OFFICE OF NATIONAL 

DRUG CONTROL 

POLICY

Lack of Progress on 

Achieving National 

Strategy Goals

Statement of David C. Maurer, Director,

Homeland Security and Justice

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on 

Government Operations, Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. ET

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

GAO-16-257T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-257T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Government 

Operations, Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

December 2015

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL 

POLICY

Lack of Progress on Achieving National Strategy 

Goals

Why GAO Did This Study

ONDCP is responsible for coordinating

the implementation of drug control 

policy across the federal government 

and funds HIDTAs that aim to support 

the disruption and dismantlement of 

drug-trafficking and money-laundering 

organizations.

This statement addresses the extent to 

which ONDCP (1) has achieved

Strategy goals and has mechanisms to 

monitor progress, (2) has assessed

overlap and potential duplication 

across federal drug abuse prevention 

and treatment programs and identified 

coordination opportunities, (3) holds 

HIDTAs accountable for coordination 

with other field-based information 

sharing entities and has assessed 

opportunities for coordination, and (4) 

has connected existing systems to 

coordinate law enforcement activities.

This statement is based on a March 

2013 report (GAO-13-333), an April 

2013 report (GAO-13-471), and 

selected updates as of November 

2015. For the updates, GAO analyzed 

ONDCP documents on progress 

toward Strategy goals and drug abuse 

prevention and treatment programs

and contacted ONDCP and HIDTA 

officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO has made prior recommendations 

to ONDCP to assess overlap in drug 

prevention and treatment programs; 

develop measures and assess 

opportunities to enhance coordination 

of field-based entities; and connect 

existing coordination systems. ONDCP 

concurred and reported actions taken 

or underway to address them. GAO is 

not making new recommendations in 

this testimony.

What GAO Found

GAO reported in March 2013 that the Office of National Drug Control Policy 

(ONDCP) and other agencies had not made progress toward achieving most of 

the goals in the 2010 National Drug Control Strategy (the Strategy) and ONDCP 

had established a new mechanism to monitor and assess progress. In the 

Strategy, ONDCP established seven goals related to reducing illicit drug use and 

its consequences to be achieved by 2015. As of March 2013, GAO’s analysis 

showed that of the five goals for which primary data on results were available, 

one showed progress and four showed no progress. GAO also reported that 

ONDCP established a new monitoring system intended to provide information on 

progress toward Strategy goals and help identify performance gaps and options 

for improvement. At that time, the system was still in its early stages, and GAO

reported that it could help increase accountability for improving progress. In 

November 2015, ONDCP issued its annual Strategy and performance report, 

which assess progress toward all seven goals. The Strategy shows progress in 

achieving one goal, no progress on three goals, and mixed progress on the other 

three goals. Overall, none of the goals in the Strategy have been fully achieved.

ONDCP has assessed the extent of overlap and potential for duplication across 

federal drug abuse prevention and treatment programs and identified 

opportunities for increased coordination, as GAO recommended in March 2013. 

According to ONDCP’s July 2014 assessment, these programs generally serve 

distinct beneficiaries in distinct settings, which helps prevent overlap and 

duplication. However, ONDCP found that programs that provide drug abuse 

prevention and treatment services to address homelessness would benefit from 

greater coordination. ONDCP noted that it was taking steps to address this issue.

GAO reported in April 2013 that ONDCP-funded High Intensity Drug Trafficking 

Area (HIDTA) Investigative Support Centers and four other types of field-based 

information sharing entities had overlapping analytical and investigative support 

activities. However, ONDCP and the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) 

and Justice (DOJ)—the federal agencies that oversee or provide support to the 

five types of field-based entities—were not holding entities accountable for 

coordination or assessing opportunities to implement practices that could 

enhance coordination, reduce unnecessary overlap, and leverage resources. 

ONDCP agreed with GAO’s recommendations to work with DHS and DOJ to 

develop measures and assess opportunities to enhance coordination of fieldbased entities. Since July 2015, the agencies have worked through an 

interagency committee to make plans for collecting data on field-based 

collaboration, but have not yet fully addressed GAO’s recommendations. 

ONDCP has connected each of the systems that HIDTAs use to coordinate law 

enforcement activities, as GAO recommended in April 2013. Specifically, GAO 

reported in 2013 that HIDTAs and Regional Information Sharing System centers 

operated three systems that duplicate the same function—identifying when 

different law enforcement entities may be conducting a similar enforcement 

action, such as a raid at the same location—resulting in some inefficiencies. In 

May 2015, ONDCP completed connecting all three systems, which helps reduce 

risks to officer safety and potentially lessens the burden on law enforcement 

agencies that were using multiple systems.

View GAO-16-257T. For more information, 

contact Dave Maurer at (202) 512-8777 or 

maurerd@gao.gov.
Letter

Page 1 GAO-16-257T 

Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

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

Control Policy’s (ONDCP) strategic planning efforts related to drug control 

and coordination of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) 

Investigative Support Centers with other field-based information sharing 

entities. ONDCP is responsible for, among other things, overseeing and 

coordinating implementation of national drug control policy across the 

federal government to address illicit drug use.1 In this role, ONDCP is 

required annually to develop a National Drug Control Strategy (the 

Strategy), which is to set forth a comprehensive plan to reduce illicit drug 

use through programs intended to prevent or treat drug use or reduce the 

availability of illegal drugs, as well as to develop a National Drug Control 

Program Budget proposal for implementing the Strategy.2 Additionally, 

ONDCP administers grants to support HIDTAs, which aim to support the 

disruption and dismantlement of drug-trafficking and money-laundering 

organizations through the prevention or mitigation of associated criminal 

activity.3 While HIDTAs have a distinct mission, the analytic and 

investigative services they provide can overlap with those of other fieldbased information sharing entities operated or supported by the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice 

(DOJ), making coordination paramount in leveraging resources and 

avoiding unnecessary duplication.4 HIDTAs also operate event 

deconfliction systems that identify when different law enforcement entities 

 1

Illicit drug use includes the use of marijuana (including hashish), cocaine (including 

crack), heroin, hallucinogens, and inhalants, as well as the nonmedical use of prescription 

drugs, such as pain relievers and sedatives.

2

21 U.S.C. §§ 1703(b)-(c), 1705(a).

3

HIDTA program resources may also be used to assist law enforcement agencies in 

investigations and activities related to terrorism and the prevention of terrorism.

4

Other field-based information sharing entities include Joint Terrorism Task Forces, which 

are funded and supported by DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); Field 

Intelligence Groups, which are part of the FBI; Regional Information Sharing System 

(RISS) centers, which are funded through grants administered by DOJ; and state and 

major urban area fusion centers, which are state and locally-owned but funded and 

supported, in part, by DHS.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-257T 

may be conducting similar enforcement actions, such as a raid at the 

same location, to help ensure officer safety.5

ONDCP reported that about $26.3 billion was provided for drug control 

programs in fiscal year 2015, and coordination of these programs remains 

an important step in insuring the effectiveness of these funds. Today, I 

will discuss the extent to which (1) progress has been made toward 

achieving National Drug Control Strategy goals and ONDCP has 

mechanisms in place to monitor progress, (2) ONDCP has assessed the 

extent of overlap and potential duplication across federal drug abuse 

prevention and treatment programs and identified coordination 

opportunities, (3) ONDCP holds HIDTAs accountable for coordination 

with other field-based information sharing entities and has assessed 

opportunities for coordination to reduce overlap and duplication, and (4) 

ONDCP has achieved interoperability among existing deconfliction 

systems.6 My remarks today are based on findings from our March 2013 

report on ONDCP program coordination and our April 2013 report on 

field-based information sharing, and the status of ONDCP efforts to 

address related recommendations.7

In performing the work for our March 2013 report, we analyzed the 2010 

National Drug Control Strategy and its annual updates, available data on 

progress toward achieving Strategy goals, and documents about 

ONDCP’s monitoring mechanisms. We also analyzed data from 

questionnaires that we sent to 15 of the 19 federal agencies that 

administer drug abuse prevention and treatment programs.8 This survey 

 5

Event deconfliction systems are used to determine when multiple federal, state, or local 

law enforcement agencies are conducting enforcement actions (e.g., raids, undercover 

operations, or surveillances) in proximity to one another during a specified time period,

6

In this context, interoperability refers to the capability of different deconfliction systems to 

readily connect with one another to enable timely communications.

7

GAO, Office of National Drug Control Policy: Office Could Better Identify Opportunities to 

Increase Program Coordination, GAO-13-333 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 26, 2013) and 

Information Sharing: Agencies Could Better Coordinate to Reduce Overlap in Field-Based 

Activities, GAO-13-471 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4, 2013).

8

We excluded 4 of the agencies included in the fiscal year 2013 National Drug Control 

Program Budget for varying reasons. For example, we excluded the Centers for Medicare 

and Medicaid Services because it administers federal health benefit programs that 

reimburse drug abuse prevention and treatment services but does not directly provide 

them.
Page 3 GAO-16-257T 

collected information on services provided and coordination efforts. In 

addition, we interviewed officials from ONDCP and selected federal drug 

control agencies. In performing the work for our April 2013 report, we 

selected eight urban areas for review where one of each of five types of 

field-based information sharing entities—HIDTA Investigative Support 

Centers, Joint Terrorism Task Forces, Federal Bureau of Investigation 

Field Intelligence Groups, Regional information Sharing System (RISS)

centers, and state and major urban area fusion centers—was either 

physically located or had jurisdiction and collected information from the 

entities in those areas on their analytic and investigative support 

services.9 We compared the entities’ descriptions of their activities and 

identified overlap among them. We also interviewed ONDCP officials to 

discuss oversight of the HIDTAs and efforts to achieve interoperability of 

deconfliction systems used to coordinate investigations. More detail on 

our scope and methodologies can be found in our March 2013 and April 

2013 reports. For updates to these reports, we reviewed ONDCP’s 

summary of its assessment of drug abuse prevention and treatment 

programs, analyzed ONDCP’s reported progress on Strategy goals in its 

2015 Strategy and performance report, and contacted ONDCP and 

HIDTA officials.

The work upon which this testimony is based was conducted in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 9

We also selected the eight urban areas to reflect a range of factors, including variation in 

risk based on DOJ’s 25 Cities Project, colocation of the entities, and geographic 

dispersion. For DOJ’s High-Risk Metropolitan Area Interoperability Assistance Project, 

DOJ selected 25 cities based on criteria including the perceived risk of a terrorist attack 

and population size.
Page 4 GAO-16-257T 

ONDCP was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to, among 

other things, enhance national drug control planning and coordination and 

represent the drug policies of the executive branch before Congress.10 In 

this role, the office is responsible for (1) developing a national drug 

control policy, (2) developing and applying specific goals and 

performance measurements to evaluate the effectiveness of national drug 

control policy and National Drug Control Program agencies’ programs, (3) 

overseeing and coordinating the implementation of the national drug 

control policy, and (4) assessing and certifying the adequacy of the 

budget for National Drug Control Programs.

The 2010 Strategy is the inaugural strategy guiding drug policy under 

President Obama’s administration. For the 2010 Strategy, ONDCP 

changed its approach from publishing a 1-year Strategy to publishing a 5-

year Strategy, which ONDCP is to update annually. The annual updates 

are to provide an implementation progress report as well as an 

opportunity to make adjustments to reflect policy changes. ONDCP 

established two overarching policy goals in the 2010 Strategy for (1) 

curtailing illicit drug consumption and (2) improving public health by 

reducing the consequences of drug abuse, and seven subgoals under 

them that delineate specific quantitative outcomes to be achieved by 

2015, such as reducing drug-induced deaths by 15 percent.11 To support 

the achievement of these two policy goals and seven subgoals 

(collectively referred to as goals), the Strategy and annual updates 

include seven strategic objectives and multiple action items under each 

objective, with lead and participating agencies designated for each action 

item.

 10See 21 U.S.C. § 1702. ONDCP was created and authorized through January 21, 1994, 

by the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988, which was enacted as title 1 of the AntiDrug Abuse Act of 1988. Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181 (1988). ONDCP has 

continued to operate since the conclusion of its first authorization through multiple 

reauthorizations or as a result of legislation providing continued funding.

11When developing the Strategy, ONDCP identified data sources for each of the seven 

subgoals, such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s 

National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

Background

ONDCP and Drug Abuse 

Prevention and Treatment 

Programs
Page 5 GAO-16-257T 

ONDCP reported that about $25.2 billion was provided for drug control 

programs in fiscal year 2012. Of this, $10.1 billion, or 40 percent, was 

allocated to drug abuse prevention and treatment programs.12 The 15 

federal departments, agencies, and components (collectively referred to 

as agencies) we selected for our review of drug abuse prevention and 

treatment programs collectively allocated about $4.5 billion in fiscal year 

2012 to such programs.13 These agencies included the Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Education, 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Justice Programs, and Bureau of 

Prisons, among others.

The HIDTA program was established in 1988 and is a federally funded 

program administered by ONDCP that brings together federal, state, and 

local law enforcement agencies into task forces that conduct 

investigations of drug-trafficking organizations in designated areas.14 The 

HIDTA program is focused on counternarcotics. However, HIDTA 

program resources may also be used for other purposes such as to assist 

law enforcement agencies in investigations and activities related to 

terrorism and the prevention of terrorism.15 There are 28 HIDTAs across 

the United States, and each has an Investigative Support Center that 

serves to support the HIDTA program by providing analytical case 

 12These programs are intended, in all or in part, to prevent the initiation of illicit drug use 

or treat the abuse, or problematic use, of illicit drugs and provide or fund such services as 

outreach efforts to discourage first-time drug use and assessment and intervention to 

assist regular users to become drug-free. The remaining $15.1 billion was allocated to 

domestic law enforcement, interdiction, and other programs intended to reduce the 

availability of illegal drugs.

13As discussed earlier, we excluded Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which 

accounted for almost $4.5 billion of the $10.1 billion allocated to prevention and treatment 

programs in fiscal year 2012.

14The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 established ONDCP and authorized the designation of 

any specified area of the United States as a high intensity drug trafficking area. See Pub. 

L. No. 100-690, § 1005(c), 102 Stat. at 4186-87. The Office of National Drug Control 

Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 subsequently established the HIDTA program. See 

Pub. L. No. 105-277, tit. VII, § 707, 2681, 2681-686-87 (1998) (codified as amended at 21 

U.S.C. § 1706).

15See 21 U.S.C. § 1706(g).

HIDTA Investigative 

Support Centers
Page 6 GAO-16-257T 

support, promoting officer safety, preparing and issuing drug threat 

assessments, and developing and disseminating intelligence products.16

The HIDTA and RISS programs operate three separate systems that 

have (1) event deconfliction functions to determine when multiple federal, 

state, or local law enforcement agencies are conducting enforcement 

actions—such as raids, undercover operations, or surveillances—in 

proximity to one another during a specified time period, or (2) target 

deconfliction functions, which determine if multiple law enforcement 

agencies are investigating, for example, the same person, vehicle, 

weapon, or business. Individual HIDTAs have used the Secure 

Automated Fast Event Tracking Network (SAFETNet) system, which has 

had event deconfliction functions, among other functions, since 2001 to 

help ensure officer safety. In 2009, the HIDTA program introduced 

deconfliction features into the Case Explorer system that differed from 

SAFETNet by providing a free service that is tied to its performance 

management process. In 2009, RISS developed RISSafe to provide event 

deconfliction to its members and those not being served by another 

system.

Pursuant to federal legislation enacted in 2010, we conduct routine 

investigations to identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with 

duplicative goals and activities within departments and government-wide 

and report annually to Congress.17 In March 2011 and February 2012, we 

issued our first two annual reports to Congress in response to this 

requirement.18 On the basis of the framework established in these 

reports, we used the following definitions for assessing drug abuse 

 16In 2013, there were 32 HIDTA Investigative Support Centers—1 in 27 of the 28 HIDTAs, 

in addition to the Southwest Border HIDTA, which has a center for each of its five regions: 

Arizona, California, New Mexico, South Texas, and West Texas.

17See Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 124 Stat. 8, 29-30 (2010); 31 U.S.C. § 712 Note. See 

GAO, 2015 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, 

and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-15-404SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 14, 2015) for our most recent annual report.

18GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save 

Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011),

and 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).

GAO Work on 

Fragmentation, Overlap, 

and Duplication
Page 7 GAO-16-257T 

prevention and treatment programs and field-based information sharing 

entities:

• Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more 

than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad 

area of national interest.

• Overlap occurs when fragmented agencies or programs have similar 

goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or 

target similar beneficiaries.

• Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are 

engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the 

same beneficiaries.

In our March 2013 report, we found that ONDCP and other federal 

agencies had not made progress toward achieving most of the goals 

articulated in the 2010 National Drug Control Strategy. In the Strategy, 

ONDCP established seven goals related to reducing illicit drug use and its 

consequences by 2015. As we reported in March 2013, our analysis 

showed that of the five goals for which primary data on results were 

available, one showed progress and four showed either no change or 

movement away from the 2015 goals. For example, no progress had 

been made on the goal to reduce drug use among 12- to 17-year-olds by 

15 percent. According to the data source for this measure—the National 

Survey on Drug Use and Health—this was primarily due to an increase in 

the rate of reported marijuana use, offset by decreases in the rates of 

reported use of other drugs. Table 1 shows 2010 Strategy goals and 

progress toward meeting them, as of March 2013.

ONDCP and Other

Federal Agencies 

Have Not Achieved 

2010 Strategy Goals;

ONDCP Has 

Established a 

Mechanism to 

Monitor Progress

Our 2013 Analysis Found 

Lack of Progress toward 

Achieving National 

Strategy Goals; ONDCP’s 

2015 National Strategy 

Shows Progress Still 

Needed
Page 8 GAO-16-257T 

Table 1: 2010 National Drug Control Strategy Goals and Progress toward Meeting Them, as of March 2013

2010 Strategy goals

2009 

(baseline)

2010

(new Strategy) 2011 2012

2015 

(goal)a

Progress 

from baseline 

to goal

Curtail illicit drug consumption in America

1. Decrease the 30-day prevalence of 

drug use among 12- to 17-year-olds by 

15 percent

10.1% 10.1% 10.1% 8.6% No change

2. Decrease the lifetime prevalence of 

eighth graders who have used drugs, 

alcohol, or tobacco by 15 percent

Illicit drugs 19.9% 21.4% 20.1% 18.5% 16.9% Movement 

toward goal

Alcohol 36.6% 35.8% 33.1% 29.5% 31.1% Met goal

Tobacco 20.1% 20.0% 18.4% 15.5% 17.1% Met goal

3. Decrease the 30-day prevalence of 

drug use among young adults aged 18-

25 by 10 percent

21.4% 21.6% 21.4% 19.3% No change

4. Reduce the number of chronic drug 

users by 15 percentb No data available

Improve the public health and public safety of the American people by reducing the consequences of drug abuse

5. Reduce drug-induced deaths by 15 

percent

39,147 40,393 33,275 Movement 

away from goalc

6. Reduce drug-related morbidity by 15 

percent

Emergency room visits for drug 

misuse and abuse 

2,070,451 2,301,050 1,759,883 Movement 

away from goal

HIV infections attributable to drug 

use

5,300 5,500 4,505 Movement 

away from goal

7. Reduce the prevalence of drugged 

driving by 10 percentd 16.3%(2007)

14.7% No data 

available

Source: GAO analysis of data from the following sources for these measures: (1) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration’s (SAMHSA) National Survey on Drug Use and Health, (2) National 

Institute of Drug Abuse’s Monitoring the Future, (3) What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, (4) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Vital Statistics System, (5) SAMHSA’s Drug 

Abuse Warning Network drug-related emergency room visits, (6) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data on HIV infections attributable to drug use, and (7) National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration’s National Roadside Survey. | GAO-16-257T

a

Goals for 2015 were established by calculating 10 to 15 percent decreases, as applicable, from the 

2009 baselines.

b

The data source for this measure is a report entitled What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, 

which is sponsored by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). As of March 2013, the 

most recent report had been released in June 2012 and provided data from 1998 through 2006. We 

reported that, according to ONDCP officials, the baseline for this measure will be established when 

updated results through 2010 are available in May 2013.

c

Strategy goals call for decreases in the prevalence or numbers of drug use, drug users, or 

consequences of drug use. Movement away from goals indicates that the results for these measures 

have increased from the 2009 baseline or are trending in the opposite direction of the 2015 goals.

d

In March 2013, we reported that according to ONDCP officials, the primary data source for this 

measure is the National Roadside Survey conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. At that time, the most recent survey in 2007 was the first to include an estimate of the 
Page 9 GAO-16-257T 

prevalence of drugged driving. It found that 16.3 percent of weekend, nighttime drivers tested positive 

for the presence of at least one illicit drug or medication (with the ability to impair). As of March 2013, 

results of the next survey were expected in 2014. Accordingly, ONDCP officials stated that 2007 is 

the baseline year for this measure. These officials said that SAMHSA’s National Survey on Drug Use 

and Health, which also measures the prevalence of drugged driving, serves as a secondary data 

source to the National Roadside Survey.

We reported in March 2013 that, according to ONDCP officials, a variety 

of factors could affect achievement of these goals, such as worsening 

economic conditions, changing demographics, or changing social or 

political environments; the passage of state laws that decriminalize 

marijuana use or allow its use for medical purposes; failure to obtain 

sufficient resources to address drug control problems; insufficient 

commitment from agency partners; and the need for new action items that 

include initiatives or activities beyond those that are under way or 

planned. We reported that ONDCP officials stated that the office’s new 

Performance Reporting System (PRS) is to provide more specific 

information about where the Strategy is on or off track and prompt 

diagnostic reviews to identify causal factors contributing to any problems

identified, as discussed below.

ONDCP released the 2015 Strategy on November 17, 2015, and it is an 

annual update to the 2010 Strategy.19 Since our March 2013 report, 

ONDCP has begun reporting progress toward two goals where data were 

not initially available. According to data available to date, the Strategy 

shows progress toward achieving one goal, no progress on three goals, 

and mixed progress on the remaining three goals. Overall, none of the 

goals in the 2010 Strategy have been fully achieved. Table 2 shows the 

2010 Strategy goals and ONDCP’s reported progress toward meeting 

them.

 19Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug 

Control Strategy (Washington D.C.: 2015).
Page 10 GAO-16-257T 

Table 2: 2010 National Drug Control Strategy Goals and the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Reported 

Progress toward Meeting Them, as of November 2015

2010 Strategy goals

2009 

(baseline) Progress to datea 2015 (goal)

Curtail illicit drug consumption in America

1. Decrease the 30-day prevalence of drug use among 12- to 

17-year-olds by 15 percent

10.1% 8.8% (2013) 8.6%

2. Decrease the lifetime prevalence of eighth graders who have 

used drugs, alcohol, or tobacco by 15 percent

Illicit drugs 19.9% 20.3% (2014) 16.9%

Alcohol 36.6% 26.8% (2014) 31.1%

Tobacco 20.1% 13.5% (2014) 17.1%

3. Decrease the 30-day prevalence of drug use among young

adults aged 18-25 by 10 percent

21.4% 21.5% (2013) 19.3%

4. Reduce the number of chronic drug users by 15 percentc

Cocaine 2.7 million 2.5 million (2010) 2.3 million

Heroin 1.5 million 1.5 million (2010) 1.3 million

Marijuana 16.2 million 17.6 million (2010) 13.8 million

Methamphetamine 1.8 million 1.6 million (2010) 1.5 million

Improve the public health and public safety of the American people by reducing the consequences of drug abuse

5. Reduce drug-induced deaths by 15 percent 39,147 46,471 (2013) 33,275

6. Reduce drug-related morbidity by 15 percent

Emergency room visits for drug misuse and abuse 2,070,452 2,462,948 (2011) 1,759,884

HIV infections attributable to drug usea 5,799 4,366 (2013) 4,929

7. Reduce the prevalence of drugged driving by 10 percentb 16.3% (2007) 20.0% (2013) 14.7%

Source: GAO analysis of ONDCP’s 2015 National Drug Control Strategy and Performance Reporting System. | GAO-16-257T

a

Years for which the most recent data were available are in parentheses.

b

According to the 2015 Performance Reporting System (PRS) report, the data source for this 

measure has been changed from cases of incidence of drug-related HIV to diagnoses of such cases, 

because the estimation of the incident cases is not expected to be produced in time to be useful in 

assessing progress toward achieving this measure.

c

The primary data source for this measure is the National Roadside Survey, conducted by the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The baseline survey was conducted in 2007. The 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s National Survey on Drug Use and 

Health, which also measures the prevalence of drugged driving, serves as a secondary data source 

to the National Roadside Survey. The 2015 PRS report shows the drugged driving goal being met 

when this data source is used.

In March 2013, we reported that ONDCP established the PRS to monitor 

and assess progress toward meeting Strategy goals and objectives and 

issued a report (the PRS report) describing the system with the 2012 

Strategy update. The PRS includes interagency performance measures 

ONDCP Established a 

System to Monitor 

Progress toward Goals
Page 11 GAO-16-257T 

and targets under each Strategy objective. For example, 1 of the 6

performance measures under the objective to strengthen efforts to 

prevent drug use in our communities is the average age of initiation for all 

illicit drug use, which has a 2009 baseline of 17.6 years of age and a 

2015 target of 19.5 years of age. According to the PRS report, system 

information is to be used to inform budget formulation and resource 

allocation, Strategy implementation, and policy making, among other 

things.

As part of our review, we assessed PRS measures and found them to be 

generally consistent with attributes of effective performance management 

identified in our prior work as important for ensuring performance 

measures demonstrate results and are useful for decision making.20 For 

example, we found that the PRS measures are clearly stated, with 

descriptions included in the 2012 PRS report, and all 26 of them have or 

are to have measurable numerical targets. In addition, the measures were 

developed with input from stakeholders through an interagency working 

group process, which included participation by the Departments of 

Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services, among others. The 

groups assessed the validity of the measures and evaluated data 

sources, among other things.

We reported in March 2013 that, according to ONDCP officials, 

information collected through the PRS is to provide valuable insights to 

help identify where the Strategy is on track and when further problem 

solving and evaluation are needed. At that time, the system was still in its 

early stages and ONDCP had not issued its first report on the results of 

the system’s performance measures. Accordingly, operational information 

was not available to evaluate the system’s results. ONDCP officials stated 

that when results are determined to not be on track to meet 2015 targets, 

the PRS is to serve as a trigger for an interagency review of potential 

causes of performance gaps and options for improvement. We reported 

that, according to these officials, ONDCP plans to assess the 

effectiveness of the PRS more comprehensively to determine how well it 

is working and whether any adjustments need to be made after the 

system has been operational for a longer period of time. We also reported 

that these plans should help increase accountability for improving results 

 20See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Season 

Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002).
Page 12 GAO-16-257T 

and enhance the system’s effectiveness as a mechanism to monitor 

progress toward Strategy goals and objectives and assess where further 

action is needed to improve progress.

ONDCP released its annual PRS report on November 17, 2015. The 

2015 report assesses progress on the Strategy’s goals, as well as 

performance measures related to each of the Strategy’s objectives, and 

discusses future actions required to achieve these goals and measures.

ONDCP has assessed the extent of overlap and potential for duplication 

across federal drug abuse prevention and treatment programs and 

identified opportunities for increased coordination, as we recommended in 

March 2013. Specifically, we reported that drug abuse prevention and 

treatment programs were fragmented across 15 federal agencies that 

funded or administered 76 programs in fiscal year 2011, and identified 

overlap in 59 of these programs because they can provide or fund at least 

one drug abuse prevention or treatment service that at least 1 other 

program can provide or fund, either to similar population groups or to 

reach similar program goals. For example, 6 programs reported that they 

can provide or fund drug abuse prevention services for students and 

youth in order to support program goals of preventing drug use and abuse 

among young people. All 6 of these programs also reported that they can 

provide or fund services to conduct outreach and educate youth on drug 

use.

As part of our review, we also conducted a more in-depth analysis in two 

selected areas where we identified overlap—programs for youth and 

programs for offenders. We reported that agency officials who administer 

programs in these two areas took various efforts to coordinate 

overlapping programs or services, which can serve to minimize the risk of 

duplication. For example, using an interagency agreement, the 

Department of Education jointly administers the Safe Schools/Healthy 

Students program with the Departments of Justice and Health and 

Human Services to provide complementary educational, mental health, 

and law enforcement services to prevent youth violence and drug use.

We found in March 2013 that although the agencies’ coordination efforts 

in these two areas were consistent with practices that we had previously 

reported federal agencies use to implement collaborative efforts, not all of 

ONDCP Has 

Assessed the Extent 

of Overlap and 

Duplication across 

Federal Drug Abuse 

Prevention and 

Treatment Programs 

and Identified 

Opportunities for 

More Coordination
Page 13 GAO-16-257T 

the programs surveyed were involved in coordination efforts with other 

federal agencies.21 Specifically, officials from 29 of the 76 (about 40 

percent) programs surveyed reported no coordination with other federal 

agencies on drug abuse prevention or treatment activities in the year prior 

to our survey. Furthermore, we reported that although ONDCP 

coordinates efforts to develop and implement the Strategy and National 

Drug Control Program Budget, it had not systematically assessed drug 

abuse prevention and treatment programs to examine the extent of 

overlap and potential for duplication and identify opportunities for greater 

coordination. As a result, we recommended that ONDCP conduct such an 

assessment.

ONDCP concurred with our recommendation and has implemented it. In 

July 2014, ONDCP published an assessment of drug abuse prevention 

and treatment programs in its fiscal year 2015 Budget and Performance 

Summary, which was released with the annual Strategy. ONDCP 

reported that it conducted this assessment by (1) preparing an inventory 

of federal agency drug abuse prevention and treatment program 

activities, starting with those in our report; (2) mapping the beneficiaries 

and services provided by each program activity to determine the extent of 

overlap; and (3) reviewing overlapping programs to assess the level of 

coordination activities, among other steps. The assessment found that 

these programs generally serve distinct beneficiaries in distinct settings, 

which helps prevent overlap and duplication. In the cases where overlap 

could occur, ONDCP’s review of grant awards made under the programs 

determined that duplication did not occur over a 3-year period ending in 

2013. Further, according to the assessment, the agencies managing 

overlapping programs have coordinated through interagency 

collaboration, coordinated grant applications, and other activities. 

However, ONDCP found that programs that provide drug abuse 

prevention and treatment services to support efforts to address 

homelessness would benefit from greater coordination. In August 2014, 

ONDCP stated that it is working to ensure additional coordination in this 

area by, for example, providing guidance to relevant agencies during the 

office’s budget and oversight review process on improving coordination of 

grant programs that offer similar treatment and recovery support services 

to homeless clients.

 21See GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).
Page 14 GAO-16-257T 

ONDCP’s assessment states that the office will continue to monitor the 

programs that overlap, as well as any new federal programs that are 

added to prevent and treat substance use disorders. According to the 

assessment, this monitoring is to include requiring regular reporting from 

the agencies as a part of interagency drug abuse prevention and 

treatment working group meetings and working with the agencies to 

ensure greater coordination and opportunities to consolidate programs as 

a part of the annual budget process. As a result of ONDCP’s actions in 

response to our recommendation, the office will be better positioned to 

help ensure that federal agencies undertaking similar drug abuse 

prevention and treatment efforts better leverage and more efficiently use 

limited resources.

Our April 2013 report found that ONDCP, DHS, and DOJ did not hold 

HIDTAs or the four other types of field-based information sharing entities 

we reviewed—Joint Terrorism Task Forces, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation Field Intelligence Groups, RISS centers, and state and 

major urban area fusion centers—accountable for coordinating with one

another or assessing opportunities for further enhancing coordination to 

help reduce the potential for overlap and achieve efficiencies. Specifically, 

we found that while the five types of field-based entities have distinct 

missions, roles, and responsibilities, their activities can overlap.

22 For 

example, across the eight urban areas that we reviewed, we identified 91 

instances of overlap in some analytical activities—such as producing 

intelligence reports—and 32 instances of overlap in investigative support 

activities, such as identifying links between criminal organizations. These 

entities conducted similar activities within the same mission area, such as 

counterterrorism, and for similar customers, such as federal or state 

agencies. Across the eight urban areas, 34 of the 37 field-based entities 

we reviewed conducted an analytical or investigative support activity that 

overlapped with that of another entity. We reported that this can lead to 

benefits, such as the corroboration of information, but may also burden 

customers with redundant information.

In our April 2013 report, ONDCP, DHS, and DOJ officials acknowledged 

that field-based entities working together and sharing information are

 22In general, HIDTA Investigative Support Centers focus on narcotics-related matters and 

support HIDTA drug task force initiatives in their respective areas in the identification, 

targeting, arrest, and prosecution of key members of criminal drug organizations.

ONDCP Does Not 

Hold HIDTAs 

Accountable for 

Coordination and Has 

Not Assessed 

Opportunities to Help 

Reduce Potential 

Overlap
Page 15 GAO-16-257T 

important, but they do not hold their entities accountable for such 

coordination. For example, HIDTA Investigative Support Centers have a 

performance measurement program that holds the centers accountable 

for referring leads to other HIDTAs and other agencies, but the program 

does not include measures about the HIDTA’s ability to coordinate with 

other field-based entities. Further, ONDCP, DHS, and DOJ officials stated 

that they ultimately rely on the leadership of their respective field-based 

entities to ensure that successful coordination is occurring because the 

leaders in these entities are most familiar with the other stakeholders and 

issues in their areas, and are best suited to develop working relationships 

with one another.

Officials at 22 of the 37 entities we reviewed agreed that successful 

coordination depends most on personal relationships, but they noted that 

coordination can be disrupted when new leadership takes over at an 

entity. Officials at 20 of the 37 entities also stated that measuring and 

monitoring coordination could alleviate the process of starting over when 

new personnel take over at a partner entity and ensure that maintaining 

coordinated efforts is a priority. We concluded that a mechanism—such 

as performance metrics—that holds entities accountable for coordination 

and enables agencies to monitor and evaluate the results of their efforts 

could help provide the agencies with information on the effectiveness of 

coordination among field-based entities and help reduce any unnecessary 

overlap in entities’ efforts. We recommended that the agencies 

collaborate to develop such a mechanism.

Similarly, our April 2013 report found that ONDCP, DHS, and DOJ had 

not assessed opportunities to implement practices that were identified as 

enhancing coordination. Officials at each of the 37 entities in the eight 

urban areas we reviewed described how practices such as serving on 

one another’s governance boards or, in some cases, colocating with other 

entities allowed or could allow them to achieve certain benefits. These 

include better understanding the missions and activities of the other 

entities, coordinating the production of analytical products, and sharing 

resources such as subject matter experts. In their view, this helped to 

increase coordination, leverage resources, and avoid or reduce the 

negative effects of unnecessary overlap and duplication in their analytical, 

tactical, and dissemination activities. We recommended that the agencies 

collaborate to perform a collective assessment of where these and other 

practices that can enhance coordination could be implemented.

ONDCP and DHS concurred with both of our recommendations and DOJ 

generally agreed with the intent of the recommendations. Since our April 
Page 16 GAO-16-257T 

2013 report, the agencies have taken steps to address them. Specifically, 

ONDCP, DHS, and DOJ have existing forums they can use to work 

together in developing metrics and conducting assessments to better 

ensure coordination, and collectively monitor and evaluate results 

achieved. These forums include, for example, the Fusion Center 

Subcommittee of the Information Sharing and Access Interagency Policy 

Committee.23 In July 2015, the subcommittee met and agreed to modify 

its 2015 work plan to address the collection, analysis, and reporting of 

data pertaining to field-based information sharing entities. According to 

DHS officials, these data are to focus on field-based collaboration, 

including governance, colocation, and other information sharing, analytic, 

and conflict-avoidance topics. Since the July 2015 meeting, DHS has 

assisted ONDCP and DOJ in developing an assessment template, based 

on common data elements it collects in its annual assessment of state 

and major urban area fusion centers.

Although ONDCP, DHS, and DOJ have taken actions to address our 

recommendations, the agencies do not yet have a collective mechanism 

that will hold field-based entities accountable for coordinating with one

another and allow the agencies to monitor progress and evaluate results 

across entities. Such a mechanism could help entities maintain effective 

relationships when new leadership is assigned and avoid unnecessary 

overlap in activities, which can also help entities to leverage scarce 

resources. Further, the agencies have not conducted a collaborative 

assessment of where practices that enhance coordination can be applied 

to reduce overlap, collaborate, and leverage resources for their respective 

field-based information sharing entities. Such an assessment would allow 

the agencies to provide recommendations or guidance to the entities on 

implementing these practices.

 23The Information Sharing and Access Interagency Policy Committee is led out of the 

Executive Office of the President.
Page 17 GAO-16-257T 

ONDCP has connected each of the systems that HIDTAs use to 

deconflict operations, an action that can reduce risks to officer safety and 

inefficiencies. Our April 2013 report found that the HIDTA and RISS 

programs operate three separate systems that have event or target 

deconfliction functions to determine when multiple federal, state, or local 

law enforcement agencies are conducting enforcement actions—such as 

raids, undercover operations, or surveillances—in proximity to one 

another during a specified time period. As we reported in 2013, HIDTAs 

have used the SAFETNet system, which has had event deconfliction 

functions, among other functions, since 2001 to help ensure officer safety. 

In 2009, the HIDTA program introduced deconfliction features into the 

Case Explorer system that differed from SAFETNet by providing a free 

service that is tied to its performance management process.24 In 2009, 

the RISS program developed RISSafe to provide event deconfliction to its 

members and those not being served by another system. Accordingly, 

HIDTAs and RISS centers were operating duplicative deconfliction 

systems—that is, systems that aim to ensure that law enforcement 

officers are not conducting enforcement actions at the same time in the 

same place or investigating the same target—which could pose risks to 

officer safety and lead to inefficiencies. Table 3 provides details about the 

features of these three systems.

 

24Case Explorer is a web-based law enforcement software program that includes event 

deconfliction as well as case management and target deconfliction.

ONDCP Has 

Connected the

Systems That 

Deconflict 

Operations, Reducing 

Risks to Officer 

Safety and 

Inefficiencies
Page 18 GAO-16-257T 

Table 3: Systems with Deconfliction Functions That RISS Centers and HIDTAs Operate

Source: GAO analysis of ONDCP and RISS information. | GAO-16-257T 

Note: While HIDTAs operate two of the systems, individual HIDTAs can use any or all of the three 

systems.

Law enforcement officers generally enter events into a deconfliction 

system electronically or by calling a watch center. Individuals operating a 

watch center plot the location of the event on a map and notify the officer 

for whom contact information is available in the systems of other officers 

who have entered conflicting events into the same system. When events 

are not deconflicted, officer safety can be at risk. For example, HIDTA 

and RISS officials described instances when officers did not deconflict 

drug busts, which led to undercover officers from different agencies 

drawing guns on one another thinking the other officers were drug 

dealers. The officials added that, had the events been deconflicted, the 

officers would have been aware of one another’s presence. As shown in 

figure 1, entities within a state can use one or more of the systems.

RISS-operated HIDTA-operated

RISSafe Case Explorer SAFETNet

Type of deconfliction

Event √ √ √

Target √

Features

Open to law enforcement and criminal justice agencies √ √ √

Manages information about people, places, and vehicles √ √ √

Operates a watch center to put law enforcement agents in 

contact with one another √ √ √

Direct entry/24-hour access √ √ √

Plots events geospatially, notifying the user of any conflicts 

within a defined radius √ √ √

Can enter only future events √ √
Page 19 GAO-16-257T 

Figure 1: Use of Systems with Event Deconfliction Functions by State as of April 2013

In our April 2013 report, we found that HIDTA and RISS officials had 

taken steps to connect target deconfliction systems—those that inform 

agencies when they are investigating the same individuals, weapons, 

vehicles, or businesses—and two of three event deconfliction systems. 

However, HIDTA officials had not finalized plans to make the remaining 

event deconfliction system, SAFETNet, interoperable with the other two 

systems. Accordingly, we recommended that the Director of ONDCP work 

with the appropriate HIDTA officials to develop milestones and time 

frames for actions needed to make SAFETNet interoperable in order to 

prevent unnecessary delays in reducing risks to officer safety and 

lessening the burden on law enforcement agencies that are currently 

using multiple systems to notify agencies when they are conducting 
Page 20 GAO-16-257T 

conflicting enforcement actions. ONDCP concurred with the 

recommendation and, in May 2015, completed the steps to achieve 

interoperability among the three event deconfliction systems. According to 

an official at the HIDTA that operates the Case Explorer deconfliction 

system, as of October 2015, more than 1,500 agencies are participating 

in the three systems. The official added that more than 159,000 events 

have been entered, and more than 800 events have been matched 

among the three systems.

Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of the 

subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to respond to any questions you may have.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony, 

please contact David Maurer at (202) 512-8777 or maurerd@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Other 

contributors included Eric Erdman, Assistant Director; Kevin Heinz; and 

Johanna Wong.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100457)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.