i & GAO Taited States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 Marek 12, 2000
‘The Honorable Richard J Durhin Chairman ‘The Honorable Susan M Collins Ranking Member abeonumittee on Financial § ‘General Government Conunittee on Appropriations United States Senate
“The Honorable Jose F Serrano harman, hhe Honorable Jo Ann Emerson Ranking Member 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,
Trang 2of 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, In commenting on a draft of this report, ONDCP agreed with onr findings and recommendation
We are sending copies ofthis report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Director of ONDCP, and other interested parties This report will aso be available at 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
Trang 3Enclosure: Briefing for Congressional Committees
COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER
Clarifying Rationale for Research and
Development Funding Decisions Would
Increase Accountability
Trang 5
Briefing Overview (cont’d)
+ Appendxes
+ _ Appendixl: Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center Funding
+ _ Appendixll: Sưategy and Office of National Drug Control Policy Priorities, + Appendix ll: Research and Development and Technology Transfer Program Funding Process
Trang 6&£GAO Introduction
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
Trang 7
&£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
Trang 8
¿GAO Introduction (cont’d)
* In March 2007, CTAC replaced its primary contracting agent, the Army's Electronic Proving Grounds (EPG), with the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR)
+ By statute, the ONDGP Director does not have authority to award contracts land manage individual projects or other operational activites Instead, CTAC must employ contracting agents to inate the contracting process land manage individual contracts and projects Therefore, after GTAC Feceives an appropriation from Congress, it transfers funds to its Contracting agent who, in turn, obligates and expends the funds
= 6
Trang 9&GAO Introduction (cont’d)
‘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
Trang 10
&GAO Objec es, Scope, and Methodology Objectives 1 Since fiscal year 2009, how has CTAG allocated funds fr counterdrug efforts, and how were congressional appropriations for CTAC’s R&D and ‘TTP programs expended? 2 To what extent has the ONDGP Director's approach to making funding decisions regarding CTAC's R&D program been consistent wath internal Control standards?
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?
Trang 11
&GAO Objec (cont’d)
> 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
Trang 12&GAO Objec (cont’d) + To determine the extent to which the ONDOP Directors approach to making funding decisions for CTAC's FED program were consistent wih inferal control standards, we
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
Trang 13
¿GAẠO Objec (cont’d)
* 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
Trang 14&GAO
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology (cont’d)
* We conducted this performance audit from April 2008 to March 2009 in accordance with generally accepied govemment auciting standards, Those standards require that we plan and perform the aucit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and ‘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,
Trang 15
£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
Trang 16
£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
Trang 17
&GAO Summary (cont’d)
+ 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
Trang 18
e 1- CTAC”s Use of Funds for &GAO Objec R&D
‘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 remainderĐ9.2 mrlionđwas 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
Trang 19
&GAO Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for R&D (cont’d)
‘Of total of $23.9 milion in appropriations during fiscal years 2006 and 2007, CTAC transferred about $11.5 milion, or 48 percent, for supply reduction, and about $4.0 milion for demand reduction effors The remainder—$8.4 milion— ‘was transferred for both demand and supply reduction efforts In 2008, CTAC reported that it refocused the R&D program to fund projects that it believed aligned more closely with the goals of the National Orug Contra Strategy
«In fiscal year 2007, CTAC discontinued funding imaging equipment result of among other things, a determination by an extemal technology review commities that drug abuse researchers Go longer had a need for as a new imaging systems CTAC began funding project (1) test the {easily of adaing a biomeasure, such as halr or urinalysis, to vaidate selbreported crug use (demand reduction): and (2) develop license pale reader technology for law enforcement (supply reduction); among others
Trang 20
&GAO Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for R&D (cont’d)
+ Athough CTAC offials knew pow much money they transferred fo he ontrading aggis, hey lacked conidence EPG = expenditure infomation, prompling CTAC 1 replace EPG with SPAWAR as is primary contracting gent This meant thal or he period of our study, CTAG was ne cgran of how much money EPG spent on CTAC contacts dui fie years 2003 rough 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,
Trang 21
&GAO Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for R&D (cont’d)
* 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
Trang 22
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
Trang 23&GAO Objective 1- CTAC’s Use of Funds for R&D (cont’d)
* Gongress limited GTAC's fiscal year 2008 appropriation to $1.0 milion, The Senate Appropriations Commitee indicated hat CTAC had substantial unused FIED funds from pit fiscal years CTAC di not ansie the $1.0 millon because the project it intended to fund was an ongoing, multiphase project that was behind schedule
‘+ 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
Trang 24
&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 2003 through 2006
+ CTAC transferred all of its $98.9 milion in TTP appropriations since fiscal year 2003 to EPG and SPAWAR to provide law enforcement-related equipment and {raining to state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies
22
Trang 25
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
Trang 26
¿GAO Objec TTP
‘+ 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
Trang 27
Objective 2- Funding Decisions
“The ONDCP Director's approach to making R&D funding decisions is not
documented and, therefore, not fully consistent with internal control standards." ‘+ Following input rom CTAG, the ONDCP Director determines which R&D project, concepts to fund
‘+ The Chief Scientist and CTAC officials said they develop an intial ist of RED {funding priorities based on potential projects’ (1) alignment with the National Drug Control Strategy’s priorities and ONDGP's operational priorities (see ‘appendix Il), (2) estimated implementation costs, (3) level of technical risk, (4) Scope (5 potential or muliple agencies to bent om the research, and (6) + According statutory authority, can accept or modlly CTAC’s jst of funding prionies and to CTAC officials, the ONDCP Director, in accordance with his
Trang 28£GAO
Objective 2- Funding Decisions (cont’d)
The ONDGP Director may detenmine the ranking and allocation of funds for project Concepts and is not required to document his rationale for selecting particular project, concepts,
+ Inany given year, according to CTAC officials, there are many more project ‘concepts than can be funded Given the broad priorities of the National Drug Contral Strategy and ONDCP, virtually all ofthe project concepts being ‘considered by the ONDCP Director may be consistent with these prioites * According to CTAC officials, the ONDOP Director has based his R&D funding decision on factors such as the feasiblity of project success, project costs, and
Potential widespread applicability ofthe results However, there is no Socumentation on whether and how he used these and/or other factors in arriving rationale was for funding certain project concepts over others As a result, there at funding decisions, how he weighted the various factors, and what his is a lack of transparency in how funding decisions have been made, and itis difficult to know whether the project concepts the ONDCP Director Selected for funding met he highest pronty research and technology needs of the nerd nly
26
Trang 29
£GAO Objective 2- Funding Decisions (cont’d) * GAO's internal contol standards state that al ansactions and other significant ‘events need to be clearly documented, and the documentation should be
readily available for examination
+ CTAC officials noted that the ONDGP Director has not documented his funding decisions because the law does not require i They agreed that such information could be developed and said that it could potentially be included in the spending plan ONDCP submits to Congress
2
Trang 30
Objective 3- CTAC Performance
*_ GTAO oslablished gutput ang ovlcome performance chlewetentoI ls RD goals, and both measures are generally consistent with, measures to assoss aftibutes that characterize successtul performance measures, However, CTAC's ‘methodology for calculating its H&D program outcome is not documented and, therefore, HỘI clear fo siakEhciders
+ Ipacrordance wih GPRA OTAC established goals, oblecives, and outcomes show how projects can be expected to contribute to intended results, and measures (of performance for ts R&D program output and outcome
* The goals objectives, and outcomes/mpacts for GTAC's RD program are as
Trang 31¿GAO Objective 3- CTAC Performance (cont’d)
5” CTAG'S RAD output and outcome performance measures are as folows + Output measure:
* TAC datinton, numberof esearch projects nated to expand Understanding o the deman- and supply-side of legal drug markets."* + Fiscal year target: amount of anticipated CTA R&D appropriaton fivided by the Soproumate cost per R&D project in prior fecal years + Outcome measure: + CTAC definiion: Percentage of research projects that form the basis of
Dr contribute 6 policy or program direction * According to CTAG officials, the ONDCP Director (1) receives Contractor and CTAC-prepared information on the ndings of R&D projet (a determines wheter ie ndings are compaling and anlp adress a Sourterarug need, ahd (2) dendes wnetherfo tse tnefavalable information ag a basis for issuing poly or program diection to national drug control agencies
+ Flgal yoar age Ths based ereerage of W&D projects that wil qenerste.a tháng that contrbutes on CTAC olla udoment of he fc polcy program direction Accordng to CTAC ofsals| 280 percent {ages reasonable Because not al R&D projects wil produce postive
lndngs that cn form the base of or contibute to potey or program te sònmoeeErn.e Art €TNe te hs men seach parses fiÖ-pcemesre es
Trang 32
Objective 3- CTAC Performance (cont'd)
“Tal 2 Flea Yoare 20072008 Petr
{or CTACs RAD Program
287 = a
Pertormance measures Target Actual Target, ‘wal Target
1: Output measure Nonbor o 5 2 7
recnreh pos naa mpand {Saesana one cea ana Sete of legal tug ma
2 Outcome measure Porcinage Ne alco masse SE ——“Tebevepored S0 fessaeh projects hat ominetass " aannighei
Trang 33£GAO Objective 3- CTAC Performance (cont’d) + We have previously reported that successful performance measures have the following key attrbutes."*
1 Linkage with the goals and mission of the agency
2 Clarity in how itis stated, named, and defined; and consistent with the ‘methodology used to caloulate it 8 Objectivity in being reasonably free from significant bias or manipulation 4, Filiabilly in producing the same result under similar conditions
5 Measurable target in having a numerical goal
Trang 34£GAO Objective 3- CTAC Performance (cont’d) STASI ea a ca AS 1 tata * Is objective; ee
1 pare ae rogram cies
+ Hone ae ey rating te oreo BD progam
Trang 35
&£GAO
Objective 3- CTAC Performance (cont’d)
+ CTAC’s performance measures provide information on its R&D program activities, and the effect of R&D findings on the ONDCP Director's policy and program
Trang 36
¿GAO
Objective 4- CTAC Reorganization
+” CTAC was reorganized in January 2007, folowing a 7-veek period during which ONDGP and the Appropriations Committees exchanged a number of ‘correspondences about ONDCP's proposed reorganization which, according to ‘ONDGP, was intended to strengthen CTAC's research capabilities
‘+ Reorganization activities
+ The general provisions of the 2006 appropriations act for ONDCP, Pub L No 109-115, prohibited agencies, including ONDCP, from using funds appropriated {or obligation or expenditure to reorganize the agency different from the budget justifications submitted to the Committees on Appropriations or from other specified documentation, unless prior approval was received from the ‘Committees on Appropriations This restriction continued into fiscal year 2007 through a series of continuing appropriations resolutions
+ ONDCP advised Congress on December 1,2006, that it intended to reorganize CTAC The stated purpose was 1o ensure a more integrated and coordinated ‘approach to research; and improve oversight of and support for the ONDCP Director's research priorities,
Trang 37
Objective 4- CTAC Reorganization (cont’d) ‘Prior to the reorganization, Appropriations Committee staif indicated in a umber of correspondences that ONDCP should not proceed with is, reorganization plans
+ ONDCP finalized the CTAC reorganization on January 22, 2007 (See appendix Wor a description ofthe reorganization timeline.) + ONDOP transferred its policy research and performance measures development functions into CTAC, thereby placing them under the authority of
the Chief Scientist.”
‘+ Eight full ime equivalent positions were reassigned from ONDOP's Office of Planning and Budget, which housed the policy research and performance measure functions, into CTAC
+ The Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution of 2007, Pub L No, 110-6, states that the structure of any ofthe offices or components within the Offee of National Drug Control Policy shall remain as they were on October 1, 2008 CTAC officials told us they did not return to the previous structure because, among other things, the CTAC reorganization had taken place on Januaty 22, 2007, prior tothe legisation being enacted,
Trang 38
£GA0
Conclusions
‘+The requirements for the ONDGP Director's R&D funding determinations are broadly stated, making it possible fora wide variety of potential demand and supply reduction project concepts to be eligible for funding Clarification of how various factors were considered in funding decisions, including the Director's rationale for choosing among project concepts, would faciitate greater accountability for
Trang 39
£GA0
Recommendation
+ To promote greater transparency in funding decisions and increased accountability for he best use of CTAC's R&D funds, we recommend that the ONDGP Director ‘dentiy the role that cifferent factors played in funding decisions, and document the ‘basis for selecting specific RAD project concepts for funding, including the rationale {or selecting certain project concepts over others
a
Trang 40
£GA0
Agency Comments
‘+ We provided a draft ofthis report to the Office of National Drug Gontrol Policy, (ONDCP) for review and comment + On March 6, 2009, we received written comments from ONDCP on the draft report, which are reproduced in appendix VI ONDGP concurred with the findings and
recommendation in our report and agreed that identifying selection crteria and documenting the director's decisions should promote transparency in funding {decisions and greater accountability for the best use of CTAC’s R&D funds, + Additionally, we received technical comments from ONDGP, which were Incorporated where appropriate
sẽ