MONOGRAPH

Program Model

Organized Crime 

Narcotics (OCN)

Trafficking Enforcement

Lessons Learned 

From the

Organized Crime 

Narcotics (OCN)

Trafficking Enforcement

Lessons Learned 

From the

Program Model

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Bureau of

Justice Assistance
This document was prepared by the Institute for Intergovernmental Research, under grant

number 95–DD–BX–0088, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice

Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily

represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Raymond C. Fisher

Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Noël Brennan

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. Gist

Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office of Justice Programs

World Wide Web Home Page

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance

World Wide Web Home Page

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For grant and funding information contact

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also

includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Lessons Learned From the

Organized Crime Narcotics (OCN)

Trafficking Enforcement Program

Model

December 1998 Monograph NCJ 172878
iii

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Executive Summary .................................................................................... vii

Chapter 1 History of the OCN Program ................................................. 1

The Crime Problem ............................................................... 1

Program Development ......................................................... 1

Program Guidance ................................................................ 2

Application Process .............................................................. 2

Chapter 2 Dynamics of the OCN Program ............................................ 5

Program Strategy .................................................................. 5

Operational Characteristics ................................................. 6

Contract Administration and Funding Chronology ....... 7

History of Project Funding .................................................. 8

Funding Availability and the Projects............................... 9

Chapter 3 OCN and SIRM Projects ....................................................... 11

Site Selection ........................................................................ 11

Population and Geographic Coverage of the

OCN and SIRM Project Sites ............................................. 12

Program Implementation Experience.............................. 16

Project Descriptions ............................................................ 16

OCN Projects........................................................................ 17

SIRM Projects ....................................................................... 25

OCN Gang Violence Enforcement Projects .................... 26

OCN Program Operational Results ................................. 27

Chapter 4 OCN Control Group .............................................................. 31

Overview of the Control Group ....................................... 31

Purpose ................................................................................. 31

Members ............................................................................... 32

Meetings ............................................................................... 33

Interagency Agreements .................................................... 34

Goals and Objectives .......................................................... 35

Contents
iv

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Chapter 5 OCN Program Investigations .............................................. 37

Case Selection Criteria ....................................................... 37

Case Planning and Monitoring ......................................... 38

Target Selection ................................................................... 38

Multijurisdictional Task Force Effectiveness ................. 40

Role of Self-Evaluation in Program Improvements ...... 41

Conclusion............................................................................ 42

Appendix A Average Value of Narcotics and Assets Seized Per

Project and Per Case .......................................................... 43

Appendix B Interagency Agreement (Sample) ................................... 45

Appendix C Recommended Model Objectives for OCN Project

Self-Evaluation Capability .............................................. 47

Appendix D Case Plan (Sample) ............................................................ 49

Appendix E A Law Enforcement Response to Complex Criminal

Activity: Multijurisdictional Task Forces..................... 51

Appendix F Guideline ............................................................................. 63

Contents (continued)
v

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

1 Project Funding............................................................................. 9

2 Project Sites and Host Agencies ............................................... 13

3 Project Population and Geographic Information ..................14

4 Total Number of Arrests and Cases—All Projects ................ 28

5 Total Value of Narcotics Seized—All Projects ....................... 29

6 Total Value of Assets Seized—All Projects ............................ 29

7 Average Value of Narcotics Seized Per Case ......................... 43

8 Average Value of Narcotics Seized Per Project ..................... 43

9 Average Value of Assets Seized Per Project........................... 44

10 Average Value of Assets Seized Per Case and

Average Number of Arrests Per Case ..................................... 44

Exhibits
vii

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Executive Summary

Despite longstanding efforts to overcome organized crime and narcotics

trafficking, the enormous profits derived from these illicit activities make

their control one of the greater challenges facing American law enforcement today. Developing effective cases against high-echelon narcotics

trafficking criminal conspiracies requires the maximum utilization of investigative and prosecutive expertise, resources and capabilities, and often, innovative techniques. As major narcotics trafficking conspiracies

increasingly span jurisdictional boundaries, the participation of multiple

agencies and authorities to successfully investigate and prosecute offenders has become essential.

The Organized Crime Narcotics (OCN) Trafficking Enforcement Program

was developed in late 1986 by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S.

Department of Justice, as a discretionary grant program to assist law enforcement agencies in effectively responding to multijurisdictional narcotics trafficking activities. The goal of the OCN Program was to enhance,

through the shared management of resources and joint operational

decisionmaking, the ability of local, state, and federal law enforcement

agencies to remove specifically targeted major narcotics trafficking conspiracies and offenders through investigation, arrest, prosecution, and

conviction.

The strategy of the OCN Program was twofold: to promote a multiagency

enforcement response—including one or more prosecution authorities—targeted against major narcotics trafficking conspiracies operating across multiple jurisdictions and to establish a formal project mechanism whereby

investigative and prosecutive resources could be allocated, focused, and

managed on a shared basis against targeted offenses and offenders.

Critical to the success of the OCN Program was the project Control Group, a

representative oversight body incorporating a shared management system to

direct and administer project resources. The OCN Control Group was the

mechanism within the OCN Program intended to prevent any single agency’s

enforcement goals from controlling or dominating project operations. Control

Group member agencies were required to execute a written Interagency

Agreement, setting forth the desire of the participants to work together on

common problems and to contribute resources to the joint effort.

The majority of Control Groups comprised senior operations managers of

agencies expected to be most actively involved in cases conducted by the

project. By reason of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA’s)

designation as lead federal drug enforcement agency, the inclusion of DEA

in the Control Group was initially mandatory for all OCN projects.
viii

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Recognizing the need for early prosecution involvement and planning in the

OCN project cases, membership in the Control Group was also mandated for

at least one prosecutor drawn from the federal, state, or local level.

The Control Group not only served as a policymaking board, but also was

responsible for selecting cases to be investigated and prosecuted, allocating project resources, and providing continuous oversight of all project investigations. In addition to the formulation of project goals and objectives,

a major function of the Control Group was to determine whether proposed

cases merited OCN project designation and resource support. Each case

presented for consideration to the Control Group was required to be incorporated into a written case plan with a budget. Each member of the Control Group had an equal vote on all decisions, and the decisions of the

Control Group were required to be unanimous. Regularly held meetings of

project control groups proved to be beneficial in maintaining the productivity and focus of the project.

The OCN project locations included sites in 22 states across the continental

United States. The OCN Program was successfully implemented in a number of communities throughout the United States: metropolitan, suburban,

as well as smaller urban and rural areas. In addition, the population and

geographic area served by the project varied, sometimes greatly, between

project sites. Some projects concentrated efforts on larger areas, such as an

entire state or several counties, while other projects concentrated mainly in

a specific metropolitan area.

OCN projects were responsible for 16,366 drug-related arrests and seizure

of over $1 billion worth of illegal narcotics, cash, and illegally derived assets. Collectively, the projects demonstrated that the multijurisdictional

approach to law enforcement was beneficial by not only removing criminals and illegal substances from the streets, but creating strong, united law

enforcement structures that can effectively eliminate the problems associated with large-scale criminal organizations.
1

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Successful

cases . . . result

when . . . local,

state, and federal

investigators and

prosecutors pool

their resources,

capabilities, and

expertise in . . .

coordinated

enforcement

actions.

Chapter 1

History of the OCN Program

The Crime Problem

Despite longstanding efforts to overcome organized crime and narcotics

trafficking, the enormous profits derived from these illicit activities make

their control one of the greater challenges facing American law enforcement today. Developing effective cases against high-echelon narcotics

trafficking criminal conspirators requires the maximum utilization of investigative and prosecutive expertise, resources, capabilities, and innovative techniques. Successful cases most often result when skilled local, state,

and federal investigators and prosecutors pool their jurisdictions’ resources, capabilities, and expertise in planned and coordinated enforcement actions.

Given the diffusion of responsibilities among local, state, and federal law

enforcement authorities, the absence of investigative and prosecutive coordination works to the advantage of organized criminal groups. As major

narcotics trafficking conspiracies increasingly span jurisdictional boundaries, the participation of multiple agencies and authorities to successfully

investigate and prosecute offenders has become essential.

Too often, individual law enforcement agencies lack the expertise and resources to assemble, process, and exchange intelligence about organized

criminal activities. They also typically possess only a part of the legal authority necessary for a unified response to organized criminal activities

which transcend jurisdictional boundaries. Consequently, the response of

the law enforcement community to multijurisdictional offenders may be

fragmented, duplicative, limited, or even counterproductive.

Program Development

The Organized Crime Narcotics (OCN) Trafficking Enforcement Program

was developed in late 1986 by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S.

Department of Justice (DOJ), as a discretionary grant program to assist law

enforcement agencies in effectively responding to multijurisdictional narcotics trafficking activities.

At the time of conception, the goal of the OCN Program was to enhance,

through the shared management of resources and joint operational

decisionmaking, the ability of local, state, and federal law enforcement

agencies to remove specifically targeted major narcotics trafficking conspiracies and offenders through investigation, arrest, prosecution, and

conviction. In recent years, the Program goal has been expanded to include

enforcement efforts directed at violent gangs and their criminal activities.
2

Bureau of Justice Assistance

The OCN Program was rooted in previous multijurisdictional efforts such

as the Joint Organized Crime Investigations Project in Dade County,

Florida; the New England Organized Crime Strike Force; the multi-state

Leviticus coal fraud project; and the DOJ Organized Crime and Racketeering Strike Forces. These pioneer efforts demonstrated the success of multiagency investigations and prosecutions and the benefits of sharing

intelligence, resources, and management decisionmaking.

In 1991, the OCN Program was expanded to include the Statewide Integrated Resources Model (SIRM) projects and, in 1995, the OCN Gang Violence Enforcement projects.

Program Guidance

Program management and support, as well as other advice and assistance,

were provided to OCN projects by BJA and policy guidance was given by

the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), by means of a program guideline entitled “Funding and Administration of the Organized Crime Narcotics

Trafficking Enforcement Program” (see Appendix F).

At the initiation of the Program, the Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR) was the recipient of a funding award from BJA and, at the direction of BJA, executed contracts with each project’s host agency for the

accomplishment of OCN Program operational objectives. In addition to

contract administration, IIR provided technical assistance, operational performance assessment, and training services to the projects. IIR worked

with the projects in developing measurable objectives, assisted in the development of ongoing project self-evaluation capabilities, collected and

analyzed project activity and operational information, and reported to BJA

on the status and development of the projects. After the OCN projects began receiving grant awards directly from BJA in July 1990, IIR continued

its remaining technical assistance roles to the OCN projects.

Application Process

In October 1986, BJA awarded a grant to IIR to assist in the implementation of up to 10 OCN Program project sites. Following publication of the

BJA discretionary grant program funding announcement describing the

OCN Program, the application process began. Initially, interested agencies

submitted a preliminary application and related documents to IIR, which

then made site selection recommendations to BJA.

The preliminary application required the following descriptive

information:

❏ The multijurisdictional narcotics enforcement problems and needs to be

addressed by the proposed project;
3

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

❏ The goals and objectives to be achieved, along with milestones and

major achievements to be accomplished;

❏ Proposed project operations, including the administrative

decisionmaking processes; and

❏ A list of participating agencies, including the resources to be

contributed by each and their anticipated role in the project.

In addition to the standard certifications required in all applications for

BJA funding, prospective OCN applicants were required to submit an interagency agreement signed by each of its Control Group members (a

board of project representatives with equal decisionmaking and resource

allocating authority).
5

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Dynamics of the OCN Program

Program Strategy

The strategy of the Organized Crime Narcotics (OCN) Program was

twofold:

❏ To promote a multi-agency enforcement response—including one or

more prosecution authorities—targeted against major narcotics

trafficking conspiracies operating across multiple jurisdictions; and

❏ To establish a formal, project mechanism whereby investigative and

prosecution resources could be allocated, focused, and managed on a

shared basis against targeted offenses and offenders.

Critical to the success of the OCN Program was the project Control Group,

a representative oversight body incorporating a shared management system to direct and administer project resources. Overall project direction

was shared equally by Control Group agencies and all decisions regarding

project operations and administration were required to be unanimous.

This accomplished several purposes. First, criteria to identify, select, and

prioritize investigative targets were mutually established by the Control

Group. Cases were then assigned for investigation and subsequent prosecution only upon unanimous agreement. The resources and skills required in the investigative and prosecution process were identified,

acquired, and assigned by the Control Group throughout the duration of

the case in accordance with an approved, written plan. Finally, OCN Control Groups coordinated and monitored cases to ensure proper timing of

investigative and prosecution activities, as well as decisionmaking relating

to case continuance, referral, redirection, and closure.

Beginning in 1991, the Statewide Integrated Resources Model (SIRM) was

funded as a variation of the OCN concept. The SIRM projects adopted the

same processes that the initial OCN projects did but also added a state

regulatory agency as part of the joint decisionmaking mechanism embodied in the Control Group. With SIRM, in addition to criminal penalties and

forfeitures, criminal conspirators faced administrative sanctions such as

revocation of business licenses and corporate charters.

In 1992, the OCN concept was channeled into “New Directions” with investigations concentrated in the following areas:

❏ Organized gangs trafficking in drugs above the street level;

❏ Drug-related homicides and other violent criminal activities;

❏ Identification and removal of the financial incentives to drug trafficking

organizations;

❏ Inclusion of regulatory agencies in the OCN projects at the local or

regional level; and

Critical to the

success of the

OCN Program

was the project

Control Group,

a representative

oversight body

incorporating

a shared

management

system to direct

and administer

project resources.

Chapter 2
6

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❏ Demonstration of the OCN Program concept in the rural areas of a

state.

Initially, the OCN Program New Directions enforcement strategy was optional. However, beginning in 1993, all of the OCN projects were required

to adopt at least one of the New Directions strategies as part of their

project’s focus.

With the emergence of violent gang criminal activities, the OCN Program

expanded in 1995 to include two Gang Violence Enforcement projects.

Both projects developed case selection criteria to target the most violent

gangs within the project area and supported enforcement actions to disrupt illegal gang activity with the ultimate goal of dismantling the gang.

While all the other OCN projects ended, the Gang Violence Enforcement

projects continued to be funded.

Operational Characteristics

The OCN Program Guideline prescribed the following types of project operational activities and requirements:

❏ Unanimous consent of a Control Group was required to initiate and

continue funding of a project investigation;

❏ Control Groups selected one participant on each approved case as the

“lead” agency which then was responsible to the Control Group for

operational management;

❏ Lead agencies could be changed by the Control Group if deemed in the

best interest of the case;

❏ Control Group oversight continued from the time of case selection

through prosecutor disposition;

❏ Proceedings of the Control Group were documented in regularly

scheduled meetings;

❏ Each project was required to provide formal procedures and processes

governing the conduct of project activities including target selection,

allocation of resources, investigative and prosecution plans, and case

selection;

❏ All project enforcement operations were required to be based upon

formal investigative/prosecution plans setting forth case objectives,

resources required, specific enforcement activities to be taken, agencies

involved, and a prosecution strategy;

❏ State or local and federal agency participation in each project case was

mandatory;

❏ Each project case, with the exception of the two Gang Violence

Enforcement projects, was required to be fully coordinated with the

With SIRM, in

addition to criminal

penalties and

forfeitures, criminal

conspirators faced

administrative

sanctions such as

revocation of

business licenses

and corporate

charters.
7

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Department of Justice

Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF);

❏ SIRM project cases were required to include a regulatory agency;

❏ Projects were required to conduct coordinated investigation and

prosecution of selected targets in a timely and thorough manner; and

❏ OCN project funds were available to support project cases for such

investigative purposes as vehicle rental, surveillance costs, and

purchase of supplies, evidence, and information.

Contract Administration and Funding

Chronology

Beginning in January 1987, following Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)

approval, Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR) executed contracts

with eight successful applicant agencies for OCN Program Basic awards.

In August 1987, IIR entered into a cooperative agreement with BJA to enhance and expand the OCN Program. Subsequently, the contracts of four

of the initial projects were modified to add Operational Support (overtime

funds) and Financial Investigations components. In December 1987, funding for the OCN Program was increased to allow 13 new OCN projects.

Twelve of these sites received Basic awards, 10 of the 13 received additional Operational Support funding awards, and 6 also received Financial

Investigations component awards. This brought the total number of OCN

projects to 21.

The contract with one of the original eight projects terminated in March

1988, and was not renewed. In January 1989, BJA extended the IIR cooperative agreement for OCN through July 1989 which, in turn, allowed for

renewal and extension of project contracts. As their enforcement operations continued, several projects requested and received Addition to Basic

awards, the first was awarded in January 1988 and the last in August 1989.

In early 1989, as a result of the success of the OCN Program’s Financial Investigations components, BJA created a separate discretionary grant funding program entitled the Financial Investigations (Finvest) Program. The

OCN projects which already had Financial Investigations components

were encouraged to apply to BJA for direct awards in the Finvest Program.

In March 1989, the first OCN project received a Finvest award, and by September, five more had transitioned into the Finvest Program. There were

insufficient funds at that time, however, for all OCN projects to transfer

their Financial Investigations components to the Finvest Program.

In August 1989, the BJA Program Office, in anticipation of making direct

awards to OCN sites (instead of IIR contracting with projects), extended IIR’s

cooperative agreement as amended through June 1990. IIR contracts with the

OCN projects were terminated and funds were adjusted and redistributed.

By December 1987,

there were 21 OCN

projects.
8

Bureau of Justice Assistance

BJA began making direct awards to OCN projects effective July 1990, for

an initial 12-month period. Three of the original OCN projects completed

their participation in the Program at that time. Continuation funding was

subsequently provided for the remaining active OCN projects and BJA

then announced funding availability for new OCN projects on a competitive basis. Applications were considered by a peer review panel selected

by BJA, and in October 1990 four new OCN projects were funded. Funding

for two of the aforementioned SIRM projects began in October 1991. In

1995, the two OCN projects that focused on violent gang crime received

OCN funding.

In May 1990, IIR’s cooperative agreement was extended through May 31,

1991, providing for continued IIR technical assistance and training support

to the OCN Program. At the conclusion of that grant period, BJA then approved a grant adjustment that extended IIR’s cooperative agreement

through June 30, 1992. BJA also reallocated funds for the development and

implementation of the OCN Program Center for Task Force Training

(CenTF). Subsequent awards and continuation by BJA extended IIR’s technical assistance cooperative agreement into 1996.

History of Project Funding

Over the lifespan of the OCN Program, funding methods changed to

coincide with changes in Program focus. Initially, the OCN Program

awarded a Basic component. Basic component funding was limited to the

reimbursement of specified investigative expenses; but not for purposes

such as investigator or prosecutor salaries, fringe benefits, equipment, or

facilities construction. The Addition to Basic award supplemented the Basic award and was for the same purposes. Essentially, successful OCN Program implementation, the level of Basic award investigative activity, and

effective expenditure of the project’s funds were the criteria upon which

supplemental or Addition to Basic funding awards were made. One major

change in the OCN Program was the inclusion of overtime funds. Once

OCN projects became operational, a high-priority need developed to provide for personnel overtime costs on a case-by-case basis. The only alternatives to overtime funds were to cease new case activity or utilize less

experienced personnel. Thus, the “Operational Support” component became part of the Program and established criteria for payment of overtime

monies, but only on a case-by-case basis and only for personnel working

on OCN project investigations and prosecutions.

Lastly, the Finvest component of the OCN Program was created to support

OCN project financial investigations of narcotics traffickers and their illicit

organizations. The Finvest component was designed to increase the number of narcotics-related financial crime investigations and prosecutions as

well as to develop a proactive approach to tracing narcotics-related

Over the lifespan

of the OCN

Program, funding

methods changed

to coincide with

changes in

Program focus.
9

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

financial transactions, analysis of the movement of currency, and identification of criminal financial structures and money laundering schemes.

Funding Availability and the Projects

There is a general consensus among the projects that the OCN funding

provided them with the only means to conduct investigations into complex

criminal activities that may have otherwise gone undetected. In addition,

the funding allowed for much needed training conferences to be conducted. The training was critical to the success of the OCN Program in that

the conferences enabled representatives from each project to be provided

with relevant training as well as the ability to network with other project

representatives.

Exhibit 1 provides information related to the amount of funding received

and the timeframe of each project that participated in the OCN Program.

There is a general

concensus among

the projects that

the OCN funding

provided them

with the only

means to conduct

investigations into

complex criminal

activities that may

have otherwise

gone undetected.

Cumulative Award

Project Award Date Closing Date Amount

OCN Projects

Arizona Department of Public Safety 12/1/87 9/30/93 $859,000

Broward County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office 3/1/87 9/30/93 $1,167,880

Colorado Department of Public Safety 4/13/87 6/30/90 $227,000

City of Conyers, Georgia 10/1/90 12/31/93 $146,550

Dallas County, Texas, Sheriff’s Department 12/1/87 9/30/93 $785,000

Florida Department of Law Enforcement 2/10/87 3/31/88 $170,000

Georgia Bureau of Investigation 12/1/87 7/31/89 $349,556

Harrison County, Mississippi, Sheriff’s Department 2/16/87 6/30/90 $115,000

Jefferson County, Kentucky, Police Department/ 10/1/90 12/31/95 $554,000

Louisville Division of Police

Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department 2/4/87 3/31/94 $797,650

Las Vegas, Nevada, Metropolitan Police Department 12/1/87 12/31/93 $600,971

Louisiana State Police 12/1/87 6/30/90 $140,000

Exhibit 1 Project Funding
10

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Cumulative Award

Project Award Date Closing Date Amount

Maine Department of Public Safety 12/1/87 12/31/95 $769,000

Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional 10/1/90 12/31/95 $406,892

Services

Multnomah County, Oregon, District Attorney’s Office 1/25/87 9/30/93 $997,143

Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement/Omaha, 10/1/90 12/31/95 $471,721

Nebraska, Police Department

New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety 12/1/87 6/30/90 $275,409

New Mexico Department of Public Safety 12/1/87 1/31/96 $583,000

New York County, New York, District Attorney’s Office 12/1/87 9/30/93 $1,014,000

Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation 12/1/87 9/30/93 $449,000

Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous 2/2/87 7/31/89 $170,000

Drugs Control

Pima County, Arizona, Sheriff’s Department 12/1/87 3/31/96 $824,000

Riverside, California, Police Department 12/1/87 9/30/95 $1,113,883

Suffolk County, Massachusetts, District Attorney’s Office 12/1/87 6/30/94 $689,000

Utah Department of Public Safety 3/12/87 12/31/95 $784,000

SIRM Projects

Arizona Attorney General’s Office 10/1/91 12/31/95 $587,500

Florida Department of Law Enforcement 10/1/91 6/30/95 $500,000

Gang Violence Enforcement Projects

Bernalillo County, New Mexico, District Attorney’s Office 10/1/95 ongoing $375,000

Multnomah County, Oregon, District Attorney’s Office 10/1/95 ongoing $475,000

Exhibit 1 Project Funding

(continued)
11

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

OCN and SIRM Projects

Site Selection

Once a proposed site’s application for Organized Crime Narcotics (OCN)

funding received preliminary approval by the Bureau of Justice Assistance

(BJA), the Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR) staff typically conducted a site visit and gathered additional information to assist the process

of final selection and approval by BJA.

BJA used the following criteria to select OCN sites:

❏ The nature and magnitude of conspiratorial drug crimes in relation

to the multijurisdictional geographic area being considered;

❏ Willingness to implement OCN Program concepts;

❏ Experience with coordinated approaches to crime problems;

❏ Potential for effective multi-agency management and direction of

investigations and prosecutions;

❏ Capacity and experience of the participating agencies to conduct a

complete and coordinated project; and

❏ Anticipated impact of the project on the crime problem.

Project Locations and Host Agencies

The OCN project locations included sites in 22 states across the continental

United States (see exhibit 2).

Although the OCN Program involved multi-agency participation, a single

state or local law enforcement agency applied for the federal program

funding and then administratively served as the project grantee. The

agencies which served as applicant/host agencies were:

❏ Arizona Attorney General’s Office*

❏ Arizona Department of Public Safety

❏ Bernalillo County, New Mexico, District Attorney’s Office**

❏ Broward County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office

❏ Colorado Department of Public Safety

❏ City of Conyers, Georgia

 * These agencies hosted Statewide Integrated Resources Model (SIRM) OCN projects.

** These agencies hosted OCN Gang Violence Enforcement projects.

Chapter 3
12

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❏ Dallas County, Texas, Sheriff’s Department

❏ Florida Department of Law Enforcement *

❏ Georgia Bureau of Investigation

❏ Harrison County, Mississippi, Sheriff’s Department

❏ Jefferson County, Kentucky, Police Department/Louisville

Division of Police

❏ Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department

❏ Las Vegas, Nevada, Metropolitan Police Department

❏ Louisiana State Police

❏ Maine Department of Public Safety

❏ Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services

❏ Multnomah County, Oregon, District Attorney’s Office**

❏ Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement/Omaha, Nebraska,

Police Department

❏ New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety

❏ New Mexico Department of Public Safety

❏ New York County, New York, District Attorney’s Office

❏ Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation

❏ Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control

❏ Pima County, Arizona, Sheriff’s Department

❏ Riverside, California, Police Department

❏ Suffolk County, Massachusetts, District Attorney’s Office

❏ Utah Department of Public Safety

Population and Geographic Coverage of

the OCN and SIRM Project Sites

The OCN Program was successfully implemented in a number of communities throughout the United States: metropolitan, suburban, as well as

smaller urban and rural areas. In addition, the population and geographic

area served by the project area varied, sometimes greatly, between project

sites. Some projects concentrated efforts on larger areas, such as an entire

state or several counties, while other projects concentrated mainly in a specific metropolitan area.
13

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Multnomah County,Oregon, District Attorney’s Office

Utah Departmentof Public Safety

Colorado Department ofPublic Safety

Nebraska Commissionon Law Enforcement/Omaha, Nebraska,Police Department

Kansas City,Missouri,PoliceDepartment

JeffersonCounty,Kentucky,PoliceDepartment/LouisvilleDivision of Police

Ohio Bureauof CriminalIdentificationandInvestigation

Maine Departmentof Public Safety

Las Vegas, Nevada,Metropolitan PoliceDepartment

Riverside, California,Police Department

Arizona Departmentof Public Safety

Arizona AttorneyGeneral’s Office

New MexicoDepartmentof PublicSafety

Bernalillo County,New Mexico, District Attorney’sOffice

Pima County,Arizona, Sheriff’sDepartment

Dallas County,Texas, Sheriff’sDepartment

LouisianaStatePolice

Oklahoma StateBureau of Narcoticsand DangerousDrugs Control

Harrison County,Mississippi, Sheriff’s Department

Broward County,Florida, Sheriff’sOffice

Florida Department ofLaw Enforcement

City of Conyers,Georgia

Georgia Bureauof Investigation

Maryland Departmentof Public Safety and Correctional Services

New York County, New York,District Attorney’s OfficeNew Jersey Department ofLaw and Public Safety

Suffolk County,Massachusetts, DistrictAttorney’s Office

Exhibit 2 Project Sites and Host Agencies
14

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Host City/ Project Area Population of

Project Headquarters Served Project Area

OCN Projects

Arizona Department of Public Safety Phoenix, Arizona Arizona 3,700,000

Broward County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Broward County, Florida 1,300,000

Colorado Department of Public Safety Denver, Colorado Colorado 3,300,000

City of Conyers, Georgia Conyers, Georgia 12 Surrounding Counties 1,600,000

& Cities, Including Atlanta

Dallas County, Texas, Dallas, Texas Dallas County, Texas 1,900,000

Sheriff’s Department

Florida Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, Florida Alabama, Florida, 27,000,000

 Georgia, South Carolina

Georgia Bureau of Investigation Atlanta, Georgia Georgia 6,500,000

Harrison County, Mississippi, Sheriff’s Gulfport, Mississippi Harrison County, 170,000

Department Mississippi

Jefferson County, Kentucky, Police Louisville, Kentucky Jefferson County, 670,000

Department/Louisville Division of Police Kentucky

Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department Kansas City, Kansas City 1,600,000

Missouri Metropolitan Area

Las Vegas, Nevada, Metropolitan Police Las Vegas, Clark County, 740,000

Department Nevada Nevada

Louisiana State Police Baton Rouge, Louisiana Four Louisiana Cities 2,400,000

& Seven Texas Cities

Exhibit 3 demonstrates the great differences in population size and geographic area of coverage between projects participating in the OCN Program.

As shown in the exhibit, the OCN Program operated in jurisdictions containing approximately 67 million persons. This population figure only

takes into account the population areas that the projects targeted in their

OCN applications. During the lifespan of a project, however, it was not unusual for OCN investigations to extend beyond the targeted population areas. As a result, an even greater portion of the U.S. population was served

and benefited through the OCN Program.

The OCN Program was just as effective in a large population center in the

West as in a rural area in the Northeast. Whether a small or large

Exhibit 3 Project Population and Geographic Information
15

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Host City/ Project Area Population of

Project Headquarters Served Project Area

Maine Department of Public Safety Portland, Maine Maine 1,200,000

Maryland Department of Public Safety Columbia, Maryland Maryland 4,800,000

and Correctional Services

Multnomah County, Oregon, District Portland, Oregon Four Portland- 1,200,000

Attorney’s Office Area Counties

Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement/ Omaha, Nebraska Four Omaha- 520,000

Omaha, Nebraska, Police Department Area Counties

New Jersey Department of Law and Trenton, New Jersey New Jersey 7,700,000

Public Safety

New Mexico Department of Public Safety Santa Fe, New Mexico New Mexico 1,500,000

New York County, New York, District New York City, New York County, 1,500,000

Attorney’s Office New York New York

Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Columbus, Ohio Montgomery County, Ohio 570,000

Investigation

Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 3,100,000

Dangerous Drugs Control Oklahoma

Pima County, Arizona, Sheriff’s Department Tucson, Arizona Pima County, Arizona 670,000

Riverside, California, Police Department Riverside, California Riverside County, California 1,200,000

Suffolk County, Massachusetts, District Boston, Massachusetts Suffolk County, 660,000

Attorney’s Office Massachusetts

Utah Department of Public Safety Salt Lake City, Utah Utah 1,700,000

SIRM Projects

Arizona Attorney General’s Office Phoenix, Arizona Arizona 3,700,000

Florida Department of Law Enforcement Tallahassee, Florida Florida 13,000,000

Gang Violence Enforcement Projects

Bernalillo County, New Mexico, Albuquerque, Albuquerque, New Mexico 590,000

District Attorney’s Office New Mexico

Multnomah County, Oregon, District Portland, Oregon Multomah County, Oregon 580,000

Attorney’s Office

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 statistics (figures have been rounded).

Exhibit 3 Project Population and Geographic Information

(continued)
16

Bureau of Justice Assistance

metropolitan area, OCN project performance proved that the OCN

Program had a positive impact on the targeted criminal activities.

Program Implementation Experience

The OCN Program demonstrated that shared management oversight of

drug investigations and prosecutions involving local, state, and federal

agencies can be operationally effective, efficient, and successful. The cumulative OCN project operational results and outcomes presented in this

monograph are of significance, but perhaps even more important are the

many strong interagency police and prosecutor relationships which were

formed, for they often occurred in areas that have not traditionally supported these type of relationships.

The successful implementation of projects within the OCN Program

resulted in a variety of other positive outcomes including:

❏ Equal sharing in the coordination and direction of personnel, financial,

equipment, and technical resources necessary for the successful

investigation and prosecution of targeted conspirators;

❏ Increased capability by state and local agencies in directing the

investigation and prosecution of major multijurisdictional narcotics

traffickers;

❏ Increased use of civil remedies and recovery of criminal assets acquired

with funds traceable to criminal activity;

❏ The reduction of fractional and duplicative investigations and

prosecutions by OCN projects;

❏ The use of revocation of business licenses, corporate charters, and other

certifications possessed by criminal enterprises (SIRM projects) as

valuable enforcement tools; and

❏ The finding that OCN Program concepts are equally effective in

dismantling a violent gang (OCN Gang Violence Enforcement projects)

as in narcotics trafficking.

Project Descriptions

Following are summary descriptions of the OCN projects including the

SIRM projects and the OCN Gang Violence Enforcement projects. Each

summary briefly describes the project goals, target areas, date of activity,

and Control Group member agencies.
17

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

OCN Projects

Arizona Department of Public Safety

(December 1, 1987–September 30, 1993)

This OCN project, hosted by the Arizona Department of Public Safety,

focused on illegal importation of narcotics from Mexico into Arizona and

other border states. Also targeted was the detection and destruction of

illicit drug laboratories. The project later expanded investigations to include the interdiction of highway transportation of large quantities of

cocaine and other drugs through and into Arizona. The project’s Financial

Investigations component successfully identified and seized assets associated with illegal narcotics activity.

In addition to the Arizona Department of Public Safety, other Control

Group member agencies included the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the U.S.

Customs Service, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

Broward County, Florida, Sheriff’s Office

(March 1, 1987–September 30, 1993)

Since inception of the project, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, as applicant agency, worked with the Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages

and Tobacco, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. One original member

of the project, the Pompano Beach Police Department, subsequently withdrew from the Control Group.

The project’s original goals included development of a coordinated multiagency law enforcement/prosecution effort against major organized crime

and narcotics conspiracies. With the addition of a Financial Investigations

component, the project also successfully seized assets of major narcotics

traffickers gained through illegal drug activity.

Colorado Department of Public Safety

(April 13, 1987–June 30, 1990)

This OCN project’s operations involved the detection and disruption of

major narcotics offenders and their associates who utilized general aviation aircraft as the principal mode of illegal distribution into and out of

Colorado.

Along with the applicant agency—the Colorado Department of Public

Safety, Bureau of Investigation—the project included the following participants: the Alamosa County Sheriff’s Department, the Colorado Attorney

General’s Office, the Colorado District Attorney’s Council, the U.S.

Attorney’s Office, the U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
18

Bureau of Justice Assistance

City of Conyers, Georgia

(October 1, 1990–December 31, 1993)

Initially, the principal objective of this project was to disrupt the illegal

activities of mid- to upper-level narcotics dealers by coordinating multiagency resources in its enforcement activities. As the project period progressed, project goals were added to include investigations which also

targeted methamphetamine laboratories.

Original Control Group members consisted of the Conyers Police Department, the Covington Police Department, the Rockdale County District

Attorney’s Office, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, and the U.S. Drug

Enforcement Administration. The Newton County District Attorney’s

Office joined the Control Group after the inception of the project.

Dallas County, Texas, Sheriff’s Department

(December 1, 1987–September 30, 1993)

This OCN project involved the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, the

applicant agency, the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, the Dallas

Police Department, the Fort Worth Police Department, and the U.S. Drug

Enforcement Administration. The Fort Worth Police Department subsequently withdrew from the Control Group and was replaced by the

Duncanville Police Department.

The project goal was to decrease the flow of illegal drugs into and through the

Dallas/Fort Worth area by targeting, investigating, and prosecuting individuals and organizations involved in high-level narcotics distribution.

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

(February 10, 1987–March 31, 1988)

This OCN project joined the applicant agency—the Florida Department of

Law Enforcement—with the Alabama Bureau of Investigation, the Georgia

Bureau of Investigation, the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, the

U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The project utilized the short-range radar detection capabilities of National

Guard units from the participating states and the investigative capabilities of

the participating law enforcement agencies to detect and intercept airborne

smuggling operations along the coast of the Southeastern United States.

Georgia Bureau of Investigation

(December 1, 1987–July 31, 1989)

From its inception, this OCN project focused exclusively on narcoticsrelated financial investigations. In addition to the Georgia Bureau of

Investigation, the Georgia Attorney General’s Office and the U.S. Drug
19

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Enforcement Administration were participants. Together they sought to

fill a void in state efforts to seize assets of major drug traffickers and to

provide information to federal agencies for asset seizure where state law

did not apply.

Harrison County, Mississippi, Sheriff’s Department

(February 16, 1987–June 30, 1990)

The Harrison County Sheriff’s Department, the applicant agency, along

with the Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics and the U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration, sought to develop a unified enforcement and prosecution

strategy to maximize criminal and civil remedies against targeted offenders along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. This strategy was intended to reduce

the availability of illicit drugs and the number of drug-related crimes.

Jefferson County, Kentucky, Police Department/

Louisville Division of Police

(October 1, 1990–December 31, 1995)

The Jefferson County Police Department, the Louisville Division of Police,

the Jefferson County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office, the Kentucky State

Police, the St. Matthews Police Department, the Jeffersontown Police Department, the Shively Police Department, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration made a joint effort to target mid- to high-level narcotics

dealers.

The primary goal of this project was to eliminate cocaine and methamphetamine trafficking operations. Also targeted was the detection and destruction of heroin and opiate traffickers. The New Directions strategy of the

project was designed to identify and remove the financial incentives of

drug trafficking organizations through asset seizure and forfeiture.

Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department

(February 4, 1987–March 31, 1994)

Originally stating that it wished to identify and document the organization

and leadership of area crack cocaine distributors, this OCN project later expanded its objective to include financial investigations of drug trafficking conspiracies. As a New Directions approach to the investigations, the project

targeted high-level dealers who supplied narcotics to organized gangs.

The applicant agency, the Kansas City Police Department, worked with the

following participating agencies: the U.S. Customs Service; the Jackson

County Drug Task Force; the U.S. Attorney’s Office; the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration;

and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
20

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Las Vegas, Nevada, Metropolitan Police Department

(December 1, 1987–December 31, 1993)

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the applicant agency,

along with the Clark County District Attorney, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, combined resources to investigate, prosecute, and convict major narcotics traffickers.

The OCN project’s Financial Investigations component was funded to focus

on financial intermediaries, to trace drug money through gambling casinos,

and to use Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO), Continuing Criminal Enterprise, and money laundering statutes to seize assets.

This project’s initial plan targeted the organizational components that

allowed the drug trade to thrive and focused on known traffickers and

legitimate businesses suspected of money laundering. The project later

included as targets for enforcement emerging criminal groups that

distribute cocaine.

Louisiana State Police

(December 1, 1987–June 30, 1990)

The Louisiana State Police, Texas Department of Public Safety, U.S.

Attorney’s Office, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration served

as the Control Group for this OCN project. The project targeted the manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine in the Sabine Strip along the

Texas/Louisiana border.

Maine Department of Public Safety

(December 1, 1987–December 31, 1995)

Coincidental to the initiation of this OCN project, Maine formed the Bureau of Intergovernmental Drug Enforcement (BIDE), a new effort joining

narcotics investigators from the Maine State Police, municipal police

departments, and sheriff’s departments. Renamed as the Maine Drug

Enforcement Agency, this organization hosted the OCN project. Control

Group members included the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency, Maine

Attorney General’s Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the U.S. Drug

Enforcement Administration.

The OCN project concentrated its efforts on mid- to upper- level cocaine

smugglers and wholesalers. This project’s New Directions plan expanded

the OCN concept into the rural areas of the state.
21

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Maryland Department of Public Safety and

Correctional Services

(October 1, 1990–December 31, 1995)

The following agencies participated in the project: Maryland State Police,

Delaware State Police, Maryland Natural Resources Police, Maryland

National Guard, Delaware National Guard, Maryland Port Administration

Police Department, Baltimore State Attorney’s Office, Baltimore Police

Department, Anne Arundel County Police Department, U.S. Customs Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, U.S.

Department of Justice Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force,

and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

Originally the project was to detect and interdict marine smugglers, but

later increased its objectives to include a New Directions strategy of dismantling the more aggressive and violent drug trafficking networks.

Multnomah County, Oregon, District Attorney’s Office

(January 25, 1987–September 30, 1993)

The host agency, the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office,

worked with the following agencies: Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office,

Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office, Oregon State Police, Portland Police

Bureau, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington County Sheriff’s Office,

Clackamas County District Attorney’s Office, Gresham Police Department,

Washington County District Attorney’s Office, Lake Oswego Police Department, Hillsboro Police Department, St. Helens Police Department, Columbia County District Attorney’s Office, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration.

The project’s original goal was to reduce regional drug trafficking through

coordinated enforcement and prosecution of targeted drug traffickers. Specifically, the project focused on tar heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines,

and marijuana. The project’s Financial Investigations component targeted

illegally obtained narcotics assets and initiated their seizure and forfeiture.

As the project progressed, a greater emphasis was placed on investigations

involving methamphetamine manufacturing and large marijuana cultivation operations.

Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement/

Omaha, Nebraska, Police Department

(October 1, 1990–December 31, 1995)

The original host agency, the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement,

joined the Nebraska State Patrol, Omaha Police Department, Douglas

County Sheriff’s Office, Saunders County Sheriff’s Office, Sarpy County

Sheriff’s Office, Bellevue Police Department, Douglas County Attorney’s
22

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to form the project’s original Control Group. The Saunders County

Sheriff’s Office and Bellevue Police Department subsequently withdrew

from the Control Group and the Federal Bureau of Investigation joined as

a member. During the project period, the Omaha Police Department

became host agency.

The combined efforts of these law enforcement agencies centered on controlling organized street gang involvement in the manufacture and sale of

its controlled substances. For New Directions strategy, the project intensified investigations of mid- and upper-level organized gangs involved in

drug trafficking.

New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety

(December 1, 1987–June 30, 1990)

Control Group agencies for this OCN project were the applicant (the New

Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety), the New Jersey State Police,

New York State Police, Pennsylvania State Police, Delaware State Police,

U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The original project goal was to interdict air smuggling of cocaine, to locate and destroy clandestine cocaine laboratories, and to use the project’s

Financial Investigations component to identify and seize illegal narcotics

assets. The Control Group subsequently expanded the project’s focus to

include all types of narcotics distribution conspiracies.

New Mexico Department of Public Safety

(December 1, 1987–January 31, 1996)

Along with the applicant agency, the New Mexico Department of Public

Safety, the project included the following participants: Albuquerque Police Department, Las Cruces Police Department, New Mexico Attorney

General’s Office,

U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The original Control Group included the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration,

which later withdrew from membership when the project also targeted

violent gang activities.

The project’s goal was to conduct coordinated, multijurisdictional investigations and prosecutions of targeted organized criminal narcotics trafficking conspiracies and offenders operating in New Mexico. Investigations

centered on violent gangs and narcotics smuggling across New Mexico’s

borders. This project’s New Directions investigations also targeted illegal

gang activities.
23

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

New York County, New York, District Attorney’s Office

(December 1, 1987–September 30, 1993)

The New York County District Attorney’s Office, the applicant agency,

joined with the New York City Special Narcotics Prosecutor’s Office and

the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to establish an OCN project.

The project’s goal was the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of

major heroin and cocaine importation rings based in the New York City

area. Operations were later expanded to include the dismantling of major,

international drug trafficking organizations. The project also sought to

reduce the area’s drug-related homicides.

The project’s Financial Investigations component was funded to identify,

trace, and seize the assets of the organizations investigated.

Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and

Investigation

(December 1, 1987–September 30, 1993)

The applicant agency, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, worked with the Dayton Police Department, Kettering Police

Department, Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department, Montgomery

County Prosecutor’s Office, Miami Township Police Department,

Trotwood Police Department, Huber Heights Police Department, U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The Control Group of this project established as a goal the

investigation and prosecution of mid- to high-level narcotics traffickers

operating in and around Montgomery County, Ohio.

Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous

Drugs Control

(February 2, 1987–July 31, 1989)

The original Control Group members, along with the applicant, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control, were the

Custer County Sheriff’s Office, Enid Police Department, Midwest City Police

Department, Muskogee Police Department, Norman Police Department,

Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office, U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations,

and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The Dell City Police Department joined as a Control Group member after project inception.

The principal goal of this OCN project was to disrupt statewide illicit drug

manufacturing and trafficking.
24

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Pima County, Arizona, Sheriff’s Department

(December 1, 1987–March 31, 1996)

This OCN project joined the applicant, the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, with the Cochise County Sheriff’s Department, Yuma Police Department, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, and U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration.

The initial joint effort targeted narcotics smuggling and distribution across the

Arizona/Mexico border. The project directed enforcement resources against

enterprises whose destruction was most likely to cause lasting impact to

smuggler organizations. The project’s focus on New Directions operations

was twofold: drug-related homicides and other violent activities and the

demonstration of the OCN concept in the rural areas of the state.

Riverside, California, Police Department

(December 1, 1987–September 30, 1995)

The applicant agency, the Riverside Police Department, joined the Riverside

County Sheriff’s Department, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and

the Riverside County District Attorney’s office in attacking major narcotics

violators in and around Riverside County, California. Ultimately, a major portion of this OCN project’s resources were focused on groups which manufactured and distributed methamphetamine. The project’s New Directions

investigations targeted mid-level street gang cocaine traffickers.

Subsequent to the original award, the project received funding for a Financial Investigations component to identify, seize, and process forfeiture assets illegally derived.

Suffolk County, Massachusetts, District Attorney’s Office

(December 1, 1987–June 30, 1994)

The participants in this OCN project consisted of the applicant, the Suffolk

County District Attorney’s Office, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

The project targeted major narcotics trafficking conspiracies in Suffolk County

and its principal city, Boston. Project investigations were intended to eliminate area cocaine and heroin trafficking. The Financial Investigations component sought to identify and seize illegally derived assets.

Utah Department of Public Safety

(March 12, 1987–December 31, 1995)

This OCN project’s original goals were to identify, investigate, and prosecute

multi-kilo cocaine traffickers. As the project progressed, conspirators
25

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

involved in money laundering activities were targeted. As its New Directions

strategy, the project aimed enforcement efforts at mid- to high-level narcotics

traffickers and financial investigations in rural as well as urban areas.

Control Group members included the Utah Department of Public Safety,

Salt Lake City Police Department, Utah County Sheriff’s Department, Salt

Lake County Sheriff’s Office, Ogden City Police Department, U.S. Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Customs

Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service, and

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

SIRM Projects

In 1991, the Statewide Integrated Resources Model was developed as part

of the OCN Program. SIRM projects utilized the OCN approach in their investigations with one important difference: the mandatory inclusion of a

state regulatory agency such as those involved with banking, securities, or

real estate as a member of the Control Group. With this regulatory agency

Control Group member, SIRM projects were able to include the investigative authority and administrative sanctions available to the state regulatory agencies, including revocation of business licenses and corporate

charters.

Arizona Attorney General’s Office

(October 1, 1991–December 31, 1995)

This SIRM project began by focusing on illegal financial enterprises in Arizona that supported major drug traffickers and applied civil and regulatory remedies to money laundering. The project aimed to substantially

disrupt drug trafficking activity by targeting, investigating, and eliminating major narcotics trafficking organizations.

As a direct result of the project, new state legislation regulating money

transmitters and enacting financial reporting regulations was implemented

to enhance Arizona’s existing money laundering statute. Project investigations severely disrupted the illegal activities of money transmitter businesses on Arizona’s southern border and drug runners operating in and

around the state of Arizona. Another direct result of this program was the

Suspicious Transaction Report Initiative which enhanced Arizona’s antimoney laundering efforts.

Control Group members of this project included the Arizona Attorney

General’s Office, Arizona Department of Banking, Arizona Department

of Public Safety, U.S. Customs Service, and U.S. Drug Enforcement

Administration.

SIRM projects

utilized the OCN

approach in their

investigations with

one important

difference: the

mandatory

inclusion of a state

regulatory agency

such as those

involved with

banking, securities,

or real estate as a

member of the

Control Group.
26

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

(October 1, 1991–June 30, 1995)

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement also participated in the OCN

SIRM Program. As a SIRM project, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement joined forces with the Office of the Statewide Prosecutor/Office

of the Attorney General, Office of the Comptroller, and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

This project investigated large-scale, statewide drug organizations and associated money laundering businesses including traffickers with connections to other countries. As a result of the project’s investigations,

networks transporting major amounts of cocaine, crack, and marijuana

were dismantled. Sizable assets were also seized from these traffickers

including businesses, residences, cash, and other personal property as a

result of project investigations. In addition, a number of spinoff cases

evolved from the investigations which, in turn, lead to many of the smaller

dealers also being dismantled.

OCN Gang Violence Enforcement Projects

The OCN Gang Violence Enforcement projects were launched in 1995.

These projects included the same Program elements as earlier OCN

projects in that multi-agency management and operational decisionmaking

were shared. However, the Gang Violence Enforcement projects were established with the intent to assist law enforcement agencies and prosecution agencies in enforcement exclusively against violent gangs. The two

projects selected were the Bernalillo County, New Mexico, District

Attorney’s Office, and the Multnomah County, Oregon, District Attorney’s

Office. Both developed strategies to gather intelligence on violent gangs

and to implement investigative and prosecution strategies designed to dismantle their most violent gangs.

Bernalillo County, New Mexico, District Attorney’s

Office

(October 1, 1995–current)

As an OCN Gang Violence Enforcement project, the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office formed a Control Group with the U.S. Attorney’s

Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms, the New Mexico Department of Public Safety, the

Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department, and the Albuquerque Police Department. Through investigation and intelligence sharing, the stated goal

of this project was dismantling and eliminating violent gangs operating in

the project area.

OCN projects were

responsible for

16,366 drugrelated arrests and

seizure of over

$1 billion worth of

illegal narcotics,

cash, and illegally

derived assets.
27

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Since the activation of this project, two of the area’s most violent gangs

have been targeted for investigation. Several members from one gang were

indicted on federal charges including multiple homicides, other acts of violence, drug offenses, and firearm offenses. The investigation of the second

gang focused on the members’ violent crimes such as homicide as well as

drug conspiracies. In addition, the project actively gathers intelligence on

possible future violent gang targets.

Multnomah County, Oregon, District Attorney’s Office

(October 1, 1995–current)

In addition to participating in the initial OCN Program, the Multnomah

County District Attorney’s Office participates in the OCN Gang Violence

Enforcement project. Using Oregon’s “Little RICO” statute for prosecution,

this project targeted the area’s most violent and criminally active gangs,

particularly those involved in drug sales and weapon offenses.

Control Group members for this project include the host agency, the

Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office, as well as the Multnomah

County Sheriff’s Office, Portland Police Bureau, Oregon State Police, and

the Oregon Department of Justice.

OCN Program Operational Results

The successful implementation of projects within the OCN Program resulted in the development of an array of successful multijurisdictional enforcement strategies. By using these strategies, the projects experienced

significant investigative, prosecution, and forfeiture success.

OCN projects were responsible for 16,366 drug-related arrests and seizure

of over $1 billion worth of illegal narcotics, cash, and illegally derived assets (see exhibit 4). Exhibits 5 and 6 provide a breakdown of these seizures

on a yearly basis. Further analysis of the OCN and SIRM project enforcement successes have been included in Appendix A.

The dollar amount of narcotics seizures and property seizures varied from

year to year, quite often affected by the number of active projects. Seizures

were higher in the earlier years of the Program when there were more active projects. Consequently, in the later years, as the number of active

projects decreased, so did the seizure of property and narcotics.

In 1991, one

project’s

investigations

resulted in an

extremely large

seizure of over

6,100 pounds

of cocaine

hydrochloride with

a reported street

value of $553

million.
28

Bureau of Justice Assistance

There were, however, exceptions to this pattern. One exception of note is

the total value of assets seized in 1987 (see exhibit 6). Although many of

the initial projects began operation in 1987, a majority were not implemented until December of that year. Consequently, most project enforcement activities were not fully operational until the following year. Another

exception was the total value of narcotics seized in 1991 (see exhibit 5).

During this year, one of the project’s investigations resulted in an extremely large seizure of over 6,100 pounds of cocaine hydrochloride with a

reported street value of $553 million.

All of the exhibits present consolidated outcome information reported by

OCN and SIRM projects in progress reports submitted to BJA. Because of

the diversity of the project areas, comparisons of activity levels between

individual projects were not encouraged. Each project’s geographic region

of operation was unique and goals and objectives were designed specifically for each project.

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

57

231

159

85

108

85 87

56

25

Total # of Arrests Total # of Cases

Exhibit 4 Total Number of Arrests and Cases—All Projects

Note: The number of active projects varied by year.

Note: The values on the line graph are independent of the values on the x- and y-axes.
29

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

$0

$86,658,615

$80,638,965

$66,512,422

$61,704,036

$580,003,375

$57,592,135

$42,836,493

$34,521,031

$28,431,396

Total Dollar Assets Seized (millions)

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

$0

$1,891,979

$36,116,354

$23,602,522

$11,891,967

$21,627,514

$14,470,347

$8,357,734

$6,212,856

$3,942,932

16

18

15

21

19 20

20

12 12

Total Dollar Assets Seized Number of Active Projects

Total Dollar Assets Seized (millions)

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

Exhibit 5 Total Value of Narcotics Seized—All Projects

Exhibit 6 Total Value of Assets Seized—All Projects

Note: The number of active projects varied by year.

Note: The values on the line graph are independent of the values on the x- and y-axes.
31

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

The Control

Group was the

mechanism within

the OCN Program

intended to

prevent any

single agency’s

enforcement goals

from controlling or

dominating project

operations.

Chapter 4

OCN Control Group

Overview of the Control Group

Each Organized Crime Narcotics (OCN) project was required to be comprised of a formally organized group of participating law enforcement

agencies, one of which was the applicant agency, and a management Control Group. Each Control Group included, at a minimum, one federal and

one state or local law enforcement agency. In addition, at least one federal

or local prosecutor was required to serve on the Control Group. Statewide

Integrated Resources Model (SIRM) projects were required to be hosted by

a state agency and to include at least one regulatory agency in the Control

Group.

The senior agency administrators of the participating agencies executed a

formal intergovernmental agreement, or memorandum of understanding,

affirming their intent to fully participate in the management and operations of the project. The agreement was intended to be brief and simply

stated, addressing the goals and objectives of the project, the anticipated

contributions of resources and, as appropriate, the expertise of each participant, and a projected end date, after which the need for continuing

participation in the project would be reaffirmed.

One of the participating state or local agencies served as the applicant agency

or grantee, accepting not only responsibility for preparation of the grant application, but for project administrative and financial matters as well.

Purpose

The OCN Program was designed so that the identity of the project and its

control were equally shared by all participants. The Control Group was the

mechanism within the OCN Program intended to prevent any single agency’s

enforcement goals from controlling or dominating project operations. To accomplish this, a Control Group comprised of a senior command representative from each of the participating agencies was established.

Each member of the Control Group had an equal vote on all decisions, and

the decisions of the Control Group were required to be unanimous. Unanimous decisionmaking on case selection ensured that investigative targets

were an important enough problem for all jurisdictions to actively support

the project efforts.

The Control Group not only served as a policymaking board, but also was

responsible for selecting cases to be investigated and prosecuted, allocating project resources, and providing continuous oversight of all project

investigations.
32

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Perhaps the most unique features of the OCN Program model were the

Control Group decisionmaking and oversight processes. In a traditional

task force organization one agency manages the task force administration

and operations. In such an arrangement, a board of directors, if there is

one, is usually comprised of the administrators of the participating agencies, and is most often limited to an advisory role. In any event, other participants have little influence on the task force’s goals and objectives.

Essentially, the involvement of other participating agencies is one of the

contributing resources to the lead agency.

Once a case received approval by the OCN Control Group, the selection of

one agency to be responsible for the day-to-day supervision of the project

case became a priority. Agency designation only applied to the individually assigned investigation and could change in the course of an investigation. Control Group oversight continued until the conclusion of the project

case. Any changes in operational strategy or resource requirements received formal Control Group approval. All project cases were supported

by formal operational plans and budgets prior to Control Group approval.

Members

The first organizational task of an OCN project was determining the composition of the Control Group. The majority of the Control Groups were

comprised of the senior operations managers of those agencies expected to

be most involved in cases conducted by the project. Because federal investigative funds form the basis for the OCN Program and by reason of the

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA’s) designation as lead federal drug enforcement agency, the inclusion of DEA on the Control Group

was initially mandatory for all OCN projects. Later as OCN goals expanded, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service,

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the U.S. Customs Service served in lieu of or in addition to the DEA. Recognizing the need for

early prosecution involvement and planning in the OCN project cases,

membership on the Control Group was also mandated for at least one

prosecutor drawn from the federal, state, or local level. In addition, OCN

SIRM projects were required to include at least one regulatory agency.

Other than these requirements, no specific guidance was furnished to applicants in determining Control Group membership.

The size of Control Groups varied from a minimum of 3 to a maximum of

13. Projects near the upper range in numbers of Control Group members

tended to involve large, but sparsely populated, geographic areas. Control

Groups located in large metropolitan areas also tended to be larger since

participants were found to have long-standing cooperative associations

and working relationships too important to be fragmented by the OCN

task force. While other considerations were no doubt influential, experience with the OCN Program indicated that maximum Control Group

The majority of the

Control Groups

comprised the

senior operations

managers of those

agencies expected

to be most

involved in cases

conducted by the

project.
33

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

effectiveness was achieved when membership involved only those agencies which had important and beneficial resources to contribute to the joint

effort.

The inclusion of more than seven members on a Control Group seemed to

encumber requisite decisionmaking. Just the logistical obstacles to scheduling meetings of a large Control Group proved to be a serious constraint.

Some Control Groups which originally had as many as 12 or 13 members

later reduced their size. Over time, agencies withdrew from the project

while new agencies joined.

Those projects which by necessity created large Control Groups often created smaller executive committees, or operations groups, to provide day-today support to project casework and act as liaison between Control Group

members, in addition to other operational roles in the OCN task force.

Another initial issue pertained to the rank of the agency assigned to the

Control Group. Because many agencies had participated in previous cooperative, multijurisdictional efforts there was a tendency to nominate the

agency’s chief executive to attend Control Group meetings. It soon became

apparent that agency chief executives were preoccupied with other agency

business or that they simply were not the most effective choices for Control Group representation. Generally, it was found that the agency representative on the Control Group should be an operational commander or

staff person, albeit one with direct access to the highest command levels of

the parent agency. As a fundamental rule, the Control Group representative must be in the mainstream of his or her own agency’s operation so

that he or she needs little preparation on matters of OCN interest and be

able to commit the agency’s resources to a case. As Control Groups gained

experience and confidence in the OCN Program, a self-leveling process

took place in which agency chief executives relinquished their memberships on the Control Groups and were replaced with operational

commanders.

It was important that the prosecutor’s representative be either principally

involved in the prosecution of narcotics cases or in a direct supervisory capacity to assigned prosecutors. An occasional troublesome area was an initial tendency on the part of some prosecution Control Group agencies to

substitute freely among their Control Group representatives, but this process soon abated.

Meetings

The OCN Guideline intentionally offered no detailed advice as to Control

Group meeting format, frequency, or location, other than meetings were to be

regularly held and minutes recorded. These matters were decided early on in

the project startup process and modified as appropriate over time. Control

Groups, in addition to making minutes of their meetings available for review,

submitted quarterly activity and progress reports to the BJA Program Office.

Generally, it

was found that

the agency

representative on

the Control Group

should be an

operational

commander or staff

person, albeit one

with direct access

to the highest

command levels of

the parent agency.
34

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Most Control Groups met frequently, but at least monthly in the early stages

of project implementation. Some maintained that frequency throughout the

project period, but most, once project implementation was completed, met

only once each quarter. There was also a tendency to meet less frequently in

those projects where the operational commanders serving on the Control

Group were in almost continuous contact on their casework.

Generally, the projects reported that meeting on a regular basis proved to

be beneficial in maintaining productivity and project focus. In addition, the

regular meetings increased successful working relationships, with the

OCN cases as well as non-OCN-related issues, and intelligence sharing.

Most projects established a formal policy for convening Control Group

meetings by telephone to handle emergencies. Overall, OCN Program experience indicated that the functions of the Control Group were best exercised in a formal, in-person meeting on at least a monthly basis.

Interagency Agreements

The OCN Program Guideline required Control Group member agencies to

execute a written Interagency Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as part of their OCN grant application process. A proposed

model agreement was included in the Guideline (see Appendix B), setting

forth the desire of the participants to work together on common problems

and to contribute resources to the joint effort. Participants were free to

modify the model agreement or come up with their own.

The Interagency Agreement was not intended to be a policy and procedures

manual nor was it to encompass issues related to liability or other technical

matters. Experience with the Program indicated that it was usually better to

deal with policies, procedures, and these other issues in separate agreements which could be more easily amended by the Control Group.

Few problems were encountered with the Interagency Agreement process,

although some tended to be lengthy. Although DEA’s membership in the

Control Group was required by the OCN Program announcement, most

local DEA offices elected to seek approval from DEA headquarters before

signing the agreement.

Projects reported

that meeting on

a regular basis

helped maintain

productivity and

project focus.
35

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Goals and Objectives

The formulation and expression of goals and objectives proved to be one of

the more challenging administrative tasks undertaken by Control Groups.

Many initial applications lacked specificity as to what was to be accomplished and were subsequently revised to develop objectives which were

measurable and observable. Samples of such objectives were furnished to

projects during the preliminary application phase and further refinement

took place as the Program progressed (see Appendix C). Projects were required to evaluate their progress and make necessary adjustments to their

goals and objectives prior to applying for continuation funding.

The formulation

and expression

of goals and

objectives proved

to be one of the

more challenging

administrative

tasks undertaken

by Control Groups.
37

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

OCN Program Investigations

Case Selection Criteria

The Bureau of Justice Assistance’s (BJA’s) Organized Crime Narcotics

(OCN) Program Guideline encouraged applicants to generally describe the

criteria by which the Control Group would select cases for funding to ensure high level project targets. Some initial applications contained specific

criteria. For instance, one project in the Southwest stated that selection was

based, at a minimum, on the target organization or individual possessing

the following traits:

❏ Multijurisdictional operation;

❏ At least 3 years of documented narcotics trafficking;

❏ Previously unsuccessful law enforcement targeting;

❏ Prior prosecutions of individuals in the targeted organization group;

and

❏ The organization, as well as its illicit activities, continuing after the

prior prosecutions.

Case selection criteria initially proposed by other applicants were often

less focused, and were required to be made more specific. One project

stated that it would “select likely candidates as targets from previous [Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force] OCDETF intelligence.” A

number of applications did not contain case selection criteria and their formulation or refinement became a mandated priority during the startup

phase of the project.

The earlier projects had workable case selection criteria formulated and in

place, as soon as they became operational. In some projects, Control Group

representatives had extensively discussed and agreed upon criteria in anticipation of multijurisdictional enforcement efforts before applying for

OCN Program funding. In those instances, their level of confidence was

higher, and they quickly initiated cases.

Several projects emphasized that they planned, in whole or in part, on accepting case proposals from agencies that were not Control Group members. Here, well-defined and publicized case selection criteria were

especially necessary, so that non-Control Group agencies proposing cases

for project funding would be aware of the type and level of case and the

supporting documentation required. By knowing the acceptable standards,

misunderstandings would be avoided if a case were not approved. Irrespective of whether investigative proposals were presented to the Control

Group from one of its member agencies or from non-Control Group agencies, the criteria and the process were identical. In addition, the benefit of

having promulgated clear and concise case selection criteria was found to

be essential to the success of the OCN Program.

Chapter 5

The earlier projects

had workable case

selection criteria

formulated and in

place, as soon as

they became

operational.
38

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Case Planning and Monitoring

A major function of the Control Group was to determine if proposed cases

merited OCN project designation. Whether derived from ongoing cases by

one or more of the participating agencies or originating in agencies outside

the Control Group, each case presented for consideration by the Control

Group was required to be incorporated into a written case plan with a

budget. Case plans resulted in efficient case preparation, better Control

Group decisions, and, as a result, more successful investigations.

The OCN Guideline contained a sample case plan (see Appendix D).

Typically included as elements in a case plan are target information, type

and level of criminal activity, potential investigative impediments, proposed investigative actions, prosecution strategy deemed most conducive

to success, personnel and equipment (project resources) needed, and

anticipated expenses.

During the life of nearly every project, cases were rejected as not meeting

the project’s criteria or deferred pending provision of additional information or intelligence. Control Groups were not reluctant to request additional information, offer advice, or amend proposed case budgets.

Likewise, most Control Groups took their case monitoring and review responsibilities seriously, showing no hesitancy to suggest changes as cases

progressed, or to terminate investigations which were not fruitful. Amendments to case plans or budgets were processed with the same degree of

formality as the original plans and budgets to ensure fairness to those

whose plans may have been denied or who were awaiting requested funding. In a number of instances, Control Groups substituted another agency

for the lead agency.

Target Selection

It was critical to OCN Program success that, at the outset, project Control

Groups agreed upon the offenses and offenders which would be targeted

for priority enforcement action. Although participating agencies may have

different criminal activity thresholds governing their interests, all equally

participated in establishing the project’s targets.

BJA’s OCN Program Announcements and Guideline made frequent reference to “major” and “high-level” narcotics trafficking crimes as the Program focus. The OCN Program was not designed to support street-level

enforcement or to engage in intelligence collection alone. Beyond this,

however, agencies applying for funding were given considerable latitude

in describing the nature and level of the narcotics problem which they intended to attack. Initially, their description of the narcotics problem to be

addressed was included in the preliminary application reviewed by BJA.

Case plans resulted

in efficient case

preparation, better

Control Group

decisions, and,

as a result, more

successful

investigations.
39

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

In certain preliminary OCN applications, the initial description of the type

and level of proposed investigative effort was quite specific. In one joint

project involving two state investigative agencies, for example, the targets

were described as “individuals and/or organizations involved in clandestine drug manufacturing, the distribution of illegally manufactured drugs,

and other drug-related crimes including outlaw motorcycle gangs, suppliers of chemicals and/or laboratory equipment, marketing and distribution

groups and chemists.” In some applications, not only was the targeted

crime problem specifically described, but enforcement method to be used

was also described. For example, the investigative agencies of four southern states planned to use portable radar sites to detect major, low-flying

aerial smugglers along the coasts of the participating states and to coordinate joint interdiction efforts.

On the other hand, a number of applicants for funding described their targets

in broader terms, such as “mid-level” or “high-level dealers.” These applicant agencies and Control Groups refined these descriptions either during the

application process or as a condition of receiving an OCN award.

In the Program’s later years, the “New Directions” approach was adopted

by projects. The targets of these investigations included one or a combination of the following: organized gangs trafficking in drugs beyond the

street level, perpetrators of drug-related homicides and other violent activities, organized criminal activities in the rural areas of the project state,

and identifying and removing the financial incentives to drug trafficking

organizations. OCN Statewide Integrated Resourses Model (SIRM) project

targets were selected where the inclusion of a regulatory agency would be

effective.

Gang Violence Enforcement projects were funded with the objective of targeting the most violent criminal gangs in an effort to dismantle and eliminate them. These projects established criteria that resulted in gangs posing

the greatest threat to the community receiving priority. The recently

funded Gang Violence Enforcement projects initiated ongoing investigations of their area’s most violent gangs, and have already experienced

marked success with a number of criminal indictments.

Generally, with minor modifications, the targeted crime problems remained

in place throughout the life of a project. In a few instances, subsequent analysis and operational experience resulted in the Control Group modifying its

targets. The Control Group of one multi-state project, for example, found that

after several months of operation it was unable to achieve its original, too narrowly focused objective of disrupting the aerial smuggling of cocaine into the

state. Accordingly, with BJA approval, the Control Group expanded the

project’s mission to include other smuggling modes and distribution conspiracies. Thus, when coupled with a clear description of projected criminal

targets, OCN project self-evaluation kept the project on track and prompted a

change in direction when needed.

It was critical to

OCN Program

success that, at the

outset, project

Control Groups

agreed upon the

offenses and

offenders that

would be targeted

for priority

enforcement

action.
40

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Multijurisdictional Task Force Effectiveness

A select study of OCN project operations was conducted in 1992, to determine whether a predictable task force life cycle pattern existed which resulted in a change in task force effectiveness over time. If a pattern of

decreasing effectiveness was found to exist, the study goal was then to

assess how a project’s effectiveness could be restored.

The OCN Program was selected for the task force study because of several

characteristics unique to it which permitted an accurate measurement of

task force effectiveness. These characteristics included: the time span of

existence of the Program (since 1987), the number of projects that had been

funded in different areas of the United States (27 at the time of the study),

the extensive uniform activity and outcome data collected for each project,

and accessibility to OCN task force commanders and other personnel

knowledgeable of task force operations.

The initial, underlying perception was that task force effectiveness diminished over time. This diminishing was postulated to be a natural result of

the extraordinary high level of enthusiasm of participants in the early

stages of the effort, the large number of predictably productive cases available in the first years of operation, subsequent changes in Control Group

and task force personnel, and various management deficiencies. These circumstances and others were explored in detail during the study to determine the validity of these assumptions.

OCN projects were required to provide quarterly progress reports, from

which information regarding each project was analyzed for the study. Areas of analysis included the number of new cases opened, current active

cases, arrests and charges related to project cases, and property and currency seized in conjunction with project cases.

Interviews were conducted with 12 selected task force commanders in 8

states. The commanders were asked about their observation of:

❏ Any decreased effectiveness of their task force;

❏ The availability of productive cases over time;

❏ Changes in the flow of relevant information to the task force;

❏ Changes in the Control Group of the task force or its personnel;

❏ Dropoffs, if any, in task force results over time; and

❏ Methods to use to identify and remedy any decrease in task force

effectiveness.

After analysis of the OCN project activity and outcome information,

coupled with interviews of project personnel, it was determined that a

typical pattern of task force effectiveness showed only minor increases and

These variations in

effectiveness were

considered to be

routine by nearly

all task force

commanders, and

no predictable

decreasing

effectiveness life

cycle pattern was

found.
41

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

decreases in effectiveness, all of which were attributable to specific events.

These variations in effectiveness were considered to be routine by nearly

all task force commanders, and no predictable decreasing effectiveness life

cycle pattern was found.

Many of the projects found the OCN task force to be a powerful tool in investigations, providing a setting allowing for a beneficial exchange of information and reduced duplicative enforcement efforts. Several projects

also reported that the OCN Program provided a means to obtain necessary

overtime pay to ensure case continuity and impetus. In addition, the availability of confidential funds, when coupled with skilled personnel, substantially aided successful multijurisdictional task force casework.

Other research has also demonstrated that a multijurisdictional task force

can be an effective tool for law enforcement. In addition to multi-agency

participation, prosecutor participation and active involvement of federal

law enforcement agencies were noted to be critical to successful task force

operations. Furthermore, once representatives from each participating

agency became accustomed to each other, the working relationship improved, and individual agency “turf” considerations diminished as the

task force investigations progressed.

Role of Self-Evaluation in Program

Improvements

One feature of the OCN Program was the adoption of a continual selfevaluation process by the projects during their operation. Each project

Control Group, with technical assistance from the Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR), developed at the inception of the project, comprehensible, attainable, observable, and measurable performance goals and

objectives. A uniform data collection process was initiated at each site and

analysis of the information collected was centralized and automated by

IIR. Assessments of project operational performance were routinely conducted. Feedback was provided to project administrators and program

andperformance data were furnished to BJA to assist in program evaluation efforts.

Using this evaluative information and the experiences and observations of

their own agencies, Control Group members constantly monitored their

project’s performance and made timely modifications as appropriate. This

process usually resulted in subtle, incremental corrections in enforcement

strategies and operational management, but occasionally introspective

analysis by a Control Group produced fundamental change.

In addition to the effects on individual projects, the self-evaluation process

resulted in numerous findings which were applied Program wide. These

improvements and modifications were shared among the OCN projects

One feature of the

OCN Program was

the adoption of a

continual selfevaluation process

by the projects

during their

operation.
42

Bureau of Justice Assistance

during periodic national Program cluster conferences, through site visits

by the technical assistance provider (IIR), and through production of a series of OCN-derived instructional videotapes. Lessons learned were also

periodically incorporated into OCN Program Guideline revisions to assist

ongoing and future projects.

Conclusion

Throughout the years the Organized Crime Narcotics (OCN) Program has

continually evolved, improving its effectiveness in the enforcement of

multijurisdictional narcotics trafficking crimes and violent gang crimes.

Even though the OCN Program was originally designed as an illegal narcotics trafficking enforcement tool, the Program has proved equally effective in combating most any type of criminal activity that requires

multijurisdictional investigative and prosecution expertise. In addition, by

implementing the OCN Program in varying locations across the United

States, the versatility of the Program has also been demonstrated in its effectiveness against crimes in metropolitan jurisdictions as well as rural areas, regardless of region.

One of the unique features of the OCN Program was the Control Group.

The Control Group allowed for the benefits of the cooperative efforts of a

task force while eliminating the usual drawbacks associated with traditional organized task forces. Collectively, the projects demonstrated that

the multijurisdictional approach to law enforcement was beneficial not

only by removing criminals and illegal substances from the streets, but

also by creating strong, united law enforcement structures that can effectively eliminate the problems associated with large-scale criminal organizations. Further, OCN identified state and local agencies to be effective

and competent partners in the management of multijurisdictional task

forces and important resources in federal enforcement strategies as well as

ensuring responsiveness to more “localized” needs. As the criminals became much more sophisticated, multi-agency unification was found to be

necessary to continued enforcement success.
43

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Average Value of Narcotics

and Assets Seized Per Project

and Per Case

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000 $1,520,327

$349,086

$418,317

$725,930

$5,370,403

$677,555

$492,373

$616,447

$1,137,256

Exhibit 7 Average Value of Narcotics Seized Per Case

Exhibit 8 Average Value of Narcotics Seized Per Project

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 $0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000 $5,416,163

$5,039,935

$4,434,161

$2,938,287 $2,879,607

$2,141,825

$2,876,753

$2,369,283

$30,526,493

Appendix A
44

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Exhibit 9 Average Value of Assets Seized Per Project

Exhibit 10 Average Value of Assets Seized Per Case and

Average Number of Arrests per Case

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

$118,249

$2,257,272

$1,573,501

$566,284

$1,138,290

$723,517

$417,887 $517,738

$328,578

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

17 16

27 24

17 13

10

16 24

Average Value of Narcotics Average Number of Arrests

Seized per Case per Case

Note: The values on the line graph are independent of the values on the x- and y-axes.
45

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Interagency Agreement

(Sample)

Appendix B

Interagency Agreement

Between (Names of Participating Agencies)

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

This agreement between the participating agencies of the (Name of Project)

shall be effective when signed by the Chief Executive Officers of the participating agencies.

1. It is agreed that each of the agencies will participate in a Control Group

by designating one specific individual at the command level to serve on

the Control Group and act on behalf of the designating agency. Each

member of the Control Group shall have one vote and shall vote on:

❏ Approval/disapproval of cases to be investigated as part of the

project;

❏ Amount of and use of funds to be authorized for specific case

investigations; and

❏ Key decisions critical to the management of case investigation

strategies and activities.

All votes of the Control Group are unanimous.

2. Each agency agrees to provide whatever resources are available at its

disposal to specific cases as appropriate for effective investigation of

same, as approved by the Control Group.

3. It is agreed that participation in multi-agency investigative efforts of

this project is voluntary and that in the event a participating agency

wishes to withdraw from this agreement, written notification of this

decision will be provided to all parties to this agreement prior to

withdrawal.
46

Bureau of Justice Assistance

4. Parties to this agreement shall cooperate with the project applicant

agency in following procedures relating to case management, reporting

requirements, fiscal guidelines, and other appropriate policies as

adopted by the Control Group and as consistent with IIR and federal

program guidelines.

5. (Other clauses or stipulations as desired.)

6. The term of this agreement shall be from (date contract entered with

IIR) to (ending date of contract).

BY: (Chief Executive Officer of Each Agency) _____________

Name Date

Title

Agency

BY: (Chief Executive Officer of Each Agency) ______________

Name Date

Title

Agency

Add others as needed.
47

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Recommended Model

Objectives for OCN Project

Self-Evaluation Capability

Appendix C

Basic OCN

1. During the grant period, ___ (number of) formal meetings will be held

by command-level staff representatives of the Control Group.

2. During the grant period, ___ (number of) cases involving mid- to

upper-level drug conspirators will be presented to the Control Group

for consideration as OCN investigations.

3. During the grant period, ___ (number of) cases will be approved by the

Control Group for investigation.

4. Approved cases will include staff participation from at least two OCN

project agencies in each investigation.

5. ___ (number of) cases approved for investigation will be completed

with successful results. Arrests will occur in at least ___ percent of the

cases investigated.

6. The arrests occurring in approved project cases will result in at least

___percent guilty pleas or convictions on original or related charges of

those arrested.

7. During the grant period, approved project cases will result in the

seizure of at least ___ (grams, kilograms, ounces, pounds) of

________________________ (cocaine, crack, heroin, marijuana, hashish,

amphetamine, other specify).

8. Approved OCN cases will result in the forfeiture of property valued at

$_____________ (dollars) and $____________ (amount of currency).

9. An analysis will be made at the end of the grant period to assess the

amount and percentage of funds expended for various purposes; e.g.,

for the purchase of evidence, surveillance activities, confidential source

payments.

10. (Other objectives as appropriate.)

Operational Support

11. By the end of the grant period, at least ___ investigators from ___ project

agencies will have carried out ___ overtime hours of physical surveillance

and other investigative activity of suspected narcotics trafficking

conspiracies approved for investigation by the Control Group.
48

Bureau of Justice Assistance

12. Approximately ___ overtime hours of investigative activity will be

carried out by the end of the grant period in at least ___ Control Groupapproved investigations, at least ___ of which will result in arrest of or

charges filed against alleged criminal conspirators.

13. (Other objectives as appropriate.)

Finvest

14. During the grant period, ___ (number of) formal meetings will be held

by command-level staff representatives of the Control Group and ___

(number of) cases will be presented for consideration as Finvest cases.

15. During the grant period, ___ (number of) Finvest cases will be

approved by the Control Group for investigation.

16. Approved Finvest cases will include operational staff participation

from at least two project agencies in each investigation.

17. By the end of the grant period, at least ___ financial investigations will

be successfully completed, as measured by the presentation of sufficient

information to prosecutive agencies to initiate RICO, CCE, or other type

of property seizure proceedings or criminal actions against defendants.

18. By the end of the grant period, ___ (number of) arrests will be made

and, as a result, ___percent of guilty pleas and convictions will be

obtained.

19. By the end of the grant period, at least ___ (number of) investigations

will be completed of narcotics-related financial operations which will

involve at least $______ million in assets tied to criminal activities.

20. At the end of the grant period, an analysis will be made to assess the

amount and percentage of funds expended for various purposes; e.g.,

for personnel, purchase of services, purchase of evidence, contractual

services.

21. (Other objectives as appropriate.)
49

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Case Plan

(Sample)

Appendix D

Elements

I. Background and Summary of Case

II. Target(s) of Case

A. Name

B. Detailed identification information

III. Need for Joint Jurisdiction

❏ What laws are possibly being violated that require a multi-agency

effort?

IV. Operational Plan

❏ What specific investigative actions and prosecutive steps will be

involved in pursuing the case?

V. Participating Agencies

A. Personnel—financial specialists, prosecutors, etc.

B. Other resources—equipment, vehicles, etc.

VI. Anticipated Expenses (Use the expense categories in the approved

budget to estimate case expenditures and show basis for calculation,

e.g., man-hours estimate, travel expense.)

Minutes of Control Group meetings should reflect case approval and a

control number for tracking case.
51

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

A Law Enforcement Response

to Complex Criminal Activity:

Multijurisdictional Task Forces

Appendix E

Copyright 1989 IIR

All Rights Reserved by IIR

I. Introduction

Today as never before, law enforcement is being challenged; challenged by

an increasingly complex society making increasingly complex demands for

law enforcement services. So too, criminal organizations benefiting from

seemingly insatiable demands for illicit goods and services and restrained

by few, if any, of the constraints on American law enforcement have

grown more complex and more difficult to control. Today, it is virtually

impossible for a single agency, much less a single investigator or prosecutor, to successfully combat organized criminal activity.

To meet these challenges, law enforcement had to become more innovative

and resourceful in combating crimes, criminals, and criminal activity.

Multijurisdictional task forces have emerged as one of the most effective

modern law enforcement tools; in part because task forces can transcend

not only agency differences in organization, orientation, policies, size, constituency, and even personalities, but also resource and jurisdictional constraints. The emergence of task forces is also due in part because task

forces have proved just as adaptable to multi-agency street enforcement

activities as they have to the multijurisdictional investigation of the most

complex criminal organizations.

The term “multijurisdictional” describes a task force in terms of its composition: the multiple agencies and authorities participating in the task force.

More specifically, multijurisdictional refers to the composite of territorial

boundaries and enforcement authorities of the task force’s individual participants. Unless specific legal authority is granted to a task force, the task

force’s jurisdiction is, in effect, the collective or composite jurisdiction of

the agencies operating under the task force umbrella.

Generally, a task force is described by the geographic territory encompassed.

For example, depending on a task force’s enforcement mission, the participants might come from some or all of the law enforcement agencies:

❏ Within a single county—countywide;

❏ Within several counties—multi-county;
52

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❏ Within a region of a state—regional;

❏ Within a state—statewide;

❏ Within a group of states—“Border,” “Western,” or “Mid-Atlantic”; or

❏ Within all states—national.

Federal law enforcement agencies often sponsor task forces, many of

which have state and local agency representation. These are generally

identified as “federal,” “DEA,” or “FBI” task forces. Federal agencies are

also frequent participants in state and local multijurisdictional task forces.

The inclusion of a federal agency better ensures followup of investigative

leads on a national basis, but perhaps even more importantly, federal participation provides a means of coordinating task force investigations with

federal investigations as well as enhancing task force capabilities. In organizing a task force, territorial jurisdiction and enforcement jurisdiction are

extremely important considerations in the selection of member agencies.

In this discussion, we will first talk about task forces and how they are organized. Then, we will explore a new multijurisdictional task force model

that has been used with great success by law enforcement agencies across

the country.

II. Task Forces

Instead of being obstructed by criminal activities that cross city, county,

state, and federal boundary lines, task forces have the potential to organize

in as expansive, functional, and flexible manner as any complex criminal

organization. Rather than rely upon occasional instances of agencies working together in expressions of good will, task forces provide the formal

framework for local-to-national multi-agency planning and coordination of

case activities.

Task forces facilitate the pooling of expertise and other resources so that the

individual strengths of the member agencies become collective task force

strengths. Intelligence gathering, information sharing, and communications

among agencies are greatly enhanced in the more formal coordinated task

force setting and on a much broader base than in a case-by-case setting.

Versatility

One of the most versatile characteristics of the task force model is that it is

equally effective whether addressing state, regional, national, or distinctly local problems. A countywide task force might address a rash of convenience

store robberies or residential burglaries, while a statewide task force might be

organized to address the crime of arson and include participation by regulatory agencies and the private sector, as well as law enforcement.
53

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Few innovations in the history of law enforcement offer the versatility of

task forces; whether local, regional, national, or international in scope;

whether city, county, state, or federal agencies; whether in rural, urban, or

metropolitan settings. In any mix or combination, one common theme

emerges: the joining together to overcome obstacles to a successful enforcement effort.

Although task forces may be organized to conduct long-term investigations of every complex criminal conspiracies, they have also proved

successful in performing more fundamental law enforcement tasks, particularly where the primary obstacles to success are limited resources and

insufficient information upon which to act. This more fundamental use is

often seen in street-level narcotics enforcement where multiple cities combine with one or more counties to jointly perform dealer-to-user narcotics

enforcement. These street-level narcotics enforcement task forces are generally designed to continue for long periods of time, with an established

chain of command, a governing board, formal administrative and operational policies and procedures, and long-term commitments to provide

personnel, equipment, and in some instances funding.

Not all task forces are designed to exist for a long time, nor are they necessarily formal. There are many examples of short-term, ad hoc task forces at

the local level. Sometimes these efforts are under prosecutive leadership or

part of a state or federal agency’s enforcement program. Vice offenses,

drunk driving crackdowns, marijuana eradication, and fugitive sweeps are

common examples of these usually well-publicized, short-term task force

efforts. Short-term task forces are effective in increasing enforcement pressure on a particular public nuisance or criminal condition and in increasing the public awareness of the law enforcement effort as well.

III. Organizing Task Forces

Task Force Development in American Law Enforcement

Historically, law enforcement cooperation was often signified by manhunts, checking leads for another agency, or otherwise assisting out-oftown police agencies. Law enforcement cooperation in the more formal

multijurisdictional task force sense is of fairly recent origin, dating from

the 1960s.

Two examples of task force evolution in the 1960s were the Kansas City

Metro Squad and the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime and

Racketeering Section Strike Force. The Kansas City Metro Squad was

unique in that it involved both large and small law enforcement agencies

entering into a formal agreement to pool their investigative resources to

concentrate on major felony crimes in the area. The Organized Crime and

Racketeering Section Strike Forces introduced formal investigative planning and coordination to organized crime law enforcement.
54

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Another innovation in the late 1960s and 1970s was pioneered by the New

Jersey Division of Criminal Justice, which incorporated civil and regulatory authorities into task force strategies. The adoption of the task force

model as an important means of overcoming the obstacles to successful

narcotics enforcement resulted from an effort in South Florida in the early

1970s, the Joint Organized Crime Investigations task force.

In the 1970s and 1980s, narcotics and dangerous drug enforcement fostered

new generations of task forces involving rural and urban law enforcement

and city, county, state, and federal enforcement agencies. For instance, in

San Mateo, California, a countywide task force was created based on support from area cities by means of a population-based funding formula. In

Clallam County, Washington, rural communities provided personnel resources to a formal, structured, countywide task force. And in one federally funded program, over 2,500 local and state task forces were identified

as recipients of federal support.

As a result of these efforts, single agency domination of task forces gave way

to a new concept of members having equal participation in task force management and operations. Formal investigative planning was utilized, prosecutive strategies were incorporated, and unanimous decisionmaking was

adopted as the basis for determining unified narcotics enforcement actions.

Organizational Constraints

The first step in organizing a task force is to determine what the proposed

task force is to accomplish. This is more than a mere discussion of the

crime problem to be addressed. Rather, the deliberations should, in addition, include the obstacles to success which limit traditional means and

how using a task force can overcome these obstacles. Generally, these obstacles are described in terms of the difficulties presented by the targeted

criminal organization itself and existing law enforcement constraints.

For example, the target may be a narcotics distribution ring working in numerous cities, which is being supplied from a distant location, and which

is controlled by leaders known to be insulated from the street distribution.

Here, likely law enforcement constraints include the lack of a single jurisdiction where supply and distribution occurs and the lack of fiscal resources to pursue investigative leads outside the jurisdiction. The nature of

the organization also suggests the need for additional information about

criminal activity and the individuals involved at each level of the activity.

Additionally, the lack of manpower, expertise, or surveillance equipment

might well be obstacles. The criminal organization may be so insulated

that an investigative grand jury, or at least prosecutive support for search

and arrest warrants, may be needed.

Each of these constraints can be overcome by combining agencies having

the requisite authorities, resources, and expertise. These agencies and their

capabilities should be set out in the documentation of the task force
55

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

purpose. Stating what the task force is to do implies intended results, and

these results must be realistically stated and capable of translation into

performance measures once the task force is organized.

Size

Next, the size of the task force must be addressed. Broad participation of

agencies having a legitimate interest in the task force’s mission can be very

advantageous in terms of coordination, information sharing, and effective

pooling of resources. The most critical decision, however, relates not necessarily to the size of overall participation, as participation can be structured,

but rather to the size of the task force’s governing body or control group.

While the governing body’s size will be influenced by the need for adequate participant representation, size should be guided by considerations

relating to the strategic and tactical decisionmaking required, as well as the

sensitivity of the criminal information and casework. Seven members appears to be optimal for most multijurisdictional task force governing body

management mechanisms.

Makeup

The selection of task force members and the task force governing bodies is

not easy. As a general rule, agencies should be selected on the basis of their

potential contribution to task force success, with those most important to

success comprising the task force governing body. Task forces should provide for the addition of new participants or the deletion of existing members over the life of the task force.

In addition to jurisdictional considerations, task forces benefit from being

interdisciplinary. An interdisciplinary task force is one that uses authorities other than criminal enforcement and prosecution. For example, a state

or federal taxation authority might be included in a task force for the purpose of seizing assets, or a civil authority agency might be responsible for

task force property forfeitures. Other regulatory agencies may also be of

benefit to a task force, particularly in economic crime investigations.

A somewhat related though separate issue pertains to the suitability of

agencies to work effectively in a task force setting. Long-standing rivalries

or unsatisfactory records of past cooperation are important considerations

in selecting task force participants. Task forces can ill afford to include

sources of dissension solely to avoid offending them. On the other hand,

historical animosities should be revisited as experience reveals many of

these are without any legitimate foundation, and task force involvement

often results in a wide range of information sharing and additional cooperative ventures.

Once initial approvals are obtained, task force participation should be reduced to writing in a formal agreement. To prevent misunderstandings

later, the written agreement should incorporate as necessary the specific
56

Bureau of Justice Assistance

capabilities to be made available by an agency and its acknowledgment of

the general responsibilities of task force participation.

Management

Next, task force operational activities must be made accountable and operate under the aegis of one or more duly constituted governmental entities.

One of the most common ways of accomplishing this is to operate the task

force under the authority of one of its member agencies. It is important,

however, that the extent that other members participate in task force management be thoroughly understood and incorporated into the task force

agreement. Although many federal task forces incorporating state and local agencies use a single agency/authoritarian management structure,

other state or local task forces utilize participation models which allow

member agencies to participate to some degree in task force decisions,

such as setting task force priorities, target selection, and the formulation of

policies and procedures.

Increasingly, task force success is dependent upon the task force agreements

and processes. Many have formal agreements governing the disbursement of

forfeited assets, but other formalities exist as well, such as requiring written

investigative plans and budgets before task force resources are committed.

Where member officers may be performing enforcement activities outside

their own jurisdiction, and in the absence of statutory protections, liability

agreements may be a prerequisite to participation.

Life Span of the Task Force

Finally, task forces should have a life span—a specific period of time at the

end of which the task force disbands or reorganizes. This allows the maximum opportunity for the participants to review the task force’s accomplishments and the value of their continued participation, and allows for

disbanding, or revising and restructuring, without undue stress among the

participating members. In any case, a task force must have the ability to add

or to remove members when the best interests of the task force are served.

Liability

As statutory protections and insurance provisions covering liability may

differ in each state and locale, liability issues should be addressed by the

participating agencies in a task force. Although there are no guarantees

that an agency will not be sued for the acts of another participating agency,

a formal agreement stating that each agency will be responsible only for

the acts of its members might at least serve as evidence of the intent of the

task force participants. Liability issues should only be resolved by appropriate legal authorities of the participating agencies.
57

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

IV. The OCN Program Model

Two Task Force Models

After examining the strength and weakness of two decades of multijurisdictional task force operations, at least two new models for state and local

task forces had evolved by the 1980s.

The first of these models may be characterized by a combining of law enforcement resources to perform street-level narcotics enforcement on a

citywide, countywide, or regional basis. These task forces are often unique

in that the participating agencies agree to a single chain of command and,

dependent upon local laws and customs, agree to provide the requisite

personnel and other resources. Often, the support for these task forces is

derived from a pro rata formula or may be obtained from task force seizures and forfeitures. These task forces are activity-response oriented and,

essentially, their purpose is to perform the enforcement function of the individual members on a collective or joint basis. Of course, the pooling of

resources and expertise and the ability to operate in a larger geographic

territory can yield new enforcement capabilities and, therefore, opportunities not available to a single agency.

The other new model that has evolved is investigative oriented, allowing

members to conduct related street enforcement activities separately. This

model more often than not involves local, state, and federal agencies as

participants, as well as prosecutors.

There is a degree of similarity between these two models in terms of their

motivation to form task forces, as well as influences on their organizations

and performance. There are also differences: the former are by necessity

more response oriented, whereas the latter tend to be more formal in their

planning and strategies (the casework consumes more time and resources,

and there is more emphasis on targeting criminal organizations, as well as

the criminals involved).

In the remainder of this discussion, we will focus on one type: the investigative model task force. This model was developed by the Bureau of Justice

Assistance as part of its Organized Crime Narcotics (OCN) Trafficking Enforcement Program. The model is known as the OCN Task Force. The OCN

model incorporates new, innovative concepts into an experience-proven task

force framework, and has relevance to both “activity-response” and “investigative” oriented task force development.

Organizing an OCN Task Force

Although a number of law enforcement agencies may initiate interest in a

multijurisdictional task force, generally only one agency assumes a leadership, organizing role in terms of having responsibility for the administrative details of establishing a task force. The designation of the organizing
58

Bureau of Justice Assistance

agency is important, as it must not only be able to expend the necessary

energies, resources, and administrative capabilities involved in organizing,

but it must also be able to recruit other agencies essential to the task force.

In the OCN Program, the organizing agency also serves as the “applicant”

agency. In addition to the responsibilities of organization, the applicant

agency also assumes the responsibilities of applying for and administering

funds for use by the OCN task force. Absent specific authority to the contrary, any organizing agency of a task force supported by funding not supplied by the organizer would assume somewhat similar grant financial and

administrative responsibilities.

Upon achieving operational status, OCN policy dictates that the applicant

agency becomes only one of the equal voting members of the task force’s

governing body or managing control group. This is a substantial departure

from traditional task force management policies in that by having equal

voting authority, a dominating operational agency is eliminated.

Establishing the Control Group

Separate entity status is further ensured by the establishment of the managing Control Group, the governing body of the task force. The Control

Group comprises command-level representatives from three different

groups: state and local law enforcement agencies, federal law enforcement

agencies, and state or federal prosecution agencies.

Each agency represented on the Control Group has one vote. In addition to

the one agency—one equal vote characteristic of OCN task forces—there is

another vital difference in the Control Group’s decisionmaking process: Control Group decisions must be approved by a unanimous vote of all Control

Group members. Task force experience has indicated that where a majority

rules there is a high risk of alienating the minority, and this too easily leads to

factions and dissension within a task force. This dissension is obviously disruptive to the management and operational effectiveness of the task force;

thus, the unanimous vote requirement in this successful model.

The Control Group’s size must be conducive to the management responsibilities and the sensitivity of case information. Even though the optimum size of

a Control Group is considered to be seven agencies, additional agencies are

not precluded from participating in individual case investigations. Once operational, task force activities often lead to inquiries from other local agencies

desirous of participating in specific cases of mutual interest.

Policymaking and the Interagency Agreement

First, the Control Group determines the purpose of the task force and expresses this purpose in specific, understandable, and measurable objectives. Second, the commitment of each member agency to fully participate

and to assist in meeting these objectives is also determined. These
59

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

organizational matters are committed to writing in the form of an interagency agreement, and each member of the Control Group must register

his or her concurrence by signing the agreement.

The Control Group addresses a number of other organizational matters,

including the case selection process, expenditure of investigative funds,

utilization of confidential informants, processing seizures of property, distributing forfeited assets, and media contacts including press releases.

Control Group decisions on these matters should be incorporated into

written administrative and operational policies and promulgated to all

participants. It is important that Control Group representatives be delegated authority by their parent agencies to promulgate and enforce policies governing task force activities and casework. As is the case in task

force Control Group decisionmaking, these policies must be adopted

unanimously by all Control Group members.

Case Selection

A critical task is to establish case priorities and case selection criteria. The

case selection criteria must be specific enough to effectively guide the development of successful candidate cases for task force adoption and investigation. Nonmember agencies interested in task force assistance will also

need to be advised of the standards their cases must meet.

The objectives and investigative priorities of OCN multijurisdictional task

forces generate cases which are usually more complex, involving higher

level organized criminal activities. For example, one OCN Control Group’s

case selection criteria required that the targeted subjects:

❏ Be involved in a multijurisdictional operation;

❏ Have documented narcotics trafficking over a significant period of time;

❏ Have been previously investigated or prosecuted;

❏ Be involved in an organization that has an identifiable structure; and

❏ Be individuals who are themselves, or who are likely to lead

investigators to those who are, involved in a higher level of organized

criminal activity.

This Control Group also considers in its selection of cases the availability of

witnesses and evidence, the potential for dismantling the criminal enterprise,

the opportunity to pursue forfeiture or other civil relief against the criminal

organization and its members, the impact of success upon the task force’s enforcement priorities, and, in general, the opportunities for success.

Resource Allocation

Once a case is accepted, the Control Group allocates investigative resources.

In the OCN Program, investigative expense funds are provided for Control
60

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Group allocation. Agencies presenting cases for task force adoption must also

include an investigative budget setting forth estimated investigative expenses

that are being requested from the Control Group’s funds. Once the Control

Group approves a case budget, it may allocate OCN funds to pay for information, contraband or other evidence, investigative travel, other costs of the investigation, and case overtime.

Although one of the participating agencies is designated the lead agency

on each OCN case and is responsible for OCN case allocations, the Control

Group retains overall responsibility until the termination of the case. In

practice, once a case is approved, OCN funds are allocated in increments

in accordance with the investigation’s progress. Changes in funding requirements sometimes occur, and each revision requires formal case budget revision and Control Group approval.

The Control Group may also identify other resources that can be applied to

a task force investigation. For example, if a particular investigation needs a

secure undercover vehicle or an undercover officer from outside the jurisdiction or specific technical equipment, the resources can usually be provided by task force participants.

Task forces operating without OCN or similar grant funds that wish to

emulate OCN Control Group investigative expense functions might consider monetary assessments from members, contributions of “seed” money

from participants, or an asset forfeiture fund pool to provide a source for

initial funding, with continuing funding provided from future forfeitures.

Case Plans

In the OCN Program, cases considered for task force adoption must be presented in the form of a written case plan. Although case planning formats

vary, most OCN Control Groups require seven elements:

❏ A summary of the case to date, with sufficient detail to make the

summary self-explanatory;

❏ A list of the targets believed to be involved, with available identification

and supportive information;

❏ A statement about why joint jurisdiction is believed necessary for

investigative success;

❏ A proposed operational plan setting out specific investigative steps

leading to a successful conclusion;

❏ A listing of those member and non-member agencies deemed necessary

for a successful investigation;

❏ A description of the level of assistance expected from the task force

participants in terms of personnel and other resources; and
61

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

❏ A case budget setting out all estimated costs of the investigation and the

funding sources, if not OCN Control Group investigative expense

funds, and the basis for the calculations.

After reviewing the case plan, the Control Group decides whether the case

meets the selection criteria, and if so, whether the case plan is complete

enough to adopt. If the Control Group agrees to undertake the case, and is

satisfied that the participation levels required and necessary resources are

available, one agency is appointed as the lead agency on the investigation.

The lead agency is most often the original presenter of the case.

Once designated, the lead agency is responsible to the Control Group for

managing the investigation, and routinely reports case progress and any

problems, including additional resource needs, to the Control Group. The

lead agency’s case reporting procedures are generally used by all agencies

working on the case, and the lead agency is responsible for the maintenance of all case files and evidence.

Case Oversight

To monitor the status and assess progress in all active cases, the OCN Control Group meets as often as required, but it should meet at least once every 30 days. At these Control Group meetings the lead agencies present

case progress reports including additional funding requests, significant developments or changes, and problems. Minutes of the meeting should be

prepared and distributed to participants.

As the Control Group retains authority over all cases, it can redirect stalled

investigations by providing additional resources or otherwise amend the

case plan. The Control Group can also change the designation of the lead

agency if the best interests of the case dictate, or order an early termination

of a case when promising investigative leads are exhausted.

Task Force Performance Measures

The ultimate question is whether a task force has fulfilled its purpose and

met its objectives. In multijurisdictional task force efforts, as in other law

enforcement endeavors, it is often difficult to quantify results such as

enhanced information sharing, communication, cooperation, and

understanding between law enforcement and prosecuting agencies. Nevertheless, task forces can adopt quantifiable objectives which adequately

demonstrate performance to the participants, parent governments and

sponsors, and the general public. Some examples of measurable objectives

are:

❏ Number of cases presented to the Control Group for consideration and

their disposition;

❏ Number of cases managed by the Control Group;
62

Bureau of Justice Assistance

❏ Number of arrests or indictments and the percentage of arrests that

result in guilty pleas or convictions;

❏ Dollar value and amount of contraband and forfeitable property seized

as a result of task force investigations; and

❏ The number of criminal organizations and leaders investigated and the

results in terms of disruption and elimination.

V. Conclusion

The new multijurisdictional task force is the result of serious thought and

analysis about collective law enforcement efforts that are successful and

those that are not. The task force model described here is probably more

structured and formal than many of those which currently exist, but the

structure and formality help to bring law enforcement agencies together

and provide a way to unite against previously insurmountable crime problems. Although not all the OCN features may be applicable to every task

force, they do represent current thinking in task force organization and

operations based upon field testing and proven performance.
63

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

Guideline

Appendix F

Funding and Administration of the

Organized Crime Narcotics Trafficking

Enforcement Program

I. PURPOSE. The purpose of this guideline is to provide information

and guidance concerning the funding and administration of the

Organized Crime Narcotics Trafficking Enforcement Program. This

guideline is complemented by additional regulations, guidelines,

instructions, and policies such as the current edition of the Office of

Justice Programs (OJP) Guideline Manual M 7100.1, Financial and

Administrative Guide for Grants.

II. SCOPE. This guideline is of interest to state and local criminal

agencies involved in the administration and implementation of the

Organized Crime Narcotics Trafficking Enforcement Program.

III. AUTHORITY. The Justice Assistance Act of 1984, Public Law 98–473

(October 12, 1984), 42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq., and the Anti-Drug Abuse

Act of 1986, Subtitle K–State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance

Act of 1986, Public Law 99–570 (October 27, 1986) authorizes the

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) within the Office of Justice

Programs to award discretionary grants to public and nonprofit

agencies. The Organized Crime Narcotics Trafficking Enforcement

Program, hereinafter named the Organized Crime Narcotics (OCN)

Program, is a demonstration program announced under the aboveauthorized criminal justice discretionary grant program. This

guideline replaces the former guideline.

IV. PROGRAM GOAL. The goal of the OCN Program is to enhance,

through an assured management approach to joint operations, the

ability of federal, state, and local criminal justice agencies to remove

specifically targeted major narcotics trafficking conspiracies and

offenders through investigation, arrest, prosecution, and conviction.

The Program will formally structure and centrally coordinate

multijurisdictional activities, resources, and functions of law

enforcement agencies in the successful investigation and prosecution

of complex multijurisdictional crimes and their perpetrators.

In some jurisdictions the OCN Program is complemented by a

Statewide Drug Prosecution (SDP) Program. Both programs include

as their goal the enhancement of the ability of criminal justice

agencies to investigate and prosecute major narcotics conspiracies.

Because of the close association between the goals of these programs,

where OCN and SDP projects are co-located, cooperation and

coordination will be required. Applicants requesting funding should
64

Bureau of Justice Assistance

indicate their willingness to cooperate in joint OCN and SDP efforts

as appropriate. Specific requirements related to coordination will be

established by BJA on a project-by-project basis.

In some jurisdictions, an OCN project may be co-located with a Financial Investigations (Finvest) Program project. The projects should be

mutually supporting and the OCN project considered a major source

of cases for the Finvest effort.

V. PROGRAM FUNDING FOCUS. The focus of this program is directed to the provision of investigative resources for organized crime

narcotics investigations. Program funds for Basic OCN projects will

be used for investigative costs only, and not for items such as salaries,

fringe benefits, equipment, contractual services, or construction.

When specifically approved, program funds for payment of costs associated with overtime are provided within an optional Operational

Support Component and for personnel within a Financial Investigations Component. (See paragraph VII for further information.)

VI. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION.

A. Problem Analysis. Drug trafficking is a root cause of violence and

major crime in our cities and rural areas alike. Development of

successful cases against narcotics trafficking conspiracies and offenders requires multiagency investigative efforts. The diffusion

of responsibility among federal, state, and local jurisdictions for

organized crime and narcotics control works to the advantage of

the criminal groups. Major criminal conspiracies often span jurisdictional boundaries to the extent that two or more state or local

jurisdictions may be required to respond to the same offense or

conspirators. The enforcement community’s response to the

conspiracy/offense may be fragmented, duplicative, counterproductive, or limited, resulting in lack of prosecution or a reduction

in the level of conspirator investigated and prosecuted. A formal

mechanism whereby shared interdisciplinary resources are centrally coordinated can work to immobilize targeted offenders who

manage these networks and organizations.

B. Results Sought. It is expected that successful implementation of

projects within the OCN Program will achieve some or all of the

following results:

1. Development of an overall enforcement strategy which includes

identification and targeting of major narcotics trafficking conspiracies for priority enforcement action, planning of all human

and technical resources required to pursue the investigation

and prosecution of individuals involved in those conspiracies,

and active involvement of agencies necessary to pursue those

conspiracies.
65

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

2. Selection of a management system for the shared coordination

and direction of personnel, financial, equipment, and technical

resources for the investigation and prosecution of targeted conspirators in support of the project’s overall enforcement strategy. OCN project success is attributed to comprehensive

planning and coordination.

3. Investigation and prosecution of major multijurisdictional

conspirators.

4. Reduction of fractional and duplicative investigations and

prosecutions.

5. Promotion of civil remedies and recovery of criminal assets

(e.g., assets acquired with funds traceable to criminal activity;

assets used in the commission of crime; contraband and stolen

property).

6. Cooperation and coordination of efforts, as appropriate, among

OCN projects, BJA-funded SDP projects, and BJA-funded

FINVEST projects.

VII. PROGRAM STRATEGY AND COMPONENTS.

A. Strategy. The strategy of the OCN Program is twofold: to promote a multiagency enforcement response—including a prosecutive strategy—to commonly shared major narcotics trafficking

crimes throughout a multijurisdictional area and to establish a formal mechanism whereby investigative and prosecutive resources

can be allocated, focused, and managed on a shared basis to target

offenses and offenders. The adoption of the required administrative and operational components specified in Paragraph VII B

serves as the means by which this strategy is implemented. Critical to the success of this program is a management system of

shared enforcement resources which includes the following

elements:

1. Establishment of criteria to identify, select, and prioritize investigative targets.

2. Assignment of cases for initiation of investigation and subsequent prosecution.

3. Identification, acquisition, and assignment of resources and

skills required in the investigative and prosecutorial process

throughout the duration of the case.

4. Coordination and monitoring of the cases to ensure proper timing of investigative and prosecutorial activities and facilitate

decisionmaking concerning case continuance, referrals, redirection, and closure.
66

Bureau of Justice Assistance

B. Administrative, Operational, and Optional Components. Each

project must initiate required administrative and operational components. Those applying for the optional component of Operational Support must structure this element to support the required

administrative and operational components of the program.

1. Administrative (Required). Every project must be made up of a

formally organized group of participating agencies, one of

which is the applicant agency and another the management

control group.

A) Participating Agencies. Each project will be composed of

participating agencies which must include as a minimum a

federal agency and a state and/or local agency. Because

these are federal funds and because of DEA’s significant

enforcement role, their inclusion in the control group of

each OCN project is mandatory. One of the participants

must be a prosecutive agency. Each senior agency administrator of the participating agencies will sign a formal

intergovernmental agreement or memorandum of understanding affirming his or her intent to fully participate in

the management and operations of the project. The agreement should be simply stated and brief, but it should contain the goals and objectives of the project, contributions

anticipated by the participants, and a projected date of

when the need for continuation of the project is to be reevaluated. One of the state or local participating agencies

will serve as the applicant agency, which accepts responsibility for project administrative and financial matters.

Agencies may fully participate in OCN casework without

being members of the control group.

B) Control Group. Each project must have a control group

that is composed of senior operations managers representing those agencies expected to be most involved in cases

conducted by the project. DEA and the prosecutive agency

must be control group members. Experience has shown

that for most effective decisionmaking, the control group

should consist of not more than seven members. The size

of the control group does not, however, limit the number

of agencies that can work on a case. The control group will

establish policies to: select cases to be investigated; allocate, direct, and manage project resources; and jointly

manage project investigations. The control group must

meet regularly, not only to consider new investigations,

but to evaluate and monitor ongoing cases. Experience has

shown that the case oversight process must be formal

and should cover prosecutive developments as well as

investigative progress. Members of the group will have an
67

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

equal vote on all matters before the group, and their decisions must be unanimous. Minutes will be taken for all

meetings.

C) Case Management. The program has shown that the control

group can operate a wide variety of configurations and can

handle organized crime narcotics investigations without interfering with or diminishing their street-level enforcement

activities. Each case that is approved for investigative funding by the project control group is assigned to a single or

“lead” agency who is responsible to the control group for

the management and conduct of that case. Each case, however, involves the personnel and other resources of at least

two or more participating agencies. The proposed case investigative plans specify the expected staffing required, as

well as which case agency will be “lead” agency. Lead agencies designate agency procedures to be followed and are responsible for the administration of case funds and for

compliance with case reporting procedures. Some case investigations will lead to cooperation with and possible inclusion into the control group of additional law enforcement

agencies. This cooperation and expansion of participating

agencies, including changes to the control group, is an allowable action as part of this program but must be approved by the control group.

2. Operational (Required). The following are operational activities or requirements of each project funded under this

program:

A) Each project must provide formal procedures and processes governing the conduct of project activities including

target selection, allocation of resources, investigative and

prosecution plans, and case selection.

B) Each project must be capable of conducting coordinated

investigations and prosecution of selected targets in a

timely and thorough manner.

C) All enforcement operations initiated under the project

must be based upon a formal investigative/prosecutive

plan setting forth case objectives, resources, specific activities of the enforcement actions to be taken and those agencies conducting the activities, and a prosecutive strategy.

D) Funds for basic OCN projects will be used to support

project investigations for such purposes as rental of vehicles, surveillance costs (excluding personnel), purchase

of supplies, purchase of contraband, investigative travel,

and purchase of information.
68

Bureau of Justice Assistance

E) There must be state and/or local agency participation in

each project case.

F) There must be federal agency participation in each project

case.

G) Every project is require to fully coordinate with U.S. Drug

Enforcement Administration efforts and those of U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime Drug Enforcement

Task Forces that may operate in the geographic areas of

the project. The method by which this coordination is to

be accomplished must be described in the application.

H) Unanimous consent of the control group is required to initiate funding of project investigations.

3. Optional Components. Operational Support and Financial Investigations Components will be made available to selected

projects under the following conditions.

A) Operational Support. An Operational Support Component

may be made available to selected OCN projects for the

payment of overtime costs for personnel working on approved OCN project cases. Operational Support funds will

not be used to establish new positions or to pay regular

salaries of current employees. Operational Support funds

will be made available based generally on the following

criteria:

1) Provision of justification by the applicant that the type

of cases to be investigated with funding provided by

the OCN Program cannot be successfully pursued to

the maximum extent possible without operational

support;

2) Lack of available funds from existing resources;

3) The likelihood of these funds contributing to the accomplishment of project goals;

4) Submission of overtime policies and procedures that

will govern the use of these funds by the project, including the provision that payment for overtime for

any OCN case will be approved by the case supervisor;

5) Assurance that documentation will be included in the

case investigative plan establishing that operational

support funds are necessary for the specific case and

approval of same by the control group; and
69

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

6) Operational Support funds are to be used only for approved OCN cases. Supervisors should ensure that where

a requisite number of hours are required for eligibility for

overtime, the majority of those hours are incurred on

OCN cases.

B) Financial Investigations. Additional allocations of funds

may be made available to certain OCN projects to implement a Financial Investigations Component. The establishment of this component would accomplish the following:

1) Increase the number of narcotics-related financial crime

investigations and prosecutions; and

2) Develop a comprehensive operational approach to the

identification of financial resources related to narcotics

trafficking and the investigation and prosecution of

those individuals involved, including the recovery of

assets related to criminal activity.

Funds would be provided to develop a comprehensive,

proactive law enforcement approach involving the tracing

of narcotics-related financial transactions, analysis of the

movement of currency, identification of criminal financial

structures and money laundering schemes, asset forfeiture

administration (civil remedies), and the provision of financial investigation and analysis techniques training.

Funding for financial investigations components implemented will provide each funded project a core financial

investigations staff including investigators/accountants

and analysts. The staff members will undergo extensive

specialized training in financial investigative techniques,

analytical techniques, asset forfeiture, and elements of financial crimes. Personnel costs including fringe benefits

and indirect expenses will be allowed. In addition, funds

will be approved for office furniture, supplies, rent for office space, and travel expenses for investigative and training purposes.

To support each component, limited funding for microcomputer hardware and software will be provided for financial investigations tracking, analysis, and reporting for

cases directly related to OCN Program activities. Additional support will also provide for investigative accountant consultants for onsite advice and instruction during

formative periods.
70

Bureau of Justice Assistance

In addition to the criteria specified in paragraph X under

PROJECT SITE/OPTIONAL COMPONENT SELECTION,

the criteria to be used in selecting applicants to receive Financial Investigations Component funding will be based

on those applicants that clearly specify how funds will be

used to target investigations that focus on:

1) Uncovering how funding is raised for the illegal purchase

of drugs and who provides such funding;

2) Discovering how profits from illegal drug transactions are

laundered;

3) Identifying profits resulting from illegal drug trafficking;

4) Identifying assets acquired from illegal drug trafficking;

and

5) Seizing assets gained from illegal drug trafficking under

RICO or Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE), or similar

state statutes.

The Financial Investigations Component must operate totally

under the project control group, including required participation of a federal agency, approval of a case plan, allocation of

resources, and unanimous case approval of the control group.

VIII. ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE AWARDS. One of the participating

agencies from each operational project will serve as the applicant

agency and be the award recipient from the Bureau of Justice

Assistance.

IX. DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS.

Applications for OCN funds must be submitted as specified by

application instructions.

X. PROJECT SITE/OPTIONAL COMPONENT SELECTION. The

Bureau of Justice Assistance will select OCN project sites based on

the following criteria:

A. In the multijurisdictional area being proposed, the nature

and magnitude of conspiratorial drug crime;

B. The capacity and experience of the participating agencies to

conduct a complete and fully coordinated project component;

C. Potential for joint agency management and direction of investigations and prosecution, including the presentation of

signed interagency agreements;

D. The presence of a coordinated approach to the crime problem;
71

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

E. The use of standardized procedures for information collection

and dissemination, for joint case administration, and for investigative techniques;

F. Proposed criteria to be used in the selection and prosecution

of cases; and

G. The anticipated impact on the crime problem and the criminal

justice system.

XI. DOLLAR RANGE AND NUMBER OF CONTRACTS. Approximately 20 awards ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 are anticipated. Length of the award is 12 months.

XII. COST SHARING. Projects will be funded up to 100 percent of

total project costs. Projects are encouraged to obtain and utilize

other resources to the maximum extent possible for the purpose

of augmenting project operations.

XIII. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. The application process

begins with the submission of an application to the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Once the preliminary project site has received initial eligibility approval by BJA, the applicant may receive a site

visit and be requested to submit further information and application details prior to final selection and approval by BJA.

A. Preparation. All applications must be prepared on the forms

attached as appendices to this guideline.

B. Content. The following information must be included in the

application:

1. Project Narrative. Each applicant will present its project

narrative in the following format:

A) Description of the multijurisdictional investigative

and prosecutorial problems and needs to be addressed

by the project.

B) Description of project goals and objectives to be

achieved.

1) The project goals should be consistent with the program goal set forth in this Guideline.

2) Objectives must describe quantifiable achievements

to the extent possible for each of the project components set forth in this Guideline.

C) Description of project operations to include administrative

decisionmaking structure (including organizational chart).
72

Bureau of Justice Assistance

D) Description of milestones/major achievements to be accomplished and time frames.

E) List of participating agencies, and the reason why they were

selected for the project, their anticipated role, and the resources they may devote to the project.

2. Budget Narrative. Applicants for project funds must submit on

separate sheets a budget narrative which details by budget category. The purpose of the budget narrative is to relate items

budgeted to project activities and to provide justification and explanation for budget items, including criteria and cost data used

to arrive at the estimates for each budget category. The following

information is provided to assist the applicant in developing the

budget narrative.

A) Personnel Category. NOTE: THIS CATEGORY IS ONLY

FOR THE OPERATIONAL SUPPORT AND FINANCIAL

INVESTIGATIONS COMPONENTS. For the total amount

requested in this line item, break out dollar amounts for:

1) Overtime salary.

2) Financial Investigations Component salaries: list each position by title (and name of employee, if available); show

annual salary rate and percentage of time to be devoted to

the project by employee. Compensation paid to employees

engaged in project-assisted activities must be consistent

with that paid for similar work in other activities of the

applicant.

B) Fringe Benefits. Indicate each type of benefit included.

C) Travel Category. Travel must comply with OJP M7100.1C,

Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants.

1) Identify the tentative location of all travel whenever

possible.

2) Applicants should consult such references as the Official

Airline Guide and the Hotel and Motel Redbook in projecting travel costs to obtain competitive rates.

3) Administrative travel. Administrative travel is defined as

travel performed by participating agency employees to attend or participate in meetings, conferences, training, etc.,

or to perform liaison services to other projects or agencies.

Applicants should budget funds in this category for two

trips to a central U.S. location by approximately two members of the project control group to attend meetings with
73

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

other OCN projects. Itemize travel expenses of personnel

by purpose and show basis of per diem computation (e.g.,

departmental per diem rate). EXAMPLE: “One trip for one

person to attend OCN project meeting. Transportation at

$400 and 3 days per diem at the Massachusetts state rate of

$100 = $700.”

4) Investigative Travel. Investigative travel includes travel

and transportation expenses for a non-federal investigator

pursuing overt aspects of an approved OCN investigation.

a. Itemize investigative travel expenses of personnel by

purpose (e.g., interview witnesses, conduct records

search) and show basis for computation.

b. Undercover travel should be budgeted under “Purchase

of Services” under the “Confidential Funds” category

(see paragraph F(1)).

D) Supplies. List items within this category by major type and

show basis for computation. Provide unit or monthly

estimates.

E) Construction Category. No project funds may be allowed for

construction or renovation.

F) Other. Include direct expense items such as rent, reproduction, telephone, and janitorial expenses. List items by major

type with basis or computation shown. (Provide square footage and cost per square foot for rent. Provide local and longdistance telephone charges separately.)

1) Confidential Funds. Confidential expenditures are herein

defined as funds used for purchase of services, purchase of

contraband to be used for evidence (physical), and purchase of information. (See Appendix 11, OJP M7100.1C

CHG 1.)

2) The budgeting for and use of confidential expenditures under this program should only be allocated to support investigations approved by the control group when funds

are not available from the participating agencies involved

in the investigation and have not already been committed

by the participating agency.

a. Purchase of Services (P/S). This category includes covert

travel or transportation for an informant or for a nonfederal officer in an undercover capacity for investigation

purposes. Itemize travel expenses of personnel by purpose
74

Bureau of Justice Assistance

(e.g., arrange delivery, debrief informant) and show basis

of computation. The lease of an apartment, business front,

luxury-type automobile, aircraft or boat, or similar effects

to create or establish the appearance of affluence are also

included. Meals, beverages, entertainment, and similar expenses for undercover purposes, within reasonable limits,

are part of this category.

b. Purchase of Evidence (P/E). This category includes payment for evidence and/or contraband such as drugs,

firearms, stolen property, counterfeit tax stamps, required to determine the existence of a crime or to

establish the identity of a participant in a crime.

c. Purchase of Specific Information (P/I). This category includes the payment of monies to an informant for specific information.

G) Indirect Costs. BJA may accept the most recent indirect cost

rate approved for an applicant by a federal agency. Applicants must enclose a copy of the approved rate agreement

with the application.

3. Supporting Documents. As a minimum, the following documents must be submitted during the application process:

A) Certification that the applicant agency has a current Equal

Employment Opportunity Program (EEOP) which meets the

requirements of 28 CFR 42.301, et seq. This requirement applies to applicant agencies that have 50 or more employees,

have received contracts of more than $25,000, and have a service population with a minority representation of 3 percent

or more.

B) Certification signed by the appropriate authority indicating

compliance with the Office of Justice Programs Guideline on

the Use and Control of Confidential Funds, Page 2, Appendix

11, M 7100.1.

C) A signed formal intergovernmental agreement.

D) Certification signed by the appropriate authority indicating

compliance with the Office of Justice Programs requirements

regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility

Matters—Primary Covered Transactions.

E) Certification signed by the appropriate authority indicating

compliance with the Office of Justice Programs requirements

regarding a Drug-Free Workplace.
75

OCN Trafficking Enforcement Program Model

F) Certification signed by the appropriate authority indicating

compliance with the Office of Justice Programs requirements

regarding Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.

XIV. REPORTS. Reporting requirements for projects awarded

under the OCN Program are articulated in the current edition of

M 7100.1, Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants. Copies

of all reports submitted to BJA must be submitted to the Institute

for Intergovernmental Research.

XV. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS.

A. Prohibition Against Lobbying. All activities under the contract, including oral and written participating agency actions

and direct or indirect congressional contact, shall be made in

accordance with the anti-lobbying provision of the current

edition of the Financial and Administrative Guide for Grants

M 7100.1, as interpreted by Office of Justice Assistance, Research and Statistics, Office of General Counsel Legal Opinions Nos. 74–1, 75–45, and 77–30.

B. Cooperation With Program Data Collection. Each project will

be required to maintain program data elements as determined

in cooperation with program evaluation and monitoring

efforts.
Bureau of Justice Assistance

Information

General Information

Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general information or specific needs,

such as assistance in submitting grants applications and information on training. To contact the Response Center,

call 1–800–421–6770 or write to 1100 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities, requesters can call the

BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service

(NCJRS), shares BJA program information with State and local agencies and community groups across the

country. Information specialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distribution, participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities. The Clearinghouse can be reached by:

❒ Mail

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit

2277 Research Boulevard

Rockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone

1–800–688–4252

Monday through Friday

8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m.

eastern time

❒ Fax

301–519–5212

❒ Fax on Demand

1–800–688–4252

❒ BJA Home Page

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS World Wide Web

http://www.ncjrs.org

❒ E-mail

askncjrs@ncjrs.org

❒ JUSTINFO Newsletter

E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

Leave the subject line blank

In the body of the message,

type:

subscribe justinfo

[your name]
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Washington, D.C. 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/BJA

PERMIT NO. G-91

BJA World Wide Web Address

FOR A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT ONLINE, 

AS WELL AS MORE INFORMATION ON BJA,

CHECK THE BJA HOME PAGE AT

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA