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: ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 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. ***