The Drug Enforcement Administration's Reporting of Arrests
(13-FEB-02, GAO-02-276R).
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has 21 domestic
divisional offices and 57 foreign offices. Recently, DEA's
Caribbean Division was alleged to have taken credit for arrests
not connected to drug violations or in which it played no role to
gain more resources. To claim credit for drug-related arrests,
DEA agents must have direct involvement in domestic arrests and
provide "substantial assistance" to host-country law enforcement
officials in foreign arrests. DEA's Agents Manual defines
substantial assistance as active participation or furnishing of
information or funds that lead to an arrest. Agents are required
to complete a "Personal History Report" on each person arrested
and to complete a "Report of Investigation" on the investigative
activities leading to the arrest. The Personal History Report is
used by DEA to track the number of arrests. DEA officials told
GAO that arrest data do not serve as a basis for requesting
additional resources in the budget development process. DEA's
internal control procedures and inspection programs include: (1)
DEA headquarters Office of Inspections' on-site inspections
performed about every two years for its domestic offices and
about every three years for its foreign offices, and (2) DEA's
divisional offices' annual self-inspections. To ensure the
validity of its arrest data, in August 2001, the then acting
administrator changed DEA's inspection programs--from a review of
a random sample of arrests to a comprehensive review of all
arrests. GAO's reviews of DEA inspection reports indicated that
significant over-reporting of arrests may have been a one-time
occurrence.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-276R
ACCNO: A02751
TITLE: The Drug Enforcement Administration's Reporting of
Arrests
DATE: 02/13/2002
SUBJECT: Drug trafficking
Drugs
Controlled substances
Arrests
Internal controls
Data collection
Data integrity
Federal/state relations
State/local relations
Budgeting
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** 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-02-276R
Page 1 GAO- 02- 276R DEA's Reporting of Arrests
February 13, 2002 The Honorable Jeff Sessions United States Senate
Subject: The Drug Enforcement Administration?s Reporting of Arrests Dear
Senator Sessions: The mission of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
is to enforce U. S. laws and regulations regarding controlled substances and
to help bring to justice those involved in growing, manufacturing, or
distributing controlled substances destined for illicit traffic in the
United States. To accomplish its mission, DEA has 21 domestic divisional
offices as well as 57 foreign country offices. Furthermore, DEA often works
with other federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies to
accomplish its mission.
Over the past year, allegations have been made that, in an attempt to obtain
more resources, DEA?s Caribbean Division had taken credit for arrests that
had no connection to drug violations or in which DEA played no role. DEA?s
Office of Inspections confirmed the allegations of overreporting of arrests
in late 1999 during its on- site inspections at DEA offices within the
Caribbean Division. You asked us to assess whether this problem was more
than an isolated incident. This letter covers our review of DEA?s (1)
policies for counting drug- related arrests; (2) process for counting drug-
related arrests when there is joint participation involving other federal,
state, local, or foreign law enforcement agencies; (3) use of drug- related
arrest data in developing its budget; (4) internal control procedures for
ensuring the validity of its reported drug- related arrest data; and (5)
reports for on- site compliance inspections performed during fiscal years
2000 and 2001, as well as the inspection report of the Caribbean Division
from late 1999.
According to DEA?s policies and procedures, to claim credit for drugrelated
arrests, DEA agents must have direct involvement in domestic arrests and
provide ?substantial assistance? to host- country law enforcement officials
in foreign arrests. DEA?s Agents Manual defines
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Results in Brief
Page 2 GAO- 02- 276R DEA's Reporting of Arrests
substantial assistance as active participation or furnishing of information
or funds that lead to an arrest.
DEA?s process for counting and recording arrests requires agents to complete
a ?Personal History Report? documenting personal information on each person
arrested and to complete a ?Report of Investigation? documenting the
investigative activities leading to the arrest. The Personal History Report
is used by DEA as a means of tracking the number of arrests. The arrest
counting and recording process also requires a supervisory agent to review
and sign each Personal History Form documenting an arrest, as well as each
accompanying Report of Investigation form that an agent submits. DEA
officials said that by signing these forms, the supervisory agent attests
that DEA participated in the arrest or, in the case of a foreign arrest,
provided substantial assistance.
DEA officials told us that arrest data do not serve as a basis for
requesting additional resources in the budget development process. In our
review of sections of the Department of Justice?s budget justifications
pertaining to DEA for fiscal years 1996 through 2002, and of the Caribbean
Division?s budget and staffing requests to DEA headquarters for fiscal years
1996 through 2001, we found no mention of arrest data used as support for
requests. However, arrest data have been included in DEA?s budget
justifications as part of its performance reporting. In addition, according
to DEA officials, arrest data, although not used to justify DEA?s budget
requests, are used to some degree by DEA to make management decisions.
DEA?s internal control procedures call for inspection programs that include
(1) DEA headquarters Office of Inspections? on- site inspections- which are
performed about every 2 years for its domestic offices and about every 3
years for its foreign country offices- and (2) DEA?s divisional offices?
self- inspections- referred to as the ?Division Inspection Program?- which
are to be conducted annually. To ensure the validity of its arrest data, in
August 2001, the then acting administrator issued a memorandum that
instituted changes to DEA?s inspection programs, from a review of a random
sample of arrests to a more comprehensive review of all arrests. As stated
in the memorandum, the inspections are to include a
?careful examination of the investigative file to ensure arrests are being
appropriately claimed by DEA.? The acting administrator also stated that
establishing the validity of claimed arrests is essential to maintaining
DEA?s credibility.
Our review of DEA inspection reports indicated that significant
overreporting of arrests may have been a one- time occurrence. A 1999
Page 3 GAO- 02- 276R DEA's Reporting of Arrests
inspection of the Caribbean Division by the Office of Inspections found that
331 out of 2,058 arrests (or 16.1 percent) should not have been claimed by
DEA. However, subsequent on- site inspections covering 40 DEA foreign
country offices and domestic divisions found relatively few arrest-
reporting problems.
According to DEA?s Agents Manual, agents are to claim (i. e., count)
domestic drug- related arrests only when DEA is directly involved in the
arrest. With respect to the reporting of foreign drug- related arrests, in
contrast, DEA?s policies require agents to count such arrests when DEA
provides ?substantial assistance? to host- country law enforcement
officials. The manual defines substantial assistance as active participation
or furnishing of information or funds that lead to an arrest. Since nondrug-
related arrests are not to be counted, the manual states that joint arrests
for non- drug- related offenses are to be reported in a memorandum rather
than with the form that DEA uses to count arrests. Until recently, an
anomaly to the counting of foreign arrests has been that, although arrests
in the Bahamas and the other foreign countries in the Caribbean are subject
to DEA?s foreign arrest standards, the arrests had been counted as domestic
arrests because offices in these foreign countries report to domestic
divisional offices in Miami, Florida, and in San Juan, Puerto Rico,
respectively. DEA officials told us that this policy has been revised.
According to the officials, beginning October 1, 2001, arrests in foreign
countries in the Caribbean were to be counted as foreign rather than
domestic arrests. The officials added, though, that DEA offices in these
foreign Caribbean countries will continue to report to their respective
domestic divisions because of their close proximity to the domestic
divisions and because they receive training, staffing, and administrative
support from these divisions.
DEA?s process for counting and recording its involvement in an arrest
includes documentation in its arrest files. For both domestic and foreign
arrests, DEA agents are to complete DEA Form 202, the Personal History
Report, to document personal information on each person arrested 1 and DEA
Form 6, the Report of Investigation, to document the investigative
activities leading to the arrest. Domestic arrests may be additionally
1 DEA Form 202, although used by DEA as a means of tracking the number of
arrests, is not used solely for counting arrests. Arrest- Reporting
Policies Process for Counting Arrests
Page 4 GAO- 02- 276R DEA's Reporting of Arrests
substantiated by the inclusion of each arrestee?s fingerprint card and
photograph in the arrest file. DEA?s process for counting and recording
arrests also includes having a supervisory agent review and sign each
Personal History Report documenting an arrest along with the accompanying
Report of Investigation form( s) submitted by an agent. DEA officials said
that by signing these forms, the supervisory agent attests that DEA
participated in the arrest or, in the case of a foreign arrest, provided
substantial assistance.
A significant portion of DEA?s domestic arrests involves joint participation
with other federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies. DEA has signed
memorandums of understanding with other federal law enforcement agencies to
promote cooperation, communication, and coordination and to prevent
duplicative law- enforcement efforts related to drug enforcement. A DEA
official said that for joint investigations with state or local law
enforcement agencies, DEA?s involvement could vary depending on the
situation. The official also said that DEA?s decision whether to count an
arrest is contingent on several factors- such as whether DEA will take
possession of drug evidence and whether the person arrested is to be
prosecuted in a federal court.
According to DEA officials, fingerprint cards and photographs of those
arrested are not likely to be included in the arrest files for foreign
arrests, since DEA is generally precluded from directly effecting an arrest
in a foreign country. 2 Thus, as indicated earlier, the standard for
counting foreign arrests is substantial assistance rather than direct
involvement in effecting an arrest. DEA officials also said that the host
country?s law enforcement agency dictates the level of DEA involvement in
drug investigations and arrests in a foreign country. For example, according
to the DEA officials, DEA agents can be invited by the host country?s local
police force to observe, rather than participate in, an arrest. DEA
officials also said that arrest documentation, such as fingerprints, would
generally be maintained by the host country?s law enforcement agency.
According to
2 According to 22 U. S. C. Sec. 2291( c)( 1), referred to as the Mansfield
Amendment, ?No
officer or employee of the United States may directly effect an arrest in
any foreign country as part of any foreign police action with respect to
narcotics control efforts, notwithstanding any other provision of law.? Such
officers or employees may, however, with the approval of the U. S. chief of
mission, be present when foreign officers are effecting an arrest or assist
foreign officers who are effecting an arrest (22 U. S. C. Sec. 2291( c)(
2)). In addition, such officers or employees of the United States may take
direct actions to protect life or safety in certain exigent circumstances
(22 U. S. C. Sec. 2291( c)( 3)).
Page 5 GAO- 02- 276R DEA's Reporting of Arrests
DEA officials, DEA?s foreign arrest files are likely to contain only
relevant copies of the Personal History Report and Report of Investigation
forms.
According to DEA officials, arrest data do not play a role in the budget
development process as a basis for requesting additional resources. Rather,
according to the Chief of DEA?s Executive Policy and Strategic Planning
staff, DEA relies more on intelligence information, drug seizures, and
trends in drug flow than it does on arrest data to determine budget and
staff needs. Furthermore, DEA officials said budget initiatives have tended
to address emerging or resurgent drug trafficking threats. However, because
its performance measures relate to arrest activity, DEA includes arrest data
in its budget justifications as part of its performance reporting.
In our review of sections of the Department of Justice?s budget
justifications pertaining to DEA for fiscal years 1996 through 2002 and of
the Caribbean Division?s budget and staffing requests to DEA headquarters
for fiscal years 1996 through 2001, we found no mention of arrest data used
as support for the request. Our review of DEA?s budget justifications showed
that prior years? arrest data have been used as output information within
performance indicator tables but not as performance goals or outcome
measures. As an explanation for including arrest data in its budget
justifications, DEA officials said that data on arrests have been, and are
currently, included in its budget justifications because of the requirements
by the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and Budget for
presenting output information in DEA?s performance reports.
According to DEA officials, arrest data, although not used to justify DEA? s
budget requests, are used to some degree by DEA in making management
decisions. The officials said that statistics on arrests provide information
to DEA management to consider in conjunction with other information about
disruption and dismantling of priority target organizations- one of DEA?s
performance goals. The DEA officials further said that the number of arrests
of drug law violators constitutes just one of many statistical measures,
including amount of drugs seized, disposition of cases, number of case-
specific work hours, number of asset seizures, and other case information.
In addition, the officials said that some of these measures, including
number of arrests, are also provided to other interested individuals or
agencies, such as the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the U. S. Sentencing
Commission, and Congress, upon request. Use of Arrest Data in
the Budget Process
Page 6 GAO- 02- 276R DEA's Reporting of Arrests
DEA?s inspection programs include DEA headquarters Office of Inspections?
on- site inspections- which are performed about every 2 years for its
domestic offices and about every 3 years for its office in foreign
countries- and the self- inspections- the Division Inspection Program- which
are to be conducted annually by DEA?s divisional offices. The purpose of
these inspections is to provide DEA management with an independent and
thorough assessment of operations, including a validation of claimed
arrests. In response to concerns raised regarding over- reporting of
arrests, and to ensure the validity of arrest data, DEA revised its
inspection program to require a more comprehensive review of all arrests.
As a result of a memorandum issued on August 2, 2001, by the then acting
administrator, the Division Inspection Program must now include a
?thorough and comprehensive? review of DEA arrests that were claimed in
investigations opened in fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001. The memorandum
also stated that the Office of Inspections is to routinely conduct a review
of all claimed arrests as part of its on- site inspections. The memorandum
stated that the reviews are to include a ?careful
examination of the investigative file to ensure arrests are being
appropriately claimed by DEA.? The acting administrator also stated that
establishing the validity of claimed arrests is essential to maintaining
DEA?s credibility.
Prior to the changes brought about by the August 2, 2001, memorandum, DEA
inspectors reviewed a random sample of about 10 arrest files from each group
within an office when performing on- site inspections. For example, an on-
site inspection of the Dallas Division would include not only a review of 10
arrest files from each group within the Dallas Division but also a review of
10 arrest files for each group within each of the offices that report to the
Dallas Division- such as the Fort Worth, Texas, Resident Office and the
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, District Office. According to DEA officials, files
were to be selected from the date of the review going back 2 years. If
problems were found, the sample size could be expanded at the discretion of
the inspectors.
A 1999 inspection of the Caribbean Division by the Office of Inspections
found a significant number of arrests that should not have been claimed by
DEA. During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, however, on- site inspections
covering 40 DEA foreign country offices and domestic divisions found
relatively few arrest- reporting problems. Internal Control
Procedures Inspection Reports
Page 7 GAO- 02- 276R DEA's Reporting of Arrests
As part of its scheduled inspection program, DEA?s Office of Inspections
conducted an on- site inspection of the Caribbean Division from November 29
to December 10, 1999, to review, among other items, compliance with DEA
policies and procedures for reporting arrests. As part of the on- site
inspection, the inspection teams determined that of the 2,058 arrests that
the Caribbean Division reported in fiscal year 1999, 331 (or 16.1 percent)
should not have been claimed by DEA. Specifically, the inspection teams
determined that 213 of the arrests involved immigration violations with no
connection to drug offenses and that DEA was not involved in 118 additional
arrests. The number of arrests claimed by the Caribbean Division for fiscal
year 1999 has since been reduced as a result of the findings from the on-
site inspection. Furthermore, in February 2001, DEA initiated an internal
management review of the factors that led to the overreporting of arrests in
fiscal year 1999 within the Caribbean Division. The review has been
completed, but it will not be available for public release until DEA
management determines whether disciplinary actions are warranted. The
Caribbean Division is scheduled for another on- site inspection by the
Office of Inspections in May 2002.
To determine whether there were incidences of over- reporting of arrests
apart from those found during the 1999 Caribbean Division on- site
inspection, we reviewed 40 inspection reports that, at the time of our
review, represented all inspection reports issued since the 1999 inspection.
Specifically, we reviewed reports from fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for onsite
inspections of 29 foreign country offices and 9 domestic divisions that were
conducted using DEA?s former inspection procedures and for on- site
inspections of 2 domestic divisions that were conducted using DEA?s revised
inspection procedures. Our review of the reports of the 38 inspections using
the former inspection procedures showed that, generally, the inspections
teams identified no major issues regarding arrest reporting, although 2 of
the 38 inspection reports noted that in some arrest files, documentation to
support claimed DEA arrests was insufficient. Similarly, the two recent
inspections using DEA?s revised inspection procedures found relatively few
arrest- reporting problems. For example, during the July 2001 on- site
inspection of the Seattle Division, the DEA inspection teams reviewed the
files for the 2,665 arrests that the Seattle Division reported from October
1998 through June 2001 and found 25 (or 0.9 percent) that did not contain
documentation indicating that DEA was involved in the arrest. Furthermore,
according to DEA?s deputy chief inspector, the on- site inspection of the
New York Division in October 2001 identified only 1 arrest, out of the
approximately 4, 000 arrests that the inspection teams reviewed, for which
DEA erroneously claimed credit.
Page 8 GAO- 02- 276R DEA's Reporting of Arrests
To identify the policies and process that DEA uses for counting arrests-
particularly those involving joint participation with other federal, state,
local, or foreign law enforcement agencies- we reviewed sections of DEA?s
Agents Manual to identify criteria for counting and reporting arrests.
According to DEA officials, none of its offices have issued any policy
orders regarding the counting and reporting of arrests to supplement the
Agents Manual. Consequently, the manual represents DEA?s official policy for
counting and documenting arrests. In addition to reviewing the manual, we
interviewed staff within the Office of International Operations, the Office
of Inspections, and the Office of Administration at DEA headquarters. To
obtain the perspective of field staff regarding policies and procedures for
collecting and reporting arrest data, we spoke with key DEA staff at the
Dallas, Texas, Division and the Fort Worth, Texas, Resident Office.
To learn how DEA uses arrest data in developing and requesting its budget,
we reviewed sections of the Department of Justice?s budget justifications
pertaining to DEA for fiscal years 1996 through 2002. We also reviewed the
Field Management Plans covering fiscal years 1996 through 2001 that were
submitted by the Caribbean Division to DEA headquarters operations staff. In
addition, we interviewed staff from DEA?s Office of Resource Management.
To determine how DEA ensures the validity of its reported arrest data as
part of its compliance inspections, we obtained and reviewed DEA guidance on
procedures for conducting arrest file reviews, including DEA?s August 2,
2001, memorandum that revised inspection policies and procedures.
To assess (1) the scope of DEA?s on- site inspections, (2) the extent to
which arrest data were found to be problematic, and (3) whether there were
incidences of over- reporting of arrests apart from those found during the
1999 Caribbean Division on- site inspection, we reviewed the reports of
inspections of 29 foreign country offices and 9 domestic divisions that were
conducted since the 1999 Caribbean Division on- site inspection using DEA?s
former inspection procedures, as well as reports of more recent inspections
of 2 domestic divisions that were conducted using the revised inspection
procedures.
We conducted our work at DEA?s headquarters in Washington, D. C., and at
DEA?s Dallas, Texas, Division and Fort Worth, Texas, Resident Office between
August 2001 and December 2001 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Scope and
Methodology
Page 9 GAO- 02- 276R DEA's Reporting of Arrests
We requested comments on a draft of this report from DEA. DEA officials
provided technical comments, which have been incorporated into the report
where appropriate. Aside from the technical comments, DEA concurred with the
facts and findings of this report.
We are providing copies of this letter to the attorney general and the
administrator of DEA. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. If you have any questions about this report, please contact Linda
Watson or me at (202) 512- 8777. Other key contributors to this report were
Christopher Conrad and Mary K. Muse.
Sincerely yours, Laurie E. Ekstrand Director, Justice Issues Agency Comments
(440080)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to
support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help
improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO?s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the
Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and full- text
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents
using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and
select "Subscribe to daily e- mail alert for newly released products" under
the GAO Reports heading.
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, D. C. 20013
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061
GAO Building Room 1100, 700 4th Street, NW (corner of 4th and G Streets, NW)
Washington, D. C. 20013
Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm, E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov, or 1- 800- 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 (automated
answering system).
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512- 4800 U. S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G. Street NW, Room 7149, Washington, D. C.
20548 GAO?s Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone Visit GAO?s Document Distribution Center
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***