This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-13 
entitled 'Drug Control: Difficulties in Measuring Costs and Results of 
Transit Zone Interdiction Efforts' which was released on January 25, 
2002. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the 
printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact 
electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. 
Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or accessibility 
features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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

United States General Accounting Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Honorable Jeff Sessions, U.S. Senate. 

January 2002: 

Drug Control: 

Difficulties in Measuring Costs and Results of Transit Zone Interdiction
Efforts: 

GAO-02-13: 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Interdiction Roles of DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs Overlap: 

Agencies Do Not Track Funds Obligated and Assets Used for Transit Zone 
Interdiction: 

The Results Agencies Track to Demonstrate Effectiveness Vary: 

Multiple Agencies Report the Same Cocaine Seizures in Their Individual 
Agency Databases and Reports: 

Conclusions: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Interdiction Coordinating Organizations: 

Appendix III: Agency and Interagency Drug Seizure Database	
Documentation: 

Appendix IV: Agency Drug Seizure Database Controls: 

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 
GAO Contacts: 
Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: The Transit Zone Roles of Drug Interdiction Coordinating	
Organizations: 

Table 2: Examples of Measures of Results Tracked by DOD, the Coast 
Guard, and Customs During Fiscal Years 1998 Through 2000: 

Figure 1: Transit Zone Cocaine Flow Map: 

Figure 2: Examples of DOD Assets: 

Figure 3: Examples of Coast Guard Assets: 

Figure 4: Examples of Customs Assets: 

Abbreviations: 

AMICC: Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center: 

CCDB: Consolidated Counterdrug Data Base: 

DEA: Drug Enforcement Administration: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

EPIC: El Paso Intelligence Center: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

FDSS: Federal-wide Drug Seizure System: 

GAO: General Accounting Office: 

JIATF-East (-West): Joint Interagency Task Force East (West): 

ONDCP: Office of National Drug Control Policy: 

USIC: U.S. Interdiction Coordinator: 

[End of section] 

United States General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

January 25, 2002: 

The Honorable Jeff Sessions: 
United States Senate: 

Dear Senator Sessions: 

illegal drugs, primarily cocaine from countries in South America, 
continue to be a major threat to the health and well being of American 
citizens. One of the goals of the National Drug Control Strategy 
[Footnote 1] is to protect America's air, land, and sea frontiers from 
the drug threat. To help achieve this goal, the United States has 
efforts under way to interdict illegal narcotics moving through the 
transit zone — a 6 million square mile area that includes the 
Caribbean Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, Central America, the northern coast 
of South America, Mexico, and the Eastern Pacific. Drug interdiction 
efforts consist of several phases, including the detection and 
monitoring of potential drug-smuggling aircraft and vessels, and the 
seizure of drugs and arrest of drug smugglers. Within the transit 
zone, the Department of Defense (DOD), the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast 
Guard), and the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) play key roles in drug 
interdiction efforts. 

You asked us to review the air and maritime drug interdiction 
activities of DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs in the transit zone. 
In response to your request, we reviewed and are reporting on (1) the 
roles of DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs in transit zone drug 
interdiction; (2) the extent to which we can identify funds obligated 
during fiscal years 1998 through 2000 for transit zone drug 
interdiction for DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs and what assets 
alight hours and ship days) were used for this effort; (3) what 
results DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs track to demonstrate their 
effectiveness in transit zone drug interdiction; and (4) whether 
multiple agencies are reporting the same cocaine seizures and what 
procedures and data systems are in place to ensure the accuracy of 
cocaine seizure data when multiple agencies participate in seizures. 

To address our review objectives, we interviewed officials from DOD, 
the Coast Guard, and Customs, as well as from coordinating 
organizations	such as ONDCP, the U.S. Interdiction Coordinator 
(USIC),[Footnote 2] the Joint Interagency Task Force East (JIATF-
East), the Joint Interagency Task Force West (JIATF-West), and 
Customs' Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center (AMICC). In 
addition, we requested from DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs agency 
data on budget obligations, flight hours, and ship days; obtained 
available agency results data; and reviewed annual agency performance 
reports for fiscal years 1998 through 2000.[Footnote 3] We reviewed 
documentation for DOD's, the Coast Guard's, and Customs' drug seizure 
databases and for two interagency drug seizure databases, and attended 
a conference on cocaine seizure data. We further assessed the	
reliability of the cocaine seizure data in the drug seizure databases 
by comparing the records in the Coast Guard and Customs databases and 
the two interagency seizure databases for a sample of seizures that 
were reported in agency press releases in fiscal years 1998 through 
2000. 

Our review was limited to the activities of DOD, the Coast Guard, and	
Customs in interdicting drugs smuggled by aircraft or maritime vessels 
from South America through the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean	
and did not examine the activities of the three agencies in detecting, 
monitoring, and apprehending drug smugglers on land in Mexico, Central	
America, and the Caribbean nations, or at the U.S. land border, or en 
route	from Asia. In addition, our examination of whether multiple 
agencies counted the same cocaine seizures cannot be generalized to 
how agencies count other drugs that are seized in the transit zone. 
More detailed	information about our scope and methodology appears in 
appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

The transit zone drug interdiction roles of DOD, the Coast Guard, and 
Customs overlap. All three agencies participate in detection and 
monitoring activities, but DOD has the lead responsibility. Because 
DOD personnel may not directly participate in a search, seizure, or 
arrest, DOD relies on the Coast Guard and Customs for drug arrests and 
seizures in the transit zone. Within the transit zone, the Coast Guard 
is the lead agency for the apprehension of maritime drug-smuggling 
vessels, and Customs provides assistance as necessary. The Coast Guard 
and Customs share the lead for the apprehension of drug-smuggling 
aircraft. In addition, the three agencies receive guidance for their 
transit zone drug interdiction efforts from several coordinating 
organizations, such as ONDCP. 

It was not possible to identify the funds obligated by these three 
agencies and the number of flight hours and ship days used for drug 
interdiction in the transit zone because the agencies do not routinely 
track this information for activities specifically in the transit 
zone. In response to our request, DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs 
attempted to estimate the funds they obligated and assets they used 
for transit zone drug interdiction for fiscal years 1998 through 2000. 
However, since the interdiction funding and assets of the agencies 
included activities in and out of the transit zone, among other 
things, the estimates were considered to be unreliable as precise 
estimates of transit-zone specific activities. 

The results tracked by DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs to 
demonstrate their effectiveness in transit zone drug interdiction 
activities vary in terms of whether they focus on drug seizures or 
results of detection and monitoring activities and whether they are 
specific to the transit zone. DOD and Customs track the results of 
detection and monitoring. For example, DOD tracks the effectiveness of 
its ships and planes in detecting drug smugglers. The Coast Guard 
tracks the amount of drugs seized and the quantity of cocaine seized 
out of the estimated flow of cocaine to the United States. However, 
not all of these measures of results are specific to the transit zone. 

DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs have reported the same cocaine 
seizures in their individual agency reports when more than one of them 
participated in the interdiction effort. Agency officials told us that 
they believe that this practice is appropriate, as, in their view, 
many cocaine seizures, as well as other drug seizures, would not have 
occurred without the involvement and cooperation of all the agencies 
that participated. Agencies reported cocaine seizures in which they 
played a role in their annual measures of results and in press 
releases. In the press releases we reviewed, we found that agencies 
gave credit to one another when they made cocaine seizures as a result 
of joint efforts. There are a number of controls that agencies use to 
ensure the accuracy of their own cocaine seizure data, such as 
assigning unique identification numbers to each seizure and 
headquarters review of data input by field units. There are also two 
interagency data systems established to ensure the accuracy of cocaine 
seizure data governmentwide when multiple agencies participate in a 
seizure. For example, the Federal-wide Drug Seizure System (FDSS) was 
developed to prevent multiple counting of drugs seized by 
participating federal law enforcement agencies. The two interagency 
data	systems are not designed to prevent individual agencies from each 
counting cocaine seizures in their own databases and annual counts 
when more than one agency participates in the seizure. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries 
of Defense and Transportation; the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs	
Service; the Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration	
(DEA); and the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. 
The agencies concurred with the report. They also provided technical 
comments, which have been incorporated in this report where 
appropriate. 

Background: 

A primary goal of the National Drug Control Strategy is to reduce the 
amount of illegal drugs entering the United States. South America is a 
major source of drugs, particularly cocaine, shipped through the 
transit zone to the United States. In 2000, ONDCP estimated that 31 
percent of cocaine shipped from South America to the United States 
transited the Caribbean Corridor, and 66 percent came through the 
Mexico-Central	America Corridor (which includes the Eastern Pacific). 
[Footnote 4] The remaining 3 percent went directly from South America 
to the continental United States (see figure 1). 

Figure 1: Transit Zone Cocaine Flow Map: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map of the U.S., Central and 
South America] 

Direct to the continental United States: 3%; 19 Metric tons; 
Caribbean Corridor: 31%; 200 Metric tons;	
Mexico/Central America Corridor: 66%; 426 Metric tons. 	 

Source: Prepared by GAO based on ONDCP's 2000 Annual Assessment of 
Cocaine Movement.	 

[End of figure] 

According to the National Drug Control Strategy 2000 Annual Report, 
drug interdiction in the transit zone is intended to disrupt the flow 
of drugs, increase risks to traffickers, force traffickers to use less 
efficient routes and methods of delivery, and prevent significant 
quantities of drugs from reaching the United States. Drug interdiction 
operations may also produce information that can be used by domestic 
law enforcement agencies against trafficking organizations.	 

According to the 1999 National Interdiction Command and Control Plan, 
[Footnote 5] a completed drug interdiction normally consists of six 
phases, some of which may occur simultaneously. (1) Provision of 
intelligence information to drug interdiction agencies indicating that 
a drug-smuggling activity is planned or underway. (2) Initial 
detection of a potential smuggling aircraft or vessel. (3) Monitoring, 
which consists of tracking a target aircraft or vessel (maintaining 
information on its position, course, and speed) and moving to 
intercept it. (4) Identifying drug-smuggling traffic from legitimate 
traffic (5) Handoff, or shifting of primary responsibility between 
forces, such as from DOD to the Coast Guard. (6) Apprehending 
(detaining, arresting, or seizing) suspects, drugs, or vehicles or 
causing the suspects to jettison their drugs or to turn back from 
their mission. In this report, we use the term "drug interdiction" to 
refer to activities in any or all of these six phases. 

In a hypothetical example, drug interdiction agencies receive 
intelligence that a drug-smuggling aircraft will be leaving South 
America en route to the United States in the next few days. A DOD 
radar facility subsequently detects a small, low-flying plane on a 
known trafficking route. Alerted by this information and other 
intelligence, a military aircraft uses its radar system to track the 
plane. A Customs aircraft then approaches the suspect plane to make a 
visual identification. The Customs pilot observes the suspect plane 
dropping what appears to be a load of drugs to a waiting smuggling 
vessel in the waters below. The location of the vessel is given to the 
Coast Guard so that it can apprehend the drug-smuggling suspects and 
seize the drugs. The plane is tracked by the Customs pilot, and 
foreign law enforcement forces are alerted so that they can apprehend 
the drug-smuggling suspects when the plane lands at a foreign airfield. 

Interdiction Roles of DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs Overlap: 

The interdiction roles of DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs overlap 
regarding the types of activities they perform and the geographic 
areas they cover. Because of this, the agencies must cooperate and 
work together in order for interdiction to be successful. Five 
coordinating organizations also guide and support their activities. 

DOD serves as the lead federal agency for detecting and monitoring air 
and maritime transit of illegal drugs into the United States.[Footnote 
6] DOD uses equipment such as Navy ships and aircraft, Air Force 
aircraft, and radar for this purpose (see figure 2). The Coast Guard 
and Customs also provide aircraft and ships for detection and 
monitoring, but DOD coordinates and integrates their efforts. By 
statute, DOD personnel may not directly participate in a search, 
seizure, arrest, or other similar activity, unless authorized by law. 
[Footnote 7] As a result, DOD relies on U.S. or foreign law 
enforcement agencies to exercise civilian law enforcement powers to 
carry out that part of the interdiction effort. 

Figure 2: Examples of DOD Assets: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 7 photographs] 

A. Air Force E-3 Sentry (Airborne Warning and Control Systems 
aircraft): Provides air and maritime radar surveillance, detection, 
and tracking of suspect targets. 

B. Air Force F-15: Has air-to-air search and tracking radar and is 
used as an interceptor aircraft. 

C. Navy E-2C Hawkeye: Provides air and maritime radar detection, 
search, and surveillance. 

D. Navy Tactical-Auxiliary General Ocean Surveillance Support Ship: 
Provides air search radar capability and extensive communications 
equipment. 

E. Frigate: Used as radar ships for air and maritime search and 
surveillance to support detection and monitoring. Also capable of 
supporting a helicopter. When law enforcement detachment is embarked, 
ships can support maritime interception and apprehension. 

F. Tethered Aerostat Radar: Static, tethered balloons that carry radar 
sets to an altitude of 10,000-15,000 feet. 

G. Relocatable Over-the-Horizon Radar: Provides wide-area detection 
and surveillance of air targets. 

Sources: U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. 

[End of figure] 

Within the transit zone, the Coast Guard is the lead agency for the 
apprehension of maritime drug traffickers. In addition, Coast Guard 
law enforcement detachments are required by statute to travel on board 
designated Navy ships for drug interdiction missions to perform law 
enforcement functions.[Footnote 8] During boarding operations, the 
Navy ships come under the operational control of the Coast Guard 
detachments. These detachments perform the actual search and seizure 
of a suspect vessel, and make any arrests, since the U.S. military is 
prohibited from doing so.[Footnote 9] (See figure 3 for examples of 
Coast Guard assets.) 

Figure 3: Examples of Coast Guard Assets: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 8 photographs] 

A. 378-Foot High Endurance Cutter: Used	for detection and monitoring 
and as a platform for	intercepting and boarding suspect vessels. Can 
support helicopter operations. 

B. 210-Foot Medium Endurance Cutter: Used for detection and monitoring 
and as a platform for intercepting and boarding suspect vessels. Can 
support helicopter operations. 

C. 110-Foot Patrol Boat: Used as a platform for intercepting and 
boarding suspect vessels. Can support operations of short-range 
recovery helicopters.	 

D. 87-Foot Coastal Patrol Boat: Used as a platform for intercepting 
and boarding suspect vessels. Can support operations of short-range 
recovery helicopters. 

E. HC-130 "Hercules" Surveillance Aircraft: Used for detection and 
monitoring of suspect targets.	 

F. HU-25 "Guardian" Medium Range Surveillance Aircraft: Used for 
intercepting and tracking suspect aircraft. 

G. HH-65A "Dolphin" Short Range Recovery Helicopter: Used for 
detection and monitoring of suspect targets. 

H. Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat: Carried on board cutters. Can be used 
to intercept fast-moving suspect boats.	 

Source: U.S. Coast Guard. 

[End of figure] 

Within the transit zone, Customs is co-lead with the Coast Guard for 
the apprehension of drug trafficking aircraft. The agency also assists 
the Coast Guard with apprehension of maritime drug traffickers. For 
example, a Customs aircraft equipped with surface search radar can 
detect and track a maritime vessel, then work with Customs boats and 
Coast Guard ships to apprehend the suspect drug traffickers. (See 
figure 4 for examples of Customs assets.) 

Figure 4: Examples of Customs Assets: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 4 photographs] 

A. Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk Helicopter: Acquire and apprehend	
aircraft, vessels, and vehicles involved in smuggling. 

B. "Go-fast' Pursuit Boat: Work in conjunction with marine 
surveillance aircraft and boats to intercept, board, and search 
suspect vessels. 

C. P-3 Orion: Monitor shipping lanes and air routes in search of 
smuggling activities. 

D. Citation: Equipped with intercept radar, used for short-range 
tracking and interception of air targets. 

Source: U.S. Customs Service. 

[End of figure] 

Coordinating organizations help guide and support the three agencies' 
drug interdiction efforts in the transit zone. Their transit zone 
roles are briefly discussed in table 1. Representatives from DOD, the 
Coast Guard, and Customs advise the U.S. Interdiction Coordinator, and 
staff JIATF-East, JIATF-West, and AMICC. Appendix II contains more 
detailed information on these organizations. 

Table 1: The Transit Zone Roles of Drug Interdiction Coordinating 
Organizations: 

Coordinating organization: ONDCP; 
Transit zone role: Develops and coordinates the implementation of the	
National Drug Control Strategy, which includes the goal of shielding 
America's air, land, and sea frontiers from the drug threat. 

Coordinating organization: USIC; 
Transit zone role: Coordinates efforts of U.S. departments and 
agencies in the conduct and support of international drug interdiction. 

Coordinating organization: JIATF-East; 
Transit zone role: Coordinates the detection, monitoring, 
identification, and handoff of suspect air and maritime drug 
trafficking events in part of the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, 
Caribbean Sea, Mexico, Central America, and the Atlantic. 

Coordinating organization: JIATF-West; 
Transit zone role: Coordinates the detection, monitoring, and 
identification of suspect drug targets in part of the Pacific Ocean. 

Coordinating organization: AMICC; 
Transit zone role: Identifies suspect aircraft coming within 100 
nautical miles	of the U.S. border and coordinates their interception 
and apprehension. 

Sources: National Drug Control Strategy 2000 Annual Report and the 
1999 National Interdiction Command and Control Plan. 

[End of table] 

Agencies Do Not Track Funds Obligated and Assets Used for Transit Zone 
Interdiction:	 

DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs do not track data on funds obligated 
and assets used specifically for transit zone drug interdiction. For 
the purposes of this review, we asked agency officials to attempt to 
isolate funds they obligated and assets they used for drug 
interdiction in the transit zone. DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs 
attempted to produce such estimates, but because of substantial 
differences among the agencies' methods and other limitations, these 
estimates were not reliable, and will not be presented in this report. 

Agency Estimates of Funds Obligated for Transit Zone Interdiction Had 
Limitations: 

DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs do not track the funds they obligate 
specifically for transit zone drug interdiction. The three agencies 
provided us with estimates of those funds, but these estimates had a 
number of limitations. In the case of DOD, the agency could not 
isolate its funds obligated for transit zone drug interdiction for 
several reasons. First, DOD could not always distinguish funds 
obligated for detection and monitoring from those used for 
noninterdiction counterdrug activities.[Footnote 10] DOD provided us 
with a list of funds obligated for individual DOD programs[Footnote 
11] for fiscal years 1998 through 2000, broken out by country or 
geographic area and by type of counterdrug activity (such as detection 
and monitoring). However, there were instances where the individual 
funded program had multiple purposes. For example, funds DOD obligated 
to several programs in the Caribbean were used for both detection and 
monitoring and for noninterdiction counterdrug activities. Including 
such cases resulted in an overestimate of the funds obligated 
exclusively for detection and monitoring, and thus for transit zone 
drug interdiction. Second, the funds obligated did not include active-
duty personnel costs,[Footnote 12] resulting in an underestimate of 
total funds obligated for transit zone drug interdiction.[Footnote 13] 
Third, funds obligated for detection and monitoring in the Eastern 
Pacific area could not be included in our analysis because DOD did not 
track funds obligated specifically for that area,[Footnote 14] 
resulting in an underestimate of total funds obligated for transit 
zone drug interdiction. 

As with DOD, the Coast Guard could not identify funds obligated for 
transit zone drug interdiction. The agency's estimate did not cover 
the entire time period requested and was not specific to the transit 
zone. The Coast Guard provided us with estimates of funds obligated 
for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. According to Coast Guard budget 
officials, data were unavailable for 1998 because ONDCP did not 
require agencies to report their funds obligated for drug interdiction 
until 1999.[Footnote 15] In addition, the Coast Guard's estimates of 
funds it obligated for drug interdiction were based on the hours spent 
on drug interdiction missions combined with a cost factor. Because the 
agency's tracking system does not distinguish hours spent in the 
transit zone from hours spent in U.S. territorial waters, the data the 
Coast Guard provided to us included funds obligated for drug 
interdiction activities in both areas. 

Likewise, Customs could not isolate funds obligated for transit zone 
drug interdiction, in this case resulting in an underestimate of these 
funds. Three factors contributed to this underestimation. First, the 
data were not representative of all of Customs' transit zone air 
interdiction efforts. Customs' estimates of funds it obligated for 
transit zone interdiction were based on the recorded hours each 
aircraft spent on interdiction activities in the transit zone, 
multiplied by the average hourly operating cost for that type of 
aircraft. Customs provided data for specific flights made during 
fiscal years 1998 through 2000 where pilots indicated that their 
mission was in the transit zone. However, pilots were not required to 
record that information in Customs' data system. For example, a 
Customs aircraft could take off from Miami and fly to a drug 
interdiction mission in the transit zone. Unless the pilot specified 
the location of the plane, those hours would be logged to the Miami 
Air Branch rather than to any specific geographic area.[Footnote 16] 
Customs was not able to estimate, for those flights in which the 
geographic area had not been recorded, the amount of time those pilots 
spent in the transit zone. Second, as with DOD, the Customs data did 
not include personnel costs because Customs does not track personnel 
costs by mission type.[Footnote 17] Third, Customs did not provide 
data on funds obligated for its marine unit's transit zone drug 
interdiction activities because, according to a Customs official, 
marine unit data were unreliable prior to October 2000. The marine 
unit did not have a centralized reporting system before its merger 
with the air unit in 1999, and the agency's data collection system was 
not modified to incorporate data from its marine assets until October 
2000. 

Agency budget officials told us that although they do not track funds 
obligated for transit zone drug interdiction, they track funds 
obligated for drug interdiction in other ways that are more consistent 
with their responsibilities in the transit zone and elsewhere. For 
example, ONDCP requires that DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs 
estimate funds obligated for each goal of the National Drug Control 
Strategy, including the goal of protecting America's air, land, and 
sea frontiers from the drug threat. Budget officials from the Coast 
Guard and Customs told us that, in pursuit of this goal of the 
Strategy, their drug interdiction missions often involved activities 
that took place in both the transit zone and in U.S. territory or U.S. 
territorial waters. Because of this, these agencies focus on tracking 
budget data that are not specific to the transit zone. Coast Guard and
Customs officials told us that tracking budget data specifically by 
transit zone would not enhance their capabilities to manage their 
overall drug interdiction responsibilities. 
	
Agency Estimates of Asset Use Had Limitations: 

Because DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs do not track data on assets
used (flight hours and ship days) explicitly for transit zone drug 
interdiction, the three agencies attempted to estimate this 
information in response to our request. As with their estimates of 
funds obligated, the asset estimates also had a number of limitations. 
Specifically, DOD provided data for fiscal year 2000, collected from 
JIATF-East and	JIATF-West, on the amount of time DOD assets spent on 
detection and monitoring activities in the transit zone. We requested 
data for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 on DOD's flight hours and ship 
days directly from JIATF-East and -West. In May 1999, JIATF-East 
changed the way it collected information on flight hours and ship 
days, when it began differentiating between total time spent on 
detection and monitoring missions (including time en route to the 
mission area) and the amount of time the asset was actually on-site. 
This change limits direct comparison of asset use data across the 3 
fiscal years. 

The Coast Guard's difficulties in estimating asset time used for drug 
interdiction in the transit zone were similar to its difficulties for 
estimating funds obligated. The agency provided us with asset data for 
fiscal years 1998 through 2000 but could not isolate its transit zone 
drug interdiction time because plane and ship crews do not track their 
time that way. The Coast Guard records flight and ship hours by type 
of mission (such as drug interdiction, migrant interdiction, or 
fisheries enforcement), but not by zone. 

As with its data on funds obligated, the asset data provided by 
Customs underestimates the time it used for transit zone drug 
interdiction. We received flight hour data from Customs for fiscal 
years 1998 through 2000. According to Customs officials, the asset 
data represent a substantial undercount of actual drug interdiction 
time in the transit zone for two reasons. First, pilots are not 
required to record the location of their missions in Customs' data 
system. Customs, therefore, only provided us with flight hour data in 
which that data field was filled in. As a result, one Customs official 
estimated that the data we received were missing "well over" 25 
percent of the agency's transit zone flight hours. Second, Customs 
could not provide us with reliable data on its transit zone drug 
interdiction ship days. Before the merger of the air and marine units 
in 1999 and modifications to the agency's data collection system in 
October 2000, the marine unit did not have a centralized reporting 
system. 

The Results Agencies Track to Demonstrate Effectiveness Vary: 

The measures of results which DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs track 
to demonstrate their effectiveness in transit zone drug interdiction 
varied	during fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Each agency collected 
different kinds of measures, which varied in terms of whether they 
focused on detection and monitoring or on drug seizures and whether or 
not they focused specifically on the agency's activities in the 
transit zone. DOD is developing measures of results that focus on its 
role in the detection and monitoring of drug trafficking, and are 
specific to the transit zone. The Coast Guard tracks the amount of 
drugs seized, as well as the cocaine seizure rate, although neither 
measure is specific to the transit zone. Customs tracked transit-zone 
specific measures, including drugs seized as a result of Customs 
assistance, up until fiscal year 1999, and then began to track results 
of its detection and monitoring efforts more generally, not just in 
the transit zone. 

DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs Track Different Results: 

DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs tracked different measures of 
results	to assess their effectiveness in transit zone drug 
interdiction efforts. DOD and Customs focused on the results of 
detection and monitoring efforts and the Coast Guard focused more on 
seizure-based information, which is consistent with their roles. Table 
2 presents examples of DOD's, the Coast	Guard's, and Customs' measures 
of results during fiscal years 1998 through 2000. 

Table 2: Examples of Measures of Results Tracked by DOD, the Coast 
Guard, and Customs During Fiscal Years 1998 Through 2000: 

Agency: DOD; 
Measures of results: Number of Cocaine-Smuggling Events Detected;	
Transit-zone specific: Yes; 
Fiscal years: 2000; 
Brief description: Cocaine-smuggling events initially detected by 
assets under DOD control, whether or not these events were disrupted. 

Agency: DOD; 
Measures of results: Percent of Cocaine-Smuggling Events Detected out 
of Total Cocaine-Smuggling Events; 
Transit-zone specific: Yes; 
Fiscal years: 2000; 
Brief description: Number of cocaine-smuggling events 
detected/Estimated total number of cocaine-smuggling events. Total 
number of cocaine smuggling events estimated from the Consolidated 
Counterdrug Database (CCDB). 

Agency: DOD; 
Measures of results: Number of Successful Disruptions of Cocaine-
Smuggling Activity; 
Transit-zone specific: Yes; 
Fiscal years: 2000; 
Brief description: Successfully disrupting (seizures and dumping of 
cocaine) cocaine smugglers initially detected by assets under DOD 
control. 

Agency: DOD; 
Measures of results: Percent of Successful Disruptions out of Total 
Events Detected; 
Transit-zone specific: Yes; 
Fiscal years: 2000; 
Brief description: Number of successful disruptions of cocaine-
smuggling activity/Total number of cocaine-smuggling events detected. 

Agency: DOD; 
Measures of results: Number of Cocaine-Smuggling Aircraft/Boats Seized 
or Destroyed; 
Transit-zone specific: Yes; 
Fiscal years: 2000; 
Brief description: Aircraft/boat seized or destroyed when cocaine 
trafficking aircraft/boat was initially detected by assets under DOD 
control. 

Agency: DOD; 
Measures of results: Amount of Cocaine Seized; 
Transit-zone specific: Yes; 
Fiscal	years: 2000; 
Brief description: Cocaine seized when cocaine trafficking 
aircraft/boat was initially detected by assets under DOD control. 

Agency: DOD; 
Measures of results: Percent of Cocaine Flow Seized; 
Transit-zone specific: Yes; 
Fiscal years: 2000; 
Brief description: Amount of cocaine seized/Total flow of cocaine. 
Cocaine flow estimate derived from Interagency	Assessment of Cocaine 
Movement. 

Agency: Coast Guard[A]; 
Measures of results: Annual Amount of Cocaine Seized; 
Transit-zone specific: No; 
Fiscal years: 1998; 1999; 2000; 
Brief description: Total amount of cocaine seized each fiscal year. 

Agency: Coast Guard[A]; 
Measures of results: Annual Amount of Marijuana Seized; 
Transit-zone specific: No; 
Fiscal years: 1998; 1999; 2000; 
Brief description: Total amount of marijuana seized each fiscal year. 

Agency: Coast Guard[A]; 
Measures of results: Annual Cocaine Seizure Rates; 
Transit-zone specific: No; 
Fiscal years: 1998; 1999; 	
Brief description: Total amount of cocaine seized each fiscal year 
divided by the estimated noncommercial 2000 maritime flow of cocaine 
for the corresponding calendar year, derived from the Interagency	
Assessment of Cocaine Movement[B]. 

Agency: Customs; 
Measures of results: Pounds of Cocaine Seized from Customs Efforts in 
the Transit Zone; 
Transit-zone specific: Yes;	
Fiscal years: 1998; 1999; 	
Brief description: Total amount of cocaine seized by foreign law 
enforcement with the assistance of Customs air and maritime assets. 

Agency: Customs; 
Measures of results: Pounds of Marijuana Seized from Customs Efforts 
in the Transit Zone; 
Transit-zone specific: Yes; 
Fiscal years: 1998; 1999; 
Brief description: Total amount of marijuana seized by foreign law	
enforcement with the assistance of Customs air and maritime assets. 

Agency: Customs; 
Measures of results: Success in Tracking Drug-Smuggling Aircraft; 
Transit-zone specific: Yes; 
Fiscal years: 1998; 
Brief description: The percentage of successful tracks of drug 
trafficking aircraft in which Customs participates. A successful track 
indicates that a foreign government law enforcement agency intercepted 
the aircraft when it landed. 

[A] In fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, the Coast Guard also kept 
track of a measure called smuggler success rate. Smuggler success rate 
is a Coast Guard measure that is used for internal management purposes 
to estimate the impact that law enforcement has on smuggler behavior. 
It is the estimated amount of cocaine entering the United States 
expressed as a percentage of the estimated total amount of cocaine 
that would be transported if the Coast Guard were not present to deter 
or seize it. 

[B] Although the numerator for this measure (total cocaine seized) is 
measured for the fiscal year and the denominator (estimated 
noncommercial maritime flow of cocaine) is measured for the associated 
calendar year, the Coast Guard has determined that substituting the 
total amount of cocaine seized during the calendar year rather than 
the fiscal year in the numerator does not have a statistically 
significant effect. 

Sources: DOD, Coast Guard, and Customs documents and interviews with 
agency officials. 

[End of table] 

DOD Measures of Results Focus on Detection and Monitoring Role:	 

DOD began tracking measures of results in fiscal year 2000, as a step 
towards developing formal measures of effectiveness. DOD is not 
allowed to make drug seizures, and thus has begun to develop measures 
of results that focus on its role in detection and monitoring. DOD's 
measures of results are specific to the transit zone, and include, 
among other things, the amount of cocaine seized in the transit zone 
where ships, planes, or radar under DOD's control were the initial 
detection assets, as well as the proportion of cocaine seized out of 
the total estimated amount of cocaine flow in the transit zone where 
ships, planes, or radar under DOD's control were the initial detection 
assets. DOD also collected more detailed information on these results, 
broken down by specific types of ships, planes, and radar under the 
control of JIATF-East and JIATF-West, in order to examine the 
effectiveness of each type of asset. All results data are classified. 

The Coast Guard Tracks Drugs Seized and Cocaine Seizure Rate:	 

During fiscal years 1998 through 2000, the Coast Guard tracked: (1) 
the amount of cocaine seized, (2) the amount of marijuana seized, and 
(3) the cocaine seizure rate. The amount of cocaine or marijuana 
seized is not isolated to the transit zone.[Footnote 18] Tracking the 
amount of drugs seized alone as a measure of effectiveness has limited 
utility. That is because increased seizures may be a function of 
either the increased effectiveness of interdiction agencies or 
increased drug flow into the United States. The Coast Guard has 
attempted to address this issue by tracking the cocaine seizure rate. 
The cocaine seizure rate is the amount of cocaine seized as a 	
percentage of the total estimated cocaine flow into the United 
States.[Footnote 19] None of these measures are specific to the 
transit zone. 

Customs Has Discontinued Tracking Transit-Zone Specific Measures of 
Results: 

In fiscal year 1998, Customs kept track of three transit-zone specific	
measures of results, including the amount of cocaine and marijuana 
seized	in the transit zone and the track rate (whether suspect air 
targets were successfully tracked). According to agency officials and 
Customs reports, transit zone cocaine and marijuana seizures were 
those made by foreign law enforcement agencies with assistance from 
Customs air or marine assets. In fiscal year 1999, Customs dropped the 
track rate but continued to track transit zone cocaine and marijuana 
seizures. As of fiscal year 2000, Customs no longer tracked measures 
of results specific to the transit zone. 

Customs officials said that the agency's primary responsibility in the 
transit zone is to provide detection and monitoring and support to 
agencies, such as the Coast Guard and foreign law enforcement, that 
are charged with apprehending drug smugglers. Customs officials also 
said that its air and marine assets travel across the source, transit, 
and arrival zones and are not isolated to the transit zone.[Footnote 
20] Due to these factors, Customs has discontinued reporting transit-
zone specific measures, including seizures, and is developing new 
measures of effectiveness of its air and marine assets in detecting 
drug smugglers. The new measures include the number of incidents in 
which cocaine that was intended to enter the borders of the United 
States is dropped by smuggler aircraft before entering the country and 
the number of times drug-smuggling aircraft enter the United States 
from outside of its borders.[Footnote 21] These measures are reported 
in Customs' reports as baselines for future data collection. None of 
the new measures isolates the results of Customs' activities in the 
transit zone. 

Multiple Agencies Report the Same Cocaine Seizures in Their Individual 
Agency Databases and Reports: 

Both the Coast Guard and Customs have counted the same cocaine 
seizures in their individual agency databases and subsequently 
reported the same seizures as contributing to the measures of results 
used to track their effectiveness in drug interdiction. And although 
DOD does not seize drugs, it has begun to track whether DOD ships, 
planes, and radar participated in detection and monitoring activities 
that resulted in cocaine seizures in the transit zone, and many of 
these cocaine seizures are the same ones reported by the Coast Guard 
or Customs. Agency officials we	spoke with told us that they believe 
it is appropriate for each agency to get credit for its involvement in 
seizing cocaine, since without the participation of any one agency, 
the seizure may not have occurred. Agencies have also established 
mechanisms designed to ensure that the seizures in which they 
participate are being reported accurately. We identified two 
interagency databases—-the FDSS, and the Consolidated	Counterdrug 
Database (CCDB)-—which were designed, among other things, to improve 
the accuracy of cocaine seizure data when multiple agencies 
participate in the seizures. While designed to improve accuracy, 
neither the agencies' database controls nor the two interagency 
databases were designed to prevent multiple agencies from each 
counting the same seizure in their specific agency databases. 

When Multiple Agencies Participate in a Cocaine Seizure, More than One 
Agency May Take Credit: 

In fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, both the Coast Guard and Customs	
counted in their agency annual cocaine seizure statistics some of the 
same transit zone seizures. These seizures ultimately contributed to 
the totals reported by the two agencies as measures of their 
effectiveness in drug interdiction. 

The Coast Guard counted towards its overall agency cocaine seizure 
totals cocaine seizures made by Coast Guard personnel, or those made 
by Coast Guard personnel working with Customs, other federal law 
enforcement agencies, or foreign law enforcement agencies. Coast Guard 
officials told us that the Coast Guard only claims credit for 
participating in seizures made by other agencies (including foreign 
law enforcement agencies) when the Coast Guard was the lead agency in 
the drug interdiction operation, or when its participation was 
"substantial." In fiscal year 2000, the Coast Guard's database shows 
that it made 58 cocaine seizures, totaling 132,000 pounds. Of the 58 
cocaine seizures, the Coast Guard data show that in 38 instances 
multiple agencies participated in the seizure. Of these 38, 13 
instances involved Customs, 16 instances involved DOD (through the use 
of Coast Guard law enforcement detachments working on board U.S. Navy 
ships), and 9 instances involved local, other federal or foreign 
agencies, but not Customs or DOD.[Footnote 22] In reporting overall 
agency cocaine seizures, the Coast Guard included all 58 seizures as 
part of the total the agency seized during fiscal year 2000 (and thus 
contributing to the Coast Guard's seizure rate during that year), but 
the reports did not indicate whether or not the seizures were made 
with the assistance of other agencies. 

Customs reported transit zone cocaine seizures in which it 
participated in two ways. First, in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, it 
reported the amount of cocaine seized by foreign law enforcement 
agencies as a result of Customs assistance in the transit zone. In 
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, Customs data showed that it assisted in 20 
transit zone cocaine seizures, totaling about 19,000 pounds of 
cocaine. These totals included 6 cocaine seizures (totaling about 
8,000 pounds) that were also included in the Coast Guard's statistics 
because the Coast Guard had also participated in the seizure. As 
discussed in the previous section of this report, Customs discontinued 
reporting transit zone seizures as a measure of effectiveness after 
fiscal year 1999. 

Second, Customs also reported the overall amount of cocaine seized by 
the agency in fiscal years 1998 through 2000. This measure includes 
instances where Customs participated in transit zone seizures with 
other federal agencies.[Footnote 23] According to Customs officials 
and our review of Customs seizure data, Customs personnel participated 
in transit zone cocaine seizures in different ways, including (1) 
working on multiagency drug-smuggling investigations which produced 
intelligence that resulted in cocaine seizures by other federal 
agencies; (2) detecting, monitoring, or tracking suspect drug-
smuggling aircraft or vessels that were ultimately apprehended by 
other federal agencies; or (3) discovering cocaine during searches of 
vessels seized by other federal agencies and escorted to U.S. ports. 
In reporting overall cocaine seizures in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and
2000, Customs did not report separately the number of seizures 
resulting from these different types of participation. 

Our review of 26 transit zone cocaine seizures that were described in 
federal government press releases during fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 
2000 showed that both the Coast Guard and Customs counted the same 16 
of the 26 seizures in their respective seizure databases and both 
subsequently reported these 16 seizures as contributing to each 
agency's measure of results used to track effectiveness in drug 
interdiction.[Footnote 24] A review of the Coast Guard's and Customs' 
seizure databases, and two interagency seizure databases, showed that 
both agencies participated in some capacity in each of these 16 
seizures. The Coast Guard's role in these seizures included seizing 
cocaine after pursuing, apprehending, and boarding drug-smuggling 
vessels and locating and retrieving bales of cocaine jettisoned by 
smugglers during a pursuit. Customs' role in these seizures included 
participating in drug-smuggling investigations that resulted in a 
number of the seizures; detecting, monitoring, and tracking drug-
smuggling aircraft or vessels; and searching vessels that had been 
apprehended by the Coast Guard. 

Although DOD is not authorized to seize drugs, it had begun to track 
in fiscal year 2000 the amount of cocaine seized as a result of 
detection and monitoring by its ships, planes, and radar under the 
control of JIATF-East or JIATF-West, in an attempt to determine how 
well DOD detection and monitoring assets contributed to the drug 
interdiction effort. These totals include only those cocaine seizures 
where JIATF-East or JIATF-West assets were determined to be the first 
assets to detect the drug-smuggling aircraft or vessel. If the actual 
cocaine seizures were made by the Coast Guard, Customs, or other U.S. 
or foreign law enforcement agencies, these seizures would also be 
counted in those agencies' statistics. 

Agency officials with whom we spoke recognized that a number of 
agencies may be reporting the same cocaine seizures. They told us that 
it was appropriate for each agency to count a seizure in which it 
participated, for a number of reasons. First, agency time and effort 
had been expended on the seizure. Second, there was a central 
clearinghouse—the FDSS—where federal agencies were to report cocaine 
seizure data. Those data, rather than individual agency data, could be 
used to determine the overall amount of cocaine seized by federal 
agencies in the United States. Third, interagency cooperation would be 
hindered if only one agency could receive "credit" for a specific 
seizure that involved several participating agencies. In many cases, 
the seizure would not have occurred if any one of the participating 
agencies had been absent. 

Cocaine Seizures May be Counted by Multiple Agencies, but Press 
Releases Emphasize Interagency Efforts:	 

DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs publicized cocaine seizures made 
during fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 in 21 press releases that 
were available on the agencies' web sites,[Footnote 25] and in all but 
1 of the press releases, multiple agencies were credited as having 
participated in the seizures. A review of the Coast Guard's and 
Customs' seizure databases, and two interagency seizure databases, 
showed that there was general consistency between what was stated in 
the press releases and what was reported in the seizure databases, in 
terms of the size of the seizures, and the agencies listed as 
participating in the seizures. Also, in more than two-thirds of the 
press releases, the seizure was highlighted as an example of 
successful interagency cooperation. 

Seizure Database Controls Designed to Address Accuracy but Do Not 
Address Multiple Counting:	 

The Coast Guard and Customs appeared to have established controls in 
their agency seizure databases with the goal of recording accurately 
the size of the cocaine seizures that were made and preventing 
multiple counting of cocaine seizures within the same agency. Both the 
Coast Guard's and Customs' controls included the assignment of unique 
case identification numbers to seizures, supervisory or headquarters 
review of seizure amounts, and reconciliation of agency data with 
interagency drug seizure databases. DOD, in tracking cocaine seizures 
that resulted from detection and monitoring by assets under the 
control of JIATF-East and JIATF-West, had also established a number of 
controls designed to ensure accurate reporting. DOD's controls 
included tracking assets that were involved in cocaine seizures by a 
unique case identification number and reconciling data with an 
interagency database. These procedures have been designed so that each 
agency has an accurate count of the cocaine 	seizures in which it 
participated. More information about agency database controls appears 
in appendix IV. 

FDSS Established to Prevent Multiple Counting of Drugs in Overall 
Total Seized by Federal Agencies: 

The FDSS was established in 1989 with the goal of eliminating the 
multiple counting of drug seizures, so that policymakers could 
determine the overall amount of drugs seized by federal agencies. The 
database is managed by DEA. Prior to the establishment of the system, 
there was no central clearinghouse for seizure reporting, and the only 
way to obtain a total for the amount of drugs seized by federal 
agencies was to add up the amount of drugs reported as seized by each 
agency. Because of the overlap between various agencies' records, this 
resulted in an overstated amount. Although the FDSS has controls to 
prevent the same seizures from being counted more than once, FDSS was 
not designed to prevent individual agencies from reporting the same 
seizures in their own databases. 

The El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)[Footnote 26] serves as the 
central clearinghouse for the reporting of drug seizure data to the 
FDSS. Five federal agencies, including the Coast Guard and Customs, 
currently report drug seizures to the FDSS.[Footnote 27] When a 
representative from one of these five agencies calls in to report a 
seizure, EPIC issues a unique identification number,[Footnote 28] and 
various information on the seizure-—such as weight and type of drug, 
date and time of the seizure, location of the seizure, reporting 
agency, and participating agencies—-is recorded in a computerized log. 

EPIC has instituted a number of procedures to prevent the same seizure 
from being reported to FDSS more than once by the same, or different, 
agencies. These include automated and manual checking of records to 
identify potential multiple reports, requirements that changes to 
seizure information be made by the same agency official who made the 
first report, and automated tracking of changes made by EPIC personnel 
to the automated log. 

FDSS officials told us that FDSS procedures are not designed to 
prevent more than one agency from reporting any one seizure in its own 
database. Likewise, our review of a nonrepresentative sample of 
cocaine seizures made by the Coast Guard and Customs showed that when 
both agencies participated in a seizure, some seizures that were 
reported to EPIC were also counted in each agency's individual reports. 

Quarterly CCDB Meetings May Help Verify the Details of Transit Zone 
Cocaine Seizures: 

The CCDB contains information on nearly all air and maritime cocaine	
seizures made in the transit zone and is used by DOD, the Coast Guard, 
and Customs as a check on the accuracy of their agencies' cocaine 
seizure	data.[Footnote 29] Unlike the FDSS, the CCDB database includes 
information on transit zone cocaine seizures made by foreign law 
enforcement agencies, as well as by U.S. law enforcement agencies. The 
CCDB also includes information on cocaine-smuggling events that were 
observed by drug interdiction agencies, but did not result in seizures 
(such as suspected drug-smuggling vessels that were pursued, but got 
away), and other cocaine-smuggling events that were believed to have 
occurred based on reliable intelligence reports but where no 
confirmation of their occurrence was received. The CCDB data are used 
as a source for estimates of cocaine flow through the transit zone. 
[Footnote 30] The CCDB database manager said that the accuracy of the 
database comes in large part from the opportunity for interagency 
discussion and review of information in the database. The CCDB, like 
the FDSS, is not designed to prevent individual agencies from each 
counting a specific seizure as its own. 
	
The CCDB is managed by USIC. DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs, as 
well as other agencies, submit to the CCDB database manager 
information on cocaine seizures. Representatives from agencies 
involved in transit zone interdiction, including DOD, Customs, and the 
Coast Guard, meet quarterly to discuss each seizure that has been made 
in the previous quarter. Topics discussed include which agency and 
which asset first detected the drug-smuggling aircraft or vessel, the 
location of the seizure, and other participating agencies and assets. 
When discrepancies exist in the information that has been reported to 
the CCDB manager on the size of cocaine seizures, or regarding the 
agencies and assets that participated in the seizure, the agency 
representatives discuss the discrepancies and, if needed, vote on what 
information they believe is most accurate. Following the meeting, the 
CCDB database manager sends the revised data back to the agency for an 
additional review. 

Representatives from ONDCP and DOD charged with preparing semiannual 
cocaine flow estimates regularly attend the conference. In	April 2001, 
we attended a quarterly CCDB meeting and observed that these	
representatives were concerned with maintaining the standards for 
entering data into the database, and thus appear to serve as an 
additional check on the overall accuracy of the data. 

Although the CCDB may be used by individual agencies to validate 
information in an agency's database, the database is not designed to 
prevent multiple agencies from counting the same seizure in their own 
databases. Our review of a nonrepresentative sample of cocaine 
seizures made by the Coast Guard and Customs showed that when both 
agencies participated in a seizure, and information about the seizure 
appeared in the CCDB, some seizures continued to be counted in each 
agency's individual reports. 

Conclusions: 

DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs each play a role in interdicting 
drugs in the transit zone. It is difficult to determine the funds 
obligated and the flight hours and ship days used by the agencies for 
this effort, and the	results of these efforts, because the agencies 
tend not to track data specifically by the transit zone. Instead, 
agency officials said they track data in ways that are consistent with 
their more general responsibilities in the transit zone and elsewhere 
and indicated that tracking data specifically by the transit zone 
would not enhance their capabilities to manage their drug interdiction 
responsibilities. 

It is not uncommon for cocaine seizures to involve the efforts of more 
than one of these agencies. In an effort to ensure the accuracy of 
seizure data collected, agencies we reviewed had established controls 
in their own seizure databases, reported seizures to a central 
clearinghouse—-the FDSS-—and participated in quarterly CCDB meetings 
where they discussed the details of specific transit zone seizures. 
Managers of the FDSS and CCDB had also established controls to ensure 
the accuracy of the data reported to them by the agencies. We believe 
that the interagency databases can provide policymakers with useful 
information about the results of the overall effort by U.S. and 
foreign agencies to interdict cocaine in the transit zone. However, 
the agency database controls and the interagency databases are not 
designed to prevent the same cocaine seizures from being reported by 
more than one agency. 

Agency Comments: 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries 
of Defense and Transportation; the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs	
Service; the Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement 
Administration; and the Director of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy. The agencies concurred with the report. They also 
provided technical comments, which have been incorporated in this 
report where appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days 
from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of the report 
to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, the Senate Caucus on 
International Narcotics Control, the Secretaries of Defense and 
Transportation, the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service, the 
Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the 
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

We will also make copies available to others upon request. Major 
contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. If you or your 
staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me on
(202) 512-8777. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Laurie E. Ekstrand: 
Director, Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To describe the roles of the Department of Defense (DOD), the U.S. Coast
Guard (Coast Guard), and the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) in transit 
zone drug interdiction, we interviewed officials of those three 
agencies and officials at selected counterdrug coordinating 
organizations, including the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
(ONDCP), and the U.S. Interdiction Coordinator (USIC). We also visited 
the Joint Interagency Task Force East (JIATF-East), the Joint 
Interagency Task Force West (JIATF-West), Customs' Air and Marine 
Interdiction Coordination Center (AMICC), and Coast Guard and Customs 
field offices in the Miami, Florida, area. We reviewed documents 
guiding the transit zone interdiction effort, such as the 1999 
National Interdiction Command and Control Plan, the National Drug 
Control Strategy 2000 Annual Report, and agency authorizing 
legislation. We also reviewed our published reports and testimonies 
(see Related GAO Products). 

To determine the extent to which we could identify the funds obligated
and assets used for transit zone drug interdiction activities of DOD, 
the Coast Guard, and Customs, we interviewed agency and ONDCP budget 
officials, reviewed agency budget documents, and reviewed data on 
flight hours and ship days from agency data systems. To obtain data on 
funds obligated for transit zone drug interdiction, we requested these 
data for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 from agency budget officials 
using a structured interview format. The officials told us that they 
do not track data on funds obligated specifically for transit zone 
drug interdiction. We then asked these officials to attempt to 
estimate the transit-zone specific obligation data, which the 
officials did. We also requested data on flight hours and ship days 
used for transit zone drug interdiction activities in fiscal years 
1998 through 2000 from officials at DOD, the Coast Guard,
Customs, JIATF-East, and JIATF-West. We reviewed the resulting agency 
data on funds obligated, and the data on flight hours and ship days 
from agency data systems for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 (1998 data 
on funds obligated were not available for the Coast Guard), and 
identified several limitations. We interviewed budget officials from 
DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs regarding the limitations of their 
estimates of funds obligated for transit zone drug interdiction. We 
also interviewed officials from DOD, the Coast Guard, Customs, JIATF-
East, and JIATF-West regarding the limitations of their data on flight 
hours and ship days. In addition, we interviewed ONDCP budget 
officials, reviewed a study commissioned by ONDCP on agency methods 
for calculating their counterdrug budgets, and interviewed the study's 
authors. 

To identify what results DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs track to 
demonstrate their effectiveness in transit zone drug interdiction, we 
interviewed agency headquarters officials and obtained available 
results data for fiscal years 1998 through 2000. Along with the 
information provided by agency officials, we also reviewed annual 
performance reports required by the Government Performance and Results 
Act of 1993 for DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs, for fiscal years 
1998 through 2000.[Footnote 31] 

To determine whether multiple agencies are reporting the same cocaine 
seizures, we interviewed managers of agency seizure databases at DOD, 
the Coast Guard, and Customs to identify how agencies record and 
report cocaine seizures in which they participate. We reviewed user's 
guides, training manuals, and written policies and guidance for the 
agency seizure databases (these documents are listed in app. III). We 
also obtained cocaine seizure data for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 
from the Coast Guard and Customs and cocaine seizure data for fiscal 
year 2000 from DOD. To identify procedures and data systems in place 
to ensure the accuracy and completeness of cocaine seizure data when 
multiple agencies participate in seizures, we identified two 
interagency data systems where such seizures are recorded—the Federal-
wide Drug Seizure System (FDSS) and the Consolidated Counterdrug 
Database (CCDB). We interviewed managers of the two systems and 
reviewed user's guides, training manuals, and written policies and 
guidance (these documents are also listed in app. III). We also 
attended one of the quarterly CCDB conferences, at which 
representatives of the agencies involved in transit zone interdiction 
meet for 5 days to discuss the accuracy and completeness of data 
provided by the agencies to the CCDB manager during the previous 
quarter. 

In addition to reviewing related documentation and reports and 
interviewing agency officials (as discussed above), we further 
assessed the reliability of the data in the agency and interagency 
databases by comparing the records in the Coast Guard and Customs 
databases and the FDSS and CCDB for a nonrepresentative sample of 
seizures that were reported in agency press releases. We selected the 
universe of publicly available agency press releases in fiscal years 
1998, 1999, and 2000 and compared the information in them with 
information in agency and interagency seizure databases. We located 
the press releases through an Internet search of DOD's (headquarters, 
Air Force, Navy, Southern and Pacific Commands,[Footnote 32] and JIATF-
East and JIATF-West), the Coast Guard's (headquarters and districts), 
and Customs' (headquarters) web sites. We found 21 press releases 
referring to 27 cocaine seizures made during fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
and 2000. We requested from the database managers for the Coast Guard, 
Customs, the FDSS, and the CCDB available information on 26 of these 
seizures[Footnote 33] from their respective databases and any other 
supporting information that the managers may have maintained.
Information was available on 25 of the 26 seizures from the Coast 
Guard database,[Footnote 34] 18 of the 26 seizures from the Customs 
database,[Footnote 35] 25 of the 26 seizures from the FDSS,[Footnote 
36] and all 26 seizures from the CCDB. We compared the press releases 
with information provided by the agencies from their databases, in 
terms of the reported amount of cocaine seized, and the agencies 
listed as participating in the seizure. While we determined that the 
data were reliable enough for our purposes, our ability to generalize 
from our review of agency cocaine seizure press releases is limited by 
the fact that the seizures described in the press releases do not 
constitute a representative sample of all agency cocaine seizures. 

We conducted our work from January through October 2001 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Interdiction Coordinating Organizations: 

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was established by 
the Congress to set policies, goals, priorities, and objectives for 
national drug control; develop a national drug control strategy; and 
coordinate and oversee the implementation of the strategy, among other 
things.[Footnote 37] ONDCP is the President's primary policy office 
for drug issues. ONDCP oversees and coordinates the drug control 
efforts of U.S. federal agencies engaged in implementing the strategy 
and managing programs, but does not manage drug control programs 
itself. ONDCP also has authority to review various agencies' drug 
control budget requests, including the Department of Defense (DOD), 
the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard), and the U.S. Customs Service 
(Customs), to ensure they are sufficient to implement the objectives 
of the national strategy,[Footnote 38] but it has no direct control 
over how agency budgetary resources are used. 

The U.S. Interdiction Coordinator (USIC) provides strategic advice and 
oversight for international interdiction efforts in the source and 
transit zones. The USIC is designated by the director of ONDCP. The 
current USIC is the Commandant of the Coast Guard,[Footnote 39] who is 
advised by representatives from DOD, the Coast Guard, Customs, the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Central Intelligence Agency.
The State Department position was vacant at the time of our review. The
USIC reports to the Director of ONDCP regarding two areas: (1) what 
resources are needed to achieve the objectives of the National Drug
Control Strategy in the future and (2) how interdiction assets are 
performing. However, the USIC does not possess authority to exercise 
operational control of employed assets or field operations. USIC also 
organizes conferences three or four times a year, attended by 
organizations that are involved with international interdiction, to 
discuss interdiction issues and the status of interdiction efforts. 
The conferences allow principal players from various parts of the drug 
interdiction effort (law enforcement, intelligence, and the military) 
to discuss drug interdiction issues. 

The Joint Interagency Task Force East (JIATF-East) is the primary 
center for detection, monitoring, identification, and handoff of 
suspect air and maritime drug trafficking events in part of the 
Pacific Ocean; the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, Mexico, Central 
America and surrounding seas; the Atlantic Ocean; and the continental 
landmass extending to the southern end of South America. JIATF-East 
also focuses on support to foreign nations' counterdrug initiatives 
and the detection, monitoring, and handoff of suspect drug targets to 
foreign law enforcement agencies. JIATF-East hands off control of 
operations to law enforcement agencies (such as the Coast Guard) at 
the arrest stage of an event. Detection and monitoring 
responsibilities within this area of responsibility extend to within 
100 nautical miles from the continental United States for air targets, 
to continental U.S. territorial seas for maritime targets, and to the 
U.S. territorial seas of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands for 
both air and maritime targets, and the Bahamas. JIATF-East is under 
the command of DOD's Southern Command and is staffed by 
representatives from DOD, the Coast Guard, Customs, the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation (FBI), and DEA. 

The Joint Interagency Task Force West (JIATF-West) focuses primarily 
on illegal drugs originating in southeast and southwest Asia, support 
of foreign nations' and U.S. country teams' counterdrug initiatives, 
and the detection, monitoring, and identification of suspect drug 
targets in their area of responsibility for subsequent handoff to U.S. 
or foreign law enforcement authorities. Its area of responsibility 
includes part of the Pacific Ocean. Detection and monitoring 
responsibilities within this area extend to the U.S. territorial seas 
for maritime targets and up to 100 nautical miles from the continental 
United States for air targets. Additionally, JIATF-West may provide 
counterdrug support outside of its area of responsibility for foreign 
nations (such as Mexico). JIATF-West is under the command of DOD's 
Pacific Command and is also staffed by representatives from DOD, the 
Coast Guard, Customs, the FBI, and DEA. 

Customs' Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center (AMICC) 
identifies aircraft coming to the U.S. border and coordinates the 
interception and apprehension of suspects. Its area of responsibility 
extends 100 nautical miles from the U.S. landmass (except for the 
territory of the Bahamas, which is within the area of responsibility 
assigned to JIATF-East). AMICC is the primary center responsible for 
the identification of aircraft tracked within the JIATF-West area of 
responsibility and the transit zone portion of the JIATF-East area of 
responsibility. AMICC uses the Federal Aviation Administration's 
flight system and more than 70 radar to identify and track aircraft. 
In addition, AMICC supports U.S. drug interdiction operations from 
airfields in Mexico and Aruba and assists the Mexican government's law 
enforcement.[Footnote 40] AMICC also provides support for drug 
interdiction activities in the Caribbean. AMICC is staffed by 
detection systems specialists from DOD, the Coast Guard, and Customs; 
intelligence research specialists; and communications specialists. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Agency and Interagency Drug Seizure Database 
Documentation: 

Department of Defense: 

Counterdrug Performance Results. Memorandum from the Office of the 
Department of Defense Coordinator for Drug Enforcement Policy and 
Support, October 10, 2000. 

Data Definitions and Sources: Project Level Performance Results. 
Office of the Department of Defense Coordinator for Drug Enforcement 
Policy and Support. 

U.S. Customs Service: 

Aviation Marine Operations Reporting System, Student Guide. U.S. 
Customs Service Air and Marine Interdiction Division. 

Air and Marine Operations Reporting System Users Guide. U.S. Customs 
Service Air and Marine Interdiction Division. 

SEACATS[Footnote 41] Search/Arrest/Seizure Procedures. U.S. Customs 
Service Office of Information and Technology and Office of Field 
Operations, March 2001. 

SEACATS Air/Marine/Foreign Incident Report (AMFIR) Short Form Seizure 
Case Initiation. U.S. Customs Service Office of Information and 
Technology and Office of Field Operations, February 2001. 

Federal-Wide Drug Seizure System: 

EPIC Procedures for Issuing Federal Drug Identification Numbers, from 
EPIC Watch Operations Training Book, El Paso Intelligence Center, Drug 
Enforcement Administration. 

Federal-wide Drug Seizure System Automated FDIN Log User Guide. Drug 
Enforcement Administration, May 1991. 

Federal-wide Drug Seizure System Data Element Description and 
Validation Criteria for FDSSLOG File and FDSS Master File. Drug 
Enforcement Administration. 

Federal-Wide Drug Seizure System Federal Drug Identification Number
(FDIN). El Paso Intelligence Center, July 2000. 

FDIN Threshold Weights and Equivalents. Drug Enforcement
Administration, January 1, 2001. 

Consolidated Counterdrug Database: 

Consolidated Counterdrug Database (CCDB) User's Guide. U.S.
Interdiction Coordinator's Office, February 2001. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Agency Drug Seizure Database Controls: 

This appendix contains additional information on the controls in the 
U.S. Coast Guard's (Coast Guard) and U.S. Customs Service's (Customs) 
seizure databases designed to ensure the accuracy of cocaine seizures	
reported by these agencies. The appendix also contains additional 
information on the databases that the Department of Defense (DOD) uses 
to track cocaine seized in the transit zone as a result of detection 
and monitoring by ships, planes, and radar under the control of the 
Joint Interagency Task Force East (JIATF-East) or the Joint 
Interagency Task Force West (JIATF-West). 

The Coast Guard	The Coast Guard had instituted the following controls 
to ensure that it was reporting an accurate total for the cocaine 
seizures that it made. These included: (1) tracking cocaine seized in 
the transit zone by a unique case identification number, (2) reviewing 
each seizure at several levels of the Coast Guard command structure, 
and (3) reconciling the Coast Guard data with data reported to two 
interagency databases. 

Coast Guard cocaine seizures are to be reported by the Coast Guard 
district in which the seizure occurs. If the seizure is above a 
specified weight threshold, the district reports the approximate 
amount, the location of the seizure, and which Coast Guard unit made 
the seizure to	the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC),[Footnote 42] 
which serves as the central clearinghouse for reporting of drug 
seizure information to the Federal-wide Drug Seizure System (FDSS). 
EPIC assigns a unique identification number that the Coast Guard uses 
to track the seizure.[Footnote 43] The weight of drugs seized will be 
an approximate number until the drugs arrive on	shore and are turned 
over to Customs or, in some cases, to DEA or a foreign law enforcement 
agency. Coast Guard district staff contact the agency with control of 
the drugs to find out the final weight of the seizure and report any 
revisions to EPIC using the already assigned identification number. 

In addition to reporting to EPIC, Coast Guard districts report cocaine 
seizures up the chain of command to a Coast Guard headquarters 
database manager. The manager receives information from a variety of 
sources (e.g., electronic mail message traffic from Coast Guard ships, 
district reports, and area reports). When discrepancies exist between 
the various sources, the manager checks with each source to determine 
the most accurate information on the seizure. 

The database manager also checks Coast Guard cocaine seizure data 
against two interagency databases. Each quarter the manager receives a 
list of the Coast Guard seizures that were reported to EPIC. The 
weight of cocaine seizures listed by EPIC may vary from the weight 
reported by the districts to Coast Guard headquarters, because a final 
weighing of the drugs after the cocaine was turned over to Customs may 
have resulted in a different amount. The manager, as well as personnel 
from Coast Guard's field units, also attends the quarterly 
Consolidated Counterdrug Database (CCDB) conference[Footnote 44] in 
which all seizures in the transit zone are discussed. He said that 
there was an instance when he had received information from EPIC about 
a number of seizures made by the Coast Guard that did not appear in 
the Coast Guard's database. At the CCDB conference, representatives 
from the Coast Guard's field units had further information on the 
seizures that helped clarify whether they should or should not be 
included in the Coast Guard's seizure database. 

The Coast Guard cocaine seizure data was stored in spreadsheet format 
at Coast Guard headquarters. The spreadsheet was linked, 
electronically, to written documentation that supported each seizure, 
such as electronic mail messages from Coast Guard ships and daily 
operational summaries from Coast Guard districts, so that a paper 
trail existed to support changes made to seizure information in the 
database. According to the Coast Guard database manager, this 
information, as well as the hardcopies supporting any changes made to 
the information in the database, were deleted about 6 months after it 
was received. 

Customs: 

Customs had instituted the following controls in its seizure database:	
(1) assignment of a unique agency case identification number to each 
seizure where Customs assisted with the seizure, seized drugs, or took 
custody of drugs seized by other agencies; (2) reconciliation with the	
CCDB; (3) supervisory review of seizure reports, and periodic review 
of seizure information by headquarters personnel; and (4) automated 
tracking of any changes made to the seizure database. 

Customs' transit zone cocaine seizures were recorded in two different 
ways. First, if Customs assisted a foreign agency with a cocaine 
seizure, Customs air or marine enforcement officers were to report 
information about their participation in the seizure to a Customs 
database. Customs field and headquarters personnel subsequently 
obtained information on the seizure from the seizing agency, and input 
the information into the database, with a special code signifying that 
Customs was an assisting agency, rather than a seizing agency. 
Reported seizure amounts are reconciled with the CCDB data at the 
quarterly CCDB conferences. Second, if Customs took custody of a 
cocaine seizure turned over to it by another agency, Customs personnel 
tracked the seizure in its tracking system. In both cases, a unique 
identification number would be associated with the seizure, so that 
all information on the seizure that resided in separate Customs' data 
systems (such as the flight hours spent tracking a suspect aircraft) 
would be linked to the seizure record. 

Customs required review of each seizure report by a supervisor. In 
addition, headquarters personnel periodically review seizure reports 
and check for duplicate records and seizure amounts that appear to be 
peculiar. Customs officials told us they believed these controls had 
prevented instances of multiple counting of seizures by two separate 
branches of the agency. 

Customs' seizure data system is constructed so that updates, 
deletions, and revisions of seizure records are automatically tracked. 
Thus, deleted records do not disappear from the system. 

DOD: 

In fiscal year 2000, DOD began to collect data from JIATF-East and	
JIATF-West on the amount of cocaine seized in the transit zone as a 
result of detection and monitoring by ships, planes, and radar under 
the control of the JIATFs. The JIATFs are each required to provide to 
DOD a report on how much cocaine was seized as the result of detection 
by assets under their control, broken out by type of asset (e.g., 
detection by DOD ground-based radar, Customs surveillance aircraft, or 
Coast Guard helicopters). The JIATFs had each instituted the following 
controls to ensure that the data they reported on cocaine seizures 
were accurate: (1) the tracking of assets and drug-smuggling events by 
specific identification numbers and (2) reconciling the internal JIATF 
data with data in the CCDB. Although these controls may help ensure 
more accurate reporting, there remains the potential for multiple 
counting of seizures in those instances where a drug-smuggling 
aircraft or vessel crosses over both the JIATFs' areas of 
responsibility. In those cases, both JIATFs may report that an asset 
under their control was the initial detection asset for a particular 
cocaine seizure, thus potentially inflating the overall amount of 
cocaine seized that is reported to DOD. 

A DOD official informed us that DOD has provided guidance to the two
JIATFs that the CCDB is to be used as one source for the report. 
However, DOD has left it up to each JIATF to determine how the CCDB 
will be used, and what other specific data sources and calculations 
will be used to provide data for the report. Analysts for JIATF-East 
and JIATF-West informed us that the data they report to DOD on cocaine 
seizures are derived from a combination of two sources: (1) data 
maintained internally by each JIATF on the activity of each asset 
under its control and (2) data from the CCDB regarding the type of 
aircraft, ship, or radar that was the initial detection asset for each 
seizure. 

Each JIATF maintains its own data on the activity of the assets under 
its control. The data come from such sources as daily planning 
documents, watch logs, and daily operational briefing documents. Each 
suspect cocaine-smuggling event that takes place within each JIATF's 
area of responsibility (whether or not the event resulted in a cocaine 
seizure) is identified by a unique JIATF-East or JIATF-West case 
identification number and each asset involved in the incident is 
identified by a specific call sign. The JIATF analysts examine the 
various data sources and determine which asset first detected the 
smuggling aircraft or vessel. 

It is up to the JIATF-East and JIATF-West analysts to reconcile their 
asset data with data from the CCDB in order to determine whether a 
specific ship, plane, or radar was the initial detection asset for a 
specific cocaine seizure. The CCDB contains a field for the detection 
asset that initially reported the drug-smuggling target. Data are 
entered into this field after the quarterly CCDB meeting, where each 
seizure (and other drug-smuggling events that did not result in 
seizures) is discussed in detail by representatives from the agencies 
involved in drug interdiction in the transit zone. The representatives 
must agree on which asset was the initial detection asset. 

The CCDB database manager informed us that this specific field only 
describes the type of asset that made the initial detection (e.g., a 
Coast Guard ship or a Customs surveillance aircraft), but not whether 
the asset was under the command of either JIATF-East or JIATF-West. 
Thus, it is up to the judgment of the JIATF analysts how to report the 
incident. A JIATF-West analyst told us that there might be situations 
where both JIATF-East and JIATF-West could each claim that an asset 
under its command made the initial detection that resulted in a 
subsequent cocaine seizure. According to the analyst, this could 
happen because some cocaine-smuggling events in the Eastern Pacific, 
particularly those involving maritime vessels, take place over a 
series of days or weeks, and may cross over the areas of 
responsibility of the two JIATFs. JIATF-East may make the initial 
detection, but then lose the target. JIATF-West may re-acquire the 
target a few days later, leading to the seizure of a load of cocaine. 
According to the analyst, it is unclear which command should be 
credited with the initial detection (and the subsequent seizure), and 
both JIATF-East and JIATF-West may report the detection (and the 
seizure) to DOD. Thus, both JIATFs would be reporting the same seizure 
to DOD, and DOD seizure totals would be inflated. The JIATF-West 
analyst did not provide evidence that such reporting had occurred. 
However, a DOD official agreed that, given the nature of the DOD 
reporting requirements, such multiple reporting could take place. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Laurie E. Ekstrand (202) 512-8777. 
Weldon McPhail (202) 512-8777. 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the above, Tom Jessor, Jessica Lucas, Hiroshi Ishikawa,
Carolyn Ikeda, David Alexander, Michael Curro, Christine Davis, Allen 
Fleener, Jared Hermann, Barbara Johnson, and Judy Pagano made key 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Drug War: Observations on the U.S. International Drug Control Strategy
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-NSIAD-95-182], June 27, 
1995. 

Drug War: Observations on U.S. International Drug Control Efforts
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-NSIAD-95-194], Aug. 1, 
1995. 

Drug Control: U.S. Interdiction Efforts in the Caribbean Decline 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-96-119], Apr. 17, 
1996. 

Drug Control: Observations on U.S. Interdiction in the Caribbean
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-NSIAD-96-171], May 23, 
1996. 

Customs Service: Drug Interdiction Efforts [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-189BR], Sept. 26, 1996. 

Drug Control: Long-Standing Problems Hinder U.S. International Efforts 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-97-75], Feb. 27, 
1997. 

Drug Control: Observations on Elements of the Federal Drug Control
Strategy [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-97-42], Mar. 
14, 1997. 

Drug Control: Reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-GGD-97-97], May 
1, 1997. 

Drug Control: Update on U.S. Interdiction Efforts in the Caribbean and
Eastern Pacific [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-98-30], Oct. 15, 1997. 

Drug Control: Status of U.S. International Counternarcotics Activities
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-NSIAD-98-116], Mar. 12, 
1998. 

Drug Control: An Overview of U.S. Counterdrug Intelligence Activities
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-98-142], June 25, 
1998. 

Customs Service: Aviation Program Missions, Resources, and Performance 
Measures [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-98-186], 
Sept. 9, 1998. 

Drug Control: Observations on U.S. Counterdrug Activities [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-NSIAD-98-249], Sept. 16, 1998. 

DOD Counterdrug Activities: Reported Costs Do Not Reflect Extent of
DOD's Support [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-98-231], Sept. 23, 1998. 

Coast Guard: Key Budget Issues for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-RCED-99-83], Feb. 11, 
1999. 

Drug Control: ONDCP Efforts to Manage the National Drug Control Budget 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-99-80], May 14, 1999. 

Drug Control: Assets DOD Contributes to Reducing the Illegal Drug 
Supply Have Declined [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-00-9], Dec. 21, 1999. 

Drug Control: DOD Allocates Fewer Assets to Drug Control Efforts
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-NSIAD-00-77], Jan. 27, 
2000. 

Drug Control: U.S. Efforts in Latin America and the Caribbean
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/NSIAD-00-90R], Feb. 18, 
2000. 

Drug Control: International Counterdrug Sites Being Developed
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-63BR], Dec. 28, 2000. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] In 1996, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) 
prepared a national drug control strategy that established five goals 
to reduce drug demand and supply. The strategy was updated annually 
until February 1999, when ONDCP prepared a 5-year strategy pursuant to 
21 U.S.C. 1705(a). Under 21 U.S.C. 1705(b), ONDCP must prepare an 
annual report on the progress in implementing the strategy. 

[2] In this report, USIC refers to both the Interdiction Coordinator 
and the committee that supports that position. 

[3] These reports are required by the Government Performance and 
Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62). 

[4] ONDCP, 2000 Annual Assessment of Cocaine Movement (Washington, 
D.C.: ONDCP), February 2001, p. 2. 

[5] The National Interdiction Command and Control Plan was published 
to define, among other things, the relationships between the drug 
interdiction agencies, the interagency drug interdiction task forces, 
and USIC. The most recent plan was approved in 1999 by the
Director of ONDCP, the DOD Drug Coordinator, the Commandant of the 
Coast Guard, the Commissioner of the U.S. Customs Service, and the 
U.S. Interdiction Coordinator. 

[6] 10 U.S.C. 124. 

[7] 10 U.S.C. 375. 

[8] 10 U.S.C. 379. 

[9] Also, the U.S. government has signed memorandums of understanding 
with allied foreign nations (Great Britain, Belgium, and the 
Netherlands) performing counterdrug missions in the transit zone, so 
that Coast Guard personnel can be deployed on board these nations' 
ships to assist in drug interdiction. 

[10] Examples of noninterdiction counterdrug activities include the 
transportation of personnel of the United States and foreign countries 
to facilitate counterdrug activities; counterdrug related training of 
law enforcement personnel of federal, state, and local governments and 
of foreign countries; and intelligence analysis services. 

[11] Examples of such programs include fleet support and maritime 
patrol craft upgrades. 

[12] The data do include procurement, operations and maintenance, 
personnel costs of the reserve component, and research and development 
costs. 

[13] According to a study commissioned by ONDCP, the constant rotation 
of personnel to and from the counterdrug mission makes it extremely 
difficult under the current DOD budgeting system to capture the costs 
associated with active-duty personnel involved in counterdrug 
operations. This has the effect of underestimating the overall amount 
in the funding for counterdrug activities in the DOD budget. (P. 
Murphy, L. Davis, T. Liston, D. Thaler, and K. Webb, Improving Anti-
Drug Budgeting (Santa Monica, CA: RAND), 2000, p.
38.) 

[14] Instead, DOD listed funds obligated for programs in countries 
such as Mexico and Thailand, which could include activities outside 
the transit zone. 

[15] Coast Guard budget officials said that the agency changed its 
budget methodology in 1999, and retroactively applying the new 
methodology to data from 1998 would result in inaccurate information. 

[16] A Customs official told us that the agency intends to change its 
data collection system. One change will be to make it mandatory for 
crews to fill in the geographic field in the data system. 

[17] However, the data included such costs as maintenance, fuel, 
radar, and repairs for communications systems. 

[18] The Secretary of Transportation is required by section 103 of the 
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-324) to submit to the 
Congress on a quarterly basis a report on all expenditures related to 
drug interdiction activities of the Coast Guard during the previous 
quarter. Annual drug seizure amounts are included in these reports. 

[19] Cocaine seizure rates appear in annual U.S. Department of 
Transportation reports. 

[20] The source zone is the geographic area that is the original 
source of the illicit drugs (e.g., South America). The arrival zone 
includes the land, air, and maritime entry points along the borders of 
and within the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

[21] Other new Customs measures include the number of landings where 
suspect aircraft stop short of the U.S. border and the number of 
incidents in which Customs' officers cannot launch their vessels in 
support of a mission/request. 

[22] The Coast Guard records in its seizure database whether other 
agencies participated in the actual seizure of cocaine, but not 
necessarily whether other agencies contributed intelligence or 
detection and monitoring information that led to the seizure. For 
example, the database notes that the U.S. Navy was part of the 
"seizing unit" in those instances where a Coast Guard law enforcement 
detachment on board a Navy ship conducted the actual boarding of a 
smuggler's vessel and the seizure of cocaine. But the database does 
not show Customs as part of the seizing unit if a Customs surveillance 
plane detected the smuggling vessel and tracked it to the point where 
the Coast Guard boarded the vessel. 

[23] Customs officials told us that this measure does not include 
those instances where Customs assisted foreign law enforcement 
agencies to seize cocaine in the transit zone, discussed above. 

[24] We identified and reviewed 21 press releases describing transit 
zone cocaine seizures on Coast Guard, Customs, and DOD Internet web 
sites in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Some of the press releases 
contained information on more than one seizure. The cocaine seizures 
described in the press releases are not necessarily representative of 
all cocaine seizures made by these agencies during these 3 fiscal 
years. See appendix I for more information on our methodology. 

[25] Some of the 21 press releases contained information on more than 
one seizure. 

[26] EPIC is a multiagency clearinghouse for tactical intelligence and 
the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information related to 
worldwide drug movement. It is managed by DEA. 

[27] The three other agencies are the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (which includes the U.S. 
Border Patrol), and DEA. Drug seizures made by other federal agencies, 
such as the Forest Service, are included in the FDSS database to the 
extent that custody of the drug evidence was transferred to one of the 
five agencies. 

[28] On1y seizure amounts above a certain threshold weight (1 pound, 
for cocaine, for example) are issued an identification number. 
According to FDSS officials, if every seizure was issued an 
identification number, regardless of weight, the system would be 
overwhelmed. That is because federal agencies make many more small 
seizures than large seizures. FDSS officials try to capture in a 
computerized log the bulk of seizures, in terms of weight, rather than 
number. These officials set the thresholds so that about 95 percent of 
the total weight of all federal seizures have an associated 
identification number. 

[29] Because of national security issues having to do with the kinds 
of detection assets used in certain locations, information on some 
cocaine seizures made in the transit zone may not be entered into the 
database. 

[30] CCDB serves as the foundation for the Interagency Assessment of 
Cocaine Movement, which analyzes the illegal flow of cocaine from 
South America and assesses drug-smuggling patterns. Results are 
published twice a year by ONDCP. 

[31] The Coast Guard's performance report was part of the Department 
of Transportation's report, and Customs' performance report was part 
of the Department of Treasury's report. 

[32] JIATF-East and JIATF-West come under the authority of DOD's 
Southern and Pacific Unified Commands, respectively. 

[33] Initially, we identified 26 seizures and requested information 
about them from the agency and interagency database managers. Later, 
we identified a 27th seizure mentioned in the press releases, but we 
did not make a second information request to the agencies. We did not 
request additional information because that information was not 
required to address our objective. 

[34] The Coast Guard was mentioned in a Southern Command press release 
as having participated in the one seizure for which there was no 
information in the Coast Guard database. According to the Coast Guard 
database manager, the Coast Guard did not take credit for 
participation in that particular seizure. 

[35] Customs database managers were unable to locate records 
pertaining to 8 of the 26 seizures. We do not know whether the lack of 
records indicates that Customs did not participate in the seizure or 
whether the searches performed by the managers were unable to locate 
records that existed. However, neither the Coast Guard database nor 
the FDSS and CCDB note Customs' participation in any of the 8 
seizures; thus, we believe it is likely that Customs did not 
participate in the seizures. 

[36] An FDSS database manager was unable to locate any records on 1 of 
the 26 seizures. This seizure was the same one for which there was no 
information in the Coast Guard database. 

[37] 21 U.S.C. 1703(b). 

[38] 21 U.S.C. 1703(c)(3). 

[39] USIC is a rotating position. 

[40] According to AMICC officials, Customs has stationed two Cessna 
Citations in Mexico with a Mexican law enforcement agent on board so 
that Customs can quickly apprehend planes landing just short of the 
U.S. border. 

[41] Seized Asset Case Tracking System. 

[42] EPIC is a multiagency clearinghouse for tactical intelligence and 
the collection, analysis, and dissemination of information related to 
worldwide drug movement. It is managed by DEA. 

[43] Only cocaine seizures above 1 pound are issued an identification 
number by EPIC. 

[44] The CCDB is an interagency database with information on transit 
zone drug-smuggling events and is managed by the U.S. Interdiction 
Coordinator. Interagency representatives meet on a quarterly basis to 
review data reported to the CCDB during the prior quarter. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current 
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The 
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using 
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 
including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “Subscribe to daily E-mail 
alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

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

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: