INDIANA CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov.Ie]1MULTIJURISDICTIONAL DRUG TASK FORCES IN INDIANA:The First Two Years of OperationsINDIANA CRIMINALJUSTICEINSTITUTESPECIAI ANALYSIS SERIES ON DRUGS IN INDIANA54CENTER FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH AND INFORMATIONand theGOVERNOR'S COMMISSION FOR A DRUG-FREE INDIANA
The Center for Criminal Justice Research and InfonnationThe Center for Criminal Justice Research and Il1for tion is part of the Indiana Criminal JusticeInstitute. It is comprised of two entities: the Indiana Statistical Ailalysis Center and the Researchand Information Consortium. The Center's primary mission is to compile, analyze and disseminateinformation supportive of criminal and juvenile justice decision-making in Indiana and to conductpolicy research on issues confronting justice system agencies in the State. An additional missionis to develop linkages between criminal justice practitioners and university researchers thatpromote imprOVed management of the Indiana justice system.This pUblication (CCJRI-09) has been prepared by the Center for Criminal Justice Research andInformation with support from the Criminal Justice Statistics Association and the Bureau of JusticeAssistance ( 16,200), and the Bureau of Justice Statistics ( 3,000 from grant # 86-BJ-CX-0004).Opinions set forth are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views orpolicies of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, Commisskil for a Drug-Free Indiana, State ofIndiana, Crimlnal Justice Statistical Association, or the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau ofJustice Assistance or Bureau of Justice Statistics.
MULTUURISDICTIONAL DRUG TASK FORCES IN INDIANA:The First Two Years of OperationsbyMichael J. Sabath, Ph.D.John P. DoyleJohn W. RansburgSeptember, 1990A Special Analysis Series Report on Drug Problemsand Drug Control Strategies in Indiana138573Prepared by theCenter for Criminal Justice Researchand InformationIndiana Criminal Justice Institute101 West Ohio StreetSuite 1030Indianapolis, IN 46204U.S. Department of JusticeNational Institute of JusticeThis document has been reproduced exactly as rec i ed from \ eperson or organization originating it. Points of view or oplnl?ns stated Inthis document are those of the authors and do not ecessanly r,epresentthe official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice,Permission to reproduce thisgra icu.s. material has been'Dorrain/BJA/BJSDepartment of Justiceto the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS),Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permissionof the owner,
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe would like to extend our appreciation to Mr. Douglas M. Fowler, Mr. Richard Emy, Mr. Curtis J. Farris andMrs. Debra Holmes of the Criminal Justice Institute for their assistance in gathering data on multijurisdictiQnal drugtask forces operating in Indiana and preparing this report. We would also like to thank the Criminal Justice StatisticsAssociation and U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance and Bureau of Justice Statistics for theirencouragement and assistance in helping states like Indiana develop the capacity to assess drug strategies and druginterventions.ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAs part of a larger effort tc provide more policyrelevant information about strategies and interventionsfor combatting drug problems in Indiana, the Centerfor Criminal Justice Research and Informationconducted an analysis of data reported by twenty-fivefederaHy-supported multijurisdictional drug taskforces operating in the State during 1988 and 1989.The analysis was conducted to assess the activitiesand performance of these task forces during the twoyear period they were supported with federal grantfund':.IDGHLIGHTSA summary of the results of the analysis is presentedbelow. This is followed by a brief discussion of thelimitations of the data and recommendationsregarding funding and managing federally-supporteddrug task forces in Indiana.Outputs of Muitijurisdictional Drug Task Forces-In 1989, 2,002 drug arrests were made by thetwenty-five multijurisdictional drug task forces.This represents a 78 % increase in arrests overthe number of arrests in the previous year.-Half of the arrests made in 1989 involved cocaine.Smaller percentages of arrests involved marijuana,amphetamines, LSD and other controlledsubstances. Cocaine arrests increased by 82 %between 1988 and 1989.-In 1989, 458 seizures were made of drug offenders'assets that were estimated to have a total value ofnearly 3.3 million. Almost 1 million was seizedin cash alone. Real property and vehicles seizedwere valued at slightly over 2 million.force jurisdictions, and (3) to establish cooperativeworking relationships with other drug enforcementagencies.- Most task forces indicated they targeted highlevel drug dealers and cocaine. Marijuana,LSD, methamphetamines and heroin were alsoconsidered high priority drug targets.- Most task force directors agreed that sinceestablishing their task forces, communicationand coordination among law enforcementagencies and intelligence networks have improved.- When surveyed in October of 1989, only 39percent of project directors thought the drugavailability and dealing situation in theirjurisdictions had improved after the developmentof their task forces. In contrast, when surveyedagain in July of 1990, 71 percent thought the drugavailability and dealing situation had improved.Contributions of Task Forces and Problems withTask Forces-When asked about the ways task forces have helpedthem deal with the drug problem, task forcedirectors pointed to more and better resourcesavailable for drug enforcement (e.g., manpower,equipment), improved communications among lawenforcement agencies, and an improVed capacityto identify and to target drug dealers.- Task force directors expressed concern aboutintetjurisdictional jealousies and turf-consciousnessamong law enforcement agencies and their impacton operations. Many also reported diffif;ultycomplying with grant application and reportingrequirements of the Institute, problems managingasset seizures and forfeitures, as well as problemsfinding and keeping reliable drug informants.Objectives of Task ForcesMETHODOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS- Task force directors reported that the mostimportant objectives of their task forces are:(1) to arrest and prosecute major drug dealers,(2) to reduce the availability of drugs in taskThis report is based on data submitted quarterly bytwenty-five drug task forces that received federalfunds through the Indiana Criminal Justice Instituteduring 1988 and 1989. In several instances the data
reported were incomplete and grantees complained ofdifficulty in understanding exactly what data were tobe submitted. This situation has been exacerbated byseveral changes in quarterly reporting forms over thelast two years. Limited attempts have been made toverify the reliability of operations data beingsubmitted by task forces. For the most part, projectdirectors were asked to clarify anomalies in their dataover the telephone and asked to verify, through themail, the accuracy of annual SUIIlIllllries of theirquarterly data.assets are being used to support operations.In addition, while there are many multijurisdictionaldrug task forces operating in Indiana, the datapresented in this report pertain only to the twentyfive that received federal Anti-Drug Abuse moniesfrom the Institute. Accordingly, readers should becareful not to make generalizations about all drugtask forces operating in the state from the data.RECOMMENDATIONS The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute and othersshould continue to view muItijurisdictional drugtask forces as a potentially effective approach todrug enforcement in Indiana and continue toallocate Anti-Drug Abuse funds to support theirdevelopment and operation. The Indiana Criminal Justice Institute shouldperiodically hold training sessions or seminars fordrug task force grantees. These sessions should bedesigned to help grantees better understand theadministrative and reporting requirements of theirgrants, address problems and issues that have arisenin the course of task force operations, and providean opportunity for grantees to share their ideas withother grantees. Grantee site visits should be made periodically toassess and improve the reliability of quarterlyperformance data being submitted to the Institute. Finally, to increase the Institute's capacity toevaluate muItijurisdictional drug task forces inIndiana, future research should be designed toprovide more and better quality information about(1) the types of drug offenders being arrested (e.g.,high level dealers, street level dealers), (2) changesin the availability of drugs in task forcejurisdictions, (3) the impact of asset seizures ondrug offenders, (4) asset forfeiture procedures beingfollowed by task forces, and (5) how forfeitedIV
TABLE OF CONTENTSACKNOWLEDGEl\ffiNTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiEXECUTIVE SlJMl\.IARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiTABLES AND FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viiINTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Objectives of Multijurisdictional Drug Task Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Funding for Drug Task Forces in 1988 and 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Multijurisdictional Drug Task Force Operations 1988 and 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Arrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Drug Seizures and Purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Asset Seizures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Detailed Data on 1988 and 1989 Operations of FederallySupported Indiana Multijurisdictional Drug Task Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Results of the 1990 Survey of Multijurisdictional Drug TaskForce Project Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13WiH Asset Forfeitures Support MultijurisdictionalDrug Task Forcas in llte Future? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13What Are the Major Objectives and Targets ofDrug Task Forces? . '0 13What Changes Do Project Directors See Occurringas a Result of Task Forces? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14How Drug Task Forces Heve Helped Drug Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Difficulties in Establishing and OperatingMultijurisdictional Drug Task Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Appendix: Muitijurisdictional Drug Task Forces Responding tothe 1990 Survey of Project Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23v
vi
TablesTable 1: Comparison of Drug Arrests by Type of Drug for 1988 and 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Table 2: Comparison of Drug Seizures and Purchases by Type of Drugfor 1988 and 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Table 3: Comparison of Assets Seized for 1988 and 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Table 4: Detailed Data on 1988 Operations of the Nineteen FederallySupported Multijurisdictional Drug Task Forces . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Table 5: Detailed Data on 1989 Operations of the Twenty-Five FederallySupported Multijurisdictional Drug Task Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . 10T,'ilble 6: Project Directors' Perceptions of Drug Task Force Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14FiguresFigure 1: Counties where Multijurisdictional Drug Task ForcesOperated in 1988 and 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure 2: Drug Task Force Funding 1988 and 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Figure 3: Arrests for Drugs Associated with Most Serious DrugCharge for 1988 and 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Figure 4: Comparison of Estimated Value of Asset Seizures for 1988 and 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Figure 5: Project Directors' Perceptions of Changes Occurring Sincethe Development of Their Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15vii
MULTDURISDICTIONAL DRUG TASK FORCES IN INDIANA:THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF OPERATIONSINTRODUCTIONThis report is one in a special series of analytic reportsbeing prepared on drugs in Indiana. The series is designedto provide poHcymakers and others involved incombatting drug problems in the State with informationabout:Figure 1Counties where Multljurlsdictlonal Dru9 TaskForces Operated In 1988 and 1989(1) The scope and magnitudeof alcohol and other drugabuse problems in Indiana;(2) St.rategies being used toaddress alcohol and otherdrug abuse problems in theState; and(3) The performance ofstrategies implementedin Indiana, or in otherstates, to address problemsof drug abuse.This particular report focuses on multijurisdictional drugtask force operations in Indiana during 1988 and 1989. Itassesses the activities and performance of twenty-five drugtask forces supported with federal funds granted by theIndiana Criminal Justice Institute during these years.Over the past two years a number of Indiana lawenforcement agencies have started working togetherthrough task forces to combat drug crime in the State.By sharing personnel, narcotics intelligence and otherTdsk forces operating in 1988 and 1989types of resources, these agencies hope to become moreTask forces operating in 1989effective in tackling drug crime . particularly drug crimethat crosses jurisdictional boundaries. This report focusesThe State Police taskforee operatedon the operations of twenty-five multijurisdictional drugstatewide in both years.task forces active in Indiana during 1989. Nineteen ofthese task forces were also operating in 1988. All received grant funds under the Federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act.Data displayed in the report were obtained from three sources: from quarterly reports submitted by task forces andfrom two surveys of task force project directors. One of the surveys was conducted in the fall of 1989 and the otherin the summer of 1990. The two surveys asked project directors for their opinions about the usefulness of task forcesand the problems associated with implementing them.
Readers should be careful in making comparisons among task forc'i:S and drawing conclusions about theirproductivity from the data presented. There is substantial variation in both the organization and management ofdrug task forces, as well as the objectives they pursue. Many of those examined in this report did not operate fora full twelve months during either 1988 or 1989. Theoo and other factors are certain to influence levels of operationincluding arrests, investigations, drug removals and asset seizures. A separate evaluation of two of the task forcesis being completed by researchers in the Department of Criminal Justice, Indiana University-Bloomington, througha grant from the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. Results of the e.valuation will be available in the fall of thisyear.Objectives of Multijurisdictional Drug Task ForcesIn general, multijurisdictional drug task forces seek to enhance, throu&,hjoint operations, the ability of federal, stateand focal criminal justice authorities to target narcotics trafficking conspiracii:S and to remove offenders througharrest, prosecution and conviction. While there is ,,orne variation in the objectives of task forces, most are guidedby one or more of the following:1. To disrupt ilrug trafficking in targeted communities;2. To arrest and bring to trial drug traffickers and dealers, as well as drug users;3. To develop narcotics intelligence systems for targeting drug investigation andenforcement efforts;4. To remove drugs from jurisdictions or, severely limit their availability;5. To establish cooperative enforcement networks among criminal justice agencies; and6. To seize the property of convicted drug offenders.Funding for Drug Task Forces in 1988 and 1989By the end of 1989, the twenty-five drug task forces hadbeen awarded 1,747,786 in Federal Anti-Drug AbuseAct funds through the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute.Coupled with the match contribution of State and localgrant recipients, the task forces had a total of 3,011,813available to support their operations; most (65 %) wasbudgeted for personnel. Fifteen percent was set aside forthe purchase of evidence and the purchase of information(PEPI) and 11 percent for equipment (see figure 2).Because grant start-up and completion dates for taskforces usually do not coincide with a calendar year, manytask forces did not spend all of their available resourcesby the end of 1989.Figure 2Dru(l Task Force Funding 1988 and 1989(J.ther9 Personnel48 per g net ;;::::,;:.:::,I:,jll:Equipment19881989To gain a better understanding of how these resourceswere used, budget and expenditure information ispresented below for four major areas: personnel,equipment, purchase of evidence and information, andother. In some cases, expenditures exceed budgetedamounts. This occurs primarily because budgeted figures do not include amendments or other changes made to grantawards during the year, or because some expenditures were made from grant monies awarded in the previous year.2 '11
Total Budgeted: 3,011,813PersonnelBudgeted: 1,948,719Of the 1,948,719 budget.ed for 1989, nearly 1.8 million was sper.tto support task force personnel including narcotics investigators,undercover agents, prosecutors and other law enforcement professionals. The 1.8 million repr nts a 500,000 increase in spending forpersonnel over what was spent in 1988. Some task forces assigned asfew as one or two persons to operations while others assigned as manyas forty-six. It was common for staffing levels to flur;;tuate througbo'Jtthe year.65%EquipmentBudgeted: 343,477 343,564 was spent for equipment in 1989. This included items suchas cellular telephones, transmitters, pagers, nightscopes, listeningdevices, scramblers, cameras and drug field test kits. Funds were alsoused to buy or lease unmarked vehicles.Evidence andInformationBudgeted: 435,439 473,801 was used to purchase evid'::i or to purchase information(PEPI) during the year. This is more than an 80 percent increase inwhat was spent on PEPI during 1988. An undetermined amount ofmoney spent in this category came from asset forfeitures. The forfeituremonies partially account fol' 1989 PEPI expenditures heing greater thanthe amount budgeted.15%Other Budget9%.Budgeted: 284,178 119,128 was expended in the other category during 1989. These fundswere used to pay for such things as office rental, training related todrug interdiction and enforcement activities, hotels, travel and officesupplies.3
MULTIJURISDICTIONAL DRUG TASK FORCE OPERATIONS 1988 AND 1989By the end of 1988 fewer than
The Center for Criminal Justice Research and Il1for tion is part of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. It is comprised of two entities: the Indiana Statistical Ailalysis Center and the Research . and Information Indiana Criminal Justice Institute 101 West Ohio Street Suite 1030 Indianapolis, IN 46204
the effective administration of Indiana's criminal and juvenile Indiana riminal Justice Institute’s Research Division . Criminal Justice Institute (ICJI) serves as the state's planning agency for criminal justice, juvenile justice, traffic safety, and . the Indiana General Assembly introduced House Enr
Indiana State University 2 5.0% University of Southern Indiana 0 0.0% Indiana University-Bloomington 6 15.0% Indiana University-East 0 0.0% Indiana University-Kokomo 1 2.5% Indiana University-Northwest 0 0.0% Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis 4 10.0% Indiana University-South Bend 0 0.0% Indiana University-Southeast 1 2.5%
Criminal Justice Information Project Catherine Plummer, SEARCH Pamela Scanlon, Automated Regional Justice Information System Laurie Smith, Kalamazoo Criminal Justice Council Integrated Justice Information System Institute (Integrated Justice Information Systems): Susan Bates, Justice Management Inc. Steve Mednick, Law Offices of Steven G.
US Department of Justice, World Factbook of Criminal Justice Systems, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington DC, 1993 MODULE 2 ASPECTS OF COMPARATIVE CRIMINAL POLICY. 6 Systems of Administration of Criminal Justice (Adversarial & Inquisitorial) . Perspectives on Criminal Justice Systems,
-Organized a panel on International Terrorism for criminal justice department, November 2012. -Advised junior students, from 2012 to present. -Member: Criminal Justice Faculty Search Committee 2013. Chair: Criminal Justice Methods Faculty Search Committee 2014. -Member: Criminal Justice General Faculty Search Committee 2014.
Criminal Justice - CJ CJ 493 Undergraduate Research in Criminal Justice Faculty-guided undergraduate research in criminal justice. CJ 494 Criminal Justice Practicum Observation, participation, and study in selected criminal justice agencies. Economics - EC EC 332 Monetary Policy Analysis for Fed Challenge
School of Criminal Justice Dis-tinguished Alumni Award from the University at Albany, State University of New York. The School of Criminal Justice has a well-regarded doctoral program in Criminal Justice. Professor Zalman is a graduate of this pro-gram. Each year, the School of Criminal Justice at the Univer-sity at Albany selects two alumni
Animal Food Fun & MORE. Instructions Equipment: Paper plate Thin card (not paper as it is too thin) Yellow and brown paint (or felt pen). Yellow bendy straws (you can colour paper ones) Sellotape Glue Elastic What to do: 1) Draw this shape on the back of your paper plate and cut it out carefully. (save this to make the ears). 2) Paint the front of both pieces of the .
