Dealing with Drug Abuse

A Report to the Ford Foundation

THE DRUG ABUSE SURVEY PROJECT

STAFF PAPER 5

Federal Expenditures on Drug-Abuse Control
by Peter B. Goldberg and James V. DeLong

Availability of Information * Total Federal Expenditures * Federal Activities

AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION

Comprehensive, reliable information on federal expenditures on drug-abuse programs is difficult to obtain. No detailed program budget describing the allocation of federal resources in this area has ever been made public or possibly even compiled. Although both the Office of Management and Budget and the Council on Executive Reorganization have made efforts to put together information, the results have been closely held. The figures used in this paper are based on budget requests and amendments, accounts of congressional hearings and other documents issued by the government, and interviews with government officials.

The accuracy of this information is sometimes suspect. Government cost accounting has never been known for its rigor, and, since drug abuse is now receiving high-priority attention at the highest levels of government, there is an incentive for agencies to find a drug-abuse rationale for programs that may have only a peripheral relationship to the field.

There are also technical problems. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Social and Rehabilitation Service of HEW all award block grants to states and cities. (Block grants are funds that can be used for any specific projects chosen by the recipients within a given area of activity.) It is only after the close of the fiscal year that the portion of these funds spent for drug abuse can be determined. For these programs there is no information on fiscal 1972 at the present time.

On June 17, 1971, President Nixon announced a new drug abuse program, including a supplemental budget request of $155,655,000 for fiscal 1972. Shortly thereafter, the President stipulated that there was to be a 5 per cent. across-the-board -reduction in government personnel as part of the anti-inflation effort. Some federal agencies are still unsure which of these directives will take precedence.

There are obvious differences among budget requests, congressional authorizations, appropriations, and actual expenditures; however, these distinctions are not made consistently in this report. Generally, appropriations are used for fiscal 1970 and 1971 and budget requests are used for fiscal 1972, but some amounts are agency allocations within larger appropriations. Usually, the figures are fairly close to the actual amounts that were or will be spent for the activities in each year. However, in some areas, such as research, expenditures may lag somewhat behind appropriations.

Some agencies, such as the Department of Defense and the Internal Revenue Service, have specific funding allocations for drug abuse activities in fiscal 1972, but did not have such allocations in fiscal 1971.

Because of these problems, some of the figures given here represent judgment and estimate rather than certain fact.

TOTAL FEDERAL EXPENDITURES

Table 5-1 shows federal expenditures for fiscal years 1970, 1971, and 1972 broken down by agencies. Table 5-2 shows the same expenditures broken down by functional categories. Table 5-3 shows the requested budget for fiscal 1972 before and after the President's supplement request.

As the tables indicate, the government will spend about $417,601,000 on drug-abuse activities in fiscal 1972, almost double the amount spent in fiscal 1971. Several agencies that could not provide a breakdown of funds spent in fiscal 1971 could do so for fiscal 1972. To avoid undue exaggeration of the increase, we have made rough estimates of the fiscal 1971 totals.

Table 5-4 compares the project estimate of the fiscal 1972 budget with the latest available official government estimates.' The Project's figures are higher. The difference can be attributed to a number of factors, but probably the most influential is that the data for our estimate were compiled in September and October, 1971, rather than in June, and thus the agencies had more time in which to survey their activities. This seems especially important for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

FEDERAL ACTIVITIES

LAw ENFORCEMENT

Four federal agencies have law-enforcement responsibilities: the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) in the Department of justice; and the Bureau of Customs and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in the Treasury Department. In fiscal 1972, these agencies will spend $115,822,000 enforcing laws against the illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession of narcotics and dangerous drugs.

As the product of a 1968 merger between the Treasury Department's Federal Bureau of Narcotics and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's Bureau of Drug Abuse Control, BNDD has the widest mandate. It is primarily responsible for most of the federal government's national and international police operations. BNDD also works with state and local officials on cases of major importance to the total illegal-distribution system.

During fiscal 1972, BNDD will receive $66,689,000.' This will represent a doubling of its appropriations in two years. Personnel has increased almost as rapidly-from 1,465 in fiscal 1970 to 2,319 in fiscal 1971 to 2,718 in fiscal 1972. The number of actual agents has also increased from 884 in 1970 to 1,437 in 1971.' (Data for fiscal 1972 are not available.) Over 90 per cent of BNDD's money, or $61,971,000, will be spent on law-enforcement activities in 1972 .4

BNDD's principal predecessor, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, was often accused of over concentrating its efforts against users and street dealers of narcotics and not being seriously concerned with the higher levels of distribution. In 1970, BNDD claimed that it had reversed this policy and was concentrating its efforts on the higher levels of the marketing structure. Appearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee in March, 1970, Director John Ingersoll stated:

The new operational plan is a systematic approach to developing prosecutable cases and obtaining convictions on specifically identifiable individuals and groups who are responsible for most of the illicit drug traffic in this country.

The shift in emphasis of federal narcotic and dangerous drug law enforcement from the addict, abuser, and small time street peddler to the important illicit traffickers and illegal supply sources will undoubtedly result in fewer total arrests. But those made should have a greater impact on the supply of narcotics and drugs available for distribution to the consumers in this country than a larger number of less significant arrests.,5

Statistics on BNDD's output confirm this shift in policy to some extent. One would expect that such a change would result in fewer arrests per agent because of the increased investigatory work required. Table 5-5 shows that this appears to be the case.

Consistent with this shift in priorities, BNDD has begun analyzing the distribution systems for the various drugs and identifying organizations and individuals involved. The agency claims that so far it has identified nine principal and 129 secondary international drug-distribution systems and has immobilized 870 of the 2,150 individuals identified as having major importance in them.' For several years, there has been a conflict between BNDD and the Bureau of Customs over operations in foreign countries. In February, 1970, President Nixon declared that BNDD would be the accredited agency "in dealing with foreign law-enforcement officials on narcotics questions. This announcement apparently resolved the dispute.

During the last two years, there has been a major expansion of BNDD's foreign operations. The Bureau had 13 foreign offices in fiscal 1969, 16 in 1970, and 28 in 1971. During these three years, the number of agents assigned to foreign posts rose from 26 to 27 to 6111 Of the 50 new agents requested in the original 1972 budget, 15 will be assigned to foreign offices, and new offices will be opened in South America and the Far East.' From President Nixon's supplemental budget request, $1 million will be allocated to BNDD for international training and technicalassistance activities."

TABLE 5-5

BNDD OUTPUT MEASURES

Fiscal 1969 Fiscal 1970 Fiscal 1971

Drugs removed from the domestic market

Heroin (lbs.) 140 427 226

Cocaine Obs.) 73 197 427

Marijuana (lbs.) 8,825 17,401 12,723

Hashish (lbs.) N.A. N.A. 1,054

Hallucinogens (dosage units) N.A. 7,127,742 3,697,737

Depressants (dosage units) N.A. 2,339,590 319,006

Stimulants (dosage units) N.A. 7,196,481 10,319,923

Arrests-BNDD-caused

BNDD, direct 2,265 1,600 2,212

BNDD, foreign, cooperative 214 207 281

BNDD, state and local, cooperative 1,713 900 2,247

TOTAL 4,192 2,707 4,740

Arrests per agent

Number BNDD agents in the field 644 757 1,236

Average arrests per agent ' 6.5 3.6 3.8

SOURCE: BNDD Fact Sheet.

One of the chronic difficulties of law enforcement in the drug field is corruption, and the old Federal Bureau of Narcotics had a substantial problem. In the words of Attorney-General John Mitchell:

There was considerable lack of integrity on the part of many of the agents of predecessor organizations. . . . Some of them have been indicted. Others have had administrative procedures instituted against them, and a lot of them have left. I believe that it is being overcome."

However, because there is so much money in the drug trade, internal corruption will undoubtedly continue to be a problem. Indeed, the pursuit of higher-level (and richer) traffickers will increase the stakes and the temptations. So far, BNDD has not been involved in any major scandals-a considerable accomplishment.

The Bureau of Customs is responsible for the prevention of smuggling. In fiscal 1972, the Customs budget for antidrug activities will be $40.5 million, $15 million of which will come from the supplemental budget request." Customs officials state that they will actually spend about $52 million in this area during fiscal 1972. This estimate is based on a performance-measurement system that uses random time-sample analysis to determine the allocation of effort of Customs personnel. Based on this same measurement system, Customs estimates that $31,600,000 was actually spent on antidrug activities during fiscal 1971.1' The results of Customs activity, as measured by the quantity of material seized and the number of arrests made, is shown in Table 5-6.

For all categories except dangerous drugs, the quantity of material seized in fiscal 1971 exceeded that of the previous year, with heroin and cocaine showing the most dramatic increases. Customs officials say that about 5 per cent of their seizures are made as a result of tips and 95 per cent as a result of "cold searches'@--situations in which suspicions were based on conduct at the time of entry rather than on advance information."

The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) was created in June, 1968, under Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Its stated purpose is to offer "large scale financial and technical aid to strengthen criminal justice at every level throughout the nation."" LEAA is thus a major link between federal funds and technical expertise and state and local narcoticslaw enforcement. The major types of financial aid to states and cities are as follows:

1. Planning grants-allocated to states according to population for the creation of statewide, comprehensive law-enforcement improvement plans.

2. Block-action grants-allocated to states according to population to carry out specific improvement plans.

3. Discretionary action grants-awarded at LEAA's discretion for anticrime programs, with emphasis on special aid to cities.

Some information on drug-abuse expenditures is available for the block-grant and discretionary-grant programs. Some of the planning funds are undoubtedly spent in this area as well, but the amount is not obtainable.

Block-grant funds awarded to state governments are normally spent in accordance with the comprehensive law-enforcement improvement plans formulated by the recipient. The amount allocated to drug-law enforcement in part reflects the judgment of the states as to the severity of their drug-abuse problems. The discretionary-grant program represents LEAA's own allocation of resources to antidrug activities. The agency emphasizes attempts to improve upon interjurisdictional law-enforcement techniques, particularly in metropolitan areas where city-suburban cooperation is important. To some extent, it seems to try to fill a gap left by BNDD, as that agency now focuses increasing attention on national drug-trafficking systems rather than on smaller local groups.

In fiscal 1971, the states allocated $3,172,879 of block-grant funds to 26 programs designed to improve law-enforcement techniques and efforts, and LEAA used $2,713,206 of its discretionary funds." Information on the funding levels for LEAA-financed, drug-abuse programs during 1972 will not be available until after the close of the fiscal year, since the grantees of the block grants do not have to file detailed reports until then. LEAA has not, apparently, analyzed the comprehensive plans to provide any prediction. Nor has the agency yet finalized its own plans for the discretionary-grant program. (In the tables we have presented, it is assumed that LEAA-financed, antidrug expenditures will remain constant in 1972.)

The Internal Revenue Service has long had a more general law enforcement role, in that tax laws are frequently used against organized crime and other special offenders. Undoubtedly, the IRS has spent money on investigations and prosecutions related to drug abuse in the past. However, the $7,500,000 proposed for IRS in President Nixon's supplemental budget represents the first funds clearly earmarked for this purpose. The money is to be used to hire 541 new auditors and investigators and to pay the incidental expenses of their investigations." (The 5 per cent reduction in government personnel has thrown this plan into uncertainty.)

Other federal agencies are involved in law enforcement to a limited extent, as described below.

The President's supplemental budget contained the first specifically identifiable funds for drug-abuse-related activities in the Department of Defense. It is not yet possible to determine the proportion of these funds that will be used for enforcement purposes, but it will probably be small. The Department already has its own enforcement system for violators. (The tables in this chapter do not include any estimate for Department of Defense law enforcement.)

During fiscal 1971, the Department of Agriculture conducted an experimental marijuana-eradication program in eleven Midwest counties. The cost of this project ($55,000) was assumed by BNDD. It has not been determined whether this program will be expanded or dropped in fiscal 1972, or, if it is continued, which agency will fund the program.

The federal government is also placing considerable emphasis on foreign crop eradication. In fiscal 1970, the Agency for International Development (AID) gave $1 million to Mexico to buy three light planes, five helicopters, remote sensing equipment, and chemicals and other eradication equipment. Similar grants totaling $627,000 were made in 1961 and 1965, without apparent effect." It is not clear whether additional sums have been spent since, but it seems probable.

Similar emphasis is placed upon persuading Turkish farmers to substitute other crops for opium. According to government officials, both loans and grants tied to this purpose have been made, and BNDD has stated that in 1970 AID had $3 million to spend on it."

In 1971, major U.S.-Turkey agreements were made, whereby Turkey would phase out opium production over the ensuing years." No monetary quid pro quo has been publicly announced, but presumably it is substantial. More recently, on September 28, 1971, the State Department signed a U.S.-Thailand Memorandum of Understanding that will make U.S. aid available to Thailand for the purpose of controlling drug traffic in that country." Again, no funding level has been announced.

The United Nations has established a Fund for Drug Control, supported by voluntary contributions from governments and individuals. Before the Fund came into being, the United States pledged an initial contribution of $2 million." Presumably, this has been paid, but it is not clear which agency paid it or whether it is an annual contribution. In the tables, it is allocated to StateAID for fiscal 1971 contributions to international organizations. It has not been annualized.

It is difficult to know how to handle these assistance funds. To carry them at zero is clearly an error, but any specific number is a guess. A recent newspaper report stated that the total cost of the program in Turkey would be $35 million over four years, and that the United States would pay $20 million of it." Project staff believe it likely that the United States will also absorb at least part of the other $15 million in some form, and that cost overruns are always possible. Given all the uncertainties, we have estimated State-AID expenditures at $10 million per year, starting in fiscal 1972. This is probably a little conservative.

TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION

The principal federal agency concerned with treatment and rehabilitation is the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) within HEW, which operates four types of drug-treatment programs." For three of these programs-community Assistance, NARA inpatient, and NARA aftercare-funding levels are known: they were $42,445,000 for fiscal 1971 and will be $99,798,000 for fiscal 1972. Under the fourth program, the Community Mental Health Centers Act, drug users are only one of a number of categories of people treated, and an accurate calculation of expenditures cannot be made.

The Community Assistance Program has expanded dramatically in recent years. From a budget of $3.1 million in fiscal 1970 and $21.3 million in fiscal 1971, it has grown to $76.8 million under the revised fiscal 1972 budget. In his supplemental budget request, President Nixon asked for $67 million more for NIMH than was contained in the original budget; of this, $49.8 million will be channeled into the Community Assistance Program.

The increased emphasis on the Community Assistance Program reflects NIMH's belief that it is most effective and efficient to treat addicts in their home communities rather than in a central isolated facility. Treatment is not confined to any one method. Different centers use different approaches or combinations of approaches. The modality chosen for any particular center is the result of the community's suggestion and NIMH's ratification.

During fiscal 1971, 13,258 patients were admitted to the 23 operational centers. NIMH estimates that about 10,000 remained enrolled. At the very end of fiscal 1971, 22 additional centers were funded; these did not accommodate any patients during that year but will add substantially to the total capacity in fiscal 1972. As funding more than triples in fiscal 1972, it is reasonable to expect even more increases in the number of operational centers and enrolled patients.

Under the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act of 1966 (NARA), NIMH operates both inpatient and aftercare civil commitment facilities. Originally, there were two central inpatient facilities, one at Lexington, Kentucky, and the other at Fort Worth, Texas. These facilities were generally underused, and now, consistent with the emphasis on community treatment, NIMH has dissociated from Fort Worth and is in the process of opening a series of smaller, geographically dispersed incare service facilities. The central facility at Lexington will remain operational and will serve patients for whom no local facilities are available. At present, about 700 people are in the inpatient phase of civil commitment. The second phase of civil commitment is community aftercare on an outpatient basis. NIMH has contracted for these services with 144 different community programs. These units are generally small. Together, they serve a population of about 1,250. The treatment at each of these centers is determined by NIMH personnel.

Under the Community Mental Health Centers Act, NIMH is funding some 450 centers designed to treat people with basic psychological problems. Many of these centers handle drug-abuse treatment under this general mandate. Information is not available on the number of drug users served by these centers or the amount of money involved. (No estimate is made in the tables.)

The Social and Rehabilitation Service (SRS) of HEW, also funds rehabilitation programs through grants to state vocationalrehabilitation agencies. In fiscal 1971, an estimated $1,915,000 was spent for 1-000 "rehabilitations," and, in fiscal 1972, SRS expects to spend $3,093,000 for 1,600 "rehabilitations." The criterion for rehabilitation is the ability to secure and maintain employment."

Because of the increased focus on drug-use in the military, the Veterans Administration is accelerating its drug-rehabilitation program. In fiscal 1971, the VA inaugurated its first five drugabuse treatment units. Originally, the VA had planned to open 13 more centers in fiscal 1972 and another 14 in fiscal 1973. However, the President's supplemental budget request included $14.1 million to enable the VA to open all 27 new units this year." Each of these units will be located in a VA hospital and will accommodate approximately 15 inpatients. The primary treatment modality will be methadone maintenance, with patients inducted for four to six weeks in the hospital and then continued on an outpatient basis. VA officials say that they expect to treat about 6,000 patients under this program during fiscal 1972.

As of July 1, 1971, the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) had 20 active grants budgeted at $12.3 million." OEO concentrates its treatment and rehabilitation activities on programs for young drug users and assistance to community groups. OEO funded treatment modalities range from therapeutic communities to methadone maintenance. Some of the projects also include an education component, but it is not possible to extract the amount of money spent by OEO for this purpose. For fiscal 1972, OEO has requested $18 million for drug-abuse-related expenditures. The neighborhood health-center concept would receive increased attention under this plan, according to OEO.

Some Model Cities funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development have been used to operate drug-treatment and rehabilitation centers. Because the funding mechanism is the block grant, the only information available from HUD is on fiscal 1971 expenditures-no accurate estimate can be made for fiscal 1972. The majority of these treatment and rehabilitation programs are directed toward young users. Services at the different centers range from outpatient counseling to comprehensive inpatient care. In fiscal 1971, there were 21 treatment and rehabilitation programs run in 13 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands at a total cost to HUD of $9,343,000.

The Job Corps, part of the Department of Labor, will spend $200,000 in fiscal 1972 on three drug-demonstration projects. "The purpose of the . . . projects is to develop effective program models for man-power training programs to prevent and control drug misuse by disadvantaged adolescents.""

Total LEAA expenditures for treatment and rehabilitation in 1971 amounted to just over $16.6 million. LEAA estimates that it allocated over $4.5 million of its own fiscal 1971 discretionary funds to treatment and rehabilitation programs, and the states spent $12.1 million of the block-action grants for similar purposes.

LEAA officials say that the funding rationale is the relationship between drugs and crime. The medical and psychological needs of addicts must be treated to eliminate their criminal acts. These treatment and rehabilitation programs contain a strong crime-prevention component, most observable in the treatment and rehabilitation centers run for predelinquent addicts. Treatment varies from the use of antagonist drugs to therapeutic communities, and many of the centers offer both inpatient and outpatient clinical care.

The Bureau of Prisons runs two similar treatment and rehabilitation programs. First, under Title 11 of the Narcotics Addict Rehabilitation Act (NARA), inpatient and aftercare treatment are provided. The budget for fiscal 1972 is $2,118,924. The program has the capacity to treat 600 inpatients for an average of 18 months apiece. The actual population in treatment, as of August, 1971, was about 375."

The Bureau of Prisons does not dispense any maintenance drugs. Rehabilitation programs center on educational and vocational training, individual, group, and family counseling, and "milieu therapy." The Bureau also runs a "para-NARA" program, which serves drug-dependent persons who, for one reason or another, do not qualify under NARA Title 11. This program, operationally similar to NARA, will be budgeted at $655,955 in fiscal 1972, and the five centers will eventually treat a total population of 250. Four of the centers are now operational, and 104 people are enrolled. The fifth center is about to inaugurate operations with an initial population of 39. These figures are exclusive of the Fort Worth facility, which the Bureau of Prisons has just recently taken over from NIMH. It is expected that this facility will increase NARA and para-NARA capacity by only 200. The additional budgetary allotment required was not available.

The President's supplemental budget request included the first large-scale identifiable funds for Department of Defense drugabuse activities. The total request for the department was $34,255,000, but a functional breakdown of this budget is not available. The Army will receive $19,699,000, the Navy $3,231,000, and the Air Force $11,295,000. Of the Army's funds, $18.2 million will be channeled into a new program-the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program. The objectives are defined as follows:

Prevention of alcohol and drug abuse

Identificaton of drug abusers

Detoxification of drug abusers

Rehabilitation of drug abusers, either short term in Army facilities or long term under the Veterans Administration

Suppression of illegal drug distribution

Collection of statistics and dissemination of information

How much money is to be allocated for each objective is not known, but it is likely that the primary emphasis will be on treatment and rehabilitation. The Navy and the Air Force will establish similar programs, funded, respectively, at $2.8 million and $11.1 million. The remainder of the DOD funds will probably be used for research."

RESEARCH

The National institute of Mental Health is the principal vehicle for government research on drug abuse. As concern about the problem has mounted, so has the NIMH drug-research budget. The growth curve is shown in Table 5-7, prepared for the House Select Committee on Crime by the director of NIMH. Probably the most important of the "other divisions" mentioned in the table is psychopharmacology, which is concerned primarily with the use of drugs in the treatment of mental illness.

The supplemental budget presented by the President in June, 1971, increased the total amount for drug-abuse research in fiscal 1972 to $30.7 million. The allocation of this amount is not known.

NIMH research covers a variety of drugs, including marijuana and the opiates, amphetamines, barbiturates, and hallucinogens. In fiscal 1970, the only year for which we have figures, the distribution was as follows:

Drugs $ in millions

Barbiturates 5.3

Opiates 3.8

Amphetamines 2.8

Marijuana 2.3

Hallucinogens 1.8

Other .3

TOTAL 16.3

This total is higher than the total shown in Table 5-7, which notes only $15.6 million for 1970. Probably the material presented to Congress is correct, and the information in the breakdown by drugs represents preliminary estimates.

Drug research draws on the disciplines of chemistry, pharmacology, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, and epidemiology, alone or in combination. There are no breakdowns by discipline, but NIMH does have a basic categorization of the areas within which it makes grants and contracts:

1. Systematic, controlled evaluation of currently promising treatment-program techniques

2. Development of treatment agents/devices for use in the treatment of drug dependence

3. Clinical studies of the effects of treatment drugs and abuse drugs

4. Surveys and instrument development to determine incidence, prevalence, and patterns of drug abuse:

a. among students

b. among other groups (hippies, psychiatric patients, etc.)

c. New York City Narcotic Addict Register

1. Psycho-sociological studies of drug abuse and the abuser to determine the motivation for use, environmental influences, effects on personality, characteristics of drug-using subculture, etc.
2. 6. Legal aspects of controlled drugs to explore alternative types of legal control systems

7. Genetic studies to determine effects of drugs on chromosomes and offspring:

a. marijuana

b. LSD

c. amphetamines and barbiturates

8. Use of animal models for studies of abuse potential of drugs

9. Exploration of mechanisms of action of drugs on the brain at the biochemical, neurophysiological, and behavioral levels:
a. opiates

b. marijuana

c. amphetamines and barbiturates

d. LSD

10. Improved chemical methods for systematic and reliable detection of drug abuse

11. Chemical studies of plant alkaloids to determine presence of hallucinogenic properties; to determine geographic origin of opium

12. Development of methods/preparation of natural and synthetic marijuana

13. Development of materials/methods for campaign on prevention and education of drug abuse

14. Training

15. Fellowships and scientist development awards. 31

Many of these categories include only a small number of projects.

The Addiction Research Center (ARC) in Lexington, Kentucky, budgeted at about $0.8 million per year, is NIMH's major facility for intramural drug research. It has two major functions -the investigation of the addiction potential of various drugs before they reach commercial channels, and the development of antagonists to opiates. Basic research into the nature of drug action, abuse, and dependence is not a primary function, although ARC has some highly respected researchers who have done distinguished work in these areas."

In the last two years, there has been a major push to do research on marijuana. The total expenditure has gone from $1.5 million in fiscal 1969 to $2.8 million in fiscal 1971. Fiscal 1972 data are not available. Much of the past expenditure ($1.1 million in fiscal 1971) is done on contract, a procedure "utilized by the NIMH when it is important that the government define precisely what needs to be done, how it shall be done, and what the product will be." Between 1968 and 1972, NIMH did not use contracts for research in any area of drug abuse except marijuana."

The Social and Rehabilitation Service, also a part of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, plans to allocate approximately $400,000 for research in fiscal 1972. The bulk of this money will be used to investigate techniques by which the vocational and social services performed by this agency may be better utilized to facilitate therapeutic programs designed for young drug abusers .14

The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse was officially established on March 22, 1971, for a two-year period. It has a dual purpose: First, it is currently analyzing the marijuana situation and will, in March, 1972, recommend any desirable modifications of public policy. During its second year, the Commission will explore some of the broader aspects of drug usage under a mandate to investigate the causes of drug abuse. The budget for fiscal 1972 is estimated to be about $1 million, allocated entirely to general expenses and research.

The President's supplemental budget allocated $2.1 million to the Agricultural Research Service of the Department of Agriculture. The money will be used to develop techniques to detect and destroy illicitly grown narcotic-producing plants without causing adverse ecological effects." Two other federal agencies, LEAA and BNDD-both within the Justice Department-conduct research programs, primarily to improve law-enforcement techniques.

LEAA research funds come from the block-action grant and discretionary-grant programs discussed above and from programs conducted by LEAA's National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal justice (NILECI)." During the past two fiscal years, the funding levels for research and education were as follows:

Figures for fiscal 1972 are not yet available. The discretionary grants program has not been finalized, and most states have not yet submitted their plans for the fiscal 1972 block-action grants. In the tables, we assume that the funding will remain the same as in fiscal 1971.

LEAA-funded research has emphasized two project areas: investigation of possible relationships between drug use and aggressive behavior and crime, and evaluations of LEAA-funded, community-based treatment and rehabilitation projects. It can be expected that LEAA research programs will retain this thrust in fiscal 1972.

BNDD research is limited to projects directly related to law enforcement, such as the abuse potential of particular drugs or the market characteristics of the drug-distribution system. In fiscal 1971, BNDD had a research staff of 20 and a total research budget of $1,383,000. For fiscal 1972, BNDD originally asked for a research budget of $1,467,000; the increase, however, would have covered only the cost of annualization of positions, and would not have resulted in any additional activities." The President's supplemental budget allocated an additional $2 million to BNDD "for development and implementation of new technology for detection, surveillance, communications and automatic data processing as tools in the enforcement of drug laws.""

Other federal agencies are conducting research into nonlawenforcement aspects of drug abuse. For the most part, however, the following programs are limited in scope and peripheral to the central goals and purposes of the agency involved.

The Job Corps has budgeted $120,000 for a national drug survey of 16 Job Corps centers in fiscal 1972, to obtain information about knowledge, attitudes, and patterns of drug use among different subcultural groups of Job Corps enrollees."

The Department of Transportation has been conducting research on the effects of drugs on drivers and driving. DOT says that in fiscal 1972 it will spend an estimated $250,000 on the following studies:

Incidence of drugs in people admitted to a university clinic after auto accidents

Investigation of a sample of 1,000 fatally injured drivers for drugs

Incidence of drugs in drivers who are not involved in accidents

Simulation studies of drug effects

A study of the driving record of heroin addicts before and after addiction and while on methadone

In fiscal 1972, the Veterans Administration plans to spend $250,000 for a general research program concerned primarily with the biological and behavioral aspects of drug addiction and to be conducted in Veterans Administration hospitals."

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investing a limited amount of funds in drug-abuse-related research. A budget breakdown is not available, but the agency estimates that these projects will consume four and a half man-years of time in fiscal 1972. Two of FDA's most important activities in this area are reviewing methadone-treatment programs for medical soundness and reviewing proposals to market methadone as a proven rather than an experimental drug.

Finally, part of the Department of Defense's supplemental budget will be used for research activities. The Army will get $1.5 million for research, development, testing, and evaluation in fiscal 1972; the Navy and Air Force will be given lesser. amounts." Information on specific projects is not yet available.

EDUCATION, PREVENTION, AND TRAINING

It is not always possible to distinguish sharply between this category and other categories. For example, funds for BNDD programs to educate local law-enforcement officers are included under law enforcement; treatment and rehabilitation programs undoubtedly include some money for training the agencies' own workers; and the line between prevention and enforcement is not always clear. Programs in this section include the following types of activity:

Efforts to alert the general public to the drug-abuse problem and to explain its scope and significance

Efforts to reach actual or potential drug abusers and to explain the effects and dangers of drug abuse

Programs to train education workers

NIMH programs to train rehabilitation workers (because of the scope of NIMH rehabilitation programs, the training activities are sufficiently large to warrant separation)

Information services for persons interested in the drug field

In fiscal 1971, the Office of Education (CE) budgeted approximately $6 million for drug-education programs. Of this, $2 million was allocated to state departments of education to train educational personnel. The other major OE endeavors in fiscal 1971 were 26 community programs, 11 drug-education projects initiated by local school districts, and 20 college-based pilot programs initiated and operated by students primarily for fellow students but sometimes with a community-outreach component."

For fiscal 1972, the Office of Education originally requested a budget of $6 million to continue existing programs." As a result of a supplemental request, however, OE will receive $13 million for drug-abuse-related programs. The major new undertaking will be a training program called "Help Communities Help Themselves": Eight regional centers will be inaugurated to train community people on how to develop and maintain community education and information programs; in the first year, OE hopes to train about 2,500 people. This project will cost about $6.5 million.

For fiscal 1972, NIMH has budgeted $2,571,000 for public information services, a nominal increase over the fiscal 1971 amount of $2,563,000. Part of this money will be used by the National Clearinghouse for Drug Abuse Information, which answers general inquiries for information by sending out NIMH brochures and fact books. More specific requests are answered by information specialists, who send out reprints of published articles. The Clearinghouse has also developed a fairly comprehensive standard bibliography as well as a computerized information system that lists, indexes, and abstracts published articles in the field and conducts searches in response to individual requests.

The NIMH and the Department of Defense and Justice are cosponsoring a special advertising campaign designed to counteract peer pressure to use drugs. This campaign, in the second of three years, has an annual cost of $150,000 equally divided between the sponsors.

In fiscal 1972, NIMH will spend $6.9 million on training, compared with $2.1 million budgeted in fiscal 1971. Part of this increase will be absorbed by the expansion of a program to develop educational materials and to train lawyers, ministers, and others who spend part of their time working with drug-dependent persons."

The Office of Economic Opportunity has awarded a $420,000 grant for fiscal 1972 for the inauguration of a National Training Institute in Washington, D.C., to provide six months of intensive training for former addicts working on local projects, with follow-up training, if necessary."

In fiscal 1971, $3,066,000 of HUD's Model Cities funds were used for 37 programs in the area of education, prevention, or training. Within this broad category, the states have programmed many diverse projects. Some have used their funds to develop curricula for drug-education programs in the schools; others have funded workshops for teachers and counselors; still others have directed their efforts toward the general community. At least one program has been run for law-enforcement officers.

The job Corps, within the Department of Labor, will spend $40,000 in fiscal 1972 to develop, collect, and distribute educational material deemed appropriate and relevant to the job Corps population." This project will also help Job Corps staffs improve their understanding of the problems of drugs and drug abusers.

BNDD also operates a public-education campaign. In fiscal 1971, this division was staffed by 26 people at a cost of $1,215,000. The education division responds to requests from the general public for information on the drug problem and preventive programs. This division also provides materials and films upon request and arranges for speakers for national, state, and regional programs. In fiscal 1971, BNDD personnel made 1,500 speeches to an estimated audience of 150,000. They also made 191 radio and television appearances. These figures represent significant declines from the preceding year, apparently the result of a policy decision to place highest priority on addressing groups of people capable of establishing ongoing drug-prevention programs rather than the public at' large. In fiscal 1972, this division will again consist of 26 people but at a cost of $1,251,000. This budget increase, however, will cover only annualization of positions."

LEAA estimates that approximately $20.2 million of its fiscal 1971 funds were spent on education, prevention, and training, more than was spent in any other drug-abuse category. The major objective of LEAA's program is "to provide students and adults with the knowledge necessary to make intelligent decisions concerning the personal use of addicting or habituating drugs and other harmful substances." LEAA has developed the concept of a "concerned community" that must be made aware of the nature and magnitude of the problem before it can respond. The agency stresses four programs:

1. Coordination of local and state public education and information programs to attain maximum participation and efficiency

2. Implementation of health-information programs in every school at the earliest feasible grade level

3. Development of educational programs, seminars, and work-

shops designed to provide accurate information for adults

4. Predelinquent counseling services through the use of neighborhood information centers."

The funding level of these programs in fiscal 1972 is not yet known.

THE SPECIAL ACTION OFFICE

In his special message to the Congress on June 17, 1971, the President proposed the temporary establishment of a Special Action Office of Drug Abuse Prevention accountable directly to the President. Pending congressional approval, the President, through an executive order, instituted the position of Special Consultant for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs to fulfill, to the extent legally possible, the duties of the proposed Special Action Office. Under this revised organizational plan, it would become the responsibility of the Special Action Office to coordinate and direct all the drug-abuse activities of the various federal agencies, with the exception of those dealing with the problems of law enforcement." The President has requested $3 million in fiscal 1972 for the staff and administrative costs of the Special Action Office."

NOTES

1. Latest White House estimate as reported in the National journal, July 3, 197 1, p. 1417.

2. House of Representatives Document No. 92-133, Amendment to Budget Fiscal Year 1972, Drug Abuse Problem, June 21, 1971, p. 4 (hereafter H.R. 92-133).

3. U.S. Congress, Hearings on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 92d Cong., 1st sess., 1971 (hereafter App. Hrgs. 1971), justice, Pt. 1, p. 333; H.R. 92-133; U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, Fact Sheets, unpublished, 1971 (hereafter BNDD Fact Sheets). 4. This figure is arrived at by subtracting BNDD appropriations for research and for education, prevention, and training from the total requested budget.

5. U.S., Congress, Hearings on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 91st Cong., 2d sess., 1970 (hereafter App. Hrgs. 1970), Justice, Pt. 1, pp. 987-88.

6. App. Hrgs. 1971, Justice, Pt. 1, p. 868.

7. National Journal, July 3, 197 1, p. 1422.

8. These figures come from the BNDD Fact Sheets. At the House Appropriations Hearings in March, 1971, however, the agency stated that total staff of foreign offices had risen from 34 to 70 in 1970. BNDD Fact Sheets; App. Hrgs. 1971, Justice, Pt. 1, pp. 848, 868.

9. App. Hrgs. 1971, Justice, Pt. 1, p. 848.

10. H.R. 92-133, p. 4.

11. App. Hrgs. 1970, Justice, Pt. 1, p. 220.

12. Information supplied by the Bureau of Customs.

13. Ibid.

14. App. Hrgs. 1970, Treasury, Pt. 2, p. 583.

15. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,

A Program for a Safer, More Just America, p. 3.

16. Information supplied by LEAA.

17. H.R. 92-133, p. 5.

18. App. Hrgs. 1970, Foreign Assistance and Related Agencies, Pt. 2, p.

11. Mexico's total legitimate exports are about $1.1 billion, and the marijuana trade may be worth an additional $100 million in foreign exchange. Some experts have estimated that 500 kilograms of marijuana per day go from Mexico to the United States. This comes to about 400,000 pounds per year. An average price of $25 per pound F.O.B. Mexican border does not seem unreasonable, based on many sources of information. The exact figures depend, of course, on one's estimate of marijuana use and average price. A case can be made for almost any figure between $70 million and $120 million.

19. App. Hrgs. 1970, Foreign Assistance and Related Agencies, Pt. 2, p. I 1; John Ingersoll, "New Horizons of Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Enforcement," Speech at the Law Enforcement Executive Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia, July 22, 1970, p. 8.

20. U.S., Congress, House of Representatives, Select Committee on Crime, Narcotics Research, Rehabilitation and Treatment, Hearings, 92d Cong., Ist sess., 1971, pp. 70-73.

21. U.S., Department of State, U.S.-Thai Memorandum of Understanding, September 28, 1971.

22. App. Hrgs. 1971, Justice, Pt. 1, p. 372.

23. Washington Evening Star, November 4, 197 1.

24. NIMH's Division of Administration Management and Financial Management provided much of the information in this section.

25. Information supplied by SRS.

26. Veterans Administration, Alcohol and Drug Dependence Service, Progress Report, August 19, 1971, p. 1.

27. Office of Economic Opportunity, Drug Rehabilitation Projects Status Report, July 1, 1971.

28. U.S., Department of Labor, Job Corps Drug Task Force Projects, 1971, p. 1.

29. Information supplied by the Bureau of Prisons.

30. H.R. 92-133, p. 3.

31. National Institute of Mental Health, Center for Studies of Narcotic and Drug Abuse, Memorandum, Program Development Goals with Grants and Contract Supported Active During FY 1969, August 13, 1969.

32. App. Hrgs. 1970, U.S., Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Pt. 1, pp. 448-50.

33. U.S. Congress, op. cit., note 20, pp. 474, 476-77.

34. Information supplied by SRS.

35. H.R. 92-133.

36. Information on LEAA supplied by LEAA.

37. App. Hrgs. 1971, justice, Pt. 1, p. 845.

38. H.R. 92-133, p. 4.

39. U.S., Department of Labor, job Corps Drug Task Force Projects, memorandum, August 31, 197 1, p. 1.

40. Veterans Administration, Alcohol and Drug Dependence Service, Progress Report, August 19, 1971, P. 3.

4 1. H.R. 92-133, p. 3.

42. Congressional Record, July 26, 197 1, p. E8287.

43. App. Hrgs. 1971, Office of Education and Related Agencies, Pt. 1, pp. 975-76, and information supplied by the Office of Education.

44. Information supplied by NIMH.

45. Office of Economic Opportunity, Drug Rehabilitation Projects Status

Report, July 1, 1971, P. 3.

46. U.S., Department of Labor, Job Corps Drug Task Force Projects, p. 1.

47. App. Hrgs. 1971, justice, Pt. 1, p. 845; App. Hrgs. 1970, Justice, Pt. 1, pp. 924, 979, 998.

48. Information supplied by LEAA.

49. See Message from the President to the Congress of the United States June 17, 1971.

50. H.R. 92-133, p. 3.