FAS | Intelligence | GAO Reports |||| Index | Search |


Drug Control: Planned Actions Should Clarify Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center's Impact (Letter Report, 02/03/98, GAO/GGD-98-28).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the operations and
contributions of the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC),
focusing on: (1) how CTAC coordinates its counterdrug research and
development (R&D) efforts with other federal agencies to address
counterdrug R&D needs that are not being met by other agencies and to
avoid unnecessary duplication; and (2) what contributions CTAC has made
to counterdrug R&D efforts since its creation.

GAO noted that: (1) CTAC has a coordination process in place for
identifying counterdrug technology needs and selecting and funding R&D
projects to meet those needs; (2) however, GAO identified the following
shortcomings in CTAC's design and execution of the process: (a) the
Science and Technology (S&T) Committee's charter, which was created
before CTAC existed, does not reflect the Committee's current
composition, responsibilities, and relationship to CTAC; (b) CTAC did
not regularly and consistently involve the S&T Committee in its
coordination process; (c) CTAC did not regularly evaluate and prioritize
the agencies' counterdrug R&D technology needs to ensure that it funded
otherwise unfunded projects with the highest priority; (d) CTAC did not
systematically identify and consider the counterdrug technology needs of
state and local agencies, in conjunction with federal agencies' needs,
as part of its regular process for selecting and funding projects, and
state and local agencies were only recently represented on the S&T
Committee; (e) agencies generally did not submit transitional or
acquisition plans to CTAC; and (f) although a few agencies cited
instances where duplication was avoided as a result of CTAC's efforts,
CTAC had not developed any means for determining the extent to which
unnecessary duplication had been identified and avoided due to its
efforts; (3) as a result of these shortcomings, neither GAO nor CTAC
could determine the extent to which its coordination process was meeting
its mission; (4) GAO's task of determining CTAC's contribution to
federal drug control efforts was complicated by CTAC's lack of
meaningful performance measures to enable it to: (a) assess its progress
in achieving its mission and contributing to the development and
deployment of counterdrug technology; and (b) identify and implement any
needed improvements to better achieve its mission; (5) CTAC's Chief
Scientist told GAO that he considered not just technologies that are
completed and in use as contributions, but also uncompleted projects
that have reached various stages of development; and (6) the contact
officials of the lead R&D agencies identified by CTAC told GAO that they
considered 10 of the 36 projects cited as contributions by CTAC to be
actual contributions.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-98-28
     TITLE:  Drug Control: Planned Actions Should Clarify Counterdrug 
             Technology Assessment Center's Impact
      DATE:  02/03/98
   SUBJECT:  Research and development
             Search and seizure
             Interagency relations
             Drug trafficking
             Narcotics
             Agency missions
             Research program management
             Law enforcement
IDENTIFIER:  National Counterdrug Enforcement Research and Development 
             Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                    <[email protected]>                        **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Caucus
on International Narcotics Control,
U.S.  Senate

February 1998

DRUG CONTROL - PLANNED ACTIONS
SHOULD CLARIFY COUNTERDRUG
TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER'S
IMPACT

GAO/GGD-98-28

Actions Should Clarify CTAC's Impact

(186764)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  BAA - Broad Agency Announcement
  CTAC - Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
  DOD - Department of Defense
  DOJ - Department of Justice
  DEA - Drug Enforcement Administration
  FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
  FinCen - Financial Crime Enforcement Network
  GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
  IACP - International Association of Chiefs of Police
  INS - Immigration and Naturalization Service
  NIDA - National Institute on Drug Abuse
  NIJ - National Institute of Justice
  NSA - National Sheriffs Association
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget
  ONDCP - Office of National Drug Control Policy
  R&D - research and development
  S&T - science and technology

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-276367

February 3, 1998

The Honorable Charles E.  Grassley
Chairman, Caucus on International
 Narcotics Control
United States Senate

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

The counterdrug technology research and development (R&D) effort is a
component of the nation's war on drugs, contributing to the
development of technology to reduce both the influx of illicit drugs
into the United States and the demand for and use of such drugs.  For
example, the counterdrug technology R&D effort has been instrumental
in the current development of X-ray and gamma-ray technologies
designed to help detect drugs hidden in trucks and railroad cars
entering the United States along the southwest border. 

In fiscal year 1991, Congress established the Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center (CTAC) within the Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP) to serve as the central counterdrug enforcement R&D
organization of the federal government.  CTAC is expected to oversee
and coordinate counterdrug technology initiatives with the related
activities of federal departments and agencies, prevent unnecessary
duplication of R&D efforts, and fund counterdrug research projects to
help fill gaps in the development of technology, whenever possible. 
CTAC is to use its Science and Technology (S&T) Committee,\1 which is
comprised of representatives of involved agencies and bureaus, as the
principal mechanism in carrying out these functions. 

In view of the importance of the counterdrug technology R&D effort to
the war on drugs, you requested that we review the operations and
contributions of CTAC.  As agreed with your office, we focused on
determining (1) how CTAC coordinates its counterdrug R&D efforts with
other federal agencies to address counterdrug R&D needs that are not
being met by other agencies and to avoid unnecessary duplication and
(2) what contributions CTAC has made to counterdrug R&D efforts since
its creation. 

We did our review primarily in the Washington, D.C., area at CTAC
headquarters, and we interviewed officials from 10 of the 21 federal
agencies on the S&T Committee that accounted for the majority of the
overall budget for the National Counterdrug R&D Program.  Using a
structured questionnaire, we surveyed representatives of the 10
agencies to obtain their views on CTAC's operations and
contributions.  We also contacted the CTAC technical and contracting
agents--the U.S.  Army Electronic Proving Ground, Fort Huachuca, AZ,
and the Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN--to discuss their
roles in CTAC's coordination process.  In addition, we attended
CTAC's regional technology workshop in Atlanta, GA, and conducted
structured interviews with officials from several state and local
governments that were involved in CTAC-funded counterdrug technology
R&D efforts.  We performed our work from November 1996 to November
1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.  A detailed description of our objectives, scope, and
methodology is contained in appendix I. 

We obtained written comments on a draft of this report from ONDCP. 
These comments are discussed at the end of this letter and are
reprinted in appendix VI. 


--------------------
\1 The S&T Committee is comprised of representatives from the R&D
offices of the 21 law enforcement and demand reduction agencies and
bureaus of the Departments of Justice, Agriculture, the Interior, the
Treasury, Defense, Transportation, Energy, State, and Health and
Human Services and the Central Intelligence Agency. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

CTAC has a coordination process in place for identifying counterdrug
technology needs and selecting and funding R&D projects to meet those
needs.  However, we identified the following shortcomings in CTAC's
design and execution of the process. 

  -- According to its charter and CTAC's Chief Scientist, the S&T
     Committee is to be used as the principal mechanism for assisting
     CTAC in its coordination of counterdrug R&D efforts, identifying
     and prioritizing counterdrug technology R&D needs, and
     evaluating R&D projects for CTAC to fund.  However, the S&T
     Committee's charter, which was created before CTAC existed, does
     not reflect the Committee's current composition,
     responsibilities, and relationship to CTAC.  Furthermore, CTAC
     did not regularly and consistently involve the S&T Committee in
     its coordination process. 

  -- According to CTAC's process for selecting and funding R&D
     projects, CTAC, in conjunction with the S&T Committee, is to
     annually reassess, update, and prioritize counterdrug technology
     and scientific needs.  However, CTAC did not regularly evaluate
     and prioritize the agencies' counterdrug R&D technology needs to
     ensure that it funded otherwise unfunded projects with the
     highest priority. 

  -- CTAC's mission includes identifying, defining, and helping to
     meet the counterdrug technology needs of state and local, as
     well as federal, law enforcement agencies.  However, CTAC did
     not systematically identify and consider the counterdrug
     technology needs of state and local agencies, in conjunction
     with federal agencies' needs, as part of its regular process for
     selecting and funding projects.  In addition, state and local
     agencies were only recently represented on the S&T Committee. 

  -- CTAC recommends that agencies provide it with acquisition or
     transitional plans for each of their projects receiving CTAC
     funds.  These plans are intended to help ensure that any
     technology that is successfully developed through R&D efforts
     will eventually be deployed.  However, agencies generally did
     not submit such plans to CTAC. 

  -- As part of its coordination process, CTAC had its technology
     needs identification and project selection process and other
     mechanisms in place to help achieve its mission of helping
     agencies avoid duplicative R&D efforts.  CTAC officials were
     confident that these mechanisms had helped CTAC to avoid
     duplication.  However, although a few agencies cited instances
     where duplication was avoided as a result of CTAC's efforts,
     CTAC had not developed any means for determining the extent to
     which unnecessary duplication had been identified and avoided
     due to its efforts. 

As a result of these shortcomings, neither we nor CTAC could
determine the extent to which its coordination process was meeting
its mission, that is, identifying counterdrug technology needs and
using its available funds to support the highest priority R&D
projects that transcend the needs of any single agency and that
otherwise might not be funded. 

Our task of determining CTAC's contributions to federal drug control
efforts was complicated by CTAC's lack of meaningful performance
measures to enable it to (1) assess its progress in achieving its
mission and contributing to the development and deployment of
counterdrug technology and (2) identify and implement any needed
improvements to better achieve its mission. 

CTAC's Chief Scientist told us that he considered not just
technologies that are completed and in use as contributions, but also
uncompleted projects that have reached various stages of development. 
Accordingly, CTAC counted as contributions 36 of the 72 projects it
had funded as of April 1997.  CTAC also reported as contributions its
sponsorship of several outreach efforts, including international
symposiums and regional, state, and local workshops, that it
indicated facilitated the exchange of information on the status of
new technologies. 

The contact officials of the lead\2 R&D agencies identified by CTAC
told us that they considered 10 of the 36 projects cited as
contributions by CTAC to be actual contributions.  The officials used
as criteria that the technology resulting from those projects was
being used and was assisting their agencies in fulfilling their
counterdrug missions.  The other 26 projects did not meet these
criteria in that they generally either were completed but not used or
were not yet ready for use.  Also, the S&T Committee members we
surveyed agreed with CTAC that its outreach efforts had improved
information-sharing among members of the counterdrug R&D community. 

In September 1997, ONDCP/CTAC officials told us they were beginning
to develop performance indicators as part of ONDCP efforts to develop
(1) a performance measurement system for the National Drug Control
Strategy and (2) a strategic plan for ONDCP and its components under
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L.  103-62),
which is commonly referred to as "GPRA" or "the Results Act."


--------------------
\2 According to CTAC, the lead agencies are the principal contacts
for the technology R&D projects and those agencies that will
ultimately be the principal users of the technology. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

A 1987 Department of Defense (DOD) Defense Science Board study\3

on the detection and neutralization of illegal drugs and terrorist
devices, such as explosives, concluded, among other things, that
better-focused R&D testing and evaluation and acquisition efforts
were needed at the federal level.  To address this issue, the study
proposed establishing a permanent Research and Technology Group
within the National Drug Policy Board, which was the predecessor to
ONDCP. 

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L.  100-690) created ONDCP to
better plan and coordinate federal drug control efforts and assist
the federal government in overseeing those efforts.  ONDCP is charged
with overseeing and coordinating the drug control efforts of over 50
federal agencies and programs, consulting with and assisting state
and local governments in their relations with federal agencies
involved in the National Drug Control Program, and reviewing and
certifying the adequacy of other federal agencies' drug
control-related budget requests.\4 In February 1990, ONDCP created
the S&T Committee to perform functions similar to those previously
performed by the Research and Technology Group. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (P.L. 
101-510), which amended the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, established
CTAC as the central U.S.  counterdrug enforcement R&D organization. 
The act placed CTAC under the operating authority of the Director of
ONDCP and required that CTAC be headed by a Chief Scientist of
Counterdrug Technology. 

Overall, Congress expected CTAC to coordinate the National
Counterdrug R&D Program to prevent duplication of efforts and ensure
that, whenever possible, those efforts provided capabilities that
filled overall existing technology gaps that transcended the needs of
any single federal agency and that otherwise might not have been
funded.  Specifically, CTAC was charged with (1) identifying and
defining the short-, medium-, and long-term scientific and
technological needs of federal, state, and local drug enforcement
agencies;\5 (2) making a priority ranking of such needs according to
fiscal and technological feasibility as part of a National
Counterdrug Enforcement R&D Strategy; (3) in consultation with the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and through interagency
agreements or grants, examining addiction and rehabilitation research
and the application of technology to expanding the effectiveness or
availability of drug treatment;\6 (4) overseeing and coordinating
counterdrug technology initiatives with the related activities of
other federal civilian and military departments; and (5) under the
general authority of the ONDCP Director, submitting requests to
Congress for the reprogramming or transfer of funds appropriated for
counterdrug enforcement R&D. 

Similar to its authorizing legislation, CTAC's mission statement sets
forth its responsibilities as follows:  (1) identify the short-,
medium-, and long-term scientific and technological needs of federal,
state, and local drug enforcement agencies; (2) develop a national
counterdrug R&D strategy that validates technological needs,
prioritizes such needs according to technical and fiscal feasibility,
and sets forth a plan (including budget) to develop and test the
highest priority technology projects; (3) implement a national
counterdrug R&D program, including technology development in support
of substance abuse, addiction, and rehabilitation research; and (4)
coordinate counterdrug R&D activities to identify and remove
unnecessary duplication. 

To accomplish its mission, CTAC is to (1) annually publish the
Counterdrug Research and Development Blueprint Update, which, among
other things, lists the scientific and technological needs of federal
agencies with counterdrug missions; (2) use the S&T Committee as the
principal mechanism for assisting in its coordination of counterdrug
technology R&D efforts and for identifying and prioritizing
technology needs and selecting otherwise unfunded R&D projects for
CTAC funding; and (3) use an outreach program of regional workshops
and technology symposiums to facilitate access to federal, state, and
local government organizations, industry and academic scientists and
engineers, and other targeted community segments. 

Federal counterdrug technology R&D spending for fiscal years 1992
(CTAC's first year of operation) through 1997 totaled $3.2 billion,
of which CTAC accounted for $86.5 million or about 2.7 percent.  (See
app.  II.) According to a CTAC official, for fiscal years 1992
through 1997, CTAC distributed about $61.0 million, or about 71
percent of its total funds, for 72 counterdrug R&D projects.  CTAC
also spent $17.7 million for operational test-and-evaluation efforts
and $4.6 million for technical and contracting agents who are to
manage the projects once funded.  Table 1 in appendix III shows the
distribution of CTAC funding by spending category for fiscal years
1992 through 1997. 

In fiscal year 1992, CTAC projects were organized into three
technical thrust areas:  tactical technologies, nonintrusive
inspection, and wide-area surveillance.  In fiscal year 1993, the
area of demand reduction was added as a fourth technical thrust
area.\7 As shown in table 2 of appendix III, the majority of CTAC's
R&D funds for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 were distributed on
projects related to the tactical technology thrust area, followed by
the demand reduction, nonintrusive inspection, and wide-area
surveillance areas. 

As of September 30, 1997, CTAC's professional staff in Washington,
D.C., was comprised of the Chief Scientist, who is the only ONDCP
employee; three civilians employed by and detailed from DOD; and
three persons employed by and detailed from a Fort Huachuca
contractor, which is one of CTAC's technical/contracting agents. 
Fort Huachuca and the Tennessee Valley Authority, CTAC's other
technical/contracting agent, together had two full-time and three
part-time employees dedicated to CTAC activities. 

According to the Chief Scientist, only he and two of the DOD
employees were available to perform management-related functions,
such as working and supporting CTAC's interaction with the S&T
Committee.  The other DOD detailee served as CTAC's budget analyst. 
The three contractor detailees and the five contracting agent
personnel at Fort Huachuca and the Tennessee Valley Authority had
specific support functions, such as handling the transfer of funds
for CTAC-sponsored technology projects, and were not available to
perform management-related functions. 


--------------------
\3 Detection and Naturalization of Illegal Drugs and Terrorist
Devices, Defense Science Board, Office of the Secretary of Defense,
October 11, 1987. 

\4 The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended, requires the Director
of ONDCP to review and certify in writing that annual drug budget
submissions from each "program manager, agency head, and department
head" with drug control responsibilities are adequate to implement
the objectives of the National Drug Control Strategy. 

\5 The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991
specifies that these needs should include the following categories: 
(a) advanced surveillance, tracking, and radar imaging; (b)
electronic support measures; (c) communications; (d) data fusion,
advanced computer systems, and artificial intelligence; and (e)
chemical, biological, radiological (including neutron, electron, and
graviton), and other means of detection. 

\6 This responsibility was added by the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L.  103-322). 

\7 Tactical technologies are, among other things, developed to
support law enforcement personnel in their daily tactical operations
against drug trafficking organizations by providing improved
communications, tracking and surveillance, and intelligence
gathering.  Demand reduction technologies are developed to improve
instrumentation and equipment available for researchers and develop
drugs to combat cocaine addiction.  Nonintrusive inspection
technologies are aimed at developing a rapid, automatic system to
inspect shipment and cargo containers without physically removing all
of their contents for manual inspection.  Wide-area surveillance
technologies are developed to detect and track suspect aircraft,
ships, motor vehicles, and persons transporting drugs. 


   CTAC'S COORDINATION PROCESS HAD
   SEVERAL SHORTCOMINGS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

We identified several shortcomings in the design and execution of the
process CTAC established to carry out its coordination of counterdrug
R&D efforts as intended.  The S&T Committee, whose charter has not
been revised since before CTAC was created, does not reflect the
committee's current composition, responsibilities, and relationship
to CTAC.  Moreover, the full S&T Committee met irregularly and often
was not included in the decisionmaking about which counterdrug
technologies should be funded.  Furthermore, CTAC did not regularly
reassess the counterdrug technology needs of federal agencies to
ensure that its listing was current and reflected the top priority
needs of S&T Committee member agencies.  Also, CTAC did not
systematically consider and fund the counterdrug technology needs of
state and local agencies as part of its process for selecting and
funding projects, and, until recently, state and local agencies were
not represented on the S&T Committee.  CTAC also approved many R&D
projects for funding even though they lacked comprehensive
transitional plans, which are intended to help ensure that developed
technologies were eventually put to use.  In addition, although
several agencies told us of cases in which CTAC efforts had helped
them to avoid unnecessary duplicative research, CTAC was unaware of
these cases because it had no system in place to determine the extent
to which unnecessary duplication was identified and avoided due to
CTAC's efforts. 


      CTAC'S NEEDS IDENTIFICATION
      AND PROJECT SELECTION
      PROCESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Since 1992, CTAC has had a process and procedures in place for
coordinating with the R&D community to identify and prioritize R&D
needs, avoid unnecessary duplication, and select CTAC-funded R&D
projects that, among other things, can help fill overall existing
technology gaps and transcend the needs of any single federal agency. 
CTAC's process included specific steps, criteria, and controls to
help ensure that funded projects (1) addressed the needs of the
federal law enforcement and demand reduction agencies and (2)
provided promising technology that could be used. 

According to its charter and CTAC's Chief Scientist, the S&T
Committee is to be used as the principal mechanism for assisting CTAC
in its coordination of counterdrug technology R&D efforts,
identifying and prioritizing R&D needs, and evaluating R&D projects
for CTAC to fund.  For a detailed description of CTAC's process for
identifying and prioritizing technology needs and selecting projects
for CTAC funding, including an overview flowchart of the process, see
appendix IV. 


      S&T COMMITTEE'S CHARTER DOES
      NOT REFLECT ITS CURRENT
      COMPOSITION AND
      RESPONSIBILITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

The composition and responsibilities of the S&T Committee, which was
established within ONDCP before CTAC's existence, were set forth in a
February 1990 charter.  According to the charter, the S&T Committee
is to be composed of parallel management-level representatives from
federal counterdrug R&D agencies and a representative from the state
and local R&D community.  The S&T Committee is to be comprised of a
7-member Executive Board, a 16-member committee, and 7 associate
committee members.  It also is to be organized into several working
groups.\8 The S&T Committee's overall responsibilities are to include
identifying, developing, coordinating, and facilitating achievement
of the overall goals and objectives of ONDCP's National Drug Control
Strategy in the areas of drug control research, automated data
processing, and telecommunications. 

The charter is intended to establish and clarify the S&T Committee's
role and responsibilities in helping ONDCP accomplish its goals and
mission.  However, the existing charter does not reflect the S&T
Committee's current composition.  Several of the current members of
the S&T Committee--the Department of Justice's (DOJ) National
Institute of Justice (NIJ) and NIDA, for example--are not listed as
members or listed in their current roles.  NIJ is to represent the
state and local law enforcement communities, and NIDA is to represent
the demand reduction community.  Congress has directed CTAC to be
responsible for addressing the R&D needs of these communities.  Also,
some of the organizations identified in the charter as members of the
S&T Committee are no longer members.  In addition, the listing of
designated working groups in the charter was not current. 

The existing charter also does not address the S&T Committee's
current responsibilities and its relationship to CTAC.  Because the
charter was created before CTAC existed, CTAC is not mentioned in the
charter.  Yet, the S&T Committee is to be the principal mechanism
that CTAC uses to accomplish its responsibilities of overseeing and
coordinating counterdrug technology.  CTAC focuses its R&D efforts in
four areas--tactical technologies, demand reduction, nonintrusive
inspection technology, and wide-area surveillance areas.  The area of
demand reduction is not addressed by the S&T Committee's existing
charter, and the demand reduction community's representative, NIDA,
only recently began participating on the committee.  Also, the
charter does not reflect the roles and responsibilities of the S&T
Committee and its working groups in developing and monitoring the
implementation of the 10-year counterdrug technology development plan
and 5-year budget projections. 


--------------------
\8 Working groups are comprised of several members of the S&T
Committee and are responsible for coordinating agency concerns in
specific technical areas and providing updates and reports to the
full committee for its consideration. 


      CTAC HAS NOT USED THE S&T
      COMMITTEE REGULARLY AND
      CONSISTENTLY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

CTAC has not regularly and consistently involved the full S&T
Committee in key decisions relating to its coordination process.  The
S&T Committee did not meet as regularly as the Chief Scientist
intended, and its involvement in CTAC's coordination process varied
from year to year and was not always documented.  Rather, the Chief
Scientist generally consulted with individual S&T Committee members
and its working groups.  By not involving or dealing with the full
S&T Committee, CTAC did not take full advantage of the benefits of
the interaction and deliberation among the members on key matters
relating to the identification and prioritization of counterdrug
technology needs and selection and funding of related R&D projects. 
As a result, CTAC may be making key funding decisions without the
coordinated deliberation and input, as intended, of the full S&T
Committee.  Thus, neither we nor CTAC could determine the extent to
which its process was identifying and funding the otherwise unfunded
highest priority technology needs. 

According to CTAC's Chief Scientist, the full S&T Committee meets
approximately every 4 months to discuss policy issues, technological
needs, and opportunities to advance technologies for improving the
achievement of counterdrug missions.  However, since CTAC's creation,
the S&T Committee met only twice a year in 1992, 1993, and 1995; once
a year in 1994 and 1996; and not at all in 1997. 

On the basis of our review of S&T Committee minutes from fiscal years
1992 through 1996 and discussions with some committee members, the
S&T Committee's involvement in CTAC's coordination process varied
from year to year.  The S&T Committee performed different tasks each
year over the 5-year period we reviewed.  For example, the S&T
Committee reviewed CTAC's annual draft R&D program plan only once--in
fiscal year 1992.  The S&T Committee met only once--in fiscal year
1995--to evaluate and prioritize federal agencies' proposals for CTAC
funding consideration.  The S&T Committee performed a variety of
other coordination activities at least once during the 5-year period. 
These activities included presenting project proposals for possible
CTAC funding, evaluating proposals, providing progress reports on
CTAC-funded projects, and performing technical reviews. 

CTAC's project selection process calls for the preparation of an
annual R&D program plan that is based on the agencies' needs and the
technical merit and developmental risk of the proposals submitted to
meet these needs.  According to CTAC's Chief Scientist, the S&T
Committee is to assist CTAC by reviewing and updating the needs
listing.  However, we did not find any documentation showing that the
S&T Committee, as a body, was involved in the review and updating of
the needs listing in fiscal years 1992 through 1996. 

Six of the 11 S&T Committee members we surveyed indicated that the
committee provided a valuable and important forum for exchanging
information on technology needs.  A couple of members of the S&T
Committee also said that the committee was more actively involved in
the selection of CTAC-funded projects in the earlier CTAC years.  One
member stated that more frequent meetings of the S&T Committee were
needed to foster additional cooperation and coordination among
agencies. 

In August 1996, the ONDCP Director stated that the S&T Committee and
its working groups needed to be revitalized.  The Director proposed
that the S&T Committee (1) act as a steering body for R&D technology
efforts, (2) have senior-level membership to make commitments to R&D
policy decisions, and (3) increase the frequency of its meetings to
as often as "every three weeks." The Director remarked that it was
important for ONDCP/CTAC to obtain feedback from the S&T Committee
and its working groups to be able to provide better funding
assistance for valid interagency R&D needs.  However, as of November
1997, no significant changes had been made in the S&T Committee and
its working groups.  Nor, as previously mentioned, had the February
1990 S&T Committee charter been updated since CTAC's creation to
reflect changes in the committee's composition, roles, and expanded
mission and to address the committee's proposed revitalization. 

The Chief Scientist told us that the full S&T Committee did not meet
between August 1996 and August 1997.  However, he said that, between
December 1996 and August 1997, he met 10 times with members of the
Technology Coordination Working Group, which is an S&T Committee
working group comprised of key agency representatives.  According to
the Chief Scientist, the purpose of the meetings was, among other
things, to develop a 10-year counterdrug technology development plan
with 5-year budget projections in support of ONDCP's 10-year National
Drug Control Strategy.  The 10-year technology development plan is
expected to provide a road map for developing counterdrug
technologies and upgrading existing agency systems.\9 However, at the
time of our review, the working group had not completed the plan and
budget.  Also, it was not clear what role the full S&T Committee, as
the principal coordinating mechanism, would play in helping to
monitor, implement, and adjust the 10-year plan and 5-year budget
from year to year. 


--------------------
\9 For further discussion of the long-range technology plan,
particularly with regard to narcotics detection technologies, see
Terrorism and Drug Trafficking:  Responsibilities for Developing
Explosives and Narcotics Detection Technologies (GAO/NSIAD-97-95,
Apr.  15, 1997) and Drug Trafficking:  Responsibilities for
Developing Narcotics Detection Technologies (GAO/T-NSIAD-97-192, June
25, 1997). 


      COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY NEEDS
      WERE NOT REGULARLY
      REASSESSED AND UPDATED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4

According to CTAC's process for selecting and funding counterdrug
technology R&D projects, the full S&T Committee is to annually
reassess, update, and prioritize counterdrug technology and
scientific needs to help ensure that the projects selected and funded
are linked to currently identified priority needs among all relevant
agencies.  However, CTAC's Chief Scientist, as well as some of the
S&T Committee members, acknowledged that the latest counterdrug
technology needs listing had not been recently reassessed and was not
always updated annually.  Furthermore, although CTAC had developed
what it termed as priority listings of counterdrug R&D technology
needs, there were far more items on these lists than could be funded,
and no attempt had been made to rank the listed needs by their
relative importance to agency end users.  As a result, there is no
way for CTAC to ensure that the projects it funds reflect the most
current and highest priority of the otherwise unfunded counterdrug
R&D technology needs of the law enforcement and demand reduction
communities.  In this regard, 8 of the 10 S&T Committee members we
surveyed believed that their agencies' counterdrug technology needs
were not adequately reflected in the CTAC-funded projects. 

A listing of priority law enforcement-related counterdrug technology
needs was included in CTAC's first Blueprint Update in August
1992.\10 In May 1993, DOD conducted a 2-day workshop with the S&T
Committee members and CTAC officials to revisit the S&T needs of the
counterdrug enforcement agencies.  The workshop attendees produced an
Investment Strategy for DOD Counterdrug S&T Programs.  The S&T needs
from that effort were added by CTAC to the counterdrug technology
needs listing and updated with agency inputs for fiscal year 1994. 
The needs listing and updated data were included in CTAC's 1995
Blueprint Update.  Since then, CTAC has not substantially changed the
counterdrug technology needs listing. 

S&T Committee members told us that the latest counterdrug technology
needs listing did not reflect contemporary agency needs.  For
example, in a July 1997 memorandum on the subject, an official of one
federal law enforcement agency represented on the S&T Committee
stated that, although some of the listed technological needs might
still be current, the list did not represent current law enforcement
needs from his agency's perspective. 

CTAC officials told us that they annually requested written updates
to the needs listing, but they did not receive responses from most
agencies.  CTAC said it received responses from 9 of 21 agencies for
fiscal year 1995, no agency responses for 1996, and responses from 2
agencies for 1998.  For fiscal year 1997, according to a CTAC
official, CTAC did not request an update to the S&T Committee needs
listing.  However, the Chief Scientist said CTAC did not follow up
with the agencies to obtain their input or to determine why they did
not respond and whether they had any additions or changes.  Moreover,
CTAC had not used the S&T Committee as a forum to obtain all input
and reassess the list to ensure that it reflected the member
agencies' current counterdrug technology requirements.  The Chief
Scientist told us that he planned to follow up on the agency needs
update at the next S&T Committee meeting, which was scheduled to be
held in February 1998. 

Regarding demand reduction technology needs, although legislation
added the demand reduction area to CTAC's statutory responsibilities
in 1993, CTAC did not begin developing a related needs listing until
June 1997.  CTAC delayed developing the list even though it had
invested over $19 million in such technology research as of September
1997.  Moreover, according to the Chief Scientist, NIDA, which
represents the demand reduction community, was not represented on the
S&T Committee until December 1996 when its representative began
attending meetings of the previously mentioned Technology
Coordination Working Group.\11


--------------------
\10 A Counterdrug Enforcement Research and Development Blueprint, The
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, Office of National Drug
Control Policy, August 7, 1992. 

\11 According to CTAC's Chief Scientist, NIDA was added as a member
of the S&T Committee some time before December 1996 to represent the
demand reduction community.  However, the NIDA representative stated
that NIDA was not aware that it was a member of the S&T Committee
until about the time it began attending committee working group
meetings.  In August 1997, the Chief Scientist confirmed that NIDA
had not been formally invited in writing to become a representative,
nor was the committee charter adjusted accordingly.  He stated that
he planned to send a formal letter to the Department of Health and
Human Services requesting that NIDA be represented at the S&T
Committee meetings. 


      STATE AND LOCAL NEEDS WERE
      NOT SYSTEMATICALLY
      IDENTIFIED AND CONSIDERED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.5

CTAC's mission includes identifying, defining, and helping to meet
the counterdrug technology needs of state and local, as well as
federal, law enforcement agencies.  But, although CTAC funded some
state and local projects, it made no attempt to systematically
identify the needs of state and local law enforcement agencies. 
According to CTAC's Chief Scientist, CTAC operated on the assumption
that state and local counterdrug R&D needs were the same as those of
federal agencies; therefore, CTAC focused its process on federal
agencies.  In addition, CTAC did not consider the counterdrug
technology needs of state and local law enforcement agencies as part
of its formal process for selecting and funding projects.  As a
result, state and local projects were selected for funding
independently of the process; some of these projects might not have
been selected had they been considered in conjunction with federal
needs. 

The Chief Scientist told us that NIJ was CTAC's link to the state and
local law enforcement community.  According to an NIJ official, NIJ's
Office of Science and Technology\12 is to work closely with state and
local agencies to identify their overall law enforcement R&D
technology needs, including their counterdrug needs.  However,
according to NIJ's Director of Science and Technology, CTAC was not
responsive to state and local counterdrug technology project
proposals and concerns raised by NIJ.  Like NIDA, NIJ only became a
representative on the S&T Committee in December 1996.\13 The Director
of Science and Technology did not agree with CTAC's assumption that
state and local needs were the same as those of federal agencies. 
Moreover, the President of the International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP) stated in his July 1997 monthly address to association
members\14 that state and local law enforcement practitioners needed
to get more involved in the creation, advancement, and development of
technology to ensure that their needs are communicated and met. 

As of October 1997, CTAC was funding six state and local law
enforcement projects.  Total CTAC funding for these projects was
about $14.6 million, or about 24.0 percent of the funds CTAC
distributed for R&D projects from fiscal years 1992 to 1997. 
However, these projects were not selected as part of CTAC's regular
process for selecting and funding counterdrug projects, which as
previously discussed focused on federal agencies' technology needs. 
Rather, these projects were selected outside of the process through
more ad hoc means.  Thus, CTAC had no systematic way of ensuring that
projects selected and funded with available CTAC resources had the
highest priority among state and local, as well as federal, agencies. 
For example, one state project receiving funding was initiated as a
result of a contact at a federal agency; another project receiving
funding was initiated as a result of contacts made at a law
enforcement conference.  In addition, by selecting projects outside
of the formal process, CTAC has no assurance that they, to the extent
possible, meet the needs of multiple local, state, and federal
agencies.  For example, a state and local project leader told us that
two of the six CTAC-funded state and local projects were so
specialized that they could not be transferred easily to other
jurisdictions. 

According to the Chief Scientist, CTAC communicated and interacted
with state and local law enforcement and demand reduction agencies
primarily through regional workshops held principally to share
counterdrug technologies in the test and pilot stages.  According to
the CTAC contractor responsible for managing the workshops, these
workshops apparently increased state and local agencies' awareness of
CTAC and its mission.  In this regard, over 90 percent of the state
and local agencies participating in CTAC's law enforcement
counterdrug technology workshops said that they were not aware of
CTAC before receiving notice of the workshops.  However, the
workshops were generally not used to identify state and local
counterdrug technology needs. 

A CTAC official told us that CTAC representatives attended annual
meetings of the IACP, National Sheriffs Association (NSA), and Police
Executive Research Forum and participated in NIJ's technology
committee to help identify the needs of the state and local
organizations.  However, we found no evidence of how information
gathered at these meetings was incorporated into CTAC's needs
identification process. 

The Chief Scientist acknowledged that, although CTAC is tasked with
identifying state and local technology needs, it had not formally
addressed these needs as it had federal needs.  He stated that, in
anticipation of receiving additional funds in fiscal year 1998
specifically to transfer technologies to state and local law
enforcement agencies,\15 CTAC was planning to form a committee
comprised of representatives from various pertinent organizations,
including NIJ, NSA, and IACP, to assess and identify the technologies
to be transferred and the recipient locations.  According to the
Chief Scientist, this committee would be used to assist CTAC in
identifying state and local counterdrug technology needs as well as
the technologies ready for transfer. 


--------------------
\12 The Office of Science and Technology's mission, among other
things, is to provide state and local law enforcement and corrections
agencies with access to the best technologies and help them develop
capabilities that are essential to the improvement of efficiency and
effectiveness in the criminal justice system. 

\13 According to CTAC's Chief Scientist, NIJ was added as a member of
the S&T Committee some time before December 1996 to represent the
state and local law enforcement communities.  However, the NIJ
representative stated that NIJ was not aware that it was a member of
the S&T Committee until about the time that it began attending S&T
working group meetings.  In August 1997, the Chief Scientist
confirmed that NIJ had not formally been invited in writing to become
a representative, and that the S&T Committee charter had not been
adjusted accordingly.  The Chief Scientist stated that he planned to
send a formal letter to DOJ requesting that NIJ be represented. 

\14 The IACP President's monthly address was published in the July
1997 issue of the IACP's magazine, The Police Chief. 

\15 The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1998,
appropriated $13 million to CTAC to initiate a pilot Counterdrug
Technology Transfer Program for transferring technology directly to
state and local law enforcement agencies. 


      COMPREHENSIVE TRANSITIONAL
      PLANS WERE NOT PROVIDED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.6

In its report accompanying ONDCP's fiscal year 1993 appropriations
bill, the House Appropriations Committee stated that before CTAC
committed funds to a R&D project, it should have a written commitment
from the client agency.  This commitment was to specify that funds to
purchase the technology, once successfully developed, would be
included in future budget requests.  Consequently, CTAC recommends
that agencies provide CTAC with acquisition or transitional plans for
each of their projects receiving CTAC funds.  These plans are
intended to increase the likelihood that any technology that is
successfully developed through R&D efforts will eventually be used. 

However, most R&D projects that CTAC approved for funding did not
have transitional plans, as recommended.  A CTAC official told us
that, in many instances, CTAC used verbal, good faith agreements with
agency representatives, and that such agreements were not documented. 
From its establishment through April 1997, CTAC funded 72 projects. 
However, although we found brief references to transition or
acquisition in several project proposals, only seven funded projects
included transitional plans for deploying the technology under
development.  CTAC's Chief Scientist told us that CTAC would like to
receive more transitional plans from the agencies.  However, other
than a reference in the 1992 Blueprint Update to the lack of
transitional plans, CTAC did not attempt to follow up on its
recommendation that agencies provide transitional plans.  Nor did
CTAC raise this issue with the S&T Committee. 


      EXTENT OF DUPLICATION
      AVOIDED WAS UNKNOWN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.7

As reflected in its mission statement, one of CTAC's objectives is to
prevent duplication of counterdrug R&D efforts.  According to CTAC
officials, they look for unnecessary duplication in federal
counterdrug R&D projects as part of the process for identifying
counterdrug R&D needs and requirements and for selecting projects.  A
CTAC official also indicated that CTAC checks for duplication as part
of its role in ONDCP's drug budget certification process.\16 CTAC
also includes a listing of those projects comprising the National
Counterdrug R&D Program in its Blueprint Update.  In addition,
according to CTAC officials, the S&T Committee meetings and the
CTAC-sponsored symposiums, among other things, enable stakeholders to
identify and avoid unnecessary, duplicative R&D efforts. 

CTAC officials were confident that the mechanisms they had in place
helped avoid unnecessary duplication.  However, they told us that
they had not identified any specific examples of potentially
duplicative counterdrug R&D projects that had been avoided due to
CTAC's efforts.  The officials said they did not systematically
attempt to identify or obtain feedback from participating agencies on
incidents of duplication that had been avoided due to CTAC.  Without
a measure of outcome, CTAC has no assurance of how well it is
carrying out and achieving this mission.  As discussed later in this
report, outcome measures are required by GPRA as part of future
performance measurement tasks. 

Some of the S&T Committee members we interviewed told us that their
agencies were generally able to avoid duplicative research projects
because they learned of each other's plans as a result of CTAC's
efforts.  Moreover, in a computer listing of ongoing National
Counterdrug R&D Program projects distributed by CTAC for updating,
one agency identified two projects being done by other agencies that
would meet its needs; therefore, it dropped its plans to submit
proposals for similar projects.  Also, 3 of the 10 S&T Committee
representatives we surveyed responded that they were aware of
potentially duplicative efforts that CTAC had helped them to avoid. 
For example, one agency representative noted that CTAC's efforts
helped avoid duplication in the demand reduction and nonintrusive
inspection technology R&D areas.  Another agency noted that the
CTAC-sponsored Facial Recognition Working Group of the S&T Committee
joined together all of the federal sponsors of and major customers
for facial recognition R&D, thereby avoiding duplicative R&D efforts. 


--------------------
\16 See footnote 4. 


   CTAC MADE SOME POSITIVE
   CONTRIBUTIONS TO FEDERAL
   COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY R&D
   EFFORTS BUT HAD NOT DEVELOPED
   MEANINGFUL PERFORMANCE MEASURES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

CTAC officials cited numerous contributions or accomplishments
relating both to 36 of the 72 R&D projects it funded and to the
outreach efforts CTAC has sponsored since it was established. 
However, agency contact persons for individual CTAC-funded projects
defined contributions differently, citing only those 10 projects (of
the 36 projects identified by CTAC) that had actually resulted in
usable technologies that were assisting agencies.  Agency officials
agreed that the outreach efforts cited by CTAC helped to enhance the
exchange of information as well as avoid duplication.  However, our
task of determining CTAC's contributions to federal drug control
efforts was complicated because CTAC has no meaningful performance
measures to enable it to (1) assess the extent to which it is
achieving its mission and contributing to the development and
deployment of counterdrug technology and (2) identify and implement
any needed improvements to better achieve its mission. 


      CTAC CITED PROJECTS AND
      OUTREACH EFFORTS AS
      CONTRIBUTIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

From 1992 until April 10, 1997, CTAC funded 72 projects.  According
to CTAC's Chief Scientist, a project was considered a contribution or
accomplishment if any one of the following occurred:  (1) a
technology was developed and in use, (2) a phase of a project was
completed, (3) a prototype was developed, (4) results of testing were
completed, or (5) "substantial progress" in an area was achieved.\17
In response to our request, the Chief Scientist developed and
provided us with a list of 36 counterdrug projects that they
considered to be contributions.  Some of these projects are
highlighted in CTAC's annual R&D Blueprint Update, which includes a
listing of CTAC's major accomplishments. 

CTAC also considered its outreach efforts to be contributions.  The
outreach program was developed to bring together major stakeholders
involved in counterdrug efforts to exchange information on
technology.  According to a CTAC official, CTAC's outreach efforts,
from its inception through August 1997, included four international
symposiums, one drug abuse treatment technology workshop, and six
1-day technology workshops designed to address user needs and
technological opportunities. 


--------------------
\17 According to a CTAC official, "substantial progress" means
providing additional capability or achieving satisfactory results. 
The official cited the CTAC-sponsored Cocaine Catalytic Antibodies
project and Drug Evaluation Network System project as examples. 
Researchers working on these projects described them as follows:  The
Cocaine Catalytic Antibodies project was designed to prevent (1)
fatal overdoses of cocaine and (2) symptoms produced by nonfatal
overdoses.  Progress was made in the testing of mice.  The Drug
Evaluation Network System project's ultimate goal was to evaluate the
various alternative treatments to cocaine addiction.  This project
had established an information link among 20 drug programs in 5
cities. 


      VIEWS ON CTAC'S
      CONTRIBUTIONS DIFFER
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Because agencies are the ultimate customers of counterdrug
technology, we contacted the CTAC-identified contact persons from the
lead agencies for each of the 36 projects that CTAC considered to be
contributions to obtain their views on the contributions.  In
summary, these agency officials considered 10 of the 36 projects to
be contributions because they had different criteria than CTAC for
considering a project a contribution.  Their criteria were that the
technology resulting from those projects (1) had been successfully
used and (2) was assisting their agencies in fulfilling their
counterdrug missions.  These 10 projects are described in appendix V. 

The remaining 26 projects did not meet these criteria in that they
generally either were completed and not implemented or were still in
progress.  Specifically, 12 of these projects were categorized as
completed, but they were not in use for a variety of reasons (e.g.,
the technology was not user friendly, was too expensive to use, had
operational problems, or needed further development).  For example, a
project pertaining to narcotics detection in mail packages fell into
this category because, although a prototype had been developed, the
technology did not effectively detect cocaine.  We were told by the
agency contact persons that 11 of the 26 other projects were
currently in development.  For example, a transportable observation
platform designed to provide long-range observation capability was
still undergoing tests and evaluation.  Finally, for the remaining
three projects, the designated contact persons were not aware of the
status of the projects and thus could not comment on whether they
considered them to be contributions. 

The majority of the S&T Committee members we surveyed commented that
CTAC's unique contribution to the counterdrug effort is that it
provides a forum for interagency exchange of information.  For
example, respondents noted that S&T Committee meetings held to
present project proposals facilitated professional communication
among agency representatives.  They noted that these meetings gave
R&D agency representatives an opportunity to informally discuss
current research and thereby identify technology gaps and to learn
about technology acquisition on non-CTAC-funded projects. 

Another aspect of CTAC's coordination function and outreach efforts
is CTAC-sponsored symposiums that bring together scientific and
technical experts from academia, private industry, and government
agencies.  One S&T Committee member that we surveyed reported that
his agency was able to bring together at a CTAC symposium all of the
federal sponsors and most of the major customers of a new technology
in the area of wide-area surveillance.  Also, 97 percent of the state
and local law enforcement participants who completed exit evaluations
at the six 1-day workshops held to date reported that they found the
workshops helpful. 

In addition, we surveyed S&T Committee members to obtain their
overall views on CTAC's contributions, particularly regarding to its
coordination of federal counterdrug technology R&D efforts and its
support of ONDCP's National Drug Control Strategy.  When asked to
determine, from their agencies' perspectives, how effective or
ineffective CTAC has been in coordinating and overseeing federal
counterdrug technology R&D activities, representatives from the 10
agencies we surveyed provided mixed responses.  Six of the 10 agency
respondents stated that CTAC was "sometimes effective, sometimes
ineffective," with 2 agency respondents stating that CTAC was
"generally effective," and 2 responding "generally ineffective." One
of the six respondents explained that CTAC was "somewhat effective"
when focusing its efforts on the R&D technology that was needed and
not being pursued by other agencies, but was "less effective" in
areas where agencies had different technology requirements or needs. 
Another of the six respondents explained that CTAC had been
"generally effective" in its function of coordinating the federal
counterdrug technology R&D effort, but had been "generally
ineffective" in developing technology to meet needs. 

When asked to determine, from their agencies' perspectives, to what
extent CTAC's involvement has had a positive effect on federal
counterdrug technology R&D efforts that support the goals of the
National Drug Control Strategy, the representatives' responses ranged
from CTAC's having a "moderate" effect to having "little or no"
effect.  For example, one respondent noted that before fiscal year
1997, CTAC had focused more on individual agencies' technology needs
than on technology that specifically supported the overall National
Strategy. 


      MEANINGFUL PERFORMANCE
      MEASURES WERE LACKING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Determining CTAC's progress in achieving its mission and its
contributions to the development and deployment of counterdrug
technology was complicated by CTAC's lack of meaningful performance
indicators or measures.  Although CTAC has a specific mission and
responsibilities, according to ONDCP and CTAC officials, it had not
developed indicators to measure its progress in achieving its
mission, that is, the outcome of its efforts. 

Although scientific research is often considered to be intrinsically
valuable to society, there is pressure on all federal agencies,
including S&T agencies, to demonstrate that they are making effective
use of taxpayers' dollars.  This emphasis is evident in the passage
of GPRA.  In response to questions about the value and effectiveness
of federal programs, the Act seeks to shift federal agencies' focus
away from traditional concerns, such as staffing, activity levels,
and tasks completed, toward a focus on program outcomes--that is, the
real difference a federal program makes in people's lives.  Within
the context of the Act, an "outcome measure" assesses the results of
a program activity compared to its intended purpose, while an "output
measure" tabulates, calculates, or records the level of activity or
effort and can be expressed in a quantitative or qualitative manner. 

Since CTAC had no formal performance measures, we relied on general
criteria provided by the Chief Scientist, as well as our survey
results and subsequent discussions with S&T Committee members, to
learn about CTAC's contributions.  As previously discussed, we found
a lack of agreement between CTAC and S&T Committee members regarding
the criteria for CTAC project-related contributions. 

When we examined the contributions identified by CTAC, we found that
they were more output-related than outcome-related.  That is, CTAC
focused more on quantifying specific activities and products than on
assessing their effectiveness or impact on law enforcement and demand
reduction counterdrug efforts.  For example, CTAC generally
considered completed projects (output) successful whether or not they
resulted in the deployment of useful technology by law enforcement or
demand reduction agencies.  In addition, our review did not find that
CTAC obtained periodic feedback from law enforcement or demand
reduction agencies on the extent to which the technology resulting
from CTAC-funded projects was useful in helping to reduce drug supply
or the demand for drugs (outcome).  Also, CTAC cited the number of
symposiums and workshops it sponsored (output) but did not
specifically measure the outcome of those forums in terms of, for
example, the unnecessary duplicative R&D avoided and the technology
developed and used (outcome). 

In addition, CTAC is responsible for coordinating counterdrug R&D
activities to ensure that unnecessary duplication is avoided and that
it supports otherwise unfunded projects with the highest priority. 
However, we found no indication that CTAC had developed a means for
measuring the results and effectiveness of its coordination
(outcome), such as obtaining feedback from the agencies with R&D
missions whose activities it is charged with coordinating.  Nor, as
we previously discussed, has CTAC developed a means for measuring its
effectiveness in identifying and avoiding unnecessary duplicative R&D
efforts. 

Without measurable outcome indicators linked to its mission and
identifiable goals and objectives, CTAC and others cannot reliably
determine CTAC's impact on reducing the nation's drug problems
through the development and deployment of useful counterdrug
technologies. 

In September 1997, ONDCP and CTAC officials informed us that they
were taking steps as part of two separate, but related, initiatives
to develop long-term strategic goals.  First, pursuant to statutory
provisions requiring the development and submission of the National
Drug Control Strategy, ONDCP has been developing a performance
measurement system for the National Strategy.  As part of this
effort, CTAC officials said that CTAC and other federal R&D agencies
have been developing performance targets and corresponding measures
or indicators for each of the technology-related objectives for the
National Strategy's goals.  However, these indicators are intended to
measure the administration's overall progress in achieving the
national goals and objectives, which involves the input and efforts
of various agencies, and not to measure CTAC's execution of its
mission or its specific achievements and contributions. 

Secondly, pursuant to GPRA, ONDCP is developing a separate strategic
plan with objectives, targets, and performance indicators specific to
the operations of ONDCP and its components.  ONDCP officials told us
that in response to the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
comments on a draft of the plan, they and CTAC officials were
developing specific objectives, targets, and performance indicators
for CTAC that would be included in the strategic plan.  They stated
that these indicators or measures would be primarily output-oriented
(e.g., number of projects funded, reports generated, or symposiums
sponsored).  They also stated that they planned to work with CTAC in
developing outcome measures for CTAC later, although they did not
provide a specific time frame. 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

CTAC has in place a coordination process for identifying counterdrug
technology needs and selecting and funding R&D projects to meet those
needs.  However, we found that CTAC's design and execution of the
process did not allow CTAC or us to determine the extent to which its
process was identifying and funding the otherwise unfunded highest
priority technology needs.  The primary reason for this situation
appears to be a lack of regular communication between CTAC and
counterdrug R&D agencies through the S&T Committee, which is their
representative body.  S&T Committee meetings have been infrequent,
and the committee has not been used regularly and consistently in
helping to make key decisions, such as which projects CTAC should
fund with its limited available funds.  According to S&T Committee
members, when the committee has met more frequently, it was effective
in enabling members to exchange information, avoid duplication, and
foster better cooperation and coordination.  By dealing with
individual S&T Committee members or working groups, CTAC may not be
taking full advantage of the interaction and deliberations among the
members on decisions and advisory matters as intended.  As a result,
CTAC may not be funding the most critically needed counterdrug
technologies. 

Moreover, the charter for the S&T Committee has not been revised to
reflect changes in the committee's composition, responsibilities, and
relationship to CTAC since 1990, which was before CTAC was
established.  Because of the changes in the S&T Committee's
membership since the charter was originally written, it is important
that the document be updated as needed. 

In addition, federal R&D agencies' counterdrug needs have not been
regularly reassessed and updated; state and local technology needs,
although funded in some cases, have not been systematically
considered, along with federal needs, as part of CTAC's needs
identification and project selection process; and agencies have often
failed to include the transitional plans needed to help ensure that
technologies successfully developed with CTAC funds are used.  Also,
while CTAC has established mechanisms to avoid duplicative R&D
efforts, it has not gathered the necessary feedback from its
constituent agencies to determine whether these mechanisms are
working.  Therefore, CTAC does not know to what extent it is
fulfilling its mission objectives of helping the counterdrug R&D
community to identify and avoid duplication. 

Recent efforts by CTAC and the S&T Committee's Technology
Coordination Working Group to develop a 10-year counterdrug
technology development plan with 5-year budget projections in support
of ONDCP's 10-year National Drug Control Strategy are positive steps
toward defining and addressing our nation's counterdrug technology
needs.  These efforts also are good examples of how CTAC could more
effectively communicate and coordinate with the counterdrug
technology R&D community in accomplishing its mission.  However, CTAC
may not be able to effectively implement and adjust as necessary the
National Drug Control Strategy and the technology development plan
from year to year, because of the shortcomings we found in its
coordination process for annually identifying, selecting, and funding
R&D projects to meet identified technology needs and gaps. 

CTAC has made some identifiable contributions to needed counterdrug
technology development.  However, the extent to which CTAC has
achieved its mission of helping to develop and deploy needed
counterdrug technology is unclear because it has not yet developed
meaningful, measurable performance goals and outcome indicators. 
This situation is reflected in the varying perspectives on CTAC's
contributions to counterdrug technology efforts held by CTAC and the
other agencies involved in those efforts.  Although both CTAC and the
S&T Committee members we surveyed agreed that CTAC's outreach efforts
had improved information-sharing among members of the counterdrug R&D
community, many of the R&D projects that CTAC cited as contributions
were not considered as such by the agencies that will ultimately use
the technologies.  One reason for this difference of opinion appears
to be that, while CTAC counted the attainment of certain milestones
in the development process as contributions, the lead agencies were
interested primarily in implementing efficient and effective
counterdrug technologies in the field. 

Until CTAC and the agencies it assists--its customers and
stakeholders--concur in how CTAC's contributions to the development
and deployment of counterdrug technology should be measured, it will
be difficult to determine the extent to which CTAC is achieving its
mission.  ONDCP/CTAC has an opportunity to address this situation by
coordinating closely with its key customers and stakeholders as it
develops specific goals and performance measures under GPRA. 
However, CTAC is currently developing output measures, rather than
the outcome measures that are necessary to determine with any
precision the extent to which CTAC is achieving the purpose for which
it was created. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

For CTAC to more effectively coordinate with federal, state, and
local counterdrug R&D agencies in identifying and prioritizing
technology needs and selecting projects for CTAC funding, we
recommend that the Director, ONDCP, direct the Chief Scientist to
work with the S&T Committee to help ensure that: 

  -- The S&T Committee meets regularly to exchange information on
     federal, state, and local drug supply and demand reduction
     technology needs; obtain, assess, and prioritize R&D needs; and
     recommend to the Chief Scientist selection and funding of the
     otherwise unfunded highest priority projects.  In this regard,
     the S&T Committee's charter should be updated to reflect the
     committee's current composition, responsibilities, and
     relationship to CTAC. 

  -- Projects selected for CTAC funding have transitional/acquisition
     plans. 

Furthermore, to help ensure that CTAC can adequately measure whether
it is achieving its mission, we recommend that the Director, ONDCP,
direct the Chief Scientist to develop, within a set period,
performance objectives and outcome measures that make it possible to
assess the extent to which CTAC is achieving its various mission
objectives and contributing to the development and deployment of
counterdrug technologies. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

ONDCP provided comments on a draft of this report, and its comments
are reprinted in appendix VI.  Overall, ONDCP generally agreed with
our findings and conclusions and is taking action on all of our
recommendations. 

Regarding our first recommendation, ONDCP stated in its written
comments that it had directed CTAC to revise the S&T Committee's 1990
charter.  Other than changes in the composition of the committee,
ONDCP did not specify how the charter would be revised.  However, if
implemented as set forth in our recommendation, revising the charter
should help ensure that all parties understand their roles,
responsibilities, and expectations. 

However, ONDCP indicated in its written comments that the membership
of the S&T Committee would include officials of the President's
Cabinet with drug control responsibilities.  An ONDCP official
subsequently informed us that ONDCP expects that "principal deputy
secretaries" of the various agencies will sit as members of the
committee.  This would represent a change from the current
membership, which includes officials at the working levels, with
knowledge of their agencies' counterdrug technology R&D activities. 
However, according to the Chief Scientist, the working-level
officials currently on the S&T Committee would continue to serve on
the committee's Technology Coordination Working Group, which he
chairs and which would serve as CTAC's principal mechanism for
coordinating counterdrug R&D efforts, identifying and pioritizing
technology needs, and selecting otherwise unfunded R&D projects for
CTAC funding.  The Working Group would then advise the S&T Committee,
which would serve as the steering and policymaking body for
counterdrug technology R&D efforts. 

Regarding our second recommendation, ONDCP stated that it had
directed CTAC to use the annual budget recertification process to
ensure that the lead agencies for CTAC-sponsored projects involving
the delivery of prototype systems have written acquisition or
transitional plans.  This action, if properly implemented, should
fulfill the intent of our recommendation. 

Regarding our third recommendation, ONDCP expressed the intention to
verify CTAC's performance by measuring the contributions of
CTAC-sponsored counterdrug technologies to the efficiency and
effectiveness of user agencies within the framework of ONDCP's
national drug control goals and objectives.  To track and measure
CTAC's performance, ONDCP proposes to use the strategic plan, annual
plan, and annual performance report required under GPRA.  Depending
on the types of indicators that ONDCP and CTAC develop to measure
CTAC's performance and contributions, these proposed actions could go
a long way toward helping to clarify CTAC's impact on the development
and deployment of counterdrug technology. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from the date of this letter.  At that time, we will send copies of
the report to the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Caucus on
International Narcotics Control, the appropriate congressional
committees, the Director of ONDCP, CTAC's Chief Scientist, the heads
of agencies represented on the S&T Committee, the Director of OMB,
and other interested parties.  Also, copies will be made available to
others upon request. 

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII.  If
you have any questions about this report, please call me on (202)
512-8777. 

Sincerely yours,

Norman J.  Rabkin
Director, Administration
 of Justice Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

In response to the request of the Chairman of the Senate Caucus on
International Narcotics Control that we review the operations and
contributions of the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC),
our objectives were to determine (1) how CTAC coordinates its
counterdrug research and development (R&D) efforts with other federal
agencies to address counterdrug R&D needs that are not being met by
other agencies and to avoid unnecessary duplication and (2) what
contributions CTAC has made to counterdrug R&D efforts since its
creation. 

Our work covered CTAC operations and contributions during fiscal
years 1992 through 1997.  We conducted our review primarily in the
Washington, D.C., area at the headquarters of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)/CTAC.  We interviewed officials from
CTAC, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the following
key federal law enforcement and other agencies involved in the
National Counterdrug R&D program:  the U.S.  Customs Service, Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Defense (DOD), U.S. 
Coast Guard, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), National
Institute of Justice (NIJ), Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS), and National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA).  We contacted
CTAC's technical and contracting agencies--the U.S.  Army Electronic
Proving Ground in Fort Huachuca, AZ, and the Tennessee Valley
Authority in Knoxville, TN, to discuss and obtain documentation of
CTAC's project selection process.  Furthermore, on the basis of usage
of CTAC-sponsored technology, we judgmentally selected and contacted
two Customs Service field offices. 

To address both of our objectives, we used a structured questionnaire
to survey representatives of 10 of the 21 federal agencies on the S&T
Committee.  We judgmentally selected the 10 agencies on the basis of
preliminary discussions with ONDCP, CTAC, and several federal
agencies involved in counterdrug technology R&D activities.  The 10
agencies varied in size and level of funding, but accounted for the
majority of the overall budget for the National Counterdrug R&D
Program from fiscal years 1992 through 1997.  In addition to size and
level of funding, we considered such factors as the agencies'
functions (drug supply and demand reduction) and their extent and
length of involvement in R&D activities.  We surveyed the agencies
during March and April, 1997. 

Using this questionnaire, we asked officials their views about (1)
how well CTAC communicated various kinds of information to agency
users of counterdrug technology, (2) how effective CTAC was in
overseeing and coordinating federal counterdrug technology R&D
activities and in avoiding duplication and filling technology gaps,
and (3) to what extent CTAC's involvement has had a positive effect
on federal counterdrug technology R&D efforts that support the goals
of the National Drug Control Strategy.  We also asked officials their
views about (1) CTAC's general and specific contributions to federal
counterdrug technology R&D efforts and (2) the extent to which
specific technologies developed and tested with CTAC funds had been
fielded and used. 

Also, using a similarly structured questionnaire, we judgmentally
selected and interviewed nine state and local administrators by
telephone or in person at CTAC's regional workshop in Atlanta, GA. 
We also analyzed evaluation forms that had been completed by
attendees at all six regional workshops sponsored by CTAC. 

To address the first objective, we also analyzed (1) CTAC's and key
law enforcement's and other agencies' involvement in counterdrug
technology R&D efforts for fiscal years 1992 through 1997, ONDCP's
National Drug Control Strategies, CTAC's corresponding annual
Counterdrug Research and Development Blueprint Update reports,
minutes of Science and Technology (S&T) Committee and working group
meetings, and pertinent memorandums and other documents; (2) CTAC's
policies, procedures, and processes for identifying R&D needs, and
prioritizing, selecting, and funding R&D projects; (3) CTAC
communication of guidance and project-related information to
counterdrug technology R&D and user agencies; (4) for fiscal years
1992 through 1997, funding appropriated to and allocated by CTAC for
the National Counterdrug R&D Program; and (5) CTAC's legislative
history.  We did not verify the validity of data provided by CTAC. 

To address the second objective, we also reviewed documentation to
identify and analyze contributions or accomplishments cited by CTAC. 
CTAC provided us with a list of contributions and R&D agencies'
contact officials in the appropriate federal agencies.  We discussed
with these officials their views on the contributions and the status
of the related projects. 


FEDERAL COUNTERDRUG RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT SPENDING, FY 1992-97
========================================================== Appendix II

                             ((Dollars in millions))

                                                                  1997\a
Federal agency         1992     1993     1994     1995     1996  request   Total
------------------  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------  ======
Agriculture            $6.5     $6.5     $6.5     $6.5     $4.2     $4.7   $34.9
 Research Service
U.S. Forest             0.5      0.5      0.5      0.1      0.1      0.1     1.8
 Service
Department of          91.6     34.1     44.7     54.0     51.4     29.4   305.2
 Defense
Bureau of Indian        0.0      0.0      1.0      0.9      0.5      0.5     2.9
 Affairs
Drug Enforcement        0.0      0.0      2.4      2.3      2.7      3.2    10.6
 Administration
Federal Bureau of       3.8      6.8      2.8      4.5     12.9     12.9    43.7
 Investigation
Federal Aviation        0.7      1.0      1.0      1.1      1.0      1.0     5.8
 Administration
Financial Crimes        1.0      1.2      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0     2.2
 Enforcement
 Network
Immigration and         0.5      0.4      0.5      0.9      0.5      0.5     3.3
 Naturalization
 Service
Office of Justice      16.7     18.1     20.6     15.0     16.4     17.6   104.4
 Programs
Interagency Crime       0.4      0.4      0.3      0.4      0.4      0.4     2.3
 and Drug
 Enforcement\\\b
U.S. Coast Guard        5.2      2.4      1.2      1.0      0.7      0.5    11.0
National Highway        0.5      0.8      1.0      0.3      0.5      0.2     3.3
 Traffic Safety
 Administration
U.S. Customs            3.7      3.7      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0     7.4
 Service
ADAMHA -              157.5      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0   157.5
 Prevention
NIDA -Prevention        0.0    164.3    174.8    179.6    188.5    191.7   898.9
ADAMHA-Treatment      191.8      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0   191.8
NIDA -Treatment         0.0    239.9    250.4    257.3    269.9    274.6  1,292.
                                                                               1
Office of Veterans      2.7      2.1      3.2      3.9      3.9      3.9    19.7
 Affairs -
 Treatment
Counterdrug            21.0     15.0    8.5\c      8.0     16.0     18.0  86.5\c
 Technology
 Assessment Center
Office of National      0.5      0.9      0.9      6.4      0.0      1.0     9.7
 Drug Control
 Policy
================================================================================
Total                $504.6   $498.1   $520.3   $542.2   $569.6   $559.2  $3,194
                                                                              .0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The 1997 figures reflect those requested but not spent. 

\b Formerly the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces. 

\c Total includes $1 million in funding received from the ONDCP
Director's discretionary fund account in fiscal year 1994. 
Therefore, the total of CTAC's spending is $1 million more than
CTAC's total appropriation. 

Source:  1996 National Drug Control Strategy. 


CTAC FUNDING BY VARIOUS SPENDING
AND TECHNOLOGY THRUST CATEGORIES
========================================================= Appendix III



                                   Table III.1
                     
                         CTAC Funding by Various Spending
                         Categories, Fiscal Years 1992-97

                              (Dollars in thousands)

Category        1992      1993      1994      1995      1996      1997     Total
----------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ========
Demand        $6,646      $400    $1,275    $1,060    $3,950    $5,780   $19,111
 reduction
 \a
Supply        10,819     7,014     6,702     4,959     5,990     6,365    41,849
 reduction
Operationa     3,554     4,102        69     1,356     3,910     4,705    17,696
 l test
 and
 evaluatio
 n
Technical        119     2,875       455       425       550       150     4,574
 support
Reserve        (137)       608         0       200         0         0       671
 fund
Earmarks\b         0         0         0         0     1,600     1,000     2,600
================================================================================
Total        $21,001   $14,999  $8,501\\    $8,000   $16,000   $18,000  $86,501\
                                       c                                       c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a CTAC funded demand reduction projects prior to being mandated by
Congress to include this area in its mission.  This responsibility
was added by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994 (P.L.  103-322). 

\b The El Paso Intelligence Center received $600,000 and the Model
Drug Law Conference received $1 million from CTAC's fiscal year 1996
appropriation.  In fiscal year 1997, the Law Conference received
another $1 million. 

\c Total includes $1 million in funding received from the ONDCP
Director's discretionary fund account in fiscal year 1994. 
Therefore, the total of CTAC's spending is $1 million more than
CTAC's total appropriation. 

Source:  CTAC. 



                                   Table III.2
                     
                       Distribution of CTAC R&D Funding by
                       Technology Thrust Area, Fiscal Years
                                     1992-97

                              (Dollars in thousands)

CTAC
thrust
area            1992      1993      1994      1995      1996      1997     Total
----------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ========
Demand        $6,646      $400    $1,275    $1,060    $3,950    $5,780   $19,111
 reduction
Nonintrusi     3,006     1,385     2,517     2,074     1,250     2,255    12,487
 ve
 inspectio
 n
Tactical       4,563     4,854     4,185     2,685     4,740     3,860    24,887
 technology
Wide-area      3,250       775         0       200         0       250     4,475
 surveilla
 nce
================================================================================
Total        $17,465    $7,414    $7,977    $6,019    $9,940   $12,145   $60,960
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  CTAC. 


OVERVIEW DESCRIPTION OF CTAC'S
PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING AND
PRIORITIZING COUNTERDRUG
TECHNOLOGY NEEDS AND SELECTING
CTAC- FUNDED RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
========================================================== Appendix IV

The following is a detailed description provided by the Chief
Scientist and other CTAC officials of the process to be followed by
CTAC and the S&T Committee for identifying and prioritizing
counterdrug technology needs and selecting R&D projects for funding
with available CTAC funds. 

The annual selection process for CTAC-funded R&D projects is to begin
with the S&T Committee update of the scientific and technological
needs.  CTAC generally requests, in writing, the scientific and
technological need updates from the counterdrug law enforcement
members of the S&T Committee between April and May of each year.  To
address the demand reduction needs, CTAC is to consult with the
National Institute of Drug Abuse.  These scientific and technological
needs are grouped into four areas called thrusts:  (1) tactical
technology, (2) nonintrusive inspection, (3) wide-area surveillance,
and (4) demand reduction.  The scientific and technological needs of
the drug enforcement agencies are to be placed into a priority order
according to short-, medium-, and long-term requirements in the
thrust areas of tactical technology, nonintrusive inspection, and
wide-area surveillance.  The demand reduction thrust area is not
included in the priority listing.  The priority listing of short-,
medium-, and long-term needs by thrust area is generally included in
an appendix to CTAC's Blueprint Update. 

To address the scientific and technological needs of the drug
enforcement agencies, CTAC solicits either white papers or
proposals\18 through the Broad Agency Announcements (BAA).\19 These
submissions are from industry, federal government laboratories,
federal agencies, and academia.  Furthermore, the members of the S&T
Committee can submit proposals at any time.  According to the Chief
Scientist, CTAC works with the members of the S&T Committee to
develop a potential project.  If the evaluation of the potential
project is accepted by the expert panel that is comprised of
government officials who are experts in the area of consideration,
CTAC would consider the project for funding.  CTAC's technical and
contracting agent at the U.S.  Army Electronic Proving Ground handles
the evaluations of white papers and proposals as a result of the BAA. 
The Tennessee Valley Authority, CTAC's other technical and
contracting agent, is primarily responsible for interagency
agreements with academic institutions.  The appropriate experts\20
evaluate white papers and proposals for technical merit and execution
risk as they are received.  The evaluation criteria are as follows: 

  -- potential contribution of the effort to the various counterdrug
     law enforcement agencies' specific missions, as well as
     relevance and contribution to the national technology base;

  -- overall scientific and technical merit of the proposal including
     (1) an understanding of the technical problem and its
     application to counterdrug enforcement and demand reduction, (2)
     the soundness of the approach, and (3) the probability of
     success;

  -- the performer's capabilities, related experience, facilities,
     techniques, or unique combinations of these that are integral
     factors for achieving the proposed objectives;

  -- the qualifications, capabilities, and experience of the proposed
     principal investigator, team member, or key personnel who are
     critical in achieving the proposed objectives; and

  -- realism of proposed cost and availability of funds. 

On the basis of the evaluation of proposals, CTAC's technical and
contracting agents compile a list of acceptable proposals for CTAC's
consideration.  This listing of acceptable R&D proposals is forwarded
to CTAC. 

Before the Chief Scientist makes his final selection of R&D projects
for funding, he assesses those proposals on the basis of the
following criteria:  (1) alignment to the National Drug Control
Strategy's goals and objectives, (2) multiagency use, (3) innovative
and high payoff, (4) developmental risk, (5) duplication, (6)
acquisition and transitional planning, and (7) time horizon (i.e.,
short-, medium-, or long-term).  CTAC identifies a sponsoring agency
for each project to provide oversight.  CTAC then is to discuss each
project with the lead agency to confirm that the project would meet
the agency's counterdrug mission and to negotiate funding for the
project.  In addition, CTAC is to assess each agency's R&D
counterdrug program plan to identify duplication and gaps in the
counterdrug area.  The Chief Scientist assesses the continuation of
projects on the basis of the following criteria:  (1) progress that
has been made, (2) input from the sponsoring agency, and (3) funds
availability.  CTAC then assesses new and existing projects to decide
the best balance for spending within budget constraints, according to
a CTAC official. 

On the basis of CTAC's assessment and consultation from experts, the
Chief Scientist annually makes selections between June and September
of the R&D projects to address the needs of counterdrug efforts. 
CTAC prepares a R&D counterdrug program plan that lists the selected
R&D projects.  The members of the S&T Committee review the R&D
counterdrug program plan.  The ONDCP Director approves the R&D
counterdrug program plan.  CTAC notifies the House and Senate
Treasury and Postal Appropriation Committee staffs about the R&D
counterdrug program plan between November and December.  Figure IV.1
provides a flowchart of CTAC's technology needs identification and
R&D projects selection process as designed. 

   Figure IV.1:  Flowchart of
   CTAC's Counterdrug Technology
   Needs Identification and
   Project Selection Process

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a The U.S.  Army Electronic Proving Ground at Fort Huachuca, AZ, and
the Tennessee Valley Authority, TN, are CTAC's technical and
contracting agents. 


--------------------
\18 White papers are short papers that propose R&D solutions to the
various counterdrug needs.  When white papers are accepted, a
proposal is requested.  Proposals are detailed papers, generally
about 100 pages long. 

\19 In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations, the BAA
may be used by agencies to fulfill their requirements for scientific
study and experimentation directed toward advancing the state of the
art or increasing knowledge or understanding, rather than focusing on
a specific system or hardware solution.  Therefore, white papers and
proposals received as a result of the BAA process must be evaluated
on their own technical merit through a peer or scientific review
process. 

\20 CTAC's experts consist of members of the S&T Committee, law
enforcement experts, demand reduction experts, scientists, and
engineers.  According to a CTAC official, the evaluation panels
consist of three to four people, on average. 


TECHNOLOGY-RELATED CONTRIBUTIONS/
ACCOMPLISHMENTS CTAC IDENTIFIED
AND LEAD R&D AGENCIES CONFIRMED AS
COMPLETED AND SUCCESSFULLY
FIELDED, FY 1992-97
=========================================================== Appendix V

           Lead      CTAC
Title      agency    funding   Description
---------  --------  --------  ---------------------------------------
Modular    INS       $750,000  This project produced a government-
Sensor                         owned set of drawings and
Design                         specifications to be used for the
                               manufacturing of a new sensor design
                               that includes the capability to employ
                               the system tactically or strategically,
                               with sufficient modularity to allow for
                               upgrades in technology and introduction
                               of new sensor types into the system.
                               The initial units for this project have
                               been delivered, and INS considered it
                               successful.

Project    DEA       $1,450,0  This project provides support to DEA
Breakthro            00        and the Agricultural Research Service
ugh                            to accurately estimate cocaine
                               production. Funding is provided for
                               continued development of a scientific
                               and statistically valid technique for
                               estimating cocaine production. DEA
                               reported that this system has been
                               operational for 3-1/2 years and has
                               been rated as successful.

Immunoass  FBI       $150,000  This project developed improvements to
ay Field                       existing field test kits that detect
Test Kits                      trace amounts of narcotics residue on
                               hands and surfaces. The proof of
                               concept for these kits was originally
                               funded by the FBI. During the course of
                               this project, field test kits were
                               supplied to federal, state, and local
                               law enforcement agencies for field use.
                               Since this effort, a new commercial
                               product has been developed.

Concealed  FBI       $748,403  This communications system satisfied an
Audio                          immediate need to provide crucial,
Transceiv                      dependable communications for law
er                             enforcement officers who perform covert
Surveilla                      surveillance during counterdrug
nce                            enforcement operations. The project was
System                         completed in March 1997, and the
                               systems are now in use by the FBI.

Body-      FBI       $627,992  This project produced a Low Probability
Worn                           of Intercept and Low Probability of
Transmitt                      Detection system, which is worn by
er                             agents to support both surveillance and
                               communications requirements. Production
                               units are now being used by the FBI.

Text-      FinCen    $750,000  This project explored a number of
Based                          commercially available products that
Retrieval                      permit the optical scanning of data
                               into a database, thereby providing the
                               capability to retrieve and index data
                               for timely access with minimal human
                               interface. FinCen rated the technology
                               resulting from this project as helpful
                               and timesaving.

Miniature  Customs   $250,000  This project developed a miniaturized
Gamma Ray                      electronics package with an improved
Backscatt                      source/detector ratio to reduce the
er                             source size and permit a lighter,
                               smaller contraband detector to be
                               produced. This new detector can be
                               mounted on an inspector's belt and be
                               readily available for examining hard-
                               to-inspect areas and items for illicit
                               drugs. These detectors are being bought
                               and used by Customs.

Gamma Ray  Customs             This project developed a nonintrusive
Detector             $382,143  portable or mobile prototype field
                               inspection system to detect contraband
                               in empty containers that transport
                               liquids. A prototype system was
                               developed and was well-accepted by
                               Customs' field offices.

Community  Customs   $700,000  A community test-and-evaluation center
Test and                       was established in fiscal year 1991.
Evaluatio                      The center continues to be used by
n Center                       Customs for field-testing technology.

Narcotics  Customs   $500,000  This project consisted of a controlled
Detection                      series of field evaluations of
Technolog                      existing, commercially available
y                              narcotics detection equipment. Four
Assessmen                      systems were tested during the first
t                              testing cycle, which was completed in
                               November 1994. According to Customs,
                               this project is ongoing and has been
                               very useful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  CTAC and R&D agencies. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
COMMENTS FROM THE OFFICE OF
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
=========================================================== Appendix V



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix VII

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Daniel C.  Harris, Assistant Director
M.  Grace Haskins, Evaluator-in-Charge
David P.  Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst
Nancy Briggs, Social Science Analyst
Lou V.B.  Smith, Evaluator
R.  Lance Lenoir, Intern
Michael H.  Little, Communications Analyst
Michelle D.  Wiggins, Issue Area Assistant

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Geoffrey R.  Hamilton, Senior Attorney


*** End of document. ***