Task forces are asked to report "the number of individuals arrested [and convicted] during the current reporting period". Task forces are asked to report any drug-related offense for which an individual has been arrested and convicted.
BYRNE/JAG MJTF CASE
Case studies were conducted to answer questions about the performance of subgrantees and how individual MJTF grantees used ICJI funds. One case study (Tippecanoe/Clinton County Drug Task Force) had not provided any reporting data for 2006 as of July 1, 2007.
12 PROFILES
Following this assessment, cases were given a simple qualitative rating of below average, average, or above average. Based on these standards for the 12 case studies, as explained below, 3 were classified as above average, 3 as average and 6 as below average. If so, the performance data discussed below includes figures for both grants in the tables.
Budget and performance reporting for the 2006 operating period appears to be virtually universal, although one sub-grantee did not provide performance information to describe what was achieved with the ICJI funds they spent.
CASE STUDY 1
BI-STATE DRUG TASK FORCE
The majority of the funds were budgeted for salaries ($77,000) for the two full-time investigators employed by the Bi-State MJTF. This grant was one of the few MJTFs included in the case studies that did not spend all of their funds: only 81.6 percent of ICJI funds. The application generally mirrors the previous application in terms of the scale of the problem and again does not use any statistical evidence to support statements that drugs are a local problem.
Unfortunately, there are no numerical metrics that can be used to evaluate the success of the program in achieving its goals.
CASE STUDY 2
DETECT DRUG TASK FORCE
The DETECT MJTF documented the purchase of a digital audio repeater, the leasing of two surveillance vehicles and payment for officer training. Additional documentation would be needed to assess whether the DETECT MJTF met its stated goals and objectives. The DETECT MJTF appears to be a viable MJTF from a fiscal point of view because the ICJI provided only a relatively small one.
During the second six-month grant period, DETECT MJTF documented the training received for the task.
CASE STUDY 3
HAMILTON/
BOONE COUNTY DRUG TASK
The subsidy application for 05-DJ-066 was not available for assessment at the time the report was published. The initial documentation in the submitted quarterly reports is insufficient to determine the activities of the HBC MJTF for the second grant period. Submission of required documentation was completed for the first grant period, although due to the nature of the required documentation, the required documentation did not assist in determining whether objectives had been achieved.
The HBC MJTF appears to be a relatively strong MJTF, especially in terms of the search warrants and the newly developed confidential informants.
CASE STUDY 4
HENRY/WAYNE COUNTY AREA
All federal funds were spent during the grant period, but existing financial information does not specify what for, because an amended budget consistent with the amount of the actual grant was not available for review. The application generally reflects the previous application in terms of the extent of the problem and uses only MJTF activity in the previous periods as an indicator of the problem in the area. The goals and objectives are somewhat vague, but continue to focus on research, public education, and training, and again do not provide numerical measures that can be used to evaluate the program's success in achieving its objectives.
Additional evidence would be needed to assess whether the HWCA MJTF met its stated goals and objectives.
CASE STUDY 5
INDIANA MULTI- AGENCY GROUP
The weakest area of the new application (noted by the ICJI reviewer) is program evaluation. Documentation of the local nature of the drug problem in grant applications is a weakness in both grant periods examined. Furthermore, there is no evidence that computer or other equipment was purchased.
Ultimately, the success of the JEAN MJTF must be measured by the amount of drugs seized, and arrests and convictions generated.
CASE STUDY 6
Established in 1988, the JEAN Drug Task Force operates in Grant and Wabash counties and includes investigators from the Grant and Wabash County Sheriff's Departments and the Marion and Wabash Police Departments. JEAN MJTF applied for additional funding for the period from 1 October 2006 to 31 March 2007, but this application was not approved. The application states that the JEAN MJTF will continuously assess its progress through daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly meetings of relevant parties to share information and report on the status of various investigations.
JEAN MJTF submitted both quarterly performance reports for the six month period of award 03-DB-067.
JOINT EFFORT AGAINST
The application describes cocaine/crack and marijuana as the major drug problems in the area, as well as a growing problem with the production of methamphetamine. This should be kept in mind because the statistics and budgets discussed below describe a six-month period rather than the 12-month period covered in most other case studies. The application also notes that Grant County contains I-69, which is said to be a major drug route from Detroit to Fort Wayne and Indianapolis.
NARCOTICS (JEAN) DRUG
The application is very similar in format to previous grant applications and provides evidence of a local drug problem primarily in terms of prior increases in JEAN MJTF activity. The application for the 2006 grant period has relatively clear objectives and supports the need for the JEAN MJTF. As with other MJTFs, additional documentation would be required to assess whether the JEAN MJTF met the stated objectives.
The JEAN MJTF appears to have a strong focus on search warrants and the new confidential informants that have developed, particularly in asset seizures.
CASE STUDY 7
METROPOLITAN (METRO) DRUG
However, the Metro MJTF seized a significant amount of drugs and the arrests/convictions were for production/distribution activities rather than possession/consumption. The Metro MJTF appears to have been successful with respect to some of its program goals, particularly asset seizure/forfeiture. In terms of arrests, charges and convictions, the Metro MJTF is below average, especially considering the size of the grant.
Based on the number of cases generated, search warrants, and new confidential informants, the Southwest MJTF is the most productive MJTF among those included in the case studies.
CASE STUDY 8
The program appears to include a significant number of investigators, but only one is funded by the grant. The application also notes that the jurisdictions served are a major transportation hub that facilitates the movement of illegal drugs into the area. The evaluation plan appears to be limited to the submission of quarterly ICJI performance reports, which are not adequate to document whether some of the objectives have been met in this way.
The application addresses future funding but does not set out a clear plan to become self-sustaining.
MULTI-AGENCY NARCOTICS
The Southwest MJTF generated a significant amount of arrest/prosecution activity, although the majority of arrests and convictions were for possession/consumption rather than production/distribution activities. Statement of needs, goals and objectives are clearly defined, although documentation of the local drug problem continues to rely on internally generated statistics. The Southwest MJTF appears to be one of the highest performing MJTFs in the state.
No training reports were available to document that any training took place in either grant period, which is disappointing as education of the public was a stated goal of the program.
CASE STUDY 9
The MADMC Drug Task Force includes the Anderson, Muncie, Elwood and Ball State Police Departments (working with several other smaller departments in Delaware County), the Delaware and Madison County Sheriff's Departments and the Indiana State Police. This evidence makes a fairly compelling case that illegal drug activity is high and increasing in the jurisdictions discussed. The grant application lists two goals for the MADMC MJTF—investigating and prosecuting high-level drug traffickers.
The MADMC MJTF also documented the conduct of several law enforcement trainings on illegal drug recognition for police officers, civic organizations, doctors/.
MUNCIE/
ANDERSON- DELAWARE/
MADISON COUNTY
For the second operating period funded by 05-DJ-076, MADMC MJTF received $54,900 in ICJI funds with one program total. MADMC MJTF is one of the few programs studied to include a narrative supplement to. The application discusses future funding but does not establish a strong basis for the existence of the TC MJTF independent of ICJI funding.
Therefore, it is impossible to assess the productivity of TC MJTF or whether the activities during the grant period were related to the objectives in the grant application.
CASE STUDY 10
TIPPECANOE/
CLINTON DRUG TASK FORCE
The application also outlines an external evaluation plan to be completed by a Purdue University professor, but does not explain how it will be funded. No quarterly performance, fiscal, or training reports were available at the time of this report to document current activities. The subrecipient failed to submit any of the required program performance, training, or revenue reports, leaving no information available to explain what TC MJTF did with the money it spent or what results were produced.
The application for the 06-DJ-034 grant was significantly improved, but at the time of this report it was too early to say whether the submission of required reports had improved.
CASE STUDY 11
TRI-COUNTY DRUG TASK
The application notes arrest trends in the three counties (although again specific numbers from the task force are used), as well as the greater unemployment problem in Randolph County compared to the state of Indiana. The application is short and vague and fails to document the nature of the local drug problem. The application for the 06-DJ-021 grant has been significantly improved, although the goals and objectives can still be more closely linked to specific program activities.
The application states that the United MJTF will assess its progress on an ongoing basis through regular information sharing between the relevant parties.
CASE STUDY 12
The United Drug Task Force operates in Hendricks, Putnam, Marion, Morgan and Owen counties, with six investigators from sheriff's departments, the Indiana State Police and the Brownsburg and Plainfield police departments, and was established in 1991. The United MJTF applied for additional funds to cover the period from 1 October 2006 to 31 March 2007, but this request was not granted. The success of the program in achieving its goals and objectives must be documented in the quarterly performance reports.
Bearing in mind the six-month reporting period, the United MJTF has an above-average number of total cases and.
UNITED DRUG TASK FORCE
The United MJTF employed about six full-time investigators and reported arrests that were roughly equally focused on. Particularly impressive is the statement that "the United Drug Task Force made 72 percent of all A and B arrests in Hendricks County, and 40 percent of all arrests overall in 2006." The goals and activities are very similar to the previous grant, but as noted by Table 21: United Drug Task Force (April 1, 2006 to September 30, 2006). The 2006 grant application is vague on goals and objectives and supports the need for the United MJTF to use only the number of cases and arrests from the previous year along with unsubstantiated claims that drug use is local.
The United MJTF appears to have generated a large number of new cases and new confidential informants and involved in some asset forfeiture cases.
SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
ICJI should also amend the reporting form so that working groups can document which local and state agencies they have collaborated with. The table below shows the collaboration of the ICJI-funded task forces in the 2006 operational period. All task forces reported collaboration with local and state agencies (although the current report does not allow for identification of which).
There was variation in the extent to which task forces cooperated with other federal agencies, from 0 to 8.
