off';~ of ;~t;o,.,~l D~.~ Co,~ol PolicL 1 

Performance Measures of Effectiveness 

r" 

A System for Assessing the Performance 

of the. National Drug Control Strategy 

CO 

CO 

I 

1 9 9 8 2 

. 

~... ~ tl~'j~ ~' 

0 0 7 

7: 

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov.

PERFORMANCE 

MEASURES OF 

EFFECTIVENESS 

pROPEF~TY OF 

National Criminal Justice ~elerence Servio~ (,NCJR$} 

Box 6000 ~ .... 

Rockville, ~D 2004~ °00{)~ 

Message From the Director 

This document, Performance Measures of Effectiveness: A System for Assessing the Performance of the 

National Drug Control Strategy, is a dynamic tool for evaluating the progress of this Nation's drug control 

efforts. Through it, success in achieving the goals of the NDCS will be tracked and measured. For the first 

time, we will know where we stand and where we need to go. 

As a preliminary matter, it should be understood that the PME report is not required under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). GPRA requires Federal agencies to prepare annual 

performance plans. These plans have been and are being submitted to Congress in conjunction with 

agency 1999 Congressional budget justifications. These agency performance plans include measures related to efforts to reduce drug use. For example, the Office of National Drug Control Policy will be 

submitting a plan relating to its own functions and operations. The PME report, on the other hand, proposes a much more comprehensive set of performance measures -- it encompasses all Federal agencies, 

State and local governments, foreign governments, the private sector, and society at large. Naturally, the 

PME report proposes measures which are more aggressive than those that could be plausibly included in 

individual agency GPRA plans. 

The PME report goals are aggressive. Since they are to be attained over a 10-year period, intervening 

events may occur which will cause us to modify the goals. Moreover, in drafting the PME report, assumptions have been made, including the ability to achieve certain goals, which may or may not prove to be 

correct. Given these uncertainties and the fact that the PME report represents the first attempt to measure the effectiveness of the counterdrug effort, goals and measures may have to be adjusted to reflect new 

or changing circumstances. The relationship between the goals and targets and the levels of Federal and 

non-Federal resources required to attain them will be examined annually through normal budget processes. 

Recognizing these difficulties, the Administration is committed to examining and refining -- through a 

comprehensive review process among Federal agencies and with State, local, foreign, and other participants -- the goals and targets set forth in the PME report. This process will continue to develop an agreed 

upon empirical basis of such goals and targets, and a coherent action plan for achieving them over the 

near and long term. 

This report unites the collective expertise of interagency groups that have identified meaningful, 

achievable end states to integrate and focus the national drug control community. Now we must join 

together in a robust partnership to achieve a drug-free America. 

Barry R. McCaffrey 

Director 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS Ill 

Executive Summary 

This document, Performance Measures of Effectiveness: A System for Assessing the Performance of the 

National Drug Control Strategy, responds to a public call for results-oriented government. In the area of 

drug control policy, this means increased accountability and improved performance from our total drug 

control efforts. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), in conjunction with a wide range 

of stakeholders from both public and private sectors, developed a system of performance measures of effectiveness (PME). This PME system is designed to (1) assess the effectiveness of the National Drug Control 

Strategy (the Strategy); (2) provide the entire drug control community, including State and local governments, the private sector, and foreign governments, with critical information on what needs to be done to 

refine policy and programmatic direction; and (3) assist with drug program budget management at all levels. 

The Strategy is a 10-year plan to confront drug abuse in the United States that can be most easily 

understood in terms of reducing drug use (demand), drug availability (supply), and the damaging consequences associated with drug use and trafficking. The Strategy's 5 Goals and 32 Objectives make up a 

comprehensive, balanced effort encompassing drug prevention, treatment, domestic law enforcement, 

interdiction, and international programs. The Strategy is a long-range plan that can respond to the ever 

changing parameters of the drug threat. Elements of the PME system may be modified as data reveal new 

drug use behaviors and effective drug control techniques. 

The Government Performance and Results Act recognizes that the ability of Federal agencies to 

achieve their Goals and Objectives may be significantly affected by external factors beyond their control. 

Achieving the Strategy's Goals and Objectives is critically dependent on the actions not only of the Federal Government but also of State, local, and foreign governments, private entities, and individuals. 

Therefore, the performance measures described herein should be viewed as goals for the Nation, not as 

goals to be achieved by the Federal Government alone. 

The Strategy's PME system assumes that the pursuit of Strategy Goals and Objectives by Federal and 

non-Federal entities will yield measurable effects known as "performance targets." There are a total of 94 

performance targets that demonstrate the Strategy's overall impact on drug use, availability, and consequences. In the longer term, these targets will show the effectiveness of specific Federal, State, and local 

programs and activities that underlie the total drug control effort. The nucleus of the PME system consists 

of 12 Impact Performance Targets (Impact Targets) that define desired outcomes or end states for the 

Strategy (see Figure 1). The remaining 82 performance targets calibrate progress toward the Strategy's 

32 Objectives, which are supported by a system of drug control program efforts. 

This document discusses the Impact Targets in terms of the three maifi themes of ONDCP's mission: 

reducing drug use, availability, and damaging consequences. Figure 1 shows the 12 Impact Targets that 

support the Strategy's 5 Goals. These targets define desirable, meaningful outcomes or end states for the 

Nation's drug control effort -- a 50 percent reduction of drug use and availability and at least a 25 percent 

reduction in damaging drug use consequences. The following are the three main themes of ONDCP's mission and their associated Impact Target outcomes: 

• In the area of overall drug use, the target is a 50 percent reduction by 2007 in the rate of illegal drug 

use in the United States compared with that in 1996; 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS V 
• In the area of drug availability, the aim is a 50 percent reduction by 2007 of the available supply of 

illicit drugs in the United States compared with that in 1996; and 

• In the area of drug use consequences, the target is a 30 percent reduction by 2007 in the rate of 

crime and violent acts associated with drug trafficking and drug abuse compared with that in 1996. In 

addition, this theme targets a 25 percent reduction by 2007 in damaging health and social costs 

attributable to drug use as measured by annual estimates of the social costs of drug use. 

The additional 82 performance targets establish benchmarks by which to gauge progress in achieving 

the National Drug Control Strategy's 32 Objectives. In general, performance targets establish "outputs" or 

"outcomes" for program activities. For example, ONDCP's National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign 

has outputs (e.g., increased hours of anti-drug ads) and outcomes (e.g., improved youth attitudes about the 

dangers of drug use) that contribute to an Impact Target (reducing the prevalence of youth drug use) in 

support of Goal 1. 

The total of 94 targets form a highly ambitious PME system that will enable policymakers, program 

managers, and the public to determine which programs are contributing to the achievement of the desired 

end states of the Strategy's Goals and Objectives. If Impact Targets are not met, the PME system will help 

identify problems so that corrective action can be taken. Corrective action may include the reallocation 

of Federal drug control resources from less effective programs to more effective programs. When Impact 

Targets are met, responsible program areas may be adjusted accordingly. Information on "what's working" 

will be invaluable to the more than 50 Federal drug control agencies supported by a Federal budget of over 

$17 billion, as well as to State and local drug control agencies. 

The PME system represents the first time a causal model linking all the performance targets into a single 

body of logic has been developed. The Strategy's 5 Goals, 32 Objectives, and 94 targets form a framework 

that shows how the efforts of more than 50 Federal drug control agencies' programs along with the efforts 

of State, local, and foreign governments, and the private sector interrelate and contribute to the achievement of the Strategy's Goals and Objectives. 

The intent of this report is to present, for the public's consideration, the PME system that will be used to 

link Strategy, Goals, and Objectives with program results and resources. The National Drug Control 

Strategy PME system requires analysis of "options" for achieving desired policy outcomes. Elements of 

these options include the drug control budget (resources); shared responsibility among Federal, State, and 

local governments; our system of laws and regulations; the private sector; and community organizations 

that form our national response to the drug problem. 

While performance targets are identified for the years 2002 and 2007, this is not meant to imply that 

5 years must lapse before deciding whether the Strategy's Goals and Objectives are being achieved. Annual performance targets will be developed as soon as practical. 

It should be understood that the Performance Measures of Effectiveness is not a budget document. The 

Goals and targets were developed separately from the budget process. Additionally, since the Goals are to 

be attained over a 10-year period, intervening events may occur which prevent them from being met. 

Moreover, in drafting the Performance Measures of Effectiveness, we have made certain assumptions, 

including expectations about realizing future resource levels. Given these circumstances, Goals and performance measures may need to be adjusted to reflect new or changing circumstances. 

This PME system synthesizes the ideas and deliberations of the entire drug control community. 

ONDCP looks to its wide range of stakeholders to play a partnership role in ensuring the success of this 

historic national drug control program. 

vi PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
Figure 1 

• 12 Drug Strategy Impact Targets 

(82 other performance targets are not shown) 

"0 

Z 

.= 

m 

m ¢-~ 

-4 

. 

mD 

25% by 2002 

50% by 2007 

15% by 2002 

30% by 2007 

10% by 2002 

20% by 2007 

20% by 2002 

50% by 2007 

10% by 2002 

20% by 2007 

15% by 2002 

30% by 2007 

Supply Demand 

Consequences 

25% by 2002 

50% by 2007 

20% by 2002 

50% by 2007 

12 Mos. by 2002 

36 Mos. by 2007 

25% by 2002 

50% by 2007 

20% by 2002 

50% by 2007 

10% by 2002 

25% by 2007 

Table of Contents 

Message From the Director .................................................. iii 

Executive Summary ........................................................ v 

List of Figures ........................................................... xi 

I. Launching the National Drug Control Strategy Performance Measurement System... 1 

Introduction ............................................................... 1 

An Overview of the National Drug Control Strategy .............................. 2 

Demand and Supply: A Lens for Assessing Drug Control Performance ................ 3 

Strategy Goals and Objectives ................................................. 4 

Partners in the National Drug Control Effort ..................................... 7 

The Federal Drug Control 5-Year Budget ........................................ 7 

II. Establishing Performance Targets for Strategy Goals and Objectives ............. 11 

Performance Targets for Strategy Goals ......................................... 12 

Can the Impact Targets Be Achieved in 10 Years? ................................ 20 

Performance Targets for Strategy Objectives ..................................... 21 

Annual Performance Targets ................................................. 23 

III. Using Performance Measurement to Manage for Results ...................... 27 

Performance Monitoring and Program Evaluation ................................ 30 

The Role of Working Groups ................................................. 34 

Relationship to Agency Government Performance and Results Act Products .......... 34 

Use of Findings ............................................................ 34 

IV. Conclusion ......................................................... 37 

Appendix A: Plausibility of the Impact Targets .................................. 39 

Appendix B: Targets and Measures ........................................... 53 

Appendix C: Development of the Performance Measurement System ................. 99 

Appendix D: Crosswalk Between Targets and Databases .......................... 103 

Appendix E: The Causal Model ............................................. 107 

Acknowledgments ....................................................... 111 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS ix 

List of Figures 

Figure 

Figure 

Figure 

Figure 

Figure 

Figure 

Figure 

Figure 

Figure 

Figure 

Figure 

Figure 

Figure 

Figure 

Figure 

1: 

2: 

3: 

4: 

5: 

6: 

7: 

8: 

9: 

A-l: 

A-2: 

A-3: 

A-4: 

D-l: 

E-l: 

Twelve Drug Strategy Impact Targets ............................... vii 

Supply, Demand, and Consequences ............. . ................... 4 

Performance Measurement Framework .............................. 11 

Impact Targets ................................................ 17 

Goals, Objectives, and Impact Targets ............................... 18 

Youth Attitudes and Their Effect on Marijuana Use .................... 22 

Selected Performance Targets ..................................... 24 

Relationships Among Prevention Targets ............................ 28 

Relationships Among Interdiction Targets ........................... 32 

Total Demand Reduction Targets .................................. 41 

Youth and Workforce Demand Reduction Targets ..................... 42 

Age of Initiation Targets ......................................... 46 

Economic Costs of Drug Use ..................................... 49 

Target--Data Sources .......................................... 105 

Relationships Among Targets .................................... 108 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS xi 

I: Launching the National Drug 

Control Strategy Performance 

Measurement System 

Introduction 

S 

hrinking resources and declining 

confidence in Government have 

recently spawned legislative and 

administrative mandates for increased 

accountability and improved 

performance by Federal agencies. 

This reform movement has resulted in 

Government initiatives that refocus public 

managers on results rather than on process and 

output. The Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Chief Financial 

Officers' Act, the Government Management 

Reform Act, and the National Performance 

Review are all manifestations of the move toward 

greater accountability and performance-based 

management. This report builds upon the trend in 

government toward increased accountability and 

integrates the concept into the national drug 

control effort. 

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L.100-690 

as amended) established the Office of National 

Drag Control Policy (ONDCP) to set national drug 

control priorities and objectives, coordinate the 

activities of over 50 Federal drug control agencies, 

and prepare a consolidated Federal drug control 

budget. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and 

Law Enforcement Act (P.L. 103-322) expanded 

ONDCP's responsibilities to include providing 

budget guidance to Federal drug control agencies 

and evaluating the effectiveness of Federal drug 

control activities.' 

This document describes the framework for 

ONDCP's assessment of the effectiveness of the 

national drug control effort. It delineates the 

performance measurement system developed by 

ONDCP in conjunction with various public and 

private stakeholders. In keeping with the dynamic 

nature of the National Drag Control Strategy (the 

Strategy), the performance measurement system is 

flexible; it is designed to be responsive to 

anticipated or reactive changes in the drug threat. 

Measures in this document, nonetheless, are based 

on the current drug threat. The chief purpose of this 

document is to set forth a mechanism by which to 

measure progress toward the achievement of the 

Strategy's Goals and Objectives and to inform the public 

debate surrounding national drug control efforts. 

Factors external to Federal agencies and beyond 

their control may significantly affect the 

achievement of Federal agencies' goals and 

objectives. The achievement of the Strategy's Goals 

and Objectives is critically dependent on the 

actions of not only the Federal Government, but 

also those of State, local, and foreign governments, 

private entities, and individuals. Therefore, the 

performance measures contained in this report 

should be viewed as goals for the Nation, not as 

measures to be achieved by the Federal 

Government alone. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 1 
LAUNCHING THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 

An Overview of the National 

Drug Control Strategy 

America's youth to reject illegal drugs 

and substance abuse.'" 

The 1998 Strategy proposes a 10-year plan to 

confront drug abuse in the United States. 2 This plan 

includes 5 Goals and 32 Objectives as part of a 

comprehensive, balanced effort that encompasses 

drug prevention, treatment, domestic law 

enforcement, interdiction, and international 

programs. The Goals of the Strategy are intended to 

reduce drug use, decrease drug availability, and 

reduce the adverse health, social, and safety 

consequences of drug use. 

This priority was reinforced in testimony before 

Congress by the Director of ONDCP who said: 

"[T]he centerpiece of our national anti.drug 

effort must be to prevent the use of illegal 

drugs, alcohol, and tobacco by our 

children .... [The 1997 Strategy's] number 

one priority is to reinvigorate what must 

be a national anti.drug effort on behalf of 

our children. ''4 

The Strategy is the drug control community's 

main guide in the straggle to decrease drug use and 

its consequences. Developed in consultation with 

public and private organizations, State and local 

officials, and nationally recognized experts in drug 

control and performance measurement, it sets a 

course for the Nation's collective effort against 

drugs. The Strategy underscores the point that no 

single approach can rescue the Nation from the 

problems of drug abuse. Drug prevention and 

treatment must be complemented by supply 

reduction efforts abroad, along our borders, and 

within the United States. While maintaining its 

commitment to enforcing anti-drug laws and 

reducing drug use and its consequences, the Strategy 

ties national policy and a supporting budget to a 

research-based body of knowledge on the Nation's 

drug problems. 

The Strategy focuses on the reduction of drug use 

on two fronts: the unacceptably high demand for 

drugs among youth and the continuing demand for 

a wide range of drags by the addicted or chronic 

drug user population. Combating the increasing 

demand for drugs among America's youth is the 

centerpiece of the national anti-drug effort. The 

Strategy states: 

"[W]e are deeply concerned about the rising 

trend of drug use by young Americans. 

While overall use of drugs in the United 

States has fallen dramatically--by half in 

fifteen years--adolescent drug abuse 

continues to rise. That is why the number 

one goal of our Strategy is to motivate 

The current demand for illegal drugs among 

America's youth is threatening to reverse a decadelong trend of overall decline in drug abuse. While 

there are now indications that youth drug use has 

stabilized and may even be declining, the rate of 

drug use remains unacceptably high: To respond to 

this serious problem, the Federal Government has 

implemented a national prevention effort to affect 

youth attitudes about drug use through a farreaching media campaign. This campaign will be 

complemented by other Federal, State and local 

government, and private sector drug prevention 

efforts targeting our Nation's youth, parents, 

communities, and schools. By focusing on youth 

through drug prevention programming, the Strategy 

intends to shut down the pipeline into drag use. 

This means preventing our youth from initiating 

drug use and persuading those who have started 

using drugs to stop. 

The most recent estimates show that about 

13 million Americans in households use drags on a 

current (past month) basis. 6 However, this estimate 

fails to represent chronic drug users, who are known 

to consume most of the illegal drugs in the United 

States and commit a disproportionate amount of 

crime, v In fact, it is estimated that chronic drug users 

consume more than two-thirds of the drugs, even 

though they are a minority of the total number of all 

drug users: Inducing these users to stop or reduce 

their drug use would have benefits such as reducing 

the costs of crime and health care; the spread of 

infectious disease; loss of productivity; and the 

destruction of neighborhoods, families, and 

communities. The Strategy emphasizes the need to 

2 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
LAUNCHING THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 

provide drug treatment for chronic drug users who 

are inside and outside the criminal justice system 2 

More than 3.6 million drug users are identified as 

needing help to overcome their addiction, m Drag 

treatment is the key if we are to reduce drug use and 

its consequences. Because many of these chronic 

users come in contact with the criminal justice 

system, drug treatment provides an opportunity to 

break the cycle of drug use and crime. The Strategy 

proposes expanding treatment to attack the 

problems of chronic drug use. 

The Strategy highlights the need to reduce the 

availability of drugs through domestic and 

international efforts. On the domestic front, 

criminal organizations that traffic in and distribute 

drugs are targeted. The Strategy aims to reduce drugrelated crime and violence through community 

• policing as well as integrated international, Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement efforts. On the 

international front, the Strategy proposes substantial 

efforts to prevent drugs from crossing the Southwest 

Border where the majority of cocaine enters the 

United States. It also proposes to strengthen 

counterdrug efforts in the Caribbean, especially in 

the areas around Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands, where there has recently been a reemergence of drug trafficking. Source and transit 

zones also are targeted via bilateral and multilateral 

efforts to reduce illicit drug cultivation and 

production. 

The Strategy underscores the fact that in 1996, 

the total full-time workforce numbered 99 million 

with 6.1 million workers estimated to be current 

drug users. The Strategy additionally emphasizes 

that drug-free workplace programs, which include 

prevention, education, employee assistance programs, 

drug testing, and treatment, have a definite impact 

on drug use, both within the youth population and 

within the workplace in general. Implementation of 

these programs not only decreases drug use, but also 

improves productivity, increases safety for workers 

and for the general public, lowers accident rates, and 

lowers work-related health care costs. 

Drug availability will be influenced by the success 

of our demand reduction policies. As demand 

reduction yields fewer users through prevention and 

treatment programs, drug prices and profitability 

will decline. A reduced U.S. demand for drugs 

means that traffickers will fear oversupplying the 

U.S. market because it would presage a downward 

spiral for drug prices and profitability. Thus, demand 

reduction efforts complemented by supply reduction 

efforts can markedly affect drug availability. This is 

why the Strategy emphasizes both demand and 

supply reduction programs. 

Health and social costs of drug use also will be 

reduced through demand reduction and supply 

reduction programs. The social costs of drug use are 

estimated to be more than $67 billion a year, with a 

majority of these costs being crime-related, n By 

maintaining resources for domestic law enforcement 

and pursuing proven initiatives such as drug courts, 

expanded treatment for chronic drug users, and 

crime prevention programs, the Strategy offers a 

comprehensive approach that will result in tangible 

reductions in the social costs of drug use. 

Demand and Supply: A Lens for 

Assessing Drug Control Performance 

The Strategy is a plan of action to reduce the use, 

availability, and damaging consequences of illicit 

drugs. This three-part focus is generally divided into 

two functional areas: supply reduction and demand 

reduction, as defined by statute, to cover Federal 

drug control agencies' responsibilities to support the 

Strategy. ~z'~3 For example, all law enforcement 

activities are treated as supply reduction activities 

even though they may directly deter drug use and 

contribute to demand reduction. Similarly, treatment 

is always counted as demand reduction, even though 

clients may be drug sellers who also are drug users. 

Thus, the Strategy can be viewed in terms of reducing 

demand and supply, as well as the adverse consequences associated with illegal drugs (Figure 2). 14 

Consider first the broad role of demand reduction. 

The United States provides a ready market for the 

sale of illicit drugs. Individuals are frequently 

introduced to drug use in early adolescence, often 

through the most readily available substances-- 

alcohol and tobacco. Individuals who use alcohol, 

tobacco, and marijuana, especially when they use 

them early in their lives, have a greater likelihood of 

moving to drugs with a greater potential for harm, 

such as cocaine and heroin. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 3 
LAUNCHING THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 

The progression to more harmful drugs is not 

inevitable but is strongly influenced by a host of 

environmental factors and by the choices people 

make on a day-to-day basis. One thing is certain: 

understanding drug use as a progressive behavior 

lends insight into demand reduction in the United 

States. First, prevention efforts are critical; the 

opportunity to prevent or reverse the progressive use 

of drugs must be exercised whenever and wherever 

possible. Second, we must reach out and treat those 

individuals who already are addicted. 

Drug use exacts enormous social costs. It facilitates 

the spread of infectious diseases, results in lost 

productivity in the workplace, fosters criminality, 

and often contributes to human suffering. By 

reducing demand, these associated costs will, in 

turn, be reduced. 

Consider the role of supply reduction. Vast 

international criminal enterprises funnel illicit drugs 

into the United States and are involved in all 

aspects of supply, including cultivation, processing, 

smuggling, transshipment, and distribution within 

U.S. borders. As in any business, individuals 

involved in these activities seek to expand markets 

and increase profits. The Strategy seeks to reduce 

the availability of drugs in the United States by 

disrupting cultivation, processing, transshipment, 

and distribution activities wherever possible. 

Continued interference in the operations of 

criminal entrepreneurs has two effects: it directly 

reduces the supply of drugs by removing some of the 

narcotics from the market and indirectly reduces the 

supply of drugs by increasing the cost of doing 

business. At some point, this cost will become high 

Figure 2 

Supply 

enough to discourage continued investment, and 

supply will be diminished as a result. A sustained 

reduction in supply, regardless of how it is achieved, 

will in turn lead to a reduction in consumption. 

The consequences of supply dynamics are also of 

great concern. While violence is characteristic of 

organized criminal activity, it is more pervasive 

within the drug trade. Drug trafficking-related 

violence in the United States will decline once the 

consumption of drugs decreases as a result of 

substantial supply reduction. 

The triad of decreasing drug use, availability, and 

consequences forms the heart of the Strategy's 

system of performance measures of effectiveness 

(PME). Later in this report, 12 performance targets 

known as "Impact Targets" describe the progress of 

the Strategy's 5 Goals and 32 Objectives in reducing 

drug use, availability, and consequences. The task of 

linking 5 Goals and 32 Objectives to the efforts of 

more than 50 Federal drug control agencies; State, 

local, and foreign governments; and the private 

sector was daunting. The PME system in this report 

contains a total of 94 performance targets. Without 

some kind of organizing principle, the PME system 

would be difficult to explain. The triad of use, 

availability, and consequences helps clarify the 

system's organization. 

Strategy Goals and Objectives 

Before describing the mechanics of the PME 

system, we must take a closer look at the Strategy's 

Goals and Objectives. These Goals and Objectives 

provide guidance to all public and private sector 

entities committed to reducing drag use and its 

consequences. Strategy Goals define the five major 

initiatives that must be pursued if we are to reduce 

drug use, availability, and consequences. The 

32 Objectives help us measure progress and may be 

modified as counterdmg efforts succeed or as new 

challenges emerge. The following five Strategy 

Goals will remain constant over the long term: 

• Goal 1: Educate and enable America's youth 

to reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and 

tobacco. Demand can be reduced most 

effectively by ensuring that young people never 

become involved with drugs. 

4 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
LAUNCHING THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 

• Goal 2: Increase the safety of America's citizens by substantially reducing drug.related 

crime and violence. Crime and reduced public 

safety are among the consequences of drug trafficking and drug use. Criminal activities 

associated with drugs must be reduced. 

• Goal 3: Reduce health and social costs to the 

public of illegal drug use. Individuals who 

escalate from experimental use to chronic use 

place enormous burdens on society in the form 

of health and social costs. The capability of drug 

treatment providers to produce favorable outcomes must be increased, thereby decreasing 

these consequences. Goal 3 also targets drug use 

in the workplace through emphasis on prevention and education programs, employee 

assistance programs, and drug testing programs. 

* Goal 4: Shield America's air, land, and sea 

frontiers from the drug threat. The disruption of transshipment activities is a principal 

means for reducing the supply of illicit drugs in 

the United States. 

• Goal 5: Break foreign and domestic drug 

sources of supply. Goal 5 focuses on decreasing 

the quantity of foreign and domestic cultivation, production, and distribution of drugs that 

are destined for use in the United States. 

The Strategy Goals are intentionally defined in 

general terms. However, the means by which they 

are to be achieved are broken down into specific 

Objectives. The Objectives for each Goal are listed 

in Table 1 and are categorized by their supply (S) 

reduction or demand (D) reduction focus. 

The relationships among the mission areas--- 

supply, demand, and consequences--are clarified by 

the Strategy to guide the drug control community. 

Goals and Objectives were established to direct drug 

control efforts. The next requirement for an 

effective PME system was to designate performance 

targets that define desired outcomes or end states for 

these Goals and Objectives. Ultimately, our progress 

toward achieving the performance targets will attest 

to the efficacy of the Strategy's Goals and 

Objectives. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 5 
LAUNCHING THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 

Table 1 

Goals and Objectives of the PME System 

Goal 

1 

Objective Supply Reduction (S) or 

Demand Reduction (D) 

Abbreviated Description of Goals and Objectives 

Prevent Drug Use Among America's Youth 

I 

1 D Increase the ability of adults to discourage drug use 

! 

2 D Pursue a vigorous media campaign 

I 

3 D Promote zero tolerance policies 

I 

4 D Provide sound school-based prevention programs 

! 

5 D Increase mentoring 

! 

6 D Develop community coalitions 

! 

7 D Engage the media 

I 

8 D Distribute information on the negative consequences of legalization 

I 

9 D Develop principles of prevention 

! 

10 D Conduct research 

I 

2 Increase the Safety of America's Citizens 

Disrupt drug trafficking organizations 

2 S Strengthen High Intensity Drag Trafficking Areas 

3 S Disrupt money laundering organizations, seize, and forfeit assets 

D Treat offenders 

i 

D Break the cycle of drug abuse and crime 

D Conduct research 

3 Reduce the Health and Social Costs of Drug Use 

1 D Support effective and accessible treatment 

D Reduce health problems 

D Promote a drug-free workplace 

4 D Certify drug treatment workers 

D Develop pharmaceutical treatments 

6 D Support research 

4 Shield America's Air, Land, and Sea Frontiers 

1 S Conduct flexible operations and reduce transit zone drag flow 

S Improve coordination among U.S. agencies 

3 S Improve coordination with other source and transit nations 

4 S Conduct research and develop technology 

5 Break Foreign and Domestic Sources of Supply 

1 S Reduce cultivation 

2 S Disrupt drug trafficking organizations 

3 S Improve source country capabilities 

Support multilateral initiatives 

Deter money laundering 

Conduct research and develop technology 

6 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
LAUNCHING THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 

Partners in the National Drug 

Control Effort 

Federal resources for drug control are proposed to 

be $17.1 billion in fiscal year 1999. This represents 

a 40 percent increase compared with Federal 

funding 5 years ago (1994). Included in this 

estimate are Federal resources provided to State and 

local governments and private organizations that 

provide demand reduction and supply reduction 

programs in our Nation's communities. In fact, 

approximately one-quarter of the Federal Government's 

drug control budgetary resources are for grants-inaid or other forms of assistance to State and local 

governments and private entities, where they 

complement other local resources for drug control 

programming. To assess the Strategy's overall 

effectiveness, the PME system recognizes that the 

Federal Government is not solely responsible for 

progress in achieving the Strategy's Goals and 

Objectives. State, local, and foreign governments 

and private sector entities are partners in this effort. 

The fact that the Federal Government is not the 

only entity responsible for providing demand 

reduction and supply reduction programs presents a 

challenge to establishing a results-oriented PME 

system. Assessing the effects of Federal drug control 

programs is extremely difficult because it requires 

understanding how the programs and resources 

provided by the many entities in drug control are 

linked to outcomes or end states. The PME system 

discussed in this report recognizes non-Federal 

partners as key contributors to the success of the 

Strategy. For this reason, the Strategy was developed 

in consultation with our non-Federal parmers. 

The PME system provides a way to improve 

communication between the Federal Government 

and its parmers in drug control. It remains the 

Federal Government's objective to ensure that 

resources provided to our partners have few strings 

attached so that our partners have maximum flexibility 

in determining how best to use Federal funds to 

achieve Strategy Goals and Objectives. At the same 

time, the requirement for increased accountability 

and improved performance means that partners 

must work cooperatively with Federal agencies. 

The Federal Drug Control 5-Year Budget 

In 1998, the Administration is releasing the first 

5-year budget for Federal drug control. This budget 

represents a radical departure for Federal drug 

control budgeting; never before has long-term fiscal 

planning been considered in the formulation of the 

Nation's drug control policy. The 5-year budget 

covers the fiscal years from 1999 to 2003 and 

contributes to the Administration's Goals and 

Objectives as articulated in the 1998 National Drag 

Control Strategy. The 5-year budget reflects funding 

priorities first delineated in the 1997 Strategy and 

continued in the 1998 Strategy. Details about the 

drug control budget may be found in The 1998 

National Drug Control Strategy: Budget Summary. 

The PME system reflects the Goals and 

Objectives described in the 1997 and 1998 

Strategies. It is important to note that this report is 

not a budget document, nor was the PME system 

used to construct the FY 1999-2003 drug control 

budget. The performance targets were developed 

separately from the budget process. Additionally, 

since the Goals are to be attained over a lO-year 

time period, intervening events may occur which 

prevent them from being met. Moreover, in drafting 

the performance measures of effectiveness, we have 

made certain assumptions, including expectations about realizing future resource levels. Given 

these circumstances, these performance targets 

may need to be adjusted to reflect new or changing 

circumstances. 

The PME system also recognizes that the Federal 

Government is not the sole financier of the national 

anti-drug effort. A national-level strategy requires a 

national-level effort. To achieve the Strategy's 

Goals, responsibility must be shared among all levels 

of government Federal, State, and local. These 

entities, involved in our national drug control effort, 

must join together to reduce drug abuse if the 

Strategy's Goals are to be achieved. 

The intent of this report is to present to the public 

the PME system for linking Goals, Objectives, and 

results. This PME system enables the drug control 

community to assess and select among various 

options for achieving performance targets. These 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 7 
LAUNCHING THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 

options include management tools such as the 

budget (resources); shared responsibility among 

Federal, State, and local governments, the private 

sector, and community organizations; and our 

system of laws and regulations. 

The next step in the development of the PME 

system is to identify programs and resources that 

contribute to the achievement of the Strategy Goals 

and Objectives. ONDCP currently tracks Federal 

drug control programs and resources by (1) agency 

(reflecting ONDCP's legal mandate to certify 

budgets of National Drug Control Program 

agencies); (2) appropriations (reflecting the nine 

appropriations bills through which drug control 

resources are provided each year); (3) decision unit 

(agency drug account level appropriations); 

(4) function (activities such as interdiction, treatment, 

prevention, and corrections); and (5) compliance 

with the five Strategy Goals. ONDCP is now 

working to identify program activities and resources 

for each Strategy Objective and exploring how 

Federal grants-in-aid, State and local government 

resources, and private resources will contribute to 

realization of the Strategy Goals and Objectives. 

Endnotes 

1. ONDCP's authority to conduct performance evaluation is 

in its authorization language set out in 21 U.S.C. 1502 

(b) and (d). These responsibilities and powers relate in 

part to coordinating and overseeing the implementation 

of the National Drug Control Strategy and conducting 

performance audits and evaluations of National Drug 

Control programs. Statutory language appearing at 21 

U.S.C. 1504 (a) and (b) and 21 U.S.C. 1507 provides 

additional authority related to Strategy Goals and Objectives, 

assessments of Federal drug control efforts, and projections 

of priorities for supply reduction and demand reduction. 

2. The performance measurement system in this report supports 

the Goals and Objectives contained in the 1998 National 

Drug Control Strategy. These Goals and Objectives were 

first presented to the American public in the 1997 

National Drug Control Strategy released in February 1997. 

3. Office of National Drug Control Policy, The White 

House, 1997 National Drug Control Strategy, iii. 

4. Statement by General Barry R. McCaffrey, Director, 

Office of National Drug Control Policy, before the Senate 

Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Treasury, 

General Government and Civil Service, May 14, 1997. 

5. These indications come from two siarveys of drug use in 

America. The first is the National Household Survey on 

Drug Abuse published by the Department of Health and 

Human Services. Among other things, this survey reports 

drug use, incidence, and attitudes for youth aged 12-17. 

The most recent survey reports that, after increasing 

throughout the 1990s, past month use (current use) of 

any illegal drugs stabilized at 9.0 percent in 1996. Marijuana use in particular stabilized in 1996 at 7.1 percent. 

This finding was confirmed by the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future Study, which surveys youth in 

grades 8, 10, and 12. It reported that drug use leveled off 

in 1997 and also found that there were some slight 

declines in drug use reported for eighth graders. 

6. This estimate is for calendar year 1996 and reflects drug 

use within the national household population. It misses 

chronic or addicted drug users who do not live in households. The estimates of drug use for the household 

population are used to represent drug use trends in the 

United States, even though they do not cover the entire 

U.S. population. For more about this survey, see the 

Department of Health and Human Services, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of 

Applied Studies, Preliminary Results from the 1996 National 

Household Survey on Drug Abuse (Rockville, MD: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, July 1997). 

7. There is some overlap between these two estimates, but 

the extent of the overlap is unknown. 

8. This estimate was developed by the RAND Corporation. 

See C. Peter Rydell and Susan S. Everingham, Controlling 

Cocaine: Supply versus Demand Programs (Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND Corporation, 1994). 

9. According to RAND, about three-quarters of the cocaine 

is consumed by chronic users, who are about one-fifth of 

all cocaine users. This statistic is calculated only with 

respect to cocaine use. C. Peter Rydell and Susan S. Everingham, Modeling the Demand for Cocaine (Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND Corporation, 1994). 

10. This estimate was developed by the Department of Health 

and Human Services at the request of the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy. The estimate is based on 

the number of drug users who are considered chronic 

users and who are in need of treatment. 

11. Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, Substance 

Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem, Key 

Indicators for Policy (Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood 

Johnson Foundation, 1993). 

12.21 U.S.C. 1507 defines supply reduction and demand 

reduction for the purpose of determining how Federal 

drag control resources are apportioned to these two broad 

functional areas. 

8 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
LAUNCHING THE NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 

13. The supply and demand distinction is required by law. 

ONDCP's enabling legislation defined supply and demand 

reduction activities, created an Office of Supply Reduction 

and an Office of Demand Reduction, and required ONDCP 

to describe the share of total drug control resources devoted to supply reduction and demand reduction activities. 

14. To an economist, drug use does not equate to demand nor 

does availability equate to supply. Demand defines the 

desires or preferences of all consumers in a market over a 

range of prices. It shows the quantities that such consumers 

would remove from the market at alternative prices. 

Supply defines the quantities of the commodity producers 

will bring to market at alternative prices, which is 

determined by the industry's underlying cost structure. 

For purposes of this report, however, "demand" is used 

to refer to drug use; "supply" refers to drugs available 

for consumption. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 9 

II: Establishing Performance 

Targets for Strategy 

Goals and Objectives 

T 

he pursuit of Strategy Goals and their 

associated Objectives is expected to 

yield measurable outputs and outcomes designated as "performance 

targets. ''~ The Administration's 

National Drug Control Strategy 

PME system establishes performance measures 2 to 

assess (1) the Strategy's overall impact on drug 

use, availability, and consequences and (2) the 

effectiveness of specific Federal, State, local, and 

private sector programs and activities that constitute 

the national drug control effort. Measures are the 

means for tracking progress toward the performance 

targets. Ultimately, data for the measures will be 

provided by Federal, State, and local drug control 

agencies. The framework of the performance 

measurement system is shown in Figure 3. 

The nucleus of the PME system consists 

of 12 Impact Targets: 3 key performance targets 

that define desired end states for the Strategy's 

5 Goals. Another 82 performance targets reflect 

national progress toward the 32 supporting 

Objectives. While Impact Targets reflect 

whether the Strategy is successful overall, the other 

82 performance targets offer critical information 

on what needs to be done to refine policy 

and programmatic directions. Five- and ten-year 

targets are developed for the years 2002 and 

2007, corresponding to the 10-year Strategy. 

Annual targets will be developed as soon as 

is practical in coordination with the Federal drug 

control agencies and representatives of the antidrug community. 

Figure 3 Performance Measurement Framework 

Targets 

i] Objectives define major 

Goals define the lines of action 

major directives to achieve 

or directions each desired 

of the Strategy. Goal. 

The Mission of the National 

Drug Control Strategy is to 

reduce drug use (demand), 

drug availability (supply), 

and consequences, 

Targets define desired end 

states with which to compare 

actual performance. Impact 

Targets reflect progress 

toward the Strategy Goals; 

the remaining performance 

targets show progress 

toward the 32 Objectives. 

Measures 

Measures are 

the data, 

variables, and 

events used to 

track progress 

toward targets. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES oF'EFFECTIVENESS 11 
ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR STRATEGY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

Performance Targets for Strategy Goals- 

(12 Impact Targets) 

The following 12 Impact Targets set a course for 

the Nation's drug control efforts over the next 

10 years. The Impact Targets, designed to reduce 

drug use, availability, and consequences, establish 

desirable outcomes or end-states for where the 

Nation should aspire to be a decade from now. 

There are five Impact Targets for demand reduction 

efforts, five for supply reduction efforts, and two for 

reducing the adverse health and crime consequences 

of drug use and trafficking. These aggressive targets 

are intended to motivate Federal, State, local, 

foreign, and private parmers in drug control to 

reduce supply and demand to levels that are 

realistically achievable within the stated time frame? 

However, these 5- and 10-year targets are new and 

may need to be evaluated and refined periodically. 

Demand Reduction: The Impact Target for 

demand reduction is: A 25-percent reduction by 2002 

in the overall rate of illegal drug use in the United States 

below that of the 1996 base year. By 2007, the target is 

a 50-percent reduction in the rate of overall drug use 

below that of the 1996 base year. 5 In 1996, the current 

(i.e., past month) rate of drug use across the United 

States was 6.1 percent. 6 The targeted 50-percent 

reduction would yield a nationwide drug use rate of 

3.1 percent by 2007. The 3.1-percent rate would be 

the lowest verified rate since the Federal 

Government began systematically tracking such 

data. 7 This ambitious undertaking is contingent 

upon a long-term commitment by Federal, State, 

local, foreign, and private parmers in drug control to 

achieve the Goals and Objectives of the Strategy. 

The Impact Target for overall drug use requires 

reductions in the following three key areas: drug use 

by our Nation's youth; drug use in the workplace; 

and drug use by chronic drug users. 

• Focus on Youth: Two Impact Targets are related 

to youth drug use. The first Impact Target focuses on delaying the onset of drug use, as measured 

by the mean age of first-time drug use: By 2002, 

increase the average age of first-time drug use by 

12 months from the average age of first-time use in 

the 1996 base year. By 2007, increase the average 

age of first-time drug use by 36 months from that in 

the 1996 base year. To illustrate the value of 

reducing first-time drug use, consider the mean 

age for first-time use of marijuana (16.7 years), s 

If a youth approaches the age of 20 without having tried drugs, the chances of becoming a drug 

user are much lower2 Delaying the initial use of 

drugs such as marijuana by 36 months would, in 

turn, set the mean age of initial use at a high 

enough level to allow a larger percentage of the 

population to approach the "20-and-older safety-zone." The PME system will use the average 

age of first-time marijuana use as a proxy measure to track progress toward the target of 

delaying the onset of drug use. Achieving this 

ambitious target will demonstrate the Nation's 

progress toward shutting down the pipeline of 

drugs to America's youth? ° 

The Strategy also must have an impact on 

overall youth drug use prevalence. The Impact 

Target for youth drug use prevalence is: By 

2002, reduce the prevalence of past month use of 

illegal drugs and alcohol among youth by 20 percent 

as measured against that in the 1996 base year and 

by 2007, reduce the prevalence by 50 percent compared with that in 1996. To measure progress 

toward this target, we will use information 

collected annually in the National Household 

Survey on Drug Abuse on current use of any 

illegal drugs by youth aged 12-17. In 1996, the 

prevalence of drug use in the 12-17 age group 

was 9.0 percent, n A 50-percent reduction from 

the 1996 base year prevalence rate moves 

toward a targeted use rate of 4.5 percent 

by 2007. Achieving this critical Impact Target 

by 2007 would mean that the Nation would 

have the lowest rate of drug use among those 

aged 12-17 since recordkeeping on youth drug 

use began. 12 

Focus on the Workplace: Approximately 

74 percent of drug users are employed. ~3 Targeting the workplace with drug prevention and 

education programs will reduce overall drug use 

and protect the health, safety, and productivity 

of the American worker. The Impact Target for 

workplace drug use prevalence is: By 2002, 

reduce the prevalence of drug use in the workplace 

12 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR STRATEGY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

by 25 percent compared with that in the 1996 base 

year and by 2007, reduce prevalence by 50 percent 

compared with that in 1996. This target focuses 

on users who are not considered chronic drug 

users. The workplace offers an opportunity to 

reach these users. In 1996, the total full-time 

workforce population was 99 million with a current 

drug use rate of 6.2 percent or approximately 

6.1 million drug users. The rates were 8.6 

percent for those employed part-time and 12.5 

percent for those actively seeking work.14 To 

measure progress toward this target, we will use 

the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 

which reports current use of any illegal drugs for 

those employed full-time or part-time or who 

are actively seeking work. When the 1996 rates 

are reduced by half, drug use among those who 

are employed full-time will drop to 3.1 percent, 

a reduction of 3 million drug users. The rates for 

those employed part-time or unemployed will 

drop to 4.3 percent and 6.3 percent, respectively. 

Achieving these targets will substantially 

enhance productivity and safety in the workplace. Is 

• Focus on Chronic Drug Use: Chronic drug 

users consume the vast majority of available 

drugs in the United States. Unless their demand 

is substantially reduced, drug traffickers will 

continue to enjoy a long-term, stable market for 

their products. While supplying these users, traffickers entice others to begin using drugs. If the 

Nation's demand for drugs is to be dramatically 

reduced, chronic drug users must be targeted 

aggressively. The Impact Target for reducing 

chronic drug use is: By 2002, reduce the number 

of chronic drug users by 20 percent compared with 

that in the 1996 base year and by 2007, reduce the 

number of chronic drug users by 50 percent compared with that in 1996. The Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) estimates 

that there are at least 3.6 million chronic drug 

users who could benefit from drug treatmenU 6 

Though this estimate is subject to revision as 

newer and better modeling techniques are 

developed (see Appendix A) meeting this 

Impact Target within 10 years would reduce the 

number of chronic drug users to 1.8 million by 

2007. A decline of this magnitude in the number of chronic drug users would result in a 

significant reduction in the overall demand for 

drugs. In addition, these users place the greatest 

burden on society in the form of health and 

social costs. The reduction of these drug use 

consequences is considered in more detail below. 

Specific measures are needed to track progress 

toward reductions in the overall rate of chronic 

drug use. HHS's National Household Survey on 

Drug Abuse provides data that can be used to 

track progress in both reducing drug use and 

raising the average age of initial drug use. However, traditional survey techniques undercount 

the number of chronic drug users. '7 Therefore, 

ONDCP developed a new methodology to provide valid estimates of the population of chronic 

drug users. A federally funded pilot study has 

been completed that tests the new methodology 

and focuses on a single local jurisdiction-- 

Cook County in Chicago, Illinois? 8 ONDCP is 

developing estimates for a larger region which 

could then be used to develop national estimates of this difficult-to-measure subpopulation. 19 

In the interim, ONDCP will use HHS estimates 

of the size of the chronic user population to 

measure progress toward the target for reducing 

their number. 

Supply Reduction: In the area of supply 

reduction, the Impact Target is: Reduce drug 

availability in the United States by 25 percent by 2002, 

and by 50 percent by 2007 compared with that in the 

1996 base year. The Strategy emphasizes the need to 

reduce the available supply of drugs, particularly 

since demand reduction efforts are handicapped by 

an environment where drugs are plentiful. Supply 

reduction seeks to reduce availability, raise prices, 

reduce purities, and disrupt and dismantle 

trafficking organizations. This Impact Target applies 

to illicit drugs that are cultivated or produced 

domestically as well as those imported into the 

United States. This target is achieved by source 

country efforts to reduce production through 

eradication, interdiction, and law enforcement 

activities targeting criminal organizations. It also 

assumes traffickers will be deterred by various 

interventions which will reduce the availability of 

illicit drugs. 

There are no official government estimates of the 

available supply of illicit drugs in the United States. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 13 
ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR STRATEGY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

However, estimates of the amounts of drugs 

cultivated, produced, and in transit are available 

from various agencies including ONDCP, the State 

Department, the Drug Enforcement Administration, 

and the intelligence community. ONDCP is leading 

an interagency effort to develop an official drug flow 

(availability) estimate to provide a baseline for 

measuring the available supply of cocaine, heroin, 

marijuana, and methamphetamine. This long 

overdue undertaking will include estimates of the 

amounts of drugs leaving source nations (exports), 

in transit to the United States, and entering the 

United States for consumption. It may be determined 

that some baseline figures cannot be estimated in 

the short run. In that case, barriers to data 

estimation will need to be identified so they may be 

overcome quickly. 2° Official drug flow estimates are 

needed to assist the drag community to better measure 

progress in reducing the availability of these drags. 

Developing an official estimate of the available 

supply of drugs is critical, especially since measures 

of price and purity may not provide credible signs of 

progress. While reducing availability would force 

drug prices to rise, reducing demand would have the 

opposite effect. It is even conceivable that both 

demand and supply could be reduced such that drug 

prices remain unchanged. The point is that changes 

in drug price alone are not the most accurate or 

valid indicators of program performance. 

Estimating drug availability is not a new notion or 

an impossible undertaking. For example, one source 

estimates that about 287-376 metric tons of cocaine 

were available for consumption in the United States 

in 1995. 2~ These estimates may be used to illustrate 

the the rationale of the Impact Target for reducing 

drug availability. The target for a 50-percent 

reduction in availability by 2007 means that the 

available supply of cocaine would be reduced to 

143-188 metric tons. Using ONDCP estimates, 

availability of heroin would decrease from 

approximately 12 tons to 6 tons over this same 

period. The feasibility of Impact Targets is discussed 

in greater detail at the end of this chapter. These 

examples are meant to show the plausibility of this 

Impact Target; more precise drug availability figures 

will result as ONDCP and the international drug 

control agencies develop official drug flow estimates. 

All supply reduction activities, including domestic 

law enforcement, interdiction, intelligence, and 

source country programs, will be focused on 

achieving this key Impact Target. 

Impact Targets for supply reduction involve four 

key areas: foreign source zones, U.S. borders, 

domestic cultivation and production, and domestic 

traffickers' success. 

Focus on Foreign Source Countries: Gaining 

control over the cultivation and production of 

illicit drugs provides the foundation for supply 

reduction efforts. All major drugs and essential 

precursor chemicals must be targeted at the 

source of supply and prevented from leaving 

source nations. The Impact Target is: By 2002, 

reduce the rate of outflow of illicit drugs from source 

zones by 15 percent from the 1996 base year and 

by 2007, reduce the outflow rate by a total of 

30 percent as measured against the base year. The 

rate of outflow from source zones may be measured 

by the traffickers' success rate in source zones, 

which is defined as the estimated quantity of 

drugs available for export from source zones 

divided by the estimated total potential production amount. 

The following example for cocaine illustrates this 

target. The Interagency Assessment of Cocaine 

Movement (IACM) estimates that about 608 

metric tons of cocaine hydrochloride (HC1) were 

available for export from source zones in 1996. 22 

Dividing this by the estimated potential production 

of cocaine of about 760 metric tons in 1996 suggests 

that traffickers successfully exported 80 percent of 

the estimated potential production amount (see 

Appendix A for more about this calculation). The 

Impact Target seeks to reduce the traffickers' success 

rate of 80 percent by 30 percent, which means that 

it would be reduced to 56 percent (.30 x 80). 

Focus on Stopping Drugs in Transit and 

Arrival Zones: The transit and arrival zones 

present another opportunity to interrupt the 

flow of drugs. The Impact Target is: By 2002, 

reduce the rate at which illicit drugs successfully 

enter the United States from the transit and arrival 

zones by I 0 percent, compared with the 1996 base 

14 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR STRATEGY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

year and by 2007, reduce the rate by 20 percent as 

measured against the base year. To illustrate the 

implications of this Impact Target, 1996 estimates from ONDCP's Interagency Assessment 

of Cocaine Movement 23 were used to determine 

that approximately 608 metric tons of cocaine 

were shipped from the source zones destined for 

the United States in 1996. According to 1996 

seizure information, 191 metric tons of cocaine 

were seized in the transit and arrival zones. This 

implies a trafficker success rate in the transit and 

arrival zones of 69 percent. The Impact Target 

would reduce this rate by 20 percent in 10 years 

to 55 percent (see Appendix A for more discussion about this calculation). 

Interrupting the flow of drugs in the transit and 

arrival zones will not, by itself, solve the problem of 

reducing drug availability in the United States. 

However, when combined with source nation 

efforts, U.S. domestic law enforcement efforts, and 

reduction in the demand for drugs in the United 

States, flow interruption becomes a significant 

contributor to the long-term effort to cut the 

available supply of drugs in half. But this is not 

enough. Two additional performance Impact Targets 

are required for supply reduction programs within the 

United States: (1) reducing domestic cultivation 

and production and (2) reducing the traffickers' 

success rate of selling illicit drugs to the consumer. 

• Focus on Domestic Cultivation and Production: 

The Nation must gain control over the cultivation and production of drugs within its borders. 

The Impact Target is: By 2002, reduce the production of methamphetamine and the cultivation of 

marijuana in the United States by at least 20 percent from the 1996 base year, and by 2007, reduce 

production and cultivation by 50 percent compared 

with the base year. ONDCP will coordinate the 

development of official Government estimates 

of the amount of these drugs available in the 

United States and will report its estimates to 

Congress in the fall of 1998. Every effort will be 

made to fully eradicate cultivated, commercialgrade marijuana where it is detected in the 

United States. The official Government estimate will include the percentage of marijuana 

that escapes detection and will raise the benchmark for domestic marijuana control efforts. 

The domestic supply of methamphetamine also 

must be brought under control by focusing law 

enforcement efforts on controlling the illicit 

diversion of precursor chemicals and curtailing 

illicit manufacturing processes. 

Focus on Reducing the Traffickers' Success 

Rate in the United States: Within the United 

States, domestic law enforcement targets all levels of drug trafficking organizations. From the 

arrest of a local street comer dealer to the fullscale dismantlement of a drug trafficking 

organization, law enforcement helps reduce the 

supply of drugs available to consumers. 

Although the total of all domestic law enforcement seizures is not known, we can define an 

overall drug traffickers' success rate inside the 

United States (see Appendix A). 24 The Impact 

Target is: By 2002, reduce by I 0 percent the rate at 

which illicit drugs of U.S. venue reach the U.S. 

consumer as compared with the 1996 base year and 

by 2007, reduce this rate by 20 percent over the 

base year. 

An ONDCP-led development of an official 

Government drag flow estimate is paramount to the 

successful implementation of meaningful targets for 

supply reduction. ONDCP will continue to track 

process measures such as arrests, seizures, and drug 

purities. However, such measures track outputs, not 

outcomes, and are no substitute for the real measure 

of success this Nation's drug policy seeks: a 

reduction in drug availability. 

Drug Use Consequences: In the area of drug use 

consequences, we aim to reduce the substantial, 

damaging health and social costs stemming from 

drug use, including those from drug-related crime. 

These costs are estimated to be $67 billion annually 

with a large share being crime-related) ~ We target 

two principal areas to reduce the health and social 

costs of drug use: (1) crime and violence and (2) 

health costs. 

* Focus on Crime and Violence: Reducing drug 

use, especially chronic drug use, can do much to 

reduce drug-related crime, z6 Drug-related crime 

is not limited to highly publicized violent 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 15 
ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR STRATEGY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

crimes. Drug use also spawns many other types 

of crime including corruption, prostitution, 

domestic violence, money laundering, forgery 

and counterfeiting, embezzlement, and weapons 

violations. Domestic law enforcement must 

aggressively target traffickers to mitigate the 

violence that surrounds the drug trade and 

decrease the entire range of drug-related crime. 

The Impact Target for this area is: By 2002, 

reduce by 15 percent the rate of crime and violent 

acts associated with drug trafficking and drug abuse, 

as compared with the 1996 base year, and by 2007, 

reduce drug-related crime and violence by 30 percent, 

as compared with the base year. In 1996, the rate 

of arrests for drug law violations was 594 per 

100,000 arrests. 27 Reducing this rate by 30 percent 

over 10 years to 416 per 100,000 arrests will significantly increase the safety of our Nation's streets. 

• Focus on Health: Drug users engage in highrisk behaviors making them and their associates 

susceptible to a range of infectious diseases such 

as tuberculosis (TB), HIV/AIDS, and hepatitis. 

Drug use also contributes to birth defects and 

infant mortality, undermines workplace safety, 

and leads to premature death. The Impact Target for this area is: By 2002 to reduce health and 

social costs associated with illegal drug use by I 0 

percent, as expressed in constant dollars, as compared to the 1996 base year, and by 2007, reduce 

such costs by 25 percent as compared to the base 

year. To illustrate the implication of this Impact 

Target, consider the following example: According to the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, 1,919 cases of TB reported in 1996 

were related to drug use (11.5 percent of all 

cases reported). Achieving the Impact Target 

would reduce this figure to 1,727 in 2002 and to 

1,439 in 2007. 

There are sound reasons why the projected 

impacts on social costs are less than the impacts 

sought for reducing drag availability or use. It is 

unknown whether halving the demand for drugs 

will result in a corresponding halving of associated 

social costs. Reducing the prevalence of use, 

especially chronic use, will lower social costs. But, as 

the remaining users age, their average health costs 

are likely to rise. To develop a more precise 

approach to reducing the social costs associated with 

drug use, ONDCP will study the relationships 

among use, availability, and consequences while 

tracking the Strategy's overall progress. In short, as 

we implement this system of performance measures 

of effectiveness, we will learn more about the 

relationship between social costs and changes in use 

and availability. 

Measures of the Strategy's impact on reducing 

drug use consequences will come from crime 

statistics collected by the Department of Justice. In 

addition, HHS will report annual dollar estimates of 

the social costs of drug use. In particular, HHS's 

National Institute on Drug Abuse has this effort 

well underway and should be able to report its first 

estimate in 1998. This estimate will serve as the 

baseline for measuring progress in reducing the 

adverse consequences of drug use. 

Interrelationships Among the Targets: The 

12 Impact Targets, summarized in Figure 4, define 

desirable, meaningful outcomes or end states for this 

Nation's drug control effort--a 50-percent 

reduction of drug use and availability and at least a 

25-percent reduction in drug use consequences. 

Figure 5 shows the relationship among the 

Strategy's Goals, Objectives, and Impact Targets. 

The Impact Targets form the nucleus of the system, 

with the 5 Goals and 32 Objectives guiding the drag 

control community on tactical ways of achieving 

these impacts. Demand reduction programs form 

the right-hand side of the figure, supported by the 

Objectives for Goals 1 and 3 and some of the 

Objectives for Goal 2) s On the demand side, 

19 Objectives contribute to 5 Impact Targets to 

reduce drag use and 1 Impact Target to reduce the 

health and social costs of drug use. The left-hand 

side of Figure 5 depicts Goals and Objectives that 

contribute to supply reduction. These include 

Goals 4 and 5 and part of Goal 2. Thirteen 

Objectives constitute efforts to reduce drug use 

availability and crime associated to drag use and 

trafficking. This figure shows how drug control 

policy is organized for reducing drug use, availability, 

and consequences. The five Goals define key areas 

of the Strategy: prevention (Goal 1); treatment 

(Goal 3 and part of Goal 2); attacking domestic and 

16 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
Figure 4 

Impact Targets 

"0 

Z 

pro 

m 

¢-~ 

._L 

Supply 

Consequences 

Demand 
Figure 5 

Goals, Objectives, and Impact Targets 

of the National Drug Control Strategy 

Goal 5: Break Foreign and Domestic Sources of Supply 

Reduce cultivation 

Disrupt organizations 

Improve source country capabilities 

Support multilateral initiatives 

I Deter international money laundering 

I Conduct research and develop technology 

Goal 5 Objectives 

Goal 4: Shield America's Air, Land, and Sea Frontiers 

I Reduce drug flow in the transit 

and arrival zones 

Improve coordination among U.S. 

agencies 

Improve cooperation with source 

and transit nations 

Conduct research and develop technology 

Goal 4 Objectives 

't=,= 

Supply 

Consequences 

Goal 2: Increase the Safety 

Disrupt drug trafficking organizations 

Strengthen HIDTAs 

Disrupt domestic money laundering 

organizations by seizing assets 

Goal 2 Objectives 

18 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
I Demand 

Consequences ii e uC,,o.= h~al-tha n: social---~s~ .... tared with i 

of America's Citizens 

Treat offenders I 

Break the cycle of drug abuse and crime I 

Conduct research 

,Goal 2 Objectives 

Goal 1: Prevent Drug Use Among America's Youth 

< 

<== 

Goal 3: 

Increase the ability of aduits to 

discourage drug use 

Pursue a vigorous media campaign 

Promote zero tolerance policies 

Provide sound school-based 

prevention programs 

Increase mentoring 

Develop community coalitions 

I Engage the media 

Distribute information on negative 

consequences of legalization 

Develop principles of prevention 

Conduct research 

Goal 1 Objectives 

Reduce the Health and Social Costs of Drug Use 

Support effective and accessible treatment 

Reduce health problems 

Promote a drug-free workplace 

Certify drug treatment workers 

Develop pharmaceutical treatments 

Support research 

Goal 3 Objectives 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 19 
ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR STRATEGY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

foreign sources of supply (Goal 5); interdiction 

(Goal 4); and domestic law enforcement (part of 

Goal 2 and part of Goal 5). The Objectives are a 

guide as to how each area will be emphasized in 

future years to achieve desired impacts on drug use, 

availability, and consequences. 

Can the Impact Targets Be 

Achieved in 10 Years? 

Meaningful Impact Targets project where the 

drug control community should be in the future. 

The 12 Impact Targets are meaningful, resultsoriented targets for 2002 and 2007 reflecting 

Strategy requirements for reducing drug use, 

availability, and consequences. Progress toward 

these targets is determined using quantitative or 

qualitative indicators as performance measures. 

This section explores the feasibility of the Impact 

Targets. The question is: Are the 2002 and 2007 

end states for drug use, availability, and drug use 

consequences plausible? 

In the area of demand reduction, the Impact 

Target seeks to reduce overall drug use by 50 percent 

by 2007 as compared to the 1996 base year. 

According to the 1996 Household Survey, 

6.1 percent of the household population, or 

13.0 million people in households, used drags on a 

past month basis. The Impact Target for overall 

drug use proposes to cut the rate of drug use in half, 

to 3.1 percent. Using Bureau of Census population 

forecasts for 2007, a 3.1-percent Impact Target 

means that 8.0 million projected users must avoid 

using drugs. This is calculated by multiplying the 

current rate of drug use (6.1 percent) times the 

projected population in 2007 to determine the 

number of drug users there will be if the current rate 

of drug use prevails, and subtracting from this 

estimate the number of drug users there would be at 

the 3.1-percent rate (Appendix A provides more 

discussion about this calculation). While the 

reduction of 8.0 million users may seem ambitious, 

this level of change is not unprecedented. Between 

1985 and 1988, the number of drug users dropped by 

8.1 million; between 1988 and 1992, the number 

dropped by 3.1 million. 29 

With respect to our Nation's youth, a similar 

analysis shows that 1.1 million youth aged 12-17, 

projected to use drags in 2007, must not use drags. 

This means, that within the targeted 8.0 million 

reduction in the total number of drag users by 2007, 

1.1 million should be America's youth. Another 

Impact Target proposes to add 36 months to the 

average age of initiation to delay the onset of drug 

use. This outcome would bring the average age of 

initiation to age 20 (restoring its 1985 value). As for 

the other 6.9 million individuals who must stop 

using drugs to achieve the overall national target, 

the workplace is expected to yield another 

5.5 million reduction in users, including those 

actively seeking employment. This leaves a balance of 

1.4 million users (who are not employed, not 

seeking work, and age 18 or over) who are expected 

to stop their drug use. Again, this level of decline 

has occurred before; it can occur again. The challenge 

for the drag control community is to identify the best 

public policy options to achieve these reductions. 

Another concern is reducing the huge amount of 

drugs available for purchase in the United States. 

Clearly, this readily available supply of drugs affects 

the demand for drags in the United States. It is 

reasonable to assume that if there are fewer users in 

the future, then drug traffickers will reduce their 

supplies. This is not to say that demand reduction 

alone is the solution to today's drug problem. Supply 

reduction must contribute its fair share to the 

Nation's drug control efforts. 

As previously discussed, no official Government 

estimates of the flow of drags exist. This means there 

is no historical evidence to evaluate the plausibility 

of the Goal for reducing availability. However, many 

Federal Agencies have estimates or partial estimates 

of the drug flow? As discussed in the previous 

section's illustration for cocaine, information about 

cultivation, production, and seizures can be used to 

approximate the effectiveness of supply reduction 

programming in affecting availability. By estimating 

traffickers' success rates in source, transit and arrival 

zones, and in the United States, we can establish 

targets to reduce these rates. The Impact Targets for 

supply reduction establish outcomes for meaningful 

program improvements that will contributeto 

20 PERFORMANCE MEASURES O.F EFFECTIVENESS 
ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR STRATEGY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

reducing the available supply of drugs in the United 

States by 50 percent in 10 years. 

Performance Targets for Strategy 

Objectives 

(Remaining 82 Performance Targets) 

The discussion so far has focused on Impact 

Targets that reflect the extent to which the Strategy 

is successful in an overall sense. In addition, each of 

the 32 Objectives requires performance targets and 

measures to identify what is "working" so that 

program adjustments can be made. Eighty-two 

performance targets, supported by an equal number 

of measures, are established for the 32 Objectives. 

Each target establishes a benchmark for assessing 

progress in achieving a Strategy Objective. This 

section explores these supporting targets. 

Consider the following example: Goal 1, 

Objective 2 states, 

"Pursue a vigorous advertising and 

public communications program dealing 

with the dangers of illegal drugs, 

alcohol, and tobacco use by youth." 

This Objective is expected to be met primarily 

through ONDCP's 'national Youth Anti-Drug 

Media Campaign." This Campaign will use 

research-based paid anti-drug advertisements to warn 

youth about the hazards of illegal drugs and show the 

advantages of a drug-free lifestyle and to encourage 

parents and other influential adults to talk to children 

about the dangers of drugs. The intent is to positively 

influence attitudes about the dangers of drug use so 

that youth will not use drugs. Data shows that 

attitudes and use are highly correlated. Figure 6 shows 

recent experience in the 1990s between attitudes and 

use. Attitudes about disapproval rates and the 

perceived dangers of drug use deteriorated in 1990 

and 1991, respectively. This was followed by an 

increase in drag use after 1992. While the pattern is 

not definitive, it does suggest that attitudes must be 

targeted in order to influence levels of illegal drag use. 

Three performance targets, supported by readily 

available data, are established for the Media Campaign: 

Youth Risk Perceptions: By 2002, increase to 

80 the percent of youth who perceive that regular 

use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco is harmful 

and maintain this rate through 2007. The target 

will be measured using data from the University 

of Michigan's Monitoring the Future Study. For 

purposes of the media campaign, youth perceptions about the harmfulness of various categories 

of drugs could be used to mack its progress. However, 

for purposes of monitoring the performance of 

the campaign, youth perceived harmfulness 

rates for regular marijuana smoking will be 

tracked. Marijuana is the most prevalent illegal 

drug and attitudes associated with its use are 

strongly correlated with those for other drugs. 

Youth Disapproval: By 2002, increase to 95 the 

percent of youth who disapprove of illegal drug use, 

and maintain this rate through 2007. The Monitoring the Future Study conducted by the University 

of Michigan reports data on youth who disapprove of using various categories of drugs. Using 

the same logic discussed above, youth disapproval rates for regular marijuana use will be 

used to track progress. 

TV Anti.Drug Messages: By 2002, double the 

number of TV viewing hours that focus on anti-drug 

messages, as compared to the 1998 base year, and 

maintain that level through 2007. HHS will develop 

an indicator and report progress toward this target to ONDCP. The achievement of this 

particular target requires anti-drug TV viewing 

hours to be doubled, then maintained. ONDCP 

expects the media campaign to influence negative attitudes about illegal drugs and contribute 

to the dual Impact Targets of reducing youth 

drug use and raising the average age of initiation. 

These three targets and supporting measures 

represent an example of how the performance 

measurement system functions in relation to one of 

the 32 Objectives? ~ All 32 Objectives for which 

targets and measures are defined are presented in 

Appendix B. Appendix C describes the process that 

led to the creation of these targets and measures. 

Each target is based on a rationale articulated by the 

relevant working group. Figure 7 illustrates the 

rationale underlying selected performance targets. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 21 
Z 

m 

90 

c 

~c 

0 0 cJ~ 

-~o '- ~ 80 

e.- o 

~, o 70 

c ~ 

~.__. 

60 

Figure 6 

Youth Attitudes and Their Effect on Marijuana Use 

--T~- 1 0 o 

_ ~_be ~ ........... _.gi_ns to drop after !9--90 ° ° 

\ .- 

- use begins to weaken after 1991 " 

..... ~0 ........... 

0000 

• ',,.. "~ °°° 

Use starts to rise in 1992 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

2o 

0 

10 

Source: 1997 Monitoring the Future 
ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR STRATEGY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

The Strategy establishes aggressive public policy 

targets to significantly reduce drag use, availability, 

and consequences. These policy targets require a 

national commitment. Effective programs must be 

supported while ineffective programs are modified 

or abandoned. Resources must be used efficiently if 

these performance targets---our vision for the 

Nation a decade from now--are to be realized. 

The 5 Goals and 32 Objectives comprise a means 

to achieve the end states proposed by the Impact 

Targets. These Goals and Objectives form a system 

of programs, related in their common intent to 

reduce drug use, availability, and consequences. 

Performance measurements enable policymakers, 

program managers, and the public to determine 

which programs are contributing to the 

achievement of the desired end states. If an impact 

is not realized, the PME system can help identify the 

problem so corrective actions may be taken. Where 

impacts are realized, responsible program areas may 

be adjusted. ONDCP's mission is to understand and 

identify which programs work best in achieving 

each desired end state envisioned by the Strategy 

and to coordinate the Federal, State, and local 

entities toward a more efficient and effective focus 

on Strategy Goals and Objectives. 

Annual Performance Targets 

Targets that focus on the years 2002 and 2007 do 

not imply that 5 years must lapse before deciding 

whether the Strategy Goals and Objectives are 

contributing to the overall impacts for reducing drug 

use, availability, and consequences. Annual targets 

will be developed as soon as practical for each of the 

12 Impact Targets for drug use, availability, and 

consequences and for the 82 targets that reflect the 

32 Strategy Objectives. 

The intent of this report is to present for public 

consideration a conceptual framework and system 

design for assessing the Strategy's performance. For 

example, before deciding on the level of drug use to 

be achieved in 1999, one must first decide if the 

overall Impact Target submitted for 2007--a 

halving of drug use--is a plausible end state for drag 

policy. Progress toward achieving performance 

targets is not always linear or incremental. At times, 

progress will be noticeable only after some critical 

threshold of activity is achieved (e.g., after a 

sufficient number of prevention messages reach a 

sufficient number of individuals a sufficient number 

of times to affect their attitudes about the dangers of 

drag use). When this is true, progress may occur 

both suddenly and dramatically. Setting annual 

targets to reflect the 5- and 10-year impact 

performance targets must be done with care. 

ONDCP will begin modeling, where possible, to 

identify appropriate "glide paths" from now to 2007. 

In the absence of trend data on causal variables, a 

linear path may initially be projected with 

refinements to follow later. The glide path for each 

target may change drastically to reflect changes in 

the drug threat and in national commitment. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 23 
ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR STRATEGY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

Figure 7 Selected Performance Targets 

Target Rationale for Target 

Funded coalitions: Increase 

the number of community 

coalitions against drugs. 

Drugs and recidivism: Reduce 

the proportion of treated, drugusing offenders who are 

rearrested. 

Treatment gap: Reduce the 

public drug treatment gap. 

Transit and arrival zone 

seizures: Increase the 

proportion of drugs seized, 

jettisoned, or destroyed in 

transit to the United States. 

Goal 1/Objective 6: Strong, grassroots, 

anti-drug coalitions are required to promote 

locally based drug prevention messages. 

This target focuses on increasing the 

number of funded coalitions to strengthen 

the grassroots anti-drug message. 

Goal 2/Objective 4: Some drug users who 

commit crimes are arrested and treated. 

Yet, they return to a life of drugs and crime 

following their release. This target focuses 

on reducing the proportion of treated 

offenders who later commit a felony or 

serious misdemeanor. 

Goal 3/Objective 1: Hardcore drug users 

account for most of the drug use. 

Treatment capacity must be expanded to 

treat more users so that drug use and its 

consequences are reduced. 

Goal 4/Objective 1: The proportion of 

drugs seized to drugs produced must 

increase to reduce overall drug availability. 

The ability to conduct flexible transit and 

arrival zone operations and seize drugs is a 

major contributor to drug reduction. 

Disrupt trafficking 

organizations: Increase the 

percentage of community 

designated targets rendered 

ineffective. 

Goal 5/Objective 2: Organizations provide 

the means and the infrastructure for 

distributing drugs. Disrupting trafficking 

organizations can disrupt the flow of drugs. 

24 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR STRATEGY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

Endnotes 

Performance targets show the desired end states to be 

achieved; they are measurable levels of performance 

against which actual achievements can be compared. 

2. Measures show how progress toward targets will be tracked. 

3. Impact Targets indicate the outcomes or end states that 

drug control policy seeks to achieve. 

. The General Accounting Office suggests that performance targets should set "stretch" goals that are ambitious 

and are aimed at achieving dramatic improvements 

in outcomes. See General Accounting Office, 

"Government Reform: Goal-Setting and Performance," 

GAO/AIMD/GGD-95-130R, 1995. In addition, the 

National Academy of Public Administration argues that, 

"[p]erformance targets should be realistic, but should, 

wherever feasible, encourage progress beyond historical 

performance levels." See the National Academy of Public 

Administration, "Toward Useful Performance Measurement: Lessons Learned from Initial Pilot Performance 

Plans," prepared under the Government Performance and 

Results Act (1994), 8. 

5. Every effort is made to use existing data sets for the 1996 

base year. If these data are not available, an emerging or 

newly developed system will be used to fill in the data for 

prior years. Only when these alternatives are exhausted 

will anything other than 1996 base year data be used. 

This may be the case when a pre-1996 data set is superior 

to subsequent data sets or when more time is required to 

establish a newly developed data source. 

. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

Office of Applied Studies, Preliminary Results from the 

1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 

(Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 1997). Appendix C (Impact Target 3b) lists 

additional and supplemental data sources. 

7. The lowest rate of past month illegal drug use was 5.3 percent, recorded in 1992. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Preliminary Results from the 1996 National Household Survey 

on Drug Abuse (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 1997). 

8. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

Office of Applied Studies, Preliminary Results from the 1996 

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (Rockville, MD: 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1997). 

9. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse 

at Columbia University, National Survey of American Attitudes on Substance Abuse (New York, NY: Center on 

Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, 

July 1995). The mean age of first-time marijuana use was 

over 20 years in only 2 years since the Federal Government began tracking such data: 1967 and 1986. 

10. There is substantial empirical evidence to support the 

claim that delaying the onset of first-time drug use is an 

effective way to prevent drug use altogether. See Kandel, 

D.B., E. Single, and R. Kessler, "The Epidemiology of 

Drug Use among New York State High School Students: 

Distribution, Trends, and Changes in Rates of Use," 

American Journal of Public Health 66:43-53 (1976); Fleming, 

J.P., S.G. Kellam, and C.H. Brown, "Early Predictors of 

Age at First Use of Alcohol, Marijuana, and Cigarettes," 

Drug and Alcohol Dependence 9:285-303 (1982); Robins, 

L.N., and T.R. Przybeck, "Age of Onset of Drug Use as a 

Factor in Drug and Other Disorders," in Etiology of Drug 

Abuse: Implications for Prevention, C.L. Jones and R.J. Battjes 

(eds.), National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph No. 56 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 1985). 

11. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

Office of Applied Studies, Preliminary Results from the 

1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 

(Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 1997). 

12. According to the National Household Survey on Drug 

Abuse, the lowest rate of drug use recorded by that survey 

was in 1992, when past month use of any illegal drug use 

reached 5.3 percent. The highest recorded rate was in 

1979, at 16.3 percent. 

13. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Public Health Services, Workplace Policies and Worker Drug 

Use (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, 1997). 

14. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

Office of Applied Studies, Preliminary Results from the 

1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 

(Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 1997); Department of Commerce, Economics 

and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, 

1995 Statistical Abstract of the United States (Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996); Department 

of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

15. The Strategy emphasizes that drug-free workplace programs, which include prevention, education, employee 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 25 
ESTABLISHING PERFORMANCE TARGETS FOR STRATEGY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

assistance programs, drug testing, and treatment, have a 

definite impact on drug use within the youth population 

and the adult population. As people enter the workforce, 

there should be a realistic deterrent to drug use. It is 

expected that with full implementation of drug-free workplace programs and drug testing, significant reductions in 

drug use can be realized. 

16. This is the number of chronic users estimated to be in 

need of substance abuse treatment. Department of Health 

and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration, The Need for Delivery of 

Treatment Services (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 1995). 

17. For a review of the strengths and weaknesses of the 

NHSDA, see U.S. General Accounting Office, "Drug 

Use Measurement: Strengths, Limitations, and Recommendations for Improvement," GAP/PEMD-93 - 19, 1993. 

Also see Peter Reuter, "Prevalence Estimation and Policy 

Formulation," Journal of Drug Issues 23(2): 167-184 

(1993). 

18. Abt Associates, Inc. under contract to ONDCP, A Plan 

for Estimating the Number of Hardcore Drug Users (Washington, DC: ONDCP, forthcoming). 

19. ONDCP plans to develop national estimates using the 

new methodology successfully developed and implemented 

in Cook County, Illinois (see endnote no. 18). ONDCP's 

intent is to develop estimates for the base year, 1996. 

20. 21 U.S.C 1504(a) requires the Director, ONDCP, to 

assess reductions in.drug availability. It also requires the 

Director to assess the quality of current drug use measurement instruments to measure supply reduction activities. 

21. Abt Associates under contract to ONDCP, What America's 

Users Spend on Illicit Drugs: 1988-1995 (Washington, 

DC: ONDCP, 1997). 

22. The Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement 

(IACM) is a quarterly product coordinated by ONDCP 

and produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency. 

23. Ibid. 

24. The Drug Enforcement Administration has a study underway to estimate total seizures in the United States 

resulting from all law enforcement efforts. 

25. Rice, Dorothy, Institute for Health and Aging, University 

of California at San Francisco, unpublished data for 1990. 

26. The complex relationship between drugs and crime precludes an exact determination of the extent of 

drug-related crimes. Drug use and trafficking are illegal, 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

but it is difficult to obtain reliable estimates of the number of transactions between buyers and sellers, or the 

number of times a user or trafficker possesses drugs for use 

and sale. Each of these events constitutes a drug-related 

crime. However, there also are several types of indirect 

drug-related crimes, including those stemming from the 

pharmacological effects of drugs (e.g., violent behavior); 

crimes related to a user's need to support his or her drug 

use (e.g., stealing, prostitution, and robbery); and crimes 

related to establishing and maintaining the retail market 

(e.g., cultivating marijuana and gang warfare over distribution areas). Finally, there are drug-related crimes to 

support the operation of the illicit drug industry (e.g., 

money laundering and bribery). Thus, because the consequences of drug use fan out into society and can lead to so 

many types of individual and systemic crimes, precise estimation of the extent of drag-related crime is impossible. 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States 

1996: Uniform Crime Reports (Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, 1997). 

The depiction of the supporting Objectives for each Goal 

is abbreviated from the full text versions published in the 

1997 National Drug Control Strategy for display purposes. 

See the 1998 National Drug Control Strategy for the 

complete text for each Objective. 

Presumably, national attention to the problems of drug 

abuse, a vigorous media anti-drug campaign, the parents' 

movement, and the deaths of certain prominent figures 

contributed to this success. 

The Central Intelligence Agency's Crime and Narcotics 

Center (CNC) conducts an annual estimate of cocaine 

and heroin production, the Department of Defense's 

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) coordinates an interagency effort which estimates the primary movement of 

cocaine from South America, and ONDCP calculates 

illicit drug availability in the United States to estimate 

what America spends on illegal drugs. 

In addition to the performance targets related to television anti-drug messages, ONDCP will conduct an 

independent evaluation of its national youth anti-drug 

media campaign. This evaluation will continue throughout the life of the campaign and will examine such 

outcome issues as awareness of the anti-drug message of 

the campaign and changes in drug use attitudes and drug 

use behaviors among the Nation's youth. The evaluation 

will be linked to the performance measurement system by 

providing feedback on program effectiveness in achieving 

the impact and performance targets. 

26 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
III: Using Performance 

Measurement to 

Manage for Results 

T 

he Strategy represents a plan to 

reduce drug use, drug availability, 

and the consequences associated 

with drug use and drug trafficking 

behavior. Attaining the end states 

defined by the Strategy will require 

concerted program efforts at the Federal, State, 

and local levels. The programs that are 

maintained in support of the Strategy must have 

their own targets for performance, and these 

targets must be linked ultimately to the targets 

that have been established for Strategy Objectives. 

Such linkages constitute the components of causal 

chains in which program inputs are tied to 

program outputs, and program outputs are tied to 

outcomes (or end states). 

The causal chain begins with effective programming, 

parent and community involvement, and national 

media attention. 

A formal depiction of this causal chain is 

presented in Figure 8. 2 Note that each Objective 

has one or more associated targets. Note also that 

the lines depict what are, for the moment, 

presumptive sets of causal relationships with some 

degree of prima facie validity. A line originating 

from one target and terminating at another {with 

an arrow at the end) indicates that the former 

effects a change in the latter. Continuing with the 

earlier example discussed in Chapter 2 about the 

Media Campaign, Figure 8 illustrates how and 

why such an initiative will be valuable to national 

drug control efforts. 

Consider the Impact Target that seeks to reduce 

youth drug use prevalence by 50 percent over the 

next decade. This target sets a historic course for 

drug prevention; we are trying to get the rate of drug 

use among tomorrow's youth (in 2007) to be half of 

today's rate. To accomplish this, we must first ensure 

that tomorrow's youth are provided the protective 

factors that help them resist the lure of drugs.' This 

will require parents and other caregivers, mentors, 

schools, the media, workplaces, and communities to 

educate youth about the dangers of drug use. It will 

also require better programming, supported by 

research, to ensure that effective programs are 

delivered locally. These efforts target youth 

perceptions about the dangers of drug use, raise 

disapproval rates, strengthen protective factors, and 

reduce risk factors. These combined efforts will 

translate into a smaller number of youth using drugs. 

Under Objective 7: Engage the Media. This 

Objective reveals a plan to create partnerships 

with the media, the entertainment industry, and 

professional sports organizations to avoid the 

glamorization or normalization of drug use (Goal 1, 

Objective 7, Target 1, denoted 1.7.1). These 

partnerships will pave the way for an initiative 

that will double the number of television viewing hours that provide anti-drug messages (1.2.3). 

This, in turn, is expected to increase the percentage of youth who perceive great risk 

associated with drug use (1.2.1) and the percentage of youth who disapprove of.drug use (1.2.2). 

These attitudinal changes are expected to result 

in corresponding changes in behavior. Specifically, they should serve to increase the average 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 27 
Figure 8 

Relationships Among Prevention Targets of 

the National Drug Control Strategy 

Demand 

Reduce the demand for illegal drugs in the United 

States (Goal 3b) 

Reduce the prevalence of drug use among youth 

(Goal la) 

Increase the average age of new users (Goal lb) 

Reduce the prevalence of drug use in the workplace 

(Goal 3c) 

Reduce the number of chronic drug users 

(Goal 3d) 

Consequences p ........................ 

Reduce the health and social costs associated with 

drugs (Goal 3a) 

• I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I 

Pursue a Vigorous Media Campaign 

Obj.2 

Increase the percentage of youth who I 

perceive drug use as harmful (1.2.1) I 

Increase the percentage of youth who 

disapprove of drug use (1.2.2) 

Double the number of viewing hours that 

provide anti-drug messages (1.2.3) 

II 

Engage the Media 

I Obj.7 

Convince media organizations to adopt I 

policies that avoid glamorizing drug use I (1.7.1) 

Increase the Ability of Adults to 

Discourage Drug Use 

Obj. 

Increase the proportion of adults who have 

the capacity to help youth reject drugs 

(1.1.1) 

Increase the proportion of adults who 

attempt to influence youth to reject illegal 

drugs (1.1.2) 

Reduce the proportion of adults who regard 

drug use as acceptable (1.1.3) 

Increase Mentoring 

Obj. 5 

Develop a national program for increasing 

the number of mentors and mentoring 

organizations (1.5.1) 

Increase the proportion of individuals who 

are willing and able to serve as mentors 

(1.5.2) 

28 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
t 

I)~velop Con~n~uni~ C~lil~ns 

Obj. 6 

Publish a national inventory of community / 

coalitions, partnerships, and prevention 

programs (1.6.1) 

Increase the number of communities with 

funded, comprehensive anti-drug coalitions 

(1.6.2) 

Pr~vi~l® Io~n~l Icheol-I~l 

Obj. 4 

Establish criteria for effective prevention 

policies and programs (1.4.1) 

Increase the proportion of school districts 

that have implemented drug programs which 

are evaluated and tested (1.4.2) t 

Obj.3 

Promote zero tolerance policies in all 

schools (1.3.1) 

Promote zero tolerance policies in all 

communities (1.3.2) 

Obj. 9 

Develop national prevention principles / 

(1.9.1) 

m 

Disseminate information on these principles 

at the Federal, State, and local level (1.9.2) 

Obj. 10 

Identify and prioritize new and promising 

prevention strategies (1.10.1) 

Disseminate these research findings (1.1 0.2) 

Evaluate the impact of the anti-drug 

education initiatives (1.10.3) 

Obj. 8 

Develop an information package on 

pharmaceutical alternatives to marijuana 

and other drugs (1.8.1) 

Conduct nationwide dissemination of 

information on the adverse effects of 

marijuana and other drugs (! .8.2) 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 29 
USIN6 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS TO MANAGE FOR RESULTS 

age of new users (Goal lb, Impact Target), and 

reduce the prevalence of drug use among youth 

(Goal la, Impact Target). These behavioral 

changes serve ultimately to reduce the use of 

illegal drugs in the United States (Goal 3b, 

Impact Target). 

Now consider another causal chain, referring to 

the supply side example provided in Figure 9. The 

technology Objective of Goal 4 supports the 

development of a comprehensive network of 

sensors that will enhance the effectiveness of our 

drug interdiction operations. 

• Under Objective 4: Conduct Research and Develop Technology. The targets constitute the 

components of an integrated system for detecting the movement of illicit drugs. Once 

deployed, it will operate at various points of 

entry in the United States (4.4.1) and throughout the Western Hemisphere (4.4.3). The effort 

will involve the use of "over-the- horizon" 

tracking (4.4.4) as well as new "high-risk" 

technologies (4.4.5). 

• Under Objective 1: Reduce Drug Flow in the 

Transit and Arrival Zones. The various components of the sensor lay-down serve to increase 

the percentage of drugs seized, jettisoned, or 

destroyed in transit and arrival zones (4.1.1). 

• Increasing the percentage of drugs seized, jettisoned, or destroyed in turn serves to reduce the 

rate of illicit drug flow through transit and 

arrival zones (Goal 4, Impact Target). 

Each target prescribes changes that are to be 

attained by a certain date. These changes are 

measured using a fixed set of calculations that are 

applied to information in one or more specified 

databases. Appendix D provides a crosswalk 

between the targets and measures and the various 

databases that will be employed. Appendix E, 

Figure E- 1, shows the complete logic model for the 

5 Goals and 32 Objectives. 3 

Performance Monitoring and Program 

Evaluation 

Performance measurement requires, as a first 

step, the monitoring of targets for all Strategy 

Goals and Objectives. Monitoring involves 

regular, systematic scrutiny of any disparity 

between target values and actual values for each 

performance target. The information management 

system (IMS), currently under development, will 

provide an electronic tool for tracking each target 

and potential disparity. It will display each target 

with its attendant data source and agency 

responsible for reporting the information as well 

as relevant details for supporting programs. 

Performance measurement is not only about 

whether or not targets are attained, but why. If the 

Impact Targets are not being met, the PME system 

can help identify the problems so that corrective 

actions may be taken. Corrective actions may 

include the reallocation of Federal drug control 

resources from programs of lesser effectiveness to 

those of greater effectiveness. Monitoring 

individual targets, alone, may not indicate causal 

factors. Monitoring the Strategy's progress often 

will require examining the relationships among 

various components of the plan. 

When Impact Targets are not being met, 

ONDCP will move into the analysis phase with 

relevant agencies to undertake an in-depth 

examination of causal factors. This will involve 

identifying those factors that may be contributing 

to the problem. For instance, one might find that 

the expected reduction in youth drug use was not 

achieved because Objective 7 on media efforts to 

avoid glamorizing drug use and Objective 5 on 

lifestyle mentoring were key causal factors that 

were not achieved. Such a finding might be based 

on tracking the outcomes and intermediate 

outcomes for each supporting Objective or on 

model-based analyses to shed light on the causal 

structure. 4 To account for multiple relationships 

among various known and unknown factors, a 

formal approach requiring mathematical modeling 

of the relationships between the targets of 

supporting Objectives (such as youth attitudes 

toward drug use and the extent of mentoring) and 

the Impact Target (prevalence of youth drug use) 

will be used, particularly when there is enough 

empirical evidence about the nature of those 

relationships. 

30 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
USING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS TO MANAGE FOR RESULTS 

Tracking by itself will not provide sufficient 

guidance for corrective action. Such analyses also 

will assist in the identification of factors not 

incorporated into any of the Objectives. For 

instance, intervening factors (e.g., poverty and 

domestic violence) may affect youth drug use and 

yet not be addressed in the supporting Objectives. 

If the model indicates sufficient causal strength for 

such factors, reflecting inadequate intervention 

tactics, modification of the Strategy may be necessary, s 

Another line of inquiry involves identifying the 

programmatic reasons why a particular Objective 

is not being met. This question might logically 

flow from seeking causes for not achieving Goals 

or it might be important in and of itself. For 

example, assessing the Breaking the Cycle 

Program (Goal 2, Objective 5) might be of 

interest to various stakeholders whether or not the 

associated targets are being met. 

Because objectives are tactical efforts to enable 

the achievement of the Goals, performance 

targets for the Objectives may be more likely to be 

achieved than the Impact Targets for the Goals. 

To pinpoint reasons for nonachievement, 

ONDCP will examine the underlying logic 

behind the performance target--the interrelated 

set of programs undertaken by Federal drug 

control agencies and our State, local, foreign, and 

private sector partners. 

Program evaluations will seek to determine why 

specific performance targets are not being met. 

These in-depth evaluations will examine whether 

the problems are caused by: 

• Problems in the underlying logic model that 

posits causal links between program activities 

and results; 

• Unrealistic targets or poor measures for the targets; 

• Incorrect assumptions, such as assuming community and school acceptance of zero tolerance 

policies will significantly affect youth use of 

illegal drugs; 

• Poor program management; 

• External factors outside the control of the agencies that have not been addressed; and 

• Inadequate or inefficient use of resources by all 

parties responsible for drug control programming. 

Such program evaluations will entail in-depth 

studies by ONDCP and relevant interagency 

working groups in situations where trend data 

indicate that an Objective is not being met. Using 

monitoring to select those programs that will be 

evaluated will conserve valuable resources for 

the most critical cases. These studies will require 

program-specific data on the full spectrum of 

performance issues and measures--inputs, processes, 

outputs, and most importantly, the underlying 

causal model including key assumptions. Often 

this logic model, connecting inputs to outcomes, 

has not been explicitly reasoned out or tested. 

In some cases, special assessments of specific 

initiatives such as the Andean Initiative, specific 

functions such as Border Patrols, or specific 

programs such as Break the Cycle, may be 

undertaken as a result of perceived inadequacies or 

at the request of the stakeholders or management. 

Finally, ONDCP may undertake special studies 

of agency programs or policies in support of 

performance measurement. These special studies 

would be joint undertakings by ONDCP and 

interagency working groups, with the former 

ensuring proper focus and appropriate methodology 

and the latter ensuring the participation of key 

agencies and decisionmakers. Working groups 

would also provide program/initiative/policy 

specific details required for Such in-depth studies. 

Special ONDCP studies would build on studies 

conducted by individual agencies and would cut 

across departmental and intergovernmental lines 

to ensure a national drug control focus. These 

cross-cutting studies could be expensive; hence 

they will be designed to capture data that are not 

available through currently existing surveys and 

studies and will be conducted only when such data 

gaps are identified. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 31 
Figure 9 

Relationships Among Interdiction Targets of 

the National Drug Control Strategy 

Goal 4: Shield America's Air, Land, and Sea Frontiers 

Improve Coordination / Reduce Drug Flow in the Transit 

Among U.S. Agencies and Arrival Zones 

Ide~ Obj. 2 / Obj. 1 Increase the percentage of drugs U.S. interagency drug control ~ seized, jettisoned, or destroyed 

relationships (4.2.1) in transit and arrival zones (4.1.1) 

Develop recommendations to resolve 

identified gaps in cooperative 

relationships (4.2.2) 

Establish secure, interoperable 

communications capabilities (4.2.3) 

Conduct Research and 

Develop Technology 

Obj 4 Develop and deploy technology to " 

deny entry of illicit drugs through the 

Southwest Border andmaritime 

points of entry (4.4.1) 

Develop and deploy tagging and 

tracking systems that allow real-time 

monitoring of carriers throughout the 

Western Hemisphere (4.4.3) 

Develop and deploy detection capability 

for "over-the-horizon" tracking (4.4.4) 

Develop and demonstrate high-risk 

technologies (4.4.5) 

Develop drug threat movement 

databases for use in monitoring 

drug flow (4.4.2) 

A 

I 

I 

I 

Improve Cooperation With 

Source and Transit Nations 

Obj. 3 Assess existing bilateral and 

multilateral relationships (4.3.1) 

Develop a strategy to fill identified 

~l~P3.s2i)n cooperatwe relationships 

Establish bilateral and multilateral 

relationships (4.3.3) 

32 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
Supply 

................................ ! 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 33 
USING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS TO MANAGE FOR RESULTS 

The Role of Working Groups 

The performance targets and measures identified 

in this report reflect the expertise and experience 

of interagency working groups. These groups will 

focus on the task of collecting and reporting 

program and performance data for ONDCP's 

information management system (IMS). They will 

initially focus on data currently available. At the 

same time, ONDCP's interagency Drug Control 

Research, Data and Evaluation Committee will 

assess the quality of the data. The working groups 

and Data Committee will modify existing data bases 

and develop new ones to support the PME system~ 

Another critical focus for the working groups is 

the selection of optimal options for achieving 

each performance target. Their intent is to develop 

recommendations for the most cost-effective ways 

utilizing the best mix of Federal, State, local, and 

private resources. This necessitates identifying the 

current mix of programs and resources that 

contribute to each target. 

Relationship to Agency Government 

Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) Products 

The PME system will consider agency GPRA 

products within the context of the Strategy to 

ensure that agency programs focus appropriately 

on the implementation of Strategy Goals and 

Objectives. ONDCP, working with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), will seek 

relationships between agency GPRA products and 

the Strategy's products. 6 

This process is already underway, with ONDCP 

and OMB providing feedback to drug control 

agencies on their strategic plans to reflect 

adequately their contributions to Strategy Goals 

and Objectives. Agency targets will reflect each 

agency's unique contribution to national target 

accomplishment. Agency annual progress reports 

will reflect progress toward achieving the national 

targets. Agencies will be able to draw upon this 

performance measurement system in formulating 

their annual performance plans and progress 

reports required under GPRA. 

Finally, ONDCP efforts in mobilizing the drug 

control community, assessing progress, taking the 

initiative to break down identified barriers, and 

providing incentives toward integrated target 

achievement fulfill the spirit of GPRA's intent to 

manage for results. 

Use of Findings 

Effective management requires a PME system 

that links the Strategy, Objectives, results, and 

resources. The PME system for the National Drug 

Control Strategy relies on a variety of analytical 

efforts to establish some degree of accountability. 

More importantly, the PME system enables 

Government managers to improve decisions and 

performance by focusing on results in lieu of the 

traditional emphasis on activities, products, and 

services. As indicated above, ONDCP analyses 

will include both macro-level or aggregate analysis 

(e.g., whether the zero tolerance Objective is 

meeting its targets nationally) and micro-level 

studies focusing on performance management (e.g., 

whether the use of nonintrusive technologies by 

the U.S. Customs Service is effective at interdicting 

drugs at border points of entry). 

The findings of these analyses will be used in a 

variety of ways: 

Annual Reports to Congress and the President 

on the status of the drug problem and the effec. 

tiveness of drug control activities. These would 

reflect performance monitoring results supplemented by any in-depth studies that may have 

been conducted. Recommendations about policy and program issues will be included. These 

reports will also include output measures--prosecutions, seizures, forfeitures, number of drug 

users, and others. 7 

Annual Recommendations to the President 

about resources for drug control. By law, 

ONDCP is required to recommend a National 

Drug Control Budget to implement the Strategy. 

Performance data will be a factor in making recommendations regarding resource allocations. 

Performance findings also will assist reprogramming decisions and budget certification 

34 PERFORMANCE MEASURES.OF EFFECTIVENESS 
USING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS.TO MANAGE FOR RESULTS 

procedures. Additionally, ONDCP's annual 

reports will help OMB assess other agencies' 

reports that are related to drug control. 

• Annual Recommendations to the President 

and the Congress about options to improve 

national drug control program efficacy. 

Programs that are determined to contribute to 

the achievement of the performance targets for 

the Strategy's Goals and Objectives will be 

encouraged. Those that do not contribute will 

be reviewed and evaluated to identify possible 

actions to raise performance to acceptable levels. Programs that are found to be ineffective 

should be abandoned. Efficacy determination 

will be a joint undertaking between ONDCP 

and its partners in drug control. 

Analysis findings also can be used to inform 

program direction and planning, staff training, 

technology investment, and resource allocation 

efforts, and to focus stakeholder attention on key 

factors that need to be addressed. ONDCP will 

take the lead in mobilizing the drug control 

community to achieve the Strategy Goals and 

Objectives. It also will refine the Strategy as 

needed, exert leverage to overcome obstacles to 

performance, and provide incentives for improved 

effectiveness. 

Endnotes 

J. David Hawkins, Richard Catalano, and Janet Y. Miller, 

"Risk and Protective Factors for Alcohol and Other Drug 

Problems in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: Implications for Substance Abuse Prevention," in Psychological 

Bulletin, 112: 64-105, Social Development Research 

2. 

3. 

. 

5. 

6. 

Group, School of Social Work, University of Washington 

(1992). 

A full depiction of the causal chain for the 5 Goals, 

32 Objectives, and the supporting performance targets is 

presented in Appendix E, Figure E-1. 

The conceptual logic model (Appendix E), connecting 

Strategy Goals, Objectives, and Performance Targets, was 

derived through extensive consultation with drug program experts. The model is a first approximation that is 

based on current research, drug programs and their efficacy 

to reduce drug use, availability, and consequences. It 

reflects current knowledge about how programs are supposed to contribute to outcomes or outputs. Incorporating 

the key axioms of drug control programs, the model has a 

reasonable degree of plausibility and validity. But lacking 

sufficient empirical evidence, it does not provide information on the strength of the causal factors affecting drug 

use, availability, and consequences. The model is not 

determinative. For instance, although the model indicates the effect of youth attitudes on drug use, it does not 

identify how much youth attitudes (e.g., disapproval) 

would have to change in order to effect a significant 

change in actual drug use. The causal model will be 

refined as its causal linkages are challenged by the performance target data. 

Intermediate outcomes are defined as key steps leading to 

the achievement of outcomes. These are also characterized by some change in behavior or procedures of a 

non-Federal Agency or the public. 

This analysis will include the contribution of programs 

and resources of non-Federal partners. 

ONDCP's own Strategic Plan and other GPRA products 

will reflect Strategy Goals and Objectives as well as 

ONDCP activities to facilitate this mission. 

As required in the Administration's Reauthorization 

Proposal for ONDCP. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 35 

IV: Conclusion 

A 

ccountability in government is 

no longer an option--the public 

expects results-oriented government. Federal Government-wide 

legislation such as GPRA and 

Executive initiatives such as the 

National Performance Review are complemented 

by long-standing State and local efforts in 

performance budgeting spurred by shrinking 

resources. Drug control program managers are 

increasingly seeking ways to manage for results. To 

focus on exemplary performance and the ultimate 

end states to be achieved, the drug control 

community must have visionary Goals, supporting 

Objectives, and meaningful performance targets. 

The Strategy is a comprehensive, balanced 

approach to reduce drug use, availability, and consequences. This report describes how the 

performance of the Strategy and the agencies that 

implement it will be assessed. The Strategy has 

established 5 Goals and 32 Objectives around 

which drug control programs, activities, and 

resources must coalesce. This document identifies 

performance targets and measures for each of these 

Goals and Objectives. Monitoring progress toward 

these targets and evaluating critical programs form 

the heart of the National Drug Control PME system. 

This system of performance measures represents 

an ambitious and aggressive undertaking to introduce accountability and to assess the performance 

of this Nation's drug control efforts. It provides a 

systems approach to assess the efficacy of all Federal and non-Federal drug control agency programs 

to achieve the Strategy's Goals and Objectives. 

Twelve Impact Targets provide the bull's eye for 

every Department, Agency, and organization contributing to national drug control efforts. 

The PME system is balanced in its representation of supply reduction and demand reduction 

impacts, and it is focused on reducing the consequences of drug use. The Impact Targets for the 

years 2002 and 2007 have been shaped by the 

judgments of subject-area experts inside and outside of Government. These targets reflect 

normative end states--that is, they define what is 

to be achieved from an ambitious and aggressive 

effort to solve the Nation's drug problem: 

Reduction of the overall rate of drug use by 

half. This implies a rate of overall drug use 

in 2007 of 3.1 percent. When achieved, 

this will mark the lowest rate of drug use 

since the United States first began tracking rates of drug use. For youth, a similar 

target would reduce the rate of drug use by 

half, from 9.0 percent today to 4.5 percent 

in 2007. Likewise, this target rate for 

youth would be the lowest since the 

inception of recordkeeping on drug use. 

Reduction of the amount of illicit drugs available for consumption by half by 2007. This 

target is independently applied to 

cocaine, heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, and other drugs. 

Reduction of the consequences associated 

with drugs, as measured by health and social 

costs, by one-quarter by 2007. In addition, 

in the area of drug-related crime, the target is 

a 30-percent reduction. This end state is 

influenced by more factors than drug use. 

and availability, including the needs of an 

aging cohort of current chronic users and 

the expected progression of existing 

pathologies. 

ONDCP proposes these targets and this performance measurement system for the public's 

consideration. The support of authorizations 

and appropriations committees, especially those 

with jurisdiction over Federal drug control agencies, is critical in ensuring the success of the 

Strategy. ONDCP will monitor progress toward 

the accomplishment of each Goal, Objective, and 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 37 
CONCLUSION 

performance target. Progress in achieving the 

12 Impact Targets will reflect the overall efficacy 

of the Strategy. The underlying logic model will 

improve our ability to identify problematic areas 

and ineffective programs. Based on this PME 

system, ONDCP will report annually to Congress 

on the national drug community's progress in 

achieving Strategy Goals and Objectives. 

Next steps include developing selected components of the measurement system. Data collection 

protocols will need to be standardized across State 

and local agencies to enable aggregation of data to 

reflect national trends. Our State and local government partners and private sector entities 

involved in drug control will be consulted closely 

on the need to standardize data collection protocols. Methods to synthesize available data from 

various sources will be devised. Most importantly, 

drug control agencies will need to coordinate their 

activities and resources to achieve the Strategy's 

Goals and Objectives. 

The Strategy seeks aggressive public policy targets to significantly reduce drug use, availability, 

and consequences. These policy targets require a 

national commitment. Effective programs must be 

supported while ineffective programs are modified 

or abandoned. Resources must be used efficiently 

if these performance targets--our vision for the 

Nation a decade from now--are to be realized. 

38 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
Appendix A: 

Plausibility of the 

Impact Targets 

T 

his appendix examines whether 

the 12 Impact Targets are credible, 

sound, and plausible. Their 

credibility, originally established 

by the interagency process, was 

strengthened by subsequent review 

and modification by drug control experts and 

practitioners. Their soundness or plausibility is 

generally ascertained by the extent to which they 

are based on previous history: they require one to 

answer the question, "do historical data give us 

confidence that these targets are likely to be 

achieved?" This appendix examines this issue. 

Performance targets need to incorporate the 

notion of "stretch goals" as recommended by the 

General Accounting Office, the National Academy of Public Administration, and performance 

measurement experts. Stretch goals, critical for 

organizational motivation, challenge us to eschew 

mere incremental change in favor of "reinventing" the way we do business. Stretch goals require 

us to do more than "maintain" our current rate of 

progress: they require us to "improve" upon it. It is 

then that the targets become "visionary targets." 

Nonetheless, because they were based initially on 

trend data and research findings, the Impact Targets also are "plausible;" that is, there is arguably a 

reasonable probability that, with integrated effort 

and commitment, they can be achieved. 

tration when information is incomplete. Specific 

Impact Targets are reviewed in light of existing 

data, calculations, or underlying assumptions that 

provide some indication of the attainability of the 

proposed targets. This appendix also includes historical material and population projections 

whenever possible to anchor the targets to plausible scenarios. 

Drug Use Projections to 2007. When 5- and 

10-year targets are translated to population estimates, it is necessary to take into account the 

changes that are expected to occur in the affected 

populations. Typically, these changes involve 

growth, such as projected increases in the general 

population and in specific population segments, 

which in combination with rates of use, will determine these estimates. Table A-1 illustrates these 

calculations. The main components of Table A-1 

are age-specific rates of past month drug use as 

reported in the 1996 National Household Survey 

on Drug Abuse (NHSDA or the Household Survey) from the Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) l and 

age-specific projected resident populations for 

2002 and 2007. 5 This example uses a single measure, past month use of any illicit drug. 

Alternative measures, such as specific drug-based 

measures would show similar decline patterns 

using the same projection process. 

This appendix examines the plausibility of the 

Impact Targets proposed for the Performance 

Measures of Effectiveness (PME) System by using 

the most current data when available, and by illusIn 2007, the population aged 12 and older is 

expected to reach 261 million. If the rate of past 

month (current) drug use does not change from 

the 6.1-percent rate observed in 1996, the 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 39 
"0 

Z 

m 

m 

m 

.-4 

Table A-1 To reduce drug use in half by 2007 requires that 8 million of the projected 16 million users should not be 

using drugs (Past Month Use of Any Illicit Drug) 

AGE GROUP 

12-17 

12-13 

14-15 

16-17 

18-25 

26-34 

>=35 

Total 

19961 2002 2007 

Rate of Estimated 

Estimated Past Number of 

HH pop Month Users 

(000s) Use (000s) 

22,512 9.0 2,031 

2.2 

8.8 

15.6 

27,796 15.6 4,332 

35,474 8.4 2,979 

128,265 2.9 3,693 

214,047 6.1 13,035 

Projected Target Required 

Projected Users at Number of Reduction 

Population 1996 Rate Target Users in Users 

(000s) 2 (000s) Rate 3 (000s) (000s) 

24,366 2,193 7.2 1,764 439 

8,275 182 1.8 146 361 

8,017 705 7.0 564 141 

8,074 1,260 12.5 1,008 252 

30,760 4,799 11.7 3,599 1,200 

32,990 2,771 6.3 2,078 693 

144,112 4,179 2.2 3,134 1,045 

248,319 15,147 4.6 11,361 3,787 

Projected Target Required 

Projected Users at Number of Reduction 

Population 1996 Rate Target Users in Users 

(000s) 2 (000s) Rate 4 (000s) (000s) 5 

25,508 2,296 4.5 1,148 1,148 

8,179 180 1.1 90 90 

8,516 749 4.4 375 375 

8,813 1,375 7.8 687 687 

32,769 5,112 7.8 2,556 2,556 

32,659 2,743 4.2 1,372 1,372 

152,863 4,433 1.5 2,217 2,217 

261,128 15,929 3.1 7,964 (~7,964 

1All 1996 figures are from: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Preliminary Results from the 1996 National 

Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Rockville, MD. July 1997. 

2Middle Series projections from: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 

1995 to 2050. Current Population Reports P25-1130. U.S. Govemment Printing Office, Washington, DC. February 1996. Note that Census projects 

the resident population which includes both household and non-household populations. 

3Target rate for 2002 is 25 percent of 1996 rate, except for those aged 12-17 (20 percent). 

4Target rate for 2007 is 50 percent of 1996 rate. 

5Cumulative reduction to attain target for 2007. 

"ID 

co m 

o 

=~ 

m 

G'~ 

(n 
PLAUSIBILITY OF THE IMPACT TARGETS 

projected number of current users in 2007 is 

15.9 million. The Impact Target of reducing current drug use in half relative to 1996--to 3.1 

percent requires that a total of 8 million of these 

projected users should not be using drugs (see Figure A-I). This reduction will consist of 

individuals discontinuing use as well as those prevented from initiating use (who would otherwise 

have continued to use or initiated use under 1996 

conditions). The same calculation process 3 is used 

to establish mid-term estimates for the year 2002, 

when the proposed target rate for current drug use 

is 75 percent of the 1996 rate, or 4.6 percent. 

Of the required reduction of 8 million projected 

users in 2007, 1.1 million are expected to come 

from the youngest (12-17 years) age group. An 

additional 5.5 million will be persons who can be 

reached through the workforce (see Figure A-2): 

full- and part-time workers and those seeking work 

(from Table A-2 below). Of the target reduction 

of 8 million projected users, the vast majority 

(6.6 million) can be reached through major institutions such as schools and the workplace. These 

data suggest that program efforts will need to focus 

on specific groups, such as the youth and the 

workforce, in order to achieve the overall reduction targets. Rates of reduction for specific 

population subgroups need not be uniform, since 

some subgroups may be more or less receptive to 

interventions. These variations will need to be 

considered in the implementation and refinement 

of prevention and other intervention programs. 

Caveats: The Bureau of the Census forecasts the 

resident population of the United States. While 

the Household Survey encompasses the majority 

of residents, the estimated household population 

reported in the 1996 Household Survey is lower 

than the 1996 Census projection for the resident 

population. According to the Census definition, 

the household population is a subset of the resident population that excludes people living in 

group quarters, more specifically defined as nine or 

more people living together who are unrelated to 

the householder. 4 The Household Survey does, 

however, include a segment of residents of noninstitutional group quarters, such as shelters, 

rooming houses, and dormitories. Excluded from 

the NHSDA are residents of institutional group 

quarters such as jails and hospitals, the homeless 

who never use shelters, and active military personnel living in group quarters. 5 Thus, the difference 

between the "household population" reported in 

the Household Survey and the resident population is accounted for by residents of institutions 

and "hidden" or hard-to-reach subpopulations. 

Drug use rates among the components excluded 

from the household survey vary. Inpatients in hospitals and nursing homes and active duty military 

Figure A-1 Total Demand Reduction Targets 

15 

u') 

.,...-, 10 

~ 5 ,,,.Q 

E 

Z 

0 

13035 

11361 

7964 

1996 2002 2007 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 41 
PLAUSIBILITY OF THE IMPACT TARGETS 

Figure A-2 Youth and Workforce Demand Reduction Targets 

15 

o co 

"~ 10 

E~ 

oN 

L,. 

E 

Z 

0 

1996 2002 2007 

[] Workforce 

[] Age12to17 

personnel may be more similar to the household 

population, whereas inmates of prisons and jails 

and the homeless have higher drug use rates. 

For purposes of drug use estimation, using the 

household-based rates on the entire resident 

population will yield a conservative estimate for 

the resident population. This is due, in part, to a 

tendency to underreport chronic drug use in a 

household setting using a self-report methodology. 6 

In addition, the exclusion of the "hidden" population of homeless and other heavy drug users also 

contributes to a conservative total estimate for the 

resident population. 7 Thus, rates derived from 

household-based measurements are lower than 

what prevails in the entire population. 

However, keeping in mind that the tracking 

measure available at this time is household-based, 

the projected numbers of users (which is resident 

population-based) are slightly larger than what we 

will be able to measure with a household-based 

methodology. In effect, until such time that we 

can reliably measure drug use among both household and non-household residents, the projected 

numbers of users in these illustrations will be 

slightly larger than what will be observed using 

the Household Survey. (Refinements to the 

methodology of estimating chronic use are being 

tested. ONDCP also is continuing to work with 

the Bureau of the Census on obtaining more specific projections of the household population so 

that the estimates can be further refined.) 

Workforce Projections. Similar to the process 

outlined for Table A- 1 above, the main components 

of Table A-2 are rates of past month drug use for 

categories of employment status within each age 

group as reported in the 1996 Household Survey 

and age-specific projected resident populations for 

2002 and 2007. 

First, the proportionate distribution of employment status within each age group as observed in 

1996 was applied to 2002 and 2007 projections. Age 

group totals are found in Table A-1. For example, 

in 1996 (Table A-2), 47 percent of the age group 

18-25 was employed full-time, 23 percent parttime, and 8 percent looking for work 8 ("Other" and 

"Unknown" economic statuses are not shown in 

this table since these are not part of the workforce). 

Applying these proportions to the 2002 projected 

number of persons aged 18-25 (24.4 million) 

yields about 14.6 million employed full-time, 7 

million part-time, and 2.5 million looking for work. 

Second, projected numbers of past month users 

were calculated for 2002 and 2007 applying 1996 

rates, under the assumption that 1996 use rates 

continue to prevail. 

42 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
"O 

Z 

m 

m = ¢/) 

o 

"11 

rt'l 

m 

-d 

Table A-2 To reduce drug use in the workforce by half in 2007 means that 5.5 million workers employed full- or 

part-time, or actively seeking work, will have to stop drug use (Past Month Use of Any Illicit Drug) 

AGE GROUP/ 

ECONOMIC 

ACTIVITY 

18--25 

Full-time 

Part-time 

Unemployed 

26-34 

Full-time 

Part-time 

Unemployed 

>=35 

Full-time 

Part-time 

Unemployed 

Total 

Full-time 

Part-time 

Unemployed 

1996 2002 2007 

Rate of Estimated 

Estimated Percent of Past Number of 

HH pop Age Month Users 

(000s) t Group Use t (000s) t

13,179 47.4 15.5 2,043 

6,417 23.1 14.3 918 

2,227 8.0 25.9 577 

24,308 68.5 

3,705 10.4 

1,863 5.3 

61,596 48.0 

11,953 9.3 

4,179 3.3 

99,083 46.3 

22,075 10.3 

8,269 3.9 

7.9 1,920 

Projected Target Required 

Projected Users at Number of Reduction 

Population 1996 Rate Target Users in Users 

(000s) 2 (000s) Rate 3 (000s) (000s) 

14,584 2,261 11.6 1,695 565 

7,101 1,015 10.7 762 254 

2,464 638 19.4 479 160 

22,606 1,786 5.9 1,339 446 

Projected Target Required 

Projected Users at Number of Reduction 

Population 1996 Rate Target Users in Users 

(000s) 2 (000s) Rate 4 (000s) (000sf 

15,537 2,408 7.8 1,204 1,204 

7,565 1,082 7.2 541 541 

2,625 680 13.0 340 340 

22,379 1,768 

8.6 319 3,446 

18.1 337 1,733 

3.6 2,217 69,206 

5.6 669 13,430 

2.9 121 4,695 

8.6 ~ 1,89~ 25,610 

12.5 ~ 9,593 

r Tota,=9.075 m"~ 

296 6.5 222 

314 13.6 235 

2,491 2.7 1,869 

752 4.2 564 

136 2.2 102 

7,127 4.7 5,345 

2,202 6.5 1,652 

1,199 9.4 899 

74 3,411 

78 1,715 

623 73,409 

188 14,245 

34 4,980 

~) 120,877 

26,931 

10,088 

[ To~,=2.633 m"~ 

l 

4.0 884 884 

293 4.3 147 147 

310 9.1 155 155 

2,643 1.8 1,321 1,321 

798 2.8 399 399 

t44 1.5 72 72 

7,494 3.1 3,747 /'3,747 "~ 

2,316 4.3 1,158 

1,261 6.3 630 

I To, ,=5 s35 m I 

tSource: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Preliminary Results from the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. 

Rockville, MD. July 1997. 

2Age group totals are Middle Series projections from the Census Bureau (U.S. Bureau of the Census. Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, 

and Hispanic Origin: 1995 to 2050. Current Population Reports P25-1130. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. February 1996). Numbers for 

each employment category within age groups are interpolated assuming the 1996 proportionate distributions from NHSDA. 

~arget rate for 2002 is 25 percent of 1996 rate. 

~l'arget rate for 2007 is 50 percent of 1996 rata. 

SCumulative reduction to attain target for 2007. 

"10 

co 

m 

o3 

o 

rll 

¢.n 
PLAUSIBILITY OF THE IMPACT TARGETS 

Third, rates of past month use for each employment category derived from 1996 Household 

Survey results were adjusted according to the proposed targets. For each subgroup, the 2002 target 

rate is 75 percent of 1996, and the 2007 target is 

50 percent of 1996. Estimated numbers of users 

under this assumption were calculated. 

Finally, the target numbers were compared with 

the expected numbers if 1996 rates did not change 

to arrive at the required reductions to meet targets. These calculations yield a required reduction 

of 5.5 million projected users who would not be 

using drugs, in order to attain the targets for the 

year 2007. This segment--two-thirds of the total 

reduction in projected users--can and will 

be reached through workforce-focused program 

interventions. 

Historical Data. The 50-percent reduction in 

the rate of current drug use means that 8 million 

projected users should not be using drags by 2007 

(from Table A-l). This represents a lot of Americans, equivalent to the population of the entire 

State of New Jersey and larger than the populations of many States. 9 The issue is whether 

historical evidence supports this ambitious undertaking. The data indicate a qualified "yes." 

Table A-3 presents data from a 3-year period, 

between 1985 and 1988, when a decline of 

8.1 million in actual users was observed. However, 

the target rate of 3.1 percent has never been 

attained. The estimated number of current drug 

users dropped by about one-third, from 23.3 million in 1985 to 15.2 million in 1988. This 3-year 

decline occurred at a time when drug use rates 

were much higher than they are now. 

In the next 5 years following this period, 

between 1988 and 1993 (Table A-4), a more 

modest drop (2.9 million users) was obser-oed. 

These data suggest that when the rates of use and 

numbers of users are lower, major declines such as 

those observed in 1985-88 take longer and require 

more effort to achieve and sustain. A portion of 

today's users are "survivors" from the mid-80s and 

are likely to be more resistant to change. 

Table A-3 Between 1985 and 1988, the largest historical 3-year decline, 

by 8.1 million users, was observed (Past Month Use of Any Illicit Drug) 

AGE GROUP 

12-17 

18-25 

26-34 

>=35 

Total 

1985 1988 3-Year Change 

Rate of Estimated 

Estimated Past Number of 

HH pop month Users 

(000s) 1 use 1 (000s) 1 

Rate of Estimated 

Estimated Past Number of 

HH pop month Users 

(000s) 1 use I (000s) 1 

21,558 13.2 2,847 

31,601 25.3 7,980 

36,477 23.1 8,411 

102,969 3.9 4,034 

192,605 12.1 23,272 

20,250 8.1 1,649 

29,688 17.9 5,315 

38,570 14.7 5,666 

109,839 2.3 2,562 

198,347 7.7 15,192 

Number 

(000s) Percent 

-1,198 -42.1 

-2,665 -33.4 

-2,745 -32.6 

-1,472 -36.5 

-34.7 

1Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Preliminary Results 

from the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Rockville, MD. July 1997. 

44 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
PLAUSIBILITY OF THE IMPACT TARGETS 

Table A-4 Between 1988 and 1993, drug use declined by about 3 million users 

(Past Month Use of Any Illicit Drug) 

AGE GROUP 

12-17 

18-25 

26-34 

>=35 

Total 

1988 1993 5-Year Change 

Rate of Estimated 

Estimated Past Number of 

HH pop month Users 

(000s) 1 use t (000s) 1 

Rate of Estimated 

Estimated Past Number of 

HH pop month Users 

(000s) 1 use I (000s) 1 

20,250 8.1 1,649 

29,688 17.9 5,315 

38,570 14.7 5,666 

109,839 2.3 2,562 

198,347 7.7 15,192 

21,224 5.7 1,199 

28,327 13.6 3,861 

37194 9.5 3,551 

120,453 3.0 3,644 

207,199 5.9 12,256 

Number 

(000s) Percent 

-450 -27.3 

-1,454 -27.4 

-2,115 -37.3 

1,082 42.2 

-19.3 

1Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Preliminary Results 

from the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Rockville, MD. July 1997. 

While recent historical data show that a drop of 

8 million in the number of current drug users has 

occurred before, rates of current drug use in America 

have never been measured to be as low as the 2007 

target rate of 3.1 percent. The Impact Target 

reduction in drug use rates of 50 percent is proposed with a 10-year time horizon precisely 

because it will require more effort as well as more 

time to attain such historic low rates in the face of 

a drug using population that includes the less 

tractable segments persisting in their drug use 

despite the dramatic declines of the 1980s. The 

Administration's Media Campaign and other prevention program initiatives are designed to 

prevent young people from joining the ranks of 

current users. A massive and sustained twopronged strategy of preventing initiation of use 

among potential new users and of enabling cessation of use among current users will be required to 

reach this target by 2007. 

Average Age of Initiation. Figure A-3 shows 

targets for mean age at first use of selected illicit 

drugs. The target for 2002 is to delay (increase) 

average age at first use by 12 months from the 

1996 mean and by 36 months in the year 2007. 

Targets for marijuana, heroin, and inhalants are 

plotted for purposes of illustration. Marijuana, the 

drug that accounts for the largest proportion of 

illicit drug use, provides a more detailed example, 

shown on Table A-5. Data for 1996 will not be 

available until next year, so for this exercise, it is 

assumed to be age 16.7 years or 200 months, 

unchanged from 1995. The intermediate goal of 

17.7 years was last observed in 1992, while the 

2007 target of 19.7 years was last achieved in 

1986. While these target average ages of initiation 

have been attained in the past, this measure has 

been seen to change by as much as 30 months and as 

little as zero months from year to year, ~° with the last 

improvement observed between 1991 and 1992. Age 

of initiation for specific drags other than marijuana, 

inhalants, and heroin can also be calculated, as 

could a composite age of initiation for any drug 

use, with similar target delays in age at initiation. 

Chronic Drug Use. There is no single comprehensive measure of chronic drug use at this time. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 45 
PLAUSIBILITY OF THE IMPACT TARGETS 

Figure A-3 Age of Initiation Targets 

23 

22 

21 

20 

"5 19 

o) 

< 18 0~ 

• ~ 17 

16 

15 

~7 Heroin Marijuana 

7 

Inhalants 

16.7 

16 

1996 2002 2007 

One study estimates the number of chronic users 

at 3.6 million for cocaine and 810,000 for heroin 

in 1995. n Because there is substantial overlap 

between chronic users of cocaine and chronic 

users of heroin, these separate counts cannot be 

summed to arrive at a total estimate. By this estimation, there are at least 3.6 million chronic users 

(if all the chronic heroin users also are chronic 

cocaine users). Assuming an overlap in these populations of 70 percent (that is, 30 percent of the 

estimated chronic heroin users are not also chronic 

cocaine users), the estimated range of chronic 

users is between 3.6 and 3.8 million. 

Another comprehensive attempt to measure 

chronic drug use, developed by SAMHSA using a 

combination of the Household Survey drug use 

data with treatment and arrest data, estimates that 

there were more than 3.6 million persons in 1994 

who experienced drug problems of a severity that 

made them prime candidates for treatment. ~2 

While this measure of chronic drug use is not 

equivalent to "hard core" drug use, it can be considered a conservative estimate that is subject to 

revision as better methods of measuring chronic 

drug use are developed and implemented. 

Using 3.6 million as the number of chronic users 

for the time being, the target of a 20-percent 

reduction by 2002 translates to 2.9 million chronic 

users. By 2007, the target of a 50-percent reduction relative to 1996 translates to 1.8 million 

chronic users. 

Measurement of chronic drug use is still inadequate. As noted earlier, the Household Survey 

does not adequately measure chronic drug use, nor 

does it include a significant portion of the homeless and other "hidden" populations, 13 who are 

known to account for a disproportionate share of 

chronic drug users. ONDCP currently is developing better estimates of the population of "hard 

core" drug users and recently completed a pilot 

study testing a new methodology and focusing on 

a single local jurisdiction (Cook County, Illinois)? 4 As these measures are refined and national 

estimates are developed, the proposed targets will 

translate to more valid and accurate estimates of 

chronic drug users. As long as comparable estimates for the benchmark year (1996) are 

developed along with the new measures, the targets can be tracked accurately. 

Supply Reduction Targets. The Impact Targets 

for drug supply reduction are inherently interdependent, and can be visualized as components of a 

system of flow. Taking foreign production as our 

example, plant products are processed, a portion 

of the commodity is shipped through transit zones, 

some of this eventually arrives in the United 

46 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
PLAUSIBILITY OF THE IMPACT TARGETS 

Table A-5 Increasing average age of initiation to the year 2007 target means that 

the peak ages observed in 1984 and 1986 must be attained 

(Mean age at First use of Marijuana) 

YEAR 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

2002 

2007 

Mean Age 1 Age in Months 

18.7 224 

17.5 210 

17.7 212 

17.6 211 

19.7 (~0 

17.5 

20.1 241 

17.6 211 

17.3 208 

17.5 210 

17.3 208 

17.1 205 

17.8 @ 

16.9 203 

16.7 200 

16.7 200 

2003 

Average annual change, 1980-95 

Average annual change, 1986-95 

Average annual change, 1990-95 

Change from 

Previous Year 

-14 

2 

-1 

25 

-26 

31 

-30 

-4 

2 

-2 

-2 

8 

-11 

-2 

0 

-2 

-5 

-1 

Target 

Age 2 

2002 goal is at about 

,,~6T~-" the 1992 level. 

~- 2007 goal is at the 

second highest level 

(attained in 1984). 

1Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Preliminary Results 

from the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Rockville, MD. July 1997. 

2Targets are 1996 average age + 12 months by 2002 and 1996 average age + 36 months by 2007. 

3Assumes average age unchanged from 1995. 

States, and once here, a portion remains available 

for consumption. 

We define traffickers' success rate as the quantity 

of illicit drugs successfully moved through a particular zone relative to the total quantity entering 

that zone. This "success rate" is defined differently 

for the source zone and the transit and arrival 

zones. In addition, there is a success rate defined 

for drug trafficking within the United States. The 

purpose of our supply reduction program efforts is 

to reduce each traffickers' success rate. '5 Program 

activities at any stage in the process are responsive 

to conditions that exist in preceding stages. 

Nonetheless, by reducing the traffickers' success 

rate at each stage, the Impact Targets identified in 

the main text can be attained. 

• Source zone seizures and other losses contribute 

to a reduction in the quantity of the commodity 

that is available for shipment. Therefore, the 

traffickers' success rate in source zones will be 

reduced by 15 percent by 2002 and 30 percent by 

2007. (Impact Target for Goal 5.) 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 47 
PLAUSIBILITY OF THE IMPACT TARGETS 

• Supply is further reduced by transit and arrival 

zone seizures and other losses. Therefore, the 

traffickers' success rate in transit and arrival zones 

will be reduced by I 0 percent by 2002 and 20 percent by 2007. (Impact Target for Goal 4) 

• Domestic supply is finally reduced by domestic 

seizures and other losses. Therefore, the traffickers' success rate in the U.S. will be reduced by 

IO percent by 2002 and 20 percent by 2007. 

(Impact Target for Goal 2) 

• The foreign-originating drug supply in the United States is augmented by domestically grown 

and produced illicit drugs. Therefore, domestic 

cultivation and production of illicit drugs will be 

reduced by 20 percent by 2002 and 50 percent by 

2007. (Impact Target for Goal 5) 

The target reductions in traffickers' success rates 

identified above are intended to be cumulative in 

effect, and contribute toward reducing availability of 

illicit drugs in the United States by 25 percent by 2002 

and 50 percent by 2007. For purposes of illustration, we can demonstrate the meaning behind 

each of these Impact Targets using estimates of the 

amount of cocaine cultivated, produced, and making its way to the U. S. consumer. 

The U.S. Government does not possess "official" estimates of the available supply of drugs for 

heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine. 

ONDCP's Interagency Assessment of Cocaine 

Movement (IACM) ~6 develops official estimates 

for the available supply of cocaine. These estimates serve as the basis for the illustration 

discussed below. Separate work done for ONDCP 

by Abt Associates, the Federal Government's 

Crime and Narcotics Center, the Federal Wide 

Drug Seizure System, and the 1987 International 

Narcotics Control Strategy Report prepared by 

the Department of State serve as a starting point 

for estimating the available supply of heroin, 

marijuana, and methamphetamine. 

It can be shown that the traffickers' success rate 

in source zones in 1996 was 80 percent. This is 

determined by dividing the amount of cocaine 

estimated as available for export (608 metric tons, 

according to IACM) from source zones by the estimated potential production of cocaine 

(760 metric tons in 1996, according to the Crime 

and Narcotics Center). The Impact Target for 

source zones would change this rate by 30 percent 

in 10 years, in this illustration, from 80 percent to 

56 percent. 

The traffickers' success rate in transit and arrival 

zones was 69 percent in 1996. This is determined 

by subtracting from unity the ratio of drug 

removals in these zones (191 metric tons, according to the International Narcotics Control 

Strategy Report and DEA reporting) to the estimated amount of drugs entering these zones 

(608 metric tons, according to IACM). The 

Impact Target for transit and arrival zones seeks to 

lower the traffickers' success rate from 69 percent 

to 55 percent. 

Once inside the United States, traffickers are 

confronted with domestic law enforcement efforts 

(Federal, State, and local) that, among other 

things, threaten their ability to make drugs available to the consumer. Complete information on 

domestic law enforcement seizures is not available, so we cannot illustrate the traffickers' success 

rate inside the United States. Drug seizures by State 

and local authorities are recorded only in discrete 

data systems) 7 In the absence of data consistent 

with 1996 IACM numbers, ONDCP uses 1995 

estimates for illustration. Abt Associates estimates 

that 287 to 376 metric tons were available for consumption in the united States before accounting 

for domestic law enforcement seizures. Suppose 

50 metric tons are removed, then the traffickers' 

success rate in the United States would range from 

83 to 87 percent. This is determined by subtracting from unity the ratio of domestic law 

enforcement seizures (50 metric t0nsis assumed 

for purposes of this illustration) to the amount of 

drugs inside the United States targeting the consumer (287 to 376 metric tons of cocaine, 

according to Abt Associates). The Impact Target 

would reduce this rate to range between 66 to 

70 percent by 2007. 

There are noestimates of U.S. cultivation and 

production of drugs. It is time to at least attempt 

48 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
PLAUSIBILITY OF THE IMPACT TARGETS 

to construct such estimates, especially for purposes 

of supporting this PME system. ONDCP will work 

with the law enforcement community, the intelligence community, and the Department of 

Agriculture to develop reasonable estimates of 

domestic cultivation and production of illicit drugs. 

Consequences of Drug Use. Major adverse 

consequences of drug use take the form of social 

costs, particularly health consequences, drugrelated crime, and lost productivity. While these 

can be measured through various specific indica: 

tors, translating•these into a monetary valuation 

provides a readily interpretable measure. A 

methodology for cost estimation, last published in 

1990, ~8 is being updated by the National Institute 

on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and will be released in 

1998. This update will offer reasonable current 

estimates of the total cost of drug abuse and its 

components. NIDA will provide annual updates 

that will express costs in constant dollar terms to 

enable comparison across years. 

For purposes of illustration, the latest available 

data (for 1990) are informative. The economic 

costs of drug use were estimated to be $67 billion in 1990 (see Figure A-4). ~9 The estimation 

methodology incorporates both direct and indirect costs. Medical costs, estimated at $3.2 billion 

in 1990, are expenses on medical resources used 

for care, treatment, and rehabilitation directly 

related to drug abuse. Illness, estimated at $8 billion, represents the value of lost productivity due 

to illness or injury. Deaths, estimated at $3.4 billion, represent the value of future lost productivity 

due to premature death. Other related costs, estimated at $46 billion and comprising two-thirds of 

total costs, include direct crime expenditures such 

as public police protection, private legal defense, 

and property destruction. Also included are productivity losses from people incarcerated as a 

result of drug-related crime. Special conditions, 

estimated at $6.3 billion, are costs attributable to 

the direct and indirect costs of AIDS associated 

with injection drug use. 

Specific Impact Targets for consequences of drug 

use also are measured focusing on two major areas: 

health costs, and crime and violence. A reduction 

of 10 percent by 2002 and 25 percent by 2007, 

compared to 1996, is targeted in health and social 

costs. For crime and violence, the rate of crime 

and violent acts associated with drug trafficking 

and drug abuse is targeted for a 15-percent reduction by 2002 and a 30-percent reduction by 2007 

relative to 1996 as the base year. 

Figure A-4 Economic Costs of Drug Use 

Special Conditions 

A 

Medical 

3.2 

..... !ss 

)% 

Deaths 

3.4 

5.1% 

Other Related 

46 

68.8% 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 49 
PLAUSIBILITY OF THE IMPACT TARGETS 

The assessments shown in Figure A-4 clearly 

depend on valid and reliable data. Some of these 

currently are in place, others are available only in 

part, and the rest need a systematic measurement 

system to be designed and implemented. The data 

components of the PME System will require continued development so that progress toward the 

defined targets can be gauged in a timely and 

accurate manner. 

Endnotes 

1. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

Office of Applied Studies, Preliminary Results from the 

1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 

(Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 1997). 

2. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics 

Administration, Bureau of the Census, Population Projections of the United States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic 

Origin: 1995 to 2050 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1996). Current Population Reports, 

25-1130. 

3. To replicate calculations, use three significant decimal 

places. Table rates are rounded to one decimal place. 

. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics 

Administration, Bureau of the Census, Projections of the 

Number of Households and Families in the United States: 

1995 to 2010, Current Population Reports, 25-1129. 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 

1996). 

5. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

Office of Applied Studies, Preliminary Results from the 

1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 

(Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 1997). 

6. For a review of the strengths and weaknesses of the 

NHSDA, see U.S. General Accounting Office, "Drug 

Use Measurement: Strengths, Limitations, and Recommendations for Improvement," GAO/PEMD-93-19, 

1993. 

. In the absence of comprehensive national data on "hidden populations," a series of studies in one metropolitan 

area addressing drug use in the household population and 

in various hard-to-reach segments, such as the homeless, 

the institutionalized, and the adult and juvenile offender 

subpopulations, documents the higher drug use rates relative to the household population. See the Washington, 

DC Metropolitan Area Drug Study series published in 1991 

to 1995 by the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on 

Drug Abuse. 

8. The category "unemployed" includes only those who are 

looking for work. Persons described as retired, disabled, 

homemaker, or student are classified under "other" 

employment status. 

9. The Bureau of the Census estimates the 1997 population 

of New Jersey, the ninth largest State, to be 8.05 million. 

Georgia, the 10th largest State, and 40 other States each 

have populations below 8 million. U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, 

Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates Program, 

Population Division, ST-97-1, electronic data. 

10. ONDCP is investigating alternative methods to arrive at 

more stable estimates of average age at initiation, including retrospective estimates from a single NHSDA data 

year as well as the possibility of generating estimates using 

a series of NHSDA data years. 

11. Abt Associates under contract to ONDCP, What America's 

Users Spend on Illegal Drugs: 1988-I 995 (Washington, 

DC: ONDCP, 1997). 

12. The full report describing the methodology for these estimates was developed by SAMHSA at ONDCP's request. 

A version of this report was subsequently published. See 

A. Woodward, et al., "The Drug Abuse Treatment Gap" 

Recent Estimates," Health Care Financing Review 28(3): 

5-17 (1997). 

13. U.S. General Accounting Office, "Drug Use Measurement: Strengths, Limitations, and Recommendations for 

Improvement," GAO/PEMD-93-19, 1993. 

14. Abt Associates under contract to ONDCP, A Plan for 

Estimating the Number of "Hardcore" Drug Users in the 

United States (Washington, DC: ONDCP, forthcoming). 

15. 

16. 

There also is a research basis for this concept. Under contract to ONDCP, Evidence-Based Research (EBR) 

conducted a study of the impact on the flow of drugs in 

the transit zone of alternative resource levels. In conducting 

this study, EBR developed the notion of the traffickers' 

success rate. For more about this topic, see the National 

Drug Control Strategy: 1996 Program, Resources, and Evaluation, and the ONDCP Transit Zone Study, 48-51. 

The Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement is a 

quarterly product coordinated by ONDCP and produced 

by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Although the source 

document is confidential, the actual estimates used in this 

illustration are unclassified. 

50 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
PLAUSIBILITY OF THE IMPACT TARGETS 

17. The Drug Enforcement Administration is in the process 

of developing estimates of drug seizures by non-Federal 

law enforcement authorities so that a more complete picture of domestic reductions can be established. 

18. Rice, D.P., et al., under contract to the Department of 

Health and Human Services, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and 

Mental Health Administration, The Economic Costs of 

Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Mental Illness: 1985 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, 1990). 

19. Institute for Health Policy, Brandeis University, Substance Abuse: The Nation's Number One Health Problem, 

Key Indicators for Policy (Princeton, NJ: Robert Wood 

Johnson Foundation, 1993). 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 51 

Appendix B: Targets 

and Measures 

T 

his appendix details the Goals, 

targets, and measures that are the 

foundation of the PME. Progress 

toward these Goals is critically 

dependent on State, local, and foreign 

governments; private entities; 

communities; families; and individuals. Data 

reflecting these efforts must be factored in with 

the Federal progress toward these Goals. Although 

Federal Agencies are designated as "reporting and 

supporting agencies" for each Goal and Measure, 

this does not represent a complete list of actors 

that will help the Nation achieve the specified 

Goals. There are Goals and Measures that will 

require the efforts of non-Federal actors. 

In total, there are 94 performance targets in the 

proposed system. Twelve of these are "Impact Targets" designed to define outcomes or end states for 

the overall Goals of the Strategy. The remaining 

82 performance targets are linked to the Strategy 

Objectives, which are supported by Federal and 

non-Federal drug control programs. 

All of the performance targets, regardless of 

whether they are linked to Strategy Goals or 

Objectives, have at least one associated performance measure that shows how progress toward 

that target will be monitored. In total, there are 94 

performance measures supporting the performance 

targets, which provide the infrastructure for the 

Strategy's Goals and Objectives. 

The proposed targets and measures represent the 

collective views and best thinking of the drug control community. The numeric targets are currently 

viewed as plausible. However, in developing the 

performance targets and measures, certain assumptions were made about programs, data systems, 

resources, and exogenous factors. In some cases, 

data for the proposed targets and measures do not 

exist and need to be developed. For example, estimates of drug availability and the true size of the 

chronic drug user population will need to be 

developed. If data cannot reasonably be collected, 

alternative targets and measures will be sought. 

It is important to acknowledge the flexible 

nature of the performance measurement system. 

Targets and measures are not static. As the system 

is implemented, all of us in the drug control community will improve our knowledge and 

understanding of drug policy and the outcomes 

that can reasonably be expected as we learn more 

about the relationships among organizations, 

resources, outputs, and outcomes. With such 

knowledge, the targets and performance measures 

will be refined and modified as needed. 

Federal Agencies responsible for reporting performance measures to ONDCP are listed in this 

section under the appropriate measure. A minimum of one Federal Agency, two when there is a 

shared responsibility, is responsible for reporting 

on each measure. Additionally, Supporting Federal Agencies are listed after the Reporting Agency 

because they assist with data collection and assessment or have programs that contribute to 

achieving the given target. 

To assist readers with the terminology used in 

this section, a Terminology Key is included. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 53 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Terminology Key 

GOAL X: MAJOR DIRECTIVE OF THE 

STRATEGY. 

OBJECTIVE X: Major line of ACTION to 

achieve the desired goal. 

GOAL X, END STATE 2007: WHAT THE 

GOAL IS ULTIMATELY TRYING TO 

ACHIEVE 10 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION 

OF THE STRATEGY. 

OBJECTIVE, OUTCOME 2002: Statement 

defining what the objective is trying to achieve 

in 5 years. 

TARGET 

Goal Impact Target: Key outcome target for 

tracking impact of the Strategy Goal. Quantified 

end state. 

PERFORMANCE TARGET: Target developed 

to track progress toward the Strategy Objective. 

States a desired output, milestone, or outcome 

associated with agency drug program efforts. Ideally outcome-oriented vs. work-output oriented. 

MEASURE 

Goal Impact Measure: Data and variables to 

track progress towards each Goal Impact Target. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURE: Data, variables, 

and events to track progress toward each performance target. 

Reporting Agency: Department responsible 

for reporting the measure to ONDCP. This is 

not necessarily the only agency responsible for 

achieving the target. 

Supporting Federal Agency: Department 

responsible for providing data to the Reporting 

Agency. 

Assumptions: 

A set of beliefs, generally held by the drag control community, upon which performance targets are based. 

General Assumptions: Assumptions that apply to more than one Strategy Goal. 

Goal X Assumptions: Assumptions that apply to Goal X only. 

Critical Factors: 

Events outside of the control of the relevant department or agency that can affect target achievement. 

54 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

General Assumptions for Two or More Strategy Goals 

The drug problem is dynamic and our response must change accordingly. 

The American people will oppose the unconstrained flow of illicit drugs into the United States and 

the use of illegal drugs within the United States. 

Reduction in foreign and domestic production and supply will affect illegal drug use through price 

effects caused by reduced availability. 

ONDCP will lead interagency efforts in 1998 to develop official government estimates of drug availability. It is expected that this effort will enable baseline estimates for 1996. If this proves to be 

infeasible, then a subsequent year will be used as the baseline. 

General Critical Factors~ 

Apply to Two or More Strategy Goals 

Improved drug indicators are required for measuring illicit drug availability. 

Federal incentives and support for States and local communities to report data necessary to measure 

performance. 

U.S. law enforcement and intelligence "presence" must be maintained in all major source and transit 

countries where diplomatic relations exist, and this presence must be developed in those countries 

where diplomatic relations do not exist. 

Successful prevention and treatment programs that meet accepted standards are adopted nationwide. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 55 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goals 

GOAL 1: EDUCATE AND ENABLE AMERICA'S YOUTH TO REJECT ILLEGAL DRUGS 

AS WELL AS ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO. 

GOAL 1, END STATE 2007: OUR CHILDREN 

HAVE THE TOOLS FOR MAKING THE 

RIGHT CHOICE TO REACH ADULTHOOD 

FREE OF DRUGS. 

Goal Impact Targets 

a. Use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco by 

youth--By 2002, reduce the prevalence of past 

month use of illegal drugs and alcohol among 

youth by 20 percent as measured against the 

1996 base year. By 2007, reduce this prevalence 

by 50 percent as compared to the base year. 

Reduce tobacco use by youth by 25 percent by 

2002 and by 55 percent by 2007. 

b. Initial age of drug use in youth--By 2002, 

increase the average age for first time drug use 

by 12 months from the average age of first time 

use in 1996. By 2007, increase the average age 

of first time drug use by 36 months from the 

1996 base year. 

Goal Impact Measures 

a. Past month prevalence of drug, alcohol, and 

tobacco use by youth. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DoD, DOJ, ED 

b. Average age of initial drug use. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DoD, DOJ, ED 

Assumptions for Goal 1 

• Clear anti-drug messages from parents and community leaders are effective in persuading youth to recognize the risks of illegal drug use. 

• Prevention programs that meet accepted standards will be effective in countering cohort attitudes and 

media messages encouraging drug experimentation and use. 

• Widely disseminated evidence of the harmful consequences of using marijuana and other illegal drugs 

will increase the number of adults and youth who reject them. 

56 PERFORMANCE" MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

GOAL 1: EDUCATE AND ENABLE AMERICA'S YOUTH TO REJECT ILLEGAL DRUGS 

AS WELL AS ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO. 

GOAL 1, END STATE 2007: Our children have 

the tools for making the right choice to reach an 

adulthood free of drugs. 

OBJECTIVE 1: Educate parents or other care. 

givers, teachers, coaches, clergy, health 

professionals, and business and community 

leaders to help youth reject illegal drugs and 

underage alcohol and tobacco use. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

every adolescent has a parent or caregiver who 

provides sound reasons for rejecting illegal 

drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. 

TARGETS MEASURES 

1. Adult understanding and capacityDBy 2002, 

increase by 25 percent the proportion of adults 

who have the capacity to help youth reject illegal drug use compared to the 1998 base year. By 

2007, increase the proportion by 40 percent 

over the base year. 

1. The proportion of adults who disagree somewhat or disagree strongly with the following 

statements: 

a. "I wish I knew better what to say to my child 

about drugs." 

b. "What I say will have little influence on 

whether my child tries marijuana." 

c. "Drug education is best handled by schools, 

not parents." 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, DOL, ED 

2. Adults influencing youth--By 2002, increase 

by 20 percent the proportion of parents and 

other adult mentors who attempt to influence 

youth to reject drugs, alcohol, and tobacco 

over the 1998 base year. By 2007, increase the 

proportion by 40 percent over the base year. 

. The proportion of parents and other adult 

mentors who (a) report having discussed drugs 

with children thoroughly, and (b) report that 

they have attempted to influence youth to 

reject drugs. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, ED 

3. Acceptance rateDBy 2002, reduce by 5 percent the proportion of adult acceptance of 

illegal drug use as compared to the 1998 base 

year. By 2007, decrease the rate to at least 20 

percent below the base year rate. 

. The proportion of adult acceptance of illegal 

drug use. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, ED 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 57 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 1 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 2: Pursue a vigorous advertising 

and pubRc communications program dealing 

with the dangers of illegal drugs, alcohol, and 

tobacco use by youth. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

advertising and public communication routinely 

inform youth on the dangers of illegal drugs, 

alcohol, and tobacco. 

TARGETS MEASURES 

1. Youth risk perception--By 2002, increase to 

80 the percent of youth who perceive that regular use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco is 

harmful and maintain this rate through 2007. 

. The percent of youth who perceive the risks of 

illegal drugs (marijuana as a proxy measure), 

alcohol, and tobacco use as harmful. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, DOT, ED 

2. Youth disapproval--By 2002, increase to 95 

the percent of youth who disapprove of illegal 

drug, alcohol, and tobacco use and maintain 

this rate through 2007. 

. The percentage of youth who disapprove of 

illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco use. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, DOT, ED 

3. TV anti-drug messages--By 2002, double the 

number of TV viewing hours that focus on 

anti-drug messages, as compared to the 1998 

base year, and maintain that level through 

2007. 

. The number of TV viewing hours by youth 

that focus on anti-drug messages. 

Reporting Agency: ONDCP 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOT, HHS 

58 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 1 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 3: Promote zero tolerance policies 

for youth regarding the use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco within the family, school, 

workplace, and community. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

all school districts and a growing number of 

communities adopt zero tolerance policies 

regarding the use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and 

tobacco. 

TARGETS 

1. Zero tolerance in schools--By 2002, all 

schools and school districts will have zero tolerance policies concerning the use of illegal 

drugs, alcohol, and tobacco by youth. 

2. Zero tolerance in communities--By 2002, 

increase by 25 percent over the 1998 base year 

the proportion of designated communities (as 

determined by an interagency group) that have 

developed, through broad-based participation 

(parents, businesses, and community groups), 

publicly stated and written zero tolerance drug 

abuse policies for youth. By 2007, increase the 

proportion to at least 50 percent over the 1998 

base year. 

MEASURES 

1. Proportion of public and private schools that 

have published: 

a. zero tolerance drug abuse policies for students and 

b. zero tolerance drug abuse policies for 

employees. 

Reporting Agencies: ED, HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DoD, OJJDP 

2. Proportion of communities that have published 

zero tolerance drug abuse policies for youth. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: BIA, DoD, DOL, 

DOT, ED, OJJDP 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 59 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 1 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 4: Provide students in grades 

K-12 with alcohol, tobacco, and drug preven. 

tion programs and policies that have been 

evaluated and tested and are based on sound 

practices and procedures. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

all school districts accept the need for drug, 

alcohol, and tobacco prevention programs that 

have been evaluated and tested and a growing 

number of districts have implemented them. 

TARGETS 

1. Establish criteria for tested standards--By 

1999, establish criteria to determine whether 

school districts have implemented drug, alcohol, and tobacco prevention programs and 

policies that are evaluated and tested. 

2. Implement standards in schools--By 2002, 

increase the proportion of school districts that 

have implemented drug, alcohol, and tobacco 

prevention programs that have been evaluated 

and tested by 10 percent compared to the 2000 

base year percentage. By 2007, increase the 

proportion to at least 30 percent over the base 

year. 

MEASURES 

. Criteria established to determine whether 

school districts have effectively implemented 

drug, alcohol, and tobacco prevention programs that are evaluated and tested. 

Reporting Agencies: ED, HHS 

Supporting Federal Agency: DOJ 

. The proportion of school districts that have 

implemented drug, alcohol, and tobacco prevention programs and policies that are 

evaluated and tested. 

Reporting Agencies: ED, HHS 

Supporting Federal Agency: DOJ 

60 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 1 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 5: Support parents and adult 

mentors in encouraging youth to engage in positive, healthy lifestyles and modeling behavior to 

be emulated by young people. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

there are mentors in each community and social 

groups to foster positive, healthy lifestyles among 

all young Americans. 

TARGETS 

1. Develop mentoring program--By December 

1999, develop a national program proposal, 

building on existing efforts, for promoting 

growth in the number of mentors as well as 

mentoring and parenting organizations. 

2. Implement mentoring program--By 2002, 

implement this program at a level sufficient to 

increase by 25 percent, over a 1998 base year, 

the proportion of trained adult mentors and 

parents (of children age 17 and under) 

involved in mentoring. By 2007, increase the 

proportion of adult mentors participating in 

the program to 50 percent over the number in 

the base year. 

MEASURES 

. 

. 

Status of the program proposal, the organizational infrastructure, and the action agenda 

that will be used to maximize the impact of a 

nationwide program. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: ED, OJJDP 

The proportion of trained adult mentors and 

parents (of children age 17 and under) 

involved in mentoring. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOL, ED, 

OJJDP 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 61 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 1 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 6: Encourage and assist the devel. 

opment of community coalitions and programs in 

preventing drug abuse and underage alcohol and 

tobacco use. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

every community is actively involved in coali. 

tions or partnerships dedicated to preventing 

youth from using illegal drugs, alcohol, and 

tobacco. 

TARGETS MEASURES 

1. Develop coalition directory--By 1999, publish 

a national inventory of anti-drug communitybased coalitions and partnerships. 

. Publication of the national inventory of antidrag community-based coalitions and 

partnerships. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: BJA, DOT, ED, 

HUD, OJJDP 

2. Funded coalitions--By 2007, increase by 50 

percent the number of communities with comprehensive anti-drug coalitions funded publicly 

or privately as compared to the 1999 base year. 

. Percentage of communities with comprehensive anti-drug coalitions funded publicly or 

privately. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: BJA, DOC, 

DOL, DOT, ED, HUD, OJJDP 

62 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 1 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 7: Create partnerships with the 

media, entertainment industry, and professional 

sports organizations to avoid the glamorization, 

condoning, or normalization of illegal drugs and 

the use of alcohol and tobacco by youth. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

major media, entertainment, and sports organizations form partnerships with Government to 

avoid glamorizing, condoning, or legitimizing 

illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. 

TARGET MEASURE 

1. Partnerships--By 2002, establish partnerships 

with 50 percent of major media, entertainment, and professional sports organizations to 

avoid glamorizing, condoning, or legitimizing 

the use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. 

By 2007, partnerships with 90 percent of each 

organizational type will be established. 

1. Percentage of major media, entertainment, and 

professional sports organizations that avoid 

glamorizing, condoning, or normalizing the use 

of illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, DOT, ED 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 63 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal i (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 8: Support and disseminate scien. 

tific research and data on the consequences of 

legalizing drugs. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

health and civic leaders base their professional 

decisions on factual, scientific evidence regarding the dangers of illegal drugs. 

TARGETS 

1. Develop an information package--By 1999, 

develop and disseminate an information package, based on existing research, for State 

legislators, governors, and physicians, on the 

use of marijuana for medicinal purposes and 

pharmaceutical alternatives to marijuana and 

other illegal drugs. 

2. Disseminate evidence--In 1999, complete 

nationwide dissemination of scientific evidence of the potential adverse effects of 

legalizing marijuana and other illegal drugs. 

MEASURES 

1. Development and initial distribution of an 

information package about the potential 

adverse effects of marijuana and other illegal 

drags. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DEA, ED 

2. Information package developed and disseminated. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DEA, ED 

64 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 1 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 9: Develop and implement a set of 

principles upon which prevention programming 

can be based. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

national prevention principles form the founda. 

tion for educating and enabling youth to reject 

illegal drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. 

TARGETS 

1. Develop prevention models--By 1999, in concert with Federal and State agencies and 

national and local community organizations, 

develop essential principles for drug abuse prevention programs and models. 

2. Disseminate principles and models--By 2000, 

disseminate information about prevention 

principles and prevention models to 50 percent 

of schools and/or school districts, State and 

local governments, national and local community organizations, and other relevant 

organizations identified in a dissemination 

plan. By 2002, achieve dissemination to 95 

percent of these agencies. 

MEASURES 

1. Development of national prevention principles 

and models. 

Reporting Agencies: ED, HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DoD, OJJDP 

. The proportion of school districts, State and 

local governments, national and local community organizations, and other relevant 

organizations receiving information about prevention principles and models. 

Reporting Agencies: ED, HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DoD, OJJDP 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 65 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

OBJECTIVE 10: Support and highlight 

research, including the development of scientific 

information to inform drug, alcohol, and tobacco 

prevention programs targeting young Americans. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

prevention programs are research-based and 

results.driven. 

TARGETS MEASURES 

1. New prevention researchmBy 1999, identify, 

prioritize, and implement critical new prevention research and knowledge development 

studies to educate and enable youth to reject 

illegal drugs. 

. Assessment of the number and quality of new 

prevention research and knowledge studies 

implemented for the purpose of educating and 

enabling youth to reject illegal drugs. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOT, ED, 

OjjDP 

2. Disseminate information--By 2002, based on 

new and existing prevention research, disseminate effective, science-based, prevention 

programs to 50 percent of Federal, State, and 

local practitioners, and put into place a system 

that will generate and distribute this information to the entire field of prevention on an 

ongoing basis. By 2004, achieve 95-percent 

dissemination. 

. Proportion of Federal, State, and local prevention practitioners receiving science-based 

information on prevention. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOT, ED, HUD, 

OJJDP, Treas. 

3. Anti-drug education impact study--By 2002, 

complete research to isolate and monitor the 

impact of youth anti-drug education initiatives 

on changes in the prevalence of drug use. 

3. Impact of education initiatives on drug use 

prevalence measured by an interagency working group. 

Reporting Agency: ONDCP 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DEA, DOT, ED, 

HHS, HUD, OJJDP, VA, Treas. 

66 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

GOAL 2: INCREASE THE SAFETY OF AMERICA'S CITIZENS BY SUBSTANTIALLY 

REDUCING DRUG-RELATED CRIME AND 

VIOLENCE. 

GOAL 2, END STATE 2007: AN AMERICA 

WHERE THERE ARE FEWER DRUGS ON 

THE STREETS AND COMMUNITIES ARE 

SAFER. 

Goal Impact Targets 

a. Drug related crime and violence--By 2002, 

reduce by 15 percent the rate of crime and violent acts associated with drug trafficking and 

use, as compared with the 1996 base year. By 

2007, reduce drug-related crime and violence 

by 30 percent as compared with the base year. 

b. Domestic trafficker success--By 2002, reduce 

by 10 percent the rate at which illicit drugs of 

U.S. venue reach the U.S. consumer, as compared with the 1996 base year. By 2007, reduce 

this rate by 20 percent over the base year. 

c. Drug availability in the United StatesmBy 

2002, reduce drug availability in the United 

States by 25 percent as compared with the estimated 1996 base year. By 2007, reduce illicit 

drug availability in the U.S. by 50 percent from 

the base year. 

Goal Impact Measures 

a. The nationwide rate of crimes and violent acts 

associated with drug trafficking and use as measured by available indicators. 

Reporting Agency: DOJ 

Supporting Federal Agencies: BJS, DEA, DOS, 

FBI, Treas. 

b. Rate at which illicit drugs venued in the 

United States reach U.S. consumers. 

Reporting Agency: DOJ 

Supporting Federal Agencies: BJS, DEA, FBI, 

HIDTAs, Treas. 

c. Quantity of illicit drugs available in the United 

States. 

Reporting Agency: ONDCP 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DoD, DOS, FBI, 

NDIC, NSA, USBP, USCG, USCS, USlC 

Assumptions for Goal 2 

Control of domestic consumption, distribution, and associated criminal activity is primarily a Stateand local-level law enforcement function and is a key contributor to the success of supply and consequence targets; control of major drug supply and distribution organizations is primarily a Federal law 

enforcement function. 

• A significant reduction in the availability of illicit drugs will have a price effect (increase) that reduces 

drug use. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 67 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

GOAL 2: INCREASE THE SAFETY OF AMERICA'S CITIZENS BY SUBSTANTIALLY 

REDUCING DRUG-RELATED CRIME AND 

VIOLENCE. 

OBJECTIVE 1: Strengthen law enforcement-- 

including Federal, State, and local drug task 

forces--to Combat drug.related violence, disrupt 

criminal organizations, and arrest and prosecute 

the leaders of illegal drug syndicates. 

GOAL 2, END STATE 2007: An America where 

there are fewer drugs on the streets and communities are safer. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

drug.related violence and drug availability are 

minimal. 

' TARGETS 

1. Drug-related violent crimemBy 2002, achieve 

a 20-percent reduction in the rate of homicides, robberies, rapes, assaults, and crimes 

against property associated with illegal drugs as 

compared to the 1996 base year. By 2007, 

achieve at least a 40-percent reduction from 

the base year in specified drug-related crimes. 

. Drug trafficking organizations--By 2002, 

using a prioritized list of domestic drug law 

enforcement community designated targets, 

increase by five points the percentage of drug 

trafficking organizations disrupted, dismantled, 

or otherwise rendered ineffective as measured 

against the percentage recorded in the 1997 

base year. By 2007, increase the target percentage by at least 10 points above the base year 

value. 

. Domestic drug traffickers--By 2002, using a 

prioritized list of domestic drug law enforcement community designated targets, increase 

by 10 points the percentage of drug traffickers 

who are arrested, prosecuted, or otherwise rendered ineffective as measured against the 

percentage recorded in the 1997 base year. By 

2007, increase the target percentage by at least 

20 points above the base year value. 

MEASURES 

1. Reported rate of homicides, robberies, rapes, 

assaults, and property crimes associated with 

distribution, sale, or consumption of illegal 

drugs as measured by available crime indicators. 

Reporting Agency: DOJ 

Supporting Federal Agencies: BJS, DEA, DOS, 

FBI, Treas. 

. The percentage of targeted organizations on 

the counterdrug community's designated target 

list which are disrupted, dismantled, or otherwise rendered ineffective, measured annually. 

Reporting Agency: DEA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DoD, DOS, FBI, 

USCS, Treas. 

. The percentage of targeted individuals on the 

counterdrug community's designated target list 

who are arrested, prosecuted, or otherwise rendered ineffective, measured annually. 

Reporting Agency: DEA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: FBI, USCS, 

Treas. 

68 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 2 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 2: Improve the ability of High 

Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) to 

counter drug trafficking. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

drug trafficking is minimized in HIDTA areas. 

TARGETS 

1. HIDTA developmentmEach HIDTA will 

improve the scope and efficiency of the 

HIDTA Program by the progressive adoption of 

the National HIDTA Developmental Standards at the rate of at least 10 percent per 

annum, reaching the 90 percent level by 2007. 

2. Drug trafficking organizations in HIDTAs-- 

By 2002, increase the proportion of drug 

trafficking organizations disrupted or dismantled as identified in HIDTA threat assessments 

by 15 percent above the proportion in the 

1997 base year. By 2007, increase the proportion disrupted or dismantled to 30 percent 

above the base year ratio. 

3. Drug-related violent crime in HIDTAsmBy 

2002, reduce by 20 percent the rate of drug 

related homicides, robberies, rapes, and assaults 

in HIDTAs as compared to the 1996 base year. 

By 2007 reduce specified drug-related crimes in 

HIDTAs by 40 percent. 

MEASURES 

. The percentage of HIDTAs that meet or 

exceed the established milestones for the 

National HIDTA Developmental Standards as 

developed and distributed in the 1998 HIDTA 

Program guidance. 

Reporting Agencies: each HIDTA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DEA, FBI 

. Proportion of identified drug trafficking organizations disrupted or dismantled by or within 

HIDTAs. 

Reporting Agencies: DEA, each HIDTA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DoD, DOS, FBI, 

USCS, Treas. 

. Reported rate of homicides, robberies, rapes, 

and assaults in HIDTAs that are associated 

with distribution, sale, or consumption of illicit 

drugs as measured by available crime indicators. 

Reporting Agencies: each HIDTA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: BJS, DEA, DOJ, 

FBI, Treas. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 69 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 2 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 3: Help law enforcement to dis. 

rupt money laundering and seize and forfeit 

criminal assets. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

every State has enacted and enforces asset 

seizure and forfeiture laws to reduce the prof. 

itability of all drug enterprises. 

TARGETS 

1. Drug organization assets seized and forfeitedm 

By 2002, increase the value of assets seized and 

forfeited from organizations with known ties to 

illegal drug trafficking by 15 percent over the 

1998 base year. By 2007, increase the value of 

assets seized and forfeited by 25 percent over 

the base year. 

2. State seizure and forfeiture statutes By 

2007, all States enact drug-related asset seizure 

and forfeiture statutes. 

3. Money laundering costsmBy 2002, increase 

the cost of money laundering to drug traffickers 

within the United States by 15 percent over 

costs in the 1997 base year. By 2007, increase 

money laundering costs at least 40 percent over 

base year costs. 

MEASURES 

1. Value of drug trafficker-related assets seized and 

forfeited. 

Reporting Agency: DOJ 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOC, FBI, 

USCS, Treas. 

. Number of States that have adopted antimoney-laundering and asset seizure and 

forfeiture legislation. 

Reporting Agency: DOJ 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOC, FBI, 

Treas. 

. The cost of money laundering transactions 

to drug trafficking organizations within the 

United States. 

Reporting Agency: FinCEN 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOC, FBI, 

USCS, Treas. 

70 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 2 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 4: Develop, refine, and implement 

effective rehabilitative programs--including 

graduated sanctions, supervised release, and 

treatment for drug.abusing offenders and 

accused persons---at all stages within the criminal justice system. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

effective rehabilitation prevents drug offenders 

from returning to drug abuse and crime. 

TARGETS 

1. Drug testing policies~By 1999, in concert 

with the States, adopt drug testing policies 

within the criminal justice system which: 

a. clearly articulate the purposes and goals of 

drug testing and prescribe responses; 

b. target appropriate populations based on an 

assessment of need for each type drug; 

c. specify testing types and frequency; 

d. specify how offenders will be targeted for 

testing; and 

e. detail staff training requirements. 

2. Positive drug test responsesmBy 1999, in 

concert with State correctional agencies and 

local correction offices, adopt processes to 

ensure that there is a response to every positive 

test or assessment of need. Responses may 

include event documentation, enhanced case 

management, increased judicial supervision, or 

imposition of other graduated sanction and 

treatment interventions. 

3. Abuse treatment availabilitymBy 2002, 

increase by 10 percent the proportion of identified drug-using offenders who are provided 

substance abuse treatment interventions as 

compared to the 1997 base year. By 2007, 

increase this proportion by at least 25 percent 

over the base year. 

MEASURES 

1. The number of State correctional agencies that 

have policies that include: 

a. clearly articulated purposes and goals for 

drug testing and prescribed responses; 

b. appropriate populations determined based 

on an assessment of need for each specified 

type of drug; 

c. specified testing types and frequency; 

d. methods for how offenders will be targeted 

for testing; and 

e. staff training. 

Reporting Agency: DOJ 

Supporting Federal Agency: HHS 

. The proportion of State correctional agencies 

with policies in place to respond to every positive drug test or assessment of need. 

Reporting Agency: DOJ 

Supporting Federal Agency: HHS 

3. The proportion of identified drug-using offenders provided with substance abuse treatment 

interventions. 

Reporting Agency: DOJ 

Supporting Federal Agency: HHS 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 71 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 2, Objective 4 (continued) 

4. Drugs and recidivismmBy 2002, reduce by 10 

percent the proportion of identified drug-using 

offenders who are rearrested for new felonies or 

serious misdemeanors within a 1-year period 

following their release from supervision using 

1998 as the base year. By 2007, reduce this proportion by at least 25 percent below the base 

year proportion. 

4. The proportion of identified drug-using offenders who commit a felony or serious misdemeanor 

within a 1 year period following release from 

supervision out of the total number of identified 

and treated drug-using offenders. 

Reporting Agency: DOJ 

Supporting Federal Agency: HHS 

72 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 2 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 5: Break the cycle of drug abuse 

and clime. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

the combination of Federal, State, and local 

anti.drug efforts break the cycle of drugs and 

clime ° 

TARGETS 

1. Inmate access to illegal drugs~By 2002, 

reduce by 25 percent the proportion of inmates 

who test positive for illegal drugs during their 

incarceration in Federal, State, county, or local 

detention facilities as compared to the positive 

drug test rate in the 1997 base year. By 2007, 

reduce positive tests by 50 percent as compared 

to the base year. 

2. Break-the-cycle ("BTC") demonstration 

projectsmBy 2000, increase the number of 

juvenile and adult sites demonstrating the 

principles embodied in the first "BTC" 

research demonstration project. By 2001, 

refine the BTC research demonstration project 

and develop additional second generation 

models sponsored by State and local governments. 

3. Drug-crime focused court reformmBy 2002, 

60 percent of States and metropolitan areas (as 

defined by the U.S. Census Bureau) will implement drug-crime based judicial reform or 

specialization of the courts system to elicit a 

decrease in drug-crime recidivism in the State 

or targeted area, measured against the recidivism rate for the year prior to implementation. 

By 2007, 80 percent of States and metropolitan 

areas will show a decrease in the recidivism 

rate compared to the base year. 

MEASURES 

1. The proportion of inmates that test positive for 

drugs. 

Reporting Agency: DOJ 

Supporting Federal Agency: HHS 

2. The number of implemented "BTC" research 

demonstration projects. 

Reporting Agency: DOJ 

Supporting Federal Agency: HHS 

3. The relative success of States and metropolitan 

areas that have developed and implemented 

drug-crime based reform or specialization of the 

courts. 

Reporting Agency: DOJ 

Supporting Federal Agency: HHS 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 73 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 2 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 6: Support and highlight research, 

including the development of scientific informa. 

tion and data, to inform law enforcement, 

prosecution, incarceration, and treatment of 

offenders involved with illegal drugs. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

drug law enforcement programs are thoroughly 

researched and information about successful 

programs is disseminated. 

TARGET MEASURE 

1. Effectiveness studymBy 2002, research the 

relative success of law enforcement and offender 

treatment programs and disseminate this information to at least 80 percent of law enforcement 

or drug prevention and treatment agencies. By 

2007, ensure all related agencies have received 

the research findings and 90 percent have 

implemented selected initiatives. 

1. Progress of dissemination and implementation 

of law enforcement research. 

Reporting Agency: DOJ 

Supporting Federal Agencies: BJS, HHS, NIJ 

74 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

GOAL 3: REDUCE HEALTH AND SOCIAL 

COSTS TO THE PUBLIC OF ILLEGAL 

DRUG USE. 

GOAL 3, END STATE 2007: AN AMERICA 

WHERE WE HAVE MINIMIZED THE 

ECONOMIC AND HUMAN CONSEQUENCES 

OF DRUG ABUSE. 

Goal Impact Targets 

a. Reduce health and social costsmBy 2002, 

reduce health and social costs associated with 

illegal drugs by 10 percent, as expressed in constant dollars, as compared to the 1996 base 

year. By 2007, reduce such costs by 25 percent 

as compared to the base year. 

b. Reduce drug use nationwide--By 2002, 

reduce the nationwide prevalence of illegal 

drug use by 25 percent as compared to the 1996 

base year. By 2007, reduce prevalence by 50 

percent as compared to the base year. 

c. Reduce drug use in the workplace---By 2002, 

reduce the prevalence of drug use in the workplace by 25 percent as compared to the 1996 

base year. By 2007, reduce this prevalence by 

50 percent as compared to the base year. 

d. Reduce the number of chronic usersmBy 

2002, reduce the number of chronic drug users 

by 20 percent as compared to 1996 base year. 

By 2007, reduce the number of drug users by 

50 percent as compared to the base year. 

Goal Impact Measures 

a. Health and social costs in constant dollars 

attributable to illegal drugs. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, DOL, ED, 

VA, Treas. 

b. The prevalence of drug use as measured by the 

National Household Survey and other relevant 

surveys. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, DOL, ED, 

VA, Treas. 

C. The prevalence of drug use in the workplace as 

measured by the National Household Survey 

and other relevant surveys. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, DOL, 

DOT, ED, VA, Treas. 

d. The estimated number of chronic drug users. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, ED, VA, 

Treas. 

Assumptions for Goal 3 

• Early entry into effective and efficient substance abuse treatment and sufficient incentive to remain in 

treatment will reduce high-risk behaviors (injecting drugs, sex for drugs, etc.) and decrease the spread 

of infectious diseases with no new emergent infectious diseases affecting the population group. 

• Increasing education and training of prevention and treatment providers will improve results and 

decrease health care utilization. 

• Advances in medicines and treatment protocols, and support for mental health needs can prevent 

increases in the chronic user population. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 75 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

GOAL 3: REDUCE HEALTH AND SOCIAL 

COSTS TO THE PUBLIC OF ILLEGAL DRUG 

USE 

OBJECTIVE 1: Support and promote effective, 

efficient, and accessible drug treatment, ensur. 

ing the development of a system that is 

responsive to emerging trends in drug abuse. 

GOAL 3, END STATE 2007: An America where 

we have minimized the economic and human 

consequences of drug abuse. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

effective drug treatment is readily available, 

resulting in better recovery rates and lower tax. 

payer costs from crime losses and prison 

e~eTises. 

TARGETS 

1. Treatment gap--By 2002, reduce the public 

treatment gap by at least 20 percent as compared to the 1996 base year. By 2007, reduce 

the gap by at least 50 percent compared to the 

base year. 

2. Demonstrate impact--By 2007, as compared 

to the 2001 base year, achieve for those completing substance abuse treatment programs a: 

a. 10-percent increase in full-time employment 

(adults in the labor market); 

b. 10-percent increase in educational status 

(adolescents); 

c. 10-percent decrease in illegal activity; and 

d. 10-percent increase in general medical 

health. 

3. Waiting time--By 2007, reduce the average 

waiting time to enter treatment by 20 percent 

as compared to the 2000 base year. 

MEASURES 

. Treatment gap, defined as the difference 

between those needing treatment and the 

capacity of the treatment system to provide 

treatment. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, VA. 

2. Impact measured in each targeted area against 

data from the 2001 base year. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: BIA, DoD, DOJ, 

DOT, ED 

3. Average waiting time. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, DOT, ED 

76 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 3, Objective 1 (continued) 

. Implement NTOMS--By 2002, develop and 

implement a National Treatment Outcome 

Monitoring System (NTOMS) to collect data 

on an ongoing basis and provide drug treatment providers nationwide with a source of 

information needed to identify changes in drug 

abuse treatment outcomes and to identify program-level determinants of change. 

. NTOMS database implemented, updated, and 

actively disseminating information yielding 

demonstrable improvement over all previous 

drug treatment systems. Assessment to be made 

by an interagency group augmented with independent expert advisors. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, DOT, ED, 

ONDCP 

5. Disseminate treatment information--By 

December 1998, disseminate current information to key civic leaders about the best 

available drug treatment in order to substantially enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and 

accessibility of drug treatment nationwide. 

. Progress toward information dissemination. 

Assessment of progress to be made by an interagency group augmented with independent 

expert advisors. 

Reportingagency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DOJ, DOT, ED 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 77 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 3 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 2: Reduce drug.related health prob. 

lems, with an emphasis on infectious diseases. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An Amer/ca where 

drug.related infectious disease incidents decline 

dramatically. 

TARGETS MEASURES 

1. TuberculosismBy 2002, as compared to the 

1997 base year, reduce the incidence of drug 

abuse-related tuberculosis by 10 percent among 

identified drug abuser populations. By 2007, 

reduce the incidence by 20 percent as compared to the base year. 

. The incidence of drug abuse-related tuberculosis as systematically reported in the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) 

Tuberculosis Verified Case Reporting System 

and VA Substance Abuse Database. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agency: VA 

2. Hepatitis B---By 2002, as compared to the 

1997 base year, reduce the incidence of drug 

abuse-related Hepatitis B by 25 percent among 

identified drug abuser populations. By 2007, 

reduce the incidence by 35 percent as compared to the base year. 

. The incidence of drug abuse-related Hepatitis 

B as systematically assessed from CDC's HIV 

National Viral Hepatitis Reporting System, 

CDC's Five County Surveillance System, and 

VA Substance Abuse Database. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agency: VA 

3. HIV--By 2002, as compared to the 1997 base 

year, stabilize the incidence of drug abuserelated HIV infection. By 2007, reduce the 

incidence by 10 percent as compared to the 

base year. 

3. The incidence of drug abuse-related HIV as 

systematically assessed from CDC's HIV 

Counseling and Testing Database, CDC's 

Seroprevalence Surveillance Systems for IDUs, 

and the VA Substance Abuse Database. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agency: VA 

78 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 3 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 3: Promote national adoption of 

drug.free workplace programs that emphasize a 

comprehensive program that includes: Drug testing, education, prevention, and intervention. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

all institutions and business organizations of all 

sizes and types implement drug.free workplaces. 

TARGET MEASURE 

1. Drug free workplace--By 2002, increase over 

the 1997 base year the number of workplaces 

with (a) employee assistance programs by 6 

percent; (b) drug-free workplace policies by 

15 percent; (c) drug testing by 12 percent; and 

(d) at least 1 hour per year of substance abuse 

education by 12 percent. By 2007, increase 

each to at least 12, 30, 24, and 24 percent, 

respectively, over the base year. 

1. The percentage of workplaces with (a) employee 

assistance programs, (b) drug-free workplace 

policies, (c) drug testing programs, and (d) substance abuse education. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: ED, DOL, DOT, 

SBA 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 79 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 3 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 4: Support and promote the educa. 

tion, training, and credentialing of professionals 

who work with substance abusers. 

TARGETS 

1. Standards setmBy 2002, building on current 

efforts, develop nationally recognized standards 

for education and training for: 

a. substance abuse prevention service 

professionals; 

b. substance abuse treatment service 

professionals; 

c. substance abuse professionals (required by 

Department of Transportation alcohol and 

drug abuse program); and 

d. employee assistance professionals who provide substance abuse services. 

2. ConformitymAdoption of nationally recognized credentialing standards by States as 

follows: 

a. By 2002, at least 15 States will have adopted 

national standards for substance abuse prevention service professionals and by 2007, at 

least 25 States adopt national standards; 

b. By 2002, all States have adopted national 

standards for substance abuse treatment service professionals; 

c. By 2002, at least 25 States will have adopted 

national standards for substance abuse professionals and by 2007, all States will have 

adopted national standards; and 

d. By 2002, at least 25 States will have adopted 

national standards for employee assistance 

professionals who provide substance abuse 

services and by 2007, at least 40 States will 

have adopted national standards. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

national drug training and education standards 

form the basis for credentialing substance abuse 

professionals. 

MEASURES 

. Development of nationally recognized requirements for education and training of substance 

abuse service professionals by appropriate 

(identified, agreed-upon) professional organizations. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agency: DOT 

2. The number of States that adopt nationally 

recognized competency standards for certification/licensure of substance abuse service 

professionals. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agency: DOT 

80 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 3 (continued) 

OBJECT/VE 5: Support research into the 

development of medications and treatment 

protocols to prevent or reduce drug dependence 

and abuse. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

scientific research for developing new medicines 

improves drug treatment capabilities. 

TARGET MEASURE 

1. Research focus--By 1999, develop a prioritized list of research questions that support the 

development of medications and treatment 

protocols to prevent or reduce drug dependence and abuse. 

1. Status of medication and treatment research 

questions list. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agency: VA 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 81 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 3 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 6: Support and highlight research 

and technology, including the acquisition and 

analysis of scientific data, to reduce the health 

and soc/al costs of illegal drug use. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where a 

nationally accepted model to monitor the health 

and social costs of illegal drug use is developed 

and implemented. 

TARGETS MEASURES 

1. Develop funded portfolio--By 2002, establish 

an interagency portfolio of federally funded 

research projects to reduce the health and 

social costs of illegal drug use. 

. Interagency research review panel establishes 

portfolio. 

Reporting Agency: Interagency group 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DEA, DoAgri, 

DOC, DoD, DOT, HHS, HUD, VA, Treas. 

2. Epidemiological modelmBy 2002, develop and 

implement comprehensive Federal epidemiological measurement systems. 

2. Implementation status of Federal epidemiological 

measurement systems. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agency: DOJ 

3. Health/social cost modelmBy 1999, research 

and recommend for implementation an interagency capability or model to monitor changes 

in the health and social costs of illegal drugs 

from agreed upon baseline costs. 

3. Health and social cost model development and 

implementation status. 

Reporting Agency: HHS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DEA, DoAgri, 

DOC, DoD, DOT, HHS, HUD, VA, Treas. 

82 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

GOAL 4: SHIELD AMERICA'S AIR, LAND, 

AND SEA FRONTIERS FROM THE DRUG 

THREAT 

GOAL 4, END STATE 2007: AN INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY WHERE FEWER 

ILLEGAL DRUGS ARE ENTERING THE 

UNITED STATES. 

Goal Impact Target 

Transit and border zone drug flow--By 2002, 

reduce the rate at which illegal drugs successfully 

enter the United States from the transit and 

arrival zones by 10 percent as compared to the 

1996 base year. By 2007, reduce this rate by 

20 percent as measured against the base year. 

Goal Impact Measure 

The rate that illegal drugs in the transit and 

arrival zones are precluded entry into the United 

States as officially estimated by the Director of 

ONDCP in consultation with relevant Federal 

Agencies. 

Reporting Agency: ONDCP 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DEA, DOS, 

FBI, NSA, USBP, USCG, USCS, USIC 

Assumptions for Goal 4 

• Improved intelligence, law enforcement, and applied technology will result in more successful and 

cost-effective anti-drug operations. 

• Traffickers will react to counter U.S. interdiction efforts if trafficking remains profitable. 

• Major source and transit countries with which the United States has diplomatic relations will oppose 

trafficker violations and exploitation of their territories and these countries will cooperate with U.S. 

counter-drug efforts. 

• Increased bilateral and multilateral law enforcement cooperation will improve the effectiveness of 

anti-drug investigations and operations. 

• A method for generating flow estimates can be developed for illicit drugs and associated chemicals 

flowing into the United States. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 83 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

GOAL 4: SHIELD AMERICA'S AIR, LAND, 

AND SEA FRONTIERS FROM THE DRUG 

THREAT 

GOAL 4, END STATE 2007: An international 

community where fewer illegal drugs are entering 

the United States. 

OBJECTIVE 1: Conduct flexible operations to 

detect, disrupt, deter, and seize illegal drugs in 

transit to the United States and at U.S. borders. 

Objective Outcome, 2007: An America where 

the ]taw of illegal drugs through the transit 

zones and across our borders declines markedly 

due to effective interdiction. 

TARGET MEASURE 

1. Transit and arrival zone seizuresDBy 2002, 

increase the proportion of each major illicit 

drug seized, jettisoned, or destroyed in transit 

to the United States and at the U.S. borders as 

measured against interagency flow (to the 

United States) estimates by 10 percent over 

1996 levels. By 2007, increase this proportion 

by 20 percent above 1996 levels. 

1. The amount of each major illicit drug seized, 

destroyed, or jettisoned in transit to the United 

States (prior to the U.S. border) and at the 

U.S. border (arrival zone), divided by the 

annual estimated flow for each major illicit drug. 

Reporting Agencies: ONDCP, USIC 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DEA, 

DoD, DOS, FBI, NDIC NSA, USBP, USCG, 

USCS 

84 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 4 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 2: Improve the coordination and 

effectiveness of U.S. drug law enforcement 

programs with particular emphasis on the 

Southwest Border, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An America where 

a more comprehensive and fully coordinated 

counterdrug intelligence system boosts interdiction 

and investigative efficiency. 

TARGETS 

1. Cooperative relationships~By December 

1998, identify, inventory, and assess all existing 

U.S. interagency intelligence and investigative 

cooperative relationships and capabilities associated with air, maritime, and land cargo 

smuggling. 

2. Intelligence gapsmBy December 1999, develop 

a strategy to resolve identified gaps in intelligence and investigative cooperative relationships 

among U.S. law enforcement agencies. 

3. CommunicationsmBy 2002, establish secure, 

interoperable communication capabilities 

among at least 50 percent of U.S. Federal drug 

law enforcement agencies to facilitate the 

exchange of timely, sensitive, tactical (fieldlevel) information. By 2007, ensure that 

secure, interoperable communications are 

available for all U.S. Federal drug law enforcement agencies. 

MEASURES 

. A baseline report is prepared, published, and 

disseminated on existing interagency bilateral 

and multilateral intelligence and investigative 

relationships. 

Reporting Agency: DEA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DoD, FBI, NSA, 

USCG, USCS, USIC 

. Status of baseline report and accepted standards regarding investigative cooperation, 

effectiveness, and gaps in intelligence. 

Reporting Agency: DEA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DoD, FBI, 

USCG, USCS 

. Percentage of field-level, Federal drug law 

enforcement agencies with dedicated access to 

a timely, secure means of communicating tactical information with other Federal agencies. 

Reporting Agency: DoD 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DEA, FBI, 

USCG, USCS 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 85 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 4 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 3: Improve bilateral and regional 

cooperation with Mex/co as well as other 

cocaine and heroin transit.zone countries in 

order to reduce the flow of illegal drugs into the 

United States. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: New bilateral and 

regional agreements with major drug transit 

countries further reduce drug flow to the 

United States. 

TARGETS MEASURES 

1. Assess foreign cooperative relationships--By 

December 1998, identify, inventory, and assess 

all existing bilateral and multilateral intelligence and investigative cooperative 

relationships between the United States and 

foreign countries including those that have 

multiparty air, maritime, and land cargo antismuggling agreements with the United States. 

. Status of baseline report is prepared, published, 

and disseminated on existing interagency bilateral and multilateral intelligence and investigative relationships. 

Reporting Agencies: CIA, DEA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DoD, DOS, FBI, 

NSA, USCG, USCS, USIC 

2. Gaps in intelligence and cooperation--By 

December 1999, develop recommendations to 

resolve identified gaps in intelligence and 

investigative cooperative relationships 

between the United States and foreign counterdrug agencies. 

. Status of baseline report is prepared, containing 

recommendations regarding gaps in intelligence and investigative cooperation and 

effectiveness. 

Reporting Agencies: ©NDCP, CIA, DEA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DoD, FBI, 

USCG, USCS 

3. Support agreements--By 2002, bilateral agreements or other appropriate arrangements will 

be in place for all major illicit drug transit zone 

nations with which the United States has 

diplomatic relations to facilitate or provide 

cooperative support for the activities of U.S. 

counterdrug departments and agencies in controlling illicit drug smuggling. 

. Successfully negotiated bilateral or multilateral 

agreements with significant transit zone 

nations where needed for operational or other 

counterdrug concerns, as determined by an 

interagency assessment. 

Reporting Agency: DOS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DEA, 

DoD, NSA, USBP, USIC 

86 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 4 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 4: Support and highlight research 

and technology--including the development of 

scientific information and data--to detect, 

disrupt, deter, and seize illegal drugs in transit 

to the United States and at U.S. borders. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: Newly developed 

technologies to disrupt the flow of illicit drugs 

into the United States are tested and deployed, 

dramatically increasing the effectiveness of 

interdiction and greatly reducing required 

TARGETS 

1. Antismuggling technologymBy 2007, develop 

a deployment-ready technology to detect entry 

through the Southwest Border, maritime points 

of entry, and other designated entry points of at 

least 80 percent of all identified, potential drug 

smuggling events involving operationally significant amounts of secreted drugs. 

2. Threat movement database--By 1999, develop 

accurate databases for estimating the threat of 

U.S.-bound movement of cocaine, heroin, and 

methamphetamine (including quantitative 

information on amounts being moved and 

modes of transportation). Update the databases 

quarterly. 

3. Vehicle tagging--By 2000, develop and deploy 

tagging and tracking systems that allow the 

real-time monitoring of ships, containers, land 

vehicles, and aircraft throughout the Western 

Hemisphere and in selective operations 

worldwide. 

MEASURES 

. 

. 

. 

Comprehensive technical and operational validation testing that demonstrate the required 

system performance effectiveness (measured at 

an 80-percent confidence level). 

Reporting Agency: USCS 

Supporting Federal Agency: DoD 

Accuracy and completeness of quarterly published (agreed upon by all agencies involved) 

data on the movement of cocaine and heroin, 

both worldwide and U.S.-bound, and on U.S.- 

bound methamphetamine. 

Reporting Agency: CNC 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DEA, DoD, 

EPIC, JIATFs, USCG, USCS 

Comprehensive technical and operational validation testing results that demonstrate required 

effectiveness (80-percent confidence level). 

Reporting Agency: DoD 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DEA, 

DOS, USBP, USCG, USCS 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 87 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 4, Objective 4 (continued) 

4. Over-the-horizon (OTH) tracking--By 2007, 

develop and deploy detection and monitoring 

technology that will allow OTH tracking of 

both aircraft and ships during more than 

90 percent of each day, with sufficient accuracy 

to detect, monitor, and vector assets to support 

end-game interdiction of drug smuggling 

targets throughout the transit/source 

zone nations. 

. Performance of the OTH radar: percentage of 

hours providing high resolution coverage per 

day (averaged for the year) and percentage of 

all detected air and maritime targets tracked to 

an end-game location. 

Reporting Agency: DoD 

Supporting Federal Agencies: USCG, USCS 

5. High-risk technologies--By 2007, demonstrate high-risk technologies, including (a) 

long standoff fingerprint identification of specific aircraft and ships; (b) long standoff 

identification of large quantities of cocaine 

inside aircraft; (c) cooperative and noncooperative facial and voice recognition of 

perpetrators at POEs and remote locations; (d) 

identification of tunnels under the Southwest 

Border using rapid area survey; (e) noninvasive 

identification of body-carried and swallowed 

drugs; and (f) preventing aircraft on the 

ground, small maritime craft, and land vehicles, from moving (without using lethal force 

and from a standoff). 

. Successful demonstration of technologies for 

(a) long standoff fingerprint identification of 

specific aircraft and ships; (b) long stand-off 

identification of large quantities of cocaine 

inside an aircraft; (c) cooperative and noncooperative facial and voice recognition of 

perpetrators at POEs and remote locations; (d) 

identification of tunnels under the Southwest 

Border, using rapid area survey; (e) noninvasive identification of body-carried and 

swallowed drugs; and (f) preventing aircraft on 

the ground, small maritime craft, and land 

vehicles from moving (without using lethal 

force and from a standoff). 

Reporting Agency: DoD 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DEA, USBP, 

USCG, USCS 

88 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

GOAL 5: BREAK FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC 

DRUG SOURCES OF SUPPLY. 

GOAL 5, END STATE 2007: AN INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IN WHICH 

MINIMAL AMOUNTS OF ILLEGAL DRUGS 

ARE PRODUCED AS EACH COUNTRY 

GAINS CONTROL OVER THE CULTIVATION AND PRODUCTION OF ILLEGAL 

DRUGS. 

Goal Impact Targets 

a. Source zone outflowmBy 2002, reduce the 

rate of outflow of illicit drugs from the source 

zone by 15 percent as compared to the 1996 

base year. By 2007, reduce outflow rate by a 

total of 30 percent measured against the base 

year. 

Goal Impact Measures 

a. The outflow rate of illicit drugs that leave the 

source zone. 

Reporting Agency: ONDCP 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DEA, 

DoD, DOS, NSA, USAID, USCS 

b. Domestic production--By 2002, reduce the 

production of methamphetamine and the cultivation of marijuana in the United States by at 

least 20 percent as compared to the 1996 base 

year and by 2007, reduce by 50 percent the 

production of methamphetamine and the 

cultivation of marijuana as compared to the 

base year. 

b. The quantity of methamphetamine and cultivated marijuana in the United States. 

Reporting Agency: DEA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DoD, 

DOS, NSA, USAID 

Assumptions for Goal 5 

• Production and distribution of illicit drugs in the source zone can be controlled and reduced by appropriate crop control, economic development, legal and institutional reforms, international cooperation, 

and demand reduction activities. 

• Political, economic, and social instability in the countries of the source and transit zones will not prevent host governments from pursuing effective drug control efforts. 

• The UN, the United States, and allied nations will continue to encourage and assist member countries 

to ratify the UN Convention. 

• The UN will not repeal or adversely modify the Vienna Convention. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 89 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

GOAL 5: BREAK FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC 

DRUG SOURCES OF SUPPLY. 

OBJECTIVE 1: Produce a net reduction in the 

worldwide cultivation of coca, opium, and mari. 

juana and in the production of other illegal 

drugs, especially methamphetamine. 

GOAL 5, END STATE 2007: An international 

community in which minimal amounts of illegal 

drugs are produced as each country gains control 

over the cultivation and production of illegal 

drugs. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: The worldwide 

cultivation and production of illicit drugs is dras. 

tically reduced. 

TARGETS 

1. Illicit coca--By 2002, reduce the worldwide 

net cultivation of coca destined for illicit 

cocaine production by at least 20 percent compared to the 1996 base year. By 2007, reduce 

net cultivation by at least 40 percent compared 

to the base year. 

2. Opium poppy--By 2002, reduce the net worldwide cultivation of opium poppy by at least 10 

percent and by 2007, by at least 20 percent as 

compared to the 1996 base year. By 2002, 

reduce the cultivation of opium poppy in the 

Western Hemisphere by at least 20 percent and 

by 2007 by at least 40 percent, as compared to 

the 1996 base year. 

3. Marijuana--By 2002, reduce the net cultivation of marijuana in Western Hemisphere 

countries by at least 10 percent as compared to 

the 1996 base year. By 2007, reduce net cultivation by at least 25 percent as compared to 

the 1996 base year. Continue to eradicate 100 

percent of detected U.S. cultivation. 

MEASURES 

. Coca cultivation as expressed in hectares under 

cultivation and metric ton equivalent of potential production capacity, assessed annually, on a 

net worldwide basis. 

Reporting Agency: CIA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DEA, DoD, 

DOS, FBI, USAID 

. Opium poppy cultivation as expressed in 

hectares under cultivation and metric ton 

equivalent of production capacity, assessed 

annually, worldwide and for the Western 

Hemisphere. 

Reporting Agency: CIA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DEA, DoD, 

DOS, FBI 

3. Marijuana cultivated: 

a. outside the United States as measured in 

metric tons from net cultivation; and 

b. within the United States as measured in 

metric tons from net cultivation. (Note: 

cultivation estimates to be developed.) 

Reporting Agencies: DEA, DoAG 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DoD, FBI 

90 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 5, Objective 1 (continued) 

4. Methamphetamine--By 2002, reduce the production of methamphetamine in the United 

States by at least 20 percent as compared to the 

1996 base year. By 2007, reduce availability by 

at least 50 percent from the base year. 

4. Methamphetamine availability within the 

United States. 

Reporting Agency: DEA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DoD, 

DOS, FBI, USCS 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 91 
TAR6ETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 5 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 2: Disrupt and dismantle major 

international drug trafficking organizations and 

arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate their leaders. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: Power and effective. 

ness of major international drug trafficking 

organizations and their leaders are significantly 

reduced. 

TARGETS 

1. Arrest and prosecute drug traffickers--By 

2002, using a prioritized list of community designated targets, increase by five points the 

percentage of drug traffickers arrested, prosecuted, or otherwise rendered ineffective as 

measured against the percentage recorded 

in the 1997 base year. By 2007, increase the 

target percentage by at least 15 points above 

the base year. 

2. Disrupt trafficking organizationsmBy 2002, 

using a prioritized list of community designated 

targets, increase by five points the percentage 

of drug trafficking organizations disrupted, dismantled, or otherwise rendered ineffective as 

measured against the percentage recorded in 

the 1997 base year. By 2007, increase the target 

percentage by at least 10 points above the base 

year value. 

MEASURES 

. The percentage of targeted individuals on the 

international counterdrug community's designated target list who are arrested, prosecuted, 

or otherwise rendered ineffective, measured 

annually. 

Reporting Agency: DEA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DoD, 

DOS, FBI, USCS 

. The percentage of targeted organizations on 

the international counterdrug community's 

designated target list that are disrupted, dismantled, or otherwise rendered ineffective, 

measured annually. 

Reporting Agency: DEA 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DoD, 

DOS, FBI, USCS 

92 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 5 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 3: Support and complement 

source country drug control efforts and strength. 

en source country political will and drug control 

capabilities. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: New bilateral 

and regional agreements with major drug 

transit countries further reduce drug flow to the 

United States. 

TARGETS 

1. Host-country capability--By 2002, demonstrate improved capabilities of source countries 

to develop and implement professional drug 

law enforcement interdiction activities 

(including military support to law enforcement 

agencies) compared to the 1996 base year. 

MEASURES 

1. Host-nation effectiveness of drug control activities as indicated by an assessment of: 

a. number of drug labs destroyed and kilograms 

of drugs seized/destroyed; 

b. dollar value of priority drug trafficker assets 

seized and forfeited; 

c. number of drug traffickers arrested, prosecuted, and appropriately incarcerated; and 

d. corruption-induced lost opportunities or 

noncooperation. 

Reporting Agency: DOS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DEA, 

DoD, FBI, USCS 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 93 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 5, Objective 3 (continued) 

2. Host-country justice--By 2007, demonstrate 

improved source country development and 

utilization of effective judicial institutions 

compared to the 1996 base year. 

2. The effectiveness of host-nation investigation 

and prosecution of drug cases as indicated by 

an assessment of: 

a. an effective cooperative/supportive relationship with national drug enforcement 

entities; 

b. the ability to investigate and prosecute 

upper echelons of major drug trafficking 

organizations; 

c. the ability to conduct asset forfeiture investigations and prosecution in support of drug 

law enforcement; 

d. the ability to consistently achieve meaningful convictions and sentences (actually 

served) commensurate with the crime(s) 

committed; 

e. the establishment and application of effective, internal anticorruption safeguards; and 

f. the capability to use sophisticated investigative tools in undercover operations, surveillance, controlled deliveries, and wire taps. 

Reporting Agency: DOS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, FBI, USCS 

94 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 5 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 4: Develop and support bilateral, 

regional, and multilateral initiatives, and mobi. 

lize international organizational efforts against 

all aspects of illegal drug production, trafficking, 

and abuse. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An international 

community where all governments are fully participating in international efforts to control the 

production, movement, and use of illegal drugs. 

TARGETS 

1. Regional cooperative agreements--By 2002, 

implement in designated geographic regions 

counternarcotics agreements between nations 

that provide for improved bilateral and multilateral cooperation in combating illicit drug 

trafficking, including information sharing; 

joint and combined interdiction operations; 

pursuit, entry, and high-seas boarding authority; and standardized laws relevant to narcotics 

trafficking and related offenses. 

2. Source- and transit-country drug control 

strategy--By 2002, each major source and 

transit country will have adopted and will be 

implementing a national drug control strategy 

or master plan to control illicit drug trafficking. 

These strategies and plans will fulfill the key 

elements of the 1988 UN Drug Convention 

and other UN conventions. 

3. Donor-funded assistance---By 2002, using 

1996 as a base year, increase by 500 percent 

donor funding for assistance activities consistent with narcotics control goals provided by 

the European Union, the Government of 

Japan, major multinational development 

banks, and other bilateral or multilateral 

donors. 

MEASURES 

. Number of bilateral or multilateral agreements 

or efforts (in key regions) that establish or 

facilitate multilateral cooperative activities 

against illicit drug trafficking. 

Reporting Agency: DOS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DEA, 

DoD, USCS, USIC 

. 

. 

Number of major drug source and transit countries that have adopted a national drug control 

strategy or master plan assessed as adequate by 

UN Drug Control Program. 

Reporting Agency: DOS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DEA, FBI, NSA, 

USAID, USCS, USIC 

Aggregate amount, as compared with 1996, 

of annual funding by donors other than the 

United States for assistance activities consistent with narcotics control goals. 

Reporting Agency: DOS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: USAID, Treas. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 95 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 5, (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 5: Promote international poRcies 

and laws that deter money laundering and facil. 

irate anti.money-laundering investigations as 

well as seizure and forfeiture of associated 

assets. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An international 

community where designated priority countries 

embrace, adopt, or implement international 

policies and laws that greatly increase the risk 

and reduce the profitability of drug trafficking. 

TARGETS 

1. Ratify 1988 Vienna Convention--By 2002, 

increase the percentage of designated priority 

countries that have ratified the 1988 United 

Nations Convention Against Illicit Substances 

and Psychotropic Drugs (UN Convention 

[Vienna]). 

2. Conform to FATF recommendations--By 

2002, increase the percentage of priority countries that have adopted laws and regulations 

consistent with the 40 Recommendations of 

the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). 

MEASURES 

1. The percentage of priority countries that have 

ratified the UN Convention. 

Reporting Agency: DOS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: FBI, FinCen, 

Treas., USCS 

. The percentage of priority countries that have 

adopted laws and regulations consistent with 

FATF 40 Recommendations. Such laws and 

regulations should include the criminalization 

of money laundering from serious crime and 

the creation of domestic and international 

asset forfeiture regimes that include reciprocal 

asset sharing, mandatory suspicious transaction 

reporting, and the ability to provide and 

receive mutual legal assistance. 

Reporting Agency: DOS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: FBI, FinCen, 

Treas., USCS 

96 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
TARGETS AND MEASURES 

Goal 5 (continued) 

OBJECTIVE 6: Support and highlight research 

and technology, including the development of 

scientific data to reduce the worldwide supply of 

illegal drugs. 

Objective Outcome, 2002: An international 

community where newly developed technologies 

to detect and eliminate the production of illegal 

drugs will be tested and deployed. 

TARGETS MEASURES 

1. Airborne sensorsEBy 2000, develop a widearea airborne multisensor system to detect 

cocaine manufacturing facilities hidden 

beneath jungle foliage with a coverage rate up 

to 1000 square kilometers per hour and an 80- 

percent confidence level. 

. Coverage capability of new airframe radar to 

detect cocaine manufacturing facilities beneath 

jungle foliage at an 80-percent confidence 

level. 

Reporting Agency: DoD 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DEA, USCS 

. Currency detectionEBy 2002, develop and 

operationally deploy a methodology to nonintrusively detect illegal amounts of U.S. 

currency secreted on persons, in checked baggage, and/or in cargo with a minimum 

80-percent accuracy. 

. Nonintrusive methodology for detection of 

hidden U.S. currency. 

Reporting Agency: USCS 

Supporting Federal Agencies: CIA, DEA, FBI, 

INS, USBP 

. Advanced technology--By 2003, demonstrate 

advanced technology to (a) identify methamphetamine labs by using portable sensors that 

can be deployed from ground or airborne platforms; (b) identify riverine and ground movement of drugs in remote environments; and (c) 

remotely identify, measure, and assess growthzone fields of coca, poppy, and marijuana. 

3. Capability to: 

a. identify methamphetamine labs by using 

portable sensors; 

b. identify riverine and ground movements of 

drugs in remote areas; and 

c. measure and assess growth-zone fields of 

coca, poppy, and marijuana. 

Reporting Agency: DoD 

Supporting Federal Agencies: DoAgri, DEA, 

FBI, INS, USBP, USCS 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 97 

Appendix C: Development 

of the Performance 

Measurement System 

T 

he development of the National 

Drug Control Strategy (Strategy) 

performance targets and measures 

presented in Appendix B required 

the input of many people representing 

numerous governmental and 

nongovernmental agencies. This appendix describes 

the process ONDCP used, through the collaboration 

of interagency steering and working groups, to 

develop the performance measurement system. 

The participants who contributed to the 

development of the performance targets and 

measures proposed in this report are identified at 

the end of this appendix. 

Development of the performance measurement 

system began when ONDCP initiated a collaborative effort to draft performance targets and 

measures for the 1996 Strategy's 5 Goals and 

22 Objectives. Representatives from numerous 

agencies formed working groups to develop an 

acceptable measurement plan and performance 

targets. Many of the targets recommended by 

these early interagency working groups were conveyed in whole or in part to the 1997 performance 

measurement system. 

Based on recommendations from stakeholders, 

the number and the scope of the Strategy's Objectives were increased in Fall 1996 to 32, due to the 

addition of numerous youth-oriented, drug prevention, and research or technology-oriented 

Objectives. These new Objectives established new 

requirements. Therefore, new interagency working groups convened in February 1997 to 

finish the work. 

These new working groups consisted of staff, 

line managers, and others knowledgeable about 

drug control issues and programs. Group members 

were asked to identify targets that would signal 

success in the effort to reduce the Nation's drug 

problem in the context of a 5-year budget and 

10-year Strategy. They were also asked to develop 

recommendations, without resource constraints, 

for end states and outcomes to reduce drug use, 

availability, and the consequences of drug use. 

The current end states and outcomes are based on 

the working groups' recommendations and the 

1997 Strategy. 

The key steps taken to identify performance 

targets and measures for the 1997 Strategy were 

as follows: 

• February 1997: Interagency Steering Groups, 

consisting of senior managers from key drug 

control agencies, met for the first time. The 

steering groups established and provided oversight of 23 working groups to identify targets for 

the Strategy's Goals and Objectives. 

• March-May 1997: Interagency Working Groups 

proposed performance targets for each Strategy 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 99 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 

Goal and Objective. Each working group was 

guided by an ONDCP staff member to maintain 

a proper focus and avoid duplicative efforts. A 

total of 111 performance targets were nominated 

by the working groups--the outcome of 2 to 10 

meetings per group. Assumptions and critical 

factors for each target were developed to highlight known or suspected areas of concern. 

• May-June 1997: ONDCP reviewed candidate 

targets for compliance with GPRA principles, 

standardized format, and clarity and made minor 

corrections. Targets were redrafted when a 

results-oriented outcome was absent. Work output measures were replaced wherever possible 

with outcome or intermediate outcome measures. Afterward, the Interagency Steering 

Groups reconvened and reviewed the working 

groups' products. The steering groups ensured 

the targets were properly defined and aligned to 

the Objectives and Goals. Some target numbers 

were adjusted to reflect an aggressive, but realistic drug control program. 

• June-July 1997: ONDCP developed a logic 

model showing prima facie interrelationships 

among Strategy Goals, Objectives, and performance targets. Using this logic model as a 

guide, ONDCP shifted some targets to Goals 

and Objectives where they were more appropriate. These new Goals and Objectives created 

the need for new targets, which were also constructed to fill the gaps. 

• july-August 1997: ONDCP designed 5-year 

outcome statements for the Objectives and 

10-year end states for the Goals. Key Impact 

Targets surfaced from the logic model, each pertaining directly to reducing drug supply, 

demand, or consequences. 

• August-September 1997: ONDCP mailed 

copies of the draft report on performance measures of effectiveness to key individuals in the 

drug control community for their review and 

comment. Copies of the report were sent to the 

steering and working group members, State 

Governors, mayors of major U.S. cities, universities, academics, interest groups, and performance 

measurement experts for their comments. 

Copies were also sent directly to the Chiefs of 

Staff of supporting Federal drug control agencies 

for agency clearance. ONDCP also accomplished a final in-house review of nominated 

targets and measures. 

September-December 1997: ONDCP incorporated recommendations to the report on 

performance measures of effectiveness and 

issued two revised drafts to the principal Federal 

drug control agencies for comment. ONDCP 

worked with agencies to resolve concerns over 

the targets and measures. 

December 1997-February 1998: ONDCP incorporated final recommendations. PME amended 

to 94 Impact and performance targets. 

Participating Organizations 

Federal Agencies: 

Central Intelligence Agency 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Commerce 

Department of Defense 

Department of the Air Force 

Department of the Army 

Department of the Navy 

National Guard Bureau 

National Security Agency 

Department of Education 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Food and Drug Administration 

Indian Health Service 

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 

National Institute on Drug Abuse 

National Institutes of Health 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Department of the Interior 

Department of Justice 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Bureau of Prisons 

Drag Enforcement Administration 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 

National Drug Intelligence Center 

100 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM 

National Institute of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice Programs 

U.S. Border Patrol 

Department of Labor 

Department of State 

International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs 

U.S. Agency for International Development 

Department of Transportation 

Aviation and International Affairs 

Office of the Secretary, Drug and Alcohol Policy 

and Compliance 

U.S. Coast Guard 

Department of the Treasury 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 

Internal Revenue Service 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

U.S. Customs Service 

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Executive Office of the President 

National Performance Review 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

Office of Management and Budget 

U.S. Interdiction Coordinator 

State and Local Agencies: 

California Narcotics Officers' Association 

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse-- 

Columbia University 

Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America 

National Association of Attorneys General 

National Association of Prevention Professionals and Advocates 

National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

Directors (NASADAD) 

National Center for State Courts, Office 

of Government Relations 

National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) 

National Governors' Association 

Other Agencies, Ad~qsors, and Contractors: 

Abt Associates 

Agency for Health Care Policy Research 

Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Associates 

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse 

CSR, Incorporated 

Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) 

Employee Assistance Programs 

Health Care Finance Advisors 

Health Research Science Advisors 

International Association of the 

Chiefs of Police 

Institute for a Drug Free Workplace 

Join-Together 

Legal Action Center 

National Families in Action 

National Drugs Don't Work Program 

National Drug Prevention League 

National Drug Research Institute 

National Prevention League 

National Institute of Corrections 

Northrop-Grumman 

Partnership for a Drug Free America 

Science Applications International 

Corporation (SAIC) 

Therapeutic Community of America 

University of Delaware/Miami 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 101 

Appendix D: Crosswalk 

Between Targets 

and Databases 

F 

igure D-1 indicates data sources for 

each Strategy target. The numbers in 

each column refer to the list of data 

sources, also included. While some 

targets rely on existing data sources, 

others require the modification of 

existing data systems, such as the addition of 

questions to a regularly administered survey, or the 

synthesis of multiple data sets. The most 

challenging are targets that require the 

development of new data collection systems, 

especially if these involve data collection at the 

State and local levels. Some targets representing 

milestones, such as a one-time-only report or 

event occurrence/nonoccurrence, do not require a 

data set in the standard sense. 

Almost two-thirds of the targets will be measurable within 2 years. Fifty-one percent of the 

targets are currently measurable using data available from primary sources or by monitoring 

whether or not the target event has occurred. 

Another 11 percent of the targets require the 

manipulation or synthesis of data sources to make 

them usable for monitoring targets. This should 

take 2 years to accomplish. About one-third 

(38 percent) of the targets necessitate in-depth 

efforts to develop new data sets. Even in such situations, secondary data sets can sometimes be used 

until the new databases are developed. 

The following summarizes the attached data 

table: 

• At present, 51 percent (48) of the 94 targets are 

measurable from primary sources or represent 

milestones that do not require a data set. Figure 

D-1 displays them in the column labeled Primary 

Federal Data Source (PRI FED) with the appropriate number designation for the data source or 

Milestone (MLE) or Study (SDY). 

* An additional 11 percent (10) of the targets 

require minor changes to primary or secondary 

data sources or the synthesis of existing ones. 

These are identified by the letters "SYN" and 

may require 2 years to modify for use in tracking 

the targets. 

Only 38 percent (36) of the targets require the 

development of new databases. Some of these 

are probably being collected by various State 

and local agencies but not in a form consistent 

enough to enable national-level aggregation. 

These are indicated in Figure D-1 as "To Be 

Determined" (TBD). Some of these can be augmented by secondary data sources. Five of these 

targets involve studies to determine the appropriate methodology for monitoring them. These 

may take from I to 3 years to develop. 

A soon-to-be-released report from ONDCP's 

Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation 

Committee provides broad recommendations 

regarding national drug control policy data priorities. The Committee's recommendations are based 

on the conduct of a Federal drug control needs 

assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the 

leading indicators used to describe the Nation's 

drug problem and to identify data needs of public 

health policy. An important achievement of this 

effort was the creation of an "Inventory of Federal 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 103 
CROSSWALK BETWEEN TARGETS AND DATABASES 

Drug-Related Data Sources," which is a compilation of all known Federal drug-related information 

systems and their report generation capabilities. 

The Inventory is the foundation from which further development and enhancement of data 

sources will be used in support of the Performance 

Measures of Effectiveness. 

The selection of Strategy performance targets 

was not limited to currently available data. This 

was intended to avoid skewing the targets to 

reflect existing data sources. Fortunately, most of 

the critical performance targets are covered by 

existing data sets. Of the 12 Impact Targets, 10 are 

either supported by currently available data sets 

(6) or require some data synthesis (4). Even the 

latter may be measured at present by using interim 

data sources. Only two require the completion of a 

periodic study to identify measurement requirements, and only one of those will likely take more 

than 2 years to implement. 

An expanded key to Figure D-1 is provided 

below. Listings on the figure will be updated as 

issues regarding synthesis or further development 

are resolved. This key includes the code number, 

the data source abbreviation, and the official 

name of the data set. Figure D- 1 includes only the 

code and the data source abbreviations. 

DATA SOURCES 

1 ADSS Alcohol and Drug Services Survey 

2 AODA Report on Testing for Alcohol and Other 

Drugs of Abuse 

3 CAPS Computerized Asset Program System 

4 CCDB Consolidated Counterdrug Database 

5 CDC Centers for Disease Control Reporting 

Systems 

6 COJ Census of Jails 

7 CSFACF Census of State and Federal Adult 

Correctional Facilities 

8 DASIS Drug and Alcohol Services 

Information System 

9 DFWS 

10 DUF/ADAM 

11 ECADA 

12 FDSS 

13 HIDTA 

14 IACM 

15 ICE. 

16 ICPAWG 

17 JT/CADCA 

18 MTF 

19 NCVS 

20 NHES 

21 NHSDA 

22 NSAA/SA II 

23 PFDFA 

24 PRIDE 

25 SISCF 

26 STATE 

INCSR 

27 STRIDE 

28 UCR 

29 UFDS 

30 YRBS 

Drug Free Workplace Statistics 

National Institute of Justice Drug Use 

Forecasting/Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program 

Economic Cost of Alcohol and Drug 

Abuse in United States 1992-1995 

Federal-Wide Drug Seizure System 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking 

Area Reports 

Interagency Assessment of Cocaine 

Movement* 

Illicit Crop Estimate 

Interagency Counterdrug Performance 

Assessment Working Group* 

Join Together/Community Anti-Drug 

Coalitions of America 

Monitoring the Future Study 

National Crime Victimization Survey 

National Household Education Survey 

National Household Survey on 

Drug Abuse 

CASA's National Survey on American 

Attitudes on SA II 

Partnership for a Drug Free America 

Parents Resource Institute for Drug 

Education 

Survey of Inmates in State 

Correctional Facilities 

State Department International 

Narcotics Control Survey Report 

System to Retrieve Information from 

Drug Evidence 

Uniform Crime Reports/Age, Sex, 

Race of Persons Arrested 

Uniform Facility Data Set 

Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

*ONDCP will lead interagency efforts to develop official 

estimates of drug availability for each targeted drug. 

104 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
Figure D-1 Target-Data Sources 

mo 

;=o 

z 

E 

~o m 

o -n 

m 

m 

--I 

m 

Z 

GOAL 

1 

Impt#1a 

lmpt#1b 

01TI 

01"I"2 

01T3 

oL;q'1 

02T2 

0213 

03TI 

031"2 

04TI 

04T2 

PRI 

FED 

21 

21 

TBD 

TBD 

21 

18 

TBD 

I"BD 

TBD 

MLE 

TBD 

05T1 MLE 

05T2 TBD 

06T1 MLE 

06T2 TBD 

07TI 

081"I 

TBD 

SEC 

FED 

18 

30 

20 

OTHER GOAL I PRI ! SEC 

DATA I 2 ! FED : FED L i i 

23,24 i Impt#2a i 29 10 

; I ! 

I lmpt#2b i SYN* 12 

, J 

22 [ Impt #2c SYN * 12,15 

20 

8,17 

17 

01T1 

011"2 

01"1"3 

02T1 

02T2 

0213 

03TI 

03T2 

031"3 

04T1 

04TL 

28 

TBD 

TBD 

13 

13 

26 

3 

MLE 

TBD 

7 

SYN 

04T3 SYN 

04T4 TBD 

05T1 

05T2 

SYN 

MLE 

6 

6,7 

1,7 

6,7 

OTHER 

DATA 

25,19 

27 

14 

25,19 

r GOAL PRI SEC i 

i 3 FED FED 

l lmpt#3a I SDY f 1,21 

I 

I Impt#3b 21 : 

( 

i Impt#3c ' 21 21 

' ; ; 

i Impt#3d SDY i 

i 01T1 8,21 i 

I 

I 01T2 TBD : 

01T3 1 

01T4 MLE 

01T5 ME 

02T1 5 

02T2 5 

0213 5 

03T1 SYN 9,21 

04T1 MLE 

04T2 TBD 

05T1 MLE 

06T1 MLE 

06T2 TBD 

OTHER GOAL 

DATA ~ 4 

10,11 'lmpt #4 

i 

10 i 01T1 

021"I 

021"2 

28,29 0213 

I 

! 03TI 

03T2 

03T3 

04TI 

04T2 

O413 

04T4 

2 04T5 

E PRI 

i FEO 

i SYN * 

I SYN 

i MLE 

MLE 

TBD 

MLE 

MLE 

TBD 

MLE 

SYN 

MLE 

TBD~ 

TBD 

_J 

MLE 

08T2 MLE 0513 TBD 06T3 MLE i / 

09T1 MLE 06T1 MLE i 

i 

09T2 TBD 

010T1 MLE 

0lOT2 MLE 

01013 MLE 

1 ADSS 8 DASIS 15 ICE 22 NSAAJSA II 

2 AODA 9 DFWS 16 ICPAWG 23 PFDFA 

SEC I OTHER GOA. PRI 

FED DATA 5 FED 

4,1,,,6 I 12,_27 L2*_ 

4,14,16 12,27 Impt#5b i SDY* 

i o T, ] 15 

t 

i ..... oi-,-2 F 

3 CAPS 10 DUF/ADAM 17 JT/CADCA 24 PRIDE 

4 CCDB 11 ECADA 18 MTF 25 SISCF 

5 CDC 12 FDSS 19 NCVS 26 STATE INCSR 

6 COJ 13 HIDTA 20 NHES 27 STRIDE 

~, 

16 

0113 , SDY 

O2T1 ] TBD 

..... i 02T2 ------- 

SEC OTHER 

FED DATA 

15 

i 03T1 

i2,14 ""1 031"2 

i 04T1 

j 04T2 

J I r TBD 

! 

i : j 

I 

I 7CSFACF 141ACM 21 NHSDA 28UCR i 

I SYN=SYNTHESIZED DATA TBD=TO BE DETERMINED ME=MILESTONE SDY=PERIODIC STUDY 

"ONDCP will lead interagency efforts in 1998 to develop official government estimates of drug availability. 

14,26 1 

26 

15,26 

...... 

0413 

i 05T1 

'05T2 ) TBD 26 ~. 

..... O8TI 

06T2 1 MLE ! 

', ....... o613 ! /.ii-/l 

OO 

Appendix E: 

The Causal Model 

T 

he causal model in Figure E-1 

illustrates the relationships 

among the Strategy Goals, Objectives, and targets. 

Subject matter experts for each 

Objective were asked to articulate the relationships linking their Objective to 

other areas of the Strategy. This exercise yielded a 

series of 32 Objective-focused linkages. The 32 

Objective arrays were combined with those of the 

Impact Targets, which were then refined iteratively 

to yield the Figure E-1 Causal model. 

Although this causal model, a first approximation, does not list all possible relationships 

among the targets, the diagram shows the 

relationships deemed most important by the 

experts. The figure also provides a quick 

review of a specific target's causal linkages, 

illuminating the complexity of the National Drug 

Control Strategy. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 107 
Figure E-1 

The National Drug Control Strategy 

Relationships Among Targets 

Goal 5: Break Foreign and Domestic Sources of Supply 

Deter Money Laundering Disrupt Organizations 

ratify 1988 UN Convention (5.5.1) 

Ensure that pflodty countdss Disrupt traffiddng organizations (5.2.2) adopt laws consistent with FATF 

(5.5.2) 

Support Multilateral Initiatives 

Establish agreements for bilateral and mu~lateral action (5.4.1) 

Ensure that each major source country 

adopts a drug control strategy (5.4.2) 

Increase donor funding for 

countemamotics goals (5.4.3) 

Conduct Research and 

Develop Technology 

Develop a wide area airborne 

multisenser system to detect cocaine 

manufacturing faci]itias (5.6.1) 

Develop standoff methodology to detect 

illegal amounts of currency secreted on 

persons (5,6.2) 

Develop new technology to detect drug 

production and movement (5.6.3) 

Goal 4: Shield Am 

improve Coordination 

Among U.S. Agencies 

Identify and assess all existihg 

U.S. interagency drug control 

relationships (4.2.1) 

Develop recommendations to resolve 

identified gaps in cooperative 

relationships (4.2.2) 

Establish secure, lnteroperable communications capabilities (4.2.3) 

Conduct Research and 

Develop Technology 

Develop and deploy technology to der~. entry of illicit drugs through the 

Soumwest Border aria maritime 

points of entry (4.4.1) 

Develop and deploy te99ing and 

tracking systems that stlOW real-time 

monitoring of corders throughout the 

Western Remisphera (4.4.3) 

Develop and deploy detection capability 

for "ovar-the-horlaon" tracking (4.4.4) 

Develop and demonstrate high-risk 

technologies (4.4.5) 

Develop drug threat movement 

databases for use in monitodng 

drug flow (4.4,2) 

Improve Source Country Capabilities 

I_~ Improve capabili~/to conduct 

interdiction activities (5.3.1) 

Develap effective judicial institutions 

(5.3.2) 

Reduce Cultivation 

Reduce the worldwide cultivation Of 

I coca used in the illicit production of 

J cocaine (5.1.1) 

r Reduce the worldwide cultivation of 

opium popw (5.1.2) 

I I Reduce the cultivation of madjuana I ~in the Western Hemisphere (5.1.3) 

Reduce the avai]apility of 

/ methamphetamins (5.1.4) 

erica's Air, Land, and Sea Frontiers 

Reduce Drug Flow in the Transit 

and Arrival Zones 

j Incrsese the percentage of drugs 

seized, jettisoned, or sestreyeo 

v I in transit and anival zones (4.1.1) 

i ................... i 

Improve Cooperation With 

Soume and Transit Nations 

l Aseass existing bilateral and 

multilateral relationships 

(4.3.1) 

Develop a strategy to fill identified 

~s21)n seoperatk, e relationships 

Establish bilateral and multilateral 

relationships (4,3.3) 

............................................................... I 

Supply 

Strengthen HIDTAs I 

Ensure HIDTAs meet national developmental L~ J 

s~dards (2.2.1) ~ J 

Disrupt drug trafficking organizarions in I, I I HlOT~ (2 2.2) rt-" J 

I I violent crimes in HIDTAs (2.2.3) 

Disrupt Money Laundering Organizations 

by Seizing Assets 

Increase asset Seizures (2.3.1) J 

Ensure that all States enact drug-ralated I asset seizure and forfe~ura laws (2.3.2) 

| Increase the cost of money laundering 

--1 to drug tra~ckem (2.3.3) 

/ 

108 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
Demand 

D ~taUC~Gh°ead~bll)andforille;aldrugsin~eUnltod = 1 

Goal 1: Prevent Drug Use Among America's Youth 

Pursue a Vigorous Media Campaign Develop Community Coalitions 

! 

Increase the percentage of youth who I 

perceive drug use as harmful (1.2.1) 

Increase the percentage of youth who 

disapprove of drug use (1.2.2) 

Double the number Of viewinQ hours that 

provide anti-drug messages ('1.2.3) 

Engage the Media 

Convince media organizations to adopt 

policies that avoid glamorizing drug use 

(1.7.1) 

Increase the Ability of Adults to 

Discourage Drug Use 

Increase the proportion of aduffe who have ~ 

the capacity to halp youth reject drugs 

(1.1.1) 

Increase the prepertion of adults who 

attempt to influence youth to reject illegal 

drugs (1.1.2) 

Reduce the proportion of adults who regard 

drug use as acceptable (1,1.3) 

Increase Mentoring 

I 

Develop a netionst program for Increasing J 

/ 

the number of mentors and rnantadng 

organizstians (13.1) 

Increase the proportion of individuals who 

are willing and able to serve as mentors (1.5.2) 

| 

POdlLSh a national inventory of community J 

coal~ons, par tzlerships, and prevention 

programs (1.6,1) 

Increase the number of commun~es with 

funded, comprehensive, anti-drug coalitions 

(1,6.2) 

Provide Sound School-Based 

Prevention Programs 

Establish cfitada for effective prevention 

policies and programs (1.4.1) 

Increase the praportJon of school districts 

that have implemented drugprogr~"ns that 

are evstuated and tested (T,4.2) 

Promote Zero Tolerance Policies 

k 

1 Promote zero tolerance policies In all J 

schools (1.3.1) 

Promote zero tolerance peflc{os in all 

communtiies (1.3,2) 

Develop Principles of Prevention 

Develop national prevention principles J (1.9.1) 

Disseminate information on these principles 

at the Federal. State. and local level (1.9.2) 

Conduct Research 

Identify and pdodtlze new and promising 

prevention strategies (1.10.1) 

Disseminate these research findings (1.10.2) 

Evaluate the impact of the anti-drug 

education Enitiativos ( 1. t 0.3) 

Distribute Information on Negative 

Consequences of Legalization 

Develop an information package on 

pharmaceutical altsmatwes to mar~uana 

and other drugs (1.8.1) 

Conduct nationwide d[seamlnatlon of 

information on the adverse effects of 

marijuana and other drugs (1.8,2) 

of America's Citizens 

Treat Offenders 

Deveinp standards for drug tssting (2.4.1) 

Develop standards for responses 

to dru R use (2,4.2) 

Increase the proportion of drug-using 

Offenders who receive traatmant (2.4,3) 

Oecmase the proportion of drug-using 

offenders whO are marrestod (2,4.4) 

Break the Cycle of Drug Abuse 

and Crime 

Reduce inmate access to IIIogal drugs (2.5.1) ( 

Incran~e the number of BTC sites 1 

(2.5.2) r~ 

Establish drug courts (2.5.3) | 

Conduct Research 

Disseminate fnformetion on euccecsfut law J 

enfomemant and treatment Inltlativee (2.6.1) 

Promote a Drug-Free Workplace 

' ' thcrease the proportion of businesses with 

drug free workplace palicIos, drug abuse 

education, ~ employea e.ssistance 

programs (3.3.1) 

Certify Drug Treatment Workers 

Develop nationally recognized competency J J 

standers for people who work with drug 

users (3.4.1) 

States adopt nationally recognized 

competency standards (3.42) 

Reduce Health Problems 

- t Rabuco the incidence Of tubersulosts amen 1 drug users (3.2.1) 

Reduce the incidence of drug-rstated 

HepetWe B among drug users (3.2.2) 

Stabilize and then reduce the incidence Of 

drug-related HIV infection (3.2,3). 

" l ,, 

Goal 3: Reduce the Health and Social Costs of Drug Use 

Support Effective and 

Accessible Treatment 

Close the treatment gap (3.1.t) ~1 

Increase the effecttvanecs of treatment 

(3.1.2) 

Decrease waiting time for treatment (3.1.3) 

Design and implement o N:~ffenal Treatment 

Outcome and Mordtodng System (3,1.4) 

Disseminate information on the beet 

avstlable treatment protocols (3.1.5) 

Support Research 

Fund a "results-oriented = portfolio of 

Federally funded research projects (3,6.1) 

Devstop and implement a comprehensive 

set of Federal epidemiofogic measurement 

systems (3.5.2) 

Develop and implement a model to estJrnate 

the health and social costs of drug use (3.6.3) 

Develop Pharmaceutical Treatments 

.._~ Devstop a comprehensive roseamh agenda 

for roseamh on medications (3.5.1) I 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 109 

Acknowledgments'. 

The Director, ONDCP acknowledges the contributions of the following: 

DIRECTOR, PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM PROJECT 

John T. Camevale 

Director of Programs, Budget, Research, and Evaluation, ONDCP 

PRINCIPAL ADVISOR FOR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT 

Annie Millar 

(Acting) Chief of Evaluation, ONDCP 

PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT FOR STRATEGY EVALUATION 

Abt Associates 

Ronald Simeone 

David T. Cheatham 

OFFICE OF EVALUATION-ONDCP 

Stuart W. Maberry Richard Porter 

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY 

Leonard A. Sistek 

Bob Agresti Michael Cala Joseph Donovan Rose Johnson Debbie Roberts 

Henry Baley Patrick Carpenter Carlos Dublin Francis Kinney Brij Sandill 

Amy Becks Scott Chronister Mike Epstein Alan Levitt Dan Schecter 

Joseph Bendig Mark Coomer Adrian Erckenbrack Phuong Lu Patricia Seitz 

Carol Bergman Tim Cooney Mike Green Wayne Lynch David Shull 

Chuck Blanchard Janie Dargan Dennis Greenhouse Kate Malliarakis June Sivilli 

Gary Boyer Don Daugherty John Gregrich Hank Marsden Jim Thirkill 

Gary Bruce Dari Davis Sam Grizzle Ricia McMahon Tom Umberg 

Lisa Bruce Tilman Dean Sumona Guha Jon Rice Sarah Vogelsberg 

Robert Brown Ross Deck Tracy Hamblet David Rivait Richard Yamamoto 

Fe Caces Terry Zobeck 

Sherrie Aitken 

Sue Capper 

CONSULTANTS TO OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY 

University of Maryland School of Public Affairs 

Peter Reuter 

CSR, Incorporated 

Laurie Cullen Elaine Garber Elizabeth Quinn Linda Sharer 

Nancy Dudley Deborah Gordis William Scarbrough Robert Wald 

Will Hoffman 

Booz-AUen & Hamilton, Associates 

Terrili Arnold Eric Jeglum 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 111 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Jonathan Breul 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Kevin Cichetti Walter Groszyk, Jr. 

NATIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW 

Beverly Godwin Robert Stone 

John Koskinen 

Cynthia Anderson 

Joe Antos 

Steve Deitz 

Gail Beaumont 

Charlotte Gillespie 

Richard Greenough 

Peggy Grove 

Stephen Amos 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Ted David 

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY 

Bob Cooperman Thomas Forest Thomas Keener 

John Ent David Lodge 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Michael Hanley John Pennella Egan Stelzer 

National Security Agency 

Louis Cruz 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Kim Light Deb Rudy 

Bill Modzeleski Ann Weinheimer 

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR 

Bob Brown Jocly Kusak 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Criminal Division 

Lester Joseph 

Jay Lemer 

Marlene Beckman 

Patricia Petty 

Jeff Ross 

Office of Justice Programs 

Carla Friedsta Fred Garcia 

Vernon J. Myers 

John Oravec 

Lennard Wolfson 

Joanne Wiggins 

Susan Smith 

Theresa Van Vliet 

Marilyn Roberts 

Robert Brown Luke Galant 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Bob Kirchner Andrew Mitchell Tim Murray 

Allen Beck 

Thomas Feucht 

Sue Lindgren 

Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Brian Reaves Steve Smith 

Benjamin Renshaw 

National Institute #Justice 

Kevin Jackson Angela Moore-Parmely 

Doris Wilson 

Carolyn Peake 

112 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Shay Bilchik 

Richard Barrett 

Jim Devaney 

John Driscoll 

Weyson Dun 

Elizabeth Graves 

Office of Juvenile Justice & Drug Prevention 

Kim Budnic Joan.Harley 

Community Oriented Policing Service 

Veh Bezdikian David Hayeslip Ben Tucker 

Office of Policy Development 

Pat Tarr 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Doug Everett Carol Harrison Robert Penland 

Albert Glass Don Laderer Ed Wisnesfski 

Sandy Gonzates Jack Maier Bill Woessner 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Joe Kielman Tim Murphy 

Kathy Leodler Richard Powers 

David Boyd 

Immigration & Naturalization Service 

Sharla Rausch Steve Schroffel 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Elena Carr Judith Peterson 

Gina Wood 

Bill Wolf 

James Wooley 

Chip Riley 

Raul Roldan 

Joe Furloni 

Todd Greentree 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Sherman Hinson Wayne Tate 

AI Matano Carla Williams 

Steve Peterson 

USAID 

Tom Kellerman Steve Peterson Lohoma Romachi Jane Stanley 

Mary Bernstein 

John Frost 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ken Eclgell Donald Shatinksy 

Office of the Secretary, Drug and A/coho/Policy and Compliance 

Peter Ganzer Jim Hull Hank Leeper 

United States Coast Guard 

Samuel Roudebush Gary Steinfort 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Office of Secretary, Office of Public Health and Science 

Tom Vischi 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Jeff McKenna John Miles 

James Swart 

George Russell 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 113 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Joseph Autry 

Judi Funkhouser 

Judy Galloway 

Rebecca Ashery 

Jack Blaine 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Steve Gardner Luisa del C. Pollard 

Clarise Holden Joan Quinlan 

Mary Jansen Ruth Sanschez-Way 

Nancy Kennedy Mel Segal 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Nick Demos A1 Getz Candice Macken 

Herman Diesenhaus James Herrell Sue Rohrer 

Food and Drug Administration 

Nick Reuter Lee Cummings 

National Institute on Drug Abuse 

Erwin Bloom James Colliver 

William Bukoski Harry Haverkos 

Peter J. Delaney 

National Institutes of Health 

Bennett Fletcher Andrea Kopstein 

Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration 

Peggy Gilliam Barbara Ray Steve Wing 

Steve Seitz 

Tommie Johnson-Waters 

Jerry Soucy 

Frank Vocci 

Robert Armstrong 

Anne-Marie Bruen 

DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY 

Court Golumbic Fred Meyers 

Internal Revenue Service 

Rodney Clark Jerry MacReady 

U.S. Border Patrol 

Alan Conroy Dick Hunt 

Gregory Cline 

JeffCopp 

U.S. Customs Service 

Dan Danckwerth 

Jim Engleman 

Steve Hayward 

John Hill 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Thomas Horvath Richard Suchinsky 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND PROGRAMS 

National Criminal Justice Association 

Cabell C. Cropper 

National Center for State Courts 

Thomas A. Henderson 

National Governors' Association 

Nolan E. Jones 

William Jiminez 

Christopher Sheridan 

114 PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

National Association of Attorneys General 

Traci J. Sanders 

National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors, Inc. 

John S. Gustafson Kathleen Sheehan 

Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America 

Sue Thau 

National Association of Prevention Professionals and Advocates 

Raymond Whitfield 

STATE ASSOCIATIONS AND PROGRAMS 

California Narcotics Officer's Association 

Gary W. Schram 

UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS 

Center for Drugs and Alcohol Studies--University of Delaware 

James Inciardi 

Monitoring the Future Study-University of Michigan 

Patrick O'Malley Lloyd Johnston 

Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse-Columbia University 

Herb Kleber Tina McVeigh 

PRIVATE AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS 

National Drug Prevention League 

Kent Augustson 

Center for Alcohol and Drug Research and Education 

William R. Caltrider, Jr. 

Institute for a Drug Free Workplace 

Mark De Bemardo Daryl G. Grecich 

National Drugs Don't Work Program 

John Fenton 

Join Together 

Janice Ford-Griffin 

Science Applications International Corporation 

Albert Giambalvo 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 115 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Partnership for a Drug Free America 

Thomas A. Hendrick 

Employee Assistance Programs Northrop Grumman 

James R. O'Hare 

National Families in Action 

Sue Rusche 

Legal Action Center 

Ellen Weber 

National Development and Research Institutes 

Harry Wexler 

Therapeutic Community of America, Inc. 

Linda Wolf-Jones 

PROPERTY OF 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) 

Box 6000 

Rockville, MD 20849-6000 -''- 

116 PERFORM~,NCE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS 

\ 

About ONDCP 

What's New 

Prevention 

& Education 

Treatment 

Science & 

Medicine 

Enforcement 

" 'International 

Drug Facts 

& Figures 

National Drug 

Control Policy 

News & 

Public Affairs 

Q~ Search I Contact ONDCP I Related Links 

h ttp: //www.wh ite h ou sed rug pal icy. gov 

For instant access to drug information including: 

The President's drug policy 

Current data on drug use 

Promising drug prevention, treatment, and enforcement 

Emerging drug problems 

New research findings 

Tips for parents 

ONDCP initiatives, press releases, and testimony 

Links to other valuable resources 

programs 

For policymakers, legislators, criminal justice and health practioners, researchers, 

educators, parents.., and a special page for kids. 

NCJ168953