DESIGN FOR A

HIDTA/OCDETF

PERFORMANCE MONITORING

AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

XE

CE UT

VI

E

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STA ET S

OFFICE OF NATIONAL D R UG CONTROL POLICY

UNUM

E PLURIBUS

Technical Report
TECHNICAL REPORT 

DESIGN FOR A HIDTA/OCDETF

PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

Executive Office of the President 

Washington, DC 20503 

January 2003 
Acknowledgements 

This publication was sponsored by the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug 

Control Policy (ONDCP) and the United States Department of Justice (DoJ). Dr. Sherrie S. Aitken 

and other members of the CSR, Incorporated project team produced this publication on contract to 

ONDCP under DHHS prime contract number 280-00-0006, task order number 5. Dr. Terry S. 

Zobeck served as the Task Order Officer for this contract. Dr. M. Fe Caces of ONDCP served as 

project coordinator and Mr. Joseph Rainey of DoJ was the agency liaison. 

ONDCP and DoJ also wish to acknowledge review comments from the following experts who 

graciously agreed to read and share their insights on a preliminary version of this report: Ms. Lisa 

Araiza, U.S. Department of Justice; Prof. Alfred Blumstein, Carnegie Mellon University; Dr. John 

Carnevale, Carnevale Associates, LLC; Dr. Patrick Gartin, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mr. 

John Linder, John Linder & Associates; Prof. Richard Rosenfeld, University of Missouri; Dr. Philip 

S. Schaenman, Tri-Data Corporation; Mr. Robert Warshaw, Independent Consultant; and Dr. Eric 

Wish, CESAR/University of Maryland. 

Disclaimer 

The opinions expressed herein are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official 

policy of the Federal Government. 

Public Domain Notice 

All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may be reproduced without 

permission from ONDCP or the authors. However, this publication may not be reproduced or 

distributed for a fee without the specific, written authorization of ONDCP. Citation of the source is 

appreciated. Suggested citation: 

Office of National Drug Control Policy (2003). Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance 

Monitoring and Management System. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President 

(Publication No. NCJ 197717). 

Electronic Access to Publication 

This publication can be accessed electronically through the following World Wide Web address: 

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov 

Originating Office 

Executive Office of the President 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

Washington, DC 20503 

Publication Number 197717 

January 2003 

ii 
iii 

Table of Contents 

LIST OF EXHIBITS .......................................................................................................................... v 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. vii 

1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Background............................................................................................................................ 1 

1.2 Project Design........................................................................................................................ 3 

1.3 Government Performance and Results Act: The Impetus for Measurement......................... 5 

1.4 The Role of Performance Monitoring.................................................................................... 6 

1.5 Purposes of the Proposed Performance Monitoring and Management System..................... 7 

2. HIDTA AND OCDETF PROGRAM COMPONENTS............................................................. 9 

2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 9 

2.2 The HIDTA Program............................................................................................................. 9 

2.2.1 HIDTA Program National Goals .............................................................................. 9 

2.2.2 Individual HIDTA Goals ........................................................................................ 10 

2.2.3 HIDTA Program Participants.................................................................................. 10 

2.2.4 HIDTA Partnerships ............................................................................................... 12 

2.2.5 HIDTA Program Activities..................................................................................... 13 

2.2.6 HIDTA Program Outputs........................................................................................ 16 

2.2.7 HIDTA Program Outcomes .................................................................................... 18 

2.2.8 HIDTA Program Impacts........................................................................................ 19 

2.3 The OCDETF Program........................................................................................................ 20 

2.3.1 Department of Justice Strategic Goals .................................................................... 20 

2.3.2 National OCDETF Program Goals ......................................................................... 21 

2.3.3 OCDETF Program Participants .............................................................................. 21 

2.3.4 OCDETF Program Activities.................................................................................. 24 

2.3.5 OCDETF Program Outputs..................................................................................... 26 

2.3.6 OCDETF Program Outcomes ................................................................................. 28 

2.3.7 OCDETF Impacts ................................................................................................... 29 

2.4 Summary: Comparison of HIDTA and OCDETF ............................................................... 30 

3. PRESENTATION OF LOGIC MODELS ................................................................................ 31 

3.1 Issues Influencing Development of Logic Models.............................................................. 31 

3.2 Purposes of Logic Models ................................................................................................... 34 

3.3 Logic Model for HIDTA Program....................................................................................... 35 

3.3.1 Resources ................................................................................................................ 36 

3.3.2 Program Activities .................................................................................................. 36 

3.3.3 Outputs.................................................................................................................... 36 

3.3.4 Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 38 

3.3.5 Impacts .................................................................................................................... 38 

3.3.6 Antecedent Variables .............................................................................................. 38 

3.3.7 Contextual or Mediating Variables......................................................................... 38 

3.4 Logic Model for OCDETF Program.................................................................................... 39 

3.4.1 Resources ................................................................................................................ 39 

3.4.2 Program Activities .................................................................................................. 41 

3.4.3 Outputs.................................................................................................................... 41 

3.4.4 Outcomes ................................................................................................................ 41 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

iv 

3.4.5 Impacts .................................................................................................................... 41 

3.4.6 Antecedent Variables .............................................................................................. 41 

3.4.7 Contextual or Mediating Variables......................................................................... 42 

3.5 Summary.............................................................................................................................. 42 

4. PERFORMANCE MEASURES ................................................................................................ 43 

4.1 Selection of Measures That Are Sensitive to Program Context .......................................... 43 

4.1.1 The Reach of the HIDTA and OCDETF Programs ................................................ 44 

4.1.2 Geographic Target of the Program.......................................................................... 44 

4.1.3 Level of Program Operation ................................................................................... 45 

4.2 Quantitative and Qualitative Measurements........................................................................ 45 

4.3 Criteria for Selecting Measures and Measurement Sources ................................................ 46 

4.3.1 Credibility of the Measure ...................................................................................... 46 

4.3.2 Consistency and Comparability of Measurement Data........................................... 47 

4.3.3 Availability and Cost of Information ...................................................................... 48 

4.3.4 Generalizability of the Data Source ........................................................................ 48 

4.4 Organization of the Menu of Measures ............................................................................... 49 

5. ISSUES IN IMPLEMENTING THE PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ....................................................................................................... 59 

5.1 Review of Existing Reporting Systems ............................................................................... 59 

5.1.1 HIDTA .................................................................................................................... 59 

5.1.2 OCDETF ................................................................................................................. 61

5.1.3 Other Reports .......................................................................................................... 61

5.2 Discussion of Appropriateness/Availability of Data ........................................................... 64 

5.2.1 Multiple Measures for Multiple Users .................................................................... 64 

5.2.2 Comparative Measures............................................................................................ 65 

5.2.3 Automated Systems................................................................................................. 65 

5.3 Key Stakeholders in the Process of Implementing the System ........................................... 66 

5.4 Recommend Processes for Compiling Qualitative Information.......................................... 68 

5.5 Recommend Process for Reviewing Information/Feeding Into Management of 

Program................................................................................................................................ 70 

6. NEXT STEPS IN DEVELOPING THE PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ....................................................................................................... 73 

6.1 Convene Performance Measurement Experts for Review and Advice................................ 74 

6.2 Develop a Timeline.............................................................................................................. 76 

6.3 Prioritize the Outcomes To Measure ................................................................................... 77 

6.4 Specify Measures and Data Sources.................................................................................... 82 

6.5 Pilot-Test the Performance Monitoring and Management System...................................... 85 

6.6 Prepare a Detailed Implementation Plan ............................................................................. 87 

REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................89

GLOSSARY........................................................................................................................................91 

LIST OF ACRONYMS .....................................................................................................................93

APPENDIX A: Annotated Bibliography ................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B: HIDTA Program Elements...............................................................................B-1 

APPENDIX C: OCDETF Program Elements............................................................................C-1 

APPENDIX D: Legislative Authority for HIDTA and OCDETF Programs......................... D-1
v 

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 3-1. Basic Elements of the Logic Model................................................................................31 

Exhibit 3-2. HIDTA Logic Model ......................................................................................................37 

Exhibit 3-3. OCDETF Logic Model ...................................................................................................40 

Exhibit 4-1. Menu of Currently Available Data Sources for Outputs, Outcomes, and Impacts.........50 

Exhibit 4-2. Identification of Data Sources to Document Antecedents, Resources, Partners, 

Activities, and Mediating Variables ...............................................................................55 

Exhibit 6-1. Proposed Timeline for Finalizing Performance Monitoring and Management 

System for HIDTA and OCDETF Programs..................................................................78 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND 

The HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System project 

represents the shared commitment of the White House Office of National Drug 

Control Policy (ONDCP) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to develop a 

method to examine the accomplishments of two major drug enforcement 

programs: the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) and the Organized 

Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) programs. 

The mission of the HIDTA program is to eliminate or reduce drug trafficking and 

its harmful consequences in critical regions of the United States. The mission of 

the OCDETF program is to disrupt and dismantle major drug trafficking 

organizations (DTOs) and related criminal enterprises. The OCDETF program 

provides a platform for Federal, state, and local LEAs to work together to target 

well-established and complex organizations that direct, finance, or engage in 

illegal narcotics trafficking and related crimes. 

In some regards HIDTAs and OCDETFs are very similar entities. Both target 

DTOs involved in the production, transfer and distribution of illegal drugs. Both 

are intended to encourage and support interagency law enforcement coordination, 

and involve prosecutors early in the investigation process. Both programs share 

the same primary objective: to disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking and money 

laundering organizations. In general, OCDETFs focus exclusively on higherlevel, multi-jurisdictional DTOs, while HIDTAs can focus on specific types of 

drug trafficking activities (e.g., production, transport, distribution, or profits). 

DOJ and the ONDCP face a major challenge in developing and obtaining 

agreement on performance goals and measures in cross-cutting areas such as 

those addressed by the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. The purpose of the 

HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System project is to 

support and guide the development of an interagency performance measurement 

system to help gauge the effectiveness of the two programs. 

Project Design 

The project includes two major tasks: (1) to identify law-enforcement program 

measures specifically relevant to HIDTA and OCDETF, and (2) to recommend a 

method for implementing a management, reporting system for the two programs. 

CSR’s contract that produced this report specifically states that “this project is the 

first step in what ONDCP and DOJ envision to be a long-term implementation of 

a performance monitoring system for law enforcement joint task force efforts, 

such as HIDTAs and OCDETFs.” This initial design phase will be field tested on 

several HIDTA and OCDETF programs. 

vii 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

Government Performance and Results Act: The Impetus for 

Measurement 

This project was heavily influenced by the Government Performance and Results 

Act (GPRA) of 1993. GPRA requirements dictate several important components 

that must be addressed in measuring a program’s performance: a mission 

statement covering the program’s major functions and operations; a clear 

understanding of long-term, outcome-related goals and objectives; a description 

of how the program’s goals and objectives will be achieved, including the 

resources and activities required to meet the goals and objectives; and the 

identification of factors outside the control of the program that could affect the 

achievement of the long-term goals and objectives. 

Purposes of the Proposed Performance Monitoring System 

The key elements of the performance monitoring and management system 

developed for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs will (1) provide information on 

how the program is operating; (2) determine whether, and to what extent, program 

objectives are being achieved; and (3) identify successes and failures to produce 

program outcomes, for use in managing and redesigning program operations. 

PRESENTATION OF PROGRAM MODELS FOR HIDTA AND OCDETF 

This report presents a model of each program to illustrate how the HIDTA and 

OCDETF programs work to achieve their intended objectives. Each model starts 

with desired program changes, presents the inputs or resources of the program, 

and shows how the program works through planned activities or processes to 

produce outputs, outcomes, and impacts. 

Several operational issues were taken into consideration in developing each 

model. Each model includes the following program components. 

• Resources—include funding, personnel, facilities, equipment, and supplies. 

•	 Program activities—are actions taken to execute policy and program 

objectives. Particularly at the beginning of a program, activities may include 

development of an infrastructure (e.g., forming/negotiating relationships 

among agencies, capacity building). Ongoing activities may include program 

components, such as delivery of a training program, or program initiatives, 

such as the operation of a task force. 

•	 Outputs—reflect internal activities and are the direct results of program 

activities. They are intended to fulfill program objectives and can usually be 

expressed quantitatively, e.g., number of people who completed a training 

program, number of arrests resulting from a task force investigation, rate of 

convictions from prosecution of members of a DTO. 

viii 
Executive Summary 

•	 Outcomes—are the results of program outputs or products that signify 

progress toward program goals. Outcomes are usually expressed as an 

intended change, such as better-trained law enforcement officers, disruption of 

a drug-trafficking ring, or closing down of a money laundering operation. 

•	 Impacts—are the broader, sometimes indirect effects of policies and 

programs. Impacts may be reflected in measures external to the program, (e.g., 

lower drug crime rate or lower violent crime rate) as measured by a 

jurisdiction’s annual crime report, or reduced availability of a drug or lower 

emergency room admissions for drug-related causes. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

After the program is defined through the program model, the next step is to select 

measures of performance. A variety of data sources need to be identified and 

developed to measure the performance of the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. 

Quantitative data exist in many current sources, including HIDTA and OCDETF 

program reports and management information systems, and in other national and 

local reporting systems. Qualitative assessments of performance support a better 

understanding of the “hard” numbers and strengthen program managers’ ability to 

assess performance. This kind of information can be collected through interviews 

and group discussions, from intelligence reports and reports developed by groups 

engaged in community-based research. 

The proposed measures for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs focus on 

outcomes and impacts. With limited Federal, state, and local resources to combat 

the problems associated with drug use, achievement of success must be measured 

in these terms. At the same time, the performance monitoring and management 

system design must recognize that the GPRA and the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) require that program resources, activities, and partners also need 

to be documented. 

The performance monitoring and management system builds its foundation with 

the use of existing reporting systems, both internal and external to the HIDTA and 

OCDETF programs. Two fundamental principles guide the implementation of the 

performance monitoring and management system: (1) to make it a useful 

management tool for HIDTA and OCDETF program managers at each level in the 

organizations; and (2) to balance reporting requirements from the field with 

appropriate feedback from headquarters. 

Much of the data to measure the performance of HIDTAs can come from four 

annual reports to ONDCP: Annual Report, due April 15; Threat Assessment, due 

May 15; Strategy, due June 15; and Initiatives/Budget, also due June 15. The 

Annual Report contains information on major DTOs that were targeted in the 

previous 12 months and reports program outputs, outcomes, and impacts. The 

other three reports provide information on program activities. The Threat 

Assessment describes the illicit drug-related activities that affect the HIDTA 

ix 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

region. The Strategy is the HIDTA’s plan to reduce the identified drug threat in 

the region. It reports on a number of factors centered on coordination of efforts 

and sharing of intelligence and information. The Initiatives/Budget submission 

documents both resources and outcomes. Initiatives planned for the upcoming 

year are submitted with projected funding requirements. Each initiative approved 

for funding must be accounted for in the following year’s Initiatives/Budget 

submission, including outcomes and accounting for funds. 

Much of the data for the OCDETF Performance Measurement System will come 

from four forms that are submitted on each OCDETF case: Investigation Initiation 

Form (IIF); Indictment and Information Forms (Part A Case; Part B Defendant); 

Disposition and Sentencing Report; and OCDETF Closing Report. The forms are 

submitted from the field for entry in the OCDETF management information 

system. As the name suggests, the forms are submitted at different points as the 

case progresses. The information they provide is important for measuring 

program activities and outcomes. 

IMPLEMENTING THE PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

Implementation of the Performance Monitoring and Management System should 

include program staff in Washington and in the field who will be involved in 

operation of the system (i.e., system users at all levels). For the HIDTA program, 

this includes representatives from the ONDCP HIDTA Program Office, HIDTA 

Executive Boards, and HIDTA Directors. Representation of program staff for the 

OCDETF program is somewhat more complex because of the number of agencies 

involved and the layers in the program. In Washington, the OCDETF Executive 

Office must be involved, including staff responsible for the MIS. The Washington 

Agency Representative Group (WARG) should also be involved because the 

Program Guidelines specifically charge the WARG with disseminating 

performance measures and monitoring achievement. At the Regional level, 

representation should come from Advisory Councils, which are responsible for 

the Annual Strategic Plan for their Regions, and from Regional Coordination 

Groups, which are responsible for submitting all reports on OCDETF cases. In 

addition to representatives from U.S. Attorneys Offices, representatives should 

include Special Agents in Charge from the various agencies involved in typical 

OCDETF cases. 

Refinement and testing of the draft performance monitoring and management 

system will involve careful planning; continued commitment to involving all 

participants who understand and support the system; responsible testing of the 

system; and training of staff at the national, regional, and task force levels to 

ensure that the information produced is reliable and used in a proper manner. 

Four distinct, yet interrelated activities will guide the implementation phase: 

• Prioritize the outcomes to measure; 

x 
Executive Summary 

• Specify measures and data sources; 

• Pilot-test the performance monitoring and management system; and 

• Prepare a detailed work plan. 

Prioritize the Outcomes to Measure 

It will be important to prioritize, or rank order, those outcomes or results that 

should be the focus of measuring program performance. These decisions must be 

guided by the legislative mandate for each program, input from program 

managers regarding ongoing and new program initiatives, congressional oversight 

concerns, and a host of other considerations that are important to the HIDTA and 

OCDETF program strategies. The following steps should be taken in deciding on 

the outcomes to be measured: 

•	 Obtain input from key decision makers concerning the most important 

program outcomes to be measured; 

•	 Refine the program models already developed and have them stand the test of 

approval from agency and program leadership; and 

• Agree on the specific methods to be used to measure the program. 

The task of prioritizing outcomes will force the key players to focus on what is 

important to measure. 

Specify Measures and Data Sources 

Some outcomes are fairly easy to observe, count and measure, such as the number 

of drug-related deaths, the number of homicides, the number of drug-related 

arrests, the number of prosecutions and indictments, and the number of 

convictions occurring in a given year in a particular county. Typically, these 

measures are used because they are collected on a fairly uniform basis across the 

country. However, many outcomes related to HIDTA and OCDETF missions are 

not concrete enough to measure directly. Several other considerations should be 

used to guide the selection of measures: 

• Confirm that there is at least one measure for each prioritized outcome; 

• Ensure each measure reports a tangible outcome; and 

•	 Make sure that the information reported is clear and enables the program 

manager to count important facts. 

Once the outcomes to be measured have been ranked, and the measures have been 

identified, the basic ingredients of the performance monitoring and management 

system are in place. The next step is to identify data sources and data collection 

methods. Decisions have to be made about how to collect the information and 

how to make sure it is accurate and current. 

xi 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

Several criteria should guide the decision on new data collection systems, 

including: 

•	 Is the data collection method feasible and affordable? Is there a less costly 

way to collect the information? 

•	 Will the resulting data be useful to program managers for program 

improvement? 

•	 Will the resulting data be credible to those outside the specific HIDTA or 

OCDETF operation who are making decisions about program priorities and 

funding? 

Pilot-Test the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

The pilot test will provide an opportunity to identify issues regarding the 

practicality of the system and to understand the value-added benefit of the 

measurement system. The pilot test will also provide an opportunity to identify 

unanticipated outcomes, identify measures that need better definition and data 

collection procedures that require further streamlining, and document reporting 

problems. The pilot will enable ONDCP and DOJ to identify potential problems, 

introduce improvements and increase the usefulness of the system to 

management. 

The pilot test should monitor the following: 

•	 How much time is spent on data collection, including collecting data from 

existing records/data sources, interviews, and other field data collection; 

• What data are easy to retrieve, difficult to collect, or missing; 

• What data collection methods are difficult or impossible to complete; 

• What errors occur in the analysis and reporting of data; and 

• What data are required to measure prioritized outcomes but not yet available. 

The pilot test also provides an opportunity to identify the best ways to present 

information for various audiences, such as project directors, executive boards, 

national program offices, OMB, and congressional committees. 

Prepare a Detailed Work Plan 

A detailed work plan will focus on introducing the outcome measures for the 

HIDTA and OCDETF programs on a gradual basis, integrating the new measures 

into existing reporting systems, and outlining training and technical assistance 

that will be required to support a full-scale adoption of the system by both 

programs. The work plan will include procedures that task forces and grantees can 

use to estimate the cost of implementing the performance monitoring and 

management system. 

xii 
Executive Summary 

The work plan will identify which measures should be implemented first, with a 

recommended phase-in schedule that considers the following: (1) measures that 

are most critical to assessing program performance; (2) those that are easiest to 

use; and (3) those that can be implemented at minimal cost to the National 

Program Offices and to the grantees/task forces. 

Some of the toughest challenges to developing the performance monitoring and 

management system have been tackled by this project: (1) translating the general 

HIDTA and OCDETF mission statements into measurable goals and objectives; 

(2) distinguishing between outputs, outcomes, and long-term impacts; and 

(3) specifying, through the development of program models, how the programs’ 

operations are intended to produce the desired outputs and outcomes. 

It is clear that the value of performance measurement has now been imbedded in 

the organizational culture of both programs. The information and 

recommendations for future steps, contained in this report, reflect a commitment 

to accountability that is consistent with the spirit of this Administration and its 

participating agencies. The ultimate success of the HIDTA and OCDETF 

performance monitoring and management system will be supported by the 

continued leadership of senior management within ONDCP and DOJ. 

xiii 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 BACKGROUND 

The HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System project 

represents the shared commitment of the White House Office of National Drug 

Control Policy (ONDCP) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to develop a 

framework that will examine the logic, assumptions, program activities, funding 

issues, and other contributory factors that affect the achievement of targets for 

two major drug law enforcement programs: the High Intensity Drug Trafficking 

Area (HIDTA) and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force 

(OCDETF) programs. 

The annual performance plans prepared by both DOJ and ONDCP support the 

President’s drug control policies to curtail the use of illegal drugs with an 

increased focus on coordinated interagency law enforcement efforts, thereby 

making better use of each agency’s unique experience. Both the DOJ and the 

ONDCP face a major challenge in developing and obtaining agreement on 

performance goals and indicators in cross-cutting areas such as those addressed 

by the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. The purpose of the HIDTA/OCDETF 

Performance Monitoring and Management System project is to support and guide 

the development of an interagency performance measurement system to help 

gauge the effectiveness of the two programs. 

The Director of ONDCP is authorized to designate as HIDTAs certain areas 

within the United States that exhibit serious drug-trafficking problems and that 

harmfully influence other areas of the country. The mission of the HIDTA 

program is to enhance and coordinate drug-control efforts among local, state, and 

Federal law enforcement agencies in order to eliminate or reduce drug trafficking 

and its harmful consequences in these critical areas. The HIDTA program began 

in 1990 in 5 areas of the United States and by the end of 2001 had grown to 

28 areas. The geographic boundaries of HIDTAs vary considerably. Some include 

several counties that cluster around a metropolitan area and others include 

counties located in several states. 

The OCDETF program is the centerpiece of the U.S. Attorney General’s strategy 

to reduce the availability of drugs. The principal mission of the OCDETF 

program is to disrupt and dismantle major drug trafficking organizations 

(MDTOs) and related criminal enterprises. The OCDETF program provides a 

platform for Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to work together 

to target well-established and complex organizations that direct, finance, or 

engage in illegal narcotics trafficking and related crimes. The United States is 

organized into 94 judicial districts, each with its own U.S. Attorney. These 

jurisdictions are organized into nine OCDETF regions. 

1 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

The HIDTA and the OCDETF programs share a common commitment to 

facilitating Federal, state, and local law enforcement efforts to combat drug use. 

The design and intent of both programs is to provide resources that support 

collaboration among Federal, state, and local partners to respond to drug 

trafficking. Both programs face the challenge of measuring their effectiveness in 

achieving this common goal. HIDTA and OCDETF program managers need 

information that can clearly identify the link between law enforcement efforts and 

their impact on drug traffickers and drug-trafficking systems. 

The HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System project 

grew out of a strong concern on the part of the DOJ Criminal Division and 

ONDCP to make the OCDETF and HIDTA programs accountable for the public 

funds that support them. Both programs have been grappling with the challenge to 

effectively measure performance. DOJ and ONDCP understand the importance of 

agreeing on measurable goals, performance measures and milestones, and output 

and outcome measures for the OCDETF and HIDTA programs. 

DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2003 Performance Plan highlights the importance of 

developing strategic planning and performance monitoring for the OCDETF 

program. Most recently, OCDETF stated its commitment to “demonstrate 

effective performance by developing and achieving meaningful, outcome-oriented 

performance targets” (OCDETF, n.d.). 

Likewise, for each agency receiving HIDTA funds, ONDCP recognizes the need 

to establish performance milestones and measurable goals, output and outcome 

measures appropriate for evaluating progress, and a process for collecting and 

reporting this information. ONDCP has made a commitment to “work closely 

with affected departments and agencies, the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), and interested committees of the Congress to formulate a revised drug 

budget presentation for the FY 2004 budget cycle, consistent with the principle of 

managing by results” (ONDCP, 2002, p. 10). In that report, ONDCP highlighted 

the importance of identifying and developing indicators and additional data 

sources to measure the performance of the HIDTA program (p. 20). 

Although ONDCP and DOJ agree on the importance of developing a performance 

monitoring and management system, the HIDTA and OCDETF program offices 

also recognize the difficulty inherent in measuring the performance of these two 

programs. There are limited data available to measure the relationship between 

drugs and crime or to measure law enforcement’s impact on drug trafficking. The 

development of a methodologically sound and programmatically feasible 

monitoring system requires a thorough review of the programs’ missions, goals, 

objectives, activities, and intended outputs and outcomes. This report will lay the 

foundation for describing these program components, developing a structure for 

modeling each program, identifying output and outcome measures, and 

recommending a process for implementing a system to support the systematic 

monitoring of both the HIDTA and the OCDETF programs. 

2 
Introduction 

1.2 PROJECT DESIGN 

The project includes two major tasks: (1) to identify a menu of law-enforcement 

program measures specifically relevant to HIDTA and/or OCDETF, and (2) to 

develop a recommended method of implementing a measurement and reporting 

system for the two programs. CSR’s contract that produced this report specifically 

states that “this project is the first step in what ONDCP and DOJ envision to be a 

long-term implementation of a performance monitoring system for lawenforcement joint task force efforts, such as HIDTAs and OCDETFs.” The 

contract also states that following this initial design phase, “the performance 

monitoring system will be field tested on several HIDTA or OCDETF programs 

to modify the system so that it is fully feasible, meaningful, and useful to 

individual programs.” The contract further states that the “long-term goal is to 

have a monitoring system institutionalized through the involvement of program 

directors.” 

Within the first 10 weeks of this project, several steps were undertaken to guide 

the identification of a menu of measures. First, staff of CSR, Incorporated 

completed a review of the literature concerning evaluation and performance 

measurement, particularly as it relates to law enforcement programs. The major 

product of this review is an annotated bibliography, presented in Appendix A to 

this report. This bibliography identifies all documents reviewed, summarizes each 

document in a systematic manner, and discusses key findings. 

Second, CSR researchers conducted a thorough review of all available program 

materials relating to the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. These documents 

included the legislative mandate, reports prepared by the General Accounting 

Office, departmental memoranda, program guidance and reporting manuals, and 

descriptive materials documenting, for each program, goals, objectives, activities, 

and milestones. This review resulted in two products: (1) a directory of program 

materials, included as part of Appendix A, and (2) a presentation of program 

elements for each program, presented in Appendices B and C. 

Third, staff from CSR conducted detailed discussions with program 

representatives at the Federal and local levels. These individuals included 

ONDCP and DOJ officials, contractors involved in program monitoring activities, 

and state and local law enforcement officials who participate as HIDTA directors, 

Federal Agency/OCDETF coordinators, U.S. attorneys, and members of HIDTA 

and OCDETF task forces. These discussions helped clarify program descriptions 

contained in the written documents and provided further insight to key actors’ 

understanding of the mission and operation of each program. This review process 

also facilitated the involvement of key players at the Federal, state, and local level 

in the development of a performance monitoring and management system that 

will represent the reality of each program’s day-to-day operations and intended 

outputs and outcomes. In the course of designing a performance monitoring and 

management system, it is critical to involve the key stakeholders who will 

ultimately use the system as a management tool. This process was intended to 

ensure a sound understanding of staff members’ expectations of the role of 

3 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

performance monitoring in the context of their regular program responsibilities. A 

detailed description of the HIDTA and OCDETF programs is presented in 

Chapter 2 of this report. 

Synthesis of this information will serve as valuable input to the development of 

measures and a monitoring protocol that is viewed as programmatically relevant. 

The multiple meetings held with program officials and discussions held with key 

stakeholders in the field created an opportunity to develop a performance 

monitoring and management system that is grounded both in the research and in 

the real-world environment of the two programs. CSR anticipates that this 

investment will ensure that the program operators, who must ultimately support 

and provide input for the system, understand its utility as a management tool. This 

commitment to involving key users and customers in the design of a performance 

monitoring and management system is consistent with the recommendations of 

Kravchuk and Schack, who support the involvement of “key decisionmakers and 

other interested parties with the power and limitations of the measurement system 

. . . and their active participation in the design and development phase” 

(Kravchuk, 1996, page 350). 

Fourth, following a review of the literature, a review of program materials, and 

approximately 50 discussions with program officials at various operational levels, 

CSR researchers and DOJ and ONDCP staff synthesized and validated 

information from all these sources to support the development of logic models for 

the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. These logic models, described in Chapter 3 

of this report, graphically depict the key linkages, actors, program inputs, outputs, 

and intended outcomes and impacts for each program. These logic models track 

the sequence of activities, feedback loops, contextual factors, and other program 

interactions that must be understood by program management and program 

operators in order for ONDCP and DOJ to develop a performance monitoring and 

management system. A comparison of these two logic models enables ONDCP 

and DOJ to isolate common characteristics of each program and to document the 

unique elements of both the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. 

Fifth, a menu of measures was developed to support the implementation of 

performance monitoring for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. In identifying 

measures, CSR researchers considered both the availability of data and the 

relevance of data to measuring each output and outcome identified in the logic 

models. The measures and their relationship to the two programs, as well as 

technical issues relevant to measuring outputs and outcomes, are discussed in 

Chapter 4 of this report. 

CSR’s implementation recommendations are presented in Chapter 5 of this report. 

These recommendations include a discussion of basic principles that guide the 

integrity of the performance monitoring and management system, issues that must 

be addressed in planning and managing the system, and a protocol to guide the 

implementation of the system. Finally, Chapter 6 outlines next steps that must be 

taken to refine measures, develop data sources, collect data, and pilot-test the 

system before it can be adopted on a full-scale basis. 

4 
Introduction 

1.3 GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT: THE IMPETUS 

FOR MEASUREMENT 

Performance measurement has a long history in evaluation, dating back to the 

1960s, but this topic was given a new life with the passage of the Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (U.S. Congress, 1993). The act 

requires that every Federal department and agency develop 5-year strategic plans 

linked to measurable outcomes using a series of annual performance plans. The 

development of performance measures must emphasize program outputs and 

outcomes. 

Implicit in the GPRA are several principles that should be considered in 

developing performance measures for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. First, 

the GPRA emphasizes “improving service delivery . . . [through the provision of] 

information about program results and service quality” (GPRA, 1993; S2]a[6]). 

This principle suggests that law enforcement partners in the HIDTA and 

OCDETF task forces should be involved in the assembly and review of 

performance data in order to assess their own team efforts. 

Second, GPRA emphasizes strategic planning. This emphasis is consistent with 

the overall mission of both the HIDTA and OCDETF programs, which place a 

priority on interagency coordination and communication. Therefore, as the 

programs mature and change over time, program managers may need to revise 

strategies and objectives, as well as the measures used for monitoring program 

success. This evolution in program strategies and initiatives may require changes 

in the performance monitoring and management system that are more frequent 

than the 3-year window recommended by GPRA. 

Third, GPRA calls for outcome measures that can be aggregated to the Federal 

level. In the case of HIDTAs and OCDETFs, Federal, state, and local 

governments constitute important partners in the program. Given the 

intergovernmental structure of the HIDTA and OCDETF programs and the 

mandate of each program, outcomes are more focused on systems or 

organizations than on individual citizens. Therefore, measures that rely only on 

the use of federally supported data collection systems will not capture all of the 

data required for measuring the success of these programs. 

Fourth, one of the major objectives of GPRA is to measure system-wide 

performance. Policymakers will want to know whether the program as a whole is 

fulfilling its mission. At the same time, the design of both the HIDTA and 

OCDETF programs allows for tremendous flexibility at the operational or task 

force level. The performance monitoring and management system must include a 

framework that acknowledges the diversity of the programs’ goals and processes. 

Finally, GPRA requirements dictate several important components that must be 

addressed by the logic models developed for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs: 

a mission statement covering the program’s major functions and operations; 

articulation of long-term goals and objectives, including outcome-related goals 

5 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

and objectives; a description of how the program’s goals and objectives will be 

achieved, including the resources and activities required to meet the goals and 

objectives; and the identification of key external factors that could affect the 

achievement of the long-term goals and objectives. 

These and other GPRA requirements have been considered in developing the 

menu of the measures and monitoring-implementation protocols for the HIDTA 

and OCDETF programs. 

1.4 THE ROLE OF PERFORMANCE MONITORING 

Performance monitoring is one of several tools used by policymakers and 

program managers. It is driven by the need for conclusions that are based on 

evidence and not on testimonials offered by impassioned advocates. It is 

important to distinguish between performance monitoring, which is the focus of 

this project, and other evaluation tools that focus on program impacts on the 

community and program costs. Performance monitoring provides information on 

key aspects of how a system or a program is operating and the extent to which 

specified program objectives are attained (Harrell, 2002). Performance monitoring 

results are used by program managers, funders, and policymakers to assess the 

program’s performance and accomplishments. 

The results of performance monitoring will reveal the attainment of program 

goals, identify problems encountered in program operations, and pinpoint 

potential problems in realizing the ultimate success of the program. Performance 

monitoring will not answer “how and why” questions that are the domain of 

program evaluation (Newcomer, 1997). Performance monitoring results may lead 

program managers to consider the need for a program evaluation. However, 

program evaluation goes beyond the confines of performance monitoring by 

establishing the causal connection between outcomes and program activities, 

isolating the influence of external factors beyond the control of the program, 

developing explanations for why outcomes occurred, and defining the program’s 

contribution to those changes. For example, performance monitoring of the 

HIDTA or OCDETF program may produce information that documents a 

reduction in drug-related problems, such as the disruption of drug-trafficking 

organizations. However, a systematic evaluation would have to be launched to 

assess how much of this change is directly due to activities supported by either or 

both programs. Furthermore, a systematic evaluation of the program would be 

required to develop a thorough understanding of why the program did or did not 

succeed and to suggest ways to improve the program. 

The results of the performance monitoring and management system used by the 

HIDTA and OCDETF programs may reveal findings that lead program operators 

and policymakers to conclude that there is a need for a focused evaluation on one 

or more of the HIDTA or OCDETF programs at the local level, or on a sample of 

programs within a particular region or at the national level. The resulting program 

evaluation might, for example, focus on the measurement of a particular set of 

6 
Introduction 

impacts on organizations or on communities, or it might focus on issues related to 

efficiency or accountability. Implementation of the performance monitoring and 

management system designed by this project will not produce program evaluation 

findings, but it can lead program managers to recognize that an evaluation is 

warranted. The logic and language of the performance monitoring and 

management system envisioned by this report can be used as a framework for 

reviewing and measuring the attainment of HIDTA and OCDETF goals and 

identifying successes or failures in the implementation of the respective program. 

1.5 PURPOSES OF THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

The performance monitoring and management system developed for the HIDTA 

and OCDETF programs will incorporate indicators to establish program 

accountability. The indicators, taken as a whole, will serve as a management tool 

to be used for four purposes: accountability, program monitoring, program 

improvement, and communication (Yap, 1997). These terms are defined below: 

Accountability—Performance indicators provide a means of determining the 

extent to which program objectives are attained. Program managers are held 

accountable for outcomes of resources invested in the program. Successful 

programs can be rewarded and replicated when feasible. Less successful programs 

can be strengthened, cut back in funding, or eliminated. 

Program Monitoring—Performance indicators provide a way of checking on the 

progress made by program staff at a particular point in time. Program managers 

can use performance data to make corrections to ensure that the program is 

progressing on the right track. The development and use of benchmarks is 

essential if data are to be made available to indicate patterns and trends of 

program implementation and outcomes. 

Program Improvement—Performance indicators provide data that identify areas 

in which the program is working well and areas in which improvement is needed. 

Program managers can also use performance data to make modifications that 

further strengthen the program. 

Communication—Performance indicators provide a way of communicating with 

various audiences. The performance monitoring and management system must 

support communication among Federal, state, and local partners participating in 

the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. 

Thus, the key elements of the performance monitoring and management system 

developed for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs will provide information on 

(1) key aspects of how the program is operating; (2) whether, and to what extent, 

program objectives are being attained; and (3) identification of failures to produce 

program outputs and outcomes, for use in managing or redesigning program 

operations. 

7 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

The information produced by the performance monitoring and management 

system will also lead program officials and policymakers to determine when 

further research is warranted to measure program efficiency, effectiveness, and 

impact on the larger community of law enforcement and society. Questions about 

efficiency, effectiveness, and impact will define the purpose and scope of 

subsequent program evaluations of the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. 

A detailed review of the HIDTA and OCDETF programs is presented in 

Chapter 2 and serves as the basis for developing logic models for both programs. 

8 
2. HIDTA AND OCDETF PROGRAM COMPONENTS 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides an overview of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 

(HIDTA) and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) 

programs. Each program is discussed separately. The program goals for HIDTAs 

and OCDETFs are listed along with the program participants and partners. The 

activities, outputs, outcomes, and long-term impacts are also reviewed. In 

addition, the similarities and differences between the HIDTA and OCDETF 

programs are discussed. Appendix D includes inserts and references to the 

legislative authority supporting each program 

2.2 THE HIDTA PROGRAM 

The HIDTA program was initially established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 

1988. The President’s National Drug Control Strategy (NDCS), developed each 

year by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), lists three national 

priorities for ONDCP (The White House, 2002). These include stopping drug use 

before it starts, healing America’s drug users, and disrupting the drug market. The 

primary emphasis of a HIDTA program is to reduce the supply of illicit drugs. 

The HIDTA program generally excludes demand reduction efforts. Some 

HIDTAs do engage in treatment (e.g., Washington, D.C./Baltimore) and 

prevention (e.g., New York/New Jersey) activities, but they are ancillary to the 

primary objective for the HIDTA program and are technically classified as 

support activities. Other programs supported by the ONDCP focus on reducing 

demand (e.g., media campaign, drug-free community support), while the HIDTA 

program constitutes the agency’s primary domestic market disruption mechanism. 

2.2.1 HIDTA Program National Goals 

The ultimate mission of the HIDTA program is to eliminate or reduce drug 

trafficking (including the production, manufacture, transportation, distribution and 

chronic use of illegal drugs, and money laundering) and its harmful consequences 

in critical regions of the United States. Three primary goals define the mission of 

the HIDTA program. Each of the HIDTA goals is congruent with the ONDCP 

goals and objectives: 

• Improve efficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement within HIDTAs; 

• Reduce the impact of drug trafficking, and 

• Increase the safety of American neighborhoods. 

9 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

The HIDTA program goals are arranged hierarchically. Improvements in law 

enforcement capabilities are needed to disrupt the activities of drug trafficking 

organizations (DTOs) and the violence associated with illegal drugs. The third 

goal for the HIDTA program is accomplished through achievement of the first 

two goals. Accomplishment of the first goal facilitates progress toward achieving 

goals two and three. Its accomplishment, by itself, is not sufficient to serve as a 

criterion of program success. HIDTA program success is ultimately measured by 

reducing the impact of drug trafficking and related violence. 

2.2.2 Individual HIDTA Goals 

The HIDTA program is strategic by design, and the driving force behind each 

HIDTA is the annual drug threat assessment. Each HIDTA is a unique entity, 

designed to address specific area drug problems. The threat assessment considers 

several different drug trafficking threats: heavy sales/use of illegal drugs, 

smuggling routes or transshipment points, or being a center of cultivation or 

manufacture. The threat assessment documents the problems posed by different 

illegal drugs, citing relevant sources of information including drug use statistics, 

intelligence, and the opinions of informed experts (e.g., ethnographers, substance 

abuse treatment providers, and law enforcement personnel). Different areas of the 

country face distinct drug threats. For example, most of the HIDTAs in the 

southwest border partnership are primarily concerned with stemming the flow of 

illegal drugs into the United States from Mexico. Other HIDTAs are almost 

exclusively concerned with the methamphetamine production (Midwest) or 

marijuana cultivation (Appalachia). HIDTAs in large urban areas are frequently 

concerned with street gang activity and open-air drug markets. Transit zone 

interdictions, drug production, and distribution each require different types of 

resources and activities. 

The threat assessment is submitted annually because drug threats often change 

over time. Annual updates to the threat assessment accomplish several objectives. 

First, annual updates can detect trends in drug trafficking and use. Second, 

changes in identifiable drug threats can indicate HIDTA effectiveness. This is 

particularly true if the HIDTA can successfully address the problems identified in 

the threat assessment. A third purpose of annual threat assessment updates is to 

maintain a strategic focus. DTOs are highly flexible; changes in trafficking 

activities frequently occur, particularly when pressure is applied by law 

enforcement. Annual threat assessments facilitate the requisite flexibility of law 

enforcement activities in mirroring the highly adaptable nature of DTOs. 

2.2.3 HIDTA Program Participants 

The HIDTA Program receives leadership from ONDCP’s National HIDTA 

Program Office and from area HIDTAs, which are managed by a Director and an 

Executive Board that administers multiple initiatives through a series of task 

forces. 

10 
HIDTA and OCDETF Program Components 

2.2.3.1 ONDCP HIDTA Program Office 

The management responsibilities of the ONDCP HIDTA Program Office are 

primarily to provide program policy guidance and evaluate program performance. 

The ONDCP Director, upon consultation with the Attorney General, Secretary of 

Treasury, heads of national drug control program agencies, and Governors of 

applicable states, designates specified regions of the United States as HIDTAs. 

The HIDTA Coordinating Committee, chaired by ONDCP’s Deputy Director for 

State and Local Affairs, is an interagency body that includes representatives from 

ONDCP and the Departments of Justice, Treasury, and Health and Human 

Services. The Coordinating Committee makes recommendations on policy, 

program, and funding to the ONDCP Director. Reporting to the Deputy Director 

for State and Local Affairs, the National HIDTA Program establishes various 

subcommittees with representation from state and local LEAs around the nation. 

2.2.3.2 HIDTA Executive Board and Directors 

Each HIDTA is governed by an Executive Board, which is led by a Chair and a 

Vice Chair (one state or local person and one Federal person). There are 16 

members of the law enforcement and justice communities on each Board, 

including 8 Federal agency members and 8 state and local representatives. The 

Executive Board hires a Director to assist with the day-to-day administration of 

the HIDTA, implement appropriate oversight controls, and coordinate with the 

ONDCP. The HIDTA Director reports directly to the Executive Board. The Board 

and Director jointly propose annual budgets; develop initiatives that specifically 

address the drug trafficking threats; and monitor the development, 

implementation, support, and evaluation of HIDTA initiatives. 

2.2.3.3 Initiative Level: Task Force 

The Executive Board oversees and directs the development of HIDTA initiatives 

to implement the strategy and target the threat. Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents often head HIDTA task 

forces, while some task forces feature local or state enforcement agency 

leadership or are co-managed by both Federal and local representatives. The 

HIDTA Director usually manages administrative initiatives. Some initiatives are 

led by Federal agencies with unique expertise. For example, U.S. Marshals lead 

task forces focused on fugitives, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 

(ATF) agents lead task forces for controlling firearm-related violence. The 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or U.S. Customs Service (USCS) often lead 

initiatives focusing on drug profits. Marine interdiction task forces are often led 

by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 

Initiatives must be reevaluated each year by the Executive Board to determine 

whether the initiative should continue to be included in the HIDTA’s strategy. 

11 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

2.2.4 HIDTA Partnerships 

HIDTA achieves its goals by ensuring the cooperation and effective execution of 

collective activities undertaken by participating agencies. The HIDTA program is 

designed to function as a strategy-driven system to facilitate communication and 

collaboration and the strengthening of partnerships among Federal, state, and 

local agencies. The HIDTA program does not directly investigate specific cases or 

enforce the law, but, rather, provides support, personnel, and tools to improve 

existing LEA capabilities. It accomplishes this by bringing together law 

enforcement resources and creating an infrastructure for coordination between 

and among agencies. The success of the HIDTA program is built on strong 

partnerships developed among participating agencies. 

2.2.4.1 Federal Agency Partners 

Several Federal agencies participate in the HIDTA program. Two of the most 

prominent are the FBI and DEA. Both the FBI and DEA have explicit Title 21 

legislative authority for drug-related law enforcement and are central participants 

in the HIDTA program. The mission of both agencies is highly congruent with the 

goals of the HIDTA program—namely the investigation of drug-related crimes. 

Some of the initiatives in the HIDTA program are FBI- or DEA-led because these 

agencies bring investigative resources that are not found in many local agencies. 

The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) is also involved in the HIDTA program and 

heads several initiatives to track down violent fugitives. The ATF is involved in 

tracking and apprehending violent offenders involved in the illicit drug trade. The 

IRS provides expertise in financial investigation to nearly every HIDTA. The 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and USCS are active in many 

HIDTAs, as are United States Attorneys. Most of the HIDTAs situated on 

international borders enjoy participation from the Department of Defense, 

supplemented by the USCG for sea borders and the Border Patrol at inland points 

of entry. Other Federal agencies that participate in HIDTA task forces include the 

U.S. Postal Service, the Secret Service, the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, the National Park Service, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Federal 

Aviation Administration. 

2.2.4.2 State and Local Agencies 

In addition to the Federal-level participants, HIDTA partners include a wide range 

of state and local LEAs. The local police departments within a HIDTA-designated 

area are almost always represented on task forces. Many task forces, particularly 

those involved in highway interdictions, involve the state police. Many states 

have investigative LEAs that participate in HIDTAs. State and local district 

attorneys are also frequently involved. National Guard units also are frequently 

involved, as are state criminal justice, corrections, and parole agencies. Some 

states have financial and banking agencies that contribute to financial 

12 
HIDTA and OCDETF Program Components 

investigations. State-level substance abuse agencies and medical examiners 

frequently contribute to HIDTA initiatives. 

2.2.4.3 Community Organization Partners 

Several regional HIDTA programs have partnerships with non-governmental 

organizations. These include local affiliates of the Partnership for a Drug-Free 

America and Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) affiliates. Many 

HIDTA programs with inner-city and neighborhood-level initiatives partner with 

various community groups. Prevention initiatives also include partnerships with 

Police Athletic Leagues. 

2.2.5 HIDTA Program Activities 

HIDTA program activities are executed through leadership and strategic planning. 

Leadership is provided by the HIDTA Executive Board, which oversees and 

directs the development of the regional drug threat assessment and designs the 

strategy to combat the drug trafficking problems identified in the threat 

assessment. Each HIDTA has great flexibility in developing its own initiatives. 

Initiatives designed to implement the national HIDTA program strategy include 

intelligence, investigation, interdiction, prosecution, and support. These five 

broad classes of activities serve as the foundation for HIDTA initiatives and task 

forces. These strategy subsystems are highly interdependent. For example, 

interdictions are made more effective by intelligence and investigative activities, 

such as “controlled deliveries.” At the same time, followup analyses on 

interdictions provide inputs for intelligence and investigative initiatives. 

Similarly, investigations and intelligence gathering are mutually reinforcing; 

better intelligence supports more complex investigations, and investigations 

generate information inputs to the intelligence subsystems. 

Each HIDTA also has task forces dedicated to investigation of DTOs. Each task 

force includes a group of law enforcement officers who focus on a particular 

initiative to reduce the overall threat in the community. A task force is 

characterized by the co-location and co-mingling of agency representatives to 

work on a particular initiative, such as financial crime. Each task force focuses on 

specific portions of the HIDTA strategy. Interagency task forces are used to bring 

together the distributed expertise of several different types of LEAs. 

2.2.5.1 Intelligence 

Every HIDTA has an intelligence center. The intelligence center is primarily 

concerned with generating and analyzing information and providing intelligence 

to investigative and interdiction task forces. Intelligence centers are the 

centerpiece of the HIDTA program; they provide secure facilities and information 

systems to Federal, state, and local LEAs for storing and sharing information 

regarding drug trafficking networks and their vulnerabilities. An intelligence 

13 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

center creates a communication infrastructure to facilitate information sharing 

between Federal, state, and local LEAs. The centers also develop the annual threat 

assessments that are used to design the HIDTA’s enforcement strategies (i.e., 

initiatives). Intelligence centers also provide other functions and services (e.g., 

deconfliction) to regional law enforcement organizations. 

A state or local LEA and a Federal LEA jointly manage the intelligence center. 

Drug control data are collected from Federal agencies, including the DEA, FBI, 

U.S. Customs, and many state and local LEAs. HIDTA intelligence centers 

provide secure sites and information systems for participating LEAs and task 

forces to record, store, and appropriately share information and intelligence. 

An important factor in drug enforcement intelligence is database access. Database 

connectivity is a cornerstone of HIDTA intelligence activity because databases 

house invaluable information in drug enforcement investigations. National 

databases include the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), the National Drug 

Intelligence Center (NDIC), the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

(FinCEN), the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC), the National Law 

Enforcement Center (NLEC), the FBI Field Office information System (FOMS), 

and the DEA’s Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Information System (NADDIS). 

Several regional databases are also used: for example, Regional Intelligence 

Support Center (RISC), the North East Suspect Pointer Network (NESPIN), 

Regional Crime Gun Center, Texas Narcotics Information System (TNIS), and 

New Mexico Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS). Local databases (e.g., 

photo imaging networks) are often incorporated into the HIDTA intelligence 

center as well. Many intelligence centers create their own databases and share 

access with other HIDTAs. In addition to database connectivity, intelligence 

centers provide additional intelligence resources. Core intelligence center 

functions include events and cases/subjects deconfliction services. Post-seizure 

analysis and analytical case support are also provided, as are tactical and strategic 

intelligence. Some intelligence centers include additional intelligence activities 

such as technical equipment pools and electronic surveillance facilities. 

The co-location of task forces is an important element in fostering interagency 

cooperation. Many HIDTA initiatives are housed in the same physical location as 

the intelligence center. Co-location creates free and open access and facilitates 

interactions and information sharing between task force members, as well as 

between different HIDTA initiatives. Co-location provides a common ground, 

which is intended to facilitate interagency cooperation and reduce the salience of 

“turf issues” that can threaten the effectiveness of interagency task forces. When 

multiple task forces are co-located, the physical proximity of different task forces 

creates opportunities for inter-task force interactions. 

2.2.5.2 Investigation 

Another class of initiatives is the investigation of DTOs. Many initiatives 

specifically focus on high-level, mid-level, or distribution-level DTOs. Others 

target specific organizations like Colombian and Mexican cartels. Some target 

14 
HIDTA and OCDETF Program Components 

ethnic organized crime groups that participate in drug trafficking, including 

Dominican, Jamaican, Russian, Israeli, and Asian organized crime organizations. 

Another class of investigative initiatives concentrates on specific types of DTOs. 

HIDTAs with large inner cities often investigate open-air drug markets, street 

gang activity, and trafficking-related violence. HIDTAs with heavy violent crime 

rates often incorporate the ATF and USMS to target drug-related violence and 

violent fugitives. Most HIDTAs have initiatives focusing specifically on tracking 

the financial proceeds from drug trafficking. Some concentrate on organizations 

trafficking particular drugs: different initiatives target heroin, cocaine/crack, 

methamphetamine, or marijuana distribution. 

2.2.5.3 Interdiction 

Many HIDTA initiatives focus primarily on interdicting smuggled drugs. These 

are typically situated at U.S. ports of entry and at strategic locations within the 

United States. Some initiatives are designed to block the drug smuggling into the 

United States from abroad. These include maritime interdiction in the Caribbean 

and off the coast of Southern California, and land borders with Mexico and 

Canada. Some focus on major international seaports and airports. Others are 

involved in detecting drugs smuggled on U.S. highways, major rail hubs, and bus 

terminals. Additional interdiction initiatives concentrate on public transportation, 

stash houses, hotels, and parcel services. 

Most of the illegal drugs consumed in the United States are imported from abroad. 

However, marijuana, methamphetamines, and club drugs are produced 

domestically. A special class of interdiction initiatives focuses on domestic 

cultivation and manufacture of illegal drugs. In fact, the Appalachia HIDTA is 

almost exclusively dedicated to the eradication of outdoor marijuana cultivation. 

Other HIDTAs (e.g., Midwest, northern California, Rocky Mountain, and 

Northwest) have initiatives directed against methamphetamine production 

including lab identification and clean-up, as well as interdicting precursor 

chemicals. 

2.2.5.4 Prosecution 

Initiatives with a prosecution focus involve Federal, state and district attorneys in 

the investigative process. Prosecutor involvement in investigations helps create 

more effective prosecutorial strategies and law enforcement protocols. Prosecutor 

involvement also helps intensify the use of grand juries and promotes asset 

seizures. Attorney involvement is also useful in obtaining wiretaps, warrants, and 

pen registers. Prosecution initiatives often include Assistant U.S. Attorneys who 

help develop HIDTA task force investigations into OCDETF cases. Other 

prosecution initiatives deliberately target cases that have significant local impact. 

15 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

2.2.5.5 Support 

HIDTAs also include a number of administrative support initiatives. Because 

HIDTA intelligence centers are heavily reliant on database connectivity, technical 

support is a key administrative activity. Crime and forensics labs facilitate 

investigations and prosecutions, and can provide valuable intelligence information 

on ballistics, drug seizures, and other case-related evidence. Support activities 

also include resource acquisition (e.g., pen registers, surveillance equipment). 

Some HIDTAs include initiatives for youth activities (e.g., athletic leagues, 

fishing programs, tutoring) and arrestee drug treatment programs. Training is 

another important support activity and includes computer and database use, 

tactical and investigative skills, and firearms. Areas with high rates of 

methamphetamine production and use frequently feature training in law 

enforcement tactics for dealing with people under the influence of 

methamphetamines and specialized techniques for detecting and disrupting 

clandestine manufacturing through lab seizures and dismantlements. Other 

administrative activities include financial management (fiscal accounting 

procedures) and program evaluation. 

2.2.6 HIDTA Program Outputs 

HIDTA outputs measure the program’s ability to meet the first goal of the HIDTA 

strategy: to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of LEAs. 

The HIDTA FY 2004 Performance Plan (draft) currently outlines five categories 

of activities for achieving Goal 1 objectives: administration and accountability of 

resources, information management and sharing, communications 

interoperability, training, and strategic planning and initiatives. Within every 

category there are specific objectives and targets that individual HIDTAs seek to 

achieve within each program year. These standards are developed to encourage 

progress from basic to optimal outputs over a period of time. 

The 2002–2008 Strategic Plan (draft) identifies the following strategies and 

means that will be used to achieve Goal 1 objectives: 

•	 Best practices information will be collected by HIDTA staff on a periodic 

basis and combined into a single document which will be conveyed to each 

HIDTA; 

•	 HIDTA staff will closely monitor development of both the financial database 

and HIDTA program performance evaluation component; 

• Onsite reviews are scheduled at a pace that does not adversely affect quality; 

•	 HIDTA staff will identify regional HIDTAs not fully connected via electronic 

networks, and compile up-to-date lists of task forces needing to be connected; 

16 
HIDTA and OCDETF Program Components 

•	 HIDTA staff will work closely with regional HIDTAs to identify training 

needs and compile and refine training standards and documents; and 

•	 ONDCP will provide additional oversight of the HIDTA programs through 

internal and external reviews of individual HIDTA efforts, while commercial 

auditors conduct financial audits within each HIDTA. 

2.2.6.1 Traditional LEA Outputs 

Several of the output measures provided in the NDCS Performance Measures of 

Effectiveness Report, 2001 Annual Report use traditional LEA statistics. 

Appendix C of the Annual Report requires documentation of the number of 

arrests, seizures, and investigative and intelligence activities. This information is 

provided for the current year, as well as the 2 previous years to estimate annual 

changes in the outputs. The total number of arrests is reported. Drug seizures are 

broken down by the following categories: cocaine, heroin, cannabis (bulk), 

cannabis pots eradicated, cannabis plants eradicated, methamphetamine, 

clandestine labs, and “other”). Asset seizures are also included in the annual 

report, as are investigative activities (Title III initiations, pen registers, pager 

intercepts, OCDETF cases initiated, and number of cases with intelligence 

analysts assigned), and activities of the intelligence center (event/subject 

deconflictions, charts/graphs produced, telephone tolls, document analysis, geomapping, link analysis, statistical analyses, intelligence profiles, and 

photographs). If a HIDTA does improve LEA abilities, the outputs and activities 

of participating agencies (i.e., arrest rates, seizures, and investigations) should 

reflect increases upon being included in a HIDTA. 

2.2.6.2 Cooperation: The Ultimate Output 

Related to its first goal, to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of law 

enforcement within the HIDTA, regional HIDTA programs produce two 

important outputs: interagency cooperation and intelligence activities. 

Cooperation between and among agencies includes factors such as timely 

intelligence sharing, inter-agency trust, and elimination of “turf battles.” Regional 

HIDTA programs create an infrastructure through co-location and the formation 

of inter-jurisdictional task forces, which foster a collaboration and cooperation. 

To measure the effect of HIDTA coordination activities, the level and strength of 

cooperation among participating LEAs must be considered as an output. This 

output leads to important program outcomes and impacts, related to HIDTA goals 

two and three, which must be accomplished before a HIDTA program can claim 

success. 

2.2.6.3 Intelligence 

HIDTA effectiveness is predicated on a strong intelligence infrastructure. 

Intelligence outputs have wide-ranging effects on other initiatives, regional 

HIDTA programs, and the national HIDTA program. Deconfliction services 

17 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

provided by the intelligence center include event deconfliction, which increases 

officer safety, and case deconfliction, which helps eliminate duplication of effort 

by different agencies investigating the same organization and promotes agencies’ 

working together. Intelligence sharing is another important part of inter-agency 

cooperation, and intelligence databases provide a mechanism for this to occur, not 

just within the task force but also with other initiatives and other HIDTAs. The 

outputs of database connectivity include database queries as a means of obtaining 

information and database contributions as a mechanism for providing information. 

Financial investigations provide additional support to HIDTA initiatives by 

identifying drug trafficking and money laundering organizations and providing 

the foundation for asset seizure upon conviction of organizational leaders. In 

addition, the intelligence center provides leads and pointer indices to investigation 

and interdiction activities. 

2.2.7 HIDTA Program Outcomes 

Outcomes measure the success of HIDTAs in achieving the second goal of the 

program: to reduce the impact of DTOs. The ONDCP provides three objectives to 

measure progress toward the goal of reducing the efficiency and impact of DTOs: 

(1) use HIDTA intelligence center information to better assess domestic drug 

trafficking; (2) reduce the levels and types of drug trafficking; and (3) focus on 

areas of drug production, transportation, distribution, use, and money laundering. 

Consistent with the President’s National Drug Control Strategy and the Domestic 

Strategic Review (Office of State and Local Affairs), the draft 2002–2008 

Strategic Plan identifies the following specific strategies and actions aimed at 

reducing the impact of DTOs: 

•	 Based on timely information provided by HIDTA task force participants, 

appropriate drug offenders will be targeted by HIDTA-affiliated agencies; 

•	 HIDTA will partner with OCDETF regarding the priority drug trafficking 

targeting list and will work to apprehend identified drug offenders; 

•	 HIDTA will increase focus on financial transactions where intelligence 

provides an avenue for investigation and will require a financial component to 

all HIDTA initiatives; 

•	 HIDTA will continue to enhance focus on the Southwest border and will 

provide consolidated and coordinated efforts; and 

•	 HIDTA will contract with the National Drug Intelligence Center to receive 

timely and updated information, by county, regarding the shifting national 

drug threat. 

If the primary outputs of LEAs are seizures, investigations, and arrests, the 

primary outcomes of their activities are prosecutions, convictions, sentences, and 

seizures of DTO assets. Law enforcement activities lead to prosecutions. The 

18 
HIDTA and OCDETF Program Components 

conviction rate reflects the success of prosecutions, and the length of sentences 

handed down reflects their strength. The ultimate outcome is dismantling the 

organization, which is accomplished through asset seizure and forfeitures. These 

outcomes should result from all LEA activities, whether the LEA is within or 

outside the HIDTA region. However, changes in the rates of prosecutorial 

activities are strongly related to the effectiveness of law enforcement activities. If 

a HIDTA program increases the effectiveness of law enforcement, concomitant 

increases should occur in successful drug trafficking prosecutions and asset 

seizures. 

One of the targets of LEAs is DTOs. A primary objective of the HIDTA program 

is to dismantle or disrupt the activities of these organizations. Dismantling a DTO 

requires the prosecution of high-ranking members. Incarcerating the leaders helps 

disrupt DTOs, but completely dismantling the organization requires that law 

enforcement also destroy the organization’s infrastructure. This results from 

successful prosecution of major players and the identification and seizure of the 

organization’s assets. Without comprehensive prosecutions and seizures, the 

organization may regain its strength despite the enforcement and prosecutorial 

activities. 

The elements of drug trafficking include production, transportation, distribution, 

and illicit financial transactions. The extent to which these activities are 

successfully attacked will influence whether the organization is dismantled or 

disrupted. Even if the organization is not completely dismantled, changes in DTO 

activities can signal HIDTA success, particularly if they make the DTO less 

efficient and effective. 

2.2.8 HIDTA Program Impacts 

Several sources of legislative authority for the HIDTA program (Anti-Drug Abuse 

Act of 1988, Executive Order No. 12880, the Violent Crime Control and Law 

Enforcement Act of 1994, and Office of National Drug Control Policy 

Reauthorization Act of 1998) emphasize using a performance measurement 

system to gauge the impacts of all ONDCP programs. The HIDTA program’s 

impact on the community may be reflected in three basic domains: violence in the 

community, level of drug use, and the availability of drugs. ONDCP goals 

explicitly address drug use and drug-related violence, and indirectly suggest the 

availability of illegal drugs. If law enforcement is successfully dismantling DTOs 

and causing the surviving ones to adopt more costly tactics, the availability of 

illegal drugs will be affected. Assuming drugs are less available and DTOs 

become less effective, it is reasonable to assume a decline in drug use. 

2.2.8.1 Drug-Related Violence 

The third goal of the HIDTA program is to increase the safety of American 

neighborhoods or, alternatively, to decrease violence in the community. The 

Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 lists several 

19 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

related crime targets by the end of 2003 including a 50-percent reduction in drugrelated crime, a reduction in crimes committed by people under the influence of 

unlawful drugs, and a reduction in crimes committed for the purpose of obtaining 

money to purchase illegal drugs. 

2.2.8.2 Level of Drug Use 

The 2002 NDCS of the ONDCP calls for reductions in drug use in both the adult 

and youth populations. The goals include a 10 percent reduction in illegal drug 

use in both populations within 2 years, using figures from 2000 as a baseline. 

Within 5 years, the ONDCP goal is a 25 percent reduction in drug use in both 

adult and youth populations. The Office of National Drug Control Policy Act of 

1998 lists several sources from which drug use information should be drawn. 

Many of the recommended sources are surveys designed to measure drug use 

(e.g., the National Household Survey of Drug Abuse and Monitoring the Future) 

and street-level price and purity. Other measures pertain to outcomes of drug 

abuse including emergency room reports, drug-related health care costs, drug 

treatment utilization, and arrestee drug testing. 

2.3 THE OCDETF PROGRAM 

The OCDETF program is the centerpiece of the Attorney General’s drug strategy 

to reduce the availability of drugs. The principal mission of the OCDETF 

program is to disrupt and dismantle the major DTOs and related criminal 

enterprises. OCDETF is the only criminal justice task force program with national 

reach that combines the talent of experienced Federal agents and prosecutors with 

support from state and local law enforcement. 

2.3.1 Department of Justice Strategic Goals 

The OCDETF program is part of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Several 

strategic goals of DOJ are relevant to the OCDETF program. DOJ has seven 

strategic objectives, each with associated goals, several of which are directly 

pertinent to the OCDETF program. The first objective is to reduce the threat, 

incidence, and prevalence of violent crime, especially as it stems from gun crime, 

organized crime, and drug- and gang-related violence. Associated with this 

objective are the goals of reducing La Costra Nostra membership, targeted gangs, 

and gun violence (1.1). Other goals include disrupting and dismantling major drug 

trafficking and money laundering organizations and reducing the domestic 

production of methamphetamine (1.2). The second strategic objective of DOJ is to 

prevent and reduce crime and violence by assisting state, tribal, local, and 

community-based programs. This objective includes improving crime-fighting 

and criminal justice systems at lower levels of government (2.1), and breaking the 

cycle of substance abuse and crime through testing, treatment, and sanctions (2.3). 

20 
HIDTA and OCDETF Program Components 

2.3.2 National OCDETF Program Goals 

The goal of the OCDETF program is to identify, investigate, and prosecute the 

most significant drug trafficking and money laundering organizations and their 

related enterprises. On a national level, the Consolidated Priority Organization 

Target (CPOT) list identifies the most prominent DTOs nationwide. The initial 

CPOT reflects the highest priority targets identified by OCDETF member 

agencies, most notably DEA and the FBI, to include input from the Special 

Operations Division (SOD) and links to the regional priority targets with the 

largest scope and geographic reach. The CPOT is intended to focus OCDETF 

resources on the most significant drug-related criminal organizations in the United 

States. This list identifies priority targets for OCDETF investigations and 

represents the primary objectives of the OCDETF program as a whole. Cases 

involving CPOT organizations are assigned the most experienced prosecutors and 

law enforcement agents. 

The OCDETF Program Guidelines list five primary objectives: 

•	 To target, investigate, and prosecute individuals who organize, direct, finance, 

or otherwise engage in high-level illegal drug trafficking and related 

enterprises, including large-scale money laundering organizations, for the 

purpose of developing coordinated, multi-regional investigations that have the 

greatest potential to disrupt and dismantle nationwide drug and money 

laundering organizations and, thereby, reduce domestic drug supply. 

•	 To promote a coordinated drug enforcement effort in each OCDETF region, to 

encourage maximum cooperation among all drug enforcement agencies, and 

to involve prosecutors early in the development of investigations. 

• To work fully and effectively with state and local drug enforcement agencies. 

•	 To link components of major drug trafficking and/or money laundering 

organizations in order to develop simultaneous, coordinated investigations 

that will dismantle the entire infrastructure of the organization. 

•	 To make full use of financial investigative techniques, to identify and convict 

high-level traffickers and dismantle money laundering organizations, and to 

enable the government to seize and forfeit assets and profits, proceeds, and 

instrumentalities derived from high-level drug trafficking and related crimes. 

2.3.3 OCDETF Program Participants 

The OCDETF program encompasses several Federal programs. In addition to 

DOJ, other participating agencies include the DEA, FBI, United States Attorney’s 

Office (USAO), USMS, INS, Department of Treasury (DOT), ATF, USCS, IRS, 

USCG, and National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC). Representatives from each 

of these agencies participate at several different levels in the OCDETF hierarchy, 

including the national, regional, district, and task force level. 

21 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

2.3.3.1 National Level 

The OCDETF Executive Committee includes leaders in several Federal agencies 

(DEA, FBI, USAO, USMS, INS, DOT, DOJ, ATF, USCS, IRS, USCG, and 

NDIC). This committee articulates policy, reviews resource allocations, and 

coordinates the development and maintenance of the OCDETF program. The U.S. 

Deputy Attorney General chairs the committee. The Executive Committee meets 

quarterly and is ultimately responsible for dispute resolution of issues that cannot 

be resolved at the regional level. 

The OCDETF Executive Office Director answers to the Executive Committee. 

The OCDETF Director provides leadership, direction, and focus for the OCDETF 

program. The Director is an Associate Deputy Attorney General who functions as 

a spokesperson and advocate for the program with Congress, OMB, ONDCP, and 

other governmental oversight and LEAs. He or she also chairs the Operations 

Chiefs Group. This group includes representatives in leadership positions in the 

Federal agencies and departments that regularly participate in OCDETF activities. 

This group provides coordination, program management, and guidance. Each 

member also serves as a boundary spanner, and shares relevant OCDETF 

information with their respective agencies. The Operations Chiefs Group meets at 

least quarterly. 

The OCDETF Executive Office Director also chairs the Washington Agency 

Representative Group (WARG). This group consists of senior representatives of 

Federal agencies and departments that regularly participate in OCDETF activities. 

This group shares relevant information, formulates policies and procedures, and 

provides program coordination. This group is responsible for program adherence 

to guidelines, program evaluation, budget preparation, and sponsoring training 

programs and regional conferences. It meets monthly and as needed. 

2.3.3.2 Regional Level 

OCDETF has agent resources and Assistant U.S. Attorneys in each of the 94 

Federal judicial districts. These districts are organized into nine geographic 

regions across the country, with regional headquarters in a U.S. Attorney’s Office 

that is designated as the core city for the region. 

The nine OCDETF regions include New England, New York/New Jersey, MidAtlantic, Great Lakes, Southeast, West Central, Florida/Caribbean, Southwest, 

and Pacific regions. Within each OCDETF region, one U.S. Attorney, known as 

the Core City U.S. Attorney, is assigned specific responsibility for managing the 

OCDETF program. The U.S. Attorney also chairs the OCDETF Advisory Council 

for the region and a Regional Coordination Group. The Regional Advisory 

Council consists of the U.S. Attorney from each district and senior law 

enforcement officials from the OCDETF investigative agencies throughout the 

region. Responsibilities of this council include monitoring drug trafficking 

patterns; formulating regional strategies for responding to local, regional, and 

national drug trafficking threats; communicating with Federal agencies; 

22 
HIDTA and OCDETF Program Components 

coordinating drug enforcement efforts; and ensuring the appropriate use of 

OCDETF funds. 

The administrative work of the OCDETF program in the regions is handled by a 

coordination group, comprised of a designated Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Coordinator and one senior/supervisory level Agent Coordinator from each 

OCDETF member agency, as well as non-OCDETF Federal law enforcement 

representatives (optional). This group assists the Advisory Council in monitoring 

drug trafficking patterns. It is primarily responsible for evaluating and approving 

the initiation of investigations, monitoring OCDETF program activities within the 

region, facilitating information exchange, managing expenses, ensuring 

deployment of resources for OCDETF cases, performing annual case reviews, and 

submitting completed OCDETF reports. 

2.3.3.3 District Level 

In the remaining judicial districts within a region, a District Coordination Group, 

led by a U.S. Attorney for the district, provides leadership for OCDETF cases at 

the district level. The District U.S. Attorney provides administrative support and 

is responsible for overall OCDETF performance within that judicial district. He or 

she also designates OCDETF Attorneys and Lead OCDETF Attorneys. The 

District Coordination Group is comprised of the Lead OCDETF Attorney, the 

OCDETF investigative agency Special Agents in Charge or Senior Supervisors 

from the judicial district, and state or local law enforcement representative(s). 

Each group is responsible for accepting or rejecting Investigation Initiation 

Forms; reviewing allocation of resources (e.g., agencies, agents, attorneys, and 

support staff) to OCDETF investigations; coordinating Federal, state, and local 

LEAs; and ensuring information sharing. This group meets regularly. 

2.3.3.4 Task Force Level 

Task forces are headed by the Lead OCDETF Attorney designated by the District 

United States Attorney. The Lead OCDETF Attorney is responsible for 

submitting investigation proposals to the Regional Coordination Group following 

approval by the District Coordination Group, maintaining status reports of 

OCDETF investigations and prosecutions, ensuring reports are accurately 

prepared and submitted, and identifying cases with asset forfeiture potential. He 

or she also serves on the District Coordination Group and acts as a liaison with 

the Regional Coordination Group. Each agency participating in the investigation 

designates a Special Agent-in-Charge who is responsible for bringing potential 

investigations (including HIDTA investigations, where appropriate) to the District 

Coordination Group, assigning Federal agents to OCDETF investigations, and 

supervising state and local officers. State and local law enforcement agents are 

involved in investigating, apprehending, and prosecuting major drug traffickers 

and their organizations. State and local participation is intended to expand the 

available resources and broaden the choice of venue for prosecution. Special 

23 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

Agents-in-Charge also serve on the District Coordination Group and the OCDETF 

Advisory Council. 

2.3.4 OCDETF Program Activities 

The OCDETF program is DOJ’s primary mechanism for targeting and 

dismantling large drug supply networks. OCDETF is a case-driven program 

focusing on specific DTOs. Coordinated multi-agency task forces investigate 

targeted organizations. 

2.3.4.1 Regional Strategic Plan 

Each OCDETF region is expected to submit a strategic drug and money 

laundering enforcement plan. The plan is developed by the core city U.S. 

Attorney and the Regional Advisory Council. The strategic plan identifies and 

targets the most significant drug and money laundering organizations in the 

region. A process for systematic re-evaluation of those targets must also be 

implemented. The strategic plan should determine the most effective investigative 

methods to make connections across jurisdictional and regional lines to develop 

the most far-reaching drug and money laundering investigations possible. The 

regional strategic plan should also document any links between regionally 

significant drug trafficking and money laundering organizations and organizations 

listed as national priority targets. 

2.3.4.2 Investigation Activities 

Investigations are almost exclusively initiated by an OCDETF member agency. 

OCDETF cases are normally generated by the receipt of intelligence, seizure of 

contraband, informant information, or investigative efforts. Criteria for 

developing an OCDETF case include: 

•	 Investigations tied or linked to major drug trafficking and money-laundering 

organizations contained on the Attorney General’s CPOT List. 

•	 Investigations emanating from SOD leads and linked to SOD-coordinated 

investigations. (The SOD is a centralized, multi-agency [DEA, FBI, USCS, 

IRS Criminal Investigators, and DOJ/Criminal Division] coordination and law 

enforcement intelligence analysis unit that supports ongoing investigations by 

producing detailed and comprehensive data analyses of the activities of major 

drug trafficking organizations (MDTOs.) 

•	 Investigations that are spinoffs from, or linked to, an ongoing OCDETF 

investigation in another district or region or have the potential to be multiregional in scope. 

24 
HIDTA and OCDETF Program Components 

•	 Investigations that are connected/linked to recognized international 

organizations or to components of a nationwide drug trafficking or money 

laundering organization. 

•	 Investigation of MDTOs that warrant the involvement of more than one 

investigative agency. 

•	 Investigations of MDTOs that demand significant attorney resources during 

the investigative stage (i.e., grand juries, wiretap, substantial cash or property 

assets subject to forfeiture, witness plea agreements and protection, and the 

corruption of public officials). 

•	 Investigations that focus on criminal activities in order to achieve high-level 

prosecutions within an organization and that concentrate on dismantling the 

financial infrastructure of the targeted organization. 

•	 Investigations that focus on prosecutions at upper levels of an organization 

with the potential forfeiture of illegal assets. 

•	 Investigations and prosecutions that are expected to result in the conviction of 

persons engaged in organized activities related to importation, manufacture, 

distribution, crop cultivation, diversion, sales, financial support, or money 

laundering associated with the illicit trafficking of any illegal drug or narcotic 

substance, including pharmaceuticals and precursor chemicals. 

•	 Investigations that have the potential of disrupting the organization through 

the seizure and forfeiture of money, conveyances, real estate, businesses, or 

other non-drug assets through both criminal and civil forfeiture action. 

OCDETF funding is used to reimburse the DOJ U.S. Attorneys, Criminal 

Division, and Tax Division for their investigative support and prosecutorial 

efforts on OCDETF cases. Litigation efforts are targeted selectively on the 

criminal leadership involved in drug trafficking and are intended to dissolve 

organized illicit enterprises. This includes activities designed to secure the seizure 

and forfeiture of the assets of these enterprises. The fundamental purpose of the 

prosecution effort is to (1) effectively apply limited Federal resources against 

these targets where successful prosecution can have the greatest and most lasting 

effect on the nation’s drug supply problems; and (2) build upon lessons learned 

from previous experience in order to enhance prosecutive effectiveness. 

Prosecutor activity focuses on proven tactics such as increased use of financial 

investigations, expanded use of electronic surveillance, vigorous enforcement of 

asset forfeiture statutes, and coordination of multi-district investigations. Wiretaps 

require significant attorney resources. 

The case agent or the Assistant U.S. Attorney is responsible for preparing an 

Investigation Initiation Form. If the District Coordination Group approves the 

case, it is forwarded to the Regional Coordination Group. Upon approval at the 

25 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

regional level, it becomes an official OCDETF investigation. Upon official 

designation, agency resources are committed, the U.S. Attorney assigns an 

Assistant U.S. Attorney to the case, and the District Coordination Group 

determines the need for involving state/local law enforcement and arranges for 

joint enforcement actions. 

2.3.4.3 OCDETF Task Forces 

Upon case initiation, the Regional Coordination Group and Lead OCDETF 

Attorney assemble a task force. Task forces help eliminate duplication of effort 

and increase intelligence sharing among agencies. Another advantage of task 

forces is that they bring together the specialized expertise of different agencies. 

For example, the DEA and FBI are highly skilled at long-term investigations and 

the IRS adds expertise in financial investigations to the task force; joining 

representatives from each of these agencies can increase the effectiveness of an 

investigation. Participants are drawn from Federal agencies represented in the 

OCDETF Executive Committee. Other state and local LEAs are frequently 

included as needed on a case-by-case basis. 

OCDETF task forces are prosecutor-led. OCDETF cases rely on several 

traditional investigative techniques including undercover work, investigative 

grand juries, and confidential informants. The use of court-authorized electronic 

surveillance is also increasing. Prosecutor involvement facilitates many of these 

activities and helps build strong cases with high conviction rates. 

OCDETF investigations specifically focus on the DTO’s finances. Financial 

investigations can provide insight into the boundaries of the organization. Tracing 

the money flow can reveal organizational members that may be overlooked by 

traditional law enforcement investigative techniques. Moreover, financial 

investigations help identify the organization’s financial and property assets. This 

information is critical to OCDETF investigations as it works to dismantle the 

DTO’s infrastructure through asset seizure and forfeiture. 

2.3.5 OCDETF Program Outputs 

OCDETF outputs can be identified at the national and regional levels, but the 

most critical are those of the individual OCDETF case. 

2.3.5.1 Implemented Regional Strategies 

OCDETFs are strongly encouraged to target organizations identified in the 

regional strategy. A critical output of the OCDETF region is the number of 

organizations listed in the regional strategy for which OCDETF cases are being 

developed. Creating task forces to investigate priority targets is a strategic output 

of the OCDETF region. The extent to which this strategy is implemented may be 

gauged by the percentage of the regionally significant drug trafficking and money 

26 
HIDTA and OCDETF Program Components 

laundering organizations listed in the regional strategy that have active task forces 

dedicated to them. 

2.3.5.2 Interagency Cooperation 

A key output of interagency task forces is cooperation among representatives 

from different LEAs. The interpersonal interactions between task force members 

are a primary determinant of the task force’s success. Task force members must 

put aside turf issues and competing agency goals to focus on a shared objective: 

bringing down the DTO. This is accomplished by the timely dissemination of 

information, collaboration, and overcoming organizational barriers between and 

among participating agencies. 

The number of simultaneous multi-region drug investigations is an OCDETF 

output, as is the number of DTO and related money laundering investigations. The 

chief output of OCDETF task forces is DTO identification. This requires the 

development of intelligence on the DTO’s members, activities, methods, and drug 

and cash flows. Thus, important OCDETF outputs include the number and type of 

DTO investigations, the flow of cases, and the number of indictments. 

The OCDETF program is intended to enable attorneys to shape investigative 

efforts to more efficiently develop cases and minimize legal challenges to the 

evidence. An important output of the OCDETF interdepartmental task forces is to 

facilitate the speed of the prosecution. Measures of their success in efficiently 

developing cases include applying for and attaining warrants for wiretaps, 

searches, and arrests. These tools enable the task force to build strong cases based 

on large bodies of evidence. Strong investigations produce powerful evidence that 

will speed the adjudication of the case. A related output of a successful OCDETF 

investigation is early attorney involvement in the development of case strategy. 

OCDETF affords prosecutors the time they need to participate in the development 

of the strategy and to provide the necessary legal services and counsel that 

investigators require. This involvement ensures that the prosecutions are well 

thought-out, comprehensively charged, and expertly handled. 

One of the most important outputs of an OCDETF investigation is the indictment 

of DTO members. Indictments are prerequisites for higher order outcomes (e.g., 

convictions, fines, and seizures). More important than the number of indictments 

is the type of organizational member brought to trial. The goal of the OCDETF 

program is to dismantle DTOs; to effectively dismantle an organization, highranking members must be identified and removed. If only lower-level members 

are indicted, successful adjudication of the case may have very little effect on the 

organization. A primary measure of task force effectiveness is the percentage of 

higher-level DTO members brought to trial. 

2.3.5.3 Spinoff Investigations 

Through the course of investigating a particular DTO, other organizations may be 

discovered that warrant their own OCDETF cases. Spinoff investigations are 

27 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

more than useful by-products of OCDETF investigations; they constitute 

important outcomes in their own right because they help identify large-scale drugrelated criminal enterprises. Many DTOs that are investigated by OCDETF task 

forces have ties to larger national and international organizations. Spinoff 

investigations are particularly valuable when they implicate priority 

organizational targets listed on the CPOT. 

2.3.6 OCDETF Program Outcomes 

Outcomes of the OCDETF program on a regional level may be measured in terms 

of regionally significant drug trafficking and money laundering organizations that 

have been dismantled or disrupted. Program outcomes can also be measured in 

terms of results related to particular OCDETF cases or disrupted or dismantled 

DTOs. 

2.3.6.1 Regional Strategy Execution 

The regional strategy is periodically updated to reflect changes in drug trafficking 

and money laundering organizations. Changes to the regional priority list reflect 

OCDETF outcomes, particularly when previously identified organizations have 

been dismantled or disrupted. 

2.3.6.2 Outcomes of Task Force Investigations 

Litigation efforts are targeted selectively on the criminal leadership involved in 

drug trafficking and are intended to dissolve organized illicit drug-related groups. 

The success of these investigations and prosecutions can be measured in terms of 

the number of convictions. Likewise, sentences and fines associated with 

particular cases are evidence of well-assembled cases and effective investigations. 

Asset seizures, fines and forfeitures are also important outcomes because they 

attack the financial base (i.e., resources) of the organization and its members. 

2.3.6.3 Dismantled/Disrupted DTOs 

The ultimate objective of a successful OCDETF case is a dismantled or disrupted 

DTO. This requires more than the outcome of indictment, conviction, sentencing, 

and imposition of fines. It requires prosecution and sentencing of high-level 

organizational members in leadership roles. In terms of dismantling the DTO, 

lower-level members (e.g., street-level distributors) are less important than key 

command and control figures. The percentage of defendants in a leadership role 

who are targeted and displaced is a key outcome of OCDETF investigations. If 

key players are not convicted and sentenced, the infrastructure of the organization 

is likely to survive and eventually regain its strength. Asset seizures help destroy 

the DTO’s ability to rebuild, and constitute a key outcome of OCDETF 

investigations. 

28 
HIDTA and OCDETF Program Components 

The FBI and DEA provide input to the list of CPOTs, which reflects the most 

significant worldwide drug trafficking and money laundering organizations. The 

rate at which these organizations are attacked and dismantled is an important 

outcome of the OCDETF program. 

2.3.7 OCDETF Impacts 

OCDETF’s main goal—the dismantlement of those MDTOs responsible for the 

greatest supply of narcotics to our country—should be directly related to reducing 

the overall availability of drugs (FY 2003 Budget Report, p. 2). Accomplishment 

of this goal is intended ultimately to impact DTOs and the community in terms of 

reduced drug availability and drug-related crime. 

2.3.7.1 Change in DTO Activity 

A key impact of OCDETF activities is the reduction of the effects of MDTOs. If 

the DTO is only disrupted, but not entirely dismantled by an OCDETF 

prosecution, the effectiveness of OCDETF will be compromised. One of the goals 

of the NDCS is to raise the operating costs for DTOs. If they are to survive 

increased law enforcement scrutiny, DTOs must adapt to changing conditions. 

Ideally, this means adopting more costly methods and less efficient means of 

conducting their activities. 

2.3.7.2 Reduction of Drug Availability 

Because the primary output of DTOs is illegal drugs, the key impact of disrupting 

their operations should be a reduction in drug availability. When significant DTOs 

are dismantled, the drugs they supplied should no longer hit the market. 

According to the law of supply and demand, if the supply is diminished the price 

should increase. In other words, if dismantling a DTO has an effect on the drug 

supply, the results should include higher prices and/or lower purity of illegal 

drugs. Evidence of reduced availability may also be accompanied by an increase 

in substance abuse treatment. 

2.3.7.3 Drug-Related Crime 

The crime rate and neighborhood safety are two by-products of DTO activities. 

Trafficking in illegal drugs is responsible for a substantial portion of the violent 

crime rate. When DTOs are dismantled, the violent crime related to drug 

trafficking should drop. Assaults and homicides should be reduced as the 

perpetrators of these crimes are increasingly incarcerated. On the other hand, if 

prices increase, certain crimes associated with obtaining money to buy drugs (e.g., 

property crimes, burglaries, muggings) may actually increase. 

29 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

2.4 SUMMARY: COMPARISON OF HIDTA AND OCDETF 

In some regards, HIDTAs and OCDETFs are very similar entities. Both target 

DTOs. Both have interagency task forces as their primary mechanism. Both are 

intended to support interagency law enforcement coordination. Neither program 

exists as a separate investigation organization; there are no HIDTA or OCDETF 

agents, per se. The focus of both programs is on coordinating and supplementing 

existing law enforcement resources in order to reduce drug trafficking and drugrelated violence. 

The HIDTA and OCDETF programs have some built-in overlap, but subtle 

differences reveal a mutually reinforcing, rather than redundant, quality. The 

OCDETF program focuses exclusively on higher-level, multi-jurisdictional DTOs 

(i.e., nationally or regionally significant targets). OCDETFs are case driven; as 

new cases are developed, an investigative task force is assigned for each targeted 

organization. The task force is the primary unit of the OCDETF program. 

In contrast, HIDTAs are designated on the basis of identifiable drug threats, and 

task forces frequently focus on more discrete elements of drug trafficking (i.e., 

production, transportation, distribution, use, and financial proceeds), in addition to 

particular DTOs. Thus, HIDTAs are strategic, rather than case-driven. HIDTAs 

act on annual drug threat assessments, created by each Intelligence Support 

Center—the centerpiece of a HIDTA. The area drug threats dictate the types of 

initiative undertaken by each HIDTA, and multiple task forces are assembled to 

combat specific elements of the area’s drug problems. 

Structural differences exist between the two programs as well. Nine OCDETF 

regions cover the entire United States. The 28 HIDTAs are located in about 

10 percent of the counties in the United States, covering about 66 percent of the 

U.S. population. The organizational structure for the OCDETF program is 

comprised entirely of Federal representatives. The overall HIDTA program is 

managed at a national level as well, but the Executive Board for each HIDTA is 

composed equally of both Federal and state/local representatives. OCDETF task 

forces are led by Assistant U.S. Attorneys. HIDTA directors and task force 

leaders are almost exclusively drawn from a law enforcement background. 

OCDETF task forces focus explicitly on the individual case, and disband upon 

case completion. HIDTAs focus on supplementing and coordinating area law 

enforcement resources, and task forces exist as long as the drug threat persists. 

These shared and distinct characteristics will be addressed when developing 

program logic models and the identification of performance measures for the 

HIDTA and OCDETF programs. 

30 
31

3. PRESENTATION OF LOGIC MODELS

The logic models discussed in this chapter constitute a pictorial depiction of the

information presented in Chapter 2. These models illustrate how the High

Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) and the Organized Crime Drug

Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) programs work to achieve their intended

objectives. Each model starts with the inputs or resources of the program and

shows how the program works through planned activities or processes to produce

desired outputs, outcomes, and impacts. The basic elements of the logic model are

depicted in Exhibit 3-1. These elements have been described as the “critical” or

“core” processes that drive the train (Millar et al., 2000).

Exhibit 3-1. Basic Elements of the Logic Model

Resources Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts

Given program goals and objectives, program resources are devoted to program

activities, which produce outputs, which result in outcomes intended by the

program, which in turn help to create broader impacts. Logic models serve as an

essential foundation for this project because they indicate the key items that have

to be monitored for performance (Hatry et al., 1996). The bold lines

encompassing the outputs, outcomes, and impacts boxes are intended to

emphasize their foremost importance in designing and implementing a

performance monitoring and management system for the HIDTA and OCDETF

programs.

This chapter discusses issues that may influence the development of logic models,

describes the purposes of logic models, and presents the logic models for the

HIDTA and OCDETF programs.

3.1 ISSUES INFLUENCING DEVELOPMENT OF LOGIC MODELS

A logic model is an abstract representation of a real-world situation. If the model

is to have utility, several operational issues must be taken into consideration.

First and foremost is a definition of terms. The following definitions are proposed

for development of logic models for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs:

• Resources—include funding, personnel, facilities, equipment, and supplies.

• Program activities—are actions taken to execute policy and program

objectives. Particularly at the beginning of a program, activities may include

development of an infrastructure (e.g., forming/negotiating relationships
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

among agencies, capacity building). Ongoing activities may include program 

components, such as delivery of a training program, or program initiatives, 

such as the operation of a task force. 

•	 Outputs—reflect internal activities and are the direct results of program 

activities. They are intended to fulfill program objectives and can usually be 

expressed quantitatively (e.g., number of people who completed a training 

program, number of arrests resulting from a task force investigation, or rate of 

convictions from prosecution of members of a drug-trafficking organization). 

•	 Outcomes—are the results of program outputs or products that signify 

progress toward program goals. Outcomes are usually expressed as an 

intended change, such as better-trained law enforcement officers, disruption of 

a drug-trafficking ring, or closing down of a money-laundering operation. In 

measuring outcomes, it is also important to recognize unintended 

consequences downstream, such as the adaptive response of drug trafficking 

organizations (DTOs) to pressure from law enforcement actions or negative 

outcomes such as the number of innocent bystanders or law enforcement 

officers injured in the line of duty during an OCDETF investigation. 

•	 Impacts—often described as long-term outcomes, are the broader, sometimes 

indirect effects of policies and programs. Impacts may be reflected in 

measures external to the program (e.g., lower drug crime rate or lower violent 

crime rate), as measured by a jurisdiction’s annual crime report, or reduced 

availability of a drug or lower emergency room admissions for drug-related 

causes. In measuring impacts, it will be important to distinguish between 

“temporary” and “permanent” impacts. For example, a HIDTA or OCDETF 

activity may result in an increase in drug prices and/or a decrease in the purity 

of drugs available on the street. However, the volatility of drug markets may 

result in these changes being temporary in nature rather than permanent 

impacts. Establishment of a cause-and-effect relationship between a program 

and its impact requires a rigorously designed evaluation. 

In addition to isolating and defining these components, the logic model depicts 

the temporal sequence of program activities, outputs, and outcomes, building 

from left to right in the logic model diagram. Logic models also accommodate 

top-down and bottom-up analyses. This is useful to both local program directors 

and task force leaders who usually focus on day-to-day activities and outputs as 

well as to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) analysts and national 

program offices that focus more on outcomes and impacts. 

Two other categories will be included in the logic models developed for the 

HIDTA and OCDETF programs and are defined here: 

•	 Antecedent variables—are environmental factors, preexisting in the program 

environment, that may influence program activities, outputs, and outcomes 

and may, thus, affect the achievement of program goals. Antecedent variables 

may facilitate program effectiveness (e.g., established organizational or 

32 
F I R S T D R A F T Presentation of Logic Models 

interpersonal relationships) or act as a barrier (e.g., competing policies or 

regulations, turf issues, geographic dispersion). 

•	 Contextual or mediating variables—are non-program factors, operating 

concurrently in the program environment, that may improve or impede 

program outputs and outcomes. It is especially important to take contextual 

variables into account when trying to attribute outcomes to program activities 

(i.e., to establish a cause-and-effect relationship). 

Antecedent and contextual variables are real-world factors that should be included 

in the logic models for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs because of the 

potential influence on overall program performance. The HIDTA program, for 

example, requires coordination among Federal, state, and local agencies. The 

logic model should capture these intergovernmental relationships and the role 

played by each agency at each governmental level. These distinctions are 

important to support an understanding of performance related to a HIDTA activity 

and a single-agency activity, as well as the respective outputs and outcomes. 

Interagency collaboration should also be considered. A given OCDETF case, for 

example, may involve the collaboration of agents from the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(INS), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as well as state and local law 

enforcement agencies (LEAs). Although several charges emanating from the 

different agencies might be included in the indictment, the U.S. Attorney is most 

likely to prosecute the charge that has the best chance of resulting in a conviction. 

The logic model must be able to capture that conviction as the desired outcome, 

but it must also be able to capture the resources, activities, and outputs that led to 

the conviction, both to assess the cost of that outcome and to give credit to the 

collaborating agencies. 

Two caveats apply to the development of logic models. The first is that the logic 

model posits a series of if-then relationships; it does not demonstrate cause-andeffect relationships. The logic model illustrates the process that is intended to 

produce a desired result. Each component part of the logic model—resources, 

activities, outputs, and outcomes—can be measured independently. Establishing 

the actual relationship between the component parts requires analysis and 

evaluation. That analysis and evaluation must take into account antecedent and 

contextual variables from the real world to measure program success and 

effectiveness. 

The second caveat has to do with length of effect: the shorter the length of time 

intervening between a program output and an intended program outcome, the 

more likely it is that the program outcome is a direct effect of the program output. 

The investigation of a drug smuggler (program activity) of a HIDTA or OCDETF 

target that leads to his arrest (program output) should lead directly to his 

prosecution and conviction (program outcome). His prosecution and conviction, 

however, will not necessarily result in reduced availability of the drug being 

33 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

trafficked (desired program impact). Even when the availability of the drug is 

reduced, it will be important to learn whether the reduction resulted from the 

conviction or from some external factor (contextual variable). Again, an 

evaluation is required to demonstrate this cause-and-effect relationship. The 

“length of effect” issue is important in developing a logic model because it 

cautions against unrealistic expectations on the part of program stakeholders and 

program funders. 

A third caveat relates to the complexity of some of the desired goals of the 

HIDTA and OCDETF programs. For example, it is unlikely for a particular 

HIDTA or OCDETF program to produce a decline in drug-related crime rates in a 

given year. In fact, reliance on changes in crime rates alone can be deceiving. As 

Blumstein and Rosenfeld have noted, a decline in homicide rates might be the 

result of changes in policing, “but other factors could well be involved... 

[including] community efforts to mediate inter-gang disputes, a greater 

availability of jobs in the booming economy, [and] changing drug markets with 

diminished roles for young people...” (Blumstein and Rosenfeld, 1998, p. 1177). 

Likewise, it is extremely difficult for one program to decrease drug-related 

violence or reduce drug use because the manager of the HIDTA program or the 

lead investigator of the OCDETF has limited control over the influences that 

affect these kinds of changes in the community or at the larger regional level. 

A final consideration in the development of logic models for the HIDTA and 

OCDETF programs is the need for program flexibility and concomitant 

adaptability of the model. This is particularly important for both the HIDTA and 

OCDETF programs since the underlying mission of each program encourages 

innovation and flexibility in implementation of the program within a particular 

community or region, including the ability to change program focus from year to 

year. Each site is likely to vary in terms of its strategy, initiatives, and the number 

and types of agencies involved in the program implementation. For this reason, 

the logic models developed for monitoring the performance of the HIDTA and 

OCDETF programs are intended to construct a core model for each program. 

These models are not intended to be fixed in stone or to remain static over time. 

Programs should be held accountable only for impacts listed in their budget 

justification. As program goals and objectives change, the content and 

configuration of program components included in the logic model must change. 

3.2 PURPOSES OF LOGIC MODELS 

Historically, logic models have been used to illustrate graphically how a program 

is intended to work. The relationships between the component parts of the logic 

model are especially important when designing a performance monitoring and 

management system that is (1) to measure outputs, outcomes, and impacts, and 

(2) to determine whether a program had its intended effect. If the program did 

have its intended effect, it is important to understand why it was successful; if not, 

it is important to determine why. Were program resources adequate? Were 

program activities carried out as planned? Did those activities produce the 

34 
F I R S T D R A F T Presentation of Logic Models 

intended results (outputs)? What intervening variables affected the outcomes? 

Were there unintended effects? Logic models enable one to frame research 

questions and hypotheses that must be addressed when assessing program 

performance. 

More recently, and especially since implementation of the Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA), logic models have been used for program 

planning. GPRA has intensified a national focus on accountability. According to 

the law, instead of measuring performance by what they do, Federal programs 

should measure performance by results. In logic-model terms, instead of 

measuring performance by activities and outputs, government agencies are 

expected to measure their performance by outcomes. Furthermore, to justify their 

budgets, programs are expected to demonstrate that the outcomes achieved are 

commensurate with the resources expended. In this environment, government 

agencies have turned to logic models to determine what resources are needed to 

perform a set of activities that are designed to produce specified outputs that will 

lead to targeted outcomes. 

Concurrent with GPRA compliance, over the past several years, government 

agencies have increasingly shared responsibility for programs. Because different 

agencies have different objectives, it is important that they agree on what they 

collectively are trying to accomplish and who is responsible for various 

components of the shared mission. In this regard, logic models have proven to be 

successful in gaining consensus among stakeholders. The logic model can show 

what resources are coming from which agency, which activities are the 

responsibility of particular agencies and which activities are joint efforts, and how 

their collective efforts can achieve program objectives. 

Logic models also serve as a framework for performance monitoring because they 

identify what is to be measured. As Harrell notes, in designing performance 

monitoring, “the logic model is used to focus on which kinds of output and 

outcome indicators are appropriate for specific target populations, communities, 

or time periods” (Harrell, 2002, p. 4). As a framework, the logic model helps to 

identify what measures are appropriate, what data are available to serve as 

indicators of these measures, and what are the strengths and limitations of the 

available data sources. The logic model also helps to identify those program 

elements for which measures do not currently exist and what information might 

be used as proxy measures. 

3.3 LOGIC MODEL FOR HIDTA PROGRAM 

The logic model for the HIDTA program is presented as Exhibit 3-2. It is 

necessarily a generic model in that one model cannot possibly depict the variety 

of programs being implemented across the 28 HIDTA sites. Chapter 4 discusses 

the specific elements in the logic model in more detail (see Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2). 

35 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

The logic model for the HIDTA program respects the lessons documented by 

research as well as the direction of the GPRA in that it recognizes the linkages 

between resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. However, in order 

to emphasize the critical importance of the program—to make a change in longterm impacts associated with fulfilling Goal 3—the HIDTA program logic model 

starts and ends with these impacts as the overriding concern in describing the 

intended operation of the program. 

3.3.1 Resources 

For purposes of this model, resources are defined as funding, personnel, facilities, 

equipment, and supplies. Resources for the HIDTA logic model are depicted in 

two components, resources and partners, with resources represented by funding 

and partners including Federal, state, and local LEAs and other partner programs, 

such as the HIDTA Director and the Executive Board. 

3.3.2 Program Activities 

Program activities in the logic model are organized in three broad categories: 

Strategic Focus, Intelligence Support, and Coordination. Activities in the Strategic 

Focus category include HIDTA development, training, and program evaluation 

and are carried out to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement 

(Goal 1). Other activities classified under Strategic Focus, such as threat 

assessment and initiative design, are directed at reducing the effectiveness and 

impact of DTOs (Goal 2). The second category of HIDTA activities, Intelligence 

Support, is intended to improve law enforcement capabilities (Goal 1), but these 

activities are more directly applied toward reducing the effectiveness and impact 

of DTOs (Goal 2). As with Strategic Focus, Coordination activities support both 

Goal 1 and Goal 2. Achievement of Goal 1, by itself, does not constitute program 

success. Rather, it is an important precursor to achieving outcomes related to 

Goal 2. 

3.3.3 Outputs 

The intended product of HIDTA activities is greater cooperation among Federal, 

state, and local LEAs within the region ,more efficient investigations, and support 

for those investigations. These outputs are the intended product associated with 

achieving Goal 1 of the HIDTA program. These outputs need to be measured at 

the individual agency level. They can be measured by documenting changes in 

LEA procedures, increased participation in collaborative planning, and decreases 

in barriers to interagency cooperation. 

36 
37 

Exhibit 3-2. HIDTA Logic Model 

Resources: • Funding • Mission 

Partners: • LEAs 

− Federal (DEA, 

FBI, ATF, USCS, USMS) 

− State (Patrol) 

− Local (Police) 

• Others 

− USCG, 

OCDETF, 

COPS, HIFCAs, HUD, 

Drug Free Communities 

Antecedent Variables: • Drug threats 

− De facto − Measured 

• DTO activity 

− Methods − Violence 

• Turf issues • Existing caseload 

Outputs: • Cooperation • Investigative and 

support activities 

• Improve efficiency 

and effectiveness 

of LEAs 

• Change in: 

− Arrests 

− Drug and cash 

seizures 

Intermediate Outcomes: • Disrupt/dismantle DTOs 

− Production 

− Transportation − Distribution 

− Financial proceeds 

• Change in: 

− Prosecutions − Convictions − Sentencing 

− Asset seizures 

Program Activities: • Strategic focus 

− Threat assessment 

− Initiative design 

− HIDTA development − Training − Program Evaluation 

• Intelligence support (ISC) 

− Database connectivity 

− Communication 

interoperability 

− Analysis 

− Financials − Labs − Technology 

• Coordination 

− Create partnerships − Task forces 

− Co-location − Deconfliction − Facilitate investigation 

Contextual Variables: 

HIDTA maturity Prosecutor involvement Treatment/p

Agency resource Ability to me

allocation 

Impacts: • Reduced drugrelated crime and 

violence 

• Reduced drug 

availability 

• Reduced drug use 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

Outputs for individual task forces will have to be measured. These outputs can be 

measured, at a minimum, by arrests and seizures, which should reflect some 

degree of change from year to year. Overall, the measures of outputs provide a 

gauge of improved efficiency and effectiveness of law enforcement within the 

HIDTA, which is to say an assessment of the accomplishment of Goal 1. 

However, by themselves, they do not constitute a measure of program success. 

3.3.4 Outcomes 

Program outcomes will constitute the accomplishment of Goal 2, to reduce the 

efficiency and impact of DTOs. The outcomes of HIDTA task forces will include 

prosecution, conviction, and sentencing of drug traffickers and seizure of their 

assets. The collective efforts of Federal, state, and local LEAs should be reflected 

in the dismantling or disruption of production, transportation, distribution, and the 

money laundering capability associated with those activities. 

3.3.5 Impacts 

Program impacts result from the accomplishment of Goal 3: to increase the safety 

of U.S. neighborhoods. Reduced violence, drug availability, and drug use are 

major indicators of neighborhood safety and can reasonably be linked to the 

dismantling or disruption of drug-trafficking activities. Elements of the impacts 

presented in the HIDTA logic model (Exhibit 3-2) refer to drug violence, 

availability, and use in a generic manner. Ultimately, when this logic model is 

refined for use with a particular program, drug specificity will become an 

important issue that must be defined. 

3.3.6 Antecedent Variables 

The HIDTA program was created to focus on those areas of the country that face 

the greatest threat posed by DTOs. Thus, by definition the two major antecedent 

variables faced by a HIDTA program are the severity of the drug threat and the 

volume and nature of drug-trafficking activity. Both of these variables are 

important but are difficult to measure. Other antecedent variables that may come 

into play include “turf issues” that create competition or tension among LEAs, 

and the caseload those agencies already carry. Turf issues may be easier to 

acknowledge than to measure, but existing caseload can and should be measured, 

both to identify constraints and to mark progress. 

3.3.7 Contextual or Mediating Variables 

As shown in the logic model for HIDTAs, different contextual or mediating 

variables can be expected to have an effect on different components of the 

program. The ability of program activities to produce their intended outputs will 

almost assuredly be affected by the maturity of the program and by agency 

resource allocation. The extent to which arrests and seizures lead to prosecution 

and convictions will most likely be affected by the degree of prosecutor 

38 
Presentation of Logic Models 

involvement. The extent to which drug trafficking is dismantled or disrupted will 

also depend, to some degree, on the point at which the prosecutor becomes 

involved in the process. Measurement of the impact of the program on drug use is 

complicated by the ability to measure drug use and by the availability and 

effectiveness of drug prevention and treatment programs. 

3.4 LOGIC MODEL FOR OCDETF PROGRAM 

The logic model for the OCDETF program is presented as Exhibit 3-3. Chapter 4 

discusses the specific elements in the logic model in more detail (see Exhibits 4-1 

and 4-2). The OCDETF program includes substantial cooperation and 

coordination at the national level in Washington, D.C., involving the OCDETF 

Executive Committee, the OCDETF Executive Office, the Operations Chiefs 

Group, and the Washington Agency Representative Group (WARG). However, 

the OCDETF logic model is focused on field operations in the nine regions where 

OCDETF cases are investigated and prosecuted. 

Elements of the logic model reflect the goal and objectives of the OCDETF 

program. The goal is to identify, investigate, and prosecute the most significant 

drug trafficking and money laundering organizations and their related enterprises, 

and to dismantle the operations of those organizations in order to reduce the drug 

supply in the United States. To accomplish that goal, each OCDETF region works 

toward four objectives: (1) to target, investigate, and prosecute individuals who 

organize, direct, finance, or otherwise engage in high-level illegal drug trafficking 

and related enterprises, including large-scale money laundering organizations; 

(2) to promote a coordinated drug enforcement effort in each OCDETF region, 

encourage maximum cooperation among all drug enforcement agencies, and 

involve prosecutors early in the development of investigations; (3) to work fully 

and effectively with state and local drug enforcement agencies; and (4) to make 

full use of financial investigative techniques, including tax law enforcement, 

enforcement of Titles 18 and 31 currency and money laundering statutes and 

related asset-forfeiture provisions. 

3.4.1 Resources 

Resources for the OCDETF program fall into two major categories: funding and 

personnel. Facilities, equipment, and supplies are provided by the core city U.S. 

Attorney in each region. Funding is for salary reimbursements, overtime expenses 

39 
40 

Exhibit 3-3. OCDETF Logic 

Model

Reso

urces: 

• Funding for 

− S

alary re

mittance 

− Equipment 

− Inv

estigative 

expenses 

• DOJ guidance 

• Regional Advisory 

Council 

• National priority 

− DTOs (CP

OT) 

Participatin

g Agencies: 

• U.S. Attorneys 

• Federal Agencies 

− FBI, DE

A, ATF, 

USM

S, USCS, 

USCG, INS, IRS 

• State and loc

al LEAs (on 

a case-by-case b

asis) 

Antecedent Variables: • Preliminary evidence 

• Existing caseload 

• DTO activities 

• Turf issu

es 

• Changing national 

priorities 

• G

o

v

ern

ment 

reorganiz

ations 

• Separate budgets 

− Justice − Treasury 

Pro

gram Activities: 

• Identification of national and 

regional priority target DT

Os 

• Include additional agencies to 

capitalize on inv

estigative 

expertise 

• Inv

estigate DTOs 

− Use intelligence databases 

and resourc

es 

− Financial inv

estigations 

− Document and rec

ord 

analysis (DocEx support from 

NDIC) 

− Review evidence obtained 

during arrests and search warrants 

− Debrief defendants 

• Pursue spin-off inv

estigations 

− Connections to other DTOs 

− Leads f

or other regions 

• Prosecutor inv

olvement 

− Electronic surveillance 

− 

Grand Jury indictments 

Outputs: • Coordinated nationwide 

inv

estigations of national and 

regional priority target DT

Os 

• LEA 

− Arrests − Cash and drug s

eizures 

− Spinoff inv

estigations 

• Prosecutor 

− Indictments − Convictions − Fines/forfeitures 

− Asset seizures 

− Sentences 

Int• 

• 

Co

ntext

u

al Variables: 

• Relationships with source countries 

(extraditions) 

• Relationship 

with HIDTAs 

• Length/c

o

mplexity of inv

estigations 

• Conflicts among participating LEAs 

• Ability to measure drug supply 

Im• 
Presentation of Logic Models 

incurred by participating state and local LEAs, and investigative expenses. 

Personnel for each OCDETF case are drawn from the U.S. Attorney’s Office and 

from two or more of the agencies listed on the diagram. 

3.4.2 Program Activities 

Program activities, consistent with the goal and objectives of the OCDETF 

program, include the development of regional strategies; identification of major 

drug trafficking and money laundering organizations; collaboration of Federal 

agencies and, where appropriate, state and local LEAs; investigations of DTOs, 

including early attorney involvement when called for, and sophisticated financial 

techniques; and prosecution of cases. 

3.4.3 Outputs 

OCDETF program outputs include approved regional strategies; arrests of DTO 

leaders and members; seizures of drugs and forfeiture of proceeds and assets; and, 

for attorneys, indictments. Other possible outputs include providing intelligence 

and leads to other OCDETF investigations, contributing to nationwide multiagency investigations, and developing spinoff investigations of other major 

DTOs. 

3.4.4 Outcomes 

Outcomes include the implementation of regional strategies, convictions of DTO 

leaders and members, and disruption or dismantling of DTOs. Disruption may 

include change in drug trafficking patterns, change in transportation modes, or 

change in distribution points, in each instance making trafficking, transportation, 

or distribution more difficult and less cost-effective for the DTO. Dismantling 

includes long-term sentences of DTO leaders and the elimination of money 

laundering systems. 

3.4.5 Impacts 

The intended impact of the OCDETF program is to reduce the drug supply in the 

United States. Corollaries of reduced supply include an increase in drug prices 

and a decrease in drug purity. 

3.4.6 Antecedent Variables 

The introduction of the Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) list 

and the new requirement for regional strategies must be considered major 

antecedent variables for the OCDETF program. Those initiatives will affect 

designation of cases as OCDETF cases, which already must meet specific criteria 

for case initiation and approval at the district and regional levels. Other factors 

include the degree of sophistication of the DTO and possibly, if not likely, 

41 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

international connections of the organization, the existing caseload within a given 

district or region, and possible turf issues between agencies. 

Especially critical for monitoring performance will be the need to recognize and 

document the extent to which Federal agencies’ resources are diverted from drug 

trafficking to counterterrorism initiatives. 

3.4.7 Contextual or Mediating Variables 

The length and complexity of OCDETF cases, which require significant 

expenditures of agent time and sophisticated investigative techniques, are 

important contextual variables. Another contextual variable that must be 

documented relates to events that occur when international organizations are 

involved in U.S. relations with other countries. 

3.5 SUMMARY 

The logic models presented in this chapter have been reviewed by national 

program offices for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs, have withstood the 

scrutiny of outside experts, and will serve as the foundation for identifying a 

menu of measures to be presented in Chapter 4 of this report. 

42 
4. PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

The performance measures for this project are designed to provide a 

comprehensive understanding of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 

(HIDTA) and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) 

programs and to monitor each program’s progress over time. A performance 

measure is a gauge of how well the program is working. For some measures, 

existing data sources are available; in other cases, new data sources will need to 

be developed to produce the measures. The measures will be used to assess the 

extent to which a program is achieving an outcome and to respond to two 

important questions (Pratt et al., 1998): 

• What are the benefits of the program’s activities (outcomes)? 

• What are the benefits for the communities or regions targeted by a HIDTA or 

OCDETF task force (impacts)? 

The performance monitoring and management system and its measures must 

reflect the complexity of both the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. Performance 

should be measured in terms of the activities, goals, and outcomes at the program, 

task force, and regional level. The four aspects of drug trafficking—drug 

production, transportation, distribution, and financial transactions—provide a 

framework for deciding on the HIDTA or OCDETF program outcomes. The 

program activities undertaken to target these drug trafficking problems include 

intelligence, investigations, interdiction, and prosecution. All of these activities 

are interrelated yet distinct practices that have shared and separate outputs and 

outcomes, and all should be measured in the ideal. In addition, the Office of 

National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the U.S. Department of Justice 

(DOJ) will want to measure the progress of the HIDTA and OCDETF programs 

in reaching higher-order objectives established by each agency in its annual 

mission statement. 

4.1 SELECTION OF MEASURES THAT ARE SENSITIVE TO PROGRAM 

CONTEXT 

The selection of performance measures must be relevant to the context and 

operation of the program. Performance measures must respect the mission of both 

the HIDTA and OCDETF programs and the manner in which the programs are 

implemented. These program-sensitive issues include an understanding of the 

“reach” that can be made by the HIDTA and OCDETF programs, the geographic 

targets of these programs, and the appropriate level of program operation, or unit 

of analysis, given the focus of each program’s activities. 

43 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

4.1.1 The Reach of the HIDTA and OCDETF Programs 

Both the HIDTA and OCDETF programs focus on dismantling drug trafficking 

organizations (DTOs) and other related activities to disrupt the drug market, 

thereby reducing drug-related crime activity. The ultimate success of these 

activities is envisioned to be a reduction in the overall drug problem, as measured 

by drug use, availability of drugs, and other global changes in the community. 

However, it is important to recognize that the HIDTA and OCDETF programs, 

like other task force initiatives, operate within complex environments with 

existing forces outside the program’s control. To use “decrease in use of drugs” as 

an outcome measure of success without considering other forces in the 

community would not constitute an accurate assessment of performance. As 

Friedman notes, performance systems should “provide fair gauges of agency and 

program performance” (Friedman, 1997, p. 9). It is for this reason that the 

performance monitoring and management system and related measures described 

in this report make an important distinction between program outcomes and 

impacts on the community. 

The reach of the program must also consider the realities of measuring long-term 

outcomes that are distinguished as impacts in the HIDTA and OCDETF logic 

models presented in Chapter 3. Appropriate use of measures dictates that the 

focus should ultimately be on the long-term outcomes to be achieved. Measures 

of these long-term outcomes may not be possible to document for several years 

following the initiation of a HIDTA program or OCDETF investigation. Measures 

of shorter-term outcomes must be taken early in the process, with a shorter 

expected lag time of several months. Other measures, including process-related 

measures and short-term outcomes need to be monitored until sufficient time has 

elapsed that long-term outcomes can be assessed through a combination of 

performance monitoring and program evaluation (Bernstein, 1999, p. 89). It is 

always easier to reach agreement on long-term goals, like reducing crime or drug 

use, but measurement of performance requires breaking down goals into annual 

objectives, specifying how they will be achieved, and getting agreement on 

priorities, approaches, and roles. These issues have been considered in developing 

the menu of measures. 

4.1.2 Geographic Target of the Program 

OCDETF cases often focus on DTOs that have an influence in multiple regions 

across the country. These geographically disbursed operations may have impacts 

in several different states and regions of the country. Similarly, HIDTAs are 

funded because the drug problem in the designated community has an impact on 

other far-flung parts of the country. Alternatively, the drug problem in the 

HIDTA-designated community may be largely created by DTO activity in other 

regions of the country. Program managers must address these issues as they 

decide on the geographic unit of analysis for a performance measure. In 

developing the implementation plan for the performance monitoring and 

management system, it will be important to develop measures for the geographic 

44 
Performance Measures 

region that represents the intended area of influence for the respective HIDTA or 

OCDETF program being monitored. 

4.1.3 Level of Program Operation 

Another program characteristic common to the HIDTA and OCDETF programs is 

the level of program operation that should be the focus of the performance 

monitoring and management system. For the HIDTA program, performance may 

be measured at the program level (nation), at the regional level (program), or at 

the initiative level (strategy). Similarly, OCDETF performance measures can be 

reported for the overall program, at the regional or district level, or for individual 

cases and task forces. 

Each level of analysis imposes different requirements on the development of 

measures. Drug-related statistics, such as drug use rates, may serve as appropriate 

measures at the national level; however, the geographic sphere of influence for a 

HIDTA or OCDETF activity is likely to occur within a particular community or 

set of communities, depending on the focus of the task force or the investigation. 

This geographic consideration will affect decisions about which indicators serve 

as appropriate measurement sources for assessing the performance of a program 

task force or initiative. 

4.2 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE MEASUREMENTS 

Both quantitative and qualitative data sources need to be identified and developed 

to measure the performance of the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. Quantitative 

data exist in many current sources, including HIDTA and OCDETF program 

reports and management information systems, and in other national and local data 

reporting systems. HIDTA annual performance reports include data that measure 

outputs such as arrests and drug and cash seizures. The OCDETF management 

information system reports indicators of outcomes on particular OCDETF 

investigations. Other quantitative indicators include law enforcement agency 

(LEA) crime reports, emergency room (ER) reports, coroner reports, surveys on 

drug use, and court records of indictments, prosecution, convictions, and 

sentencing. These indicators can be used to count incidents related to program 

activities, outputs, and some outcomes for both the HIDTA and OCDETF 

programs. However, these reporting and assessment tools are not sufficient to 

enable program managers to draw conclusions about either program’s impact on 

drug production, drug transportation, drug distribution, or drug use. 

Systematic collection of qualitative information can be very useful, particularly 

when quantitative data are unavailable or insufficient to describe program results. 

Qualitative assessments of performance enhance the robustness of quantitative 

data and strengthen program managers’ ability to support assessments of 

performance. This kind of information can be collected through structured 

interviews and focus groups with community informants, knowledgeable citizens 

and community experts, and law enforcement officers. Anecdotal information 

45 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

collected through expert and informant interviews and focus groups can produce 

powerful “stories” to help explain the effectiveness of a program. This 

information can also be gleaned from intelligence reports (e.g., intelligence center 

reports) and reports developed by groups engaged in ethnographic and 

epidemiologic research (e.g., the Community Epidemiology Work Group 

[CEWG] and Pulse Check research networks). Qualitative information can be rich 

in detail and can provide a valuable context for interpreting quantitative data. 

An appropriate balance between quantitative and qualitative information sources 

will provide a sound foundation for the HIDTA and OCDETF performance 

monitoring and management system. Quantitative measures such as crime rates, 

drug arrests, and other conventional indicators have been described by researchers 

in the field (see Rosenfeld and Decker, 1999) as bottom-line measures of program 

success. However, the qualitative opinions and other input of informed law 

enforcement officers and other task force partners will provide a grounding and 

context for understanding the results of the program’s performance. DiIulio 

(1992) recommends such a paradigm to enhance a general understanding of the 

workings of the criminal justice system (p.7). 

Both quantitative and qualitative measures present unique challenges, as well as 

important contributions to the performance monitoring and management system 

developed for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. The following paragraphs 

examine some measurement and related criteria or issues to consider in assessing 

the strengths and limitations of measures included in the Menu of Measures. 

4.3 CRITERIA FOR SELECTING MEASURES AND MEASUREMENT 

SOURCES 

ONDCP and DOJ have agreed on four criteria to guide the selection of measures 

and data sources for the HIDTA and OCDETF performance measurement and 

management system. These criteria include (1) the credibility of the measure to 

ensure that the information is useful and relevant (i.e., how well it communicates 

the documentation of an activity, output, outcome or impact and how useful it is 

to stakeholders and program managers); (2) the consistency of the measure (i.e., 

whether it can be continuously collected over time); (3) the degree of 

comparability across HIDTA program sites and OCDETF regions (i.e., whether 

the same types of data are collected in a similar fashion across sites); and (4) the 

extent to which the data are either readily available or can be collected without 

extensive cost or additional burden to program staff. These criteria respect the 

advice of well-known researchers in the field (Pecora, 1998). Another important 

issue, related to the generalizability of data, is addressed in this section. 

4.3.1 Credibility of the Measure 

To be useful as a performance measure, the indicator must measure an output, 

outcome, or impact that represents a construct of interest to the program; that is, it 

should measure something useful and relevant to stakeholders and program 

46 
Performance Measures 

managers. This issue relates to the credibility of the measure or to its ability to 

communicate intended changes. Some of the traditional measures used in 

assessing the end result of programs, like HIDTA and OCDETF, do not recognize 

the latency between action and results. For example, one of the goals of large 

interdictions and drug seizures is a decrease in the availability and purity of drugs 

and an increase in price. It is important to note that these effects are often 

transitory; availability may decrease shortly after a major event and then return to 

its previous levels rapidly. Many of the measures used for gauging illegal drug 

use are collected annually and are thus insensitive to transitory fluctuations 

resulting from law enforcement efforts. Supplementing these quantitative 

measures with documented and current input from informed experts in the 

community can help program managers address this potential problem. 

4.3.2 Consistency and Comparability of Measurement Data 

OCDETF strategies vary by region and task force, and HIDTA activities are often 

uniquely tailored to the jurisdiction of the initiative being implemented. This 

variation must be considered by the researchers who compile and use the data 

extracted from law enforcement records. The comparability of crime reports 

varies from one LEA unit to another. Also, crime data included in the FBI’s 

Uniform Crime Reporting System (UCR) suffer from problems associated with 

variations in reporting at the local level. Therefore, in using these and other 

reporting systems that may be intended to report on the same outcome domain, 

whether it be crime, drug use, or some measure of violence, it is important to 

assess the degree to which indicators across jurisdictions are based on the use of 

common definitions. 

Differences in tabulating arrest data across jurisdictions can affect the 

comparability of these sources for performance monitoring of programs, such as 

HIDTA or OCDETF, that cover multiple jurisdictions. Increases in drug-related 

arrests or drug-related prosecutions may reflect a concentration on low-level 

management within a DTO. Because the focus of OCDETF task forces is on the 

command and leadership of the DTO, it is important to interpret these data 

sources carefully. While arrest and prosecution counts may be useful for 

measuring outputs of a task force or initiative, these indicators should be 

supplemented with other information to assess the effectiveness of the program in 

achieving its intended targets on top DTO leadership. 

Likewise, when using seizure data as a measure of program activity, it is 

important to gather data on the denominator of the problem. Drug smuggling and 

distribution are clandestine by their very nature. Without knowledge of the actual 

amounts of illegal drugs entering the market, seizure data, analyzed by itself, may 

simply signal an increase in drug trafficking and not in the effectiveness of the 

HIDTA or OCDETF program activity. 

47 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

4.3.3 Availability and Cost of Information 

Some quantitative measures are relatively inexpensive to collect, particularly if 

they already are being gathered for other purposes. For example, LEAs routinely 

gather many statistics on crime and crime-related events and outcomes, report 

statistics that represent the outputs and outcomes of investigations, and followup 

prosecutorial and judicial actions. While statistics on crime rates are only one 

measure of the success of a criminal justice effort, they do provide a meaningful 

overall measure of success in protecting public safety. Performance measures that 

incorporate these data will not constitute a major burden in costs or staff time on 

most HIDTA and OCDETF program managers. This issue of “availability” of 

data was an important consideration in developing the menu of measures. 

While existing data sources have their limitations when adapted for purposes 

other than originally intended, their use avoids the cost and time required to 

develop tailored surveys and other expensive reporting systems for the HIDTA 

and OCDETF programs. 

4.3.4 Generalizability of the Data Source 

Survey data must be analyzed carefully to avoid misuse of the data. The sampling 

methodology of any survey must be assessed to account for its representativeness 

of the population being studied. In using survey data as an input to the 

performance measurement of HIDTA and OCDETF program activities, it is 

important to also consider the power of the survey to support estimates at the 

regional level. Many national surveys, such as the National Household Survey on 

Drug Abuse (NHSDA), produce data at the national or state level but not at the 

county level. Many other federally supported surveys, such as the Drug Abuse 

Warning Network (DAWN), report data on fewer than 30 major metropolitan 

locations throughout the country. This presents a particular challenge to the 

monitoring of HIDTA program performance because HIDTAs are designated by 

county and often span several state jurisdictions. 

Sampling methodology is also an important consideration when using data on 

seizures and undercover drug buys as a performance measure. The System to 

Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE), the Heroin Signature 

Program (HSP), and the Domestic Monitoring Program (DMP) use forensic 

analysis to determine drug purity and the source of origin. These lab-reporting 

systems provide objective measures, unavailable through other means. However, 

because the sampling methods of these systems tend to be nonrandom and 

unsystematic, these indicators should not be used to measure community-at-large 

outcomes. 

There are a variety of data sets available to produce measures of criminal and 

drug activity. It is important to interpret these data sources correctly so that 

attribution to the appropriate population is made. For example, data exist to report 

on the results of arrestee urinalysis, substance abuse admissions, ER visits, and 

coroner reports. Each reporting system provides a hard measure of drug use with 

48 
Performance Measures 

some caveats. Data reporting on the results of arrestee urinalyses relate to a highly 

specific population; these results should not be generalized to the general 

population. 

Similarly, while reports of ER visits and drug-related deaths provide an index of 

hard-core drug abuse, they do not provide a measure of occasional or recreational 

drug use. For example, a rise in methamphetamine ER admissions probably does 

signal a potential problem, but it does not necessarily represent the level of 

methamphetamine use in the general population. 

4.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE MENU OF MEASURES 

The logic models for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs, presented in Chapter 3, 

serve as the foundation for the development of the menu of measures (see 

Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2). Exhibit 4-l presents a list of currently available data sources 

that can be used to access information that measures intended outputs, outcomes, 

and impacts for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. Exhibit 4-2 presents a list of 

currently available data sources that can be used to document antecedents, 

resources, partners, activities, and mediating variables necessary to monitor the 

HIDTA and OCDETF programs. For both exhibits, it is important to note that 

only existing national data sources are listed. This is a good starting point, but 

these data sources will need to be expanded to include other data available at the 

local level, as well as other data collection methods that can develop more 

sensitive and timely measures, using both quantitative and qualitative 

information. 

The focus of any performance monitoring and management system must be on the 

outputs, outcomes, and impacts, many of which are listed in Exhibit 4-l. With 

limited Federal, state, and local resources to combat the problems associated with 

drug use, achievement of success must be measured in terms of these kinds of 

indicators. At the same time, however, the performance monitoring and 

management system developed must recognize that Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) require 

that program resources, activities, and partners also be measured. These 

requirements are the focus of Exhibit 4-2. The data sources included in these two 

exhibits are intended as a departure point. Each program manager may select from 

these menus and identify other relevant data sources in a manner that 

accommodates measurement of the individual program’s goals, objectives, 

strategies, and initiatives. 

Within each exhibit, measures are presented by program (HIDTA and OCDETF) 

for each major category of variables. For each proposed measure, the menu 

presents the domain to be measured, the measure, a data source, available 

variables, the frequency of the data collection, and the unit of analysis. As 

becomes evident in reviewing the menu of measures, some information is 

missing. Chapters 5 and 6 of this report present some recommended approaches 

for developing additional information, not contained in currently available 

49 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

sources, to fill these data gaps. Policymakers and program managers will need to 

make decisions about what new reporting systems should be developed, and to 

decide how the measures will be ranked and which items will serve as core 

measures to be adopted by both the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. To a certain 

extent, missing information can be provided by the drug intelligence community, 

task force participants, and knowledgeable community informants and through 

careful review of annual reports and strategic plans prepared by HIDTA and 

OCDETF. The menus of measures, presented in Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2, constitute 

an important contribution to the continued process of narrowing the scope on 

what to measure, where the measures currently exist, and how to prioritize the 

measures. 

Exhibit 4-1. Menu of Currently Available Data Sources 

for Outputs, Outcomes, and Impacts 

HIDTA Measures 

Outputs LEA outputs HIDTA Annual 

Report B.01.IV.1 

Arrests Annual HIDTA 

Participating LEAs Arrests From LEA LEA 

HIDTA Annual Drug seizures (by drug type) Annual HIDTA 

Report B.01.IV.2 

Participating LEAs Drug seizures (by drug type) From LEA LEA 

HIDTA Annual 

Report B.01.IV.3 

Cash seizures Annual HIDTA 

Participating LEAs Cash seizures From LEA LEA 

Federal Drug FDSS Conveyance type, location, drug type Annual State 

Seizures and amount, state, enforcement 

activity 

Southwest Border EPIC BLISS Drug seizures (by drug type) Ongoing Southwest border 

Seizures only 

Change in LEA HIDTA Annual Increase or decrease in LEA outputs Annual LEA; HIDTA 

outputs Report B.01.IV; (arrests, and drug and cash seizures) 

participating LEAs 

Investigation and 

Support 

HIDTA Annual Intelligence center outputs (e.g., Annual HIDTA intelligence 

Report B.01.IV.5 number of deconfliction inquiries, center 

telephone tolls, geo-mapping) 

HIDTA Annual Investigative activities (e.g., number of Annual HIDTA intelligence 

Report B.01.IV.4 Title III initiations, pen registers, pager center 

intercepts) 

HIDTA Annual Number of OCDETF cases generated Annual HIDTA 

Report B.01.IV.4 

OCDETF IIF Number of OCDETF cases generated Case-by-case HIDTA 

HIDTA Annual Number of identified DTOs (local, Annual HIDTA 

Report B.01.III.B.1 national, international) 

Outcomes Prosecutions and 

sentences 

National Judicial 

Reporting 

Program (NJRP) 

Conviction offenses, type and length of 

sentences 

Biannual; 

Selected 

counties 

County felony 

trials 

State Court 

Processing 

Statistics (SCPS) 

Arrest offense, type and outcome of 

adjudication, type and length of 

sentence 

Biannual; 

Selected 

counties 

State felony trials 

DTO dismantled/ HIDTA Annual Number of DTOs (local, national, Annual HIDTA 

disrupted Report B.01.III.B.1 international) 

HIDTA Annual % of identified DTOs dismantled/ Annual HIDTA 

Report B.01.III.B.1 disrupted (local, national, international) 

50 
Performance Measures 

HIDTA Measures 

Impacts Reduced Crime HIDTA Annual Homicide, robbery, assault, rape, 

Report B.01.III.C.1 burglary 

Uniform Crime 

Reports (FBI) 

Annual HIDTA area(s) 

Murder, rape, robbery, assault, Annual State, county

burglary, larceny, car theft 

National Crime 

Victimization 

Survey (NCVS) 

Rapes, sexual assaults, robberies, 

assaults, thefts, burglaries, car theft 

Annual State 

NHSDA Drug selling, fights, crime, abandoned 

buildings, graffiti 

Annual State 

HIDTA Annual Changes/trends in crime rates Annual State

Report, UCR,

NCVS, NHSDA

Drug Availability HIDTA Annual 

Report B.02 

Heroin Signature 

Program (HSP) 

Domestic Monitor 

Program 

System to 

Retrieve 

Information from 

Drug Evidence 

Pulse Check 

Community 

Epidemiology 

Work Group 

Drug Use NHSDA 

Monitoring the 

Future (MTF) 

Youth Risk 

Behavior 

Surveillance 

System (YRBSS) 

Arrestee Drug 

Abuse Monitoring 

(ADAM) 

Estimated drug market impact of 

dismantled/ disrupted DTOs 

Production source of heroin seizures 

and buys; purity; price (for buys) 

Heroin price and purity 

Drug type, purity, location and price (if 

purchased) 

Drug use, drug types, availability, 

prices, dealer and user characteristics 

Drug-related deaths and ER visits, 

treatment, arrestee urinalysis, 

seizures, price, purity, distribution, 

arrests 

Age, attitudes, perceived risk and 

availability, drug use (lifetime, past 

month, past year), drug types 

Age, drug use, exposure, availability, 

frequency, risk perceptions 

Drug use, type, and frequency 

Drug use (urinalysis); interviews on 

drug use, frequency, current offense 

Annual DTO 

Ongoing Heroin seizures/ 

purchases 

Ongoing Undercover 

purchases 

Ongoing Undercover 

purchases and 

drug seizures 

Annual; 20 cities 

Qualitative 

and 

quantitative 

Annual; 21 cities 

Qualitative 

and 

quantitative 

Annual State (after 1999) 

Annual Regional (youth 

population) 

Annual; Some Selected states 

variation and cities (youth 

between sites population) 

in survey 

content 

Quarterly and Selected counties 

Annual 

Drug Use Harm Drug Abuse 

Warning NetworkER 

Drug-related emergency room visits Ongoing 21 SHMAs 

Drug Abuse 

Warning NetworkME 

Drug-related deaths Ongoing 27 SHMAs 

National Vital 

Statistics Survey 

Drug-related deaths Ongoing State 

51 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

OCDETF Measures 

Domain Measure Source Variables Accessibility Unit of Analysis 

Outputs Nationwide OC MIS (coming) Number and percentage of nationwide Ongoing OCDETF Region 

coordinated coordinated investigations 

investigations 

Implemented 

Regional 

Strategy 

Investigation Initiation Number and percentage of regional Upon initiation OCDETF region 

Form (I), Regional priority target investigations 

Strategy 

Investigation Initiation Number and percentage of Special Upon initiation OCDETF region 

Form (I) Operations Division (SOD)-

coordinated investigations 

Investigation Initiation Number and percentage of primary Upon initiation OCDETF region 

Form (V) money laundering investigations 

Investigation Initiation Investigative techniques planned; Upon initiation OCDETF region 

Form (VIII.B), Regional number and percent of planned 

Strategy investigative activities for case listed in 

regional strategy 

Investigation Initiation Number and percentage of Upon initiation OCDETF region 

Form (I), CPOT coordinated investigations against 

CPOT linked targets 

LEA Outputs Closing Report Amount and type of drugs seized Upon case OCDETF task 

completion force 

Closing Report Amount of currency seized Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force 

Closing Report Number of spinoff investigations and 

related OCDETF case number 

Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force 

Federal Drug Seizure 

System 

Federal drug seizures Annual; state OCDETF task 

force 

Prosecutor Investigation Initiation Names of principal targets and their Upon case OCDETF task 

Outputs Form (VII.A.3) roles initiation; force 

Qualitative 

Indictment and Defendants charged and their roles Upon OCDETF task 

Investigation Form (B) indictment force 

Investigation Initiation Ratio of charges for leadership roles to Upon OCDETF task 

Form, Indictment and principal targets identified indictment force 

Investigation Form (A) 

Indictment and Number and percentage of indictments Upon OCDETF task 

Investigation Form (A); for CPOT related targets indictment force 

CPOT 

Indictment and Number and percentage of individual Upon OCDETF Task 

Investigation Form regional target defendants Indictment force/ Region 

Indictment and Number and percentage of leadership- Upon OCDETF task 

Investigation Form (B, III) level defendants indictment force 

Disposition and Number and percentage of sentences Upon case OCDETF task 

Sentencing Report of 10 years or more completion force 

Indictment and Number and percentage of indictments Upon OCDETF task 

Investigation Form (B, IV) including money laundering and/or indictment force 

asset forfeiture charges 

Closing Report Amount and percentage of assets Upon case OCDETF task 

deposited in Asset Forfeiture Fund completion force 

Outcomes Executed 

Regional 

Strategy 

Closing Report and 

Regional Strategy 

Number of disrupted regional priority 

targets 

Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF region 

Closing Report and Number of dismantled regional priority Upon case 

Regional Strategy targets completion 

Closing Report and CPOT Number of disrupted national priority 

targets 

OCDETF region 

Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF region 

Closing Report and CPOT Number of dismantled national priority 

targets 

Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF region 

52 
Performance Measures 

OCDETF Measures 

Domain Measure Source Variables Accessibility Unit of Analysis 

Outcomes 

(continued)

Change in DTOs listed as regional 

priority targets 

Executed Annual OCDETF region

Regional 

Strategy 

(continued)

Previous Regional 

Strategy and Current 

Regional Strategy 

Court Actions Disposition and Guilty verdicts Upon case OCDETF task 

Sentencing Report completion force 

Disposition and Number and percentage of convicted Upon case 

Sentencing Report CPOT target-related defendants completion 

OCDETF task 

force/ Region 

Disposition and 

Sentencing Report 

Number and percentage of convicted 

regional priority target-related 

defendants 

Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force/ Region 

Disposition and 

Sentencing Report 

Number and percentage of convictions 

including money laundering and asset 

forfeiture charges 

Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force/ Region 

Closing Report Amount and percentage of Upon case OCDETF task 

nonpersonal assets seized completion force 

Disposition and 

Sentencing Report 

Sentences Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force 

Disposition and 

Sentencing Report 

Total individual fines Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force 

Disposition and 

Sentencing Report 

Total aggregated fines for case Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force 

Disrupted/ 

Dismantled 

DTO 

Disposition and Number and percentage of defendants Upon case 

Sentencing Report convicted at leadership level completion 

Disposition and Number and percentage of sentences Upon case 

Sentencing Report of 10 years or longer completion 

Closing Report DTO dismantled, disrupted, or neither Upon case 

completion 

Closing Report Ratio of amount of drugs seized to Upon case 

estimated quantity of drugs distributed completion 

Closing Report Ratio of amount of currency seized to Upon case 

estimated currency laundered completion 

Closing Report Financial assets forfeited Upon case 

completion 

Closing Report Amount and percentage of assets Upon case 

seized completion 

Closing Report Sentences, by level in DTO Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

Impacts Reduced Drug Investigation Initiation DTO drug type (identify type of drug Upon case OCDETF task 

Availability Form impact) initiation force 

Investigation Initiation DTO geographic scope (identify area Upon case OCDETF task 

Form of impact) initiation force 

Investigation Initiation Type and quantity of drug (estimate Upon case OCDETF task 

Form (VII.A.e) drug supply impact) initiation force 

Indictment and 

Information Form (A.III) 

Drugs charged (identify type of drug 

impact) 

Upon 

indictment 

OCDETF task 

force 

Closing Report Quantity of drugs moved (by drug 

type) 

Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force 

Drug Availability Domestic Monitor Heroin price and purity Ongoing Undercover 

Program purchases 

Heroin Signature Program Production source of heroin seizures 

(HSP) and buys; purity; price (for buys) 

Ongoing Heroin seizures/ 

purchases 

System to Retrieve 

Information from Drug 

Evidence 

Drug type, purity, location, and price (if 

purchased) 

Ongoing Undercover 

purchases and 

drug seizures 

53 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

OCDETF Measures 

Domain Measure Source Variables Accessibility Unit of Analysis 

Impacts 

(continued)

Drug Availability 

(continued)

Pulse Check Drug use, drug types, availability, 

prices, dealer, and user characteristics 

Annual; 20 cities

Qualitative 

and 

quantitative 

Community Epidemiology 

Work Group 

Drug-related deaths and ER visits, 

treatment, arrestee urinalysis, 

seizures, price, purity, distribution, 

arrests 

Annual; 

Qualitative 

and 

quantitative 

21 cities 

Drug Use NHSDA Age, attitudes, perceived risk and 

availability, drug use (lifetime, past 

month, past year), drug types 

Annual State (after 1999) 

Monitoring the Future Age, drug use, exposure, availability, Annual Regional (youth 

(MTF) frequency, risk perceptions population) 

Arrestee Drug Abuse Drug use (urinalysis); interviews on 

Monitoring (ADAM) drug use, frequency, current offense 

Quarterly and 

Annual 

Selected counties 

Drug Use Harm Drug Abuse Warning 

Network-ER 

Drug-related emergency room visits Ongoing 21 SHMAs 

Drug Abuse Warning 

Network-ME 

Drug-related deaths Ongoing 27 SHMAs 

National Vital Statistics 

Survey 

Drug-related deaths Ongoing State 

Reduced Crime Investigation Initiation Related criminal activities of DTO Upon case OCDETF task 

Form (VI) initiation force 

Investigation Initiation Illegal activities involved Upon case 

Form (VI.A.d) initiation 

OCDETF task 

force 

Indictment and 

Information Form (A) 

Related criminal activities charged Upon 

indictment 

OCDETF task 

force 

Closing Report Expected community impact of 

investigation and prosecution 

Upon case 

completion 

Community 

Closing Report Criminal activities Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force 

Uniform Crime Reports 

(FBI) 

Murder, rape, robbery, assault, 

burglary, larceny, car theft 

Annual State, county 

National Crime 

Victimization Survey 

(NCVS) 

Rapes, sexual assaults, robberies, 

assaults, thefts, burglaries, car theft 

Annual State 

Note: The above table contains only existing national data sources. In implementing the performance 

monitoring and management system, additional or supplemental measures may need to be developed to 

measure results at the area or local level. 

54 
Performance Measures 

Exhibit 4-2. Identification of Data Sources to Document Antecedents,

Resources, Partners, Activities, and Mediating Variables

HIDTA Measures 

Measure Source Variables Accessibility Unit of Analysis 

Antecedents De Facto Drug Intelligence Geographic: major POEs by land, sea Ongoing Areas with 

Threats Reports and air, transshipment points, geographic threats 

smuggling routes, areas of marijuana 

cultivation and methamphetamine 

production 

Measured 

Threats: Drug 

Availability 

Pulse Check Trends in drug trafficking methods, 

availability, and use 

Annual; 

qualitative and 

quantitative 

20 cities 

Community 

Epidemiology 

Work Group 

(CEWG) 

Trends in drug trafficking methods, 

availability, and use 

Annual; 

qualitative and 

quantitative 

21 cities 

Antecedents 

(continued)

Measured 

Threats: Drug Use 

NHSDA Age, attitudes, perceived risk and 

availability, drug use (lifetime, past 

month, past year). 

Annual State (after 1999) 

Measured 

Threats: Drugrelated harm 

Arrestee Drug 

Abuse Monitoring 

(ADAM) 

Drug use (urinalysis); interviews on 

drug use, frequency and current 

offense 

Quarterly and 

Annual 

Selected counties 

Drug Abuse Drug-related emergency room visits Ongoing 21 SHMAs 

Warning Network 

(DAWN-ER) 

Drug Abuse Drug-related deaths Ongoing 27 SHMAs 

Warning Network 

(DAWN-ME) 

National Vital Drug-related deaths Ongoing State 

Statistics Survey 

DTO-related Uniform Crime Rates of homicide, robbery, assault, Annual State, county 

violence Report (FBI) rape, and burglary 

National Crime Rates of rape, sexual assault, robbery, Annual State 

Victimization assault, theft, burglary, larceny, and 

Survey (NCVS) car theft 

Resources Funding Amount HIDTA Annual Funding for HIDTA Annual HIDTA 

Report B.01.1.C 

Initiative Budget HIDTA Annual 

Report B.04.III 

Funding for each initiative Annual Initiative 

State/Local LEA Budgets for LEA funding contribution to HIDTA Annual Participating state 

Support for HIDTA participating LEAs and local LEA 

Cooperation with 

Federal Agencies 

ONDCP Budget 

Office 

Memoranda of understanding Annual Federal LEA 

State/Local HIDTA Budget Grants to participating LEAs/fiduciaries Annual LEA 

funding receipts Office 

Partners Participating HIDTA Annual Number of law enforcement agents 

Agencies Report B.01.1.F (FT/PT) 

HIDTA Annual Number of law enforcement agents 

Report B.04.III (FT/PT) and agency contributions 

Annual HIDTA 

Annual Initiative 

Structure HIDTA Annual HIDTA leadership and responsibilities Annual HIDTA 

Report B.03.III.A 

& B 

Organization HIDTA Annual Personnel and reporting relationships Annual HIDTA 

Chart Report B.03.IV 

55 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

HIDTA Measures 

Measure Source Variables Accessibility Unit of Analysis 

Program 

Activities 

Subsystem design Annual; 

qualitative 

Initiative Design HIDTA Annual HIDTA

Report 

B.03.III.C-1 

HIDTA Annual Initiative description Annual; 

Report B.04.II qualitative 

Developmental standards: strategic 

planning 

HIDTA 

HIDTA 

Development 

HIDTA Annual 

Report 

B.01.III.A.c. 

Annual HIDTA 

HIDTA Annual 

Report 

B.01.III.A.d. 

Developmental standards: 

accountability 

Annual HIDTA 

Intelligence 

Center 

HIDTA Annual 

Report B.01.III.A.a 

Developmental standards Annual HIDTA 

HIDTA Annual 

Report B.01.IV.4 

Number of cases with Intelligence 

analysts assigned 

Annual HIDTA intelligence 

center 

Coordination HIDTA Annual 

Report B.01.III.A.b 

Developmental standards: teamwork Annual HIDTA 

HIDTA Annual Unity of effort Annual; 

Report B.01.IV.2 qualitative 

HIDTA Annual 

Report B.04.III 

HIDTA 

Proportion of collocated and noncollocated task force members Annual Initiative 

Mediating

Variables 

HIDTA 

Development 

HIDTA Annual 

Report B.01.III.3 

Developmental standards Annual HIDTA 

Agency Resource Participating LEAs Budget Annual Participating LEA 

Allocation 

Prosecutor HIDTA Annual Full-time and part-time prosecutor Annual Initiative 

Involvement Report involvement 

B.03.III.C.d, 

B.04.II 

Treatment and 

Prevention 

HIDTA Annual 

Report B.03.C.e 

B.04. II 

Funding sources, programs, agencies, 

causal linkages to drug use, involved 

task forces 

Annual Initiative 

ONDCP Non-HIDTA treatment and prevention 

programs 

Annual HIDTA 

SAMHSA Prevention and treatment programs, 

and funding amounts 

City/state HIDTA 

DASIS/I-SATS, 

formerly National 

Master Facility 

Inventory 

Number of public and private treatment 

programs 

Address, city, 

state 

HIDTA 

DASIS/N-SSATS, 

formerly Uniform 

Facility Data Set 

Utilization of treatment programs Address, city, 

state 

HIDTA 

OCDETF Measures 

Domain Measure Source Variables Accessibility Unit of Analysis 

Antecedents Existing Indictment and Initiation Current cases open (initiated, but not Continuous OCDETF region 

Caseload Forms closed); manpower assigned to open 

cases 

Changing Participating Federal Number of agents reassigned from Continuous LEA involvement 

National Agencies drug investigations to others (e.g., 

Priorities terrorism) 

Resources Funding Department of Justice Memoranda of understanding Annual OCDETF task 

force 

Mission OCDETF program goals OCDETF program goals Annual OCDETF program 

56 
Performance Measures 

OCDETF Measures 

Domain Measure Source Variables Accessibility Unit of Analysis 

Resources Regional OCDETF regional 

(continued Priority Targets strategy 

CPOT National Priority Target 

List 

List of regional priority targets Annual OCDETF Region 

List of national priority targets Annual OCDETF program 

Partners Agency Investigation Initiation Participating agencies, number of Upon initiation OCDETF task 

Involvement Form: III agents force 

Activities LEA Indictment and Agency involvement Upon OCDETF task 

Collaboration Investigation Form (A) indictment force 

Change in agency involvement (from Upon 

initiation to indictment) indictment 

Investigation Initiation 

Form and Indictment and 

Investigation Form (A) 

OCDETF task 

force 

LEA Investigation Initiation Expected investigative techniques Upon Initiation OCDETF task 

Investigation Form (VIII.B) force 

Indictment and Investigative tools used Upon OCDETF task 

Investigation Form (A) indictment force 

Closing Report Investigative tools used Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force 

Investigation Initiation 

Form, Indictment and 

Investigation Form (A), 

Closing Report 

Change in investigative techniques 

from "expected" to "used" 

Upon 

indictment 

OCDETF task 

force 

Closing Report Innovative investigative or 

prosecutorial techniques used 

Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force 

DTO Investigation Initiation 

Identification Form (V) 

Indictment and 

Investigation Form (A) 

Closing Report 

Investigation Initiation 

Form, Indictment and 

Investigation Form (A), 

Closing Report 

Investigation Initiation 

Form 

Indictment and 

Investigation Form (A) 

Investigation Initiation 

Form, Indictment and 

Investigation Form (A) 

Investigation Initiation 

Form, Indictment and 

Investigation Form (A) 

Closing Report 

Closing Report 

Closing Report 

Closing Report 

DTO type Upon initiation OCDETF task 

force 

DTO type Upon OCDETF task 

indictment force 

DTO type Upon case OCDETF task 

completion force 

Change in identifiable type of DTO Upon case OCDETF task 

completion force 

Drugs suspected Upon initiation OCDETF task 

Drugs charged Upon 

indictment 

Changes in identifiable drug types Upon 

indictment 

Changes in related criminal activities Upon 

indictment 

DTO description Upon case 

completion; 

Qualitative 

DTO communication methods Upon case 

completion; 

Qualitative 

DTO countermeasures to LEA Upon case 

completion; 

Qualitative 

Amount of currency laundered Upon case 

completion; 

Qualitative 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

OCDETF task 

force 

57 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

OCDETF Measures 

Domain Measure Source Variables Accessibility Unit of Analysis 

Investigation Initiation 

Form 

HIDTA, HIFCA involvement (y/n), SOD 

coordination (y/n) 

Upon initiation OCDETF task 

force 

Moderators Relationship 

with HIDTA, 

HIFCA, SOD 

Investigation Initiation 

Form 

Percentage of cases generated by 

HIDTA or HIFCA, or coordinated by 

SOD 

Upon initiation OCDETF region 

Length of Investigation Initiation Anticipated length of investigation Upon initiation OCDETF task 

Investigation Form (VII.A.1) force 

Actual latency between initiation and Upon OCDETF task 

indictment indictment force 

Investigation Initiation 

Form (IX) Indictment or 

Information Form (A.I) 

Investigation Initiation 

Form (IX), Disposition and 

Sentencing Report Date 

Actual latency between initiation and 

case disposition 

Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force 

Length of 

Prosecution 

Indictment and 

Information Form (A.I), 

Disposition and 

Sentencing Report Date 

Actual latency between indictment and 

case disposition 

Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF task 

force 

Average Length 

of 

Investigations 

Investigation Initiation 

Form (IX) Indictment or 

Information Form (A.I) 

Average latency between initiation and 

indictment 

Upon 

indictment 

OCDETF region 

Average Length 

of Prosecutions 

Investigation Initiation 

Form (IX), Disposition and 

Sentencing Report Date 

Average latency between initiation and 

disposition 

Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF region 

Average Length 

of Case 

Indictment and 

Information Form (A.I), 

Disposition and 

Sentencing Report Date 

Average latency between indictment 

and case disposition 

Upon case 

completion 

OCDETF region 

58 
5. ISSUES IN IMPLEMENTING THE PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

This chapter reviews existing reporting systems that can be used to support the 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) and the Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) performance monitoring and management 

system, proposes roles for key stakeholders participating in the system, and 

recommends processes for compiling new measures and reviewing monitoring 

information. Two fundamental principles guide the implementation of the 

performance monitoring and management system: (1) to make it a useful 

management tool for HIDTA and OCDETF program managers at each level of 

the organization; and (2) to balance reporting requirements from the field with 

appropriate feedback from headquarters. 

5.1 REVIEW OF EXISTING REPORTING SYSTEMS 

The process of the performance monitoring and management system will be 

enhanced if the relevant data collection and periodic assessment are built 

seamlessly into existing operational procedures and organizational routines. It is 

for this reason that CSR recommends that the system foundation be built with 

existing reporting systems. The discussion of measures and indicators, presented 

in Chapter 4, demonstrates that the HIDTA and OCDETF programs share 

common data elements and incorporate other elements unique to each system. As 

the previous chapter also shows, several reporting systems external to the HIDTA 

and OCDETF programs may provide useful data. 

5.1.1 HIDTA 

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) produces a combined 

Annual Performance Plan/Report and submits it through the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to Congress as part of the ONDCP budget 

request justification. The Annual Performance Plan/Report draws upon four 

annual reports from the HIDTAs: 

• Annual Report, due April 15; 

• Threat Assessment, due May 15; 

• Strategy, due June 15; and 

• Initiatives/Budget, also due June 15. 

Completion of these reports is the responsibility of the Executive Board of each 

HIDTA. 

The Annual Report contains information on major drug trafficking organizations 

(DTOs) that were targeted in the previous 12 months and reports program outputs, 

59 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

outcomes, and impacts. The primary outputs of the HIDTA program include 

increased coordination between law enforcement agencies (LEAs) and access to 

intelligence. Outcomes include major drug organizations disrupted or dismantled 

and changes in trends and methods of operation of DTOs. Impacts include 

reduction in drug-related crimes, reduction in violent crimes, reduced drug sales 

and use, and an estimate of the HIDTA’s long-term impact on the region. The 

Annual Report also requires each funded HIDTA to measure and submit its 

performance toward achieving specific Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) performance targets in accordance with ONDCP’s Performance Plan. 

The other three reports provide information on program inputs and processes. The 

Threat Assessment describes the illicit drug-related activities that affect the 

HIDTA region. In addition to identifying the targeted drug organizations, it may 

describe antecedent variables that should be measured. The Strategy is the 

HIDTA’s plan to reduce the identified drug threat in the region. It includes a 

number of resource and process factors centered on coordination of efforts and 

sharing of intelligence and information. The Strategy includes five subsystems: 

Intelligence, which includes the intelligence center; Investigation, which includes 

collocated/commingled multi-agency task forces; Support, including management 

and coordination; Interdiction (in some regions); and Prosecution (in some 

HIDTAs). The Initiatives/Budget submission documents both resources and 

outcomes. Initiatives planned for the upcoming year are submitted with projected 

funding requirements. Each initiative approved for funding must be accounted for 

in the following year’s Initiatives/Budget submission, including outcomes and 

accounting for funds. 

The performance monitoring and management system developed for the HIDTA 

program should incorporate an emphasis on the systematic review of the four 

HIDTA reports prepared by each program annually. The reports should be 

reviewed separately from the annual program and budget review process to ensure 

that there is a common thread that links the reports in some meaningful way to 

support the next year’s operating plan. This review should focus on the 

commitment of the HIDTA to incorporating performance measurement in its 

planned activities and internal measurement system. 

The annual plan, supported by the revised threat assessment and accompanying 

budget, should be reviewed to ensure that it provides a clear picture of intended 

performance. These reports should be reviewed to ensure that they include (1) sets 

of performance goals and measures that address planned program results; (2) 

baseline and trend data for past performance; (3) budgetary resources related to 

the achievement of the planned program activities; (4) planned strategies and 

initiatives that are linked to specific performance goals and descriptions and 

explain how the strategies and program activities will contribute to the 

achievement of those goals; (5) a brief description or reference to a separate 

document on how the program plans to build, maintain, and marshal the resources 

needed to achieve results; (6) strategies to leverage or mitigate the effects of 

external factors on the accomplishment of the performance goals; (7) 

identification of complementary performance goals and measures that are used by 

60 
Issues in Implementing the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

other agencies participating in the HIDTA task force initiatives; and (8) 

performance partnerships to achieve impact. 

5.1.2 OCDETF 

Much of the data for the OCDETF performance monitoring and management 

system will come from four forms that are submitted on each OCDETF case: 

• Investigation Initiation Form (IIF); 

• Indictment and Information Forms (Part A, Case; Part B, Defendant); 

• Disposition and Sentencing Report; and 

• OCDETF Closing Report. 

The forms are submitted from the field for entry in the OCDETF Management 

Information System (MIS). 

As the names suggest, the forms are submitted at different points as the case 

progresses. The data they provide are important for measuring program activities, 

outputs, outcomes, and impacts. The Investigation Initiation Form is prospective; 

it contains information on the targeted organization, prospective defendants, drugs 

involved, the type of organization, its related criminal activities, and prospective 

seizures and forfeitures. It also indicates the agencies that will be involved in the 

investigation and the resources required. The Indictment and Information Forms 

provide output data. Part A, Case, provides information on the actual drugs 

charged, the type of organization, and its related criminal activities. It also lists 

actual agency involvement, including the number of personnel from each agency, 

and the investigative tools that were used. Part B identifies the defendant, his role 

in the criminal organization, and the offenses with which he is charged. The 

Disposition and Sentencing Report provides data on the outcome of the trial, 

including original charges and dispositions, lesser charges and dispositions, and 

the sentence. The new OCDETF Closing Report captures additional outcome data 

and some impact data. It indicates whether the target organization was dismantled 

or disrupted, the estimated quantity of drugs the organization was moving and the 

amount seized, the estimated quantity of weapons moved and the amount seized, 

the estimate of currency laundered and the amount seized, and the type and value 

of financial assets forfeited. It also contains information on convictions, agencies 

involved, and scope of the case. 

In addition to the reporting forms submitted by field offices, resource data is 

available from the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement Budget Estimates 

submitted to Congress by the OCDETF Executive Office. 

5.1.3 Other Reports 

Several other reports provide a variety of information that may be of use in 

measuring different aspects of the HIDTA and OCDETF programs: 

61 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

•	 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) is conducted 

annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

(SAMHSA) and captures data at the state level on availability of drugs, drug 

types, drug use, and other factors. With state-based sampling, the report 

provides substance use prevalence estimates for every state and detailed 

analyses of national patterns of use. 

•	 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) monitors six categories 

of health-risk behaviors among youth and young adults, including alcohol and 

other drug use (drug use, type, and frequency). Published annually, it includes 

a national school-based survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention (CDC) and state, territorial, and local school-based surveys 

conducted by education and health agencies. 

•	 Federal-wide Drug Seizure System (FDSS) reflects the combined drug 

seizure efforts of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Border 

Patrol within the jurisdiction of the United States, as well as maritime seizures 

by the U.S. Coast Guard. The FDSS compiles data by fiscal year and 

eliminates duplicate reporting of a seizure involving more than one Federal 

agency. 

•	 Drug and Alcohol Services Information System: Treatment Episode Data 

System (DASIS/TEDS) is a compilation of data on the demographic and 

substance abuse characteristics of admissions to substance abuse treatment. It 

is published annually by SAMHSA, using data at the state level. 

•	 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN–ER) reports data compiled by 

SAMHSA on drug-related emergency room (ER) episodes. Includes 

semiannual estimates for the coterminous United States and for 21 major 

metropolitan areas on trends in major substances of abuse and other 

substances of abuse by drug category and drug name. 

•	 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN–ME) reports semiannual data on 

drug related deaths for 27 major metropolitan areas. 

•	 Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) are tabulated monthly and compiled 

annually by the FBI, based on nationwide reporting from city, county, and 

state LEAs. UCRs include data on arrests for violent, property, and drugrelated crime. 

•	 Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) is a program funded by the 

National Institute of Justice that tracks trends in the prevalence and types of 

drug use among booked arrestees in 35 urban areas. Data are tabulated 

quarterly and reported annually. 

•	 Pulse Check is published semiannually by ONDCP and is intended to 

“describe hardcore drug-abusing populations, emerging drugs, new routes of 

62 
Issues in Implementing the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

administration, varying use patterns, changing demand for treatment, drugrelated criminal activity, and shifts in supply and distribution patterns.” 

Findings are based on reports from ethnographers/epidemiologists, law 

enforcement officials, and treatment providers in 20 cities. 

•	 Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG) reports are published 

semiannually by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). They draw 

upon DAWN–ED and DAWN–ME reports, data from ADAM, and seizure, 

price, purity, prescription/distribution, and arrest data obtained from DEA, 

and provide community-level surveillance of drug abuse, emerging trends, 

and consequences of abuse. Both qualitative and quantitative data are reported 

by researchers in 21 cities. 

The utility of any of these reports to measuring the performance of the HIDTA or 

OCDETF programs will almost certainly be in terms of impact as well as 

antecedent and mediating variables. Four other criteria should also be considered: 

(1) the precision of the index (How well does it reflect the gravity of the drug 

problem?); (2) the consistent availability of the data (Can they reasonably be 

expected to be continuously collected over time?); (3) the degree of comparability 

across sites (Are the same types of data collected in a similar fashion across 

sites?); and (4) the extent to which the data are readily available at the desired 

level. All of these reports meet the first three criteria; the fourth criterion needs 

closer attention if these data sources are to be used to support performance 

monitoring for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. 

The FDSS aggregates data at the national level and, thus, is appropriate for both 

programs at that level. The NHSDA, the YRBSS, and DASIS/TEDS are all 

national in scope, but they also report data at the state level. Data from those 

reports are appropriate for HIDTA at the national level and for OCDETF at both 

the national and regional levels. The two DAWN reports project data to the 

national level, but are based on reports from a limited number of sites. The 

ADAM, Pulse Check, and CEWG reports are each limited to their respective 

sites. Site-specific data should not be dismissed. The Pulse Check and CEWG 

reports provide a valuable lesson on how site-specific data can be used. That is, 

they draw upon multiple sources to present a comprehensive picture of the drug 

situation in the site. Several ADAM, Pulse Check, and CEWG sites are within 

HIDTAs (and, of course, OCDETF regions). Taken together, data from those 

reports can be triangulated to provide valuable contextual data. 

Of all the reports mentioned here, the UCR breaks out data not only at the 

national and state levels but also at the county level. To the extent that HIDTAs 

are made up of counties, sometimes not contiguous and sometimes spreading 

across state lines, that county-level data can be aggregated by county to measure 

HIDTA crime rates. Another county-level data set that is not commonly thought 

of in terms of measuring anti-drug efforts is the Multiple Cause of Death data, 

part of the National Vital Statistics Survey, published annually by the National 

Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Data on drug-related deaths can be tabulated 

63 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

at the county, state, HIDTA, and national level to provide an indicator of the 

prevalence of drug problems in a given jurisdiction. 

In the next stage of developing and refining HIDTA and OCDETF performance 

measures, these reporting systems need to be examined closely to assess their 

utility to the system. During this review process, it is important to recognize that 

not all performance measures are created equal. In developing the performance 

monitoring and management system for both programs, the system should focus 

on the most important, available measures of performance. These “primary” 

performance measures should consider the following step-wise approach in order 

to ensure that the development of the performance monitoring and management 

system is accomplished in an iterative and responsible manner (Friedman, Mark, 

1997, p. 12): 

1. The system measures quality of outputs; 

2. The system measures quality of outcomes; 

3. The system measures quantity of outputs; and 

4. The system measures quantity of outcomes. 

This approach will enable the HIDTA and OCDETF program managers to 

prioritize program objectives. This approach supports a disciplined focus on a 

small number of the most important measures. 

5.2 DISCUSSION OF APPROPRIATENESS/AVAILABILITY OF DATA 

Although the HIDTA reports and the OCDETF reports contain a wealth of data, 

not all of that data may be appropriate for performance measurement. Conversely, 

data may not be available for some measures. This section presents several issues 

to be considered in implementing the performance monitoring and management 

system. 

5.2.1 Multiple Measures for Multiple Users 

As noted above, the HIDTA program and the OCDETF program have many 

characteristics in common, but are sufficiently different in that they require 

different performance measures. Fair and accurate reporting demands a system 

that is tailored to each program. There is no “one-size-fits-all” or “cookie-cutter” 

approach to development of a performance monitoring and management system. 

Furthermore, no system can be all things to all users. Data that are valuable to the 

local program manager may not be useful at the Washington headquarters level, 

and data that may seem insignificant at the local level may, when aggregated with 

data from all local programs, be important at the national level. In the 

development of the system, users at each level should be given the opportunity to 

specify their own data needs. 

64 
Issues in Implementing the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

5.2.2 Comparative Measures 

Other than prescribed program components, standards of performance have not 

been established for HIDTA or OCDETF programs. Indeed, given the variation in 

HIDTAs and in OCDETF regions, good arguments can be made against 

standardization. On the other hand, some basis of measurement is desirable. Both 

programs plan to use FY 2002 data as baselines for their performance monitoring 

and management system. Thus, baseline data should become available in the 

initial stages of implementation of the performance monitoring and management 

system, and data from subsequent years can be compared to data from 2002. 

Other comparisons can be made, including current to previous period and, over 

time, trends. The HIDTA program has established targets expressed as 

percentages, and the OCDETF program has targeted specific DTOs for 

dismantling or disruption. Comparisons of actual accomplishments to targets can 

be made. Also, especially for resource allocation, comparisons can be made 

across HIDTAs and across OCDETF regions. 

5.2.3 Automated Systems 

Full and effective use of a performance monitoring and management system 

requires that it be automated. The OCDETF MIS has been converted to be 

compatible with Windows-based programs and software and is currently being 

upgraded to allow Web-based interface with U.S. Attorneys offices and to provide 

a report distribution system. The OCDETF MIS appears to be capable of 

providing much of the data needed for the performance monitoring and 

management system. 

To the extent any of the HIDTA reports are automated, that should be used as a 

starting point for automating all HIDTA reports. The objective is not to create a 

new automated system but to take advantage of systems that exist. Components 

should be phased in according to priorities established by ONDCP, based on 

urgency of need, cost, and ease of automation. 

The simplest, most cost-effective first step toward collecting performance data for 

the HIDTA program would appear to be automating the Annual Report as a 

Microsoft Access document that could be sent out and returned electronically. In 

Access, the form could include text boxes with a capacity of 250 words for 

narrative parts of the report. Development of an Access database in Washington 

would make it possible to copy data from field reports electronically and to 

compile data by HIDTA to tabulate national-level data. A further refinement 

would be to develop a Web-based system, which would allow online data entry. 

Both programs should take advantage of other automated systems that provide 

data external to the programs but that can provide relevant measures, especially 

where impacts are concerned. 

65 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

5.3 KEY STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING THE 

SYSTEM 

Implementation of the performance monitoring and management system should 

include program staff in Washington and in the field who will be involved in 

operation of the system (i.e., system users at all levels). For the HIDTA program, 

this includes representatives from the ONDCP HIDTA Program Office, HIDTA 

Executive Boards, and HIDTA Directors. 

Representation of program staff for the OCDETF program is somewhat more 

complex because of the number of agencies involved and the layers in the 

program. In Washington, the OCDETF Executive Office must be involved, 

including staff responsible for the MIS. The Washington Agency Representative 

Group (WARG) should also be involved because the Program Guidelines 

specifically charge the WARG with disseminating performance measures and 

monitoring achievement. At the regional level, representation should come from 

Advisory Councils, which are responsible for the Annual Strategic Plan for their 

Regions, and from Regional Coordination Groups, which are responsible for 

submitting all reports on OCDETF cases. In addition to representatives from U.S. 

Attorneys offices, representatives should include Special Agents in Charge from 

the various agencies involved in typical OCDETF cases. 

Because of their methodological expertise and practical experience, a group 

including researchers and practitioners should be convened periodically during 

the implementation stage. This group of experts can help maintain the proper 

balance required to protect the necessary rigor of the performance measurement 

system and to ensure the system reflects the reality of day-to-day law enforcement 

systems. 

Washington headquarters staff for the two programs (HIDTA and OCDETF), 

field staff for both programs, and an expert panel should be involved in three 

stages of implementation of the performance measurement system: 

conceptualization, pilot test, and operationalization. 

The conceptualization stage to date has involved headquarters staff who have 

shared their vision of what the performance measurement system should be and 

provided program documentation to describe the programs. Similarly, through 

telephone discussions, field staff have shared their vision of what the system 

should be and how it should be developed. Representative field staff, headquarters 

staff, and respected scholars in the performance measurement field, have 

reviewed the draft logic models and performance measures. The remaining 

critical component in the conceptualization stage is for similar stakeholders to 

reach agreement on the definition of terms, particularly with regard to the 

distinctions between outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Conclusions must be drawn 

about the accurate depiction of each program, as it is characterized by its logic 

model. Finally, decisions must be made on which performance measures to use; 

how they fit into the logic model; whether they can be expected to measure what 

66 
Issues in Implementing the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

they are intended to measure; and whether the data can be collected in a 

reasonable time at a reasonable cost. 

The different groups will have different roles in the pilot test. Field staff will have 

primary responsibility for data collection. Field staff for the two programs will 

have insights to performance that are based on direct experience. Their knowledge 

and experiences offer an important basis for learning, adaptation, and 

improvement of the program, particularly at the task force and regional level. The 

pilot test will measure the time and resources required for field staff to participate 

in data collection and the degree of difficulty in obtaining data and applying it to a 

particular HIDTA or OCDETF program. 

Headquarters staff will have primary responsibility for analyzing the data and 

generating reports that will be appropriate to several different audiences. In 

preparation for the pilot test, headquarters staff will have to determine what 

information should be reported to whom and in what level of detail, because the 

intended reports will drive the compilation, aggregation, and analysis of the data. 

Preparation will also include identifying analytical tools and skills that will be 

required to process both quantitative and qualitative data, and ensuring that those 

tools and skills, including computer programs and qualified staff, are in place. 

The pilot test will determine how long it takes to process the data and at what 

cost, and will determine the quality of the data that is produced by the analysis. 

The pilot test will also provide an opportunity to test report contents and formats. 

Reports at the headquarters level must be designed for both internal (e.g., 

ONDCP, OCDETF Executive Committee, Operations Chiefs Group, and WARG) 

and external consumption (e.g., OMB, House and Senate Appropriations 

Committees). Equally important are the reports to be sent back to the field offices. 

These reports should, on the one hand, be quality assurance reports that identify 

strengths and weaknesses of the data reported, and on the other hand, provide 

information to field offices that will help them improve program performance. 

The role of an expert group in the pilot test will be to review results, particularly 

from a methodological perspective. These experts will be concerned with the 

validity of the data and their reliability across HIDTAs and OCDETF regions with 

regard to resources, program activities, outputs, and outcomes. The panel will be 

especially concerned with the applicability of impact data on a national and 

regional scale. They will also be concerned with the appropriateness of data 

analysis, including the combination of qualitative and quantitative data, and with 

the effectiveness of the reports that are generated for particular audiences. 

As great an undertaking as the pilot test will be, the three groups should continue 

to play a role in the operationalization of the performance system. Headquarters 

and field staffs must be involved in making the system operational and need to 

monitor the accuracy and effectiveness of the system. Both the HIDTA and the 

OCDETF programs intend to use data from 2002 as a baseline for measurement. 

All three groups should be involved in a review of that data to assess validity and 

reliability, to identify weaknesses and gaps in the data, and to recommend 

67 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

corrective action. After the pilot test, the three groups should be involved in 

annual reviews of the performance measurement system, for two reasons. First, 

they are in a position to identify and adjust realistic benchmarks of performance. 

For example, how many convictions, with what duration of sentences, through 

how many layers of a DTO, are necessary to dismantle that organization? What is 

an accurate measure of neighborhood safety, based on how many variables? The 

second reason for continuing their review role is to call on them for 

recommendations on how to adjust the system. If certain measures prove not to be 

appropriate, others should be identified. If program emphases change, perhaps the 

logic model will need to be changed, and almost certainly the performance 

measures will have to be adjusted. Input from headquarters and field staffs and 

review by outside experts are necessary to identify these events and provide a 

sound grounding for making changes. 

5.4 RECOMMEND PROCESSES FOR COMPILING QUALITATIVE 

INFORMATION 

The most obvious level of the system for compilation of measures is at 

headquarters in Washington: the paradigm is that field offices send their reports to 

headquarters and headquarters compiles and aggregates the data to create a 

system-wide report. Especially for some qualitative measures, however, 

compilation will also be required at the field level. Here again, the Pulse Check 

and CEWG reports provide a model for data collection and compilation. 

The basic principle of compiling the Pulse Check and CEWG reports is that 

experts from different fields (ethnographers, epidemiologists, law enforcement 

officials, public health officials, treatment professionals, and others) gather the 

best information available to them and submit it to a common point for analysis. 

The information from various sources may not always agree and may even be 

contradictory, but that information can be synthesized to create the best 

measurement available. The experts consulted for a HIDTA or an OCDETF 

measure might well be the members of a given task force, supplemented by 

community experts from other agencies, including district attorneys, prosecutors, 

members of the law enforcement community, crime analysts, members of a 

municipal governing body, representatives of the school system, treatment 

community, or other informed citizens. 

Perhaps the most difficult indicator to measure in the proposed performance 

monitoring and management system is the reduction of the availability of drugs, 

which is an intended impact of both the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. As 

shown in the matrix of measures in Chapter 4, several types of data from different 

sources are available to measure the impact of a HIDTA or OCDETF task force 

that was successful in dismantling a targeted DTO. Because the task force will 

have been composed of knowledgeable members of several different LEAs from 

the Federal, state, and local level, those task force members and their agencies are 

the best source of the degree to which the availability of the targeted drug has 

been reduced. Because an impact, by definition, is broader than the immediate 

68 
Issues in Implementing the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

outcome of the investigation, measurement must go beyond the members of the 

task force, both geographically and temporally. 

A HIDTA or an OCDETF region is geographically a relatively large area. 

Dismantling of a DTO in one part of that area does not necessarily mean that the 

availability of the drug has been reduced in another part of the region. The 

tenuousness of the connection between the successful task force investigation and 

the reduced availability of the drug is compounded by the fact that DTOs 

increasingly operate in multiple regions and that HIDTA and OCDETF task 

forces correspondingly reach across regions. Data from LEAs across the region or 

regions would be the first measure of reduced drug availability. To measure 

impact, the law enforcement data can and should be supported by data from other 

sources. Ethnographers and epidemiologists from different parts of the area 

involved could be consulted to determine from their sources on the street what the 

availability, price, and purity of the drug is, and how it changes over time. Data 

could be compiled at a central location (a HIDTA’s intelligence center, for 

example) to measure the broader and longer impact of the task force. 

The local experts should be convened on an annual basis to obtain their input to 

measure the performance of the HIDTA or OCDETF program in their 

community. These individuals can be gathered together in focus groups, with an 

outside researcher functioning as a facilitator, to obtain the experts’ input. A set of 

five or six general questions can be developed to guide open-ended discussions. 

The goals of the discussions will vary depending on the program to be assessed, 

its current strategy, and the goals of the task force initiatives being monitored. 

However, the set of questions developed each year for this group should provide a 

focus that will accommodate some reasonable level of agreement on a given set of 

measurement criteria that can be documented in an objective manner. 

An alternative way to involve these community experts is to conduct a series of 

individual interviews, supplemented by some standardized observational research, 

to document the organizational and programmatic processes that occurred during 

the previous reporting system; significant events in the community that would 

have facilitated or impeded the program from reaching its intended goals; an 

informed assessment of the relationship between program activities and other 

related law enforcement activities in the community; causal processes as the 

experts view them; and explanations for the accomplishment of goals, 

shortcomings in performance, and unintended accomplishments. 

This process of involving local program participants and other informed 

community experts must be systematic (e.g., using standardized processes and 

anchored scales) to avoid biased and unreliable data. The questions posed to 

individuals must be structured in a way that enables participants to respond with a 

similar rating scale or other tool to focus the information into similar categories 

and directions. Borrowing a page from the COPS Program (see Timothy Bynum’s 

Using Analysis for Problem-Solving), data can also be gathered using a small 

(approximately five simple questions) survey administered to residents, business 

operators, and those who work in the program neighborhood or community. 

69 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

Questions could be designed to measure change in drug use, public perceptions of 

neighborhood safety, and other criteria used to measure program outcomes. 

Qualitative data can best be analyzed using software designed for that purpose. 

Use of the software requires that information be in electronic form, which, for 

focus groups or interviews of experts, is usually a matter of transcribing notes. 

The time invested in entering data electronically will be rewarded by improving 

the efficiency and credibility of the analyses. Electronic files can easily be 

imported into a software package such as NUD*IST (Non-Numerical 

Unstructured Data Indexing, Searching, and Theorizing) for analysis. NUD*IST, 

which was developed by Qualitative Solutions and Research (QSR) in Australia, 

aids in the process of sorting, aggregating, storing, and analyzing text data. It 

allows “nodes” or coding categories to be referenced to specific texts or text units. 

Analysts can browse and edit documents onscreen, annotate documents and create 

memos, conduct word and text-string searches to enumerate instances of language 

usage, create and edit coding trees to allow grouping, and see and examine 

relationships. NUD*IST can then be used to generate reports for particular nodes 

with their specific assigned text units printed out for analysis. Another powerful 

software package for qualitative analysis is Qualrus, recently developed by Idea 

Works, Inc. Among other features, Qualrus includes intelligent coding advice; it 

automatically identifies patterns in the data and uses those patterns to suggest 

likely codes to the analyst. Determining inter-coder reliability is still a necessary 

task of the content analysis, as is developing a coding structure. However, the 

ability to generate reports with aggregated collections of text units that have been 

coded at a particular node or coding category will simplify the process and will 

help expedite the overall content analysis of open-ended data. 

These sophisticated software packages can, of course, also be used for compiling 

data at the headquarters level in Washington. Three of the four HIDTA reports— 

Threat Assessment, Strategy, and Initiatives—are predominantly narrative, and 

the Annual Report includes numerous fields that currently require text entry. 

Similarly, the various OCDETF reports contain text fields. Any comparison of 

textual information across HIDTAs or OCDETF regions, or from one reporting 

period to the next, will be greatly facilitated and enhanced by use of a qualitative 

software package. 

5.5 RECOMMEND PROCESS FOR REVIEWING INFORMATION/FEEDING 

INTO MANAGEMENT OF PROGRAM 

Data reported from the field are inevitably aggregated at the national level to 

create a picture of national performance. OCDETF’s recent emphasis on targeting 

organizations that cut across regions implicitly raises the level of measurement to 

a national scale. Nevertheless, there are two reasons to analyze data by region, 

whether by HIDTA or by OCDETF region. One is to monitor regional 

performance and, perhaps, to compare regions. The other is to provide a feedback 

loop to managers at the regional level. Providing aggregate data on a national 

scale to a region may be inherently interesting, but does not tell the regional 

70 
Issues in Implementing the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

manager about his region’s performance in relation to other regions or to the 

nation as a whole. 

Data for FY 2002 are intended to provide a baseline for performance measures. 

Along with the baseline, development of the system should include benchmarks. 

System development should take place over time, and the benchmarks should be 

adjusted to reflect changing realities. Comparison of data from year to year, or by 

region within some period of time, should provide an indication of how realistic it 

is, for example, to cut drug supplies by 5 percent each year or how realistic it is to 

measure the effect of dismantling a money laundering organization. 

Finally, just as benchmarks should be adjusted to reflect changing realities, the 

entire performance monitoring and management system should be subject to 

periodic review and revision. The need to adjust to policy or program changes is 

obvious. Less obvious, but perhaps more important for the integrity of the system, 

is to change measures when they prove to be inadequate or misleading. 

71 

6. NEXT STEPS IN DEVELOPING THE PERFORMANCE 

MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 

The system proposed for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) and 

the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) programs and 

presented in this report represents a major commitment on the part of the Office 

of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and the U.S. Department of Justice 

(DOJ). Over a period of l5 weeks, CSR, Incorporated staff pored over thousands 

of pages of program documents and hundreds of published reports and articles on 

performance management. Staff also sought the input and advice of 

approximately 50 stakeholders in the field. This challenging assignment set the 

foundation for a performance monitoring and management system that will serve 

as an important management and planning tool for several years to come. 

However, for the system to serve as a responsible management barometer, a great 

deal of work remains to be done. 

The top priority in developing and refining this system will be for program 

managers to recognize its value as a tool to guide program improvement. The 

system needs to be refined and pilot tested from the ground up, engaging the 

community of stakeholders and program operators in the review of measures, the 

development of new data collection methods and the integration of existing 

reporting systems, and the procedures put into place to manage the system. The 

system must be perceived as a feedback system that provides local program 

managers with the information they need to improve their day-to-day operations 

as well as a management tool to measure the effectiveness of program activities. 

This effectiveness of the system will require the continued commitment of 

ONDCP and DOJ in preparing to implement an outcome measurement process. 

While the first important step has been taken to develop a performance 

monitoring and management system for HIDTAs and OCDETFs, many decisions 

remain to be made. These decisions require ONDCP and DOJ to ensure that the 

menu of measures and monitoring protocols are refined and tested in order to 

guarantee that the outcomes measures are (1) consistent with agency and program 

missions and goals; (2) meet the needs of stakeholders; (3) reflect agency 

responsibility; and (4) pertain to a desired result for the program (Pecora, 1998). 

Accomplishing these goals will require a full year of planning and pilot testing 

before the entire system is ready to be implemented on a national basis for either 

program. Refinement and testing of the draft performance monitoring and 

management system will involve careful planning; continued commitment to 

involving stakeholders to ensure that all participants understand and support the 

system; responsible testing to refine and validate the performance measures used; 

and training of staff at the national, regional, and task force levels to ensure that 

the information produced is reliable and interpreted in a systematic way. The 

steps recommended in this chapter are intended to accomplish these objectives. 

73 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

As ONDCP and DOJ continue to refine, pilot-test, and implement performance 

monitoring for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs, they will adhere to the 

expectations of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop an 

annual performance plan that accomplishes the following: 

• States the goals of the program; 

• Expresses the goals in objective, quantifiable, and measurable form; 

• Identifies the resources required to meet the goals; 

• Establishes performance indicators to measure outcomes; 

• Compares results with goals; and 

• Describes means to validate measured values (Carroll, J.D., 1995). 

The remainder of this chapter outlines the steps that must be undertaken by 

ONDCP and DOJ as the two agencies put a performance monitoring and 

management system into place that meets the expectations of Congress and OMB 

and functions as a valuable management tool for the HIDTA and OCDETF 

programs. This chapter also presents a timetable to guide the important work 

ahead. 

6.1 CONVENE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT EXPERTS FOR REVIEW 

AND ADVICE 

During the first 15 weeks of this project, ONDCP and DOJ consulted with several 

law enforcement experts and criminal justice experts who understood the mission 

and day-to-day workings of the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. Respected 

researchers in the criminal justice and related human service fields who are 

recognized as scholars in the field of performance measurement were also 

engaged in the design phase of this project. The input of these individuals helped 

identify and structure the critical components of each program, guide the 

development of the program logic models, and inform the selection of measures 

that should be considered for assessing performance. The process supported the 

involvement of key stakeholders’ input to the prioritization of outcomes and the 

refinement of measures for the OCDETF and HIDTA programs. This process is 

essential to ensure that the final outcomes, indicators, and measures reflect the 

goals and objectives of HIDTA and OCDETF programs and that buy-in is 

achieved for the new performance monitoring and management system. As a U.S. 

General Accounting Office (GAO) study (1994) of performance monitoring 

found, “for stakeholders, including agency managers and staff, to use 

performance measures to gauge progress towards goals, they needed to be 

involved in developing the measures and needed to understand how the resulting 

performance information would be used.” 

74 
Next Steps in Developing the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

The following steps are key to ensuring stakeholder input in the next stage: 

•	 A short series of informal meetings for presenting the draft logic models, 

measures, and implementation process to OMB, selected GAO, and 

congressional staff members to learn about their perspectives on appropriate 

outcomes for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs; 

•	 Focused meetings with ONDCP and DOJ Agency representatives, particularly 

within the national program offices, to obtain their reaction to 

recommendations contained in this report and their suggestions for 

refinement; 

•	 Consultation with a sample of HIDTA grantees and OCDETF task forces in 

several geographic regions and with participating state and local agency 

representatives to elicit their feedback on the draft measures and 

implementation plan proposed for the performance monitoring and 

management system; 

• Synthesis of feedback received during the consultation process; 

•	 Revision of the logic models, menu of measures, and implementation protocol 

based on feedback received during the consultation process; and 

•	 A meeting of a group of experts to discuss revisions to the logic models, menu 

of measures, and implementation protocol in planning for the pilot test of the 

performance monitoring and management system. 

These experts should be convened on several occasions throughout the first year 

of refining and testing the performance monitoring and management system. Each 

step of the developmental process will require important decisions. Involving 

these experts, who come from a variety of backgrounds, will ensure that multiple 

perspectives are debated and addressed. 

A group of experts, and DOJ and ONDCP staff supporting them, can be organized 

into several smaller workgroups that will address data collection plans, data 

processing schedules, reporting requirements, and the logistics of implementing 

the performance monitoring and management system for both the HIDTA and the 

OCDETF programs. Workgroup members will have task-oriented responsibilities 

for identifying alternatives, decisionmaking, and allocating and carrying out 

assignments related to each planning and implementation step. Their 

responsibilities may include deciding which program initiatives should be the 

primary focus of performance measurement; developing a timeline for testing and 

implementing tasks; identifying specific outcomes to measure; reviewing and 

refining the logic model with more intense input from the field; identifying 

additional data sources for each specific measure; overseeing the development of 

new data collection systems; planning and monitoring a pilot test; monitoring data 

analysis and report writing; and evaluating the results of the pilot test and making 

necessary changes. 

Members of the workgroups will seek input from their colleagues in the field at 

several steps in the process. Multiple perspectives will help each workgroup to 

75 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

think about the program and its benefits for participating agencies and the 

community more broadly than if the group relies only on a small core of experts 

who are removed from the day-to-day operations. The result will be more clearly 

defined outcomes that capture the program’s most important benefits. 

In the course of involving other stakeholders in this process, it is important to 

balance the representation of outside experts. Group members should have a 

sound understanding of what the Agency and the program does day-to-day, faceto-face with the law enforcement and other participating agencies in the field. 

These stakeholders may include investigators, prosecutors, executive committee 

members, and community leaders. Other members should include experts in 

research design, measurement, and strategic planning. 

ONDCP and DOJ staff have already started the important work of refining and 

testing the performance monitoring and management system. They have 

(1) reviewed documents that describe each Agency’s purpose, mission, and the 

HIDTA and OCDETF programs; (2) read important program reports and 

guidelines; (3) discussed the availability of data that can be used as outcome 

measures; and (4) reached preliminary agreement on program inputs, activities, 

and intended outputs and outcomes. They agree on the potential benefits of 

outcome measurement and are ready to attack the thorny issues stemming from 

the limited availability of indicators and measurement methods for documenting 

program outcomes. They are prepared to take the next important steps in 

considering the best approach to data collection, prioritizing the measures that 

should be captured, and the individuals who should be involved in assembling, 

reviewing, and incorporating available information into the measurement system. 

6.2 DEVELOP A TIMELINE 

ONDCP and DOJ will need to develop a timeline to guide the planning, 

refinement, testing, and implementation of the performance monitoring and 

management system. Several issues must be considered when developing this 

schedule. 

First, both ONDCP and DOJ have ongoing reporting requirements for the HIDTA 

and OCDETF programs. For example, each HIDTA must prepare an Annual 

Report, Threat Assessment, Strategy and Initiatives/Budget on an annual basis, 

from April l5 to June l5 of each year. OCDETF reporting requirements are driven 

by case cycles: Investigation Initiation Forms at task force inception, Indictment 

and Information Forms upon indictment, Disposition and Sentencing Reports and 

Closing Reports upon case completion. These existing reporting schedules will 

have to be factored into the timing of the development and implementation of the 

performance monitoring and management system. 

Second, the annual appropriations process must be considered when scheduling 

the implementation of the performance monitoring and management system. For 

the HIDTA program, the budget planning stage for each fiscal year occurs in 

76 
Next Steps in Developing the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

March and April of the preceding year. Following the development of program 

reports, submitted by each HIDTA from April through May of each year, the 

ONDCP’s Program and Budget Offices review these reports, submit their 

comments and await requested changes, send revisions to the National 

Coordinating Committee in October, present budget requests to Congress in 

November, and submit the President’s budget to Congress by February l each 

year. 

Third, the availability of resources will guide the period of refining and pilottesting the performance system. Funds will have to be earmarked and made 

available to support staff and contractor assistance in identifying additional 

measures, developing methods for validating indicators, designing new or revised 

data collection systems, involving a sample of HIDTA and OCDETF task forces 

in a pilot-test, collecting and analyzing the data, and analyzing results that will 

lead to full-scale implementation. 

Finally, the refinement and pilot testing of the performance monitoring and 

management system for each program must be addressed in the preparation and 

submission of the Fiscal Year Performance Plans submitted by DOJ and ONDCP 

to OMB each September. These considerations were taken into account while 

preparing the timeline presented in Exhibit 6-1, Proposed Timeline for Finalizing 

Performance Monitoring and Management System for HIDTA and OCDETF 

programs. 

6.3 PRIORITIZE THE OUTCOMES TO MEASURE 

The logic models developed for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs identify a 

wide range of intended outputs and outcomes that can be considered as candidates 

for regular measurement. At this point, it is clear that some of these outcomes are 

measurable and that the measurement of others will require careful developmental 

work. 

The next step is to prioritize those outcomes that should be the focus of the first 

wave of performance measurement. These decisions must be guided by a 

reexamination of the legislative mandate for each program, input from program 

managers regarding ongoing and new program initiatives, congressional oversight 

concerns, and a host of other considerations that influence the current strategies 

mounted by the HIDTA and OCDETF programs. The outcomes that are selected 

for the pilot-test and first round of implementation will serve as the foundation for 

all subsequent planning and implementation activities. If the outcomes are not 

well conceived, the value of outcome measurement is diminished. The following 

steps should be taken in deciding on the outcomes to be measured: 

•	 Obtain input from key stakeholders concerning the most important program 

outcomes to be measured (e.g., will they be intermediate or long-term 

outcomes?); 

77 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System Exhibit 6-1. Proposed Timelin

e for Finalizing Per

f

o

rmance Monitoring and

Management System for 

HID

TA and OCD

ETF Programs

78
Next Steps in Developing the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

Exhibit 6-1. Proposed Timeline for Finalizing Performance Monitoring and

Management System for 

HID

T

A and OCD

ETF Programs (continued)

79
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System Exhibit 6-1. Proposed Timeline for Finalizing Performance Monitoring and Management System for 

HID

T

A and OCD

ETF Programs (continued)

80
Next Steps in Developing the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

•	 Obtain input from program operators on what are reasonable and appropriate 

thresholds that need to be established against which to measure outcomes and 

impacts (e.g., thresholds for drug availability). 

•	 Refine the logic models already developed and have them stand the test of 

approval from agency and program leadership and an outside panel of experts; 

and 

• Agree on the method that will be used to measure the outcomes. 

When prioritizing outcomes to be measured, it is important to follow these 

principles: 

•	 There is no right number of outcomes for a program. HIDTA has three stated 

program goals and OCDETF has five stated goals. The guiding principles of 

the HIDTA program include (1) increasing law enforcement effectiveness to 

(2) disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking organizations (DTOs), which should 

(3) increase the safety of American neighborhoods. The OCDETF program is 

designed to (1) target major DTOs by (2) coordinating law enforcement 

agencies, including (3) state and local law enforcement. The OCDETF task 

forces (4) investigate the infrastructure of the DTO with particular attention 

toward (5) financial investigations. 

•	 Some initial outcomes may appear to be closer to outputs. The logic models 

presented in Chapter 3 portray arrests and drug seizures as outputs for both the 

HIDTA and OCDETF programs. Some program operators may argue that 

these are really outcomes. Flexibility and interpretation are often needed to 

make these distinctions and it is important that the outputs, initial outcomes, 

and longer-term outcomes fit into the logic model in a way that represents the 

actual implementation and intent of the program. 

•	 Important decisions must be made to establish criteria for the “success” or 

directionality of a measure. 

•	 Programs are more likely to influence short-term outcomes. Program 

interventions must compete with extraneous forces in achieving long-term 

outcomes. A major challenge in refining the logic model for both the HIDTA 

and OCDETF programs will be to determine how far to extend the program’s 

intended outcomes. Intended outcomes should capture a meaningful benefit or 

change in the community but should not be so far beyond the program’s 

output that the program’s influence is washed out by other factors. 

To finalize the outcomes to be measured, ONDCP and DOJ will need to review 

program requirements and agency accountability. There is the potential for 

considerable debate on what program outcomes and impacts should be measured. 

Individuals operating at the task force level are likely to be more conservative in 

their expectations than national program directors. Some program operators will 

have difficulties shifting from a focus on internal activities and outputs to a focus 

on outcomes. The important value of prioritizing the outcomes to be measured is 

81 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

that it makes these variations visible and requires the key players to be focused on 

what is important to measure. 

6.4 SPECIFY MEASURES AND DATA SOURCES 

Chapter 4 of this report presented a menu of measures that will serve as a 

roadmap for more detailed specification of indicators. Specifying an outcome 

indicator requires deciding on the actual change that will represent achievement 

of the outcome and determining the statistic(s) (e.g., number or ratio) the program 

will calculate to summarize its level of achievement. 

Some outcomes are fairly easy to observe and measure, such as the number of 

drug-related deaths, the number of homicides, the number of drug-related arrests, 

the number of prosecutions and indictments, and the number of convictions 

occurring in a given year in a particular county. Typically, these measures are 

used as outcome indicators because they are collected on a fairly uniform basis 

across the country and with regularity. 

However, many outcomes related to HIDTA and OCDETF missions are not 

concrete enough to measure directly. For example, the size of the drug problem in 

the community may be a function of the number and size of DTOs that are active 

in that community. It is one thing to report the number of DTOs that have been 

investigated as a result of task force effort. It is more difficult to measure the 

extent to which the drug-related activity of these organizations has been 

dismantled or brought to a complete halt as a result of the investigation. 

Additionally, an indicator may not capture all aspects of an outcome, and some 

outcomes may require more than one indicator. For example, measuring the level 

of drug abuse is a critical component in gauging HIDTA and OCDETF 

effectiveness. There are several indicators for measuring drug abuse, each with its 

unique advantages and challenges. For example, survey measures are useful for 

estimating the incidence of illegal drug use in the general population, but they are 

subject to a variety of biases associated with self-report data. More objective 

measures of drug abuse focus on specific populations: Drug Abuse Warning 

Network (DAWN)-Emergency Room (ER) on ER episodes, Arrestee Drug Abuse 

Monitoring (ADAM) on arrestees, and Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) 

on substance abuse treatment. Each of these objective indicators suggests 

different forms of drug abuse problems. None of the indicators presents a 

complete picture of drug use in the general population, but taken together they can 

present a comprehensive understanding of the level of drug abuse in the 

community. 

Several criteria should be used to guide the process of reviewing and refining the 

menu of measures: 

82 
Next Steps in Developing the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

• Verify that there is at least one indicator for each prioritized outcome; 

•	 Ensure each indicator measures some important aspect of the outcome that no 

other indicator measures; 

•	 Specify the wording of the indicator so that it is clear what characteristic or 

change is to be counted; and 

•	 Identify the statistic that will summarize the program’s performance on the 

outcome for each indicator. 

In specifying the outcome measures, it will be necessary to identify all other 

variables that may influence outcomes. These are captured in the boxes entitled 

“predecessor” and “contextual” variables in the HIDTA and OCDETF logic 

models, presented in Chapter 3. The measurement system must include measures 

of these variables in order to link outcomes to program characteristics. For 

example, the length of operation of a particular task force may be one measure of 

the maturity of the HIDTA or OCDETF program. Alternatively, the experience 

level of the program director or the lead investigator may help to explain the 

extent to which the program is successful in achieving its intended outcomes. In 

order to explain what program and community characteristics may make a 

difference, it will be important to include them in the design of the performance 

monitoring and management system. 

The following types of information will support these useful comparisons: 

• Demographic characteristics of the community; 

• Level of support provided by the local level to the program effort; 

•	 Geographic location and community characteristics related to drug trafficking 

(e.g., near a seaport, airport, and/or major highway intersections); 

•	 History and characteristics of the organizational unit within which the HIDTA 

or OCDETF task force operates; and 

• Number of law enforcement officials/agencies involved in the program effort. 

Once the outcomes to be measured have been prioritized, and the measures have 

been identified, the basic ingredients of the performance monitoring and 

management system are in place. The next step is to identify data sources and data 

collection methods. Many of these sources have been identified in Chapter 4. 

However, considerable work remains to be done in order to determine the 

accessibility of these data sources, the currency of the data, the extent to which 

the data sources will support cross-program comparisons, and the robustness of 

the data. 

ONDCP and DOJ will need to review all data sources identified in this report and 

supplement them with other available documents, sources, and data repositories at 

the state and local level (e.g., state hotline reports; local police department 

records; local informant interviews; and surveys of local schools, juvenile 

83 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

detention centers, and other programs). This will require a thorough review and 

inventory of data sources at the Federal, state, and local levels. 

Once data sources have been identified, each data source must be documented in 

terms of its reliability, validity, availability, appropriateness, and coverage. This 

should result in a stand-alone report that serves as the foundation for baseline data 

that can be used to measure change in the key outcomes identified over time. It 

will also serve as a reference point for planning the update of data sources and the 

identification of missing data that must be developed under new or revised 

reporting systems. In some cases, existing data systems, such as local police 

department reports, can be used and the data can be extracted to data collection 

instruments designed to accommodate uniformity of reporting across task forces, 

investigations, regions or programs. 

Several criteria should guide the decision on new data collection systems, 

including: 

•	 Is the data collection method feasible and affordable? Is there a less costly 

way to collect the information? 

•	 Will the resulting data be useful to program managers for program 

improvement? 

•	 Will the resulting data be credible to those outside the specific HIDTA or 

OCDETF operation who are making decisions about program priorities and 

funding? 

Several other issues must be addressed when deciding on the collection and 

reporting of data, whether from existing or new sources. First, decisions must be 

made concerning the time of the data collected and reported. Is information 

required at the end of each month, each year, at the completion of each 

investigation, or after each funding cycle? Are the data to be used as benchmarks 

for assessing baseline or as measures of change over time? Points in time should 

be tied to some recognizable, administratively determined event related to the 

program activity and the intended outcome (e.g., is it an intended short-term 

outcome resulting from a particular investigation or long-term outcome expected 

to affect the community after the program has been operating for several years?). 

Decisions about who constitutes the participant must also be addressed. In the 

case of both OCDETF and HIDTA programs, the participant is often a group of 

agencies in the community and not individuals who are the focus of more 

traditional service delivery programs. Therefore, data collection efforts must 

consider what types of data can be gathered that measure organizational changes, 

as well as data that show impacts on the general population living in the 

community that is the target of the task force effort. 

Finally, decisions must be made concerning who will collect the data. Chapter 5 

outlines an overall plan for implementing the performance measurement system 

for HIDTAs and OCDETFs. However, more detailed attention needs to be 

84 
Next Steps in Developing the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

focused on who will participate within a particular HIDTA or OCDETF in the 

data reporting/collecting process. These decisions must reflect the flexibility 

given to these programs at the local and regional level, their scope and range of 

planned strategies, and the intergovernmental relationships established within 

each program. 

6.5 PILOT-TEST THE PERFORMANCE MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT 

SYSTEM 

Following prioritization of outcomes, identification of measures, and development 

of data sources and data collection methods, ONDCP and DOJ will be ready to 

pilot-test the system. This trial run will enable the agencies to implement all parts 

of the performance monitoring and management system on a small sample of the 

HIDTA and OCDETF programs. The pilot test will include collecting the data, 

analyzing the data, and reporting on the results for the pilot sites. 

The pilot test will enable ONDCP and DOJ to identify the most sensitive 

measures, use them in a small-scale implementation, and obtain feedback from 

the field. The pilot test will provide an opportunity to identify issues regarding the 

practicality of the method and to arrive at preliminary conclusions about the 

efficacy of the system. The pilot test will also provide an opportunity to identify 

unanticipated outcomes, identify measures that may not be properly defined, 

clarify data collection procedures that require further streamlining, and document 

analysis and reporting problems. The pilot will enable ONDCP and DOJ to 

address these potential problems, introduce improvements to the system, and 

increase its usefulness to management before incurring lengthy time commitments 

and costs required for the full-scale implementation of the system. 

The pilot test should be designed to reflect the system as it eventually will be 

used. In the case of the OCDETF program, the pilot test could be limited to a 

small sample of core city United States Attorneys and OCDETF field managers to 

assess proposed systems, program changes, and measures, and to determine if the 

procedures and measures are feasible and how they should be modified. In the 

case of the HIDTA program, the pilot test might focus on a sample of strategies 

planned for a given fiscal year, or it might be tested on several HIDTAs, each 

reflecting a very different kind of initiative. For example, some HIDTAs are 

designed to disrupt drug production, like the Midwest HIDTA for clandestine 

methamphetamine labs and the Appalachian HIDTA for marijuana cultivation. 

Others primarily concentrate on curbing the importation of illegal drugs through 

ports of entry into the United States, such as the Puerto Rico/Virgin Island 

HIDTA, or the Southwest Border Partnership. Other HIDTAs are designed to 

reduce drug use and related community consequences (e.g., the Washington, 

D.C./Baltimore HIDTA). Each of these HIDTA types concentrates on different 

links in the drug supply chain, and represents distinct challenges in terms of 

activities and performance measurement. Within each category, a program 

considered to be exemplary by the national program office and another program 

considered to be moderately successful could be selected to participate in the pilot 

85 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

test. These decisions could be made by senior staff at the national office and/or 

consider the results of a “straw vote” by local HIDTA directors. 

The schedule for the pilot test should conform to the intended schedule for the 

full-scale implementation of the performance monitoring and management 

system. Adequate time should be built in to allow for training the data collectors, 

setting up tracking and monitoring procedures, and the actual data collection, 

analyses, and reporting steps. 

During the pilot test, ONDCP and DOJ will need to monitor the outcome 

measurement system itself. It will be important to develop a sound understanding 

of what the system requires of program operators, program partners, and the staff 

involved in conducting the monitoring. This assessment should include a realistic 

assessment of what is required in terms of time, money, and other resources. The 

pilot test should monitor the following: 

•	 How much time is spent on data collection, including data extraction from 

existing records/data sources, interviews, and other field data collection; 

• Response rates with various categories of respondents; 

• What data are easy to retrieve, difficult to collect, and missing; 

• What data collection protocols are difficult or impossible to complete; 

• What errors occur in the coding, analysis, and reporting of data items; 

•	 What data are required to measure prioritized outcomes but are not available; 

and 

•	 What support services are required to complete the performance monitoring 

process. 

An important part of the pilot test will be the actual testing of the analytical 

component of the monitoring system. The analysis plan should define the key 

research questions to be addressed. This can be a challenging assignment. As 

Bynum, a well-known criminal justice researcher, noted in a discussion of the 

national assessment of the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)-funded 

Problem-Solving Partnership Program (PSP), “If the analysis is constrained to 

only what we know is relevant we may miss important factors related to the 

problems” (p. 5, www.cops.usdoj.gov). 

A well-structured analysis plan will include the principal research questions to be 

addressed, sources of data for each, a schedule for completing the tasks, and the 

parties responsible for conducting the activity. It is important that the pilot test be 

designed to identify what analytical tools and skills are required to process both 

quantitative and qualitative data, how long it takes to process and analyze the 

data, how the data can be presented so that it correlates to important outcome 

assessments and research questions, and how explanatory information can be used 

to explain outcome results. 

86 
Next Steps in Developing the Performance Monitoring and Management System 

The pilot test also provides an opportunity to identify the best ways to present 

information for various audiences, such as project directors, executive boards, 

national program offices, OMB, and congressional committees. It will be 

important to experiment with different ways of presenting data so that it is most 

useful and understandable to these audiences. 

The pilot test should conclude with a debriefing of all key participants to obtain 

their suggestions regarding ways to improve data collection, analysis, reporting, 

and procedures that can be introduced to reduce the resources required for 

performance monitoring, without jeopardizing the end results of the process. 

Pilot testing will help identify and rectify problems in the overall implementation 

plan, the training and technical assistance required, and feedback mechanisms that 

should be established to ensure that the results of the performance monitoring and 

management system support management decisions at the Federal, state, and local 

levels. The pilot test will prepare ONDCP and DOJ, as well as HIDTA and 

OCDETF program managers, for the full-scale implementation of the 

performance monitoring and management system. 

At the end of the pilot test, results should be shared with the experts in the field to 

obtain their feedback and recommendations, make necessary adjustments, and 

launch full-scale implementation. These experts will review all aspects of the pilot 

test to identify what worked well and how the system can be improved. Their 

review should start with a focus on the outcome findings themselves by asking the 

following kinds of questions: 

• Did the pilot produce the data needed? 

• Did the system actually measure what was intended to be measured? 

•	 Did the system measure outcomes for which the program should be 

accountable? 

•	 Will the results enable tracking of changes in outcomes from one reporting 

period to another? 

•	 Will the results enable tracking of progress toward both short-term and longterm outcomes? 

ONDCP and DOJ staff should hear directly from program participants involved in 

the pilot test as well as researchers involved in implementing the pilot and 

representatives of audiences who reviewed the pilot results. Based on their 

thorough review of the pilot test, they will be able to recommend refinements to 

improve the effectiveness and ease of administration of the measurement system. 

6.6 PREPARE A DETAILED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

Following the refinement of the performance monitoring and management system 

proposed in this report, pilot-testing of the system, and review of pilot test results, 

a detailed implementation plan will be drafted. This plan will focus on 

87 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

introducing the outcome measures for the HIDTA and OCDETF programs on a 

gradual basis, integrating the new measures into existing reporting systems, and 

outlining training and technical assistance that will be required to support a fullscale adoption of the system by both programs. The implementation plan will 

include procedures that task forces and grantees can use to estimate the cost of 

implementing the performance monitoring and management system. It will also 

incorporate the following components: (1) training of national program staff, 

onsite monitoring staff, grantee staff and technical assistance providers; 

(2) training of all task force and grantee staff; (3) recommendations for ongoing 

technical assistance to support the performance monitoring and management 

system; (4) use of outcome data to improve program practices and planning; 

(5) use of outcome data for program monitoring; (6) introduction of additional 

outcome measures over time; and (7) feedback mechanisms to improve the 

implementation process. 

The implementation plan will identify which outcome measures should be 

implemented first, with a recommended phase-in schedule over several years, 

according to the following criteria: (1) measures that are most critical to assessing 

program performance; (2) those that are easiest to use; and (3) those that can be 

implemented at minimal cost to the National Program Offices and to the 

grantees/task forces. 

The planning steps outlined in this chapter will require a full year to ensure that 

the performance monitoring and management system adopted by the HIDTA and 

OCDETF programs is designed and implemented correctly and that program staff 

at all levels have a clear understanding of what performance monitoring is (and 

what it is not), and how the resulting information can be appropriately interpreted 

and used (Bernstein, 1999; Hatry, 1997; Newcomer, 1997). This testing period 

will require patience, hard work, and the willingness to move from using 

imperfect measures to measures that stand the test of use and time. The toughest 

challenges to developing the performance monitoring and management system 

have been tackled by this project: (1) translating the general HIDTA and 

OCDETF mission statements into measurable goals and objectives; (2) 

distinguishing between outputs, outcomes, and long-term impacts; and 

(3) specifying, through the development of program logic models, how the 

programs’ operations are intended to produce the desired outputs and outcomes. 

It is clear that the value of performance measurement has now been imbedded in 

the organizational culture of both programs. The information and recommendations 

for future steps, contained in this report, reflect the genesis of a culture of 

accountability that is consistent with the commitment of the Administration and 

all its participating parties. The ultimate success of the HIDTA and OCDETF 

performance monitoring and management system will be supported by the 

continued leadership of senior management within ONDCP and DOJ. 

88 
REFERENCES

Bernstein, D.J. 1999. “Comments on Perrin’s ‘Effective Use’ and Misuse of Performance 

Measurement.” The American Journal of Evaluation 20(1):87. 

Blumstein, A., and Rosenfeld, R. 1998. Explaining recent trends in U.S. homicide rates. Journal of 

Criminal Law and Criminology 88(4):1175–1216. 

Boone, H.N. 1996. Lessons learned from APPA’s project on identifying and intervening with druginvolved youth. Perspectives 20(1):44–48. 

Bynum, T.S. Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement. U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Carroll, J.D. 1995. The rhetoric of reform and political reality in the National Performance Review. 

Public Administration Review 55(3):302–312. 

Department of Justice. 2002. FY 2003: Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement Budget Estimates 

to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Interagency Law Enforcement. 

Department of Justice. 2000. Management Review: Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force 

Program Operations. 

DiIulio, J.A. 1992. Limited war on crime that we can win: Two lost wars later. Brookings Review. 

Friedman, W., and Clark, M. 1999. Community policing: What is the community and what can it 

do? In: Measuring What Matters: Proceedings From the Policing Research Institute Meetings. 

National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing. 

General Accounting Office. 1994. Managing for Results: State Experiences Provide Insight for 

Federal Management Reforms. Report to Congressional Requesters. 

http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/153046.pdf 

Government Performance Results Act of 1993. 103rd Congress. 

Harrell, A., Burt, M.R., Hatry, H.P., Rossman, S.B., Roth, J.A., Sabol, W. 1996. Evaluation 

Strategies for Human Service Programs: A Guide for Policymakers and Providers. Washington, 

DC: The Urban Institute. 

Hatry, H. 1996. Tracking the quality of services. In: Perry, J.L., ed. Handbook of Public 

Administration, 2d ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Hatry, H.P. 1997. Where the rubber meets the road: Performance measurement for state and local 

public agencies. New Directions for Evaluation 75:31–44. 

Kravchuk, R.S., and Schack, R.W. 1996. Designing effective performance-measurement systems 

under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review 

56(4):348–358. 

Millar, A., Simeone, R.S., and Carnevale, J.T. 2001. Logic models: A systems tool for performance 

management. Evaluation and Program Planning 24:73–81. 

Newcomer, K.E. 1997. Using Performance Management to Improve Public and Non-profit 

Programs: New Directions for Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Newcomer, K.E. 1997. Evaluating public programs. In: Perry, J.L., ed. Handbook of Public 

Administration, 2d ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. pp. 555–573. 

89 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2002. FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and FY 2001 

Annual Program Performance Report. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. 

Pecora, P. 1998. Future Directions in Outcome Measurement, Sixth National Roundtable on 

Outcome Measures in Child Welfare Services: Summary of Proceedings. Englewood, CO: 

American Humane Association. pp 95–99. 

Pratt, C.C., Katzev, A., Ozretich, R., Henderson, T., and Mcguigan, W. 1998. Building Results III: 

Measuring Outcomes for Oregon’s Children, Youth, and Families. Salem, OR: Oregon 

Commission on Children and Families. 

Rosenfeld, R., and Decker, S.H. 1999. Are arrest statistics a valid measure of illicit drug use? The 

relationship between criminal justice and public health indicators of cocaine, heroin and 

marijuana use. Justice Quarterly 16(3):685–699. 

Yap, Kim O. 1997. Guidebook on Developing Performance Indicators. Portland, OR: Northwest 

Regional Educational Laboratory. pp. 11–12. 

The White House. 2002. National Drug Control Strategy. Washington, DC: Government Printing 

Office. 

90 
GLOSSARY

Deconfliction—A means of coordinating anti-trafficking efforts. Case and target deconfliction help 

eliminate duplication of effort by agencies pursuing the same target. In addition to creating 

inefficiency in law enforcement, independent investigations by multiple agencies can interfere 

with one another. Event deconfliction helps increase officer safety by alerting other agencies to 

planned actions and interventions (e.g., seizures and raids). 

Dismantled—To put the criminal organization out of existence or break it up to the extent that 

reconstruction of the same criminal organization is impossible. (DOJ, Management Review: 

Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program Operations, 2001) 

Disrupted—Significantly interfering in the conduct of normal and effective operation by the targeted 

organization, as indicated by changes in organizational leadership, trafficking patterns, or drug 

production methods. (DOJ, Management Review: Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task 

Force Program Operations, 2001) 

Drug-related crime—Offenses in which a drug’s pharmacologic effects contribute (e.g., rape, 

assault); offenses motivated by the user’s need for money to support continued use (e.g., robbery, 

burglary, automobile theft); and offenses connected to drug distribution itself (e.g., homicide, 

assault). (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Fact Sheet: Drug-Related Crime, 1994) 

Drug-related violence—Violence, including homicides, assaults, robberies, and rapes, with a 

substantial drug-related component, either through the use of, or trafficking in, illegal drugs. 

Drug trafficking—Drug production, transportation, distribution, use, and drug market financial 

proceeds. (ONDCP. Managing the Performance of the HIDTA Program, Book 1 of 2. Internal 

document. May 28, 2002) 

Drug trafficking organization (DTO)—Five or more people, organized in some fashion, who gain 

substantial income from a continuing series of drug-related activities. (HIDTA Program Policy 

and Budget Guidance; 21 USC 848) 

Major drug trafficking organization (MDTO)—A drug trafficking organization with links to, or that 

has demonstrated the potential to link to, components of nationwide or international drug supply 

or money laundering organizations and/or their facilitators. Such organizations generally involve 

a sizeable number of individuals or large actual or potential profits gained from the trafficking. 

MDTOs may include (1) criminal groups formed for the purpose of importing, manufacturing, or 

distributing large amounts of controlled substances or financing such operations, or (2) criminal 

groups formed for money laundering operations to transfer or attempt to legitimize narcoticsrelated monies of the foregoing. For the purposes of OCDETF investigations, a MDTO would be 

an organization listed in the National Consolidated Priority Organizational Target (CPOT) list or 

as a priority target in the Regional Strategy. (OCDETF Program Guidelines, July 18, 2002) 

Pen register—A surveillance device that captures the phone numbers dialed on outgoing telephone 

calls. Pen registers are different from other surveillance devices because neither the content of 

the conversation (i.e., wiretap) or the phone numbers of incoming calls (i.e., trap and trace 

devices) are recorded. 

Performance measurement—The ongoing monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments, 

particularly progress toward established goals. It tends to focus on regularly collected data on the 

level and type of program activities (process), the direct products and services delivered by the 

program (outputs), and the results of those activities (outcomes). For programs that have readily 

91 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

observable results or outcomes, performance measurement may provide sufficient information to 

demonstrate program results. In some programs, however, outcomes are not quickly achieved or 

readily observed, or their relationship to the program is uncertain. In such cases, program 

evaluations may be needed, in addition to performance measurement, to examine the extent to 

which a program is achieving its objectives. (GAO/GGD-00-204, September 2000, p. 3) 

Performance monitoring—Systems designed to (1) assess the effectiveness of the National Drug 

Control Strategy, (2) provide the entire drug control community 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. Such monitoring will not generate a “report card” for 

drug control agencies but will be useful for them to refine their performance plans. (ONDCP, FY 

2002 Annual Performance Plan) 

Program evaluation—In-depth assessment of program contributions. Program evaluations examine 

the logic, assumptions, programs, funding issues, and other contributory factors that affect target 

achievement using accepted evaluation methodology. (ONDCP, FY 2002 Annual Performance 

Plan) 

92 
List of Acronyms 

ADAM Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

CEWG Community Epidemiology Work Group

CJIS New Mexico Criminal Justice Information System

COPS Community Oriented Policing Services

CPOT Consolidated Priority Organization Target

D.A.R.E. Drug Abuse Resistance Education

DASIS/TEDS Drug and Alcohol Services Information System: Treatment Episode Data System

DAWN Drug Abuse Warning Network

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DMP Domestic Monitoring Program

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice

DOT U.S. Department of Treasury

DTO drug trafficking organization

EPIC El Paso Intelligence Center

ER emergency room

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FDSS Federal-wide Drug Seizure System

FinCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

FOMS FBI Field Office Information System

GAO U.S. General Accounting Office

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

HIDTA High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area

HSP Heroin Signature Program

IIF Investigation Initiation Form

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

IRS Internal Revenue Service

LEA law enforcement agency

MDTO major drug trafficking organization

MIS Management Information System

NADDIS Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Information System

NCHS National Center for Health Statistics

NCIC National Criminal Information Center

NDCS National Drug Control Strategy

NDIC National Drug Intelligence Center

NESPIN North East Suspect Pointer Network

NHSDA National Household Survey on Drug Abuse

NIDA National Institute on Drug Abuse

NLEC National Law Enforcement Center

NUD*IST Non-Numerical Unstructured Data Indexing, Searching, and Theorizing

OCDETF Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force

93 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring and Management System 

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy

PSP Problem-Solving Partnership Program

QSR Qualitative Solutions and Research

RISC Regional Intelligence Support Center

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

SOD Special Operations Division

STRIDE System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence

TNIS Texas Narcotics Information System

UCR Uniform Crime Reporting System

USAO United States Attorney’s Office

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USCS U.S. Customs Service

USMS U.S. Marshals Service

WARG Washington Agency Representative Group

YRBSS Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System

94 
APPENDIX A

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

A-1 

Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

Table of Contents 

ONDCP............................................................................................................................................. A-1 

HIDTA .............................................................................................................................................. A-4 

OCDETF........................................................................................................................................... A-6 

Law Enforcement Evaluations: Treatment ....................................................................................... A-7 

Law Enforcement Evaluations: Money Laundering......................................................................... A-8 

Law Enforcement Evaluations: Technology..................................................................................... A-9

Law Enforcement: Database Connectivity ..................................................................................... A-10

Law Enforcement: Enforcement and Interdiction........................................................................... A-10 

Community Policing ....................................................................................................................... A-17 

Outcomes ........................................................................................................................................ A-21 

General Strategic Planning/GPRA.................................................................................................. A-31 

Logic Models .................................................................................................................................. A-33 

Acronyms Used in Appendix A...................................................................................................... A-37 

ONDCP 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. 

Report to the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives (GAO/GGD-93-144). 

1993. 100 pages. http://archive.gao.gov/d49t13/150048.pdf

This report makes recommendations on reauthorizing the ONDCP. It concludes that some 

strides have been made in reducing casual drug use, but hard-core drug use has not been 

reduced. It notes that many of the performance indicator measures (particularly hard-core 

drug use) are inadequate. It also notes that improved working relationships with other 

agencies are needed. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: The Office of National Drug Control Policy—Strategies Need 

Performance Measures. Testimony to the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General 

Government Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives (T-GGD-94-49). 1993. 19 pages. 

http://161.203.16.4/t2pbat4/150348.pdf

This testimony argues that ONDCP should be reauthorized, but it can still improve. Areas for 

improvement include creating better measures, interagency cooperation, and creating more 

flexibility in budget reviews. Trends are noted for ONDCP budgeting, adolescent and general 

population drug use (Household Survey), homicides, and violent crime (FBI UCR and 

DAWN) data. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: ONDCP Efforts to Manage the National Drug Control Budget. 

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, Committee 

on Government Reform, House of Representatives. (GAO/GGD-99-80). 1999. 40 pages. 

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/gao/gg99080.pdf

This report describes ONDCP’s drug budget certification process. It presents case studies for 

the DEA, USCS, SAMHSA, and the DOD. It also describes efforts to implement a long-term 

PME system to monitor drug control agency budgets and mentions unresolved issues in PME 

implementation. 

McCaffrey, B.R. National Drug Control Strategy—Strategic Communications: Selected Writings. Rockville, 

MD: National Institute of Justice. 1999. 62 pages. 

This book has several publications grouped under the five goals of the National Drug Control 

Strategy. The articles include discussions on anti-legalization and ONDCP strategic planning. 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

National Drug Intelligence Center. National Drug Threat Assessment 2002. Johnstown, PA: U.S. Department 

of Justice. 106 pages. 

This publication is a comprehensive assessment of drug use in the United States. It 

specifically covers availability, demand, production, transportation, and distribution of 

heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines, marijuana, club drugs, hallucinogens, and 

pharmaceuticals. Special sections address adolescent drug use and money laundering. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. Performance Measures of Effectiveness: A System for Assessing the 

Performance of the National Drug Control Strategy. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. 1998. 

116 pages. 

This publication details performance measures for the 10-year plan for the National Drug 

Control Strategy from a GPRA perspective. It outlines five goals of the ONDCP and 12 

Impact Performance Targets that support the goals. The goals are supported by 32 objectives, 

which are represented by 82 specific performance targets. Measures are recommended for 

each performance target, along with the primary and supporting agencies responsible for 

target reporting. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. The National Drug Control Strategy, 1999. Washington, DC: Executive 

Office of the President. 1999. 138 pages. 

This document outlines the Executive plan for reducing drug use in the United States. It 

focuses on reducing demand (prevention, treatment) and supply (attacking drug profits, 

disrupting markets, and international activities). Outcome measures (e.g., MTF, DAWN, 

NHSDA) are also reviewed. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. The National Drug Control Strategy: 2000 Annual Report. Washington, 

DC: Executive Office of the President. 2000. 164 pages. 

http://www.ncjrs.org/ondcppubs/publications/policy/ndcs00/strategy2000.pdf 

This annual report submitted to Congress by the President documents progress on the 

National Drug Control Strategy. The PME system reports assessments of drug use and 

availability, prevention, treatment, law enforcement, interdiction, and international programs. 

The report also includes a proposed budget, means of implementing the drug control strategy, 

modifications to the strategy, measurable data, and an assessment of private-sector initiatives 

and cooperative efforts with local, state, and Federal governments. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and FY 2000 Annual Program 

Performance Report. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. 2001. 71 pages. 

This report includes ONDCP’s annual plan for 2002, including the overall mission and goals 

as well as specific program goals for HIDTA programs, the Counterdrug Technology 

Assessment Center, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, and the Drug-Free 

Communities Support Program. The plan links long-term goals to day-to-day activities. The 

accompanying Program Performance Plan reviews achievement of FY 2000 performance 

goals. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. Office of National Drug Control Policy Agency Accomplishments and 

Significant Actions, January, 1993–December, 2000. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice. 2001. 177 

pages. 

This report summarizes the major activities of the ONDCP under Dr. Lee Brown and Gen. 

Barry McCaffrey during the two terms of the Clinton-Gore administration. Accomplishments 

include establishing a consensus that a comprehensive response is needed involving 

prevention, treatment, law enforcement, interdiction and international cooperation. A reverse 

in the trend of adolescent drug use has also been observed. 

A-2 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. Pulse Check: Trends in Drug Abuse, Mid-year 2000. Washington, DC: 

Executive Office of the President. 2001. 69 pages. 

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/drugfact/pulsechk/midyear2000/midyear2000.pdf 

This report documents the national drug threat. It has specific sections reporting on heroin, 

cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamines, and a special section on MDMA and other club 

drugs. It reports on availability, price and purity, and modes of distribution. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2002 Final Report on the 1998 National Drug Control Strategy: 

Performance Measures of Effectiveness. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. February 2002. 

63 pages. 

The 1998 strategy focuses on three primary areas: drug use, availability, and consequences. 

The five primary goals of the ONDCP are supplemented with 12 key drug impact targets. The 

progress toward achieving each goal is also covered. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan and FY 2001 Annual Program 

Performance Report. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. April 2002. 95 pages. 

This document provides an overview of ONDCP performance in 2001 and performance goals 

in 2003. Of particular interest is Section IV.F.1 (pp. 13–38); it concentrates specifically on 

HIDTAs. It lists specific goals for HIDTAs, emphasizing efficiency and effectiveness of law 

enforcement agencies, along with specific developmental benchmarks to be achieved by all 

HIDTAs. 

Reuter, P., and Caulkins, J.P. Redefining the goals of national drug policy: recommendations from a working 

group. American Journal of Public Health 85(8):1059–1063, 1995. 

This article argues that total harm from drug use can be expressed as the product of total use 

and the average harm per unit of abuse. The authors contend that use reduction outcomes 

overlook differences between drugs, usage patterns, populations, and harms associated with 

trafficking illegal contraband. The authors suggest that harm reduction be added to the focus 

on use reduction. 

The White House. General Counterdrug Intelligence Plan. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. 

February 2002. 82 pages. 

The primary goal of the GCIP is to make systematic improvements to U.S. drug intelligence 

and information programs and to support Federal, state, and local relationships. It provides 73 

“action items” that could improve counterdrug activities, including database improvements, 

better cooperation between agencies at different levels, personnel development, and 

information technology. It specifically addresses HIDTA intelligence centers. 

The White House. National Drug Control Strategy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. February 

2002. 119 pages. 

This document outlines the Executive plan for reducing drug use in the United States. It 

focuses on reducing demand (prevention, treatment) and supply (attacking drug profits, 

disrupting markets, and international activities). Outcome measures (e.g., MTF, DAWN, 

NHSDA) are also reviewed. 

The White House. National Drug Control Strategy: 2002 Counterdrug Research and Development Blueprint 

Update. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. February 2002. 55 pages. 

http://www.ncjrs.org/ondcppubs/publications/scimed/blueprint00/blueprint2000.pdf 

The CTAC is the central counterdrug research and development organization of the ONDCP. 

The CTAC develops and evaluates technology for use in supply and demand reduction, 

technology transfer, and program oversight and coordination. This report reviews specific 

technology developments and projects in each area. 

A-3 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

HIDTA 

BOTEC Analysis Corporation. Assessment of the HIDTA Program: High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. 2001. 

This report documents, compares, and contrasts the operations of the five initial HIDTA sites. 

The report addresses three broad questions: (1) how the HIDTA program functions in each of 

the sites, (2) the effect of the program on interagency cooperation, and (3) how evaluators 

might measure the impact on drug trafficking. The report recommends increasing the 

emphasis on Goal 1 (improve LEAs) and de-emphasizing Goal 2 (reduce the effectiveness of 

DTOs) and Goal 3 (improve neighborhood safety). 

Department of Justice. Center for Task Force Training (CenTF) Program. Bureau of Justice Assistance Fact 

Sheet. October 1999. 2 pages. 

This fact sheet provides a brief overview of training programs for CenTF. Two 3-day training 

programs are reviewed. The first, the Narcotics Task Force Workshop, provides 

management-level training for senior personnel. The second, the Methamphetamine 

Investigation Workshop, addresses operational and safety aspects of managing 

methamphetamine investigations. 

Eck, J.E., and Gersh, J.S. How Are We Doing? First Report on Law Enforcement Performance at the 

Washington/Baltimore HIDTA. Greenbelt, MD: Washington/Baltimore HIDTA. 1998. 63 pages. 

This report evaluates the effectiveness of the Washington/Baltimore HIDTA. Activities are 

divided into three broad types: geographically focused crackdowns on retail drug dealing in 

specific neighborhoods, investigations of drug traffickers and drug trafficking groups, and 

support activities facilitating information exchange. Supplemental information on 

performance is provided in nine appendixes. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Enforcement: Improving Management of Assistance to High Intensity Drug 

Trafficking Areas. Testimony before the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, U.S. House of 

Representatives (GAO/T-GGD-91-53). 1991. 14 pages. http://161.203.16.4/d48t13/144397.pdf 

This testimony reviews the effectiveness of HIDTA management. It reports that the desired 

collaboration between agencies was not fully attained, with state and local agencies not fully 

integrated into the HIDTA. Funds for FY 1990 were spent to establish task forces, to transfer 

Federal agents to the localities, and to purchase equipment. The testimony also suggests 

establishing a framework for assessing HIDTA effectiveness. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Enforcement: Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies in 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. Testimony before the Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, U.S. 

House of Representatives (GAO/T-GGD-92-37). 1992. 8 pages. http://161.203.16.4/d38t12/146590.pdf 

This testimony covers actions taken by ONDCP to implement previous OMB 

recommendations to promote interagency cooperation and establish performance monitoring. 

It also addresses the timeliness of funds disbursal to state and local agencies. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: Information on High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program. 

Report to the Chairman, Caucus on International Narcotics Control, U.S. Senate (GAO/GGD-98-188). 

September 1998. 50 pages. 

This report addresses how ONDCP is implementing the HIDTA program, the effect the 

expansion of the program has had on its administration, what ONDCP is doing to measure 

how HIDTA programs are meeting the objectives established for the areas they serve, how 

HIDTA funds are allocated, and lessons ONDCP says it has learned from the HIDTA 

program to date. 

Hickey, C., and Medina, C. Follow the Money: Attack Drug Trafficking Networks Through Informal Value 

Transfer Systems. Research Project for ONDCP, John F. Kennedy School of Government. 47 pages. 

The authors propose a networks mindset to understand the transfer of value derived from 

drug trafficking. They address weaknesses in the current drug control strategy and discuss 

A-4 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

informal value transfer methods (including Hawala and Chit, misinvoicing, and informal wire 

transfers). 

Hoffman, J. Dissention results in HIDTA. Law and Order 47 (6):121–124, 1999. 

This article looks at the successes and problems of the HIDTA system. It concludes that ISCs 

are one of the most effective elements in the program. The article cites problems with the 

HIDTA program, including unfocused mission statements and bureaucracy. HIDTA started 

with a focus on national drug smugglers, added urban drug dealers, proceeded to urban 

crimes in general, and has recently entered the retail police supply business. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program FY 2002 

performance plan. In: ONDCP FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan and FY 2000 Annual Program Performance 

Report. Section IV. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. June 2001. 72 pages. 

The FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan states ONDCP’s overall mission and goals, as well as 

those of the four specific ONDCP programs. Of particular interest is the section on HIDTAs 

(IV.F.1), which includes overview information, impact targets, and past performance. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program FY 2002 

performance report and FY 2004 performance plan (draft). Washington, DC: Executive Office of the 

President. June 2002. 11 pages. 

This document aligns the HIDTA performance plan with the 2002 National Drug Control 

Strategy. It focuses primarily on Goal 1 of the HIDTA program: to improve the efficiency 

and effectiveness of law enforcement within HIDTAs. It lists several objectives associated 

with improving law enforcement. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, Program Policy and Budget 

Guidance. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. 2001. 97 pages. 

This document provides basic information about the HIDTA program including the purpose, 

strategies for improving law enforcement, the organizational structure, and performance 

measurement. It also covers reporting requirements and provides a copy of the annual report 

form. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. On-Site Review Program. Washington, DC: Office of National Drug

Control Policy, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program. October 2001. 

This document presents a process for HIDTA review. It describes all three phases of program 

review (annual reports, self-evaluation, and onsite visits). It provides a comprehensive set of 

interview questions for conducting onsite interviews. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. High Intensity Drug Trafficking (HIDTA) Program: 2002–2008 Strategic

Plan (Draft). Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 

Program. 2002. 

This document describes the HIDTA strategies for implementing the 2002 National Drug 

Control Strategy. It also reviews objectives associated with HIDTA goals. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area: Overview. Washington, DC: 

Executive Office of the President. 2002. 4 pages. 

This brief overview provides basic information on HIDTA designation and purposes. It also 

lists the dates of establishment and budgets of each HIDTA. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. Managing the Performance of the HIDTA Program, Book 1 of 2. 

Internal document. May 28, 2002. 23 pages. 

This document provides an overview of HIDTA goals and mission. It provides the three 

primary goals, specific objectives associated with the goals, and performance measures. It 

also provides information on the process of HIDTA program evaluation—including internal 

reviews, reporting results, and onsite reviews by ONDCP. 

A-5 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. National Drug Control Strategy: The High Intensity Drug Trafficking 

Area Program, 2001 Annual Report. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. 2002. 186 pages. 

This report covers several facets of HIDTAs including the criteria for designating a HIDTA, 

key priorities, HIDTA regions and date of establishment, a HIDTA map, and changes in the 

HIDTA budget over time. It also provides information on specific HIDTAs (threat and 

strategy abstracts, specific initiatives, and outcomes). 

OCDETF 

Department of Justice. FY 2003: Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement Budget Estimates to Congress. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Interagency Law Enforcement. 2002. 60 pages. 

This program summary reports on strategic changes in the OCDETF program including a 

renewed focus on high-level drug-trafficking organizations and the means of investigating 

and prosecuting them. The report reviews different specific OCDETF operations, describes 

the OCDETF management structure, and describes performance measurement indicators. 

Department of Justice. Management Review: Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program 

Operations. 2000. 31 pages. 

This review provides an overview of the OCDETF program. It includes discussions of the 

value and current roles of OCDETF. A section is dedicated to performance measures, 

management issues, and the relationship between OCDETF and HIDTA, along with 

suggestions for enhancing efficiency. 

Department of Justice. Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces: Management Information System 

Reporting Forms for FY 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division. 2001. 20 

pages. 

This memo provides the management information system reporting forms for OCDETFs, 

noting changes to the forms since the previous year. Forms include the Investigation 

Initiation Form, the Indictment or Information Form, and Closing Report. 

Department of Justice. Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program: OCDETF Program 

Guidelines: 2002 Revisions. May 2002. 25 pages. 

The guidelines were designed to assist investigative and prosecutorial personnel with 

managing the OCDETF program. It describes the goals and standards and the administrative 

structure at the national, regional, and judicial district levels. It also reviews OCDETF agents, 

procedures, and funding. 

Department of Justice. The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program: Guidelines. Internal 

document. July 18, 2002. 

These guidelines are designed to assist investigative and prosecutorial personnel in managing 

the OCDETF program. They cover goals, policies, and standards for OCDETF cases. It also 

outlines the hierarchical structure and procedures of the OCDETF program. 

Executive Office for the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Forces. Organized Drug Enforcement 

Task Forces: State and Local Overtime and Authorized Expense Program. Policies and Procedures Manual. 

September 1996. 13 pages. 

This manual tracks changes in OCDETFs following the change of the funding source to the 

Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund. It lists procedures for the use of OCDETF 

funds for overtime and reimbursement requests. The three approved forms for reimbursement 

are attached. 

A-6 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

Executive Office for the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Forces. Organized Drug Enforcement 

Task Forces (OCDETF): Program Fundamentals. Washington, DC: Criminal Division, U.S. Department of 

Justice. 1998. 40 pages. 

This document provides an overview of the OCDETF program. It also provides copies of 

three forms: the Case Initiation Form, the Indictment or Information Form, and the 

Disposition and Sentencing Report. 

General Accounting Office. Criminal Penalties Resulting from the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task 

Forces. 1986. 16 pages. 

This analysis documents the court records on 1,697 offenders convicted and sentenced under 

the OCDETF program prior to 1986. It lists the sentences received by the type of offense and 

the criminal fines assessed. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Investigations: Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program’s 

Accomplishments. Briefing report to the Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (GAO/GGD-87-

64BR). 1987. 19 pages. http://161.203.16.4/d28t5/133040.pdf 

This report reviews accomplishments of OCDETF during the first 2 years of operation. 

Accomplishments are reported in terms of convictions, prison terms, criminal fines, and 

seizures. 

Guiliani, R.W. Organizing law enforcement as well as organized crime. Public Administration Review 45:712– 

717, 1985. 

This article argues that Federal law enforcement efforts to control the supply of illegal drugs 

should be as broad-based and coordinated as DTOs. It describes drug supply control efforts in 

the 1970s and early 1980s leading to the creation of the OCDETF program. 

Law Enforcement Evaluations: Treatment 

Department of Justice. Evaluation of Drug Treatment in Local Corrections. National Institute of Justice 

Research Preview. June 1997. 2 pages. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/fs000173.pdf 

This document summarizes research into drug treatment programs (JET, DEUCE, REACH, 

and SAID) in local jails. Participation in the treatment program led to lower rates of serious 

behavioral problems when incarcerated and a slightly lower recidivism rate 1 year after 

release. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Treatment: Summary of Federal Programs, Funding, and Performance 

Goals. Correspondence to Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives (GAO/HEHS-99-45R). 1999. 17 

pages. http://161.203.16.4/paprpdf2/161657.pdf 

This report contains information on drug treatment programs, and performance goals and 

targets. It includes a section on HIDTAs and counterdrug technology. Much of the 

information is covered in Drug Treatment: Overview of Federal Programs (GAO/HEHS-98-

237R). 

Harrell, A., Cavanagh, S., and Roman, J. Evaluation of the D.C. Superior Court Drug Intervention Programs. 

National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department 

of Justice. April 2000. 12 pages. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/178941.pdf 

The impact of two drug court programs (comprehensive treatment and graduated sanctions) is 

reviewed in an experimental study. Sanctions program participants were significantly less 

likely than controls to be arrested in the year following sentencing, and treatment participants 

were less likely to be arrested on drug-related charges or to report drug-related personal 

problems in the following year. Evidence for positive economic outcomes was found for both 

drug testing and sanctions programs. 

A-7 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

Messina, N., Wish, E., and Nemes, S. Therapeutic community treatment may reduce future incarcerations: A 

research note. Federal Probation 65(2):40–45, 2001. 

This article takes the position that attention needs to be directed toward reducing recidivism 

within drug offender populations. It reports a study on therapeutic community treatment and 

finds that treatment completion is associated with a reduction of being incarcerated, although 

the causal mechanism is not clear. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. Evidence-Based Principles for Substance Abuse Prevention. 

Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. 3 pages. 

www.ncjrs.org/ondcppubs/publications/policy/ndcs00/evidence2000.pdf 

This brief document presents 15 principles upon which prevention programming can be 

based. There are five subsections: risk and protective factors for a defined population, 

approaches that have been proven effective, early and transitional interventions, interventions 

in appropriate settings, and effective program management. 

Weisburd, D., and Taxman, F.S. Developing a Multicenter Randomized Trial in Criminology: The Case of 

HIDTA. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 16(3):315–340, 2000. 

This article describes methodological issues in criminal justice evaluation using the 

Washington, D.C./Baltimore HIDTA as an example. The article contrasts traditional law 

enforcement evaluation methods (meta-analysis and replication studies) with multicenter 

clinical trials—a single experimental protocol implemented at several sites. Advantages and 

drawbacks of multicenter clinical trials are also reviewed. 

Wish, E.D. Drug treatment needs among adult arrestees in Baltimore. National Institute of Justice Research 

Preview, September, 1997. 2 pages. 

This research summary describes drug dependence among arrestees in Baltimore. The 

Substance Abuse Need for Treatment Among Arrestees methodology, based on the DUF 

program, was used. Results suggest that a substantially larger number of arrestees were 

dependent on heroin and cocaine than are available allocated treatment slots. 

Law Enforcement Evaluations: Money Laundering 

Bauer, P., and Ullman, R. Understanding the Wash Cycle. Money Laundering: Economic Perspectives. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State. 2001. 7 pages. 

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0501/ijee/clevelandfed.htm 

This paper covers the basics of money laundering and key U.S. legislation enacted to combat 

it. The paper trail generated by money laundering and global issues are also covered, along 

with future considerations. 

Cassella, S.D. Recovery of financial proceeds generated in one nation and found in another. Journal of 

Financial Crime 9(3):268–276, 2002. 

This paper describes the types of cases that have most often resulted in the deposit of criminal 

proceeds in foreign bank accounts. The globalization of money laundering has created the 

need for international cooperation and judicial protocols for establishing how the seizure of 

foreign-held assets are to be accomplished. 

Department of the Treasury. The 2001 National Money Laundering Strategy. Washington, DC: Office of 

Enforcement, U.S. Department of the Treasury. 2001. 90 pages. 

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/docs/ml2001.pdf 

This document provides an overview of the National Money Laundering Strategy and each of 

the goals and objectives associated with it. Major goals include (1) focus law enforcement 

efforts on prosecuting major money laundering organizations, (2) measure the effectiveness 

of anti-money-laundering efforts, (3) prevent money laundering through cooperative publicprivate efforts and regulatory efforts, (4) coordinate state and local law enforcement efforts to 

combat money laundering, and (5) strengthen international cooperation. 

A-8 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

General Accounting Office. Money Laundering: The U.S. Government Is Responding to the Problem. Report 

to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, Committee on Foreign 

Relations, U.S. Senate (GAO/NSIAD-91-130). 1991. 62 pages. http://161.203.16.4/d20t9/143917.pdf 

This report deals with anti-money-laundering activities by the Federal Government as of the 

early 1990s. It identifies progress made in tracking money-laundering operations, including 

financial tracking and law enforcement resource allocations. It also discusses the difficulties 

in program evaluation for anti-laundering law enforcement efforts and recommends better 

coordination between agencies and improved technology. 

Jurith, E.H. International cooperation in the fight against money laundering. Journal of Financial Crime 

9(3):212–216, 2002. 

This article reviews the problem of money laundering. It also summarizes the responses of 

the U.S. Government to combat money laundering, the success of Government responses, and 

future challenges that will arise. 

Levitt, S.D., and Venkatesh, S.A. An Economic Analysis of a Drug-Selling Gang’s Finances. Cambridge, MA: 

National Bureau of Economic Research. 1998. 42 pages. 

This report analyzes a data set detailing the financial activities of a drug-selling street gang on 

a monthly basis over a 4-year period. The authors conclude that there is substantial markup at 

the street distribution level, wage distributions within the gang are heavily skewed toward 

leadership (and are not as lucrative as widely suspected), and that gang wars drive down 

profitability. 

Law Enforcement Evaluations: Technology 

General Accounting Office. Terrorism and Drug Trafficking: Technologies for Detecting Explosives and 

Narcotics. Report to Congressional Requesters (GAO/NSIAD/RCED-96-252). 1996. 28 pages. 

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ns96252.pdf 

This report discusses the development of counter-smuggling technology. The Government 

has invested considerable resources in developing new technology. The report argues that a 

tradeoff exists between the relative cost and effectiveness of new technology, and it discusses 

the crucial role of intelligence gathering. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Trafficking: Responsibilities for Developing Narcotics Detection 

Technologies. Testimony before the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal 

Justice, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives (GOA/T-NSIAD-97-

192). 1997. 8 pages. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97192t.pdf 

This testimony summarizes developments in narcotics detection technology from the four 

agencies responsible for development and coordination: ONDCP, USCS, DOD, and OMB. 

Many technologies already under development by the DOD are adapted for use by Customs. 

The testimony reports on differences between the four agencies that have led to some 

inefficiencies in technology development. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: DEA Could Still Improve Its Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor 

Programs’ Geographic Source Data. Report to the Co-Chairman, Caucus on International Narcotics Control, 

U.S. Senate. (GAO-02-416). 2002. 33 pages. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02416.pdf 

This report covers two DEA programs for analyzing heroin: the Heroin Signature Program 

(HSP) and the Domestic Monitor Program (DMP). Both programs produce chemical 

signature information that can identify geographic sources. Suggestions for improvement 

include producing population estimates using better sampling techniques, and revising HSP 

and DMP methodology to account for possible sampling bias. 

A-9 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

National Institute of Justice. Second Annual National Conference on Science and the Law: Summary of 

Proceedings. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 2000. 42 pages. 

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/191717.pdf 

This document is a summary of the proceedings of the Second Annual National Conference 

on Science and the Law, which brought together members of the scientific, legal, and 

academic communities. Conference speakers explored emerging areas and changing 

standards of admissibility, risk assessments, and expert testimony and the role of judges, 

jurors, and attorneys. It also covered present and future directions in DNA evidence and 

changes in the treatment of admissible evidence. 

Law Enforcement: Database Connectivity 

Department of Justice. Program Brief: Regional Intelligence Sharing Systems Program. Washington, DC: 

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. April 2002. 3 pages. 

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/bja/192666.pdf 

This program brief describes the Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS). Key 

program services include information sharing, data analysis, investigative support, 

specialized equipment, technical assistance, and training. 

General Accounting Office. Statement of Arnold P. Jones, Senior Associate Director General Government 

Division before the Subcommittee on Government Information, Justice and Agriculture Committee on 

Government Operations on Regional Information Sharing Systems. Washington, DC. 1985. 6 pages. 

This testimony focuses on a GAO November 1984 report entitled “Regional Information 

Sharing Systems.” It describes the conditions that led to the establishment of the RISS 

program, improved project management, and services provides by RISS. 

Institute for Intergovernmental Research. The RISS Program: 2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice 

Assistance. (Grant number 1999-RS-CX-005). 2001. 23 pages. 

This document summarizes the RISS program. It describes the collaboration with HIDTA 

programs, user enrollment, and integration with other databases (e.g., EPIC). It also describes 

RISS services and provides case examples of application of the system by participating law 

enforcement agencies. 

Law Enforcement: Enforcement and Interdiction 

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Strategic Approaches to Clandestine Drug Laboratory Enforcement. Bureau of 

Justice Assistance Fact Sheet. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 1999. 3 pages. 

This fact sheet summarizes the methods for investigating and cleaning up clandestine 

methamphetamine laboratories. It describes several training courses in lab investigations, 

managing law enforcement, personal and environmental safety, and strategic planning for 

clandestine lab enforcement. Other available resources include technical assists and resource 

publications. 

Caulkins, J.P. The cost-effectiveness of civil remedies: the case of drug control interventions. In: L.G. 

Mazerolle and J. Roehl, eds., Crime Prevention Studies, volume 9. Monsey NY: Criminal Justice Press. 1998. 

pp. 219–237. 

This paper discusses the cost-effectiveness of civil remedies for drug control interventions. A 

conceptual framework and rough rules of thumb for assessing the effectiveness of individual 

interventions are provided. 

Caulkins, J.P., Crawford, G., and Reuter, P. Simulation of adaptice response: A model of drug interdiction. 

Mathematical Computational Modelling 17(2):37–52, 1993. 

This paper examines several issues surrounding cocaine importation into the United States 

using a Monte Carlo simulation of the smuggling and interdiction of illicit drugs that 

explicitly allows for adaptation across routes and modes. The authors argue that only under 

A-10 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

truly exceptional circumstances will increasing interdiction have a substantial impact on U.S. 

cocaine consumption. 

Complete List of Indicators for the Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism. Fifth Meeting of the Intergovernmental 

Working Group on the Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism. Washington, DC. May 1999. 29 pages. 

This index reports on five goals for drug control efforts: optimize national strategy, prevent 

drug use, reduce drug production, improve drug control, and estimate societal costs of the 

drug problem. These five goals are further broken down into 17 specific objectives, which in 

turn are broken down into specific operational definitions. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, OJP Drugs and Crime Working Group. Strengthening

enforcement and interdiction efforts. In: A Report to the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice 

Programs. January 1996. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reports/96wg/wg1.htm 

This report summarizes several enforcement and interdiction efforts. Programs include 

clandestine lab training, RISS, Organized Crime Narcotics Trafficking Enforcement Program, 

Financial Investigations Program, Gang and Drug Policy Approach, and HIDTA evaluation, 

among others. 

Department of Justice. FY 1999 Summary Performance Plan. February 1998. 65 pages. 

The performance plan sets forth the major program goals to be achieved by DOJ in FY 1999. 

It synthesizes the performance plans of DOJ organizations (e.g., FBI, INS, DEA). This plan is 

devised in accordance with GPRA, namely in its focus on results rather than activities. It 

identifies measurable, outcome-oriented strategic performance goals. 

Department of Justice. Fiscal Year 1999: Annual Accountability Report. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

the Attorney General. March 2000. 250 pages. 

This report provides program and financial performance for DOJ agencies in FY 1999. A 

number of drug-related outputs were achieved and listed, particularly with regard to strategic 

Goal 1.1 (reduce violent crime, including organized and drug- and gang-related violence). 

OCDETF performance is also covered in terms of specific projects and outcomes. 

Department of Justice. Strategic Plan, 2001-2006. 154 pages. http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/strategic2001-

2006/ 

The plan is organized in three parts. The first outlines major themes underlying strategic 

goals and objectives. The second sets forth goals, strategies, and objectives. The third 

describes the role of evaluation in carrying out the strategic plan and provides a schedule of 

program evaluations. 

DiIulio, J.J., Alpert, G.P., Moore, M.H., Cole, G.F., Petersilia, J., Logan, C.H., and Wilson, J.Q. Performance 

Measures for the Criminal Justice System (BJS grant number 92-BJCS-0002). Washington, DC: U.S. Office 

of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice. 1993. 77 pages. 

http://www.bja.evaluationwebsite.org/html/documents/documentI.html 

This collection of papers was designed to engage the criminal justice community in a debate 

regarding the appropriate measures for law enforcement agency effectiveness. The papers 

discuss measures of efficiency, effectiveness, and fairness. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Smuggling: Large Amounts of Illegal Drugs Not Seized by Federal 

Authorities. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Information, Justice, and Agriculture, Committee on 

Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives (GAO/GGD-87-91). 1987. 40 pages. 

http://161.203.16.4/t2pbat21/133441.pdf 

This review focuses on air and marine interdiction programs on the southwest border and in 

the Gulf of Mexico. Relatively small proportions of the total estimated smuggled drugs were 

interdicted. Reasons for the lack of effectiveness include insufficient equipment and 

personnel, lack of available intelligence information, and security breaches. 

A-11 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

General Accounting Office. Capabilities for Interdicting Airborne Drug Smugglers Are Limited and Costly. 

Testimony before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, U.S. Senate (GAO/T-GGD-89-28). 

1989. 7 pages. http://161.203.16.4/t2pbat14/138827.pdf 

This testimony reports on the expense and relative effectiveness of airborne interdiction 

programs. It documents certain vulnerabilities in the air interdiction system and concludes 

that no appreciable change has occurred in drug availability as a result of air interdiction. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: Inadequate Guidance Results in Duplicate Intelligence Production 

Efforts. Report to Congressional Requesters (GAO/NSIAD-92-153). 1992. 28 pages. 

http://archive.gao.gov/d32t10/146612.pdf 

This report discusses the overall increase in counternarcotics intelligence, yet decries the lack 

of a centralized coordination effort, which often results in duplication of efforts. The report 

recommends that the Defense Intelligence Agency finalize its counternarcotics intelligence 

collection strategy, and that agreements should be made between DOD and local law 

enforcement agencies. These recommendations were made to facilitate implementation of the 

EMERALD database (finalized in 1992). 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: Coordination of Intelligence Activities. Briefing reported to the 

Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives (GAO/GGD-93-83BR). 

1993. 22 pages. http://161.203.16.4/t2pbat6/149104.pdf 

This testimony summarizes the activities of counternarcotics intelligence centers and local 

law enforcement agencies. It reports duplication of effort in the analysis and reporting of 

intelligence data, the need for coordination, and the role of ONDCP in organizing activities. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: Expanded Military Surveillance Not Justified by Measurable Goals 

or Results. Testimony before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee, Committee on Government 

Operations, U.S. House of Representatives (GAO/T-NSIAD-94-14). 1993. 5 pages. 

http://161.203.16.4/t2pbat5/150039.pdf 

This testimony concludes that, even with military surveillance of cocaine smugglers, there 

has been no observable reduction in cocaine availability. It argues that detecting and 

monitoring drug smugglers depends on more than surveillance and requires apprehension 

capabilities. The high profit margin and flexibility of smuggling operations are resistant to 

surveillance and interdiction efforts. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: Increased Interdiction and Its Contribution to the War on Drugs. 

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government, Committee on 

Appropriations, U.S. Senate (GAO/T-NSIAD-93-4). 1993. 8 pages. http://161.203.16.4/d42t14/148735.pdf 

This testimony discusses interdiction and its impact on the supply of cocaine entering the 

country. It covers increased DOD surveillance of smuggling routes in the Caribbean and 

Pacific, which helped increase seizures but did not measurably reduce the cocaine availability 

or price. It concludes that interdiction does not appear to be a cost deterrent to smugglers. 

General Accounting Office. Border Control: Revised Strategy Is Showing Some Positive Results. Report to 

the Chairman, Subcommittee on Information, Justice, Transportation and Agriculture, Committee on 

Government Operations, House of Representatives. (GAO/GGD-95-30). 1994. 28 pages. 

http://161.203.16.4/t2pbat2/153402.pdf 

This document reports on the threat of drug smuggling over the southwest border and ways of 

improving security between ports of entry. Recommendations for prevention strategies are 

included, with particular emphasis on San Diego and El Paso—primary entry points for 

illegal aliens and drugs. 

A-12 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

General Accounting Office. INS Drug Task Force Activities: Federal Agencies Supportive of INS Activities. 

Report to the Honorable Alfonse D’Amato, U.S. Senate. (GAO/GGD-94-143). 1994. 20 pages. 

http://161.203.16.4/t2pbat2/152294.pdf 

This report provides information on INS participation in the OCDETF program through a 

pilot program in four core cities (Miami, New York, Houston, and Los Angeles). It also 

documents INS resources allocated to OCDETF. 

General Accounting Office. Customs Service: Drug Interdiction Efforts. Briefing Report to the Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Trade, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives (GAO/GGD-96-189BR). 

1996. 130 pages. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/gao/pdf35.pdf 

This report reviews the drug interdiction activities of the USCS. It covers national programs 

and interdiction activities in specific locations (e.g., Miami and San Diego). It also reviews 

challenges to measuring success (i.e., difficulties in measuring costs and effectiveness and 

concentration on low-level “port cases”). 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: Observations on U.S. Interdiction in the Caribbean. Testimony

before the Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice, Committee on 

Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives (GAO/T-NSIAD-96-171). 1996. 15 pages. 

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/gao/pdf19.pdf 

This testimony describes U.S. interdiction efforts in the Caribbean. It covers the nature of 

drug trafficking activity in the transit zone, host nation impediments to an effective 

interdiction strategy, U.S. capabilities to interdict drug shipments, and Federal agency 

planning, coordination, and implementation of interdiction efforts. 

General Accounting Office. Customs Service: Information on Southwest Border Drug Enforcement 

Operations. Letter to the Honorable Dianne Feinstein (GAO/GGD-97-173R). 1997. 16 pages. 

http://161.203.16.4/paprpdf1/159362.pdf 

This report concentrates on the USCS’s methodology of allocating resources for drug 

enforcement activities, inspection requirements for cargo entry, and internal controls for 

record keeping. Concentrating on the southwest border, the report provides information on 

drug enforcement, inspector training, cocaine seizure data, the development and use of drug 

information, the vulnerability of radio communications systems, actions addressing the 

problem of “spotters,” and the performance of the truck x-ray system. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: Observations on Elements of the Federal Drug Control Strategy. 

Report to Congressional Requesters (GAO/GGD-97-42). 1997. 68 pages. 

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/gao/pdf16.pdf 

This report discusses several facets of the Federal Drug Control Strategy. It reviews current 

research findings on youth drug abuse prevention and describes promising strategies for 

treating cocaine addiction. It summarizes the effectiveness of international supply strategies. 

It assesses whether USCG interdiction activities conform to GPRA requirements. It also 

summarizes recent GAO reports on Federal drug prevention and treatment-related efforts. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: Update on U.S. Interdiction Efforts in the Caribbean and Eastern 

Pacific. Report to Congressional Requesters (GAO/NSIAD-98-30). 1997. 41 pages. 

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/gao/pdf10.pdf 

This report discusses efforts to stop the flow of illegal drugs through the maritime transit zone 

in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. It documents expenditures, maritime assets, and drug 

interdictions over time and reviews international agreements to stem drug smuggling. It also 

explains logistic difficulties (including technology, intelligence sharing, and organizational 

issues) in maritime smuggling detection and interdiction. 

A-13 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

General Accounting Office. Customs Service Drug Interdiction: Internal Control Weaknesses and Other 

Concerns with Low-Risk Cargo Entry Programs. Report to the Honorable Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senate 

(GAO/GGD-98-175). 1998. 31 pages. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/gg98175.pdf 

This report reviews Customs’ drug enforcement operations along the southwest border and 

describes Customs’ low-risk cargo entry programs, particularly the Line Release Program. 

Weaknesses include (1) lack of specific criteria for determining applicant eligibility, 

(2) incomplete documentation of applicant screening and review, and (3) lack of 

documentation of supervisory review and decision approval. The three-tier Targeting 

Program had two operational problems: (1) little database information for researching foreign 

manufacturers, and (2) dubious reliability of low-risk and high-risk designations. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: An Overview of U.S. Counterdrug Intelligence Activities. Report to 

the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice, Committee on 

Government Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives (GOA/NSIAD-98-142). 1998. 64 pages. 

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/gao/ns98142.pdf 

This report provides a synopsis of U.S. counterdrug intelligence activities including human 

intelligence, electronic surveillance, and photography/imaging sources. Intelligence can be 

strategic (broad trafficking patterns), operational/investigative (analytical support for ongoing 

investigations), and tactical (for specific operations). It also summarizes budget and 

manpower allocations used to support counterdrug enforcement, and the various bureaus and 

agencies involved. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: Observations on U.S. Counternarcotics Activities. Testimony before 

the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, Narcotics, and Terrorism, Committee on Foreign 

Relations, and the Caucus on International Narcotics Control, U.S. Senate. 1998. 11 pages. 

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/gao/ns98249.pdf 

This testimony details the challenges in stemming the flow of illegal drugs into the United 

States. These challenges include the flexibility and resources of DTOs and obstacles in 

foreign countries. In addition, U.S. counternarcotics efforts are hampered by 

organizational/operational limitations, and planning and management limitations. 

Recommendations for improvement include (1) developing measurable goals, (2) better use 

of intelligence technology, (3) creating a centralized system for recording “best practices,” 

and (4) better planning of counternarcotics assistance. 

General Accounting Office. Law Enforcement: Information on Drug-Related Police Corruption. Report to the 

Honorable Charles B. Rangel, House of Representatives (GAO/GGD-98-111). 1998. 43 pages. 

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/gao/gg98111.pdf 

This report discusses the extent of drug-related police corruption. It concludes that there is 

limited information on the nature and extent of drug-related police corruption. However, it 

does identify various factors associated with drug-related police corruption and practices that 

may prevent and detect it. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: DEA’s Strategies and Operations in the 1990s. Report to 

Congressional Requesters (GOA/GGD-99-108). 1999. 172 pages. 

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/gao/deaoperations.pdf 

This report covers the major enforcement strategies that were implemented by the DEA in the 

1990s and whether the DEA’s strategic goals and objectives are congruent with the National 

Drug Control Strategy. The report covers the expanded role of the DEA and concludes that 

the DEA needs to develop measurable performance targets consistent with the National Drug 

Control Strategy. 

A-14 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

General Accounting Office. DEA’s Mobile Enforcement Teams: Steps Taken to Enhance Program 

Management, But More Can Be Done. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on the 

Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives (GAO-01-482). 2001. 96 pages. 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01482.pdf 

This report discusses the DEA’s management and implementation of Mobile Enforcement 

Teams (MET), investigative techniques in MET, and performance measures to assess MET 

effectiveness. The report concludes that record keeping regarding MET deployment is 

insufficient for adequate performance monitoring (e.g., the capacities of the assisted agency). 

General Accounting Office. Drug Control: Difficulties in Measuring Costs and Results of Transit Zone 

Interdiction Efforts. Report to the Honorable Jeff Sessions, U.S. Senate (GAO-02-13). 2002. 46 pages. 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0213.pdf 

This report reviews the roles of DOD, USCG, and USCS in transit zone interdiction. It also 

discusses funds earmarked for transit zone interdictions, performance measures used by each 

agency to track effectiveness, and the accuracy of seizure data—particularly when multiple 

agencies participate in the seizures. Measures to prevent overcounts are presented, and the 

relative role of each agency is reviewed. 

General Accounting Office. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s Reporting of Arrests. Letter to the 

Honorable Jeff Sessions, U.S. Senate (GAO-02-276R). 2002. 9 pages. 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02276r.pdf 

This report is presented to address allegations that the DEA’s Caribbean Division has taken 

credit for drug arrests in which the DEA played no role. The DEA’s policies for reporting 

drug arrests are summarized. The report concludes that overreporting of arrests was a onetime occurrence, with the 1999 Caribbean Division reporting 331 (out of 2,058, or 16.1 

percent) arrests that it should not have claimed. Subsequent onsite inspections found 

relatively few arrest-reporting problems. 

Hatfield, J.M. Developing Performance Measures for Criminal Justice Programs: Assessment and Evaluation, 

Handbook Series 2. Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics Association. 1994. 24 pages. 

http://evaluationwebsite.org/bja/html/documents/mydeveloping_performance_measures.html 

This handbook describes a general model for criminal justice program design, including 

creating clear goals and objectives, descriptions of program activities, and creating 

measurable performance indicators. 

Kirchner, R.A., Przybylski, R.K., and Cardella, R.A. Assessing the Effectiveness of Criminal Justice Programs: 

Assessment and Evaluation, Handbook Series 1. Washington, DC: Justice Research and Statistics 

Association. 1994. 34 pages. http://www.bja.evaluationwebsite.org/html/documents/handbook1.html 

This handbook is designed to aid criminal justice policymakers and program managers in 

assessing the effectiveness of their programs. It proposes general effectiveness criteria and 

describes methods to translate criteria into program elements. Specific program examples are 

provided to show how these program elements can be used to measure goal and objective 

achievement. 

Kleiman, M. Data and analysis requirements for policy toward drug enforcement and organized crime. In: 

America’s Habit: Drug Abuse, Drug Trafficking and Organized Crime. President’s Commission on Organized 

Crime. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 1986. 19 pages. 

This report focuses on the interrelationship of organized crime and drug-related crime, noting 

areas of overlap and distinctions between the two. Because data collection and analysis for 

drug control policy are expensive, the report attempts to identify the most salient areas, 

including descriptive, theoretical, and evaluative data. The primary sources mentioned are 

surveys of drug use, observations on the results of drug use, and enforcement data—including 

the opinions of law enforcement personnel and prosecutors. The strengths and drawbacks of 

each data source are discussed. 

A-15 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

Kort, P.M., Feichtinger, G., Hartl, R.F., and Haunschmied, J.L. Optimal enforcement policies (crackdowns) on 

an illicit drug market. Optimal Control Applications and Methods 19:169–184, 1998. 

This paper presents an optimal control model for designing law enforcement programs that 

will minimize the social costs from both the drug market and the law enforcement 

crackdown. It concludes that in a “sellers market” law enforcement efforts should have the 

greatest impact, but in a “buyers market” the optimal law enforcement policy should focus on 

keeping the number of dealers constant. 

Maltz, M.D. Evaluation of Crime Control Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Law 

Enforcement Assistance Administration. 1972. 47 pages. 

http://bja.evaluationwebsite.org/html/documents/documento.html 

This paper discusses some common problems found in evaluating crime control programs. 

Recommendations are made to assist in program planning, selecting geographic areas for 

program implementation, choosing measures of effectiveness, and conducting the evaluation. 

McNeese, C.A. Study of Drug Law Enforcement Multijurisdictional Task Forces Funded with Byrne Grants in 

Florida. Tallahassee, FL: The Institute for Health and Human Services Research, Florida State University. 

2000. 87 pages. http://www.ihhsr.fsu.edu/Reports/2000-2.htm 

Some of the major topics covered in this report include coordination and interaction among 

task force members and with other law enforcement agencies, the impact of task force 

activities on levels of drug crime, task force expenditures, and task force performance 

objectives. This report documents a wealth of information on drug law enforcement 

multijurisdictional task forces, summarizes the major findings, and recommends relevant 

directions for the future. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. Measuring the Deterrent Effect of Enforcement Operations on Drug 

Smuggling, 1991–1999. August 2001. 163 pages. 

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/measure_deter_effct.pdf 

This study takes a mixed qualitative/quantitative approach to studying the deterrent effects of 

drug enforcement operations on cocaine trafficking. Qualitative data is gathered through 

interviews with convicted high-level drug smugglers. Quantitative data includes the price of 

cocaine and changes in trafficking behavior resulting from significant interdiction efforts. 

Appendix B to the report contains information on the evolving nature of drug-smuggling 

organizations. 

Organization of American States. Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism, Evaluation of Progress in Drug Control: 

Hemispheric Report, 1999–2000. Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission. CICAD First Special 

Session. Washington, DC. December 2000. 26 pages. 

This report provides a general overview of the drug abuse situation in the Western 

Hemisphere. It focuses on national strategies, demand and supply reduction efforts, and 

control measures for drug trafficking, firearms, and money laundering. Recommendations 

include increasing international cooperation, further development of law enforcement efforts, 

creating integrated data systems, and providing better treatment/rehabilitation structures. 

Pearson, G., and Hobbs, D. Middle Market Drug Distribution. London, England: Home Office Research, 

Development and Statistics Directorate. 2001. 82 pages. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors227.pdf 

This report describes how drugs are moved from importation to street level in the United 

Kingdom, by whom, and for what profit. The research is based on interviews with convicted 

drug traffickers and law enforcement representatives. The report argues that there are areas 

within the middle market where law enforcement agencies could disrupt the supply of drugs 

in a relatively efficient manner. 

Reuter, P. Quantity illusions and paradoxes of drug interdiction: Federal interventions into vice policy. Law 

and Contemporary Problems 51(1):233–252, 1988. 

This article examines how interdiction activities affect cocaine use in the United States and 

presents a framework to analyze the impact of enforcement programs on drug use. It argues 

A-16 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

that price levels of illegal drugs should serve as a measure of enforcement effectiveness and 

presents data on the scale and effect of drug interdiction. Finally, using a simulation model, 

the article illustrates how increased interdiction may only have a slight effect on domestic 

cocaine consumption. 

Sutton, A., and James, S. Evaluation of Australian Drug Anti-Trafficking Law Enforcement. Melbourne, 

Australia: University of Melbourne, Department of Criminology. 1996. 181 pages. 

http://www.acpr.gov.au/pdf/ACPR128.pdf 

This report examines ways to improve the accountability of drug law enforcement efforts in 

Australia. The authors argue that both intended and unintended consequences of enforcement 

must be considered. The report concludes that the fundamental shortcoming of Australian 

drug law enforcement is a failure to measure the effects of law enforcement on supply and 

consumption patterns. The report provides 21 recommendations to increase the rationality of 

drug law enforcement. 

Weatherburn, D. Performance Indicators for Drug Law Enforcement. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and 

Research (48). February 2000. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/bocsar1.nsf/pages/cjb48text 

This article reviews measures for drug enforcement in Australia. It reviews the distinctions 

between outputs and outcomes, and between performance measures and indicators. It also 

discusses the complex relationship between law enforcement effectiveness and different 

indicators for both outputs and outcomes. 

Community Policing 

Alpert, G.P., and Moore, M.H. Measuring Police Performance in the New Paradigm of Policing.

http://evaluationwebsite.org/bja/html/documents/measuring_police_performance_in_.htm 

This article reviews traditional measures of police performance (crime rates, arrests, 

clearance rates, and response times) in light of the shift toward community-oriented policing. 

Major themes include building community relationships, attacking problems on a broader 

front, changing the focus and methods of police work, and changing internal relationships. 

Blumstein, A. Measuring what matters in policing. In: Measuring What Matters: Proceedings From the Policing 

Research Institute Meetings. National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing. 

1999. 5 pages. 

There are two primary challenges in measuring police performance: (1) identifying the 

variety of ways that police contribute to, or detract from, community well-being, and 

(2) partitioning both blame and credit between police and non-police factors. In addition to 

crime and arrest data, we should also measure fear of crime, civic disorder (e.g., broken 

windows), and citizen cooperation with the police. 

Bratton, W.J. Great expectations: How higher expectations for police departments can lead to a decrease in 

crime. In: Measuring What Matters: Proceedings From the Policing Research Institute Meetings. National 

Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing. July 1999. 15 pages. 

The primary focus of this paper is in implementing goal-orientation for law enforcement 

agencies. Two case studies are provided (New York Police Department and New York 

Transit Police). Non-law enforcement factors (e.g., demographics) in crime rates are 

discussed. Ultimately it is concluded that law enforcement practices moderate the relationship 

between non-enforcement factors and the crime rate. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Addressing Community Gang Problems: A Model for Problem Solving. Office of 

Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. January 1997. 48 pages. 

The purpose of this monograph is to provide direction in identifying, analyzing, and 

responding to gang-related problems and assessing results in an effective way. The 

Comprehensive Gang Initiative model is based on the principles of adaptability, flexibility, 

A-17 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

and a multifaceted approach. Gang problems can be solved with a comprehensive 

problemsolving model with four basic stages: scanning, analysis, response, and assessment. 

Bynum, T.S. Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement. U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 59 pages. 

This guidebook provides a starting point for conducting problem analysis in law enforcement 

based on the experience of agencies participating in COPS. The basics of problem analysis 

are covered along with means of gathering information, including traditional crime 

information, survey research, focus groups, interviews, environmental surveys, observations, 

and mapping. 

Carter, D.L. Community Policing and D.A.R.E.: A Practitioners Perspective. BJA Bulletin. Washington DC: 

Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, Community Policing Series. June 1995. 15 pages. 

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/comdare.txt 

This article presents an overview and historical perspective for the COPS and D.A.R.E. 

programs. 

Clawson, H.J., and Coolbaugh, K. The YouthARTS development program. Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, U.S. 

Department of Justice. May 2001. 15 pages. 

This article reviews YouthARTS programs in terms of their usefulness in preventing juvenile 

delinquency. A logic model is provided delineating immediate and intermediate outcomes, 

along with higher order impacts. Evaluation activities and findings are also presented. 

Department of Education. Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act: Safe Grants for Drug and 

Violence Prevention Program, Nonregulatory Guidance for Implementing the SDFSCA Principles of 

Effectiveness. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. 1998. 176 pages. 

This guide to creating logic models reviews several principles in measuring program 

effectiveness. These include a thorough needs assessment, identifying measurable goals and 

objectives, creating effective research-based programs, and evaluation. 

Department of Justice. Evaluation of Boys and Girls Clubs in Public Housing. National Institute of Justice 

Research Preview. October 1995. 2 pages. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/boygirl.pdf 

This document reports on evaluation research of 15 projects and examines comprehensive 

medical programs, educational enhancement, and youth services. Recommendations for 

effective implementation are provided. 

Department of Justice. Youth Violence: A Community-Based ResponseOne City’s Success Story. National 

Criminal Justice Reference Service. September 1996. 23 pages. http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/boston.txt 

This report describes Boston’s comprehensive strategy to reduce youth violence. The strategy 

includes prevention, intervention, and enforcement. The strategy relies on cooperation 

between local, state, and Federal Governments, community organizations, and local 

businesses. The report describes almost 30 different initiatives undertaken to reduce juvenile 

violence. 

Duffee, D.E., Flullen, R., and Roscoe, T. Constituency building and urban community policing. In: Measuring 

What Matters: Proceedings From the Policing Research Institute Meetings. National Institute of Justice and 

the Office of Community Oriented Policing. July 1999. 28 pages. 

This paper reviews new community policing strategies and introduces the concepts of 

constituency and social capital. Seven critical variables are delineated for building 

constituency in poor neighborhoods, and the paper sketches police strategies to build it. 

A-18 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

Friedman, W., and Clark, M. Community policing: What is the community and what can it do? In: Measuring 

What Matters: Proceedings From the Policing Research Institute Meetings. National Institute of Justice and 

the Office of Community Oriented Policing. July 1999. 10 pages. 

This paper reviews collaboration between communities and local police, emphasizing the role 

of active community and problem-oriented (rather than results-oriented) policing. It reviews 

community and police expectations, community roles, and quality-of-life issues. The paper 

also discusses building coalitions and organizing communities. 

General Accounting Office. Community Based Prevention: Comprehensive Evaluations of Efforts Are 

Needed. Report to the Chairman, Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control, U.S. House of 

Representatives (GAO/GGD-93-75). 1993. 42 pages. http://161.203.16.4/t2pbat6/149076.pdf 

This testimony reports evidence that community-based prevention can influence adolescent 

drug use, and discusses challenges faced in increasing the effectiveness of community 

prevention. First, resources need to be maximized to create more community-based programs. 

Second, it must be determined which programs work under which conditions. 

Harrell, A., Cavanagh, S., and Sridharan, S. Evaluation of the Children at Risk Program: Results 1 Year After 

the End of the Program. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs. November 1999. 12 pages. 

This document reports on a quasi-experimental evaluation of the Children at Risk (CAR) 

drug and delinquency program. CAR participants experienced more positive activities (e.g., 

sports, school clubs, and community programs), fewer drug-related activities, and less 

association with delinquents as well as greater resistance to peer pressure. 

Johnson, J., Farkas, S., Bers, A., Connolly, C., and Maldanado, Z. Americans’ views on crime and law 

enforcement: A look at recent survey findings. In: Measuring What Matters: Proceedings From the Policing 

Research Institute Meetings. National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing. July 

1999. 8 pages. 

Attitudes about police practices and crime rates are reviewed. Many people disagree with 

perceived police tactics (e.g., racial profiling, police violence), which leads to a gulf between 

the citizenry and law enforcement. 

Kelling, G. Measuring what matters: A new way of thinking about crime and public order. In: Measuring What 

Matters: Proceedings From the Policing Research Institute Meetings. National Institute of Justice and the 

Office of Community Oriented Policing. July 1999. 9 pages. 

This paper argues that formal measures of police work (i.e., crime and arrest rates) have little 

to do with community needs. Drawbacks to using these formal measures are discussed, 

particularly with regard to community policing. Several examples are given using 

experiences in New York City. As law enforcement doctrine changes, better service will be 

provided to the community. 

Klockars, C.B. Some really cheap ways of measuring what matters. In: Measuring What Matters: Proceedings 

From the Policing Research Institute Meetings. National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing. July 1999. 20 pages. 

This article takes the position that traditional police statistics are poor measures of true levels 

of crime. Measurement implies three things: standardization, assigning numbers, and utility. 

The article provides suggestions for useful measures of police competence, skill, and integrity 

and discusses measurement obstacles. 

Oettmeier, T.N., and Wycoff, M.A. Personnel performance evaluations in the community policing context. In 

G.P. Alpert and A. Piquero (eds.), Community Policing: Contemporary Readings. Prospect Heights, IL: 

Waveland Press, Inc. 1998. pp. 275–305. 

This discussion of police performance evaluation in the context of community policing 

emphasizes the need to develop evaluations that accurately reflect the work police officers are 

expected to do and that the need to develop such evaluations is neither new nor unique to 

community policing. 

A-19 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

Ringwalt, C.L., Greene, J.M., Ennett, S.T., Iachan, R., Clayton, R.R., and Leukfeld, C.G. Past and Future 

Directions of the D.A.R.E. Program: An Evaluation Review. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. (Award # 91-DD-CX-K053). 1994. 20 pages. 

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/retri94.htm 

This evaluation study summarizes the D.A.R.E. program practices and conducts outcome 

evaluations. D.A.R.E. programs had the strongest effect on drug knowledge and on enhancing 

social skills. Smaller effects were found for attitudes about drugs and police and self-esteem. 

The only significant difference in actual drug use was for tobacco. Several methodological 

suggestions for future program evaluation are provided. 

Roth, J.A., and Ryan, J.F. National Evaluation of the COPS Program: Title I of the 1994 Crime Act. 

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. August 2000. 289 pages. www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/183643.pdf 

This report provides an overview of the first 4 years of the COPS, including a logic model of 

the program (p. 3). The evaluation includes client satisfaction, levels of policing, transitions 

to community policing, and the effects on law enforcement innovation and crime. 

Sherman, L.W. Evidence-based policing. In: Ideas in American Policing. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. 

July 1998. 15 pages. http://www.policefoundation.org/pdf/Sherman.pdf 

This article advocates the use of evidence-based policing (i.e., the systematic observation of 

police actions and the outcomes of those actions). It describes ways of improving law 

enforcement by comparing the relative effectiveness of different strategies, and translating 

research findings into better police practices. The application of evidence-based policing is 

applied to three present policing paradigms: incident-specific policing, community policing, 

and problem-oriented policing. 

Singh, D. Community-oriented investigation at the North Miami Beach Police Department. Practitioner 

Perspectives. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. April 

2001. 8 pages. www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/bja/185367.pdf 

This document tracks the initiation and development of community-based policing in the 

North Miami Beach Police Department. Community-based and problemsolving law 

enforcement required a culture change within the department. Modifications included the 

introduction of task forces, accountability, advanced technology, community input, 

collaboration, and involvement of local businesses. Means for overcoming resistance to 

change and implementing new outcome measures are also discussed. 

Skogan, W.G. Measuring what matters: Crime, disorder and fear. In: Measuring What Matters: Proceedings 

From the Policing Research Institute Meetings. National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing. July 1999. 16 pages. 

This paper discusses measurement of the effects of innovative policing programs to establish 

a causal link between police efforts and outcomes. Different measures (including citizen 

crime reporting, official police records, survey measures of crime, disorder, fear of crime) 

have distinct advantages and drawbacks. Police-related measurement issues include police 

visibility, encounters between the public and police, and the quality of police service. 

Stephens, D.W. Measuring what matters. In: Measuring What Matters: Proceedings From the Policing 

Research Institute Meetings. National Institute of Justice and the Office of Community Oriented Policing. July 

1999. 10 pages. 

This paper reviews strengths and weaknesses of several measures of law enforcement 

effectiveness: crime rates, disorder, and fear of crime. The effects of these factors on quality 

of life are discussed, along with a focus on neighborhoods. 

A-20 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

Outcomes 

Baumer, E., Lauristen, J.L., Rosenfeld, R., and Wright, R. The influence of crack cocaine on robbery, burglary

and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35(3):316–340, 1998. 

This research report examines the impact of crack cocaine on crime rates for burglary, 

robbery, and homicide using a two-stage hierarchical linear model that decomposes betweenand within-city variation in 142 cities. Results suggest that heavy crack cocaine involvement 

is associated with an increase in robbery rates and a decrease in burglary rates. Certain kinds 

of homicide also appear to result from increased crack cocaine use including drug-related 

homicides, felony homicides, firearm homicides, and juvenile homicides. 

Baveja, A., Batta, R., Caulkins, J.P., and Karwan, M.H. Modeling the response of illicit drug markets to local 

enforcement. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 27(2):73–89, 1993. 

This article analyzes Caulkins’ mathematical model to study the effect of focused 

enforcement on drug markets. Fixed and dynamic enforcement policies are considered. The 

findings suggest that drug dealing can effectively be controlled only if enforcement resources 

exceed a certain threshold level, and that the success of a crackdown may be lost quickly if 

care is not taken to prevent the drug market from returning. 

Baveja, A., Caulkins, J.P., Wensheng, L., Batta, R., and Karwan, M.H. When haste makes sense: cracking

down on street markets for illicit drugs. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 31(4):293–306, 1997. 

This paper presents an analytical approach to the tactical question: “What level of 

enforcement over time allows one to eliminate a street market for illicit drugs while 

expending the least possible total effort?” The analysis uses Caulkin’s model to predict the 

rate of change of dealers as a function of enforcement level and several market parameters. 

The analysis suggests that using a strategy of maximum available intensity until the market 

has been eliminated minimizes the total enforcement effort required. 

Blumstien, A. Youth Violence. In American Society of Criminology, ed., Critical Criminal Justice Issues: Task 

Force Reports From the American Society of Criminology. 1996. pp.15–22. 

This paper explores the “diffusion hypothesis,” which suggests that the increasing rate of 

juvenile homicides results from the adoption of behaviors endemic to the illicit drug industry. 

Specifically, it suggests that juveniles are increasingly carrying firearms and using them to 

settle disputes. The article suggests that additional means to reduce juvenile homicide include 

focusing on the distribution of illicit firearms in addition to illicit drugs and increasing 

demand reduction activities. 

Blumstein, A. Violence by young people: Why the deadly nexus? National Institute of Justice Journal 229:2–9, 

1995. 

This article reviews the rise in juvenile violence coinciding with the rise of crack markets in 

the mid 1980s. It suggests that as guns become increasingly used in illicit drug markets, they 

become more prevalent in the community. Recommendations for reducing juvenile violent 

crime include proactive confiscation of guns from juveniles, attacking illicit firearm 

distribution, and increasing demand reduction efforts. 

Blumstein, A. Youth violence, guns, and the illicit drug industry. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 

86(1):10–36, 1995. 

This article reviews the interrelationships between violence and illicit drugs. It summarizes 

trends in burglary, robbery, and murder rates with respect to demographic characteristics 

(race, age, sex). It also explores possible connections between drugs and crime. 

Blumstein, A. U.S. criminal justice conundrum: Rising prison populations and stable crime rate. Crime and 

Delinquency 44(1):127–135, 1998. 

This article explores the exponential rise in incarceration rates compared with relatively 

stable crime rates over the past 20 years. The rise in incarceration rates is largely fueled by 

A-21 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

increased counterdrug law enforcement. The article also raises the possibility that increased 

counterdrug law enforcement may have counterproductive effects on crime rates. 

Blumstein, A. Why is crime falling—Or is it? Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 2000–2001 Lecture Series, 

Volume 5. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice. 2002. 34 pages. 

This paper discusses major factors that influence the crime rate. It explores reported robbery 

and murder trends and reviews several underlying factors including age differences, the role 

of weapons and drug markets, and incarceration rates. 

Blumstein, A., and Heinz, H.J., III. Youth violence, guns, and illicit drug markets. National Institute of Justice: 

Research Preview. June, 1996. 4 pages. 

This paper documents statistics showing that the homicide rate by juveniles doubled between 

1985 and 1992, while overall crime rates fell. The authors suggest that the increase in 

juvenile violent crime is strongly related to the illicit drug market. Options to reduce juvenile 

violent crime include stricter firearm control for young people, increased study of the linkage 

between guns and drugs, and examination of the positive and negative effects of the war on 

drugs. 

Blumstein, A., and Rosenfeld, R. Explaining recent trends in U.S. homicide rates. Journal of Criminal Law and 

Criminology 88(4):1175-1216, 1998. 

This study reviews several factors in homicide trends including age, demographic 

composition, weapons, drug markets, incarceration effects, economic expansion, domestic 

assault, police programs, and community efforts. 

Caulkins, J.P. Do drug prohibition and enforcement work? In: What Works? Lexington Institute. March 2000. 

13 pages. http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/whatworks/whtwrks18.htm. 

This essay reviews key arguments concerning the efficacy of drug prohibition and 

enforcement. It explores the role of price as a result of law enforcement and as a predictor of 

drug use, and it argues that recent expansion in law enforcement has not had much of an 

effect on prices. 

Caulkins, J.P. Domestic geographic variation in illicit drug prices. Journal of Urban Economics 37:38–56, 

1995. 

This article hypothesizes that illicit drug prices increase as one moves away from the source 

of those drugs and that illicit drug prices are negatively related to market size. Using data 

from the Middle Atlantic/Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network, the 

hypotheses are generally confirmed. 

Caulkins, J.P. Measurement and analysis of drug problems and drug control efforts. In: Criminal Justice 2000. 

Vol. 4: Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice. 2000. pp. 391–449. 

This essay is a progress report on the current state of the art in quantitative analysis of drug 

control intervention effectiveness. It explores the value and limitations of self-report surveys 

(NHSDA, MTF) and more objective measures (ADAM, DUF, DAWN, STRIDE). The essay 

provides a framework for understanding drug control effectiveness (p. 415). 

Caulkins, J.P., Ebener, P.A., and McCaffrey, D.F. Describing DAWN’s domain. Contemporary Drug Problems 

25(3):547-567, 1995. 

This paper seeks to clarify the purposes for which DAWN data are and are not well suited. It 

begins by describing DAWN and discussing implications of interpretations of the sampling 

and data collection procedures. Advisability of methods for applying the DAWN estimates 

are presented. 

Caulkins, J.P., Johnson, B., Taylor, A., and Taylor, L. What drug dealers tell us about their costs of doing

business. Journal of Drug Issues 29(2):323–340, 1999. 

This article reports differences in methods of sale and distribution of drugs by dealers in New 

York City and the differences in earnings by method. Entreprenuers, independent 

A-22 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

consignment sellers, fixed-spot consignment sellers and sellers who are paid hourly retain 

different proportions of the selling cost. These differences have significant implications for 

the relative ability of enforcement against the sellers and their selling spots to drive up drug 

prices and suppress drug use. 

Caulkins, J.P., and Reuter, P. What price data tell us about drug markets. Journal of Drug Issues 28(3):593– 

612, 1998. 

This paper reviews empirical evidence on drug prices and discusses implications for 

understanding of drug markets and for policy. The discussion covers data on price levels, data 

on price variation, evidence on how policies affect prices, and evidence on how prices affect 

outcomes of interest. Conclusions are mixed with respect to the ability of policy to influence 

prices. 

Cowles, E.L., Gransky, L.A., Patterson, M., and Hagner, P. Evaluation of Illinois’ Case Transaction Reporting 

Units and Drug Conspiracy Task Forces. Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. 1998. 279 

pages. 

The report presents the methodology and findings of an evaluation of the drug law 

enforcement effort in Illinois, including the Cash Transaction Reporting Unit (CTRU) and the 

Drug Conspiracy Task Force (DCTF). The CTRU was designed to collect, store, and analyze 

cash transaction data to identify people involved in drug-related money laundering. The 

DCTF was designed to enhance the prosecution of mid-level drug dealers. The report 

recommends that units reassess their operations on three dimensions: communications, roles, 

and internal/external relationships. It also recommends that information management needs to 

be examined in terms of data collection/retention, quality, and accessibility. 

Crane, M.D., Rivolo, A.R., and Comfort, G.C. An Empirical Examination of Counterdrug Program 

Effectiveness. Alexandria, VA: Institute for Defense Analysis. 1997. 

This study combines time-series data on cocaine process (from STRIDE) and consumption in 

the United States with a narrative description of contemporaneous interdiction events to 

assess the cost-effectiveness of interdiction activities in reducing cocaine consumption. The 

study found that interdiction events raised the street price of cocaine by 60 percent, which 

resulted in a 30 percent reduction in the amount of cocaine demand, but price increases were 

short-lived. The study concludes that cocaine consumption falls by about .015 percent for 

every million dollars spent on interdiction activities. 

Department of Justice. Fact Sheet: Drug-Related Crime (NCJ-149286). Drugs and Crime Data, Office of 

Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. September 1994. 5 pages. 

This fact sheet reviews different aspects of drug-related crime. It explores drug use among 

criminals, the prevalence of crimes being committed while under the influence of drugs, 

crime to support a drug habit, and violent crime resulting from drug trafficking. It also 

explores the empirical difficulty in demonstrating a causal link between drugs and crime. 

Department of Justice. Comprehensive Communities Program: A Unique Way to Reduce Crime and Enhance 

Public Safety. Bureau of Justice Assistance Fact Sheet. December 2000. 3 pages. 

This fact sheet reviews the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP), which consists of 

community policing and community mobilization. The program is based on partnerships 

between law enforcement agencies, community groups, and private organizations. Using 

CCP, several communities have reduced crime, improved the quality of life, and improved 

service delivery. 

Dorn, N. Performance management, indicators and drug enforcement: In the crossfire or at the crossroads? 

In: M. Natarajan and M. Hough, eds. Illegal Drug Markets: From Research to Prevention Policy. Monsey, NY: 

Criminal Justice Press. 2000. pp. 299–318. 

This chapter argues that performance measures are very important in measuring the 

effectiveness of drug enforcement agencies. Also discussed are challenges in improving the 

A-23 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

interpretability of established measures (e.g., drug arrests, drug seizures) and evaluating 

emerging measures (e.g., disruption, market-related harms, and enforcement-related harms). 

Ducharme, L., and Ball, J. Major Drugs of Abuse in ER Visits, 2000. The DAWN Report. Arlington, VA: Office 

of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. July 2001. 3 pages. 

http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/majorDAWN.pdf 

This report lists the number of drug-related emergency room visits in 21 major metropolitan 

areas of the United States. It lists the number of emergency room visits for each of four 

illegal drugs: cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamine/speed. The results are 

provided by drug and location, so rates of emergency room visits for different drugs may be 

compared geographically. 

Ebener, P.A., Feldman, E., and Fitzgerald, N. Federal Databases for Use in Drug Policy Research: A 

Catalogue for Data Users. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Drug Policy Research Center. 1993. 178 pages. 

This data directory lists and describes the characteristics of 29 federally funded databases. 

Five categories are surveyed: drug use, other social surveys, substance abuse treatment, 

health, and law enforcement. 

Frank, R.S. Drugs of Abuse: Data collection systems of DEA and recent trends. Journal of Analytic Toxicology 

11:237–241, 1987. 

This article reviews drug use measures used by the DEA. It covers the major objectives, type 

of data, limitations, and uses of DAWN and STRIDE. 

General Accounting Office. Drug Use Measurement: Strengths, Limitations and Recommendations for 

Improvement. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security, Committee on 

Government Relations, House of Representatives. (GAO/T-OEMD-94-4). 1993. 7 pages. 

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GovPubs/gao/gao5.htm 

This testimony describes strengths and weaknesses of several drug use measures (NHSDA, 

High School Senior Survey, and DUF). It documents observed changes in drug use using 

each measure. Drawbacks include self-report accuracy, imputation problems, and sampling 

issues. Recommendations for improvement include the following: change the frequency of 

administration, validate self-report accuracy (e.g., with hair follicle tests), change the sample 

strategy, and develop new methods for studying high-risk groups. 

General Accounting Office. Emerging Drug Problems: Despite Changes in Detection and Response 

Capability, Concerns Remain. Report to the Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan and the Honorable James M. 

Jeffords, U.S. Senate. (GAO/HEHS-98-130). 1998. 37 pages. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/he98130.pdf 

This report (1) describes how public service agencies have detected and responded to the 

crack cocaine epidemic, (2) identifies changes to improve drug detection and response 

capability, and (3) identifies issues that could compromise the ability to detect and respond to 

emerging drug problems. Drug detection mechanisms include the NHSDA, MTF, DAWN, 

and CEWG). Limitations of each measure are reviewed, as are improvements designed to 

address the limitations. Improvements in drug detection and response include the Pulse Check 

telephone survey and departmental reorganization. 

Gore 2000. Al Gore’s Rural Anti-Crime Initiative: Making America’s Rural Families Safer. Gore 2000 Fact 

Sheet. July 14, 1999. 4 pages. 

http://b75.upb.pitt.edu/election2000/07042000/www.algore2000.com/agenda/rural_crime_agenda.html. 

This candidate position piece contains policy recommendations for protecting rural areas 

from crime. Suggestions include doubling the number of HIDTAs to crack down on 

methamphetamine labs and providing grants and additional law enforcement to high-crime 

rural communities. 

A-24 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

Gragnani, A., Rinaldi, S., and Feichtinger, G. Dynamics of drug consumption: a theoretical model. SocioEconomic Planning Sciences 31(2):127–137, 1997. 

This article proposes a continuous time model to quantitatively interpret the dynamics of drug 

consumption in a given country. The model uses a minimal structure with two state variables 

(addicts and dealers) and 13 parameters. Results have been obtained on the role played by 

price of the drug, the severity of the punishment inflicted on dealers, and the allocation of the 

effort between treatment and police enforcement. 

Haaga, J, Reuter, P. Improving Data for Federal Drug Policy Decisions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Drug 

Policy Research Center. 1991. 21 pages. 

This report summarizes the recommendations of a council of nongovernmental researchers to 

improve the quality of data available for drug-policy decisions. Suggestions for measuring 

drug use include slight alterations to the NHSDA and DUF and additional analysis of the 

data. Recommendations for measuring the effects of law enforcement are also made. 

Harrison, L.D. The Nature and Extent of Marijuana Use in the United States. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 

Centrum voor Drugsonderzoek, Universeit van Amsterdam. http://www.cedrouva.org/lib/harrison.cannabis.html 

This report draws upon several measures (NHSDA, MTF, DAWN, NDATUS, DUF) to 

estimate trends in marijuana use. Use demographics are tabulated for several variables 

including age, race/ethnicity, gender, regional variation, and population density. Other 

variables include frequency of marijuana use, other drug use, dependence, age-at-onset, 

perceived availability, and perceived risk of harm. 

Hebert, E.E. Drug market analysis: NIJ’s drug market analysis program. National Institute of Justice Journal 

(226):2–7, 1993. 

This article describes the Drug Market Analysis Program in several locations (Jersey City, 

Kansas City, San Diego, Pittsburgh, and Hartford). The program combines police operations, 

computer technology, and evaluation to provide location-specific information about streetlevel drug trafficking and associated crime. 

Homer, J.B. A system dynamics model for cocaine prevalence estimation and trend projection. The Journal of 

Drug Issues 23(2):251–279, 1993. 

This article reviews a dynamic simulation model that reproduces a variety of national 

indicator data reflecting cocaine use and supply over a 15-year period. It summarizes data 

from NHSDA, DAWN, DUF, UCR, OBTS, and STRIDE. 

Homer, J.B. Protecting the impact of law enforcement on cocaine prevalence: A system dynamics approach. 

The Journal of Drug Issues 23(2):281–295, 1993. 

Using a systems dynamics model, the author estimates cocaine use under different conditions 

of law enforcement (e.g., limiting drug seizures or possessions arrests). The model suggests 

that elimination of drug seizures would not increase usage or incarcerations, and reducing 

arrests would reduce the criminal justice system’s load and lead to two or three times more 

use. Eliminating both seizures and arrests would eliminate the burden on the criminal justice 

system and lead to between a fourfold and eightfold increase in usage. 

Kleinman, M. The Problem of Replacement and the Logic of Drug Law Enforcement. The FAS Drug Policy 

Analysis Bulletin 3. 1997. 

This article draws a distinction between predatory crime (e.g., assault, burglary, robbery) and 

transactional crime (i.e., illicit drug sales). Law enforcement agencies usually measure 

outputs in terms of number of arrests, which presumably operated by both incapacitation and 

deterrence. This article explores the economic logic of drug markets and argues that current 

law enforcement strategies do not have the desired effects on transactional crimes. Kleinman 

concludes that law enforcement efforts should be judged in terms of drug market outcomes 

(price, availability, violence, and disorder) rather than by outputs (i.e., arrests). 

A-25 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

Lindgren, S.A., and Zawitz, M.W. Linking Uniform Crime Reporting Data to Other Datasets. Bureau of Justice 

Statistics Technical Report. May 2001. 9 pages. 

This technical report describes a crosswalk designed to link the FBI’s UCR with the 

Directory of Law Enforcement Agencies file (containing a complete census of police and 

sheriffs’ departments), the Census Bureau’s Governments Integrated Directory, and a number 

of other data sets. This crosswalk facilitates criminal justice research because it allows more 

detailed crime mapping and analysis of multiple datasets. 

MacCoun, R., Reuter, P., and Schelling, T. Assessing Alternative Drug Control Regimes. Journal of Policy 

Analysis and Management 15(3):330–352, 1996. 

This article discusses alternative regimes for controlling illicit drug use that lie between the 

extremes of harsh prohibition and sweeping legalization. It sketches a multidimensional 

matrix framework for assessing substance characteristics and their bearers and sources of 

potential harms. The authors hope to promote greater attention to incremental policy 

interventions. 

Mahoney, B., Beaudin, B.D., Carver, J.A., Ryan, D.B., and Hoffman, R.B. Pretrial Services Programs: 

Responsibilities and Potential. National Institute of Justice Issues and Practices (NCJ 181939). 2001. 115 

pages. 

This booklet presents concepts of pretrial services programs based on operational programs 

developed over the past 15 years. Key program elements, optional services provided, and 

performance measures used to determine continuing program effectiveness are summarized. 

The report addresses policy issues in addition to operational practices. 

Mastrofski, S.D., Parks, R.B., Reiss, A.J., Jr., Worden, R.E., DeLong, C., Snipes, J.B., and Terrill, W. 

Systematic Observation of Public Police: Applying Field Research Methods to Policy Issues. National Institute 

of Justice Research Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. 

December 1998. 44 pages. http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/172859.pdf 

This report describes Systematic Social Observation as a sociological field research method 

used to study police. It offers a broad scope and depth of data that are usually unavailable 

through official records and survey questionnaires. It is also costly and time-consuming, and 

it requires highly trained observers and the cooperation of the research participants. 

Moore, M.H. Supply reduction and drug law enforcement. In: M. Torny and J.Q. Wilson, eds. Drugs and Crime 

From Crime and Justice, 13. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. 1990. pp. 109–157. 

This article discusses law-enforcement efforts to control the drug supply to illicit markets in 

the United States. Efforts must be evaluated from three perspectives: their efficacy in 

reducing drug availability, their impact on the wealth and power of ongoing criminal 

organizations, and their impact on the foreign-policy objectives of the Federal Government. 

The success of each evaluation perspective is discussed. 

Moskowitz, J.M. Why reports of outcome evaluations are often biased or uninterpretable: Examples from 

evaluations of drug abuse programs. Evaluation and Program Planning 16:1–9, 1993. 

This paper examines why the conclusions of many outcome evaluations fail to provide 

validity and reliability measures, descriptions of methodology, and justification of results. 

The authors argue that social-structural problems influencing the design and implementation 

of the research are more to blame for the research quality than factors such as limited means 

or resources. Institutional and academic pressures and constraints that undermine evaluation 

studies are described. 

Office of Management and Budget. Instructions for the Program Assessment Ratings Tools. BPM852, 

Attachment B, Addendum 1. Internal document. April 18, 2002. 

This document defines Program Assessment Rating Tools (PARTs) as a series of questions 

designed to provide a consistent approach to rating programs across the Federal government. 

The formal evaluation of performance evaluation through this process is intended to develop 

defensible and consistent ratings of programs for the FY 2004 budget and beyond. The 

A-26 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

document provides guidelines and instructions for designing PARTs evaluations in six types 

of programs: competitive grant programs, block/formula grant programs, regulatory-based 

programs, capital assets and service acquisition programs, credit programs, and direct Federal 

programs. Research and development programs will not be included in this process in the 

spring review. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. Pulse Check: National Trends in Drug Abuse. Spring 1996. 11 pages. 

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/p_6spuls.txt 

This report documents drug use in the United States through three sources: ethnographers, 

police sources, and treatment providers. Usage is estimated for heroin, cocaine, marijuana, 

and emerging drugs (e.g., methamphetamine, Rohypnol, and ephedrine), with a special 

section on Ecstasy and other club drugs. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. Pulse Check: National Trends in Drug Abuse, January–June 2001 

Reporting Period. 2001 

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/drugfact/pulsechk/fall2001/fall2001.pdf 

This report documents drug use in the United States through three sources: ethnographers, 

police sources, and treatment providers. Usage is estimated for heroin, cocaine, marijuana, 

and emerging drugs (e.g., methamphetamine, Rohypnol, and ephedrine), with a special 

section on synthetic opioids. 

Office of National Drug Control Policy. The Price of Illicit Drugs: 1981 Through the Second Quarter of 2000. 

October 2001. 107 pages. 

Trends in drug prices and purity are an essential part of understanding our country’s drug 

trends. This report documents trends in drug prices for cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, 

and marijuana at several purchase levels (small user, large user, mid-level distributor, and 

wholesale distributor). Purity is also estimated for heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. 

Appendices list price and purity breakdowns by quarter, year, and metropolitan area for the 

past 20 years. 

Reaves, B.A., and Hickman, M.J. Police Departments in Large Cities, 1990-2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Special Report (NCJ 175703). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. May

2002. 16 pages. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/pdlc00.txt 

This report tracks changes in different types of crime and law enforcement practices between 

1990 and 2000 for local police departments serving cities with populations greater than 

250,000. Crime-related variables, drawn from the UCR, include violent and property crime. 

Law enforcement variables, drawn from the Law Enforcement Management and 

Administrative Statistics, include staffing levels, police race and ethnicity, officer education 

and training requirements, operating budgets, salaries, types of special units, drug 

enforcement activities, equipment (sidearm, armor, and vehicles), and computerization. 

Reuter, P. Prevalence estimation and policy formulation. The Journal of Drug Issues 23(2):167–184, 1993. 

This article presents prevalence estimation as an underused tool for drug policy decision 

making. The role of drug use estimation in determining allocation of resources and evaluation 

of policy or program choices is discussed. It is concluded that the relationship between policy 

and prevalence is most important at the local level, where the services are delivered. 

Reuter, P. Are calculations of the economic costs of drug abuse either possible or useful? Addiction 

94(5):635–638, 1999. 

This commentary argues that estimates of the economic costs of drug abuse, such as those 

reported by the United States, Canada, Britain, and Australia, are subject to enormous 

uncertainty and offer limited value to policymakers. Conceptual ambiguities and empirical 

limitations inherent in these studies are not resolvable in the foreseeable future. The author 

believes that policy objectives served by these estimates would be better met by research 

estimating the impacts of policy changes. 

A-27 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

Reuter, P., and Kleinmen, M.A.R. Risks and prices: An economic analysis of drug enforcement. In: M. Torny

and N. Morris, eds. Crime and Justice, 7. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press. 1986. pp. 289–340. 

Marijuana and cocaine have been the object of a major Federal campaign over the past 5 

years. While contributing to the relatively high prices of these two drugs, enforcement efforts 

have not significantly reduced their availability. Factors affecting supply and reduced 

availability are discussed. 

Roberts, C.D. Data Quality of the Drug Abuse Warning Network. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol 

Abuse 22 (3):389–401, 1996. 

This article presents data from quality assurance studies that were conducted at 36 sites to 

assess the quality of data collected by DAWN. Investigators found underreporting of cases 

meeting DAWN case definition criteria as well as discrepancies between reported and actual 

cases. An average of 2.3 errors per form were detected. Users are cautioned that estimates 

may be unreliable and that estimation of trends may be risky. 

Rosenfeld, R., and Decker, S.H. Are arrest statistics a valid measure of illicit drug use? The relationship

between criminal justice and public health indicators of cocaine, heroin and marijuana use. Justice Quarterly 

16(3):685–699, 1999. 

This research article examines correlations between drug arrests, DAWN-ME, DAWN-ER, 

and DUF. The study found profound convergence among the four measures for cocaine and 

opiate use, but not for marijuana. The articles conclude that despite criticism of arrest data to 

measure drug use, it is a valid and reliable measure of opiate and cocaine use. 

Roth, J.A. Psychoactive substances and violence. Understanding and Preventing Violence. Research in Brief. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. February 1994. 19 pages. 

http://www.pdxnorml.org/violence.html 

This article reviews the relationship between drug use and violence. It examines alternate 

explanations of violence and drug use. It concludes that alcohol can have a direct contributory 

effect on aggression, while the effects of illicit drugs on violence occur primarily through 

drug marketing. 

Scalia, J. Federal Drug Offenders, 1999 with Trends 1984-1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (NCJ 187285). August, 2001. 12 

pages. 

This report provides detailed statistics about drug offenders in the Federal Criminal Justice 

System. It includes information on the number of defendants charged and convicted, and their 

demographics. It also tracks changes in the rates of investigations, prosecutions, and prison 

sentences over a 15-year period. 

Schmidt, G. Drug Data Summary. ONDCP Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse Fact Sheet. Rockville, MD: 

Office of National Drug Control Policy, Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse. 1999. 6 pages. 

This fact sheet summarizes current drug-related law enforcement, court, and corrections 

statistics, as well as information on drug use, drug production, and spending on drug control. 

Data are based on the 1997 NHSDA. 

Simeone, R.S., Nottingham, W.T., and Holland, L. Estimating the size of a heroin-using population: An 

examination of the use of treatment admissions data. The International Journal of the Addictions 28(2):107– 

128, 1993. 

This article tests several methods of estimating the size of the heroin-using population using 

actual treatment admissions data. It concludes that neither capture-recapture nor truncated 

Poisson models are appropriate. Also, the application of a cohort model is unlikely to be 

accurate given the information requirements and the current limitations in treatment 

admissions data. 

A-28 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

Simeone, R.S., Rhodes, W.M., and Hunt, D.E. A plan for estimating the number of “hardcore” drug users in 

the United States. The International Journal of the Addictions 30(6):637–657, 1995. 

This article describes a model-based program of research that would allow estimation of the 

size, characteristics, and geographic distribution of “hardcore” drug users in the United States 

over time. It involves a three-stage sampling process with primary data gathered through a 

drug use screen and a life history interview. Secondary data include local and national 

administrative records. 

Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center. Selected Substance Abuse Data Indicators. Metarie, LA: 

Southeast Comprehensive Assistance Center. 1997. 27 pages. http://www.sedl.org/secac/drug97.pdf 

The intent of this compilation is to provide a resource summarizing the most common sources 

of substance abuse data. It summarizes the results of “Monitoring the Future” (1997), Youth 

Risk Behavior Surveillance System (1995), the National Household Drug Survey (1996), the 

Drug Abuse Warning Network (1996), and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America Survey 

(1996). 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Annual Emergency Department Data 1997: 

Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies Drug Abuse Warning 

Network Series D-9. 1999. 149 pages. 

This report presents estimates of ER drug abuse episodes that occurred in 1997 throughout 

the United States and in 21 metropolitan areas. The estimates are based on data reported to 

SAMHSA through the DAWN. The data were obtained from a statistical sample of hospitals 

and are weighted to be representative of all such episodes that occurred in 24-hour, shortstay, non-Federal hospitals. 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: 

Population Estimates 1998. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies NHSDA Series H-9, 1999. 126 pages. 

This report provides data on substance use prevalence measures for 1998. Estimates 

presented in this report are based on a questionnaire and estimation methodology introduced 

in 1994 and continued through 1998. Detailed explanations of the application of this 

estimation methodology are presented. 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Club Drugs. The DAWN Report. Arlington, VA: 

Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services. December 2000. 10 pages. 

http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/clubdrug.pdf 

This report tracks club drug usage reports by emergency room visits and medical examiners 

of club drug usage. Annual totals are provided for mentions of methamphetamine, LSD, 

GHB, MDMA, Ketamine, and Rohypnol for the period between 1994 and 1999. It also 

provides cross-tabulations for drug combinations, age, and race/ethnicity. 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Amphetamine Treatment Admissions Increase: 

1993-1999. The DASIS Report. Arlington, VA: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration. November 2001. 3 pages. http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/facts/Speed.pdf 

This report tracks drug treatment admission rates for amphetamine addiction using the TEDS 

for publicly funded drug treatment. It tracks geographical trends in amphetamine (primarily 

methamphetamine) treatment, noting increases in treatment over time for each reporting state. 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Trends in Initiation of Substance Abuse. 

Summary of findings from the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Rockville, MD: Office of 

Applied Studies, NHSDA Series H-13, DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 01-3549. 2001. pp. 43–50. 

This report summarizes data from the 2000 NHSDA on the prevalence and incidence of drug, 

alcohol, and tobacco use in the United States for the population 12 years old and older in 

1999 and 2000. This chapter provides information on initiation of use. 

A-29 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Mid-year 2000 preliminary emergency 

department data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies DAWN 

Series D-17. 2001. 103 pages. 

This report presents information on drug-related emergency room episodes collected through 

the DAWN through June of 2000. The DAWN is a national probability survey of hospitals 

with emergency departments conducted annually by the SAMHSA. The survey captures data 

on emergency room episodes that are induced by or related to the use of an illegal drug or the 

nonmedical use of a legal drug. Final estimates for full years from 1992 through 1999 are 

provided for reference. 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Polydrug Use Among Treatment Admissions. 

The DASIS Report. Arlington, VA: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration. October 2001. 3 pages. http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/polydrugTX.pdf 

This report summarizes admissions to publicly funded substance treatment centers for people 

reporting using more than one substance. It summarizes treatment admissions by age and by 

primary and secondary drugs (alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, opiates). 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Cocaine Treatment Admissions Decrease. The 

DASIS Report. Arlington, VA: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration. January 2002. 3 pages. http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/facts/CocaineTX.pdf 

This report tracks admissions to cocaine treatment centers. It reports admission rates by state 

for 1993, 1996, and 1999, and summarizes changes in admissions over time. 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Heroin Treatment Admissions Increase: 1993-

1999. The DASIS Report. Arlington, VA: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration. January 2002. 3 pages. http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/2k2/HeroinTX.pdf 

This report tracks admission rates for heroin addiction using the TEDS for publicly funded 

drug treatment. It tracks geographical trends in heroin treatment, noting increases in heroin 

treatment over time for each reporting state. 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Heroin Treatment Admissions in Urban and 

Rural Areas. The DASIS Report. Arlington, VA: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration. June 2002. 3 pages. http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/2k2/HeroinTX/heroinTX.pdf 

This report tracks admission rates for heroin addiction using the TEDS for publicly funded 

drug treatment. It concludes that heroin treatment is more prevalent with increasing 

urbanization and that treatment rates have increased over time (1993, 1996, 1999). 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Marijuana Treatment Admissions Increase: 

1993-1999. The DASIS Report. Arlington, VA: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration. January 2002. 3 pages. http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/2k2/MJtx.pdf 

This report tracks admission rates for marijuana abuse using the TEDS for publicly funded 

drug treatment. It tracks geographical trends in treatment, noting increases over time for each 

reporting state. 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Neighborhood Characteristics and Youth 

Marijuana Use. The NHSDA Report. Arlington, VA: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration. January 2002. 3 pages. http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/facts/Neighbor.pdf 

This report tracks marijuana use and neighborhood characteristics among youth ages 12 to 

17. The neighborhood predictors included crime, prevalence of drug selling, street fights, 

abandoned buildings, and graffiti. The strongest links with youth marijuana use were found 

for neighborhoods with high levels of drug selling and street fights. 

Underleider, J.T. Lundberg, G.D. Sunshine, I., and Walberg, C.B. The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN)

Program: Toxicologic Verification of 1,008 Emergency Room ‘Mentions.’ Archives of General Psychiatry 

37(1):106–109, 1980. 

This article describes data on DAWN emergency room patient records from the Los Angeles 

County/University of Southern California Medical Center collected in 1977. Patients’ selfA-30 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

reported drug use was compared with available toxicology laboratory reports to test the 

validity of data reported to DAWN. Self-reports were verified in 20 percent of the sample. 

Eleven percent were incorrect and 69 percent were partially correct or incorrect. The study 

suggests that reliability of DAWN reports be tested further. 

General Strategic Planning/GPRA 

Berry, F.S. Innovation in public management: The adoption of strategic planning. Public Administration 

Review 54(4):322–330, 1994. 

This research article reviews the conditions under which state agencies are likely to adopt 

strategic planning. Factors found to be related to the adoption of strategic planning include 

election cycles (strategic planning is more frequently adopted when state administrations 

change); conditions of strong fiscal health, when government agencies work closely with 

private sector business; and the adoption by neighboring states of strategic plans (as in 

benchmarking). Differences between policy and administrative innovation are discussed. 

Carroll, J.D. The rhetoric of reform and political reality in the National Performance Review. Public 

Administration Review 55(3):302–312, 1995. 

The National Performance Review (NPR) changes the focus from how government works to 

what government does. This article assesses the strengths and weaknesses of NPR using 

several different evaluation frameworks (e.g., executive leadership, interest groups, public 

service, policy, and constitutional). 

General Accounting Office. Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance. Report to 

Congressional Committees (GAO/GGD/AIMD-97-138). May 1997. 44 pages. 

This report surveyed Federal agencies that were beginning to implement performance 

measurements early to satisfy GPRA requirements. Identifying goals and developing 

performance measures was reported to be the most challenging part of the process. 

Respondents found it difficult to move beyond summaries of activities to distinguish desired 

outcomes or results. 

General Accounting Office. Managing for Results: Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Can Help Address 

Strategic Goals. Report to Congressional Requesters (GAO/GGD-98-44). January 1998. 143 pages. 

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/gg98044.pdf 

This document reports improvements in Federal agencies’ performance plans to satisfy 

GPRA requirements. There were three primary challenges: setting a strategic direction, 

coordinating crosscutting programs, and adequately defining performance and cost data. 

General Accounting Office. Managing for Results: An Agenda to Improve the Usefulness of Agencies’ Annual 

Performance Plans. Report to Congressional Requesters (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228). September 1998. 48 

pages. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/g198228.pdf 

This report calls for improvements in Federal agencies’ annual performance plans to comply 

with GPRA. Major weaknesses included a lack of a clear picture of intended performance, 

insufficient relationships between strategies and resources with performance, and insufficient 

performance measures. 

General Accounting Office. Managing for Results: Opportunities for Continued Improvements in Agencies’ 

Performance Plans. Report to Congressional Requesters (GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215). July 1999. 124 pages. 

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/g199215.pdf 

This report provides a broad overview of Federal agencies’ performance plans, noting major 

strengths and key weaknesses’ of performance plans. Progress has been made between FY 

1999 and FY 2000 in defining goals and issues that addressed program results. 

A-31 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

General Accounting Office. Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or Explain Program 

Performance. Report to Congressional Committees (GAS/GGD-00-204). September 2000. 31 pages. 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=gg00204.pdf&directory=/diskb/wais/data/gao 

This report discusses the different ways evaluation studies were used in FY 1999. Two 

general purposes were served by evaluation studies: improving performance measurement 

and understanding how to improve performance. 

General Accounting Office. Managing for Results: State Experiences Provide Insight for Federal Management 

Reforms. Report to Congressional Requesters (GAO/GGD-95-22). 1994. 28 pages. 

http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat2/153046.pdf 

This report examines state-level experiences with implementing management reforms. 

Strategic management, performance measurement systems, and alignment of management 

systems were examined for their similarity to GPRA requirements on the Federal level. States 

surveyed include Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia. 

Harrell, A. Evaluation Strategies for Human Service Programs: A Guide for Policymakers and Providers. 

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 25 pages. 

http://www.bja.evaluationwebsite.org/html/documents/evaluation_strategies.html. 

This paper lays out the basic principles of program evaluation design, citing common pitfalls, 

challenges, and constraints, and presents ideas for resolving potential problems. A 

comprehensive evaluation will include four basic elements: impact evaluations, performance 

monitoring, process evaluations, and cost evaluations. Logic models, including program 

descriptions, intended outputs, and intended outcomes, are discussed. The article gives 

different strategies for evaluating each of the four basic elements, including experimental, 

quasi-experimental, and non-experimental designs. 

Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, Executive Session on Public Sector Performance 

Management. Get Results Through Performance Management. 37 pages. 

This memo to new government executives advocates the use of performance measures to aid 

management in the public sector. Performance measures communicate standards, motivate 

staff, lead to insight, and strengthen democracy. Ten traits of effective performance 

management systems are listed and described. 

Henderson, L.J., Jr. GPRA: Mission, metrics, meaning, and marketing. The Public Manager. Spring 1995. pp. 

7–10. 

This article discusses five challenges to GPRA, including successful implementation, 

managing the process, determining the appropriate metrics, deriving useful meaning from the 

measures, and using results for formative evaluation. 

Henry, G.T., and Dickey, K.C. Implementing performance monitoring: A research and development approach. 

Public Administration Review 53(3):203–212, 1993. 

This article describes the use of a research and development model to create an effective 

performance monitoring system in education reform. Also discussed are details on 

implementation, and limitations and risks of performance monitoring. 

Kimm, V.J. GPRA: Early implementation. The Public Manager. Spring 1995. pp. 11–14. 

This article reports the findings of a symposium regarding early implementation of GPRA. 

The symposium consisted of academics and practitioners. The report covers basic GPRA 

requirements, what is working, persistent obstacles, and problem areas for the future. 

Kravchuk, R.S. & Schack, R.W. Designing effective performance-measurement systems under the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review 56(4):348–358, 1996. 

This article outlines the challenges in measuring performance for program evaluation (both 

formative and summative). Limitations and potential drawbacks of performance measurement 

A-32 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

are delineated. Using a general systems theory paradigm, the authors present 10 general 

principles for effective performance measurement systems. 

Moe, R.C. Commentary: The “reinventing government” exercise: Misinterpreting the problem, misjudging the 

consequences. Public Administration Review 54(2):111–122, 1994. 

Arguments have been made that government needs to shift from a bureaucratic to an 

entrepreneurial model. This article traces the historical roots of the “reinventing government” 

paradigm. In particular, the author takes issue with the Gore Report and its assumptions, 

proposals, and rationale. 

Rosenbloom, D.H. The context of management reforms. The Public Manager: The New Bureaucrat. Spring 

1995. pp. 3-6. 

The GPRA and the NPR are compared and contrasted in light of historical approaches to 

government reform. Although both GPRA and NPR focus on managing the bureaucracy, 

NPR favors Executive power, while GPRA favors congressional management. 

Simeone, R.S., Carnevale, J.T., and Millar, A. Performance-based management and American public policy: 

The national drug control strategy. Submitted to Public Administration Review. 1998. 

The passage of GPRA applies performance-based management principles to government 

agencies. This article presents a systemic logic model for the National Drug Control Strategy, 

and it addresses decisions to be made and the factors that influence those decisions. 

Swiss, J.W. Adapting Total Quality Management (TQM) to government. Public Administration Review 

52(4):356–362, 1992. 

This article argues that classic TQM is not applicable to government organizations for several 

reasons (e.g., stress on products rather than services, well-defined customer groups, and 

emphasizing inputs and processes rather than results). To adapt TQM to government 

applications, it would need to emphasize client feedback, performance monitoring, 

continuous improvement, and worker participation. 

Weinstock, M. Managing for Results: Predicting Performance. Government Executive Magazine. May 15, 

2002. http://www.govexec.com/features/fpp/fpp02/s6.htm. 

This article discusses the rationale behind GPRA and the potential benefits conferred by 

strategic planning. It gives an overview of some of the successes and challenges in 

performance planning by government agencies according to the GAO. The article also 

reviews President Bush’s management agenda and standards for success in the FY 2003 

budget. 

Wholey, J.S., and Hatry, J.P. The case for performance monitoring. Public Administration Review 52(6):604– 

610, 1992. 

This article examines the feasibility and value of performance monitoring in improving the 

quality of government service programs and results. Barriers to performance monitoring are 

discussed (outcomes versus impacts, validity/reliability issues, defining acceptable 

performance standards, and perceived cost and usefulness). 

Logic Models 

Kirkpatrick, S. The Program Logic Model: What, Why and How? Charity Village Research. 2001. 

http://www.charityvillage.com/charityvillage/research/rstrat3.html 

This article describes what a logic model is and why it should be used. It also lists 15 steps 

for developing a good logic model, with an emphasis on theory in developing the models. 

McLaughlin, J.A. & Jordan, G.B. Logic Models: A Tool for Telling Your Program’s Performance Story. 1998. 

http://pmn.net/education/Logic.htm 

This article links logic models to GPRA requirements. It provides an overview of logic 

models including the separate parts, process of construction, and measuring performance. 

A-33 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

McNamara, C. Guidelines and Framework for Designing Basic Logic Model. St. Paul: The Management 

Assistance Program for Nonprofits. 2000. http://www.managementhelp.net/np_progs/np_mod/org_frm.htm 

These guidelines provide a description of logic models and their purpose. It covers what to 

include, the level of detail, and definitions of basic terms (inputs, processes, outputs, and 

outcomes). An example of a logic model is provided. 

Millar, A., Simeone, R.S. & Carnevale, J.T. Logic models: A systems tool for performance management. 

Evaluation and Program Planning 24:73-81, 2001. 

Logic models are a systems approach to depicting causal relationships. They model a 

strategy-driven, rather than program- or budget-driven, reality. The development and use of 

logic models are discussed, along with application examples. 

Ontario Network of Employment Skills Training Projects. Program Logic Model for Clients in Receipt of Social 

Assistance. 1995. http://www.onestep.on.ca/documents/programlogicmodel.htm 

This document provides an example of a logic model developed for the social assistance 

program in Canada. 

Taylor-Powell, E. The Logic Model: A Program Performance Framework. Madison, WI: University of 

Wisconsin. 62 pages. 

This presentation describes logic models, the role of theory, and how to construct one. It also 

reviews outcome measures and issues in defining outcomes. Sample logic models are 

provided. 

United Way of America. Measuring Program Outcomes. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America. 1996. 170 

pages. 

This book is a guide to establishing effective program measurement. It presents a series of 

eight steps including early preparation, selection of outcomes, specification of indicators, data 

collection, pilot testing, analysis of findings, improving the system, and application of 

findings. 

Verma, A. Construction of offender profiles using fuzzy logic. Policing 20(2):408–418, 1997. 

This article reports a logic theory and techniques for use with fuzzy or imprecise, nonquantitative variables. In police work, many descriptions or conditions reported do not fit into 

classical mathematical sets. This system introduces the concept of shades of membership 

patterns and the possibility of membership falling in mixed modes. Techniques for employing 

these variables in logic models of offender profiles are described. 

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Logic Model Development Guide: Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning,

Evaluation and Action. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation. 2001. 62 pages. 

This guide provides a comprehensive introduction to logic models. Chapters include 

“Developing a Basic Logic Model for Your Program,” “Developing a Theory-of-Change 

Logic Model for Your Program” and “Using Your Logic Model to Plan for Evaluation.” Each 

chapter includes sample exercises. 

A-34 
Appendix A: Annotated Bibliography 

Acronyms Used in Appendix A 

ADAM Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring

CAR Children at Risk

CenTF Center for Task Force Training

CEWG Community Epidemiology Work Group

COPS Community Oriented Policing Services

CTAC Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center

D.A.R.E. Drug Abuse Resistance Education

DAWN Drug Abuse Warning Network

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DMP Domestic Monitor Program

DOD Department of Defense

DOJ U.S. Department of Justice

DTO drug trafficking organization

DUF Drug Use Forecasting

EPIC El Paso Intelligence Center

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

GAO General Accounting Office

GCIP General Counterdrug Intelligence Plan

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

HIDTA High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area

HSP Heroin Signature Program

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

ISC Intelligence Support Centers

LEA law enforcement agency

MET Mobile Enforcement Teams

MTF Monitoring the Future

NDATUS National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey

NHSDA National Household Survey on Drug Abuse

NPR National Performance Review

OBTS Offender-Based Transaction Statistics

OCDETF Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy

PME Performance Measures of Effectiveness

RISS Regional Information Sharing Systems

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

STRIDE System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence

TEDS Treatment Episode Data Set

UCR Uniform Crime Report

USCG United States Coast Guard

USCS U.S. Customs Service

A-35 

APPENDIX B

HIDTA PROGRAM ELEMENTS

Appendix B: HIDTA Program Elements 

Legislative Authority: Congress established the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program 

to operate under the direction of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) by the Anti-Drug 

Abuse Act of l988 (P.L. l00-690, November l8, l988) and the ONDCP Reauthorization Act of l993 (P.L. l05-

277). 

Program Mission: The mission of the HIDTA program is to enhance and coordinate America’s drugcontrol efforts among local, state, and Federal law enforcement agencies in order to eliminate or reduce drug 

trafficking (including the production, manufacture, transportation, distribution, and chronic use of illegal 

drugs and money laundering) and its harmful consequences in critical regions of the United States. 

Program Principles: The HIDTA program helps improve the effectiveness and efficiency of drug control 

efforts in the most critical drug trafficking areas of the country by facilitating cooperation among Federal, 

state, and local law enforcement organizations: collocating and pooling limited resources, sharing 

information; developing focused, coordinated strategies; and implementing joint initiatives across 

jurisdictional boundaries. These principles are intended to help ONDCP prioritize, focus and coordinate law 

enforcement efforts in the United States. 

Program Priorities: 

• Assess regional drug threats; 

• Design strategies to focus efforts that combat drug trafficking threats; 

• Develop and fund initiatives to implement strategies; 

• Facilitate coordination between Federal, state, and local efforts; and 

•	 Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of drug control efforts to reduce or eliminate the harmful impact 

of drug trafficking. 

Program Goals: The HIDTA program has three major goals: (1) to improve the effectiveness and 

efficiency of counter-narcotic law enforcement agencies; (2) to reduce the impact of drug trafficking, and 

(3) to increase the safety of American neighborhoods. 

The HIDTA program goals are arranged hierarchically. Improvements in law enforcement capabilities are 

needed to disrupt the impact of drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) and the crime and violence associated 

with illegal drug trafficking. The third goal for the HIDTA program, increasing the safety of American 

neighborhoods, is accomplished through achievement of the first two goals. 

Intended Outputs and Outcomes: The intended outputs of successful HIDTAs are to improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of law enforcement agencies, improve communication, increase the effective use 

of information and technology, and implement planning, training, and evaluation tools. Intended outcomes 

include reduction in drug sales, reduction in drug availability, increase in the number of disrupted/dismantled 

DTOs, reduction in the transportation and use of drugs, reduction in the production and cultivation of drugs, 

and reduction in the attendant financial resources of drug proceeds. 

Key Elements of the HIDTA Program: The key elements of each HIDTA constitute the moving parts of 

the HIDTA. These elements include Congress, ONDCP, the Regional Executive Boards, the HIDTA 

Executive Committees and Directors, the HIDTA Initiatives and Task Forces, and the Intelligence Support 

Centers (ISCs). 

B-1 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

The program comprises the ONDCP HIDTA Program Office and the HIDTA Coordinating Committee 

(Federal level), the HIDTA Regional Offices and Executive Boards (regional level), and the Investigative 

Support and Information Centers (program level). 

ONDCP HIDTA Program Office. The management responsibilities of the ONDCP HIDTA Program Office 

include providing program policy guidance and evaluating program performance. These activities include 

evaluating HIDTA threat assessments, strategies, initiatives, and proposed budgets and designating HIDTAs. 

The ONDCP Director, upon consultation with the Attorney General, Secretary of Treasury, heads of national 

drug control program agencies, and Governors of applicable states, designates specified regions of the United 

States as HIDTAs. The HIDTA Coordinating Committee, chaired by ONDCP’s Deputy Director for State and 

Local Affairs, is an interagency body comprised of members of Federal drug control departments and 

agencies. The Coordination Committee makes recommendations on policy, program, and funding to the 

ONDCP Director. The Coordination Committee includes representatives from ONDCP and the Departments 

of Justice, Treasury, and Health and Human Services. Additionally, the National HIDTA Program establishes 

various subcommittees with representation from state and local law enforcement agencies around the nation. 

The success of the HIDTA initiative is based on the combined resources and efforts of multiple independent 

law enforcement organizations and the contributions of numerous independent support organizations. The 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF); National Guard Bureau; and other Federal, state, and local agencies provide 

support to ONDCP and the regional HIDTAs. A disruption in support from any one of these and other 

organizations that contribute to the HIDTA program can have an adverse ripple effect throughout an 

individual HIDTA or the overall HIDTA program. Conversely, the information sharing and coordination 

efforts of ONDCP, the regional HIDTA offices, and other national agencies have a synergistic effect in 

achieving the desired outcomes and goals of the HIDTA program as a whole. 

HIDTA Regional Offices and Executive Boards. At the regional level, each HIDTA has an Executive 

Board, which is the governing body for each HIDTA. The Boards consist of equal numbers of representatives 

from local, state, and Federal law enforcement agencies. The Board is responsible for the development and 

implementation of the HIDTA strategy and the attendant initiatives and budgets. The Board also has 

administrative oversight responsibility for the fiscal operations of the HIDTA, which includes ensuring that 

HIDTA funds and resources are utilized in compliance with all program guidance and policies. The Board 

hires a Director to assist with the day-to-day administration of the HIDTA, implement appropriate oversight 

controls, and liaison with ONDCP. Operational control of initiatives is the sole purview of the participating 

law enforcement agencies. A primary function of HIDTA regional offices is to develop regional threat 

assessments and integrate the efforts of multiple law enforcement agencies with various responsibilities, 

capabilities, and jurisdictional authorities (i.e., Federal, state, and local) into a coordinated, united effort 

against identified drug trafficking problems. 

HIDTA Director and Executive Committee. At the individual program level, each HIDTA is governed by an 

Executive Committee, which is led by a Chair and a Vice Chair (one state or local person and one Federal 

person). There are approximately 16 members of the law enforcement and justice communities on each 

committee, including 8 Federal members and 8 state or local members. The Executive Committee determines 

the character of HIDTA strategies and, in concert with the HIDTA Director, is responsible for the 

development and implementation of the HIDTA program. The Committee also has responsibilities to propose 

annual budgets; develop joint strategies with initiatives that specifically address the annual drug trafficking 

threat assessments; and monitor the development, implementation, support, and evaluation of HIDTA 

initiatives. 

Investigative Support Center. An interagency Intelligence Center (also called Investigative Support Center 

and Information Center) is mandated in each HIDTA. These centers create a communication infrastructure to 

facilitate information sharing between Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. These centers 

B-2 
Appendix B: HIDTA Program Elements 

analyze information from many Federal, state, and local sources to provide intelligence support to law 

enforcement agencies regarding DTOs and their vulnerabilities. The centers supply strategic intelligence as 

well as case support to law enforcement agencies, and they develop the annual threat assessments that are 

used in determining the HIDTA’s enforcement strategies. Intelligence centers also provide other functions 

and services, such as event deconfliction, to regional law enforcement organizations. The centers provide 

secure facilities and information systems to Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies for storing and 

sharing information. 

The ISC is the centerpiece of the HIDTA program and a common element of every HIDTA. A state or local 

and a Federal law enforcement agency jointly manages the ISC. Drug control data is collected from Federal 

agencies, including the DEA, FBI, U.S. Customs, and many state and local law enforcement agencies. 

HIDTA ISCs provide secure sites and information systems for participating law enforcement agencies 

(members of what is called a task force) to store and appropriately share information and intelligence. 

Investigative support is provided through connectivity to various law enforcement databases (e.g., El Paso 

Intelligence Center [EPIC], Regional Information Sharing Systems [RISS]), post-seizure and case-support 

analyses, forensics, financial investigations, and technology sharing and development. 

Other key program elements include threat assessment, strategy development, and task forces. 

Threat Assessment. The primary driving force behind a HIDTA is the threat assessment; counties are 

designated as a part of a HIDTA due to an unusually high amount of illegal drug trafficking. Several different 

drug trafficking threats are considered: heavy sales/use of illegal drugs, smuggling routes or transshipment 

points, or being a center of cultivation or manufacture. 

Strategy. To combat the drug trafficking issues identified in the threat assessment, each HIDTA formulates 

an individual strategy. The strategy is carried out through specific initiatives that are designed to address the 

identified threat. For example, if certain highways in an area are known to be popular smuggling routes, 

Mobile Enforcement Teams might be included among the initiatives (e.g., Appalachia, Gulf Coast, Rocky 

Mountain). Or if open-air drug markets are identified as a problem (e.g., Baltimore/Washington, D.C., New 

York/New Jersey, Philadelphia/Camden), specific initiatives may be designed to close them down. 

HIDTA Task Force. Each HIDTA has great flexibility in terms of developing its own strategy, initiatives, and 

task forces. Each task force includes a group of law enforcement officers who focus on a particular initiative 

to reduce the overall threat in the community. A task force is characterized by the co-location and comingling of agency representatives to work on a particular initiative, such as financial crime. Each task force 

focuses on particular types of cases or problems that are important to a particular initiative undertaken by the 

HIDTA and each task force may work on multiple cases simultaneously. 

Unique Processes. Because drug trafficking threats vary in different areas, HIDTAs are extremely flexible 

by design. Some HIDTAs focus on interdiction in transit zones into the United States (e.g., southwest border, 

Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands, Los Angeles). Others have initiatives targeting open-air drug markets and street 

gangs (e.g., Gulf Coast, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C./Baltimore, New York); transportation hubs such as 

airports, bus terminals, and seaports (central and south Florida, Houston, Hawaii, New England); highway 

interdiction (Rocky Mountain, Gulf Coast); parcel deliveries (Philadelphia, southeast Michigan); or violent 

fugitives (Los Angeles, New York/New Jersey, Washington, D.C./Baltimore). Some HIDTAs focus on 

specific drug threats such as heroin (Milwaukee), marijuana (Appalachia), or methamphetamines (Midwest 

and Central Valley, California). 

Each program element has a role, as described above, and a function that relates to accomplishing one or 

more of the goals and objectives of the HIDTA. All of the elements, bound together, work to accomplish the 

following activities: 

B-3 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

• Under Goal 1: Improve the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Law Enforcement within HIDTAs 

– Develop guidelines to support administration and accountability of resources. 

– Develop a financial database. 

– Build and employ a program performance evaluation component. 

– Identify and implement processes for sharing best practices. 

– Perform deconfliction services. 

– Support electronic interconnectivity between and among ISCs. 

– Support electronic interconnectivity of each ISC to the HIDTA task force. 

– Support participation in training on information technology. 

– Support participation in training on conducting investigations. 

– Support participation in training on strategic planning and information sharing. 

– Conduct annual HIDTA threat assessments. 

– Assess HIDTA initiatives. 

– Evaluate performance and prepare annual reports. 

– Modify annual Performance Plans and Performance Reports. 

– Identify processes for sharing best practices. 

– Participate in onsite reviews. 

• Under Goal 2: Reduce the Efficiency and Impact of Drug Trafficking Organizations in America 

– Use HIDTA Intelligence Center information to assess drug trafficking. 

– Reduce levels and types of drug trafficking. 

– Ensure that management is focused on drug production, transportation, distribution, chronic 

use, and money laundering. 

Resources: The primary resource provided by the HIDTA program is coordination and intelligence for 

participating law enforcement agencies. Coordination or interagency cooperation is accomplished in several 

ways. The most common means of achieving coordination is co-location, in which participating law 

enforcement agencies share common work space. Another form of co-location occurs when members of one 

agency are “loaned” to another agency. 

The HIDTA program is intended to conserve Federal, state, and local tax dollars allocated for drug control 

efforts by prioritizing the nation’s most critical drug trafficking regions and focusing limited resources on 

specific, identified problems. The HIDTA program is also intended to optimize tax dollars; once a HIDTA is 

designated, Federal, state, and local resources are combined with HIDTA funding and shared by multi-agency 

programs. 

The HIDTA program funds help Federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations invest in 

infrastructure and joint initiatives to confront DTOs. Funds are also used for demand reduction and drug 

treatment initiatives. Resources provided by the program have grown from $25 million in FY 1990 to over 

$226 million in FY 2002. 

External Factors: Several external factors must be isolated and assessed in the process of the performance 

monitoring and management system developed for the HIDTA program. These include the following: 

$ Decentralized management of the program and lack of formal line of authority from ONDCP level to 

regional office level. Regional Executive Boards maintain a high degree of autonomy in managing the 

regional offices. This autonomy affords each HIDTA the flexibility to tailor its efforts. ONDCP exercises 

influence over decisionmakers at the regional offices through policy and program guidance, budget 

approval, and by holding the Regional Executive Boards accountable for the results of their initiatives. 

B-4 
Appendix B: HIDTA Program Elements 

The reporting can be characterized by a solid chain of command from the HIDTA to the Executive Board 

and by a dotted line to ONDCP. Grant dollars are paid through a fiduciary that may have no connection to 

the HIDTA. This autonomy gives the HIDTA program its strength, but it can also create oversight and 

management challenges. 

$ Legislative Influence. Before FY 1999, Congress required ONDCP to fund each existing HIDTA at a 

level no less than the previous year without the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations. In 

1999, Congressional conferees noted that ONDCP must have flexibility to allocate resources to those 

HIDTAs most likely to have the greatest impact on the country’s drug problems. 

$ Terrorism Impacts. Recent events have caused a diversion of counterdrug assets to the counterterrorism 

mission. 

$ National Guard. While the National Guard has a significant role in the HIDTAs across the country, their 

FY 200l level of support was reduced in FY 2002. 

B-5 

APPENDIX C

OCDETF PROGRAM ELEMENTS

Appendix C: OCDETF Program Elements 

Mission: The mission of the OCDETF program is to identify, investigate, and prosecute the most significant 

drug trafficking and money laundering organizations. This is accomplished through interagency cooperation 

and supplemental Federal resources in order to reduce drug supply in the United States. 

Goals and Objectives: There are five objectives for each OCDETF region: 

1. To target, investigate, and prosecute individuals who organize, direct, finance, or otherwise engage in 

high-level illegal drug trafficking and related enterprises, including large-scale money laundering 

organizations, for the purpose of developing coordinated, multi-regional investigations that have the 

greatest potential to disrupt and dismantle nationwide drug and money laundering organizations and 

thereby reduce domestic drug supply. 

2. To promote a coordinated drug enforcement effort in each OCDETF region, to encourage maximum 

cooperation among all drug enforcement agencies, and to involve prosecutors early in the development of 

investigations. 

3. To work fully and effectively with state and local drug enforcement agencies. 

4. To link components of major drug trafficking and/or money laundering organizations in order to develop 

simultaneous, coordinated investigations which will dismantle the entire infrastructure of the 

organization. 

5. To make full use of financial investigative techniques, to identify and convict high-level traffickers and 

dismantle money laundering organizations, and to enable the government to seize and forfeit assets and 

profits, proceeds, and instrumentalities derived from high-level drug trafficking and related crimes. 

Organization Elements (Washington, D.C., Area) 

OCDETF Executive Committee (Deputy Attorney General, Chair). The committee, composed of the heads 

of the nine OCDETF agencies, articulates policy, reviews resource allocations, and coordinates the 

development and maintenance of the OCDETF program. The Executive Committee is ultimately responsible 

for dispute resolution of issues that cannot be resolved at the regional level. The OCDETF Executive 

Committee meets at least quarterly. 

Representatives are drawn from the following Federal agencies: 

1. Drug Enforcement Administration 

2. Federal Bureau of Investigation 

3. United States Attorney’s Office 

4. United States Marshals Service 

5. Immigration and Naturalization Service 

6. Department of Treasury 

7. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 

8. United States Customs Service 

9. Internal Revenue Service 

10. United States Coast Guard 

11. National Drug Intelligence Center 

Director, OCDETF Executive Office. The OCDETF Director provides leadership, direction and focus for the 

OCDETF program. The Director, an Associate Deputy Attorney General, functions as a spokesperson and 

C-1 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

advocate for the program with Congress, OMB, ONDCP, and other governmental oversight and law 

enforcement agencies. 

Operations Chiefs Group (OCDETF Director, Chair). This group includes specified leadership positions 

from all Federal agencies and departments that regularly participate in OCDETF activities. This group 

provides coordination, program management, and guidance. Each member also serves as a boundary spanner, 

and shares relevant OCDETF information with their respective agencies. The Operations Chiefs Group meets 

at least quarterly. 

WARG—Washington Agency Representative Group (OCDETF Director, Chair). This group consists of 

senior representatives of Federal agencies and departments that regularly participate in OCDETF activities. 

This group shares relevant information, formulates policies and procedures, and provides program 

coordination. This group is responsible for program adherence to guidelines, program evaluation, budget 

preparation, and sponsoring training programs and regional conferences. It meets monthly and as needed. 

Organization Elements (Regional Level) 

Task Force Regions. The task force regions and core cities are established according to Federal judicial 

jurisdictions. They are: 

1. New England (Boston) 

2. New York/New Jersey (New York) 

3. Mid-Atlantic (Baltimore) 

4. Great Lakes (Chicago) 

5. Southeast (Atlanta) 

6. West Central (St. Louis) 

7. Florida/Caribbean (Miami) 

8. Southwest (Houston) 

9. Pacific (San Francisco) 

Advisory Council (Core City U.S. Attorney, Chair). Consists of the U.S. Attorney from each district and 

senior law enforcement officials from each member agency. Responsibilities of this council include 

monitoring drug trafficking patterns, formulating regional strategies, communicating with Federal agencies, 

coordinating drug enforcement efforts, and ensuring the appropriate use of OCDETF funds. 

Regional Coordination Group. Consists of the designated Assistant U.S. Attorney Coordinator and one 

senior/supervisory level Agent Coordinator from each OCDETF member agency, as well as non-OCDETF 

Federal law enforcement representatives (optional). This group assists the Advisory Council in monitoring 

drug trafficking patterns. It is also primarily responsible for evaluating and approving Investigation Initiation 

Forms, monitoring OCDETF program activities within the region, facilitating information exchange, 

managing expenses, ensuring deployment of resources for OCDETF cases, performing annual case reviews, 

and submitting completed OCDETF reports. 

Organization Elements (District Level) 

District Coordination Group (U.S. Attorney, Chair). Comprised of the Lead OCDETF Attorney, the 

OCDETF investigative agency Special Agents in Charge or senior supervisors from judicial district, and state 

or local law enforcement representative(s). Each group is responsible for accepting/rejecting Investigation 

Initiation Forms; reviewing allocation of resources (e.g., agencies, agents, attorneys, support staff, etc.) to 

OCDETF investigations; coordinating Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies; and ensuring 

information sharing. Meets regularly. 

C-2 
Appendix C: OCDETF Program Elements 

United States Attorney. Provides administrative support and is responsible for overall OCDETF 

performance within that judicial District. Designates OCDETF Attorneys and Lead OCDETF Attorneys. 

Lead OCDETF Attorney. Responsible for submitting investigation proposals to the Regional Coordination 

Group following approval by the District Coordination Group, maintaining status reports of OCDETF 

investigations and prosecutions, ensuring reports are accurately prepared and submitted, and identifying cases 

with asset forfeiture potential. Also serves on District Coordination Group and as a liaison with the Regional 

Coordination Group. 

Investigative Agency Special Agents-in-Charge and U.S. Marshals. Responsible for bringing potential 

investigations (including HIDTA investigations, where appropriate) to the District Coordination Group, 

assigning Federal agents to OCDETF investigations, and supervising state and local officers. They also serve 

on the District Coordination Group and the OCDETF Advisory council. 

Intended Outputs and Outcomes: The primary outputs and outcomes of successful OCDETF programs 

involve the successful dismantling of high-level DTOs. 

Outputs: 1. Number of multi-region, simultaneous drug investigations 

2. Number of primary money laundering investigations 

3. Percentage of OCDETF defendants in a leadership role 

4. Number of investigations targeting command and control organizations on the 

Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) list 

5. Number of CPOT targets dismantled 

6. Number of regional strategies approved, implemented, and evaluated 

Included within these outcomes are the number of successful prosecutions of high-level drug traffickers, the 

sentences handed down, and the financial proceeds seized or forfeited. 

Outcome: Reduction in drug supply availability in the United States 

Resources 

OCDETF investigations are lengthy and complex, often requiring significant expenditures of agent time and 

the use of sophisticated investigative techniques. The primary resources provided by the OCDETF program 

are for salary reimbursements, overtime expenses incurred by participating state and local law enforcement 

agencies and investigative expenses, to include TDY costs, in support of the OCDETF investigation. Without 

these earmarked OCDETF funds, Federal agencies without explicit Title 21 drug enforcement jurisdiction 

(i.e., ATF, IRS, INS, US Marshals) could not contribute significantly to successful prosecutions and 

dismantlement of large-scale DTOs. 

The resources are used to foster interagency cooperation between law enforcement agencies and sustain 

agency commitment throughout long term investigations, which is particularly critical in ensuring the 

continuing commitment of state and local officers in OCDETF investigations. 

Case Approval Process 

Criteria for OCDETF Submission and Approval 

1. Investigations tied or linked to major drug trafficking and money laundering organizations contained on 

the Attorney General’s Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) List. 

C-3 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

2. Investigations emanating from Special Operations Division (SOD) leads and are linked to SODcoordinated investigations. 

3. Investigations that are spinoffs from, or linked to, an ongoing OCDETF investigation in another district or 

region or have the potential to be multi-region in scope. 

4. Investigations that are connected/linked to recognized international organizations or to components of a 

nationwide drug or money laundering organization. 

5. Investigation of MDTOs that warrant the involvement of more than one investigative agency. 

6. Investigations of MDTOs that demand significant attorney resources during the investigative stage (i.e., 

grand juries, wiretap, substantial cash or property assets subject to forfeiture, witness plea agreements and 

protection, and the corruption of public officials). 

7. Investigations that focus on criminal activities in order to achieve high-level prosecutions within an 

organization and also concentrate on dismantling the financial infrastructure of the targeted organization. 

8. Investigations that focus on prosecutions at upper levels of an organization with the potential forfeiture of 

illegal assets. 

9. Investigations and prosecutions that are expected to result in the conviction of persons engaged in 

organized activities related to importation, manufacture, distribution, crop cultivation, diversion, sales, 

financial support, or money laundering associated with the illicit trafficking of any illegal drug or narcotic 

substance, including pharmaceuticals and precursor chemicals. 

10. Investigations that have the potential to disrupt the organization through the seizure and forfeiture of 

money, conveyances, real estate, businesses, or other non-drug assets through both criminal and civil 

forfeiture action. 

Case Initiation 

Investigations are (almost exclusively) initiated by an OCDETF member agency. OCDETF cases are 

normally generated by the receipt of intelligence, seizure of contraband, informant information, or 

investigative efforts. The case agent (or possibly the Assistant U.S. Attorney) will prepare the Investigation 

Initiation Form. If the District Coordination Group approves the case, it is forwarded to the Regional 

Coordination Group. Upon approval at the regional level, it becomes an official OCDETF investigation. Upon 

official designation (or before) agency resources are committed, an Assistant U.S. Attorney is assigned by the 

U.S. Attorney, and the District Coordination Group will determine the need for involving state/local law 

enforcement and arrange for joint enforcement actions. 

OCDETF Cases 

OCDETF cases rely on several traditional investigative techniques including undercover work, investigative 

grand juries, and confidential informants. The use of court-authorized electronic surveillance is also 

increasing. In addition, OCDETF investigations are required to focus on financial investigations, which can 

help identify the organization’s assets and the financial operatives within the drug organization, in order to 

completely dismantle and destroy the infrastructure of the organization. 

C-4 
Appendix C: OCDETF Program Elements 

OCDETF Investigative Forms 

•	 Investigation Selection and Acceptance. To receive an OCDETF designation, an investigation must 

involve at least two law enforcement agencies, one of which must be a Federal agency. Any participating 

Federal agency may submit a proposal for initiation of an OCDETF investigation using an Investigation 

Initiation Form (IIF). The form is presented to the District Coordination Group and then to the Regional 

Coordination Group. 

• Indictments. Upon indictment, two Indictment or Information Forms must be completed. 

Part A contains the following information regarding the investigation: 

Court docket number 

Court jurisdiction (i.e., Federal, state, or local) 

Number of defendants 

Case personnel (i.e., attorneys) 

Agencies involved and number of personnel by agency 

Types of drugs involved and type of organization 

Investigative techniques utilized 

Part B pertains to the defendant and in cases with multiple defendants, must be completed for each 

defendant. Part B contains the following defendant information: 

Name Date of birth Social Security number 

Citizenship status Charged offenses and number of counts for each offense 

Leadership role/functional role 

•	 Post-Trial Reports. Upon completion of a case, by trial or plea, two forms are completed. One is a 

Disposition/Sentencing Report. This form lists pertinent individual information regarding the defendant 

(e.g., name, Social Security number, citizenship, etc.), the original charges and the outcomes of each 

charge (guilty, plea bargain, acquittal, dismissal), and the sentence, including fines and total prison term. 

The final required report is the OCDETF Closing Report, which lists the operation name, case number, 

lead attorney, and sponsoring agency. It also lists the results achieved—whether the organization was 

dismantled, disrupted, or not significantly affected. If the organization is not classified as dismantled or 

disrupted, the reasons for failure to disrupt the organization must be provided. 

OCDETF Statistical/Performance System 

Management Information System (MIS). This system is designed to meet the management needs of the 

Executive Committee, WARG, U.S. Attorneys, participating agencies, and OCDETF regions. The MIS 

provides data for program evaluation and reports to the Attorney General, the President, Congress, and the 

public. It contains information from: 

1. Investigation Initiation Forms (IIF); 

2. Indictment and Investigation Forms (Parts A and B); 

3. Disposition and Sentencing Reports; and 

4. OCDETF Closing Reports. 

The MIS information is entered into a searchable database at the OCDETF Executive Office and includes: 

1. Actual penalties imposed (sentences and fines); 

C-5 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

2. Total criminal fines assessed against these offenders versus the amount collected by the Federal 

government; and 

3. Offenders convicted and the non-drug assets (cash and property) seized and/or forfeited. 

External Factors for OCDETF 

Estimating Drug Supply. The OCDETF program is designed to reduce drug supply as one of its primary 

outcomes. It is much easier to track prosecutions, seizures, and amount of assets forfeited (i.e., outputs) 

because they are quantifiable. Determining the impact of OCDETF investigations upon the total drug supply 

is much more complicated. Common approaches include drug use surveys, measurable indicators of drug use 

among arrestees, emergency room and coroner reports, and estimates by various law enforcement agencies. 

Each of these measures has inherent weaknesses and are insufficient for estimating the available drug supply. 

Terrorism. The recent terrorist attacks have precipitated a shift in emphasis for many Federal agencies. 

Counterterrorism has become a greater priority for many agencies involved in OCDETF investigations 

including the FBI, INS, U.S. Customs Service, and the Coast Guard. The shift in priorities may reduce 

available resources for investigating major drug trafficking organizations and conducting financial 

investigations in particular. 

C-6 
APPENDIX D

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR 

HIDTA AND OCDETF PROGRAMS 

Appendix D: Legislative Authority for HIDTA and 

OCDETF Programs 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program|

(Title 21, chapter 22, Sec. 1706; from PL 105-277:Office of National Drug Control Policy

Reauthorization Act of 1998) 

(a) Establishment. There is established in the Office a program to be known as the High Intensity 

Drug Trafficking Areas Program. 

(b) Designation. The Director, upon consultation with the Attorney General, the Secretary of the 

Treasury, heads of the National Drug Control Program agencies, and the Governor of each 

applicable State, may designate any specified area of the United States as a high intensity drug 

trafficking area. After making such a designation and in order to provide Federal assistance to the 

area so designated, the Director may— 

(1) obligate such sums as appropriated for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 

Program; 

(2) direct the temporary reassignment of Federal personnel to such area, subject to the 

approval of the head of the department or agency that employs such personnel; 

(3) take any other action authorized under section 1703 of this title to provide increased 

Federal assistance to those areas; 

(4) coordinate activities under this subsection (specifically administrative, recordkeeping, 

and funds management activities) with State and local officials. 

(c) Factors for consideration 

In considering whether to designate an area under this section as a high intensity drug trafficking 

area, the Director shall consider, in addition to such other criteria as the Director considers to be 

appropriate, the extent to which— 

(1) the area is a center of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution; 

(2) State and local law enforcement agencies have committed resources to respond to the 

drug trafficking problem in the area, thereby indicating a determination to respond 

aggressively to the problem; 

(3) drug-related activities in the area are having a harmful impact in other areas of the 

country; and 

(4) a significant increase in allocation of Federal resources is necessary to respond 

adequately to drug-related activities in the area. 

(d) Use of funds. The Director shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated for the High Intensity 

Drug Trafficking Program are expended for the establishment or expansion of drug treatment 

programs 

Other Provisions: 

For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s High Intensity Drug 

Trafficking Areas Program, $192,000,000 for drug control activities consistent with the approved 

strategy for each of the designated High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, of which no less than 

D-1 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

51 percent shall be transferred to State and local entities for drug control activities, which shall be 

obligated within 120 days of the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided, That up to 49 percent 

may be transferred to Federal agencies and departments at a rate to be determined by the Director: 

Provided further, That, of this latter amount, $1,800,000 shall be used for auditing. 

Provided further, That, hereafter, of the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000 or any succeeding 

fiscal year for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, the funds to be obligated or 

expended during such fiscal year for programs addressing the treatment or prevention of drug use as 

part of the approved strategy for a designated High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) shall 

not be less than the funds obligated or expended for such programs during fiscal year 1999 for each 

designated HIDTA without the prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided 

further, That funds shall be provided for existing High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas at no less 

than the total fiscal year 1999 level. 

Combating Methamphetamine and Amphetamine in High Intensity Drug Trafficking

Areas (Act, Oct 17, 2000, P.L. 106-310, Title XXXVI, Subtitle A, Part II, Section 3624, 114 Stat. 

1232) provides: 

(a) In General. 

(1) In general. The Director of National Drug Control Policy shall use amounts available 

under this section to combat the trafficking of methamphetamine and amphetamine in areas 

designated by the Director as high intensity drug trafficking areas. 

(2) Activities. In meeting the requirement in paragraph (1), the Director shall transfer funds 

to appropriate Federal, State, and local governmental agencies for employing additional Federal law 

enforcement personnel, or facilitating the employment of additional State and local law enforcement 

personnel, including agents, investigators, prosecutors, laboratory technicians, chemists, 

investigative assistants, and drug-prevention specialists. 

(b) Authorization of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 

section— 

(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000; and 

(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2004. 

(c) Apportionment of Funds.— 

(1) Factors in apportionment.—The Director shall apportion amounts appropriated for a 

fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in subsection (b) for activities under 

subsection (a) among and within areas designated by the Director as high intensity drug trafficking 

areas based on the following factors: 

(A) The number of methamphetamine manufacturing facilities and amphetamine 

manufacturing facilities discovered by Federal, State, or local law enforcement officials in the 

previous fiscal year. 

(B) The number of methamphetamine prosecutions and amphetamine prosecutions in 

Federal, State, or local courts in the previous fiscal year. 

(C) The number of methamphetamine arrests and amphetamine arrests by Federal, State, 

or local law enforcement officials in the previous fiscal year. 

D-2 
Appendix D: Legislative Authority for HIDTA and OCDETF Programs 

(D)The amounts of methamphetamine, amphetamine, or listed chemicals (as that term is 

defined in section 102(33) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(33)) seized by Federal, 

State, or local law enforcement officials in the previous fiscal year. 

(E) Intelligence and predictive data from the Drug Enforcement Administration and the 

Department of Health and Human Services showing patterns and trends in abuse, trafficking, and 

transportation in methamphetamine, amphetamine, and listed chemicals (as that term is so defined). 

(2) Certification.—Before the Director apportions any funds under this subsection to a high 

intensity drug trafficking area, the Director shall certify that the law enforcement entities responsible 

for clandestine methamphetamine and amphetamine laboratory seizures in that area are providing 

laboratory seizure data to the national clandestine laboratory database at the El Paso Intelligence 

Center. 

(d) Limitation on Administrative Costs.—Not more than 5 percent of the amount appropriated in 

a fiscal year pursuant to the authorization of appropriations for that fiscal year in subsection (b) may 

be available in that fiscal year for administrative costs associated with activities under subsection (a). 

D-3 
Design for a HIDTA/OCDETF Performance Monitoring System 

OCDETF Authorizing Legislation (PL 97-377) 

Title X: Appropriates funds for programs provided for in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 

and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 1983, as reported in the Senate on 

September 24, 1982. 

Appropriates funds at special rates for the Department of Commerce, including the Bureau of the 

Census, Economic Development Administration, International Trade Administration, Minority 

Business Development Agency, the United States Travel and Tourism Administration, the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration. 

Appropriates Funds for the Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration. Makes 

appropriations for the: (1) Federal Trade Commission; and (2) Small Business Administration, 

including the business loan and investment fund. 

Authorizes appropriations for the Department of Justice and other legal activities including payment 

for: (1) the Antitrust Division; (2) U.S. Attorneys and Marshalls; (3) support of U.S. prisoners; 

(4) witnesses; and (5) the Community Relations Service. 

Appropriates funds for Interagency Law Enforcement, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Drug 

Enforcement Administration. 

Allows the use of funds for assistance to Cuban-Haitian entrants. 

Provides appropriations for the Commission on Civil Rights, the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission, and the Legal Services Corporation. Prohibits the use of funds to provide legal 

assistance for or on behalf of an alien unless the alien is a lawful resident of the United States. 

Imposes other restrictions on the use of funds by the Legal Services Corporation. 

Makes appropriations for the Department of State, including the Administration of Foreign Affairs, 

the Asia Foundation, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians and, the 

United States Information Agency. Provides necessary funds for the reopening of certain U.S. 

consulates and for annual obligations of membership in international multilateral organizations. 

Appropriates funds for salaries and expenses for Judges, officers, and employees of the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Courts. 

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies 

Appropriation Act, 1983 

D-4