Drug Control: High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas' Efforts to  
Link Investigations to International Drug Traffickers (28-JAN-05,
GAO-05-122).							 
                                                                 
In fiscal year 2002, the Attorney General called upon law	 
enforcement to target the "most wanted" international drug	 
traffickers responsible for supplying illegal drugs to America.  
In September 2002, law enforcement, working through the 	 
multi-agency Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF)
Program, developed a list of these drug traffickers, known as the
Consolidated Priority Organization Target List (CPOT), to aid	 
federal law enforcement agencies in targeting their drug	 
investigations. Also, the White House's Office of National Drug  
Control Policy (ONDCP) collaborated with law enforcement to	 
encourage existing High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) 
to conduct CPOT investigations. According to ONDCP, the 28 HIDTAs
across the nation are located in centers of illegal drug	 
production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution. ONDCP	 
distributed discretionary funds to supplement some HIDTAs'	 
existing budgets beginning in fiscal year 2002 to investigate	 
CPOT organizations. Out of concern that a CPOT emphasis on	 
international drug investigations would detract from the HIDTA	 
program's regional emphasis, the Senate Committee on		 
Appropriations directed GAO to examine whether investigations of 
CPOT organizations are consistent with the HIDTA program's	 
mission and how ONDCP distributes its discretionary funds to	 
HIDTAs for CPOT investigations. 				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-122 					        
    ACCNO:   A16438						        
  TITLE:     Drug Control: High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas'     
Efforts to Link Investigations to International Drug Traffickers 
     DATE:   01/28/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Discretionary grants				 
	     Drug trafficking					 
	     Federal aid for criminal justice			 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Law enforcement agencies				 
	     Locally administered programs			 
	     National policies					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Program goals or objectives			 
	     DOJ Organized Crime Drug Enforcement		 
	     Task Force Program 				 
                                                                 
	     ONDCP High Intensity Drug Trafficking		 
	     Area Program					 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** 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-05-122

                 United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

          Report to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations

January 2005

DRUG CONTROL

    High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas' Efforts to Link Investigations to
                         International Drug Traffickers

GAO-05-122

[IMG]

January 2005

DRUG CONTROL

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas' Efforts to Link Investigations to
International Drug Traffickers

                                 What GAO Found

The mission of the HIDTA program is to enhance and coordinate U.S. drug
control efforts among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies
to eliminate or reduce drug trafficking and its harmful consequences in
HIDTAs. CPOT investigations were not inconsistent with this mission
because HIDTAs' targeting of local drug traffickers linked with
international organizations on the CPOT list was one possible strategy for
achieving the program's goal of eliminating or reducing significant
sources of drug trafficking in their regions. GAO found that in fiscal
years 2002 through 2004, ONDCP distributed discretionary funds to 17 of
the 28 HIDTAs for CPOT investigations. Some HIDTA officials said they did
not receive CPOT funding for several reasons including unclear guidance,
insufficient application information to the HIDTAs for funding, and local
priorities not linking with CPOT investigations. Reduced discretionary
funding in fiscal year 2004 for CPOT investigations affected the number of
HIDTAs that received this funding.

ONDCP and the Department of Justice (Justice) agreed with the facts in
this report. Regarding application information provided to HIDTAs, ONDCP
did not agree with some HIDTA officials' view that it was insufficient.
Justice acknowledged that some HIDTAs faced difficulty obtaining the CPOT
list but were confident the problem has been overcome. Regarding local
priorities not linking with CPOT investigations, ONDCP stated HIDTAs
should be focusing on investigations of local activities that reach beyond
the boundaries of the HIDTA, given their designation as centers of illegal
trafficking that affect other parts of the country.

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas That Received CPOT Funding for
Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004

Source: GAO.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents �

  Letter

Results in Brief�Scope and
Methodology�Background�CPOT Investigations Were Not
Inconsistent with the Mission of the �

HIDTA Program ONDCP Distributed Discretionary Funds to Many HIDTAs to Help
Support CPOT Investigations Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

1

3 4 5

7

9 16

Appendix I	CPOT Funding Awarded to HIDTAs, Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, and
2004

Appendix II	Federal Law Enforcement Organizations Engaged in CPOT
Investigations

Appendix III	Comments from the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy

  Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix V            GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments            27 
                                      GAO Contacts                         27 
                                 Staff Acknowledgments                     27 
    Figures                                                                
                         Figure 1: CPOT Funding by Fiscal Years            13 
                 Figure 2: Seventeen of 28 High Intensity Drug Trafficking 
                                                                     Areas 
                          That Received CPOT Funding for Fiscal Years 2002 
                                      through 2004                         15 
                 Figure 3: Federal Law Enforcement Organizations Conducted 
                                                                       744 
                        CPOT Investigations in Fiscal Year 2003            19 

         Figure 4: Federal Agencies That Conduct CPOT Investigations 21

Abbreviations

CPOT Consolidated Priority Organization Target�DEA Drug Enforcement
Administration �FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation �HIDTA
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas �OCDETF Organized Crime Drug
Enforcement Task Force �ONDCP Office of National Drug Control
Policy �

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

January 28, 2005 �

The Honorable Thad Cochran �Chairman �The Honorable Robert
C. Byrd �Ranking Minority Member�Committee on Appropriations
�United States Senate �

The Honorable Jerry Lewis �Chairman �The Honorable David
Obey �Ranking Minority Member�Committee on Appropriations
�House of Representatives �

The war against illegal drugs is fought both internationally
and�domestically, as many of the "most wanted" international drug
traffickers �are the primary suppliers of illegal drugs in the
United States. In �September 2002, the U.S. Attorney General called
on the law enforcement �community to target the most wanted
international drug traffickers for �special law enforcement
emphasis by developing a list known as the �Consolidated Priority
Organization Target (CPOT) list. The White House's �Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) collaborated with the
�Department of Justice (Justice) in an effort to encourage High
Intensity �Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA)1 to conduct CPOT
investigations. ONDCP, �through its federally funded HIDTA program,
coordinates much of�America's drug control efforts among federal,
state, and local agencies to �reduce drug trafficking in critical
regions of the United States. ONDCP �responded to Justice's
emphasis on the CPOT list by designating a portion �of its
discretionary funds to supplement HIDTAs' ongoing investigations
of�drug traffickers that link with international drug organizations
on the �CPOT list. �

1The HIDTA program is a federally funded program that brings together
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies into task forces that
conduct investigations of drug trafficking organizations engaged in
illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution.

Out of concern that a CPOT emphasis on international drug investigations
would detract from the HIDTA program's regional emphasis, the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, in its Committee Report 108-146, directed us
to, among other things, conduct a study concerning whether investigations
of international drug trafficking organizations on the CPOT list are
consistent with the HIDTA mission. For this report, we examined (1)
whether CPOT investigations2 undertaken by HIDTAs were consistent with the
mission of the HIDTA program as authorized in the Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 19983 (the Reauthorization Act) and
(2) how ONDCP distributed discretionary funds to HIDTAs for CPOT
investigations and why some HIDTAs did not receive funding. We are also
providing information in appendix II about federal law enforcement
organizations that are engaged in CPOT investigations and how many
investigations they conducted in fiscal year 2003 and the first 7 months
of fiscal year 2004.4

To address these objectives, we reviewed applicable legislation, ONDCP
strategic plans and policies, and all HIDTA applications (38) for CPOT
funding in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to determine whether CPOT
investigations, as discussed in the applications, were consistent with the
HIDTA mission. We reviewed documents and correspondence that described the
basis for ONDCP's decisions for distributing CPOT funds to HIDTAs and
interviewed officials at 8 of the 13 HIDTAs that did not receive CPOT
funds in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. We also interviewed officials at
federal law enforcement agencies engaged in CPOT investigations. We
conducted our work between March and December 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

2We are using the term CPOT investigations in this report to describe
domestic drug investigations conducted by HIDTAs that link to leaders of
international drug organizations on the CPOT list.

3Pub. L. No. 105-277, div. C, tit. VII, S:S: 701-715, 112 Stat 2681,
2681-670-93.

4We were unable to determine the dollar amounts that federal agencies
designated for CPOT investigations because they do not record resources
for CPOT investigations separately from resource expenditures for other
investigations they conduct.

  Results in Brief�

CPOT investigations were not inconsistent with the HIDTA mission because
HIDTAs' targeting of local drug traffickers5 linked with international
organizations on the CPOT list was one possible strategy for achieving the
program's goal of eliminating or reducing significant sources of drug
trafficking in their regions. On the basis of the Reauthorization Act,
ONDCP interpreted the HIDTA mission as enhancing and coordinating U.S.
drug control efforts among federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies to eliminate or reduce drug trafficking and its harmful
consequences in HIDTAs. Drug traffickers operating in a HIDTA that are
affiliated with illegal international drug organizations would contribute
to the HIDTA's status as a center of illegal drug importation as well as
have a harmful impact in other regions. These two factors- importation and
distribution across regions-are among several statutory factors that the
director of ONDCP must consider when designating a region as a HIDTA.

ONDCP distributed discretionary funds to HIDTAs to help support their
investigations of drug traffickers linked with international organizations
on the CPOT list by reviewing and approving applications for funding from
the HIDTAs. During fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, 17 of 28 HIDTAs
received CPOT funds. ONDCP encourages applications for CPOT funding where
additional funds are likely to benefit an initiative and move the
investigation forward. However, we identified several reasons why certain
HIDTAs did not receive funding, including unclear guidance in fiscal year
2002, insufficient information for applying for funding, and local
priorities not linking with CPOT investigations. ONDCP addressed the
unclear guidance by meeting with HIDTAs to explain how to link their
investigations with the CPOT list. ONDCP was unable to provide the full
CPOT list to the HIDTAs, which would help them determine if they qualify
for funding. Justice and several other federal law enforcement agencies
controlled and tracked the distribution of the CPOT list and designated it
as "law enforcement sensitive." They determined that sharing the full CPOT
list with HIDTAs, state or local police, and non-law enforcement
organizations such as the White House's ONDCP was to be done on a
"need-to-know" basis at their discretion. Justice said it was not its
intent to withhold access to the CPOT list from HIDTA personnel. Although
we have no indications of such intent, we found some HIDTAs had more

5We are using the term local drug traffickers to refer to HIDTA
region-wide drug trafficking organizations that have been identified by
HIDTAs in their ONDCP-approved threat assessments developed in
consultation with the local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies
within their respective geographic region.

difficulty than others in obtaining the full CPOT list from these
agencies. Although ONDCP believes the information it provided to HIDTAs
was sufficient, some HIDTAs disagree. In 2004, ONDCP advised all HIDTAs
that because of reduced discretionary funding for CPOT investigations,
they should focus their applications on three specific CPOT organizations
that provided a baseline of opportunity for all HIDTAs to apply for CPOT
funding. ONDCP recognized that reduced discretionary funding for CPOT
investigations in fiscal year 2004 affected the number of HIDTAs that
received this funding. With respect to local priorities, some HIDTAs did
not request or receive funding because they could not show a link between
CPOT organizations and their investigations of domestic drug producers and
distributors. However, ONDCP stressed that HIDTAs should be focusing on
investigations of local activities that reach beyond the boundaries of the
HIDTA, given their designation as centers of illegal trafficking that
affect other parts of the country.

We provided a draft of this report to the Director of ONDCP and the
Department of Justice's Attorney General for their review and comment, and
both generally concurred with the facts of this report but added some
clarifying language, which we incorporated in the report where
appropriate. A copy of the comments from both agencies is in appendixes
III and IV, respectively.

To obtain information on whether CPOT investigations were consistent with
the mission of the HIDTA program, we reviewed the Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998, ONDCP's appropriations
statutes and accompanying committee reports, ONDCP's strategic plans and
policies, and ONDCP's Web site.6 We also reviewed all HIDTA applications
(38) to ONDCP from HIDTAs that received discretionary funds for various
investigation activities linked to the CPOT list in fiscal years 2002 and
2003, and compared them with the mission of the HIDTA program.7 At 11
selected HIDTA sites-Appalachia; Atlanta; Central Florida; Lake County,
Indiana; Los Angeles; Milwaukee; Nevada; North Texas; Oregon; Rocky
Mountain; and Washington-Baltimore-we interviewed HIDTA management
officials and task force leaders to discuss

Scope and�

                              Methodology �

6ONDCP's Internet Web page:
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/hidta/frames_overview.html/.

7We did not include applications awarded CPOT funding for fiscal year 2004
in our application review because ONDCP had not concluded the award
process at that time.

whether their investigative activities were consistent with the HIDTA
mission. We selected these 11 HIDTAs to ensure geographic spread (east
coast, central, west coast) across the country.

To obtain information about ONDCP's distribution of CPOT funding, we
interviewed ONDCP officials and obtained statistics they provided on
HIDTAs that received CPOT funding in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004
(app.I). We also reviewed ONDCP documents and correspondence that
described the basis for ONDCP's decision for awarding HIDTAs CPOT funding.
In addition, we discussed with officials at three HIDTAs-
Washington-Baltimore, North Texas, and Los Angeles-how CPOT funding was
being used. We selected these three HIDTAs because they had received funds
for both fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and were geographically dispersed. We
also interviewed officials from 8 of the 13 HIDTAs (Appalachia, Atlanta,
Central Florida, Lake County, Milwaukee, Nevada, Oregon, and Rocky
Mountain) that did not apply for or applied for but did not receive CPOT
funding in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. We selected these HIDTAs to reflect
broad geographic segments of the country.

We determined that the data presented in appendixes I and II from ONDCP,
the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) are sufficiently reliable, for the purposes of this review, based on
interviews with agency officials and a review of their information systems
documentation.

In 1988, Congress established the White House's Office of National Drug
Control Policy to, among other things, coordinate the efforts of federal
drug control agencies and programs and establish the HIDTA program. By
fiscal year 2004, ONDCP had designated 28 drug trafficking areas (HIDTAs)
as centers of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or
distribution within the United States with a federally funded HIDTA
program budget of about $225 million.8 Each HIDTA is to develop and
implement an annual strategy to address the regional drug threat. The
initiatives involve the active participation of federal, state, and

8Congressional funding for the HIDTA program, which was between $221 and
$225 over the last 3 fiscal years up through 2004, consisted of a base
level of about $206 million for HIDTA operations (allocated to each HIDTA
at a level not less than what they received the previous year), and
discretionary funds of between $15 and $19 million for special projects,
such as CPOT funding.

  Background

local law enforcement agencies to enhance and assist the coordination of
drug trafficking control efforts in the region. To encourage HIDTAs to
conduct CPOT investigations, ONDCP utilized discretionary funding. In
fiscal year 2004, ONDCP allocated about $8 million in discretionary
funding to HIDTAs to support their drug initiatives that link with
international drug trafficking organizations on the CPOT list. This
funding is not meant to supplant or replace existing agency/program
budgets intended for similar purposes, according to ONDCP guidance to the
HIDTAs.

OCDETF is a nationwide law enforcement task force program administered
within Justice that targets major narcotic trafficking and money
laundering organizations using the combined resources and expertise of its
federal member agencies together with state and local investigators.9 Its
mission is to identify, investigate, and prosecute members of high-level
drug trafficking enterprises and to dismantle or disrupt the operations of
those organizations. To help carry out this mission and to focus
investigative resources on major sources of supply, OCDETF member agencies
developed the CPOT list of major international drug trafficking
organizations.

In September 2002, at the request of the U.S. Attorney General, OCDETF
issued the first CPOT list, naming international drug trafficking
organizations most responsible for supplying illegal drugs to the United
States. OCDETF member agencies developed criteria for determining whether
an international drug organization was to be placed on the CPOT list.
Criteria include whether the international organization

o  operates nationwide in multiple regions of the United States and

o  deals in substantial quantities of illegal drugs or illicit chemicals
on a regular basis that have a demonstrable impact on the nation's drug
supply.

9OCDETF's member federal agencies are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF); the Drug Enforcement Administration; the
Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); the
United States Coast Guard (USCG); the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE); and the United States Marshals Service (USMS).

  CPOT Investigations Were Not Inconsistent with the Mission of the HIDTA
  Program

OCDETF compiles and issues the CPOT list at the beginning of each fiscal
year,10 with the intent that federal law enforcement agencies will target
their investigations on CPOT organizations. OCDETF member agencies control
the CPOT list and its distribution. OCDETF also collaborates with ONDCP on
reviews of CPOT funding applications by HIDTAs that link their initiatives
with the CPOT list.

CPOT investigations were not inconsistent with the mission of the HIDTA
program because HIDTAs' targeting of local drug traffickers linked with
international organizations on the CPOT list was one possible strategy for
achieving the program's goal of eliminating or reducing significant
sources of drug trafficking in their regions. The mission of the HIDTA
program is not expressly stated in current law. However, ONDCP has
developed a mission statement that reflects the legislative authority for
the HIDTA program, specifically, to enhance and coordinate U.S. drug
control efforts among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies
to eliminate or reduce drug trafficking and its harmful consequences in
critical regions of the United States.

The primary legislative authority for the HIDTA program is the
Reauthorization Act,11 which provides guidance on the mission of the
program by setting out factors for the Director of ONDCP to consider in
determining which regions to designate as HIDTAs. The factors contained in
the act are the extent to which

1. the area is a center of illegal drug production, manufacturing,
importation, or distribution;

2. state and local law enforcement have shown a determination to respond
aggressively to drug trafficking in the area by committing resources to
respond to it;

3. drug-related activities in the area are having a harmful impact in
other areas of the country; and

10OCDETF reviews the CPOT list at the midpoint of the fiscal year and adds
drug trafficking organizations, if warranted.

11The Office was originally established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1988, Pub. L. No. 100690, 102 Stat. 4181, 4181, with almost identical
language authorizing the HIDTA Program, id. S:1005(c), 102 Stat. at 4186.

4. a significant increase in federal resources is necessary to respond
adequately to drug-related activities in the area.12

In addition, House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports on ONDCP's
appropriations have stated that the program was established to provide
assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement entities operating
in those areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking.13

The use of a portion of the HIDTA program's discretionary funds to focus
on CPOT investigations is not inconsistent with ONDCP's mission statement
for the program and the legislative authority on which it is based,
particularly the first and third factors in the Reauthorization Act. Drug
traffickers operating in a HIDTA may be linked with the CPOT list because
of their role in major international drug trafficking activities,
including illegal distribution in multiple regions of the United States.
Given such activities, they would contribute to the HIDTA's status as a
center of illegal drug importation and distribution and have a harmful
impact in other regions. Similarly, in keeping with appropriations
committee statements on the purpose of the program, HIDTA involvement in
CPOT investigations is one way of assisting federal, state, and local
operations in areas where the significant adverse effects of drug
trafficking activities are due in part to links to international criminal
organizations. Thus, for HIDTAs to investigate and disrupt or dismantle
regional drug traffickers that are linked with CPOT organizations is not
inconsistent with the HIDTA program's stated mission and its legislative
authority.

12Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998,
S:707(c) (codified at 21 U.S.C. S:1706(c) (2000)). These same factors were
listed in S:1005(c)(2) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 when the HIDTA
program was first authorized.

13See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 108-146, at 139 (2003); H.R. Rep. No. 107-575, at
68 (2002); S. Rep. No. 107-212, at 59 (2002).

  ONDCP Distributed Discretionary Funds to Many HIDTAs to Help Support CPOT
  Investigations

ONDCP distributed discretionary funds to HIDTAs to help support their
investigations of drug traffickers linked with international organizations
on the CPOT list by reviewing and approving HIDTA applications for
funding. In fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004, ONDCP distributed CPOT
funds to a total of 17 of the 28 HIDTAs.14 A Justice official who
participates in the evaluation of HIDTA applications for CPOT funding said
that ONDCP encourages applications for CPOT funding where additional funds
are likely to benefit an initiative and move the investigation forward.
Some HIDTAs chose not to apply because they face a domestic drug threat
that does not have a link to any international CPOT organization activity.
Other HIDTAs that have applied for funds did not receive CPOT funding
because they did not have sufficient investigative resources to uncover
the link to a CPOT organization. In commenting on a draft of this report,
Justice said that while this may be true in some circumstances, it was
also often the case that HIDTAs may have had sufficient resources but
simply had not yet taken the investigation far enough to justify the award
of discretionary funds. During fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 6 HIDTAs did
not apply and 7 applied but were not approved for CPOT funding. In fiscal
year 2004, 17 of the 28 HIDTAs did not receive CPOT funding-10 did not
apply and 7 applied but were not approved for funding.

ONDCP and HIDTA officials mentioned several reasons why some HIDTAs may
not receive funding. 15 First, some HIDTAs were denied funding if the
investigative activities in their funding applications were not consistent
with the HIDTA mission and linked to a CPOT organization. Second, ONDCP
did not provide clear guidance or sufficient information for HIDTAs to
develop their applications for CPOT funds, although it took steps to
clarify its guidance and create opportunity for all HIDTAs to participate.
Third, reducing the amount of discretionary funds available for CPOT
funding in fiscal year 2004 affected the number of HIDTAs that received
this funding. Fourth, HIDTAs' local priorities may not link to any CPOT
organization activity.

14In fiscal year 2002, 8 HIDTAs received CPOT funding; in fiscal year
2003, 14 HIDTAs received CPOT funding; in fiscal year 2004 11 HIDTAs
received CPOT funding. Collectively, in all 3 years 17 HIDTAs received
CPOT funding (see app.1).

15Our review of applications for CPOT funding did not include those for
which no funds were awarded by ONDCP.

    Drug Investigative Activities Must Be Consistent with the HIDTA Mission and
    Linked to the CPOT List to Receive CPOT Funds

ONDCP granted CPOT funding for HIDTA investigative activities that it
determined demonstrated a link to the CPOT list and were consistent with
the mission of the HIDTA program.16 As an example, one of the applications
we reviewed requested CPOT funding for overtime pay, video cameras,
portable computers, and wiretaps for surveillance activities to target a
complex criminal organization involved in the distribution of significant
quantities of heroin and cocaine as well as related homicides, abductions,
arson, assaults, fraud, and witness tampering. Surveillance of the
organization indicated that it was being supplied with drugs through an
affiliate of a Latin American/Caribbean-based CPOT organization.
Therefore, these drug activities were linked to an organization on the
CPOT list, and the investigations also were consistent with the HIDTA
program's mission, in that these activities contributed to eliminating or
reducing significant sources of drug trafficking within the HIDTA region.

Drug investigation activities that were not consistent with the HIDTA
program's mission were not to receive CPOT funds from ONDCP, even if they
showed a CPOT link. Specifically, it is inconsistent with the HIDTA
program's mission to supplant funds from other sources. Rather CPOT funds
are meant to supplement funding for investigations that support the HIDTA
mission. For example, in one HIDTA application, a request was made for
$686,000 for the HIDTA to provide software to a cellular telephone company
located in a Caribbean country to monitor the cellular telephone calls of
a CPOT organization. The application also asked for travel expenses of
$7,500 to send a prosecutor and two HIDTA investigators to that country to
review the cellular telephone records. ONDCP officials told us that they
denied funding for these activities because ONDCP guidance to the HIDTAs
regarding CPOT funding states that the funds cannot be used to "supplant,"
or replace, existing agency/program budgets intended for similar purposes
because to do so would be inconsistent with the HIDTA mission. In
commenting on a draft of this report, ONDCP made the clarifying statement
that CPOT funding is provided for investigations of major drug trafficking
organizations affiliated with CPOTs. However, HIDTAs do not participate in
international investigations, and CPOT funding cannot be used to conduct
or supplement investigations in places like Colombia or Afghanistan. In
another application, a request was made for $120,000 to pay for street

16HIDTA applications for CPOT funding may contain multiple drug
investigation activities in one initiative. Also, some applications may
receive funding for some activities and not for others.

lighting in a drug-infested crime area of a major U.S. city to aid the
HIDTA surveillance task force in pursuing drug enforcement operations.
ONDCP officials told us that they determined the activity was not
consistent with the HIDTA mission because CPOT funding cannot be used to
supplant a city's budget for street maintenance and improvements.

    ONDCP Did Not Provide Sufficient Information for Some HIDTAs to Fully
    Develop Their Applications for CPOT Funding but Took Steps to Address These
    Issues

In some cases, ONDCP's lack of clear guidance or sufficient information
limited some HIDTAs' ability to apply for CPOT funding. For example, some
HIDTA officials told us that in fiscal year 2002, ONDCP did not provide
clear directions in its guidance about how HIDTAs were to document the
link between their investigations and the CPOT list. However, in fiscal
year 2003, ONDCP's officials recognized the problem and, at quarterly
meetings, discussed with HIDTAs how to document links between their
investigations and the CPOT list, thus resolving the problem. In addition,
ONDCP was only able to provide a partial CPOT list to officials in all
HIDTAs in each of the 3 fiscal years it provided CPOT funding, even though
applications were to include a link between their investigations and the
CPOT list. The partial list contained some of the largest organizations in
operation and ones that were most frequently targeted by law enforcement.
ONDCP, in its guidance, advised HIDTAs that they could obtain the entire
list from their Justice contacts.17 Some HIDTA officials said not having a
full list available to them from ONDCP limited their ability to apply for
CPOT funding. In fiscal year 2004, ONDCP created an opportunity for all
HIDTAs to participate.

According to OCDETF officials, access to the full CPOT list is restricted
to federal law enforcement officials. Commenting on a draft of this
report, Justice said these restrictions are driven by the fact that the
member agencies have designated the list as "law enforcement sensitive,"
because disclosure of certain investigative information contained on the
list might jeopardize ongoing investigations of targeted organizations. As
a result, access to the full CPOT list is restricted to OCDETF-member
federal law enforcement agencies. Nonparticipating federal agencies, HIDTA
directors, state and local police officials, and non-law enforcement
federal agencies such as ONDCP could obtain the list from U.S. Attorneys
or Special Agents-in-Charge of the OCDETF member agencies on a need-to

17Commenting on a draft of this report, Justice said the CPOT list was
available from U.S. Attorney's offices and the Special Agents-in-Charge of
any OCDETF-member agency; see appendix II for member agencies.

know basis. To facilitate the distribution of discretionary CPOT funding,
however, OCDETF provided a partial list, which contained information on
some of the largest organizations and those commonly known to, and
targeted by, the law enforcement community, to ONDCP. Since HIDTA
officials have said that they need to know who is on the CPOT list to
determine which of their investigations qualify for CPOT funds, ONDCP, in
its guidance, advised HIDTAs to obtain the full CPOT list through their
Justice contacts. However, officials from 2 HIDTAs we spoke to said that
they had some difficulty in obtaining the full CPOT list.

We spoke with officials from 8 of the 13 HIDTAs that either did not apply
or applied for and did not receive CPOT funds in either of the first 2
years (fiscal years 2002 and 2003) ONDCP awarded CPOT funds. Officials
from 2 of the HIDTAs said that obtaining the full list was a problem
because for one HIDTA, they did not have the full CPOT list within the
time needed to complete the application, and the other HIDTA said there
was not a formal procedure for obtaining the full CPOT list. Officials
from 6 of the 8 HIDTAs said it was not a problem, however, because they
were able to obtain the full CPOT list from their Justice contacts.
Although these examples may not typify all HIDTAs, they nevertheless
indicate that not every HIDTA was able to readily access the full CPOT
list and that it would be difficult to show how their investigations
qualify for CPOT funds without having the full list. Although ONDCP
believed the CPOT information it provided was sufficient for all HIDTAs to
fairly compete for discretionary CPOT funding, an ONDCP official
responsible for CPOT funding acknowledged that not receiving a full CPOT
list most likely reduced opportunities for some HIDTAs to receive CPOT
funding or discouraged others from applying for funds.

All HIDTAs are eligible to apply to receive CPOT funding, according to
ONDCP officials, even though 13 of the 28 HIDTAs did not apply for or
applied for but did not receive CPOT funding in fiscal years 2002 and
2003. In fiscal year 2004, ONDCP's guidance identified three international
organizations that trafficked in illegal drugs in all HIDTAs. ONDCP
officials said that this additional guidance would allow all HIDTAs to
focus their limited funding on these three organizations and would allow a
baseline of opportunity for all HIDTAs to apply for CPOT funding. ONDCP
stated it would give preference to funding applications that had links to
these three CPOT organizations. Ten of the 11 HIDTAs that received CPOT
funds in fiscal year 2004 linked their applications to the three CPOTs
referenced in ONDCP's guidance. Providing HIDTAs with the names of three
CPOT organizations that operated in all the HIDTA regions established a
baseline of opportunity for the HIDTAs to apply for funding

despite receiving a limited number of CPOT organizational targets from
ONDCP.

Commenting on a draft of this report, Justice acknowledged that the HIDTAs
did face some difficulty regarding the distribution of the CPOT list.
However, through participation with ONDCP in evaluating applications for
CPOT funding, Justice officials noticed that-for those HIDTAs that
applied-problems associated with the limited distribution of the list
appeared to be confined to fiscal year 2002, when the list was first
developed. In subsequent years, law enforcement agencies, including those
in the HIDTAs, were more familiar with the CPOT list and how to gain
access to it.

    ONDCP's Reduction of CPOT Funding in Fiscal Year 2004 Affected HIDTA
    Participation

The CPOT funding amount almost tripled from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal
year 2003 but was cut in half in fiscal year 2004. Given the reduction in
discretionary funding allocated to CPOT funding, ONDCP officials said that
even if HIDTAs link their investigations to the CPOT list, and do not
supplant other funding sources, they are not guaranteed CPOT funding. They
recognized that reduced funding affected HIDTA participation. As shown in
figure 1, fiscal year 2004 funding was reduced from $16.5 million to $7.99
million.

Figure 1: CPOT Funding by Fiscal Years

ONDCP funding for CPOT (dollars in millions)

$20

16.50

15

10

5

0 2002 2003 2004 Fiscal year

Source: GAO analysis of ONDCP data.

In the first year, 8 HIDTAs received funding. In the second year, 14
HIDTAs received funding, and in the third year, when funding was reduced,
11 HIDTAs received funding. Despite more than a 50 percent drop in funding
in fiscal year 2004, 2 of 11 HIDTAs received CPOT funding for the first
time. While there could be multiple causes, we also noted that

the number of HIDTAs that did not apply in fiscal year 2004 compared with
prior years increased from 6 to 10. ONDCP officials said that the limited
CPOT funds must be directed at those HIDTAs where, in the judgment of
those officials who reviewed the CPOT applications, the supply of drugs
from CPOT organizations had the best chance of being interrupted.

Commenting on a draft of this report, ONDCP agreed that the reduction of
CPOT funding in fiscal year 2004 affected HIDTA participation but added
that this observation, while accurate, should be stated within the context
of all discretionary funding activities. ONDCP consulted with Congress
prior to allocating the discretionary funding, as required by the report
language accompanying the ONDCP's appropriations. As a result of those
consultations, ONDCP decided to reduce the amount available for funding
CPOT-related investigations in order to fund other activities. Thus, while
the reduction in fiscal year 2004 for CPOT-related funding resulted in
fewer HIDTAs receiving CPOT funding, that should not have caused a decline
in applications for other discretionary funding activities. For more
detailed information on the amounts funded to each HIDTA, see appendix

I. Figure 2 shows the 17 HIDTAs that received CPOT funding at least once
during fiscal years 2002 through 2004 and the 11 that have not received
funding.

Figure 2: Seventeen of 28 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas That
Received CPOT Funding for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004

                                  Source: GAO.

Local Priorities May Not Within certain HIDTAs, law enforcement tended to
focus more on

Link with CPOT domestic drug enforcement than on developing links with
CPOT

Organizations organizations. Officials at three HIDTAs we spoke to told us
that in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, they did not apply for CPOT funding
because their biggest drug problems were domestic drug producers and
distributors, such as those organizations involved in methamphetamine and
marijuana. As a result, their strategy was to focus on these local drug
traffickers that

  Agency Comments �and Our Evaluation �

they were required by law to investigate,18 and those investigations did
not necessarily link with CPOT organizations. In addition, according to
some HIDTA law enforcement officials, local law enforcement officers in
their HIDTA focused on local investigations rather than those potentially
linked with CPOT organizations because they saw a direct benefit to their
city or countyprosecution of local targets accompanied by drug and
asset seizures. Also, HIDTA officials said that while their law
enforcement officers initiated numerous investigations, they do not always
have enough funds to proceed to a level that may link the HIDTA
investigation to the CPOT list.

Commenting on a draft of this report, ONDCP did not disagree with the
facts above but emphasized that HIDTAs should be focusing on
investigations of local activities that reach beyond the boundaries of the
HIDTA, consistent with their designation as centers of illegal drug
trafficking activities that affect other parts of the country.

On December 27, 2004, we provided a draft of this report for review and
comment to ONDCP and Justice. ONDCP commented on our analysis that the use
of some discretionary funding for the HIDTA program to support
CPOT-related drug trafficking investigations was not inconsistent with the
HIDTA mission because it was one possible strategy to eliminate or reduce
significant sources of drug trafficking in their regions. Justice
generally agreed with the substance of the report and provided
clarifications that we also incorporated in this report where appropriate.
Both agencies focused their comments and clarifications on the second
objective: how ONDCP distributed discretionary funds to HIDTAs for CPOT
investigations and why some HIDTAs did not receive funding. ONDCP stressed
their belief that the information they provided to HIDTAs was sufficient
for all HIDTAs to fairly compete for limited CPOT funding, and that
although CPOT funding was reduced in fiscal year 2004, HIDTAs could still
participate in other discretionary funding activities. Finally, ONDCP
believes that while some HIDTAs' investigations may not link to CPOTs,
HIDTAs should focus on finding that link, given their designation as
centers of illegal trafficking that affect other parts of the country.

18Each of HIDTAs' investigations supported with federal funds must be
consistent with its approved strategy under the HIDTA program. See, e.g.
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-7, 117 Stat.
11, 447 (2003) (appropriating funds for "drug control activities
consistent with the approved strategy for each of the designated High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas").

Justice emphasized that their restrictions on the distribution of the CPOT
list were soundly based, allowed for HIDTAs to gain access to the full
list, and were not intended to withhold access to the CPOT list from HIDTA
personnel. They acknowledged that HIDTAs did face some difficulty but were
confident the problem has been overcome. We incorporated their
perspectives as appropriate.

The full text of the ONDCP Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs'
letter, and the Department of Justice's Associate Deputy Attorney
General's memo are presented in appendix III and IV, respectively.

We will provide copies of this report to appropriate departments and
other�interested congressional committees. In addition, we will
send copies to�the Attorney General of the United States and the
Director of the Office of�National Drug Control Policy. We will
also make copies available to others�upon request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on �GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov. Major contributors to this report �are listed
in appendix V. If you or your staffs have any questions�concerning
this report, contact me on �(202) 512-8777. �

Laurie Ekstrand Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Appendix I: CPOT Funding Awarded to HIDTAs, Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, and 2004

        Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 Received CPOT

Received CPOT funding

CPOT funding amount

                                 Received CPOT

CPOT funding

                                 funding amount

CPOT funding

                                 funding amount

HIDTA Total 8 $5,750,000 14 $16,492,715 11 $7,994,265

Central Valley California                0 yes   $500,000       
            Chicago                         0 yes  2,600,000  yes  $1,278,048 
           Gulf Coast                       0 yes     110,000      
             Hawaii                         0 yes  1,000,000       
            Houston           yes   $690,900  yes  1,251,600  yes     925,000 
          Los Angeles         yes   965,700   yes  1,220,000  yes   1,091,000 
            Midwest                         0 yes     395,000 yes     290,000 
          New England                       0 yes  1,120,000  yes     445,000 
      New York/New Jersey     yes  2,100,000                0 yes     550,000 
          North Texas         yes   150,000   yes     465,000      
      Northern California     yes   107,400   yes     200,000      
           Northwest                        0 yes     290,000 yes     245,000 
              Ohio                          0               0 yes     315,000 
             Oregon                         0               0 yes     250,000 
         South Florida        yes   700,000   yes     841,115 yes     255,000 
        Southwest Border      yes   796,000   yes  5,000,000  yes   2,350,217 
      Washington/Baltimore    yes   240,000   yes  1,500,000       

Source: ONDCP.

Note: CPOT refers to Consolidated Priority Organization Target. HIDTA
refers to High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area

Appendix II: Federal Law Enforcement Organizations Engaged in CPOT
Investigations

During fiscal year 2003, a total of 744 CPOT investigations were conducted
by OCDETF member law enforcement agencies. The majority of those
investigations (497, or 67 percent) were multi-agency OCDETF
investigations, involving participation from DEA, FBI, ICE, IRS and other
member agencies, while the remaining were conducted individually by DEA
(191, or 26 percent) or FBI (56, or 8 percent).

Figure 3: Federal Law Enforcement Organizations Conducted 744 CPOT
Investigations in Fiscal Year 2003

Source: GAO analysis of OCDETF, DEA and FBI data.

Notes: In March 2003, the federal government merged the investigation
components of Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and U.S.
Customs Service (USCS ) into one agencyImmigration and Customs
Enforcement-under the Department of Homeland Security.

Totals do not add to 100% because of rounding.

Given that these member agencies conduct investigations jointly, totaling
the number of CPOT investigations in this figure by each agency does not
add up to 497.

For fiscal year 2004, the majority of CPOT investigations continued to be
multi-agency OCDETF investigations. For the first 7 months of fiscal year
2004, 72 percent (548 of 761) of CPOT investigations conducted by member
law enforcement agencies were designated as OCDETF investigations. OCDETF
officials attributed fiscal year 2004 increases in CPOT investigations
over fiscal year 2003 to OCDETF's emphasis on identifying links between
targeted domestic organizations and the CPOT list.

Appendix II: Federal Law Enforcement Organizations Engaged in CPOT
Investigations

As previously mentioned, OCDETF is composed of member agencies that worked
together on the 497 CPOT investigations in fiscal year 2003. Member
agencies either led investigations or supported other OCDETF member
agencies in these investigations. The bar chart in figure 3 shows the
number of drug investigations in which each OCDETF member agency
participated. For example, DEA participated in 402 CPOT investigations,
the highest level of participation by any member agency. FBI participated
in 320 investigations, many of which it conducted jointly with DEA along
with other member agencies.

DEA and FBI are the only OCDETF member agencies that conducted separate
CPOT investigations. Generally, these investigations were handled outside
of OCDETF because they did not yet satisfy the criteria for OCDETF
designation-that is, they were investigations conducted exclusively by
foreign offices or investigations that had not yet developed to a
sufficient level to be designated as OCDETF cases. For the first 7 months
of fiscal year 2004, data showed that DEA separately conducted 23 percent
(172 of 761) and FBI separately conducted 5 percent (41 of 761) of
investigations linked to CPOTs in addition to their participation in
OCDETF investigations. These two agencies conducted their CPOT
investigations out of their own agency's direct appropriations.

These CPOT investigations can subsequently become eligible for OCDETF
funding when OCDETF's criteria are met. For example, besides being linked
to the CPOT list, DEA and FBI investigations are to involve multiple law
enforcement agencies, among other things, in order to qualify as
OCDETF-designated CPOT investigations. Figure 4 shows the relationship
among OCDETF, DEA, and FBI in their handling of CPOT investigations and
shows that DEA and the FBI conduct CPOT investigations both separately and
collectively with other OCDETF member agencies. Figure 4 also shows the
collaborative relationship between ONDCP and Justice.

Appendix II: Federal Law Enforcement Organizations Engaged in CPOT
Investigations

          Figure 4: Federal Agencies That Conduct CPOT Investigations

Source: GAO.

Appendix III: Comments from the White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy

Appendix III: Comments from the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy

Appendix III: Comments from the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Justice

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

  Staff Acknowledgments

(440292)

Laurie E. Ekstrand, (202) 512-8777

In addition to those named above, the following individuals contributed to
this report: Frances Cook, Grace Coleman, David Dornisch, Michael H.
Harmond, Weldon McPhail, and Ron Salo.

GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and 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.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost

is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to

www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone	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. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone:	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

    To Report Fraud, Contact:
    Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***