Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug
Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
Lisa N. Sacco
Analyst in Illicit Drugs and Crime Policy
Kristin M. Finklea
Specialist in Domestic Security
August 21, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41535
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
Summary
The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) is located in the Executive Office of the
President and has the responsibility for creating policies, priorities, and objectives for the federal
Drug Control Program. This national program is aimed at reducing the use, manufacturing, and
trafficking of illicit drugs and the reduction of drug-related crime and violence and of drug-
related health consequences. The director of ONDCP has primary responsibilities of developing a
comprehensive National Drug Control Strategy (Strategy) to direct the nation’s anti-drug efforts;
developing a National Drug Control Budget (Budget) to implement the National Drug Control
Strategy, including determining the adequacy of the drug control budgets submitted by
contributing federal Drug Control Program agencies; and evaluating the effectiveness of the
National Drug Control Strategy implementation by the various agencies contributing to the Drug
Control Program. Authorization for ONDCP expired at the end of FY2010, but it has continued to
receive appropriations. Congress, while continuously charged with ONDCP’s oversight, is now
faced with its possible reauthorization.
In May 2009, Director R. Gil Kerlikowske called for an end to use of the term “war on drugs.”
This is in part because while drug use was previously considered a law enforcement or criminal
justice problem, it has transitioned to being viewed more as a public health problem. Indeed, the
Obama Administration has indicated that a comprehensive strategy should include a range of
prevention, treatment, and law enforcement elements. The 2012 National Drug Control Strategy
outlines seven core areas—ranging from strengthening international partnerships to focusing on
intervention and treatment efforts in health care—aimed at reducing both illicit drug use and its
consequences. The overall goal is to achieve a 15% reduction in the rate of drug use and its
consequences over a five-year period (2010-2015).
In creating the National Drug Control Strategy, ONDCP consults with the various federal Drug
Control Program agencies. ONDCP then reviews their respective drug budgets and incorporates
them into the National Drug Control Budget (Budget), which is submitted to Congress as part of
the annual appropriations process. As requested by Congress in the ONDCP Reauthorization Act
of 2006 (P.L. 109-469), the Budget was restructured in FY2012, incorporating the activities and
budgets of 19 additional federal agencies/programs, to reflect a more complete range of federal
drug control spending. The FY2013 Budget incorporates four additional federal
agencies/programs. In the FY2013 Budget, there are five priorities for which resources are
requested across agencies: substance abuse prevention and substance abuse treatment (both of
which are considered demand-reduction areas), and drug interdiction, domestic law enforcement,
and international partnerships (the three of which are considered supply-reduction areas). The
FY2013 Budget proposes to use 59.3% of the funds ($15.062 billion) for supply-side functions
and 41.2% of the funds ($10.538 billion) for demand-side functions. Federal drug control
activities were funded at $25.185 billion for FY2012 (P.L. 112-10).
In considering ONDCP’s reauthorization, there are several issues on which policymakers may
deliberate. Congress may consider whether to authorize specific supply-reduction or demand-
reduction programs. Congress may also exercise oversight regarding ONDCP’s implementation
of evidenced-based activities. Another issue that might be debated is whether the revised Budget
structure captures the full scope of the nation’s anti-drug activities. Further, ONDCP has created a
new Performance Reporting System (PRS) to evaluate annual progress toward each of the Drug
Control Program’s strategic goals. Congress may exercise oversight regarding the new PRS.
Congressional Research Service
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
National Drug Control Strategy................................................................................................. 2
Prescription Drug Abuse Action Plan.................................................................................. 4
National Drug Control Budget .................................................................................................. 4
Evaluation of the Strategy ......................................................................................................... 7
Selected Reauthorization Issues....................................................................................................... 8
Status of the War on Drugs ........................................................................................................ 8
Budget Priorities.................................................................................................................. 9
Scope of the National Drug Control Budget ........................................................................... 10
Performance Measurement for Federal Drug Control Programs............................................. 11
Tables
Table 1. Federal Drug Control Budget by Function......................................................................... 9
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 12
Congressional Research Service
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
Introduction
The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has the responsibility for creating policies,
priorities, and objectives for the federal Drug Control Program. This national program is aimed at
reducing the use, manufacturing, and trafficking of illicit drugs and the reduction of drug-related
crime and violence and of drug-related health consequences.1 ONDCP is located in the Executive
Office of the President. It was initially created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 19882 and most
recently reauthorized in the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006.3
ONDCP was authorized to receive “such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2006
through 2010.”4 Authorization for ONDCP expired at the end of FY2010, but it has continued to
receive appropriations. Congress, while continuously charged with ONDCP’s oversight, is now
faced with its possible reauthorization.
The director of ONDCP, often referred to as the “Drug Czar,” has numerous responsibilities, of
which the primary three are
• developing a comprehensive National Drug Control Strategy to direct the
nation’s anti-drug efforts;
• developing a National Drug Control Budget to implement the National Drug
Control Strategy, including determining the adequacy of the drug control budgets
submitted by contributing Drug Control Program agencies (listed below); and
• evaluating the effectiveness of the National Drug Control Strategy
implementation by the various agencies contributing to the Drug Control
Program.5
In carrying out these responsibilities, Director R. Gil Kerlikowske has put an end to the use of the
term “war on drugs”6 and has stated that the Obama Administration views a comprehensive drug
control strategy as including a range of prevention, treatment, and law enforcement elements.7
The director has shifted more resources toward treatment as part of a public health approach to
reducing drug abuse and its consequences.8 The American public concurs with the government’s
view that these issues are a significant challenge facing the nation. According to a 2012 Gallup
1 For more information on ONDCP and its mission, see http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/index.html.
2 P.L. 100-690, Title I, Subtitle A, National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988, November 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4181.
3 P.L. 109-469. For detailed information on the 2006 reauthorization as well as background on ONDCP, see archived
CRS Report RL32352, War on Drugs: Reauthorization and Oversight of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
by Mark Eddy.
4 P.L. 109-469, Title VI, Section 601.
5 Office of National Drug Control Policy, Fiscal Year 2013 Congressional Budget Submission, p. 3.
6 Gary Fields, “White House Czar Calls for End to ‘War on Drugs’,” The Wall Street Journal, May 14, 2009,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124225891527617397.html.
7 Testimony by ONDCP Director Kerlikowske before the U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, ONDCP’s Fiscal Year 2011 National Drug Control Budget:
Are We Still Funding a War on Drugs?, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., April 14, 2010.
8 Office of National Drug Policy, Epidemic: Responding to America’s Prescription Drug Crisis,
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/default/files/ondcp/issues-content/prescription-drugs/rx_abuse_plan.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
survey, 66% of respondents reported that they worry a “great deal” or “fair amount” about drug
use as a problem in the United States.9
This report provides a discussion of the National Drug Control Strategy, the National Drug
Control Budget, and ONDCP’s evaluation of the National Drug Control Strategy implementation.
It then provides an analysis of selected legislative and oversight issues that Congress may
consider when debating the reauthorization of ONDCP. Policymakers may question the status of
the war on drugs, whether drug use should be seen as more of a law enforcement issue or a public
health issue, and whether drug control resources are more effective when directed toward
prevention and treatment or toward law enforcement. Another issue for consideration is whether
the revised National Drug Control Budget represents a complete view of federal drug control
activities in the United States. Further, Congress may exercise oversight over ONDCP’s means of
evaluating the nation’s federal drug control programs.
National Drug Control Strategy
Congress has specified that the purpose of the National Drug Control Strategy (Strategy) is to
outline a plan to reduce (1) illicit drug consumption in the United States and (2) the consequences
of such use.10 In creating the Strategy, ONDCP consults with the contributing federal Drug
Control Program agencies11 as well as Congress; state, local, and tribal officials; foreign
government representatives; and private sector representatives with expertise in both supply and
demand reduction.
In the 2012 Strategy, ONDCP outlines seven specific objectives—to be accomplished by 2015—
aimed at reducing both illicit drug use and its consequences.12 These objectives include reducing
the following:
• The prevalence of 12- to 17-year-olds who report having used any illicit drugs in
the past 30 days (by 15%). According to the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use
and Health (NSDUH),13 10.1% of youth in this age range report being “current”
(in the past month) users of illicit drugs.14
• The prevalence of 8th graders who report having used any alcohol, tobacco, or
illicit drugs in their lifetimes (by 15%). According to the 2011 Monitoring the
Future study,15 33.1% of 8th graders report having had alcohol (2.7% decline
9 For more information, see Gallup at http://www.gallup.com/poll/1657/Illegal-Drugs.aspx.
10 21 U.S.C. §1705(a)(1).
11 A list of contributing agencies is provided in the section, “National Drug Control Budget.”
12 Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2012 National Drug Control Strategy, p. 3.
13 The NSDUH is an annual survey of approximately 68,500 people, including residents of households, non-
institutionalized group quarters, and civilians living on military bases. The survey is administered by the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and is
available at http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduhLatest.htm.
14 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Office of Applied Studies, Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Volume I. Summary of
National Findings, September 2011, p. 1, http://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.pdf (hereafter,
2010 NSDUH).
15 Monitoring the Future is an annual survey of about 46,500 students in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades. It is used to
assess behaviors, attitudes, and values of these students, and conducts follow-up assessments after graduation. Research
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
since 2010), 18.4% of 8th graders report having used cigarettes (1.7% decline
since 2010), and 20.1% of 8th graders report having used some form of illicit drug
in their lifetimes (1.3% decline since 2010).16
• The prevalence of 18- to 25-year-olds who report having used any illicit drugs in
the past 30 days (by 10%). In 2010, 21.5% of adults in this age range reported
being current illicit drug users.17
• The number of chronic drug users (by 15%). For instance, the 2010 NSDUH
suggests that about 4.6 million individuals used marijuana on a daily or near-
daily basis in the previous year.18
• The number of drug-induced deaths (by 15%). In 2009, there were a reported
38,147 drug-induced deaths in the United States.19
• Drug-related morbidity (by 15%). In 2010, there were nearly 4.9 million drug-
related emergency department visits.20
• The prevalence of drugged driving (by 10%). In 2010, an estimated 4.2% of the
12-and-older population drove under the influence of an illicit drug.21
In order to attain these goals, the Strategy proposes initiatives to bolster community-based drug
prevention efforts; expand health care opportunities, both for early drug and substance abuse
intervention as well as for treatment and recovery; end the cycle of drug use, crime, and
incarceration; disrupt domestic drug production and trafficking; strengthen international law
enforcement, intelligence, and civic partnerships; and enhance the use of science to inform
program evaluation and policymaking.
In addition to revising the orientation of the Strategy, ONDCP identifies three policy priorities
where the Administration believes there can be substantial progress over the short term. These
priorities include reducing prescription drug abuse, addressing drugged driving, and preventing
drug use before it begins. The Strategy also highlights certain populations that merit special
attention, including women, members of the military, veterans, and college students.
(...continued)
and data collection are conducted at the University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. For more information,
see http://monitoringthefuture.org/.
16 Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick M. O’Malley, and Jerald G. Bachman, et al., The University of Michigan Institute for
Social Research, Monitoring the Future, National Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings 2011,
February 2012, pp. 50-53, http://monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-overview2011.pdf.
17 2010 NSDUH, p. 2.
18 Ibid., p. 24.
19 Kenneth D. Kochanek, Jiaquan Xu, and Sherry L. Murphy, et al., National Vital Statistics Reports, Deaths: Final
Data for 2009, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Volume 60, Number 3, December 29, 2011, p. 17,
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf. According to preliminary data for 2010, there were a
reported 37,792 drug-induced deaths in the United States. For more information, see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/
nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf.
20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
Office of Applied Studies, The DAWN Report: Highlights of the 2010 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) Findings
on Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits, July, 2012, p. 1, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k12/DAWN096/
SR096EDHighlights2010.pdf.
21 2010 NSDUH, p. 24.
Congressional Research Service
3
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
Prescription Drug Abuse Action Plan
The Obama Administration describes prescription drug abuse as the nation’s fastest growing drug
problem, and has developed a prescription drug abuse plan, Epidemic: Responding to America’s
Prescription Drug Abuse Crisis. The plan expands upon the Strategy’s action items that will
specifically address demand reduction. Some action items include additional training and
education for physicians and pharmacists, improved drug disposal programs, enhanced
prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), and improved cooperation and information
sharing among PDMPs.22
Health statistics support the Administration’s statements on the rising problem of prescription
drug abuse. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, hospital visits for abuse
of prescription drugs are now as common as hospital visits for abuse of illicit drugs. Of the 1.6
million hospital visits for all misused or abused drugs, 500,000 involved abuse of prescription
drugs in 2004. In 2008, 1 million of the 2 million total visits involving drug abuse involved abuse
of prescription drugs.23
National Drug Control Budget
In creating the National Drug Control Strategy, ONDCP consults with the various federal Drug
Control Program agencies; ONDCP then reviews their respective drug budgets and incorporates
them into the National Drug Control Budget (Budget), which is submitted to Congress as part of
the annual appropriations process. As part of a significant restructuring of the Budget for FY2012,
ONDCP reviewed all federal programs that have a “drug control nexus.”24 The review included
two measures to determine eligibility: whether the program has a drug control nexus and whether
the program has an adequate budget estimation methodology. This review yielded an addition of
19 federal programs or agencies to the Budget. For FY2013, ONDCP added four federal
programs or agencies to the Budget.25
Federal departments, agencies, and programs receiving funding directly under the National Drug
Control Budget currently include
• Department of Agriculture*26
• U.S. Forest Service*
• Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia*
• Department of Defense
22 Office of National Drug Control Policy, Epidemic: Responding to America’s Prescription Drug Abuse Crisis, pp. 1-
7.
23 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Emergency Department Visits Involving Nonmedical Use of Selected
Prescription Drugs—United States, 2004-2008”, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol. 59, no. 23 (June 18,
2010), http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm5923.pdf.
24 Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy: Fiscal Year 2012 Budget and Performance
Summary, pp. 5-6.
25 Ibid; Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget and
Performance Summary, p. 1.
26 * Indicates an agency or program that is newly included in the FY2012 Budget. ** Indicates an agency or program
that is newly included in the FY2013 Budget.
Congressional Research Service
4
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
• Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities/OPTEMPO (Operating
Tempo)*
• Defense Health Program**
• Federal Judiciary*
• Department of Education
• Department of Health and Human Services
• Administration for Children and Families**
• Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services*
• Health Resources and Services Administration*
• Indian Health Service
• National Institutes of Health—National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism*
• National Institutes of Health—National Institute on Drug Abuse
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
• Department of Homeland Security
• U.S. Customs and Border Protection
• Federal Emergency Management Agency*
• Federal Law Enforcement Training Center*
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
• U.S. Coast Guard
• Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement
• Department of Housing and Urban Development**
• Community Planning and Development**
• Department of the Interior
• Bureau of Indian Affairs
• Bureau of Land Management*
• National Park Service*
• Department of Justice
• Assets Forfeiture Fund*
• Federal Bureau of Prisons*
• Criminal Division*
• U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
• Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program
Congressional Research Service
5
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
• Office of Justice Programs
• National Drug Intelligence Center27
• U.S. Attorneys*
• U.S. Marshals Service*
• U.S. Marshals Service—Federal Prisoner Detention
• Department of Labor**
• Employment and Training Administration**
• Office of National Drug Control Policy
• High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
• Other Federal Drug Control Programs
• Salaries and Expenses
• Small Business Administration
• Department of State
• Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs
• U.S. Agency for International Development
• Department of Transportation
• Federal Aviation Administration*
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• Department of the Treasury
• Internal Revenue Service
• Department of Veterans Affairs
• Veterans Health Administration28
In the FY2013 Budget, there are five priorities for which resources are requested across agencies:
substance abuse prevention, substance abuse treatment, drug interdiction, domestic law
enforcement, and international partnerships.29 The FY2013 request includes $25.6 billion for
these priorities, an increase of approximately $415 million over the FY2012 enacted amount of
$25.2 billion.30
27 On June 15, 2012, the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) closed. In FY2012, the NDIC received $20 million
in appropriated funding for necessary expenses to close the office (H.Rept. 112-284).
28 Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget and Performance
Summary, pp. 14-16.
29 Ibid, p. 13.
30 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
6
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
ONDCP manages two primary program accounts:31 the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
(HIDTA) Program and the Other Federal Drug Control Programs.
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program
The HIDTA program, originally authorized by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690),32
provides assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement operating in areas deemed as
most-impacted by drug trafficking. The ONDCP director has the authority to designate areas
within the United States that are centers of illegal drug production, manufacturing, importation, or
distribution as HIDTAs—of which there are currently 28. Four main criteria are considered when
designating an area as a HIDTA:
(1) the extent to which the area is a significant center of illegal drug production,
manufacturing, importation, or distribution; (2) the extent to which State, local, and tribal
law enforcement agencies have committed resources to respond to the drug trafficking
problem in the area, thereby indicating a determination to respond aggressively to the
problem; (3) the extent to which drug-related activities in the area are having a significant
harmful impact in the area, and in other areas of the country; and (4) the extent to which a
significant increase in allocation of Federal resources is necessary to respond adequately to
drug related activities in the area.33
Other Federal Drug Control Programs
The Other Federal Drug Control Programs account is administered by ONDCP, and its funds
support high-priority drug control programs. The FY2013 Budget request includes monies for the
Youth Drug Prevention Media Program, the Drug-Free Communities Program, Anti-Doping
Activities, and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.34
Evaluation of the Strategy
The Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Title VII of P.L. 105-
277) made it a requirement for ONDCP to submit to Congress—along with the National Drug
Control Strategy—a report on a national drug control performance measurement system.35 In
essence, the report is aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the Strategy. The performance
measurement system report is to contain two- and five-year performance measures (along with
descriptions of information and data that will be used for each measure) and targets for each of
the Strategy’s goals and objectives for reducing drug use, drug availability, and the consequences
of drug use. It should also identify federal programs and activities that support the Strategy and
evaluate the contribution of both demand- and supply-reduction activities. The evaluation should
31 The Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC) Program has been discontinued. For additional
information regarding this program, see the National Drug Control Strategy: Fiscal Year 2012 Budget and
Performance Summary, p. 211.
32 21 U.S.C. §1706.
33 Office of National Drug Control Policy, The High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program: HIDTA Designation
Process & Authorizing Language, http://whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/hidta-designation-process.
34 Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget and Performance
Summary, 2012, p. 221-222.
35 21 U.S.C. §1705(c).
Congressional Research Service
7
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
also ensure that each contributing federal drug control agency’s goals and budgets are consistent
with the Strategy. In addition, it is to assess existing national instruments and techniques to
measure drug use, supply- and demand-reduction activities, and the effectiveness of substance
abuse treatment in reducing illicit drug use and criminal behavior—both during and after
treatment.
ONDCP updated its Performance Reporting System, which enables the office to carry out its
evaluation responsibilities. It relies on data from multiple sources in its evaluation of individual
drug control agencies. It has used not only national research and indicators—such as the National
Survey on Drug Use and Health and the Monitoring the Future study—but also each agency’s
detailed progress toward the Strategy’s seven objectives.36 The PRS incorporates new
performance measures that monitor and evaluate each agency’s contribution to the Strategy’s
goals. The new PRS is also described as adaptable to changing metrics as new drug control
threats emerge.37 At the end of each fiscal year, ONDCP reports each agency’s contribution to the
Strategy’s two overarching goals: to reduce drug use and its consequences by 2015.
Selected Reauthorization Issues
Status of the War on Drugs
The term “war on drugs,” popularized by former President Richard Nixon, was commonly used
for nearly 40 years. In May 2009, ONDCP Director Kerlikowske called for an end to use of the
term.38 He noted that using this term is misleading because the United States is not at war with the
individuals consuming drugs, but rather with the illegal drugs and their effects. He also described
a gradual shift in societal thoughts on drug use and abuse. The director notes that while drug use
was previously considered a law enforcement or criminal justice problem, it transitioned to being
viewed as a combination of criminal justice, social policy, and public health problems. He
contends that recently, drug use has been seen more as a public health problem.39 For instance,
according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, about 22.6 million Americans aged 12
and older were current (in the past month) illegal drug users in 2010, representing 8.9% of this
population.40 This also represents the largest proportion in the past decade of people aged 12 and
older being identified as current illegal drug users. Further, the abuse of alcohol and illicit drugs
contributes to over 100,000 deaths in the United States annually.41
36 Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2012 National Drug Control Strategy:
Performance Reporting System Report, pp. 1-6.
37 See the written statement of ONDCP Director Kerlikowske before the U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, ONDCP’s Fiscal Year 2011 National Drug
Control Budget: Are We Still Funding a War on Drugs?, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., April 14, 2010, pp. 14-15.
38 Gary Fields, “White House Czar Calls for End to ‘War on Drugs’,” The Wall Street Journal, May 14, 2009,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124225891527617397.html.
39 Ibid. See the full interview with The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB124233331735120871.html.
40 2010 NSDUH, p. 1.
41 National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Drugs, Brains, and Behavior—The Science of
Addiction, NIH Pub No. 10-5605, August 2010, http://www.nida.nih.gov/scienceofaddiction/sciofaddiction.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
Budget Priorities
The FY2013 Budget request includes approximately $25.600 billion across both supply- and
demand-related programs.42 As shown in Table 1, this would be an increase of $415 million over
the FY2012 enacted amount of nearly $25.185 billion.
Table 1. Federal Drug Control Budget by Function
FY2011–FY2013, amounts in billions of dol ars
Function
FY2011 Final
FY2012 Enacted
FY2013 Request
Treatment $8.954
$8.748
$9.151
Prevention 1.478
1.401
1.388
Domestic Law
9.143 9.358 9.419
Enforcement
Interdiction 3.977
3.592
3.681
International 2.028
2.088 1.962
Total 25.580
25.185
25.600
Demand Reductiona 10.431
10.148
10.538
Supply Reductionb 15.448
15.037
15.062
Total 25.580
25.185
25.600
Source: Amounts were taken from Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy: Fiscal
Year 2013 Budget and Performance Summary, p. 13.
Notes: Amounts may not add to total due to rounding.
a. Demand reduction includes treatment and prevention.
b. Supply reduction includes domestic law enforcement, interdiction, and international.
In the FY2013 request, the Administration proposes to use approximately 59.3% of the funds
($15.062 billion) for supply-side functions and 41.2% of the funds ($10.538 billion) for demand-
side functions. Supply reduction includes funding for domestic law enforcement ($9.419 billion),
interdiction ($3.681 billion), and international support ($1.962 billion), while demand reduction
focuses on treatment ($9.151 billion) and prevention (nearly $1.388 billion). Several of the
FY2013 Budget items reflect a decrease in funding from the FY2012 Budget, and some of these
decreases include Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
Programs of Regional and National Significance43 ($61.1 million decrease), Drug Free
Communities ($3.4 million decrease), HIDTA ($38.5 million decrease), and international support
to countries including Colombia and Mexico ($125.6 million decrease). Increases in the FY2013
Budget as compared to the FY2012 Budget reflect new policy priorities as well as newly
incorporated programs. Some of these increases include Bureau of Prisons Drug Treatment
Efforts ($15.8 million increase), Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students Grant Program ($43.4
million increase), and Veterans Health Administration Treatment ($19.4 million increase).44
42 Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy: Fiscal Year 2013 Budget and Performance
Summary, p. 13.
43 These include a number of programs that are awarded directly to providers.
44 Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy, Fiscal Year 2013 Budget and Performance
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
Policymakers have questioned whether the National Drug Control Budget aims funding toward
the most effective, evidence-based strategies to reduce illicit drug use and abuse. Currently, the
Budget can be thought of as funding two broad categories of demand-reduction and supply-
reduction activities. Further, the funding allocated for each contributing Drug Control Program
agency is deemed as either supply-related or demand-related in its entirety. This approach cannot
accurately measure the true breakdown of Drug Control Program funds dedicated to either supply
or demand reduction because contributing agencies may have programs that target both supply
and demand reduction. For instance, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) uses funds for
intelligence, investigations, state and local assistance, international support, and prevention45—a
mix of both supply- and demand-reduction activities—but for classification purposes, the funds
that DEA receives are considered to be supply-reduction funds. As a result of this current
classification structure, ONDCP has suggested a restructuring of the way funding is captured and
presented in future Budgets and Strategies.46
Critics of the current—and previous—Budget’s focus on supply-reduction activities may argue
that research on prevention and treatment programs has suggested that such demand-reduction
programs may be effective at reducing drug use. Research on supply-reduction enforcement
programs has not yielded the same results.47 In addition to considering outcome effectiveness,
policymakers have questioned the cost effectiveness of supply- and demand-reduction activities.
Director Kerlikowske has indicated that the most cost-effective elements of the Strategy and
Budget are in prevention and treatment48—the two components of demand reduction. Research
has indicated, for instance, that drug treatment for high-risk populations, such as criminal
offenders, can reduce societal costs.49 Expert analysis of drug enforcement programs, on the other
hand, indicates that while enforcement may produce short-term drug market disruption, the
effects are not lasting.50 In considering ONDCP’s reauthorization, policymakers may deliberate
on whether to authorize specific supply-reduction or demand-reduction programs. Congress may
also exercise oversight regarding ONDCP’s implementation of evidenced-based activities.
Scope of the National Drug Control Budget
The National Drug Control Budget for FY2012 was significantly restructured. ONDCP reviewed
all federal programs that have a drug control nexus, and this review resulted in the addition of 18
(...continued)
Summary, pp. 2-10.
45 Ibid., p. 175.
46 Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2009 National Drug Control Strategy, p.
99.
47 Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, An Assessment of the Scientific Support Underlying the FY2011 Budget Priorities of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, RAND Corporation, CT-344, April 2010, http://www.rand.org/pubs/
testimonies/2010/RAND_CT344.pdf.
48 Testimony by ONDCP Director Kerlikowske before the U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, ONDCP’s Fiscal Year 2011 National Drug Control Budget:
Are We Still Funding a War on Drugs?, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., April 14, 2010.
49 Kathryn E. McCollister, Michael T. French, and Michael Prendergast, et al., “Is In-Prison Treatment Enough? A
Cost-Effective Analysis of Prison-Based Treatment and Aftercare Services for Substance-Abusing Offenders,” Law &
Policy, vol. 25, no. 1 (2003).
50 Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, An Assessment of the Scientific Support Underlying the FY2011 Budget Priorities of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, RAND Corporation, CT-344, April 2010, http://www.rand.org/pubs/
testimonies/2010/RAND_CT344.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
federal programs or agencies to the National Drug Control Budget. Policymakers and industry
experts alike have, prior to the restructuring of the National Drug Control Budget, questioned
whether the Budget captures the full scope of the nation’s anti-drug activities. For instance, the
Budget did not formerly include costs for prosecuting and incarcerating drug offenders. The
proportion of costs incurred by the U.S. Attorneys related to prosecuting drug-related crimes was
not included in the previous Budget. The U.S. Attorneys prosecute the entire spectrum of federal
crimes; while some cases may be entirely drug-related, others may only have a drug component,
while still others may not be related to drugs at all. Under the revised Budget structure, some
drug-related prosecution costs are included; the U.S. Attorneys’ drug budget is determined by
calculating the costs of attorneys and non-attorneys that are dedicated to non-Organized Crime
Drug Enforcement Task Force drug prosecutions.51
A similar story holds true for the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). BOP is responsible for
housing federal inmates—not solely those incarcerated for drug crimes. While BOP was
previously included in the unrevised Budget, the resources accounted for were only those for
inmate treatment programs. Prior to FY2012, the Budget did not include funds for the housing of
inmates incarcerated for drug-related crimes, but the revised Budget now includes these
associated costs.
While experts have expressed concern about drug control policy elements omitted from the
Budget, some have also questioned whether certain elements included in the current Budget may
be overly broad and may not directly tackle the nation’s drug problems. For instance, some have
argued that policies such as those assisting the Afghan government in combating the drug trade
and those funding Colombian rule of law programs do not directly reduce the supply of drugs to
the United States.52 On the other hand, some may argue that these programs impacting drug
source countries can, in turn, reduce the availability of illicit drugs at home. Thus, policymakers
may also debate whether the current Budget elements, such as those under the international
supply-reduction strategy, are directly related to the National Drug Control Strategy and should
be maintained as part of the Budget. Of note, drug control funding to the Colombian government
was substantially cut in the FY2012 and FY2013 Budgets while drug control funding to the
Afghan government was substantially increased in FY2012 and FY2013.
Performance Measurement for Federal Drug Control Programs
When Congress reauthorized ONDCP in 1998 (Title VII of P.L. 105-277), policymakers made it a
requirement for ONDCP to create and report on a national drug control performance
measurement system, as discussed above.53 Before the recent National Drug Control Budget
restructure, ONDCP measured performance by using data from individual agencies—data
collected as required by the Government Performance and Results Act (P.L. 103-62)—and from
national research.54 Critics of this measurement system argued that while it allowed ONDCP to
51 Office of National Drug Control Policy, National Drug Control Strategy, Fiscal Year 2013 Budget and Performance
Summary, p. 198.
52 Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, An Assessment of the Scientific Support Underlying the FY2011 Budget Priorities of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, RAND Corporation, CT-344, April 2010, http://www.rand.org/pubs/
testimonies/2010/RAND_CT344.pdf.
53 22 U.S.C. §1705(c).
54 Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2009 National Drug Control Strategy, pp.
37-38.
Congressional Research Service
11
Reauthorizing the Office of National Drug Control Policy: Issues for Consideration
evaluate individual programs and agencies, the performance measurement system did not allow
ONDCP to holistically assess whether the Strategy’s goals and objectives were truly being
accomplished.55 ONDCP addressed this concern by developing the Performance Reporting
System (PRS).
When debating issues surrounding ONDCP’s reauthorization, Congress may exercise oversight
regarding the new PRS and whether this system allows for evaluation of individual programs and
agencies as well as whether it allows for evaluation of each agency’s contribution to the
Strategy’s goals.
Author Contact Information
Lisa N. Sacco
Kristin M. Finklea
Analyst in Illicit Drugs and Crime Policy
Specialist in Domestic Security
lsacco@crs.loc.gov, 7-7359
kfinklea@crs.loc.gov, 7-6259
55 See the written statement of John T. Carnevale, Ph.D., President, Carnevale Associates, LLC, before the U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Domestic Policy, ONDCP’s
Fiscal Year 2010 National Drug Control Budget and the Policy Priorities of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy under the New Administration, 111th Cong., 1st sess., May 19, 2009, p. 12.
Congressional Research Service
12