|
|
| US is Said to Overstate Spending on Drug Care |
|
Posted by FoM on January 24, 2001 at 11:12:42 PT By John Donnelly, Globe Staff Source: Boston Globe 
Promising to further stoke the debate over America's controversial war against drugs, a Rand Corporation study has found that three federal agencies overstated their spending on drug treatment by $1 billion, and that the reported costs of some law enforcement efforts are no more than ''educated guesses.''''I tracked down one budget guy for the Border Patrol and asked how they figured out the drug budget and he told me, `We made it up,''' said Patrick J. Murphy, one of the study's authors and an assistant professor of politics at the University of San Francisco. ''He said 10 percent of their budget seemed too low, 20 percent too high, so they settled on 15 percent.'' The report, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, was requested by Barry R. McCaffrey, who stepped down last month as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. It examined 10 agencies that report their drug budgets to the drug policy office. There were no allegations of misspending in the report, but the survey said ''flawed'' reporting techniques made it impossible to know how much money was actually spent on the battle against illicit drug use. Critics of US drug policy have long argued that it gives short shrift to treatment programs designed to help addicts overcome their cravings. McCaffrey, who did not return telephone calls seeking comment, insisted on completing the potentially embarrassing report because he wanted a better accounting of the drug war, the authors said. They noted that he had long been bothered by seemingly soft figures in agencies' budgets, even though he continued to cite the inflated treatment numbers in his defense of drug-control policy. The drug policy office said in a statement that it ''asked for the Rand reports because we want the most reliable data'' and that it has ''used the Rand findings, and will continue to do so, to improve the way drug budgets are presented to the Congress and the public.'' Rand is a consulting and research firm known for its work on complex subjects. The statement said that the FBI drug methodology has been corrected and that the Veterans Affairs and Education departments changed their data collection so as to ''substantially address Rand's findings.'' It gave no specifics. The most politically sensitive aspect of the Rand study, which for more than a year examined the 1998 federal drug budget of $16 billion, may be the amount spent on drug treatment. In 1998, McCaffrey's office said US agencies spent $2.8 billion on drug treatment. Rand said the actual number was closer to $1.8 billion, or 36 percent less than reported. That finding upset several members of Congress. ''If a guy wants to surrender himself for drug treatment in this country, there are not enough places to go,'' said Representative J. Joseph Moakley, a Democrat from Boston. ''I think it's terrible if they are inflating figures that show there's more drug treatment than there actually is.'' Added Representative John F. Tierney, a Democrat from Salem: ''Before we ask for more drug-control money, we ought to be sure where it's going.'' The largest discrepancy originated from Veterans Affairs, which reported spending $363 million on specialized care for drug addicts and $710 million on related treatment for those with substance abuse problems, according to Rand. Veterans Affairs spokesman Jo Schuda said the department could not comment on the report because it had not seen a copy. She said the department reported spending $407 million on specialized care for drug addicts in 1998, and $1.1 billion overall for medical care of addicts, slightly higher numbers than Rand's. Murphy, one of the study's authors, said the department included in its accounting, for example, ''heroin addicts who were seeking treatment for a broken arm, not drug treatment.'' ''If people are serious about spending money on drug treatment, they are going to have to look at the level of services they have been providing, and it's much less than they had thought,'' Murphy said. The report praised the Coast Guard, Bureau of Prisons, and Defense Department for the accuracy of their accounting. But it said the methodologies used for the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Customs ''are based largely on educated guesses.'' The collection of data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which administers about $2 billion in block grants to states for drug prevention, ''is a collection of arbitrary assumptions and rules,'' the report said. And the 1998 figures from the Health Care Financing Administration are based on patient diagnoses and costs, ''but the patient data are taken from a 1983 study,'' the report said. The Rand report recommends that the drug control office ''define explicitly what constitutes an antidrug activity'' and that budgets should be based on ''empirical data, something more than guesses or expert judgments.'' Lynn E. Davis, a senior fellow at Rand and another of the report's five authors, said that without better figures, the drug office is unable to ''measure performance against its goals.'' She also said the lessons in the report could be applied to other federal offices that compile figures from several agencies ''to give Congress and the American people a sense whether the right priorities of money are being allocated, or whether there are gaps.'' Herbert Kleber, medical director of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse in New York and deputy head of demand reduction in the drug policy office from 1989 to 1991, said the Veterans Affairs Department has ''gotten a free ride'' for some time on categorizing non-drug-related medical care as drug treatment. He called the level of funding for treatment a ''bipartisan failure. ... It doesn't seem to matter whether you have Democrats or Republicans, drug treatment doesn't get a lot of play. No one ever lost an election being soft on drug treatment.'' Many Democrats are expected to ask for a major jump in drug treatment funding. One of them is Representative Nancy Pelosi of California. ''We are going to have much stronger oversight to make sure that money is being spent in a cost-effective way to face the demand,'' Pelosi said. Note: Report cites $1b in discrepancies. John Donnelly can be reached by email at: jdonnelly@globe.com Source: Boston Globe (MA) CannabisNews Justice Archives Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #6 posted by dddd on January 25, 2001 at 03:17:31 PT |
| No big deal here...This is the small time stuff. For those of you who enjoy the experience of being absolutly shocked and appalled,,,,for those whose blood pressure is stable enough,,for those who are hardened and seasoned to being astonished,and outraged by absurd facts,and documents,,,, there is a real treat in store for you! It may take a bit of time to read through,but I think its worth it.You will be horrified to see how accountable anyone is about where all the money goes
[ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #5 posted by mungojelly on January 24, 2001 at 22:05:59 PT:
|
| McCaffrey didn't return their phone calls -- but why were they calling him, anyway? He's not the Drug Czar anymore, right? Doesn't that mean that we can finally stop hearing his lies every time someone publishes a story about drugs? At worst we should be hearing from some new liar. As far as their manipulated/fabricated numbers for how much they're spending on drug treatment -- well, duh. But whichever numbers you use, it's clear that McCaffrey's idea of making treatment and education a "priority" obviously hasn't meant that it's the sort of "priority" that you actually spend more time, money or effort on. It's the sort of "priority" that you give lip-service to while actually spending money on arresting marijuana users -- or even more inanely on pulling up ditchweed and threatening manufacturers of products containing hempseed. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by greenfox on January 24, 2001 at 14:42:10 PT |
| Come on folks, there's no need to act shocked. The narcs have been lying for ages, and just because one gets out doesn't mean that it hasn't been happening all along. I've spoken with several close friends who have been testified against falsely by various narcs. The procedure is so common amongst law enforcement, it's known, (in the close circles,) as "testilying". Of course, publicly stating your rage/anger/frustration does but one thing: it makes *you* the target. My best advice to those who know (and esp. those who GROW) is keep your activism to a low. There is a time and a place. Letters are good. Calls are good. However, as soon as you attach your humble name to the complaint, you become targeted. I've seen this time and time again. Be careful, folks- it's a jungle out there. green in fox, sly in Kind [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #3 posted by zenarch on January 24, 2001 at 13:55:24 PT |
| This kind of garbage is typical of much government work. The sort of waste Republicans railed against in the 70's! McCaffery is hiding out because he knows he can no longer sell that "treatment" strategy crap he paid so much lip service to. Taxpayers are becoming more p$@# off every day about the $$$$ wasted in the Failed War on Drugs. Politicians have no choice but to respond to that. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on January 24, 2001 at 13:07:30 PT:
|
| This scenario of lies and subterfuge by our misguided government happens so frequently that the public is inured to it. Fortunately, a few of us retain a sense of outrage. This story should be forwarded to every daily newspaper accompanied by a plea to run it. The prohibitionists should be confronted with their complicity at every turn, with insistence on redress. Right now, our drug policy has no treatment, only punishment and corruption. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by Morgan on January 24, 2001 at 11:43:40 PT |
| Do you mean that the antis LIED? Surprise, surprise... *********************************************************** [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |