Each heroin-producing region has a unique production process, or signature, which generally can be determined through chemical analyses. In the HSP, seized or purchased substances are forwarded to one of DEA’s regional laboratories, which confirms whether the substance is heroin. If the substance is confirmed to be heroin, the laboratory is responsible for preparing a written report for judicial purposes and, in certain circumstances, providing a sample to DEA’s Special Testing and Research Laboratory (STRL) for signature analysis. STRL analyzes the heroin samples; in most instances, these analyses result in the identification of the heroin’s geographic source. In the DMP, purchased substances are sent directly to STRL for analysis. The heroin that is selected for HSP testing is selected from either “cases” or “exhibits.” Figure 1 illustrates a possible case that includes multiple seizures and exhibits. As shown in figure 1, a single case can include more than one seizure of heroin. For example, a single case would include more than one seizure if agents seized heroin from the same person (the same case), but on different dates. In turn, a single seizure might include more than one exhibit, if agents find heroin associated with the same person on the same date, but at multiple locations. For example, a seizure would include three exhibits if agents, on the same date, seize heroin from multiple locations such as the person’s desk, closet, and coat pocket. DEA initiated the HSP in 1977. Heroin for the HSP is obtained from eight sources and selected for signature analysis as shown in table 1. DEA initiated the DMP in its New York Field Division in 1979. The program has expanded to include 23 metropolitan areas. The DMP was originally designed to enable DEA to monitor the price and purity of retail- level heroin sold in the United States; it now also provides for the purchase of heroin for signature analysis. In the DMP, DEA provides funding for quarterly purchases by DEA field divisions, that may utilize cooperating sources to make retail-level purchases of heroin. Ten purchases are to be made in 22 of the 23 metropolitan areas, each quarter; in New York City, 20 purchases are to be made in each quarter. DEA guidelines provide that a certain number of DMP purchases be made each quarter, throughout the 3 months of each quarter, and in various locations in the metropolitan areas. According to the DEA guidelines, it would seldom be necessary to make more than one purchase in any one location, per day. The most important requirement is that exhibits should be purchased from locations within the metropolitan areas that are dissimilar enough to ensure that they come from different suppliers. Each purchase should weigh at least 1 gram net, including diluents and adulterants, to ensure that there is a sufficient amount of pure heroin available to perform a signature analysis. According to DEA, the average time necessary to complete the signature analysis of a heroin sample is about 4 hours, with an associated cost of about $375 per sample. DEA indicated that the STRL performs signature analyses of 3,000 heroin samples annually, for a total annual STRL cost of about $1.13 million. DEA provides its field divisions with a total of $200,000 annually for the DMP purchases. DEA prepares annual reports on the HSP and DMP data. The HSP reports display data on geographic source by net weight on a national basis. The DMP reports display data on geographic source by the number of exhibits by metropolitan area. To determine the purpose of the HSP and DMP and how they operate, we interviewed officials at DEA’s Office of Intelligence, Forensic Sciences, and the STRL. We reviewed relevant policies, reports, and other documentation. To determine how federal law enforcement uses the data generated by the programs, we interviewed officials at DEA’s Office of Intelligence and Office of Forensic Sciences and ONDCP. We also reviewed relevant documentation of the use made of the data, including documentation of instances in which changes have been made in federal law enforcement efforts as a result of the data. To determine if the heroin seized at ports-of-entry, but not tested by DEA, is of sufficient quantity to make a difference in the results reported by DEA, we interviewed officials at DEA’s Office of Intelligence, Office of Forensic Sciences, and the STRL, as well as Custom’s Smuggling Investigations Division and Office of Intelligence. We also obtained and analyzed data from Customs regarding seized heroin in fiscal years 1998- 2000. These data were derived from the Department of the Treasury’s Enforcement Communications System (TECS), Seized Assets and Case Tracking (SEACATS) subsystem. We did not verify the accuracy of these data. The data included the date and location of the seizure, the total weight of the seizure (less the weight of any packaging or container), and the disposition of the heroin. According to Customs, a seizure is recorded in the system when contraband is discovered and physical custody is taken. Under Customs’ policy, seizures that involve taking heroin from more than one place, for example, from an individual’s pocket and from his suitcase, are counted as one seizure but entered into the system as two “line items.” We were provided data by line items. Each line item from the same seizure equates to a DEA exhibit. To determine if the sample-based HSP and DMP data could be improved, we interviewed officials at DEA’s Office of Intelligence and Office of Forensic Sciences. We reviewed sample design and sample selection methodology and the formulas and methodology used to develop data on the geographic source of heroin. We obtained and reviewed HSP and DMP data files for calendar years 1999 and 2000. We reviewed earlier reports, analyzed current methodology, and how DEA reports and caveats the figures. In performing our work, we did not talk with officials from all federal law enforcement agencies that may make use of the programs’ data. We performed our work from May 2001 to February 2002, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments from DEA, Customs, and ONDCP. Comments from DEA are summarized at the end of this report and contained in appendix III. According to DEA officials, the HSP and DMP produce data for detecting trends in the geographic source of heroin supplied to the United States. Officials stressed that the purpose of these data is not to provide overall estimates of where all heroin supplied to the United States originates. The HSP data are intended to provide law enforcement with a “snapshot” of where heroin at the wholesale level originates. The DMP data are intended to provide law enforcement with a snapshot of where heroin at the retail level, in certain metropolitan areas, originates. Officials explained that they believe that, over time, the snapshots begin to tell a story about what is happening with drug trafficking patterns. When this happens, officials can make their decisions, in conjunction with other investigative and intelligence data. Officials also stressed that direct comparisons should not be made between the geographic source data from the HSP and DMP. For example, the wholesale heroin seized in one market (HSP seizures) may not be intended for retail-level sale (DMP purchases) in the same market. In addition, comparisons should not be made between the HSP data and DMP data because the HSP data reflect law enforcement investigative priorities and techniques, in terms of where and how seizures are made, as well as the difficulties associated with the various concealment techniques used by smugglers. In addition, large quantity seizures of heroin from one geographic source area may boost that geographic source area’s representation in the HSP data. This may be especially applicable to heroin from Southeast and Southwest Asia that has been traditionally smuggled in large, multikilogram quantities. The officials also noted that these same factors could influence year-to- year fluctuations in the proportion of heroin from each geographic source area. For example, law enforcement priorities and smuggler concealment techniques are reflected in the numerous small-quantity heroin seizures from Colombian air couriers. According to DEA officials, the HSP and DMP data are used for intelligence purposes and as a management tool by federal law enforcement. Data drawn from a variety of sources, including the HSP and DMP, are used to develop a comprehensive picture of heroin trafficking in the United States. For example, HSP and DMP data are frequently included in DEA intelligence and investigative reports to corroborate heroin trafficking trends in the United States and to inform DEA and other federal law enforcement agencies about heroin trafficking. In addition, ONDCP officials noted that the data are used as a confirmation of data from other sources, such as opium production and cultivation estimates provided by the Central Intelligence Agency. ONDCP officials noted that it uses data from the HSP and DMP for drug- flow modeling and that the data, which are viewed as one of the better heroin market indicators, are key components of ONDCP’s data analysis efforts. ONDCP officials also said that data from the HSP and DMP are used for such purposes as testimony before the Congress and in ONDCP’s annual National Drug Control Strategy. According to DEA, federal law enforcement also uses the HSP and DMP data as management tools to make adjustments in enforcement activities. Changes in HSP and DMP data could alert management to changing trafficking patterns. DEA cited the emergence of heroin from South America as an example of how the HSP and DMP geographic source data have been used in law enforcement intelligence and management. Southeast Asian heroin dominated the market on the East Coast until 1991; Southwest Asian heroin was also readily available. In 1991, a high- purity heroin entered the eastern U.S. market and was initially identified by DEA as high-purity but atypical Southwest Asian heroin. Intelligence reports indicated that heroin was entering the United States from South America. Also, reportedly Southwest Asian heroin producers had taught Colombians their methods of processing opium into heroin.