National Drug Control Strategy. Strengthening Communities' Response To Drugs and Crime.

National
Drug Control
Strategy
Strengthening Communities’
Response to Drugs and Crime
2 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY
Message From the President
To the Congress of the United States: Strategy also recognizes that the drug problems of
today and tomorrow will not be solved by yester-
I am pleased to transmit today to the Congress and day’s government. Our solutions must be less
to the American people the 1995 National Drug bureaucratic, more creative and flexible, and the
Control Strategy, which confirms our resolve, iden- 1995 Strategy starts us down that path.
tifies my priorities for addressing this Nation’s
continuing drug problem, and further defines my Most importantly, the Strategy responds to the
Administration’s plan for reducing illegal drug use need for a new covenant between the American
and drug trafficking. people and their government—one that matches
more opportunity with more responsibility. This
The 1995 Strategy comes at a time of enormous Strategy gives those who have fallen prey to drugs
change and new challenges for our country. Soci- the opportunity to change their behavior, and it
eties around the globe are shifting from the Indus- gives these youths who are at risk for starting to
trial Age to the Information Age—from the Cold use drugs positive alternatives.
War with its global division to a world united in
economic cooperation and hope for the future. This Strategy sends strong messages of responsibili-
This is a time of new beginnings and of great ty on all fronts: to the international community
hope, but also a time of tremendous uncertainty. that all nations must work together to reduce the
During this period, we must make sure that we supply and demand for illegal drugs; to traffickers
remain the strongest country in the world and its and criminals that they will pay a stiff penalty for
most profound force for peace and freedom. Our destroying our children’s futures; and to our
greatest challenge, however, will be to keep the Nation’s youth that drugs are not only illegal—but
American dream alive for all our citizens. that using them is dumb, dangerous, and likely to
get you hurt, and maybe even killed. Legalization
These challenges give the 1995 Strategy new and is a formula for disaster. And it is precisely because
added importance. We cannot keep the Ameri- of the damage that drug use causes that I am, and
can dream alive for working families if our youth will remain, unequivocally opposed to the legaliza-
are turning to illegal drug use, or if the violence tion of any of the drugs that are currently illegal.
spawned by drug use and trafficking continues
unabated. We cannot compete in the new world The government cannot solve this Nation’s drug
economy and foster economic cooperation among problem, or any other social ill, alone. But neither
nations while international drug trafficking is can we shirk our responsibility. That is why this
rampant. We cannot enter the new millennium as 1995 Strategy extends the hand of partnership to
the strongest country in the world unless we con- all Americans—concerned citizens, community
tinue to lead the way against illegal drugs and the leaders, teachers, law enforcement officers, par-
terror they bring—both here at home and abroad. ents, and leaders of the faith community—and
asks them to begin anew the process of engaging
The 1995 Strategy responds to the need for a new all Americans in addressing this important issue.
economy and a new government. It recognizes
that drug use and trafficking drain our economy of
billions of dollars and prevent millions of Ameri-
cans from achieving their full potential. This Bill Clinton
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 3

Table of Contents
President’s Message .......................................................................................................................... 3
I. Strategy Overview .................................................................................................................. 9

Principles for Responding to Illicit Drug Use ......................................................................... 10
Drug Facts ................................................................................................................................ 10
Action Plans for Responding to America’s Drug Problem ...................................................... 11
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 14
II. Drug Use in America ............................................................................................................. 17

Casual Drug Use ...................................................................................................................... 17
Hardcore Drug Use .................................................................................................................. 20
Emerging Drug Use Trends ...................................................................................................... 20
III. Drug Use and its Consequences ............................................................................................ 29

Drugs, Crime, and Violence .................................................................................................... 29
Drug Arrests ............................................................................................................................ 33
Drugs and Health .................................................................................................................... 34
Targeting Chronic, Hardcore Drug Use .................................................................................. 36
The Case for Treating Hardcore Drug Users ........................................................................... 37
Addressing the Shortage of Drug Treatment Capacity ........................................................... 38
IV. Illicit Drug Availability .......................................................................................................... 43

Shifting the Focus of the International Program Strategy ...................................................... 44
Achieving Supply Reduction Through Domestic Law Enforcement Activities .................... 44
V. Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for Illicit Drugs ..................................................... 53
Progress Toward Meeting the Goals for Reducing the Demand for Illicit Drugs .................... 54
Reducing the Demand for Drugs by Reducing Chronic, Hardcore Drug Use ........................ 54
The Role of Drug Prevention Efforts ...................................................................................... 58
12-Month Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for Illicit Drugs ....................................... 66
VI. Action Plan for Reducing Crime, Violence, and Drug Availability .................................... 71
Progress Made Toward Law Enforcement Goals ..................................................................... 72
Domestic Law Enforcement Efforts ......................................................................................... 73
12-Month Plan for Reducing Crime, Violence, and Drug Availability.................................... 82
VII. Action Plan for Enhancing Domestic Drug Program Flexibility

and Efficiency at the Community Level ............................................................................... 87
Progress Made Toward Enhancing Domestic Drug Program Flexibility and Efficiency ......... 88
National and Regional Consultation ...................................................................................... 89
Streamlining Federal Drug Control Grants ............................................................................ 89

ONDCP Requested Audits of Federal Drug Control Programs .............................................. 90
12-Month Action Plan for Enhancing Domestic Drug Program Flexibility
and Efficiency at the Community Level ................................................................................. 90
VIII. Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction and International Efforts .............................. 95
Progress Made Toward Strengthening Interdiction and International Efforts ....................... 95
A Successful International Certification Process ................................................................... 97
The International Cocaine Strategy ....................................................................................... 97
Summit of the Americas ......................................................................................................... 102
The International Heroin Strategy ......................................................................................... 103
12-Month Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction and International Efforts ................ 107
IX. Federal Drug Control Resource Priorities ............................................................................ 111
X. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 123
Appendix A: Research, Data, and Program Evaluation ............................................................... 127
Appendix B: Drug-Related Information ....................................................................................... 135
Appendix C: Consultation ............................................................................................................. 149

I. Strategy Overview
n 1995 the crime-drug cycle continues. No com- Moreover, drug abuse undermines the ability of
I
munity is untouched. More teenagers are smok- hard-working Americans to live in safe communi-
ing pot. Less of them think cocaine use is ties, send their children to good schools, and have
dangerous. Drug-using adults from every social their tax dollars used for enhancing their quality
strata are clogging court dockets, crowding emer- of life. As long as drug dealers continue to sell
gency rooms, and abusing their innocent children. drugs and users continue to buy them, Americans
will face—many of them firsthand—the crime,
Thousands of miles from U.S. shores, cocaine traf- violence, and health consequences that surround
fickers are charting a route for their next smuggling the illicit drug trade.
operation. Opium dealers are ranking this year’s har-
vest and projecting their profits. Money launderers are Despite years of concentrated effort by all levels of
plotting a course for traffickers’ ill-gotten gains to wash government and by numerous antidrug organiza-
through legal banking establishments. tions, the cycle of drug abuse continues. Previous
progress in reducing casual drug use1 gave many
Drug use and trafficking threaten the American way of people the impression that drug prevention efforts
life. All Americans should enjoy the fruits of their had solved the problem. But in some areas, the
labor in a community free of crime and drugs. situation is worsening. Young people from all eco-
nomic and social strata are using drugs in increas-
This Strategy takes the brutal realities of the crime- ing numbers, in spite of our best antidrug efforts.
drug linkage to task. Things must change. Drug traf- Furthermore, the crimes associated with the illegal
fickers and dealers must be arrested and prosecuted. drug trade continue to threaten domestic security
Prevention efforts must be refined to fit the mindset of and safety.
today’s youth. Chronic drug users must receive the
effective treatment they require to get off drugs and According to the most recent National House-
become taxpayers, instead of tax takers. hold Survey on Drug Abuse, roughly one in three
Americans has used an illicit drug sometime in his
This Strategy is a map. It provides all Americans or her lifetime, and roughly one in nine Ameri-
with a way to protect those innocent victims whom cans has tried cocaine at least once. The Moni-
drug use and trafficking violate, to cope pragmatically toring the Future (MTF) study indicates that
and rationally with an insidious disease known as drug nearly one-half of the Nation’s high school
addiction, and to enforce the rule of law over the seniors, regardless of gender, race, or location,
tyranny and cruelty of lawlessness. This is a task have tried an illicit drug, and one in five has used
upon which America’s future depends. illicit drugs on a regular basis. Furthermore,
chronic, hardcore drug use 2 is widespread, and
casual drug use is increasing among our youth.
No community in America can escape the prob-
lems surrounding drug abuse and its consequences. The activities of the chronic, hardcore drug user
Americans pay a large price for these problems. directly and indirectly account for high rates of

STRATEGY OVERVIEW
crime, violence, and negative health conse- • Prevention programs must reach all youth and
quences in this country. Addicted drug users also target special populations that are at risk, such
account for more than two-thirds of the illicit as inner-city youth, pregnant women, and
drugs consumed. Unless the number of addicted women of childbearing age.
drug users can be reduced, the tranquility and safe-
ty of American communities will be jeopardized. • Drug treatment must target chronic, hardcore
Drug traffickers will continue to supply drugs to drug users—both within and outside the crimi-
addicted drug users but will also seek to develop a nal justice system—to reduce their drug use and
new generation of users to support their criminal its consequences.
infrastructure and provide profits into the next
century. Clearly, all of America’s youth must be • Antidrug strategies must be supported by
educated against the dangers of drug use. This knowledge gained from research.
Nation cannot afford to turn its attention from the
time bombs of drug use, drug trafficking, and relat- • International narcotics control is a major for-
ed crime and health problems. eign policy objective, and the international
commitment to narcotics control must be
expanded. The United States must work with
PRINCIPLES FOR other nations that demonstrate the political will
The drug problem is RESPONDING TO ILLICIT to attack illegal drug production and trafficking.
national in scope. Drugs DRUG USE
are not a problem solely • Legalization does not provide an answer to the
of the poor, or of This National Drug Control problems of drug use and crime. Rather, it is a
minorities, or of inner-city Strategy is built on the following formula for self-destruction. The Administra-
residents. principles: tion is unequivocally opposed to any “reform”
that is certain to increase drug use.
• Because it is linked to the Nation’s efforts to
promote economic growth, empower commu-
nities, curb youth violence, preserve families, DRUG FACTS
and improve access to health care for all Amer-
icans, drug policy is a cornerstone of U.S. The drug problem is national in scope. Drugs are
domestic policy in general and U.S. social poli- not a problem solely of the poor, or of minorities,
cy in particular. or of inner-city residents. In fact, the majority of
these citizens do not use illicit drugs, and they are
• A key response to drug use and trafficking is an often victims of those who do. Drug users come
aggressive and coordinated law enforcement from all walks of life and from all parts of the
effort. Americans have the right to feel safe in country. The drug problem affects everyone, and
their homes and secure in their communities. all Americans must be involved in its solution.
• The Nation must address drug-related violence America’s future depends on how the Nation
by expanding community policing, putting chooses to respond to the following facts:
more police on the streets, and removing guns
from the hands of criminals. FACT: Everyone is a potential victim of a drug-
related crime. Drug use and the crime
• To ensure the safety of our communities, cer- that surrounds it are enveloping entire
tainty of punishment must be promoted for all communities. In 1993 an estimated
drug offenders—particularly young offenders. 1,123,300 individuals were arrested for
All offenders must receive appropriate punish- drug offenses—including sale, manufac-
ment when they first encounter the criminal ture, and possession—more than 2 arrests
justice system. every minute. Drug tests confirmed

STRATEGY OVERVIEW
recent use of illicit substances in the users are passed on to hard-working Ameri-
majority of those arrested each day. cans through increased insurance premi-
ums. In 1993 almost 500,000 drug-related
FACT: Homicide rates by youth ages 18 and emergencies occurred nationwide. More
younger have more than doubled since than one-third of all AIDS (Acquired
1985. Drug-involved youth are arming Immune Deficiency Syndrome) cases were
themselves and killing one another over associated with the reckless, self-destruc-
drug money and drug turf. The ruthless- tive behavior of drug users.
ness and guns that are part of the drug
trade have “infected” entire neighbor- FACT: The illicit drug trade is a drain on the U.S.
hoods. Children not involved in the drug economy. In 1993 the retail value of the
trade are carrying guns and resolving dis- illicit drug business totaled $50 billion.
putes through violence over seemingly
trivial matters, such as an imagined insult
or disagreement regarding the color of a ACTION PLANS FOR RESPONDING TO
jacket. AMERICA’S DRUG PROBLEM
FACT: Fewer youth report a clear understanding This year’s Strategy presents a
of the risks associated with drug use. new and key element to This year’s Strategy
respond to America’s drug presents a new and key
FACT: Marijuana is increasingly available, problem—a concise and element to respond to
potent, and cheap, enticing a new genera- action-oriented approach to America’s drug
tion of drug users, most likely the children the drug problem. A range of problem—a concise and
and grandchildren of working families. Federal prevention, treatment, action-oriented approach
and law enforcement efforts to the drug problem.
FACT: Drugs are readily available to anyone who will be coordinated by the
wants to buy them. By historical stan- Office of National Drug Con-
dards, cocaine and heroin street prices are trol Policy (ONDCP). The Crime Control Act
low and purity is high, making their use by enhanced ONDCP’s mission and authorities to
any mode of administration both more confront the problems of illicit drug use and its
feasible and affordable than ever before. consequences. The legislation reauthorized
ONDCP through September 30, 1997, and
FACT: Drug use is weakening the fiscal health of strengthened ONDCP’s ability to manage drug
the public sector. Federal, State, and local control resources. In addition, to improve moni-
governments spend roughly $25 billion on toring of progress in achieving the goals and
drug control efforts, or $0.50 for every dol- objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy,
lar spent by drug consumers in the illicit the Crime Control Act requires that ONDCP
drug trade. Approximately 60 percent of conduct evaluations of the measures of effective-
the Federal drug control budget is directed ness pertaining to drug availability and the conse-
to law enforcement programs, and the bal- quences of drug use.
ance is directed to treatment and preven-
tion programs. Most State and local Over and above this coordination, ONDCP will
government spending is directed to the spearhead four Action Plans for (1) reducing the
criminal justice system (79 percent), and demand for illicit drugs; (2) reducing crime, vio-
the balance is directed to education and lence, and drug availability; (3) enhancing domes-
rehabilitation (21 percent). tic drug program flexibility and efficiency at the
community level; and (4) strengthening interdic-
FACT: Drug use is straining the Nation’s health tion and international efforts aimed at disrupting
care system. The costs of treating drug the production and flow of drugs into the United

STRATEGY OVERVIEW
States. Each Action Plan includes specific targets, This year’s Strategy stresses both prevention and
individual steps to achieve the targets, and pro- treatment efforts. It also continues the redirection
posed completion dates. The four Action Plans of interdiction efforts to source countries, which is
are discussed in detail in Chapters V through VIII. consistent with experience that shows it is more
These Action Plans are designed to achieve the effective to reduce illicit drug availability by con-
following objectives: centrating resources in a small geographic area
rather than primarily attacking transshipment
• Combat drug traffickers who prey on people for over a vast and unregulated transit zone. At the
the sake of money and power; same time, this Strategy provides for smarter and
tougher enforcement activities in U.S. ports of
• Use the authority of the criminal justice system entry and at U.S. borders. Domestic law enforce-
to require drug-using offenders to stop taking ment efforts—which have been greatly expanded
drugs; in recent years and which now comprise the bulk
of the Nation’s antidrug law enforcement efforts—
• Punish the criminal activi- remain central to supply reduction efforts that
The Action Plan for ties of drug users and sellers; seek to keep the streets free of illicit drugs; they
Reducing the Demand for continue to assist in achieving demand reduction
Illicit Drugs emphasizes • Support the efforts of source goals.
drug prevention as the and transit nations against
ultimate key to ensuring illicit narcotics trafficking; The Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for
the future of the Nation’s Illicit Drugs emphasizes drug prevention as the
children. • Interdict illicit drugs en ultimate key to ensuring the future of the Nation’s
route to America; children. New generations must not become drug
users, and existing users must be convinced to
• Provide treatment for those addicts who want stop. The recent increase in marijuana use among
to reform their lives, and employ forced absti- adolescents, as well as changes in their attitudes
nence programs where possible; about the dangers of drug use, is alarming and
underscores the need for educating each genera-
• Raise public awareness of two facts—that tion about the consequences of drug involvement.
relapse is not an indication of treatment failure To prevent drug use, a nationwide media cam-
when the consequences of drug use are less- paign will be launched to deglamorize drug use in
ened,3 and that law enforcement sanctions can the mind of every child in America. This public
motivate addicts to enter and complete treat- information effort—“Save Our Children—Save
ment; Our Future”—will address drugs, alcohol, and
tobacco and will use a range of resources, includ-
• Protect each generation by ensuring that chil- ing entertainment and professional sports figures.
dren understand and appreciate the dangers of This campaign will complement existing efforts,
intermittent or hardcore drug use so that fewer including those of the Partnership for a Drug-Free
and fewer children will initiate illicit drug use; America and the Community Anti-Drug Coali-
tions of America. The Action Plan for Reducing
• Support research efforts to develop new knowl- the Demand for Illicit Drugs also includes new
edge about the causes, consequences, preven- opportunities for breaking the cycle of intergener-
tion, and treatment of drug abuse; and ational drug use and promoting the research and
evaluation of a wide spectrum of drug prevention
• Persuade the American people that everyone programs.
must be involved in solving the drug problem
because drug use and its related crimes affect The Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for
everyone. Illicit Drugs emphasizes drug treatment. It views

STRATEGY OVERVIEW
addiction as a chronic, relapsing disorder, with The Action Plan for Enhancing Drug Program
treatment and aftercare as appropriate and prag- Flexibility and Efficiency at the Community Level
matic responses to this disorder. However, treat- addresses ongoing concerns among antidrug grass-
ment alone as a panacea is not promoted. This roots practitioners and national organizations.
Strategy recognizes that drug users’ first step to Included in this plan is a proposal to restructure
recovery is to take personal responsibility for their U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
actions, and this Strategy equally promotes drug programs that provide Federal grant funds to States
prevention programs and the unique capabilities under a new consolidated block grant, which will
of law enforcement officers to reduce drug use and give States and localities maximum flexibility in
its consequences. The Administration will con- designing drug programs to best meet their own
tinue to have a firm response to the irresponsible needs. This Action Plan also seeks to identify and
behaviors of drug users and the predatory activities remove Federal obstacles that impede drug pro-
of drug trafficking organizations and money laun- gram delivery. The Administration will pursue a
dering networks, both here and abroad. “Cut the Red Tape” deregula-
tion campaign to eliminate or
The Action Plan for Reducing Crime, Violence, waive existing regulations to . . . Americans want the
and Drug Availability will make communities better facilitate local service revolving door of criminal
safer through an integrated approach of efforts delivery. In addition, the Feder- justice brought to a halt,
that range from prevention programs to anti- al drug grant application with criminal offenders
money-laundering initiatives. Even the best pre- process will be streamlined with who are drug users
vention programs will fail without effective law the objective of implementing a receiving drug treatment
enforcement efforts, including an increase in the universal grant application. only under the watchful
number of police officers on the beat and interdic- Data collection efforts and the eye of the criminal justice
tion and source country programs to curb the flow dissemination of program effec- system.
of drugs into the United States. Otherwise, neigh- tiveness information will be
borhoods will face a plentiful supply of illicit drugs expanded to help antidrug
that will tempt new people to become users. A efforts at the local level.
large part of prevention is to make sure that chil-
dren are never exposed to drugs, an end which is The Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction
served by international efforts to reduce drug pro- and International Efforts encourages other nations
duction and availability. to take a strong stand against illicit drugs and pro-
motes the inclusion of contingencies within inter-
The Action Plan for Reducing Crime, Violence, national economic agreements to encourage
and Drug Availability highlights strong enforce- efforts by individual nations to combat drug traf-
ment, including tough measures and punishments ficking. It also includes a plan for convening a
for drug offenders. Habitual criminals will be ministerial antidrug summit as a followup to the
identified and dealt with through tough criminal Summit of the Americas, convened by President
justice sanctions. Enhanced linkages between the Clinton in Miami, Florida, in December 1994.
criminal justice and treatment systems will address The objective of all international narcotics con-
the criminal activities of drug-dependent offend- trol efforts supports a basic conviction that drug
ers. And because most convicted criminals are trafficking presents a tangible threat to national
eventually released back into the community, the security and should be universally condemned.
release of illegal drug users will occur only after
they successfully complete drug treatment. In This Strategy recognizes that Americans make a
addition, they will be monitored after release to distinction between drug dealers and drug users
ensure that they remain drug free. If not, a valu- when stating how policies should be developed and
able opportunity to break the drug use and incar- carried out. Recent public opinion polls indicate
ceration cycle will be squandered. that Americans believe that drug dealers deserve

STRATEGY OVERVIEW
tough criminal sanctions and that drug users launderers and prevent the abuse of global finan-
should have the opportunity for intensive treat- cial systems by financial crime perpetrators.
ment to break their dependence on drugs. Further-
more, this Strategy recognizes that Americans want
the revolving door of criminal justice brought to a CONCLUSION
halt, with criminal offenders who are drug users
receiving drug treatment only under the watchful Last year’s Strategy established 14 aggressive goals
eye of the criminal justice system. for achieving the overall aim of reducing drug use
and its consequences. Table 1-1 presents these
This Strategy responds to the fears of many Ameri- goals, which still stand as valid measures of
cans. A recent survey 4 revealed that 4 in 10 progress for this Strategy, and must be achieved if
Americans had taken safety precautions because this Nation is to successfully address its drug-relat-
of the threat of drug-related crime, including mak- ed problems. Chapters V through VIII present the
ing their homes more secure, staying inside at four Action Plans for achieving these goals.
night, and avoiding areas they consider to be These Action Plans are a response to the impas-
unsafe. Drug activity devastates neighborhoods sioned pleas of Americans across the Nation ask-
and fuels a sense of disorder, anger, and distrust ing for help to protect their children, their
among law-abiding residents. neighborhoods, and the Nation. Finally, it must
be understood that while the Federal Government
This Strategy supports comprehensive initiatives has a vital role to play, the problems of drugs and
to make communities safer, including many that violence can best be solved at the local level by
will be facilitated by the Violent Crime Control individual citizens taking individual actions.
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law
103-322, hereafter referred to as the Crime Con-
trol Act). The Crime Control Act prioritizes ENDNOTES
prison space for violent drug offenders and pro-
1
vides for the addition of 100,000 police officers in Casual drug users use illicit drugs once per month or less
communities across the country. In addition, the and have yet to cross the line into drug dependency.
Crime Control Act expands drugs courts to reduce 2
Chronic, hardcore drug users are addicted drug users who
the drug use and criminality of crime-committing consume illicit drugs at least on a weekly basis and exhib-
addicts. These initiatives will be further support- it behavioral problems stemming from their drug use.
ed by a “Break the Drug Use Cycle” pilot program 3
(modeled after the concept behind the prototype Relapse is not a failure as long as it occurs within a broad
continuum of drug abuse treatment that immediately reg-
Washington/Baltimore High Intensity Drug Traf-
isters the relapse, assesses the need for modification or
ficking Area Program) to help law enforcement intensification of the treatment regimen, and implements
officials work hand in hand with prevention and a seamless response to the relapse and the ongoing need
treatment authorities in select communities. for treatment. Relapse is a failure only when there is no
Finally, to attack drug traffickers and their hierar- timely, appropriate treatment system response to that
chies, the cooperation of the financial services relapse.
community will be enlisted to identify drug money 4
Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Survey of Adults, Feb-
ruary 2-3, 1994.

STRATEGY OVERVIEW
Table 1-1
Goals of the 1995 National Drug Control Strategy
OVERARCHING GOAL
Goal 1: Reduce the number of drug users in America.
DEMAND REDUCTION GOALS
Goal 2: Expand treatment capacity and services and increase treatment effectiveness so
that those who need treatment can receive it. Target intensive treatment services
for hardcore drug-using populations and special populations, including adults and
adolescents in custody or under the supervision of the criminal justice system,
pregnant women, and women with dependent children.
Goal 3: Reduce the burden on the health care system by reducing the spread of infectious
disease related to drug use.
Goal 4: Assist local communities in developing effective prevention programs.
Goal 5: Create safe and healthy environments in which children and adolescents can live,
grow, learn, and develop.
Goal 6: Reduce the use of alcohol and tobacco products among underage youth.
Goal 7: Increase workplace safety and productivity by reducing drug use in the workplace.
Goal 8: Strengthen linkages among the prevention, treatment, and criminal justice
communities and other supportive social services, such as employment and
training services.
DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT GOALS

Goal 9: Reduce domestic drug-related crime and violence.
Goal 10: Reduce all domestic drug production and availability, and continue to target for
investigation and prosecution those who illegally import, manufacture, and
distribute dangerous drugs and who illegally divert pharmaceuticals and listed
chemicals.
Goal 11: Improve the efficiency of Federal drug law enforcement capabilities, including
interdiction and intelligence programs.
INTERNATIONAL GOALS
Goal 12: Strengthen international cooperation against narcotics production, trafficking, and
use.
Goal 13: Assist other nations to develop and implement comprehensive counternarcotics
policies that strengthen democratic institutions, destroy narcotrafficking
organizations, and interdict narcotrafficking in both the source and
transit countries.
Goal 14: Support, implement, and lead more successful enforcement efforts to increase the
costs and risks to narcotics producers and traffickers to reduce the supply of illicit
drugs to the United States.

II. Drug Use in America
he news is not good. Even though total Today, there is increasing evidence of two disturb-
T
casual use remains stable, more kids are ing trends. First, rates of illicit drug use are rising
using drugs than last year, especially more among the Nation’s youth and second, rates of
marijuana. Simplistic prevention mes- heroin use are increasing, particularly because
sages of the past appear not to work for existing drug users are adding heroin to the list of
today’s young people. drugs they consume. In addition, there are new
users of heroin, many of them youth. The increase
Crack cocaine users, burned out on the drug’s stimu- of drug use among youth threatens previous
lating effects, are turning to opiates. Heroin dealers progress made against casual drug use and ulti-
are luring them, as well as first-time drug users, by mately could lead to an upsurge in the number of
packaging the drug for snorting and smoking. Hard- chronic, hardcore drug users and the problems
core drug users are continuing to commit crimes, drive they create. This chapter discusses these trends
health care costs upward, and give dealers more rea- and the evidence that supports them.
sons to fight over drug market turf, often with violent
and terrible consequences.
CASUAL DRUG USE
Even though there is less casual drug use today than in
years past, the increase in use among the nation’s According to the 1993 National Household Sur-
youth adds another ingredient to the volatile mix of vey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), more than 77 mil-
drug trends that already threaten the Nation’s stability. lion people reported that they had used illicit
Increasing rates of drug use among young people, cou- drugs at some time during their lives. Almost 70
pled with the continuation of hardcore drug use, pre- million of these people reported using marijuana,
sent a challenge that, if unmet, will severely 23 million had tried cocaine, 4 million had tried
undermine the gains made by working class Americans crack-cocaine, 18 million had tried hallucinogens,
in recent years. and more than 2 million had tried heroin. Figure
2-1 shows that in 1993, 37.2 percent of the civil-
ian noninstitutionalized population ages 12 and
Illicit drug use continues to be one of the Nation’s older reported illicit drug use in their lifetimes.
most serious problems. Although considerable Almost 11.8 percent reported using illicit drugs
progress has been made in reducing the number of within the past year, and 5.6 percent reported
casual drug users, much remains to be done to using illicit drugs within the past month.1
reduce the number of chronic, hardcore drug
users. Compared with the casual drug user, the Marijuana was the most frequently used illicit
chronic, hardcore drug user consumes substantial- drug, with 33.7 percent of the civilian noninstitu-
ly more drugs and is responsible for the preponder- tionalized population reporting its use some time
ance of crime and other negative social during their lives. Nine percent reported marijua-
consequences. na use within the past year, and 4.3 percent

DRUG USE IN AMERICA
Figure 2-1
Percentages of Individuals in Households Reporting Lifetime, Past
Year, and Past Month Use of Illicit Drugs, 1993
0.0
Heroin 0.1
1.1
0.2
Hallucinogens 1.2
8.7
0.6
Cocaine 2.2
11.3
4.3
Marijuana 9.0
33.7
5.6
Any Illicit Drug 11.8
37.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Percentage
Lifetime Past Year Past Month
Source: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, 1993
reported use within the past month. Marijuana Cocaine was the next most frequently used illicit
use is considered problematic because it long has drug, with 11.3 percent of the civilian noninstitu-
been considered a gateway drug. Like alcohol and tionalized population reporting its use within their
tobacco, marijuana use can lead to the use of lifetimes. Past-year use of cocaine was 2.2 per-
stronger drugs such as cocaine and heroin.2 Fur- cent, and past-month use was 0.6 percent. It is
thermore, the National Institute on Drug Abuse important to note that the actual use of these
reports that marijuana use interferes with short- drugs by the total U.S. population is probably
term memory, learning, and motor skills perfor- higher, both because survey respondents underre-
mance. There also is the evidence that regular port drug use and because chronic, hardcore drug
marijuana smoking harms the pulmonary function. users probably are not well represented in drug

DRUG USE IN AMERICA
prevalence surveys. 3 The Office of National Drug 22.3 million users in 1985 to 11.7 million users in
Control Policy’s (ONDCP’s) most recent Pulse 1993. A decline in marijuana use that began after
Check 4 for the quarter ending December 1994 1979 accounts for most of this success. The total
reports cocaine use and availability have stabilized number of current marijuana users has declined
in most areas of the country. However, cocaine, from 22.5 million users in 1979 to 9 million users
especially crack-cocaine, continues to be in high in 1993. During that same period, current cocaine
demand throughout the country, and in some areas, use declined from 4.2 million to 1.3 million.
cocaine use is reported to be on the rise. Although this long-term trend is encouraging, the
results from the 1993 NHSDA suggest that the
Figure 2-2 shows that since 1985, past-month use general decline may have ended. No significant
of illicit drugs has declined significantly. The changes in illicit drug use, up or down, were
total number of individuals from the NHSDA reported in 1993, compared with 1992. The net
reporting current illicit drug use declined from effect is that current drug use appears to have sta-
bilized in the general population during 1993.
Figure 2-2
Past Month Use of Any Illicit Drugs, Marijuana/Hashish, and Cocaine,
1979-93
25
20
Millions of Users
15
10
0
1979 1982 1985 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993
Year
Any Illicit Drugs Cocaine Marijuana
Source: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1979-91,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1992-93

DRUG USE IN AMERICA
However, as mentioned in this chapter’s outset, this country cannot be achieved without targeting
illicit drug use by adolescents is increasing. the chronic, hardcore-drug-using population with
intensified programmatic efforts.
HARDCORE DRUG USE

EMERGING DRUG USE TRENDS
Currently, national surveys such as the NHSDA
are limited in their ability to accurately estimate As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, two
the number of chronic, hardcore users of illicit alarming trends are emerging. Of greatest concern
drugs. 5 In an effort to gain needed knowledge are the trend indicating the increase in adolescent
about this population, ONDCP has initiated a drug use and the changes in young people’s atti-
major 2-year research project, the Hardcore User tudes about the dangers of illicit drug use and the
Survey Pilot Study. This project will test the effi- acceptability of such use. Use of marijuana shows
cacy of a new methodology to derive estimates of the most increase, and while other illicit drugs do
the number of hardcore drug users, using an appli- not yet appear to be following the same track, mari-
cation of mathematical models that represent the juana often is a gateway to other drugs, such as
processes by which people who use drugs make cocaine and heroin, both of which are readily avail-
contact with various elements able on the streets of the Nation’s cities.
of the criminal justice, drug
Of greatest concern are treatment, and health care sys- Adolescent Drug Use
the trend indicating the tems. The study is being con-
increase in adolescent ducted in Cook County, Antidrug messages are losing their potency among
drug use and the Illinois, and the results of the the Nation’s youth. Drug use surveys report that
changes in young test phase should be available adolescents may be increasing their use of illicit
people’s attitudes about by the fall of 1995. drugs, particularly marijuana and hallucinogens.
the dangers of illicit drug Figures 2-4 through 2-7 show drug use trends
use and the acceptability Until the results of the Hardcore among the adolescent population. The data are
of such use. User Survey Pilot Study are from the 1994 Monitoring the Future (MTF)
available, ONDCP is estimating study, which provides information on drug use
the size of this drug user population by using a sta- trends and patterns by students in the 8th, 10th,
tistical estimation technique using data drawn from and 12th grades. The 1991 MTF study found evi-
several sources.6 The results indicated by this dence that attitudes against regular use of marijua-
method suggest that the numbers of hardcore drug na were weakening among youth.7 This attitude
users of cocaine and heroin have remained relative- change was followed by an increase in reported
ly unchanged since 1988, and the total population drug use in the 1992 MTF study, a trend that is
of chronic, hardcore drug users was 2.7 million in continuing into the present. For the second year
1993—with about 2.1 million people using primari- in a row, past-month use of marijuana as well as of
ly cocaine and 600,000 using primarily heroin. other drugs such as stimulants, hallucinogens, and
inhalants continued to increase among this partic-
Chronic, hardcore drug users continue to be ular population. 8 The 1994 MTF study reported
responsible for the bulk of illicit drug consump- that lifetime, annual, and 30-day prevalence of
tion in America today. Figure 2-3 illustrates the drug use increased between 1993 and 1994 for 8th,
disproportionate amount of drugs they consume. 10th, and 12th grade students. Findings concern-
For example, chronic users—only 20 percent of ing drug use include the following:
the drug-using population—consume about two-
thirds of the total amount of cocaine in this coun- • Lifetime, annual, 30-day, and daily use of mari-
try. The large amount of cocaine consumed by a juana increased significantly for 8th, 10th, and
minority of users makes one thing clear: The goal 12th grade students between 1993 and 1994.
of reducing the overall rates of illicit drug use in

DRUG USE IN AMERICA
Figure 2-3
Annual U.S. Consumption of Cocaine by Type of User, 1972-92
350
300
Metric Tons of Pure Cocaine
250
200
150
100
50
0
72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
Year 1972-92
Hardcore User Casual User
Source: Modeling the Demand for Cocaine, RAND Corporation, 1994
• Annual use of LSD (lysergic acid diethy- The 1994 MTF study also reported a further dete-
lamide) increased significantly for 10th grade rioration in attitudes about and perceptions of
students between 1993 and 1994. risks associated with drug use. Trends in perceived
harmfulness of drugs—defined by the percentage
• Lifetime, annual, and 30-day use of cocaine of students saying there was “great risk” associated
powder increased significantly for 8th grade with drug use—showed declines in many areas.
students between 1993 and 1994. Cocaine Findings concerning attitudes about the harmful-
powder use also increased significantly for 10th ness of drug use include the following:
graders for reported lifetime and annual use.
Crack-cocaine showed a similar pattern, except • Eighth and 10th grade students reported statis-
for the 10th grade students, who reported sig- tically significant declines in marijuana’s per-
nificant increases in annual use only. ceived harmfulness.
• The prevalence of other drug use (e.g., stimu- • Eighth and 10th grade students reported statis-
lants and inhalants) increased between 1993 tically significant declines in LSD’s perceived
and 1994. However, these increases were not harmfulness.
statistically significant.

DRUG USE IN AMERICA
Figure 2-4
Past Month Use of Marijuana Among 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders,
1991-94
20
18
16
14
12
Percent
10
0
1991 1992 1993 1994
Year
8th Grade 10th Grade 12th Grade
Source: Monitoring the Future Study, Institute for Social Research, University of MIchigan, 1991-94
• Eighth grade students reported statistically sig- • Tenth and 12th grade students reported signifi-
nificant declines in the perceived harmfulness cant declines in disapproval rates for those stu-
of cocaine powder and crack-cocaine use. dents who use LSD once or twice.
Twelfth grade students perceived cocaine use to
be more harmful, but the increase was not sta- • Eighth and 10th grade students reported signif-
tistically significant. icant declines in disapproval rates for students
who use crack-cocaine or cocaine powder.
Trends in disapproval of drug use, as defined by stu-
dents saying they “disapprove” or “strongly disap- The 1993 NHSDA confirmed the decreases in
prove” of people who use drugs, also showed disapproval rates for those within the 12 to 17 age
deterioration; these findings include the following: bracket. The national Parent Resource Institute
for Drug Education (PRIDE) survey, another sur-
• Eighth, 10th, and 12th grade students reported vey of students, also reported a similar trend in its
significant declines in disapproval rates for stu- review of drug use within selected school systems
dents who use marijuana. for the school years 1992-93 and 1993-94.9

DRUG USE IN AMERICA
Figure 2-5
Past Month Use of Stimulants Among 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders,
1991-94
4.5
3.5
3
Percent
2.5
1.5
0.5
1991 1992 1993 1994

Year
Upsurges in illicit drug use among adolescents are • Ninety percent of youth (ages 12 to 17) and
linked to their use of alcohol and tobacco. The adults who used marijuana had first smoked
Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at cigarettes or drank alcohol.
Columbia University performed a study that
found evidence to suggest a consistent statistical • Youth who used the gateway drugs (alcohol,
relationship between adolescents smoking tobac- tobacco, and marijuana) were 266 times more
co cigarettes and drinking alcohol and their subse- likely to use cocaine than were youth who had
quent smoking of marijuana, and between never used a gateway drug.
adolescent use of cigarettes, alcohol, and marijua-
na and their subsequent use of illicit drugs such as Unless the increased marijuana use by the
cocaine and heroin.10 The study includes the fol- Nation’s youth is reversed, it is likely that new,
lowing findings: younger users will progress into more severe and
debilitating drug use. ONDCP’s Pulse Check, a
• Eighty-nine percent of those who tried cocaine quarterly research report on trends in drug abuse
had first used alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana. as observed by drug ethnographers, epidemiolo-

DRUG USE IN AMERICA
Figure 2-6
Past Month Use of LSD Among 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders, 1991-94
2.5
2
Percent
1.5
0.5
0
1991 1992 1993 1994
Year
gists, treatment providers, and police, has noted illicit drug use. There is no systematic evidence
the beginnings of this process. that this is the case with heroin, even though
ONDCP’s Pulse Check is reporting an increasing
Heroin Consumption number of new initiates into heroin use in some
areas. New users are of particular concern,
The increased availability of heroin has the because they tend to instigate drug use among
potential to attract new users who have forgotten their friends and peers. New users, especially
or ignored the messages about heroin’s addictive those in their first year of use, are more likely to
properties. As long as heroin continues to be get others to use drugs because they have not
inexpensive, abundant, and highly potent, there is begun to suffer the health and legal consequences
a threat of increasing rates of heroin use, or even of their drug use. Long-term users, especially
another heroin epidemic.11 chronic, hardcore drug users, are the least likely to
initiate new users into illicit drug use.12
The strongest sign of an epidemic is the entry of a
large number of new users (new initiates) into

DRUG USE IN AMERICA
Figure 2-7
Past Month Use of Inhalants Among 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders,
1991-94
4
Percent
0
1991 1992 1993 1994
Year

There are clear indications that heroin consump- of the country in which high-purity heroin is read-
tion is increasing, especially among existing hero- ily available, primarily in the northeastern United
in users (i.e., the amount consumed per user is States.
going up). This trend is normal among older,
long-term heroin users and can explain some con- The Pulse Check has been the most useful source of
sumption rate increases. However, heroin use also information about current heroin use trends. It
is on the rise among drug users whose prime drug has reported that heroin use nationwide is still low
of abuse is not heroin. The heroin-cocaine link is but is increasing. Heroin use is generally higher in
especially strong for long-term cocaine users, par- most areas of the Northeast and Midwest then in
ticularly long-term crack-cocaine users. These portions of the South and West. The majority of
users often move into combined use with heroin heroin users are reported to be in their 30s or
because they find that it softens the impact of the older, and they inject the drug. Also, an increas-
“crash” that often follows a crack-cocaine binge. ing number of adolescents and young adults now
Furthermore, evidence suggests that heroin snort- are beginning to use heroin, and some are shifting
ing has become more commonplace in those areas from inhaling to injecting the drug. Heroin deal-

DRUG USE IN AMERICA
ers are trying to encourage this trend by packaging tive on Adolescent Drug Use.” Paper presented at the
heroin for those who inject and for those who Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminolo-
gy, November 9-12, 1994, Miami, FL.
inhale in different ways. In some areas, heroin
dealers have begun tempting new users by first 2
Califano, J. Cigarette, Alcohol, Marijuana: Gateways to
offering the drug processed for smoking rather than Illicit Drug Use. Columbia University Center on Addic-
injecting. Throughout the country, treatment tion and Substance Abuse. New York: October 1994.
providers are reporting an increase in persons seek- 3
ing treatment for heroin, with most new clients Drug Use Measurement: Strengths, Limitations, and Recom-
mendations for Improvements. United States General
being males older than 30 years of age who inject Accounting Office, Report to the Chairman, Committee
the drug. on Government Operations, House of Representatives,
June 1993. (GAO/PEMD-93-18)
The observations of the Pulse Check are supported 4
by another ONDCP report, Tracking the Incidence ONDCP’s Pulse Check is a quarterly report that summa-
rizes and reports on the observations of street ethnogra-
of Heroin Use, which found evidence of increased
phers, police officials, and treatment providers. It
heroin use among the same populations. 13 provides the only source of current, subjective informa-
ONDCP will monitor the hero- tion on drug use and availability. This information is in
in situation closely to ensure contrast with the comparatively out-of-date, objective
that it appropriately responds to profiles provided by drug surveys. Pulse Check data are
Nearly all illicit drug intended to complement, not substitute for, traditional
any signs that the situation is
users continue to data sources. The value of Pulse Check lies in its timeli-
worsening.14
combine alcohol with ness. Information for the end of a particular quarter is
other drugs. The most available for use by policymakers within 30 days.
Emerging Drug Use Trends
recent Pulse Check 5
Existing prevalence surveys tend to produce unreliable
found that nationwide, estimates for this user population of chronic, hardcore
The Pulse Check has reported
hallucinogens and drug user. For many reasons, chronic, hardcore drug users
that the use of other illicit drugs
amphetamines are now are difficult to locate and contact for interviews. Even if
also is on the rise in certain they are located and interviewed, a large portion of hard-
the most common among
areas of the country. Hallu- core drug users often are involved in significant criminal
emerging drugs.
cinogens are increasingly popu- activity and are prone to denial as a defensive technique,
lar in some cities, including so they tend to downplay all of their negative behaviors,
Atlanta and New York. In other cities—including including drug use.
San Francisco, Denver, and Los Angeles—there 6
For a discussion of the methodology used to estimate the
are reports that amphetamine use, especially in number of hardcore users of cocaine and heroin, see the
combination with other drugs, is becoming a sig- report by Abt Associates, Inc., What America’s Users
nificant problem. In Florida and Texas, teenagers Spend on Illegal Drugs, 1981-1991, prepared under con-
and college students are reported to be using tract to ONDCP, July 1993.
ephedrine, a chemical precursor of amphetamine 7
The 1991 MTF survey reported that the percentage of
and a component of over-the-counter cold med- students disapproving of regular marijuana use declined
ications. It is often taken as a substitute for from the previous year, reversing a 13-year trend.
amphetamines, and its use could presage an
8
increase in amphetamine use. Nearly all illicit The Pulse Check also reports marijuana use is on the rise,
drug users continue to combine alcohol with other particularly among teenagers and persons in their early
twenties. Use is reported to be on the rise everywhere in
drugs. The most recent Pulse Check found that the country. Most users are young, but marijuana also is
nationwide, hallucinogens and amphetamines are being used by older heroin and cocaine users. Individuals
now the most common among emerging drugs. seeking treatment generally consider marijuana to be a
secondary drug to alcohol and other drugs. However,
users seeking treatment in many areas of the country have
begun to indicate that they have problems with marijua-
ENDNOTES
na on its own.
1 9
For a long-term perspective of trends in drug use, see Har- Each school year, PRIDE, a private national drug preven-
rison, L., and Kopstein, A. “A Twenty-Plus Year Perspec- tion organization based in Atlanta, GA, interviews more

DRUG USE IN AMERICA
than 200,000 junior high and high school students about 12

For more discussion about the conditions for a heroin epi-
the use and availability of drugs and alcohol. Although demic, see BOTEC Analysis Corp.’s “Heroin Situation
the data are not nationally representative, the informa- Assessment, a report prepared for the Office of National
tion collected by PRIDE provides much insight into drug Drug Control Policy, January 1992.
use patterns and trends among the Nation’s youth.
13
10 Hunt, D., and Rhodes, W. Tracking the Incidence of Hero-
Califano, J. Cigarette, Alcohol, Marijuana: Gateways to in Use. Abt Associates, Inc., 1993.
Illicit Drug Use. Columbia University Center on Addic-
tion and Substance Abuse. New York: October 1994. 14
ONDCP is reviewing the heroin situation and developing
11 a new heroin strategy. For more discussion, refer to Chap-
In general, national prevalence surveys are of little value ter VIII, “Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction and
in exposing the nature and extent of heroin use in the International Efforts.”
United States. The 1993 NHSDA reported a decline in
the number of past-month users, but the decline was not
judged to be statistically significant.

III. Drug Use and Its
Consequences
rugs = Crime = Violence = Health Costs related costs. Research has shown that drug users,
D
= Chronic, Hardcore Addicts = Drugs. especially those who are most severely addicted,
The math is simple. The cost is unac- are responsible for many of these crimes. Further-
ceptable. A close look at the serious con- more, the expense of building new jails and pris-
sequences of drug use makes one thing ons adds to this estimate because the bulk of the
clear: America cannot afford to not incarcerated population growth stems from drug
treat the chronic, hardcore drug-using population. law violations. A large percentage of the increase
in drug-related homicides, especially among
The revolving door of criminal justice must be brought youth, is also related to drug use and drug traffick-
to a halt. Too many people move through the insidious ing. Any reasonable strategy aimed at reducing
cycle of drug use-crime-imprisonment-release-drug the crime, violence, and health consequences
use. Neighborhoods can’t take anymore. Neither can related to drug use must include steps to address
the children. Drug use clouds the mind and poisons the full range of problems associated with chronic,
the spirit. The cycle must be broken. Working fami- hardcore drug use.
lies must regain their communities so they can live
without fear or threat to their security.
DRUGS, CRIME, AND VIOLENCE
The heavy toll drug use exacts on the United Nowhere are the consequences of illicit drug use
States is most easily measured by the criminal and and drug trafficking more visible than in the mag-
medical costs imposed on and paid for by the nitude and pattern of drug-related violence.
Nation’s taxpaying citizens. One estimate places Nationally, the number of drug-related murders
the total cost of drug use at $67 billion.1 Almost has risen steadily since the mid-1980s, peaking at
70 percent of this is attributable to the costs of 7.4 percent of all murders in 1989 (see Table 3-1).
crimes; the remainder reflects medical and death- Since then the rate has declined to 5.2 percent of
Table 3-1. Drug-Related Murders: United States, 1986-93

1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Total murders 19,257 17,963 17,971 18,954 20,273 21,676 22,540 24,526
Murder related to
narcotic drugs laws 751 880 1,006 1,403 1,358 1,344 1,285 1,287
Percent of all murders 3.9 4.9 5.6 7.4 6.7 6.2 5.7 5.2
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Drug and Crime Facts, 1993-1994.

DRUG USE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
all murders, but this level of drug-related violence than are students who do not engage in these
still is unacceptable. behaviors. In addition, the study found the fol-
lowing:
More troubling is the change in the age-specific
pattern for murders during this period. A recent • A relationship exists between cocaine use and
study on youth, violence, and the illicit drug violence. Of the students surveyed, 4.3 percent
industry identified two major changes that have of those in junior high school and 7.4 percent
occurred between 1985 and 1992.2 Age-specific of those in high school reported that they car-
statistics indicate the following: ried guns to school. Of those in high school
who reported having carried guns to school, 31
• The number of homicides committed by youth percent used cocaine; of those who never car-
ages 18 and younger has more than doubled, ried guns to school, only 2 percent used
while there has been no growth in homicide cocaine. The same relationship was found
rates by adults ages 24 and older. among junior high school students: 27 percent
of those who had carried guns to school report-
• The number of homicides committed by juve- ed using cocaine, whereas less than 1 percent of
niles involving guns has more than doubled, those who never carried guns to school report-
while there has been no change in the number ed using cocaine.
of homicides committed by juveniles not
involving guns. • An ever stronger relationship exists between
marijuana use and violence. For high school
The study speculates that these changes may students, 66 percent of those who had carried
relate to the nature of illegal drug markets, the guns to school used marijuana. For junior high
predatory practices of drug dealers, and the inabil- school students, 56 percent of those who had
ity of the juvenile justice system carried guns to school used marijuana.
to adequately deal with violent
The most recent PRIDE juvenile offenders. The study • Marijuana and cocaine use and gang activity
survey demonstrated notes with particular concern also were highly related. Fourteen percent of
strong supporting the practice of drug dealers high school students and 15 percent of junior
evidence for a link actively recruiting juveniles high school students claimed to have partici-
between drug use and and arming them with guns pated in some type of gang activity. Nineteen
violent crime among the because they are not subject to percent of those in gangs reported cocaine use,
Nation’s youth. the same criminal penalties as compared with 2 percent of those who were not
older individuals. This practice in gangs.
in large part is responsible for
today’s high levels of drug-related violence among Drugs, drug use, and crime are inextricably linked,
juveniles. and progress in reducing drug use will have a
direct and positive impact on reducing criminal
The Parent Resource Institute for Drug Education activity. Drug users often commit criminal offens-
(PRIDE) has investigated the correlation between es such as theft and prostitution to support an
violent behavior and the use of various drugs. The existing drug habit. There also is a certain
most recent PRIDE survey demonstrated strong amount of violence associated with the drug mar-
supporting evidence for a link between drug use ket, both violence from the effects of the drugs,
and violent crime among the Nation’s youth (see such as cocaine-induced psychosis, and violence
Figures 3-1 and 3-2).3 The survey reported that between rural distributors competing for market
students who bring guns to school, participate in advantage. Of those incarcerated for violent
gang activities, threaten a teacher or another stu- offenses in Federal and State prisons in 1991, 55
dent at school, contemplate suicide, or are in trou- percent of Federal inmates and 57 percent of State
ble with the police, are more likely to use drugs inmates reported regular use of an illicit drug at

Figure 3-1
Use of Liquor and Marijuana Among 6th-8th Graders According to
Engagement in Violent Behavior, 1993-94
70 66.6
Liquor
60
52.0 51.6
50 47.2
Percent Using Liquor
40.5
40
30
20 19.0 18.8
15.7
14.0
12.4
10
0
Carrying Taking Part Thinking Threatening Getting in
a Gun to in Gang of Suicide to Harm Trouble
School Activities Often/ Another With
a Lot Person Police
60
56.2
Marijuana
50
Percent Using Marijuana
40
31.9
29.9
30 28.2
19.8
20
10 6.8
6.2
4.3 3.3 3.1
0
a Lot Person Police
Engaged in Behavior Never Engaged in Behavior*
* For “Thinking of Suicide Often/A Lot,” the responses are never, seldom, and some.
Source: 1993-94 PRIDE USA Survey

Figure 3-2
Use of Liquor and Marijuana Among 9th-12th Graders According to
Engagement in Violent Behavior, 1993-94
90
80.2 Liquor
80 77.2
75.3
73.0
69.5
70
Percent Using Liquor
60
48.6 49.1
50 46.7
41.0 41.9
40
30
20
10
0
a Lot Person Police
70 66.2
Marijuana
60 57.2
51.8
49.8
Percent Using Marijuana
50
41.9
40
30
21.5 22.8
19.6
20
15.6 14.8
10
0
a Lot Person Police
Engaged in Behavior Never Engaged in Behavior*
* For “Thinking of Suicide Often/A Lot,” the responses are never, seldom, and some.
Source: 1993-94 PRIDE USA Survey

some point in the past. One-quarter of inmates in automobile accident tested positive for
prison for violent offenses committed the offenses cocaine.8
while under the influence of drugs. Many of these
inmates reported commiting crimes to obtain • Almost 60 percent of reckless-driving arrestees
money for drugs.4 in Memphis, Tennessee, who were not under
the influence of alcohol tested positive for illic-
The National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ’s) Drug it drugs—33 percent for marijuana, 13 percent
Use Forecasting (DUF) program also has demon- for cocaine, and 12 percent for both drugs. Of
strated the strength of the drug–crime relation- those who were intoxicated, 85 percent also
ship.5 The DUF program assesses drug use among tested positive for marijuana and cocaine.9
those arrested and charged with crimes by taking
urine specimens from a sample of arrested individ- To reduce the rate of criminal
uals and testing the specimens for the presence of activity associated with chron- One-quarter of inmates in
10 drugs. In 1993 the 23 DUF sites around the ic, hardcore drug use, the prison for violent
Nation reported that more than 50 percent of Nation must address the prob- offenses committed the
arrestees tested positive for an illicit substance. 6 lems of the chronic, hardcore offenses while under the
Among the sites, positive tests for cocaine ranged user. The fastest and most cost- influence of drugs. Many
from 19 to 66 percent in males and from 19 to 70 effective way to accomplish of these inmates
percent in females. Tests showed that heroin and this objective is to force more reported committing
opiate use ranged from 1 to 28 percent for males chronic, hardcore drug users crimes to obtain money
and from 3 to 23 percent for females. Not surpris- into treatment.10 for drugs.
ingly, the DUF sites that experienced the highest
rates of drug prevalence are located in cities with
high crime rates. DRUG ARRESTS
An independent study by the National Institute The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported an
on Drug Abuse (NIDA) also presents data on the estimated 1,126,300 total arrests for drug law vio-
extent of illegal activity among drug users.7 Figure lations in the United States in 1993. These
3-3 indicates a high incidence of criminal activity offenders are straining the criminal justice system
among drug users who are not in treatment. and in some instances taking up prison space that
Approximately one-half of the respondents in the is needed to incarcerate violent offenders. Table
study reported legal sources of income, but one- 3-2 shows that this is below the peak level of
half also reported illegal sources. Of those report- arrests of 1,361,700 in 1989; however, it should be
ing legal income, 38 percent reported receiving noted that arrests in 1993 represent the second
support from family and friends, 46 percent report- highest level on record. Arrests for drug offenses
ed some work-related income, and 47 percent accounted for 8 percent of all arrests nationwide.
reported that they derived income from public
assistance. Of those reporting illegal sources of The growth in the number of persons arrested for
income, 42 percent reported drug-related income, drug law violations is the principal reason for the
30 percent reported income from property crime, growth in the prison population. In turn, the
and 23 percent reported income from prostitution. increase in the number of persons arrested for drug
law violations reflects increasingly stringent drug
The following study findings indicate the key role laws, and in particular, the enforcement of manda-
drug use plays in the total number of accidental tory minimum sentences. According to the
deaths due to driving under the influence of alco- Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics
hol and other drugs each year: (BJS), in 1994 the Nation’s Federal and State
prison population exceeded 1 million for the first
• From January 1988 through July 1989, 18.2 time in history.11 At the end of June 1994, State
percent of the 643 New York City drivers who prisons held 919,143 inmates, and Federal prisons
died within 48 hours of being involved in an held 93,708 inmates.

Figure 3-3
Income Amounts,1,2,3 Past 30 Days (N=1,154)
Legal Both Legal Illegal No

Only and Illegal Only Income
46% 42% 10% 2%
Any Legal Any Illegal
88% 52%
(N=1,020) (N=600)
LEGAL SOURCES:
MEDIAN INCOME AMOUNTS (past month)
(of those with any legal income)
Total Sample:
Public assistance 47%
Paid job, salary, self-employment 46% Median legal income $320
Family, friends 38% Median illegal income $35
Social Security, disability 13% Median total income $630
Unemployment 2%
Of Those Reporting Illegal Income:

ILLEGAL SOURCES:
Median legal income $280
(of those with any illegal income)
Median illegal income $448
Drug-related 42% Median total income $900
(Median amount of drug-related
income, $450)
Property crimes 30% 1
All percentages are adjusted for missing respons-
(Median amount of property crime es due to recall or refusal.
2
income, $450) “Paid job, salary, self-employment” may include
Commercial sex 42% hustling or day work paid in cash; not all of this
(Median amount of commercial sex income is likely to be legal.
3
income, $300) Due to skewed distributions for income amounts,
median legal and illegal income do not add to
Violent crimes 2% median total income.
DRUGS AND HEALTH room (ER) episodes were reported to the Drug
Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) 12 in 1993.
The health costs of drug use are growing quickly, The rate of drug-related ER episodes per 100,000
especially as an increasing number of chronic, of the total U.S. population increased 22 percent,
hardcore drug users seek medical attention for from 167 in 1990 to 204 in 1993. Nearly one-half
health problems relating to their long-term drug of all episodes involved the use of two or more
use. Nowhere is this growth in health costs more drugs. The increase in cocaine-related ER
clearly visible than in the Nation’s hospitals. For episodes is the principal reason for increased total
example, 466,900 drug-related hospital emergency drug-related ER episodes from 1985 though 1993

Table 3-2. Drug-Related Arrests: United States, 1988-93

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Total arrests 13,812,300 14,340,900 14,195,100 14,211,900 14,075,100 14,036,300
Drug-related arrests 1,155,200 1,361,700 1,089,500 1,010,000 1,066,400 1,126,300
Percent of all arrests 8.4 9.5 7.7 7.1 7.6 8.0
Source: National Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1988-93.
(except for 1990). The percentage of drug-related related episodes will continue to increase as
ER episodes caused by cocaine use increased from long as chronic, hardcore heroin use continues
1 percent in 1978 to 26 percent in 1993. During unabated.
the same period, heroin-related ER episodes
increased from 4 to 13 percent of total drug-relat- DAWN reports that the strong upward trend in
ed ER episodes. cocaine-related ER episodes has stabilized, but the
episodes remain at record levels. For example, an
A drug-related hospital ER episode represents a estimated 123,300 cocaine-related episodes were
valuable opportunity for referring drug abusers to reported in 1993. DAWN reports the following
appropriate treatment programs. Unfortunately, findings:
the present lack of drug treatment capacity pre-
vents inpatient hospital services from helping drug • In 1993, 43 percent of cocaine-related episodes
users in their care and making referrals to treat- occurred among individuals between the ages
ment facilities. ERs across the Nation are bur- of 26 and 34.
dened with these types of medical cases. This issue
is discussed in more detail later in this chapter. • “Seeking detoxification” The health costs of drug
was the most commonly use are growing quickly,
Figure 3-4 shows that in 1993 the most frequently cited reason for an emer- especially as an
cited reason for a drug-related ER visit was “over- gency department visit by increasing number of
dose,” accounting for 53 percent of all drug-relat- cocaine users, followed by chronic, hardcore drug
ed ER episodes. “Unexpected reaction” and “unexpected reaction” and users seek medical
“chronic effects” were the next most frequently “chronic effects.” attention for health
cited reasons. Figure 3-5 shows recent trends in problems relating to their
heroin and cocaine ER episodes. Heroin-related • Since 1990 the number of long-term drug use.
episodes have been increasing steadily since the cocaine-related ER episodes
early 1980s, and they reached their highest level for those older than 35 years
in 1993. DAWN study findings for heroin-related has more than doubled. As is the case for hero-
ER episodes include the following: in, it appears that prolonged cocaine use has an
adverse effect on the health of its users.
• In 1993, 41 percent of heroin-related episodes
occurred among individuals between the ages The number of marijuana-related ER episodes has
of 34 and 44. Heroin episodes have more than increased rapidly in recent years. Total episodes
doubled for this age group since 1988. rose from 20,000 in 1990 to 29,200 in 1993—a 46-
percent increase. Marijuana was likely to be men-
• An analysis of the heroin data13 suggests that tioned in combination with other drugs,
the record number of cases of heroin-related particularly alcohol and cocaine. In 1993 alcohol
ER episodes could be the result of the cumula- and cocaine were mentioned in 50 percent of mar-
tive adverse health effects of prolonged heroin ijuana-related episodes; only 20 percent of mari-
use. The analysis also suggests that heroin- juana episodes involved marijuana alone.

Figure 3-4
Reason for Emergency Room Contact, 1993
Other/Unknown Reasons
12%
Withdrawal
2%
Seeking Detox
10%
Overdose
53%
Chronic Effects
11%
Unexpected Reactions
12%
Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1993
A strong linkage exists between certain diseases TARGETING CHRONIC, HARDCORE

and illicit intravenous (IV) drug use; this type of DRUG USE
drug use and the behaviors related to it harm users
mostly by exposing them to HIV (Human Immun- Chronic, hardcore drug use is clearly related to the
odeficiency Virus), hepatitis, high levels of crime, health problems, and vio-
and other diseases. However, lence in cities, towns, and neighborhoods across
A drug-related hospital chronic, hardcore drug users the Nation. This Strategy’s immediate priority,
ER episode represents a also exhibit high-risk sexual therefore, is to target the problems created by this
valuable opportunity for behaviors that are associated population of drug users. The following evidence
referring drug abusers to with transmission of certain dis- supports this prioritization:
appropriate treatment eases. A recent study that com-
programs. pared crack-cocaine users with • Chronic, hardcore drug users account for two-
nonusers found that users’ high- thirds of the total amount of cocaine consumed
risk sexual practices accounted in the United States, even though they com-
for their having higher rates of HIV infection. 14 prise only 20 percent of all cocaine users.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Therefore, it is the chronic, hardcore drug users
Prevention (CDC), almost one-third of AIDS who keep the major drug traffickers in business.
(Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) cases
were associated with IV drug users. The CDC also • Chronic, hardcore drug use causes severe and
reports that almost 60 percent of children under long-term health consequences. A Department
age 13 with AIDS contracted the disease from of Health and Human Services (HHS) study of
mothers who were IV drug users or who were the the record number of heroin medical emergen-
sex partners of IV drug users. cies in 1993 suggests that prolonged heroin use
produces cumulative adverse health effects.

Figure 3-5
Heroin and Cocaine Hospital Emergency Room Episodes,
1978-93
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
Episodes
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
Year 1978-93
Cocaine Heroin
Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1978-91, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, 1992-93
• When a user is going through periods of heavy viduals receive appropriate treatment, they
or addictive drug use, the frequency and severi- decrease their drug use, decrease their criminal
ty of his or her criminal activity rises dramati- activity, increase their employment, improve their
cally. Drug-related criminal activity is one of social and interpersonal functioning, and improve
the main reasons for the substantial growth of their physical health.
U.S. prison and jail populations.
Reducing health care costs created by illicit drug
use requires a comprehensive response. First, drug
THE CASE FOR TREATING HARDCORE prevention efforts must increase their focus on
DRUG USERS populations who are at risk for drug use. Making
individuals aware of the health consequences of
When effectively administered, drug treatment illicit drug use may ultimately prevent the onset or
can reduce the consequences of illicit drug use. It continuation of chronic, hardcore drug use and
has been proven that when drug-dependent indi- related health-threatening behaviors. Second,

the chronic, hardcore drug users, who are suffering others to support their drug habit or to continue
the health consequences of prolonged drug use, drug-dealing activities. Clearly, drug treatment is
must be provided access to effective treatment for vital to protecting Americans from the serious and
their addiction and related health problems. violent consequences of illicit drug use.
Numerous studies confirm the fact that treatment

of chronic, hardcore addicts, both within the cor- ADDRESSING THE SHORTAGE OF DRUG
rectional setting and in community-based pro- TREATMENT CAPACITY
grams, is the most cost-effective response and the
course of action that makes the most practical The United States currently lacks adequate treat-
sense. ment capacity to treat all those individuals who
need drug treatment. According to HHS esti-
The most compelling demonstration of the cost- mates, more than 1 million people who need some
effectiveness of treatment is from a recent Califor- type of drug treatment are unable to access pro-
nia study assessing drug and alcoholism treatment grams. Closing the treatment gap is a national
effectiveness. 15 This study priority, and the Administration continues to
found that in 1992 alone, the press for more treatment capacity, especially with-
Even if incarcerating
cost of treating approximately in the criminal justice system.
drug addicts on a long-
150,000 drug users in California
term basis were feasible
was $209 million. Approxi- As the success of managed care has shown, treat-
or affordable for States
mately $1.5 billion was saved ment capacity can be allocated more efficiently.
and localities, such a
while these individuals were in For example, managed care in Massachusetts has
measure would not
treatment and in the first year demonstrated that more efficient use of resources
address the addict’s drug
after their treatment. Most of increases access to treatment and reduces costs.
habit and its destructive
these savings were in the form of Programs in Minnesota similarly have shown that
consequences.
reductions in drug-related crime by managing care, costs can be contained, and
(a two-thirds decline in the level resources can be applied more effectively.
of criminal activity among these drug users was
observed from pretreatment to posttreatment). HHS estimates that more than 3.8 million users of
illicit drugs exhibit behavioral problems or physi-
Even if incarcerating drug addicts on a long-term cal manifestations resulting from their illicit drug
basis were feasible or affordable for States and use. For some users with less acute problems, test-
localities, such a measure would not address the ing and monitoring are enough to reduce or elimi-
addict’s drug habit and its destructive conse- nate their drug use. Others are able to end drug use
quences. Drug treatment must be available for on their own with the support of family and
chronic, hardcore users, whether they are inside or friends. However, some chronic, hardcore users
outside the criminal justice system, to ensure that need more intensive treatment. HHS estimates
progress is made in reducing the negative health that 2.4 million of the more than 3.8 million users
and crime consequences of drug use. need some type of drug treatment program. As the
next section shows, the current treatment system
The Nation must utilize every opportunity to get lacks the capacity to treat this number of users.
chronic, hardcore drug users into treatment.
Locking up drug users and drug addicts does not go Treatment Capacity Outside the Criminal
far enough to protect communities from the prob- Justice System
lems created by drug use. The Nation must recog-
nize that, eventually, most of these users will be HHS estimates that in 1994 the drug treatment
released back to the communities from which they system had the capacity to provide specialized
came, and unless they have received treatment for drug treatment services to about 1.4 million indi-
their problems, many will continue to prey on viduals. Therefore, out of the 2.4 million drug

users who could benefit from specialty drug treat- treatment programs. On any given day, more than
ment, about 1 million (or 40 percent) could not 4 million people are under the care or custody of a
access such treatment at any time during the year. correctional agency, either on probation, on
parole, in jail, or in Federal or State prisons.
According to the 1992 National Drug and Alco-
hol Treatment Utilization Survey (NDATUS), an The criminal justice system can intervene to affect
estimated 945,000 clients were involved in spe- an individual’s drug use through a variety of
cialty drug abuse treatment as of September 30, means. In some cases, drug testing is adequate to
1992.16 Outpatient services accounted for 87 per- deter continued drug use, especially when it is a
cent of all client services. Most outpatient clients condition of probation or parole. For those in jail
were enrolled in drug-free programs or programs or prison, drug treatment programs may involve
not utilizing pharmacological interventions such individual counseling, group counseling, or sup-
as methadone (74 percent). Some, however, did port group participation. Treatment for this popu-
receive methadone (14 percent). Twelve percent lation is discussed in detail in Chapter V.
of clients were in 24-hour treatment—11 percent
in rehabilitation and 1 percent in detoxification. A 1991 BJS survey reported
The 1992 NDATUS also revealed the following: that of those inmates sentenced
The most recent DUF
for violent offenses, 55 percent
data indicate that the
• Although the number of providers and clients of Federal inmates and 57 per-
criminal justice system
reporting to NDATUS has increased substan- cent of State inmates reported
offers an opportunity to
tially since 1980, the broad characteristics of using drugs regularly, and 43
identify those individuals
treatment services and clients in treatment percent of Federal inmates and
who need treatment and
have stayed relatively the same. 46 percent of State inmates
to match their specific
reported using drugs in the
needs with appropriate
• Of those in treatment, 60 percent were white, month prior to their offense.17
drug treatment programs.
22 percent were African American, and 15 per- Twenty-five percent of Federal
cent were Hispanic. The racial and ethnic inmates and 28 percent of State
composition of clients changed very little inmates reported that they were under the influ-
between 1980 and 1992. ence of drugs while committing the offense for
which they were incarcerated. Many of these
• The ratio of males to females in treatment was inmates were receiving treatment while in prison.
more than 2 to 1. At the time of the survey, about 43 percent of Fed-
eral inmates and 48 percent of State inmates who
The Federal Government also provides treatment had used drugs in the month prior to their offenses
for military personnel and veterans. In 1993 the had been enrolled in prison treatment programs at
Department of Veterans Affairs provided sub- some point during their incarcerations. More
stance abuse treatment for almost 160,000 than 20 percent in each population had complet-
patients in 327 programs. Of these programs, 196 ed treatment programs since admission to prison.
specialized, inpatient programs served 54,195 drug
users, while the 131 outpatient programs served Enrolling more drug users in treatment programs is
105,800 drug users. one of the surest ways to counter the severe, nega-
tive effects on the U.S. economy, health care sys-
Treatment Capacity Inside the Criminal Justice tem, and quality of life that result from illicit drug
System use. More than 1 million chronic, hardcore users
are caught in the gap in available treatment ser-
The most recent DUF data indicate that the crim- vices; many of the available programs rely on
inal justice system offers an opportunity to identify modalities of treatment that do not address these
those individuals who need treatment and to users’ problems. If this treatment shortfall remains
match their specific needs with appropriate drug unaddressed, the economic, health care, and

social problems created by chronic, hardcore users 8

Drugs, Crime, and The Criminal Justice System: A National
will become even more expensive and complex in Report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Depart-
the years to come. ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Jus-
tice Statistics. NCJ-133652. December 1992. p. 13.
9
“Testing Reckless Drivers for Cocaine and Marijuana.”
ENDNOTES Abstract, New England Journal of Medicine.
1 10
Substance Abuse: The Nation’s Number One Health Prob- NIJ and the Office of National Drug Control Policy
lem, Key Indicators for Policy. Institute for Health Policy, (ONDCP) plan to work closely to pursue a research
Brandeis University. 1993. agenda focusing on issues of drug procurement and drug
use. The DUF program offers tremendous possibilities as
2
Blumstein, A. Youth, Violence, and the Illicit Drug Indus- a research platform. NIJ and ONDCP will work closely
try. H. John Heinz II School of Public Policy and Man- to develop assessment and interview strategies that capi-
agement, Working Paper Series. July 1994. talize on the opportunity DUF presents to interview
approximately 30,000 arrestees within hours of their
3
PRIDE Questionnaire Report, 1992-93 National Summa- apprehension in jails throughout major U.S. cities.
ry—USA, Grades 6 to 12. PRIDE, Inc. August 3, 1994.
11
State and Federal Prison Population Tops One Million.
4
Harlowe, C.W. Comparing Federal and State Inmates, Department of Justice, BJS Advance Release. October
1991. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro- 27, 1994.
grams, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ-145864. Tables
13-15. September 1994. 12
Estimates from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, Advance
Report No. 8. U.S. Department of Health and Human
5
DUF data clearly are useful for exposing the link between Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
drug use and other criminal activities. Beyond this, DUF Administration, Office of Applied Studies. October
data also reveal much about the extent of drug use in the 1994.
United States. The data show steady levels of cocaine
use and increasing levels of marijuana use—trends con- 13
Based on analysis conducted by the Substance Abuse and
firmed by other data sources. Mental Health Service Administration, Office of Applied
Studies.
6
Drug Use Forecasting 1993 Annual Report on Adult
Arrestees: Drugs and Crime in America’s Cities and Drug 14
See Edlin, B., Irwin, K., et. al. “Intersecting Epidemics—
Use Forecasting 1993 Annual Report on Juvenile Crack Cocaine Use and HIV Infection Among Inner-
Arrestees/Detainees: Drugs and Crime in America’s Cities. City Young Adults.” New England Journal of Medicine,
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of November 1994, pp. 1422-1427.
Justice Programs.
15
Evaluating Recovery Services: The California Drug and
According to the 1993 DUF Reports, there were Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA). July 1994.
increased rates of marijuana use, largely unchanged rates
of cocaine and opiate use, and slightly increased rates of 16
Overview of the National Drug and Alcoholism Treat-
multiple drug use among male arrestees. Cocaine remains ment Utilization Survey (NDATUS): 1992 and 1980-
the principal drug of use among male arrestees. Young 1992. Advance Report Number 9. U.S. Department of
males were less likely to test positive for cocaine than Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Men-
older males. Among females, the data show a slight tal Health Services Administration. January 1995. This
decline in the prevalence of cocaine, largely unchanged survey classifies drug users into three groups: alcohol
rates of marijuana and opiate use, and a slight increase in only, drug only, and both. The survey provides a snap-
multiple drug use. shot of treatment providers and clients on September 30,
1992.
7
Needle, R., and Mills, A. Drug Procurement Practices of
the Out-of-Treatment Chronic Drug Abuser. U.S. Depart- 17
Harlow, C.W. Comparing Federal and State Inmates, 1991.
ment of Health and Human Services, National Institute U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
on Drug Abuse. National Institutes of Health Publica- BJS. NCJ-145864. Table 15. September 1994.
tion No. 94-3820. 1994.

IV. Illicit Drug Availability
rug traffickers are shrewd. They stock- and cocaine prices increased, resulting in fewer
D
pile their drugs and increase production drug use consequences.1 Furthermore, coca culti-
to keep pace with increased seizures and vation declined somewhat between 1991 and
worldwide demand. As a result, 1992 from its peak level in 1990 of 220,850
cocaine, marijuana, and heroin remain hectares, 2 according to the 1994 International
readily available in the United States. Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR); coca
cultivation then decreased dramatically in 1993
It is imperative to continue to attack the supply of because of a fungus affecting the coca plant in
drugs—at their source, where traffickers are most vul- Peru. While there should have been a resulting
nerable, in transit, and on the street, where the cost to decline in the supply of cocaine reaching the
traffickers per seized gram, ounce, and kilo is highest. United States, U.S. cocaine availability in 1993
Drug seizures at all levels disrupt drug trafficking remained unchanged compared with 1992 levels.
empires, and these international entities threaten not Independent evidence suggests that cocaine pro-
only the United States but democracies all over the ducers drew upon stockpiles of the drug located in
world. Aggressive enforcement and interdiction are the United States and Mexico to cover the market
the first line of defense in preventing the Nation’s shortfalls that would normally have resulted in
youth from ever being exposed to drugs in the first higher cocaine retail prices.
place. A strong productive America is a country free
of drugs. An assessment of current potential coca produc-
tion is not encouraging. By most accounts, cur-
rent coca cultivation is three times what is
The overarching goal of the National Drug Control necessary to supply the needs of the U.S. drug
Strategy is the reduction of illicit drug use and its market.3 During the past few years, coca produc-
consequences. This goal is served by both foreign ers have increased their production, both to
and domestic supply reduction activities. Studies replace losses due to increased seizures and to pro-
have shown that any reduction in the available vide for a growing worldwide demand. There also
drug supply in a given geographic area can have an is evidence that the amount of marijuana and
immediate and direct impact on the number of heroin available in the United States for domestic
users and the amount of drugs they consume as consumption may have increased in 1993. Clear-
well as on the consequences of drug use to the ly, reducing drug availability remains a critical
local community. mission, with much yet to be accomplished.
Unless more effective supply reduction strategies
To date, the efforts of the U.S. Government to are developed and implemented, the chances of
reduce availability of drugs have met with some reducing U.S. illicit drug availability to any mean-
success. A study by the Office of National Drug ingful extent are limited. One of the most promis-
Control Policy (ONDCP) found that between ing means to reduce this supply of drugs is a strong
1989 and 1991, U.S. cocaine availability declined source country strategy.

ILLICIT DRUG AVAILABILITY
SHIFTING THE FOCUS OF THE demand reduction efforts, will serve the objective
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM STRATEGY of Andean countries to move away from drug pro-
duction while at the same time reducing the
In 1993, the National Security Council (NSC) impact of drug use in the United States.
concluded a lengthy review of the international
drug trafficking situation that determined that to
reduce cocaine availability more effectively, a ACHIEVING SUPPLY REDUCTION
stronger focus on source countries was necessary. THROUGH DOMESTIC LAW
The NSC determined that a controlled shift in ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
emphasis was required—a shift away from past
efforts that focused primarily on interdiction in An analysis of the illicit drug price structure sug-
the transit zones to new efforts that focus on inter- gests that the bulk of the increase in drug prices
diction in and around source countries. This new occurs once the drugs arrive in the United States.5
focus on source countries reflects the view that it By reducing the available supply and sale of illicit
is potentially easier and more practical to attack drugs at or within U.S. borders, domestic law
traffickers at the source, where enforcement efforts can have a dramatic impact on
they are most visible and vul- the profitability of the illicit drug trade.
This new focus on source
nerable to counternarcotics
countries reflects the
efforts. A set of studies recently released by ONDCP6
view that it is potentially
clearly demonstrated the positive effect of domes-
easier and more
The Presidential Decision tic law enforcement on drug availability.
practical to attack
Directive4 (PDD) that resulted Although the study specifically measured the time
traffickers at the source,
from the NSC review called for heroin users spend searching for heroin and the
where they are most
a three-pronged international effect of that time on their levels of use, its find-
visible and vulnerable to
drug control strategy that ings are nevertheless relevant for the larger illicit
counternarcotics efforts.
emphasizes (1) providing assis- drug market. The study indicated that the degree
tance to those nations that of availability of illicit drugs has a significant
show the political will to combat narcotrafficking effect on drug use rates for current users and espe-
through institution building, (2) conducting cially for those who are beginning to use drugs. By
efforts to destroy narcotrafficking organizations, stepping up high-visibility enforcement opera-
and (3) interdicting narcotics trafficking in both tions on the street and within known drug mar-
source countries and transit zones. The PDD also kets, domestic law enforcement programs can, in
called for a controlled shift in interdiction opera- effect, reduce drug consumption rates and further
tions from programs that focus primarily on transit help to reduce profits for traffickers and dealers.
zones to a strategy that focuses on both sources and
transit zones and that can also respond to changing The Administration supports law enforcement
situations. It should be clearly recognized, howev- activities for their combined effect on reducing
er, that without effective transit zone programs in both the supply and demand of illicit drugs. The
place, the smooth implementation of the new 100,000 police officers provided for by the Violent
source country program will be severely inhibited. Crime Control and Law Enforcement Action of
1994 (Public Law 103-22, hereafter referred to as
An essential component of the new source coun- the Crime Control Act) will, along with increased
try focus is the creation of a sustained economic funding for Federal, State, and local law enforce-
development program within the source countries ment coordination efforts, help to arrest dealers,
themselves. Such programs can create permanent disrupt drug markets, and reduce overall rates of
job alternatives to illegal drug activities, offering use. Furthermore, Federal cooperation, which has
the best long-term strategy for reducing source improved at U.S. borders and ports of entry, will
country drug crop cultivation. These alternate lead to further reductions in the profitability of
development programs, combined with U.S. the illicit drug trade.

Cocaine Availability pensate to prevent a shortage of cocaine in the

market from occurring.
The cocaine targeted for consumption by the U.S.
market comes from coca plants grown in South The price and purity of cocaine provide another
America.7 In 1993 the total production of coca indication of availability. Therefore, it is impor-
leaf in South America was 271,700 metric tons tant to observe how the price and purity of
(mt). This harvest required the cultivation of cocaine have fluctuated over time. The following
198,893 hectares. Table 4-1 shows that coca pro- facts demonstrate the fluctuation and indicate the
duction decreased between 1992 and 1993. Coca availability of cocaine:
cultivation declined from a total of 217,808
hectares, which produced an estimated 333,900 • According to reports from Federal cooperation,
mt of leaf 8 in 1992, to a total of 198,893 hectares, the Drug Enforcement Ad- which has improved at
which produced an estimated 271,700 mt of leaf ministration (DEA), during U.S. borders and ports of
in 1993. This was due principally to the abandon- 1993 the price of cocaine was entry, will lead to further
ment of some fields in Peru, resulting from the for- low while purity was high reductions in the
tuitous infestation of a naturally occurring fungus, (both price and purity were profitability of the illicit
which made it impossible to grow coca plants. stable throughout the year). drug trade.
Other factors, such as soil depletion and the
movement of farmers to safer areas, also con- • Table 4-2 shows that the
tributed to this decline in cultivation.9 The coca estimated price for a pure gram of cocaine has
harvested in 1993 could potentially provide 683 generally declined between 1988 and 1993.
to 813 mt (metric tons) of cocaine.10
• The most recent drug use indicators, discussed
Not all of the cocaine that is produced is destined in Chapter II, show little change in the
for the U.S. market. Some of the supply is con- demand for cocaine in the United States
sumed in source countries, and some is shipped to between 1992 and 1993.
Europe and other countries. ONDCP estimates
that 243 to 340 mt of cocaine could have been • Estimates suggest that coca cultivation avail-
available to supply the U.S. drug market in 1993 ability declined between 1992 and 1993.
from the cocaine produced in South America that
year.11 These figures represent a decrease from When these points are examined concurrently,
1992, when an estimated 376 to 539 metric tons there emerges an unanswered question about the
were available. The decline in 1993 is a positive price of cocaine in recent years: If coca cultiva-
result of the counternarcotics efforts of the United tion decreased in 1993 and consumption re-
States and its allies. However, as discussed below, mained stable, the price of cocaine should have
there is evidence that producers were able to com- increased; why did it stay the same?
Table 4-1. Estimated Worldwide Cultivation and Potential Net Production of Cocaine,
1992 and 1993
1992 1993
Cultivated Leaf Produced Cultivated Leaf Produced

Country (in hectares) (in metric tons) (in hectares) (in metric tons)
Bolivia 50,649 80,300 49,600 84,400

Colombia 38,059 29,600 40,493 31,700
Peru 129,100 223,000 108,800 155,500
Ecuador na 100 na 100
Total 217,808 333,900 198,893 271,700
Source: International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, U.S. Department of State, 1994

Table 4-2. Retail Prices Per Gram for Cocaine in the United States, 1988-93
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Cocaine
High price $186 $165 $200 $168 $163 $151
Low price 146 123 187 132 130 120
Note: Data in this table are derived from information collected through purchase and seizure of cocaine in selected cities.
The purity of the samples are determined through chemical analysis. The price per pure gram is calculated by dividing the
price by the purity percentage of the samples.
Source: What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, 1988-1993. Abt Associates, Inc., February 1995.
One explanation is that overall cocaine availabili- Heroin Availability

ty may not have actually decreased in 1993. This
may have been the case if the decrease in cultiva- Although cocaine still poses the greatest threat to
tion was planned—in other words, if it occurred in this Nation and must remain its most immediate
those areas scheduled for abandonment by the concern, the Administration also is concerned
drug traffickers. In this case, about heroin availability and use, both of which
they likely would have compen- appear to be on the increase. During the past 8
Although cocaine still sated by increasing production years, reports of increasing purity and lower prices
poses the greatest threat elsewhere. Another possibility and of dramatic increases in seizures appear to
to this Nation and must may be that cocaine is being indicate that heroin availability in the United
remain its most stockpiled or kept in storage States is on the rise. There also are reports that
immediate concern, the with inventories sufficient to heroin use is increasing, mostly among existing
Administration also is cover shortfalls in the market. chronic, hardcore drug users.
concerned about heroin By some accounts, there are
availability and use, both substantial stockpiles—easily Opium poppies are currently grown in four major
of which appear to be on adequate to cover a market regions in the world.14 The products from these
the increase. shortage until a new coca crop poppies are consumed in various forms (e.g.,
matures.12 opium, morphine, and heroin) around the globe.
As Table 4-3 shows, opium production has
Another possible explanation lies in the retail end increased dramatically since 1988. According to
of the market, specifically in changes to the levels the 1994 INCSR, 3,699 mt of opium were pro-
of profit accepted there. One prominent duced in 1993, up 43 percent from the 2,590 mt
researcher has hypothesized that there may be produced in 1988. In 1993, Southeast Asia
“barriers to exit” in the illicit drug market. Low- accounted for 76 percent of total worldwide pro-
end dealers have no other source of livelihood to duction (2,797 mt) due mostly to opium produc-
fall back on, so increasing competition among a tion in Burma (2,575 mt). Estimates of the
larger pool of sellers for a stable or decreasing pool amount of heroin available in the United States
of users forces sellers to absorb higher costs of range from 3.8 to 11.4 mt.15
doing business, meaning lower profits. 13 This
hypothesis can reconcile the competing facts of The U.S. heroin market is dominated by heroin
decreased availability in 1993, constant consump- from Southeast Asia. According to the DEA’s
tion, and stable prices: Simply put, dealers were Heroin Signature Program (HSP),16 approximate-
forced by changing market conditions to settle for ly 68 percent of the heroin analyzed in DEA labo-
lower profits for the same amount and purity-level ratories was determined to be from Southeast Asia.
of cocaine. During 1995 ONDCP will initiate a Of the balance of the heroin analyzed by the DEA,
research project into this area in an effort to better 15 percent originated in South America, 9 percent
provide a cogent and supportable explanation. in Southwest Asia, and 8 percent in Mexico.17

Table 4-3. Worldwide Potential Net Production of Opium 1988-93 (metric tons)
Country 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Opium
Afghanistan1 750 585 415 570 640 685
Iran2 — — — — — —
Pakistan 205 130 165 180 175 140
Total, Southwest Asia 955 715 580 750 815 825
Burma 1,280 2,430 2,255 2,350 2,280 2,575
Laos 255 380 275 265 230 180
Thailand 25 50 40 35 24 42
Total, Southeast Asia 1,560 2,860 2,570 2,650 2,534 2,797
Colombia — — — 27 20 20
Lebanon na 45 32 34 — 4
Guatemala 8 12 13 17 — 4
Mexico 67 66 62 41 40 49
Total, Lebanon, South 75 123 107 119 60 77
America, and Mexico
Total Opium 2,590 3,698 3,257 3,519 3,409 3,699

1
The DEA believes, based upon foreign reporting and human sources, that opium production in Afghanistan may have
exceeded 900 metric tons in 1992 and 1993.
2
Although there is no solid information on Iranian opium production, the U.S. Government estimates that Iran may poten-
tially produce between 35 and 75 metric tons of opium gum annually.
Source: International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, U.S. Department of State, 1994.
The United States clearly faces an ominous threat per milligram and expect the heroin to be about
from the newest opium cultivating region—South 30-percent pure. The lower price and higher puri-
America. The DEA reports that heroin is now ty indicate that the supply of heroin in the United
being shipped to the United States from Colom- States is abundant.
bia in increasing quantities. The El Paso Intelli-
gence Center reports that the number of Increased availability of higher purity heroin
Colombian couriers flying on commercial airlines enables the user to inhale or smoke the drug rather
who were arrested for smuggling heroin into the than inject it. This may result in more users (i.e.,
United States was 41 in 1991, 263 in 1992, and those who would not have used
232 in 1993. Reportedly, Colombian traffickers heroin if the only method of
also have established distribution outlets in the administration were through Heroin prices declined
northeastern regions of the United States and are injection). At present, while throughout the 1980s and
offering free samples of heroin to potential distrib- there does not appear to be a increased slightly in 1989
utors and requiring established cocaine distribu- dramatic increase in the num- and 1990. Since then,
tors to sell heroin as a condition of continuing to ber of heroin users, there are prices have again
do business.18 signs that some young people declined and are now at
are initiating heroin use.19 their lowest levels ever.
Heroin prices declined throughout the 1980s and
increased slightly in 1989 and 1990. Since then, Marijuana Availability
prices have again declined and are now at their
lowest levels ever. Along with this decline in Marijuana is cultivated in many regions of the
price has come an increase in the purity of the world, both for consumption within those regions
heroin. The street price of heroin varies widely, and for export. Production estimates for marijua-
but the typical heavy user might pay about $1.70 na are difficult, 20 but current estimates indicate

that there has been a slight increase in the amount trolling for inflation and potency.25 The purity, or
of marijuana produced abroad—14,407 mt in potency, in the case of marijuana, is reported to
1993 compared with 13,058 mt in 1992. Esti- have steadily increased for both commercial-grade
mates of domestic production were between 2,595 marijuana and the sinsemilla variety. Although
and 3,095 mt for 1992, a decrease from 1991 esti- marijuana has been readily available for a long
mates of 3,615 and 4,615 mt.21 This level of pro- time, its use over the last decade has been declin-
duction does not seem plausible, given various ing until recently. Currently there are troubling
estimates of consumption.22 In any case, marijua- indications that marijuana use may be increasing
na clearly continues to be readily available, and its among U.S. teenagers and young adults.
use appears to be on the rise.23
Illicit Drug Seizures
The DEA reported that most of the foreign mari-
juana available in the United States during 1993 One means by which U.S. supply reduction pro-
originated from Mexico, even though, according to grams work to reduce availability is by increasing
the National Narcotics Intelli- the difficulty for drug traffickers to ship drugs into
gence Consumers Committee the United States. In this regard, the United
One means by which U.S. (NNICC), cannabis cultivation States has posted an impressive record, at least for
supply reduction there dropped significantly. A cocaine. By most accounts, almost one-third of
programs work to reduce continued increase in Colom- the potential supply of cocaine ultimately is seized
availability is by bian, Venezuelan, and possibly worldwide, with U.S. efforts accounting for about
increasing the difficulty Jamaican marijuana shipments one-third to one-half of these seizures.26
for drug traffickers to to the United States also was
ship drugs into the United noted. At the same time, The number of international drug seizures report-
States. domestic production accounted ed by the U.S. State Department has increased
for a considerable portion of the erratically for all types of illegal drugs since 1989.
market. It is difficult to esti- As indicated in Table 4-4 below, international
mate the amount of marijuana produced in the cocaine seizures increased from 250 mt in 1989 to
United States, because there are no national sur- 345 mt in 1991 and then decreased to 265 mt in
veys conducted of cannabis cultivation.24 Outdoor 1993. During the same time period, poppy/opium
marijuana production is reported to be especially seizures rose from 30 to 41 mt, and marijuana/
prevalent in the western and southeastern United hashish seizures rose from 1,496 to 2,886 mt.
States. In addition, the DEA has reported an
increasing trend toward indoor domestic marijua- As indicated in Table 4-5, seizures by the Federal
na production. However, no data or models are Government have played an increasingly impor-
available to estimate the full extent of either out- tant role over the years. According to Federal
door or indoor domestic cultivation. seizure statistics, heroin seizures have increased in
recent years from roughly 1.1 mt in 1989 to 1.6 mt
One study found that prices for marijuana have in 1993.27 The data for the first half of 1994 show
remained constant since the mid-1980s, after con- a minimal decrease over the first half of 1993.
Table 4-4. Estimated International Drug Seizures in Metric Tons, 1989 to 1993
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Poppy/Opium 30 26 26 24 41
Cocaine 250 275 345 285 265
Marijuana/Hashish 1,496 2,261 1,603 2,303 2,886
Source: Bureau of International Narcotics Matters, 1994. United Nations International Drug Control
Programme, 1994, and ONDCP intelligence estimates.

Table 4-5. Federal Drug Seizures in Metric Tons, 1989 to First Half of 1994
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 First Half First Half
1993 1994
Heroin 1.1 0.8 1.4 1.2 1.6 0.7 0.5

Cocaine 99.2 107.3 111.7 137.8 110.7 47.9 50.9
Cannabis 3381 250.2 303.9 393.7 361.6 186.6 187.7
1
1989 marijuana seizure data for DEA only.
Source: Federal-wide Drug Seizure System, 1992 and 1994, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1993, p. 467.
Cocaine seizures increased between 1989 to 1992 simply on the basis of their share of the total pro-
and fell thereafter. The numbers for the first half duction in question, but as a measure and direct
of 1994, however, are somewhat higher than those result of other efforts focused on the criminal orga-
reported for the first half of 1993. Cannabis nizations that take part in the illicit drug trade.
seizures dropped significantly between 1989 and
1990 from 338 to 250.2 mt. Since 1990 the
amount seized has risen, reaching almost 361.6 mt ENDNOTES Although overall seizures
in 1993. Data for the first half of 1994 are similar remain high, there is
1 concern that the
to those reported for the first half of 1993. ONDCP report, Price and Purity of
Cocaine: The Relationship to Emer- interdiction effort has
gency Room Visits and Deaths and to had limited effect on
Although overall seizures remain high, there is Drug Use Among Arrestees. Octo-
concern that the interdiction effort has had limit- overall illicit drug
ber 1992.
ed effect on overall illicit drug availability and availability and
consumption in the United States. Cocaine
2
A hectare is a metric unit of area consumption in the
seizures undoubtedly constitute a substantial share equal to 2.471 acres. United States.
of total cocaine production, but the desired effects 3
Generally speaking, about one-
on U.S. price, purity, and availability have not third of the estimated 900 to 1,000 mt of cocaine pro-
been seen. Accordingly, cocaine—along with duced is consumed in the United States, about one-third
other illicit drugs—remains available in sufficient is seized, and the balance is assumed to serve other coun-
quantities to satisfy demand, with relatively low tries’ demand for cocaine. (A metric ton equals 2,205
prices and high purities. This should not be pounds.)
understood to mean that law enforcement should 4
A Presidential Decision Directive is a document, signed
no longer conduct seizures as part of its operations. by the President, that conveys a decision on a major poli-
If law enforcement efforts focusing on reducing cy issue to the executive branch departments and agen-
drug availability in the United States were cies and includes appropriate implementing instructions.
reduced, in all probability, there would be even 5
In 1993 the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) pro-
greater drug availability and even lower prices and
vided an example of the markup in cocaine pricing from
higher purities in the market, which would lead to the source country to the United States. Based on GAO’s
increased use. Instead, seizures should be viewed 1991 report, the price for enough coca leaf to produce 1
not as an end in themselves but rather as part of kilogram (2.2 pounds) of cocaine was between $65 and
the larger whole. More often than not, seizures $370. The finished product entering the United States is
result from an extensive law enforcement investi- valued between $800 and $5,000 per kilogram. This
product is then diluted and eventually culminates in a
gation targeting a drug trafficking organization. street price of between $70,000 and $300,000 per kilo
Clearly, the arrest, prosecution, and incarceration gram.
of drug criminals is an important objective of drug
6
law enforcement, and efforts to dismantle drug See the ONDCP reports Measuring Heroin Availability in
trafficking organizations will often result in drug Three Cities and Heroin Users in New York, Chicago, and
San Diego. November 30, 1994.
seizures. Hence, seizures should be viewed not

7 20
I.e., Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and Venezuela. For a discussion of the problematic nature of production
estimates, see Marijuana Situation Assessment. ONDCP,
8
International Narcotics Control Strategy Report. U.S. September 1994, pp. 46-47. The INCSR reports marijua-
Department of State. March 1994. na production, but for purposes of reviewing trends in
marijuana, it is of questionable value. This problem par-
9
The NNIC Report 1993: The Supply of Illicit Drugs to the ticularly pertains to marijuana statistics reported for Mex-
United States. NNICC, August 1994, DEA-94066, p. 2. ico. According to the 1994 INCSR, Mexico produced
between 6,000 and 8,000 mt of marijuana each year
10
Not all coca is converted into cocaine—people in the cul- between 1991 and 1993. This level is down considerably
tivating countries consume coca leaves. For a detailed from the 30,000 mt reported for 1989 and the 20,000 mt
description of cultivation and processing, see Coca Culti- reported for 1990. However, it appears that the decline is
vation and Cocaine Processing: An Overview. Drug spurious, because the estimates for these 2 years are gross-
Enforcement Administration. February 1991. ly overstated.
11 21
ONDCP developed a model that begins with estimates of The NNICC Report 1992: The Supply of Illicit Drugs to the
coca cultivation and ends with an estimate of the amount United States. NNICC, September 1993. There is no
of cocaine reaching the United States for consumption. explanation of how these estimates were derived. No
The model computes the inputs and outputs of several dif- information on the land under cultivation is given.
ferent steps in the processing of cocaine. For more infor-
22
mation, see Rhodes, W.; Scheiman, P.; and Carlson, K. See Marijuana Situation Assessment and What America’s
What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs. Abt Associ- Users Spend on Illegal Drugs; both are ONDCP publica-
ates, Inc., February 1991. tions.
12 23
One source suggests that as much as 200 tons of cocaine See ONDCP’s Pulse Checks as well as the most recent
was inventoried in Mexico last year. If this is correct, it PRIDE (Parent Resource Institute for Drug Education)
would explain why cocaine prices did not decline. An and Monitoring the Future reports.
inventory of this magnitude constitutes about two-thirds
24
of the estimated U.S. annual consumption of about 300 It is very difficult to estimate the amount of marijuana
tons. actually produced in the United States in 1993 because
there are no national surveys conducted of outdoor
13
Based on remarks made by Dr. Peter Reuter at the Con- cannabis cultivation. In 1992 there was an estimated
ference on the Economics of the Narcotics Industry, Loy gross of 6,000 to 6,500 mt cultivated (does not include
Henderson Conference Room, State Department, low-potency wild ditchweed plants). However, this figure
November 21-22, 1994. is considered to be inexact. Approximately 1,840.2 mt
representing 4.04 million cultivated plants were eradicat-
14
Southeast Asia (Burma, Laos, Thailand, and China), ed in 1993. Domestic seizures of cannabis and marijuana
Southwest Asia (Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan), Cen- totaled 394 mt compared to 347 mt in 1992. Many of the
tral America, Mexico, and South America (Colombia cannabis plants eradicated during 1993 were sinsemilla
and Peru). Geographical breakouts are from DEA’s Hero- plants.
in Signature Program.
25
See the ONDCP report, Marijuana Situation Analysis.
15
The Retail Value of Drugs Sold in the United States. Abt September 1994.
Associates, Inc., 1993.
26
It should be noted that seizures are not the whole story.
16
Worldwide Heroin Signature Report—1992. Drug Enforce- Significant quantities of cocaine are jettisoned by the
ment Administration. March 1994, p. 13. traffickers in the transit zones so that they will avoid
arrest by interdiction forces. To provide a more complete
17
The NNICC Report 1993: The Supply of Illicit Drugs to the picture of the impact law enforcement efforts have on the
United States. NNICC, DEA-94066, August 1994, p. 32. traffickers’ operations, estimates of the type and quantity
of drugs being jettisoned are being developed.
18
The NNICC Report 1993: The Supply of Illicit Drugs to the
27
United States. NNICC, DEA-94066, August 1994, p. 40. This information comes from the Federal-wide Drug
Seizure System (FDSS), which contains information
19
See Pulse Check: National Drug Trends. ONDCP, July about drug seizures made within the jurisdiction of the
1994. Also see the forthcoming National Institute of Jus- United States by the DEA, the Federal Bureau of Investi-
tice bulletin Heroin Prices and New Addicts: 1981-1994. gation, and the U.S. Customs Service and about maritime

seizures by the U.S. Coast Guard. The FDSS was estab- seizures made by other Federal agencies, such as the
lished to avoid double counts of seizures when two or Immigration and Naturalization Service or the Secret
more agencies are involved in the same activities and Service, are included only when custody of the drug evi-
both report the amount of drugs seized. However, the dence is transferred to one of the four agencies identified
FDSS may actually undercount seizures nationally. Drug above.

V. Action Plan for Reducing
the Demand for Illicit Drugs
tudies and statistics indicate that the comprehensive initiatives, including a treatment
S
fastest and most cost-effective way to improvement protocol initiative to improve treat-
reduce the demand for illicit drugs is to ment capacity in the Nation’s drug abuse service
treat chronic, hardcore drug users. They system; a multisite study to investigate the conse-
consume the most drugs, commit the quences of prenatal drug exposure; a new National
most crimes, and burden the health care Resource Center to provide information to the
system to the greatest extent. Without treatment, public on issues relating to women and substance
chronic hardcore users continue to use drugs and abuse; and a nine-State demonstration program to
engage in criminal activity, and when arrested, they provide treatment for substance-abusing women
too frequently continue their addiction upon release. and their children. Over and above these ongoing
The cycle of dependency must be broken and the efforts, the Administration will implement a tar-
revolving door of criminal justice brought to a halt. geted Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for
Chronic, hardcore users will be treated at every possi- Illicit Drugs.
ble juncture, especially through drug courts, where
judges can leverage sanctions to promote treatment The Administration will continue to address the
compliance. demand reduction goals set forth in the 1994
National Drug Control Strategy, listed below:
In the long run, prevention in schools, communities,
and workplaces is the key to reducing the demand for • Reduce the number of drug users in America
illicit drugs. This Action Plan aims to deglamorize (Goal 1).
drugs in the minds of all American children, with the
media playing a critical role. A National Drug Pre- • Expand treatment capacity and services and
vention System also is proposed to coordinate all drug increase treatment effectiveness so that those
prevention efforts and ensure that time and money are who need treatment can receive it. Target
used on efforts that work, especially for high-risk intensive treatment services for hardcore drug-
youth. using populations and special populations,
including adults and adolescents in custody or
under the supervision of the criminal justice
The demand for illicit drugs is fueled by two system, pregnant women, and women with
groups of drug users: (1) chronic, hardcore users dependent children (Goal 2).
who consume the bulk of illicit drugs in the Unit-
ed States, and (2) casual drug users. The Office of • Reduce the burden on the health care system
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) will by reducing the spread of infectious disease
continue to work closely with Federal depart- related to drug use (Goal 3).
ments and agencies to reduce the demand for
drugs by coordinating and improving ongoing pre- • Create safe and healthy environments in
vention, treatment, research, and law enforce- which children and adolescents can live, grow,
ment efforts. These efforts involve a range of learn, and develop (Goal 5).

ACTION PLAN FOR REDUCING THE DEMAND FOR ILLICIT DRUGS
• Reduce the use of alcohol and tobacco prod- REDUCING THE DEMAND FOR
ucts among underage youth (Goal 6). DRUGS BY REDUCING CHRONIC,
HARDCORE DRUG USE
• Increase workplace safety and productivity by
reducing drug use in the workplace (Goal 7). The best way to reduce the overall demand for
illicit drugs is to reduce the number of chronic,
hardcore drug users. To accomplish this, commu-
PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING THE nities, jails, and prisons must provide effective
GOALS FOR REDUCING THE DEMAND drug treatment. Current treatment capacity falls
FOR ILLICIT DRUGS well below the resources the country needs to
address the problems of chronic, hardcore drug
Attaining these measurable use. To increase treatment capacity, State and
goals was contingent on con- local officials must more effectively use available
The best way to reduce
gressional adoption of and Federal treatment grant funds to direct drug users
the overall demand for
funding for the 1994 Strategy’s into treatment, and the criminal justice system
illicit drugs is to reduce
policies and programs. Full sup- must use the sanctions at its disposal to provide
the number of chronic,
port was not received. Many drug treatment for as many chronic, hardcore
hardcore drug users.
promising programs and efforts users under their authority as possible. Only by
have been set in motion during satisfying these requirements can the United
Fiscal Year (FY) 1994; however, States hope to provide adequate treatment to drug
they have not been under way for a long enough users and reduce the prevalence of drug use, espe-
time to have any measurable effect. Current cially among chronic, hardcore addicts.
information has revealed the following:
Managed Care and State Health Care Reform
• The number of drug users in America remains
unchanged. As the growth of additional funding for substance
abuse treatment has slowed, States and businesses
• Treatment capacity has been expanded mod- throughout the country have experimented with
estly. The modest increase in the FY 1995 ways to control costs and increase efficiency of
block grant program and the programs included treatment services. By controlling access to
in the recently passed Violent Crime Control expensive inpatient treatment, closely monitoring
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law patient progress, and negotiating reduced service
103-322, hereafter referred to as the Crime charges from treatment providers, managed care
Control Act) are being aggressively imple- firms consistently have often been able to (1)
mented but have yet to take effect. reduce “per person” costs for substance abuse
treatment, (2) increase the percentage of people
• Reducing the burden on the health care system who receive care, (3) maintain high levels of satis-
that results from infectious diseases is depen- faction with care, and (4) achieve positive treat-
dent both on expanding treatment capacity for ment outcomes. Although corporations have
chronic, hardcore users and on health care been the first organizations to see substantial
reform. Neither change was supported in Con- health insurance savings from intensively manag-
gress, so the desired changes have not occurred. ing substance abuse care, States are increasingly
requiring patients who receive Government-fund-
• The Nation has made some progress in reduced treatment to use managed care systems. States
ing alcohol use among young people, including are expanding managed care and are requesting
teenagers and preteens, but such progress has waivers of Medicaid regulations to experiment
been countered by the endemic nature of binge with numerous strategies for reducing unnecessary
drinking among adolescents, especially on col- and costly care. Massachusetts, for example,
lege campuses. Furthermore, tobacco use has reduced expected Medicaid costs by 22 percent by
increased among the Nation’s youth. reducing the use of general hospitals for detoxifi-

cation and treatment, increasing the use of less including alcohol, and significantly reduced costs
expensive residential services, and dramatically related to crime and health care.3 The National
expanding day treatment and outpatient Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) reported similar
methadone treatment. findings last year.
The Administration encourages States to experi- Criminal acts, on the other hand, must be pun-
ment with managed care so that funds for treat- ished and tough sanctions often are needed to
ment can be used as efficiently as possible. At the force drug-addicted criminals to stop using drugs
same time, it is important to monitor the impact and committing crimes. The Crime Control Act
of managed care on chronic, hardcore drug users created programs to support both treatment and
and to provide technical assistance to States and punishment. This Administration will use both
community providers that use these new treat- these tools in a coordinated fashion to improve
ment funding systems. The Substance Abuse and public safety and to give chronic, hardcore drug
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMH- users a chance to recover from addiction.
SA) will assist States in evaluating the impact of
State health care reforms, including managed Linking Criminal Justice and
care, to identify effective strategies for reducing Treatment
treatment costs and improving treatment out- When chronic, hardcore
comes. Society must be protected from drug users are treated,
violent and predatory people, communities become
When chronic, hardcore drug users are treated, even if much of their behavior better places to live.
communities become better places to live. A drug stems from drug addiction. The
user entering treatment immediately results in a United States must recognize
reduction of drug use and criminal activity. Fur- that when an unrehabilitated offender is released
thermore, the longer a person stays in treatment, unsupervised into the community, he or she repre-
the more likely it is that he or she will remain drug sents a serious and continuing threat to public
free. safety. Drug treatment can break this destructive
cycle. The courts and the correctional system
The Role of Treatment in Reducing Chronic, must use their power to convince drug-using
Hardcore Use offenders to “clean up their act”—to the fullest
extent possible for the benefit of all citizens. If
Chronic, hardcore drug use is a disease, and like drug addicts within the criminal justice system are
anyone suffering from a disease, 1 addicts need treated effectively, they will pursue more produc-
treatment. But many addicts also are criminals tive interests, and the streets will be safer. The
who infringe on or violate the rights of others. In Crime Control Act formalizes the linkage
these instances, there should be a balance between the criminal justice and treatment sys-
between sanctions for criminal activity and treat- tems and empowers judges to use a valuable range
ment of an addictive disease. of treatment and punishment options.
There is compelling evidence that treatment is Despite increases in prosecutions and convictions,
cost-effective and provides significant public safe- drug-using offenders all too often pass through the
ty benefits. In June 1994 the RAND Corporation criminal justice system without having been
reported that drug treatment is the most cost- encouraged to stop using drugs. It is imperative
effective drug control intervention, compared that this Nation take advantage of the criminal
with other potential drug strategy program justice system’s ability at all levels of government
options, such as interdiction.2 In September 1994 to break the cycle of drug dependency and crimi-
a comprehensive study of drug treatment in Cali- nal activity. Breaking this cycle will require
fornia concluded that for every dollar invested in appropriate treatment, aftercare, and habilitation
drug treatment in 1992, taxpayers saved $7. The and rehabilitation services, as well as a commit-
savings was attributed to decreased use of drugs, ment to assist users in rebuilding their lives. Once

drug-addicted criminals have been helped to such as Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime,
remain drug free and to rebuild their lives, Ameri- enable courts to divert users into treatment, to
ca’s neighborhoods and communities will be safer condition pretrial release or probation on partici-
and more productive. pation in drug treatment, and to monitor treat-
ment progress. Such comprehensive programs can
Fundamental to maximizing the drug treatment reduce drug-related recidivism and break the cycle
benefits through the criminal justice system is the of drugs and crime.
concept of coerced abstinence—that is, using the
limitations the criminal justice system inherently This reasonable but tough treatment for drug
places on a person’s freedom of action to force pos- offenders can help ensure that drug-addicted crim-
itive changes in drug use behavior. Several related inals do not revert to the same criminal activity
steps at different stages of the criminal justice and continue to pass through the criminal justice
process must be taken to effect such change. For system. Progress has been made by drug court pro-
example, drug testing a person grams in Fort Lauderdale, Florida; Miami, Florida;
at the time of his or her arrest Oakland, California; Portland, Oregon; New York
Fundamental to can help determine who needs City, New York; and the District of Columbia.
maximizing the drug supervision and treatment and These programs have demonstrated that closely
treatment benefits who needs the threat of further supervised, court-ordered rehabilitation can be
through the criminal punishment as an incentive for successful in reducing drug use, alleviating correc-
justice system is the “getting straight.” Those who tional overcrowding, and freeing prison space for
concept of coerced are charged with drug offenses more serious, more dangerous offenders. Simply
abstinence. not involving violence and who put, with proper linkages established between the
have no prior history of violent criminal justice and treatment systems, drug-using
offenses could be diverted offenders are given one of two choices—commu-
through drug courts or other alternative sanction nity rehabilitation or incarceration.
programs that use the threat of incarceration to
enforce abstinence and change.4 As enacted, the Crime Control Act includes the
Administration’s Drug Court Initiative, authoriz-
The Drug Courts Initiative within the Crime ing $1 billion over 6 years to provide competitive
Control Act establishes drug courts and similar grant assistance to jurisdictions planning, estab-
offender management programs at the State and lishing, or improving judicially supervised, inte-
local levels. Existing drug court programs have grated sanctions and services. In addition, the
been tested and proven effective in jurisdictions Department of Justice’s Drug Court Resource
across the Nation. They ensure certainty and Center now is available to assist State and local
immediacy of punishment for nonviolent arrestees criminal justice systems in planning, implement-
with substance abuse problems who might other- ing, managing, and evaluating the effectiveness of
wise go unpunished or receive only unsupervised drug court programs.
probation or a minimal sentence. Such programs
free up jail and prison space for violent, predatory Sound institutional management also is essential
criminals. to conducting effective drug treatment programs,
and such management is found in the substance
However, to be effective, drug courts and offender abuse treatment program of the Federal Bureau of
management programs must provide integrated Prisons (BOP). The BOP program includes drug
services and sanctions that include continuing education, nonresidential treatment, residential
close supervision; mandatory periodic drug test- treatment, and transitional services and communi-
ing, treatment, and aftercare services; and a sys- ty supervision for inmates under BOP custody.
tem of escalating sanctions for those who fail to Cooperative working arrangements with the
meet program requirements or do not make satis- Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
factory progress. Offender management programs, which is responsible for Federal probationers and

parolees, have led to joint identification and use of The BOP targets chronic, hardcore drug users for
private treatment resources in communities. treatment, which is consistent with the National
Drug Control Strategy. The BOP also has begun
There is evidence that prison-based drug treat- to target other “most in need of treatment” popu-
ment is an effective means of controlling recidi- lations, including offenders diagnosed as having
vism to criminal behavior and that intensive both a substance abuse problem and mental
programs such as therapeutic communities (TCs) health disorders. An evaluation of the BOP’s resi-
are well suited for serious drug abusers while they dential drug treatment programs currently is under
are incarcerated. Studies of the prison-based way in conjunction with NIDA, and interim
Stay’n Out TC shows that the program is effective results are due in late FY 1995. The BOP pro-
in reducing recidivism rates.5 Another study of grams already are serving as a model for several
prison-based TC programs—including the Cor- State and local jurisdictions and will continue to
nerstone program in Oregon; the Amity program do so.
in San Diego, California; and the Key program in
Delaware—indicate similar effectiveness in reduc- The Crime Control Act direct-
ing recidivism.6 Furthermore, all the studies indi- ly addresses the need for ade- There is evidence that
cate that the longer the inmates spend in quate resources for correctional prison-based drug
treatment, the lower their rates of recidivism. expansion in order to provide treatment is an effective
space for incarcerating serious, means of controlling
The role of structural aftercare in further reducing violent offenders and to give recidivism to criminal
rates of recidivism is becoming increasingly meaning to “truth in sentenc- behavior.
important. For example, the Amity program in ing” at the State and local lev-
Pima County, Arizona, reported a 21-percent dif- els. The Crime Control Act
ferential in women inmates who continued treat- also ensures that State offenders will have expand-
ment after they were released into the community ed access to residential substance abuse treatment
versus those that did not. The Key program in by authorizing $383 million to support a treat-
Delaware reported a 23-percent differential ment schedule covering all drug-addicted inmates
between the two populations, and the Amity pro- by the end of FY 1997.
gram in Donovan prison in San Diego, California,
reported a 26-percent differential. Finally, this Strategy seeks to advance the linkage
between the criminal justice system and drug
In 1994 more than 11,500 BOP inmates partici- treatment in the following ways:
pated in drug education, more than 3,750 in resi-
dential drug treatment, and nearly 2,000 in • The BOP drug treatment program will be
nonresidential treatment. On any given day in offered to States as a working model. The
1994, an average of 750 inmates were participat- National Academy of Corrections will sponsor
ing in transitional services, the final stage of suc- training, transfer of policy and procedural doc-
cessful treatment completion. uments, and technical assistance to help States
implement the model. In addition, exemplary
The number of Federal inmates receiving residen- community and institutional programs at the
tial drug treatment will grow significantly in the State and local levels will be recognized, docu-
years ahead. The Crime Control Act provides mented, and offered as “host sites” for visits by
that all “eligible” inmates must receive 6 to 12 other jurisdictions.7
months of residential drug treatment. The sched-
ule requires that 75 percent of eligible inmates • Methadone treatment regulations will be
receive this treatment by 1996, and 100 percent reviewed and common outcome measures will
by 1997. A total of $112.5 million over 5 years, be established to help State regulators assess
beginning in 1996, is authorized for this purpose. the effectiveness of heroin treatment programs.

Treatment Research • Further development of alternative modalities,

such as acupuncture; and
This Nation’s treatment research efforts to identi-
fy and develop effective drug treatment strategies • Investigation of the integration of behavioral
are, and must continue to be, based on the com- and pharmacologic approaches to treatment.
plexity of drug abuse. Treatment strategies must
be tailored to the drug(s) of abuse and the charac- The Treatment, Prevention, and Medical Research
teristics of the client and treatment provider. Subcommittee also will work to foster comprehen-
Strategies must address many providers’ needs to sive training and continuing education for treat-
treat a drug user’s concurrent mental and medical ment professionals, as well as training on the
disorders. nature of addiction, treatment, and recovery for
all other health professionals.
The Treatment, Prevention, and Medical Research
Subcommittee, as part of ONDCP’s Research,
Development, and Evaluation Committee, will THE ROLE OF DRUG PREVENTION
pursue the following research priorities: EFFORTS
• The development of effec- There now is common agreement among those

There now is common tive recruitment and reten- working in the demand reduction field—from
agreement among those tion strategies—that is, ways social workers to law enforcement officials—that
working in the demand to direct those who need only prevention efforts can bring about a long-
reduction field—from treatment to enter and stay term solution to the problem of illicit drug use and
social workers to law in treatment; its consequences. There also is common agree-
enforcement officials— ment that prevention efforts are difficult to evalu-
that only prevention • More and better outcome ate. Although recent data on adolescents show
efforts can bring about a studies comparing the differ- drug use increasing and attitudes against use
long-term solution to the ent modalities of treatment; declining, there has been significant progress since
problem of illicit drug use 1979 in reducing the overall number of individu-
and its consequences. • Rigorous evaluation of als who use illicit drugs—from 24 million to 12
behavioral and counseling million. The Nation must clarify which measures
approaches; have been effective and examine why the alarm-
ing, recent upturns in drug use have occurred.
• Development, testing, and dissemination of
specialized treatment interventions for popula- Prevention is critically important to keeping new
tions such as adolescents, women, and minori- users from entering the pipeline to chronic, hard-
ties; core use. Prevention must aim to break the inter-
generational cycle through which many children
• Review treatment modalities and maintain the of addicts become users. Equally important is a
status of medications development; heightened focus on the workplace, where many
current drug users can be identified and motivated
• Pharmacologic research focusing on develop- to stop using drugs through employee assistance
ing new medications for cocaine and heroin programs that offer cost-effective prevention and
addiction. This Administration seeks to have intervention services. The workplace provides an
an effective cocaine medication available for excellent forum to educate parents on how to help
clinical use before the turn of the century; their children avoid drugs, as well as a means to
methadone or LAAM (levo-alpha-acetyl- provide concerned employees with information
methadol hydrochloride) for opiate addiction on community drug use issues and on how to get
should be used as the practical standard for involved in preventing drug use.
effectiveness;

The prevention field is maturing in terms of its • Educational, workplace, and social settings
activeness, applied technology, and a growing that impart and reinforce accurate drug infor-
body of literature. Hard evidence that supports mation and “no use” attitudes; and
drug use prevention is beginning to emerge. The
National Structured Evaluation (NSE), a recently • Social sanctions and rewards that discourage
concluded comparative analysis of hundreds of drug use and other serious risk behaviors.
prevention efforts, 8 provides some much-needed
positive guidance for prevention practitioners. To link specific prevention efforts to specific out-
comes, analysts must ask not simply “What works?”
The challenge is to marshal and leverage these but also “What specific programs are effective, what
positive forces to shape public policy and keep the approaches do they use, and with which popula-
field of prevention moving forward. One key to tions will they be effective?” Once the answers are
progress is focused, systematic, expert leadership obtained, the information must
at all levels of government—Federal, State, and be shared.
local. Information on existing programs, initia- The prevention field is
tives, and knowledge must be gathered, organized, The NSE makes a significant maturing in terms of its
and shared. All existing programs should be ana- contribution to the knowledge activeness, applied
lyzed to determine which approaches are most of drug prevention programs in technology, and a
effective. It is valuable to include programs that the United States by identify- growing body of
are less effective in these efforts because the rea- ing effective approaches and literature.
sons for their lack of success and possible solutions making essential observations
might be identified. This will reduce the usage of of outcomes sought and popula-
approaches that have proven ineffective in the tions served by prevention efforts. Table 5-1 pre-
past. There also is a need to reach consensus on sents an overview of typical prevention
major policy questions and set the direction of the approaches used to organize the NSE.
national drug abuse prevention agenda. 9 This
gathering, sharing, collaboration, and leadership Many of the findings of the NSE will be useful at
within the Federal sector is the basis of the newly both the Federal and local levels. Its findings
proposed National Drug Prevention System include the following:
(NDPS) discussed later in this chapter.
• For younger children and adolescents, preven-
Drug Prevention Program Evaluation tion approaches that emphasize personal skills
development and task-oriented skills train-
Measuring and evaluating the impact and effec- ing—“psychosocial” approaches—were shown
tiveness of prevention programs poses particularly to be the most consistently effective in reduc-
complex problems. However, recent evaluations ing alcohol and drug use.
of drug prevention efforts have found certain pro-
grams to be effective in the following outcome • For adolescents at significant risk for problem
areas: (1) reducing risk factors, increasing protec- behaviors, professionally administered individ-
tive factors, or both; (2) improving knowledge ual and family counseling demonstrated effec-
and attitudes about drug or alcohol use; and (3) tiveness in influencing long-term risk and
reducing drug or alcohol problem behaviors. protective factors related to drug use and alco-
hol abuse.
Prevention research has made it clear that, at a
minimum, the Nation’s young people need the fol- • For adults, prevention approaches that change
lowing: the community environment, often in concert
with interventions targeted to specific individu-
• Community settings that protect and promote als, were shown to be effective in reducing drug
drug-free living; and alcohol problem behaviors.

Table 5-1. Typical prevention approaches

Evaluators conducting the National Structured Evaluation grouped prevention modules into seven distinct
approaches that characterize typical prevention activities:
1. Positive Decisionmaking Approach—provides personal skills development and didactic drug education to
preadolescent children. It accounts for nearly one-quarter of the modules and is most often identified
with both school-based and community-based programs.
2. Safety/Health Skills Approach—provides personal skills development, didactic drug education, and
safety education. It is the least common approach, accounting for slightly more than 2 percent of the
modules, and is almost always school-based.
3. Psychosocial Skills Approach—provides personal skills development and/or task-oriented skills training,
but no didactic drug education. It accounts for more than 10 percent of the modules and is generally
provided by nonprofit agencies for adults and adolescents.
4. Counseling Intensive Approach—provides individual counseling and/or family intervention and didactic
drug education. It accounts for more than 10 percent of the modules and is often administered by
government agencies in large cities and targeted toward minority populations, notably Hispanics.
5. Case Management Approach—provides case management, individual counseling, and task-oriented

skills training. It accounts for more than 7 percent of the modules and is generally longer term and more
likely to involve health care and addiction professionals. Modules addressing pregnant and postpartum
women and infants generally use this approach.
6. Multidirectional Approach—provides many disparate activities including, at a minimum, personal skills

development, task-oriented skills training, didactic drug education, and access to drug-free activities for
inner city minority adolescents. It accounts for about 13 percent of the modules.
7. Environmental Change Approach—provides training, forms coalitions, changes laws or enforcement

patterns, and changes the physical environment. It accounts for nearly one-third of the modules and
often involves both public and nonprofit agencies but seldom involves schools.
• Programs that are sensitive to and reflect the tance over the next 2 years. These studies include
cultural values of the targeted group are more cross-site evaluations of Pregnant and Postpartum
effective. Women and Infants grants, Community Partner-
ship grants, and High Risk Youth grants. In addi-
These findings will be further evaluated, combined tion, the Department of Education is supporting a
with other relevant findings, study designed to examine the effectiveness of
and shared systematically with comprehensive prevention programming in
Other relevant evaluation local communities. These find- school settings which is funded by its Safe and
studies now under way ings are consistent with those of Drug-Free Schools and Communities program.
are expected to yield the broader prevention research
findings of significant that underpins the social devel- Targeting Alcohol Abuse by Minors
importance over the next opment strategy now being
2 years. employed in about 100 commu- Alcohol is the single most abused substance
nities across the country. 10 throughout the Nation, especially among young
Under the Department of Jus- people in secondary schools and colleges and uni-
tice’s Communities That Care program, communi- versities. Because underage drinking—especially
ties are employing approaches to interrupt the binge drinking—has extremely serious conse-
processes that produce problem behaviors, such as quences for students’ health, safety, and school
crime, violence, and substance abuse. performance, and because underage drinking is so
frequently a forerunner or companion to illicit
Other relevant evaluation studies now under way drug use, this Strategy includes a strong alcohol
are expected to yield findings of significant impor- prevention component (targeting youth under age

21) in the media campaign discussed in Target No. school programs, mentoring, family counseling,
3 at the end of this Chapter. and parental training. The Community Schools
and Youth Services and Supervision Grant Pro-
Federally funded prevention programs will contin- gram will support similar activities in areas of high
ue to provide young people with clear messages poverty and juvenile delinquency. Public school
about the dangers of the underage use of alcohol buildings will be open after hours, on weekends,
and tobacco. The Departments of Health and and during the summer months as a home base for
Human Services, Education, Transportation, and these activities. Through these programs, along
Treasury will continue to place a high priority on with the other programs of the Safe and Drug-Free
programs that discourage the use of alcohol and Schools and Communities Act, the Administra-
tobacco by minors. tion will seek to enhance schools’ ability to pre-
sent a firm “no use” prevention message to youth,
Safe and Drug-Free Schools especially those who are at
greatest risk of becoming
Alcohol is the single most
The educational system will continue to be a vital involved with drugs, gangs, and
abused substance
means of conveying the prevention message to violence.
throughout the Nation,
young people. One of the Federal Government’s
especially among young
most important prevention initiatives is the Safe Community-Based Programs
people in secondary
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program,
schools and colleges and
administered by the Department of Education Community-based initiatives,
universities.
since 1987. With every national indicator of ado- whether at the national or local
lescent drug use trends continuing to point to an level, require planning and
increase in drug use by young people, this impor- intensive cooperation between law enforcement
tant program has taken on added significance. (e.g., police, prosecutors, courts, and the correc-
tions system), schools, private institutions, the
Experts agree that school-based drug prevention faith community, other community organizations,
programs, such as those supported through the citizens, and others. Several current initiatives
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities foster collaboration at the Federal, State, and local
Act (SDFSCA), help stop young people from levels. One key initiative at the local level is the
using drugs. Recently authorized, the SDSFCA Administration’s Community Oriented Policing
has been expanded to address violence preven- Services initiative to put 100,000 new police offi-
tion, to provide better accountability and cers “on the beat.” In many communities, these
enhanced coordination and community linkages, police officers will work to encourage residents to
and better target funding to areas in need. If the come forward with information pertinent to crim-
United States is to succeed in preventing the inal investigations and to transfer relevant intelli-
onset of a new wave of drug use, schools must con- gence into the hands of drug enforcement
tinue their drug prevention efforts. operations personnel. They also will serve as role
models in their communities and will initiate or
In addition to continuing support of existing take part in education and prevention programs,
school-based programs, the Department of Educa- including Project D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resis-
tion will implement the new Family and Commu- tance Education) and the General Response
nity Endeavor Schools (FACES) grant program, Action Tracking System. Police officers also will
and the Department of Health and Human Ser- work to identify drug use and trafficking trouble
vices will implement the Community Schools and spots, coordinate related crisis intervention ser-
Youth Services and Supervision grant program. vices, and act as visible deterrents to street-level
Both programs are authorized under the Crime drug dealing.
Control Act. The FACES program will support
programs in high-poverty and high-crime areas to Operation Weed and Seed also plays an important
improve the academic and social development of role in empowering communities to develop and
at-risk students through such activities as after- implement area-specific law enforcement and

demand reduction strategies. Operation Weed ing Back” and the Community Anti-Drug
and Seed integrates law enforcement and criminal Coalitions of America;
justice efforts at all levels of government services
and private-sector and community efforts to maxi- • Develop and expand the number of enforce-
mize the impact of existing programs and ment officers on the streets and encourage
resources. This program has been successful in stronger community support of local police
allocating resources to people and programs that efforts;
can best address the community’s specific prob-
lems and concerns. • Develop effective models for community
action; and
The Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Communities
Initiative, the Pulling America’s Communities • Target resources toward programs that address
Together Program, and the President’s Ounce of youth and high-risk populations.
Prevention Council also assist communities and
use this collaborative approach. DOJ and other The Administration intends to increase the num-
agencies will be involved in implementing a series ber of community partnerships around the Nation.
of coordination-oriented initiatives to revitalize As communities understand that large amounts of
American communities and enable them to more initial funding are not required to establish strong
effectively combat drugs, crime, and violence. partnerships, there should be a marked increase in
partnerships. Furthermore, given the wealth of
Community Antidrug knowledge provided by the 253 communities that
The Administration Coalitions and Partnerships already have participated in the program, techni-
intends to increase the cal assistance and information can enable new
number of community Experience has shown that for participants to move quickly and inexpensively to
partnerships around the drug prevention to be effective, identify local resources and plan and implement
Nation. drug distribution and use must actions that address local needs.
be addressed by comprehensive,
inclusive, balanced responses at Drug-Free Workplaces
the community level. These responses should
involve the coordinated activities of as many sec- Drug use in America’s workplaces has severe nega-
tors of the community as possible, including tive consequences and should be viewed as a bot-
schools, parent associations, faith organizations, tom-line issue for the business community. Drug
local police, health care providers, service and use threatens the safety and personal health of
civic organizations, and private businesses of all workers and consumers and degrades worker
sizes. Community-based prevention efforts mobi- effectiveness. For businesses, it means higher
lize individuals, organizations, and systems to act injury rates, increased workers’ compensation
in concert to address the multitude of problems claims, reduced efficiency, and diminished produc-
associated with drug abuse in American neighbor- tivity and competitiveness. Beyond the workplace,
hoods and communities. drug use also has played a powerful role in the dis-
integration of American communities and fami-
A cornerstone of the Administration’s drug policy lies. Community-based substance abuse initiatives
is to work with community partnerships and should involve businesses as vital partners in help-
antidrug coalitions. To encourage this coopera- ing communities design efforts to strengthen their
tion, the Administration will focus on achieving overall ability to address substance abuse problems.
the following goals:
Given that approximately three-fourths of adult
• Work in partnership with such national, pre- men over the age of 16 and more than one-half of
vention-related, coalition-building efforts as adult women in the United States are employed,
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s “Fight- the workplace offers a key arena in which to edu-

cate Americans about positive lifestyles, attitudes, Faith Community Involvement

and behaviors. To have maximum effectiveness,
workplace programs must begin with a policy that America’s faith community can play an important
clearly states that drug and alcohol use on the job role in finding solutions to the related issues of
is not acceptable. Drug-free workplace programs drugs and violence. Places of worship are the spir-
should include supervisor training and employee itual centers of many communities. Individuals
education programs as well as the means to identi- and families turn to their religious institutions for
fy those workers who abuse substances. For cer- healing, hope, and guidance in difficult social and
tain workplace environments, such as those personal matters, including the distribution, use,
involving safety-sensitive duties, workplace pro- and impact of drugs on their communities. The
grams should include a reasonable program of drug faith community can help prevent drug use and
testing. Finally, workplace programs should can serve as a familiar commu-
include the means to assist employees who do use nity advocate against violence.
drugs to become drug free.11 Given that approximately
In the past year the Adminis- three-fourths of adult
It is Administration policy to help keep America’s tration began exploring ways to men over the age of 16
workplaces free of the problems of drug abuse. effectively coordinate its efforts and more than one-half
This includes the Federal Government, which is and those of the faith commu- of adult women in the
the Nation’s largest employer and which has a spe- nity. Two major steps were United States are
cial responsibility to set an example for other taken toward this end: employed, the workplace
employers by eliminating their employees’ drug offers a key arena in
use. This responsibility is given greater urgency by • ONDCP endorsed the which to educate
the fact that many Federal agencies, Federal national One Church, One Americans about positive
employees, and federally regulated industries are Addict program to encour- lifestyles, attitudes, and
entrusted with public safety and welfare as well as age every religious institu- behaviors.
with national security. For these reasons, the tion in America, regardless
Administration strongly supports, and is making of faith or denomination, to adopt one recover-
every effort to achieve, full implementation of ing addict and help him or her develop and sus-
Executive Order 12564, which prohibits illicit tain the ability to live drug free.
drug use by employees of Executive Branch agen-
cies and requires all agencies to adopt comprehen- • ONDCP made a decision to hold a major meet-
sive drug-free workplace policies and programs. ing of faith community leaders from across the
The Administration urges Congress to adopt a Nation to reach consensus on specific steps to
similar program for its employees so that it can take to reverse the impact of drug use and drug-
ensure that its workplace is drug free. related violence. This meeting of faith com-
munity leaders is expected to take place before
To encourage drug-free workplace programs, the end of 1995.
ONDCP has established a Drug-Free Workplace
Working Group composed of representatives from These efforts and others will encourage partner-
Federal agencies to recommend actions providing ships among many concerned organizations. Mem-
employers with (1) incentives to adopt drug-free bers of local community partnerships and coalitions
workplace policies and programs, (2) information already are working within their communities and
on model programs shown to be effective, and (3) neighborhoods to develop faith-based strategies to
specific knowledge that can support efforts to address alcohol and drug abuse. As new communi-
establish and maintain drug-free environments. ty leaders emerge and join with established leaders,
The Drug-Free Workplace Working Group will community partnerships and coalitions will draw
remain in effect to oversee and advance imple- on the strengths of various religious faiths to pro-
mentation of its recommendations. The work- vide training and information about effective faith-
place will be a major focus of the Administration’s based strategies for the prevention and treatment of
drug efforts in 1995. alcohol and other drug problems.

Meetings with the leaders of various religious cess; help control crime and reduce violence by
faiths have been held periodically by ONDCP to improving community services, law enforcement,
address issues of prevention and treatment, vio- and victim services; rebuild neighborhoods by ren-
lence, drug abuse, and other related problems. ovating and rehabilitating aging housing stock;
Specialized technical support and training also improve neighborhood environments; and pro-
have been provided to faith community leaders vide better health care in America’s communities.
and seminaries including identifying Federal
resources and providing pertinent information To provide explicit recognition for young people
about the relationship between substance abuse who lead the way in saying “yes” to a drug-free and
and violence. productive life, the Director of ONDCP will
develop a program to recognize outstanding chil-
African American Male Initiative dren and adolescents who exhibit courage and the
spirit of citizenship in service to their peers,
ONDCP has established a special initiative to through example and leadership, and to their
study the special problems facing African Ameri- communities, through contributions to anti-drug
can males, especially those problems relating to and healthy alternative endeavors.
drugs and violence, and to
develop a range of responses Prevention Research
Meetings with the and an action agenda to begin
leaders of various dealing with the most serious of Prevention is a newer discipline than treatment,
religious faiths have been those problems. A key compo- and in many ways, more complex. Its promises are
held periodically by nent of the initiative will be the evident, but its results can be difficult to docu-
ONDCP to address issues development of a matrix of Fed- ment. For example, a recently released report
of prevention and eral programs and leadership, so from the U.S. Congress Office of Technology
treatment, violence, drug that the problems identified Assessment concluded that “Current drug preven-
abuse, and other related and potential solutions can be tion programs lack scientifically accepted stan-
problems. directed to the appropriate dards for determining their success or failure...”12
level for decisions and cross- Yet, as noted earlier, there is a significant body of
departmental actions. research findings regarding violence, crime, sub-
stance abuse, and other problem behaviors. Once
National Service Program understood, the interrelationships among these
findings should guide the implementation of com-
Research on drug abuse prevention shows that munity programs.
high-risk youth are better able to withstand the
lure of drugs and gangs when they develop strong The interrelationships of risk and protective fac-
ties to social and community organizations and tors, knowledge and attitudes, and drug use behav-
when they learn discipline and self-respect iors highlight the potential for building an
through work and achievement. The Corporation effective prevention model. Such a model will
for National Service, now in its second year, is allow communities to identify drug use and take
making a significant contribution to the National appropriate action based on sound planning. This
Drug Control Strategy through a variety of pro- process will require the kind of systematic
grams that harness the energy, enthusiasm, and approach envisioned by the NDPS and will
commitment of young people in service to their require discipline to avoid inflated claims and
Nation, their community, and their fellow youth. expectations for any one program. 13 Although
reduction or increase in drug use is the basic mea-
During the summer of 1994, the Summer of Safety sure for success, no one program can or should be
Program enabled thousands of young people, who an exclusive panacea. To be effective, any com-
serve for 2 years, to work with local programs to prehensive prevention strategy must address long-
enhance school readiness and promote school suc- term risk and protective factors, improve

knowledge and attitudes, and intervene in drug drug abuse and its negative consequences. The
use behaviors. In addition, individual compo- prevention field is maturing. Solid data help
nents that comprise the strategic whole should be determine which programs are effective, which
tightly targeted and coordinated so they con- programs have promise, and which programs
tribute to, rather than attempt to accomplish on should be eliminated. There is a growing body of
their own, all the goals of prevention. literature, including literature on studies such as
the NSE, which demonstrates how programs can
Another priority area for prevention research is fit together and contribute to an effective commu-
examining the effects, both positive and negative, nity strategy.
of media influence on the social environment. Pos-
itive environmental change efforts are generally Consequently, this Administration supports the
evaluated as likely to be effective with those of high development of the NDPS built on the knowledge
school age and older. These broad-based communi- gains of the past several years
ty efforts seek to reduce risk factors and increase and designed to leverage Feder-
protective factors, often through tightly focused, al resources and influence to Local leaders, parents,
specific efforts. The effects of specific actions forge, promote, and sustain youth, law enforcement,
appear to be cumulative, with concrete changes felt strong prevention partnerships faith community leaders,
in the broader community. On the other hand, among Federal, State, and local and professional
there clearly exist environmental inducements to entities. The NDPS will unite prevention specialists are
drug use, to other negative behaviors, and to under- various drug prevention sectors recognizing prevention as
age alcohol and tobacco use. The role and impact and programs and serve as a the only long-term
of the media on the community environment have comprehensive system to answer to drug abuse
been measured and evaluated. This effort to evalu- address the drug abuse preven- and its negative
ate the role of the media in the drug problem must tion needs of the Nation’s consequences.
be continued and refined, and the media must con- diverse population. It also will
tinue to act responsibly. facilitate identification of major gaps and overlaps
in prevention, and it will promote optimum plan-
In addition to the long-term need for a systematic ning for the most effective use of drug prevention
approach, there is the need to keep existing pro- resources.
grams focused to ensure the greatest cumulative
effect. The differing impacts of specific drug use The Federal Government can best provide leader-
and violence prevention programs, as well as the ship to this initiative by modeling collaboration
need for all prevention programs to be properly and joint planning among the 32 Federal agencies
coordinated and targeted, make it clear that a with demand reduction responsibilities. ONDCP
proactive Ounce of Prevention Council14 is criti- will lead this effort by convening a roundtable dis-
cal both to effective implementation of the Crime cussion of demand reduction agencies as part of the
Control Act’s violence prevention programs and NDPS. The NDPS will provide an inventory of
related drug prevention programs and to the appli- existing drug abuse prevention initiatives and pro-
cation of existing research to the design of all pre- grams, identify major gaps and areas of overlap, and
vention programs. plan the most effective use of resources. Major pre-
vention agencies in the Departments of Education,
National Drug Prevention System: A Shared Health and Human Services, Justice, Housing and
Responsibility Urban Development, and Labor, as well as plan-
ning and coordination agencies such as ONDCP,
At the community level there is a groundswell of the Office of National AIDS Policy Coordination,
support for prevention. Local leaders, parents, and National Performance Review will be
youth, law enforcement, faith community leaders, involved. The NDPS also will report to the Presi-
and professional prevention specialists are recog- dent’s Ounce of Prevention Council and will be
nizing prevention as the only long-term answer to chaired by ONDCP’s Office of Demand Reduction.

The NDPS will include the following ongoing and The NDPS’s challenge is to unite all these compo-
new initiatives: nents into an interactive, synergetic system that
will make a permanent impact on drug abuse in
• Encouraging private-sector drug prevention America.
organizations to share information and work
together to heighten prevention efforts nation-
wide; 12-MONTH ACTION PLAN FOR REDUCING
THE DEMAND FOR ILLICIT DRUGS
• Encouraging community-based prevention ser-
vices in all communities to include services for The Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for
at-risk youth; Illicit Drugs consists of three targets: (1) develop
the NDPS, (2) develop model provider training
• Encouraging community partnerships to coor- and certification guidelines for treatment and pre-
dinate prevention programs at the local level vention professionals, and (3) launch a “Save Our
so as to provide comprehensive services Children—Save Our Future” Media Campaign.
throughout communities;
Target No. 1: Develop the NDPS
• Supporting State organiza-
The NDPS’s challenge is
tions to provide a statewide Steps:
to unite all these
network of community part-
components into an
nerships; • Identify key personnel from Federal agencies
interactive, synergetic
with drug prevention responsibilities and initi-
system that will make a
• Convening a forum to ate the NDPS by convening these personnel in
permanent impact on
address national prevention monthly meetings (Completion Date: Febru-
drug abuse in America.
policy matters; ary 1995).
• Encouraging public and private efforts to create • Develop a plan to use previously planned
dissemination systems to transmit the latest national conferences and workshops in the
knowledge and prevention methods to the drug abuse prevention field to discuss and
field; develop the NDPS (Completion Date: March
1995).
• Developing Federal capacity to generate and
evaluate innovative prevention strategies and • Perform an inventory of federally sponsored
to replicate promising strategies; substance abuse prevention efforts to promote
initiatives involving program coordination,
• Encouraging the expansion of prevention streamlining, and interaction at these monthly
training systems, including the development of meetings (Completion Date: July 1995).
academic training programs in colleges and
universities; • Develop common themes that Federal agencies
will carry forward in their projects to prevent
• Enhancing workplace programs to make com- drug abuse (Completion Date: July 1995).
prehensive information on drug-free workplace
programs available to all businesses; and • Encourage technology transfer among private-
sector organizations working in the drug abuse
• Promoting a special national partnership prevention field (Completion Date: August
between law enforcement (especially commu- 1995).
nity policing) and community-based preven-
tion services. • Support annual workshops to enhance the
state of the art and national awareness of

applied prevention programming (e.g., a Target No. 3: Launch a “Save Our

research and evaluation workshop to assess the Children—Save Our Future” Media
prevention knowledge base and to recommend Campaign
directions for new studies, or a public aware-
ness workshop to assess current public messages This campaign will have two components: media
and to recommend new themes based on cur- messages and the Media Literacy Program.
rent national interests) (Completion Date: ONDCP will invite major media organizations to
December 1995). join ONDCP and the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America to develop several media messages
• Encourage substance abuse prevention confer- intended to discourage youth from using drugs.
ences to enhance the prevention field (Com- The Media Literacy Program trains young people
pletion Date: December 1995). to analyze media messages critically, whether com-
mercial or entertainment, with the theme that
Completion Date: December 1995 one can and should think for oneself.
Target No. 2: Develop Model Provider Steps:

Training and Certification Guidelines for The Action Plan for
Treatment and Prevention Professionals • Deglamorize drug use Reducing the Demand for
(including tobacco and Illicit Drugs consists of
This target is intended to further the level of alcohol) in the minds of three targets: (1) develop
excellence among drug abuse prevention and American children. The the NDPS, (2) develop
treatment professionals, with the goal of engen- Administration will target model provider training
dering and maintaining consumer confidence in cable television networks, and certification
the quality of services delivered by the prevention major television networks, guidelines for treatment
and treatment systems. corporations and industries, and prevention
and other media organiza- professionals, and (3)
Several States have skills-based certification tions. launch a “Save Our
processes, and others have education- or creden- Children—Save Our
tial-based systems. This target will identify the • Disseminate to parents, Future” Media Campaign.
state of the art in provider training and certifica- community partnerships,
tion, and using models from across the Nation, antidrug coalitions, and other community
develop model provider training and certification groups the information provided to media lead-
guidelines for treatment and preventional profes- ers as well as a report on the response of the
sionals. media.
Steps: • Recognize media programs and messages that

honestly and thoughtfully instruct and chal-
• Expert advice will be sought to identify and lenge children regarding drug use.
define the current provider training and certifi-
cation systems. Recommended guidelines for • Work with SAMHSA to implement the Media
providers to use in the training and certifica- Literacy Program.
tion process will be provided.
• Encourage SAMHSA to develop specific plans
• Federal agencies will solicit input on the guide- to train youth workers enrolled in the Job
lines. Opportunities and Basic Skills program in drug
prevention strategies.
• A provider preparation document will be pro-
duced and disseminated to the field. Completion Date: December 1995
Completion Date: December 1995

ENDNOTES tion efforts. The expert panel included research, practi-

tioner, and evaluation authorities. It has met three times
1 to ascertain, to the best of its ability, why the adolescent
Drug addiction is a debilitating condition with physical
and mental causes and consequences. Diagnostic criteria data sets are reporting an increase in adolescent drug use
for addiction, agreed upon by the American Psychiatric and a softening of attitudes about use. In order to begin
Association and the World Health Organization, include counteracting these emerging trends, the panel developed
physical effects, such as marked tolerance and symptoms a series of recommendations. Included among these rec-
of withdrawal, and psychological consequences, including ommendations are specific steps that ONDCP already has
craving and a mental focus on obtaining and using drugs. implemented, such as the formation of an adolescent
Addiction fuels destructive behavior patterns that are advisory panel being convened as the NPS. Another rec-
exceedingly difficult to break. ommendation concerned implementating programs that
foster greater school and community involvement, such
2 as the FACES grant program, administered by the
Rydell, C.P., and Everingham, S.S. Controlling Cocaine:
Supply Versus Demand Programs. RAND report. 1994. Department of Education. Another recommendation was
to develop a media strategy to convince parents and
3 youth that drug use is dangerous. These plans are in
Evaluating Recovery Services: The California Drug and
Alcohol Treatment Assessment. National Opinion development and are reflected elsewhere in the action
Research Center at the University of Chicago and Lewin- plans within this Strategy.
VHI, Inc., for the State of California, Department of 10
Alcohol and Drug Programs. See, for example, Preventing Serious, Violent, and Chronic
Juvenile Offending: Effective Strategies From Conception to
4 Age Six. National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
A telephone survey of Maryland households shows that a
majority (59 percent) of Marylanders believe that indi- Working Draft, August 1994.
viduals convicted for the first time should be sent to treat- 11
ment programs. Source: Center for Substance Abuse During 1994, the Department of Transportation imple-
Research (CSAR) facsimile (FAX), University of Mary- mented new rules on alcohol misuse mandated by the
land at College Park, Vol. 4, Issue 2, January 16, 1995. Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991.
This act required alcohol and drug testing of safety-sensi-
5 tive employees in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad,
Wexler, H.K.; Falkin, G.P.; and Lipton, D.S. 1988. A
Model Prison Rehabilitation Program: An Evaluation of the and mass transit industries. More than 7 million employ-
Stay’n Out Therapeutic Community. Final Report to the ees will be affected by the legislation.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. New York: Narcotic 12
and Drug Research, Inc. Technologies for Understanding and Preventing Substance
Abuse and Addiction. Office of Technology Assessment,
6 U.S. Congress. Washington, D.C. September 1994.
Wexler, H.K.; Falkin, G.P.; and Lipton, D.S. 1990. Out-
come Evaluation of a Prison Therapeutic Community for Page 21 of the executive summary. GPO Document S/N
Substance Abuse Treatment. Criminal Justice and Behav- 052-003-01388-6.
ior 17(1):71-92. 13
The recent public discussion about Project D.A.R.E. is a
7 case in point. In essence, the evaluations suggest that
The BOP program is well established and widely respect-
ed. Documents, information, and assistance are provided D.A.R.E. is not, by itself, a sufficient community response
informally to treatment and corrections experts. ONDCP to the drug problem. Knowledge and attitudes do not
will help the BOP become more actively involved in appear to be clearly linked to (risky) behaviors in the
transferring the technology it has developed as well as in younger student populations. Some studies question the
using the existing expertise and infrastructure to provide value of increasing knowledge of drug consequences and
recognition for exemplary local programs and to involve creating antidrug attitudes among students who do not
them in transferring their ideas. (and will not soon) face choices about drug use. One
implication is that programs such as D.A.R.E. might be
8 more appropriate for older children. Another implication
The National Structured Evaluation of Alcohol and Other
Drug Abuse Prevention. The Center for Substance Abuse is that because the effects of such programs do not last
Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services. long, their messages should be reinforced periodically.
Washington, D.C. 1994. 14
The President’s Ounce of Prevention Council, estab-
9 lished in Title III, Subtitle A, of the Crime Control Act
In the 1994 National Drug Control Strategy, ONDCP
announced its intention to convene a panel of national includes the Secretaries of Education, Health and Human
scholars and experts in substance abuse prevention to Services, Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture,
ensure that prevention efforts play an appropriately the Treasury, and the Interior; the U.S. Attorney Gener-
important and visible role in the Nation’s demand reduc- al; and the Director of ONDCP in a joint effort to address

more thoroughly the issue of crime prevention. The man- based organizations seeking information about regarding
date of the council includes efforts to better coordinate crime prevention programs, integrate service delivery,
planning, develop a comprehensive crime prevention cat- and develop strategies for program integration and grant
alog, provide assistance to communities and community- simplification.

VI. Action Plan for
Reducing Crime, Violence,
and Drug Availability
ew efforts are as important as law enforce- cocaine, a large percentage of whom engage in a
F
ment in controlling drug use and related variety of criminal activity—some of it violent—
crime. This Action Plan targets those who to support their drug addictions. Perhaps most
attempt to bring illegal drugs into this coun- distressing, drug use among the Nation’s youth is
try and sell them on the streets of this on the increase.
Nation’s cities and towns. Its key priorities
are to disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking organiza- The trafficking and consumption of cocaine, mari-
tions, and investigate, arrest, prosecute, and imprison juana, and heroin present an enormous challenge
drug traffickers, and seize their assets. It is based on a for U.S. law enforcement. Although stopping the
firm conviction: Drug traffickers are predatory toward trafficking and distribution of cocaine is law
individuals and parasitic toward society, and should be enforcement’s top drug priority in most areas of the
pursued until they are stopped. country, extensive resources also are focused on
stopping the trafficking of heroin and other danger-
Trafficking organizations will be attacked at every ous drugs such as marijuana, PCP (phencyclidine),
level, from drug kingpin down to street corner dealer, LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide), meth-
through a careful coordination of Federal, State, and amphetamine, and methcathinone. In addition,
local law enforcement efforts. Through community law enforcement also must address the abuse of
policing, the beat cop will be back on the street. And legitimately manufactured controlled substances,
money laundering and border control efforts will be which are a major source of drug-related addictions
expanded through major initiatives. or dependencies, medical emergencies, and deaths.
The illicit drug problem, though international in

In spite of intensified drug awareness, law enforce- scope, is most dramatically characterized by the
ment, and rehabilitation efforts, the United States social decay and violent crime that it creates in
still is plagued with a severe drug problem. Inter- this Nation’s cities and towns. In its efforts to best
national drug trafficking organizations continue to address this problem, the Administration recog-
transport thousands of kilograms of illicit drugs nizes the following:
across U.S. borders into cities and towns, and
domestic drug dealers use violence and intimida- • Federal investigative and prosecutive efforts
tion to control illegal neighborhood drug markets. help keep drugs out of communities. These
Although levels of casual drug use have decreased efforts include focusing on international drug
since 1985, there still are approximately 2.7 mil- trafficking and money laundering organizations
lion chronic, hardcore drug users of heroin and and investigating major regional and inter-

ACTION PLAN FOR REDUCING CRIME, VIOLENCE, AND DRUG AVAILABILITY
State drug trafficking organizations; police officers on the Nation’s streets; provide
treatment for chronic, hardcore drug users incar-
• Federal efforts alone will not solve this cerated in prisons; expand the use of drug courts;
Nation’s drug problem. The development of support multijurisdictional drug enforcement task
regional and community solutions to drug forces; and provide crime and drug prevention
abuse, crime, and violence is a critical element programs in schools and communities.
of the U.S. antidrug effort; and
The Crime Control Act includes important provi-
• Collaboration among Federal, State, and local sions to address drug-related violence. It includes
law enforcement is essential to successfully an assault weapons ban that increases the safety of
address those aspects of the drug trade inflict- police officers and citizens by banning 19 listed
ing the greatest harm on communities. weapons; copycat weapons; and other clearly
defined semiautomatic assault weapons that are
the weapons of choice of drug dealers, gang mem-
PROGRESS MADE TOWARD LAW bers, and mass murderers. Furthermore, the Crime
ENFORCEMENT GOALS Control Act makes it illegal for young people to
carry handguns except with parental authorization.
The law enforcement goals of the 1994 National
Drug Control Strategy included three critical law
enforcement missions: DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT
EFFORTS
• Reduce domestic drug-relat-
ed crime and violence (Goal The domestic law enforcement response to the
The Nation took a major 9). drug problem must be predicated on a coordinated
step forward in reducing attack1 on drug trafficking organizations. These
drug-related crime and • Reduce all domestic drug organizations, though largely headquartered out-
violence when it passed production and availability, side the country, supply the drugs that are sold on
the Violent Crime Control and continue to target for the streets of U.S. cities and towns. They conduct
and Law Enforcement investigation and prosecu- vast operations within the United States, either
Act of 1994. tion those who illegally directly or through U.S.-based associated entities
import, manufacture, and such as transportation networks, financial service
distribute dangerous drugs or money laundering organizations, and indepen-
and who illegally divert dent distribution mechanisms. Highly sophisti-
pharmaceutical and listed cated in their operations, these organizations are
chemicals (Goal 10). nevertheless vulnerable in several ways, and it is
on these vulnerabilities that Federal, State, and
• Improve the efficiency of Federal drug law local efforts must concentrate.2
enforcement capabilities, including interdic-
tion and intelligence programs (Goal 11). Effective attacks on drug trafficking organizations
are not limited to law enforcement operations
The Nation took a major step forward in reducing against the upper echelons of the organizations;
drug-related crime and violence when it passed rather, they include investigative approaches that
the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement work to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually destroy
Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; hereafter, entire organizations. Through these efforts, law
referred to as the Crime Control Act). The Crime enforcement can dramatically reduce the amount
Control Act builds on the essential elements of of drugs reaching the streets. Federal, State, and
the President’s National Drug Control Strategy by local law enforcement agencies must continue to
authorizing additional police officers, police sanc- target for arrest and prosecution those within the
tions, and treatment and prevention programs. United States who manage drug trafficking orga-
The Crime Control Act will put 100,000 new nizations and their associates who cultivate, pro-

duce, transport, and distribute illegal drugs. Fur- and collect and disseminate drug law enforcement
thermore, law enforcement agencies must contin- intelligence.
ue to disrupt the operations of drug trafficking
organizations by dismantling the communica- Border Control
tions, production, transportation, and money
laundering components that make up the infra- Most of the illicit drugs consumed in the United
structure of these illegal operations. States are produced in other countries. Traffickers
must smuggle them across the Nation’s borders to
Domestic law enforcement efforts must go beyond get them to their ultimate destination—the
the prosecution and imprisonment of drug traf- American drug abuser. Of particular concern is
fickers and drug-related money launderers. These the flow of drugs across the Southwest Border,
efforts also must disrupt and dismantle criminal nearly 2,000 miles in length. Current estimates
enterprises by stripping away the material assets indicate that as much as 70 percent of all cocaine
necessary to sustain illicit drug activity. Asset for- coming into the United States is trans-shipped
feiture is among the most effective and powerful through Mexico and then across the U.S.–Mexico
tools in the fight against drug trafficking and border. By identifying smug-
money laundering and, as such, is a critical com- gling organizations through
ponent of this Nation’s antidrug efforts. The abil- investigative activity, intensi- Federal criminal
ity of the Government—as part of its investigative fied cargo inspections, con- investigative agencies
and prosecutive strategy—to remove the proceeds trolled deliveries, proactive play a significant role in
of crime from individuals and to destroy the eco- undercover operations, and reducing the amount of
nomic infrastructure of criminal organizations is effective analysis of drug-relat- illicit drugs reaching the
essential to effective drug law enforcement. ed intelligence, the country’s streets of U.S. cities and
principal border control agen- towns.
Current law provides for the forfeiture of the pro- cies, the U.S. Customs Service
ceeds of illegal drug trafficking as well as the prop- and the Immigration and Natu-
erty used to facilitate such activity. Federal, State, ralization Service (INS) (which includes the U.S.
and local law enforcement agencies will continue Border Patrol), have expanded and enhanced
to identify and seize forfeitable property and to their capabilities to manage the threat posed by
initiate criminal, civil, and agency administrative the large numbers of people and vehicles that
forfeiture proceedings. Once forfeited, property is cross the border daily, both through the legitimate
sold or retained for official use by law enforce- ports of entry and across the vast, unpopulated
ment.3 The Attorney General and the Secretary areas between ports.
of the Treasury have the authority to make equi-
table payments to State, local, and foreign law Other agencies, such as the U.S. Drug Enforce-
enforcement agencies for their assistance and par- ment Administration (DEA) and the Federal
ticipation in successful forfeiture cases. To date, Bureau of Investigation (FBI), along with the rele-
the program has distributed hundreds of millions vant U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, also have focused
of dollars to State and local law enforcement much of their investigative and prosecutive efforts
agencies to fund drug law enforcement endeavors. in the Southwest Border area. These two agencies
have initiated a joint investigative strategy to
Federal Enforcement Efforts Against Trafficking combat the major Mexican drug trafficking orga-
Organizations nizations responsible for transporting much of the
drugs across the border. This effort combines
Federal criminal investigative agencies play a sig- investigative expertise and prosecutorial talent to
nificant role in reducing the amount of illicit provide the maximum impact possible.
drugs reaching the streets of U.S. cities and towns.
These agencies interdict drugs at U.S. borders, As part of its drug control efforts, the Department
investigate drug trafficking organizations, investi- of Defense (DOD) has continued its support of
gate money laundering and financial institutions, domestic law enforcement. DOD provides a wide

array of expertise and often unique capabilities not crack down on and seriously disrupt and deter the
usually found in law enforcement agencies. This flow of drugs into the United States through the
assistance includes improving the physical aspects Imperial Valley, California, region on the South-
of border control (e.g., fences, barriers, and deten- west Border. Investigative efforts are supported by
tion facilities) and providing vital intelligence a Combined Intelligence Center, staffed by inves-
analysis and translator support. tigators and intelligence specialists, which coordi-
nates interdiction activities and works to link
Because protecting the Southwest Border is so each drug seizure to a drug smuggling organiza-
important in the fight against drug trafficking, the tion.4
Administration will continue to improve Federal
efforts in this region. During Fiscal Year (FY) Interdiction Command and Control
1995, the Border Patrol will add about 700 Border
Patrol agents, and the U.S. Customs Service will During the past year, the Office of National Drug
continue to expand its efforts to Control Policy (ONDCP) and key Federal inter-
better address the flow of drugs diction agencies completed a review of the inter-
Successfully
through U.S. ports of entry. diction command and control system, including
coordinated, intelligence-
the centers and their responsibilities. Following
based investigations of
Focused, intelligence-based the review, the Administration promulgated the
trafficking organizations
interdiction that concentrates National Interdiction Command and Control
that transport drugs
on the transportation and stor- Plan. This plan, implemented in 1994, stream-
across international
age smuggling functions of lines the command and control structure by elimi-
borders almost always
major organizations involved in nating one facility and consolidating its essential
will have important
the importation of drugs must functions into other centers, eliminating the
interdictive effects, most
be a fundamental part of this interdiction coordination functions of two other
notably a decrease in the
Nation’s domestic law enforce- operational elements, and delineating clearly the
amount of drugs reaching
ment effort. The response to operational and geographical responsibilities of
the streets.
the threat of drug smuggling each of the command and control centers. The
must extend beyond simply plan also directs the use of a common communica-
seizing drugs as they enter the United States. tions and computer system to ensure that coordi-
Each seizure must be seen as part of an overall goal nation and information sharing can be
to prosecute those criminal organizations that implemented effectively.
pose the greatest threat to this country.
Effective tactical operations are based on timely
Successfully coordinated, intelligence-based and accurate intelligence. To ensure that the
investigations of trafficking organizations that appropriate operational commanders receive
transport drugs across international borders almost timely and accurate intelligence, the drug intelli-
always will have important interdictive effects, gence community developed the Interdiction
most notably a decrease in the amount of drugs Intelligence Support Plan. This plan identifies
reaching the streets. To this end, Federal law the information needed by the operational com-
enforcement agencies will enhance and better manders, including where and how the informa-
coordinate efforts to investigate, disrupt, disman- tion will be obtained and how it will be
tle, and destroy trafficking organizations responsi- disseminated. Similar to the National Interdic-
ble for moving substantial quantities of drugs tion Command and Control Plan, the Interdic-
across this Nation’s borders. tion Intelligence Support Plan builds on efforts
already proven to be effective and expands both
In January 1995 the Administration announced the capabilities and organizational responsibilities
the Valley Project. This operation coordinates of drug control agencies. The plan unites the
the efforts of 17 Federal, State, and local law intelligence and analysis abilities of all the drug
enforcement agencies as well as the military to control agencies to maximize the level of support.

Investigation of Drug Trafficking Organizations reason, the Federal Government—and in particu-

lar the U.S. Attorneys and Federal law enforce-
Federal investigations in this country must focus ment agencies—must be attentive to local needs
on those organizations that account for the largest in attacking significant gang activity and gang-
quantities of drugs, that traffic in the most danger- related violence, including the implementation
ous drugs, and whose activities are accompanied and use of the Criminal Street Gang and Youth
by the most violence. Although efforts will vary Violence provisions of the Crime Control Act and
from region to region, Federal investigative other initiatives. Furthermore, by working
resources will focus primarily on one or more of together, all levels of law enforcement can make
the following categories of drug trafficking organi- maximum use of Federal investigative tools such
zations: as court-authorized electronic surveillance, analy-
sis of compulsory financial reporting, investigative
• Domestic components of South American grand juries, and Federal evidentiary rules and
criminal organizations; criminal statutes (e.g., conspiracy, the Continuing
Criminal Enterprise and Racketeer Influenced
• Mexican drug trafficking organizations (both and Corrupt Organization laws, firearms, money
their domestic components and transborder laundering, and tax statutes).
segments);
Investigation of Money Federal investigations in
• Major national gangs (e.g., outlaw motorcycle Laundering and Financial this country must focus
gangs, Los Angeles-based Crips and Bloods, Institutions on those organizations
Jamaican drug trafficking organizations, or that account for the
other significant emerging gangs whose princi- Significant and sustained largest quantities of
pal criminal activities are drug trafficking and progress in attacking drug traf- drugs, that traffic in the
related violence); ficking will not occur unless the most dangerous drugs,
United States continues to take and whose activities are
• Asian criminal organizations involved in drug strong steps to prevent, detect, accompanied by the most
trafficking (e.g., Chinese and Vietnamese street and enforce the laws against violence.
gangs and similar emerging criminal groups); money laundering. Money
laundering involves disguising
• West African, particularly Nigerian, drug traf- the funds derived from narcotics sales and other
ficking organizations; crimes so they can be used without detection of
the illegal activity that produced them. 5 The
• La Cosa Nostra and related organizations (e.g., laundering of drug-generated money is sophisti-
Sicilian Mafia, La Camorra, ‘Ndrangheta and cated and highly compartmentalized. Traffickers
Sacred Crown); and now hire professional money launderers to man-
age one of the two riskiest parts of their opera-
• Other major criminal organizations that are tions—money laundering (the other area is the
well organized, multijurisdictional in opera- transport of narcotics). These money launderers
tional scope, and of national significance and are generally businessmen, bankers, and other
influence. financial specialists who can guarantee delivery of
the illicit funds in some form—goods, invest-
Federal law enforcement agencies can fortify the ments, or deposits on accounts—at the lowest cost
National antidrug effort by strengthening their to the trafficker.
commitments and working with State and local
counterparts in a coordinated and cooperative Money laundering operations in the United States
manner. Emphasis must be placed on enforce- include a number of techniques at the initial
ment efforts directed against those local or region- stage. Besides structuring deposits to financial
al trafficking groups that use violence. For this institutions to avoid triggering currency reporting

obligations, which occurs throughout the country, under closely monitored and circumscribed condi-
money launderers ship large amounts of unsigned tions, simultaneously employing an array of other
U.S. Postal Money Orders overseas through investigative techniques in order to identify the per-
express mail companies. Illegal proceeds in bulk sonnel, sites, methods, and assets of the target group
currency form also are reportedly shipped out of as efficiently as possible. These undercover investi-
the country in cargo containers. Still more gations will continue to rely on the expertise and
sophisticated methods include the use of front assistance of other Federal agencies, as well as State,
companies and remittance corporations, which local, and foreign law enforcement authorities.
use wire transfers and corresponding accounts to
send narcotics proceeds out of the United States. Furthermore, the Treasury Department will con-
tinue to invigorate its partnership with financial
The enormous size and complexity of the U.S. institutions and other elements of the private sec-
financial system complicate the prevention and tor—the first line of defense in the battle against
detection of money laundering. The more than money laundering—by streamlining and retooling
25,000 depository institutions in the United existing anti-money laundering regulations. The
States range from major financial institutions with goal is to weed out unduly burdensome require-
hundreds of branches to single-branch thrifts, ments that have little or no utility for law enforce-
bringing the total number of offices to more than ment, to enlist the involvement of financial
100,000. In addition to the institutions in more effective measures to detect
depository institutions, hun- potential launderers, and to stress those proce-
The enormous size dreds of thousands of nonbank dures that will provide law enforcement access to
and complexity of financial institutions now are essential customer and account information.
the U.S. financial system engaged in a variety of financial Important components of this strategy include
complicate the services ranging from check enhanced suspicious transaction reporting and
prevention and cashing to money transmittals. “know your customer” procedures.
detection of money Utilization of money transmit-
laundering. tal services to move illicit funds In the short term, a strong investigative and ana-
and the number of institutions lytical capability will be developed and main-
providing this type of service tained to overtake and surpass the technological
have increased steadily in recent years. The rela- advances that are being made by drug trafficking
tive success of U.S. law enforcement and bank hierarchies and their organizations. To capitalize
regulators in clamping down on narcotics-related fully on the Nation’s own technological advances,
money laundering at financial institutions has not emphasis will be placed on collecting, analyzing,
only forced money laundering to move to less reg- and disseminating sensitive financial and related
ulated areas (e.g., nonbank financial institutions) operational intelligence so that law enforcement
but also appears to have caused traffickers to can react fully and rapidly. Efforts will be made to
diminish, or at least to compartmentalize, their identify new and emerging money laundering
involvement in the money laundering business. techniques developed by the major drug traffick-
ing organizations to avoid or circumvent financial
In the near term, attention will be focused on ini- investigative efforts and undercover operations.
tiating a comprehensive national financial inves- Additionally, the interagency (Federal, State, and
tigative effort that effectively consolidates U.S. local), interdisciplinary (law enforcement, bank-
financial drug evidence and intelligence collec- ing, and other regulatory entities) approach will
tion. Increased efforts will be made to identify, be expanded domestically to meet the national
trace, and freeze drug trafficker assets. Critical to goals of identifying, disrupting, seizing, and forfeit-
this effort is identifying and targeting the financial ing illicit drug proceeds.
associates and drug distribution cells of the major
organizations for arrest and prosecution. Finally, U.S. antinarcotics-related money launder-
ing initiatives will be linked to similar initiatives
Federal law enforcement agencies will continue to worldwide. Multinational cooperation in intelli-
conduct undercover money laundering operations gence gathering, information exchange, and

enforcement operations is the best way to attack the creation of the Office of Investigative Agency
the nerve centers of the money laundering organi- Policies (OIAP), DOJ has made significant strides
zations, often located in source countries. in facilitating the sharing, and often the integrat-
Through the use of the Treasury Department’s ing, of important investigative information among
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (Fin- its principal law enforcement agencies. Other
CEN) and the Department of Justice’s Multi- developments, such as the establishment of the
Agency Financial Investigative Center (MAFIC), National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC), have
the resources of several Federal agencies are coor- provided significant increases in the levels of
dinated and directed toward battling the world- sophisticated technical and analytic support avail-
wide money laundering operations of major drug able to develop a comprehensive understanding of
trafficking organizations. The investigative leads major drug trafficking organizations. The techni-
of the participating agencies, coupled with the cal and analytic capabilities of the multiagency El
worldwide intelligence gathering capabilities of all Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) also have been
U.S. entities, will facilitate the identification of significantly upgraded, enhancing its ability to
traffickers and their financial advisors for prosecu- serve as the principal tactical analysis and support
tion and the seizing and forfeiting of their ill-got- center.6
ten assets. Furthermore, the United States will
continue to explore diplomatic opportunities to During the past several years,
promote greater cooperation with other nations in significant improvements have During the past several
anti-money laundering efforts, and the United occurred in the Nation’s capa- years, significant
States will continue to encourage other nations to bility to direct national security improvements have
bolster their money laundering regulatory and intelligence resources toward occurred in the Nation’s
enforcement operations. counternarcotics activities. capability to direct
These resources primarily national security
Collection and Dissemination of impact the Nation’s foreign intelligence resources
Drug Law Enforcement Intelligence and antidrug and interdiction toward counternarcotics
Information Sharing efforts; however, these activities.
resources have provided valu-
Drug traffickers commonly operate across jurisdic- able insight into the activities
tional borders and are capable of rapid and signifi- of major drug trafficking organizations, which
cant changes in methods used to produce, allows domestic law enforcement agencies to more
transport, and distribute large amounts of drugs effectively address those activities conducted in
and to launder their illegal profits. For law the United States. During the past year, the for-
enforcement agencies to effectively and efficiently eign and defense intelligence communities have
carry out the mission of disrupting these criminal reviewed their information collection and analysis
activities, they must have the capabilities to col- programs. That review has helped them refocus
lect, index, verify, and analyze intelligence infor- their efforts on collecting foreign intelligence
mation. Law enforcement officials must be able to information consistent with the Nation’s interna-
evaluate the extent of drug trafficking activities tional and domestic law enforcement efforts.
within and immediately surrounding their juris-
dictions, to identify the hierarchy and methods of Information sharing among the Federal agencies
operation of a drug trafficking organization, and to and their State and local counterparts also has
assess its potential vulnerabilities. been improving. State and local agencies contin-
ue to be significant consumers of information from
The need for Federal, State, and local law enforce- EPIC and the Treasury Department’s FinCEN.
ment to share pertinent intelligence information Joint law enforcement intelligence elements—
is clear. Unfortunately, this sharing of informa- such as the Joint Drug Intelligence Groups
tion has been somewhat limited. In response to (JDIGs), the Unified Intelligence Divisions, and
this situation, the Administration has taken steps the state-led Post Seizure Analysis units estab-
to significantly improve information sharing lished along the Southwest Border—have united
among Federal law enforcement agencies. With law enforcement investigators and analysts to

share information and to combine their knowl- State, County, and Local Law
edge on a regional basis. Coordination mecha- Enforcement Efforts
nisms, such as Operation North Star and
Operation Alliance, also have enhanced efforts to The activities of State, county, and local law
share information across geographical and organi- enforcement agencies remain a critical element of
zational boundaries. the Nation’s antidrug efforts. Uniformed patrol
officers make drug arrests on community streets
The Administration will continue to develop and interdict shipments of drugs hidden in trucks
measures that expand on these efforts. Particular and automobiles on the highways. Many local
emphasis will be placed on sharing information police departments have investigative units that
electronically to improve both the scope and devote resources exclusively to the investigation
speed of information sharing. of narcotics offenses. Through community polic-
There already are several proto- ing programs, law enforcement officials and mem-
The activities of State, type or developmental efforts bers of the community work together to deter
county, and local law under way. For example, the illicit drug trafficking and related crime, prevent
enforcement agencies Southwest Border Governor’s drug use, and create more vibrant, citizen-
remain a critical element Coalition between the four involved, and thriving neighborhoods. State,
of the Nation’s antidrug States along the Southwest county, and local police officers and investigators
efforts. Border is developing an inte- work together—often with Federal law enforce-
grated computer and communi- ment agents—as part of multijurisdictional task
cation system that will enable force operations to investigate, arrest, and prose-
member agencies in all four States to share inves- cute violent drug traffickers and to dismantle drug
tigative information and criminal intelligence trafficking and money laundering organizations.
electronically.
Community Policing
The law enforcement community must continue
efforts to develop a fully integrated drug intelli- However diligent their efforts, police alone, using
gence base; therefore, instead of merely reacting to only traditional policing techniques, will be
drug activity, agencies will be in a position to more unable to eliminate drug trafficking and related
proactively identify the nature and scope of drug crime from the Nation’s communities. The
trafficking problems and to prioritize investigative Administration recognizes the critical need for an
targets based on analyses of all available data. To almost symbiotic relationship between the efforts
realize an effective drug intelligence base, efforts of law enforcement and the activities of drug
must be made to complete the following: treatment providers, other government agencies,
prevention specialists, teachers, religious groups,
• Provide investigative agencies immediate and the business community to deter criminal
access to a drug law enforcement pointer sys- activity and revitalize the Nation’s communities.
tem to allow more effective coordination of Community policing offers the collaboration that
individual agents’ efforts; is needed between police and the community to
identify and solve community problems. Because
• Set priorities for collecting and analyzing drug- it combines the efforts of law enforcement and
related data to develop useful and predictive other organizations and individuals, community
strategic organizational studies; policing is a critical part of this Nation’s antidrug
effort.
• Increase the level of coordination of drug intel-
ligence initiatives among Federal, State, and Community policing is not simply a local law
local law enforcement agencies; and enforcement program; it is an operational philoso-
phy for neighborhood problemsolving in which
• Increase the sharing of information technology police officers interact with all residents of a spe-
among all law enforcement agencies. cific neighborhood or patrol area on an ongoing

basis and in such a manner as to establish and decrease gun violence, the numbers of guns on the
maintain open communication and create a trust- streets must be decreased. It must become a major
ing relationship. Communication and trust are priority for police to confiscate guns from those
important elements of this initiative because they who illegally carry them, particularly in jurisdic-
provide the foundation for an ongoing community tions facing high rates of gun-related violence and
partnership that works proactively and reactively crime.
to address serious crime, reduce fear, and improve
the quality of life for all residents. In 1991 the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Depart-
ment, using funds secured from DOJ’s Operation
In the fight against drug trafficking and other Weed and Seed, implemented a program to reduce
crime, police can (1) encourage community mem- gun-related crime. This initiative called for patrol
bers to share relevant information pertaining to officers to aggressively focus on seizing guns from
criminal activity, (2) take part in educational and those who carry them illegally. Proactive patrol
drug prevention programs in schools, (3) provide a procedures such as vehicle and
variety of crisis intervention services, (4) provide subject stops were used in a spe-
in-depth information regarding drug-dealing cific target area to accomplish Community policing
activities to investigative components of their the department’s goal. The ini- offers the collaboration
agencies, (5) act as a deterrent to open-air drug tiative resulted in a significant that is needed between
markets, and (6) identify and address developing increase in the number of guns police and the community
drug use and drug trafficking-related problems. seized as well as a related reduc- to identify and solve
tion in gun-related crime, community problems.
The Crime Control Act will place 100,000 new including homicides and drive
police officers on the streets and work with citi- by shootings. The U.S. Attor-
zens to prevent and solve crime. DOJ’s Office of ney in Washington, D.C., recently announced
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) that he intends to implement a similar program.
already has awarded 392 grants totaling $200 mil-
lion to counties, cities, and towns across the coun- The Administration intends to immediately
try to hire more than 2,700 officers. In addition, implement an aggressive gun reduction program
COPS has given approval to 631 large police juris- in several communities around the country.
dictions (those serving populations of more than Police jurisdictions that criminal justice and other
50,000) to begin hiring and training more than data show to be areas of significant gun-related
4,600 officers. COPS also has begun a hiring pro- criminal activity will be chosen for program
gram for smaller jurisdictions (those serving popu- implementation. DOJ, through the COPS office,
lations of less than 50,000). Known as COPS will provide support and followup consultation so
FAST (Funding Accelerated for Smaller Towns), these communities can identify suitable strategies
this program will place another 4,000 police offi- and implement programs modeled after the
cers on the streets. Kansas City Police Department Initiative.
Reducing Gun-Related Crime and Violence Coordination of Federal, State, and Local Law
Enforcement Efforts
Every night, in every major city, the sound of gun-
fire can be heard. Handgun crime is increasing Federal law enforcement agencies typically target
throughout the country, especially in the inner- the upper echelons of drug trafficking organiza-
city areas, where youth homicide rates have sky- tions. Local police forces traditionally deal with
rocketed. Drug trafficking organizations use guns local drug organizations and drug retailers. Mid-
to carry out the violence and intimidation that are range offenses and offenders often are overlooked,
integral parts of their day-to-day operations. but collaboration between Federal, State, and
local agencies can bridge this gap in drug law
Citizens and police face a growing risk of injury or enforcement. A coordinated approach among
death inflicted by well-armed drug dealers. To Federal, State, and local entities can ensure that a

full range of experience and expertise is applied Furthermore, they allow for more rapid and accu-
efficiently across all levels of the drug trafficking rate problem identification and can facilitate the
continuum. swift modification of operations to better address
changing patterns of drug abuse and related crimi-
The work of Federal law enforcement agencies in nal activity.
cooperative ventures allows Federal agencies to
help local communities in need. Cooperative Many State jurisdictions participate in Criminal
ventures also can provide on-the-job training and Justice Coordinating Councils in which State and
supplemental resources to assist local law enforce- local law enforcement, prosecutorial, treatment,
ment agencies in investigating of complex cases. and prevention officials meet on a regular basis to
Federal agencies will continue to provide develop and ensure the implementation of juris-
increased resources to State and local agencies to diction-based strategies. One example of how the
address drug trafficking and associated violence Federal Government has worked to improve the
through programs such as the FBI’s Safe Street Ini- regional strategy development process is its estab-
tiative, DEA’s Mobile Enforce- lishment of Law Enforcement Coordinating
ment Teams (METs),7 and the Councils. These councils—chaired by the local
The work of Federal law
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, U.S. Attorney and composed of Federal, State,
enforcement agencies in
and Firearms’ Violence Reduc- and local law enforcement and prosecutorial offi-
cooperative ventures
tion Alliance and Armed cials—foster cooperation and communication
allows Federal agencies
Career Criminal programs. between the various law enforcement entities
to help local communities
operating in a particular area.
in need.
In addition, the Administra-
tion’s National Anti-Violent Multijurisdictional Task Forces
Crime Initiative, announced by the Attorney
General on March 1, 1994, directs Federal law Federal, regional, or other multijurisdictional task
enforcement capabilities toward violent crime in forces play a significant role in reducing drug
the Nation’s cities, suburbs, and rural areas. The availability in communities and, therefore, are a
initiative stresses the need for coordination and critical element of the Nation’s antidrug effort.
consultation between Federal, State, and local Multijurisdictional task forces help bridge the gaps
agencies without the creation of new task forces or in enforcement between these enforcement areas
other bureaucratic entities. Furthermore, this that are uniquely Federal and those that are most
coordination and consultation are explicitly successfully undertaken by State and local author-
intended to complement, rather than supplant, ities. These programs combine the resources of
efforts of State and local law enforcement. This Federal, State, and local law enforcement inves-
initiative represents an effort to form Federal part- tigative and prosecutorial authorities to eliminate
nerships with State and local authorities in those all levels of drug trafficking from the street corner
areas where, consistent with existing obligations, retailer to the international wholesaler.
Federal resources and authorities can help address
crime problems endemic to their respective juris- The law enforcement response to the task force
dictions. concept has been so enthusiastic that some small
and medium-sized police departments have elimi-
Striking the appropriate balance in allocating nated their own specialized narcotics bureaus in
resources to that which is uniquely Federal and favor of active participation in a county or region-
that which is of critical State and local concern is al task force operation. In some jurisdictions, par-
difficult and can be achieved most effectively ticularly in rural areas of the country,
through a regional or community-based evalua- multijurisdictional task forces are the only exist-
tion and strategy development process. Regional ing investigative entities capable of addressing the
planning efforts can be critical to long-term suc- diverse and constantly changing challenges pre-
cess because they improve communication and sented by drug traffickers and their related crimi-
enhance cooperation among agencies at all levels. nal activities.

Federal grant programs, such as the Edward Byrne all governmental levels by conducting an intera-
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement gency review of Federal task forces that will deter-
Assistance Program, provide seed money to start mine ways to enhance collaboration and
task force operations in many jurisdictions and interoperability with State and local partners.
funds to continue the operation of existing pro-
grams.8 The Crime Control Act authorized $1 Advanced Officer Training
billion for 25 categories of law enforcement,
including State and local drug task force efforts Advanced or continuing specialized officer train-
through the year 2000. This authorization recog- ing can play a key role in making Federal, State,
nizes the critical importance of enforcement pro- and local drug enforcement operations more cost-
grams such as the Byrne program in assisting State effective. Furthermore, drug law enforcement per-
and local law enforcement agencies to battle the sonnel with advanced linguistic capabilities are
illicit drug trade.9 vital to Federal, State, and local law enforcement
efforts that target the increas-
Other task force programs, such as the Organized ing number of foreign nationals
Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces and the task who speak their native lan- The law enforcement
forces operating as part of the High Intensity Drug guages. response to the task
Trafficking Area (HIDTA) programs, bring force concept has been
together as partners Federal, State, and local law Many State and local agencies so enthusiastic that some
enforcement officials and prosecutorial officers for expend considerable resources small and medium-sized
a common purpose and cause them to work in a on basic and advanced inves- police departments have
common direction toward the same goals. These tigative training for narcotics eliminated their own
joint efforts utilize the full range of Federal inves- officers. This training includes specialized narcotics
tigative and prosecutive tools, as well as associated programs sponsored by States detective bureaus in
seizure and forfeiture laws; facilitate cooperation or such special interest groups favor of active
among all levels of government; and provide a as law enforcement officer asso- participation in a county
means of combining skills and resources to achieve ciations. Furthermore, many or regional task force
the greatest effect against drug offenders. State, county, and local law operation.
enforcement agencies take part
As important as this collaboration is, recent years in Treasury and Justice Depart-
have clearly brought an expansion in the number ment programs, which offer specialized training
of multijurisdictional task forces operating in the programs for State, county, and local law enforce-
United States. Due to this proliferation, Federal, ment personnel. These programs are designed to
State, county, and regional task forces have con- meet training needs not generally available to
currently operated in the same geographical areas. State and local agencies and to enhance network-
This occasionally has led to duplication of effort, a ing throughout the law enforcement communi-
lack of intelligence sharing, and competition ty.10
between agencies for the seizure of drugs and the
assets of drug law violators. High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
Task forces require clear mission statements and Since 1990, seven regions have been designated as
must be carefully structured and coordinated to critical drug trafficking areas—or High Intensity
prevent duplication and overlap with other law Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA). 11 As such,
enforcement efforts. It is critical for Federal, these regions receive additional coordinated Fed-
State, and local authorities to consolidate and eral assistance. The HIDTA program encourages
more closely and coordinate task force collabora- the forming of Federal, State, and local partner-
tion to reduce unnecessary duplication of efforts ships within the designated areas and translates
and to enable greater impact with existing goals of the National Drug Control Strategy into
resources. The Federal Government will take regional solutions. At its current level of develop-
steps to eliminate duplication among task forces at ment, the HIDTA program supports joint12 efforts

featuring interdiction, investigation, prosecution, treatment, prevention, and related data systems
treatment, and prevention initiatives. on a limited basis.
To tailor its combined efforts to these unique Executive Committees in the seven HIDTAs will
regional requirements, each HIDTA has its own continue to receive priority Federal support. Each
Executive Committee and a regional strategy, one HIDTA Executive Committee will do the follow-
that prioritizes the collaborative efforts of its ing:
member entities, including several colocated task
forces and an intelligence sharing center. • Upgrade its organizational threat estimate of its
regional strategy;
The HIDTAs of large metropolitan areas are focused
on dismantling the most significant drug trafficking • Improve the regional intelligence center to
and drug money laundering organizations operating ensure the provision of actionable and predic-
at the National, regional, and local levels. HIDTAs tive intelligence to the joint task forces;
in the Southwest Border and Puerto Rico/U.S. Vir-
gin Islands concentrate on interdiction systems, • Develop requirements and prioritize military
which include interdiction oper- support requests for joint task forces and the
ations, intelligence, investiga- intelligence center within each HIDTA; and
At its current level of tions, and prosecution.
development, the HIDTA • Designate its own chairperson and select a pro-
program supports joint In February 1994, ONDCP gram manager who will be directly responsible
efforts featuring launched the new concept of a to the committee.
interdiction, investigation, “distribution” HIDTA in
prosecution, treatment, response to the conclusion The National HIDTA Committee, 13 a body that
and prevention initiatives. drawn by many law enforce- makes program recommendations to the Director
ment executives that their of ONDCP, will shift its major evaluation criteri-
efforts, taken in isolation from on from the achievement level of individual ini-
other activities, may produce immediate, but tiatives to the overall impact of the collaborative
often temporary, reductions in drug trafficking. efforts of each HIDTA on drug trafficking.
Many believe that the knowledge base of other
disciplines must be used to attack the drug prob-
lem if lasting results are to be achieved. The 12-MONTH ACTION PLAN FOR
Washington, D.C./Baltimore, Maryland, REDUCING CRIME, VIOLENCE, AND
HIDTA—coming online now—will address both DRUG AVAILABILITY
the drug distribution networks and their chronic,
hardcore clientele simultaneously. The regional The 12-month Action Plan for Reducing Crime,
intelligence and information center in this “distri- Violence, and Drug Availability consists of three
bution” HIDTA also will include the electronic targets: (1) develop a domestic law enforcement
networking of major treatment providers, regional plan, (2) expand efforts to address money launder-
drug courts, and criminal justice components. ing, and (3) expand border control efforts.
The Washington, D.C./Baltimore, Maryland Target No. 1: Develop Domestic Law

HIDTA treatment initiatives will be monitored in Enforcement Plan
order to establish a central repository of treatment
data. This data will be electronically accessible by Steps:
the criminal justice system and will be accessed in
accordance with clients’ rights to confidentiality. • ONDCP will coordinate and oversee the
Two “gateway” HIDTAs—Miami and Puerto development of a Domestic Drug Law Enforce-
Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands—also are implementing ment Plan in collaboration with Federal, State,

county, and local law enforcement agencies. The — Arrest and prosecute those who launder the
plan will build on existing efforts and address the ill-gotten proceeds of drug trafficking;
full range of domestic drug law enforcement issues
and problems. Specific issue areas will include the — Reduce the amount of drug-related proceeds
following: laundered domestically; and
— Review the current structure of multijuris- — Increase the amount of drug-related pro-
dictional task forces throughout the Nation ceeds interdicted prior to their leaving the
to increase efficiency and eliminate duplica- United States.
tion of effort;
• Coordinated law enforcement efforts and pri-
— Articulate the role of Federal drug law vate industry initiatives will aim to reduce over-
enforcement in local community policing all drug-related proceeds laundered in the
efforts; United States by creating
regulatory, enforcement, and
— Identify steps to enhance coordination of industry barriers to this activ- The 12-month Action Plan
regional law enforcement, treatment, and ity. In addition, Federal, for Reducing Crime,
prevention resources; State, and local law enforce- Violence, and Drug
ment agencies will refocus Availability consists of
— Develop a comprehensive initiative to their efforts to dismantle three targets: (1) develop
decrease the cultivation and use of marijua- money laundering compo- a domestic law
na; and nents of drug trafficking enforcement plan, (2)
organizations by arresting expand efforts to address
— Assess the intelligence, technology, and and prosecuting those who money laundering, and
advanced officer training needs of State and are involved in money laun- (3) expand border control
local enforcement. dering and to identify and efforts.
interdict a larger percentage
Completion Date: May 1995 of drug-related proceeds.
Target No. 2: Expand Efforts To Address • This Action Plan will include performance
Money Laundering measures for anti-money laundering efforts.
Steps: Completion Date: June 1995
• ONDCP will coordinate and oversee develop- Target No. 3: Expand Border Control
ment of a money laundering Action Plan. This Efforts
plan will be developed through the collabora-
tion between the Treasury and Justice Depart- Steps:
ments. Development of this plan will be
coordinated with other appropriate Federal, • ONDCP will coordinate and oversee a review
State, and local government agencies, as well of current drug enforcement efforts at the
as private organizations, such as banks and Southwest Border and determine the steps law
other financial institutions. enforcement should take to effect a measurable
reduction in the amount of illegal drugs smug-
• This Action Plan will provide a framework for gled across the border and a measurable reduc-
coordinating domestic drug law enforcement, tion in incidence of border violence.
regulatory, and private industry efforts to
accomplish the following: • The U.S. Customs Service will maintain the
reduction of drug smuggling across the South-

west Border as a top priority. The U.S. Cus- tive visual inspection system for detecting hidden contra-
toms Service will devote increased resources to band in inaccessible areas behind and beneath door panels,
container walls, boat decks, and fuel storage areas con-
seizing illegal drugs, arresting drug smugglers,
ducive to contraband concealment. The need for
reducing acts of border violence, and installing enhanced technology is particularly acute due to the limit-
and testing cargo inspection technology at ed resources available to Federal, State, and local law
appropriate locations. Through proactive and enforcement. Law enforcement must now do more with
reactive narcotics investigations, the U.S. Cus- less, both at the investigative and prosecutive levels. At
toms Service will launch a reinvigorated effort the same time, as criminals are becoming more sophisticat-
ed and better financed, law enforcement is losing ground.
to fully identify and dismantle the organiza- In the areas of funds tracing, court-authorized electronic
tions involved in these struggling ventures. surveillance, and narcotics detection, advanced technology
can help law enforcement address these problems.
Completion Date: August 1995 3
As stated in A Guide to Equitable Sharing of Federally For-
feited Property for State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
(March 1994), the current policy of DOJ is that up to 15
ENDNOTES percent (or 25 percent in forfeiture cases, which represent
more than 25 percent of a State or local agency’s annual
1
Within DOJ, considerable efforts have been made to budget) may be transferred to governmental departments
increase the efficiency of law enforcement operations or agencies to support drug abuse treatment, drug and
and to eliminate duplication of effort by its criminal crime prevention and education, housing and job skill
investigative components. DOJ has established OIAP programs, or other community-based programs.
and named the Director of the FBI to the directorship of
OIAP. One of his initial tasks was to review and make 4
The Valley Project is operated by the California Regional
recommendations about drug intelligence coordination Border Alliance Group, which consists of the following
and sharing within DOJ, among the FBI, DEA, INS, and agencies:
U.S. Marshals Service. As part of this initial effort, the
OIAP also worked to further define the roles of the • The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of
National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) so that it can California, which is responsible for strategies guidance
coordinate and provide strategic organizational drug and prosecutorial support.
intelligence and EPIC so that it is best able to provide
tactical drug intelligence. • The U.S. Border Patrol and the Imperial County Sher-
iff’s Office, which are responsible for tactical control of
This commitment to maximizing availability and use of the operation.
law enforcement intelligence information extends
beyond DOJ. Thus, for example, the Director of OIAP • The DEA and San Diego/Imperial County Regional
has begun discussions with the Under Secretary of the Narcotics Intelligence Network, which are the lead
Treasury for Enforcement, who has established a Treasury agencies for intelligence gathering.
Law Enforcement Council as an internal coordinating
mechanism for Treasury law enforcement policy and • The California National Guard and DOD Joint Task
operations, to establish a similar mechanism for coordi- Force Six (JTF6), which provide infrared scopes and
nating the efforts of law enforcement agencies of the two sensors and conduct border flights as required.
departments. Moreover, Federal law enforcement entities
are enhancing links with their State and local counter- • The INS and U.S. Customs Service, which provide sur-
parts through regional intelligence centers such as the veillance and inspection control of the ports of entry.
JDIGs and facilities operating under the auspices of the INS and U.S. Customs inspectors interdict and seize
several HIDTAs; affiliations with multi-State Regional narcotics at the U.S. Calexico and Andrade ports.
Intelligence Sharing Systems; and involvement of State Customs Special Agents conduct followup criminal
and local authorities in NDIC strategic studies. investigations of ports of entry drug smuggling viola-
tions.
2
The role of emerging technologies in developing ways to
attack drug trafficking organizations cannot be overstated. • The California Highway Patrol, which provides
These technologies include mobile x-ray inspection sys- enhanced patrol response to the area.
tems for use at airports, seaports, and land border ports of
entry for the inspection of bulk cargo and baggage; truck x- • The FBI, San Diego County Sheriff’s Department,
ray systems for x-raying of tractor-trailers crossing a land Bureau of Land Management, California Bureau of
border; and the fiberscope, which provides a nondestruc- Narcotics Enforcement, Imperial County District

Attorney’s Office, Arizona Alliance Planning Com- percent of the funding was utilized for multijurisdictional
mittee, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, task forces, 16 percent was utilized for corrections and
which provide support to the overall operation. treatment, 11 percent was used for improved information
and technology, 7 percent was used for demand reduc-
5
Estimates of the amount of proceeds generated by the tion/crime prevention, 6 percent was used for administra-
illegal drug industry in the United States vary consider- tion, and 5 percent was used for adjudication. The
ably. A study done for ONDCP estimated that Ameri- remaining 20 percent of funds was distributed among the
cans spend almost $50 billion per year on illegal drugs. other purpose areas designated by the Byrne grant pro-
gram.
6
A National Drug Pointer Index system, being developed
9
by DEA, will allow Federal, State, and local law enforce- This is important because reductions in available funding
ment agencies to determine if participating agencies have for State and local law enforcement could have a detri-
drug-related information relevant to a particular investi- mental effect on partnerships that have been and are
gation. With the large number of agencies currently being forged among Federal, State, and local govern-
enforcing State and Federal narcotics laws, it is vital to ments.
operational efficiency and personnel safety that such a
10
system be established. Advanced training also can lead to enhanced cooperation
between law enforcement entities, which in itself can
7
DEA’s MET Initiative (announced in November 1994) multiply manpower and save money. Advanced officer
is designed to help State and local police departments training promotes Federal, State, and local cooperation
combat violent crime and drug trafficking in their com- because law enforcement officers who possess a high level
munities. Ten to 12 regional METs will be strategically of training are better able to collaborate in their efforts to
based in as many DEA divisions around the country as fight drug trafficking, and advanced officer training pro-
possible. At the request of any police chief, sheriff, or grams allow individual officers from different agencies to
district attorney, a MET team will target violent traffick- meet and develop personal relationships, which in turn
ers threatening the requesting community at whatever fosters professional collaboration.
level. The MET will remain in place and collect intelli-
11
gence and cultivate investigations and arrests until DEA Pursuant to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the desig-
determines that the objectives of the development have nated HIDTAs are Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New
been met. York, Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, the Southwest
Border, and Washington, D.C./Baltimore, Maryland.
8
The Byrne program is intended to assist State and local Each HIDTA has an Executive Committee, made up of
governments in enforcing State and local drug laws and Federal, State, and local officials. These Executive Com-
improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, mittees develop and update the policies and objectives for
with emphasis on violent crime and serious offenders. that HIDTA region.
The funds are distributed to the States by a formula con-
12
sisting of a $500,000 base plus share of the balance deter- The term “joint” includes, at a minimum, the Depart-
mined by population. Each State is required to develop a ments of Justice and Treasury, as well as State and local
statewide drug control and violent crime strategy as part law enforcement agencies.
of its application for formula grants. Strategies are devel-
13
oped in consultation with State and local criminal justice The National HIDTA Committee is composed of repre-
officials and are coordinated with the treatment and pre- sentatives from ONDCP and the Departments of Justice,
vention block grant programs (a portion of the funding is Treasury, and Health and Human Services.
provided directly to cities). In FY 1993 (latest data) 35

VII. Action Plan for
Enhancing Domestic
Drug Program Flexibility
and Efficiency at
the Community Level
rug dealers are flexible. However insidi- Developing solutions to America’s drug problem
D
ous their business, they market their requires cooperation and coordination across a
wares with ingenuity and tenacity. Drug wide range of professions, agencies, and public-
users are efficient, saving tiny bits of and private-sector organizations. Treatment
their powders and scraping crack-cocaine providers must work with criminal justice person-
and opiate resins from the inside of nel to properly monitor the progress of clients they
homemade pipes. Addicts adapt. When one crack both serve. Prevention professionals in school-
house closes, they move to another. based and community-based programs must com-
municate with law enforcement officials to
Antidrug efforts must be more flexible, more efficient, coordinate activities and leverage resources.
and more tenacious than drug dealers, users, and Local antidrug partnerships must unite every sec-
addicts. It is critical that the criminal justice system tor of their communities, including schools,
communicate with treatment professionals, that neigh- police, civic organizations, local government
borhood residents coordinate with local police, and that offices, youth groups, health care services, eco-
parents know how to access the right prevention pro- nomic developers, faith organizations, and busi-
grams to keep their children from ever trying drugs in ness groups to fight against drug abuse.
the first place.
Antidrug organizations and systems in every com-
Communities need to work together. This means munity must not only be properly linked, they also
fighting against burdensome regulations and other must be allowed flexibility to respond to changes
restrictions that hamper timely and effective service in the local drug situation as well as to fluctuations
delivery. A range of initiatives is presented to enhance in available resources. It is imperative to identify
the smooth operation of antidrug programs and organi- Federal, State, and local obstacles to antidrug
zations in every community, including the streamlining progress and remove regulations that hamper ser-
of Federal grant applications and a “Cut the Red vice delivery.
Tape” Deregulation Campaign.

ACTION PLAN FOR ENHANCING DOMESTIC DRUG PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY AND EFFICIENCY AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL
PROGRESS MADE TOWARD ENHANCING funded in 10 States and the District of Columbia,
DOMESTIC DRUG PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY with most of the programs targeting substance-
AND EFFICIENCY abusing and homeless women as a key population.
The Administration intends to continue address- Operation Weed and Seed has played and will
ing the following goals related to community pro- continue to play an important role in linking law
grams set forth in the 1994 National Drug Control enforcement and drug prevention activities across
Strategy: the country. A basic tenet of the Weed and Seed
approach is that communities can best identify the
• Assist local communities in developing effec- problems they face and develop solutions that will
tive prevention programs (Goal 4). be most effective. The goal is therefore to deliver
adequate resources to those best equipped to
• Create safe and healthy environments in address the drug problem in their communities.
which children and adolescents can live, grow, Built into the very fabric of the Weed and Seed
and develop (Goal 5). approach is a firm reliance on linkages between
the criminal justice system and drug treatment
• Increase workplace safety and prevention programs; among Federal, State,
The passage of the and productivity by reducing and local leaders; and between the public and pri-
[Crime Control Act ] will drug use in the workplace vate sectors.
provide support for drug (Goal 7).
courts and highlight the The passage of the Violent Crime Control and
effective linkage of • Strengthen linkages among Law Enforcement Act in 1994 (Public Law 103-
treatment programs and the prevention, treatment, 322, hereafter referred to as the Crime Control
the criminal justice and criminal justice commu- Act) will provide support for drug courts and high-
system. nities and other supportive light the effective linkage of treatment programs
social services, such as and the criminal justice system. Furthermore, this
employment and training linkage will ensure that the offender management
services (Goal 8). structure is properly developed and maintained in
an increasing number of communities across the
During the past year, progress toward these goals Nation.
was mixed. There has been significant progress in
establishing better program linkages. In Decem- Progress has been made in drug-free workplace
ber 1994 the President designated nine Empower- programs. In the past year the Administration
ment Zones, each featuring a multifaceted and conducted various activities to reduce workplace
interconnected plan for addressing drug use and substance abuse in the Federal Government,
trafficking in the communities within the zones. including developing new rules to combat alcohol
The Department of Housing and Urban Develop- misuse. The Administration required alcohol and
ment will monitor and report on the progress drug testing for safety-sensitive employees in the
made in the Empowerment Zones during the com- aviation, motor carrier, railroad, pipeline, mar-
ing year. itime, and mass transit industries. In addition, the
Department of Labor provided a grant to the
In 1994 the Department of Health and Human George Meany Center for Labor Studies to estab-
Services (HHS) continued its major linkage lish a Substance Abuse Institute. Also in 1994 a
effort, first launched by the Center for Substance Federal Departmental and Agency Drug Free
Abuse Treatment in 1993. The program links Workplace Working Group was established and
community-based primary care, substance abuse, tasked with actions to encourage the expansion of
HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus)/AIDS private-sector workplace programs, including
(Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), and transmission of drug-free workplace concepts and
mental health services. So far projects have been behavior to communities, families, and individu-

als. The activities of this working group are dis- Abuse Treatment for State Prisoner Grants, Public
cussed in more detail in Chapter V. Safety and Community Policing Grants, and so
forth.1 Therefore, it is clear that Federal grants-
in-aid for drug control purposes will become
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL increasingly important to the delivery of services
CONSULTATION for community-based drug control programs. It is
important that these grants be provided to recipi-
In a 1994 series of conferences held around the ents with Federal guidance and a minimum of reg-
Nation, the Office of National Drug Control Poli- ulation that promote the direct use of these funds
cy (ONDCP) met with more than 1,400 individu- to reduce illicit drug use.
als involved in all aspects of drug control to
discuss their perspectives concerning drug control The Administration is committed to increasing
efforts at the State and local level. Appendix C the level of cooperation between individuals and
discusses this consultation in more detail, but the organizations as they seek to address the problems
theme was resoundingly clear: Stay the Course— of drug use, distribution, and related violence. For
the National Drug Control Strategy is correctly that reason, this Strategy
focused; however, the Federal Government must includes a series of aggressive
take steps to streamline the flow of funds from the steps to enhance drug program The Administration is
Federal Government to State and local recipients flexibility and efficiency at the committed to increasing
in order to give local communities the needed community level. To empower the level of cooperation
flexibility to respond to the drug problems in their State and local governments to between individuals and
neighborhoods. The following sections of this provide more effective services organizations as they
Strategy discuss an aggressive response to this con- at the community level, as well seek to address the
sultation process. as to reduce administrative bur- problems of drug use,
den, the Administration is distribution, and related
proposing a consolidation and violence.
STREAMLINING FEDERAL DRUG restructuring of public health
CONTROL GRANTS programs. This proposal
includes streamlining prevention and treatment
Federal grants are intended to provide funds to funding provided through HHS’ Substance Abuse
States and localities for a variety of purposes. and Mental Health Services Administration.
Most are intended to allow State and local gov- Consolidation and restructuring will give States
ernments to properly address problems that they and localities more flexibility in addressing local
otherwise would be forced to give a lower priority problems while maintaining the needed focus on
or perhaps not address at all. Federal grants also nationwide priorities.
are provided to guarantee a minimum standard of
living by providing direct Federal transfers to indi- This proposal to streamline treatment and preven-
viduals. Furthermore, they provide a more equi- tion funding would eliminate many Federal man-
table distribution of revenues among the States for dates and restrictions, giving States the needed
national program priorities. flexibility to target funding to high-priority com-
munities (those most in need of drug control pro-
The Crime Control Act provides additional fund- grams) and to programs of proven effectiveness.
ing to help States and localities meet the chal- This proposal also would shift the focus from regu-
lenges of reducing illicit drug use and its latory compliance to outcome and performance
consequences. Funds totaling more than $30.2 measures. The Administration recognizes that the
billion over a 6-year period are authorized for pro- States need flexibility to allocate funding to the
grams such as the Edward Byrne Memorial State most successful programs, which enhance commu-
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program, nity-based treatment and prevention services and
the Drug Courts Program, Residential Substance reduce the violence that prevails in the Nation’s

communities. More information about the Admin- Target No. 1: Expand and Improve Data
istration’s proposed consolidation of HHS’ drug Collection and Distribution Efforts at the
control resources may be found in Chapter IX. Local Level
Steps:
ONDCP-REQUESTED AUDITS OF
FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS • ONDCP’s Data and Evaluation Subcommittee
of the Research, Data, and Evaluation Com-
The Federal drug control program for Fiscal Year mittee will conduct inventory, evaluate, and
(FY) 1995 allocates more than $13 billion to sup- make recommendations on improving Federal
port the efforts of more than 50 agencies, bureaus, drug-related data systems for drug policy pur-
and departments that conduct programs directed poses. This effort will include convening a
at both demand reduction and supply reduction. national Drug Prevalence Estimation Confer-
The funding supports many diverse drug control ence to identify public concerns and recom-
programs, ranging from grants to communities for mendations on needed improvements to
demand reduction programs to Federal drug-related data systems for local poli-
programs in source countries cy and analysis purposes.
The funding supports that reduce the production of
many diverse drug illicit drugs. With drug use • The Data and Evaluation Subcommittee will
control programs, among adolescents again on the strive to provide the widest possible distribu-
ranging from grants to rise, it is now more critical than tion of drug-related data to the community
communities for demand ever to have reasonable and level. Central to this effort is identifying the
reduction programs to supportable evaluations of drug titles of upcoming Federal reports that will
programs in source control programs so that the benefit the data collection and analysis efforts
countries that reduce the Nation may identify ways to of local communities. A Federal Directory will
production of illicit drugs. improve and enhance program be produced that lists titles and descriptions of
performance and efficiency. Federal drug-related data systems.
Therefore, ONDCP, in consul-
tation with the Federal drug control departments • ONDCP will promote Pulse Check as a policy
and agencies and through the President’s Council and planning tool and suggest that local com-
on Integrity and Efficiency, will recruit agency munities use a similar approach. This effort
Inspectors General to conduct program perfor- will culminate in a manual titled How To Do A
mance evaluations during FY 1995. Pulse Check to help communities assess their
local drug situations.
12-MONTH ACTION PLAN FOR Completion Date: September 1995

ENHANCING DOMESTIC DRUG
PROGRAM FLEXIBILITY AND EFFICIENCY Target No. 2: Simplify Federal Drug
AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL Grant Applications
The 12-month Action Plan for Enhancing Drug There are numerous sources of Federal grants-in-
Program Flexibility and Efficiency at the Commu- aid to support drug control efforts. To access
nity Level consists of five targets: (1) expand and these, States must submit plans to HHS, the
improve data collection and distribution efforts at Department of Education, or the Department of
the local level, (2) simplify Federal drug grant Justice (DOJ), depending on the drug grants for
applications, (3) fund a pilot program to develop which the State is applying. Each application
comprehensive community-based approaches in contains common reporting requirements. During
select communities, and (4) facilitate delivery and consultation that ONDCP held with State and
linkage of community-based services. local antidrug professionals and public interest

groups to develop the National Drug Control Strate- crime. Key elements of the pilot effort include
gy, it became clear that there was considerable the following:
interest in simplifying Federal drug grant applica-
tions. ONDCP will work with HHS, the Depart- — Target City sites will use forfeiture laws to
ment of Education, and DOJ to identify options to reclaim neighborhoods taken over by drug
simplify applications. traffickers;
Step: — Law enforcement officials and local health

officials, especially those in the treatment
• ONDCP will convene a Common Grant Appli- community, will work together to manage
cation (CGA) Working Group to examine the nonviolent drug users inside and outside the
advantages of a universal grant application for criminal justice system;
community-based organizations. The objective
of this working group will be to formulate a uni- — Every arrestee entering
versal grant application. One example of the the criminal justice sys- The 12-month Action Plan
advantage of a universal grant application is tem will be tested for for Enhancing Drug
that one-stop grant shopping may increase drug use. Tests will be Program Flexibility and
access to resources and reduce administrative presented to the court, Efficiency at the
costs through universal forms, measures, and which will determine Community Level consists
reporting procedures. Recommendations from whether treatment is of five targets.
the CGA Working Group will be provided to warranted. Treatment
the Director of ONDCP for action. will be offered indepen-
dent of the court’s decision regarding pretri-
Completion Date: September 1995 al release. Aftercare will include drug
testing to identify individuals who relapse;
Target No. 3: Fund a Pilot Program To
Develop Comprehensive Community- — Local prevention providers will be encour-
Based Approaches in Select Communities aged to serve children of addicted parents to
stop the intergenerational nature of addic-
Step: tion;
• ONDCP will implement a Break the Cycle of — Sanctions will be developed for those indi-
Drug Abuse pilot program to enable select com- viduals who are enrolled in a criminal jus-
munities to develop comprehensive communi- tice system treatment program and who fail
ty-based approaches to confronting the problem to move toward abstinence; and
of drug abuse. This pilot effort will encourage a
systematic response to the problems of chronic, — Those not involved in the criminal justice
hardcore drug use by integrating local health, system will be identified though various out-
education, housing, labor, and justice systems. reach programs (e.g., AIDS outreach) for
Funds to establish local infrastructure and coor- drug treatment. A neutral party will moni-
dinate the program will be obtained from the tor the individual to ensure that all services
widest possible range of sources, including for- are being used to assist him or her in becom-
feiture and gift authorities. ing drug free.
This pilot effort will be national demonstration • ONDCP will produce and distribute a directory
of a systems approach to managing the drug titled Anti-Drug Programs That Work at the
problem at the local level. ONDCP will pro- Community Level.
duce a manual titled How To Break the Cycle of
Drug Abuse to assist community-based organi- Completion Date: September 1995
zations in their efforts against drug abuse and

Target No. 4: Facilitate Delivery and National Drug Control Policy, January 1995. This report
Linkage of Community-Based Services is a directory and resource guide of public- and private-
sector drug control grants.
Step: 2
The CSA, Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Preven-
tion and Control Act of 1970, is a consolidation of
• ONDCP will conduct a “Cut the Red Tape” numerous Federal laws regulating the manufacture and
Campaign to examine possible regulation dele- distribution of narcotics, stimulants, depressants, and hal-
tions or waivers to improve community-based lucinogens. Drugs are placed on one of five CSA sched-
ules, in accordance with their relative abuse potential,
service delivery. New deregulation guidelines currently accepted medical use, and accepted safety for
will be distributed to community-based entities use under medical supervision. Registration is required
by the appropriate agencies. Options to be for anyone who handles a scheduled drug, but require-
considered include the following: ments regarding recordkeeping, distribution, dispensing,
and security measures differ according to the schedule on
which the drug is placed (e.g., Schedule I drugs are the
— Identify Federal obstacles that impede drug
most tightly controlled).
program delivery;
Many States have created additional controlled substance
— Consider revisions to the Food and Drug regulations, which differ in specific ways from State to
Administration regulations for methadone State and from State to Federal. One practical impact of
and LAAM (levo-alpha-acetylmethadol- these differences is that drugs approved by the Federal
Government as safe and effective can be subjected to
hydrochloride) in favor of clinical proto- additional, long, and often cumbersome regulatory and/or
cols, standards, or guidelines; and statutory processes. As the Administration continues
with actions under the Reinventing Government umbrel-
— Encourage States to adopt the Federal Con- la, consideration should be given to streamlining govern-
trolled Substances Act (CSA) to facilitate mental processes where the Federal and State interests are
essentially the same. There clearly is a common interest
timely availability of addiction treatment
in encouraging medications development research, espe-
medications.2 cially the development of medications to treat addiction.
There also clearly is a common interest in controlling
Completion Date: December 1995 drugs with abuse potential, to avoid diversion and abuse.
Common regulations would remove obstacles to private
researchers, reduce research costs, and foster communica-
tion and progress in both enforcement and treatment.
ENDNOTES
1 The benefits of a uniform approach are evident, the costs
For more information about Federal drug grants funded are not. This Strategy encourages adoption of the CSA
through FY 1995, see Responding to Drug Use and Violence: by all States, and ONDCP will lead consideration of the
Helping People, Families, and Communities. Office of best means for accomplishing this.

VIII. Action Plan for
Strengthening Interdiction
and International Efforts
trong interdiction capability in both the PROGRESS MADE TOWARD
S
source countries and the transit zones is STRENGTHENING INTERDICTION AND
required to disrupt the flow of drugs to the INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS
United States. At the same time, the
United States must work with source The Administration intends to continue address-
countries to strengthen their counternar- ing the following international goals set forth in
cotics programs. The form of interdiction that is most the 1994 National Drug Control Strategy:
cost effective—and the one that makes the most sense
strategically—is not a random effort, but rather one • Strengthen international cooperation against
based on timely intelligence. narcotics production, trafficking, and use
(Goal 12).
The aim of source country programs is to assist host
nations to destroy drug trafficking organizations, to • Assist other nations to develop and implement
destroy drug crops, to level drug production facilities, comprehensive counternarcotics policies that
to track and seize drugs scheduled to be shipped to the strengthen democratic institutions, destroy
United States, and to develop alternative economic narcotrafficking organizations, and interdict
projects that will relieve the local farmer’s dependency narcotrafficking in both the source and transit
on drug crops. countries (Goal 13).
• Support, implement, and lead more successful

The international drug trade poses a direct threat enforcement efforts to increase the costs and
both to the United States and to international risks to narcotics producers and traffickers to
efforts to promote democracy, economic stability, reduce the supply of illicit drugs to the United
human rights, and the rule of law. An unabated States. (Goal 14)
flow of drugs to the United States will undercut the
effectiveness of domestic efforts to reduce illicit U.S. drug control agencies have developed an
drug use. Strong action must continue so that aggressive, coordinated response to the cocaine,
through interdiction and a reduction of drug culti- heroin, and marijuana threats facing this Nation,
vation and production in the source countries, the which will remain in the Action Plan for
flow of drugs into the United States can be reduced. Strengthening Interdiction and International

ACTION PLAN FOR STRENGTHENING INTERDICTION AND INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS
Efforts. This response requires an effective inter- abroad. The Administration will increase the
diction capability in the transit zones, 1 while ability of the U.S. Government to monitor
developing effective initiatives in source countries drug source and transit countries to ensure that
focused on illicit cultivation and drug production counter-drug operations are free of human
areas. The Action Plan is multifaceted and rights violations and that dedicated counter-
involves six important and interrelated thrusts: drug units are models for other law enforce-
ment and military units to follow.2
• Strengthen the interdiction capacity in the
transit zone to disrupt the flow of drugs from In countries such as Bolivia, Colombia,
the source countries into the United States. Guatemala, Venezuela, Panama, and the
Bahamas, the U.S. Government has provided
• Build strong intelligence capacities within training, technical guidance, information, and
source countries—working closely with host other assistance to support interdiction, conduct
nation governments to identify, track, and dis- investigations, and build more effective criminal
rupt drug shipments—to ensure that informa- cases. The United States also has encouraged the
tion about drug shipments is available as soon enactment of stronger drug-related laws so that
as shipments move through the source nations source and transit nations have the legal tools
to the transit zones. This capability will they need to investigate and prosecute trafficking
increase the success of interdiction efforts at all organizations and destroy their financial base.
points in the trafficking chain.
The U.S. Agency for International Development
• Strengthen enforcement has funded alternative development projects and
Successful international capacities in source countries programs to assist with the improvement of judi-
money laundering so that major drug trafficking cial systems in foreign countries. U.S. Govern-
investigations have dealt organizations are targeted, ment support of the United Nations Drug Control
significant blows to the their leaders imprisoned for Program contributed to the establishment of the
narcotics industry while terms commensurate with Caribbean Regional Legal Reform Training Cen-
bringing worldwide the seriousness of their ter. Additionally, steps have been taken to enlist
attention to the economic crimes, their activities dis- the involvement of the Dublin Group member
problems caused by drug rupted, their drugs interdict- countries, the Major Donors Groups, and other
money laundering. ed, and their financial assets governments to promote more effective drug con-
seized. trol initiatives in the source and transit nations.
• Foster and build democratic institutions and Successful international money laundering inves-
strengthen law enforcement and judicial sys- tigations have dealt significant blows to the nar-
tems so that (1) drug trafficking organizations cotics industry while bringing worldwide
can be dismantled, (2) intelligence for inter- attention to the economic problems caused by
diction operations can be systematically devel- drug money laundering. These operations also
oped, and (3) public support for drug control produced significant intelligence on cartels’
programs can be maintained. money laundering operations.
• Support assistance to source countries to move Improvements were made in the interdiction pro-
toward eliminating illicit crops through intelli- gram last year though a number of actions, begin-
gence-driven disruption of drug trafficking, ning with ONDCP’s designation of the U.S.
eradication, and development of alternative Interdiction Coordinator (USIC). The USIC is
income programs. responsible for monitoring and overseeing the
U.S. interdiction program in the Western Hemi-
• The Administration is committed to upholding sphere, both source and transit zones, to optimize
human rights both in the United States and program effectiveness. Other important achieve-

ments last year included the implementation of a teria for judging the performance of the major
National Interdiction Command and Control drug producing and transit countries. By means of
Plan, improved coordination among Federal inter- periodic diplomatic demarches based on these cri-
diction program agencies’ operations, better teria, the Department of State consults with the
reliance on intelligence—much of which comes relevant governments throughout the certifica-
from strengthened source country initiatives—to tion process, stressing expectations and reviewing
reduce costly random patrols, and the develop- progress. This procedure minimizes the grounds
ment of a list of interagency priorities to enhance for misunderstandings when the certification deci-
initiatives focused on the source countries. Coop- sions are made annually on March 1.
eration among the Department of Defense, the
Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and the Drug By establishing realistic performance objectives
Enforcement Administration has led to more and consulting on them throughout the year, a
effective, intelligence-driven interdiction opera- useful and functional framework for achieving
tions leading not only to seizures but also to other progress in international drug control has been
trafficker losses through the jettison of drug loads established. These specified
or aborted smuggling activities. objectives, consultations
throughout the year, and a clear The long-term objective
Internationally, the Summit of the Americas has statement of the rewards or of the United States and
ushered in a new era of cooperation in narcotics sanctions involved have made of this Action Plan is to
control in the Western Hemisphere. In addition, the certification process into encourage all nations,
the first steps toward a new, more active coun- what it was originally meant to especially the major drug
ternarcotics strategy to deal with Burma were be: a credible and effective producing and drug
taken last year as part of an interagency review of diplomatic instrument for pro- transit countries, to meet
international heroin policy. gressing toward the common all their antidrug
goal of ending the illicit inter- obligations.
5
national drug trade.
A SUCCESSFUL INTERNATIONAL
CERTIFICATION PROCESS To ensure that all drug producing and drug transit
countries meet their antidrug obligations, this
The long-term objective of the United States and Action Plan will continue the aggressive use of
of this Action Plan is to encourage all nations, the certification process.
especially the major drug producing and drug tran-
sit countries, to meet all their antidrug obligations
under the 1988 United Nations Convention. To THE INTERNATIONAL COCAINE
move closer toward this objective, the 1994 STRATEGY
National Drug Control Strategy called for a “more
aggressive use of the congressionally mandated In 1993 ONDCP and NSC conducted a compre-
certification process that conditions economic hensive interagency review of the international
and military assistance on counternarcotics per- cocaine situation. This review, which provided
formance.” 3 The President’s 1994 decision to the foundation on which this Administration’s
deny certification to four countries and grant only international strategy was built, resulted in a Pres-
national interest certification to six countries idential Decision Directive (PDD) stating that
reflects this tough approach.4 The President made the international cocaine industry represents the
his decision based on recommendations developed following:
by the Department of State, the National Security
Council (NSC), and ONDCP. • A serious national security threat requiring an
extraordinary and coordinated response by all
The Department of State strengthened the certifi- agencies involved in national security;
cation process in 1994 by establishing specific cri-

• A threat that is severely damaging the social begun, and will continue in this Action Plan. It is
fabric of this and many other nations’ societies; intended to provide a more targeted and better
and focused effort in areas where the drug industry is
more concentrated and most vulnerable.
• A threat to democracy, human rights, and the
environment that requires a major foreign poli- The controlled shift underscores the commitment
cy response by the United States. to maintain a tough stance against the interna-
tional narcotics trade in an era of tighter budgets
The PDD directed a three-pronged international and changing trafficking patterns. Instead of
drug control strategy that emphasized assisting relaxing efforts, the Federal agencies have
institutions of nations showing the political will responded with steps to optimize the use of exist-
to combat narcotrafficking, destroying the narco- ing interdiction assets. For example,
trafficking organizations, and interdicting nar-
cotics trafficking in both the source countries and • Intelligence capacity has been improved to
transit zones. The PDD called for a controlled better support and focus U.S. interdiction
shift in focus of cocaine inter- efforts. Random air or sea patrols to locate
diction operations from the drug smugglers, which are very expensive and
To be successful, the transit zones to source coun- produce limited results, have been reduced.
United States must tries. The logic behind this
strengthen and build shift is that it is more effective • Interdiction resources, especially maritime
greater counternarcotics to attack drugs at the source of assets, have been better deployed to allow a
cooperation bilaterally production rather than once more timely response to intelligence-cued tar-
and regionally with its they are in transit to the United gets.
Latin American partners. States. The Administration
now is implementing this new • Detection and monitoring capabilities have
cocaine strategy. To be success- been improved by replacing transit zone sur-
ful, the United States must strengthen and build veillance systems in the Caribbean Basin Radar
greater counternarcotics cooperation bilaterally Network with a radar sensor system (the Relo-
and regionally with its Latin American partners. catable Over the Horizon Radar [ROTHR])6
This will require the requisite levels of funding to that covers a wider area.
support full implementation of the international
drug control program, including the interdiction • The cost of detecting and monitoring drug traf-
component. Interdiction program capability must ficking aircraft has been decreased through the
be maintained until source country program capa- use of radar-equipped vessels that are signifi-
bility has become effective. In the past, erratic cantly cheaper to operate than the U.S. Navy
funding has inhibited the ability to fully imple- vessels previously used for this purpose.
ment the international drug control strategy.
These fluctuations also have shaken the faith of However, the shift in focus so far has not included
America’s counternarcotics partners in America’s any direct shift in resources from the transit zones
reliability as a dependable partner. This faith to the source nations. In fact, Congress has acted
must be restored. to reduce both the international and interdiction
budgets by more than $500 million since Fiscal
The Controlled Shift Year (FY) 1994, leaving insufficient funds to
expand source country initiatives while attempt-
In the 1994 National Drug Control Strategy, the ing to sustain existing transit zone programs.7 In
Administration announced its intention to begin addition, some critics of the Administration’s
a shift in interdiction emphasis, from activities international strategy have noted the reduction in
primarily focused on the transit zones to a stronger Federal drug control resources from their peak in
focus on the source countries. This shift has FY 1992. This decline is misleading in that it

reflects mostly nuances of the Federal budgeting cultivation in 1996; providing alternative eco-
cycle rather than a real decline in resources for nomic development to 50 percent of the cur-
program operations. A substantial level of capital rent coca growers by the year 2000; and
procurement and operating resources was included achieving a 50-percent reduction in the cur-
in earlier interdiction budgets. Some of what rent level of addiction by the year 2000.
appear to be reductions in interdiction funding in
current budgets actually reflect the natural end of Peru also has outlawed the cultivation of
capital acquisition programs begun in the mid- opium poppy and has been strong and decisive
1980s.8 in its efforts to contain poppy cultivation.
With the assistance of Colombia, the kingpin
International Cooperation Carlos Demetrio Chavez Penaherrera (a.k.a.
“El Vaticano”) was arrested, convicted, and
In addition to the controlled shift in the focus of sentenced to a 30-year prison term. The gov-
interdiction activities to source countries, empha- ernment of Peru has pursued joint police-mili-
sis on international cooperation will continue as a tary counternarcotics programs, which have
key to this comprehensive Action Plan for increased its capability to
Strengthening Interdiction and International disrupt the traffickers’ oper-
Efforts. The United States has sought efforts to ations by denying them the In addition to the
enhance international cooperation in Peru, use of numerous airports and controlled shift in the
Colombia, Bolivia, Mexico, and Caribbean, Cen- seizing substantial quantities focus of interdiction
tral American, and spillover countries. of cocaine base and precur- activities to source
sor chemicals. countries, emphasis on
Peru international cooperation
The government of Peru is will continue as a key to
Any consideration of counternarcotics policy working to address the prob- this comprehensive
in Latin America must begin with the under- lem of corruption and has Action Plan.
standing that Peru is central to the illegal taken actions against several
cocaine industry. More than 60 percent of the senior military officers
world’s supply of coca is grown in Peru. So long involved in corruption. Peruvian authorities
as coca production remains this concentrated, are working hard to exercise more control over
counternarcotics success will require progress their air space to prevent narcotraffickers from
in Peru. While the Fujimori Administration having unrestricted use of light aircraft to
has taken steps in the right direction, Peru transport their cocaine base. The decision by
must seriously intensify its counternarcotics Peru to allow the use of potentially deadly force
effort. against aircraft suspected of narcotics traffick-
ing in Peruvian airspace made real-time intelli-
Peru has for the first time adopted a compre- gence sharing by U.S. personnel a problem
hensive national counternarcotics strategy— under U.S. law. This required, in response, a
an important step in the further development change in U.S. law to allow for continued sup-
of a successful counternarcotics program. This port of the Peruvian air interdiction efforts.
strategy calls for strengthening the judicial sys- The Administration joined with Congress in
tem; building counternarcotics institutions; making the necessary legislative change, and
reducing coca cultivation through alternative the United States again is able to fully support
development; and increasing emphasis on pre- this aspect of the Peruvian counternarcotics
vention, treatment, and rehabilitation. Imple- program.
mentation of this Peruvian strategy will begin
this year. Its goals include initiating a cam- While Peru’s accomplishments during the past
paign aimed at reducing the level of addiction year are encouraging, the country remains the
in 1996; designating areas for limited legal coca world’s largest producer of coca, and there con-

tinues to be concern over reports that cultiva- of essential and precursor chemicals, and (2)
tion is spreading outside traditional growing short-term drastic increases in the prices of
areas. Seedbed eradication is a first step, but it those chemicals that remained available.
must be followed by efforts that will reduce and
eventually eliminate illegal coca cultivation. Narcotics-related corruption remains a major
Peru must begin to take these steps if it is to concern in Colombia, and the Colombian
gain the support of the United States and the Government must be relentless in its efforts to
international community in providing alterna- reduce and eliminate the drug organizations’
tive development as an integral part of its erad- ability to intimidate and corrupt government
ication program. Strong law enforcement officials.
efforts in coca growing areas will create the
incentives for successful alternative develop- Colombia is working to exercise control over
ment. its airspace and prevent unrestricted use by
traffickers of light aircraft to move cocaine
Colombia products. However, Colombia’s lack of direct
investment in the procurement of equipment
Colombia has been an important ally of the to accomplish this remains a weakness. As was
United States in the fight against the cocaine the case with Peru, Colombia’s decision to use
cartels. However, Colombia is now at a cross- potentially deadly force against suspected nar-
roads and must intensify its cotics trafficking aircraft required a change in
efforts against the drug trade. In U.S. law to allow for continued U.S. support of
1994 Colombia continued its these efforts.
Colombia has been an
efforts to develop the capability
important ally of the
of its own law enforcement There are other areas of serious concern. In a
United States in the fight
institutions to conduct indepen- decision rendered by the Colombian Supreme
against the cocaine
dent operations against drug Court, the use and possession of user amounts
cartels.
traffickers. In 1994 these law of some drugs was, in effect, legalized. This
enforcement organizations action creates a dangerous climate for the
seized 60 metric tons of cocaine and cocaine health and well-being of Colombian citizens.
base and destroyed 434 cocaine-processing lab- Attempts by the Samper Administration to
oratories, both of which are increases over reverse this decision were rejected by the
1993 performance but fall short of the levels in Colombian Congress. In addition, the Colom-
1991. bian Government has not arrested or prosecut-
ed any leaders of the drug cartels, and there
Colombia has recently stepped up its poppy continues to be talk of entering into lenient
eradication program and begun an aerial coca plea bargaining agreements. Little action has
eradication program that is strongly opposed by been taken to force the traffickers to relinquish
the traffickers, who have organized farmer their illicit gains, and—worst of all—the
demonstrations against it. However, Colombia Colombian Government has not been able to
must persist because its eradication efforts guarantee the safety of witnesses and their fam-
establish an important precedent for the entire ilies or to make effective use of U.S.-supplied
region. Continuation of these efforts will be an evidence. As a result, the U.S. Government
important test of Colombia’s political will to has suspended evidence-sharing with Colom-
conduct a serious counterdrug effort. bia in new drug cases.
Colombia also has taken positive steps to devel- The new Colombian Administration has stated
op a chemical control program. In 1994 a suc- its intention to continue a vigorous campaign
cessful raid on a major international chemical against the narcotics industry. The United
supplier resulted in (1) significant seizures that States is prepared to assist Colombia in this
caused shortages in the supply and availability regard. However, only Colombia’s action can

demonstrate that it has the political will and other political and economic matters—the
commitment necessary to fight the drug traf- national presidential campaign, the assassina-
ficking organizations operating from its soil. tion of presidential candidate Collosio, and the
Chiapas uprising—Mexico must give the prior-
Bolivia ity to counternarcotics efforts it once did. The
new Zedillo Administration has stated its
The situation in Bolivia remains mixed. The intention to resume Mexico’s vigorous cam-
country was granted a “vital national interest” paign against the narcotics industry; anticor-
certification in 1994 because of the United ruption efforts must be an integral part of this
States’ assessment that some key counternar- campaign.
cotics performance deficiencies precluded a
“full” certification. It was judged to be in the Government officials are pushing ahead with
best interests of the United States to continue plans to develop a professional antidrug police
cooperation with Bolivia, to build on progress force and to upgrade their ability to intercept
that has been made in some key areas, and to and seize trafficker aircraft.
continue to press for coca eradication and a In 1994 the interdiction
workable mechanism through which to extra- program continued, with Mexico is a key gateway
dite drug traffickers. opium and marijuana for illicit drugs entering
seizures increasing over the United States.
Bolivia’s president has announced his intent to 1993. However, cocaine
eliminate all illegal coca in the Chapare region seizures were somewhat
through an alternative development and eradi- lower than their 1993 record, reflecting larger
cation program. However, the government of cocaine shipments from South America and
Bolivia has been slow in developing a concrete the fact that past successes here have forced the
plan of action. traffickers to change their tactics. With every
change in their methods, counternarcotics
Alternative development programs continue, forces must adjust to meet the new challenge.
especially in the Chapare region, where foreign
donors assist in building roads and other infra- The opium eradication effort continued, yet
structure. Also, cooperative law enforcement net Mexican opium production is up. The
efforts between the United States and Bolivia counternarcotics partnership between the U.S.
have resulted in the use of air routes in and out Government and the Mexican Government
of the Chapare region being essentially denied resulted in the signing of a money laundering
to the traffickers. agreement that constitutes an important step
by Mexico to address the use of its financial
Unfortunately, not all U.S. efforts have met institutions to launder drug profits.
with such success. Bolivian eradication of coca
through either forced or voluntary means is at a Mexican traffickers have become the number-
standstill. Although the government has taken one source of the chemical base ephedrine to
a strong public stance against corruption, it supply clandestine methamphetamine labora-
remains endemic. The Government of Bolivia tories in the western United States. Addition-
needs to develop the requisite political will to ally, these traffickers have established a
deal decisively with these problems, to reject growing number of methamphetamine labs just
the coca industry, and to withstand the consid- south of the U.S. border. Mexican police offi-
erable pressures of coca proponents. cials are handicapped by the lack of action by
the Mexican Congress to provide an effective
Mexico chemical control law.
Mexico is a key gateway for illicit drugs enter- Mexico is the pivotal nation for drugs entering
ing the United States. Although distracted by the United States. As a result it is crucial that

Mexico (1) possess the ability and the will to Central America continues to be a key link in
disrupt the trafficking organizations operating the trans-shipment of cocaine and the launder-
within its borders, (2) interdict drugs before ing of drug profits. The United States must
they cross the border to the United States, and continue to work with these nations to
(3) seize the financial assets laundered in their strengthen their political will to fight drug traf-
nation by traffickers. The United States’ bilat- ficking, to enhance their domestic capabilities
eral agreements with Mexico in these areas will to interdict cocaine, to prosecute money laun-
reflect these expectations. derers, and to create environments hostile to
illicit drug activities.
Caribbean, Central America, and
Spillover Countries
SUMMIT OF THE AMERICAS
The pressures applied to the narcotics industry
in the source countries of Bolivia, Colombia, The December 9-11, 1994, Summit of the Ameri-
and Peru have caused illicit cartels to look to cas in Miami, Florida, provided the United States
neighboring countries (princi- and its hemispheric partners a unique and impor-
pally Brazil, Ecuador, and tant opportunity to strengthen cooperation
The pressures applied to
Venezuela) for a political against the drug trade. Attended by the Heads of
the narcotics industry in
atmosphere that is more con- State of all 34 democratically elected govern-
the source countries of
ducive to their trade. The drug ments in the Western Hemisphere, the Summit
Bolivia, Colombia, and
cartels are increasing their stressed the opportunities and the means to
Peru have caused illicit
operations in these countries improve the quality of life throughout the hemi-
cartels to look to
and must be challenged before sphere. Their unanimously endorsed Declaration
neighboring countries . . .
they develop their infrastruc- of Principles and associated Plan of Action—two of
for a political atmosphere
ture and political influence. the most progressive, comprehensive, and
that is more conducive to
The United States must assist thoughtful documents ever produced by such a
their trade.
these governments in recogniz- gathering—outlined the ways for this to be
ing the potential threat posed accomplished. Quality of life will be improved in
by the narcotics industry and the importance of two ways: through the promotion of those initia-
taking early prevention action. tives that advance development and prosperity—
democracy, free trade, and sustainable
This same level of threat exists in the nations development—and through standing up to the
of the Caribbean Basin, where traffickers are challenges that undermine these basic initiatives.
broadening their trans-shipment operations
and expanding their levels of influence. These From the outset, the participants of the Summit
small nations individually are no match for the recognized that illicit narcotics was one of the
powerful, sophisticated, and well-financed traf- most pernicious challenges and that it should be
fickers. These nations recognize the signifi- dealt with constructively at the Summit. Region-
cance of the threat and have requested U.S. al narcotrafficking and money laundering pose
assistance in developing a regional counternar- serious barriers to establishing and conducting
cotics program that will coordinate their efforts legitimate trade and can act to destabilize democ-
into a unified response. The United States will ratic governments and establish serious barriers to
actively assist the Caribbean nations in devel- the economic integration of all the nations in this
oping this regional effort and will work to hemisphere. The infusion of drug dollars into a
establish a high degree of cooperation between nation’s economy has severe adverse effects on
them and the counternarcotics programs of the economic growth because it crowds out legitimate
Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands High Intensity investors and stifles other business development.
Drug Trafficking Area and the Joint Intera-
gency Task Force East. In signing the Declaration of Principles and the Plan
of Action, the Heads of State endorsed documents

that emphasize the need for shared responsibility THE INTERNATIONAL HEROIN STRATEGY
and a comprehensive approach to narcotics con-
trol. In this context, the United States must con- Data collected in hospital emergency rooms,
tinue to reduce domestic drug use and help police departments, criminal courts, public assis-
generate resources to support sustainable develop- tance programs, schools, and on the streets show
ment in key drug producing countries. The Sum- that heroin consumption in the United States is
mit’s counternarcotics elements also represent the increasing. Furthermore, recent senior-level visits
following important steps forward in hemispheric to the heroin producing and trafficking countries
recognition of drug abuse and drug trafficking: of Asia and Africa confirmed several alarming
facts: Worldwide use of opium and heroin is
• By underscoring the threat that drugs pose to increasing, opium poppy growing areas are
democratic institutions, economies, and soci- expanding, global production is at record levels,
eties, each country affirmed that it is in its fun- and there is some indication that criminal groups
damental interest to confront the narcotics are moving larger quantities of heroin to the Unit-
problem. ed States. There is no doubt that international
opium and heroin control must
• The documents express strong commitment by remain a major foreign policy
all countries to take effective law enforcement objective of the United States. . . . the United States
action against the leaders of drug trafficking must continue to reduce
and money laundering organizations. The key elements of the heroin domestic drug use and
strategy are as follows: help generate resources
• The Summit highlighted the need to link the to support sustainable
provision of alternative development resources • Expand and intensify con- development in key drug
to reduce drug production, trafficking, and tacts with foreign leaders in producing countries.
abuse. the principal source, transit,
and consuming countries to mobilize interna-
• The Summit highlighted the need to provide tional cooperation to attack opium and heroin
national and international support for develop- production, trafficking, and use;
ment programs aimed at creating viable eco-
nomic alternatives to drug production. • Gain greater access to opium producing regions
through bilateral and multilateral political and
• The documents express the strong commit- economic initiatives;
ment of the leaders of the nations of the West-
ern Hemisphere to make money laundering a • Dismantle illicit heroin trafficking organiza-
criminal offense, to enact legislation to permit tions by prosecuting their leaders and seizing
the freezing and forfeiture of assets, and to their profits and assets;
implement various recommendations and
model regulations that have been developed • Promote diplomacy, public awareness, demand
through regional organizations. reduction, and other initiatives to strengthen
political will to combat drug production, traf-
Expanded trade results in job creation and ficking, and use in key countries; and
employment opportunities—the most enduring
alternative to narcotics production and trafficking • Maximize counterdrug intelligence and inves-
and thus a key component of any strategy that tigative capabilities in all major source and
seeks to reduce incentives to the drug trade over transit countries.
the long term. This Strategy will continue the
work of these Heads of State to reduce the drug With the exception of heroin that originates in
trade within and between countries and to the Western Hemisphere, the worldwide heroin
increase legitimate enterprise. trade generally is less integrated and more geo-
graphically dispersed than the cocaine trade; con-

sequently, countering the heroin threat requires and dangerous areas. A multilateral forum such as
an approach that is separate and distinct. the United Nations or the World Bank has greater
access to many important opium and heroin pro-
The heroin strategy encompasses U.S. leadership, ducing and transit regions than does the United
technical expertise, and intelligence assets used in States. The U.S. Government will make greater
an aggressive international effort. Multilateral use of these organizations to initiate or expand
organizations, multinational development banks drug control programs in these regions.
(MDBs), international financial institutions
(IFIs), and governments will be included to ensure To improve the effectiveness of the United
effective and well-funded efforts against heroin. Nations Drug Control Program, at every opportu-
nity, the U.S. Government will encourage inter-
In light of the emerging heroin threat, the Presi- national and multilateral organizations, MDBs,
dent directed the development of a new interna- and IFIs to take an aggressive and proactive
tional heroin strategy. A draft strategy has been approach in source and transit countries to sup-
developed and soon will be submitted for port alternative development, judicial reform,
approval. demand reduction, and public awareness.
Heighten International Through member nations of the Dublin Group,

The Administration will Awareness the Customs Cooperation Council, the Financial
take the lead in Action Task Force, and other international
increasing international The Administration will take forums, the United States will seek to increase the
awareness of the heroin the lead in increasing interna- counternarcotics contributions of other donors.
threat and strengthening tional awareness of the heroin Success of these international program efforts
the political will to threat and strengthening the requires that the United States develop a close
confront it. political will to confront it. working relationship with Australia, Canada,
The Administration has raised European countries, and Japan to design, develop,
the priority of stemming heroin use as a foreign and coordinate international opium and heroin
policy objective and will ensure that U.S. diplo- control assistance. All donors will be encouraged
macy gives equal weight to policies that address to target their developmental and humanitarian
opium and heroin production, trafficking, and assistance to populations and areas where it can
demand. have a direct effect on reducing opium production
and trafficking. This assistance also should be
Regional groups, international organizations, and used to help extend government authority into
nongovernmental organizations will be encour- opium producing regions. As governments gain
aged to use their influence to enhance antidrug greater control over these areas, continuation of
performance in all areas—including demand assistance should be linked to drug control
reduction—in key heroin source, transit, and con- progress.
suming countries. The United States will target
the leaders of the heroin trade by making them Attack the Heroin Trafficking Infrastructure
specific enforcement targets and will use every
opportunity to encourage greater cooperation and Heroin production, smuggling, distribution, and
support from the leaders of key source, transit, and sales are complex, multinational businesses. They
consuming countries. are most vulnerable when attacks on their infrastruc-
ture—leadership, money laundering, chemical sup-
Emphasize a Multilateral Approach ply, and communications and transportation
networks— are conducted on a coordinated world-
The United States’ approach must be broad wide basis. The U.S. Government must ensure that
enough to overcome the obstacles imposed by the there is a coordinated effort to focus on specific orga-
geographic dispersion of the heroin trade and the nizations, coordinating U.S. actions against them
concentration of opium production in isolated with U.S. allies. This Strategy is to synchronize law

enforcement operations in the United States with groups, making greater efforts by the regime to
“linked” operations in Africa, Asia, and Europe. utilize money laundering and conspiracy legisla-
tion, and access to opium producing areas using
The United States will work with other customs nongovernmental organizations.
services to automate document review and target-
ing processes, using advanced technology to A range of measures currently undertaken,
address the highest risk transportation network— designed to address the United States’ coun-
commercial maritime cargo. The U.S. Govern- ternarcotics concerns without undermining
ment also will increase efforts to prosecute money other vital U.S. objectives, includes efforts to
launderers—particularly those traffickers who use promote political reform and reconciliation
the “underground” banking systems in East Asia, and curb gross violations of human rights in
Pakistan, and India—and continue efforts to con- Burma. These measures also include the fol-
trol the movement of the precursor chemicals nec- lowing:
essary for heroin production.
• Continue, at appropriate levels, a general
Ethnic-based heroin networks pose difficult intel- dialogue with appropriate
ligence collection challenges. The United States Burmese authorities
must enhance its ability to penetrate these organi- regarding counternar- The magnitude of the
zations, particularly their money laundering appa- cotics strategies; heroin trade, together
ratuses. This Strategy seeks to address the need for with limited U.S.
countries around the world to work together to • Exchange information influence in heroin
reduce the drug trade. with appropriate Burmese producing areas and
officials to support uni- constrained financial
Regional Substrategies lateral counternarcotics resources, require that
operations; the Administration’s
The magnitude of the heroin trade, together with heroin strategy be
limited U.S. influence in heroin producing areas • Provide in-country coun- carefully targeted.
and constrained financial resources, require that ternarcotics training to
the Administration’s heroin strategy be carefully specialized units on a
targeted. The United States focuses efforts in case-by-case basis and subject to the same
Southeast Asia; the Middle East and Southwest U.S. standards and safeguards observed in
Asia; Latin America; Africa; Russia; Eastern Euro- other countries in which the United States
pean countries; and the newly independent states. has a counternarcotics relationship;
Southeast Asia • Continue recently enhanced efforts to influ-

ence Burma’s neighbors—especially China
This Strategy’s primary heroin control priority and Thailand—to exert more narcotics con-
will be to reduce the flow from Southeast Asia, trol pressure on the Burmese Government
which currently supplies more than 60 percent by emphasizing to them the regional threat
of all heroin sold in the United States. The posed by Burma’s heroin trade;
key country in this region is Burma.
• Continue to urge China and Thailand to
In November 1994, a senior-level U.S. delega- conduct drug interdiction operations along
tion visited Burma. The delegation, which their borders with Burma, at major ports,
included a representative of the State Depart- and wherever such operations can enhance
ment’s Bureau of International Narcotics Mat- the collection of evidence on the organiza-
ters, raised counternarcotics issues with Burma’s tions and their leaders;
senior leadership, including prosecuting narco-
traffickers, fulfilling counternarcotics commit- • Complete second opium yield survey in
ments in agreements with Burmese ethnic Burma, which will provide important infor-

mation about the nature of the opium crop; tance, intelligence and information, and law
and enforcement training. The United States also
will work to enhance the commitment of
• Continue support for UNDCP regional nar- Western European countries to provide finan-
cotics control efforts that affect Burma. cial support through multilateral development
banks and organizations and to apply diplomat-
Much of the opium production in Burma has ic pressure on producing, transit, and consum-
taken place outside areas of central govern- ing countries.
ment control; thus, the United States has
urged the government of Burma to work Latin America
toward effective implementation of its coun-
ternarcotics agreements with Expanding poppy crops in Colombia and Mexi-
Burmese ethnic groups that co and emerging poppy cultivation in Peru and
The United States also have long opposed central gov- Venezuela are aimed almost exclusively at U.S.
will intensify efforts to ernment policies. In this consumers. Mexico has demonstrated both the
destroy Southeast Asian respect, the U.S. objectives can political will and the capability to eradicate
trafficking operations by be better accomplished by the poppy cultivation. With support from the
attacking brokering, importance the United States United States, Colombia and Venezuela have
banking, shipping, attaches to political reform and made a similar commitment. Peru has
communications, and reconciliation in Burma. This announced its intention to conduct eradica-
other support operations is critical if the Burmese Gov- tion operations against poppy cultivation.
in the region. ernment is to make sustained Guatemala has virtually eliminated its once
progress with the ethnic groups. significant poppy crop. The Administration
must continue to provide the technical support
Finally, the United States will continue to necessary to sustain or improve upon these
expand cooperative efforts with other govern- efforts and use this opportunity to encourage
ments in the region, especially Thailand, more active eradication programs against all
Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore illegal drug crops in Latin America.
to reduce cultivation and trafficking in their
countries. The United States also will intensi- Colombian heroin is a particularly insidious
fy efforts to destroy Southeast and East Asian problem because the drug cartels utilize an
trafficking operations by attacking brokering, existing drug distribution infrastructure to
banking, shipping, communications, and other move their product. Colombian eradication
support operations in the region. programs have destroyed as much as 20,000
hectares of poppy in recent years. The U.S.
Middle East and Southwest Asia Government has strongly encouraged the Sam-
per Administration to continue its eradication
The U.S. Government’s interest in Southwest efforts and to vigorously attack the heroin traf-
Asia centers on increased heroin production in fickers.
Afghanistan and Pakistan’s drug processing and
international trafficking syndicates. It also is Africa
concerned about production in the neighbor-
ing republics of the former Soviet Union as Nigerian and West African trafficking organi-
well as trafficking networks operating from zations demand special attention because they
Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey. move a substantial portion of the Southeast
Through appropriate bilateral or multilateral Asian heroin arriving in the United States.
mechanisms, this Nation will reach out to all of Because of insufficient progress in counternar-
these governments by offering technical assis- cotics, Nigeria was denied certification by

President Clinton in 1994. The Administra- implementation of the PDD on cocaine; and (5)
tion explained to the Nigerian Government expand international public diplomacy.
that while the U.S. Government wants Nigeria
to earn certification, this will not occur until Target No. 1: Coordinate the Completion
Nigeria meets its international obligations and Implementation of a PDD on Heroin
under the 1988 Vienna Convention and meets
the certification standards specified in the U.S. Steps:
Foreign Assistance Act.
• Prepare a draft PDD on heroin based on the
The emergence of a fully democratic South heroin section of this document and coordi-
Africa and the subsequent opening of its bor- nate it through the NSC process for the Presi-
ders and expansion of its international com- dent’s approval.
merce have encouraged drug traffickers to
attempt the development of South Africa as a • Coordinate with the Coun-
The 12-month Action Plan
major transit country. The United States has ternarcotics Interagency
for Strengthening
offered help to South Africa to counter this Working Group (CN-IWG)
Interdiction and
threat and tackle its increasing drug consump- for full and timely imple-
International Efforts
tion. South Africa has the stature, skills, and mentation of the PDD on
consists of five targets . . .
resources to assume a major leadership role in heroin.
Africa against the drug trade, and the United
States encourages South Africa to do so. • Coordinate U.S. Government efforts to engage
Burma on counternarcotics.
Russia, Eastern European Countries, and
the Newly Independent States Completion Date: September 1995
Organized crime groups in Russia, Eastern Target No. 2: Develop Measures of

Europe, and the newly independent states (for- Effectiveness for International, Host
merly of the Soviet Union) are of increasing Country, and Interdiction Programs
concern. The Administration will address this
problem through expanded training and other Step:
efforts by both bilateral and multilateral coun-
ternarcotics and countercrime mechanisms. In • Work with Federal drug control agencies to
the summer of 1994, a high level U.S. delega- develop proposed measures of effectiveness.
tion travelled to Eastern Europe and Russia to
discuss law enforcement efforts. This led to the Completion Date: September 1995
opening of an FBI office in Moscow and a
training center in Budapest. Target No. 3: Follow Up on the Summit of
the Americas
12-MONTH ACTION PLAN FOR
STRENGTHENING INTERDICTION AND Steps:
INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS
• Facilitate a ministerial conference to coordinate
The 12-month Action Plan for Strengthening hemispheric response to money laundering.
Interdiction and International Efforts consists of
five targets: (1) coordinate the completion and • Organize a conference of donors, MDBs, and
implementation of a PDD on heroin; (2) develop the United Nations to seek resources for alter-
measures of effectiveness for international, host native development programs.
country, and interdiction programs; (3) follow up
on the Summit of the Americas; (4) continue Completion Date: September 1995

Target No. 4: Continue Implementation of — Continue to apply across-the-board pressure

the PDD on Cocaine on Colombia’s Cali-based organization
(including their domestic and regional asso-
Steps: ciates) to break their control over the
cocaine trade and destroy their ability to
• Aggressively pursue congressional support for undermine the will and ability of regional
the PDD on cocaine and the resulting interna- governments to reduce narcotics trafficking.
tional strategy.
Completion Date: December 1995
• Clearly describe the institution-building pro-
gram to the Congress and the American people Target No. 5: Expand International Public
as one of long-term commitment and effort. Diplomacy
• Ensure an effective interdiction capability Step:

exists and is maintained in the transit zone.
• U.S. agencies involved in international nar-
• Coordinate with the Counternarcotics Intera- cotics control efforts will work with others to
gency Working Group to: communicate U.S. sincerity in counternar-
cotics activities and increase public support for
— Improve host nation “end-game” capabili- counternarcotics programs in source and tran-
ties;9 sit countries by the following U.S. agency
actions:
— Recognize Peru’s willingness to expand its
counterdrug efforts by removing any self- — Develop a mechanism to communicate and
imposed barriers and increasing U.S. coun- encourage support for policies abroad;
ternarcotics support and assistance to it;
— Publicize and informing the public and the
— Assist Colombia in its efforts to control and Congress about the full range of U.S. inter-
stop traffickers’ use of Colombian air space national counternarcotics efforts; and
and to aerially eradicate coca and poppy
cultivation; — Develop broad themes consistent with
major strategy objectives for universal
— Assist the Government of Bolivia in attention.
expanding its interdiction capabilities and
to completely eliminate the cultivation of Completion Date: December 1995
illegal coca;
ENDNOTES
— Fully support (including intelligence and
1
technical assistance) Mexico’s efforts to dis- The interdiction capability is an important element of
mantle drug organizations and to eradicate this Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction and
International Efforts. Interdiction removes illicit drugs
poppy and marijuana cultivation; from the system, increases the cartels’ costs, provides
intelligence against the cartels, supports institution build-
— Recognize the positive steps taken by the ing programs, and supports the prevention and treatment
new Panamanian Administration and pro- elements of this Strategy.
vide full support and assistance to their 2
The Administration has recognized the history of alleged
counternarcotics program;
human rights abuses, emphatically condemns such prac-
tices, and intends to ensure that such abuses are not con-
— Develop regional counternarcotics alliances tinued by any country which receives U.S.
in the source region and Caribbean Basin; counternarcotics assistance, especially if that assistance is
and being used for other purposes than for which it was
intended.

An end use monitoring system is under development consequences of the decertification process. However,
within U.S. embassies that will trace where assistance the requirement in the Foreign Assistance Act for the
goes and the exact purposes for which it is being expend- United States to vote against any loans from multilateral
ed in other countries to ensure that U.S. assistance is development banks to countries that have been denied
being used in accordance with U.S. policies. End use certification maintains their attention to the overall
monitoring programs will utilize military Inspectors Gen- process. Added to this is the international stigma that
eral to inspect U.S. assistance and to provide periodic goes with denial of certification, a stigma some countries
reports of their findings to the U.S. Ambassadors. U.S. take more seriously than other penalties. The result is
officials, including Ambassadors, also will monitor the that the certification process can and does provide a
assistance through periodic spot checks, check on the powerful lever for encouraging meaningful global and
assistance at the sites to determine how it is being used, national action in the counternarcotics area.
and report on these observations in writing. Peru and
6
Colombia also have established procedures to monitor The ROTHR is based on an advanced radar technology
and report on the proper use of all U.S. assistance. that gives the United States the capability to surveil the
Caribbean from sites in the continental United States.
In addition, the State Department is currently working on The Virginia site is operational, and the Texas site is
implementing a new process for reviewing allegations of under construction. A third site in Puerto Rico is
human rights violations by government forces that may planned.
receive funding, training, or other support from U.S.
7
Government counternarcotics programs. The Department of Defense’s budget has been reduced by
more than $300 million, and the Department of State’s
3
The certification process was created by a 1986 amend- drug budget has been reduced by about $200 million. For
ment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and provides more details, see the Office of National Drug Control Pol-
the President with three options when evaluating a icy’s 1995 Budget Summary Report.
nation’s counternarcotics performance. If it is deter-
8
mined that a country cooperated fully with the United From FY 1990 to FY 1992, the Nation’s drug strategy
States during the previous year or has taken adequate focused heavily on supply reduction. This period saw an
steps on its own to achieve full compliance with the goals increase in funds from 1990 to 1991 for the seven agen-
and objectives of the 1988 U.N. Convention Against cies that had primary responsibility for interdiction (U.S.
Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub- Department of Defense, Bureau of Land Management,
stances, the country can be certified. If a country does Office of Territorial and International Affairs, Immigra-
not qualify under this standard and a vital U.S. interest tion and Naturalization Service, U.S. Coast Guard, Fed-
exists, it can be given a national interest certification eral Aviation Administration, and U.S. Customs). Total
based on that U.S. interest. If a country does not qualify funds allocated for this period increased from $1,752 mil-
under this standard and there is not an overriding U.S. lion to $2,028 million.
interest, the country can be denied certification.
Funds were spent on hardware systems that assisted these
4
The President denied certification to four countries agencies in detecting, monitoring, and confiscating the
(Burma, Iran, Syria, and—for the first time—Nigeria) flow of drugs into the United States. Hardware included
and certified six countries based on the U.S. vital interest items such as helicopters, cutters, patrol boats, and other
(Afghanistan, Bolivia, Laos, Lebanon, Panama, and aircraft; aerostat systems and other radar detecting equip-
Peru). ment; and the construction of facilities to house border
patrol personnel. Funding levels subsequent to FY 1992
5
If a country is denied certification by the President (or by reflect maintenance and operation costs for the hardware
the Congress, which can change the President’s determi- purchased in previous years.
nations by a majority vote in both Houses), most U.S.
9
economic assistance allocated for that country is with- The term “end game” refers to the ability to successfully
held. Currently 29 countries are reviewed annually for coordinate law enforcement action to apprehend drug
certification, but a number of these countries do not smugglers whether they are moving their illicit drugs by
receive direct U.S. economic assistance. This might land, air, or sea, and to ensure thorough investigation, rig-
seem to encourage at least some of them to discount the orous prosecution, and appropriate sentencing.

IX. Federal Drug Control
Resource Priorities
he largest Presidential request in history, a efforts. This request represents an increase of $1.3
T
total of $14.6 billion in Federal drug con- billion, which is 9.7 percent over the FY 1995
trol resources, is requested in Fiscal Year enacted level of $13.3 billion. The following are
(FY) 1996 for supply reduction and among the major thrusts for FY 1996:
demand reduction activities. Recognizing
the critical importance of the community • Take a totally new approach to the manage-
in the solution to the problems of illicit drug use and ment of Federal resources provided by the
trafficking, this budget expands the ability of commu- Department of Health and Human Services
nities to respond to their own drug problems. For the (HHS) to States for drug treatment and preven-
first time—as part of a new partnership between the tion. In a nutshell, the bulk of the Federal
Federal Government and States and localities—com- strings attached to treatment and prevention
munities will have much greater flexibility in how they resources funded by HHS will be removed. One
manage Federal resources for drug control purposes. important string will remain— a set-aside for
At the same time, the Federal role in drug control— drug prevention services. Working with the
attacking organizations and traffickers, interdicting States, communities will be given more discre-
drugs both in the United States and abroad, developing tion in developing and implementing programs
and sharing intelligence, conducting national research, tailored to their unique needs and concerns,
and improving treatment and prevention efforts—will rather than attempting to solve their local prob-
be vigorously pursued. lems using a federally mandated approach.
• Place a major emphasis on implementing the

The President’s FY 1996 drug control budget President’s International Program Strategy.
spending plan will achieve the goals, priorities, The FY 1996 budget funds the Administra-
and objectives of the National Drug Control tion’s plan (articulated last year) for a “con-
Strategy. It includes resources for treatment, pre- trolled” shift of emphasis from previous
vention, research, law enforcement, intelligence, strategies that centered on disrupting the flow
interdiction, and international programs that of cocaine in the transit zones to a more bal-
comprise a balanced, national response to the anced, long-term, and integrated approach that
problems of illicit drugs. This FY 1996 drug bud- stresses efforts in the source countries.
get proposal provides a recipe for success: By sup-
porting key initiatives in FY 1996, this Nation can • Place more emphasis on programs to enhance
reduce the tremendous economic and human community-based efforts, especially those that
costs posed by illicit drug use. strengthen local law enforcement capabilities.
The FY 1996 budget includes resources to
increase community-based efforts aimed at the
FY 1996 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL problems of illicit drug trafficking and use, such
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS as community policing and State and local law
enforcement programs funded by the Byrne
For FY 1996, the President has requested $14.6 program (e.g., State and local task forces).
billion (see Exhibit 9-1) to fund drug control

FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL RESOURCE PRIORITIES
Figure 9-1
Federal Drug Control Spending by Function, 1981–96
16
$14.6 Billion
14
$12.2 Billion
12
Dollars in Billions
10
8
$6.7 Billion
4
$1.5 Billion
2
0
FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
President’s
Budget
Demand Reduction Domestic Law Enforcement International Interdiction
• Place more emphasis on research and analysis 1996. And, at nearly $2.0 billion, drug prevention
to inform policymakers about what works and is the third largest program area.
does not work in drug control efforts.
The international program budget represents a
The FY 1996 budget request small but important share of total drug control
includes important increases in spending. The total request for international pro-
The FY 1996 budget
all major program areas except grams is $399.1 million, which is 2.7 percent of
request includes
interdiction. Table 9-1 illus- the President’s total request for drug control. This
important increases in all
trates Federal drug control program area increases by $89.1 million in FY
major program areas
spending among the functions 1996, almost entirely to provide additional
except interdiction.
tracked in the Federal drug con- resources for the Department of State’s Bureau of
trol budget. International Narcotics Matters (INM) to fund
programs that are sorely needed in source coun-
The largest area of the Federal drug control budget tries.
is the criminal justice system. Of the total $14.6
billion requested in FY 1996, $7.2 billion is for the A total of $1.3 billion is requested for interdiction,
criminal justice system—an increase of $854 mil- which is 8.8 percent of the total FY 1996 budget
lion over last year. This functional area is the request. The FY 1996 request is $14.9 million less
largest spending category of the total drug control than the resources provided last year. While all
budget. Drug treatment is the next largest pro- other agencies involved in drug interdiction will
gram area, with over $2.8 billion requested in FY require additional resources in FY 1996, the U.S.

Table 9-1. Federal Drug Control Spending by Function, FY 1994–FY 1996

(Budget Authority in Millions)
FY 1996 FY 95–FY 96
FY 1994 FY 1995 President’s Change
Drug Function Actual Estimate Request $ %
Criminal Justice System 5,735.4 6,313.3 7,166.7 853.5 13.5%

Drug Treatment 2,398.7 2,646.6 2,826.6 180.0 6.8%
Education, Community Action, 1,597.4 1,847.6 1,974.9 127.3 6.9%
and the Workplace
International 329.4 309.9 399.1 89.1 28.8%
Interdiction 1,311.6 1,293.3 1,278.4 (14.9) –1.2%
Research 520.3 538.2 570.7 32.5 6.0%
Intelligence 291.7 316.0 334.0 18.1 5.7%
Total 12,184.4 13,264.9 14,550.4 1,285.5 9.7%
Four-Way Split
Demand Reduction 4,424.5 4,934.5 5,256.5 321.9 6.5%

36.3% 37.2% 36.1%
Domestic Law Enforcement 6,118.9 6,727.1 7,616.4 889.4 13.2%
50.2% 50.7% 52.3%
International 329.4 309.9 399.1 89.1 28.8%
2.7% 2.3% 2.7%
Interdiction 1,311.6 1,293.3 1,278.4 (14.9) –1.2%
10.8% 9.7% 8.8%
Total 12,184.4 13,264.9 14,550.4 1,285.5 9.7%
Supply/Demand Split
Supply 7,759.9 8,330.3 9,293.9 963.6 11.6%

Demand 4,424.5 4,934.5 5,256.5 321.9 6.5%
Total 12,184.4 13,264.9 14,550.4 1,285.5 9.7%
Demand Components
Prevention (w/o research) 1,597.4 1,847.6 1,974.9 127.3 6.9%

Treatment (w/o research) 2,398.7 2,646.6 2,826.6 180.0 6.8%
Research 428.4 440.3 455.0 14.7 3.3%
Total, Demand 4,424.5 4,934.5 5,256.5 321.9 6.5%
(Detail may not add to totals due to rounding)
Customs Service will not. Resources requested for over the past few years. Customs program efforts
the Customs Service’s air program are less in FY will not be reduced by this budget request, as these
1996 than in FY 1995 because Customs is able to excess balances are adequate to enable Customs to
draw down excess balances that have accumulated maintain its air interdiction activities.

MAJOR DRUG CONTROL BUDGET Improving Drug Treatment and Prevention

INITIATIVES IN FY 1996 Through Grant Consolidation
Four major budget initiatives are included in the The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Ser-
FY 1996 National Drug Control Strategy budget vices Administration (SAMHSA) is the source of
request. The first initiative gives communities the majority of Federal funding for drug abuse
more resources to better respond to their particu- treatment and prevention. The President’s pro-
lar drug problems. The second initiative signifi- posed FY 1996 budget restructures SAMHSA by
cantly changes the manner in which Federal proposing a new partnership block grant and a sin-
treatment and prevention funds are provided to gle substance abuse demonstration and training
States. The third initiative focuses on reducing authority. The President’s proposal will provide
drug use by expanding drug SAMHSA and the States with the ability to
treatment to those inside and respond quickly and effectively to the substance
Four major budget outside the criminal justice sys- abuse prevention and treatment needs of our
initiatives are included in tem. Finally, the fourth initia- Nation.
the FY 1996 National Drug tive enhances international
Control Strategy budget programs to attack the prob- The “Substance Abuse Performance Partnership”
request. lems of drug production and will provide States with more flexibility in direct-
trafficking at the source. ing treatment and prevention resources to best
meet local community needs. This new Substance
The four major budget initiatives are outlined Abuse Performance Partnership removes most of
below. the earmarks and mandates of the former Sub-
stance Abuse Block Grant. One of the important
Empowering Communities to Respond to Their earmarks that is kept is the 20 percent set-aside for
Own Drug Problem drug abuse prevention services.1 The President’s
total drug control request for this new Partnership
The FY 1996 request includes a number of specific is $1.3 billion, which funds $919.8 million in
initiatives to empower communities to confront drug-related treatment and prevention services.
their drug problem directly, including the follow- This request includes $60 million in additional
ing: resources over the FY 1995 level, with the States
encouraged to use these funds to treat chronic sub-
• A total of $621.1 million in drug-related stance abusers.
resources is requested in FY 1996 for the drug-
related portion of the community policing pro- The President’s FY 1996 budget also proposes to
gram authorized by the Violent Crime Control consolidate SAMHSA’s demonstration and train-
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law ing programs into one demonstration and training
103-322, hereafter referred to as the Crime cluster for substance abuse. The overall objective
Control Act). Over 1,200 grants to add almost of SAMHSA’s new demonstration cluster will be
10,000 more police have been awarded already. to train providers, to conduct demonstrations that
The goal is to bring the total to over 40,000 test new ways of preventing and treating substance
officers by the end of 1996. abuse, and to nationally disseminate data and
information about effective programs. The new
• A total of $500 million is requested for the Safe demonstration cluster will have strong evaluation
and Drug Free Schools and Communities pro- components to assess program efficacy. Although
gram, an increase of $18.0 million over the FY SAMHSA’s previous programs have been consoli-
1995 enacted level. These resources are criti- dated, the Administration intends to ensure that
cal to local community efforts to educate youth programs such as the Community Partnership Pro-
about the dangers and consequences of illicit gram receive continued support in FY 1996. A
drug use. total of $452.8 million is requested for substance

abuse-related demonstrations in FY 1996. Within • Substance Abuse Treatment in Federal Prisons. A

the $452.8 million requested for the Substance total of $13.5 million in new funds is requested
Abuse Demonstration and Training Cluster, $40 for substance abuse treatment in Federal pris-
million is included to demonstrate the efficacy of ons, which was authorized by the Crime Con-
promoting approaches to the delivery of substance trol Act. This funding will be used by the
abuse treatment services to the illicit drug-using Federal Bureau of Prisons to provide residential
population, the most difficult of whom is the substance abuse treatment and to make
chronic, hardcore drug user. arrangements for appropriate transition ser-
vices for all eligible prisoners. Residential
Reducing Chronic, Hardcore Drug Use treatment is to include individual and group
Through Treatment activities, lasting between 6 and 12 months, in
residential treatment facilities set apart from
Chronic, hardcore drug use fuels the continuing the general prison population. Under the
high demand for illicit drugs and is linked to requirements of the Crime Control Act, treat-
crime, violence, health problems, and the deterio- ment is to be made available to at least 50 per-
ration of the family. Additional treatment capaci- cent of eligible prisoners in 1995, rising to 75
ty and flexibility in the delivery of treatment percent in 1996.
services are critical to the reduction of drug use by
Additional treatment
chronic, hardcore drug users. The total FY 1996 • Substance Abuse Treatment in
capacity and flexibility in
drug control budget request for drug treatment is State Prisons. A total of
the delivery of treatment
$2.8 billion, $180.0 million more than the FY $26.7 million in new funds
services are critical to
1995 enacted level. Drug control funding for is requested for substance
the reduction of drug use
treatment services comes from a variety of sources. abuse treatment for State
by chronic, hardcore
The major funding components of the treatment prisons, which also was
drug users.
initiative include the following: authorized by the Crime
Control Act. This program
• The Substance Abuse Performance Partnership. will award discretionary grants to States to
Within the $919.8 million requested for the develop and implement residential substance
drug portion of the Substance Abuse Perfor- abuse treatment programs within State correc-
mance Partnership is $60 million more than tional facilities. To receive grants, States must
the comparable appropriation in FY 1995. The outline a plan for substance abuse testing of
proposed changes to the Block Grant and addi- prisoners and for coordinating the develop-
tional funding for illicit drug users, like the ment of residential treatment facilities with the
chronic, hardcore drug user, will give the States State and local drug and alcohol abuse agency
the flexibility to design and coordinate their and HHS. Aftercare services also are covered
substance abuse treatment and prevention pro- by this initiative.
grams to better fit their unique needs and more
effectively target resources within their States Increasing Source Country Program
to those areas of highest need. Effectiveness
• Drug Courts. The total FY 1996 request for The FY 1996 budget request includes $213.0 mil-
drug courts is $150.0 million, an increase of lion for international narcotics control. This is an
$121.0 million over the $29.0 million enacted increase of $108.0 million over the FY 1995
in FY 1995. The Department of Justice will enacted level of $105.0 million for international
make discretionary grants to States, units of narcotics control. In FY 1996 this program will
local governments, Indian Tribal governments, continue the implementation of the President’s
and State and local courts for drug court assis- directive to place more emphasis on source coun-
tance to deal with nonviolent offenders with tries, focus on programs to achieve democratic
substance abuse problems. institution building, dismantle narcotics traffick-
ing organizations, and interdict drugs. It will also

allow a greater emphasis on multilateral efforts to human service, public safety, and environmen-
strengthen democratic institutions, making them tal needs of the Nation through volunteer
more effective in fighting international drug traf- activities.
ficking organizations. Under the Administration’s
plan, key source countries will shoulder more of • The total drug program request for the Social
the drug control burden. The budget for FY 1996 Security Administration (SSA) is $202.4 mil-
reflects extensive efforts to integrate counternar- lion in FY 1996, $44.5 million more than the
cotics police and military law enforcement activi- FY 1995 enacted level. The SSA became an
ties, drug awareness and demand reduction independent agency in 1995. These funds pro-
programs, and sustainable development programs. vide enhanced monitoring and supervision of
treatment compliance of Supplemental Securi-
ty Income recipients who have been medically
OTHER FY 1996 BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS determined to be disabled by addiction.
There are several other funding proposals that will • Treatment research activities within the
contribute to the successful implementation of the National Institute on Drug Abuse will increase
National Drug Control Strategy: by $14.7 million—to a total of $452.3 million—
for augmented efforts in medications develop-
• A total of $110.0 million is requested for ment, innovative prevention approaches, and
ONDCP’s High Intensity Drug Trafficking treatment of the chronically addicted.
Area (HIDTA) program to pro-
vide resources in the most criti- • Resources for the Drug Enforcement Agency’s
There are several cal drug trafficking areas of the (DEA’s) Domestic Cannabis Eradication and
other funding proposals country. This is $3.0 million Suppression Program is maintained at the FY
that will contribute above the FY 1995 enacted 1995 level of $10.0 million to continue DEA’s
to the successful level and allows full funding for support to State and local efforts to eradicate
implementation of the the newly designated Puerto marijuana cultivation in the United States.
National Drug Control Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands
Strategy. HIDTA. In addition, the • Funding for the Immigration and Naturaliza-
request supports the seven tion Service’s drug-related activities will
HIDTAs now designated (New York, Washing- increase by $56.3 million, to a total of $226.0
ton-Baltimore, Miami, Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin million. This level of funding allows for con-
Islands, Houston, the Southwest Border, and tinued border management at El Paso and San
Los Angeles). Diego and for enhanced border management in
Arizona and portions of Southeast Texas. The
• A total of $320.9 million is requested in FY initiative also funds detention and removal
1996 for the U.S. Coast Guard to fund its operations associated with strengthening bor-
counterdrug operations. This is $14.8 million der management.
above the FY 1995 enacted level. These addi-
tional resources support a modest strategic • The FY 1996 funding request for the drug-
increase in the level of effort to interdict drugs related portion of the Byrne grant is $405.0
in the transit zone. With the resolution of million—which includes both the President’s
many problems concerning Haiti and Cuba, request for a direct appropriation and funding
the Coast Guard has restored certain assets to provided in the Crime Control Act—$10.8
the transit zone for drug interdiction. million less than the total FY 1995 enacted
level of $415.8 million. This program provides
• Drug-related activities of the Corporation for financial and technical assistance to State and
National Service programs will be enhanced by local units of government to control drug abuse
$14.4 million—to a total of $53.9 million—for and violent crime and to improve the criminal
increasing and addressing the educational, justice system.

• Funding for the Department of Justice’s Bureau of a community—through more police, more pris-
of Prisons is $1.9 billion, an increase of $234.9 ons, more boot camps, more reasonable gun poli-
million over the FY 1995 enacted level. This cies—and the longer term problems related to
increase is requested to expand prison capacity illicit drug use—through drug treatment and pre-
in response to the continued growth in the vention. Table 9-2 highlights the major drug-
Federal prison population who have been related programs that are part of the Crime
incarcerated for drug-related crimes. Control Act. The Drug Courts program, Commu-
nity Policing, and the State and Federal Drug
• The FY 1996 request for the Veterans Admin- Treatment Programs are critically important to
istration (VA) is $929.5 million, which is the National Drug Control Strategy, as discussed
$42.1 million above the FY 1995 enacted level. above. The following are other significant pro-
This increase enables the VA to continue to grams:
operate a network of substance abuse treatment
programs. Specialized substance abuse treat- • The Gang Resistance Education and Training
ment services currently are available at 161 VA Program (GREAT) will help kids fight the
medical centers. allure of gang membership.
A Youth Academy will pre-
vent youth violence by get- The Crime Control Act
SUPPLY AND DEMAND RESOURCES ting kids off the streets and complements and
into other activities. A total enhances the President’s
The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 requires the of $5.0 million in drug-relat- National Drug Control
Director of ONDCP to report on spending for pro- ed resources is requested for Strategy by providing a
grams dedicated to supply reduction and demand this program in FY 1996. balance between law
reduction activities. Of the total $14.6 billion enforcement and
request for FY 1996, $9.3 billion is for supply • The Family and Community prevention programs to
reduction programs and $5.3 billion is for demand Endeavor Schools (FACES) confront the problems of
reduction programs. The percentage of resources program will provide in- illicit drugs.
for supply reduction is 64 percent, and 36 percent school assistance to at-risk
is for demand reduction programs. This percent- children, including educa-
age split reflects the impact on the drug control tion and mentoring. A total of $6.2 million is
budget of the Crime Control Act, which greatly requested in FY 1996 for the drug-related por-
increased resources for law enforcement programs. tion of this program.
In fact, the FY 1996 drug control budget request
includes $1.3 billion for programs authorized by • The Treatment for Prisoners initiative (State
the Crime Control Act. and Federal, as discussed above) will provide
treatment for drug users and especially for
chronic, hardcore drug users. A combined
IMPACT OF THE 1994 CRIME CONTROL total of $40.2 million is requested for these two
ACT ON THE DRUG PROGRAM programs in FY 1996.
The Crime Control Act complements and • The Community Schools Youth Services and
enhances the President’s National Drug Control Supervision Grant Program will provide grants
Strategy by providing a balance between law to community groups to keep schools open
enforcement and prevention programs to confront after hours and on weekends to provide a place
the problems of illicit drugs. Fully two-thirds of for kids to go and stay out of trouble. A total of
the funds authorized by the Crime Control Act go $14.5 million in drug-related resources is
directly to communities for anticrime and requested for this program in FY 1996.
antidrug activities. These resources will help
communities fund comprehensive antidrug strate- • The Drug Testing for Federal Prisoners Initia-
gies that meet both the immediate security needs tive, within the Judiciary initiative, will estab-

Table 9-2. Major Drug Control Initiatives within the Violent Crime Control Trust
Fund (VCRTF)
FY 1996
FY 1995 President’s 1995-96
Drug-Related Resources Estimate Request Change
Community Policing/100,000 Cops 364.0 621.1 257.1

Anti-Drug Abuse Program Grants (Byrne Grants) 360.0 * 208.0 * (152.0)
Drug Courts 29.0 150.0 121.0
Violent Offender Incarceration & Truth in
Sentencing Incentive Grants 2.4 49.5 47.1
Improving Border Control and INS Investigations 10.7 14.0 3.3
Drug Trafficking in Rural Areas 0.0 10.1 10.1
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment for State Prisoners 0.0 26.7 26.7
Substance Abuse Treatment in Federal Prisons 0.0 13.5 13.5
Drug Testing for Federal Prisoners 0.0 8.0 8.0
Community Schools Youth Services & Supervision
Grant Program (Title III) 5.2 14.5 9.3
Family & Community Endeavor School Grants (FACES) 2.2 6.2 4.0
Federal Law Enforcement 9.4 28.2 18.7
Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT) 6.2 5.0 (1.2)
Note: The amounts shown in this table only represent the drug-related portion of the total appropriation.
* These VCRTF amounts supplement the direct appropriations for Byrne resulting in totals of $415.8 million for FY 1995
and $405.0 million for FY 1996.
lish a program of drug testing in each judicial cantly from the President’s request in that many of
district for Federal offenders on postconviction the key budget initiatives sought by the President
release as a condition of probation, supervised were underfunded by Congress. The additional
release, or parole. A total of $8.0 million is funds provided by Congress resulted from the pas-
requested in FY 1996 for this initiative. sage of the Crime Control Act.
The Crime Control Act also The FY 1995 drug control budget proposed the
The FY 1995 drug control provides the means to support following four initiatives in the key areas of treat-
budget proposed four better coordination of the pri- ment, prevention, community-based efforts, and
initiatives in the key ority program areas of the international programs (two initiatives were sup-
areas of treatment, National Drug Control Strate- ported by Congress, and two were not):
prevention, community- gy. For example, the Ounce of
based efforts, and Prevention Council will coordi- • FY 1995 Treatment Initiative. The Administra-
international programs. nate new youth development tion’s initiative for drug treatment was com-
and youth-oriented prevention prised of two parts: (1) resources to enhance
initiatives. drug treatment capacity nationwide through a
$355 million initiative that targeted treatment
for the chronic, hardcore drug user, and (2)
REPORT CARD—FY 1995 BUDGET $200 million for enhanced treatment capacity
within the criminal justice system through drug
The President requested $13.2 billion for Federal courts. However, congressional appropriations
drug control programs for FY 1995. Ultimately, a for these treatment initiatives fell far short of
total of $13.3 billion was appropriated by Con- the Administration’s request. HHS received
gress. However, the appropriation differed signifi- $57 million for its Substance Abuse Prevention

and Treatment Block grant. Justice received for FYs 1997–99:

only $29 million for Drug Courts.
• Support programs that expand drug treatment
• Prevention Initiatives. The total 1995 funding capacity and services so that those who need
request for school-based drug prevention pro- treatment can receive it;
grams was $660 million, an increase of $191
million for the Department of Education’s Safe • Support prevention programs that target youth
and Drug Free Schools and Communities State to reduce their use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and
Grant Program and the Safe Schools Program. tobacco products;
A total of $87 million of this request was pro-
vided by Congress. • Support programs at the local level that create
safe and healthy environments in which chil-
• Community-Based Drug Control Strategy Initia- dren and adolescents can live, grow, learn, and
tives. More success was realized in obtaining develop;
funding for community-based initiatives in the
President’s drug control budget request. A • Support programs that strengthen multi-
total of $1.0 billion was requested for FY 1995 agency linkages at the community level among
for community-based efforts, of which $733 prevention, treatment, and criminal justice
million was requested for three specific drug programs, as well as other supportive social ser-
initiatives: Community Policing, the Empow- vices, to better address the problems of drug
erment Zone, and Community Partnership pro- abuse;
grams. A total of $594 million in drug-related
resources was provided by Congress for these • Support programs that reduce drug-related
three initiatives: $429 million for Community crime and violence;
Policing, $115 million for the Community
Partnership program, and $10.8 million for the • Support programs that reduce all domestic drug
Community Empowerment Zones program. production and availability and continue to
target for investigation and prosecution those
• International Initiatives. The Administration’s who illegally manufacture and distribute drugs
budget initiative for international programs and who illegally divert pharmaceuticals and
was not funded in FY 1995. The Administra- chemicals;
tion requested an increase of $76 million for
international programs, of which $72 million • Support programs that strengthen internation-
was for a new consolidated INM program. This al cooperation and actions against narcotics
program would support source country efforts production, trafficking, and use;
to reduce the availability of illicit drugs
through activities such as law enforcement • Support programs that increase workplace safe-
training, judicial reform, crop control, sustain- ty and productivity by reducing drug use on the
able development, interdiction, and demand job; and
reduction efforts. An additional $5 million was
provided by Congress for this initiative. • Support research that identifies “what works”
in drug control programs and develops new
information about drug use and its conse-
NATIONAL FUNDING PRIORITIES FOR FYs quences.
1997–99
The Administration will pursue funding for key ENDNOTE

program areas to reduce drug use and its conse-
1
quences to the individual and society and to The Substance Abuse Performance Partnership will con-
reduce the availability of illicit drugs in the Unit- tinue the 5 percent set-aside for SAMHSA’s data collec-
tion, technical assistance, and evaluation.
ed States. The following are the funding priorities

Drug Control Funding: Agency Summary, FY 1994–FY 1996

FY 1996
FY 1994 FY 1995 President’s
Actual Estimate Request
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service 6.5 6.5 4.7
U.S. Forest Service 9.6 9.8 9.4
Special Supplemental Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) 14.6 13.9 15.4
Total, Agriculture 30.7 30.2 29.5
Corporation for National Service 28.2 39.4 53.9
Department of Defense 814.9 852.0 812.0
Department of Education 598.8 605.2 627.7
Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families 89.8 94.5 104.8
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 36.6 44.5 50.0
Food and Drug Administration 6.8 6.8 7.2
Health Care Financing Administration 231.8 252.2 290.0
Health Resources and Services Administration 33.4 36.4 41.5
Indian Health Service 43.3 42.8 45.0
National Institute on Drug Abuse 425.2 437.7 452.3
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration 1,362.8 1,372.8 1,405.7
Social Security Administration1 18.8 — —
Total, HHS 2,248.6 2,287.8 2,396.6
Social Security Administration — 157.9 202.4
Department of Housing and Urban Development 315.0 300.8 290.3
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs 22.2 19.9 20.5
Bureau of Land Management 5.1 5.1 5.1
Fish and Wildlife Service 1.0 1.0 1.0
National Park Service 8.8 8.8 9.0
Office of Territorial and International Affairs 1.3 1.3 0.2
Total, Interior 38.4 36.0 35.8
The Federal Judiciary 457.1 499.0 586.5
Department of Justice
Assets Forfeiture Fund 527.2 511.7 502.0
U.S. Attorneys 211.8 213.3 213.2
Bureau of Prisons 1,410.7 1,694.0 1,942.4
Community Policing — 364.0 628.0
Criminal Division 18.3 19.4 20.0
Drug Enforcement Administration 768.1 801.4 857.4
Federal Bureau of Investigation 476.5 540.0 644.4
Immigration and Naturalization Service 157.4 184.6 254.3
INTERPOL 1.9 1.8 2.2
U.S. Marshals Service 246.1 279.5 321.6
Office of Justice Programs 544.2 568.9 736.3
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement/Task Forces 382.4 374.9 378.5
Support of U.S. Prisoners 211.9 207.7 206.7
1
Independent agency as of FY 1995.

Drug Control Funding: Agency Summary, FY 1994–FY 1996 (continued)

FY 1996
FY 1994 FY 1995 President’s
Actual Estimate Budget
Department of Justice (continued)

Tax Division 0.3 0.3 0.3
Weed and Seed Program Fund 6.6 6.7 2.5
Total, Justice 4,963.5 5,768.3 6,709.9
Department of Labor 91.1 93.5 80.4

Office of National Drug Control Policy
Operations 11.7 9.9 9.9
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 86.0 107.0 110.0
Gift Fund 0.3 0.0 —
Special Forfeiture Fund 12.5 26.1 37.0
Total, ONDCP 110.5 143.0 156.9
Small Business Administration 0.2 0.1 0.1
Agency for International Development 44.9 14.0 —
Economic Support Fund/Development Assistance
Department of State
Emergency in the Diplomatic and Consular Service 0.0 0.3 0.3
Foreign Military Financing/International Military
Education and Training 14.9 12.8 —
International Narcotics Control Program 100.0 105.0 213.0
Total, State 114.9 118.1 213.3
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard 314.8 306.1 320.9
Federal Aviation Administration 25.3 18.0 20.5
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 30.9 29.4 30.2
Total, Transportation 371.0 353.5 371.6
Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 158.8 166.7 183.3
U.S. Customs Service 572.9 536.4 500.1
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 20.2 21.5 20.6
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 9.1 11.2 12.2
Internal Revenue Service 113.0 100.9 108.1
U.S. Secret Service 70.8 75.7 69.8
Treasury Forfeiture Fund 149.8 158.3 147.8
Total, Treasury 1,094.7 1,070.7 1,042.0
U.S. Information Agency 7.9 8.0 8.4

Department of Veterans Affairs 854.1 887.4 929.5
Crime Bill Initiatives
Presidential Summit — — 0.1
Ounce of Prevention Control — — 3.7
Total Drug Budget 12,184.4 13,264.9 14,550.4

Supply Reduction 7,759.9 8,330.3 9,293.9
63.7% 62.8% 63.9%
Demand Reduction 4,424.5 4,934.5 5,256.5
36.3% 37.2% 36.1%

X. Conclusion
his Strategy is based on an assessment need to feel safe in one’s home and community
T
of the drug use situation faced by the and the need to feel confident that one’s children
United States; successes and failures of will learn, grow, and prosper in a safe and drug-free
antidrug efforts in 1994; and what school and neighborhood. To ignore these basic
needs to be done to realize the overall needs would be patently unfair to the vast majori-
goal of a Nation free of illicit drug use, ty of Americans who work hard, pay taxes, and
drug trafficking, drug-related crime, and the nega- play by society’s rules.
tive health and social consequences of drug use. It
provides specific Action Plans for reducing drug The Action Plans are designed to accomplish the
trafficking and drug use in the United States. following:
This Strategy acknowledges the serious challenges • Reduce the Demand for Illicit Drugs;
that confront the Nation in responding to drug
abuse problems. In fact, it sets forth key programs • Reduce Crime, Violence, and Drug Availability;
to address the most intractable aspects of the drug
problem, as did the two prior Strategies issued by • Enhance Domestic Drug Program Flexibility
this Administration. It responds with initiatives and Efficiency at the Community Level; and
to aggressively reduce chronic, hardcore drug use;
effectively reduce the supply of illicit drugs • Strengthen Interdiction and International
through strong enforcement and international Efforts.
narcotics control programs; and prevent drug use
by the Nation’s youth. The Action Plan for Reducing the Demand for
Illicit Drugs enhances national drug abuse preven-
To be successful, this Strategy must be supported by tion efforts that target young people. The current
the level of drug control resources requested by increase in adolescent drug use must be reversed,
the President in his Fiscal Year 1996 budget. If the and this Strategy provides a road map for accom-
U.S. Congress provides any less than this request, plishing this mission. The Nation’s youth deserve
the Nation’s efforts to achieve effective drug con- better than to grow up in a family or neighbor-
trol will be undermined. The success of this Strat- hood plagued by drug use and its consequences.
egy also depends on the support and participation
of those State and local officials involved in This Action Plan proposes to develop a National
domestic aspects of drug control, as well as the Drug Prevention System to effectively link public
cooperation of foreign governments in fighting and private drug abuse prevention efforts and
illicit drug organizations, drug production, and allow community coalitions and grassroots efforts
drug trafficking. throughout the Nation to access the necessary
Federal prevention resources programs for com-
This Strategy presents four Action Plans to address batting adolescent drug and alcohol use. This net-
a fundamental concern of all Americans—the work will permit optimal use of Federal funds.

CONCLUSION
This Strategy continues to focus on the critical mis- As a result of the 1994 passage of the Violent
sion of reducing the number of chronic, hardcore Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, addi-
drug users—the population that fuels the traffick- tional police are being hired to patrol and protect
ing of drugs into the United States; creates crises in neighborhoods; the sale of assault weapons—the
the Nation’s criminal justice, health care, and weapons of choice for drug gangs—is now banned;
social systems; and denies American citizens their tough new sentencing laws are in place to get vio-
right to live in a secure and healthy environment. lent and repeat offenders off America’s streets; and
Through a range of initiatives, including the cre- prison capacity is being expanded.
ative use of drug courts, boot camps, and treatment
in correctional institutions, the Administration The Action Plan for Enhancing Domestic Drug
will make an aggressive effort to break the insidi- Program Flexibility and Efficiency at the Commu-
ous cycle of drug use and crime. nity Level is based on the knowledge that the
The Administration also will Nation’s drug problem will ultimately be solved at
Through a range of consolidate Federal drug treat- the community level. Community-based initia-
initiatives, including the ment grants to the States, along tives, however, demand a tremendous degree of
creative use of drug with the elimination of Federal cooperation and coordination across a wide array
courts, boot camps, and mandates, to provide States of antidrug agencies and organizations. The key
treatment in correctional with the maximum flexibility to objective of this Action Plan is to remove Federal
institutions, the determine and meet what they and State restrictions and regulations that hamper
Administration will make consider to be their most urgent the effective delivery of programs and services at
an aggressive effort to drug treatment needs. Provid- the community level. The Action Plan includes
break the insidious cycle ing successful treatment inter- targeted efforts to expand and improve data col-
of drug use and crime. ventions for this population is lection and distribution at the local level; to iden-
cost effective. Furthermore, it tify community-based programs whose efficacy is
can prevent drug-related crime substantiated by evaluation efforts; to simplify
and recidivism to drug use, and lessen the impact Federal drug grant applications; to conduct a
of the health and social consequences of drug use deregulation campaign to improve community-
on families and neighborhoods. based service delivery; and to create a pilot project
to enable select communities to develop a system-
The Administration recognizes that drug treat- atic response to the problems of hardcore drug use.
ment and prevention initiatives can only be suc-
cessful when the supply of drugs is effectively The Action Plan for Strengthening Interdiction
disrupted and drug trafficking organizations are and International Efforts gives priority to interna-
destroyed. Effective drug law enforcement activi- tional narcotics control efforts. Federal enforce-
ty and a sound criminal justice system are essential ment agencies will intensify their efforts to
to the success of any demand reduction initiative. dismantle drug trafficking organizations, combat
money laundering, and work with units of State
Accordingly, the Action Plan for Reducing and local law enforcement in task force operations
Crime, Violence, and Drug Availability empha- to attack drug gangs. The Administration has
sizes the importance of strong linkages among all issued the National Interdiction Command and
elements of the criminal justice system and pre- Control Plan to enhance interdiction command
vention, education, and treatment efforts. Partic- and control functions and has created the United
ular emphasis is given to interventions designed States Interdiction Coordinator position within
specifically for those at risk of violence—children, ONDCP to ensure the most effective integration
youth, and chronic, hardcore drug users. Through of drug interdiction operations and assets.
these linkages, law enforcement can play a major
role in reducing not only the demand for drugs but For the first time since its enactment in 1986, the
also the crime and violence that is associated with international narcotics control certification
drug use.

CONCLUSION
process is functioning with credibility and author- efforts in key opium-producing and trans-ship-
ity. President Clinton has advanced cooperation ment nations.
toward international drug control efforts at the
Summit of the Americas, a key international gath- The long-range success of this Strategy depends on
ering held in December 1994 between President the collective refusal of individual Americans to
Clinton and 33 leaders of the nations of the West- tolerate the dealing and using of illegal drugs. All
ern Hemisphere. At this meeting, participating segments of society—communities, schools, reli-
nations signed a Declaration of Principles that gious groups, law enforcement, health care sys-
includes a plan for addressing drug trafficking and tems, business, labor, and government—must
drug abuse in the Western Hemisphere. In addi- work together to make America safe, healthy, and
tion, ONDCP is developing a new heroin control drug free. It is an effort upon which the Nation’s
strategy to expand and intensify heroin control future depends.

Appendix A: Research,
Data, and Program
Evaluation
ince its inception, the Office of drug-related research and evaluation projects are
S
National Drug Control Policy essential to sound policy. In 1994, with the publi-
(ONDCP) has recognized the need for cation of the 1994 National Drug Control Strategy,
a long-term commitment to drug con- ONDCP began the necessary steps to formally
trol research. This research includes establish the Research, Data, and Evaluation
drug use, treatment, education and (RD&E) Advisory Committee. Final approval for
prevention, criminal justice, and the general area this establishment was given by the General Ser-
of technical advancements in support of law vices Administration (GSA) on January 5, 1995,
enforcement and drug interdiction. The knowl- under authorities granted by the Federal Advisory
edge that emerges from this research and the Committee Act (as amended), the GSA Final
improved tools that come from the application of Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Manage-
better technology have contributed to reducing ment, and Executive Order 12838.
the impact of drug abuse on this Nation and will
continue to serve as a basis for ONDCP’s future The RD&E Advisory Committee’s task is to refine
strategies to address national drug problems. and to improve the manner in which research
results are used in support of the development of
more effective programs and strategies. The goals
THE RESEARCH, DATA, AND EVALUATION of the committee consist of the following:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
• To provide, promote, and facilitate coordina-
Federal, State, and local governments and private tion of Federal research efforts;
organizations must be able to obtain reliable infor-
mation about the nature and extent of the drug • To ensure that key Federal research efforts
problem for use in developing appropriate policy receive appropriate support and priority; and
and for program development and evaluation.
Efforts are under way to improve the quality, time- • To provide a mechanism to ensure that the
liness, and policy relevance of drug data collection available drug-related Federal research dollars
systems and to develop new methods for capturing are expended on projects that have a high
information about emerging drug trends. New probability of both immediate and long-term
data collection efforts already have been under- cost-effectiveness and are consistent with the
taken to measure the number, location, and char- primary goals and objectives of the National
acteristics of the hardcore user population. Drug Control Strategy.
Coordination of Federal research and evaluation The members of the RD&E Advisory Committee
efforts and open exchange of information from and its subcommittees are selected from a wide

A P P E N D I X A: R E S E A R C H , D A T A , AND PROGRAM EVALUATION
variety of disciplines. Committee representation cant impact on reducing the supply or demand
will be drawn from world-class experts from the of illegal drugs;
Federal sector, as well as the non-Federal academ-
ic and industrial sectors. The committee will • Recommend and oversee coordinated programs
establish policies and priorities for drug control for agencies with mutual research interests to
research; review and monitor all phases of drug- use resources more effectively and efficiently;
related data collection, research, and evaluation;
and foster drug-related research, such as the devel- • Develop “action agendas” to meet national
opment of new modes of drug treatment. The research objectives for Federal agencies, the
committee also will identify research-related private sector, and academia, and oversee their
actions for future Strategies. implementation; and
Figure A-1 shows a schematic of the RD&E Advi- • Create ad hoc working groups on specific tasks
sory Committee’s structure and the committee’s or topics.
basic functions.
Data, Evaluation, and Interagency Coordination
Each subcommittee will perform the following Subcommittee
functions, and report through the External RD&E
Policy Advisory Committee to the Internal This subcommittee will include representatives
RD&E Policy Committee: from Federal Departments and agencies that have
legislative mandates to pursue drug-related initia-
• Identify areas of research and technology avail- tives. Through its representation, it also will inte-
able or in development that could have signifi- grate the activities of existing groups that report
Figure A-1
Organization of the Research and Evaluation Advisory Committee
Chair: Director, ONDCP
Chief Scientist (Advisory)
Data, Evaluation, and Science and Technology Prevention, Treatment,

Interagency Coordination Subcommittee (CTAC)* and Medical Research
Subcommittee Subcommittee
Chair: Chief Scientist, CTAC
Chair: Director, Planning & Chair: Director, Office
Budget of Demand Reduction
* Counter-Drug Technology Assessment Center

on the data collection, data processing, and data In support of this new role, and in response to spe-
sharing practices of these organizations. ONDCP cific direction from Congress, CTAC has estab-
will have the responsibility for chairing the sub- lished a national counterdrug research and
committee and for working with the members to development (R&D) program to coordinate the
define salient policy issues for each Department R&D programs of those Federal agencies with
and agency. drug law enforcement and substance abuse and
treatment missions. The national program is
One of the early charges for the subcommittee will based on the premise that the introduction of
be to develop an inventory of information systems advanced technology can enhance the effective-
and their report-generation capabilities. Another ness of organizations with a counterdrug law
charge will be to evaluate the ability of these sys- enforcement or medical research mission and can
tems to provide answers to selected policy ques- improve the employment of their limited man-
tions. Another key activity of this subcommittee power resources.
will be to convene a national drug prevalence and
consequence estimation conference. This confer- This subcommittee will carry out research and
ence will provide information to the subcommittee engineering efforts to reduce the supply as well as
as to what those involved in drug-related research, the demand for drugs. These efforts have the fol-
evaluation, analysis, and investigation consider lowing objectives: to put in priority order the sci-
necessary to improve drug-related information. entific and technological needs, to identify
research and engineering efforts that can be
As the work of the subcommittee progresses, the applied to the supply and demand reduction com-
members will move toward the development of an munities, and to initiate fiscally sound advanced
integrated policy plan. The policy plan will iden- technology projects responsive to these needs.
tify areas where the information needs of decision-
makers are not well addressed and will make Prevention, Treatment, and Medical Research
recommendations for new systems development Subcommittee
initiatives and other steps to improve data cover-
age. It also will identify areas where departments The Prevention, Treatment, and Medical Research
and agencies can cooperate in sharing existing Subcommittee works to coordinate efforts among
information. This policy plan also will serve as a the entire demand reduction community to better
guide to procurement activities in the area of drug address common needs. In recent years, significant
data and evaluation by providing recommenda- progress has been made in demand reduction
tions related to information sharing and technolo- research and evaluation. What has emerged from
gy, ways in which to achieve savings, and areas these efforts is a clearer understanding of the com-
where cooperative efforts are needed. These and plex continuum of societal constraints, supports,
other action items will be combined into an services, and requirements that are necessary to:
implementation plan that identifies strategies to promote healthy development (prevention); inter-
be employed in addressing the recommendations rupt, contain, and replace destructive behavior
provided in the policy plan. (intervention); foster recovery and maintenance of
a useful life (treatment); and support relapse pre-
Science and Technology Subcommittee vention (aftercare). This continuum clearly illus-
trates the complexity of the interrelationships
ONDCP’s existing Counterdrug Technology between the various disciplines that constitute the
Assessment Center (CTAC) has been designated demand reduction system.
as the lead for managing the Science and Technol-
ogy Subcommittee, combining the new tasks and Given this complexity of the demand reduction
action items developed by the RD&E Advisory system, two practical matters require the immedi-
Committee with ongoing work already begun by ate attention of the subcommittee. First, existing
CTAC. specific research findings and program evaluations

must be made available to local communities in COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY

simple, “user friendly” language. Research efforts ASSESSMENT CENTER
must better serve those who are seeking to build
healthier and safer communities by providing In addition to managing the work of the Science
information that is directly useful for program and Technology Subcommittee, the CTAC and
design and the development of Action Plans. the chief scientist will provide support to the
Second, the continuum of services approach must other subcommittees of the RD&E Advisory
be transferred to State and local communities to Committee and advise the director on matters
help them better organize their efforts, better time relating to science and technology. CTAC also
the implementation of programs, and better select compiles for the Director of ONDCP near-, mid-,
those programs that fit together well. Eliminating and long-term scientific and technological
individual programs of questionable worth in requirements for Federal, State, and local law
favor of proven programs is only part of the solu- enforcement agencies and establishes priorities for
tion. “What works” is not a single effective pro- supporting related research.
gram, or even a great number of effective programs
applied in scattered fashion. Rather, it is the Program Accomplishments
planned, strategic application of effective pro-
grams that, in concert, address risk and protective Since its inception during Fiscal Year (FY) 1991,
factors, knowledge and attitudes, and risk behav- 52 research efforts have been started with $43.5
iors and bring about needed change in these close- million in CTAC funding. These efforts generally
ly related areas. fall in one of the four major technology thrusts:
wide-area surveillance, nonintrusive inspection,
Thus, initial priority activities for the subcommit- tactical technologies, or demand reduction.
tee will include distillation of what has been
learned and the appropriate communication, Fourteen infrastructure support initiatives have
transfer, and application of that information. The been established to evaluate developmental tech-
subcommittee will conduct these activities in con- nology, to perform special studies and assessments,
cert with Federal, State, and local support for the to evaluate prototypes in operational conditions,
building of organizational capacity and infrastruc- and to perform benchmark assessments on com-
ture to enable local communities to plan, evalu- peting technologies. CTAC also has sponsored
ate, and revise their efforts. The National Drug various symposia and special programs to reach
Prevention System, described in Chapter V, is out to the antidrug community to find ways tech-
essential to surmount these practical challenges. nology could benefit both prevention and treat-
ment and supply reduction. For example, CTAC
As a second area of focus, support will be contin- published a Broad Agency Announcement
ued for research to develop a better understanding (BAA) for historically black colleges and univer-
of how attitudes are formed, how risk behaviors sities. The BAA solicits responses from the acade-
interrelate, how the addiction process progresses, mic community with unique insights into the
and how prevention and treatment efforts can modalities of drug abuse prevention and treat-
have a greater impact on each of these. In addi- ment. CTAC also has expanded its State and
tion to these important areas, the Prevention, local information exchange program.
Treatment, and Medical Research Subcommittee
will continue research efforts in the following CTAC has developed an advanced technology
areas: the prevention of substance abuse, vio- program to help coordinate the R&D activities of
lence, and crime; the relative effectiveness of all Federal agencies with a counterdrug mission.
behavioral therapies in drug treatment; and the In addition, CTAC has instituted an infrastruc-
linkage of drug treatment with the criminal jus- ture program to support and measure the effective-
tice, health care, and job training systems. ness of these programs. The infrastructure

program includes benchmarking, laboratory tested by the Minnesota Highway Patrol in

instrumentation, and testbeds to evaluate early 1995.
advanced technology prototypes being developed
by these agencies. The testbed and benchmarking • A quality videorecording device using a modi-
activities help to provide user personnel with stan- fied micro miniature, forensic-quality
dard measures of effectiveness criteria against audiorecorder program module is being devel-
which to test and evaluate advanced technologies oped for use in covert surveillance operations.
and future systems. Each of these capabilities has Tests will be conducted by the U.S. Drug
been created by fostering close working relation- Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the
ships among Federal, State, and local law enforce- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in Cali-
ment, prevention and treatment agencies, and fornia and New York, respectively.
outstanding research and development entities in
Government, academic, and private sectors. • An ultra-wide-band communications technol-
ogy for relaying real-time audio and video data
In the area of prevention and treatment, CTAC is from sensors along the Southwest Border to
working to initiate engineering infrastructure pro- Border patrol monitoring stations is being
jects that will improve the laboratory equipment developed. This could dramatically reduce the
and technology available to scientists working in false alarms currently experienced along the
the area of drug addiction research. The goal is to Southwest border. This effort is being done in
promote better use of state-of-the-art technology support of a consortium of Federal, State, and
to allow for more effective use of limited medical local law enforcement agencies located in Ari-
research and scientific manpower resources. zona.
The following subsections provide some examples • A prototype system for identifying (or confirm-
of CTAC-sponsored technology, infrastructure, ing) the contents of tanks and drums by nonin-
and outreach efforts. trusively measuring their acoustic properties is
being developed. The system also will detect
Tactical Technologies hidden compartments and other areas of con-
cealment located within the tank or drum.
CTAC has sponsored technology for the law
enforcement community that would help them Nonintrusive Inspection Technology
track their assets, execute covert and safe surveil-
lance operations, and communicate with high The high-beam energy x-ray test series conducted
reliability and without intrusion. Specific pro- last summer at the Tacoma Nonintrusive Inspec-
grams that CTAC has initiated include the fol- tion Testbed has been completed. The tests clear-
lowing: ly demonstrated the value of x-ray technology as
part of a first-generation nonintrusive inspection
• A Global Positioning System was developed to system. A new testbed will be established this
allow police to track their vehicles and keep year at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, to evaluate trans-
accurate records for investigative purposes. portable x-ray systems and chemical sensors.
One prototype system is being field-tested with
the Yonkers Police Department/Narcotics Data Fusion and Processing
Division. During FY 1995, the system will
receive further testing in more complex urban CTAC is developing technologies in information
environments. An airborne counterpart to the sharing and networking to accelerate the transfer
land-based system is under development by the of this type of technology to State and local agen-
Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and will be tested by cies for use against drug traffickers operating in
them for medical and drug law enforcement multiple jurisdictions. Significant decreases in
missions. Specific antidrug objectives will be time spent in supporting investigations through

data organization, faster data analysis, and better gies available to destroy drug contraband. This
communications will allow law enforcement agen- study will seek to provide DEA with cost-effec-
cies to rapidly share information across jurisdic- tive methods to destroy drug contraband after
tional boundaries. Examples of these programs an investigation is completed. Although DEA
include the following: is the primary beneficiary of this project, other
interested agencies, such as the U.S. Customs
• The Tennessee Valley Authority and the Uni- Service, have been invited to participate.
versity of Tennessee are developing a prototype
data fusion system to permit the seamless inte- Demand Reduction
gration and extraction of criminal information
from various data bases regardless of the user’s CTAC plans to continue to support the applica-
type of computer or physical location. Initial tions of advance technology to prevention- and
testing will begin with a Florida law enforce- treatment-related efforts. Technological advance-
ment consortium involving approximately ments in both computer science and tactical tech-
eight law enforcement agencies. nologies are being investigated for application in
demand reduction environments. CTAC plans to
• A facial recognition system is being developed continue to introduce such technologies for pre-
by ONDCP to help the Immigration and Natu- vention and treatment programs and sponsor new
ralization Service to rapidly match faces and research specifically designed to advance demand
textual documentation of known traffickers at reduction.
U.S. border crossings. The present demonstra-
tion and test of the system are being conducted The focus of the present CTAC prevention and
by an ONDCP contractor at El Paso, Texas, but treatment efforts centers on introducing computer
discussions of potential use in other ports-of- science advancement in networking and software
entry sites are ongoing. Further advancement to support better and faster communication and
in the computer software, such as automating computer-assisted analysis. Additionally, research
some of the system software, is under consider- is planned to advance imaging technology in sup-
ation by ONDCP. port of specific medical research. Finally, support
to the National Institute on Drug Abuse in the
• A Ballistic Imaging Technology Assessment area of special drug-related alternative medicine
benchmarking project for the FBI DRUGFIRE research also is under consideration. The follow-
and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and ing is a summary of specific tasks in the demand
Firearms (BATF) BULLETPROOF systems has reduction area:
been completed by ONDCP. The assessment
compared the technical performance of two • The Columbia University College of Physicians
prototype computer-based ballistic imaging sys- and Surgeons is developing artificial monoclon-
tems. The new technology this project will al antibody enzymes that interfere with the
provide will dramatically change the way cocaine molecule’s ability to provide character-
examinations are done on ballistic evidence istic drug sensations. This work is extremely
collected from crime scenes. CTAC has pro- important and could provide the breakthrough
vided FBI and BATF with recommendations in the search for effective therapeutic drugs that
for a ballistic data network to support regional- block cocaine for extensive periods of time.
ly linked clusters of integrated work stations. First-year milestones have been accomplished,
The project findings also have been provided second-phase objectives have been agreed
to the 160 ballistics examination laboratories upon, and work will continue.
throughout the Nation.
• CTAC is developing an onsite Radiochemistry
• During FY 1995, CTAC will perform a bench- Laboratory for a Positron Emission Tomogra-
marking task to evaluate the current technolo- phy (PET) scanning facility at the Addiction

Research Center in Baltimore, Maryland. This employed to evaluate the best methods for detect-
technology will provide information needed to ing drug abuse in the criminal justice system.
map the exact areas of the brain that are acti-
vated by various drugs of abuse. In turn, the Forensic Capabilities
map will help to identify and evaluate thera-
peutic drugs to inactivate these sites or other- The goal of this program is to develop high priori-
wise block the effect illicit drugs have on the ty, forensic analytical, methodological, and instru-
brain. This and other planned research in PET mental capabilities that substantially advance
scanning will become a critical part of the ability to process scientific evidence in support of
Columbia research mentioned above. investigations involving illicit drugs.
• CTAC is spearheading the development of a CTAC plans to sponsor innovative projects across
computer-based drug treatment research infor- the full spectrum of forensic science subdisciplines
mation network infrastructure program that that can be applied to solving America’s drug
will link the research community and drug problem. The aim of the research is to promote a
treatment centers throughout the Nation. reliable, valid approach that will work in the field
This effort is intended to improve the way drug within a relatively short time period. CTAC will
abuse treatment is administered by facilitating work closely with staff of the Department of Jus-
ongoing collaboration among research efforts, tice’s National Institute of Justice to draw on their
identifying the most successful prevention and extensive background and achievements in foren-
treatment programs, and real-time communi- sic science. Furthermore, partnerships between
cation and analysis between the various clinics forensic laboratories and universities, institutes,
and research centers. The initial network test- and commercial scientific and engineering enti-
bed will be centered in the Northeast, with ties will be encouraged. Participants will include
expansion to follow by the end of 1995. the FBI, DEA, U.S. Secret Service, and State and
local agencies, among others.
Furthermore, advanced computer network
technology is being considered for drug educa- CTAC’s long-term R&D program is designed and
tion purposes. Discussions with Federal, State, implemented to foster a dramatic level of progress
and local agencies are under way, with a deci- and to accelerate technology transfer from the
sion on the specific efforts in this area expected research laboratory to the field. Of necessity,
in early 1995. many of the initiatives under this program span
more than 1 or 2 years, and others, such as those
• CTAC is developing a bracelet that, when worn found in the testbed program, require substantial
by a patient, prison inmate, or parolee, would long-term expenditures with a heavy initial out-
continuously monitor the subject for drug abuse lay. To date, these have proven to be extremely
and automatically relay findings to a central pro- cost-effective investments that provide research
cessing unit. An ongoing study of first-time results unobtainable by any other means. In short,
offenders in Orleans Parish, Louisiana will be the investment is paying off.

Appendix B:
Drug-Related Information
nformation on illicit drugs and drug users is demand data. Data are provided on estimated
I
vital to developing and implementing drug numbers of users, yearly and weekly expenditures
policy and to measuring policy effectiveness. for drugs, trends in drug supply, and retail prices of
This appendix presents data from the major drugs. The report was written by Abt Associates,
research sources used to develop the National Inc. for the ONDCP in 1993 and was updated by
Drug Control Strategy. A brief description of Abt Associates, Inc. in 1995.
each data source is provided below.
Monitoring the Future: A Continuing Study of
Drug Control Budget the Lifestyles and Values of Youth
(Source for Tables B-1 and B-2) (Source for Tables B-5 and B-6)
Each year the Office of National Drug Control Often referred to as the “High School Senior Sur-
Policy (ONDCP) is required to review and certify vey,” the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study pro-
the budget of Federal agencies with drug control vides information on drug use trends as well as
programs and funds. Tables B-1 and B-2 are pre- changes in values, behaviors, and lifestyle orienta-
pared from the budget information provided to tions of American youth. The study examines
ONDCP by these other Federal agencies. drug-related issues, including recency of drug use,
perceived harmfulness of drugs, disapproval of
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse drug use, and perceived availability of drugs.
(Source for Table B-3) Although the focus of MTF has been high school
seniors and graduates who complete followup sur-
The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse veys, 8th graders and 10th graders were added to
(NHSDA) measures the prevalence of drug and the study sample in 1991. The MTF has been
alcohol use among household members ages 12 and conducted under a grant from NIDA by the Uni-
older. Topics include drug use, health, and demo- versity of Michigan since 1975.
graphics. In 1991 the NHSDA was expanded to
include college students in dormitories, persons The PRIDE USA Survey
living in homeless shelters, and persons living on (Source for Table B-7)
military bases. The NHSDA was administered by
the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) The PRIDE (Parents’ Resource Institute for Drug
from 1973 through 1991; the Substance Abuse and Education) USA Survey for grades 6 through 12
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMH- (formerly called the PRIDE Drug Usage Preva-
SA) has administered the survey since 1992. lence Questionnaire) assists parent groups,
schools, and communities in assessing the nature
What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs and extent of adolescent drug use in their local
(Source for Tables B-4, B-14, and B-15) communities. Schools nationwide voluntarily
administer the survey, which gathers information
This report estimates total U.S. expenditures on regarding students’ families, personal characteris-
illicit drugs based on available drug supply and tics, and general lifestyle behaviors. In addition,

A P P E N D I X B: D R U G -R E L A T E D I N F O R M A T I O N
the survey obtains information regarding drug use, for a point prevalence date (point-in-time mea-
drug availability, and the perceived dangers of surements on the date specified) in the fall of the
drug use. The survey has been administered by year the survey is administered. Many questions
PRIDE, Inc. since 1982. inquire about the 12 months prior to that date.
The NDATUS has been administered jointly by
Drug Abuse Warning Network NIDA and the National Institute of Alcohol
(Source for Table B-8) Abuse and Alcoholism since 1974.
The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) pro- Uniform Crime Reports
vides data on drug-related emergency department (Source for Table B-11)
episodes and medical examiner cases. DAWN
assists national, State, and local drug policymakers The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) is a nation-
to examine drug use patterns and trends and assess wide census of thousands of city, county, and State
health hazards associated with drug abuse. Data law enforcement agencies. The goal of the UCR
are available on deaths and emergency depart- is to count in a standardized manner the number
ment episodes by type of drug, reason for taking of offenses, arrests, and clearances known to
the drug, demographic characteristics of the user, police. Each law enforcement agency voluntarily
and metropolitan area. NIDA maintained reports data on crimes. Data are reported for the
DAWN from 1972 through 1991; SAMHSA has following nine index offenses: murder and
maintained it since 1992. manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated
assault, burglary, larceny, theft, motor vehicle
National Drug Treatment Requirements theft, and arson. Data on drug arrests—including
(Source for Table B-9) arrests for possession, sale, and manufacturing of
drugs—are included in the data base. Distribu-
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser- tions of arrests for drug abuse violations by demo-
vices (HHS) is mandated by Congress to report to graphics and geographic areas also are available.
the Office of Management and Budget on its goals UCR data has been collected since 1930; the Fed-
for enrolling drug abusers in treatment facilities eral Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has collected
and the progress it has made in achieving those data under a revised system since 1991.
goals. HHS provides data on the estimated num-
ber of drug abusers; goals for treatment enroll- Survey of Inmates of Local Jails
ment; estimated capacity of Federal, State, local, (Source for Table B-12)
and private treatment facilities; number of avail-
able treatment slots; and number of people served. The Survey of Inmates of Local Jails provides
nationally representative data on inmates held in
National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment local jails, including those awaiting trials or trans-
Unit Survey fers and those serving sentences. Survey topics
(Source for Table B-10) include inmate characteristics, offense histories,
drug use, and drug treatment. This survey has
The National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment been conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Sta-
Unit Survey (NDATUS) is designed to measure tistics every 5 to 6 years since 1972.
the location, scope, and characteristics of drug
abuse and alcoholism treatment facilities through- Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional
out the United States. The survey collects data Facilities and Survey of Inmates in State
on unit ownership, type and scope of services pro- Correctional Facilities
vided, sources of funding, staffing information, (Source for Table B-12)
number of clients, treatment capacities, and uti-
lization rates. For the year 1990, information on The Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional
waiting lists also was collected. Data are reported Facilities (SIFCF) and Survey of Inmates in State

Correctional Facilities (SISCF) provide compre- Report, and the U.S. Coast Guard’s Law Enforce-
hensive background data on inmates in Federal ment Information System. The FDSS has been
and State correctional facilities, based on confi- maintained by DEA since 1988.
dential interviews with a sample of inmates. Top-
ics include current offenses and sentences, System To Retrieve Information From Drug
criminal histories, family and personal back- Evidence (STRIDE)
grounds, gun possession and use, prior alcohol and (Source for Table B-16)
drug treatment, and educational programs and
other services provided in prison. The SIFCF and STRIDE compiles data on illegal substances pur-
SISCF were sponsored jointly in 1991 by the chased, seized, or acquired in DEA investigations.
Bureau of Justice Statistics and the Federal Bureau Data are gathered on the type of drug seized or
of Prisons and conducted by the U.S. Bureau of bought, drug purity, location of confiscation,
the Census. Similar surveys of State prison street price of the drug, and other characteristics.
inmates were conducted in 1974, 1979, and 1986. Data on drug exhibits from the FBI, the Metropol-
itan Police Department of the District of Colum-
National Prisoner Statistics Program bia, and some exhibits submitted by other Federal,
(Source for Table B-12) State, and local agencies also are included in
STRIDE. STRIDE data have been compiled by
The National Prisoner Statistics program provides DEA since 1971.
an advance count of Federal, State, and local pris-
oners immediately after the end of each calendar International Narcotics Control
year, with a final count published by the Bureau of Strategy Report
Justice Statistics later in the year. (Source for Table B-17)
Federal-wide Drug Seizure System The International Narcotics Control Strategy

(Source for Table B-13) Report (INCSR) provides the President with
information on the steps taken by the main illicit
The Federal-wide Drug Seizure System (FDSS) is drug-producing and transmitting countries to pre-
an online computerized system that stores infor- vent drug production, trafficking, and related
mation about drug seizures made within the juris- money laundering during the previous year. The
diction of the United States by the Drug INCSR helps determine how cooperative a coun-
Enforcement Administration (DEA), the FBI, the try has been in meeting legislative requirements in
U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard. various narcotics control areas. Production esti-
The FDSS data base includes drug seizures by mates by source country also are provided. The
other Federal agencies (e.g., the Immigration and INCSR has been prepared by the U.S. Depart-
Naturalization Service) to the extent that custody ment of State since 1989.
of the drug evidence was transferred to one of the
four agencies identified above. The FDSS data Tables B-1 through B-17 following this page pre-
base includes information from DEA’s System To sent data from the major research sources used to
Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence monitor the progress of some of the goals and
(STRIDE), Customs Law Enforcement Activity objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy.

GOVERNMENT DRUG CONTROL SPENDING
Table B-1. Federal drug control budget, 1988-1996 (in millions)

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Funds $4,707.8 $6,663.7 $9,758.9 $10,957.6 $11,910.1 $12,177.6 $12,184.4 $13,264.9 14,550.4
Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Table B-2. State and local drug control expenditure, by activity, FY 1990 and FY 1991 (in
millions of dollars except percents)
Judicial and legal services
Prosecution Health
Expenditure type by Police Courts and legal Public Correc- and Educa-
level of government Total protection only services defense tions hospitals tion Other
1991
All State and local $15,907 $4,223 $540 $649 $260 $6,827 $2,784 $503 $120
State 8,965 695 303 195 80 4,638 2,405 399 251
Direct 7,451 637 228 168 73 4,342 1,611 340 53
Intergovernmental 1,513 57 74 27 6 296 794 60 198
Local 8,567 3,586 313 483 187 2,500 1,268 163 68
Direct 8,455 3,585 311 482 187 2,486 1,173 163 68
Intergovernmental 112 1 1 1 — 14 94 — —
1990
All State and local $14,075 $4,035 $496 $594 $256 $6,045 $2,184 $366 $100
State 7,476 677 284 191 74 3,899 1,878 303 170
Direct 6,248 618 209 159 70 3,648 1,250 259 34
Intergovernmental 1,228 58 75 32 4 251 628 44 136
Local 7,923 3,417 288 436 186 2,410 1,012 108 66
Direct 7,827 3,416 287 435 186 2,397 933 107 66
Intergovernmental 96 1 1 1 — 13 79 1 —
Percent change, 1990 to 1991
All State and local 13.0% 4.7% 8.8% 9.3% 1.6% 12.9% 27.5% 37.6% 20.4%
State 19.9 2.7 6.4 2.0 7.0 19.0 28.1 31.8 47.6
Local 8.1 4.9 8.6 10.7 .5 3.7 25.2 51.5 2.9
NOTE: Intergovernmental expenditures consist of payments from one government to another. Such expenditures eventual-
ly show up as direct expenditures of the recipient government. Duplicative transactions between levels of government are
excluded from the totals for all governments and for local governments.
— Represents zero or rounds to zero.
Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy.

DRUG USE
Table B-3. Trends in selected drug use indicators, 1979-93 (number of users in millions)
Selected drug use indicators 1979 1982 1985 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993
Any illicit drug use1 24.3 22.4 22.3 14.5 12.9 12.8 11.4 11.7
Past month (current) cocaine use 4.3 4.2 5.3 2.9 1.6 1.9 1.3 1.3
Occasional (less than monthly) cocaine use na na 8.1 5.8 4.1 4.3 3.4 3.0
Frequent (weekly) cocaine use na na 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5
Current marijuana use 22.5 20.0 17.8 11.6 10.2 9.7 9.0 9.0
Lifetime heroin use 2.4 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.7 2.7 1.8 2.3
Any adolescent illicit drug use1 4.1 2.8 3.2 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.3 1.4
na - not applicable
1
Data are for past month (current) use.
Note: Any illicit drug use includes use of marijuana, cocaine, hallucinogens, inhalants, (except in 1982), heroin, or nonmed-
ical use of sedatives, tranquilizers, stimulants, or analgesics. The exclusion of inhalants in 1982 is believed to have resulted
in underestimates of any illicit use for that year, especially for adolescents.
Sources: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, National Institute on Drug Abuse (1979-1991), and Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (1992-93).
Table B-4. Estimated casual and heavy cocaine and heroin user populations, 1988-93
Cocaine and heroin use 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Cocaine
Casual users
(use less often than weekly) 7,347,000 6,466,000 5,585,000 5,440,000 4,331,000 4,054,000
Heavy users
(use at least weekly) 2,526,000 2,611,000 2,456,000 2,219,000 2,349,000 2,238,000
Heroin
Casual users
(use less often than weekly) 539,000 504,000 470,000 368,000 290,000 229,000
Heavy users
(use at least weekly) 601,000 616,000 542,000 474,000 452,000 500,000
Note: Data in this table are preliminary, composite estimates derived from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse
(NHSDA) and the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program (see W. Rhodes “Synthetic Estimation Applied to the Prevalence of
Drug Use,” Journal of Drug Issues, 23(2):297-321,1993 for a detailed description of the methodology). The NHSDA was not
administered in 1989. Estimates for 1989 are the average for 1988 and 1990.
Source: Abt Associates, Inc., “What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs,” 1988-93, in press.

Table B-5. Trends in 30-day prevalence of selected drugs among 8th, 10th, and 12th
graders, 1991-94
30-Day Prevalence
1993-94
Selected drug/grade 1991 1992 1993 1994 Change
Marijuana/hashish
8th grade 3.2 3.7 5.1 7.8 +2.7 sss
10th grade 8.7 8.1 10.9 15.8 +4.9 sss
12th grade 13.8 11.9 15.5 19.0 +3.5 sss
Inhalants1,2
8th grade 4.4 4.7 5.4 5.6 +0.2
10th grade 2.7 2.7 3.3 3.6 +0.3
12th grade 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.7 +0.2
Hallucinogens3
8th grade 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.3 +0.1
10th grade 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.4 +0.5
12th grade 2.2 2.1 2.7 3.1 +0.4
LSD (lysergic acid

diethylamide)
8th grade 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.1 +0.1
10th grade 1.5 1.6 1.6 2.0 +0.4
12th grade 1.9 2.0 2.4 2.6 +0.2
Cocaine
8th grade 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.0 +0.3 s
10th grade 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.2 +0.3
12th grade 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.5 +0.2
Stimulants
8th grade 2.6 3.3 3.6 3.6 +0.0
10th grade 3.3 3.6 4.3 4.5 +0.2
12th grade 3.2 2.8 3.7 4.0 +0.3
Alcohol (any use)4

8th grade 25.1 26.1 24.3 25.5 +1.2
10th grade 42.8 39.9 38.2 39.2 +1.0
12th grade 54.0 51.3 48.6 50.1 +1.5
Notes: Level of significance of 1993-94 difference: s=.05, ss=.01, sss=.001. Any apparent inconsistency between the
1993-94 change estimate and the respective prevalence estimates is due to rounding error.
Approximate N: 8th grade = 17,500 in 1991; 18,600 in 1992; 18,300 in 1993; 17,300 in 1994.
10th grade = 14,800 in 1991; 14,800 in 1992; 15,300 in 1993; 15,800 in 1994.
12th grade = 15,000 in 1991; 15,800 in 1992; 16,300 in 1993; 15,400 in 1994.
1
For 12th graders: Data based on five questionnaire forms in 1991-94; N is five-sixths of N indicated.
2
Unadjusted for underreporting of amyl and butyl nitrites.
3
Unadjusted for underreporting of PCP (phencyclidine).
4
For 8th, 10th, and 12th graders: In 1993, the question text was changed slightly to indicate that a “drink” meant
“more than a few sips.” In 1993, data were based on two questionnaire forms for the 8th and 10th graders and on
three of six questionnaire forms for the 12th graders; N is one-half of N indicated for all groups. In 1994, data were
based on all forms for all grades.
Source: The Monitoring the Future study, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Table B-6. Trends in harmfulness of drugs as perceived by 8th, 10th, and 12th graders, 1991-94
Percentage saying “great risk”*
1993-94 1993-94 1993-94

Drug 1991 1992 1993 1994 Change 1991 1992 1993 1994 Change 1991 1992 1993 1994 Change
How much do you think

people risk harming
themselves (physically or
in other ways), if they . . .
• Try marijuana once

or twice 40.4 39.1 36.2 31.6 -4.6sss 30.0 31.9 29.7 24.4 -5.3sss 27.1 24.5 21.9 19.5 -2.4
• Smoke marijuana
occasionally 57.9 56.3 53.8 48.6 -5.2sss 48.6 48.9 46.1 38.9 -7.2sss 40.6 39.6 35.6 30.1 -5.5sss
• Smoke marijuana
regularly 83.8 82.0 79.6 74.3 -5.3sss 82.1 81.1 78.5 71.3 -7.2sss 78.6 76.5 72.5 65.0 -7.5sss
• Try crack-cocaine
once or twice 62.8 61.2 57.2 54.4 -2.8sss 70.4 69.6 66.6 64.7 -1.9s 60.6 62.4 57.6 58.4 +0.8
• Take crack-cocaine
occasionally 82.2 79.6 76.8 74.4 -2.4s 87.4 86.4 84.4 83.1 -1.3 76.5 76.3 73.9 73.8 -0.1
• Try cocaine powder

once or twice 55.5 54.1 50.7 48.4 -2.3ss 59.1 59.2 57.5 56.4 -1.1 53.6 57.1 53.2 55.4 +2.2
• Take cocaine powder

occasionally 77.0 74.3 71.8 69.1 -2.7s 82.2 80.1 79.1 77.8 -1.3 69.8 70.8 68.6 70.6 +2.0
Approximate N 17,437 18,662 18,366 17,394 14,719 14,808 15,298 15,880 2,549 2,684 2,759 2,591
Note: Level of significance of 1993-94 difference: s = .05, ss = .01, sss = .001. Any apparent inconsistency between the 1993-94 change estimate and the respective
prevalence estimates is due to rounding error.
* Answer alternatives were: (1) No risk, (2) Slight risk, (3) Moderate risk, (4) Great risk, and (5) Can’t say, drug unfamiliar.
Source: The Monitoring the Future study, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

141
Table B-7. Prevalence of drug use among 6-8th, 9-12th, and 12th grade students,
1992-93 and 1993-94
Annual use Monthly use

1992-93 1993-94 Change 1992-93 1993-94 Change
Cigarettes
6-8th 25.5 26.3 +0.8 s 13.3 14.0 +0.7 s
9-12th 38.4 41.5 +3.1 s 25.7 28.2 +2.5 s
12th 42.0 43.9 +1.9 s 29.9 31.4 +1.5 s
Alcohol
6-8th 41.0 39.3 -1.7 s 14.9 14.7 -0.2
9-12th 65.5 65.9 +0.4 36.0 37.3 +1.3 s
12th 73.3 73.0 -0.3 44.7 45.6 +0.9 s
Beer
6-8th 31.2 30.3 +0.9 s 11.6 11.5 +0.1
9-12th 55.6 56.5 +0.9 s 31.3 32.6 +1.3 s
12th 63.5 63.8 +0.3 39.9 41.0 +1.1 s
Wine Coolers
6-8th 30.7 29.9 -0.8 s 10.0 9.9 -0.1
9-12th 52.2 52.0 -0.2 23.0 23.6 +0.6 s
12th 58.8 57.4 -1.4 s 27.2 26.5 -0.7
Liquor
6-8th 21.5 21.4 -0.1 8.2 8.3 +0.1
9-12th 49.5 51.3 +1.8 s 25.5 27.2 +1.7 s
12th 58.8 59.9 +1.1 s 31.9 33.5 +1.6 s
Marijuana
6-8th 5.8 8.2 +2.4 s 3.3 4.9 +1.6 s
9-12th 19.0 24.6 +5.6 s 11.3 15.6 +4.3 s
12th 25.0 28.9 +3.9 s 14.6 18.0 +3.4 s
Cocaine
6-8th 1.6 1.9 +0.3 s 1.1 1.2 +0.1 s
9-12th 3.4 4.0 +0.6 s 2.1 2.4 +0.3 s
12th 4.5 5.1 +0.6 s 2.8 3.1 +0.3 s
Uppers
6-8th 3.0 3.4 +0.4 s 1.8 2.0 +0.2 s
9-12th 7.9 9.1 +1.2 s 4.4 5.1 +0.7 s
12th 9.3 10.0 +0.7 s 5.0 5.6 +0.6 s
Downers
6-8th 2.2 2.4 +0.2 s 1.4 1.6 +0.2 s
9-12th 4.6 5.3 +0.7 s 2.9 3.3 +0.4 s
12th 5.3 5.8 +0.5 s 3.4 3.8 +0.4 s
Inhalants
6-8th 4.8 5.9 +1.1 s 2.3 2.8 +0.5 s
9-12th 5.6 6.9 +1.3 s 2.7 3.4 +0.7 s
12th 5.1 6.3 +1.2 s 2.7 3.3 +0.6 s
Hallucinogens
6-8th 1.9 2.1 +0.2 s 1.2 1.4 +0.2 s
9-12th 5.7 6.6 +0.9 s 3.0 3.4 +0.4 s
12th 8.0 8.8 +0.8 s 3.8 4.2 +0.4 s
Note: Level of significance of difference between the 1992-93 and 1993-94 surveys: s=.05, using chi-square with variables
year and use/no-use.
N size:
6-8th = 105,335 (1992-93): 92,939 (1993-94)
9-12th = 131,410 (1992-93); 104,796 (1993-94)
12th = 26,438 (1992-93); 18,320 (1993-94)
Source: PRIDE USA Survey, 1992-93 and 1993-94.

DRUG USE CONSEQUENCES AND TREATMENT
Table B-8. Trends in drug-related emergency room episodes and selected drug
mentions, 1988-93
Emergency room episodes and

drug mentions 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Total drug episodes (person cases) 403,578 425,904 371,208 393,968 433,493 466,897
Total drug mentions 668,153 713,392 635,460 674,861 751,731 808,233
Total cocaine mentions 101,578 110,013 80,355 101,189 119,843 123,317
Total heroin mentions 38,063 41,656 33,884 35,898 48,003 62,965
Total marijuana mentions 19,962 20,703 15,706 16,251 23,997 29,166
Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network, National Institute on Drug Abuse (1988-91), and Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (1992-93).
Table B-9. Drug abuse treatment capacity and utilization, 1989-961
Treatment capacity
and utilization 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Treatment
equivalent slots 556,000 559,000 563,000 560,000 566,000 565,000 596,000 590,000
Number of
persons served 1,557,000 1,509,000 1,491,000 1,455,000 1,443,000 1,412,000 1,413,000 1,460,000
Percent of
treatment goal
received 47.0 49.6 56.4 56.2 56.7 56.6 57.8 60.6
Remaining
treatment
need 3,922,000 3,593,000 2,691,000 2,653,000 2,597,000 2,562,000 2,499,000 2,390,000
1
This table includes only Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and National Institute on Drug
Abuse in the Federal slot estimates. It excludes other Federal agencies that provide substance abuse treatment including
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Justice (e.g., the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994), Housing
and Urban Development, and Defense, among others.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Table B-10. One-day census of clients in alcohol and/or drug abuse treatment, by age
group and by sex, 1980-92
Age/sex 1980 1982 1987 1989 1990 1991 19921
Age group
20 years and younger 74,451 63,115 97,677 114,818 86,326 82,242 95,773
21-44 years 292,331 289,935 400,119 474,210 527,815 553,067 710,877
45-64 years 99,580 89,274 74,738 82,191 91,401 95,598 129,275
65 years and older 7,194 6,734 6,557 7,134 7,214 7,464 8,954
Unknown — — 33,205 56,602 55,073 73,448 —
Total 473,556 449,058 612,296 734,955 767,829 811,819 944,880
Sex
Male 353,326 337,245 429,410 494,095 535,836 562,388 671,438
Female 119,117 113,407 164,128 207,510 206,861 213,681 273,442
Unknown — — 19,076 33,350 25,132 35,750 —
Total 473,443 450,652 612,614 734,955 767,829 811,819 944,880
Note: Data for 1992 are preliminary.

1
Includes data inputed for 2,009 nonresponding providers based on a representative sample survey of nonresponding
providers.
Sources: National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey, National Institute on Drug Abuse, and National Institute
on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Table B-11. Total crime, violent crime, and property crime and drug arrests, 1988-93
Crime category 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Total crime index 13,923,100 14,251,400 14,475,613 14,872,883 14,438,191 14,140,952

Total crime rate1 5,664.0 5,741.0 5,820.3 5,897.8 5,660.2 5,482.9
Violent crime index 1,566,220 1,646,040 1,820,127 1,911,767 1,932,274 1,924,188
Violent crime rate1 637.2 663.7 731.8 758.1 757.5 746.1
Total murder victims 18,269 18,954 20,273 21,505 22,540 23,271
Murders related to
narcotic drug laws 1,027 1,402 1,367 1,344 1,291 1,287
Property crime 12,356,900 12,605,400 12,655,486 12,961,116 12,505,917 12,216,764
Property crime rate1 5,027.1 5,077.9 5,088.5 5,139.7 4,902.7 4,736.9
Arrests for drug abuse violiations 1,155,200 1,361,700 1,089,500 1,010,000 1,066,400 1,126,300
1
Rates per 100,000 population.
Source: Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Table B-12. Federal and State prison and local jail inmate populations, 1988-93
Prison/jail 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
State prisons 577,672 653,193 706,943 752,525 803,397 859,295

Federal prisons 49,928 59,171 67,432 71,608 80,259 89,586
Total State and Federal prisons 627,600 712,364 774,375 824,133 883,656 948,881
Percent of Federal prisoners who
are drug offenders 44.8 49.9 52.3 57.0 59.6 60.8
Local jails 343,569 395,553 405,320 426,479 444,584 460,000
Sources: Survey of Inmates of Local Jails, Survey of Inmates in Federal Correctional Facilities, and Survey of Inmates in
State Correctional Facilities (population data), Bureau of Justice Statistics; Bureau of Prisons (drug offender
percentage), Department of Justice.
DRUG SEIZURES
Table B-13. Federal-wide cocaine, heroin, and cannabis seizures, Fiscal Years 1989-941
1st Half 1st Half

Drug 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1993 19942
Cocaine (metric tons) 99.2 107.3 111.7 137.8 110.7 47.9 50.9
Heroin (kilograms) 1,095.2 815.0 1,374.4 1,157.2 1,600.9 689.2 497.0
Cannabis (pounds) — 500,411 677,280 787,392 797,236 411,276 413,886
1
Data available for the first half of Fiscal Year (FY) 1994 only. First-half FY 1993 data are provided for comparison.
2
Data are preliminary and subject to change.
Source: Federal-wide Drug Seizure System, Drug Enforcement Administration.
DRUG USER EXPENDITURES
Table B-14. Total U.S. expenditures on illicit drugs, 1988-93 (in billions)
Drug 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Cocaine $41.9 $43.2 $39.5 $35.8 $33.7 $31.9

Heroin 11.7 12.0 10.8 8.6 7.3 7.4
Marijuana 8.9 9.0 9.6 9.0 10.1 9.0
Other drugs 3.2 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.2 1.8
Total 65.7 66.9 62.2 55.9 53.3 50.1
Note: Amounts are in constant 1994 dollars.

DRUG SUPPLY
Table B-15. Trends in cocaine supply, 1989-93 (in metric tons)
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Coca leaf crop Low 274,505 281,444 304,182 309,840 250,759

High 322,335 330,516 357,218 356,211 292,561
Cocaine HCl available to export Low 708 705 748 771 581
from producer countries High 857 858 941 989 711
Shipped to the United States Low 476 444 564 495 353
High 588 559 609 659 450
Available for consumption Low 361 348 338 376 243

in the United States (after High 473 463 482 539 340
discounting for Federal seizures)
Table B-16. Retail prices per pure gram for cocaine and heroin, 1988-93
1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Cocaine
High price $186 $165 $200 $168 $163 $151
Low price 146 123 187 132 130 120
Heroin1
High price $3,007 $2,713 $2,199 $2,543 $2,614 $2,553
Low price 1,612 1,343 997 1,046 968 837
Note: Data in this table are derived from information collected through purchases and seizure of cocaine and heroin in
selected cities. The purity of the samples is determined through chemical analysis. For cocaine, the price per pure gram is
calculated by dividing the price by the purity percentage of the samples. For heroin, the price per pure gram is calculated by
dividing the price by the average purity percentage for seized and purchased samples. Amounts are in constant 1994
dollars.
1
Retail prices are for heroin powder.

Table B-17. Worldwide potential net production, 1988-93 (metric tons)
Country 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993
Opium
Afghanistan1 750 585 415 570 640 685
Iran2 — — — — — —
Pakistan 205 130 165 180 175 140
Total Southwest Asia 955 715 580 750 815 825
Burma 1,280 2,430 2,255 2,350 2,280 2,575
Laos 255 380 275 265 230 180
Thailand 25 50 40 35 24 42
Total Southeast Asia 1,560 2,860 2,570 2,650 2,534 2,797
Colombia — — — 27 20 20
Lebanon na 45 32 34 — 4
Guatemala 8 12 13 17 — 4
Mexico 67 66 62 41 40 49
Total above 75 123 107 119 60 77
Total opium 2,590 3,698 3,257 3,519 3,409 3,699
Coca leaf
Bolivia 78,400 77,600 76,800 78,400 80,300 84,400
Colombia 27,200 33,900 32,100 30,000 29,600 31,700
Peru 187,700 186,300 196,900 222,700 223,900 155,500
Ecuador 400 270 170 40 100 100
Total coca leaf 293,700 298,070 305,970 331,140 333,900 271,700
Marijuana
Mexico 5,655 30,200 19,715 7,775 7,795 6,280
Colombia 7,775 2,800 1,500 1,500 1,500 4,125
Jamaica 405 190 825 641 263 502
Belize 120 65 60 49 0 0
Others 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Total marijuana 17,455 36,755 25,600 13,465 13,058 14,407
Hashish
Lebanon 700 905 100 545 — 565
Pakistan 200 200 200 200 200 200
Afghanistan 300 300 300 300 300 300
Morocco 85 85 85 85 85 85
Total hashish 1,285 1,490 685 1,130 585 1,150
1
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration believes, based upon foreign reporting and human sources, that opium
production in Afghanistan may have exceeded 900 metric tons in 1992 and 1993.
2
While there is no solid information on Iranian opium production, the U.S. Government estimates that Iran potentially
may produce between 35 and 75 metric tons of opium gum annually.
Source: International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, U.S. Department of State, 1994.

Appendix C: Consultation
ection 1005 of the Anti-Drug Abuse • Public officials must be educated about the
S
Act of 1988 requires the President to need for a strategy to deal with the effects of
develop and annually submit to Con- alcohol and other drugs.
gress a National Drug Control Strate-
gy. The law also requires the Director • Treatment is paramount to success. Treatment
of the Office of National Drug Con- is more cost-effective than incarceration, and
trol Policy to help formulate the Strategy in con- recidivism is reduced even when treatment is
sultation with a wide array of experts and officials, coercive.
including the heads of the National Drug Control
Program agencies, the Congress, State and local • Generic chemical dependency training on all
officials, and members of the private sector. levels is needed, including judges and the crim-
inal justice system, parents, and social service
With this 1995 National Drug Control Strategy, the agencies.
Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy has taken a new, dynamic approach to the • Law enforcement must be included in coali-
consultation process. Just as the development and tions and partnerships. Drug courts and work
implementation of the National Drug Control release are effective.
Strategy is an ongoing process, this new approach
to consultation has been ongoing over the last 12 • Use grassroots community wisdom and
months as well. resources to share and expand on successes.
In order to receive the views and recommenda- • Enhance federal relationships by reducing
tions of as many individuals and groups as possi- duplication of services, improving coordina-
ble, the Director convened four regional strategy tion of programs, and simplifying the grant
development conferences across the country and process.
one in Washington, D.C. The conferences focused
on key drug policy issues of importance to region- • Use the information superhighway to improve
al, State, and local leaders. Several themes access to both the State and federal governments.
emerged from all the conferences. While there
were variations in ideas, the following themes • Rural areas need help and are often over-
were constant. looked.
• Enhanced local program flexibility, fewer fund- • Violence is endemic. Greater sanctions and
ing set-asides, equitable distribution of dollars, quick intervention are needed to reduce vio-
and generally increased funding are needed. lence.
• Prevention works. Prevention should be based Conference attendees included over 1,400 State
on research and good science. and local government officials and legislators, as

A P P E N D I X C: C O N S U L T A T I O N
well as individuals involved in drug control efforts strategy consultations included a fact-finding trip
in a variety of settings, including criminal justice, by the Director in June 1994, to India, Hong
education, prevention, treatment, and the work- Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Laos, and
place. The Director also convened a special panel Japan. The fact-finding trip was the first trip to
on Rural Drug Abuse and Trafficking. Asia by a U.S. drug policy director and the first
official visit to Laos by a U.S. Cabinet official
In addition to the regional conferences, six specif- since 1975. In December 1994, the Director
ic focus groups were convened in Washington, addressed the drug issue at the Summit of the
D.C., and at the University of Michigan Institute Americas, where President Clinton met with 33
for Social Research. The focus groups brought leaders of the nations of the Western Hemisphere.
together public- and private-sector criminal jus-
tice, prevention and treatment, and drug control Lastly, over 1,100 letters were sent to members of
program and policy experts. The groups also the Cabinet, senior Federal officials, and depart-
brought together experts on adolescent behavior ment and agency heads; each U.S. Senator and
and youth violence, and drug control and epi- Representative; directors and executives of public
demiological data evaluation. Additionally, key interest groups and private individuals; the Gover-
members of congressional staffs and the Congres- nor of each State and Territory; and over 200 may-
sional Research Service were brought together to ors and State and local officials.
seek their input on strategy goals and objectives,
and on issues in treatment and prevention, domes- As discussed above, the consultation process for
tic law enforcement, and legislation. this strategy consisted of several new components,
including the regional and national conferences,
International drug policy continues to receive a various focus groups, and many individual inputs
high priority in the consultation process. The and recommendations. The agencies, organiza-
Director met with leaders and representatives tions, and individuals listed on the following pages
from Mexico, Panama, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, reflect the extensive nature of this year’s consulta-
Venezuela, South Africa, and Nigeria. Heroin tion process.

FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS Department of Labor

Hon. Timothy M. Barnicle
Assistant Secretary for Policy
Agency for International Development
Hon. J. Brian Atwood Department of State
Administrator Hon. Robert Gelbard
Assistant Secretary
Department of Agriculture Bureau of International Narcotics Matters
Hon. R.D. Plowman
Acting Under Secretary Department of Transportation
Research, Education, and Economics Admiral Robert E. Kramek
Commandant
Hon. Richard Rominger United States Coast Guard
Deputy Secretary
Department of the Treasury
Department of Commerce Hon. Ronald K. Noble
Hon. Ronald H. Brown Under Secretary for Enforcement
Secretary
Ms. Darlene Berthod
Department of Defense National Director of Personnel
Hon. Brian E. Sheridan
Deputy Assistant Secretary Mr. Charles E. Brisbin
Drug Enforcement Policy and Support Director, Office of Law Enforcement
Department of Education Mr. Charles F. Rinkevich

Hon. Thomas Payzant Director
Assistant Secretary Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
Department of Energy Mr. Eljay B. Bowron

Hon. Hazel R. O’Leary Director
Secretary United States Secret Service
Department of Health and Human Services John W. Magaw

Mr. Peter Edelman Director
Counselor to the Secretary Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Hon. Fernando M. Torres-Gil Hon. Margaret M. Richardson

Assistant Secretary for Aging Commissioner
Internal Revenue Service
Dr. David Satcher, M.D.
Director Hon. George J. Weise
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Commissioner
United States Customs Service
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Hon. Joseph Shuldiner Mr. Stanley E. Morris
Assistant Secretary Director
Public and Indian Housing Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Department of the Interior Executive Office of the President

Ms. Claudia Schecter Christopher Edley
Director of Operations Associate Director
Office of the Secretary Office of Management and Budget
Department of Justice Kenneth Schwartz

Hon. Thomas A. Constantine Deputy Associate Director
Administrator Office of Management and Budget
Drug Enforcement Administration
James Duke
Hon. Louis J. Freeh Budget Analyst
Director Office of Management and Budget
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Martha Gagne
Hon. Eduardo Gonzalez Budget Analyst
Director Office of Management and Budget
United States Marshals Service
Hon. James B. King
Hon. Kathleen M. Hawk Director
Director Office of Personnel Management
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Hon. Philip Lader
Hon. Doris Meissner Administrator
Commissioner U.S. Small Business Administration
Immigration and Naturalization Service

Federal Reserve System Hon. Arne H. Carlson

Mr. S. David Frost Minnesota
Staff Director for Management
Hon. Kirk C. Fordice
United States Information Agency Mississippi
Hon. Joseph Duffey
Director Hon. Edward T. Schafer
North Dakota
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Hon. George Allen

Virginia
U. S. Senate Hon. Mike Sullivan

Wyoming
Hon. Bob Dole (R-Kansas)
Hon. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Connecticut) MAYORS

Hon. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wisconsin) Hon. Bruce Todd
Hon. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) Austin, Texas
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) Hon. Brent Coles

Boise, Idaho
Hon. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania)
Hon. Michael A. Pastrick
Concord, California
U. S. House of Representatives
Hon. Bobby Joe Raper
Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez (D-Texas) Irving, Texas
Hon. Chaka Fatiah (D-Pennsylvania) Hon. Kane Ditto

Jackson, Mississippi
Hon. Bob Livingston (R-Louisiana)
Hon. Philip N. Bredesen
Hon. John L. Mica (R-Florida)
Nashville, Tennessee
Hon. George Miller (D-California)
Hon. Nelson W. Wolff
Hon. John P. Murtha (D-Pennsylvania) San Antonio, Texas
Hon. Douglas “Pete” Peterson (D-Florida) Hon. George Pederson

Santa Clarita, California
Hon. Charles B. Rangel (D-New York)
Hon. Ronald L. Bonkowski
Hon. Robert S. Walker (R-Pennsylvania)
Warren, Michigan
GOVERNORS
STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS
Hon. Cecil D. Andrus
Richard L. Burton
Idaho
Commissioner
Alaska Department of Public Safety
Hon. Bob Kustra
Illinois, Lieutenant Governor
Barbara A. Cimaglio
Director, Illinois Department of
Hon. Evan Bayh
Alcoholism and Substance Abuse
Indiana
Bennie R. Click
Hon. Terry Branstad
Chief of Police
Iowa
Dallas, Texas
Hon. William Donald Shaefer
H.C. Garrett
Maryland
Chief of Police
Corpus Christi, Texas
Hon. William F. Weld
Massachusetts
Andrew M. Mecca, Dr.P.H.
Director, California Department of
Hon. John Engler
Alcohol and Drug Programs
Michigan

Sandra Mobley-Terry Thomas McLellan, Ph.D.

Division of Substance Abuse Services Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Buffalo, New York Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
T.W. Shane Sam di Menza

Chief of Police 1003 Snapper Cove Lane
Pasadena, Texas Pasadena, Maryland
Major General Joseph Skaff Norman Miller, M.D.

Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety Department of Psychiatry
State of West Virginia University of Illinois at Chicago
Fred Thomas Robert Millman, M.D.

Chief of Police New York Hospital/Cornell University
Washington, D.C. New York, New York
Mr. Jimmy Willborn Dwayne Simpson, Ph.D.

Texas Narcotic Control Division Texas Christian University
Austin, Texas Fort Worth, Texas
ONDCP DRUG TREATMENT OUTCOME ONDCP FOCUS GROUPS ON

RESEARCH SYMPOSIA ADOLESCENT DRUG USE
Douglas Anglin, Ph.D. William F. Alden

Drug Abuse Research Center, UCLA D.A.R.E. America
Los Angeles, California Oakton, Virginia
Andrea Barthwell, M.D. Mr. Kent Augustson

Interventions, Inc. U.S. Department of Health and
Chicago, Illinois Human Services
Antonio Cardozo Gilbert Botvin, Ph.D.

Alcohol, Drug Abuse and Addiction Services Cornell University Medical Center
New Jersey Department of Health New York, New York
George DeLeon, Ph.D. Deborah Ridley Brome, Ph.D.

Center for Therapeutic Research Associate Professor of Psychology
New York, New York University of Massachusetts, Boston
Frank Gawin, M.D. William Bukoski, Ph.D.

Addiction Research Consortium, UCLA Chief, Prevention Research Branch
Malibu, California National Institute on Drug Abuse
Barbara Havassey, Ph.D. Raul Caetano, Ph.D.

Treatment Outcome Research Alcohol Research Group
University of California at San Francisco California Pacific Medical Center
Melody Heaps Sharon Cantelon

Illinois TASC U.S. Department of Justice
Chicago, Illinois Washington, D.C.
Norman Hoffman, Ph.D. Richard R. Clayton, Ph.D.

New Standards Institute Director, Center for Prevention Research
St. Paul, Minnesota University of Kentucky
Robert Hubbard, Ph.D. Karen Dodge

Research Triangle Institute Department of Health and Human Services
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Washington, D.C.
James Inciardi, Ph.D. Joy Dryfoos, Ph.D.

University of Delaware Hastings-on-Hudson, New York
Newark, Delaware
Phyllis L. Ellickson, Ph.D.
Duane McBride, Ph.D. RAND Corporation
Andrews University Santa Monica, California
Bergin Springs, Michigan
Douglas Hall
Alex L. McCloud National Parents’ Resource Institute
Native American Rehabilitation Association for Drug Education (PRIDE)
Gresham, Oregon

William B. Hansen, Ph.D. Johnny Allem

Wake Forest University Society of Americans for Recovery
Winston Salem, North Carolina Washington, D.C.
Maude Holt Robert Anderson

District of Columbia National Association of State Alcohol
Department of Human Services and Drug Abuse Directors
Elaine Johnson, Ph.D. David Bralove

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention National Treatment Consortium
Department of Health and Human Services Washington, D.C.
Lloyd D. Johnston. Ph.D. James Copple

Institute for Social Research Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America
University of Michigan Alexandria, Virginia
Laura Kann, Ph.D. Philip Diaz

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Consultant
Atlanta, Georgia Miami, Florida
Nancy Kaufman Adolph Falcon

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation National Coalition of Hispanic Health
Princeton, New Jersey and Human Services Organizations
Judi Kosterman, Ed.D. Sarah Kayson

Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America (CADCA) National Council on Alcoholism
Alexandria, Virginia and Drug Dependence
Kim Light John Gustafson

U.S. Department of Education National Association of State Alcohol
Washington, D.C. and Drug Abuse Directors
Ginna Marston George Hacker

Partnership for a Drug-Free America Center for Science in the Public Interest
New York, New York Washington, D.C.
Daniel Melnick, Ph.D. Green Lewis

Substance Abuse and Mental Health American Federation of Labor -
Services Administration Council of Industrial Organizations
William Modzeleski Robert May,

U.S. Department of Education National Consortium of TASC Programs
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
Harry Montoya Sue Rusche

Hispanic Addiction Resources and Training National Families in Action
Espanola, New Mexico Atlanta, Georgia
Patrick M. O’Malley, Ph.D. Mitch Sklar

Institute for Social Research National Association of Alcohol
University of Michigan and Drug Abuse Counselors
Zili Sloboda, Ph.D. Susan Thau

National Institute on Drug Abuse Prevention, Intervention and Treatment
Rockville, Maryland Coalition for Health (PITCH)
Susan Thau Ellen Webber

Prevention, Intervention and Treatment Legal Action Center
Coalition for Health (PITCH) Washington, D.C.
Ron Trethric
Drug Enforcement Administration ONDCP FOCUS GROUP ON DOMESTIC
Washington, D.C. LAW ENFORCEMENT
Donald Cahill
ONDCP FOCUS GROUP ON TREATMENT Fraternal Order of Police
AND PREVENTION Washington, D.C.
William Alden Mark Cunniff

D.A.R.E. America National Association of Criminal
Oakton, Virginia Justice Planners

John Doyle Thomas Diaz, Assistant Counsel

National Sheriffs Association Crime and Criminal Justice Subcommittee
Alexandria, Virginia Judiciary Committee
United States House of Representatives
A. Tony Fisher Washington, D.C.
National Organization of Black
Law Enforcement Executives Adam Gelb, Professional Staff
Judiciary Committee
Addie Hailstorks United States Senate
National Legal Aid and Defender Association Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
James Griffin, Legislative Assistant to
Merri Hankins Representative Charles B. Rangel
National Districts Attorneys Association United States House of Representatives
Alexandria, Virginia Washington, D.C.
Thomas Henderson Edward Klebe

National Center for State Courts Congressional Research Service
Alexandria, Virginia Washington, D.C.
Gwen A. Holden John Mackey, Investigative Counsel

National Criminal Justice Association Foreign Affairs Committee
Washington, D.C. United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
Nolan Jones
National Governors Association Raphael Perl
Washington, D.C. Congressional Research Service
Washington, D.C.
Clifford Karchmer
Police Executive Research Forum
Washington, D.C. ONDCP FOCUS GROUP ON RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND MEASURES
Eugene Kennedy
National Conference of Black Mayors Susan Becker
Atlanta, Georgia Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Roy Kime
International Association of Chiefs of Police William Bukoski
Alexandria, Virginia National Institute on Drug Abuse
Barbara Kittay
U.S. Department of Justice Karen Dodge
Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Washington, D.C.
William Matthews
The Police Foundation Joseph Gfroerer
Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Washington, D.C.
Patrick Murphy
U.S. Conference of Mayors Robert Gifford
Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of State
Washington, D.C.
Donald Murray
National Association of Black Pamela Hart
County Officials Drug Enforcement Administration
Washington, D.C.
Judy Patterson
American Bar Association Carolyn Hoffman
Washington, D.C. Drug Enforcement Administration
Washington, D.C.
Janet Quist
National League of Cities Ray Hylton
Washington, D.C. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
ONDCP FOCUS GROUP ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS David Keer

National Center for Health Statistics
Shawn Bentley U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Counsel, Judiciary Committee
United States Senate Andrea Kopstein
Washington, D.C. National Institute on Drug Abuse

Geoff Laredo, Substance Abuse and Michael Carvalho

Mental Health Services Administration Honolulu Police Department
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Honolulu, Hawaii
Harold Perl Keith Choy

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse Director, San Francisco
and Alcoholism Mayor’s Community Partnership
Debbie Rudy Walter E. Crews

U.S. Department of Education Memphis Police Department
Washington, D.C. Memphis, Tennessee
Susan Schober Donald E. Christ

National Center for Health Statistics Assistant Chief
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Indianapolis Police Department
Jan Shafer Lisa Daumas

National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect Co-Director, Houston Crackdown
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Houston, Texas
Scott Springer Rebecca Davis

Drug Enforcement Administration Deputy Executive Director
Washington, D.C. Texas Commission Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Patrick Tarr George DeVault

Drug Enforcement Administration Pittsburgh Police
Washington, D.C. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Mike Witkin Elaine Dodd

Center for Mental Health Services Director, Oklahoma Bureau of
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control
Marianne Zawitz Marvin Evans

Bureau of Justice Statistics Newport News Police Department
Washington, D.C. Newport News, Virginia
Edward Zedlewski John Farrell

National Institute of Justice Deputy Director, New Jersey Department of
Washington, D.C. Health, Alcoholism/Drug Abuse
Katherine Feinstein
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY Director, San Francisco
DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE Mayor’s Criminal Justice Council
Patrick C. Ahlstrom John E. Ferguson

Executive Director Dallas Police Department
Colorado Department of Public Safety Dallas, Texas
Roger F. Bass Burke O. Fitzpatrick

Deputy HIDTA Coordinator Assistant Deputy Director, South Carolina
Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s Office Department of Public Safety
Columbia, South Carolina
Michael E. Beaver
Department of Public Safety Jose Fleites
Indianapolis, Indiana City of Miami Police Department
Miami, Florida
Tom Blain
Department of Public Safety Luceille Fleming
Jackson, Mississippi Director, Ohio Department of
Alcohol/Drug Addiction Service
Clifton B. Bradshaw
Richmond Police Department Brian Frenyea
Richmond, Virginia National Guard Bureau
Alexandria, Virginia
Harry J. Brady, Jr.
Director Jeffery B. Frey
New York/New Jersey HIDTA Administrative Officer
Southwest Border HIDTA
Tom Carr
Director Honorable Judge Sally Gray
Washington/Baltimore HIDTA Program Putnam County Court
Greencastle, Indiana

Walter Hawkins Skip Mahan

Special Assistant to the Mayor Washington/Baltimore HIDTA
City of Orlando Washington, D.C.
Paul Hedges Toni L. Martorelli

Special Assistant, Virginia Office Director, Family and Community Services
of the Secretary of Public Safety Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bruce T. Henson Robert W. Miller

Deputy Chief of Police Commander, Drug Enforcement
Orlando, Florida Oregon State Police
Bernie Hobson Karen K. Mitchell

U.S. Attorney’s Office, HIDTA Governor’s Drug Policy Council
Houston, Texas Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Maude R. Holt Jeff Modisett

Administrator, District of Columbia Marion County Prosecutor
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services Indianapolis, Indiana
Douglas W. Hughes Monica Mueller

Director, South Florida HIDTA Executive Assistant, Illinois
Miami, Florida Lieutenant Governor’s Office
Paul F. Isaacs Rick Mullins

Cabinet Secretary Akron Police Department
Kentucky Justice Cabinet Akron, Ohio
Carle L. Jackson RADM (USN, Ret.) Paul J. Mulloy

Policy Advisor Director, Rhode Island
Louisiana Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice Department of Substance Abuse
Ronald R. James Patrick A. Munter

Cleveland Police Department Seattle Police Department
Cleveland, Ohio Seattle, Washington
Michael S. Jordan Michael J. Nores

Commissioner Douglas County Sheriff’s Office
Minnesota Department of Public Safety Roseburg, Oregon
Gordon Karim Honorable Carnella Greene Norman

Midwest Regional Center Presiding Judge, Municipal Court
Oak Brook, Illinois City of Birmingham, Alabama
J. Craig Keener J. Terry Norris

Law Enforcement Program Coordinator Director, Georgia Criminal
Attorney General’s Office Justice Coordinating Council
Pago Pago, American Samoa
Dorothy B. North
Judi Kosterman Chairman, Nevada Commission on
CADCA Substance Abuse Education, Prevention,
Alexandria, Virginia Enforcement and Treatment
Jeffrey N. Kushner Compton Owens

Director, Oregon Huntsville Police Department
Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs Huntsville, Alabama
Joseph P. Kwiatkowski Cesar R. Palma

Prosecuting Attorney Supervisory Special Agent, DEA
Cheboygan County, Michigan Albuquerque, New Mexico
Charles W. Larson Thomas J. Pagel

Coordinator, Drug Enforcement Director, Wyoming
Iowa Alliance on Substance Abuse Division of Criminal Investigation
Lisa B. Lench Tricia Peraino

Coordinator Planning Coordinator, Delaware
Los Angeles HIDTA Criminal Justice Council
Thomas R. Litjen Robert E. Peterson

Washington Representative Director, Michigan
Governor Ben Nelson - Nebraska Office of Drug Control Policy

Francis Pisegna Marty M. Tapscott

Chief of Staff, Massachusetts Chief of Police
Governor’s Alliance Against Drugs Richmond, Virginia
Donald S. Quire Fred Thomas

St. Petersburg Police Department Chief of Police
St. Petersburg, Florida Washington, D.C.
Richard C. Rail Malaetasi Togafau

Arkansas State Police Attorney General, American Samoa
Little Rock, Arkansas Pago Pago, American Samoa
Martha Raiss Bryan Turnbull

PACE Office of Community Outreach Detroit Police Department
Norfolk, Virginia Detroit, Michigan
Don Reay Joseph Villagomez

U.S. Customs Service Northern Mariana Islands Government
El Paso, Texas Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands
Warren P. Reese Raymond L. Vinsik

Coordinator Director
Southwest Border HIDTA Arizona Alliance Planning Committee
Jose E. Figueroa Sancha Anton Wagner

Associate Superintendent of St. Louis Metropolitan Police
the Puerto Rico Police Department St. Louis, Missouri
Kerry L. Sleeper Julius Walker

Vermont State Police Birmingham Police Department
Waterbury, Vermont Birmingham, Alabama
Michael V. Smith Charles R. Wall

Commissioner, Buffalo, New York Chief of Police
Department of Human Resources Virginia Beach, Virginia
Mike Smith Susan Weed

Riverside Police Department Director, Substance Abuse Policy
Riverside, California Chicago, Illinois
Robert L. Smith Van H. White

Public Safety Administration Special Counsel to the Mayor
City of Tampa, Florida Rochester, New York
Richard L. Spalding N. John Wilder

President, Serenity Foundation of Texas Deputy Mayor for Criminal Justice
Abilene, Texas Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Christine Spaulding Jimmy Willborn

Multiple Offender Program Director
Laconia, New Hampshire Texas Narcotics Control Program
Gaylord A. Sprauve Walter J. Winfrey

Drug Policy Advisor to the Governor Director of Police Services
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands Memphis Police Department
Robert E. Staley Elleen M. Yancey

Assistant to the Secretary of Public Health Fulton County Government
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands Atlanta, Georgia
J. Michael Stiers
Aurora Police Department NORTHEAST REGIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY
Aurora, Colorado DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Kenneth Stilley Michael J. Adams

National Guard Bureau ALERT Partnership
Washington, D.C. Allentown, Pennsylvania
Roger H. Stricker John R. Alderman

Director Senior Trial Assistant, Henrico County
Maine Drug Enforcement Agency Richmond, Virginia

Daniel Alfieri Martha Campione

New Horizon Treatment Services Green Mountain Prevention Project
Trenton, New Jersey Burlington, Vermont
Gail B. Allen Victor Capoccia

St. Lukes Roosevelt Hospital Center Center for Addictive Behavior
New York, New York Salem, Massachusetts
Jo Ann Armstrong Edwina Carr

Executive Director Cambridge Healthcare Association
New Hampshire Teen Institute Jamesport, New York
Alma Ayala Joan Chatterton

Human Resources Administrator Aquila, Inc.
City of New Haven, Connecticut Wilmington, Delaware
Norma Baker Peter Chimera

Northern Educational Services A Way Out, Inc.
Springfield, Massachusetts Flushing, New York
Jack Bardelli Alice Cintron

Department Public Safety Anthony Perkins Community Center
Hartford, Connecticut Dorchester, Massachusetts
Diane Barry Jay Cohen

Communications Director Counsel to the District Attorney, Kings County
Join Together Brooklyn, New York
Ernest E. Batson Robert Colville

Associate Commissioner District Attorney, Allegheny County
New York City Department Mental Health Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Harvey F. Bellin James Conley

Weston Woods Institute Watertown Police Department
Weston, Connecticut Watertown, Massachusetts
Lonnie E. Bennett Lea Palleria Cox

Chief Inspector Hanover, Massachusetts
Amtrak Police Department
Eric Crawford
Jan Best Connecticut Prison Association
Belknap County Department of Corrections Hartford, Connecticut
Laconia, New Hampshire
George C. Crawley
Anthony Biondi Assistant City Manager
Borough of Norristown Norfolk, Virginia
Norristown, Pennsylvania
Anthony D. Crisp
Barbara Bray Director, Substance Abuse Services
Supervisor, Drug-Free Schools Norfolk Community Services, Virginia
Towson, Maryland
Matthew Cronin
Ronald B. Brinn Federal Bureau of Investigation
Corporate Health Strategies Boston, Massachusetts
Great Neck, New York
Milton M. Crump, Prince George’s
Joseph Brzostowski County Department of Corrections
Drug Enforcement Administration Upper Marlboro, Maryland
Newark, New Jersey
Maria Dantos
Robert Burke Deputy District Attorney, Lehigh County
National Legal Aid and Defender Association Allentown, Pennsylvania
Washington, D.C.
John A. Darin
Sandra Butter A Way Out, Inc.
Tremont Commonwealth Council Flushing, New York
Bronx, New York
Ruth Davis
Donald Callender Director of Youth Support Services
Regional Director Boston, Massachusetts
New York Therapeutic Communities, Inc.

Cecilia Dawkins Ralph M. Fatigate, Jr.

Join Together Commissioner of Public Safety
Boston, Massachusetts Mount Vernon, New York
Larry Dawson David J. Faulkner

Governor’s Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission Day One for Youth and Families
Towson, Maryland Cape Elizabeth, Maine
Margo Deane John E. Fencer

Framingham, Massachusetts Coalition for the Drug Enforcement Administration
Prevention of Alcohol/Drug Abuse Boston, Massachusetts
Joseph Deignan J. Mitchell Finnegan

Watertown Police Department Project Director
Watertown, Massachusetts Quincy, Massachusetts
William Deyermond Maurice Flaherty

New England States Police Information Network Boston Police Department
Needham, Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts
Joseph Diament Luceille Fleming

Odyssey House, Inc. Director, Ohio Department of Alcohol
Hampton, New Hampshire and Drug Addiction Services
Robin Dinerman Alan Fletcher

Federal Bureau of Investigation Holyoke Police Department
Washington, D.C. Holyoke, Massachusetts
Linda Doctor Edward Flynn

Department of Public Health Chief of Police
Boston, Massachusetts Chelsea, Massachusetts
Robert Downing Janet Benson Foley

Join Together Chicopee Community Partnership
Boston, Massachusetts Chicopee, Massachusetts
Catherine Dunbar Richard M. Fontora

Community Services Chief of Police
Camden, New Jersey North Andover, Massachusetts
John G. Duncan Armando B. Fontoura

U.S. Department of Justice Sheriff of Essex County
Syracuse, New York Newark, New Jersey
Gerald Edwards Susan Foster

Director, Northeast Regional Center Director, Criminal Justice Programs
Sayville, New York Massachusetts Commission on Criminal Justice
Gary Egan Lindsey Freese

Spectrum Addiction Services, Inc. Southeastern New Hampshire Services
Westboro, Massachusetts Dover, New Hampshire
Carleton Eldredge Ralph Froehlich

Rockingham County Attorney Sheriff, Union County
Exeter, New Hampshire Elizabeth, New Jersey
R. J. Elrick Gary Fry

D.A.R.E. America Talbot Partnership
Oakton, Virginia Easton, Maryland
James Englishby Ralph Fucillo

New York State Police Director of Prevention Support Services
Albany, New York Boston, Massachusetts
Charles Faris Paul J. Gallagher

Spectrum Addiction Services, Inc. North Andover Police Department
Westboro, Massachusetts North Andover, Massachusetts
John Farrell Karen Gibson

New Jersey Department of Health Rhode Island Department of Substance Abuse
Alcohol/Drug Abuse Addiction Cranston, Rhode Island

Bridget Gladwin William Holmes

New York State Department of Correctional Services Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice
Bedford Hills, New York Boston, Massachusetts
W. Michael Goggins Paul Jarosiewicz

First Assistant District Attorney Cambridge Police Department
Northampton, Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts
Scott Green Louis Jeminey

Lafayette Group Camden City Police Department
Vienna, Virginia Camden, New Jersey
Janice Ford Griffin Dale Jenkins

Deputy Director Executive Office of Public Safety
Join Together Boston, Massachusetts
Karen Guillette Robert Johnson

Somerville, Massachusetts Bronx District Attorney
Bronx, New York
John S. Gustafson
Executive Director Robert B. Johnson
NASADAD Manager, Police Services Division
Washington, D.C.
Cheryl Guthier
Community Prevention Partnership Donald Kane
Reading, Pennsylvania Commissioner of Police
Nassau County, New York Police Department
Debra C. Hagenbuch
Executive Director Edward Kania-Bloniarz
Central New York Labor Agency, Inc. Community Substance Abuse Centers
Westfield, Massachusetts
Randy A. Harriman
Chief of Police Erin Keaney
Bangor, Maine Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department
Boston, Massachusetts
Susan K. Harrington
Norfolk Social Services George Kelley
Norfolk, Virginia Pawtucket Police Department
Pawtucket, Rhode Island
Edward Heilig
Assistant District Attorney, Suffolk County Robert Kelley
Riverhead, New York Amethyst Foundation Inc.
Epping, New Hampshire
John Hermos
Coordinator, Substance Abuse Treatment Program John Kelly
Boston, Massachusetts Extracare Health Services
Oldbridge, New Jersey
Kathleen Herr-Zaya
Department of Public Health Leroy L. Kelly
Boston, Massachusetts Mt. Auburn Hospital
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Melvin High
Chief of Police Jack Kemp
Norfolk, Virginia New York State Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Service
New York, New York
Sheila Hildebrandt
Acting Assistant Director Thomas Kirk
Rhode Island State Department of Substance Abuse Superintendent
West Virginia State Police
Ralph Hingson
Senior Advisor Laurence Klein
Join Together Governor’s Anti-Drug Abuse Council
Albany, New York
Novella S. Hinson
Director of Community Services Major Timothy L. Korte
Camden, New Jersey Massachusetts Army National Guard
Paul Hochwarter
Pawtucket Police Department Richard Kunkel
Pawtucket, Rhode Island Director of Community Services
Fairfax, Virginia

Paul Lacasse Kenneth MacDonald

Greater Nashua Council on Alcoholism Chelsea Police Department
Nashua, New Hampshire Chelsea, Massachusetts
Janet D. Lapey Sheila B. MacDonald

Hanover, Massachusetts Employees Assistance Professional Association
Arlington, Virginia
Hector Ledezma
Federal Bureau of Prisons John A. Mainello
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Assistant Deputy Superintendent
New York State Police
Peter Lee
Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs Alexander Manganiello
Waterbury, Vermont Supreme Judicial Court
Roberta Leis
Director, Technical Assistance Lauren Marcus
Join Together Community Anti-Drug Coalitions
Alexandria, Virginia
Kimberly A. Lesnak
U.S. Attorney’s Office Gerard Marini
Chicago, Illinois Governor’s Council/Drug-Free Workplace
Trenton, New Jersey
Jane Leung
Boston Asian Youth Essential Service Julio A. Martinez
Boston, Massachusetts New York State Department of Correctional Service
Albany, New York
Dr. Leon Lewis
Community School District 9 Raymond Massi
Bronx, New York Camden City Police Department
Camden, New Jersey
Gregory Leyko
Governor’s Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission Margo B. Matzdorf
Towson, Maryland New York State Alcohol
and Substance Abuse Services
Lawrence M. Lipsher
Drugs Don’t Work Jack E. Mazzotti, III
Hartford, Connecticut Catholic Charities-Archdiocese
Brockton, Massachusetts
Martin Livenstein
Executive Director, New York State Commission James McAleer
on Methadone Program Administrators Federal Bureau of Investigation
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
William Longworth
Criminal Justice Services Moses McAllister, Jr.
Albany, New York Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Washington, D.C.
Homer Lopez
Department of Public Health Dennis McCarty
Boston, Massachusetts Bureau of Substance Abuse Services
Joseph Loughlin
Portland Police Department John McGinty
Portland, Maine Cape Elizabeth Police Department
Cape Elizabeth, Maine
Edgar Lozano
Assistant Director of Operations John McGoldrick
Beth Israel Medical Center, New York Connecticut State Police
Middletown, Connecticut
James Lukes
St. Elizabeth Medical Center Frank McGurk
Boston, Massachusetts Greenwich House, Inc.
New York, New York
Peter F. Luongo
Director, Montgomery County Division John D. McElwee
of Adult Addiction Services, Maryland Maine Substance Abuse Services Commission
Caribou, Maine
Gerard Lynch
Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Linda McKay
West Trenton, New Jersey Bureau of Justice Assistance
Washington, D.C.

Paul McLaughlin Otto Moulton

Hartford Dispensary Drug Watch International
Hartford, Connecticut Danvers, Massachusetts
Patricia McLean David H. Mulligan

Assistant District Attorney Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Butler County, Pennsylvania Boston, Massachusetts
Karen Means Suzanne Murphy

Project Director, HighRoad Fund Canarsie Aware, Inc.
New York City Public Education Brooklyn, New York
Leonard A. Means Paul J. O’Brien

Comprehensive Addiction Treatment Charles Spilling House
Falls Church, Virginia Somerville, Massachusetts
Angel L. Medina John P. O’Connell, Jr.

Department of Public Health Delaware Statistical Analysis Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Dover, Delaware
Lori Melanson Rev. Mary Jane O’Connor

Massachusetts Army National Guard Worcester Fights Back, Inc.
Reading, Massachusetts Worcester, Massachusetts
Charles Messmer Philip O’Donnell

Washington County Health Department Deputy Chief of Police
Hagerstown, Maryland Washington, D.C.
James M. Meyers Johanna O’Flaherty

Seminole Point Hospital Trans World Airlines
Sunapee, New Hampshire Jamaica, New York
Honorable Thomas Miano Daniel O’Keefe

Judge, Connecticut Superior Court Roe Coordinator, WEAE
Hartford, Connecticut Worcester, Massachusetts
Joseph C. Michaels Edward T. O’Leary

County Executive Assistant Chief of Police
Hauppauge, New York Foxborough, Massachusetts
Joseph P. Miele James O’Mara, Jr.

Co-Chairman, Partneship for a Department of Corrections
Drug-Free New Jersey Manchester, New Hampshire
Clifford Minor Sephus Osborn

Essex County Prosecutor Anthony Perkins Community Center
Newark, New Jersey Dorchester, Massachusetts
Danielle E. Moen Joseph T. O’Sullivan

Syracuse- Onondaga Drug and Alcohol Services Commonwealth Energy System, EAP
Syracuse, New York Cambridge, Massachusetts
Michele Montavon JoAnne Page

Worcester Public Schools The Fortune Society
Worcester, Massachusetts New York, New York
Marilyn P. Morey Susan Patrick

Syracuse-Onodaga Drug and Alcohol Services Drugs Don’t Work
Syracuse, New York Hartford, Connecticut
Lu Morrissey Janet Pfeffer

Chief, Drug-Free Schools Talbot Partnership
Maryland Department of Education Easton, Maryland
Kimi Morten Francis Pisegma

Unfoldment, Inc. Governor’s Alliance Against Drugs
Washington, D.C. Boston, Massachusetts
Marcus Mottley Paul M. Plaisted

Giddings School Justice Planning and Management Association
Washington, D.C. Augusta, Maine

Michael Plourde Victoria Ross

Nashua Youth Council, Inc. Middlesex Human Service Agency
Nashua, New Hampshire Waltham, Massachusetts
Floyd O. Pond Duane J. Saari

Maryland Governor’s New York State Office of
Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Frank Porpora Robert Scarrillo

Department of Public Safety Essex County, Sheriff’s Office
Hartford, Connecticut Newark, New Jersey
Robert Potter Elizabeth Scheibel

Habit Management, Inc. District Attorney, Northwest
Boston, Massachusetts Northampton, Massachusetts
J. Bradford Powers Dana Schrad

Criminal Justice Programs Virginia State Crime Commission
Dean College, Massachusetts Richmond, Virginia
Ken Predmore Russell Sciandra

Investigator, Community Development ASTHO Tobacco Control Network
Paterson, New Jersey Washington, D.C.
Virginia Price Joseph Scioli

Bridge Over Troubled Waters, Inc. Amherst Police Department
Boston, Massachusetts Amherst, New York
Martha Raiss Steven Searcy

Police Assisted Community Enforcement Cumberland County Sheriff’s Office
Norfolk, Virginia Portland, Maine
Captain Carol Ann Reese Thomas P. Shamshak

National Guard Bureau Chief of Police
Washington, D.C. Spencer, Massachusetts
Richard Reeser Rosemary Shannon

Director, Bureau of Program Development Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention
Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency Concord, New Hampshire
Riley Regan Ronald Sheldon

Governor’s Council on Alcohol/Drug Abuse Hartford Police Department
Trenton, New Jersey Hartford, Connecticut
Steve Ridini Terrence Sheridan

Framingham Prevention Center Chief, Bureau of Drug Enforcement
Framingham, Massachusetts Maryland State Police
Elaine Riley Dale A.Simpson

Governor’s Committee on Juvenile Justice Marathon, Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts Providence, Rhode Island
John Riordan Mark A. Sindler

Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts Deputy Attorney General, Pennsylvania
Boston, Massachusetts Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Lt. Col. Richard A. Robischeau Betsey Smith

The Adjutant General’s Office Massachusetts State Committee on Criminal Justice
Reading, Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts
Mayra Rodriguez-Howard Gregory V. Smith

Center for Addictive Behaviors Transitional Living Center for Women, Inc.
Salem, Massachusetts Williamsport, Pennsylvania
Michael J. Rosati Harold Sparrow

Director, Carlisle Education Center Massachusetts Prevention Centers
Carlisle, Massachusetts Boston, Massachusetts
David L. Rosenbloom Christine Spaulding

Join Together Administrator, New Hampshire
Boston, Massachusetts Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Hilary Spence Carlos Vera

Talbot County Public Schools Camden Police Department
Easton, Maryland Camden, New Jersey
Richard Stanley Howard C. Vick, Jr.

Chief of Police Henrico County Attorney
North Andover, Massachusetts Richmond, Virginia
Charles Stein Jack Vondras

Nassau County Police Department Cambridge Substance Abuse Task Force
Mineola, New York Cambridge, Massachusetts
Tom Stone Rogene M. Waite

Chief of Police United States Information Agency
Norristown, Pennsylvania Washington, D.C.
Lawrence J. Strickler Laurie Jo Wallace

Governor’s Drug and Alcohol Abuse Commission Massachusetts Prevention Centers
Towson, Maryland Boston, Massachusetts
Ruth Sypher Thomas Ward

Tremont Commonwealth Council New York City Department of Correction
Bronx, New York New York, New York
Marty M. Tapscott Georgette Watson

Chief of Police Governor’s Alliance Against Drugs
Richmond, Virginia Boston, Massachusetts
Venus Taylor William Watson

Massachusetts Prevention Centers Therapeutic Communities, Inc.
Boston, Massachusetts New York, New York
Douglas Thomas Gary Waytes

National Center for Juvenile Justice The Fortune Society
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania New York, New York
Honorable W. Curtis Thomas Joan C. Weiss

House of Representatives Justice Research and Statistics Association
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Washington, D.C.
W. Scott Thornsley Karen L. Welch

Pennsylvania Department of Corrections National Guard Bureau
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania Alexandria, Virginia
Honorable Rosemary S. Tierney Thomas White

Mayor of New Bedford Adcare Hospital
New Bedford, Massachusetts Worchester, Massachusetts
Vincent Tobin Roger Wentworth

Providence Hospital, Methadone Services Social Worker
Holyoke, Massachusetts Saco, Maine
Carol O. Tuohy Thomas H. Williams

Prevention Center for Addictive Behaviors Division of Parole and Probation
Salem, Massachusetts Baltimore, Maryland
Liam J. Tuffy Willie Williams

Massachusetts General Hospital Chief of Police
Boston, Massachusetts Petersburg, Virginia
Joel Urdang William Williford

HALT Community Partnership State Office of Alcoholism/Substance Abuse
Plymouth, Massachusetts Albany, New York
Angelo M. Valente Gilbert Wilson

Partnership for a Drug-Free New Jersey Camden Police Department
Hoboken, New Jersey Camden, New Jersey
Stephen Valle Jennifer Wilson

Right Turn Chelsea Police Department
Lynn, Massachusetts Chelsea, Massachusetts

Tom Wolfe Joyce Ben

Metro West Medical Center, EAP Lafayette Alcohol and Drug Abuse Clinic
Framingham, Massachusetts Lafayette, Louisiana
Ilse Yanis Billy Benford

Office of Alcohol/Drug Abuse Prevention Victory Manor Recovery Center
Concord, New Hampshire Clinton, Mississippi
Bora Benford
SOUTHERN REGIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY Victory Manor Recovery Center
DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE Clinton, Mississippi
Pete Adams Jonetta Faye Bennett

Louisiana District Attorneys Association Louisiana Governor’s Office
Baton Rouge, Louisiana of Drug-Free Schools
Terrie Ainsworth Jeffery Berry

Office of the Attorney General Christian Community Youth Against Drugs
Jackson, Mississippi New Orleans, Louisiana
Thomas Everette Allen Ray Berry

Assistant Chief of Police Department of Mental Health
Russellville, Kentucky Orlando, Florida
Hattie Anthony William Bessenbacher

Fighting Back Sheriff, Bleckley County
Charlotte, North Carolina Cochran, Georgia
Charles M. Ash Lisa Bevington

Employers Drug Program Management, Inc. Health Management Partners, Inc.
Birmingham, Alabama New Orleans, Louisiana
Frank Augustus John Bigger

Sheriff, McCracken County Mercy Hospital
Paducah, Kentucky Charlotte, North Carolina
Dr. Allen L. Ault Mike Blakely

Georgia Department of Corrections Sheriff, Limestone County
Atlanta, Georgia Athens, Alabama
John Baiamonte, Jr. Mark Bollinger

Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Law Enforcement/Traffic Division
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Montgomery, Alabama
Gerald D. Baker Gay Lynn Bond

BPO-ELKS Children’s Bureau of New Orleans
Moss Point, Mississippi New Orleans, Louisiana
Elizabeth Bare John Boren

Associate Attorney General Coweta County Board of Education
Raleigh, North Carolina Newnan, Georgia
Jamie Barker Virginia Borrok

Drug-Free Schools of New Orleans Gateway Community Services
Metairie, Louisiana Jacksonville, Florida
Marilyn Bassett Clarence Bourgeois

Governor’s Commission for The Church of All People
A Drug-Free Indiana New Orleans, Louisiana
Walter Becker, Jr. Jim Boyd

Assistant United States Attorney Franklin County Attorney
New Orleans, Louisiana Frankfort, Kentucky
Eric O. Bell John F. Boyd

Sheriff, Chester County Bureau Alcohol and Drug Abuse Service
Henderson, Tennessee Nashville, Tennessee
Archie T. Ben Gregory Brand

Port of New Orleans Harbor Police Hollywood Police Department
New Orleans, Louisiana Hollywood, Florida

George Braucht Oscar Carter, III

Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles Dr. O.E. Carter Memorial Clinic
Atlanta, Georgia New Orleans, Louisiana
John Brooks Louie Caudell

Assistant Chief of Police Chief of Police
Miami, Florida Little Rock, Arkansas
Walton Brooks Janice Chestnutt

Metro Fugitive Squad Columbus County, North Carolina
Atlanta, Georgia Alcohol and Drug Prevention Coalition
Bonnie Broussard Dr. Andrew Chishom

Assistant to Mayor Substance Abuse Prevention Center
Abbeville, Louisiana Columbia, South Carolina
Dale Broussard John Chmielewski

Violent Crimes/Narcotics Task Force Bureau of Alcohol/Drug Abuse Prevention
Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association Little Rock, Arkansas
Honorable Maurice Brown Marlon Choate

Mayor of White Castle Winston-Salem Police Department
White Castle, Louisiana Winston-Salem, North Carolina
Heather Buda Brenda Clark

Crimnie Parish Sheriff’s Office Tennessee Department of Corrections
New Orleans, Louisiana Nashville, Tennessee
J. Peter Bunce Jim Clark

One Great River Arkansas State Crime Laboratory
Shreveport, Louisiana Little Rock, Arkansas
Donald Burgess Donald Coffey

Catawba County Sheriff’s Department Metro-Dade County, Florida
Newton, North Carolina Corrections and Rehabilitation Department
Ollie Burns David Cole

New Way Center Madison County Community Partnership
Monroe, Louisiana Richmond, Kentucky
Fred Burton Bracy H. Coleman

Lebanon City Council Assistant Chief of Police
Lebanon, Tennessee Jackson, Mississippi
Johnnie Caldwell, Jr. Shirley D. Coletti

District Attorney Operation PAR, Inc.
Thomaston, Georgia St. Petersburg, Florida
Tommy Callahan Hugh Collins

Criminal Investigation Division Supreme Court of Louisiana
Tennessee Highway Patrol New Orleans, Louisiana
Jeanette Cannada Astrid Oyola Colon

National Family Partnership of South Carolina Administrator, ASSMCA
Greenville, South Carolina Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
James Alton Cannon, Jr. Ron Combs

Sheriff, Charleston County Assistant City Attorney
Charleston Heights, South Carolina Gainesville, Florida
Dr. Ernest Cantley Harry Connick

Stewart-Marchman Center Orleans Parish District Attorney
Daytona Beach, Florida New Orleans, Louisiana
Cono Caranna Major Penelope L. Cook

District Attorney 377th Theater Army Area Command
Gulfport, Mississippi New Orleans, Louisiana
Cathy Carson Paul Crow

Program Manager, AACSB Daytona Beach Public Safety Department
Albany, Georgia Daytona Beach, Florida

John Cuesta III Norris Faulkner, Jr.

Deputy Chief of Police Sheriff, Union County
Tampa, Florida New Albany, Mississippi
Marilyn Wagner Culp Mary Jane Fenner

Executive Director, Miami, Florida Chairman - DOTS
Coalition for a Safe/Drug-Free Community New Orleans, Louisiana
John Cupp Donald Feulner

Sheriff, Hamilton County The Center for Drug-Free Living
Chattanooga, Tennessee Orlando, Florida
Carol Custard John R. Forsyth

Therapy Association Recovery Center Florida Department Education
Chamblee, Georgia Tallahassee, Florida
Jane Daughtridge Mark Fraiser

Mid-East Commission Prosecuting Attorney
Washington, North Carolina Little Rock, Arkansas
Alice M. Day Kurt D. Frederick

Longview Drug Task Force Criminal Justice Administration
Longview, Texas Nashville, Tennessee
Linda B. Day D.W. Froshour

Director of Drug Policy Investigator, Madison/Rankin County
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Brandon, Mississippi
Lt. Col. Larry H. Deblieux Dean Frost

Louisiana National Guard Department of Education
New Orleans, Louisiana Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Roxanna De Soto Bufus Gammons

Partnership for a Drug-Free Puerto Rico Operation PAR, Inc.
San Juan, Puerto Rico St. Petersburg, Florida
Greg Dill Gary Garner

Greater New Orleans Teen Challenge Georgia Bureau of Investigation
New Orleans, Louisiana Decatur, Georgia
Lt. Col. William Douglas George Garrison

Florida National Guard Athens-Clark County Drug Task Force
St. Augustine, Florida Athens, Georgia
Winston C. Dowdell Dr. Robert Gaston

Coweta County School System Anti-Drug Task Force
Newnan, Georgia Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Airman C.J. Eady Richard Geisel

Louisiana Air National Guard Community Action Youth Service
New Orleans, Louisiana Newport, Vermont
Ray Eastman William Gibson

Director, D.A.R.E. Southeast District Attorney General
Raleigh, North Carolina Cookeville, Tennessee
Morris East Matthew Gissen

Louisiana Department of Education The Village
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Miami, Florida
Mara English Reginald Gladney

The Village South Carolina Department
St. Croix, Virgin Islands Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services
Sam Evins Reginald Grace, Sr.

Director of Risk Management Department of Public Safety and Corrections
Gainsville, Florida Baton Rouge, Louisiana
James Farley Louis Graham

Broward County Sheriff’s Office Chief of Police, Fulton County
Fort Lauderdale, Florida Atlanta, Georgia

Tony Green
Program to Aid Drug-Abusers Bobbie Hill
Lakeland, Florida Corrections Corporation of America
Nashville, Tennessee
Jill Griffin
Executive Director Sandra D. Hudson
Metropolitan Drug Commission Rome Housing Authority
Knoxville, Tennessee Rome, Georgia
Captain Pat Griffin James Huger

Louisiana National Guard Stewart-Marchman Center
New Orleans, Louisiana Daytona Beach, Florida
Anthony Guercio Randall Hundley

Chief of Police Lafayette Police Department
White Castle, Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana
Kristina M. Gulick Jerry Hunt

Palm Beach County Criminal Justice Lebanon City Council
West Palm Beach, Florida Lebanon, Tennessee
E. Douglas Hamilton Richard P. Ieyoub

Chief of Police Attorney General, Louisiana
Louisville, Kentucky Department of Justice
Eryleen Hammons Ray Isgett

Tri-County Substance Abuse Prevention Alliance Sheriff, Berkeley County
Barbourville, Kentucky Moncks Corner, South Carolina
Thurman B. Hampton Carl Jackson

North Carolina Department of Louisiana Commission on Law
Crime Control and Public Safety Enforcement and Administration of Justice
Benny Harding Valera Jackson

McCracken County Sheriff’s Department The Village
Paducah, Kentucky Miami, Florida
Theresa Harris Byron James

Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals The Church of All People
Baton Rouge, Louisiana New Orleans, Louisiana
Barbara Hartt Tacuma S. Jawara

Department of Juvenile Justice Love That Child, Inc.
Columbia, South Carolina Douglesville, Georgia
Dr. Hazel Harvey Venus E. Jawara

Office of Community Relations Love That Child, Inc.
Tampa, Florida Douglesville, Georgia
Dr. Jerry Harvey Alonza Jiles

County Administrator’s Office The Lord’s Ranch
Tampa, Florida Warm Springs, Arkansas
James R. Hawkes Dietrich R. Johnson

Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals Longview Drug Task Force
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Longview, Texas
Jonathan Hayden Harold Johnson

Deputy Sheriff, McCracken County Chief of Police
Paducah, Kentucky Mobile, Alabama
Colleen Hayes Gordon R. Jolly

Alachua County Board of Commissioners Chief of Police
Gainsville, Florida Sarasota, Florida
Audine Haynes Brenda Jones

Washington County Anti-Drug Task Force Memphis Police Department
Greenville, Mississippi Memphis, Tennessee
Captain Frank Hijuelos Clinton K. Jones

Louisiana National Guard Fayetteville City Prosecutor
New Orleans, Louisiana Fayetteville, Arkansas

Mark A. Jones Joe Mauz

Governor’s Crime Commission Miami HIDTA
Raleigh, North Carolina Miami, Florida
Eddie J. Jordan, Jr. Mark A. May

United States Attorney Hollywood Police Department
New Orleans, Louisiana Hollywood, Florida
Paula C. Kemp Porter McAteer

National Families in Action Gaston County Board of Commissioners
Atlanta, Georgia Gastonia, North Carolina
Sylvia Kennedy William R. McDonald

Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Undersheriff, Monroe County
Human Services Authority Key West, Florida
Bob Kennington Neal A. McGarry

Metro-Davidson County Detention Center Board of Addiction Professionals
Nashville, Tennessee Tallahassee, Florida
John T. Kitchens Roy J. McKuhen

District Attorney, Madison/Rankin County Department of Finance
Brandon, Mississippi Nashville, Tennessee
Dr. Hobert Kornegay Kelly McLendon

Supervisor, Loauderdale County Drug Task Force
Meridian, Mississippi Buchanan, Georgia
Mary Claire Landry Joel R. McSwain

Odyssey House Louisiana, Inc. Drug Task Force
New Orleans, Louisiana Buchanan, Georgia
Robert Landry Mary Carol Melton

Texas State Coordinator Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
Pasadena, Texas Metairie, Louisiana
Chainie Lang Carolyn Meurrier

The Village STAND Coalition
Miami, Florida Forrest City, Arkansas
Barrown Lankster Pam Middleton

District Attorney Drug Abuse Treatment Association, Inc.
Alabama 17th Judicial Circuit Jupiter, Florida
Major Edgar Lewis III Suzette Mikell

Florida National Guard Partnership for a Drug-Free Community
St. Augustine, Florida Huntsville, Alabama
N. Ann Lowrance Michael Miller

Oklahoma Domestic Violence Metropolitan Nashville, Tennessee
Department of Mental Health Services Social Service Department
Sam Lynn Geralyn A. Minor

Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Federal Bureau of Investigation
Largo, Florida New Orleans, Louisiana
Debra Maggio Ed M. Mitchell

Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement Assistant City Administrator
Baton Rouge, Louisiana West Palm Beach, Florida
James Mallory Sam Mitchell

Department of Human Resources Serenity House of Volusia, Inc.
Atlanta, Georgia Daytona Beach, Florida
Donald Manning Natalie Mittag

Metro Dade County, Florida Governor’s Crime Commission
Corrections and Rehabilitation Department Raleigh, North Carolina
Dario Mojica Martinez Gary Moore

Department of Education Broward County Sheriff’s Office
San Juan, Puerto Rico Fort Lauderdale, Florida

James Moore Rick Peterson

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Lafayette Police Department
Crossville, Tennessee Lafayette, Louisiana
Ben O. Morris Majken Peterzen

Chief of Police Florida Prevention Association
Slidell, Louisiana Tallahassee, Florida
Lt. Col. John Mosbey Lisa Pettit

Air National Guard Assistant District Attorney
Washington, D.C. Floyd County, Georgia
Judy Mouton John Pigott

Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement Mobile County Sheriff’s Department
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Mobile, Alabama
Rosemary Mumm Jan Platt

District Attorney’s Office Metro Development and Housing Agency
New Orleans, Louisiana Nashville, Tennessee
Tim Nelson Robert Radford

North Carolina Bureau of Investigation District Attorney General
Greenville, North Carolina Huntingdon, Tennessee
Charles Newfield Philip Ramer

Birmingham Police Department Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Birmingham, Alabama Tampa, Florida
Margaret Nicely Carol Reeves

Orleans County, Vermont National Family Partnership
Prevention Partnership, Inc. Greenville, South Carolina
J. Terry Norris Honorable Justice Lyle Reid

Criminal Justice Coordinating Council Tennessee Supreme Court
Atlanta, Georgia Nashville, Tennessee
Joseph Orticke, Jr. Robert Rhoden, Jr.

Superintendent of Police Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice
New Orleans, Louisiana New Orleans, Louisiana
Dee S. Owens Charles H. Rhyne

Deputy Commissioner, SAS Mobile Housing Board
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Mobile, Alabama
Trey Ourso Nicholas U. Richard

Department of Justice Thibodaux Police Department
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Thibodaux, Louisiana
Kenneth Pack Billy R. Riggs

Sheriff, Dekalb County Chief of Police
Smithville, Tennessee West Palm Beach, Florida
Simone Patin Alan Roberts

Governor’s Drug-Free Schools Fort Lauderdale Police Department
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Fort Lauderdale, Florida
George H. Payne, Jr. Joel H. Robinson

Chief of Police Sheriff, Barrow County
Gulfport, Mississippi Winder, Georgia
Leora F. Penman Bill Rousselo

Equifax Medical Products Riverbend Recovery Center
San Diego, California North Little Rock, Arkansas
George Perkins Ann Rowe

Wellness Institute, Inc. Mobile Bay, Alabama
Louisville, Kentucky Area Partnership for Youth
Gene Peter Sue Rusche

Kentucky Justice Cabinet National Families In Action
Frankfort, Kentucky Atlanta, Georgia

Avis Marie Russell C. H. Straub II

City Attorney Bureau of Justice Assistance
New Orleans, Louisiana Washington, D.C.
Ann Rutherford Ted Suhl

Therapy Associates Recovery Center The Lord’s Ranch
Chamblee, Georgia Warm Springs, Arkansas
Peter Safir John E. Tellis

Area Mental Health Authority New Day Life Foundation, Inc.
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Farmerville, Louisiana
Peggy B. Sapp Herbert Terry

Informed Families of Dade County, Inc. Division of Public Safety Planning
Miami, Florida Jackson, Mississippi
Tommy Savant Bernadette Thibodaux

Madison/Rankin County Alcohol and Drug Abuse Council
Brandon, Mississippi Houma, Louisiana
Tina Selmore J.R. Thomas

Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice Chief of Police
New Orleans, Louisiana Searcy, Arkansas
Vernon J. Shorty Randy Thompson

Narcotics Rehabilitation Center, Inc. Barrow County Sheriff’s Office
New Orleans, Louisiana Winder, Georgia
Senator Rolando A. Silva Harold Troy, Sr.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Columbus County, North Carolina
Public Safety Committee Alcohol and Drug Prevention Coalition
Jimmie Smith Dawn Tucker

Supervisor, District Two Louisiana Governor’s Office of
Lauderdale County, Mississippi Drug-Free Schools and Communities
Judy S. Smith Ned Valois

State Representative Metro-Dade Police Department
Arkansas General Assembly Miami, Florida
Robert L. Smith John Van Rider

Public Safety Administrator Homestead Police Department
Tampa, Florida Homestead, Florida
Helene Smollett Thomas W. Vaughan

Office of the Governor Sheriff, Hendry County
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands LaBelle, Florida
Deborah Soule Ninky Vickers

Partnership for a Drug-Free Community Mobile Bay, Alabama
Huntsville, Alabama Area Partnership for Youth
Gaylord Sprauve Michael Vitt

Office of the Governor Deputy Chief of Police
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands Jackson, Mississippi
Rendel Stalvey Joan M. Vogel

Georgia Department Education Baton Rouge Detox Center
Atlanta, Georgia Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Don Steger Erich Von Hackney

Assistant City Manager Robeson County Sheriff’s Department
Charlotte, North Carolina Lumberton, North Carolina
Flo A. Stein Charles F. Wagner

Division of Mental Health District Attorney
Raleigh, North Carolina Alexandria, Louisiana
Julie Stevens William J. Walker

Challenge, Inc. Georgetown, South Carolina
Fort Worth, Texas County Alcohol and Drug Center

Jim Ward Susan Aktary

Riverbend Recovery Center Michigan Department of Education
North Little Rock, Arkansas Lansing, Michigan
Richard H. Warfel Lonnetta Albright

River Region Human Services TASC, Inc.
Jacksonville, Florida Chicago, Illinois
Mary Helen Warren Frank Alcala

Tri-County Substance Abuse Prevention Alliance Chief of Police
Barbourville, Kentucky East Chicago, Indiana
Ken Welch Iphra Genera Allen

Louisiana Takes A Stand, Inc. Milwaukee Medical Clinic
Neal Llano, Louisiana Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jerald D. Wheeler Jeanette Moore Allen

Southaven Police Department Life Works Chemical Dependency
Southaven, Mississippi Bolingbrook, Illinois
Bonnie White Keith Anderson

Rapides Parish School System Redford Police
Alexandria, Louisiana Redford, Michigan
Pamela White Edwin Andrews

Nashville Prevention Partnership Hopedale Medical Complex
Nashville, Tennessee Hopedale, Illinois
Joel Widell Daphne Baille

Monroe County Sheriff’s Office TASC, Inc.
Key West, Florida Chicago, Illinois
Nanon Wiles Madeleine Baird

Georgia Department of Corrections Prevention Services Coordinator
Atlanta, Georgia Downers Grove, Illinois
Julius Wilkerson Thomas Baker

The Velocity Foundation, Inc. Illinois Criminal Justice
New Orleans, Louisiana Information Authority
Derya Williams Terence Bardell

River Region Human Services Lake County Mental Health
Jacksonville, Florida Waukegan, Illinois
Jaslene Williams Garth Barker

Division of Mental Health Fountain Centers
St. Croix, Virgin Islands Albert Lea, Minnesota
John J. Williams, Jr. Rose Barrett

Louisiana District Attorneys Association Supervisor, Group Home
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Red Lake, Minnesota
John Wilson David Basile

Deputy Director Chicago Heights Police Department
Miami HIDTA Chicago Heights, Illinois
Barbara Witten Michael Bass

Bluegrass Regional Mental Health U.S. Probation Office
Richmond, Kentucky Chicago, Illinois
Byron Wong Kevin J. Baxter

Bureau of Justice Assistance Prosecutor, Erie County
Washington, D.C. Sandusky, Ohio
Barbara Bell
MIDWEST REGIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY Comprand Youth and Women’s Services
DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE Chicago, Illinois
Michelle Adams John Bentley

Prevention Services, In Touch Illinois Probation/Court Services
Grayslake, Illinois Springfield, Illinois

Diane Berger William Burgin

Gateway Foundation Minnesota Department of Corrections
Chicago, Illinois Street Paul, Minnesota
Loretta L. Berry David Burke

Life Works Chemical Dependency Center Wisconsin Certification Board
Bolingbrook, Illinois Madison, Wisconsin
Kent Berton Patrick H. Burke

Tellurian Community, Inc. National Guard Bureau
Madison, Wisconsin Washington, D.C.
Michele Bianchi Yvonne Butchee

Central States Institute of Addiction Midwest Regional Center
Chicago, Illinois Oak Brook, Illinois
Joanne Bieschke Jacqueline Butler

Cook County, Illinois University of Cincinnati
Sheriff’s Youth Services Department Cincinnati, Ohio
Alex Borowski Robert Campbell

Cherokee Nation Lifelink/Bensenville Home Society
Tahlequah, Oklahoma Bensenville, Illinois
Dennis E. Both Donald Capp

Town Attorney Lake County Coordinating Alliance
Cicero, Illinois Gary, Indiana
Sue Bozek Michael Carey

Iowa City Community Schools Drug Specialist Court Services
Iowa City, Iowa Urbana, Illinois
Harold Bradley Bernard A. Carter

Elrose Health Services, Inc. Lake County Prosecutor
Detroit, Michigan Crown Point, Indiana
Tom Brenneman Ricardo Chavarria

Undersheriff East Chicago Police Department
St. John, Kansas East Chicago, Indiana
Honorable Judge Coy E. Brewer, Jr. Keely Childress

Senior Resident Superior Court Chicago Commons
Fayetteville, North Carolina Chicago, Illinois
Tyree Broomfield Michael D. Childress

Office Criminal Justice Services University Park Police Department
Columbus, Ohio University Park, Illinois
David Bruess Suzanne Chisum

Lieutenant of Detectives Human Support Services
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Waterloo, Illinois
Moira Murphy Brunk Barbara A. Cimaglio

Department of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Director, Illinois Department of
Chicago, Illinois Alcoholism and Substance Abuse
Gail J. Bruss Joseph Claps

Ozaukee Council, Inc. First Assistant Attorney General
Grafton, Wisconsin Chicago, Illinois
Ky Ann Buck Cheryl Clark

County Attorney County Commissioner
St. John, Kansas Lapeer County, Michigan
John T. Buck Ronald Clark

Redford Police Management Information Supervisor
Redford, Michigan Illinois State Police Academy
Terre Buck Harold W. Clarke

TASC, Inc. Director, Nebraska
Chicago, Illinois Department of Correctional Services

J. David Coldren Mae J. Demps

Office of International Criminal Justice Executive Director, S.A.F.E.
Chicago, Illinois Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Patrick J. Coleman Bobby Denman

Substance Abuse Program Coordinator New Age Services Corporation
Iowa Department of Corrections Chicago, Illinois
Johnny Colon-Gonzalez James Dercks

Advisor to Governor Wisconsin Association on Alcohol/Drug Abuse
San Juan, Puerto Rico Kimberly, Wisconsin
Bill J. Conner Carol Derr

Hammond Police Department Probation Officer
Hammond, Indiana Royal Oak, Illinois
Debra Craig Phyllis Dettman

New Age Services Corporation National Family Partnership
Chicago, Illinois St. Louis, Missouri
Robert J. Craig Eleanor Devlin

West Side VA Medical Center NOVA Therapeutic Community, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois Omaha, Nebraska
William Crimi Master Sergeant George Doberstzyn

Franklin County Prevention Institute Illinois National Guard
Columbus, Ohio Chicago, Illinois
Carolyn Cystrunk Judith Donovan

Lake County Community Action Project Kansas Department of Social and
Waukegan, Illinois Rehabilitation Services
Cullen L. Cullen Andrew Douvris

Madison County Educational Services Northeastern Metropolitan Enforcement Group
Edwardsville, Illinois Broadview, Illinois
Deborah Culp Linda Drager

Elrose Health Services, Inc. Illinois State Police Academy
Detroit, Michigan Springfield, Illinois
Nancy Cunningham Susie Dugan

Center for Drug-Free Schools PRIDE-Omaha, Inc.
Louisville, Kentucky Omaha, Nebraska
Ardith DaFoe Honorable Richard Durbin

Office of Drug Control Policy Congressman, 20th District
Lansing, Michigan U.S. House of Representatives
Laurel Dahl Charlene Dyer

NICASA Homewood Police Department
Round Lake, Illinois Homewood, Illinois
Tom Dailey David Early

Chief of Police Romulus Police Department
Kansas City, Kansas Romulus, Michigan
Michael Darcy Craig Eckert

Gateway Foundation, Inc. Center for Child and Family Development
Chicago, Illinois Norman, Oklahoma
Joan Daumen Ronald Eckoff

InTouch Education Service Network Iowa Department of Public Health
Morris, Illinois Des Moines, Iowa
Joseph M. Davitt Mary Ellison

Omaha Police Department Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office
Omaha, Nebraska St. Paul, Minnesota
Mike DeCouroy Mary Ann Ewert

Deputy Prosecutor Missouri Association of
Johnson County, Indiana Community Task Forces (MissouriACT)

Mary Feerick Rafael Gonzalez

Cook County, Illinois Milwaukee County Fighting Back
Sheriff’s Youth Services Department Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Linda Fensler Diane Griffin

Hindale Hospital Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
Hinsdale, Illinois Chicago, Illinois
Denis Ferguson Steven Guerra

DuPage County Health Department Illinois Prevention Resource Center
Wheaton, Illinois Chicago, Illinois
Thomas P. Fitzgerald Judith Hain

Sheriff, Will County Governor’s Commission for
Joliet, Illinois a Drug-Free Indiana
Michael Florek Judith Hammer

Tellurian UCAN Center for Child and Family Development
Madison, Wisconsin Norman, Oklahoma
Major Tom Ford Lance D. Hamner

Illinois National Guard Johnson County Prosecutor
Springfield, Illinois Franklin, Indiana
Beverly Frazier William Hampton

Elrose Health Services, Inc. Ann Arbor Police Department
Detroit, Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan
Anita Fream Karla Hancock

Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools Senior Assistant Attorney
Norman, Oklahoma Hennepin County, Minnesota
Delmar Free Tom Hanley

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Akron Police Department
Winnebago, Nebraska Akron, Ohio
Judy Fried Ann Hansen

Northern Illinois Council on Alcoholism Michigan Communities In Action
Round Lake, Illinois Birmingham, Michigan
Kara Gallup Linda Hanson

Family/Social Services Administration Haymarket House
Indianapolis, Indiana Chicago, Illinois
Terrance W. Gainer Dennis Hanwell

Director Medina Police Department
Illinois State Police Medina, Ohio
Anne Ganey Chaka Harper

Community Drug Prevention Project Brass Foundation
Mankato, Minnesota Chicago, Illinois
Ronald Garcia Keith Harris

Chief, Organized Crime Division Governor’s Commission for
Chicago Police Department a Drug-Free Indiana
David Gasperin Jeanne Hayes

TASC, Inc. Substance Abuse Coordinator
Chicago, Illinois Chesterton, Indiana
John Geier J. Thomas Head

DuPage County Health Department Federal Bureau of Investigation
Wheaton, Illinois Little Rock, Arkansas
Jack Gilligan Carolyn B. Healy

Fayette Companies Director, Healy and Associates
Peoria, Illinois Joliet, Illinois
Tracy Gilmore Melody M. Heaps

Mid City Addiction Team President, TASC, Inc.
Des Moines, Iowa Chicago, Illinois

Honorable Dale A. Henry Ruth Costello Johnson

Mayor of Springfield Lake County, Illinois
Springfield, Ohio Health Department
Carla Hess Tracy Johnson

Gateway Foundation, Inc. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Services
Chicago, Illinois Freeport, Illinois
Carlos D. Hevia Barbara Jones-Jackson

Northeastern Metropolitan Enforcement Group South Suburban Mayors/Managers
Broadview, Illinois East Hazel Crest, Illinois
Honorable Judge Thomas Heydinger Fawn E. Jones

Juvenile and Probate Court Neighborhood Partnership
Huron County, Ohio Lansing, Michigan
Les Higgenbottom Michael Jones

The Milwaukee Women’s Center Nebraska State Patrol
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Omaha, Nebraska
Michael W. Hoke Mildra Jones

Chicago Police Department Milwaukee Health Service System
Chicago, Illinois Milwaukee, Wisconsin
S. Rebecca Holland William Jones

TASC, Inc. Minneapolis Police Department
Chicago, Illinois Minneapolis, Minnesota
Jerome Houfek, Nola Joyce

Drug-Free Workplace Network Chicago Police Department
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Chicago, Illinois
Dona L. Howell Richard Kalm

ADAPT, JCCMHC Macomb County Sheriff’s Department
Carbondale, Illinois Mt. Clemens, Michigan
Technical Sergeant Cherie Hunter Gordon Karim

Illinois National Guard Midwest Regional Center
Major Roberta Isch James Keathley

Illinois National Guard Drug and Crime Control
Springfield, Illinois Missouri State Highway Patrol
Adrienne Jackson Daniel Kechel

Brass Foundation Four County Counseling Center
Chicago, Illinois Logansport, Indiana
Ellsworth Jackson Heather Kehrli

Elrose Health Services, Inc. Dupage Prevention Partnership
Detroit, Michigan Wheaton, Illinois
Wayne Jackson Brendan Kelly

Elrose Health Services, Inc. Des Plaines Police Department
Detroit, Michigan Des Plaines, Illinois
Steven Janes Bridget Kelly-Korchak

Chicago Teen Challenge Area-Coordinator, TASC, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois Chicago, Illinois
Jose Jerez John Kemper

Community Mental Health Center Missouri Division of Youth Services
Chicago, Illinois Columbia, Missouri
Betty E. Johnson Nellie Kendrick

Safe Coalition Milwaukee Health Service System
Cedar Rapids, Iowa Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Senior Airman Kenneth Johnson Jayne Kiel

Illinois National Guard Employee Resources, Inc.
Chicago, Illinois Buffalo, New York

Jack King Joyce Lohrentz

Guildhaus Illinois Drug
Blue Island, Illinois Education Alliance, IDEA
N. Steven King James Long

Nebraska Correctional Services Special Assistant for Violence/Gangs
Lincoln, Nebraska Illinois State Governor’s Office
John Kizhakedan Mike Lowther

DuPage Township Committee on Youth Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools
Bolingbrook, Illinois Norman, Oklahoma
Barbara J. Knutson Susan Lynch

Michigan Department of Education District Attorney
Lansing, Michigan Portage County, Wisconsin
Judy Kreamer Catherine MacIntyre

President, Illinois Drug International Institute on Inhalant Abuse
Education Alliance, IDEA Englewood, Colorado
Mary Ann Kren Sergeant Charles Mammoser

Department of Children and Family Services Illinois National Guard
Springfield, Illinois Chicago, Illinois
Kent Kuhlman John Manuel

Evanston Police Department Warden, Dayton Correctional Institution
Evanston, Illinois Dayton, Ohio
Janice Kwiatkowski Susan B. Marshall

Elrose Health Services, Inc. Indiana Prosecutor’s Office
Detroit, Michigan Mt. Vernon, Indiana
Calvin Kyles Terry M. Marshall

University City, Missouri ATTIC Correctional Services, Inc.
Community Partnership Madison, Wisconsin
Kelly Lambert Nancy Martin

Kane County States Attorney’s Office Cook County Adult Probation Department
Saint Charles, Illinois Chicago, Illinois
Terri L. Landwehr Steve Martin

Wisconsin Department of Corrections Franklin County Sheriff’s Office
Madison, Wisconsin Columbus, Ohio
Charles W. Larson Eldoris J. Mason

Drug Enforcement/Abuse Prevention BRASS Foundation, Inc.
Coordinator, Iowa Governor’s Alliance Chicago, Illinois
Kathy Larsson Emily Mason

Eastern Illinois University Project C.U.R.E., Inc.
Marion, Illinois Dayton, Ohio
Captain Christopher Lawson Jessica Maxey

Illinois National Guard TASC, Inc.
Springfield, Illinois Chicago, Illinois
William Lee Mike May

P.A.R.I. Oak Park Illinois Police Department
Detroit, Michigan Oak Park, Illinois
Clyde Lemons, Jr. Ann McDermott

Chief, Prosecution Task Force Wisconsin Justice Assistance
Illinois Attorney General’s Office Madison, Wisconsin
Thomas J. Leonard Barbara McDonald

Chief of Police Chicago Police Department
University Park, Illinois Chicago, Illinois
Joanna Lloyd Nancy McDonald

Region VI Mental Health/Substance Abuse Substance Abuse Case Manager
Omaha, Nebraska Kalamazoo County, Michigan

John McKearn Joseph Newport

Kettle Moraine Treatment Center, Inc. Terre Haute Police Department
West Allis, Wisconsin Terre Haute, Indiana
Nancy McLean Bradford Nichols

Senior Assistant Attorney Detroit Health Department
Hennepin County, Minnesota Detroit, Michigan
Ronald D. McVeigh Honorable Judge Seth Norman

Kansas Criminal Justice Criminal Court
Coordinating Council Davidson County, Tennessee
Mike Mermel Elizabeth Y. O’Bryant

Lake County States Attorney’s Office Milwaukee Health Service System
Waukegan, Illinois Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Joseph E. Mills III Michael Oelrich

Governor’s Commission Center for Alcohol and Drug Services
for a Drug-Free Indiana Davenport, Iowa
Carlos Mitchem James L. Olson

Evanston Police Department Sheriff, Grundy County
Evanston, Illinois Morris, Illinois
Ambrose Moore John O’Nan

Evanston Police Department Erie County Drug Task Force
Evanston, Illinois Sandusky, Ohio
Gregory D. Moore Herman O’Neil

Chief of Police New Age Services Corporation
Pagedale, Missouri Chicago, Illinois
Karen Morris Jose Ortiz

Comprehensive Services, Inc. Chicago Department of Health
Detroit, MI Chicago, Illinois
Daniel Moses Karla Osantowski

Evanston Police Department Chief of Police
Evanston, Illinois Chicago Heights, Illinois
James Mostley Debra Palandech

Milwaukee County Fighting Back Assistant to the Lieutenant Governor
Milwaukee, Wisconsin State of Illinois
Ethel Mull David A. Parker

TASC, Inc. Director of Public Safety
Chicago, Illinois Redford, Michigan
Honorable Rita Mullins Donald E. Parker

Mayor Chief of Police
Palatine, Illinois Freeport, Illinois
Douglas Murphy Ronald Pavlock

Chief of Police President, Illinois
Kinsley, Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police
James D. Murphy Frank Peak

Minneapolis Police Department N.E.T.W.O.R.K.
Minneapolis, Minnesota Omaha, Nebraska
Robert E. Nall John Jeffrey Pearcy

Sheriff, Adams County Wisconsin Certification Board, Inc.
Quincy, Illinois Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Ed Nestor Barbara Pearson

Chesterfield Police Chamber of Commerce
Chesterfield, Missouri Chicago, Illinois
Mary Neubauer Colonel David Perlman

Milwaukee County Fighting Back Illinois National Guard
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Springfield, Illinois

Robert Peterson Annie Reid

Director, Office of Drug Control Policy Milwaukee Health Service System
Lansing, Michigan Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Wilson H. Pierce Kimberley K. Rhoades

Chief of Police Prosecuting Attorney
Country Club Hills, Illinois Mt. Vernon, Indiana
Kristine Phillips Thomas Ridley

U.S. Probation Office New Age Services Corporation
Senior Airman Theresa Plese John Ristow

Illinois National Guard Alcona Community Schools
Chicago, Illinois Lincoln, Michigan
Monica Pope Vincent Ritacca

Kettle Moraine Treatment Centers, Inc. Wisconsin Substance Abuse Service
Milwaukee, Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin
Miguel Prieto Anthony Rizzato

Hispanic UMADAOP Central States Institute of Addiction
Cleveland, Ohio Chicago, Illinois
Roger Przybylski Marilyn McCoy Roberts

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority National Center for State Courts
Chicago, Illinois Arlington, Virginia
Gary V. Pumilia Richard K. Robins

Public Defender, Winnebago County Columbus, Ohio
Rockford, Illinois
Fred L. Rodgers
Pamela Purdie Youth Services Department
TASC, Inc. Aurora, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Feliciano Rodriguez
Major Thomas Purple East Chicago Police Department
Illinois National Guard East Chicago, Indiana
Springfield, Illinois
Julio Rodriguez
Charles Ramsey Chicago Department of Health
Chicago Police Department Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Pam Rodriguez
Richard Randall TASC, Inc.
Sheriff, Kendall County Chicago, Illinois
Yorkville, Illinois
Martha Rueter
James Rapp Research Scientist
Lansing Police Department Ames, Iowa
Lansing, Michigan
Richard Sargent
John W. Rau South Omaha Counseling Agency
Waukesha County Council - AODA Omaha, Nebraska
Waukesha, Wisconsin
Rosellen Sand
Michael F. Reagan Office of the Attorney General
Project Rehab Bismarck, North Dakota
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Myron Scafe
Gary Rebenstorf Chief of Police
City Attorney/Director of Law Overland Park, Kansas
Wichtia, Kansas
Donald Scantlin
Julie Reckinger Chief of Police
Center for Alcohol and Drug Services Stafford, Kansas
Davenport, Iowa
Catherine Scott
Marva Lloyd Redd Drug-Free Rockford Community Partnership
Saint Louis County Youth Programs Rockford, Illinois
Clayton, Missouri

David Scott Robert Sweet

Elrose Health Services, Inc. CompDrug, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan Columbus, Ohio
John Scully Hope Taft

Assistant U.S. Attorney Community Liaison, Ohio Parents
Chicago, Illinois for Drug-Free Youth
Matthew Sekula Pamela Tate

Department of Community Supervision Chicago Department of Health
Donald R. Shelton Robert Taylor

Missouri State Highway Patrol Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
Jefferson City, Missouri Chicago, Illinois
William Shepherd Larry Thompson

Mid City Addiction Team New Age Services Corporation
Des Moines, Iowa Chicago, Illinois
Burnice L. Smallwood Sam Todaro

Bureau of Justice Assistance Buffalo Laborers Union
Washington, D.C. Buffalo, New York
Charles Smith Al Tomaso

Office of the Ohio Attorney General Cook County, Illinois
Columbus, Ohio State’s Attorney Office
Linda Spare Carey Tradewell

Life Works Chemical Dependency Centers The Milwaukee Women’s Center
Chicago Heights, Illinois Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Robert Spence Specialist Steven Troccoli

Assistant State’s Attorney Illinois National Guard
DuPage County, Illinois Chicago, Illinois
Colleen Stafford Lorie Tudor

Connexion, Inc. State of Delaware
Flint, Michigan Office of Prevention
Barb Stanek Melody Twilla

Hillsboro Youth Futures Tellurian UCAN Inc.
Kendall, Wisconsin Madison, Wisconsin
Brenda J. Stanislawski Russell C. Underwood

Ozaukee Council, Inc. Des Moines Police Department
Grafton, Wisconsin Des Moines, Iowa
Sue Starck Ruth Varnado

Tellurian UCAN Inc. Lincoln Park Community Center, Inc.
Madison, Wisconsin Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Geraldine Stevenson Patricia M. Veach

Elrose Health Services, Inc. Manistee County Juvenile Court
Detroit, Michigan Manistee, Michigan
Randall Stewart Teresa Verbsky

Assistant U.S. Attorney Korner Klub - Teen Center
Northern District of Indiana Hillsboro, Wisconsin
Lois Suchomski Gerald Vigdal

Illinois Department of Public Health Wisconsin Department of Corrections
Springfield, Illinois Madison, Wisconsin
Tamara Sullivan Carmelita Wagner

PRIDE Cook County Sheriff’s Department
Loveland, Ohio Chicago, Illinois
James Swartz Donna Wagner

TASC Inc. Center for Drug-Free Schools

Robert Warner, Jr. Samuel O. Woodson

Interventions Corporation Tri-City Community Mental Health
Chicago, Illinois East Chicago, Indiana
Ronald Webb Annie Woolfolk

Citizens Drug Commission Inner City Council on Alcoholism, Inc.
Dayton, Ohio Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Susan Weed Fred Wright

Chicago Department of Health Reaching Out
Chicago, Illinois Omaha, Nebraska
Captain Joel Weidinger Barbara Yates

Illinois National Guard Minnesota Department of Education
Decatur, Illinois Street Paul, Minnesota
Eve Weinberg Yesse B. Yehudah

TASC, Inc. Southside Health Consortium
Honorable Richard C. Weis Anita Young

Mayor InTouch Education Service Network
Freeport, Illinois Morris, Illinois
Daniel Wenglarz Ivory Young

EAP Coordinator, LTV Steel Psychological and Addiction Consultants
East Chicago, Indiana Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Phillip West Tonya Zumach

Board of Supervisors TASC, Inc.
Adams County, Mississippi Chicago, Illinois
Jocelyn Whitfield
Public Health Advisor WESTERN REGIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY
Baltimore, Maryland DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Neal Whitley Alfonso P. Acampora

Oklahoma State Elks Association Walden House, Inc.
Sapulpa, Oklahoma San Francisco, California
Melanie Whitter Carol Addiss

Illinois Department of Riverside Department of Mental Health
Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Riverside, California
Broderick T. Williams Betty Albert

Detroit Police Department Best Recovery Health Care, Inc.
Detroit, Michigan Houston, Texas
David Williams Lorraine Alexandar

Deputy Director, Operations Positive Action
Division, Illinois State Police Cardiff, California
Frank Williams Walter Allen, III

Chief of Police California Department of Justice
Wood Dale, Illinois Commerce, California
Larry Wilms Booker Amos

Prairie Center for Substance Abuse Best Recovery Health Care, Inc.
Urbana, Illinois Houston, Texas
Gregory Witkowski Douglas Anglin, Ph.D.

U.S. Probation Office UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center
Chicago, Illinois Los Angeles, California
Maxine Womble Lynne Appel

Midwest Regional Center Southern California Alcohol/Drug Programs
Oak Brook, Illinois Downey, California
Tammy Woodhams Don Arakaki

Community Corrections Manager Hawaii National Guard
Kalamazoo County, Michigan Honolulu, Hawaii

Glen Arima Ernest Bradford

Santa Clara County Probation Department Alcohol and Drug Programs
San Jose, California Sacramento, California
Loretta Averna Flynn Bradley

NICI Mayor’s Criminal Justice Council
San Luis Obispo, California San Francisco, California
Oscar Babauta Philip Brailsford

Member, House of Representatives C.A.R.E., Inc.
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands Del Mar, California
Dana Baldwin Brent Braun

UCLA Research Center Federal Bureau of Investigation
Los Angeles, California Los Angeles, California
Dennis Banowetz John Bravakis

California National Guard Wrightwood Group, Inc.
Sacramento, California Los Angeles, California
Ruben Barajas Lisa Brenner

Scott Newman Center National Interagency Counter Drug Institute
Los Angeles, California San Luis Obispo, California
Lauraine Barber Richard Breza

Federation of Community Coordinating Councils Chief of Police
Long Beach, California Santa Barbara, California
Peter Barglow Ann Britt

Northern California System of Clinics Valley Community Clinic
Berkeley, California North Hollywood, California
C. B. Bautista Robert Brooks

Alcohol and Drug Programs Portland Police Bureau
Sacramento, California Portland, Oregon
Ron Beavers Cathey Brown

Drew University African American Leadership Rainbow Days, Inc.
Los Angeles, California Dallas, Texas
Jack Beecham Lee Brown

Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement Alcohol Drug Care Services, Inc.
Sacramento, California Eureka, California
Darnell Bell John Bruhns

Avalon Carver Alcohol and Drug Programs Consultant
Los Angeles, California Albuquerque, New Mexico
Chris Berg Patrick Burke

Sega of America, Inc. National Guard Bureau
Redwood City, California Washington, D.C.
Susan Blacksher Dennis Scott-Bush

California Association of Alcoholic Recovery Homes Partnership for Shields for Families
Sacramento, California San Francisco, California
Harry Blanco Manuel Bustamante

Criminal Justice Planning Agency Community Partnership
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands Truth Or Consequences, New Mexico
Christopher Bones Harold Byford

Say No. . . Together Department of Public Safety
San Marino, California Santa Fe, New Mexico
Richard Boswell Dan Byram

Challenge, Inc. Mesa Police Department
Fort Worth, Texas Mesa, Arizona
Russell Boxley Fidel Caballero

California School of Professional Psychology Housing Authority of Monterey County
Pasadena, California Salinas, California

Gabriel Camacho Ed Cinisomo

Department of Finance Daytop Village, Inc.
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands Dallas, Texas
Karen Carr Robert Cisneros

South Bay Coalition Corpus Christi Police Department
Hermosa Beach, California Corpus Christi, Texas
Robert Carr Louis Cobarruviaz

Lazarus Foundation Chief of Police
Mission Hills, California San Jose, California
Robert Carter Phil Cogan

Grandview Foundation, Inc. Argus Health Systems
Pasadena, California Kansas City, Missouri
Janet Cartwright Jim Coleman

Deputy District Attorney Partnership for a Drug-Free West End
Santa Clara County, California Upland, California
Michael Carvalho John Compston

Honolulu Police Department Nevada Division of Investigation
Honolulu, Hawaii Carson City, Nevada
Renato Casaclang Susan Condron

Palm House, Inc. Volunteers of America
Carson, California Houston, Texas
Jose Castro Ginny Connell

Northern Mariana Islands PDAP of Ventura County, Inc.
Department of Public Safety Camarillo, California
Edwin Cathcart Carolyn Contreras

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office Klein Bottle Youth Programs
Phoenix, Arizona Lompoc, California
Martin Cavazos Deborah Cook

Driver Safety Schools, Inc. Families in New Directions
Van Nuys, California Los Angeles, California
Larry Caver Brian Cooley

U.S. Border Patrol Fouts Springs Ranch
El Paso, Texas Stonyford, California
John Cepeda Vicki Corlett

Customs Division Grand Futures
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands Granby, Colorado
Robert Charlie Gregory Corrales

Cultural Heritage and Education Institute San Francisco Police Department
Fairbanks, Alaska San Francisco, California
Frederick Chavaria Lloyd Crawford

U.S. Probation Office Drug Programs Administrators Association
San Francisco, California Quincy, California
Abel Chavarria Helene Creager

Partners for Prevention Los Angeles County Probation Department
Las Cruces, New Mexico Downey, California
Rick Christensen James Cutshaw

Valle del Sol, Inc. Huntington Beach Police Department
Phoenix, Arizona Huntington Beach, California
Albert Chu John Damelio

Health Care Agency Drug Abuse Escondido High School District
Santa Ana, California Escondido, California
Irene Redondo-Churchward Ricky Roy Damerville

Project Info Community Service Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Whittier, California Hilo, Hawaii

Joseph Daum Marie Dixon

University of California Manager, Neighborhood Resources
Los Angeles, California Sacramento, California
David Davies William Dombrowski

Los Angeles County Probation Department Didi Hirsch Community Mental Health Clinic
Los Angeles, California Culver City, California
George Dawkins Jack Dominguez

Compton Unified Schools Dominguez Rehabilitation Management
Compton, California Pasadena, California
Gary DeBlasio Dennis Dotson

South Bay Coalition Oregon State Police
Hermosa Beach, California Salem, Oregon
Peggy Dekker Laurie Drabble

Escondido High School District California Women’s Commission
Escondido, California on Alcohol and Drug Dependency
Steven Delgadillo John Drew

Community Services Superintendent Nevada Division of Investigation
Anaheim, California Carson City, Nevada
Lupe Delgado Dean Duenow

Los Angeles County Office of Education Our Program
Monterey Park, California Palo Alto, California
John De Miranda John Duff

Join Together, Western Region Narconon International
San Mateo, California Los Angeles, California
Lee Denno Pamela Dunne

Chief Drama Therapy Institute of Los Angeles
California Highway Patrol Los Angeles, California
Hector De Paz Timothy Dupre

Pueblo Y Salud, Inc. Neighborhoods in Transition
San Fernando, California San Francisco, California
Chuck Deutschman Dwane Durant

Contra Costa County Health Services Volunteers of America
Martinez, California San Diego, California
Rudolph Diaz Laura Edwards

Presiding Judges Association King County Program Coordinator
Los Angeles, California Seattle, Washington
Raymond DiCiccio Romaine Edwards

Director of Community Services Watts Health Foundation, Inc.
San Diego, California Los Angeles, California
Glenn Dillard Dan Elkins

Partnership for Prevention Southwest Border Alliance
Richmond, Texas Yuma, Arizona
Joseph DiMatteo John Erickson

Alaska Council on Prevention California Substance Abuse Office
of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Sacramento, California
Kevin Dimmick Susan Erlich

The Workplace Foundation Office of Child Abuse Prevention
Grass Valley, California Sacramento, California
Alexandra di Portanova Joseph Farmer

Project Health in the Hood Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
Washington, D.C. Phoenix, Arizona
John Distelrath Donna Farrell

Chief of Police Department of Public Safety
West Covina, California Santa Fe, New Mexico

Brita Ferm Dean Gautschy

Happy Child, Inc. CareUnit
San Diego, California Canoga Park, California
Denise Fitch Lawrence Gentile

Safe and Drug-Free Schools Behavioral Health Services, Inc.
Olympia, Washington Gardena, California
James Fitzsimons Roberta Gerarde

Senior U.S. Probation Officer Los Angeles County Office of Education
San Francisco, California Monterey Park, California
Ken Fleming Charles Gibson

Colusa County Department of Substance Abuse Say No...Together
Colusa, California San Marino, California
William Flood Mike Gilbert

California Department of Justice Senior Special Agent in Charge
Commerce, California Rancho Cordova, California
Colonel Ronald Flynn Jody Gingery

California National Guard Colorado Prescription Drug Abuse Task Forces
Laguna Niguel, California Denver, Colorado
Gregory Foote Jackie Goins

Circuit Judge Shields for Families
Lane County, Oregon Los Angeles, California
Ken Fortier Ruben Gomez

Chief of Police Driver Safety Schools, Inc.
Riverside, California Van Nuys, California
Luis Frausto Carlos Gonzales

Drug Enforcement Coordinator The Narcotics Education League
Las Cruces, New Mexico Oakland, California
Sharon Frederick Thomas Gorman

Life Steps Foundation, Inc. Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement
San Luis Obispo, California Sacramento, California
Charles Freitas Mary Jo Gorney-Lucero

Claremont Unified School District San Jose State University
Claremont, California San Jose, California
Joan Friedenberg Heike Gramckow

San Diego County Department of Health CSR, Inc.
San Diego, California Washington, D.C.
Marian Gage Edward Grice, III

Butte County Community Partnership TGIF TeenWorks, Inc.
Oroville, California Los Angeles, California
William Gallegos Brian Griffin

Los Angeles Alliance - Drug-Free Community Oregon National Guard
Los Angeles, California Salem, Oregon
Sandra Garcia Janice Ford Griffin

CADENA Join Together
Corpus Christi, Texas Boston, Massachusetts
Veronica Garcia Todd Griffith

Say No. . . Together Public Safety Department
San Marino, California Phoenix, Arizona
Toni Gardner Ferris Groll

Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition Utah Department of Public Safety
Yakima, Washington Salt Lake City, Utah
Robert Garner Uwe Gunnersen

Santa Clara County, California Azure Acres CDRC
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs Sebastopol, California

Irene Gutierrez Paterno Hocog

Yakima Rebound Plus Program Department of Public Safety
Yakima, Washington Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands
James Hahn Jim Hodges

Los Angeles City Attorney Sheriff
Los Angeles, California Refugio County, Texas
Anthony Hargrove Roy Holt

Ella Austin Community Center Arizona Criminal Justice Commission
San Antonio, Texas Phoenix, Arizona
Jocelyn Harper Jeffrey Howard

Healthy Kids Center, Region I Oregon State Police
Santa Rosa, California Salem, Oregon
Burdette Harris James Howat

Los Angeles County Probation Department Volunteers of America
Jaqueline Ryles Harris Yih-Ing Hser

Prince George’s County Department of Corrections UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center
Upper Marlboro, Maryland Los Angeles, California
Charles Hayes Joe Huertas

Social Model Recovery Systems, Inc. Pasadena Alcohol and Drug Dependency Program
Los Angeles , California Pasadena, California
Dave Hayes Ester Huey

Operation Alliance Yakima County Substance Abuse Coalition
El Paso, Texas Yakima, Washington
Vann Hayes Kathryn Icenhower

Impact Drug/Alcohol Treatment Shields for Families
Pasadena, California Los Angeles, California
Curtis Hazell Darryl Inaba

Head Deputy District Attorney Haight Ashbury Free Clinics
Los Angeles, California San Francisco, California
Bridget Healy John Inmann

Assistant City Manager Division of Criminal Justice
Claremont, California Denver, Colorado
Sandra Heffesse Carl Irby

International Self Help Services, Inc. San Bernardino County Public Health
Los Angeles, California San Bernardino, California
Maxine Heiliger Michelle Jackson

Alameda County Department of Alcohol and Drugs Southwest Regional Laboratory
Oakland, California Los Alamitos, California
Mark Hernandez Tatiana Jackson

El Proyecto Del Barrio, Inc. Say No. . . Together
Arleta, California San Marino, California
Mary Hernandez Ronald Janes

El Proyecto Del Barrio, Inc. Ventura County District Attorney’s Office
Arleta, California Ventura, California
M. Angela Herrera Salle Jantz

Children, Youth and Families Department Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
Santa Fe, New Mexico Sacramento, California
David Hill William Jefferds

Lifechanges Counseling Center NGB/NICI
Sierra Madre, California San Luis Obispo, California
Tony Hill Paul Jefferson

Grandview Foundation, Inc. Chief of Police
Pasadena, California Modesto, California

Judy Johnson Dr. James Kooler

Regional Center for Drug-Free Schools and Communities Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
Portland, Oregon Sacramento, California
Mark Johnson Robert Kovalesky

National Interagency Counter Drug Institute Northrop Grumman Corporation
San Luis Obispo, California Pico Rivera, California
Norman Johnson Janelle Krueger

Therapeutic Health Services Colorado Department of Education
Seattle, Washington Denver, Colorado
Ray Johnson Ford Kuramoto

Governor’s Office of Criminal Justice Planning NAPAFASA
Tommy Johnson Jeff Lady

Inglewood Police Department Drug Demand Reduction
Inglewood, California Salem. Oregon
Yvette Johnson Jerome Lance

Centinela Valley Community Task Force Long Beach Police Department
Hawthorne, California Long Beach, California
Etta Jones R. Wes Laney

San Francisco Community Partnership Program Birdgeway
San Francisco, California Salem, Oregon
James Jones Stephen Langa

Los Angeles Police Department Chevron Corporation, EAP
Los Angeles, California West Hills, California
Michael Judge Brenda Law-Meyer

Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office Drug-Free Consortium
Los Angeles, California Houston, Texas
Stephen Kaplan David Lawton

Ventura County Dept of Alcohol and Drug Programs Chief of Police
Ventura, California San Gabriel, California
William Kelso Maria Leech

Khepera Recovery House Option for Recovery
Ventura, California San Diego, California
George Kennedy Ramon Leon

Santa Clara County, California Valle del Sol, Inc.
District Attorney’s Office Phoenix, Arizona
Jane Kennedy Rita Livingston

National Consortium of TASC Programs California Department of
Seattle, Washington Alcohol and Drug Programs
Ali Khajawall Ralph Lloyd

Metropolitan State Hospital Pasadena Family Center
Diamond Bar, California Pasadena, California
Donald Kincey Jon Long

Watts Health Foundation, Inc. National Interagency Counter Drug Institute
Los Angeles, California San Luis Obispo, California
Ruth King Douglas Longshore

CLARE Foundation UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center
Santa Monica, California Los Angeles, California
James Kirby, II Henry Lozano

Fresno County Alcohol and Drug Administrator White Bison, Inc.
Fresno, California Big Bear City, California
David Klein Pat Luce

Pasadena Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency National Office of Samoan Affairs
Pasadena, California Carson, California

Patrick Lynch Susan Mattes

Mayor’s Office National Interagency Counter Drug Institute
San Francisco, California San Luis Obispo, California
Phillip MacFarland Thomas Mayfield, Jr.

Highland Hospital Substance Abuse Program Mayor’s Office
Oakland, California San Francisco, California
Debra Mackey Sandra Mazy

California Association of Alcoholic Recovery Narcotics Control Assistance
Pasadena, California Carson City, Nevada
Chilo Madrid Frank Mazzola

Aliviane NO-AD, Inc. External Employee Assistance
El Paso, Texas North Hollywood, California
Melba Maldonado Joseph McCaffrey

Mayor’s Office American Federation of Police
San Francisco, California Downey, California
Cleo Malone Dennis McGorman

Palavra Tree, Inc. ICI Projects, Inc.
San Diego, California Long Beach, California
Henry Manuelito Kent McGregor

Chief of Police CLARE Foundation
Sells, Arizona Santa Monica, California
Stephen Marcus Lee McGriff

Los Angeles Municipal Court U.S. Probation Office
Los Angeles, California San Francisco, California
Olof Marneus Harold Meadows

Volunteers of America Alcohol and Drug Division
San Jose, California Denver, Colorado
David Marquez Andrew Mecca, Dr.P.H.

Sacramento 21 Community Partnership Director, California
Sacramento, California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
Deborah Marsala Eduardo Medina

REACH Chief of Police
South Pasadena, California Sunland Park, New Mexico
Russel Marsh Larry Meredith

Office of the Attorney General Department of Public Health
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands San Francisco, California
Daniel Martinez Joan Bryna Michelson

U.S. Probation Officer Project Health in the Hood
San Francisco, California Los Angeles, California
Susan Martinez Beverly Miller

El Proyecto Del Barrio, Inc. Mid Valley Recovery Services
Arleta, California El Monte, California
D. B. Massey Pat Miller

Houston Police Department Ventura Police Department
Houston, Texas Ventura, California
Melissa Mathiasen Robert Miller

National Interagency Counter Drug Institute Oregon State Police
San Luis Obispo, California Salem, Oregon
Kathie Mathis Sharon Miller

I-ADARP Department of Water and Power
Van Nuys, California Los Angeles, California
Mike Matlock Genny Monihan

Oxnard Police Department UCLA Research Center
Oxnard, California Los Angeles, California

Beverly Monroe Dorothy North

House of Metamorphosis, Inc. Nevada Commission of Substance Abuse
San Diego, California Education, Enforcement and Treatment
Harry Montoya Dennis O’Donnell

LA CASA Oregon State Police
Los Alamos, New Mexico Salem, Oregon
Olvin Moreland, Jr. Mary O’Donnell

Seattle Public Schools La Vista Alcohol/Drug Recovery Center
Seattle, Washington San Jacinto, California
Alfonso Moret Kathleen O’Leary

Cri-Help, Inc. Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice Planning
North Hollywood, California Los Angeles, California
Jeff Morl Judy O’Neal

Community Youth Council Office of Criminal Justice Planning
San Francisco, California Sacramento, California
Toni Maria Mosley Dennis O’Sullivan

Josette Mondanaro Women’s Center People In Progress, Inc.
Pomona, California Los Angeles, California
Barbara Mouron Ron Obert

Say No. . . Together Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office
San Marino, California San Jose, California
Mike Mulligan Patrick Ogawa

Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Drug Program Administration
Santa Fe, New Mexico Los Angeles, California
Patrick Munter Joaquin Ogumoro

Seattle Police Department Criminal Justice Planning Agency
Seattle, Washington Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands
Bruce Murray Gil Olivarria

Seattle Housing Authority Chief of Police
Seattle, Washington Perris, California
Marlene Nadel Jerry Oliver

Cri-Help, Inc. Chief of Police
North Hollywood, California Pasadena, California
Manny Najera Cathleen Olson

Aliviane NO-AD, Inc. Arizona Department of Education
El Paso, Texas Phoenix, Arizona
John Nakashina Leo Padilla

UCLA Research Center Albuquerque Neighborhood Coordination Office
Los Angeles, California Albuquerque, New Mexico
Patricia Nelson Luis Pagan

Clark County School District Governor’s Public Security Advisor
Las Vegas, Nevada San Juan, Puerto Rico
Francisca Neumann Thomas Pagel

Day One, Inc. Director, Wyoming Division of
Pasadena, California Criminal Investigation
Donald Nichols Leonardo Pandac

Pathways of Casa Grande Pacific Asian Alcohol Program
Casa Grande, Arizona Los Angeles, California
Mike Nisperos, Jr. Joy Parker

Mayor’s Office of Drugs and Crime Center Point, Inc.
Oakland, California San Rafael, California
Claudio Norita Margaret Parrington

Department of Public Safety Mid Valley Alcohol Education Centers, Inc.
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands El Monte, California

Julia Payne-Starke Pete Reyes

Office of Substance Abuse Programs Congressman, 9th Commonwealth
Las Vegas, Nevada Northern Mariana Islands Legislature
Frank Pegneros Yvonne Riedlinger

Los Angeles Police Department City of Sacramento
Los Angeles, California Sacramento, California
Sandy Peralta Tamara Rike

National Interagency Counter Drug Institute Governor’s Office of Drug Policy
San Luis Obispo, California Phoenix, Arizona
Susan Perry Benny Rincon

UCLA Research Center California Department of Justice/
Los Angeles, California INCA Task Force
Michael Prendergast Doris Ringgold

UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center House of Metamorphosis, Inc.
Los Angeles, California San Diego, California
Michael Pritchard Eric Rivas

Pathway Society, Inc. Alhambra Police Department
Santa Clara, California Alhambra, California
G. Marshall Pugh Ramona Robertson

Washington State Patrol Tulake County Alcoholism Council, Inc.
Olympia, Washington Visalia, California
Kevin Quint J. Grayson Robinson

Nevada Association of State Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs Littleton, Colorado
Jackie Quitugua Pamela Robinson

CNMI Public School System Healthy Kids Center
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands Sacramento, California
Teresa Villa Ramirez Roosevelt Robinson

Juvenile Probation Department District Court Judge
Harris County, Texas Multnomah County, Oregon
Jan Randolph William Rochon

Partners for Prevention Operation Alliance
Las Cruces, New Mexico El Paso, Texas
Cheryl Raney Bill Rogers

Sacramento County Education Office Youth Intervention Program
Jeffrey Raynor Michael Rogers

Arizona Department of Public Safety American Institute on Drug Prevention, Inc.
Phoenix, Arizona Hurst, Texas
George Read Ralph Rogers

Hawaii Advisory Committee on Los Angeles County Probation Department
Drug/Substance Abuse Downey, California
Sandy Reagan Richard Rogg

Governor’s Alliance Against Drugs Promises Residential Treatment Center
Litchfield Park, Arizona Los Angeles, California
Harry Reece Alex Romero

Shields for Families Arizona Governor’s Alliance Against Drugs
Los Angeles, California Phoenix, Arizona
Carla Reed Eugene Rudolph

Challengers Boys and Girls Club California Narcotic Officers Association
Los Angeles, California Santa Clarita, California
Edward Reina, Jr. Carol Russell

Chief of Police, Salt River Tribal California Health Services
Police Department, Arizona Sacramento, California

Bridget Ryan Mike Smith

Best Foundation for a Drug-Free Tomorrow Riverside Police Department
Sherman Oaks, California Riverside, California
Virginia Saldana-Grove Carol Stein

Women’s Constituent Committee Californians for Drug-Free Youth
Elk Grove, California Thousand Oaks, California
Paul Savo Carole Stevenson

The Fellowship Center Alcohol Programs and Services REACH
Escondido, California Van Nuys, California
Gary Schindler Warren Garcia Stewart

American Airlines, EAP MAAC Project - Nosotros
Los Angeles, California Chula Vista, California
Chris Schnaubelt Pierre Stolz

National Interagency Counter Drug Institute REACH
San Luis Obispo, California Los Angeles, California
Richard Schneider Carol Stone

Happy Child, Inc. Regional Drug Initiative
San Diego, California Portland, Oregon
Fred Schwendiman John Stonitsch

Department of Public Safety Bering Strait Community Partnership
Murray, Utah Nome, Alaska
Mark Scott Claudia Stuart

Whittier, California Texans’ War on Drugs
Amarillo, Texas
Paul Scriven
UCLA Research Center Wayne Sugita
Los Angeles, California Los Angeles County Alcohol
and Drug Program Administration
W. H. Seifert
Metropolitan Detention Center John Sullivan
Los Angeles, California Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Las Vegas, Nevada
Ted Sellers
Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Misasha Suzuki
Austin, Texas Say No. . . Together
San Marino, California
Gregory Senegal
Walden House, Inc. Edward Synicky
San Francisco, California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement
Riverside, California
Albert Senella
Tarzana Treatment Center Chris Taitano
Tarzana, California Division of Customs Service
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands
Phillip Showstead
South King County Recovery Centers Jane Talbot
Burien, Washington Shields for Families
Los Angeles, California
V’Anne Singleton
Betty Ford Center Scott Taylor
Rancho Mirage, California Tarzana Treatment Center
Tarzana, California
Sanford Slater
Straight Talk, Inc. Sushma Taylor
Cypress, California Center Point, Inc.
San Rafael, California
Mark Smith
Youth Young Adult Fellowship Alliance Lawrence Terry
Silsbee, Texas Santa Clara County Superior Court
San Jose, California
Marlou Smith
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs Minnie Thomas
Sacramento, California The Solid Foundation Mandela House Program
Oakland, California

Mark Thompson Nolan Warner

Eclectic Communications, Inc. People In Progress, Inc.
Ventura, California Los Angeles, California
Michael Thompson Sarita Warren

Mayor’s Office Seattle Housing Authority
Los Angeles, California Seattle, Washington
Allison Tom Mike Watanabe

East/West Community Partnership Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc.
Hillary Treadwell Hank Webb

I-ADARP Operation Alliance
Van Nuys, California El Paso, Texas
Tim Troyer Michelle Webber

Walden House, Inc. Behavioral Health Service, Inc.
San Francisco, California Gardena, California
Barbara Tryon Gene Webster

City Council Member Los Angeles County Commission on Alcoholism
Los Altos, California Studio City, California
Duane Tushoski Darin Weinberg

New Mexico National Guard UCLA Research Center
Albuquerque, New Mexico Los Angeles, California
Moaaliitele Tuufuhl Martin Weinstein

Senate Public Safety Legislature Bay Area Community Resources
Pago Pago, American Samoa Larkspur, California
Ann Uhler Don Werkhoven

CODA, Inc. California Youth Authority
Portland, Oregon Sacramento, California
Daniel Vasquez Mimi West

Department of Correction Los Angeles Narcotics and
San Jose, California Dangerous Drugs Commission
Lou Villagomez Carl Whiteside

Corpus Christi Police Department Colorado Bureau of Investigation
Corpus Christi, Texas Denver, Colorado
Thomas Villagomez Marshal Wilkerson

Senator, 9th NMC Legislature Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands Sacramento, California
Tyrone Wade Dave Williams

National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency Texas D.A.R.E. Institute
Los Angeles, California San Marcos, Texas
Margo Wainwright Richard Wood

Youth Intervention Program Long Beach Police Department
Los Angeles, California Long Beach, California
Rogene Waite Bettina Wright

U.S. Information Agency John Lucas Enterprises
Washington, D.C. Houston, Texas
Virgie Walker Jack Wu

People Coordinated Services, Inc. Alhambra Safety Services
Los Angeles, California Monterey Park, California
Paul Walters Wendy Wutzke

Chief of Police Positive Action
Santa Ana, California Cardiff, California
Roger Warburton Jackie Ybarra

Naval Air Station, North Island Shields for Families
San Diego, California Los Angeles, California

Kawen Young Lynne Glassman

National Office of Samoan Affairs National School Boards Association
Carson, California Alexandra, Virginia
Nancy Young James A. Gondles, Jr.

California Department American Correctional Association
of Alcohol and Drug Programs Laurel, Maryland
Thomas Hedrick
OTHER EXPERT INDIVIDUALS Partnership for a Drug-Free America
New York, New York
Sherrie S. Aitken, Ph.D.
CSR, Incorporated Dick Herndobler
Washington, D.C. ELKS Drug Awareness Program
Ashland, Oregon
Johnny Allem
SOAR Kelli Hill
Washington, D.C. ImpactDesign, Inc.
Beltsville, MD
Sister Gertrudis M. Betancourt, O.P.
Dominican Sisters of the Presentation David Hoffman
Dighton, Massachusetts United Network for Investment
in Training of Youth (UNITY)
Elliott I. Bovelle, Ph.D.
Family and Medical Counseling Service, Inc. Dana Eser Hunt, Ph.D.
Washington, D.C. Abt Associates
Susan B. Blacksher, M.S.W.
California Association of Dr. Eric Joth
Alcoholic Recovery Homes International Drug Strategy Institute
Topeka, Kansas
Keith Branch
National Association of Blacks Robert F. Kanaby
in Criminal Justice National Federation of State
Houston, Texas High School Associations
Charles Breemer Linda Kaplan

National Black Caucus of State Legislators National Association of Alcoholism
Washington, D.C. and Drug Abuse Counselors
James E. Burke Mark Kleinman

Partnership for a Drug-Free America BOTEC, Inc.
New York, New York Cambridge, Massachusetts
Jacqueline Butler Michelle Kourouma

Prevention, Intervention and Treatment National Conference of Black Mayors
Coalition for Health (PITCH) Atlanta, Georgia
Diane M. Canova Ford H. Kuramoto, D.S.W.

American Red Cross, National Headquarters National Asian Pacific American Families
Washington, D.C. Against Substance Abuse, Inc.
David Choate Jim Page

Broward County Commission on Substance Abuse ImpactDesign, Inc.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida Beltsville, MD
Shirley Coletti Jere B. Ratcliffe

Operation PAR, Inc. Chief Scout Executive
St. Petersburg, Florida Boy Scouts of America
Joseph Dino, Jr. Carol Reeves

Association of Former Narcotics Agents National Family Partnership
Washington, D.C. St. Louis, Missouri
Rabbi Jerome M. Epstein Peter Reuter

The United Synagogue of University of Maryland
Conservative Judaism College Park, Maryland
Newman Flanagan Bill Rhodes

National District Attorneys Association Abt Associates
Alexandria, Virginia Cambridge, Massachusetts

Michael J. Rogers, J.D. Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA)

American Institute on Drug prevention
Hurst, Texas D.A.R.E. America
Dominican Sisters of the Presentation

Paul Scheiman
Abt Associates Elks Drug Awareness Program
Family and Medical Counseling Services, Inc.
Allison J. Schultz, M.P.P.
CSR, Incorporated Girl Souts USA
Washington, D.C. Legal Action Center
Verna Simpkins National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance

Girl Scouts of the USA Abuse, Inc.
New York, New York
National Association of Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Counselors
(NAADAC)
Jennie C. Trotter, M.Ed.
Wholistic Stress Control Institute, Inc. National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Atlanta, Georgia Directors, Inc.
Paul Wood National Council on Alcoholism & Drug Dependence, Inc.
National Council on Alcoholism (NCAAD)
and Drug Dependence, Inc.
National Families in Action
Terry Zobeck, Ph.D.
CSR, Incorporated National Family Partnership
Washington, D.C.
National Federation of State High School Associations
National Legal Aid & Defender Association

PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS
National School Boards Associations
American Correctional Association
Operation PAR, Inc.
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO
Prevention, Intervention & Treatment Coalition for Health
American Institute on Drug Prevention (PITCH)
American Red Cross, National Headquarters UCLA Drug Abuse Research Center
Association of Former Federal Narcotics Agents United Network for Investment in Training of Youth
Boy Scouts of America United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Broward County Commission on Substance Abuse Wholistic Stress Control Institute
California Association of Alcoholic Recovery Homes

National Drug Control Strategy. Strengthening Communities' Response To Drugs and Crime.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Drug Control Strategy. Strengthening Communities' Response To Drugs and Crime.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 3

I. Strategy Overview .................................................................................................................. 9

II. Drug Use in America ............................................................................................................. 17

III. Drug Use and its Consequences ............................................................................................ 29

IV. Illicit Drug Availability .......................................................................................................... 43

VII. Action Plan for Enhancing Domestic Drug Program Flexibility

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 5

IX. Federal Drug Control Resource Priorities ............................................................................ 111

X. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 123

Appendix A: Research, Data, and Program Evaluation ............................................................... 127

Appendix B: Drug-Related Information ....................................................................................... 135

Appendix C: Consultation ............................................................................................................. 149

6 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 9

10 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 11

12 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 13

14 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Goal 1: Reduce the number of drug users in America.

DEMAND REDUCTION GOALS

Goal 4: Assist local communities in developing effective prevention programs.

DOMESTIC LAW ENFORCEMENT GOALS

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 15

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 17

Any Illicit Drug 11.8

Lifetime Past Year Past Month

18 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Any Illicit Drugs Cocaine Marijuana

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 19

HARDCORE DRUG USE

20 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Hardcore User Casual User

Source: Modeling the Demand for Cocaine, RAND Corporation, 1994

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 21

8th Grade 10th Grade 12th Grade

22 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

1991 1992 1993 1994

8th Grade 10th Grade 12th Grade

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 23

8th Grade 10th Grade 12th Grade

24 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

8th Grade 10th Grade 12th Grade

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 25

26 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

than 200,000 junior high and high school students about 12

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 27

Table 3-1. Drug-Related Murders: United States, 1986-93

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Drug and Crime Facts, 1993-1994.

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 29

30 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Engaged in Behavior Never Engaged in Behavior*

Source: 1993-94 PRIDE USA Survey

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 31

Engaged in Behavior Never Engaged in Behavior*

Source: 1993-94 PRIDE USA Survey

32 NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY 33

Legal Both Legal Illegal No

46% 42% 10% 2%

Any Legal Any Illegal

Of Those Reporting Illegal Income: