Rural Areas Inherit
Big City Drug Problems

By Zanetta Doyle, Digest Editor and Kelly Novak, Research Manager, NADO Research Foundation

The illegal drug market in the United States is one of the most profitable in the world, according to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Every year, according to the US Customs Service, 60 million people enter the United States on more than 675,000 commercial and private flights. Another six million come by sea and 370 million by land. In addition, 116 million vehicles cross the land borders with Canada and Mexico. More than 90,000 merchant and passenger ships dock at US ports. These ships carry more than nine million shipping containers and 400 million tons of cargo. Another 157,000 smaller vessels visit US coastal towns. Amid this voluminous trade, drug traffickers conceal cocaine, heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine and other drug shipments for distribution in US neighborhoods.

Despite recent reports of decreased drug use in metropolitan areas in the United States, drugs remain one of the main factors leading to the total number of all homicides. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports, states the number of homicides that occurred in 1994 during a narcotic drug law violation (such as drug trafficking or possession) or because of brawls influenced by narcotics totaled 1,450. In 1998 this number fell to 795. Despite this decrease, narcotics- related murders still rank as the fourth most documented murder circumstance out of 24 possible categories. In addition, drugs and drug-related crimes have increased in rural areas, particularly among youth.

A recent article in the New York Times reported that from 1990 to 1999, the percentage of drug-related homicides tripled in rural areas but fell by almost half in big cities. (As Drug Use Drops in Big Cities, Small Towns Confront Upsurge, February 2002). An ongoing survey by the University of Michigan revealed that crack cocaine is more widely used among students in grades eight, 10 and 12 in rural areas than among their urban counterparts.

According to 1999 statistics from the Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI), rural eighth graders were:

32 percent more likely to have used marijuana in the past month than those in large metro areas.

52 percent more likely to have used cocaine in the past year than those in large metro areas.

75 percent more likely to have used crack cocaine in the past year than those in large metro areas.

104 percent more likely to have used amphetamines, including methamphetamines, in the past month than those in large metro areas.

20 percent more likely to have used alcohol in the past month than those in large metro areas.

The Appalachian Focus Civil News (Drug Abuse Swamps Rural Areas, February, 2001), reported that the number of prescriptions dispensed in Kentucky for the painkiller OxyContin, doubled from 1999 to 2000. Local police believe this increase is partly attributed to OxyContin abusers who look for physicians willing to write prescriptions. The abusers then fill multiple prescriptions and either use the drug themselves, or sell it to others. It is believed that some legitimate users may be selling to users or dealers as well.

The Times article highlighted rural communities such as Maine’s Washington County, which reported that prosecutions in crimes involving OxyContin are 10 times higher than in 1998. And in Dawson County, Nebraska, police discovered 38 methamphetamine laboratories in 1999; in 2001 the number grew to 179. In Jefferson Davis County in Mississippi, Sheriff Henry McCullum admitted that unfortunately, many have benefited economically either directly or indirectly from the increased drug trafficking in rural communities. McCullum commented, “Drug money is helping contractors, building supply stores and grocery stores stay in business.”

The Cause of the Epidemic

Federal officials believe that aggressive prosecution in big cities has driven dealers to rural communities that have fewer law enforcement officers with adequate experience to handle these cases. However, while the growing rural drug problem is evident, federal and local officials have stepped in.

DEA’s Administrator, Asa Hutchinson testified before the US Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control early in 2002 emphasizing increased drug trafficking in rural areas and shared the steps the agency is taking to combat the problem. The DEA’s Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) program was created to assist local law enforcement entities that lack manpower and resources to attack violent drug organizations in their neighborhood. The MET Program currently consists of 22 teams in 20 field divisions. These teams are highly mobile, and are equipped to operate remotely for short periods of time. Since its inception, there have been 351 MET deployments initiated throughout the United States. These MET deployments have resulted in the overall decrease in violent crime such as murder, robbery, and assault.

Realizing the impact that drugs are having not only on rural communities but in all neighborhoods throughout the US, John Walters, Director of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), recently awarded $45.5 million for community anti-drug coalition grants, with $6.8 million in new Drug-Free Communities matching grants to be given to 70 communities in 31 states. Noting that 40 of the 70 new grants are going to rural communities and 34 to economically disadvantaged communities, Walters commented, “The Drug-Free Communities Program will provide critical resources to expand community prevention programs across America, including small towns, rural areas, and Native American communities, all of which have been hit hard in recent years by drug problems that have historically plagued big cities.”

South Dakota Takes Action

It is a combination of vision, planning and partnerships that is making the Weed and Seed Program in Brown County, South Dakota a crime reduction success story, especially in the area of drug related arrests.

South Dakota’s Northeast Council of Governments (NECOG), an EDA funded district, and community partners have been operating the U.S. Department of Justice’s Weed and Seed Project in Brown County for the past two years. The program goal is to “weed out” criminals involved in violent crime and drug abuse and “seed in” human services directed at crime prevention, intervention, treatment and neighborhood revitalization.

The Brown County South Dakota Weed and Seed Program, has provided funding to the Brown County Sheriff’s Office for the purchase of in-car mounted police surveillance cameras. Left to Right: Chief Deputy Tom Schmitt and Sheriff Mark Milbrandt

Brown County project activities have included maintaining four Safe Haven facilities, promoting home maintenance and community cleanup services, increasing law enforcement surveillance, enhancing crime mapping and allocating funding to Brown County’s Salvation Army youth programs.

The Brown County Sheriff’s Office received approximately $10,000 in Weed and Seed funds to invest in the acquisition of in-car mounted cameras to record law enforcement patrol activities. According to NECOG’s Executive Director, Faye Kann, “The cameras provide evidence that often preempts court proceedings, saving the county the expenses of court trials and avoiding any delays in human services for the defendants.” Many drug related arrests have not incurred the trial costs as a result.

Program longevity is being ensured by targeting investment into initiatives that involve local partnerships, such as computer equipment acquisitions for the Aberdeen Boys and Girls Club's youth-at-risk programs. The Brown County program recently received its second grant of funding ($275,000) from the U.S. Department of Justice and will continue to receive supplemental funding for the next three years.

Brown County Weed and Seed Project receives a NADO 2002 Innovation Award. Left to Right: Dustan Gill of NECOG Weed and Seed program, Kelly Novak of NADO Research Foundation, Deb Knecht Brown County Commissioner and NECOG Board Chair and Tom Fishbach Brown County Commission Chairman.

Although the overall cost savings from Brown County’s program investments has not yet been calculated, substantial savings are projected. Other veteran programs across the nation are reporting significant savings, such as Wicomico County in southern Maryland that reported savings to be more than $400,000 per year in tax dollars.

For more information contact: Faye Kann at the Northeast Council of Governments, South Dakota 605/626-2595; email faye.necog@midconetwork.com; or visit web http://abe.midco.net/necog/Aboutus1.html; US Department of Justice Weed and Seed Program 202/616-1152 or 202/307-0703 or visit web www.ojp.usdoj.gov/eows/. Visit www.usdoj.gov/dea or www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov.

October 2002 Index | Next Page | Previous Page