FY02-09 Budget Emphasizes Least Effective Ingredients of Drug Policy

GAITHERSBURG, Md., Feb. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
Overview
A review of the federal drug control budget shows that the current
administration continues to favor supply reduction programs over demand
reduction programs to reduce the demand for drugs by youth and adults. Since
federal fiscal year (FY) 02, the budget has emphasized what research has shown
to be the least effective ingredients of a federal drug control policy. This
translates into almost a decade of lost opportunity in achieving performance
results.
Drug Policy Main Ingredients
There are five main ingredients of a federal drug control policy.
Treatment includes helping users of illicit drugs to become drug free through
such means as in-patient and out-patient counseling and other similar
services. Prevention includes discouraging the first-time use of drugs and
encouraging those who have begun to use drugs to cease their drug use. Law
enforcement includes activities focused on the criminal justice system, such
as the courts, police, prosecution, and task forces designed to stop domestic
drug distribution. Interdiction includes efforts intended to stop drugs from
entering the country by targeting the transportation link from the shores of
source nations up to and including the United States border. International, or
source country programs, focus on a wide range of activities to eradicate
crops and destroy processing capabilities, including alternative crop
development, and promoting the involvement of other nations to reduce
cultivation and production. A sound federal drug control policy contains all
of these ingredients. The art of developing the most effective drug policy
involves taking the evidence that research has to offer regarding each of
these main ingredients and applying it to come up with the best mix.
Budget Contradicts Research
As the table on page two of this Policy Brief shows, according to data
from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, resources for supply
reduction have grown the most since FY02, by nearly 57 percent. In fact,
supply reduction resources now represent nearly two-thirds of the total
federal drug control budget. By comparison, resources for demand reduction
grew by less than 3 percent and its share of total resources now represents
only about one-third of all resources.
What is truly most effective in drug control policy and funding? Research
suggests that treatment and prevention programs are very effective in reducing
drug demand, saving lives, and lessening health and crime consequences. It has
demonstrated that attacking drugs at their source by focusing on eradication
is expensive and not very effective. It has demonstrated that interdiction has
little effect on drug traffickers' ability to bring drugs into the United
States and on to our street corners where they are sold. It has also shown
that law enforcement and the broader criminal justice system can be a powerful
partner in using its coercive powers to help drug users stop using drugs and
committing drug-related crime.
In budget terms, and considering what research has taught us, one would
expect marginal changes in the drug budget to emphasize treatment, prevention,
and law enforcement more so than source country programs and interdiction, yet
the federal drug budget does not do this:
-- Interdiction grew the most over the FY02-09 period, growing by 100
percent from about $1.9 billion to $3.8 billion.
-- Source country resources grew the second fastest, by nearly 50 percent.
-- Law enforcement grew the third fastest, increasing by 31 percent over
the period.
-- Treatment comes in fourth place, increasing by 22 percent.
-- Prevention comes in last place with its resources actually declining by
almost 25 percent.

Budget/Performance Link
If research were our guide, then one would expect the opposite ordering of
increases in budgetary resources for drug control. The failure to incorporate
research into the budgetary process is a lost opportunity to produce results.
The only positive news in this decade is the reduction in youth drug use, a
trend which started in the previous decade. Today's discussion of drug policy
performance overlooks the fact that adult drug use and rates of addiction
remain unchanged in this decade. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration's National Survey on Drug Use and Health
(NSDUH):
-- Drug use for those over 18 years of age has not changed since 2002.
Almost 20 percent of those 18-25 years of age and 6 percent of those
over 25 report using illicit drugs on a regular basis.
-- The number of persons addicted to or abusing drugs and in need of
treatment has also not changed since 2002. Over 22 million people are
in this category.

According the NSDUH, the drugs that enter the United States illegally
(mostly cocaine and heroin) are less of a problem today than drugs that can be
sold or produced or cultivated in the United States, such as prescription
drugs, methamphetamine, and marijuana.
Conclusion
For the federal drug control policy to be most effective, it must both be
evidenced-based and supported by a budget specifically designed to implement
it. The federal drug control budget in this decade, however, has not funded
programs that research suggests would be more effective in reducing drug
demand and its associated damaging consequences. Simply stated, the federal
drug budget trend runs counter to what research would otherwise suggest is
necessary for an effective federal drug control policy.

Additional publications can be found at:
http://www.carnevaleassociates.com/publications.html

Bush Administration Record on
Federal Drug Control Spending, by Function
FY 2002-FY 2009
(Budget Authority in Millions)

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
Final Final Final Final
By Function:

Treatment (w/Research) $2,784.6 $2,876.0 $3,028.3 $3,053.0
Percent 26.2% 25.9% 25.5% 24.1%

Prevention (w/Research) $1,996.4 $1,936.5 $1,955.9 $1,952.1
Percent 18.8% 17.5% 16.5% 15.4%

Domestic Law Enforcement $2,867.2 $3,018.3 $3,189.8 $3,317.9
Percent 26.9% 27.2% 26.9% 26.2%

Interdiction $1,913.7 $2,147.5 $2,534.1 $2,927.9
Percent 18.0% 19.4% 21.4% 23.2%

International $1,084.5 $1,105.1 $1,159.3 $1,393.3
Percent 10.2% 10.0% 9.8% 11.0%

Total $10,646.4 $11,083.4 $11,867.4 $12,644.2

By Supply/Demand Split

Supply $5,865.4 $6,270.9 $6,883.2 $7,639.1
Percent 55.1% 56.6% 58.0% 60.4%

Demand $4,781.0 $4,812.5 $4,984.2 $5,005.1
Percent 44.9% 43.4% 42.0% 39.6%

Total $10,646.4 $11,083.4 $11,867.4 $12,644.2

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009
Final Final Enacted Request
By Function:

Treatment (w/Research) $2,941.9 $3,060.9 $3,226.0 $3,402.8
Percent 22.6% 22.1% 23.6% 24.1%

Prevention (w/Research) $1,862.6 $1,841.8 $1,756.8 $1,507.1
Percent 14.3% 13.3% 12.9% 10.7%

Domestic Law Enforcement $3,474.7 $3,748.8 $3,800.3 $3,763.3
Percent 26.7% 27.1% 27.8% 26.7%

Interdiction $3,285.6 $3,175.9 $3,214.2 $3,830.9
Percent 25.3% 22.9% 23.5% 27.1%

International $1,434.5 $2,016.6 $1,666.3 $1,609.8
Percent 11.0% 14.6% 12.2% 11.4%

Total $12,999.3 $13,844.0 $13,663.6 $14,113.9

By Supply/Demand Split

Supply $8,194.8 $8,941.4 $8,680.8 $9,204.0
Percent 63.0% 64.6% 63.5% 65.2%

Demand $4,804.5 $4,902.7 $4,982.8 $4,909.8
Percent 37.0% 35.4% 36.5% 34.8%

Total $12,999.3 $13,844.1 $13,663.6 $14,113.8

FY 02 - FY 09
Dollar Percent
Change Change
By Function:

Treatment (w/Research) $618.2 22.2%
Percent

Prevention (w/Research) -$489.3 -24.5%
Percent

Domestic Law Enforcement $896.1 31.3%
Percent

Interdiction $1,917.2 100.2%
Percent

International $525.3 48.4%
Percent

Total $3,467.5 32.6%

By Supply/Demand Split

Supply $3,338.6 56.9%
Percent

Demand $128.8 2.7%
Percent

Total $3,467.4 32.6%

Quick Facts

-- The Bush Administration's drug control budget since FY02 has emphasized
supply reduction programs over demand reduction programs.

-- Resources for supply reduction (interdiction of drugs, source country
programs, and law enforcement), grew by almost 57% from the FY02
baseline level to the FY09 request now before Congress.

-- By comparison, demand reduction resources (prevention and treatment,
including resources for research for agencies like the National
Institute on Drug Abuse) grew by only 2.7 percent -- prevention is
actually cut 25 percent.

-- The nation's current drug strategy emphasizes reducing demand among
youth and adults, but does so by mostly targeting source country and
interdiction programs -- focusing on the source and flow of drugs
rather than this nation's underlying demand for illicit drugs.

-- The FY02-09 budget trend runs counter to what research has found: that
efforts to reduce demand are best addressed through treatment and
prevention rather than supply reduction.

This Policy Brief is a publication of the Research and Policy Analysis
Group of Carnevale Associates, LLC. Views expressed herein reflect those of
its President, John Carnevale, Ph.D. Carnevale Associates provides strategic
leadership to public and private organizations through its three practice
groups: Strategic Planning; Research and Policy Analysis; and Performance
Measurement. http://www.carnevaleassociates.com
SOURCE Carnevale Associates, LLC

John Carnevale of Carnevale Associates, LLC, +1-301-977-3600