Illegal Marijuana: Opportunities Exist to Improve Oversight of State and Local Eradication Efforts
Released: 2018-11-14T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Marijuana is generally illegal under federal law. Nonetheless, an increasing number of states have legalized medical or recreational marijuana under state law. However, in these states, some marijuana-related activity may still be illegal under state law. Since 1981, DEA's DCE/SP has provided financial support to participating state and local agencies for their efforts to eradicate illegal marijuana.

GAO was asked to review DEA's DCE/SP. This report examines (1) DCE/SP funding and expenditures in recent years, (2) how DEA ensures that participating agencies expend funds in accordance with program requirements, and (3) how DEA uses performance assessment to help manage DCE/SP. GAO analyzed DCE/SP guidance, and expenditure and performance information from 2015 through fiscal year 2017, and evaluated DEA's oversight and performance management efforts against internal control standards. GAO also interviewed officials from DEA, the U.S. Forest Service, and participating agencies in six states, which GAO selected to include varying levels of DCE/SP funding and numbers of marijuana grow sites eradicated in recent years.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) obligated over $17 million annually on average from 2015 through 2018 to its Domestic Cannabis Eradication/ Suppression Program (DCE/SP)—which supports participating state and local law enforcement agencies' efforts to eradicate illegal marijuana. DEA obligated funds to participating agencies in states with and without marijuana legalization laws. Participating agencies expended the majority of funds on aviation support and overtime (see fig. below). Officials told GAO they expended funds to help eradicate marijuana that was not in compliance with state and local marijuana laws. For example, officials in California—a state with medical and recreational marijuana legalization laws—said that all of their eradication occurs on public lands such as national forests, or private land that had been trespassed upon. In total, agencies have eradicated several million plants annually in recent years.

Participating Agencies' Top Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP) Expenditures in Recent Years

DEA oversees participating agencies' compliance with program expenditure requirements in various ways, but does not consistently collect supporting documentation for expenditure reports. DEA field officials collect varying levels of documentation, and headquarters officials were not aware of these varying practices. DEA officials said they are now working to address this issue, but they have not developed a plan with specific actions and time frames for completion. By developing and implementing such a plan, DEA could have greater assurance that funds are being expended appropriately.

DEA collects information on program activities to help manage DCE/SP, such as number of plants eradicated. However, participating agencies GAO spoke with have practices for reporting some program activities that differ from DEA's guidance due to varying interpretations of the guidance. As a result this information is neither fully accurate nor reliable for assessing program performance. Also, DEA has not clearly documented all of its program goals or developed performance measures to assess progress toward those goals. Improving the reliability of the information it collects, clearly documenting all program goals, and developing performance measures could provide DEA with the information it needs to manage the program more effectively.

section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making four recommendations, including that DEA develop a plan to ensure the collection of consistent documentation of expenditures, clarify its guidance for reporting program activities, document all of its program goals, and develop performance measures. DEA concurred with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Marijuana is the most widely available and commonly used illegal drug in  the United States, and the only major illegal drug grown domestically,  according to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Within the  Department of Justice (DOJ), DEA is the primary federal law enforcement  agency responsible for investigating and enforcing potential violations of  the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended. Under the Act  generally, it is a federal crime for any person to knowingly or intentionally  manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess marijuana. As part of its  marijuana enforcement efforts, DEA began providing financial assistance  to state and local law enforcement agencies to support their efforts to  eradicate and suppress illegal, domestically-grown marijuana in 1979.  DEA formally established this assistance through its Domestic Cannabis  Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP) in 1981. In fiscal year 2018,  DEA obligated $14 million to state and local law enforcement agencies  through DCE/SP to support eradication and suppression of illegal  marijuana.

Despite the federal government’s long-standing prohibition on marijuana,  an increasing number of states have legalized medical or recreational  marijuana under state law over the past two decades. In 2015, we  reported on DOJ’s efforts to monitor the effects of state marijuana legalization relative to DOJ marijuana enforcement policy, including  August 2013 guidance which provided additional clarification of DOJ’s  priorities and certain circumstances that may warrant DOJ to challenge a  state’s implementation of its marijuana legalization program. The August  2013 guidance instructed DOJ’s prosecutorial and law enforcement  components to focus marijuana enforcement efforts on priorities that were  particularly important to the federal government, leaving all other  enforcement of state law pertaining to marijuana-related activity to state  and local law enforcement agencies and regulatory bodies. We  recommended that DOJ document a plan specifying its monitoring  process, and share the plan with DOJ components. DOJ concurred with  the recommendations. In January 2018, the Attorney General rescinded  DOJ’s marijuana enforcement policy, including the August 2013  guidance. Subsequently, we closed this recommendation as not  implemented.

Given trends in marijuana legalization under state law, questions have  been raised about the necessity and effectiveness of DEA’s DCE/SP. You  asked us to review DEA’s DCE/SP. This report addresses the following  questions:  1.  How much funding has DEA obligated to DCE/SP in recent years, and  how have participating agencies expended program funds?  2.  How does DEA ensure that participating agencies expend DCE/SP  funds in accordance with program requirements?  3.  How does DEA use performance assessment to help manage  DCE/SP?

To address all three questions, we analyzed relevant DEA  documentation, and interviewed DEA officials in headquarters. We also  conducted semi-structured interviews with officials from DEA, the U.S.

Forest Service, and participating agencies in the following six states:  California, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, and Texas. We  selected these states to include varying levels of DCE/SP funding and  numbers of marijuana grow sites eradicated from 2014 through fiscal year  2016—the most recent year for which DEA data were available at the  time of our state selection. The six states in our sample collectively  received approximately 52 percent of total DCE/SP funding obligated to  states from 2014 through fiscal year 2016. When selecting states, we also  considered whether a state had experienced a significant level of  marijuana eradication on national forests in recent years, as well as the  status of medical or recreational marijuana legalization under state law.  For each of our selected states, we interviewed DEA field officials  responsible for implementing DCE/SP in the state; Forest Service law  enforcement officials responsible for overseeing and conducting  marijuana eradication efforts on national forests in the state; and  participating agencies’ points-of-contact for DCE/SP. We conducted our  interviews in person in California, Georgia, and Texas. The information  we obtained from these interviews cannot be generalized to all states that  received DCE/SP funding, but provides a range of perspectives and  experiences regarding DCE/SP from federal, state, and local law  enforcement officials.

To address our first question, we also reviewed DEA documentation  related to DCE/SP funding, including DEA’s funding requests for DCE/SP  from DOJ’s Assets Forfeiture Fund for fiscal years 2015 through 2018.  We reviewed documents describing how participating agencies use  program funds, including the DCE/SP Coordinator Handbook and  Program Guide (DCE/SP Handbook), participating agencies’ annual  strategic plans for using DCE/SP funds to conduct eradication and  suppression activities, and letters of agreement between participating  agencies and DEA. Also, we analyzed DEA data on (1) DCE/SP funding  obligated to participating agencies, and to DEA for program support from  2015 through fiscal year 2018 and (2) DCE/SP funding expended by  participating agencies in each state from 2015 through fiscal year 2017,  organized by categories of expenses, such as overtime and equipment.

To assess the reliability of DEA’s funding data, we reviewed the data for  any missing elements, outliers, and obvious errors, and interviewed  agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that  DEA’s funding data for DCE/SP were sufficiently reliable for the purpose  of reporting obligations at the program and state levels, as well as  participating agencies’ aggregate expenditures by category. Furthermore,  we interviewed DEA and Forest Service headquarters and field officials,  and officials from participating agencies in each of our selected states to  obtain perspectives on how participating agencies expended DCE/SP  funds. We also viewed items that participating agencies purchased using  DCE/SP funds in California, Georgia, and Texas, and observed a  marijuana grow site on federal land that participating agencies eradicated  in California and Georgia as part of our in-person visits.

To address our second question, we also reviewed DEA’s guidance for  expending DCE/SP funds, including the DCE/SP Handbook and letters of  agreement between DEA and participating agencies. We reviewed  documentation related to DEA’s processes for overseeing participating  agencies’ expenditure of program funds, including purchase request  forms, quarterly expenditure reports, and reports describing the results of  DEA site visits to participating agencies’ facilities and operations during  fiscal year 2017—the first year for which these reports were available.  Furthermore, we interviewed DEA headquarters officials responsible for  the overall management and oversight of DCE/SP, and DEA field officials  responsible for providing guidance to participating agencies on expending  program funds, and for collecting and reviewing participating agencies’  information on program expenditures. We also interviewed officials from  participating agencies in each of our selected states, and reviewed  supporting documentation for DCE/SP expenditures to better understand  the amount and types of information participating agencies submit to  DEA. We evaluated DEA’s efforts to oversee participating agencies’  expenditure of DCE/SP funds, such as its practices for collecting and  reviewing receipts and supporting documentation for program  expenditures, against agency requirements for participating agencies to  submit information on program expenditures to DEA. We also compared  these efforts against standards for project management.

To address our third question, we also reviewed DEA documentation  related to performance management, including the DCE/SP Handbook  and congressional budget justifications for fiscal years 2012 through  2018. We analyzed DEA’s data on the marijuana eradication and  suppression activities conducted as part of DCE/SP, such as the number  of marijuana plants eradicated, pounds of processed marijuana seized,  and arrests made, for 2015 and fiscal years 2016 through 2017—the  most recent year for which these data were available. To assess the  reliability of DEA’s data on marijuana eradication and suppression  activities, we reviewed the data for any missing elements, outliers, and  obvious errors, and reviewed documentation about the data. We also  interviewed officials from DEA and participating agencies about the  reliability of the data. Specifically, we interviewed DEA field officials  responsible for providing guidance to participating agencies on reporting  data to DEA, and for reviewing the data that participating agencies report.  Furthermore, we interviewed officials from participating agencies in each  state about how they collect and report data to DEA on their agency’s  marijuana eradication and suppression activities. We determined that the  data were not fully reliable for the purpose of assessing program  performance. As a result, we do not include these data in this report. In  addition, we interviewed DEA headquarters officials to determine how  DEA uses the data it collects to help manage the program, including the  extent to which DEA uses the data to measure progress toward goals and  performance measures for DCE/SP. We evaluated DEA’s practices for  collecting and using program data to assess performance and manage  the program, which we derived from our review of agency documentation  and interviews with DEA officials, against the Government Performance  and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), as amended by the GPRA  Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA); federal internal control  standards related to defining and measuring progress on agency  objectives and using and communicating quality information; and our  prior work describing important attributes of successful performance  measures.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2017 through  November 2018 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: Federal and State Marijuana Laws
paragraphs: Marijuana refers to the dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds from the  cannabis plant, which contains the psychoactive or mind-altering  chemical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), as well as other related  compounds. Marijuana is a controlled substance under federal law and is  classified as a Schedule I drug—the most restrictive of categories of  controlled substances by the federal government. The Controlled  Substances Act of 1970, as amended, does not allow Schedule I drugs,  including marijuana, to be dispensed with a prescription, and provides  federal sanctions for the possession, manufacture, distribution,  dispensing, or use of such drugs.

However, as of July 2018, 32 states and the District of Columbia had  passed voter initiatives or legislation legalizing marijuana for medical  purposes under state or territorial law. Of these, nine states and the  District of Columbia had also passed voter initiatives or legislation  legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes under state or territorial  law. In addition, another 15 states have laws only pertaining to the use of  products containing cannabidiol, also known as CBD, one of the non- psychoactive ingredients in marijuana plants. Nonetheless, federal  penalties remain, and some marijuana-related activity may also be illegal  under state law, including in states that have legalized marijuana for  medical or recreational purposes. Figure 1 shows a map of marijuana  legalization under state or territorial law, as of July 2018.

section_title: Illegal Marijuana Cultivation and Eradication
paragraphs: Marijuana is the only major illegal drug grown domestically, according to  DEA. Individuals and larger organized groups, such as drug trafficking  organizations, establish outdoor and indoor grow sites to cultivate  marijuana. Outdoor grow sites can be located on privately-owned land,  such as residential yards, farms, and timber lands, and publicly-owned  land, such as national forests, as shown in Figure 2. Indoor grow sites  can be located in residential houses and larger warehouses.

Previously, we, along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)  Office of Inspector General (OIG) have reported on the environmental  effects of illegal marijuana cultivation on federal lands. For example, in  2010, we reported that illegal marijuana cultivation on federal lands can  involve, among other things, the application of pesticides, herbicides,  fertilizers, and other chemicals, including chemicals that may be banned  in the United States; removal of natural vegetation; diversion of water  from streams; and deposits of large amounts of trash and human waste.  In 2018, USDA’s OIG reported that trash and chemicals such as  pesticides and fertilizers may remain at eradicated marijuana grow sites  on national forest lands for multiple years, partly due to the cost of  cleanup, which can reach as high as $100,000. Figure 3 shows  examples of environmental effects of illegal marijuana cultivation on  federal lands in California and Georgia.

Marijuana eradication operations can encompass the following activities:  seizure and destruction of marijuana plants, seizure and destruction of  processed marijuana—which is smokeable marijuana in the drying  process, loose, or packaged; confiscation of weapons and assets; and  apprehension of individuals at the grow site. Additionally, operations may  include the removal of trash and infrastructure, such as propane tanks  and irrigation tubing, from outdoor grow sites during or after eradication  operations to reduce the likelihood that growers will return.

section_title: DEA’s Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program
paragraphs: DEA established DCE/SP in 1981 to support participating state and local  law enforcement agencies in their efforts to eradicate and suppress  illegal, domestically-grown marijuana. Over the past three decades,  DEA has provided support for marijuana eradication and suppression  efforts through DCE/SP in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S.  Virgin Islands. In fiscal year 2018, DEA obligated DCE/SP funding to  125 participating agencies in 37 states.

DEA’s Office of Operations Management, Investigative Support Section is  responsible for the overall management and oversight of DCE/SP.  Personnel from DEA’s field divisions and contractors are responsible for  implementing DCE/SP in the field. Specifically, DEA field divisions assign  a special agent to serve as DCE/SP coordinator for each state in its area  of responsibility. DCE/SP coordinators are responsible for reviewing  participating agencies’ annual strategic plans for DCE/SP, and approving  certain purchase requests, among other things. DEA also contracts for  analytical and administrative support for the program. The contract  provides DEA with six personnel, referred to as regional contractors,  whose primary duties include providing guidance to participating agencies  on allowable program expenditures, and reviewing the information  participating agencies report to DEA on their program expenditures and  eradication and suppression activities.

DEA’s implementation of DCE/SP is a multi-step process with activities  performed by DEA and participating agencies during each step, as shown  in Figure 4. Each year, DEA requests and receives funding for DCE/SP  from DOJ’s Assets Forfeiture Fund. To participate in DCE/SP, a state or  local law enforcement agency must apply and enter into a reimbursable  funding agreement with DEA. Specifically, a participating agency must  submit an annual strategic plan describing, among other things, how it  intends to use DCE/SP funding to address the illegal domestic marijuana  threat in its area of responsibility, and coordinate with other federal  agencies, such as the Forest Service. DEA and the participating agency  then sign a letter of agreement, whereby the participating agency agrees  to eradicate and suppress illegal marijuana as part of DCE/SP, and DEA  agrees to provide a specified amount of funding to the participating  agency to defray the costs of those activities. This agreement also  outlines program restrictions and requirements for participating agencies,  which include only using DCE/SP funds to reimburse expenses that DEA  has deemed allowable; obtaining approval from DEA prior to expending  DCE/SP funds on certain items; submitting an expenditure report to DEA  each quarter; and collecting and reporting to DEA information on its  marijuana eradication and suppression activities.

section_title: DEA Obligated Over $17 Million Annually on Average to DCE/SP in Recent Years; Participating Agencies Expended Most Funds on Aviation Support and Overtime
subsections: section_title: DEA Obligated Between $12.4 Million and $22 Million Annually to DCE/SP from 2015 Through Fiscal Year 2018; Five States Were Obligated About Half of the Funds Each Year
paragraphs: DEA obligated about $17.7 million annually on average to DCE/SP from  2015 through fiscal year 2018. As shown in Figure 5, the total amount of  funding DEA obligated to DCE/SP decreased from $22 million in 2015 to  $12.4 million in fiscal year 2017, and increased to $18 million in fiscal  year 2018.

During each year of the 4-year time frame we reviewed, DEA obligated  most of the DCE/SP funds to support the marijuana eradication efforts of  the participating agencies—for example, $14 million of the $18 million in  fiscal year 2018 went to 125 participating agencies in 37 states, or  approximately $378,000 on average per state. DEA obligated the  remaining funds—for example, $4 million in fiscal year 2018—to pay for  program support. This support includes payments for the following items:

The DEA Aviation Division, which provided reconnaissance,  surveillance, undercover operations, and marijuana eradication  support to selected participating agencies, according to DEA  documentation. The Aviation Division prioritized its support to  participating agencies based upon their past eradication operations,  the availability of aviation support provided by other participating  agencies, and DCE/SP coordinators’ request for support.

Equipment, travel, and training for DEA headquarters and field  divisions to support eradication activities.

Six regional contractors that provided administrative support to the  program.

Figure 5 also shows that in each year from 2015 through fiscal year 2018,  about half of total DCE/SP funds went to participating agencies in five  states. For example, in fiscal year 2018 DEA obligated 48 percent of  these funds to participating agencies in California, Kentucky, Georgia,  Texas, and Tennessee. Moreover, by magnitude, California, Kentucky,  Georgia, and Tennessee were among the top five states in each of the 4  years we examined.

DEA headquarters officials reported that they obligate funding to  participating agencies based on various factors, including the agencies’  past performance, their level of matching investment in the program, and  the approximate amount of illegal growing in an area. DEA headquarters  officials noted that some marijuana grows may still be illegal under state  and local law—even in those states that have legalized or regulated  marijuana in some form under state or local law. As such, DEA has  obligated funds to participating agencies in states with and without some  form of marijuana legalization under state law.

section_title: Participating Agencies Expended Most Funds on Aviation Support and Overtime in Recent Years
paragraphs: Participating state and local agencies have expended DCE/SP funds on a  range of items, as described below. However, we calculated that two  items— aviation support and overtime —accounted for a large majority of  their expenditures in each of the 3 years we reviewed from 2015 through  fiscal year 2017. For example, participating agencies expended 46  percent on overtime and 38 percent on aviation support in fiscal year  2017, as shown in Figure 6.

Aviation Support. Participating agencies expended 43 percent ($17.0  million) of their DCE/SP funds to rent aircraft or purchase fuel for aviation  support from 2015 through fiscal year 2017, according to DEA data. For  example, officials from a participating state agency in California reported  expending DCE/SP funds to contract for the use of helicopters for at least  90 days per year, which they use to support marijuana eradication efforts  across the state. Officials from participating local agencies in California  reported that aircraft support is critical to their marijuana eradication  efforts because it allows them to conduct aerial surveillance to detect  possible marijuana grow sites, transport personnel in and out of grow  sites in remote areas, and remove large quantities of marijuana plants  from grow sites, as shown in Figure 7.

Overtime. Participating agencies expended 40 percent ($16.0 million) of  their DCE/SP funds to pay employee overtime from 2015 through fiscal  year 2017, according to DEA data. Officials from a participating agency  in Nevada told us that marijuana eradication is labor-intensive—in some  cases involving long hikes and camping in the mountains—which can  result in overtime costs. In addition, officials from a participating agency in  Michigan told us that they expend DCE/SP funds to reimburse members  of state task force teams for overtime costs incurred during their  participation in marijuana eradication operations, which generally involves  1- to 3-hour extensions of their regular shifts.

Travel and per diem. Participating agencies expended 6 percent ($2.3  million) of their DCE/SP funds to pay travel and per diem costs from 2015  through fiscal year 2017, according to DEA data. For example, officials  from a participating agency in Nevada reported that traveling to marijuana  grow sites in remote areas may take up to 6 hours, which requires them  to incur travel and per diem costs for overnight stays. In addition, DEA  headquarters officials reported that officials from participating agencies  who attend the DCE/SP national strategic meeting are permitted to  expend DCE/SP funds to pay for travel and per diem expenses.  According to DEA headquarters officials, federal, state, and local officials  from across the country attend the strategic meeting to discuss trends  and issues related to illegal marijuana cultivation, and DCE/SP’s priorities  and goals.

Supplies, clothing, and protective gear. Participating agencies  expended 3 percent ($1.1 million) of their DCE/SP funds to purchase  supplies, and another 2 percent ($0.8 million) to purchase clothing and  protective gear from 2015 through fiscal year 2017, according to DEA  data. For example, officials from a participating agency in Texas  reported expending DCE/SP funds to purchase machetes for cutting  marijuana plants; cameras for taking pictures or filming at eradication  sites; backpacks and hydration bladders; Global Positioning System  devices for navigation; first aid kits; gloves to protect personnel from  pesticides, fertilizers, and other hazardous chemicals; and heavy-duty  pants and shirts, as shown in Figure 7.

Equipment. Participating agencies expended 3 percent ($1.0 million) of  their DCE/SP funds to purchase equipment from 2015 through fiscal year  2017, according to DEA data. For example, officials from participating  agencies in Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas told us that they have  expended DCE/SP funds to purchase all-terrain vehicles, which they use  to help access marijuana grow sites more quickly than on foot, and help  them to navigate difficult terrain, including mountainous areas. Figure 7  includes a photo of an all-terrain vehicle purchased with DCE/SP funds.

All other expenditures. Participating agencies expended 2 percent ($0.6  million) of their DCE/SP funds on training, and another 1 percent ($0.4  million) on miscellaneous commercial contracts from 2015 through fiscal  year 2017. Participating agencies also expended less than 1 percent of  their DCE/SP funds on both container and space rental ($0.2 million) and  vehicle rental ($0.1 million) from 2015 through fiscal year 2017.

Factors that affect how participating agencies expended funds.  Officials from participating agencies we spoke with in six selected  states—California, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, and Texas—as  well as DEA and Forest Service, provided perspectives on factors that  affected how participating agencies expended DCE/SP funds to support  their marijuana eradication efforts.

State marijuana legalization. Officials we spoke with said that  they expended DCE/SP funds to help eradicate marijuana grow  sites not in compliance with their state and local laws. For  example, in Georgia—where medical or recreational marijuana  has not been legalized under state law—state officials reported  that they strive to eradicate all marijuana grow sites. By  comparison, state and local officials in California—where medical  and recreational use of marijuana is legal under state law—said  that all of the grow sites they eradicate are in violation of state and  local laws. These grow sites include those on public lands such as  national forests, and private land that had been trespassed  upon.

Marijuana eradication on national forests. DEA requires  participating agencies to coordinate with Forest Service when  conducting DCE/SP-funded eradication efforts on national forests.

Officials from Forest Service and participating agencies we spoke  with reported that they coordinate with one another when planning  and conducting marijuana eradication on national forests—and  that some of these efforts are funded by DCE/SP. For example,  Forest Service officials in Kentucky reported that they participate  in planning meetings with the state’s marijuana eradication task  force. During the eradication season, Forest Service conducts  aerial surveillance in helicopters funded by the state police using  DCE/SP funds, and assists with eradication operations when  available. As another example, officials in Georgia reported  expending DCE/SP funds to conduct aerial surveillance to detect  possible marijuana grow sites on national forests.

Officials from some participating agencies we spoke with reported  that they were able to expend DCE/SP funds to assist Forest  Service with the removal of infrastructure such as sleeping bags  and irrigation tubes at marijuana grow sites on national forests.  For example, officials from a participating state agency in  California reported that they assist with the removal of basic  infrastructure and chemicals when feasible. However, Forest  Service is responsible for the removal of infrastructure and  subsequent environmental reclamation on national forests.

section_title: DEA Oversees Participating Agencies’ Expenditure of DCE/SP Funds in Various Ways, but Does Not Consistently Collect the Supporting Documentation
subsections: section_title: DEA Provides Guidance, Pre-approves Purchases, Conducts On-Site Observations, and Reviews Information on Participating Agencies’ Expenditures to Help Ensure Compliance with Program Requirements
paragraphs: DEA oversees participating agencies’ expenditure of DCE/SP funds in  various ways to help ensure compliance with program requirements,  including the following:  Provides guidance. DEA provides participating agencies a copy of its  DCE/SP Handbook which describes, among other things, information on  allowable and non-allowable uses of DCE/SP funds. For example, the  Handbook explains that participating agencies may expend DCE/SP  funds to pay overtime costs of officers participating in eradication  activities if the officers otherwise would be unable to participate, but may  not expend DCE/SP funds to pay for employee benefits. In addition,  participating agencies may expend DCE/SP funds on equipment, such as  all-terrain vehicles and Global Positioning System devices, but not  purchase body armor, firearms, or tasers. See Table 1 for additional  information on allowable uses of DCE/SP funds.

Pre-approves certain purchases. DEA pre-approves certain equipment  purchases, and requires additional review procedures to pre-approve  higher-cost items. According to DEA guidance and headquarters officials,  participating agencies are required to submit a purchase request form to  DEA for the purchase of all durable supplies, materials, and equipment.  A participating agency must also attach supporting documentation along  with the request form—including price quotes, a description of the items,  and intended use. Purchases up to $2,500 are approved by the DCE/SP  coordinator, while purchases greater than $2,500, or 10 percent or more  of an agency’s obligated funds, also require approval from the DEA  Special Agent in Charge in the applicable DEA field division, who then  passes the request along to DEA headquarters officials for final approval.

Conducts on-site observations. DEA headquarters officials told us that,  as part of their oversight for fiscal year 2017, they conducted on-site  observations of participating agencies in seven states at training events,  eradication operations, and participating agencies’ facilities. DEA  headquarters officials said that they selected the site visit locations based  on participating agencies’ funding levels and input from DEA field officials,  among other factors. According to these officials, site visits allowed DEA  to observe participating agencies’ equipment and compare it with  documentation on pre-approved equipment purchases and reported  expenditures.

DEA was unable to provide information about the location or results of  site visits prior to fiscal year 2017 due to both a lack of documentation  and recent personnel turnover. However, DEA began documenting the  location and results of site visits for fiscal year 2017. According to  officials, the site visits did not reveal instances of misuse of funds in fiscal  year 2017. Officials noted that documenting site visits is an important  practice that will help inform the program’s plans for future site visits, and  could help DEA identify best practices for marijuana enforcement to share  with participating agencies.

In addition, some DCE/SP coordinators we spoke with said that on-site  observations help them to oversee participating agencies’ expenditure of  program funds in the field. For example, one DCE/SP coordinator said  that he has daily on-site contact with participating agencies, and that  although he had not observed any misuse of funds, his on-site presence  would allow him to detect misuse if it were to occur.

Reviews information on program expenditures. DEA’s DCE/SP  Handbook requires participating agencies to submit cumulative quarterly  expenditure reports specifying how much the agency expended in each of  the allowable expense categories, such as overtime, aviation support,  and equipment. DEA regional contractors are required to review  quarterly expenditure reports, and sign and submit the reports to  headquarters for further review. Headquarters officials told us that they  may ask participating agencies to clarify reported expenditures, and DEA  may withhold funding if necessary until any issues are resolved. DEA also  requires participating agencies to provide supporting documentation, such  as receipts, for certain expenses claimed in the end-of-year quarterly  expenditure reports.

section_title: DEA Does Not Consistently Collect Supporting Documentation for Participating Agencies’ Reported Expenditures
paragraphs: Notwithstanding these efforts to oversee participating agencies’  expenditure of DCE/SP funds, DEA does not consistently collect  supporting documentation from participating agencies regarding their  reported DCE/SP expenditures. As noted above, participating agencies  are required to submit a copy of a receipt or other supporting  documentation for certain expense claimed in the end-of-year quarterly  expenditure reports, and regional contractors are responsible for  collecting this information. However, the DEA regional contractors we  spoke with had differing understandings of DEA’s requirement regarding  the collection of information on DCE/SP expenditures, and indicated to us  that they are collecting varying levels of supporting documentation. For  example,

One regional contractor told us that DEA does not specify the  completeness of supporting documentation that regional contractors  are required to collect. Nonetheless, he still collects supporting  documentation for all expenses, which in some cases may consist of  200 pages for a single quarterly expenditure report.

Another regional contractor told us that he is required to collect  quarterly expenditure reports, and participating agencies are required  to maintain supporting documentation internally. He stated that the  completeness of supporting documentation he collects varies by  participating agency within his region. For example, one participating  state agency in his region submits supporting documentation to DEA  for pre-approved equipment purchases only, but maintains supporting  documentation for other expenditures internally as required. In  contrast, he explained, other participating agencies in his region  provide supporting documentation for all expenditures, including  aviation support and overtime.

A third regional contractor said the only clear requirement DEA has  regarding the collection of information on program expenditures is that  regional contractors must collect supporting documentation for large  equipment expenditures. However, he still collects supporting  documentation for all expenditures, including overtime.

A fourth regional contractor told us that he is only required to collect  supporting documentation for equipment, material, supply, and  clothing expenditures. Accordingly, he collects supporting  documentation for these expenditures from all participating agencies  in his region. Some participating agencies in his region provide  supporting documentation for all their expenditures, including aviation  support and overtime.

Officials in headquarters told us that although they were not fully aware of  these varying practices for collecting supporting documentation, they had  confidence that participating agencies were maintaining documentation  internally as required. Moreover, DEA headquarters officials told us that  they expect regional contractors to collect supporting documentation for  aviation support and overtime expenses when participating agencies  submit their end-of-year quarterly expenditure report. However, it is our  assessment that this expectation differs from DEA’s written requirement  because the requirement does not include supporting documentation for  overtime expenses.

Based on the results of our audit work, DEA headquarters officials said  that they had taken initial steps to address this issue. In particular,  officials said that they plan to convene a working group to discuss a  potential update to DEA’s requirements for the collection of supporting  documentation after the eradication season in 2018. In addition, officials  said they had met with regional contractors to discuss potential solutions  to address this issue. However, DEA headquarters officials could not  provide us with a plan for this effort. Standards for project management  call for developing a plan with specific actions and time frames. By  developing and implementing such a plan to ensure that regional  contractors are implementing DEA’s requirement for collecting supporting  documentation in the intended manner, DEA could have greater  assurance that program funds are being expended appropriately.

section_title: DEA Collects and Uses Information on Program Activities to Help Manage DCE/SP, but Should Strengthen Data Reliability, Clearly Document Goals, and Establish Measures
subsections: section_title: DEA Collects and Uses Information on Number of Plants Eradicated and Other Program Activities to Help Manage DCE/SP
paragraphs: DEA collects information from participating agencies and DEA field  officials on their marijuana eradication and suppression activities to help  manage DCE/SP, such as the number of marijuana plants eradicated,  pounds of processed marijuana seized, and number of arrests made. For  example, according to DEA’s DCE/SP statistical reports, over 4 million  illegal domestic marijuana plants, on average, were eradicated annually  from 2015 through fiscal year 2017. Participating agencies are required  to report information on their marijuana eradication and suppression  activities to DEA. DEA also collects information on marijuana eradication  and suppression activities its officials conduct in the field. For example,  DEA field officials may unilaterally conduct eradication and suppression  activities or provide support to other law enforcement agencies that do  not receive program funding (nonparticipating agencies) on marijuana  enforcement efforts, and report information on these activities.

According to DEA documents and headquarters officials, DEA uses this  information to help manage the program in a variety of ways. Specifically,  DEA uses the information to develop and maintain a national assessment  of illegal domestic marijuana cultivation; inform the scope and nature of  program activities for future years; support the program’s funding request  and determine funding levels for participating agencies; and assess  performance on an agency-wide objective related to dismantling drug  trafficking organizations. DEA also reports this information on DCE/SP’s  public website.

section_title: Participating Agencies’ Practices for Reporting Some of Their Marijuana Eradication and Suppression Activities Differ from DEA Guidance
paragraphs: We found that participating agencies have practices for reporting  information on some of their marijuana eradication and suppression  activities that differ from DEA’s written guidance. Moreover, we found that  stakeholders at all levels—participating agencies as well as DEA field and  headquarters officials—had varying understandings of what participating  agencies are required to report to DEA for DCE/SP. As a result, the  information DEA collects is not fully reliable for the purpose of assessing  program performance.

According to DEA guidance, participating agencies are required to report  information—such as the number of marijuana plants eradicated—only  from eradication and suppression activities funded by DCE/SP. However,  among the six states we contacted, officials from participating agencies in  four states and a DCE/SP coordinator from a fifth state told us that they  also include information on activities from nonparticipating agencies in the  information reported to DEA. As a result of this broadening of  information being reported, DEA does not have a fully accurate  representation of the activities being performed by agencies receiving  DCE/SP funding. Officials from these five states told us that they  included this information to provide DEA with a more comprehensive  assessment of the illegal domestic marijuana cultivation issue in their  area. DEA headquarters officials were not aware of this reporting  practice. Moreover, officials said that participating agencies should only  report information resulting from their DCE/SP-funded operations, which  may include results from support they provide to nonparticipating  agencies. For example, if a participating agency provides support to a  nonparticipating agency in the form of aircraft surveillance to help identify  illegal grow sites, or additional officers to assist with an eradication  operation, the participating agency should report the results from those  activities to DEA. However, these expectations are not defined in DEA  guidance.

DEA guidance also states that participating agencies should make every  effort to not report eradication and suppression information resulting from  interdiction activities, which are not considered DCE/SP-funded  operations. For example, marijuana seized by a participating agency  during a routine traffic stop—a type of interdiction activity—should not be  reported. However, we found that participating agencies had varying  understandings of whether or not to report this information to DEA. As a  result, information DEA collects from these officials is not consistent.  Specifically, we identified three different practices that participating  agencies followed to report eradication and suppression information  resulting from routine traffic stops:  report marijuana seized during routine traffic stops only if the  marijuana can be linked back to a domestic source;  report all marijuana seized during routine traffic stops irrespective of  source; and do not report any marijuana seized during routine traffic stops.

Further, we found that DEA field officials responsible for providing  guidance to participating agencies had varying understandings of whether  participating agencies should report information on marijuana seized  during routine traffic stops to DEA. For example, two DCE/SP  coordinators told us that information resulting from routine traffic stops  should not be reported because DCE/SP is focused on the eradication of  illegal marijuana grow sites. However, 3 of the 4 DEA regional contractors  we spoke with said that participating agencies should report information  resulting from routine traffic stops only if the marijuana seized can be  tracked to a domestic source.

DEA headquarters officials were not aware of these differing reporting  practices and varying understandings. Headquarters officials told us that  they expect participating agencies to report information on marijuana  seized during routine traffic stops only if the marijuana can be linked to a  domestic source. However, our assessment is that this expectation is not  consistent with DEA’s written guidance. Officials explained that  interdiction activities, such as routine traffic stops, are relevant to  marijuana suppression, especially in light of recent changes in illegal  marijuana cultivation and trafficking trends. For example, according to  DEA officials, Kansas—a state without marijuana legalization—has  recently experienced a decrease in the number of illegal outdoor  marijuana grow sites in conjunction with an increase in the amount of  illegal domestic marijuana being trafficked into the state from Colorado— a state with recreational and medical marijuana legalization.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  management should use quality information—including accurate and  consistent information—to achieve the entity’s objectives. Federal  standards for internal control also state that management should  communicate the necessary quality information internally and externally  to achieve the entity’s objectives. Based on the results of our audit work,  DEA headquarters officials said that they had taken initial steps and have  additional plans to update DEA’s written guidance. For example, officials  told us that they plan to convene a working group to help address this  issue after the eradication season in 2018. This working group will,  according to officials, elicit input from DEA headquarters, regional  contractors and DCE/SP coordinators in the field, as well as participating  agencies. However, DEA headquarters officials could not provide us with  any details or documentation of its initial steps and additional plans to  address this issue. Clarifying the guidance and communicating it to  participating agencies and DEA field officials—for example, by sharing  the updated guidance with them, discussing reporting practices during its  national strategic meeting, or including the guidance in DEA information  systems—would help ensure the consistent application of the guidance,  and as a result, improve the reliability of the information DEA collects.  The improved information could help DEA assess program performance  and manage the program more effectively.

section_title: DEA Has Not Clearly Documented All of Its Program Goals, and Does Not Have Measures to Assess Performance
paragraphs: Although DEA collects and uses information on DCE/SP activities to help  manage the program, it has not clearly documented all of its program  goals and has not developed performance measures to assess whether  the agency is making progress towards achieving its goals.

We did not find explicitly-labeled program goals in the DCE/SP  Handbook, DEA budget justification documents, and DEA’s webpage  which we reviewed. However, we found the following four statements  which appeared to reflect program goals:  1.  halt the spread of marijuana cultivation in the United States;  2.  eradicate marijuana that is illegally cultivated by a person or drug  trafficking organization;  3.  disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking organizations and deprive these  organizations of significant revenue streams; and  4.  deter the illegal cultivation of marijuana through arrest, prosecution,  incarceration of cultivators and seizure of drug-derived assets, and by  making cultivation untenable due to increased law enforcement  activities.

DEA headquarters officials confirmed to us that the statements above  reflected the goals of the program. However, they also described the  following additional goals that are not explicitly defined in agency or  program documentation: maximize the number of law enforcement agencies that participate in  improve safety during operations through increased access to training  and eradication schools; and  share information on illegal marijuana cultivation among law  enforcement agencies.

Headquarters officials explained that because they are still relatively new  to the program—having arrived in 2016—they had not yet documented  these goals. Officials said they plan to document the program goals in the  future, but did not provide specific time frames for doing so. Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government state that management  should define objectives clearly to enable identification of risks and define  risk tolerances. Moreover, objectives are to be specific and measurable  so they can be understood at all levels of the entity and that performance  towards achieving those objectives can be assessed.

Further, DEA has not developed performance measures with baselines,  measurable targets, and linkage to program goals—several important  attributes we have previously identified that performance measures  should include if they are to be effective in monitoring progress and  determining how well programs are achieving their goals. Baselines  enable decision makers to assess the program’s performance over time.  Identifying and reporting deviations from the baseline as a program  proceeds provides valuable oversight by identifying areas of program risk  and their causes to decision makers. Measurable targets help decision  makers conduct assessments of whether program goals were achieved.  Lastly, linkages between an organization’s goals and performance  measures create a line of sight so that everyone understands how  program activities contribute to the organization’s goals.

DEA headquarters officials agreed that developing baselines to monitor  trends in program performance over time would be useful for program  management. However, officials said that setting measurable targets  would be challenging because of factors outside of DEA’s control that  may affect eradication efforts, including extreme weather events and  changes in illegal marijuana cultivation and trafficking trends. However,  DEA currently has performance measures with measurable targets for  some of its drug enforcement-related programs and activities. For  example, DEA has a performance measure with a measurable target for  its agency-wide objective related to dismantling drug trafficking  organizations—maximizing the monetary value of currency, property, and  drugs seized. This performance measure reflects the outcomes of  multiple activities across DEA, including DCE/SP. Further, while we agree  that developing drug enforcement-related performance measures with  measurable targets may be difficult, targets can help DEA evaluate past  performance and make informed decisions about future operations,  including allocating resources or developing strategies for the purpose of  maintaining or improving performance.

GPRAMA directs agencies to develop and document goals, as well as  performance measures to assess progress towards their goals. While  those requirements are applicable to the department or agency level  (e.g., DOJ), we have previously reported that they can serve as leading  practices at other organizational levels, including the program, project, or  activity level. Agencies can use performance measurement to make  various types of management decisions to improve programs and results,  such as developing strategies and allocating resources, including  identifying problems and taking corrective action when appropriate.  Clearly documenting all program goals and developing performance  measures with baselines, measurable targets, and linkage to program  goals could provide DEA with the information it needs to assess progress  and make informed decisions about current and future operations.

section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Despite states’ legalization of marijuana for medical or recreational  purposes, illegal marijuana cultivation continues to occur. As the nation’s  primary federal law enforcement agency for investigating and enforcing  potential violations of controlled substance laws and regulations, DEA  aims to halt the spread of illegal domestic marijuana cultivation. To  accomplish this goal, DEA has provided financial assistance through  DCE/SP to support participating state and local law enforcement  agencies’ efforts to curb illegal domestic marijuana cultivation for almost  four decades. These participating agencies have collectively eradicated  several million illegal domestic marijuana plants annually in recent years.

Nonetheless, DEA management can take further actions to improve its  oversight of various aspects of the program. Specifically, by developing  and implementing a plan with specific actions and time frames to ensure  that DEA field staff are consistently implementing the agency’s  requirements for collecting information on program expenditures, DEA will  be better positioned to ensure that program funds are being expended  appropriately. Additionally, by clarifying its guidance on the eradication  and suppression activities participating agencies are required to report— and communicating the guidance to participating agencies and relevant  DEA officials—DEA will have more reliable information to assess program  performance and manage the program effectively. Finally, by clearly  documenting program goals for DCE/SP and developing related  performance measures with baselines, measurable targets, and linkage  to those goals, DEA will be better able to assess the program’s  performance over time and, if necessary, redirect resources to effective  eradication and suppression efforts. Moving in this direction could help  program investments achieve even greater results.

section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making the following four recommendations to DEA:

The DEA Administrator should develop and implement a plan with  specific actions and time frames to ensure that regional contractors  are implementing DEA’s requirement for collecting documentation  supporting participating agencies’ DCE/SP program expenditures in  the intended manner. (Recommendation 1)

The DEA Administrator should clarify DCE/SP guidance on the  eradication and suppression activities that participating agencies are  required to report, and communicate it to participating agencies and  DEA officials responsible for implementing DCE/SP.  (Recommendation 2)

The DEA Administrator should clearly document all DCE/SP program  goals. (Recommendation 3)

The DEA Administrator should develop DCE/SP performance  measures with baselines, targets, and linkage to program goals.  (Recommendation 4)

section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOJ, including DEA, and USDA for  review and comment. In its comments, reproduced in appendix II, DEA  concurred with our recommendations and described planned actions to  address them. DEA also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. USDA told us that they had no comments on  the draft report.

In response to our first recommendation that DEA develop and implement  a plan with specific actions and time frames to ensure that regional  contractors are implementing DEA's requirement for collecting  documentation supporting participating agencies' DCE/SP program  expenditures in the intended manner, DEA concurred and stated that it  will take measures to ensure that contract personnel are documenting  and reporting expenditures in accordance with policy. Furthermore, DEA  reported plans to update its DCE/SP Handbook by the end of the second  quarter of fiscal year 2019 to provide uniform policy guidance on this  matter. These actions, if implemented as described, should address the  intent of our recommendation.

DEA also concurred with our second recommendation that DEA clarify  DCE/SP guidance on the eradication and suppression activities that  participating agencies are required to report, and communicate it to  participating agencies and DEA officials responsible for implementing  DCE/SP. In its response, DEA reported plans to update the DCE/SP  Handbook by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2019 so that the  handbook clearly articulates the requirements and methods for reporting  eradication and suppression data. Furthermore, DEA reported plans to  conduct site visits and conference calls in the third and fourth quarters of  fiscal year 2019 to communicate the requirements. These actions, if  implemented as described, should address the intent of our  recommendation.

DEA concurred with our third recommendation that DEA clearly document  all DCE/SP program goals. In its response, DEA reported plans to amend  and document program goals for fiscal year 2019 and ensure that they  are explicitly included in the DCE/SP Handbook and budget submissions.  These actions, if implemented as described, should address the intent of  our recommendation.

DEA concurred with our fourth recommendation that DEA develop  DCE/SP performance measures with baselines, targets, and linkage to  program goals. In its response, DEA stated that it had identified  performance measures for DCE/SP and convened an ongoing working  group of subject matter experts to select a subset of these performance  measures in order to better inform DCE/SP processes and management  decision-making. These actions, if implemented as described, should  address the intent of our recommendation.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Attorney General, the DEA Administrator and the  Secretary of Agriculture, and other interested parties. In addition, the  report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.

section_title: Appendix I: Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program Funds Obligated to and Expended by Participating Agencies, 2015 through Fiscal Year 2018
paragraphs: From 2015 through fiscal year 2018, the Drug Enforcement  Administration (DEA) obligated about $56 million through its Domestic  Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program (DCE/SP) to state and local  law enforcement agencies (participating agencies) in 43 states and the  U.S. Virgin Islands to support their marijuana eradication and suppression  activities. See table 2.

In the table below, we also provide the status of marijuana legalization  under state or territorial law, as of July 2018. Specifically, these  categories include: recreational and medical legalization (R&M); medical  legalization only (M); cannabidiol product access laws only (CBD); and no  legalization (No).

section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Justice

section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact

section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Brett Fallavollita (Assistant  Director), David Bieler (Analyst-in-Charge), Matthew T. Lowney, Billy  Commons, Pamela Davidson, Steve Gaty, Eric Hauswirth, Benjamin  Licht, Kimberly McGatlin, and Adam Vogt made key contributions to this  report.

Fast facts: The Drug Enforcement Administration has recently obligated, on average, over $17 million a year to help state and local agencies eradicate millions of illegal marijuana plants. Agencies in states where marijuana is legal also received funds because illegal growing can occur on national forests or trespassed farm lands.

Much of these funds were used for helicopter support and overtime, reflecting long days in remote areas.

We found that agencies inconsistently reported data to DEA, making it difficult for DEA to reliably assess program performance.

We recommended that DEA improve its oversight of program performance and spending.

Question-summary annotations: questions: question: What program did the DEA devote over $17 million annually to?
answer: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) obligated over $17 million annually on average from 2015 through 2018 to its Domestic Cannabis Eradication/ Suppression Program (DCE/SP)—which supports participating state and local law enforcement agencies' efforts to eradicate illegal marijuana.
child_questions: question: What did participating agencies spend the funds on?
answer: Participating agencies expended the majority of funds on aviation support and overtime (see fig. below).
child_questions: question: What reason did officials give the GAO regarding the expenditure of funds?
answer: Officials told GAO they expended funds to help eradicate marijuana that was not in compliance with state and local marijuana laws. For example, officials in California—a state with medical and recreational marijuana legalization laws—said that all of their eradication occurs on public lands such as national forests, or private land that had been trespassed upon. In total, agencies have eradicated several million plants annually in recent years.

questions: question: How does the DEA oversee participating agency compliance?
answer: DEA oversees participating agencies' compliance with program expenditure requirements in various ways, but does not consistently collect supporting documentation for expenditure reports.

question: How is the varying levels of documentation that DEA collects an issue?
answer: DEA field officials collect varying levels of documentation, and headquarters officials were not aware of these varying practices.
child_questions: question: What actions are DEA officials taking to address the issue?
answer: DEA officials said they are now working to address this issue, but they have not developed a plan with specific actions and time frames for completion.

question: What could result from implementing a plan to solve the issue?
answer: By developing and implementing such a plan, DEA could have greater assurance that funds are being expended appropriately.

questions: question: How closely have participating agencies followed DEA's guidance for reporting program activities?
answer: However, participating agencies GAO spoke with have practices for reporting some program activities that differ from DEA's guidance due to varying interpretations of the guidance.
child_questions: question: What effects do the varying practices for reporting program activities have?
answer: As a result this information is neither fully accurate nor reliable for assessing program performance.

question: How could improving the reliability of information it collects help the DEA?
answer: Improving the reliability of the information it collects, clearly documenting all program goals, and developing performance measures could provide DEA with the information it needs to manage the program more effectively.

questions: question: What have states done that departs from federal law?
answer: Nonetheless, an increasing number of states have legalized medical or recreational marijuana under state law.
child_questions: question: How much marijuana-related activity is legalized under state law?
answer: However, in these states, some marijuana-related activity may still be illegal under state law.

question: Why has DEA's DCE/SP provided financial support to participating state and local agencies?
answer: Since 1981, DEA's DCE/SP has provided financial support to participating state and local agencies for their efforts to eradicate illegal marijuana.

questions: question: What does the report examine?
answer: This report examines (1) DCE/SP funding and expenditures in recent years, (2) how DEA ensures that participating agencies expend funds in accordance with program requirements, and (3) how DEA uses performance assessment to help manage DCE/SP.

question: What aspects of DCE/SP did GAO analyze?
answer: GAO analyzed DCE/SP guidance, and expenditure and performance information from 2015 through fiscal year 2017, and evaluated DEA's oversight and performance management efforts against internal control standards.
child_questions: question: What officials did GAO interview for this analysis?
answer: GAO also interviewed officials from DEA, the U.S. Forest Service, and participating agencies in six states, which GAO selected to include varying levels of DCE/SP funding and numbers of marijuana grow sites eradicated in recent years.