DOJ Seal

COPS Logo

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

An Evaluation of the COPS Office 
Methamphetamine Initiative 

Project Directors 		Evaluation Team 
Tom McEwen 			Thomas C. Castellano 
Institute for Law and Justice 	Edmund McGarrell 
				Stacy L. Osnick 
Craig D. Uchida 		Susan Pennell 
21st Century Solutions 		Carol A. Putnam 
				Kip Schlegel 

www.usdoj.gov/cops 


Table of Contents 

Executive Summary 

Chapter 1. Background and Cross-Site Analysis ..........................................................1 
The Meth Problem........................................................................................1 
Findings from National-Level Data.......................................................................6 
Combating Methamphetamine Abuse in Six Cities: The COPS Office Methamphetamine 
Initiative.............................................................................................12
Evaluation Strategy and Methods .......................................................................13
Cross-Site Finding.....................................................................................15
Conclusions............................................................................................31
References.............................................................................................33

Chapter 2. Combating Meth in Phoenix: Innovation and Intervention......................................34
Introduction...........................................................................................34
Site Description.......................................................................................34
COPS Office Proposal...................................................................................36
Evaluation.............................................................................................39
History of Meth in Phoenix.............................................................................39
Other Indicators of Meth Use...........................................................................41
The COPS Meth Initiative - Partnerships and Interventions to Address Methamphetamine
Production and Use ....................................................................................43
Enforcement and Intervention Findings..................................................................49
Challenges for Program Implementation and Evaluation...................................................52
References.............................................................................................56

Chapter 3. A Partners Approach to Fighting Methamphetamine: 
Salt Lake Citys Initiative............................................................................57
Introduction...........................................................................................57
Project Summary and Implementation.....................................................................57
Evaluation Methods.....................................................................................59
History of Meth and the Meth Market in Salt Lake City..................................................60
Salt Lake City's Project...............................................................................63
Intervention...........................................................................................67
Treatment..............................................................................................79
Prevention.............................................................................................85
Community Policing.....................................................................................87
Partnerships...........................................................................................90
Conclusions............................................................................................97
References............................................................................................100


Chapter 4. Meth in the Metroplex: The Dallas Experience ..............................................101
Introduction..........................................................................................101
Background............................................................................................102
History of Methamphetamine in Dallas .................................................................103
Meth Market Dynamics..................................................................................104
DIVERT Court..........................................................................................110
Intervention..........................................................................................115
Treatment.............................................................................................117
Prevention............................................................................................118
Community Policing....................................................................................118
Conclusions...........................................................................................121
References............................................................................................122

Chapter 5. Bustin Labs: Meth Interdiction and Prevention in Oklahoma City ...........................123
Introduction..........................................................................................123
History of Methamphetamine in Oklahoma City...........................................................123
ADAM Data.............................................................................................127
Other Sources of Information..........................................................................128
Intervention..........................................................................................128
Partnerships: Drug Court Treatment....................................................................134
Prevention............................................................................................138
Community Policing....................................................................................140
Conclusion............................................................................................142

Chapter 6. Shining Light on the Methamphetamine Problem in Little Rock: 
Processes and Outcomes Associated with the COPS Office 
Methamphetamine Initiation............................................................................144
Program Overview .....................................................................................144
Setting and History...................................................................................146
Meth Market Characteristics ..........................................................................147
Interventions.........................................................................................161
Precursor Drugs.......................................................................................166
Treatment.............................................................................................168
Prevention and Awareness Campaigns ...................................................................170
Community Policing....................................................................................172
Implementation Patterns...............................................................................173
Summary and Conclusions...............................................................................176
References............................................................................................181


Chapter 7. Getting in Front of an Emerging Drug Problem: The Minneapolis 
Methamphetamine Initiative ...........................................................................182
History...............................................................................................182
Meth Market Characteristics ..........................................................................183
Intervention..........................................................................................194
Partnerships..........................................................................................207
Treatment/Drug Court..................................................................................212
Prevention............................................................................................218
Community Policing....................................................................................222
Summary...............................................................................................223
Conclusion............................................................................................225
References............................................................................................227

Chapter 8. Recommendations and Conclusions ...........................................................228
The Meth Initiative in Six Sites......................................................................229
The Meth Initiative Evaluation........................................................................231
Intervention..........................................................................................232
Prevention............................................................................................235
Treatment ............................................................................................236
Community Policing....................................................................................237
Conclusions ..........................................................................................239


Executive Summary 

Methamphetamine production, sale, and use have increased dramatically in many US 
communities over the past two decades. This trend is especially true of the communities in the 
West and Midwest that have seen skyrocketing seizures of methamphetamine (meth) labs and 
similar arrest numbers for other meth-related offenses. The significant health consequences of 
meth abuse have also become evident ranging from physiological harm done to users (e.g., 
weight loss, paranoia, tooth decay, hallucinations) to the endangerment of young children 
exposed to meth activity (e.g., lab explosions, chemical contamination, fetal exposure to the 
drug). 

In 1998, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) began the 
Methamphetamine Initiative program that provided $4.5 million to six U.S. cities to implement 
anti-methamphetamine projects. Those cities were Phoenix, Arizona; Dallas, Texas; Oklahoma 
City, Oklahoma; Salt Lake City, Utah; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Little Rock, Arkansas. The 
Institute for Law and Justice, Inc. (ILJ) in partnership with 21st Century Solutions, Inc. and 
several independent expert consultants evaluated the implementation and the early impact of 
these programs on their local meth problem. 

This report presents an introduction to methamphetamine, its history, production 
methods, and its impact on peoples health and the environment. An outline of the evaluation 
methodology and a cross-site analysis also are provided. This report includes individual chapters 
for each of the six sites describing their implementation efforts, challenges, and successes. 
Finally, conclusions are presented and recommendations offered. 

Methamphetamine and Its Effects 

Methamphetamine, a derivative of amphetamine, dates back to the early 1900s but 
became more widely used during World War II. Its popularity spread and because it was not 
controlled, it was widely available to anyone in tablet form. The production of injectable 
methamphetamine became illegal under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, however, 
motorcycle gangs and other groups began to illegally manufacture and traffic the drug. 


There are three primary production methods for meth1: the P2P or amalgam method, and 
two ephedrine reduction methods using pre-cursor chemicals (one using red phosphorous and the 
other using anhydrous ammonia). Production of meth is relatively easy with most or all of the 
ingredients found in local hardware, grocery, or warehouse-type stores. Manufacturing meth can 
cause significant environmental and health hazards to the cooks, including chemical spills, 
fires, explosions, respiratory failure, chemical burns, and liver and kidney damage. With the 
advent of box labs, cooks can transport their chemicals and equipment almost anywhere. This 
can become highly dangerous especially when unsuspecting neighbors, hotel guests, storage 
facility managers, or others stumble upon a lab. 

National-level data indicated that among club drugs, meth accounted for the largest share 
of emergency department mentions, and was especially problematic in the metropolitan areas of 
the western U.S. (DAWN, 2000). The 2000 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) data also 
suggested that meth-related deaths were higher for white males. The 1999 Treatment Episode 
Data Set (TEDS) revealed that meth accounted for close to 56,000 treatment admissions, which 
was a major increase from 20,000 admissions just six years prior in 1993. Furthermore, a nine-
year period in the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program (ADAM) data revealed a regional 
difference in meth use with the West and Northwest U.S. having the highest percentages of 
arrestees testing positive for the drug while the Northeastern U.S. had the lowest. Finally, Drug 
Enforcement Administration (DEA) data indicated almost 9,600 meth labs seized between 1973 
and 1999, with sixty-one percent of these seizures occurring between 1996 and 1999. 

The Methamphetamine Initiative Evaluation 

ILJs evaluation strategy for the six Methamphetamine Initiative sites was multi-faceted 
and focused on the process of implementation and a cross-site analysis. Because of several 
constraints, including time, funding, and available data, it was determined that the impact of the 
Initiative on law enforcement, the community, and meth users could not be evaluated. 

Process Evaluation Questions 

The following were the critical process evaluation questions for each of the six sites. 

The term meth is a common abbreviation of methamphetamine and will be used throughout this report. 


 Who was involved in project implementation and what were their roles and 
responsibilities? 
 What partnerships were formed and how were they sustained? 
 Were the implementation steps carried out as planned? 
 What implementation barriers were encountered, and how were they overcome? 
 What types of training or technical assistance were needed to implement the 
project? 
 How was the meth initiative linked to the four main components of the Initiative: 
intervention, prevention, treatment, and education? 
 How was the meth initiative linked to community policing at the sites? What 
benefits were derived from this linkage, and what difficulties were encountered? 

Data Collection 

Data collection began with a history of the meth market at each of the sites. Specifically, 
evaluators sought information on the emergence and current state of meth users, producers, and 
distributors in their communities. Additional information was collected using face-to-face 
interviews with individuals such as law enforcement personnel at all levels, project partners, and 
in some cases meth abusers. Evaluators also conducted on-site observations of lab seizures and 
other law enforcement interventions, partnership meetings, and project-related events. Agency-
specific data were collected from the primary grantee as well as other law enforcement agencies 
(e.g., local DEA offices and neighboring city agencies). Whenever possible, other project 
partners provided additional data. For example, drug court programs had numbers on meth related 
drug court cases, District Attorney offices prepared information on meth-related 
prosecutions, and treatment centers calculated the number of meth-related admissions. Data 
collection also included numbers on public awareness campaigns, such as the number of 
advertisements, billboards, radio spots, brochures, etc. Project partners completed a survey 
which probed the extent and successfulness of the partnerships formed under the Meth Initiative 
project. Finally, newspaper articles and national-level databases provided context to the 
information from the sites. 

Cross-Site Analysis 

All six cities in the Meth Initiative were located west of the Mississippi River. This is not 
surprising given that methamphetamine has primarily been found in the West and Midwest U.S. 


The populations of the cities varied from less than 200,000 in Salt Lake City and Little Rock to 
more than one million in Dallas and Phoenix. 

While all six sites attributed the onset of methamphetamine in their communities to 
outlaw motorcycle groups, four of the sites had a much longer meth history with at least one 
sites meth problem dating back to the 1970s. Minneapolis and Little Rock have experienced a 
much more recent insurgence of meth into their communities, dating back only into the mid-tolate 
1990s. Phoenix, Dallas, and Minneapolis had a much higher percentage of the drug entering 
their cities through illegal Mexican National trafficking routes while Salt Lake City, Oklahoma 
City, and Little Rock were more likely to see small-time cooks producing the drug in smaller 
batches. While meth users were predominately white, user groups began to diversify in several 
of the cities. Phoenix and Dallas saw an increase in non-white, minority groups (especially 
Hispanics and African Americans) engaging in meth-related activities. Oklahoma City saw an 
increase in higher socio-economic groups participating in the drug trade, while Little Rocks 
meth problem was typically associated with motorcycle gangs and the party scene at strip 
clubs and dance clubs. 

Project interventions typically included clandestine lab seizures and meth-related arrests. 
Oklahoma City, Phoenix, and the states of Arkansas and Utah generated the most lab seizures 
during the project period. While Dallas and Minneapolis had fewer seizures, they had a larger 
percentage change during the project period. 

All sites participated in some prevention and education efforts during their grant-funded 
period. Five sites printed brochures and pamphlets, which were distributed to residents, 
community groups, city agencies, and others. Anti-meth advertisements on billboards and buses 
were seen at four of the sites, as were media blitzes. Public service announcements, including 
radio spots and television commercials, were undertaken by three sites. 

All six sites organized and provided training under their Methamphetamine Initiative 
projects. Groups receiving training included patrol officers, narcotics officers, community 
organizations, residents, and businesses. Two of the sites, Salt Lake City and Minneapolis, used 
multi-disciplinary teams to conduct training sessions. In Dallas and Oklahoma City, narcotics 
officers conducted the training. Trainings held in both Little Rock and Phoenix were facilitated 
by the local project coordinator and project manager. 


The treatment community participated in each of the sites Meth Initiative partnership to 
varying degrees. Four sites partnered with drug courts in their jurisdictions, which in their own 
right had varying degrees of success in actually reaching the meth users in their areas. In 
Hennepin County (Minneapolis), the drug court was only one of six in the country to be 
considered a comprehensive program. The court saw an increase of 30 percent in those clients 
receiving treatment for their drug addictions, but no specific statistics on meth clients were 
available. 

Partnerships were a key component in all six sites. In fact, the partnerships formed under 
the Meth Initiative were one of the major successes of the overall program. The number of 
agencies involved and the focus of the partnerships varied. For example, Dallas and Oklahoma 
City partnered with two other local agencies including their community drug courts while 
Minneapolis and Salt Lake City had a much larger number of partners (ten and more than 30 
agencies respectively). Furthermore, the focus of the partnerships varied. In Dallas, the 
partnerships were formed around research, education and treatment. Phoenix Police Department 
and their partners focused on their non-traditional media campaign. Salt Lake City Police 
Department and their partners focused on a multitude of issues including enhanced prosecution, 
training, public awareness, child endangerment, and increased law enforcement efforts. 

Finally, the intent of the Meth Initiative project was to approach local methamphetamine 
problems using a community policing approach. The 1999 Law Enforcement Management and 
Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey indicated that the six sites funded under the COPS 
Meth Initiative program were actively involved in some forms of community policing agency-
wide. However, the linkages between the Meth Initiative itself and community policing were not 
strong in five of the six sites. The most comprehensive link to community policing was found in 
Salt Lake Citys project which used a citywide, multi-agency Community Action Team to 
concentrate on problematic business and household addresses and general community concerns. 

Phoenix, Arizona 

At the time the proposal for the Meth Initiative was written, meth was rated as the fourth 
most abused drug in the city. The Phoenix Police Departments (PPD) Drug Enforcement 
Bureau (DEB), which is housed under the Investigations Division, was primarily responsible for 


implementing the Methamphetamine Initiative. Within the DEB there are also two sections: 
enforcement and investigations. The enforcement section investigates most of the meth labs 
located in the city and the surrounding metropolitan area. 

The PPD proposal outlined several activities for their project: 

 A supplementary law enforcement component 
 A drug-free workplace initiative 
 A non-traditional media campaign to educate the public about the dangers and 
consequences of meth use and production 
 A methamphetamine database study 
In addition, partnerships were formed with the Treatment Assessment Screening Center (TASC), 
Inc. and the county District Attorneys Office. Community outreach efforts were made to 
various community groups to educate them about meth. PPDs Meth Initiative project manager 
conducted these presentations of which some were to unique groups (e.g., power companies and 
Department of Solid Waste Management). 

Because of duplicative efforts on the part of the local High Intensity Drug Trafficking 
Area (HIDTA)2, the supplementary law enforcement component was reorganized as an 
educational effort on meth lab identification and consequences of using highly toxic and unstable 
chemicals. The supplementary law enforcement component also included interacting with 
Community Action Officers to identify community groups that would benefit from educational 
presentations on meth. Database creation and link analysis were used together with an analysis 
of meth-related narcotic complaints. Finally, some federal funding was used to buy equipment 
(e.g., gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer). 

The PPD anticipated partnering with local businesses to implement a drug-free workplace 
initiative, which included brochures, presentations to businesses, community fairs, and seminars. 

HIDTA programs operate under the Office of National Drug Control Policy and are organized regionally. Their 
mission is to coordinate federal, state, and local drug control efforts. There are currently 26 HIDTA designated 
regions. More information may be found at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/hidta/index.html. 

A non-traditional media campaign was proposed, and PPD together with their partners 
and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) created unique ways to disseminate an 
anti-meth message. These efforts included an illustrated booklet on the effects and long-term 


consequences of meth; a video, Meth: Unsafe at Any Speed; billboards with a hotline number; 
and anti-meth messages on grocery bags at two grocery stores, on cards dispersed with video 
rentals, in advertisements at the local AMC movie theater, and on faxes sent to community 
groups. 

The proposed database development portion of this project, in addition to the link 
analysis mentioned above, included a replication of the ADAM interview process with adults and 
juveniles booked into jail. The analysis of the interviews was incomplete and the creation of the 
community complaint database suffered from officer re-assignment and minimal cooperation. 

The county District Attorney also partnered with the PPD and dedicated one prosecutor 
to all meth cases. The expected outcome was that the dedicated prosecutor would expedite case 
flow and increase prosecutions. This was unable to be tested because there was no baseline data 
to compare. 

Several of the evaluation findings from the Phoenix Police Departments 
Methamphetamine Initiative may be attributable, at least in part, to the education and training 
efforts under the project. For example, PPD experienced 

 An increase in the number of patrol stops during which chemicals and meth 
equipment were discovered by the officers, 
 An increase in the number of reported fires caused by meth production, and 
 An increase in the number of labs reported by hotel/motel staff.

The evaluation also revealed several other key findings.

 The meth market remained relatively stable with arrested offenders continuing to 
be white, unemployed adults between the ages of 21 and 44. 
 While Mexican nationals were becoming more involved in meth production and 
distribution, most offenders arrested by DEB tended to be small-time cooks 
using box labs. 
 Pre-cursor chemicals remained widely available. 

PPD experienced some challenges during the implementation of the Meth Initiative. 

Specifically, there were unclear lines of authority with at least one of the partners, staff turnover, 
delays in obtaining equipment and supplies, the perception by some staff that the project was 


short-term, and the difficulties in educating other agencies that were not formal partners under 
the Meth Initiative but dealt directly with meth problems. 

Evaluation challenges included difficulty in comparing agency-specific data to other data 
sources (e.g., DAWN, TEDS, ADAM) and sorting out the numerous competing anti-meth efforts 
in the Phoenix metro area. There were a multitude of other agencies already conducting methrelated 
projects, including HIDTA, the National Guard, and others. There was also minimal data 
relating to youth involvement in meth. Despite these challenges, recommendations included (1) 
changing the publics attitude about meth that the problem is an individual rather than a 
community one, (2) increasing penalties, especially for lab cooks who typically received 
probation, (3) increasing the restrictions on precursor chemicals, and (4) focusing on providing 
treatment resources. 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Salt Lake City is the largest city in the state of Utah, covering more than 90 miles and 
home to about 175,000 residents. The city first saw methamphetamine in the late 1980s, but it 
quickly spread and its use increased dramatically in the 1990s. The Salt Lake City Police 
Departments (SLCPD) Meth Initiative was multi-faceted and encompassed four general areas: 

(1) law enforcement, (2) enhanced prosecution and nuisance abatement, (3) child endangerment, 
and (4) public awareness and training. An overarching component to the SLCPD project was the 
inclusion of numerous partner agencies at the local, state, and federal levels. The SLCPD Meth 
Initiative pooled more than 30 agencies in a collaborative effort to fight the local meth problem. 
These agency representatives were each assigned to one of the four areas as a subcommittee 
member. Each month the partners gathered for a Partners Work Group Meeting. At the 
conclusion of these general meetings, partners would meet in subcommittees to address specific 
issues surrounding law enforcement efforts, nuisance abatement, child endangerment, and public 
awareness. A Meth Team was also created which was specifically staffed with line personnel 
who worked closely with the community in general, and meth-involved individuals specifically. 

Using COPS grant funds, SLCPD funded six positions, including a project coordinator, 
data analyst, intelligence analyst, Youth and Family specialist, Deputy District Attorney, and a 
paralegal. Two other positions were assigned to the Meth Initiative from the Health Department 


and the Division of Child and Family Services, but their salaries were paid through a BJA grant. 
Equipment and software were also purchased, including Analysts Notebook and an Automated 
Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). 

Law enforcement efforts included a focus on meth-related arrests and clandestine lab 
seizures. Over the course of the grant, the SLCPD and the DEA reported slight increases in 
meth-related arrests for sales and possession, but the majority of arrests were made for lab 
seizures. The District Attorneys Office increased prosecutions of meth cases and was able to 
draw upon a new child and elderly endangerment statute, which was lobbied for by individuals 
involved in the Meth Initiative. The SLCPD also partnered with the City Prosecutors Office to 
employ civil nuisance abatement procedures, however, this piece of the SLCPD Meth Initiative 
did not see much success. The county Health Department also co-located a staff person at the 
police department to be available for call-out to clandestine lab scenes or to make decisions on 
nuisance properties (e.g., closing a location to the public as a result of severe health violations). 

Another focus of the project was to address endangered children. SLCPD already had on 
staff several Youth and Family Specialists (YFS) who worked closely with their Youth 
Detectives and other sworn personnel on child-related issues. One YFS was hired with Meth 
Initiative funds, but all worked on meth-related cases. The police department also partnered with 
the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) to expedite the investigation of meth-related 
child endangerment cases. One DCFS caseworker was assigned to be co-located at the police 
department and worked predominately on meth-related cases. This arrangement was highly 
beneficial for both agencies, and allowed for a close working relationship between DCFS, police 
officers, and YFS. Frequently, DCFS would accompany officers and/or YFS to crime scenes or 
on search warrants where children were expected to be present. This was especially beneficial 
when children had to be placed in states custody. Since DCFS was already on-scene, they were 
able to personally take care of childrens needs and conduct their investigation immediately. A 
protocol was also implemented in the police department, which outlined call-out procedures for 
DCFS and/or YFS in appropriate situations. 

The SLCPDs Meth Initiative proposed to work with a local dependency (family) drug 
court, however numerous circumstances beyond the control of the participants prevented the 
joint effort. It was agreed that treatment was an important component so representatives from 


local treatment facilities and the states Division of Substance Abuse sat in on the Partners 
Work Group meetings. As part of the evaluation, ILJ staff visited several treatment facilities in 
the Salt Lake City area to speak with clients (n=35) about their methamphetamine abuse. 
Summary findings indicated that the interviewees were generally in outpatient treatment 
programs. More than half of the clients interviewed had been in at least one treatment program 
prior to their current involvement. When asked about the effects meth had on them and their 
lives, almost all of the interviewees listed numerous (on average 8 items in a 14 item list) 
problems associated with their meth abuse. In general, the meth clients stated that they entered 
treatment because they were tired of the lifestyle or because they were mandated to participate 
by a court order. 

A public awareness campaign and training for the community were clear goals of the 
SLCPDs Meth Initiative. A kick-off campaign was held one year into the funding period and 
was followed up by television commercials, radio ads, billboards, and other public relations 
efforts. Multi-disciplinary teams from the Meth Initiative typically conducted training sessions. 
These teams included narcotics officers, the DCFS case worker, the Health Department worker, 
and others. Topics covered during training varied, but some typical issues addressed were drug 
identification, health consequences of meth abuse, meth abuse and children, and others. 

Community policing efforts were defined by the SLCPD primarily through inter-agency 
collaboration to address the methamphetamine problem. Specifically, the police department 
worked with the multi-agency Community Action Teams, and partnered with numerous other 
local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. The SLCPD also partnered with the 
community by addressing concerns about problematic residences in some communities. The 
police department opened a hotline to take drug-related complaints, many of which were related 
to methamphetamine. If a location received a number of complaints, the police would follow up 
and in some instances conduct consensual searches (knock and talks) of the property. 

When asked what was the most successful piece of the Meth Initiative, partners 
unequivocally stated it was the partnerships. The SLCPD and others involved in the Initiative 
found that co-locating individuals from DCFS, the Health Department, the DAs Office, and 
others worked extremely well to coordinate responses and conduct informal cross training. The 
establishment of formal department protocols to include inter-agency call-outs also increased 


coordination and allowed non-law enforcement agencies to be involved in cases from the 
beginning. Some challenges associated with the partnerships and the Initiative revolved around 
administrative tie-ups with processing the MOUs for agencies to begin work on the project. 
There were also some initial role conflicts, jurisdictional boundary questions, and some 
communication problems. In general, these issues were worked out among the agencies with 
support from high-level supervisors, and some were addressed through the formalization of 
SLCPD inter-agency protocols. 

Dallas, Texas 

The Dallas Police Department (DPD) partnered with the Greater Dallas Council on 
Alcohol and Drug Abuse (GDCADA) to focus on research, education, and treatment for their 
Meth Initiative project. The Dallas County DIVERT (Dallas Initiative for Diversion and 
Expedited Rehabilitation and Treatment) Court program received some funding to provide 
inpatient treatment for a small number of meth users. 

DPD had six narcotics detectives and one sergeant as clandestine lab experts all of whom 
received DEA certified training. During the first year of the grant, the detectives and the 
sergeant focused on mid-level to upper-level suppliers and generally relied upon confidential 
informants and undercover operations. By the second year of the grant, the DPD focused more 
heavily on seizing clandestine labs. 

Under the Initiative, GDCADA conducted two studies - one to develop a user profile and 
one to report on the treatment outcomes of meth users. The user profile study was based on data 
from assessments completed by the Dallas County Community Supervision and Corrections 
Department (CSCD) and GDCADA. A total of 134 cases were examined with the following 
results. 

 Mean age of users: 31 years, with 82.8 percent in their 20s or 30s; 
 Gender: For the CSCD sample, 63 percent male and 37 percent female; for the 
GDCADA sample, 62.5 percent female and 37.5 percent male; combined samples 
showed 55 percent male and 45 percent female;3 

The difference in male and female percentages in the sample is due to the different populations these two 
agencies serve. CSCD (the corrections arm of the criminal justice system) has a larger male population while 
GDCADA (a treatment-based organization) has a larger female population. 
 


 Race: Overwhelming majority were Caucasian (95.5 percent); followed by 
Hispanic (2.2 percent) and African American (2.2 percent); 
 Sexual Orientation: Of the 61 who reported, 60 (98.4 percent) identified 
themselves as heterosexual; 
 Marital status: Single (43.8 percent), divorced (25.8 percent), separated (15.6 
percent), married (13.3 percent), and widowed (1.6 percent); 
 Education: Mean of 11.2 years of education with about 2/3 of the sample 
completing 11 or more years (high school diploma or GED); and 
 Socioeconomic indicators: Almost 48.5 percent reported having no income (68 of 
134 provided their income level); 35 individuals reported a median income of 
$18,240. 

The study on treatment outcomes included 23 individuals who completed treatment for 
meth use under the Community Supervision and Corrections Department and GDCADA during 
the last quarter of 1998 and the first half of 1999. These individuals represent 24 percent of 
individuals referred to CSCD and GDCADA. Due to a small sample, the author of the study 
could not make inferences regarding the success or failure of either of the programs. 

With regard to prevention efforts, GDCADA distributed information materials to a 19 
county area surrounding Dallas and held a one-day symposium on meth. GDCADA originally 
planned to conduct a public education campaign on high-risk individuals, but was unable to fully 
reach this goal for several reasons, one of which was frequent management changes. 

Community policing in Dallas was described as a department-wide and division-level 
program. Each of the six patrol divisions included an Interactive Community Policing (ICP) 
unit. This unit received training under the Meth Initiative in applying problem solving methods 
to meth-specific problems. All ICP officers were trained in the identification of meth producers. 
This and other trainings were also offered to other levels and divisions of the DPD as well as 
outside agencies, including the District Attorneys Office, the DIVERT court, and community 
groups. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 

Under the Methamphetamine Initiative, the Oklahoma City Police Department (OCPD) 
used overtime funds to seize, process, and dismantle clandestine laboratories. The Department 
devoted more time to citizen and police officer training and used Meth Initiative funds to cover 


these costs. The Initiative also funded supplies and equipment (e.g., robots) needed for 
methamphetamine laboratory processing, and additional personnel hours. The only employee 
funded under the Meth Initiative was a chemist who worked with the department for two years 
and assisted with the processing of clandestine lab seizures. With grant funds, OCPD also 
developed a comprehensive methamphetamine public education campaign. 

The Meth Initiative was housed at OCPDs Narcotics Unit, which operated within the 
Special Projects Unit and was staffed by a captain, three supervisors, and 18 officers. In total, 30 
officers (full and part-time) were involved with the Meth Initiative. In the 1990s, OCPD saw the 
meth problem in Oklahoma City and the state of Oklahoma grow considerably, and the cooks, 
users, and distributors also began to change. Evaluators interviewed 14 Drug Court meth clients 
(10 women and 4 men) whose ages ranged from 21 to 42 years old. Findings suggested that 
most of the interviewees began using meth at an average age of 23 and used meth on a daily 
basis for an average of 14 days straight. Most of the interviewees purchased meth from white, 
male dealers who were typically known to the user. Eight of the interviewees indicated they had 
sold meth, and only one reported selling to a large group of people who were unknown to him. 
Five of the 14 interviewees stated that they had cooked meth and believed it was easy to get 
precursor chemicals. Six meth clients reported that they had been in treatment for meth in the 
past. 

OCPD Meth Initiative partners included the Oklahoma County Drug Court and the local 
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Office. One of the officers working in the Narcotics 
Unit under the SPU was assigned to the Oklahoma County Drug Court Program. The Drug 
Court accepted repeat criminal offenders facing the prospect of serving time for felony charges, 
however, violent offenders and drug offenders charged with manufacturing or trafficking were 
not eligible. The Drug Court team included representatives from two treatment providers, the 
DAs Office, the judge, an Oklahoma County Sheriffs deputy, and the full-time OCPD sergeant. 
Team members concentrated on weekly reviews of the status of clients. Of the 135 active cases 
in October 2000, 35 (or 26 percent) were meth clients, which was a substantial increase 
compared to July 1999, when active meth cases represented 14 percent of the total (12 of 87). 

A lieutenant and three officers were also assigned to the DEA Meth Task Force. The 
Task Force originally focused on mid- to high-level meth manufacturers and distributors, but 
 


later changed their focus to target individuals or groups distributing precursor chemicals. Many 
of the investigations resulting from the Task Force frequently had an interstate component. The 
Task Force also targeted large department stores and other large warehouse-type stores that sold 
legitimate precursor chemicals for training about chemicals used in meth cooking. 

Other intervention efforts under the Meth Initiative resulted in an increase in arrests and 
clandestine lab seizures. Data from 1998 to 1999 indicated that the number of meth labs seized 
and processed by OCPD increased by 70 percent, from 66 to 112 and was on pace to seize about 
150 labs in 2000 (an average of 13 labs per month). That would have been a projected increase 
of about 34 percent from 1999 to 2000. The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation also 
increased their activities, seizing 62 more labs in 1999 than in 1998, an increase of about 23 
percent. 

With regard to prevention, the OCPD Meth Initiative provided training to all OCPD 
officers in identifying meth lab chemicals. Community groups, including the Greater Oklahoma 
City Hotel and Motel Association and the Oklahoma Natural Gas Company, also received 
education and training from the Narcotics Unit lieutenants. Presentations consisted of a lecture 
about health hazards, equipment, chemical identification; a video about meth; and a question-
and-answer period. The OCPD also kicked off its Life or Meth campaign in September 2000, 
which included a mock raid at a local motel demonstrating the dangers of seizing a clandestine 
lab. Other public awareness efforts consisted of posters on bus stop benches and billboards in 
residential areas, and team members working with local grocery and hardware outlets to have 
messages printed on shopping bags. Finally, two videos for police officers and citizens were in 
production. 

Results of the evaluation included 

 An increase in the number of lab seizures; 
 An increase in training of officers, businesses, and civilians, which helped to 
explain part of the increase in the number of labs seized; 
 An increase in the awareness of the meth problem in Oklahoma through its Life 
or Meth campaign; 
 The ability to purchase additional equipment to protect officers from the hazards 
of chemicals used in meth manufacturing; and 


 A sustaining relationship between OCPD and its partners, the Drug Court and the 
DEA Meth task force. 

Little Rock, Arkansas 

Little Rock Police Department was the primary grantee in the Methamphetamine 
Initiative and partnered with the Pulaski County Sheriffs Department and the Arkansas State 
Crime Laboratory. The North Little Rock Police Department (located in a more rural area 
outside of the city of Little Rock) was later added as a partner when data indicated that they had 
a significant meth problem. The Little Rock Methamphetamine Initiative had a number of 
components, including the following. 

 Educating the community about the hazards of meth, the chemicals involved in 
production, the identity of potential users, their distribution points, and available 
treatment and prevention programs 
 Training law enforcement officers on what to look for in investigating meth 
crimes and responding to meth labs in a safe manner 
 Purchasing safety and other equipment (e.g., gas chromatograph and surveillance 
equipment) 
 Purchasing computer equipment and crime analysis services to collect and 
distribute information on the local meth market and individuals in that market, 
which would result in the establishment of a shared information and intelligence 
system 
 Allocating funds for overtime to promote meth investigations by narcotics officers 
 Providing money to enhance the delivery of drug treatment services 
 Using community oriented policing and crime prevention personnel to establish 
hotlines to gather information from citizens on the local meth problem and to 
implement drug awareness programs about meth 

The Little Rock Meth Initiative differed from the other sites in two key ways. First, meth 
was not commonly available, and according to state and other official data it was not widely 
abused. Because of this, local officials did not consider meth a significant law enforcement or 
public health problem. This began to change in the late 1990s, especially in the more rural areas 
of Arkansas as clandestine labs were discovered throughout the state. However, even after the 
LRPD received Methamphetamine Initiative funding meth was still considered distinct from and 
secondary to the problems associated with other illicit drugs in the greater Little Rock area. 
What little information was available about meth in Little Rock indicated that it was primarily a 


drug used by Whites, was sold in closed-market environments which made enforcement difficult, 
and was generally present at parties, dance clubs, or raves. 

The second way in which Little Rock differed from the other Meth Initiative sites was the 
lack of available local data that could be used to quantify the nature of the local meth problem. 
Because this information was unavailable, evaluators interviewed a sample of 178 detainees in 
the Pulaski County Jail during the summers of 1999 (n=52) and 2000 (n=126). The methods for 
selecting interviewees were similar in both years. That is, individuals who were detained for 
drug offenses were approached to participate in the study. In 2000, an additional group of non-
drug detainees were asked to participate in the study (74 of the 126). The purpose of the group 
was to assess the level of bias that may have been present in the 1999 group. Findings from the 
interviews indicated that the prevalence of meth could have been greater than official data 
sources revealed. In fact, among the drug arrestees interviewed, 45 percent stated they had used 
meth with more arrestees admitting to use in 2000 (46 percent) as compared to 1999 (44 
percent). Twenty percent of those in the drug offense groups sold meth and more than 10 
percent cooked meth. In addition, while meth use was more predominate among Whites, about 
half of the Black respondents indicated that they knew people actively involved in the meth 
market. Furthermore, interview data also revealed that meth was widely used and easily 
available in the Little Rock area. Almost all of the White respondents and a majority of the 
Black respondents agreed with the statement that, meth is commonly used around here. 

Intervention efforts from the LRPD and the Pulaski County Sheriffs Department were 
difficult to measure given that they did not have any automated way to track meth-related 
incidents. A later goal of the Meth Initiative was to establish inter-agency data sharing, however, 
preliminary analysis of the hand-recorded data indicated that LRPD saw a doubling of arrests 
and lab seizures in the first eight months of 1999 compared to 1998. Increases were more 
pronounced in the PCSD where (in comparing the first nine months of 1998 and the first nine 
months of 1999) meth arrests quadrupled and lab seizures increased from 3 to 40. Law 
enforcement officials also focused their attention on disrupting precursor chemical transactions 
and began by delivering informational posters to retail outlets accompanied by a short 
presentation on precursor drugs. 


Training and public awareness efforts were met with some difficulty in the early stages of 
the LRPD Meth Initiative project. The police department established an in-service training on 
meth, which was provided to all sworn officers in an eight-hour session. The Pulaski County 
Sheriffs Department also provided one to three hour training sessions to most department 
personnel, including jail staff. However, public awareness efforts were nearly non-existent until 
a Program Coordinator with experience in community-based treatment was hired. A billboard 
campaign, brochures, pamphlets, and a partnership with a local TV station to run a PSA were all 
subsequently implemented after the addition of the Coordinator. 

The treatment component of the LRPD Meth Initiative was honed down by COPS in 
order to focus more funding on other parts of the project. In addition to what was considered by 
LRPD Meth Initiative staff as inadequate funding for treatment, the LRPD also experienced 
delays in implementing the truncated piece of the treatment component and were unsuccessful at 
partnering with the drug court program. 

Community policing efforts and the Meth Initiative had little overlap in Little Rock. 
While the community policing (COPP) officers did receive training on meth and used that 
information in their public speaking engagements, LRPD officials noted that COPP officers were 
generally not in contact with meth. If a COPP officer did encounter meth, they would notify the 
Narcotics Unit. 

Despite several barriers to the successful implementation of the Meth Initiative project, 
the LRPD and the Pulaski County Sheriffs Department did yield some beneficial outcomes, 
including 

 A safer and effective response to clandestine labs, enhanced investigative efforts, 
and a dramatically reduced turn-around time in chemical analyses conducted by 
the State Crime Laboratory as a result of equipment purchases. 
 An enhanced level of cooperation and coordination between the LRPD and the 
Pulaski County Sheriffs Department. 
 A more informed citizenry regarding methamphetamine, and the recognition 
among police that such an outcome results in direct benefits to police (e.g., higher 
rates of citizen reporting). 


 A better trained police force that can be effective in responding to meth and who 
can respond to the drug with improved health and legal outcomes because of the 
training that has been provided. 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Among all six sites, meth was least prevalent in Minneapolis. The goal of the 
Minneapolis Police Departments (MPD) Methamphetamine Initiative was to impede the 
distribution and use of meth to minimize the harmful effects to the city and the state in general. 
The MPDs approach to the Meth Initiative focused on training, education/prevention, 
enforcement/intervention, and research. MPD partnered with ten other agencies, including other 
local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies; the County Attorney; County Probation; state 
Pollution Control Agency, state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and the states Department of 
Health and Family Support. 

Intervention efforts revealed that there were two primary sources for methamphetamine: 

(1) large shipments of meth from Mexico by Mexican Nationals to local Hispanic communities, 
and (2) small, local, rural labs operated by loose networks of young, white males. The metro 
Minneapolis area is home to as many as nine narcotics task forces, several local law enforcement 
narcotics units, and the FBI and DEA narcotics task forces. MPD also has district level 
Community Response Teams operating in undercover operations. According to law enforcement 
officials, meth was a particularly difficult problem for several reasons, including the general 
secretive nature of the interactions, a lack of true leaders of groups, and ethnic and language 
barriers. The Meth Initiative was credited with assisting law enforcement in their intervention 
efforts by funding overtime for officers and providing equipment (e.g., two-way digital phones, 
digital camera, etc.). Overall, there was an increase in lab seizures, meth-related prosecutions, 
and the severity of meth-related dispositions between the late 1990s and 2000. These increases, 
however, were more readily apparent in the more rural outlying areas of the city and the county. 
Furthermore, the states Health and Family Support Department lab reported that there was an 
increase in the size of meth seizures from 26.9 pounds (1997) to more than 70 pounds (1998). 

While there was no formal treatment component to the MPDs Meth Initiative project, the 
community did have a long-standing commitment to drug treatment and access to a new drug 
court (one of the five or six comprehensive drug courts in the country). 


Education efforts proved to be a major focus of MPDs project. Primarily, the education 
component took on a train-the-trainer approach, which was geared toward school health 
teachers, chemical health specialists, school nurses, and other school officials. In addition, the 
MPD also kicked off a public awareness campaign, which included posters, a neighborhood 
resource guide on meth, and a short video on meth use and labs. 

MPD together with DEA, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and the Fire Department 
developed a four-hour training program for first responders which covered among other topics 
clandestine laboratory hazards, dangers to first responders, medical screening and chemical 
monitoring, and clean up activities. An eight-hour training session for investigators was also 
developed the focus of which was on enforcement issues surrounding investigation and 
prosecution, issues related to liability, and the role of various agencies. The eight-hour session 
also included hands-on experience at a mock lab. The training team, which developed these two 
training sessions also developed professional training materials (e.g., a training video on traffic 
stops, a background paper on meth, procedures to follow when potential labs are discovered, and 
other materials). 

Finally, while the MPD did not make community policing an explicit goal of the Meth 
Initiative project they did engage in community policing activities. Specifically, the MPD 
characterized their commitment to and reliance on partnerships a major community policing 
effort. Many partnerships that were formed under the Initiative were entirely new. The meth 
training helped build relationships with other local agencies generally, but the training also 
promoted community policing within the department because it prepared officers to work with 
community constituents on the local meth problem. 

Overall, the Meth Initiative in Minneapolis increased the capacity for numerous, diverse 
agencies to address the methamphetamine issue in a coordinated way. Some successes seen 
through the evaluation included 

 Training provided throughout the state to law enforcement as well as other 
individuals and agencies about local data on use of meth and other drugs, 
behavioral characteristics of meth users, and identifying meth and related 
chemicals and materials; 
 Training and public awareness materials which increased knowledge and 
collaboration; 


 Surveillance and other equipment which enhanced investigations and increased 
inter-agency law enforcement coordination; 
 Overtime funding which supported long-term investigations; and 
 The Health Department survey of court-related meth users which was able to 
create a picture of the meth market. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Findings from the national evaluation of the COPS Meth Initiative supported some 
previous research about the meth problem in the U.S., but it also shed light on several emerging 
trends. The following recommendations focus on intervention, prevention, treatment, and 
community policing strategies to help reduce methamphetamine abuse. 
Intervention 

 Identify the source of meth: Intervention efforts should first focus on whether 
meth is creeping into their cities via Mexican national traffickers, or whether it is 
homemade using small, local labs. The size and location of clandestine labs 
present different problems for law enforcement personnel. Understanding the 
meth market helps officials to better focus their efforts on specific characteristics 
of local market dynamics. 
 Approach from a closed-market perspective: In part because the drug is 
manufactured in clandestine labs, methamphetamine operates in a closed market, 
making enforcement more difficult. 
 Identify the user population: Meth users today are more racially diverse and 
tend to fall into a wide range of ages and socioeconomic classes. Females are also 
becoming more prevalent in the market as well. 
 Evaluate local sales practices and current legislation regarding pre-cursor 
chemicals: The evaluation revealed variation among the sites regarding the 
accessibility of pre-cursor chemicals. Most of the sites had legislation or 
regulations guarding the sale of pre-cursor chemicals including ephedrine and 
pseudoephedrine, but this was not true everywhere. In states lacking this 
legislation, enforcement was made extremely difficult. 
 Garner support and resources from various city agencies: A multi-agency 
approach to combating meth has proven to be a successful approach for many of 
the Meth Initiative sites. Law enforcement and other agencies should be creative 
in their partnerships and their approach to combating meth in their communities. 
Non-law enforcement agencies such as the health department, local hospitals, 
child and family services, hotel/motel associations, and others can make a 
significant impact on identifying, reporting, and addressing methamphetamine 
problems in a community. 


 Identify or outline appropriate seizure, clean up, and decontamination 
policies: Responsibility for lab seizure and clean up was not outlined at many of 
the Meth Initiative sites. Protocols should be put in place which outline the 
appropriate agencies to call when a meth lab is discovered. These agencies 
should be trained and well-equipped to handle the dangerous chemicals involved 
in the process. 
 Review and revise (if necessary) endangerment procedures and legislation: 
Danger surrounding meth abuse is not only posed to the "cooks" or the users 
themselves, but also to live-in children or elders, neighbors, hotel guests, first 
responders, and the like who may unknowingly be ingesting fumes or exposing 
themselves to chemical contamination. 

Prevention 

 Train all law enforcement officers and other first responders: First 
responders such as police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians are 
faced with an extraordinarily dangerous situation, especially if they are unaware 
of the presence of methamphetamine at the scene. 
 Train unique groups : Training given to unique community groups (e.g., public 
utility workers, hotel/motel staff, schools, etc.) also proved successful in the Meth 
Initiative. It is likely that individuals in these agencies may be the first to come 
across a lab or a contaminated area. 
 Educate the community and garner their support: Community education 
campaigns were quite successful in getting the message out to their respective 
communities primarily because they used a variety of venues. 

Treatment 

 Include the treatment community as an important partner in combating the 
meth problem: Treatment is an essential component to reducing drug abuse in 
our communities. 
 Work with a drug court: The evaluation findings suggest that drug courts could 
be a beneficial option for meth users primarily because they expose meth-addicted 
individuals to treatment immediately and provide a more rigid structure with little 
tolerance for infractions. Thought should also be given to partnering with a broad 
scope of drug courts, including adult, juvenile, and dependency (family) courts. 
 Partner with local treatment providers: Hospitals and local substance abuse 
agencies bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table. At the very 
least these agencies can provide invaluable training on a variety of topics, 
including the dynamics of meth abuse (e.g., routes of administration, the 
likelihood and rationale for tweaking), common side effects (e.g., physical as well 
as emotional), and steps for getting clean and how they may differ depending on a 
person's drug of choice (i.e., a meth addict may need to take a different path to 
recovery than a cocaine addict). 


Community Policing 

 Involve as many local agencies in anti-meth efforts as possible: Given that 
methamphetamine presents a number of serious problems in a community, 
partnerships with other local agencies as well as with community members can 
successfully attack the problem from multiple angles. 
 Attack the meth problem from multiple angles: By partnering with agencies 
like a local drug court, a youth and family service agency, or even another law 
enforcement agency, a vast array of resources previously untapped are made 
available. 
 Engage the community: Most of the sites did focus some of their resources and 
attention on providing community members with educational material about 
meth; but only a few sites attempted to actively recruit their communities in the 
fight against meth. This was one of the most important pieces of the Meth 
Initiative because it often provided the participants with their first pieces of 
information about meth. It also provided the community with a means to report 
suspicious or illegal activity to the police or other authorities. 


Chapter 1 

Background and Cross-Site Analysis 

In 1998, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), U.S. 
Department of Justice, provided almost $4.5 million to six carefully selected cities in the United 
States to address the methamphetamine problem in their areas. Through community policing 
principles and partnerships among law enforcement and community agencies, the jurisdictions 
sought to contain and reduce the problem of methamphetamine abuse. 

When the grants were awarded, the COPS Office solicited proposals to evaluate the 
implementation and impact of the local efforts. The Institute for Law and Justice, Inc., in 
partnership with 21st Century Solutions, Inc., received the grant award after a competitive 
process (Grant Number 98-CK-WX-K058). 

This final report describes the efforts of that evaluation. The report is divided into eight 
chapters. Chapter 1 discusses the methamphetamine problem across the country and presents the 
most recent data from a variety of sources. This chapter also describes the evaluation design and 
methods and presents findings of the cross-site analysis. Chapters 2 through 7 describe each site 
individually. Activities in Phoenix, Arizona; Salt Lake City, Utah; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; 
Dallas, Texas; Little Rock, Arkansas; and Minneapolis, Minnesota are discussed in detail. The 
final chapter presents conclusions and recommendations. 

The Meth Problem 

Across the nation, but particularly in the West and Midwest, methamphetamine abuse has 
become a serious problem. Law enforcement officials, public health officers, policymakers, state 
legislatures, the U.S. Congress, and the media have warned that meth is dangerous to those who 
manufacture, possess, and use it. More importantly, they have shown that meth is a serious 
health hazard to anyone who comes in reasonable contact with the chemicals; notably, these 
include children, residents who live near cookers, and first responders to the scene of a 
clandestine laboratory.emergency medical teams, fire fighters, and law enforcement officers. 

To combat methamphetamine abuse, state, local, and federal government entities have 
passed legislation that restricts the use of precursor chemicals to make the drug. Funds have 


been provided to law enforcement at all levels to increase training in identification and 
elimination of meth labs. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has provided 
research grants to scientists to find ways to treat meth users. And the U.S. Department of Justice 
has increased its funding to state and local law enforcement to clean up labs, arrest distributors 
and users, improve equipment, enhance training, and increase public awareness of the drug 
problem. The COPS Office has provided nearly $100 million to law enforcement to combat the 
meth problem over the last four years. 

What is Meth? 

Over 170 slang terms exist for methamphetamine, including meth, ice, and crank 
(Pennell, Ellett, Rienick, and Grimes, 1999). It is by far the most prevalent synthetic controlled 
substance clandestinely manufactured in the United States (ONDCP, 2001a). 
Methamphetamine is a derivative of amphetamine, a drug first synthesized in Germany in 1887. 
Though not much was done with it in its early years, by the 1920s, amphetamine was seriously 
investigated as a cure or treatment against nearly everything from depression to decongestion. 
Methamphetamine, more potent and easier to make, was discovered in Japan in 1919 (Burton, 
1991). The crystalline powder was soluble in water, making it easy to inject. 

During World War II, amphetamines were widely used to keep troops awake and on the 
move. The Nazi method of cooking meth is attributed to German soldiers who used meth prior 
to going into battle. It was a quick, undetectable method of manufacturing the drug from readily 
available material. In Japan, intravenous methamphetamine abuse reached epidemic proportions 
immediately after World War II, when supplies stored for military use became available to the 
public. In the United States in the 1950s, legally manufactured tablets of both 
dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine) and methamphetamine (Methedrine) became available and were 
used non-medically by college students, truck drivers, and athletes. As use of amphetamines 
spread, so did their abuse. Amphetamines became a cure-all for such things as weight control 
and treating mild depression. 

This pattern changed in the 1960s with the increased availability of injectable 
methamphetamine. The 1970 Controlled Substances Act restricted the legal production of 
injectable methamphetamine, causing its use to decrease greatly. In the 1970s, outlaw 


motorcycle gangs and other independent trafficking groups became the major suppliers of 
methamphetamine throughout the United States. 

Meth is attractive to users because it alleviates fatigue and produces feelings of mental 
alertness and well-being (Pennell, et al., 1999). Like adrenaline, methamphetamine stimulates 
the central nervous and the sympathetic nervous systems. Similar to cocaine, it produces a rush 
and a high as a result of the release of high levels of dopamine into the areas of the brain that 
regulate pleasure. Users tend to go on meth binges, often staying high and awake for hours or 
days at a time. 

NIDA researchers indicate that long-term meth abuse results in addiction, with chronic 
relapses characterized by compulsive drug-seeking and drug use (NIDA, 1998). In addition, 
chronic abusers exhibit symptoms that can include violent behavior, anxiety, confusion, and 
insomnia. Psychotic features can also be displayed, including paranoia, mood disturbances, 
hallucinations, and delusions. 

Meth Production 

The production of illicit methamphetamine is a relatively simple process and is usually 
carried out by people without formal knowledge of chemistry or science. Meth cookers 
produce the drug by following cookbook recipes learned while in jail (Irvine and Chin, 1991) or, 
more recently, by purchasing underground books, chatting on the Internet, or looking at specific 
meth websites. 

The three most prominent methods of cooking involve the P2P or amalgam method and 
two ephedrine reduction methods  one that uses red phosphorous and a second that uses 
anhydrous ammonia. The P2P method uses phenyl-2-propanone and methylamine as the 
primary precursors and requires more time to cook than the ephedrine reduction methods. 
Hydrochloric acid, mercury, and aluminum re-agents are used in this method. In 1980, P2P 
became a Schedule II controlled substance and thus more difficult to obtain. However, it spurred 
a growth in the development of clandestine laboratories specializing in the production of P2P 
from phenylacetic acid. Synthesis of P2P from phenlyacetic acid involves the use of lead acetate 
as the primary reagent, which means that some meth can be contaminated with lead and result in 
lead poisoning (Burton, 1991). Other ways to synthesize phenylacetic acid include the use of 
industrial chemicals such as toluene (from brake cleaner) or benzene. 


The ephedrine reduction methods became more popular when P2P became illegal. 
Large-scale production of meth using these methods depends on ready access to bulk quantities 
of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Both of these drugs are found in cold, allergy (Sudafed), or 
diet pills, which can be purchased at drug, grocery, or convenience stores. The reduction of 
ephedrine to meth makes use of red phosphorous (Red P, found in matches) or anhydrous 
ammonia (fertilizer). 

To produce meth in large or small quantities, cookers can purchase most of the 
equipment and some of the chemicals at local hardware, grocery, or warehouse-stores. Listed 
below are equipment and chemicals commonly used to cook meth. 

Equipment and Chemicals Needed for 
Methamphetamine Cooking 

Household Equipment 			Chemicals (Source) 
Tempered Glass Baking Dishes 		Ephedrine (Cold and Allergy Medicine) 
Glass Pie Dishes 			Pseudoephedrine (Cold and Allergy Medicine) 
Glass or Plastic Jugs 			Alcohol (Rubbing/Gasoline Additive) 
Bottles 				Toluene (Brake Cleaner) 
Measuring Cups 				Ether (Engine Starter) 
Turkey Baster 				Sulfuric Acid (Drain Cleaner) 
Glass Jars 				Methanol (Gasoline Additive) 
Funnels 				Lithium (Camera Batteries) 
Coffee Filter 				Trichloroethane (Gun Scrubber) 
Blender 				Anhydrous Ammonia (Farm Fertilizer) 
Rubber Tubing 				Sodium Hydroxide (Lye) 
Paper Towels 				Red Phosphorous (Matches) 
Rubber Gloves 				Iodine (Veterinarian Products) 
Gasoline Can 				Sodium Metal (Made from Lye) 
Plastic Tote Box 			MSM (Animal Food Supplement) 
Tape 					Table Salt/Rock Salt 
Clamps 					Kerosene 
Hotplate 				Gasoline 
Strainer 				Muriatic Acid 
Aluminum Foil 				Campfire Fuel 
Propane Cylinder (20-lb.) 		Paint Thinner 
					Acetone 
Source: www.streetdrugs.org 


Environmental and Health Issues 

One of the major problems with meth cooking is the danger associated with the chemicals 
used in the process. Most of the cookers do not have the skills, knowledge, or appropriate 
laboratory to carry out a proper synthesis. In all probability, they do not use the correct 
proportion of precursors, reagents, solvents, or catalysts and may not follow directions with 
precision. The result is a product that contains all types of contaminants, including lead, acid, 
gasoline, kerosene, ammonia, and phosphorous. Also, in preparing the mix, ventilation may be 
poor and the temperature in a room may be unregulated. These factors create a dangerous 
environment where the potential for chemical spills, fire, and explosions are high. 

Furthermore, the typical chemicals found in a lab are highly flammable or explosive. 
Benzene, ethanol, petroleum ether, and phosphine are extremely flammable (Irvine and Chin, 
1991). Chemicals like sodium, magnesium, and potassium metals, when mixed with air and 
water, can ignite and lead to explosions. Solvents (paint thinner) and other chemicals are 
hazardous to the environment and may contaminate water supplies when dumped into sewers 
and the ground. 

Meth labs have been found in residences (kitchens and bathrooms), motel and hotel 
rooms, apartment complexes, barns, sheds, car trunks, and trailer houses. Because of the ease of 
transportability with box labs, cookers can take the equipment and chemicals with them 
readily. This enhances the danger of meth. 

The chemicals used in a meth lab are also dangerous to individuals. Exposure to 
corrosive chemicals causes irritation to the eyes, skin, nose, throat, and lungs. Inhaling paint 
thinner, breathing in hydrogen cyanide, and touching various metals and salts can lead to 
drowsiness, coma, respiratory failure, burns, and liver and kidney damage. 

Because of these dangers, law enforcement officers now recognize that proper 
equipment, training, and disposal methods are necessary when shutting down a meth lab. The 
DEA provides equipment and training to state and local officers on a limited basis. Many 
agencies now have protocols in place when responding to a lab. These policies and procedures 
help to safeguard the first responders, officers, residents, and bystanders to a degree. Clean-up is 
expensive, no matter what the size of the lab. The DEA says that lab clean-ups range in cost 
from $1,500 to about $7,000. 


Findings from National-Level Data 

At the national level, a number of federal agencies are involved in collecting data on drug 
use. The data from these agencies provide a snapshot view of methamphetamine abuse 
nationwide. The National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Office of Applied Studies of the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA), and the National 
Institute of Justice (NIJ) collect relevant data on meth and other drugs. 

Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) 

Data from NIDAs Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) indicate that among club 
drugs1, methamphetamine accounts for the largest share of emergency department (ED) mentions 
and is most frequent in metropolitan areas in the western United States (DAWN, 2000). From 
1994 to 1999, data indicate year-to-year volatility for methamphetamine. Exhibit 1 shows the 
ups and downs of emergency department mentions for meth nationally. Exhibit 2 shows the race 
and ethnicity of the individuals who went to emergency departments in 1999. Whites 
outnumbered Blacks by 11 to 1 and Hispanics by almost 5 to 1. 

When meth numbers are compared to other drug-related episodes, however, they become 
rare events. Cocaine, heroin, and marijuana account for the largest number of ED visits. Meth 
was mentioned in 2 percent of drug-related episodes in 1999 (10,447). This number was 
statistically unchanged from 1998 (11,491). 

DAWN also reports data from 21 metropolitan areas. The vast majority (80 percent) of 
estimated ED mentions of meth in 1999 came from 5 cities in the western part of the country  
Los Angeles (910 mentions), San Diego (584), San Francisco (554), Seattle (353), and Phoenix 
(341). Among the metro areas with at least 100 mentions of meth in 1998 or 1999, significant 
increases from 1998 to 1999 occurred in St. Louis (58 percent, from 66 to 104) and Seattle (33 
percent, from 266 to 353). Mentions of meth decreased during this time in Atlanta (49 percent, 
from 162 to 83), Dallas (46 percent, from 186 to 100), Phoenix (24 percent from 446 to 341), and 
San Diego (19 percent, from 721 to 584). 

According to DAWN definitions, club drugs include LSD, GHB, Ketamine, MDMA or Ecstacy, Rohypnol, and 
Methamphetamine. 


Exhibit 1: Number of Emergency Department Mentions of Meth, 1994-1999

1994- 17,696 
1995- 15,936 
1996- 11,002 
1997- 17,154
1998- 11,491  
1999- 10,447 

Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2000 

 
Exhibit 2: Number of Emergency Department Visits by Race and Ethnicity, 1999 

White - 7,180 
Black - 637 
Hispanic - 1,489 
Other/Unk - 1,142 

Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2000 

Deaths related to drug abuse were reported to DAWN by 139 medical examiners (ME) in 
40 metropolitan areas. For 1999, cocaine was the most frequently mentioned drug, followed by 


heroin and alcohol-in-combination. Methamphetamine ranked sixth nationally in 1999 (6 
percent of episodes or 690 of 11,651) and was usually mentioned in combination with other 
drugs. For individual metro areas, meth ranked second in ME episodes in Oklahoma City (23 
percent), and third in San Diego (25 percent), and was reported frequently in other western cities: 
Las Vegas (18 percent), Phoenix (17 percent), Salt Lake City (16 percent), San Francisco (16 
percent) and Seattle (12 percent). 

In terms of race and ethnicity, meth ranked sixth among white decedents (555 mentions), 
fifth among Hispanic decedents (70 mentions), and eighteenth for Black decedents (42 
mentions). For gender, of the 690 episodes, 539 were male and 151 were female. In terms of 
age group, the mode is 35-44 year olds (255 mentions) followed by 45-54 year olds (161 
mentions) and 26-34 year olds (160) (see Exhibit 3). 

Exhibit 3: Number of Meth-related Deaths by Age, 1999 

Age Group
6-17 yrs - 8
18-25 - 79
26-34 - 160
35-44 - 255
45-54 - 161
55+ - 25

 Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2000 


Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) 

The Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) collected by SAMHSAs Office of Applied 
Studies includes drug use profiles from clients who enter a treatment facility that receives public 
funding. In 1998, over 1.5 million people were admitted to facilities across the country for 
treatment for abuse of alcohol and drugs. About 63 percent of all treatment facilities are 
included in the TEDS survey, representing about half to two-thirds of the nations treatment 
admissions to publicly funded programs. 

For the most part, like other national databases, TEDS treatment admissions are 
dominated by alcohol, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana/hashish. These substances account for 90 
percent of all TEDS admissions. Methamphetamine accounts for about 3.6 percent (55,745 of 
about 1.56 million admissions) in 1999. This represents an increase from 1.3 percent (20,771 of 
about 1.58 million admissions) in 1993 (TEDS, 2000). Exhibit 4 shows the number of national 
admissions by year and the percent of admissions by year for methamphetamine. 

Exhibit 4: Number and Percent of National Admissions to Publicly Funded 
Treatment Facilities for Meth: 1993-1999 

Number of Meth 		1993 	1994 	1996 	1997 	1998 	1999
Admissions  		20,771 	33,440 	47,684 	40,998 	53,560 	55,745 
Percent 		1.3 	2.0 	2.9 	2.6 	3.5 	3.6 

Source: TEDS, 2000 

Exhibit 5 shows the treatment admissions for the states that are of interest to our study for 
methamphetamine and amphetamine (unfortunately these could not be dis-aggregated for each 
drug). In Arkansas, Minnesota, and Utah, the number of admissions clearly increased from 1993 
to 1998. For Oklahoma and Texas, admissions increased since 1993, but showed fluctuations 
over the six-year period. Arizona did not participate until 1998, hence the missing data for the 
first five years of the period. 


Exhibit 5: Primary Methamphetamine and Amphetamine Admissions and 
Admissions Per 100,000 Aged 12 and Over, by Selected States: 
1993-1998 

Number of Admissions Ages 12 and Over  

State   93 	94 	95 	96 	97 	98 
AZ 						806 
AR 	269 	599 	1044 	1001 	1498 	1779 
MN 	300 	478 	940 	672 	1511 	1574 
OK 	503 	1298 	2242 	1737 	2191 	1928 
TX 	994 	1379 	1475 	394* 	1035 	1260 
UT 	237 	792 	1689 	1402 	1738 	2207 

Admissions per 100,000 Ages 12 and Over
	93 	94 	95 	96 	97 	98 
						22 
	13 	29 	51 	48 	71 	83 
	8 	13 	25 	17 	39 	40 
	19 	48 	83 	64 	80 	69 
	7 	9 	10 	3 	7 	8 
	17 	54 	111 	90 	108 	133 

* The dramatic drop is attributed to a change in reporting. In 1996, Texas stopped reporting its criminal justice 
system's substance abuse clients to TEDS. 

Source: TEDS, 2000 

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) 

In 1987, the National Institute of Justice began collecting data to measure drug use 
patterns among arrestees. Over the years, the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program, with 23 
sites, evolved into the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, with 35 sites in 
1998. For approximately two weeks every calendar quarter, researchers with the ADAM 
program interview arrestees who have been booked in the past 48 hours about their drug use 
history. The arrestees are then asked to submit to a urine drug screen. 

Over a nine-year period (1990-1999), ADAM data showed variation in meth use across 
the country. In nine cities, over 20 percent of male or female arrestees tested positive for meth. 
These cities were Des Moines, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San 
Diego, San Jose and Spokane. The data also show that meth had not appeared in seven sites in 
1998  Anchorage, Atlanta, Birmingham, Cleveland, Fort Lauderdale, Laredo, and New York 
City. Overall, the ADAM data indicate that there is a regional difference in meth use. The West 
and Northwest have the highest percentages of arrestees testing positive for meth and the 
Northeast has the lowest. In the Midwest and South, four jurisdictions appear to have the most 
serious meth problems.Dallas, Oklahoma City, Omaha, and Des Moines. 

Exhibit 6 shows trends for male and female arrestees who tested positive for 
methamphetamine use from 1990 to 1999. The exhibit indicates that 1993 was a peak year for 


Dallas, with 1994 a peak year for Phoenix. In the years that followed, however, percentages 
decreased, showing the volatility of meth use over time. 

Exhibit 6: Percentage of Male and Female Arrestees Testing Positive for 
Methamphetamine, by Site, 1990-1999 

Site 	1990 	1991 	1992 	1993 	1994 	1995 	1996 	1997 	1998 	1999 
Dallas 
Male 	1.9 	1.4 	0.6 	3.5 	2.0 	2.2 	1.2 	2.6 	3.3 	2.5 
Female 	4.0 	2.2 	2.4 	5.2 	3.3	3.7 	1.5 	2.8 	4.0 	3.2 

Minn 
Male 									0.8 	1.1 
Female 										2.5 

OKC 
Male 									8.0 	8.7 
Female 										11.3 

Phoenix 
Male 	6.7 	4.1 	5.0 	13.7 	25.4 	22.0 	11.1 	16.4 	16.4 	16.6 
Female 	6.6 	3.9 	7.1 	15.1 	26.0 	21.7 	14.0 	25.6 	22.4 	14.3 

SLC 
Male 									20.3 	24.8 
Female 									31.4 	34.1 

ADAM, 1999 and 2001 

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Lab Seizures 

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) maintains data on the number of 
clandestine laboratories seized, amounts taken, and (more recently) on the number of local law 
enforcement officers trained. From 1973 to 1999, DEA seized nearly 9,600 labs, with 61 percent 
of those seizures occurring from 1996 to 1999. Exhibit 7 shows the number of seizures over the 
27-year period. 

In addition to these data, DEA keeps track of state and local law enforcement activities 
through their El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC). In 1999, state and local officers seized over 
7,500 labs, with over 35 percent in California (2,691), followed by Washington (597), Missouri 


(438), and Oklahoma (396). Of these labs, 237 were classified as super labs where more than 
10 pounds of methamphetamine were seized. Most of these were found in California (228).2 

Recently, DEA has increased its training to local law enforcement in identifying, 
dismantling, and cleaning up clandestine labs. With funds from the COPS Office, DEA has 
trained over 2,200 officers in the past four years. 

Exhibit 7: DEA Meth Lab Seizures, 1973-1999

Image of Bar Graph Showing DEA Meth Lab Seizures from 1973-1999

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration, 2000 

Combating Methamphetamine Abuse in Six Cities: The COPS 
Office Methamphetamine Initiative 

In 1998, the COPS Office provided funds to six law enforcement agencies to combat 
methamphetamine abuse. The funds were to be used to support a wide variety of enforcement, 
intervention, and prevention efforts. Consistent with community policing principles, the 
agencies were encouraged to form partnerships with local agencies, including other law 
enforcement organizations, treatment providers, drug courts, and the like. 

2 EPIC clandestine lab seizure data do not capture all labs nationwide. The data are collected from all DEA 
offices across the U.S., but state and local law enforcement reporting is on a voluntary basis. 


The COPS Office invited Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Little Rock, 
and Minneapolis to submit grant proposals. These jurisdictions were selected after a careful 
analysis of existing data from DAWN, ADAM, TEDS, and the Uniform Crime Reports. In 
addition, internal COPS Office information about grant activity and community policing were 
added to the mix. Before officially receiving a grant award, however, each site had to submit 
proposals to the COPS Office that specified the types of intervention, prevention, education, and 
treatment programs that would beused. The sites had to explain in their applications how their 
efforts would mesh with their five-year community policing plans. They also had to include data 
on the extent and nature of their methamphetamine problems and describe how they had dealt 
with them through enforcement efforts. Budgets had to be approved as well. 

As a result of the proposal writing and budget negotiation process, grants were not 
officially approved and awarded until after 1999 had begun. Each site received about $750,000 
for the Meth Initiative, for a total of about $4.5 million. The projects were funded for a twelve 
month period. 

Evaluation Strategy and Methods 

To evaluate the six Meth Initiative projects, ILJ and 21st Century Solutions engaged in a 
multi-faceted process evaluation. At one level, we were interested in knowing about the site-
specific implementation of the programs. That is, how did each site use its funds and implement 
programs? At another level, we were interested in obtaining information that would tell us 
something about the success of the Meth Initiative across all six sites and explore the 
commonalities across the sites. At a third level, we were concerned about the impact of the 
initiative on law enforcement; the community; and meth users, distributors, and manufacturers. 

Overall, we found that we could engage in a rigorous process and cross-site evaluation, 
but given the constraints of time and funding, we could not determine the impact of the initiative 
on law enforcement, the community, and meth users. Data were not readily available to measure 
outcomes, and the timing of the evaluation did not permit us to conduct pre- and post-surveys. 
So we concerned ourselves with answering a number of questions that centered on 
implementation of the projects. Critical process questions applicable to all sites included: 


 Who is involved in project implementation and what are their roles and 
responsibilities? 
 What partnerships were formed and how were they sustained? 
 Were the implementation steps carried out as planned? 
 What barriers were encountered, and how were they overcome? 
 What types of training or technical assistance were needed to implement the 
project? 
 How was the meth initiative linked to intervention, prevention, treatment, and 
education? 
 How was the meth initiative linked to community policing at the sites? What 
benefits were derived from this linkage, and what difficulties were encountered? 

In addition to these questions, we sought information about the history of meth at the 
sites, a description of the meth market, and knowledge about meth users, producers, and 
distributors. 

To answer these questions, we conducted interviews, collected data from law 
enforcement, observed clandestine lab seizures and other interventions, surveyed partners about 
their roles and responsibilities, examined newspaper articles, and made use of existing national 
databases to augment our findings. 

Interviews 

At each site, we interviewed a number of law enforcement officials, including narcotics 
detectives, supervisors, managers, and chief executives. This included members of the Phoenix, 
Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, Dallas, Little Rock, and Minneapolis police departments well as 
their law enforcement partners. For example, in Oklahoma City we interviewed the special-
agent in charge at DEA and members of the Meth multi-jurisdictional task force. In 
Minneapolis, Hennepin County Sheriffs deputies and St. Paul police officers were interviewed. 
Representatives of all of the non-law enforcement partner agencies were also interviewed. In 
Salt Lake City, because of the magnitude of the project, over 60 members of the partnership were 
interviewed. In Phoenix, over 40 people were interviewed, including drug court officials, 
treatment providers, probation officers, district attorneys, the judiciary, school representatives, 
medical examiner, health services personnel, crime lab staff, and staff of the State Attorney 
Generals Office. 


In addition to interviews with officials, we interviewed drug court clients, probationers, 
jail detainees, confidential informants, and addicts. In Little Rock, a random sample of 52 
detainees in the Pulaski County Jail were interviewed to obtain information about their 
background, drug use history, and involvement in the local drug market. 

Other Data Collection Methods 

For each major city police department, we requested drug arrest data by type of drug and 
by classification of drug. In addition, we collected information from narcotics divisions about all 
drug seizures and drug arrests. Where possible, we received a breakdown for methamphetamine 
seizures and arrests. From drug courts, we collected annual overall data for cases adjudicated by 
the court. For methamphetamine cases, we collected as much information as possible that was 
relevant to the cases. 

For public awareness campaigns, we kept track of advertisements, including public 
service TV ads, radio spots, billboard ads, and the number of brochures produced and distributed. 
For training, we collected numbers of police officers (in service and recruits) and civilians 
trained. To increase our understanding of local partnerships, we sent a questionnaire to all 
members of the partnerships at each site and received 94 responses. Finally, to augment our 
findings, we used data from DAWN, TEDS, and ADAM. 

Cross-Site Findings 

The jurisdictions selected for the Meth Initiative vary in a number of ways, though some 
similarities exist. They range in population from about 175,000 in Salt Lake City and Little 
Rock to over 1 million in Dallas and Phoenix. All of the sites are located west of the Mississippi 
River.not coincidentally, as the meth problem is a western region phenomenon. The police 
agencies responsible for the Meth Initiative grants varied in size, basically following their 
population rankings, with the smaller agencies in Salt Lake City and Little Rock and the larger 
agencies in Dallas and Phoenix. The larger agencies had a smaller percentage of officers 
devoted to patrol compared to the other agencies. That is, Dallas (36 percent) and Phoenix (41 
percent) devote fewer officers to patrol than Little Rock (78 percent). Exhibit 8 shows the 
characteristics of the agencies and their populations. 


Meth History and Meth Markets 

In all six sites, methamphetamine first appeared as a result of outlaw motorcycle gangs, 
some of whom were transplanted from California. These were the first cooks of meth, relying 
primarily upon the P2P method. 

Exhibit 8: Characteristics of Police Agencies Affiliated with Meth Initiative: 1999

Agency 
# Total Employees 
# Sworn Personnel 
# Sworn in Patrol 
% Sworn in Patrol 
Total 911 Calls 
Population 
# Officers/ 10,000 

Dallas 
3,581 
2,858 
1,041 
36 
1,073,745 
1,053,292 
27 

Little Rock 
644 
558 
438 
78 
-
175,752 
32 

Minneapolis 
1,197 
917 
460 
50 
374,251 
358,785 
26 

Oklahoma City 
1,233 
978 
472 
48 
586,656 
469,852 
21 

Phoenix 
3,278 
2,532 
1048 
41 
1,041,554 
1,159,014 
22 

Salt Lake City 
567 
404 
188 
47 
-
172,575 
23 

Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 2001 

The Phoenix Police Department saw their first meth lab in 1990. In 1996, 65 labs were 
seized. By 1999, the number of labs seized increased to 116. At first, meth cookers were mostly 
White, blue collar groups producing sufficient amounts of meth for their own use, as well as 
enough to sell to support the purchase of chemicals needed to cook more meth. As of February 
2001, meth production is still associated with Whites, although the economic and ethnic 
spectrum has widened. Users are individuals of all ages and economic status, from teens to 
professionals with stressful jobs. 

Much of the meth in Salt Lake City is either produced in small batches by local cooks, or 
brought into the city by Mexican nationals. Narcotics officers estimated that about 50 percent of 
methamphetamine suppliers in the area were local, independent groups or gangs; 40 percent were 
illegal aliens; 5 percent were affiliated with motorcycle gangs; and 5 percent did not fit these 
categories. The clandestine labs are normally small, yielding quantities to be used by an 


individual and his or her friends. Clandestine labs have been found in a variety of locales, 
including single family homes, apartments, hotels and motels, and even small rented storage 
units. 

The meth problem in Minneapolis and Little Rock is a more recent phenomenon than in 
other locations. Minnesota drug enforcement officers convened a conference in 1995 to discuss 
the emerging meth problem tied to bikers operating in rural areas of the state. Now, however, 
the perception is that distribution has moved away from bikers toward major distribution by 
Mexican nationals. These groups had been involved in cocaine and crack distribution but had 
learned how to make meth and take advantage of the profit potential involved with it. In 
Mexico, a pound of meth can be purchased for approximately $3,000 and sold in Minneapolis for 
$10,000 to $15, 000. Federal prosecutors note that these groups have turned to meth in order to 
control the production end and eliminate the uncertainties brought about by having to rely on 
Colombian cocaine suppliers. 

Within the Little Rock area, methamphetamine was commonly associated with biker 
gangs and the party scene at a number of strip and dance bars. In the 1970s and 1980s, meth 
was not widely found in the local community, nor was it commonly available, in part because 
local cookers were few and far between and limited their sales to small, tightly knit groups. 
Thus, meth was not considered a significant law enforcement or public health problem. This 
began to change in the late 1990s, and especially in the more rural areas of Arkansas. 

Methamphetamine in Oklahoma City dates back to the mid-1970s, when it was used to 
cut or dilute cocaine, the prominent drug of choice among dealers. For the most part, the 
amphetamine-related problem at that time involved pharmaceutical tablets, such as Dexedrine 
and diet drugs; however, meth was also cooked (using the P2P method) and distributed by some 
motorcycle groups. Meth was still a relatively minor problem in the early part of the 1990s, but 
by 1996, an upsurge in use and distribution occurred. Narcotics detectives interviewed recalled 
finding more and more labs at this time. They also noted a change in the market  there seemed 
to be more involvement by non-blue collar workers. Professional, white-collar criminals became 
involved, and detectives saw fewer dealers and labs from trailer houses. Most of the labs found 
in Oklahoma City used either the ephedrine reduction method or the red phosphorous method. 


Currently, detectives believe that about 95 percent of methamphetamine is produced in urban 
areas. 

In Dallas, as in other locations, outlaw motorcycle gangs and independent groups 
historically were the first distributors of methamphetamine. In recent years, however, organized 
trafficking groups from Mexico have become the primary distributors of large amounts of 
methamphetamine. In interviews, detectives said that the biggest change in the last ten years is 
that Mexican Nationals are now doing the bulk of meth cooking and distributing in the Dallas 
area. One detective from the DPD noted that in the 1980s and early 1990s, white speeders 
were the only ones who used and manufactured meth. That has changed. By 1994, the Dallas 
Police Department saw Mexican Nationals dominating the trade. Users changed as 
well.Whites, Hispanics and occasionally, an African-American will be caught with meth. 
According to DPD, White males were the predominate group distributing and using meth during 
the 1980s. 

Interventions.Seizing Clandestine Labs 

Interventions by police under the Meth Initiative primarily consisted of clandestine 
laboratory seizures. These seizures occurred as a result of patrol officers making traffic stops 
and finding box labs in the trunks of cars, citizens calling in to report odd smells, and 
narcotics officers using informants, making undercover buys, and conducting surveillance to 
locate labs. 

Oklahoma City, Phoenix, and the states of Arkansas and Utah generated the most 
clandestine lab seizures during the grant period. Dallas and Minneapolis generated fewer 
numbers of lab seizures, but had higher percentages of change over that period. That is, both 
jurisdictions did not seize many clandestine labs in 1998, as it was not a priority. But over the 
grant period, law enforcement turned their attention to labs, and as a result, seizures more than 
doubled in Minneapolis from 1998 to 1999 and increased nine-fold in Dallas from 1998 to 2000. 

In the Salt Lake City region, the DEA is called to almost all clandestine lab seizures. 
This is because local police departments have become increasingly aware of the dangers in 
handling such hazardous materials, and because DEA agents have received training in handling 
the chemical substances. DEA collects evidence at clandestine lab scenes and also provides 
funding for hazardous waste clean-up. In 1998, DEA and local law enforcement seized 222 labs 


in the state of Utah and 267 in 1999. Preliminary data from 2000 show that they seized 163 labs 
in just nine months. These figures indicate that, on average, the DEA seizes anywhere between 
18 and 23 labs per month. While DEA data for Utah are not necessarily representative of Salt 
Lake City specifically, they do illustrate the serious nature of clandestine labs in Utah. 

In Oklahoma City during the grant period, officers were involved with nearly 300 lab 
seizures. From 1998 to 1999, the number of meth labs seized and processed increased by 70 
percent. Between 1999 and 2000, a 40 percent increase occurred. This means that during the 
Meth Initiative, the number of labs seized, processed, and dismantled increased by 136 percent. 
Phoenix saw similar increases. In 1996, 65 labs were seized. By 1999, that number rose to 116. 
In 2000, 133 labs were found. 

In Little Rock and throughout the state of Arkansas, more and more clandestine labs have 
been discovered since 1995. Statewide, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of lab 
seizures since that time-24 labs in 1995, 95 labs in 1996, 240 labs in 1997, and 433 labs in 
1998. 

In Minnesota in 1997, there were 22 meth labs seized (statewide). This increased to 46 in 
1998 and 109 during 1999. The first four months of 2000 witnessed 45 lab seizures. Officials 
estimate that two-thirds of the lab seizures occurred in the non-metropolitan regions of the state 
(Butler Center, 2000). 

Data from Dallas indicate that in 1998 only 4 labs were seized. By 1999, 15 labs were 
discovered and dismantled. The cost to the department for three of the labs was nearly $7,500. 
DEA paid for nine clean-ups, the county paid for one, and costs for two others are pending. 
Most of these were Nazi labs."3 In 2000, narcotics detectives seized and dismantled 38 labs. 

3 Nazi labs produce meth using ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, lithium, and anhydrous ammonia (ONDCP, 2001b). 

Prevention and Education 

Prevention and education were at the core of most of the projects (Exhibit 9). All of the 
police agencies believed that educating their officers and the public about the hazards and 
dangers of meth were critical to reducing production and use. In five of the six sites, brochures 
and pamphlets were printed and distributed to residents, community groups, and city and county 
agencies. Advertisements on billboards and buses about the dangers of meth appeared in four of 


the jurisdictions. Public Service Announcements were made under the auspices of the grant in 
three sites, and a media blitz occurred in four sites. Little Rock typified the use of these 
techniques, as the program coordinator there made use of billboards, buses, pamphlets, PSAs and 
press conferences to get the word out about the dangers of meth. 

Exhibit 9: Public Education Campaigns in Six Sites

Site 	Billboards and Buses 	PSAs 	Brochures 	Media 
Dallas                                      X
Little Rock     X		 X	    X             X
Minneapolis                                 X
Oklahoma City   X                X	    X		  X
Phoenix 	X			    X		  X
Salt Lake City  X		 X  			  X

Phoenix used a combination of traditional and non-traditional methods to reach its 
audiences. Phoenix developed an illustrated booklet that explains the effects and long-term 
consequences of meth use and how to identify the chemicals and equipment used to make meth. 
The booklet was intended to inform not only the general community about the dangers of meth, 
but also to educate police and others who may encounter meth users or associated equipment. A 
total of 4,500 copies were printed in English and additional copies were translated into Spanish. 
Phoenix also produced a video, Meth: Unsafe at Any Speed. The video featured speakers from 
the city and Maricopa County who discussed the dangers of meth, along with graphic displays of 
meth labs and chemicals used for cooking. The video was also produced in English and Spanish 
and was closed-captioned for the hearing impaired. The video won a Telly4 award in 2000. 
About 200 copies of the video were distributed to all city departments, with a directive that all 
13,000-plus employees should see the video. 

Phoenix followed San Diegos lead by putting up billboards stating, Whats Cookin in 
Your Neighborhood? METH? A meth hotline number to report users, dealers, labs, or other 
information was part of the message. At a later date, 20 additional billboards were introduced 
with the same message translated into Spanish. Another non-traditional media campaign was 
supported by the two major supermarkets in Phoenix: Bashas and Safeway. Both market chains 


agreed to place the same billboard ad on their grocery bags. In late fall of 1999, Bashas agreed 
to print 2.3 million bags with the message and Safeway printed 400,000 bags in January 2000. 

In Minneapolis, a number of extremely professional education materials were generated 
through the grant. Two distinctive posters were created and distributed. One was designed for 
businesses (3000 produced) and another for schools (2000-2500 produced). Additionally, a 
neighborhood resource guide on meth was developed. Nearly 5000 guides (4600) were produced 
and distributed to community groups throughout the metropolitan region. 

In Salt Lake City, the agency mainly responsible for the public awareness component was 
the Utah Council for Crime Prevention (UCCP). While it took some time to get the public 
awareness part of the project up and running, once it began, it gained momentum quickly. A 
campaign to fight methamphetamine sponsored by the UCCP began on February 2, 2000. More 
than 70 people attended the campaign kick-off. Public service announcements were also 
arranged by the UCCP, including more than 1700 statewide and 400 metro-area radio 
announcements between mid-January and February 2000. Television public service 
announcements were also debuted, and three different anti-methamphetamine commercials ran 
from February through mid-March 2000. The UCCP and other partners working on the public 
awareness component provided their own resources to keep the anti-meth message running. 
They were also successful at generating funding from other sources, as well as garnering donated 
materials such as PSAs and billboards. 

The Oklahoma City Police Department kicked off its Life or Meth campaign in 
September 2000. As part of its efforts, OCPD staged a mock raid at a local motel, demonstrating 
the dangers of seizing a clandestine lab. The fire department, emergency medical teams, patrol 
officers, and narcotics officers took part in the event. During the exercise, police burst into a 
motel room, arrested three people, and collected meth equipment scattered in the room. 
Officers wore protective jumpsuits and used standard safety procedures during the raid. 
Television crews, and reporters from radio and print media attended the mock raid. Children and 
parents were encouraged to wear the special safety equipment; and officers were available to 
discuss the dangers of meth use, distribution, and production. 

4 Telly awards are given to outstanding non-network and cable commercials. 


During its media blitz, which lasted about two weeks, four newspaper articles appeared in 
the Daily Oklahoman and the Oklahoma Gazette, the most prominent newspapers for the 
Oklahoma City region. Public service ads ran on television and radio and continued over the 
five-month campaign. Television news coverage also occurred, as evidenced by a report on 
Channel 5 (ABC affiliate) on October 10, 2000. The story centered on the dangers of meth to the 
user and the public problems associated with it. The news spot encouraged residents and 
businesses to call police if they sensed hints of meth.for example, a smell like cat urine, the 
sight of traffic in front of houses, and odd behavior from residents and their children. 

In Dallas, prevention and education efforts fell short of the original goals. Initially, the 
Greater Dallas Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (GDCADA) had a two-fold prevention 
strategy. First, funding was to be used to disseminate methamphetamine abuse information to a 
19-county area surrounding Dallas. Second, GDCADA was to launch a public 
education/prevention campaign based on the information provided by a GDCADA users profile 
that identifies high-risk individuals. By the end of calendar year 2000, GDCADA had fulfilled 
the first goal by distributing information in the 19-county area, and had convened a one-day 
symposium on meth. The public education campaign, however, did not reach fruition. Part of 
the problem stemmed from numerous changes in GDCADA management during the grant period. 

Training 

Training in meth awareness occurred in every site for patrol officers, narcotics officers, 
community organizations, and residents and businesses; and training goals were achieved in 
every site. In Salt Lake City and Minneapolis, multi-disciplinary teams were used for training. 
In Dallas and Oklahoma City, narcotics officers trained other officers, residents, and business 
people. In Little Rock and Phoenix, the project coordinator and project manager, respectively, 
facilitated and conducted training. 

In Dallas, the Narcotics Division trained patrol and community policing officers 
approximately 25 times on methamphetamine identification and production detection. This 
training took place both in-service and at the academy. Additionally, training occurred with the 
Organized Crime Unit, the District Attorneys Office, the Drug Court, and the Dallas Fire 
Department firefighters and arson investigators. The Narcotics Division also presented 


methamphetamine education and detection information to 13 community groups, including 
apartment managers, Boy Scouts, and crime watch groups. 

All Oklahoma City Police Department officers received educating and training in 
identifying meth lab chemicals. Citizens also received education and training. Narcotics 
Division lieutenants addressed a number of civic groups, citizens, and organizations during 1999 
and 2000. Speaking engagements varied from one-day seminars at Oklahoma State University to 
morning talk shows on local television. Of direct importance to the Meth Initiative were 
speaking engagements to the Greater Oklahoma City Hotel and Motel Association and the 
Oklahoma Natural Gas Employee seminar. Both groups were targeted because clandestine labs 
were found in motel and hotel rooms, and because gas company employees have the potential for 
noticing suspicious chemical odors during their work hours. The presentations consisted of a 
lecture, videos about meth, and a question-and-answer period. Narcotics officers discussed 
health hazards, identification of equipment and chemicals, and procedures to follow if a lab or 
waste site is discovered. The video shows common glassware, chemicals, and hardware 
necessary to manufacture meth. 

In Phoenix, the project manager made over 84 presentations to diverse groups, including 
the general community, schools, cityand county employees, and the patrol staff in the police 
precincts. Most unique of these were presentations to the employees of Arizonas two power 
companies, the Salt River Project and the Public Service Power Company, and to the City of 
Phoenix Department of Solid Waste Management. Descriptions were provided of the types of 
equipment used to make meth, as well as the kinds of chemicals and waste that could be found at 
a lab site. 

In addition, the project manager gave presentations to the Community Action Officers in 
the six police precincts. The purpose was to describe information about meth labs and to 
encourage police officers to identify specific community groups that could benefit from such 
information. The presentations to patrol seem to have resulted in more labs seized in 2000 as a 
result of patrol stops of vehicle stops. 

Minneapolis developed a four-hour training program for first responders and an eight-
hour training program for investigators. The four-hour training session covered topics such as 
the scope of clandestine laboratory hazards, understanding the cooking process and toxic effects, 


dangers to first responders, employee health and safety, medical screening and chemical 
monitoring, clean-up activities, and community awareness. The eight-hour session also included 
legal issues related to liability, enforcement issues on investigation and prosecution, hands-on 
experience at a mock lab, and the roles of various agencies. A training video on traffic stops was 
also produced. This was based on several incidents in which officers making traffic stops 
stumbled on "TOTE Bag Labs" in which meth chemicals were found in a vehicle stop. 

Through October 2000, 89 courses had been offered with 3,455 students attending. 
Students included law enforcement patrol officers, investigators, and first responders such as 
emergency medical services and fire fighters. The training sessions generally included 30 to 40 
attendees, with half the sessions open to partner agencies. Officers from DEA, Bureau of 
Criminal Apprehension (BCA), and the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) conduct the 
training. In addition, MPD and the BCA have partnered for out-state training that has taken 
place in New Ulm, Rochester, Duluth and Fergus Falls, and other regions of the state. 

During 1999, the training team expanded the training to include transit, housing, 
sanitation and parks employees, all of whom may come into contact with clandestine meth labs. 
They also incorporated a train the trainer method to educate block clubs on the identification and 
dangers of meth. This included developing Neighborhood Watch brochures on meth, as well as 
providing training and materials to retail stores that sell potential precursor materials. 

Training was an important component in Salt Lake City as well. Just as in Minneapolis, 
the approach was multidisciplinary. Project participants from a wide variety of backgrounds 
agreed to put on training sessions for community members. Trainers included a Health 
Department partner, a family services member, a youth services person, the DEA, and a Salt 
Lake City police officer. As in other sites, training recipients included patrol officers, members 
of city and county agencies, businesses, and schools. In addition, Salt Lake Citys 
multidisciplinary team trained nurses, mental health workers, probation and parole officers, and Boy 
Scouts. 

Treatment 

Treatment providers also participated in the Meth Initiative in the six sites. In four of the 
sites, drug courts were active partners. In Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, Dallas, and 


Minneapolis, meth users who opted for the drug court rather than the criminal justice process 
received treatment. 

Drug courts varied in their abilities to reach meth users. In Salt Lake City, through 
unforeseen contract technicalities, the drug court was unable to receive direct funding from the 
Meth Initiative project. Despite the difficulty in accessing funding, the drug court remained up 
and running and began to see some success. In 1999, 24 drug clients were accepted into the 
program. Of these, 12 were meth users. Five of the drug clients successfully completed the 
program. 

The Oklahoma City Drug Court, formed in 1998, accepts repeat criminal offenders who 
are facing the prospect of serving time for felony charges. The Drug Court team includes 
representatives from two treatment providers, the DAs Office, the judge, an Oklahoma County 
Sheriffs deputy, and a full-time Oklahoma City police sergeant. The deputy sheriff, who works 
part-time, focuses mainly on serving warrants when a Drug Court client fails to meet the 
requirements of the program. Team members concentrate on weekly reviews of the clients 
status. If there are violations of the contract, the team also determines appropriate sanctions. 
Over the past two years, the Drug Court team has reviewed over 4,200 cases to determine their 
eligibility for Drug Court. Selecting clients is rigorous, with about 5 percent of applicants 
accepted into the program. Between July and October 2000, the Drug Court team reviewed 420 
cases and accepted 21 new clients. Of the 135 active cases in October 2000, 35 (or 26 percent) 
were meth clients. This is a substantial increase compared to July 1999, when the percentage of 
active meth cases was 14 percent (12 of 87). The largest percentage (54 percent) of current Drug 
Court clients were charged with a cocaine-related incident, followed by meth clients, and then 
marijuana clients at 10 percent. 

One quarter of the meth clients did not complete the Drug Court program. Most of the 
terminations occured early in the program (within the first three months), although the Drug 
Court has tried working with a few meth clients for as long as one year to try to keep them in the 
program. The reasons for termination are multiple absences from treatment sessions coupled 
with multiple positive urine tests for meth (one client transferred to another countys Drug Court 
program). The first graduation for Drug Court clients took place in June 2000. Six clients 
graduated at that time, one of whom was a meth client. Eighteen Drug Court participants 


graduated in December 2000, including two meth clients. Of the three successful meth clients, 
one completed the treatment in one year, with the other two completing treatment in two years. 

A primary partner in Dallas is the DIVERT Court (Dallas Initiative for diVersion and 
Expedited Rehabilitation and Treatment), one of four drug courts in Texas. Funding for this 
court comes from the state. A number of agencies work with the court, including adult 
probation, the Greater Dallas Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, and the Texas Association of 
the Drug Court Professionals. An addiction severity index is used to measure the addiction level 
of persons brought to court, and a mental health questionnaire is administered by the staff 
psychologist. DIVERT Court began accepting cases in January 1998. 

Between January 1998 and June 2000, 532 cases were referred to DIVERT court. Of 
these, 123 cases were active as of August 2000. Fifteen individuals involved with meth were 
part of the program. Of the 15, four successfully graduated and six were still in the program. Of 
the remaining five clients, four did not complete the program and were placed in the criminal 
justice system, and the fifth client died during the program. 

The Hennepin County Drug Court in Minneapolis is unusual in that it is a comprehensive 
drug court. Court officials estimated that Hennepin County is one of only five or six 
comprehensive drug courts among the approximately 600 drug courts in the United States. All 
felony drug cases come to this court with the exception of those involving serious persons 
offenses. Thus, the court is responsible for trafficking, manufacturing, dealing, and possession 
cases. The court began work in 1997. Approximately 1,100 to 1,500 drug court clients are 
assessed annually, with 60 percent of drug court clients subsequently enrolled in treatment. This 
is an increase from approximately 30 percent of drug case defendants who received treatment 
prior to drug court. Unfortunately, statistics on meth clients were not available at the time of this 
report. 

Partnerships 

One of the major successes of the Meth Initiative is the partnerships that were formed 
during the program. The size, diversity, and focus of the partnerships varied by site. Also, some 
programs saw more success in their partnerships than others, but overall, collaborative efforts 
proved to be an important part of these projects. 


In more than half of the sites, the partnerships were small in number although they were 
formed with diverse agencies. For example, Little Rock Police Department partnered with other 
law enforcement agencies (including the Sheriff and another local police department), but they 
also partnered with the state crime lab. Their focus was primarily on training law enforcement 
officers on how to recognize and respond to meth crimes, but they also began a drug hotline and 
purchased equipment. 

Dallas Police Department's partnering agencies included a local council on alcohol and 
drug abuse as well as a local drug court. Their partnership efforts were focused on research, 
education, and treatment. 

The Oklahoma City Police Department's partners included the local DEA office and a 
local drug court. The OKCPD partnered with the drug court to provide more inpatient and 
outpatient treatment for meth addicts. The partnership with the local DEA office produced a 
meth task force. 

Phoenix Police Department formed partnerships with a local treatment assessment 
screening center (TASC) and also with the county district attorney's office. The focus of the 
partnership with TASC was on a media campaign using billboards, videos, booklets, and grocery 
bags. The county district attorney's office focused on prosecuting meth offenders. 

The Meth Initiative partnerships in both Minneapolis and Salt Lake City were larger in 
scale and equally diverse. Minneapolis Police Department had ten formal partners including 
other law enforcement agencies (local, state, and federal), the Department of Health and Family 
Support, and probation. The Initiative partnerships helped to provide training to law 
enforcement and community members state-wide. There was also an improvement among law 
enforcement agencies in collaborating on drug investigations. 

The Salt Lake City Meth Initiative was the largest and most diverse project with more 
than 30 formal partners. Law enforcement agencies, health officials, child and family services, 
and drug court staff, among others, were all included in the partnership. Increased law 
enforcement efforts, enhanced prosecution, training and public awareness, and a focus on child 
endangerment issues were at the core of the project. The partnerships that emerged through the 
Meth Initiative proved to be very successful. In fact, when the participants themselves were 


asked how they would measure the successfulness of the Meth Initiative, they stated that they 
would measure the level of collaboration that was taking place between agencies. 

It is also important to mention that most of the project sites formed or enhanced 
relationships with agencies outside of their formal MOU partners as a direct result of their work 
for the Meth Initiative. For example, in Phoenix, a number of agencies were contacted regarding 
anti-meth messages for their media campaign. In Minneapolis, there were a number of local law 
enforcement agencies and task forces involved in narcotics enforcement (including meth 
enforcement). The Meth Initiative was a vehicle that helped these agencies to increase 
communication and improve working relationships. Salt Lake City's project attracted a number 
of individuals and agencies who were willing to volunteer their time to help with the project. 
Most notable were representatives from the local treatment community who sat in on formal 
partnership meetings. 

Community Policing 

For the purposes of this evaluation, community policing was defined as a philosophy that 
emphasizes three elements: (1) adaptation or organizational change within policing agencies; (2) 
police and community engagement and interaction; and (3) problem oriented policing or problem 
solving (POP). These elements are the means to achieve the goals of controlling crime, 
maintaining order, and empowering citizens for the purpose of improving the quality of life in 
neighborhoods. This definition is culled from a number of researchers, policy makers, and 
police officials (Maguire, et al., 1997). 

Adaptation means the way in which the police department overcomes organizational 
level obstacles to successful agency-wide community policing efforts. There are a number of 
ways in which organizational change can occur. These include improving leadership and 
management; changing the organizational culture; modifying organizational structures; 
enhancing research and planning; and re-engineering an assortment of traditional areas like 
policies and procedures and call management schemes. 

Community policing is founded on the premise that police agencies must first develop a 
feeling of respect, trust, and support with the community (interaction), and then build upon this 
foundation a series of active partnerships (engagement) with the community. Community 
interaction and engagement calls for police to become fully immersed in the culture, structure, 


and activities of the community. This operational strategy means that a continuous information 
input and feedback process exist between the police and the community. 

Herman Goldstein called attention to problem solving and problem oriented policing as 
an alternative to traditional law enforcement strategies. He contends that the process of problem 
solving is flexible and dependent upon the nature of the problem, the cooperation of the agencies 
involved, and the degree of commitment to problem resolution. The SARA model, popularized 
in 1987 by the Newport News Police Department (Eck and Spelman, 1987), serves as the model 
for problem oriented policing. Basically this involves Scanning the problem, Analyzing the 
depths of the problem, Responding with appropriate solutions conducive to a long term 
resolution, and Assessment of the efficacy of the problem solving strategy. Tailoring solutions 
to specific community problems is a crucial component of problem solving strategies, and 
therefore of community policing. 

Using this definition and the accompanying elements, we examined the links to 
community policing and the Meth Initiative. 

According to the most recent data from the Law Enforcement Management and 
Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey, all six of the Meth Initiative agencies are actively 
involved in forms of community policing. Exhibit 10 shows the types of community policing 
activities reported to LEMAS in 1999. In terms of community interaction, all of the agencies 
train citizens in community policing and meet with community groups. Four of the six have 
formal problem solving partnerships with community organizations. In terms of problem-
oriented policing (POP), five of the six agencies actively encourage it, but only two of them use 
POP in their evaluations of officer performance. 

In terms of organizational adaptation, or the willingness of an agency to adapt to 
community policing principles, five of the six agencies reported that they had formal written 
plans for community policing. All of the agencies assigned patrol officers to geographic areas, 
and four of six assigned investigators to geographic areas. These are indicators that 
decentralization has taken place to a certain degree. All of them had officers assigned specifically 
to community policing.from 13 in Oklahoma City to 155 in Phoenix. 


Exhibit 10: Community Policing Activities of Police Agencies Affiliated with the Meth Initiative, 1999
			Dallas 	  Little Rock 	 Minneapolis 	Oklahoma City 	   Phoenix 	Salt Lake City 
CP Plan* 		FW 	  FW 		 NF 		FW 		   FW 		FW 
CP Officers 		138 	  84 		 89 		13 		   155 		16 
Citizen Surveys 	--	  X		 --		--		   X		X
Citizen Training 	X	  X		 X		X		   X		X
Community
Group Meetings		X	  X		 X		X		   X		X 
Formal Problem Solving  X	  --		 X		X		   --		X
Geog. Assign.-Invest.   --	  X		 X		--		   X		X
Geog. Assign. - Patrol  X	  X		 X		X		   X		X
POP Actively Encouraged X	  X		 X		--		   X		X
POP Used for 		X	  --		 --		--		   --		X
Evaluations  

*FW = Formal Written Plan; NF = No Formal Written PlanSource: Law Enforcement
 Management and Administrative Statistics, 2001 Methamphetamine Initiative  


Unfortunately, the links between community policing and the Meth Initiative were not 
strong within five of the six sites. Salt Lake City had the most comprehensive program, using 
Community Action Teams, nuisance abatement procedures, consensual searches, and 
partnerships. In the other agencies.Dallas, Little Rock, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, and 

Phoenix.partnerships, community involvement in training, and public awareness campaigns 
were the major elements that linked the Meth program to community policing principles. 

In Salt Lake City, the Community Action Teams (CAT) were the major link between 
community policing and the Meth program. At the time of this report, there were 15-20 agencies 
involved in CATs, with between 8 to 35 or 40 members and one designated leader per CAT. In 
some instances, agencies assigned more than one person to a particular CAT. In many cases, 
people who were assigned to the CATs were also participants in the Meth Initiative (e.g., city 
prosecutors, youth and family specialists). CATs worked on an address-based system where 
addresses were chosen based on information given to the CATs by a complainant. In general, in 
order for an address to have been considered at a CAT meeting, it was necessary for more than 
one agency to be involved. Meth cases were often worked by CATs, COP officers, narcotics 
officers, and Meth Initiative personnel. 

Conclusions 

The Meth Initiative proved to be successful in a number of key areas. First, law 
enforcement agencies in all six sites seized a substantial number of clandestine labs over the two 
and one-half years of the program. All six agencies used overtime funds to combat these labs. 
Second, COPS Office funds allowed narcotics officers the opportunity to obtain proper 
equipment. Because meth production creates health and safety problems for officers, training 
and equipment are necessary tools to prevent serious illnesses and other bodily harm. Third, the 
COPS Office initiative increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to form partnerships 
with non-law enforcement organizations. Partnerships with drug courts, the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, other law enforcement agencies, treatment organizations, social service 
agencies, and city and county agencies assisted the primary grantee to combat the meth problem 
and inform the public. Fourth, the public awareness campaigns in every jurisdiction appeared to 
be successful in reaching large numbers of people. Brochures, public service announcements, 
billboards, community outreach, and media blitzes were integral parts of these campaigns. 


While we could not collect pre- and post-data to measure the degree of success of these 
programs, anecdotal information indicates that the publicity served to inform the public about the 
dangers of meth. Fifth, training of patrol officers and citizens was successfully carried out in all 
six sites. The success of these efforts translated into better knowledge about labs, users, and 
distributors. This, in turn, led to better arrests and additional information on the whereabouts of 
labs. 


References 

Burton, B.T. 1991. Heavy Metal and Organic contaminants Associated with Illicit 
Methamphetamine Production. In Methamphetamine Abuse: Epidemiologic Issues and 
Implications, ed. M. Miller and N. Kozel. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Drug Abuse. 

Eck, J., and W, Spelman. 1987. Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport 
News. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

Irvine, G.D., and L. Chin, 1991. The Environmental Impact and Adverse Health Effects of the 
Clandestine Manufacture of Methamphetamine. In Methamphetamine Abuse: 
Epidemiologic Issues and Implications, ed. M. Miller and N. Kozel. Rockville, MD: 
National Institute of Drug Abuse. 

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). 1998. Methamphetamine Abuse and Addiction. 
Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Health. 

Pennell, S., J. Ellett, C. Rienick, and J. Grimes. 1999. Meth Matters: Report on 
Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy (2001a). National Drug Control Strategy: 2001 Annual 
Report. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy (2001b). Pulse Check: Trends in Drug Abuse January  
June 2001 Reporting Period. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy. 


Chapter 2 

Combating Meth in Phoenix: Innovation andIntervention

Introduction 

Like other cities in the western part of the United States, Phoenix, Arizona has 
experienced widespread use of methamphetamine. In the 1990s, Phoenix witnessed a large 
increase in the manufacture and use of the drug. To assist in combating the problem, the Office 
of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) provided funding to the Phoenix Police 
Department to work with the Treatment Assessment Screening Center (TASC, Inc.) and other 
partners. 

This chapter documents the implementation of the process and progress of the Phoenix 
Police Department during the course of the 18-month methamphetamine project. The chapter is 
organized as follows. First a brief description of the Phoenix site is provided followed by a 
discussion of the efforts expected through the Meth Initiative Project based on the site 
application to the COPS Office. Next, the evaluation approach is described followed by the 
results of the evaluation based on consultant site visits. Findings include a description of the 
history of the nature and scope of meth production and use in Phoenix and efforts to address this 
problem prior to the COPS Meth Grant. The operation and activities of the project are detailed 
to focus on prevention, intervention, enforcement, and treatment efforts undertaken under the 
auspices of the project. Finally, some lessons learned about one communitys approach to 
methamphetamine and thoughts about researching drug control strategies are presented. 

Site Description 

Phoenix lies within Maricopa County; with over 1.2 million residents, it is the largest city 
in Arizona and is ranked as the sixth largest city in the nation. Over 70 percent of the residents 
in the city and the surrounding area are White. About 34 percent of the residents are Hispanic 
and African Americans comprise about five percent of the population. 


The Phoenix Police Department (PPD) provides law enforcement to Phoenix residents in 
an area of more than 469 square miles. To accomplish this, the department employs 
approximately 2,600 police officers and detectives and more than 700 civilian support staff 
personnel. 

Similar to other large metropolitan cities, major crimes in Phoenix have dropped over the 
past several years although drugs continue to plague the city. In 1997 nearly 113,000 Part 1 
index crimes were reported by the PPD. By 2000 that figure had declined to about 97,700, a 
drop of over 13.5 percent. Most of that decline is attributed to a decrease in burglaries (-3,700), 
thefts (-8,000), and aggravated assaults (-700). Part 2 crimes also declined during the same 
periodfrom 90,500 to 78,800, though abuse of narcotics stayed fairly stable (8,400 offenses 
known in 1997 and 8,200 in 2000). At the time the grant proposal was written, meth was rated 
as the fourth most abused drug after alcohol, marijuana, and crack cocaine. 

The PPD is divided into six divisions, each with an assistant chief to provide oversight. 
There are two are patrol divisions, an investigations division, a professional standards division, a 
support operations division, and a technical services division. The two patrol divisions are 
divided into North and South, with three precincts in each division. The Investigations Division 
has three components.General Investigations (homicide, aggravated assaults, robberies, 
forgeries, auto thefts, and fugitive apprehensions); Family Investigations (sex crimes, domestic 
violence, crimes against children, missing persons, and ensure compliance with the sex offender 
notification law); and the Drug Enforcement Bureau. 

The Drug Enforcement Bureau (DEB) was responsible for the Methamphetamine 
Initiative. It is organized into two sections.enforcement and investigations.with lieutenants 
managing each. The enforcement section has eight squads to investigate narcotics complaints 
and handle criminal investigations. The investigations section has four squads to gather 
intelligence, conduct forfeiture investigations, and work with federal agencies on large-scale 
drug problems. In 1999, DEB received a total of 2,486 narcotics and dangerous drug complaints, 
a decrease from 1998 when 3,820 complaints were received. Of these complaints, 1,197 or 48 
percent were assigned for follow-up investigations. Of these investigations, 563 or 47 percent 
were successfully resolved with an arrest or seizure. 


The enforcement section investigates most of the meth labs located within the city and 
surrounding metropolitan area. In 1999, 20 meth lab certified detectives and 5 certified 
supervisors were responsible for coordinating, investigating, and obtaining evidence found at 
meth labs. They also oversaw environmental clean-ups. 

While the enforcement section has primary responsibility for meth labs, other units 
within DEB often deal with the meth problem. For example, the Narcotics Conspiracy Squad 
conducts long-term investigations of upper-level narcotics trafficking organizations and works 
with the HIDTA program. The commercial narcotics interdiction squad is responsible for 
interdiction of narcotics transported through the air, bus, rail, or mail systems. In 1999, the 
commercial interdiction squad seized 7.7 kilograms of meth as well as 5.4 kilograms of cocaine 
and 463 kilograms of marijuana. Finally, some members of DEB work with the DEA drug task 
force, which seized nearly 90 kilograms of meth in 1999 and arrested 223 drug traffickers for 
cocaine, heroin marijuana, and meth. 

COPS Office Proposal 

The Phoenix effort to address meth was directed toward prevention and enforcement. 
The enforcement effort was housed within the Drug Enforcement Bureau (DEB) of the Phoenix 
Police Department. A partnership was forged with TASC, Inc., a long-time leader in the 
community that provides drug abuse prevention, education, detection, and treatment services. 
TASC has a drug-free workplace component within its array of services and also provides 
assistance to the criminal courts for drug diversion cases. 

The Phoenix grant proposed to conduct an innovative methamphetamine initiative 
incorporated within a community policing philosophy to include: 

 A supplementary law enforcement component 
 A drug-free workplace initiative 
 A non-traditional media campaign to educate the public about the dangers and 
consequences of meth use and production 
 A methamphetamine data base study. 
Each of these efforts is described below in more detail. 


Enforcement 

The enforcement effort, according to the grant, expected to solicit businesses to partner 
with the project and train store clerks to recognize the purchasing practices of meth producers 
buying precursor supplies and to develop linkages to report such information. This effort was 
abandoned to some extent when it was learned that the Maricopa County HIDTA (High Intensity 
Drug Trafficking Area) Meth Task Force was embarking on a similar effort with business 
owners. With approval from the COPS Office, the project re-directed this effort to educate and 
inform diverse groups in the community about meth lab identification and the consequences of 
mixing potentially volatile chemicals. This shift in direction ultimately proved to be the most 
innovative feature of the project. 

The enforcement feature also included maintaining positive and frequent interaction with 
the Community Action Officers within each of the six police precincts and encouraging these 
officers to identify community groups and organizations that would benefit from presentations 
about the dangers of meth production and use. The project manager intended to go to briefings 
in each precinct to inform patrol officers of the ways that the Meth Initiative Project could 
provide assistance to officers, (e.g., how to identify chemicals and equipment associated with 
meth production). The project also expected to develop databases that would provide linkage 
analysis regarding meth producers and distribution and thus enhance intelligence gathering 
efforts. Specifically, a questionnaire was to be administered to all burglars arrested by area 
detectives. Questions would focus on the association of property crimes and drug use. Data 
would be entered into a linkage database used by analysts to identify criminal associates and 
possible leads for further investigation. Another type of analysis that was to take place was the 
examination of all narcotics complaints associated with meth directed to the DEB. Subsequent 
to data entry and analysis, a profile of targets and areas would be developed for further 
investigations. 

Finally, with respect to the law enforcement effort, specific equipment relative to meth 
lab investigations was requested, including a gas chromotograph/mass spectrometer for the 
departments crime lab to affirm meth evidence, along with training for DEB investigators by 

U.S. Customs to investigate hidden compartments in vehicles used to secure illegal drugs. The 
effects of the law enforcement component were intended to result in more labs seized and more 


suspects arrested and prosecuted. For prosecution purposes, the project also intended to contract 
with a County Attorney to be assigned only to meth cases. 

Drug-Free Workplace 

Utilizing the experience and expertise of their partner, TASC, Inc., the project hoped to 
work with local large and small businesses to encourage and design a five-step drug-free 
workplace. Objectives would include educating employers about employee drug use, employer 
liability, treatment alternatives, drug screen alternatives, and benefits of having a drug-free 
workplace. 

Media Campaign 

TASC collaborates with Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) on their antidrug campaign. 
With the project manager, TASC staff intended to explore unique types of 
media to attract the publics attention to meth and provide informational materials and phone 
contacts to link the public with appropriate intervention agencies. 

Database Development 

This component includes the linkage software described above. It not only includes the 
results from interviews with burglars, but also a compilation and analysis of narcotics complaints 
emanating within the DEB from calls from the public and other agencies. Review of the 
information was expected to assist in identification of threat areas or targets. 

An additional data analysis effort included interviews with a sample of adults and 
juveniles booked into local jails to develop a profile of the meth user and identify use trends and 
possible treatment alternatives. This effort is a replication of the ADAM process, or Arrestee 
Drug Abuse Monitoring system, supported by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ). This 
program identifies a sample of booked arrestees and asks questions about their drug use. A 
parallel study, completed in 1999 by the San Diego Association of Governments and also funded 
by NIJ (Pennell et al., 1999), supplemented the regular interview with 60 additional questions 
directed to meth users). The TASC staff intended to use a similar approach to develop a picture 
of meth users in Phoenix. 


Evaluation 

The evaluation design required a number of site visits and semi-structured interviews 
with local stakeholders. The interviews with representatives from diverse disciplines served 
primarily to determine the history of meth production and use, to identify prevention, 
intervention, and enforcement efforts to address meth, and to describe the progress of 
implementation of the COPS Meth Initiative Project. In addition, data sources were identified 
that could describe the nature and scope of the meth problem over time, as well as provide 
measures for determining the effects of the Meth Initiative. A number of other sources were 
reviewed as well, covering such topics as legislation associated with meth, reports by the 
legislature, local ordinances, newspaper articles, studies about drug use, educational materials, 
etc. Also reviewed were monthly reports by the project manager of the COPS Meth Initiative 
and monthly reports by TASC to the project manager. 

The remainder of this report describes information gained during the site visits that 
spanned from February 1999 to August 2000. 

History of Meth in Phoenix 

Interviews were conducted with over 40 individuals representing a wide array of agencies 
and disciplines, including law enforcement (federal, state, and local), probation, prosecution, the 
judiciary, schools, medical examiner, health services, drug treatment providers, crime labs, and 
the State Attorney Generals Office. In all instances, respondents were queried about the history 
of meth with respect to users, producers, and distributors. Additionally, questions were raised 
about the types of interventions taking place and those that should occur in the areas of 
prevention, enforcement, treatment, interdiction, etc. Respondents also provided their 
perceptions of the stage or status of meth use and production at the time of the interview 
according to phases of an epidemic. In addition to these interviews, the evaluator asked the 
project manager to schedule time for all DEB investigators to meet as a group during each site 
visit. The investigators were asked some of the same questions repeatedly, such as what had 
changed since the last visit with respect to users, producers, and traffickers. The next section is 
based on the results of the interviews and review of news articles and various reports. 


Methamphetamine use is not a new phenomenon in Phoenix. The first meth lab was 
found in 1990. What was new in the mid-90s was the surge in the number of meth producers and 
the rise in use. In 1996, 65 labs were seized. By 1999, that number rose to 116.an increase 
from 87 labs in 1998. Historically, producers of meth were motorcycle groups, many 
transplanted from California. At first, meth cookers were mostly White, blue collar groups 
producing sufficient amounts of meth for their own use as well as enough to sell to support the 
purchase of chemicals needed to cook more meth. According to the Phoenix Police Department, 
in 1998 about three-quarters of the meth suppliers in the area were local independent groups, 20 
percent were undocumented persons, and 5 percent were associated with biker groups. 

As of February 2001, meth production is still associated with Whites, although the 
economic and ethnic spectrum has widened. Most cookers use the ephedrine or pseudoephedrine 
reduction method of cooking, utilizing makeshift labs that can be disassembled 
quickly and moved to other sites. These are defined as boxed labs. A small proportion of 
meth manufacturing is attributed to biker groups. They are purported to be the best meth 
cookers. What sets them apart is their relative sophistication in manufacturing. They tend to 
reside in more rural areas of Arizona, obtain their chemicals from companies on the east coast, 
and distribute large amounts of meth out of state. These tactics make them less visible to law 
enforcement. 

Another group of meth cookers and users are the Mexican Nationals, although 
investigators rarely seize labs from them within the Phoenix city limits. Law enforcement has 
speculated that the reasons for this are twofold. First, ephedrine is not regulated in Mexico as it 
is in the United States. This means that some meth is being produced in Mexico and then 
transported across the border for distribution statewide and nationally. Second, investigators 
believe that undocumented aliens are transporting precursor chemicals from Mexico into the 
United States. Iodine and red phosphorous are brought into the U.S., meth is then cooked and 
produced, and again sold throughout the state. This results in a higher purity of 
methamphetamine. DEB investigators have difficulty infiltrating the Mexican cartels that 
traditionally were involved in cocaine trafficking. The cartels have recognized the demand for 
meth in this country and have the organization and structure for a high level drug trade business. 
The scope of their involvement is difficult to ascertain. 


Among Whites, meth production is less structured and poorly organized. Yet a definite 
network exists among the suppliers of the precursor chemicals, which are quite prevalent. 
Sources in Phoenix suggested that for just $200 an individual could purchase equipment and 
sufficient amounts of chemicals to cook $1,000 worth of meth (an ounce). The increase in use 
and availability of meth has made meth a primary drug among users of illegal drugs, according 
to those interviewed. However, drug trafficking of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana across the 
border continues at high levels, based on a lengthy series of articles in the Arizona Republic in 
January 2000 as well as other indicators such as drug arrests by the police department. 

Arrest statistics from the Phoenix Police Department indicate that 19 percent of all drug 
arrests in 1999 were in the dangerous drug category, which primarily is methamphetamine but 
also includes synthetic drugs such as MDMA, Ecstasy, and other so-called club or rave 
drugs. Ninety-five percent (95%) of the adults arrested in this category were White, compared to 
78 percent of the heroin and cocaine users who were White. 

As suggested in the five-city study of meth users (Pennell et al., 1999), interviews with 
Phoenix respondents indicated that meth users and dealers differ from users of other drugs. That 
is, the drug market appears less organized and not as visible compared to other drugs. 
Individuals, for the most part, buy and sell to persons they know, rather than strangers. Meth 
transactions generally take place indoors. 

By January 2000, Phoenix informants adamantly believed that the meth problem was 
reaching epidemic proportions in their city and would get worse before it got better. 
Respondents in August (2000) voiced similar predictions. Suggestions about the types of 
interventions that should take place to curb the rise of meth are discussed at the end of this 
report. 

Other Indicators of Meth Use 

The Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG), supported by the U.S. Department 
of Health and Human Services, under the auspices of the National Institute of Drug Abuse 
(NIDA), represents a network of researchers in diverse fields from metropolitan areas who meet 
bi-annually to discuss drug abuse trends among population sub-groups. 


The June 1999 CEWG report suggests that there is great variability in methamphetamine 
patterns and contexts of use, depending on population, location, and history of use (Dept. of 
Health and Human Services, June 1999). Mortality data that links death to methamphetamine 
show 51 deaths in 1998 and 36 in the first half of 1999, a projected increase in the latter year. 

Following San Francisco and San Diego, Phoenix had the third highest rate per 100,000 
of emergency mentions involving methamphetamine, in 1998. However, the 1998 rate was a 36 
percent decrease from the previous year after a steady rise since 1993. Drug treatment 
admissions for methamphetamine in Hawaii, Phoenix, and San Diego outstripped admissions for 
all other drugs, according to the CEWG report. But in the first half of 1999, admissions in 
Phoenix declined (Dept. of Health and Human Services, December, 1999). 

The ADAM (Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring) data strongly indicate that 
methamphetamine use among arrestees remains primarily in the West; sites such as Sacramento 
and Salt Lake City are beginning to show increased use of meth. With the exception of labs 
springing up sporadically in rural areas of the Midwest and Northeast and some meth use noted 
among certain sub-groups, the western part of the United States remains the dominant source for 
production and use of methamphetamine. 

Exhibit 1 shows the percentage of male and female arrestees testing positive for meth in 
Phoenix during the decade of the 1990s. In 1999, nearly 17 percent of the adult males and 14 
percent of the adult females in Phoenix tested positive for methamphetamine. These numbers 
are in contrast to the beginning of the decade when nearly 7 percent of males and 7 percent of 
females tested positive for meth. Male arrestees testing positive for meth have declined since 
1994, but females follow an up-and-down pattern during the same period. Preliminary ADAM 
results for Phoenix in 2000 suggest that meth-positives for adult men and women ranged from 25 
percent in the early part of the year to 16 percent at the end of the year. Proportionately more 
adult arrestees in Phoenix were positive for cocaine and marijuana in 2000 than for meth. 


Exhibit 1: Percentage of Male and Female Arrestees Testing Positive for 
Methamphetamine, Phoenix, 1990-1999 

	1990 	1991 	1992 	1993 	1994 	1995 	1996 	1997 	1998 	1999 
Male 	6.7 	4.1 	5.0 	13.7 	25.4 	22.0 	11.1 	16.4 	16.4 	16.6 
Female 	6.6 	3.9 	7.1 	15.1 	26.0 	21.7 	14.0 	25.6 	22.4 	14.3 

Source: Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program, 1999 and 2000 

During the 1990s, meth-positive rates ranged from less than one percent to 28 percent 
positive for adult males in Sacramento. In 1995, 22 percent of the adult males in Phoenix 
showed recent use of meth, the highest percentage between 1995 and 1999. In contrast, 32 
percent of the Phoenix male arrestees tested positive for cocaine in 1999. 

The COPS Meth Initiative - Partnerships and Interventions to 
Address Methamphetamine Production and Use 

To place the COPS Meth Initiative in perspective, the overall drug control strategy within 
the state of Arizona and the efforts taking place prior to the COPS Meth Initiative are described. 
In the mid-90s, indicators of drug use soared in Arizona, specifically methamphetamine. The 
Governor developed a Drug Control Strategy that, among other directives, required the Arizona 
National Guard to devote a significant amount of resources to the prevention and control of 
illegal drugs. Guardsmen and women were assigned to various agencies to perform a variety of 
tasks, such as assisting the border patrol and local law enforcement to stem the tide of drugs 
transported across the border. Although they have no enforcement authority, the Guard 
personnel became additional resources. In the Drug Enforcement Bureau, nine National Guard 
staff are assigned to analyst positions, responsible for responding to citizen complaints (by 
phone) and analyzing data on locations and suspects to provide to the investigators for follow up. 
Another section of the Guard in Phoenix provides an extensive drug abuse prevention and 
education component that develops materials (e.g., videos, posters, bookmarks, bumper stickers, 
etc.) and conducts presentations in schools and before community groups about the 
consequences of substance abuse. In the past couple of years, their emphasis was primarily on 
meth. A website was also established (www.antimeth.org). According to the Guard 
administrators, they receive hundreds of requests from around the world. 


Also in the mid-90s, the Governor established a number of HIDTA (High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas) Task Forces within the state to focus primarily on meth. In Maricopa County, 
the authority for the HIDTA rests jointly with the DEA and the Sheriff and is comprised of law 
enforcement personnel from other municipalities as well as representatives from the State 
Attorney Generals Office. A primary role of the HIDTA is the investigation and seizure of 
meth labs. In early 1999, the HIDTA directed additional efforts toward retailers and wholesalers 
of businesses where precursor chemicals can be purchased. Business owners and staff were 
educated about the ingredients used to make meth and the ordinances regarding the restrictions 
on the amounts that can be sold at one time. The HIDTA efforts are inclusive of Maricopa 
County, covering over 9,000 square miles with over 20 municipalities. The Phoenix Police 
Department, by contrast, serves only the city but about half of the population of the entire 
county. The HIDTA Meth Task Force also coordinates its efforts with the US Attorney 
Generals Interagency Meth Task Force. 

The Drug Enforcement Bureau (DEB) has six squads that interact with the Community 
Action Officers in six police precincts. Another squad, Knock and Talk, conducts 
investigations citywide. There are 20 investigators in the section who respond to complaints 
about narcotic activity, respond to potential lab scenes, and conduct undercover efforts to arrest 
drug users and dealers (e.g., surveillance, undercover buys of illegal drugs, etc.) It is important 
to point out that meth is just one of the drugs investigated by this team. Review of the ADAM 
data suggests that cocaine use is more prevalent among arrestees than methamphetamine. In 
addition, Arizona shares a border with Mexico, so there is significant trafficking and distribution 
of many drugs. In the latter part of the Meth Initiative, the DEB team assigned two detectives to 
work solely on cases involving meth. 

An additional squad has sole responsibility for conspiracy and wiretap investigations 
related to drug trafficking. The 64 DEB investigators are housed in an isolated, industrial 
location with some DEA agents and the National Guard analysts. A DEB investigator is a 
member of the HIDTA Meth Task Force. Many of the efforts undertaken by the DEB as part of 
the COPS Meth Initiative took place in collaboration and partnership with the HIDTA group. 


Partnership Efforts 

The project manager hired for the Meth Initiative is a retired Phoenix police officer with 
experience in overseeing grant projects in specialized units. 

In the early months of the COPS Meth Initiative, considerable time was spent on securing 
the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with TASC, Inc. and the Maricopa County District 
Attorneys Office, and ordering the equipment specified in the grant. Each of these tasks 
required interaction with a number of city and county agencies. 

Training for the crime lab technician in the use of new laboratory equipment was set up 
and steps were initiated with U. S. Customs to train the DEB agents to investigate trap 
compartments in vehicles where drugs are hidden. The project manager received certification to 
teach Hazardous Materials courses. 

Regular contact with TASC staff occurred. The project manager also discussed the Meth 
Initiative with the Arizona National Guard staff, who offered their support and resource materials 
for prevention and education purposes. 

Between June and December 1999, the trap compartment training occurred, the lab 
technician received training in the new lab equipment, and the County Attorney came on board 
to focus on meth prosecutions. Also, analysis training was provided by DEA to the DEB agents 
and analysts to assist them in interpreting the complaint forms called in by residents for the 
purpose of identifying hotspots and targets. Collaborative efforts and information sharing 
continued with the National Guard, the HIDTA Meth Task Force, and the precinct community 
action officers. 

Community Outreach 

The project manager made an impressive effort with respect to the partnering and 
intervention efforts with members of the community. Over the course of the grant, he made over 
84 presentations to diverse groups, including the general community, schools, city/county 
employees, and the patrol staff in the police precincts. Most unique of these were presentations 
to the employees of Arizonas two power companies: the Salt River Project and the Public 
Service Power Company as well as to the City of Phoenix Department of Solid Waste 
Management. The project manager described the types of equipment used to make meth as well 


as the kinds of chemicals and waste that could be found at a lab site. The premise is that power 
employees checking meters and sanitation workers picking up trash have unique opportunities to 
uncover evidence of meth labs and report such information to law enforcement. 

In addition, the project manager gave presentations to the Community Action Officers in 
the six police precincts. The purpose of these was to provide information about meth labs and to 
encourage the police officers to identify specific community groups that could benefit from such 
information. A review of cases involving lab seizures indicates the presentations to patrol seem 
to have resulted in more labs seized in 2000 as a result of patrol stops of vehicles. Probation 
officers were provided presentations and the project manager also talked with a pharmacology 
class at Arizona State University. Included in the public presentations were school classrooms in 
middle schools. 

Non-Traditional Media Campaign 

Information booklet 

DEB staff prepared a booklet about methamphetamine and its effects and consequences 
and extensive review took place among DEB staff and staff from other divisions in the police 
department. The result was a well-written, illustrated booklet that explains the effects and long-
term consequences of meth use and how to identify the chemicals and equipment used to make 
meth. The booklet was intended to inform, not only the general community about the dangers of 
meth, but also to educate police and others who may encounter meth users or associated 
equipment. The initial printing of 4,500 copies was insufficient to meet demand. The PPD 
received multiple requests, including requests from attendees at the COPS Meth Conference in 
August 2000. Other sources of requests resulted in the translation of the booklet into Spanish. 

Video 

The project also developed a meth video, entitled Meth-Unsafe at Any Speed. The video 
featured a number of stakeholders in the City and County speaking about the dangers of meth 
along with graphic displays of meth labs and chemicals used for cooking. It was produced in 
English, closed-captioned, and in Spanish. The video was submitted and received a Telly 
award. Ultimately, 198 copies of the video were distributed to all city departments with a 
directive that all 13,000-plus employees should see the video. 


Billboards 

A visit to San Diego by the TASC staff resulted in permission to use the wording on a 
billboard stating Whats Cookin in Your Neighborhood? METH? followed by instructions to 
call the meth hotline number to report users, dealers, labs, or other information. TASC staff 
worked with the various partners and the billboard company and secured, free-of-charge, 20 
billboards within the city that contained the meth message. The partners included the Phoenix 
Police Department, TASC, Inc., the Maricopa METH Task Force, the Arizona Partnership for a 
Drug-Free America, and the Department of Justice COPS Office. A press conference was held 
to announce the billboards with participation by the police department, the Sheriff, the Mayors 
Office, and others. Subsequent to the media coverage about the billboards, calls to the hotline 
number soared. At a later time, an additional 20 billboards were introduced with the same 
message translated into Spanish. There were no hotline calls associated with this additional 
posting. 

Other Innovative Community Efforts 

Another non-traditional media campaign was supported by the two major supermarkets in 
Phoenix: Bashas and Safeway. Through the efforts of TASC, Inc. staff, both market chains 
agreed to place the same billboard ad on their grocery bags. In late fall of 1999, Bashas agreed 
to print 2.3 million bags with the message and Safeway printed 400,000 bags by January 2000. 

A unique media tactic was the development of 25,000 double-sided postcards about meth. 
On one side was the billboard message ("whats cookin") and on the other side were facts about 
meth. Originally, the postcards were to be distributed at all Video-to Go stores in the Phoenix 
area. The video stores had agreed to place the postcards in each rental; this never materialized 
due to a change in store personnel. Instead, the post cards were distributed at presentations and 
displays in which TASC staff participated. 

Another approach involved the use of an advertisement in the movie theaters. The AMC 
theater company agreed to place a promotional advertisement about having a drug-free 
workplace in their theaters for a 13-week period for a cost of about $100 per week. The theater 
company was adamant about not presenting any negative messages about drug use to their 
customers. 


Finally, FAXNET 1, a communication network, was used to invite the public to a Meth 
and Kids Open Forum co-sponsored by the police department and the State Attorney Generals 
Office in October 1999. During the course of the project, over a thousand faxes were sent to 
community groups inviting them to attend public presentations by the DEB. Additional publicity 
was obtained by utilizing the City of Phoenix water billing process, which provides a notes 
section in which the DEB placed an article. 

Prosecution 

The State Attorney Generals Office prosecutes most methamphetamine lab cases in 
Phoenix. The County Attorneys Office takes responsibility for the felony drug sales and 
possession cases, prioritized along with other cases in that office. Drug cases involving only 
misdemeanors are diverted to the Drug Court. The Meth Initiative called for a dedicated 
prosecutor to attend to only meth cases. Delays occurred in the contracting process and the 
prosecutor was on board in September 1999 with the first meth case prosecuted in October. 
From the inception through November 26, when the contract ended, the prosecutor filed on 269 
defendants. The use of a dedicated prosecutor in the County Attorneys Office was expected to 
expedite the case flow and ensure prosecution. Unfortunately, there were no baseline data to test 
that assumption, although officers in the DEB expressed appreciation in having a dedicated 
prosecutor with knowledge about meth use and market dynamics. 

A review of cases with the prosecutor in mid-2000 suggested that the majority of the 
defendants were White males (70%); 25 percent were Hispanic, and 5 percent were African-
American. This breakdown is consistent with information provided from informant interviews. 
The prosecutor reported that her involvement may have been more effective if she had started at 
the inception of the grant and had opportunities to discuss the issues surrounding the filing of 
cases involving meth with the DEB investigators on a regular basis. A change noted by the 
prosecutor during her tenure with the grant was that more individuals were charged with 
possession of chemicals used to make meth. She also expressed that sometimes, there was 
insufficient information in the arrest report to substantiate that the chemicals were in fact 
intended to be an ingredient in the meth recipe. The DEB Lieutenant was pleased to have had a 
dedicated prosecutor for meth cases and intends to seek other funds to continue this effort. 


Drug Free Workplace Efforts 

The TASC, Inc. staff hired personnel to design and implement a plan for drug free 
workplaces. To this end, a number of business groups were contacted initially through 
correspondence. Letters explained the benefits of developing the framework for a drug free 
workplace. Brochures were printed and incorporated with invitations to employees to host a 
presentation by TASC, Inc. staff. Targeted employers included listings of hotel and motel 
owners and car rental managers. 

Staff attended a number of community fairs and seminars and provided prevention and 
educational materials about drug abuse. Staff also met with the National Guard and attended the 
Meth Strike Force monthly meetings. 

Few presentations to workplaces took place because of lack of interest and response by 
the employers targeted. In addition, staff turnover in TASC, Inc. limited the continuity of this 
effort. 

Database Development 

During 2000, adult males and females booked into jail were interviewed using the meth 
interview. The subsequent analysis was incomplete and is not included in this report. 

The proposed development of a database to include an analysis of community complaints 
involving meth did not take place because the staff was reassigned to other duties within the 
DEB. Additionally, the database was to consist of data collected by burglary detectives from 
persons arrested for burglary. There was minimal cooperation to complete this effort. 

Enforcement and Intervention Findings 

A review of a sample of lab case files from 1999 and 2000 indicated two important 
changes that may be attributed to the project efforts. First, a high proportion of cases involved 
stops made by patrol officers in which chemicals and equipment associated with meth cooking 
were found. This may be a direct result of the training provided to patrol regarding items to be 
aware of with relevance to meth cookers. In August 2000, the detectives reported that there was 
an increase in the number of calls they received from patrol. Patrol officers are identifying meth 
equipment when they make vehicle stops or when called to residences for another reason and 


recognize signs of meth cookers (e.g., stained coffee filters, kitty litter, empty iodine containers, 
etc.). The DEB investigators believe that patrol officers have become better informed about 
meth through the meth video and the meth booklets produced by the grant as well as 
presentations given at the precinct level. 

Officers also noted that many more fires caused by faulty or careless meth cooking are 
reported. One investigator surmised that more individuals are showing up in the trauma centers 
as a result of burns due to meth fires. 

In 2000, there were a large number of labs reported by hotel and motel staff that were 
subsequently investigated by the DEB staff. A reason for this upsurge may be the increased 
awareness of the indicators of meth labs, (e.g., odors, stains, equipment, chemicals, etc.) by hotel 
and motel personnel, including managers, security staff, and housekeeping services staff. 
Awareness may have increased from presentations given to those responsible for managing 
motels and hotels. A review by the consultant of about 30 meth lab investigations confirmed that 
several were discovered in these establishments. 

At the time of the last site visit (August 2000), DEB investigators agreed that the meth 
problem had not yet abated in Phoenix and is still on the upswing. Most of the DEB 
investigations of meth cases result from patrol, confidential informants, and complaints by 
citizens. 

Investigators agreed that the arrested offenders (e.g., meth cookers, users, and dealers) 
who they arrest are primarily White, often unemployed adults between the ages of 21 and 44. 
The narcotics investigators believe that Mexican Nationals, both legal and illegal, are becoming 
more involved in meth production and distribution; but the DEB does not investigate them 
because they are outside their jurisdiction.in Maricopa County or other parts of the state. The 
County Meth Task Force and the HIDTA teams, along with DEA, track and investigate the cases 
outside the city limits. 

Most of the offenders arrested by DEB remain either small-time cookers and users with 
"boxed" labs in their vehicles or low-level "Beavis and Butt-head" labs (characterization of the 
relatively unsophisticated labs that utilize standard glassware and plastics and ephedrine 
reduction/extraction methods). Precursor chemicals remain widely available despite ordinances 
that regulate the purchase of certain types and amounts. Liquid iodine is now more widely used 


than iodine crystals, and the use of mineral spirits is also more widespread. The DEB 
investigators perceive that the Mexican Mafia is becoming more involved in larger labs. 
Availability of meth results in little change in price, with a quarter gram available for $20 and a 
pound of meth costing about $6,000. 

The DEB investigators expressed some frustration with their efforts to stem the 
production and use of meth due to insufficient staffing in their own Bureau and the break in 
continuity when investigators get promoted and/or transferred. Meth investigations require 
extensive training with respect to understanding the effects and consequences of the chemicals 
used. Also, investigators think that public apathy exists regarding the production and use of 
drugs. The public attitude is exemplified by a reluctance to incarcerate lab cookers or provide 
intensive supervision for those on probation. Finally, the DEB investigators think that education 
efforts should be more realistic and graphic regarding the dangers of mixing the chemicals and 
the consequences of methamphetamine use. 

As noted earlier, the DEB busted 116 meth labs within the city limits. In 2000, 133 labs 
were found. Of these, 22 had children present. The Arizona State Attorney Generals Office has 
begun a Drug Endangered Children program, soliciting the assistance of child protective services 
to remove the children to protective custody and have them tested for toxicity. Beginning in 
January 2000, DEB investigators began tracking the number of children present at lab scenes. 

The evaluation consultant asked to see the files involving lab cases to determine 
characteristics of suspects, location of labs, and types of labs (e.g., sophisticated versus simple, 
low-level), whether haz-mat was called for lab clean-up, source for investigation, and types of 
chemicals at the scene. About 30 files were perused on a computer monitor where the data are 
maintained as narrative reports. Half of the cases were taken from January 1999 and half were 
from labs discovered in January 2000. 

Overall, lab locations were fairly evenly distributed across vehicles, residences, storage 
lockers, and hotels/motels. The number of labs found in vehicles is a result of patrol officers 
being trained to identify meth lab paraphernalia, according to the DEB investigators. The source 
of the calls from motels/hotels was frequently a security officer, maid, or manager, again 
indicative of these staff being informed about items associated with meth production. It is 
apparent that labs discovered and ultimately investigated by the DEB were low-level, 


unsophisticated, boxed operations based on the types of equipment found and the chemicals at 
the scene. It was common to see the following items listed in the report narratives about labs 
(either singly or in combination: glass jars, tubing, denatured alcohol, coffee filters, kitty litter, 
blister packs of over-the-counter medication (for ephedrine reduction), lye, acetone, lighter 
fluid, torches, propane cylinders, plastic baggies, Ph strips, iodine (crystals or liquid), flasks, 
syringes, funnels, scale, ephedrine, battery acid, hot plate, red phosphorous, matches, tablets, 
other drugs, blender, recipe/instructions for making meth, camp stove, written log with names 
and amounts (presumably related to meth customers), mineral spirits, hydrogen peroxide, baster, 
beakers, and cyanide. 

Many of the lab reports indicated that it was a boxed lab, thereby mobile and capable 
of being moved quickly. Data for suspects were somewhat incomplete because suspects had fled 
or the scene involved a storage locker or trash bin in which equipment and/or chemicals had been 
stored or discarded. The majority of suspects who could be identified were White. Despite the 
small number of cases, it seems apparent that the labs discovered within the city limits are 
initiated by small-time meth users who are making sufficient meth for their own and their 
friends use. The larger, more sophisticated labs are operating in more rural areas of the state 
and investigated by the County Meth Task Force and the HIDTA task forces. 

A quote from the Phoenix CEWG representative confirms this, Labs are typically 
portable, makeshift, and operated by non-chemists, all of which contribute to unsafe and 
unhealthy conditions. 

Challenges for Program Implementation and Evaluation 

The COPS Meth Initiative presented challenges both for the local program as well as the 
evaluation. A discussion of these may be of interest for future similar efforts. 

The program required partnerships to be developed with other entities, such as TASC, 
Inc., in an effort to promote a community policing approach. Although funds were allocated to 
TASC, Inc., the lines of authority were not always clear. The TASC, Inc. staff hired additional 
personnel to work on the Initiative but the staff were trained and supervised by TASC, Inc., with 
little or no input by the project manager of the Initiative. The turnover of staff had an impact on 


the capacity of the partner to complete some of the efforts that were proposed in the grant 
proposal. 

Purchase of equipment for the Meth Initiative required the assistance of different 
departments in the City of Phoenix. In some cases, there were long delays in obtaining 
equipment and supplies due to administrative "paperwork. Similarly, getting a dedicated 
prosecutor on board took several months. 

From the view of the consultant, it appeared that the Meth Initiative was perceived by 
staff in the DEB as a short-term grant project and not clearly understood by all the staff. 
While the project manager took on most of the project operations, the investigators were also 
called upon to conduct activities specific to the grant. Since the DEB detectives investigate all 
illegal drug activity, the time devoted to meth was limited and dependent on the priority placed 
on other efforts (e.g., conspiracy cases, wiretaps, search warrants, etc). Without sufficient 
dedication to meth-specific cases, the database compilation could not take place. 

Another issue common to most jurisdictions is the degree of collaboration and 
information sharing among agencies. It was apparent in Phoenix that there are a number of 
justice agencies involved in the enforcement and prosecution of meth cases. Not all were aware 
of the Meth Initiative despite the efforts of the project manager, and information or indicators 
about meth were not always willingly shared. Finally, as is the case in most law enforcement 
agencies, staff get promoted and transferred and these actions affect implementation and 
maintenance of a special project. 

In future projects, perhaps the COPS Office could provide more technical assistance to 
agencies to facilitate implementation and sustainability after the funding is terminated. Also, 
individuals in different jurisdictions could have benefited from more meetings with one another 
to share their experiences and learn from one another. 

Evaluation Challenges 

It is difficult to determine the success or impact of the Meth Initiative in Phoenix given 
the current indicators of drug use. The task for the evaluators was intended to be a process 
evaluation; that is, to document the implementation of the grant. However, the issue of 
success remains. Some of the effects of the grant are intuitive.such as better training 


identifies more meth users and cookers. That seemingly was the case as lab seizures increased, 
especially the ones found by patrol officers. But educating the community may have also raised 
awareness of citizens and contributed to more labs known to law enforcement, not necessarily 
more production. Other indicators of use and abuse, such as DAWN data, ADAM data, and 
arrests, are difficult to interpret because they cover different time periods, different geographical 
areas (e.g., city, county, state), and different populations (e.g., deaths due to overdose versus 
self-reported use). 

Another complicating issue about evaluating any drug control effort is the number of 
competing efforts taking place, such as the HIDTA Meth Task Forces and the educational 
activities of the National Guard. Disentangling the effects of one effort over another is difficult, 
if not impossible, to discern. Probably the best measure to link the activities of the Meth 
Initiative to specific outcomes would have been a pre- and post citizen survey to determine 
whether increased awareness on the part of citizens about the meth issue occurred as a result of 
the non-traditional media campaign (e.g., billboards, grocery bags, postcards, presentations, etc.). 
Also, it appears that the investigative efforts of patrol officers were enhanced based on the 
number of labs found. A similar pre- and post-effort may have confirmed the assertion that the 
training of officers contributed to increased seizures by patrol. In future efforts that focus on 
community awareness, such before and after measures should be considered. 

There were, and are minimal data about youth involvement in meth use although the 
treatment providers who were interviewed seemed to think it was extensive. 

When asked what steps should be taken to stem the production and use of meth in 
Arizona, the following suggestions and observations were offered. 

 Public attitudes about drug abuse need to be addressed. Too many people believe 
abuse is only the users problem as well as their prerogative. The media could 
take greater responsibility to educate the community, but generally report only 
sensational events, e.g., labs blowing up. Similarly, the educational efforts should 
be reality-based, focusing on the health hazards of meth production and effects of 
long term use on the brain. 
 Penalties should be stricter. Lab cookers tend to get probation if convicted. 
 Availability could be curtailed by increased restrictions on precursor chemicals. 
The current restrictions allow large amounts of chemicals to be purchased without 
mandated reporting. 


 Treatment is virtually non-existent in Arizona due to managed care that mandates 
the number of days that can be paid. A news article in early 2000 stated that there 
are only 12 residential treatment beds for juveniles in the entire state of Arizona. 
 Recently, the State Attorney General issued an edict requiring law enforcement to 
contact Child Protective Services when labs are seized in locations in which 
children are present. The policy suggests that children should be removed and 
tested for inhalation of toxic chemicals. According to law enforcement, the social 
service agencies are reluctant to take any steps that might separate parents from 
their children. 

The COPS Meth Initiative in Phoenix accomplished a number of its proposed objectives. 
The community education effort, in particular, was significant with respect to the video, 
information booklet, the number of presentations, billboards, and messages on grocery bags. 
Also, the Drug Enforcement Bureau benefited from the training they were provided as well as 
the equipment obtained as a result of the COPS Office grant. The equipment and the training 
needed to investigate and dismantle meth labs demonstrate another unique feature about meth 
compared to other illegal drugs. 

Finally, the experience in Phoenix, as well as this evaluators experience in San Diego 
County where meth use is quite prevalent, suggests that the unique features of meth, including 
the hazardous chemicals involved, the effects on the brain chemistry, and the fact that it is 
homemade suggest that one single agency cannot successfully address this problem. Meth 
creates problems for the environment, the health of its users, and those around them, such as 
children. To provide successful interventions, a multi-agency, multi-discipline approach must be 
employed in order to successfully address prevention, enforcement, and treatment. The COPS 
Meth Initiative provides a jumpstart for communities with meth problems. The challenge 
becomes the ability of the communities to sustain that momentum once the funding ends. 


References 

Pennell, S., J. Ellet, C. Rienick ,and J. Grimes. 1999. Meth Matters: Methamphetamine Use in 
Five Western Cities. Washington, DC: Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 
National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1999. Epidemiologic Trends in Drug Abuse, 
V. 1 Proceedings of the Community Epidemiology Work Group. Bethesda, Maryland: 
National Institute of Drug Abuse, June. 


Chapter 3 

A Partners' Approach to Fighting Meth:
Salt Lake City's Initiative

Introduction 

At the beginning of the COPS Methamphetamine Initiative evaluation, it was clear that 
Salt Lake City's project promised to be large, dynamic, and multidisciplinary. Since the start of 
the project in early 1999, these expectations, for the most part, have become realities. 

This chapter describes the scope of the methamphetamine abuse problem in Salt Lake 
City; characteristics of the local meth market; and the goals, setbacks, and successes of the Meth 
Initiative project. The chapter also outlines the methodological approach by the evaluation team 
and discusses Salt Lake City's intervention, treatment, and prevention efforts. Finally, the 
chapter also includes a description of the community policing strategies that were implemented 
as a result of the Meth Initiative project and how they helped to address the meth problem in Salt 
Lake City. 

Project Summary and Implementation 

Salt Lake City is the largest city in the state of Utah covering an area of about 90 square 
miles with a population of about 175,000. The Salt Lake County region is the most populous 
area in the state with more than 850,000 of the more than 2 million residents of the state and 
covering 756 square miles. According to 2000 US Census Bureau estimates, the racial 
composition of Salt Lake County is about 86 percent White, almost three percent Asian, one 
percent Black or African American, and one percent Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. 
Almost 12 percent of the population indicated that they were of Hispanic or Latino origin. The 
state of Utah is one of the fastest growing states in the country and has the youngest population 
in the nation. The median age in 1998 was about 27 (national median was about 35). 

The Salt Lake City Police Department received the COPS Methamphetamine Initiative 
grant (about $750,000) which was housed in their Special Investigations Division of their 


Operations Bureau. The department currently has 412 sworn officers on staff with an authorized 
strength of 413. The non-sworn staff is comprised of 158 full-time persons (authorized at 160).1 

1 The real and authorized strength numbers are based on general fund authorizations. These do not include any 
grant-funded positions.

The Meth Initiative in Salt Lake City 

Methamphetamine first appeared in Salt Lake City in the late 1980s but increased 
dramatically in the early to mid 1990s. At the start of the evaluation, participants in the Meth 
Iniative were asked their viewpoints about the seriousness of the meth problem in their 
community. According to officers at the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD), 
methamphetamine was increasingly becoming the drug of choice on the street. In fact, almost all 
of the project participants who were interviewed at the beginning of the project saw meth as an 
escalating problem in Salt Lake City. 

Federal funding for an anti-methamphetamine project was a perfect opportunity for 
SLCPD to begin to address their growing problem. A grant specialist and a lieutenant in the 
SLCPD collaborated on the proposal for the Meth Initiative. They identified four areas that were 
most important in addressing the methamphetamine issues in Salt Lake City including 1) law 
enforcement 2) enhanced prosecution/nuisance abatement 3) child endangerment and 4) public 
awareness/training. 

In addition, several individuals were hired to augment the existing SLCPD staffing and to 
improve inter-agency collaboration on methamphetamine-related issues. The original positions 
written into the grant included a Data Analyst, an Intelligence Analyst, an Deputy District 
Attorney, a Paralegal, a Youth and Family Specialist (YFS), and a Project Coordinator. In 
addition, two other individuals were expected to work 40 hours per week at the Salt Lake City 
Police Department. They came from Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) and the Salt 
Lake Valley Health Department (SLV HD). These last two positions, while working on the 
COPS Meth Initiative project, were funded through a grant from the Bureau of Justice 
Assistance. 

A grant specialist and a lieutenant from the SLCPD made first contact with most of the 
Methamphetamine Initiative participants who had been assigned to the project by their 


respective agencies. When the evaluation team conducted initial interviews with the project 
participants about the project implementation, all of the interviewees were supportive of the 
Methamphetamine Initiative and looked forward to working with other agencies. In fact, many 
noted that the level of collaboration that the grant called for was both necessary and beneficial. 

Interagency collaboration was a main focus of this project from the start. The strategies 
outlined in the grant supported a multidisciplinary approach to combating the methamphetamine 
problem. These strategies included: 

 Enhancing law enforcement efforts to curtail the production, distribution, and 
abuse of methamphetamine; 
 Enhancing prosecution of civil and criminal cases related to methamphetamine; 
 Addressing child endangerment and adult protective services issues in relation to 
methamphetamine production, distribution, and abuse; 
 Using civil remedies to reduce the impact of methamphetamine on 
neighborhoods; 
 Developing a public awareness campaign; and 
 Forming a training team and developing a training curriculum to reduce the risk 
of physical harm and increase the publics knowledge of methamphetamine. 

Evaluation Methods 

Because the SLC project was both large and dynamic, the evaluation effort was designed 
to be multifaceted. Site visits were scheduled every six to eight weeks, at which time key project 
participants were interviewed about the project, and their roles, shortcomings and successes, and 
their desire to continue the project after funding ended. Interviews were also conducted with 
drug court participants and drug treatment clients. 

In addition to the interviews, quantitative data was collected on arrests, clandestine lab 
seizures, prosecutions, DCFS and Health Department cases, treatment admissions, and public 
awareness. The evaluators also scheduled ride-alongs with narcotics officers, and they observed 
drug court proceedings. Analyzing data from many sources enabled the evaluators to understand 
the larger context of the meth problem in Salt Lake City, and to describe how others were 
addressing the problem outside the scope of the COPS Meth Intiative. That is, the data provided 
a picture of the larger environment in which the project was taking place. 


History of Meth and the Meth Market in Salt Lake City 

Multiple local sources indicated that the meth abuse problem in Salt Lake City had been 
increasing at an incredible rate. National Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) statistics 
reinforced the significance of the problem. Although Salt Lake City has only been an ADAM 
site since the fourth quarter of 1998, findings show that there is a serious meth problem in the 
area. Figures from the fourth quarter of 1998 showed that more than 20 percent of male arrestees 
and 31 percent of female arrestees tested positive for methamphetamine. These numbers 
increased in 1999 with more than 24 percent of adult male arrestees and 34 percent of adult 
female arrestees testing positive for meth. Even with only one quarter documented for the year 
1998, Salt Lake City was placed among the top three ADAM sites in methamphetamine abuse 
(behind San Diego and Sacramento) for both 1998 and 1999. 

Based on ADAM data as well as information from the police department, Salt Lake City 
appears to be similar to other cities with a significant methamphetamine abuse problem (see 
Pennell, Ellett, Rienick, and Grimes, 1999). Meth users in Salt Lake City are predominately 
non-Hispanic, white males and females between 18 to 32 years of age, with white females 
becoming the most heavily involved group. In fact, the racial composition of users is heavily 
skewed to whites. Furthermore, it appears that the individuals using meth fall within a wide 
range of socio-economic groups. 

According to law enforcement officials, much of the meth in Salt Lake City is either 
produced in small batches by local cooks, or is trafficked into the city by Mexican nationals. 
Law enforcement estimated that approximately 50 percent of methamphetamine suppliers in the 
area are local, independent groups/gangs, 40 percent are illegal aliens, 5 percent are motorcycle 
gangs, and 5 percent are some other type of supplier. The clandestine labs are normally small, 
yielding quantities adequate for use by an individual and his/her friends. These labs have been 
found in a variety of locales, including single family homes, apartments, hotels and motels, and 
even small storage units. The map on the following page (Exhibit 1) details the locations where 
methamphetamine labs were discovered in a two-year period. It also indicates the proximity of 
the labs to other landmarks, including churches, schools, and parks. As is evident in the map, 
clandestine lab sites are not concentrated in one, or even a few areas. Rather, they are spread 
throughout the city. 


Exhibit 1: Methamphetamine Lab Locations

Map of Methamphetamine Labs Discovered in Salt Lake City January 1, 1998 - January 20, 2000


With regard to price, methamphetamine is slightly less expensive than heroin, but more 
expensive than cocaine. Exhibit 2 below shows the approximates suppliers' price for 
methamphetamine. Exhibit 3 compares the street prices of cocaine, heroin, and meth. The 
information is regularly updated by the SLCPD based on undercover investigations or interviews 
with people who have knowledge of the meth market. 

Exhibit 2: Street Value of Methamphetamine, 2000

Methamphetamine 	Retail 		Wholesale 
 gram 			$25* 		$25* 
 gram 			$50 		$30 
1 gram 			$80-120 	$60 
1/16 ounce (Teener) 	$110-150 	$80 
1/8 ounce (Eight ball) $140-180 	$110 
1 Ounce 		$700-900 	$550 
1 Pound 		$10-12,000 	$7,000 
1 Kilogram 		$18-22,000 	$9,000 

* Retail and wholesale values for 1/4 gram of meth are the same, since it is not likely that a buyer would purchase
such a small amount wholesale. 
Source: Salt Lake City Police Department 

Exhibit 3: Street Price of Methamphetamine, Cocaine, and Heroin, 2000

1 Gram 
Cocaine	$50 
Meth	$100 
Heroin	$120 

1/4 Gram 
Cocaine	$15 
Meth	$25 
Heroin	$30 

 
Much of the police information on the meth market was substantiated by meth users. As 
part of the evaluation, interviews were conducted with meth addicts who were participating in 
treatment programs in the Salt Lake City area (N=35). All of the interviewees stated that their 


primary drug of abuse was meth. Of the 35 individuals, the mean age was 36 (range of 20-52), 
they averaged less than a high school diploma, and most had been arrested multiple times. Most 
of the interviewees were multiple drug users, with 32 of the 35 having used more than 5 drugs 
during their lifetime. Most of the treatment clients first tried marijuana at age 13, and their first 
experience with meth was around age 24. The method of ingestion varied, but the most common 
was snorting followed by smoking, and then injecting. 

All of the treatment clients supported the idea that it is easy to buy, sell, and make meth. 
In fact, all of the interviewees had bought meth, 29 had sold it, and 16 had cooked it. 
Additionally, their comments supported the notion that the meth market is a closed one. All of 
the clients had been introduced to meth by a friend or family member, and 29 of the 35 bought 
from a regular source. Of the 29 sellers, 26 of them only sold to a regular group. Finally, most 
of the buying, selling, and manufacturing of meth took place in someone's home. 

Salt Lake City's Project 
Collaborative Efforts 

The recipient of the COPS Methamphetamine Initiative grant was the Salt Lake City 
Police Department. Their goal was to implement a system-wide approach to combating the meth 
problem in Salt Lake City and the surrounding communities. They did this by recruiting more 
than 30 different agencies to participate in the project. The group was a mixture of city, county, 
state, and federal agencies responsible for a variety of tasks that would help to decrease the abuse 
of methamphetamine. For most of the partner agencies, this project was an opportunity to either 
foster or strengthen a productive partnership with the police department as well as with one 
another. Below is a list of the partnering agencies (Exhibit 4). 

Each of the participating agencies were assigned to one of four subcommittees according 
to their expertise: (1) Law Enforcement, (2) Child Endangerment, (3) Enhanced Prosecution and 
Nuisance Abatement, and (4) Public Awareness and Training. Exhibit 5 shows each of the 
subcommittee's goals for the project and their successfulness in meeting each. As can be seen in 
the exhibit, the Meth Initiative was quite successful in meeting the objectives they set forth at the 
beginning of the project. They had the most difficulty with the Enhanced Prosecution/Nuisance 
Abatement objectives which will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter. 
 


Exhibit 4: Project Partners 
 Salt Lake City Police Department 
 Salt Lake City Mayor's Office 
 Drug Enforcement Administration 
 U.S. Attorney's Office 
 West Valley City Police Department 
 Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Services 
 U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 
 Office of Guardian ad-Litem 
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
 Mobile Neighborhood Watch 
 Salt Lake Valley Health Department 
 Housing and Neighborhood Development 
 Utah Council on Crime Prevention 
 Salt Lake City School District 
 Salt Lake County District Attorney 
 Community Counseling Center 
 Administrative Office of the Courts 
 Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice 
 Division of Child and Family Services 
 Division of Human Services 
 Salt Lake City Prosecutor's Office 
 Utah Attorney General's Office 
 Salt Lake County Division of Substance Abuse 
 Court Watch 
 State Department of Substance Abuse 
 Department of Public Safety 
 Utah State Legislator 
 Salt Lake City Capital Planning and 
 State Division of Aging and Adult Services Programming Division 
 Intermountain Evaluation Services 
 Primary Children's Medical Center 

Exhibit 5: Progress Made in Meeting Project Objectives

Law Enforcement Objectives 				Met 	On-Going 	Not Met 
Establish and staff an Intelligence Unit 		X 
Train supervisors and patrol officers in 
problem solving techniques 				   	   X
Establish written descriptions of the roles 
of law enforcement partners 				X
Enhance partnership with West Valley 
Police Department					   	   X 
Purchase an Automated Fingerprint 
Identification System for regional use			X 
Provide Community Policing Problem Solving 
workshops						   	   X 

Enhanced Prosecution/Nuisance Abatement Objectives 	Met 	On-Going 	Not Met 
Co-locate an attorney from the City Prosecutors 
Office 	and the District Attorneys Office at the SLCPD  X
Hire a paralegal to assist the attorneys 		 X
Cooperate with prosecution entities to facilitate 
enhanced prosecution of crimes (e.g., child endangerment)	   X 
Track and monitor methamphetamine-related prosecution 		   X
activities 


Outline protocols for methamphetamine-related civil and 
criminal cases									   X 
Reduce barriers to successful prosecution of 
methamphetamine cases 						   X
Facilitate effective nuisance abatement and other civil 			   X
remedies 
Address barriers to effective nuisance abatement through 
changes in policies, practices, and procedures					   X 
Develop training to improve case management using civil 
remedies 									   X

Child Endangerment Objectives 				Met 	On-Going 	Not Met 
Develop a Family Drug Court model that addresses child 		X
endangerment and parental addiction 
Hire a Youth and Family Specialist to respond to and 	X
manage meth-related cases pertaining to children and 
elderly 
Provide training to schools, parent groups, child care 		X
facilities, and youth service providers 
Develop early interventions at pre-natal visits and 				X
emergency room visits involving infants 
Identify roles and procedures that define the		X 
relationship between YFS, DCFS, and SLCPD 

Public Awareness/Training Objectives 			Met 	On-Going 	Not Met 
Contract with the Utah Council on Crime Prevention to 	X
develop a local campaign linked to the national public 
awareness campaign 
Conduct training for community groups on			X 
methamphetamine issues 
Work with SLCPD to develop media support for the	X 
public awareness campaign 
Work with community organizations to disseminate 		X
information related to methamphetamine 
Identify trainers from SLCPD, DEA, Board of Health, 	X
DCFS, YFS, and the attorneys 
Develop individual training segments to address target 		X
audiences 

To adequately manage such a large project, the participating agencies were also assigned 
to one of two project groups. The first group, the Partner's Work Group (PWG), consisted of 
administrative personnel, while the second group, the Meth Team, consisted of line employees of 
the participating agencies. The PWG met once per month to discuss recent activities of the 


subcommittees, address problems, and discuss important developments related to the Initiative. 

The Meth Team, on the other hand, was located at the SLCPD and was responsible for 
responding to and following up on cases, and performing other work consistent with their job 
descriptions. The Team was comprised of the following key positions: 

 Project Manager 
 Project Coordinator 
 Data Analyst 
 Intelligence Analyst 
 Division of Child and Family Services Worker (DCFS) 
 Salt Lake Valley Health Department Worker (SLV HD) 
 Youth and Family Specialists (YFS) 
 Deputy District Attorney 
 City Prosecutor 
 Paralegal 

As discussed later, several partnership issues arose as the team members began to work 
together. However, most participants felt that inter-agency collaboration was necessary to help 
combat the methamphetamine problem in Salt Lake City. In fact, many people went beyond just 
verbally advocating such a relationship and made special efforts to ensure that the partnerships 
were maintained. Their efforts included: 

 Calling out partnering agencies (i.e., DCFS, YFS, SLVHD, WVPD) to crime 
scenes to help with child, family, health, and law enforcement issues; 
 Sharing intelligence information within the SLCPD (e.g., among separate 
divisions) as well as with other law enforcement entities such as the neighboring 
West Valley City Police Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA); 
 Organizing internal data on arrests as well as collecting data from outside 
agencies (e.g., DAs office, DEA, WVPD) in order to analyze the extent of the 
meth problem and the progress of the Initiative; and 
 Cooperating with agencies like the Salt Lake Valley Health Department and the 
Utah Council on Crime Prevention to increase the publics awareness of 
methamphetamine problems. 

For many participants in the Salt Lake City Methamphetamine Initiative, the 
establishment of cooperative relationships among agencies represented the biggest success of the  


project; and many believed these relationships would continue after federal funding for the 
Methamphetamine Initiative ended. 

Intervention 

Intervention efforts were a major focus of the Salt Lake City project and represented an 
essential first step to control the use, sale, and manufacturing of meth. Several agencies were 
intimately involved in this aspect of the project including law enforcement (SLCPD and DEA), 
the City Prosecutor's Office, the District Attorney's Office, the Division of Child and Family 
Services, and the Salt Lake Valley Health Department. Overall, the objectives of these groups 
were to focus on meth arrests, to seize clandestine labs, to identify and abate nuisance properties 
in the community, to aggressively prosecute meth-related felony cases, to identify endangered 
children and remove them from contaminated homes, and to identify health problems resulting 
from meth labs and close dangerous locations to entry/occupancy. In most cases, these 
objectives were met with success. In instances where problems proved difficult to resolve, the 
participants were flexible enough to offer alternative ideas and experiment with other options. 

Law Enforcement 

To gauge the amount of time and resources that were being spent on methamphetamine-
related activities, the evaluators collected arrest data from both the SLC PD and the Drug 
Enforcement Administration (Salt Lake City district office)2 . 

The SLCPD and the DEA contributed a great deal of time and resources to combating 
meth abuse, which significantly affected the Meth Initiative. The city narcotics officers deal 
with the methamphetamine-related cases falling under the SLCPD jurisdiction. The DEA district 
office operates as a metro narcotics task force, which is composed of federal agents as well as 
officers from local law enforcement agencies. The DEA addresses meth cases falling outside of 
SLCPD's jurisdiction, as well as all clandestine lab cases. 

In Exhibit 6, two charts display the percent of meth arrests compared to the percent of 
other drug arrests for both the SLCPD and the DEA in 1998 and 1999. This information is also 
broken down into the type of charge at arrest (e.g., sales, possession, and manufacturing). 

The DEA's jurisdiction includes Salt Lake City proper as well as surrounding areas. 
 


Exhibit 6: Arrest Data from SLCPD and DEA

Salt Lake City Police Department
  
Meth 
Sales
1998	3 
1999 	5
2000 	6
 
Possession 
1998	8
1999	9
2000	9

Manufacturing 
1998	9
1999	73
2000	90

Salt Lake City PD 	1998 	1999 	2000* 

Sales 
All Drugs 		1238 	542 	192 
Meth 			38 	26 	12 

Possession 
All Drugs 		1270 	1132 	893 
Meth 			98 	102 	84 

Manufacturing 
All Drugs 		40 	27 	10 
Meth 			29 	14 	9 

*Note: Numbers from 2000 include only the first nine months. 
 


Drug Enforcement Administration 

Meth 
Sales
1998	17 
1999 	26
2000	41

Possession
1998	48 
1999 	66
2000	51

Manufacturing
1998	99 
1999 	96
2000 	96

DEA 		1998 	1999 	2000* 

Sales 
All Drugs 	213 	191 	49 
Meth 		37 	50 	20 

Possession 
All Drugs 	44 	56 	39 
Meth 		21 	37 	20 

Manufacturing 
All Drugs 	181 	275 	156 
Meth 		180 	265 	150 

*Note: Numbers from 2000 include only the first nine months. 
 


The data show that meth arrests for both sales and possession represented only a small 
percentage of all sales and possession arrests for the SLCPD during 1998 and 1999. 
Specifically, meth-related sales arrests comprised only 3 percent of all drug sales arrests in 1998 
and almost 5 percent in 1999. Meth-related possession arrests comprised almost 8 percent of all 
drug possession arrests in 1998 and about 9 percent in 1999. The meth-related arrests for 
manufacturing accounted for a much larger percentage of all manufacturing arrests in Salt Lake 
City. In 1998, 73 percent of all manufacturing charges were meth-related, which dropped to 52 
percent in 1999. 

The data collected for the first nine months of 2000 are similar to the previous two years. 
Meth-related sales arrests comprised about 6 percent of all drug sales arrests, while meth-related 
possession arrests comprised about 9 percent of all drug possession arrests. Again, meth 
manufacturing arrests comprised a much larger percentage than the other two categories with 
about 90 percent of all manufacturing charges being meth-related. Overall, meth-related arrests 
accounted for about 6 percent of all SLCPD drug arrests in 1998, 8 percent in 1999, and 10 
percent in the first nine months of 2000. 

The data gathered from the DEA showed a slightly different trend. Arrests for meth sales 
accounted for 17 percent and 26 percent of all drug sales arrests in 1998 and 1999, respectively. 
Possession charges for meth were even higher (48 percent in 1998 and 66 percent in 1999 of all 
possession charges), while manufacturing charges were almost exclusively methamphetamine 
related (99 percent in 1998 and 96 percent in 1999). Preliminary data for the first nine months of 
2000 showed an increase in sales but a decrease in possession. Meth-related manufacturing 
arrests stayed the same. Overall, meth-related arrests accounted for about 54 percent of all DEA 
drug arrests in 1998, 67 percent in 1999, and about 78 percent in the first nine months of 2000. 

To further explain the scope of the manufacturing problem in the area, data were also 
gathered on the number of clandestine labs seized between 1998 and June 2000. It is important 
to note that the DEA is called to almost all of the clandestine lab seizures in the state of Utah. 
This is due to an increased awareness of local departments about the dangers involved in 
handling such hazardous materials, and because DEA agents have received training in handling 
the chemical substances. Not only does the DEA collect evidence at clandestine lab scenes, they 
also provide funding for hazardous waste clean up. The DEA data reflect an enormous (and 
 


growing) state-wide problem. The DEA seized 222 labs in 1998 and 267 in 1999. Preliminary 
data from 2000 show that they seized 163 labs in just nine months. These figures indicate that, 
on average, the DEA seizes anywhere between 18 and 22 labs per month. While DEA data is not 
necessarily representative of Salt Lake City specifically, it does illustrate the serious nature of 
clandestine labs in Utah. 

Intelligence Analyst 

The Intelligence Analyst was a new position for the SLCPD created under the COPS 
Methamphetamine Initiative project. Although the individual assigned to fill the position was 
expected to work primarily on the Meth Initiative project, it became immediately clear that his 
expertise was a valuable asset to other parts of the department as well. In fact, his knowledge 
and willingness to work with others not only opened up lines of communication within the 
department, it also helped to create or rejuvenate relationships with other agencies in the city. In 
many ways, the Intelligence Analyst helped to open up the department so that better information 
could be gathered and used in cases. 

A good example of this was a case in which the Intelligence Analyst helped close an 
investigation involving distribution, importation, and manufacturing of illicit drugs including 
marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine. The investigation revealed that at least three to five 
pounds of methamphetamine were being distributed to multiple towns each month. At the end of 
the investigation, more than 41 people were arrested (including 4 suspects in a homicide case); 
approximately $70,000 in cash was seized; 35 pounds of marijuana and two pounds of 
methamphetamine were confiscated; and 22 cars were impounded. 

With information gathered from several different agencies, the Intelligence Analyst used 
the computer program Analysts Notebook to create a link chart, or a picture, of all involved 
parties and their relationships to one another. According to the Intelligence Analyst, it was the 
cooperation among multiple agencies that resulted in the successful completion of the 
investigation. Those involved in the case included the FBI (primary investigating agency), DEA, 
Salt Lake City Police Department, and Salt Lake County Sheriffs Office. 

This case was representative of the strides taken to increase collaboration among law 
enforcement personnel by sharing intelligence information. As a result, all cooperating agencies  


now have a more comprehensive view of the meth problem in Salt Lake City and the 
surrounding communities. 

In addition to researching information for law enforcement officers, the Intelligence 
Analyst also handles telephone complaints from community members. In 1999, the SLCPD, 
with the aid of the Intelligence Analyst, received and investigated more than 660 calls from 
community members. In 1998, before the Intelligence Analyst was hired, the department 
handled only 402 calls. The Analyst estimated that approximately 50 percent of the calls 
received in 1999 were related to drug activity. Of that 50 percent, approximately 40-50 percent 
were specifically linked to methamphetamine. The Analyst noted that community members' 
awareness of the drug and its identifying features (e.g., smell, lab materials, etc.) greatly 
increased in the time that he was there. 

Prosecution 

The Meth Initiative project in Salt Lake City also planned to use resources from both the 
city and county prosecutors. In fact, an Deputy District Attorney, a City Prosecutor, and a 
paralegal were all co-located at the police department for 20 hours per week. The goals set forth 
at the beginning of the project were: 

 To enhance the prosecution of civil and criminal cases related to 
methamphetamine through increased staffing and partnerships, and 
 To use civil remedies to reduce the impact of methamphetamine on 
neighborhoods. 

Enhanced Prosecution 

The Deputy District Attorney and paralegal positions proved to be a highly beneficial 
relationship for both the DA's office and the police department. The first Deputy DA co-located 
in the police department was well accepted by law enforcement personnel, especially the 
narcotics officers. He was active in filing cases and was consistently available to provide support 
and advice to officers on cases. He was also able to accompany officers out on several 
investigations to gather first-hand knowledge of police procedures and evidence collection. 


A new Deputy DA filled the position after an abrupt and unexpected change in 
personnel. 3 Because of the sudden change, he was not accepted in the police department in the 
beginning. The work environment subsequently relaxed, and eventually both the Deputy DA 
and the police department were in favor of his assignment and were looking forward to working 
together. Progress still needs to be made in fostering a comfortable relationship between the new 
Deputy DA and the officers (especially the narcotics officers). 

Aggregate data were gathered from the DA's Office on drug prosecutions and 
dispositions throughout the county. 4 Overall, between 1995 and 1999, drug-related cases 
comprised about 18 percent of all cases moving through the DA's Office. Unfortunately, specific 
information on meth cases, including trend data, was difficult to obtain. 5 However, data was 
gathered on the prosecution cases which resulted from the Meth Initiative efforts. These cases 
included meth-related offenses as well as offenses related to other drugs. Below is a table 
outlining the number of prosecutions which resulted from Meth Initiative cases for 1999 and the 
first half of 2000 (Exhibit 7). Overall, the numbers show that in 1999 meth cases comprised only 
8 percent of all drug cases in Salt Lake County, but in the first six months of 2000, they 
comprised almost 17 percent of all drug cases. 

Exhibit 7: DA Prosecutions Resulting from Meth Initiative Cases 

			DA Prosecutions + 
			    All Drugs 		Methamphetamine 
			1999 	2000* 		1999 	2000* 
Sales 			342 	225 		7 	18 
Possession 		384 	268 		49 	57 
Manufacturing 		16 	13 		4 	8 
	Total 		742 	506 		60 	86 

+ All cases included here were eventually disposed. 

* Year 2000 only includes data for the first six months. 

 
3 The DA ordered a change in personnel without first consulting the police department which was a stipulation of 
their contract. 

4 The DA's jurisdiction includes all of Salt Lake County. 

5 Long term data on meth cases was difficult to obtain from the DA's Office because their record keeping system 
did not distinguish between meth and other drug cases. 


Nuisance Abatement 

The civil nuisance abatement component of the Salt Lake City Meth Initiative was 
expected to be one of the most hard-hitting resources in their fight against meth. This did not 
occur for several reasons, including misunderstandings about nuisance abatement laws, a lack of 
communication, and a weak statute/ordinance. Various entities were involved in the nuisance 
abatement portion of the project, including the SLCPD officers, the Office of the City 
Prosecutor, and Community Action Teams (CATs). CATs are small multi-agency groups 
assigned to areas throughout the city to focus on specific community problems (often specific 
addresses). 

One of the main goals for nuisance abatement was to create open lines of communication 
between officers, CATs, and city prosecutors. It was hoped that this would lead to more cases 
being filed in a more expedient manner (especially more serious nuisance abatement cases). 

At the beginning of the project, there were some misconceptions about the scope of the 
city prosecutor's authority regarding nuisance abatement cases. Specifically, there was a belief 
that the city prosecutor could confiscate nuisance properties. Although several individuals 
attempted to rectify this misunderstanding among police officers and others involved in the Meth 
Initiative, it still exists in the police department albeit to a lesser degree. 

There was also a distinct difference in the way the City Prosecutor's Office and the police 
department defined success in nuisance abatement cases. Typically, a nuisance case began when 
the City Prosecutor's Office sends a property owner a letter explaining the repercussions of 
perpetuating a nuisance property. In most cases (roughly 70-80 percent), the police department 
and City Prosecutor's Office do not receive any further complaints after the first letter is sent. 
While the city prosecutors and the CATs viewed these cases as successes, law enforcement 
officials focused on those owners who did not abate their nuisance property and wished to 
aggressively pursue them in court. 

Unfortunately, according to the City Prosecutor's Office, they have limited power in 
handling serious nuisance abatement cases. However, many in the police department said that 
the city prosecutors were simply not using the statute to the fullest extent possible.  


Eventually this led to a deeper division between the officers and the City Prosecutor's 
Office. Despite a training session held by the City Prosecutor's Office,6 and the creation of a 
check sheet to guide officers in collecting evidence for nuisance cases, these differences 
persisted. 

Two city prosecutors began the process of drafting a new city ordinance regarding 
nuisance abatement properties to specifically address the 20 percent of chronic violators who 
owned unresolved nuisance properties in Salt Lake City. However, it seemed that those efforts 
stalled after their contract was not renewed to participate in the Meth Initiative. In total, only 
two Meth Initiative-related nuisance abatement cases were ever filed in the City Prosecutor's 
Office. 

Child Endangerment and Adult Protective Services 

Intervention efforts were also directed at underserved groups such as handicapped 
individuals, elderly residents, and children. Strategies included a drug court model, hiring an 
additional Youth and Family Specialist, providing training to various groups such as schools and 
child care facilities, developing early interventions at pre-natal visits, and identifying roles and 
procedures outlining the relationship between the YFS, DCFS, and the police department. 

Child Endangerment Legislation 

A significant success of the project was the endangerment legislation written by project 
participants and passed by the state legislature in early 2000. Protecting children and elderly 
residents was always a priority of the Meth Initiative, but with the passage of the new legislation, 
there was even more attention given to these groups. Violations under the previous 
endangerment law were proscribed as misdemeanor offenses. Under the new law, however, a 
person can be charged with a third degree felony if a child or elderly person is exposed to, 
ingests, inhales, or is in contact with illegal drugs or chemicals and will be charged with a first 
degree felony if a child or elderly person is actually harmed. 

According to the city prosecutor, their first attempt at training officers on evidence collection in nuisance 
abatement cases was poorly attended by police department personnel. Subsequent trainings garnered more 
support from the police department. 
 


It should be noted that only a few cases were filed using this new law during the grant 
period. It seemed that attorneys were still getting acquainted with the scope of the law and how 
it could apply to their prosecution of cases. 

Youth and Family Specialists 

Although civilian Youth and Family Specialists (YFS) were already a employed by the 
SLCPD, the Meth Initiative provided for an additional YFS position during the grant period. 
These specialists addressed the concerns of children, elderly, and disabled individuals during law 
enforcement operations. Among other things, they conducted initial assessments of children on-
scene, performed crisis intervention at crime scenes, and linked individuals to other social 
services. Once the removal of a child was authorized, however, the Division of Child and 
Family Services intervened in place of the YFS. 

Youth and Family Specialists were often the first to be called out by police to a crime 
scene when children, elderly, or handicapped individuals were present. Because of this, they 
worked closely with SLCPD officers as well as DCFS workers. They also carried caseloads and 
provided training on methamphetamine-related issues throughout the community. 

Division of Child and Family Services 

Almost from the beginning, the worker co-located at the SLCPD from the Division of 
Child and Family Services (DCFS) was recognized as an integral part of the project. Although 
she was brought into the project under a different (Bureau of Justice Assistance) grant, she was 
located at the SLCPD 40 hours per week and worked exclusively with children who were 
endangered by meth. 

Because she was from an outside agency, it took some time for other project participants 
(especially the police) to fully understand the extent of her expertise and authority, and to 
determine what she might bring to the Meth Initiative project. In fact, there were some struggles 
in the beginning of the project including some overlapping responsibilities with the YFS, and not 
being consistently called out by law enforcement. Several things were done to foster cooperative 
relationships. A formal statement of roles and responsibilities was drafted, and a call-out 
protocol was implemented. The DCFS worker not only sought to educate law enforcement about 
her job and what she could bring to the Meth Initiative, she also made herself available 24 hours  


a day, seven days a week, for call-outs when her expertise was needed at a crime scene. With 
time, the relationships between DCFS, YFS, and law enforcement resulted in a highly productive 
partnership. 

During the project, the DCFS worker's time was spent predominately on cases for the 
Meth Initiative Project. Exhibit 8 provides information on the caseload activity for the DCFS 
worker per quarter from July 1999 to September 2000. Exhibit 9 provides demographic 
information on the children the DCFS worker served. Interestingly, according to the DCFS 
worker, much of her caseload (approximately 48 percent) involved children who had never been 
involved with DCFS before. In other words, a large portion of her work through the Initiative 
was dealing with children who were previously "falling through the cracks." 

In addition to her casework, the DCFS worker became actively involved in conducting 
training sessions for community members on methamphetamine and children. She also pursued 
a partnership with Primary Children's Medical Center, which resulted in a DCFS-wide protocol 
for decontaminating meth-endangered children and taking them to the hospital for testing and 
evidence collection. Finally, the DCFS worker was an advocate for the new child endangerment 
statute and testified before the state legislature. 

Exhibit 8: DCFS Case Outcomes 
			3rd Q 	4th Q 	1st Q 	2nd Q 	3rd Q 
			1999 	1999 	2000 	2000 	2000 	Total 
Children served 	26 	37 	41 	26 	30 	160 
Children removed 	13 	20 	11 	15 	14 	73 
Children returned to 
parents 		0 	0 	2 	6 	0 	8 
Times DCFS called 
to law enforcement 	12 	15 	7 	9 	5 	48 
scene 
 


Exhibit 9: DCFS Client Demographics 

				3rd Q 	4th Q 	1st Q 	2nd 	3rd 
				1999 	1999 	2000 	2000 	2000 	Total 

Gender 		Male 		18 	23 	22 	10 	11 	84 
		Female 		8 	14 	19 	16 	19 	76 
Race/ 		White 		14 	28 	20 	7 	15 	84 
Ethnicity 	Black 		2 	0 	0 	3 	0 	5 
		Asian/Pac. Isl. 0 	2 	1 	0 	5 	8 
		Hispanic 	3 	6 	15 	8 	10 	42 
		Native Amer. 	3 	0 	1 	0 	0 	4 
		Other 		4 	1 	4 	8 	0 	17 
Age 		Under 18 	14 	37 	41 	26 	30 	148 
		18-30 		12	0	0 	0	0 	12

Health Department 

Another important partner in the Methamphetamine Initiative was the Salt Lake Valley 
Health Department worker. She was co-located at the SLCPD, was a participant in the Meth 
Team, and was a member of the Public Awareness and Training Subcommittee. On a daily basis, 
she managed open cases or provided expertise about possible new cases. She was responsible 
for collecting and maintaining all information on clean-up forms (filled out by the owner or the 
clean-up company  whomever cleaned the property) and evidence sheets filled out by law 
enforcement (often the DEA). A large portion of the Health Department worker's time was spent 
on Meth Initiative cases. Exhibit 10 provides statistics on cases the Health Department worker 
handled while involved in the Meth Initiative. Specifically, the exhibit shows that a total of 82 
locations were closed to occupancy, 65 locations were closed to entry, and 29 locations were 
reopened. She also responded to 97 crime scenes and spent a great deal of time on training in the 
community. 

Exhibit 10: Meth Initiative Health Department Worker Cases

				3rd Q 	4th Q 	1st Q 	2nd Q 	3rd Q 	Total 
				1999 	1999 	2000 	2000 	2000 
Locations closed to occupancy 	19 	15 	14 	18 	16 	82 
Locations closed to entry 	5 	14 	13 	18 	15 	65 
Locations reopened 		7 	11 	5 	6 	0 	29 
Times Health Dept worker 
was called to a law 		24 	20 	12 	26 	15 	97 
enforcement scene 
 


It took a long time before the relationship between the Health Department and law 
enforcement was fully realized. And to some extent, there is still a great deal of room for growth 
in the relationship. The Health Department worker found her first meth lab in 1986. The house 
was closed to occupancy, but the property was not cleaned up properly. This began her long-
term campaign to have law enforcement include the Health Department in its investigations. It 
was not until 1994 that the Health Department finally became actively involved in these cases. 
At the time of this report, she was called out to almost all clandestine lab crime scenes in Salt 
Lake City, but still felt she could be called out more (e.g., when police served warrants or 
conducted "knock and talks"). 

One of her biggest concerns was the clean-up of clandestine lab sites. Because 
methamphetamine was made in a variety of locations (storage units, hotels/motels, car trunks, 
etc.), it was difficult to determine who was responsible for clean up and rehabilitation of the 
location to its original state. It was common practice for the DEA to contract with a hazardous 
waste company to dispose of waste materials, but the property owner was responsible for 
determining how clean the location should be. Property owners seldom completely overhauled 
the area where a clandestine lab was located (e.g., carpet replacement, paint stripping, etc.). 
Although state legislation was introduced that would have provided standards for housing units 
(i.e., How clean is clean?), it was struck down. 

Treatment 
Treatment Admissions 

The treatment component of the Meth Initiative was an area that could have seen more 
growth and attention throughout the project. The public system for substance abuse treatment is 
headed by the Utah State Division of Substance Abuse, however, direct services are provided 
through single- or multi-county organizations or "service districts." The public treatment 
providers in Salt Lake County saw a tremendous increase in meth-addicted clientele (see Exhibit 
11). Between FY 1997 and FY 2000, the number of meth-related treatment admissions to Salt 
Lake County treatment facilities more than doubled, and the percentage of meth admissions 
increased from 8 percent of total admissions in FY 1997 to 15 percent in FY 2000. The 
demographic information also corresponds to data from other sources about the local meth 
 


market. That is, females are a growing population of users in treatment and whites are the 
predominate treatment clientele. 

Exhibit 11: Treatment Admissions to Salt Lake County Facilities 

				FY 1997 	FY 1998 	FY 1999 	FY 2000 
Total Admissions 		9,602 		9,582 		10,489 		12,521 
Meth Admissions 		812 		1,348		1,692 		1,884 
				(8%) 		(14%)		(16%)		(15%)
Sex 	Male 			435 		704 		781 		921 
				(54%) 		(52%) 		(46%) 		(49%) 
	Female 			377 		644 		911 		963 
				(46%) 		(48%) 		(54%) 		(51%) 
Race 	White 			767 		1220 		1530 		1717 
				(94%) 		(91%) 		(90%) 		(91%) 
	Other 			45 		128 		162 		167 
				(6%) 		(9%) 		(10%) 		(9%) 
Source: Salt Lake County Division of Substance Abuse 

Additional treatment admission data included clients' age at which they first used 
methamphetamine and their preferred method of ingesting meth. The data varied slightly from 
the data that was collected from interviews with treatment clients (N=35). The average age at 
which interviewees first tried meth was 24 (median age was 22), which is slightly higher than the 
age of the county-wide treatment admissions (Exhibit 12). For example, in FY 1999, about half 
of county treatment clients reported they were age 20 or younger at time of first use. Also, the 
preferred method of ingestion for the interviewees was snorting followed by smoking and 
injecting. As shown in Exhibit 13, the county-wide treatment clients were much more likely to 
ingest by smoking. Also, there was a clear decrease over time in snorting, intravenous, and oral 
ingestion. 


Exhibit 12: Salt Lake County Treatment Clients' Age at First Use of Meth

Bar Graph Showing Age at First Use 1997-2000

 
Dependency Drug Court 

The Salt Lake City Meth Initiative initially focused on the Dependency (Family) Drug 
Court as the main treatment component of the project. The Dependency Drug Court, launched in 
May 1999, was based on similar courts in Reno, San Diego, and Florida as well as the Salt Lake 
City Adult Drug Court. The purpose of the Dependency Drug Court is to work with individuals 
who have a substance abuse problem and who have temporarily lost or were in danger of 
permanently losing their children. At the time of this report, three judges in District Three (Salt 
Lake County) had volunteered to hear cases for the Dependency Drug Court. An additional 
Dependency Drug Court had been started in District Four (Utah County), and two others were 


just getting started in two separate Districts (District Seven, Emery County; and District Two, 
Weber County). 

Exhibit 13: Salt Lake County Treatment Admission Clients' Method of Ingestion

Bar Graph Showing Percent of Clients' Method of Ingestion:
Smoking, Inhalation, Intravenous, Oral, Intramuscular 

Dependency Drug Court programs are based on individual needs, however there are 
certain elements required of all participants including random urine testing, appearances before 
the judge in court at least once per month, and participation in some type of counseling or other 
treatment program.7 If the drug court participants successfully complete the program, they are 
able to regain custody of their children and have their charges dropped. 

7 Only treatment centers that have an agreement to work with the court are able to accept Dependency Drug Court 
participants. 

Meth Initiative partners who were involved in the Dependency Drug Court pointed out 
several advantages of the drug court compared to a general criminal court. Specifically, 
participants began their treatment program immediately, friends and family members were 
encouraged to be present in court and provide support, cases were tracked more closely and 
reviewed more frequently given the short time period between appearances in court, and families 


could be reunited in a shorter period of time. There were, however, some problems with the 
court program such as overloaded treatment agencies, variability in drug court requirements 
among judges, and lack of funding. 8 

Statistical information was gathered from the first Dependency Drug Court on the total 
number of people accepted into the program, the number of people charged with a 
methamphetamine-related crime, and the total number of people who successfully completed the 
program (Exhibit 14). Given that the first Dependency Drug Court only began in the Spring of 
1999, the numbers presented here are understandably small. At the time this report was written, 
additional Dependency Drug Courts were implemented or were in the initial stages of being 
implemented in other parts of the state. 

Exhibit 14: Dependency Drug Court 

			1999* 	2000 	Total 
Number of Drug Cases 	24 	63 	87 
Number of Meth Cases 	12 	40 	52 
Number of Graduates 	5 	14 	19 

* According to the Dependency Drug Court, a case may include more than one person, but graduates are counted as 
individuals. 

Survey of Treatment Clients 

In addition to the Dependency Drug Court, the evaluators also visited treatment centers to 
interview staff and clients. One private facility9 and four public facilities agreed to meet with us 
and allowed us to interview some individuals in their programs. We asked to meet with only 
those individuals who described their primary drug of abuse as methamphetamine. 

The one private facility offered in-patient treatment, detox, day treatment, and evening 
outpatient treatment but had only one client who classified meth as their primary drug of abuse. 
Discussions with residential treatment providers revealed that meth addicts were not commonly 
admitted to private facilities, probably because they lacked the financial means or the insurance 
to enroll in expensive private programs. 

8 The Court was not eligible to receive direct funding from the Meth Initiative project.

9 Several private facilities were contacted; however, only one agreed to our visit. 
 


Types of programs offered by the public facilities visited included in-patient, intensive 
outpatient, and regular outpatient treatment; mother and children's programs, day treatment, 
aftercare programs, and housing programs. None of the facilities offered all of these programs, 
but several offered multiple types of treatment options. The in-patient programs that were 
visited were either all-female or all-male facilities. 

Of the treatment clients who were interviewed (N=35), most were participating in at least 
two different programs, usually Narcotics Anonymous/Alcoholics Anonymous and an outpatient program. 
Fewer individuals participated in in-patient programs (40 percent), and detox 
(31 percent). Few of the clients had been admitted to a hospital (6 percent) preceding their most 
recent admission to a treatment program. 

The interviewees were also asked about their treatment history. More than half had been 
in at least one treatment program before for methamphetamine abuse. Most (33 of the 35 people 
interviewed) attributed eight or more of the following problems to their meth abuse: 

 Weight loss 
 Sleeplessness 
 Dental problems 
 Money problems 
 Family problems 
 Work problems 
 High blood pressure 
 Skin problems 
 Paranoia 
 Hallucinations 
 Violent behavior 
 Legal problems 
 Medical treatment for 
hyperactivity 
 Hours of intense behavior 

Most interviewees mentioned several reasons for getting involved with treatment, but 
they all emphasized one reason in particular. The most common reason for seeking treatment 
was a feeling of being "tired" of the lifestyle, along with a realization that the addiction had 
seriously affected the well-being of their family. Some of the comments were 

I was tired of the game. 

It was time to change. 

I was tired of hurting my family. 

I was tired of the life. 

I was tired of the person I became. 

Another important reason for getting involved in treatment was that a drug court 
mandated their participation. Often, these individuals faced serious jail time if they did not 


successfully complete a treatment program. For those involved in the Dependency Drug Court, 
their motivation was to regain custody of their child(ren). 

A less frequently mentioned reason for seeking treatment was the feeling of "hitting rock 
bottom" or experiencing serious physical or psychological problems from using meth. Some of 
the comments included: 

My life went downhill.
I lost everything.
I tried to commit suicide.
I was experiencing hallucinations and was diagnosed with drug-
induced paranoia.
My health and my teeth were deteriorating.

In summary, the Meth Initiative recognized that members from the treatment community 
could and should have been more involved in the project. To the credit of those involved in 
providing treatment in the Salt Lake City area, several individuals agreed to participate 
informally by sitting in on the Partner's Work Group meetings to answer questions and provide 
expertise on treatment issues. At the time of this report, several individuals including those 
involved in the Dependency Drug Court were looking for ways to increase their participation and 
contribution to the Meth Initiative. 

Prevention 

Public Awareness 

The agency mainly responsible for the public awareness component of the project was 
the Utah Council for Crime Prevention (UCCP). While it took some time to get the public 
awareness component up and running, once it began, it gained momentum quickly. A UCCP-
sponsored campaign to fight methamphetamine began on February 2, 2000. More than 70 
people attended the campaign kick-off, including the following: 

 DCFS representatives 
 Federal law enforcement representatives (DEA, INS) 
 Treatment agency representatives 
 Legislators 
 


 Law enforcement representatives (SLCPD, Midvale Police Department and West 
Valley Police Department) 
 Educators 
 Local corporation representatives 
 Parents 
 Media (TV and radio) 
 District Attorneys Office 

Several individuals made presentations on their areas of expertise regarding 
methamphetamine. For example, some law enforcement officials discussed the need to 
collaborate with other agencies in order to alleviate the methamphetamine problem. The State 
Division of Substance Abuse workers addressed treatment options for meth abusers, and a state 
legislator reviewed methamphetamine-related legislation introduced that session. The DCFS 
worker assigned to the Meth Team also talked about her experiences entering houses with meth 
labs. 

In addition to presentations, a simulated meth lab was set up for demonstration purposes 
by the DEA; Drug Free America donated their nationally recognized advertisements against 
methamphetamine; and a map was displayed that identified methamphetamine labs in the 
vicinity of childrens areas (schools, parks). 

Public service announcements were also arranged by the UCCP, including more than 
1,700 statewide and 400 metro radio announcements between mid-January and February 2000. 
Television public service announcements were also debuted. Three different anti-
methamphetamine commercials were broadcast from February through mid-March 2000. 

The public awareness efforts of the Meth Initiative were not as extensive as first 
expected, in part because of the limited amount of funding provided for the public awareness 
campaign. The UCCP and some of the other partners working on public awareness provided 
many of their own resources to keep the anti-meth message running. They were also successful 
in generating funding from other sources such as donations of resources (e.g., billboards, 
slogans) and volunteer workers.  


Training 

What made Salt Lake City's training unique was its multidisciplinary approach; with 
project participants from a variety of backgrounds conducting training sessions for community 
members. Trainers included the Health Department worker, the DCFS worker, YFS, DEA, 
SLCPD officers, and volunteers through the Utah Council for Crime Prevention. Exhibit 15 lists 
the types of training delivered as well as some of the audiences. 

Exhibit 15: Training Sessions and Participants 

Training Topics 					Training Participants 
			
							Elementary, Middle, & High Schools 
							Hotels & Motels 
Drug Identification 					Community Businesses (Banks, Churches) 
Drug Identification & Intervention 			Mental Health Staff 
Legal & Social Consequences of Drug Use 		Other Police Departments 
Utilization of Meth & Drug Initiative Team 		Landlords 
Signs & Symptomology 					Apartment Complexes 
Meth Labs -- A Health Perspective 			Neighborhood Watch Groups 
Methamphetamine -- A Health Perspective 		Boys & Girls Club 
Methamphetamine -- A YFS Perspective 			Boy Scouts of America 
Child Endangerment 					Nurses 
Meth Use & Consequences 				Community Councils 
Meth & Children 					Probation & Parole Officers 
Drug Endangered Children 				Parking Enforcement 
How to Recognize Meth in Your Neighborhood 		Power Company 
							County Building Inspectors 

The trainings put on by the project participants were successful for the most part. 
Requests for training came from a wide variety of companies, organizations, and agencies. 
Perhaps even more importantly, the Meth Initiative was able to provide training on a wide 
variety of meth-related topics because of the diversity of their participants. The training 
component was expected to continue as long as time and resources were available. 

Community Policing 

Community policing for the Salt Lake City Meth Initiative focused on three elements: (1) 
work done by the Community Action Teams (CATS), (2) law enforcement responses to 
community complaints, and (3) partnerships with other law enforcement agencies. 


Community Action Teams 

The CATs were originally formed as a result of a Comprehensive Community Project 
(the focus was on juvenile crime prevention) that began five years prior to the Meth Initiative. 
As was mentioned earlier, CATS are small, multi-agency groups assigned to various geographic 
areas. Their mandate is to focus on specific community problems. Most often, problem 
addresses are targeted for investigation based on information given to the CATs by a 
complainant. Generally, in order for an address to be considered at a CAT meeting, it is 
necessary for more than one agency to be involved. 

At the time of this report, there were 15-20 agencies involved in CATs with between 8 to 
35 or 40 members and one designated leader per CAT. In some instances, agencies assigned 
more than one person to a particular CAT. In many cases, people assigned to the CATs were 
also participants in the Meth Initiative (e.g., city prosecutors, YFS). Meetings were held at least 
every two weeks, and often once a week depending upon the CATs case load or the 
participants schedules. 

Meth cases were often the focus of CATs, COP officers, narcotics officers, and Meth 
Initiative personnel. According to some individuals, however, there were some communication 
problems and some jurisdictional misunderstandings between the CATs and the SLCPD. 
Specifically, some CAT members felt that they were not receiving important information from 
SLCPD officers working meth cases, and that a number of cases that involved methamphetamine 
were re-directed to the Methamphetamine Initiative team and were handled by COP officers or 
narcotics officers, rather than being handled by the CATs themselves. 

Despite these problems, however, it was the hope of the CATs that they would remain 
involved in the methamphetamine investigations so that they could share their information with 
agencies like the SLCPD. 

Law Enforcement Responses 

Nuisance Abatement 

As mentioned earlier, nuisance abatement was initially expected to be an important 
element of the Methamphetamine Initiative. Given the problems that revolved around this 
portion of the project, the SLCPD was forced to re-examine its efforts at nuisance properties in 


the community. It was decided that the contract with the City Prosecutor's Office would not be 
renewed for the continuation of the grant period which began in September 2000. The City 
Prosecutor's Office was in full agreement with this decision. At the time of this report, the Meth 
Initiative group was still devising a new plan of attack for the nuisance abatement portion of the 
project. 

Consensual Searches 

Consensual searches, or knock and talks, were conducted by SLCPD officers and were 
considered to be a community policing strategy for the Meth Initiative project. "Knock and 
talks" in Salt Lake City are an addressed-based investigative tool that the police department uses 
to follow up on complaints (usually made by community members) about suspicious activity in 
housing units. The procedure involves several officers informing the homeowner or tenant that 
they received complaints about their residence. They ask the resident for permission to come in 
and look around, and residents often allow officers into their homes. This tactic proved to be 
quite successful, since in many of the cases officers encountered illegal activity in the residence 
such as possession of drugs, drug paraphernalia, and even clandestine meth labs. 

Partnering with Other Law Enforcement Agencies 

This particular goal of the Initiative was slow in getting started and still needed a great 
deal of attention at the end of the evaluation period. At the start of the project, the SLCPD 
envisioned a unified law enforcement effort to combat the local drug problem. Relationships 
with other local departments have grown stronger, but still remain informal. That is, there is no 
formal protocol for call-outs or sharing intelligence information. 

It seemed that the relationship between the SLCPD and the DEA improved more 
significantly than other ones. Data and other intelligence was shared much more readily and 
call-outs were more frequent. In part, these changes could be attributed to several reasons. First, 
the data analyst who was hired during the Meth Initiative project provided a vital line between 
the two agencies. Both the SLCPD and the DEA found it easier to deal with the same 
individual(s) on a regular basis. Second, due to the DEA's integral involvement in clandestine 
lab processing and clean-up, joint agency responses were almost mandated. Finally, the local 
DEA office was a metro task force. Hence, there were a number of SLCPD officers assigned to 


the DEA's office. Despite the fact that the SLCPD officers were not physically located in the 
same place, many of the officers still kept in close contact with other officers in the department. 

One element of the project that was expected to open up inter-departmental 
communication was the purchase of an Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). 
Because West Valley City Police Department already had a system, the SLCPD hoped that the 
two departments could link their fingerprint information. In fact, part of the funding from the 
Initiative went to West Valley PD to upgrade their own system to be compatible with SLCPD's 
new one. Unfortunately, serious delays with the purchase of the equipment prevented the two 
departments from achieving this goal prior to this report. 

In summary, the SLCPD's plan to implement community policing strategies saw some 
real progress throughout the duration of the Meth Initiative project. Specifically, the 
department's focus was primarily on addressing community problems through the use of CATS 
and consensual police searches. While they made some progress in addressing community 
complaints, the nuisance abatement efforts met with some serious difficulties and never really 
achieved the goals that were set forth at the beginning of the project. However, the police 
department saw some real, but limited, success in opening up lines of communication with other 
law enforcement agencies, especially West Valley City Police Department and the DEA. 

Partnerships 

Nearly all of the participants we interviewed said inter-agency collaboration was 
necessary and worthwhile. In fact, when asked how they would measure the success of the 
Methamphetamine Initiative, they said they would measure the level of collaboration among 
agencies. 

In addition to interviews, a five-point, Likert scale survey was sent to all 62 project 
participants. There were 41 questions on the survey, all of which addressed the quality of the 
partnerships in the project. Sub-sections covered collaboration, membership, communication, 
goals, strategies, and knowledge and beliefs. Comments were encouraged on each subsection 
and a cover letter outlined the purpose of the survey and the importance of completing it. The 
response rate was about 68 percent with 42 of the 62 surveys returned. 


The belief that the project was a successful one was reiterated in the partnership surveys. 
In fact, most of the survey respondents commented on the successes of the partnerships. Thirty 
nine respondents (93 percent) either strongly agreed or agreed that the partners worked well 
together and that key players from the different agencies had been included in the project. One 
respondent noted, "We have a committed crew of individuals who seem to go above and beyond 
what is required of them to help solve this [the meth] problem." Several also emphasized the 
importance of new alliances for the project; for example: 

This initiative has brought several organizations together where little 
contact or understanding existed before. The result has been outstanding 
cooperation and some real successes in dealing with various different 
aspects of the problem. 

Thirty-five respondents (83 percent) also believed that the partnership was flexible 
enough to add members when necessary and 37 (88 percent) believed that other project 
participants were open enough to accept outside ideas or suggestions. Interestingly, 34 of the 42 
respondents (81 percent) said they were committed to continuing their involvement in the project 
after funding ended; however, 27 respondents (64 percent) did not know if the partnerships 
would actually remain intact after that time. For example, one respondent said, "I  believe that 
many agencies will not continue unless more grant funding is found." Another commented, 
"There is still a lot we can do to improve if we're able to find continued funding." 

Strengths 

Co-location 

Co-location was one key to the success of the SLCPD Meth Initiative. In fact, of all the 
partners, those who were co-located at the department saw the most improvement in their 
relationships. Communication between these individuals became easier not only because they 
were located together in the police department, but also because they were willing to work on 
cultivating a trusting and productive partnership with others involved in the project. This was 
especially true of the Project Coordinator, the Intelligence Analyst, the Data Analyst, the DCFS 
worker, the Health Department worker, and the Deputy District Attorney. 

The Project Coordinator was an important driving force for the project. Her commitment 
to the Meth Initiative and its goals was apparent. Among many other tasks, her main 


responsibilities included organizing partner meetings, organizing trainings, and keeping 
participants informed of changes in the project. She also began to investigate new funding 
sources for the project. As one survey respondent put it, "[The Coordinator] is committed to this 
grant and its purpose. [She] is the glue that keeps it together." 

The civilian positions of Intelligence Analyst and Data Analyst proved to be valuable 
resources not only in the Meth Initiative project, but also in the general day-to-day business of 
the police department. They worked on gathering intelligence and other data for drug cases 
(meth and other drugs) and general information for the SLCPD, but they also worked with other 
law enforcement agencies in collaborative efforts. Interviewees who worked directly with the 
Intelligence and Data Analysts noted the vast improvements made in information gathering at the 
department. This included SLCPD officers as well as other law enforcement agency personnel 
and Meth Initiative project partners. These same individuals also believed that the two positions 
created a direct information link with other law enforcement agencies which promoted the 
sharing of important information about criminal activity in the city. 

Having the DCFS and the Health Department workers in-house helped others to 
understand the usefulness of their expertise and authority. By being co-located, they were able 
to answer officers' questions, and were also available for immediate call-out. This fostered a 
trusting and highly productive relationship between law enforcement and the DCFS and the 
Health Department. Almost all of the law enforcement personnel who were interviewed noted 
the importance of these positions in the project and praised their expertise and commitment to 
their jobs. One of the survey respondents commented, "The efforts of the Health Department 
and [DCFS] have been outstanding. They should be commended and continued in this critical 
effort." 

Two big advantages to locating an Deputy District Attorney in the police department 
were the focus that was placed on prosecuting meth cases and the mutually beneficial 
relationship that emerged between the two agencies. According to law enforcement, the Deputy 
DA's knowledge of the law was extraordinarily helpful in their investigative duties. And, at least 
while he was there, the first Deputy DA assigned to the team made it a point to ride along with 
officers and was proactively involved in the Partner's Work Group and other meetings. This 
created a strong, trusting relationship between the DA's Office and the SLCPD narcotics officers. 


Protocols 

Several protocols were either created or re-drafted to outline the proper procedure for 
handling crime scene activities. For example, it became formal procedure for SLCPD officers to 
call out other divisions of the department (e.g., the youth detectives) or federal law enforcement 
agencies (e.g., DEA) to address circumstances outside the scope of their work (e.g., handling 
youth at crime scenes, or collecting chemical evidence from a lab which required proper training 
and equipment). Not only did this address child and safety issues, it also fostered a productive 
and mutually beneficial partnership between these agencies. 

Additionally, it became official protocol that the DCFS worker and/or a YFS would be 
called to crime scenes depending upon the severity of the situation in which the child, elder or 
handicapped person was placed. Specifically, the DCFS worker responded to all crime scenes 
within her assigned area in Salt Lake City that involved both methamphetamine and children. 
The Youth and Family Specialists were often the first to arrive with the police to provide an 
initial assessment at crime scenes; conduct follow-up investigations to track the progress of their 
clients; and make additional resources available to children, family, and others. According to 
law enforcement officers who worked with DCFS and the YFS, their presence at a crime scene 
was indispensable. 

The importance of formal protocol was reiterated in the partnership survey. At the time 
the survey findings were collected, 37 of the 42 respondents (88 percent) believed that the 
partnership had clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of the participants. Overall, the 
protocols helped to make investigations and crime scenes easier to manage by allowing others to 
handle their own areas of expertise. As one survey respondent wrote, 

In the beginning, partners had some trouble working through roles and 
responsibilities. However, once the lines of communication were open, 
these problems became less and less. 

Challenges 

As with most independent entities for quite some time, an adjustment period was 
necessary to achieve the inter-agency collaboration envisioned for this project. Some of the 
obstacles that arose are discussed below. 


Contracts and Memoranda of Understanding 

There were delays in getting some of the contracts and memoranda of understanding 
signed and processed so agencies could co-locate their employees at the SLCPD. While it was 
stressed that most of these postponements were due to simple errors and the red tape 
characteristic of government bureaucracy, there was some indication that other delays could have 
been avoided. Specifically, many of the interviewees stressed their frustration with the time it 
took to get people on board to begin work on the Initiative. Several participants mentioned 
that the Initiative would have been much more productive had the partnering agencies completed 
the paperwork such as contracts and Memoranda of Understanding months prior to the official 
start of the project. 

Role Conflicts 

Because of the new inter-agency relationships, the responsibilities of some positions 
overlapped or conflicted. This was especially apparent early in the project when DCFS and YFS 
were involved in child endangerment situations. These two agencies were not clear on the 
boundaries of their responsibilities with regard to first response, initial assessments, child 
removal, and child placement. Some of the early misunderstandings were resolved through 
informal communication and time. A written protocol was also created to outline the 
responsibilities and duties of both the Division of Child and Family Services worker and the 
Youth and Family Specialists. It proved to be highly successful in clarifying roles and 
responsibilities. In fact, a YFS later stated that having the DCFS worker at the SLCPD alleviated 
a lot of stress and increased her understanding of the role of DCFS. 

Jurisdictional Issues 

Given the cross-jurisdictional nature of many methamphetamine-related crimes, the 
SLCPD found it desirable to cooperate with other law enforcement agencies as well as other 
government agencies. With so many agencies involved, all of which had their own goals and 
agendas outside of the Meth Initiative, some time was needed to address and understand one 
another's jurisdictional boundaries. 

The link between the DEA and the SLCPD was especially important. Not only did DEA 
agents independently investigate methamphetamine cases, but they were also certified and 
equipped to break down clandestine labs. Local agencies did not have this type of certification; 


therefore, they often called on the DEA to collect evidence at clandestine lab sites. In addition, 
because local law enforcement was not involved in all methamphetamine cases, the data 
collected by local agencies were insufficient to form an accurate picture of the methamphetamine 
problem. Unfortunately, the DEA and the SLCPD did not share data on methamphetamine cases 
in the beginning of the project. Slowly, lines of communication expanded by using the 
Intelligence Analyst and the Data Analyst; and by increasing communication with the SLCPD 
officers assigned to the DEA Metro Task Force. 

Collaboration was also important with other local law enforcement agencies. For 
example, while there was talk of sharing resources with West Valley City Police Department at 
the start of the project, this relationship was slow in being realized. Specifically, a cooperative 
call-out protocol was proposed and seen as advantageous for both departments. That is, each 
department would call the other for methamphetamine cases including clandestine labs. 
However, this call-out practice was sporadic at best. Part of the problem was that call-outs were 
not standard procedure and therefore it was dependent upon the lead officer on the case. At the 
time of this report, the possibility of implementing such a protocol was still being investigated. 

There were also some jurisdictional struggles between the Meth Initiative and the 
Community Action Teams (CATs). According to some individuals assigned to the CATs, the 
Meth Initiative began to take over much of what they were doing in the neighborhoods to fight 
meth abuse. There was no formal protocol or procedure which outlined the roles of each group, 
and therefore there was some misunderstanding and some frustration about their overlapping 
responsibilities. 

Finally, there were some jurisdictional struggles at the beginning of the project between 
law enforcement agencies (i.e., police, DAs Office) and social resource agencies (i.e., Health 
Department, DCFS). At times, some agencies goals and objectives were seen as conflicting 
with other agencies goals and objectives. For example, it was important for the DCFS worker to 
capture the crime scene on film to prove that a child was truly endangered in their surroundings 
(e.g., photographing chemicals next to a baby bottle in the refrigerator). Because she was not 
allowed to enter a contaminated location, she needed to rely on law enforcement officers to take 
pictures of the scene. Many times, at least at the beginning of the project, officers did not take 
pictures of the scene. When the DCFS worker was finally allowed onto the premises, all of the 


evidence would have been destroyed or taken away by officers during their own evidence 
collection. Therefore, she was unable to collect necessary evidence for her own case for child 
endangerment. Relationships improved a great deal over the course of the project with the help 
of formal written protocols and informal education about their respective responsibilities, 
authority, and expertise. 

Communication Problems 

Even in those circumstances where partnering agencies made significant advancements in 
their collaborative relationships, communication among agencies was sometimes lacking. For 
example, call-out protocols were used sporadically in the beginning of the project in part because 
there was not a full understanding of each agencies roles and responsibilities and how they might 
aid at a crime scene. This was especially true of the call-out protocols for the DCFS and Health 
Department workers. While call-outs improved dramatically for the DCFS worker, the Health 
Department worker expressed that could be called out by law enforcement agencies more 
frequently. 

There were also some communication problems between the CATs and the Meth 
Initiative. In the beginning of the project, there was little or no communication about each 
other's roles and responsibilities. As a result, law enforcement officers encountered some 
jurisdictional struggles about the scope of their activities in both the CATs and the Meth 
Initiative which then increased their anxiety and further alienated the two groups from one 
another. 

The co-location of the city prosecutors did not work as well as planned, in part, because 
there were some serious communication problems between them and the SLCPD. Specifically, 
at the beginning of the project, there were some misconceptions about the scope of the city 
prosecutor's authority regarding nuisance abatement cases. For example, there was a belief that 
the city prosecutor could confiscate nuisance properties. Furthermore, there was disagreement 
between the police department and the City Prosecutor's Office about the definition of a 
successful nuisance abatement case and miscommunication on the quality and quantity of 
evidence necessary to file a case in court. 

Despite attempts from both agencies to clarify roles and responsibilities, to compromise 
on the overall goals of the nuisance abatement portion of the project, and to define the standards 


for filing a case in court, problems persisted between these two agencies. The general feeling 
from both sides was that the partnership between the police and the City Prosecutor's Office was 
not working for the purposes of the Meth Initiative project. 

Finally, an additional communication-related issue was the lack of information about the 
goals of the project. Interestingly, this issue did not arise during the interviews, however, it was 
clearly addressed in the partnership survey. Fifteen (36 percent) of the participants who 
responded to the survey did not know if there was a common goal among partners. Furthermore, 
10 respondents (24 percent) did not know if the partnership had realistic goals, and 14 (33 
percent) did not know if the goals were measurable, and 17 (40 percent) either did not know or 
disagreed that the partnership was on track for meeting its goals. One respondent commented, 
"While I agree that the partners have common goals for the big picture, there is some 
disagreement about emphases." Another survey respondent stated that they had "never seen 
goals addressed" in presentations or in any other arena of the partnership. 

Some of the survey respondents also expressed dissatisfaction about partnership 
communication in general. Eleven of the respondents either did not know or disagreed that the 
partners were well informed about the project, and six did not know if relevant information was 
shared in a timely manner. Ten of the survey respondents believed there were barriers to 
effective communication among the partners, while five did not believe that each member had an 
equal voice in the partnership. 

However, despite some of the problems that the partners encountered with 
communication, overall, the partnership made significant progress in opening up lines of 
communication. As one survey respondent wrote, 

We have never collaborated with law enforcement to the extent we have 
with this partnership. The partnership has set up lines of communication 
that I hope will endure. 

Conclusions 

The most successful component of the Salt Lake City Meth Initiative project is the degree 
to which the SLCPD expanded their partnerships with other law enforcement agencies as well as 
with city, county, state, and federal agencies in their fight against methamphetamine. By using 
resources from a variety of agencies (e.g., DCFS, Health Department, Drug Court), the Salt Lake 


City Meth Initiative was better able to address and impact the meth problem through procedures, 
protocols, and practices that echoed the mission and the goals of the participating agencies. 

For example, prior to the Meth Initiative, law enforcement officers were less aware of the 
warning signs of meth labs (e.g., odor, lab equipment), the serious hazards they faced from the 
chemicals present at such labs, and how to safely secure a contaminated site. As a result of the 
Initiative, officers were educated about meth, how to recognize clandestine labs, as well as the 
potential dangers of such labs. SLCPD, as well as other police departments, now call out the 
DEA to properly handle the evidence collection and to contract with a hazardous waste company 
to remove the material from the site, thus making for a much safer environment for all involved. 

Also, the handling of children exposed to meth or hazardous chemicals has also improved 
since the start of the Meth Initiative project. Prior to the project, it was common for police 
officers to place children with a convenient caregiver (e.g., family member living on the 
premises, neighbor). Now DCFS or YFS are either at the scene or called to the scene to 
appropriately handle situations where children, elderly, or handicapped individuals are present. 

Much has also been done to educate the public about the drug, its effects, and the dangers 
associated with it. Prior to the Initiative, people in the community may have seen suspicious or 
illegal activity taking place, but they were unable to relate it to meth. Training sessions put on 
by the Meth Initiative and the UCCP helped to educate the public about identifying the drug and 
the chemicals used to produce it, the effect that it has on people, and what a clandestine lab looks 
and smells like. 

Training sessions have also helped other local organizations in their fight against meth. 
Specifically, training sessions put on for hotels and motels have been extremely successful. In 
Salt Lake City cooks sometimes rent a room in a hotel or motel for several days while they 
manufacture meth. Many of the downtown hotels and motels have created a phone tree that 
allows an establishment to disseminate information on the person(s) who rented the room, the 
types of bags they were carrying, etc. so that other establishments could contact law enforcement 
if the cook moved locations and requested a room at a different hotel. It also helps hotels and 
motels to avoid serious contamination and damage to their own property. 

While the Salt Lake City Meth Initiative experienced some setbacks during the course of 
the project, the biggest challenge that faced them was the communication problems among 


agencies. These problems were due, in part, to the shear magnitude of the project. However, the 
partners in the Meth Initiative made sincere efforts at overcoming some of these communication 
issues and began to form strong, positive relationships with many of the partners, but especially 
with those individuals co-located in the department. Overall, Meth Initiative partners came away 
with a better understanding of each other's jobs and responsibilities, and the resources each 
brought to the project and to the meth abuse problem in their community. 

The Meth Initiative project was also successful in addressing problems with role conflicts 
and jurisdictional struggles. In many cases the problems were resolved. The inter-agency 
protocols were successful in creating smoother working relationships among the different 
agencies (e.g., SLCPD, DCFS, and DEA). They were also indicative of the high level of support 
given to the project by the participating agencies including supervisory staff. 

These are just some of the things that have positively impacted Salt Lake City as a result 
of the COPS Meth Initiative project. Overall, the Salt Lake City Methamphetamine Initiative 
made some extraordinary advances in both fighting the meth problem and cultivating strong 
relationships with other agencies. However, the true test will be whether the progress that has 
been made with this project will continue to grow. The SLCPD has recently hired a new Chief 
who plans to make significant changes to the organization of the department. The coming 
months will tell whether the Meth Initiative has staying power in Salt Lake City. 


References 

Pennell, S., J. Ellet, C. Rienick ,and J. Grimes. 1999. Meth Matters: Methamphetamine Use in 
Five Western Cities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of 
Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 
 


Chapter 4 

Meth in the Metroplex: The Dallas Experience 

Introduction 

The Dallas Police Department (DPD), which directs the Methamphetamine Initiative, 
requested funds to enhance operational strategies and to expand those strategies into its 
community policing model. In its application, the department indicated that there was a lack of 
understanding on the part of citizens and officers alike about the impact of Methamphetamine 
use in the city. To overcome this problem, the DPD cited five strategies for the project: 

1. Public education, including training for citizens and the development of 
educational material; 
2. Treatment program funding to reduce recidivism and determine effective 
treatment methods; 
3. Interdiction through identification of precursor chemical suppliers; 
4. Problem solving strategies; and 
5. Enforcement strategies. 

DPD used the grant to cover overtime costs to develop a more user-friendly intelligence 
database, educate different community groups and patrol officers about methamphetamine, and 
supplement enforcement. Equipment was also purchased to assist detectives in surveillance 
operations. 

The DPD worked in partnership with the Greater Dallas Council on Alcohol and Drug 
Abuse (GDCADA) in three areasresearch, education, and treatment. In the area of research, 
the Dallas County Community Supervision and Corrections Department and GDCADA collected 
data from substance abuse assessments to develop a local methamphetamine user profile and to 
identify effective treatment. In the area of education, GDCADA held a one-day symposium of 
professionals to share the latest information known about methamphetamine. In the area of 
treatment, GDCADA provided treatment vouchers to individuals who sought treatment for 
methamphetamine specifically. These individuals did not have to be involved with the criminal 
justice system. 

The DPD also provided funding ($20,000) to the Dallas County DIVERT Court to 
provide inpatient treatment for a small number of methamphetamine users (about 4 or 5 users) 


who were arrested for drug possession or fraudulent possession of a controlled substance 
prescription. 

The evaluation of the Dallas Meth Initiative relied on different sources of data and 
information. Among these are data on drug arrests, data from ADAM and DAWN, GDCADA 
reports on meth users and treatment, and interviews with Drug Court clients and police 
informants. 

Background 

The DPD serves a population of over 1 million people in the North Texas area. The 
metropolitan area (which includes Fort Worth) is known as the Metroplex, with over 4.9 million 
residents, an increase of almost 22 percent since 1990. In addition to a growing population, 
Dallas is the center of commercial enterprise, transportation networks, and international finance. 
The Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport serviced over 60 million people in 1997 and became 
the worlds busiest in total aircraft operations. Two major interstates, I-35 and I-30, cross 
through Dallas. This same infrastructure and transportation hub attracts illicit activities, 
particularly narcotics smuggling. 

According to the DEA, North Texas has become a hub for Mexican poly-drug 
traffickers who seek new areas and routes for distribution of methamphetamine. Law 
enforcement investigators found that Mexican meth distributors were taking advantage of the 
transportation networks in the Dallas area. They cite the seizure of almost 50 pounds of meth at 
the Fort Worth Amtrak train station in 1997 and the seizure of about 20 pounds of meth at the 
Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. In December 1997, through wiretaps and surveillance, investigators 
indicted more than 20 individuals for manufacturing and distributing over 100 pounds of meth 
per week. They found that production occurred in Los Angeles, with Dallas serving as the 
wholesale distribution center for the Midwest and East Coast. 

The task for the DPD was to contain the meth problem through education, prevention, 
and interdiction. In its grant application, DPD ranked methamphetamine as the fourth most 
commonly abused substance in the city, after alcohol, crack, and powder cocaine. At the time of 
the application, the department had one team of officers (six detectives and a sergeant) dedicated 


to enforcement and investigations of meth-related crimes.1 Most of the targets for enforcement 
were mid- to upper-level organizations responsible for the importation of meth into the Dallas 
area from Mexico and California. During the course of the grant period, however, DPD shifted 
focus away from these organizations and concentrated on seizing clandestine meth labs. In 
addition to this shift, the department underwent considerable change following the appointment 
of a new police chief in 1999. 

1 The team was the only one of its kind to deal with meth; however, they also took on cases 
involving other drugs including heroin, cocaine, and marijuana.

History of Methamphetamine in Dallas 

In Dallas, as in other locations, outlaw motorcycle gangs and independent groups 
historically were the first distributors of methamphetamine. In recent years, however, organized 
trafficking groups from Mexico have become the primary distributors of large amounts of 
methamphetamine (DEA, 1996; Maxwell, 2000). In interviews, detectives said that the biggest 
change in the last ten years is that Mexican Nationals are now doing the bulk of meth cooking 
and distributing in the Dallas area. One detective noted that in the 1980s and 1990s, white 
speeders were the only ones who used and manufactured meth. That has changed. By 1994, 
Mexican Nationals dominated the trade. Users have changed as wellWhites, Hispanics and 
occasionally an African-American will be caught with meth. In the 1980s, DPD found that the 
distributors and users of meth were overwhelmingly white males. 

In addition to changes in distributors and users, detectives noted that the process for 
cooking changed. Instead of the P2P method (1-phenyl-2-propanone), which could take up to 
24 hours to produce meth, cooks are now using the cold cook and Nazi methods, which take 
far less time to manufacture. For the Nazi method, local labs rely on purchasing ephedrine or 
pseudoephedrine pills in large quantities and use lithium and anhydrous ammonia. For the cold 
cook method, they use ephedrine, red phosphorous (Red P), and iodine crystals. Cooks buy or 
steal their ephedrine or pseudoephedrine pills from convenience stores, local pharmacies, or 
illegal suppliers. These are typically 60 milligram tablets such as Xtreme Relief, Mini-Thins, 
Zolzina, Two-Way, and Ephedrine Release. Precursor chemicals like anhydrous ammonia and 
Red P are stolen or purchased from local hardware or warehouse outlets. The sergeant in charge 
of the Meth grant made two comments about these methods. First, he said that Texas laws are 
 


not as stringent about precursor chemicals as laws in other states, making it easy for cooks to 
purchase them. Second, he said that Red P labs have increased in the last year, with the cold 
cook and Nazi methods about equal in popularity. 

Technological advances have assisted cooks and users. In our interviews with detectives 
they said that cooks use the Internet for recipes, sources of chemicals, and trade secrets. A 
confidential informant noted that the Internet was a good way to learn about meth and also to 
check people out. 

Over the two-year period of the grant, the sergeant in charge of the Meth unit has noticed 
a change in the way cooks set up and dismantle labs. The sergeant said that in the last six 
months of 2000, police were not finding the crude, nasty smelling labs. He said that cooks 
were building more sophisticated filtration systems that eliminated the odor and thus helped 
them avoid getting caught. Recently, his officers found a five-gallon charcoal bucket filtration 
system that eliminated the odor completely. He also said that cooks were getting smarter about 
cleaning up after themselves. Rather than leaving a mess and evidence in motels and apartments, 
some cooks are washing their glassware, cleaning up, and leaving less paraphernalia. 

The sergeant also said that a class system is becoming apparent with clandestine labs. 
That is, the differences between Beavis and Butthead cooks and higher level cooks are more 
pronounced. The higher level cooks are cleaner, more efficient, not using the drug, and perhaps 
making money. The lower level cooks are messy, use the dope themselves, and are not 
concerned about profits. They seem to be cooking to satisfy their addiction. 

Meth Market Dynamics 

According to DPD detectives, buying and selling meth is cliqueish. That is, most meth 
dealers sell t only o people they know and are hesitant to sell to outsiders. The detectives claim 
that this is part of the paranoia of meth users and dealers. Most of the users and dealers are 
white males and females, ages 18 to 35. However, detectives have seen older people involved, 
with some in their 60s. Cookers are primarily male and run the show. Females are given the 
tedious jobs of clean up. 

Law enforcement officers indicated that Mexican Nationals have become involved in the 
marketplace. While they prefer to sell to Hispanic people, it is not uncommon for them to sell to 


a white undercover officer, though they will charge more per pound. One detective noted that a 
Hispanic person could buy a pound for $6,500, while a white person could be charged $7,500 to 
$8,000 per pound. Police report that Mexican Nationals are bringing finished product into the 
United States at a rate of 40-50 pounds per trip. The quality control is poor because of the mass 
production involved, and purity is weak, with the drug cut or diluted as it passes from one 
person to another. One detective estimated that the purity level was about 12 to 15 percent. The 
price has also dropped from $15,000 per pound in the 1980s to its current value of about $7,000 
per pound. These prices are validated by the DEA, which reports that in the North Texas region, 
a pound sells for $4,500-$7,500, an ounce sells for $450-$900, and a gram costs $70-100 
(Maxwell, 2000). These prices are lower than those in Houston where a pound of domestic meth 
goes for $10,000-$14,000, while a pound of Mexican meth costs $5,000-$8,000. An ounce of 
domestic meth in Houston sells for $600-$800, and an ounce of Mexican meth sells for $350$600. 

Some detectives have noticed that small box lab manufacturers are increasing and that 
hotels are locations for this activity. However, they believe methamphetamine laboratories are a 
small problem compared to other sources of methamphetamine distribution. Because so many 
dealers and suppliers bring in methamphetamine from Mexico and other places, laboratories 
were not part of the enforcement equation in 1998 and early 1999. (This has changed since 
December 1999, when labs suddenly became the focus for enforcement.) 

The views of the detectives are substantiated by anecdotal evidence provided to the Texas 
Epidemiology Work Group in 1998. The research indicates that most of the methamphetamine 
in Dallas originates in Mexico, although local labs are becoming more common, especially north 
of Dallas (Maxwell, 2000). 

An interview with a methamphetamine user revealed slightly different information. She 
said she bought meth when she was 11 years old from friends and later from her friends parents. 
Eventually, she began to work her way through the maze of buyers and sellers and made contact 
with Mexican distributors. Her ex-boyfriend was heavily involved in trafficking as well, mostly 
selling pounds of meth. She substantiated the officers views about the cost of meth depending 
upon ethnic background.$800-$1,200 per ounce for white people; $400-$500 per ounce for 
Hispanic buyers. Cash was not the only commodity used. Some dealers took checks or tangible 


goods like televisions and VCRs; and dealers sold meth at different locationsat grocery stores, 
parking lots, or residences.2 

According to this user/dealer, the best methamphetamine originates in the Philippines, 
coming to Dallas via California. It is normally purple and resembles glass. She also indicated 
that approximately once a month someone drives to California and brings methamphetamine 
back. She said that it is worth the drive to California and back, given the profit that can be made 
on this particular type of methamphetamine (she stated that it was possible to get $15,000 per 
pound for the Philippine methamphetamine). She also indicated that Vietnamese, Laotian, and 
Hmong people were the primary distributors for this type of methamphetamine. Finally, she said 
this indicated a changing pattern of user, with Mexican and Asian people becoming more 
involved in the last three years. 

A second dealer/user discussed his involvement in the drug trade. He learned how to 
make meth from motorcycle gang members in the 1980s and sells it in small quantities to 6 to 12 
people per week. He can get about $600 to $800 per ounce in Dallas. Most of his customers are 
older white males. 

ADAM Data 

For approximately two weeks every calendar quarter, the Arrestee Drug Abuse 
Monitoring Program (ADAM) interviews arrestees who have been booked in the past 48 hours 
about their drug use history. Arrestees are also asked to submit to a urine drug screen. 

From ADAM data for the 1990s, we find that a small percentage of arrestees tested 
positive for methamphetamine use. Exhibit 1 shows that meth use by arrestees fluctuated but 
remained at a fairly low level from 1990 through 1998, with the highest percentage of positive 
tests in 1993 (3.5 percent of males and 5.2 percent of females). When compared to other ADAM 
sites in the West and Northwest, methamphetamine use is low. This finding is a bit surprising, 
especially given Dallass proximity to the Mexican border. 

2 The evaluators observed detectives purchasing meth from this user in the parking lot of a shopping center. 
Eventually she became an informant for the detectives and allowed us to interview her. 


Exhibit 1: Percentage of Male and Female Arrestees Testing Positive for 
Methamphetamine, Dallas 1990-98 

		1990 	1991 	1992 	1993 	1994 	1995 	1996 	1997 	1998 
Male 		1.9 	1.4 	0.6 	3.5 	2.0 	2.2 	1.2 	2.6 	3.3 
Female 		4.0 	2.2 	2.4 	5.2 	3.3 	3.7 	1.5 	2.8 	4.0 

Source: Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program, 1999

DAWN Data 

Dallas is one of 21 metropolitan areas that participates in the Drug Abuse Warning 
Network (DAWN), sponsored by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration. 
DAWN data are collected from hospitals with emergency departments. 

These data reflect the number of emergency room mentions per 100,000 in population 
annually or bi-annually. Exhibit 2 shows the number of emergency room mentions for cocaine, 
heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine from the first half of 1991 to the first half of 1999. 
Cocaine was the drug mentioned the most in emergency rooms over the nine-year period. From 
1993 to 1996, emergency room mentions of cocaine hovered around 29 to 32 per 100,000. From 
the second half of 1996 to the second half of 1998, a steady increase occurred from 29.3 to 54.1 
and then declined in the first half of 1999 to 40.6. 

Methamphetamine emergency room mentions are relatively low compared to cocaine, 
heroin, and marijuana. Emergency room mentions for meth reached a peak in the first half of 
1995 with 5.3 mentions per 100,000, then declined over the next two and one-half years. By the 
first half of 1998, mentions went up to 4.9, but then declined in the following year. Exhibits 3 
and 4 show the breakdown of meth mentions by age and gender. They show that males and 18 to 
25 year olds accounted for the increases in 1995 and 1998. 


Exhibit 2: Dallas DAWN Mentions of Cocaine, Heroin, Marijuana and Methamphetamines, Per 100,000 Population:
2nd Half 1991-1st Half 1999 

		2h 91 1h 92 2h 92 1h 93 2h 93 1h 94 2h 94 1h 95 2h 95 1h 96 2h 96 1h 97 2h 97 1h 98 2h 98 1h 99 
Cocaine 	30.2  25.5  27.4  29.1  28.5  29.6  31.2  31.9  29.7  28.9  29.3  34.0  39.6  51.9  54.1  40.6 
Heroin 		5.4   5.9   6.1   6.2   6.5   4.6   5.4   6.3   5.4   6.8   7.7   10.6  10.8  10.8  10.2  8.5 
Marijuana 	4.8   7.7   7.0   8.3   7.4   10.4  10.0  10.5  13.0  12.3  10.9  18.1  19.9  31.3  30.8  25.3 
Meth 		1.7   1.6   1.4   2.1         2.7   3.9   5.3   3.3   2.2   2.6   3.2   3.4   4.9   2.7   2.3 

Source: Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, 2000

Exhibit 3: Dallas DAWN Mentions of Methamphetamines, Per 100,000 Population by Gender:
2nd Half 1991-1st Half 1999 

2h 91 1h 92 2h 92 1h 93 2h 93 1h 94 2h 94 1h 95 2h 95 1h 96 2h 96 1h 97 2h 97 1h 98 2h 98 1h 99 
Male 2.2 2.1 1.7 2.9 1.1 3.1 4.1 5.7 3.3 3.4 3.0 3.4 4.7 6.4 4.4 3.0 
Female 1.1 0.8 1.5 2.2 3.7 4.9 3.4 1.1 2.2 3.0 2.2 3.4 1.2 1.7 

Source: Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, 2000

Exhibit 4: Dallas DAWN Mentions of Meth Per 100,000 Population by Age:
2nd Half 1991-1st Half 1999 

AGE 2h 91 1h 92 2h 92 1h 93 2h 93 1h 94 2h 94 1h 95 2h 95 1h 96 2h 96 1h 97 2h 97 1h 98 2h 98 1h 99 
6-11 2.0 2.4 2.3 3.6 4.1 6.4 8.8 5.1 2.8 3.8 5.3 5.3 7.4 4.0 3.5 
12-17 0 0.4 4.9 0.4 1.7 1.3 3.4 3.0 2.9 
18-25 3.7 3.4 5.5 7.6 5.1 9.6 19.9 11.7 5.9 4.5 13.5 9.7 14.2 4.8 6.8 
26-34 3.0 3.1 2.3 4.3 2.7 7.2 8.5 9.3 6.1 2.6 6.4 4.7 7.6 9.3 6.0 3.9 
35+ 1.1 0.3 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.4 2.3 1.6 1.1 

Source: Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, 2000 


Methamphetamine Users in Dallas 

As part of its partnership agreement with the DPD, the GDCADA conducted two studies, 
one to develop a user profile (, 1999a) and another to report on the treatment outcomes of meth 
users (Cahill, 1999b). Dr. Melissa Cahill of GDCADA conducted the study of meth users by 
examining data from the Dallas County Community Supervision and Corrections Department 
(CSCD) and GDCADA. Both agencies collect information on meth users through their 
substance abuse assessments. Data were generated from assessments completed between 
October 1998 and June 1999 for CSCD, and January to June 1999 for GDCADA. A total of 134 
valid cases were examined: 94 were from CSCD (representing 5 percent of all assessments 
completed during the time period), and 40 were from GDCADA (representing about 2.6 percent 
of all assessments during the time frame). 

Demographic information includes the following: 

 Mean age of users: 31 years, with 82.8 percent in their 20s or 30s; 
 Gender: For the CSCD sample, 63 percent male and 37 percent female; for the 
GDCADA sample, 62.5 percent female and 37.5 percent male; combined samples 
showed 55 percent male and 45 percent female;3 
 Race: Overwhelming majority were Caucasian (95.5 percent); followed by 
Hispanic (2.2 percent) and African American (2.2 percent); 
 Sexual Orientation: 60 of 61 (98.4 percent) reported being heterosexual; 
 Marital status: Single (43.8 percent), divorced (25.8 percent), separated (15.6 
percent), married (13.3 percent), and widowed (1.6 percent); 
 Education: Mean of 11.2 years of education with about 2/3 of the sample 
completing 11 or more years (high school diploma or GED); and 
 Socioeconomic indicators: Almost 48.5 percent reported having no income (68 of 
134 provided their income level); 35 individuals reported a median income of 
$18,240. 

3 The difference in male and female percentages in the sample is due to the different populations these two 
agencies serve. CSCD (the corrections arm of the criminal justice system) has a larger male population while 
GDCADA (a treatment-based organization) has a larger female population.

Cahill also examined arrest histories for both samples. Of the CSCD meth users, 25.8 
percent had no misdemeanor arrests, 24.7 percent had one, 19.4 percent had two, and 30.2 
percent had three or more. With respect to felony arrests, 7.4 percent had none, 42.6 percent had  


one, 17 percent had two, and 33.1 percent had three or more. Most of these arrests were for 
misdemeanor or felony possession of a controlled substance. 

For the GDCADA meth users, self-reported history of arrests was analyzed. For these 
users, 17.5 percent reported they had no misdemeanor arrests, 27.5 percent reported one, 22.5 
percent reported two, and 32.5 percent reported three or more. For felony arrests, 42.5 percent 
reported none, 35 percent reported one, 17.5 percent reported two, and 5 percent reported three 
or more. 

DIVERT Court 

DIVERT Court (Dallas Initiative for diVersion and Expedited Rehabilitation and 
Treatment) is one of four drug courts in the state of Texas. Funding for this court comes from 
the state. A number of agencies work with the court, including adult probation, the GDCADA, 
and the Texas Association of the Drug Court Professionals. To measure the addiction level of 
persons brought to court, they use an addiction severity index. They also use a mental health 
questionnaire which is administered by the staff psychologist. 

DIVERT court began accepting cases in January 1998. To become eligible for 
participation in DIVERT, the following criteria must be met: 

1. The individual meets the Dallas County standards for pretrial release; 
2. The individual is charged with possession of less than one gram of a controlled 
substance; possession of more than four ounces but less than five pounds of 
marijuana; possession of less than 20 units of LSD; or is charged with the 
fraudulent possession of a controlled substance prescription; 
3. There is no evidence of drug dealing; 
4. The individual does not have holds from other jurisdictions for offenses that are 
greater than a Class C misdemeanor; 
5. The individual has no other felony offenses pending; 
6. The individual has no history of violent offenses; 
7. The individual has no prior felony convictions or deferred sentences; and 
8. The individual is evaluated to be chemically dependent. 

The final determination on the admission of an individual to DIVERT court is made by 
the District Attorney. Drug court involves three phases for the participant: Phase I 


Stabilization, Orientation, and Assessment; Phase II  Intensive Treatment, and Phase III  
Transition. 

In Phase I, a case manager is assigned and a needs assessment conducted. Participants 
must go through individual and group counseling, regularly attend at 12-step meetings of 
Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous, and take at least two urinalysis tests per week. 
To move up to Phase II, a person must be clean for 14 consecutive days, not miss scheduled 
services for 14 treatment days, and be employed or have vocational/educational goals. Phase I 
lasts from two to eight weeks. 

During Phase II, the treatment plan is updated and goals and objectives are set for 
treatment. Individual and group counseling continues, as does attendance at 12-step meetings, 
but urinalysis tests are reduced to one or two tests per week. To advance to Phase III, an 
individual must remain clean for 60 consecutive days, have no unexcused absences from drug 
testing for 60 consecutive days, have no unexcused absences from scheduled services for 30 
treatment days, be employed or have educational goals, and demonstrate adjustment to treatment. 
This phase can take 12 to 16 weeks to complete. 

Phase III is a transition phase where recovery appears to be in sight. Individuals must 
continue individual and group counseling, attend 12-step meetings, and take urine tests two to 
four times per month. Stability in living arrangements is required, and educational and 
vocational planning is stressed. The participant begins to pay for program fees or completes 
community service. 

To graduate from the program, participants must be clean for 90 consecutive days, have 
no unexcused absences from urine tests for 90 consecutive days, have no unexcused absences 
from scheduled services for 60 treatment days, be employed or have an education/vocation plan, 
pay all fees, and fulfill treatment goals. 

Between January 1998 and June 2000, 532 cases were referred to DIVERT court. There 
were 123 active cases as of August 2000. Originally, the program was supposed to handle 300 
active cases. However, when they were not able to obtain federal funding, the number was cut to 
200. Due to other considerations (mainly the number of case managers), the current maximum 
number of active cases that can be handled is 150. 


From January 1998 to June 2000, 15 individuals involved with meth were accepted to 
DIVERT. Of the 15, four clients successfully graduated, six were still in the program, one opted 
out (a person can change his or her mind within the first 30 days of the program), one died, and 
three failed the program. 

Of the six still in the program, one individual is incarcerated, but allowed to participate 
through an agreement between DIVERT and the Corrections Department Inmate Program. He is 
allowed to attend appropriate treatment outside of the jail. 

Of the three clients who failed the program, two clients committed new offenses and 
were terminated from DIVERT. One client stopped reporting to the DIVERT court and was 
presumed to have fled and thus, terminated from the program. 

DIVERT Court in Action 

The court meets every Tuesday night. The drug court team includes the judge, an 
assistant district attorney, a public defender, three case managers, and treatment providers. The 
court team meets from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m., and the court convenes from 6:00 to 9:30 p.m. 

During the court process, the judge makes a point of talking with every person on the 
docket for the evening. We observed court activity on two occasions. In general, the evening 
starts with individuals who are in jail. They enter the court in their jumpsuits, handcuffed 
together. On one particular evening, this jail chain consisted of two women and one man. The 
two women were escorted in together. The judge spoke with both of them. They had completed 
their assignments for the week, but one of the women appeared a bit chagrined. She must have 
been uncooperative in the recent past, and one of the treatment providers asked her what word 
she was supposed to remember. It was "grandiosity." Both of the women received applause 
from the audience. 

Then the bailiff brought in Mr. N. He appeared unhappy and agitated. After a quick 
greeting, he launched into how badly he had been treated that day. The judge listened and then 
asked Mr. N to listen to him and the audience members. The judge indicated that Mr. N was in 
real trouble and that everyone was there to determine whether he was a good candidate for the 
program. The judge asked the audience (which included individuals in the program) a number of 
questions, such as how long certain members had been in jail and their education levels. Mr. N 


kept interrupting and the judge kept asking him to listen. Mr. N would not admit that he had a 
drug problem and kept stressing that he had to get out and work at least part of the day, or he 
could not participate in any drug treatment program. The judge asked him about his previous 
appearance and the threats that he made, including threats about his mother and his girlfriend. 
This upset Mr. N, who started speaking loudly to the judge and even yelled to his girlfriend, 
saying that the threats were misrepresented and that he had explained things to her. Mr. N did 
not calm down, so the judge told him that he was not a good candidate for the program and sent 
him back to jail. The judge told Mr. N's mother and girlfriend that Mr. N had a very serious 
problem and that the last time he was intoxicated, he became paranoid and even threatened to kill 
his mother and girlfriend. The judge told them that this was a very serious threat and that they 
should be very careful around Mr. N when he was released. 

During the course of the evening, the judge acknowledged participants who had moved 
up to new phases of the program. The judge spoke to each person about their successes, and they 
received applause from attendees and fellow drug court participants. The atmosphere was very 
supportive for some of the participants and also difficult for those who failed or took backward 
steps in their program. 

Violators of the program were questioned harshly by the judge and forced to explain their 
behavior to the group and how they would avoid such behavior in the future. They were also 
given sanctions, including paying for a positive urinalysis, attending additional court reviews, or 
even being placed in jail for a weekend. If non-compliance occurs and the case manager 
recommends it, a person can be placed under zero tolerance. This is the courts last attempt to 
get compliance by a participant prior to a jail sentence or termination from the program. Under 
zero tolerance, a person must have no positive urinalysis tests, no missed test dates, no missed 
counseling sessions or AA meetings, no missed court appearances, weekly progress reports from 
the substance abuse service provider, and appearances before the court every week. 

A DIVERT Court Participant 

To provide readers with an example of the ups and downs of meth users and drug court 
participants, we followed an individual for about nine months. His story follows. 

Billy is a 30-year-old white male. When he was 12, he was diagnosed with attention 
deficit disorder and placed on Dexedrine. He was on Dexedrine until he was expelled from high 


school at 15. In 1988 and1989, he was in and out of jobs, mainly stocking shelves in grocery 
stores. In 1990, he worked as a night stocker for a grocery store and was first introduced to 
meth during the late night shift. The night crew leader was the supplier (and the grocery 
manager was the cooker, although he did not learn that until three months later) and most of the 
night crew used meth. He referred to the crew leader, Randy, as his "blood brother." 

Billy snorted meth the first time he used it, and he could not believe his focus. It 
reminded him of being on Dexedrine, but it had a much more potent effect. From the outset, he 
did not want to share meth with anyone. The second time he used, he shot it. He has tried 
cocaine, including crack, and heroin, but had never become a routine user of these substances. 

Billy was arrested in March 1998 when he wrecked his car at 10 in the morning. He was 
trying to get to a KMart parking lot to do his last quarter ounce. He had been up for 13 days, 
either at the bowling alley or scoring dope. At first, he said, it looked like the officers were not 
going to arrest him, but then they found about 30 syringes in his back seat. That gave the officers 
probable cause to search, and Billy admitted that he had a quarter ounce on him. 

Billys dealer, Gil, lived off of the Northwest Highway in Dallas. Billy indicated that the 
quality of meth varied from buy to buy. When he was using regularly, he was consuming about 
a one-quarter ounce a day (or every other day). It cost him about $345. T o support his habit, he 
stole small items and returned them to the store (if the return was under $10, no receipt was 
needed). At one point, he was earning about $200 a day as a merchandiser with two routes, and 
all of his earnings were being used to support his habit. He would get high in the bathroom of 
the store he was about to stock and would then stock the shelves in 15 minutes. Billy has not 
experienced many health problems stemming from his habit, other than "meth bites" (big sores 
filled with pus). 

About six months prior to his entry into DIVERT, Billy had a good job filling fire 
extinguishers. He realized that he needed help when he "lost it" (lost his temper) with his boss 
while on the job and when he saw that his telephone bill had increased because he was always 
paging his dealer. He started with DIVERT in October 1998. However, he had previously been 
in the Homeward Bound treatment facility as an outpatient client, but "he got a girl in trouble." 
He was living with his parents, who started going to AlAnon and learned about how they were 
enabling his addictive behavior. 


Billy said he did not get much out of treatment the first time around and ended up in jail 
for two weeks in February 1999 due to a relapse. The incident, he said, "woke him up." An 
acquaintance had brought him some meth on a Friday afternoon. Billy thought he could take it, 
recover over the weekend, and be fine for his urinalysis on Monday. However, Friday turned 
into Sunday and he was still consuming meth. When he appeared in court, the judge told him the 
next time he relapsed, he would go back to jail and another drug treatment program. He said he 
realized that he could get "dry," but not "sober." 

Billy had completed the eighth step (of his 12-step program). He moved out of his 
parent's house and became active in his church. For employment, he approached a manager who 
he had worked for two years earlier. Initially, the manager was reluctant to rehire him, but after 
talking with DIVERT staff, the manager decided to give him another try. Billy stayed three 
months and one day, until he tested positive for amphetamines. A confirmation test of the urine 
sample showed that it was not meth (it was ephedrine; he said he had taken "mini-thins"). 
However, the possibility of a positive test was enough for the manager. Billy said that he was 
not upset at the manager, telling him he understood and that he had been thinking about leaving 
anyway. Billy is now working at a local grocery store on a 5 a.m. to 2 p.m. shift, which allows 
him to go to treatment meetings in the evening. However, he will have to miss the noon 
meetings, which he said he enjoyed attending. 

Later, Billy experienced difficulties paying fees and then tested positive for meth during 
Phase III of his treatment. The court referred him to a psychiatrist for a mental health 
assessment. The doctor recommended prescription amphetamines to assist with concentration. 
Billy insisted that he try to continue with the DIVERT court program, but once again tested 
positive for meth. He was then released from DIVERT court for a technical violation and was 
returned to regular court processing. 

Intervention 

Six narcotics detectives and one sergeant serve as the clandestine meth lab experts for the 
Dallas Police Department. All members of this team have received DEA certified training. In 
the first year of the meth initiative, they targeted mid- to upper-level suppliers. Generally, the 
detectives relied upon confidential informants to get them close to dealers or went undercover 


and purchased small amounts of meth from local suppliers. In the second year, attention shifted 
to the seizure and dismantling of clandestine laboratories. From 1999 to the time of this report, 
detectives were involved in obtaining and implementing search warrants and overseeing clean-up 
through funds provided by the DEA. 

Data from the DPD show increases in meth arrests from 1998 to 1999 both department-
wide and within the narcotics division. In 1998, departmentwide arrests for meth 
sales/manufacturing and possession totaled 84. In 1999, that total increased to 174. The increase 
occurred while overall drug arrests were declining (11,045 in 1998 to 10,842 in 1999). (See 
Exhibit 5.) 

Exhibit 5: Departmentwide Drug Arrest Statistics

					1998 				1999 
Drug 		   Sales/ Manufacturing    Possession 	Sales/ Manufacturing    Possession 
Marijuana 		26 			4,085 		16 		4,095 
Cocaine 		1,193 			5,018 		1,190 		4,786 
Heroin 			90 			215 		161 		220 
Amphetamines 		64 			184 		25 		153 
Methamphetamine 	21 			63 		70 		104 
Total 			1,480	 		9,565	 	1,462 		9,358 
				11,045 					10,820 

The narcotics division also increased its meth arrests (see Exhibit 6), making 50 in 1998 
and 90 in 1999. At the same time, Exhibit 7 shows the narcotics division also seized more 
meth.91 kilograms in 1998 and 102 kilograms in 1999. 

Exhibit 6: Narcotics Division Drug Arrests

Drug 			1998 	1999 
Marijuana 		268 	211 
Cocaine 		1,360 	1,154 
Heroin 			135 	101 
Amphetamines 		38 	22 
Methamphetamines 	50 	90 
Ephedrine/Precursor 
Chemicals 		2 	1 
Total 			1,851 	1,578 


Exhibit 7: Narcotics Division Drug Seizures (in Kilograms)

Drug 			1998 	1999 	June 2000 
Marijuana 		2,404 	2,330 	1,840 
Cocaine 		261 	113 	180 
Heroin 			32 	19 	3.3 
Amphetamines 		17 	21 	2 
Methamphetamines 	91 	102 	42 
Ephedrine 		81 	0 
Total kilograms 	2,886 	2,585 	2,067 
Precursor Chemicals 
(in gallons) 		0 	196 	6.5 

The amount of drugs seized by the Narcotics Division overall decreased by 10 percent between 1998 and 1999. Only 
amphetamine and methamphetamine drug seizures went up, with a 12 percent increase in meth seizures between 
1998 and 1999. 

Data from DPD indicate that in 1998 only 4 labs were seized. In 1999, 15 labs were 
discovered and dismantled. The cost to the department for three of the labs was nearly $7,500. 
DEA paid for nine clean-ups, the county paid for one, and clean-up costs for two others are 
pending. Most of these were Nazi labs." In 2000, narcotics detectives seized and dismantled 
38 labs. 

The Dallas County District Court provided the number of cases filed for drug 
manufacturing and possession by month for 1998 and 1999. Cases filed for 
methamphetamine/amphetamine manufacturing or possession only, and the drug manufacturing 
and possession charges could not be counted separately. The total number of drug cases filed 
was down 12 percent between 1998 and 1999. In 1998, there were 8,015 drug cases filed in 
Dallas County; in 1999, there were 7,156 drug cases filed. 

Treatment 

Cahill (1999b) reported on 23 individuals who completed treatment for meth use under 
the Dallas County Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD, n=13) and 
GDCADA (n=10) during the last quarter of 1998 and the first half of 1999. These 23 persons 
represent about 24 percent of the individuals referred to both agencies for substance abuse 
treatment. 


Seven different agencies participated in the treatment of the 23 individuals (Cahill, 
1999b). They delivered three types of treatment: supportive outpatient, intensive outpatient, or 
residential programs. Supportive outpatient programs include group meetings twice per week (1 
to 2 hours each) and attendance at self-help meetings (AA or NA). Intensive outpatient 
programs include group meetings 3 to 4 times a week (3-hour sessions) and attendance at self-
help meetings. Residential programs require the person to live at the program residence and 
participate in treatment programming every day of the week. 

Cahill found that 10 of the 23 participants successfully completed treatment. Four of 
seven completed supportive outpatient, two of seven completed intensive outpatient, and four of 
nine completed residential programs. Because the sample sizes are so small, Cahill could not 
make inferences about the success or failure of treatment at CSCD or GDCADA. 

Prevention 

Prevention efforts fell short of the original goals under the meth initiative. Initially, the 
GDCADA prevention effort was two-fold. First, funding was to be used to disseminate 
methamphetamine abuse information materials to a 19-county area surrounding Dallas. Second, 
GDCADA was to launch a public education/prevention campaign based on the information 
provided by the users profile that identifies high-risk individuals. By the end of calendar year 
2000, GDCADA has fulfilled the first goal by distributing information in the 19-county area and 
had convened a one-day symposium on meth. The public education campaign however, did not 
reach fruition. Part of the problem stemmed from numerous changes in GDCADA management 
during the grant period. Four chief executive officers and three project coordinators served 
during this time, creating problems in stability and direction for the organization. 

Community Policing 

In Dallas, community policing is a department-wide and division-level program. DPD 
divides the department into 6 Patrol Divisions.Central, Northeast, Southeast, Southwest, 
Northwest, and North Central. Within each division are separate units.crime prevention, 
traffic, interactive community policing. DPD has over 2,800 sworn officers. During the 
evaluation, the Commander of ICP was interviewed (April 1999) and the community policing 
officers were contacted for telephone interviews (2001). 


The ICP program began in July 1996 in the southern and western sections of the city and 
then expanded city-wide a year later (July 1997). ICP officers use a computer system to enter 
data about their activities. According to information provided by the ICP commander, ICP 
officers have 17 different categories of activities. Data entered into the system include a tracking 
number, dates, type of activity, and source of activity. It also includes contact information, 
results information and evaluation of what they have accomplished. ICP officers can enter 
information about the meetings they attend.how many people, what was discussed, etc. The 
data are linked to the citys GIS system that can produce maps for the officers. More than 
12,000 activities were reported between 1996 and 1999. 

Additionally, ICP officers also engage in a number of programs, including Weed and 
Seed, Better Kids, Better Dallas, Law Enforcement and Private Security (LEAPS), Crime 
Prevention Robots, Crime Watch (600 active watches), Citizens Police Academy (420 citizens 
attended), Mobile Storefronts, Graffiti Abatement, Volunteers in Patrol (33 active groups with 
758 members), Senior Citizen Liaison Program, and Explorers (Boy Scouts). 

At the time of this evaluation, 48 officers were assigned to 24 areas in the city to perform 
community policing activities. This increased to 72 officers.DPD increased the number of 
officers assigned to ICP in late 1999 as part of a major re-organization. Seventy-two sworn 
officers (including 6 sergeants, 21 corporals and 46 line officers) were assigned to the six patrol 
divisions. 

ICP sergeants have a great deal of latitude in officer deployment. For instance, in the 
Northwest Division, officers are assigned geographically. Two officers are assigned a five to ten 
square-mile area of responsibility. Other ICP officers are assigned to geographic areas as well, 
though the areas of coverage vary by division. 

The officers have no set shifts, which allows them to work their 40 hours per week 
wherever or whenever problems arise. This allows them to work a day shift if businesses are 
having problems, evenings when they need to meet with residents at home or do bar inspections, 
or even work a 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. time slot to target a prostitution problem. 

The ICP units work closely with smaller Crime Prevention (CP) units at each division. 
The CP units, usually consisting of two to four staff members plus a sergeant, provide citizen and 
business presentations, meetings and surveys, and crime analysis. For example, the ICP unit 


handles meetings and presentations if the CP unit is overbooked. The CP unit handles most 
presentations and meetings, but brings back valuable information about problems and passes it to 
the ICP unit for follow-up. 

Prior to receiving the meth grant, patrol and ICP officers had not been active in any 
strategy developed to address the methamphetamine problem in Dallas County. The department 
said that these officers had not received adequate training about methamphetamine and had 
limited experience in applying problem solving methods to methamphetamine-specific problems. 
With the grant, all patrol and ICP officers were provided training in the detection of 
methamphetamine producers. As one officer stated, Before, I would have walked through an 
apartment and had no clue what all that glassware meant. It would have just been harmless junk. 
Now I realize that it is a potential health and public safety hazard. 

In 1999, the Narcotics Division trained patrol and ICP officers approximately 25 times on 
methamphetamine identification and production detection. This training has been provided both 
as in-service training and at the academy for recruits. Additionally, training has been delivered 
to the Organized Crime Unit, the District Attorneys Office, the DIVERT court, and the Dallas 
Fire Department firefighters and arson investigators. This education effort has led to increased 
detection of methamphetamine laboratories. 

The narcotics division also presented methamphetamine education and detection 
information to 13 community groups, including apartment managers, Boy Scouts, and crime 
watch groups. Interviews with ICP and CP officers (who usually worked with the narcotics 
division to set up these meetings) revealed that these trainings were considered extremely 
valuable, especially with apartment managers and staff. Now feeling like the apartment 
managers are sufficiently trained, one officer is starting to work with Extended Stay Hotels on 
meth interventions. While training these hotel managers on lab detection, this officer advises 
them to require daily or frequent maid service and to conduct routine checks for insects and 
functioning fire alarms. The officer stresses that routine access to the rooms will prevent cookers 
from setting up a major lab. In addition, he lets managers know that if they find meth equipment 
and chemicals, the hazards and clean up will not only close one room for a period of time, but 
also may affect as many as four to eight other rooms. 


Conclusions 

The meth problem in Dallas is similar to other sites in that primary users were biker 
groups in the 1970s and 1980s, with the problem now more widespread in the community. 
Mexican nationals and local cookers dominate the meth scene. Based on findings from treatment 
research, we know that local users are primarily white males in their 30s, with an arrest record 
that includes misdemeanors and felonies. Females are also involved in using meth but less so 
than males. In terms of the success of treatment, we know that four out of 15 meth users in Drug 
Court completed the program, five failed, and six are still in treatment. 

During the project the Dallas police changed the way in which they intervene in the meth 
market. During the first year of the Initiative narcotics detectives focused on the middle or 
upper level dealer, hoping to contain the supply of meth at a higher level. By the second year 
narcotics detectives changed strategies and began targeting clandestine labs. This change was 
due, in part, to the increase in training of community policing officers and patrol officers in 
identifying meth labs. As officers became more aware of meth labs they began to call the 
narcotics team which resulted in a change of emphasis. This also meant that the Dallas narcotics 
officers worked more in partnership with DEA, especially in lab clean ups. 

The grant provided training for officers and community groups that would not have 
occurred as quickly without extra funding. While we cannot measure the impact of training with 
statistical certainty, we know that it has changed the way in which officers approach labs through 
our interviews. ICP officers have gained a new respect for meth and for narcotics detectives 
expertise in dealing with the problem. 

Unfortunately, the Dallas partnerships under the Initiative were not as strong as they 
could have been. This is due in part to the changes that took place within one of the partner 
agencies. The Greater Dallas Center for Alcohol and Drug Abuse went through a number of 
administrative changes during the grant period an without continuity the partnership could not be 
sustained. With DIVERT court the partnership was not as strong as other sites and can be 
attributed in part to the divisions that affect most agencies within the criminal justice process  
communication and roles and responsibilities. 


References 

Cahill, M. 1999a. Methamphetamine: Epidemiology and User Profile. Unpublished paper, 
Greater Dallas Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. 

Cahill, M. 1999b. Methamphetamine: Analysis of Treatment Outcome. Unpublished paper, 
Greater Dallas Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. 

Drug Enforcement Agency. 1996. The Supply of Illicit Drugs to the United States: the NNICC 
Report 1996. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 

Maxwell, Jane C. 2000. Substance Abuse Trends in Texas  June 2000. Austin: Texas 
Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. 


Chapter 5 

Bustin' Labs: Meth Interdiction and Prevention in
Oklahoma City

Introduction 

The Oklahoma City Police Department (OCPD) serves a population of over 450,000 in 
an area that covers 625 square miles. The police department currently consists of 966 sworn 
officers (with an authorized strength of 1,030). The Meth Initiative is housed at the Special 
Projects Unit of the OCPD, which includes the Narcotics Unit. The number of officers in the 
Narcotics Unit ranged from 13 to 18 during the course of the Initiative; however, due to the 
number of meth labs, almost 30 officers worked part- or full-time on meth lab processing. The 
Narcotics Unit is responsible for interdiction and handling all the major violators for all drugs. 

For the Meth Initiative, OCPD used overtime funds to seize, process, and dismantle 
clandestine laboratories; and it devoted more time to citizen and police officer training. The 
grant covered the costs of training, the purchase of supplies and equipment needed for two years 
of methamphetamine laboratory processing, and additional hours for personnel. With grant 
funds, OCPD also developed a comprehensive methamphetamine public education campaign 
that received coverage from the print and telecommunications media. 

The Oklahoma County Drug Court and local Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 
Office served as partners to OCPD. The Drug Court provided inpatient and outpatient treatment 
for participants addicted to methamphetamine, and the DEA joined OCPD in establishing a Meth 
Task Force. 

History of Methamphetamine in Oklahoma City 

As in other sites, methamphetamine in Oklahoma City dates back to the mid-1970s, when 
it was used to cut or dilute cocaine, the prominent drug of choice among dealers. For the most 
part, during the mid-1970s Oklahoma City saw a significant speed drug problem especially with 
the abuse of pharmaceutical tablets, such as Dexedrine, barbiturates, and diet drugs. Meth was 
primarily distributed by motorcycle groups and was produced using the P2P method. 


During this time, about 95 percent of meth was produced in the rural areas of the state. 
Labs were sporadically discovered in and around Oklahoma City; about six to ten labs were 
seized a year. Phencyclidine labs (PCP) were seized as often as methamphetamine labs, and 
MDA and MDMA were also seen routinely. Additionally, LSD and marijuana possession cases 
dominated the work of chemists in the state narcotics crime lab, who began to see purity levels 
increase and more potent effects of both drugs. 

By the 1980s, marijuana had become the drug of choice, with LSD use fluctuating greatly 
(it almost disappeared and then returned dramatically). Motorcycle gangs controlled about 75 to 
85 percent of the meth market during this period. Generally, they used the P2P method to 
concoct their meth. The health risks associated with clandestine lab chemicals were not well 
known then, even by chemists. 

As in other major cities, crack cocaine became the drug of choice in Oklahoma City in 
the early 1990s. Meth was a minor problem in the early part of the decade, but by 1996, an 
upsurge in use and distribution had occurred. Narcotics detectives we interviewed recall finding 
more and more labs at this time. They also noted a change in the market; there seemed to be 
more involvement by non-blue collar workers. The professional, white-collar criminal became 
involved, and detectives saw fewer dealers and labs in trailer houses. Most of the labs found in 
Oklahoma City used either the ephedrine reduction method or the red phosphorous method. In 
the last few years, the detectives said, methamphetamine is starting to look more like crack 
(including larger amounts). Currently, detectives believe that about 95 percent of 
methamphetamine production is conducted in urban areas. Cookers do not seem to have any 
fear of the chemicals they are using, as evidenced by production in residential neighborhoods. 

The major concern for law enforcement officials in Oklahoma City is the health hazard of 
meth. Over the last 20 years, the issue had not been an important topic; but in the 1990s 
chemists and public safety officers who routinely dismantle clandestine labs came to understand 
the health risks associated with precursor chemical exposure. More training of patrol officers 
has been provided and narcotics detectives have attended training by the DEA, where they 
received certification as hazardous materials specialists. 


Dynamics of the Meth Market 

The meth market has changed considerably over the last decade, according to narcotics 
detectives. With the growth of the meth trade in the 1990s, cooks, users, and distributors have 
changed. 

In the 1980s and early 1990s, one detective in OCPD (known as the meth king by his 
colleagues) literally knew all of the cooks. But, he says, that is no longer true because there are 
too many out there now. Most of the cooks build small labs and sell 8-balls (one-eighth ounce 
or 3.4 grams) for about $150. An ounce will cost $700 to $1,000 with a purity level of about 90 
percent. This can be compared to meth brought in by Mexican Nationals, which has a purity 
level of about 70 percent. A pound of meth can be purchased for about $4,500 to $8,000, 
depending on its origins. 

Detectives also noted that the last three years [since 1997] have been the worst they 
have seen in terms of numbers of labs. They attribute the increase to the availability of 
ingredients in stores and the recipes on the Internet for making the drug. They indicate that all of 
the ingredients can be found at large department stores. 

Many of the cooks run mom and pop labs.ones that produce only a one-half to one 
ounce of meth, which is generally sold to acquaintances or family members. These labs are often 
seen in kitchens or bathrooms. The more sophisticated distributors appear to be more business-
minded. OCPD narcotics detectives cited an example of three brothers who cooked meth and 
operated a large meth business. Individuals purchased different ingredients to avoid bringing 
attention to themselves and then brought them to different locations. The detectives said that 
there were seven different labs for this family. They produced pounds of meth and were charged 
with conspiracy to manufacture, which has a higher sentence than possession with intent to 
distribute. To date, two of the brothers have been sentenced in Federal court to over 360 months 
each. 

Narcotics detectives also said they have witnessed an increase in female cooks, but that 
the male hierarchy is still alive. They indicated that there is a subservient structure to meth 
distribution. This means that women are used as distributors at dance bars and as prostitutes. 
The stripper bars are the closest thing to an open air drug market and are the same places that 


conducted business in the 1980s with biker gangs. Female strippers both sell and use meth as it 
keeps their weight down and their energy levels up. 

Finally, detectives and crime lab chemists indicate that clandestine labs have moved from 
the rural areas into the city. Warehouses, apartment complexes, and single-family homes have 
been locations for lab seizures. 

It is also important to note that Oklahoma City is located, literally, at a major crossroads 
for drug trafficking. Two major U.S. highways intersect there.Interstate 35 (north and south) 
and Interstate 40 (east and west). According to narcotics detectives, organized Mexican 
Nationals use these routes to distribute a variety of drugs from the Mexican border. Marijuana, 
cocaine, and methamphetamine are smuggled in cars, buses, and planes and brought into 
Oklahoma. Thus, OCPD has an Interdiction Unit that works in bus stations and at the airport 
to try to contain the drug trade. 

Meth Users 

To obtain detailed information on the habits of meth users, interviews were conducted 
with 14 Drug Court meth clients. Using a structured protocol, we interviewed 10 women and 4 
men whose ages ranged from 21 to 42 years old. We learned that one woman first experimented 
with meth when she was 13 years old. Others began at a later age, with an average age of 23 
when they first used the drug. When asked about the longest period of time in which they used 
meth daily, the average was about 14 days.1 

Of the 14 people we interviewed, most purchased meth from white, male dealers. Two 
respondents indicated that they bought meth from someone who was strictly a drug dealer, but 
most purchased it from an acquaintance or close friend. Others said that they bought meth from 
a family member, another purchased from a co-worker, and one was a cooker. 

One woman had never purchased meth because her boyfriend cooked and supplied her 
with the drug. Eight of the individuals interviewed indicated that they had sold meth. Only one 
reported selling to a large group of people who were unknown to him; this individual sold meth 
from his workplace and also sold cocaine and marijuana. 

Two respondents indicated that they had used meth continuously for 2 and 3 years, respectively. We eliminated 
these two in our calculations. 


When asked if they had ever cooked meth, five of these Drug Court clients indicated that 
they had done so. Respondents said it was easy to get the precursor chemicals, either by buying 
them themselves or getting them from a precursor chemical distributor within the state. They 
noted that red phosphorus was difficult to obtain.two respondents said they traveled to 
Arkansas and Texas to purchase Red P. Another person, who cooked for eight years, reported 
that it was easy to get the precursor chemicals from 1990 to 1994 but became difficult in 1994 
and 1995, and that red phosphorus was impossible to obtain. 

Six meth clients reported that they had been in treatment for meth in the past, with one 
indicating that she had been through five other treatment programs for meth specifically. 

ADAM Data 

In the fall of 1998, Oklahoma City became a new site for the NIJ-funded Arrestee Drug 
Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program. For approximately two weeks every calendar quarter, 
researchers at the University of Oklahoma interview arrestees who have been booked in the past 
48 hours about their drug use history. The arrestees are then asked to submit to a urine drug 
screen. The results from five quarters of urine test data collection are presented in Exhibit 1. 
(Note that Oklahoma City female arrestees cannot be compared to other sites in 1998 because 
data were not collected.) 

The ADAM data show that the percentage of male arrestees testing positive in Oklahoma 
City is greater than rates found for 21 of the 35 ADAM sites in 1998 and 24 of the 35 ADAM 
sites in 1999. 

Exhibit 1. Percentage of Male and Female Arrestees Testing Positive for 
Methamphetamine.Oklahoma City by Quarter 

		3Q 1998 4Q 1998 1Q 1999 2Q 1999 3Q 1999 4Q 1999 
Male 		7.8 	8.5 	5.3 	7.5 	13.6 	8.4
Female 		N/A 	N/A 	9.5 	8.4 	10.5 	16.8

Source: Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program 

From the ADAM data and through independent interviews with narcotics detectives, it 
appears that one of the major changes that has occurred in Oklahoma City is the increase of 


female arrestees using methamphetamine. The ADAM data show a marked increase in the 
fourth quarter of 1999 of female arrestees testing positive for meth. From the third quarter of 
1999 to the fourth quarter, an increase of 60 percent occurred. From the beginning of the year to 
the end of the year, the increase is almost 77 percent. For males, the percentage of arrestees 
testing positive for meth decreased from the third quarter of 1999 to the fourth quarter by 38 
percent. Over five quarters, the percentage of male arrestees testing positive declined, increased 
and then declined again to almost the original percentage (8.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 
1999 to 8.5 percent in the fourth quarter of 1998). 

In our interviews in December 2000, narcotics detectives said that they observed an 
increase in women as meth users in the Drug Court as well as at meth lab seizures. 

Other Sources of Information 

According to the DEAs El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) clandestine lab reporting 
system (1999), the state of Oklahoma ranks fourth in the number of meth labs reported with 396, 
after California (2,691 labs), Washington (597) and Missouri (438). Ninety-seven percent of the 
clandestine labs reported to EPIC are meth labs. Other anecdotal information sources report that 
the state of Oklahoma is experiencing an "epidemic-level" meth problem in the eastern and 
southeast portions of the state, especially Latimore and LeFlore counties. 

Currently, there are no systematic sources of information in Oklahoma City about how 
methamphetamine is distributed. Treatment providers report that there seems to be a saturation 
of methamphetamine distribution in southwest Oklahoma City. 

Intervention 

As mentioned earlier, the OCPD Narcotics Unit works within the Special Projects Unit. 
A Captain oversees three supervisors and 18 officers in the Unit. Meth grant funds were used to 
pay for overtime, equipment, and training for these officers. The only employee directly funded 
by the Meth grant is a chemist position for two years to assist with the processing of clandestine 
laboratory seizures. 

Approximately 30 Special Project Unit officers and supervisors from the Oklahoma City 
Police Department are involved either part- or full-time in the Methamphetamine Initiative. 


These officers are involved in additional methamphetamine laboratory seizures, appropriate 
processing, and filing of cases. One officer from Special Projects Unit is devoted to the 
Oklahoma County Drug Court program. 

The OCPD Bomb Squad and the Oklahoma City Fire Department Hazardous Materials 
team participates in lab seizures, having received training and equipment through the Meth 
Initiative. In most instances they accompany narcotics detectives to lab seizures. The primary 
concern is for officer safety.narcotics detectives are aware that some labs have been booby-
trapped by the distributors or cookers. Two small robots were purchased through the grant. 
These are equipped with small video cameras and can carry sensors to detect hazardous material. 
They can climb stairs, roll through a field of grass, stop, turn, look around, and provide officers 
with useful information inside buildings and rooms. 

Narcotics officers used a variety of tactics to combat meth manufacturing, distribution, 
and use. Prior to and during the grant period, OCPD used undercover buys, confidential 
informants, knock and talks, surveillance, and assistance from patrol officers making traffic stops 
to apprehend meth users and distributors. 

Drug Seizures, Arrests, and Charges Filed 

During the past three years, officers working on the Meth Initiative have been involved 
with nearly 300 lab seizures. Exhibit 2 shows the number of labs seized by the OCPD and the 
Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (statewide seizures). From 1998 to 1999, the number of 
meth labs seized and processed by OCPD increased by 70 percent, from 66 to 112. Based on 
data from the first nine months of 2000, OCPD was on pace to seize about 150 labs in 2000 (an 
average of 13 labs per month). This would be a projected increase of about 34 percent from 
1999 to 2000. The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation also increased their activities, 
seizing 62 more labs in 1999 than in 1998, an increase of about 23 percent. 

A further breakdown of the data shows that in 1999, 16 of the 112 labs were box labs 
that required 2-3 officers to assist in the dismantling and disposal of chemical waste. One of the 
seizures was from a vehicle requiring only one officer to assist in dismantling the lab. The other 
95 seizures were larger labs that required the services of 3-6 officers, the bomb squad, and a 
civilian chemist. In the first nine months of 2000, 118 labs were seized. According to official 
records, three of the meth labs resulted in a fire or explosion. 


Exhibit 2: Meth Lab Seizures by Year and Agency 

Agency 			1998 	1999 	2000 (through September) 
Oklahoma City PD 	66 	112 	118
Oklahoma State
Bureau of 		269 	331 	N/A
Investigation

In 1998, four clan lab seizures were categorized as large.resulting in over 1 kilo 
seized. These four seizures represent 59 percent of the total amount seized in 1998. In 1999, 
there were 2 large seizures (4.5 and 5.4 kilos) that represented 82 percent of the amount for the 
year. In 2000, 5 large labs accounted for 65 percent of the 2000 total to date, plus 11 medium 
producing labs, between a  kilo and 1 kilo. These medium labs produced 25 percent of the 2000 

total to date. The largest lab seizure across all the years is in 1999.a 5.4 kilo lab. 

From September 1998 to October 2000 (25 months) the OCPD Narcotics Unit made 979 
arrests for a variety of drug offenses (see Exhibit 3). From September 1, 1998 to August 31, 
1999 the Narcotics Unit made 434 arrests (about 32 per month). From September 1, 1999 to 
August 31, 2000 the unit made 477 arrests (nearly 40 per month). Unfortunately, OCPD does 
not disaggregate meth arrests from other drug offenses, so we do not know the extent to which 
meth arrests increased or decreased during the grant period. 


Exhibit 3: Number of Drug Arrests by OCPD Narcotics Unit by Month, September 
1998-September 2000 

Line Graph 

Charges Filed 

The Narcotics Unit builds cases through controlled buys, arrests, and seizures of lab 
equipment. During the first ten months of 2000, 518 drug possession, manufacturing, and 
distribution cases were filed by the Unit (see Exhibit 4). During a similar period in 1999, 271 
cases were filed. This means that the unit increased the number of cases in 2000 by more than 
90 percent. Unfortunately, we cannot disaggregate these data to determine how many cases were 
meth related. We do know that the Oklahoma County District Attorneys Office filed a total of 
190 meth cases in 1999 and 292 cases in 2000.2 

We do not know how many of these cases came from OCPDs Narcotics Unit. The Oklahoma County DAs 
Office is responsible for filing charges other from police departments within the county. Since OCPD is the 
largest agency in the county we may assume that the department is responsible for a majority of the cases. 


Exhibit 4: Drug Charges Filed by OCPD Narcotics Unit by Month, September 
1998-October 2000 

Line Graph

Meth Task Force 

A lieutenant and three officers from OCPD are detailed to DEA for the Meth Task Force. 
In addition to participating in the Task Force, they also assist in meth lab processing for OCPD. 
Other law enforcement agencies, while involved initially with the Task Force, have had to 
withdraw because of staffing shortages in their agencies. The Task Force originally pursued mid-
to high-level meth manufacturers and distributors, but the group decided to change its focus to 
target individuals or groups distributing precursor chemicals. Many of the investigations 
resulting from this focus have an interstate component and often involve working with officers 
and agents in Kansas and Texas. One case resulted in the arrest of nine people, including a 
business owner and employees, who were charged with conspiracy to manufacture meth. Along 
with other evidence gathered through wiretaps and other narcotics investigation tactics, one 
undercover officer purchased four cases of pseudoephedrine from this network. Under 


Oklahomas tough precursor laws, the defendants could face 20 years to life in prison if found 
guilty. 

Observing a Lab Seizure 

During a site visit, the evaluator observed the seizure of labs by OCPD officers. This 
provided information about how narcotics officers respond and deal with a small lab. What 
follows is a brief description of how one lab was seized. 

Shortly after 10:00 p.m., the on-call lieutenant received a call about a potential 
methamphetamine lab in the trunk of an automobile. An OCPD patrol officer made a traffic stop 
after witnessing erratic driving. When he spoke to the driver, it was apparent that she was 
intoxicated. The officer then searched the car and discovered a number of jars with various 
liquids in the trunk. Having been trained on what methamphetamine production looks like, the 
officer called the Narcotics Unit for assistance. He then placed the suspect in the back of the 
police car, filled out an incident report, and stayed on scene until the narcotics officers left. The 
patrol officer said that the suspect had been kicked out of her boyfriends house and was trying 
to locate a place to stay when she got pulled over. She had two garbage bags full of clothes in 
the truck along with the jars of liquid. After her statement was recorded, the suspect promptly 
went to sleep in the back of the police car and slept through the entire processing. 

Two narcotics officers and the lieutenant responded to the call. When the lieutenant 
arrived and saw the extent of the lab (very small, no security devices, no noticeable leaks or 
spills, would not have to be processed within an enclosed space), he downgraded the call. This 
meant that the fire department and/or the bomb squad would not need to respond. A gas 
toximeter was placed within range of the evidence to ensure that the gas levels remained safe. 
The jars were removed from the trunk of the car and placed on the ground in the Public Storage 
parking lot. (The location was not suspected of being a storage area; it just happened to be 
where the driver pulled over). The lieutenant and one officer donned protective clothing, while 
the other officer took the evidence notes and digital camera pictures. They systematically 
opened the jars, took samples, and tested the liquids with field kits to make some initial 
determination of what the jars contained. They seized empty jars, needles, and numerous coffee 
filters as well. One jar, where the substances were beginning to separate into various layers, was 
tested for both amphetamine and methamphetamine. The amphetamine test was negative, but 


the methamphetamine test was clearly positive. All the samples would be tested later at the 
laboratory for more conclusive results than is possible with the field tests. While the jars were 
being processed at the scene, a forensic technician arrived and fingerprinted the jars as the 
Narcotics Unit completed its testing. The processing at the scene was completed shortly after 
1:00 a.m. The representative samples were sealed in a plastic bucket similar to those seen 
containing pool chemicals and returned to the narcotics office. The sealed container was to be 
placed in a locked storage closet at the Narcotics Unit and then would be dropped off at the 
laboratory in the morning when it opened. 

The entire process, from receipt of the call to sealing the evidence container, took a little 
less than four hours. Evidence processing at the scene took approximately two hours, even 
though this was a small laboratory. 

Partnerships: Drug Court Treatment 

The Oklahoma County Drug Court is the primary partner for the OCPD Meth Initiative 
and provides treatment for meth clients, as well as other drug offenders. Formed in 1998, the 
Drug Court accepts repeat criminal offenders who are facing the prospect of serving time for 
felony charges. 

The Drug Court team includes representatives from two treatment providers, the DAs 
Office, the judge, an Oklahoma County Sheriffs deputy, and a full-time OCPD sergeant. The 
deputy sheriff, who works part-time, focuses mainly on serving warrants when a Drug Court 
client fails to meet the requirements of the program. Team members concentrate on weekly 
reviews of the clients status. If there are violations of the clients contract with the Court, the 
team also determines appropriate sanctions. Over the past two years, the Drug Court team has 
reviewed over 4,200 cases to determine eligibility for Drug Court. Selecting clients is rigorous, 
with about 5 percent of applicants accepted into the program. Between July and October 2000, 
the Drug Court team reviewed 420 cases and accepted 21 new clients. 

Violent offenders and drug offenders who are charged with manufacturing or trafficking 
are generally not eligible, but drug offenders who are also users can be considered. Participants 
enter a guilty plea and sign a contract with the Drug Court. The participant is technically on 
probation as long as he or she is in the program. 


One of two rehabilitative centers conducts an initial assessment of the client. A primary 
counselor is assigned to the case, and the counselor tracks the individual through treatment. A 
case management team reviews each case to determine if there are other areas in which the client 
needs assistance (reestablishing connections with children, health plans, etc.). The case 
management team remains involved until specific goals have been accomplished. One primary 
counselor and four others are available to the client, as well as three state-certified case 
managers. 

Participants agree to unannounced and random urinalyses. The Court will expel 
participants for relapses, although relapses are also dealt with through immediate sanctions such 
as community service or a weekend in jail. The Court has also started a re-entry program for 
those who end up in prison, and it recently widened the acceptance criteria to include probation 
violators. The Court currently operates one day a week (on Friday) with two sessions (at 10:30 
a.m. and 11:30 a.m.). Drug Court staff meet prior to the sessions to discuss cases and to expedite 
the hearings. 

During a typical staff meeting, staff members review 40 to 50 cases on the docket. 
Clients who have attended all of their treatment sessions and have tested negative on the most 
recent urinalysis are assigned the next court date. Follow-up court dates depend on the 
participants steps in the process. Those in Phase I (or beginners) report to the court every week; 
those in Phase II (intermediate) report every two weeks; and those in Phase III report every three 
weeks. Discussion is more in-depth for those participants who are just entering or about to enter 
the program. For example, for one male who was charged with cocaine possession, the staff 
discussed his living arrangements in great detail. He lived alone and claimed that he could 
participate in Drug Court without relapse. But staff members were skeptical and located an aunt 
that he could live with while in treatment. The DAs office had decided that it must know where 
he would be living before admitting him to the program, so the case was continued for a week so 
that staff could talk with him and perhaps explore other housing options. 

Drug court clients have different treatment options and sanctions for not following the 
rules. For those participants who receive treatment assessments that recommend extensive 
treatment, the Drug Court can refer them to the Regional Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) 
group. RSAT places clients in therapeutic communities that suit their needs for intensive 


treatment. RSAT can take an unlimited number of referrals and about 15 Drug Court 
participants are in therapeutic communities. 

Participants who fail to report for 30 days or more are automatically remanded into 
custody. Some clients who are experiencing problems may be notified that they are on 
termination status. Drug court staff hope that threatening an individual with termination from 
the program will serve as an incentive to start following the rules again. 

Observing a Staff Meeting and Drug Court Session 

Of 23 cases reviewed in one staff meeting, 12 participants were attending the appropriate 
number of individual, group, and 12-step sessions and had tested negative on the most recent 
urinalysis. Staff spent minimal time on these cases but discussed the four new and seven 
problematic cases more thoroughly. For clients with problems, the staff decided on appropriate 
sanctions, which can be modified once the client is heard in court. For example, the client may 
have a reasonable explanation for not attending a treatment session and could be excused. 
Sanctions can include additional treatment meetings, submitting to urinalyses more often, 
community service, and jail time. Drug Court participants must ask the staffs permission to 
leave town, even for a weekend. Of the seven problem cases, two were already back in jail and 
one would be sent back to jail the next week. 

After the staff meeting, Drug Court began. The time spent in conference expedited the 
court process considerably. Those who were in good standing were processed quickly. He or 
she simply stated the number of days of sobriety and then received an ovation from everyone in 
the courtroom. Then each client was asked if there was anything new to report.some clients 
mentioned new jobs, new children, or new grandchildren. The judge gave his congratulations on 
continuing to perform well and then assigned a new court appearance date. An individual who 
was promoted to a new phase in treatment took slightly longer because he had to read a brief 
statement in court about what he had learned about his addiction. Those clients who received a 
sanction also took longer because they could make a statement and could discuss the sanction as 
well. 


Drug Court Caseload and Outcomes 

In 1998, the Drug Court started with 15 participants. Staff wanted to ensure that the first 
clients received enough support to succeed. As of October 2000, the Drug Court had 
approximately 166 participants. The average time in the program is about two years. Of the 166 
open cases, 135 were active clients progressing through the required steps. For those 31 persons 
not on active status, 24 had active warrants outstanding and were expected to return to serve their 
original sentence if they were not located within 30 days of the warrant issuance. The remaining 
seven clients were serving what is called a split sentence; after serving part of their original 
sentence, there cases would be reviewed by the Drug Court team to determine their eligibility to 
return to the program. 

Of the 135 active cases in October 2000, 35 (or 26 percent) were meth clients. This is a 
substantial increase compared to July 1999, when active meth cases represented 14 percent of the 
total (12 of 87). The number of meth clients exceeded expectations, as the sergeant and Drug 
Court coordinator thought that there would be about 15 percent during the life of the grant. The 
largest percentage (54 percent) of Drug Court clients in October 2000 had been charged with a 
cocaine-related incident, followed by meth clients, and then marijuana clients at 10 percent. 

Approximately 50 methamphetamine clients had been accepted from 1998 to October 
2000. (This number is approximate because some clients were accepted and then dropped 
almost immediately due to incompatibility; these cases were excluded from this analysis.). All 
of the meth clients were white, with an equal distribution of men and women. The average age 
of the meth clients was 33, ranging from 22 to 46. 

One quarter of the meth clients did not complete the Drug Court program. Most of the 
terminations occur early in the program (within the first three months), although the Drug Court 
has worked with a few meth clients for as long as one year to try to keep them in the program. 
The reasons for termination are multiple absences from treatment sessions coupled with testing 
positive for meth multiple times on the urinalysis. One client transferred to another countys 
Drug Court program because he committed a meth-related incident in Oklahoma County, but 
resides in another county. 

The first graduation for Drug Court clients took place in June 2000. Six clients graduated 
at that time, one of whom was a meth client. Eighteen Drug Court participants graduated in 


December 2000 including two meth clients. Of the three successful meth clients, one completed 
the treatment in one year, with the other two completing treatment in two years. 

Prevention 
Training 

As part of the Meth Initiative, all OCPD officers received training in identifying meth lab 
chemicals. As described earlier, the officers observed on our ride successfully identified meth 
materials and knew the procedures for handling the problem. 

Citizens also received education and training. Narcotics Unit lieutenants addressed a 
number of civic groups, citizens, and organizations during 1999 and 2000. Speaking 
engagements varied from one-day seminars at Oklahoma State University to morning talk shows 
on local television. Of direct importance to the Meth Initiative were speaking engagements to 
the Greater Oklahoma City Hotel and Motel Association and the Oklahoma Natural Gas 
Employee seminar. Both groups were targeted because clandestine labs have been found in 
motel and hotel rooms, and gas company employees have the potential for noticing suspicious 
chemical odors during their work hours. Gas company employees, for example, respond to over 
600,000 service calls annually, and service technicians perform all types of inspections both 
inside and outside residences and businesses. The Hotel and Motel Association sent about 60 
members to the two-hour presentation. Line maintenance personnel, service technicians, and 
meter-readers were part of the audience at the Natural Gas Company presentation. The 
presentations consisted of a lecture, a video about meth, and a question-and-answer period. 
Narcotics officers discussed health hazards, common equipment and chemical identification, and 
procedures to follow if a lab or waste site is discovered. The video shows common glassware, 
chemicals, and hardware necessary to manufacture meth. 

In addition to OCPDs training program, the Methamphetamine Task Force targets large 
department stores, and other large warehouse-type stores that sell legitimate precursor chemicals. 
They meet with managers and sales clerks from these stores and provide them with information 
about chemicals used in meth cooking. 


Public Awareness/Education Campaign: Life or Meth 

Promoting awareness and education of the hazards of methamphetamine, the OCPD 
kicked off its Life or Meth campaign in September 2000. As part of its efforts, OCPD staged a 
mock raid at a local motel demonstrating the dangers of seizing a clandestine lab. The fire 
department, emergency medical teams, patrol officers, and narcotics officers took part in the 
event. During the exercise, police burst into a local motel room, arrested three people, and 
collected meth equipment scattered in the room. Officers wore protective jumpsuits and used 
standard safety procedures during the raid. Television crews and radio and print media reporters 
attended the mock raid. Children and parents were encouraged to wear the special safety 
equipment; and officers were available to discuss the dangers of meth use, distribution, and 
production. Chief M.T. Berry held a brief press conference and emphasized safety issues. 

During the media blitz, which lasted about two weeks, four newspaper articles appeared 
in the Daily Oklahoman and the Oklahoma Gazette, the most prominent newspapers for the 
Oklahoma City region. A full-page advertisement appeared in the Sunday, October 8, 2000 
edition of the Daily Oklahoman. Public service ads ran on television and radio and continued 
over the five-month campaign. Television news coverage also occurred, as evidenced by a 
report on Channel 5 (ABC affiliate) on October 10. The story centered on the dangers of meth to 
the user and the problems associated with it to the public. The news spot encouraged residents 
and businesses to call police if they suspected meth, e.g., a smell like cat urine, the sight of 
traffic in front of houses, and odd behavior from residents and their children. 

In addition to the media blitz, the Meth Initiative paid for posters on bus stop benches and 
billboards in residential areas, and team members worked with local grocery and hardware 
outlets to have messages printed on shopping bags. 

As part of the educational campaign, two videos were in production for police officers 
and citizens. In addition, about 10,000 colorful fact sheets were printed for officers to distribute 
at community meetings. The goals were to educate the public about the meth problem and to 
provide officers with information on identifying a meth lab when they first respond to a call for 
service or make a proactive traffic stop. 

Because the education campaign began in September 2000 when the evaluation was 
ending, it is not possible to discuss the full scope and reaction of the public to this effort. 


However, there is some limited anecdotal evidence that the initial stages were very visible. 
Individuals report that they have seen the bench signs, heard the radio advertisements on rock 
stations late at night, and viewed the television news spots. One Drug Court participant we 
interviewed had seen the campaign and thought it was a great idea. To systematically measure 
public perception of the media campaign, OCPD, in partnership with a local gas utility company, 
will send a postcard-size questionnaire to residents of Oklahoma City. Residents will be asked 
about their perceptions of the drug problem, whether they have heard about the Life or Meth 
campaign, where they heard about it, and whether they have called the police about meth use or 
distribution. The survey will be sent in the spring of 2001. 

The Narcotics Unit has prepared for the impact that the education campaign might have 
on workload. They sent five officers and two supervisors to training in lab cleanup in October 
2000. Additionally, with the increasing safety concerns, officers attended the DEA Site Safety 
training in August. The Narcotics Unit captain said he anticipates that, after this training, OCPD 
will have an additional officer at every meth lab seizure simply to ensure site safety. 

Community Policing 

Community policing in Oklahoma City has taken a number of different turns in the 
1990s. Three chiefs have been in charge of implementing community policing during that time. 
The chief and others we spoke with indicated that community policing began in the early 1990s 
but has only recently been implemented in special ways within the department. 

Early attempts at implementing community policing failed for a variety of reasons. In the 
mid-1990s, the chief followed the Houston Police Departments model of Neighborhood 
Oriented Policing, but the concept met with considerable resistance from the rank-and-file. The 
current chief, M.T. Berry, indicated that expectations for community policing were too high in 
the early 1990s and could not be achieved. In attempting to deal with citywide problems, he 
said, the police department was not able to work with city agencies because there was a bit of 
over taxing of the city agencies. That is, the police department had requested a number of 
things from city agencies that they could not fulfill. For example, resources were not available to 
assist police in such efforts as cleaning up trash, mowing lawns, and shutting down drug houses. 


So the community and police officers became disenchanted with community policing. Since 
1998, however, the police have focused their efforts on problem solving and Sector Policing. 

In 1998, Chief Berry expanded community policing to include sector policing, or 
initiatives in city sectors that have specific goals and objectives. Basically, these are problem 
oriented policing projects in targeted neighborhoods. Patrol officers are required to deal with 
community problems in their areas of responsibility and solve them. For example, officers focus 
on domestic violence and child abuse problems in the southwest part of the city. 

Weed and Seed 

In the Will Rogers Division (one of three patrol divisions in the police department), one 
of the primary areas for community policing is the Weed and Seed area. In 1995, city officials 
received Weed and Seed funds from the U.S. Department of Justice and targeted three Section 
8 housing complexes. The program allowed the department to target these high-crime areas and 
provide social services to improve quality of life. Program implementation began in 1997 after a 
year of planning. Off-duty officers from the police and sheriff's departments began working 
overtime shifts in the target area. Budgetary constraints limited the presence to two officers or 
sheriff's deputies and provided officers between 20 and 24 days a month. 

Since 1997, the neighborhood has steadily improved, and a comprehensive three-phase 
community improvement effort began in 1999. Weed and Seed officers patrol side streets to 
maintain a visible presence and coordinate with neighborhood watch groups. Lt. Lisa Camacho, 
who supervises the OCPD officers, said, 

Most times officers who are on duty just go from call to call. That's 
reactive. Because we're off-duty, we're more proactive. We're able to 
patrol the side streets rather than just take the fastest routes to get to a 
scene. We're able to talk to people, spend time in the neighborhood, see 
who is where and what they're doing. What we're trying to do is get people 
to take back the area and show some responsibility in doing it by teaching 
them how. 

According to the Daily Oklahoman, since 1997, Part 1 crimes.including murder, 
robbery, auto theft, burglary, rape, theft and felony assault.dropped in the Weed and Seed area 
by 35.5 percent. In Oklahoma City as a whole, the same crimes fell by 20.5 percent. "Crime has 
really gone down here," Lt. Camacho said, "but what does that really mean to the people who 


live here? I don't live here. I just work in this area. It's the people who are here all day every day, 
the ones who can't go home to a safer neighborhood, that this matters to. Overall, they seem 
really pleased. I've seen a huge increase in people taking care of their homes and lawns. I 
think it's because they feel like they have something to be proud of here now." 

Community Interaction 

According to the Chief and others in the department, the relationship between the police 
and residents of Oklahoma City has been great over the last few years. The Chief noted that in 
the last ten years, the city has had a public safety tax, which brings in funds and also shows the 
overwhelming support the community has for the police department. He mentioned that there 
have been some problems and incidents that could have caused difficulties between the police 
and the community, but that community support has been pretty amazing in spite of these 
problems. 

It appears that the police department shares an unusual amount of trust with the 
community. The Chief explained that unlike other police departments, most officers are from 
Oklahoma City and have a stake in city affairs. The officers have grown up in the city and have 
a commitment to what goes on. He said that they are very open to the community and open to 
information needs by the local media. 

The primary link between community policing and the Meth Initiative is the education 
program and public awareness campaign. By taking a proactive approach to educating the public 
and working with officers and residents to identify meth odors, the department hopes to prevent 
widespread use of meth and alert citizens to the dangers of meth cooking. As noted earlier, the 
department is attempting to measure the perceptions of residents toward meth and quality of life 
issues. 

Conclusion 

The meth problem in Oklahoma City and the state of Oklahoma has grown considerably 
in the 1990s. What was once a small, rural, isolated problem dominated by bikers has become a 
large, urban, multi-user, multi-manufactured drug epidemic. Mexican Nationals, white males, 
and to a lesser extent, white females dominate the distribution, use, and cooking of meth. Meth 


labs have been found in houses, apartments, motel rooms, and car trunks within the city limits of 
Oklahoma City. 

With funds from the COPS Office, the OCPD: 

 Increased the number of lab seizures from 66 in 1998 to 112 in 1999 and from 
112 in 1999 to at least 118 by September 2000; 
 Increased its training of officers, businesses, and civilians, which helps to explain 
part of the increase in the number of labs seized; 
 Increased awareness of the meth problem in Oklahoma through its Life or Meth 
campaign; and 
 Purchased additional equipment to protect officers from the hazards of chemicals 
used in meth manufacturing. 
OCPD maintained strong links to its partners, the Drug Court and the DEA Meth task 
force. Officers from OCPD were assigned to work directly with both organizations and were 
well received. 

Overall, the Meth Initiative in Oklahoma City enhanced the ability of the police, Drug 
Court, and DEA to deal with a growing problem. Without the additional funding provided by the 
grant, OCPD would not have been able to shut down as many labs, train and educate as many 
people, and purchase the equipment necessary to improve officer safety. 


Chapter 6 

Shining Light on the
Methamphetamine Problem in Little Rock: Processes
and Outcomes Associated with the COPS Office
Methamphetamine Initiative

The evaluation of the COPS Methamphetamine Initiative in Little Rock included data collection 
on the nature of the local methamphetamine problem and on enforcement and intervention activities by 
the local partners; and assessments of how Initiative activities may have influenced local perceptions and 
definitions of the methamphetamine situation in the Little Rock area. The data came from a variety of 
archival sources (e.g., local arrest and prosecution data), face-to-face and telephone interviews with 
local officials, surveys of agency representatives who are either participants in the Initiative or who are 
somehow potentially involved with methamphetamine abusers, and observations of Initiative activities 
during regular site visits. 

The evaluation in Little Rock differs from those conducted in other sites because local data that 
could be used to quantify the nature of the local meth problem was limited. For instance, Little Rock is 
not an ADAM site. Accordingly, a major goal of this evaluation effort was to generate a better 
understanding of the methamphetamine market in the Little Rock metropolitan area by augmenting local 
data sources with an original data collection effort. This involved interviewing a sample of detainees in 
the Pulaski County Jail during the summers of 1999 and 2000. These efforts proved quite successful 
and resulted in the completion of 178 interviews. Many of the respondents were intimately involved in 
the local methamphetamine market. Thus, a more detailed portrait of the local meth market was 
generated than would have been possible if only available data sources were used. The major findings 
from this effort are described below. 

Program Overview 

In 1998, the Little Rock Police Department and its partner agenciesthe Pulaski County 
Sheriffs Department and the Arkansas State Crime Laboratoryreceived a $750,000 grant to 


participate in the U.S. Department of Justices Methamphetamine Initiative. Components in the original 
program design included the following: 

 Educating the public about the hazards of methamphetamine, the chemicals involved in 
production, the identity of potential users, their distribution points, and available 
treatment and prevention programs. 
 Using community oriented policing and crime prevention personnel to establish hotlines 
to gather information from citizens on the local meth problem and to implement drug 
awareness programs about meth. 
 Training police officers on what to look for in investigating meth crimes and responding 
to meth labs in a safe manner. This includes sending local officers to DEA-sponsored 
classes to certify officers in the dismantling of labs. 
 Purchasing safety equipment to be used during the dismantling of labs. 
 Purchasing a gas chromatograph (mass spectrometer) for use by the Arkansas State 
Crime Lab. This was to be used to reduce delays in the processing of drug cases, 
which hit an average turn-around time of 162 days in 1998 (compared to 21 days in 
1992). 
 Purchasing undercover and surveillance equipment to aid in the investigations of meth 
crimes. 
 Allocating funds for overtime pay to promote meth investigations by narcotics officers. 
 Providing funds to enhance the delivery of drug treatment services to meth abusers. 
 Purchasing computer equipment and crime analysis services to collect and distribute 
information on the local meth market and individuals in that market. This would result in 
the establishment of a shared information system that will give cooperating agencies the 
ability to share intelligence. 

At the time of this report, all of the above program elements had not been fully implemented. 
The areas of greatest program implementation have related to enhanced law enforcement interdiction. 
The purchase of additional investigatory and safety equipment and the availability of funds to support 
overtime pay for narcotics officers have resulted in an enhanced police ability to conduct 
methamphetamine-based investigations and to respond to reported meth lab activity. In addition, the 
initiative partners have engaged in significant training efforts to educate all sworn officers on how to 
recognize indications of meth use and production, and on how to respond to such indications. These 
efforts have extended to a generalized public awareness and education campaign that has potentially 


reached thousands of citizens (e.g., billboard and electronic PSAs, neighborhood and school-based 
presentations). Further, the initiative has resulted in the establishment of a telephone hotline where 
citizens are encouraged to call if they suspect that methamphetamine activity may be taking place. Thus, 
it is expected that the discovery and reporting of meth-based activities within the police departments and 
community have been enhanced by these efforts. 

Setting and History 

Little Rock, the state capital of Arkansas, is located in the central part of the state and has 
183,000 residents within the city limits. There are over 500,000 people in the Greater Little Rock 
Metropolitan Area. Little Rock lies within Pulaski County, which had a 1995 population of 352,240. 

Within the Little Rock area, as in many areas of the nation, methamphetamine has been a drug 
available to specific and limited population subgroups since the early 1970s. Commonly associated with 
biker gangs and the party scene at a number of strip and dance bars, meth was not widely found in the 
local community. Meth was not commonly available, at least partly because local cookers were few 
and far between and limited their sales to small, tightly knit groups. Thus, meth was not considered a 
significant law enforcement or public health problem. This began to change in the late 1990s, and 
especially in the more rural areas of Arkansas. More and more clandestine labs were being discovered 
in the state. Statewide, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of lab seizures since 1995 (see 
Exhibit 1). 

However, even after federal funding was received through the Methamphetamine Initiative to 
combat local meth production and consumption, the vast majority of respondents in Little Rockand 
available official dataindicate that the problem of methamphetamine is distinct from and secondary to 
the problems associated with other illicit drugs in the greater Little Rock area. 

The above perceptions hold more strongly in the more urban areas of Little Rock than in the 
outlying areas of Pulaski County. Interviews with the Pulaski County Sheriffs Department and the 
North Little Rock Police Department reveal a differing perception of the methamphetamine problem as 
it is emerging in the outlying areas of Little Rock. According to these respondents, meth is quickly 
becoming the major drug problem in their jurisdictions. 


Exhibit 1: Clandestine Meth Lab Seizures in Arkansas*

Number of Meth Labs Seized 
1995	24 
1996	95 
1997	242 
1998	434 
1999	554 
2000	809

*2000 figure is an estimate based on 588 labs seized as of 9/22/00 
Source: Arkansas Crime Laboratory 

Meth Market Characteristics 
Prevalence Indicators 

There are few sources of information on the prevalence of methamphetamine use in the Little 
Rock area. As noted earlier, Little Rock is not an ADAM site; and while there have been statements 
that Little Rock will be a site in the future, relevant local respondents (e.g., Sheriffs Department 
personnel) said they had not been contacted about the program and, at the time of this report, had not 
yet begun a planning process to implement the ADAM program locally. 

Fortunately, the Arkansas Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention has collected and 
compiled some useful data on the issue. Beginning in October 1997 and continuing through February 
1998, the Bureau sponsored a data collection effort from arrestees housed in the Pulaski, Washington, 
and Drew county jails (N = 567). The data presented here focus on results from Pulaski County (N = 
297, 52.4 percent of the sample). In the overall sample and each of the three counties, the highest 


DSM-III-R diagnosis rate was for alcohol (34 percent for Pulaski County). In Pulaski, the diagnosis of 
upper use was much lower (5.1 percent) than in Washington County (25 percent) and slightly lower 
than in Drew County (7.1 percent). In contrast, cocaine was much higher in Pulaski (19.2 percent) than 
in the other counties. Across counties, uppers were more prevalent among whites than among 
African-Americans. 

Urinalyses indicate that amphetamine use was found in 8.8 percent of the entire sample, much 
lower than cannabinoid (39.4 percent) or cocaine (22.8 percent) use. In Pulaski, almost 70 percent of 
the arrestees tested positive for drug use, with cannabinoids leading the way (43.5 percent) followed by 
cocaine (36.2 percent). All other types of drugs were found in less than 3 percent of the arrestees. 
Amphetamines were most likely to be found among arrestees 24 to 44 years old, and all arrestees 
testing positive for amphetamines were white. 

Arrestees were also asked to self-report drug use within the last three days. Six percent 
reported use of crystal meth. This compares to 28.9 percent reporting marijuana use and 9.9 percent 
reporting crack cocaine use. Arrestees were asked if they used or needed drugs. Among Pulaski 
County arrestees, 14.3 percent of those who reported needing drugs referred to methamphetamine. 
This compares to 54.8 percent reporting need for crack and 35.7 percent reporting need for alcohol. 
Fewer than 5 percent reported being on meth during their crime. 

Compared to the overall sample from the three counties, meth use appears less common in 
Pulaski County. For instance, 4.3 percent of the positive urinalyses in Pulaski were for amphetamines. 
In Washington County (Northeast corner of the state), the comparable figure was 18 percent. Slightly 
over 5 percent of the arrestees in Pulaski were found to be abusing or to be dependent on uppers. 
The comparable figure for the entire sample was 13.1 percent. 

A similar methodology was used with juveniles confined in county juvenile detention facilities, 
including Pulaski County. Urinalyses revealed the most commonly used drug was cannabinoids (41.5 
percent). Only 2.1 percent of juveniles tested positive for amphetamines. Self-report measures and 
DSM-III-R diagnoses also indicated very few youth having problems with drugs other than marijuana 
(1.9 percent diagnosed with uppers). Of the 22.2 percent of the total sample reporting being under 
the influence when they committed their crime, 8.5 percent (n = 4) reported being on crystal meth. 


Thus, both adult and juvenile arrestee populations indicate that meth use appears to be fairly 
uncommon in Pulaski County, relative to the use of other illicit drugs and to levels found in some other 
Arkansas counties. 

Three other studies bear on this issue. One was a blind study of women ages 15 to 44 who 
asked for a pregnancy test at one of 18 health department units in the state, with four clinics being in 
Pulaski County and two being in Little Rock. Across the state, only 29 of the 1,460 women generating 
urinalyses had traces of amphetamine in their system (.02 percent). In Pulaski County, 2 percent tested 
positive for amphetamines and 18 percent tested positive for any drug. Gallup also conducted an adult 
household telephone survey to estimate alcohol and drug use among Arkansans. It was estimated that 
only 0.3 percent of the adult population witnessed methamphetamine use or abuse. For Central 
Arkansas, the estimate was 0.2 percent of the population. Finally, in a study of 3,850 individuals 
treated for substance abuse in a four-county area including Pulaski, 220 had a drug problem primarily 
involving amphetamines (5.71 percent). This compares to 51.3 percent with alcohol problems and 25.2 
percent with crack/cocaine problems. Among the 220 individuals with an amphetamine problem, only 
five were African-American. 

More recent data from substance abuse treatment providers in the state indicate that 
methamphetamine addiction has been increasing dramatically. Treatment facilities began seeing 
methamphetamine addicts on a regular basis in 1997. During FY 1997, 1,230 meth users were 
admitted into substance abuse recovery centers in the state. In 1998, 1,744 meth abusers were 
admitted into treatment (a 41.7 percent increase), and by FY 1999 1,925 meth abusers entered 
treatment (a 56.5 percent increase from 1997) (Silverman, February 6, 2000, Arkansas Democrat 
Gazette).

 Between July 1,1992 and June 30,1999, approximately 8,497 treatment admissions for 
amphetamine were recorded by the Arkansas Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention. 
Approximately 1,283 of these admissions were from Catchment Area Nine, which includes Pulaski, 
Saline, Loanoke, and Prairie counties. In contrast to statewide admissions data, for this catchment area, 
amphetamine admissions for treatment have been relatively flat since 1995 (see Exhibit 2). Importantly, 
of these admissions, only 30 admissions were for people recorded as being non-white. 


Thus, there are some data indicating the problem of methamphetamine has escalated 
dramatically in Arkansas during the last few years. It remains unclear from these data, however, 
whether increases in demand for methamphetamine treatment has been concentrated in particular parts 
of the state (e.g., rural areas) or whether the increases are more evenly distributed (e.g., in Little Rock 
as well). It is clear from the data, however, that amphetamine use appears largely concentrated among 
white populations. 

Exhibit 2: Amphetamine Treatment Admissions

Number of Admissions 
1992	46 
1993	63 
1994	112 
1995	239 
1996	220 
1997	139 
1998	218 
1999	246 

 
Source: Arkansas Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention 

Views of Local Officials 

Across the site visits, open-ended interviews were conducted with over 30 law enforcement, 
court, and treatment personnel. One focus of the interviews was to assess the nature of the local 
methamphetamine problem and related interventions. 

As indicated earlier, the law enforcement community of Little Rock had originally defined the 
problem of methamphetamine as being distinct from and secondary to the problems associated with 


other illicit drugs in the greater Little Rock area. The general consensus during initial site visits was that 
methamphetamine in the city of Little Rock is considered less of a problem than crack cocaine. Crack 
has been generally associated with the African-American community, while meth is considered a white 
persons drug of choice. Meth production, distribution, and use patterns were perceived as being 
confined to relatively small groups of people and were not perceived as major threats to the overall level 
of public safety. 

The above perceptions held more strongly in the urban areas of Little Rock than in the outlying 
areas of Pulaski County. Interviews with members of the Pulaski County Sheriffs Department and the 
North Little Rock Police Department reveal a differing perception of the meth problem as it is emerging 
in the outlying areas of Little Rock. According to one high-ranking respondent, drug inmates who are 
white say meth is going through the roof. Respondents also commented on particular features of the 
local meth market. Unlike crack cocainewhich in the City of Little Rock has been historically 
distributed in open air drug markets by African-Americans affiliated with known gangs such as the 
Bloods, Crips, Gangster Disciples, and Black Disciplesmethamphetamine is reported to be 
distributed in smaller, close-knit circles. According to street narcotics officers within the Little Rock 
Police Department, methamphetamine is usually distributed among groups of users who frequent the 
same party circles at local dance clubs and bars. According to narcotics officers, the drug is produced 
in one- to two-ounce batches and distributed more for its inducement effects than for profit. These 
officers suggest that the distribution method is more comparable to that of rave drugs such as ecstasy 
and LSD than to the cocaine trade. 

The narcotics officers reported that meth tends not to be present in most of Little Rock. It was 
reported there are no open-air markets for meth, and that meth dealing is an indoor activity, often 
occurring in strip clubs. A common theme was that it has wide appeal to party kids. 

Officers estimated that about 60 percent of the market involves personal partiers, cooks who 
make enough for themselves and a few friends. Small, tight networks based on partying, not profit or 
loyalty, appear common. This is a non-violent crowd, typically unarmed and respectful of the police. 
Bikers are a small part of this crowd. Within this market, meth is associated with pornography and sex 


toys. A lifestyle of self-indulgence is typical among these users, who tend to be young, non-directed, 
and sexually active. 

The second type of meth market involves entrepreneurs, cooks who make enough meth for 
broader distribution. They make an ounce or two at a time and provide it to friends and low-level 
distributors. These distributors typically buy in one-eighth-ounce lots and sell it for between $60 and 
$100 a gram, turning a nice profit and having enough meth for personal consumption. Once again, there 
is little formal organization to these networks. Mexican cartels do not appear to be active in the local 
meth market. 

There are two types of entrepreneur, neither being very sophisticated. The first is the old 
school cooker, typically an older, rural, biker-related individual. These folks are held in higher regard 
by the narc officers than a newly emerging group of cooks with mixed educational levels and 
backgrounds who are attracted to the democratization of drug manufacturing. 

Jail Detainees 

Methods and Procedures 

During the summers of 1999 and 2000, members of the evaluation team conducted a survey of 
jailed offenders in the Pulaski County Jail. The jail staff could not pre-identify individuals charged with 
methamphetamine-related offenses. In 1999, the researchers decided to select incarcerated offenders 
charged with a drug offense(s) as the sampling frame. A list of all such individuals was provided. Of the 
1,079 inmates at the county jail at the time of the survey efforts, approximately 15 percent (162) were 
charged with possession of a controlled substance. Particular units were then selected to maximize 
variation in the sampled offenders (e.g., females vs. males, long-term vs. short-term offenders, etc.). 
The researchers proceeded to seek volunteers from each selected unit for interviews. All identified 
offenders in each unit were approached for interviews before efforts to interview extended to another 
unit. A total of 58 offenders were approached in this manner, with only six individuals refusing to 
participate in the study. This yielded a 90 percent response rate and 52 useable surveys. The provision 
of a candy bar to the volunteers appeared to ensure high response rates. 


In 2000, it was decided to expand the survey efforts by including a random sample of non-drug 
arrestees as well as a sample of drug arrestees. This was done to assess the level of bias that may have 
been generated in 1999 by confining the sample to drug arrestees (i.e., perhaps prevalence rates for 
meth use are higher among non-drug arrestees than drug arrestees). Survey efforts paralleled those 
undertaken in 1999; lists of drug and non-drug arrestees were provided by the jail staff, and survey 
efforts continued until the desired number of interviews per sample had taken place. The final sample 
for 2000 included 52 drug arrestees and 74 non-drug arrestees. Similar to 1999, over 90 percent of 
the approached detainees were willing to complete the survey (see Exhibit 3). 

Exhibit 3. Response Patterns: Pulaski Detainee Survey 

			1999 		2000 		2000 
			Drug Arrestees 	Drug Arrestees 	Nondrug Arrestees 	Total 
N 			58 		53 		81 			192 
# Refused 		6 		1 		7 			14 
Completed 		52 		52 		74 			178 

Refusal Rate 7.3 percent 

Surveys were conducted in a face-to-face structured interview format. The interview schedule 
was adapted from the one used by Pennell and her associates with arrestees in five Western cities 
(1999). Focus was on self-reported personal involvement with methamphetamine in terms of use, sales, 
and production; perceptions of the local meth market; knowledge of people in the market, and attitudes 
towards the drug and related law enforcement efforts. The interview, on average, took one half hour to 
complete. A series of skip patterns was used to elicit greater and more detailed levels of information 
from those individuals most heavily involved with methamphetamine and knowledgeable of the local 
market. 

Interview Samples 

Exhibit 4 presents information on the characteristics of the respondents by sample. Across all 
three samples, two-thirds of the interviewees were African-American and over 80 percent were male. 
The mean age of the interviewees was slightly over 31 years of age. Little variation is noted across 


samples on these demographic characteristics, except for the percent African-American being slightly 
lower among the 2000 drug arrestees (56 percent). Forty percent of the interviewees had not 
completed high school, and only slightly over half were employed at the time of their arrest. Only 15 
percent of the interviewees were married at the time of the survey; the remaining were either never 
married (53 percent) or divorced/separated (27 percent). These figures are quite comparable to those 
exhibited by the entire Pulaski County jail population. Some non-response bias may exist, however. 
Nine of the 14 persons who refused to be interviewed were African-American, and only one of the 
refusals was female. The refusals were also slightly younger than those who accepted interviews (mean 
age was 28). Thus, the interview procedures may have resulted in a disproportionate loss of young 
black males from the interview sample. This will have implications for the representativeness of the 
findings, because as we shall see, race is strongly related to measures of involvement in the meth market. 

Many of the respondents admitted involvement in the local Little Rock drug market. For 
instance, 53 of the respondents admitted being involved in the sale of drugs, and 50 individuals admitted 
making money illegally in the 30 days before their arrest. The range of illegal income was reported to be 
between $7 and $240,000, with 12 individuals reporting an illegal monthly income of more than 
$10,000. As revealed in Exhibit 4, the mean income from illegal sources in the last 30 days greatly 
exceeded mean income from legal sources ($3,962 versus $1,655). As might be expected, the 
differences in sources of income varied much more greatly for drug arrestees than non-drug arrestees. 
Nonetheless, even among non-drug arrestees, a large percentage reported fairly high levels of non-legal 
income. 

The respondents were also commonly involved in the drug market as purchasers and users of 
drugs. Of the 178 respondents, 114 reported buying drugs for their own use in the 30 days before their 
arrest, with 25 individuals reporting more than $1,000 in drug purchases. The mean cost of purchased 
drugs in that month was reported as $597. 


Exhibit 4. Sample Characteristics 

			1999 Drug 	2000 Drug 	2000 Non-Drug 
			Arrestees 	Arrestees 	Arrestees 	Total 
N 			52 		52 		74 		178 
Mean Age 		30.37 		32.91 		30.76 		31.2 
Percent Black 		69.2 		55.8 		71.6 		66.3 
Percent Male 		84.6 		78.8 		86.5 		83.7 
Mean Income from 
Legal Sources in	$919 		$2,853 		$1,302 		$1,655 
Prior 30 days 
Mean Income from 
Illegal Sources in	$5,499 		$6,115 		$1,473 		$3,962 
Prior 30 days 
Percent Have Used: 
Alcohol 		70.6 		76.9 		81.1 		76.8 
Marijuana 		75.0 		67.3 		68.9 		70.2 
Crack 			42.3 		50.0 		31.1 		39.9 
Powder Coke 		28.8 		40.4 		30.1 		32.8
Heroin, Opiates 	3.8 		0.0 		2.7 		2.2 
PCP/Angel Dust 		0.0 		3.7 		2.0 		5.1
Amphetamine 		21.2 		21.2 		13.5 		18.0 
Barbiturates 		13.5 		7.7 		9.5 		10.1 
Methadone 		3.8 		2.0 		1.4 		2.3 
Valium/Tranquilizers 	11.5 		15.4 		14.9 		14.0 
LSD/Acid 		1.9 		7.7 		4.1 		4.5 

The respondents self-reported using a variety of drugs, with marijuana (70 percent), crack (40 
percent), powder cocaine (33 percent), and meth (29 percent) being the most commonly used types of 
illegal drugs. These percentages varied slightly across the samples, with the non-drug arrestees tending 
to report slightly lower levels of drug use than drug arrestees. These differences are marginal, however. 


Fifty-five percent of the respondents stated they were under the influence of drugs when arrested, with 
the plurality of these stating they were under the influence of crack and/or marijuana at the time of arrest. 

Thus, the interviewees are not strangers to the local drug market in Little Rock. They tend to be 
active in both the sale and purchase of drugs, and thus should be informed respondents about the local 
meth market. 

Findings 

Interview data from the 178 randomly selected jail detainees in Pulaski County indicate the 
prevalence of meth may be greater than reflected in official data sources. The interview data indicate 
that the sample of Little Rock respondents are quite involved in the meth market, especially whites. 
The data are summarized in Exhibit 5. Across the two drug arrestee samples, about 45 percent of the 
respondents admitted to having use meth. The percentage decreased to 27 percent among the non-
drug arrestees. Similar patterns emerge among the other meth items. A higher percentage of drug 
arrestees than non-drug arrestees reported using, dealing, and cooking meth. Of significance is the 
finding that drug arrestees in 2000 tended to report more involvement with meth than drug arrestees in 
1999. For both groups, however, involvement in using, dealing, and cooking meth was surprisingly 
high, with a third of the respondents using meth in the last year, almost 20 percent dealing meth, and 
more than 10 percent reporting cooking meth. 

Glaring in their differences are patterns across racial lines. Black respondents were much less 
likely to report involvement in the meth market than whites. A significant minority of the 118 Black 
respondents reported using meth (19.5 percent), while the overwhelming majority of the 52 white 
respondents reported likewise (82.7 percent). Overall, 38 percent of the detainees reported having 
used meth. Over 40 percent of the whites have dealt meth, compared to 4 percent of the Blacks. Over 
25 percent of the whites reported cooking meth; the comparable figure for Blacks is less than 3 percent.

 Consistent with interviews from the law enforcement respondents and the available treatment data, 
these data indicate the meth market in Little Rock is dominated by whites. 

Females were more likely to report meth use than males (51.9 percent v. 35 percent), but 
because there are a small number of female respondents (n = 27), these differences should be treated 


with caution. No notable differences were found across gender in terms of percent dealing or cooking 
meth. 

Exhibit 5. Personal Experiences with Meth by Sample, Race, and Gender

			1999 Drug 	2000 Drug 	2000 Non-Drug 
			Arrestees 	Arrestees 	Arrestees 	Total 
N 			52 		52 		74 		178 
Percent Used Meth	44.2 		46.2 		27.0 		37.6 
Ever 
Percent Dealt Meth 	15.4 		25.0 		10.8 		16.3 
Percent Cooked Meth 	9.6 		17.3 		5.4 		10.1 
Percent Used in Last 
12 Months 		34.6 		32.7 		18.9 		27.5 

N 
Percent Used Ever 
Percent Dealt Meth 
Percent Cooked Meth 
Percent Used in Last 
12 Months 
Black 
118 
19.5 
4.2 
2.5 
11.9 
White 
52 
82.7 
44.2 
26.9 
65.4 
Total 
178 
37.6 
16.3 
10.1 
27.5 
N 
Percent Used Ever 
Percent Dealt Meth 
Percent Cooked Meth 
Male 
149 
34.9 
15.4 
9.4 
Female 
27 
51.9 
18.5 
11.1 
Total 
178 
37.6 
16.3 
10.1 

While personal participation in the meth market is concentrated among whites, a substantial 
percentage of the Black respondents report knowing people actively involved in the Little Rock meth 
market. As revealed in Exhibit 6, about half of the Black detainees know people who use or sell meth, 
and a third know individuals who cook meth. Comparable figures are much higher for the white 
respondents, with almost two-thirds of the whites knowing someone who cooks. More than four of five 


white respondents report knowing users. Thus, while there is a degree of racial segregation in the Little 
Rock meth drug market, the segregation is by no means complete. Qualitative information gleaned from 
the interviews suggest that racial cross-over in the meth market tends to involve Blacks who work and 
party with whites. In such interactions, Blacks are exposed to meth. This appears especially true 
among those who work in the construction industry, where meth is used not only for recreational 
purposes, but also to enhance work productivity. Interestingly, some of the Blacks who reported 
knowing white meth users, dealers, or cookers mentioned having met such individuals in the Pulaski 
County Jail. Thus, racial cross-over in the meth market appears to be somewhat promoted by the 
incarceration of meth abusing individuals. 

Exhibit 6: Measures of Personal Contact with Meth, by Sample and Race 

N 			1999 Drug Arrestees 2000 Drug Arrestees 2000 Non-drug Arrestees 
				(52) 		    (52)		(74)
% Know People Who 
Use, Sell, or Cook		75.0		     80.8		70.3	 
% Know Users 			65.4		     69.2		52.7  	
% Know Dealers 			53.8		     65.4		45.9
% Know Cookers 			40.4		     57.7		31.1	
					Black			White
					(118)			(52) 

% Know People Who Use, 
Sell, or Cook 				65.3			96.2
% Know Users 				52.5			82.7
% Know Dealers 				45.8			73.1
% Know Cookers 				33.1			59.6
 

The data on measures of personal contact with meth in Exhibit 5 reveal similar patterns noted 
earlier with regard to personal involvement in the meth market. The percentage of detainees knowing 
meth users, dealers, and cookers is slightly higher among drug arrestees than among non-drug arrestees, 
and is a bit higher for the 2000 drug arrestees than the 1999 drug arrestees. A majority of respondents 
across samples personally know a user, with a third of the respondents personally know a cooker. 


The interview data also yield evidence that meth is widely and easily available in the Little Rock 
area. Despite concerted law enforcement efforts to disrupt the local meth market, the quality and 
availability of meth is perhaps greater now than a year ago. The cost remains the same, about $80 to 
$95 per gram on average, according to the jail detainees. The relevant interview findings are contained 
in Exhibit 7. Almost all of the white respondents and a majority of the Black respondents report that 
meth is commonly used around here. While most tend to think that meth is a less serious local 
problem than crack, most think meth is a much more serious problem than marijuana. Most think it is 
not difficult to get meth, especially whites. A majority of whites think they can acquire meth within an 
hour; Blacks tend to report that meth is not nearly as available for them. The overwhelming majority of 
whites can find meth in their own neighborhood. This is true for only a quarter of the Black 
respondents. Importantly, there are few major differences for these items among respondents in 1999 
and 2000. At least a year of experience under the Methamphetamine Initiative seems not to have 
altered perceptions of the meth market among these jail detainees. This is despite the fact that the 
arrestees are fully aware that meth has been made more of a law enforcement and political priority 
within the last few years. 


Exhibit 7: Measures of Four Characteristics of the Local Meth Market, by Year and
Race 

						Black 			White 
						1999 	2000 		1999 	2000 
N 						36 	82 		16 	36 
Meth is commonly used around here 		55.6 	79.3 		100.0 	91.7 
Meth is a more serious problem than crack 	16.7 	46.3 		31.3 	30.6 
Meth is a more serious problem than marijuana 	55.6 	77.5 		87.5 	83.3 
It is (very) difficult to get meth 		30.6 	18.3		0.0 	13.9 
Would take an hour or less to get meth 		38.9 	45.1 		62.5 	55.6 
Would take an hour or less to get crack 	88.9 	82.9 		62.5 	63.9 
Personally knows someone to get meth from 	58.3 	56.8 		87.5 	82.9 
Can find meth in own neighborhood 		22.2 	25.6 		68.8 	71.4 
Compared to a year ago, quality of meth is 
Better 						27.8 	21.0 		37.5 	20.0 
Dont know 					55.6 	70.4 		18.8 	22.9 
Compared to a year ago, price of meth is: 
Same 						19.4 	13.6 		6.3 	11.4 
Dont know 					50.0 	56.8 		18.8 	22.9 
Compared to a year ago, meth is now: 
More Available 					52.8 	46.9 		68.8 	42.9 
Dont know 					38.9 	39.5 		12.5 	20.0 
More attention paid to meth now than a year ago 80.6 	78.0 		62.5 	94.3 
Law enforcement had made meth more of a priority 69.4 	82.5 		87.5 	97.1 
compared to last year 
Estimated Cost per gram 			$77.35 	$80.00 		$94.61 	$82.00 

According to the data, interviewees (especially white arrestees) personally knew users, dealers, 
and cookers in the Little Rock area. Furthermore, the interviewee data also suggest that those involved 
with meth tended to use, deal, and cook the drug quite intensively. The interview data also suggest 
there is little hierarchy in the market. Users, dealers, and cookers are often one and the same. The 


market appears very democratic, exhibiting strong levels of horizontal articulation. While the market is 
highly diffuse and loosely organized, and is not associated with the violence commonly attributed to the 
crack market, it appears to be a market not easily affected by enforcement efforts. In addition, the 
racial segregation of the market is by no means complete. Blacks who lead more integrated lifestyles 
have easy access to meth, and a substantial minority have experimented with it. 

Interventions 
Law Enforcement Response 

While the above data illustrate a geographical and racial difference between methamphetamine 
and other illicit drug use, neither the Little Rock Police Department (LRPD) nor the Pulaski County 
Sheriffs Department have implemented an automated data collection method for tracking 
methamphetamine related incidents. Up to this point, both jurisdictions rely on the manual gleaning of 
meth incidents from crime and arrest reports to identify meth-specific offenders. Monthly arrest data 
have been made available to the evaluators. For ease of presentation, however, arrest data for 1998 
and 1999 are presented in Exhibit 8. These data include information on arrests, drug seizures, and 
clandestine lab seizures made by the Street Narcotics Unit of the LRPD, the Little Rock Special 
Narcotics Operations Unit, and the Pulaski County Sheriffs Department. The Little Rock police data 
are based on number of charges rather than the distinct number of individuals charged. The Sheriffs 
Department data are based on number of arrestees. Thus, these data are not comparable across 
agencies. Accordingly, interpretations of the data should be confined primarily to assessments of intra-
departmental changes in police activity between 1998 and 1999. 


Exhibit 8. Measures of Police Activity Involving Methamphetamine, Little Rock 
Police Department and Pulaski County Sheriffs Department, 1998-1999 

		Little Rock 		Little Rock 		Pulaski County 
		Street Narcotics Unit 	Special Narcotics Ops 	Sheriffs Department 
			1999 (thru 		1999 (thru 	1998 (thru 	1999 (thru 
		1998 	August) 	1998 	August) 	Sept.) 		Sept.) 
Felony Drug 
Arrests 	1,153 	1,040 		311 	213 		227* 		373* 
								(total drug (total drug 
								arrests) 	arrests) 
Misdemeanor 
Drug Arrests 	319 	214 		40 	17  
Attempted 	19 	29 		5 	1 		0 		5 
Manufacturing 
Meth 
Manufacturing 
Meth 		23 	54 		0 	0 		4 		42 
Possession of 	11 	67 		0 	2 		0 		23 
Ephredine 
Possession of 
Meth 		16 	14 		1 	1 		18 		37 
Possession of 
Meth with	58 	94 		41 	6 		17 		67 
Intent to 
Deliver 
Meth Delivery 	0 	0 		0 	0 		3 		1 
Total Meth 
Arrests 	127 	258 		47 	10 		42 		175 
Meth Seizures 	7,299 	4980 		8,476 	522 		64 		722 
(in grams) 
Meth Labs Seized 18 	41 		8 	1 		3 		40 
* Total drug arrests 

These data indicate that police activity involving enforcement of methamphetamine statutes 
picked up dramatically between 1998 and 1999 for both agencies. While the LRPD data includes only 
eight months of 1999, the total volume of meth arrests doubled compared to 1998, and the number of 
labs seized more than doubled. Increases are even more pronounced for the Sheriffs Department 
where meth arrests more than quadrupled and lab seizures skyrocketed from 3 to 40, comparing the 
first nine months of 1998 to the first nine months of 1999. In 1999, meth cases comprised almost half 
of the drug arrests within the Sheriffs Department (46.9 percent). The comparable figure for the LRPD 


was 20.5 percent. These data clearly indicate a dramatic and rapid increase in meth arrests and 
interventions for both agencies since the Methamphetamine Initiative began. 

Monthly meth arrest figures for both agencies are presented in graphic form in Exhibits 9 and 

10. Exhibit 9 reports meth arrests and clandestine lab seizures made by the Street Narcotics Unit of the 
Little Rock PD for 1998-1999. Variations in possession and manufacturing arrests across months are 
quite pronounced, but the data indicate an upward trend in the data, with a few months representing a 
great deal of meth arrest activity (e.g., 40 meth possession arrests in March and August 1999) while 
most months witness a much more modest level of activity (10 to 15 arrests). Arrests for manufacturing 
tend to be less frequent than arrests for possession, but there are many spikes in the manufacturing data 
as well. Lab seizures per month are also quite variable, ranging from no labs seized from June to 
August of 1998 to 12 labs seized in August 1999. 

Exhibit 9: Meth Arrests Made by the Street Narcotics Unit, LRPD, 1998-1999

Line Graph

Exhibit 10 presents monthly arrest and lab seizure data for the Pulaski County Sheriffs 
Department for January 1999 to August 2000. These data suggest meth arrests peaked early in 2000, 
and then have witnessed a slightly decreasing to flat trend. The number of monthly lab seizures also 
exhibits some fluctuation, averaging 2 to 5 seizures per month, except for a peak level of 17 seizures in 
August 99. By the end of August 2000, the Sheriffs Department had made 153 meth arrests for 2000.

 This compared to 177 meth arrests for the comparable period in 1999. The number of labs seized in 


2000 actually decreased from 1999 levels (40 to 29), suggesting meth arrest levels and interdiction 
outcomes may have stabilized within the Sheriffs Department. 

Exhibit 10: Meth Arrests Made by the Pulaski County Sheriff's Department, 19992000 

Line Graph

Police respondents from both the Little Rock PD and the Sheriffs Department indicate that 
cooperation between the two agencies in responding to meth is very strong. The partnership is not as 
strong with the North Little Rock Police Department. Information between the LRPD and Sheriffs 
Department is being shared, and those agencies rely on each other during investigative processes. The 
Sheriffs Department has been especially helpful to the LRPD in responding to lab clean-up requests. 

The North Little Rock Police Department (NLRPD), was added to the partnership after local 
data indicated that North Little Rock was witnessing a significant meth problem. Contact between 
NLRPD and the LRPD has been minimal, with one respondent suggesting that the only tangible part of 
the partnership is one laptop computer given to NLRPD by the Initiative. Information sharing and 
officer cross-training has not been witnessed, but this has not proven a disappointment to NLRPD. It is 
felt that lab activity is minimal in NLR, with 11 labs being seized in 1999 while 18 labs were seized from 
the beginning of 2000 to the end of September 2000. This was not viewed as a major increase. 
Further, at least one NLRPD officer argued that because the meth market is so diffuse and 
decentralized, theres relatively little benefit to regional coordination and partnerships. 


The departments are planning a data link through the use of shared jail and arrest records that 
will promote interagency cooperation in methamphetamine enforcement. The goal is to have a data 
linkup and server to provide intelligence and mapping services, to identify cookers known in the area, and 
to help coordinate activities of the various narcotics units across departments. It is felt that information 
sharing will help solidify the currently positive relationships between the two narcotics units and promote 
a coordinated approach to a regional problem. It is also believed that the information sharing will 
transcend the issue of meth, and that positive spillover effects will be large. This is a major focus of the 
entire Meth Initiative in Little Rock. Notwithstanding this focus, the desired data linkages have not yet 
been established. However, officers from each department are now working together in developing 
standardized data collection forms that contain valuable meth-specific information. 

Street-Level Markets and Enforcement Efforts 

Police respondents indicate the distribution method of methamphetamine has limited 
enforcements efforts to uncover suppliers. As noted previously, street narcotics officers say that meth 
is usually distributed among groups of users who frequent the same party circles at local dance clubs 
and bars. Distribution systems are closed, involving small groups of people who do not generally sell 
to strangers. Few arrests are made for methamphetamine sales, rather the vast majority of arrests are 
being made for possession. As one Little Rock Police officer relates, With crack we saw a recipe 
come in from the West Coast. . . . the sales mechanism for methamphetamine is different. 

The fact that the local meth market is very distinct from other local drug markets, especially 
crack, presents major issues for street-level narcotics officers. Narcotics enforcement in Little Rock is 
organized to deal with production, distribution, and use patterns unrelated to those found with meth. 
This was illustrated by ride-alongs of the evaluator(s) with narcotics officers. On two separate 
occasions, the ride-alongs had little relationship to meth, despite adequate prior notice about the visit. 
Houses and other locations where labs had been discovered were pointed out, but there was little 
indication that officers had specific knowledge of current meth locations. The evaluator did witness 
police responses to the discovery of two meth labs while conducting site visits, and in each instance the 
discoveries were based on citizen identification of the labs. These observations and interview data from 
narcotics officers indicate that much of the law enforcement response to meth in Little Rock is based on 


reactive responses to citizen complaints and calls. As one narcotics officer who has specialized 
informally on meth stated, Most of the lab busts are based on calls from citizens/informants saying 
someone is cooking. Its amazing how easy these busts are. He and other respondents also indicated 
that meth arrestees are more likely to roll over and inform than other types of drug arrestees. This is 
attributed to the paranoia generated by prolonged meth abuse and the stiff mandatory penalties for meth 
manufacturing (e.g., 70 per cent of a minimum mandatory 10-year sentence must be served for a 
manufacturing conviction). 

In contrast, enforcement-based responses to other drugs in the area, especially crack cocaine, 
appear to be much more proactive. This is consistent with earlier observations. Originally, 
methamphetamine interdiction was not central to pre-existing narcotics enforcement in the area, which 
appeared to be traditional, aggressive, and high visibility enforcement in selected hot spot areas that 
involved the presence of open-air drug markets. This is not the distribution pattern of the local 
methamphetamine market. Accordingly, it has taken some time for the Little Rock PD to assess the 
local situation and make adjustments to their enforcement/interdiction efforts. 

The Little Rock PD narcotics officers reported that meth tends not to be present in most of 
Little Rock. On the other hand, deputies from the Pulaski County Sheriffs Department and officers 
from the North Little Rock Police Department indicate they come across meth frequently. Clandestine 
labs are commonly encountered, and a number of police respondents from different departments 
indicated that if we had the resources we could bust a lab a day in the immediate region. This 
regional reference includes Loanake and Saline Counties, counties adjacent to Pulaski. These areas 
are worked by the LRPD and Pulaski County Sheriffs Department because it is believed that a 
majority of meth coming into the county is still cooked in these more rural settings. 

Precursor Drugs 

A major goal of local enforcement efforts is to disrupt transactions involving the acquisition of 
precursor drugs. Most local retailers were reported as being sensitive to large ephedrine sales and have 
hired security who will report large sales. But there are no regulations or laws requiring reporting. In 
Little Rock, there is one mom and pop pharmacy that has been selling cold medicine to cooks by the 


case. This is a well-known situation, but it has not been stopped because there is no legal authority to 
do so. But narcotics officers are working with local prosecutors, who recently filed a conspiracy charge 
against the pharmacy owners. The local prosecutor has stated that the case is in the pre-trial stages, 
and hopes the case will send a strong message to the retail community. The Sheriffs Department has 
also reported on their attempts to build some cases against other retailers who are known to sell large 
volumes of ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine. Further, late in 2000, LRPD narcotics officers initiated a 
major awareness campaign targeting retail stores that sell precursor chemicals. Approximately 150 
retail outlets were delivered posters detailing information on precursor drugs (paid for by the grant) and 
were provided a short presentation by the officers. The LRPD reports that calls from retail 
establishments picked up immediately. The Sheriffs Department has reported similar efforts and 
outcomes. For example, the Sheriffs Department printed up cards identifying precursors. These cards 
have been distributed to retail outlets. The result has been calls in which purchasers and their license 
plates have been reported. Finally, these enforcement agencies are lobbying for enhanced legislation to 
penalize stores for excessive sales to particular individuals. The proposed legislation would extend to 
the sale of iodine and red phosphorus, as well as ephedrine and pseudo-ephedrine. 

In addition, the local multi-jurisdictional task force has made the precursor market an 
enforcement priority. They are actively involved, with DEA support, in trying to stop the flow of 
precursor drugs to meth manufacturers. All respondents acknowledged the need to better communicate 
with retailers about meth issues and to promote either voluntary self-restraint or to engender compliance 
with legal threats. 

Police Officer Training 

The Little Rock PD has established an in-service meth training program. The goal is to educate 
all sworn officers (N = 500) in an eight-hour training session. As of January 13, 2000, about 275 
officers had gone through the training, held at the LRPD Training Academy. The initial focus was placed 
on training COPP officers. Subsequent phases have focused on training patrol officers. The training is 
provided by narcotics officers who have gone through DEA School. Observations of training sessions 
during the December 1999 site visit indicate a very professionally administered and informative training 


process, which should be effective in providing officers with information they need to communicate well 
with the general public about the nature of meth and the hazards it poses. 

Between January 2000 and Sept.1, 2000 the Little Rock PD provided 40 hours of 
methamphetamine-specific training to 381 officers. These included a mix of in-service training efforts 
aimed at current officers, training of new academy recruits, and training to members of the Mid-West 
Meth Group (HIDTA). A total of 440 hours of training was provided during eleven 40-hour training 
sessions, most of which were held at the LRPD Training Academy. 

The Sheriffs Department has put on one- to three-hour meth training sessions for most 
departmental personnel, including jail staff. They are now also training staff from municipal policing 
agencies in Loanoke County, where a lot of meth production is going on. They feel these efforts have 
generated many more officers recognizing meth situations because arrests and seizures increased 
dramatically after the training sessions. 

Treatment 

The former Coordinator for Community Programs in the City of Little Rock reported that the 
treatment program originally submitted for the Methamphetamine Initiative grant ($250,000) was 
reduced as a result of discussions with the COPS Office to $50,000. Thus, the treatment component of 
the initiative is limited. Moreover, there have been extensive delays in implementing even the truncated 
form of treatment proposed under the original grant. 

Initial explorations were made between the LRPD and the local drug court to provide 
methamphetamine abusers drug treatment through the drug court program. These efforts proved 
unsuccessful. This is one reason for the delay in implementing a treatment component. But it was not till 
a December 1999 site visit by the evaluator that Little Rock PD staff had face-to-face contact with the 
Drug Court Judge -- a delay of almost one year since the grant started in making this essential contact. 
In the original grant proposal, drug court clients abusing meth were identified as likely targets of 
intervention under the initiative. But animosities between the relevant parties and strong concerns about 
the quality of treatment services provided drug court clients in Little Rock resulted in the meth initiative 


seeking alternative approaches to deliver treatment services. Remaining options that were explored 
included: 

 Provide services through a pre-existing adolescent and womens program and target 
abusers who use meth as the drug of choice. Use standard treatment services. 

 Develop a separate contract with a treatment provider to specifically deliver meth 
treatment to some, as of now, unidentified meth abuser population. 
Despite funding inadequacies, some discussion had taken place on providing residential 
treatment services for a small number of meth users. The Little Rock City Counsel was brought in to 
advise the police department on how the funds could be lawfully distributed to treatment providers and 
a solicitation was developed. Bids went out to local treatment providers in February-March 2000. No 
bids were received, perhaps because the solicitation had very restrictive criteria (e.g., the agency must 
have served the Little Rock population for at least five years, the agency must be not-for-profit, and the 
agency must have demonstrated community linkages). The bid was re-advertised in April, and one 
community organization put in a bid. Recovery Centers of Arkansas, an organization that has been in 
existence for over 25 years and which has a strong regional reputation, was awarded the contract. The 
contract was signed in September 2000 with services provided for a one-year period. The $50,000 
contract calls for the hiring of a therapist person with expertise in delivering services to 
methamphetamine users. Staff at the Recovery Centers indicates that cognitive/behavioral therapies will 
be employed with meth users because they have been found to be the most effective treatment 
modalities. The newly hired therapist will be trained in such therapies and will deliver enhanced case 
management system for meth abusers and addicts. In addition, the treatment provider will deliver 
individual and group counseling to a unspecified number of clients during the course of the grant. 

Specialized meth groups will be developed, and the therapist will provide in-service training to other 
therapists who work with meth clients. 

Treatment staff at Recovery Centers reports much familiarity with meth abusers. The Center 
reported treating 84 residential clients and 33 outpatient clients between July and December 1999 who 
listed meth as their primary choice of drug. These numbers are thought to justify focusing treatment 
efforts on those meth users already in treatment. The grant does not call for the funding of additional 
treatment beds or hours for meth-abusing clients. 


The Pulaski County Sheriffs Department does not have a treatment or identification/ referral 
plan in place for methamphetamine abusers confined within the county jail. Overall, meth-specific 
treatment services for abusers in Little Rock are not very well developed, and the COPS 
methamphetamine initiative has done little, to date, to improve the situation. But progress has been 
made recently, and a request has been made to expand the funding for meth-based treatment services 
within the grants no-cost extension (see below). All indications are that this request will be approved, 
and that the additional funding can be utilized in a worthwhile manner. 

Prevention and Awareness Campaigns 

Prevention efforts under the Meth Initiative were nearly non-existent until the hiring of a Program 
Coordinator in July 1999. With a background in community-based treatment and program 
administration, her efforts have focused on community outreach and awareness programming (in 
addition to executing the treatment contract discussed above). A noteworthy public education 
campaign has emerged. 

A major feature of the effort is a billboard campaign. A contract with a local billboard company 
has been executed ($23,000) which involves one billboard at a time being displayed which 
communicates the danger of meth and presents phone numbers for the LRPD and the PCSD. The 
locations of the billboards will rotate every 6-8 weeks across the county. Two templates have been 
developed, with each one being rotated every six months. The Program Coordinator has developed a 
series of brochures and pamphlets (reading level up to the sixth grade) for widespread distribution 
throughout the county. These information sources will be available at community centers, neighborhood 
police centers, and at community meetings sponsored by COPP officers. The first order of 
brochures/pamphlets cost $3,000. 

An electronic mass media campaign is also underway. This involves a collaborative partnership 
with a local television station to run a 25 second PSA, which has already been produced. The local 
cable access station has already been running the PSA. The Coordinator has done a number of 
morning TV interviews, as well as radio interviews and news talk programs. Unfortunately, local TV 


stations have not been reported to be running the PSA in a consistent manner that is likely to expose a 
large viewership to the PSA. 

A bus advertisement campaign was initiated by the LRPD, but was never implemented due to 
costs. The campaign was to involve meth ads being placed on the sides and back of local buses. 
The buses featuring the ads would be rotated by route, to maximize citizen exposure to the ads. The 
expenditure of this effort was not approved by city officials. 

Other aspects of the public awareness campaign include introducing a meth component into a 
local cable program run by a community policing officer and utilizing a newly-hired Neighborhood 
Watch Coordinator in the public education campaign. As of this writing, these efforts have not yet 
commenced. 

Another major feature of the public awareness/education program involves community 
presentations made by narcotic officers, with the support of COPP officers. This involves the viewing 
of videotapes that show the aspects of the manufacture, distribution, and use of methamphetamine. 
Community members are also presented with pamphlets, hot line numbers, and other information to 
promote education and awareness. This process hit full stride in May 2000, and has continuing 
throughout the year. The LRPD has participated in a variety of community events and youth programs 
during which officers provided presentations on methamphetamine. The LRPD created and distributed 
pamphlets, t-shirts, pencils, and cups at these venues; all of which contained messages about the harmful 
effects of meth and provided the phone number of the LRPD. Almost 5,000 citizens were exposed to 
the information provided, many of which were young children. 

The LRPD and Pulaski County Sheriffs department also created a hotline, which is featured 
prominently in most of their outreach literature and electronic media presentations. Unfortunately, it is 
impossible to empirically assess the effectiveness of this strategy. The phone number is not a dedicated 
line for meth reports; rather it is a generalized police line operated out of the narcotics office (calls are 
routed downtown during off-hours). A log identifying the nature of calls is not maintained, thus is 
unclear whether the public awareness campaign has had the desired result in enhancing citizen 
awareness and reporting about meth. Anecdotes abound, however, that this has been the result of the 
awareness campaign. 


Community Policing 

The community policing initiative within the city of Little Rock has had little overlap with the 
methamphetamine problem up to this point. According to one Little Rock community policing officer he 
has not seen a lot of methamphetamine within the neighborhoods where community policing has been 
implemented. 

Little Rock started its community policing program in 1992 with 15 satellite stations (ALERT 
Centers) and bicycle patrols, predominately located in African-American neighborhoods. Thirty-nine 
community policing officers and four sergeants were assigned to the unit, and they focused their long-
term assignments to particular neighborhoods on assessing and responding to community needs as 
gleaned through community meetings. The consensus among the law enforcement personnel of Little 
Rock is that the geography and the demographics of the methamphetamine problem do not over lap 
with the community policing initiative. 

COPP officers in Little Rock are reported to not be in contact with meth issues. When a 
COPP officer identifies a drug issue, s/he will communicate with the narc unit about the problem, but 
there is no structured communication flow between the units. While the training of COPP officers about 
meth was slow to be implemented, most officers have now received the training. During the second 
quarter of 2000, every COPP officer received eight hours of meth-specific training. The goal is for 
COPP officers to incorporate information on meth in their public speaking activities. This has not yet 
been fully implemented; meth education and training for the public has tended to be undertaken by 
Narcotics Officers who at times speak with Neighborhood Watch and community groups. These 
events have been coordinated by COPP officers, however. Plans have been in place for School 
Resource Officers to conduct methamphetamine awareness programs in the local schools. These efforts 
were originally scheduled to commence in January 2000, but have not yet occurred. 

During June 2000, Police Chief Lawrence Johnson, who became Chief of LRPD in March 
2000, restructured the community policing efforts within the department. Chief Johnson presents himself 
as a strong supporter of community policing who believes those concepts should be translated into all 
aspects of operations within LRPD, including the Meth Initiative. 


Previously, COPP officers were assigned to a special unit administered within the Special 
Operations Unit. Under the new structure, COPP officers were absorbed into the departments three 
Patrol Divisions. The rationale was to break down the separation between COPP officers and patrol; 
and the goal is to eventually have community policing department-wide, and to integrate community 
policing philosophies and practices into pre-existing structures and operations. 

COPP officers received the change well, but apparently many patrol officers did not. Often, 
patrol officers tend to think they do the real police work and do not want their roles altered. But one 
Captain of a patrol division did not feel the structural changes have had much impact. The captain said 
the roles of patrol officers and COPP officers have not changed, and that there hasnt been a notable 
change in community policing in Little Rock. Whatever the level of community policing that has been 
implemented in Little Rock, it is clear that community policing efforts in the city are quite disconnected 
to most activities associated with the Meth Initiative. It remains to be seen whether the new police 
leadership will change the situation. 

Implementation Patterns 

Overall the implementation of the Meth Initiative in Little Rock has been uneven. Many original 
program components have taken many months to witness implementation, and in some instances, core 
activities have not yet commenced. Partnerships under the Initiative have been neither extensive nor 
intensive. As a result, program funding has not yet been fully accessed (as of the end of 2000, almost 
one-half of the program dollars had not been expended). Recently the Little Rock Initiative asked for a 
no-cost extension to continue the project for one more year. The request has been approved, and 
some significant changes in program priorities have been introduced (e.g., enhancing treatment funding 
and service delivery). 

It appears that the nature of implementation processes may have been due, at least partially, to 
the context in which the program was initially conceived and developed. This requires further 
exploration and elaboration. 

When grant processes were initiated, methamphetamine was not recognized as a serious law 
enforcement or social problem within major sectors of the Little Rock community. The original authors 


of the grant proposal acknowledge not having a grasp of the local problem nor having detailed 
understandings of methamphetamine in general. One original author stated we did not know what to 
ask for, and did not have a strong sense of what to do with the funding. Narcotics enforcement in 
Little Rock was focused on the crack market, and the then-captain of the narcotics units had not 
personally prioritized methamphetamine as an immediate or emerging threat. The Chiefs office was not 
heavily involved in the writing of the grant proposal, and did not interject itself into the implementation 
process. Its goal was to get the funding, and to ensure the required paper work was completed. 
Attention to program detail was not provided, and implementation was left largely in the hands of the 
Narcotics Unit. Further, when some key city officials became disappointed with the grant when 
proposed treatment interventions were reduced, they too became aloof toward grant processes. In 
effect, strong leadership was not in place to move the grant forward. The implementation context was 
characterized by a lack of knowledgeable and committed people in positions of authority to steward the 
initial phases of program implementation. 

This remained the situation for at least the first six months of the initiative, until a Project 
Coordinator was hired in July 1999. During this period, grant activities were confined largely to the 
purchase of equipment, the training of narcotics officers, and the provision of overtime to support the 
emerging prioritization of methamphetamine law enforcement. Little coordination among the partners 
was evidenced (partnership meetings are still sporadic), law enforcement interdiction was the sole focus 
of the initiative (at least within the Little Rock PD), and the development of a comprehensive approach 
to combating the meth problem remained on the back burner. 

When the Project Coordinator commenced her duties, she immediately immersed herself into 
the development of prevention and treatment programming, her areas of primary interest and expertise. 
But being an outsider to the LRPD, and not having anyone to help her navigate intra-organizational 
and inter-organizational waters, resulted in a slow-moving process of education and action. As she 
stated, she didnt have the authority to push things along. Despite this situation, she made much 
progress in invigorating the program implementation environment and overseeing the establishment of a 
bona fide series of prevention, community awareness, and treatment interventions. 


The more traditional police intervention efforts remained the major responsibility of two 
Sergeants within the Narcotics Unit, who did an admirable job of coordinating officer training, 
overseeing equipment purchases, and facilitating the emergence of enhanced interdiction efforts. But 
efforts at coordinating the entire set of operations and inter-organizational linkages were left unattended 
for the majority of the first two-year grant period. 

This has begun to change with new leadership in the Chiefs office and within the LRPD 
Narcotics Units. When Chief Johnson took command of the LRPD in March 2000, he immediately 
altered the composition of the senior administrative staff, including placing a new Captain in charge of 
the Narcotics Units. The new Captain is more hands on than his predecessor, and believes that the 
local methamphetamine problem should be given more priority than it has been in the past. So does 
Chief Johnson. In an exit interview with the Chief, meth was said to be the primary drug problem in 
Little Rock, particularly because meth investigations/lab clean ups are so expensive and meth abuse has 
dire consequences for young children, family members, and environmental safety. While the Chief 
acknowledged not studying the program closely, he did state that: 

 The education and community awareness program should be enhanced, especially in the 
area of LRPD being more fully involved in school-based education efforts. General 
education of the public was also endorsed. Public relations officers, School Resource 
Officers, and Community Policing Alert Centers will be used to supplement the efforts 
of the Project Coordinator. 
 A close look at treatment programming will take place to assess how treatment dollars 
are being utilized and how more direct services to can be provided. 
 The LRPD will take more of a joint problem-solving, community-based approach in 
response to the local meth problem than it has in the past. This was not part of the 
original program design, which was focused on equipment and specialized 
investigations. 

While these components have proven beneficial to the department and the community, the 
Chiefs goal is to engage in a broader community-based effort with the remaining time and funds 
associated with the Methamphetamine Initiative. His statements and approach reflect a significant 
change within the LRPD. 


Summary and Conclusions 

This chapter and the data presented in it shed considerable light on the nature of the 
methamphetamine market in Little Rock, Arkansas. Except for a few cities in the Western United 
States, there is a paucity of information on local meth markets. In addition, cities that are not ADAM 
sites have relatively little information on the prevalence of meth in those cities. When the local 
jurisdictions criminal justice and health authorities do not include meth as a data element in their 
automated data systems, the ability to discern the nature of the local meth problem is made even more 
difficult. This was the case in Little Rock. Only anecdotal evidence and limited standardized data on 
the local meth problem were available. These sources of information suggest that relative to other 
drugs, meth is a secondary but growing problem in that city. Perceived to be a white persons drug, 
the problem appeared concentrated in the outskirts and more rural areas of the jurisdiction. This 
portrait is also consistent with newspaper coverage of the phenomenon, which has tended to emphasize 
personal tragedies associated with meth use and the growing presence of labs in the more rural areas of 
the state. 

The data gleaned from jail detainees reported in this chapter, although not based either on a 
large or random sample of jail detainees, have been highly useful in helping to better understand the meth 
market in Little Rock. While congruent with the views of local officials on many counts, these data 
suggest the problem is perhaps more severe than previously realized. Meth is widely and easily 
available. Despite concerted law enforcement efforts to disrupt the local meth market, the cost, quality 
and availability of meth appears similar to that reported to exist in prior years. Users, dealers, and 
cookers tend to be white; there appear to be many of them in the Little Rock area; and they use, deal, 
and cook the drug quite intensively. Except for the apparent exclusion of women from the production 
and distribution activities surrounding the meth market, there appears to be little hierarchy in the market.

 Users, dealers, and cookers are often one and the same. While the market is highly diffuse and loosely 
organized, and is not associated with the violence commonly attributed to the crack market, it is also a 
market not easily affected by enforcement efforts. 

The official view of meth in Little Rock was that meth was not considered a major social or 
criminal justice problem until the receipt of the federal grant. The meth problem, if it existed at all in 


Little Rock, was relatively hidden. Narcotic officers, treatment professionals, and governmental 
officials, while recognizing meth as a growing problem, did not have much contact with manifestations of 
the problem and did not view it as a major social threat. In contrast to more rural areas of Arkansas 
and to crack cocaine in Little Rock, the meth problem in Little Rock was considered minor. This 
changed with the introduction of the federal grant. Officers in the Little Rock law enforcement 
community and citizens became the recipients of training, education, and awareness programs regarding 
methamphetamine. Law enforcement resources were also now more available to respond to meth when 
it was encountered. The net result was an increase in the productivity of law enforcement responses to 
meth in the local community (i.e., arrests, lab seizures). Finally, the Meth Initiative brought in outside 
researchers who compiled systematic data on the local problem, including the inmate self-reported data 
presented in this chapter. At least certain of these data suggest the local meth problem is more serious 
than had been previously realized. 

In effect, the federal grant had the effect of illuminating the local meth problem. One Little Rock 
narcotics officer presented the following metaphor. He likened meth use and production to the 
existence of roaches in ones home. The roaches are there, but because they only come out into the 
open when the house is dark and the residents are sleeping, they are hidden. The federal grant served 
as the light that exposed the roaches. A meth problem did exist in Little Rock, but its dimensions 
were not fully recognized. Today, at least partially as a result of the federal grant, the meth problem in 
Little Rock is accorded a much more serious status as a local social problem. 

In addition to this illuminating, the Federal Methamphetamine Initiative has had a variety of other 
positive impacts on the Little Rock community. A consensus of local officials state that the initiative has 
generated the following beneficial outputs and outcomes: 

 Equipment purchases have resulted in the much safer and effective response to 
clandestine labs, enhanced investigative efforts, and a dramatically reduced turn-around 
time in chemical analyses conducted by the State Crime Laboratory. 
 An enhanced level of cooperation and coordination between the LRPD and the Pulaski 
County Sheriffs Department. The respective narcotic units are now more willing to 
work together; attitudinal and cultural change regarding cooperation has transpired. 


 A more informed citizenry regarding methamphetamine, and the recognition among 
police that such an outcome results in direct benefits to police (e.g., higher rates of 
citizen reporting). 
 A better trained police force that can be effective in responding to meth without actively 
seeking out the drug because of citizen awareness and who can respond to the drug 
with improved health and legal outcomes because of the training that has been provided. 

The Little Rock Methamphetamine Initiative originated in a somewhat different context than 
most of the other sites. In jurisdictions such as Phoenix, Dallas, and Salt Lake City, the local 
methamphetamine problem was recognized as serious and increasing in nature when applications were 
filed with COPS for federal funding under the Methamphetamine Initiative. In Little Rock, in 1998, 
local law enforcement and relevant governmental officials did not view methamphetamine abuse as a 
significant law enforcement concern. The Little Rock Police Department, the central partner in the Little 
Rock Initiative, had not prioritized methamphetamine as a drug enforcement problem. 

At the time funding for the Little Rock Methamphetamine Initiative was achieved, available 
baseline data on the local methamphetamine problem in Little Rock was sparse, at best. As detailed in 
this chapter, some of the available data indicated the local problem was relatively minor compared to 
that found in other jurisdictions. While most local respondents considered the local meth problem to be 
increasing, it was still considered to be quite secondary to other local drug problems. For instance, 
within the grant application submitted by the Little Rock Police Department to the COPS Office under 
the Methamphetamine Initiative, methamphetamine was ranked as the sixth most commonly abused 
controlled substance in Little Rock. Other substances ranking more highly included alcohol, marijuana, 
crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and tranquilizers. Further, the grant application noted that 
methamphetamine trafficking and consumption had not had a significant impact on any other crime types 
(i.e., violent, property, sex crimes) in the jurisdiction. 

The initial funding process had start-up implications for program development and 
implementation. At first, the Little Rock Police Department did not feel a great sense of ownership in 
the project. In meeting with staff from the COPS Office, the Little Rock Police Department eventually 
overcame its initial reluctance and submitted a grant application for the methamphetamine initiative. In 
the initial proposal submitted to the COPS Office, $250,000 of the $750,000 grant award was to be 


dedicated to the provision of treatment services to meth abusers. The COPS Office suggested more 
enforcement and less treatment. The treatment component was reduced to $50,000. 

Even within this situational context, however, it is important to highlight the considerable benefits 
generated by the Meth Initiative in Little Rock. As revealed in this chapter, much of the funding has 
been used productively. It has been used to shed light on a problem that was largely unrecognized, but 
which was very real nonetheless. It has resulted in enhanced community awareness about 
methamphetamine. Extensive training of local law enforcement officers has resulted in a much more 
informed and knowledgeable approach to dealing with meth in the community. Risks to the personal 
safety of officers and citizens who have to confront meth have been reduced because of the grant. 
Sharing of information and resources has occurred across agency lines and has improved the legal and 
social responses to what is clearly an emerging problem with great consequence within the Little Rock 
region. 

The early data suggest that the initiative has had only minor effect on the local meth market and 
the price, availability, and quality of meth in Little Rock. What the market may have looked like had the 
grant not been implemented is anyones guess. But it does appear that the methamphetamine problem 
in the Little Rock area is continuing to grow despite law enforcement efforts to control it. 


References 

Pennell, S., J.Ellett., C. Rieneck, and J. Grimes. 1999. Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine 
Users in Five Western Cities. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute 
of Justice. 

Silverman, Julia. 2000. Agencies Toil to Help Meth Users. February 6, 2000, Arkansas Democrat 
Gazette, p. 1B. 


Chapter 7 

Getting in Front of an Emerging Drug Problem: The
Minneapolis Methamphetamine Initiative

Of the six sites participating in the COPS Methamphetamine (meth) Initiative, 
Minneapolis was the one where meth was least prevalent. Given Minnesotas location as the 
most eastern of the six sites, and given the pattern of eastern migration of methamphetamine, this 
is not surprising. Seeing, however, the rapid growth in illegal meth labs in states such as Iowa, 
Missouri, and Nebraska, and the early indications of a similar increase in Minnesota, local law 
enforcement and health officials saw the methamphetamine initiative as an opportunity to 
prepare for the likely increase in meth manufacture, distribution, and use. Their goal for the 
initiative was to impede the distribution and use of meth and to thereby minimize the harmful 
effects of methamphetamine in Minneapolis and throughout the state. 

The study of this initiative relied on multiple methods. These included the collection of 
data on enforcement/intervention activities and site visits that included interviews with initiative 
participants and other law enforcement, court, and treatment officials. The site visits also 
provided opportunities to conduct ride-alongs with narcotics officers and observations of drug 
court and treatment facilities. In addition to the site visits, phone interviews were conducted 
throughout the two-year period with members of the task force concerning training, education, 
intervention/enforcement, and research. Additional data collection activity included collecting of 
newspaper accounts about methamphetamine, secondary analysis of data collected from drug 
court clients and probationers, and the national assessment teams survey on interagency 
relationships. 

History 

The Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area encompasses approximately 500 square miles 
and 2.8 million people. The metropolitan region comprises more than one-half of the states 
total population. Local officials noted that methamphetamine had been around for years as a 
relatively minor drug problem in the Minneapolis - St. Paul metropolitan region and in the state 
generally. Meth use and distribution was largely associated with biker groups. This picture 


began to change in the mid- to late-1990s as meth distribution increasingly involved Mexican-
Nationals, and there was an increase in the seizure of illegal meth labs throughout the state. 

The Minneapolis methamphetamine initiative is under the direction of the Minneapolis 
Police Department (MPD). The initiative task force is composed of the MPD along with ten 
other agencies: the Hennepin County Sheriffs Department, the St. Paul Police Department, the 
Ramsey County Sheriff Department, the Hennepin County Attorney (prosecutors office), 
Hennepin County Probation, the Minneapolis Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota State 
Patrol, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the 
Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support.1 The initiative focuses on four primary 
activities: training, education/prevention, enforcement/intervention, and research. 

1 Minneapolis is located in Hennepin County. St. Paul is located in Ramsey County. 

Meth Market Characteristics 
General Picture 

Law enforcement and treatment officials view the Twin Cities drug market as principally 
involving cocaine and marijuana. Law enforcement officials have noted a more recent increase 
in heroin as well as so called exotic drugs including wets, Khat, and RAVE drugs. Wets 
(also known as sherm) consist of marijuana cigarettes soaked in formaldehyde and dried. 
Khat, a plant imported from Africa, is used primarily by the Somalian population in the area. 

Officials express primary concern over the wide availability of both cocaine and 
marijuana. Federal prosecutors note that an arrest for one pound of cocaine would have been 
considered a big case in the 1980s, whereas now a pound of cocaine is a threshold requirement 
for prosecution. 

Law enforcement officers describe racial and geographic patterns in drug distribution and 
use. Crack and powder cocaine predominate in the urban Twin Cities areas and are often sold in 
predominantly African-American neighborhoods. In contrast, they believe that 
methamphetamine is more often the drug of choice for whites, particularly in rural areas. 

As discussed in subsequent sections, arrests for cocaine and crack are much more 
prevalent in Minneapolis than in rural areas of the state. Three factors enter into the number of 


cocaine arrests within Minneapolis. First, cocaine, particularly crack, tends to be sold in more 
open-air markets that are visible to complainants and witnesses. Second, the MPD employs 
specialized, neighborhood based narcotics teams and enforcement officers that focus on open-air 
cocaine sales and the crime problems associated with open drug markets. Third, because MPD 
officers make most of their cases through informants and most of the informants have been 
involved in cocaine distribution and use, they know more about the trends and availability of 
cocaine. 

Their efforts have produced some significant cases, including the arrest and conviction of 
11 members of the 132nd Street Shotgun Crips gang that operated a cocaine trafficking network 
from Los Angeles to Minneapolis. This group was reported to have sold approximately 5 kilos 
of cocaine a week from a north Minneapolis house. In 1999, indictments were handed down 
against some 60 defendants, many of them members of another Los Angeles street gang, the 
Broadway 5-2 Crips, following a lengthy investigation of a cocaine-crack trafficking network 
operating since the mid-1990s. According to officers, the gang moved its operations to 
Minneapolis because the prices for both crack and cocaine were higher than in California. 

As noted previously, meth is considered a small but growing element of the region's drug 
problem. Concern began to mount in 1995 when Minnesota drug enforcement officers convened 
a conference to discuss the emerging meth problem tied to Biker Groups operating in the rural 
areas of the state. The perception is that distribution has moved away from the biker's groups 
toward major distribution by Mexican Nationals whose past activities largely involved cocaine. 
There are also reports of small, mom and pop labs being discovered in the metro area. Narcotics 
officers believe, however, that most of the meth cooking occurs in rural areas of the state. 

Drug Use Indicators 

The available data support the description of meth as a small but growing problem. There 
was a clear increase in all indicators during 1997. The picture is more mixed since that time. 
Drug use indicators such as emergency room mentions and overdose deaths declined in 1998 and 
1999, but many law enforcement indicators continued to increase. 


Meth emergency room mentions increased significantly in 1997, more than doubling over 
prior years (see Exhibit 1). They declined, however, in 1998 and 1999.2 

2 Final numbers for 1999 are not yet available. They are reported to have declined, however. See Butler Center, 
2000. 

Exhibit 1: Emergency Department Mentions of Selected Drugs, Minneapolis/St. 
Paul 1994-1998 

Bar Graph Showing Mentions of Selected Drugs:
Meth Cocaine Heroin Marijuana LSD 

Source: www.hazelden.org 

There were seven methamphetamine-related deaths in Hennepin and Ramsey counties 
during 1999. This compared to eight in 1998. These were increases from the three previous 
years during which there were four or five meth-related deaths. In contrast, the two-county 
region experienced 53 cocaine-related deaths and 47 opiate-related deaths during 1999 (see 
Exhibit 2). 

Exhibit 2: Drug Abuse Related Deaths, Hennepin and Ramsey Counties

Drug 		1995 	1996 	1997 	1998 	1999 
Cocaine 	53 	74 	58 	44 	53 
Opiates 	30 	27 	30 	38 	47 
Methamphetamine 5 	4 	4 	8 	7 

Source: Falkowski, 1998; Butler Center, 2000; www.hazelden.org 

Statewide treatment admissions for meth increased significantly from 1994 to 1995 and 
in 1997 and 1998. Indeed, the 1997 numbers reflected a doubling from the previous year. 
Admissions decreased in 1999 from the peak levels (see Exhibit 3). The proportion of treatment 


admissions involving users outside of the metropolitan area increased from 47 percent in 1994 to 
58 percent in 1999. Thus, although the number of treatment admissions in the metro area 
increased after 1994, there was a greater proportionate increase in the non-metro regions of the 
state (Butler Center, 2000). 

Exhibit 3: Methamphetamine Treatment Admissions, Minnesota
 
1994	377 
1995 	807
1996 	600
1997 	1280
1998 	1306
1999 	921

Source: www.hazelden.org 

The ADAM program began in Minneapolis in 1998. Data were collected for the third and 
fourth quarters and data collection has continued since that time. During 1998, less than one 
percent of arrestees tested positive for meth. Eighteen percent of the males admitted to lifetime 
use of meth. Less than 4 percent of females admitted meth use (National Institute of Justice, 
1999). During 1999, the proportion of arrestees testing positive was 1.1 percent of males and 2.5 
percent of females. This compared to 29 percent of males and just over one-third of females (36 
percent) testing positive for cocaine (National Institute of Justice, 2000). 

Of the 34 ADAM sites reporting on meth use among male arrestees, Minneapolis ranked 
19. Minneapolis ranked lower than many western cities as well as Midwestern cities like Des 
Moines (13.9 percent) and Omaha (7.8 percent) but above Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland, 


where no male arrestees tested positive for meth. The situation was very similar for female 
arrestees. Minneapolis ranked 17 of the 32 sites reporting the percent of female arrestees testing 
positive. Minneapoliss finding of 2.5 percent of females testing positive compared to 22.4 
percent in Des Moines and 11.1 percent in Omaha (National Institute of Justice, 2000). Thus, 
local officials perception of meth as a small but potentially growing problem is supported in the 
ADAM data. 

Law Enforcement Indicators 

Court data on the sentencing of drug defendants also provides a picture of the relative 
distribution of meth in urban versus rural areas of Minnesota. During 1998, there were 34 
amphetamine cases in Hennepin County, 175 in Ramsey County, 157 in other metropolitan 
areas, and 322 in the non-metropolitan regions of the state. In contrast, there were 509 cocaine 
cases in Hennepin County, 403 in Ramsey County, 90 in other metropolitan regions, and 201 in 
the non-metro region. This generates ratios of 0.07 meth cases per cocaine cases in Hennepin 
County and 0.43 meth cases per cocaine cases in Ramsey County. In contrast, there were 1.74 
meth cases for every cocaine case in other metropolitan areas and 1.6 meth cases per every 
cocaine case in the non-metro region (see Exhibit 4). 

Exhibit 4: Cocaine and Amphetamine Drug Court Cases, 1998

		Hennepin County 	Ramsey County 	Other Metro 	Greater Minnesota 
Cocaine 	509 			403 		90 		201 
Amphetamine 	34 			175 		157 		322 
Ratio Amphetamine 0.07 			0.43 		1.74 		1.60 
to Cocaine 

Source: Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2000 

The court data also indicate the growth of meth in Minnesota. As Exhibit 5 illustrates, 
the number of amphetamine3 cases in Minnesota courts increased from 84 in 1988 to 659 in 
1998. This reflected a 684 percent increase. In contrast, during this period cocaine cases 
increased 129 percent, marijuana cases increased 10 percent, and hallucinogens increased 25 
percent. Consequently, meth cases now comprise one-quarter of all drug offenses in the state. 
Exhibit 6 demonstrates the growth in amphetamine cases. The most substantial growth is in the 

 


non-metropolitan regions of the state, but increases are also evident in Hennepin and Ramsey 
counties (Minneapolis/St. Paul). 

3 Minnesota courts classify amphetamine and methamphetamine in a global category labeled amphetamine.

Exhibit 5: Drug Offenses in Minnesota Courts

										Change 
		1988 	1989 	1990 	1994 	1995 	1996 	1997 	1998 	1988-98 
Cocaine # 	524 	831 	893 	823 	884 	812 	1071 	1203 	+129% 
	% 	44 	52 	49 	49 	52 	48 	50 	47 
Marijuana # 	365 	497 	564 	509 	355 	412 	432 	402 	+10% 
	  % 	31 	31 	31 	30 	21 	24 	20 	16 
Amphetamine # 	84 	89 	95 	95 	276 	236 	381 	659	+684% 
	    % 	7 	6 	5 	5	16	14	18	26 
Hallucinogens # 47 	73 	92 	66 	45 	53 	61 	59 	+25% 
	      % 4	5	5	4	3	3	3	2 
Other # 	87 	109 	166 	89 	103 	90 	114 	159 	+83% 
      % 	7	7	9	5	6	5	5	6 
Unknown # 	73 	3 	1 	78 	55 	92 	68 	60 	-18% 
	% 	6 	0 	0 	5 	3 	5 	3 	2 
Total # 	1180 	1602 	1811 	1692 	1718 	1695 	2127 	2542 	+115% 

Source: Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 1997a, 1997b, 1998, 2000 


Exhibit 6: Amphetamine Drug Cases in Minnesota Courts, 1994-1998

Line Graph

During 1998, prices for meth were reported to be $100 per gram, approximately $1,000 
per ounce, and $10,000 to $12,000 per pound (Falkowski, 1998). This remained relatively 
constant during 1999 and early 2000: $100 per gram, $1,200 per ounce, $10,000-12,000 per 
pound, and $24,000 per kilogram (Butler Center, 2000). 

Interviews with Probationers and Drug Court Clients 

In an effort to gain more insight into meth use and distribution in the Minneapolis region, 
the Minneapolis Health Department, a formal partner in the anti-meth initiative, conducted a 
series of interviews with drug court clients and probationers. Interviews were conducted with 
343 drug court clients and 150 probationers during late 1999 and early 2000. Of these, 94.1 
percent admitted drug use, including 69 who were admitted meth users and 395 who admitted 
using drugs other than meth. 

As Exhibit 7 shows, there was no real difference in terms of gender among meth and 
other drug users. Court-related meth users tended to be slightly older than other drug users. 


There were significant differences in terms of race, however. Eighty-seven percent of the court-
related meth users are White compared to 23 percent of other drug users. In contrast, only 6 
percent of the meth users were African-American compared to 67 percent of the non-meth drug 
users. 

Exhibit 7: Drug Court Clients and Probationers in Hennepin County, 
Demographics 

							Meth Users 	Non-Meth Drug Users 
Gender 							N=69 		N=395 
Male 							78.3 		80.5 
Female 							21.7 		19.5 

Age 							N=69 		N=395 
18-21 							17.4 		21.1 
22-25 							10.1 		19.8 
26-30 							18.9 		16.7 
31-35 							11.6 		12.5 
36-40 							21.7 		16.4 
41-45 							10.1 		7.2 
46+ 							10.1 		7.3 
Mean 							32.3 		30.1 

Race/Ethnicity 						N=69 		N=395 
African-American 					5.8 		66.6 
Caucasian 						87.0 		22.8 
Hispanic 						1.4 		0.5 
American Indian or Alaskan Native 			2.9 		4.8
Asian or Pacific Islander 				0 		1.8
Other 							2.9 		3.5

Education 						N=69 		N=395 
Some high school or less 				14.5 		35.2 
High school or GED 					53.6 		38.7 
Some College 						21.7 		20.2 
College 						10.1 		5.8 

Employment Status 					N=51 		N=268 
Employed prior to involvement in drug court 		78.4 		71.2 
Currently employed 					100.0 		67.8 
Currently working full time 				90.2 		79.1 

Parental Status 					N=51 		N=292 
Dont have children 					45.1 		30.8
Children live with me 					29.4 		41.8
Children dont live with me 				25.5 		26.4

Source: Data provided by Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support 


Meth users had somewhat higher educational achievement and were more likely to have 
worked at the time of arrest and to be working while under court supervision. Meth users were 
less likely to have children and fewer meth users were living with their children. 

The demographic patterns were very similar to those observed in treatment admission 
data. As Exhibit 8 indicates, 97 percent of meth users admitted for treatment are white. In 
contrast, 37 percent of cocaine users admitted for treatment were White, with the majority of 
cocaine users admitted for treatment being African-American. Meth users admitted for treatment 
tended to be somewhat younger than cocaine users. This was reverse the case for the drug court 
clients and probationers. Meth users admitted for treatment most typically reported sniffing as 
the administration route, but over one-quarter admitted injecting meth. 

Exhibit 8: Characteristics of Persons Admitted to Treatment in Minneapolis/St. 
Paul in 1999 (1st half) by Primary Drug 

							Methamphetamine		Cocaine 

Total Admissions 					N=175 			N=1,175 
Gender 
Male 							70.3 % 			67.6 % 
Female 							29.7 			32.4 
Race/Ethnicity 
White 							96.7 			37.3 
African American 					1.3 			54.4 
Hispanic 						0.7 			3.4 
American Indian 					0 			3.2 
Asian 							0 			0.1 
Age 
Under 18 						4 			2.1 
18-25 							33.1 			9 
26-34 							32.6 			37.2 
35+ 							30.3 			51.7 
Administration Route 
Smoking 						17.6 			84.4 
Sniffing 						48.7 			13.1 
Injection 						26.1 			2.4 
Other 							7.6 			0 
Secondary Drug 						40.8 (marijuana) 	55.9 (alcohol) 
Tertiary Drug 						44.1 (alcohol) 	43 (marijuana) 
1st Treatment 						26.7 			21.8 
Daily Nicotine Use 					69.7 			69.8 
Job Is Primary Income Source 				58.2 			51.6 

Source: Drug and Alcohol Abuse Normative Evaluation System (DAANES), Minnesota Department of Human 
Services, 1999. Provided by Butler Center for Research at Hazelden, www.hazelden.org. 


Court-related meth users also appeared to have more extensive multi-drug use history. 
For example, all the meth users reported marijuana use, 62 percent reported crack use, 88 percent 
reported cocaine use, and 74 percent had used LSD (see Exhibit 9). The corresponding figures 
for non-meth users were 87 percent, 23 percent, 37 percent, and 10 percent for marijuana, crack, 
cocaine, and LSD, respectively. Meth users also reported slightly younger age at first use of 
drugs (mean=14.3) than did non-meth drug users (mean=15.9). 

Exhibit 9: Drug Court Clients and Probationers in Hennepin County, Self-
Reported Drug Use Experience 

						Meth Users 	Other Drug Users 
Use of Other Drugs 				N=69 		N=395 
Marijuana 					100.0 		86.6 
Crack 						62.3 		23.3 
Cocaine 					88.4 		36.7 
Heroin 						40.6 		7.3 
LSD 						73.9 		10.4 
Inhalants 					31.9 		1.5 
Amphetamine/Speed 				65.2 		7.3 
Khat 						4.3 		0 
Gamma 						1.4 		0 

Age at First Drug Use 				N=-69 		N=393 
10 and under 					8.7 		6.6 
11-15 						66.7 		49.1 
16-18 						21.7 		27.0 
19-21 						7.3 		8.1 
22-25 						0 		3.6 
26-30 						0 		3.6 
30 and above 					1.4 		2.0 
Mean 						14.3 		15.9 

Source: Data provided by Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support 

An additional set of questions about acquiring meth was asked of meth users only. As 
Exhibit 10 indicates, over 80 percent reported buying meth indoors and 10 percent admitted 
making meth. Only 7 percent of the purchases were reported as occurring outdoors. Most 
purchases (83 percent) were made in residences and nearly three-quarters relied on one main 
source. 


Exhibit 10: Reported Mode of Acquisition, Meth Users

Do you usually get meth: N=68
Indoors 80.9
Outdoors 7.4
Make yourself 10.3

Do you usually buy meth at a: N=53
Residence 83.0
Business 7.5
Workplace 3.8
Other 5.7

Do you have a main source  that is, one N=61 
dealer that you usually hook up with? 
Yes (other than self) 73.8 
No 26.2 

Is your main source: N=45 
A dealer and cooker 20.0 
A dealer or middleman 62.2 
Dont know 17.8 

Race or ethnicity of main source N=43 
Caucasian 88.4 
African American 7.0 
Asian or Pacific Islander 2.3 
Other 2.3 

Have you sold or made meth in past year? N=69 
Yes, sold only 5.8 
Yes, made and sold 1.4 
No 92.8 

Source: Data provided by Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support 

Thus, on the basis of the interviews, meth users are more likely to be white, to be 
employed, and to have more extensive involvement abusing a variety of drugs. They purchase 
their drugs indoors, typically from one supplier. This appears to be consistent with law 
enforcement accounts that the meth market is difficult to penetrate due to its relatively closed 
nature. 


Intervention 
Interviews 

Consistent with the law enforcement indicators discussed above, interviews with 
narcotics officers suggested that methamphetamine appears to be increasing in the area. 
Whereas it used to be confined to particular areas of the city, they are now finding it all over the 
place. This being said, the officers do not consider meth to be a common street drug. Rather, 
meth tends to be sold in relatively closed networks either in bars or through friends. This is 
consistent with the self-reports of users discussed above. 

Drug enforcement activities revealed two primary sources for meth in the region. The 
largest source involves the shipment of meth from Mexico by Mexican Nationals to local 
Hispanic communities in the city and state. For example, last year police made a number of 
arrests of a Hispanic family of 15 involved in high volume distribution of meth. This group had 
been involved in cocaine and crack distribution but had learned how to make meth and take 
advantage of its profit potential. In Mexico, a pound of meth can be purchased for 
approximately $3,000 and sold in Minneapolis for $10-$15,000. Federal prosecutors noted that 
these groups have turned to meth in order to control the production end and eliminate the 
uncertainties brought about by having to rely on Colombian cocaine suppliers. 

The second source of meth comes from small, local, rural labs operated by loose 
networks of young white males, often including but not limited to bikers. These labs are small 
and portable, making discovery and intervention difficult. The labs are not limited to the 
outskirts, however, as demonstrated by the July 1999 explosion of a clandestine lab in north 
Minneapolis. Within the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area, meth sales and use are 
considered more prevalent in the St. Paul area, largely because of the blue-collar bars in the 
vicinity. 

The Minneapolis metropolitan area is characterized by multiple narcotics enforcement 
efforts with as many as nine different narcotics task forces, the MPD narcotics unit, the St. Paul 
Police Department (SPPD) narcotics unit, the Hennepin County Sheriffs Department, the FBI, 
and DEA, each working narcotics cases in the area. In addition, the MPD has a number of 
district-level Community Response Teams (CRTs) involved in undercover operations in the city 
of Minneapolis. Once a week, Lieutenant Isaac Delugo of the MPD and the meth initiative 


manager, along with members of the East and West task forces, the Airport Police, DEA, FBI 
and ten officers from his own unit assigned to different area task forces, meet to discuss current 
investigations and to decide whether particular cases merit joint investigative efforts. 

Unlike the CRTs, which respond to citizen complaints and focus on a variety of problems 
from crack houses to prostitution, the MPD narcotics unit has focused on long-term 
investigations using traditional undercover techniques. 

Narcotics officers reported that they were each involved in two to three active cases and 
about half of those involved meth. They noted that they used the same enforcement techniques 
with meth as with other drugs, and that they worked regularly with other task forces in the area 
and had a very good relationship in particular with the Hennepin County Sheriffs Department. 
They also said that they tried to make cases that could be taken to federal court in light of the 
stiffer sentences in the federal guidelines. One problem they encountered, however, was that 
they were seeing more cases where amphetamine was being sold as methamphetamine. This 
poses a particular problem because the sentencing guidelines have no special provisions for 
amphetamine as they do for meth (see, United States Sentencing Commission, 1999:26). 

Law enforcement officers and prosecutors have stated that methamphetamine cases pose 
particularly difficult problems. As described earlier, meth does not appear to have the same 
market dynamics as cocaine, heroin, or marijuana. Perhaps related to the alleged paranoia that 
exists with meth users, sale and use tends to be more hidden from public view. More 
importantly, ethnic/racial and language barriers hamper larger quantity investigations involving 
Hispanic groups. The MPD has only two Hispanic narcotics officers, an insufficient number to 
make buys or to monitor and translate the surveillance transcripts in these cases. Prosecutors 
also noted that unlike cocaine cases, meth cases tend not to directly involve the leaders of the 
groups. Most prosecutions involve mules or gophers, many of whom do not know who the 
kingpins are in the organization. They also noted that those who are arrested tend not to reveal 
anything about the network in spite of facing serious jail time. 

Law enforcement officials have been able to make several significant cases, nonetheless. 
The most noteworthy was the arrest of Juan Monroy and Alfredo Prieto, the leaders of a major 
drug ring responsible for distributing over 100 pounds of meth. The Monroy and Prieto network 
was involved in shipping meth from Mexico to California and then to Minnesota. The case, 


completed in mid-1999, led to the arrest of several other members and the seizure of 34 pounds 
of meth, at the time the largest seizure of this type in Minnesota history. In addition to Monroy 
and Prieto, 11 other members of the network were convicted in federal court. 

Since the Monroy and Prieto prosecutions, there have been a number of additional major 
cases involving Mexican National groups trafficking large amounts of meth into the Minneapolis 
region. An ongoing investigation targeted a group involved in both meth and cocaine trafficking. 
The meth was coming from Arizona and California. A traffic stop in Kansas resulted in the 
seizure of 13 kilos of meth and indicated the meth was tied to the group under investigation in 
Minneapolis. A warrant served on a Minneapolis house led to several arrests, including an 
individual believed to be a major figure in a Mexican National organization. Approximately 
$260,000 in cash was seized at the house. 

The SPPD narcotics unit also had a significant bust involving meth. In a joint Title III 
operation with DEA and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, a number of arrests 
and seizures of 56 pounds of meth, 12 pounds of cocaine, marijuana and guns were carried out. 
The COPS grant provided support for the overtime expenses associated with this operation. 

The summer of 2000 witnessed several additional large meth seizures. Hennepin County 
Sheriffs Department (HCSD) seized 20 pounds, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension seized 26 
pounds, and the SPPD seized 46 pounds. All involved Mexican National dealers. The COPS 
funding for overtime and equipment was considered instrumental in these seizures by officials 
from these agencies. Indeed, one law enforcement official reported that while the arrests would 
have likely occurred eventually, the COPS overtime funding allowed for a much more intensive 
investigation and more timely arrests and seizures. 

The COPS methamphetamine initiative was credited with assisting law enforcement 
partners in several different ways. The overtime funding was seen as particularly important for 
carrying out effective investigations of meth-dealing groups. This was considered essential for 
facilitating long-term, costly, intensive investigations of drug trafficking organizations. 

Officials from both agencies were very appreciative of the equipment provided through 
the Meth Initiative. One official describing the equipment said, The COPS grant was a 
godsend. The two-way digital phones allowed secure communication within narcotics units and 
between units. One narcotics officer explained that the phones immeasurably helped us (MPD 


and HCSD) in working together. The cameras and recording equipment replaced outdated 
equipment and were considered very important in building cases. MPD officials were 
particularly pleased with the digital camera and lens equipment purchased under the grant. 
Officers noted that with major cases the camera was often used on a daily basis for several 
weeks. The advantages of the camera include its high quality of pictures given varying light 
conditions, the ability to rapidly print out pictures from the computer, and the ability to share 
pictures across units and agencies. 

Law enforcement officials also spoke of the increased effectiveness based on surveillance 
bugs, hidden cameras, digital cameras, and meth safety equipment for the meth lab-certified 
officers. Additionally, the grant supported the purchase of several drug-sniffing canines that 
were deployed by the Minnesota State Patrol. All metropolitan law enforcement agencies were 
able to call the MSP canine unit for support. 

Law Enforcement Data 

In 1997, there were 22 meth labs seized (statewide). This increased to 46 in 1998 and 109 
during 1999. The first four months of 2000 witnessed 45 lab seizures (see Exhibit 11). Officials 
estimate that two-thirds of the lab seizures occur in the non-metropolitan regions of the state 
(Butler Center, 2000). 

Exhibit 11: Meth Lab Seizures, Minnesota 

Year 			Lab Seizures 
1997 			22 
1998 			46 
1999 			109 
2000 (January-April) 45 (135 projected) 
Source: Falkowski, 1998; Butler Center, 2000 

The increase in meth availability, and the increased attention to meth manufacture and 
distribution, is reflected in drug cases prosecuted in federal court. From 1995 to 1998 
methamphetamine cases hovered between 20 and 30 cases per year. They then more than 
doubled in 1999 to 81 (see Exhibit 12). 


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

Exhibit 12: Drug Cases Sentenced in U.S. Federal Court, Minnesota 

Line Graph
 
 
Methamphetamine arrests comprise a small portion of the Minneapolis Police 
Departments narcotics enforcement. From January through October 2000, there had been 41 
arrest incidents involving meth. This compared to 31 in 1999 and 50 in 1998 (through October 
of each year). Each year, this represented 1 percent of all drug arrest incidents (see Exhibit 13). 
In contrast, as Exhibit 14 indicates, meth arrests were more prevalent in St. Paul. Examining the 
January to October period revealed 219, 140, and 152 meth arrests from 1998 through 2000, 
respectively. This comprised between 14 and 18 percent of all the drug arrests made by the St. 
Paul Police Department. 


Exhibit 13: Minneapolis Police Department Arrest Incidents Involving Drugs

						Total arrest 
Year (January 		Arrest Incidents 	Incidents Involving 	Meth as Percent 
through October) 	Involving Meth 		Drugs 			of Total Cases 
1998 			50 			4132 			1.2 
1999 			31 			3816 			0.8 
2000 			41 			3791 			1.1 

Minneapolis Police Department Arrest Incidents Involving 
Methamphetamine and Total Drug Arrest Incidents 

				Arrest Incidents 
				Involving 		Arrest Incidents Involving 
				Methamphetamine 	Drugs 
			1998 	1999 	2000 		1998 	1999	2000 

January 		4 	0 	1 		323 	296 	296 
February		5 	2 	5		428	338	438 
March 			6 	5 	5 		456	404 	460 
April 			2 	7 	3 		419 	381 	372 
May 			5 	1 	3		424	325	399 
June 			11 	2 	6 		433 	435 	335 
July 			8 	3 	3		428 	408 	297  
August 			5 	2 	6		480	455	438
September 		0 	6 	3 		385 	390 	362
October 		4 	3 	6		356	384	394
November 		3 	6 			343 	380 
December 		1	8 			298 	362 
Jan-Oct 		50 	31 	41 		4132 	3816 	3791 
Percent of total 	1.2 	0.8 	1.1 
 
Source: Minneapolis Police Department, CODEFOR Unit 


Exhibit 14: St. Paul Police Department Arrest Incidents Involving Drugs

						Total Arrest 
Year (January 		Arrest Incidents 	Incidents Involving 	Meth as Percent 
through October) 	Involving Meth 		Drugs 			of Total Cases 
1998 			219 			1242 			17.6 
1999 			140 			977 			14.3 
2000 			152 			843 			18.0 

St. Paul Police Department Arrest Incicdents Involving 
Methamphetamine and Total Drug Arrest Incidents 

			Arrest Incidents 		Arrest Incidents 
			Involving 			Involving 
			Methamphetamine 		Drug 
			1998 	1999 	2000 		1998 	1999	2000 
January 		17 	20 	9 		122 	124 	67 
February		24	15	14 		117 	82 	69
March 			45 	16 	19 		141 	105 	96 
April 			30 	11 	21 		143 	105 	89 
May 			22 	11 	13 		124 	77 	77 
June 			12	11 	8 		93 	96 	69 
July 			14 	11 	10 		119 	102 	60 
August 			21 	11 	15 		111 	103	120 
September 		21 	16 	26 		109 	91 	107 
October 		13 	18 	16 		161 	102	89 
November 		16 	10 	18 		108 	92 	64
December 		17	8	7		116 	79	39 
Jan-Oct 		219 	140 	152 		1242 	977 	843 
Percent of total 	17.6 	14.3 	18.0 

Source: St. Paul Police Department 

Data from the Hennepin County District Court present a picture quite similar to that 
found in the law enforcement data. Meth cases comprised less than five percent of all the drug 
cases in District Court. The number of meth cases increased from 64 in 1999 to 101 in 2000 
(January through November). This mirrored an overall increase in drug cases from 1467 to 1997 
(see Exhibit 15). As Exhibit 16 indicates, males comprise most of the defendants in both meth 
cases (81.2 percent) and non-meth drug cases (86.7 perceent). The strong racial pattern observed 
in treatment data was also apparent in the court data. Just under 90 percent of the meth 
defendants were white whereas only 23 percent of the non-meth drug defendants were white. 


Exhibit 15: District Court Drug Cases, Meth and Non-Meth1999-2000 (Hennepin 
County) 

January-November 1999 			N 	Percent 
Methamphetamine Cases 			64 	4.4 
All Other Drug Cases 			1403 	95.6 
Total 					1467 	100.0 

January-November 2000 
Methamphetamine Cases 			101 	4.8 
All Other Drug Cases 			1997 	95.2 
Total 					2083 	100.0 

Source: Data provided by Hennepin County District Court 

Exhibit 16: District Court Drug Cases by Gender and Race1999-2000 (Hennepin 
County) 

			Methamphetamine 	All Other Drugs 	Total 
Gender 			N 	Percent 	N	Percent 	N 	Percent 
Male 			134 	81.2 		2934 	86.7 		3068 	86.4 
Female 			31 	18.8 		451 	13.3 		482 	13.6 
Total 			165 	100 		3385 	100 		3550 	100 
Race/Ethnicity 
Non Hisp Asian/PI 	0 	0 		22 	.6 		22 	.6 
Hisp Asian/PI 		0 	0 		5 	.1 		5 	.1 
Non Hisp Black 		10 	6 		2326 	68.7 		2336 	65.8 
Hisp Black 		0 	0 		6 	.2 		6 	.2 
Non Hisp Ind/Akan 	2 	1 		82 	2.4 		84 	2.4 
Hisp Ind/Akan 		1 	.7 		9 	.3 		10 	.3 
Non Hisp White 		145 	88 		769 	22.8 		914 	25.7 
Hisp White 		7 	4.3 		160 	4.7 		167 	4.7 
Unknown 		0 	0 		6 	.2		6 	.2 

Total 			165 	100 		3385 	100 		3550 	100 

Source: Data provided by Hennepin County District Court 

In 1999, 44 percent of meth defendants plead guilty in District Court (Hennepin County). 
This increased in 2000 to 50 percent. In both years this was a higher rate of guilty pleas than 
was true for other types of drug cases (see Exhibit 17). This was also reflected in the 
dispositions presented in Exhibit 18. Just less than one-half of the meth defendants in 1999 and 
just over one-half in 2000 were convicted. This was a higher conviction rate than in other drug 
cases. Similar numbers of meth and non-meth cases were diverted from court, though this 
declined from 27 percent in 1999 to 18-19 percent in 2000. 


Exhibit 17: Type of Plea Entered, District Court (Hennepin County)

			Methamphetamine 	All Other Drugs 	Total 
January-November 1999 	N 	Percent 	N 	Percent 	N 	Percent 
Plead Not Guilty 	36 	56.2 		934 	66.6 		970 	66.1 
Plead Guilty 		28 	43.8 		469 	33.4 		497 	33.9 
Total 			64 	100.0 		1403 	100.0 		1467 	100.0 

January-November 2000 
Plead Not Guilty 	50 	49.5 		1234 	62.3 		1284 	61.6 
Plead Guilty 		51 	50.5 		748 	37.7 		799 	38.4 
Total 			101 	100.0 		1982 	100.0 		2083 	100.0 

Source: Data provided by Hennepin County District Court 

Exhibit 18: District Court Dispositions, District Court (Hennepin County)

Final Disposition 	Methamphetamine 	All Other Drugs 	Total 
January-November 
1999 			N 	Percent		N 	Percent		N	Percent
Conviction 		30	46.9		476	34.0		506	34.5		
Continued for 
Dismissal 		0	0		1	.1		1	.1
Diversion 		17	26.6		381	27.1		397	27.1
Acquittal 		0 	0 		10 	.8 		10 	.8 
Dismissal 		9 	14.1 		274 	19.5 		283	19.2 
Warrant/Pending 	8 	12.5 		261 	18.6 		269 	18.3 
Total 			64 	100 		1403 	100 		1467 	100 
 
January-November
2000
Conviction 		52 	51.5 		775 	39.1 		827 	39.7 
Continued for 		0 	0 		10 	.5 		10 	.5 
Dismissal 
Diversion 		18 	17.8 		381 	19.2 		399 	19.1
Acquittal 		0 	0 		14 	.8 		14 	.8 
Dismissal 		17 	16.8 		406 	20.5 		423 	20.3 
Warrant/Pending 	14 	13.9 		396 	19.9 		410 	19.6  
Total 			101 	100.0 		1982 	100.0 		2083 	100.0 
Source: Data provided by Hennepin County District Court 

The conviction disposition increased in severity from 1999 to 2000 for meth cases. As 
Exhibit 19 indicates, the percent of first, second, and third degree felony convictions increased 
from approximately 24 percent of meth convictions in 1999 to 38 percent in 2000. There was 
no such increase in the disposition severity in non-meth cases. This may reflect either 


heightened narcotics enforcement attention or changes in prosecutorial emphasis on meth cases, 
or both. As Exhibit 20 illustrates, there was also a decrease in the number of meth defendants 
receiving probation, with more defendants receiving at least some sentenced time in the local 
work house, work house plus prison, or prison. Further, meth defendants were more likely to 
receive some type of incarceration than were non-meth drug defendants. 

Exhibit 19: Disposition Severity, District Court (Hennepin County) 

Level of Drug 
Offense 		Methamphetamine 	All Other Drugs 	Total 
January-November 
1999			N 	Percent 	N 	Percent 	N 	Percent 
First Degree 		6 	9.3 		96 	6.8 		102	7 
Second Degree 		4 	6.3 		113 	8.1 		117 	8
Third Degree		5 	7.8 		180 	12.8 		185	12.6 
Fourth Degree 		0 	0 		37 	2.6 		37 	2.5 
Fifth Degree		49 	76.6 		957 	68.2 		1006 	68.5
Simulated 		0 	0 		20 	1.5 		20 	1.4 
Total			64 	100 		1403 	100 		1467	100 

January-November
2000
First Degree 		7 	6.9 		130 	6.6 		137 	6.6 
Second Degree 		20 	19.8 		165 	8.3 		185 	8.9 
Third Degree 		11 	10.9 		227 	11.5 		238 	11.4 
Fourth Degree 		1 	1 		37 	1.9 		38 	1.8 
Fifth Degree 		61 	60.4 		1274 	64.3 		1335 	64.1 
Simulated 		1 	1 		149 	7.4 		150 	7.2 
Total 			101 	100 		1982 	100 		2083 	100 

Source: Data provided by Hennepin County District Court 


Exhibit 20: District Court Sentences, Hennepin County

Type of Sentence 	Methamphetamine 	All Other Drugs 	Total 
January-November 	N 	Percent 	N 	Percent 	N 	Percent 
1999 
Prison 			7 	10.9 		58 	4.1 		65 	4.4 
Stay Prison-Work 	9 	14.1 		179 	12.8 		188 	12.8 
House 
Stay Prison-No Work 
House 			1 	1.6 		26 	1.9 		27	1.8 
Workhouse 		9 	14.1 		190 	13.5 		199 	13.6 
Stay Workhouse 		1 	1.6 		5 	.4 		6 	.4 
Probation 		37 	57.8 		945 	67.4 		982 	66.9 
Total			64 	100 		1403 	100 		1467	100 

January-November
2000
Prison			12 	11.9 		126 	6.4 		138	6.6
Stay Prison-Work 	17 	16.8 		280 	14.1 		297 	14.3
House
Stay Prison-No Work 
House 			3 	3.0 		38 	1.9 		41	2.0 
Workhouse 		19 	18.8 		270 	13.6 		289 	13.9
Stay Workhouse 		0 	0 		3 	.2 		3 	.1
Probation 		50 	49.5 		1265 	63.8 		1315 	63.1
Total 			101 	100 		1982 	100 		2083 	100 

Source: Data provided by Hennepin County District Court 

Laboratory Activities 

The Minneapolis Health and Family Support Department Laboratory has been in 
existence since 1895 and began systematic drug testing in the late 1960s. The lab conducts about 
half the drug tests in the metro area, sharing responsibility with two other labsthe state Bureau 
of Criminal Apprehension and the St. Paul Police Department. The lab services approximately 
60 agencies and conducts all the tests for the MPD and the COPS Methamphetamine Initiative. 
They also noted that they do not receive information from any other of the labs, and that they 
may not see all the meth in the county. 

In terms of methamphetamine, they noted that when they do test methamphetamine, they 
tend to get the entire seizure. While they have seen meth at the lab at least for the past 10 years 
there has been a definite and substantial increase recently. Meth seizures tested in the lab 
increased from 26.9 pounds in 1997 to 70.2 pounds in 1998. They noted, for example, that they 


had six cases that included one pound of meth each and one case of one pound of amphetamine.4 

They reported that they began to see an upturn in meth in the area approximately three years ago 
when they began hearing about it.particularly in the south metro area. While it had been 
prevalent in the biker population for some time, it has now spread to other areas of the city. 
Crack continues to be the drug of choice in the inner city, but there is evidence of an increase in 
low-purity level, cut meth in the southern suburbs. Pure white meth is relatively rare. Most 
meth is cut with Dimethyl sulfone that is available through veterinarians offices for arthritis in 
animals, and which is also found in some industrial solvents. They said they do not recall seeing 
crystal meth; and while they have seen a few cases of heroin, Ecstasy, and some GHB 
submissions, the predominant drugs are cocaine and marijuana. They did note an increase in 
Khat, a plant legal in Somalia but a controlled substance here. They attribute this increase to the 
growing Somalian population. 

Exhibit 21 presents monthly data on meth samples submitted for testing from January 
1999 through October 2000. The data indicate significant month-to-month variation but there 
does seem to be a steady flow of meth samples. Further, there is some evidence of an increase in 
the amount of meth seized from 1999 to 2000, with very significant amounts seized in April and 
October 2000. 

4 The Minneapolis Health and Family Support Department Laboratory reports that amphetamine and 
methamphetamine are very similar, differing only in the precursor or starter drug (norephedrine or 
norpseudophedrine vs. ephedrine or pseudophedrine). 


Exhibit 21: Meth Samples Tested in Lab

Line Graph
1999 Monthly Average = 1278.4 grams 
2000 Monthly Average = 1582.8 grams 

The 22-month period witnessed 536 meth samples from 195 cases submitted to the lab 
(see Exhibit 22). MPD submitted 31 percent of the samples and was involved in just over one-
quarter of the cases. In addition to MPD, samples were submitted from the Hennepin County 
Sheriff, ten other police departments, six task forces, the FBI, and the MSP. As Exhibit 22 
indicates, there were no major shifts from 1999 to 2000. The total number of cases was nearly 
equal (87 and 84, respectively) but the 2000 samples tended to include more meth per month, per 
case, and per sample. 


Exhibit 22: Data on Meth Samples Submitted to Minneapolis Health Department 
Lab, 1999-2000 

				Total 
			(Jan 1999-Oct 2000) 	Jan-Oct 1999	 	Jan-Oct 2000 
			Number 	Percent 	Number 	Percent 	Number 	Percent 
Total cases submitted 
to lab 			195 	100.0 		87 	100.0 		84 	100.0 
MPD cases 		53 	27.2 		21 	24.1 		22 	26.2 

Total meth samples 	536 	100.0 		288 	100.0 		182 	100.0 
MPD samples 		169 	31.5 		67 	23.3 		61 	33.5 

Total grams 		31,169.4 100.0 		12,882 	100.0 		15,828.2 100.0 
Grams per month 	1416.8 			1288.2 			1582.8 
Grams per case 		58.2 			44.7 			86.9 
Grams per sample 	159.8 			148.1 			188.4 

Purity 
Samples 75-100% purity 	46 	8.7 		24 	8.5 		7 	3.8 
Samples 50-74.9% purity 26 	4.9 		7 	2.5 		9 	4.9 
Samples 25-49.9% purity 69 	7.1 		20 	7.1 		39 	21.4 
Samples 0-24.9% purity 	390 	73.4 		232 	81.9 		127 	69.8 

As is evident in Exhibit 22, there is significant variability in purity levels. Law 
enforcement and lab officials attribute this to the point in the distribution chain where the seizure 
occurs. High purity levels tend to indicate locally cooked meth that has not been cut. In 
contrast, lower purity levels tend to indicate meth being imported from Mexico that has been cut. 

In 1999, 13.6 percent of the meth samples submitted to the lab were above 50 percent 
purity levels. During the first ten months of 2000, this had dropped to 8.7 percent. Local 
officials attribute this to the increase in meth imported into the region, as opposed to locally 
cooked meth. 

Partnerships 
Organizational Structure 

Understanding the context in which the Minneapolis Meth Initiative operates is made 
complicated by the wide array of enforcement agencies currently engaged in narcotics 
enforcement in the metropolitan area. In addition to the ten agencies that make up the initiative 
there are at least six Multijurisdictional Drug Task Forces operating in the area. Moreover, the 
Airport Police, Bloomington Police Department, Champlin Police Department, West Hennepin 


Department of Public Safety, Minnesota Gang Task Force, and several small agencies are also 
involved in narcotics enforcement and have submitted evidence from methamphetamine seizures 
to the lab. Finally, within the MPD itself, there are decentralized narcotics officers, known as 
CRACK Teams, working within in the Community Response Teams (CRTs) that engage in 
proactive, neighborhood level enforcement activities in the citys five precincts.5 

5 While most CRACK teams are a part of the CRT Teams, several CRACK teams now operate independently and 
are no longer associated with the CRTs. 

Cooperation and Coordination 

Relationships between law enforcement agencies in the Minneapolis and St. Paul metro 
areas appear to have improved over the course of the Meth Initiative. The first site visit 
indicated a lack of interaction between the MPD and the St. Paul Police Department. However, 
changes in personnel in both departments narcotics units coupled with the interaction through 
the Meth Initiative has led to increased cooperation between the two agencies. An SPPD official 
stated, The grant forced us to work together. An MPD official added, We are all playing well 
together. Officials from both agencies agreed that the level of cooperation between the two 
agencies was much better than had been true in the past. 

Beyond SPPD and MPD, local officials credit the Meth Initiative for creating a vehicle 
for increased interaction and cooperation among all the participating regional law enforcement 
agencies. Coming together to plan and implement the grant was seen as helping build 
relationships among the various narcotics units and drug task forces. Indeed, participants said 
one of the biggest benefits of the grant was that it provided a vehicle for bringing together people 
from a variety of agencies that are addressing the illegal drug problem. An investigator with the 
DEA task force also expressed these sentiments. He noted that for years, given all the narcotics 
units and task forces operating in the region, narcotics officers were tripping over each other all 
the time. The meth grant was helpful by bringing key players together on a regular basis to 
share information. We have been able to do a lot of work with the narcotics unit and the crack 
teams due to the funding available from the meth grant, he said. Additionally, the MPD 
narcotics unit has maintained a centralized confidential informant (CI) database that has been 
helpful in coordinating narcotics investigations. One official seemed to capture narcotics 


officers sentiments when he noted, We work together on a daily basis and have a great 
relationship. 

In addition to the day-to-day investigative work, partnerships were also strengthened 
through the collaborative commitment to training. The MPD and the Bureau of Criminal 
Apprehension (BCA) have taken a creative approach to providing training statewide (see 
subsequent discussion). The COPS Meth Initiative was used to develop the training materials 
and to provide the training at no cost to the partnering agencies. BCA has separate funding that 
allows training to be provided to law enforcement, firefighters, and EMS personnel throughout 
the state. There has been considerable interest in training from agencies outside the metropolitan 
area. Indeed, meth training has occurred not only in the Twin Cities area but also in Rochester, 
New Ulm, Fergus Falls, and Duluth. 

The impression of strong collaboration from the interviews was also supported in the 
partnership survey of key actors involved in the Meth Initiative. Eighty percent or more of the 
respondents noted that the partners work well together, key agencies are included, and that the 
partners are vested in the effort (see Exhibit 23). Similarly, there are high levels of agreement 
that members are kept well informed and have common goals (see Exhibit 24). Some members 
of the initiative are concerned about whether the partnership will continue once federal funding 
ends, and some members report that they do not know about some aspects of the initiative (e.g., 
barriers to effective communication, sharing information with the public, partnership on track for 
meeting goals). 


Exhibit 23: Perceptions of Collaboration and Membership, from Partnership 
Survey (N=15) 

								Dont 
	Item 						Agree 	Know 	Disagree 
Collaboration 
Partners work well together 				87% 	13%	0%	
Key players from other agencies included 		93 	7 	0
Members work well with agencies outside partnership 	80 	20 	0
Partnership will remain in place once federal funding is 40 	40 	20
gone 
Internal issues, problems addressed immediately 	80 	20	0
Processes in place to handle conflict 			53 	40 	7
Each partner is vested in effort 			80 	20 	0
Clearly defined roles and responsibilities 		73 	20 	7
 
Membership 
All necessary agencies have been included 		73 	20	7
Members are open to outside ideas or suggestions 	73 	27 	0
Partnership is flexible in that members could be added 	67 	20 	13

Exhibit 24: Perceptions of Communication and Goals, from Partnership Survey 
(N=15) 

								Dont 
	Item 						Agree 	Know 	Disagree 
Communication 
Members are well informed 				67% 	27% 	7%
There is active listening among partners 		67 	33 	0
Each member has an equal voice 				33 	27	40
Regularly scheduled partnership meetings occur 		40 	20 	40
Information is shared in a timely manner 		73 	13	13
There are barriers to effective communication 		43 	36 	21
Information is shared with the public			33 	47	20

Goals 
Partners have common goals 				80 	20 	0 
A timeline and roadmap for fulfilling goals has been
established 						73 	27 	0 
Partnership has realistic, obtainable goals 		73 	27	0
Goals are measurable 					67 	33 	0
Partnership on track for meeting goals 			53 	47 	0

As Exhibit 25 indicates, most of the participants believe that the initiative has the 
potential to reduce the meth problem, that adequate attention is being paid to enforcement of 


drug laws related to meth, and that adequate attention is being given to training. There were very 
high levels of agreement that participants have been pleased with their involvement, have a 
better understanding of the meth problem, and are committed to continued involvement. A 
sizeable proportion of the respondents reported that they did not know whether adequate 
attention was being given to treatment for meth users or whether the initiative has led to 
improved quality of life. Again, respondents expressed some concern about the partnership 
continuing when the federal funding expires. 

Exhibit 25: Perceptions of Strategy and Knowledge Beliefs about Initiative, from 
Partnership Survey (N=15) 

								Dont 
	Item 						Agree 	Know 	Disagree 
Strategy 
Initiative has potential to reduce meth problem 	73% 	27%	0%
Under initiative, adequate attention being paid to 	80 	20 	0
enforcement of drug laws related to meth
Under initiative, adequate attention being paid to 
treatment for meth users 				13 	73	13 
Under initiative, adequate attention being paid to 
training law enforcement in meth identification and 	87 	13 	0 
laws 
Under initiative, adequate attention being paid to 
community awareness of meth problem 			73 	20	7 
Initiative has helped organizations increase resources 	80 	20 	0 
Efforts under this initiative will continue when 
federal funding runs out 				53 	47	0
Quality of life in our jurisdiction has/is improving 
under this initiative 					47 	53 	0

Knowledge and Beliefs 
My participation in initiative has made a positive 	80 	20 	0
difference 
I am enjoying working on this initiative 		93 	7 	0 
I am committed to continuing my involvement with the 	93 	7 	0 
meth problem after federal funding ends 
I have a better understanding of the meth problem since 100	0	0
my involvement on this project 
My awareness of resources in the community to fight 
the meth problem has been increased 			80 	20 	0 

Treatment/Drug Court 

There are no specific treatment components to this particular initiative. There is, 
however, a relatively new drug court and a long-standing commitment to drug treatment in the 
state. The Hennepin County Drug Court is unusual in that it is a comprehensive drug court. All 
felony drug cases come to the drug court with the exception of those involving serious persons 
offenses. Thus, the court is responsible for trafficking, manufacturing, dealing, and possession 
cases. Court officials estimated that Hennepin County has one of only five or six comprehensive 
drug courts among the approximately 600 drug courts in the United States. The court was 
implemented in 1997. 

In the early 1990s, Hennepin County initiated a diversion program intended to divert 
crack users (primarily) into treatment. Local officials were committed to retaining an adversarial 
component in the diversion program so that defendants did not have to waive their rights to 
challenge the charges they faced in order to access treatment. This created long delays between 
arrest and entry into treatment. Indeed, following arrest most defendants were released and 
would not make their appearance in court for six or seven months. Furthermore, only 30 percent 
of those charged and who qualified for diversion entered the program. The diversion program 
was also seen as lacking because it did not include regular drug testing. Consequently, during 
1996 a planning committee was created to design a more effective approach to drug cases. The 
committee designed a comprehensive drug court that would handle all felony drug cases. The 
court made a commitment that all drug cases would make an initial court appearance within 24 
hours and, with just a few exceptions,6 all drug case defendants would go through a drug test and 
a chemical health assessment in order to identify treatment needs. Defendants with no prior 
felony convictions would be eligible for diversion to treatment, and other defendants placed on 
probation would also be eligible for treatment. Both diversion and probation cases would 
participate in judicial monitoring, drug testing, and treatment or related programs (e.g., jobs, 
GED). The court retained an adversarial component whereby defendants retain the right to 
challenge (most commonly in suppression hearings) but where they can begin treatment prior to 
the resolution of legal proceedings. Hennepin County was also encouraged to move toward a 


drug court by the widespread availability of drug treatment programs and by the availability of 
funds to provide treatment for drug court clients. 

6 The typical exception is a very serious felony where incarceration in prison seems highly probable. In such 
cases responsibility for drug assessment and treatment shifts to the state Department of Correction. 

Drug Court Process 

Defendants in drug cases arrested by 4:00 a.m. appear in drug court by 1:30 p.m. the next 
afternoon. A drug test and a chemical assessment evaluation are conducted. If the assessment 
indicates a substance abuse problem, the defendant can be conditionally released to treatment. 
The theory is that the crisis created by the arrest may produce an amenability to treatment that 
may not be present following months of court proceedings. Consequently, the goal is to make an 
evaluation, referral, and placement in treatment within 36 hours of arrest. 

Cases coming into drug court generally fall into one of three categories: 

 Prison-bound (drugs and a gun, very large quantities of drugs, and long prior 
records) cases that are generally handled through a plea bargain 
 Probation cases that may include incarceration up to 12 months in the county 
workhouse (a minimum security adult facility holding approximately 400 people) 
and that are eligible for treatment and judicial monitoring 
 Diversion to treatment for first-time possession cases 

The probation and diversion cases are typically placed on a program of judicial 
monitoring, drug testing, and treatment. Under this regime, for the initial 90 days clients are drug 
tested at least weekly, in treatment if assessed to need treatment, and either in school, working, 
or in a GED or work preparation program. During this period clients report to the judge once per 
month. If making satisfactory progress, drug tests are reduced to twice monthly during the 
second 90-day period, with appearance before the judge on a bi-monthly basis. Both of the 
presiding judges attribute much of the programs success to the frequent contacts defendants 
must have with the judges. This contact is not only for the purposes of deterrence. In instances 
of successful completion, and in recognition of successful constructive events in the lives of 
defendants, the judges have ceremonies to mark the occasions. Judge Lynn noted, We do a lot 
of cheerleading. This is the first time anything positive has happened to many of these people. 

Approximately 1100 to 1500 drug court clients are assessed annually, with 60 percent 
subsequently enrolled in treatment. This is an increase from approximately 30 percent of drug 
case defendants who received treatment prior to drug court. 


Drug Court and Probation Clients 

As noted in the earlier section on the meth market, the court-related meth users who 
participated in the survey tended to have more extensive involvement in the use of a variety of 
drugs and were younger at first drug use (compared to other court-related drug users). Meth 
users were also more likely to report feeling dependent on drugs and to have received treatment 
prior to the drug court experience. Meth users were somewhat more likely to report having 
received treatment while in drug court. Almost one-half of both meth and non-meth users 
reported having completed treatment (see Exhibit 26). 

Exhibit 26: Experience with Treatment and in Drug Court

					Meth Users 	Non-Meth Users 

Felt dependent on drugs 		66.7 		38.1 
					(n=69) 		(n=391) 
Received treatment before drug 		47.8 		24.3 
court 					(n=69) 		(n=395) 
Received treatment while in drug 	70.6 		54.8 
court 					(n=51) 		(n=292) 
Finished treatment 			47.2 		49.7 
					(n=36) 		(n=292) 
Treatment was very helpful in 		44.4 		69.6 
getting off drugs 			(n=36) 		(n=158) 

Source: Data provided by Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support 

One-third of meth users reported that they started using meth to get high (see Exhibit 
27). One-quarter stated that they started using because their friends and peers used meth. Other 
reasons for using meth included to stay awake, to get more energy, to replace another drug, and 
to lose weight. Forty percent claimed to prefer meth to cocaine or crack, whereas 59 percent said 
they did not. Of those who preferred meth to cocaine or crack, over half reported that meth 
produced a better high; another quarter stated that the high lasts longer. 


Exhibit 27: Meth Users Reported Reasons for Starting to Use Meth

						Percent 
Reason started to use meth 			N=69 
To get high 					33.3 
Friends/peers used 				24.5 
To stay awake 					14.5 
To get more energy 				11.6 
To replace another drug 			10.1 
To lose weight 					4.3 

Prefer to cocaine or crack? 			N=68 
Yes 						39.7 
No 						58.8 
No cocaine or crack use 			1.5 

Of those who prefer to cocaine/crack, why? 	N=27 
High is better 					51.9 
High lasts longer 				25.9 
Cheaper 					11.1 
Easier to get 					3.7 
Other 						7.4 

Source: Data provided by Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support 

The interviews with drug court clients also provided insight into their perceptions of the 
utility of drug court. One set of items asked what the client hoped to gain by participating in 
drug court. The two most common responses were to stay out of jail or prison and to have 
charges dropped (see Exhibit 28). Approximately 20 percent stated that they hoped to receive 
treatment. Other responses included getting back with family and finding a job. The pattern of 
responses was quite similar for meth users and other drug users. 

Exhibit 28: Drug Court Clients Goals for Participating in Drug Court

				Meth Users 	Non-Meth Users 
Hope to get out of drug court 	(N=51) 		(N=292) 
Stay out of jail/prison 	45.1 		39.7
Charges dropped 		35.3 		43.2
Receive treatment 		21.6 		19.5
Get back with family 		7.8 		14.7
Find job 			4.0		9.6
Other 				49.0 		42.1
 
Source: Data provided by Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support 


Drug court clients were also asked to assess how helpful they found various elements of 
drug court. Seventy percent of meth users stated that the threat of jail was most helpful and 60 
percent reported the fine reduction for a clean drug test was most helpful (see Exhibit 29). Fifty 
percent reported that random drug tests were most helpful. Forty-five percent reported that 
meetings with the judge were most useful and 6 percent reported meetings with probation 
officers were most useful. When the helped most and it helped some responses are 
combined, it becomes clear that meth users are supportive of all the program components. 
Indeed, nearly 70 percent find meeting with the probation officer to be at least somewhat helpful 
and over 80 percent believe the other elements are helpful. The patterns were quite similar for 
non-meth drug users though these users were somewhat more supportive of the various program 
elements than were meth users. This may reflect the earlier finding that the meth users tended to 
be more experienced drug users. 

Exhibit 29: Drug Court Clients Perceptions of Elements of Drug Court

			Meth Users 			Non-Meth Users 
		Works 	Helped 	Doesnt 	Works 	Helped 	Doesnt 
		Most 	Some 	Work 	N* 	Most 	Some 	Work 	N* 
Threat of jail 	70.0 	14.0 	16.0 	50 	78.6 	10.4 	11.1 	280 
Fine reduction 	60.5 	31.6 	7.9 	38 	67.4 	22.3 	10.3 	224
for clean UA test 
Random drug 	50.0 	30.0 	20.0 	50 	64.8 	21.7 	13.5 	267
testing 
Meetings with 	44.9 	44.9 	10.2 	49 	61.8 	28.9 	9.3 	280
judge 
Meetings with 	5.7 	62.9 	31.4 	35 	33.8 	35.1 	31.1 	225 
probation 
officer 

* The varying Ns reflect dont know responses. The series of questions were asked of 51 meth users and 
292 other drug users. 

Source: Data provided by Minneapolis Department of Health and Family Support 

There is a wide array of treatment providers in the community who provide varied 
treatment programs and offer cultural and gender specific programs. There are 88 treatment 
programs in the metropolitan area with which the Department of Adult Services has contracts, 
and 17 of these programs have contracts with the drug court. Additionally, the court offers an 


MRT program that offers a cognitive, moral development approach, and a job preparation and 
GED program. 

Several innovative program components are included in drug court. All of the probation 
officers and most of the prosecutors and public defenders are specifically assigned to drug court. 
The court routinely imposes a substantial fine ($6,000). The court uses the fine as a positive 
reinforcement tool, however. Defendants are tested one to two times a week and every negative 
drug test earns the defendant $250 toward the fine. Thus, 24 negative drug tests eliminate the 
fine. A consortium of African-American churches offers approximately 50 one-on-one mentors 
for young African-American males in drug court. Additionally, several of the service providers 
operate on a faith-based model. Several community groups have requested that the drug court 
incorporate restorative justice principles. Essentially, the community groups would like the 
opportunity to explain to drug offenders how their drug-using behavior affects the neighborhood. 

The drug court staff member responsible for the GED and jobs training program is also 
involved in discussions with military personnel about the possibility of successful drug court 
clients joining the military. Because many of the defendants have child support payments but 
often have trouble paying them, the army is viewed as a possible source of aid in that it offers 
enlistees child support assistance. 

Resources for Drug Court and Treatment 

Minneapolis benefits from a long history of state commitment to substance abuse 
treatment. 7 Local officials have estimated that there is more treatment available in the 
Minneapolis metropolitan region than in approximately 35 states. The Department of Adult 
Services, a state agency, provides funding for treatment as well as a statewide program of 
treatment assessment (Chemical Health Division). If the Chemical Health Division finds an 
individual in need of treatment, state funding is provided. 

The treatment programs are subject to regular monitoring by the Drug and Alcohol Abuse 
Normative Evaluation System (DAANES), which assesses the number of referrals, levels of 
treatment, rate of completions and discharges. These data are then used during contract 
negotiations between the Department of Adult Services and the treatment providers. 

The SAMHSA Treatment Locator identifies 190 treatment facilities within 100 miles of Minneapolis. 


The drug court decided against charging user fees for drug court clients. The exception is 
a $25 fee used to support special court programs (e.g., bus tokens to come to court for drug tests 
and appearances or to get to treatment). 

Prevention 

The Minneapolis initiative focuses on both education and training. Each will be 
discussed briefly. 

Education 

The education component is taking what is described as a train-the-trainer approach in 
which school officials are learning about meth. The hope is that these individuals will be able to 
educate others about meth and be alert to signs of meth abuse within the school population. 
Officials from the Health Department and the Hazleden Institute developed the educational 
program. The training is geared toward school health teachers, chemical health specialists, 
school nurses, school liaison officers (MPD), and alternative school staff. 

The first training took place on April 2, 1999. There were approximately 35-38 
attendees. The course included a focus on marijuana in the morning and meth in the afternoon. 
The information presented included local data on use of meth and other drugs, behavioral 
characteristics of meth users, presentations on identifying meth and related chemicals and 
materials, and similar issues. The meth initiative team also plans to develop a 12-minute video 
presentation to be made available to the schools. 

Another key prevention component is the public education campaign. A number of 
extremely professional education materials were generated through the grant. Two distinct 
posters were created and distributed. One was designed for businesses (3,000 produced), another 
for schools (2,000-2,500 produced). Additionally, a neighborhood resource guide on meth was 
developed. Nearly 5,000 guides (4,600) were produced and distributed to community groups 
throughout the metropolitan region. 

In addition to the posters, MPD created a video on meth use and labs for use with block 
clubs. The tape is just under five minutes and discusses meth, its dangers, lab materials, and 
contact resources. Thirty copies of the tape were made and will be used with block clubs 
throughout the city. 


Training 

The Meth Initiatives main achievement has been the development of an ambitious 
training program. MPD has developed a four-hour training program for first responders and an 
eight-hour training program for investigators. A training team convened by MPD and including 
officials from the DEA, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and Fire Department developed the 
training component. The four-hour training session covers topics such as the scope of 
clandestine laboratory hazards, understanding the cooking process and toxic effects, dangers to 
first responders, employee health and safety, medical screening and chemical monitoring, cleanup 
activities, and community awareness. The eight-hour session also includes topics on legal 
issues related to liability, enforcement issues on investigation and prosecution, hands-on 
experience at a mock lab, and the role of various agencies. 

The group also developed very sophisticated and professional training materials. These 
included a background paper on meth and folding brochures on identifying meth precursor 
chemicals and lab materials, procedures to follow when potential labs or materials are 
discovered, vehicle stop procedures, and related matters. Approximately 2500-3000 of the 
brochures were distributed to police, fire, and emergency response teams that attended training, 
as well as to city sanitation, parks, utility, and other workers. 

The group also decided to develop a training video on traffic stops. This was based on 
several incidents in which officers making traffic stops stumbled on "TOTE Bag Labs" in which 
meth chemicals are found in a vehicle stop. The video focuses on identification of chemicals and 
materials and procedures to follow. MPD's goal is to train all sworn staff. Most will attend the 
four-hour session, with investigators attending the eight-hour session. The training is also being 
extended to firefighters, ambulance staff, and law enforcement personnel throughout Minnesota. 
The eight-hour session has also included prosecutors and personnel from the Pollution Control 
Agency. 

The four-hour training began on April 5, 1999. The eight-hour training began on April 
20, 1999. Through October 2000, 89 courses had been offered with 3,455 students attending. 
Students included law enforcement patrol officers, investigators, and first responders such as 
emergency medical service personnel and fire fighters. The training sessions have generally 
included 30 to 40 attendees, with half the sessions open to partner agencies. Officers from DEA, 


BCA, and MPD conduct the training. In addition, MPD and the Bureau of Criminal 
Apprehension have partnered for out-state training that has taken place in New Alm, 
Rochester, Duluth and Fergus Falls and other regions of the state. 

During 1999, the training team decided to expand the training to include transit, housing, 
sanitation and parks employees, all who may come into contact with clandestine meth labs. The 
focus of these sessions was on recognition of meth labs and response (who to call) in the event 
that they suspect such a lab. They also incorporated a train the trainer method to educate block 
clubs on the identification and dangers of meth. This included the development of neighborhood 
watch brochures on meth as well as training and materials distributed to retail stores that sell 
potential precursor materials. In the future they hope to carry out a billboard campaign that will 
include a contest for students to design a display that will then be posted on billboards 
throughout the city. 

The training appears to have been well received. Formal evaluations were available from 
479 students attending 22 courses. Based on a 10-point scale where 10 indicates the highest 
possible rating, courses averaged a rating of 8.6 for the overall quality of the course. Students 
rated the usefulness of the course information as 8.8 (see Exhibit 30). 

Exhibit 30: Methamphetamine Training

Year 			# Courses 	# Students 	Overall 	Usefulness of 
						    Quality of Course    Information 
						     (10 = highest)    (10 = highest) 
1999 			54 		1870 
2000 (through October) 	35 		1585 
Total 			89 		3455 		8.6 		8.8 

Source: Data provided by Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension 

The training brochures developed through the grant have been considered a big success. 
In fact, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ordered 200 brochures to be used in their 
own training courses, and MPD has received requests for these materials from agencies 
throughout the country. 

The team that developed the training for MPD noted that a bi-product of the grant has 
been much closer working relationships between MPD, DEA, BCA, SPPD, and the Fire Marshal. 


Further, MPD training officials stated that the meth grant was instrumental in developing and 
delivering meth training. One official stated, I dont see how else (absent the COPS grant) we 
ever would have done all the training. 

Media Coverage 

During 1996, several feature articles in the Minneapolis Star Tribune began to focus on 
meth as a potential threat to public safety. Interest in meth appeared to stem from a combination 
of national attention and several high-profile local incidents. For example, a March 1996 article 
titled, Drug officers turn their attention to meth, focused on the seizure of a meth lab in 
Minneapolis, as well as former Attorney General Renos comments at a Department of Justice 
(DOJ) conference on the growing meth threat. This was reinforced in a September article that 
reported on a DOJ meeting of the U.S. Attorneys from 14 Great Plains states that sought to stop 
the spread of meth across the Plains and Midwest. 

The theme that meth had moved from a potential to a real threat in Minnesota was 
apparent in a series of articles in September and October 1998. The lead story noted, Just three 
years ago it was insignificant in Minnesota. It was that West Coast problem. The headline 
announced, The new drug of choice: methamphetamine explodes onto Minnesota scene 
(Minneapolis Star Tribune, 9/27/98). The remainder of the series focused on homeless teens 
who were thought to be using meth frequently. 

During 1999, a series of articles focused on raids on meth labs, fires from meth lab 
explosions, and dangers posed to citizens, law enforcement officers, and the environment. In 
January, a meth lab was uncovered in an ice-fishing house on a lake 25 miles east of 
Minneapolis. One of the responding officers was overcome by the fumes from the chemicals. In 
July, a chemical explosion at a Minneapolis home led to two meth cookers being severely 
burned. The release of toxic fumes led to six police officers and three paramedics being 
hospitalized. Local residents were vacated and the Interstate highway was closed for a short 
time. The article noted that Minneapolis was using a federal grant to provide training and public 
education about the growing meth problem. 

The following month, another high profile incident brought continued attention to the 
meth problem when officers shot and killed a suspect who initially shot at officers during a drug 
raid at a farm. The raid was based on intelligence from the July meth lab explosion. 


These incidents were followed in November by a lab seizure said to have sufficient 
chemicals to level a Minneapolis block. This incident again led to a major story that focused 
not only on the specific incident but on the broader meth problem. Following a four-month 
investigation, Minneapolis narcotics officers entered a building to arrest a suspect. They found 
the suspect surrounded by chemicals. The narcotics unit detective reported, When the officers 
went in and arrested the guy they took one look around and knew they had to get the hell out of 
there (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 11/11/99). The article noted how the officers had recently 
attended a special training on meth investigation and were consequently able to appropriately 
and safely respond to the potentially explosive situation. The article also reported that the COPS 
grant was being used to train non-law enforcement personnel including block club leaders, 
housing inspectors, and public works employees, and to educate high school students about the 
dangers of meth. 

The attention to meth continued in stories throughout 2000. These included several fires 
caused by meth labs, reports of meth distributors being arrested and convicted, and several 
violent confrontations between the police and meth users. 

Community Policing 

Making a connection to community policing efforts did not appear to be an explicit goal 
of the grant implementers. Rather, the projects commitment to and reliance on building 
partnerships with a variety of public agencies and community groups all reflect a community 
policing philosophy. 

The relationship between MPD and the County Health Department was described as an 
entirely new one that emerged from the methamphetamine initiative. The data collection by the 
lab, the research component, and the community education effort all reflect the new 
collaboration. As noted above, the community education component is focused on the schools. 
Attendees in the educational program include MPD, school liaison officers, DARE officers, 
health educators, and other school personnel. The training and education group has also worked 
with MPDs 32 community safety officers, who provide presentations on meth to the city's Block 
Clubs (Neighborhood Watch Program), community organizations, and business associations. 


The meth training also helped build relationships with a variety of other local government 
agencies. Specialized meth training was developed for Minneapolis city risk managers (each 
unit of city government has a risk manager), department of transportation employees (primarily 
sanitation and parks), and housing inspectors. 

Finally, the training on meth provided to all MPD officers was an indirect method to 
ensure that officers involved in community policing were prepared to work with community 
constituencies on the meth problem. This was particularly true for district CRT teams that are 
responsible for neighborhood drug complaints.8 

8 This is in contrast to the narcotics unit that is focused on long-term investigations 
of drug distribution networks. 

Summary 

The fact that the Meth Initiative was implemented when methamphetamine was emerging 
as a new and growing drug problem in the Minneapolis region makes assessing the initiatives 
impact on the meth problem particularly difficult. On the one hand, many indicators of meth use 
have not continued to escalate, as they appeared to be doing in 1997 and 1998, and this may be 
an indicator of the initiative having a positive effect. On the other hand, other indicators (e.g., 
meth seizures) have increased. This would seem to reflect increasing amounts of meth in the 
region. Then again, it may indicate increased law enforcement effectiveness through the support 
of the Meth Initiative. 

Despite these caveats, it does appear that the COPS methamphetamine initiative had a 
major effect by increasing the capacity of law enforcement agencies, prosecution and court 
personnel, health officials, treatment providers, school officials, emergency response personnel, 
and other public officials to respond to the meth problem. This impression was clearly manifest 
in interviews with officials both within and outside law enforcement agencies and appears 
supported in the relevant data. Some of the key elements of this capacity building include: 

 The extensive training provided locally and throughout the state to both law 
enforcement and other public officials. One Health Department official 
commented, the initiative got meth on peoples radar screens so they understand 
the nature and damage that such a drug can do. 
 The training and public education materials produced and widely disseminated 
not only increased knowledge and awareness but also fostered partnerships 


between law enforcement, educators, health and treatment officials, fire and 
emergency response officials, and other agencies. 

 The purchase of surveillance and communications equipment enhanced 
investigations and also assisted in collaboration among narcotics units. 
 Overtime funding supported long-term investigations, including expensive 
wiretap cases, of trafficking organizations. 
 The Health Department research supported problem solving by creating a picture 
of meth use and distribution heretofore unavailable to local officials. 

Additionally, although the relatively small number of cases makes interpretation difficult, 
there was some evidence that the heightened attention to the meth problem may have affected 
either narcotics enforcement attention or prosecutorial emphasis (or both). Specifically, during 
2000 meth defendants were more likely to plead guilty, to be convicted of a higher-level felony, 
and to serve a portion of the sentence in either the workhouse or prison than was the case in 
1999. Further, most of the changes were restricted to meth cases rather than all drug cases. 

Local officials also identified several ongoing issues and concerns: 

 The need for overtime funding and buy money.
Narcotics officers described these as the two most important resources for conducting
effective investigations of drug trafficking organizations. Indeed, during one site visit the 
research team observed a situation where an undercover officer had to convince a dealer to front 
him the money for one pound of meth because the narcotics unit did not have adequate buy 
money to make the purchase. 

 The need for ongoing federal assistance 
Given the continued severity of the cocaine and crack cocaine problems, local officials 
have tremendous difficulty generating resources to address an emerging drug problem such as 
meth. Local officials credit the COPS Meth Initiative for enabling them to develop and 
implement the training and public education efforts and to conduct the research. They believe, 
however, that they could do much more in terms of intervention, training and public education, 
and prevention with ongoing federal support. Local officials also note that it would be very 
helpful, and would support problem-solving efforts, if federal grants such as the COPS Meth 
Initiative included resources for clerical support and crime analysts. 


 Adequate funding for DEA meth lab clean-up efforts 
Given the serious environmental consequences and the tremendous costs associated with 
cleaning up meth labs, local officials rely on the DEA to address lab clean-ups. As described in 
other sections of the country, local officials are very concerned about DEA having adequate 
budgetary support to continue to handle meth lab clean-ups. 

Conclusion 

All agree that the Minneapolis methamphetamine initiative has brought attention to what 
appears to be an emerging problem in the area. Interestingly, law enforcement indicators, 
including seizure data (amount and purity levels), clandestine lab cleanups, and anecdotal 
accounts from undercover narcotics officers indicate an increase in meth activity. In contrast, 
treatment data, hospital admissions and mortality data, drug court referrals, and arrests paint a 
somewhat different picture. These data show the problem to be quite small in Minneapolis (and 
in some instances, declining) relative to other drug problems, particularly cocaine, marijuana, 
and heroin. Interpreting these contradictions in the data is both difficult and perhaps premature. 
Clearly drug arrests are a function of both enforcement intensity and market dynamics, and most 
effort by the MPD and other task forces in the metropolitan area is directed toward the cocaine 
and crack cocaine markets. Unlike crack, which can be found readily in open-air drug markets, 
meth markets are difficult to penetrate, since meth users appear to reside predominantly in the 
rural and suburban areas of the Twin Cities, and since they tend to purchase from one source in 
residential settings. 

Several officials offered potential explanations for the somewhat divergent picture 
emerging from the data. Several treatment officials noted it could be that the dangerous and 
damaging effects of frequent meth use make it a self-limiting drug. The well-known 
consequences of frequent use, including rapid physical deterioration, combined with the less-
than-pleasant feelings of paranoia, anger, and confusion, are most certainly unattractive features 
to many drug users. 

Another theory is that as the purity levels of meth have declined, there are fewer acute 
incidents such as emergency room episodes and treatment admissions. Thus, use could be level 
or increasing but not showing up in these types of indicators. 


A final theory, though difficult to test, is that the increased enforcement activity and the 
increased officer awareness due to the training, has led to increasing meth and lab seizures, while 
at the same time maintaining a lid on increased meth use. Local officials certainly believe that 
the federally funded Meth Initiative has increased local capacity for enforcement, training, and 
prevention and public awareness. 

There is little doubt that the greatest dangers to meth reside with the use of highly volatile 
and lethal toxic substances required in the manufacturing of this drug. Recent explosions in 
Minneapolis and elsewhere clearly indicate that clandestine labs are time bombs. They have the 
potential for killing or maiming not only the producer/user but also countless innocent victims. 
The Meth Initiative in Minneapolis has directed a substantial portion of its attention to improving 
awareness of these potential or existing dangers. Other enforcement agencies would benefit 
from looking closely at these efforts to reduce the potential for harm by such makeshift labs. 

Finally, given the urban/rural distinction in the use and distribution of meth in Minnesota, 
it appears to be an appropriate expenditure of resources to expand the training related to meth 
manufacture, distribution, and use to the entire state rather than to focus on the metropolitan 
region alone. Clearly, partnering the COPS Meth Initiative with state funding to provide 
statewide training has been a wise investment of public resources. 


References 

Butler Center for Research at Hazelden. 2000. Drug Abuse Trends Report in the Minneapolis/St. 
Paul Area  June 2000. www.hazelden.org/research/publication_detail.cfm?id=107 

Butler Center for Research at Hazelden. 1999. Drug Abuse Trends Report in the Minneapolis/St. 
Paul Area  December 1999. www.hazelden.org/research/publication_detail.cfm?id=95 

Falkowski, C. 1998. Drug Abuse Trends Minneapolis/St. Paul: December 1998. Center City, 
MN: Hazelden Institute. 

Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. 2000. Sentencing Practices: Drug Offenders 
Sentenced in 1998. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. 

Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. 1998. Sentencing Practices: Drug Offenders 
Sentenced in 1997. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. 

Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. 1997a. Sentencing Practices: Drug Offenders 
Sentenced in 1996. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. 

Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. 1997b. Sentencing Practices: Drug Offenders 
Sentenced in 1995. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. 

National Institute of Justice. 1999. 1998 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile 
Arrestees. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

National Institute of Justice. 2000. 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile 
Arrestees. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 

United States Sentencing Commission. 1999. Methamphetamine: Final Report. www.ussc.gov 


Chapter 8 

Recommendations and Conclusions 

In 1998 the COPS Office provided funding to six police agencies across the United States 
to combat their local methamphetamine problem through intervention, prevention, treatment, and 
community policing strategies. These sites (Phoenix, Dallas, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, 
Minneapolis, and Little Rock) were also encouraged to form new partnerships or strengthen 
existing ones with other local agencies in their communities (e.g., other law enforcement 
agencies, social services agencies, treatment providers, and drug courts). 

The six sites were similar in that they were all located west of the Mississippi River and 
all saw meth first distributed by outlaw motorcycle groups. However, it was immediately 
apparent that these sites had more differences than similarities. First, the size of their 
populations and thus the size of their agencies varied significantly. Salt Lake City and Little 
Rock both with populations around 175,000 have between 400 and 500 sworn officers, while 
Dallas and Phoenix serve populations over one million and have between 2,500 and 3,000 sworn 
officers. 

The sites also varied in their local meth market characteristics. Phoenix, Salt Lake City, 
Oklahoma City, and Dallas saw meth as an emerging problem in the early part of the 1990s, 
while Minneapolis and Little Rock have seen meth as a more recent phenomenon. Furthermore, 
while all of these sites first characterized meth users as white and primarily blue collar workers, 
the demographics have changed over time. Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, and Little 
Rock still describe users as primarily white although they are seeing more ethnic and economic 
diversity. Dallas and Minneapolis have seen more Hispanics among meth users, which is 
significant given the role that Mexican nationals have played in trafficking the drug into these 
locales. This change in user demographics also impacts the manufacturing and distribution of 
meth into an area. That is, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, and to a lesser degree Oklahoma City and 
Little Rock are dealing primarily with clandestine labs operated by local users, while Dallas and 
Minneapolis are dealing more with Mexican nationals trafficking meth into their cities. 

The sites varied in their approaches to implementing the Meth Initiative project, in part 
because of their differences in meth market dynamics. The evaluation team studied the sites' 


implementation efforts and measured the degree to which they implemented intervention, 
prevention, treatment, and community policing strategies. The level of cooperation among 
partnering agencies was also examined. 

The evaluation methodology included interviews with key project partners, quantitative 
data collection (including arrest data, clan lab seizures, treatment admissions, public awareness 
statistics, etc.), other qualitative data collection (including ride-alongs, drug court observations, 
etc.), a partnership questionnaire, and a review of national databases including TEDS, DAWN, 
and ADAM. 

The Meth Initiative in Six Sites 

The findings from the evaluation indicate that the sites varied in the extent to which they 
met some of their proposed activities for the Meth Initiative. However, while all sites 
experienced shortfalls in some areas of their projects, they met with much success in others. 

All of the sites employed some type of intervention strategies to address their local meth 
market. Generally, most intervention strategies focused on arrests and clandestine lab seizures. 
All of the sites also provided some type of training to law enforcement officials that often 
covered drug identification and clan lab identification (e.g., glassware, pre-cursor chemicals, 
etc.). Some went even further with Minneapolis creating one 4-hour and one 8-hour training 
session for law enforcement. Various equipment was also purchased. Among other things, 
Oklahoma City purchased robots for clan labs, Minneapolis purchased two-way digital phones, 
and Salt Lake City purchased Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) equipment. 
Finally, there were also unique intervention approaches at the sites. Phoenix had a dedicated 
prosecutor from the County Attorney's Office who handled only meth cases. Little Rock focused 
law enforcement resources on pre-cursor chemical abuse (i.e., targeting those individuals selling 
or buying in large quantities). Salt Lake City had a rather extensive intervention component in 
their project; they had representatives from several agencies co-located at the police department 
including an Deputy District Attorney, a Health Department worker, a Division of Child and 
Family Services (DCFS) worker, and a City Prosecutor. The project also funded an Intelligence 
Analyst position. 


Prevention and education efforts were implemented at all of the sites; however, some 
efforts were more comprehensive than others. For various reasons, Dallas and Little Rock 
seemed to have the most difficulty with their prevention and education efforts. Phoenix had the 
most extensive and unique community education campaign of all the sites. In addition to some 
common publicity efforts (e.g., booklets and pamphlets), they also implemented a non-traditional 
media campaign that encompassed anti-meth messages on grocery bags at local stores, postcards 
that were inserted into videos at a local rental store, and the production of a video which won a 
Telly award. 

Among the six sites, treatment efforts proved to be less extensive compared to other 
components of the Meth Initiative projects. Oklahoma City, Dallas, and Salt Lake City included 
drug courts as partners in their projects. The Minneapolis project did not include a formal 
treatment component, although there is a great deal of commitment to drug treatment in the state. 
Oklahoma City, Dallas, and Minneapolis all saw some real progress in their partnerships with 
drug courts and also in their efforts to treat meth-addicted individuals. 

Community policing efforts existed in these agencies to varying degrees. Five of the six 
agencies had some type of formal written plan for community policing. All of the agencies 
assigned patrol officers to geographic areas and four of the six assigned investigators to 
geographic areas indicating that de-centralization had taken place to some degree. All of the 
sites had officers assigned specifically to conduct community policing activities; although it was 
not clear what type of role they played or whether they were assigned to special units. 

For most of the sites, community policing strategies were not specifically tied to the Meth 
Initiative project. Salt Lake City had the most comprehensive program, defining their efforts 
through the use of Community Action Teams, nuisance abatement procedures, consensual 
searches (or "knock and talks"), and multi-agency partnerships. Dallas, Little Rock, 
Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, and Phoenix all defined their Meth Initiative community policing 
efforts through their project partnerships, community involvement in training, and public 
awareness campaigns. 

Finally, the six sites were expected to work on creating better working relationships with 
other local agencies in their respective areas. All of the sites formed successful partnerships with 
Salt Lake City's approach being the most comprehensive. Overall, Salt Lake City had more than 


30 partner agencies involved in the project: other law enforcement agencies (including federal 
agencies), the Health Department, the Division of Child and Family Services, the District 
Attorney's Office, and the State Attorney General's Office among others. 

The Meth Initiative Evaluation and Recommendations 

The national evaluation of the COPS Meth Initiative provided support to some already 
known facts about the meth problem in the US; it also shed light on some emerging trends. 
Perhaps the most notable observation is the degree to which methamphetamine is associated with 
geographic regions of the United States. Although all six sites had encountered meth in their 
communities, it was clear that the Western-most states were hit hardest by the drug. Phoenix and 
Salt Lake City had identified meth as a significant problem in their communities; this was 
reinforced by findings from national surveys on emergency room admissions, arrestee drug 
testing, and clandestine lab seizures. Dallas and Oklahoma City saw a more recent emergence of 
a meth problem in their communities while neither Minneapolis nor Little Rock considered meth 
a significant drug problem in their areas. In short, the Meth Initiative provided the necessary 
resources to fight an already significant problem for some sites and exposed a largely unknown, 
but growing problem at other sites. 

As evidenced by Minneapolis and Little Rock, and based on increasing news coverage of 
meth occurrences on the East Coast, it appears meth is rapidly expanding to new parts of the 
country. This information could be used to the advantage of those areas that may only recently 
be seeing meth in their communities. It is especially relevant for agencies responsible for 
combating drug abuse in their communities. Much can be gained by studying and understanding 
the existing meth markets including those reported on here. Given that meth poses serious health 
risks to those using the drug as well as those who are unwittingly exposed to its hazardous 
chemicals, training on identifying methamphetamine, its chemical components, and clandestine 
laboratories should be addressed first. 

Furthermore, the geographic borders of the meth problem and the variation in meth 
market characteristics have clear implications for law enforcement efforts and policy 
implementation. For example, cities with a larger meth trafficking problem will be 
implementing different strategies than those with a significant clandestine lab problem. 


Similarly, cities dealing with a long-time meth problem will encounter different issues than those 
with an emerging meth problem. While there is no uniform way to approach methamphetamine 
abuse in a community, several key issues have been identified through this evaluation as well as 
through the complementary research done in conjunction with the evaluation. 

The national evaluation of the COPS Methamphetamine Initiative produced a number of 
recommendations on intervention, prevention, treatment, and community policing strategies to 
help reduce methamphetamine abuse. 

Intervention 

The COPS Methamphetamine Initiative sites participated in a variety of enforcement 
efforts to address and decrease meth abuse in their communities. Numerous recommendations 
arise from their efforts as well as other agencies' documented experiences with meth. 

1. Identify the source of meth: This may seem straightforward, however, the 
manufacture and distribution of the drug can vary from city to city (e.g., trafficked 
in from outside the area, or cooked in local labs). There may also be changes 
within a city over a period of time. For example, Dallas first focused their 
intervention efforts on Mexican national traffickers, but mid-way through the 
project re-oriented their resources to combat the emerging clandestine lab 
problem in the area. Mexican national traffickers were also prevalent in Phoenix 
and Minneapolis while Salt Lake City and Oklahoma City had more small, local 
labs producing the majority of the drug. Depending upon size, the location of 
clandestine labs also varies across sites. Large "super labs" that have the capacity 
to produce 10 pounds of meth or more per process tend to be located in remote, 
rural locations to reduce the possibility of detection. On the other hand, cooks 
producing in smaller batches have the option and the mobility to set up a lab and 
cook almost anywhere. "Boxed" labs found in hotels, storage units, basements of 
homes, or even in the trunk of a car are not uncommon. The size and location of 
clandestine labs present different problems for law enforcement personnel. 
Larger labs yield larger quantities of the drug but may be easier to detect because 
of their size. Although yielding a lesser amount of the drug, smaller labs are more 
mobile, making detection more difficult. Smaller labs (especially when they are 
found in homes or hotels/motels) also have the potential to contaminate a greater 
number of properties and endanger more individuals than larger labs. 
Understanding the source of meth in a community informs law enforcement 
strategies and helps to better focus efforts on specific characteristics of local meth 
markets. 
2. Approach from a closed-market perspective: In part because the drug is 
manufactured in clandestine labs, methamphetamine operates in a closed market, 
making enforcement more difficult. Police are faced with the challenge of 
breaking into a drug market where much of the buying, selling, and cooking 


happens in private residences or rural locations, and among a group of people who 
are generally familiar with one another. In fact, it is rare to find 
methamphetamine being sold in public areas (e.g., street corners) or to individuals 
that the seller does not know. Thus, the approach to investigating these types of 
cases is very different than other investigations which rely more heavily on open 
air markets (e.g., marijuana, cocaine, etc.). Enforcement efforts for meth may 
rely more heavily on long-term, undercover investigations whereas other drug 
cases may rely on the less time consuming "buy-bust" or other similar strategies 
to be more effective. 

3. Identify the user population: Identifying the meth-abusing population in an 
area can be difficult. As was found among the Meth Initiative sites, meth users 
can be a heterogeneous group in many ways. While meth users have historically 
been described as white men who work blue collar jobs, this trend has been 
changing. Meth users today are more racially diverse and tend to fall into a wide 
range of ages and socioeconomic classes. It is also important to note here that 
females are becoming more prevalent in the market as well. While female cooks 
might still be rare, they are increasing in numbers. With this increased diversity 
in meth-using populations, it has become more difficult to identify the typical 
meth user making it more difficult to focus anti-meth efforts. However, because 
the meth market relies heavily on individuals who know one another, law 
enforcement may find that individual groups of meth users may be relatively 
homogeneous. The heterogeneity may be more apparent when comparing groups 
across the larger local, state, and/or national markets. 
4. Evaluate local sales practices and current legislation regarding pre-cursor 
chemicals: The evaluation revealed variation among the sites regarding the 
accessibility of pre-cursor chemicals. Most of the sites had legislation or 
regulations guarding the sale of pre-cursor chemicals including ephedrine and 
pseudoephedrine. According to Phoenix, pre-cursors remained readily available 
despite these formal regulations. Little Rock chose to focus their attention on the 
sale of pre-cursor chemicals although there were no formal laws or regulations 
outlining specific policies to address those who illegally participated in the 
activity. Law enforcement resources should focus on local sales of pre-cursor 
chemicals and officers should be on the lookout for distributors selling precursors 
in unusually high quantities. Additionally, state lawmakers should be 
proactive in outlining laws and sanctions for buying and selling pre-cursor 
chemicals for the purpose of manufacturing meth. 
5. Garner support and resources from various city agencies: Attacking a 
methamphetamine problem in any community is difficult. However, a multi-
agency approach to combating meth has proven to be a successful approach for 
many of the Meth Initiative sites. The manufacture, distribution, and use of 
methamphetamine has significant impacts beyond those individuals directly 
involved in the trade. The cooking process alone can impact and likely harm a 
multitude of people, not to mention contaminate the environment where the drug 
was manufactured. Minneapolis garnered support from a multitude of other local 
law enforcement agencies, while Salt Lake City recruited the help of other city 


agencies such as the District Attorney's Office, Health Department and the 
Division of Child and Family Services all of which have enforcement powers to 
augment the local police department's scope of authority. Convening a multi-
agency group to attack a local meth problem can increase available resources 
exponentially, thereby also increasing the likelihood of success. Law 
enforcement and other agencies should be creative in their partnerships and their 
approach to combating meth in their communities. Non-law enforcement agencies 
such as the health department, local hospitals, child and family services, 
hotel/motel associations, and others can make a significant impact on identifying, 
reporting, and addressing methamphetamine problems in a community. 

6. Identify or outline appropriate seizure, clean-up, and decontamination 
policies: Responsibility for lab seizure and clean up was not outlined at many of 
the Meth Initiative sites. That is, responsibility fluctuated between local police 
departments and the DEA or other federal enforcement agencies (e.g., HIDTA). 
This was often due to local agencies lacking the necessary training and equipment 
to appropriately and safely seize a lab and collect evidence. Protocols should be 
put in place which outline the appropriate agencies to call when a meth lab is 
discovered. These agencies should be trained and well-equipped to handle the 
dangerous chemicals involved in the process. 
Furthermore, the residual effects of meth production are felt well after the cook is 
over. As noted in chapter one, dangerous contaminants result from the cooking 
process such as lead, acid, and gasoline. Meth cooks frequently dump their 
residual chemicals in a convenient place such as a backyard, in an abandoned 
container, or down a sink drain. This type of dumping again creates a dangerous 
situation for unknowing individuals and causes serious environmental damage 
requiring expensive clean up. Small departments and even some larger 
departments are often unable to handle the cost of removing hazardous materials 
and are forced to rely upon some outside funding source (including the DEA). 
Furthermore, because it is so cost-prohibitive, or perhaps because they do not 
fully understand the consequences of chemical contamination, property owners 
are reluctant to completely overhaul an area after it has been contaminated thus 
leaving a property contaminated with dangerous chemicals. Some Meth Initiative 
sites lacked laws or regulations outlining hazardous waste removal and 
rehabilitation standards for properties that had been contaminated with dangerous 
chemicals. It is important to set out standards or regulations (even at the local 
level) to identify responsible parties and define "how clean is clean" so that 
properties can be renewed to a clean, and livable space. For example, despite two 
failed attempts to pass state legislation, Salt Lake City was successful in passing a 
city-wide ordinance to address these important issues. 

7. Review and revise (if necessary) endangerment procedures and legislation: 
There is significant physical danger to those involved in and those in the 
surrounding area of a meth cooking operation. Highly toxic and unstable 
chemicals coupled with the limited and sometimes non-existent knowledge of the 
cooker make for a highly dangerous situation. The danger is not only posed to the 
"cooks," but to live-in children or elders, neighbors, hotel guests, first responders, 


and the like who may unknowingly be ingesting fumes or exposing themselves to 
chemical contamination. Proper decontamination of individuals after they have 
been exposed to these chemicals is essential. Utah's state legislators have begun 
to address endangerment issues by passing legislation during the course of the 
Meth Initiative grant period. The new legislation allows prosecutors to file 
enhanced charges against offenders when children or elderly individuals are 
endangered by being exposed to, ingesting, inhaling, or being in contact with 
illegal drugs or chemicals. 

Prevention 

Training was a goal for all of the sites in the Meth Initiative project. Groups receiving 
training varied by site, but included law enforcement, other first responders, hotel and motel 
staff, public works companies, doctors and nurses, community organizations, landlords, etc. 
Some of the topics covered in training included drug identification, chemical identification, lab 
clean up, and health and safety issues. Not only did this type of training add to the safety of 
those individuals who may come into contact with meth or its pre-cursor chemicals, it also 
increased awareness about meth-related concerns and lent credence to the significance of the 
problem in the local communities. Some recommendations follow: 

1. Train all law enforcement officers and other first responders: Due to the 
various chemicals used in the cooking process and the inexperience of the cooks, 
there is a high potential for fires, explosions, or chemical spills. First responders 
such as police, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians are faced with an 
extraordinarily dangerous situation, especially if they are unaware of the presence 
of methamphetamine at the scene. Training efforts at the Meth Initiative sites 
proved effective in increasing awareness about the drug, pre cursor chemicals, 
and manufacturing process. Training also increased the safety of these 
individuals by educating them of the proper procedures to take when entering a 
location where meth may or may not be present (e.g., not turning on light 
switches, and opening up windows to ventilate a property). Ultimately, this 
training can prevent on-scene injuries to officers who are able to identify meth 
paraphernalia early and act accordingly. A good example of the effectiveness of 
the training was seen in Phoenix. Specifically, after a series of recent training 
session for patrol officers, the city saw an increase in the identification of meth 
labs in vehicles stopped for traffic or other violations. 
2. Train unique groups : Training given to unique community groups also proved 
successful in the Meth Initiative. The Phoenix Meth Initiative provided training 
to some very diverse groups, including schools, city and county employees, power 
companies, and the city's Department of Solid Waste Management. In Salt Lake 
City, the Meth Initiative provided training to local hotel/motel staff who then 
created a phone chain so that if a lab was found at one of the properties, other 
hotels/motels in the area would get a description of the cookers or users 


responsible for the contamination. It is likely that these individuals may be the 
first to come across a lab or a contaminated area. Thus, by educating them to 
identify methamphetamine, pre-cursor chemicals, and lab equipment they can 
help prevent injury by quickly reporting paraphernalia or suspicious activity to the 
police. 

Also, law enforcement can recruit local businesses to get involved in combating 
the meth problem themselves. For example, law enforcement can educate local 
retailers about criminal use of pre-cursor chemicals found in over-the-counter 
drugs or commercially available products (e.g., cold medicines, cleaning solvents, 
home and garden materials, etc.). Law enforcement may also train retailers to 
identify when a customer purchases a suspicious amount of a product. 

School officials, teachers, and others who spend time with children may also be a 
good source of information. In some cases, children may be exposed to chemical 
contaminants causing physical side effects (e.g., chemical burns, respiratory 
problems) that may be noticeable to others. Teachers, and others who come into 
contact with children on a daily basis can identify children who may be living in 
hazardous situations. 

3. Educate the community and garner their support: Community education 
campaigns were quite successful where implemented among the Meth Initiative 
sites. They ranged in creativity across sites with anti-meth messages appearing on 
billboards, television commercials, radio announcements, posters, shopping bags, 
and other various places. The campaigns were successful in getting the message 
out to their respective communities primarily because they used a variety of 
venues. This also created an informed citizenry and fostered open lines of 
communication so that information could be more readily shared between the 
community and law enforcement. For example, by displaying anti-meth messages 
along with a phone number, community members were better able to identify 
meth-related activity and were also more likely to contact police about suspicious 
activity in their neighborhoods (e.g., high traffic into and out of homes, odd 
smells, nuisance properties, etc.). 

Treatment 

The Meth Initiative sites did not focus a great deal on treatment although some saw more 
success than others. In general, the treatment component of the Meth Initiative for many sites 
was defined by a formalized partnership between the police department and a local drug court. 
For several sites, partnering with local drug courts meant that participants were able to gain 
access to treatment more quickly and were also held to stricter standards (including regular 
urinalysis) which were meant to prevent relapse into drug abuse. One drug court was aimed 
primarily at drug-addicted parents who were at risk of permanently losing custody of their 
child(ren). While this component was not emphasized in the Meth Initiative sites, several 
recommendations emerged from the evaluation. 


1. Include the treatment community as an important partner in combating the 
meth problem: Treatment is an essential component to reducing drug abuse in 
our communities. Several of the Meth Initiative sites outlined treatment as a 
component of their project, but they were limited in scope and typically included 
only drug courts as a partner. Dallas and Little Rock provided some funding to 
local drug courts to help provide expedited services to meth addicts. The 
Oklahoma County Drug Court had various other agencies specifically assigned to 
the court, which included a District Attorney, a Sheriff's deputy, and a local police 
officer. Minneapolis has a noted history of supporting substance abuse treatment, 
and a "comprehensive" drug court, which is responsible for almost all felony 
trafficking, manufacturing, dealing, and possession cases. While Salt Lake City 
saw a slow start to their treatment component, their eventual partnership was 
broader in scope than the others. They involved the drug court, but actively 
involved local substance abuse service providers as well as local hospitals. 
While the Meth Initiative sites saw few advances in the treatment component of 
their projects, most sites generally viewed treatment as an important piece in the 
fight against meth. Future efforts should expand beyond the obvious partnerships 
with drug courts, and reach out to local providers. These connections may help 
facilitate more expedient referrals and help individuals access services more 
quickly. 

2. Work with a drug court: Most of the Meth Initiative sites identified partnerships 
with local drug courts as a treatment component of their project. In general, the 
evaluation findings suggest that drug courts could be a beneficial option for meth 
users primarily because they expose meth-addicted individuals to treatment 
immediately and provide a more rigid structure with little tolerance for 
infractions. Thought should also be given to partnering with a broad scope of 
drug courts, including adult, juvenile, and dependency (family) courts. 

3. Partner with local treatment providers: Hospitals and local substance abuse 
agencies bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table. At the very 
least these agencies can provide invaluable training on a variety of topics, 
including the dynamics of meth abuse (e.g., routes of administration, the 
likelihood and rationale for tweaking), common side effects (e.g., physical as well 
as emotional), and steps for getting clean and how they may differ depending on a 
person's drug of choice (i.e., a meth addict may need to take a different path to 
recovery than a cocaine addict). These agencies may also participate in a more 
hands-on approach to combating the local meth problem by setting up clinics, or 
formalizing a referral protocol with other city agencies including the local police 
department. 

Community Policing 

Despite the fact that the link between community policing and the Meth Initiative project 
was not very strong, evaluation findings indicate that this is an avenue that should be further 
examined by the sites. A strong relationship between law enforcement and the community can 


help to combat the meth problem. In most of the sites this relationship began with an education 
campaign to inform community members about the methamphetamine problem. This foundation 
can be expanded to garner further support from the community and provide law enforcement 
with a direct line of communication about illegal activity in their communities. 

Additionally, all of the sites partnered with agencies in their respective communities to 
address the methamphetamine problem from a variety of angles. Given the diversity of issues 
surrounding meth abuse (e.g., nuisance properties, environmental hazards, chemical 
contamination, and endangered children), this approach is especially important to ensure that as 
many resources as possible are being employed. While some partnerships were larger in number 
than others, they were all successful in forming a solid foundation for future cooperation with 
local agencies. 

The increased communication and collaboration allowed agencies to work together more 
seamlessly. For example, some law enforcement agencies made it an informal protocol to call 
out partner law enforcement agencies to clandestine lab busts. Salt Lake City even had 
representatives from other local agencies co-located at the police department to increase 
communication and encourage collaboration. The Salt Lake City Meth Initiative evolved into a 
true collaborative effort especially through their intervention efforts. That is, appropriate 
agencies (e.g., Youth and Family Services, Health Department, etc.) were called out to crime 
scenes when it was identified that their expertise was required to handle a situation. Co-location 
also helped the partners to better understand the work and scope of responsibility of the other 
partners in the project. The project partners were adept at identifying existing agency resources, 
and were also successful in employing existing agency resources in new ways. The agencies 
were willing to adapt to new and different problems in their communities. 

1. Involve as many local agencies in anti-meth efforts as possible: Throughout 
the Meth Initiative, partnerships proved to be a successful component for most of 
those involved in the projects. It is to be expected that not all partnerships work 
as well as planned; however, the Meth Initiative sites both created new 
relationships and expanded others, and saw some significant success in doing so. 
Given that methamphetamine presents a number of serious problems in a 
community, partnerships with other local agencies as well as with community 
members can successfully attack the problem from multiple angles. 
2. Attack the meth problem from multiple angles: By partnering with agencies 
like a local drug court, a youth and family service agency, or even another law 


enforcement agency, a vast array of resources previously untapped are made 
available. Some of the agencies mentioned here were successful (to some degree) 
in getting more meth-involved individuals into treatment, being better prepared to 
handle children exposed to meth, providing appropriate resources to help families 
recover from the effects of meth abuse, and coordinating with other law 
enforcement entities to share intelligence about meth-related activity in their 
communities. Other good examples of successful partnerships included using the 
local health department to address nuisance properties and enforce the clean-up 
and rehabilitation of a contaminated property. Also, partnerships with the city 
prosecutor and the District Attorney's Office provided legal support in 
aggressively filing meth cases and using enhanced penalties for meth-related 
offenses whenever possible. 

3. Engage the community: A very important partnership that could have been 
expanded upon during the course of the grant period was one with the community. 
Most of the sites did focus some of their resources and attention on providing 
community members with educational material about meth; but only a few sites 
attempted to actively recruit their communities in the fight against meth. 
Specifically, some Meth Initiative sites proactively approached various 
community groups including local businesses to participate in training sessions on 
meth. This was one of the most important pieces of the Meth Initiative because it 
often provided the participants with their first pieces of information about meth. 
It also provided the community with a means to report suspicious or illegal 
activity to the police or other authorities. By getting the community involved, 
local officials are able to disseminate an anti-meth message, but they are also able 
to allow the community to begin to take responsibility for their own safety and the 
safety of their neighbors. 

Conclusions 

The national evaluation of the COPS Meth Initiative served several functions. It 
provided a snapshot of the scope of the methamphetamine problem in six regionally diverse 
areas of the country. The evaluation yielded valuable information about how agencies facing a 
severe methamphetamine problem addressed the local meth crisis, but it also revealed how 
agencies with an emerging meth problem worked to get in front of the problem. And, the 
evaluation provided an opportunity to examine diverse approaches to combating meth, and how 
these approaches meshed with and (in some instances) changed the existing collaborative 
structure between a law enforcement agency and other community agencies. 

As evidenced here, it is possible to educate the community and engage city agencies 
while working together with a police agency to address a community's methamphetamine 
problem. This was, in fact, the key finding of the evaluation. To effectively combat 


methamphetamine, a community must face the problem using a multi-agency, multi-faceted 
approach. This is crucial because methamphetamine does not only impact the individuals using 
or making the drug. Rather, it is the community that is affected, whether it be through chemical 
contamination of public space; an unsafe neighborhood with a great deal of drug trafficking; the 
endangerment and abuse of children; or the financial and social costs of arresting, housing, and 
treating meth-addicted individuals. 


Appendix 1


Date 

Dear : 

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) has provided 
funding to combat the methamphetamine problem in your jurisdiction. The XXXXXX Police 
Department is the recipient of grant funds under the Methamphetamine Initiative. The project 
involves a number of people and agencies actively participating in training, education, public 
awareness, law enforcement interventions, and treatment. 

The Institute for Law and Justice (ILJ) and 21st Century Solutions have been awarded a 
grant from the COPS Office to evaluate this project. As part of the evaluation, we are examining 
the relationships among the partners in the project. Your name and affiliation were provided to 
us by the XXXXXX Police Department or through our interviews with people involved in the 
program. 

We ask that you fill out the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed 
envelope to 

Institute for Law and Justice
1018 Duke St.
Alexandria, VA 22314

Your opinion about the project is extremely important to us and to the evaluation. We 
hope that you will take the time to answer these questions. If you have any questions, please call 
Stacy Osnick at 703-684-5300. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 

Sincerely, 

J. Thomas McEwen Craig D. Uchida 
Managing Principal, ILJ President, 21st Century Solutions 


Methamphetamine Initiative Questionnaire 

I. Partnership Capacity 

1. Are you a formal partner of this project? Yes ___ No ___ 
If not, do you attend meetings of the partnership? Yes ___ No ___ 
2. As a formal partner of the project how often do you attend meetings? 
a. _____ Once a week 
b. _____ Once a month 
c. _____ Once every 3 months 
d. _____ Twice a year 
e. _____ I have never attended a meeting 

3. Are members of the partnership from local agencies (city or county)? Yes ___ No___ 
4. Are members of the partnership from state agencies? 
Yes ___ No ___ 
5. Are members of the partnership from Federal agencies? 
Yes ___ No ___ 

For each of the statements below, indicate which response best fits your personal opinion.
There is also a space provided for any additional comments you may wish to make.

6. Collaboration 
		Strongly 		Dont 	Strongly 
		Agree 		Agree 	Know 	Disagree 	Disagree 
		1		2	3	4		5	
a. The partners work well together 1 2 3 4 5 
b. Key players from the different agencies have been 1 2 3 4 5 
included in the partnership 
c. Members work well with agencies outside the 1 2 3 4 5 
partnership 
d. This partnership will remain in place once federal 1 2 3 4 5 
funding for this initiative is gone 
e. Internal issues, concerns, or problems are addressed 1 2 3 4 5 
immediately 
f. Processes are in place to handle both internal and 1 2 3 4 5 
external conflict 
g. Each partner is vested in this effort 1 2 3 4 5 
h. There are clearly defined roles and responsibilities 1 2 3 4 5 
7. Members 
Strongly Dont Strongly 
Agree Agree Know Disagree Disagree 
a. All of the necessary agencies have been included in 1 2 3 4 5 
this partnership 
b. Members are open to outside ideas or suggestions 1 2 3 4 5 
c. The partnership is flexible in that members could be 1 2 3 4 5 
added if necessary 


8. Communication 

Strongly Dont Strongly 
Agree Agree Know Disagree Disagree 

a. All members are well informed 1 2 3 4 5 
b. There is active listening amongst partners 1 2 3 4 5 
c. Each member has an equal voice in the partnership 1 2 3 4 5 
d. Regularly scheduled partnership meetings occur 1 2 3 4 5 
e. Relevant information is shared in a timely manner 1 2 3 4 5 
f. There are barriers to effective communication (i.e., 1 2 3 4 5 
language, computer incompatibility) 
g. Information is shared with the public 1 2 3 4 5 

9. Goals 

Strongly Dont Strongly 
Agree Agree Know Disagree Disagree 

a. The partners have common goals 1 2 3 4 5 
b. A timeline and roadmap for fulfilling goals has been 1 2 3 4 5 
established 
c. The partnership has set realistic, obtainable goals 1 2 3 4 5 
d. The goals are measurable 1 2 3 4 5 
e. The partnership is on track for meeting its goals 1 2 3 4 5 

Comments on collaboration, members, communication, and goals: 


II. Methamphetamine Problem 

10. 
Strategy 

a. 
This initiative has the potential to reduce the 
methamphetamine problem in my jurisdiction 
b. 
Under this initiative, adequate attention is being 
paid to enforcement of drug laws related to 
methamphetamine 
c. 
Under this initiative, adequate attention is being 
paid to treatment programs for methamphetamine 
users 
d. 
Under this initiative, adequate attention is being 
paid to training law enforcement in 
methamphetamine identification and laws 
e. 
Under this initiative, adequate attention is being 
paid to: community awareness of the 
methamphetamine problem 
f. 
This initiative has helped organizations increase 
their resources 
g. 
Efforts under this initiative will continue when 
federal funding runs out 
h. 
Quality of life in our jurisdiction has/is improving 
under this initiative 

11. Knowledge and Beliefs 

a. 
My participation in this initiative has made a 
positive difference 
b. 
I am enjoying working on this initiative 
c. 
I am committed to continuing my involvement with 
the methamphetamine problem after federal funding 
ends 
d. 
I have a better understanding of the 
methamphetamine problem since my involvement 
on this project 
e. 
My awareness of resources in the community to 
fight the methamphetamine problem has been 
increased 


Comments on strategies, knowledge, and beliefs:

Please provide the following information for the person who completed this questionnaire. The information 
may be used to clarify responses or request additional information.

 
Site: ____________________________________________________________________________ 
Name: __________________________________________________________________________ 
Title: ___________________________________________________________________________ 

Agency: ________________________________________________________________________
_
Phone : _______/_____________________ Fax: _______/___________________
_
E-Mail Address: _____________________________________________________
_

Thank you for your cooperation. Please return the completed survey in the enclosed, postage paid envelope to: 

Institute for Law and Justice 

1018 Duke St. 
Alexandria, VA 22314 


Institute for Law and Justice 
1018 Duke Street 
Alexandria, Virginia 
Phone: 703-684-5300 
Fax: 703-739-5533 
E-Mail: ilj@ilj.org 

An Addendum to the Evaluation of the 
COPS Office Methamphetamine Initiative 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

January 31, 2003 

Prepared for 
Office of Community Oriented Police Services 
United States Department of Justice 

Prepared by 
Tom McEwen 
Stacy Milligan 

This project was supported by Grant No. 98-CK-WX-K058 awarded to the Institute for Law and 
Justice by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. 
Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the 
official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 


Introduction 

In 1998, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) funded six cities to 
implement anti-meth programs. Of these six cities, Salt Lake City, Utah, proved to have one of 
the largest and most diverse projects. Headed by the Salt Lake City Police Department 
(SLCPD), the overall goal of the project was to implement a system-wide approach to combat 
the local meth problem (in Salt Lake City as well as the surrounding communities).1 There was 
specific emphasis on arrests, lab seizures, enhanced prosecution of meth offenses (especially 
involving children), nuisance abatement, treatment for drug offenders, and training and education 
for local officials and community members. More than 30 agencies agreed to participate in the 
project. They represented all levels of government as well as private local agencies. 

As outlined in the National Evaluation of the Methamphetamine (Meth) Initiative final 
report, SLCPD saw real success in implementing and expanding their project. They were also 
successful in extending their grant funding period through June 2001. They did this by 
leveraging their federal dollars to gain additional resources from participating agencies. By the 
end of the funding period, several agencies had agreed to use their own monies to pay for (in 
whole or in part) staff that were previously funded through the grant. 2 SLCPD was also 
successful in absorbing several new positions that had been created using federal grant dollars 
(e.g., intelligence analyst, data analyst) into their annual budget. Finally, other agencies made a 
commitment to remain a part of the project without any contribution from federal dollars or local 
funds. 

Because of the city's success in meeting the goals of their project and in keeping such a 
large number of agencies involved in the anti-meth effort, the evaluation team believed it was 
important to follow the Salt Lake City Meth Initiative to the end of their federally funded period. 
Whereas most of the grantees used the last of their COPS dollars before the end of 2000, Salt 
Lake City continued for an additional six months and used the last of their federal dollars in June 
2001. This report represents an addendum to the final chapter on Salt Lake City's Meth Initiative 
and covers grant-funded activities from January through June 2001. 

1 The project was later expanded to focus on other drugs as well.

2 These positions included the Deputy District Attorney, the paralegal, the Child Protective Services worker from 
the Division of Child and Family Services, and the Salt Lake Valley Health Department worker. 


Evaluation Methods 

The evaluation methodology remained consistent with that of the larger evaluation effort. 
During the extension period, the evaluation team assigned to Salt Lake City continued with site 
visits, interviews, observations, and data collection. Two visits were made during the six-month 
period (March and June). While on-site, the evaluators interviewed key participants in the 
project, attended Partners Work Group meetings, attended Community Action Team (CAT) 
meetings, observed training sessions on child endangerment legislation, and participated in ridealongs. 

Salt Lake City's Project 
Organizational Change 

The SLCPD saw some organizational change at the very beginning of 2001. The new 
year brought with it a new Chief to the SLCPD who made some changes in the organization. He 
reorganized the Department and decentralized the Operations Bureau (where patrol was housed), 
and he assigned patrol officers geographically to one of two precincts. It was expected that substations 
would be built in the coming years to increase communication and interaction with the 
community. Most of the Meth Initiative staff physically remained where they had always been 
located; however, they were re-assigned to the Community Support Division in the Investigative 
Bureau. The Youth and Family Specialists (YFS) and the Community Action Teams (CATs) 
were assigned to one of the two precincts and were no longer centrally located. 

New Project Staff 

After the induction of the new Chief and his subsequent changes to the department's 
organizational structure, two new individuals were assigned to the Meth Initiative as Project 
Director (Captain) and Project Manager (Lieutenant). Both participated in the Initiative by 
sitting in on the Partner's Work Group meetings as well as subcommittee meetings. Some 
specific issues they focused on included a child endangerment checksheet for line officers, 
increased communication with partners in the Initiative, and providing counsel and advice on 
police issues. Both the Captain and the Lieutenant agreed that there was significant meth abuse 
in the Salt Lake City area, and that the Meth Initiative was extremely important in combating this 
problem. 


.Several other new individuals were brought into the Meth Initiative project. These 
newcomers included two retired police officers who were hired as part-time employees to fill the 
data analyst position. Two existing project staff from the Division of Child and Family Services 
and the Salt Lake Valley Health Department left the Meth Initiative, but were replaced with other 
agency staff. The Deputy District Attorney (DDA) position was turned over a third time since 
the project's inception. A pediatrician affiliated with the University of Utah and Primary 
Children's Medical Center was included in the Initiative as well, and she occasionally sat in on 
Partners Work Group (PWG) meetings. She was also conducting research on the prevalence of 
methamphetamine exposure on newborn babies. 

Intervention 

Intervention efforts remained the focal point of much of the Meth Initiative's work toward 
combating meth. Specifically, arrests, clandestine lab seizures, intelligence sharing, data 
analysis, crime scene response, and enhanced prosecution were given a great deal of attention 
during January - June 2001. 

SLCPD Data 

Arrests and clandestine lab seizures continued to be a significant focus of the Meth 
Initiative project. SLCPD data from the Narcotics Unit indicated that there were approximately 
78 meth-related arrests and 14 clandestine lab arrests in the first 6 months of 2001 (see Exhibit 
1). Meth-related arrests (including methamphetamine clandestine labs) constituted about 25 
percent of all drug arrests for the first part of 2001. 


Exhibit 1: Number of Drug Arrests Reported by SLCPD Narcotics Unit 
(January 1 - June 20, 2001) 

Cocaine 	176
Meth 		78	
Marijuana 	51
Heroin 		41
Other 		15
Number of Arrests 

Also during this time, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was undergoing 
some organizational changes that directly impacted the SLCPD's anti-meth efforts. Specifically, 
the DEA worked with local law enforcement agencies to train them on evidence collection and 
investigation of clandestine labs. Concurrently, the DEA was moving away from smaller local 
investigations and began focusing more exclusively on large-scale drug investigations. Because 
of these changes, the SLCPD began to take on responsibility of investigations and follow-up of 
clandestine labs. DEA provided support through providing equipment and logistics (i.e., lab 
truck, respirator filters and funding for processing the lab). Despite these changes, the 
collaborative relationship between the SLCPD and the DEA remained intact, in part because the 
SLCPD continued to assign officers to the DEA Metro Narcotics Task Force. 

Intelligence Analyst 

The Intelligence Analyst continued to work with the Meth Initiative project as well as 
with narcotics officers on a variety of projects and cases. The Analyst estimated that he spent the 
majority of his time gathering intelligence for drug cases (meth as well as other drugs), but that 
he also spent time answering the community drug hotline and working with the Automated 
Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). At the end of the federally funded period of the 


Initiative, he had begun to work on a new project that would produce a link chart of all known 
meth cooks in the state of Utah. 

The Intelligence Analyst also noted his involvement in tracking the buyers of pre-cursor 
chemicals by having companies that sell pre-cursor chemicals fill out a form to identify the 
buyers. At the time, the SLCPD was focusing on Iodine because the DEA was covering 
Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine. 

The Intelligence Analyst provided a demonstration of the statewide database ULEIN 
(Utah Law Enforcement Intelligence Network) to the evaluation team. It is web-based and 
funded with HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas) monies, and it includes information 
on individuals or groups being investigated by any law enforcement agency in the state. Some 
features of the database include search for persons, businesses, organizations, or license plate 
numbers. It also includes information on the source agency (i.e., the agency that first entered the 
person or group into the system), demographics, criminal history, last known address, identifying 
marks such as scars or tattoos, etc. The database also manages photos, property information, and 
case information. Some smaller organizations may even use ULEIN as a records management 
system. 

Data Analyst 

During the six-month extension period (January - June 2001), the Data Analyst position 
was filled by two retired SLCPD police officers. One of the retired officers had spent 25 years 
with the SLCPD. Of those 25 years, 11 were spent in homicide investigations, and 5 were spent 
in the crime lab. He is a certified fingerprint examiner and spends the majority of his time with 
the Initiative working with the AFIS. The other retired officer had been with SLCPD for more 
than 20 years. During his time with the department he worked in a variety of assignments 
including patrol, narcotics, gangs, and SWAT. He spent four years away from the department 
before returning to fill the part-time data analyst position. His main responsibilities include 
answering the community complaint hotline, collecting intelligence information, compiling other 
information for detectives' investigations, and working with the AFIS system. 

As noted in the final report, the community complaint hotline is housed in the Meth 
Initiative office and is answered by the Data Analysts, the Intelligence Analyst, and other 
members of the Meth Initiative team. While the community may call in to this line with a 


variety of complaints or requests for information, a large number (on average, more than 50%) 
are drug-related. Over the past several years, the Meth Initiative team has seen a substantial 
increase in the number of calls coming in to the office on a daily basis (sometimes as high as 1015). 
In 1998, slightly more than 400 calls came in to the department during the year. By 2001, 
slightly more than 400 calls came in to the department just during the first six months. If the 
2001 trend continues, the number of calls answered could reach more than 800.about a 100 
percent increase from 1998. 

The Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS), which had been part of Salt 
Lake City's original plan, was installed in the SLCPD only after some significant delays. The 
objective was to use the AFIS as a data collection and intelligence tool. It would also allow 
different law enforcement agencies to share fingerprint information. As of December 2000, little 
progress had been made in installing and using the AFIS in the police department. Eventually, 
SLCPD implemented their PC Pawn (personal computer pawn) project. PC Pawn consisted 
of 11 desktop computers housed at pawn shops across Salt Lake City. Since 1986, pawn shops 
in the city were required by city law to collect fingerprints from individuals selling items to the 
shop (Salt Lake City Code 5.48.070). AFIS was installed in shops that volunteered to house and 
operate the desktops and biometrics scanners. Each week, fingerprint information from the PC is 
downloaded into SLCPD's larger fingerprint database. At the time of download, fingerprints are 
scanned for matches with those already in the database. When necessary, fingerprint experts 
examine prints more closely for matches. By the end of June 2001, these systems had been in 
the field for almost three months and had collected approximately 300 prints. The SLCPD was 
also awaiting fingerprints from West Valley City Police Department, the FBI, and the state's 
Bureau of Criminal Identification. 

Child Endangerment 

The subcommittee on Child Endangerment has seen perhaps the most noticeable 
advancement toward their goals. The Youth and Family Specialists and the Division of Child 
and Family Services worker continued to focus attention on endangered youth while working 
with the police department to ensure seamless supervision of children who were endangered by 
drug use generally, and meth abuse specifically. The Deputy District Attorney and the paralegal 
assigned to the Meth Initiative have also continued to work with all of these groups to ensure that 


necessary evidence is collected at crime scenes in order to build strong court cases. When 
possible, sentences have been increased using the recently enacted (2000) child and elder 
endangerment statute (Utah Code Ann.  76-5-112.5). 

Youth and Family Specialists 

The Youth and Family Specialists (YFS) section of the police department was 
decentralized during the change in administration. They were initially concerned about the 
possible consequences decentralization would have on them as well as on their relationship with 
those they have been working with over the previous years (e.g., Meth Initiative, CATs, and the 
narcotics officers). Initially, some felt that there was not as much interaction among the YFS 
because they were split between two precincts. There were also some perceived differences in 
training opportunities and procedures for handling after-hours calls. 

Generally, however, the YFS believed that being located in the two precincts proved to 
be very beneficial. They found that they had a better relationship with the patrol officers and 
were able to work more closely with them and educate them about the role of YFS in the police 
department. During the final months of the federally funded period, YFS was planning training 
for the patrol officers on child endangerment issues and a checksheet to help officers with 
evidence collection at possible child endangerment scenes (which at that time was in rough draft 
format). The YFS was also providing the call-out protocol to patrol officers so that they were 
better able to handle a scene that involved children, elderly, or handicapped individuals. Several 
members of the YFS expressed concern that the call-out protocol was not being followed 
consistently and that it may not have been presented to officers during training. They suggested 
that this needs to happen in order for the call-out protocol to be effective. 

Interestingly, YFS also commented on changes that they had begun seeing in the meth 
market. Specifically, many of the YFS indicated that younger kids were getting involved with 
meth and that their primary drugs of choice were GHB/Ecstasy and meth. 

Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) 

The Child Protective Services (CPS) worker initially assigned to the Meth Initiative 
decided to take several months off from the Initiative and resume her previous duties with DCFS. 
Another CPS worker replaced her at the Meth Initiative. The new CPS worker had been with the 


Division for three years, but she had little knowledge of the Meth Initiative. She did however 
bring with her a great deal of experience in dealing with juvenile drug users. In fact, the new 
CPS worker noted that during her time with DCFS there was much more meth use among teens 
especially in recent years. She attributed this to meth being less expensive compared to other 
drugs. 

This was her first time working closely with the police department, and she found that it 
offered her more security when going out in the neighborhoods. She also found that it was easier 
to get officers' help because she was co-located at the SLCPD and because she was actively 
fostering relationships with officers. The new CPS worker believed that the police officers knew 
her but were not as open with her as they were with the previous CPS worker. 

When asked about her overall feelings about the project, the CPS worker noted that the 
Meth Initiative would benefit from more than one CPS person working on the project. She 
described the Initiative as "case driven" with the potential for a great deal of overtime. Call-outs 
to a crime scene could take up to 8-10 hours and there was a higher removal rate which required 
a significant amount of time. This is consistent with the previous CPS worker's comment that 
although she only handled cases under the Meth Initiative, these cases provided a great deal of 
work with the potential for substantial overtime. 

District Attorney and Child Endangerment Legislation 

As noted above, a third DDA was assigned to the Meth Initiative project (Spring 2000) 
since its inception in 1998. The newest DDA has four years of experience with the District 
Attorney's office and has worked in a variety of divisions, her most recent work being with 
teenagers. Her philosophy toward drug cases is systemic rather than individualistic.approach 
them on a unified front to make significant change rather than just address the problem on a 
case-by-case basis. This meshed well with the goals of the Meth Initiative and led to a strong 
and productive partnership. With regard to the meth problem, both the DDA and the paralegal 
assigned to the Initiative believed that meth was second only to cocaine in the Salt Lake City 
drug market. Both also noted that meth was found more frequently in suburban areas while 
cocaine and heroin were found more often in the city. 

During her tenure with the Meth Initiative, the Deputy District Attorney continued to 
focus on the enhanced prosecution of drug cases generally, and meth cases specifically. Exhibit 


3 below shows the number of cases prosecuted by the DDA during her participation in the Meth 
Initiative stretching from July 1, 2000 to July 31, 2001. These figures indicate that more than 60 
percent of the DDA's caseload involved methamphetamine. This figure is up from previous 
statistics reported in the final report (8 percent in 1999 and 17 percent during the first half of 
2000). 

Exhibit 3: DDA Prosecutions Resulting from Meth Initiative Cases 
(July 1, 2000 to July 31, 2001) 

			All Drugs 	Methamphetamine 
Sales 			156 		22 
Possession 		208 		589 
Manufacturing 		0 		5 
Total 			364 		616 

In addition to these prosecutions, the Deputy District Attorney and the paralegal have 
also been successful in using the new Child and Elder Endangerment statute. This legislation 
was passed early in 2000, but it was infrequently applied by the District Attorney's Office. 
During one of the first cases filed in court, the judge dismissed the case during the preliminary 
hearing due to a lack of expert testimony about the effects of pre-cursor chemicals on the child. 
Upon discovering this obstacle, the DDA (along with others from the DA's office and the Meth 
Initiative team) proactively sought out doctors who were willing to enter a pool to be called upon 
to write medical reports and/or provide their expert testimony in court. 

They were successful in finding two doctors willing to participate. In the interim, the 
DDA decided to hold all child endangerment cases until medical experts were found. During the 
first half of 2001, the DDA filed about 30 cases (not all within the city of Salt Lake). Of those 
cases, all were child-related (as opposed to elderly-related), all were third degree felony charges, 
and none had gone to trial. The DDA estimated that about 60 percent of these cases were methrelated 
or involved a clandestine lab. 

In addition to filing cases, the DDA provided training on the Endangerment statute to 
agencies such as local police departments and Adult Probation and Parole as well as other 
prosecutors throughout the state. Other trainers, including a SLCPD narcotics detective 
accompanied her to trainings as well. The DDA felt that this training could be extremely helpful 
in getting more child endangerment cases filed. 


When asked about the partnership with the police, both the DDA and the paralegal noted 
that the police were improving in their evidence collection at endangerment scenes; this resulted 
in the DDA filing cases more quickly. In fact, the paralegal noted that she rarely had to send a 
case back to the police for further investigation. 

When asked about the advantages of being co-located in the police department, the 
Deputy District Attorney and the paralegal both felt that it was a very positive experience. They 
felt that co-location allowed them to work closely with the police department and made them feel 
they were all on the same team. It promoted open communication, led to filing cases more 
quickly, and provided opportunities for cross-training. 

The DDA and paralegal positions were funded in part by the federal grant monies from 
the COPS Meth Initiative. Available funding for the DDA and paralegal positions was up at the 
end of June 2001. Both believed that despite the absence of federal funding their relationship 
with the police department would continue. 

Health Department 

There was also a turnover in the Health Department position assigned to the Meth 
Initiative. The person originally assigned to the project was replaced by a new worker with four 
years experience with the Health Department. This new worker was named the full-time meth 
coordinator but was still assigned to do some basic Health Department work. He was lab 
certified along with several other Health Department workers, and his jurisdiction covered the 
entire county. 

The newly assigned Health Department worker had no previous "hands-on" experience 
with meth but did have an academic background that informed his work. His most notable work 
with the Initiative was assisting in drafting a county ordinance on cleaning standards for methcontaminated 
properties. He anticipated that the county ordinance, which was based on 
Washington state's model, would be accepted in early June.3 

Among other topics, the ordinance outlined the following: 

 Responsibilities of the department 
 Responsibilities of the property owner 

3 The ordinance was later passed on July 12, 2001. 


 Responsibilities of the contractor 
 Fitness for use 
 Pre-decontamination site assessment 
 Permit to decontaminate 
 Decontamination 
 Post-decontamination site assessment 
 Exemptions 
 Enforcement 
 Right to appeal. 

This ordinance was the Health Department's response to two unsuccessful attempts at 
passing legislation through the state legislature on cleaning standards for chemically 
contaminated properties. According to this newly assigned Health Department worker, the 
legislature may still address clean-up legislation at a later time, in order to provide state-wide 
standards. 

In addition to the ordinance, the Health Department also adopted "Standard Operation 
Procedures [SOP] and Best Management Practices for Decontamination of and Sampling at 
Chemically Contaminated Properties." This manual described various methods of manufacturing 
meth including the "amalgam method" and the "ephedrine method." The SOP also outlined 
byproducts and contaminants, implications for human health, exposure risk, decontamination, 
and testing standards. 

With regard to the Meth Initiative project, the Health Department worker found that colocation 
was helpful for him. He believed that the SLCPD was consistent in calling him out to 
crime scenes, although other local agencies had not been as consistent. His goal was to have a 
Health Department representative eventually be called out to all lab scenes. To reach this goal 
he anticipated coordinating with other law enforcement agencies in the county by conducting 
outreach to other jurisdictions. 

Treatment 

Treatment only became a formal piece of the Salt Lake City Meth Initiative in the latter 
stages of implementation. The Meth Initiative team intended to include a treatment component 


at the beginning of the project by partnering with the Dependency Drug Court. The original 
premise of the partnership was that meth abusers (especially women with children) would have 
an increased opportunity to present their case to the court and participate in a treatment program 
in lieu of spending time in jail. However, the Initiative experienced some difficulty in 
transferring funds to the Dependency Drug Court and the formalization of the partnership was 
significantly delayed. 

Representatives from the treatment community (local service providers, Utah Division of 
Substance Abuse) saw their involvement in the Meth Initiative as essential, so several individuals 
sat informally on the Partners Work Group meetings and provided expertise when necessary. 
The treatment community eventually became much more involved and proactive in the Meth 
Initiative. So much so, in fact, that two representatives voluntarily created a new treatment-
focused subcommittee under the Initiative. It is comprised of direct service providers, agency 
heads, and people from a detoxification center. 

In addition, the state Division of Substance Abuse, which had become an active partner in 
the Meth Intiative, received tobacco settlement money from DCFS that was put toward the 
Dependency Drug Court system. The total amount was about $60,000 of which $55,000 went 
for direct services and $5,000 went to urinalysis costs. Other Dependency Drug Court services 
were being provided in-kind by the Division of Substance Abuse (e.g., administrative work, case 
managers, etc.). The purpose of the funding was to increase access into treatment for 
Dependency Drug Court participants. It also helped to increase awareness of and understanding 
about methamphetamine. 

The Utah Division of Substance Abuse was looking for ways to get additional funds, but 
had no staff to write the grants. Both of the representatives who began the Treatment 
Subcommittee indicated, however, that they see more support going to meth-related issues in the 
Salt Lake City area, more money going to the Dependency Drug Court, and more support from 
the governor. Both representatives also indicated that they saw more camaraderie at the PWG 
meetings and more partners viewing treatment as a family issue and not just an individual issue. 


Prevention 

Public Awareness 

The Utah Council for Crime Prevention (UCCP) has continued to be active in promoting 
anti-meth messages in the Salt Lake City area. At the start of the project they were given 
approximately $20,000 of Meth Initiative funds to work on a public awareness campaign. 
Because very little could be done with such a small amount of money, the UCCP used this 
money to leverage additional resources to expand the public awareness portion of the Meth 
Initiative. In part, they did this through matching funds for advertisements, increasing the 
number of volunteers conducting training sessions, and other innovative approaches. 

From 1999-2000, they saw a great deal of success and produced a number of anti-meth 
items including: 

 Two videos produced with donated materials ("On Thin Ice" and "What's Cookin' 
in Your Neighborhood?") 
 "Body by Meth" poster 
 Table tents 
 Bookmarks 
 Video cards 
 Bumper stickers (in process). 

Additional public awareness work was done by negotiating with local television and 
radio stations as well as newspapers to promote anti-meth messages. Toward the end of June 
2001, the UCCP met with six television channels, three radio stations, and two newspapers to get 
the word out about meth. Some unsubstantiated plans included working with a local channel to 
plan a year-long focus on meth including production of public service announcements (PSAs). 
Another local television station may also agree to provide "free" time at the end of commercials 
to promote anti-meth public service announcements. 

During the extension period (January - June 2001), the UCCP was in the process of 
planning other events that would highlight anti-meth messages. These included a Club Drug 
Summit that would provide an open forum for experts and policy makers to discuss the club drug 
problem (including methamphetamine) and generate recommendations. There would also be a 


community event on club drugs in conjunction with the summit. The latter event would focus on 
educating the community on the club drug problem. A variety of groups were invited to attend 
including the police, civic associations, university fraternities, media, sheriff, youth groups, 
school principals, and others. 

The UCCP has committed time, resources, and staff in helping to fight the 
methamphetamine problem in the Salt Lake City area. They have been successful in generating 
videos, television commercials, radio announcements, newspaper ads, billboards, and a variety of 
other items with an anti-meth message. Because of the seriousness of the problem, they have 
decided to keep a focus on methamphetamine and have written anti-meth initiatives into their 
annual work plan. That is, they will continue to produce anti-methamphetamine public 
awareness messages despite a lack of federal dollars. 

Training 

In addition to the above efforts, the UCCP was very active in offering meth-related 
training to a variety of groups. The UCCP provided general information on meth but also 
attempted to tailor the training to the particular group that requested the training. The groups 
that requested this type of training were diverse and included hotels/motels, PTA conference 
attendees, churches, youth groups, parents, and more. The UCCP recruited volunteer trainers 
including DEA agents, private attorneys, and others. 

The Meth Initiative team, housed at the SLCPD, was also very active in providing 
training to community groups. Training sessions held during the first half of 2001 followed 
closely the number and focus of training sessions reported in the final report. That is, the 
training sessions focused on a number of topics including: 

 Drug identification 
 Club drugs 
 Meth production, use, and consequences 
 Methamphetamine Initiative 
 Child/elderly endangerment statute (conducted by the DDA) 

Exhibit 4 shows the number of training sessions, the number of attendees, and the total number 
of hours for training sessions held from 1999 through the first six months of 2001. The numbers 


indicate that in a typial month, the Meth Initiative team conducted 8 training sessions totaling 17 
hours. The average number of attendees was 337. 

Exhibit 4: Training Data 

				1999*	2000	2001*	Total
Number of Sessions 		72	99	49	220
Number of Participants 		2519	4477	2094	9090
Number of Training Hours 	136.5	220	103.5	460

* 1999 data begin in March. 
+ 2001 includes data for the first six months only. 
 
Community Policing 

The Meth Initiative team defined their community policing efforts through their work 
with the Community Action Teams (CATs), their response to community complaints (including 
their knock-and-talk investigations), and their relationships with other local city agencies 
(especially law enforcement agencies). The new Lieutenant assigned to the Meth Initiative noted 
that SLCPD has been doing community policing since 1994. He believed that the Department 
educated and trained on the philosophy of community policing, and that the Meth Initiative 
provided resources to expand upon it. 

The evaluation found that this has indeed been the case. The Meth Initiative fostered 
strong working relationships with other city agencies as seen through their work in the Partners 
Work Group meetings and their work with the CATs. The SLCPD also worked closely with 
other law enforcement agencies, especially surrounding city police agencies and federal agencies 
(e.g., DEA, FBI). Furthermore, the Meth Initiative team specifically, and the SLCPD generally, 
have made efforts to work with the community in addressing the problems that they define as 
serious (e.g., illegal drug activity, nuisance properties). 

Community Action Teams 

As noted in the final report, the Community Action Teams (CATs) are geographically-

assigned groups comprised of representatives from various city agencies. While they have 
continued to evolve over the years, their mission essentially remained the same.to solve 
community problems through a multi-agency approach by using as many diverse resources as 


necessary. They also continued to meet on a regular basis which could be as often as once a 
week. In December 2000, a new person was assigned from the Mayor's office to oversee their 
activities. This person had four years of previous experience with the CATs as a member on 
behalf of the City Council. 

Some of the CATs' progress in the program has come in the form of improved 
communication and interaction with other governmental agencies. Hence, there are better 
services being provided, an increase in morale, and a more formal accountability process for the 
partners. 

The CATs were not absent challenges including burn-out and agency re-assignments. It 
was not uncommon to see participants become overwhelmed by the nature of the work and the 
degree of effort necessary to truly impact a problem in the community. Furthermore, participants 
dealt with turnover quite frequently. The participating agencies had no established criteria for 
CAT involvement, so moving personnel in and out of a CAT was relatively easy and predictable 
depending upon the needs of a particular agency. This type of movement had negative effects on 
the CATs because they were frequently reorienting new individuals to the group and to the 
specific issues the CAT was focusing on in the community. 

Furthermore, at the end of June 2001, problems still emerged where individuals from 
participating agencies did not readily share information with the group. This caused some 
overlap in workload among agencies that were investigating the same address. There were plans 
to create a database that would be used by agencies both inside and outside of the city. It would 
contain addresses, attendance at meetings, agency responsibilities, etc., and would be web-based 
for ease of accessibility. Not only would this database provide agencies with the information 
necessary to best address a community problem, it would also prevent overlap among agencies 
that could be working on the same problem. The CATs also hoped to plan more pro-active 
neighborhood activities to get community members more involved in helping to solve some of 
their problems. 

A Super CAT was also created; it was comprised of division heads and policy makers. 
Ideally, this group would work much like the Partner's Work Group of the Meth Initiative. That 
is, the participants gather information at the grass-roots level, which they then use to effect 


change. This group only began meeting in the last few months of the federally funded period of 
the Meth Initiative, so it was difficult to determine any change or progress in their activities. 

"Knock and Talk" Investigations 

"Knock and talks are used by police as an investigative tool to follow up on residences 
that receive a number of complaints from community members. They are, in essence, 
consensual searches whereby police approach residents by knocking on their front door and 
asking the resident if they may "look around." Narcotics officers generally conduct these 
operations about twice per month and usually visit six to twelve residences. As noted in the final 
report, SLCPD found that this approach proved to be quite successful since many of the residents 
were found to be involved in some type of illegal activity. 

Nuisance Abatement 

The nuisance abatement subcommittee had the most difficulty during the implementation 
stage of the Meth Initiative. For a number of reasons listed in the final report, this subcommittee 
saw very little progress during the tenure of the Meth Initiative. By the end of the funding period 
in June 2001, no formal action had taken place to rectify the situation. However, the Mayor had 
requested that relevant agencies meet to work out a resolution. This would demand a 
considerable amount of time and effort since the purpose would be to re-define how nuisance 
properties would be dealt with in the city. 

As of the last official visit to Salt Lake City, the nuisance process remained the same. 
That is, the City Prosecutor continued to write nuisance abatement letters to violators and sent 
them through the CATs. The City Attorney's Office would prosecute a criminal matter if the 
case was deemed serious enough. According to the Meth Initiative's project coordinator, there 
needs to be some guidelines for both civil and criminal nuisance abatement. She believed that 
nuisance abatement should be viewed as a larger city issue and that progress could be made to 
this end given the increased awareness of the problem through the Meth Initiative. 

Relationships with other Agencies 

The clearest success of the Meth Initiative in Salt Lake City was the communication and 
cooperation among the partners. The participants themselves stated that the relationships created 
or strengthened among Meth Initiative agencies represented the biggest success of the project. 


Furthermore, most participants agreed that inter-agency collaboration was absolutely necessary 
to address the methamphetamine problem in Salt Lake City. In fact, many people went beyond 
just verbally advocating such a relationship and made special efforts to ensure that the 
partnerships were maintained. This feeling was maintained and was evidenced by the number of 
agencies willing to institutionalize practices and procedures as well as keep their staff 
participating in the Initiative even after federal funding for the project ended. 

Summary and Conclusions 

While the Initiative began with the promise of more than 30 agencies agreeing to 
participate in the project, in the end the project had formed a much smaller group of relevant, 
concerned agencies. Throughout the life of the project some partners dropped out and others 
were newly initiated into the project. This is natural given that many partnerships were 
unexplored prior to the Meth Initiative grant. Despite the smaller number, this approach proved 
to be integral to the success of the Meth Initiative project. In fact, this siphoning effect created a 
cohesive core group that was committed to the project, assessed the needs of the community, and 
focused their available resources on these needs. 

Furthermore, staff turnover proved to be a consistent theme throughout the project and 
across almost all of the participating agencies. Specifically, during the multi-year project, almost 
all of the original staff from the SLCPD, DCFS, Health Department, and District Attorney's 
Office were replaced by new staff with (oftentimes) less training on meth. It also took some time 
to acquaint new staff with the overall purpose of the project and their specific responsibilities. 
However, despite this staff turnover, the inter-agency relationships that formed during the course 
of the Meth Initiative project showed signs of sustainability. These kinds of relationships foster 
better communication among agencies and more expedient approaches to addressing issues in 
and around Salt Lake City. Ideally, this network of agencies would be taken advantage of and 
adopted for future city-wide projects. 

At various points during 1998-2001, project staff were forced to re-evaluate the proposed 
goals of the project and determine where to focus valuable resources. To their credit, SLCPD 
and the Meth Initiative did not blindly adhere to a proposal, which by the end of the federally 
funded period was several years old. Rather, they reassessed and reformulated their approach to 


addressing the methamphetamine problem; this included re-thinking their approach to nuisance 
abatement, re-working their relationship with the Dependency Drug Court, and inviting the 
treatment community to be a formal part of the project. This flexibility proved to be a major 
success for the SLC Meth Initiative and was a testament to the level of commitment from Meth 
Initiative staff and partner agencies. This flexibility also helped them to extend their federal 
dollars because they were able to focus their federal funds on parts of the project that were likely 
to succeed. They did not expend a great deal of funding on proposed project goals that proved to 
be more difficult to implement than initially anticipated. 

The Salt Lake City Meth Initiative also expended federal dollars to implement and 
formalize protocols and procedures for a variety of operations including call-out protocols to 
other law enforcement agencies, call-out protocols for specialists when crime scenes involve 
children or elderly, evidence collection for child and elder endangerment cases, and 
decontamination of chemically contaminated properties. These efforts have helped to strengthen 
partnerships and formalize agency responsibilities, which ensures consistency and accountability 
within and across agencies. A positive result of this type of institutionalization could be that 
these protocols and procedures be used as a "best practices" template for future efforts. 

Through public awareness and community education, the Meth Initiative was successful 
in keeping the anti-meth message in the forefront. Despite the small amount of Meth Initiative 
dollars provided to the public awareness campaign, a great deal of time and attention were given 
to recruiting volunteers and soliciting donated materials (e.g., billboards, tv advertisement spots, 
etc.). These efforts are vital if a project is to gain the public's acceptance and support. This 
financial and in-kind support also helps to sustain the project in the community and encourages 
the project to grow and encompass other important individuals and agencies. It also raises the 
public's awareness, which could decrease harmful side-effects and increase communication with 
law enforcement when suspicious activity is afoot. 

Salt Lake City has found a recipe for success to fight their methamphetamine problem. It 
focuses on partnerships, clear and attainable goals, formalized protocols and procedures, and 
education. Evaluation findings also indicate that the Meth Initiative showed incredible flexibility 
during times of staff turnover and changing goals, encouraged agencies to institutionalize best 


practices, and informed the community by using anti-meth messages to help in their prevention 
efforts. 

Overall, several components of the Meth Initiative project revealed some preliminary 
measures of success. During the first half of 2001, more than 20 percent of the Narcotics Unit's 
cases involved methamphetamine. The DDA assigned to the Meth Initiative prosecuted close to 
1, 000 cases in just over a year's time with more than 60 percent of those cases involving 
methamphetamine. At the same time, Salt Lake City saw a decline in the number of arrestees 
testing positive for methamphetamine (ADAM, 1999, 2000, 2001). Finally, SLCPD continued 
with their training efforts and held close to 50 training sessions for other law enforcement 
agencies and the public in just the first six months of 2001. 

The efforts of the Meth Initiative project in Salt Lake City have shown tremendous 
success during the implementation of their project. Despite the absence of federal dollars, 
participating agencies have made fighting methamphetamine a priority in their offices and have 
agreed to keep moving forward. With this history and a bright future, the Salt Lake City 
Methamphetamine Initiative has a real chance to make significant, positive change. 


Bibliography 

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program (2002). Preliminary Data on Drug Use & Related 
Matters Among Adult Arrestees: January through September 2001, Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program (2001). 2000 Annualized Site Reports. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. 

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program (2000). 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among 
Adult and Juvenile Arrestees. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National 
Institute of Justice.