2015

Performance Reporting System Report

NATIONA L DRUG 

CONTROL STRATEGY

NATIONAL DRUG  

CONTROL STRATEGY

   

Performance Reporting System Report

2015

	 	
2

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3

Chapter 1: Progress toward Strategy Goals........................................................... 10

Chapter 2:  Progress toward the Objectives of the Strategy ................................. 18

Objective 1 ‐ Strengthen Efforts to Prevent Drug Use in Our Communities....... 18

Objective 2 ‐ Seek Early Intervention Opportunities in Health Care................... 21

Objective 3 ‐ Integrate Treatment for Substance Use Disorders into             

Health Care, and Expand Support for Recovery.................................................. 24

Objective 4 ‐ Break the Cycle of Drug Use, Crime, Delinquency, and

Incarceration....................................................................................................... 26

Objective 5 ‐ Disrupt Domestic Drug Trafficking and Production ....................... 29

Objective 6 ‐ Strengthen International Partnerships and Reduce the    

Availability of Foreign Produced Drugs in the United States.............................. 33

Objective 7‐ Improve Information Systems for Analysis, Assessment,                

and Local Management ...................................................................................... 39

Appendix A: Glossary of Acronyms........................................................................ 43

Appendix B: Definitions and Performance Terms.................................................. 46

References............................................................................................................. 48
3

Introduction

The Obama Administration is committed to a coordinated government‐wide public health and

public safety approach to reduce drug use and its consequences.  The Office of National Drug

Control Policy (ONDCP) leads this effort through the National Drug Control Strategy (Strategy),

encompassing prevention, early intervention, treatment, recovery support, criminal justice

reform, effective law enforcement, international cooperation, and scientific research.  

The Performance Reporting System (PRS) assesses interagency progress toward achieving the

two Goals and seven Objectives of the Strategy, in accordance with the ONDCP Reauthorization

Act of 2006 (P.L. 109‐469).

The PRS was initially developed through an extensive interagency process that brought together subject

matter experts, policy and program analysts, researchers, statisticians, and leadership from Federal drug

control agencies. The original PRS report1 discussed the system’s design and the assessment

process in detail.  Using the Strategy’s overarching two Goals as a foundation, the PRS design process

focused on Working Groups that developed appropriate performance measures and targets for each of

the seven Objectives in the Strategy.  The Working Groups included representatives from the following

Federal agencies: the Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland

Security, Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, State, Veterans Affairs, and the Small Business

Administration.    The Working Groups drew upon current research and data to select performance

measures and targets for each Objective.    Research findings assisted the development of optimal

performance measures for each Objective.  In some cases, however, data limitations precluded the use of

ideal measures.    In such cases, Working Groups opted to select a suite of measures to best reflect

performance.    ONDCP developed templates to structure the identification of measures that were

responsive to the various viewpoints of persons with different perspectives on the joint mission, diverse

professional disciplines, and varying institutional and data constraints.  The PRS is a tool that acts as a

signal to indicate where the Strategy is on track, and when and where further attention,

assessment, evaluation, and problem‐solving are needed.   

Thisreport isthe second assessment of interagency progresstoward achieving the 2015 Strategy

Goals and Objectives, showing significant progress with regard to treatment, domestic law

enforcement, interdiction, and international partnerships.  While treatment measures pertaining

to the criminal justice system generally show improvement in the direction of achieving the 2015

targets, supplemental sources of nationally representative data are required in order to assess

the effectiveness of the system’s reform efforts, particularly for youth.  Efforts to expand access

to recovery services across systems of care have not shown equivalent progress; challenges

persist in the integration of substance abuse treatment services into mainstream health care.  

The implementation of the Affordable Care Act presents important opportunities to provide

greater access to treatment for substance use disorders by efficiently integrating such treatment

                                                            

1

The report is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/prs_2012.pdf (Accessed January 12,

2015)
4

into the health care system, requiring the provision and coverage of services for mental health 

and substance use disorders at parity, and providing non-discrimination for coverage for preexiting conditions.

Significant progress is being achieved in domestic law enforcement and efforts to strengthen

international partnerships, especially in regards to the disruption or dismantlement of domestic

and international drug trafficking organizations.  Additionally, key source and transit countries

continue to demonstrate increased commitment to reducing drug trafficking and use through

demand and supply reduction efforts.  However, accelerated progress is needed in working with

partner countriesto reduce the cultivation of drugs and their production potential in Afghanistan,

Burma, Laos, Mexico, and Peru.2

  

This report also discusses the significant progress and challenges observed in the area of

substance use prevention.  Substantial progress is being achieved in reducing prescription drug

abuse among 18‐25 year olds, the age group showing the greatest prevalence of non‐medical use

of prescription‐type drugs.   More work is needed to strengthen 12‐17 year olds’ perceptions of

the great risk in binge drinking and, to a lesser extent, in smoking cigarettes including e‐

cigarettes.    Accelerated effort is needed to prevent youth marijuana use and counter youth

perceptions that marijuana (including synthetic marijuana) use is not harmful.  For each of the

Strategy Goals and Objectives, the following definitions were applied to assess progress:  

 Target met or exceeded, progress should be maintained through 2015 (Given the data

available at this time, the target has been met or exceeded.)

 Progress sufficient to enable meeting 2015 target (Given the data available at this time,

there is a reasonable expectation that the 2015 target will be met.)

 Progressing, accelerated progress required to meet 2015 target (Movement toward the

target is in the right direction; based on the data available at this time, accelerated

progress is required to meet the 2015 target.)

 No Progress to Date, accelerated progress required to meet 2015 target (Movement

toward the target is stalled; based on the data available at this time, accelerated progress

is required to meet the 2015 target.)

 Significant (or Considerable) progress required to meet 2015 target (Movement toward

the target is not in the right direction; based on the data available at this time, significant

progress is required to meet the 2015 target.)

The table below summarizes progresstoward achieving the overall Strategy Goalsto reduce drug

use and its consequences.  

                                                            

2 While coca cultivation in Colombia in 2014 was still below the 2015 target, it increased substantially over 2013

and is therefore cause for concern.
5

Table A‐1:  Summary of Interagency Progress toward Achieving the Goals of the Strategy

Strategy  

Goal Measures Progress‐to‐Date

Goal 1: Curtail

illicit drug

consumption in

America

1a: Decrease the 30‐day prevalence of drug use

among 12–17 year olds by 15%

Progress sufficient to enable

meeting 2015 target

1b: Decrease the lifetime prevalence of 8th graders who have used drugs, alcohol, or

tobacco by 15%

‐  Illicit Drugs Significant progress required

to meet 2015 target

‐  Alcohol Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

‐  Tobacco Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

1c: Decrease the 30‐day prevalence of drug use

among young adults aged 18–25 by 10%

No progress to date,

accelerated progress required

to meet 2015 target

1d: Reduce the number of chronic drug users by 15%

‐ Cocaine Progress sufficient to enable

meeting 2015 target

‐ Heroin No progress to date,

accelerated progress required

to meet 2015 target

‐ Marijuana Significant progress required

to meet 2015 target

‐ Methamphetamine Progress sufficient to enable

meeting 2015 target

Goal 2: Improve

the public health

and public safety

of the American

people by

reducing the

consequences of

drug abuse

2a: Reduce drug‐induced deaths by 15% Significant progress required

to meet 2015 target

2b: Reduce drug‐related morbidity by 15%

‐  Emergency room visits for drug misuse and

abuse

Significant progress required

to meet 2015 target

‐  HIV infections attributable to drug use Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

2c: Reduce the prevalence of drugged driving by 10%

‐  Data Source: National Roadside Survey Significant progress required

to meet 2015 target

‐  Data Source: National Survey on Drug Use and

Health  

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

The following seven Objectives focus on specific substantive areas where collective progress is

needed to achieve the two Strategy Goals:

Objective 1:   Strengthen Efforts to Prevent Drug Use in Our Communities

Objective 2:   Seek Early Intervention Opportunities in Health Care
6

Objective 3:   Integrate Treatment for Substance Use Disorders into Health Care and

Expand Support for Recovery

Objective 4:   Break the Cycle of Drug Use, Crime, Delinquency, and Incarceration  

Objective 5:   Disrupt Domestic Drug Trafficking and Production

Objective 6:   Strengthen International Partnerships and Reduce the Availability of

Foreign‐Produced Drugs in the United States

Objective 7:   Improve Information Systems for Analysis, Assessment, and Local

Management

   
7

The table below summarizes the progress toward achieving the Objectives.

Table A‐2: Summary of Interagency Progress toward the Objectives of the Strategy

Strategy Objective Measures Progress‐to‐Date

Objective 1:

Strengthen Efforts to

Prevent Drug Use in

Our Communities

1.1 Percent of respondents, ages 12–17, who perceive a

great risk in smoking marijuana once or twice a week

Significant progress

required to meet 2015

target

1.2 Percent of respondents, ages 12–17, who perceive a

great risk in consumption of one or more packs of

cigarettes per day

No progress to date,

accelerated progress

required to meet 2015

target

1.3 Percent of respondents, ages 12–17, who perceive a

great risk in consuming four or five drinks once or twice

a week

No progress to date,

accelerated progress

required to meet 2015

target

1.4 Average age of initiation for all illicit drugs Progress sufficient to

enable meeting 2015

target

1.5 Average age of initiation for alcohol use* Progressing, accelerated

progress required to

meet 2015 target  

1.6 Average age of initiation for tobacco use

‐ Cigarettes Progressing, accelerated

progress required to

meet 2015 target  

‐ Cigars Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

‐ Smokeless tobacco Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

Objective 2: Seek

Early Intervention

Opportunities in

Health Care

2.1 Percent of Federally Qualified Health Center grantees

providing SBIRT services

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

2.2 Percent of respondents in the past year using

prescription‐type drugs non‐medically, age 12 ‐ 17

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

2.3 Percent of respondents in the past year using

prescription‐type drugs non‐medically, age 18 ‐ 25

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

2.4 Percent of respondents in the past year using

prescription‐type drugs non‐medically, age 26+

No progress to date,

accelerated progress

required to meet 2015

target

Objective 3:

Integrate Treatment

for Substance Use

Disorders into

Health Care and

3.1 Percent of treatment plans completed Significant progress

required to meet 2015

target

3.2 Percent of Health Center grantees providing

substance abuse counseling and treatment services

Significant progress

required to meet 2015

target
8

Table A‐2: Summary of Interagency Progress toward the Objectives of the Strategy

Strategy Objective Measures Progress‐to‐Date

Expand Support for

Recovery

3.3 Percent of treatment facilities offering at least 4 of

the standard spectrum of recovery services (child care,

transportation assistance, employment assistance,

housing assistance, discharge planning, and after‐care

counseling)

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

Objective 4: Break

the Cycle of Drug

Use, Crime,

Delinquency, and

Incarceration

4.1 Percent of residential facilities in the Juvenile Justice

System offering substance abuse treatment

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

4.2 Percent of treatment plans completed by those

referred by the Criminal Justice System

Progressing, accelerated

progress required to

meet 2015 target

Objective 5: Disrupt

Domestic Drug

Trafficking and

Production

5.1 Number of domestic CPOT‐linked organizations

disrupted or dismantled

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

5.2 Number of RPOT‐linked organizations disrupted or

dismantled

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

5.3 Number of methamphetamine lab incidents Progressing, accelerated

progress required to

meet 2015 target

Objective 6:

Strengthen

International

Partnerships and

Reduce the

Availability of

Foreign Produced

Drugs in the United

States

6.1 Percent of selected countries on the Majors List that

increased their commitment to demand reduction

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

6.2 Percent of selected countries on the Majors List that

increased their commitment to supply reduction

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

6.3 Percent of Majors List countries showing progress

since 2009 in reducing either cultivation or drug

production potential

No Progress to Date,

accelerated progress

required to meet 2015

target.

6.4: Number of international CPOT‐linked organizations

disrupted or dismantled

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

Objective 7: Improve

Information Systems

for Analysis,

Assessment, and

Local Management

7.1 Increase timeliness (year‐end to date‐of‐release) of

select Federal data sets above their baseline by 10% ‐ 

(Treatment Episode Data Set)

Significant progress

required to meet 2015

target

7.2 Increase the utilization (Increase number of annual

web hits or number of documents referencing the

source ‐‐ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data

Archive (SAMHDA), and Journal articles referencing

NSDUH)

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

7.3 Increase Federal data sets that establish feedback

mechanisms to measure usefulness (surveys, focus

groups, etc.– SAMHSA‐funded data sets)

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

  *Note: target is an ambitious stretch target consistent with the legal age for alcohol consumption.
9

Data Challenges  

One of the greatest impediments to acquiring a clear understanding of drug trends is the

inadequacy of data on the outcomes of drug control activities.    For instance, the absence of

nationally representative data on treatment effectiveness necessitates reliance on proxy

measures of rates of treatment completion.  In this same vein, inadequate data sources, as it

relates to the effectiveness of juvenile and criminal justice reform efforts (beyond treatment

provision), similarly prohibits the assessment of these efforts on recidivism.    National data

deficiencies additionally required the reliance on proxy measures taken from information

collected on the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) health centers in order

to assess efforts to integrate substance use disorder treatment services into the nationwide

network of treatment facilities.    While the use of such proxies is reasonable given the data

available, it does not provide a full understanding of the issues, challenges, and opportunities

present when assessing the progress of interagency efforts toward reducing substance use and

its consequences.   

For the goals and measures in the PRS, 2009 data were used as the baseline in accordance with

the 2011 Strategy.  If 2009 data were not available, the most current year was used.  While this

report provides progress toward achieving the 2015 targets there is considerable variation in

the availability of the data used to track progress and sometimes data are not available for the

most current year.  For this report, the most recent data available were used.  

Where possible, statistically significant changes have been noted in this report.    Statistical

significance testing is important for interpreting and assessing apparent changes in trends over

time; not all of the data cited in this report has been subjected to significance testing by the

originating sources.  Statistically significant changes will be designated within the text with use

of words such as, “increase,” “rise,” “decline,” and “drop.”  Changes not assessed or determined

to be statistically significant will be discussed in terms of “trends” over time.

   
10

Chapter 1: Progress toward Achieving the

Strategy Goals

The Strategy calls for a 10‐15 percent reduction over 5 years in the rate of young adult drug use,

chronic drug use, and drug‐related consequences, such as drug‐related morbidity and drugged

driving.  A suite of seven measures has been developed to assess progress (see Tables 1‐1 and 1‐

2) toward achieving the two Goals of curtailing illicit drug consumption in America and improving

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

use.  Described in detail in this chapter is each of the seven Strategy Goal measures along with

their baselines, 2015 targets, data sources, and assessments of progress‐to‐date.   

Table 1‐1: National Drug Control Strategy Goal 1: Curtail illicit drug consumption in America

Measures, Baselines, Progress‐to‐date, Targets, and Assessment

National Drug Control

Strategy Measure Base‐line Progress‐ to‐date

2015

Target Assessment

1a: Decrease the 30‐day

prevalence of drug use

among 12–17 year olds by

15%

10.1% 2013: 8.8% 8.6% Progress sufficient to enable

(2009) 2012: 9.5%* meeting 2015 target

NSDUH 2011: 10.1%

   2010: 10.1%

1b: Decrease the lifetime prevalence of 8th graders who have used drugs, alcohol, or tobacco by 15%

            ‐ Illicit Drugs 19.9% 2014: 20.3% 16.9% Significant progress required

(2009) 2013: 21.1%    to meet 2015 target

MTF 2012: 18.5%   

      2011: 20.1%      

   2010: 21.4%   

            ‐ Alcohol 36.6%* 2014: 26.8% 31.1% Target met or exceeded,

progress should be maintained

through 2015

(2009) 2013: 27.8%   

MTF 2012: 29.5%   

      2011: 33.1%      

   2010: 35.8%   

            ‐ Tobacco** 20.1%* 2014: 13.5%* 17.1% Target met or exceeded,

progress should be maintained

through 2015

(2009) 2013: 14.8%*   

MTF 2012: 15.5%*   

      2011: 18.4%      

   2010: 20.0%   

1c: Decrease the 30‐day

prevalence of drug use

among young adults aged

18–25 by 10%

21.4% 2013: 21.5% 19.3% No progress to date,

accelerated progress required

to meet 2015 target

(2009) 2012: 21.3%   

NSDUH 2011: 21.4%   

2010: 21.6%   

   
11

1d: Reduce the number of chronic drug users by 15%

      Cocaine   2.7 million 2010: 2.5

million

  

  

2.3

million

  

  

Progress sufficient to enable

(2009)    meeting 2015 target

What

Americans

Spend on

Illicit Drugs

  

       Heroin 1.5 million 2010: 1.5 million 1.3

million

  

  

No progress to date,

accelerated progress required

to meet 2015 target

(2009)      

What

Americans

Spend on

Illicit Drugs

     

       Marijuana 16.2

million

2010: 17.6

million

13.8

million

Significant progress required to

meet 2015 target

(2009)         

What

Americans

Spend on

Illicit Drugs

  

       Methamphetamine 1.8 million 2010: 1.6 million 1.5

million

  

  

Progress sufficient to enable

meeting 2015 target (2009)      

What

Americans

Spend on

Illicit Drugs

     

Data Sources: (1a) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) National Survey on Drug Use and

Health; (1b) National Institutes on Drug Abuse's Monitoring the Future; (1c) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration's (SAMHSA) National Survey on Drug Use and Health; (1d) What Americans Spend on Illegal Drugs

*The difference between estimate and most recent year’s estimate is statistically significant.

**Measure focuses on cigarette use.  

Assessment of Progress  

The following discusses the data sources, targets, progress made to date, and future action

required to achieve each of the measures comprising the Strategy’s goals of curtailing illicit drug

consumption in America and improving the public health and public safety of the American

people by reducing the consequences of drug use.

Measure 1 a: Decrease the 30‐day prevalence of drug use among 12‐ to 17‐year‐olds by 15%

The data for this measure are drawn from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration’s (SAMHSA) National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).    The NSDUH

provides annual data on the substance use behavior of civilian, non‐institutionalized populations

12 years of age and older, including ages of initiation for each substance.  Included in the nearly

70,000 annual respondents are college students in dormitories, people living in homeless

shelters, and civilians living on military bases.  A 2009 baseline estimate of 10.1 percent was

established for the measure, with a 2015 target of 8.6 percent.   In 2010 and 2011 the rates

remained steady at 10.1 percent before trending downward to 9.5 percent in 2012.  In 2013, the

rate dropped to 8.8 percent, approaching the 2015 target of 8.6 percent.  The NSDUH indicates
12

that, in 2009, the prevalence of current marijuana use among 12 to 17 year olds was 7.4 percent;

a rate that has trended down to 7.1 percent by 2013.  For this same cohort, NSDUH shows that

rates of use for illicit drugs other than marijuana has steadily dropped from 4.6 percent in 2009

to 4.5 percent in 2010, 4.1 percent in 2011, 3.7 percent in 2012, and 3.0 percent in 2013.

Measure 1 b: Decrease the lifetime prevalence of 8th graders who have used drugs, alcohol, or

tobacco by 15%

The data for this measure are taken from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study, which is

supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).  The MTF data on the use of drugs,

alcohol, or tobacco3 by 8th grade students are not combined within the study and are presented

here separately.  The 2009 baselines are (i) any illicit drug, 19.9 percent; (ii) alcohol, 36.6 percent;

and (iii) tobacco/cigarettes, 20.1 percent.  The 2015 targets are (i) any illicit drug, 16.9 percent;

(ii) alcohol, 31.1 percent; and (iii) tobacco/cigarettes, 17.1 percent.4

Any Illicit Drug: Lifetime use of any illicit drug among 8th graders is trending up in the past

two years, away from the 2015 target, from 19.9 percent in 2009 to 20.3 percent in 2014.   

Figure 1‐1: Illicit Drug Use by 8th Graders Over Time in Reference to 2015 Target

                                                            

3 For the purposes of the PRS tobacco use was defined as the use of cigarettes. Although the Monitoring the Future

study—the data source for this measure—asks questions about other forms of tobacco use, including small cigars,

smokeless, hookahs, dissolvable, and in 2014, e‐cigarettes, some of these are asked of only seniors. It was the

consensus of the interagency group who assisted in developing the PRS measures that cigarette use would be the

proxy measure for tobacco use.

4In the MTF study, tobacco refers specifically to the use of cigarettes; MTF does not report an estimate of all tobacco products

combined.

Source: Monitoring the Future, 2014
13

Alcohol:  The 2014 estimate of lifetime alcohol use among 8th graders (26.8 percent) has

dropped below the 2015 target (31.1 percent).    This level of progress needs to be

maintained.

Figure 1‐2: Alcohol Use by 8th Graders Over Time in Reference to 2015 Target

Cigarettes:  The 2015 target for lifetime cigarette use by 8th graders (17.1 percent) has

been achieved since 2012 (15.5 percent).  The rate continued to drop in 2014 to 13.5

percent.   

Figure 1‐3: Cigarette Use by 8th Graders Over Time in Reference to 2015 Target

Source: Monitoring the Future, 2014

Source: Monitoring the Future, 2014
14

Measure 1 c: Decrease the 30‐day prevalence of drug use among young adults aged 18–25 by

10%

The data for this measure are taken from the NSDUH with a 2009 baseline estimate of 21.4

percent and a 2015 target of 19.3 percent.  The estimate for the measure’s assessment of past

month use of any illicit drug is driven by marijuana.  In 2013, the level remained steady with 21.5

percent of 18 to 25 year olds having used an illicit drug in the past month; 19.1 percent had used

marijuana during this time period.  While these estimates have changed very little since 2009,

the use of illicit drugs other than marijuana by young adults has declined from 8.4 percent in

2009 to 6.7 percent in 2013.   

Measure 1 d: Reduce the number of chronic drug users by 15%

The data for this measure are from the report, What America’s Users Spend on Illicit Drugs.  This

report estimates the retail value of the illicit drug market.  In producing this estimate, two other

estimates are calculated: the number of users (occasional and chronic) of each of the four major

drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine)5 and the amount of each drug

consumed by these users.  The 2009 baselinesfor the number of users are (i) cocaine, 2.7 million;

(ii) heroin, 1.5 million; (iii) marijuana, 16.2 million; and (iv) methamphetamine, 1.8 million.  The

2015 targets are (i) cocaine, 2.3 million; (ii) heroin, 1.3 million; (iii) marijuana, 13.8 million; and

(iv) methamphetamine, 1.5 million.   

Cocaine:  The 2009 estimate of chronic drug users (2.7 million) is on track to meet the

2015 target (2.3 million) with 2.5 million drug users in 2010.  This is consistent with the

downward trending estimates of the amount of drugs consumed from 2009 (161 metric

tons) to 2010 (145 metric tons).

Heroin:  Heroin use remained stable at 1.5 million users in 2009 and 2010.  No progress

toward achieving the 2015 target number of heroin users(1.3 million) has been observed.   

Marijuana:    The 2009 estimate of chronic drug users (16.2 million) increased to 17.6

million in 2010; moving away from the 2015 target number of users (13.8 million).  There

has also been an increase in the estimate for the amount of drugs consumed from 5.1

metric tons in 2009 to 5.7 metric tons in 2010.

Methamphetamine:    The 2009 estimate for chronic methamphetamine users has

decreased from 2009 (1.8 million) to 2010 (1.6 million) and is progressing toward the 2015

target (1.5 million).  The amount of consumed methamphetamine has increased during

this same period from 40 metric tons consumed in 2009 to 42 metric tons consumed in

2010.   

                                                            

5 The report defines chronic users of cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine as those who use the drug on four or

more days per month—essentially once per week.  For marijuana there are three categories of chronic users:

weekly (4 to 10 days per month); more than weekly (11 to 20 days per month); and daily/near daily (21 or more

days per month).  Occasional users for all four drugs are those who use less than four times per month.
15

Table 1‐2: National Drug Control Strategy Goal 2: Improve the public health and public safety

of the American people by reducing the consequences of drug use

Measures, Baselines, Progress‐to‐date, Targets, and Assessment

National Drug Control  

Strategy Measure Base‐line Progress‐ to‐date

2015

Target Assessment

2a: Reduce drug‐induced deaths by

15%

39,147 2013:

2012:

2011:

2010:

46,471

43,819  

43,544

40,393

33,275 Significant progress

required to meet 2015

target

(2009)

National

Vital

Statistics

Data

2b: Reduce drug‐related morbidity by 15%

           ‐ Emergency room visits  

             for substance use disorders

2,070,452 2011: 2,462,948 1,759,884 Significant progress

required to meet 2015

target

(2009)

DAWN

  

           ‐ HIV infections  

             attributable to drug use

5,799

(2009)

CDC

2010:

2011:

5,138

4,513

4,929 Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015 2012:

2013:

4,342

4,366

  

2c: Reduce the prevalence of drugged driving by 10%

           ‐ Data Source: National  

             Roadside Survey

16.3% 2013: 20.0% 14.7% Significant progress

required to meet 2015

target

(2007)

NHTSA

  

           ‐ Data Source: National  

             Survey on Drug Use and  

             Health  

4.4% 2013: 4.0% 4.0% Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

(2009) 2012: 4.2%   

NSDUH 2011:

2010:

3.9%

4.4%

  

Data Sources: (2a) SAMHSA’s Drug Abuse Warning Network drug‐related emergency room visits; (2b) Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC). HIV Surveillance Report‐Diagnoses of HIV Infection in the United States, 2013. Vol. 25 (February

2015).; (2c) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Roadside Survey.

Measure 2 a: Reduce drug‐induced deaths by 15%

The data for this measure are taken from Vital Statistics Data compiled by the Centersfor Disease

Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which includes data

from all death certificates filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.  NCHS tabulates

deaths attributable to various causes, including drug‐induced mortality.    Causes of death

attributable to drugs include accidental or intentional poisonings by drugs, drug psychoses, drug

dependence, and nondependent use of drugs.    Drug‐induced causes exclude accidents,

homicides, and other causes indirectly related to drug use.  In 2009, there were 39,147 drug‐

induced deaths; 37,004 of these were drug poisoning deaths and 20,848 of those were reported

to involve prescription drugs.  The 2015 target strives to reduce the number of drug‐induced

deaths by 15 percent (33,275).  In 2013, there were 46,471 drug‐induced deaths, an increase of

19 percent compared to 2009.  Of the 46,471 drug‐induced deaths in 2013, 43,982 (95 percent)
16

were drug poisonings, the majority of which (22,767) involved prescription drugs, especially pain

relievers (16,235).6

Measure 2 b: Reduce drug‐related morbidity by 15%

There are two separate sources of data for this measure.  The primary source is drug‐related

emergency department (ED) visits for substance use disorders of illicit drugs or pharmaceuticals

from the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN).7  The second source is the number of people

with HIV who were infected through injection drug use.  The 2009 baseline estimate is 2,070,452

drug‐related ED visits; the 2015 target aims to lower this number by 15 percent to 1,759,884.  To

date, this measure is trending in the wrong direction with 2,462,948 such visits in 2011.  The

movement is attributable to rises in visits related to both illicit and prescription drugs.  In 2011,

there were 1,252,500 visits related to illicit drugs, up from 974,392 such visits in 2009.  Likewise,

in 2011, there were 1,428,145 ED visits related to prescription drugs, up from 1,243,606 in 2009.  

Data for the number of people diagnosed to be infected with HIV are compiled by CDC.  The 2009

baseline estimate of the number of individuals diagnosed with HIV infection through injected

drug use (IDU) is 5,799 (which includesthose in the transmission category of male‐to‐male sexual

contact and IDU);8 the 2015 target strives to lower this number by 15 percent to 4,929.  As of

2013, 4,366 individuals were diagnosed with HIV infection through injected drug use, indicating

that the 2015 target has been exceeded; this progress will need to be maintained through 2015

to ensure the target is met.  

Measure 2 c: Reduce the prevalence of drugged driving by 10%

There are two sources of data for this measure that are reported on separately.  The primary

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

Administration.    The second data source is the NSDUH.    The Roadside Survey is a nationally

representative survey of drivers on U.S. roads.  The baseline survey, conducted in 2007, found

that 16.3 percent of weekend, nighttime drivers tested positive for the presence of at least one

illicit drug or medication (with the ability to impair driving skills).  The 2015 target is 14.7 percent.  

The follow‐up survey was conducted in 2013 and 2014 and found that the prevalence of

nighttime weekend driving after consuming drugs or medications rose to 20.0 percent.     

In addition to using data from the Roadside Survey, ONDCP references annual NSDUH data to

assess whether respondents age 16 years and older drove a vehicle while under the influence of

an illicit drug in the past year.  The 2009 baseline estimate for this measure is 4.4 percent and

                                                            

6Of note, not all drug poisoning deaths report the drug(s) involved; a death can involve more than one drug, so any drug‐

specific involvement in a death should be considered floor estimates. 7 The DAWN system was discontinued by SAMHSA in 2011; SAMHSA and CDC are currently working to implement a

replacement system to provide data on drug‐related ED visits. 8 The data source for this measure has been changed from cases of incidence of drug‐related HIV to diagnoses of

such cases, because the estimation of the incident cases are not expected to be produced in time to be useful in

assessing progress toward achieving this measure.
17

the 2015 target is 4.0 percent.  This measure met its 2015 target in 2013, with NSDUH showing a

downward trend to 4.0 percent.   
18

Chapter 2:  Progress toward Achieving the

Objectives of the Strategy

The objectives of the Strategy include preventing drug use,seeking early intervention, integrating

treatment into health care, expanding support for recovery services, breaking the cycle of drug

use and crime, disrupting domestic drug trafficking and production, strengthening international

partnerships, and improving information systems.  Described in more detail in this chapter are

measures to gauge progress toward achieving each of the objectives using baselines, 2015

targets, data sources, and an assessment of progress‐to‐date.

Objective 1 ‐ Strengthen Efforts to Prevent Drug Use in Our Communities

As one of the Administration’s highest drug policy priorities, prevention activities seek to

communicate key messages about drug use through multiple sources.    Preventing drug use

before it begins, particularly among young people, is an effective and cost‐effective way to

reduce drug use and its consequences.    Table 2‐1 below outlines the measures, baselines,

progress‐to‐date, targets, and assessments for this Objective.   

Assessment of Progress

The following discusses the data sources, targets, progress made to date, and future action

required to achieve each of the measures comprising the Strategy’s Objective 1: Strengthen

efforts to prevent drug use in our communities.

Measure 1.1: Percent of respondents, ages 12 – 17, who perceive a great risk in smoking

marijuana once or twice a week  

The data for this measure are from SAMHSA’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH).  

Given the data available at this time, significant progress is required to meet the 2015 target.  

The percentage of youth, 12 to 17, perceiving great risk in smoking marijuana once or twice a

week has trended downward from 49.0 percent in 2009 to 39.5 percent in 2013.  Additionally,

the rate of those reporting great risk in smoking marijuana once a month has declined from 30.3

percent in 2009 to 24.2 percent in 2013.  Perceived risk is an important variable and has been a

leading indicator of use.  The sharp decline in 2013 among teens may suggest that increases in

use are likely to occur in the near future.

Measure 1.2: Percent of respondents, ages 12 – 17, who perceive a great risk in consumption

of one or more packs of cigarettes per day

The data for this measure are from SAMHSA’s NSDUH.  Cigarette use in adolescence not only

negatively affects physical health and development, but also is associated with (though not

sufficient on its own) future illicit substance use (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
19

Table 2‐1: Objective 1 Measures, Baselines, Progress‐to‐date, Targets, and Assessment

Objective 1 Measure Base‐line Progress‐to‐date 2015 Target Assessment

Measure 1.1: Percent of

respondents, ages 12–17, who

perceive a great risk in smoking

marijuana once or twice a week

49.0% 2013: 39.5% 51.2% Significant progress

required to meet 2015

target

(2009) 2012: 43.6%*   

NSDUH 2011: 44.8%   

   2010: 47.2%   

Measure 1.2: Percent of

respondents, ages 12–17, who

perceive a great risk in

consumption of one or more

packs of cigarettes per day

65.5% 2013: 64.3% 68.0% No progress‐to‐date,

accelerated progress

required to meet 2015

target

(2009) 2012: 65.7%*   

NSDUH 2011: 66.2%   

   2010: 65.3%   

Measure 1.3: Percent of

respondents, ages 12–17, who

perceive a great risk in

consuming four or five drinks

once or twice a week

39.6% 2013: 39.0% 41.4% No progress‐to‐date,

accelerated progress

required to meet 2015

target

(2009) 2012: 39.7%   

NSDUH 2011: 40.7%   

   2010: 40.4%   

Measure 1.4: Average age of

initiation for all illicit drugs

17.6 years* 2013: 19.0 19.5 years Progress sufficient to

enable meeting 2015

target

(2009) 2012: 18.7   

NSDUH 2011: 18.1   

   2010: 19.1   

Measure 1.5: Average age of

initiation for alcohol use

16.9 years* 2013: 17.3 21.0 years1 Progressing, accelerated

progress required to meet

2015 target  

(2009) 2012: 17.4   

NSDUH 2011: 17.1   

   2010: 17.1   

Measure 1.6: Average age of initiation for tobacco use2

           ‐ Cigarettes 17.5 years 2013: 17.8 18.0 years Progressing, accelerated

progress required to meet

2015 target

(2009) 2012: 17.8

NSDUH 2011: 17.2*

   2010: 17.3

           ‐ Cigars 20.7 years 2013: 21.6 18.0 years Target met or exceeded,

progress should be maintained

through 2015

(2009) 2012: 20.5   

NSDUH 2011: 19.6*   

      2010: 20.5   

           ‐ Smokeless tobacco 18.9 years 2013: 18.4 18.0 years Target met or exceeded,

progress should be maintained

through 2015

(2009) 2012: 18.8

NSDUH 2011: 19.8*

   2010: 19.3

Data Sources: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) National Survey on Drug Use and Health 1

While the age of 21 is a “stretch target” representing a challenge to achieve by 2015, the target is consistent with the

standard set forth in the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. " 2

Since NSDUH reports data according to tobacco product, the assessment is made separately for cigarettes, cigars, and

smokeless tobacco.

*The difference between estimate and most recent year’s estimate is statistically significant.

2012).    Thus, perception of risk of cigarette use is an important indicator of youth drug use

behavior.  Based on data available at this time, there has been little progress toward meeting the

2015 target.  According to the 2013 NSDUH, the percentage of youth aged 12 to 17 who reported
20

great risk in smoking one or more packs of cigarettes per day declined from 65.5 percent in 2009

to 64.3 percent in 2013.   

Measure 1.3: Percent of respondents, ages 12 –17, who perceive a great risk in consuming

four or five drinks once or twice a week.

The data for this measure are from SAMHSA’s NSDUH.  Binge drinking and heavy drinking are

associated with a range of adverse consequences including alcohol poisoning, traffic crashes and

fatalities, risky behavior, violent behavior, and an increased risk for alcohol use disorders.  In the

NSDUH, binge drinking is defined as having five or more drinks on the same occasion on at least

1 day in the 30 days prior to the survey.  Heavy alcohol use is defined as five or more drinks on

the same occasion on each of 5 or more daysin the past 30 days.9  According to the 2013 NSDUH,

39.0 percent of youth ages 12‐17 perceived great risk in having 5 or more drinks of an alcoholic

beverage once or twice a week.  Movement toward the 2015 target of 41.4 percent has stalled,

but has historically trended in the right direction.  Accelerated progress is required.  

Measure 1.4: Average age of initiation for all illicit drugs

According to the NSDUH, about 2.8 million persons aged 12 or older used an illicit drug for the

first time in 2013, averaging about 7,800 new users per day.  Over half (54.1 percent) of those

who reported first time illicit drug use were younger than age 18.  The average age of initiation

among persons aged 12 to 49 was 19.0 years; this is similar to the 2012 estimate of 18.7 years

and represents an increase over the 2009 baseline age of 17.6 years.  Movement toward the

target of 19.5 years is in the right direction.  Given the data available at this time, progress is

sufficient to meet the 2015 target.   

Measure 1.5: Average age of initiation for alcohol use

The 2013 NSDUH shows that approximately 4.6 million persons aged 12 or older used alcohol for

the first time within the past 12 months; averaging approximately 12,500 initiates per day.  Most

(83.5 percent) were youngerthan age 21 at the time of initiation, and over one half (59.1 percent)

initiated use prior to age 18.  The average age of first alcohol use among recent initiates aged 12

to 49 years was 17.3 years, which was similar to the 2012 estimate.    There has been some

progresstoward achieving the target.  However, based on data available at thistime, accelerated

progress is required to meet the 2015 target age of 21 (which was selected in the context of the

legal age for alcohol use).   

Measure 1.6: Average age of initiation for tobacco use

The 2013 NSDUH reported that there were approximately 2.1 million persons aged 12 or older

who smoked cigarettes for the first time within the past 12 months, which was similar to the

2012 estimate (2.3 million).    This averages to about 5,700 new cigarette smokers per day.  

Importantly, half of them (50.5 percent) began smoking before they were 18 years old.   The

                                                            

9These levels are not mutually exclusive categories of use; heavy use is included in estimates of binge and current use, and

binge use is included in estimates of current use.
21

NSDUH provides data for specific tobacco products ‐ cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco.  

Therefore, the PRS assesses progress separately for each tobacco product as follows:   

Cigarettes ‐ There has been no significant movement toward the target.  Based on data

available at this time, accelerated progress is required to meet the 2015 target age of 18

(which was selected in the context of the legal age for tobacco use).  According to the

2013 NSDUH, among past‐year initiates aged 12 to 49, the average age of first cigarette

use was 17.5 years in 2009, which was similar to the corresponding average ages in 2012

and 2013 (17.8 years), following a drop in 2011 to 17.2 years.10   

Cigars ‐ The 2015 target of 18.0 years has been exceeded.  Among past year cigar initiates

aged 12 to 49, the average age at first use was 20.7 years in 2009 and 21.6 years in 2013.  

The 2013 NSDUH estimates that 2.8 million persons, aged 12 or older, used cigars for the

first time in the past 12 months, which is similar to the 2012 estimate (2.7 million).

Smokeless Tobacco ‐ The 2015 target of 18.0 years has been exceeded.  According to the

2013 NSDUH, the average age of first use among 12‐49 year olds was 18.4 years, similar

to the 2009 (18.9 years) and 2012 (18.8 years) averages.  The numbers of persons who

initiated the use of smokeless tobacco in the past year were estimated at 1.3 million in

2011, 1.0 million in 2012, and 1.1 million in 2013.

Objective 2 ‐ Seek Early Intervention Opportunities in Health Care

Full implementation of the health care reforms under the Affordable Care Act will extend access

to and parity11 for substance use disorder treatment services for an estimated 62 million

Americans and help integrate treatment into mainstream health care (Berino et al., 2013).  To

meet the anticipated increase in demand for health care services, the number ofspecially trained

professionals should be increased; the health care system should adopt and integrate evidence‐

based approaches; and a number of tools to enable the detection and treatment of substance

use disorders should be utilized, such as Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment

(SBIRT).  Furthermore, the treatment provided must be effective to achieve desired outcomes.  

Hence, assessment of progress toward achieving this Objective concentrates on the availability

of SBIRT and the effectiveness of treatment for the non‐medical use of prescription drugs,

fatalities from which have reached epidemic proportions according to the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011).   Table 2‐2 below

outlines the measures, targets, and progress‐to‐date for this Objective.   

                                                            

10NSDUH reports that the average age of first daily smoking (e.g., smoking on each of the past 30 days) among new daily

smokers aged 12 to 49, was 19.1 years in 2010 and 2011, 19.9 years in 2012, and 19.8 years in 2013.  Of the new daily smokers

in 2013, 33 percent were younger than age 18 when they started smoking daily.  This figure averages to approximately 700

initiates of daily smoking under the age of 18 every day. 11The Affordable Care Act builds on the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 to extend Federal parity

protections. The parity law aims to ensure that when coverage for mental health and substance use conditions is provided, it is

generally comparable to coverage for surgical and other medical care.
22

Table 2‐2: Objective 2 Measures, Baselines, Progress‐to‐date, Targets, and Assessment

Objective 2 Measure Base‐line Progress‐ 

to‐date

2015

Target Assessment

Measure 2.1: Percent of Health

Center Program grantees providing

SBIRT services

10.3% 2013: 16.9% 15.0% Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

(2009) 2012: 13.8%   

UDS 2011: 11.3%   

   2010: 11.3%   

Measure 2.2: Percent of

respondents in the past year using

prescription‐type drugs non‐

medically, age 12 ‐ 17

7.7%* 2013: 5.8% 6.5% Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

(2009) 2012: 6.6%*   

NSDUH 2011: 7.0%*   

   2010: 7.4%*   

Measure 2.3: Percent of

respondents in the past year using

prescription‐type drugs non‐

medically, age 18 ‐ 25

15.0%* 2013: 12.2% 12.8% Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

(2009) 2012: 13.7%*   

NSDUH 2011: 12.7%   

   2010: 14.3%*   

Measure 2.4: Percent of

respondents in the past year using

prescription‐type drugs non‐

medically, age 26+

4.7% 2013: 4.8% 4.0% No progress‐to‐date,

accelerated progress

required to meet 2015 target

(2009) 2012: 5.1%   

NSDUH 2011: 4.3%   

   2010: 4.8%   

Data Sources: (2.1) Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Uniform Data System (UDS); (2.2, 2.3, and 2.4)

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)

*Difference between estimate and 2013 estimate is statistically significant.

Assessment of Progress

The following discusses the data sources, targets, progress made to date, and future action

required to achieve each of the measures comprising the Strategy’s Objective 2: Seek early

intervention opportunities in health care.

Measure 2.1: Percent of Federally‐Qualified Health Center grantees providing Screening, Brief

Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) services  

This measure tracks the expansion of SBIRT services among the HRSA Health Center Program

grantees.  SBIRT is a comprehensive, integrated, public health approach to the delivery of early

intervention and treatment services for persons with, or at risk for developing, substance use

disorders.  HRSA’s health center grantees provide services to nearly 22 million people, many of

whom are medically underserved, and report data annually on the services they provide for

monitoring within HRSA’s Uniform Data System (UDS).  HRSA’s UDS warehouses service provider

data on its grantees; however, there is no national source of data available for all health care

providers.  In the absence of data on the aggregate performance of all health care providers and

facilities nationwide, this HRSA grantee measure is used as a proxy for the greater expansion of

screening services in primary care settings.   

HRSA is working with health centers to integrate substance use disorder SBIRT services into

primary care through the SAMHSA/HRSA Center for Integrated Health Solutions, the National
23

Association of Community Health Centers, and training and meetings.  Based on data available at

this time, the 2015 target of 15 percent of health centers providing SBIRT services has been

achieved in 2013 (17 percent); this level of progress needs to be maintained.  

Measure 2.2:  Percent of respondents in the past year using prescription‐type drugs non‐

medically, ages 12 – 17

The illicit or non‐therapeutic use of any substance by young people is cause for concern, because

substance use at a young age increases the likelihood of a chronic substance use disorder at a

later age.  Given the PRS data available at this time, the 2015 target of 6.5 percent has been

exceeded.    The 2013 NSDUH reported that the percentage of youth aged 12‐17 who used

prescription drugs non‐medically in the past year was 7.7 percent in 2009, dropping to 5.8

percent in 2013.  

Measure 2.3:  Percent of respondents in the past year using prescription‐type drugs non‐

medically, age 18‐25

Data from the 2013 NSDUH indicate that this age group (18‐25) had the highest rate of past year

non‐medical use of prescription drugs (12.2 percent), as compared to the other two age groups

(5.8 percent for 12‐17 year olds and 4.8 percent for those aged 26 and over).  Non‐medical use

of prescription drugs ranked second only to marijuana use among 18‐25 year olds.  While past

year non‐medical use of prescription drugs remains a persistent risk to young adults, the 2013

rate met the 2015 target of 12.8 percent.  Of note, 18‐25 years is the primary age group for

initiating use of all classes of prescription drugs.  Among 12‐49 year olds, the average ages of

those initiating non‐therapeutic use of prescription drugs were 22 years for pain relievers and

stimulants12 and 25 years for sedatives and tranquilizers.  The NSDUH data highlight the need to

reduce the non‐medical use of pain relievers, amphetamines, sedatives, and tranquilizers by

individuals who are in their early 20s.

Measure 2.4:  Percent of respondents in the past year using prescription‐type drugs non‐

medically, age 26 and over.

Prescription drugs that present particular risk for non‐therapeutic use typically fall into one of

four categories: pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants, and sedatives.  According to the 2013

NSDUH, opioid pain relievers were the primary type of prescription drugs that were used non‐

medically by those ages 26 and over.  Tranquilizers were also frequently used non‐medically by

this group.  The 2013 data available indicate that there has been no change in non‐medical use

of prescription drugs by those 26 and older since 2009.  Of note, with a 4.8 percent rate of non‐

medical use of prescription drugsin 2013, this 26‐and‐older group amounted to nearly 9.6 million

people.  Of those, 3.8 million were aged 26‐34 and over 5.8 million were 35 and older.   

Of those aged 26‐34 who used prescription drugs non‐medically in 2013, 2.7 million used pain

relievers and over 1.5 million used tranquilizers.  Additionally, of the 5.8 million people ages 35

                                                            
24

and older who used prescription drugsin 2013, 4.2 million of them used pain relievers and nearly

2 million used tranquilizers.   

Objective 3 ‐ Integrate Treatment for Substance Use Disorders into Health Care

and Expand Support for Recovery

Addiction is a chronic disorder associated with relapse, where outcomes are greatly improved

with augmentation by recovery support services.  Treatment helps people achieve stable, long‐

term recovery and become productive members of society, reducing the public health, public

safety, and economic consequences associated with substance use disorders.    The Obama

Administration is working with states, tribes, local governments, treatment and recovery support

services providers, and other stakeholders to develop systems and services that support

sustained recovery.    An essential component of this effort is promoting the use of recovery

supportservices, non‐clinicalservicesthat assist people who are in or are seeking recovery.  Table

2‐3 outlines the measures, targets, and progress‐to‐date for this Objective.   

Table 2‐3: Objective 3 Measures, Baselines, Progress‐to‐date, Targets, and Assessment

Objective 3 Measure Base‐line Progress‐ 

to‐date 2015 Target Assessment

Measure 3.1: Percent of treatment

plans completed

45.1%    2011: 43.7% 50.0% Significant progress

required to meet 2015

target

(2007) 2010: 44.1%

TEDS‐D 2009: 46.7%   

   2008: 46.6%   

Measure 3.2: Percent of Health

Center Program grantees

providing substance use

counseling and treatment services

21.6% 2013: 20.0% 23.0% Significant progress

required to meet 2015

target

(2009) 2012: 20.2%

UDS 2011: 22.1%   

   2010: 22.6%   

Measure 3.3: Percent of treatment

facilities offering at least 4 of the

standard spectrum of recovery

services (child care, transportation

assistance, employment

assistance, housing assistance,

discharge planning, and after‐care

counseling)

35.5%

(2008)

2013:

2012:

41.0%

40.0%

39.0% Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

N‐SSATS 2011: 39.0%    maintained through 2015

2010: 36.0%   

      2009: 36.0%   

Data Sources: (3.1) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Treatment Episode Data Set –

Discharge (TEDS‐D); (3.2) Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Uniform Data System (UDS);  (3.3) Substance

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N‐

SSATS)

Assessment of Progress  

The following discusses the data sources, targets, progress made to date, and future action

required to achieve each of the measures comprising the Strategy’s Objective 3: Integrate

treatment for substance use disorders into health care and expand support for recovery.
25

Measure 3.1: Percent of treatment plans completed

In the absence of nationwide data on treatment effectiveness—specifically, multi‐year national

data tracking clinical outcomes for individuals—the percentage of those discharged for having

completed treatment was used as a proxy measure.   Data for this measure are drawn from

SAMHSA’s Treatment Episode Data Set on Discharges (TEDS‐D), an administrative dataset on

discharges of individuals aged 12 and older from alcohol or drug treatment in facilities that

reported to Single State Agencies.  Given the data available at this time, significant progress is

required to meet the 2015 target of 50 percent.  In 2008, 46.6 percent of those discharged had

completed treatment plans; this rate was 46.7 percent in 2009 before trending downwards to

44.1 percent in 2010 and 43.7 percent in 2011.

Measure 3.2: Percent of Health Center grantees providing substance use counseling and

treatment services  

This measure focuses on the integration of counseling and treatment for substance use disorders

into mainstream health care.    Since there are no national records on available health care

services, this measure focuses on HRSA’s Health Center Program grantees and the nearly 22

million individuals they serve.  This measure is a proxy for assessing the extent of counseling and

treatment services for substance use disorders provided in primary care settings.  An increase in

the number of health center grantees offering these services would show that services for

substance use disorders are more integrated and expansive; a reasonable conclusion because

HRSA Health Center Program grantees are major providers of primary care for the Nation’s

medically underserved and vulnerable populations.  Data forthis measure are drawn from HRSA’s

UDS and are collected annually from HRSA grantees.  

Movement toward the target is downward trending; based on the data available, significant

progress is required to meet the 2015 target.  According to the 2013 UDS data, the percent of

grantees that provide substance use disorder counseling and treatment services has decreased

by 7 percent since 2009 to a rate of 20 percent by 2013.   With a 2015 target of 23 percent,

significant and accelerated progress is required.  

Measure 3.3: Percent of treatment facilities offering at least 4 of the standard spectrum of

recovery services  

Recovery from a substance use disorder is a lifelong process, and research has documented that

treatment success is greatly improved by programs that facilitate recovery.  Based on the data

available through SAMHSA’s National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N‐SSATS),

the following six services are included in the measure’s definition of the standard spectrum of

recovery supportservices:  child care, transportation assistance, employment assistance, housing

assistance, discharge planning, and after‐care counseling.    An increase in the percentage of

substance use disorder treatment facilities that provide at least four of these services would

indicate that the number of recovery support services is expanding.  Based on data available at

this time, the 2015 target of 39 percent of treatment facilities offering at least four of the
26

standard spectrum of recovery services was achieved in 2011; this level of progress needs to be

maintained.  

Objective 4—Break the Cycle of Drug Use, Crime, Delinquency, and Incarceration

At the end of 2013, about 6.9 million people—about 2.8 percent of the total adult population ‐ 

were under some form of adult correctional supervision (Glaze and Herberman 2013).  Various

studies have examined the prevalence of illicit drug use and drug use disorder among this special

population.  According to the most recent information available, 45 percent of Federal prisoners

met the criteria for substance use disorder (Mumola and Karberg, 2004).  Nearly three‐quarters

of state prison inmates are in need of some substance use intervention with over 31 percent of

men in prison and over 52 percent of female inmates requiring intensive treatment services

including residential treatment programming (Belenko et al., 2005).  However, only 25 percent

of male ex‐offenders returning to the community from prison and 14 percent of women ex‐

offendersreturning to the community from prison report participating in a formal drug or alcohol

treatment program while incarcerated (Belenko et al. 2005).   A 2004 survey showed that 40

percent of State and 49 percent of Federal inmates took part in some kind of drug program, but

most were self‐help or peer counseling groups.  Only 15 percent of State prisoners and 17 percent

of Federal prisoners took part in drug treatment programs with a trained professional (Mumola

and Karberg, 2004).

Over the past few years, the Obama Administration has sought to reform the criminal justice

system to more effectively address substance use disorders and reduce recidivism.    When

individuals become involved with the criminal justice system, it may be their first opportunity to

obtain substance use disorder treatment.   Placing non‐violent individuals with substance use

disorders on community supervision—and providing treatment and other services—has gained

wide acceptance among policymakers, academics, and practitioners.   However, more can be

done to incorporate appropriate supervision and services throughout the criminal justice system

continuum.  In addition, providing evidence‐based treatment and wrap‐around servicesto young

people who have had contact with law enforcement or the justice system could prevent them

from spiraling further into the system and reduce intergenerational substance use disorders.

Data Sources: (4.1) Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP) Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC);

(4.2) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Treatment Episode Data Set – Discharge (TEDS‐D)

* Biennial census

** Recalculated to reflect TEDS‐D data for prior years which is subject to revision by states.

Objective 4 Measure Assessment

2012: 45.3%

2010: 40.5%**

2011: 47.5%

2010: 47.9%

2009: 49.6%

2008: 48.4%

Progressing, accelerated progress

required to meet 2015 target

Measure 4.2: Percent of treatment

plans completed by those referred

by the Criminal Justice System

38.8%

(2008)*

JRFC

Base‐line

Measure 4.1: Percent of residential

facilities in the Juvenile Justice

System offering substance abuse

treatment

48.8%

TEDS‐D

(2007)

Table 2‐4: Objective 4 Measures, Baselines, Progress‐to‐date, Targets, and Assessment

Progress‐

to‐date

Target met or exceeded, progress

should be maintained through 2015

42.7%

51.0%

2015 Target
27

Assessment of Progress  

The following discusses the data sources, targets, progress made to date, and future action

required to achieve each of the measures comprising the Strategy’s Objective 4: Break the

Cycle of Drug Use, Crime, Delinquency, and Incarceration.  

Measure 4.1: Percent of residential facilities in the Juvenile Justice System offering treatment

for substance use disorders

This measure focuses on treatment available to youth in the juvenile justice system and the

importance of breaking the cycle of drugs and crime in this population at an early stage.  The data

are provided by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Juvenile Residential

Facility Census (JRFC).    The JRFC reports biennially on a variety of information on facility

operations and services including substance use disorder treatment

For the initial PRS design report, 85 percent of all residential juvenile facilities offered treatment

for substance use disorder services in 2006 were selected as the baseline because it was the

latest year for which data from the JRFC were available.  The base year for the PRS is 2009 except

in cases where 2009 data were not yet available.  For this measure 2006 data were used.  In the

2014 PRS report, the data were corrected from reporting on the number of juvenile facilities that

provided substance use “screening” to the number of juvenile facilities that provided

“treatment” for substance use disorders.  As a result, the baseline was recalculated to reflect the

rate of juvenile facilities that provided treatment for substance use disorders.  The revised value

for 2006 is 40.4 percent.  With 2008 data available, the baseline year was revised to 2008 with a

value of 38.8 percent.  Using the same degree of change, an increase of 5 percent, as reported in

the PRS design report with the revised baseline value of 38.8 percent, the 2015 target was also

revised to 42.7 percent.

In 2012, the data showed that 900 out of 1,985 (45.3 percent) juvenile facilities reported

providing treatment for a substance use disorder.  Of the facilities in the juvenile justice system

offering treatment for substance use disorders, 44 percent were public residential facilities and

46.7 percent were private facilities providing substance use disorder services, either on‐site or

off‐site.  While this measure exceedsthe 42.7 percent target for 2015 there has been a reduction

from the total number of facilities from 2,450 in 2008 to 1,985 in 2012 and a similar reduction in

the number of facilities providing treatmentservicesfrom 950 in 2008 to 900 in 2012.  A complete

breakout of past availability of facilities providing treatment for substance use disorders by

facility type can be found at Table 2‐4a below.   

   
28

Table 2‐4a: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s  

Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC)

Availability of substance use disorder treatment

JRFC JRFC JRFC JRFC JRFC JRFC JRFC

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Total number of facilities 3,047 2,955 2,799 2,649 2,450 2,111 1,985

N facilities providing

treatment 1,147 1,252 1,149 1,071 950 854 900

% of total 37.6% 42.4% 41.1% 40.4% 38.8% 40.5% 45.3%

Availability of substance use disorder treatment by facility operation

Facility operation 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Public           

Total facilities 1,200 1,182 1,187 1,166 1,150 1,074 1,007

% providing service 40.7% 45.3% 42.7% 45.4% 42.3% 42.5% 44.0%

Private           

Total facilities 1,847 1,773 1,612 1,483 1,300 1,037 978

% providing service 35.7% 40.4% 39.8% 36.5% 35.6% 38.4% 46.7%

Measure 4.2: Percent of treatment plans completed by those referred by the criminal justice

system13  

Research indicates that increased completion of treatment plans is correlated with improved

treatment outcomes and is also a predictor of reduced drug use (Gerstein and Harwood, 1999).  

This measure is a proxy since there are no nationwide data on the outcomes of treatment

effectiveness in the criminal justice population.  SAMHSA’s TEDS‐D data set covers areas such as

treatment completion14, length of stay in treatment, substance use disorder characteristics, and

client demographics.  Given the data available at this time, this measure needs accelerated

progress to meet the target of 49 percent for 2015.  According to the latest 2011 TEDS‐D, the

data showed that 47.5 percent (278,519 of 586,901) criminal justice referrals completed their

drug use treatment plans.  

                                                            

13 TEDS‐D defines “criminal justice referral” as a referral by any police official, judge, prosecutor, probation officer, or other

person affiliated with a Federal, State, or county judicial system. This includes referral by a court for DWI/DUI, clients referred

in lieu of or for deferred prosecution, or during pretrial release, or before or after official adjudication.   14 “Treatment Completed” is defined as “All parts of the treatment plan or program were completed.”
29

Objective 5 ‐ Disrupt Domestic Drug Trafficking and Production

The Strategy focuses on disrupting domestic drug trafficking and production within the United

States through the implementation of a range of counterdrug efforts.  The measures listed in the

Table 2‐5 below collectively assess the progress for Chapter 5 of the Strategy toward limiting the

availability of illicit drugs by targeting the organizations that produce and distribute them.   

The output measures for this objective are related to increasing the number of Drug Trafficking

Organizations(DTOs) disrupted or dismantled, and decreasing the number of methamphetamine

lab incidents. The number of DTOs reported are further delineated by their criminal associations

or “linkages” to Consolidated Priority Organization Targets (CPOTs) or Regional Priority

Organization Targets (RPOTs).    CPOT designation are heads of drug or money laundering

organizations , clandestine manufacturers or producers, and major transporters and distributors

– all of whom play significant roles in the supply of illicit drugs to the United States.  RPOTs are

those individuals, organizations, and facilitators, whose drug trafficking and/or money laundering

activities have a significant impact in the nine designated Organized Crime Drug Enforcement

Task Forces (OCDETF) regions15 as determined by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and its

partner agencies.  Reduction of methamphetamine labs is used as a positive outcome for law

enforcement, since seizure rates are assumed to be fairly constant; therefore, fewer lab seizure

incidents suggest reductions in methamphetamine lab activity.

Table 2‐5: Objective 5 Measures, Baselines, Progress‐to‐date, Targets, and Assessment

Objective 5 Measure Base‐line Progress‐ 

to‐date

2015

Target Assessment

Measure 5.1: Number of domestic

CPOT*‐linked organizations

disrupted or dismantled

296

(2009)

PTARRS

2013: 473 380 Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

2012: 450   

2011: 477   

2010: 425   

Measure 5.2: Number of RPOT**‐

linked organizations disrupted or

dismantled

119 2014:

2013:

153

170

120 Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

(2009) 2012: 156    maintained through 2015

MIS 2011: 164   

   2010: 116   

Measure 5.3 Methamphetamine

lab activity (as measured by

number of methamphetamine lab

seizure incidents)

12,852

(2009)

2013:

2012:

11,329

12,754

9,639 Progressing, accelerated

progress required to

NSS 2011: 13,405    meet 2015 target

2010: 15,207   

Data Sources: (5.1) Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Performance and Accountability Report (PAR); (5.2) Organized Crime and

Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) Management Information System (MIS); (5.3) El Paso Intelligence Center’s (EPIC)

National Seizure System (NSS) extracted March 5, 2014. Includes DEA Hazardous Waste Disposal System (HWDS) data merged

in the summer 2012

*CPOT ‐ Consolidated Priority Organization Targets

**RPOT ‐ Regional Priority Organization Targets

                                                            

15 The nine OCDETF regions are the Florida Caribbean, Great Lakes, Mid‐Atlantic, New England, New York/New Jersey, Pacific,

Southeast, Southwest, and West Central.
30

Assessment of Progress  

The following discusses the data sources, targets, progress made to date, and future action

required to achieve each of the measures comprising the Strategy’s Objective 5: Disrupt

Domestic Drug Trafficking and Production.

Measure 5.1: Number of Domestic CPOT‐linked Organizations Disrupted or Dismantled

US law enforcement agencies and their partners, focus on the CPOTs with the intent of having

the greatest effect in disrupting drug production and trafficking.  The data source used for this

measure is the Priority Target Activity and Resource Reporting System (PTARRS) which captures

domestic and international CPOT‐linked PTO organizations disruptions/dismantlementsfrom the

DEA.    In 2009, 296 domestic CPOT‐linked organizations were disrupted or dismantled; this

increased to 473 in Fiscal Year (FY) 2013.    In FY 2011, DEA started reporting Domestic Field

Division and Diversion Control separately in its budget and performance submissions.  However,

it continues to report its Domestic Field Division and Diversion Control PTO Dispositions as a

consolidated Domestic performance measure.  This is due in part to the small number of CPOT‐

linked PTOs disrupted or dismantled by the Diversion Control Program.  In 2009, only 3 of the

CPOT‐linked organizations disrupted or dismantled involved the diversion of chemicals.    The

number of Diversion Control disruptions and dismantlements were 4 in 2010, 11 in 2011, 5 in

2012, and 3 in 2013.  The number of CPOT‐linked organizations disrupted or dismantled from FY

2009 through FY 2013 reported in the table indicates that the required target of 380 CPOT‐linked

organizations disrupted or dismantled has been met.

Measure 5.2: Number of RPOT‐linked Organizations Disrupted or Dismantled

Similar to CPOT‐linked organizations, Regional Priority Organization Targets (RPOTs) are drug

trafficking organizations that are primarily responsible for a specific region’s drug threat. The

RPOT list enables a coordinated regional focus for Federal, state, local, and tribal law

enforcement efforts.

The primary data source for the number of RPOT‐linked organizations disrupted or dismantled is

the OCDETF database to which OCDETF regions report data concerning disruptions or

dismantlements.    The number of RPOT‐linked organizations that law enforcement identifies

fluctuates each year, greatly influencing the number of disruptions and dismantlements.  The FY

2015 target was set at 90 RPOT‐linked organizations disrupted or dismantled with a FY 2009

baseline of 119.  The original FY 2015 target of 90 was set in FY 2010 and based on actual fiscal

year data available at the time, input from the OCDETF regions, and factoring in the impact of

the reduction in the number of RPOT targets beginning in FY 2011 from 200 to 150, a 25 percent

reduction.  The reason for this reduction in RPOT targets is to ensure that the OCDETF regions

are identifying and targeting the major drug traffickers operating throughout the region so that

the limited resources available are used to disrupt and dismantle the most significant drug

trafficking organizations in the region.  Therefore, the estimated targets set in FY 2010 for the

number of RPOT‐linked organizations disrupted or dismantled from FY 2011 through FY 2015

showed a slight downward trend because of the reduced number of RPOTs targeted.
31

However, since the initial target for FY 2015 was set in FY 2010, OCDETF realized much higher

numbers than originally estimated by achieving great success over the past several years in

disrupting and dismantling RPOT‐linked drug trafficking organizations.    Because OCDETF

emphasizes the importance of priority targeting, the OCDETF regions, task forces, and strike

forces have increasingly been focusing attention and resources on identifying drug trafficking

organizations linked to these priority targets, and the cases identified have become significantly

more complex and resulted in the disruption and dismantlement of a higher number of linked

drug trafficking organizations.  

Therefore, because of the much higher than initially expected recent yearly totals, in 2014

OCDETF adjusted its FY 2015 target estimate upward to 156 from 90.  The adjusted target of 156

takes into account the higher numbers OCDETF achieved from FY 2011 through FY 2013, and is a

projection based upon an average of trend analysis and forecasting of actual data from 2005 to

2014.16  

Measure 5.3: Methamphetamine Lab Activity

An actual measure of methamphetamine lab activity (similar to many other covert aspects of

drug trafficking) is unknown.    A proxy for methamphetamine lab activity is the number of

methamphetamine lab seizures: as lab activity increases, more labs are seized; as lab activity

decreases, the number of lab seizures decreases (assuming law enforcement resources and

priorities are stable). For example, in 2005, with the enactment of the Combat

Methamphetamine Epidemic Act, precursor chemicals for domestic labs were restricted and the

number of methamphetamine lab seizures declined dramatically17.   

This measure assesses progressin reducing methamphetamine lab seizure activity and associated

consequences, such as methamphetamine lab and dumpsite clean‐up costs.  Methamphetamine

lab seizure incident data are compiled by the National Seizure System (NSS) at the El Paso

Intelligence Center (EPIC).   

In 2011, EPIC discovered that some methamphetamine lab seizure incidents tabulated in the

Hazardous Waste Disposal System (HWDS), which was used to account for methamphetamine

clean‐ups, were omitted from the National Seizure System (NSS).  The HWDS incidents missing

from NSS were integrated into the NSS for all previous years.  Subsequent methamphetamine lab

clean‐up incident reporting was tabulated in the NSS to avoid future NSS under‐reporting.  Since

the initial PRS report, the number of methamphetamine lab incidents, as measured by the NSS

at EPIC, increased for all years when data from the HWDS was integrated into the existing NSS.  

                                                            

16 The FY2015 Target was calculated using actual regional data available from FY2005‐FY2014 for which the national totals were

56; 70; 91; 104; 119; 106; 161; 156; 170; 153; respectively. 17 For clarity, lab seizures can be categorized as pre‐labs (equipment and glassware seized), operating labs, or post‐operation

labs (dumpsites). Different state reporting may define each of these categories differently, therefore a sum of all three types is

used as the measure of seizures and is called: “methamphetamine lab seizure incidents”.
32

Figure 2‐5 below compares the number of methamphetamine lab seizure incidents before and

after the adjustment.  Taking the updated NSS data, the 2009 baseline has been revised to 12,852

and has seen downward trends since FY 2010 with 15,205 seizures to 13,405 in FY 2011, 12,754

in FY 2012 and 11,329 in FY 2013.  Using the same 25 percent reduction for the 2015 target, the

target has also been revised to 9,639.  

Figure 2‐5: Number of methamphetamine lab seizure incidents before and after inclusion of

HWDS incidents

Progress in Reducing Methamphetamine Production

While the number of methamphetamine labs has remained stable since 2009, progress has

been made in reducing the overall domestic production amounts.  A key reason for this shift is

the increase in methamphetamine/amphetamine labs operated by local user/distributors with

no apparent ties to organized crime groups, coupled with a smaller overall production

capability than the super labs18.  While the downward shift in production capacity is a positive

sign, small‐scale domestic labs are estimated to account for only a small portion of U.S.

methamphetamine supply.  For example, 80 percent of the methamphetamine labs seized in

the United States are of the smallest capacity category, i.e., less than 2 ounces (U.S.

Department of Justice, 2013b). The bulk of U.S. methamphetamine supply is linked to

production in Mexico (U.S. Department of Justice, 2013b).

                                                            

18 The term “superlab” refers to a laboratory that generates 10 pounds or more of methamphetamine per production cycle. 10,172 14,583 17,874 21,580 23,83117,623 9,181 6,858 8,810 12,852 15,207 13,405 12,764 11,329 9,266 13,427 16,273 17,668 18,09312,9798,183 6,095 7,464 10,823 11,892 10,251

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Number of Methamphetamine Lab Seizure Incidents

Extracted 3/5/14 (with HWDS)

Extracted 2/21/12 (without HWDS)
33

Objective 6 ‐ Strengthen International Partnerships and Reduce the Availability

of Foreign Produced Drugs in the United States

Disrupting and dismantling violent criminal enterprises that traffic illicit drugs into the United

States in partnership with foreign nations is key to reducing the supply of drugs and promoting

the rule of law.  There is global recognition that addressing the use, production, and trafficking

of drugs is a shared responsibility among all nations.  In the Strategy, strengthening international

partnerships is an instrumental part of helping to reduce the production and trafficking of drugs

smuggled into the United States.   

This objective focuses on a range of international drug control efforts supported by U.S. Federal

agencies.  This includes initiatives to curb the amount of drugs that enter the United States by

developing criminal cases, capturing major kingpins, and seizing drugs and the illicit proceeds

from their sale.  There is also a focus on building institutional capability, supporting economic

alternatives to drug production, and promoting collaborative efforts in prevention, treatment,

and research, thereby assisting global partners in acquiring the capabilities to overcome the

consequences of drug use.  The emphasis on supporting drug transit and producing countries in

their supply reduction efforts is intended to substantially reduce the flow of foreign produced

drugs into the United States.  The effort also assists host nations in building their capacity to

addressthe fullrange of drug threatsthey face.  For measures 6.1 and 6.2 the progress ofselected

countriesis presented in aggregate and does not compare countries’ effortsin curbing the supply

or demand of drugs.  This objective’s measures listed in the Table 2‐6 below collectively assess

the progress of the Strategy in strengthening international partnerships and reducing the

availability of foreign‐produced drugs in the United States.   

Assessment of Progress

The following discusses the data sources, targets, progress made to date, and future action

required to achieve each of the measures comprising the Strategy’s Objective 6: Strengthen

International Partnerships and Reduce the Availability of Foreign Produced Drugs in the United

States.

Measure 6.1: Percent of selected countries on the Majors list that increased their

commitment to supply reduction

An assessment of a particular country’s commitment to addressing their unique supply reduction

challenges is based on the data available from that country and includes information on budget,

programs, and policies.  Supply reduction efforts include financial resources dedicated to drug

crop eradication, drug interdiction, judicial and law enforcement programs and institutional

strengthening focused on drug trafficking.  The countries selected for assessment during the PRS

design process were Afghanistan, Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico, Pakistan, Peru and the

Dominican Republic.  It was decided that a pilot period for data would be needed to refine the

data collection process.   During the pilot it was determined that data for Bolivia, Guatemala,

Pakistan and the Dominican Republic were more difficult to collect on a systematic and yearly

basis at this time.  Since then the State Department has been able to systematically collect data
34

from Afghanistan, Mexico, Colombia and Peru.  These countries are central to collaboration with

the United States in reducing the supply of illicit drugs and will be used for the purposes of this

report.   

Table 2‐6: Objective 6 Measures, Baselines, Progress‐to‐date, Targets, and Assessment

Objective 6 Measure Base‐

line/Source

Progress‐ 

to‐date 2015 Target Assessment

Measure 6.1: Percent of selected

countries* that increased their

commitment to supply reduction

2009 or

earliest

available

     100%     

(progress to date**)

100% Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

State

Department

Measure 6.2: Percent of selected

countries* that increased their

commitment to demand

reduction

2009      100%   

(progress to date**)

100% Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

maintained through 2015

State

Department

Measure 6.3: Percent of selected  

countries*** showing progress

since 2009 in reducing either

cultivation or drug production

potential

2009          29%    

(progress to date**)

100% No Progress to Date,

accelerated progress

required to meet 2015

target.

ONDCP

Measure 6.4: Number of

international CPOT‐linked

organizations disrupted or

dismantled

65

(2009)

PTARRS

2014:

2013:

72

77

60 Target met or exceeded,

progress should be

2012: 69 maintained through 2015

2011: 52

   2010: 74

Data Sources: (6.1 and 6.2) Department of State; (6.3) Office of National Drug Control Policy; (6.4) Drug Enforcement

Administration’s (DEA) Priority Target Activity and Resource Reporting System (PTARRS)

* The countries selected for this measure are: Afghanistan, Mexico, Colombia and Peru.

** The most available data available varies among countries.

*** The countries selected for this measure are: Afghanistan, Burma, Laos, Mexico, Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru.

  

The political will to sustain counternarcotics efforts with host nation resources has continued.  

The selected countries’ supply reduction budgets have all increased from 2009 through 2013,

which makes the 2015 target on track for achieving this outcome (i.e. 100% of the selected

countries have increased their commitment to supply reduction through their budgets or their

achievements.  The progress for each country is described separately below:

Afghanistan’s Ministry of Counternarcotics (MCN) has increased its capacity to plan and

implement programs as a growing amount of donor support is being placed “on budget,” under

full MCN control rather than control by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime or a donor

nation.  The 2013 MCN budget increased 38 percent from 2011’s $12.0 million to $16.6 million.  

Afghanistan is working to increase its capacity to counter the illicit economy and sustain broad,

multi‐faceted programs that address narcotics cultivation, production, trafficking, and use,

enhance public information campaigns, and develop regional and international cooperation

networks.    The U.S.‐mentored Afghan counternarcotics police‐vetted units now initiate, plan,
35

coordinate, and execute – without any significant non‐Afghan tactical support – large‐scale

interdiction operations.

Colombia’s budget from 2009 to 2014 shows significant increases in the drug policy programs of

the Justice and Interior Ministries and an increase in its Defense spending for supply reduction.  

The combined total of Justice and Interior Ministry spending on drug policy was $2.7 million in

2009 and increased to $4.5 million in 2014.  In 2011, the functions for drug policy in the Ministry

of Justice and Interior were separated. The Defense budget for drug policy programs was $12.5

million in 2009 and $15.3 million in 2013.  As of September 2014, the Ministry of Defense spent

$10.4 million.  Colombia has also taken fiscal responsibility for the helicopter safety program and

absorbed the direct cost of the herbicide used in aerial eradication operations.  On January 20,

2014, President Santos signed a comprehensive Asset Forfeiture law (no. 1708) aimed at

countering money laundering.  Colombia has also increased its commitment to state presence in

and around coca growing areas through increases to its Public Security Forces from 429,793 in

2009 to 470,000 in 2014.  Also of note was Colombia’s role in assuming greater responsibility in

the region by taking over control of the Air Bridge Denial program, which is aimed at interdicting

drugs.   

Mexico’s budget from 2009 to 2014 shows a steady increase in funding for drug supply reduction

and security efforts, from $8 billion in 2009 to over $10.4 billion in 2014 (U.S. Department of

State, 2014a).  Funding is used to combat organized crime, expand crime prevention programs,

improve interagency coordination, consolidate police forces, support justice reforms, and

encourage citizen participation in crime control.   

Peru’s budget from 2009 to 2014 shows an increase in overall drug supply reduction spending

from $42.5 million in 2009 to $157.7 million in 2014.  Included in the total budget is the drug

supply reduction funding for the National Commission for Development and Life without Drugs

(DEVIDA), the Public Ministry, Ministry of Defense, Judicial Power, and Ministry of Interior

Effective Management Program for Drug Supply Control.    In 2012, Peru adopted and began

proactively implementing its billion‐dollar, five‐year counternarcotics strategy.    The Peruvian

counternarcotics strategy is comprehensive – including eradication, interdiction, alternative

development, precursor controls, combating money laundering, etc.  In 2014 Peru eradicated a

record high of over 31,200 hectares (ha) of coca and the target for 2015 is 35,000 ha.  In 2014,

DEVIDA created nearly 25,000 new jobs and assisted over 34,258 families on over 52,000 ha of

alternative crops, 13,722 of which were newly planted.   Projected spending for supply reduction

efforts is expected to increase further to $177.6 million in 2015 (U.S. Department of State,

2014b).

Measure 6.2: Percent of selected countries that increased their commitment to demand

reduction efforts

The countries for this measure were selected in the same manner as Measure 6.1 to explore

options to refine the data collection process.  Budgets and actions taken for demand reduction

efforts conducted by Afghanistan, Mexico, Colombia, and Peru were examined.    
36

The political will to sustain counternarcotics efforts with host nation resources has continued.  

The selected countries’ demand reduction budgets and activities have all increased from 2009

through 2013, which makesthe FY 2015 target on track for achieving this outcome.  The progress

for each country is described separately below:

Afghanistan has expanded the number of treatment programs, with U.S. support, from zero to

over 100 since 2007, including inpatient, outpatient, home‐based and village‐based programs, as

well as services tailored specifically to meet the needs of women and children in the Afghan

cultural context.    The Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) independently manages over 30

programs, and is working with the State Department to implement a transition program to take

increasing leadership and responsibility for treatment programs within the country.  The MCN

will assume the responsibility for strategic development of drug demand reduction policy, while

MoPH has the programmatic lead in service delivery.  This transition plan will create uniformity

amongst the treatment centers nationwide and will help incorporate existing Afghan treatment

professionals within the country’s government civil service structure.    Since FY2009, three

Afghani nationals have been awarded NIDA Hubert H. Humphrey Drug Abuse Research

Fellowships.    The NIDA‐supported component of the broader State Department fellowship

program combines academic courses at a leading U.S. university and a professional affiliation

with an Institute grantee to teach fellows about NIDA‐supported substance use disorder research

and the application of research to the development of science‐based government policy and

prevention and treatment programs.

Colombia’s national budget for Drug Demand Prevention, Mitigation, and Treatment increased

from $6.0 million in 2009 to $7.2 million in 2013 (U.S. Department of State, 2014a).  Colombia

has shown success in beginning to lead demand reduction efforts in the region.  From June 27‐

29, 2012, Colombia hosted a Regional Grant Writing and Scientific Peer Review Workshop in

Bogotá, Colombia.    NIDA also continues to support a domestic grant to a U.S. principal

investigator working with partners in Colombia on Risk Factors for Adolescent Drug Use in the

United States and Colombia.  

Mexico’s 2012 budget for Demand Reduction was $84 million, increasing to $95.8 million in 2013;

this is a significant increase from the $29.2 million funded in 2009 (U.S. Department of State,

2014a).  The U.S. ‐ Mexico Drug Abuse Prevention Research Fellowship reflects Mexico’s support

of demand reduction programs.  The program provides 12 months of postdoctoral training in the

United States for a Mexican citizen or permanent resident.  In addition to conducting mentored

prevention research, fellows participate in professional development activities and learn about

the U.S. National Institutes of Health grant application process.    Through this fellowship,

participants are gaining essential networking contacts and are increasing their professional

development, which has resulted in published articles in professional medical journals and an

increase in research through grants.  Through another NIDA international fellowship and NIDA

and State Department grants, Mexico established a university‐community treatment provider

network based on the NIDA Clinical Trials Network to conduct treatment clinical trials, and

completed the first study, Motivational Enhancement Treatment to Improve Treatment

Engagement and Outcome for Spanish‐Speaking Individuals Seeking Treatment for Substance
37

Use disorders.   Mexico has also hosted Demand Reduction conferences focused on research.  

From 2009 to 2014, NIDA awarded 20 grants for various projects—most of which were focused

on drug‐related HIV—to U.S. principal investigators working with partners in Mexico.   

Peru’s allocation of funds from 2009 to 2014 shows an increase in its overall demand reduction

budget from nearly $1 million in 2009 to $7.9 million in 2014.  Included in the total budget is Drug

Prevention and Treatment funding for DEVIDA, Peru’s Counternarcotics Strategy for prevention,

treatment, and rehabilitation, as well as for Ministry of Women, Judicial Power, The National

Penitentiary Institute, Ministry of Education, and Peru’s Health ServicesInstitute.  NIDA continues

to support domestic grants to U.S. principal investigators working with partners in Peru on HIV

Testing and Treatment to Prevent Onward HIV Transmission among high‐risk men.  In January

2014, NIDA and the Peruvian Instituto Nacional de Salud signed a bi‐national agreement to

facilitate scientific exchange activities focused on collaborative drug use research.  NIDA and the

Fogarty International Center approved the use of funds from a training grant to a U.S. principal

investigator working with colleagues in Peru to support a workshop for researchers on drug use

issues from Andean States in conjunction with the 2014 NIDA International Forum, which was

held June 13‐16, 2014 in Puerto Rico (U.S. Department of State, 2014b).

Measure 6.3: Percent of Majors List countries showing progress in reducing either cultivation

or drug production potential  

Reducing the cultivation or drug production19 potential ofselected countriesrepresents a success

in the international effort to reduce the flow of illicit drugs.  The countries selected to track this

measure are Afghanistan, Burma, Laos, Mexico, Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru.  For these countries,

the cultivation or production of opium poppy, heroin, coca, and marijuana were estimated using

U.S. data (ONDCP, 2011) to determine an improvement in reducing either cultivation or

production since 2009.  As in previous measures, countries are not compared to one another.  

The target is that 100 percent of the selected countries should show progress in reducing drug

cultivation or production from their individual baseline figures in 2009 by 2015.

Accelerated progress is needed to meet the 100 percent target of all selected countries showing

improvement since 2009, with only two countries (Bolivia and Colombia) reducing either illicit

drug cultivation or production since 2009.  The progress of each country is described separately

below:

Afghanistan experienced an increase in poppy cultivation and a concomitant increase in potential

opium production.    Poppy cultivation totaled 131,000 hectares in 2009 and increased to an

estimated 211,000 hectares in 2014.  Potential opium production similarly increased from 5,300

metric tons in 2009 to 6,300 metric tons in 2014.   

Bolivia experienced a reduction in coca cultivation and in the potential pure cocaine production.  

Coca cultivation totaled 29,000 hectares in 2009 and decreased to 25,000 in 2012.  According to

                                                            

19 Potential production estimates are calculated from potential cultivation estimates by applying several conversion

factors, such as plant yields and chemical processing efficiency. These conversion factors are different for each drug

and growing area and are calculated by US Government agencies.
38

the most current estimates, potential pure cocaine production decreased from 150 metric tons

in 2009 to 145 metric tons in 2012.

Burma experienced a significant increase in poppy cultivation and opium production. Due to poor

weather conditions that stunted cultivation in 2009, 2010 was chosen for the baseline. Poppy

cultivation increased from 45,500 hectares in 2010 to 57,600 hectares in 2014).  Potential opium

production also rose from 530 metric tonsin 2010 to 670 metric tonsin 2014.  If the entire opium

harvest were processed into pure heroin it would have produced 29 metric tons in 2009 and 76

metric tons in 2013.

Colombia experienced a reduction in coca cultivation and production.  Coca cultivation totaled

116,000 hectares in 2009 and decreased to 112,000 in 2014.  Potential pure cocaine decreased

from 265 metric tons in 2009 to 245 metric tons in 2014.

Laos experienced substantial increasesin production and cultivation of poppy.  Poppy cultivation

estimates increased from 2009 to 2014 from nearly 940 hectares grown in the region of

Phongsaly in 2009 to 6,200 hectares grown in three primary growing areas in 2014.  Potential

opium production for Phongsaly totaled 11.5 metric tons in 2009 and the primary growing areas

surveyed in 2014 (Bokeo, Houaphan, Louang Namtha, Louangphraband, Oudomxai, Phongsaly,

Xiangkhoang, and Xaignabouri) potentially produced 92 metric tons of opium.   

Mexico experienced an increase in opium poppy cultivation and a moderate increase in

marijuana cultivation.  Poppy cultivation areas totaled 10,500 in 2012 and increased to 17,000

hectares in 2014, while marijuana totaled 11,500 in 2012 and 13,000 hectares in 2013.  A change

in the estimate methodology in 2011 precludes a direct comparison with prior cultivation

estimates.  If the fields used in this analysis were processed into pure heroin, they would have

produced 26 metric tons of pure heroin in 2013.  There is no marijuana production estimate due

to a lack of yield data for Mexico.

Peru experienced a significant increase in coca cultivation and potential cocaine production from

2009 to 2013.  Coca cultivation increased from 40,000 hectares in 2009 to 59,500 hectares in

2013.  Potential pure cocaine production increased from 225 metric tons of cocaine in 2009 to

305 metric tons in 2013.

Measure 6.4: Number of CPOT‐linked international organizations disrupted or dismantled   

DOJ’s CPOT list represents the most significant international drug trafficking and money

laundering organizations primarily responsible for the Nation’s drug supply.    Disrupting and

dismantling CPOT‐linked international organizations is thought to have had an impact on the

Nation’s illicit drug supply and the flow of foreign‐produced drugs into the United States on

efforts to Combat Transnational Organized Crime.   

Internationally, the State Department works closely with DOJ, including the DEA, and the

Department of Homeland Security in disrupting and dismantling foreign CPOT‐linked

organizations.  The data source maintained by DOJ for this measure, the Priority Target Activity
39

and Resource Reporting System (PTARRS), captures domestic and international CPOT‐linked

disruptions/dismantlements from Federal law enforcement.

In FY 2009, PTARRS recorded that 65 international CPOT‐linked organizations were disrupted or

dismantled.  Due to the number of CPOT‐linked disruptions and dismantlements decreasing to

52 in FY 2011, the target of 60 international CPOT‐linked organizations disrupted or dismantled

through FY 2015 was established.  In FY 2012, FY 2013 and FY 2014, DEA reported 69, 77 and 72

CPOT‐linked disruptions and dismantlements, respectively.    DEA is confident that the slight

decrease in the number of international CPOT‐linked dispositions reported in FY 2014 is not

unusual; instead it is indicative of the natural, yet temporal, fluctuations that occur when

reporting investigative or enforcement‐based outcomes.    The number of international CPOT‐

linked organizations disrupted or dismantled from FY 2009 through FY 2014 demonstrates that

DEA, with support from the State Department and other agencies, has met the required target

of 60 international CPOT‐linked organizations disrupted or dismantled by 2015, and anticipates

meeting the target for FY 2015.

Objective 7‐ Improve Information Systems for Analysis, Assessment, and Local

Management

Using data for evidence‐based decision making isthe cornerstone of a strategic approach to both

supply and demand reduction efforts.  There is a range of data available to inform policy and

decision making, including national level information on drug use and health behaviors, the

criminal justice population, the economics of the drug trade and drug use, and the supply of illicit

drugs(e.g., illicit drug crop cultivation and production estimates and illicit drug seizure statistics).

Table 2‐7 below outlines the measures, baselines, progress‐to‐date, targets, and assessments for

this Objective.  The measures assess three general performance criteria:  (1) timeliness of data

release, (2) utilization of data, and (3) expansion of the use of feedback mechanisms for data

consumers.

Assessment of Measures1718

The following discusses the data sources, targets, progress made to date, and future action

required to achieve each of the measures comprising the Strategy’s Objective 7: Improve

Information Systems for Analysis, Assessments, and Local Management.
40

Table 2‐7: Objective 7 Measures, Baselines, Progress‐to‐date, Targets, and Assessment

Objective 7 Measure Base‐line Progress‐

to‐date

2015

Target Assessment

Measure 7.1: Increase timeliness (year‐end to date‐of‐release) of select Federal data sets above their baseline by

10%  

Treatment Episode Data Set

(TEDS)a 

17.5 2011: 23.5 16 Significant progress required to

months 2010: 19.5 months meet 2015 target

(TEDS‐A)

Measure 7.2: Increase the utilization (number of annual web hits, or number of documents referencing the source)

of select Federal data sets by 10% from the baseline

Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Data Archive

(SAMHDA)

200,000

web hits/

year

2014: 937,643 220,000

web hits/

year

Target met or exceeded,

progress should be maintained

through 2015

2012: 356,782

National Survey on Drug Use

and Health (NSDUH) (Journal

articles referencing NSDUH)

37 2014: 113 41 Target met or exceeded,

progress should be maintained

through 2016

per year 2012: 148 per year

Measure 7.3: Increase Federal data sets that establish feedback mechanisms to measure usefulness (surveys, focus

groups, etc.)

SAMHSA Funded Data Setsb  0    1 (progress

to date)

1 Target met or exceeded,

progress should be maintained

through 2015

        

Data Sources: (7.1) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Treatment Episode Data Set

Admissions (TEDS‐A); (7.2) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Data Archive (SAMHDA) and National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) (Journal articles referencing

NSDUH); (7.3) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) sponsored a conference for the users of

SAMHSA’s data sets; conference generated recommendations

Measure 7.1: Increase timeliness (year‐end to date‐of‐release) of select Federal data sets

above their baseline by 10%

By improving timeliness and reducing lag times between an event and reporting on it, policy

makers can more quickly address new and emerging threats.    The more quickly data are

published post‐collection and available for review, the more actionable and relevant they

become.  The Treatment Episode Data Set Admissions (TEDS‐A) was identified as an important

data source and good candidate for reducing lag times between collection and reporting.  Two

TEDS‐A reports are published each year.  Through calendar year (CY) 2007, the first report was

highlights, and the second one was a final report.  From CY2008 forward, the first report was

national measures, and the second report was state measures.    The table below shows the

document datesfor each TEDS‐A report.  This measure was calculated each year by averaging the

time lag for the two reports.  Figure 2‐7 showsthe trend in TEDS‐A report timeliness. The baseline

for release of TEDS data from the completion of data collection to release is 17.5 months, with a

target of 15.8 months.  Accelerated progress is needed to meet the 2015 target.   

Table 2‐7a: Document dates for each TEDS‐A report

   2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1st May‐04 Jun‐05 Feb‐06 Nov‐06 Jan‐08 Feb‐09 Apr‐10 Apr‐11 Jun‐12 Jul‐13 Jul‐14

2nd Sep‐04 Nov‐05 Jul‐06 Jun‐07 Jul‐08 Aug‐09 Dec‐10 Sep‐11 Nov‐12 Jun‐14  ‐‐‐ 
41

Figure 2‐7: Timeliness of TEDS‐A reports, 2002‐2015

Measure 7.2: Increase the utilization (number of annual web hits, or number of documents

referencing the source) of select Federal data sets by 10% from the baseline

The rate of utilization of Federal data sets is a clear indication of the relevance, utility, and

importance of the data that are being reported.  Improved data sets can better inform policy and

program development and management.  Two key sources of data are the Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Data Archive (SAMHDA) which housed the NSDUH, the Behavioral Health Services

Information Systems (TEDS‐A and TEDS‐D, the N‐SSATS, and the MHSS), and the DAWN data.  

SAMHDA promotes the access and use of the Nation’s preeminent substance use disorder and

mental health research data by assuring accurate public use data files and documentation.  

Reports that use NSDUH and other relevant data supported through SAMHSA are accessed

through SAMHSA’s data page.  The NSDUH is a key source of data on drug use in the United

States.  The baseline for SAMHDA web hits per year is based on current SAMHSA information and

sets a target of 220,000 web hits per year by 2015.  In 2014, SAMHSA received 937,643 hits to its

data page and 565,670 hits to the SAMHDA data site.  The baseline for NSDUH journal articles is

based on current information and sets a 2015 target of 41 journal articles/year referencing

NSDUH data.  SAMHSA identified 113 journal articles using NSDUH data published in 2014.  Both

data sets have exceeded their targets.  

Measure 7.3: Increase Federal data sets that establish feedback mechanisms to measure

usefulness (surveys, focus groups, etc.)

A key approach to improving the usefulness of data for both Federal partners and the public is

receiving feedback from data users.  This information can be helpful in enhancing websites, data

formats, data reports, etc.    Feedback mechanisms can also take a variety of forms, including

online surveys, conferences, or contact information on agency websites.    For this measure

SAMHSA sought to hold a data users conference by 2015.  The target was met for this measure.  

In August 2012, the agency held its first Behavioral Health Data Users Conference.    The
42

Conference provided overviews of what types of data are available and trained attendees on how

to access and analyze data.

Beyond the measures discussed previously, the Strategy outlines a series of actions focused on

sustaining and enhancing existing Federal data systems, developing and implementing new data

systems and analytical methods to address gaps, developing data on drug use and its

consequences that are useful at the community level, and improving data on drugged driving.  

Progress has been made in all of these areas.

The DAWN emergency department data system was discontinued at the end of 2011.  Efforts are

underway to transition data collection from SAMHSA to the newly consolidated National Hospital

Care Survey by the National Center for Health Statistics.  SAMHSA and NCHS are working together

on a range of issues including, pretesting a revised data collection approach, recruiting the

required number of hospitals, conducting secondary sampling of emergency department visits,

and identifying potential data outcomes to address research questions.   With growing public

health concerns surrounding the non‐medical use of prescription drugs, particular emphasis will

be placed on this area.

For the NSDUH, a re‐design was implemented in 2015 to improve estimates of emerging drug

problems, especially the non‐medical use of prescription drugs.  The Behavioral Health Services

Information System provides valuable information on treatment facilities and client outcomes;

work is ongoing to ensure the continuing viability of the system.  Assessing the price and purity

of illicit street drugs provides essential information for understanding the economics of the drug

market.  DEA is working to enhance its systems for managing and tracking forensic analyses.

Efforts have also been taken to develop new data systems and analytical methods to address

knowledge gaps.  This includes the transitioning of the Federal‐wide Drug Seizure System to the

National Seizure System (NSS).  Several agencies have also sought to enhance a range of data

sources that can inform a better understanding of global illicit drug markets, including more

accurately, rapidly, and transparently estimating the cultivation and yield of marijuana, opium,

and coca globally.

As drug use and its consequences vary considerably among localities, developing data that are

useful at the community level will be helpful in both understanding local problems and identifying

approaches to mitigate the harm to both public health and public safety.  SAMHSA is currently

working to develop a community early warning and monitoring system to track substance use

and problem indicators at the local level.  Finally, expanding understanding of patterns and risks

associated with drugged driving will support better public safety efforts.  ONDCP has partnered

with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Institute on Drug Abuse to

support driver simulator research to examine driving impairment as a result of marijuana and

combined marijuana and alcohol use and correlate it with the results of oral fluid testing to

identify behavioral indicators of impairment.  

   
43

Appendix A: Glossary of Acronyms

ADAM   Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program, U.S. Department of Justice  

ATR   Access to Recovery, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services  

ATF   Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives  

BOP   Bureau of Prisons

CBHSQ   Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse

and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services

CPOT   The Consolidated Organization Priority (CPOT) List identifies the most

significant international drug trafficking and money laundering

organizations and those primarily responsible for the nation’s drug

supply.

CPOT‐linked   An organization is considered linked to a CPOT if credible evidence

exists (i.e., from corroborated confidential source information, phone

tolls, Title III intercepts, drug ledgers, financial records or other similar

investigative means) of a nexus between the primary investigative

target and a CPOT target, verified associate, or component of the CPOT

organization.

DAWN   Drug Abuse Warning Network, U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services

DEA   Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice  

DHS   U.S. Department of Homeland Security

DOD   U.S. Department of Defense  

DOI   U.S. Department of Interior  

DOJ   U.S. Department of Justice

DOL   U.S. Department of Labor  

DOS   U.S. Department of State

DOT   U.S. Department of Transportation

DUI/DWI   Driving Under the Influence/Driving While Intoxicated
44

DTO   drug trafficking organization; complex organization with a highly

defined command‐and‐control structure that produces, transports,

and/or distributes large quantities of one or more illicit drugs.

EPIC   El Paso Intelligence Center, U.S. Department of Justice  

HHS   U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

HRSA   Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services

HWDS   Hazardous Waste Disposal System  

JRFC   Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Juvenile

Residential Facility Census, U.S. Department of Justice

MIS   OCDETF’s Management Information System

MTF   Monitoring the Future.  This survey is conducted by researchers at the

University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, funded by

research grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

NIDA   National Institute on Drug Abuse

NSS   National Seizure System

NSDUH   National Household Survey on Drug Use and Health, Substance Abuse

and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services  

N‐SSATS   National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services, Substance

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services  

OCDETF   Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, U.S. Department of

Justice  

OJJDP   Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department

of Justice  

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

PTARRS   DOJ’s Priority Target Activity and Resource Reporting System; reports

the majority of data concerning the number of CPOT‐linked

organizations collected by the Department of Justice’s Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Organized Crime Drug

Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF).

PTO   Priority Targeting Organization
45

RPOT   The Regional Priority Organization Target (RPOT) Lists identify those

significant regional drug trafficking and money laundering organizations

that are primarily responsible for regional drug threats.

RPOT‐linked   The RPOT Lists consist of those organizations having a significant impact

on the drug supply within the designated OCDETF Regions.  OCDETF

participants apply the same standards for establishing a “link” to a

RPOT as they use to establish a credible link to a CPOT.  

SAMHSA   Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services

SBIRT   Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment, Substance

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services

TEDS‐A   Treatment Episode Data Set on Admissions, Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services

TEDS‐D   Treatment Episode Data Set on Discharges, Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services

UDS   Uniform Data System, Health Resources and Services Administration,

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services  

   
46

Appendix B: Definitions and Performance Terms

Dismantlement Dismantlement occurs when the identified organization’s

leadership, financial base and drug supply network have

been destroyed to the extent that the organization is

incapable of operating and/or reconstituting itself.   

Disruption   A disruption occurs when the normal and effective

operation of the organization has been significantly

impacted.  Evidence of “disruption” may be seen in

changes in price/purity of the drug or changes in methods

of operation; increases in fees paid to couriers or

transporters; movement of the organization to a

neighboring district; and/or a reduction in availability of a

drug on the streets, even if only temporarily.  A drug

seizure, the execution of a search warrant or another

enforcement activity, by itself, does not constitute a

“disruption” unless the action truly results in the alteration

of the organization’s operations or membership.   

Impact Target Impact of policies, programs, and initiatives.

Intermediate Outcome Result or event occurring from actions taken by entities

other than the agencies responsible for the joint outcome

and that are likely to lead to the achievement of desired

outcomes.  These usually occur between outputs (services

or products delivered) and outcomes reflecting the

purpose of the policy or program.

Majors list Countries that are classified as major drug transit or drug

producing countries for the purpose of the Foreign

Assistance Act of 1961; Currently the following countries

meet the Act’s criteria for illicit drug production or transit:

Afghanistan, the Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma,

Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El

Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Laos,

Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay,

Peru, and Venezuela.

Performance Measure Represents the specific characteristic or aspect of the

program (or policy) that is used to gauge performance. For

instance, a measure for “drug use” might be the percent of

the population that used drugs in the past 30 days.  
47

Performance Reporting Performance monitoring and assessment

System (PRS) mechanism for gauging the effectiveness of the Strategy.

Performance Target Desired level of performance to be achieved during a

specified fiscal year for that measure.  

PRS Process Collaboration of drug control agencies to identify

performance outcome measures and targets, and an

interagency assessment of progress toward the Strategy’s

Objectives.

PRS Steering Committee Comprised of senior agency officials familiar with drug

control issues, policies, and programs.  This Committee’s

primary roles are to advise the Director of ONDCP on the

design and implementation of the PRS, serve as primary

liaisons with their agencies, bring individual agency

concerns to the table for discussion, and to review the

recommendations of the PRS Working Groups.

PRS Working Groups Representatives from the Federal drug control agencies

whose purpose was to address the seven Objectives of the

Strategy; working groups included agency subject matter

experts, policy and program analysts, statisticians,

researchers, line managers, and other drug program or

data experts knowledgeable of drug control programs,

policy, and research.  Representatives from the following

Federal agencies participated in the Working Group

activities: the Departments of Defense, Education, Health

and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice,

Labor, Transportation, Treasury, State, Veterans Affairs,

and the Small Business Administration.  

Reporting Agency Agency responsible for ensuring that the data are

collected and reported to ONDCP.  However, multiple

agencies contribute to achieving the Strategy’s Goals and

Objectives through programs, policies, etc.

SUDs Substance use disorders.

The Strategy—2010 National Guide for the nation in controlling the use and

Drug Control Strategy consequences of the illicit use of drugs.

   
48

References

Belenko, Steven et al., Estimating drug treatment needs among state prison inmates, Drug &

Alcohol Dependency, Volume 77, Issue 3, Mar. 2005, 269 – 281 pp.

Berino, K., Rosa, P., Skopec, L. & Glied, S. (2013).  Affordable Care Act Will Expand Mental

Health and Substance Use Disorder Benefits and Parity Protections for 62 Million

Americans.  Research Brief.  Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE).

Washington, DC.

Berning, A., Compton, R., & Wochinger, K. (2015, February). Results of the 2013–2014 National

Roadside Survey of alcohol and drug use by drivers. (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note.

Report No. DOT HS 812 118). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). HIV Surveillance Report‐Diagnoses of HIV

Infection in the United States, 2013.  Vol. 25 (February 2015)  Department of Health and

Human Services, Washington, DC.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital Signs: Overdoses of Prescription Opioid Pain

Relievers ‐‐ United States, 1999‐‐2008, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, November

4, 2011. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6043a4.htm.

(Last accessed on January 6, 2015).

Gerstein, D. & Harwood, H. (Eds.). (1990) Treating Drug Problems, vol. 1. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press. Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research‐Based Guide,

National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH Publication No. 99‐4180, Printed October 1999.

Glaze, Lauren E. and Herberman, Erin J.  Correctional Populations in the United States, 2013.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice

Statistics, December 2014. Available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus13.pdf

(Last accessed on January 15, 2015).

Johnston, L.D. (2003). Alcohol and illicit drugs: The role of risk perceptions. In D. Romer (Ed.),

Reducing adolescent risk: Toward an integrated approach (pp. 56‐74). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage. Available at http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/chapters/ldj2003.pdf.

Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E., & Miech, R. A. (2014a).

Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975‐2013: Volume I, Secondary

school students. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, 630

pp.

Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., Schulenberg, J. E., & Miech, R. A. (2014b). 

Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2013: Volume II, 
49

college students and adults ages 19-55. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, The 

University of Michigan, 424 pp.

Mumola, Christopher J. and Karberg, Jennifer C. Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal

Prisoners, 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007. Available at:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dudsfp04.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2015.

Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2014). What America’s users spend on illegal drugs:

2000‐2010. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration, Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary

of National Findings, NSDUH Series H‐48, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14‐4863. Rockville,

MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014a.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. National Survey of

Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N‐SSATS), 2012. ICPSR34968‐v2. Ann Arbor, MI:

Inter‐university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2014‐04‐25a.

Unpublished special tabulations (December 2014b).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Treatment Episode

Data Set ‐‐ Discharges (TEDS‐D), 2011. ICPSR35074‐v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter‐university

Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], May 2014c.

http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR35074.v1.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Youth and

Young Adults: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic

Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2012.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Drug Abuse Warning

Network (DAWN), 2011. ICPSR34565‐v2. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter‐university Consortium for

Political and Social Research [distributor], September 2013.

http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34565.v2.

U.S. Department of Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Primary Health

Care. Uniform Data System (UDS) Dataset. Unpublished special tabulations (December

2014).
50

U.S. Department of Justice. Drug Enforcement Administration. National Drug Threat

Assessment 2013. DEA‐NWW‐DIR‐017‐13. Washington, D.C.: Office of Intelligence,

Warning, Plans and Programs [distributor], November 2013a.

U.S. Department of Justice. Drug Enforcement Administration. Office of Information Systems. El

Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC). National Seizure System (NSS). Unpublished special

tabulations (January 2013b).

U.S. Department of Justice. Drug Enforcement Administration. Office of Information Systems.

Priority Target Activity Resource and Reporting System (PTARRS) Dataset. Unpublished

special tabulations (December 2014a).

U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention. Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement [machine‐readable

data files]. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau (producer), August 2014b.

U.S. Department of State. Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. 2014

International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Volume 1: Drug and Chemical Control.

Washington, D.C, March 2014a. http://go.usa.gov/767w.

U.S. Department of State. Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.

International Narcotics Control Strategy Database. Unpublished special tabulations

(December 2014b).