Office of National Drug Control Policy: Lack of Progress on Achieving National Strategy Goals
Published: 2015-12-02T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: ONDCP is responsible for coordinating the implementation of drug control policy across the federal government and funds HIDTAs that aim to support the disruption and dismantlement of drug-trafficking and money-laundering organizations.
This statement addresses the extent to which ONDCP (1) has achieved Strategy goals and has mechanisms to monitor progress, (2) has assessed overlap and potential duplication across federal drug abuse prevention and treatment programs and identified coordination opportunities, (3) holds HIDTAs accountable for coordination with other field-based information sharing entities and has assessed opportunities for coordination, and (4) has connected existing systems to coordinate law enforcement activities.
This statement is based on a March 2013 report ( GAO-13-333 ), an April 2013 report ( GAO-13-471 ), and selected updates as of November 2015. For the updates, GAO analyzed ONDCP documents on progress toward Strategy goals and drug abuse prevention and treatment programs and contacted ONDCP and HIDTA officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO reported in March 2013 that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and other agencies had not made progress toward achieving most of the goals in the 2010 National Drug Control Strategy (the Strategy) and ONDCP had established a new mechanism to monitor and assess progress. In the Strategy, ONDCP established seven goals related to reducing illicit drug use and its consequences to be achieved by 2015. As of March 2013, GAO's analysis showed that of the five goals for which primary data on results were available, one showed progress and four showed no progress. GAO also reported that ONDCP established a new monitoring system intended to provide information on progress toward Strategy goals and help identify performance gaps and options for improvement. At that time, the system was still in its early stages, and GAO reported that it could help increase accountability for improving progress. In November 2015, ONDCP issued its annual Strategy and performance report, which assess progress toward all seven goals. The Strategy shows progress in achieving one goal, no progress on three goals, and mixed progress on the other three goals. Overall, none of the goals in the Strategy have been fully achieved.
ONDCP has assessed the extent of overlap and potential for duplication across federal drug abuse prevention and treatment programs and identified opportunities for increased coordination, as GAO recommended in March 2013. According to ONDCP's July 2014 assessment, these programs generally serve distinct beneficiaries in distinct settings, which helps prevent overlap and duplication. However, ONDCP found that programs that provide drug abuse prevention and treatment services to address homelessness would benefit from greater coordination. ONDCP noted that it was taking steps to address this issue.
GAO reported in April 2013 that ONDCP-funded High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Investigative Support Centers and four other types of field-based information sharing entities had overlapping analytical and investigative support activities. However, ONDCP and the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice (DOJ)—the federal agencies that oversee or provide support to the five types of field-based entities—were not holding entities accountable for coordination or assessing opportunities to implement practices that could enhance coordination, reduce unnecessary overlap, and leverage resources. ONDCP agreed with GAO's recommendations to work with DHS and DOJ to develop measures and assess opportunities to enhance coordination of field-based entities. Since July 2015, the agencies have worked through an interagency committee to make plans for collecting data on field-based collaboration, but have not yet fully addressed GAO's recommendations.
ONDCP has connected each of the systems that HIDTAs use to coordinate law enforcement activities, as GAO recommended in April 2013. Specifically, GAO reported in 2013 that HIDTAs and Regional Information Sharing System centers operated three systems that duplicate the same function—identifying when different law enforcement entities may be conducting a similar enforcement action, such as a raid at the same location—resulting in some inefficiencies. In May 2015, ONDCP completed connecting all three systems, which helps reduce risks to officer safety and potentially lessens the burden on law enforcement agencies that were using multiple systems.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO has made prior recommendations to ONDCP to assess overlap in drug prevention and treatment programs; develop measures and assess opportunities to enhance coordination of field-based entities; and connect existing coordination systems. ONDCP concurred and reported actions taken or underway to address them. GAO is not making new recommendations in this testimony.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Office of National Drug  Control Policy’s (ONDCP) strategic planning efforts related to drug control  and coordination of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA)  Investigative Support Centers with other field-based information sharing  entities. ONDCP is responsible for, among other things, overseeing and  coordinating implementation of national drug control policy across the  federal government to address illicit drug use. In this role, ONDCP is  required annually to develop a National Drug Control Strategy (the  Strategy), which is to set forth a comprehensive plan to reduce illicit drug  use through programs intended to prevent or treat drug use or reduce the  availability of illegal drugs, as well as to develop a National Drug Control  Program Budget proposal for implementing the Strategy. Additionally,  ONDCP administers grants to support HIDTAs, which aim to support the  disruption and dismantlement of drug-trafficking and money-laundering  organizations through the prevention or mitigation of associated criminal  activity. While HIDTAs have a distinct mission, the analytic and  investigative services they provide can overlap with those of other field- based information sharing entities operated or supported by the  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice  (DOJ), making coordination paramount in leveraging resources and  avoiding unnecessary duplication. HIDTAs also operate event  deconfliction systems that identify when different law enforcement entities  may be conducting similar enforcement actions, such as a raid at the  same location, to help ensure officer safety.
ONDCP reported that about $26.3 billion was provided for drug control  programs in fiscal year 2015, and coordination of these programs remains  an important step in insuring the effectiveness of these funds. Today, I  will discuss the extent to which (1) progress has been made toward  achieving National Drug Control Strategy goals and ONDCP has  mechanisms in place to monitor progress, (2) ONDCP has assessed the  extent of overlap and potential duplication across federal drug abuse  prevention and treatment programs and identified coordination  opportunities, (3) ONDCP holds HIDTAs accountable for coordination  with other field-based information sharing entities and has assessed  opportunities for coordination to reduce overlap and duplication, and (4)  ONDCP has achieved interoperability among existing deconfliction  systems. My remarks today are based on findings from our March 2013  report on ONDCP program coordination and our April 2013 report on  field-based information sharing, and the status of ONDCP efforts to  address related recommendations.
In performing the work for our March 2013 report, we analyzed the 2010  National Drug Control Strategy and its annual updates, available data on  progress toward achieving Strategy goals, and documents about  ONDCP’s monitoring mechanisms. We also analyzed data from  questionnaires that we sent to 15 of the 19 federal agencies that  administer drug abuse prevention and treatment programs. This survey  collected information on services provided and coordination efforts. In  addition, we interviewed officials from ONDCP and selected federal drug  control agencies. In performing the work for our April 2013 report, we  selected eight urban areas for review where one of each of five types of  field-based information sharing entities—HIDTA Investigative Support  Centers, Joint Terrorism Task Forces, Federal Bureau of Investigation  Field Intelligence Groups, Regional information Sharing System (RISS)  centers, and state and major urban area fusion centers—was either  physically located or had jurisdiction and collected information from the  entities in those areas on their analytic and investigative support  services. We compared the entities’ descriptions of their activities and  identified overlap among them. We also interviewed ONDCP officials to  discuss oversight of the HIDTAs and efforts to achieve interoperability of  deconfliction systems used to coordinate investigations. More detail on  our scope and methodologies can be found in our March 2013 and April  2013 reports. For updates to these reports, we reviewed ONDCP’s  summary of its assessment of drug abuse prevention and treatment  programs, analyzed ONDCP’s reported progress on Strategy goals in its  2015 Strategy and performance report, and contacted ONDCP and  HIDTA officials.
The work upon which this testimony is based was conducted in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: ONDCP and Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Programs
paragraphs: ONDCP was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 to, among  other things, enhance national drug control planning and coordination and  represent the drug policies of the executive branch before Congress. In  this role, the office is responsible for (1) developing a national drug  control policy, (2) developing and applying specific goals and  performance measurements to evaluate the effectiveness of national drug  control policy and National Drug Control Program agencies’ programs, (3)  overseeing and coordinating the implementation of the national drug  control policy, and (4) assessing and certifying the adequacy of the  budget for National Drug Control Programs.
The 2010 Strategy is the inaugural strategy guiding drug policy under  President Obama’s administration. For the 2010 Strategy, ONDCP  changed its approach from publishing a 1-year Strategy to publishing a 5- year Strategy, which ONDCP is to update annually. The annual updates  are to provide an implementation progress report as well as an  opportunity to make adjustments to reflect policy changes. ONDCP  established two overarching policy goals in the 2010 Strategy for (1)  curtailing illicit drug consumption and (2) improving public health by  reducing the consequences of drug abuse, and seven subgoals under  them that delineate specific quantitative outcomes to be achieved by  2015, such as reducing drug-induced deaths by 15 percent. To support  the achievement of these two policy goals and seven subgoals  (collectively referred to as goals), the Strategy and annual updates  include seven strategic objectives and multiple action items under each  objective, with lead and participating agencies designated for each action  item.
ONDCP reported that about $25.2 billion was provided for drug control  programs in fiscal year 2012. Of this, $10.1 billion, or 40 percent, was  allocated to drug abuse prevention and treatment programs. The 15  federal departments, agencies, and components (collectively referred to  as agencies) we selected for our review of drug abuse prevention and  treatment programs collectively allocated about $4.5 billion in fiscal year  2012 to such programs. These agencies included the Substance Abuse  and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Education,  Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Highway  Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Justice Programs, and Bureau of  Prisons, among others.
section_title: HIDTA Investigative Support Centers
paragraphs: The HIDTA program was established in 1988 and is a federally funded  program administered by ONDCP that brings together federal, state, and  local law enforcement agencies into task forces that conduct  investigations of drug-trafficking organizations in designated areas. The  HIDTA program is focused on counternarcotics. However, HIDTA  program resources may also be used for other purposes such as to assist  law enforcement agencies in investigations and activities related to  terrorism and the prevention of terrorism. There are 28 HIDTAs across  the United States, and each has an Investigative Support Center that  serves to support the HIDTA program by providing analytical case  support, promoting officer safety, preparing and issuing drug threat  assessments, and developing and disseminating intelligence products.
The HIDTA and RISS programs operate three separate systems that  have (1) event deconfliction functions to determine when multiple federal,  state, or local law enforcement agencies are conducting enforcement  actions—such as raids, undercover operations, or surveillances—in  proximity to one another during a specified time period, or (2) target  deconfliction functions, which determine if multiple law enforcement  agencies are investigating, for example, the same person, vehicle,  weapon, or business. Individual HIDTAs have used the Secure  Automated Fast Event Tracking Network (SAFETNet) system, which has  had event deconfliction functions, among other functions, since 2001 to  help ensure officer safety. In 2009, the HIDTA program introduced  deconfliction features into the Case Explorer system that differed from  SAFETNet by providing a free service that is tied to its performance  management process. In 2009, RISS developed RISSafe to provide event  deconfliction to its members and those not being served by another  system.
section_title: GAO Work on Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication
paragraphs: Pursuant to federal legislation enacted in 2010, we conduct routine  investigations to identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with  duplicative goals and activities within departments and government-wide  and report annually to Congress. In March 2011 and February 2012, we  issued our first two annual reports to Congress in response to this  requirement. On the basis of the framework established in these  reports, we used the following definitions for assessing drug abuse  prevention and treatment programs and field-based information sharing  entities:
Fragmentation occurs when more than one federal agency (or more  than one organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad  area of national interest.
Overlap occurs when fragmented agencies or programs have similar  goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or  target similar beneficiaries.
Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are  engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the  same beneficiaries.
section_title: ONDCP and Other Federal Agencies Have Not Achieved 2010 Strategy Goals; ONDCP Has Established a Mechanism to Monitor Progress
subsections: section_title: Our 2013 Analysis Found Lack of Progress toward Achieving National Strategy Goals; ONDCP’s 2015 National Strategy Shows Progress Still Needed
paragraphs: In our March 2013 report, we found that ONDCP and other federal  agencies had not made progress toward achieving most of the goals  articulated in the 2010 National Drug Control Strategy. In the Strategy,  ONDCP established seven goals related to reducing illicit drug use and its  consequences by 2015. As we reported in March 2013, our analysis  showed that of the five goals for which primary data on results were  available, one showed progress and four showed either no change or  movement away from the 2015 goals. For example, no progress had  been made on the goal to reduce drug use among 12- to 17-year-olds by  15 percent. According to the data source for this measure—the National  Survey on Drug Use and Health—this was primarily due to an increase in  the rate of reported marijuana use, offset by decreases in the rates of  reported use of other drugs. Table 1 shows 2010 Strategy goals and  progress toward meeting them, as of March 2013.
We reported in March 2013 that, according to ONDCP officials, a variety  of factors could affect achievement of these goals, such as worsening  economic conditions, changing demographics, or changing social or  political environments; the passage of state laws that decriminalize  marijuana use or allow its use for medical purposes; failure to obtain  sufficient resources to address drug control problems; insufficient  commitment from agency partners; and the need for new action items that  include initiatives or activities beyond those that are under way or  planned. We reported that ONDCP officials stated that the office’s new  Performance Reporting System (PRS) is to provide more specific  information about where the Strategy is on or off track and prompt  diagnostic reviews to identify causal factors contributing to any problems  identified, as discussed below.
ONDCP released the 2015 Strategy on November 17, 2015, and it is an  annual update to the 2010 Strategy. Since our March 2013 report,  ONDCP has begun reporting progress toward two goals where data were  not initially available. According to data available to date, the Strategy  shows progress toward achieving one goal, no progress on three goals,  and mixed progress on the remaining three goals. Overall, none of the  goals in the 2010 Strategy have been fully achieved. Table 2 shows the  2010 Strategy goals and ONDCP’s reported progress toward meeting  them.
section_title: ONDCP Established a System to Monitor Progress toward Goals
paragraphs: In March 2013, we reported that ONDCP established the PRS to monitor  and assess progress toward meeting Strategy goals and objectives and  issued a report (the PRS report) describing the system with the 2012  Strategy update. The PRS includes interagency performance measures  and targets under each Strategy objective. For example, 1 of the 6  performance measures under the objective to strengthen efforts to  prevent drug use in our communities is the average age of initiation for all  illicit drug use, which has a 2009 baseline of 17.6 years of age and a  2015 target of 19.5 years of age. According to the PRS report, system  information is to be used to inform budget formulation and resource  allocation, Strategy implementation, and policy making, among other  things.
As part of our review, we assessed PRS measures and found them to be  generally consistent with attributes of effective performance management  identified in our prior work as important for ensuring performance  measures demonstrate results and are useful for decision making. For  example, we found that the PRS measures are clearly stated, with  descriptions included in the 2012 PRS report, and all 26 of them have or  are to have measurable numerical targets. In addition, the measures were  developed with input from stakeholders through an interagency working  group process, which included participation by the Departments of  Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services, among others. The  groups assessed the validity of the measures and evaluated data  sources, among other things.
We reported in March 2013 that, according to ONDCP officials,  information collected through the PRS is to provide valuable insights to  help identify where the Strategy is on track and when further problem  solving and evaluation are needed. At that time, the system was still in its  early stages and ONDCP had not issued its first report on the results of  the system’s performance measures. Accordingly, operational information  was not available to evaluate the system’s results. ONDCP officials stated  that when results are determined to not be on track to meet 2015 targets,  the PRS is to serve as a trigger for an interagency review of potential  causes of performance gaps and options for improvement. We reported  that, according to these officials, ONDCP plans to assess the  effectiveness of the PRS more comprehensively to determine how well it  is working and whether any adjustments need to be made after the  system has been operational for a longer period of time. We also reported  that these plans should help increase accountability for improving results  and enhance the system’s effectiveness as a mechanism to monitor  progress toward Strategy goals and objectives and assess where further  action is needed to improve progress.
ONDCP released its annual PRS report on November 17, 2015. The  2015 report assesses progress on the Strategy’s goals, as well as  performance measures related to each of the Strategy’s objectives, and  discusses future actions required to achieve these goals and measures.
section_title: ONDCP Has Assessed the Extent of Overlap and Duplication across Federal Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Programs and Identified Opportunities for More Coordination
paragraphs: ONDCP has assessed the extent of overlap and potential for duplication  across federal drug abuse prevention and treatment programs and  identified opportunities for increased coordination, as we recommended in  March 2013. Specifically, we reported that drug abuse prevention and  treatment programs were fragmented across 15 federal agencies that  funded or administered 76 programs in fiscal year 2011, and identified  overlap in 59 of these programs because they can provide or fund at least  one drug abuse prevention or treatment service that at least 1 other  program can provide or fund, either to similar population groups or to  reach similar program goals. For example, 6 programs reported that they  can provide or fund drug abuse prevention services for students and  youth in order to support program goals of preventing drug use and abuse  among young people. All 6 of these programs also reported that they can  provide or fund services to conduct outreach and educate youth on drug  use.
As part of our review, we also conducted a more in-depth analysis in two  selected areas where we identified overlap—programs for youth and  programs for offenders. We reported that agency officials who administer  programs in these two areas took various efforts to coordinate  overlapping programs or services, which can serve to minimize the risk of  duplication. For example, using an interagency agreement, the  Department of Education jointly administers the Safe Schools/Healthy  Students program with the Departments of Justice and Health and  Human Services to provide complementary educational, mental health,  and law enforcement services to prevent youth violence and drug use.
We found in March 2013 that although the agencies’ coordination efforts  in these two areas were consistent with practices that we had previously  reported federal agencies use to implement collaborative efforts, not all of  the programs surveyed were involved in coordination efforts with other  federal agencies. Specifically, officials from 29 of the 76 (about 40  percent) programs surveyed reported no coordination with other federal  agencies on drug abuse prevention or treatment activities in the year prior  to our survey. Furthermore, we reported that although ONDCP  coordinates efforts to develop and implement the Strategy and National  Drug Control Program Budget, it had not systematically assessed drug  abuse prevention and treatment programs to examine the extent of  overlap and potential for duplication and identify opportunities for greater  coordination. As a result, we recommended that ONDCP conduct such an  assessment.
ONDCP concurred with our recommendation and has implemented it. In  July 2014, ONDCP published an assessment of drug abuse prevention  and treatment programs in its fiscal year 2015 Budget and Performance  Summary, which was released with the annual Strategy. ONDCP  reported that it conducted this assessment by (1) preparing an inventory  of federal agency drug abuse prevention and treatment program  activities, starting with those in our report; (2) mapping the beneficiaries  and services provided by each program activity to determine the extent of  overlap; and (3) reviewing overlapping programs to assess the level of  coordination activities, among other steps. The assessment found that  these programs generally serve distinct beneficiaries in distinct settings,  which helps prevent overlap and duplication. In the cases where overlap  could occur, ONDCP’s review of grant awards made under the programs  determined that duplication did not occur over a 3-year period ending in  2013. Further, according to the assessment, the agencies managing  overlapping programs have coordinated through interagency  collaboration, coordinated grant applications, and other activities.  However, ONDCP found that programs that provide drug abuse  prevention and treatment services to support efforts to address  homelessness would benefit from greater coordination. In August 2014,  ONDCP stated that it is working to ensure additional coordination in this  area by, for example, providing guidance to relevant agencies during the  office’s budget and oversight review process on improving coordination of  grant programs that offer similar treatment and recovery support services  to homeless clients.
ONDCP’s assessment states that the office will continue to monitor the  programs that overlap, as well as any new federal programs that are  added to prevent and treat substance use disorders. According to the  assessment, this monitoring is to include requiring regular reporting from  the agencies as a part of interagency drug abuse prevention and  treatment working group meetings and working with the agencies to  ensure greater coordination and opportunities to consolidate programs as  a part of the annual budget process. As a result of ONDCP’s actions in  response to our recommendation, the office will be better positioned to  help ensure that federal agencies undertaking similar drug abuse  prevention and treatment efforts better leverage and more efficiently use  limited resources.
section_title: ONDCP Does Not Hold HIDTAs Accountable for Coordination and Has Not Assessed Opportunities to Help Reduce Potential Overlap
paragraphs: Our April 2013 report found that ONDCP, DHS, and DOJ did not hold  HIDTAs or the four other types of field-based information sharing entities  we reviewed—Joint Terrorism Task Forces, Federal Bureau of  Investigation Field Intelligence Groups, RISS centers, and state and  major urban area fusion centers—accountable for coordinating with one  another or assessing opportunities for further enhancing coordination to  help reduce the potential for overlap and achieve efficiencies. Specifically,  we found that while the five types of field-based entities have distinct  missions, roles, and responsibilities, their activities can overlap. For  example, across the eight urban areas that we reviewed, we identified 91  instances of overlap in some analytical activities—such as producing  intelligence reports—and 32 instances of overlap in investigative support  activities, such as identifying links between criminal organizations. These  entities conducted similar activities within the same mission area, such as  counterterrorism, and for similar customers, such as federal or state  agencies. Across the eight urban areas, 34 of the 37 field-based entities  we reviewed conducted an analytical or investigative support activity that  overlapped with that of another entity. We reported that this can lead to  benefits, such as the corroboration of information, but may also burden  customers with redundant information.
In our April 2013 report, ONDCP, DHS, and DOJ officials acknowledged  that field-based entities working together and sharing information are  important, but they do not hold their entities accountable for such  coordination. For example, HIDTA Investigative Support Centers have a  performance measurement program that holds the centers accountable  for referring leads to other HIDTAs and other agencies, but the program  does not include measures about the HIDTA’s ability to coordinate with  other field-based entities. Further, ONDCP, DHS, and DOJ officials stated  that they ultimately rely on the leadership of their respective field-based  entities to ensure that successful coordination is occurring because the  leaders in these entities are most familiar with the other stakeholders and  issues in their areas, and are best suited to develop working relationships  with one another.
Officials at 22 of the 37 entities we reviewed agreed that successful  coordination depends most on personal relationships, but they noted that  coordination can be disrupted when new leadership takes over at an  entity. Officials at 20 of the 37 entities also stated that measuring and  monitoring coordination could alleviate the process of starting over when  new personnel take over at a partner entity and ensure that maintaining  coordinated efforts is a priority. We concluded that a mechanism—such  as performance metrics—that holds entities accountable for coordination  and enables agencies to monitor and evaluate the results of their efforts  could help provide the agencies with information on the effectiveness of  coordination among field-based entities and help reduce any unnecessary  overlap in entities’ efforts. We recommended that the agencies  collaborate to develop such a mechanism.
Similarly, our April 2013 report found that ONDCP, DHS, and DOJ had  not assessed opportunities to implement practices that were identified as  enhancing coordination. Officials at each of the 37 entities in the eight  urban areas we reviewed described how practices such as serving on  one another’s governance boards or, in some cases, colocating with other  entities allowed or could allow them to achieve certain benefits. These  include better understanding the missions and activities of the other  entities, coordinating the production of analytical products, and sharing  resources such as subject matter experts. In their view, this helped to  increase coordination, leverage resources, and avoid or reduce the  negative effects of unnecessary overlap and duplication in their analytical,  tactical, and dissemination activities. We recommended that the agencies  collaborate to perform a collective assessment of where these and other  practices that can enhance coordination could be implemented.
ONDCP and DHS concurred with both of our recommendations and DOJ  generally agreed with the intent of the recommendations. Since our April  2013 report, the agencies have taken steps to address them. Specifically,  ONDCP, DHS, and DOJ have existing forums they can use to work  together in developing metrics and conducting assessments to better  ensure coordination, and collectively monitor and evaluate results  achieved. These forums include, for example, the Fusion Center  Subcommittee of the Information Sharing and Access Interagency Policy  Committee. In July 2015, the subcommittee met and agreed to modify  its 2015 work plan to address the collection, analysis, and reporting of  data pertaining to field-based information sharing entities. According to  DHS officials, these data are to focus on field-based collaboration,  including governance, colocation, and other information sharing, analytic,  and conflict-avoidance topics. Since the July 2015 meeting, DHS has  assisted ONDCP and DOJ in developing an assessment template, based  on common data elements it collects in its annual assessment of state  and major urban area fusion centers.
Although ONDCP, DHS, and DOJ have taken actions to address our  recommendations, the agencies do not yet have a collective mechanism  that will hold field-based entities accountable for coordinating with one  another and allow the agencies to monitor progress and evaluate results  across entities. Such a mechanism could help entities maintain effective  relationships when new leadership is assigned and avoid unnecessary  overlap in activities, which can also help entities to leverage scarce  resources. Further, the agencies have not conducted a collaborative  assessment of where practices that enhance coordination can be applied  to reduce overlap, collaborate, and leverage resources for their respective  field-based information sharing entities. Such an assessment would allow  the agencies to provide recommendations or guidance to the entities on  implementing these practices.
section_title: ONDCP Has Connected the Systems That Deconflict Operations, Reducing Risks to Officer Safety and Inefficiencies
paragraphs: ONDCP has connected each of the systems that HIDTAs use to  deconflict operations, an action that can reduce risks to officer safety and  inefficiencies. Our April 2013 report found that the HIDTA and RISS  programs operate three separate systems that have event or target  deconfliction functions to determine when multiple federal, state, or local  law enforcement agencies are conducting enforcement actions—such as  raids, undercover operations, or surveillances—in proximity to one  another during a specified time period. As we reported in 2013, HIDTAs  have used the SAFETNet system, which has had event deconfliction  functions, among other functions, since 2001 to help ensure officer safety.  In 2009, the HIDTA program introduced deconfliction features into the  Case Explorer system that differed from SAFETNet by providing a free  service that is tied to its performance management process. In 2009,  the RISS program developed RISSafe to provide event deconfliction to its  members and those not being served by another system. Accordingly,  HIDTAs and RISS centers were operating duplicative deconfliction  systems—that is, systems that aim to ensure that law enforcement  officers are not conducting enforcement actions at the same time in the  same place or investigating the same target—which could pose risks to  officer safety and lead to inefficiencies. Table 3 provides details about the  features of these three systems.
Law enforcement officers generally enter events into a deconfliction  system electronically or by calling a watch center. Individuals operating a  watch center plot the location of the event on a map and notify the officer  for whom contact information is available in the systems of other officers  who have entered conflicting events into the same system. When events  are not deconflicted, officer safety can be at risk. For example, HIDTA  and RISS officials described instances when officers did not deconflict  drug busts, which led to undercover officers from different agencies  drawing guns on one another thinking the other officers were drug  dealers. The officials added that, had the events been deconflicted, the  officers would have been aware of one another’s presence. As shown in  figure 1, entities within a state can use one or more of the systems.
In our April 2013 report, we found that HIDTA and RISS officials had  taken steps to connect target deconfliction systems—those that inform  agencies when they are investigating the same individuals, weapons,  vehicles, or businesses—and two of three event deconfliction systems.  However, HIDTA officials had not finalized plans to make the remaining  event deconfliction system, SAFETNet, interoperable with the other two  systems. Accordingly, we recommended that the Director of ONDCP work  with the appropriate HIDTA officials to develop milestones and time  frames for actions needed to make SAFETNet interoperable in order to  prevent unnecessary delays in reducing risks to officer safety and  lessening the burden on law enforcement agencies that are currently  using multiple systems to notify agencies when they are conducting  conflicting enforcement actions. ONDCP concurred with the  recommendation and, in May 2015, completed the steps to achieve  interoperability among the three event deconfliction systems. According to  an official at the HIDTA that operates the Case Explorer deconfliction  system, as of October 2015, more than 1,500 agencies are participating  in the three systems. The official added that more than 159,000 events  have been entered, and more than 800 events have been matched  among the three systems.
Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of the  subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy  to respond to any questions you may have.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony,  please contact David Maurer at (202) 512-8777 or maurerd@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Other  contributors included Eric Erdman, Assistant Director; Kevin Heinz; and  Johanna Wong.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.