Enforcement personnel selected to attend 10-week Advanced Training School at the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

July, 1971

Regional Narcotics Strike Force Plan finalized and adopted by area Chiefs and Sheriffs.

Regional Equipment Pool training week held. Equipment delivered for use by area enforcement agencies.

Virginia Association of Drug Abuse Enforcement Officers (VADAEO) proposed and grant application developed. Conference planned for state-wide participation to discuss intelligence, equipment, grants, and cooperation.

RRPDC/Methadone action grant program developed by CODAC and endorsed, seeking $167,385. (Later awarded in part.)

August, 1971

CODAC awarded $18,576 to conduct state-wide VADAEO Conference for 250 Enforcement Officers.

CODAC authorized to use $1,000 for computer compilation of Regional Drug Attitude and Abuse Pattern Survey. Actual cost is $8,000 but The Computer Company will conduct the project at less than cost.

CODAC awarded $31,801 to maintain and expand the Methadone Therapy Program for six months.

CODAC endorsed an Action Grant Program from the City of Richmond Schools for $23,910 to employ a Drug Education Coordinator.

CODAC endorsed an Action Grant Program from the Chesterfield County Schools for $19,232 to provide a Drug Education Coordinator.

CODAC endorsed an Action Grant Program for submission by the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission for $7,780 to conduct three day awareness training sessions for all enforcement officers in the Counties of Charles City, Chesterfield, Hanover, Henrico, Goochland, New Kent, and Powhatan.

CODAC endorsed an Action Grant Program for submission by the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission for $128,672 to maintain and expand the MCV Adolescent Clinic including a 10-bed detoxification ward.

All federal and state agencies who have worked with CODAC have made particular note of the high level of coordination and cooperativeness exhibited in the Richmond Region. We have been able to overcome the greatest problems of other cities and regions: lack of coordination and the abundance of duplicated effort.

We have been working hard in these initial months. Many more new programs must be developed. The recently approved staff expansion will enable CODAC to make a more decisive impact in the next fiscal year.

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Mathews, for your statement, and the suggestions you make.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There are many areas in your statement that interest me. However, I will direct my questions to the final part of your statement, because I think this deals with one of the things we are here to investigate. What is the relationship between CODAC and the Governor's Council on Narcotics and drug abuse?

Mr. MATTHEWs. The Governor's council has attempted to promulgate what is called regional drug task forces into the State's 22 planning district areas, enabling the drug task forces to utilize the authority of the planning district commissions. Our relationship is that we are one of currently four operating in the State.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. The Governor's Council on Narcotics and Drug Abuse is, I understand, made up of some of the people who had been involved in drug programs in the State of Virginia, before this council came into being?

66-841-72-pt. 3- -26

Mr. MATTHEWS. If you assume that the drug programs prior to that council were run out of State departments, then, yes, because the Governor's council is composed of State departments.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. Is it correct that these members of the council have relinquished some of their separate autonomy, but that the council itself maintains basic direction over drug abuse efforts in the State? Mr. MATTHEWS. Well, the Governor's council maintains more of a coordinative role than that which would be considered the active role of the regional task forces.

They may be considered informally as the State clearinghouse, although they are not so mandated to review and comment on applications.

I feel, perhaps, they should be. They do not direct the activities of the regional drug councils.

We are autonomous in that we are part of a planning district commission which is by statute, considered a unit of local government. Mr. SATTERFIELD. You are nevertheless bound by the basic outlines contained in the plan?

Mr. MATTHEWs. Our review and process must of course have a criteria.

The criteria is the local comprehensive plan as assembled, or the consensus of the council, where the plan does not cover certain new innovative projects.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. When you talk about the council, what council are you referring to?

Mr. MATTHEWS. The local regional council. The Governor's council has also developed a plan, but they really have no criteria for review and comment.

Theirs is more of a coordinative action via persuasion.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. The legislation we are considering in Congress, it is to establish one special officer in the White House, headed by one person, referred to by some people as a czar over all Federal drug programs. I am wondering if you have an opinion, in the light of the operations in which you have been involved in Virginia, whether this is the best way to proceed or whether there should be some council at the Federal level to operate, perhaps as you do in your district, or as the Governor's council does for the State of Virginia?

Mr. MATTHEWS. Well, some of my basic experience has been with utilization of omnibus crime control funds. In fact, all told, we may have used almost two and a half million dollars worth of that. We ran into some real problems in Washington when they had a three-man administration at LEAA.

I am sure you are aware of these problems.

I would also think that there is a considerable amount of perhaps unnecessary redtape involved in council activities, mine included.

So I would be in favor of consolidation of Federal programs, and I would see it as being most easily implemented by the so-called czar, and, again, I would like to extend that logic, to the local level.

If you have, as you now do, a multitude of programs coming out of the Federal funding sources, with different applications, different criteria, and clearly different agendas, funds can come into a State or a region, and have programs established that duplicate, overlap, or work at cross purposes. So if consolidation and coordination is

logical on the Federal end, it is clearly logical on the State and local level.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I think the question of coordination is something we all recognize as being necessary. But my question goes to whether it is really logical to take all of these Federal programs and put them under the control of one individual, leaving those persons now involved, no longer involved. Would it be better to form some sort of council, bring all of the programs together for coordination and continue to have these people involved in the Federal level, to make joint decisions, joint plans as members of an advisory council.

Mr. MATTHEWs. My recommendation in that regard, is that there not only be the chief administrators sitting on such a Federal council, but that such a council also have certain technical advisory groupsand this is again following the admission's and the CDAC model of middle management and field personnel-who can bring to the council's attention some of the problems of coordination. The consolidation again I think is necessary, because the drug programs that seem to work always extend beyond what is clearly fundable by a certain Federal program category.

For example, Rubicon is not only involved in therapy, but also community education, and a lot of other things, which go far beyond its OEO funds. It is this type of activity they must engage in to have a strong program. That model could be transposed to the Federal level, that would be fine, to do some elimination of these 11 sources, by combining them, and using portions of several Federal sources as one major grant to fund a total program.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. My question is this: In establishing the kind of administration I've referred to, should we ignore these people already involved in Federal programs, or should we feed them into our legislation, in a capacity which will allow us to utilize their experience at the executive end?

Mr. MATTHEWs. For rapidity of action, a czar would clearly be faster in providing program delivery; however, he is going to have to operate with several bureaus, which I imagine would then comprise sort of a de facto council under him, as opposed to a de facto council over him. It all boils down to the same thing.

Mr. SATTERFIELD. I think we all are interested in an effective program. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Kyros.

Mr. KYROS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Your testimony seems to suggest, especially in listening to Mr. Menken earlier, it seems to say that no one approach, but many are needed, but your testimony is that there are many programs going on right here in Virginia, and you are worried about their coordination. In fact, you are worried so much about it, you are saying programs should have a statewide clearinghouse review before it should be considered funding by the Federal Government.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Right.

M. KYROS. So on the one hand, he seems to suggest a multidiscipline approach?

Mr. MATTHEWS. Which I agree with.

Mr. KYROS. And then, of course, that usually means many organizations, once they are set out, usually set out their own program, whereas your approach is much more coordinated?

Mr. MATTHEWS. We have several different programs being carried on by several different implementers; however, all of the implementers sit on CODAC, so they can coordinate with each other's programs. While one may be doing his own "thing" somewhere, he is nevertheless cognizant of what the others are doing. By having the review and comment authority, we would not therefore fund another methadone program, because that would be duplication. By not only having the forum for discussion, but also the reviewing and comment authority, we can clearly limit various programs, have a multimodality approach, and avoid the unnecessary overlap of programs.

Mr. KYROS. Do you have some overlap now in the State?

Mr. MATTHEWS. I think there is overlap in this State. There is some overlap in this region, and if we have not dealt with it on first-year funding, we clearly will deal with it on second-year funding.

Mr. KYROS. Do the drug problems of the District of Columbia spill over into Virginia?

Mr. MATTHEWS. I would say they provide one of the trafficking points that brings heroin down here. I think some of the cutting agents from here may be going there. We have not experienced the methadone overdose problem that they have up there, and I think it is primarily due to the controls Bill Harrison has put in, and also due to the packaging techniques.

Mr. KYROS. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Preyer?

Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Because of the hour, I will not ask you any questions, Mr. Matthews. It does look to me as if you are doing a good job, and I was particularly glad to see some mention made before we adjourned the hearings of law enforcement.

I think we get carried away at these hearings, and think of only the social order, of the sociological and medical side, but law enforcement is certainly a part of the multiapproach that we are talking about, and I am glad to have heard that.

Mr. MATTHEWs. Enforcement is a part of it, and it is clearly a good one-forth of CODAC's overall approach, but we recognize the enforcement impact as limited. The best way to tear out the top of a market is to knock out the bottom floor.

That is, to cut out demand. Education does that. Enforcement clearly can never dry up illicit sources but they do have a role to play. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Symington.

Mr. SYMINGTON. You have stated in your booklet, and in your statement to us, that CODAC serves as the regional clearinghouse for drug abuse information and control programs, and Rubicon, I take it, is a treatment program that uses experience and tries to share it with

others.

Mr. MATTHEWs. Rubicon does so, in seating its representatives on the CODAC board, and some of its staff people who are on the CODAC task force committees. We review and comment on the grants. as they go into the funding source. CODAC is also a forum, it is an informal communication for interaction of their program with others. Mr. SYMINGTON. I am extremely interested in this statement, inasmuch as he is head of Rubicon, that, for example, the Muslims have done more to reform drug abusers than all of the treatment programs

which the United States has put together, which would of course include his own.

To what extent do you in CODAC, of which he is a member, address yourselves to the advisability of approaching a solution to drug problems, through some kind of ethnic activity?

Mr. MATTHEWS. Well, I think that, I would agree with him on that, that any group, though not totally ethnically based, whatever their basis may be, can draw people together and give them a sense of security, harmony, and understanding. That is the kind of group which, if they are not curing drug abuse, will probably be preventing it.

CODAC has taken this approach to rehabilitation. Rubicon is in a sense similar. Drug education eventually develops an approach, that gets away from strict drug information, and gets into the socialization process. That too is an attempt to set up smaller groups with a commonality of interest and purpose not so much ethnically based, but which can bring people together as a model for interaction and understanding.

The learning and the interaction are rehabilitative in themselves. In terms of what the Black Muslims have been able to do, and the reason they have been able to do it, is based on the drawing together of persons. Other programs do this also.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Is there as good a way to draw people together than by race, or ethnic identity?

Mr. MATTHEWS. I think there are several better ways. Race and ethnic identities are only two ways.

There are several other kinds of causes and purposes that draw people together, and many examples of that I am sure are obvious. to you.

Mr. SYMINGTON. So his conclusion is really unwarranted?

Mr. MATTHEWS. No, I do not think so.

Mr. SYMINGTON. We should not emulate that approach?

Mr. MATTHEWS. I think his conclusions are warranted, but his ex amples are severely limited.

Mr. SYMINGTON. Thank you very much.

Mr. ROGERS. Do you in effect have a czar in Virginia? I take it you do not.

Mr. MATTHEWS. There is a gentleman in Virginia that likes to consider himself a czar, but no.

Mr. ROGERS. Your setup does not provide for that as such, because you are a council?

Mr. MATTHEWs. Right. Our council is again a regional one as the Governor's council is statewide, with executive directorship.

Mr. ROGERS. Do you license in this State halfway houses, therapeutic communities?

Mr. MATTHEWs. Yes, the State department of mental hygiene and hospitals is developing now the criteria for such licensing, and I would imagine that it will be put in effect in a year.

Mr. ROGERS. So it is now an established policy, although, they are not now currently licensed?

Mr. MATTHEWs. I think they have the legal power, but they do not have the criteria at this time.