DRUG CONTROL

ONDCP Efforts to

Manage the National

Drug Control Budget

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and

Human Resources, Committee on

Government Reform

House of Representatives

May 1999

GAO/GGD-99-80

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-281159

Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

GAO

May 14, 1999

The Honorable John L. Mica

Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal

 Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The nation’s war on drugs represents a considerable investment of

resources and dollars—almost $18 billion is reported in the fiscal year 1999

federal budget for drug control programs. This report responds to the

request of former Chairman Hastert that we examine the role of the Office

of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) in shaping the national drug

control budget that the President ultimately proposes to Congress to

implement the National Drug Control Strategy. Specifically, this report

• assesses whether the process ONDCP followed to certify federal agencies’

drug control budgets for fiscal year 1999 was consistent with statutory

requirements, and

• describes the system ONDCP has developed to assess the extent to which

drug control agencies and programs achieve intended results.

As we agreed with the Subcommittee, our work focused primarily on

ONDCP and four drug control agencies—the Drug Enforcement

Administration (DEA), U.S. Customs Service, Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and the Department of Defense

(DOD).

The process ONDCP used to certify fiscal year 1999 drug budgets was

generally consistent with the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of

1988. ONDCP provided budget guidance to agencies and reviewed some

agencies’ preliminary budgets in the summer and others in the fall. Based

on its budget reviews, ONDCP notified agencies of recommended changes

to incorporate into their final budgets that were submitted to the President

for approval.

ONDCP reviewed budgets of 14 drug control agencies (about 93 percent of

the proposed fiscal year 1999 federal drug budget) specifically for

certification to determine whether they were adequate to support the goals

and objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy. ONDCP certified all

Results in Brief
B-281159

Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

but the DOD budget. DOD was not certified because DOD and ONDCP

could not agree on funding levels for certain drug program initiatives.

Later, however, DOD’s budget was significantly increased following

ONDCP’s appeals to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the

President. ONDCP continued to monitor development of the national drug

control budget during the remaining budget and congressional

appropriations process.

To assess the extent to which agencies and programs achieve intended

results, ONDCP has initiated a system known as Performance Measures of

Effectiveness—a long-term effort designed to assess the effectiveness of

the nation’s drug control efforts. Although this system represents a

blueprint for the first accountability in the area of drug policy, some

questions remain about

• the availability of adequate data to measure performance,

• how the system is to interface with the drug budget process, and

• how agencies will link the performance expected of them by the National

Strategy with the performance goals they prepare in response to the

Government Performance and Results Act.

ONDCP plans to continually monitor the system’s operation to ensure that

it is fully functional and achieving its designed purpose.

With passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as

the 1988 Act),1

 Congress created ONDCP to better plan the national drug

control effort and assist Congress in overseeing that effort. In this role,

ONDCP is, among other things, responsible for overseeing and

coordinating the efforts of federal drug control agencies and programs.

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

advice and governmentwide oversight of drug programs and coordinating

development of the President’s National Drug Control Strategy.

The 1988 Act, as amended, requires ONDCP to (1) develop a national drug

control strategy with short- and long-term objectives and annually revise

and issue a new strategy to take into account what has been learned and

 1

 ONDCP was created and authorized through January 21, 1994, by the National Narcotics Leadership

Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), in title 1 of the Anti-drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690). The

National Narcotics Leadership Act Amendments, in title IX of the Violent Crime Control and Law

Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322), reauthorized ONDCP through fiscal year 1997. These

provisions were repealed as of September 30, 1997. Congress approved ONDCP funding for fiscal year

1998 in the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-61), signed

into law on October 10, 1997. ONDCP was reauthorized by the Office of National Drug Control Policy

Reauthorization Act of 1998 (title VII of P.L. 105-277), through September 30, 2003.

Background
B-281159

Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

accomplished during the previous year, (2) develop an annual consolidated

drug control budget providing funding estimates for implementing the

strategy, and (3) oversee and coordinate implementation of the strategy by

federal agencies. As part of its responsibility for developing the annual

National Drug Control Strategy, ONDCP is also required to include in the

strategy an evaluation of the effectiveness of federal drug control efforts

during the previous year. This evaluation is to include assessments of the

reduction in drug use, reduction in drug availability, reduction in drug use

consequences, and the status of drug treatment.

In developing the consolidated national drug control budget, the 1988 Act

prescribes a budget review and certification process whereby ONDCP (1)

receives annual drug budget submissions from each program manager,

agency head, and department head with drug control responsibilities and

(2) certifies in writing that these budget submissions are adequate to

implement the objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy for the

budget request year.2

ONDCP requires federal drug control agencies to follow a detailed process

in developing their budget proposals.3

 Annually, ONDCP is to develop

national drug control budget submission requirements that it sends to all

federal drug control agencies. These requirements identify specific

programs, agencies, and departments that are to submit budgets to

ONDCP; dates these budgets are due to be submitted; and specific

information required to be included in each submission. In addition,

ONDCP is required under the 1988 Act to provide, by July 1 of each year,

budget recommendations (in the form of drug program initiatives) to the

heads of departments and agencies with drug control responsibilities.

The 1988 Act requires that each program manager, agency head, and

department head with drug control responsibilities transmit their drug

budget request to ONDCP at the same time such request is submitted to

their superiors (and before submission to OMB). The ONDCP Director is

then required to review each budget request and certify whether it is

adequate to implement the objectives of the National Drug Control

 

2

 Development of the drug control budget is not part of the regular federal budget process, and most

drug control agencies must prepare a separate ONDCP drug budget submission in addition to their

normal annual budget submission.

3

 Drug control agencies are defined by the 1988 Act as any department or agency (and all dedicated

units within) that has responsibilities under the National Drug Control Strategy, as designated jointly

by ONDCP and the department/agency or by the President.

ONDCP Required to Certify

Agency Drug Budgets
B-281159

Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

Strategy.4 The ONDCP Director must notify each program manager, agency

head, and department head regarding its budget certification decisions.

For budget requests not certified as adequate, ONDCP must recommend

an initiative or funding level that would make the request adequate. The

act further requires that department and/or agency heads shall comply

with any such ONDCP recommendation prior to submitting their budgets

to OMB.

For fiscal year 1999, the national drug control budget, as enacted, totaled

about $17.9 billion.5

 This was $816 million more than the amount requested

in the President’s fiscal year 1999 proposed drug budget and an increase of

$1.9 billion over fiscal year 1998 enacted levels.6

 About 67 percent of the

enacted budget is to fund supply reduction activities (such as drug

interdiction), with the remaining 33 percent funding demand reduction

activities (such as drug treatment). The Department of Justice (DOJ)

received the most departmental drug control funding for fiscal year 1999—

about $7.7 billion—while the three largest agency budgets were for the

Bureau of Prisons ($2.1 billion), SAMHSA ($1.5 billion), and DEA ($1.3

billion).

We did our audit work between September 1998 and April 1999 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. A

detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology is

contained in appendix I.

ONDCP’s process for certifying fiscal year 1999 drug control agency

budget submissions was generally consistent with the requirements of the

1988 Act. In some cases, ONDCP was not able to review complete agency

budgets prior to making its certification decisions. In those cases,

however, ONDCP was able to obtain enough information from department

or agency officials to enable ONDCP to make its certification decisions.

For the four agencies we reviewed in detail, the results of the budget

certification process were varied. Two agencies—DEA and Customs—

responded to ONDCP’s summer budget review by submitting fall drug

 4

 The 1988 Act does not identify by name the programs, agencies, and departments that are required to

submit drug budgets to ONDCP; nor does the act specify by name which are to be certified. In addition,

the act contains no specific date by which budgets must be submitted to ONDCP for certification.

5

 This budget included emergency supplemental appropriations of about $844 million.

6

 We did not attempt to verify the accuracy of the dollar amounts reported for the national drug control

budget, the amounts presented by ONDCP in its annual budget reports, or amounts provided by drug

control agencies in their budget submissions to ONDCP. All dollar amounts in this report are stated in

real terms and are not adjusted for inflation.

ONDCP’s Fiscal Year

1999 Drug Budget

Certification Process
B-281159

Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

budgets that were lower overall than those submitted in the summer.

However, ONDCP determined they were still sufficient to be certified as

adequate to address the National Strategy. One agency—SAMHSA—

submitted a lower fall budget that did not address ONDCP’s summer

recommendations, but a budget compromise was later worked out

between the agency and ONDCP that enabled the budget to be certified.

Finally, DOD’s fall budget was not certified because DOD did not address

ONDCP’s recommended program increases.

After the budget certification process was completed, ONDCP monitored

the budget and appropriations debate in order to influence development of

a national drug budget that was consistent with the National Drug Control

Strategy. Significantly, for three of the four agencies we reviewed, their

fiscal year 1999 proposed drug budgets were not increased as a result of

ONDCP’s budget certification process. All four, however, were increased

during the congressional appropriations phase of the budget process.

As indicated in table 1 below, the fiscal year 1999 budget cycle began with

the issuance of the February 1997 National Drug Control Strategy. The

goals and objectives included in the National Strategy provide the overall

framework for drug control agencies and departments to use in developing

their initial fiscal year 1999 drug budget requests.7

To augment the general guidance in the National Strategy, in April 1997

ONDCP provided guidance to departmental budget directors describing

the certification process, identifying budget submission deadlines, and

specifying a format for each submission. While ONDCP required all

departments with drug control responsibilities to submit budget requests

in the fall of 1997 (prior to their submission to OMB), certain agencies,

bureaus, and programs were also required to submit budget requests in the

summer of 1997 (at the same time the request was submitted to their

department heads).8

 The purpose of these advance reviews, according to

the guidance, is to affect funding levels requested by Cabinet officers in

their subsequent budget submissions to OMB.

In late June 1997, ONDCP issued additional guidance to Cabinet officers

identifying drug control funding priorities, as required under the act. This

 

7

 The goals and objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy are discussed in more detail beginning

on page 25 of this report.

8

 These included agencies and bureaus within the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and

Human Services, the Interior, DOJ, Transportation, and the Treasury. ONDCP selected these because

they are independent entities that prepare and submit initial summer budget submissions to their

departments, prior to the departments’ formal budget submissions to OMB.

Overview of ONDCP’s

Fiscal Year 1999 Budget

Certification Process
B-281159

Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

guidance outlined specific program initiatives, by National Strategy goal,

that were to be addressed in agencies’ budget submissions to ONDCP.

Beginning with the fiscal year 1999 drug budget, ONDCP identified 30 such

initiatives that agencies were to address during the next 5 years.

Year Month Budget Activity

February National Drug Control Strategy issued by ONDCP, including strategic goals and objectives.

April Initial budget guidance issued to departmental budget directors. Guidance is applicable to the new 5-

year (FY 1999 – FY 2003) drug budget.

May ONDCP met with senior budget officials from departments and agencies. ONDCP budget staff

developed proposed agency drug initiatives.

June - August Summer budget certification review process. ONDCP analysts reviewed agency budgets and program

initiatives, assessed adequacy of program funding, and determined adequacy of budgets to support

the National Strategy.

ONDCP issued 5-year funding guidance for each strategy goal, and identified drug program initiatives

to be included in the agencies’ FY 1999 – FY 2003 budget submissions.

July - August ONDCP prepared summer precertification letters and provided to agencies.

August ONDCP met with Cabinet officers to discuss funding priorities prior to submission of fall departmental

budgets to OMB.

September - October Fall budget certification review process. Agencies submitted fall drug budgets for ONDCP review.

November 11 certification letters issued. 1 decertification letter issued.

OMB provided initial budget allocations to agencies and departments.

1997

December ONDCP provided written response/appeal to OMB budget allocation decisions. ONDCP requested

additional $719 million in agency budget authority for five program initiatives.a

2 additional certification letters issued.

President provided final budget allocations. Drug budget authorized additional $100 million in funding

to be allocated to drug control agencies based on ONDCP recommendations.

January ONDCP recommended to OMB proposed budget allocations for $100 million drug budget increase.b

1998

February National Drug Control Strategy issued by ONDCP, including the President’s fiscal year 1999 proposed

national drug control budget. a

This request included additional funding for several agencies, including DEA, Customs, SAMHSA,

and DOD.

b

ONDCP’s recommendations included increased funding for Customs.

Source: GAO analysis of ONDCP documents.

Table 1: ONDCP Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Certification Timeline
B-281159

Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

ONDCP requested that the initial summer drug budgets be submitted by

early June 1997. ONDCP budget and program analysts reviewed the drug

budget submissions and assessed their adequacy to support the goals and

objectives articulated in the current National Strategy—in this case, the

1997 strategy. According to ONDCP officials, the specific level of analysis

is left up to the discretion of the individual budget analysts but normally

involves a subjective assessment of three factors:

1. Is the budget consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in the

National Strategy?

2. Does the budget address specific drug control initiatives outlined in

ONDCP’s annual guidance?

3. Are funding levels consistent with overall budget trends and at

amounts sufficient to carry out individual programs?

Determination of adequacy, according to ONDCP internal memorandums,

is not meant to be a technical analysis of the budget, but rather a collective

opinion—of budget analysts, program analysts, and ultimately ONDCP

managers—that agencies are asking for sufficient funding to carry out

existing programs and new initiatives to support the National Strategy.

During July and August 1997, ONDCP began notifying drug control

agencies of the results of its summer budget proposed certification

decisions. ONDCP prepared precertification letters, which it provided to

agencies, identifying specific areas in the budget that must be addressed in

order for the budget to be certified. ONDCP officials have stated that these

letters allow the agencies time to revise their budgets prior to submitting

them in the fall to OMB. It also allows ONDCP to concentrate its

certification efforts earlier in the budget process, when there is more time

for review and comment prior to the involvement of OMB. These letters

are typically provided at the department level, except for independent

agencies.

For the fiscal year 1999 budget cycle, the ONDCP Director personally met

with Cabinet officers or their designees to discuss funding priorities.

According to ONDCP officials, the precertification letters were sent just

prior to or brought to these meetings and served as informal agendas for

the discussions.

Initial Summer Budget Review
B-281159

Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

ONDCP requested that fall budgets be submitted prior to the time they

were provided to OMB (typically during September). The fall budget

review and certification process was similar to the summer process, with

the reviewers looking specifically at existing programs and new initiatives

that ONDCP had identified during the summer reviews (and documented

in a precertification letter) as needing additional funding. Following this

review, ONDCP notified each department or agency of its final

certification decision. Most of the certification letters were issued in late

November 1997, with two others provided in early December 1997 and one

in early November 1997.

ONDCP officials noted that, in making the final certification decision for

each individual drug control agency, there can be a range of overall

funding levels that are considered adequate to achieve the goals and

objectives of the National Strategy. Therefore, although an agency’s overall

drug budget may decrease from summer to fall, if the core drug control

program initiatives remain adequately funded, the overall drug budget can

still be certified.

In making its fiscal year 1999 certification decisions, ONDCP officials told

us they used a selective review approach that corresponds to the way

budgets are normally prepared and submitted during the federal budget

cycle—reviewing mostly agencies and programs during the summer

process, and focusing on departments during the fall process.9

 Rather than

individually certifying every program, agency, and department with drug

control responsibilities, ONDCP issued certification letters primarily at the

department level. Using this approach, ONDCP reviewed approximately 93

percent of the proposed fiscal year 1999 national drug budget for the

purpose of certification.

For fiscal year 1999, ONDCP issued letters to 14 departments, agencies, or

programs notifying them of its budget certification decisions.10 Of these,

 

9

 As we have previously reported (Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control

Policy (GAO/GGD-93-144, Sept. 29, 1993)), due to resource limitations and other factors, it is

impractical for ONDCP to review and certify all of the numerous program budgets involved, in addition

to reviewing and certifying all agency and department budgets. We recommended that Congress amend

the act’s language to include a simple mandate that ONDCP review and certify drug control budgets at

such stages and times that it considers appropriate, but no congressional action was taken.

10 The enacted fiscal year 1999 national drug budget lists three entities other than ONDCP that were not

issued certification letters. According to ONDCP, the Intelligence Community Management Account

($27 million enacted) is an interagency transfer account, not a program, agency, or department; the

Federal Judiciary ($647 million enacted) is not within the executive branch and thus not subject to the

statutory certification requirement; and the Small Business Administration’s budget ($4 million

enacted, $0 proposed for fiscal year 2000) is insignificant in terms of dollar amounts involved.

Fall Budget Review and

Certification Decisions
B-281159

Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

• ten—the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the

departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and

Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, the

Treasury, and Veterans Affairs—were fully certified;

• three—the U.S. Information Agency11 and the departments of State and

Agriculture—were certified, although none of the three had formally

submitted a complete fiscal year 1999 drug budget at the time the

certification decision was made. ONDCP made its decision based on

partial budgets as submitted (Agriculture) and advance budget information

provided by department and agency staff (U.S. Information Agency and

State). ONDCP also noted that the Department of State’s budget was only

“minimally” adequate, based on the fact that State only requested

increased funding for its counterdrug efforts in the Andean region, but not

in Mexico or the Caribbean; and

• one—the Department of Defense—was decertified. This decision was

made when DOD did not fund its drug control program at levels deemed

necessary by the ONDCP Director.

ONDCP’s budget recommendations do not always result in increased

agency drug budgets. As noted above, ONDCP uses precertification letters

during the budget certification process to notify agencies of specific areas

in their drug budgets that should be addressed in order to be certified. For

the four agencies we reviewed in detail, this process had varied results in

effecting changes in those agencies’ drug budgets.

DEA’s mission is to enforce our nation’s drug laws and regulations and to

bring drug traffickers to justice. In carrying out its mission, DEA is the lead

federal agency responsible for enforcement of narcotics and controlled

substance laws and regulations. DEA’s fiscal year 1999 drug budget request

primarily supported goal number 5 of the National Drug Control Strategy—

break foreign and domestic sources of supply.12 DEA’s primary

responsibilities include investigating major interstate and international

drug traffickers and violent criminal and drug gangs; coordinating and

cooperating with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies; and

working on drug law enforcement programs with their counterparts in

foreign countries. In fiscal year 1998, DEA’s enacted budget totaled about

$1.2 billion, all of which was in drug control programs.

 

11 In October 1998, the U.S. Information Agency was transferred to the Department of State, pursuant to

the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-277, Division G).

12 As reported in the February 1999 National Drug Control Budget Summary, DEA has realigned its

resources to better reflect program activities in support of other goals. In addition to goal number 5,

DEA’s fiscal year 1999 enacted budget primarily supports goal number 2—reduce drug-related crime

and violence—and goal number 4—shield America’s air, land, and sea frontiers.

Four Case Studies of the

Fiscal Year 1999

Certification Process

Drug Enforcement

Administration
B-281159

Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

ONDCP initially hosted a meeting in early May 1997 with senior budget

officials from the principal Justice counterdrug bureaus: DEA, Federal

Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Immigration and Naturalization Service,

U.S. Attorneys, and the Marshals Service. ONDCP issued formal written

program guidance to DOJ at the end of June 1997. Because DEA funding is

100 percent drug related, ONDCP has contact with all of DEA’s

administrative and program divisions, not just the budget office. Therefore,

typically there are no budgeting surprises during development of DEA’s

budget.

For the fiscal year 1999 drug budget, DEA was required to submit a

summer agency-level budget to ONDCP for review. In mid-June 1997, DEA

made its initial budget submission to DOJ. DEA subsequently submitted

the same budget—albeit in different format—to ONDCP in July 1997.

According to DEA officials, the departmental budget submission takes

priority over the submission to ONDCP. Although ONDCP demands the

same information, it must be presented in a different format.

DEA’s summer budget as submitted to ONDCP totaled about $1.4 billion.

According to ONDCP officials, ONDCP was satisfied with the DEA

submission. However, on August 8, 1997, ONDCP issued a precertification

letter to DOJ, which listed four specific program initiatives that ONDCP

believed should receive additional funding in DEA’s budget:

• Andean Coca Reduction – To reduce South American coca leaf production

through enforcement and interdiction measures that disrupt the cocaine

export industry and through development programs that provide legal

income alternatives and encourage the cultivation of legal crops.

• Port and Border Security – To provide improved security and enhanced

drug interdiction along all U.S. air, land, and sea frontiers and at all ports

of entry.

• Mexican Initiative – To reduce the flow of illicit drugs from Mexico into

the United States and dismantle the organizations trafficking in drugs and

money laundering.

• Caribbean Violent Crime and Regional Interdiction – To expand

counterdrug operations targeting drug trafficking-related criminal

activities and violence in the Caribbean region.

No specific funding level increases were recommended for any of the four

initiatives. According to ONDCP documents, although the initiatives were

identified for inclusion in the fiscal year 1999 budget, ONDCP gave DOJ

maximum flexibility in determining both the precise scope and funding for

each proposal.
B-281159

Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

In mid-August 1997, the ONDCP Director met with the Attorney General to

discuss the Justice drug budget and possible increases for DEA prior to

submission of DOJ’s final fall budget to OMB. The precertification letter

discussed above served as an informal agenda for this meeting.

As submitted to OMB and ONDCP in mid-October 1997, DEA’s fall budget

submission was about $82 million lower overall than its initial summer

submission. However, the total requested amounts remained higher than

the previous year’s enacted amounts. DEA’s total fall budget request was

about $1.3 billion. ONDCP certified the DOJ budget as adequate in late

November 1997.

OMB’s preliminary agency funding decisions (commonly known as

“passback”)13 were made on November 25, 1997. ONDCP formally appealed

to OMB on behalf of DEA for $30.1 million in additional funding for the

DEA program initiatives previously identified in its summer

precertification letter to DOJ. After the appeals process was completed,

the final OMB budget passback amount approved for DEA was $68 million

above OMB’s preliminary decision, including $10 million for the Caribbean

initiative. DEA’s total budget request, as approved by the President and

submitted to Congress, was about $1.25 billion, which represented an

increase of about $55 million from the fiscal year 1998 enacted budget.

The mission of the U.S. Customs Service is to ensure that all goods and

persons entering and leaving the country do so in accordance with

applicable laws and regulations. As part of its mission, Customs guards

against smuggling and is responsible for interdicting and seizing

contraband, including narcotics and illegal drugs. In carrying out this

mission, Customs’ fiscal year 1999 drug budget request primarily

supported goal number 4 of the National Drug Control Strategy—shield

America’s air, land, and sea frontiers. In addition to inspectors and agents

at over 300 ports of entry, Customs maintains aircraft, vessels, and

surveillance devices to help detect and interdict illegal drugs at or before

they reach our borders. In fiscal year 1998, Customs received about $606

million in funding for its drug control programs.

Customs’ budget office began the fiscal year 1999 drug budget process in

April 1997, when it received ONDCP’s initial drug budget guidance. For the

fiscal year 1999 drug budget, Customs was required to submit a summer

 13 After agencies submit their fall budgets to OMB, OMB reviews each budget and passes its preliminary

budget decisions back to the agencies—hence, “passback.” Agencies may appeal decisions with which

they disagree. If OMB and an agency cannot reach agreement, the agency may appeal to the President.

Customs Service
B-281159

Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

agency-level drug budget to ONDCP for review. Customs first submitted its

budget to Treasury, after which the Customs budget office began

extracting those drug budget items from the overall budget in order to

prepare its drug budget—a process taking about 2 to 3 weeks. However,

because Customs was late in submitting its budget to Treasury—it was due

June 1, 1997, but was not delivered until July 1997—Customs also was late

in preparing and submitting its drug budget to ONDCP.

In an August 8, 1997, precertification letter to Treasury, ONDCP identified

three specific drug program initiatives that it believed should receive

additional funding in Customs’ budget: Port and Border Security,

Caribbean Violent Crime and Regional Interdiction, and Mexican Initiative

(as described previously). ONDCP did not request any specific funding

levels in this letter. Customs’ drug budget was submitted to ONDCP on

August 11, 1997. The total drug-related funding requested in this summer

submission was $844 million, which represented about 40 percent of

Customs’ total budget. During this time, the ONDCP Director met directly

with the Treasury Secretary to discuss drug budget funding priorities and

ONDCP’s specific budget recommendations.

Customs’ fall drug budget was submitted to ONDCP on October 31, 1997.

This budget requested $773 million for drug control, which was about $71

million lower overall than its initial summer submission. This decrease was

primarily due to reductions in funding for drug control interdiction

activities (goal number 4 of the National Strategy)—Customs’ primary drug

control activity. However, the total requested amounts for drug control

remained higher than the previous year’s enacted amounts. Customs

officials told us the decrease from the summer submission was due to

reductions resulting from Treasury’s departmental budget review. ONDCP

certified Treasury’s budget as adequate in late November 1997.

OMB’s preliminary agency funding decisions were made on November 25,

1997. ONDCP formally appealed to OMB on behalf of Customs for $160.4

million in additional funding for the Customs program initiatives

previously identified in its summer precertification letter to Treasury.

Nevertheless, as a result of OMB’s final passback, Customs’ drug budget

was reduced further—despite the ONDCP appeals—although it provided

Customs an additional $29 million for the Port and Border Security

Initiative.

Because OMB had approved $100 million in discretionary drug control

funding (to be allocated according to ONDCP’s recommendations),

ONDCP decided to allocate an additional $25 million of this funding to
B-281159

Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

Customs for border security activities—nonintrusive detection equipment.

According to Customs officials, this amount was in addition to $14 million

that Customs had already included in the budget for three other initiatives.

Customs’ total drug budget request, as approved by the President and

submitted to Congress, ultimately totaled about $673 million, representing

an increase of about $66 million over fiscal year 1998 enacted levels.

SAMHSA is one of the key federal agencies that supports goals number 1

and 3 of the National Drug Control Strategy—primarily involving

prevention and treatment of illegal drug use. SAMHSA’s mission within the

nation’s health system is to improve the quality and availability of

prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation services in order to reduce

illness, death, disability, and cost to society, resulting from substance

abuse and mental illnesses. In fiscal year 1998, SAMHSA received about

$1.3 billion in funding for its drug control programs.

For the fiscal year 1999 drug budget, SAMHSA was required to submit a

summer agency-level drug budget to ONDCP for review. In late June 1997,

SAMHSA submitted its drug budget submission totaling about $1.65 billion

to ONDCP. After reviewing the SAMHSA budget, ONDCP issued a

precertification letter to the Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS). This letter, dated August 8, 1997, identified the following program

initiatives where ONDCP wanted to see additional resources applied

(although no specific funding levels were identified):

• Youth Drug Prevention Research – To conduct a program of research

designed to improve the understanding of youth drug abuse and addiction

and disseminate findings from various research sources;

• Youth Substance Abuse Prevention – To use findings from successful

programs to develop new state incentive grant drug prevention programs,

focusing on drug prevention in early childhood and among adolescents;

• Close the Public System Treatment Gap – To increase drug treatment

capacity and outreach for chronic users and addicts, including their

families; and

• Medications for Drug Dependence – To expand grant funding to support

priority research projects associated with the development of medications

and treatment protocols to prevent or reduce drug dependence and abuse.

On August 15, 1997, the ONDCP Director met with the HHS Secretary to

discuss the changes ONDCP wanted to see (as spelled out in its

precertification letter) in the HHS fall budget submission to OMB and

ONDCP.

Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration
B-281159

Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

The initiative to Close the Public System Treatment Gap was a major drug

policy priority for ONDCP and was a primary issue of disagreement among

HHS, SAMHSA, and ONDCP during the budget review process. HHS

believed SAMHSA should move away from directly funding service

projects and instead focus on a research-based approach. SAMHSA

supported expansion of targeted treatment capacity, rather than generally

expanding its block grant program. ONDCP strongly supported expanding

treatment capacity by increasing SAMHSA’s block grant program.

In September 1997, HHS submitted its fall budget to OMB and ONDCP. In

this submission, SAMHSA’s drug budget totaled about $1.4 billion. The

changes that ONDCP wanted to see in SAMHSA’s budget were not in the

budget. After reviewing the fall submission, ONDCP drafted a proposed

letter (dated October 9, 1997) to decertify SAMHSA’s drug budget. In this

letter, ONDCP specifically recommended that HHS’ budget submission

include at least $400 million in additional funding for the Close the

Treatment Gap initiative and $50 million additional for the Youth

Substance Abuse Prevention initiative.

During October 1997, ONDCP, SAMHSA, and HHS budget officials met

twice to try and resolve the treatment gap issue. Although they supported

the idea of closing the gap in drug treatment, they disagreed on the size of

the treatment gap, a factor that could significantly affect the estimated

cost to close the treatment gap as well as the most effective way to fund

the treatment gap initiative. According to ONDCP, SAMHSA did not

quantify the treatment gap in its initial drug budget submission, and

ONDCP believed the gap was larger than could be addressed by the

amount that SAMHSA had requested. Based on discussions at these

meetings, HHS agreed to amend its fall budget request to address ONDCP’s

concerns.

In November 1997, HHS submitted an amended budget to OMB. According

to the HHS Secretary’s letter to the OMB Director, an additional $75

million was included in the budget to fund treatment efforts in cities with

serious drug problems, while another $35 million would provide funds to

enhance existing state data efforts and to improve treatment and/or its

delivery to vulnerable populations. An additional $115 million ($82 million

drug related) was also included in the amended budget to increase the

Substance Abuse Block Grant, for a total drug budget increase of about

$192 million. According to SAMHSA officials, making a resubmission to

OMB was an unusual occurrence and represented a significant

accommodation by HHS to the wishes of ONDCP. In late November 1997,
B-281159

Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

approximately 1 week after HHS amended its OMB budget submission, the

department’s drug budget was certified by ONDCP.

OMB’s preliminary agency funding decisions were made on November 25,

1997. Subsequently, ONDCP formally appealed to OMB for $200 million

additional to fund the treatment gap initiative, consistent with the previous

recommendation by ONDCP to HHS. OMB’s final budget passback

included the additional funding to help expand drug treatment efforts that

had been included in SAMHSA’s amended fall budget submission.

However, at the same time, OMB eliminated all increases for SAMHSA

mental health programs and cut substance abuse prevention and treatment

funding by $75.6 million below 1998 levels. SAMHSA’s total drug budget

request, as approved by the President and submitted to Congress, totaled

about $1.36 billion, an increase of about $40 million over fiscal year 1998’s

enacted budget.

DOD’s fiscal year 1999 counterdrug budget request included funding for all

5 goals of the National Drug Control Strategy, although it primarily

supported goals number 4 and 5—interdiction and supply reduction of

illegal drugs. DOD’s role, among other things, is to detect and monitor

aerial and maritime transit of illegal drugs headed to the United States.

DOD also supports foreign intelligence collection and analysis programs

that aid source and transit countries to arrest drug kingpins and dismantle

their organizations. In fiscal year 1998, DOD’s enacted budget included

about $848 million in funding for counterdrug programs.14

For the fiscal year 1999 budget cycle, ONDCP required DOD to submit its

counterdrug budget to ONDCP in the fall, at the same time the

department’s overall budget was submitted to OMB. To provide DOD

additional specific program guidance, on August 8, 1997, the ONDCP

Director wrote to the Secretary of Defense requesting that the DOD drug

control budget, in order to be certified as adequate, include funding for

two specific program initiatives: Andean Coca Reduction and Mexican

Initiative.

In an August 26, 1997, memorandum from DOD to ONDCP, the Principal

Director for Drug Enforcement Policy and Support said that because the

 

14 This was DOD’s fiscal year 1998 enacted budget according to ONDCP’s 1998 National Drug Budget

Summary. GAO has previously reported that there are significant operating and overhead costs that are

not reflected in DOD’s counterdrug budget (see DOD Counterdrug Activities: Reported Costs Do Not

Reflect Extent of DOD’s Support (NSIAD-98-231, Sept. 23, 1998)).

Department of Defense
B-281159

Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

fiscal year 1998 appropriation and authorization acts had not yet passed,

the requested increases could not be incorporated into the DOD

counterdrug budget submission at that time. According to DOD officials,

DOD did not have congressional authority to carry out all the suggested

programs that ONDCP had highlighted in its August 8, 1997, letter. To give

ONDCP advance notice on what DOD’s counterdrug budget submission

would look like, the memorandum included an attachment briefly

summarizing DOD’s preliminary fiscal year 1999 counterdrug budget,

which at that time totaled $809 million. On September 16, 1997, DOD

submitted its preliminary counterdrug budget to ONDCP as required. In

the budget transmittal letter, the Principal Director for Drug Enforcement

Policy and Support indicated that additional counterdrug funding may be

provided in DOD’s overall budget, after it was finalized with OMB.

In a September 24, 1997, letter to the Secretary, the ONDCP Director

replied that DOD’s counterdrug program appeared to be systematically

under funded. The Director asked that DOD give careful consideration to

adding $141 million in fiscal year 1999 enhancements—for a total

counterdrug budget of $950 million—to support four counterdrug program

initiatives: (1) Andean Coca Reduction ($75 million), (2) Mexican Initiative

($24 million), (3) Caribbean Violent Crime and Regional Interdiction ($12

million), and (4) National Guard Counterdrug Operations ($30 million).

During this time, the ONDCP Director, Secretary of Defense, and Deputy

Secretary of Defense met to further discuss ONDCP’s recommended

increases.

On November 6, 1997, the ONDCP Director sent a letter to the Secretary of

Defense notifying him that ONDCP had determined that DOD’s preliminary

fiscal year 1999 counterdrug budget could not be certified. Again the letter

indicated that an additional $141 million was needed to correct

deficiencies in the current budget. Also on November 6, 1997, the

Secretary of Defense replied that the amounts requested by ONDCP were

excessive. For example, in response to ONDCP’s recommendation for

additional spending on the Mexican Initiative, the Secretary stated that

DOD already planned to spend $12 million in Mexico in fiscal year 1999

and that it would be a logistical challenge to increase this amount.

Additionally, the Secretary stated, DOD could not increase spending on the

Andean Initiative until enactment of additional DOD authority by

Congress. On November 7, 1997, the ONDCP Director reiterated to the

Secretary of Defense that ONDCP would not certify the DOD counterdrug

budget and sent similar letters to key administration and congressional

officials.
B-281159

Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

At the time of OMB’s preliminary budget passback decisions, DOD’s

overall budget submission had not yet been finalized. Based on DOD’s

preliminary counterdrug budget submission, ONDCP formally appealed to

OMB for the $141 million in increased funding that ONDCP had previously

identified when it decertified DOD’s counterdrug budget. In mid-December

1997, DOD announced that it would support additional resources in its

budget for counterdrug programs. ONDCP supported DOD’s decision, but

in a December 16, 1997, letter to DOD, ONDCP continued to request

additional funding for the National Guard Counterdrug Program. As finally

agreed to with OMB in late December 1997, DOD’s counterdrug budget

totaled $883 million, including about $75 million in increased funding for

three of the four program initiatives previously recommended by ONDCP.15

DOD’s total fiscal year 1999 counterdrug budget as approved by the

President and submitted to Congress was $883 million.

According to DOD officials, the DOD budget cycle and that of ONDCP do

not align very well. Normally, DOD does not finalize its overall

departmental budget (internally or with OMB) until late December.

Throughout the fall, and continuing into OMB’s passback season, DOD is

constantly refining its budget submission. Thus, DOD’s counterdrug

budget is not always available in final form when ONDCP would like it for

certification purposes.16

According to ONDCP officials, in order to influence the DOD budget

process, ONDCP usually receives DOD’s draft drug budget submission in

late August or early September. DOD’s final budget submission is generally

completed too late in the process for ONDCP to propose changes. Because

of this practice, DOD’s drug budget is typically reviewed for certification

purposes prior to other drug control agencies’ budgets in the fall. Based on

the preliminary DOD budget submitted in September 1997 and further

discussions with DOD officials, ONDCP believed that the department was

not going to fund the initiatives in question at a level that would be

adequate; and thus, it decertified DOD’s drug budget. ONDCP could not

wait until December 1997—when DOD’s final budget was completed—

because it had to begin preparing for discussions with OMB and the

President about the overall national drug budget. Further, there was no

 

15 DOD also agreed to reprogram $15 million in estimated budgetary savings towards the fourth

initiative—National Guard Counterdrug Operations.

16 We previously identified this issue in our 1993 ONDCP review (Drug Control: Reauthorization of the

Office of National Drug Control Policy (GAO/GGD-93-144, Sept. 29, 1993)). At that time, we

recommended that DOD provide ONDCP with a preliminary DOD drug budget by August of each year

to facilitate ONDCP’s budget review and certification process.
B-281159

Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

guarantee that DOD’s final budget—when it was submitted—would be

sufficient to merit certification.

Although it is difficult to isolate the specific effect that ONDCP’s input had

on the drug budget as enacted by Congress, we can identify changes in the

drug budget that occurred during the appropriations process. We can also

compare those changes with ONDCP’s efforts to monitor development of

the National Drug Control Budget during the budget and appropriations

process.

After the President’s proposed budget was submitted to Congress in

February 1998, ONDCP continued to monitor the status of the drug budget

during the congressional appropriations process. In several instances,

ONDCP corresponded directly with members on the House and Senate

Appropriations Subcommittees that were responsible for overseeing drug

control agencies’ budgets. The ONDCP Director also testified on several

occasions, in conjunction with the congressional appropriations hearings

process, about the national drug control program and the need for

additional funding in specific areas.

The national drug control budget as enacted by Congress represented an

increase of about $816 million over the President’s fiscal year 1999 drug

budget request. This increase can be attributed, in large part, to the

October 1998 enactment of the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act

and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year 1999.17 The

Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act authorized, among other things,

increased funding for drug interdiction and supply reduction activities over

the next 3 fiscal years, 1999 to 2001. The Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations provided increased counterdrug funding for fiscal year

1999 in the amount of $844 million.

While the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act contains no explicit

statement about the relevance of ONDCP’s budget certification process to

its passage, one of its purposes was to state Congress’ desire that DOD

give higher priority for counterdrug activity18—a position also stated by

ONDCP when it decertified DOD’s fiscal year 1999 drug budget. In

 

17 The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act was enacted under Division C, title VIII of the

Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (P.L. 105-

277). Division B of this act identified the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year 1999.

18 Section 802 of this act states that, in recent years, DOD assets critical to counterdrug activities have

been consistently diverted to other missions. It also states that DOD’s counterdrug activities mission

should be near the top, not among the last, of the priorities for the allocation of DOD assets (after the

war-fighting mission).

ONDCP Monitored the Drug

Budget During the Fiscal

Year 1999 Appropriation

Process
B-281159

Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

addition, the act authorized increased drug control funding for supply

reduction activities in source countries and Caribbean transit zones, two

activities for which ONDCP previously recommended budget increases in

its precertification letters to Justice and Treasury. Despite Congress’

intentions to increase the national drug budget, the ONDCP Director and

the administration opposed passage of this act, stating that, among other

things, it was an attempt by Congress to micromanage national drug

strategy.

The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year 1999 provided

significant supplemental funding for the national drug control budget,

particularly in areas in which ONDCP had recommended increases during

the budget certification process. For example,

• DEA, whose budget ONDCP had previously certified as adequate, received

a small additional increase in counterdrug funding—$10 million. This was

primarily for drug control activities in source countries in North and South

America, budget activities that ONDCP had previously recommended be

increased in its precertification letter to DOJ.

• Customs, whose budget ONDCP had previously certified as adequate,

nevertheless received a significant additional increase—$267 million—in

counterdrug funding. Most of this amount was for drug surveillance and

interdiction in transit zones, as well as enhanced port and border

inspection capabilities. ONDCP had recommended increases in each of

these areas in its precertification letter to Treasury and also later

recommended additional funding for inspection technology.

• DOD received an additional $42 million in counterdrug funding, primarily

for port and border security and international supply reduction activities.

When added to its regular counterdrug appropriation of $895 million,

DOD’s total counterdrug funding for fiscal year 1999 ($937 million) was

nearly equal to what ONDCP had originally recommended ($950 million).

Although SAMHSA did not receive additional funding under the

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year 1999, SAMHSA’s

drug budget may have benefited from ONDCP’s input into the

appropriations process. ONDCP had previously requested OMB to increase

SAMHSA’s drug treatment funding by $200 million over its request—

consistent with the total amount ($400 million) ONDCP had originally

recommended during SAMHSA’s budget certification review. In addition,

in subsequent letters to members of the congressional appropriations

committees, the ONDCP Director identified SAMHSA’s Substance Abuse

Block Grant as a key initiative needing additional resources for fiscal year

1999. Congress eventually provided an additional $75 million over and
B-281159

Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

above the President’s requested funding for SAMHSA’s Substance Abuse

Block Grant program. Table 2 summarizes how the four agency drug

budgets changed at each stage in the fiscal year 1999 budget process.

Congress ———ONDCP/Agencies———

OMB/

President Congress

FY 1998

enacted

budget

Summer

submission

Fall

submission

Certified

by

ONDCP

Proposed

national drug

budget

FY 1999

enacted

budgeta

National

Drug

Budget $15,977 n/a n/a n/a $17,070 $17,886

DEA 1,200 1,390 1,309 1,309 1,255 1,299

Customs 606 844 773 773 673 956

SAMHSA 1,320 1,649 1,438b 1,630 1,360 1,481

DOD 848 n/a 809 c 883 937

Note: n/a indicates “data not applicable.”

a

Includes additional amounts for DEA, Customs, and DOD enacted under the Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year 1999.

b

SAMHSA’s initial fall budget submission for fiscal year 1999 was later amended based on

negotiations between ONDCP, SAMHSA, and HHS.

c

DOD’s fall budget submission for fiscal year 1999 was decertified by ONDCP.

Source: GAO analysis of ONDCP and agency budget documents.

ONDCP has two primary tools to help monitor the extent to which drug

control agencies and programs are achieving intended results. First, as

part of its authorizing legislation, ONDCP has general authority to monitor

and, if necessary, direct how drug control agencies should manage their

individual budgets to implement the National Drug Control Program.

However, because of statutory restrictions on how ONDCP can exercise

this authority and ONDCP’s desire to maintain positive interagency

relationships, these authorities have little direct impact on ONDCP’s

management of the National Drug Control Program. In practice, ONDCP

prefers not to intervene in the daily operations of individual drug control

agencies but rather to provide an overall strategic and tactical framework

that lets the agencies work out the operational details.

Second, to carry out its responsibility for annually assessing the

effectiveness of the federal government’s National Drug Control Program,

ONDCP has recently implemented the Performance Measures of

Effectiveness (PME) system. Established in February 1998 through

cooperative efforts between ONDCP and the drug control community, the

PME system provides a framework for assessing the effectiveness of the

National Drug Control Strategy by utilizing goals, objectives, and

measurable effects, known as performance targets. This system is

expected to allow ONDCP, the agencies, and Congress to better manage

Table 2: Changes in Fiscal Year 1999

Drug Budget at Each Stage of Budget

Development (dollars in millions)

How ONDCP Monitors

the Extent to Which

Agencies and

Programs Achieve

Intended Results
B-281159

Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

the programs and resources associated with the nation’s drug control

efforts. The PME system is a work in progress, and questions remain that

could affect the system’s ultimate success.

ONDCP has authority to monitor and, if necessary, direct drug control

agencies in how they manage their budgets.19 For example, as part of its

general responsibility for overseeing and coordinating implementation of

the National Drug Control Strategy, ONDCP has the authority to

recommend to the President changes in the organization, management,

budgets, and personnel of federal drug control agencies. ONDCP’s

authority also extends to agencies’ appropriated funds, whereby ONDCP

• must approve, prior to submission to Congress, any request by a federal

drug control agency to reprogram or transfer any amount of appropriated

drug control funds greater than $5 million;

• may, upon advance notification to Congress and with the concurrence of

the affected agencies, transfer appropriated drug control funds from one

federal drug control agency to another;20 and

• may issue funds control notices that direct how federal drug control

agencies may obligate appropriated drug control funds.

In addition, as part of the budget certification process described

previously, ONDCP can direct federal drug control agencies to make

changes to their annual drug budget submissions so that the budgets are

consistent with the specific drug control initiatives and priorities identified

in the National Strategy.

ONDCP officials noted that its reprogramming authority, although not

specifically aimed at managing agency performance, provides a means by

which ONDCP can help ensure, in advance, that any significant budgetary

changes will not negatively affect the agency’s ability to meet the goals and

objectives of the National Strategy. Normally, the officials noted, the

agency has discussed such requests in advance with ONDCP, and the

approval is routine. According to ONDCP officials, on two occasions in

fiscal year 1999, ONDCP has exercised its authority to approve agency

drug budget reprogramming requests. The State Department requested

 

19 Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (title VII of P.L. 105-277), section

704(d)(7).

20 Prior to October 1998, this authority could not be exercised without advance approval from

Congress. The statutory language was changed with passage of the Office of National Drug Control

Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (title VII of P.L. 105-277), section 704(d)(8)(B) and (E).

ONDCP’s Authority to

Monitor Drug Control

Agency Budgets
B-281159

Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

reprogramming of $19.5 million, most of which was to realign funding

between existing counterdrug programs; and DOD requested

reprogramming to shift an additional $45 million into its Counterdrug

Transfer Account.21 ONDCP officials said they could not recall

disapproving of an agency reprogramming request.

ONDCP has not used its authority to directly transfer drug control funding

from one agency or department to another. According to ONDCP officials,

this authority is not likely to be used in the future, despite the fact that

Congress recently increased the amount eligible for transfer from 2

percent to 3 percent of the transferring agency’s drug budget.22 Under the

current law, ONDCP must not only report any proposed transfer to

Congress in advance of taking any action, but also it may exercise the

transfer authority only with the consent of the head of each affected

agency. Because of these checks and balances, this new authority in effect

provides ONDCP no more power to influence agency budgets than it

already had under existing authorities. ONDCP officials told us that, in any

event, they prefer to effect changes in agency drug budgets through

negotiation, interagency working relationships, and the normal budget

process. The officials noted that a decision on the part of ONDCP to

recommend the transfer of agency funding under this authority could

jeopardize these interagency relationships.

According to ONDCP officials, funds control notice authority provides

ONDCP the flexibility to direct drug control spending on particular

projects, activities, functions, or object classes; and the ability to ensure

that a project or activity critical to the National Drug Control Strategy is

funded. They said this authority would be used by ONDCP on an exception

basis to specify the timing or amount of spending related to certain

appropriations. Funds control notices could also be issued to keep a drug

control agency from spending funding on a particular project or activity.

The existence of this authority tends to make ONDCP budget

recommendations and requests to drug control agencies more persuasive.

To date, ONDCP has not had to issue a funds control notice.

As noted previously, ONDCP does use the budget certification process in

an effort to effect changes in drug control agencies’ budgets. Although not

 

21 According to DOD officials, although they notified ONDCP of this reprogramming request, it did not

require ONDCP approval because it involved the reprogramming and transfer of funds from

noncounterdrug sources (the Defense Working Capital Fund) into DOD’s counterdrug program.

22 Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (title VII of P.L. 105-277), section

704(d)(8)(C).
B-281159

Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

always successful—in the case of DOD’s fiscal year 1999 budget, for

example—the certification process provides a mechanism by which

ONDCP can review agencies’ drug budgets for consistency with the

National Strategy and make recommendations that bring these budgets

into line with the strategy’s current goals and objectives.

To better evaluate the effectiveness of federal drug control efforts, in

February 1998 ONDCP established its PME system23—a system of goals,

objectives, and targets designed to implement the National Strategy and

measure the effectiveness of the nation’s drug control efforts. The AntiDrug Abuse Act of 1988 required ONDCP to include in each year’s National

Strategy an evaluation of the effectiveness of federal drug control efforts

during the previous year.24 The PME system was developed in response to

Executive Order 12880 (issued November 16, 1993) and additional

statutory language included in the Violent Crime Control and Law

Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322),25 which required a more detailed

assessment of federal drug control efforts.

As stated in ONDCP’s 1998 PME report, the PME system is designed to (1)

assess the effectiveness of the National Drug Control Strategy, (2) provide

the 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. The 1998 report goes on to state,

however, that the PME system was not used to construct the national drug

control budget. Rather, the performance targets were developed separately

from the budget process. Eventually, the PME system is meant to enable

the drug control community to assess and select among various options for

achieving the performance targets—including budget/resource

management tools; shared responsibility by federal, state, local, and

private organizations; and the system of laws and regulations.

ONDCP began its PME effort in 1995, when ONDCP initiated an

interagency effort to draft performance targets and measures to be

included in the 1996 National Strategy. Working groups—consisting of

agency staff, line managers and others knowledgeable about drug control

 23 Office of National Drug Control Policy, Performance Measures of Effectiveness: A System for

Assessing the Performance of the National Drug Control Strategy (1998-2007), February 1998.

24 This specific responsibility is described in the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988, section

1005. ONDCP’s general authority to monitor implementation of the National Strategy through program

and performance evaluation is laid out in section 1003 of the act.

25 ONDCP’s specific authority and responsibility related to assessments of the effectiveness of federal

drug control efforts is set forth in section 90203 of the Violent Crime Control Act, which amended

section 1005(a) of the 1988 Act.

ONDCP’s PME System

Development of the PME System
B-281159

Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

issues and programs—were established to develop an acceptable

measurement plan and specific performance targets. By 1996, this effort

evolved further as the working groups began developing the performance

measurement framework that would become the PME system. The

working groups reconvened in February 1997 with some new members.

The final recommendations made by the working groups were

incorporated by ONDCP into the PME report that was issued in February

1998.

After the initial PME report was issued in 1998, the working groups

reconvened to develop specific action plans identifying the responsibilities

of each individual agency in working towards the PME performance

targets. According to ONDCP officials, the working groups were

encouraged to develop the action plans, without regard to budgetary

constraints, to identify the best approaches to operationalizing agency

responsibilities. ONDCP intends to publish finalized action plans in

subsequent PME reports, after they have been cleared at the department

level. The working groups also focused on other refinements to the PME

system, including defining causal relationships between agency activities

and desired impacts for each target; identifying annual targets that

correspond to achieving the 5- and 10-year outcomes; and developing plans

for addressing gaps in performance measurement data.

According to ONDCP officials, ONDCP intends to report on the results and

implementation of the PME system each February, in conjunction with the

publication of the National Drug Budget Summary. The first annual status

report was issued in February 1999.26 Although too soon to make an

assessment of the National Strategy’s effectiveness, the 1999 report

described accomplishments during the prior year—including six milestone

performance targets that were achieved. The report also described

ONDCP’s plans for additional development of the PME system during 1999.

For example, ONDCP plans to reach out to state and local entities that

have antidrug interests and include their input in the 2000 PME report.

ONDCP believes this is an important next step in implementing and

evaluating the National Strategy, since it is meant to be a national, not

strictly federal, document.

 

26National Drug Control Strategy, Performance Measures of Effectiveness: Implementation and

Findings, February 1999.
B-281159

Page 25 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

The 1998 National Drug Control Strategy identified 5 strategic goals and 32

objectives as part of a comprehensive effort to reduce drug use (demand),

decrease drug availability (supply), and reduce the adverse consequences

of drug use.27 The strategy’s five goals are as follows:

• Goal 1 – Prevent drug use among America’s youth;

• Goal 2 – Increase the safety of America’s citizens;

• Goal 3 – Reduce the health and social costs of drug use;

• Goal 4 – Shield America’s air, land, and sea frontiers; and

• Goal 5 – Break foreign and domestic sources of supply.

The goals help to define the major initiatives that must be pursued to

reduce drug use, availability, and consequences. Each goal includes one or

more objectives, which help to measure progress towards the goal and

may be modified as counterdrug efforts succeed or new challenges

emerge. For example, goal number 4 includes the following objectives:

• Reduce drug flow in transit and arrival zones,

• Improve coordination among U.S. drug control agencies,

• Improve coordination with drug source and transit nations, and

• Conduct research and develop technology to deter drug flow into the

United States.

The PME system takes this approach a step further by linking the

strategy’s goals and objectives to 94 specific targets, while at the same

time identifying measures (i.e., data variables or events) used to track

progress towards these targets. As illustrated in figure 1, the PME’s 12

“impact” targets define the desired outcomes for the National Strategy’s

five goals. The other 82 “performance” targets define progress towards the

National Strategy’s 32 supporting objectives.28 While impact targets are to

be used to assess whether the National Strategy is successful overall, the

performance targets are to offer additional information on what needs to

be done to refine policy or programmatic directions.

According to ONDCP officials, the concept or logic model underlying the

PME system is that the goals, objectives, and targets cascade down to the

various federal drug control agencies responsible for reporting on

 

27 The 1999 National Drug Control Strategy is essentially the same as 1998, except that the number of

objectives supporting the 5 goals has been reduced from 32 to 31.

28 Although the PME system framework remained essentially the same from 1998 to 1999, the number

of targets was increased from 94 to 97 and, consistent with the 1999 National Strategy, the number of

objectives was reduced from 32 to 31.

Linkages Between National Drug

Control Strategy and 1998 PME

Targets
B-281159

Page 26 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

ONDCP’s performance and impact targets that have been established for

2002 and 2007. To measure success in meeting the National Strategy’s

overall goals and objectives, ONDCP plans to compile data provided by the

drug control agencies on those performance targets for which they have

supporting responsibilities.

Goals

(5)

Objectives

(32)

Performance

Targets

(82)

Impact

Targets

(12)

Measures

 (data)

Measures

 (data)

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Performance Measures of Effectiveness: A System for

Assessing the Performance of the National Drug Control Strategy (1998-2007), February 1998.

Each of the goals in the strategy is associated with several impact targets,

objectives, performance targets, and measures. For example, goal number

5 of the strategy is to break foreign and domestic drug sources of supply.

As described in the PME system, meeting this goal depends on achieving

six objectives, each of which addresses some aspect of foreign or domestic

supply. Each objective further consists of two to four performance targets,

the measurement of which is to determine whether the objectives have

been achieved. To determine whether the overall goal has been met, two

additional impact targets—one dealing with foreign drug supply and one

dealing with domestic drug production—are to measure outcomes over 5-

and 10-year periods.

Figure 1: Linkage Between 1998

National Strategy and PME Targets and

Objectives
B-281159

Page 27 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

Focusing on foreign supply, the impact target measuring achievement of

this aspect of goal number 5 is as follows:

Source zone outflow — By 2002, reduce the rate of outflow of illicit drugs

from the source zone by 15 percent, as compared with the 1996 base year.

By 2007, reduce outflow rate by a total of 30 percent measured against the

base year.

Goal number 5, objective 1 is to reduce production of specific illegal drugs

which, if achieved, would lead to a reduction in source zone outflow. This

objective contains four specific performance targets for reductions in illicit

coca, opium poppies, marijuana, and other illegal drugs.29 An example of

one of these performance targets is for illicit coca:

Illicit coca – By 2002, reduce the worldwide net cultivation of coca

destined for illicit cocaine production by at least 20 percent, as compared

with the 1996 base year. By 2007, reduce net cultivation by at least 40

percent compared with the base year.

Progress towards this target is expected to be measured based on coca

cultivation as expressed in hectares under cultivation and metric ton

equivalent of potential production capacity, assessed annually, on a

worldwide basis. In its 1999 PME report, ONDCP identified an existing

source for this measurement data—the International Narcotics Control

Strategy Report (issued annually by the Department of State)—and the

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was identified as the primary reporting

agency.

According to the underlying assumptions behind the PME system, if all of

the performance targets associated with objective 1 are reached in 2002

and 2007, then the objective—reduced drug production—should be

achieved. However, achieving this objective does not necessarily mean

that the associated impact target—reduced source zone outflow—for goal

number 5 will be met. Rather, that outcome is contingent not only on

achieving objective 1, but it also depends on the results achieved towards

the other targets and objectives associated with the source zone outflow

impact target.

In the above example, although the CIA is the primary reporting agency,

five other drug control departments and agencies—DEA, DOD, State, FBI,

 

29 In the 1999 PME report, both marijuana and opium poppies were broken into two additional targets,

in order to differentiate between locations of supply.
B-281159

Page 28 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

and U.S. Agency for International Development—also have responsibility

for meeting the illicit coca performance target. According to ONDCP, if the

performance target is not reached, further analysis will be necessary to

clearly establish why and identify the appropriate corrective actions—

which might include changes in agency funding, agency resources or

assets, agency responsibility, or in the target itself.

ONDCP expects the PME system to ultimately bring accountability to the

nation’s drug control efforts. As agencies collect and report performance

measurement data to ONDCP, ONDCP expects the PME system to help

identify which drug control programs are contributing to the achievement

of desired outcomes.

ONDCP also expects that, after the PME interagency action plans are

finalized, they will be fully reflected in agency budget submissions and

performance plans submitted under the Government Performance and

Results Act (Results Act).30 According to the 1999 PME report, agencies

will be asked to link responsibilities within these action plans to their

budget submissions, and programs will need to be linked to the targets to

which they contribute.31

ONDCP and drug control agency officials raised several issues that they

said need to be addressed in order for the PME system to be successfully

implemented. First, for many of the performance targets identified, no data

currently exist to measure progress towards the target. According to the

February 1999 PME status report, about one-third of the performance

targets were not currently measurable, with goal number 2 of the National

Strategy—reduce drug-related crime and violence—having the largest

proportion of unmeasurable targets (10 of 17). For example, one target for

goal number 2 is to reduce the rate of violent crimes and crimes against

property that are associated with illegal drugs. However, data currently

collected for these types of crimes (through FBI Uniform Crime Reports)

are not broken out by drug use involvement. ONDCP is taking steps to

address these types of data limitations. For example, ONDCP’s

Subcommittee on Data, Research, and Interagency Coordination32 has 30 The Results Act (P.L. 103-62) was enacted in August 1993 to, among other things, improve federal

program effectiveness and public accountability. The Results Act requires federal agencies to develop

annual program performance plans that (1) describe how the agencies will meet their program goals

through daily operations and (2) establish target levels of performance for program activities.

31 For a related discussion on this issue, see Performance Budgeting: Initial Experiences Under the

Results Act in Linking Plans with Budgets (GAO/AIMD/GGD-99-67, Apr. 12, 1999).

32 This is one of three subcommittees under ONDCP’s Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation

Advisory Committee.

PME Issues Yet to be Fully

Resolved
B-281159

Page 29 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

recently completed a federal drug-related data needs assessment and an

inventory of federal drug-related data sources. ONDCP has also included

$3.3 million in its fiscal year 2000 budget request to fund data development

activities. ONDCP expects that all of the targets identified in the 1999 PME

report will be measurable within 3 years.

Second, it is not yet clear how ONDCP will use the PME information

during its budget certification process. Agency officials we talked to raised

concerns that PME targets may become a way to judge the performance of

individual drug control agencies. ONDCP officials have stated, however,

that the PME data will not be used in this manner, but rather these data

will be used to assess the effectiveness of the National Strategy and the

PME framework itself. During the fiscal year 1999 drug budget certification

process, ONDCP did not use performance data as criteria, but rather it

focused on overall dollar amounts and specific program initiatives that

agencies were expected to address in their budgets. For fiscal year 2000,

ONDCP’s budget guidance requested that drug control agencies format

their budget submissions so that proposed spending was broken out by

performance target. However, ONDCP officials indicated that they have

not yet decided how PME information will be integrated into the

certification process in future budget cycles. They believe that identifying

a direct connection between the funding request and the associated PME

performance target will allow ONDCP to make more informed

recommendations to the agencies about where they should focus their

drug control funds.33 ONDCP expects that a decision on this issue will

likely be made by calendar year 2001, the point at which ONDCP estimates

data will be available to measure progress towards all of the previously

established performance targets.

Finally, there is not yet a clear connection between agency performance

goals and targets, as described in the PME, and those required to be

included in agencies’ annual performance plans under the Results Act. In

1998, ONDCP reported that agency annual progress reports under the

Results Act should reflect progress toward achieving the national (i.e.,

PME) targets. In the 1999 PME report, however, ONDCP acknowledges

that the measures in PME are generally more aggressive than those

included in individual agency performance plans. Nonetheless, the 1999

PME report goes on to state that

 33 For a broader discussion of the issues associated with linking performance goals and resource

requests, see Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA Implementation

(GAO/AIMD-97-46, Mar. 27, 1997).
B-281159

Page 30 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

“Agencies are required to track their own performance through their Government

Performance and Results Act plans, which should include aspects of their own specific

drug control missions. The plans should be consistent with the [National] Strategy and the

PME system.”

For the four selected departments and agencies we reviewed, we

compared performance measures from their 1999 Results Act performance

plans with performance measures developed under the PME system. We

found that the Results Act plans may be inconsistent with or contain less

specific information than is presented in the PME system. For example:

• DEA’s fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan contains strategic goals

and strategies for achieving those goals that parallel goals and objectives

described in the PME system. For example, DEA’s plan contains a strategic

goal of disrupting and dismantling drug trafficking organizations, which

corresponds to two similar PME objectives. The PME performance targets

for these two objectives are very specific about achieving percentage

increases in numbers of organizations disrupted or dismantled over 5- and

10-year periods. DEA’s corresponding annual goals—increasing arrests,

removals, and seizures; increasing foreign operations; and disrupting drug

traffickers—are less specific and output-oriented, although they are

expected to result in the outcomes of reduced trafficking capability,

disruption and dismantling of trafficking organizations, and enhanced

international coordination and intelligence collection. In addition, DEA’s

plan lacks specific performance targets upon which to gauge progress

towards these annual goals or outcomes.

• Treasury’s fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan contains the goal to

reduce trafficking, smuggling, and use of illicit drugs. Customs is the

primary Treasury agency responsible for achieving this goal, which

roughly corresponds to PME goal number 4, objective 1: conduct flexible

operations to detect, disrupt, deter, and seize illegal drugs in transit to the

United States at U.S. borders. Both the annual performance plan and PME

establish targets for specific drugs, although (1) the data sources identified

to measure progress towards the targets are slightly different and (2)

Customs’ targets focus on single-agency outputs (increased drugs seized)

while ONDCP’s focus on multiagency outcomes (reduced flow of drugs).34

 

34 For fiscal year 2000, Customs’ performance plan included an outcome performance measure for its

narcotics objective—Drug Smuggling Organizations’ Transportation Costs. Although a baseline has not

yet been established, Customs anticipates the target to be a 3 percent increase in such costs by fiscal

year 2004.
B-281159

Page 31 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

• SAMHSA’s fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan contains an initiative

that directly responds to PME goal number 1, objective 2—pursue a

vigorous public advertising and communication program dealing with the

dangers of illegal drugs. For both, the expected outcome is to increase the

percentage of youth who consider illegal drugs to be harmful. Although

similar overall, differences can be seen in the performance targets

identified and data sources used to measure progress towards the targets.

PME has identified as a target an increase in 20 percent, by 2002, in the

percentage of youth perceiving great risk in using marijuana; while

SAMHSA’s 2002 target is to reduce, by 25 percent, past month usage of

marijuana by youths. PME’s data source measures survey responses of 12th

graders; while SAMHSA’s separate data source measures survey responses

of 12- to 17-year olds.35

• DOD’s fiscal year 1999 performance plan does not specifically address

goals for counterdrug activities, which make up only a small fraction of

DOD’s overall budget. The plan did identify a quantitative performance

measure for drug interdiction and counterdrug activity—tons of cocaine

seized—but did not identify a baseline to measure against or a

performance target to be achieved.36 According to DOD officials, the Office

of Drug Enforcement Policy and Support has linked its counterdrug

planning, programming, and budgeting system to the goals, targets, and

measures in ONDCP’s PME system. The Office of Drug Enforcement

Policy and Support tracks the relative performance of DOD systems

employed in counterdrug efforts. The officials said these statistics are then

used to evaluate overall program effectiveness and support DOD

budgetary decisions.

Agency officials have told us that currently more interest lies in

performance measurement and reporting required by the Results Act,

rather than the PME system. As a result, they are primarily focused on

responding to the concerns of their departments and congressional

oversight and appropriations committees, with respect to the Results Act.

However, as part of ONDCP’s 1998 reauthorization legislation, Congress

strongly endorsed the national drug control performance measurement

 

35 According to HHS officials, SAMHSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance plan included two long-term

substance abuse objectives, which are closely linked to the PME system. In addition, the officials

noted, SAMHSA has developed a core set of client outcome measures, some of which are closely linked

to the client outcomes called for in the PME.

36 For fiscal year 2000, DOD’s performance plan eliminated this performance measure and identified the

counterdrug effort as a “cross-cutting program” based on its interagency focus.
B-281159

Page 32 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

system.37 Further, ONDCP is specifically required to design the system so

that it (1) monitors consistency between the goals and objectives of drug

control agencies and (2) ensures that their goals and budgets support and

are fully consistent with the National Drug Control Strategy. As stated in

the 1999 PME report, ONDCP expects that, as PME working groups

develop the interagency action plans, elements of the action plans will

eventually be fully reflected in agency budgets and Government

Performance and Results Act plans.

ONDCP’s fiscal year 1999 budget certification process appears consistent

with the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Certification

allows ONDCP to influence agency drug budgets early in the budget

development process and bring any drug budget shortfalls to the attention

of budget decisionmakers. Because certification is only the first phase of

the drug budget development process, funding issues or disagreements

that cannot be resolved during the certification phase can still be

addressed through ONDCP’s continuing input into the congressional

appropriations process.

ONDCP’s PME system appears to provide a framework for bringing greater

accountability to the nation’s drug control efforts. In light of Congress’

recent interest in measuring the effectiveness of the nation’s drug control

efforts, ONDCP’s approach to fully implement the PME system by (1)

addressing existing limitations in performance measurement data and (2)

examining ways to integrate PME performance data into the budget

certification process seems appropriate. Because the PME system has

been just recently implemented, additional assessment would be necessary

to determine whether the system is fully functional, is achieving its

designed purpose, and has been integrated with department and agency

processes required under the Results Act.

We provided a draft of this report to the Director of ONDCP; the Attorney

General; and the Secretaries of the Treasury, HHS, and Defense for

comment. We received oral and written comments during the period of

April 14 to 27, 1999, from the Director, ONDCP; the Chief Inspector,

Inspection Division, DEA; the Assistant Commissioner, Office of

Investigations, Customs Service; the Inspector General, HHS; and the

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Drug Enforcement Policy and Support,

DOD. Their comments and our responses are summarized below.

 

37 Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (title VII of P.L. 105-277), section

706(c).

Conclusions

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation
B-281159

Page 33 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

ONDCP concurred with the report and provided technical clarifications,

which we have incorporated in the report where appropriate. In its

comments on the budget certification process and the PME system,

ONDCP noted that:

• The budget authorities we reviewed have been renewed as part of the

Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998.

ONDCP will continue its efforts to guide the development of agency drug

control programs through the annual drug budget certification process.

• The PME system will be refined during fiscal year 1999, as ONDCP

addresses some of the important issues raised in this report. In particular,

ONDCP intends to make significant progress this year to better link the

PME system with the drug budget.

DEA expressed concern about our suggestion that DEA’s 1999

performance plan was less specific and output-oriented, and lacked

measurable targets upon which to gauge progress towards the annual

goals of the Performance Measures of Effectiveness. DEA stated that its

performance plan directly supports DOJ’s Strategic Plan, which itself was

designed to meet the goals and objectives of the National Drug Control

Strategy. We agree that DEA’s 1999 performance plan contains strategic

goals and strategies for achieving those goals that parallel goals and

objectives described in the PME system, and we have stated so in this

report. However, DEA’s annual goals as stated in the plan are less specific

than those in the PME system, the goals do not include specific

performance targets for either outputs or outcomes, and the performance

plan does not identify performance measures that will be used to track

progress towards the goals. This approach is inconsistent with the Results

Act, which requires performance plans to contain objective, quantifiable,

and measurable performance goals, as well as performance indicators to

measure outputs and outcomes.

Customs, HHS, and DOD concurred with the report and also provided

technical comments and clarifications, which have been incorporated in

the report where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to Representative Patsy T. Mink,

Ranking Minority Member, House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug

Policy, and Human Resources; and to Senator Strom Thurmond, Chairman,

and Senator Charles E. Schumer, Ranking Minority Member, Senate

Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight. We are also sending copies

of this report to Barry R. McCaffrey, Director, Office of National Drug

Control Policy; The Honorable William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense;
B-281159

Page 34 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

The Honorable Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services;

The Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General; The Honorable Robert E.

Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury; and The Honorable Jacob Lew, Director,

Office of Management and Budget. This report also will be made available

to others upon request.

Major contributors are listed in appendix II. If you have any questions,

please contact me on (202) 512-8777.

Sincerely yours,

Norman J. Rabkin

Director, Administration

of Justice Issues
Page 35 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget
Page 36 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

Contents

1 Letter

Appendix I 38

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

Appendix II 40

Major Contributors to

This Report

Table 1: ONDCP Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Certification

Timeline

6

Table 2: Changes in Fiscal Year 1999 Drug Budget at Each

Stage of Budget Development (dollars in millions)

20

Tables

Figure 1: Linkage Between 1998 National Strategy and

PME Targets and Objectives

26 Figures

Abbreviations

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DOD Department of Defense

DOJ Department of Justice

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy

PME Performance Measurement Effectiveness

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Page 37 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 38 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

The former Chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight

Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal

Justice1

 asked us to examine the role of the Office of National Drug

Control Policy (ONDCP) in shaping the national drug control budget. In

discussions with the Subcommittee staff, we specifically agreed to

• assess whether the process ONDCP followed to certify federal agencies’

drug control budgets for fiscal year 1999 was consistent with statutory

requirements and

• describe the system ONDCP has developed to assess the extent to which

drug control agencies and programs achieve intended results.

Our work on the budget certification process focused specifically on the

fiscal year 1999 drug budget cycle. For that year, we documented the

certification process followed by ONDCP and verified that certification

letters were issued for all drug control departments or agencies identified

by ONDCP as requiring certification. Regarding agency and program

results, our work focused on ONDCP’s recently established system—

Performance Measures of Effectiveness—for assessing the effectiveness of

the National Drug Control Strategy.

In addressing the objectives, we did our work primarily at ONDCP

headquarters in Washington, D.C. To obtain additional perspectives about

both the drug budget certification process and ONDCP’s Performance

Measures of Effectiveness, we also reviewed the following four

departments and agencies in more detail: (1) the Drug Enforcement

Administration (within the Department of Justice), (2) U.S. Customs

Service (within the Treasury Department), (3) Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration (within the Department of Health

and Human Services), and (4) the Department of Defense. We selected

these four departments based on the requester’s interest; we chose the

specific agencies because they are key component drug control agencies

within those departments.

To describe the process by which ONDCP certifies federal agencies’ drug

control budgets, we focused on the fiscal year 1999 budget cycle. We

interviewed officials in ONDCP’s Programs, Budget, Research, and

Evaluation Division, as well as officials from ONDCP’s operational

divisions, including Demand Reduction, Supply Reduction, and State and

 1

 With the beginning of the 106th Congress, the committee and subcommittee were renamed to the

Committee on Government Reform and the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and

Human Resources.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 39 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

Local Affairs. We reviewed the legislation governing the ONDCP budget

certification process, including changes resulting from ONDCP’s 1998

Reauthorization Act. We further obtained and reviewed all relevant

internal and interagency correspondence relating to the certification

process, including ONDCP guidance and policy, agency budget

submissions, and ONDCP certification letters. In addition to these reviews,

we also interviewed budget and program officials at DEA, Customs, DOD,

and SAMHSA.

To describe the system ONDCP has developed to assess the extent to

which drug control agencies and programs achieve intended results, we

interviewed officials from ONDCP and the other federal drug control

agencies noted above and reviewed relevant documents provided by these

agencies. We reviewed ONDCP’s National Drug Control Strategy (1997,

1998, and 1999) and ONDCP reports on Performance Measures of

Effectiveness (1998 and 1999). We also reviewed Government Performance

and Results Act plans for the agencies noted above and compared the

performance measures identified in their fiscal year 1999 performance

plans with those measures included in ONDCP’s Performance Measures of

Effectiveness system.
Appendix II

Major Contributors to This Report

Page 40 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget

Weldon McPhail, Assistant Director

Kristeen G. McLain, Evaluator

David P. Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst

Rebecca Shea, Social Science Analyst

Michael J. Curro, Assistant Director

Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney

Philip D. Caramia, Evaluator-in-Charge

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Accounting and

Information

Management Division,

Washington, D.C.

Office of General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Dallas Field Office
Ordering Information

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

copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address,

accompanied by a check or money order made out to the

Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more

copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

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

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

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

To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past

30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A

recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these

lists.

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

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

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

http://www.gao.gov
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(186769)