Page 1 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

March 12, 2009 

The Honorable Richard J. Durbin 

Chairman 

The Honorable Susan M. Collins 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Financial Services and 

 General Government 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable José E. Serrano 

Chairman 

The Honorable Jo Ann Emerson 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Financial Services and 

 General Government 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center: Clarifying Rationale for the 

Research and Development Funding Decisions Would Increase Accountability

This letter formally transmits the summary of an oral briefing we gave on December 

8, 2008, and subsequent agency comments. We gave this briefing in response to 

Senate Report 110-129, accompanying the 2008 Financial Services and General 

Government Appropriations Bill. In accordance with direction in that report, and in 

consultation with House and Senate Appropriation Committee staff, we are reporting 

on the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) Counterdrug Technology 

Assessment Center (CTAC). Specifically, we address issues pertaining to CTAC’s use 

of funds since fiscal year 2003, the ONDCP Director’s approach to funding decisions 

for research and development, CTAC’s measures of performance, and CTAC’s 

reorganization in 2007. To conduct this work, among other things, we analyzed 

memorandums of agreement and CTAC interagency agreements that documented 

how funds were to be allocated during fiscal years 2003 to 2008; compared available 

information on how the ONDCP Director made research and development funding 

decisions for fiscal year 2003 through 2008 with criteria in GAO’s Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government; and interviewed relevant CTAC and 

ONDCP officials. 

In summary, since fiscal year 2003, CTAC has allocated funds to a variety of efforts to 

treat and prevent drug abuse and reduce the availability, production, and distribution 
Page 2 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

Page; Janay Sam; and Adam Vogt. 

nclosure

of illicit drugs by transferring appropriated funds for its two programs—research and 

development and technology transfer—to its contracting agents. However, CTAC 

officials lacked confidence in the information on expenditures provided by its 

contractor, prompting CTAC to replace its primary contracting agent in March 2007. 

CTAC’s contracting agents did not obligate $17.8 million (about 20 percent) of 

CTAC’s fiscal year 2004 through 2007 research and development appropriations to 

specific projects, and returned these funds to CTAC. CTAC transferred all of its 

appropriations related to its technology transfer program since fiscal year 2003 to 

contracting agents, and CTAC was in the process of phasing out the program in

October 2008 due to lack of funding. The ONDCP Director’s approach to making 

research and development funding decisions is not documented and, therefore, not 

fully consistent with internal control standards. Thus, we are recommending that the 

ONDCP Director identify the role that different factors play in funding decisions, and 

document the basis used to select particular research and development project 

concepts for funding, including the rationale for selecting certain project concepts 

over others. For additional information on a summary of the results of our work, see 

slides 13 through 15. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, ONDCP agreed with our findings and 

recommendation. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the 

Director of ONDCP, and other interested parties. This report will also be available at 

no charge on our Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Should you or your staffs have any 

questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6510 or 

LarenceE@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and 

Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this 

report were Evi Rezmovic, Assistant Director; Billy Commons; Marvin McGill; Doris 

Eileen R. Larence 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues 

E
Page 3 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

Enclosure: Briefing for Congressional Committees 

COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY 

ASSESSMENT CENTER

Clarifying Rationale for Research and 

Development Funding Decisions Would 

Increase Accountability
Page 4 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

2

Briefing Overview

• Introduction

• Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

• Summary

• Findings

• Conclusions

• Recommendation

• Agency Comments
Page 5 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

3

Briefing Overview (cont’d)

• Appendixes

• Appendix I: Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center Funding

• Appendix II: Strategy and Office of National Drug Control Policy Priorities

• Appendix III: Research and Development and Technology Transfer

Program Funding Process

• Appendix IV: Research and Development and Technology Transfer

Program Award Process

• Appendix V: Reorganization Timeline

• Appendix VI: Office of National Drug Control Policy Comment Letter
Page 6 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

4

Introduction

• The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) establishes priorities, policies,

and objectives for the nation’s drug control program. The Counterdrug Technology

Assessment Center (CTAC) was established within ONDCP in fiscal year 1991 to (1) 

oversee and coordinate counterdrug technology initiatives in federal drug control

agencies and (2) fund counterdrug research projects to help fill gaps in the

development of technology. 

• CTAC administers two programs to support the President’s National Drug Control 

Strategy.

• Counterdrug research and development program (R&D): designed to focus

funding on reducing the demand for and supply of illicit drugs by advancing the 

technological capabilities of federal drug control agencies.

1 Demand reduction 

involves efforts to treat and prevent drug abuse; supply reduction involves 

efforts to reduce the availability, production, and distribution of illicit drugs. The 

R&D program received its first congressional appropriation in fiscal year 1992.

• Technology transfer program (TTP): designed to focus funding on supply

reduction by providing technology and training to state, local, and tribal law

enforcement agencies for counterdrug missions. TTP received its first

appropriation in fiscal year 1998.

1Federal drug control agencies include the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Drug Enforcement Administration, among others.
Page 7 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

5

Introduction (cont’d)

• Funding for the two programs declined from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2008.

(See appendix I for funding figures by fiscal year.)

• For R&D, funding declined from nearly $22 million in fiscal year 2003 to $1 

million in fiscal year 2008.

• For TTP, funding declined from nearly $26 million in fiscal year 2003 to $0 in

fiscal year 2008.

• CTAC has undergone several changes in recent years.

• In November 2006, the ONDCP Director appointed a new Chief Scientist to 

serve as director of CTAC,

2 the center was reorganized, and the ONDCP

Director changed the focus of the R&D program to more closely align it with the

National Drug Control Strategy.

2Pursuant to the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-469, § 401, 120 Stat. 3502, 3525-

27 (Dec. 29, 2006), there shall be at the head of the Center the Chief Scientist, who shall be appointed by the ONDCP Director from

among individuals qualified and distinguished in the area of science, medicine, engineering, or technology. Codified at 21 U.S.C. § 

1707(b).
Page 8 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

6

Introduction (cont’d)

• In March 2007, CTAC replaced its primary contracting agent, the Army’s

Electronic Proving Grounds (EPG), with the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare 

Systems Center (SPAWAR).

• By statute, the ONDCP Director does not have authority to award contracts 

and manage individual projects or other operational activities.

3 Instead,

CTAC must employ contracting agents to initiate the contracting process

and manage individual contracts and projects. Therefore, after CTAC

receives an appropriation from Congress, it transfers funds to its 

contracting agent who, in turn, obligates and expends the funds.

321 U.S.C. § 1707(d).
Page 9 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

7

Introduction (cont’d)

• ONDCP’s Director makes the final determination about which CTAC R&D project

concepts to fund. Project concepts are proposals developed by CTAC staff for the

ONDCP Director’s consideration in making R&D funding decisions. Project concepts

are to be funded in accordance with (1) the goals of the President’s National Drug 

Control Strategy, and (2) ONDCP’s operational priorities. Based on information 

provided to the ONDCP Director about the findings of R&D projects, the Director 

also determines which projects should form the basis for policy or program direction.

• In Senate Report 110-129, accompanying the 2008 Financial Services and General

Government Appropriations Bill, H.R. 2829, 110th Cong. (2007), the Senate 

Appropriations Committee expressed concern about ONDCP’s management of

grants and its organization. The Senate Report directed GAO to review ONDCP’s

grants management systems and other funding systems, emphasizing the criteria

and methodology used to award and distribute grant funds. In consultation with

congressional staff, this report focuses on issues pertaining to CTAC’s use of funds

since fiscal year 2003, the ONDCP Director’s approach to funding decisions for

CTAC’s R&D program, CTAC’s measures of performance, and CTAC’s

reorganization in 2007.
Page 10 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

8

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Objectives 

1. Since fiscal year 2003, how has CTAC allocated funds for counterdrug 

efforts, and how were congressional appropriations for CTAC’s R&D and

TTP programs expended?

2. To what extent has the ONDCP Director’s approach to making funding 

decisions regarding CTAC’s R&D program been consistent with internal

control standards?

3. How, if at all, does ONDCP assess the results of CTAC’s programmatic

efforts?

4. What were ONDCP’s reasons for reorganizing CTAC in 2007, and what

was the sequence of events relating to the reorganization?
Page 11 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

9

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

(cont’d)

• To determine how CTAC has allocated funds for counterdrug efforts, and how

CTAC appropriations were expended, we

• analyzed memorandums of agreement and CTAC interagency agreements

that documented the funds CTAC transferred to its contracting agents and 

how the funds were to be allocated during fiscal years 2003 to 2008. We 

also reviewed amended CTAC interagency agreements and other 

documents concerning funds the contracting agents returned to CTAC

during that period, and the receipts for those funds. Based on our review, we believe the information on the transfer and return of CTAC’s funds to be

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our work;

• interviewed current CTAC officials and two former directors of CTAC to

obtain their perspectives on program operations, and the funding and

expenditure decisions made during their tenure;

• interviewed EPG and SPAWAR staff responsible for managing the CTAC

contract in order to learn about their contract management procedures, and

obtain information about their expenditure of CTAC funds; and

• interviewed the chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of

Police’s Investigative Operation Committee, to discuss views concerning 

the impact of losing TTP training and equipment on local law enforcement

organizations.
Page 12 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

10

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

(cont’d)

• To determine the extent to which the ONDCP Director’s approach to making funding decisions for CTAC’s R&D program were consistent with internal

control standards, we

• reviewed applicable laws and regulations and CTAC interagency

agreements outlining the operational and financial relationship between 

CTAC and its contracting agents;

• compared available information on how the ONDCP Director made R&D 

funding decisions for fiscal year 2003 through 2008 with criteria in GAO’s 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government;

4 and

• interviewed CTAC officials to determine the procedures CTAC and its 

contracting agents used to identify, prioritize, select, and award contracts

and grants for CTAC’s programs.

4GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).
Page 13 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

11

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

(cont’d)

• To determine how ONDCP assesses the results of CTAC’s programmatic

efforts, we

• reviewed CTAC’s performance measures, goals, and targets for fiscal year 

2008;

• reviewed GAO criteria on key attributes of successful performance 

measures5 and relevant sections of the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993 (GPRA);6 and

• interviewed cognizant ONDCP and CTAC officials.

• To determine ONDCP’s reasons for reorganizing CTAC in 2007 and the 

sequence of events relating to the reorganization, we

• reviewed relevant statutes and correspondence between ONDCP and 

congressional staff regarding the agency’s rationale and timetable for the 

CTAC reorganization; and 

• interviewed cognizant ONDCP and CTAC officials.

6Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 was intended to address several broad

purposes, including strengthening the confidence of the American people in their government; improving federal program effectiveness,

accountability, and service delivery; and enhancing congressional decision making by providing more objective information on program

performance.

5GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.:

Nov. 22, 2002).
Page 14 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

12

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

(cont’d)

• We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 to March 2009 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based 

on our audit objectives.
Page 15 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

13

Summary

• Since fiscal year 2003, CTAC has allocated funds to a variety of demand and

supply reduction efforts by transferring appropriated funds to its contracting 

agents; but, CTAC officials lacked confidence in the information on expenditures

provided by EPG, prompting CTAC to replace EPG with SPAWAR as its primary

contracting agent in March 2007. For its R&D program, CTAC’s emphasis was

on funding demand reduction efforts during fiscal years 2003 to 2005, and supply

reduction efforts during fiscal years 2006 and 2007. CTAC’s contracting agent

did not obligate $17.8 million (about 20 percent) of CTAC’s fiscal year 2004 

through 2008 R&D appropriations to specific projects, and returned these funds

to CTAC. With respect to TTP, CTAC transferred all of its TTP appropriations

since fiscal year 2003 to contracting agents, and CTAC was in the process of

phasing out the program in October 2008, due to lack of funding.
Page 16 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

14

Summary (cont’d)

• The ONDCP Director’s approach to making R&D funding decisions is not

documented and, therefore, not fully consistent with internal control standards.

Although the ONDCP Director is not required to document his rationale for selecting

particular R&D project concepts for funding, the absence of information on what

factors he considered when making particular decisions, and how he determined 

that certain R&D project concepts should be funded and others not, makes it difficult

to know if ONDCP has funded the counterdrug community’s highest priority research

and technology needs.

• CTAC established output and outcome performance measures to assess

achievement of its R&D goals,

7 and both measures are generally consistent with

attributes that characterize successful performance measures. However, CTAC has

not documented the methodology it uses to calculate the outcome of its R&D

program. As a result, it is not clear to stakeholders that the measure of program

outcome—percentage of research projects that contribute to policy or program 

direction—is limited to R&D projects that contributed to the ONDCP Director’s

decision to issue policy or provide program direction to national drug control

agencies and also received appropriated funds during the same fiscal year. CTAC

officials stated they are working with the Office of Management and Budget to

address this issue.

7An output measure describes the level of activity to be provided over a period of time, including a description of the characteristics (e.g.,

timeliness) established as standards for the activity. Outcome measures describe the intended results of carrying out a program or

activity. They define an event or condition that is external to the program or activity and that is of direct importance to the intended 

beneficiaries and/or the public.
Page 17 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

15

Summary (cont’d)

• ONDCP’s stated reason for reorganizing CTAC in 2007 was to strengthen 

CTAC’s research capabilities. ONDCP’s 2006 appropriations act, Pub. L. No. 109-115, contained a general prohibition on agencies, including ONDCP, from using funds to reorganize different from the budget justifications submitted to

the Committees on Appropriations or from other specified documentation,

unless prior approval was received from the Committees on Appropriations.

This restriction continued into fiscal year 2007 through a series of continuing appropriations resolutions. On December 1, 2006, ONDCP notified the

Appropriations Committees of its plans to reorganize; however, committee staff

in a number of correspondences indicated that ONDCP should wait on its

reorganization plans. ONDCP proceeded with the reorganization, effective 

January 22, 2007.

• We are recommending that the ONDCP Director identify the role that different

factors played in funding decisions, and document the basis for selecting 

specific R&D project concepts for funding, including the rationale for selecting

certain project concepts over others. ONDCP agreed with the findings and

recommendation in this report and stated that identifying and documenting the

director’s decision making process should promote greater transparency in 

funding decisions and accountability for the best use of R&D funds.
Page 18 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

16

Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for 

R&D

• Since fiscal year 2003, CTAC has allocated funds to a variety of demand and supply

reduction efforts by transferring $181.8 million in appropriated R&D and TTP funds

to its contracting agents. But CTAC officials were uncertain how much money its 

agent, EPG, had expended during fiscal years 2003 to 2006 because the officials

said they lacked confidence in the accuracy of EPG’s financial information and,

therefore, replaced EPG with SPAWAR.

• Emphasis in R&D funding changed from demand reduction (in fiscal years 2003 to

2005) to supply reduction in fiscal years 2006 to 2007.

• Of a total of $56.5 million in appropriations during fiscal years 2003 to 2005,

CTAC transferred nearly $38.8 million, or 69 percent, for demand reduction,

and about $8.4 million for supply reduction efforts. The remainder—$9.2

million8—was transferred for both demand and supply reduction efforts. The 

primary emphasis in demand reduction involved reimbursing research facilities

for purchases of brain imaging systems. Projects related to supply reduction

included the development of body-worn surveillance receivers for law

enforcement.

8The figures do not sum to $56.5 million due to rounding.
Page 19 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

17

Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for 

R&D (cont’d)

• Of a total of $23.9 million in appropriations during fiscal years 2006 and 2007,

CTAC transferred about $11.5 million, or 48 percent, for supply reduction, and

about $4.0 million for demand reduction efforts. The remainder—$8.4 million—

was transferred for both demand and supply reduction efforts. In 2006, CTAC

reported that it refocused the R&D program to fund projects that it believed

aligned more closely with the goals of the National Drug Control Strategy.

• In fiscal year 2007, CTAC discontinued funding imaging equipment as a 

result of, among other things, a determination by an external technology

review committee that drug abuse researchers no longer had a need for 

new imaging systems. CTAC began funding projects to (1) test the

feasibility of adding a biomeasure, such as hair or urinalysis, to validate 

self-reported drug use (demand reduction); and (2) develop license plate

reader technology for law enforcement (supply reduction); among others.
Page 20 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

18

Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for 

R&D (cont’d)

• Although CTAC officials knew how much money they transferred to the 

contracting agents, they lacked confidence in EPG’s expenditure information,

prompting CTAC to replace EPG with SPAWAR as its primary contracting

agent. This meant that for the period of our study, CTAC was not certain of how

much money EPG spent on CTAC contracts during fiscal years 2003 through

2006. In contrast, CTAC officials said they were confident in the financial 

information of SPAWAR, which replaced EPG as the primary contracting agent

in March 2007.

• A 2004 CTAC internal review and a 2005 ONDCP-initiated independent review

of EPG by the management consulting firm, Deloitte, identified financial and 

reporting risks at EPG. These included EPG not providing detailed financial

information to CTAC regarding the use of program funds and EPG not following CTAC’s guidance for administering funds. According to CTAC officials, EPG did 

not comply with recommendations for improvement and did not have data

systems capable of producing the increasingly detailed financial information 

that CTAC needed. EPG’s Deputy Program Director, who had managed the 

CTAC contract, told us that EPG’s level of support was not what CTAC wanted.
Page 21 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

19

Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for 

R&D (cont’d)

• CTAC officials stated that due to their lack of confidence in EPG, they

did not transfer any funds to EPG during the first half of fiscal year

2007, a period during which EPG was still CTAC’s primary contracting 

agent. They said they transferred all fiscal year 2007 funds to the new

contracting agent, SPAWAR.

• In replacing EPG with SPAWAR, CTAC took steps to monitor SPAWAR’s

expenditures through a detailed project status report; holding weekly

teleconferences; and meeting monthly to discuss the status of each R&D

project and resolve issues.
Page 22 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

20

Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for 

R&D (cont’d)

• $18.8 million in R&D funds from fiscal years 2004 through 2008 were returned to or

retained by CTAC.

• Contracting agents returned $17.8 million in transferred but unobligated funds.

• CTAC officials said that, largely because CTAC’s fiscal year 2008 

appropriation had declined to $1.0 million, EPG and SPAWAR returned 

unobligated funds from fiscal years 2004 through 2007.

• According to CTAC officials, reasons why funds had not been obligated9

during fiscal years 2004 through 2007 included: (1) changes in CTAC’s 

R&D priorities and (2) organizational changes within CTAC. CTAC officials

said an example of a project where funds were not obligated is a $5 million

2006 R&D initiative intended to promote understanding of how genetics

contributes to the brain’s response to drug abuse. They said funds were not

obligated for this initiative because, among other things, the contracting 

agent had difficulty identifying potential contractors with requisite expertise,

CTAC was transitioning between contracting agents, and CTAC’s

appropriation had been reduced.

• CTAC did not transfer any of its $1.0 million fiscal year 2008 appropriation to

the contracting agent. As of December 2008, it continued to retain these funds. 

9Among other things, an obligation is a legal liability for the government to pay for goods and services ordered or received. See GAO, Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP (Washington, D.C.: Sep. 2005).
Page 23 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

21

Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for 

R&D (cont’d)

• Congress limited CTAC’s fiscal year 2008 appropriation to $1.0 million. The 

Senate Appropriations Committee indicated that CTAC had substantial unused

R&D funds from prior fiscal years. CTAC did not transfer the $1.0 million 

because the project it intended to fund was an ongoing, multiphase project that

was behind schedule.

• CTAC reallocated about half of the $18.8 million in returned and retained funds to

new and existing R&D projects.

• As of December 2008, CTAC had transferred to its contracting agents, and the 

agents had obligated or already expended, about $10.1 million, or 54 percent, of the $18.8 million in R&D funds that were returned or retained.10

• As of December 2008, CTAC had not transferred to its contracting agents the

remaining $8.7 million, or 46 percent, in returned or retained R&D funds. 

However, according to CTAC officials, ONDCP had developed or was

developing plans for these funds.

• The then-ONDCP Director approved allocating $7.0 million for several 

projects, including license plate reader technology for law enforcement, one

of CTAC’s ongoing priority projects.

• CTAC was developing recommendations on how to spend the remaining $1.7 million.

10In some instances, rather than transferring funds to its primary contracting agent, CTAC transferred funds directly to federal drug control

agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, to manage R&D projects.
Page 24 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

22

Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for 

TTP (cont’d)

• As with the R&D program, CTAC had information on the amount of funds it

transferred to its contracting agent for TTP, but officials were not confident in the 

accuracy of the agent’s financial information related to expenditures for fiscal years 

2003 through 2006.

• CTAC transferred all of its $99.3 million in TTP appropriations since fiscal year 

2003 to EPG and SPAWAR to provide law enforcement-related equipment and 

training to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. 
Page 25 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

23

Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for 

TTP (cont’d)

• TTP provided equipment and training for counterdrug operations at no cost to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. In fiscal year 2007, the following

categories of equipment and funding were available for TTP.
Page 26 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

24

Objective 1- CTAC’s Discontinuation of

TTP

• ONDCP officials said they did not request an appropriation for TTP for fiscal years

2007 and 2008 because of competing budgetary priorities. Congress nonetheless

appropriated $10 million for TTP for fiscal year 2007, but did not appropriate any

new funds for fiscal year 2008. 

• CTAC officials said they have begun to phase out TTP because of a lack of funding, 

and it would take time and resources to reestablish it. CTAC officials estimated it

would take at least 1 year to reestablish the program, and an annual funding level of

$10 million to maintain a technology transfer program with a national scope. 

• A law enforcement organization expressed concern about discontinued TTP funding.

According to the Chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police’s

Investigative Operation Committee, the loss of TTP is significant for local law

enforcement. He noted that (1) resources are not available at the local level to 

purchase the equipment ONDCP provided, and (2) local law enforcement cannot

replace the expertise of CTAC staff in understanding trends and changes in

emerging technologies. 
Page 27 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

25

Objective 2- Funding Decisions

• The ONDCP Director’s approach to making R&D funding decisions is not

documented and, therefore, not fully consistent with internal control standards.

11

• Following input from CTAC, the ONDCP Director determines which R&D project 

concepts to fund.

• The Chief Scientist and CTAC officials said they develop an initial list of R&D

funding priorities based on potential projects’ (1) alignment with the National

Drug Control Strategy’s priorities and ONDCP’s operational priorities (see 

appendix II), (2) estimated implementation costs, (3) level of technical risk, (4)

scope, (5) potential for multiple agencies to benefit from the research, and (6) 

amount of funds available.12

• According to CTAC officials, the ONDCP Director, in accordance with his

statutory authority, can accept or modify CTAC’s list of funding priorities and

associated funding levels. They noted that there have been instances where

the Director has modified CTAC’s list of funding priorities, but did not have 

information on its frequency. 11There are five internal control standards: control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communications, and

monitoring. We determined that the ONDCP Director’s approach to R&D funding decisions was not consistent with the standard on control 

activities, which requires, among other things, clear documentation of significant events.

12Appendix III contains additional information on the R&D and TTP funding process; and appendix IV contains information on the process

for awarding R&D funds and selecting recipients of TTP equipment.
Page 28 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

26

Objective 2- Funding Decisions (cont’d)

• The ONDCP Director may determine the ranking and allocation of funds for project

concepts and is not required to document his rationale for selecting particular project 

concepts.

• In any given year, according to CTAC officials, there are many more project

concepts than can be funded. Given the broad priorities of the National Drug 

Control Strategy and ONDCP, virtually all of the project concepts being 

considered by the ONDCP Director may be consistent with these priorities.

• According to CTAC officials, the ONDCP Director has based his R&D funding 

decision on factors such as the feasibility of project success, project costs, and

potential widespread applicability of the results. However, there is no

documentation on whether and how he used these and/or other factors in

arriving at funding decisions, how he weighted the various factors, and what his

rationale was for funding certain project concepts over others. As a result, there 

is a lack of transparency in how funding decisions have been made, and it is

difficult to know whether the project concepts the ONDCP Director selected for 

funding met the highest priority research and technology needs of the

counterdrug community.
Page 29 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

27

Objective 2- Funding Decisions (cont’d)

• GAO’s internal control standards state that all transactions and other significant

events need to be clearly documented, and the documentation should be 

readily available for examination.

• CTAC officials noted that the ONDCP Director has not documented his funding

decisions because the law does not require it. They agreed that such 

information could be developed and said that it could potentially be included in

the spending plan ONDCP submits to Congress.
Page 30 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

28

Objective 3- CTAC Performance

• CTAC established output and outcome performance measures to assess

achievement of its R&D goals, and both measures are generally consistent with

attributes that characterize successful performance measures. However, CTAC’s

methodology for calculating its R&D program outcome is not documented and,

therefore, not clear to stakeholders.

• In accordance with GPRA,

13 CTAC established goals, objectives, and outcomes to 

show how projects can be expected to contribute to intended results, and measures 

of performance for its R&D program output and outcome.

• The goals, objectives, and outcomes/impacts for CTAC’s R&D program are as

follows:

• Program goals: Advance and improve demand and supply reduction 

research and development to enhance understanding of and counteractions

against illegal drug markets.

• Program objectives: Conduct research projects to broaden understanding of the demand and supply side of illegal drug markets and develop technology to assist demand and supply reduction efforts.

• Outcomes/program impacts: Improved understanding of the demand and 

supply side of illegal drug markets and improved demand and supply reduction efforts.

13Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993)
Page 31 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

29

Objective 3- CTAC Performance (cont’d)

• CTAC’s R&D output and outcome performance measures are as follows:

• Output measure:

• CTAC definition: number of research projects initiated to expand understanding of the demand- and supply-side of illegal drug markets.

14

• Fiscal year target: amount of anticipated CTAC R&D appropriation divided by the approximate cost per R&D project in prior fiscal years.

• Outcome measure:

• CTAC definition: Percentage of research projects that form the basis of

or contribute to policy or program direction.

• According to CTAC officials, the ONDCP Director (1) receives

contractor- and CTAC-prepared information on the findings of R&D

projects, (2) determines whether the findings are compelling and

can help address a counterdrug need, and (3) decides whether to

use the available information as a basis for issuing policy or 

program direction to national drug control agencies.

• Fiscal year target: This is based on CTAC officials’ judgment of the 

percentage of R&D projects that will generate a finding that contributes

to policy or program direction. According to CTAC officials, a 50 percent 

target is reasonable because not all R&D projects will produce positive 

findings that can form the basis of or contribute to policy or program direction. 14Projects initiated refers to new R&D project concepts that ONDCP plans to allocate funding to, as documented in the fiscal year spending

plan submitted to Congress. According to CTAC officials, the term research projects refers to R&D project concepts.
Page 32 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

30

Objective 3- CTAC Performance (cont’d)
Page 33 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

31

Objective 3- CTAC Performance (cont’d)

• We have previously reported that successful performance measures have the 

following key attributes.

15

1. Linkage with the goals and mission of the agency

2. Clarity in how it is stated, named, and defined; and consistent with the

methodology used to calculate it

3. Objectivity in being reasonably free from significant bias or manipulation

4. Reliability in producing the same result under similar conditions

5. Measurable target in having a numerical goal

6. Core programs activities in covering the activities that an entity is expected 

to perform to support the intent of the program

• CTAC’s output measure (number of research projects initiated) is generally

consistent with the six key attributes of successful performance measures. 

15GAO-03-143. GAO used various performance management literature, including GPRA, to develop a set of nine specific attributes of

successful performance measures. We determined that six of the nine key attributes of successful performance measures were

applicable to our study.
Page 34 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

32

Objective 3- CTAC Performance (cont’d)

• CTAC’s outcome measure is consistent with five of the six key attributes of

successful performance measures. The measure

• is linked to agency goals and mission;

• has a measurable target;

• is objective;

• is reliable; and

• supports core program activities.

• However, CTAC’s methodology for calculating the outcome of its R&D program is

not clear to stakeholders.

• In accordance with OMB requirements, R&D projects that do not receive 

funding during the same fiscal year in which they contributed to policy or 

program direction are not included in the calculation. Instead, the outcome 

measure is based only on projects that contributed to policy or program direction and also received funding during the same fiscal year. OMB’s

reporting requirements do not provide for agencies to report on R&D projects

that did not receive funding during the fiscal year. However, CTAC has not

documented its methodology for calculating the outcome of its R&D program

and, therefore, it is not clear to stakeholders that CTAC excludes such projects

from its performance calculation. CTAC officials told us they are currently 

working with OMB to address this issue.
Page 35 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

33

Objective 3- CTAC Performance (cont’d)

• CTAC’s performance measures provide information on its R&D program activities 

and the effect of R&D findings on the ONDCP Director’s policy and program

decisions. They do not provide information on the effectiveness of CTAC’s R&D

projects in reducing the demand for and supply of drugs. We have previously

reported that performance measurement in the area of drug control is difficult, in part

because it is difficult to isolate the full impact and effectiveness of a single program 

without considering the role of other drug control efforts.

16 Similarly, CTAC officials

noted that determining R&D projects’ contribution to the effectiveness of policies or

programs in reducing the supply and demand of drugs would be very difficult given 

the great number of intervening variables that would have to be taken into

consideration.

16GAO, Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, T-GGD-97-97 (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1997).
Page 36 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

34

Objective 4- CTAC Reorganization

• CTAC was reorganized in January 2007, following a 7-week period during which 

ONDCP and the Appropriations Committees exchanged a number of

correspondences about ONDCP’s proposed reorganization which, according to

ONDCP, was intended to strengthen CTAC’s research capabilities.

• Reorganization activities

• The general provisions of the 2006 appropriations act for ONDCP, Pub. L. No.

109-115, prohibited agencies, including ONDCP, from using funds appropriated

for obligation or expenditure to reorganize the agency different from the budget

justifications submitted to the Committees on Appropriations or from other 

specified documentation, unless prior approval was received from the 

Committees on Appropriations. This restriction continued into fiscal year 2007 

through a series of continuing appropriations resolutions. 

• ONDCP advised Congress on December 1,2006, that it intended to reorganize

CTAC. The stated purpose was to ensure a more integrated and coordinated 

approach to research; and improve oversight of and support for the ONDCP

Director’s research priorities.
Page 37 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

35

Objective 4- CTAC Reorganization

(cont’d)

• Prior to the reorganization, Appropriations Committee staff indicated in a 

number of correspondences that ONDCP should not proceed with its

reorganization plans.

• ONDCP finalized the CTAC reorganization on January 22, 2007. (See appendix 

V for a description of the reorganization timeline.) 

• ONDCP transferred its policy research and performance measures

development functions into CTAC, thereby placing them under the authority of

the Chief Scientist.

17

• Eight full time equivalent positions were reassigned from ONDCP’s Office of

Planning and Budget, which housed the policy research and performance

measure functions, into CTAC.

• The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-5,

states that the structure of any of the offices or components within the Office of

National Drug Control Policy shall remain as they were on October 1, 2006. 

CTAC officials told us they did not return to the previous structure because,

among other things, the CTAC reorganization had taken place on January 22,

2007, prior to the legislation being enacted.

17According to CTAC officials, policy research informs the ONDCP Director on drugs issues and the effectiveness of supply and demand

reduction program activities in achieving strategic goals and objectives. Performance measures development provides policymakers with

data and analysis to measure the performances of drug reduction programs and policies.
Page 38 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

36

Conclusions

• The requirements for the ONDCP Director’s R&D funding determinations are broadly

stated, making it possible for a wide variety of potential demand and supply

reduction project concepts to be eligible for funding. Clarification of how various

factors were considered in funding decisions, including the Director’s rationale for 

choosing among project concepts, would facilitate greater accountability for 

ONDCP’s use of funds and provide greater insight into whether CTAC has focused

its efforts on the counterdrug community’s highest priority research and technology 

needs.
Page 39 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

37

Recommendation

• To promote greater transparency in funding decisions and increased accountability

for the best use of CTAC’s R&D funds, we recommend that the ONDCP Director

identify the role that different factors played in funding decisions, and document the 

basis for selecting specific R&D project concepts for funding, including the rationale 

for selecting certain project concepts over others.
Page 40 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

38

Agency Comments

• We provided a draft of this report to the Office of National Drug Control Policy

(ONDCP) for review and comment.

• On March 6, 2009, we received written comments from ONDCP on the draft report, 

which are reproduced in appendix VI. ONDCP concurred with the findings and

recommendation in our report and agreed that identifying selection criteria and 

documenting the director’s decisions should promote transparency in funding 

decisions and greater accountability for the best use of CTAC’s R&D funds.

• Additionally, we received technical comments from ONDCP, which were 

incorporated where appropriate.
Page 41 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

39

Appendix I- CTAC Funding
Page 42 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

40

Appendix II- Strategy and ONDCP 

Priorities

• National Drug Control Strategy’s priorities

1. Stopping Drug Use Before It Starts: education and community action;

2. Healing America’s Users: getting treatment resources where they are needed;

and

3. Disrupting the Market: attacking the economic base of drug trade

• ONDCP’s operational priorities

1. Screen, intervene, and treat;

2. Student drug testing;

3. Marijuana; 

4. Prescription drug safety/methamphetamine;

5. International partnerships; and

6. Southwest border flow
Page 43 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

41

Appendix III- R&D and TTP Funding

Process

• R&D funding process

1. Identify needs: The ONDCP Director and CTAC officials participate in

interagency working groups and forums to identify research and technology needs within the counterdrug community.

2. Rank priorities: CTAC generally solicits project concepts from ONDCP’s 

program offices and federal drug control agencies. CTAC officials said they develop an initial list of funding priorities based on potential projects’ (1) 

alignment with the National Drug Control Strategy’s priorities and ONDCP’s 

operational priorities, (2) estimated implementation costs, (3) level of

technical risk, (4) scope, (5) potential for multiple agencies to benefit from

the research, and (6) amount of funds available. CTAC officials said they

submit their initial prioritized list of R&D project concepts to the ONDCP

Director and discuss those priorities as necessary.

3. Select project concepts: According to CTAC officials, the ONDCP Director

can accept or modify CTAC’s priority rankings and recommended funding levels for project concepts. The ONDCP Director submits a spending plan 

to Congress that details the amount of funds to be used for new and

existing project concepts. The spending plan does not detail the factors the 

ONDCP Director considered in making the selection, or the rationale for 

deciding to fund certain project concepts over others.
Page 44 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

42

Appendix III- R&D and TTP Funding 

Process (cont’d)

• TTP funding process18

1. Identified and prioritized needs: CTAC officials met with senior law enforcement 

experts to ascertain their priorities for the equipment to be made available by

the TTP program.

2. Selected TTP equipment: The contracting agent issued a competitive 

solicitation for proposals. Senior law enforcement experts and the contracting

agent reviewed potential contractors’ proposals, and determined whether to list

the equipment in an online catalogue.19 The contracting agent selected the 

contractor, negotiated the terms of the contract, listed the equipment in the 

online catalogue, and managed the contract.

18Describes process in place until fiscal year 2008, when TTP funding was discontinued. 19CTAC officials said the catalogue ceased to be posted in fiscal year 2008.
Page 45 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

43

Appendix IV- R&D and TTP Award 

Process

• R&D award process

1. Transfer funds to contracting agent: Funds are transferred through interagency 

agreements between ONDCP and its contracting agent that specify the amount

of funding for each R&D project concept.

2. Solicit proposals: The contracting agent uses (1) in-house resources to fulfill the

requirements of the contract, or (2) Broad Agency Announcements or Requests

for Proposals to solicit competitive proposals from potential contractors, such

as industry, academia, and national laboratories.

3. Review proposals: Proposals undergo a technical peer review by subject matter 

experts, which can include contractor technical staff, representatives from

stakeholder agencies, and CTAC officials.

4. Select contractor to carry out R&D project: The contracting agent selects the 

contractor, negotiates the terms of the contract, and manages the contract.
Page 46 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

44

Appendix IV- R&D and TTP Award 

Process (cont’d)

• Process for selecting TTP recipients20

1. Transferred funds to contracting agent: Funds were transferred through 

interagency agreements that specified the amount of funds to be allocated to

the program.

2. Reviewed applications: The contracting agent posted equipment available in

the TTP catalogue21 on Web site. State, local, and tribal law enforcement 

agencies submitted applications to the contracting agent for the equipment

listed in the TTP catalogue.

3. Selected recipients: CTAC officials and the contracting agent reviewed

applications and selected recipients of the equipment after competitively

scoring and ranking applications.

20Describes process in place until fiscal year 2008, when TTP funding was discontinued. 21CTAC officials said the catalogue ceased to be posted in fiscal year 2008.
Page 47 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

45

Appendix V- Reorganization Timeline

November 30, 2005: The general provisions of the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-115, § 710, 119 Stat. 2396, 2491-92 prohibits the funds provided in the Act, provided by previous appropriations

Acts to the agencies or entities funded in the Act that remain available for obligation

or expenditure in fiscal year 2006, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury derived by the collection of fees and available to agencies funded by this Act, from

being available for obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds that, among other things, creates, reorganizes, or restructures a branch, division, office, bureau, board, commission, agency, administration, or department different from the

budget justifications submitted to the Committees on Appropriations or the table 

accompanying the statement of the managers accompanying this Act, whichever is

more detailed, unless prior approval is received from the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations. This restriction continued into fiscal year 2007 

through a series of continuing appropriations resolutions.

December 1, 2006: ONDCP sent letters to House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations notifying them of the agency’s intent to reorganize CTAC and the 

Office of Planning and Budget, citing Public Law 109-115.
Page 48 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

46

Appendix V- Reorganization Timeline

(cont’d)

December 20, 2006: Via e-mail, ONDCP’s Office of Legislative Affairs requested a 

meeting with Senate Committee on Appropriations staff to discuss the CTAC

reorganization. Staff from the Senate Committee on Appropriations informed

ONDCP that the committee was unavailable and the earliest meeting time would be

January 2007.

January 3, 2007: Via e-mail, ONDCP’s Office of Legislative Affairs requested a meeting

with Senate Committee on Appropriations staff to discuss CTAC’s reorganization.

January 4, 2007: Via e-mail, staff from the Senate Committee on Appropriations

informed ONDCP that the committee was restructuring and to wait on implementing

the reorganization plans. January 9, 2007: Via e-mail, ONDCP’s Office of Legislative Affairs offered to provide

written explanation of the CTAC reorganization to the Senate Committee on 

Appropriations. January 10, 2007: Via e-mail, staff from the Senate Committee on Appropriations

advised ONDCP that the committee’s priority was working on the continuing

resolution and to wait on implementation of the reorganization plan.

January 17, 2007: ONDCP’s Office of Legislative Affairs submitted CTAC’s

reorganization plan to the Senate Committee on Appropriations and began the 

process of moving staff based on the reorganization plan.
Page 49 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

47

Appendix V- Reorganization Timeline 

(cont’d)

January 22, 2007: The ONDCP Director instructed that 8 full time equivalent positions

be reassigned from the Office of Planning and Budget to CTAC. Personnel actions

for reassigned staff are dated January 22, 2007.

February 15, 2007:The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution of 2007, Pub. L.

No. 110-5, 121 Stat. 8, 55-56, states that the structure of any of the offices or 

components within the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall remain as they

were on October 1, 2006, and none of the funds appropriated may be used to

implement a reorganization of offices without the explicit approval of the House and

Senate Appropriations Committees. CTAC officials told us they did not return to the

previous structure because, among other things, the CTAC reorganization had taken 

place on January 22, 2007 prior to the legislation being enacted.
Page 50 GAO-09-339R CTAC Funding Decisions 

(440703) 

Appendix VI: Comments from the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

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

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

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

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

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

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

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs