United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the National Security, International Affiars and

Criminal Justic Subcommittee, committee on Government

Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 11:00 a.m.

on Thursday

May 1, 1997

DRUG CONTROL

Reauthorization of the

Office of National Drug

Control Policy

Statement of Norman J. Rabkin

Director, Administration of Justice Issues

General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-97-97

Summary 

Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office

of National Drug Control Policy

Over the years, GAO has issued numerous reports on the nation’s drug

control efforts. These reports show a consistent theme: the nation’s effort

to control illegal drugs is complex, fragmented among many agencies, and

hindered by the absence of meaningful performance measures to gauge

progress and to guide decisionmaking to better ensure that limited

resources are put to the best use.

In 1983, GAO concluded that there was a need to coordinate the nation’s

drug control efforts and recommended that the President make a clear

delegation of responsibility to one individual to strengthen oversight of

federal drug enforcement programs. Since then, GAO has periodically

concluded that there is a continuing need for a central planning agency.

Congress addressed this issue through the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988,

which created the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to better

plan a nationwide drug control effort and assist Congress in overseeing

that effort. ONDCP was initially authorized through November 1993 and

later reauthorized through September 30, 1997.

GAO’s recent work shows that there are some promising initial research

results in the area of demand reduction but that international supply

reduction efforts have not reduced the availability of drugs. GAO’s work

also shows that the nation still lacks meaningful performance measures to

help guide decisionmaking. GAO has acknowledged that performance

measurement in the area of drug control is particularly difficult for a

variety of reasons. Notwithstanding, GAO has concluded over the years that

better performance measures than the ones in place were needed. In 1993,

GAO recommended that Congress, as part of its reauthorization of ONDCP,

direct the agency to develop additional performance measures.

In reauthorizing ONDCP in 1994, Congress specified that ONDCP’s

performance measurement system should assess changes in drug use, drug

availability, the consequences of drug use, drug treatment capacity, and

the adequacy of drug treatment systems. ONDCP’s initial effort, with a

private contractor, did not prove fruitful, and, in the summer of 1996, it

began a new effort involving working groups composed of representatives

from federal drug control agencies and state, local, and private

organizations. The working groups have been tasked with establishing

performance measures for the goals set forth in the 1997 national strategy

articulated by ONDCP. As of April 15, 1997, no new measures had been

approved by the ONDCP Director.

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-97-97
Summary 

Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office

of National Drug Control Policy

Given the complexity of the issues and the fragmentation of the approach

to the national drug strategy among more than 50 federal agencies, GAO

continues to believe that there is a need for a central planning agency,

such as ONDCP, to coordinate the nation’s efforts. GAO notes that, while it is

difficult to gauge ONDCP’s effectiveness given the absence of good

performance measures, GAO has found no compelling evidence that would

lead it to advise against ONDCP’s reauthorization for a finite period of time.

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-97-97
Statement 

Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office

of National Drug Control Policy

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Office of National Drug

Control Policy (ONDCP). My testimony focuses on (1) our recent work on

federal drug control efforts; (2) ONDCP’s efforts to implement

performance measures; (3) ONDCP’s anticipated actions to lead the

development of a centralized lessons-learned data system for drug control

activities; and (4) whether ONDCP, which is scheduled to expire in

September of this year, should be reauthorized.

Background In 1988, Congress created ONDCP to better plan the federal drug control

effort and assist it in overseeing that effort. ONDCP was initially authorized

for 5 years—until November 1993. With the enactment of the Violent

Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322 (1994)),

ONDCP was reauthorized until September 30, 1997.

ONDCP is responsible for overseeing and coordinating the drug control

efforts of over 50 federal agencies and programs. ONDCP is also charged

with coordinating and reviewing the drug control activities of hundreds of

state and local governments as well as private organizations to ensure that

the drug control effort is well coordinated and effective at all levels.1

Under the 1988 act, ONDCP is to (1) develop a national drug control strategy

with short- and long-term objectives and annually revise and issue a new

strategy to take into account what has been learned and accomplished

during the previous year, (2) develop an annual consolidated budget

providing funding estimates for implementing the strategy, and (3) oversee

and coordinate implementation of the strategy by federal agencies. Since

its inception, ONDCP has published nine annual national drug control

strategies.

Some highlights of the 1997 strategy include: (1) explicit recognition that

demand reduction must be the centerpiece of the national antidrug effort;

(2) a commitment to robust international drug interdiction programs; and

(3) making prevention of drug use by youth the top priority. The 1997

strategy sets forth five goals, including both supply and demand drug

control efforts:

1

ONDCP is also responsible for designating and providing overall policy guidance and oversight for the

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program and operating the Counterdrug Technology

Assessment Center (CTAC), which serves as the counterdrug enforcement research and development

center for the federal government.

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-97-97
Statement 

Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office

of National Drug Control Policy

“1. Educate and enable America’s youth to reject illegal drugs as well as

the use of alcohol and tobacco.

“2. Increase the safety of America’s citizens by substantially reducing

drug-related crime and violence.

“3. Reduce health and social costs to the public of illegal drug use.

“4. Shield America’s air, land, and sea frontiers from the drug threat.

“5. Break foreign and domestic sources of supply.”

The administration’s drug control budget request for fiscal year 1998 is

approximately $16 billion, an increase of $818 million over the 1997

budget. Approximately $5.5 billion is targeted for demand reduction, an

increase of 10 percent over the 1997 budget and $10.5 billion for supply

reduction, an increase of 3.2 percent over the 1997 budget.2

Recent GAO Work on

Federal Drug Control

Efforts

At the request of the Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation and

Related Agencies and the Chairman, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and

Human Services, and Education, House Committee on Appropriations, on

the demand reduction side we recently identified findings of current

research on promising approaches in drug abuse prevention targeted at

school-age youth and described promising drug treatment strategies for

cocaine addiction. On the supply reduction side, we summarized our

recent work assessing the effectiveness of international efforts, including

interdiction, to reduce illegal drug availability.3

We reported that recent research points to two types of promising drug

prevention approaches for school-age youth. The first approach

emphasizes drug resistance skills, generic

problem-solving/decisionmaking training, and modification of attitudes

and norms that encourage drug use (the psychosocial approach). The

second approach involves the coordinated use of multiple societal

institutions, such as family, community, and schools, for delivering

prevention programs (the comprehensive approach). Early research has

2

As defined in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, P.L. 100-690, demand reduction includes drug abuse

education, prevention, treatment, research, and rehabilitation. Supply reduction includes international

drug control; foreign and domestic drug enforcement intelligence; interdiction; and domestic drug law

enforcement, including law enforcement directed at drug users.

3

Drug Control: Observations on Elements of the Federal Drug Control Strategy (GAO/GGD-97-42,

Mar. 14, 1997).

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-97-97
Statement 

Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office

of National Drug Control Policy

demonstrated that both approaches have shown some success in reducing

student drug use as well as strengthened individuals’ ability to resist drugs

in both short- and longer-term programs.

Three approaches have been found to be potentially promising in the

treatment of cocaine use. These approaches include (1) avoidance or

better management of drug-triggering situations (relapse prevention

therapy); (2) exposure to community support programs, drug sanctions,

and necessary employment counseling (community

reinforcement/contingency management); and (3) use of a coordinated

behavioral, emotional, and cognitive treatment approach (neurobehavioral

therapy). Research shows that many drug dependent clients using these

approaches have maintained extended periods of cocaine abstinence and

greater retention in treatment programs.

While these prevention and treatment approaches have shown promising

outcomes in some programs, further evaluative research would have to be

conducted to determine their effectiveness and their applicability among

different populations in varied settings. Such research should help

policymakers better focus efforts and resources in an overall drug control

strategy.

Regarding international drug control efforts, our work has shown that,

despite some successes, efforts have not materially reduced the

availability of drugs in the United States for several reasons. First,

international drug trafficking organizations have become sophisticated,

multibillion dollar industries that quickly adapt to new U.S. drug control

efforts. Second, the United States faces other significant and long-standing

obstacles, such as inconsistent funding, competing foreign policy

objectives, organizational and operational limitations, and a lack of ways

to tell whether or how well counternarcotics efforts are contributing to the

goals and objectives of the national drug control strategy, and the resulting

inability to prioritize the use of limited resources. Third, in drug-producing

and transit countries, counternarcotics efforts are constrained by

competing economic and political policies, inadequate laws, limited

resources and institutional capabilities, and internal problems such as

terrorism and civil unrest.

Recognizing that there is no panacea for resolving all of the problems

associated with illegal drug trafficking, and consistent with the intent of

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-97-97
Statement 

Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office

of National Drug Control Policy

the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),4 we recently made

several recommendations to the Director of ONDCP to better comply with

the 1988 Anti Drug Abuse Act’s requirements. We recommended that

ONDCP complete the development of a long-term plan with meaningful

performance measures and multiyear funding needs that are linked to the

goals and objectives of the international drug control strategy. In

particular, such a plan would permit ONDCP to better carry out its

responsibility to at least annually review the progress made and adjust its

plan, as appropriate. Further, we recommended that ONDCP enhance

support for the increased use of intelligence and technology to (1) improve

U.S. and other nations’ efforts to reduce supplies of and interdict illegal

drugs and (2) take the lead in developing a centralized lessons-learned

data system to aid agency planners and operators in developing more

effective counterdrug efforts.5

ONDCP’s Efforts to

Implement

Performance

Measures

We have acknowledged for many years that performance measurement in

the area of drug control has been difficult. In 1988 and again in 1990, we

reported that (1) it was difficult to isolate the full impact and effectiveness

of a single program, such as drug interdiction, on reducing drug use

without considering the impact of prevention and treatment efforts; (2) the

clandestine nature of drug production, trafficking, and use had limited the

quality and quantity of data that could be collected to measure program

success; and (3) the data that were collected—for example, the data used

to prepare estimates of drug availability and consumption—were generally

not designed to measure program effectiveness.6

4

GPRA (P.L. 103-62 (1993)) was enacted to improve performance measurement by federal agencies. It

provides a useful framework for assessing the effectiveness of federal drug control efforts. Under

GPRA, it is envisioned that each federal agency—defined as an executive department, government

corporation, and an independent establishment—will move away from its concentration on traditional

workload measures, such as staffing and activity levels, and move toward a focused assessment of

results. GPRA requires each federal agency to develop two types of plans—a strategic plan and annual

performance plans. Strategic plans are to cover a period of at least 5 years and include the agency’s

mission statement; identify the agency’s long-term strategic goals; and describe how the agency

intends to achieve those goals through its activities and through its human, capital, information, and

other resources. Annual performance plans provide the direct linkage between the strategic goals

outlined in the agency’s strategic plan and what managers and employees do day to day. In addition,

the performance plan is to contain the performance goals the agency will use to gauge its progress

toward accomplishing its strategic goals and identify the performance measures the agency will use to

assess its progress.

5

Drug Control: Long-Standing Problems Hinder U.S. International Efforts (GAO/NSIAD-97-75, Feb. 27,

1997).

6

Controlling Drug Abuse: A Status Report (GAO/GGD-88-39, Mar. 1, 1988) and Drug Interdiction:

Funding Continues to Increase but Program Effectiveness Is Unknown (GAO/GGD-91-10, Dec. 11,

1990).

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-97-97
Statement 

Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office

of National Drug Control Policy

In a 1993 report,7 we concluded that although difficulties, such as the

interrelated nature of programs, may have precluded the development of

“perfect” or “precise” performance measures, these difficulties should not

have stopped antidrug policymakers from developing the best alternative

measures—measures that could provide general indicators of what was

being accomplished over the long term.

We also reported in 1993 that ONDCP’s national strategies did not contain

adequate measures for assessing the contributions of component

programs for reducing the nation’s drug problems. In addition, we found

little information on which to assess the contributions made by individual

drug control agencies. As a result, we recommended that, as part of its

reauthorization of ONDCP, Congress direct the agency to develop additional

performance measures. In reauthorizing ONDCP in 1994, Congress specified

that ONDCP’s performance measurement system should assess changes in

drug use, drug availability, the consequences of drug use,8

 drug treatment

capacity, and the adequacy of drug treatment systems.

Similarly, in our most recent report,9

 we found it still difficult to assess the

performance of individual drug control agencies. For example, increased

Customs Service inspections and use of technology to detect drugs being

smuggled through ports of entry may cause smugglers to seek other

routes; this would put more pressure on drug interdiction activities of

other agencies, such as the Coast Guard. We concluded that it was

important to consider both ONDCP and operational agency data together

because results achieved by one agency in reducing the use of drugs may

be offset by less favorable results by another agency.

According to ONDCP officials, around January 1994, they, in collaboration

with the Department of Defense, entered into a contract with a private

contractor to develop “measures of effectiveness” in the international

arena. According to ONDCP officials, overall the results of the contractor’s

efforts did not prove useful in developing performance measures for

ONDCP. The efforts of the contractor were eventually abandoned, and in the

summer of 1996 ONDCP began a new effort to develop performance

measures for all drug control operations.

7

Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (GAO/GGD-93-144, Sept.

29, 1993).

8

Consequences of drug use include burdens drug users place on hospital emergency rooms in the

United States, national health care costs of drug use, drug-related crime and criminal activity, and

contribution of drugs to the underground economy.

9

GAO/GGD-97-42.

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-97-97
Statement 

Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office

of National Drug Control Policy

The new effort relies on working groups, which consist of representatives

from federal drug control agencies and state, local, and private

organizations, to develop national drug control performance measures.

According to ONDCP officials, early in 1997, the ONDCP working groups

began developing performance targets (measurable milestones to track

progress) and performance measures (the data used to track each target)

for each of the objectives. As of April 1997, the plans for one of its five

goals—“shield America’s air, land, and sea frontiers from the drug

threat”—were ready for the Director’s approval, and they will be

distributed to the affected agencies for agreement. ONDCP officials told us

they are not yet that far along on the other four goals.

Centralized Data

Systems: Lessons

Learned

As previously mentioned, we recently recommended in our report on

international antidrug activities that ONDCP strengthen its planning and

implementation of antidrug activities through the development of an

after-action reporting system similar to the Department of Defense’s (DOD)

system.10 Under DOD’s system, operations reports describe an operation’s

strengths and weaknesses and contain recommendations for consideration

in future operations. A governmentwide after-action system for reporting

international antidrug activities should allow agencies to learn from the

problems and impediments encountered internally and by other federal

agencies in implementing past operations. With such information, the

agencies would be in a better position to develop plans that avoid past

problems or contingencies in known problem areas. This governmentwide

after-action system should go a long way toward meeting ONDCP’s basic

responsibility of taking into account what has been learned and

accomplished during the previous year and adjusting its plan accordingly.

As of April 15, 1997, ONDCP officials said they had not yet implemented this

recommendation. According to these officials, ONDCP is currently preparing

a formal response to the Subcommittee on National Security, International

Affairs, and Criminal Justice, Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight, explaining how it plans to implement this recommendation.

10GAO/NSIAD-97-75.

Page 8 GAO/T-GGD-97-97
Statement 

Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office

of National Drug Control Policy

The Need Continues

for a Central Planning

Agency to Coordinate

Drug Control Efforts

Over the years, we have concluded there is a continuing need for a central

planning agency, such as ONDCP, to coordinate the nation’s drug control

efforts. Before ONDCP existed, we recommended in 1983 that the President

make a clear delegation of responsibility to one individual to oversee

federal drug enforcement programs to strengthen central oversight of the

federal drug enforcement program.11 Again in 1988,12 we reported

problems caused by the fragmentation of federal antidrug efforts among

cabinet departments and agencies, and the resulting lack of coordination

of federal drug abuse control policies and programs. In 1993,13 we

concluded that given the severity of the drug problem and the large

number of federal, state, and local agencies working on the problem, there

was a continuing need for a central planning agency, such as ONDCP, to

provide leadership and coordination for the nation’s drug control efforts.

We recommended that Congress reauthorize ONDCP for an additional finite

period of time.

Coordinating the 5 goals of the national drug control strategy among more

than 50 federal agencies is a complex process. Our analysis of federal

agencies that contribute to the implementation of each of the 5 strategy

goals showed an average of 21 agencies were committing resources to

address specific strategy goals. For example, Goal 1 involves 18 agencies,

Goals 2 and 3 involve 24, Goal 4 involves 13, and Goal 5 involves 28.

Further, we found that more than 30 agencies are committing resources to

implement two or more of the five strategy goals.

Given the complexity of the issues and the fragmentation of the approach

to the national drug control strategy among more than 50 agencies, we

continue to believe there is a need for a central planning agency, such as

ONDCP, to coordinate the nation’s drug control efforts. In addition, we have

found no compelling evidence to lead us to advise against ONDCP’s

reauthorization for a finite period of time.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I would be pleased to answer

any questions you or the other Subcommittee members might have.

(186766)

11Federal Drug Interdiction Efforts Need Strong Central Oversight (GAO/GGD-83-52, June 13, 1983).

12GAO/GGD-88-39.

13GAO/GGD-93-144.

Page 9 GAO/T-GGD-97-97
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100