Drug Control: Information on High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
Program (Letter Report, 09/03/98, GAO/GGD-98-188).
The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program run by the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) coordinates federal, state, and
local efforts to combat drug trafficking in critical areas of the United
States. ONDCP requires each high intensity drug trafficking area to (1)
assess drug threats within its geographic area, (2) prepare strategies
and initiatives to address these threats, (3) develop a proposed budget
to accomplish its initiatives, and (4) prepare an annual report on its
accomplishments. Each high intensity drug trafficking area is allowed to
tailor its own program to address local needs. For example, one area has
a substantially greater treatment and prevention component than the
others because it is a major distribution center with a large number of
hard-core drug abusers. The program has grown substantially since its
inception, from the original five areas in 1990 to 20 in 1998. The
number of headquarters staff overseeing the program has also grown--from
one in 1991 to six today. ONDCP has made some progress in developing
approaches to evaluate the program's effectiveness, but more work
remains. Total budget authority for the program rose from $25 million in
1990 to about $162 million in 1998. Headquarters officials and three
area directors said that the program has underscored the value of
collocation and intelligence-sharing among federal, state, and local law
enforcement officials.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-98-188
TITLE: Drug Control: Information on High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas Program
DATE: 09/03/98
SUBJECT: Performance measures
Drug abuse
National policies
Interagency relations
Law enforcement
Drug trafficking
Narcotics
Controlled substances
IDENTIFIER: ONDCP High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program
National Drug Control Strategy
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. This text was extracted from a PDF file. **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into **
** body text in the adjacent column. Graphic images have **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included. **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been **
** preserved. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** <info@www.gao.gov> **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
DRUG CONTROL: Information on High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
Program GAO/GGD-98-188 United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to the Chairman, Caucus on International Narcotics
Control, U. S.
Senate
September 1998 DRUG CONTROL Information on High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas Program
GAO/GGD-98-188
GAO/GGD-98-188
GAO United States General Accounting Office
Washington, D. C. 20548 General Government Division
B-277402 September 3, 1998 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman, Caucus on International
Narcotics Control United States Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman: This report responds to your request for us to
review several issues concerning the Office of National Drug
Control Policy's (ONDCP) High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
(HIDTA) program. The mission of the HIDTA program is to coordinate
America's drug- control efforts among federal, state, and local
agencies in designated areas in order to reduce drug trafficking
in critical regions of the United States.
Given your interest in developing comprehensive, coordinated
capabilities that allow the federal government to focus resources
in response to shifting drug trafficking threats, you asked us to
(1) identify how ONDCP is implementing the HIDTA program, (2)
describe the effect the expansion of the number of HIDTAs has had
on the administration of the program, (3) summarize what ONDCP is
doing to measure how HIDTA programs are meeting the objectives
established for the areas they serve, (4) describe how HIDTA funds
are allocated, and (5) identify any lessons ONDCP says it has
learned from the HIDTA program to date and how these lessons are
communicated among HIDTAs.
To do this work we visited the ONDCP headquarters of the HIDTA
program; the South Florida, Washington/ Baltimore, and Southwest
Border HIDTAs; and the HIDTA Assistance Center (HAC).
Results in Brief ONDCP has implemented the HIDTA program within a
general framework that requires each HIDTA to (1) assess drug
threats within its geographic
area, (2) prepare strategies and initiatives to address these
threats, (3) develop a proposed budget to accomplish its
initiatives, and (4) prepare an annual report that details its
accomplishments. Within this general framework, and with the
approval of the local HIDTA executive committee and ONDCP, each
HIDTA is to tailor its own program and areas of emphasis to
address local needs. For example, at all three HIDTAs we visited,
the main emphasis was on law enforcement. However, one HIDTA had a
substantially greater treatment and prevention component than the
others because it is a major distribution center with a large
number of
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
1
B-277402
hard- core substance abusers. ONDCP is to conduct program and
financial reviews to oversee HIDTA operations and assess
compliance with HIDTA policy and financial guidance.
The HIDTA program has grown substantially since its inception,
from the original 5 HIDTAs in 1990 to 20 in 1998. Over the same
period, the number of headquarters staff operating the program
grew from one in 1991 to six currently. According to ONDCP, one
effect of the expansion was the creation in 1996 of HAC, which is
to assist headquarters staff in the development of all HIDTAs. The
number of HAC staff is currently 18. Officials from the three
HIDTAs we visited told us that they were generally satisfied with
the guidance and oversight they received from ONDCP. However, they
expressed concern that if the program continues to grow and
staffing levels remained the same, ONDCP's ability to provide the
same level of guidance and oversight in the future could be
adversely affected.
ONDCP has made some progress in developing approaches to evaluate
the effectiveness of the HIDTA program, but more work remains. In
our 1993 report on ONDCP operations, 1 we recommended that
Congress direct ONDCP to develop better performance measures with
which to evaluate program results. In reauthorizing ONDCP in 1994,
Congress directed ONDCP to perform annual evaluations of the
effectiveness of federal drug control. ONDCP first published
information on the performance measurement system it developed in
March 1998. This system was designed to assess the effectiveness
of the National Drug Control Strategy, including the HIDTA
program. ONDCP and HIDTA officials told us that baseline data are
lacking, making it difficult for ONDCP and the individual HIDTAs
to measure program impact. ONDCP has recently begun to address
this problem, contracting with two consulting firms to develop
performance measures for the HIDTA program for which there would
be baseline data.
Total budget authority for the HIDTA program grew from $25 million
for fiscal year 1990 to about $162 million for fiscal year 1998.
Over the years, Congress has imposed funding requirements on the
program. Starting in fiscal year 1994, it required that at least
50 percent of the total HIDTA appropriation be used to fund the
participation of state and local agencies; and starting in fiscal
year 1998, it required that each existing HIDTA was to be funded
at no less than the previous year's level. ONDCP has complied with
these requirements for the 3 years we reviewed. During fiscal
years 1996 through 1998, about 65 percent of HIDTA funds were
allocated to state
1 Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (GAO/GGD-93-144, Sept. 29, 1993).
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
2
B-277402
and local agencies and about 34 percent to federal agencies.
Nationwide, about 88 percent of these funds were allocated for law
enforcement, 6 percent for treatment and prevention, and 5 percent
for administration. At the time of our review, $4.3 million from
fiscal year 1998 funding had not been allocated.
Headquarters' officials and the three HIDTA directors said that
the value of collocation and the value of intelligence- sharing
among federal, state, and local law enforcement officials are the
key lessons learned from the HIDTA experience. For example,
according to an ONDCP official, with respect to intelligence, each
HIDTA has or is developing a system designed to help ensure the
safety of personnel during narcotics investigations. The objective
of these systems is to prevent officers from unknowingly
conducting undercover transactions against other officers. This
objective is to be accomplished through the computerized sharing
of information from HIDTA law enforcement officers concerning
their undercover operations. ONDCP also encourages communication
of specific lessons learned among HIDTAs and has implemented a
number of methods for disseminating information on these lessons
learned. For example, ONDCP has established an information unit
(located within the Washington/ Baltimore HIDTA) that publishes a
monthly bulletin to highlight lessons learned and best practices.
Background ONDCP is the President's primary policy office for drug
issues, providing advice and governmentwide oversight of drug
programs and coordination
of the President's National Drug Control Strategy. One element of
this strategy is the HIDTA program, which is designed to produce a
fundamental shift in the scope of cooperative efforts, operational
methods, intelligence sharing, resource pooling, and the
development and implementation of regional antidrug strategies.
Section 1005 of the Anti- Drug Abuse Act of 1988 2 authorized the
Director of ONDCP, in consultation with the Attorney General,
heads of national drug control program agencies, and the governors
of the states, to designate areas in the United States as high
intensity drug trafficking areas. Section 1005 directs ONDCP, in
considering an area for this designation, to consider the
following criteria (along with other criteria deemed appropriate
by ONDCP):
2 P. L. 100- 690, 21 U. S. C. 1501, 1504 (1988).
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
3
B-277402
the extent to which the area is a center of illegal drug
production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution; the
extent to which state and local law enforcement agencies have
committed resources to respond to the drug trafficking problem in
the area, thereby indicating a determination to aggressively
address the problem; the extent to which drug- related activities
in the area are having a harmful
impact in other areas of the country; and the extent to which a
significant increase in the allocation of federal
resources is necessary to respond adequately to drug- related
activities in the area.
In addition to the statutory criteria, ONDCP officials told us
that they consider various sources of drug control data and
intelligence information in assessing the need to establish new
HIDTAs. Data are collected from the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
and the U. S. Customs Service. Other sources of statistical
information used are the Drug Abuse Warning Network survey, the
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, and the Monitoring the
Future Study. ONDCP officials told us they also consult with and
solicit input from the Attorney General, the primary drug control
agencies, and the governors of the state( s) under consideration.
Congress has specified in various appropriation acts certain areas
that should be designated as HIDTAs. According to ONDCP officials,
these areas were evaluated using the same criteria and process
employed in determining whether other areas should receive the
HIDTA designation. Each of these areas has been determined by
ONDCP to be an appropriate area for designation.
In all, the Director of ONDCP has designated 20 areas as HIDTAs.
(See app. I for details about HIDTAs.) As shown in figure 1, these
20 HIDTAs are: Southwest Border (which contains the five
partnerships of the California Border, Arizona, New Mexico, West
Texas, and South Texas), 3 , Los Angeles, Houston, South Florida,
and New York/ New Jersey (designated in 1990); Washington, D. C./
Baltimore and Puerto Rico/ U. S. Virgin Islands (designated in
1994); Atlanta, Chicago, and Philadelphia/ Camden
3 Due to the large geographic area covered by the Southwest Border
HIDTA, ONDCP has divided it into five areas that are called
regional partnerships: Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico,
West Texas, and South Texas. Each partnership has its own
Executive Committee and Regional Director. The entire Southwest
Border HIDTA is supported by a director and a small staff located
in San Diego, CA, that provide programmatic oversight and
management of the entire Southwest Border HIDTA program.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
4
B-277402
(designated in 1995); Rocky Mountain, Northwest, Lake County
(Indiana), Midwest, and Gulf Coast (designated in 1996); Southeast
Michigan and San Francisco Bay (designated in 1997); and Central
Florida, Appalachia, and Milwaukee (designated in 1998). According
to ONDCP officials, one additional new HIDTA may be added in 1998,
and as many as five may be added in 1999.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
5
B-277402
Figure 1: HIDTA Locations
Rocky Mountain
Denver New York/ New Jersey
New York City WA OR
CA AZ NV
UT ID
WY MT ND
SD NE
KS CO
NM TX
OK AR LA
MS AL GA
FL SC
NC TN
KY WV
MO IA
MN WI
MI IL IN OH
PA NY MA
RI CT ME
VA NJ
DE NH
VT
Southwest Border
San Diego
California
San Diego
Los Angeles San
Francisco Bay Area
Northwest
Seattle
Arizona
Tucson
New Mexico
Las Cruces
West Texas
El Paso
South Texas
San Antonio
Houston South Florida
Miami
Puerto Rico/ U. S. Virgin Islands
San Juan
Central Florida
Orlando
Appalachia
London
Atlanta Gulf Coast
Metairie
Washington DC/ Baltimore
Greenbelt, MD
Midwest
Kansas City Philadephia/ Camden
Lake County
Crown Point
Milwaukee Chicago
Southeastern Michigan
Detroit
Legend
Southwest Border partnerships HIDTA sites
Source: ONDCP.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
6
B-277402
According to ONDCP, a HIDTA organization typically consists of an
executive committee that is composed of 16 members with
approximately equal numbers of state/ local and federal officials;
a major task force consisting of 100 to 300 collocated law
enforcement
members led by federal agencies; regional local/ state- led
collocated drug and money laundering task forces; a regional
joint intelligence center and information- sharing network; and
other supporting initiatives (e. g., in the areas of drug
treatment, drug
prevention, training, etc.). According to an ONDCP official, HIDTA
program funding is meant to foster cooperative efforts among
federal, state, and local officials. Funding for the HIDTA program
has increased from $25 million in fiscal year 1990 to support the
operations of the original 5 HIDTAs, to about $162 million in
fiscal year 1998 to support the operations of 20 HIDTAs and HAC.
This amount includes both funds appropriated to ONDCP and
transfers from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund (VCRTF) of
$13.1 million and $3 million in fiscal years 1997 and 1998,
respectively. According to ONDCP, HIDTA funds have been spent on
such items as computers and cell phones, telephone company wires
for telephone taps, overtime for law enforcement agents, and
office space and supplies.
Scope and Methodology
We did our review at ONDCP headquarters, in Washington, D. C.; the
Washington/ Baltimore HIDTA in Greenbelt, MD; the Southwest Border
HIDTA and the California Border Alliance Group, in San Diego, CA;
and the South Florida HIDTA and the HIDTA Assistance Center (HAC),
in Miami, FL. These locations were judgmentally selected on the
basis of geographic location, a variety of program
characteristics, and length of time a HIDTA has been in existence.
For example, the Washington/ Baltimore HIDTA was selected because
it devoted a relatively large percentage of its resources to drug
treatment and prevention. Similarly, the Southwest Border HIDTA
was selected because it was one of the five original HIDTAs and
the largest (consisting of five separate regional partnerships
covering the southwest border of the United States). Visiting this
HIDTA also allowed us to meet with officials from both the
Southwest Border HIDTA and the California Border Alliance Group
(one of its five regional partnerships). The South Florida HIDTA
was selected because it was one of the five original HIDTAs, and
ONDCP considered it to be ahead of the others in development.
Visiting this HIDTA also enabled us to visit HAC.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
7
B-277402
To determine how ONDCP was implementing the HIDTA program, we
interviewed officials at ONDCP responsible for administering the
program and officials at three HIDTAs and the California Border
Alliance Group. In addition, we reviewed legislative records;
ONDCP's annual National Drug Control Strategies; the threat
assessments, strategies, and annual reports prepared by the three
HIDTAs we visited; as well as summaries of threat assessments and
strategies for all of the HIDTAs. In addition, we reviewed written
reports of reviews prepared by ONDCP for the three HIDTAs we
visited and the program guidance provided to the HIDTAs by ONDCP.
To determine the effect of the recent expansion in the number of
HIDTAs, we interviewed officials at ONDCP responsible for
administering the program. We also interviewed officials at the
three HIDTAs, the California Border Alliance Group, and HAC.
To determine what ONDCP is doing to measure how HIDTA programs are
meeting the objectives established by the areas they serve, we
interviewed officials at ONDCP, the three HIDTAs we visited, the
California Border Alliance Group, HAC, and ONDCP contractors
involved in ongoing evaluation efforts. In addition, we reviewed
documentation relating to ongoing and planned evaluation efforts.
To determine how HIDTA funds are allocated, we interviewed
officials at ONDCP, the three HIDTAs we visited, the California
Border Alliance Group, and HAC. We reviewed program guidance
provided to the HIDTAs by ONDCP and reviewed and analyzed budget
documentation provided by ONDCP. We did not perform a financial
audit of the HIDTAs we visited.
To determine what lessons ONDCP has learned from the HIDTA program
and how these lessons are communicated among HIDTAs, we
interviewed officials at ONDCP, the three HIDTAs we visited, and
the California Border Alliance Group. In addition, we reviewed
publications prepared by ONDCP and the HIDTAs and attended the
1997 national HIDTA Conference held in Washington, D. C.
We performed our work from September 1997 to June 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
We requested oral comments on a draft of this report from the
Director of ONDCP. On August 13, 1998, the Assistant Associate
Director of ONDCP's Bureau of State and Local Affairs provided
oral comments, which are discussed near the end of this letter.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
8
B-277402
How ONDCP Has Implemented the HIDTA Program
According to ONDCP officials, ONDCP has implemented the HIDTA
program through programmatic and financial guidance and a general
framework that is intended to set broad program parameters while
allowing sufficient flexibility at the local HIDTA level to meet
local conditions and needs. Although ONDCP retains responsibility
for overall program management, each HIDTA's director performs
day- to- day management under the direction and with the approval
of an executive committee. As part of its oversight
responsibility, ONDCP is to review the program and financial
activities of each HIDTA.
ONDCP Provides Program Guidance
ONDCP has issued guidance annually since the inception of the
HIDTA program and has incorporated suggestions solicited from the
HIDTAs, where deemed appropriate. The fiscal year 1998 guidance
requires that every HIDTA prepare a report that includes a threat
assessment, a strategy to eliminate or reduce the assessed threat,
and the initiatives that are designed to accomplish the strategy.
The guidance also requires each HIDTA to prepare an annual report
of operations and results.
The guidance describes what these various reports are to include.
For example, each HIDTA's threat assessment should include the
following:
a statement of the major drug trafficking problem in the area
(production, manufacturing, distribution, and/ or importation);
the number of major drug trafficking organizations; estimated
amount of money going back to drug source areas; cost of doing
business for major traffickers; known drug- related crime rates
with special emphasis on homicides,
aggravated assaults, robberies, and other crimes with a frequent
drug nexus; and other trends that can be quantified, such as the
street price, purity,
availability, and accessibility of various drugs. The strategy
section is to include information on how the various joint task
forces the HIDTA sponsors are to work with each other, how the
agencies within each task force are to work together, and the
expected outputs of their efforts. The initiatives section should
include details about specific components, including task forces
and intelligence center roles, that will accomplish the
strategies. Initiatives must be consistent with the threat
assessment, strategy, program guidance, and proposed budget and
must detail what is to be done through each initiative.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
9
B-277402
Concerning the results of the HIDTA's efforts, ONDCP fiscal year
1998 guidance states that the annual reports are to focus on what
difference, measured in terms of such factors as the percentage of
major drug trafficking organizations dismantled, has been made in
prior years. In addition, in 1997, ONDCP distributed a financial
and administrative guide that provides detailed guidance on the
administration of the funds that the HIDTA program provides to
state and local agencies.
After each HIDTA's proposed program is approved by the local
executive committee, it is to be forwarded to a national
coordinating committee, which is chaired by ONDCP's associate
director for state and local affairs and includes representatives
from the Departments of Justice (DOJ), the Treasury, and Health
and Human Services. According to ONDCP officials, this committee
is to meet about once or twice per year to review and comment on
the HIDTA threat assessments, strategies, initiatives, annual
reports, proposed budgets, and the draft HIDTA program guidance
and provide recommendations to the Director of ONDCP.
HIDTAs Design and Implement the Program to Suit Local Needs
According to ONDCP, most HIDTA programs have been designed to
emphasize law enforcement and drug interdiction. Treatment and
prevention initiatives have also been included in some HIDTAs, to
varying degrees, depending on the HIDTA's assessment of the threat
in its geographic area.
The three HIDTAs we visited designed and implemented different
approaches to address their local needs. For example, because the
South Florida HIDTA's region is the crossroads for nearly all air
and sea traffic from South America and the Caribbean entering the
United States, its primary emphasis is law enforcement and
interdiction, with a lesser emphasis on drug treatment and
prevention. In fiscal year 1998, in order to combat the drug and
related money laundering and violence threats faced by South
Florida, the HIDTA divided its efforts into six distinct
initiatives: (1) seven collocated task forces, each containing an
array of enforcement programs; (2) one cooperative federal and
city drug enforcement task force; (3) one cooperative task force
focusing on the apprehension of violent fugitives; (4) one
regional intelligence center; (5) a multiagency, multisite
community empowerment program; and (6) an automated drug treatment
and judicial access information management system for judges to
instantaneously retrieve offender information from multiple
information sources.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
10
B-277402
Similarly, the Southwest Border HIDTA geographic area is a drug
importation center. To address its needs, this HIDTA has a program
emphasizing law enforcement and drug interdiction. Through
integration of investigations, interdiction, and intelligence, its
multiagency task forces are to focus on specific organizations and
cells that have been identified as posing the most serious threat.
Planned initiatives are to employ a variety of investigative
techniques, such as money laundering and drug smuggling undercover
operations.
The Washington/ Baltimore HIDTA geographic area is not a drug
importation center but a major distribution center for crack
cocaine, powder cocaine, and heroin with 45 known major and 368
supporting drug trafficking organizations in the region. ONDCP
estimates that half of the more than 150,000 adults under
correctional supervision in the area are hard- core substance
abusers who are involved in both substance abuse and criminal
behavior. To address this situation, Washington/ Baltimore HIDTA
officials told us they designed an approach that has included both
a law enforcement component and a significant treatment and
prevention component. The law enforcement initiatives include four
collocated sites in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and
Northern Virginia to focus on drug distribution groups, violent
drug offenders and gangs, open air drug markets, firearms
trafficking, interdictions, and money laundering. The HIDTA also
operates an information center that includes deconfliction, 4 an
investigative unit, and strategic analysis. Treatment/ criminal
justice initiatives focus on hard- core addicts at 12 sites and
are to provide individualized treatment and supervision. This
HIDTA has also developed a computerized database that is to track
clients and is to be used in evaluating treatment outcomes.
Prevention initiatives operate through subgrants in 6
jurisdictions involving 60 agencies and provide programs in
schools and neighborhood groups aimed at preventing drug use by
young people.
ONDCP Reviews Local HIDTA Operations
As part of its oversight responsibility, ONDCP requires that each
HIDTA's programmatic and financial activities be reviewed
annually. According to ONDCP officials, on- site program reviews
of the HIDTAs began in fiscal year 1992 with the five original
HIDTAs. 5 Also, according to ONDCP officials, they began to
conduct on- site financial reviews in 1995, in addition to the
program reviews.
4 ONDCP defines deconfliction systems as intelligence- sharing
systems that prevent officers from unknowingly conducting
undercover transactions against one another. 5 Houston, South
Florida, Los Angeles, New York/ New Jersey, and the Southwest
Border.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
11
B-277402
According to ONDCP officials, reviews of program activities
consisted of comparing program guidance to operations to determine
if the HIDTA under review had adhered to policy. Financial reviews
consisted of determining whether any funds had lapsed, funds had
been spent in accordance with the approved budgets, and
expenditures were actually made for HIDTA or task force
operations. Officials also reviewed the accounting systems,
performing both a general ledger and a line- by- line review.
Written reports were prepared that summarized ONDCP's findings for
each HIDTA reviewed. The reports were distributed to ONDCP and the
HIDTAs for use in their management of the program. Until January
1997, ONDCP headquarters performed both program and financial
audits of the HIDTAs, including participating federal and state/
local agencies. In January 1997, HAC assumed the responsibility of
performing the financial reviews of the state and local agencies.
ONDCP retained responsibility for performing the financial audits
of the federal agencies as well as all program reviews.
Officials told us that despite the program's growth, the Director
of ONDCP has determined that the program and financial reviews of
all HIDTAs will continue, but the audit cycle will probably be
extended from 12 to 18 months. ONDCP may use contractors to assist
in this effort. HAC is to participate by conducting financial
reviews of the state and local grants with the assistance of an
auditor who began work in February 1998. About 20 out of a
possible 224 financial reviews of state and local participants are
to be done in 1998. The participants to be reviewed by HAC are to
be chosen, by HAC, using a risk assessment tool that considers
such factors as any increase in the amount of funding awarded to
that agency and the length of time since the last review.
HIDTA Expansion Has Resulted in an Increased Headquarters Workload
The HIDTA program has experienced considerable expansion since its
inception, growing from 5 areas in 1990 to the current 20 HIDTAs.
Over the same period, headquarters staff operating the program
grew from one in 1991 to six (including four detailees) in 1998 to
date. Staff at HAC, established in 1996, currently total 18,
including 2 contractors and 1 detailee from the Florida National
Guard.
ONDCP headquarters staff provides assistance to HIDTAs on both
program and financial matters throughout the year both informally
(through responding to telephone inquiries from HIDTA personnel)
and formally (through such means as dissemination of program
guidance and organizing conferences). Officials from the three
HIDTAs we visited told us that at the present time they were
generally satisfied with the guidance
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
12
B-277402
and oversight they received from ONDCP. However, they expressed
concern that should the program continue to grow and staffing
levels remain the same, ONDCP's ability to provide the same level
of guidance and oversight in the future might be adversely
affected. According to ONDCP officials, the effect of growth in
the HIDTA program has been to prompt them to take a number of
actions. For example, ONDCP created HAC in Miami, Florida, to
assist in the development of all HIDTAs. Specifically, the
functions of HAC include the following:
delivering HIDTA- unique training to improve core competencies 6
of the HIDTA program; developing and disseminating training and
HIDTA- supporting multimedia
products; organizing and providing customized Special Assistance
Teams to assist in
HIDTA start- up operations and address other unique needs
identified by HIDTAs; providing fiscal assistance to HIDTAs for
their state and local financial
operations, including financial reviews of the state and local
agencies; and providing automation support by delivering user
training and assistance to
HIDTAs in the identification and development of computer- based
applications (e. g., MS Word and EXCEL and MS Access).
In addition, in October 1996, HAC published the HIDTA Director's
Manual. This document was intended as an introduction to the HIDTA
concept and as an explanation of the experiences of other HIDTAs.
Some topics covered in this manual include threat assessments,
mission statements, strategy development, baseline data, and state
and local task forces.
Some Progress Has Been Made in Approaches to Program Evaluation
In our 1993 report on the reauthorization of ONDCP, we found that
national drug control strategies contained inadequate measures for
assessing the contributions of component programs, including
HIDTAs, for reducing the nation's drug problems. As a result, an
overall assessment of program operations and results was lacking.
Consequently, we recommended that as part of its reauthorization
of ONDCP, Congress direct the agency to develop better performance
measures. In reauthorizing ONDCP in 1994, Congress directed ONDCP
to perform annual evaluations of the effectiveness of federal drug
control.
6 HIDTA's core competencies include (1) institutionalizing
teamwork among federal, state, and local agencies through the
introduction and dissemination of superior management techniques
and processes; (2) investing in the creation of strategy- driven
systems that tie together teamwork- building efforts and
processes; and (3) focusing on outcomes.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
13
B-277402
ONDCP has made some progress in developing approaches to evaluate
the effectiveness of the HIDTA program. 7 For example, ONDCP has
been working on developing performance measures since the 1994
legislative mandate but has been slow to develop measures that
demonstrate program impact. Specifically, in 1994, ONDCP began
efforts to measure the international supply reduction components
of the national drug control strategy. In early 1996, ONDCP
decided to expand this effort to all drug control programs and
activities. In January 1997, ONDCP convened working groups
composed of representatives from all federal drug control agencies
as well as from state, local, and private entities to develop
national level measures of drug control performance.
In March 1998, ONDCP released information on its first published
performance measurement system, 8 which, according to ONDCP,
synthesizes the ideas and deliberations of the entire drug control
community. This new performance measurement system is designed to
(1) assess the effectiveness of the National Drug Control
Strategy; (2) provide the entire drug control community, including
state and local governments, the private sector, and foreign
governments, with critical information on what needs to be done to
refine policy and programmatic direction; and (3) assist with drug
program budget management at all levels.
ONDCP's performance measurement system contains a specific
objective, targets, and measures for the HIDTA program. The
overall objective for HIDTA performance measurement is to improve
the ability of HIDTAs to counter drug trafficking. In general,
this system specifies three targets improving each HIDTA's scope
and efficiency; increasing the proportion of drug trafficking
organizations disrupted or dismantled by each HIDTA; and reducing
drug- related violent crime (including drug- related homicides,
robberies, rapes, and assaults) in HIDTAs. Overall measures
included for the HIDTA program are the percentage of HIDTAs that
meet or exceed established milestones in the 1998 National HIDTA
Developmental Standards; the proportion of identified drug
trafficking organizations disrupted or dismantled by or within
HIDTAs; and reported rates of homicides, robberies, rapes, and
assaults in the HIDTA associated with illicit drugs as measured by
available crime indicators.
7 Evaluations of program effectiveness are different from the on-
site reviews of program and financial compliance with policy and
procedures conducted by ONDCP and discussed at pp. 11- 12. 8
Performance Measures of Effectiveness: A System for Assessing the
Performance of the National Drug Control Strategy, 1998- 2007,
ONDCP.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
14
B-277402
The fiscal year 1998 HIDTA program guidance also includes, for the
first time, HIDTA Developmental Standards that set the minimum
standards for HIDTA operations. The standards relate to essential
missions and competencies and cover (1) intelligence and
information sharing, (2) strategic planning and execution, (3)
teamwork, and (4) accountability. For example, each HIDTA is
expected to provide same- day event deconfliction services to all
of its drug control agencies during the work week. The ultimate
goal is to provide instantaneous service to all law enforcement in
the HIDTA's region, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
However, more program evaluation work remains to be done. For
example, ONDCP and HIDTA officials told us that baseline data are
lacking, making it difficult to measure program impact. According
to ONDCP officials, each HIDTA's 1998 threat assessment will serve
as the baseline data for the new performance management system.
Further, ONDCP has contracted with two consulting firms to develop
performance measures for the HIDTA program. Work under these two
contracts has only recently begun.
The first contract, through the National Institute of Justice
(NIJ), was intended to conduct a baseline problem and resource
assessment, process evaluation, and preliminary impact assessment
of HIDTA on drug trafficking in the five original program sites.
However, according to the contractor's project director, less
emphasis than initially planned will be placed on the development
of program impact measures. In addition, both NIJ and ONDCP
determined that an evaluation of impact would not be feasible
given the cost required for such an assessment.
The contract proposal period and contract negotiations began about
3 years ago. Although the contract was awarded approximately 15
months ago, the contractor did not receive its first payment from
ONDCP until December 1997. Thus, as of March 1998, the project was
just getting under way. The contractor's project director
anticipates issuing a report around March 1999.
According to an ONDCP official, the second contract, which will be
administered through HAC, is expected to provide an evaluation of
ONDCP outcomes, specifically looking at refining HIDTA measures of
effectiveness. The contractor anticipates that this review will
(1) identify what information is available from a range of
jurisdictions, noting information shortcomings; (2) lead to the
development of techniques for collecting information that may be
generally available; and (3) consider strategies for
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
15
B-277402
collecting information that is currently lacking or difficult to
obtain. This contract began in December 1997 and expires on
December 31, 1998.
How HIDTA Funds Were Allocated
The HIDTA program is funded through an appropriation and, in
fiscal years 1997 and 1998, with transfers of $13.1 million and $3
million, respectively, from VCRTF. These funds were divided by
ONDCP among the individual HIDTAs and HAC. Table 1 shows the total
funding for the HIDTA program and the amounts allocated by ONDCP
to each HIDTA and HAC.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
16
B-277402
Table 1: Total Funding Allocated to Individual HIDTAs, Fiscal
Years 1990- 1998 (in Millions) HIDTA funding 1990 1991 1992 1993
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total budget authority 25.0 82.0 86.0
86.0 86.0 107.0 103.0 140.2 162.0 Allocations to individual HIDTAs
Houston 3.3 10.6 11.9 11.6 11.5 10.0 9.6 9.5 9.5 Los Angeles 3.2
10.6 11.9 11.8 12.1 11.5 11.5 11.7 14.0 South Florida 3.8 10.6
11.9 12.2 11.8 11.6 12.0 11.5 11.7 New York 4.0 10.6 11.9 12.4
12.5 11.6 9.9 11.0 11.0 Southwest Border 10.7 30.0 38.0 38.0 38.0
37.7 35.7 36.8 38.7 Washington/ Baltimore 0.1 12.6 12.2 11.9 11.9
Puerto Rico/ U. S. Virgin Islands 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1
Atlanta 1.0 0.9 3.8 3.8 Chicago 1.0 0.9 4.2 4.3 Philadelphia/
Camden 1.0 0.6 3.6 3.6 Cascade 3.0 3.0 Gulf Coast 6.0 6.0 Lake
County 3.0 3.0 Midwest 8.0 9.5 Rocky Mountain 3.0 7.5 San
Francisco 1.0 1.8 Detroit 1.0 1.0 Appalachia 6.0 HIDTA Assistance
Center 0.7 1.7 2.3 Other a 9.6 0.4 0.4 Unallocated b 4.3
Total 25.0 82.0 86.0 86.0 86.0 107.0 103.0 140.2 162.0
a Funding for a money laundering initiative that operated across
several HIDTAs (1991, 1992); research and an independent
evaluation (1991, 1997); and the administrative support provided
by the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force in the
first years of the HIDTA program (1991, 1992).
b Represents $1 million not yet allocated to the Central Florida
HIDTA; $3 million not yet allocated to the Milwaukee HIDTA; and
$0.3 million set aside in the event Dallas, TX, is designated as a
HIDTA.
Source: ONDCP.
In the fiscal year 1998 appropriation, Congress specified that
funding for each existing HIDTA must be at no less than the fiscal
year 1997 level. This requirement was met. (See table 1.)
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
17
B-277402
ONDCP requires HIDTAs to use their funding to support initiatives
that include federal, state, and local participation. In addition,
beginning with the fiscal year 1994 appropriation and in each
subsequent year, Congress has required that at least 50 percent of
the total HIDTA appropriation was to be used to fund the
participation of state and local agencies. Our review showed that
this requirement was met for the 3 fiscal years we examined.
Figure 2 illustrates how HIDTA funding was allocated over the
entire HIDTA program, between federal and state/ local agencies,
for fiscal years 1996 through 1998. 9
Figure 2: Allocation of HIDTA Funds Between Federal and State/
Local Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998
34.0% Federal
65.0%
State/ local
1.1%
To be determined a N=$ 405.2 million. a To be determined - $4.3
million not yet allocated in fiscal year 1998.
Source: ONDCP.
HIDTA funds can be used to support the operations of the HIDTAs in
a variety of ways. Each HIDTA's budget funds the salary of its
director and the costs
9 The total dollar amounts in figures 2, 3, and 4 are not equal
due to rounding in individual entries by ONDCP.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
18
B-277402
associated with leased space. Of the 18 HAC staff, the HIDTA
appropriation funds 15 staff and 2 contractors. HAC staffing also
includes one detailee funded by the Florida National Guard. Of the
six staff at HIDTA program headquarters, two are funded from the
ONDCP appropriation; two are contract personnel funded by HAC from
the HIDTA appropriation; one is a part- time DEA representative
funded by DEA; and one is a full- time attached employee funded by
her parent unit, ONDCP's Bureau of State and Local Affairs.
HIDTA funds are also spent on such items as equipment, including
computers and cell phones; services, including telephone company
wires for telephone taps; overtime for law enforcement agents; and
office space and supplies. Funds cannot be used to fund federal
employee positions. State and local agencies must certify that any
personnel, equipment, or other expenditures funded by HIDTA would
not exist if the HIDTA program did not exist.
Figure 3 illustrates how HIDTA funds were allocated over the
entire HIDTA program, by budget category, for fiscal years 1996
through 1998.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
19
B-277402
Figure 3: Allocation of HIDTA Funds by Budget Category, Fiscal
Years 1996 Through 1998
39.2% Personnel, fringe benefits, overtime
4.5%
Travel 27.6%
Facilities, equipment, supplies
21.5%
Services
6.1%
Other a
1.1%
To be determined b N=$ 405.2 million. a Other includes the
purchase of information and evidence. b To be determined - funds
not yet allocated.
Source: ONDCP.
Table 2 illustrates how funds were allocated by the three HIDTAs
we visited, by budget category, for fiscal years 1996 through
1998.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
20
B-277402
Table 2: Allocation of Funds by Budget Category for Three HIDTAs,
Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998 (in Percentages) HIDTA Total
funding
(millions) Percent
personnel, fringe, and
overtime Percent travel
Percent facilities, equipment, and supplies Percent
services Percent other
Southwest Border $111 52% 7% 21% 15% 5% South Florida 35 38 3 27
29 3 Washington/ Baltimore 36 30 1 24 39 6
Source: ONDCP.
ONDCP gives the HIDTAs discretion on how to distribute their funds
among law enforcement, treatment, and prevention initiatives.
Figure 4 illustrates how HIDTA funds were allocated over the
entire HIDTA program, among law enforcement, treatment and
prevention, administration, and evaluation, 10 for fiscal years
1996 through 1998.
10 Funds allocated for an independent evaluation of the HIDTA
program.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
21
B-277402
Figure 4: Allocation of HIDTA Funds Among Law Enforcement,
Treatment and Prevention, Administration, and Evaluation, Fiscal
Year 1996 Through 1998
88.3% Law enforcement b
5.7%
Treatment and prevention
4.9%
Administration
1.1%
To be determined a
0.1%
Evaluation N=$ 405.3 million. Percentages do not add to 100 due to
rounding.
a To be determined - $4.3 million not yet allocated in fiscal year
1998. b Law enforcement comprises funds allocated for task forces,
intelligence, and operations support.
Source: ONDCP.
Of the three HIDTAs we visited, Southwest Border and South Florida
allocated about 94 percent and 84 percent of their funds,
respectively, to law enforcement for fiscal years 1996 through
1998; Washington/ Baltimore allocated a lower percentage, about
58, due to the much greater emphasis
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
22
B-277402
placed on treatment and prevention in this region. About 37
percent of the Washington/ Baltimore funding was allocated to
treatment and prevention, compared to less than 1 percent and
about 13 percent for Southwest Border and South Florida,
respectively.
Key Lessons Learned From HIDTA Operations and Mechanisms for
Communicating These Lessons
Discussions with headquarters' officials and three HIDTA directors
resulted in numerous examples of lessons learned from the HIDTA
experience. The two key lessons learned were the value of agency
collocation and the value of intelligence sharing. ONDCP has
implemented a number of methods for communicating these and other
lessons learned. For example, ONDCP's HIDTA information unit
publishes a monthly HIDTA bulletin and serves as a clearinghouse
for sharing HIDTA- related information with all HIDTAs.
The Value of Collocation and the Value of Intelligence Sharing Are
Key Lessons Learned
ONDCP and HIDTA officials found that collocation of federal,
state, and local task force members is beneficial because it
provides a neutral setting that creates an environment of
togetherness, facilitates and enhances communication and
coordination, and provides the opportunity for new teams to be
formed. HIDTA officials believe that working together out of
shared facilities reduces competition by contributing to
cohesiveness among the various agencies and facilitating the
resolution of interagency disputes. By combining their efforts and
resources, the collocated agencies are also able to develop a more
regional outlook and to work cases in better ways. As an example,
the Washington/ Baltimore HIDTA points out in its 1997 annual
report that collocation and the resulting regional collaboration
resulted in the dismantling of organizations in Washington, D. C.,
and Prince George's and Montgomery Counties believed to be
responsible for one- third of the crack distribution in the area.
A second lesson learned is the value of each HIDTA establishing an
intelligence information center to ensure that all participating
personnel have access to drug- related information collected by
these personnel as well as other sources. For example, according
to an ONDCP official, each HIDTA has or is developing a
deconfliction system designed to help ensure the safety of
personnel during narcotics investigations. The objective is to
prevent officers from unknowingly conducting undercover
transactions against one another. Under the system agents are to
provide certain information on their operations to the personnel
operating the HIDTA's computerized deconfliction system: if
simultaneous activity by another
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
23
B-277402
agent/ organization against the same target is planned, the people
operating the system are to call the agents to inform them of the
conflict.
ONDCP Has Established Mechanisms for Communicating Lessons Learned
ONDCP and HIDTA officials identified mechanisms currently in place
to communicate lessons learned among the various HIDTAs. These
included the following:
weekly teleconferences between ONDCP and HIDTA directors,
quarterly HIDTA directors' meetings, requirement for HIDTAs to
provide information on what have you done to
assist other HIDTAs as part of their annual reports, and the
annual National HIDTA Conference.
In addition, ONDCP also operates a HIDTA information unit that is
designed to facilitate communication among HIDTAs. Its
responsibilities include issuing a monthly newsletter that
highlights lessons learned and best practices and is distributed
to members and participants in the HIDTA program, Members of
Congress, and the national and local media. The unit also provides
editorial assistance to the HIDTAs in their preparation of annual
reports and threat assessments; prepares and distributes bulletins
related to drug enforcement, treatment, and prevention activities;
and serves as a clearinghouse for drug- related information.
Agency Comments We requested comments on a draft of this report
from the Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy. On
August 13, 1998, an official from ONDCP
provided oral comments, saying that ONDCP fully agreed with the
information presented in this report.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
24
B-277402
As agreed with your office, unless you announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of the
report to the Co- Chair of the Caucus, Chairmen and Ranking
Minority Members of interested congressional committees, and the
Director of ONDCP. We will also make copies available to others
upon request.
The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.
If you or your staff have any questions on this report, please
call me on (202) 512- 8777.
Sincerely yours, Richard M. Stana Associate Director,
Administration
of Justice Issues
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
25
Contents Letter 1 Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
28 Appendix II Major Contributors to This Report
50 Tables Table 1: Total Funding Allocated to Individual HIDTAs,
Fiscal
Years 1990- 1998 17
Table 2: Allocation of Funds by Budget Category for Three HIDTAs,
Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998
21 Figures Figure 1: HIDTA Locations 6
Figure 2: Allocation of HIDTA Funds Between Federal and State/
Local Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998
18 Figure 3: Allocation of HIDTA Funds by Budget Category, Fiscal
Years 1996 Through 1998 20
Figure 4: Allocation of HIDTA Funds Among Law Enforcement,
Treatment and Prevention, Administration, and Evaluation, Fiscal
Year 1996 Through 1998
22
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
26
Contents Abbreviations
ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms DEA Drug Enforcement
Administration DOD Department of Defense DOJ Department of Justice
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation FinCEN Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network HAC HIDTA Assistance Center HIDTA High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Area HUD Department of Housing and
Urban Development INS Immigration and Naturalization Service IRS
Internal Revenue Service NIJ National Institute of Justice ONDCP
Office of National Drug Control Policy POE port of entry VCRTF
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
27
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
Houston, TX, 1990 Geographic area covered: The city of Houston and
the surrounding areas of Galveston, Harris, Arkansas, Brooks, Jim
Wells, Kennedy, Kleberg,
Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, and Victoria Counties. Fiscal Year
1998 Threat Abstract
Geographic location, demographic makeup, and economic factors,
including corporate and international trade, make Houston a prime
location for the drug wholesaler and retailer, as do the area's
proximity to Mexico and the number of air, sea, and ground
transportation opportunities. Cocaine is the greatest threat.
Participating agencies have identified more than 150 illegal drug
trafficking or money laundering operations in the Houston area.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goal is to create, broker, and nurture multiagency task force
approaches for disrupting and dismantling narcotic, money
laundering, and gang organizations. HIDTA resources have been
divided into trafficker, money laundering, gang, and intelligence
initiatives.
Agency Participation Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (ATF), DEA, FBI, Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), U.
S. Attorney's Office, U. S. Customs Service, U. S. Marshals
Service.
State Texas Department of Banking, Texas Department of Public
Safety, Texas National Guard, Texas Office of the Attorney
General.
Local City of Baytown, two police departments, two county
sheriff's offices. Los Angeles, CA, 1990 Geographic area covered:
The City of Los Angeles and the surrounding
areas of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino
counties. Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
The region's diverse geography and 213 miles of coastline make it
ideal for the manufacture and distribution of all types of illegal
drugs. Easy land, sea, and air access facilitate the trafficking
of drugs, and there is a growing challenge posed by Mexican
nationals who smuggle in the region. Cocaine trafficking exceeds
130 tons per year. Illegal methamphetamine
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
28
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
production has increased, with 49 organizations identified as
manufacturers.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Goals include the reduction of major drug trafficking and money
laundering organizations that operate in the region, with a
primary focus on cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and heroin.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, Organized
Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, U. S.
Customs Service, U. S. Marshals Service. State Alcoholic Beverage
Control, California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement,
California Department of Justice, California Highway Patrol. Local
Fifty police departments, 4 county sheriff's departments, Los
Angeles
County Probation Department, Regional Narcotics Suppression
Program, Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association, San
Bernardino District Attorney's Office.
South Florida Miami, FL, 1990
Geographic area covered: The City of Miami and the surrounding
areas of Broward, Dade, and Monroe counties.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
At the crossroads for nearly all air and sea traffic from South
America and the Caribbean, the region's 3 international seaports,
4 international airports, and 10 private airports are focal points
for organizations attempting to smuggle cocaine into the United
States. More than 200 trafficking organizations operate in this
region. Although powder and crack cocaine are the regional drugs
of choice, heroin use has increased among the young.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Goals are to reduce the trafficking of drugs via air, sea, and
ground transportation; reduce money laundering in transportation
systems, financial institutions, and commercial businesses; reduce
drug- related crime and violence; reduce drug abuse through
improvement of drug treatment information management systems and
the identification and
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
29
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
referral of criminal justice- involved abusers; and prevent drug
abuse through community recovery and youth leadership programs.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network (FinCEN), INS, IRS,
Joint Interagency Task Force- East, Department of Defense (DOD)
Joint Task Force Six, National Park Service, U. S. Attorney's
Office, U. S. Border Patrol, U. S. Coast Guard, U. S. Customs
Service, U. S. Department of State, U. S. Marshals Service, U. S.
Postal Service, U. S. Probation Office, U. S. Secret Service.
State Florida Department of Banking and Finance, Florida
Department of Law Enforcement, Florida Department of Revenue,
Florida Highway Patrol, Florida Marine Patrol, Florida National
Guard.
Local Thirty police departments, 6 county sheriff's offices, Dade
County District Attorney's Office.
New York/ New Jersey New York City, NY, 1990
Geographic area covered: The City of New York; Nassau, Suffolk,
and Westchester counties in New York; and Bergen, Essex, Hudson,
Passaic, and Union counties in New Jersey.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
With international airports, major rail lines, numerous major
highways, and extensive waterfront property, New York City is the
primary distribution center for cocaine and heroin in the
Northeast. At least half of the heroin seized by DEA domestically
is seized in or destined for New York City. The city has more than
500 major drug trafficking organizations and more than 250 money
laundering enterprises, and it has been estimated that Colombian
drug dealers alone have laundered between $800 million and $1
billion in the city. Heroin use in New York City and Newark, NJ,
rose 77 percent and 126 percent, respectively, between 1991 and
1995; cocaine use increased by 20 percent and 7 percent,
respectively.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
This HIDTA has set eight specific goals: (1) reduce crime,
particularly in public housing; (2) reduce money laundering
activities; (3) increase forfeiture of drug trafficking proceeds;
(4) reduce the number of drug
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
30
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
fugitives and criminal aliens at- large in the area; (5) reduce
drug- related gun violence; (6) prevent emerging drug epidemics,
particularly heroin and methamphetamine; (7) enhance cooperation
and drug- related information sharing among law enforcement
agencies, particularly through technology; and (8) reduce illegal
drug use, particularly among young people.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DOD's Joint Task Force Six, DEA,
FBI, Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), INS, IRS/ Criminal Investigation Division, U. S. Army
Reserves, U. S. Attorney's Offices, U. S. Coast Guard, U. S. Navy
Reserves, U. S. Customs Service, U. S. Marshals Service, U. S.
Park Police, U. S. Postal Service, U. S. Probation Service, U. S.
Secret Service.
State New Jersey National Guard, New Jersey Attorney General's
Office, New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice, New Jersey State
Police, New York National Guard, New York/ New Jersey Port
Authority, New York State Banking Department, New York State
Police, New York State Parole.
Local Six county prosecutor's offices, six county district
attorney's offices, District Attorney's Office of New York City,
two county sheriff's offices, six police departments, New York
City Mayor's Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator, New York
City Department of Correction, New York City Housing Authority,
Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, Westchester County
Department of Corrections, Westchester County Department of Public
Safety.
Southwest Border San Diego, CA, 1990
Geographic area covered: Five partnerships covering 41 counties
and 5 federal judicial districts in the states of California,
Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
The area's 38 ports of entry (POE), 3 of which are among the
busiest in the world, are transit points for organizations
attempting to smuggle cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and
methamphetamine into the United States. The significant
transportation networks in this region include airports,
railroads, and major highways.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
31
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
To reduce drug trafficking through the development of regional
systems that promote coordinated drug interdiction, intelligence,
investigation, and prosecution efforts.
Agency Participation All agencies participating in the five
Southwest Border partnerships are considered by ONDCP to be
participants in the Southwest Border HIDTA.
Arizona Partnership, Southwest Border HIDTA Tucson, AZ, 1990
Geographic area covered: Yuma, Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Santa Cruz,
and Cochise counties.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
With 350 miles of a largely unsecured international border, the
region is a focal point for cocaine and marijuana smuggling. The
illicit manufacture and sale of methamphetamine is also a threat.
Arizona border counties report a high percentage of drug related
violent crimes and property crimes. In Phoenix, 70 percent of all
homicides and 57 percent of all aggravated assaults are drug
related.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
The Arizona Partnership enables participating law enforcement
agencies working within the six HIDTA counties to disrupt and
dismantle the most significant drug trafficking, methamphetamine
production, and international money laundering organizations
operating in and through the state of Arizona.
Agency Participation Federal Bureau of Land Management, DEA, FBI,
IRS, National Park Service, U. S.
Border Patrol, U. S. Customs Service, U. S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, National Forest Service, U. S. Marshals Service.
State Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Department of
Public Safety. Local Nineteen police departments, 6 sheriff's
departments/ offices, Cochise
County Attorney, Patagonia Marshal's Office, Pima County
Attorney's
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
32
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
Office, Santa Cruz County Attorney's Office, Tombstone Marshal's
Office, Yuma County Attorney's Office.
California Border Alliance Group, Southwest Border HIDTA San
Diego, CA, 1990
Geographic area covered: San Diego and Imperial counties. Fiscal
Year 1998 Threat Abstract
Cocaine, marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine smuggling from
Mexico are the primary threats to the region, with maritime
smuggling via the adjacent waters of the Pacific constituting a
resurgent threat. Thirty major drug trafficking organizations and
13 gangs with ties to major drug traffickers are under active
investigation.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goal is to coordinate joint operations and initiatives to
deter, disrupt, dismantle, and destroy the most significant drug
trafficking organizations and their supporting transportation and
money laundering operations.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, Bureau of Land Management, DEA,
FBI, INS, IRS, DOD's Joint Task Force
Six, U. S. Attorney's Office, U. S. Border Patrol, U. S. Coast
Guard, U. S. Customs Service, Department of Justice's Office of
Inspector General, U. S. Forest Service, U. S. Postal Inspection
Service.
State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, California Department of
Corrections, California Department of Justice, California Highway
Patrol, the California National Guard.
Local Twelve police departments, 2 district attorney's offices, 2
sheriff's offices.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
33
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
New Mexico Partnership, Southwest Border HIDTA Las Cruces, NM,
1990
Geographic area covered: Bernalillo, Hidalgo, Grant, Luna, Dona
Ana, Eddy, Lea, Otero, Chaves, and Lincoln counties.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
New Mexico's three POEs are experiencing increased use by drug
smugglers. Drug- related crime is prevalent, and many drug
trafficking organizations are operating in the area. Crack cocaine
plagues the larger metropolitan areas and has made inroads into
smaller communities. Methamphetamine manufacture and use are also
on the rise. Heroin is also more readily available than ever
before in New Mexico.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goals are to reduce drug shipments through the HIDTA by
identifying the responsible organizations, reduce distribution of
drugs within communities, continue the interdiction of smuggled
drugs, and reduce the manufacture of methamphetamine. HIDTA plans
to coordinate 18 initiatives to build 4 counterdrug systems.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, DOD's Joint
Task Force Six, U. S. Attorney's Office,
U. S. Border Patrol, U. S. Customs Service, Amtrak Police
Department. State New Mexico Attorney General's Office, New Mexico
Department of Public
Safety, New Mexico Department of Tax & Revenue, New Mexico Motor
Transport Division, New Mexico National Guard, New Mexico State
Police.
Local Seventeen police departments, 12 county sheriff's offices,
Alamogordo Department of Public Safety, District Attorney's
Offices (12th, 3rd, 5th, and 6th Judicial Districts), Eddy County
District Attorney's Office, Lea County District Attorney's Office,
Town of Tatum.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
34
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
South Texas Partnership, Southwest Border HIDTA San Antonio, TX,
1990
Geographic area covered: Bexar, Val Verde, Kinney, Maverick,
Zavala, Dimmit, LaSalle, Webb, Zapata, Jim Hogg, Starr, Hidalgo,
Willacy, and Cameron counties.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
The POEs along this 647- mile stretch of border process more
vehicle, cargo, train, and pedestrian traffic than any other
border HIDTA, making transportation and wholesale distribution of
illegal drugs major threats in the area. The low water level of
the Rio Grande River and associated lakes of the South Texas
border have increased backpack smuggling. Drug and money
laundering enterprises are flourishing, as is drug- related
violence.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Goals include increasing counterdrug intelligence, reducing drug
availability, reducing drug trafficking, and reducing money
laundering activities. It plans to accomplish this by implementing
intelligence initiatives linked to 13 national databases and 8
national and state intelligence elements, an investigative system
focusing on intelligence and other interdiction systems, and a
deconfliction system.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, DOD's Joint
Task Force Six, U. S. Attorney's Office,
U. S. Border Patrol, U. S. Customs Service, U. S. Marshals
Service, U. S. Secret Service.
State Texas Attorney General's Office, Texas Bank Examiners, Texas
Department of Public Safety, Texas Narcotics Information System,
Texas National Guard.
Local Eleven police departments, 9 county sheriff's offices, 4
county district attorney's offices, Webb County Constable.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
35
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
West Texas Partnership, Southwest Border HIDTA El Paso, TX, 1990
Geographic area covered: El Paso, Hudspeth, Culberson, Jeff Davis,
Presidio, Brewster, Pecos, Terrell, and Crockett counties.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
With its 14 POEs and hundreds of miles of remote, unregulated
territory, this area attracts traffickers of marijuana, cocaine,
and heroin. Law enforcement agencies have identified 4 major drug
trafficking organizations, 20 supporting organizations, 3 gangs,
and 48 known money laundering operations operating in the area.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goals are to dismantle drug trafficking organizations and to
stop the flow of drugs into the United States through 12
counterdrug intelligence, interdiction, investigation, forfeiture,
and prosecution initiatives.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, DOD's Joint
Task Force Six, National Park Service,
U. S. Attorney's Office, U. S. Border Patrol, U. S. Customs
Service, U. S. Marshals Service, U. S. Secret Service.
State Texas Attorney General's Office, Texas Department of Public
Safety, Texas National Guard.
Local Two police departments, five county sheriff's offices.
Washington/ Baltimore Greenbelt, MD, 1994
Geographic area covered: The cities of Washington, D. C. and
Baltimore, MD; Baltimore, Howard, Anne Arundel, Charles,
Montgomery, and Prince George's counties in Maryland; the City of
Alexandria and Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William
counties in Virginia.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
With two major population centers, a seaport, three commercial
airports, and several interstate highways, this is a major area
for the trafficking of crack and powder cocaine, heroin, and
marijuana. One- half of the more than 150,000 adults under
correctional supervision are hard- core
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
36
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
substance abusers who are involved in substance abuse and criminal
behavior. Law enforcement agencies have identified more than 40
major and over 350 supporting drug trafficking organizations in
the region.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goals are to reduce organized drug distribution, firearms
trafficking, drug- related violent crime, and money laundering;
also, reduce the demand for drugs in the region. The HIDTA
integrates federal, state, and local agencies into drug control/
enforcement along with treatment/ criminal justice and prevention
initiatives. Enforcement initiatives work through four collocated
law enforcement initiative sites.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, HUD, IRS, U. S. Air
Force, U. S. Army Reserve, U. S. Navy
Reserve, U. S. District Court, U. S. Customs Service, U. S. Park
Police, U. S. Postal Inspection Service, U. S. Secret Service.
State/ District Administrative Judge of the Circuit Court (D. C.),
District of Columbia National Guard, Maryland National Guard,
Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Local Twenty- one police departments, 2 county sheriff's offices,
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration (Baltimore), Arlington
County Substance Abuse, Baltimore Housing Authority, Commonwealth
Attorney, District of Columbia Pretrial Services Agency,
Maryland's Divisions of Adult Addiction Services and Parole and
Probation, East Baltimore Community Corporation, Fairfax Falls
Church Community Services Board, Governor's Office of Crime
Control and Prevention, Loudoun Community Services Board,
Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority, Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments, Montgomery County Health and Human
Services, Prince William County Community Services Board, State
Attorney for Baltimore City, University of Maryland.
Puerto Rico/ U. S. Virgin Islands San Juan, PR, 1994
Geographic area covered: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands and islands of Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, St.
Thomas, St. Croix, and St. John.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
37
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
Puerto Rico and the U. S. Virgin Islands are the closest points of
entry into the United States for drug traffickers from Latin
America. The islands include nearly 600 miles of coastline with
several maritime ports, including San Juan, the most active port
of entry in the Caribbean area. Cocaine, marijuana, and heroin are
the primary drug threats. Over 50,000 persons are addicted to
illegal drugs. In addition to more than 80 major drug trafficking
organizations, the region is faced with police and public
corruption.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goals are to reduce major drug trafficking, lower the use of
controlled substances, and eliminate the money laundering
organizations operating in the region. This HIDTA's initiatives
are expected to enhance intelligence; strengthen coordination
between agencies; improve identification, investigation, and
interdiction of major drug trafficking organizations; and
dismantle or disrupt money laundering operations in the region.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, U. S.
Attorney's Office for Puerto Rico, U. S. Attorney's
Office for the Virgin Islands, U. S. Border Patrol, U. S. Coast
Guard, U. S. Customs Service, U. S. Department of Defense Southern
Command, U. S. Marshals Service, U. S. Naval Investigative
Service, U. S. Postal Inspection Service, U. S. Secret Service.
Territorial Puerto Rico Department of Justice, Special
Investigations Bureau, Puerto Rico Police Department, Puerto Rico
Department of the Treasury, Puerto Rico Mental Health and Anti-
Addiction Services Administration, Puerto Rico National Guard,
Virgin Islands National Guard.
Local Attorney General, Virgin Islands Police Department. Atlanta,
GA, 1995 Geographic area covered: The city of Atlanta and Fulton
and DeKalb
counties. Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
Located between the northeastern and southeastern seaboards,
Atlanta serves as an importation center for international
smuggling cartels. Several interstate highways traverse the
region, making it a significant wholesale and retail distribution
point, consumption base, storage depot, and
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
38
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
rendezvous site. A number of gangs and money laundering groups
have been identified in the area.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goals are to reduce the availability of and demand for illicit
drugs, curtail the attendant violent crime and illegal firearms
trafficking, eliminate the profits from illegal drug- related
activities, and reclaim neighborhoods from criminal control. This
is to be accomplished through integration of demand reduction,
education, and drug treatment efforts with strict enforcement by
HIDTA Task Force components of federal, state, and local law
enforcement.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, U. S. Attorney's
Office, U. S. Customs Service, U. S. Marshals
Service, U. S. Secret Service. State Georgia Bureau of
Investigation, Georgia Army National Guard, Georgia
State Patrol. Local Three police departments, Metropolitan Atlanta
Rail and Transit Authority,
Fulton County District Attorney's Office, DeKalb County District
Attorney's Office.
Chicago, IL, 1995 Geographic area covered: Cook County,
incorporating the city of Chicago. Fiscal Year 1998 Threat
Abstract
The Chicago area is a major manufacturing and distribution center
for illegal drugs destined for other cities. Cocaine trafficking
and money laundering are the most serious threats to the
community. Chicago has been a major market for drug use with
heroin and club drugs increasing in demand and purity. Street
gangs continue to control the supply and distribution of the
principal illicit drugs.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
The HIDTA plans to activate a performance- based attack on illegal
drug distribution and money laundering, as well as related
violence and socioeconomic decay. Goals are to improve information
sharing, dismantle the hierarchy of the largest retail drug
organization in the area,
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
39
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
reduce drug- related violence, reduce money laundering activities,
and interdict drugs destined for Cook County.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, HUD, IRS, DOD's Joint
Task Force Six, U. S. Customs Service,
U. S. Marine Corps, U. S. Navy. State Illinois Attorney General,
Illinois National Guard, Illinois State Police. Local Eight police
departments, three county sheriff's offices, Cook County
States Attorney's Office. Philadelphia/ Camden Philadelphia, PA,
1995
Geographic area covered: Cities of Philadelphia and Camden. Fiscal
Year 1998 Threat Abstract
Cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drugs are readily
available. Drug trafficking continues to spawn violent crimes in
the region. The Philadelphia and Camden seaports, which handled
more than 3 million tons of cargo in 1996, are a major source of
drugs, as are the area's airports.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goal is to focus efforts toward dismantling the most
significant drug trafficking and drug money laundering
organizations in the area as well as reduce drug- related violent
crime.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, Health and Human
Services, INS, IRS, U. S. Attorney's
Office/ Eastern District of Pennsylvania, U. S. Attorney's Office/
New Jersey, U. S. Customs Service, U. S. Marshals Service.
State Delaware River Port Authority, New Jersey State Police, New
Jersey National Guard, Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office,
Pennsylvania National Guard, Pennsylvania State Police.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
40
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
Local Seven police departments, the Camden County Prosecutor's
Office, Camden County Sheriff's Office, Delaware County Criminal
Investigations Division, Philadelphia District Attorney's Office.
Gulf Coast Metairie, LA, 1996
Geographic area covered: Baldwin, Jefferson, Mobile, and
Montgomery counties in Alabama; Caddo, East Baton Rouge,
Jefferson, and Orleans parishes in Louisiana; and Hancock,
Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson counties in Mississippi.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
The Gulf Coast serves as a gateway for drugs entering the United
States. Thousands of miles of largely unpatrolled coastline make
the area attractive to air and maritime smugglers. An elaborate
system of interstate highways and major roads makes transportation
and distribution of illegal drugs easy. Cocaine and crack are
linked with social, economic, and violent crime damage. Violent
drug trafficking organizations have developed markets in the HIDTA
region and have created significant drug distribution networks.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goal is to measurably reduce the impact of Gulf Coast drug
trafficking on other parts of the United States and violent drug
trafficking in its immediate three- state area. The HIDTA plans to
have its intelligence and operations centers fully operational.
The operations centers in each state house major investigations,
Money Laundering Teams, a Community Empowerment Specialist, and
Mobile Deployment Teams.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, HUD, INS, IRS, DOD's
Joint Task Force Six, U. S. Attorney's
Office, U. S. Coast Guard, U. S. Customs Service, U. S. Marshals
Service, U. S. Postal Service.
State Alabama Bureau of Investigations, Alabama Department of
Conservation, Alabama Marine Police, Alabama National Guard,
Alabama State Troopers, Louisiana National Guard, Louisiana State
Police, Mississippi Attorney General's Office, Mississippi Bureau
of Narcotics, Mississippi Department of Transportation,
Mississippi Highway Patrol, Mississippi National Guard,
Mississippi Public Service Commission.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
41
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
Local Twenty police departments, 9 sheriff's departments,
Shreveport- Bossier Narcotics Task Force.
Lake County Crown Point, IN, 1996
Geographic area covered: Lake County, Indiana. Fiscal Year 1998
Threat Abstract
Lake County comprises 19 municipal jurisdictions with a population
of more than 481,000. Its proximity to larger metropolitan areas,
its economic problems, and the infiltration of street gangs have
made it the off- ramp for drug trafficking, with an estimated 90
illicit drug organizations operating within its borders.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goal is to reduce criminal drug trafficking organizations,
reduce drug- related violent crime, reduce drug- related property
crime, and identify and reduce money laundering activities. To
accomplish this, it plans to continue to coordinate and implement
a multiagency enforcement strategic plan to dismantle and disrupt
illegal narcotics distribution and associated violent crime.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, HUD, Inspector
General's Office, IRS, U. S. Attorney's Office,
U. S. Marshals Service, U. S. Secret Service. State Indiana
National Guard, Indiana State Police. Local Fourteen police
departments, Lake County Prosecutor's Office, Lake
County Sheriff's Office. Midwest Kansas City, MO, 1996
Geographic area covered: Muscatine, Polk, Pottawattamie, Scott,
and Woodbury counties in Iowa; Cherokee, Crawford, Johnson,
Labette, Leavenworth, Saline, Seward, and Wyandotte counties in
Kansas; Cape Girardeau, Christian, Clay, Jackson, Lafayette,
Lawrence, Ray, Scott, and St. Charles counties and the city of St.
Louis in Missouri; Dakota, Dawson, Douglas, Hall, Lancaster,
Sarpy, and Scottsbluff counties in Nebraska; and Clay, Coddington,
Custer, Fall River, Lawrence, Lincoln, Meade, Minnehaha,
Pennington, Union, and Yankton counties in South Dakota.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
42
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
Located at the geographic crossroads of the United States, this
predominantly rural region is connected via major interstate
highways, rail, and air to the West and Southwest border areas.
The region's methamphetamine epidemic stems from steadily
increasing importation of methamphetamine into the region by
organized trafficking groups and the clandestine manufacture by
user/ dealers within the region. Missouri is second in the country
in number of labs seized. According to DEA, 20 Mexican
methamphetamine organizations operate in the region.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goal is to measurably reduce and disrupt the importation,
distribution, and clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine in
the five- state region and other parts of the United States,
thereby reducing the impact of illicit drugs and related violent
criminal activity. The Midwest HIDTA Executive Committee and the
Midwest HIDTA Director, in cooperation with the State Boards and
other subcommittees, coordinate the integration and
synchronization of all participating agencies' initiatives to
ensure a unified effort in achieving the mission of the Midwest
HIDTA.
Agency Participation Federal ATF; DEA; FBI; Food and Drug
Administration; INS; IRS; U. S. Army's Joint
Task Force Six; U. S. Attorney's Offices in the Northern and
Southern Districts of Iowa, District of Kansas, Western and
Eastern Districts of Missouri, District of Nebraska, and District
of South Dakota; U. S. Marshals Service.
State Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement, Iowa National Guard,
Iowa State Fire Marshal's Office, Iowa State Patrol, Kansas Bureau
of Investigation, Kansas National Guard, Missouri Department of
Public Safety, Missouri National Guard, Missouri State Highway
Patrol, Nebraska National Guard, Nebraska State Patrol, South
Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation, South Dakota National
Guard.
Local Sixteen police departments, 11 county sheriff's offices, 3
task forces. Northwest Seattle, WA, 1996
Geographic area covered: King, Pierce, Skagit, Snohomish,
Thurston, Whatcom, and Yakima counties in Washington.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
43
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
The Northwest is a gateway for illegal drugs into the United
States. Major importation routes include (1) Sea- Tac Airport, (2)
the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, (3) I- 5 corridor traffic, (4)
Yakima Valley (Highway 97) traffic, and (5) international border
traffic. Use of methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana
has increased, and this in turn has increased trafficking and
associated gang violence in the region. Over the past 3 years, the
number of methamphetamine labs has doubled.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goals are to measurably reduce large- scale importation and
local drug trafficking by intercepting shipments and disrupting
local manufacturing and trafficking operations and reduce demand
by supporting treatment and effective demand reduction programs.
The Northwest HIDTA, through its Executive Committee, coordinates
and synchronizes efforts under way by providing investigative
support and intelligence services to task forces.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, Canada Customs, DEA, FBI, INS,
IRS, DOD's Joint Task Force Six, U. S.
Attorney's Office, U. S. Border Patrol, U. S. Coast Guard, U. S.
Customs Service, U. S. Marshals Service, U. S. Secret Service.
State Washington Department of Social and Health Services,
Washington National Guard, Washington State Patrol.
Local Seventeen Washington cities, 8 police departments, 5 county
sheriff's departments, King County Drug Court, Pierce County
Alliance, Pierce County Drug Court, Pierce County Prosecutors
Office, Pierce County Human Services, Snohomish County Community
Mobilization, Thurston County Narcotics Task Force, Tulalip
Tribes.
Rocky Mountain Denver, CO, 1996
Geographic area covered: Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, Douglas, Eagle,
El Paso, Garfield, Jefferson, La Plata, and Mesa counties in
Colorado; Davis, Salt Lake, Summit, Utah, and Weber counties in
Utah; and Laramie, Natrona, and Sweetwater counties in Wyoming.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
The region is increasingly becoming a transshipment point for
drugs from Mexico and the Southwest Border to other locations in
the United States. Major obstacles include a diverse topography, a
growing immigrant and
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
44
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
nonresident tourist population, the growth of gangs and money
laundering organizations, and the limited number of state troopers
serving a large geographic area. The area has over 22,000 miles of
highways and a variety of airports, commercial bus routes, and
Amtrak trains.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its focus is to continue counterdrug initiatives in the areas of
intelligence, training, transportation, and major trafficking.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, HUD, INS, IRS, U. S.
Attorney's Offices in Colorado and
Wyoming, U. S. Customs Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
U. S. Marshals Service, U. S. Postal Inspection Service.
State Colorado Bureau of Investigations, Colorado Department of
Public Safety, Colorado Division of Gaming, Colorado National
Guard, Colorado State Patrol, Fourth Judicial District Attorney's
Office, Utah Adult Probation and Parole, Utah Division of
Investigations, Wyoming Attorney General, Wyoming Division of
Criminal Investigations, Wyoming Highway Patrol.
Local Thirty- seven police departments, 21 sheriff's offices, Alta
Marshals Office. San Francisco Bay Area San Francisco, CA, 1997
Geographic area covered: Alameda, Contra Costa, Lake, Marin,
Monterey, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and
Sonoma counties.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
A strategic point for the movement of narcotics and chemicals, the
region has a well- developed infrastructure of commercial
enterprise, transportation, and international finance. San
Francisco's primary threat is from methamphetamine. Cocaine and
marijuana trafficking are also a concern. International airports
and seaports, in addition to overland routes, facilitate the
smuggling of precursor chemicals and narcotics. Law enforcement
agencies have targeted 120 major drug trafficking organizations,
170 supporting organizations, 240 gangs, and more than 20 money
laundering enterprises for investigation and dismantling.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goals are coordinating the exchange of narcotics intelligence
by all participating local, state, and federal agencies; and
enhancing officer
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
45
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
safety for all Bay Area law enforcement personnel through
establishment of a deconfliction center, joint training, and
improved interagency cooperation.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, DOD's Joint
Task Force Six, U. S. Attorney's Office,
U. S. Customs Service, U. S. Marshals Service, U. S. Postal
Inspection Service.
State California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, California
Department of Corrections, California Highway Patrol, California
National Guard, California Attorney General, Western States
Information Network.
Local Five police departments, seven county sheriff's offices, two
county district attorney's offices.
Southeastern Michigan Detroit, MI, 1997
Geographic area covered: Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, and Washtenaw
counties.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
Michigan waterways and lakes provide virtually unhindered access
to limitless landing areas from cities and ports in Canada and the
United States. As a result, the area has become a major drug
transportation, distribution, and importation center and a money
laundering/ financial crimes center. Crack cocaine, heroin,
marijuana, and other drugs are readily available in the region.
Law enforcement agencies estimate that there are more than 30
major drug trafficking organizations in the region.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its goals are to reduce drug trafficking, related violent crime,
and money laundering through the coordination and sharing of
intelligence, a unified law enforcement effort, and community
cooperation.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DOD, DEA, FBI, INS, IRS, U. S.
Customs Service, U. S. Marshals Service.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
46
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
State Michigan National Guard, Michigan State Police. Local
Detroit Police Department.
Milwaukee, WI, 1998 Geographic area covered: Milwaukee County.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
Milwaukee has become a regional drug transshipment point. The area
is located at the intersection of two interstate highways that
directly link the city to Chicago. The Port of Milwaukee on Lake
Michigan, an international airport, numerous private and regional
airports, and a large amount of flat terrain conducive to
makeshift airports also ease drug trafficking into and through
Milwaukee. Drug trafficking organizations operating in the area
range from street- level dealers to sophisticated international
organizations. Marijuana growing is on the rise, although Mexican
marijuana is prevalent. There is also growing evidence of a number
of Nigerian, Dominican, and Jamaican drug organizations operating
in the area.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its mission is to substantially and measurably reduce organized
drug distribution, drug- related violent crime, money laundering,
and the demand for illegal drugs within the Milwaukee area. To
accomplish this objective, this HIDTA has six initiatives to
enhance the intelligence process, operational coordination, and
prosecution.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, IRS, U. S. Attorney's
Office, U. S. Customs Service, U. S.
Marshals Service. State Wisconsin Division of Narcotics
Enforcement, Wisconsin National Guard. Local Three police
departments, Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department,
Milwaukee Metro Drug Enforcement Group, Milwaukee County District
Attorney's Office.
Appalachia London, KY, 1998
Geographic area covered: Twenty- six Kentucky counties (Adair,
Bell, Breathitt, Clay, Clinton, Cumberland, Floyd, Harlan,
Jackson, Knott, Knox,
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
47
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
Laurel, Lee, Leslie, McCreary, Magoffin, Marion, Monroe, Owsley,
Perry, Pike, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Taylor, Wayne, and Whitley); 28
Tennessee counties (Bledsoe, Campbell, Claiborne, Clay, Cocke,
Cumberland, Fentress, Franklin, Grainger, Greene, Grundy, Hamblen,
Hancock, Hawkins, Jackson, Jefferson, Macon, Marion, Overton,
Pickett, Putnam, Rhea, Scott, Sequatchie, Sevier, Unicoi, Van
Buren, and White); and eleven West Virginia counties (Boone,
Braxton, Cabell, Gilmer, Lewis, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, McDowell,
Mingo, and Wayne).
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
Limited financial development; rampant poverty; and large, remote
parcels of land have made marijuana a substantial component of the
local economy, surpassing tobacco as the area's largest cash crop.
Competition for the drug trade is increasing, bringing additional
problems of violence, firearms, and other drug- related crimes
into local communities and the area's national forests.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its mission is to measurably reduce the impact of marijuana
production and trafficking in Kentucky, Tennessee, and West
Virginia, thereby also reducing their affect on other areas of the
United States.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, IRS, National Park
Service, U. S. Attorney's Offices (Kentucky,
Tennessee, West Virginia), U. S. Forest Service. State Champions
for a Drug- Free Kentucky, Kentucky Governor's Marijuana
Strike Force, Kentucky Army National Guard, Kentucky State Police,
University of Louisville, Kentucky Justice Administration
Department, Southern Police Institute, Tennessee Alcoholic
Beverage Commission, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Tennessee
Department of Public Safety, Tennessee District Attorney General's
Conference, Tennessee Governor's Task Force for Marijuana
Eradication, Tennessee National Guard, West Virginia National
Guard, West Virginia Center for Addiction and Prevention, West
Virginia State Police.
Local None provided.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
48
Appendix I ONDCP's Characterization of High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas and Year Designated
Central Florida Orlando, FL, 1998
Geographic area covered: Volusia, Seminole, Orange, Osceola, Polk,
Hillsborough, and Pinellas counties.
Fiscal Year 1998 Threat Abstract
Two major international airports, major seaports on each coast,
and three major highway systems connected directly to South
Florida make Central Florida a major target for criminal
enterprise. Mexican organizations now smuggle cocaine and heroin
along the well- established highway corridors. An estimated
several thousand pounds of marijuana arrive daily to the area.
Money laundering- related crimes are also a great concern to the
major banking centers of Orlando and Tampa.
Fiscal Year 1998 Strategy Abstract
Its mission is to measurably reduce drug trafficking and related
money laundering and apprehend violent drug fugitives, thereby
reducing the impact of drug- related crimes in Central Florida.
Agency Participation Federal ATF, DEA, FBI, IRS, U. S. Attorney's
Office, U. S. Customs Service, U. S.
Marshals Service. State Florida Department of Law Enforcement,
Florida Department of
Corrections. Local Twelve police departments, 8 county sheriff's
offices, City/ County Bureau
of Investigation, Hillsborough County State Attorney's Office,
Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation.
GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program Page
49
Appendix II Major Contributors to This Report
General Government Division, Washington D. C.
Weldon McPhail, Assistant Director Dennise Stickley, Evaluator-
in- Charge Doris Page, Senior Evaluator Michael Little,
Communications Analyst David Alexander, Senior Social Science
Analyst Michelle Wiggins, Issue Area Assistant
Office of General Council, Washington, D. C.
Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney
(182038) GAO/GGD-98-188 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
Program Page 50
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be
sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money
order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary.
VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for
100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted
25 percent.
Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using
fax number (202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how
to obtain these lists.
For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send
an e- mail message with "info" in the body to:
info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http:// www. gao. gov
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548-
0001
Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate
Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100
*** End of document. ***