THE 

METHAMPHETAMINE 

SUMMIT

A PROCESS IN COLLABORATION 

AND DECISION MAKING

A Guide for Law Enforcement, 

Community Policing Advocates, 

and Community Stakeholders

Edited by Heidi Deutch
This project was supported by Grant #2007-CK-WX-0012 awarded by the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions 

contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the 

official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific 

agencies, companies, products, or services should not be considered an endorsement 

by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references are 

illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of this 

publication. Given that URLs and websites are in constant flux, neither the author 

nor the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity. 

ISBN: 978-1-935676-30-0 

May 2011
Edited by Heidi Deutch

THE 

METHAMPHETAMINE 

SUMMIT

A PROCESS IN COLLABORATION 

AND DECISION MAKING

A Guide for Law Enforcement, 

Community Policing Advocates, 

and Community Stakeholders
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— ii —

About COPS

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office) is the 

component of the U.S. Department of Justice responsible for advancing the practice 

of community policing by the nation’s state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies 

through information and grant resources. The community policing philosophy promotes 

organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving 

techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety 

issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime. In its simplest form, community 

policing is about building relationships and solving problems. 

The COPS Office awards grants to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to hire 

and train community policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge crime-fighting 

technologies, and develop and test innovative policing strategies. The COPS Office funding 

also provides training and technical assistance to community members and local government 

leaders and all levels of law enforcement. 

The COPS Office Methamphetamine grants help state and local law enforcement 

agencies reduce the production, distribution, and use of methamphetamine. COPS 

Methamphetamine grants awarded since 1998 total more than $448 million. These 

innovative community policing grants encourage recipients to develop partnerships with 

such entities as community leaders, local fire departments, drug courts, prosecutors, 

child protective services, treatment providers, and other law enforcement agencies to 

create a coordinated response to methamphetamine proliferation. COPS grants have 

funded equipment, training, and personnel to improve intelligence-gathering capabilities, 

enforcement efforts, lab clean-up, training related to drug endangered children, and the 

prosecution of those who engage in methamphetamine-related crimes. Additionally, the 

COPS Office has provided more than $120 million to the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) for clandestine meth lab clean-up, specialized enforcement training, and statewide 

methamphetamine summits.

Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested more than $16 billion to add community policing 

officers to the nation’s streets, enhance crime fighting technology, support crime prevention 

initiatives, and provide training and technical assistance to help advance community 

policing. More than 500,000 law enforcement personnel, community members, and 

government leaders have been trained through COPS Office-funded training organizations. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— iii —

The COPS Office has produced more than 1,000 information products—and distributed 

more than 2 million publications—including Problem Oriented Policing Guides, Grant 

Owners Manuals, fact sheets, best practices, and curricula. And in 2010, the COPS Office 

participated in 45 law enforcement and public-safety conferences in 25 states in order to 

maximize the exposure and distribution of these knowledge products. More than 500 of 

those products, along with other products covering a wide area of community policing 

topics—from school and campus safety to gang violence—are currently available, at no 

cost, through its online Resource Information Center at www.cops.usdoj.gov. More than 2 

million copies have been downloaded in FY2010 alone. The easy to navigate and up to date 

website is also the grant application portal, providing access to online application forms. 

About Strategic Applications International

The mission of Strategic Applications International (SAI) is to pursue great ideas, promote 

action, and effect change with demonstrated results. SAI is committed to the highest quality 

of program development, implementation, and evaluation whether designing a violence 

prevention strategy for a small community coalition, developing a global workplace 

substance abuse prevention strategy for a multinational company, or revamping educational 

systems. James and Colleen Copple founded Strategic Applications International (SAI) in 

2003 after over 50 years of combined work in coalition building, crime prevention, strategic 

planning, and policy advocacy. Before founding SAI, the Copples led the fight against 

methamphetamine and developed the Methamphetamine Summit approach through various 

organizations, including Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, the National Crime 

Prevention Council (NCPC), and the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.

THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 1 —

Contents

Letter from the Director . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

I. Methamphetamine: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

II. The Methamphetamine Summit Story: A Path to Innovation and Synergy . . . . . 12

History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

The Methamphetamine Summit Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

The Eight State Meth Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Outcomes of the Meth Summits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

III. Lessons Learned from the Methamphetamine Summit Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Multiple Approaches are more Effective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

IV. Looking Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

The Future of the Methamphetamine Epidemic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Using Meth Strategies to Address Other Drug and Public 

Health Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Appendix A: Timeline of Meth Summit and Policy Achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix B: Meth Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 2 —

Letter from the Director

Dear Colleagues,

At the COPS Office we talk of building relationships to solve problems as the cornerstone 

of community policing. In order to understand and address the underlying causes of crime 

and disorder problems, we must have the right stakeholders at the table and a strong 

commitment to collaborate. We must put the needs of our community’s well-being above 

those of our individual agencies, and work together to find the sustainable solution. 

This model of collaborative problem solving is particularly important when we face 

community problems that are not simply crime problems, but also public health and childwelfare problems. The story of Methamphetamine in this country is one of illicit activity, 

child abuse and neglect, environmental damage, and addiction. No one agency can begin to 

tackle a problem that wide ranging in its effects; collaboration across disciplines is imperative.

Systematic collaboration that can produce meaningful results is possible. This publication 

documents the history and lessons learned by James and Colleen Copple, over ten years 

working to build state and local collaborations around the problem of Methamphetamine. 

Their summit approach, and the refinements realized through the COPS-sponsored Eight 

State Methamphetamine Initiative, is presented here as a model of how partnerships—

both public and private—are central not only to how we confront the criminality of 

Methamphetamine, but are key to how our communities effectively address both the 

cause and effects of any drug of abuse. 

Sincerely,

Bernard K. Melekian, Director

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 3 —

Acknowledgments

Strategic Applications International wishes to thank the various contributors to this 

document. Its development was dependent on many writers and editors. Carnevale 

Associates gave us our original draft and structure, followed by contributions and edits by 

James and Colleen Copple, and then finally Heidi Deutsch put the finishing touches and 

edits to what was a complicated topic and task. Heidi succeeded in taking the thoughts of 

various writers and capturing the history and the process of a facilitation that has changed 

America’s response to methamphetamine. Finally, we wish to thank Deborah Spence of the 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services who helped to shepherd this document 

through its development and publication.
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 4 —

Foreword

When the recent surge of methamphetamine use first appeared in the late 1990s, the nation 

was caught by surprise. Law enforcement officials, drug trend experts, and prevention and 

drug treatment specialists were unprepared to confront the highly addictive and easily 

“homegrown” substance. Although the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) warned 

stakeholders that methamphetamine was no longer confined to the west coast but was 

rapidly moving into the Midwest and the South, few policymakers listened. Soon states 

other than California realized that methamphetamine could be easily produced using overthe-counter materials in makeshift clandestine labs. 

While methamphetamine was similar to other illegal drugs in generating violence, crime, 

and addiction, methamphetamine is distinct from other drugs in two aspects: meth labs 

pose nightmarish levels of long-lasting environmental damage, and there isn’t a “typical” 

methamphetamine user. Meth labs emit highly toxic fumes and involve volatile chemicals 

that cause severe injury or death if inhaled or touched, and are prone to fire and explosions. 

Once methamphetamine has been produced, the remaining waste and by-product residue 

pose an entire new level of hazard. The extensive environmental damage requires a response 

from biologists, ecologists, and toxic waste impact and disposal specialists. Chemical 

residues left behind cause chemical burns, upper respiratory problems, cold and flu-like 

symptoms and in some cases, death. Children who are living within the general area of a lab 

are especially vulnerable. 

Methamphetamine remains one of the most addictive drugs in the United States. Although 

it is notable for its disproportionate use and proliferation among “Soccer Moms” and the 

gay male population, methamphetamine is unique among illicit drugs because it is able to 

penetrate into communities with little to no prior history of use. Traditionally, drugs have 

a niche market with a community. Methamphetamine, on the other hand, has no target 

population. It is easily available to anyone, regardless of the user or their socio-economic or 

cultural background. The ability to spread to new populations has made methamphetamine 

use unique among drug epidemics in terms of the far-reaching impact of the drug. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 5 —

Dealing with the methamphetamine epidemic requires a level of coordination and 

cooperation never before necessitated by any previous drug epidemic. In 2000, James 

and Colleen Copple, then employed at National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC), 

stood at the center of a large consortium of resources assembled to address the rising tide 

of methamphetamine use that was swallowing individuals, families, and communities 

in mostly rural areas. They responded by spearheading a series of “Meth Summits” in 

over 25 states across the nation, which pulled together individuals and key stakeholders 

from diverse sectors in their respective communities. The Meth Summits evolved out of 

collaboration between the NCPC and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), with 

funding support from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (the COPS 

Office). As innovative solutions began to appear and synergistic partnerships were formed, 

the Copples began to document them as a road map for others to use. The Meth Summits 

would ultimately produce some of the finest best-practice approaches to deal effectively 

with any drug of abuse. 

This document represents a culmination of lessons and innovative strategies that emerged 

not only from the Meth Summits, but also from the efforts of many individuals and 

organizations working on the front lines of methamphetamine policy, legislation, and 

service delivery for the past five decades. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 6 —

I. Methamphetamine: An Overview

The geographic growth of the methamphetamine epidemic resembles the spread of a 

powerful and resistant virus. Methamphetamine use in the United States can first be 

traced back to the 1940s in Allentown, Pennsylvania and the surrounding area. In the 

1960s methamphetamine spread west to California, along with biker gangs, and continued 

to thrive amidst this somewhat nomadic population for decades. Its use and production 

then grew from hot spots in California and Washington State to widespread use in rural 

communities in the center of the United States. From there, methamphetamine use then 

spread in waves toward each coast. 

From Biker Gangs to Soccer Moms, Gay Men, and Virtually Anyone

In the late 1990s methamphetamine infiltrated the more mainstream population, and two 

new and very different groups of methamphetamine users emerged: “Soccer Moms” and 

gay men. The disproportionate use of methamphetamine among these two populations 

captured the attention of both policymakers and the media. Among young gay men, 

meth is known as a designer drug that induces euphoric sex. Trail mixing—mixing Viagra 

and methamphetamine—became popular, but the protracted, and often unprotected sex 

increased their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Although the epidemic never fully infiltrated 

the east coast, pockets of use proliferated in urban areas with large gay male populations. 

Current usage patterns show that methamphetamine is returning to its “rural roots,” 

including tribal communities, as well as becoming localized in specific urban populations—

in particular, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) population. In workingclass rural communities, it provides a cheap, easily accessible high. Nevertheless, and 

despite the popular stereotype that meth is the “poor white man’s crack,” methamphetamine 

users are not confined to specific groups. Methamphetamine has no target population, as its 

long lasting high and ease of access has enabled the drug to spread to new populations. 

There is some good news. Researchers and treatment experts have changed their opinion on 

methamphetamine addiction. Now researchers believe that addiction to methamphetamine 

can be successfully addressed with highly potent and effective treatment approaches. 

Using a combination of individual, family, and community approaches, recovery 

from methamphetamine abuse and addiction can and does occur. Dr. Rick Rawson, a 

neuroscientist and researcher with the University of California at Los Angeles, has studied 

methamphetamine and the effectiveness of treatment on individuals addicted to meth. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 7 —

Dr. Rawson’s research shows that methamphetamine addiction can be treated successfully 

when special consideration is given to the individual characteristics of the addict. For 

example, different approaches are more effective for female methamphetamine users, 

individuals with co-occurring mental illness, individuals under the age of 21, and individuals 

with other health issues such as HIV/AIDS and/or hepatitis. The method and frequency 

of use is also important as injection and high dose users respond differently to treatment.1

Multiple treatment approaches are important to ensure that methamphetamine users have 

the best opportunity for treatment success.

A Uniquely Dangerous Drug 

According to National Drug Threat Survey (NDTS) 2006 data, 38.8 percent of state and local 

law enforcement officials nationwide report methamphetamine as the greatest drug threat 

to their areas, a higher percentage than for any other drug.2 The number of people using 

methamphetamine is lower, however, than other drugs. So how could it rate so high as a 

threat? The dangers of using methamphetamine are only the tip of the iceberg. 

First, the ease in which meth labs are set up drives community concern. Labs can be created 

overnight by dealers and traffickers in everyday locations such as apartments, hotel rooms, 

rented storage spaces, and trucks. Neighbors may not even be aware that a lab exists next 

door. And yet the health risks are substantial. Substances used in the actual methamphetamine 

production process include various acids, sodium hydroxide, flammable solvents, anhydrous 

ammonia, lithium and sodium metals, red phosphorus, and propane cylinders. Some of these 

highly toxic chemicals are flammable, and the improper storage, use, or disposal of such 

chemicals often leads to fires and explosions. Once the methamphetamine has been produced, 

the remaining waste and by-product residue are often flushed down kitchen sinks, poured 

into rivers and streams, dumped, buried, or simply abandoned. Contaminated glass vials, 

hypodermic needles, and other hazardous debris are also commonly found. The result has 

lead to contamination of community water sources and other environmental damage.

1 Rawson, Richard A. 2009. “Critical Clinical Challenges: Cognition, Sexual Behavior, Violence, and Clinical Approaches.” 

Presentation, Medford, Oregon. November 10. Available at www.uclaisap.org/slides/presentations-rawson.html

2 National Drug Intelligence Center. 2006. “National Methamphetamine Threat Assessment” (Johnstown, PA: U.S. Dept. of 

Justice, Nov.), p. 1. www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs21/21821/21821p.pdf
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 8 —

Second, disposing of meth lab waste is extremely difficult, dangerous, and costly for local 

authorities. For every pound of methamphetamine produced, an estimated six pounds of 

waste is generated. The resulting clean-up cost is high. The DEA’s annual cost for clean-up 

of clandestine laboratories (almost entirely meth labs) in the United States has increased from 

$2 million in FY1995 to $23.8 million in FY2002. In 2002, California alone spent $4,974,517 

to remediate meth labs and dumpsites.3

 Proper disposal of all methamphetamine products 

and bi-products is critical for public health and environmental protection. The cost to clean 

up a single meth lab is estimated at $25,000. This figure accounts only for cleaning up the 

residual contamination—which is limited to the removal of the chemicals and glassware—

and the remediation of property. This figure doesn’t take into account the cost of providing 

the necessary law enforcement, environmental experts, public health, and social service 

providers that are often required to close and remediate a meth lab. 

Third, children in the vicinity of a meth lab are exposed not only to abuse and neglect, but 

to fires, explosions, and toxic chemicals. In 2009, 980 children were reported to the El Paso 

Intelligence Center (EPIC) as present at or affected by meth labs, including eight who were 

injured and two who were killed at the laboratories. This statistic does not include children 

killed by random gunfire associated with drug activity or who were physically or sexually 

abused by a “caretaker” involved in drug trafficking or under the influence of drugs.4

Nevertheless, some have criticized the strong response to methamphetamine. There are 

concerns that policymakers are applying a double standard to methamphetamine abuse. 

Lawmakers in both parties consistently characterize meth addicts in more sympathetic terms 

than they describe crack addicts, and they are showing far less enthusiasm for imprisoning 

users than at the height of the crack problem two decades ago. “The difference is, meth is a 

white drug,” says Daniel F. Wilhelm of the Vera Institute of Justice, a New York nonprofit 

organization that seeks to reduce racially disparate prosecutions.5

 The approach of Strategic 

Applications International (a consulting group started by the Copples), however, has been to 

use the attention the methamphetamine crisis is getting to advocate for better drug policy

3 National Drug Threat Assessment. 2004. (Johnstown, PA: National Drug Intelligence Center, April 2004), p. 18. 

www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs8/8731/8731p.pdf

4 U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center. National Drug Threat Assessment. 2010 p. 5 

www.justice.gov/dea/concern/18862/ndic_2010.pdf

5 Stern, Seth. 2006. “Meth Vs. Crack: Different Legislative Approaches.” CQ Weekly (US). June 5.
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 9 —

in general. “If the media and policymakers are focused on meth, let’s use the opportunity 

to have an effect on the policies and treatment approaches for all drugs,” Jim Copple 

asserts. For him, the methamphetamine crisis is a case study for innovative solutions to 

complex drug problems generally. If these new solutions are successful, the approach should 

be “scaled up.” Scaling up includes not only applying the successful solutions to more 

communities, but also to a wider range of drugs.

“Smurfing” Evades Controls

The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, which regulates retail over-thecounter sales of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine products, limited 

the production of methamphetamine in many clandestine labs across the country. The 

Act required pseudoephedrine products to be moved behind the counter, set daily and 

monthly limits on the amount that can be sold to any one customer, and required retailers 

to keep a log of sales. 

But methamphetamine users quickly learned to evade these controls by making purchases 

in several different stores—a practice known as “smurfing.” In an effort to avoid having 

more stringent controls placed on the drug, the pharmaceutical industry is lobbying 

Congress to require electronic tracking of pseudoephedrine sales, as some states already 

do. This makes it harder for an individual smurfer to collect large quantities of the drug. 

Nevertheless, methamphetamine suppliers get around the tracking system by banding 

together in cooperatives, with each member buying pseudoephedrine products in amounts 

small enough to evade detection. These group smurfers then contribute their portion to 

the pot in exchange for cash or a share of the cooked-up meth. Or, in the west, they feed 

the “super labs” run by drug trafficking organizations in central California. The increase in 

domestic methamphetamine production in 2008 and 2009 was fueled primarily by individual 

and criminal groups that organized pseudoephedrine smurfing operations to acquire large 

amounts of the chemical.6

6 U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center. National Drug Threat Assessment. 2010 p. 35 

www.justice.gov/dea/concern/18862/ndic_2010.pdf
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 10 —

Unfortunately, as the supply of chemicals became harder to come by, other techniques 

emerged to provide a steady supply of less expensive and very potent meth. The new, 

insidious and more clandestine production technique known as the “One-Pot” or “Shake 

and Bake” method shrinks an entire clandestine lab into a single bottle. The one bottle 

“recipe” creates a portable lab designed to evade law enforcement. Some argue that the 

only effective solution is to return pseudoephedrine to its prescription-drug status, as 

Oregon did more than four years ago, enabling the state to eliminate smurfing and nearly 

eradicate meth labs. This is part of the reason that Oregon recently experienced the steepest 

decline in crime rates in the 50 states. In 2010, Mississippi also passed a law requiring a 

prescription to get pseudoephedrine. Since July 2010, the number of meth labs in that state 

has fallen by 65 percent.7

Methamphetamine Resurgence

At the end of 2010, the methamphetamine epidemic, which peaked by 2005 and dropped 

to pre-2002 levels in 2008, re-emerged. From mid-2008 through 2009 methamphetamine 

availability increased in the United States. Drug availability indicator data show that 

methamphetamine prices, which peaked in 2007, declined significantly during 2008 and 

2009, while methamphetamine purity increased.8 This may seem puzzling, given that law 

enforcement pressure and strong precursor chemical sales restrictions have achieved marked 

success in decreasing domestic methamphetamine production. Mexican drug trafficking 

organizations, however, have exploited the vacuum created by rapidly expanding their 

control over methamphetamine distribution—even to eastern states. NDIC reports that 

“methamphetamine availability in the United States is directly related to methamphetamine 

production trends in Mexico.”9

 In fact, 2007 drug and lab seizure data from the DEA suggests 

that approximately 80 percent of the methamphetamine used in the United States originates 

7 Bovett, Rob. 2010. “How to Kill the Meth Monster.” Op-Ed New York Times. Published: November 15. 

www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/opinion/16bovett.html

8 U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center. National Drug Threat Assessment. 2010 p. 32 

www.justice.gov/dea/concern/18862/ndic_2010.pdf

9 U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center. National Drug Threat Assessment. 2010 p. 32 

www.justice.gov/dea/concern/18862/ndic_2010.pdf
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 11 —

from larger laboratories operated by Mexican-based syndicates on both sides of the border, 

and that approximately 20 percent of the methamphetamine consumed comes from small 

toxic labs (STLs) in the United States.10

Mexican Cartels have increased production by overcoming the Mexican Government 

ban on the importation and use of pseudoephedrine (PSE) by using Central American 

cutouts for Asian PSE suppliers. According to the United Nations World Drug Report, 

“Methamphetamine precursors are increasingly being trafficked to Central and South America 

to manufacture drugs for the North American market.”11 While rates of use have decreased 

according to national and state surveys conducted by the University of Michigan and SAMSA 

in 2008, the disproportional impact of methamphetamine trafficking and use on public 

safety, the environment, and community well-being, continues. Seizures of Mexican produced 

methamphetamine along the U.S. southwest borders increased to unprecedented levels, and 

prices are dipping to 2004 levels. All are indicators of a potentially growing and persistent 

threat. Figure 1 shows National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) data on the rise in meth 

lab seizures since 2007. Similar data from the NDIC shows an increase in methamphetamine 

seizures at the southwest border during the same timeframe. 

Figure 1. Meth lab seizures: 2005–2009

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

6,010

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

3,977

3,096

3,931

4,571

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center 2010 Threat Assessment and National Seizure System

10 DEA. 2007. “Drug Enforcement Administration Drug Threats and Enforcement Challenges.” Attachment to the DEA 

Congressional Testimony of The Honorable Karen P. Tandy, Administrator. April 19. www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/

ct041907attach.html

11 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. “World Drug Report 2009.” New York, 2009. Available at 

www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2009/WDR2009_eng_web.pdf
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 12 —

II. The Methamphetamine Summit Story: A Path to Innovation 

and Synergy

As the first coordinated responses to the meth epidemic were beginning to evolve in the late 

1990s, the Meth Summit approach quickly emerged to augment local law enforcement and 

community coalition efforts that were already underway. First and foremost, the Meth Summit 

process functioned as a powerful tool for local law enforcement and other stakeholders to 

develop synergistic partnerships and responses to complex and interrelated problems of 

methamphetamine use and production. No other drug epidemic had ever demanded this 

level of collaboration among law enforcement, government agencies, community coalitions, 

and faith-based groups. The Summit’s goals continue to be to re-define stakeholder 

relationships and channel focused “grass-roots” energy and capital into visible results.

The Summit approach continued to evolve as it was gradually implemented in more than 

25 states over the course of a decade. The following description of the Summit process 

recounts an ideal: each Summit incorporates lessons learned from each of the previous 

Summits. Naturally, future Summits should continue to build on previous lessons learned, 

but should not be limited by this approach. Ongoing innovations and creative responses 

to the spectrum of problems posed by methamphetamine are the core of the Summit 

approach and should continue to play a key role. Likewise, best practices and evidencebased strategies are essential components in the response to any epidemic and should 

continue as a primary area of focus during each Summit. 

History

The Meth Summit approach began as a small but coordinated response to a rapidly 

growing methamphetamine problem. The first Meth Summit was held in Sacramento 

County in 2000. This initial Summit was organized by NCPC with support and funding 

from DEA and the COPS Office. Individual state level Summits began to proliferate in 2002 

and 2003 after a successful statewide Summit in Washington State. At about the same time, 

the Copples opened their consulting group, Strategic Applications International (SAI), 

and continued to grow the Summit Approach. Growth was not limited, however, to the 

number of states. The Summit approach also grew in scope. Additional partners, such as 

the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), provided 

funding and technical assistance. To ensure success of the approach, SAI strengthened the 

support it provided to states by including additional reconnaissance, technical assistance, 

and monitoring for up to six months before and 18 months after each Summit. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 13 —

The overall approach was cumulative in impact and the process continued to evolve. 

Individual Summits had a positive impact on the Summits that followed as well as on an 

overall “Summit process” that was emerging. As more states participated, more synergy was 

produced to form increasingly stronger and more effective partnerships and responses. 

The “Timeline of Meth Summit and Policy Achievements” in Appendix A highlights the 

rapid growth of the Summit approach as a response to methamphetamine trafficking and use 

as well as showcasing several key policy milestones that were supported by the Summits.

The Methamphetamine Summit Approach

The Summit Approach is not a “one off” event to solve a community, county, or state’s 

methamphetamine problem. It is a five step process that leads a community to developing 

their own, unique, action plan that has commitment for implementation. As the description 

below reveals, these steps are not necessarily linear.

The first step is a community assessment. SAI uses an ethnographic approach,12 which 

places staff on the ground to understand the social, economic, and political impact of 

methamphetamine use in the state and in local communities. Once staff have developed a 

solid understanding of community dynamics, they are better able to provide more relevant 

technical assistance. This assessment also ensures that the Summit process acts as a catalyst for 

changing how organizations at the federal, state, and community level work together. Summit 

participants are given milestones both before and after the Summit to hold stakeholders 

accountable. Additionally, the ongoing involvement of the Summit support staff drives 

change by keeping the process visible and focused.

In step two, and with the assistance of the SAI team, communities identify diverse 

stakeholders. These potential partners should represent the various public and private 

groups and organizations needed to comprehensively address meth labs, trafficking, and 

use. The makeup of stakeholders will vary based on the community, but generally includes 

agencies and organizations representing environment protection, public health, child 

protection services, criminal courts, and law enforcement at the local, state, national, and 

international (cross-border) levels.

12 The ethnographic approach is participant observation as a part of field research. The ethnographer becomes immersed in 

the culture as an active participant and records extensive field notes. It is an iterative process. There is no preset limiting of 

what will be observed and no real ending point in an ethnographic study.
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 14 —

A truly coordinated and synergistic response to methamphetamine requires stakeholders to 

work together and solve problems across traditional geographic or organizational silos. Once 

stakeholders are identified, the third step is holding the two-day Meth Summit. Each Summit is 

an interactive event designed to link policy and program with action. On day one, stakeholders 

are asked to form groups based on topic areas—for example treatment, prevention, 

enforcement, environmental strategies, and children. On day two, participants are grouped 

geographically: by county or community. This forces stakeholders to first create linkages that 

leverage common ground and then to create larger and more expanded partnerships. The SAI 

team guides groups through identifying key problems, barriers to solving these problems, and 

simple and innovative solutions to remove these barriers. The initial list of potential solutions 

are then grouped and prioritized. Leaving the Summit, each community group of stakeholders, 

or site team, has an outline of an action plan that they will then refine.

The process used during the Summit is based on the Social Reconnaissance model, a 

community assessment approach designed to create participant ownership of the change 

process. Each component of the assessment creates greater grassroots involvement in the 

coalition through information sharing, collaborative planning, outreach, and feedback to the 

community. With increased community ownership and expansion of the coalition, the process 

yields significant concrete results: an action plan that is not only feasible, but includes a 

commitment to implement.13

As a follow up to the Summit, SAI disseminates the list of recommendations and asks 

participants to rank them in terms of feasibility and importance. The recommendations include 

both topic areas as well as cross-cutting issues. Solutions ranked high in both importance and 

feasibility should be included in action plans. Conversely, those with a low importance and low 

feasibility should not. Although this data is shared back with the sites, it should only reinforce 

what was already revealed through discussion and action planning during the Summit. 

The fourth step for the sites is to refine the action plan. SAI staff provides feedback and 

guidance, resulting in a plan that is specific to the community’s priorities, relevant to the 

community concerns and assets, and actionable. The final product is a strategic document 

that has the all the components necessary to be implemented. 

13 National Crime Prevention Council website. 2002. www.ncpc.org/; and From the Ground Up, A Workbook on Coalition 

Building and Community Development, Chapter 8, Second Edition, 1997, AHEC/Community Partners, 

www.tomwolff.com/healthy-communities-tools-and-resources.html
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 15 —

The fifth step is implementation. Communities often state lack of resources as a barrier 

to implementing their plans. However, if the plan has been developed in concert with 

stakeholders such that they have ownership of the plan, the implementation phase is fairly 

smooth. This step becomes increasingly difficult as external actors, or individual agencies 

write the plan for the community without true engagement. In addition, the planning 

phase must focus on solutions within the purview of the community. SAI staff reminds 

participants throughout the process that they cannot address the underlying causes of drug 

use—i.e., poverty and racism. Keeping focused on what is feasible during planning will 

help ensure success in implementation.

For SAI, the steps above address the first two of the four components of a comprehensive 

plan. These components include that the plan must be: (1) strategic; (2) implemented; 

(3) monitored and evaluated; and (4) communicated. Consequently, SAI does not end their 

technical assistance at implementation. Sites are encouraged to monitor their progress and 

communicate their results to other partners, to the community through the media, and 

nationally to federal government offices.

The Eight State Meth Initiative

SAI, with support from the COPS Office, DEA, and SAMHSA, launched the Eight State 

Meth Initiative (ESMI) to target states where the Governor’s Office was committed to 

lead a statewide planning and implementation process to combat methamphetamine. The 

participating states in the ESMI were Arizona, Indiana, Minnesota, Kentucky, Utah, Hawaii, 

Idaho, and Florida.

The ESMI leveraged the approach of earlier Summits but had two important innovations. 

First, participation in the ESMI required firm commitments from the Governor’s Office 

to drive change as part of a comprehensive statewide planning effort. Second, each 

participating state received technical assistance from expert consultants who had years of 

experience with systems change related to responding to the methamphetamine epidemic. 

These two innovations lead to a more influential and efficient approach to planning and 

coordination. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 16 —

Outcomes of the Meth Summits

Perhaps the greatest policy achievement that was born out of the Meth Summit process was 

the precursor chemical laws that were first proposed and discussed as part of the Oklahoma 

City Meth Summit. Monitoring and controlling access to these chemicals was an innovative 

solution to the growing problem of methamphetamine production. The laws had a positive 

cascading effect in communities as production of methamphetamine slowed. For example, 

the agricultural industry benefitted from them because they limited access to precursor 

chemicals, which in turn reduced the theft of Anhydrous Ammonia, a fertilizer often stolen 

for methamphetamine production. 

For many participating states, the most significant outcome of the Summit process was 

the creation of methamphetamine specific task forces. Governors appointed statewide 

task forces to drive the development of state policy and harness resources for the 

implementation of comprehensive plans. Further, the statewide task forces facilitated the 

creation or enhancement of community coalitions to respond to methamphetamine in their 

state and communities. 

State coalition efforts created a venue for collaboration between law enforcement and the 

various sectors engaged in methamphetamine prevention and lab suppression. These 

coalitions improved communication, modified local precursor chemical access, and launched 

communication and media campaigns that enhanced awareness and empowered local 

agencies and citizens to respond to the methamphetamine threat. For the first time, local 

communities began looking at their capacity to provide treatment, involve parents and 

employers in prevention and intervention activities, and work with local law enforcement 

on treatment alternatives to incarceration. 

Other states used Meth Summits to develop innovative responses for the criminal justice 

system. Indiana added methamphetamine treatment programs in prisons to significantly 

reduce recidivism and slow the spread of methamphetamine production knowledge. 

Similarly, Georgia and South Dakota implemented early intervention programs to 

deal with the increased costs associated with providing medical and dental services to 

methamphetamine addicted inmates. Another example was the development and use 

of Meth Courts, which are based on the traditional drug court model with an important 

variation—a carrot-and-stick approach. The carrot: methamphetamine addicts were given 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 17 —

the option to go to treatment rather than jail, and the addicts’ record could be expunged if 

they stayed in treatment. The stick: the constant threat of jail if the addict did not complete 

treatment. For the addict, graduation from Meth court became an important rite of passage: 

they had both the potential for a Meth free future and were released from the threat of 

incarceration.

Indiana’s Advanced Criminal Enforcement (ACE) program utilized their fusion center 

to coordinate multiple levels of law enforcement across the state. Additionally, the ACE 

program trained and involved local law enforcement and prosecutors with highway 

interdiction efforts. The Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership is another example of the 

effectiveness of engaging stakeholders at multiple levels. Since 2007, the Arizona Substance 

Abuse Partnership has institutionalized the Summit process by holding regular meetings 

with stakeholders from all levels of government as well as community-based organizations. 

The policy and systems coordination of Arizona’s ongoing approach has allowed that state 

to make measurable impacts on methamphetamine and other drugs without turf wars or 

bureaucratic delays. It has also established baseline data, methodologies for continued 

collection and analysis, and foundational implementation models for policymakers to rely 

on for additional corrective activities.

Another notable outcome of the Meth Summit process and the Eight State Meth Initiative 

is the development of protocols and procedures for law enforcement partnerships with 

both environmental and child welfare organizations. The environmental services response 

to methamphetamine was new territory for law enforcement, but the lessons learned 

and communicated at the Meth Summits led to the development of many protocols and 

procedures, with agencies and contractors working together in environmental clean-up. 

These protocols and procedures ensured the safety of law enforcement, first responders, 

the environmental services organizations themselves, and the larger community. They also 

allowed for a strategic response to clandestine lab clean-up that reduced cost and minimized 

the environmental and public health impact of the labs. Similarly, the development of 

protocols and procedures for working with child welfare organizations improved efficiency 

and lessened the impact of methamphetamine operations on children. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 18 —

Not to go unnoticed, however, was support from the federal government. At the state 

level, and in partnership with the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws, the 

COPS Office supported the development of state laws that limited access to precursor 

chemicals and protected drug endangered children. At the national level, the COPS Office 

provided two significant outcomes. First, they effectively advocated for and provided 

support to the establishment of Drug Endangered Children Statutes. Second, they assisted 

with the development of drug laws that combated both production of and consequences 

from methamphetamine use at the state and national level. Specifically, the COPS Office 

supported the creation of the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, to provide 

a national effort to limit methamphetamine production. 

A key component of community policing in urban and rural areas is community involvement 

and engagement. The methamphetamine crisis that has captured national attention over 

the past ten years has given communities an opportunity to implement the lessons they’ve 

learned from community policing. The result has been better coordination, treatment instead 

of incarceration, reduction in recidivism, and realization that methamphetamine production 

and use does not have to cripple communities. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 19 —

III. Lessons Learned from the Methamphetamine 

Summit Process

Throughout the fight against methamphetamine, successful strategies emerged as 

communities across the country responded to the epidemic. Every community responds 

to methamphetamine differently, but the similarities between successful responses are 

clear. The most successful outcomes have been in communities that (1) intervened before 

methamphetamine had reached a critical tipping point of use and production within 

the community, (2) maintained constant vigilance after the intervention, (3) mapped the 

intervention model against other community threats, and (4) kept their community coalitions 

engaged by refining their methodology for effective action. Layered within these keys to 

success are 12 lessons learned that emerged as a product of the Meth Summit process:

1. Pay attention to early warning signs and gather data quickly

2. Develop and institutionalize partnerships

3. Multiple approaches are more effective

4. Secure commitment from senior policymakers early

5. Geography is a misleading boundary

6. Understand the rural–urban dichotomy

7. Ensure cultural competence 

8. Innovate

9. Leverage community concern to address broader issues

10. Identify the key issue for the community

11. Recognize international influences on local production and distribution

12. Facilitate the sharing of knowledge through a web-based resource

The descriptions that follow highlight the significant impacts that each of these lessons 

learned had on the methamphetamine epidemic.
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 20 —

Pay Attention to Early Warning Signs and Gather Data Quickly

Early warning signs are an essential tool in a rapid response to methamphetamine and 

other drugs. There are barriers to acting on early warning signs. Paralysis and/or denial 

are often the first response of policymakers and community leaders when they hear that 

methamphetamine is present in their communities. Traditional markers of drug use such 

as national survey results or uniform crime reporting data may not provide warning signs 

in time to respond before the threat reaches epidemic levels. For example, during the late 

1980s crack cocaine epidemic, rates of use and other markers of addiction had already begun 

to decline by the time that policymakers in most communities had data from traditional 

sources. Treatment providers and community-based prevention organizations are better 

situated to collect local, timely, specific, and relevant data for law enforcement. For example, 

arrest data and emergency room data are useful tools. The ability of a community to respond 

with prevention and early intervention, rather than more costly law enforcement and 

treatment focused approaches is largely dependent upon looking for and paying attention to 

early warning signs.

Develop and Institutionalize Partnerships

Law enforcement is at the center of any drug epidemic and methamphetamine is no 

exception. Law enforcement organizations bring unique and invaluable skills to a 

comprehensive response, but law enforcement alone cannot address the multiple impact 

points of methamphetamine. For this reason, law enforcement must move outside of its 

organizational silo to work with environmental agencies, child protective services, schools, 

and other organizations within the community. The Meth Summit provided the space for 

partnerships to begin, and provided a framework for the partnerships to move to action.

The Meth Summits brought together non-traditional partners to work collaboratively 

to address the significant environmental and public health impacts caused by 

methamphetamine production and use. Agri-business and the pharmaceutical industry 

became partners with law enforcement and prevention specialists to control access to 

precursor chemicals required to manufacture meth. Similarly, law enforcement’s willingness 

to work with child protective services and other child advocacy organizations led to the 

passage of laws focused on children endangered by drug activity, as well as the creation of 

the National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 21 —

Collaboration is not limited to the governmental and private sectors. Non-governmental 

organizations reinforce law enforcement and public health efforts. Additionally, community 

organizations and coalitions are a vital source of information about the evolving impacts of a 

drug epidemic. Leveraging these organizations to both inform stakeholders and implement 

the overall strategy is essential. When coalitions of community members, organizations, and 

agencies develop the strategies together, there is a greater likelihood of success. 

Engaging multiple partners has an added benefit of increasing resources. Since there is 

no single agency or organization capable of addressing complex epidemics on their own, 

multiple resources must be leveraged. At the state level, Indiana engaged multiple law 

enforcement agencies to develop its Advanced Criminal Enforcement (ACE) program. As 

SAMHSA joined the Meth Summit process, the work that was spearheaded and started 

by the DEA and the COPS Office grew both in scope and effectiveness. Engaging multiple 

resources provided a comprehensive, and therefore more effective, response to the 

methamphetamine epidemic. 

Multiple Approaches are more Effective

Just as no single organization or agency is able to fully address the impact of drug trafficking 

and use, a single strategy is not likely to have the comprehensive impact, and associated 

positive benefits, that multiple coordinated strategies can have. Just as cancer is often 

treated with a combination of radiation, chemotherapy, and lifestyle changes, the scourge of 

methamphetamine and other drugs must be attacked with multiple strategies. Through the 

Meth Summit process, Washington State quickly realized that there was no single strategy 

that could accomplish their ambitious goals. Instead, they developed a three-legged-stool 

approach that included prevention, treatment, and law enforcement that has had lasting 

impacts on methamphetamine production, use, and recovery. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 22 —

Secure Commitment from Senior Policymakers Early

Political support is necessary for change to gain traction and be sustained. Real change 

at the community level requires coordination with all levels of government in order to 

provide the desired impacts. Local level efforts can be delayed by senior policymakers 

from other levels of government. Often, these delays are a byproduct of poor planning, 

slow decision making, and bureaucratic silos. In this case, the methamphetamine 

epidemic illuminates the need for swift responses and the dangers of delays and inaction. 

In order to mitigate delays, senior officials must be engaged early to ensure their 

commitment and, ultimately, their support in moving the efforts forward.

Geography is a Misleading Boundary

The rapid growth of methamphetamine use and production proved that a drug epidemic 

can spread like a virus across a state and beyond. Unfortunately, the initial response to 

methamphetamine in many communities was hindered by a county or state level geographic 

bias. State and community level leaders are easily influenced by geographic stereotypes of 

drug use and are quick to claim that certain drugs are another state or region’s problem. 

Methamphetamine distribution and production, like many drugs, is highly correlated with 

gang and other organized criminal activity. As methamphetamine has proved, criminal 

enterprises have little regard for geographic boundaries or traditional geographic patterns of 

drug use. Their goal is simple—to make money. To effectively respond to future epidemics, 

stakeholders must ignore geographic stereotypes the same way that criminal enterprises do. 

The Meth Summit process was instrumental in breaking geographically biased thinking by 

getting officials at all levels of government together to craft a response.
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 23 —

Understand the Rural–Urban Dichotomy

Just as local methamphetamine production and trafficking may be impacted by production 

thousands of miles away, there are rural–urban connections that impact methamphetamine 

production as well. When methamphetamine demand increases in the urban centers, it 

results in production increases in rural areas. Rural producers are enticed by lucrative urban 

drug markets, which can lead to a large number of clandestine labs in areas that have a 

relatively small amount of methamphetamine users. This asymmetrical relationship can 

put strains on the limited resources at the disposal of rural law enforcement. Where urban 

agencies have units that specialize in community policing, rural agencies are limited in the 

numbers of officers/deputies available to the community. Often, collaborative approaches 

at a regional scale are necessary to solve the root issues of a rural–urban trafficking and 

production network. Through the Meth Summits, participants recognize those barriers and 

allow adjoining agencies to partner across jurisdictional lines to solve common problems.

Additionally, rural producers often obtain needed ingredients from urban centers, but 

can go unnoticed due to the volume of drug activity within urban environments. An 

example of this comes from the Arizona Substance Abuse Partnership and its meth task 

force. Law enforcement officers in Arizona realized that the rural counties of Arizona 

were disproportionately impacted by one or more major distributors. For rural areas, 

these traffickers were priority targets. Nevertheless, as compared to wholesale traffickers 

in urban areas who routinely purchase multiple pounds of drugs, rural methamphetamine 

traffickers traveling to large urban areas to re-supply seem insignificant—acquiring only 

small amounts (ounces) of drugs. Consequently, urban law enforcement did not consider 

the methamphetamine traffickers as high priority targets, which undermined rural efforts 

to curb their methamphetamine crisis. Then a Law Enforcement Summit brought rural 

and urban officers together. Based on the extent of the impact to the community, the 

urban law enforcement agencies began to see the disproportionately large impact these 

smaller traffickers had on rural communities. As a result, urban law enforcement agencies 

began prioritizing the rural counties’ significant traffickers, which led to improved 

communication and coordination between rural and urban areas, and tracking efforts 

within rural areas. Targeted joint federal, state, municipal, county, and tribal enforcement 

operations began to arrest these rural county targets, dismantling the flow into the 

counties, and eliminating methamphetamine availability.
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 24 —

Ensure Cultural Competence 

Ensuring cultural competence is the process of developing interventions that effectively attack 

the root of an epidemic. Strategies and interventions that ignore the role of cultural influences 

in drug abuse are doomed to fail. Effective cultural competence goes beyond basic language 

or simple demographic considerations and addresses the psychographic roots of a drug 

epidemic. Cultural competence was central in addressing methamphetamine use within the 

LGBT community. Equally significant, and perhaps most noteworthy, is methamphetamine 

use in the Native American community. On many large reservations in Montana, Arizona, 

New Mexico, and Utah, methamphetamine is devastating tribal communities. Understanding 

the historical context and the psychological and cultural influences that fueled the explosion 

of methamphetamine use is essential to crafting effective interventions and programs.

Innovate

If existing solutions were working, there would not be a methamphetamine crisis. Continuing 

to apply the existing strategies that are not having an impact is a waste of time and resources. 

Focusing on the real nature of the challenge in the community and the barriers the community 

has to overcome to address the challenge in order to find an appropriate solution, often led to 

innovative strategies. The precursor drug laws, Meth Courts, and new policy and procedures 

for site remediation and child services introduced above are examples of innovative solutions 

that have had profound impact. Encouraging participants to think in new directions, and focus 

on what is within their capacity to address, will lead to new and more effective strategies.

Leverage Community Concern to Address Broader Issues

Some have criticized the attention that methamphetamine has received, citing statistics 

that methamphetamine usage is lower than other drugs. Using the media attention that 

surrounded methamphetamine, however, has provided law enforcement with a test case 

that could be used to drive innovation and leverage resources for drug and alcohol issues 

on a more general scale. The methamphetamine scare provided the impetus to train judges 

to take a more specific and focused approach on methamphetamine. Once new approaches 

are learned, however, the application could, and should, be broadened. Courts are using the 

methamphetamine stick-and-carrot approach for other drugs and alcohol as well. Resources 

should also have a broader impact. For example, the impetus for adding treatment beds in 

treatment centers might have been to address methamphetamine addiction, but once there, 

the beds increased the centers’ capacity to treat all addicts regardless of their drug of choice.
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 25 —

Identify the Key Issue for the Community

Every community has different priorities and tipping points in response to epidemics. 

Some communities are focused on essential services, while others are focused on 

ensuring public safety or protecting natural resources. Regardless of the community, 

identifying the key issues that will motivate the community to take action is essential. 

Washington State did not receive a critical mass of support and resources for addressing 

their methamphetamine challenges until the impact on the environment was effectively 

communicated to stakeholders and the public. Washington State was forced to close 

two state parks as a result of contamination from methamphetamine production, which 

became an effective motivation point for the entire state. Motivation does not have to be 

geographic. For example, concerns over the rise in sexually transmitted disease and dental 

side-effects engaged the gay male community regardless of location. 

Recognize International Influences on Local Production and 

Distribution

As in all drug issues, international activity influences both production and distribution 

patterns of methamphetamine at the local level. The local impact of methamphetamine 

trafficking and production can have its roots halfway across the world. NDIC data suggests 

that methamphetamine production in the United States is highly correlated with production 

of methamphetamine in Mexico. Drug trafficking organizations form an interconnected 

web of methamphetamine suppliers that are determined to increase the availability of meth. 

When these organizations are disrupted by local, national, or international efforts, such 

as increased border security, domestic production generally increases to meet demand. 

Paying attention to the international context of methamphetamine helps communities 

and law enforcement organizations better plan for and respond to ongoing shifts in 

methamphetamine production. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 26 —

Facilitate the Sharing of Knowledge through a Web-Based 

Resource

Recommendations from the Summit process pointed to the need to develop a website 

that could serve as a centralized keeper of information on all things methamphetamine. 

Based on these recommendations, SAI moved to develop methpedia.org as a site that 

would have Wikipedia functions but would also have evidence-based and research-based 

information to guide states and communities in the development of comprehensive 

strategies to address methamphetamine. Methpedia.org seeks to be encyclopedic for all 

audiences interested in methamphetamine. It invites parents, policymakers, and law 

enforcement to post information and to use the site as a resource for presentations and 

policy development. Methpedia.org has a search function that makes it easy for the user 

to find and sort through the volumes of information that are currently being circulated on 

other websites and in publications. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 27 —

IV. Looking Forward

The Future of the Methamphetamine Epidemic

An effective response to methamphetamine requires that communities leverage lessons 

learned from nearly three decades of federal, state, and local responses. The application of 

approaches described in this document will ensure that future responses to methamphetamine 

are swift and effective. Community coalitions, members of Congress, state policymakers, and 

other stakeholders should freely draw from the lessons and approaches outlined above as 

they craft individual strategies and approaches. 

Evolving production methods, an increase in Mexican methamphetamine production, and a 

new generation of users in 2010 portends an ongoing methamphetamine crisis, particularly 

where it has re-infiltrated rural communities. In 2010, SAI, with funding from the Bureau 

of Justice Assistance and working in collaboration with the COPS Office and SAMHSA, 

launched the Rural Law Enforcement Methamphetamine Initiative to bolster local law 

enforcement efforts. Also in 2010, SAI received funding from the COPS Office to support the 

Tribal Meth Initiative Training and Technical Assistance Project to address methamphetamine 

challenges in Native American communities. Both of these initiatives will build upon 

the success and lessons learned from previous Summits and will continue the work and 

leadership of the Eight State Meth Initiative funded by the COPS Office, and the Meth 

National Summit on Critical Populations funded by SAMHSA. 

Using Meth Strategies to Address Other Drug and Public 

Health Issues

The Meth Summit approach is a framework for bringing a broad, strategic coalition together 

for comprehensive planning, and then moving from planning to action to outcomes. The 

methamphetamine epidemic proved that comprehensive partnerships at the community, 

state, and federal level can produce measureable results. But the application does not end 

with meth. The lessons learned here can, and should, be applied to other drug epidemics 

and social issues, including and not limited to: gun violence, human trafficking, dropout 

prevention, prescription drug abuse, and homeland security. The message is that the 

implementations of effective solutions to community problems are best developed in 

collaboration and through open dialogue with multiple stakeholders.
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 28 —

Jim and Colleen Copple, through their company SAI, have successfully assisted communities 

in designing action plans that have resulted in tangible outcomes through the Meth Summit 

approach. Communities struggling to address drugs and other complex social challenges, 

who are also interested in a comprehensive approach, should consider conducting their own 

summit. For more information on the SAI approach and how Jim and Colleen Copple can 

provide technical assistance, visit http://sai-dc.com. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 29 —

Appendix A: Timeline of Meth Summit and Policy Achievements 

2000 Sacramento County Meth Summit

2001 Washington State Meth Summit I

2002 Midwestern Governors’ Conference Summit on Methamphetamine 

(13 States)

Hawaii Meth/Ice Summit

Washington State Meth Summit II

Oklahoma City Meth Summit

Kentucky Meth/Oxy-Contin Summit

Arkansas Meth Summit

2003 Oregon Methamphetamine Summit

South Dakota Governor’s Summit on Methamphetamine

Ohio Methamphetamine Summit 

Washington State Meth Summit III

North Carolina Meth Summit

National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children established with funding from 

the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Office for Victims of Crime.

2004 Nebraska State Meth Summit

Georgia State Meth Summit 

Montana State Meth Summit

Strategic Applications International, LLC assumes responsibility for all Summit 

design and implementation and begins work with DEA, the COPS Office, and 

SAMHSA. 
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 30 —

2005 South Carolina Community Methamphetamine Summit

North Dakota Meth Summit

Alabama Meth Summit

West Virginia Meth Summit

New Mexico Meth Summit

Wisconsin State Meth Summit

2006 The Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 was signed into law to 

regulate retail over-the-counter sales of Meth precursor products, including daily 

sales limits and 30-day purchase limits, as well as product access requirements, 

employee training, and ID verification measures. 

2007 The COPS Office launches Eight State Meth Initiative with a Grant to Strategic 

Applications International

Arizona Meth Summit

President Bush signs into law the Methamphetamine Remediation Research Act 

of 2007. The law requires the EPA to develop voluntary health-based clean-up 

guidelines to ensure former Meth lab sites are safe and free from contamination. 

2008 National Methamphetamine Training & Technical Assistance Center established 

through a COPS Office grant.

Drug Endangered Children Act of 2007 signed into law.

The National Methamphetamine Summit to Promote Public Health, 

Partnerships, and Safety for Critically Affected Populations. The National 

Summit utilized a facilitated action-planning process for participating states 

and communities to develop action plans incorporating evidence-based and 

culturally appropriate practices and policies to respond to Methamphetamine 

use among justice-involved individuals, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender 

(LGBT) individuals, and women. SAMHSA’s Federal partners for this event 

included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Health 

Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the HHS Office of Minority 

Health (HHS/OMH), the HHS Office on Women’s Health (HHS/OWH), the 

Indian Health Service (IHS), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), as 

well as several organizations within the Department of Justice (DOJ).
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 31 —

2009 New England Meth Summit

2010 New Rural Law Enforcement Methamphetamine Initiative funded by the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance awarded to SAI.

SAI receives funding for the Tribal Meth Initiative Training and Technical 

Assistance Project from the COPS Office.
THE METAMPHETAMINE SUMMIT: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

— 32 —

Appendix B: Meth Resources

Organization Website

U.S. DOJ Office of Community Oriented Policing 

(the COPS Office)

www.cops.usdoj.gov

Strategic Applications International www.sai-dc.com

National Methamphetamine Training & Technical 

Assistance Center 

www.nationalmethcenter.org

The Drug Endangered Child Training Network www.drugendangeredchild.org

National Alliance for Drug Endangered Children www.nationaldec.org

Methpedia www.methpedia.org

Drug Enforcement Administration – Meth Information www.justice.gov/dea/concern/meth.html 

MethResources.gov www.methresources.com/Index.html 

National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws www.namsdl.org 

Office of National Drug Control Policy – Meth Information www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/DrugFact/

methamphetamine/index.html 

National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) www.justice.gov/ndic/ 

DEA El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) www.justice.gov/dea/programs/epic.htm

Publication Web Link (for Download or Ordering)

Proceedings of the New England Methamphetamine 

Summit and Listening Post

www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/

e0110211252_NE-Meth.pdf

2008 National Chemical Control Symposium: A Focus on 

Tracking Precursor Chemicals (DVD)

www.cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/ResourceDetail.

aspx?RID=540

Methamphetamine Initiative Grant Owner’s Manual 

(2008)

www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/

e070810152MethGOM.pdf

COPS Methamphetamine Initiative Fact Sheet www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/

e1006527-meth08.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

145 N Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20530

To obtain details about COPS Office programs, call the

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770.

Visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov

ISBN: 978-1-935676-30-0

e041119351

May 2011

The Methamphetamine Summit: A Process in Collaboration and Decision Making

brings together the history of an innovative process and an overview of the lessons learned 

by Jim and Colleen Copple over a decade of work building state and local collaborations 

to address the problems of meth. With an emphasis on cross-disciplinary collaboration 

and participatory research, the Summit Approach is a case study for improved solutions 

to complex drug problems and holds promise for addressing a wider range of drugs in 

communities across the country.