counterdrug technology assessment center doc

In accordance with direction in that report, and in consultation with House and Senate Appropriation Comittee staf, we are reporting on the Office of National Drug Control Poliey’s ONDCP

‘The Honorable Richard J Durhin Chairman

‘The Honorable Susan M Collins Ranking Member abeonumittee on Financial §

‘General Government Conunittee on Appropriations United States Senate

Subcommittee on Financial § ‘General Government Conunittee on Appropriations House of Representatives

Subject: Conntertrag Technology Assessment Center: Clarifying Rationate forthe Research and Development Funsting Devisions Wonld Increase Accowntabitity

‘This letter formally transmits the summary of an oral briefing we gave on December

8, 2005, and subsequent agency comments, We gave this briefing Sonate Report 110-129, accompanying the 2008 Financial Services and General in response (0 Government Appropriations Bll In accordance with direction in that report, and in consultation with House and Senate Appropriation Comittee staf, we are reporting

on the Office of National Drug Control Poliey’s (ONDCP) Counterdrug Technology Assessment C bf funds since fiscal year 2003, the ONDCP Director's approach to funding decisions ing 10 CTAC'S use for research and development, CTAC’s measures reorganization in 2007, To conduct this work, among other things, we analyzed of performance, and CTAC's rnemorandhmns of agreement and CTAC interagency agreements that documented nds were to be allocated during fiscal years 2008 to 2008; compared available information on how the ONDCP Director mace research and development funding

‘decisions for fiscal year 2003 through 20803 with eriteria in GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government; and interviewed relevant CTAC and ONDCP officials,

of illicit drugs by transferring approptiated Runds or ts two prograrus research and development and technology transfer—to its contracting agents, However, CTAC officials lacked confidence inthe information on expenditures provided by its

contractor, prompting CTAC to replace its primary contracting agent in March 2007 CTAC’s contracting agents did not obligate $17.8 million (about 20 percent) of

CTAC’s fiscal year 2004 through 2007 research and development appropriations to

“specific projects, and retumed these funds to CTAC CTAC transferred all ofits appropriations related to its technology transfer program since fiscal year 2003 t0 contracting agents, and CTAC was inthe process of phasing out the program in October 2008 due to lack of funding The ONDCP Director's approach to making research and development funding decisions is not documented and, therefore, not fully consistent with intemal control standards Thus, we are recommending that the ONDCP Director identify the role that different factors play in funding decisions, and

‘document the basis used to select particular research and development project

‘concepts for funding, including the rationale for selecting certain project concepts over others, Foradditional information on a suramary of the results of our work, see slides 13 through 15,

no charge on our Web site at http:/wwww-ga0.gov Should you or your staffs have any

‘questions conceming this repor, please contact me at (202) 512-0510 or Larencel@gao.gov Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report Key contributors to this report were Evi Rezmovie, Assistant Director, Billy Commons; Marvin MeGill; Doris Page; Janay Sam; and Adam Vogt

Áo được Ase

Bileen R, Larenee

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Enclosure

Enclosure: Briefing for Congressional Committees

COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY

ASSESSMENT CENTER

Clarifying Rationale for Research and

Development Funding Decisions Would

Increase Accountability

Page 3 60-00-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

+ Appendix lV: Research and Development and Technology Transfer Program Award Process + Appendix V: Reorganization Timeli

The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDGP) establishes priorties, policies,

and objectives for the nation’s drug control program The Counterdrug Technology’

‘Assessment Center (CTAC) was established within ONOGP in fiscal year 1991 10 (1)

‘oversee and coordinate counterdrug technology intiatives in federal drug control

‘agencies and (2) fund counterdrug research projects to help fill gaps in the

development of technology

+ TAG administers two programs to support the President's National Drug Contol Strategy

* Counterdrug research and development program (R&D): designed o focus {org on educing he deran ran sup of he dug by aavaring hạ technslogcal eapapilies of federal crug conrel agencies Dermana reduction Involve eto reat and preven dru abuse nly eduction voles ons fo reduce the avalabhiy, proaucton, and amtrbuton of tet dua The FAD program tecelves is frst Congressional appropriation in fiscal yea? 1992 + Technology transfer program (TTP: designed to focus funaing on supe [sduclon By proving trol ad tango Salva ana bel law nforoemert agencies for counerarug missions, 11 fecenved its frst Sppropration is acai year 1988

&£GAO

Introduction (cont’d)

‘Funding for the two programs declined from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2008 (See appendix | for funding figures by fiscal year.)

+ For R&D, funding dectined trom nearly $22 milion in fiscal year 2003 to $1 milion in fiscal year 2008

+ For TTP, funding declined from nearly $26 milion in fiscal year 2003 to $0 in fiscal year 2008

‘+ CTAC has undergone several changes in recent years, + In November 2006, the ONDOP Director appointed a new Chief Scientist to

‘setve as director of CTAC,” the center was reorganized, and the ONDCP Director changed the focus of the R&D program to more closely align it with the National Drug Control Strategy

Seaegnatause ninasanederqunedn ne wenctscwce mesa mg 7 evovop Coatee d2 0E 5

Page 60-00-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

Page 8 60-00-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

‘ONDGP's Director makes the final determination about which CTAG R&D project

Concepts to fund, Project concepts are proposals developed by CTAC staff for the

‘ONDCP Directors consideration in making RAD funding decisions, Project concepts are to be funded in accordance with (1) the goals of the Presidents National Drug

Control Strategy, and (2) ONDCP's operational priorities Based on information

[Provided to the ONDCP Director about the findings of R&D projects, the Director

also determines which projects should form the basis for policy or program direction,

In Senate Report 110-12, accompanying the 2008 Financial Services and General Goverment Appropriations Bil, H.R 2829, 1 0th Cong, (2007), the Senate

‘Appropriations Committee exoressed concern about ONDCP's management of,

{grants and its organization, The Senate Report directed GAO fa review ONDCP's

{rants management systems and other funding systems, emphasizing the criteria,

land methodology used to award and distribute grant funds In consultation with

Congressional staf, this report focuses on issues pertaining to CTAC’s use of funds since fiscal year 2003, the ONDGP Directors approach to funding decisions for

CTAC'S Rab program, CTAC's measures of perfomance, and CTAC's reorganization in

Page 9 60-00-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

3 How if at al does ONOGP assess the resus of CTAC's programmatic efforts?

4 What were ONDGP’s reasons for reorganizing CTAC in 2007, and what was the sequence of events relating to the reorganization?

Page 10 GA0-09-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

> To determine how GTAG has allocated funds for counterdrugeffors, and how CAC appropriations were expended, we

‘analyzed memorandums ‘hat documented the funds C¥AC transfered tos contacting agents and of agreement and CTAC interagency agreements how the funds were tobe allocated during fecal years 2003 to 2008, We alco reviewed amended CTAG iteragenay agreements and other documents concen unde the contacting ages relumed to CTAC String that period, and the receips for those funds, Sased on our review, Wwe believe fhe informaton on the transfer and retum of CTAC' funds to be 30ifcenly relaBle forthe purposes of our work:

+ interviewed current CTAC offials and two former directors of CTAC to oblann thei perspectives on program operations, and the funding and expenditure deetsions made during ther tenure;

+ interviewed EPG and SPAWAR slat responsible for managing the CTAC Contact in order to leam about their coriract management procedures, and biain information about ther expenditure of GTAG funds: and

+ interviewed the chairman of the Intemational Association of Chiets of Poice' Investigative Operation Committee, to aiscuss views concerning {he impact of losing TTP taining and equipment on local ia enforcement organizations

es, Scope, and Methodology

* reviewed applicable laws and regulations and CTAC interagency Agreements oulining the operatGnal and financial relationship between

FAC and its contracting agents;

*+ compared availabe information on how the ONDGP Director made R&D funding decisions for fiscal year 2008 through 2008 with eqtenia in GAO's

Standards for Internal Gontrolin the Federal Government," and

“+ interviewed CTAC officials to determine the procedures OTAC and its Contracting agents used to identfy, prontize, select, and award contracts

‘and grants for CTAG's programs

Page 12 GA0-09-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

* To determine how ONDGP assesses the results of CTAC’s programmatic efforts, we

* reviewed CTAC’s performance measures, goals, and targets for fiscal year 2008;

* reviewed GAO criteria on key attributes of successful performance measures and relevant sections of the Government Performance and Resuits Act of 1999 (GPRA):® and

+ interviewed cognizant ONDCP and CTAC officials

es, Scope, and Methodology

+ To determine ONDCP's reasons for reorganizing CTAC in 2007 and the sequence of events relating to the reorganization, we

‘+ reviewed relevant statutes and correspondence between ONDCP and ‘congressional staff regarding the agency's rationale and timetable forthe (CTAC reorganization; and

«+ interviewed cognizant ONDGP and CTAC officials

‘conclusions based on our aucit objectives We believe that the evidence obiained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based

on aur audit objectives,

Page GA0-09-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

£GA0

Summary

Since fiscal year 2003, TAC has allocated funds to a variety of demand and

supply reduction efforts by transferring appropriated funds to its contracting

‘agents; but, CTAC officials lacked confidence in the information on expenditures provided by EPG, prompting CTAC to replace EPG with SPAWAR as its primary Contracting agent in March 2007 For its RED program, CTAG's emphasis was (on funding demand reduction efforts during fiscal years 2003 to 2008, and supply reduction efforts during fiscal years 2006 and 2007 CTAC’s contracting agent did not obligate $17.8 milion (about 20 percent) of CTAC’s fiscal year 2004 through 2008 R&D appropriations to specific projects, and returned these funds

to CTAC With respect to TTP, CTAC transferred all of its TTP appropriations since fiscal year 2003 to contracting agents, and CTAC was in the process of pphasing out the program in October 2008, due to lack of funding

Page 15 GA0-09-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

£GA0

Summary (cont’d)

‘+The ONDOP Director's approach to making R&D funding decisions is not documented and, therefore, not fully consistent with internal control standards

Although the ONDCP Direcloris not required to document his rationale for selecting particular R&D project concepts for funding, the absence of information on what

factors he considered when making paricular decisions, and how he determined

that certain R&D project concepts should be funded and others not, makes it dificult

to know if ONDCP has funded the counterdrug community's highest pronly research and technology needs

‘+ CTAC established output and oulcome performance measures to assess ‘achievement ofits R&D goals,” and both measures are generally consistent with

attributes that characterize successful performance measures However, CTAC has

‘not documented the methodology it uses to calculate the outcome of its R&D

‘program As a result, itis not clear to stakeholders that the measure of program

‘outCome—percentage of research projects that contribute to policy or program

irection—is limited to R&D projects that contributed to the ONDGP Directors,

decision to issue policy or provide program direction to national drug control

agencies and also received appropriated funds during the same fiscal year CTAC ficals stated they are working with the Office of Management and Budget 10

address this issue

Page 16 GA0-09-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

+ ONDOP’s stated reason for reorganizing CTAO in 2007 was to strengthen GTAC's research capabilities, ONDCP's 2008 appropriations act, Pub L No

‘03-115, contained a general prohibition on agencies, including ONDGP trom Using funds fo reorganize diferent from the bủdgel justications submitted to, the Committees on Appropriations or rom other specified documentation, Unless pnor approval was received from the Committees on Appropriations

‘This restriction continued info fiscal year 2007 through @ series of continuing appropriations resolutions On December 1, 2006, ONDCP notiled the, Appropriations Committees ofits plans to reorganize: however committee staf inva number of correspondences indicated that ONDCP should walt on its

‘organization plans ONDCP proceeded wih he reorganization, elective january + We are recommending that the ONDCP Director identify the role that different factors played in funding decisions, and document the basis for selecting speci HAD pclenlcorsebs lo lundiri.lnqudng the rationale for electing Certain project concepts fecommendation in his report and sated hat dentfying and documenting the over others ONDCP agreed with the findings and Girector’s decision making process should promote greater transparency I8 funding decisions and accountabilty forthe best use of F&O funds

Page 17 GA0-09-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

‘Since fiscal year 2008, OTAO has allocated funds to a varity of demand and supply reduction etfs by ranstering §181.8 milion in appropfated R&D and TTP funds

to i's contracting agents But CTAC officials were uncertain how much money its

agent, EPG, had expended during fiscal years 2003 to 2008 because the officials

‘said they lacked confidence in the accuracy of EPG's financial information and,

therefore, replaced EPG with SPAWAR,

‘+ Emphasis in R&D funding changed from demand reduction (in fiscal years 2003 to 2005) to supply reduction in fiscal years 2008 to 2007

+ - Ofa totalof $56.5 milion in appropriations during fiscal years 2008 to 2008, CTAC transferred nearly $38.8 milion, oF 69 percent, for demand reduction, and about $8.4 millon for supply reduction efforts The remainder—§9.2 mrlion®—was transferred for bath demand and supply reduction efforts, The primary emphasis in demand reduction involved reimbursing research facilities {or purchases of brain imaging systems Projects related to supply reduction included the development of bod-worn survellance receivers frlaw

Page 18, GA0-09-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

Page 19 GA0-09-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

2008 In contrast, CTAC officials said they were confident in the financial injormation of SPAWAR, which replaced EPG as the pimary contracting agent + 4.2004 CTAC internal review and a 2005 ONDCP inated independent review Of EPG by the management consulting fm, Deloitte, identified financial and Feporting Vicks at EPG These included EPG not providing detalled financial infomation to CTAC regasing the use of program unde and EEG not followin 'CTAC s guidance for administering funds According to CTAC officials, EPG ci ‘ot comply with recommendations for improvement and did not have data systems capable of prodcing the increasingly detailed fnarcial information that CTAC heeded EPG's Deputy Program Director, wno had managed the GTAG contract, told us that ER@'s level of support was not what CTAC wanted,

Page 20 GA0-09-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

* CTAC officials stated that due to ther ack of confidence in EPG, they did not transfer any funds to EPG during the frst half of fiscal year

2007, a period during which EPG was stll CTAC’s primary contracting ageni They said they transferred all fiscal year 2007 funds to the new contracting agent, SPAWAR

+ In replacing EPG with SPAWAR, CTAC took steps to monitor SPAWAfYS ‘expenditures through a detailed project status report; holding weekly teleconferences; and meeting monthly to discuss the status of each R&D project and resolve issues

Page 24 GA0-09-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

a

Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for

R&D (cont’d)

‘+ $188 milion in RAD funds from fiscal years 2004 through 2008 were retumed to or retained by CTAC

* Contracting agents retuned $17.8 milion in transferred but unobligated funds, + CTAC officials sppropration had deeiried(@ S1.Omuion, EPO ang SPAWAR retumed sad that, largely because CTAC's fiscal year 2008

Unebigated funds from fiscal years-2008 through 2007 + According to CTAG offical, reasons why funds had not been obligated? during tseal years 200s through 2007 included (1) changes in GIAGS R&D prose’ and (2) organizational changes witun GTAG CTAG officials Sadan example ofa project whore funds were not obligated isa $9 milion

2606 RAD iiiatie inended to promote understanding ot how genetics ontnbutes fo the brain's resporse fo crug abuse, They Sald unas were not blgated for is nite Because, among oer things, the contracting agent had dtfculy identiing potential contactors wh requate experi, FAO was tansivbning between contacting agenis, and CTAC'S

appropriation had been reduced + STAG did not transfer any ofits $1.0 milion fiscal year 2008 appropriation to {he contracing agent As of December 2008, 1 continued to reain these funds

‘+ CTAC reallocated about half of the $18.8 milion in returned and retained funds to ‘ew and existing R&D projects

+ As of December 2008, CTAC had transferred to itg contracting agents, and the agents had obligated or already expended, about $10.1 milion, ar 54 percent,

Of the $18.8 millon in R&D funds that were returned or retained ở + As of December 2008, CTAC had not transferred to its contracting agents the femaining $8.7 milion, or 46 percent, in returned or retained R&D funds, However, according to CTAC officials, ONDGP had developed or was

developing plans for these funds ‘+ The then-ONDCP Director approved allocating $7.0 milion for several projets incucing license plate reader technology for law enforcement, one

ff CTAC's ongoing prionty projects

+ GTAC was developing recommendations on how to spend the remain ‘$1.7 million 5 a

&GAO

Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for

TTP (cont’d)

‘As with the R&D program, GTAC had information on the amount of funds it lransferred to its Gortracting agent for TTP, but officials were not confident in the

accuracy of the agents financial information related to expenditures for fiscal years

Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for

TTP (cont’d)

‘Tie mowed equipment and training for counterdrug opetatione at np cast to state, local’ and tralia rovided equi eniorcemen ining r 7

BiBgongs of Squlpment an funding wers avalableNerte, " "e O"S

‘Table TTP Equipment end Funding Exbendiures

Funding expenditures Equipment liormatom manognmnei 5y Aral salware sions br alophonesoneiiancs, Description Tnhom) sia

intigonoe and ace management splestons Inept aytons ‘Syste raw enrerent genes oa Inercnp zor nd piny back toapone sd 30

Ụ thrlesteghone communion

Tracking Stems ‘Stone that we Global Peasoning Stora eshte and dts-ogaing ever eile aching 1ô

‘uae survellanae devices Coven vanarer Udereer operations and caver aster 22 Dia evidence anya seme Noda nokta nde xaminaion Seaustion to anaes and eporing rom ma

23

Page 25 GA0-09-3308 CTAC Funding Decisions

‘+ ONDGP officials said they aid not request an appropriation for TTP for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 because of competing budgetary priories Congress nonetheless

‘appropriated $10 milion for TTP for fiscal year 2007, but did not appropriate any

‘new funds for fiscal year 2008

e 1- CTAC’s Discontinuation of

‘+ CTAC officials said they have begun to phase out TTP because of a lack of funding, and it would take time and resources to reestablish it CTAC officials estimated it

‘Would take at least 1 year to reestablish the program, and an annual funding level of

$10 million to maintain a technology transfer program with a national scope

‘+ Alaw enforcement organization expressed concer about discontinued TTP funding ‘According to the Chairman of the Intemational Association of Chiefs of Police's Investigative Operation Committee, the loss of TTP is significant for local law

enforcement He noted that (1) resources are not availabe at the local level to

purchase the equipment ONDCP provided, and (2) local law enforcement cannot Feplace the expertise of CTAC staf in understanding trends and changes in