Detailed Information on the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Assessment

Work with related drug task force programs to improve performance measurement and goal setting.

Develop a strategy to determine if currently-designated High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas continue to meet designation requirements based on the threat and the National Drug Control Strategy

Performance audits of first 7 HIDTAs completed (by December 2008) and overall HIDTA Program evaluation completed.

Allocate future resources for the program based on drug threats, performance, and targeted law enforcement initiatives.

Develop an evaluation strategy to assess the effectiveness of the program.

Measure: Number of DTOs dismantled or disrupted.

Explanation:The HIDTA program has two goals. Goal One -- Reduce drug availability by assisting Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies participating in HIDTAs to dismantle and disrupt drug trafficking organizations - addresses program effectiveness. Goal Two -- Increase the efficiency of law enforcement agencies participating in HIDTAs - addresses program efficiency. In the absence of reliable, comprehensive, definitive, and timely data on drug availability, a proxy outcome measure is required for Goal One. Because of the logical connection between drug availability and the number, operational scope, and significance of the entities that traffic the illegal drugs, ONDCP uses seven measures related to the disruption and dismantlement of drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) as performance measures for the HIDTA program. One measure is the number of DTOs disrupted or dismantled annually. A DTO is considered disrupted when law enforcement actions impede the normal and effective operation of that organization as indicated by changes in organizational leadership and/or regular methods of operations. A DTO is considered dismantled when those actions make the organization incapable of operating and/or reconstituting itself to conduct its illegal activities. If a DTO is disrupted and later in the same year is dismantled only the dismantlement is counted. Similarly, if a DTO is disrupted multiple in times in a year, only one disruption is counted.

Measure: Cumulative number of DTOs dismantled or disrupted.

Explanation:The cumulative number of DTOs disrupted and dismantled is used as a measure of the long-term impact of the HIDTA Program. The measure is the sum of the annual targets and actual outcomes for the annual performance measure described directly above.

Measure: Number of multi-state and international DTOs dismantled or disrupted.

Explanation:The HIDTA Program emphasizes the disruption and dismantlement of "higher value" DTOs; i.e., those that are responsible for furnishing drugs in large amounts and to broader geographic areas. To assess the performance of the HIDTA Program against such DTOs, ONDCP uses two types of measures -- one that reflects the operational scope of the DTOS (i.e., multi-state, international, and local) and a second that reflects the significance of the organization as determined by the Department of Justice (i.e., whether the organization is related to an CPOT-designated DTO). This measure identifies the number of multi-state and DTOs disrupted or dismantled annually. An "International DTO" is an organization that regularly conducts illegal drug trafficking or money laundering activities in more than one country or that is based in one country and conducts or coordinates illegal activities in another. A "Multi-state DTO" is an organization that regularly carries out illegal drug trafficking or money laundering activities in more than one state. (A DTO is not considered a multi-state DTO if the organization's activities regularly take place within a single metropolitan area or region, even if that metropolitan area includes parts of more than one state.)

Measure: Cumulative number of multi-state and international DTOs dismantled or disrupted.

Explanation:The cumulative number of multi-state and internal related DTOs disrupted and dismantled is used as a measure of the long-term impact of the HIDTA Program. The measure is the sum of the annual targets and actual outcomes for the annual performance measure described directly above.

Measure: Value of seizures (in $ millions)

Explanation:An additional measure of the extent to which the HIDTA Program contributes to the disruption of the drug supply is the wholesale value of drugs seized and taken off the market (a conservative amount compared to the retail or "street" value) and the value of cash and other assets seized from drug traffickers. These seizures increase the costs to traffickers and reduce their profits. This measure reports the annual amount of such seizures.

Measure: Cumulative value of seizures (in $ millions)

Explanation:The cumulative value of drugs, cash, and other assets seized is used as a measure of the long-term impact of the HIDTA Program. The measure is the sum of the annual targets and actual outcomes for the annual performance measure described directly above.

Measure: Number of CPOT-designated DTOs dismantled or disrupted.

Explanation:The Consolidated Priority Target Organizations (CPOTs) list, which is developed by the Department of Justice, represents the Federal government's assessment of which DTOs are most significant. Stemming the operation of these organizations should assure that HIDTAs have the most impact on drug trafficking. Targeting these organizations -- at least in part -- may yield the most impact on drug trafficking trends and drug availability.

Measure: Cost per DTO disrupted or dismantled (in $ thousands)

Explanation:To measure whether the HIDTA Program is meeting its second goal (increasing the efficiency of law enforcement agencies participating in HIDTAs) ONDCP uses the average cost per DTO disrupted or dismantled; i.e. HIDTA funds for enforcement initiatives divided by the DTOs dismantled or disrupted.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program provides assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies operating in 28 specially designated drug trafficking areas (which are referred to as High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, or HIDTAs) of the United States to disrupt or dismantle drug trafficking organizations (DTOs), particularly those DTOs that have a significant impact on other parts of the United States. The specific purpose of the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program is to reduce drug trafficking and drug production in the United States by: (A) facilitating cooperation among Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies to share information and implement coordinated enforcement activities; (B) enhancing law enforcement intelligence sharing among Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies; (C) providing reliable law enforcement intelligence to law enforcement agencies needed to design effective enforcement strategies and operations; and (D) supporting coordinated law enforcement strategies which maximize use of available resources to reduce the supply of illegal drugs in designated areas and in the United States as a whole.

Evidence: The purpose of the HIDTA program can be found in the following documents. Section 707(c) of the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-277; 21 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), as amended by Section 301 of the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006," P.L. 109-469; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ469.109.pdf). "HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance, Section 9.03" (http://www.nhac.org/hidta_guidance/guidance2006.pdf).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The HIDTA Program addresses the problem of continued drug trafficking and drug-related crime. Drug trafficking and drug-related crime remain significant. As recently as 2004, 17% of State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates indicated that they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. Based on the findings of the most recent National Drug Threat Estimate, the drug trafficking threat has been evolving and remains significant. The HIDTA Program is directed in part at areas that are a "significant center" of illegal drug trafficking activities. The National Drug Intelligence Center has identified 13 "Primary Market Areas," i.e., areas that both leading consumption areas and leading distribution centers for drugs, in the United States and the major drug trafficking corridors. All of these centers and corridors are located in or pass through a HIDTA. The HIDTA Program attempts to focus resources to counter the high volume and focused trafficking that takes place in specific areas across the country. The HIDTA Program also assists the law enforcement community with information sharing information and intelligence, and helps to develop intelligence-driven drug enforcement. Since its beginning, a basic tenet of the HIDTA Program has been that federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies significantly improve their ability to disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking organizations when they work together and share information. This tenet was codified in the ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 2006.

Evidence: National surveys of drug use (National Survey on Drug Use and Health, https://nsduhweb.rti.org/; Monitoring The Future, http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/; etc.) also identify high levels of drug use. Statistics involving drug-related crime can be found at: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; "Drug Use and Crime." (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm). Purpose of the HIDTA Program and the criteria for designating a HIDTA can be found in Section 707(c) of the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-277; 21 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), as amended by Section 301 of the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006," P.L. 109-469; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ469.109.pdf. For the importance of information sharing, see "Criminal Intelligence Sharing: A National Plan for Intelligence-Led Policing At the Local, State, and Federal Levels. Recommendations from the IACP Intelligence Summit," http://www.it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=93; National Institute of Justice. The Primary Market Areas are shown in NDIC's "National Drug Threat Assessment, 2005" found at http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs11/12620/scope.htm#Figure%20. The drug trafficking corridors are shown in the NDIC's "National Drug Threat Assessment, 2006," found at http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs11/18862/transport.htm#Top. The findings of the most recent National Drug Threat Assessment, 2007, can be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs21/21137/index.htm.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Other Federal, state, and local law enforcement programs also address the general purpose of disrupting or dismantling the market for illegal drugs. Despite the limited geographic focus of the HIDTA program, it targets more than half of the populated U.S., as do Federal drug enforcement programs (including the Drug Enforcement Agency) and other state and local law enforcement agencies. The Department of Justice's Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) program also funds multiagency drug enforcement task forces, which include the participation of state and local law enforcement. While ONDCP draws a strong distinction between OCDETF, which is managed by Justice, and HIDTA, which develops its priorities at the local level, Federal funds still are being used to fund more than one task forces program. The HIDTA program also is not the only grant program that provides funding to state and local law enforcement agencies for drug enforcement purposes. For example, while the potential uses of the Department of Justice's Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) are broad, Justice believes that much of the funds are used for interagency drug task forces. Byrne discretionary grants and the COPS Methamphetamine Initiative also provide resources that are used for drug enforcement by state and local law enforcement agencies. The redundancy among programs does not necessarily point to an excess of resources devoted to law enforcement efforts to disrupt drug trafficking. However, it can lead to excess fragmentation of efforts. For example, while HIDTA, OCDETF, and Byrne JAG all fund drug task forces and often involve members of the same law enforcement agencies, some elements of the programs are not closely coordinated (see Question 3.5), which can impede the effectiveness of the achieving the overall goal.

Evidence: Conversations with ONDCP and Department of Justice staff indicate that there is overlap in the focus of the HIDTA program and some Department of Justice grants. For example, Bureau of Justice Assistance staff indicate that approximately 60% of Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funds are used by states to fund interagency drug task forces, which often combine the efforts of state, local, and Federal law enforcement agencies to address specific drug trafficking threats in their jurisdictions. For more information on the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/jag.html. For more information on the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) program, see http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/programs/ocdetf.htm.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The HIDTA program functions much like a formula grant program. While a formula grant does not provide the optimum structure for flexibly targeting funds to changing drug threats (see Question 1.5), ONDCP requirements for (and review of) Threat Assessments, strategies, and budgets for each of the HIDTAs provide a useful negotiating framework for target setting and performance accountability within each of the individual HIDTAs.

Evidence: ONDCP's requirements for annual Threat Assessments, strategies, and budgets for each of the HIDTAs are documented in--"High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program: Program Policy and Budget Guidance," Office of National Drug Control Policy, April 25, 2006 (document supplied in hardcopy).

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Language in the congressional appropriations ensures that all HIDTAs receive at least the same funding they obtained from ONDCP in prior years. Although ONDCP may propose changes to the Congress in these "initial" allocations, in practice this does not occur. As a result, 90% of the HIDTA program's funding is distributed on the basis of a simple formula, which does not consider the dynamic changes in drug markets and drug trafficking trends, or what strategies and programs the individual HIDTAs might adjust from year to year to improve their efforts. For the remaining 10% of HIDTA program funding, each HIDTA Executive Board must prepare, submit, and justify to ONDCP an annual threat assessment identifying and describing the organizations that manufacture, cultivate, import, transport, or distribute illegal drugs in the HIDTA. ONDCP determines whether the Threat Assessment prepared by each HIDTA is consistent with other information about the area, the initiatives proposed to implement the strategy address identified threats, the proposed funding level and staffing of the initiatives are adequate, and the anticipated impact of the initiatives on identified drug trafficking problems is plausible. The HIDTA Performance Management Process (PMP) enables ONDCP to distinguish those HIDTAs that are performing well from those that are not and to use that information in decisions for the 10% of discretionary funds. Another area in which program design inhibits effective targeting is the HIDTA designation process. ONDCP's 2006 authorizing statute spells out the process for designating new HIDTAs. Each HIDTA designation carries with it the presumption of continuing assistance provided over a long period of time. Yet, there is no process for the periodic review of such designations, whether for performance considerations or because of the evolving and changing nature of the drug trafficking threat. Existing HIDTAs already provide coverage to more than 50% of the populated U.S. The program design provides for continuing expansion of Federal support without a concomitant review of whether some significant portion of "base" grant resources should be retargeted or even discontinued, depending on the evolving nature of the drug threat.

Evidence: The process for awarding HIDTA funds is set out in Section 707(i) of the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-277; 21 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), as amended by Section 301 of the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006," P.L. 109-469; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ469.109.pdf. The "HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance," establishes the process for developing HIDTA Threat Assessments (Section 9.03), describes the responsibilities and discretion of the HIDTA Executive Boards (Section 3.04), the HIDTA program review process (Section 11), and the prohibition on supplanting (Section 6.03). The process for designating new HIDTAs is spelled out in the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006," P.L. 109-469; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ469.109.pdf.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The HIDTA Program has three long-term performance measures that attempt to reflect the purpose of the Program. They are cumulative, multi-year values for the following: 1. Number of DTOs dismantled or disrupted. 2. Value of seizures. 3. Number of multi-state and international DTOs dismantled or disrupted. ONDCP also has agreed to begin tracking: 4. Number of CPOT-designated DTOs dismantled or disrupted. The HIDTA program supports the supply reduction priority -- Disrupting the Market for Illicit Drugs -- of the National Drug Control Strategy (NDCS). The principal objective of this priority is to create inefficiencies in drug production and distribution, and thereby reduce the supply of illegal drugs in the United States. ONDCP is currently working with the DEA to create a reliable estimate for drug availability, but in the absence of reliable, comprehensive, definitive, and timely data, a proxy measure is needed to monitor HIDTA performance towards this goal. Because of the logical connection between Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTOs) and drug availability, ONDCP established performance measures for the HIDTA program that are related to the dismantling and disrupting of drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) and the seizure of drugs and drug-related assets from DTOs. ONDCP monitors disruption/dismantlement of "multi-state and international DTOs" because these are a more significant type of DTO, typically involved in large-scale drug trafficking. ONDCP also has agreed to begin monitoring disruption/dismantlement of CPOT-linked DTOs. The Consolidated Priority Target Organizations (CPOTs) list, which is developed by the Department of Justice, represents the Federal government's assessment of which DTOs are most significant. Stemming the operation of these organizations should assure that HIDTAs have the most impact on drug trafficking. Targeting these organizations -- at least in part -- may yield the most impact on drug trafficking trends and drug availability.

Evidence: Except for the new CPOT-linked measure, the performance measures described above are revised versions of the measures reported in the "Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2008 Budget Submission." The changes were a result of discussions between ONDCP and OMB. Assessing the extent of HIDTA's role in dismantling and disrupting CPOT-linked DTOs has been examined by GAO. According to the GAO, "CPOT investigations were not inconsistent with the HIDTA 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." See: "Drug Control: High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas' Efforts to Link Investigations to International Drug Traffickers," GAO-05-122, January 2005, pg. 3. (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05122.pdf). In its January 4, 2005, letter response to the GAO report cited here, ONDCP indicated that "Encouraging HIDTAs to investigate CPOTs" is a warranted activity, which further justifies use of the new measure. According to ONDCP, the impracticality of using drug availability as an outcome measure is widely recognized. The multi-agency Drug Availability Steering Committee concluded that the model it used " . . . produces very useful ranges of cocaine availability for the U.S. for the years 1998-2001, the reader is cautioned that the underlying uncertainty discussed throughout this paper and appendices make drawing conclusions about year-to-year changes, such as increases or decreases, an unreasonable endeavor." (Drug Availability Estimates in the United States; p.7.)

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: ONDCP has established ambitious targets and timeframes for the following measures: Long Term Performance Measure 1: From 2005 through 2011, the HIDTA program expects to disrupt or dismantle a cumulative total of 16,229 DTOs. Baseline data from 2005 shows that the HIDTA program disrupted or dismantled 2,183 DTOs, and given annual compounded increases of 2%, that number should rise to 2,458 in 2011. Long Term Performance Target 2: From 2005 through 2011, the HIDTA program expects to seize a cumulative total of approximately $73 billion in wholesale values of drugs taken off the market and cash and non-cash assets. Baseline data from 2005 shows that the HIDTA program seized $9.8 billion in drugs, cash, and other assets, and given annual compounded increases of 2%, that number should rise to $11.1 billion in 2011. Long Term Performance Target 3: From 2005 through 2011, the HIDTA program expects to disrupt or dismantle a cumulative total of 10,252 multi-state and/or international DTOs. Baseline data from 2005 shows that the HIDTA program disrupted or dismantled 1,379 DTOs, and given annual compounded increases of 2%, that number should rise to 1,553 in 2011. Targets for the new long-term measure, number of CPOT-designated DTOs dismantled or disrupted, are under discussion with OMB and are not yet final.

Evidence: Except for the new CPOT-related measure, the performance measures described above are revised versions of the measures reported in the "Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2008 Budget Submission." The changes were a result of discussions between ONDCP and OMB.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: HIDTA's mission is to reduce drug trafficking in the most critical areas of the country, thereby reducing its impact in other areas. This is accomplished by institutionalizing teamwork among local, state, and federal efforts; synchronizing investments in strategy-based systems; and focusing on outcomes. Specifically, to qualify as a HIDTA an area must: be a major center of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or distribution; have state and local law enforcement agencies already engaged; have a harmful impact on other areas of the country; and, require a significant increase in federal resources. ONDCP has three annual performance measures that measure outputs and efficiencies and help demonstrate progress towards accomplishing HIDTA's mission and reaching the long-term goals of the HIDTA Program: 1. Number of DTOs dismantled or disrupted. 2. Value of seizures. 3. Number of multi-state and international DTOs dismantled or disrupted. ONDCP also has agreed to begin tracking: 4. Number of CPOT-designated DTOs dismantled or disrupted.

Evidence: Except for the new CPOT-linked measure, the performance measures described above are revised versions of the measures reported in the "Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2008 Budget Submission." The changes were a result of discussions between ONDCP and OMB. Assessing the extent of HIDTA's role in dismantling and disrupting CPOT-linked DTOs has been examined by GAO. According to the GAO, "CPOT investigations were not inconsistent with the HIDTA 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." See: "Drug Control: High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas' Efforts to Link Investigations to International Drug Traffickers," GAO-05-122, January 2005. (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05122.pdf). In its January 4, 2005, letter response to the GAO report cited here, ONDCP indicated that "Encouraging HIDTAs to investigate CPOTs" is a warranted activity, which further justifies use of the new measure.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: HIDTA's annual measures have established baselines and set ambitious targets several years forward. Beginning with 2006, quantitative annual performance targets have been established for the four long-term goals. These annual targets were established with the expectation of significant improvement in performance in a short period, each of the measures requiring a 13% annual increase over the course of seven years from the 2005 baseline data. Targets for the new annual measure, number of CPOT-designated DTOs dismantled or disrupted, are under discussion with OMB and are not yet final. Given the variable nature of individual drug investigations, estimating the number of DTOs that will be disrupted or dismantled in any year is very difficult and subject to factors outside the control of the HIDTA (e.g., cases becoming more significant and complex as the investigation proceeds; prosecutors' decisions about when to bring an investigation to a close; etc.). As a result, HIDTAs that easily meet their targets one year may struggle to meet them the next.

Evidence: The performance measures described above are revised versions of the measures reported in the "Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2008 Budget Submission." The changes were a result of discussions between ONDCP and OMB.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: While HIDTA partners are committed to the annual and long-term goals of the HIDTA Program, the strength of this commitment is difficult to assess without some kind of affirmation that each of the HIDTAs -- unless demonstrably unwarranted -- will focus at least a portion of its law enforcement activities on the most significant DTOs--the CPOTs. The HIDTA Directors played a significant role in the development of the Performance Management Process (PMP) and the supporting database, which monitors the extent to which individual HIDTAs meet performance goals they negotiate with ONDCP. HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance requires each HIDTA Executive Board to prepare an annual Strategy that describes how they propose the HIDTA-funded initiatives will address the drug trafficking conditions in the HIDTA jurisdiction. The Strategy must describe how it supports the two goals of the HIDTA program (disrupting the market for illegal drugs by dismantling or disrupting drug trafficking and/or money laundering organizations; and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of HIDTA initiatives). The Strategy must also establish fourteen specific performance targets for that year.

Evidence: The requirement for an annual Strategy approved by the Executive Board can be found in Section 3.04(c)(7) of the "HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance," (http://www.nhac.org/hidta_guidance/guidance2006.pdf). The required content of the Strategy is summarized in Section 9.04 of that document. Performance targets are summarized in Section 10.06 and described fully on pages III-5 to III-7 of Appendix III of the Guidance. Examples of HIDTA compliance with these requirements can be found on pages 8-13 of the 2006 Houston HIDTA Strategy, pages 12-21 of the 2006 Washington-Baltimore HIDTA Strategy, and pages 17-27 of the 2006 West Texas Region Strategy.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: To date there has not been an independent evaluation of the HIDTA program. However, ONDCP is in discussions with outside parties about completing a series of evaluations to assess the HIDTA Program's effectiveness. The intention is to fund at least four specific evaluations that meet the PART standards for quality, independence, and scope. The topics under consideration include: the effectiveness of information sharing among the HIDTAs; the extent to which HIDTAs appear to be targeting the appropriate DTOs and the accuracy of the information they report about disruptions and dismantlements; the quality of intelligence development and analysis in HIDTAs; and the effectiveness of HIDTA-funded training. The first evaluation will begin in 2007 with subsequent evaluations scheduled on a regular basis thereafter.

Evidence: Discussions with ONDCP staff; Draft Statement of Work for HIDTA Program Evaluation Activities provided to OMB.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Following the recommendation of the prior PART, ONDCP sought no funding increases for the HIDTA Program in FY 2003 and subsequent years pending the development of a performance measurement system. The performance measurement system has been developed and ONDCP anticipates incorporating specific performance measures and targets for the HIDTA Program into the FY 2009 Budget Request for the Program.

Evidence: "Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2008 Budget Submission;" pps. 132-153. Page 137 shows the costs of the HIDTA Program that are funded from ONDCP's S&E account.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The 2003 PART assessment of the HIDTA Program found that the program did not have an adequate performance planning, measurement, and reporting system and, consequently, could not demonstrate intended results. Since then, ONDCP has developed the Performance Management Process (PMP), which monitors the extent to which individual HIDTAs meet performance goals they negotiate with ONDCP. In addition, ONDCP plans to continue to work on developing more precise and timely drug availability estimates for the four major drugs - cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana. ONDCP is also investigating the utility of using the number of DTOs under investigation that are designated as OCDETF cases as a performance measure. This measure could be used beginning in 2008 using data from 2005-2008 to establish a baseline. (HIDTAs are in the middle of their 2007 program years, and it is unreasonable to impose a retroactive performance on HIDTA grantees.) In addition, as noted above, ONDCP has begun to address the lack of a formal evaluation with the series of evaluations of the HIDTA Program that meet the PART standards for quality, scope, independence, and frequency to assess the HIDTA Program's effectiveness.

Evidence: The "Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2008 Budget Submission;" pps. 132-153 describe many of the actions taken to address perceived deficiencies in HIDTA strategic planning; and the HIDTA performance measures are described in Section Two of the PART.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: ONDCP's Performance Management Process (PMP) is used to collect HIDTA performance information. Development of the PMP began in 2003 following a PART review that assessed the HIDTA Program and found "Results Not Demonstrated," principally due to the lack of satisfactory long-term or annual performance goals. In response, ONDCP formed a Performance Management Committee, consisting of ONDCP staff and HIDTA Directors, and charged it with developing a performance measurement system. In 2006, HIDTAs submitted their first annual reports, covering the 2005 activities, using the format and performance measures prescribed by the PMP. The PMP requires each HIDTA to provide ONDCP key data in a standardized format. In particular, because of the central role of DTOs in the program and in the performance assessments, HIDTAs are required to submit detailed information about targeted DTOs and the HIDTAs' actions toward them. For example, the number of DTOs identified and targeted in each HIDTA, the operational scope (i.e., local, multi-state, and or international) of the targeted DTOs; the status of HIDTA actions against those DTOs; the wholesale value of illegal drugs seized or destroyed, and other information pertinent to the management and assessment of the HIDTAs. In addition to the descriptive information type noted above, HIDTAs are required to provide information such as the numbers of the investigations associated with each DTO and the dates of critical events to assist in verification of results claimed. The "HIDTA Program and Policy Guidance" requires HIDTAs to update this information at least quarterly and ONDCP staff monitors compliance with this requirement on a regular basis. The PMP information is used to monitor the program and individual HIDTAs against program goals and performance targets, monitor compliance with program requirements, and provide information for ONDCP's reviews of HIDTA management and operations. The PMP Database has been particularly useful in reviewing annual budget requests from the individual HIDTAs. Using the PMP data, ONDCP policy analysts have identified unproductive HIDTA initiatives and initiatives that are not closely tied to the HIDTA's Threat Assessment and Strategy.

Evidence: The requirement for an annual Threat Assessment and Strategy can be found in Sections 9 of the "HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance," (http://www.nhac.org/hidta_guidance/guidance2006.pdf). Examples of the type of information required of all HIDTAs can be found on pages 8-13 of the 2006 Houston HIDTA Strategy; 12-21 of the 2006 Washington-Baltimore HIDTA Strategy; and 17-27 of the 2006 West Texas Region Strategy. Based on ONDCP's review of the Rocky Mountain HIDTA PMP data, funding for two initiatives was terminated and two other initiatives were put on a probationary status, requiring them to increase performance to receive funding in the next program year. ONDCP directed the Milwaukee HIDTA to re-structure two minimally productive initiatives that were being led by the same individual. The Executive Board expanded both initiatives by bringing in more assets and appointing a new commander for one of the two initiatives. Initial reports suggest that both have become more effective.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: ONDCP has identified the Assistant Deputy Director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs, an SES position, as the program manager accountable for performance in the HIDTA Program. In 2006, the individual performance plan for that position included " . . . implement[ing] a Performance Measurement Program in each of the 28 HIDTAs through a series of reviews and audits to ensure compliance." Each HIDTA is held accountable for standard performance measures established through the PMP and specified in its annual Strategy and budget requests. ONDCP negotiates final performance targets for each HIDTA and at the end of the year, each HIDTA must submit an annual report that describes its performance against those targets. ONDCP has begun, for the first time, to withhold a portion of grant funds from HIDTAs with identified and uncorrected management, performance, or financial deficiencies.

Evidence: Individual Performance Plan for Assistant Deputy Director for State, Local, and Tribal Affairs; HIDTA Program Policy, Section 10.06 and Section 11.04(A)(1); The requirement that performance targets be included in the HIDTA Strategy are paralleled by a similar requirement that actual performance toward the targets be shown in each HIDTA's Annual Report. (See pages III-10 to III-13 of Appendix III of the Guidance. ONDCP budget requests; HIDTA grant agreements.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: All HIDTA funds are obligated consistently with the program plan. Each of the 28 High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) submits an annual budget to ONDCP. Two offices within ONDCP review the budgets. The Office of State, Local, and Tribal Affairs reviews each HIDTA's budget to ensure it is adequate to carry out the HIDTA's strategy for that year. The Office of Management and Administration reviews the budgets to ensure Government-wide requirements for cost allowability, statutory requirements such as limitations on the use of HIDTA funds for demand reduction activities, and adherence to other guidelines defined in the HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance. As part of the annual budget submission to ONDCP, each HIDTA is required to submit a detailed budget/financial plan in a financial management system database specifically designed for the HIDTA program. Grantees also are required to use this system to submit requests for reimbursements or advances against this financial plan. Each time a grantee submits a reimbursement or advance request, an analyst at the National HIDTA Assistance Center (NHAC) compares the request to the approved budget in the system and examines the supporting documentation, such as payroll receipts and invoices. ONDCP uses a CPA firm to review and summarize Single Audit Reports and to conduct financial reviews of HIDTA grantees. ONDCP conducts audit follow-up and resolution for all final audit reports produced by the CPA firm, including collection of all unallowable costs identified in the audit reports.

Evidence: Obligation data can be found in the "Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2008 Budget Submission," (p. 134); "HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance," Section 6, "Financial Management"; Section 707(c) of the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-277; 21 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), as amended by Section 301 of the "Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006," P.L. 109-469; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ469.109.pdf); procedures related to identifying single audit issues are included in the KPMG Audit Recommendation Plan for the HIDTA Program.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: ONDCP has established a useful efficiency measure for the HIDTA Program. The measure calculates the average amount of HIDTA funding, in real dollars, for each DTO that is disrupted or dismantled. For example, in 2005, it was found that the HIDTA program spent an average of $80,000 to dismantle or disrupt a DTO. Setting a 2% reduction goal for the following year, the program achieved a 5.5 percent reduction in cost instead in 2006. While useful, the program also should collect information of total funds (not just HIDTA funds) used in the dismantling/disruption of DTOs. Since HIDTA leverages state/local agency funding, as well as other Federal agency funding, tracking the ratio of HIDTA to total dollars over time would help ONDCP ascertain whether a decrease in the HIDTA cost of dismantling/disrupting a DTO represents a truly cost effective outcome. Because virtually all HIDTA funding is used for grants to state and local law enforcement agencies or transfers to participating federal agencies, very few procurement decisions related to the HIDTA Program are made by ONDCP. ONDCP has used competitive procedures to purchase auditing services for the HIDTA Program from a nationally recognized accounting firm and is soliciting bids on a new contract for these services. HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance and grant agreements, require each HIDTA grantee to comply with all applicable federal statutes and regulations governing federal grants, including procurement. In addition, the National HIDTA Assistance Center (NHAC) negotiates blanket pricing agreements (BPAs) for use of products such as the LEXUS-NEXUS program and the law enforcement version (Accurint LE), and other analytical products. By using a national contract, the NHAC is often able to obtain a much lower cost per license than would possible if each individual HIDTA negotiated with the vendor separately.

Evidence: The cost per DTO efficiency measure is described in Section 2 above. The HIDTAs program results toward that measure are shown in Section 4 of this PART. Sections 3.03 and 6.06 of the "HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance" describe the requirements for competitive procedures for procurements. The BPAs negotiated by the NHAC are described on the NHAC Website http://www.nhac.org/news/NewsLetters/05_06.pdf, P.2"

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Additional steps to improve the performance measures of related programs as well as to coordinate more fully the resources allocated to drug task forces in affected regions could lead to improvements in drug enforcement. Improved compatibility among performance measures for closely related programs, including HIDTA, OCDETF, and the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant drug task forces, could help improve targeting of drug task force efforts as well as the assessment of results. (ONDCP has taken a step in this direction by agreeing to OMB's request for a CPOT-linked HIDTA performance measure.) Considering the regional implications of funding available through the three programs (i.e., how much funding is available to a given area through the various drug task force programs) could enhance decision-making about resources needed for respective HIDTAs. ONDCP actively monitors drug trafficking trends and threats, and coordinates enforcement priorities for the HIDTA program well with Federal, state, and local partners. For example, ONDCP collaborated with Federal partners and sought the views of local HIDTA program directors in the development of the Synthetic Drug Control Strategy, which provides a strategic guide for the control of synthetic drugs by Federal, State, and local partners. Similarly, ONDCP has collaborated with Federal partners as well as HIDTAs in developing the Southwest Border Strategy. More recently, ONDCP has worked with Department of Justice components (DEA & FBI), Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Services, Department of Homeland Security, Environmental Protection Agency, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to increase the Federal focus on drugs affecting tribal areas. The collaboration has already resulted in the selection of four HIDTAs to receive additional funding for tribal enforcement. At the local level, where resources are allocated to specific task forces, the HIDTA program appears to be well coordinated with related programs. Executive Board and task forces include participants from federal law enforcement agencies and from a variety of State and local law enforcement agencies. HIDTA Executive Directors often consult with DEA Special Agents in-Charge and OCDETF coordinators. Representatives from Federal agencies and programs, including the FBI, DEA, OCDETF, ICE, IRS, and National Guard have participated in reviews of annual Threat Assessments, strategies, budget requests, and annual reports submitted by HIDTAs.

Evidence: The "HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance," Sections 11.06(B)(1) suggests that on-site reviews of HIDTAs include personnel from "ONDCP; the Departments of Justice, the Treasury, and Homeland Security; other HIDTAs; a state or local agency" etc. A copy of the joint ONDCP-OCDETF overtime memorandum can be found at: http://www.nhac.org/hidta_guidance/overtime.pdf. The memorandum established a shared definition of disruption and dismantlement has been provided to OMB. The ONDCP Reauthorization Act of 2006 codified existing ONDCP policy that all HIDTA Executive Boards be comprised of equal numbers of federal law enforcement leaders and state, local, and tribal law enforcement leaders. A review of key performance measures found in the "National Drug Control Strategy, FY 2008 Budget Summary," February 2007 (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/08budget/index.html) highlights the dissimilarity of key performance measures of related programs. Additional comparisons were made examining the FY 2008 Department of Justice Congressional Budget Submission for DEA and OCDETF. Discussions with ONDCP staff.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: ONDCP's financial operations are managed by the Office of Administration/Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). The OCFO has procured assistance from a private accounting firm in the implementation of the revised OMB A-123, Management's Responsibility for Internal Control. ONDCP is participating in this contract with the OCFO. Two deliverables of the contract will be the identification and mapping of key ONDCP business cycles and sub-cycles and the testing of internal controls. The contractor has begun work for these products. ONDCP's latest review of management controls identified no material weaknesses and provides reasonable assurance that the objectives of the Act have been achieved. The systemic financial controls for the HIDTA program reside within the Executive Office of the President core accounting system (Oracle Financial) and the Payment Management System maintained by the Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Payment Management. The Oracle Financial system is compliant with all Financial Systems Integration Office (FSIO) requirements for core accounting systems. All grant obligations originate in the Oracle Financial system, which provides funds control at both the appropriation and individual grant levels. Once grant obligations are successfully established in Oracle Financial, they are electronically interfaced into the Payment Management System. This system configuration supports day-to-day operations, including allowing ONDCP to review real time grant balances to ensure that funds are available before grant modifications are approved. ONDCP is one of EOP components whose financial operations are managed by the Office of Administration/Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). To date, OA/OCFO has not undergone a financial statement audit.

Evidence: Statement of Work entitled "Implementation of OMB Circular A-123", RFQ # 62990, Executive Office of the President, Office of the Chief Financial Officer.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: In the last three years, ONDCP has established the Performance Management Process, significantly revised the "HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance," clarified and strengthened grant agreements and Memoranda of Understanding with other federal agencies, and revised the on-site review process to increase the attention given to performance issues. In addition, ONDCP has begun to make follow-up visits to HIDTAs after the on-site reviews are completed to monitor actions taken to address shortcomings identified in the review. ONDCP has begun, for the first time, to withhold a portion of grant funds (10% discretionary amounts) from HIDTAs with identified and uncorrected management, performance, or financial deficiencies.

Evidence: ONDCP has continued the Performance Management Committee, initially established to develop the PMP, to deal with performance issues generally, and has established a PMP Users Group that meets periodically to discuss data definition and quality, software design, and access issues. ONDCP compiles comments and suggestions for revisions to the "HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance" and makes annual updates the document. The Assistant Deputy Director for State and Local Affairs meets regularly with Director of ONDCP to discuss HIDTA management and policy issues. These meetings have resulted in changes to how the "discretionary" portion of the HIDTA appropriation is used (e.g., a portion of the discretionary funds was provided to Tribal law enforcement agencies in reservations that overlap with HIDTA-designated areas). On February 28, 2007, ONDCP notified the chair of the New Mexico Region Executive Committee that ONDCP was withholding 2007 grant funding to the region until issues identified in the New Mexico on-site review were resolved. Copy of letter provided to OMB.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: ONDCP has assigned an ONDCP policy analyst to each HIDTA, all of whom are assisted by a retired senior DEA agent under contract. This analyst leads all reviews of Threat Assessments, strategies, budget requests, annual reports, requests for waivers, and reprogramming of HIDTA funds. ONDCP analysts also lead the on-site reviews of the HIDTAs. In addition to the ONDCP analyst, these reviews are conducted by six to ten-person teams comprised of: former and current federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors, financial analysts with HIDTA-related experience, and the Director of the HIDTA scheduled to undergo the next on-site review. These reviews generally are completed within one week, although some last longer, reflecting detailed examinations of HIDTA processes and policies. In addition to ensuring compliance with HIDTA program requirements, the teams assess the performance of the individual HIDTA-funded initiatives and the overall performance of the HIDTA. In 2005 and 2006, ONDCP conducted nine and five, respectively, of such reviews on-site reviews. In addition, in 2006, ONDCP staff visited 26 HIDTAs to review how the HIDTAs were collecting, verifying, and entering the required PMP information into the PMP database. ONDCP also has direct contact several times a year with the HIDTA Directors Committee, a group organized by the HIDTA Directors to solicit and consolidate the views of individual HIDTAs concerning HIDTA Program policies and procedures, reporting requirements, and day-to-day management concerns. In addition, all ONDCP staff and HIDTA Directors generally meet at least once a year as a group to discuss program management and policy issues. ONDCP has strengthened its procedures for financial reviews of HIDTAs. In 2006, ONDCP reduced the number of limited-scope financial reviews of HIDTA grantees and increased the number of more in-depth full scope reviews. The contractor performing the reviews for ONDCP has completed the fieldwork for 18 limited scope reviews and five more detailed full-scope reviews. ONDCP also enhanced the financial review component of the on-site reviews by increasing the number of skilled financial managers that participated in these on-site reviews.

Evidence: The on-site review process is described in the "HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance," Section 11.06, "Phase 3: Periodic ONDCP-Led ON-Site Reviews." Information on the number of reviews conducted by ONDCP can be found in the "Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2008 Budget Submission," (p. 146). Copies of recent ONDCP on-site reviews and the financial reviews performed by the independent contractor were provided to OMB.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: ONDCP has implemented the PMP and collects comprehensive and detailed information on a timely basis. As required by the HIDTA authorizing statute, this performance information will included in future submissions of the President's Budget. The Budget will include both individual HIDTA level and program-wide performance information. In addition, in May 2007, ONDCP has posted 2005 performance data for each of the HIDTAs on its public website and has committed to posting 2006 data within a reasonably short time-frame as well.

Evidence: HIDTA performance information can be found online at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/hidta/perfinfo.html.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: ONDCP has established long-term performance goals for both individual HIDTAs and the program as a whole. A prerequisite of measuring achievement against these goals was the design and implementation of the Performance Management Process and the development of the PMP Database. ONDCP completed those tasks on time and the PMP data collected in 2005 and the data for 2006 show that the program is on track to meet long-term performance targets, although this assessment is based on performance data for only one year beyond the establishment of baselines. The HIDTA program has two overall goals: (1) to reduce drug availability by assisting Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies participating in HIDTAs to dismantle and disrupt drug trafficking organizations; and (2) increase the efficiency of law enforcement agencies participating in HIDTAs. In the absence of reliable, comprehensive, definitive, and timely data on drug availability, a proxy outcome measure is required. Because of the logical connection between drug availability and the number, operational scope, and significance of the entities that traffic the illegal drugs, ONDCP uses as one of its long-term output measures, the cumulative number of DTOs dismantled or disrupted. A DTO is considered disrupted when law enforcement actions impede the normal and effective operation of that organization as indicated by changes in organizational leadership and/or regular methods of operations. A DTO is considered dismantled when those actions make the organization incapable of operating and/or reconstituting itself to conduct its illegal activities. The cumulative number of DTOs disrupted and dismantled is used as a measure of the long-term impact of the HIDTA Program and is the sum of the annual targets and actual outcomes. Another long term output measure is the cumulative value of cash and other assets seized from drug traffickers. These seizures increase the costs to traffickers and reduce their profits. The measure is the sum of the annual targets and actual outcomes for the annual performance measures associate with seizures. An additional long term output measure is the cumulative number of multi-state and international DTOs dismantled or disrupted. To assess the performance of the HIDTA Program against such DTOs, ONDCP uses two types of measures -- one that reflects the operational scope of the DTOS (i.e., multi-state, international, and local) and a second that reflects the significance of the organization as determined by the Department of Justice (i.e., whether the organization is related to an CPOT-designated DTO). This measure is the sum of the annual number of multi-state and DTOs disrupted or dismantled. Finally, the number of CPOT-designated DTOs dismantled or disrupted is used as a long term and annual output measure. The Consolidated Priority Target Organizations (CPOTs) list, which is developed by the Department of Justice, represents the Federal government's assessment of which DTOs are most significant. Stemming the operation of these organizations should assure that HIDTAs have the most impact on drug trafficking. Targeting these organizations -- at least in part -- may yield the most impact on drug trafficking trends and drug availability. Baselines and ambitious targets have been established for each of the long term measures. For the first measure, HIDTA topped its 2006 target of disrupting or dismantling DTOs, putting it on track to eclipse the long-term goal for this measure. The same trend holds true for HIDTA's second performance measure, in which it greatly increased the value of its seizures. For the third measure, the HIDTA program was almost exactly in line with its expectations, and is projected to beat its long-term goal by 18 multi-state and/or international DTOs dismantled or disrupted. The fourth measure is the new CPOT-linked measure and is based on discussions between ONDCP and OMB.

Evidence: Performance data is taken from GPRA documents, PMP Database, HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance for FY 2003; discussions with ONDCP staff. Except for the new CPOT-linked measure, the performance measures described above are revised versions of the measures reported in the "Office of National Drug Control Policy FY 2008 Budget Submission." The changes were a result of discussions between ONDCP and OMB.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: ONDCP's PMP is collecting reliable and standardized performance data from all HIDTAs. Based on that information, ONDCP has determined that the individual HIDTAs and the program as a whole are meeting their annual goals for the first year, 2006, beyond the establishment of performance baselines. For its first measure, the HIDTA program exceeded the 2006 target, and also surpassed it in the second measure of performance. The HIDTA program also met its focused measure of high-value multi-state and international DTOs, disrupting or dismantling 3 more than the 2006 target figure. The HIDTA program also exceeded its annual target for the efficiency measure with the average cost of dismantling or disrupting a DTO falling by approximately $4,400.

Evidence: GPRA documents, PMP Database, HIDTA Program Policy and Budget Guidance for FY 2003; discussions with ONDCP staff.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: ONDCP's PMP is collecting standardized performance data from all HIDTAs. Based on ONDCP's PMP data, the HIDTA Program has demonstrated some improvement in cost effectiveness between 2005 and 2006. ONDCP uses "the average cost of disrupting or dismantling a DTO" as its efficiency performance measure. Data for this measure have shown a marked increase in cost effectiveness between 2005 (the baseline year) and 2006, with the cost of dismantling or disrupting DTOs falling from around $80,100 apiece to $75,700, representing a 5.5% improvement in just one year and exceeding the performance target. While the purely HIDTA-related cost for dismantling/disrupting DTOs dropped in 2006, HIDTA funds leverage other State/local/Federal funds for drug investigations. ONDCP could improve its efficiency measure by assessing total costs (all HIDTA, state, local, and Federal funds) devoted to HIDTA-related activity or by monitoring the ratio of HIDTA to other funds to ensure that the reported cost for dismantling or disrupting a DTO is consistent with figures reported in successive years.

Evidence: PMP Database and discussions with HIDTA and ONDCP staff.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Most of the performance measures among related programs, including HIDTA, OCDETF, Byrne Justice Assistance Grant drug task forces, and the DEA, are noncomparable, which inhibits comparisons based on performance. Although seizures are not defined as performance measures for any of these programs, some comparisons can be made between the DEA and HIDTA based on seizures. For example, in 2006, the HIDTA program was responsible for the seizure of approximately 1,600 metric tons of marijuana, 80 metric tons of cocaine HCL, 7 metric tons of methamphetamine, and 1 metric ton of heroin, exceeding, except for cocaine HCL, DEA's domestic seizures (525, 100, 1, and 11 metric ton respectively). DEA had much higher international seizures, which would be appropriate given its international scope of operations. One example of an important issue that ONDCP should address is the dissimilarity and lack of compatibility among performance measures of Federal agencies and programs having similar goals and objectives. As manager of the HIDTA program, as well as the principal coordinator for national strategy among programs that attempt to disrupt drug trafficking, ONDCP should convene a working group of officials from each of the affected programs, as well as OMB, to review performance measures for the HIDTA program, OCDETF, the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant drug task forces, the DEA, as well as other Federal law enforcement agencies that investigate or attempt to impede drug trafficking. The focus of this effort should be the development of a coherent performance measurement system that allows meaningful comparisons to be made among programs that share similar objectives.

Evidence: Performance comparisons come from data in the HIDTA Performance Management Program Database as well as the DEA Congressional Budget Submission for FY 2008. A review of key performance measures found in the "National Drug Control Strategy, FY 2008 Budget Summary," February 2007 (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/08budget/index.html) highlights the dissimilarity of key performance measures of related programs. Additional comparisons were made examining the FY 2008 Department of Justice Congressional Budget Submission for DEA and OCDETF.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: There has not been an independent evaluation of the HIDTA program. As stated in the answer to question 2.6, ONDCP is in discussions with academic institutions about funding a series of evaluations to assess the HIDTA Program's effectiveness. The intention is to fund at least four specific evaluations that meet the PART standards for quality, independence, and scope.

Evidence: Discussions with HIDTA and ONDCP staff.