United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Caucus

on International Narcotics Control,

U.S. Senate

February 1998 DRUG CONTROL

Planned Actions

Should Clarify

Counterdrug

Technology

Assessment Center’s

Impact

GAO/GGD-98-28

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-276367 

February 3, 1998

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Chairman, Caucus on International

 Narcotics Control

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The counterdrug technology research and development (R&D) effort is a

component of the nation’s war on drugs, contributing to the development

of technology to reduce both the influx of illicit drugs into the United

States and the demand for and use of such drugs. For example, the

counterdrug technology R&D effort has been instrumental in the current

development of X-ray and gamma-ray technologies designed to help detect

drugs hidden in trucks and railroad cars entering the United States along

the southwest border.

In fiscal year 1991, Congress established the Counterdrug Technology

Assessment Center (CTAC) within the Office of National Drug Control

Policy (ONDCP) to serve as the central counterdrug enforcement R&D

organization of the federal government. CTAC is expected to oversee and

coordinate counterdrug technology initiatives with the related activities of

federal departments and agencies, prevent unnecessary duplication of R&D

efforts, and fund counterdrug research projects to help fill gaps in the

development of technology, whenever possible. CTAC is to use its Science

and Technology (S&T) Committee,1

 which is comprised of representatives

of involved agencies and bureaus, as the principal mechanism in carrying

out these functions.

In view of the importance of the counterdrug technology R&D effort to the

war on drugs, you requested that we review the operations and

contributions of CTAC. As agreed with your office, we focused on

determining (1) how CTAC coordinates its counterdrug R&D efforts with

other federal agencies to address counterdrug R&D needs that are not being

met by other agencies and to avoid unnecessary duplication and (2) what

contributions CTAC has made to counterdrug R&D efforts since its creation.

We did our review primarily in the Washington, D.C., area at CTAC

headquarters, and we interviewed officials from 10 of the 21 federal

1

The S&T Committee is comprised of representatives from the R&D offices of the 21 law enforcement

and demand reduction agencies and bureaus of the Departments of Justice, Agriculture, the Interior,

the Treasury, Defense, Transportation, Energy, State, and Health and Human Services and the Central

Intelligence Agency.

Page 1 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

agencies on the S&T Committee that accounted for the majority of the

overall budget for the National Counterdrug R&D Program. Using a

structured questionnaire, we surveyed representatives of the 10 agencies

to obtain their views on CTAC’s operations and contributions. We also

contacted the CTAC technical and contracting agents—the U.S. Army

Electronic Proving Ground, Fort Huachuca, AZ, and the Tennessee Valley

Authority, Knoxville, TN—to discuss their roles in CTAC’s coordination

process. In addition, we attended CTAC’s regional technology workshop in

Atlanta, GA, and conducted structured interviews with officials from

several state and local governments that were involved in CTAC-funded

counterdrug technology R&D efforts. We performed our work from

November 1996 to November 1997 in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards. A detailed description of our objectives,

scope, and methodology is contained in appendix I.

We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from ONDCP. These

comments are discussed at the end of this letter and are reprinted in

appendix VI.

Results in Brief CTAC has a coordination process in place for identifying counterdrug

technology needs and selecting and funding R&D projects to meet those

needs. However, we identified the following shortcomings in CTAC’s design

and execution of the process.

• According to its charter and CTAC’s Chief Scientist, the S&T Committee is to

be used as the principal mechanism for assisting CTAC in its coordination

of counterdrug R&D efforts, identifying and prioritizing counterdrug

technology R&D needs, and evaluating R&D projects for CTAC to fund.

However, the S&T Committee’s charter, which was created before CTAC

existed, does not reflect the Committee’s current composition,

responsibilities, and relationship to CTAC. Furthermore, CTAC did not

regularly and consistently involve the S&T Committee in its coordination

process.

• According to CTAC’s process for selecting and funding R&D projects, CTAC, in

conjunction with the S&T Committee, is to annually reassess, update, and

prioritize counterdrug technology and scientific needs. However, CTAC did

not regularly evaluate and prioritize the agencies’ counterdrug R&D

technology needs to ensure that it funded otherwise unfunded projects

with the highest priority.

• CTAC’s mission includes identifying, defining, and helping to meet the

counterdrug technology needs of state and local, as well as federal, law

Page 2 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

enforcement agencies. However, CTAC did not systematically identify and

consider the counterdrug technology needs of state and local agencies, in

conjunction with federal agencies’ needs, as part of its regular process for

selecting and funding projects. In addition, state and local agencies were

only recently represented on the S&T Committee.

• CTAC recommends that agencies provide it with acquisition or transitional

plans for each of their projects receiving CTAC funds. These plans are

intended to help ensure that any technology that is successfully developed

through R&D efforts will eventually be deployed. However, agencies

generally did not submit such plans to CTAC.

• As part of its coordination process, CTAC had its technology needs

identification and project selection process and other mechanisms in place

to help achieve its mission of helping agencies avoid duplicative R&D

efforts. CTAC officials were confident that these mechanisms had helped

CTAC to avoid duplication. However, although a few agencies cited

instances where duplication was avoided as a result of CTAC’s efforts, CTAC

had not developed any means for determining the extent to which

unnecessary duplication had been identified and avoided due to its efforts.

As a result of these shortcomings, neither we nor CTAC could determine the

extent to which its coordination process was meeting its mission, that is,

identifying counterdrug technology needs and using its available funds to

support the highest priority R&D projects that transcend the needs of any

single agency and that otherwise might not be funded.

Our task of determining CTAC’s contributions to federal drug control efforts

was complicated by CTAC’s lack of meaningful performance measures to

enable it to (1) assess its progress in achieving its mission and contributing

to the development and deployment of counterdrug technology and

(2) identify and implement any needed improvements to better achieve its

mission.

CTAC’s Chief Scientist told us that he considered not just technologies that

are completed and in use as contributions, but also uncompleted projects

that have reached various stages of development. Accordingly, CTAC

counted as contributions 36 of the 72 projects it had funded as of

April 1997. CTAC also reported as contributions its sponsorship of several

outreach efforts, including international symposiums and regional, state,

and local workshops, that it indicated facilitated the exchange of

information on the status of new technologies.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

The contact officials of the lead2 R&D agencies identified by CTAC told us

that they considered 10 of the 36 projects cited as contributions by CTAC to

be actual contributions. The officials used as criteria that the technology

resulting from those projects was being used and was assisting their

agencies in fulfilling their counterdrug missions. The other 26 projects did

not meet these criteria in that they generally either were completed but

not used or were not yet ready for use. Also, the S&T Committee members

we surveyed agreed with CTAC that its outreach efforts had improved

information-sharing among members of the counterdrug R&D community.

In September 1997, ONDCP/CTAC officials told us they were beginning to

develop performance indicators as part of ONDCP efforts to develop (1) a

performance measurement system for the National Drug Control Strategy

and (2) a strategic plan for ONDCP and its components under the

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62), which is

commonly referred to as “GPRA” or “the Results Act.”

Background A 1987 Department of Defense (DOD) Defense Science Board study3

 on the

detection and neutralization of illegal drugs and terrorist devices, such as

explosives, concluded, among other things, that better-focused R&D testing

and evaluation and acquisition efforts were needed at the federal level. To

address this issue, the study proposed establishing a permanent Research

and Technology Group within the National Drug Policy Board, which was

the predecessor to ONDCP.

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690) created ONDCP to better

plan and coordinate federal drug control efforts and assist the federal

government in overseeing those efforts. ONDCP is charged with overseeing

and coordinating the drug control efforts of over 50 federal agencies and

programs, consulting with and assisting state and local governments in

their relations with federal agencies involved in the National Drug Control

Program, and reviewing and certifying the adequacy of other federal

agencies’ drug control-related budget requests.4

 In February 1990, ONDCP

2

According to CTAC, the lead agencies are the principal contacts for the technology R&D projects and

those agencies that will ultimately be the principal users of the technology.

3

Detection and Naturalization of Illegal Drugs and Terrorist Devices, Defense Science Board, Office of

the Secretary of Defense, October 11, 1987.

4

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended, requires the Director of ONDCP to review and certify

in writing that annual drug budget submissions from each “program manager, agency head, and

department head” with drug control responsibilities are adequate to implement the objectives of the

National Drug Control Strategy.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

created the S&T Committee to perform functions similar to those

previously performed by the Research and Technology Group.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (P.L.

101-510), which amended the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, established

CTAC as the central U.S. counterdrug enforcement R&D organization. The

act placed CTAC under the operating authority of the Director of ONDCP and

required that CTAC be headed by a Chief Scientist of Counterdrug

Technology.

Overall, Congress expected CTAC to coordinate the National Counterdrug

R&D Program to prevent duplication of efforts and ensure that, whenever

possible, those efforts provided capabilities that filled overall existing

technology gaps that transcended the needs of any single federal agency

and that otherwise might not have been funded. Specifically, CTAC was

charged with (1) identifying and defining the short-, medium-, and

long-term scientific and technological needs of federal, state, and local

drug enforcement agencies;5

 (2) making a priority ranking of such needs

according to fiscal and technological feasibility as part of a National

Counterdrug Enforcement R&D Strategy; (3) in consultation with the

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and through interagency

agreements or grants, examining addiction and rehabilitation research and

the application of technology to expanding the effectiveness or availability

of drug treatment;6 (4) overseeing and coordinating counterdrug

technology initiatives with the related activities of other federal civilian

and military departments; and (5) under the general authority of the ONDCP

Director, submitting requests to Congress for the reprogramming or

transfer of funds appropriated for counterdrug enforcement R&D.

Similar to its authorizing legislation, CTAC’s mission statement sets forth its

responsibilities as follows: (1) identify the short-, medium-, and long-term

scientific and technological needs of federal, state, and local drug

enforcement agencies; (2) develop a national counterdrug R&D strategy

that validates technological needs, prioritizes such needs according to

technical and fiscal feasibility, and sets forth a plan (including budget) to

develop and test the highest priority technology projects; (3) implement a

5

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 specifies that these needs should include

the following categories: (a) advanced surveillance, tracking, and radar imaging; (b) electronic support

measures; (c) communications; (d) data fusion, advanced computer systems, and artificial intelligence;

and (e) chemical, biological, radiological (including neutron, electron, and graviton), and other means

of detection.

6

This responsibility was added by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L.

103-322).

Page 5 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

national counterdrug R&D program, including technology development in

support of substance abuse, addiction, and rehabilitation research; and

(4) coordinate counterdrug R&D activities to identify and remove

unnecessary duplication.

To accomplish its mission, CTAC is to (1) annually publish the Counterdrug

Research and Development Blueprint Update, which, among other things,

lists the scientific and technological needs of federal agencies with

counterdrug missions; (2) use the S&T Committee as the principal

mechanism for assisting in its coordination of counterdrug technology R&D

efforts and for identifying and prioritizing technology needs and selecting

otherwise unfunded R&D projects for CTAC funding; and (3) use an outreach

program of regional workshops and technology symposiums to facilitate

access to federal, state, and local government organizations, industry and

academic scientists and engineers, and other targeted community

segments.

Federal counterdrug technology R&D spending for fiscal years 1992 (CTAC’s

first year of operation) through 1997 totaled $3.2 billion, of which CTAC

accounted for $86.5 million or about 2.7 percent. (See app. II.) According

to a CTAC official, for fiscal years 1992 through 1997, CTAC distributed about

$61.0 million, or about 71 percent of its total funds, for 72 counterdrug R&D

projects. CTAC also spent $17.7 million for operational test-and-evaluation

efforts and $4.6 million for technical and contracting agents who are to

manage the projects once funded. Table 1 in appendix III shows the

distribution of CTAC funding by spending category for fiscal years 1992

through 1997.

In fiscal year 1992, CTAC projects were organized into three technical thrust

areas: tactical technologies, nonintrusive inspection, and wide-area

surveillance. In fiscal year 1993, the area of demand reduction was added

as a fourth technical thrust area.7

 As shown in table 2 of appendix III, the

majority of CTAC’s R&D funds for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 were

distributed on projects related to the tactical technology thrust area,

followed by the demand reduction, nonintrusive inspection, and wide-area

surveillance areas.

7

Tactical technologies are, among other things, developed to support law enforcement personnel in

their daily tactical operations against drug trafficking organizations by providing improved

communications, tracking and surveillance, and intelligence gathering. Demand reduction

technologies are developed to improve instrumentation and equipment available for researchers and

develop drugs to combat cocaine addiction. Nonintrusive inspection technologies are aimed at

developing a rapid, automatic system to inspect shipment and cargo containers without physically

removing all of their contents for manual inspection. Wide-area surveillance technologies are

developed to detect and track suspect aircraft, ships, motor vehicles, and persons transporting drugs.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

As of September 30, 1997, CTAC’s professional staff in Washington, D.C.,

was comprised of the Chief Scientist, who is the only ONDCP employee;

three civilians employed by and detailed from DOD; and three persons

employed by and detailed from a Fort Huachuca contractor, which is one

of CTAC’s technical/contracting agents. Fort Huachuca and the Tennessee

Valley Authority, CTAC’s other technical/contracting agent, together had

two full-time and three part-time employees dedicated to CTAC activities.

According to the Chief Scientist, only he and two of the DOD employees

were available to perform management-related functions, such as working

and supporting CTAC’s interaction with the S&T Committee. The other DOD

detailee served as CTAC’s budget analyst. The three contractor detailees

and the five contracting agent personnel at Fort Huachuca and the

Tennessee Valley Authority had specific support functions, such as

handling the transfer of funds for CTAC-sponsored technology projects, and

were not available to perform management-related functions.

CTAC’s Coordination

Process Had Several

Shortcomings

We identified several shortcomings in the design and execution of the

process CTAC established to carry out its coordination of counterdrug R&D

efforts as intended. The S&T Committee, whose charter has not been

revised since before CTAC was created, does not reflect the committee’s

current composition, responsibilities, and relationship to CTAC. Moreover,

the full S&T Committee met irregularly and often was not included in the

decisionmaking about which counterdrug technologies should be funded.

Furthermore, CTAC did not regularly reassess the counterdrug technology

needs of federal agencies to ensure that its listing was current and

reflected the top priority needs of S&T Committee member agencies. Also,

CTAC did not systematically consider and fund the counterdrug technology

needs of state and local agencies as part of its process for selecting and

funding projects, and, until recently, state and local agencies were not

represented on the S&T Committee. CTAC also approved many R&D projects

for funding even though they lacked comprehensive transitional plans,

which are intended to help ensure that developed technologies were

eventually put to use. In addition, although several agencies told us of

cases in which CTAC efforts had helped them to avoid unnecessary

duplicative research, CTAC was unaware of these cases because it had no

system in place to determine the extent to which unnecessary duplication

was identified and avoided due to CTAC’s efforts.

Page 7 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

CTAC’s Needs

Identification and Project

Selection Process

Since 1992, CTAC has had a process and procedures in place for

coordinating with the R&D community to identify and prioritize R&D needs,

avoid unnecessary duplication, and select CTAC-funded R&D projects that,

among other things, can help fill overall existing technology gaps and

transcend the needs of any single federal agency. CTAC’s process included

specific steps, criteria, and controls to help ensure that funded projects

(1) addressed the needs of the federal law enforcement and demand

reduction agencies and (2) provided promising technology that could be

used.

According to its charter and CTAC’s Chief Scientist, the S&T Committee is to

be used as the principal mechanism for assisting CTAC in its coordination

of counterdrug technology R&D efforts, identifying and prioritizing R&D

needs, and evaluating R&D projects for CTAC to fund. For a detailed

description of CTAC’s process for identifying and prioritizing technology

needs and selecting projects for CTAC funding, including an overview

flowchart of the process, see appendix IV.

S&T Committee’s Charter

Does Not Reflect Its

Current Composition and

Responsibilities

The composition and responsibilities of the S&T Committee, which was

established within ONDCP before CTAC’s existence, were set forth in a

February 1990 charter. According to the charter, the S&T Committee is to

be composed of parallel management-level representatives from federal

counterdrug R&D agencies and a representative from the state and local

R&D community. The S&T Committee is to be comprised of a 7-member

Executive Board, a 16-member committee, and 7 associate committee

members. It also is to be organized into several working groups.8

 The S&T

Committee’s overall responsibilities are to include identifying, developing,

coordinating, and facilitating achievement of the overall goals and

objectives of ONDCP’s National Drug Control Strategy in the areas of drug

control research, automated data processing, and telecommunications.

The charter is intended to establish and clarify the S&T Committee’s role

and responsibilities in helping ONDCP accomplish its goals and mission.

However, the existing charter does not reflect the S&T Committee’s current

composition. Several of the current members of the S&T Committee—the

Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and NIDA,

for example—are not listed as members or listed in their current roles. NIJ

is to represent the state and local law enforcement communities, and NIDA

is to represent the demand reduction community. Congress has directed

8

Working groups are comprised of several members of the S&T Committee and are responsible for

coordinating agency concerns in specific technical areas and providing updates and reports to the full

committee for its consideration.

Page 8 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

CTAC to be responsible for addressing the R&D needs of these communities.

Also, some of the organizations identified in the charter as members of the

S&T Committee are no longer members. In addition, the listing of

designated working groups in the charter was not current.

The existing charter also does not address the S&T Committee’s current

responsibilities and its relationship to CTAC. Because the charter was

created before CTAC existed, CTAC is not mentioned in the charter. Yet, the

S&T Committee is to be the principal mechanism that CTAC uses to

accomplish its responsibilities of overseeing and coordinating counterdrug

technology. CTAC focuses its R&D efforts in four areas—tactical

technologies, demand reduction, nonintrusive inspection technology, and

wide-area surveillance areas. The area of demand reduction is not

addressed by the S&T Committee’s existing charter, and the demand

reduction community’s representative, NIDA, only recently began

participating on the committee. Also, the charter does not reflect the roles

and responsibilities of the S&T Committee and its working groups in

developing and monitoring the implementation of the 10-year counterdrug

technology development plan and 5-year budget projections.

CTAC Has Not Used the

S&T Committee Regularly

and Consistently

CTAC has not regularly and consistently involved the full S&T Committee in

key decisions relating to its coordination process. The S&T Committee did

not meet as regularly as the Chief Scientist intended, and its involvement

in CTAC’s coordination process varied from year to year and was not

always documented. Rather, the Chief Scientist generally consulted with

individual S&T Committee members and its working groups. By not

involving or dealing with the full S&T Committee, CTAC did not take full

advantage of the benefits of the interaction and deliberation among the

members on key matters relating to the identification and prioritization of

counterdrug technology needs and selection and funding of related R&D

projects. As a result, CTAC may be making key funding decisions without

the coordinated deliberation and input, as intended, of the full S&T

Committee. Thus, neither we nor CTAC could determine the extent to which

its process was identifying and funding the otherwise unfunded highest

priority technology needs.

According to CTAC’s Chief Scientist, the full S&T Committee meets

approximately every 4 months to discuss policy issues, technological

needs, and opportunities to advance technologies for improving the

achievement of counterdrug missions. However, since CTAC’s creation, the

Page 9 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

S&T Committee met only twice a year in 1992, 1993, and 1995; once a year

in 1994 and 1996; and not at all in 1997.

On the basis of our review of S&T Committee minutes from fiscal years

1992 through 1996 and discussions with some committee members, the S&T

Committee’s involvement in CTAC’s coordination process varied from year

to year. The S&T Committee performed different tasks each year over the

5-year period we reviewed. For example, the S&T Committee reviewed

CTAC’s annual draft R&D program plan only once—in fiscal year 1992. The

S&T Committee met only once—in fiscal year 1995—to evaluate and

prioritize federal agencies’ proposals for CTAC funding consideration. The

S&T Committee performed a variety of other coordination activities at least

once during the 5-year period. These activities included presenting project

proposals for possible CTAC funding, evaluating proposals, providing

progress reports on CTAC-funded projects, and performing technical

reviews.

CTAC’s project selection process calls for the preparation of an annual R&D

program plan that is based on the agencies’ needs and the technical merit

and developmental risk of the proposals submitted to meet these needs.

According to CTAC’s Chief Scientist, the S&T Committee is to assist CTAC by

reviewing and updating the needs listing. However, we did not find any

documentation showing that the S&T Committee, as a body, was involved

in the review and updating of the needs listing in fiscal years 1992 through

1996.

Six of the 11 S&T Committee members we surveyed indicated that the

committee provided a valuable and important forum for exchanging

information on technology needs. A couple of members of the S&T

Committee also said that the committee was more actively involved in the

selection of CTAC-funded projects in the earlier CTAC years. One member

stated that more frequent meetings of the S&T Committee were needed to

foster additional cooperation and coordination among agencies.

In August 1996, the ONDCP Director stated that the S&T Committee and its

working groups needed to be revitalized. The Director proposed that the

S&T Committee (1) act as a steering body for R&D technology efforts,

(2) have senior-level membership to make commitments to R&D policy

decisions, and (3) increase the frequency of its meetings to as often as

“every three weeks.” The Director remarked that it was important for

ONDCP/CTAC to obtain feedback from the S&T Committee and its working

groups to be able to provide better funding assistance for valid interagency

Page 10 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

R&D needs. However, as of November 1997, no significant changes had

been made in the S&T Committee and its working groups. Nor, as

previously mentioned, had the February 1990 S&T Committee charter been

updated since CTAC’s creation to reflect changes in the committee’s

composition, roles, and expanded mission and to address the committee’s

proposed revitalization.

The Chief Scientist told us that the full S&T Committee did not meet

between August 1996 and August 1997. However, he said that, between

December 1996 and August 1997, he met 10 times with members of the

Technology Coordination Working Group, which is an S&T Committee

working group comprised of key agency representatives. According to the

Chief Scientist, the purpose of the meetings was, among other things, to

develop a 10-year counterdrug technology development plan with 5-year

budget projections in support of ONDCP’s 10-year National Drug Control

Strategy. The 10-year technology development plan is expected to provide

a road map for developing counterdrug technologies and upgrading

existing agency systems.9

 However, at the time of our review, the working

group had not completed the plan and budget. Also, it was not clear what

role the full S&T Committee, as the principal coordinating mechanism,

would play in helping to monitor, implement, and adjust the 10-year plan

and 5-year budget from year to year.

Counterdrug Technology

Needs Were Not Regularly

Reassessed and Updated

According to CTAC’s process for selecting and funding counterdrug

technology R&D projects, the full S&T Committee is to annually reassess,

update, and prioritize counterdrug technology and scientific needs to help

ensure that the projects selected and funded are linked to currently

identified priority needs among all relevant agencies. However, CTAC’s

Chief Scientist, as well as some of the S&T Committee members,

acknowledged that the latest counterdrug technology needs listing had not

been recently reassessed and was not always updated annually.

Furthermore, although CTAC had developed what it termed as priority

listings of counterdrug R&D technology needs, there were far more items

on these lists than could be funded, and no attempt had been made to rank

the listed needs by their relative importance to agency end users. As a

result, there is no way for CTAC to ensure that the projects it funds reflect

the most current and highest priority of the otherwise unfunded

9

For further discussion of the long-range technology plan, particularly with regard to narcotics

detection technologies, see Terrorism and Drug Trafficking: Responsibilities for Developing

Explosives and Narcotics Detection Technologies (GAO/NSIAD-97-95, Apr. 15, 1997) and Drug

Trafficking: Responsibilities for Developing Narcotics Detection Technologies (GAO/T-NSIAD-97-192,

June 25, 1997).

Page 11 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

counterdrug R&D technology needs of the law enforcement and demand

reduction communities. In this regard, 8 of the 10 S&T Committee members

we surveyed believed that their agencies’ counterdrug technology needs

were not adequately reflected in the CTAC-funded projects.

A listing of priority law enforcement-related counterdrug technology

needs was included in CTAC’s first Blueprint Update in August 1992.10 In

May 1993, DOD conducted a 2-day workshop with the S&T Committee

members and CTAC officials to revisit the S&T needs of the counterdrug

enforcement agencies. The workshop attendees produced an Investment

Strategy for DOD Counterdrug S&T Programs. The S&T needs from that effort

were added by CTAC to the counterdrug technology needs listing and

updated with agency inputs for fiscal year 1994. The needs listing and

updated data were included in CTAC’s 1995 Blueprint Update. Since then,

CTAC has not substantially changed the counterdrug technology needs

listing.

S&T Committee members told us that the latest counterdrug technology

needs listing did not reflect contemporary agency needs. For example, in a

July 1997 memorandum on the subject, an official of one federal law

enforcement agency represented on the S&T Committee stated that,

although some of the listed technological needs might still be current, the

list did not represent current law enforcement needs from his agency’s

perspective.

CTAC officials told us that they annually requested written updates to the

needs listing, but they did not receive responses from most agencies. CTAC

said it received responses from 9 of 21 agencies for fiscal year 1995, no

agency responses for 1996, and responses from 2 agencies for 1998. For

fiscal year 1997, according to a CTAC official, CTAC did not request an

update to the S&T Committee needs listing. However, the Chief Scientist

said CTAC did not follow up with the agencies to obtain their input or to

determine why they did not respond and whether they had any additions

or changes. Moreover, CTAC had not used the S&T Committee as a forum to

obtain all input and reassess the list to ensure that it reflected the member

agencies’ current counterdrug technology requirements. The Chief

Scientist told us that he planned to follow up on the agency needs update

at the next S&T Committee meeting, which was scheduled to be held in

February 1998.

10A Counterdrug Enforcement Research and Development Blueprint, The Counterdrug Technology

Assessment Center, Office of National Drug Control Policy, August 7, 1992.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

Regarding demand reduction technology needs, although legislation added

the demand reduction area to CTAC’s statutory responsibilities in 1993, CTAC

did not begin developing a related needs listing until June 1997. CTAC

delayed developing the list even though it had invested over $19 million in

such technology research as of September 1997. Moreover, according to

the Chief Scientist, NIDA, which represents the demand reduction

community, was not represented on the S&T Committee until December

1996 when its representative began attending meetings of the previously

mentioned Technology Coordination Working Group.11

State and Local Needs

Were Not Systematically

Identified and Considered

CTAC’s mission includes identifying, defining, and helping to meet the

counterdrug technology needs of state and local, as well as federal, law

enforcement agencies. But, although CTAC funded some state and local

projects, it made no attempt to systematically identify the needs of state

and local law enforcement agencies. According to CTAC’s Chief Scientist,

CTAC operated on the assumption that state and local counterdrug R&D

needs were the same as those of federal agencies; therefore, CTAC focused

its process on federal agencies. In addition, CTAC did not consider the

counterdrug technology needs of state and local law enforcement agencies

as part of its formal process for selecting and funding projects. As a result,

state and local projects were selected for funding independently of the

process; some of these projects might not have been selected had they

been considered in conjunction with federal needs.

The Chief Scientist told us that NIJ was CTAC’s link to the state and local

law enforcement community. According to an NIJ official, NIJ’s Office of

Science and Technology12 is to work closely with state and local agencies

to identify their overall law enforcement R&D technology needs, including

their counterdrug needs. However, according to NIJ’s Director of Science

and Technology, CTAC was not responsive to state and local counterdrug

technology project proposals and concerns raised by NIJ. Like NIDA, NIJ only

11According to CTAC’s Chief Scientist, NIDA was added as a member of the S&T Committee some time

before December 1996 to represent the demand reduction community. However, the NIDA

representative stated that NIDA was not aware that it was a member of the S&T Committee until about

the time it began attending committee working group meetings. In August 1997, the Chief Scientist

confirmed that NIDA had not been formally invited in writing to become a representative, nor was the

committee charter adjusted accordingly. He stated that he planned to send a formal letter to the

Department of Health and Human Services requesting that NIDA be represented at the S&T Committee

meetings.

12The Office of Science and Technology’s mission, among other things, is to provide state and local law

enforcement and corrections agencies with access to the best technologies and help them develop

capabilities that are essential to the improvement of efficiency and effectiveness in the criminal justice

system.

Page 13 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

became a representative on the S&T Committee in December 1996.13 The

Director of Science and Technology did not agree with CTAC’s assumption

that state and local needs were the same as those of federal agencies.

Moreover, the President of the International Association of Chiefs of

Police (IACP) stated in his July 1997 monthly address to association

members14 that state and local law enforcement practitioners needed to

get more involved in the creation, advancement, and development of

technology to ensure that their needs are communicated and met.

As of October 1997, CTAC was funding six state and local law enforcement

projects. Total CTAC funding for these projects was about $14.6 million, or

about 24.0 percent of the funds CTAC distributed for R&D projects from

fiscal years 1992 to 1997. However, these projects were not selected as

part of CTAC’s regular process for selecting and funding counterdrug

projects, which as previously discussed focused on federal agencies’

technology needs. Rather, these projects were selected outside of the

process through more ad hoc means. Thus, CTAC had no systematic way of

ensuring that projects selected and funded with available CTAC resources

had the highest priority among state and local, as well as federal, agencies.

For example, one state project receiving funding was initiated as a result

of a contact at a federal agency; another project receiving funding was

initiated as a result of contacts made at a law enforcement conference. In

addition, by selecting projects outside of the formal process, CTAC has no

assurance that they, to the extent possible, meet the needs of multiple

local, state, and federal agencies. For example, a state and local project

leader told us that two of the six CTAC-funded state and local projects were

so specialized that they could not be transferred easily to other

jurisdictions.

According to the Chief Scientist, CTAC communicated and interacted with

state and local law enforcement and demand reduction agencies primarily

through regional workshops held principally to share counterdrug

technologies in the test and pilot stages. According to the CTAC contractor

responsible for managing the workshops, these workshops apparently

increased state and local agencies’ awareness of CTAC and its mission. In

this regard, over 90 percent of the state and local agencies participating in

13According to CTAC’s Chief Scientist, NIJ was added as a member of the S&T Committee some time

before December 1996 to represent the state and local law enforcement communities. However, the

NIJ representative stated that NIJ was not aware that it was a member of the S&T Committee until

about the time that it began attending S&T working group meetings. In August 1997, the Chief Scientist

confirmed that NIJ had not formally been invited in writing to become a representative, and that the

S&T Committee charter had not been adjusted accordingly. The Chief Scientist stated that he planned

to send a formal letter to DOJ requesting that NIJ be represented.

14The IACP President’s monthly address was published in the July 1997 issue of the IACP’s magazine,

The Police Chief.

Page 14 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

CTAC’s law enforcement counterdrug technology workshops said that they

were not aware of CTAC before receiving notice of the workshops.

However, the workshops were generally not used to identify state and

local counterdrug technology needs.

A CTAC official told us that CTAC representatives attended annual meetings

of the IACP, National Sheriffs Association (NSA), and Police Executive

Research Forum and participated in NIJ’s technology committee to help

identify the needs of the state and local organizations. However, we found

no evidence of how information gathered at these meetings was

incorporated into CTAC’s needs identification process.

The Chief Scientist acknowledged that, although CTAC is tasked with

identifying state and local technology needs, it had not formally addressed

these needs as it had federal needs. He stated that, in anticipation of

receiving additional funds in fiscal year 1998 specifically to transfer

technologies to state and local law enforcement agencies,15 CTAC was

planning to form a committee comprised of representatives from various

pertinent organizations, including NIJ, NSA, and IACP, to assess and identify

the technologies to be transferred and the recipient locations. According

to the Chief Scientist, this committee would be used to assist CTAC in

identifying state and local counterdrug technology needs as well as the

technologies ready for transfer.

Comprehensive

Transitional Plans Were

Not Provided

In its report accompanying ONDCP’s fiscal year 1993 appropriations bill, the

House Appropriations Committee stated that before CTAC committed funds

to a R&D project, it should have a written commitment from the client

agency. This commitment was to specify that funds to purchase the

technology, once successfully developed, would be included in future

budget requests. Consequently, CTAC recommends that agencies provide

CTAC with acquisition or transitional plans for each of their projects

receiving CTAC funds. These plans are intended to increase the likelihood

that any technology that is successfully developed through R&D efforts will

eventually be used.

However, most R&D projects that CTAC approved for funding did not have

transitional plans, as recommended. A CTAC official told us that, in many

instances, CTAC used verbal, good faith agreements with agency

representatives, and that such agreements were not documented. From its

15The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1998, appropriated $13 million to CTAC

to initiate a pilot Counterdrug Technology Transfer Program for transferring technology directly to

state and local law enforcement agencies.

Page 15 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

establishment through April 1997, CTAC funded 72 projects. However,

although we found brief references to transition or acquisition in several

project proposals, only seven funded projects included transitional plans

for deploying the technology under development. CTAC’s Chief Scientist

told us that CTAC would like to receive more transitional plans from the

agencies. However, other than a reference in the 1992 Blueprint Update to

the lack of transitional plans, CTAC did not attempt to follow up on its

recommendation that agencies provide transitional plans. Nor did CTAC

raise this issue with the S&T Committee.

Extent of Duplication

Avoided Was Unknown

As reflected in its mission statement, one of CTAC’s objectives is to prevent

duplication of counterdrug R&D efforts. According to CTAC officials, they

look for unnecessary duplication in federal counterdrug R&D projects as

part of the process for identifying counterdrug R&D needs and

requirements and for selecting projects. A CTAC official also indicated that

CTAC checks for duplication as part of its role in ONDCP’s drug budget

certification process.16 CTAC also includes a listing of those projects

comprising the National Counterdrug R&D Program in its Blueprint Update.

In addition, according to CTAC officials, the S&T Committee meetings and

the CTAC-sponsored symposiums, among other things, enable stakeholders

to identify and avoid unnecessary, duplicative R&D efforts.

CTAC officials were confident that the mechanisms they had in place helped

avoid unnecessary duplication. However, they told us that they had not

identified any specific examples of potentially duplicative counterdrug R&D

projects that had been avoided due to CTAC’s efforts. The officials said they

did not systematically attempt to identify or obtain feedback from

participating agencies on incidents of duplication that had been avoided

due to CTAC. Without a measure of outcome, CTAC has no assurance of how

well it is carrying out and achieving this mission. As discussed later in this

report, outcome measures are required by GPRA as part of future

performance measurement tasks.

Some of the S&T Committee members we interviewed told us that their

agencies were generally able to avoid duplicative research projects

because they learned of each other’s plans as a result of CTAC’s efforts.

Moreover, in a computer listing of ongoing National Counterdrug R&D

Program projects distributed by CTAC for updating, one agency identified

two projects being done by other agencies that would meet its needs;

therefore, it dropped its plans to submit proposals for similar projects.

16See footnote 4.

Page 16 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

Also, 3 of the 10 S&T Committee representatives we surveyed responded

that they were aware of potentially duplicative efforts that CTAC had helped

them to avoid. For example, one agency representative noted that CTAC’s

efforts helped avoid duplication in the demand reduction and nonintrusive

inspection technology R&D areas. Another agency noted that the

CTAC-sponsored Facial Recognition Working Group of the S&T Committee

joined together all of the federal sponsors of and major customers for

facial recognition R&D, thereby avoiding duplicative R&D efforts.

CTAC Made Some

Positive Contributions

to Federal

Counterdrug

Technology R&D

Efforts but Had Not

Developed Meaningful

Performance

Measures

CTAC officials cited numerous contributions or accomplishments relating

both to 36 of the 72 R&D projects it funded and to the outreach efforts CTAC

has sponsored since it was established. However, agency contact persons

for individual CTAC-funded projects defined contributions differently, citing

only those 10 projects (of the 36 projects identified by CTAC) that had

actually resulted in usable technologies that were assisting agencies.

Agency officials agreed that the outreach efforts cited by CTAC helped to

enhance the exchange of information as well as avoid duplication.

However, our task of determining CTAC’s contributions to federal drug

control efforts was complicated because CTAC has no meaningful

performance measures to enable it to (1) assess the extent to which it is

achieving its mission and contributing to the development and deployment

of counterdrug technology and (2) identify and implement any needed

improvements to better achieve its mission.

CTAC Cited Projects and

Outreach Efforts as

Contributions

From 1992 until April 10, 1997, CTAC funded 72 projects. According to

CTAC’s Chief Scientist, a project was considered a contribution or

accomplishment if any one of the following occurred: (1) a technology was

developed and in use, (2) a phase of a project was completed, (3) a

prototype was developed, (4) results of testing were completed, or

(5) “substantial progress” in an area was achieved.17 In response to our

request, the Chief Scientist developed and provided us with a list of 36

counterdrug projects that they considered to be contributions. Some of

these projects are highlighted in CTAC’s annual R&D Blueprint Update,

which includes a listing of CTAC’s major accomplishments.

17According to a CTAC official, “substantial progress” means providing additional capability or

achieving satisfactory results. The official cited the CTAC-sponsored Cocaine Catalytic Antibodies

project and Drug Evaluation Network System project as examples. Researchers working on these

projects described them as follows: The Cocaine Catalytic Antibodies project was designed to prevent

(1) fatal overdoses of cocaine and (2) symptoms produced by nonfatal overdoses. Progress was made

in the testing of mice. The Drug Evaluation Network System project’s ultimate goal was to evaluate the

various alternative treatments to cocaine addiction. This project had established an information link

among 20 drug programs in 5 cities.

Page 17 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

CTAC also considered its outreach efforts to be contributions. The outreach

program was developed to bring together major stakeholders involved in

counterdrug efforts to exchange information on technology. According to

a CTAC official, CTAC’s outreach efforts, from its inception through

August 1997, included four international symposiums, one drug abuse

treatment technology workshop, and six 1-day technology workshops

designed to address user needs and technological opportunities.

Views on CTAC’s

Contributions Differ

Because agencies are the ultimate customers of counterdrug technology,

we contacted the CTAC-identified contact persons from the lead agencies

for each of the 36 projects that CTAC considered to be contributions to

obtain their views on the contributions. In summary, these agency officials

considered 10 of the 36 projects to be contributions because they had

different criteria than CTAC for considering a project a contribution. Their

criteria were that the technology resulting from those projects (1) had

been successfully used and (2) was assisting their agencies in fulfilling

their counterdrug missions. These 10 projects are described in appendix V.

The remaining 26 projects did not meet these criteria in that they generally

either were completed and not implemented or were still in progress.

Specifically, 12 of these projects were categorized as completed, but they

were not in use for a variety of reasons (e.g., the technology was not user

friendly, was too expensive to use, had operational problems, or needed

further development). For example, a project pertaining to narcotics

detection in mail packages fell into this category because, although a

prototype had been developed, the technology did not effectively detect

cocaine. We were told by the agency contact persons that 11 of the 26

other projects were currently in development. For example, a

transportable observation platform designed to provide long-range

observation capability was still undergoing tests and evaluation. Finally,

for the remaining three projects, the designated contact persons were not

aware of the status of the projects and thus could not comment on

whether they considered them to be contributions.

The majority of the S&T Committee members we surveyed commented that

CTAC’s unique contribution to the counterdrug effort is that it provides a

forum for interagency exchange of information. For example, respondents

noted that S&T Committee meetings held to present project proposals

facilitated professional communication among agency representatives.

They noted that these meetings gave R&D agency representatives an

opportunity to informally discuss current research and thereby identify

Page 18 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

technology gaps and to learn about technology acquisition on

non-CTAC-funded projects.

Another aspect of CTAC’s coordination function and outreach efforts is

CTAC-sponsored symposiums that bring together scientific and technical

experts from academia, private industry, and government agencies. One

S&T Committee member that we surveyed reported that his agency was

able to bring together at a CTAC symposium all of the federal sponsors and

most of the major customers of a new technology in the area of wide-area

surveillance. Also, 97 percent of the state and local law enforcement

participants who completed exit evaluations at the six 1-day workshops

held to date reported that they found the workshops helpful.

In addition, we surveyed S&T Committee members to obtain their overall

views on CTAC’s contributions, particularly regarding to its coordination of

federal counterdrug technology R&D efforts and its support of ONDCP’s

National Drug Control Strategy. When asked to determine, from their

agencies’ perspectives, how effective or ineffective CTAC has been in

coordinating and overseeing federal counterdrug technology R&D activities,

representatives from the 10 agencies we surveyed provided mixed

responses. Six of the 10 agency respondents stated that CTAC was

“sometimes effective, sometimes ineffective,” with 2 agency respondents

stating that CTAC was “generally effective,” and 2 responding “generally

ineffective.” One of the six respondents explained that CTAC was

“somewhat effective” when focusing its efforts on the R&D technology that

was needed and not being pursued by other agencies, but was “less

effective” in areas where agencies had different technology requirements

or needs. Another of the six respondents explained that CTAC had been

“generally effective” in its function of coordinating the federal counterdrug

technology R&D effort, but had been “generally ineffective” in developing

technology to meet needs.

When asked to determine, from their agencies’ perspectives, to what

extent CTAC’s involvement has had a positive effect on federal counterdrug

technology R&D efforts that support the goals of the National Drug Control

Strategy, the representatives’ responses ranged from CTAC’s having a

“moderate” effect to having “little or no” effect. For example, one

respondent noted that before fiscal year 1997, CTAC had focused more on

individual agencies’ technology needs than on technology that specifically

supported the overall National Strategy.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

Meaningful Performance

Measures Were Lacking

Determining CTAC’s progress in achieving its mission and its contributions

to the development and deployment of counterdrug technology was

complicated by CTAC’s lack of meaningful performance indicators or

measures. Although CTAC has a specific mission and responsibilities,

according to ONDCP and CTAC officials, it had not developed indicators to

measure its progress in achieving its mission, that is, the outcome of its

efforts.

Although scientific research is often considered to be intrinsically valuable

to society, there is pressure on all federal agencies, including S&T agencies,

to demonstrate that they are making effective use of taxpayers’ dollars.

This emphasis is evident in the passage of GPRA. In response to questions

about the value and effectiveness of federal programs, the Act seeks to

shift federal agencies’ focus away from traditional concerns, such as

staffing, activity levels, and tasks completed, toward a focus on program

outcomes—that is, the real difference a federal program makes in people’s

lives. Within the context of the Act, an “outcome measure” assesses the

results of a program activity compared to its intended purpose, while an

“output measure” tabulates, calculates, or records the level of activity or

effort and can be expressed in a quantitative or qualitative manner.

Since CTAC had no formal performance measures, we relied on general

criteria provided by the Chief Scientist, as well as our survey results and

subsequent discussions with S&T Committee members, to learn about

CTAC’s contributions. As previously discussed, we found a lack of

agreement between CTAC and S&T Committee members regarding the

criteria for CTAC project-related contributions.

When we examined the contributions identified by CTAC, we found that

they were more output-related than outcome-related. That is, CTAC focused

more on quantifying specific activities and products than on assessing

their effectiveness or impact on law enforcement and demand reduction

counterdrug efforts. For example, CTAC generally considered completed

projects (output) successful whether or not they resulted in the

deployment of useful technology by law enforcement or demand reduction

agencies. In addition, our review did not find that CTAC obtained periodic

feedback from law enforcement or demand reduction agencies on the

extent to which the technology resulting from CTAC-funded projects was

useful in helping to reduce drug supply or the demand for drugs

(outcome). Also, CTAC cited the number of symposiums and workshops it

sponsored (output) but did not specifically measure the outcome of those

Page 20 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

forums in terms of, for example, the unnecessary duplicative R&D avoided

and the technology developed and used (outcome).

In addition, CTAC is responsible for coordinating counterdrug R&D activities

to ensure that unnecessary duplication is avoided and that it supports

otherwise unfunded projects with the highest priority. However, we found

no indication that CTAC had developed a means for measuring the results

and effectiveness of its coordination (outcome), such as obtaining

feedback from the agencies with R&D missions whose activities it is

charged with coordinating. Nor, as we previously discussed, has CTAC

developed a means for measuring its effectiveness in identifying and

avoiding unnecessary duplicative R&D efforts.

Without measurable outcome indicators linked to its mission and

identifiable goals and objectives, CTAC and others cannot reliably

determine CTAC’s impact on reducing the nation’s drug problems through

the development and deployment of useful counterdrug technologies.

In September 1997, ONDCP and CTAC officials informed us that they were

taking steps as part of two separate, but related, initiatives to develop

long-term strategic goals. First, pursuant to statutory provisions requiring

the development and submission of the National Drug Control Strategy,

ONDCP has been developing a performance measurement system for the

National Strategy. As part of this effort, CTAC officials said that CTAC and

other federal R&D agencies have been developing performance targets and

corresponding measures or indicators for each of the technology-related

objectives for the National Strategy’s goals. However, these indicators are

intended to measure the administration’s overall progress in achieving the

national goals and objectives, which involves the input and efforts of

various agencies, and not to measure CTAC’s execution of its mission or its

specific achievements and contributions.

Secondly, pursuant to GPRA, ONDCP is developing a separate strategic plan

with objectives, targets, and performance indicators specific to the

operations of ONDCP and its components. ONDCP officials told us that in

response to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) comments on a

draft of the plan, they and CTAC officials were developing specific

objectives, targets, and performance indicators for CTAC that would be

included in the strategic plan. They stated that these indicators or

measures would be primarily output-oriented (e.g., number of projects

funded, reports generated, or symposiums sponsored). They also stated

Page 21 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

that they planned to work with CTAC in developing outcome measures for

CTAC later, although they did not provide a specific time frame.

Conclusions CTAC has in place a coordination process for identifying counterdrug

technology needs and selecting and funding R&D projects to meet those

needs. However, we found that CTAC’s design and execution of the process

did not allow CTAC or us to determine the extent to which its process was

identifying and funding the otherwise unfunded highest priority

technology needs. The primary reason for this situation appears to be a

lack of regular communication between CTAC and counterdrug R&D

agencies through the S&T Committee, which is their representative body.

S&T Committee meetings have been infrequent, and the committee has not

been used regularly and consistently in helping to make key decisions,

such as which projects CTAC should fund with its limited available funds.

According to S&T Committee members, when the committee has met more

frequently, it was effective in enabling members to exchange information,

avoid duplication, and foster better cooperation and coordination. By

dealing with individual S&T Committee members or working groups, CTAC

may not be taking full advantage of the interaction and deliberations

among the members on decisions and advisory matters as intended. As a

result, CTAC may not be funding the most critically needed counterdrug

technologies.

Moreover, the charter for the S&T Committee has not been revised to

reflect changes in the committee’s composition, responsibilities, and

relationship to CTAC since 1990, which was before CTAC was established.

Because of the changes in the S&T Committee’s membership since the

charter was originally written, it is important that the document be

updated as needed.

In addition, federal R&D agencies’ counterdrug needs have not been

regularly reassessed and updated; state and local technology needs,

although funded in some cases, have not been systematically considered,

along with federal needs, as part of CTAC’s needs identification and project

selection process; and agencies have often failed to include the

transitional plans needed to help ensure that technologies successfully

developed with CTAC funds are used. Also, while CTAC has established

mechanisms to avoid duplicative R&D efforts, it has not gathered the

necessary feedback from its constituent agencies to determine whether

these mechanisms are working. Therefore, CTAC does not know to what

Page 22 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

extent it is fulfilling its mission objectives of helping the counterdrug R&D

community to identify and avoid duplication.

Recent efforts by CTAC and the S&T Committee’s Technology Coordination

Working Group to develop a 10-year counterdrug technology development

plan with 5-year budget projections in support of ONDCP’s 10-year National

Drug Control Strategy are positive steps toward defining and addressing

our nation’s counterdrug technology needs. These efforts also are good

examples of how CTAC could more effectively communicate and coordinate

with the counterdrug technology R&D community in accomplishing its

mission. However, CTAC may not be able to effectively implement and

adjust as necessary the National Drug Control Strategy and the technology

development plan from year to year, because of the shortcomings we

found in its coordination process for annually identifying, selecting, and

funding R&D projects to meet identified technology needs and gaps.

CTAC has made some identifiable contributions to needed counterdrug

technology development. However, the extent to which CTAC has achieved

its mission of helping to develop and deploy needed counterdrug

technology is unclear because it has not yet developed meaningful,

measurable performance goals and outcome indicators. This situation is

reflected in the varying perspectives on CTAC’s contributions to

counterdrug technology efforts held by CTAC and the other agencies

involved in those efforts. Although both CTAC and the S&T Committee

members we surveyed agreed that CTAC’s outreach efforts had improved

information-sharing among members of the counterdrug R&D community,

many of the R&D projects that CTAC cited as contributions were not

considered as such by the agencies that will ultimately use the

technologies. One reason for this difference of opinion appears to be that,

while CTAC counted the attainment of certain milestones in the

development process as contributions, the lead agencies were interested

primarily in implementing efficient and effective counterdrug technologies

in the field.

Until CTAC and the agencies it assists—its customers and

stakeholders—concur in how CTAC’s contributions to the development and

deployment of counterdrug technology should be measured, it will be

difficult to determine the extent to which CTAC is achieving its mission.

ONDCP/CTAC has an opportunity to address this situation by coordinating

closely with its key customers and stakeholders as it develops specific

goals and performance measures under GPRA. However, CTAC is currently

developing output measures, rather than the outcome measures that are

Page 23 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

necessary to determine with any precision the extent to which CTAC is

achieving the purpose for which it was created.

Recommendations For CTAC to more effectively coordinate with federal, state, and local

counterdrug R&D agencies in identifying and prioritizing technology needs

and selecting projects for CTAC funding, we recommend that the Director,

ONDCP, direct the Chief Scientist to work with the S&T Committee to help

ensure that:

• The S&T Committee meets regularly to exchange information on federal,

state, and local drug supply and demand reduction technology needs;

obtain, assess, and prioritize R&D needs; and recommend to the Chief

Scientist selection and funding of the otherwise unfunded highest priority

projects. In this regard, the S&T Committee’s charter should be updated to

reflect the committee’s current composition, responsibilities, and

relationship to CTAC.

• Projects selected for CTAC funding have transitional/acquisition plans.

Furthermore, to help ensure that CTAC can adequately measure whether it

is achieving its mission, we recommend that the Director, ONDCP, direct the

Chief Scientist to develop, within a set period, performance objectives and

outcome measures that make it possible to assess the extent to which CTAC

is achieving its various mission objectives and contributing to the

development and deployment of counterdrug technologies.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

ONDCP provided comments on a draft of this report, and its comments are

reprinted in appendix VI. Overall, ONDCP generally agreed with our findings

and conclusions and is taking action on all of our recommendations.

Regarding our first recommendation, ONDCP stated in its written comments

that it had directed CTAC to revise the S&T Committee’s 1990 charter. Other

than changes in the composition of the committee, ONDCP did not specify

how the charter would be revised. However, if implemented as set forth in

our recommendation, revising the charter should help ensure that all

parties understand their roles, responsibilities, and expectations.

However, ONDCP indicated in its written comments that the membership of

the S&T Committee would include officials of the President’s Cabinet with

drug control responsibilities. An ONDCP official subsequently informed us

that ONDCP expects that “principal deputy secretaries” of the various

Page 24 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

agencies will sit as members of the committee. This would represent a

change from the current membership, which includes officials at the

working levels, with knowledge of their agencies’ counterdrug technology

R&D activities. However, according to the Chief Scientist, the working-level

officials currently on the S&T Committee would continue to serve on the

committee’s Technology Coordination Working Group, which he chairs

and which would serve as CTAC’s principal mechanism for coordinating

counterdrug R&D efforts, identifying and pioritizing technology needs, and

selecting otherwise unfunded R&D projects for CTAC funding. The Working

Group would then advise the S&T Committee, which would serve as the

steering and policymaking body for counterdrug technology R&D efforts.

Regarding our second recommendation, ONDCP stated that it had directed

CTAC to use the annual budget recertification process to ensure that the

lead agencies for CTAC-sponsored projects involving the delivery of

prototype systems have written acquisition or transitional plans. This

action, if properly implemented, should fulfill the intent of our

recommendation.

Regarding our third recommendation, ONDCP expressed the intention to

verify CTAC’s performance by measuring the contributions of

CTAC-sponsored counterdrug technologies to the efficiency and

effectiveness of user agencies within the framework of ONDCP’s national

drug control goals and objectives. To track and measure CTAC’s

performance, ONDCP proposes to use the strategic plan, annual plan, and

annual performance report required under GPRA. Depending on the types of

indicators that ONDCP and CTAC develop to measure CTAC’s performance and

contributions, these proposed actions could go a long way toward helping

to clarify CTAC’s impact on the development and deployment of

counterdrug technology.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of the report to the

Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics

Control, the appropriate congressional committees, the Director of ONDCP,

CTAC’s Chief Scientist, the heads of agencies represented on the S&T

Committee, the Director of OMB, and other interested parties. Also, copies

will be made available to others upon request.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
B-276367 

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. If you have

any questions about this report, please call me on (202) 512-8777.

Sincerely yours,

Norman J. Rabkin

Director, Administration

 of Justice Issues

Page 26 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Page 27 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

32

Appendix II 

Federal Counterdrug

Research and

Development

Spending, FY 1992-97

34

Appendix III 

CTAC Funding by

Various Spending and

Technology Thrust

Categories

35

Appendix IV 

Overview Description

of CTAC’s Process for

Identifying and

Prioritizing

Counterdrug

Technology Needs and

Selecting CTACFunded Research and

Development Projects

36

Page 28 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Contents

Appendix V 

Technology-Related

Contributions/

Accomplishments

CTAC Identified and

Lead R&D Agencies

Confirmed as

Completed and

Successfully Fielded,

FY 1992-97

41

Appendix VI 

Comments From the

Office of National

Drug Control Policy

43

Appendix VII 

Major Contributors to

This Report

46

Tables Table III.1: CTAC Funding by Various Spending Categories, Fiscal

Years 1992-97

35

 Table III.2: Distribution of CTAC R&D Funding by Technology

Thrust Area, Fiscal Years 1992-97

35

Figure Figure IV.1: Flowchart of CTAC’s Counterdrug Technology Needs

Identification and Project Selection Process

39

Page 29 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Contents

Abbreviations

BAA Broad Agency Announcement

CTAC Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center

DOD Department of Defense

DOJ Department of Justice

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FinCen Financial Crime Enforcement Network

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

NIDA National Institute on Drug Abuse

NIJ National Institute of Justice

NSA National Sheriffs Association

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy

R&D research and development

S&T science and technology

Page 30 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Page 31 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

In response to the request of the Chairman of the Senate Caucus on

International Narcotics Control that we review the operations and

contributions of the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC),

our objectives were to determine (1) how CTAC coordinates its counterdrug

research and development (R&D) efforts with other federal agencies to

address counterdrug R&D needs that are not being met by other agencies

and to avoid unnecessary duplication and (2) what contributions CTAC has

made to counterdrug R&D efforts since its creation.

Our work covered CTAC operations and contributions during fiscal years

1992 through 1997. We conducted our review primarily in the Washington,

D.C., area at the headquarters of the Office of National Drug Control

Policy (ONDCP)/CTAC. We interviewed officials from CTAC, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB), and the following key federal law

enforcement and other agencies involved in the National Counterdrug R&D

program: the U.S. Customs Service, Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA), Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI), National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS), and National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA).

We contacted CTAC’s technical and contracting agencies—the U.S. Army

Electronic Proving Ground in Fort Huachuca, AZ, and the Tennessee

Valley Authority in Knoxville, TN, to discuss and obtain documentation of

CTAC’s project selection process. Furthermore, on the basis of usage of

CTAC-sponsored technology, we judgmentally selected and contacted two

Customs Service field offices.

To address both of our objectives, we used a structured questionnaire to

survey representatives of 10 of the 21 federal agencies on the S&T

Committee. We judgmentally selected the 10 agencies on the basis of

preliminary discussions with ONDCP, CTAC, and several federal agencies

involved in counterdrug technology R&D activities. The 10 agencies varied

in size and level of funding, but accounted for the majority of the overall

budget for the National Counterdrug R&D Program from fiscal years 1992

through 1997. In addition to size and level of funding, we considered such

factors as the agencies’ functions (drug supply and demand reduction) and

their extent and length of involvement in R&D activities. We surveyed the

agencies during March and April, 1997.

Using this questionnaire, we asked officials their views about (1) how well

CTAC communicated various kinds of information to agency users of

counterdrug technology, (2) how effective CTAC was in overseeing and

coordinating federal counterdrug technology R&D activities and in avoiding

Page 32 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

duplication and filling technology gaps, and (3) to what extent CTAC’s

involvement has had a positive effect on federal counterdrug technology

R&D efforts that support the goals of the National Drug Control Strategy.

We also asked officials their views about (1) CTAC’s general and specific

contributions to federal counterdrug technology R&D efforts and (2) the

extent to which specific technologies developed and tested with CTAC

funds had been fielded and used.

Also, using a similarly structured questionnaire, we judgmentally selected

and interviewed nine state and local administrators by telephone or in

person at CTAC’s regional workshop in Atlanta, GA. We also analyzed

evaluation forms that had been completed by attendees at all six regional

workshops sponsored by CTAC.

To address the first objective, we also analyzed (1) CTAC’s and key law

enforcement’s and other agencies’ involvement in counterdrug technology

R&D efforts for fiscal years 1992 through 1997, ONDCP’s National Drug

Control Strategies, CTAC’s corresponding annual Counterdrug Research

and Development Blueprint Update reports, minutes of Science and

Technology (S&T) Committee and working group meetings, and pertinent

memorandums and other documents; (2) CTAC’s policies, procedures, and

processes for identifying R&D needs, and prioritizing, selecting, and funding

R&D projects; (3) CTAC communication of guidance and project-related

information to counterdrug technology R&D and user agencies; (4) for

fiscal years 1992 through 1997, funding appropriated to and allocated by

CTAC for the National Counterdrug R&D Program; and (5) CTAC’s legislative

history. We did not verify the validity of data provided by CTAC.

To address the second objective, we also reviewed documentation to

identify and analyze contributions or accomplishments cited by CTAC. CTAC

provided us with a list of contributions and R&D agencies’ contact officials

in the appropriate federal agencies. We discussed with these officials their

views on the contributions and the status of the related projects.

Page 33 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix II 

Federal Counterdrug Research and

Development Spending, FY 1992-97

(Dollars in millions)

Federal agency 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

1997a

request Total

Agriculture Research Service $6.5 $6.5 $6.5 $6.5 $4.2 $4.7 $34.9

U.S. Forest Service 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.8

Department of Defense 91.6 34.1 44.7 54.0 51.4 29.4 305.2

Bureau of Indian Affairs 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.5 2.9

Drug Enforcement Administration 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.3 2.7 3.2 10.6

Federal Bureau of Investigation 3.8 6.8 2.8 4.5 12.9 12.9 43.7

Federal Aviation Administration 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 5.8

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 1.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2

Immigration and Naturalization Service 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.5 3.3

Office of Justice Programs 16.7 18.1 20.6 15.0 16.4 17.6 104.4

Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcementb 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.3

U.S. Coast Guard 5.2 2.4 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.5 11.0

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.2 3.3

U.S. Customs Service 3.7 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4

ADAMHA - Prevention 157.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 157.5

NIDA - Prevention 0.0 164.3 174.8 179.6 188.5 191.7 898.9

ADAMHA- Treatment 191.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 191.8

NIDA - Treatment 0.0 239.9 250.4 257.3 269.9 274.6 1,292.1

Office of Veterans Affairs - Treatment 2.7 2.1 3.2 3.9 3.9 3.9 19.7

Counterdrug Technology Assessment

Center 21.0 15.0 8.5c 8.0 16.0 18.0 86.5c

Office of National Drug Control Policy 0.5 0.9 0.9 6.4 0.0 1.0 9.7

Total $504.6 $498.1 $520.3 $542.2 $569.6 $559.2 $3,194.0

aThe 1997 figures reflect those requested but not spent.

bFormerly the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces.

cTotal includes $1 million in funding received from the ONDCP Director’s discretionary fund

account in fiscal year 1994. Therefore, the total of CTAC’s spending is $1 million more than

CTAC’s total appropriation.

Source: 1996 National Drug Control Strategy.

Page 34 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix III 

CTAC Funding by Various Spending and

Technology Thrust Categories

Table III.1: CTAC Funding by Various Spending Categories, Fiscal Years 1992-97

Dollars in thousands

Category 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total

Demand reductiona $6,646 $400 $1,275 $1,060 $3,950 $5,780 $19,111

Supply reduction 10,819 7,014 6,702 4,959 5,990 6,365 41,849

Operational test and evaluation 3,554 4,102 69 1,356 3,910 4,705 17,696

Technical support 119 2,875 455 425 550 150 4,574

Reserve fund (137) 608 0 200 0 0 671

Earmarksb 0 0 0 0 1,600 1,000 2,600

Total $21,001 $14,999 $8,501c $8,000 $16,000 $18,000 $86,501c

aCTAC funded demand reduction projects prior to being mandated by Congress to include this

area in its mission. This responsibility was added by the Violent Crime Control and Law

Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322).

bThe El Paso Intelligence Center received $600,000 and the Model Drug Law Conference

received $1 million from CTAC’s fiscal year 1996 appropriation. In fiscal year 1997, the Law

Conference received another $1 million.

cTotal includes $1 million in funding received from the ONDCP Director’s discretionary fund

account in fiscal year 1994. Therefore, the total of CTAC’s spending is $1 million more than

CTAC’s total appropriation.

Source: CTAC.

Table III.2: Distribution of CTAC R&D Funding by Technology Thrust Area, Fiscal Years 1992-97

Dollars in thousands

CTAC thrust area 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total

Demand reduction $6,646 $400 $1,275 $1,060 $3,950 $5,780 $19,111

Nonintrusive inspection 3,006 1,385 2,517 2,074 1,250 2,255 12,487

Tactical technology 4,563 4,854 4,185 2,685 4,740 3,860 24,887

Wide-area surveillance 3,250 775 0 200 0 250 4,475

Total $17,465 $7,414 $7,977 $6,019 $9,940 $12,145 $60,960

Source: CTAC.

Page 35 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix IV 

Overview Description of CTAC’s Process for

Identifying and Prioritizing Counterdrug

Technology Needs and Selecting CTACFunded Research and Development Projects

The following is a detailed description provided by the Chief Scientist and

other CTAC officials of the process to be followed by CTAC and the S&T

Committee for identifying and prioritizing counterdrug technology needs

and selecting R&D projects for funding with available CTAC funds.

The annual selection process for CTAC-funded R&D projects is to begin with

the S&T Committee update of the scientific and technological needs. CTAC

generally requests, in writing, the scientific and technological need

updates from the counterdrug law enforcement members of the S&T

Committee between April and May of each year. To address the demand

reduction needs, CTAC is to consult with the National Institute of Drug

Abuse. These scientific and technological needs are grouped into four

areas called thrusts: (1) tactical technology, (2) nonintrusive inspection,

(3) wide-area surveillance, and (4) demand reduction. The scientific and

technological needs of the drug enforcement agencies are to be placed

into a priority order according to short-, medium-, and long-term

requirements in the thrust areas of tactical technology, nonintrusive

inspection, and wide-area surveillance. The demand reduction thrust area

is not included in the priority listing. The priority listing of short-,

medium-, and long-term needs by thrust area is generally included in an

appendix to CTAC’s Blueprint Update.

To address the scientific and technological needs of the drug enforcement

agencies, CTAC solicits either white papers or proposals18 through the

Broad Agency Announcements (BAA).19 These submissions are from

industry, federal government laboratories, federal agencies, and academia.

Furthermore, the members of the S&T Committee can submit proposals at

any time. According to the Chief Scientist, CTAC works with the members

of the S&T Committee to develop a potential project. If the evaluation of

the potential project is accepted by the expert panel that is comprised of

government officials who are experts in the area of consideration, CTAC

would consider the project for funding. CTAC’s technical and contracting

agent at the U.S. Army Electronic Proving Ground handles the evaluations

of white papers and proposals as a result of the BAA. The Tennessee Valley

Authority, CTAC’s other technical and contracting agent, is primarily

18White papers are short papers that propose R&D solutions to the various counterdrug needs. When

white papers are accepted, a proposal is requested. Proposals are detailed papers, generally about 100

pages long.

19In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations, the BAA may be used by agencies to fulfill

their requirements for scientific study and experimentation directed toward advancing the state of the

art or increasing knowledge or understanding, rather than focusing on a specific system or hardware

solution. Therefore, white papers and proposals received as a result of the BAA process must be

evaluated on their own technical merit through a peer or scientific review process.

Page 36 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix IV 

Overview Description of CTAC’s Process for

Identifying and Prioritizing Counterdrug

Technology Needs and Selecting CTACFunded Research and Development Projects

responsible for interagency agreements with academic institutions. The

appropriate experts20 evaluate white papers and proposals for technical

merit and execution risk as they are received. The evaluation criteria are

as follows:

• potential contribution of the effort to the various counterdrug law

enforcement agencies’ specific missions, as well as relevance and

contribution to the national technology base;

• overall scientific and technical merit of the proposal including (1) an

understanding of the technical problem and its application to counterdrug

enforcement and demand reduction, (2) the soundness of the approach,

and (3) the probability of success;

• the performer’s capabilities, related experience, facilities, techniques, or

unique combinations of these that are integral factors for achieving the

proposed objectives;

• the qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed principal

investigator, team member, or key personnel who are critical in achieving

the proposed objectives; and

• realism of proposed cost and availability of funds.

On the basis of the evaluation of proposals, CTAC’s technical and

contracting agents compile a list of acceptable proposals for CTAC’s

consideration. This listing of acceptable R&D proposals is forwarded to

CTAC.

Before the Chief Scientist makes his final selection of R&D projects for

funding, he assesses those proposals on the basis of the following criteria:

(1) alignment to the National Drug Control Strategy’s goals and objectives,

(2) multiagency use, (3) innovative and high payoff, (4) developmental

risk, (5) duplication, (6) acquisition and transitional planning, and (7) time

horizon (i.e., short-, medium-, or long-term). CTAC identifies a sponsoring

agency for each project to provide oversight. CTAC then is to discuss each

project with the lead agency to confirm that the project would meet the

agency’s counterdrug mission and to negotiate funding for the project. In

addition, CTAC is to assess each agency’s R&D counterdrug program plan to

identify duplication and gaps in the counterdrug area. The Chief Scientist

assesses the continuation of projects on the basis of the following criteria:

(1) progress that has been made, (2) input from the sponsoring agency,

and (3) funds availability. CTAC then assesses new and existing projects to

20CTAC’s experts consist of members of the S&T Committee, law enforcement experts, demand

reduction experts, scientists, and engineers. According to a CTAC official, the evaluation panels

consist of three to four people, on average.

Page 37 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix IV 

Overview Description of CTAC’s Process for

Identifying and Prioritizing Counterdrug

Technology Needs and Selecting CTACFunded Research and Development Projects

decide the best balance for spending within budget constraints, according

to a CTAC official.

On the basis of CTAC’s assessment and consultation from experts, the Chief

Scientist annually makes selections between June and September of the

R&D projects to address the needs of counterdrug efforts. CTAC prepares a

R&D counterdrug program plan that lists the selected R&D projects. The

members of the S&T Committee review the R&D counterdrug program plan.

The ONDCP Director approves the R&D counterdrug program plan. CTAC

notifies the House and Senate Treasury and Postal Appropriation

Committee staffs about the R&D counterdrug program plan between

November and December. Figure IV.1 provides a flowchart of CTAC’s

technology needs identification and R&D projects selection process as

designed.

Page 38 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix IV 

Overview Description of CTAC’s Process for

Identifying and Prioritizing Counterdrug

Technology Needs and Selecting CTACFunded Research and Development Projects

Figure IV.1: Flowchart of CTAC’s

Counterdrug Technology Needs

Identification and Project Selection

Process

CTAC is to direct the S&T Committee to annually 

identify counterdrug needs.

Needs

identification

Project

selection

CTAC's technical and contracting agents are to 

receive proposals addressing counterdrug needs 

from federal agencies, government labs, and 

industry academic institutions.

Knowledgeable experts from various government 

agencies and government-related organizations are 

to evaluate proposals on their own technical merit 

and execution risk.

CTAC's technical and contracting agents are to 

compile a list of acceptable proposals.

CTAC is to review the list of proposals on the basis 

of the National Drug Control Strategy's goals and 

other criteria.

CTAC's Chief Scientist is to select proposals with 

consultation from knowledgeable experts.

S&T Committee is to annually review draft 

counterdrug R&D program plan.

CTAC is to forward proposed R&D program to the 

ONDCP Director for approval.

CTAC is to notify the House and Senate 

Appropriations Committee staffs of the approved 

counterdrug R&D program plan.

a

Page 39 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix IV 

Overview Description of CTAC’s Process for

Identifying and Prioritizing Counterdrug

Technology Needs and Selecting CTACFunded Research and Development Projects

aThe U.S. Army Electronic Proving Ground at Fort Huachuca, AZ, and the Tennessee Valley

Authority, TN, are CTAC’s technical and contracting agents.

Page 40 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix V 

Technology-Related Contributions/

Accomplishments CTAC Identified and Lead

R&D Agencies Confirmed as Completed and

Successfully Fielded, FY 1992-97

Title Lead agency CTAC funding Description

Modular Sensor

Design

INS $750,000 This project produced a

government-owned set of drawings and

specifications to be used for the

manufacturing of a new sensor design

that includes the capability to employ the

system tactically or strategically, with

sufficient modularity to allow for

upgrades in technology and introduction

of new sensor types into the system. The

initial units for this project have been

delivered, and INS considered it

successful.

Project

Breakthrough

DEA $1,450,000 This project provides support to DEA and

the Agricultural Research Service to

accurately estimate cocaine production.

Funding is provided for continued

development of a scientific and

statistically valid technique for estimating

cocaine production. DEA reported that

this system has been operational for

3-1/2 years and has been rated as

successful.

Immunoassay

Field Test Kits

FBI $150,000 This project developed improvements to

existing field test kits that detect trace

amounts of narcotics residue on hands

and surfaces. The proof of concept for

these kits was originally funded by the

FBI. During the course of this project,

field test kits were supplied to federal,

state, and local law enforcement

agencies for field use. Since this effort, a

new commercial product has been

developed.

Concealed

Audio

Transceiver

Surveillance

System

FBI $748,403 This communications system satisfied an

immediate need to provide crucial,

dependable communications for law

enforcement officers who perform covert

surveillance during counterdrug

enforcement operations. The project was

completed in March 1997, and the

systems are now in use by the FBI.

Body-Worn

Transmitter

FBI $627,992 This project produced a Low Probability

of Intercept and Low Probability of

Detection system, which is worn by

agents to support both surveillance and

communications requirements.

Production units are now being used by

the FBI.

(continued)

Page 41 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix V 

Technology-Related Contributions/

Accomplishments CTAC Identified and Lead

R&D Agencies Confirmed as Completed and

Successfully Fielded, FY 1992-97

Title Lead agency CTAC funding Description

Text-Based

Retrieval

FinCen $750,000 This project explored a number of

commercially available products that

permit the optical scanning of data into a

database, thereby providing the

capability to retrieve and index data for

timely access with minimal human

interface. FinCen rated the technology

resulting from this project as helpful and

timesaving.

Miniature

Gamma Ray

Backscatter

Customs $250,000 This project developed a miniaturized

electronics package with an improved

source/detector ratio to reduce the

source size and permit a lighter, smaller

contraband detector to be produced.

This new detector can be mounted on an

inspector’s belt and be readily available

for examining hard-to-inspect areas and

items for illicit drugs. These detectors are

being bought and used by Customs.

Gamma Ray

Detector

Customs $382,143 This project developed a nonintrusive

portable or mobile prototype field

inspection system to detect contraband

in empty containers that transport liquids.

A prototype system was developed and

was well-accepted by Customs’ field

offices.

Community Test

and Evaluation

Center

Customs $700,000 A community test-and-evaluation center

was established in fiscal year 1991. The

center continues to be used by Customs

for field-testing technology.

Narcotics

Detection

Technology

Assessment

Customs $500,000 This project consisted of a controlled

series of field evaluations of existing,

commercially available narcotics

detection equipment. Four systems were

tested during the first testing cycle, which

was completed in November 1994.

According to Customs, this project is

ongoing and has been very useful.

Source: CTAC and R&D agencies.

Page 42 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Office of National Drug

Control Policy

Page 43 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Office of National Drug

Control Policy

Page 44 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Office of National Drug

Control Policy

Page 45 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
Appendix VII 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Daniel C. Harris, Assistant Director

M. Grace Haskins, Evaluator-in-Charge

David P. Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst

Nancy Briggs, Social Science Analyst

Lou V.B. Smith, Evaluator

R. Lance Lenoir, Intern

Michael H. Little, Communications Analyst

Michelle D. Wiggins, Issue Area Assistant

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Geoffrey R. Hamilton, Senior Attorney

(186764) Page 46 GAO/GGD-98-28 Actions Should Clarify CTAC’s Impact
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 37050

Washington, DC 20013

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 (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

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