Drug Control: ONDCP Efforts to Manage the National Drug Control Budget
(Letter Report, 05/14/99, GAO/GGD-99-80).
The nation's war on drugs represents a considerable investment--nearly
$18 billion was spent on federal drug control programs in fiscal year
1999. This report examines the role of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP) in shaping the national drug control budget that
the President ultimately proposes to Congress to implement the National
Drug Control Strategy. GAO (1) assesses whether the process that ONDCP
followed to certify federal agencies' drug control budgets for fiscal
year 1999 was consistent with statutory requirements and (2) describes
the system that ONDCP has developed to assess the extent to which drug
control agencies and programs achieve intended results. GAO focuses on
ONDCP and four drug control agencies--the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the U.S. Customs Service, the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, and the Defense Department.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-99-80
TITLE: Drug Control: ONDCP Efforts to Manage the National Drug
Control Budget
DATE: 05/14/99
SUBJECT: National policies
Narcotics
Budgets
Drug trafficking
Drug treatment
Program evaluation
Law enforcement
Performance measures
IDENTIFIER: National Drug Control Strategy
ONDCP Performance Measures of Effectiveness System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. This text was extracted from a PDF file. **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into **
** body text in the adjacent column. Graphic images have **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included. **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been **
** preserved. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** <info@www.gao.gov> **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
DRUG CONTROL ONDCP Efforts toManage the National
Drug Control Budget
United States General Accounting OfficeGAO Report to the Chairman,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, andHuman Resources,
Committee on Government ReformHouse of Representatives
May 1999
GAO/GGD-99-80
United StatesGeneral Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548
General Government Division
B-281159
Page 1 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget
GAO
May 14, 1999 The Honorable John L. MicaChairman, Subcommittee on
Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human ResourcesCommittee on
Government Reform House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: The
nation's war on drugs represents a considerable investment
ofresources and dollars--almost $18 billion is reported in the
fiscal year 1999 federal budget for drug control programs. This
report responds to therequest of former Chairman Hastert that we
examine the role of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) in shaping the national drugcontrol budget that the
President ultimately proposes to Congress to implement the
National Drug Control Strategy. Specifically, this report
* assesses whether the process ONDCP followed to certify federal
agencies'drug control budgets for fiscal year 1999 was consistent
with statutory
requirements, and* describes the system ONDCP has developed to
assess the extent to whichdrug control agencies and programs
achieve intended results.
As we agreed with the Subcommittee, our work focused primarily
onONDCP and four drug control agencies--the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), U.S. Customs Service, Substance Abuse and
MentalHealth Services Administration (SAMHSA), and the Department
of Defense (DOD). The process ONDCP used to certify fiscal year
1999 drug budgets wasgenerally consistent with the requirements of
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. ONDCP provided budget guidance to
agencies and reviewed someagencies' preliminary budgets in the
summer and others in the fall. Based on its budget reviews, ONDCP
notified agencies of recommended changesto incorporate into their
final budgets that were submitted to the President for approval.
ONDCP reviewed budgets of 14 drug control agencies (about 93
percent ofthe proposed fiscal year 1999 federal drug budget)
specifically for certification to determine whether they were
adequate to support the goalsand objectives of the National Drug
Control Strategy. ONDCP certified all
Results in Brief
B-281159
Page 2 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget but the DOD budget. DOD
was not certified because DOD and ONDCPcould not agree on funding
levels for certain drug program initiatives. Later, however, DOD's
budget was significantly increased followingONDCP's appeals to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the President. ONDCP
continued to monitor development of the national drugcontrol
budget during the remaining budget and congressional
appropriations process. To assess the extent to which agencies and
programs achieve intendedresults, ONDCP has initiated a system
known as Performance Measures of Effectiveness--a long-term effort
designed to assess the effectiveness ofthe nation's drug control
efforts. Although this system represents a blueprint for the first
accountability in the area of drug policy, somequestions remain
about
* the availability of adequate data to measure performance,*
how the system is to interface with the drug budget process, and*
how agencies will link the performance expected of them by the
NationalStrategy with the performance goals they prepare in
response to the
Government Performance and Results Act. ONDCP plans to continually
monitor the system's operation to ensure thatit is fully
functional and achieving its designed purpose.
With passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (hereinafter
referred to asthe 1988 Act),
1 Congress created ONDCP to better plan the national drug
control effort and assist Congress in overseeing that effort. In
this role,ONDCP is, among other things, responsible for overseeing
and
coordinating the efforts of federal drug control agencies and
programs.ONDCP is the President's primary policy office for drug
issues, providing advice and governmentwide oversight of drug
programs and coordinatingdevelopment of the President's National
Drug Control Strategy.
The 1988 Act, as amended, requires ONDCP to (1) develop a national
drugcontrol strategy with short- and long-term objectives and
annually revise and issue a new strategy to take into account what
has been learned and
1 ONDCP was created and authorized through January 21, 1994, by
the National Narcotics Leadership
Act of 1988 (21 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), in title 1 of the Anti-drug
Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690). TheNational Narcotics Leadership
Act Amendments, in title IX of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322), reauthorized ONDCP through
fiscal year 1997. Theseprovisions were repealed as of September
30, 1997. Congress approved ONDCP funding for fiscal year 1998 in
the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government
Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-61), signedinto law on October 10,
1997. ONDCP was reauthorized by the Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (title VII of P.L. 105-
277), through September 30, 2003.
Background
B-281159
Page 3 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget accomplished during the
previous year, (2) develop an annual consolidateddrug control
budget providing funding estimates for implementing the strategy,
and (3) oversee and coordinate implementation of the strategy
byfederal agencies. As part of its responsibility for developing
the annual National Drug Control Strategy, ONDCP is also required
to include in thestrategy an evaluation of the effectiveness of
federal drug control efforts during the previous year. This
evaluation is to include assessments of thereduction in drug use,
reduction in drug availability, reduction in drug use
consequences, and the status of drug treatment. In developing the
consolidated national drug control budget, the 1988 Actprescribes
a budget review and certification process whereby ONDCP (1)
receives annual drug budget submissions from each program
manager,agency head, and department head with drug control
responsibilities and (2) certifies in writing that these budget
submissions are adequate toimplement the objectives of the
National Drug Control Strategy for the budget request year.2 ONDCP
requires federal drug control agencies to follow a detailed
processin developing their budget proposals.
3 Annually, ONDCP is to develop
national drug control budget submission requirements that it sends
to allfederal drug control agencies. These requirements identify
specific
programs, agencies, and departments that are to submit budgets
toONDCP; dates these budgets are due to be submitted; and specific
information required to be included in each submission. In
addition,ONDCP is required under the 1988 Act to provide, by July
1 of each year, budget recommendations (in the form of drug
program initiatives) to theheads of departments and agencies with
drug control responsibilities.
The 1988 Act requires that each program manager, agency head,
anddepartment head with drug control responsibilities transmit
their drug budget request to ONDCP at the same time such request
is submitted totheir superiors (and before submission to OMB). The
ONDCP Director is then required to review each budget request and
certify whether it isadequate to implement the objectives of the
National Drug Control
2 Development of the drug control budget is not part of the
regular federal budget process, and most
drug control agencies must prepare a separate ONDCP drug budget
submission in addition to theirnormal annual budget submission.
3 Drug control agencies are defined by the 1988 Act as any
department or agency (and all dedicated units within) that has
responsibilities under the National Drug Control Strategy, as
designated jointlyby ONDCP and the department/agency or by the
President.
ONDCP Required to CertifyAgency Drug Budgets
B-281159
Page 4 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget Strategy.4 The ONDCP
Director must notify each program manager, agencyhead, and
department head regarding its budget certification decisions. For
budget requests not certified as adequate, ONDCP must recommendan
initiative or funding level that would make the request adequate.
The act further requires that department and/or agency heads shall
complywith any such ONDCP recommendation prior to submitting their
budgets to OMB. For fiscal year 1999, the national drug control
budget, as enacted, totaledabout $17.9 billion.
5 This was $816 million more than the amount requested
in the President's fiscal year 1999 proposed drug budget and an
increase of$1.9 billion over fiscal year 1998 enacted levels.
6 About 67 percent of the
enacted budget is to fund supply reduction activities (such as
druginterdiction), with the remaining 33 percent funding demand
reduction
activities (such as drug treatment). The Department of Justice
(DOJ)received the most departmental drug control funding for
fiscal year 1999-- about $7.7 billion--while the three largest
agency budgets were for theBureau of Prisons ($2.1 billion),
SAMHSA ($1.5 billion), and DEA ($1.3 billion). We did our audit
work between September 1998 and April 1999 inaccordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. A detailed
description of our objectives, scope, and methodology iscontained
in appendix I.
ONDCP's process for certifying fiscal year 1999 drug control
agencybudget submissions was generally consistent with the
requirements of the 1988 Act. In some cases, ONDCP was not able to
review complete agencybudgets prior to making its certification
decisions. In those cases, however, ONDCP was able to obtain
enough information from departmentor agency officials to enable
ONDCP to make its certification decisions.
For the four agencies we reviewed in detail, the results of the
budgetcertification process were varied. Two agencies--DEA and
Customs-- responded to ONDCP's summer budget review by submitting
fall drug
4 The 1988 Act does not identify by name the programs, agencies,
and departments that are required to
submit drug budgets to ONDCP; nor does the act specify by name
which are to be certified. In addition,the act contains no
specific date by which budgets must be submitted to ONDCP for
certification.
5 This budget included emergency supplemental appropriations of
about $844 million. 6 We did not attempt to verify the accuracy of
the dollar amounts reported for the national drug control budget,
the amounts presented by ONDCP in its annual budget reports, or
amounts provided by drugcontrol agencies in their budget
submissions to ONDCP. All dollar amounts in this report are stated
in
real terms and are not adjusted for inflation.
ONDCP's Fiscal Year1999 Drug Budget Certification Process
B-281159
Page 5 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget budgets that were lower
overall than those submitted in the summer.However, ONDCP
determined they were still sufficient to be certified as adequate
to address the National Strategy. One agency--SAMHSA--submitted a
lower fall budget that did not address ONDCP's summer
recommendations, but a budget compromise was later worked
outbetween the agency and ONDCP that enabled the budget to be
certified. Finally, DOD's fall budget was not certified because
DOD did not addressONDCP's recommended program increases.
After the budget certification process was completed, ONDCP
monitoredthe budget and appropriations debate in order to
influence development of a national drug budget that was
consistent with the National Drug ControlStrategy. Significantly,
for three of the four agencies we reviewed, their fiscal year 1999
proposed drug budgets were not increased as a result ofONDCP's
budget certification process. All four, however, were increased
during the congressional appropriations phase of the budget
process. As indicated in table 1 below, the fiscal year 1999
budget cycle began withthe issuance of the February 1997 National
Drug Control Strategy. The goals and objectives included in the
National Strategy provide the overallframework for drug control
agencies and departments to use in developing their initial fiscal
year 1999 drug budget requests.7 To augment the general guidance
in the National Strategy, in April 1997ONDCP provided guidance to
departmental budget directors describing the certification
process, identifying budget submission deadlines, andspecifying a
format for each submission. While ONDCP required all departments
with drug control responsibilities to submit budget requestsin the
fall of 1997 (prior to their submission to OMB), certain agencies,
bureaus, and programs were also required to submit budget requests
in thesummer of 1997 (at the same time the request was submitted
to their department heads).8 The purpose of these advance reviews,
according tothe guidance, is to affect funding levels requested by
Cabinet officers in their subsequent budget submissions to OMB. In
late June 1997, ONDCP issued additional guidance to Cabinet
officersidentifying drug control funding priorities, as required
under the act. This
7 The goals and objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy
are discussed in more detail beginning
on page 25 of this report. 8 These included agencies and bureaus
within the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human
Services, the Interior, DOJ, Transportation, and the Treasury.
ONDCP selected these becausethey are independent entities that
prepare and submit initial summer budget submissions to their
departments, prior to the departments' formal budget submissions
to OMB.
Overview of ONDCP'sFiscal Year 1999 Budget Certification Process
B-281159
Page 6 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget guidance outlined
specific program initiatives, by National Strategy goal,that were
to be addressed in agencies' budget submissions to ONDCP.
Beginning with the fiscal year 1999 drug budget, ONDCP identified
30 suchinitiatives that agencies were to address during the next 5
years.
Year Month Budget ActivityFebruary National Drug Control Strategy
issued by ONDCP, including strategic goals and objectives.
April Initial budget guidance issued to departmental budget
directors. Guidance is applicable to the new 5-year (FY 1999 - FY
2003) drug budget. May ONDCP met with senior budget officials from
departments and agencies. ONDCP budget staffdeveloped proposed
agency drug initiatives. June - August Summer budget certification
review process. ONDCP analysts reviewed agency budgets and
programinitiatives, assessed adequacy of program funding, and
determined adequacy of budgets to support
the National Strategy. ONDCP issued 5-year funding guidance for
each strategy goal, and identified drug program initiativesto be
included in the agencies' FY 1999 - FY 2003 budget submissions.
July - August ONDCP prepared summer precertification letters and
provided to agencies.August ONDCP met with Cabinet officers to
discuss funding priorities prior to submission of fall
departmental
budgets to OMB.September - October Fall budget certification
review process. Agencies submitted fall drug budgets for ONDCP
review. November 11 certification letters issued. 1
decertification letter issued.
OMB provided initial budget allocations to agencies and
departments.
1997
December ONDCP provided written response/appeal to OMB budget
allocation decisions. ONDCP requestedadditional $719 million in
agency budget authority for five program initiatives.
a
2 additional certification letters issued. President provided
final budget allocations. Drug budget authorized additional $100
million in fundingto be allocated to drug control agencies based
on ONDCP recommendations. January ONDCP recommended to OMB
proposed budget allocations for $100 million drug budget
increase.b1998 February National Drug Control Strategy issued by
ONDCP, including the President's fiscal year 1999 proposed
national drug control budget.
aThis request included additional funding for several agencies,
including DEA, Customs, SAMHSA,
and DOD. bONDCP's recommendations included increased funding for
Customs.
Source: GAO analysis of ONDCP documents.
Table 1: ONDCP Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Certification Timeline
B-281159
Page 7 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget ONDCP requested that the
initial summer drug budgets be submitted byearly June 1997. ONDCP
budget and program analysts reviewed the drug budget submissions
and assessed their adequacy to support the goals andobjectives
articulated in the current National Strategy--in this case, the
1997 strategy. According to ONDCP officials, the specific level of
analysisis left up to the discretion of the individual budget
analysts but normally involves a subjective assessment of three
factors: 1. Is the budget consistent with the goals and
objectives outlined in theNational Strategy?
2. Does the budget address specific drug control initiatives
outlined inONDCP's annual guidance? 3. Are funding levels
consistent with overall budget trends and atamounts sufficient to
carry out individual programs? Determination of adequacy,
according to ONDCP internal memorandums,is not meant to be a
technical analysis of the budget, but rather a collective opinion-
-of budget analysts, program analysts, and ultimately
ONDCPmanagers--that agencies are asking for sufficient funding to
carry out existing programs and new initiatives to support the
National Strategy. During July and August 1997, ONDCP began
notifying drug controlagencies of the results of its summer budget
proposed certification decisions. ONDCP prepared precertification
letters, which it provided toagencies, identifying specific areas
in the budget that must be addressed in order for the budget to be
certified. ONDCP officials have stated that theseletters allow the
agencies time to revise their budgets prior to submitting them in
the fall to OMB. It also allows ONDCP to concentrate
itscertification efforts earlier in the budget process, when there
is more time for review and comment prior to the involvement of
OMB. These lettersare typically provided at the department level,
except for independent agencies. For the fiscal year 1999 budget
cycle, the ONDCP Director personally metwith Cabinet officers or
their designees to discuss funding priorities. According to ONDCP
officials, the precertification letters were sent justprior to or
brought to these meetings and served as informal agendas for the
discussions.
Initial Summer Budget Review
B-281159
Page 8 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget ONDCP requested that fall
budgets be submitted prior to the time theywere provided to OMB
(typically during September). The fall budget review and
certification process was similar to the summer process, withthe
reviewers looking specifically at existing programs and new
initiatives that ONDCP had identified during the summer reviews
(and documentedin a precertification letter) as needing additional
funding. Following this review, ONDCP notified each department or
agency of its finalcertification decision. Most of the
certification letters were issued in late November 1997, with two
others provided in early December 1997 and onein early November
1997.
ONDCP officials noted that, in making the final certification
decision foreach individual drug control agency, there can be a
range of overall funding levels that are considered adequate to
achieve the goals andobjectives of the National Strategy.
Therefore, although an agency's overall drug budget may decrease
from summer to fall, if the core drug controlprogram initiatives
remain adequately funded, the overall drug budget can still be
certified. In making its fiscal year 1999 certification decisions,
ONDCP officials toldus they used a selective review approach that
corresponds to the way budgets are normally prepared and submitted
during the federal budgetcycle--reviewing mostly agencies and
programs during the summer process, and focusing on departments
during the fall process.9 Rather thanindividually certifying every
program, agency, and department with drug control
responsibilities, ONDCP issued certification letters primarily at
thedepartment level. Using this approach, ONDCP reviewed
approximately 93 percent of the proposed fiscal year 1999 national
drug budget for thepurpose of certification.
For fiscal year 1999, ONDCP issued letters to 14 departments,
agencies, orprograms notifying them of its budget certification
decisions.
10 Of these,
9 As we have previously reported (Drug Control: Reauthorization of
the Office of National Drug Control
Policy (GAO/GGD-93-144, Sept. 29, 1993)), due to resource
limitations and other factors, it isimpractical for ONDCP to
review and certify all of the numerous program budgets involved,
in addition
to reviewing and certifying all agency and department budgets. We
recommended that Congress amendthe act's language to include a
simple mandate that ONDCP review and certify drug control budgets
at such stages and times that it considers appropriate, but no
congressional action was taken. 10 The enacted fiscal year 1999
national drug budget lists three entities other than ONDCP that
were not issued certification letters. According to ONDCP, the
Intelligence Community Management Account($27 million enacted) is
an interagency transfer account, not a program, agency, or
department; the
Federal Judiciary ($647 million enacted) is not within the
executive branch and thus not subject to thestatutory
certification requirement; and the Small Business Administration's
budget ($4 million enacted, $0 proposed for fiscal year 2000) is
insignificant in terms of dollar amounts involved.
Fall Budget Review andCertification Decisions
B-281159
Page 9 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget
* ten--the Corporation for National and Community Service, and
thedepartments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing
and
Urban Development, the Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation,
theTreasury, and Veterans Affairs--were fully certified;
* three--the U.S. Information Agency11 and the departments of
State andAgriculture--were certified, although none of the three
had formally
submitted a complete fiscal year 1999 drug budget at the time
thecertification decision was made. ONDCP made its decision based
on partial budgets as submitted (Agriculture) and advance budget
informationprovided by department and agency staff (U.S.
Information Agency and State). ONDCP also noted that the
Department of State's budget was only"minimally" adequate, based
on the fact that State only requested increased funding for its
counterdrug efforts in the Andean region, but notin Mexico or the
Caribbean; and
* one--the Department of Defense--was decertified. This decision
wasmade when DOD did not fund its drug control program at levels
deemed
necessary by the ONDCP Director. ONDCP's budget recommendations do
not always result in increasedagency drug budgets. As noted above,
ONDCP uses precertification letters during the budget
certification process to notify agencies of specific areasin their
drug budgets that should be addressed in order to be certified.
For the four agencies we reviewed in detail, this process had
varied results ineffecting changes in those agencies' drug
budgets.
DEA's mission is to enforce our nation's drug laws and regulations
and tobring drug traffickers to justice. In carrying out its
mission, DEA is the lead federal agency responsible for
enforcement of narcotics and controlledsubstance laws and
regulations. DEA's fiscal year 1999 drug budget request primarily
supported goal number 5 of the National Drug Control Strategy--
break foreign and domestic sources of supply.
12 DEA's primary
responsibilities include investigating major interstate and
internationaldrug traffickers and violent criminal and drug gangs;
coordinating and
cooperating with federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies; andworking on drug law enforcement programs with their
counterparts in foreign countries. In fiscal year 1998, DEA's
enacted budget totaled about$1.2 billion, all of which was in drug
control programs.
11 In October 1998, the U.S. Information Agency was transferred to
the Department of State, pursuant to
the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (P.L.
105-277, Division G). 12 As reported in the February 1999 National
Drug Control Budget Summary, DEA has realigned its resources to
better reflect program activities in support of other goals. In
addition to goal number 5,DEA's fiscal year 1999 enacted budget
primarily supports goal number 2--reduce drug-related crime
and violence--and goal number 4--shield America's air, land, and
sea frontiers.
Four Case Studies of theFiscal Year 1999 Certification Process
Drug EnforcementAdministration
B-281159
Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget ONDCP initially hosted a
meeting in early May 1997 with senior budgetofficials from the
principal Justice counterdrug bureaus: DEA, Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), Immigration and Naturalization Service,U.S.
Attorneys, and the Marshals Service. ONDCP issued formal written
program guidance to DOJ at the end of June 1997. Because DEA
funding is100 percent drug related, ONDCP has contact with all of
DEA's administrative and program divisions, not just the budget
office. Therefore,typically there are no budgeting surprises
during development of DEA's budget. For the fiscal year 1999 drug
budget, DEA was required to submit asummer agency-level budget to
ONDCP for review. In mid-June 1997, DEA made its initial budget
submission to DOJ. DEA subsequently submittedthe same budget--
albeit in different format--to ONDCP in July 1997. According to
DEA officials, the departmental budget submission takespriority
over the submission to ONDCP. Although ONDCP demands the same
information, it must be presented in a different format. DEA's
summer budget as submitted to ONDCP totaled about $1.4
billion.According to ONDCP officials, ONDCP was satisfied with the
DEA submission. However, on August 8, 1997, ONDCP issued a
precertificationletter to DOJ, which listed four specific program
initiatives that ONDCP believed should receive additional funding
in DEA's budget:
* Andean Coca Reduction - To reduce South American coca leaf
productionthrough enforcement and interdiction measures that
disrupt the cocaine
export industry and through development programs that provide
legalincome alternatives and encourage the cultivation of legal
crops.
* Port and Border Security - To provide improved security and
enhanceddrug interdiction along all U.S. air, land, and sea
frontiers and at all ports
of entry.* Mexican Initiative - To reduce the flow of illicit
drugs from Mexico intothe United States and dismantle the
organizations trafficking in drugs and
money laundering.* Caribbean Violent Crime and Regional
Interdiction - To expandcounterdrug operations targeting drug
trafficking-related criminal
activities and violence in the Caribbean region. No specific
funding level increases were recommended for any of the
fourinitiatives. According to ONDCP documents, although the
initiatives were identified for inclusion in the fiscal year 1999
budget, ONDCP gave DOJmaximum flexibility in determining both the
precise scope and funding for each proposal.
B-281159 Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget In mid-August
1997, the ONDCP Director met with the Attorney General todiscuss
the Justice drug budget and possible increases for DEA prior to
submission of DOJ's final fall budget to OMB. The precertification
letterdiscussed above served as an informal agenda for this
meeting.
As submitted to OMB and ONDCP in mid-October 1997, DEA's fall
budgetsubmission was about $82 million lower overall than its
initial summer submission. However, the total requested amounts
remained higher thanthe previous year's enacted amounts. DEA's
total fall budget request was about $1.3 billion. ONDCP certified
the DOJ budget as adequate in lateNovember 1997.
OMB's preliminary agency funding decisions (commonly known
as"passback")
13 were made on November 25, 1997. ONDCP formally appealed
to OMB on behalf of DEA for $30.1 million in additional funding
for theDEA program initiatives previously identified in its summer
precertification letter to DOJ. After the appeals process was
completed,the final OMB budget passback amount approved for DEA
was $68 million above OMB's preliminary decision, including $10
million for the Caribbeaninitiative. DEA's total budget request,
as approved by the President and submitted to Congress, was about
$1.25 billion, which represented anincrease of about $55 million
from the fiscal year 1998 enacted budget.
The mission of the U.S. Customs Service is to ensure that all
goods andpersons entering and leaving the country do so in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. As part of its
mission, Customs guardsagainst smuggling and is responsible for
interdicting and seizing contraband, including narcotics and
illegal drugs. In carrying out thismission, Customs' fiscal year
1999 drug budget request primarily supported goal number 4 of the
National Drug Control Strategy--shieldAmerica's air, land, and sea
frontiers. In addition to inspectors and agents at over 300 ports
of entry, Customs maintains aircraft, vessels, andsurveillance
devices to help detect and interdict illegal drugs at or before
they reach our borders. In fiscal year 1998, Customs received
about $606million in funding for its drug control programs.
Customs' budget office began the fiscal year 1999 drug budget
process inApril 1997, when it received ONDCP's initial drug budget
guidance. For the fiscal year 1999 drug budget, Customs was
required to submit a summer
13 After agencies submit their fall budgets to OMB, OMB reviews
each budget and passes its preliminary
budget decisions back to the agencies--hence, "passback." Agencies
may appeal decisions with whichthey disagree. If OMB and an agency
cannot reach agreement, the agency may appeal to the President.
Customs Service
B-281159
Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget agency-level drug budget
to ONDCP for review. Customs first submitted itsbudget to
Treasury, after which the Customs budget office began extracting
those drug budget items from the overall budget in order toprepare
its drug budget--a process taking about 2 to 3 weeks. However,
because Customs was late in submitting its budget to Treasury--it
was dueJune 1, 1997, but was not delivered until July 1997--
Customs also was late in preparing and submitting its drug budget
to ONDCP. In an August 8, 1997, precertification letter to
Treasury, ONDCP identifiedthree specific drug program initiatives
that it believed should receive additional funding in Customs'
budget: Port and Border Security,Caribbean Violent Crime and
Regional Interdiction, and Mexican Initiative (as described
previously). ONDCP did not request any specific fundinglevels in
this letter. Customs' drug budget was submitted to ONDCP on August
11, 1997. The total drug-related funding requested in this
summersubmission was $844 million, which represented about 40
percent of Customs' total budget. During this time, the ONDCP
Director met directlywith the Treasury Secretary to discuss drug
budget funding priorities and ONDCP's specific budget
recommendations. Customs' fall drug budget was submitted to ONDCP
on October 31, 1997.This budget requested $773 million for drug
control, which was about $71 million lower overall than its
initial summer submission. This decrease wasprimarily due to
reductions in funding for drug control interdiction activities
(goal number 4 of the National Strategy)--Customs' primary
drugcontrol activity. However, the total requested amounts for
drug control remained higher than the previous year's enacted
amounts. Customsofficials told us the decrease from the summer
submission was due to reductions resulting from Treasury's
departmental budget review. ONDCPcertified Treasury's budget as
adequate in late November 1997.
OMB's preliminary agency funding decisions were made on November
25,1997. ONDCP formally appealed to OMB on behalf of Customs for
$160.4 million in additional funding for the Customs program
initiativespreviously identified in its summer precertification
letter to Treasury. Nevertheless, as a result of OMB's final
passback, Customs' drug budgetwas reduced further--despite the
ONDCP appeals--although it provided Customs an additional $29
million for the Port and Border SecurityInitiative.
Because OMB had approved $100 million in discretionary drug
controlfunding (to be allocated according to ONDCP's
recommendations), ONDCP decided to allocate an additional $25
million of this funding to
B-281159 Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget Customs for
border security activities--nonintrusive detection
equipment.According to Customs officials, this amount was in
addition to $14 million that Customs had already included in the
budget for three other initiatives.Customs' total drug budget
request, as approved by the President and submitted to Congress,
ultimately totaled about $673 million, representingan increase of
about $66 million over fiscal year 1998 enacted levels.
SAMHSA is one of the key federal agencies that supports goals
number 1and 3 of the National Drug Control Strategy--primarily
involving prevention and treatment of illegal drug use. SAMHSA's
mission within thenation's health system is to improve the quality
and availability of prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation
services in order to reduceillness, death, disability, and cost to
society, resulting from substance abuse and mental illnesses. In
fiscal year 1998, SAMHSA received about$1.3 billion in funding for
its drug control programs.
For the fiscal year 1999 drug budget, SAMHSA was required to
submit asummer agency-level drug budget to ONDCP for review. In
late June 1997, SAMHSA submitted its drug budget submission
totaling about $1.65 billionto ONDCP. After reviewing the SAMHSA
budget, ONDCP issued a precertification letter to the Department
of Health and Human Services(HHS). This letter, dated August 8,
1997, identified the following program initiatives where ONDCP
wanted to see additional resources applied(although no specific
funding levels were identified):
* Youth Drug Prevention Research - To conduct a program of
researchdesigned to improve the understanding of youth drug abuse
and addiction
and disseminate findings from various research sources;* Youth
Substance Abuse Prevention - To use findings from
successfulprograms to develop new state incentive grant drug
prevention programs,
focusing on drug prevention in early childhood and among
adolescents;* Close the Public System Treatment Gap - To
increase drug treatmentcapacity and outreach for chronic users and
addicts, including their
families; and* Medications for Drug Dependence - To expand grant
funding to supportpriority research projects associated with the
development of medications
and treatment protocols to prevent or reduce drug dependence and
abuse. On August 15, 1997, the ONDCP Director met with the HHS
Secretary todiscuss the changes ONDCP wanted to see (as spelled
out in its precertification letter) in the HHS fall budget
submission to OMB andONDCP.
Substance Abuse and MentalHealth Services Administration
B-281159
Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget The initiative to Close
the Public System Treatment Gap was a major drugpolicy priority
for ONDCP and was a primary issue of disagreement among HHS,
SAMHSA, and ONDCP during the budget review process. HHSbelieved
SAMHSA should move away from directly funding service projects and
instead focus on a research-based approach. SAMHSAsupported
expansion of targeted treatment capacity, rather than generally
expanding its block grant program. ONDCP strongly supported
expandingtreatment capacity by increasing SAMHSA's block grant
program.
In September 1997, HHS submitted its fall budget to OMB and ONDCP.
Inthis submission, SAMHSA's drug budget totaled about $1.4
billion. The changes that ONDCP wanted to see in SAMHSA's budget
were not in thebudget. After reviewing the fall submission, ONDCP
drafted a proposed letter (dated October 9, 1997) to decertify
SAMHSA's drug budget. In thisletter, ONDCP specifically
recommended that HHS' budget submission include at least $400
million in additional funding for the Close theTreatment Gap
initiative and $50 million additional for the Youth Substance
Abuse Prevention initiative. During October 1997, ONDCP, SAMHSA,
and HHS budget officials mettwice to try and resolve the treatment
gap issue. Although they supported the idea of closing the gap in
drug treatment, they disagreed on the size ofthe treatment gap, a
factor that could significantly affect the estimated cost to close
the treatment gap as well as the most effective way to fundthe
treatment gap initiative. According to ONDCP, SAMHSA did not
quantify the treatment gap in its initial drug budget submission,
andONDCP believed the gap was larger than could be addressed by
the amount that SAMHSA had requested. Based on discussions at
thesemeetings, HHS agreed to amend its fall budget request to
address ONDCP's concerns. In November 1997, HHS submitted an
amended budget to OMB. Accordingto the HHS Secretary's letter to
the OMB Director, an additional $75 million was included in the
budget to fund treatment efforts in cities withserious drug
problems, while another $35 million would provide funds to enhance
existing state data efforts and to improve treatment and/or
itsdelivery to vulnerable populations. An additional $115 million
($82 million drug related) was also included in the amended budget
to increase theSubstance Abuse Block Grant, for a total drug
budget increase of about $192 million. According to SAMHSA
officials, making a resubmission toOMB was an unusual occurrence
and represented a significant accommodation by HHS to the wishes
of ONDCP. In late November 1997,
B-281159 Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget approximately 1
week after HHS amended its OMB budget submission, thedepartment's
drug budget was certified by ONDCP. OMB's preliminary agency
funding decisions were made on November 25,1997. Subsequently,
ONDCP formally appealed to OMB for $200 million additional to fund
the treatment gap initiative, consistent with the
previousrecommendation by ONDCP to HHS. OMB's final budget
passback included the additional funding to help expand drug
treatment efforts thathad been included in SAMHSA's amended fall
budget submission. However, at the same time, OMB eliminated all
increases for SAMHSAmental health programs and cut substance abuse
prevention and treatment funding by $75.6 million below 1998
levels. SAMHSA's total drug budgetrequest, as approved by the
President and submitted to Congress, totaled about $1.36 billion,
an increase of about $40 million over fiscal year 1998'senacted
budget.
DOD's fiscal year 1999 counterdrug budget request included funding
for all5 goals of the National Drug Control Strategy, although it
primarily supported goals number 4 and 5--interdiction and supply
reduction ofillegal drugs. DOD's role, among other things, is to
detect and monitor aerial and maritime transit of illegal drugs
headed to the United States.DOD also supports foreign intelligence
collection and analysis programs that aid source and transit
countries to arrest drug kingpins and dismantletheir
organizations. In fiscal year 1998, DOD's enacted budget included
about $848 million in funding for counterdrug programs.14 For the
fiscal year 1999 budget cycle, ONDCP required DOD to submit
itscounterdrug budget to ONDCP in the fall, at the same time the
department's overall budget was submitted to OMB. To provide
DODadditional specific program guidance, on August 8, 1997, the
ONDCP Director wrote to the Secretary of Defense requesting that
the DOD drugcontrol budget, in order to be certified as adequate,
include funding for two specific program initiatives: Andean Coca
Reduction and MexicanInitiative.
In an August 26, 1997, memorandum from DOD to ONDCP, the
PrincipalDirector for Drug Enforcement Policy and Support said
that because the
14 This was DOD's fiscal year 1998 enacted budget according to
ONDCP's 1998 National Drug Budget
Summary. GAO has previously reported that there are significant
operating and overhead costs that arenot reflected in DOD's
counterdrug budget (see DOD Counterdrug Activities: Reported Costs
Do Not
Reflect Extent of DOD's Support (NSIAD-98-231, Sept. 23, 1998)).
Department of Defense
B-281159
Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget fiscal year 1998
appropriation and authorization acts had not yet passed,the
requested increases could not be incorporated into the DOD
counterdrug budget submission at that time. According to DOD
officials,DOD did not have congressional authority to carry out
all the suggested programs that ONDCP had highlighted in its
August 8, 1997, letter. To giveONDCP advance notice on what DOD's
counterdrug budget submission would look like, the memorandum
included an attachment brieflysummarizing DOD's preliminary fiscal
year 1999 counterdrug budget, which at that time totaled $809
million. On September 16, 1997, DODsubmitted its preliminary
counterdrug budget to ONDCP as required. In the budget transmittal
letter, the Principal Director for Drug EnforcementPolicy and
Support indicated that additional counterdrug funding may be
provided in DOD's overall budget, after it was finalized with OMB.
In a September 24, 1997, letter to the Secretary, the ONDCP
Directorreplied that DOD's counterdrug program appeared to be
systematically under funded. The Director asked that DOD give
careful consideration toadding $141 million in fiscal year 1999
enhancements--for a total counterdrug budget of $950 million--to
support four counterdrug programinitiatives: (1) Andean Coca
Reduction ($75 million), (2) Mexican Initiative ($24 million), (3)
Caribbean Violent Crime and Regional Interdiction ($12million),
and (4) National Guard Counterdrug Operations ($30 million).
During this time, the ONDCP Director, Secretary of Defense, and
DeputySecretary of Defense met to further discuss ONDCP's
recommended increases. On November 6, 1997, the ONDCP Director
sent a letter to the Secretary ofDefense notifying him that ONDCP
had determined that DOD's preliminary fiscal year 1999 counterdrug
budget could not be certified. Again the letterindicated that an
additional $141 million was needed to correct deficiencies in the
current budget. Also on November 6, 1997, theSecretary of Defense
replied that the amounts requested by ONDCP were excessive. For
example, in response to ONDCP's recommendation foradditional
spending on the Mexican Initiative, the Secretary stated that DOD
already planned to spend $12 million in Mexico in fiscal year
1999and that it would be a logistical challenge to increase this
amount. Additionally, the Secretary stated, DOD could not increase
spending on theAndean Initiative until enactment of additional DOD
authority by Congress. On November 7, 1997, the ONDCP Director
reiterated to theSecretary of Defense that ONDCP would not certify
the DOD counterdrug budget and sent similar letters to key
administration and congressionalofficials.
B-281159
Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget At the time of OMB's
preliminary budget passback decisions, DOD'soverall budget
submission had not yet been finalized. Based on DOD's preliminary
counterdrug budget submission, ONDCP formally appealed toOMB for
the $141 million in increased funding that ONDCP had previously
identified when it decertified DOD's counterdrug budget. In mid-
December1997, DOD announced that it would support additional
resources in its budget for counterdrug programs. ONDCP supported
DOD's decision, butin a December 16, 1997, letter to DOD, ONDCP
continued to request additional funding for the National Guard
Counterdrug Program. As finallyagreed to with OMB in late December
1997, DOD's counterdrug budget totaled $883 million, including
about $75 million in increased funding forthree of the four
program initiatives previously recommended by ONDCP.
15
DOD's total fiscal year 1999 counterdrug budget as approved by
thePresident and submitted to Congress was $883 million.
According to DOD officials, the DOD budget cycle and that of ONDCP
donot align very well. Normally, DOD does not finalize its overall
departmental budget (internally or with OMB) until late
December.Throughout the fall, and continuing into OMB's passback
season, DOD is constantly refining its budget submission. Thus,
DOD's counterdrugbudget is not always available in final form when
ONDCP would like it for certification purposes.16 According to
ONDCP officials, in order to influence the DOD budgetprocess,
ONDCP usually receives DOD's draft drug budget submission in late
August or early September. DOD's final budget submission is
generallycompleted too late in the process for ONDCP to propose
changes. Because of this practice, DOD's drug budget is typically
reviewed for certificationpurposes prior to other drug control
agencies' budgets in the fall. Based on the preliminary DOD budget
submitted in September 1997 and furtherdiscussions with DOD
officials, ONDCP believed that the department was not going to
fund the initiatives in question at a level that would beadequate;
and thus, it decertified DOD's drug budget. ONDCP could not wait
until December 1997--when DOD's final budget was completed--
because it had to begin preparing for discussions with OMB and the
President about the overall national drug budget. Further, there
was no
15 DOD also agreed to reprogram $15 million in estimated budgetary
savings towards the fourth
initiative--National Guard Counterdrug Operations. 16 We
previously identified this issue in our 1993 ONDCP review (Drug
Control: Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy (GAO/GGD-93-144, Sept. 29, 1993)). At that time,
werecommended that DOD provide ONDCP with a preliminary DOD drug
budget by August of each year
to facilitate ONDCP's budget review and certification process.
B-281159 Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget guarantee that
DOD's final budget--when it was submitted--would besufficient to
merit certification. Although it is difficult to isolate the
specific effect that ONDCP's input hadon the drug budget as
enacted by Congress, we can identify changes in the drug budget
that occurred during the appropriations process. We can
alsocompare those changes with ONDCP's efforts to monitor
development of the National Drug Control Budget during the budget
and appropriationsprocess.
After the President's proposed budget was submitted to Congress
inFebruary 1998, ONDCP continued to monitor the status of the drug
budget during the congressional appropriations process. In several
instances,ONDCP corresponded directly with members on the House
and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees that were responsible for
overseeing drugcontrol agencies' budgets. The ONDCP Director also
testified on several occasions, in conjunction with the
congressional appropriations hearingsprocess, about the national
drug control program and the need for additional funding in
specific areas. The national drug control budget as enacted by
Congress represented anincrease of about $816 million over the
President's fiscal year 1999 drug budget request. This increase
can be attributed, in large part, to theOctober 1998 enactment of
the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year 1999.17 TheWestern
Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act authorized, among other things,
increased funding for drug interdiction and supply reduction
activities overthe next 3 fiscal years, 1999 to 2001. The
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations provided increased
counterdrug funding for fiscal year1999 in the amount of $844
million.
While the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act contains no
explicitstatement about the relevance of ONDCP's budget
certification process to its passage, one of its purposes was to
state Congress' desire that DODgive higher priority for
counterdrug activity
18--a position also stated by
ONDCP when it decertified DOD's fiscal year 1999 drug budget. In
17 The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act was enacted under
Division C, title VIII of the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 1999 (P.L. 105-277). Division B of this act
identified the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal
year 1999.
18 Section 802 of this act states that, in recent years, DOD
assets critical to counterdrug activities have been consistently
diverted to other missions. It also states that DOD's counterdrug
activities missionshould be near the top, not among the last, of
the priorities for the allocation of DOD assets (after the
war-fighting mission).
ONDCP Monitored the DrugBudget During the Fiscal Year 1999
AppropriationProcess
B-281159
Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget addition, the act
authorized increased drug control funding for supplyreduction
activities in source countries and Caribbean transit zones, two
activities for which ONDCP previously recommended budget increases
inits precertification letters to Justice and Treasury. Despite
Congress' intentions to increase the national drug budget, the
ONDCP Director andthe administration opposed passage of this act,
stating that, among other things, it was an attempt by Congress to
micromanage national drugstrategy.
The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year 1999
providedsignificant supplemental funding for the national drug
control budget, particularly in areas in which ONDCP had
recommended increases duringthe budget certification process. For
example,
* DEA, whose budget ONDCP had previously certified as adequate,
receiveda small additional increase in counterdrug funding--$10
million. This was
primarily for drug control activities in source countries in North
and SouthAmerica, budget activities that ONDCP had previously
recommended be increased in its precertification letter to DOJ.*
Customs, whose budget ONDCP had previously certified as
adequate,nevertheless received a significant additional increase--
$267 million--in
counterdrug funding. Most of this amount was for drug surveillance
andinterdiction in transit zones, as well as enhanced port and
border inspection capabilities. ONDCP had recommended increases in
each ofthese areas in its precertification letter to Treasury and
also later recommended additional funding for inspection
technology.* DOD received an additional $42 million in
counterdrug funding, primarilyfor port and border security and
international supply reduction activities.
When added to its regular counterdrug appropriation of $895
million,DOD's total counterdrug funding for fiscal year 1999 ($937
million) was nearly equal to what ONDCP had originally recommended
($950 million). Although SAMHSA did not receive additional funding
under theEmergency Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year
1999, SAMHSA's drug budget may have benefited from ONDCP's input
into theappropriations process. ONDCP had previously requested OMB
to increase SAMHSA's drug treatment funding by $200 million over
its request--consistent with the total amount ($400 million) ONDCP
had originally recommended during SAMHSA's budget certification
review. In addition,in subsequent letters to members of the
congressional appropriations committees, the ONDCP Director
identified SAMHSA's Substance AbuseBlock Grant as a key initiative
needing additional resources for fiscal year 1999. Congress
eventually provided an additional $75 million over and
B-281159 Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget above the
President's requested funding for SAMHSA's Substance AbuseBlock
Grant program. Table 2 summarizes how the four agency drug budgets
changed at each stage in the fiscal year 1999 budget process.
Congress ------ONDCP/Agencies------ OMB/President Congress
FY 1998enacted
budget Summersubmission Fallsubmission
Certifiedby
ONDCP
Proposednational drug
budget
FY 1999enacted
budgetaNational DrugBudget $15,977 n/a n/a n/a $17,070 $17,886
DEA 1,200 1,390 1,309 1,309 1,255 1,299Customs 606 844 773 773 673
956 SAMHSA 1,320 1,649 1,438b 1,630 1,360 1,481 DOD 848 n/a 809 c
883 937 Note: n/a indicates "data not applicable." aIncludes
additional amounts for DEA, Customs, and DOD enacted under the
Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for fiscal year 1999. bSAMHSA's
initial fall budget submission for fiscal year 1999 was later
amended based on
negotiations between ONDCP, SAMHSA, and HHS. cDOD's fall budget
submission for fiscal year 1999 was decertified by ONDCP.
Source: GAO analysis of ONDCP and agency budget documents.
ONDCP has two primary tools to help monitor the extent to which
drugcontrol agencies and programs are achieving intended results.
First, as part of its authorizing legislation, ONDCP has general
authority to monitorand, if necessary, direct how drug control
agencies should manage their individual budgets to implement the
National Drug Control Program.However, because of statutory
restrictions on how ONDCP can exercise this authority and ONDCP's
desire to maintain positive interagencyrelationships, these
authorities have little direct impact on ONDCP's management of the
National Drug Control Program. In practice, ONDCPprefers not to
intervene in the daily operations of individual drug control
agencies but rather to provide an overall strategic and tactical
frameworkthat lets the agencies work out the operational details.
Second, to carry out its responsibility for annually assessing
theeffectiveness of the federal government's National Drug Control
Program, ONDCP has recently implemented the Performance Measures
ofEffectiveness (PME) system. Established in February 1998 through
cooperative efforts between ONDCP and the drug control community,
thePME system provides a framework for assessing the effectiveness
of the National Drug Control Strategy by utilizing goals,
objectives, andmeasurable effects, known as performance targets.
This system is expected to allow ONDCP, the agencies, and Congress
to better manage
Table 2: Changes in Fiscal Year 1999Drug Budget at Each Stage of
Budget Development (dollars in millions)
How ONDCP Monitorsthe Extent to Which Agencies andPrograms Achieve
Intended Results
B-281159
Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget the programs and
resources associated with the nation's drug controlefforts. The
PME system is a work in progress, and questions remain that could
affect the system's ultimate success. ONDCP has authority to
monitor and, if necessary, direct drug controlagencies in how they
manage their budgets.
19 For example, as part of its
general responsibility for overseeing and coordinating
implementation ofthe National Drug Control Strategy, ONDCP has the
authority to
recommend to the President changes in the organization,
management,budgets, and personnel of federal drug control
agencies. ONDCP's authority also extends to agencies' appropriated
funds, whereby ONDCP
* must approve, prior to submission to Congress, any request by a
federaldrug control agency to reprogram or transfer any amount of
appropriated
drug control funds greater than $5 million;* may, upon advance
notification to Congress and with the concurrence ofthe affected
agencies, transfer appropriated drug control funds from one
federal drug control agency to another;20 and* may issue funds
control notices that direct how federal drug controlagencies may
obligate appropriated drug control funds.
In addition, as part of the budget certification process
describedpreviously, ONDCP can direct federal drug control
agencies to make changes to their annual drug budget submissions
so that the budgets areconsistent with the specific drug control
initiatives and priorities identified in the National Strategy.
ONDCP officials noted that its reprogramming authority, although
notspecifically aimed at managing agency performance, provides a
means by which ONDCP can help ensure, in advance, that any
significant budgetarychanges will not negatively affect the
agency's ability to meet the goals and objectives of the National
Strategy. Normally, the officials noted, theagency has discussed
such requests in advance with ONDCP, and the approval is routine.
According to ONDCP officials, on two occasions infiscal year 1999,
ONDCP has exercised its authority to approve agency drug budget
reprogramming requests. The State Department requested
19 Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of
1998 (title VII of P.L. 105-277), section
704(d)(7). 20 Prior to October 1998, this authority could not be
exercised without advance approval from Congress. The statutory
language was changed with passage of the Office of National Drug
ControlPolicy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (title VII of P.L. 105-
277), section 704(d)(8)(B) and (E).
ONDCP's Authority toMonitor Drug Control Agency Budgets
B-281159
Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget reprogramming of $19.5
million, most of which was to realign fundingbetween existing
counterdrug programs; and DOD requested reprogramming to shift an
additional $45 million into its CounterdrugTransfer Account.
21 ONDCP officials said they could not recall
disapproving of an agency reprogramming request.
ONDCP has not used its authority to directly transfer drug control
fundingfrom one agency or department to another. According to
ONDCP officials, this authority is not likely to be used in the
future, despite the fact thatCongress recently increased the
amount eligible for transfer from 2 percent to 3 percent of the
transferring agency's drug budget.22 Under thecurrent law, ONDCP
must not only report any proposed transfer to Congress in advance
of taking any action, but also it may exercise thetransfer
authority only with the consent of the head of each affected
agency. Because of these checks and balances, this new authority
in effectprovides ONDCP no more power to influence agency budgets
than it already had under existing authorities. ONDCP officials
told us that, in anyevent, they prefer to effect changes in agency
drug budgets through negotiation, interagency working
relationships, and the normal budgetprocess. The officials noted
that a decision on the part of ONDCP to recommend the transfer of
agency funding under this authority couldjeopardize these
interagency relationships.
According to ONDCP officials, funds control notice authority
providesONDCP the flexibility to direct drug control spending on
particular projects, activities, functions, or object classes; and
the ability to ensurethat a project or activity critical to the
National Drug Control Strategy is funded. They said this authority
would be used by ONDCP on an exceptionbasis to specify the timing
or amount of spending related to certain appropriations. Funds
control notices could also be issued to keep a drugcontrol agency
from spending funding on a particular project or activity. The
existence of this authority tends to make ONDCP
budgetrecommendations and requests to drug control agencies more
persuasive. To date, ONDCP has not had to issue a funds control
notice. As noted previously, ONDCP does use the budget
certification process inan effort to effect changes in drug
control agencies' budgets. Although not
21 According to DOD officials, although they notified ONDCP of
this reprogramming request, it did not
require ONDCP approval because it involved the reprogramming and
transfer of funds fromnoncounterdrug sources (the Defense Working
Capital Fund) into DOD's counterdrug program.
22 Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of
1998 (title VII of P.L. 105-277), section 704(d)(8)(C).
B-281159 Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget always
successful--in the case of DOD's fiscal year 1999 budget,
forexample--the certification process provides a mechanism by
which ONDCP can review agencies' drug budgets for consistency with
theNational Strategy and make recommendations that bring these
budgets into line with the strategy's current goals and
objectives. To better evaluate the effectiveness of federal drug
control efforts, inFebruary 1998 ONDCP established its PME system
23--a system of goals,
objectives, and targets designed to implement the National
Strategy andmeasure the effectiveness of the nation's drug control
efforts. The Anti
Drug Abuse Act of 1988 required ONDCP to include in each year's
NationalStrategy an evaluation of the effectiveness of federal
drug control efforts during the previous year.24 The PME system
was developed in response toExecutive Order 12880 (issued November
16, 1993) and additional statutory language included in the
Violent Crime Control and LawEnforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-
322),
25 which required a more detailed
assessment of federal drug control efforts.
As stated in ONDCP's 1998 PME report, the PME system is designed
to (1)assess the effectiveness of the National Drug Control
Strategy, (2) provide the drug control community with critical
information on what needs to bedone to refine policy and
programmatic direction, and (3) assist with drug program budget
management at all levels. The 1998 report goes on to
state,however, that the PME system was not used to construct the
national drug control budget. Rather, the performance targets were
developed separatelyfrom the budget process. Eventually, the PME
system is meant to enable the drug control community to assess and
select among various options forachieving the performance targets-
-including budget/resource management tools; shared responsibility
by federal, state, local, andprivate organizations; and the system
of laws and regulations.
ONDCP began its PME effort in 1995, when ONDCP initiated
aninteragency effort to draft performance targets and measures to
be included in the 1996 National Strategy. Working groups--
consisting ofagency staff, line managers and others knowledgeable
about drug control
23 Office of National Drug Control Policy, Performance Measures of
Effectiveness: A System for
Assessing the Performance of the National Drug Control Strategy
(1998-2007), February 1998. 24 This specific responsibility is
described in the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988,
section 1005. ONDCP's general authority to monitor implementation
of the National Strategy through programand performance evaluation
is laid out in section 1003 of the act.
25 ONDCP's specific authority and responsibility related to
assessments of the effectiveness of federal drug control efforts
is set forth in section 90203 of the Violent Crime Control Act,
which amendedsection 1005(a) of the 1988 Act.
ONDCP's PME System Development of the PME System
B-281159
Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget issues and programs--
were established to develop an acceptablemeasurement plan and
specific performance targets. By 1996, this effort evolved further
as the working groups began developing the performancemeasurement
framework that would become the PME system. The working groups
reconvened in February 1997 with some new members.The final
recommendations made by the working groups were incorporated by
ONDCP into the PME report that was issued in February1998.
After the initial PME report was issued in 1998, the working
groupsreconvened to develop specific action plans identifying the
responsibilities of each individual agency in working towards the
PME performancetargets. According to ONDCP officials, the working
groups were encouraged to develop the action plans, without regard
to budgetaryconstraints, to identify the best approaches to
operationalizing agency responsibilities. ONDCP intends to publish
finalized action plans insubsequent PME reports, after they have
been cleared at the department level. The working groups also
focused on other refinements to the PMEsystem, including defining
causal relationships between agency activities and desired impacts
for each target; identifying annual targets thatcorrespond to
achieving the 5- and 10-year outcomes; and developing plans for
addressing gaps in performance measurement data. According to
ONDCP officials, ONDCP intends to report on the results
andimplementation of the PME system each February, in conjunction
with the publication of the National Drug Budget Summary. The
first annual statusreport was issued in February 1999.
26 Although too soon to make an
assessment of the National Strategy's effectiveness, the 1999
reportdescribed accomplishments during the prior year--including
six milestone
performance targets that were achieved. The report also
describedONDCP's plans for additional development of the PME
system during 1999. For example, ONDCP plans to reach out to state
and local entities thathave antidrug interests and include their
input in the 2000 PME report. ONDCP believes this is an important
next step in implementing andevaluating the National Strategy,
since it is meant to be a national, not strictly federal,
document.
26National Drug Control Strategy, Performance Measures of
Effectiveness: Implementation and
Findings, February 1999.
B-281159 Page 25 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget The 1998
National Drug Control Strategy identified 5 strategic goals and
32objectives as part of a comprehensive effort to reduce drug use
(demand), decrease drug availability (supply), and reduce the
adverse consequencesof drug use.
27 The strategy's five goals are as follows:
* Goal 1 - Prevent drug use among America's youth;*
Goal 2 - Increase the safety of America's citizens;* Goal 3 -
Reduce the health and social costs of drug use;* Goal 4 - Shield
America's air, land, and sea frontiers; and* Goal 5 - Break
foreign and domestic sources of supply.
The goals help to define the major initiatives that must be
pursued toreduce drug use, availability, and consequences. Each
goal includes one or more objectives, which help to measure
progress towards the goal andmay be modified as counterdrug
efforts succeed or new challenges emerge. For example, goal number
4 includes the following objectives:
* Reduce drug flow in transit and arrival zones,*
Improve coordination among U.S. drug control agencies,* Improve
coordination with drug source and transit nations, and* Conduct
research and develop technology to deter drug flow into theUnited
States.
The PME system takes this approach a step further by linking
thestrategy's goals and objectives to 94 specific targets, while
at the same time identifying measures (i.e., data variables or
events) used to trackprogress towards these targets. As
illustrated in figure 1, the PME's 12 "impact" targets define the
desired outcomes for the National Strategy'sfive goals. The other
82 "performance" targets define progress towards the National
Strategy's 32 supporting objectives.28 While impact targets are
tobe used to assess whether the National Strategy is successful
overall, the performance targets are to offer additional
information on what needs tobe done to refine policy or
programmatic directions.
According to ONDCP officials, the concept or logic model
underlying thePME system is that the goals, objectives, and
targets cascade down to the various federal drug control agencies
responsible for reporting on
27 The 1999 National Drug Control Strategy is essentially the same
as 1998, except that the number of
objectives supporting the 5 goals has been reduced from 32 to 31.
28 Although the PME system framework remained essentially the same
from 1998 to 1999, the number of targets was increased from 94 to
97 and, consistent with the 1999 National Strategy, the number
ofobjectives was reduced from 32 to 31.
Linkages Between National DrugControl Strategy and 1998 PME
Targets
B-281159
Page 26 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget ONDCP's performance and
impact targets that have been established for2002 and 2007. To
measure success in meeting the National Strategy's overall goals
and objectives, ONDCP plans to compile data provided by thedrug
control agencies on those performance targets for which they have
supporting responsibilities.
Goals
(5)
Objectives
(32)
Performance
Targets
(82)
Impact Targets
(12)
Measures (data)
Measures (data)
Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Performance
Measures of Effectiveness: A System forAssessing the Performance
of the National Drug Control Strategy (1998-2007), February 1998.
Each of the goals in the strategy is associated with several
impact targets,objectives, performance targets, and measures. For
example, goal number 5 of the strategy is to break foreign and
domestic drug sources of supply.As described in the PME system,
meeting this goal depends on achieving six objectives, each of
which addresses some aspect of foreign or domesticsupply. Each
objective further consists of two to four performance targets, the
measurement of which is to determine whether the objectives
havebeen achieved. To determine whether the overall goal has been
met, two additional impact targets--one dealing with foreign drug
supply and onedealing with domestic drug production--are to
measure outcomes over 5- and 10-year periods.
Figure 1: Linkage Between 1998National Strategy and PME Targets
and Objectives
B-281159
Page 27 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget Focusing on foreign
supply, the impact target measuring achievement ofthis aspect of
goal number 5 is as follows: Source zone outflow -- By 2002,
reduce the rate of outflow of illicit drugsfrom the source zone by
15 percent, as compared with the 1996 base year. By 2007, reduce
outflow rate by a total of 30 percent measured against thebase
year.
Goal number 5, objective 1 is to reduce production of specific
illegal drugswhich, if achieved, would lead to a reduction in
source zone outflow. This objective contains four specific
performance targets for reductions in illicitcoca, opium poppies,
marijuana, and other illegal drugs.
29 An example of
one of these performance targets is for illicit coca:
Illicit coca - By 2002, reduce the worldwide net cultivation of
cocadestined for illicit cocaine production by at least 20
percent, as compared with the 1996 base year. By 2007, reduce net
cultivation by at least 40percent compared with the base year.
Progress towards this target is expected to be measured based on
cocacultivation as expressed in hectares under cultivation and
metric ton equivalent of potential production capacity, assessed
annually, on aworldwide basis. In its 1999 PME report, ONDCP
identified an existing source for this measurement data--the
International Narcotics ControlStrategy Report (issued annually by
the Department of State)--and the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA) was identified as the primary reportingagency.
According to the underlying assumptions behind the PME system, if
all ofthe performance targets associated with objective 1 are
reached in 2002 and 2007, then the objective--reduced drug
production--should beachieved. However, achieving this objective
does not necessarily mean that the associated impact target--
reduced source zone outflow--for goalnumber 5 will be met. Rather,
that outcome is contingent not only on achieving objective 1, but
it also depends on the results achieved towardsthe other targets
and objectives associated with the source zone outflow impact
target. In the above example, although the CIA is the primary
reporting agency,five other drug control departments and agencies-
-DEA, DOD, State, FBI,
29 In the 1999 PME report, both marijuana and opium poppies were
broken into two additional targets,
in order to differentiate between locations of supply.
B-281159 Page 28 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget and U.S. Agency
for International Development--also have responsibilityfor meeting
the illicit coca performance target. According to ONDCP, if the
performance target is not reached, further analysis will be
necessary toclearly establish why and identify the appropriate
corrective actions-- which might include changes in agency
funding, agency resources orassets, agency responsibility, or in
the target itself.
ONDCP expects the PME system to ultimately bring accountability to
thenation's drug control efforts. As agencies collect and report
performance measurement data to ONDCP, ONDCP expects the PME
system to helpidentify which drug control programs are
contributing to the achievement of desired outcomes. ONDCP also
expects that, after the PME interagency action plans arefinalized,
they will be fully reflected in agency budget submissions and
performance plans submitted under the Government Performance
andResults Act (Results Act).
30 According to the 1999 PME report, agencies
will be asked to link responsibilities within these action plans
to theirbudget submissions, and programs will need to be linked to
the targets to
which they contribute.31 ONDCP and drug control agency officials
raised several issues that theysaid need to be addressed in order
for the PME system to be successfully implemented. First, for many
of the performance targets identified, no datacurrently exist to
measure progress towards the target. According to the February
1999 PME status report, about one-third of the performancetargets
were not currently measurable, with goal number 2 of the National
Strategy--reduce drug-related crime and violence--having the
largestproportion of unmeasurable targets (10 of 17). For example,
one target for goal number 2 is to reduce the rate of violent
crimes and crimes againstproperty that are associated with illegal
drugs. However, data currently collected for these types of crimes
(through FBI Uniform Crime Reports)are not broken out by drug use
involvement. ONDCP is taking steps to address these types of data
limitations. For example, ONDCP'sSubcommittee on Data, Research,
and Interagency Coordination
32 has
30 The Results Act (P.L. 103-62) was enacted in August 1993 to,
among other things, improve federal
program effectiveness and public accountability. The Results Act
requires federal agencies to developannual program performance
plans that (1) describe how the agencies will meet their program
goals
through daily operations and (2) establish target levels of
performance for program activities. 31 For a related discussion on
this issue, see Performance Budgeting: Initial Experiences Under
the Results Act in Linking Plans with Budgets (GAO/AIMD/GGD-99-67,
Apr. 12, 1999). 32 This is one of three subcommittees under
ONDCP's Drug Control Research, Data, and Evaluation Advisory
Committee.
PME Issues Yet to be FullyResolved
B-281159
Page 29 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget recently completed a
federal drug-related data needs assessment and aninventory of
federal drug-related data sources. ONDCP has also included $3.3
million in its fiscal year 2000 budget request to fund data
developmentactivities. ONDCP expects that all of the targets
identified in the 1999 PME report will be measurable within 3
years. Second, it is not yet clear how ONDCP will use the PME
informationduring its budget certification process. Agency
officials we talked to raised concerns that PME targets may become
a way to judge the performance ofindividual drug control agencies.
ONDCP officials have stated, however, that the PME data will not
be used in this manner, but rather these datawill be used to
assess the effectiveness of the National Strategy and the PME
framework itself. During the fiscal year 1999 drug budget
certificationprocess, ONDCP did not use performance data as
criteria, but rather it focused on overall dollar amounts and
specific program initiatives thatagencies were expected to address
in their budgets. For fiscal year 2000, ONDCP's budget guidance
requested that drug control agencies formattheir budget
submissions so that proposed spending was broken out by
performance target. However, ONDCP officials indicated that they
havenot yet decided how PME information will be integrated into
the certification process in future budget cycles. They believe
that identifyinga direct connection between the funding request
and the associated PME performance target will allow ONDCP to make
more informedrecommendations to the agencies about where they
should focus their drug control funds.33 ONDCP expects that a
decision on this issue willlikely be made by calendar year 2001,
the point at which ONDCP estimates data will be available to
measure progress towards all of the previouslyestablished
performance targets.
Finally, there is not yet a clear connection between agency
performancegoals and targets, as described in the PME, and those
required to be included in agencies' annual performance plans
under the Results Act. In1998, ONDCP reported that agency annual
progress reports under the Results Act should reflect progress
toward achieving the national (i.e.,PME) targets. In the 1999 PME
report, however, ONDCP acknowledges that the measures in PME are
generally more aggressive than thoseincluded in individual agency
performance plans. Nonetheless, the 1999 PME report goes on to
state that
33 For a broader discussion of the issues associated with linking
performance goals and resource
requests, see Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer
Insights for GPRA Implementation(GAO/AIMD-97-46, Mar. 27, 1997).
B-281159 Page 30 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget "Agencies are
required to track their own performance through their Government
Performance and Results Act plans, which should include aspects of
their own specific drug control missions. The plans should be
consistent with the [National] Strategy and the PME system."
For the four selected departments and agencies we reviewed,
wecompared performance measures from their 1999 Results Act
performance plans with performance measures developed under the
PME system. Wefound that the Results Act plans may be inconsistent
with or contain less specific information than is presented in the
PME system. For example:
* DEA's fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan contains
strategic goalsand strategies for achieving those goals that
parallel goals and objectives
described in the PME system. For example, DEA's plan contains a
strategicgoal of disrupting and dismantling drug trafficking
organizations, which corresponds to two similar PME objectives.
The PME performance targetsfor these two objectives are very
specific about achieving percentage increases in numbers of
organizations disrupted or dismantled over 5- and10-year periods.
DEA's corresponding annual goals--increasing arrests, removals,
and seizures; increasing foreign operations; and disrupting
drugtraffickers--are less specific and output-oriented, although
they are expected to result in the outcomes of reduced trafficking
capability,disruption and dismantling of trafficking
organizations, and enhanced international coordination and
intelligence collection. In addition, DEA'splan lacks specific
performance targets upon which to gauge progress towards these
annual goals or outcomes.
* Treasury's fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan contains
the goal toreduce trafficking, smuggling, and use of illicit
drugs. Customs is the
primary Treasury agency responsible for achieving this goal,
whichroughly corresponds to PME goal number 4, objective 1:
conduct flexible operations to detect, disrupt, deter, and seize
illegal drugs in transit to theUnited States at U.S. borders. Both
the annual performance plan and PME establish targets for specific
drugs, although (1) the data sources identifiedto measure progress
towards the targets are slightly different and (2) Customs'
targets focus on single-agency outputs (increased drugs
seized)while ONDCP's focus on multiagency outcomes (reduced flow
of drugs).
34
34 For fiscal year 2000, Customs' performance plan included an
outcome performance measure for its
narcotics objective--Drug Smuggling Organizations' Transportation
Costs. Although a baseline has notyet been established, Customs
anticipates the target to be a 3 percent increase in such costs by
fiscal
year 2004.
B-281159 Page 31 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget
* SAMHSA's fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan contains an
initiativethat directly responds to PME goal number 1, objective
2--pursue a
vigorous public advertising and communication program dealing with
thedangers of illegal drugs. For both, the expected outcome is to
increase the percentage of youth who consider illegal drugs to be
harmful. Althoughsimilar overall, differences can be seen in the
performance targets identified and data sources used to measure
progress towards the targets.PME has identified as a target an
increase in 20 percent, by 2002, in the percentage of youth
perceiving great risk in using marijuana; whileSAMHSA's 2002
target is to reduce, by 25 percent, past month usage of marijuana
by youths. PME's data source measures survey responses of
12thgraders; while SAMHSA's separate data source measures survey
responses of 12- to 17-year olds.35
* DOD's fiscal year 1999 performance plan does not specifically
addressgoals for counterdrug activities, which make up only a
small fraction of
DOD's overall budget. The plan did identify a quantitative
performancemeasure for drug interdiction and counterdrug activity-
-tons of cocaine seized--but did not identify a baseline to
measure against or aperformance target to be achieved.
36 According to DOD officials, the Office
of Drug Enforcement Policy and Support has linked its
counterdrugplanning, programming, and budgeting system to the
goals, targets, and
measures in ONDCP's PME system. The Office of Drug
EnforcementPolicy and Support tracks the relative performance of
DOD systems employed in counterdrug efforts. The officials said
these statistics are thenused to evaluate overall program
effectiveness and support DOD budgetary decisions. Agency
officials have told us that currently more interest lies
inperformance measurement and reporting required by the Results
Act, rather than the PME system. As a result, they are primarily
focused onresponding to the concerns of their departments and
congressional oversight and appropriations committees, with
respect to the Results Act.However, as part of ONDCP's 1998
reauthorization legislation, Congress strongly endorsed the
national drug control performance measurement
35 According to HHS officials, SAMHSA's fiscal year 2000
performance plan included two long-term
substance abuse objectives, which are closely linked to the PME
system. In addition, the officialsnoted, SAMHSA has developed a
core set of client outcome measures, some of which are closely
linked
to the client outcomes called for in the PME. 36 For fiscal year
2000, DOD's performance plan eliminated this performance measure
and identified the counterdrug effort as a "cross-cutting program"
based on its interagency focus.
B-281159 Page 32 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget system.37
Further, ONDCP is specifically required to design the system
sothat it (1) monitors consistency between the goals and
objectives of drug control agencies and (2) ensures that their
goals and budgets support andare fully consistent with the
National Drug Control Strategy. As stated in the 1999 PME report,
ONDCP expects that, as PME working groupsdevelop the interagency
action plans, elements of the action plans will eventually be
fully reflected in agency budgets and GovernmentPerformance and
Results Act plans.
ONDCP's fiscal year 1999 budget certification process appears
consistentwith the requirements of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988. Certification allows ONDCP to influence agency drug budgets
early in the budgetdevelopment process and bring any drug budget
shortfalls to the attention of budget decisionmakers. Because
certification is only the first phase ofthe drug budget
development process, funding issues or disagreements that cannot
be resolved during the certification phase can still beaddressed
through ONDCP's continuing input into the congressional
appropriations process. ONDCP's PME system appears to provide a
framework for bringing greateraccountability to the nation's drug
control efforts. In light of Congress' recent interest in
measuring the effectiveness of the nation's drug controlefforts,
ONDCP's approach to fully implement the PME system by (1)
addressing existing limitations in performance measurement data
and (2)examining ways to integrate PME performance data into the
budget certification process seems appropriate. Because the PME
system hasbeen just recently implemented, additional assessment
would be necessary to determine whether the system is fully
functional, is achieving itsdesigned purpose, and has been
integrated with department and agency processes required under the
Results Act. We provided a draft of this report to the Director of
ONDCP; the AttorneyGeneral; and the Secretaries of the Treasury,
HHS, and Defense for comment. We received oral and written
comments during the period ofApril 14 to 27, 1999, from the
Director, ONDCP; the Chief Inspector, Inspection Division, DEA;
the Assistant Commissioner, Office ofInvestigations, Customs
Service; the Inspector General, HHS; and the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Drug Enforcement Policy and Support,DOD. Their
comments and our responses are summarized below.
37 Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of
1998 (title VII of P.L. 105-277), section
706(c).
Conclusions Agency Comments andOur Evaluation
B-281159
Page 33 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget ONDCP concurred with the
report and provided technical clarifications,which we have
incorporated in the report where appropriate. In its comments on
the budget certification process and the PME system,ONDCP noted
that:
* The budget authorities we reviewed have been renewed as part of
theOffice of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of
1998.
ONDCP will continue its efforts to guide the development of agency
drugcontrol programs through the annual drug budget certification
process.
* The PME system will be refined during fiscal year 1999, as
ONDCPaddresses some of the important issues raised in this report.
In particular,
ONDCP intends to make significant progress this year to better
link thePME system with the drug budget.
DEA expressed concern about our suggestion that DEA's
1999performance plan was less specific and output-oriented, and
lacked measurable targets upon which to gauge progress towards the
annualgoals of the Performance Measures of Effectiveness. DEA
stated that its performance plan directly supports DOJ's Strategic
Plan, which itself wasdesigned to meet the goals and objectives of
the National Drug Control Strategy. We agree that DEA's 1999
performance plan contains strategicgoals and strategies for
achieving those goals that parallel goals and objectives described
in the PME system, and we have stated so in thisreport. However,
DEA's annual goals as stated in the plan are less specific than
those in the PME system, the goals do not include
specificperformance targets for either outputs or outcomes, and
the performance plan does not identify performance measures that
will be used to trackprogress towards the goals. This approach is
inconsistent with the Results Act, which requires performance
plans to contain objective, quantifiable,and measurable
performance goals, as well as performance indicators to measure
outputs and outcomes. Customs, HHS, and DOD concurred with the
report and also providedtechnical comments and clarifications,
which have been incorporated in the report where appropriate. We
are sending copies of this report to Representative Patsy T.
Mink,Ranking Minority Member, House Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources; and to Senator Strom
Thurmond, Chairman,and Senator Charles E. Schumer, Ranking
Minority Member, Senate Subcommittee on Criminal Justice
Oversight. We are also sending copiesof this report to Barry R.
McCaffrey, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy; The
Honorable William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense;
B-281159 Page 34 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget The Honorable
Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services;The
Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney General; The Honorable Robert E.
Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury; and The Honorable Jacob Lew,
Director,Office of Management and Budget. This report also will be
made available to others upon request. Major contributors are
listed in appendix II. If you have any questions,please contact me
on (202) 512-8777.
Sincerely yours,
Norman J. RabkinDirector, Administration
of Justice Issues
Page 35 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget Page 36 GAO/GGD-99-80
Drug Control Budget
Contents
1Letter 38Appendix I Objectives, Scope, andMethodology
40Appendix II Major Contributors toThis Report
Table 1: ONDCP Fiscal Year 1999 Budget CertificationTimeline 6
Table 2: Changes in Fiscal Year 1999 Drug Budget at EachStage of
Budget Development (dollars in millions) 20 Tables
Figure 1: Linkage Between 1998 National Strategy andPME Targets
and Objectives 26Figures
Abbreviations CIA Central Intelligence Agency DEA Drug Enforcement
Administration DOD Department of Defense DOJ Department of Justice
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation HHS Department of Health and
Human Services OMB Office of Management and Budget ONDCP Office of
National Drug Control Policy PME Performance Measurement
Effectiveness SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration
Page 37 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget
Appendix IObjectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 38 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget The former Chairman of
the House Government Reform and OversightSubcommittee on National
Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice1 asked us to
examine the role of the Office of National DrugControl Policy
(ONDCP) in shaping the national drug control budget. In
discussions with the Subcommittee staff, we specifically agreed to
* assess whether the process ONDCP followed to certify federal
agencies'drug control budgets for fiscal year 1999 was consistent
with statutory
requirements and* describe the system ONDCP has developed to
assess the extent to whichdrug control agencies and programs
achieve intended results.
Our work on the budget certification process focused specifically
on thefiscal year 1999 drug budget cycle. For that year, we
documented the certification process followed by ONDCP and
verified that certificationletters were issued for all drug
control departments or agencies identified by ONDCP as requiring
certification. Regarding agency and programresults, our work
focused on ONDCP's recently established system-- Performance
Measures of Effectiveness--for assessing the effectiveness ofthe
National Drug Control Strategy.
In addressing the objectives, we did our work primarily at
ONDCPheadquarters in Washington, D.C. To obtain additional
perspectives about both the drug budget certification process and
ONDCP's PerformanceMeasures of Effectiveness, we also reviewed the
following four departments and agencies in more detail: (1) the
Drug EnforcementAdministration (within the Department of Justice),
(2) U.S. Customs Service (within the Treasury Department), (3)
Substance Abuse andMental Health Services Administration (within
the Department of Health and Human Services), and (4) the
Department of Defense. We selectedthese four departments based on
the requester's interest; we chose the specific agencies because
they are key component drug control agencieswithin those
departments.
To describe the process by which ONDCP certifies federal agencies'
drugcontrol budgets, we focused on the fiscal year 1999 budget
cycle. We interviewed officials in ONDCP's Programs, Budget,
Research, andEvaluation Division, as well as officials from
ONDCP's operational divisions, including Demand Reduction, Supply
Reduction, and State and
1 With the beginning of the 106th Congress, the committee and
subcommittee were renamed to the
Committee on Government Reform and the Subcommittee on Criminal
Justice, Drug Policy, andHuman Resources.
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 39 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget Local Affairs. We
reviewed the legislation governing the ONDCP budgetcertification
process, including changes resulting from ONDCP's 1998
Reauthorization Act. We further obtained and reviewed all
relevantinternal and interagency correspondence relating to the
certification process, including ONDCP guidance and policy, agency
budgetsubmissions, and ONDCP certification letters. In addition to
these reviews, we also interviewed budget and program officials at
DEA, Customs, DOD,and SAMHSA.
To describe the system ONDCP has developed to assess the extent
towhich drug control agencies and programs achieve intended
results, we interviewed officials from ONDCP and the other federal
drug controlagencies noted above and reviewed relevant documents
provided by these agencies. We reviewed ONDCP's National Drug
Control Strategy (1997,1998, and 1999) and ONDCP reports on
Performance Measures of Effectiveness (1998 and 1999). We also
reviewed Government Performanceand Results Act plans for the
agencies noted above and compared the performance measures
identified in their fiscal year 1999 performanceplans with those
measures included in ONDCP's Performance Measures of Effectiveness
system.
Appendix IIMajor Contributors to This Report
Page 40 GAO/GGD-99-80 Drug Control Budget Weldon McPhail,
Assistant DirectorKristeen G. McLain, Evaluator David P.
Alexander, Senior Social Science AnalystRebecca Shea, Social
Science Analyst
Michael J. Curro, Assistant Director
Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney Philip D. Caramia, Evaluator-in-
Charge
General GovernmentDivision, Washington, D.C. Accounting
andInformation Management Division,Washington, D.C.
Office of GeneralCounsel, Washington, D.C.
Dallas Field Office
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additionalcopies are $2 each. Orders should be
sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money
order made out to theSuperintendent of Documents, when necessary.
VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for
100 or morecopies to be mailed to a single address are discounted
25 percent.
Order by mail: U.S. General Accounting OfficeP.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013 or visit: Room 1100700 4
th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting OfficeWashington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using
faxnumber (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 touch-tone phone.
Arecorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these
lists. For information on how to access GAO reports on the
INTERNET,send 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
United StatesGeneral Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300 Address Correction
Requested
Bulk RatePostage & Fees Paid
GAOPermit No. G100
(186769)
*** End of document. ***