United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Caucus on

International Narcotics Control, U.S.

Senate

September 1998 DRUG CONTROL

Information on High

Intensity Drug

Trafficking Areas

Program

GAO/GGD-98-188

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-277402 

September 3, 1998

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Chairman, Caucus on International

 Narcotics Control

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This report responds to your request for us to review several issues

concerning the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) High

Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program. The mission of the HIDTA

program is to coordinate America’s drug-control efforts among federal,

state, and local agencies in designated areas in order to reduce drug

trafficking in critical regions of the United States.

Given your interest in developing comprehensive, coordinated capabilities

that allow the federal government to focus resources in response to

shifting drug trafficking threats, you asked us to (1) identify how ONDCP is

implementing the HIDTA program, (2) describe the effect the expansion of

the number of HIDTAs has had on the administration of the program,

(3) summarize what ONDCP is doing to measure how HIDTA programs are

meeting the objectives established for the areas they serve, (4) describe

how HIDTA funds are allocated, and (5) identify any lessons ONDCP says it

has learned from the HIDTA program to date and how these lessons are

communicated among HIDTAs.

To do this work we visited the ONDCP headquarters of the HIDTA program;

the South Florida, Washington/Baltimore, and Southwest Border HIDTAs;

and the HIDTA Assistance Center (HAC).

Results in Brief ONDCP has implemented the HIDTA program within a general framework

that requires each HIDTA to (1) assess drug threats within its geographic

area, (2) prepare strategies and initiatives to address these threats,

(3) develop a proposed budget to accomplish its initiatives, and

(4) prepare an annual report that details its accomplishments. Within this

general framework, and with the approval of the local HIDTA executive

committee and ONDCP, each HIDTA is to tailor its own program and areas of

emphasis to address local needs. For example, at all three HIDTAs we

visited, the main emphasis was on law enforcement. However, one HIDTA

had a substantially greater treatment and prevention component than the

others because it is a major distribution center with a large number of

Page 1 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

hard-core substance abusers. ONDCP is to conduct program and financial

reviews to oversee HIDTA operations and assess compliance with HIDTA

policy and financial guidance.

The HIDTA program has grown substantially since its inception, from the

original 5 HIDTAs in 1990 to 20 in 1998. Over the same period, the number of

headquarters staff operating the program grew from one in 1991 to six

currently. According to ONDCP, one effect of the expansion was the

creation in 1996 of HAC, which is to assist headquarters staff in the

development of all HIDTAs. The number of HAC staff is currently 18. Officials

from the three HIDTAs we visited told us that they were generally satisfied

with the guidance and oversight they received from ONDCP. However, they

expressed concern that if the program continues to grow and staffing

levels remained the same, ONDCP’s ability to provide the same level of

guidance and oversight in the future could be adversely affected.

ONDCP has made some progress in developing approaches to evaluate the

effectiveness of the HIDTA program, but more work remains. In our 1993

report on ONDCP operations,1

 we recommended that Congress direct ONDCP

to develop better performance measures with which to evaluate program

results. In reauthorizing ONDCP in 1994, Congress directed ONDCP to

perform annual evaluations of the effectiveness of federal drug control.

ONDCP first published information on the performance measurement

system it developed in March 1998. This system was designed to assess the

effectiveness of the National Drug Control Strategy, including the HIDTA

program. ONDCP and HIDTA officials told us that baseline data are lacking,

making it difficult for ONDCP and the individual HIDTAs to measure program

impact. ONDCP has recently begun to address this problem, contracting

with two consulting firms to develop performance measures for the HIDTA

program for which there would be baseline data.

Total budget authority for the HIDTA program grew from $25 million for

fiscal year 1990 to about $162 million for fiscal year 1998. Over the years,

Congress has imposed funding requirements on the program. Starting in

fiscal year 1994, it required that at least 50 percent of the total HIDTA

appropriation be used to fund the participation of state and local agencies;

and starting in fiscal year 1998, it required that each existing HIDTA was to

be funded at no less than the previous year’s level. ONDCP has complied

with these requirements for the 3 years we reviewed. During fiscal years

1996 through 1998, about 65 percent of HIDTA funds were allocated to state

1

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

29, 1993).

Page 2 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

and local agencies and about 34 percent to federal agencies. Nationwide,

about 88 percent of these funds were allocated for law enforcement, 6

percent for treatment and prevention, and 5 percent for administration. At

the time of our review, $4.3 million from fiscal year 1998 funding had not

been allocated.

Headquarters’ officials and the three HIDTA directors said that the value of

collocation and the value of intelligence-sharing among federal, state, and

local law enforcement officials are the key lessons learned from the HIDTA

experience. For example, according to an ONDCP official, with respect to

intelligence, each HIDTA has or is developing a system designed to help

ensure the safety of personnel during narcotics investigations. The

objective of these systems is to prevent officers from unknowingly

conducting undercover transactions against other officers. This objective

is to be accomplished through the computerized sharing of information

from HIDTA law enforcement officers concerning their undercover

operations. ONDCP also encourages communication of specific lessons

learned among HIDTAs and has implemented a number of methods for

disseminating information on these lessons learned. For example, ONDCP

has established an information unit (located within the

Washington/Baltimore HIDTA) that publishes a monthly bulletin to highlight

lessons learned and best practices.

Background ONDCP is the President’s primary policy office for drug issues, providing

advice and governmentwide oversight of drug programs and coordination

of the President’s National Drug Control Strategy. One element of this

strategy is the HIDTA program, which is designed to produce a fundamental

shift in the scope of cooperative efforts, operational methods, intelligence

sharing, resource pooling, and the development and implementation of

regional antidrug strategies.

Section 1005 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 19882

 authorized the Director

of ONDCP, in consultation with the Attorney General, heads of national drug

control program agencies, and the governors of the states, to designate

areas in the United States as “high intensity drug trafficking areas.” Section

1005 directs ONDCP, in considering an area for this designation, to consider

the following criteria (along with other criteria deemed appropriate by

ONDCP):

2

P.L. 100-690, 21 U.S.C. 1501, 1504 (1988).

Page 3 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

• the extent to which the area is a center of illegal drug production,

manufacturing, importation, or distribution;

• the extent to which state and local law enforcement agencies have

committed resources to respond to the drug trafficking problem in the

area, thereby indicating a determination to aggressively address the

problem;

• the extent to which drug-related activities in the area are having a harmful

impact in other areas of the country; and

• the extent to which a significant increase in the allocation of federal

resources is necessary to respond adequately to drug-related activities in

the area.

In addition to the statutory criteria, ONDCP officials told us that they

consider various sources of drug control data and intelligence information

in assessing the need to establish new HIDTAs. Data are collected from the

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI), and the U.S. Customs Service. Other sources of

statistical information used are the Drug Abuse Warning Network survey,

the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, and the Monitoring the

Future Study. ONDCP officials told us they also consult with and solicit

input from the Attorney General, the primary drug control agencies, and

the governors of the state(s) under consideration.

Congress has specified in various appropriation acts certain areas that

should be designated as HIDTAs. According to ONDCP officials, these areas

were evaluated using the same criteria and process employed in

determining whether other areas should receive the HIDTA designation.

Each of these areas has been determined by ONDCP to be an appropriate

area for designation.

In all, the Director of ONDCP has designated 20 areas as HIDTAs. (See app. I

for details about HIDTAs.) As shown in figure 1, these 20 HIDTAs are:

Southwest Border (which contains the five partnerships of the California

Border, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas, and South Texas),3

, Los

Angeles, Houston, South Florida, and New York/New Jersey (designated in

1990); Washington, D.C./Baltimore and Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands

(designated in 1994); Atlanta, Chicago, and Philadelphia/Camden

3

Due to the large geographic area covered by the Southwest Border HIDTA, ONDCP has divided it into

five areas that are called regional partnerships: Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, West Texas,

and South Texas. Each partnership has its own Executive Committee and Regional Director. The

entire Southwest Border HIDTA is supported by a director and a small staff located in San Diego, CA,

that provide programmatic oversight and management of the entire Southwest Border HIDTA

program.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

(designated in 1995); Rocky Mountain, Northwest, Lake County (Indiana),

Midwest, and Gulf Coast (designated in 1996); Southeast Michigan and San

Francisco Bay (designated in 1997); and Central Florida, Appalachia, and

Milwaukee (designated in 1998). According to ONDCP officials, one

additional new HIDTA may be added in 1998, and as many as five may be

added in 1999.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

Figure 1: HIDTA Locations

Rocky

Mountain

Denver

New York/

New Jersey

New York City

WA

OR

CA

AZ

NV

UT

ID

WY

MT ND

SD

NE

KS

CO

NM

TX

OK

AR

LA

MS AL

GA

FL

SC

NC

TN

KY

WV

MO

IA

MN

WI

MI

IL IN

OH

PA

NY MA

RI

CT

ME

VA

NJ

DE

NH

VT

Southwest

Border

San Diego

California

San Diego

Los Angeles

San

 Francisco

Bay Area

Northwest

Seattle

Arizona

Tucson

New Mexico

Las Cruces

West Texas

El Paso

South Texas

San Antonio

Houston

South Florida

Miami

Puerto Rico/

U.S. Virgin Islands

San Juan

Central Florida

Orlando

Appalachia

London

Atlanta

Gulf Coast

Metairie

Washington DC/

Baltimore

Greenbelt, MD

Midwest

Kansas City Philadephia/

Camden

Lake County

Crown Point

Milwaukee

Chicago

Southeastern 

Michigan

Detroit

Legend

Southwest Border partnerships

HIDTA sites

Source: ONDCP.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

According to ONDCP, a HIDTA organization typically consists of

• an executive committee that is composed of 16 members with

approximately equal numbers of state/local and federal officials;

• a major task force consisting of 100 to 300 collocated law enforcement

members led by federal agencies;

• regional local/state-led collocated drug and money laundering task forces;

• a regional joint intelligence center and information-sharing network; and

• other supporting initiatives (e.g., in the areas of drug treatment, drug

prevention, training, etc.).

According to an ONDCP official, HIDTA program funding is meant to foster

cooperative efforts among federal, state, and local officials. Funding for

the HIDTA program has increased from $25 million in fiscal year 1990 to

support the operations of the original 5 HIDTAs, to about $162 million in

fiscal year 1998 to support the operations of 20 HIDTAs and HAC. This

amount includes both funds appropriated to ONDCP and transfers from the

Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund (VCRTF) of $13.1 million and $3 million

in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, respectively. According to ONDCP, HIDTA funds

have been spent on such items as computers and cell phones, telephone

company wires for telephone taps, overtime for law enforcement agents,

and office space and supplies.

Scope and

Methodology

We did our review at ONDCP headquarters, in Washington, D.C.; the

Washington/Baltimore HIDTA in Greenbelt, MD; the Southwest Border HIDTA

and the California Border Alliance Group, in San Diego, CA; and the South

Florida HIDTA and the HIDTA Assistance Center (HAC), in Miami, FL. These

locations were judgmentally selected on the basis of geographic location, a

variety of program characteristics, and length of time a HIDTA has been in

existence. For example, the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA was selected

because it devoted a relatively large percentage of its resources to drug

treatment and prevention. Similarly, the Southwest Border HIDTA was

selected because it was one of the five original HIDTAs and the largest

(consisting of five separate regional partnerships covering the southwest

border of the United States). Visiting this HIDTA also allowed us to meet

with officials from both the Southwest Border HIDTA and the California

Border Alliance Group (one of its five regional partnerships). The South

Florida HIDTA was selected because it was one of the five original HIDTAs,

and ONDCP considered it to be ahead of the others in development. Visiting

this HIDTA also enabled us to visit HAC.

Page 7 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

To determine how ONDCP was implementing the HIDTA program, we

interviewed officials at ONDCP responsible for administering the program

and officials at three HIDTAs and the California Border Alliance Group. In

addition, we reviewed legislative records; ONDCP’s annual National Drug

Control Strategies; the threat assessments, strategies, and annual reports

prepared by the three HIDTAs we visited; as well as summaries of threat

assessments and strategies for all of the HIDTAs. In addition, we reviewed

written reports of reviews prepared by ONDCP for the three HIDTAs we

visited and the program guidance provided to the HIDTAs by ONDCP. To

determine the effect of the recent expansion in the number of HIDTAs, we

interviewed officials at ONDCP responsible for administering the program.

We also interviewed officials at the three HIDTAs, the California Border

Alliance Group, and HAC.

To determine what ONDCP is doing to measure how HIDTA programs are

meeting the objectives established by the areas they serve, we interviewed

officials at ONDCP, the three HIDTAs we visited, the California Border

Alliance Group, HAC, and ONDCP contractors involved in ongoing evaluation

efforts. In addition, we reviewed documentation relating to ongoing and

planned evaluation efforts.

To determine how HIDTA funds are allocated, we interviewed officials at

ONDCP, the three HIDTAs we visited, the California Border Alliance Group,

and HAC. We reviewed program guidance provided to the HIDTAs by ONDCP

and reviewed and analyzed budget documentation provided by ONDCP. We

did not perform a financial audit of the HIDTAs we visited.

To determine what lessons ONDCP has learned from the HIDTA program and

how these lessons are communicated among HIDTAs, we interviewed

officials at ONDCP, the three HIDTAs we visited, and the California Border

Alliance Group. In addition, we reviewed publications prepared by ONDCP

and the HIDTAs and attended the 1997 national HIDTA Conference held in

Washington, D.C.

We performed our work from September 1997 to June 1998 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested oral

comments on a draft of this report from the Director of ONDCP. On

August 13, 1998, the Assistant Associate Director of ONDCP’s Bureau of

State and Local Affairs provided oral comments, which are discussed near

the end of this letter.

Page 8 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

How ONDCP Has

Implemented the

HIDTA Program

According to ONDCP officials, ONDCP has implemented the HIDTA program

through programmatic and financial guidance and a general framework

that is intended to set broad program parameters while allowing sufficient

flexibility at the local HIDTA level to meet local conditions and needs.

Although ONDCP retains responsibility for overall program management,

each HIDTA’s director performs day-to-day management under the direction

and with the approval of an executive committee. As part of its oversight

responsibility, ONDCP is to review the program and financial activities of

each HIDTA.

ONDCP Provides Program

Guidance

ONDCP has issued guidance annually since the inception of the HIDTA

program and has incorporated suggestions solicited from the HIDTAs,

where deemed appropriate. The fiscal year 1998 guidance requires that

every HIDTA prepare a report that includes a threat assessment, a strategy

to eliminate or reduce the assessed threat, and the initiatives that are

designed to accomplish the strategy. The guidance also requires each HIDTA

to prepare an annual report of operations and results.

The guidance describes what these various reports are to include. For

example, each HIDTA’s threat assessment should include the following:

• a statement of the major drug trafficking problem in the area (production,

manufacturing, distribution, and/or importation);

• the number of major drug trafficking organizations;

• estimated amount of money going back to drug source areas;

• cost of doing business for major traffickers;

• known drug-related crime rates with special emphasis on homicides,

aggravated assaults, robberies, and other crimes with a frequent drug

nexus; and

• other trends that can be quantified, such as the street price, purity,

availability, and accessibility of various drugs.

The strategy section is to include information on how the various joint

task forces the HIDTA sponsors are to work with each other, how the

agencies within each task force are to work together, and the expected

outputs of their efforts. The initiatives section should include details about

specific components, including task forces and intelligence center roles,

that will accomplish the strategies. Initiatives must be consistent with the

threat assessment, strategy, program guidance, and proposed budget and

must detail what is to be done through each initiative.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

Concerning the results of the HIDTA’s efforts, ONDCP fiscal year 1998

guidance states that the annual reports are to focus on what difference,

measured in terms of such factors as the percentage of major drug

trafficking organizations dismantled, has been made in prior years. In

addition, in 1997, ONDCP distributed a financial and administrative guide

that provides detailed guidance on the administration of the funds that the

HIDTA program provides to state and local agencies.

After each HIDTA’s proposed program is approved by the local executive

committee, it is to be forwarded to a national coordinating committee,

which is chaired by ONDCP’s associate director for state and local affairs

and includes representatives from the Departments of Justice (DOJ), the

Treasury, and Health and Human Services. According to ONDCP officials,

this committee is to meet about once or twice per year to review and

comment on the HIDTA threat assessments, strategies, initiatives, annual

reports, proposed budgets, and the draft HIDTA program guidance and

provide recommendations to the Director of ONDCP.

HIDTAs Design and

Implement the Program to

Suit Local Needs

According to ONDCP, most HIDTA programs have been designed to

emphasize law enforcement and drug interdiction. Treatment and

prevention initiatives have also been included in some HIDTAs, to varying

degrees, depending on the HIDTA’s assessment of the threat in its

geographic area.

The three HIDTAs we visited designed and implemented different

approaches to address their local needs. For example, because the South

Florida HIDTA’s region is the crossroads for nearly all air and sea traffic

from South America and the Caribbean entering the United States, its

primary emphasis is law enforcement and interdiction, with a lesser

emphasis on drug treatment and prevention. In fiscal year 1998, in order to

combat the drug and related money laundering and violence threats faced

by South Florida, the HIDTA divided its efforts into six distinct initiatives:

(1) seven collocated task forces, each containing an array of enforcement

programs; (2) one cooperative federal and city drug enforcement task

force; (3) one cooperative task force focusing on the apprehension of

violent fugitives; (4) one regional intelligence center; (5) a multiagency,

multisite community empowerment program; and (6) an automated drug

treatment and judicial access information management system for judges

to instantaneously retrieve offender information from multiple information

sources.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

Similarly, the Southwest Border HIDTA geographic area is a drug

importation center. To address its needs, this HIDTA has a program

emphasizing law enforcement and drug interdiction. Through integration

of investigations, interdiction, and intelligence, its multiagency task forces

are to focus on specific organizations and cells that have been identified as

posing the most serious threat. Planned initiatives are to employ a variety

of investigative techniques, such as money laundering and drug smuggling

undercover operations.

The Washington/Baltimore HIDTA geographic area is not a drug importation

center but a major distribution center for crack cocaine, powder cocaine,

and heroin with 45 known major and 368 supporting drug trafficking

organizations in the region. ONDCP estimates that half of the more than

150,000 adults under correctional supervision in the area are hard-core

substance abusers who are involved in both substance abuse and criminal

behavior. To address this situation, Washington/Baltimore HIDTA officials

told us they designed an approach that has included both a law

enforcement component and a significant treatment and prevention

component. The law enforcement initiatives include four collocated sites

in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Northern Virginia to focus on

drug distribution groups, violent drug offenders and gangs, open air drug

markets, firearms trafficking, interdictions, and money laundering. The

HIDTA also operates an information center that includes deconfliction,4 an

investigative unit, and strategic analysis. Treatment/criminal justice

initiatives focus on hard-core addicts at 12 sites and are to provide

individualized treatment and supervision. This HIDTA has also developed a

computerized database that is to track clients and is to be used in

evaluating treatment outcomes. Prevention initiatives operate through

subgrants in 6 jurisdictions involving 60 agencies and provide programs in

schools and neighborhood groups aimed at preventing drug use by young

people.

ONDCP Reviews Local

HIDTA Operations

As part of its oversight responsibility, ONDCP requires that each HIDTA’s

programmatic and financial activities be reviewed annually. According to

ONDCP officials, on-site program reviews of the HIDTAs began in fiscal year

1992 with the five original HIDTAs.5

 Also, according to ONDCP officials, they

began to conduct on-site financial reviews in 1995, in addition to the

program reviews.

4

ONDCP defines deconfliction systems as intelligence-sharing systems that prevent officers from

unknowingly conducting undercover transactions against one another.

5

Houston, South Florida, Los Angeles, New York/New Jersey, and the Southwest Border.

Page 11 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

According to ONDCP officials, reviews of program activities consisted of

comparing program guidance to operations to determine if the HIDTA under

review had adhered to policy. Financial reviews consisted of determining

whether any funds had lapsed, funds had been spent in accordance with

the approved budgets, and expenditures were actually made for HIDTA or

task force operations. Officials also reviewed the accounting systems,

performing both a general ledger and a line-by-line review. Written reports

were prepared that summarized ONDCP’s findings for each HIDTA reviewed.

The reports were distributed to ONDCP and the HIDTAs for use in their

management of the program. Until January 1997, ONDCP headquarters

performed both program and financial audits of the HIDTAs, including

participating federal and state/local agencies. In January 1997, HAC

assumed the responsibility of performing the financial reviews of the state

and local agencies. ONDCP retained responsibility for performing the

financial audits of the federal agencies as well as all program reviews.

Officials told us that despite the program’s growth, the Director of ONDCP

has determined that the program and financial reviews of all HIDTAs will

continue, but the audit cycle will probably be extended from 12 to 18

months. ONDCP may use contractors to assist in this effort. HAC is to

participate by conducting financial reviews of the state and local grants

with the assistance of an auditor who began work in February 1998. About

20 out of a possible 224 financial reviews of state and local participants are

to be done in 1998. The participants to be reviewed by HAC are to be

chosen, by HAC, using a risk assessment tool that considers such factors as

any increase in the amount of funding awarded to that agency and the

length of time since the last review.

HIDTA Expansion Has

Resulted in an

Increased

Headquarters

Workload

The HIDTA program has experienced considerable expansion since its

inception, growing from 5 areas in 1990 to the current 20 HIDTAs. Over the

same period, headquarters staff operating the program grew from one in

1991 to six (including four detailees) in 1998 to date. Staff at HAC,

established in 1996, currently total 18, including 2 contractors and 1

detailee from the Florida National Guard.

ONDCP headquarters staff provides assistance to HIDTAs on both program

and financial matters throughout the year both informally (through

responding to telephone inquiries from HIDTA personnel) and formally

(through such means as dissemination of program guidance and

organizing conferences). Officials from the three HIDTAs we visited told us

that at the present time they were generally satisfied with the guidance

Page 12 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

and oversight they received from ONDCP. However, they expressed concern

that should the program continue to grow and staffing levels remain the

same, ONDCP’s ability to provide the same level of guidance and oversight

in the future might be adversely affected. According to ONDCP officials, the

effect of growth in the HIDTA program has been to prompt them to take a

number of actions. For example, ONDCP created HAC in Miami, Florida, to

assist in the development of all HIDTAs. Specifically, the functions of HAC

include the following:

• delivering HIDTA-unique training to improve core competencies6 of the

HIDTA program;

• developing and disseminating training and HIDTA-supporting multimedia

products;

• organizing and providing customized Special Assistance Teams to assist in

HIDTA start-up operations and address other unique needs identified by

HIDTAs;

• providing fiscal assistance to HIDTAs for their state and local financial

operations, including financial reviews of the state and local agencies; and

• providing automation support by delivering user training and assistance to

HIDTAs in the identification and development of computer-based

applications (e.g., MS Word and EXCEL and MS Access).

In addition, in October 1996, HAC published the HIDTA Director’s Manual.

This document was intended as an introduction to the HIDTA concept and

as an explanation of the experiences of other HIDTAs. Some topics covered

in this manual include threat assessments, mission statements, strategy

development, baseline data, and state and local task forces.

Some Progress Has

Been Made in

Approaches to

Program Evaluation

In our 1993 report on the reauthorization of ONDCP, we found that national

drug control strategies contained inadequate measures for assessing the

contributions of component programs, including HIDTAs, for reducing the

nation’s drug problems. As a result, an overall assessment of program

operations and results was lacking. Consequently, we recommended that

as part of its reauthorization of ONDCP, Congress direct the agency to

develop better performance measures. In reauthorizing ONDCP in 1994,

Congress directed ONDCP to perform annual evaluations of the

effectiveness of federal drug control.

6

HIDTA’s core competencies include (1) institutionalizing teamwork among federal, state, and local

agencies through the introduction and dissemination of superior management techniques and

processes; (2) investing in the creation of strategy-driven systems that tie together teamwork-building

efforts and processes; and (3) focusing on outcomes.

Page 13 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

ONDCP has made some progress in developing approaches to evaluate the

effectiveness of the HIDTA program.7

 For example, ONDCP has been working

on developing performance measures since the 1994 legislative mandate

but has been slow to develop measures that demonstrate program impact.

Specifically, in 1994, ONDCP began efforts to measure the international

supply reduction components of the national drug control strategy. In

early 1996, ONDCP decided to expand this effort to all drug control

programs and activities. In January 1997, ONDCP convened working groups

composed of representatives from all federal drug control agencies as well

as from state, local, and private entities to develop national level measures

of drug control performance.

In March 1998, ONDCP released information on its first published

performance measurement system,8

 which, according to ONDCP,

synthesizes the ideas and deliberations of the entire drug control

community. This new performance measurement system is designed to

(1) assess the effectiveness of the National Drug Control Strategy;

(2) provide the entire drug control community, including state and local

governments, the private sector, and foreign governments, with critical

information on what needs to be done to refine policy and programmatic

direction; and (3) assist with drug program budget management at all

levels.

ONDCP’s performance measurement system contains a specific objective,

targets, and measures for the HIDTA program. The overall objective for

HIDTA performance measurement is to improve the ability of HIDTAs to

counter drug trafficking. In general, this system specifies three

targets—improving each HIDTA’s scope and efficiency; increasing the

proportion of drug trafficking organizations disrupted or dismantled by

each HIDTA; and reducing drug-related violent crime (including drug-related

homicides, robberies, rapes, and assaults) in HIDTAs. Overall measures

included for the HIDTA program are the percentage of HIDTAs that meet or

exceed established milestones in the 1998 National HIDTA Developmental

Standards; the proportion of identified drug trafficking organizations

disrupted or dismantled by or within HIDTAs; and reported rates of

homicides, robberies, rapes, and assaults in the HIDTA associated with illicit

drugs as measured by available crime indicators.

7

Evaluations of program effectiveness are different from the on-site reviews of program and financial

compliance with policy and procedures conducted by ONDCP and discussed at pp. 11-12.

8

Performance Measures of Effectiveness: A System for Assessing the Performance of the National

Drug Control Strategy, 1998-2007, ONDCP.

Page 14 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

The fiscal year 1998 HIDTA program guidance also includes, for the first

time, HIDTA Developmental Standards that set the minimum standards for

HIDTA operations. The standards relate to essential missions and

competencies and cover (1) intelligence and information sharing,

(2) strategic planning and execution, (3) teamwork, and (4) accountability.

For example, each HIDTA is expected to provide same-day event

deconfliction services to all of its drug control agencies during the work

week. The ultimate goal is to provide instantaneous service to all law

enforcement in the HIDTA’s region, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

However, more program evaluation work remains to be done. For

example, ONDCP and HIDTA officials told us that baseline data are lacking,

making it difficult to measure program impact. According to ONDCP

officials, each HIDTA’s 1998 threat assessment will serve as the baseline

data for the new performance management system. Further, ONDCP has

contracted with two consulting firms to develop performance measures

for the HIDTA program. Work under these two contracts has only recently

begun.

The first contract, through the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), was

intended to conduct a baseline problem and resource assessment, process

evaluation, and preliminary impact assessment of HIDTA on drug trafficking

in the five original program sites. However, according to the contractor’s

project director, less emphasis than initially planned will be placed on the

development of program impact measures. In addition, both NIJ and ONDCP

determined that an evaluation of impact would not be feasible given the

cost required for such an assessment.

The contract proposal period and contract negotiations began about 3

years ago. Although the contract was awarded approximately 15 months

ago, the contractor did not receive its first payment from ONDCP until

December 1997. Thus, as of March 1998, the project was just getting under

way. The contractor’s project director anticipates issuing a report around

March 1999.

According to an ONDCP official, the second contract, which will be

administered through HAC, is expected to provide an evaluation of ONDCP

outcomes, specifically looking at refining HIDTA measures of effectiveness.

The contractor anticipates that this review will (1) identify what

information is available from a range of jurisdictions, noting information

shortcomings; (2) lead to the development of techniques for collecting

information that may be generally available; and (3) consider strategies for

Page 15 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

collecting information that is currently lacking or difficult to obtain. This

contract began in December 1997 and expires on December 31, 1998.

How HIDTA Funds

Were Allocated

The HIDTA program is funded through an appropriation and, in fiscal years

1997 and 1998, with transfers of $13.1 million and $3 million, respectively,

from VCRTF. These funds were divided by ONDCP among the individual

HIDTAs and HAC. Table 1 shows the total funding for the HIDTA program and

the amounts allocated by ONDCP to each HIDTA and HAC.

Page 16 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

Table 1: Total Funding Allocated to Individual HIDTAs, Fiscal Years 1990-1998 (in Millions)

HIDTA funding 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Total budget authority 25.0 82.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 107.0 103.0 140.2 162.0

Allocations to individual

HIDTAs

Houston 3.3 10.6 11.9 11.6 11.5 10.0 9.6 9.5 9.5

Los Angeles 3.2 10.6 11.9 11.8 12.1 11.5 11.5 11.7 14.0

South Florida 3.8 10.6 11.9 12.2 11.8 11.6 12.0 11.5 11.7

New York 4.0 10.6 11.9 12.4 12.5 11.6 9.9 11.0 11.0

Southwest Border 10.7 30.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 37.7 35.7 36.8 38.7

Washington/Baltimore 0.1 12.6 12.2 11.9 11.9

Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin

Islands 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1

Atlanta 1.0 0.9 3.8 3.8

Chicago 1.0 0.9 4.2 4.3

Philadelphia/Camden 1.0 0.6 3.6 3.6

Cascade 3.0 3.0

Gulf Coast 6.0 6.0

Lake County 3.0 3.0

Midwest 8.0 9.5

Rocky Mountain 3.0 7.5

San Francisco 1.0 1.8

Detroit 1.0 1.0

Appalachia 6.0

HIDTA Assistance Center 0.7 1.7 2.3

Othera 9.6 0.4 0.4

Unallocatedb 4.3

Total 25.0 82.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 107.0 103.0 140.2 162.0

aFunding for a money laundering initiative that operated across several HIDTAs (1991, 1992);

research and an independent evaluation (1991, 1997); and the administrative support provided

by the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force in the first years of the HIDTA

program (1991, 1992).

bRepresents $1 million not yet allocated to the Central Florida HIDTA; $3 million not yet allocated

to the Milwaukee HIDTA; and $0.3 million set aside in the event Dallas, TX, is designated as a

HIDTA.

Source: ONDCP.

In the fiscal year 1998 appropriation, Congress specified that funding for

each existing HIDTA must be at no less than the fiscal year 1997 level. This

requirement was met. (See table 1.)

Page 17 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

ONDCP requires HIDTAs to use their funding to support initiatives that

include federal, state, and local participation. In addition, beginning with

the fiscal year 1994 appropriation and in each subsequent year, Congress

has required that at least 50 percent of the total HIDTA appropriation was to

be used to fund the participation of state and local agencies. Our review

showed that this requirement was met for the 3 fiscal years we examined.

Figure 2 illustrates how HIDTA funding was allocated over the entire HIDTA

program, between federal and state/local agencies, for fiscal years 1996

through 1998.9

Figure 2: Allocation of HIDTA Funds

Between Federal and State/Local

Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through

1998

34.0% • Federal

65.0%•

State/local

1.1%

To be determineda

N=$405.2 million.

aTo be determined - $4.3 million not yet allocated in fiscal year 1998.

Source: ONDCP.

HIDTA funds can be used to support the operations of the HIDTAs in a variety

of ways. Each HIDTA’s budget funds the salary of its director and the costs

9

The total dollar amounts in figures 2, 3, and 4 are not equal due to rounding in individual entries by

ONDCP.

Page 18 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

associated with leased space. Of the 18 HAC staff, the HIDTA appropriation

funds 15 staff and 2 contractors. HAC staffing also includes one detailee

funded by the Florida National Guard. Of the six staff at HIDTA program

headquarters, two are funded from the ONDCP appropriation; two are

contract personnel funded by HAC from the HIDTA appropriation; one is a

part-time DEA representative funded by DEA; and one is a full-time attached

employee funded by her parent unit, ONDCP’s Bureau of State and Local

Affairs.

HIDTA funds are also spent on such items as equipment, including

computers and cell phones; services, including telephone company wires

for telephone taps; overtime for law enforcement agents; and office space

and supplies. Funds cannot be used to fund federal employee positions.

State and local agencies must certify that any personnel, equipment, or

other expenditures funded by HIDTA would not exist if the HIDTA program

did not exist.

Figure 3 illustrates how HIDTA funds were allocated over the entire HIDTA

program, by budget category, for fiscal years 1996 through 1998.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

Figure 3: Allocation of HIDTA Funds by

Budget Category, Fiscal Years 1996

Through 1998

39.2% • Personnel, fringe benefits,

overtime

• 4.5%

Travel

27.6%•

Facilities, equipment, supplies

•21.5%

Services

•

6.1%

Othera

1.1%

To be determinedb

N=$405.2 million.

aOther includes the purchase of information and evidence.

bTo be determined - funds not yet allocated.

Source: ONDCP.

Table 2 illustrates how funds were allocated by the three HIDTAs we visited,

by budget category, for fiscal years 1996 through 1998.

Page 20 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

Table 2: Allocation of Funds by Budget Category for Three HIDTAs, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998 (in Percentages)

HIDTA

Total funding

(millions)

Percent

personnel,

fringe, and

overtime

Percent

travel

Percent

facilities,

equipment,

and supplies

Percent

services

Percent

other

Southwest Border $111 52% 7% 21% 15% 5%

South Florida 35 38 3 27 29 3

Washington/Baltimore 36 30 1 24 39 6

Source: ONDCP.

ONDCP gives the HIDTAs discretion on how to distribute their funds among

law enforcement, treatment, and prevention initiatives. Figure 4 illustrates

how HIDTA funds were allocated over the entire HIDTA program, among law

enforcement, treatment and prevention, administration, and evaluation,10

for fiscal years 1996 through 1998.

10Funds allocated for an independent evaluation of the HIDTA program.

Page 21 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

Figure 4: Allocation of HIDTA Funds

Among Law Enforcement, Treatment

and Prevention, Administration, and

Evaluation, Fiscal Year 1996 Through

1998

88.3% • Law enforcementb

•

5.7%

Treatment and prevention

•

4.9%

Administration

1.1%

To be determineda

0.1%

Evaluation

N=$405.3 million.

Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.

aTo be determined - $4.3 million not yet allocated in fiscal year 1998.

bLaw enforcement comprises funds allocated for task forces, intelligence, and operations

support.

Source: ONDCP.

Of the three HIDTAs we visited, Southwest Border and South Florida

allocated about 94 percent and 84 percent of their funds, respectively, to

law enforcement for fiscal years 1996 through 1998; Washington/Baltimore

allocated a lower percentage, about 58, due to the much greater emphasis

Page 22 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

placed on treatment and prevention in this region. About 37 percent of the

Washington/Baltimore funding was allocated to treatment and prevention,

compared to less than 1 percent and about 13 percent for Southwest

Border and South Florida, respectively.

Key Lessons Learned

From HIDTA

Operations and

Mechanisms for

Communicating These

Lessons

Discussions with headquarters’ officials and three HIDTA directors resulted

in numerous examples of lessons learned from the HIDTA experience. The

two key lessons learned were the value of agency collocation and the

value of intelligence sharing. ONDCP has implemented a number of methods

for communicating these and other lessons learned. For example, ONDCP’s

HIDTA information unit publishes a monthly HIDTA bulletin and serves as a

clearinghouse for sharing HIDTA-related information with all HIDTAs.

The Value of Collocation

and the Value of

Intelligence Sharing Are

Key Lessons Learned

ONDCP and HIDTA officials found that collocation of federal, state, and local

task force members is beneficial because it provides a “neutral setting”

that creates an environment of togetherness, facilitates and enhances

communication and coordination, and provides the opportunity for new

teams to be formed. HIDTA officials believe that working together out of

shared facilities reduces competition by contributing to cohesiveness

among the various agencies and facilitating the resolution of interagency

disputes. By combining their efforts and resources, the collocated

agencies are also able to develop a more regional outlook and to work

cases in better ways. As an example, the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA

points out in its 1997 annual report that collocation and the resulting

regional collaboration resulted in the dismantling of organizations in

Washington, D.C., and Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties believed

to be responsible for one-third of the crack distribution in the area.

A second lesson learned is the value of each HIDTA establishing an

intelligence information center to ensure that all participating personnel

have access to drug-related information collected by these personnel as

well as other sources. For example, according to an ONDCP official, each

HIDTA has or is developing a deconfliction system designed to help ensure

the safety of personnel during narcotics investigations. The objective is to

prevent officers from unknowingly conducting undercover transactions

against one another. Under the system agents are to provide certain

information on their operations to the personnel operating the HIDTA’s

computerized deconfliction system: if simultaneous activity by another

Page 23 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

agent/organization against the same target is planned, the people operating

the system are to call the agents to inform them of the conflict.

ONDCP Has Established

Mechanisms for

Communicating Lessons

Learned

ONDCP and HIDTA officials identified mechanisms currently in place to

communicate lessons learned among the various HIDTAs. These included

the following:

• weekly teleconferences between ONDCP and HIDTA directors,

• quarterly HIDTA directors’ meetings,

• requirement for HIDTAs to provide information on “what have you done to

assist other HIDTAs” as part of their annual reports, and

• the annual National HIDTA Conference.

In addition, ONDCP also operates a HIDTA information unit that is designed

to facilitate communication among HIDTAs. Its responsibilities include

issuing a monthly newsletter that highlights lessons learned and best

practices and is distributed to members and participants in the HIDTA

program, Members of Congress, and the national and local media. The unit

also provides editorial assistance to the HIDTAs in their preparation of

annual reports and threat assessments; prepares and distributes bulletins

related to drug enforcement, treatment, and prevention activities; and

serves as a clearinghouse for drug-related information.

Agency Comments We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Director, Office

of National Drug Control Policy. On August 13, 1998, an official from ONDCP

provided oral comments, saying that ONDCP fully agreed with the

information presented in this report.

Page 24 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
B-277402 

As agreed with your office, unless you announce the contents of this

report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after its issue

date. At that time, we will send copies of the report to the Co-Chair of the

Caucus, Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of interested

congressional committees, and the Director of ONDCP. We will also make

copies available to others upon request.

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. If you or

your staff have any questions on this report, please call me on

(202) 512-8777.

Sincerely yours,

Richard M. Stana

Associate Director, Administration

 of Justice Issues

Page 25 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

ONDCP’s

Characterization of

High Intensity Drug

Trafficking Areas and

Year Designated

28

Appendix II 

Major Contributors to

This Report

50

Tables Table 1: Total Funding Allocated to Individual HIDTAs, Fiscal

Years 1990-1998

17

Table 2: Allocation of Funds by Budget Category for Three

HIDTAs, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998

21

Figures Figure 1: HIDTA Locations 6

Figure 2: Allocation of HIDTA Funds Between Federal and

State/Local Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998

18

Figure 3: Allocation of HIDTA Funds by Budget Category, Fiscal

Years 1996 Through 1998

20

Figure 4: Allocation of HIDTA Funds Among Law Enforcement,

Treatment and Prevention, Administration, and Evaluation, Fiscal

Year 1996 Through 1998

22

Page 26 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Contents

Abbreviations

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DOD Department of Defense

DOJ Department of Justice

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FinCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

HAC HIDTA Assistance Center

HIDTA High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

IRS Internal Revenue Service

NIJ National Institute of Justice

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy

POE port of entry

VCRTF Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund

Page 27 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

Houston, TX, 1990 Geographic area covered: The city of Houston and the surrounding areas

of Galveston, Harris, Arkansas, Brooks, Jim Wells, Kennedy, Kleberg,

Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, and Victoria Counties.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

Geographic location, demographic makeup, and economic factors,

including corporate and international trade, make Houston a prime

location for the drug wholesaler and retailer, as do the area’s proximity to

Mexico and the number of air, sea, and ground transportation

opportunities. Cocaine is the greatest threat. Participating agencies have

identified more than 150 illegal drug trafficking or money laundering

operations in the Houston area.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goal is to create, broker, and nurture multiagency task force

approaches for disrupting and dismantling narcotic, money laundering,

and gang organizations. HIDTA resources have been divided into trafficker,

money laundering, gang, and intelligence initiatives.

Agency Participation

Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), DEA, FBI, Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), U.S. Attorney’s

Office, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Marshals Service.

State Texas Department of Banking, Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas

National Guard, Texas Office of the Attorney General.

Local City of Baytown, two police departments, two county sheriff’s offices.

Los Angeles, CA, 1990 Geographic area covered: The City of Los Angeles and the surrounding

areas of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

The region’s diverse geography and 213 miles of coastline make it ideal for

the manufacture and distribution of all types of illegal drugs. Easy land,

sea, and air access facilitate the trafficking of drugs, and there is a growing

challenge posed by Mexican nationals who smuggle in the region. Cocaine

trafficking exceeds 130 tons per year. Illegal methamphetamine

Page 28 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

production has increased, with 49 organizations identified as

manufacturers.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Goals include the reduction of major drug trafficking and money

laundering organizations that operate in the region, with a primary focus

on cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and heroin.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, U.S.

Customs Service, U.S. Marshals Service.

State Alcoholic Beverage Control, California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement,

California Department of Justice, California Highway Patrol.

Local Fifty police departments, 4 county sheriff’s departments, Los Angeles

County Probation Department, Regional Narcotics Suppression Program,

Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association, San Bernardino District

Attorney’s Office.

South Florida—

Miami, FL, 1990

Geographic area covered: The City of Miami and the surrounding areas of

Broward, Dade, and Monroe counties.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

At the crossroads for nearly all air and sea traffic from South America and

the Caribbean, the region’s 3 international seaports, 4 international

airports, and 10 private airports are focal points for organizations

attempting to smuggle cocaine into the United States. More than 200

trafficking organizations operate in this region. Although powder and

crack cocaine are the regional drugs of choice, heroin use has increased

among the young.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Goals are to reduce the trafficking of drugs via air, sea, and ground

transportation; reduce money laundering in transportation systems,

financial institutions, and commercial businesses; reduce drug-related

crime and violence; reduce drug abuse through improvement of drug

treatment information management systems and the identification and

Page 29 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

referral of criminal justice-involved abusers; and prevent drug abuse

through community recovery and youth leadership programs.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), INS, IRS,

Joint Interagency Task Force-East, Department of Defense (DOD) Joint

Task Force Six, National Park Service, U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Border

Patrol, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Department of State,

U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Probation Office, U.S.

Secret Service.

State Florida Department of Banking and Finance, Florida Department of Law

Enforcement, Florida Department of Revenue, Florida Highway Patrol,

Florida Marine Patrol, Florida National Guard.

Local Thirty police departments, 6 county sheriff’s offices, Dade County District

Attorney’s Office.

New York/New

Jersey—New York

City, NY, 1990

Geographic area covered: The City of New York; Nassau, Suffolk, and

Westchester counties in New York; and Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Passaic,

and Union counties in New Jersey.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

With international airports, major rail lines, numerous major highways,

and extensive waterfront property, New York City is the primary

distribution center for cocaine and heroin in the Northeast. At least half of

the heroin seized by DEA domestically is seized in or destined for New York

City. The city has more than 500 major drug trafficking organizations and

more than 250 money laundering enterprises, and it has been estimated

that Colombian drug dealers alone have laundered between $800 million

and $1 billion in the city. Heroin use in New York City and Newark, NJ,

rose 77 percent and 126 percent, respectively, between 1991 and 1995;

cocaine use increased by 20 percent and 7 percent, respectively.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

This HIDTA has set eight specific goals: (1) reduce crime, particularly in

public housing; (2) reduce money laundering activities; (3) increase

forfeiture of drug trafficking proceeds; (4) reduce the number of drug

Page 30 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

fugitives and criminal aliens at-large in the area; (5) reduce drug-related

gun violence; (6) prevent emerging drug epidemics, particularly heroin and

methamphetamine; (7) enhance cooperation and drug-related information

sharing among law enforcement agencies, particularly through technology;

and (8) reduce illegal drug use, particularly among young people.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DOD’s Joint Task Force Six, DEA, FBI, Housing and Urban Development

(HUD), INS, IRS/Criminal Investigation Division, U.S. Army Reserves, U.S.

Attorney’s Offices, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Navy Reserves, U.S. Customs

Service, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Park Police, U.S. Postal Service, U.S.

Probation Service, U.S. Secret Service.

State New Jersey National Guard, New Jersey Attorney General’s Office, New

Jersey Division of Criminal Justice, New Jersey State Police, New York

National Guard, New York/New Jersey Port Authority, New York State

Banking Department, New York State Police, New York State Parole.

Local Six county prosecutor’s offices, six county district attorney’s offices,

District Attorney’s Office of New York City, two county sheriff’s offices,

six police departments, New York City Mayor’s Office of the Criminal

Justice Coordinator, New York City Department of Correction, New York

City Housing Authority, Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor,

Westchester County Department of Corrections, Westchester County

Department of Public Safety.

Southwest Border—

San Diego, CA, 1990 

Geographic area covered: Five partnerships covering 41 counties and 5

federal judicial districts in the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico,

and Texas.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

The area’s 38 ports of entry (POE), 3 of which are among the busiest in the

world, are transit points for organizations attempting to smuggle cocaine,

heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine into the United States. The

significant transportation networks in this region include airports,

railroads, and major highways.

Page 31 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

To reduce drug trafficking through the development of regional systems

that promote coordinated drug interdiction, intelligence, investigation, and

prosecution efforts.

Agency Participation All agencies participating in the five Southwest Border partnerships are

considered by ONDCP to be participants in the Southwest Border HIDTA.

Arizona Partnership,

Southwest Border

HIDTA—Tucson, AZ,

1990

Geographic area covered: Yuma, Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Santa Cruz, and

Cochise counties.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

With 350 miles of a largely unsecured international border, the region is a

focal point for cocaine and marijuana smuggling. The illicit manufacture

and sale of methamphetamine is also a threat. Arizona border counties

report a high percentage of drug related violent crimes and property

crimes. In Phoenix, 70 percent of all homicides and 57 percent of all

aggravated assaults are drug related.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

The Arizona Partnership enables participating law enforcement agencies

working within the six HIDTA counties to disrupt and dismantle the most

significant drug trafficking, methamphetamine production, and

international money laundering organizations operating in and through the

state of Arizona.

Agency Participation

Federal Bureau of Land Management, DEA, FBI, IRS, National Park Service, U.S.

Border Patrol, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National

Forest Service, U.S. Marshals Service.

State Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Arizona Department of Public Safety.

Local Nineteen police departments, 6 sheriff’s departments/offices, Cochise

County Attorney, Patagonia Marshal’s Office, Pima County Attorney’s

Page 32 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

Office, Santa Cruz County Attorney’s Office, Tombstone Marshal’s Office,

Yuma County Attorney’s Office.

California Border

Alliance Group,

Southwest Border

HIDTA—San Diego,

CA, 1990

Geographic area covered: San Diego and Imperial counties.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

Cocaine, marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine smuggling from

Mexico are the primary threats to the region, with maritime smuggling via

the adjacent waters of the Pacific constituting a resurgent threat. Thirty

major drug trafficking organizations and 13 gangs with ties to major drug

traffickers are under active investigation.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goal is to coordinate joint operations and initiatives to deter, disrupt,

dismantle, and destroy the most significant drug trafficking organizations

and their supporting transportation and money laundering operations.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, Bureau of Land Management, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, DOD’s Joint Task Force

Six, U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S.

Customs Service, Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General, U.S.

Forest Service, U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, California Department of Corrections,

California Department of Justice, California Highway Patrol, the California

National Guard.

Local Twelve police departments, 2 district attorney’s offices, 2 sheriff’s offices.

Page 33 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

New Mexico

Partnership,

Southwest Border

HIDTA—Las Cruces,

NM, 1990

Geographic area covered: Bernalillo, Hidalgo, Grant, Luna, Dona Ana,

Eddy, Lea, Otero, Chaves, and Lincoln counties.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

New Mexico’s three POEs are experiencing increased use by drug

smugglers. Drug-related crime is prevalent, and many drug trafficking

organizations are operating in the area. Crack cocaine plagues the larger

metropolitan areas and has made inroads into smaller communities.

Methamphetamine manufacture and use are also on the rise. Heroin is also

more readily available than ever before in New Mexico.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goals are to reduce drug shipments through the HIDTA by identifying the

responsible organizations, reduce distribution of drugs within

communities, continue the interdiction of smuggled drugs, and reduce the

manufacture of methamphetamine. HIDTA plans to coordinate 18 initiatives

to build 4 counterdrug systems.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, DOD’s Joint Task Force Six, U.S. Attorney’s Office,

U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs Service, Amtrak Police Department.

State New Mexico Attorney General’s Office, New Mexico Department of Public

Safety, New Mexico Department of Tax & Revenue, New Mexico Motor

Transport Division, New Mexico National Guard, New Mexico State

Police.

Local Seventeen police departments, 12 county sheriff’s offices, Alamogordo

Department of Public Safety, District Attorney’s Offices (12th, 3rd, 5th, and

6th Judicial Districts), Eddy County District Attorney’s Office, Lea County

District Attorney’s Office, Town of Tatum.

Page 34 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

South Texas

Partnership,

Southwest Border

HIDTA—San Antonio,

TX, 1990

Geographic area covered: Bexar, Val Verde, Kinney, Maverick, Zavala,

Dimmit, LaSalle, Webb, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Starr, Hidalgo, Willacy, and

Cameron counties.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

The POEs along this 647-mile stretch of border process more vehicle, cargo,

train, and pedestrian traffic than any other border HIDTA, making

transportation and wholesale distribution of illegal drugs major threats in

the area. The low water level of the Rio Grande River and associated lakes

of the South Texas border have increased backpack smuggling. Drug and

money laundering enterprises are flourishing, as is drug-related violence.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Goals include increasing counterdrug intelligence, reducing drug

availability, reducing drug trafficking, and reducing money laundering

activities. It plans to accomplish this by implementing intelligence

initiatives linked to 13 national databases and 8 national and state

intelligence elements, an investigative system focusing on intelligence and

other interdiction systems, and a deconfliction system.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, DOD’s Joint Task Force Six, U.S. Attorney’s Office,

U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S.

Secret Service.

State Texas Attorney General’s Office, Texas Bank Examiners, Texas

Department of Public Safety, Texas Narcotics Information System, Texas

National Guard.

Local Eleven police departments, 9 county sheriff’s offices, 4 county district

attorney’s offices, Webb County Constable.

Page 35 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

West Texas

Partnership,

Southwest Border

HIDTA—El Paso, TX,

1990

Geographic area covered: El Paso, Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis,

Presidio, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, and Crockett counties.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

With its 14 POEs and hundreds of miles of remote, unregulated territory,

this area attracts traffickers of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. Law

enforcement agencies have identified 4 major drug trafficking

organizations, 20 supporting organizations, 3 gangs, and 48 known money

laundering operations operating in the area.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goals are to dismantle drug trafficking organizations and to stop the

flow of drugs into the United States through 12 counterdrug intelligence,

interdiction, investigation, forfeiture, and prosecution initiatives.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, DOD’s Joint Task Force Six, National Park Service,

U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs Service, U.S.

Marshals Service, U.S. Secret Service.

State Texas Attorney General’s Office, Texas Department of Public Safety,

Texas National Guard.

Local Two police departments, five county sheriff’s offices.

Washington/

Baltimore—

Greenbelt, MD, 1994

Geographic area covered: The cities of Washington, D.C. and Baltimore,

MD; Baltimore, Howard, Anne Arundel, Charles, Montgomery, and Prince

George’s counties in Maryland; the City of Alexandria and Arlington,

Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William counties in Virginia.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

With two major population centers, a seaport, three commercial airports,

and several interstate highways, this is a major area for the trafficking of

crack and powder cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. One-half of the more

than 150,000 adults under correctional supervision are hard-core

Page 36 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

substance abusers who are involved in substance abuse and criminal

behavior. Law enforcement agencies have identified more than 40 major

and over 350 supporting drug trafficking organizations in the region.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goals are to reduce organized drug distribution, firearms trafficking,

drug-related violent crime, and money laundering; also, reduce the

demand for drugs in the region. The HIDTA integrates federal, state, and

local agencies into drug control/enforcement along with

treatment/criminal justice and prevention initiatives. Enforcement

initiatives work through four collocated law enforcement initiative sites.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, HUD, IRS, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army Reserve, U.S. Navy

Reserve, U.S. District Court, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Park Police, U.S.

Postal Inspection Service, U.S. Secret Service.

State/District Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court (D.C.), District of Columbia

National Guard, Maryland National Guard, Superior Court of the District

of Columbia.

Local Twenty-one police departments, 2 county sheriff’s offices, Alcohol and

Drug Abuse Administration (Baltimore), Arlington County Substance

Abuse, Baltimore Housing Authority, Commonwealth Attorney, District of

Columbia Pretrial Services Agency, Maryland’s Divisions of Adult

Addiction Services and Parole and Probation, East Baltimore Community

Corporation, Fairfax Falls Church Community Services Board, Governor’s

Office of Crime Control and Prevention, Loudoun Community Services

Board, Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, Metropolitan

Washington Council of Governments, Montgomery County Health and

Human Services, Prince William County Community Services Board, State

Attorney for Baltimore City, University of Maryland.

Puerto Rico/U.S.

Virgin Islands—San

Juan, PR, 1994

Geographic area covered: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Virgin

Islands and islands of Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, St. Thomas, St. Croix,

and St. John.

Page 37 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the closest points of entry into

the United States for drug traffickers from Latin America. The islands

include nearly 600 miles of coastline with several maritime ports, including

San Juan, the most active port of entry in the Caribbean area. Cocaine,

marijuana, and heroin are the primary drug threats. Over 50,000 persons

are addicted to illegal drugs. In addition to more than 80 major drug

trafficking organizations, the region is faced with police and public

corruption.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goals are to reduce major drug trafficking, lower the use of controlled

substances, and eliminate the money laundering organizations operating in

the region. This HIDTA’s initiatives are expected to enhance intelligence;

strengthen coordination between agencies; improve identification,

investigation, and interdiction of major drug trafficking organizations; and

dismantle or disrupt money laundering operations in the region.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, U.S. Attorney’s Office for Puerto Rico, U.S. Attorney’s

Office for the Virgin Islands, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S.

Customs Service, U.S. Department of Defense Southern Command, U.S.

Marshals Service, U.S. Naval Investigative Service, U.S. Postal Inspection

Service, U.S. Secret Service.

Territorial Puerto Rico Department of Justice, Special Investigations Bureau, Puerto

Rico Police Department, Puerto Rico Department of the Treasury, Puerto

Rico Mental Health and Anti-Addiction Services Administration, Puerto

Rico National Guard, Virgin Islands National Guard.

Local Attorney General, Virgin Islands Police Department.

Atlanta, GA, 1995 Geographic area covered: The city of Atlanta and Fulton and DeKalb

counties.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

Located between the northeastern and southeastern seaboards, Atlanta

serves as an importation center for international smuggling cartels. Several

interstate highways traverse the region, making it a significant wholesale

and retail distribution point, consumption base, storage depot, and

Page 38 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

rendezvous site. A number of gangs and money laundering groups have

been identified in the area.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goals are to reduce the availability of and demand for illicit drugs,

curtail the attendant violent crime and illegal firearms trafficking,

eliminate the profits from illegal drug-related activities, and reclaim

neighborhoods from criminal control. This is to be accomplished through

integration of demand reduction, education, and drug treatment efforts

with strict enforcement by HIDTA Task Force components of federal, state,

and local law enforcement.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Marshals

Service, U.S. Secret Service.

State Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Georgia Army National Guard, Georgia

State Patrol.

Local Three police departments, Metropolitan Atlanta Rail and Transit Authority,

Fulton County District Attorney’s Office, DeKalb County District

Attorney’s Office.

Chicago, IL, 1995 Geographic area covered: Cook County, incorporating the city of Chicago.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

The Chicago area is a major manufacturing and distribution center for

illegal drugs destined for other cities. Cocaine trafficking and money

laundering are the most serious threats to the community. Chicago has

been a major market for drug use with heroin and club drugs increasing in

demand and purity. Street gangs continue to control the supply and

distribution of the principal illicit drugs.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

The HIDTA plans to activate a performance-based attack on illegal drug

distribution and money laundering, as well as related violence and

socioeconomic decay. Goals are to improve information sharing,

dismantle the hierarchy of the largest retail drug organization in the area,

Page 39 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

reduce drug-related violence, reduce money laundering activities, and

interdict drugs destined for Cook County.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, HUD, IRS, DOD’s Joint Task Force Six, U.S. Customs Service,

U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy.

State Illinois Attorney General, Illinois National Guard, Illinois State Police.

Local Eight police departments, three county sheriff’s offices, Cook County

States Attorney’s Office.

Philadelphia/Camden

—Philadelphia, PA,

1995

Geographic area covered: Cities of Philadelphia and Camden.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

Cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drugs are readily available.

Drug trafficking continues to spawn violent crimes in the region. The

Philadelphia and Camden seaports, which handled more than 3 million

tons of cargo in 1996, are a major source of drugs, as are the area’s

airports.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goal is to focus efforts toward dismantling the most significant drug

trafficking and drug money laundering organizations in the area as well as

reduce drug-related violent crime.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, Health and Human Services, INS, IRS, U.S. Attorney’s

Office/Eastern District of Pennsylvania, U.S. Attorney’s Office/New Jersey,

U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Marshals Service.

State Delaware River Port Authority, New Jersey State Police, New Jersey

National Guard, Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, Pennsylvania

National Guard, Pennsylvania State Police.

Page 40 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

Local Seven police departments, the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office,

Camden County Sheriff’s Office, Delaware County Criminal Investigations

Division, Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office.

Gulf Coast—Metairie,

LA, 1996

Geographic area covered: Baldwin, Jefferson, Mobile, and Montgomery

counties in Alabama; Caddo, East Baton Rouge, Jefferson, and Orleans

parishes in Louisiana; and Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson

counties in Mississippi.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

The Gulf Coast serves as a gateway for drugs entering the United States.

Thousands of miles of largely unpatrolled coastline make the area

attractive to air and maritime smugglers. An elaborate system of interstate

highways and major roads makes transportation and distribution of illegal

drugs easy. Cocaine and crack are linked with social, economic, and

violent crime damage. Violent drug trafficking organizations have

developed markets in the HIDTA region and have created significant drug

distribution networks.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goal is to measurably reduce the impact of Gulf Coast drug trafficking

on other parts of the United States and violent drug trafficking in its

immediate three-state area. The HIDTA plans to have its intelligence and

operations centers fully operational. The operations centers in each state

house major investigations, Money Laundering Teams, a Community

Empowerment Specialist, and Mobile Deployment Teams.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, HUD, INS, IRS, DOD’s Joint Task Force Six, U.S. Attorney’s

Office, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S.

Postal Service.

State Alabama Bureau of Investigations, Alabama Department of Conservation,

Alabama Marine Police, Alabama National Guard, Alabama State Troopers,

Louisiana National Guard, Louisiana State Police, Mississippi Attorney

General’s Office, Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics, Mississippi Department

of Transportation, Mississippi Highway Patrol, Mississippi National Guard,

Mississippi Public Service Commission.

Page 41 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

Local Twenty police departments, 9 sheriff’s departments, Shreveport-Bossier

Narcotics Task Force.

Lake County—Crown

Point, IN, 1996

Geographic area covered: Lake County, Indiana.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

Lake County comprises 19 municipal jurisdictions with a population of

more than 481,000. Its proximity to larger metropolitan areas, its economic

problems, and the infiltration of street gangs have made it the off-ramp for

drug trafficking, with an estimated 90 illicit drug organizations operating

within its borders.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goal is to reduce criminal drug trafficking organizations, reduce

drug-related violent crime, reduce drug-related property crime, and

identify and reduce money laundering activities. To accomplish this, it

plans to continue to coordinate and implement a multiagency enforcement

strategic plan to dismantle and disrupt illegal narcotics distribution and

associated violent crime.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, HUD, Inspector General’s Office, IRS, U.S. Attorney’s Office,

U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Secret Service.

State Indiana National Guard, Indiana State Police.

Local Fourteen police departments, Lake County Prosecutor’s Office, Lake

County Sheriff’s Office.

Midwest—Kansas

City, MO, 1996

Geographic area covered: Muscatine, Polk, Pottawattamie, Scott, and

Woodbury counties in Iowa; Cherokee, Crawford, Johnson, Labette,

Leavenworth, Saline, Seward, and Wyandotte counties in Kansas; Cape

Girardeau, Christian, Clay, Jackson, Lafayette, Lawrence, Ray, Scott, and

St. Charles counties and the city of St. Louis in Missouri; Dakota, Dawson,

Douglas, Hall, Lancaster, Sarpy, and Scottsbluff counties in Nebraska; and

Clay, Coddington, Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, Lincoln, Meade,

Minnehaha, Pennington, Union, and Yankton counties in South Dakota.

Page 42 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

Located at the geographic crossroads of the United States, this

predominantly rural region is connected via major interstate highways,

rail, and air to the West and Southwest border areas. The region’s

methamphetamine epidemic stems from steadily increasing importation of

methamphetamine into the region by organized trafficking groups and the

clandestine manufacture by user/dealers within the region. Missouri is

second in the country in number of labs seized. According to DEA, 20

Mexican methamphetamine organizations operate in the region.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goal is to measurably reduce and disrupt the importation, distribution,

and clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine in the five-state region

and other parts of the United States, thereby reducing the impact of illicit

drugs and related violent criminal activity. The Midwest HIDTA Executive

Committee and the Midwest HIDTA Director, in cooperation with the State

Boards and other subcommittees, coordinate the integration and

synchronization of all participating agencies’ initiatives to ensure a unified

effort in achieving the mission of the Midwest HIDTA.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF; DEA; FBI; Food and Drug Administration; INS; IRS; U.S. Army’s Joint

Task Force Six; U.S. Attorney’s Offices in the Northern and Southern

Districts of Iowa, District of Kansas, Western and Eastern Districts of

Missouri, District of Nebraska, and District of South Dakota; U.S. Marshals

Service.

State Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement, Iowa National Guard, Iowa State

Fire Marshal’s Office, Iowa State Patrol, Kansas Bureau of Investigation,

Kansas National Guard, Missouri Department of Public Safety, Missouri

National Guard, Missouri State Highway Patrol, Nebraska National Guard,

Nebraska State Patrol, South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation,

South Dakota National Guard.

Local Sixteen police departments, 11 county sheriff’s offices, 3 task forces.

Northwest—Seattle,

WA, 1996

Geographic area covered: King, Pierce, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston,

Whatcom, and Yakima counties in Washington.

Page 43 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

The Northwest is a gateway for illegal drugs into the United States. Major

importation routes include (1) Sea-Tac Airport, (2) the ports of Seattle and

Tacoma, (3) I-5 corridor traffic, (4) Yakima Valley (Highway 97) traffic,

and (5) international border traffic. Use of methamphetamine, heroin,

cocaine, and marijuana has increased, and this in turn has increased

trafficking and associated gang violence in the region. Over the past 3

years, the number of methamphetamine labs has doubled.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goals are to measurably reduce large-scale importation and local drug

trafficking by intercepting shipments and disrupting local manufacturing

and trafficking operations and reduce demand by supporting treatment

and effective demand reduction programs. The Northwest HIDTA, through

its Executive Committee, coordinates and synchronizes efforts under way

by providing investigative support and intelligence services to task forces.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, Canada Customs, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, DOD’s Joint Task Force Six, U.S.

Attorney’s Office, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs

Service, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Secret Service.

State Washington Department of Social and Health Services, Washington

National Guard, Washington State Patrol.

Local Seventeen Washington cities, 8 police departments, 5 county sheriff’s

departments, King County Drug Court, Pierce County Alliance, Pierce

County Drug Court, Pierce County Prosecutors Office, Pierce County

Human Services, Snohomish County Community Mobilization, Thurston

County Narcotics Task Force, Tulalip Tribes.

Rocky Mountain—

Denver, CO, 1996

Geographic area covered: Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, Douglas, Eagle, El

Paso, Garfield, Jefferson, La Plata, and Mesa counties in Colorado; Davis,

Salt Lake, Summit, Utah, and Weber counties in Utah; and Laramie,

Natrona, and Sweetwater counties in Wyoming.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

The region is increasingly becoming a transshipment point for drugs from

Mexico and the Southwest Border to other locations in the United States.

Major obstacles include a diverse topography, a growing immigrant and

Page 44 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

nonresident tourist population, the growth of gangs and money laundering

organizations, and the limited number of state troopers serving a large

geographic area. The area has over 22,000 miles of highways and a variety

of airports, commercial bus routes, and Amtrak trains.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its focus is to continue counterdrug initiatives in the areas of intelligence,

training, transportation, and major trafficking.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, HUD, INS, IRS, U.S. Attorney’s Offices in Colorado and

Wyoming, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S.

Marshals Service, U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

State Colorado Bureau of Investigations, Colorado Department of Public Safety,

Colorado Division of Gaming, Colorado National Guard, Colorado State

Patrol, Fourth Judicial District Attorney’s Office, Utah Adult Probation and

Parole, Utah Division of Investigations, Wyoming Attorney General,

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigations, Wyoming Highway Patrol.

Local Thirty-seven police departments, 21 sheriff’s offices, Alta Marshals Office.

San Francisco Bay

Area—San Francisco,

CA, 1997

Geographic area covered: Alameda, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin, Monterey,

San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma counties.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

A strategic point for the movement of narcotics and chemicals, the region

has a well-developed infrastructure of commercial enterprise,

transportation, and international finance. San Francisco’s primary threat is

from methamphetamine. Cocaine and marijuana trafficking are also a

concern. International airports and seaports, in addition to overland

routes, facilitate the smuggling of precursor chemicals and narcotics. Law

enforcement agencies have targeted 120 major drug trafficking

organizations, 170 supporting organizations, 240 gangs, and more than 20

money laundering enterprises for investigation and dismantling.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goals are coordinating the exchange of narcotics intelligence by all

participating local, state, and federal agencies; and enhancing officer

Page 45 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

safety for all Bay Area law enforcement personnel through establishment

of a deconfliction center, joint training, and improved interagency

cooperation.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, DOD’s Joint Task Force Six, U.S. Attorney’s Office,

U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Postal Inspection

Service.

State California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, California Department of

Corrections, California Highway Patrol, California National Guard,

California Attorney General, Western States Information Network.

Local Five police departments, seven county sheriff’s offices, two county district

attorney’s offices.

Southeastern

Michigan—Detroit,

MI, 1997

Geographic area covered: Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, and Washtenaw

counties.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

Michigan waterways and lakes provide virtually unhindered access to

limitless landing areas from cities and ports in Canada and the United

States. As a result, the area has become a major drug transportation,

distribution, and importation center and a money laundering/financial

crimes center. Crack cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and other drugs are

readily available in the region. Law enforcement agencies estimate that

there are more than 30 major drug trafficking organizations in the region.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its goals are to reduce drug trafficking, related violent crime, and money

laundering through the coordination and sharing of intelligence, a unified

law enforcement effort, and community cooperation.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DOD, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Marshals Service.

Page 46 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

State Michigan National Guard, Michigan State Police.

Local Detroit Police Department.

Milwaukee, WI, 1998 Geographic area covered: Milwaukee County.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

Milwaukee has become a regional drug transshipment point. The area is

located at the intersection of two interstate highways that directly link the

city to Chicago. The Port of Milwaukee on Lake Michigan, an international

airport, numerous private and regional airports, and a large amount of flat

terrain conducive to makeshift airports also ease drug trafficking into and

through Milwaukee. Drug trafficking organizations operating in the area

range from street-level dealers to sophisticated international

organizations. Marijuana growing is on the rise, although Mexican

marijuana is prevalent. There is also growing evidence of a number of

Nigerian, Dominican, and Jamaican drug organizations operating in the

area.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its mission is to substantially and measurably reduce organized drug

distribution, drug-related violent crime, money laundering, and the

demand for illegal drugs within the Milwaukee area. To accomplish this

objective, this HIDTA has six initiatives to enhance the intelligence process,

operational coordination, and prosecution.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, IRS, U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Customs Service, U.S.

Marshals Service.

State Wisconsin Division of Narcotics Enforcement, Wisconsin National Guard.

Local Three police departments, Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department,

Milwaukee Metro Drug Enforcement Group, Milwaukee County District

Attorney’s Office.

Appalachia—London,

KY, 1998

Geographic area covered: Twenty-six Kentucky counties (Adair, Bell,

Breathitt, Clay, Clinton, Cumberland, Floyd, Harlan, Jackson, Knott, Knox,

Page 47 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

Laurel, Lee, Leslie, McCreary, Magoffin, Marion, Monroe, Owsley, Perry,

Pike, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Taylor, Wayne, and Whitley); 28 Tennessee

counties (Bledsoe, Campbell, Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, Cumberland,

Fentress, Franklin, Grainger, Greene, Grundy, Hamblen, Hancock,

Hawkins, Jackson, Jefferson, Macon, Marion, Overton, Pickett, Putnam,

Rhea, Scott, Sequatchie, Sevier, Unicoi, Van Buren, and White); and eleven

West Virginia counties (Boone, Braxton, Cabell, Gilmer, Lewis, Lincoln,

Logan, Mason, McDowell, Mingo, and Wayne).

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

Limited financial development; rampant poverty; and large, remote parcels

of land have made marijuana a substantial component of the local

economy, surpassing tobacco as the area’s largest cash crop. Competition

for the drug trade is increasing, bringing additional problems of violence,

firearms, and other drug-related crimes into local communities and the

area’s national forests.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its mission is to measurably reduce the impact of marijuana production

and trafficking in Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia, thereby also

reducing their affect on other areas of the United States.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, IRS, National Park Service, U.S. Attorney’s Offices (Kentucky,

Tennessee, West Virginia), U.S. Forest Service.

State Champions for a Drug-Free Kentucky, Kentucky Governor’s Marijuana

Strike Force, Kentucky Army National Guard, Kentucky State Police,

University of Louisville, Kentucky Justice Administration Department,

Southern Police Institute, Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission,

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Tennessee Department of Public

Safety, Tennessee District Attorney General’s Conference, Tennessee

Governor’s Task Force for Marijuana Eradication, Tennessee National

Guard, West Virginia National Guard, West Virginia Center for Addiction

and Prevention, West Virginia State Police.

Local None provided.

Page 48 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix I 

ONDCP’s Characterization of High Intensity

Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated

Central Florida—

Orlando, FL, 1998 

Geographic area covered: Volusia, Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Polk,

Hillsborough, and Pinellas counties.

Fiscal Year 1998 Threat

Abstract

Two major international airports, major seaports on each coast, and three

major highway systems connected directly to South Florida make Central

Florida a major target for criminal enterprise. Mexican organizations now

smuggle cocaine and heroin along the well-established highway corridors.

An estimated several thousand pounds of marijuana arrive daily to the

area. Money laundering-related crimes are also a great concern to the

major banking centers of Orlando and Tampa.

Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy

Abstract

Its mission is to measurably reduce drug trafficking and related money

laundering and apprehend violent drug fugitives, thereby reducing the

impact of drug-related crimes in Central Florida.

Agency Participation

Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, IRS, U.S. Attorney’s Office, U.S. Customs Service, U.S.

Marshals Service.

State Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Florida Department of

Corrections.

Local Twelve police departments, 8 county sheriff’s offices, City/County Bureau

of Investigation, Hillsborough County State Attorney’s Office, Metropolitan

Bureau of Investigation.

Page 49 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington

D.C.

Weldon McPhail, Assistant Director

Dennise Stickley, Evaluator-in-Charge

Doris Page, Senior Evaluator

Michael Little, Communications Analyst

David Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst

Michelle Wiggins, Issue Area Assistant

Office of General

Council, Washington,

D.C.

Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney

(182038) Page 50 GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Ordering Information

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

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

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

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

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

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

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

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

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

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

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

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

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

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

info@www.gao.gov

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

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100