Drug Control: DEA Could Improve Its Heroin Signature and Domestic
Monitor Programs' Geographic Source Data (29-MAR-02, GAO-02-416).
                                                                 
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) runs two programs--the 
Heroin Signature Program and the Domestic Monitor Program--that  
provide information on trends in heroin trafficking. The only	 
programs of their kind in this country, these two program conduct
chemical analyses to pinpoint the geographic origin of heroin	 
being sold on the streets. The Domestic Monitor Program 	 
determines (1) the source of heroin that has been bought	 
undercover in 23 U.S. cities and (2) the purity and price of	 
heroin at the retail level. The Heroin Signature Program provides
law enforcement with information on the origins of heroin at the 
wholesale and retail level in some U.S. cities. Data from the two
programs are included in intelligence and investigative reports  
provided to DEA and other federal law enforcement agencies, which
use this information to adjust their drug enforcement efforts.	 
The quantity of heroin seized by the Customs Service at 	 
ports-of-entry but not sent to DEA for testing may make a	 
difference in the results reported by DEA. All seizures at	 
ports-of-entry	forwarded to DEA are tested for geographic	 
source, according to DEA officials. However, Customs is not	 
required to send all heroin seizures to DEA. GAO found that the  
usefulness of the data from and Heroin Signature Program and the 
Domestic Monitor Program is limited because they are based on	 
nonrepresentative samples of their respective populations. GAO	 
believes that DEA could produce stronger estimates if it modified
its methodology.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-416 					        
    ACCNO:   A02794						        
  TITLE:     Drug Control: DEA Could Improve Its Heroin Signature and 
Domestic Monitor Programs' Geographic Source Data		 
     DATE:   03/29/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Drug trafficking					 
	     Drugs						 
	     Law enforcement					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     DEA Domestic Monitor Program			 
	     DEA Heroin Signature Program			 
	     Treasury Enforcement Communications		 
	     System						 
                                                                 
	     National Drug Control Strategy			 
	     Customs Service Seized Assets and Case		 
	     Tracking Systems					 
                                                                 


******************************************************************
** 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-02-416
     
Report to the Co- Chairman, Caucus on International Narcotics Control,

U. S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

March 2002 DRUG CONTROL DEA Could Improve Its Heroin Signature and Domestic
Monitor Programs' Geographic Source Data

GAO- 02- 416

Page i GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs
Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 Background 4 Scope and Methodology 7 Purpose of the HSP
and DMP Is To Produce Data That Detect

Trends in Heroin Sources 8 Federal Law Enforcement Used the HSP and DMP Data
for

Intelligence Purposes and Management 9 Quantity of Heroin Seized at Ports-
of- Entry by Customs but not

Sent to DEA for Testing May Be Sufficient To Make a Difference in Results
Reported by DEA 11 The HSP and DMP Data Could Be Improved 13 Conclusions 15
Recommendations 16 Agency Comments 17

Appendix I Heroin Signature Program 20 HSP Methodology 20 HSP Limitations 21
HSP Opportunities for Improvements 22

Appendix II Domestic Monitor Program 26 DMP Limitations 26 DMP Opportunities
for Improvements 28

Appendix III Comments from the Drug Enforcement Administration 29

Tables

Table 1: Source and Selection for HSP Heroin 6 Table 2: U. S. Customs
Service Heroin Seizures (by line items) 12 Table 3: U. S. Customs Service
Heroin Seizures Weighing at Least

100 grams, Fiscal Years 1998- 2000 (by line items) 13 Table 4: Geographic
Source and Percentage of Seized Heroin,

Calendar Year 1999 21 Table 5: Stratified HSP Sample Design 23 Table 6: By
Metropolitan Area, the Number of Exhibits from Each

Geographic Source, Calendar Year 1999 26 Contents

Page ii GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs
Figure

Figure 1: DEA Case/ Seizure/ Exhibit 5

Abbreviations

DAWN Drug Abuse Warning Network DEA Drug Enforcement Administration DMP
Domestic Monitor Program FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation HSP Heroin
Signature Program MOU Memorandum of Understanding ONDCP Office of National
Drug Control Policy SEACATS Seized Assets and Case Tracking STRL Special
Testing and Research Laboratory TECS Treasury?s Enforcement Communications
System

Page 1 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

March 29, 2002 The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Co- Chairman, Caucus on
International

Narcotics Control United States Senate

Dear Senator Grassley: The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administers
two programs, the Heroin Signature Program (HSP) and the Domestic Monitor
Program (DMP), that serve as indicators for assessing trends in the
geographic source of heroin supplied to the United States. These programs
produce data on the geographic source of heroin through a series of chemical
analyses and are the only programs of their kind in the United States. The
HSP reports the geographic source of heroin seized at ports- of- entry
(primarily by the U. S. Customs Service) and other locations, as well as
wholesale level purity. The DMP reports the geographic source of heroin
purchased undercover in 23 U. S. metropolitan areas, as well as retail level
heroin purity and price. This report does not focus on purity and price.

This report responds to your request that we review how DEA captures and
reports the data for the HSP and DMP and that we provide, if appropriate,
possible alternative approaches for DEA to consider to improve the HSP and
DMP data. 1 Specifically, this report discusses

 the purpose of the HSP and DMP;

 how federal law enforcement uses the data generated by the HSP and DMP;

 whether the quantity of heroin seized at ports- of- entry by Customs, but
not sent to DEA for testing, is sufficient to make a difference in the
results reported by DEA; and

 whether the HSP and DMP data could be improved. 1 GAO?s Office of Special
Investigations provided you with information on the two programs. U. S.
General Accounting Office, Review of the Drug Enforcement Administration?s
Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs, GAO- 01- 237R, (Washington,
D. C.: 2001).

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

To address these areas, we met with officials from DEA, Customs, and the
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) concerning the purpose and
operations of the HSP and DMP and how federal law enforcement uses the data
generated by the programs. We obtained and analyzed data from Customs to
determine the quantity of heroin that is seized at ports- ofentry by
Customs, but not sent to DEA for testing. To determine if improvements could
be made in the HSP and DMP data, we met with DEA officials and reviewed the
methodology used by DEA in its design and implementation of the programs.

The HSP and DMP produce data for detecting trends in the geographic source
of the heroin that is found in the United States. 2 DEA officials stressed
that the purpose of these data is not to provide overall estimates about the
geographic source of heroin. The HSP data are intended to provide law
enforcement with a ?snapshot? of where heroin at the wholesale level
originates, but only for the heroin that is tested; the DMP data are
intended to provide law enforcement with a ?snapshot? of where heroin at the
retail level, in certain metropolitan areas, originates, but only for the
heroin that is tested. 3

According to DEA officials, federal law enforcement used the data generated
by the HSP and DMP for intelligence purposes and as a management tool. The
data are used to develop intelligence and investigative reports to inform
the DEA and other federal law enforcement agencies about trends in heroin
trafficking. According to DEA, federal law enforcement also used the HSP and
DMP data as a management tool to make adjustments in enforcement activities.
For example, changes in HSP and DMP data, in conjunction with data from
other sources, could influence the allocation of federal law enforcement
resources from one location to another. DEA cited the emergence of heroin
from South America as an example of how the data are used. In 1991,
intelligence reports indicated that heroin was entering the United States
from South America and that Southwest Asian heroin producers had taught
Colombians their methods of processing opium into heroin. DEA subsequently
identified, through chemical analyses and this other

2 As noted, this report does not focus on the purity and price aspects of
the programs. 3 As used in the context of the two programs, ?wholesale?
represents heroin seizures at ports- of- entry and seizures and purchases
from heroin dealers made elsewhere in the United States; ?retail? represents
individual- use heroin purchases. Results in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

information, that South America was a new supplier of heroin into the United
States.

The quantity of heroin seized at ports- of- entry by Customs but not sent to
DEA for testing may be sufficient to make a difference in the results
reported by DEA. According to DEA officials, all ports- of- entry seizures
forwarded to DEA by Customs are tested by DEA for geographic source.
However, DEA and Customs officials noted that, in accordance with the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two agencies, Customs is not
required to send all heroin seizures to DEA. Our analysis of Customs? heroin
seizure data revealed that, over fiscal years 1998- 2000, 4 57 percent of
the total weight of heroin seized by Customs was not sent to DEA.

The HSP and DMP data could be improved. As currently designed and
implemented, there are limitations in the usefulness of the HSP and DMP
data, because they were based on nonrepresentative samples of their
respective populations. While DEA said that it did not intend to produce any
estimates from the HSP and DMP data, our analysis showed that with some
modifications to its methodology, DEA could produce estimates. These
estimates would provide a stronger basis for law enforcement decision-
making. With modifications to the HSP methodology, estimates could be made
about the geographic source of all seized wholesale heroin that is sent to
DEA for testing. With modifications to the DMP methodology, estimates could
be made about the geographic source of retail level purchases within the
metropolitan areas where they are made, and the estimates could possibly be
combined across the 23 metropolitan areas. Therefore, we are recommending
that the Attorney General direct the Administrator of DEA to (1) ensure that
the HSP data are based on a probability sample so that all HSP exhibits have
a known chance of selection, (2) revise the HSP methodology for reporting
testing results to include procedures to adjust for the probability of
exhibits being selected for the test sample, (3) take action to ensure that
DMP purchases are made according to DEA guidelines, and (4) study the use of
alternative data sources for the total number of retail heroin purchases in
an area that could allow the DMP data to be combined across metropolitan
areas.

4 We chose these years as they represented the most recent data available at
the time of our analysis.

Page 4 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

We are also recommending that the attorney general and the secretary of the
treasury direct the administrator of DEA and commissioner of Customs,
respectively, to enter into discussions to determine whether additional
seized heroin should be forwarded to DEA by Customs.

We provided DEA, Customs and ONDCP with a draft of this report. Written
comments from DEA are discussed in our Agency Comments section on pages 17-
18.

Each heroin- producing region has a unique production process, 5 or
signature, which generally can be determined through chemical analyses. In
the HSP, seized or purchased substances are forwarded to one of DEA?s
regional laboratories, 6 which confirms whether the substance is heroin. If
the substance is confirmed to be heroin, the laboratory is responsible for
preparing a written report for judicial purposes and, in certain
circumstances, providing a sample to DEA?s Special Testing and Research
Laboratory (STRL) for signature analysis. STRL analyzes the heroin samples;
in most instances, these analyses result in the identification of the
heroin?s geographic source. In the DMP, purchased substances are sent
directly to STRL for analysis.

The heroin that is selected for HSP testing is selected from either ?cases?

or ?exhibits.? Figure 1 illustrates a possible case that includes multiple
seizures and exhibits.

5 The regions are: Southeast Asia, Southwest Asia, South America, and
Mexico. The South American heroin signature was developed in 1993. This
heroin is produced mainly in Colombia.

6 DEA operates the STRL in addition to its regional laboratories. Background

Page 5 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

Figure 1: DEA Case/ Seizure/ Exhibit

Source: GAO?s analysis of DEA information.

As shown in figure 1, a single case can include more than one seizure of
heroin. For example, a single case would include more than one seizure if
agents seized heroin from the same person (the same case), but on different
dates. In turn, a single seizure might include more than one exhibit, if
agents find heroin associated with the same person on the same date, but at
multiple locations. For example, a seizure would include three exhibits if
agents, on the same date, seize heroin from multiple locations such as the
person?s desk, closet, and coat pocket.

DEA initiated the HSP in 1977. Heroin for the HSP is obtained from eight
sources and selected for signature analysis as shown in table 1.

Seizure #1 9/ 17/ 01

Seizure #2 9/ 18/ 01

DEA Case #1906, opened July 2, 2001

Seizure #3 9/ 19/ 01

Exhibit 1 Coat Pocket Exhibit 1

Desk Exhibit 2

Closet

Page 6 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

Table 1: Source and Selection for HSP Heroin Source Selected

1. Seizures from passengers, luggage, or cargo on flights that have
originated outside the United States. A sample from each case. 2. Seizures
made at nonairport ports- of- entry. A sample from each case. 3. Seizures
from letters, packages, or freight shipped by the U. S.

Postal Service or a commercial mail or freight- forwarding company and that
originated outside the continental United States and were sent to a DEA
laboratory for analysis.

A sample from each case. 4. Nonairport seizures in Hawaii, Alaska, and
Puerto Rico. A sample from each case. 5. Special requests from DEA. All are
to be selected. 6. FBI seizures that have been submitted directly to a DEA

laboratory for analysis. One exhibit from each case. 7. Seizures made by the
Washington, D. C., Metropolitan Police

Department. A random sample of exhibits, determined through the use of
random numbers provided by DEA to its regional laboratories

every 6 months. 8. DEA seizures (includes seizures from flights and mail
that

originate inside the United States and Federal Bureau of Investigation
seizures submitted through a DEA field office).

A random sample of exhibits, determined through the use of random numbers
provided by DEA to its regional laboratories every 6 months.

Source: DEA.

DEA initiated the DMP in its New York Field Division in 1979. The program
has expanded to include 23 metropolitan areas. The DMP was originally
designed to enable DEA to monitor the price and purity of retaillevel heroin
sold in the United States; it now also provides for the purchase of heroin
for signature analysis. In the DMP, DEA provides funding for quarterly
purchases by DEA field divisions, that may utilize cooperating sources to
make retail- level purchases of heroin. 7 Ten purchases are to be made in 22
of the 23 metropolitan areas, each quarter; in New York City, 20 purchases
are to be made in each quarter. 8

DEA guidelines provide that a certain number of DMP purchases be made each
quarter, throughout the 3 months of each quarter, and in various locations
in the metropolitan areas. According to the DEA guidelines, it would seldom
be necessary to make more than one purchase in any one location, per day.
The most important requirement is that exhibits should

7 According to DEA, a cooperating source is an individual who performs an
investigative activity or provides information regarding drug trafficking,
with a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, under the direction and
control of DEA personnel.

8 The DMP is a collection of undercover retail purchases in the 23
metropolitan areas. The DEA uses undercover purchases as a substitute for
actual retail purchases in these 23 metropolitan areas.

Page 7 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

be purchased from locations within the metropolitan areas that are
dissimilar enough to ensure that they come from different suppliers. Each
purchase should weigh at least 1 gram net, including diluents and
adulterants, to ensure that there is a sufficient amount of pure heroin
available to perform a signature analysis.

According to DEA, the average time necessary to complete the signature
analysis of a heroin sample is about 4 hours, with an associated cost of
about $375 per sample. DEA indicated that the STRL performs signature
analyses of 3,000 heroin samples annually, for a total annual STRL cost of
about $1.13 million. DEA provides its field divisions with a total of
$200,000 annually for the DMP purchases.

DEA prepares annual reports on the HSP and DMP data. The HSP reports display
data on geographic source by net weight on a national basis. The DMP reports
display data on geographic source by the number of exhibits by metropolitan
area.

To determine the purpose of the HSP and DMP and how they operate, we
interviewed officials at DEA?s Office of Intelligence, Forensic Sciences,
and the STRL. We reviewed relevant policies, reports, and other
documentation.

To determine how federal law enforcement uses the data generated by the
programs, we interviewed officials at DEA?s Office of Intelligence and
Office of Forensic Sciences and ONDCP. We also reviewed relevant
documentation of the use made of the data, including documentation of
instances in which changes have been made in federal law enforcement efforts
as a result of the data.

To determine if the heroin seized at ports- of- entry, but not tested by
DEA, is of sufficient quantity to make a difference in the results reported
by DEA, we interviewed officials at DEA?s Office of Intelligence, Office of
Forensic Sciences, and the STRL, as well as Custom?s Smuggling
Investigations Division and Office of Intelligence. We also obtained and
analyzed data from Customs regarding seized heroin in fiscal years 19982000.
9 These data were derived from the Department of the Treasury?s

9 DEA maintains signature analysis and HSP and DMP data on a calendar- year
basis. Customs maintains seizure data on a fiscal- year basis. Scope and

Methodology

Page 8 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

Enforcement Communications System (TECS), Seized Assets and Case Tracking
(SEACATS) subsystem. We did not verify the accuracy of these data. The data
included the date and location of the seizure, 10 the total weight of the
seizure (less the weight of any packaging or container), and the disposition
of the heroin. According to Customs, a seizure is recorded in the system
when contraband is discovered and physical custody is taken. Under Customs?
policy, seizures that involve taking heroin from more than one place, for
example, from an individual?s pocket and from his suitcase, are counted as
one seizure but entered into the system as two

?line items.? We were provided data by line items. Each line item from the
same seizure equates to a DEA exhibit.

To determine if the sample- based HSP and DMP data could be improved, we
interviewed officials at DEA?s Office of Intelligence and Office of Forensic
Sciences. We reviewed sample design and sample selection methodology and the
formulas and methodology used to develop data on the geographic source of
heroin. We obtained and reviewed HSP and DMP data files for calendar years
1999 and 2000. We reviewed earlier reports, analyzed current methodology,
and how DEA reports and caveats the figures.

In performing our work, we did not talk with officials from all federal law
enforcement agencies that may make use of the programs? data. We performed
our work from May 2001 to February 2002, in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. We requested comments from DEA,
Customs, and ONDCP. Comments from DEA are summarized at the end of this
report and contained in appendix III.

According to DEA officials, the HSP and DMP produce data for detecting
trends in the geographic source of heroin supplied to the United States.
Officials stressed that the purpose of these data is not to provide overall
estimates of where all heroin supplied to the United States originates. The
HSP data are intended to provide law enforcement with a ?snapshot? of where
heroin at the wholesale level originates. The DMP data are intended to
provide law enforcement with a snapshot of where heroin at the retail level,
in certain metropolitan areas, originates. Officials explained that they
believe that, over time, the snapshots begin to tell a story about what is
happening with drug trafficking patterns. When this happens, officials

10 Location was defined as airport or other. Purpose of the HSP

and DMP Is To Produce Data That Detect Trends in Heroin Sources

Page 9 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

can make their decisions, in conjunction with other investigative and
intelligence data.

Officials also stressed that direct comparisons should not be made between
the geographic source data from the HSP and DMP. For example, the wholesale
heroin seized in one market (HSP seizures) may not be intended for retail-
level sale (DMP purchases) in the same market. In addition, comparisons
should not be made between the HSP data and DMP data because the HSP data
reflect law enforcement investigative priorities and techniques, in terms of
where and how seizures are made, as well as the difficulties associated with
the various concealment techniques used by smugglers. In addition, large
quantity seizures of heroin from one geographic source area may boost that
geographic source area?s representation in the HSP data. This may be
especially applicable to heroin from Southeast and Southwest Asia that has
been traditionally smuggled in large, multikilogram quantities.

The officials also noted that these same factors could influence year-
toyear fluctuations in the proportion of heroin from each geographic source
area. For example, law enforcement priorities and smuggler concealment
techniques are reflected in the numerous small- quantity heroin seizures
from Colombian air couriers.

According to DEA officials, the HSP and DMP data are used for intelligence
purposes and as a management tool by federal law enforcement. Data drawn
from a variety of sources, including the HSP and DMP, are used to develop a
comprehensive picture of heroin trafficking in the United States. 11

For example, HSP and DMP data are frequently included in DEA intelligence
and investigative reports to corroborate heroin trafficking trends in the
United States and to inform DEA and other federal law enforcement agencies
about heroin trafficking. In addition, ONDCP officials noted that the data
are used as a confirmation of data from other sources, such as opium
production and cultivation estimates provided by the Central Intelligence
Agency.

11 Other data sources include opium cultivation/ production estimates;
investigative intelligence; other heroin seizure data such as where, when,
and from whom heroin was seized; data from DEA?s System To Retrieve
Information from Drug Evidence; and drug abuse indicator data. Federal Law

Enforcement Used the HSP and DMP Data for Intelligence Purposes and
Management

Page 10 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

ONDCP officials noted that it uses data from the HSP and DMP for drugflow
modeling and that the data, 12 which are viewed as one of the better heroin
market indicators, are key components of ONDCP?s data analysis efforts.
ONDCP officials also said that data from the HSP and DMP are used for such
purposes as testimony before the Congress and in ONDCP?s annual National
Drug Control Strategy.

According to DEA, federal law enforcement also uses the HSP and DMP data as
management tools to make adjustments in enforcement activities. Changes in
HSP and DMP data could alert management to changing trafficking patterns.
DEA cited the emergence of heroin from South America as an example of how
the HSP and DMP geographic source data have been used in law enforcement
intelligence and management. Southeast Asian heroin dominated the market on
the East Coast until 1991; Southwest Asian heroin was also readily
available. In 1991, a highpurity heroin entered the eastern U. S. market and
was initially identified by DEA as high- purity but atypical Southwest Asian
heroin. Intelligence reports indicated that heroin was entering the United
States from South America. Also, reportedly Southwest Asian heroin producers
had taught Colombians their methods of processing opium into heroin. DEA?s
subsequent determination of a signature unique to South America confirmed
this intelligence and, as a result, South America was identified as a new
supplier of heroin into the United States.

Officials said that the data are also used to monitor the success of various
initiatives. For example, a decrease in the amount of tested heroin that is
found to have originated in a particular geographic source area can be an
indicator that law enforcement initiatives against that particular area have
been successful.

12 The data are used to develop information on the flow of drugs into the
United States.

Page 11 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

According to DEA officials, all ports- of- entry seizures sent to DEA by
Customs are tested by DEA for geographic source. However, for several
reasons, Customs is not required to send all seized heroin to DEA. DEA and
Customs officials noted that Customs is not required to send to DEA
abandoned heroin or heroin that is turned over to state or local officials
for prosecution. ?Abandoned heroin? is heroin that cannot be connected to
any individual or defendant. For example, an unmanifested kilogram of heroin
found in an aircraft cargo hold is considered abandoned. Under its MOU with
DEA, Customs is not required to send abandoned heroin to DEA. Instead, it is
to be reported on a Customs Search, Arrest, Seizure report (CF- 151) and
turned over to the Customs seized property custodian for destruction. Also,
under the MOU, Customs does not submit for testing heroin that does not meet
local U. S. attorney prosecution guidelines. 13 Instead, Customs officials
explained that in most instances, this heroin is to be turned over to state
or local officials for prosecution. According to Customs officials, there
are also instances in which the weight of the seized heroin is so low that
it is not turned over to state or local officials for prosecution. In these
instances, it is to be destroyed.

Our analysis of Customs? heroin seizure data revealed that, for fiscal years
1998- 2000, 57 percent of the total weight of the heroin seized by Customs
was not sent to DEA. Data on the number and weight of Customs heroin
seizures, 14 including the number and weight of heroin seizures not sent to
DEA for testing, are displayed in table 2.

13 Each of the 93 U. S. attorneys has discretion as to the minimum threshold
weight that will trigger prosecution in that federal judicial district. 14
Line items from Customs? database. Quantity of Heroin

Seized at Ports- ofEntry by Customs but not Sent to DEA for Testing May Be
Sufficient To Make a Difference in Results Reported by DEA

Page 12 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

Table 2: U. S. Customs Service Heroin Seizures (by line items) Disposition a
Number of line items Weight of seizures b

1998 1999 2000 Total 1998 1999 2000 Total c

Forwarded to DEA d 244 353 503 1,100 320.1 425.9 677.1 1, 423.1 Not
forwarded to DEA 1, 078 708 533 2,319 932.5 459.2 496.7 1, 888.4

Destroyed 794 380 263 1,437 769.6 326.0 251.2 1, 346.8 Turned over to state
or local officials or another federal agency 223 242 164 629 81.9 89.0 136.1
307.1 Abandoned and turned over to state or local officials or another
federal agency 8 37 5 50 3.0 9. 8 13.5 26.3 Abandoned and destroyed 15 17 18
50 3. 0 .6 2.2 5. 8 Abandoned and pending final disposition 0 2 0 2 0 3. 8 0
3. 8 Not abandoned and pending final disposition 38 30 83 151 75.0 30.0 93.7
198.6

Total 1,322 1,061 1,036 3,419 1,252.6 885.1 1, 173.8 3, 311.5

a Customs seizure disposition categories. b Rounded to the nearest tenth of
a kilogram. c Totals may not equal the individual entries due to rounding. d
Includes 36 line items, totaling 49.9 kilograms, in which heroin was
abandoned but still forwarded to DEA. Source: GAO?s analysis of Customs?
data.

According to DEA officials, it is not crucial to test the relatively smaller
seizures. Table 3 displays amounts seized by Customs over a 3- year period.
Of the total number of line items that were not forwarded to DEA, about 72
percent exceeded 100 grams in weight; these line items accounted for over 99
percent of the total weight of all line items not forwarded to DEA for
testing.

Page 13 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

Table 3: U. S. Customs Service Heroin Seizures Weighing at Least 100 grams,
Fiscal Years 1998- 2000 (by line items) Disposition a Total number

of line items Total weight of line items

Number of line items weighing 100 grams or

more Weight of line items

weighing 100 grams or more b

Forwarded to DEA c 1,100 1,423.1 965 1,418.6 Not forwarded to DEA 2, 319
1,888.4 1, 675 1,876.0

Destroyed 1, 437 1,346.8 1, 193 1,341.3 Turned over to state or local
officials or another federal agency 629 307.1 320 302.0 Abandoned and turned
over to state or local officials or another federal agency 50 26.3 15 25.8
Abandoned and destroyed 50 5. 8 12 5.3 Abandoned and pending final
disposition 2 3.8 2 3.8 Not abandoned and pending final disposition 151
198.6 133 198.0

Total 3,419 3,311.5 2, 640 3,294.7

Note: Rounded to the nearest tenth of a kilogram. a Customs seizure
disposition categories.

b Totals may not equal the individual entries due to rounding. c Includes 36
line items, totaling 49.9 kilograms, in which heroin was abandoned but still
forwarded to DEA. The number of line items weighing 100 grams or more was
30, with a total weight of 49.7 kilograms.

Source: GAO?s analysis of Customs? data.

The HSP and DMP data on the geographic source of heroin could be improved.
The HSP data have limitations; appendix I of this report describes the
current HSP selection methodology, its limitations, and opportunities for
improvements. The DMP data also have limitations; appendix II describes the
current DMP selection methodology, its limitations, and opportunities for
improvements.

According to DEA, it does not intend that the HSP data be used either to
produce estimates as to where all wholesale heroin supplied to the United
States originates or as to where all wholesale heroin seized in the United
States and forwarded to DEA for testing originates. 15 Our analysis showed
that the data, with some modifications to DEA?s methodology, could be

15 For our analysis, seized wholesale heroin is that seized heroin that has
been sent to DEA for signature analysis. The HSP and DMP

Data Could Be Improved

HSP Limitations and Opportunities for Improvement

Page 14 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

used to produce estimates about the geographic source of all wholesale
heroin seized in the United States and forwarded to DEA for testing. To make
these estimates, the DEA data must be based on a probability sample. 16 The
HSP data, however, are not based on a probability sample because not all
exhibits have a known chance of being selected for testing. Consequently,
there is no way to tell how the HSP sample relates to the universe of all
heroin seized in the United States and forwarded to DEA for testing. Our
analysis revealed an additional problem. Even if the HSP data were based on
a probability sample, DEA?s current methodology for reporting testing
results does not include procedures to adjust for the probability of
exhibits being selected for the test sample. Thus, DEA?s current methodology
for reporting HSP testing results would not produce valid estimates even if
a probability sample were used.

With these limitations in mind, opportunities exist for making improvements
that would allow DEA to make valid estimates about the geographic source of
all seized wholesale heroin that is sent to DEA for testing. These
improvements could include modification of sampling procedures and record
keeping to ensure that the HSP data are based on a probability sample and
revision of its methodology for reporting testing results to include
procedures to adjust for the probability of exhibits being selected for the
test sample. (See app. I of this report for detailed information.)

According to DEA, it does not intend that the DMP data be used to either
produce estimates about retail heroin markets outside the 23 metropolitan
areas covered by the DMP or about the geographic source of all retail level
purchases within the 23 metropolitan areas. Our analysis found that the DMP
data, with some modifications, could produce estimates about the geographic
source of retail level purchases within the 23 metropolitan areas covered by
the DMP, and the DMP estimates could possibly be combined across the 23
metropolitan areas. These estimates cannot be made now because of
limitations in the DMP sampling and estimation procedures.

The DMP data are limited for two reasons. First, our analysis showed that
the purchases made by DEA agents were not made in accordance with the

16 A probability sample means that each exhibit has a known positive chance
of being selected, and this chance could be computed. DMP Limitations and

Opportunities for Improvement

Page 15 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

DEA guidelines that indicate that a certain number of purchases should be
made each quarter and that the purchases should be made throughout the 3
months of each quarter. DEA officials told us that they perform periodic
reviews to determine compliance with the guidelines. However, our analysis
found that the required number of purchases was not always made and that
they tended to occur in certain periods of each quarter and on certain days
of the week. Second, the DMP contains no information on the size of the
market in each of the metropolitan areas. For example, City A could have 10
out of 10,000 purchases tested by the DMP, but in City B there may be
relatively few heroin users and the quarterly DMP sample could be 10 out of
1,000 purchases. The size of the markets is not known. As a result, DMP data
reflect only DMP purchases.

With these limitations in mind, there are opportunities for making
improvements that would allow DEA to produce estimates about the geographic
source of heroin purchased in the 23 metropolitan areas and to combine them
across the metropolitan areas. These improvements could include taking
action to ensure that DEA agents follow DEA guidelines when making the DMP
purchases and utilizing alternative data sources for the total number of
retail heroin purchases in an area, such as the number of hospital emergency
room admissions related to heroin. 17 (See app. II of this report for
detailed information.)

The HSP and DMP data are used for important purposes by federal law
enforcement. For instance, DEA uses the data as an indicator of the
geographic source of heroin found in the United States, to measure the
success of law enforcement initiatives, and to corroborate trends in heroin
trafficking over time. ONDCP uses the data for drug- flow modeling, in
testimony before the Congress, and in its annual National Drug Control
Strategy. We recognize the challenges and difficulties of the HSP and DMP
programs. However, current HSP and DMP data could be providing misleading
information about the geographic source of heroin found in the United States
because of sampling and statistical analysis problems.

Our analysis showed that problems with sampling and statistical analysis in
the HSP might lead to misleading information about the geographic

17 The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), administered by the U. S.
Department of Health and Human Services? Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration, provides these data. Conclusions

Page 16 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

source of heroin in the wholesale market. HSP data are derived from a sample
of seized heroin. However, our analysis showed that DEA did not obtain a
large proportion of the heroin seized by Customs, the seized heroin that was
analyzed was not obtained from a random probability sample, and that the
reporting methodology did not include procedures to adjust for the
probability of exhibits being selected for the sample. If a snapshot of
wholesale heroin geographic source is based on HSP data, then this snapshot
may be misleading because accurate information about seized heroin cannot be
developed from the flawed sample.

Our analysis also showed that problems with sampling and statistical
analysis in the DMP might lead to misleading information about the
geographic source of heroin in the retail market also. DMP data are to be
collected from random undercover purchases made in select metropolitan
areas. However, our analysis of DMP data showed that these undercover
purchases were not spread randomly over the year, as provided by DEA
guidelines, but instead were concentrated in certain time periods of the
quarter. Therefore, if the retail market characteristics vary over time or
vary between midweek and weekend, the data could produce results that would
be different from those that might have been obtained had these guidelines
been followed. Furthermore, without knowledge of the size of the retail
markets in the sampled metropolitan areas there are difficulties in
combining DMP results across those metropolitan areas.

The quality/ validity of data derived from these two programs could be
improved by more careful sampling, adhering to existing DEA guidelines, and
enhancing data analysis.

To help improve the HSP and DMP data on the geographic source of heroin, we
recommend that the attorney general direct the administrator of DEA to

 ensure that the HSP data are based on a probability sample so that all HSP
exhibits have a known chance of selection,

 revise the HSP methodology for reporting testing results to include
procedures to adjust for the probability of exhibits being selected for the
test sample,

 take action to ensure that DMP purchases are made according to DEA
guidelines, and

 study the utilization of alternative data sources for an estimate of the
total number of retail heroin purchases in an area that could allow the DMP
data to be combined across metropolitan areas. Recommendations

Page 17 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

To enhance the usefulness of HSP data, we recommend that the attorney
general and the secretary of the treasury direct the administrator of DEA
and commissioner of Customs, respectively, to enter into discussions to
determine whether additional seized heroin should be forwarded to DEA by
Customs.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from DEA, Customs, and
ONDCP. In its comments, DEA indicated that it strongly disagreed with two of
our recommendations and concurred with the remaining three. (See app. III.)

DEA disagreed with our recommendations that it (1) ensure the HSP data are
based on a probability sample and (2) revise the HSP methodology for
reporting testing results. DEA said that the HSP should remain a program
whose data are based solely on the results of signature analysis. This seems
to imply that the application of statistical analysis to signature testing
results would yield unscientific data. We disagree. Without the use of data
based on a probability sample, it is impossible to know how to interpret the
HSP data. In addition, DEA seems to imply that we want the signature of
untested exhibits to be imputed based on the results of actual analyses of
tested exhibits. This is incorrect. We recommended the use of a probability
sample and standard weighting procedures that would allow the estimation of
the geographic source of all seized heroin. DEA also said that it should
implement a stratified sample similar to the one we proposed to ensure that
a significant portion of the total weight of heroin seized by DEA is
sampled. However, DEA did not want to use the stratified sample to produce
estimates with the resulting data. We believe that by implementing a
stratified probability sample, DEA could produce estimates of the seized
heroin, which would improve the overall data.

Furthermore, DEA suggested expanding the number of DEA and Customs exhibits
submitted for analysis. However, this method would increase reliability only
if a probability sample were used. Expanding the number of exhibits
submitted without using a probability sample limits the interpretation of
the data to the tested exhibits alone. Finally, DEA said that the estimation
model proposed in our report was simplistic. We provided this
straightforward model only as an example and strongly endorse any attempt
DEA might make to enhance the suggested model. DEA concurred with the
remainder of our recommendations, that it take action to ensure that DMP
purchases are made according to DMP guidelines; study the utilization of
alternative data sources for an estimate of the total number of retail
heroin purchases in an area; and that the Agency Comments

Page 18 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

attorney general and the secretary of the treasury direct DEA and Customs to
enter into discussions to determine whether additional seized heroin should
be forwarded to DEA by Customs.

DEA concurred with our recommendation that it study the utilization of
alternative data sources for the DMP. DEA also commented that data sources
do not exist that measure either the number of retail heroin purchases or
the prevalence of heroin abuse in a metropolitan area. While we recognize
that these data sources may not exist, we suggested that the DAWN data could
provide a useful surrogate measure; without such a measure, the DMP data
could be misleading.

DEA concurred with our recommendation that DEA and Customs discuss whether
additional seized heroin should be forwarded to DEA. However, DEA
incorrectly characterized our recommendation by saying we recommended they
work to ensure that more seizures are sampled. We did not make this
recommendation. We recommended only that DEA and Customs discuss whether
additional heroin should be forwarded. DEA officials also provided
additional technical comments, which we have incorporated where appropriate.

Customs and ONDCP said that they had no comments on the draft report. As
agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier,
we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its issue
date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the cochairman,
Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control; the attorney general; the
secretary of the treasury; the administrator of DEA; the commissioner of
Customs; and the director, Office of National Drug Control Policy. We will
also make copies available to others upon request. This report will also be
available on GAO?s home page at http:// www. gao. gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me or
Weldon McPhail at (202) 512- 8777. Other key contributors to this report

Page 19 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

were Doris Page, Mark Ramage, Anthony Patterson, David Alexander, and
Geoffrey Hamilton.

Sincerely yours, Laurie E. Ekstrand Director, Justice Issues

Appendix I: Heroin Signature Program Page 20 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin
Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

The Heroin Signature Program (HSP) sample was selected using sampling
procedures for two categories of eligible 1 exhibits. The first category
included exhibits from seizures made by the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) and the Washington D. C., Metropolitan Police Department. This sample
is referred to as the ?DEA exhibit sample.? The second category was
comprised of all other exhibits, including those seizures submitted to DEA
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and those submitted to DEA by
the U. S. Customs Service from passengers, luggage, or cargo on flights that
originated outside of the United States. This sample is referred to as the
?POE exhibit sample.? (See table 1 of this report for additional details on
the source and selection of HSP heroin.)

DEA calculated the results of the HSP signature analyses in the following
manner:

 First, the total weight of heroin from sampled exhibits from each
geographic source was computed. 2

 Second, the total weight of heroin from sampled exhibits from all
geographic sources was combined.

 Last, the total weight of heroin from each geographic source was divided
by the total weight of heroin for all areas. The result was expressed as a
percentage.

We analyzed calendar year 1999 and 2000 data in our review of the HSP.
Because 1999 was the most recent year for which finalized reports were
available, some analyses are based solely on the 1999 HSP data. According to
DEA, there were no methodological changes from 1999 to 2000.

HSP analyses results for calendar year 1999 are displayed in table 4. 1 In
order for an exhibit to be eligible for HSP testing, the exhibit must have
contained enough heroin to ensure that a sufficient amount remained after
removal of a portion of the heroin for testing.

2 Excluded from these sums were heroin amounts associated with sample
exhibits for which a source region could not be determined. Appendix I:
Heroin Signature Program

HSP Methodology

Appendix I: Heroin Signature Program Page 21 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin
Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

Table 4: Geographic Source and Percentage of Seized Heroin, Calendar Year
1999 Geographic source Percentage of seized heroin

South America 60 Mexico 24 Southeast Asia 10 Southwest Asia 6

Source: DEA.

Our analysis of the HSP methodology found that the HSP data, with
modifications, could produce valid estimates about the geographic source of
all wholesale heroin seized in the United States and forwarded to DEA for
testing. These estimates could not currently be made because not all
exhibits had a known chance of being selected for testing; therefore, the
HSP data were not based on a probability sample. In addition, our analysis
revealed that, even if the data were based on a probability sample, DEA?s
current methodology that is used to report testing results would not produce
valid estimates, because it does not include procedures to adjust for the
probability of exhibits being selected for the test sample.

Our analysis showed that, for the following three reasons, not all exhibits
had a known positive chance of being selected for testing.

1. The procedure for selecting the POE exhibit sample resulted in the
selection of heavier exhibits. DEA laboratory personnel were responsible for
identifying POE sample exhibits for testing and, according to DEA, selected
exhibits generally tended to be the heaviest exhibit from a case. For
example, if a POE seizure resulted in 3 exhibits weighing 10 gram, 15 grams,
and 50 grams, it was likely that the 50- gram exhibit was tested. While not
conclusive, the DEA exhibit sample also contained heavier than expected
exhibits, suggesting that the heavier exhibits may generally have been
selected for testing. Although only about 13 percent of the DEA exhibits
were sampled in 1999, these sampled exhibits accounted for about 45 percent
of the total weight of seized wholesale heroin sent to DEA for testing. 3

3 In 1999, DEA laboratories received a total of 2,510 exhibits eligible for
the random sample. For the same time period, 327 exhibits were selected for
the random sample, with a total weight of 151, 706 grams. HSP Limitations

HSP Data Not Based on a Probability Sample

Appendix I: Heroin Signature Program Page 22 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin
Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

2. Exhibits did not have a known chance of selection because it appears that
DEA did not consistently follow its policy for selecting exhibits, for
either the POE or the DEA exhibit samples. 4 The policy requires that,
except for special request exhibits, no more than one exhibit per case be
chosen. However, based on our review of 1999 and 2000 HSP data, this policy
was apparently not implemented consistently. There were multiple exhibits
for individual cases in the HSP sample for both 1999 and 2000. In 1999,
about 9.5 percent and 8. 4 percent of the DEA and the POE sample exhibits,
respectively, were from cases that had multiple exhibits in the sample. For
2000, 10.5 percent and 3.4 percent of the DEA and the POE sample exhibits,
respectively, were from cases that had multiple exhibits in the sample.

3. Exhibits for the DEA exhibit sample also did not have a known chance of
selection because DEA?s sampling procedures are apparently not working as
intended. Before the start of each 6- month sampling period, DEA produced a
list of random numbers for the DEA exhibit sample. A separate list of random
numbers was sent to each DEA regional laboratory. The random numbers were to
contain approximately 20 percent of the exhibits expected in the sampling
period. However, our analysis showed that the actual percentage of exhibits
sampled was 13 percent for 1999 and 8 percent for 2000. 5

If DEA developed a probability sample, it would still be unable to produce
valid estimates because its current methodology for reporting HSP testing
results does not include procedures to adjust for the probability of
exhibits being selected for the test sample. In computing estimates using
HSP data, DEA did not take into account that some exhibits had a low
probability of selection and some had a high probability of selection. As a
result, DEA produced only simple tabulations of sample data that could not
be used to produce estimates about the geographic source of all seized
wholesale heroin sent to DEA for testing.

Opportunities exist for making improvements that would allow DEA to estimate
the geographic source of all seized wholesale heroin that is sent to DEA for
testing. These improvements could include (1) modification of sampling
procedures and record keeping to ensure that the HSP data are

4 DEA did not provide FBI exhibit data for this analysis. 5 In 1999, the
regional laboratory sample consisted of 327 exhibits out of a total of 2,
510; in 2000, the sample consisted of 218 exhibits out of a total of 2,598.
DEA?s Methodology Used

to Report HSP Testing Results Did Not Include Procedures to Adjust for the
Probability of Exhibits Being Selected for the Test Sample

HSP Opportunities for Improvements

Appendix I: Heroin Signature Program Page 23 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin
Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

based on a probability sample and (2) revision of its methodology for
reporting testing results to include procedures to adjust for the
probability of exhibits being selected for the test sample. If these
improvements were made, it would also be possible to produce confidence
intervals for estimates. 6

HSP sampling procedures could be improved to ensure that all exhibits have a
known chance of selection. For example, DEA could use a stratified sample in
which exhibits are divided into different strata, or categories, and sample
selections are made from each stratum. The heaviest exhibits and the
exhibits DEA considers to have special intelligence importance could all be
selected, 7 and a portion of the remaining exhibits could also be chosen.
Table 5 shows this alternative sample design.

Table 5: Stratified HSP Sample Design Stratum number Description of exhibits
Chance of

selection

1 POE exhibits weighing at least y grams and those for which DEA makes a
special request. 100 2 DEA exhibits weighing at least x grams and those for
which

DEA makes a special request. 100 3 POE exhibits weighing less than y grams
and for which DEA

does not make a special request. K 4 DEA exhibits weighing less than x grams
and for which DEA

does not make a special request. H Note: Values for x, y, h, and k could be
chosen to achieve the desired sample sizes, and sampling errors and
confidence intervals, and to take into account special requests made by DEA
to meet intelligence needs.

Source: GAO?s analysis.

6 A particular probability sample is only one of a large number of samples
that might have been drawn using the same sampling procedure. Estimates
derived from the different samples would differ from each other. Confidence
in the precision of a particular sample?s results is expressed as a
?confidence interval.? For example, we may be 95 percent confident that the
true population value is within plus or minus 7 percentage points of a
sample estimate.

7 If, to meet intelligence needs, DEA continues to make special requests for
signature analysis of certain exhibits (not already included in strata 1 or
2 of table 5), the data for these special request exhibits should not be
included in the final estimates of the geographic source of seized heroin,
because they would already have had a chance of selection. Modification of
Sampling

Procedures to Ensure That HSP Data Are Based on a Probability Sample

Appendix I: Heroin Signature Program Page 24 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin
Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

This suggested design would result in a known chance of selection for all
heroin exhibits. All exhibits in strata 1 and 2 would be selected. Exhibits
in strata 3 and 4 would have a less than 100 percent chance of selection.
For example, if k equals 5, then 5 percent of exhibits in stratum 3 would be
selected. If h equals 20, then 20 percent of exhibits in stratum 4 would be
selected.

DEA should also draw the sample and centrally maintain sufficient records in
such a way that the resulting sample selection could be verified. For
example,

 if exhibits are selected manually, with the use of a list of random
numbers, the exhibits should first be numbered sequentially, before the
random number list is used to identify sample exhibits;

 after identifying the sample exhibits, DEA should ensure that sufficient
information is maintained to identify each exhibit, indicate whether the
exhibit was selected for the sample, and whether it was sent for signature
analysis testing; and

 if an exhibit, that is ineligible for testing due to its low weight, were
selected by the sampling procedure, it should be recorded as ?insufficient

for signature analysis.? Several changes to DEA?s methodology are possible
that would include procedures to adjust for the probability of exhibits
being selected for the test sample. For example, DEA could use statistical
weights for the sample design to produce estimates about the geographic
source of all seized wholesale heroin sent to DEA for testing. These
statistical weights would be determined by calculating a value that is the
inverse of an exhibit?s chance of selection. For example, referring to the
example following table 5, all exhibits in stratum 1 would be selected and 5
percent of exhibits in stratum 3 would be selected. Stratum 1 sample
exhibits would get a weighting factor of 1/ 1= 1 and stratum 3 sample
exhibits would get a weighting factor of 1/. 05 = 20.

DEA could also use supplemental data to improve the estimates. DEA could use
data on the total weight of seized heroin sent to DEA for testing, by
regional laboratory. This same quantity could be estimated from the HSP
sample. The ratio of these two quantities could then be computed and used as
a refinement to the statistical weights described above. For example, if one
DEA regional laboratory received a total of 210 kg of heroin, and the sample
estimate of heroin for that regional laboratory was 200 kg, then the final
statistical weight for sample data from that regional laboratory would be
the initial statistical weight multiplied by Revision of Current

Methodology to Include Procedures to Adjust for the Probability of Exhibits
Being Selected for the Test Sample

Appendix I: Heroin Signature Program Page 25 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin
Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

210/ 200= 1.05. Using the weighting factor for stratum 3 (from above), the
final statistical weight for stratum 3 sample exhibits selected from that
laboratory would be 20 x 1. 05= 21.

Estimates of the percentage of seized heroin by geographic source area would
then be computed as follows:

 Compute the total weighted sum of heroin in grams 8 for each of six
categories. 9 The weighted sum would use the final statistical weighting
factors described earlier. 10 This would produce six sums, H1, ?, H6;

 Compute the total over all six categories, H = H1 + ? + H6;

 The ratio of each category to the total (converted to percentages) would
then yield estimates of the percentages of seized wholesale heroin, sent to
DEA for testing, by geographic region. For example, the percentage from
geographic region i would be pi = 100( Hi / H).

8 DEA?s computations did not account for differences in heroin purity
levels. DEA could take this into account by using the amount of pure heroin,
if the total amount of pure heroin is of interest. If the substance of
interest were grams of various mixtures of heroin and adulterants, then an
adjustment for purity would not be necessary. However, if a purity
adjustment were not made, it would be difficult to describe what the
estimates represented.

9 The four geographic source areas plus ?unknown? and ?insufficient.? DEA?s
current HSP data tables do not report unknown and insufficient. 10
Statistical weighting is an adjustment to data that takes into account the
probabilities of selection.

Appendix II: Domestic Monitor Program Page 26 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin
Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

DEA produced tables using the Domestic Monitor Program (DMP) data. For
example, one table displayed, by metropolitan area, the number of exhibits
from each geographic source. Table 6 displays this information for calendar
year 1999.

Table 6: By Metropolitan Area, the Number of Exhibits from Each Geographic
Source, Calendar Year 1999 Metropolitan area Southeast Asia Southwest Asia
Mexico South America Unknown or

insufficient

Atlanta, Ga. 9 1 1 7 7 Baltimore, Md. 2 0 0 33 4 Boston, Mass. 0 0 0 25 12
Chicago, Il. 6 1 0 14 18 Dallas, Tex. 1 0 29 0 6 Denver, Colo. 0 0 23 0 5
Detroit, Mich. 3 4 0 22 8 El Paso, a Tex. 0 0 6 0 0 Houston, Tex. 0 0 38 3 8
Los Angeles, Cal. 0 0 18 0 7 Miami, Fla. 0 0 4 18 10 Newark, NJ 1 0 0 36 7
New Orleans, La. 0 0 0 14 7 New York, NY 0 0 0 54 4 Orlando, Fla. 0 0 0 15 4
Philadelphia, Pa. 0 1 0 33 5 Phoenix, Ariz. 0 0 38 0 2 San Diego, Cal. 0 0
30 0 3 San Francisco, Cal. 0 0 31 0 3 San Juan, PR 0 0 0 24 6 Seattle, Wash.
0 0 37 0 3 St. Louis, Mo. 0 0 33 0 6 Washington, D. C. 4 1 0 20 4

Total 26 8 288 318 142

a El Paso was added to the DMP in mid- 1999. Source: DEA.

Our analysis of the DMP methodology found that the DMP data, with
modifications, could (1) produce estimates about the geographic source of
retail heroin purchases in the 23 metropolitan areas covered by the DMP and
(2) possibly be combined across the 23 areas. These estimates could not
currently be made because the DMP data have the following limitations.
First, the purchases were not made by DEA agents in accordance with the DEA
guidelines that provide that a certain number of purchases be made each
quarter and that the purchases be made Appendix II: Domestic Monitor Program

DMP Limitations

Appendix II: Domestic Monitor Program Page 27 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin
Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

throughout each quarter. Second, DMP data analysis did not take into account
the size of the heroin market in each of the metropolitan areas.

DEA agents did not make the DMP purchases in accordance with the DEA
guidelines that provide that a certain number of purchases be made each
quarter and that the purchases be made throughout each quarter.

A review of the 1999 DMP data showed that the DEA guidelines, that provide
that 10 purchases be made in each quarter (20 in New York City) and that the
DMP purchases be spread over the quarter, were not consistently met. For
example, in the first quarter there were less than 5 purchases made in 3 of
the metropolitan areas. Our analysis also showed that a disproportionate
number of DMP purchases occurred in a certain month of a quarter, and on
certain days of the week. If the purchases were spread randomly throughout
each quarter, approximately a third of the purchases would be expected each
month, and approximately one seventh of the purchases would be expected each
day of the week. However, based on our analysis of the DMP data, the
purchase dates were not random by day of the week or by month of quarter.

As a result, it is unlikely that the DMP data for 1999 were derived from a
sample in which the days in each quarter selected for purchases were chosen
with a known, equal probability of selection. 1 In addition, assuming that
the characteristics of retail heroin might change over time, biases may have
been introduced due to oversampling in certain time periods within the
quarter. For example, if the geographic source of heroin supplied to one
location changed between the beginning and the end of a quarter, making most
of the purchases during one part of the quarter would not reflect the
geographic source of the heroin over the entire quarter.

The total number of retail sales in each metropolitan area in each quarter
is not known. As a result, it is difficult to appropriately combine DMP data
across metropolitan areas. For example, in one metropolitan area (City A)
there may be 1,000 retail sales in a quarter, but in another area (City B)
there may be 5,000 retail sales in a quarter. So, for City A, DMP would
sample and analyze 10 purchases representing 1,000 sales, but for City B,
the 10 purchases would represent 5,000 sales. Without knowing how many

1 Similar patterns were found in the calendar year 2000 data. DMP Purchases
Are Not

Made in Accordance with DEA Guidelines

DEA Does Not Take into Consideration the Size of the Heroin Markets

Appendix II: Domestic Monitor Program Page 28 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin
Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

purchases are represented by the DMP purchases, the data should not be
combined across metropolitan areas.

Opportunities exist for making improvements that would allow DEA to estimate
the geographic source of heroin purchases in the 23 metropolitan areas and
possibly to combine them across the areas. These improvements could include
ensuring that DEA agents follow guidelines when making the purchases and
using alternative data sources for the total number of retail heroin
purchases in an area.

DEA could take actions to ensure compliance with its own guidelines. For
example, a list of randomly chosen dates on which purchases are to be made
each quarter could be sent to each metropolitan area. Additionally, actual
purchase dates in each metropolitan area could be more closely monitored, to
ensure that purchases are made according to scheduled dates.

To calculate the chance of selecting any one purchase, the total number of
retail heroin sales per quarter for each metropolitan area is needed. It is
unlikely that this number would ever be known. However, DEA could study
using alternative data sources as a substitute for the total number of
retail heroin sales. For example, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN)
collects information on hospital emergency room admissions that are drug
abuse related. If the number of heroin purchases in a metropolitan area is
proportional to emergency room mentions for heroinrelated admissions, then
DAWN could provide information on the relative number of heroin purchases by
metropolitan area. DMP Opportunities

for Improvements Ensure that DEA Agents Follow Guidelines When Making DMP
Purchases

DEA Should Study the Use of Alternative Data Sources for the Size of the
Heroin Markets

Appendix III: Comments from the Drug Enforcement Administration

Page 29 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

Appendix III: Comments from the Drug Enforcement Administration

Appendix III: Comments from the Drug Enforcement Administration

Page 30 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

Appendix III: Comments from the Drug Enforcement Administration

Page 31 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

Appendix III: Comments from the Drug Enforcement Administration

Page 32 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs

Appendix III: Comments from the Drug Enforcement Administration

Page 33 GAO- 02- 416 DEA's Heroin Signature and Domestic Monitor Programs
(440048)

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. ***