GAO-01-237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548

January 12, 2001

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Chairman

Caucus on International Narcotics Control

United States Senate

Subject: Review of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Heroin Signature and

Domestic Monitor Programs

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This letter responds to your request that we review the Drug Enforcement

Administration’s (DEA) Heroin Signature Program and its Domestic Monitor

Program. You asked that we determine why there are apparent discrepancies in the

1999 statistical data generated by the two programs, particularly in the data

pertaining to Southwest Asia heroin,1

 to include an explanation of why the Heroin

Signature Program data shows heroin seizure information for only one U.S. Pacific

Coast international airport.2

 Additionally, you asked that we determine whether

sufficient samples relating to heroin seizures are being furnished for analysis under

the Heroin Signature Program and the extent to which DEA is committed to the

Domestic Monitor Program.

We interviewed knowledgeable DEA, U.S. Customs Service, and Department of

Justice officials and reviewed relevant documentation. We performed our work from

August 15, 2000, through December 11, 2000, in accordance with investigative

standards established by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.

Results in Brief

The discrepancies in the 1999 statistical data—for heroin produced in Southwest Asia

and other areas—generated by the Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor programs

are the result of the two programs’ data not being comparable. The 1999 Heroin

Signature Program data identifies the source of heroin seized at specific U.S.

international airports, whereas the 1999 Domestic Monitor Program data identifies

the source of heroin obtained through random, undercover, retail-level heroin

 1

 Southwest Asia heroin includes heroin produced in the “Golden Crescent,” which includes

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. Afghanistan is the major

producer of heroin from Southwest Asia.

2

 The major U.S. Pacific Coast international airports included in the Heroin Signature Program are San

Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, CA; Seattle, WA; and Honolulu, HI.
Page 2 GAO-01-237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

purchases in specific cities. According to DEA and Customs officials, Heroin

Signature Program data for 1999 shows no seizure information for U.S. Pacific Coast

international airports because, with the exception of the Los Angeles International

Airport, no seizures occurred at such airports during 1999 that met federal

prosecution guidelines. Seizures from which samples are analyzed under the

program must meet federal prosecution guidelines.

DEA officials responsible for administering the Heroin Signature Program told us that

they receive sufficient samples of the heroin seized by federal law enforcement

agencies but receive few or no samples of the heroin seized by state and local law

enforcement agencies. The Director of DEA’s Special Testing and Research

Laboratory also stated that the analysis of additional samples from West Coast heroin

seizures by state and local authorities would broaden the statistical database used to

identify trends.

According to DEA officials, DEA is committed to the Domestic Monitor Program and

conducts annual field division inspections, which include verification of compliance

with Domestic Monitor Program requirements. The Domestic Monitor Program

enables DEA to monitor the price and purity of retail heroin sold in the United States

and to provide samples for signature analysis. To further enhance this program, DEA

has initiated a pilot program to analyze heroin samples provided by state and local

law enforcement agencies.

Background

The Heroin Signature and the Domestic Monitor programs are trafficking-indicator

programs used to detect trends in the source areas of the heroin supplied to the

United States. Data from both programs, investigative intelligence, and other

information are used to develop an overall assessment of heroin trafficking in the

United States.

DEA’s Intelligence Division administers both programs. DEA’s Special Testing and

Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C., conducts an in-depth chemical analysis of

the heroin samples provided by both the Heroin Signature and the Domestic Monitor

programs.3

 Each major heroin-producing region has a unique production process or

“signature,” which is used to determine the origin of the sample. Signature analysis is

the only scientifically based technique currently available for determining the region

in which heroin encountered in the U.S. drug market was produced.

DEA initiated the Heroin Signature Program in 1971 to enhance the ability of its

regional laboratories to identify the source of heroin seized in the United States from

each of the world’s major heroin-producing areas—South America,4 Mexico,

Southeast Asia,5

 and Southwest Asia. In 1977, DEA centralized the Heroin Signature

 3 All heroin samples that meet the minimum weight requirement—equal to or greater than 1 gram—are

eligible for signature analysis. DEA’s Special Testing and Research Laboratory prefers a 1-gram

sample but will accept a minimum of 500 milligrams for testing.

4

 The South American heroin signature was developed in July 1993. This heroin is produced mainly in

Columbia.

5

 Southeast Asia heroin is produced in the “Golden Triangle,” which includes Burma, Laos, Thailand,

and Vietnam.
Page 3 GAO-01-237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

Program within the Special Testing and Research Laboratory, which receives heroin

samples from randomly selected DEA seizures and purchases and from seizures by

other federal agencies, including Customs. The Heroin Signature Program receives

samples from heroin seizures made at U.S. ports of entry, including airports and

border crossings. Samples are also obtained from seizures of heroin in letters and

packages mailed to the United States via U.S. mail, Federal Express, United Parcel

Service, and any other mail-handling system. The seized substances are first

forwarded to DEA’s regional laboratories,6

 which conduct an initial analysis to

confirm that the substance is heroin. If the substance is confirmed as heroin, the

regional laboratory is responsible for preparing a written report for judicial purposes

and providing a sample to DEA’s Special Testing and Research Laboratory. The

laboratory also receives samples of heroin for signature analysis that DEA purchases

under the Domestic Monitor Program.

DEA initiated the Domestic Monitor Program in New York City (New York Field

Division) in 1979. All 20 remaining field divisional cities7 now have the program. In

addition, Orlando, Florida, and Baltimore, Maryland—which are suboffices of the

Miami and Washington, D.C., field divisions, respectively—have a Domestic Monitor

Program. As a result, 23 cities currently participate in the Domestic Monitor

Program. In the program, DEA’s field personnel make random, undercover, retaillevel heroin purchases. The program was originally designed to enable DEA to

monitor the price and purity of retail heroin sold in the United States; it now also

provides samples for signature analysis to the Special Testing and Research

Laboratory.

Statistical Data for the Two Programs Not Comparable; Lack of Data

Because Seizure Guidelines Not Met at All Pacific Coast Airports

The 1999 Heroin Signature Program data identifies the source of heroin seized at

selected U.S. international airports and ports of entry; and 1999 Domestic Monitor

Program data identifies the source of heroin obtained from random, undercover,

retail-level heroin purchases.

As shown in enclosure I, DEA received samples of heroin seizures for analysis under

the Heroin Signature Program in 1999 from 18 U.S. international airports, including

Puerto Rico, and an unidentified international airport. As shown in enclosure II, the

source of the samples for analysis under the Domestic Monitor Program in 1999 was

random, undercover, retail-level heroin purchases in 22 cities, 15 of which were cities

where airport seizures were made. As indicated in enclosure I, 11.1 percent of the

1999 airport seizure samples for the Heroin Signature Program were from Southwest

Asia and 64.8 percent were from South America. However, as shown in enclosure II,

only 1 percent of the Domestic Monitor Program samples resulting from heroin

 6

 DEA’s regional laboratories are located in Chicago, IL; Washington, DC; San Diego and San Francisco,

CA; New York City, NY; Miami, FL; and Dallas, TX. Two subregional laboratories are located in Kansas

City, KS, under Chicago, and San Juan, PR, under Miami.

7

 The 20 remaining field divisional locations, referred to in this letter as “cities,” are Atlanta, GA;

Boston, MA; the Caribbean area; Chicago, IL; Dallas, El Paso, and Houston, TX; Miami, FL; Newark, NJ;

New Orleans, LA; Denver, CO; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San

Diego, CA; Seattle, WA; St. Louis, MO; Detroit, MI; and Washington, DC.
Page 4 GAO-01-237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

purchases in 1999 were from Southwest Asia while 37.4 percent were from South

America.

DEA officials acknowledged that there is an apparent discrepancy between the trends

identified by the charts in enclosures I and II. They told us that the program data

reported by the Heroin Signature Program for a specific airport is not comparable to

the source city information reported by the Domestic Monitor Program. They added

that a city-by-city comparison of the source area percentages in the charts is

misleading. This is particularly true with cities that have major international airports,

because heroin seized at international airports may have been destined for a city

other than the one where the seizure was made. For example, the statistical data for

the 1999 Heroin Signature Program (enclosure I) for New York City is based on New

York City airport seizures and shows that 14.8 percent of the heroin seized was from

Southwest Asia. However, the 1999 Domestic Monitor Program statistical data

(enclosure II) for New York City is based on the random, retail-level heroin purchases

in the New York City metropolitan area and shows that 1.6 percent of the heroin

purchased was from Southwest Asia. The enclosures also show that 10.5 percent of

the seizures at Newark’s international airport were from Southwest Asia but that

none of the Domestic Monitor Program heroin retail-level purchases made in Newark

were from Southwest Asia.

DEA and Customs officials informed us that the reason for a lack of 1999 Heroin

Signature Program data for U.S. Pacific Coast international airports, with the

exception of the Los Angeles International Airport, is because no heroin seizures at

these airports met federal prosecution guidelines.

Sufficient Heroin Signature Program Data

According to DEA officials, under the Heroin Signature Program, sufficient samples

are obtained from federal agencies’ heroin seizures that meet the drug prosecution

guidelines of the local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices. Samples are obtained from all

Customs, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and randomly selected DEA seizures.

Prosecution guidelines for federal prosecutors are developed within the framework

of the U.S. Attorney’s Manual, Section 9-27, which provides the U.S. Attorney’s Office

great latitude. Department of Justice officials stated that each of the 93 U.S.

Attorneys’ Offices develops its own drug prosecution guidelines. According to

Department of Justice officials, the latitude provided to U.S. Attorneys in drug

prosecution guidelines can result in an individual being prosecuted for possession of

an amount of heroin in one location and not prosecuted for the same amount in

another.

DEA officials stated that although they do not verify compliance, they believe that

federal law enforcement agencies are complying with the Heroin Signature Program

requirements requiring seizures that meet federal prosecution guidelines to be turned

over to DEA. According to DEA officials, the current sampling method is sufficient

for the Heroin Signature Program. The Director of DEA’s Special Testing and

Research Laboratory stated that as with any statistical data, the more information

that is used, the more useful the data is in identifying trends. He continued that, for

example, analyzing additional samples from West Coast heroin seizures made by

state and local authorities would broaden the statistical database used to identify
Page 5 GAO-01-237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

trends. DEA officials added that at this time, state and local law enforcement

agencies are not required to provide samples from local seizures. However, heroin

samples from state and local law enforcement agencies that are part of a federal task

force might be provided if the seizures meet the federal guidelines for prosecution.

Domestic Monitor Program Commitment

According to DEA officials, DEA is committed to the Domestic Monitor Program and

performs annual field division inspections, which include verification of field division

compliance with Domestic Monitor Program requirements. DEA has considered

expanding the program, but resource limitations are a consideration. DEA’s Special

Testing and Research Laboratory receives 10 samples every quarter from each of the

23 Domestic Monitor Program cities, except New York City. The New York Field

Division is required to provide 20 samples every quarter. The samples obtained are

from “within the metropolitan area” of each divisional city. For example, although

the New York Field Division Office includes suboffices in Albany, Buffalo, Long

Island, Plattsburgh, Rochester, Rockland County, Syracuse, and Westchester, New

York, the Domestic Monitor Program heroin purchases are made by DEA personnel

in New York City and surrounding boroughs.

The field division management makes the decision as to who makes Domestic

Monitor Program purchases. While new agents, with appropriate supervision, may on

occasion make such purchases, it is not standard practice and does not indicate that

DEA assigns a low priority to the program.

DEA officials stated that to enhance the Domestic Monitor Program, DEA’s Domestic

Monitor Program Coordinators made recommendations at a conference in June 2000.

Two recommendations are being adopted as pilot programs. The first

recommendation is that a percentage of the Domestic Monitor Program-required

heroin samples be obtained from purchases made by state and local law enforcement

personnel. The second, called “geo-probe,” will require that samples be obtained

from purchases made in cities outside the metropolitan area of the current 23

participating cities. The additional cities within a field division will be selected based

on intelligence information that heroin activity is increasing. For example, if

intelligence indicates an influx of heroin into a city outside a field divisional city, the

field division will make additional heroin purchases in that city as part of the

Domestic Monitor Program.

- - - -

As arranged with your office, unless you disclose its contents earlier, we plan no

further distribution of this letter until 30 days after its issuance. At that time, we will

send copies of the letter to interested congressional committees. The letter will also
Page 6 GAO-01-237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

be available at GAO’s home page, www.gao.gov. If you have any questions, please

call Patrick Sullivan at (202) 512-6722. Thomas Wiley, Woodrow Hunt, and Barry

Shillito made key contributions to this work and letter.

Sincerely yours,

Robert H. Hast

Managing Director

Office of Special Investigations
Enclosure I

Page 7 GAO-01-237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

Heroin Signature Program

Airport Seizure Samples: 1999

Airport

Percent

from

Southeast

Asia

Percent

from

Southwest

Asia

Percent

from

Mexico

Percent

from

South

America

Percent

from

unknown

locale

Total

seizures

Percent

of total

airport

seizures

Anchorage 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.2

Atlanta 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 5 1.2

Baltimore 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 2 0.5

Boston 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.5

Chicago 43.8 12.5 6.3 37.5 0.0 16 3.9

Cincinnati 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.2

Dallas 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 8 1.9

Detroit 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 4 1.0

Los Angeles 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 0.0 7 1.7

Louisville 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.5

Miami 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.2 7.8 128 30.8

New York 23.1 14.8 0.0 49.7 12.4 169 40.7

Newark 7.9 10.5 0.0 73.7 7.9 38 9.2

Orlando 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 2 0.5

Philadelphia 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 2 0.5

Puerto Rico 0.0 15.4 0.0 76.9 7.7 13 3.1

St. Louis 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.2

Washington,

D.C.

20.0 70.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10 2.4

Unknown

airport

0.0 25.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 4 1.0

Total 13.7 11.1 1.2 64.8 9.2 415 100.0

Note: Percents are based on the number of samples analyzed in 1999 by the Special Testing and Research Laboratory. The

percents do not take into account the weight of each seizure, which can vary significantly.

Source: Data provided by the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Enclosure II

Page 8 GAO-01-237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

Domestic Monitor Program: 1999

Citya

Percent

from SE

Asia

Percent

from SW

Asia

Percent

from

Mexico

Percent

from

South

America

Percent

from

unknown

locale

Percent

of seized

heroin

too little

to

measure

Total

seizures

Percent

of total

seizures

Atlanta 29.0 3.2 3.2 29.0 12.9 22.6 31 3.9

Baltimore 5.1 0.0 0.0 84.6 7.7 2.6 39 4.9

Boston 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.2 2.7 35.1 37 4.6

Chicago 20.6 5.9 0.0 29.4 14.7 29.4 34 4.3

Dallas 0.0 0.0 76.9 0.0 23.1 0.0 26 3.3

Denver 0.0 0.0 86.4 0.0 13.6 0.0 22 2.8

Detroit 20.6 2.9 0.0 52.9 8.8 14.7 34 4.3

Houston 0.0 0.0 83.7 4.7 4.7 7.0 43 5.4

Los Angeles 0.0 0.0 68.8 0.0 21.9 9.4 32 4.0

Miami 0.0 0.0 13.6 47.7 13.6 25.0 44 5.5

New Orleans 3.6 0.0 0.0 53.6 10.7 32.1 28 3.5

New York 1.6 1.6 0.0 80.6 8.1 8.1 62 7.8

Newark 1.9 0.0 0.0 82.7 5.8 9.6 52 6.6

Orlando 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.3 8.7 13.0 23 2.9

Philadelphia 0.0 2.4 0.0 85.4 12.2 0.0 41 5.1

Phoenix 0.0 0.0 95.1 0.0 4.9 0.0 41 5.1

Puerto Rico 4.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 12.0 4.0 25 3.1

San Diego 0.0 0.0 87.1 0.0 6.5 6.5 31 3.9

San

Francisco

0.0 0.0 88.2 0.0 2.9 8.8 34 4.3

Seattle 0.0 0.0 94.7 0.0 0.0 5.3 38 4.8

St. Louis 0.0 0.0 81.8 0.0 6.8 11.4 44 5.5

Washington,

D.C.

22.2 5.6 0.0 52.8 2.8 16.7 36 4.6

Total 4.9 1.0 35.4 37.4 9.3 11.9 797 100.0b

a El Paso, TX, became a field division during 1999 and consequently did not have complete 1999 seizure data.

b Percent totals have been rounded to 100 percent.

Note: Percents are based on the number of Domestic Monitor Program samples analyzed in 1999 by the Special Testing and Research

Laboratory.

Source: Data provided by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

(600699)