Administration to
reverse this decision were rejected by the Colombian Congress. 
In addition, the Colombian Government has not arrested or
prosecuted any leaders of the drug cartels, and there continues
to be talk of entering into lenient plea bargaining agreements. 
Little action has been taken to force the traffickers to
relinquish their illicit gains, andworst of allthe Colombian
Government has not been able to guarantee the safety of witnesses
and their families or to make effective use of U.S.-supplied
evidence.  As a result, the U.S. Government has suspended
evidence-sharing with Colombia in new drug cases.  

     The new Colombian Administration has stated its intention to
continue a vigorous campaign against the narcotics industry.  The
United States is prepared to assist Colombia in this regard. 
However, only Colombias action can demonstrate that it has the
political will and commitment necessary to fight the drug
trafficking organizations operating from its soil.

     Bolivia

     The situation in Bolivia remains mixed.  The country was
granted a vital national interest certification in 1994 because
of the United States assessment that some key counternarcotics
performance deficiencies precluded a full certification.  It
was judged to be in the best interests of the United States to
continue cooperation with Bolivia, to build on progress that has
been made in some key areas, and to continue to press for coca
eradication and a workable mechanism through which to extradite
drug traffickers.

     Bolivias president has announced his intent to eliminate
all illegal coca in the Chapare region through an alternative
development and eradication program.  However, the government of
Bolivia has been slow in developing a concrete plan of action.  

     Alternative development programs continue, especially in the
Chapare region, where foreign donors assist in building roads and
other infrastructure.  Also, cooperative law enforcement efforts
between the United States and Bolivia have resulted in the use of
air routes in and out of the Chapare region being essentially
denied to the traffickers.

     Unfortunately, not all U.S. efforts have met with such
success.  Bolivian eradication of coca through either forced or
voluntary means is at a standstill.  Although the government has
taken a strong public stance against corruption, it remains
endemic.  The Government of Bolivia needs to develop the
requisite political will to deal decisively with these problems,
to reject the coca industry, and to withstand the considerable
pressures of coca proponents.

     Mexico

     Mexico is a key gateway for illicit drugs entering the
United States.  Although distracted by other political and
economic mattersthe national presidential campaign, the
assassination of presidential candidate Collosio, and the Chiapas
uprisingMexico must give the priority to counternarcotics
efforts it once did.  The new Zedillo Administration has stated
its intention to resume Mexicos vigorous campaign against the
narcotics industry; anticorruption efforts must be an integral
part of this campaign.

     Government officials are pushing ahead with plans to develop
a professional antidrug police force and to upgrade their ability
to intercept and seize trafficker aircraft.  In 1994 the
interdiction program continued, with opium and marijuana seizures
increasing over 1993.  However, cocaine seizures were somewhat
lower than their 1993 record, reflecting larger cocaine shipments
from South America and the fact that past successes here have
forced the traffickers to change their tactics.  With every
change in their methods, counternarcotics forces must adjust to
meet the new challenge.  
     
     The opium eradication effort continued, yet net Mexican
opium production is up.  The counternarcotics partnership between
the U.S. Government and the Mexican Government resulted in the
signing of a money laundering agreement that constitutes an
important step by Mexico to address the use of its financial
institutions to launder drug profits. 

     Mexican traffickers have become the number-one source of the
chemical base ephedrine to supply clandestine methamphetamine
laboratories in the western United States.  Additionally, these
traffickers have established a growing number of methamphetamine
labs just south of the U.S. border.  Mexican police officials are
handicapped by the lack of action by the Mexican Congress to
provide an effective chemical control law. 

     Mexico is the pivotal nation for drugs entering the United
States.  As a result it is crucial that Mexico (1) possess the
ability and the will to disrupt the trafficking organizations
operating within its borders, (2) interdict drugs before they
cross the border to the United States, and (3) seize the
financial assets laundered in their nation by traffickers.  The
United States bilateral agreements with Mexico in these areas
will reflect these expectations.

     Caribbean, Central America, and Spillover Countries

     The pressures applied to the narcotics industry in the 
source countries of Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru have caused
illicit cartels to look to neighboring countries (principally
Brazil, Ecuador, and Venezuela) for a political atmosphere that
is more conducive to their trade.  The drug cartels are
increasing their operations in these countries and must be
challenged before they develop their infrastructure and political
influence.  The United States must assist these governments in
recognizing the potential threat posed by the narcotics industry
and the importance of taking early prevention action.  

     This same level of threat exists in the nations of the
Caribbean Basin, where traffickers are broadening their trans-
shipment operations and expanding their levels of influence. 
These small nations individually are no match for the powerful,
sophisticated, and well-financed traffickers.  These nations
recognize the significance of the threat and have requested U.S.
assistance in developing a regional counternarcotics program that
will coordinate their efforts into a unified response.  The
United States will actively assist the Caribbean nations in
developing this regional effort and will work to establish a high
degree of cooperation between them and the counternarcotics
programs of the Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Area and the Joint Interagency Task Force East. 

     Central America continues to be a key link in the trans-
shipment of cocaine and the laundering of drug profits.  The
United States must continue to work with these nations to
strengthen their political will to fight drug trafficking, to
enhance their domestic capabilities to interdict cocaine, to
prosecute money launderers, and to create environments hostile to
illicit drug activities. 

SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS

The December 9-11, 1994, Summit of the Americas in Miami,
Florida, provided the United States and its hemispheric partners
a unique and important opportunity to strengthen cooperation
against the drug trade.  Attended by the Heads of State of all 34
democratically elected governments in the Western Hemisphere, the
Summit stressed the opportunities and the means to improve the
quality of life throughout the hemisphere.  Their unanimously
endorsed Declaration of Principles and associated Plan of
Actiontwo of the most progressive, comprehensive, and thoughtful
documents ever produced by such a gatheringoutlined the ways for
this to be accomplished.  Quality of life will be improved in two
ways:  through the promotion of those initiatives that advance
development and prosperitydemocracy, free trade, and sustainable
developmentand through standing up to the challenges that
undermine these basic initiatives.

From the outset, the participants of the Summit recognized that
illicit narcotics was one of the most pernicious challenges and
that it should be dealt with constructively at the Summit. 
Regional narcotrafficking and money laundering pose serious
barriers to establishing and conducting legitimate trade and can
act to destabilize democratic governments and establish serious
barriers to the economic integration of all the nations in this
hemisphere.  The infusion of drug dollars into a nations economy
has severe adverse effects on economic growth because it crowds
out legitimate investors and stifles other business development. 

In signing the Declaration of Principles and the Plan of Action,
the Heads of State endorsed documents that emphasize the need for
shared responsibility and a comprehensive approach to narcotics
control.  In this context, the United States must continue to
reduce domestic drug use and help generate resources to support
sustainable development in key drug producing countries.  The
Summits counternarcotics elements also represent the following
important steps forward in hemispheric recognition of drug abuse
and drug trafficking:

    By underscoring the threat that drugs pose to democratic
institutions, economies, and societies, each country affirmed
that it is in its fundamental interest to confront the narcotics
problem.

    The documents express strong commitment by all countries to
take effective law enforcement action against the leaders of drug
trafficking and money laundering organizations.

    The Summit highlighted the need to link the provision of
alternative development resources to reduce drug production,
trafficking, and abuse.

    The Summit highlighted the need to provide national and
international support for development programs aimed at creating
viable economic alternatives to drug production.

    The documents express the strong commitment of the leaders
of the nations of the Western Hemisphere to make money laundering
a criminal offense, to enact legislation to permit the freezing
and forfeiture of assets, and to implement various
recommendations and model regulations that have been developed
through regional organizations.

Expanded trade results in job creation and employment
opportunitiesthe most enduring alternative to narcotics
production and trafficking and thus a key component of any
strategy that seeks to reduce incentives to the drug trade over
the long term.  This Strategy will continue the work of these
Heads of State to reduce the drug trade within and between
countries and to increase legitimate enterprise.  

THE INTERNATIONAL HEROIN STRATEGY

Data collected in hospital emergency rooms, police departments,
criminal courts, public assistance programs, schools, and on the
streets show that heroin consumption in the United States is
increasing.  Furthermore, recent senior-level visits to the
heroin producing and trafficking countries of Asia and Africa
confirmed several alarming facts:  Worldwide use of opium and
heroin is increasing, opium poppy growing areas are expanding,
global production is at record levels, and there is some
indication that criminal groups are moving larger quantities of
heroin to the United States.  There is no doubt that
international opium and heroin control must remain a major
foreign policy objective of the United States.

The key elements of the heroin strategy are as follows:

    Expand and intensify contacts with foreign leaders in the
principal source, transit, and consuming countries to mobilize
international cooperation to attack opium and heroin production,
trafficking, and use;

    Gain greater access to opium producing regions through
bilateral and multilateral political and economic initiatives;

    Dismantle illicit heroin trafficking organizations by
prosecuting their leaders and seizing their profits and assets;

    Promote diplomacy, public awareness, demand reduction, and
other initiatives to strengthen political will to combat drug
production, trafficking, and use in key countries; and

    Maximize counterdrug intelligence and investigative
capabilities in all major source and transit countries.

With the exception of heroin that originates in the Western
Hemisphere, the worldwide heroin trade generally is less
integrated and more geographically dispersed than the cocaine
trade; consequently, countering the heroin threat requires an
approach that is separate and distinct.

The heroin strategy encompasses U.S. leadership, technical
expertise, and intelligence assets used in an aggressive
international effort.  Multilateral organizations, multinational
development banks (MDBs), international financial institutions
(IFIs), and governments will be included to ensure effective and
well-funded efforts against heroin.

In light of the emerging heroin threat, the President directed
the development of a new international heroin strategy.  A draft
strategy has been developed and soon will be submitted for
approval.

Heighten International Awareness

The Administration will take the lead in increasing international
awareness of the heroin threat and strengthening the political
will to confront it.  The Administration has raised the priority
of stemming heroin use as a foreign policy objective and will
ensure that U.S. diplomacy gives equal weight to policies that
address opium and heroin production, trafficking, and demand.

Regional groups, international organizations, and nongovernmental
organizations will be encouraged to use their influence to
enhance antidrug performance in all areasincluding demand
reductionin key heroin source, transit, and consuming countries. 
The United States will target the leaders of the heroin trade by
making them specific enforcement targets and will use every
opportunity to encourage greater cooperation and support from the
leaders of key source, transit, and consuming countries.

Emphasize a Multilateral Approach

The United States approach must be broad enough to overcome the
obstacles imposed by the geographic dispersion of the heroin
trade and the concentration of opium production in isolated and
dangerous areas.  A multilateral forum such as the United Nations
or the World Bank has greater access to many important opium and
heroin producing and transit regions than does the United States. 
The U.S. Government will make greater use of these organizations
to initiate or expand drug control programs in these regions.

To improve the effectiveness of the United Nations Drug Control
Program, at every opportunity, the U.S. Government will encourage
international and multilateral organizations, MDBs, and IFIs to
take an aggressive and proactive approach in source and transit
countries to support alternative development, judicial reform,
demand reduction, and public awareness.  

Through member nations of the Dublin Group, the Customs
Cooperation Council, the Financial Action Task Force, and other
international forums, the United States will seek to increase the
counternarcotics contributions of other donors.  Success of these
international program efforts requires that the United States
develop a close working relationship with Australia, Canada,
European countries, and Japan to design, develop, and coordinate
international opium and heroin control assistance.  All donors
will be encouraged to target their developmental and humanitarian
assistance to populations and areas where it can have a direct
effect on reducing opium production and trafficking.  This
assistance also should be used to help extend government
authority into opium producing regions.  As governments gain
greater control over these areas, continuation of assistance
should be linked to drug control progress.

Attack the Heroin Trafficking Infrastructure

Heroin production, smuggling, distribution, and sales are
complex, multinational businesses.  They are most vulnerable when
attacks on their infrastructureleadership, money laundering,
chemical supply, and communications and transportation networks
are conducted on a coordinated worldwide basis.  The U.S.
Government must ensure that there is a coordinated effort to
focus on specific organizations, coordinating U.S. actions
against them with U.S. allies.  This Strategy is to synchronize
law enforcement operations in the United States with linked
operations in Africa, Asia, and Europe.

The United States will work with other customs services to
automate document review and targeting processes, using advanced
technology to address the highest risk transportation
networkcommercial maritime cargo.  The U.S. Government also will
increase efforts to prosecute money launderersparticularly those
traffickers who use the underground banking systems in East
Asia, Pakistan, and Indiaand continue efforts to control the
movement of the precursor chemicals necessary for heroin
production.  

Ethnic-based heroin networks pose difficult intelligence
collection challenges.  The United States must enhance its
ability to penetrate these organizations, particularly their
money laundering apparatuses.  This Strategy seeks to address the
need for countries around the world to work together to reduce
the drug trade.

Regional Substrategies

The magnitude of the heroin trade, together with limited U.S.
influence in heroin producing areas and constrained financial
resources, require that the Administrations heroin strategy be
carefully targeted.  The United States focuses efforts in
Southeast Asia; the Middle East and Southwest Asia; Latin
America; Africa; Russia; Eastern European countries; and the
newly independent states.  

     Southeast Asia

     This Strategys primary heroin control priority will be to
reduce the flow from Southeast Asia, which currently supplies
more than 60 percent of all heroin sold in the United States. 
The key country in this region is Burma.

     In November 1994, a senior-level U.S. delegation visited
Burma.  The delegation, which included a representative of the
State Departments Bureau of International Narcotics Matters,
raised counternarcotics issues with Burmas senior leadership,
including prosecuting narcotraffickers, fulfilling
counternarcotics commitments in agreements with Burmese ethnic
groups, making greater efforts by the regime to utilize money
laundering and conspiracy legislation, and access to opium
producing areas using nongovernmental organizations.

     A range of measures currently undertaken, designed to
address the United States counternarcotics concerns without
undermining other vital U.S. objectives, includes efforts to
promote political reform and reconciliation and curb gross
violations of human rights in Burma.  These measures also include
the following:

         Continue, at appropriate levels, a general dialogue
with appropriate Burmese authorities regarding counternarcotics
strategies;

         Exchange information with appropriate Burmese officials
to support unilateral counternarcotics operations;

         Provide in-country counternarcotics training to
specialized units on a case-by-case basis and subject to the same
U.S. standards and safeguards observed in other countries in
which the United States has a counternarcotics relationship;

         Continue recently enhanced efforts to influence Burmas
neighborsespecially China and Thailandto exert more narcotics
control pressure on the Burmese Government by emphasizing to them
the regional threat posed by Burmas heroin trade; 

         Continue to urge China and Thailand to conduct drug
interdiction operations along their borders with Burma, at major
ports, and wherever such operations can enhance the collection of
evidence on the organizations and their leaders;

         Complete second opium yield survey in Burma, which will
provide important information about the nature of the opium crop;
and

         Continue support for UNDCP regional narcotics control
efforts that affect Burma.

     Much of the opium production in Burma has taken place
outside areas of central government control; thus, the United
States has urged the government of Burma to work toward effective
implementation of its counternarcotics agreements with Burmese
ethnic groups that have long opposed central government policies. 
In this respect, the U.S. objectives can be better accomplished
by the importance the United States attaches to political reform
and reconciliation in Burma.  This is critical if the Burmese
Government is to make sustained progress with the ethnic groups.

     Finally, the United States will continue to expand
cooperative efforts with other governments in the region,
especially Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore
to reduce cultivation and trafficking in their countries.  The
United States also will intensify efforts to destroy Southeast
and East Asian trafficking operations by attacking brokering,
banking, shipping, communications, and other support operations
in the region.

     Middle East and Southwest Asia

     The U.S. Governments interest in Southwest Asia centers on
increased heroin production in Afghanistan and Pakistans drug
processing and international trafficking syndicates.  It also is
concerned about production in the neighboring republics of the
former Soviet Union as well as trafficking networks operating
from Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey.  Through
appropriate bilateral or multilateral mechanisms, this Nation
will reach out to all of these governments by offering technical
assistance, intelligence and information, and law enforcement
training.  The United States also will work to enhance the
commitment of Western European countries to provide financial
support through multilateral development banks and organizations
and to apply diplomatic pressure on producing, transit, and
consuming countries.  

     Latin America

     Expanding poppy crops in Colombia and Mexico and emerging
poppy cultivation in Peru and Venezuela are aimed almost
exclusively at U.S. consumers.  Mexico has demonstrated both the
political will and the capability to eradicate poppy cultivation. 
With support from the United States, Colombia and Venezuela have
made a similar commitment.  Peru has announced its intention to
conduct eradication operations against poppy cultivation. 
Guatemala has virtually eliminated its once significant poppy
crop.  The Administration must continue to provide the technical
support necessary to sustain or improve upon these efforts and
use this opportunity to encourage more active eradication
programs against all illegal drug crops in Latin America.

     Colombian heroin is a particularly insidious problem because
the drug cartels utilize an existing drug distribution
infrastructure to move their product.  Colombian eradication
programs have destroyed as much as 20,000 hectares of poppy in
recent years.  The U.S. Government has strongly encouraged the
Samper Administration to continue its eradication efforts and to
vigorously attack the heroin traffickers.

     Africa

     Nigerian and West African trafficking organizations demand
special attention because they move a substantial portion of the
Southeast Asian heroin arriving in the United States.  Because of
insufficient progress in counternarcotics,  Nigeria was denied
certification by President Clinton in 1994.  The Administration
explained to the Nigerian Government that while the U.S.
Government wants Nigeria to earn certification, this will not
occur until Nigeria meets its international obligations under the
1988 Vienna Convention and meets the certification standards
specified in the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act.  

     The emergence of a fully democratic South Africa and the
subsequent opening of its borders and expansion of its
international commerce have encouraged drug traffickers to
attempt the development of South Africa as a major transit
country.  The United States has offered help to South Africa to
counter this threat and tackle its increasing drug consumption. 
South Africa has the stature, skills, and resources to assume a
major leadership role in Africa against the drug trade, and the
United States encourages South Africa to do so. 

     Russia, Eastern European Countries, and the Newly
Independent States

     Organized crime groups in Russia, Eastern Europe, and the
newly independent states (formerly of the Soviet Union) are of
increasing concern.  The Administration will address this problem
through expanded training and other efforts by both bilateral and
multilateral counternarcotics and countercrime mechanisms.  In
the summer of 1994, a high level U.S. delegation travelled to
Eastern Europe and Russia to discuss law enforcement efforts. 
This led to the opening of an FBI office in Moscow and a training
center in Budapest.

12-MONTH ACTION PLAN FOR STRENGTHENING INTERDICTION AND
INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS

The 12-month Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction and
International Efforts consists of five targets:  (1) coordinate
the completion and implementation of a PDD on heroin; (2) develop
measures of effectiveness for international, host country, and
interdiction programs; (3) follow up on the Summit of the
Americas; (4) continue implementation of the PDD on cocaine; and
(5) expand international public diplomacy.

Target No. 1:  Coordinate the Completion and Implementation of a
PDD on Heroin

Steps:

    Prepare a draft PDD on heroin based on the heroin section of
this document and coordinate it through the NSC process for the
Presidents approval.

    Coordinate with the Counternarcotics Interagency Working
Group (CN-IWG) for full and timely implementation of the PDD on
heroin.

    Coordinate U.S. Government efforts to engage Burma on
counternarcotics.

Completion Date:  September 1995

Target No. 2:  Develop Measures of Effectiveness for
International, Host Country, and Interdiction Programs

Step:

    Work with Federal drug control agencies to develop proposed
measures of effectiveness.

Completion Date:   September 1995

Target No. 3:  Follow Up on the Summit of the Americas

Steps:

    Facilitate a ministerial conference to coordinate
hemispheric response to money laundering. 

    Organize a conference of donors, MDBs, and the United
Nations to seek resources for alternative development programs.

Completion Date:  September 1995
Target No. 4:  Continue Implementation of the PDD on Cocaine

Steps:

    Aggressively pursue congressional support for the PDD on
cocaine and the resulting international strategy.

    Clearly describe the institution-building program to the
Congress and the American people as one of long-term commitment
and effort.

    Ensure an effective interdiction capability exists and is
maintained in the transit zone.

    Coordinate with the Counternarcotics Interagency Working
Group to:

      Improve host nation end-game capabilities;9

      Recognize Perus willingness to expand its counterdrug
efforts by removing any self-imposed barriers and increasing U.S.
counternarcotics support and assistance to it;

      Assist Colombia in its efforts to control and stop
traffickers use of Colombian air space and to aerially eradicate
coca and poppy cultivation;

      Assist the Government of Bolivia in expanding its
interdiction capabilities and to completely eliminate the
cultivation of illegal coca;

      Fully support (including intelligence and technical
assistance) Mexicos efforts to dismantle drug organizations and
to eradicate poppy and marijuana cultivation;

      Recognize the positive steps taken by the new Panamanian
Administration and provide full support and assistance to their
counternarcotics program;

      Develop regional counternarcotics alliances in the source
region and Caribbean Basin; and

      Continue to apply across-the-board pressure on Colombias
Cali-based organization (including their domestic and regional
associates) to break their control over the cocaine trade and
destroy their ability to undermine the will and ability of
regional governments to reduce narcotics trafficking.

Completion Date:  December 1995

Target No. 5:  Expand International Public Diplomacy

Step:

    U.S. agencies involved in international narcotics control
efforts will work with others to communicate U.S. sincerity in
counternarcotics activities and increase public support for
counternarcotics programs in source and transit countries by the
following U.S. agency actions:

      Develop a mechanism to communicate and encourage support
for policies abroad;
     
      Publicize and informing the public and the Congress about
the full range of U.S. international counternarcotics efforts;
and

      Develop broad themes consistent with major strategy
objectives for universal attention.

Completion Date:  December 1995

ENDNOTES

1    The interdiction capability is an important element of this
Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction and International
Efforts.  Interdiction removes illicit drugs from the system,
increases the cartels costs, provides intelligence against the
cartels, supports institution building programs, and supports the
prevention and treatment elements of this Strategy.

2    The Administration has recognized the history of alleged
human rights abuses, emphatically condemns such practices, and
intends to ensure that such abuses are not continued by any
country which receives U.S. counternarcotics assistance,
especially if that assistance is being used for other purposes
than for which it was intended.

     An end use monitoring system is under development within
U.S. embassies that will trace where assistance goes and the
exact purposes for which it is being expended in other countries
to ensure that U.S. assistance is being used in accordance with
U.S. policies.  End use monitoring programs will utilize military
Inspectors General to inspect U.S. assistance and to provide
periodic reports of their findings to the U.S. Ambassadors.  U.S.
officials, including Ambassadors, also will monitor the
assistance through periodic spot checks, check on the assistance
at the sites to determine how it is being used, and report on
these observations in writing.  Peru and Colombia also have
established procedures to monitor and report on the proper use of
all U.S. assistance.

     In addition, the State Department is currently working on
implementing a new process for reviewing allegations of human
rights violations by government forces that may receive funding,
training, or other support from U.S. Government counternarcotics
programs.

3    The certification process was created by a 1986 amendment to
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and provides the President
with three options when evaluating a nations counternarcotics
performance.  If it is determined that a country cooperated fully
with the United States during the previous year or has taken
adequate steps on its own to achieve full compliance with the
goals and objectives of the 1988 U.N. Convention Against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, the
country can be certified.  If a country does not qualify under
this standard and a vital U.S. interest exists, it can be given a
national interest certification based on that U.S. interest.  If
a country does not qualify under this standard and there is not
an overriding U.S. interest, the country can be denied
certification.

4     The President denied certification to four countries
(Burma, Iran, Syria, andfor the first timeNigeria) and
certified six countries based on the U.S. vital interest
(Afghanistan, Bolivia, Laos, Lebanon, Panama, and Peru).

5     If a country is denied certification by the President (or
by the Congress, which can change the Presidents determinations
by a majority vote in both Houses), most U.S. economic assistance
allocated for that country is withheld.  Currently 29 countries
are reviewed annually for certification, but a number of these
countries do not receive direct U.S. economic assistance.  This
might seem to encourage at least some of them to discount the
consequences of the decertification process.  However, the
requirement in the Foreign Assistance Act for the United States
to vote against any loans from multilateral development banks to
countries that have been denied certification maintains their
attention to the overall process.  Added to this is the
international stigma that goes with denial of certification, a
stigma some countries take more seriously than other penalties. 
The result is that the certification process can and does provide
a powerful lever for encouraging meaningful global and national
action in the counternarcotics area.

6    The ROTHR is based on an advanced radar technology that
gives the United States the capability to surveil the Caribbean
from sites in the continental United States.  The Virginia site
is operational, and the Texas site is under construction.  A
third site in Puerto Rico is planned.

7    The Department of Defenses budget has been reduced by more
than $300 million, and the Department of States drug budget has
been reduced by about $200 million.  For more details, see the
Office of National Drug Control Policys 1995 Budget Summary
Report.

8    From FY 1990 to FY 1992, the Nations drug strategy focused
heavily on supply reduction.  This period saw an increase in
funds from 1990 to 1991 for the seven agencies that had primary
responsibility for interdiction (U.S. Department of Defense,
Bureau of Land Management, Office of Territorial and
International Affairs, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration, and U.S.
Customs).  Total funds allocated for this period increased from
$1,752 million to $2,028 million.

     Funds were spent on hardware systems that assisted these
agencies in detecting, monitoring, and confiscating the flow of
drugs into the United States.  Hardware included items such as
helicopters, cutters, patrol boats, and other aircraft; aerostat
systems and other radar detecting equipment; and the construction
of facilities to house border patrol personnel.  Funding levels
subsequent to FY 1992 reflect maintenance and operation costs for
the hardware purchased in previous years.

9    The term end game refers to the ability to successfully
coordinate law enforcement action to apprehend drug smugglers
whether they are moving their illicit drugs by land, air, or sea,
and to ensure thorough investigation, rigorous prosecution, and
appropriate sentencing. 

IX.  Federal Drug Control Resource Priorities

The largest Presidential request in history, a total of $14.6
billion in Federal drug control resources, is requested in Fiscal
Year (FY) 1996 for supply reduction and demand reduction
activities.  Recognizing the critical importance of the community
in the solution to the problems of illicit drug use and
trafficking, this budget expands the ability of communities to
respond to their own drug problems.  For the first timeas part
of a new partnership between the Federal Government and States
and localitiescommunities will have much greater flexibility in
how they manage Federal resources for drug control purposes.  At
the same time, the Federal role in drug controlattacking
organizations and traffickers, interdicting drugs both in the
United States and abroad, developing and sharing intelligence,
conducting national research, and improving treatment and
prevention effortswill be vigorously pursued.

The Presidents FY 1996 drug control budget spending plan will
achieve the goals, priorities, and objectives of the National
Drug Control Strategy.  It includes resources for treatment,
prevention, research, law enforcement, intelligence,
interdiction, and international programs that comprise a
balanced, national response to the problems of illicit drugs. 
This FY 1996 drug budget proposal provides a recipe for success: 
By supporting key initiatives in FY 1996, this Nation can reduce
the tremendous economic and human costs posed by illicit drug
use.

FY 1996 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS

For FY 1996, the President has requested $14.6 billion (see
Exhibit 9-1) to fund drug control efforts.  This request
represents an increase of $1.3 billion, which is 9.7 percent over
the FY 1995 enacted level of $13.3 billion.  The following are
among the major thrusts for FY 1996: 

    Take a totally new approach to the management of Federal
resources provided by the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) to States for drug treatment and prevention.  In a
nutshell, the bulk of the Federal strings attached to treatment
and prevention resources funded by HHS will be removed.  One
important string will remain a set-aside for drug prevention
services.  Working with the States, communities will be given
more discretion in developing and implementing programs tailored
to their unique needs and concerns, rather than attempting to
solve their local problems using a federally mandated approach.

    Place a major emphasis on implementing the Presidents
International Program Strategy.  The FY 1996 budget funds the
Administrations plan (articulated last year) for a controlled
shift of emphasis from previous strategies that centered on
disrupting the flow of cocaine in the transit zones to a more
balanced, long-term, and integrated approach that stresses
efforts in the source countries.  

    Place more emphasis on programs to enhance community-based
efforts, especially those that strengthen local law enforcement
capabilities.  The FY 1996 budget includes resources to increase
community-based efforts aimed at the problems of illicit drug
trafficking and use, such as community policing and State and
local law enforcement programs funded by the Byrne program (e.g.,
State and local task forces).

    Place more emphasis on research and analysis to inform
policymakers about what works and does not work in drug control
efforts.

The FY 1996 budget request includes important increases in all
major program areas except interdiction.  Table 9-1 illustrates
Federal drug control spending among the functions tracked in the
Federal drug control budget.

The largest area of the Federal drug control budget is the
criminal justice system.  Of the total $14.6 billion requested in
FY 1996, $7.2 billion is for the criminal justice systeman
increase of $854 million over last year.  This functional area is
the largest spending category of the total drug control budget. 
Drug treatment is the next largest program area, with over $2.8
billion requested in FY 1996.  And, at nearly $2.0 billion, drug
prevention is the third largest program area.
     
The international program budget represents a small but important
share of total drug control spending.  The total request for
international programs is $399.1 million, which is 2.7 percent of
the Presidents total request for drug control.  This program
area increases by $89.1 million in FY 1996, almost entirely to
provide additional resources for the Department of States Bureau
of International Narcotics Matters (INM) to fund programs that
are sorely needed in source countries.
   
A total of $1.3 billion is requested for interdiction, which is
8.8 percent of the total FY 1996 budget request.  The FY 1996
request is $14.9 million less than the resources provided last
year.  While all other agencies involved in drug interdiction
will require additional resources in FY 1996, the U.S. Customs
Service will not.  Resources requested for the Customs Services
air program are less in FY 1996 than in FY 1995 because Customs
is able to draw down excess balances that have accumulated over
the past few years.  Customs program efforts will not be reduced
by this budget request, as these excess balances are adequate to
enable Customs to maintain its air interdiction activities.

MAJOR DRUG CONTROL BUDGET INITIATIVES IN FY 1996

Four major budget initiatives are included in the FY 1996
National Drug Control Strategy budget request.  The first
initiative gives communities more resources to better respond to
their particular drug problems.  The second initiative
significantly changes the manner in which Federal treatment and
prevention funds are provided to States.  The third initiative
focuses on reducing drug use by expanding drug treatment to those
inside and outside the criminal justice system.  Finally, the
fourth initiative enhances international programs to attack the
problems of drug production and trafficking at the source.

The four major budget initiatives are outlined below.
   
Empowering Communities to Respond to Their Own Drug Problem

The FY 1996 request includes a number of specific initiatives to
empower communities to confront their drug problem directly,
including the following:
  
    A total of $621.1 million in drug-related resources is
requested in FY 1996 for the drug-related portion of the
community policing program authorized by the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322,
hereafter referred to as the Crime Control Act).  Over 1,200
grants to add almost 10,000 more police have been awarded
already.  The goal is to bring the total to over 40,000 officers
by the end of 1996.

    A total of $500 million is requested for the Safe and Drug
Free Schools and Communities program, an increase of $18.0
million over the FY 1995 enacted level.  These resources are
critical to local community efforts to educate youth about the
dangers and consequences of illicit drug use.
Improving Drug Treatment and Prevention Through Grant
Consolidation

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) is the source of the majority of Federal funding for
drug abuse treatment and prevention.  The Presidents proposed FY
1996 budget restructures SAMHSA by proposing a new partnership
block grant and a single substance abuse demonstration and
training authority.  The Presidents proposal will provide SAMHSA
and the States with the ability to respond quickly and
effectively to the substance abuse prevention and treatment needs
of our Nation. 

The Substance Abuse Performance Partnership will provide States
with more flexibility in directing treatment and prevention
resources to best meet local community needs.  This new Substance
Abuse Performance Partnership removes most of the earmarks and
mandates of the former Substance Abuse Block Grant. One of the
important earmarks that is kept is the 20 percent set-aside for
drug abuse prevention services.1  The Presidents total drug
control request for this new Partnership is $1.3 billion, which
funds $919.8 million in drug-related treatment and prevention
services.  This request includes $60 million in additional
resources over the FY 1995 level, with the States encouraged to
use these funds to treat chronic substance abusers.  

The Presidents FY 1996 budget also proposes to consolidate
SAMHSAs demonstration and training programs into one 
demonstration and training cluster for substance abuse.  The
overall objective of SAMHSAs new demonstration cluster will be
to train providers, to conduct demonstrations that test new ways
of preventing and treating substance abuse, and to nationally
disseminate data and information about effective programs.  The
new demonstration cluster will have strong evaluation components
to assess program efficacy.  Although SAMHSAs previous programs
have been consolidated, the Administration intends to ensure that
programs such as the Community Partnership Program receive
continued support in FY 1996.  A total of $452.8 million is
requested for substance abuse-related demonstrations in FY 1996. 
Within the $452.8 million requested for the Substance Abuse
Demonstration and Training Cluster, $40 million is included to
demonstrate the efficacy of promoting approaches to the delivery
of substance abuse treatment services to the illicit drug-using
population, the most difficult of whom is the chronic, hardcore
drug user.

Reducing Chronic, Hardcore Drug Use Through Treatment

Chronic, hardcore drug use fuels the continuing high demand for
illicit drugs and is linked to crime, violence, health problems,
and the deterioration of the family.  Additional treatment
capacity and flexibility in the delivery of treatment services
are critical to the reduction of drug use by chronic, hardcore
drug users.  The total FY 1996 drug control budget request for
drug treatment is $2.8 billion, $180.0 million more than the FY
1995 enacted level.  Drug control funding for treatment services
comes from a variety of sources.  The major funding components of
the treatment initiative include the following:
 
    The Substance Abuse Performance Partnership.  Within the
$919.8 million requested for the drug portion of the Substance
Abuse Performance Partnership is $60 million more than the
comparable appropriation in FY 1995.  The proposed changes to the
Block Grant and additional funding for illicit drug users, like
the chronic, hardcore drug user, will give the States the
flexibility to design and coordinate their substance abuse
treatment and prevention programs to better fit their unique
needs and more effectively target resources within their States
to those areas of highest need. 
 
    Drug Courts.  The total FY 1996 request for drug courts is
$150.0 million, an increase of $121.0 million over the $29.0
million enacted in FY 1995.  The Department of Justice will make
discretionary grants to States, units of local governments,
Indian Tribal governments, and State and local courts for drug
court assistance to deal with nonviolent offenders with substance
abuse problems.

    Substance Abuse Treatment in Federal Prisons.  A total of
$13.5 million in new funds is requested for substance abuse
treatment in Federal prisons, which was authorized by the Crime
Control Act.  This funding will be used by the Federal Bureau of
Prisons to provide residential substance abuse treatment and to
make arrangements for appropriate transition services for all
eligible prisoners.  Residential treatment is to include
individual and group activities, lasting between 6 and 12 months,
in residential treatment facilities set apart from the general
prison population.  Under the requirements of the Crime Control
Act, treatment is to be made available to at least 50 percent of
eligible prisoners in 1995, rising to 75 percent in 1996. 

    Substance Abuse Treatment in State Prisons.  A total of
$26.7 million in new funds is requested for substance abuse
treatment for State prisons, which also was  authorized by the
Crime Control Act.  This program will award discretionary grants
to States to develop and implement residential substance abuse
treatment programs within State correctional facilities.  To
receive grants, States must outline a plan for substance abuse
testing of prisoners and for coordinating the development of
residential treatment facilities with the State and local drug
and alcohol abuse agency and HHS.  Aftercare services also are
covered by this initiative.

Increasing Source Country Program Effectiveness

The FY 1996 budget request includes $213.0 million for
international narcotics control.  This is an increase of $108.0
million over the FY 1995 enacted level of $105.0 million for
international narcotics control.  In FY 1996 this program will
continue the implementation of the Presidents directive to place
more emphasis on source countries, focus on programs to achieve
democratic institution building, dismantle narcotics trafficking
organizations, and interdict drugs.  It will also allow a greater
emphasis on multilateral efforts to strengthen democratic
institutions, making them more effective in fighting
international drug trafficking organizations.  Under the
Administrations plan, key source countries will shoulder more of
the drug control burden.  The budget for FY 1996 reflects
extensive efforts to integrate counternarcotics police and
military law enforcement activities, drug awareness and demand
reduction programs, and sustainable development programs.

OTHER FY 1996 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS

There are several other funding proposals that will contribute to
the successful implementation of the National Drug Control
Strategy:

    A total of $110.0 million is requested for ONDCPs High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program to provide
resources in the most critical drug trafficking areas of the
country.  This is $3.0 million above the FY 1995 enacted level
and allows full funding for the newly designated Puerto Rico/U.S.
Virgin Islands HIDTA.  In addition, the request supports the
seven HIDTAs now designated (New York, Washington-Baltimore,
Miami, Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, Houston, the Southwest
Border, and Los Angeles).

    A total of $320.9 million is requested in FY 1996 for the
U.S. Coast Guard to fund its counterdrug operations.  This is
$14.8 million above the FY 1995 enacted level.  These additional
resources support a modest strategic increase in the level of
effort to interdict drugs in the transit zone.  With the
resolution of many problems concerning Haiti and Cuba, the Coast
Guard has restored certain assets to the transit zone for drug
interdiction.

    Drug-related activities of the Corporation for National
Service programs will be enhanced by $14.4 millionto a total of
$53.9 millionfor increasing and addressing the educational,
human service, public safety, and environmental needs of the
Nation through volunteer activities.

    The total drug program request for the Social Security
Administration (SSA) is $202.4 million in FY 1996, $44.5 million
more than the FY 1995 enacted level.  The SSA became an
independent agency in 1995.  These funds provide enhanced
monitoring and supervision of treatment compliance of
Supplemental Security Income recipients who have been medically
determined to be disabled by addiction.

    Treatment research activities within the National Institute
on Drug Abuse will increase by $14.7 millionto a total of $452.3
millionfor augmented efforts in medications development,
innovative prevention approaches, and treatment of the
chronically addicted.

    Resources for the Drug Enforcement Agencys (DEAs) Domestic
Cannabis Eradication and Suppression Program is maintained at the
FY 1995 level of $10.0 million to continue DEAs support to State
and local efforts to eradicate marijuana cultivation in the
United States.

    Funding for the Immigration and Naturalization Services
drug-related activities will increase by $56.3 million, to a
total of $226.0 million.  This level of funding allows for
continued border management at El Paso and San Diego and for
enhanced border management in Arizona and portions of Southeast
Texas.  The initiative also funds detention and removal
operations associated with strengthening border management.

    The FY 1996 funding request for the drug-related portion of
the Byrne grant is $405.0 millionwhich includes both the
Presidents request for a direct appropriation and funding
provided in the Crime Control Act$10.8 million less than the
total FY 1995 enacted level of $415.8 million.  This program
provides financial and technical assistance to State and local
units of government to control drug abuse and violent crime and
to improve the criminal justice system.

    Funding for the Department of Justices Bureau of Prisons is
$1.9 billion, an increase of $234.9 million over the FY 1995
enacted level.  This increase is requested to expand prison
capacity in response to the continued growth in the Federal
prison population who have been incarcerated for drug-related
crimes.

    The FY 1996 request for the Veterans Administration (VA) is
$929.5 million, which is $42.1 million above the FY 1995 enacted
level.  This increase enables the VA to continue to operate a
network of substance abuse treatment programs.  Specialized
substance abuse treatment services currently are available at 161
VA medical centers.

SUPPLY AND DEMAND RESOURCES

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 requires the Director of ONDCP to
report on spending for programs dedicated to supply reduction and
demand reduction activities.  Of the total $14.6 billion request
for FY 1996, $9.3 billion is for supply reduction programs and
$5.3 billion is for demand reduction programs.  The percentage of
resources for supply reduction is 64 percent, and 36 percent is
for demand reduction programs.  This percentage split reflects
the impact on the drug control budget of the Crime Control Act,
which greatly increased resources for law enforcement programs. 
In fact, the FY 1996 drug control budget request includes $1.3
billion for programs authorized by the Crime Control Act.

IMPACT OF THE 1994 CRIME CONTROL ACT ON THE DRUG PROGRAM

The Crime Control Act complements and enhances the Presidents
National Drug Control Strategy by providing a balance between law
enforcement and prevention programs to confront the problems of
illicit drugs.  Fully two-thirds of the funds authorized by the
Crime Control Act go directly to communities for anticrime and
antidrug activities.  These resources will help communities fund
comprehensive antidrug strategies that meet both the immediate
security needs of a communitythrough more police, more prisons,
more boot camps, more reasonable gun policiesand the longer term
problems related to illicit drug usethrough drug treatment and
prevention.  Table 9-2 highlights the major drug-related programs
that are part of the Crime Control Act.  The Drug Courts program,
Community Policing, and the State and Federal Drug Treatment
Programs are critically important to the National Drug Control
Strategy, as discussed above.  The following are other
significant  programs:

    The Gang Resistance Education and Training Program (GREAT)
will help kids fight the allure of gang membership.  A Youth
Academy will prevent youth violence by getting kids off the
streets and into other activities.  A total of $5.0 million in
drug-related resources is requested for this program in FY 1996.

    The Family and Community Endeavor Schools (FACES) program
will provide in-school assistance to at-risk children, including
education and mentoring.  A total of $6.2 million is requested in
FY 1996 for the drug-related portion of this program.

    The Treatment for Prisoners initiative (State and Federal,
as discussed above) will provide treatment for drug users and
especially for chronic, hardcore drug users.  A combined total of
$40.2 million is requested for these two programs in FY 1996.

    The Community Schools Youth Services and Supervision Grant
Program will provide grants to community groups to keep schools
open after hours and on weekends to provide a place for kids to
go and stay out of trouble.  A total of $14.5 million in drug-
related resources is requested for this program in FY 1996.

    The Drug Testing for Federal Prisoners Initiative, within
the Judiciary initiative, will establish a program of drug
testing in each judicial district for Federal offenders on
postconviction release as a condition of probation, supervised
release, or parole.  A total of $8.0 million is requested in FY
1996 for this initiative.
     
The Crime Control Act also provides the means to support better
coordination of the priority program areas of the National Drug
Control Strategy.  For example, the Ounce of Prevention Council
will coordinate new youth development and youth-oriented
prevention initiatives.  

REPORT CARDFY 1995 BUDGET

The President requested $13.2 billion for Federal drug control
programs for FY 1995.  Ultimately, a total of $13.3 billion was
appropriated by Congress.  However, the appropriation differed
significantly from the Presidents request in that many of the
key budget initiatives sought by the President were underfunded
by Congress.  The additional funds provided by Congress resulted
from the passage of the Crime Control Act.  

The FY 1995 drug control budget proposed the following four
initiatives in the key areas of treatment, prevention, community-
based efforts, and international programs (two initiatives were
supported by Congress, and two were not):  

    FY 1995 Treatment Initiative.  The Administrations
initiative for drug treatment was comprised of two parts:  (1)
resources to enhance drug treatment capacity nationwide through a
$355 million initiative that targeted treatment for the chronic,
hardcore drug user, and (2) $200 million for enhanced treatment
capacity within the criminal justice system through drug courts. 
However, congressional appropriations for these treatment
initiatives fell far short of the Administrations request.  HHS
received $57 million for its Substance Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Block grant.  Justice received only $29 million for
Drug Courts.  

    Prevention Initiatives.  The total 1995 funding request for
school-based drug prevention programs was $660 million, an
increase of $191 million for the Department of Educations Safe
and Drug Free Schools and Communities State Grant Program and the
Safe Schools Program.  A total of $87 million of this request was
provided by Congress.

    Community-Based Drug Control Strategy Initiatives.  More
success was realized in obtaining funding for community-based
initiatives in the Presidents drug control budget request.  A
total of $1.0 billion was requested for FY 1995 for community-
based efforts, of which $733 million was requested for three
specific drug initiatives:  Community Policing, the Empowerment
Zone, and Community Partnership programs.  A total of $594
million in drug-related resources was provided by Congress for
these three initiatives:  $429 million for Community Policing,
$115 million for the Community Partnership program, and $10.8
million for the Community Empowerment Zones program.

    International Initiatives.  The Administrations budget
initiative for international programs was not funded in FY 1995. 
The Administration requested an increase of $76 million for
international programs, of which $72 million was for a new
consolidated INM program.  This program would support source
country efforts to reduce the availability of illicit drugs
through activities such as law enforcement training, judicial
reform, crop control, sustainable development, interdiction, and
demand reduction efforts.  An additional $5 million was provided
by Congress for this initiative.  

NATIONAL FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR FYs 199799

The Administration will pursue funding for key program areas to
reduce drug use and its consequences to the individual and
society and to reduce the availability of illicit drugs in the
United States.  The following are the funding priorities for FYs
199799:

    Support programs that expand drug treatment capacity and
services so that those who need treatment can receive it;  

    Support prevention programs that target youth to reduce
their use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco products; 

    Support programs at the local level that create safe and
healthy environments in which children and adolescents can live,
grow, learn, and develop;

    Support programs that strengthen multi-agency linkages at
the community level among prevention, treatment, and criminal
justice programs, as well as other supportive social services, to
better address the problems of drug abuse;  

    Support programs that reduce drug-related crime and
violence;

    Support programs that reduce all domestic drug production
and availability and continue to target for investigation and
prosecution those who illegally manufacture and distribute drugs
and who illegally divert pharmaceuticals and chemicals;

    Support programs that strengthen international cooperation
and actions against narcotics production, trafficking, and use;

    Support programs that increase workplace safety and
productivity by reducing drug use on the job; and

    Support research that identifies what works in drug
control programs and develops new information about drug use and
its consequences.

ENDNOTE

1    The Substance Abuse Performance Partnership will continue
the 5 percent set-aside for SAMHSAs data collection, technical
assistance, and evaluation.

X.  Conclusion

This Strategy is based on an assessment of the drug use situation
faced by the United States; successes and failures of antidrug
efforts in 1994; and what needs to be done to realize the overall
goal of a Nation free of illicit drug use, drug trafficking,
drug-related crime, and the negative health and social
consequences of drug use.  It provides specific Action Plans for
reducing drug trafficking and drug use in the United States.

This Strategy acknowledges the serious challenges that confront
the Nation in responding to drug abuse problems.  In fact, it
sets forth key programs to address the most intractable aspects
of the drug problem, as did the two prior Strategies issued by
this Administration.  It responds with initiatives to
aggressively reduce chronic, hardcore drug use; effectively
reduce the supply of illicit drugs through strong enforcement and
international narcotics control programs; and prevent drug use by
the Nations youth.

To be successful, this Strategy must be supported by the level of
drug control resources requested by the President in his Fiscal
Year 1996 budget.  If the U.S. Congress provides any less than
this request, the Nations efforts to achieve effective drug
control will be undermined.  The success of this Strategy also
depends on the support and participation of those State and local
officials involved in domestic aspects of drug control, as well
as the cooperation of foreign governments in fighting illicit
drug organizations, drug production, and drug trafficking.

This Strategy presents four Action Plans to address a fundamental
concern of all Americansthe need to feel safe in ones home and
community and the need to feel confident that ones children will
learn, grow, and prosper in a safe and drug-free school and
neighborhood.  To ignore these basic needs would be patently
unfair to the vast majority of Americans who work hard, pay
taxes, and play by societys rules.

The Action Plans are designed to accomplish the following:  

    Reduce the Demand for Illicit Drugs;

    Reduce Crime, Violence, and Drug Availability;

    Enhance Domestic Drug Program Flexibility and Efficiency at
the Community Level; and

    Strengthen Interdiction and International Efforts.
     
The Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for Illicit Drugs
enhances national drug abuse prevention efforts that target young
people.  The current increase in adolescent drug use must be
reversed, and this Strategy provides a road map for accomplishing
this mission.  The Nations youth deserve better than to grow up
in a family or neighborhood plagued by drug use and its
consequences.

This Action Plan proposes to develop a National Drug Prevention
System to effectively link public and private drug abuse
prevention efforts and allow community coalitions and grassroots
efforts throughout the Nation to access the necessary Federal
prevention resources programs for combatting adolescent drug and
alcohol use.  This network will permit optimal use of Federal
funds.  

This Strategy continues to focus on the critical mission of
reducing the number of chronic, hardcore drug usersthe
population that fuels the trafficking of drugs into the United
States; creates crises in the Nations criminal justice, health
care, and social systems; and denies American citizens their
right to live in a secure and healthy environment.  Through a
range of initiatives, including the creative use of drug courts,
boot camps, and treatment in correctional institutions, the
Administration will make an aggressive effort to break the
insidious cycle of drug use and crime.  The Administration also
will consolidate Federal drug treatment grants to the States,
along with the elimination of Federal mandates, to provide States
with the maximum flexibility to determine and meet what they
consider to be their most urgent drug treatment needs.  Providing
successful treatment interventions for this population is cost
effective.  Furthermore, it can prevent drug-related crime and
recidivism to drug use, and lessen the impact of the health and
social consequences of drug use on families and neighborhoods.

The Administration recognizes that drug treatment and prevention
initiatives can only be successful when the supply of drugs is
effectively disrupted and drug trafficking organizations are
destroyed.  Effective drug law enforcement activity and a sound
criminal justice system are essential to the success of any
demand reduction initiative.

Accordingly, the Action Plan for Reducing Crime, Violence, and
Drug Availability emphasizes the importance of strong linkages
among all elements of the criminal justice system and prevention,
education, and treatment efforts.  Particular emphasis is given
to interventions designed specifically for those at risk of
violencechildren, youth, and chronic, hardcore drug users. 
Through these linkages, law enforcement can play a major role in
reducing not only the demand for drugs but also the crime and
violence that is associated with drug use.

As a result of the 1994 passage of the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act, additional police are being hired to patrol
and protect neighborhoods; the sale of assault weaponsthe
weapons of choice for drug gangsis now banned; tough new
sentencing laws are in place to get violent and repeat offenders
off Americas streets; and prison capacity is being expanded.

The Action Plan for Enhancing Domestic Drug Program Flexibility
and Efficiency at the Community Level is based on the knowledge
that the Nations drug problem will ultimately be solved at the
community level.  Community-based initiatives, however, demand a
tremendous degree of cooperation and coordination across a wide
array of antidrug agencies and organizations.  The key objective
of this Action Plan is to remove Federal and State restrictions
and regulations that hamper the effective delivery of programs
and services at the community level.  The Action Plan includes
targeted efforts to expand and improve data collection and
distribution at the local level; to identify community-based
programs whose efficacy is substantiated by evaluation efforts;
to simplify Federal drug grant applications; to conduct a
deregulation campaign to improve community-based service
delivery; and to create a pilot project to enable select
communities to develop a systematic response to the problems of
hardcore drug use.

The Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction and International
Efforts gives priority to international narcotics control
efforts.  Federal enforcement agencies will intensify their
efforts to dismantle drug trafficking organizations, combat money
laundering, and work with units of State and local law
enforcement in task force operations to attack drug gangs.  The
Administration has issued the National Interdiction Command and
Control Plan to enhance interdiction command and control
functions and has created the United States Interdiction
Coordinator position within ONDCP to ensure the most effective
integration of drug interdiction operations and assets.

For the first time since its enactment in 1986, the international
narcotics control certification 

process is functioning with credibility and authority.  President
Clinton has advanced cooperation toward international drug
control efforts at the Summit of the Americas, a key
international gathering held in December 1994 between President
Clinton and 33 leaders of the nations of the Western Hemisphere. 
At this meeting, participating nations signed a Declaration of
Principles that includes a plan for addressing drug trafficking
and drug abuse in the Western Hemisphere.  In addition, ONDCP is
developing a new heroin control strategy to expand and intensify
heroin control efforts in key opium-producing and trans-shipment
nations.

The long-range success of this Strategy depends on the collective
refusal of individual Americans to tolerate the dealing and using
of illegal drugs.  All segments of societycommunities, schools,
religious groups, law enforcement, health care systems, business,
labor, and governmentmust work together to make America safe,
healthy, and drug free.  It is an effort upon which the Nations
future depends.

Appendix A:  Research, Data, and Program Evaluation

Since its inception, the Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) has recognized the need for a long-term commitment to
drug control research.  This research includes drug use,
treatment, education and prevention, criminal justice, and the
general area of technical advancements in support of law
enforcement and drug interdiction.  The knowledge that emerges
from this research and the improved tools that come from the
application of better technology have contributed to reducing the
impact of drug abuse on this Nation and will continue to serve as
a basis for ONDCPs future strategies to address national drug
problems.

THE RESEARCH, DATA, AND EVALUATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Federal, State, and local governments and private organizations
must be able to obtain reliable information about the nature and
extent of the drug problem for use in developing appropriate
policy and for program development and evaluation.  Efforts are
under way to improve the quality, timeliness, and policy
relevance of drug data collection systems and to develop new
methods for capturing information about emerging drug trends. 
New data collection efforts already have been undertaken to
measure the number, location, and characteristics of the hardcore
user population.   

Coordination of Federal research and evaluation efforts and open
exchange of information from drug-related research and evaluation
projects are essential to sound policy.  In 1994, with the
publication of the 1994 National Drug Control Strategy, ONDCP
began the necessary steps to formally establish the Research,
Data, and Evaluation (RD&E) Advisory Committee.  Final approval
for this establishment was given by the General Services
Administration (GSA) on January 5, 1995, under authorities
granted by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (as amended), the
GSA Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, and
Executive Order 12838.  

The RD&E Advisory Committees task is to refine and to improve
the manner in which research results are used in support of the
development of more effective programs and strategies.  The goals
of the committee consist of the following: 

    To provide, promote, and facilitate coordination of Federal
research efforts; 

    To ensure that key Federal research efforts receive
appropriate support and priority; and 

    To provide a mechanism to ensure that the available drug-
related Federal research dollars are expended on projects that
have a high probability of both immediate and long-term cost-
effectiveness and are consistent with the primary goals and
objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy.  

The members of the RD&E Advisory Committee and its subcommittees
are selected from a wide variety of disciplines.  Committee
representation will be drawn from world-class experts from the
Federal sector, as well as the non-Federal academic and
industrial sectors.  The committee will establish policies and
priorities for drug control research; review and monitor all
phases of drug-related data collection, research, and evaluation;
and foster drug-related research, such as the development of new
modes of drug treatment.  The committee also will identify
research-related actions for future Strategies.

Figure A-1 shows a schematic of the RD&E Advisory Committees
structure and the committees basic functions.

Each subcommittee will perform the following functions, and
report through the External RD&E Policy Advisory Committee to the
Internal RD&E Policy Committee:

    Identify areas of research and technology available or in
development that could have significant impact on reducing the
supply or demand of illegal drugs;

    Recommend and oversee coordinated programs for agencies with
mutual research interests to use resources more effectively and
efficiently;

    Develop action agendas to meet national research
objectives for Federal agencies, the private sector, and
academia, and oversee their implementation; and

    Create ad hoc working groups on specific tasks or topics. 

Data, Evaluation, and Interagency Coordination Subcommittee

This subcommittee will include representatives from Federal
Departments and agencies that have legislative mandates to pursue
drug-related initiatives.  Through its representation, it also
will integrate the activities of existing groups that report on
the data collection, data processing, and data sharing practices
of these organizations.  ONDCP will have the responsibility for
chairing the subcommittee and for working with the members to
define salient policy issues for each Department and agency.  

One of the early charges for the subcommittee will be to develop
an inventory of information systems and their report-generation
capabilities.  Another charge will be to evaluate the ability of
these systems to provide answers to selected policy questions. 
Another key activity of this subcommittee will be to convene a
national drug prevalence and consequence estimation conference. 
This conference will provide information to the subcommittee as
to what those involved in drug-related research, evaluation,
analysis, and investigation consider necessary to improve drug-
related information.

As the work of the subcommittee progresses, the members will move
toward the development of an integrated policy plan.  The policy
plan will identify areas where the information needs of
decisionmakers are not well addressed and will make
recommendations for new systems development initiatives and other
steps to improve data coverage.  It also will identify areas
where departments and agencies can cooperate in sharing existing
information.  This policy plan also will serve as a guide to
procurement activities in the area of drug data and evaluation by
providing recommendations related to information sharing and
technology, ways in which to achieve savings, and areas where
cooperative efforts are needed.  These and other action items
will be combined into an implementation plan that identifies
strategies to be employed in addressing the recommendations
provided in the policy plan.

Science and Technology Subcommittee

ONDCPs existing Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC)
has been designated as the lead for managing the Science and
Technology Subcommittee, combining the new tasks and action items
developed by the RD&E Advisory Committee with ongoing work
already begun by CTAC.  
In support of this new role, and in response to specific
direction from Congress, CTAC has established a national
counterdrug research and development (R&D) program to coordinate
the R&D programs of those Federal agencies with drug law
enforcement and substance abuse and treatment missions.  The
national program is based on the premise that the introduction of
advanced technology can enhance the effectiveness of
organizations with a counterdrug law enforcement or medical
research mission and can improve the employment of their limited
manpower resources.  

This subcommittee will carry out research and engineering efforts
to reduce the supply as well as the demand for drugs.  These
efforts have the following objectives:  to put in priority order
the scientific and technological needs, to identify research and
engineering efforts that can be applied to the supply and demand
reduction communities, and to initiate fiscally sound advanced
technology projects responsive to these needs.  

Prevention, Treatment, and Medical Research Subcommittee

The Prevention, Treatment, and Medical Research Subcommittee
works to coordinate efforts among the entire demand reduction
community to better address common needs.  In recent years,
significant progress has been made in demand reduction research
and evaluation.  What has emerged from these efforts is a clearer
understanding of the complex continuum of societal constraints,
supports, services, and requirements that are necessary to: 
promote healthy development (prevention); interrupt, contain, and
replace destructive behavior (intervention); foster recovery and
maintenance of a useful life (treatment); and support relapse
prevention (aftercare).  This continuum clearly illustrates the
complexity of the interrelationships between the various
disciplines that constitute the demand reduction system.  

Given this complexity of the demand reduction system, two
practical matters require the immediate attention of the
subcommittee.  First, existing specific research findings and
program evaluations must be made available to local communities
in simple, user friendly language.  Research efforts must
better serve those who are seeking to build healthier and safer
communities by providing information that is directly useful for
program design and the development of Action Plans.  Second, the
continuum of services approach must be transferred to State and
local communities to help them better organize their efforts,
better time the implementation of programs, and better select
those programs that fit together well.  Eliminating individual
programs of questionable worth in favor of proven programs is
only part of the solution.  What works is not a single
effective program, or even a great number of effective programs
applied in scattered fashion.  Rather, it is the planned,
strategic application of effective programs that, in concert,
address risk and protective factors, knowledge and attitudes, and
risk behaviors and bring about needed change in these closely
related areas.

Thus, initial priority activities for the subcommittee will
include distillation of what has been learned and the appropriate
communication, transfer, and application of that information. 
The subcommittee will conduct these activities in concert with
Federal, State, and local support for the building of
organizational capacity and infrastructure to enable local
communities to plan, evaluate, and revise their efforts.  The
National Drug Prevention System, described in Chapter V, is
essential to surmount these practical challenges.

As a second area of focus, support will be continued for research
to develop a better understanding of how attitudes are formed,
how risk behaviors interrelate, how the addiction process
progresses, and how prevention and treatment efforts can have a
greater impact on each of these.  In addition to these important
areas, the Prevention, Treatment, and Medical Research
Subcommittee will continue research efforts in the following
areas:  the prevention of substance abuse, violence, and crime;
the relative effectiveness of behavioral therapies in drug
treatment; and the linkage of drug treatment with the criminal
justice, health care, and job training systems.

COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER

In addition to managing the work of the Science and Technology
Subcommittee, the CTAC and the chief scientist will provide
support to the other subcommittees of the RD&E Advisory Committee
and advise the director on matters relating to science and
technology.  CTAC also compiles for the Director of ONDCP near-,
mid-, and long-term scientific and technological requirements for
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and
establishes priorities for supporting related research. 

Program Accomplishments 

Since its inception during Fiscal Year (FY) 1991, 52 research
efforts have been started with $43.5 million in CTAC funding. 
These efforts generally fall in one of the four major technology
thrusts:  wide-area surveillance, nonintrusive inspection,
tactical technologies, or demand reduction. 
     
Fourteen infrastructure support initiatives have been established
to evaluate developmental technology, to perform special studies
and assessments, to evaluate prototypes in operational
conditions, and to perform benchmark assessments on competing
technologies.  CTAC also has sponsored various symposia and
special programs to reach out to the antidrug community to find
ways technology could benefit both prevention and treatment and
supply reduction.  For example, CTAC published a Broad Agency
Announcement (BAA) for historically black colleges and
universities.  The BAA solicits responses from the academic
community with unique insights into the modalities of drug abuse
prevention and treatment.  CTAC also has expanded its State and
local information exchange program. 

CTAC has developed an advanced technology program to help
coordinate the R&D activities of all Federal agencies with a
counterdrug mission.  In addition, CTAC has instituted an
infrastructure program to support and measure the effectiveness
of these programs.  The infrastructure program includes
benchmarking, laboratory instrumentation, and testbeds to
evaluate advanced technology prototypes being developed by these
agencies.  The testbed and benchmarking activities help to
provide user personnel with standard measures of effectiveness
criteria against which to test and evaluate advanced technologies
and future systems.  Each of these capabilities has been created
by fostering close working relationships among Federal, State,
and local law enforcement, prevention and treatment agencies, and
outstanding research and development entities in Government,
academic, and private sectors.

In the area of prevention and treatment, CTAC is working to
initiate engineering infrastructure projects that will improve
the laboratory equipment and technology available to scientists
working in the area of drug addiction research.  The goal is to
promote better use of state-of-the-art technology to allow for
more effective use of limited medical research and scientific
manpower resources. 

The following subsections provide some examples of CTAC-sponsored
technology, infrastructure, and outreach efforts. 

Tactical Technologies

CTAC has sponsored technology for the law enforcement community
that would help them track their assets, execute covert and safe
surveillance operations, and communicate with high reliability
and without intrusion.  Specific programs that CTAC has initiated
include the following:

    A Global Positioning System was developed to allow police to
track their vehicles and keep accurate records for investigative
purposes.  One prototype system is being field-tested with the
Yonkers Police Department/Narcotics Division.  During FY 1995,
the system will receive further testing in more complex urban
environments.  An airborne counterpart to the land-based system
is under development by the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and will be
tested by them for medical and drug law enforcement missions. 
Specific antidrug objectives will be tested by the Minnesota
Highway Patrol in early 1995.

    A quality videorecording device using a modified micro
miniature, forensic-quality audiorecorder program module is being
developed for use in covert surveillance operations.  Tests will
be conducted by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in California and
New York, respectively.

    An ultra-wide-band communications technology for relaying
real-time audio and video data from sensors along the Southwest
Border to Border patrol monitoring stations is being developed. 
This could dramatically reduce the false alarms currently
experienced along the Southwest border.  This effort is being
done in support of a consortium of Federal, State, and local law
enforcement agencies located in Arizona.   

    A prototype system for identifying (or confirming) the
contents of tanks and drums by nonintrusively measuring their
acoustic properties is being developed.  The system also will
detect hidden compartments and other areas of concealment located
within the tank or drum.

Nonintrusive Inspection Technology

The high-beam energy x-ray test series conducted last summer at
the Tacoma Nonintrusive Inspection Testbed has been completed. 
The tests clearly demonstrated the value of x-ray technology as
part of a first-generation nonintrusive inspection system.  A new
testbed will be established this year at Fort Huachuca, Arizona,
to evaluate transportable x-ray systems and chemical sensors.  

Data Fusion and Processing

CTAC is developing technologies in information sharing and
networking to accelerate the transfer of this type of technology
to State and local agencies for use against drug traffickers
operating in multiple jurisdictions.  Significant decreases in
time spent in supporting investigations through data
organization, faster data analysis, and better communications
will allow law enforcement agencies to rapidly share information
across jurisdictional boundaries.  Examples of these programs
include the following:  

    The Tennessee Valley Authority and the University of
Tennessee are developing a prototype data fusion system to permit
the seamless integration and extraction of criminal information
from various data bases regardless of the users type of computer
or physical location.  Initial testing will begin with a Florida
law enforcement consortium involving approximately eight law
enforcement agencies.  

    A facial recognition system is being developed by ONDCP to
help the Immigration and Naturalization Service to rapidly match
faces and textual documentation of known traffickers at U.S.
border crossings.  The present demonstration and test of the
system are being conducted by an ONDCP contractor at El Paso,
Texas, but discussions of potential use in other ports-of-entry
sites are ongoing.  Further advancement in the computer software,
such as automating some of the system software, is under
consideration by ONDCP.  

    A Ballistic Imaging Technology Assessment benchmarking
project for the FBI DRUGFIRE and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco
and Firearms (BATF) BULLETPROOF systems has been completed by
ONDCP.  The assessment compared the technical performance of two
prototype computer-based ballistic imaging systems.  The new
technology this project will provide will dramatically change the
way examinations are done on ballistic evidence collected from
crime scenes.  CTAC has provided FBI and BATF with
recommendations for a ballistic data network to support
regionally linked clusters of integrated work stations.  The
project findings also have been provided to the 160 ballistics
examination laboratories throughout the Nation. 

    During FY 1995, CTAC will perform a benchmarking task to
evaluate the current technologies available to destroy drug
contraband.  This study will seek to provide DEA with cost-
effective methods to destroy drug contraband after an
investigation is completed.  Although DEA is the primary
beneficiary of this project, other interested agencies, such as
the U.S. Customs Service, have been invited to participate.

Demand Reduction

CTAC plans to continue to support the applications of advance
technology to prevention- and treatment-related efforts. 
Technological advancements in both computer science and tactical
technologies are being investigated for application in demand
reduction environments.  CTAC plans to continue to introduce such
technologies for prevention and treatment programs and sponsor
new research specifically designed to advance demand reduction. 

The focus of the present CTAC prevention and treatment efforts
centers on introducing computer science advancement in networking
and software to support better and faster communication and
computer-assisted analysis.  Additionally, research is planned to
advance imaging technology in support of specific medical
research.  Finally, support to the National Institute on Drug
Abuse in the area of special drug-related alternative medicine
research also is under consideration.  The following is a summary
of specific tasks in the demand reduction area:

    The Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons
is developing artificial monoclonal antibody enzymes that
interfere with the cocaine molecules ability to provide
characteristic drug sensations.  This work is extremely important
and could provide the breakthrough in the search for effective
therapeutic drugs that block cocaine for extensive periods of
time.  First-year milestones have been accomplished, second-phase
objectives have been agreed upon, and work will continue.

    CTAC is developing an onsite Radiochemistry Laboratory for a
Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanning facility at the
Addiction Research Center in Baltimore, Maryland.  This
technology will provide information needed to map the exact areas
of the brain that are activated by various drugs of abuse.  In
turn, the map will help to identify and evaluate therapeutic
drugs to inactivate these sites or otherwise block the effect
illicit drugs have on the brain.  This and other planned research
in PET scanning will become a critical part of the Columbia
research mentioned above.  

    CTAC is spearheading the development of a computer-based
drug treatment research information network infrastructure
program that will link the research community and drug treatment
centers throughout the Nation.  This effort is intended to
improve the way drug abuse treatment is administered by
facilitating ongoing collaboration among research efforts,
identifying the most successful prevention and treatment
programs, and real-time communication and analysis between the
various clinics and research centers.  The initial network
testbed will be centered in the Northeast, with expansion to
follow by the end of 1995.

     Furthermore, advanced computer network technology is being
considered for drug education purposes.  Discussions with
Federal, State, and local agencies are under way, with a decision
on the specific efforts in this area expected in early 1995. 

    CTAC is developing a bracelet that, when worn by a patient,
prison inmate, or parolee, would continuously monitor the subject
for drug abuse and automatically relay findings to a central
processing unit.  An ongoing study of first-time offenders in
Orleans Parish, Louisiana will be employed to evaluate the best
methods for detecting drug abuse in the criminal justice system.

Forensic Capabilities

The goal of this program is to develop high priority, forensic
analytical, methodological, and instrumental capabilities that
substantially advance ability to process scientific evidence in
support of investigations involving illicit drugs.  

CTAC plans to sponsor innovative projects across the full
spectrum of forensic science subdisciplines that can be applied
to solving Americas drug problem.  The aim of the research is to
promote a reliable, valid approach that will work in the field
within a relatively short time period.  CTAC will work closely
with staff of the Department of Justices National Institute of
Justice to draw on their extensive background and achievements in
forensic science.  Furthermore, partnerships between forensic
laboratories and universities, institutes, and commercial
scientific and engineering entities will be encouraged. 
Participants will include the FBI, DEA, U.S. Secret Service, and
State and local agencies, among others.

CTACs long-term R&D program is designed and implemented to
foster a dramatic level of progress and to accelerate technology
transfer from the research laboratory to the field.  Of
necessity, many of the initiatives under this program span more
than 1 or 2 years, and others, such as those found in the testbed
program, require substantial long-term expenditures with a heavy
initial outlay.  To date, these have proven to be extremely cost-
effective investments that provide research results unobtainable
by any other means.  In short, the investment is paying off.
 
Appendix B:  Drug-Related Information

Information on illicit drugs and drug users is vital to
developing and implementing drug policy and to measuring policy
effectiveness.  This appendix presents data from the major
research sources used to develop the National Drug Control
Strategy.  A brief description of each data source is provided
below.

Drug Control Budget
(Source for Tables B-1 and B-2)

Each year the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is
required to review and certify the budget of Federal agencies
with drug control programs and funds.  Tables B-1 and B-2 are
prepared from the budget information provided to ONDCP by these
other Federal agencies.

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse
(Source for Table B-3)

The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) measures the
prevalence of drug and alcohol use among household members ages
12 and older.  Topics include drug use, health, and demographics. 
In 1991 the NHSDA was expanded to include college students in
dormitories, persons living in homeless shelters, and persons
living on military bases.  The NHSDA was administered by the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) from 1973 through 1991;
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) has administered the survey since 1992.

What Americas Users Spend on Illegal Drugs
(Source for Tables B-4, B-14, and B-15)

This report estimates total U.S. expenditures on illicit drugs
based on available drug supply and demand data.  Data are
provided on estimated numbers of users, yearly and weekly
expenditures for drugs, trends in drug supply, and retail prices
of drugs.  The report was written by Abt Associates, Inc. for the
ONDCP in 1993 and was updated by Abt Associates, Inc. in 1995.
    
Monitoring the Future:  A Continuing Study of the Lifestyles and
Values of Youth
(Source for Tables B-5 and B-6)

Often referred to as the High School Senior Survey, the
Monitoring the Future (MTF) study provides information on drug
use trends as well as changes in values, behaviors, and lifestyle
orientations of American youth.  The study examines drug-related
issues, including recency of drug use, perceived harmfulness of
drugs, disapproval of drug use, and perceived availability of
drugs.  Although the focus of MTF has been high school seniors
and graduates who complete followup surveys, 8th graders and 10th
graders were added to the study sample in 1991.  The MTF has been
conducted under a grant from NIDA by the University of Michigan
since 1975.

The PRIDE USA Survey
(Source for Table B-7)

The PRIDE (Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education) USA
Survey for grades 6 through 12 (formerly called the PRIDE Drug
Usage Prevalence Questionnaire) assists parent groups, schools,
and communities in assessing the nature and extent of adolescent
drug use in their local communities.  Schools nationwide
voluntarily administer the survey, which gathers information
regarding students families, personal characteristics, and
general lifestyle behaviors.  In addition, the survey obtains
information regarding drug use, drug availability, and the
perceived dangers of drug use.  The survey has been administered
by PRIDE, Inc. since 1982.

Drug Abuse Warning Network
(Source for Table B-8)

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) provides data on drug-
related emergency department episodes and medical examiner cases. 
DAWN assists national, State, and local drug policymakers to
examine drug use patterns and trends and assess health hazards
associated with drug abuse.  Data are available on deaths and
emergency department episodes by type of drug, reason for taking
the drug, demographic characteristics of the user, and
metropolitan area.  NIDA maintained DAWN from 1972 through 1991;
SAMHSA has maintained it since 1992.

National Drug Treatment Requirements
(Source for Table B-9)

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is
mandated by Congress to report to the Office of Management and
Budget on its goals for enrolling drug abusers in treatment
facilities and the progress it has made in achieving those goals. 
HHS provides data on the estimated number of drug abusers; goals
for treatment enrollment; estimated capacity of Federal, State,
local, and private treatment facilities; number of available
treatment slots; and number of people served.

National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment 
Unit Survey
(Source for Table B-10)

The National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey (NDATUS)
is designed to measure the location, scope, and characteristics
of drug abuse and alcoholism treatment facilities throughout the
United States.  The survey collects data on unit ownership, type
and scope of services provided, sources of funding, staffing
information, number of clients, treatment capacities, and
utilization rates.  For the year 1990, information on waiting
lists also was collected.  Data are reported for a point
prevalence date (point-in-time measurements on the date
specified) in the fall of the year the survey is administered. 
Many questions inquire about the 12 months prior to that date. 
The NDATUS has been administered jointly by NIDA and the National
Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism since 1974.

Uniform Crime Reports
(Source for Table B-11)

The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) is a nationwide census of
thousands of city, county, and State law enforcement agencies. 
The goal of the UCR is to count in a standardized manner the
number of offenses, arrests, and clearances known to police. 
Each law enforcement agency voluntarily reports data on crimes. 
Data are reported for the following nine index offenses:  murder
and manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault,
burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.  Data
on drug arrestsincluding arrests for possession, sale, and
manufacturing of drugsare included in the data base. 
Distributions of arrests for drug abuse violations by
demographics and geographic areas also are available.  UCR data
has been collected since 1930; the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) has collected data under a revised system
since 1991.  

Survey of Inmates of Local Jails
(Source for Table B-12)

The Survey of Inmates of Local Jails provides nationally
representative data on inmates held in local jails, including
those awaiting trials or transfers and those serving sentences. 
Survey topics include inmate characteristics, offense histories,
drug use, and drug treatment.  This survey has been conducted by
the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics every 5 to 6 years since
1972.

Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities and Survey
of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities
(Source for Table B-12)

The Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities (SIFCF)
and Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities (SISCF)
provide comprehensive background data on inmates in Federal and
State correctional facilities, based on confidential interviews
with a sample of inmates.  Topics include current offenses and
sentences, criminal histories, family and personal backgrounds,
gun possession and use, prior alcohol and drug treatment, and
educational programs and other services provided in prison.  The
SIFCF and SISCF were sponsored jointly in 1991 by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and
conducted by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.  Similar surveys of
State prison inmates were conducted in 1974, 1979, and 1986.

National Prisoner Statistics Program
(Source for Table B-12)

The National Prisoner Statistics program provides an advance
count of Federal, State, and local prisoners immediately after
the end of each calendar year, with a final count published by
the Bureau of Justice Statistics later in the year.

Federal-wide Drug Seizure System
(Source for Table B-13)

The Federal-wide Drug Seizure System (FDSS) is an online
computerized system that stores information about drug seizures
made within the jurisdiction of the United States by the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), the FBI, the U.S. Customs
Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard.  The FDSS data base includes
drug seizures by other Federal agencies (e.g., the Immigration
and Naturalization Service) to the extent that custody of the
drug evidence was transferred to one of the four agencies
identified above.  The FDSS data base includes information from
DEAs System To Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE),
Customs Law Enforcement Activity Report, and the U.S. Coast
Guards Law Enforcement Information System.  The FDSS has been
maintained by DEA since 1988.  

System To Retrieve Information From Drug Evidence (STRIDE)
(Source for Table B-16)

STRIDE compiles data on illegal substances purchased, seized, or
acquired in DEA investigations.  Data are gathered on the type of
drug seized or bought, drug purity, location of confiscation,
street price of the drug, and other characteristics.  Data on
drug exhibits from the FBI, the Metropolitan Police Department of
the District of Columbia, and some exhibits submitted by other
Federal, State, and local agencies also are included in STRIDE. 
STRIDE data have been compiled by DEA since 1971.

International Narcotics Control 
Strategy Report
(Source for Table B-17)

The International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR)
provides the President with information on the steps taken by the
main illicit drug-producing and transmitting countries to prevent
drug production, trafficking, and related money laundering during
the previous year.  The INCSR helps determine how cooperative a
country has been in meeting legislative requirements in various
narcotics control areas.  Production estimates by source country
also are provided.  The INCSR has been prepared by the U.S.
Department of State since 1989.

Tables B-1 through B-17 following this page present data from the
major research sources used to monitor the progress of some of
the goals and objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy.

Appendix C: Consultation

Section 1005 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 requires the
President to develop and annually submit to Congress a National
Drug Control Strategy.  The law also requires the Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy to help formulate the
Strategy in consultation with a wide array of experts and
officials, including the heads of the National Drug Control
Program agencies, the Congress, State and local officials, and
members of the private sector.

With this 1995 National Drug Control Strategy, the Director of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy has taken a new,
dynamic approach to the consultation process.  Just as the
development and implementation of the National Drug Control
Strategy is an ongoing process, this new approach to consultation
has been ongoing over the last 12 months as well.

In order to receive the views and recommendations of as many
individuals and groups as possible, the Director convened four
regional strategy development conferences across the country and
one in Washington, D.C. The conferences focused on key drug
policy issues of importance to regional, State, and local
leaders.  Several themes emerged from all the conferences.  While
there were variations in ideas, the following themes were
constant.

    Enhanced local program flexibility, fewer funding set-
asides, equitable distribution of dollars, and generally
increased funding are needed.

    Prevention works.  Prevention should be based on research
and good science. 

    Public officials must be educated about the need for a
strategy to deal with the effects of alcohol and other drugs.

    Treatment is paramount to success.  Treatment is more cost-
effective than incarceration, and recidivism is reduced even when
treatment is coercive.

    Generic chemical dependency training on all levels is
needed, including judges and the criminal justice system,
parents, and social service agencies.

    Law enforcement must be included in coalitions and
partnerships.  Drug courts and work release are effective.

    Use grassroots community wisdom and resources to share and
expand on successes.

    Enhance federal relationships by reducing duplication of
services, improving coordination of programs, and simplifying the
grant process.

    Use the information superhighway to improve access to both
the State and federal governments.

    Rural areas need help and are often overlooked.

    Violence is endemic.  Greater sanctions and quick
intervention are needed to reduce violence.   

Conference attendees included over 1,400 State and local
government officials and legislators, as well as individuals
involved in drug control efforts in a variety of settings,
including criminal justice, education, prevention, treatment, and
the workplace.  The Director also convened a special panel on
Rural Drug Abuse and Trafficking.

In addition to the regional conferences, six specific focus
groups were convened in Washington, D.C., and at the University
of Michigan Institute for Social Research.  The focus groups
brought together public- and private-sector criminal justice,
prevention and treatment, and drug control program and policy
experts.  The groups also brought together experts on adolescent
behavior and youth violence, and drug control and epidemiological
data evaluation.  Additionally, key members of congressional
staffs and the Congressional Research Service were brought
together to seek their input on strategy goals and objectives,
and on issues in treatment and prevention, domestic law
enforcement, and legislation.

International drug policy continues to receive a high priority in
the consultation process.  The  Director met with leaders and
representatives from Mexico, Panama, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru,
Venezuela, South Africa, and Nigeria.  Heroin strategy
consultations included a fact-finding trip by the Director in
June 1994, to India, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand,
Laos, and Japan.  The fact-finding trip was the first trip to
Asia by a U.S. drug policy director and the first official visit
to Laos by a U.S. Cabinet official since 1975.  In December 1994,
the Director addressed the drug issue at the Summit of the
Americas, where President Clinton met with 33 leaders of the
nations of the Western Hemisphere. 

Lastly, over 1,100 letters were sent to members of the Cabinet,
senior Federal officials, and department and agency heads; each
U.S. Senator and Representative; directors and executives of
public interest groups and private individuals; the Governor of
each State and Territory; and over 200 mayors and State and local
officials.

As discussed above, the consultation process for this strategy
consisted of several new components, including the regional and
national conferences, various focus groups, and many individual
inputs and recommendations.  The agencies, organizations, and
individuals listed on the following pages reflect the extensive
nature of this years consultation process.

FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS

Agency for International Development
Hon. J. Brian Atwood
Administrator

Department of Agriculture
Hon. R.D. Plowman
Acting Under Secretary
Research, Education, and Economics

Hon. Richard Rominger
Deputy Secretary

Department of Commerce
Hon. Ronald H. Brown
Secretary

Department of Defense
Hon. Brian E. Sheridan
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Drug Enforcement Policy and Support

Department of Education
Hon. Thomas Payzant
Assistant Secretary

Department of Energy
Hon. Hazel R. OLeary
Secretary

Department of Health and Human Services
Mr. Peter Edelman
Counselor to the Secretary

Hon. Fernando M. Torres-Gil
Assistant Secretary for Aging

Dr. David Satcher, M.D.
Director
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Department of Housing and Urban Development
Hon. Joseph Shuldiner
Assistant Secretary
Public and Indian Housing

Department of the Interior
Ms. Claudia Schecter
Director of Operations
Office of the Secretary

Department of Justice
Hon. Thomas A. Constantine
Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration

Hon. Louis J. Freeh
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Hon. Eduardo Gonzalez
Director
United States Marshals Service

Hon. Kathleen M. Hawk
Director
Federal Bureau of Prisons

Hon. Doris Meissner 
Commissioner
Immigration and Naturalization Service

Department of Labor
Hon. Timothy M. Barnicle
Assistant Secretary for Policy

Department of State
Hon. Robert Gelbard
Assistant Secretary
Bureau of International Narcotics Matters

Department of Transportation
Admiral Robert E. Kramek
Commandant 
United States Coast Guard

Department of the Treasury
Hon. Ronald K. Noble
Under Secretary for Enforcement

Ms. Darlene Berthod
National Director of Personnel

Mr. Charles E. Brisbin
Director, Office of Law Enforcement

Mr. Charles F. Rinkevich
Director
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

Mr. Eljay B. Bowron
Director
United States Secret Service

John W. Magaw
Director
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Hon. Margaret M. Richardson
Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service

Hon. George J. Weise
Commissioner
United States Customs Service

Mr. Stanley E. Morris
Director
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

Executive Office of the President
Christopher Edley
Associate Director
Office of Management and Budget

Kenneth Schwartz
Deputy Associate Director
Office of Management and Budget

James Duke
Budget Analyst
Office of Management and Budget

Martha Gagne
Budget Analyst
Office of Management and Budget

Hon. James B. King
Director
Office of Personnel Management

Hon. Philip Lader
Administrator
U.S. Small Business Administration

Federal Reserve System
Mr. S. David Frost
Staff Director for Management

United States Information Agency
Hon. Joseph Duffey
Director

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

U. S. Senate

Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware)

Hon. Bob Dole (R-Kansas)

Hon. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Connecticut)

Hon. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wisconsin)

Hon. Phil Gramm (R-Texas)

Hon. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah)

Hon. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania)

U. S. House of Representatives

Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez (D-Texas)

Hon. Chaka Fatiah (D-Pennsylvania)

Hon. Bob Livingston (R-Louisiana)

Hon. John L. Mica (R-Florida)

Hon. George Miller (D-California)

Hon. John P. Murtha (D-Pennsylvania)

Hon. Douglas Pete Peterson (D-Florida)

Hon. Charles B. Rangel (D-New York)

Hon. Robert S. Walker (R-Pennsylvania)

GOVERNORS

Hon. Cecil D. Andrus
Idaho

Hon. Bob Kustra
Illinois, Lieutenant Governor

Hon. Evan Bayh
Indiana

Hon. Terry Branstad
Iowa

Hon. William Donald Shaefer
Maryland

Hon. William F. Weld
Massachusetts

Hon. John Engler
Michigan

Hon. Arne H. Carlson
Minnesota

Hon. Kirk C. Fordice
Mississippi

Hon. Edward T. Schafer
North Dakota

Hon. George Allen
Virginia

Hon. Mike Sullivan
Wyoming

MAYORS

Hon. Bruce Todd
Austin, Texas

Hon. Brent Coles
Boise, Idaho

Hon. Michael A. Pastrick
Concord, California

Hon. Bobby Joe Raper
Irving, Texas

Hon. Kane Ditto
Jackson, Mississippi

Hon. Philip N. Bredesen
Nashville, Tennessee

Hon. Nelson W. Wolff
San Antonio, Texas

Hon. George Pederson
Santa Clarita, California

Hon. Ronald L. Bonkowski
Warren, Michigan

STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS

Richard L. Burton
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Public Safety

Barbara A. Cimaglio
Director, Illinois Department of
Alcoholism and Substance Abuse

Bennie R. Click
Chief of Police
Dallas, Texas

H.C. Garrett
Chief of Police
Corpus Christi, Texas

Andrew M. Mecca, Dr.P.H.
Director, California Department of
Alcohol and Drug Programs

Sandra Mobley-Terry
Division of Substance Abuse Services
Buffalo, New York

T.W. Shane
Chief of Police
Pasadena, Texas

Major General Joseph Skaff
Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety
State of West Virginia

Fred Thomas
Chief of Police
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Jimmy Willborn
Texas Narcotic Control Division
Austin, Texas

ONDCP DRUG TREATMENT OUTCOME 
RESEARCH SYMPOSIA

Douglas Anglin, Ph.D.
Drug Abuse Research Center, UCLA
Los Angeles, California

Andrea Barthwell, M.D.
Interventions, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

Antonio Cardozo
Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Addiction Services
New Jersey Department of Health

George DeLeon, Ph.D.
Center for Therapeutic Research
New York, New York

Frank Gawin, M.D.
Addiction Research Consortium, UCLA
Malibu, California

Barbara Havassey, Ph.D.
Treatment Outcome Research
University of California at San Francisco

Melody Heaps
Illinois TASC
Chicago, Illinois

Norman Hoffman, Ph.D.
New Standards Institute
St. Paul, Minnesota

Robert Hubbard, Ph.D.
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

James Inciardi, Ph.D.
University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware

Duane McBride, Ph.D.
Andrews University
Bergin Springs, Michigan

Alex L. McCloud
Native American Rehabilitation Association
Gresham, Oregon

Thomas McLellan, Ph.D.
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Sam di Menza
1003 Snapper Cove Lane
Pasadena, Maryland

Norman Miller, M.D.
Department of Psychiatry
University of Illinois at Chicago

Robert Millman, M.D.
New York Hospital/Cornell University
New York, New York

Dwayne Simpson, Ph.D.
Texas Christian University
Fort Worth, Texas

ONDCP FOCUS GROUPS ON 
ADOLESCENT DRUG USE

William F. Alden
D.A.R.E. America
Oakton, Virginia

Mr. Kent Augustson
U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services

Gilbert Botvin, Ph.D.
Cornell University Medical Center
New York, New York

Deborah Ridley Brome, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
University of Massachusetts, Boston

William Bukoski, Ph.D.
Chief, Prevention Research Branch
National Institute on Drug Abuse

Raul Caetano, Ph.D.
Alcohol Research Group
California Pacific Medical Center

Sharon Cantelon
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.

Richard R. Clayton, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Prevention Research
University of Kentucky   

Karen Dodge
Department of Health and Human Services
Washington, D.C.

Joy Dryfoos, Ph.D.
Hastings-on-Hudson, New York

Phyllis L. Ellickson, Ph.D.
RAND Corporation
Santa Monica, California

Douglas Hall
National Parents Resource Institute
for Drug Education (PRIDE)

William B. Hansen, Ph.D.
Wake Forest University
Winston Salem, North Carolina

Maude Holt
District of Columbia
Department of Human Services

Elaine Johnson, Ph.D.
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention
Department of Health and Human Services

Lloyd D. Johnston. Ph.D.
Institute for Social Research
University of Michigan

Laura Kann, Ph.D.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Atlanta, Georgia

Nancy Kaufman
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Princeton, New Jersey

Judi Kosterman, Ed.D.
Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America (CADCA)
Alexandria, Virginia

Kim Light
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C.

Ginna Marston
Partnership for a Drug-Free America
New York, New York

Daniel Melnick, Ph.D.         
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration

William Modzeleski
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C.  

Harry Montoya
Hispanic Addiction Resources and Training
Espanola, New Mexico

Patrick M. OMalley, Ph.D.
Institute for Social Research
University of Michigan

Zili Sloboda, Ph.D.
National Institute on Drug Abuse
Rockville, Maryland

Susan Thau
Prevention, Intervention and Treatment
Coalition for Health (PITCH)

Ron Trethric
Drug Enforcement Administration
Washington, D.C.

ONDCP FOCUS GROUP ON TREATMENT 
AND PREVENTION

William Alden
D.A.R.E. America
Oakton, Virginia

Johnny Allem
Society of Americans for Recovery
Washington, D.C.

Robert Anderson
National Association of State Alcohol
and Drug Abuse Directors

David Bralove
National Treatment Consortium
Washington, D.C.

James Copple
Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America
Alexandria, Virginia

Philip Diaz
Consultant
Miami, Florida

Adolph Falcon
National Coalition of Hispanic Health
and Human Services Organizations

Sarah Kayson
National Council on Alcoholism
and Drug Dependence

John Gustafson
National Association of State Alcohol
and Drug Abuse Directors

George Hacker
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Washington, D.C.

Green Lewis
American Federation of Labor -
Council of Industrial Organizations

Robert May, 
National Consortium of TASC Programs
Washington, D.C.

Sue Rusche
National Families in Action
Atlanta, Georgia

Mitch Sklar
National Association of Alcohol
and Drug Abuse Counselors

Susan Thau
Prevention, Intervention and Treatment
Coalition for Health (PITCH)

Ellen Webber
Legal Action Center
Washington, D.C.

ONDCP FOCUS GROUP ON DOMESTIC 
LAW ENFORCEMENT

Donald Cahill
Fraternal Order of Police
Washington, D.C.

Mark Cunniff
National Association of Criminal
Justice Planners

John Doyle
National Sheriffs Association
Alexandria, Virginia

A. Tony Fisher
National Organization of Black
Law Enforcement Executives

Addie Hailstorks
National Legal Aid and Defender Association
Washington, D.C.

Merri Hankins
National Districts Attorneys Association
Alexandria, Virginia

Thomas Henderson
National Center for State Courts
Alexandria, Virginia

Gwen A. Holden
National Criminal Justice Association
Washington, D.C.

Nolan Jones
National Governors Association
Washington, D.C.

Clifford Karchmer
Police Executive Research Forum
Washington, D.C.

Eugene Kennedy
National Conference of Black Mayors
Atlanta, Georgia

Roy Kime
International Association of Chiefs of Police
Alexandria, Virginia

Barbara Kittay
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.

William Matthews
The Police Foundation
Washington, D.C.

Patrick Murphy
U.S. Conference of Mayors
Washington, D.C.

Donald Murray
National Association of Black
County Officials

Judy Patterson
American Bar Association
Washington, D.C.

Janet Quist
National League of Cities
Washington, D.C.

ONDCP FOCUS GROUP ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS

Shawn Bentley
Counsel, Judiciary Committee
United States Senate 
Washington, D.C.

Thomas Diaz, Assistant Counsel
Crime and Criminal Justice Subcommittee
Judiciary Committee
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

Adam Gelb, Professional Staff
Judiciary Committee
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.

James Griffin, Legislative Assistant to
Representative Charles B. Rangel
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

Edward Klebe
Congressional Research Service
Washington, D.C.

John Mackey, Investigative Counsel
Foreign Affairs Committee
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

Raphael Perl
Congressional Research Service
Washington, D.C.

ONDCP FOCUS GROUP ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND
MEASURES

Susan Becker
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

William Bukoski
National Institute on Drug Abuse
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Karen Dodge
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Washington, D.C.

Joseph Gfroerer
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Washington, D.C.

Robert Gifford
U.S. Department of State
Washington, D.C.

Pamela Hart
Drug Enforcement Administration
Washington, D.C.

Carolyn Hoffman
Drug Enforcement Administration
Washington, D.C.

Ray Hylton
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

David Keer
National Center for Health Statistics
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Andrea Kopstein
National Institute on Drug Abuse
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Geoff Laredo, Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Harold Perl
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism

Debbie Rudy
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C.

Susan Schober
National Center for Health Statistics
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Jan Shafer
National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Scott Springer
Drug Enforcement Administration
Washington, D.C.

Patrick Tarr
Drug Enforcement Administration
Washington, D.C.

Mike Witkin
Center for Mental Health Services
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Marianne Zawitz
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Washington, D.C.

Edward Zedlewski
National Institute of Justice
Washington, D.C.

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 
DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE

Patrick C. Ahlstrom
Executive Director
Colorado Department of Public Safety

Roger F. Bass
Deputy HIDTA Coordinator
Los Angeles U.S. Attorneys Office

Michael E. Beaver
Department of Public Safety
Indianapolis, Indiana

Tom Blain
Department of Public Safety
Jackson, Mississippi

Clifton B. Bradshaw
Richmond Police Department
Richmond, Virginia

Harry J. Brady, Jr.
Director
New York/New Jersey HIDTA

Tom Carr
Director
Washington/Baltimore HIDTA Program

Michael Carvalho
Honolulu Police Department
Honolulu, Hawaii

Keith Choy
Director, San Francisco
Mayors Community Partnership

Walter E. Crews
Memphis Police Department
Memphis, Tennessee

Donald E. Christ
Assistant Chief
Indianapolis Police Department

Lisa Daumas
Co-Director, Houston Crackdown
Houston, Texas

Rebecca Davis
Deputy Executive Director
Texas Commission Alcohol and Drug Abuse

George DeVault
Pittsburgh Police
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Elaine Dodd
Director, Oklahoma Bureau of
Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control

Marvin Evans
Newport News Police Department
Newport News, Virginia

John Farrell
Deputy Director, New Jersey Department of 
Health, Alcoholism/Drug Abuse

Katherine Feinstein
Director, San Francisco
Mayors Criminal Justice Council

John E. Ferguson
Dallas Police Department
Dallas, Texas

Burke O. Fitzpatrick
Assistant Deputy Director, South Carolina
Department of Public Safety
Columbia, South Carolina

Jose Fleites
City of Miami Police Department
Miami, Florida

Luceille Fleming
Director, Ohio Department of
Alcohol/Drug Addiction Service

Brian Frenyea
National Guard Bureau
Alexandria, Virginia

Jeffery B. Frey
Administrative Officer
Southwest Border HIDTA

Honorable Judge Sally Gray
Putnam County Court
Greencastle, Indiana
Walter Hawkins
Special Assistant to the Mayor
City of Orlando

Paul Hedges
Special Assistant, Virginia Office
  of the Secretary of Public Safety

Bruce T. Henson
Deputy Chief of Police
Orlando, Florida

Bernie Hobson
U.S. Attorneys Office, HIDTA
Houston, Texas

Maude R. Holt
Administrator, District of Columbia
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services

Douglas W. Hughes
Director, South Florida HIDTA
Miami, Florida

Paul F. Isaacs
Cabinet Secretary
Kentucky Justice Cabinet

Carle L. Jackson
Policy Advisor
Louisiana Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice

Ronald R. James
Cleveland Police Department
Cleveland, Ohio

Michael S. Jordan
Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Public Safety

Gordon Karim
Midwest Regional Center
Oak Brook, Illinois

J. Craig Keener
Law Enforcement Program Coordinator
Attorney Generals Office
Pago Pago, American Samoa

Judi Kosterman
CADCA
Alexandria, Virginia

Jeffrey N. Kushner
Director, Oregon
Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs

Joseph P. Kwiatkowski
Prosecuting Attorney
Cheboygan County, Michigan

Charles W. Larson
Coordinator, Drug Enforcement
Iowa Alliance on Substance Abuse

Lisa B. Lench
Coordinator
Los Angeles HIDTA

Thomas R. Litjen
Washington Representative 
Governor Ben Nelson - Nebraska
Skip Mahan
Washington/Baltimore HIDTA
Washington, D.C.

Toni L. Martorelli
Director, Family and Community Services
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Robert W. Miller
Commander, Drug Enforcement
Oregon State Police

Karen K. Mitchell
Governors Drug Policy Council
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

Jeff Modisett
Marion County Prosecutor
Indianapolis, Indiana

Monica Mueller
Executive Assistant, Illinois
Lieutenant Governors Office

Rick Mullins
Akron Police Department
Akron, Ohio

RADM (USN, Ret.) Paul J. Mulloy
Director, Rhode Island
Department of Substance Abuse

Patrick A. Munter
Seattle Police Department
Seattle, Washington

Michael J. Nores
Douglas County Sheriffs Office
Roseburg, Oregon

Honorable Carnella Greene Norman
Presiding Judge, Municipal Court
City of Birmingham, Alabama

J. Terry Norris
Director, Georgia Criminal
Justice Coordinating Council

Dorothy B. North
Chairman, Nevada Commission on
Substance Abuse Education, Prevention,
Enforcement and Treatment

Compton Owens
Huntsville Police Department
Huntsville, Alabama

Cesar R. Palma
Supervisory Special Agent, DEA
Albuquerque, New Mexico 

Thomas J. Pagel
Director, Wyoming
Division of Criminal Investigation

Tricia Peraino
Planning Coordinator, Delaware
Criminal Justice Council

Robert E. Peterson
Director, Michigan
Office of Drug Control Policy
Francis Pisegna
Chief of Staff, Massachusetts
Governors Alliance Against Drugs

Donald S. Quire
St. Petersburg Police Department
St. Petersburg, Florida
 
Richard C. Rail
Arkansas State Police
Little Rock, Arkansas

Martha Raiss
PACE Office of Community Outreach
Norfolk, Virginia

Don Reay
U.S. Customs Service
El Paso, Texas

Warren P. Reese
Coordinator
Southwest Border HIDTA

Jose E. Figueroa Sancha
Associate Superintendent of
the Puerto Rico Police Department

Kerry L. Sleeper
Vermont State Police
Waterbury, Vermont

Michael V. Smith
Commissioner, Buffalo, New York
Department of Human Resources

Mike Smith
Riverside Police Department
Riverside, California

Robert L. Smith
Public Safety Administration
City of Tampa, Florida

Richard L. Spalding
President, Serenity Foundation of Texas
Abilene, Texas

Christine Spaulding
Multiple Offender Program
Laconia, New Hampshire

Gaylord A. Sprauve
Drug Policy Advisor to the Governor
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands

Robert E. Staley
Assistant to the Secretary of Public Health
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

J. Michael Stiers
Aurora Police Department
Aurora, Colorado

Kenneth Stilley
National Guard Bureau
Washington, D.C.

Roger H. Stricker
Director
Maine Drug Enforcement Agency

Marty M. Tapscott
Chief of Police
Richmond, Virginia

Fred Thomas
Chief of Police
Washington, D.C.

Malaetasi Togafau
Attorney General, American Samoa
Pago Pago, American Samoa

Bryan Turnbull
Detroit Police Department
Detroit, Michigan

Joseph Villagomez
Northern Mariana Islands Government
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Raymond L. Vinsik
Director
Arizona Alliance Planning Committee

Anton Wagner
St. Louis Metropolitan Police
St. Louis, Missouri

Julius Walker
Birmingham Police Department
Birmingham, Alabama

Charles R. Wall
Chief of Police
Virginia Beach, Virginia

Susan Weed
Director, Substance Abuse Policy
Chicago, Illinois

Van H. White
Special Counsel to the Mayor
Rochester, New York

N. John Wilder
Deputy Mayor for Criminal Justice
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Jimmy Willborn
Director
Texas Narcotics Control Program

Walter J. Winfrey
Director of Police Services
Memphis Police Department
 
Elleen M. Yancey
Fulton County Government
Atlanta, Georgia
 

NORTHEAST REGIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE

Michael J. Adams
ALERT Partnership
Allentown, Pennsylvania

John R. Alderman
Senior Trial Assistant, Henrico County
Richmond, Virginia

Daniel Alfieri
New Horizon Treatment Services
Trenton, New Jersey

Gail B. Allen
St. Lukes Roosevelt Hospital Center
New York, New York

Jo Ann Armstrong
Executive Director
New Hampshire Teen Institute

Alma Ayala
Human Resources Administrator
City of New Haven, Connecticut

Norma Baker
Northern Educational Services
Springfield, Massachusetts

Jack Bardelli
Department Public Safety
Hartford, Connecticut

Diane Barry
Communications Director
Join Together

Ernest E. Batson
Associate Commissioner
New York City Department Mental Health

Harvey F. Bellin
Weston Woods Institute
Weston, Connecticut

Lonnie E. Bennett
Chief Inspector
Amtrak Police Department

Jan Best
Belknap County Department of Corrections
Laconia, New Hampshire

Anthony Biondi
Borough of Norristown
Norristown, Pennsylvania

Barbara Bray
Supervisor, Drug-Free Schools
Towson, Maryland

Ronald B. Brinn
Corporate Health Strategies
Great Neck, New York

Joseph Brzostowski
Drug Enforcement Administration
Newark, New Jersey

Robert Burke
National Legal Aid and Defender Association
Washington, D.C.

Sandra Butter
Tremont Commonwealth Council
Bronx, New York

Donald Callender
Regional Director
New York Therapeutic Communities, Inc.

Martha Campione
Green Mountain Prevention Project
Burlington, Vermont

Victor Capoccia
Center for Addictive Behavior
Salem, Massachusetts

Edwina Carr
Cambridge Healthcare Association
Jamesport, New York

Joan Chatterton
Aquila, Inc.
Wilmington, Delaware

Peter Chimera
A Way Out, Inc.
Flushing, New York

Alice Cintron
Anthony Perkins Community Center
Dorchester, Massachusetts

Jay Cohen
Counsel to the District Attorney, Kings County
Brooklyn, New York

Robert Colville
District Attorney, Allegheny County
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

James Conley
Watertown Police Department
Watertown, Massachusetts

Lea Palleria Cox
Hanover, Massachusetts

Eric Crawford
Connecticut Prison Association
Hartford, Connecticut

George C. Crawley
Assistant City Manager
Norfolk, Virginia

Anthony D. Crisp
Director, Substance Abuse Services
Norfolk Community Services, Virginia

Matthew Cronin
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Boston, Massachusetts

Milton M. Crump, Prince Georges
County Department of Corrections
Upper Marlboro, Maryland

Maria Dantos
Deputy District Attorney, Lehigh County
Allentown, Pennsylvania

John A. Darin
A Way Out, Inc.
Flushing, New York

Ruth Davis
Director of Youth Support Services
Boston, Massachusetts 

Cecilia Dawkins
Join Together
Boston, Massachusetts

Larry Dawson
Governors Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission
Towson, Maryland

Margo Deane
Framingham, Massachusetts Coalition for the 
Prevention of Alcohol/Drug Abuse

Joseph Deignan
Watertown Police Department
Watertown, Massachusetts

William Deyermond
New England States Police Information Network
Needham, Massachusetts

Joseph Diament
Odyssey House, Inc.
Hampton, New Hampshire

Robin Dinerman
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, D.C.

Linda Doctor
Department of Public Health
Boston, Massachusetts

Robert Downing
Join Together
Boston, Massachusetts

Catherine Dunbar
Community Services
Camden, New Jersey

John G. Duncan
U.S. Department of Justice
Syracuse, New York

Gerald Edwards
Director, Northeast Regional Center
Sayville, New York

Gary Egan
Spectrum Addiction Services, Inc.
Westboro, Massachusetts

Carleton Eldredge
Rockingham County Attorney
Exeter, New Hampshire

R. J. Elrick
D.A.R.E. America
Oakton, Virginia

James Englishby
New York State Police
Albany, New York

Charles Faris
Spectrum Addiction Services, Inc.
Westboro, Massachusetts

John Farrell
New Jersey Department of Health
Alcohol/Drug Abuse Addiction
Ralph M. Fatigate, Jr.
Commissioner of Public Safety
Mount Vernon, New York

David J. Faulkner
Day One for Youth and Families
Cape Elizabeth, Maine

John E. Fencer
Drug Enforcement Administration
Boston, Massachusetts

J. Mitchell Finnegan
Project Director
Quincy, Massachusetts

Maurice Flaherty
Boston Police Department
Boston, Massachusetts

Luceille Fleming
Director, Ohio Department of Alcohol 
and Drug Addiction Services

Alan Fletcher
Holyoke Police Department
Holyoke, Massachusetts

Edward Flynn
Chief of Police
Chelsea, Massachusetts

Janet Benson Foley
Chicopee Community Partnership
Chicopee, Massachusetts

Richard M. Fontora
Chief of Police
North Andover, Massachusetts

Armando B. Fontoura
Sheriff of Essex County
Newark, New Jersey

Susan Foster
Director, Criminal Justice Programs
Massachusetts Commission on Criminal Justice

Lindsey Freese
Southeastern New Hampshire Services
Dover, New Hampshire

Ralph Froehlich
Sheriff, Union County
Elizabeth, New Jersey

Gary Fry
Talbot Partnership
Easton, Maryland

Ralph Fucillo
Director of Prevention Support Services
Boston, Massachusetts

Paul J. Gallagher
North Andover Police Department
North Andover, Massachusetts

Karen Gibson
Rhode Island Department of Substance Abuse
Cranston, Rhode Island
Bridget Gladwin
New York State Department of Correctional Services
Bedford Hills, New York

W. Michael Goggins
First Assistant District Attorney
Northampton, Massachusetts

Scott Green
Lafayette Group
Vienna, Virginia

Janice Ford Griffin
Deputy Director
Join Together

Karen Guillette
Somerville, Massachusetts

John S. Gustafson
Executive Director
NASADAD

Cheryl Guthier
Community Prevention Partnership
Reading, Pennsylvania

Debra C. Hagenbuch
Executive Director
Central New York Labor Agency, Inc.

Randy A. Harriman
Chief of Police
Bangor, Maine

Susan K. Harrington
Norfolk Social Services
Norfolk, Virginia

Edward Heilig
Assistant District Attorney, Suffolk County
Riverhead, New York

John Hermos
Coordinator, Substance Abuse Treatment Program
Boston, Massachusetts

Kathleen Herr-Zaya
Department of Public Health
Boston, Massachusetts

Melvin High
Chief of Police
Norfolk, Virginia

Sheila Hildebrandt
Acting Assistant Director
Rhode Island State Department of Substance Abuse

Ralph Hingson
Senior Advisor
Join Together

Novella S. Hinson
Director of Community Services
Camden, New Jersey

Paul Hochwarter
Pawtucket Police Department
Pawtucket, Rhode Island

William Holmes
Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice
Boston, Massachusetts

Paul Jarosiewicz
Cambridge Police Department
Boston, Massachusetts

Louis Jeminey
Camden City Police Department
Camden, New Jersey

Dale Jenkins
Executive Office of Public Safety
Boston, Massachusetts

Robert Johnson
Bronx District Attorney
Bronx, New York

Robert B. Johnson
Manager, Police Services Division
Washington, D.C.

Donald Kane
Commissioner of Police
Nassau County, New York Police Department

Edward Kania-Bloniarz
Community Substance Abuse Centers
Westfield, Massachusetts

Erin Keaney
Suffolk County Sheriffs Department
Boston, Massachusetts

George Kelley
Pawtucket Police Department
Pawtucket, Rhode Island

Robert Kelley
Amethyst Foundation Inc.
Epping, New Hampshire

John Kelly
Extracare Health Services
Oldbridge, New Jersey

Leroy L. Kelly
Mt. Auburn Hospital
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Jack Kemp
New York State Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Service
New York, New York

Thomas Kirk
Superintendent
West Virginia State Police

Laurence Klein
Governors Anti-Drug Abuse Council
Albany, New York

Major Timothy L. Korte
Massachusetts Army National Guard
Boston, Massachusetts

Richard Kunkel
Director of Community Services
Fairfax, Virginia
Paul Lacasse
Greater Nashua Council on Alcoholism
Nashua, New Hampshire

Janet D. Lapey
Hanover, Massachusetts

Hector Ledezma
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Peter Lee
Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs
Waterbury, Vermont

Roberta Leis
Director, Technical Assistance
Join Together

Kimberly A. Lesnak
U.S. Attorneys Office
Chicago, Illinois

Jane Leung
Boston Asian Youth Essential Service
Boston, Massachusetts

Dr. Leon Lewis
Community School District 9
Bronx, New York

Gregory Leyko
Governors Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission
Towson, Maryland

Lawrence M. Lipsher
Drugs Dont Work
Hartford, Connecticut

Martin Livenstein
Executive Director, New York State Commission
on Methadone Program Administrators

William Longworth
Criminal Justice Services
Albany, New York

Homer Lopez
Department of Public Health
Boston, Massachusetts

Joseph Loughlin
Portland Police Department
Portland, Maine

Edgar Lozano
Assistant Director of Operations
Beth Israel Medical Center, New York

James Lukes
St. Elizabeth Medical Center
Boston, Massachusetts

Peter F. Luongo
Director, Montgomery County Division
of Adult Addiction Services, Maryland

Gerard Lynch
Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement
West Trenton, New Jersey

Kenneth MacDonald
Chelsea Police Department
Chelsea, Massachusetts

Sheila B. MacDonald
Employees Assistance Professional Association
Arlington, Virginia

John A. Mainello
Assistant Deputy Superintendent
New York State Police

Alexander Manganiello
Supreme Judicial Court
Boston, Massachusetts

Lauren Marcus
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions
Alexandria, Virginia

Gerard Marini
Governors Council/Drug-Free Workplace
Trenton, New Jersey

Julio A. Martinez
New York State Department of Correctional Service
Albany, New York

Raymond Massi
Camden City Police Department
Camden, New Jersey

Margo B. Matzdorf
New York State Alcohol 
and Substance Abuse Services

Jack E. Mazzotti, III
Catholic Charities-Archdiocese
Brockton, Massachusetts

James McAleer
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Moses McAllister, Jr.
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Washington, D.C.

Dennis McCarty
Bureau of Substance Abuse Services
Boston, Massachusetts

John McGinty
Cape Elizabeth Police Department
Cape Elizabeth, Maine

John McGoldrick
Connecticut State Police
Middletown, Connecticut

Frank McGurk
Greenwich House, Inc.
New York, New York

John D. McElwee
Maine Substance Abuse Services Commission
Caribou, Maine

Linda McKay
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Washington, D.C.
Paul McLaughlin
Hartford Dispensary
Hartford, Connecticut

Patricia McLean
Assistant District Attorney
Butler County, Pennsylvania

Karen Means
Project Director, HighRoad Fund
New York City Public Education

Leonard A. Means
Comprehensive Addiction Treatment
Falls Church, Virginia

Angel L. Medina
Department of Public Health
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Lori Melanson
Massachusetts Army National Guard
Reading, Massachusetts

Charles Messmer
Washington County Health Department
Hagerstown, Maryland

James M. Meyers
Seminole Point Hospital
Sunapee, New Hampshire

Honorable Thomas Miano
Judge, Connecticut Superior Court
Hartford, Connecticut

Joseph C. Michaels
County Executive Assistant
Hauppauge, New York

Joseph P. Miele
Co-Chairman, Partneship for a
Drug-Free New Jersey

Clifford Minor
Essex County Prosecutor
Newark, New Jersey

Danielle E. Moen
Syracuse- Onondaga Drug and Alcohol Services
Syracuse, New York

Michele Montavon
Worcester Public Schools
Worcester, Massachusetts

Marilyn P. Morey
Syracuse-Onodaga Drug and Alcohol Services
Syracuse, New York

Lu Morrissey
Chief, Drug-Free Schools
Maryland Department of Education

Kimi Morten
Unfoldment, Inc.
Washington, D.C.

Marcus Mottley
Giddings School
Washington, D.C.
Otto Moulton
Drug Watch International
Danvers, Massachusetts

David H. Mulligan
Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Boston, Massachusetts

Suzanne Murphy
Canarsie Aware, Inc.
Brooklyn, New York

Paul J. OBrien
Charles Spilling House
Somerville, Massachusetts

John P. OConnell, Jr.
Delaware Statistical Analysis Center
Dover, Delaware

Rev. Mary Jane OConnor
Worcester Fights Back, Inc.
Worcester, Massachusetts

Philip ODonnell
Deputy Chief of Police
Washington, D.C.

Johanna OFlaherty
Trans World Airlines
Jamaica, New York

Daniel OKeefe
Roe Coordinator, WEAE
Worcester, Massachusetts

Edward T. OLeary
Chief of Police
Foxborough, Massachusetts

James OMara, Jr.
Department of Corrections
Manchester, New Hampshire

Sephus Osborn
Anthony Perkins Community Center
Dorchester, Massachusetts

Joseph T. OSullivan
Commonwealth Energy System, EAP
Cambridge, Massachusetts

JoAnne Page
The Fortune Society
New York, New York

Susan Patrick
Drugs Dont Work
Hartford, Connecticut

Janet Pfeffer
Talbot Partnership
Easton, Maryland

Francis Pisegma
Governors Alliance Against Drugs
Boston, Massachusetts

Paul M. Plaisted
Justice Planning and Management Association
Augusta, Maine
Michael Plourde
Nashua Youth Council, Inc.
Nashua, New Hampshire

Floyd O. Pond
Maryland Governors
Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission

Frank Porpora
Department of Public Safety
Hartford, Connecticut

Robert Potter
Habit Management, Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts

J. Bradford Powers
Criminal Justice Programs
Dean College, Massachusetts

Ken Predmore
Investigator, Community Development
Paterson, New Jersey

Virginia Price
Bridge Over Troubled Waters, Inc.
Boston,  Massachusetts

Martha Raiss
Police Assisted Community Enforcement
Norfolk, Virginia

Captain Carol Ann Reese
National Guard Bureau
Washington, D.C.

Richard Reeser
Director, Bureau of Program Development
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency

Riley Regan
Governors Council on Alcohol/Drug Abuse
Trenton, New Jersey

Steve Ridini
Framingham Prevention Center
Framingham, Massachusetts

Elaine Riley
Governors Committee on Juvenile Justice
Boston, Massachusetts

John Riordan
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts
Boston, Massachusetts 

Lt. Col. Richard A. Robischeau
The Adjutant Generals Office
Reading, Massachusetts

Mayra Rodriguez-Howard
Center for Addictive Behaviors
Salem, Massachusetts

Michael J. Rosati
Director,  Carlisle Education Center
Carlisle, Massachusetts

David L. Rosenbloom
Join Together
Boston, Massachusetts

Victoria Ross
Middlesex Human Service Agency
Waltham, Massachusetts

Duane J. Saari
New York State Office of
Alcohol and Substance Abuse

Robert Scarrillo
Essex County, Sheriffs Office
Newark, New Jersey

Elizabeth Scheibel
District Attorney, Northwest
Northampton, Massachusetts

Dana Schrad
Virginia State Crime Commission
Richmond, Virginia

Russell Sciandra
ASTHO Tobacco Control Network
Washington, D.C.

Joseph Scioli
Amherst Police Department
Amherst, New York

Steven Searcy
Cumberland County Sheriffs Office
Portland, Maine

Thomas P. Shamshak
Chief of Police
Spencer, Massachusetts

Rosemary Shannon
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention
Concord, New Hampshire

Ronald Sheldon
Hartford Police Department
Hartford, Connecticut

Terrence Sheridan
Chief, Bureau of Drug Enforcement
Maryland State Police

Dale A.Simpson
Marathon, Inc.
Providence, Rhode Island

Mark A. Sindler
Deputy Attorney General, Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Betsey Smith
Massachusetts State Committee on Criminal Justice
Boston, Massachusetts

Gregory V. Smith
Transitional Living Center for Women, Inc.
Williamsport, Pennsylvania

Harold Sparrow
Massachusetts Prevention Centers
Boston, Massachusetts

Christine Spaulding
Administrator, New Hampshire
Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Hilary Spence
Talbot County Public Schools
Easton, Maryland

Richard Stanley
Chief of Police
North Andover, Massachusetts

Charles Stein
Nassau County Police Department
Mineola, New York

Tom Stone
Chief of Police
Norristown, Pennsylvania

Lawrence J. Strickler
Governors Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission
Towson, Maryland

Ruth Sypher
Tremont Commonwealth Council
Bronx, New York

Marty M. Tapscott
Chief of Police
Richmond, Virginia

Venus Taylor
Massachusetts Prevention Centers
Boston, Massachusetts

Douglas Thomas
National Center for Juvenile Justice
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Honorable W. Curtis Thomas
House of Representatives
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

W. Scott Thornsley
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania

Honorable Rosemary S. Tierney
Mayor of New Bedford
New Bedford, Massachusetts

Vincent Tobin
Providence Hospital, Methadone Services
Holyoke, Massachusetts

Carol O. Tuohy
Prevention Center for Addictive Behaviors
Salem, Massachusetts

Liam J. Tuffy
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts

Joel Urdang
HALT Community Partnership
Plymouth, Massachusetts

Angelo M. Valente
Partnership for a Drug-Free New Jersey
Hoboken, New Jersey

Stephen Valle
Right Turn
Lynn, Massachusetts

Carlos Vera
Camden Police Department
Camden, New Jersey

Howard C. Vick, Jr.
Henrico County Attorney
Richmond, Virginia

Jack Vondras
Cambridge Substance Abuse Task Force
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Rogene M. Waite
United States Information Agency
Washington, D.C.

Laurie Jo Wallace
Massachusetts Prevention Centers
Boston, Massachusetts

Thomas Ward
New York City Department of Correction
New York, New York

Georgette Watson
Governors Alliance Against Drugs
Boston, Massachusetts

William Watson
Therapeutic Communities, Inc.
New York, New York

Gary Waytes
The Fortune Society
New York, New York

Joan C. Weiss
Justice Research and  Statistics Association
Washington, D.C.

Karen L. Welch
National Guard Bureau
Alexandria, Virginia

Thomas White
Adcare Hospital
Worchester, Massachusetts

Roger Wentworth
Social Worker
Saco, Maine

Thomas H. Williams
Division of Parole and Probation
Baltimore, Maryland

Willie Williams
Chief of Police
Petersburg, Virginia

William Williford
State Office of Alcoholism/Substance Abuse
Albany, New York

Gilbert Wilson
Camden Police Department
Camden, New Jersey

Jennifer Wilson
Chelsea Police Department
Chelsea, Massachusetts

Tom Wolfe
Metro West Medical Center, EAP
Framingham, Massachusetts

Ilse Yanis
Office of Alcohol/Drug Abuse Prevention
Concord, New Hampshire

SOUTHERN REGIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE

Pete Adams
Louisiana District Attorneys Association
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Terrie Ainsworth
Office of the Attorney General
Jackson, Mississippi

Thomas Everette Allen
Assistant Chief of Police
Russellville, Kentucky

Hattie Anthony
Fighting Back
Charlotte, North Carolina

Charles M. Ash
Employers Drug Program Management, Inc.
Birmingham, Alabama

Frank Augustus
Sheriff, McCracken County
Paducah, Kentucky

Dr. Allen L. Ault
Georgia Department of Corrections
Atlanta, Georgia

John Baiamonte, Jr.
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana 
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council

Gerald D. Baker
BPO-ELKS
Moss Point, Mississippi

Elizabeth Bare
Associate Attorney General
Raleigh, North Carolina

Jamie Barker
Drug-Free Schools of New Orleans
Metairie, Louisiana

Marilyn Bassett
Governors Commission for
A Drug-Free Indiana

Walter Becker, Jr.
Assistant United States Attorney
New Orleans, Louisiana

Eric O. Bell
Sheriff, Chester County
Henderson, Tennessee

Archie T. Ben
Port of New Orleans Harbor Police
New Orleans, Louisiana
Joyce Ben
Lafayette Alcohol and Drug Abuse Clinic
Lafayette, Louisiana

Billy Benford
Victory Manor Recovery Center
Clinton, Mississippi

Bora Benford
Victory Manor Recovery Center
Clinton, Mississippi

Jonetta Faye Bennett
Louisiana Governors Office
of Drug-Free Schools

Jeffery Berry
Christian Community Youth Against Drugs
New Orleans, Louisiana

Ray Berry
Department of Mental Health
Orlando, Florida

William Bessenbacher
Sheriff, Bleckley County
Cochran, Georgia

Lisa Bevington
Health Management Partners, Inc.
New Orleans, Louisiana

John Bigger
Mercy Hospital
Charlotte, North Carolina

Mike Blakely
Sheriff, Limestone County
Athens, Alabama

Mark Bollinger
Law Enforcement/Traffic Division
Montgomery, Alabama

Gay Lynn Bond
Childrens Bureau of New Orleans
New Orleans, Louisiana

John Boren
Coweta County Board of Education
Newnan, Georgia

Virginia Borrok
Gateway Community Services
Jacksonville, Florida

Clarence Bourgeois
The Church of All People
New Orleans, Louisiana

Jim Boyd
Franklin County Attorney
Frankfort, Kentucky

John F. Boyd
Bureau Alcohol and Drug Abuse Service
Nashville, Tennessee

Gregory Brand
Hollywood Police Department
Hollywood, Florida
George Braucht
Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles
Atlanta, Georgia

John Brooks
Assistant Chief of Police
Miami, Florida

Walton Brooks
Metro Fugitive Squad
Atlanta, Georgia

Bonnie Broussard
Assistant to Mayor
Abbeville, Louisiana

Dale Broussard
Violent Crimes/Narcotics Task Force
Louisiana Sheriffs Association

Honorable Maurice Brown
Mayor of White Castle
White Castle, Louisiana

Heather Buda
Crimnie Parish Sheriffs Office
New Orleans, Louisiana

J. Peter Bunce
One Great River
Shreveport, Louisiana

Donald Burgess
Catawba County Sheriffs Department
Newton, North Carolina

Ollie Burns
New Way Center
Monroe, Louisiana

Fred Burton
Lebanon City Council
Lebanon, Tennessee

Johnnie Caldwell, Jr.
District Attorney
Thomaston, Georgia

Tommy Callahan
Criminal Investigation Division
Tennessee Highway Patrol

Jeanette Cannada
National Family Partnership of South Carolina
Greenville, South Carolina

James Alton Cannon, Jr.
Sheriff, Charleston County
Charleston Heights, South Carolina

Dr. Ernest Cantley
Stewart-Marchman Center
Daytona Beach, Florida

Cono Caranna
District Attorney
Gulfport, Mississippi

Cathy Carson
Program Manager, AACSB
Albany, Georgia
Oscar Carter, III
Dr. O.E. Carter Memorial Clinic
New Orleans, Louisiana

Louie Caudell
Chief of Police
Little Rock, Arkansas

Janice Chestnutt
Columbus County, North Carolina
Alcohol and Drug Prevention Coalition

Dr. Andrew Chishom
Substance Abuse Prevention Center
Columbia, South Carolina

John Chmielewski
Bureau of Alcohol/Drug Abuse Prevention
Little Rock, Arkansas

Marlon Choate
Winston-Salem Police Department
Winston-Salem, North Carolina

Brenda Clark
Tennessee Department of Corrections
Nashville, Tennessee

Jim Clark
Arkansas State Crime Laboratory
Little Rock, Arkansas

Donald Coffey
Metro-Dade County, Florida
Corrections and Rehabilitation Department

David Cole
Madison County Community Partnership
Richmond, Kentucky

Bracy H. Coleman
Assistant Chief of Police
Jackson, Mississippi

Shirley D. Coletti
Operation PAR, Inc.
St. Petersburg, Florida

Hugh Collins
Supreme Court of Louisiana
New Orleans, Louisiana

Astrid Oyola Colon
Administrator, ASSMCA
Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico

Ron Combs
Assistant City Attorney
Gainesville, Florida

Harry Connick
Orleans Parish District Attorney
New Orleans, Louisiana

Major Penelope L. Cook
377th Theater Army Area Command
New Orleans, Louisiana

Paul Crow
Daytona Beach Public Safety Department
Daytona Beach, Florida 
John Cuesta III
Deputy Chief of Police
Tampa, Florida

Marilyn Wagner Culp
Executive Director, Miami, Florida
Coalition for a Safe/Drug-Free Community

John Cupp
Sheriff, Hamilton County
Chattanooga, Tennessee

Carol Custard
Therapy Association Recovery Center
Chamblee, Georgia

Jane Daughtridge
Mid-East Commission
Washington, North Carolina

Alice M. Day
Longview Drug Task Force
Longview, Texas

Linda B. Day
Director of Drug Policy
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Lt. Col. Larry H. Deblieux
Louisiana National Guard
New Orleans, Louisiana

Roxanna De Soto
Partnership for a Drug-Free Puerto Rico
San Juan, Puerto Rico

Greg Dill
Greater New Orleans Teen Challenge
New Orleans, Louisiana

Lt. Col. William Douglas
Florida National Guard
St. Augustine, Florida

Winston C. Dowdell
Coweta County School System
Newnan, Georgia

Airman C.J. Eady
Louisiana Air National Guard
New Orleans, Louisiana

Ray Eastman
Director, D.A.R.E. Southeast
Raleigh, North Carolina

Morris East
Louisiana Department of Education
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Mara English
The Village
St. Croix, Virgin Islands

Sam Evins
Director of Risk Management
Gainsville, Florida

James Farley
Broward County Sheriffs Office
Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Norris Faulkner, Jr.
Sheriff, Union County
New Albany, Mississippi

Mary Jane Fenner
Chairman - DOTS
New Orleans, Louisiana

Donald Feulner
The Center for Drug-Free Living
Orlando, Florida

John R. Forsyth
Florida Department Education
Tallahassee, Florida

Mark Fraiser
Prosecuting Attorney
Little Rock, Arkansas

Kurt D. Frederick
Criminal Justice Administration
Nashville, Tennessee

D.W. Froshour
Investigator, Madison/Rankin County
Brandon, Mississippi

Dean Frost
Department of Education
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Bufus Gammons
Operation PAR, Inc.
St. Petersburg, Florida

Gary Garner
Georgia Bureau of Investigation
Decatur, Georgia

George Garrison
Athens-Clark County Drug Task Force
Athens, Georgia

Dr. Robert Gaston
Anti-Drug Task Force
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Richard Geisel
Community Action Youth Service
Newport, Vermont

William Gibson
District Attorney General
Cookeville, Tennessee

Matthew Gissen
The Village
Miami, Florida

Reginald Gladney
South Carolina Department
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services

Reginald Grace, Sr.
Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Louis Graham
Chief of Police, Fulton County
Atlanta, Georgia

Tony Green
Program to Aid Drug-Abusers
Lakeland, Florida

Jill Griffin
Executive Director
Metropolitan Drug Commission
Knoxville, Tennessee

Captain Pat Griffin
Louisiana National Guard
New Orleans, Louisiana

Anthony Guercio
Chief of Police
White Castle, Louisiana

Kristina M. Gulick
Palm Beach County Criminal Justice
West Palm Beach, Florida

E. Douglas Hamilton
Chief of Police
Louisville, Kentucky

Eryleen Hammons
Tri-County Substance Abuse Prevention Alliance
Barbourville, Kentucky

Thurman B. Hampton
North Carolina Department of
Crime Control and Public Safety

Benny Harding
McCracken County Sheriffs Department
Paducah, Kentucky

Theresa Harris
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Barbara Hartt
Department of Juvenile Justice
Columbia, South Carolina

Dr. Hazel Harvey
Office of Community Relations
Tampa, Florida

Dr. Jerry Harvey
County Administrators Office
Tampa, Florida

James R. Hawkes
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Jonathan Hayden
Deputy Sheriff, McCracken County
Paducah, Kentucky

Colleen Hayes
Alachua County Board of Commissioners
Gainsville, Florida

Audine Haynes
Washington County Anti-Drug Task Force
Greenville, Mississippi

Captain Frank Hijuelos
Louisiana National Guard
New Orleans, Louisiana

Bobbie Hill
Corrections Corporation of America
Nashville, Tennessee

Sandra D. Hudson
Rome Housing Authority
Rome, Georgia

James Huger
Stewart-Marchman Center
Daytona Beach, Florida

Randall Hundley
Lafayette Police Department
Lafayette, Louisiana

Jerry Hunt
Lebanon City Council
Lebanon, Tennessee

Richard P. Ieyoub
Attorney General, Louisiana
Department of Justice

Ray Isgett
Sheriff, Berkeley County
Moncks Corner, South Carolina

Carl Jackson
Louisiana Commission on Law
Enforcement and Administration of Justice

Valera Jackson
The Village
Miami, Florida

Byron James
The Church of All People
New Orleans, Louisiana

Tacuma S. Jawara
Love That Child, Inc.
Douglesville, Georgia

Venus E. Jawara
Love That Child, Inc.
Douglesville, Georgia

Alonza Jiles
The Lords Ranch
Warm Springs, Arkansas

Dietrich R. Johnson
Longview Drug Task Force
Longview, Texas

Harold Johnson
Chief of Police
Mobile, Alabama

Gordon R. Jolly
Chief of Police
Sarasota, Florida

Brenda Jones
Memphis Police Department
Memphis, Tennessee

Clinton K. Jones
Fayetteville City Prosecutor
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Mark A. Jones
Governors Crime Commission
Raleigh, North Carolina

Eddie J. Jordan, Jr.
United States Attorney
New Orleans, Louisiana

Paula C. Kemp
National Families in Action
Atlanta, Georgia

Sylvia Kennedy
Jefferson Parish, Louisiana
Human Services Authority

Bob Kennington
Metro-Davidson County Detention Center
Nashville, Tennessee

John T. Kitchens
District Attorney, Madison/Rankin County
Brandon, Mississippi

Dr. Hobert Kornegay
Supervisor, Loauderdale County
Meridian, Mississippi

Mary Claire Landry
Odyssey House Louisiana, Inc.
New Orleans, Louisiana

Robert Landry
Texas State Coordinator
Pasadena, Texas

Chainie Lang
The Village
Miami, Florida

Barrown Lankster
District Attorney
Alabama 17th Judicial Circuit

Major Edgar Lewis III
Florida National Guard
St. Augustine, Florida

N. Ann Lowrance
Oklahoma Domestic Violence
Department of Mental Health Services

Sam Lynn
Pinellas County Sheriffs Office
Largo, Florida

Debra Maggio
Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

James Mallory
Department of Human Resources
Atlanta, Georgia

Donald Manning
Metro Dade County, Florida
Corrections and Rehabilitation Department

Dario Mojica Martinez
Department of Education
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Joe Mauz
Miami HIDTA
Miami, Florida

Mark A. May
Hollywood Police Department
Hollywood, Florida

Porter McAteer
Gaston County Board of Commissioners
Gastonia, North Carolina

William R. McDonald
Undersheriff, Monroe County
Key West, Florida

Neal A. McGarry
Board of Addiction Professionals
Tallahassee, Florida

Roy J. McKuhen
Department of Finance
Nashville, Tennessee

Kelly McLendon
Drug Task Force
Buchanan, Georgia

Joel R. McSwain
Drug Task Force
Buchanan, Georgia

Mary Carol Melton
Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Metairie, Louisiana

Carolyn Meurrier
STAND Coalition
Forrest City, Arkansas

Pam Middleton
Drug Abuse Treatment Association, Inc.
Jupiter, Florida

Suzette Mikell
Partnership for a Drug-Free Community
Huntsville, Alabama

Michael Miller
Metropolitan Nashville, Tennessee 
Social Service Department

Geralyn A. Minor
Federal Bureau of Investigation
New Orleans, Louisiana

Ed M. Mitchell
Assistant City Administrator
West Palm Beach, Florida

Sam Mitchell
Serenity House of Volusia, Inc.
Daytona Beach, Florida

Natalie Mittag
Governors Crime Commission
Raleigh, North Carolina

Gary Moore
Broward County Sheriffs Office
Fort Lauderdale, Florida
James Moore
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation
Crossville, Tennessee

Ben O. Morris
Chief of Police
Slidell, Louisiana

Lt. Col. John Mosbey
Air National Guard
Washington, D.C.

Judy Mouton
Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Rosemary Mumm
District Attorneys Office
New Orleans, Louisiana

Tim Nelson
North Carolina Bureau of Investigation
Greenville, North Carolina

Charles Newfield
Birmingham Police Department
Birmingham, Alabama

Margaret Nicely
Orleans County, Vermont
Prevention Partnership, Inc.

J. Terry Norris
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council
Atlanta, Georgia

Joseph Orticke, Jr.
Superintendent of Police
New Orleans, Louisiana

Dee S. Owens
Deputy Commissioner, SAS
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Trey Ourso
Department of Justice
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Kenneth Pack
Sheriff, Dekalb County
Smithville, Tennessee

Simone Patin
Governors Drug-Free Schools
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

George H. Payne, Jr.
Chief of Police
Gulfport, Mississippi

Leora F. Penman
Equifax Medical Products
San Diego, California

George Perkins
Wellness Institute, Inc.
Louisville, Kentucky

Gene Peter
Kentucky Justice Cabinet
Frankfort, Kentucky
Rick Peterson
Lafayette Police Department
Lafayette, Louisiana

Majken Peterzen
Florida Prevention Association
Tallahassee, Florida

Lisa Pettit
Assistant District Attorney
Floyd County, Georgia

John Pigott
Mobile County Sheriffs Department
Mobile, Alabama

Jan Platt
Metro Development and Housing Agency
Nashville, Tennessee

Robert Radford
District Attorney General
Huntingdon, Tennessee

Philip Ramer
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Tampa, Florida

Carol Reeves
National Family Partnership
Greenville, South Carolina

Honorable Justice Lyle Reid
Tennessee Supreme Court
Nashville, Tennessee

Robert Rhoden, Jr.
Mayors Office of Criminal Justice
New Orleans, Louisiana

Charles H. Rhyne
Mobile Housing Board
Mobile, Alabama

Nicholas U. Richard
Thibodaux Police Department
Thibodaux, Louisiana

Billy R. Riggs
Chief of Police
West Palm Beach, Florida

Alan Roberts
Fort Lauderdale Police Department
Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Joel H. Robinson
Sheriff, Barrow County
Winder, Georgia

Bill Rousselo
Riverbend Recovery Center
North Little Rock, Arkansas

Ann Rowe
Mobile Bay, Alabama
Area Partnership for Youth

Sue Rusche
National Families In Action
Atlanta, Georgia
Avis Marie Russell
City Attorney
New Orleans, Louisiana

Ann Rutherford
Therapy Associates Recovery Center
Chamblee, Georgia

Peter Safir
Area Mental Health Authority
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Peggy B. Sapp
Informed Families of Dade County, Inc.
Miami, Florida

Tommy Savant
Madison/Rankin County
Brandon, Mississippi

Tina Selmore
Mayors Office of Criminal Justice
New Orleans, Louisiana

Vernon J. Shorty
Narcotics Rehabilitation Center, Inc.
New Orleans, Louisiana

Senator Rolando A. Silva
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Public Safety Committee

Jimmie Smith
Supervisor, District Two
Lauderdale County, Mississippi

Judy S. Smith
State Representative
Arkansas General Assembly

Robert L. Smith
Public Safety Administrator
Tampa, Florida

Helene Smollett
Office of the Governor
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands

Deborah Soule
Partnership for a Drug-Free Community
Huntsville, Alabama

Gaylord Sprauve
Office of the Governor
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands

Rendel Stalvey
Georgia Department Education
Atlanta, Georgia

Don Steger
Assistant City Manager
Charlotte, North Carolina

Flo A. Stein
Division of Mental Health
Raleigh, North Carolina

Julie Stevens
Challenge, Inc.
Fort Worth, Texas
C. H. Straub II
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Washington, D.C.

Ted Suhl
The Lords Ranch
Warm Springs, Arkansas

John E. Tellis
New Day Life Foundation, Inc.
Farmerville, Louisiana

Herbert Terry
Division of Public Safety Planning
Jackson, Mississippi

Bernadette Thibodaux
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council
Houma, Louisiana

J.R. Thomas
Chief of Police
Searcy, Arkansas

Randy Thompson
Barrow County Sheriffs Office
Winder, Georgia

Harold Troy, Sr.
Columbus County, North Carolina
Alcohol and Drug Prevention Coalition

Dawn Tucker
Louisiana Governors Office of
Drug-Free Schools and Communities

Ned Valois
Metro-Dade Police Department
Miami, Florida

John Van Rider
Homestead Police Department
Homestead, Florida

Thomas W. Vaughan
Sheriff, Hendry County
LaBelle, Florida

Ninky Vickers
Mobile Bay, Alabama
Area Partnership for Youth

Michael Vitt
Deputy Chief of Police
Jackson, Mississippi

Joan M. Vogel
Baton Rouge Detox Center
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Erich Von Hackney
Robeson County Sheriffs Department
Lumberton, North Carolina

Charles F. Wagner
District Attorney
Alexandria, Louisiana

William J. Walker
Georgetown, South Carolina
County Alcohol and  Drug Center
Jim Ward
Riverbend Recovery Center
North Little Rock, Arkansas

Richard H. Warfel
River Region Human Services
Jacksonville, Florida

Mary Helen Warren
Tri-County Substance Abuse Prevention Alliance
Barbourville, Kentucky

Ken Welch
Louisiana Takes A Stand, Inc.
Neal Llano, Louisiana

Jerald D. Wheeler
Southaven Police Department
Southaven, Mississippi

Bonnie White
Rapides Parish School System
Alexandria, Louisiana

Pamela White
Nashville Prevention Partnership
Nashville, Tennessee

Joel Widell
Monroe County Sheriffs Office
Key West, Florida

Nanon Wiles
Georgia Department of Corrections
Atlanta, Georgia

Julius Wilkerson
The Velocity Foundation, Inc.
New Orleans, Louisiana

Derya Williams
River Region Human Services
Jacksonville, Florida

Jaslene Williams
Division of Mental Health
St. Croix, Virgin Islands

John J. Williams, Jr.
Louisiana District Attorneys Association
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

John Wilson
Deputy Director
Miami HIDTA

Barbara Witten
Bluegrass Regional Mental Health
Richmond, Kentucky

Byron Wong
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Washington, D.C.

MIDWEST REGIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE

Michelle Adams
Prevention Services, In Touch
Grayslake, Illinois

Susan Aktary
Michigan Department of Education
Lansing, Michigan

Lonnetta Albright
TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

Frank Alcala
Chief of Police
East Chicago, Indiana

Iphra Genera Allen
Milwaukee Medical Clinic
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Jeanette Moore Allen
Life Works Chemical Dependency
Bolingbrook, Illinois

Keith Anderson
Redford Police
Redford, Michigan

Edwin Andrews
Hopedale Medical Complex
Hopedale, Illinois

Daphne Baille
TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois 

Madeleine Baird
Prevention Services Coordinator
Downers Grove, Illinois

Thomas Baker
Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority

Terence Bardell
Lake County Mental Health
Waukegan, Illinois

Garth Barker
Fountain Centers
Albert Lea, Minnesota

Rose Barrett
Supervisor, Group Home
Red Lake, Minnesota

David Basile
Chicago Heights Police Department
Chicago Heights, Illinois

Michael Bass
U.S. Probation Office
Chicago, Illinois

Kevin J. Baxter
Prosecutor, Erie County
Sandusky, Ohio

Barbara Bell
Comprand Youth and Womens Services
Chicago, Illinois

John Bentley
Illinois Probation/Court Services
Springfield, Illinois

Diane Berger
Gateway Foundation
Chicago, Illinois

Loretta L. Berry
Life Works Chemical Dependency Center
Bolingbrook, Illinois

Kent Berton
Tellurian Community, Inc.
Madison, Wisconsin

Michele Bianchi
Central States Institute of Addiction
Chicago, Illinois

Joanne Bieschke
Cook County, Illinois
Sheriffs Youth Services Department

Alex Borowski
Cherokee Nation
Tahlequah, Oklahoma

Dennis E. Both
Town Attorney 
Cicero, Illinois

Sue Bozek
Iowa City Community Schools
Iowa City, Iowa

Harold Bradley
Elrose Health Services, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan

Tom Brenneman
Undersheriff
St. John, Kansas

Honorable Judge Coy E. Brewer, Jr.
Senior Resident Superior Court
Fayetteville, North Carolina

Tyree Broomfield
Office Criminal Justice Services
Columbus, Ohio

David Bruess
Lieutenant of Detectives
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Moira Murphy Brunk
Department of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse
Chicago, Illinois
 
Gail J. Bruss
Ozaukee Council, Inc.
Grafton, Wisconsin

Ky Ann Buck
County Attorney
St. John, Kansas

John T. Buck
Redford Police
Redford, Michigan   

Terre Buck
TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
William Burgin
Minnesota Department of Corrections
Street Paul, Minnesota

David Burke
Wisconsin Certification Board
Madison, Wisconsin

Patrick H. Burke
National Guard Bureau
Washington, D.C.

Yvonne Butchee
Midwest Regional Center
Oak Brook, Illinois

Jacqueline Butler
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio

Robert Campbell
Lifelink/Bensenville Home Society
Bensenville, Illinois 

Donald Capp
Lake County Coordinating Alliance
Gary, Indiana

Michael Carey
Drug Specialist Court Services
Urbana, Illinois
 
Bernard A. Carter
Lake County Prosecutor
Crown Point, Indiana

Ricardo Chavarria
East Chicago Police Department
East Chicago, Indiana

Keely Childress
Chicago Commons
Chicago, Illinois

Michael D. Childress
University Park Police Department
University Park, Illinois

Suzanne Chisum
Human Support Services
Waterloo, Illinois

Barbara A. Cimaglio
Director, Illinois Department of
Alcoholism and Substance Abuse

Joseph Claps
First Assistant Attorney General
Chicago, Illinois

Cheryl Clark
County Commissioner
Lapeer County, Michigan

Ronald Clark
Management Information Supervisor
Illinois State Police Academy

Harold W. Clarke
Director, Nebraska
Department of Correctional Services
J. David Coldren
Office of International Criminal Justice
Chicago, Illinois

Patrick J. Coleman
Substance Abuse Program Coordinator
Iowa Department of Corrections

Johnny Colon-Gonzalez
Advisor to Governor
San Juan, Puerto Rico

Bill J. Conner
Hammond Police Department
Hammond, Indiana

Debra Craig
New Age Services Corporation
Chicago, Illinois

Robert J. Craig
West Side VA Medical Center
Chicago, Illinois

William Crimi
Franklin County Prevention Institute
Columbus, Ohio

Carolyn Cystrunk
Lake County Community Action Project
Waukegan, Illinois
 
Cullen L. Cullen
Madison County Educational Services
Edwardsville, Illinois

Deborah Culp
Elrose Health Services, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan

Nancy Cunningham
Center for Drug-Free Schools
Louisville, Kentucky 

Ardith DaFoe
Office of Drug Control Policy
Lansing, Michigan

Laurel Dahl
NICASA
Round Lake, Illinois

Tom Dailey
Chief of Police
Kansas City, Kansas
 
Michael Darcy
Gateway Foundation, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

Joan Daumen
InTouch Education Service Network
Morris, Illinois

Joseph M. Davitt
Omaha Police Department
Omaha, Nebraska
 
Mike DeCouroy
Deputy Prosecutor
Johnson County, Indiana
Mae J. Demps
Executive Director, S.A.F.E.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Bobby Denman
New Age Services Corporation
Chicago, Illinois

James Dercks
Wisconsin Association on Alcohol/Drug Abuse
Kimberly, Wisconsin

Carol Derr
Probation Officer
Royal Oak, Illinois

Phyllis Dettman
National Family Partnership
St. Louis, Missouri

Eleanor Devlin
NOVA Therapeutic Community, Inc.
Omaha, Nebraska

Master Sergeant George Doberstzyn
Illinois National Guard
Chicago, Illinois

Judith Donovan
Kansas Department of Social and 
Rehabilitation Services 
 
Andrew Douvris
Northeastern Metropolitan Enforcement Group
Broadview, Illinois

Linda Drager
Illinois State Police Academy
Springfield, Illinois

Susie Dugan
PRIDE-Omaha, Inc.
Omaha, Nebraska

Honorable Richard Durbin
Congressman, 20th District
U.S. House of Representatives

Charlene Dyer 
Homewood Police Department
Homewood, Illinois

David Early
Romulus Police Department
Romulus, Michigan

Craig Eckert
Center for Child and Family Development
Norman, Oklahoma

Ronald Eckoff
Iowa Department of Public Health
Des Moines, Iowa
 
Mary Ellison
Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office
St. Paul, Minnesota

Mary Ann Ewert
Missouri Association of
Community Task Forces (MissouriACT)
Mary Feerick
Cook County, Illinois
Sheriffs Youth Services Department

Linda Fensler
Hindale Hospital
Hinsdale, Illinois

Denis Ferguson
DuPage County Health Department
Wheaton, Illinois
 
Thomas P. Fitzgerald
Sheriff, Will County
Joliet, Illinois

Michael Florek
Tellurian UCAN
Madison, Wisconsin

Major Tom Ford
Illinois National Guard
Springfield, Illinois

Beverly Frazier
Elrose Health Services, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan

Anita Fream
Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools
Norman, Oklahoma

Delmar Free
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
Winnebago, Nebraska

Judy Fried
Northern Illinois Council on Alcoholism
Round Lake, Illinois
 
Kara Gallup
Family/Social Services Administration
Indianapolis, Indiana

Terrance W. Gainer
Director
Illinois State Police 

Anne Ganey
Community Drug Prevention Project
Mankato, Minnesota

Ronald Garcia
Chief, Organized Crime Division
Chicago Police Department

David Gasperin
TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

John Geier
DuPage County Health Department
Wheaton, Illinois

Jack Gilligan
Fayette Companies
Peoria, Illinois

Tracy Gilmore
Mid City Addiction Team
Des Moines, Iowa
Rafael Gonzalez
Milwaukee County Fighting Back
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Diane Griffin
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
Chicago, Illinois

Steven Guerra
Illinois Prevention Resource Center
Chicago, Illinois

Judith Hain
Governors Commission for
a Drug-Free Indiana

Judith Hammer
Center for Child and Family Development
Norman, Oklahoma

Lance D. Hamner
Johnson County Prosecutor
Franklin, Indiana

William Hampton
Ann Arbor Police Department
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Karla Hancock
Senior Assistant Attorney
Hennepin County, Minnesota

Tom Hanley
Akron Police Department
Akron, Ohio

Ann Hansen
Michigan Communities In Action
Birmingham, Michigan
 
Linda Hanson
Haymarket House
Chicago, Illinois

Dennis Hanwell
Medina Police Department
Medina, Ohio

Chaka Harper
Brass Foundation
Chicago, Illinois

Keith Harris
Governors Commission for
a Drug-Free Indiana

Jeanne Hayes
Substance Abuse Coordinator
Chesterton, Indiana

J. Thomas Head
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Little Rock, Arkansas

Carolyn B. Healy
Director, Healy and Associates
Joliet, Illinois

Melody M. Heaps
President, TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
Honorable Dale A. Henry
Mayor of Springfield
Springfield, Ohio

Carla Hess 
Gateway Foundation, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

Carlos D. Hevia
Northeastern Metropolitan Enforcement Group
Broadview, Illinois

Honorable Judge Thomas Heydinger
Juvenile and Probate Court
Huron County, Ohio

Les Higgenbottom
The Milwaukee Womens Center
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Michael W. Hoke
Chicago Police Department
Chicago, Illinois

S. Rebecca Holland
TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

Jerome Houfek,
Drug-Free Workplace Network
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Dona L. Howell
ADAPT, JCCMHC
Carbondale, Illinois

Technical Sergeant Cherie Hunter
Illinois National Guard
Chicago, Illinois    

Major Roberta Isch
Illinois National Guard
Springfield, Illinois

Adrienne Jackson
Brass Foundation
Chicago, Illinois

Ellsworth Jackson
Elrose Health Services, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan
 
Wayne Jackson
Elrose Health Services, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan

Steven Janes
Chicago Teen Challenge
Chicago, Illinois

Jose Jerez
Community Mental Health Center
Chicago, Illinois

Betty E. Johnson
Safe Coalition
Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Senior Airman Kenneth Johnson
Illinois National Guard
Chicago, Illinois    
Ruth Costello Johnson
Lake County, Illinois 
Health Department

Tracy Johnson
Martin Luther King Jr. Community Services
Freeport, Illinois

Barbara Jones-Jackson
South Suburban Mayors/Managers
East Hazel Crest, Illinois

Fawn E. Jones
Neighborhood Partnership
Lansing, Michigan

Michael Jones
Nebraska State Patrol
Omaha, Nebraska

Mildra Jones
Milwaukee Health Service System
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

William Jones
Minneapolis Police Department
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Nola Joyce
Chicago Police Department
Chicago, Illinois

Richard Kalm
Macomb County Sheriffs Department 
Mt. Clemens, Michigan

Gordon Karim
Midwest Regional Center
Oak Brook, Illinois

James Keathley
Drug and Crime Control
Missouri State Highway Patrol

Daniel Kechel
Four County Counseling Center
Logansport, Indiana
 
Heather Kehrli
Dupage Prevention Partnership
Wheaton, Illinois

Brendan Kelly
Des Plaines Police Department
Des Plaines, Illinois

Bridget Kelly-Korchak
Area-Coordinator, TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

John Kemper
Missouri Division of Youth Services
Columbia, Missouri

Nellie Kendrick
Milwaukee Health Service System
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Jayne Kiel
Employee Resources, Inc.
Buffalo, New York
Jack King
Guildhaus
Blue Island, Illinois

N. Steven King
Nebraska Correctional Services
Lincoln, Nebraska

John Kizhakedan
DuPage Township Committee on Youth
Bolingbrook, Illinois

Barbara J. Knutson
Michigan Department of Education
Lansing, Michigan

Judy Kreamer
President, Illinois Drug
Education Alliance, IDEA

Mary Ann Kren 
Department of Children and Family Services
Springfield, Illinois

Kent Kuhlman
Evanston Police Department
Evanston, Illinois

Janice Kwiatkowski
Elrose Health Services, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan

Calvin Kyles
University City, Missouri
Community Partnership

Kelly Lambert
Kane County States Attorneys Office
Saint Charles, Illinois

Terri L. Landwehr
Wisconsin Department of Corrections
Madison, Wisconsin

Charles W. Larson
Drug Enforcement/Abuse Prevention
Coordinator, Iowa Governors Alliance

Kathy Larsson
Eastern Illinois University
Marion, Illinois

Captain Christopher Lawson
Illinois National Guard
Springfield, Illinois    

William Lee
P.A.R.I.
Detroit, Michigan

Clyde Lemons, Jr.
Chief, Prosecution Task Force
Illinois Attorney Generals Office

Thomas J. Leonard
Chief of Police
University Park, Illinois

Joanna Lloyd
Region VI Mental Health/Substance Abuse
Omaha, Nebraska
Joyce Lohrentz
Illinois Drug
Education Alliance, IDEA

James Long
Special Assistant for Violence/Gangs
Illinois State Governors Office

Mike Lowther
Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools
Norman, Oklahoma

Susan Lynch
District Attorney
Portage County, Wisconsin

Catherine MacIntyre
International Institute on Inhalant Abuse
Englewood, Colorado

Sergeant Charles Mammoser
Illinois National Guard
Chicago, Illinois   

John Manuel
Warden, Dayton Correctional Institution
Dayton, Ohio

Susan B. Marshall
Indiana Prosecutors Office
Mt. Vernon, Indiana
 
Terry M. Marshall
ATTIC Correctional Services, Inc.
Madison, Wisconsin
 
Nancy Martin
Cook County Adult Probation Department
Chicago, Illinois

Steve Martin
Franklin County Sheriffs Office
Columbus, Ohio
 
Eldoris J. Mason
BRASS Foundation, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

Emily Mason
Project C.U.R.E., Inc.
Dayton, Ohio

Jessica Maxey
TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

Mike May
Oak Park Illinois Police Department
Oak Park, Illinois

Ann McDermott
Wisconsin Justice Assistance
Madison, Wisconsin

Barbara McDonald
Chicago Police Department
Chicago, Illinois

Nancy McDonald
Substance Abuse Case Manager
Kalamazoo County, Michigan
John McKearn
Kettle Moraine Treatment Center, Inc.
West Allis, Wisconsin

Nancy McLean
Senior Assistant Attorney
Hennepin County, Minnesota

Ronald D. McVeigh
Kansas Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council

Mike Mermel
Lake County States Attorneys Office
Waukegan, Illinois

Joseph E. Mills III
Governors Commission
for a Drug-Free Indiana

Carlos Mitchem
Evanston Police Department
Evanston, Illinois

Ambrose Moore
Evanston Police Department
Evanston, Illinois

Gregory D. Moore
Chief of Police
Pagedale, Missouri
 
Karen Morris
Comprehensive Services, Inc.
Detroit, MI

Daniel Moses
Evanston Police Department
Evanston, Illinois

James Mostley
Milwaukee County Fighting Back
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Ethel Mull
TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

Honorable Rita Mullins
Mayor
Palatine, Illinois

Douglas Murphy
Chief of Police
Kinsley, Kansas  

James D. Murphy
Minneapolis Police Department
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Robert E. Nall
Sheriff, Adams County
Quincy, Illinois

Ed Nestor
Chesterfield Police
Chesterfield, Missouri

Mary Neubauer
Milwaukee County Fighting Back
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Joseph Newport
Terre Haute Police Department
Terre Haute, Indiana

Bradford Nichols
Detroit Health Department
Detroit, Michigan

Honorable Judge Seth Norman
Criminal Court 
Davidson County, Tennessee

Elizabeth Y. OBryant
Milwaukee Health Service System
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Michael Oelrich
Center for Alcohol and Drug Services
Davenport, Iowa

James L. Olson
Sheriff, Grundy County
Morris, Illinois

John ONan
Erie County Drug Task Force
Sandusky, Ohio

Herman ONeil
New Age Services Corporation
Chicago, Illinois

Jose Ortiz
Chicago Department of Health
Chicago, Illinois

Karla Osantowski
Chief of Police
Chicago Heights, Illinois
 
Debra Palandech
Assistant to the Lieutenant Governor
State of Illinois

David A. Parker
Director of Public Safety
Redford, Michigan
 
Donald E. Parker
Chief of Police
Freeport, Illinois

Ronald Pavlock
President, Illinois
Association of Chiefs of Police

Frank Peak
N.E.T.W.O.R.K.
Omaha, Nebraska

John Jeffrey Pearcy
Wisconsin Certification Board, Inc.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Barbara Pearson
Chamber of Commerce
Chicago, Illinois

Colonel David Perlman
Illinois National Guard
Springfield, Illinois
Robert Peterson
Director, Office of Drug Control Policy
Lansing, Michigan

Wilson H. Pierce
Chief of Police
Country Club Hills, Illinois

Kristine Phillips
U.S. Probation Office
Chicago, Illinois

Senior Airman Theresa Plese
Illinois National Guard
Chicago, Illinois    

Monica Pope
Kettle Moraine Treatment Centers, Inc.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
 
Miguel Prieto
Hispanic UMADAOP
Cleveland, Ohio
 
Roger Przybylski
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
Chicago, Illinois
 
Gary V. Pumilia
Public Defender, Winnebago County
Rockford, Illinois

Pamela Purdie
TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

Major Thomas Purple
Illinois National Guard
Springfield, Illinois

Charles Ramsey
Chicago Police Department
Chicago, Illinois

Richard Randall
Sheriff, Kendall County
Yorkville, Illinois

James Rapp
Lansing Police Department
Lansing, Michigan

John W. Rau
Waukesha County Council - AODA
Waukesha, Wisconsin

Michael F. Reagan
Project Rehab
Grand Rapids, Michigan

Gary Rebenstorf
City Attorney/Director of Law
Wichtia, Kansas

Julie Reckinger
Center for Alcohol and Drug Services
Davenport, Iowa    

Marva Lloyd Redd
Saint Louis County Youth Programs
Clayton, Missouri
Annie Reid
Milwaukee Health Service System
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Kimberley K. Rhoades
Prosecuting Attorney
Mt. Vernon, Indiana

Thomas Ridley
New Age Services Corporation
Chicago, Illinois

John Ristow
Alcona Community Schools
Lincoln, Michigan

Vincent Ritacca
Wisconsin Substance Abuse Service
Madison, Wisconsin

Anthony Rizzato
Central States Institute of Addiction
Chicago, Illinois

Marilyn McCoy Roberts
National Center for State Courts
Arlington, Virginia

Richard K. Robins
Columbus, Ohio

Fred L. Rodgers
Youth Services Department
Aurora, Illinois

Feliciano Rodriguez
East Chicago Police Department
East Chicago, Indiana

Julio Rodriguez
Chicago Department of Health
Chicago, Illinois

Pam Rodriguez
TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

Martha Rueter
Research Scientist
Ames, Iowa

Richard Sargent
South Omaha Counseling Agency
Omaha, Nebraska

Rosellen Sand
Office of the Attorney General
Bismarck, North Dakota

Myron Scafe
Chief of Police
Overland Park, Kansas

Donald Scantlin
Chief of Police
Stafford, Kansas

Catherine Scott
Drug-Free Rockford Community Partnership
Rockford, Illinois

David Scott
Elrose Health Services, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan

John Scully
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Chicago, Illinois

Matthew Sekula
Department of Community Supervision
Chicago, Illinois

Donald R. Shelton
Missouri State Highway Patrol
Jefferson City, Missouri

William Shepherd
Mid City Addiction Team
Des Moines, Iowa

Burnice L. Smallwood
Bureau of Justice Assistance
Washington, D.C.

Charles Smith
Office of the Ohio Attorney General
Columbus, Ohio

Linda Spare
Life Works Chemical Dependency Centers
Chicago Heights, Illinois

Robert Spence
Assistant States Attorney
DuPage County, Illinois

Colleen Stafford
Connexion, Inc.
Flint, Michigan

Barb Stanek
Hillsboro Youth Futures
Kendall, Wisconsin
 
Brenda J. Stanislawski
Ozaukee Council, Inc.
Grafton, Wisconsin

Sue Starck
Tellurian UCAN Inc.
Madison, Wisconsin

Geraldine Stevenson
Elrose Health Services, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan

Randall Stewart
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Northern District of Indiana

Lois Suchomski
Illinois Department of Public Health
Springfield, Illinois

Tamara Sullivan
PRIDE
Loveland, Ohio

James Swartz
TASC Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
Robert Sweet
CompDrug, Inc.
Columbus, Ohio

Hope Taft
Community Liaison, Ohio Parents
for Drug-Free Youth

Pamela Tate
Chicago Department of Health
Chicago, Illinois
 
Robert Taylor
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
Chicago, Illinois

Larry Thompson
New Age Services Corporation
Chicago, Illinois

Sam Todaro
Buffalo Laborers Union
Buffalo, New York

Al Tomaso
Cook County, Illinois 
States Attorney Office

Carey Tradewell
The Milwaukee Womens Center
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Specialist Steven Troccoli
Illinois National Guard
Chicago, Illinois

Lorie Tudor
State of Delaware
Office of Prevention

Melody Twilla
Tellurian UCAN Inc.
Madison, Wisconsin
 
Russell C. Underwood
Des Moines Police Department
Des Moines, Iowa

Ruth Varnado
Lincoln Park Community Center, Inc.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Patricia M. Veach
Manistee County Juvenile Court
Manistee, Michigan

Teresa Verbsky
Korner Klub - Teen Center
Hillsboro, Wisconsin

Gerald Vigdal
Wisconsin Department of Corrections
Madison, Wisconsin

Carmelita Wagner
Cook County Sheriffs Department
Chicago, Illinois

Donna Wagner
Center for Drug-Free Schools
Oak Brook, Illinois
Robert Warner, Jr.
Interventions Corporation
Chicago, Illinois

Ronald Webb
Citizens Drug Commission
Dayton, Ohio

Susan Weed
Chicago Department of Health 
Chicago, Illinois

Captain Joel Weidinger
Illinois National Guard
Decatur, Illinois

Eve Weinberg
TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois
 
Honorable Richard C. Weis
Mayor
Freeport, Illinois

Daniel Wenglarz
EAP Coordinator, LTV Steel
East Chicago, Indiana

Phillip West
Board of Supervisors
Adams County, Mississippi

Jocelyn Whitfield
Public Health Advisor
Baltimore, Maryland
 
Neal Whitley
Oklahoma State Elks Association
Sapulpa, Oklahoma

Melanie Whitter
Illinois Department of
Alcoholism and Substance Abuse

Broderick T. Williams
Detroit Police Department
Detroit, Michigan

David Williams
Deputy Director, Operations
Division, Illinois State Police

Frank Williams
Chief of Police
Wood Dale, Illinois

Larry Wilms
Prairie Center for Substance Abuse
Urbana, Illinois

Gregory Witkowski
U.S. Probation Office
Chicago, Illinois

Maxine Womble
Midwest Regional Center
Oak Brook, Illinois

Tammy Woodhams
Community Corrections Manager
Kalamazoo County, Michigan
Samuel O. Woodson
Tri-City Community Mental Health
East Chicago, Indiana

Annie Woolfolk
Inner City Council on Alcoholism, Inc.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Fred Wright
Reaching Out
Omaha, Nebraska

Barbara Yates
Minnesota Department of Education
Street Paul, Minnesota

Yesse B. Yehudah
Southside Health Consortium
Chicago, Illinois

Anita Young
InTouch Education Service Network
Morris, Illinois
 
Ivory Young
Psychological and Addiction Consultants
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
 
Tonya Zumach
TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois

WESTERN REGIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE

Alfonso P. Acampora
Walden House, Inc.
San Francisco, California
 
Carol Addiss
Riverside Department of Mental Health
Riverside, California
 
Betty Albert
Best Recovery Health Care, Inc.
Houston, Texas

Lorraine Alexandar
Positive Action
Cardiff, California

Walter Allen, III
California Department of Justice
Commerce, California
 
Booker Amos
Best Recovery Health Care, Inc.
Houston, Texas
 
Douglas Anglin, Ph.D.
UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center
Los Angeles, California
 
Lynne Appel
Southern California Alcohol/Drug Programs
Downey, California
 
Don Arakaki
Hawaii National Guard
Honolulu, Hawaii
Glen Arima
Santa Clara County Probation Department
San Jose, California

Loretta Averna
NICI
San Luis Obispo, California

Oscar Babauta
Member, House of Representatives
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Dana Baldwin
UCLA Research Center
Los Angeles, California
 
Dennis Banowetz
California National Guard
Sacramento, California 

Ruben Barajas
Scott Newman Center
Los Angeles, California
 
Lauraine Barber
Federation of Community Coordinating Councils
Long Beach, California

Peter Barglow
Northern California System of Clinics
Berkeley, California
 
C. B. Bautista
Alcohol and Drug Programs
Sacramento, California
 
Ron Beavers
Drew University African American Leadership
Los Angeles, California
 
Jack Beecham
Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement
Sacramento, California

Darnell Bell
Avalon Carver Alcohol and Drug Programs
Los Angeles, California

Chris Berg
Sega of America, Inc.
Redwood City, California
 
Susan Blacksher
California Association of Alcoholic Recovery Homes
Sacramento, California
 
Harry Blanco
Criminal Justice Planning Agency
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Christopher Bones
Say No. . . Together
San Marino, California
 
Richard Boswell
Challenge, Inc.
Fort Worth, Texas
 
Russell Boxley
California School of Professional Psychology
Pasadena, California
Ernest Bradford
Alcohol and Drug Programs
Sacramento, California

Flynn Bradley
Mayors Criminal Justice Council
San Francisco, California

Philip Brailsford
C.A.R.E., Inc.
Del Mar, California
 
Brent Braun
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Los Angeles, California

John Bravakis
Wrightwood Group, Inc.
Los Angeles, California

Lisa Brenner
National Interagency Counter Drug Institute
San Luis Obispo, California
 
Richard Breza
Chief of Police
Santa Barbara, California
 
Ann Britt
Valley Community Clinic
North Hollywood, California
 
Robert Brooks
Portland Police Bureau
Portland, Oregon
 
Cathey Brown
Rainbow Days, Inc.
Dallas, Texas

Lee Brown
Alcohol Drug Care Services, Inc.
Eureka, California
 
John Bruhns
Consultant
Albuquerque, New Mexico
 
Patrick Burke
National Guard Bureau
Washington, D.C.

Dennis Scott-Bush
Partnership for Shields for Families
San Francisco, California

Manuel Bustamante
Community Partnership
Truth Or Consequences, New Mexico

Harold Byford
Department of Public Safety
Santa Fe, New Mexico
 
Dan Byram
Mesa Police Department
Mesa, Arizona
 
Fidel Caballero
Housing Authority of Monterey County
Salinas, California
Gabriel Camacho
Department of Finance
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Karen Carr
South Bay Coalition
Hermosa Beach, California

Robert Carr
Lazarus Foundation
Mission Hills, California
 
Robert Carter
Grandview Foundation, Inc.
Pasadena, California
 
Janet Cartwright
Deputy District Attorney
Santa Clara County, California
 
Michael Carvalho
Honolulu Police Department
Honolulu, Hawaii
 
Renato Casaclang
Palm House, Inc.
Carson, California
 
Jose Castro
Northern Mariana Islands
Department of Public Safety
 
Edwin Cathcart
Maricopa County Attorneys Office
Phoenix, Arizona
 
Martin Cavazos
Driver Safety Schools, Inc.
Van Nuys, California

Larry Caver
U.S. Border Patrol
El Paso, Texas

John Cepeda
Customs Division
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Robert Charlie
Cultural Heritage and Education Institute
Fairbanks, Alaska
 
Frederick Chavaria
U.S. Probation Office
San Francisco, California

Abel Chavarria
Partners for Prevention
Las Cruces, New Mexico
 
Rick Christensen
Valle del Sol, Inc.
Phoenix, Arizona
 
Albert Chu
Health Care Agency Drug Abuse
Santa Ana, California

Irene Redondo-Churchward
Project Info Community Service
Whittier, California
Ed Cinisomo
Daytop Village, Inc.
Dallas, Texas

Robert Cisneros
Corpus Christi Police Department
Corpus Christi, Texas

Louis Cobarruviaz
Chief of Police
San Jose, California

Phil Cogan
Argus Health Systems
Kansas City, Missouri
 
Jim Coleman
Partnership for a Drug-Free West End
Upland, California
 
John Compston
Nevada Division of Investigation
Carson City, Nevada
 
Susan Condron
Volunteers of America
Houston, Texas

Ginny Connell
PDAP of Ventura County, Inc.
Camarillo, California
 
Carolyn Contreras
Klein Bottle Youth Programs
Lompoc, California

Deborah Cook
Families in New Directions
Los Angeles, California
 
Brian Cooley
Fouts Springs Ranch
Stonyford, California

Vicki Corlett
Grand Futures
Granby, Colorado
 
Gregory Corrales
San Francisco Police Department
San Francisco, California

Lloyd Crawford
Drug Programs Administrators Association
Quincy, California

Helene Creager
Los Angeles County Probation Department
Downey, California

James Cutshaw
Huntington Beach Police Department
Huntington Beach, California
 
John Damelio
Escondido High School District
Escondido, California
 
Ricky Roy Damerville
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Hilo, Hawaii
Joseph Daum
University of California
Los Angeles, California

David Davies
Los Angeles County Probation Department
Los Angeles, California

George Dawkins
Compton Unified Schools
Compton, California

Gary DeBlasio
South Bay Coalition
Hermosa Beach, California
 
Peggy Dekker
Escondido High School District
Escondido, California

Steven Delgadillo
Community Services Superintendent
Anaheim, California
 
Lupe Delgado
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Monterey Park, California

John De Miranda
Join Together, Western Region
San Mateo, California

Lee Denno
Chief
California Highway Patrol

Hector De Paz
Pueblo Y Salud, Inc.
San Fernando, California
  
Chuck Deutschman
Contra Costa County Health Services
Martinez, California

Rudolph Diaz
Presiding Judges Association
Los Angeles, California

Raymond DiCiccio
Director of Community Services
San Diego, California

Glenn Dillard
Partnership for Prevention
Richmond, Texas
 
Joseph DiMatteo
Alaska Council on Prevention
of Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Kevin Dimmick
The Workplace Foundation
Grass Valley, California

Alexandra di Portanova
Project Health in the Hood
Washington, D.C.
 
John Distelrath
Chief of Police
West Covina, California
Marie Dixon
Manager, Neighborhood Resources
Sacramento, California

William Dombrowski
Didi Hirsch Community Mental Health Clinic
Culver City, California

Jack Dominguez
Dominguez Rehabilitation Management
Pasadena, California

Dennis Dotson
Oregon State Police
Salem, Oregon

Laurie Drabble
California Womens Commission
on Alcohol and Drug Dependency
 
John Drew
Nevada Division of Investigation
Carson City, Nevada
 
Dean Duenow
Our Program
Palo Alto, California
 
John Duff
Narconon International
Los Angeles, California

Pamela Dunne
Drama Therapy Institute of Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California

Timothy Dupre
Neighborhoods in Transition
San Francisco, California
 
Dwane Durant
Volunteers of America
San Diego, California
 
Laura Edwards
King County Program Coordinator
Seattle, Washington

Romaine Edwards
Watts Health Foundation, Inc.
Los Angeles, California

Dan Elkins
Southwest Border Alliance
Yuma, Arizona
 
John Erickson
California Substance Abuse Office
Sacramento, California

Susan Erlich
Office of Child Abuse Prevention
Sacramento, California
 
Joseph Farmer
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Phoenix, Arizona
 
Donna Farrell
Department of Public Safety
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Brita Ferm
Happy Child, Inc.
San Diego, California

Denise Fitch
Safe and Drug-Free Schools
Olympia, Washington

James Fitzsimons
Senior U.S. Probation Officer
San Francisco, California
 
Ken Fleming
Colusa County Department of Substance Abuse
Colusa, California
 
William Flood
California Department of Justice
Commerce, California

Colonel Ronald Flynn
California National Guard
Laguna Niguel, California

Gregory Foote
Circuit Judge
Lane County, Oregon
 
Ken Fortier
Chief of Police
Riverside, California
 
Luis Frausto
Drug Enforcement Coordinator
Las Cruces, New Mexico

Sharon Frederick
Life Steps Foundation, Inc.
San Luis Obispo, California
 
Charles Freitas
Claremont Unified School District
Claremont, California
 
Joan Friedenberg
San Diego County Department of Health
San Diego, California
 
Marian Gage
Butte County Community Partnership
Oroville, California
 
William Gallegos
Los Angeles Alliance - Drug-Free Community
Los Angeles, California

Sandra Garcia
CADENA
Corpus Christi, Texas

Veronica Garcia
Say No. . . Together
San Marino, California
 
Toni Gardner
Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition
Yakima, Washington
 
Robert Garner
Santa Clara County, California
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
Dean Gautschy
CareUnit
Canoga Park, California

Lawrence Gentile
Behavioral Health Services, Inc.
Gardena, California

Roberta Gerarde
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Monterey Park, California

Charles Gibson
Say No...Together
San Marino, California
 
Mike Gilbert
Senior Special Agent in Charge
Rancho Cordova, California

Jody Gingery
Colorado Prescription Drug Abuse Task Forces
Denver, Colorado

Jackie Goins
Shields for Families
Los Angeles, California
 
Ruben Gomez
Driver Safety Schools, Inc.
Van Nuys, California

Carlos Gonzales
The Narcotics Education League
Oakland, California
 
Thomas Gorman
Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement
Sacramento, California

Mary Jo Gorney-Lucero
San Jose State University
San Jose, California
 
Heike Gramckow
CSR, Inc.
Washington, D.C.

Edward Grice, III
TGIF TeenWorks, Inc.
Los Angeles, California
 
Brian Griffin
Oregon National Guard
Salem, Oregon
 
Janice Ford Griffin
Join Together
Boston, Massachusetts

Todd Griffith
Public Safety Department
Phoenix, Arizona
 
Ferris Groll
Utah Department of Public Safety
Salt Lake City, Utah

Uwe Gunnersen
Azure Acres CDRC
Sebastopol, California
Irene Gutierrez
Yakima Rebound Plus Program
Yakima, Washington

James Hahn
Los Angeles City Attorney
Los Angeles, California

Anthony Hargrove
Ella Austin Community Center
San Antonio, Texas

Jocelyn Harper
Healthy Kids Center, Region I
Santa Rosa, California

Burdette Harris
Los Angeles County Probation Department
Los Angeles, California

Jaqueline Ryles Harris
Prince Georges County Department of Corrections
Upper Marlboro, Maryland
 
Charles Hayes
Social Model Recovery Systems, Inc.
Los Angeles , California

Dave Hayes
Operation Alliance
El Paso, Texas
 
Vann Hayes
Impact Drug/Alcohol Treatment
Pasadena, California

Curtis Hazell
Head Deputy District Attorney
Los Angeles, California
 
Bridget Healy
Assistant City Manager
Claremont, California
 
Sandra Heffesse
International Self Help Services, Inc.
Los Angeles, California
 
Maxine Heiliger
Alameda County Department of Alcohol and Drugs
Oakland, California
 
Mark Hernandez
El Proyecto Del Barrio, Inc.
Arleta, California
 
Mary Hernandez
El Proyecto Del Barrio, Inc.
Arleta, California
 
M. Angela Herrera
Children, Youth and Families Department
Santa Fe, New Mexico
 
David Hill
Lifechanges Counseling Center
Sierra Madre, California
 
Tony Hill
Grandview Foundation, Inc.
Pasadena, California
Paterno Hocog
Department of Public Safety
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Jim Hodges
Sheriff
Refugio County, Texas

Roy Holt
Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Phoenix, Arizona
 
Jeffrey Howard
Oregon State Police
Salem, Oregon
 
James Howat
Volunteers of America
Los Angeles, California
 
Yih-Ing Hser
UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center
Los Angeles, California
 
Joe Huertas
Pasadena Alcohol and Drug Dependency Program
Pasadena, California
 
Ester Huey
Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition
Yakima, Washington

Kathryn Icenhower
Shields for Families
Los Angeles, California

Darryl Inaba
Haight Ashbury Free Clinics
San Francisco, California

John Inmann
Division of Criminal Justice
Denver, Colorado
 
Carl Irby
San Bernardino County Public Health
San Bernardino, California
 
Michelle Jackson
Southwest Regional Laboratory
Los Alamitos, California

Tatiana Jackson
Say No. . . Together
San Marino, California
 
Ronald Janes
Ventura County District Attorneys Office
Ventura, California

Salle Jantz
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
Sacramento, California

William Jefferds
NGB/NICI
San Luis Obispo, California
 
Paul Jefferson
Chief of Police
Modesto, California
Judy Johnson
Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Portland, Oregon

Mark Johnson
National Interagency Counter Drug Institute
San Luis Obispo, California

Norman Johnson
Therapeutic Health Services
Seattle, Washington

Ray Johnson
Governors Office of Criminal Justice Planning
Sacramento, California
 
Tommy Johnson
Inglewood Police Department
Inglewood, California
 
Yvette Johnson
Centinela Valley Community Task Force
Hawthorne, California
 
Etta Jones
San Francisco Community Partnership Program
San Francisco, California

James Jones
Los Angeles Police Department
Los Angeles, California

Michael Judge
Los Angeles County Public Defenders Office
Los Angeles, California
 
Stephen Kaplan
Ventura County Dept of Alcohol and Drug Programs
Ventura, California
 
William Kelso
Khepera Recovery House
Ventura, California
 
George Kennedy
Santa Clara County, California
District Attorneys Office
 
Jane Kennedy
National Consortium of TASC Programs
Seattle, Washington
 
Ali Khajawall
Metropolitan State Hospital
Diamond Bar, California

Donald Kincey
Watts Health Foundation, Inc.
Los Angeles, California

Ruth King
CLARE Foundation
Santa Monica, California
 
James Kirby, II
Fresno County Alcohol and Drug Administrator
Fresno, California

David Klein
Pasadena Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency
Pasadena, California
Dr. James Kooler
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
Sacramento, California

Robert Kovalesky
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Pico Rivera, California

Janelle Krueger
Colorado Department of Education
Denver, Colorado

Ford Kuramoto
NAPAFASA
Los Angeles, California

Jeff Lady
Drug Demand Reduction
Salem. Oregon
 
Jerome Lance
Long Beach Police Department
Long Beach, California
 
R. Wes Laney
Birdgeway
Salem, Oregon

Stephen Langa
Chevron Corporation, EAP
West Hills, California

Brenda Law-Meyer
Drug-Free Consortium
Houston, Texas
 
David Lawton
Chief of Police
San Gabriel, California

Maria Leech
Option for Recovery
San Diego, California 

Ramon Leon
Valle del Sol, Inc.
Phoenix, Arizona

Rita Livingston
California Department of
Alcohol and Drug Programs

Ralph Lloyd
Pasadena Family Center
Pasadena, California

Jon Long
National Interagency Counter Drug Institute
San Luis Obispo, California
 
Douglas Longshore
UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center
Los Angeles, California
 
Henry Lozano
White Bison, Inc.
Big Bear City, California

Pat Luce
National Office of Samoan Affairs
Carson, California
Patrick Lynch
Mayors Office 
San Francisco, California

Phillip MacFarland
Highland Hospital Substance Abuse Program
Oakland, California

Debra Mackey
California Association of Alcoholic Recovery
Pasadena, California
 
Chilo Madrid
Aliviane NO-AD, Inc.
El Paso, Texas
 
Melba Maldonado
Mayors Office 
San Francisco, California
 
Cleo Malone
Palavra Tree, Inc.
San Diego, California

Henry Manuelito
Chief of Police
Sells, Arizona
 
Stephen Marcus
Los Angeles Municipal Court
Los Angeles, California
 
Olof Marneus
Volunteers of America
San Jose, California 

David Marquez
Sacramento 21 Community Partnership
Sacramento, California
 
Deborah Marsala
REACH
South Pasadena, California
 
Russel Marsh
Office of the Attorney General
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands
 
Daniel Martinez
U.S. Probation Officer
San Francisco, California
 
Susan Martinez
El Proyecto Del Barrio, Inc.
Arleta, California
 
D. B. Massey
Houston Police Department
Houston, Texas

Melissa Mathiasen
National Interagency Counter Drug Institute
San Luis Obispo, California

Kathie Mathis
I-ADARP
Van Nuys, California
 
Mike Matlock
Oxnard Police Department
Oxnard, California
Susan Mattes
National Interagency Counter Drug Institute
San Luis Obispo, California

Thomas Mayfield, Jr.
Mayors Office 
San Francisco, California

Sandra Mazy
Narcotics Control Assistance
Carson City, Nevada

Frank Mazzola
External Employee Assistance
North Hollywood, California

Joseph McCaffrey
American Federation of Police
Downey, California
 
Dennis McGorman
ICI Projects, Inc.
Long Beach, California
 
Kent McGregor
CLARE Foundation
Santa Monica, California

Lee McGriff
U.S. Probation Office
San Francisco, California

Harold Meadows
Alcohol and Drug Division
Denver, Colorado
 
Andrew Mecca, Dr.P.H.
Director, California
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
 
Eduardo Medina
Chief of Police
Sunland Park, New Mexico

Larry Meredith
Department of Public Health
San Francisco, California

Joan Bryna Michelson
Project Health in the Hood
Los Angeles, California
 
Beverly Miller
Mid Valley Recovery Services
El Monte, California
 
Pat Miller
Ventura Police Department
Ventura, California
 
Robert Miller
Oregon State Police
Salem, Oregon
 
Sharon Miller
Department of Water and Power
Los Angeles, California
 
Genny Monihan
UCLA Research Center
Los Angeles, California
Beverly Monroe
House of Metamorphosis, Inc.
San Diego, California

Harry Montoya
LA CASA
Los Alamos, New Mexico

Olvin Moreland, Jr.
Seattle Public Schools
Seattle, Washington
 
Alfonso Moret
Cri-Help, Inc.
North Hollywood, California

Jeff Morl
Community Youth Council
San Francisco, California
 
Toni Maria Mosley
Josette Mondanaro Womens Center
Pomona, California
 
Barbara Mouron
Say No. . . Together
San Marino, California
 
Mike Mulligan
Department of Public Safety
Santa Fe, New Mexico

Patrick Munter
Seattle Police Department
Seattle, Washington

Bruce Murray
Seattle Housing Authority
Seattle, Washington

Marlene Nadel
Cri-Help, Inc.
North Hollywood, California

Manny Najera
Aliviane NO-AD, Inc.
El Paso, Texas

John Nakashina
UCLA Research Center
Los Angeles, California
 
Patricia Nelson
Clark County School District
Las Vegas, Nevada

Francisca Neumann
Day One, Inc.
Pasadena, California

Donald Nichols
Pathways of Casa Grande
Casa Grande, Arizona

Mike Nisperos, Jr.
Mayors Office of Drugs and Crime
Oakland, California
 
Claudio Norita
Department of Public Safety
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands
 
Dorothy North
Nevada Commission of Substance Abuse
Education, Enforcement and Treatment
 
Dennis ODonnell
Oregon State Police
Salem, Oregon

Mary ODonnell
La Vista Alcohol/Drug Recovery Center
San Jacinto, California

Kathleen OLeary
Mayors Office of Criminal Justice Planning
Los Angeles, California

Judy ONeal
Office of Criminal Justice Planning
Sacramento, California

Dennis OSullivan
People In Progress, Inc.
Los Angeles, California

Ron Obert
Santa Clara County District Attorneys Office
San Jose, California

Patrick Ogawa
Alcohol and Drug Program Administration
Los Angeles, California

Joaquin Ogumoro
Criminal Justice Planning Agency
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Gil Olivarria
Chief of Police
Perris, California

Jerry Oliver
Chief of Police
Pasadena, California

Cathleen Olson
Arizona Department of Education
Phoenix, Arizona 

Leo Padilla
Albuquerque Neighborhood Coordination Office
Albuquerque, New Mexico

Luis Pagan
Governors Public Security Advisor
San Juan, Puerto Rico
 
Thomas Pagel
Director, Wyoming Division of
Criminal Investigation
 
Leonardo Pandac
Pacific Asian Alcohol Program
Los Angeles, California
 
Joy Parker
Center Point, Inc.
San Rafael, California
 
Margaret Parrington
Mid Valley Alcohol Education Centers, Inc.
El Monte, California

Julia Payne-Starke
Office of Substance Abuse Programs
Las Vegas, Nevada
 
Frank Pegneros
Los Angeles Police Department
Los Angeles, California

Sandy Peralta
National Interagency Counter Drug Institute
San Luis Obispo, California

Susan Perry
UCLA Research Center
Los Angeles, California
 
Michael Prendergast
UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center
Los Angeles, California
 
Michael Pritchard
Pathway Society, Inc.
Santa Clara, California

G. Marshall Pugh
Washington State Patrol 
Olympia, Washington
 
Kevin Quint
Nevada Association of State
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs
 
Jackie Quitugua
CNMI Public School System
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands
 
Teresa Villa Ramirez
Juvenile Probation Department
Harris County, Texas
 
Jan Randolph
Partners for Prevention
Las Cruces, New Mexico

Cheryl Raney
Sacramento County Education Office
Sacramento, California
 
Jeffrey Raynor
Arizona Department of Public Safety
Phoenix, Arizona
 
George Read
Hawaii Advisory Committee on
Drug/Substance Abuse

Sandy Reagan
Governors Alliance Against Drugs
Litchfield Park, Arizona

Harry Reece
Shields for Families
Los Angeles, California

Carla Reed
Challengers Boys and Girls Club
Los Angeles, California
 
Edward Reina, Jr.
Chief of Police, Salt River Tribal
Police Department, Arizona
Pete Reyes
Congressman, 9th Commonwealth
Northern Mariana Islands Legislature

Yvonne Riedlinger
City of Sacramento
Sacramento, California

Tamara Rike
Governors Office of Drug Policy
Phoenix, Arizona

Benny Rincon
California Department of Justice/
INCA Task Force

Doris Ringgold
House of Metamorphosis, Inc.
San Diego, California

Eric Rivas
Alhambra Police Department
Alhambra, California
 
Ramona Robertson
Tulake County Alcoholism Council, Inc.
Visalia, California

J. Grayson Robinson
Arapahoe County Sheriffs Office
Littleton, Colorado

Pamela Robinson
Healthy Kids Center
Sacramento, California
 
Roosevelt Robinson
District Court Judge
Multnomah County, Oregon

William Rochon
Operation Alliance
El Paso, Texas
 
Bill Rogers
Youth Intervention Program
Los Angeles, California
 
Michael Rogers
American Institute on Drug Prevention, Inc.
Hurst, Texas

Ralph Rogers
Los Angeles County Probation Department
Downey, California
 
Richard Rogg
Promises Residential Treatment Center
Los Angeles, California
 
Alex Romero
Arizona Governors Alliance Against Drugs
Phoenix, Arizona

Eugene Rudolph
California Narcotic Officers Association
Santa Clarita, California
 
Carol Russell
California Health Services
Sacramento, California
Bridget Ryan
Best Foundation for a Drug-Free Tomorrow
Sherman Oaks, California

Virginia Saldana-Grove
Womens Constituent Committee
Elk Grove, California

Paul Savo
The Fellowship Center Alcohol Programs and Services
Escondido, California
 
Gary Schindler
American Airlines, EAP
Los Angeles, California

Chris Schnaubelt
National Interagency Counter Drug Institute
San Luis Obispo, California

Richard Schneider
Happy Child, Inc.
San Diego, California

Fred Schwendiman
Department of Public Safety
Murray, Utah
 
Mark Scott
Whittier, California
 
Paul Scriven
UCLA Research Center
Los Angeles, California

W. H. Seifert
Metropolitan Detention Center
Los Angeles, California

Ted Sellers
Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Austin, Texas
 
Gregory Senegal
Walden House, Inc.
San Francisco, California

Albert Senella
Tarzana Treatment Center
Tarzana, California
 
Phillip Showstead
South King County Recovery Centers
Burien, Washington

VAnne Singleton
Betty Ford Center
Rancho Mirage, California
 
Sanford Slater
Straight Talk, Inc.
Cypress, California
 
Mark Smith
Youth Young Adult Fellowship Alliance
Silsbee, Texas
 
Marlou Smith
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
Sacramento, California
 
Mike Smith
Riverside Police Department
Riverside, California
 
Carol Stein
Californians for Drug-Free Youth
Thousand Oaks, California

Carole Stevenson
REACH
Van Nuys, California

Warren Garcia Stewart
MAAC Project - Nosotros
Chula Vista, California
 
Pierre Stolz
REACH
Los Angeles, California

Carol Stone
Regional Drug Initiative
Portland, Oregon
 
John Stonitsch
Bering Strait Community Partnership
Nome, Alaska
 
Claudia Stuart
Texans War on Drugs
Amarillo, Texas
 
Wayne Sugita
Los Angeles County Alcohol
and Drug Program Administration
 
John Sullivan
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Las Vegas, Nevada

Misasha Suzuki
Say No. . . Together
San Marino, California  

Edward Synicky
Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement
Riverside, California

Chris Taitano
Division of Customs Service
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Jane Talbot
Shields for Families
Los Angeles, California

Scott Taylor
Tarzana Treatment Center
Tarzana, California
 
Sushma Taylor
Center Point, Inc.
San Rafael, California
 
Lawrence Terry
Santa Clara County Superior Court
San Jose, California

Minnie Thomas
The Solid Foundation Mandela House Program
Oakland, California
Mark Thompson
Eclectic Communications, Inc.
Ventura, California

Michael Thompson
Mayors Office
Los Angeles, California

Allison Tom
East/West Community Partnership
Los Angeles, California

Hillary Treadwell
I-ADARP
Van Nuys, California
 
Tim Troyer
Walden House, Inc.
San Francisco, California
 
Barbara Tryon
City Council Member
Los Altos, California

Duane Tushoski
New Mexico National Guard 
Albuquerque, New Mexico
 
Moaaliitele Tuufuhl
Senate Public Safety Legislature 
Pago Pago, American Samoa
 
Ann Uhler
CODA, Inc.
Portland, Oregon
 
Daniel Vasquez
Department of Correction
San Jose, California

Lou Villagomez
Corpus Christi Police Department
Corpus Christi, Texas

Thomas Villagomez
Senator, 9th NMC Legislature
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands 

Tyrone Wade
National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency
Los Angeles, California

Margo Wainwright
Youth Intervention Program
Los Angeles, California
 
Rogene Waite
U.S. Information Agency
Washington, D.C.
 
Virgie Walker
People Coordinated Services, Inc.
Los Angeles, California

Paul Walters
Chief of Police
Santa Ana, California
 
Roger Warburton
Naval Air Station, North Island
San Diego, California
Nolan Warner
People In Progress, Inc.
Los Angeles, California

Sarita Warren
Seattle Housing Authority
Seattle, Washington

Mike Watanabe
Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc.
Los Angeles, California
 
Hank Webb
Operation Alliance
El Paso, Texas
 
Michelle Webber
Behavioral Health Service, Inc.
Gardena, California

Gene Webster
Los Angeles County Commission on Alcoholism
Studio City, California

Darin Weinberg
UCLA Research Center
Los Angeles, California 
 
Martin Weinstein
Bay Area Community Resources
Larkspur, California
 
Don Werkhoven
California Youth Authority
Sacramento, California
 
Mimi West
Los Angeles Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs Commission
 
Carl Whiteside
Colorado Bureau of Investigation
Denver, Colorado

Marshal Wilkerson
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
Sacramento, California
 
Dave Williams
Texas D.A.R.E. Institute
San Marcos, Texas
 
Richard Wood
Long Beach Police Department
Long Beach, California

Bettina Wright
John Lucas Enterprises
Houston, Texas

Jack Wu
Alhambra Safety Services
Monterey Park, California

Wendy Wutzke
Positive Action
Cardiff, California

Jackie Ybarra
Shields for Families
Los Angeles, California
Kawen Young
National Office of Samoan Affairs
Carson, California

Nancy Young
California Department
of Alcohol and Drug Programs 

OTHER EXPERT INDIVIDUALS

Sherrie S. Aitken, Ph.D.
CSR, Incorporated
Washington, D.C.

Johnny Allem
SOAR
Washington, D.C.

Sister Gertrudis M. Betancourt, O.P.
Dominican Sisters of the Presentation
Dighton, Massachusetts

Elliott I. Bovelle, Ph.D.
Family and Medical Counseling Service, Inc.
Washington, D.C.

Susan B. Blacksher, M.S.W.
California Association of
Alcoholic Recovery Homes

Keith Branch
National Association of Blacks
  in Criminal Justice
Houston, Texas

Charles Breemer
National Black Caucus of State Legislators
Washington, D.C.

James E. Burke
Partnership for a Drug-Free America
New York, New York

Jacqueline Butler
Prevention, Intervention and Treatment
Coalition for Health (PITCH)

Diane M. Canova
American Red Cross, National Headquarters
Washington, D.C.

David Choate
Broward County Commission on Substance Abuse
Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Shirley Coletti
Operation PAR, Inc.
St. Petersburg, Florida

Joseph Dino, Jr.
Association of Former Narcotics Agents
Washington, D.C.

Rabbi Jerome M. Epstein
The United Synagogue of
Conservative Judaism

Newman Flanagan
National District Attorneys Association
Alexandria, Virginia

Lynne Glassman
National School Boards Association
Alexandra, Virginia

James A. Gondles, Jr.
American Correctional Association
Laurel, Maryland

Thomas Hedrick
Partnership for a Drug-Free America
New York, New York

Dick Herndobler
ELKS Drug Awareness Program
Ashland, Oregon

Kelli Hill
ImpactDesign, Inc.
Beltsville, MD

David Hoffman
United Network for Investment
in Training of Youth (UNITY)

Dana Eser Hunt, Ph.D.
Abt Associates
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dr. Eric Joth
International Drug Strategy Institute
Topeka, Kansas

Robert F. Kanaby
National Federation of State
High School Associations

Linda Kaplan
National Association of Alcoholism
and Drug Abuse Counselors

Mark Kleinman
BOTEC, Inc.
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Michelle Kourouma
National Conference of Black Mayors
Atlanta, Georgia

Ford H. Kuramoto, D.S.W.
National Asian Pacific American Families 
Against Substance Abuse, Inc.

Jim Page
ImpactDesign, Inc.
Beltsville, MD

Jere B. Ratcliffe
Chief Scout Executive
Boy Scouts of America

Carol Reeves
National Family Partnership
St. Louis, Missouri

Peter Reuter
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland

Bill Rhodes
Abt Associates
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Michael J. Rogers, J.D.
American Institute on Drug prevention
Hurst, Texas

Paul Scheiman
Abt Associates
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Allison J. Schultz, M.P.P.
CSR, Incorporated
Washington, D.C.

Verna Simpkins
Girl Scouts of the USA
New York, New York

Jennie C. Trotter, M.Ed.
Wholistic Stress Control Institute, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia

Paul Wood
National Council on Alcoholism
and Drug Dependence, Inc.

Terry Zobeck, Ph.D.
CSR, Incorporated
Washington, D.C.

Public Interest Groups

American Correctional Association 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO

American Institute on Drug Prevention

American Red Cross, National Headquarters

Association of Former Federal Narcotics Agents

Boy Scouts of America

Broward County Commission on Substance Abuse

California Association of Alcoholic Recovery Homes

Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA)

D.A.R.E. America

Dominican Sisters of the Presentation

Elks Drug Awareness Program

Family and Medical Counseling Services, Inc.

Girl Souts USA
Legal Action Center

National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse,
Inc.

National Association of Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Counselors
(NAADAC)

National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse 
Directors, Inc.

National Council on Alcoholism & Drug Dependence, Inc. (NCAAD)

National Families in Action

National Family Partnership

National Federation of State High School Associations

National Legal Aid & Defender Association

National School Boards Associations

Operation PAR, Inc.

Prevention, Intervention & Treatment Coalition for Health (PITCH)

UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center

United Network for Investment in Training of Youth

United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism

Wholistic Stress Control Institute