Follow-up review. An assessment of Georgia's drug enforcement efforts

FOLLOW-UP REVIEW
An Assessment of Georgia's Drug Enforcement Efforts

Russell W. Hinton State Auditor

Performance Audit Operations Division Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts

February 2005 Report 04-26

This is a Follow-Up Review of the Program Evaluation of Drug Enforcement Efforts in Georgia released by the Department of Audits in October 2002. This review was conducted to determine the extent to which the Department of Public Safety, the Georgia Department of Defense, and the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council have addressed the recommendations presented in that report. A copy of the original report can be obtained through the contact information on the back of this report.
Background
The primary state agencies participating in drug enforcement are the Department of Public Safety (DPS), the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI), the Georgia Department of Defense (DOD), and the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC). In addition, several federal agencies are involved in enforcing applicable laws related to illegal drugs in Georgia. The primary federal agencies that participate in drug enforcement are the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the U.S. Customs Service (USCS). It should be noted that Georgia's state and local law enforcement agencies receive federal grants and other assistance funds that help to support the state's drug enforcement efforts. Appendix A contains award amounts for federal fiscal year 2003.
Synopsis of the Audit Recommendations
While the program evaluation focused on those state entities which had a primary mission of drug enforcement or supporting drug enforcement, other state entities have "incidental" participation or play a supporting role in drug enforcement. This incidental participation can be described as situations in which agencies encounter drug activity in the performance of other non-drug law enforcement duties. It should be noted that DPS stated in their response to the Follow-Up Review that they have several initiatives that have made a significant impact on drug enforcement which are not specifically mentioned in this Review.

1

Status of Recommendations
Finding No. 1 (as reported in 2002): While there are multiple agencies dedicating resources towards drug enforcement in Georgia, the State has not developed a statewide threat assessment or a coordinated plan to direct the drug enforcement efforts of the state. It was recommended that the agencies involved in drug enforcement, in consultation with the Governor and General Assembly, take the initiative to prepare a statewide threat assessment to coordinate and target their efforts through a statewide strategic plan.
Current Status: Although the National Drug Intelligence Center, in conjunction with the DEA, released a drug threat assessment specific to Georgia in April 2003, the State has not developed a statewide strategic plan to direct the drug enforcement efforts of the State.
The GBI agrees that a coordinated, focused, statewide initiative by all local and state government entities involved in drug enforcement would be a superior approach to the problem. As noted by the GBI, "such an initiative would necessarily rely upon an agency or entity to undertake the development of the missionspecific threat assessment and strategic plan and to serve as the central authority and coordinator for such an initiative. We [GBI] do not know of any agency, law enforcement or otherwise, that currently has the budget, resources, manpower, or the authority and jurisdiction to function in that role."
Finding No. 2 (as reported in 2002): Drug enforcement is a broad policy area that includes the efforts of multiple state agencies and multiple programs and initiatives within those state agencies. To assist decision-makers in determining whether the drug enforcement efforts of the state are effective, the State should develop goals and measurable objectives for the broad policy area of drug enforcement.

The State has not developed a statewide strategic plan to direct the drug enforcement efforts of the state.

2

At the time of the evaluation, no state agency had goals and measurable objectives related to limiting the production and distribution of illegal drugs.

Current Status: The State has not developed goals and measurable objectives related to the broad policy area of statewide drug enforcement. While each agency examined in the evaluation has begun to monitor individual enforcement efforts, there is no mechanism to determine the collective impact of these agencies' efforts at reducing the production and distribution of illegal drugs.

Finding Number 3 (as reported in 2002): While the threats to

society posed by illegal drugs have persisted, GBI's ability to

combat illegal drug activity has diminished due to the

decreased resources dedicated to drug enforcement.

The evaluation found that resources within the GBI had been

shifted from drug enforcement to other initiatives such as

healthcare fraud, child abuse investigations, and homeland

security. As a result, the amount of investigative hours expended

by the GBI on drug enforcement had significantly decreased. Also,

the total value of drugs seized by the GBI had decreased. It was

recommended that the

Exhibit 1 GBI Investigative Hours Fiscal Years 1994-2003

State's decision-makers determine the level of drug enforcement

activities desired from
180,000
the GBI and ensure
160,000
that the GBI has

140,000

adequate resources to

120,000

meet the desired drug

100,000

enforcement activity

80,000

level.

Investigative Hours

60,000

40,000

20,000

0 FY 94

FY 95

FY 96

FY 97

FY 98

FY 99

FY 00

FY 01

FY 02

FY 03

Drugs Persons Property

Source: GBI Records Note vertical line indicates the point in which the original evaluation concluded its research.

Current Status: Exhibit 1 shows that the number of investigative hours dedicated to drug investigations by the

3

GBI has decreased since the original evaluation. According to the GBI, all drug enforcement efforts operated by the GBI were identified and examined during the fiscal year 2004 budget process and discussed at length with the Chief Operating Officer, the Governor, the Office of Planning and Budget, and members of the General Assembly.

Exhibit 2 Value of Drugs Seized by GBI
Fiscal Years 1997-2004

$45,000,000 $40,000,000 $35,000,000 $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000
$5,000,000 $0

FY97

FY98

FY99

FY00

FY01

FY02

FY03

FY04

Source: GBI Records Note vertical line indicates the point in which the original evaluation concluded its research.

In addition, as can be seen in Exhibit 2, while there was a significant increase in the value of drugs seized during fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the value seized in fiscal year 2004 decreased substantially to below $5 million1 .

Finding No. 4 (as reported in 2002): Within the State's drug enforcement efforts, there are gaps in geographic coverage and in the segments of the illegal drug trade targeted. The primary components of the State's drug enforcement efforts that can initiate drug-related investigations are the Byrne-funded Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Forces (MJDTFs), GBI Regional Offices, and GBI Regional Drug Enforcement Offices (RDEOs). At the time of the original report, these three primary law enforcement components were not present in 45 (28%) of Georgia's 159 counties.

1 According to GBI staff, one major drug bust can cause the value of drugs seized to increase enormously. At the same time, a national or international event can also greatly impact the value. According to GBI staff, the drop in FY04 seizures can be attributed to the requirements of the G-8 summit that was held during 2004 in Sea Island, GA.
4

In addition to the geographic gaps, the state's drug enforcement efforts failed to adequately target all levels of the illegal drug trade. According to the FBI, all levels of the drug trade must be targeted, while at the same time placing emphasis on upper-level drug trafficking organizations. However, it was found that the majority of Georgia's enforcement efforts focused on mid-level and streetlevel drug traffickers and dealers. GBI personnel stated that a lack of staffing and fiscal resources were significant factors preventing the GBI from targeting upper-level drug trafficking organizations.

Current Status: Since the evaluation, an additional nine counties

are covered by a locally supervised MJDTF, bringing the total

number of counties covered by either a locally or GBI-supervised

MJDTF to 92. The GBI RDEOs have expanded to include an

additional 12 counties within the

Exhibit 3 Geographic Coverage Current as of Fiscal Year 2004

state's northwest corner. As seen in Exhibit 3, 36

(23%) of Georgia's 159

counties do not have an

RDEO or an MJDTF

operating within their

boundaries. This is an

improvement from the

original evaluation in which

45 counties were without an

RDEO or MJDTF.

Source: GBI, CJCC, and ONDCP records

While the geographic

coverage provided in the

state has increased, the GBI

has, due to budget

reductions, reduced the

number of sworn officers

assigned

to

drug

enforcement from 72 in

fiscal year 2001 to 66 in

fiscal year 2004.

5

In addition, funds dedicated by the GBI towards Evidence and Information Purchase (PE/PI funds) have decreased 42% since the original evaluation, from $401,892 in fiscal year 2001 to $232,416 in 2004. PE/PI funds are used to target larger scale and higherlevel operations by allowing agents to make multiple purchases from an informant and/or dealer.
Finding No 7 (as reported in 2002): The Governor's Task Force (GTF) has been successful in locating and eradicating marijuana plants in Georgia. However, the GTF needs to improve its coordination efforts with state and local law enforcement agencies, document its methodology for determining where the GTF searches for cultivated marijuana, actively collect statewide marijuana seizure statistics, and consider the appropriateness of investigating indoor marijuana cultivation as part of its mission. The mission of GTF is to combat the cultivation of domestic marijuana on a statewide basis. The GTF fulfills its mission by coordinating helicopter flights used to identify marijuana cultivation throughout the state and by coordinating state and local law enforcement personnel to eradicate marijuana identified by the flights. The GTF is funded by the Federal Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program, which is administered by the DEA. It should be noted that during the original evaluation the GTF was not under the direction of Department of Public Safety. The unit was transferred to the DPS on March 1, 2002.
Current Status: Coordination with State and Local Law Enforcement Procedures have been developed that expand coverage and coordination of eradication efforts statewide. The Aviation Commander for each of the six GSP Hangar Regions is responsible for facilitating the flow of information between GTF and state and local law enforcement. Intelligence gathered from local law enforcement travels back to GTF through these regions, and seizure activities are then carried out in a coordinated fashion.
6

2003 GTF Results
46,985 plants eradicated valued at $93,970,000
80 arrests Missions flown in
123 counties

GTF Intelligence and Flight Planning GTF has developed a form that is distributed to local authorities, allowing them to report marijuana intelligence information. This data, along with that from MJDTFs and experienced team leaders, aids in the coordination of determining where the GTF searches for cultivated marijuana. Flight schedules are no longer planned for the entire year, allowing for flight patterns to adapt to a changing environment.
GTF Collection of Statewide Marijuana Seizure Statistics Citing a lack of jurisdictional authority in requiring agencies to report information, GTF has not established a formal system to collect non-GTF marijuana plant seizure results from local agencies.
GTF Indoor Marijuana Operations GTF has not pursued the re-implementation of the indoor marijuana eradication program, citing limits to statutory jurisdiction and budgetary restraints.
Finding No. 8 (as reported in 2002): Although the State Drug Task Force has been highly rated by law enforcement that have used its services, the SDTF was not able to demonstrate what portion of its requests for assistance have been granted or how these requests were evaluated or prioritized. The SDTF provides short-term undercover drug investigation assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies on a byrequest basis. These operations consist of making undercover drug purchases, working with confidential informants, and making drug arrests. The 2002 evaluation found that 88% of those MJDTFs that had used SDTF services were satisfied with the work they performed. However, the SDTF was not able to demonstrate how requests for assistance were evaluated nor were they able to provide documentation of the percentage of requests that had been granted.
Current Status: The SDTF now logs all incoming requests for assistance in an administrative pending investigation file which is maintained chronologically by date received. Requests are initially
7

reviewed by the unit supervisor and a pre-investigation survey is completed. This pre-investigation survey gathers and documents information utilized during the evaluation process. The unit supervisor also takes into consideration the last time SDTF responded to a request in the affected area and the resources that it has available to meet the requesting agency's needs. In fiscal year 2004 SDTF was able to address 60% of all requests received. The remaining 40% have been rolled over into fiscal year 2005 for consideration and action as resources become available.

SDTF Fiscal Year 2004 Facts
488 Drug Buys 378 Arrests $29,468 in
Drugs Seized

8

Appendix A

Grant Name

Description of Formula Grant

Fiscal Year 2003 Award

The objective of the Byrne Formula Grant is to reduce and prevent illegal drug

activity, crime, and violence and to improve the functioning of the criminal justice

Edward Byrne Memorial Crime Control System Improvement Grant Program

system. Each state provides a 25% match for the state initiatives funded through Byrne Grants. This match is provided by both state agencies and local cities and counties. The state agency share is primarily provided by GBI through assignment of

(Byrne Formula)

GBI agents to Byrne Formula Grant funded projects (GBI agents assigned to

MJDTFs). Byrne Formula Grant funds can be used for multiple purposes in addition

to drug enforcement and drug enforcement training.

$13,458,353

Assistance Program

Description of Assistance Provided

Fiscal Year 2003 Award

Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program (OCDETF)

Funds for overtime and travel are provided to state and local officers involved in cases designated eligible for OCDETF funds. To be designated an OCDETF case, it must involve an organization that is involved in illegal drugs, has links outside the jurisdiction of the agency seeking to sponsor the investigation, and have both a federal sponsor and state or federal co-sponsor.

$77,870

Grant Name

Description of Discretionary Grant

Fiscal Year 2003 Award

Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Discretionary Grants Program (Byrne
Discretionary)

The objective of the Byrne Discretionary grants program administered by the federal Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is to provide leadership and direction in controlling the use and availability of illegal drugs and to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system with an emphasis on violent crime and serious offenders.

Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program
(Marijuana Suppression)

The objective of the DEA managed Marijuana Suppression program is to suppress the cultivation of marijuana in Georgia. The funds, distributed in calendar year 2004, are used to support the Governor's Task Force for Drug Suppression.

$0 $450,000

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Task Force (HIDTA)

The objective of the HIDTA program is to enhance and coordinate America's drug control efforts among state, federal, and local law enforcement agencies in order to eliminate or reduce illegal drug trafficking and its harmful consequences in critical regions of the United States. HIDTAs are designated by the Director of the ONDCP. Funding shown is for calendar year 2004.

$3,847,044

The objective of the Weed & Seed program is to initially reduce violence and drug activity in high crime neighborhoods and then to provide a wide range of crime and drug prevention programs, human service resources, and neighborhood restoration Weed & Seed Program (Weed & Seed) activities to prevent crime from reoccurring. A Weed & Seed grant may be awarded to a coalition including community residents, local government, state government, federal government, and the private sector. There were five recipients in local communities around Georgia in fiscal year 2003.

$1,500,000

Community Oriented Policing Services Methamphetamine Initiative (COPS Meth Lab)

The objective of the COPS Meth Lab grant program is to support state and local efforts to prevent methamphetamine production, distribution, and use.

$0

9

For additional information, please contact John S. Abbey, Director, Performance Audit Operations Division, at 404-657-5220.
Copies of Program Evaluations/Performance Audits can be obtained by calling the number above or on our website:
http://www.audits.state.ga.us/internet/pao/rpt_main.html
10