Scope and Methodology

To obtain information on whether CPOT investigations were consistent  with the mission of the HIDTA program, we reviewed the Office of  National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998, ONDCP’s  appropriations statutes and accompanying committee reports, ONDCP’s  strategic plans and policies, and ONDCP’s Web site. We also reviewed all  HIDTA applications (38) to ONDCP from HIDTAs that received  discretionary funds for various investigation activities linked to the CPOT  list in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, and compared them with the mission of  the HIDTA program. At 11 selected HIDTA sites—Appalachia; Atlanta;  Central Florida; Lake County, Indiana; Los Angeles; Milwaukee; Nevada;  North Texas; Oregon; Rocky Mountain; and Washington-Baltimore—we  interviewed HIDTA management officials and task force leaders to discuss  whether their investigative activities were consistent with the HIDTA  mission. We selected these 11 HIDTAs to ensure geographic spread (east  coast, central, west coast) across the country.
To obtain information about ONDCP’s distribution of CPOT funding, we  interviewed ONDCP officials and obtained statistics they provided on  HIDTAs that received CPOT funding in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004  (app.I). We also reviewed ONDCP documents and correspondence that  described the basis for ONDCP’s decision for awarding HIDTAs CPOT  funding. In addition, we discussed with officials at three HIDTAs—  Washington-Baltimore, North Texas, and Los Angeles—how CPOT funding  was being used. We selected these three HIDTAs because they had  received funds for both fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and were geographically  dispersed. We also interviewed officials from 8 of the 13 HIDTAs  (Appalachia, Atlanta, Central Florida, Lake County, Milwaukee, Nevada,  Oregon, and Rocky Mountain) that did not apply for or applied for but did  not receive CPOT funding in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. We selected these  HIDTAs to reflect broad geographic segments of the country.
We determined that the data presented in appendixes I and II from  ONDCP, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF),  the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Federal Bureau of  Investigation (FBI) are sufficiently reliable, for the purposes of this review,  based on interviews with agency officials and a review of their information  systems documentation.

	Background

In 1988, Congress established the White House’s Office of National Drug  Control Policy to, among other things, coordinate the efforts of federal  drug control agencies and programs and establish the HIDTA program. By  fiscal year 2004, ONDCP had designated 28 drug trafficking areas  (HIDTAs) as centers of illegal drug production, manufacturing,  importation, or distribution within the United States with a federally  funded HIDTA program budget of about $225 million. Each HIDTA is to  develop and implement an annual strategy to address the regional drug  threat. The initiatives involve the active participation of federal, state, and  local law enforcement agencies to enhance and assist the coordination of  drug trafficking control efforts in the region. To encourage HIDTAs to  conduct CPOT investigations, ONDCP utilized discretionary funding. In  fiscal year 2004, ONDCP allocated about $8 million in discretionary  funding to HIDTAs to support their drug initiatives that link with  international drug trafficking organizations on the CPOT list. This funding  is not meant to supplant or replace existing agency/program budgets  intended for similar purposes, according to ONDCP guidance to the  HIDTAs.
OCDETF is a nationwide law enforcement task force program  administered within Justice that targets major narcotic trafficking and  money laundering organizations using the combined resources and  expertise of its federal member agencies together with state and local  investigators. Its mission is to identify, investigate, and prosecute  members of high-level drug trafficking enterprises and to dismantle or  disrupt the operations of those organizations. To help carry out this  mission and to focus investigative resources on major sources of supply,  OCDETF member agencies developed the CPOT list of major international  drug trafficking organizations.
In September 2002, at the request of the U.S. Attorney General, OCDETF  issued the first CPOT list, naming international drug trafficking  organizations most responsible for supplying illegal drugs to the United  States. OCDETF member agencies developed criteria for determining  whether an international drug organization was to be placed on the CPOT  list. Criteria include whether the international organization    operates nationwide in multiple regions of the United States and    deals in substantial quantities of illegal drugs or illicit chemicals on a  regular basis that have a demonstrable impact on the nation’s drug  supply.
OCDETF compiles and issues the CPOT list at the beginning of each fiscal  year, with the intent that federal law enforcement agencies will target  their investigations on CPOT organizations. OCDETF member agencies  control the CPOT list and its distribution. OCDETF also collaborates with  ONDCP on reviews of CPOT funding applications by HIDTAs that link  their initiatives with the CPOT list.

	CPOT Investigations Were Not Inconsistent with the Mission of the HIDTA Program

CPOT investigations were not inconsistent with the mission of the HIDTA  program because HIDTAs’ targeting of local drug traffickers linked with  international organizations on the CPOT list was one possible strategy for  achieving the program’s goal of eliminating or reducing significant sources  of drug trafficking in their regions. The mission of the HIDTA program is  not expressly stated in current law. However, ONDCP has developed a  mission statement that reflects the legislative authority for the HIDTA  program, specifically, to enhance and coordinate U.S. drug control efforts  among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to eliminate or  reduce drug trafficking and its harmful consequences in critical regions of  the United States.
The primary legislative authority for the HIDTA program is the  Reauthorization Act, which provides guidance on the mission of the  program by setting out factors for the Director of ONDCP to consider in  determining which regions to designate as HIDTAs. The factors contained  in the act are the extent to which  1.  the area is a center of illegal drug production, manufacturing,  importation, or distribution;  2.  state and local law enforcement have shown a determination to  respond aggressively to drug trafficking in the area by committing  resources to respond to it;  3.  drug-related activities in the area are having a harmful impact in other  areas of the country; and  4.  a significant increase in federal resources is necessary to respond  adequately to drug-related activities in the area.
In addition, House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports on  ONDCP’s appropriations have stated that the program was established to  provide assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement entities  operating in those areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking.
The use of a portion of the HIDTA program’s discretionary funds to focus  on CPOT investigations is not inconsistent with ONDCP’s mission  statement for the program and the legislative authority on which it is  based, particularly the first and third factors in the Reauthorization Act.  Drug traffickers operating in a HIDTA may be linked with the CPOT list  because of their role in major international drug trafficking activities,  including illegal distribution in multiple regions of the United States. Given  such activities, they would contribute to the HIDTA’s status as a center of  illegal drug importation and distribution and have a harmful impact in  other regions. Similarly, in keeping with appropriations committee  statements on the purpose of the program, HIDTA involvement in CPOT  investigations is one way of assisting federal, state, and local operations in  areas where the significant adverse effects of drug trafficking activities are  due in part to links to international criminal organizations. Thus, for  HIDTAs to investigate and disrupt or dismantle regional drug traffickers  that are linked with CPOT organizations is not inconsistent with the  HIDTA program’s stated mission and its legislative authority.

	ONDCP Distributed Discretionary Funds to Many HIDTAs to Help Support CPOT Investigations

ONDCP distributed discretionary funds to HIDTAs to help support their  investigations of drug traffickers linked with international organizations  on the CPOT list by reviewing and approving HIDTA applications for  funding. In fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, ONDCP distributed CPOT  funds to a total of 17 of the 28 HIDTAs. A Justice official who participates  in the evaluation of HIDTA applications for CPOT funding said that  ONDCP encourages applications for CPOT funding where additional funds  are likely to benefit an initiative and move the investigation forward. Some  HIDTAs chose not to apply because they face a domestic drug threat that  does not have a link to any international CPOT organization activity. Other  HIDTAs that have applied for funds did not receive CPOT funding because  they did not have sufficient investigative resources to uncover the link to a  CPOT organization. In commenting on a draft of this report, Justice said  that while this may be true in some circumstances, it was also often the  case that HIDTAs may have had sufficient resources but simply had not  yet taken the investigation far enough to justify the award of discretionary  funds. During fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 6 HIDTAs did not apply and 7  applied but were not approved for CPOT funding. In fiscal year 2004, 17 of  the 28 HIDTAs did not receive CPOT funding—10 did not apply and 7  applied but were not approved for funding.
ONDCP and HIDTA officials mentioned several reasons why some HIDTAs  may not receive funding. First, some HIDTAs were denied funding if the  investigative activities in their funding applications were not consistent  with the HIDTA mission and linked to a CPOT organization. Second,  ONDCP did not provide clear guidance or sufficient information for  HIDTAs to develop their applications for CPOT funds, although it took  steps to clarify its guidance and create opportunity for all HIDTAs to  participate. Third, reducing the amount of discretionary funds available for  CPOT funding in fiscal year 2004 affected the number of HIDTAs that  received this funding. Fourth, HIDTAs’ local priorities may not link to any  CPOT organization activity.

		Drug Investigative Activities Must Be Consistent with the HIDTA Mission and Linked to the CPOT List to Receive CPOT Funds

ONDCP granted CPOT funding for HIDTA investigative activities that it  determined demonstrated a link to the CPOT list and were consistent with  the mission of the HIDTA program. As an example, one of the  applications we reviewed requested CPOT funding for overtime pay, video  cameras, portable computers, and wiretaps for surveillance activities to  target a complex criminal organization involved in the distribution of  significant quantities of heroin and cocaine as well as related homicides,  abductions, arson, assaults, fraud, and witness tampering. Surveillance of  the organization indicated that it was being supplied with drugs through an  affiliate of a Latin American/Caribbean-based CPOT organization.  Therefore, these drug activities were linked to an organization on the  CPOT list, and the investigations also were consistent with the HIDTA  program’s mission, in that these activities contributed to eliminating or  reducing significant sources of drug trafficking within the HIDTA region.
Drug investigation activities that were not consistent with the HIDTA  program’s mission were not to receive CPOT funds from ONDCP, even if  they showed a CPOT link. Specifically, it is inconsistent with the HIDTA  program’s mission to supplant funds from other sources. Rather CPOT  funds are meant to supplement funding for investigations that support the  HIDTA mission. For example, in one HIDTA application, a request was  made for $686,000 for the HIDTA to provide software to a cellular  telephone company located in a Caribbean country to monitor the cellular  telephone calls of a CPOT organization. The application also asked for  travel expenses of $7,500 to send a prosecutor and two HIDTA  investigators to that country to review the cellular telephone records.  ONDCP officials told us that they denied funding for these activities  because ONDCP guidance to the HIDTAs regarding CPOT funding states  that the funds cannot be used to “supplant,” or replace, existing  agency/program budgets intended for similar purposes because to do so  would be inconsistent with the HIDTA mission. In commenting on a draft  of this report, ONDCP made the clarifying statement that CPOT funding is  provided for investigations of major drug trafficking organizations  affiliated with CPOTs. However, HIDTAs do not participate in  international investigations, and CPOT funding cannot be used to conduct  or supplement investigations in places like Colombia or Afghanistan. In  another application, a request was made for $120,000 to pay for street  lighting in a drug-infested crime area of a major U.S. city to aid the HIDTA  surveillance task force in pursuing drug enforcement operations. ONDCP  officials told us that they determined the activity was not consistent with  the HIDTA mission because CPOT funding cannot be used to supplant a  city’s budget for street maintenance and improvements.

		ONDCP Did Not Provide Sufficient Information for Some HIDTAs to Fully Develop Their Applications for CPOT Funding but Took Steps to Address These Issues

In some cases, ONDCP’s lack of clear guidance or sufficient information  limited some HIDTAs’ ability to apply for CPOT funding. For example,  some HIDTA officials told us that in fiscal year 2002, ONDCP did not  provide clear directions in its guidance about how HIDTAs were to  document the link between their investigations and the CPOT list.  However, in fiscal year 2003, ONDCP’s officials recognized the problem  and, at quarterly meetings, discussed with HIDTAs how to document links  between their investigations and the CPOT list, thus resolving the problem.  In addition, ONDCP was only able to provide a partial CPOT list to  officials in all HIDTAs in each of the 3 fiscal years it provided CPOT  funding, even though applications were to include a link between their  investigations and the CPOT list. The partial list contained some of the  largest organizations in operation and ones that were most frequently  targeted by law enforcement. ONDCP, in its guidance, advised HIDTAs  that they could obtain the entire list from their Justice contacts. Some  HIDTA officials said not having a full list available to them from ONDCP  limited their ability to apply for CPOT funding. In fiscal year 2004, ONDCP  created an opportunity for all HIDTAs to participate.
According to OCDETF officials, access to the full CPOT list is restricted to  federal law enforcement officials. Commenting on a draft of this report,  Justice said these restrictions are driven by the fact that the member  agencies have designated the list as “law enforcement sensitive,” because  disclosure of certain investigative information contained on the list might  jeopardize ongoing investigations of targeted organizations. As a result,  access to the full CPOT list is restricted to OCDETF-member federal law  enforcement agencies. Nonparticipating federal agencies, HIDTA  directors, state and local police officials, and non-law enforcement federal  agencies such as ONDCP could obtain the list from U.S. Attorneys or  Special Agents-in-Charge of the OCDETF member agencies on a need-to- know basis. To facilitate the distribution of discretionary CPOT funding,  however, OCDETF provided a partial list, which contained information on  some of the largest organizations and those commonly known to, and  targeted by, the law enforcement community, to ONDCP. Since HIDTA  officials have said that they need to know who is on the CPOT list to  determine which of their investigations qualify for CPOT funds, ONDCP, in  its guidance, advised HIDTAs to obtain the full CPOT list through their  Justice contacts. However, officials from 2 HIDTAs we spoke to said that  they had some difficulty in obtaining the full CPOT list.
We spoke with officials from 8 of the 13 HIDTAs that either did not apply  or applied for and did not receive CPOT funds in either of the first 2 years  (fiscal years 2002 and 2003) ONDCP awarded CPOT funds. Officials from 2  of the HIDTAs said that obtaining the full list was a problem because for  one HIDTA, they did not have the full CPOT list within the time needed to  complete the application, and the other HIDTA said there was not a formal  procedure for obtaining the full CPOT list. Officials from 6 of the 8 HIDTAs  said it was not a problem, however, because they were able to obtain the  full CPOT list from their Justice contacts. Although these examples may  not typify all HIDTAs, they nevertheless indicate that not every HIDTA was  able to readily access the full CPOT list and that it would be difficult to  show how their investigations qualify for CPOT funds without having the  full list. Although ONDCP believed the CPOT information it provided was  sufficient for all HIDTAs to fairly compete for discretionary CPOT funding,  an ONDCP official responsible for CPOT funding acknowledged that not  receiving a full CPOT list most likely reduced opportunities for some  HIDTAs to receive CPOT funding or discouraged others from applying for  funds.
All HIDTAs are eligible to apply to receive CPOT funding, according to  ONDCP officials, even though 13 of the 28 HIDTAs did not apply for or  applied for but did not receive CPOT funding in fiscal years 2002 and 2003.  In fiscal year 2004, ONDCP’s guidance identified three international  organizations that trafficked in illegal drugs in all HIDTAs. ONDCP  officials said that this additional guidance would allow all HIDTAs to focus  their limited funding on these three organizations and would allow a  baseline of opportunity for all HIDTAs to apply for CPOT funding. ONDCP  stated it would give preference to funding applications that had links to  these three CPOT organizations. Ten of the 11 HIDTAs that received CPOT  funds in fiscal year 2004 linked their applications to the three CPOTs  referenced in ONDCP’s guidance. Providing HIDTAs with the names of  three CPOT organizations that operated in all the HIDTA regions  established a baseline of opportunity for the HIDTAs to apply for funding  despite receiving a limited number of CPOT organizational targets from  ONDCP.
Commenting on a draft of this report, Justice acknowledged that the  HIDTAs did face some difficulty regarding the distribution of the CPOT  list. However, through participation with ONDCP in evaluating  applications for CPOT funding, Justice officials noticed that—for those  HIDTAs that applied—problems associated with the limited distribution of  the list appeared to be confined to fiscal year 2002, when the list was first  developed. In subsequent years, law enforcement agencies, including  those in the HIDTAs, were more familiar with the CPOT list and how to  gain access to it.

		ONDCP’s Reduction of CPOT Funding in Fiscal Year 2004 Affected HIDTA Participation

The CPOT funding amount almost tripled from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal  year 2003 but was cut in half in fiscal year 2004. Given the reduction in  discretionary funding allocated to CPOT funding, ONDCP officials said  that even if HIDTAs link their investigations to the CPOT list, and do not  supplant other funding sources, they are not guaranteed CPOT funding.  They recognized that reduced funding affected HIDTA participation. As  shown in figure 1, fiscal year 2004 funding was reduced from $16.5 million  to $7.99 million.
In the first year, 8 HIDTAs received funding. In the second year, 14  HIDTAs received funding, and in the third year, when funding was  reduced, 11 HIDTAs received funding. Despite more than a 50 percent  drop in funding in fiscal year 2004, 2 of 11 HIDTAs received CPOT funding  for the first time. While there could be multiple causes, we also noted that  the number of HIDTAs that did not apply in fiscal year 2004 compared  with prior years increased from 6 to 10. ONDCP officials said that the  limited CPOT funds must be directed at those HIDTAs where, in the  judgment of those officials who reviewed the CPOT applications, the  supply of drugs from CPOT organizations had the best chance of being  interrupted.
Commenting on a draft of this report, ONDCP agreed that the reduction of  CPOT funding in fiscal year 2004 affected HIDTA participation but added  that this observation, while accurate, should be stated within the context  of all discretionary funding activities. ONDCP consulted with Congress  prior to allocating the discretionary funding, as required by the report  language accompanying the ONDCP’s appropriations. As a result of those  consultations, ONDCP decided to reduce the amount available for funding  CPOT-related investigations in order to fund other activities. Thus, while  the reduction in fiscal year 2004 for CPOT-related funding resulted in  fewer HIDTAs receiving CPOT funding, that should not have caused a  decline in applications for other discretionary funding activities. For more  detailed information on the amounts funded to each HIDTA, see appendix  I. Figure 2 shows the 17 HIDTAs that received CPOT funding at least once  during fiscal years 2002 through 2004 and the 11 that have not received  funding.

		Local Priorities May Not Link with CPOT Organizations

Within certain HIDTAs, law enforcement tended to focus more on  domestic drug enforcement than on developing links with CPOT  organizations. Officials at three HIDTAs we spoke to told us that in fiscal  years 2002 and 2003, they did not apply for CPOT funding because their  biggest drug problems were domestic drug producers and distributors,  such as those organizations involved in methamphetamine and marijuana.  As a result, their strategy was to focus on these local drug traffickers that  they were required by law to investigate, and those investigations did not  necessarily link with CPOT organizations. In addition, according to some  HIDTA law enforcement officials, local law enforcement officers in their  HIDTA focused on local investigations rather than those potentially linked  with CPOT organizations because they saw a direct benefit to their city or  countyprosecution of local targets accompanied by drug and asset  seizures. Also, HIDTA officials said that while their law enforcement  officers initiated numerous investigations, they do not always have enough  funds to proceed to a level that may link the HIDTA investigation to the  CPOT list.
Commenting on a draft of this report, ONDCP did not disagree with the  facts above but emphasized that HIDTAs should be focusing on  investigations of local activities that reach beyond the boundaries of the  HIDTA, consistent with their designation as centers of illegal drug  trafficking activities that affect other parts of the country.

	Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

On December 27, 2004, we provided a draft of this report for review and  comment to ONDCP and Justice. ONDCP commented on our analysis that  the use of some discretionary funding for the HIDTA program to support  CPOT-related drug trafficking investigations was not inconsistent with the  HIDTA mission because it was one possible strategy to eliminate or reduce  significant sources of drug trafficking in their regions. Justice generally  agreed with the substance of the report and provided clarifications that we  also incorporated in this report where appropriate. Both agencies focused  their comments and clarifications on the second objective: how ONDCP  distributed discretionary funds to HIDTAs for CPOT investigations and  why some HIDTAs did not receive funding. ONDCP stressed their belief  that the information they provided to HIDTAs was sufficient for all  HIDTAs to fairly compete for limited CPOT funding, and that although  CPOT funding was reduced in fiscal year 2004, HIDTAs could still  participate in other discretionary funding activities. Finally, ONDCP  believes that while some HIDTAs’ investigations may not link to CPOTs,  HIDTAs should focus on finding that link, given their designation as  centers of illegal trafficking that affect other parts of the country.
Justice emphasized that their restrictions on the distribution of the CPOT  list were soundly based, allowed for HIDTAs to gain access to the full list,  and were not intended to withhold access to the CPOT list from HIDTA  personnel. They acknowledged that HIDTAs did face some difficulty but  were confident the problem has been overcome. We incorporated their  perspectives as appropriate.
The full text of the ONDCP Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs’  letter, and the Department of Justice’s Associate Deputy Attorney  General’s memo are presented in appendix III and IV, respectively.
We will provide copies of this report to appropriate departments and other  interested congressional committees. In addition, we will send copies to  the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the Office of  National Drug Control Policy. We will also make copies available to others  upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on  GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Major contributors to this report  are listed in appendix V. If you or your staffs have any questions  concerning this report, contact me on   (202) 512-8777.

Appendix I: CPOT Funding Awarded to HIDTAs, Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, and 2004

	Received CPOT funding

Appendix II: Federal Law Enforcement Organizations Engaged in CPOT Investigations

During fiscal year 2003, a total of 744 CPOT investigations were conducted  by OCDETF member law enforcement agencies. The majority of those  investigations (497, or 67 percent) were multi-agency OCDETF  investigations, involving participation from DEA, FBI, ICE, IRS and other  member agencies, while the remaining were conducted individually by  DEA (191, or 26 percent) or FBI (56, or 8 percent).
For fiscal year 2004, the majority of CPOT investigations continued to be  multi-agency OCDETF investigations. For the first 7 months of fiscal year  2004, 72 percent (548 of 761) of CPOT investigations conducted by  member law enforcement agencies were designated as OCDETF  investigations. OCDETF officials attributed fiscal year 2004 increases in  CPOT investigations over fiscal year 2003 to OCDETF’s emphasis on  identifying links between targeted domestic organizations and the CPOT  list.
As previously mentioned, OCDETF is composed of member agencies that  worked together on the 497 CPOT investigations in fiscal year 2003.  Member agencies either led investigations or supported other OCDETF  member agencies in these investigations. The bar chart in figure 3 shows  the number of drug investigations in which each OCDETF member agency  participated. For example, DEA participated in 402 CPOT investigations,  the highest level of participation by any member agency. FBI participated  in 320 investigations, many of which it conducted jointly with DEA along  with other member agencies.
DEA and FBI are the only OCDETF member agencies that conducted  separate CPOT investigations. Generally, these investigations were  handled outside of OCDETF because they did not yet satisfy the criteria  for OCDETF designation—that is, they were investigations conducted  exclusively by foreign offices or investigations that had not yet developed  to a sufficient level to be designated as OCDETF cases. For the first 7  months of fiscal year 2004, data showed that DEA separately conducted 23  percent (172 of 761) and FBI separately conducted 5 percent (41 of 761) of  investigations linked to CPOTs in addition to their participation in  OCDETF investigations. These two agencies conducted their CPOT  investigations out of their own agency’s direct appropriations.
These CPOT investigations can subsequently become eligible for OCDETF  funding when OCDETF’s criteria are met. For example, besides being  linked to the CPOT list, DEA and FBI investigations are to involve multiple  law enforcement agencies, among other things, in order to qualify as  OCDETF-designated CPOT investigations. Figure 4 shows the relationship  among OCDETF, DEA, and FBI in their handling of CPOT investigations  and shows that DEA and the FBI conduct CPOT investigations both  separately and collectively with other OCDETF member agencies. Figure 4  also shows the collaborative relationship between ONDCP and Justice.

Appendix III: Comments from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contacts

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to those named above, the following individuals contributed to  this report: Frances Cook, Grace Coleman, David Dornisch, Michael H.  Harmond, Weldon McPhail, and Ron Salo.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

In fiscal year 2002, the Attorney General called upon law enforcement to target the "most wanted" international drug traffickers responsible for supplying illegal drugs to America. In September 2002, law enforcement, working through the multi-agency Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Program, developed a list of these drug traffickers, known as the Consolidated Priority Organization Target List (CPOT), to aid federal law enforcement agencies in targeting their drug investigations. Also, the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) collaborated with law enforcement to encourage existing High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) to conduct CPOT investigations. According to ONDCP, the 28 HIDTAs across the nation are located in centers of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution. ONDCP distributed discretionary funds to supplement some HIDTAs' existing budgets beginning in fiscal year 2002 to investigate CPOT organizations. Out of concern that a CPOT emphasis on international drug investigations would detract from the HIDTA program's regional emphasis, the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed GAO to examine whether investigations of CPOT organizations are consistent with the HIDTA program's mission and how ONDCP distributes its discretionary funds to HIDTAs for CPOT investigations.

What GAO Found

The mission of the HIDTA program is to enhance and coordinate U.S. drug control efforts among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to eliminate or reduce drug trafficking and its harmful consequences in HIDTAs. CPOT investigations were not inconsistent with this mission because HIDTAs' targeting of local drug traffickers linked with international organizations on the CPOT list was one possible strategy for achieving the program's goal of eliminating or reducing significant sources of drug trafficking in their regions. GAO found that in fiscal years 2002 through 2004, ONDCP distributed discretionary funds to 17 of the 28 HIDTAs for CPOT investigations. Some HIDTA officials said they did not receive CPOT funding for several reasons including unclear guidance, insufficient application information to the HIDTAs for funding, and local priorities not linking with CPOT investigations. Reduced discretionary funding in fiscal year 2004 for CPOT investigations affected the number of HIDTAs that received this funding.