Review of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Heroin Signature 
and Domestic Monitor Programs (12-JAN-01, GAO-01-237R). 	 
								 
GAO examined the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Heroin  
Signature Program and Domestic Monitor Program to determine why  
there were apparent discrepancies in the 1999 statistical data	 
generated by these two programs, particularly in the data on	 
Southwest Asia heroin. GAO focused on why the program data showed
heroin seizure information for only one U.S. Pacific Coast	 
international airport. In addition, GAO examined whether enough  
samples from heroin seizures were being furnished for analysis	 
under the Heroin Signature Program and the extent to which DEA	 
was committed to the Domestic Monitor Program. GAO concluded that
the discrepancies in the 1999 statistical data generated by the  
programs were the result of the two programs' data not being	 
comparable. The reason Heroin Signature Program data showed	 
heroin seizure information for only one U.S. Pacific Coast	 
international airport was because seizures at other Pacific Coast
airports during 1999 did not meet federal prosecution guidelines.
GAO further found that DEA officials responsible for		 
administering the Heroin Signature Program received enough	 
samples of the heroin seized by federal law enforcement agencies,
but did not receive enough samples from state and local law	 
enforcement agencies. Additionally, DEA was committed to the	 
Domestic Monitor Program and did annual field division		 
inspections, which included verification of compliance with	 
Domestic Monitor Program requirements.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-237R					        
    ACCNO:   577685						        
    TITLE:   Review of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Heroin   
             Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs                          
     DATE:   01/12/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Airports						 
	     Drug trafficking					 
	     Foreign governments				 
	     Narcotics						 
	     Search and seizure 				 
	     Statistical data					 
	     Afghanistan					 
	     Bangladesh 					 
	     DEA Domestic Monitor Program			 
	     DEA Heroin Signature Program			 
	     India						 
	     Iran						 
	     Nepal						 
	     Pakistan						 
	     Sri Lanka						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-237R

Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

January 12, 2001 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman Caucus on
International Narcotics Control United States Senate

Subject: Review of the Drug Enforcement Administration's Heroin Signature
and Domestic Monitor Programs

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter responds to your request that we review the
Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) Heroin Signature Program and its
Domestic Monitor Program. You asked that we determine why there are apparent
discrepancies in the 1999 statistical data generated by the two programs,
particularly in the data pertaining to Southwest Asia heroin, 1 to include
an explanation of why the Heroin Signature Program data shows heroin seizure
information for only one U. S. Pacific Coast international airport. 2
Additionally, you asked that we determine whether sufficient samples
relating to heroin seizures are being furnished for analysis under the
Heroin Signature Program and the extent to which DEA is committed to the
Domestic Monitor Program.

We interviewed knowledgeable DEA, U. S. Customs Service, and Department of
Justice officials and reviewed relevant documentation. We performed our work
from August 15, 2000, through December 11, 2000, in accordance with
investigative standards established by the President's Council on Integrity
and Efficiency.

Results in Brief

The discrepancies in the 1999 statistical data- for heroin produced in
Southwest Asia and other areas- generated by the Heroin Signature and
Domestic Monitor programs are the result of the two programs' data not being
comparable. The 1999 Heroin Signature Program data identifies the source of
heroin seized at specific U. S. international airports, whereas the 1999
Domestic Monitor Program data identifies the source of heroin obtained
through random, undercover, retail- level heroin

1 Southwest Asia heroin includes heroin produced in the “Golden
Crescent,” which includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran,
India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. Afghanistan is the major producer of heroin
from Southwest Asia. 2 The major U. S. Pacific Coast international airports
included in the Heroin Signature Program are San

Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, CA; Seattle, WA; and Honolulu, HI.

GAO- 01- 237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs Page 2
purchases in specific cities. According to DEA and Customs officials, Heroin

Signature Program data for 1999 shows no seizure information for U. S.
Pacific Coast international airports because, with the exception of the Los
Angeles International Airport, no seizures occurred at such airports during
1999 that met federal prosecution guidelines. Seizures from which samples
are analyzed under the program must meet federal prosecution guidelines.

DEA officials responsible for administering the Heroin Signature Program
told us that they receive sufficient samples of the heroin seized by federal
law enforcement agencies but receive few or no samples of the heroin seized
by state and local law enforcement agencies. The Director of DEA's Special
Testing and Research Laboratory also stated that the analysis of additional
samples from West Coast heroin seizures by state and local authorities would
broaden the statistical database used to identify trends.

According to DEA officials, DEA is committed to the Domestic Monitor Program
and conducts annual field division inspections, which include verification
of compliance with Domestic Monitor Program requirements. The Domestic
Monitor Program enables DEA to monitor the price and purity of retail heroin
sold in the United States and to provide samples for signature analysis. To
further enhance this program, DEA has initiated a pilot program to analyze
heroin samples provided by state and local law enforcement agencies.

Background

The Heroin Signature and the Domestic Monitor programs are trafficking-
indicator programs used to detect trends in the source areas of the heroin
supplied to the United States. Data from both programs, investigative
intelligence, and other information are used to develop an overall
assessment of heroin trafficking in the United States.

DEA's Intelligence Division administers both programs. DEA's Special Testing
and Research Laboratory in Washington, D. C., conducts an in- depth chemical
analysis of the heroin samples provided by both the Heroin Signature and the
Domestic Monitor programs. 3 Each major heroin- producing region has a
unique production process or

“signature,” which is used to determine the origin of the
sample. Signature analysis is the only scientifically based technique
currently available for determining the region in which heroin encountered
in the U. S. drug market was produced.

DEA initiated the Heroin Signature Program in 1971 to enhance the ability of
its regional laboratories to identify the source of heroin seized in the
United States from each of the world's major heroin- producing areas- South
America, 4 Mexico, Southeast Asia, 5 and Southwest Asia. In 1977, DEA
centralized the Heroin Signature

3 All heroin samples that meet the minimum weight requirement- equal to or
greater than 1 gram- are eligible for signature analysis. DEA's Special
Testing and Research Laboratory prefers a 1- gram sample but will accept a
minimum of 500 milligrams for testing. 4 The South American heroin signature
was developed in July 1993. This heroin is produced mainly in

Columbia. 5 Southeast Asia heroin is produced in the “Golden
Triangle,” which includes Burma, Laos, Thailand,

and Vietnam.

GAO- 01- 237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs Page 3 Program
within the Special Testing and Research Laboratory, which receives heroin

samples from randomly selected DEA seizures and purchases and from seizures
by other federal agencies, including Customs. The Heroin Signature Program
receives samples from heroin seizures made at U. S. ports of entry,
including airports and border crossings. Samples are also obtained from
seizures of heroin in letters and packages mailed to the United States via
U. S. mail, Federal Express, United Parcel Service, and any other mail-
handling system. The seized substances are first forwarded to DEA's regional
laboratories, 6 which conduct an initial analysis to confirm that the
substance is heroin. If the substance is confirmed as heroin, the regional
laboratory is responsible for preparing a written report for judicial
purposes and providing a sample to DEA's Special Testing and Research
Laboratory. The laboratory also receives samples of heroin for signature
analysis that DEA purchases under the Domestic Monitor Program.

DEA initiated the Domestic Monitor Program in New York City (New York Field
Division) in 1979. All 20 remaining field divisional cities 7 now have the
program. In addition, Orlando, Florida, and Baltimore, Maryland- which are
suboffices of the Miami and Washington, D. C., field divisions,
respectively- have a Domestic Monitor Program. As a result, 23 cities
currently participate in the Domestic Monitor Program. In the program, DEA's
field personnel make random, undercover, retaillevel heroin purchases. The
program was originally designed to enable DEA to monitor the price and
purity of retail heroin sold in the United States; it now also provides
samples for signature analysis to the Special Testing and Research
Laboratory.

Statistical Data for the Two Programs Not Comparable; Lack of Data Because
Seizure Guidelines Not Met at All Pacific Coast Airports

The 1999 Heroin Signature Program data identifies the source of heroin
seized at selected U. S. international airports and ports of entry; and 1999
Domestic Monitor Program data identifies the source of heroin obtained from
random, undercover, retail- level heroin purchases.

As shown in enclosure I, DEA received samples of heroin seizures for
analysis under the Heroin Signature Program in 1999 from 18 U. S.
international airports, including Puerto Rico, and an unidentified
international airport. As shown in enclosure II, the source of the samples
for analysis under the Domestic Monitor Program in 1999 was random,
undercover, retail- level heroin purchases in 22 cities, 15 of which were
cities where airport seizures were made. As indicated in enclosure I, 11.1
percent of the 1999 airport seizure samples for the Heroin Signature Program
were from Southwest Asia and 64.8 percent were from South America. However,
as shown in enclosure II, only 1 percent of the Domestic Monitor Program
samples resulting from heroin

6 DEA's regional laboratories are located in Chicago, IL; Washington, DC;
San Diego and San Francisco, CA; New York City, NY; Miami, FL; and Dallas,
TX. Two subregional laboratories are located in Kansas City, KS, under
Chicago, and San Juan, PR, under Miami. 7 The 20 remaining field divisional
locations, referred to in this letter as “cities,” are Atlanta,
GA;

Boston, MA; the Caribbean area; Chicago, IL; Dallas, El Paso, and Houston,
TX; Miami, FL; Newark, NJ; New Orleans, LA; Denver, CO; Philadelphia, PA;
Phoenix, AZ; Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, CA; Seattle, WA; St.
Louis, MO; Detroit, MI; and Washington, DC.

GAO- 01- 237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs Page 4
purchases in 1999 were from Southwest Asia while 37.4 percent were from
South

America. DEA officials acknowledged that there is an apparent discrepancy
between the trends identified by the charts in enclosures I and II. They
told us that the program data reported by the Heroin Signature Program for a
specific airport is not comparable to the source city information reported
by the Domestic Monitor Program. They added that a city- by- city comparison
of the source area percentages in the charts is misleading. This is
particularly true with cities that have major international airports,
because heroin seized at international airports may have been destined for a
city other than the one where the seizure was made. For example, the
statistical data for the 1999 Heroin Signature Program (enclosure I) for New
York City is based on New York City airport seizures and shows that 14.8
percent of the heroin seized was from Southwest Asia. However, the 1999
Domestic Monitor Program statistical data (enclosure II) for New York City
is based on the random, retail- level heroin purchases in the New York City
metropolitan area and shows that 1.6 percent of the heroin purchased was
from Southwest Asia. The enclosures also show that 10.5 percent of the
seizures at Newark's international airport were from Southwest Asia but that
none of the Domestic Monitor Program heroin retail- level purchases made in
Newark were from Southwest Asia.

DEA and Customs officials informed us that the reason for a lack of 1999
Heroin Signature Program data for U. S. Pacific Coast international
airports, with the exception of the Los Angeles International Airport, is
because no heroin seizures at these airports met federal prosecution
guidelines.

Sufficient Heroin Signature Program Data

According to DEA officials, under the Heroin Signature Program, sufficient
samples are obtained from federal agencies' heroin seizures that meet the
drug prosecution guidelines of the local U. S. Attorneys' Offices. Samples
are obtained from all Customs, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and randomly
selected DEA seizures. Prosecution guidelines for federal prosecutors are
developed within the framework of the U. S. Attorney's Manual, Section 9-
27, which provides the U. S. Attorney's Office great latitude. Department of
Justice officials stated that each of the 93 U. S. Attorneys' Offices
develops its own drug prosecution guidelines. According to Department of
Justice officials, the latitude provided to U. S. Attorneys in drug
prosecution guidelines can result in an individual being prosecuted for
possession of an amount of heroin in one location and not prosecuted for the
same amount in another.

DEA officials stated that although they do not verify compliance, they
believe that federal law enforcement agencies are complying with the Heroin
Signature Program requirements requiring seizures that meet federal
prosecution guidelines to be turned over to DEA. According to DEA officials,
the current sampling method is sufficient for the Heroin Signature Program.
The Director of DEA's Special Testing and Research Laboratory stated that as
with any statistical data, the more information that is used, the more
useful the data is in identifying trends. He continued that, for example,
analyzing additional samples from West Coast heroin seizures made by state
and local authorities would broaden the statistical database used to
identify

GAO- 01- 237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs Page 5 trends.
DEA officials added that at this time, state and local law enforcement

agencies are not required to provide samples from local seizures. However,
heroin samples from state and local law enforcement agencies that are part
of a federal task force might be provided if the seizures meet the federal
guidelines for prosecution.

Domestic Monitor Program Commitment

According to DEA officials, DEA is committed to the Domestic Monitor Program
and performs annual field division inspections, which include verification
of field division compliance with Domestic Monitor Program requirements. DEA
has considered expanding the program, but resource limitations are a
consideration. DEA's Special Testing and Research Laboratory receives 10
samples every quarter from each of the 23 Domestic Monitor Program cities,
except New York City. The New York Field Division is required to provide 20
samples every quarter. The samples obtained are from “within the
metropolitan area” of each divisional city. For example, although the
New York Field Division Office includes suboffices in Albany, Buffalo, Long
Island, Plattsburgh, Rochester, Rockland County, Syracuse, and Westchester,
New York, the Domestic Monitor Program heroin purchases are made by DEA
personnel in New York City and surrounding boroughs.

The field division management makes the decision as to who makes Domestic
Monitor Program purchases. While new agents, with appropriate supervision,
may on occasion make such purchases, it is not standard practice and does
not indicate that DEA assigns a low priority to the program.

DEA officials stated that to enhance the Domestic Monitor Program, DEA's
Domestic Monitor Program Coordinators made recommendations at a conference
in June 2000. Two recommendations are being adopted as pilot programs. The
first recommendation is that a percentage of the Domestic Monitor Program-
required heroin samples be obtained from purchases made by state and local
law enforcement personnel. The second, called “geo- probe,” will
require that samples be obtained from purchases made in cities outside the
metropolitan area of the current 23 participating cities. The additional
cities within a field division will be selected based on intelligence
information that heroin activity is increasing. For example, if intelligence
indicates an influx of heroin into a city outside a field divisional city,
the field division will make additional heroin purchases in that city as
part of the Domestic Monitor Program.

- - - As arranged with your office, unless you disclose its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this letter until 30 days after
its issuance. At that time, we will send copies of the letter to interested
congressional committees. The letter will also

GAO- 01- 237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs Page 6 be
available at GAO's home page, www.gao.gov. If you have any questions, please

call Patrick Sullivan at (202) 512- 6722. Thomas Wiley, Woodrow Hunt, and
Barry Shillito made key contributions to this work and letter.

Sincerely yours, Robert H. Hast Managing Director

Office of Special Investigations

Enclosure I GAO- 01- 237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs
Page 7

Heroin Signature Program Airport Seizure Samples: 1999

Airport Percent

from Southeast

Asia Percent

from Southwest

Asia Percent

from Mexico

Percent from South America

Percent from unknown

locale Total

seizures Percent

of total airport seizures

Anchorage 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0. 2

Atlanta 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 20.0 5 1. 2

Baltimore 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 2 0. 5

Boston 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0. 5

Chicago 43.8 12.5 6.3 37.5 0.0 16 3.9

Cincinnati 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0. 2

Dallas 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 8 1. 9

Detroit 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 4 1. 0

Los Angeles 0.0 0.0 42.9 57.1 0.0 7 1. 7

Louisville 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0. 5

Miami 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.2 7.8 128 30.8

New York 23.1 14.8 0.0 49.7 12.4 169 40.7

Newark 7.9 10.5 0.0 73.7 7.9 38 9.2

Orlando 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 2 0. 5

Philadelphia 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 2 0. 5

Puerto Rico 0.0 15.4 0.0 76.9 7.7 13 3.1

St. Louis 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 1 0. 2

Washington, D. C. 20.0 70.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 10 2.4

Unknown airport 0.0 25.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 4 1. 0 Total 13.7 11.1 1. 2 64.8 9. 2
415 100.0

Note: Percents are based on the number of samples analyzed in 1999 by the
Special Testing and Research Laboratory. The percents do not take into
account the weight of each seizure, which can vary significantly.

Source: Data provided by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Enclosure II GAO- 01- 237R Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs
Page 8

Domestic Monitor Program: 1999 City a

Percent from SE

Asia Percent

from SW Asia

Percent from Mexico

Percent from South America

Percent from unknown

locale Percent

of seized heroin too little

to measure

Total seizures

Percent of total seizures

Atlanta 29.0 3.2 3.2 29.0 12.9 22.6 31 3.9

Baltimore 5.1 0.0 0.0 84.6 7.7 2.6 39 4.9

Boston 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.2 2.7 35.1 37 4.6

Chicago 20.6 5.9 0.0 29.4 14.7 29.4 34 4.3

Dallas 0.0 0.0 76.9 0.0 23.1 0.0 26 3.3

Denver 0.0 0.0 86.4 0.0 13.6 0.0 22 2.8

Detroit 20.6 2.9 0.0 52.9 8.8 14.7 34 4.3

Houston 0.0 0.0 83.7 4.7 4.7 7.0 43 5.4

Los Angeles 0.0 0.0 68.8 0.0 21.9 9.4 32 4.0

Miami 0.0 0.0 13.6 47.7 13.6 25.0 44 5.5

New Orleans 3.6 0.0 0.0 53.6 10.7 32.1 28 3.5

New York 1.6 1.6 0.0 80.6 8.1 8.1 62 7.8

Newark 1.9 0.0 0.0 82.7 5.8 9.6 52 6.6

Orlando 0.0 0.0 0.0 78.3 8.7 13.0 23 2.9

Philadelphia 0.0 2.4 0.0 85.4 12.2 0.0 41 5.1

Phoenix 0.0 0.0 95.1 0.0 4.9 0.0 41 5.1

Puerto Rico 4.0 0.0 0.0 80.0 12.0 4.0 25 3.1

San Diego 0.0 0.0 87.1 0.0 6.5 6.5 31 3.9

San Francisco 0.0 0.0 88.2 0.0 2.9 8.8 34 4.3

Seattle 0.0 0.0 94.7 0.0 0.0 5.3 38 4.8

St. Louis 0.0 0.0 81.8 0.0 6.8 11.4 44 5.5

Washington, D. C. 22.2 5.6 0.0 52.8 2.8 16.7 36 4.6 Total 4. 9 1.0 35.4 37.4
9. 3 11.9 797 100.0 b

a El Paso, TX, became a field division during 1999 and consequently did not
have complete 1999 seizure data. b Percent totals have been rounded to 100
percent.

Note: Percents are based on the number of Domestic Monitor Program samples
analyzed in 1999 by the Special Testing and Research Laboratory.

Source: Data provided by the Drug Enforcement Administration. (600699)
*** End of document ***