Department of Health and Human Services 
OFFICE OF 
 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  SAMHSA
S 
 
A   G  
DMINISTRATION OF  RANTS
 
 
Daniel R. Levinson  
Inspector General 
 
February 2012 
OEI-07-10-00220   
   
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  SAMHSAS ADMINISTRATION OF GRANTS 
OEI-07-10-00220 
 
 
WHY WE DID THIS STUDY  
 
In 2009, the period of our review, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration (SAMHSA) administered 2,281 discretionary grants, which ranged from 
approximately $17,000 to $7 million for a total of $906.8 million.  This study is part of a 
body of work by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) on grants administration to ensure 
the appropriate stewardship of Federal funds.  OIG has not previously evaluated 
SAMHSAs grants administration. 
 
HOW WE DID THIS STUDY 
 
Using SAMHSA grantee data, we selected a sample of 130 discretionary grants.  We 
reviewed the files for these grants to determine the extent to which SAMHSA maintains 
grant files in accordance with Federal requirements.  We then surveyed SAMHSA staff 
and the grantee project directors to describe SAMHSAs interactions with grantees. 
 
WHAT WE FOUND 
 
SAMHSA maintains grant files in accordance with Federal requirements.  We were able 
to follow the grant paper trail and identify required documents; however, a few grant 
files were missing initial applications, continuation applications, and Financial Status 
Reports.  Most SAMHSA staff and grantee project directors reported positive interactions 
with one another; however, some SAMHSA staff and grantee project directors identified 
obstacles to communication. 
 
WHAT WE CONCLUDE 
 
Given the overall completeness and quality of the grant files and the low incidence of 
identified problems, we are not making formal recommendations to SAMHSA.  Still, we 
encourage SAMHSA to strive to obtain and maintain all required documents.  Also, 
SAMHSA may want to use information from this report to improve interactions between 
SAMHSA staff and the grantee project directors.  SAMHSA concurred with our report as 
written and provided no further comments.  
   
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Objectives ....................................................................................................1 
Background ..................................................................................................1 
Methodology ................................................................................................4 
Findings........................................................................................................8 
Almost all SAMHSA grant files were maintained in  
accordance with Federal requirements .............................................8 
Most SAMHSA staff and grantee project directors reported 
positive interactions; however, some SAMHSA staff and grantee 
project directors identified obstacles to communication ...............10 
Conclusion .................................................................................................13 
Agency Comments and Office of Inspector General Response .................13 
Appendixes ................................................................................................14 
A:  Point Estimates and Confidence Intervals for Selected 
Statistics .........................................................................................14 
B:  Additional Grantee Requirements Found in Notices of  
Grant Awards  .................................................................................15 
C:  Examples of Agency-Grantee Communication Found  
in Sampled Grant Files...................................................................16 
D:  Agency Comments ...................................................................17 
Acknowledgments......................................................................................18 
 
 
   
   
OBJECTIVES 
1.  To determine the extent to which the Substance Abuse and Mental 
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) maintains grant files in 
accordance with Federal requirements, and  
2.  To describe SAMHSAs interactions with grantees. 
BACKGROUND 
SAMHSA was established in 1992 to target substance abuse and mental 
health services to the people most in need of such services.  In calendar 
year 2009, the period of this review, SAMHSA administered 
2,281 discretionary grants, which ranged from approximately $17,000 to 
$7 million for a total of $906.8 million.1  In fiscal year (FY) 2011, 
SAMHSA awarded grants totaling $3.1 billion, including both 
discretionary and block grants.  SAMHSA grants typically last 3 to 
5 years.2 
SAMHSA Grant Administrative Requirements 
SAMHSA conveys administrative requirements governing grants through 
documents such as grant applications, Notices of Grant Awards, 
continuation applications, and Financial Status Reports.3 
Applications.  According to the GPD, an application is a request for 
financial support of a project, program or activity submitted to HHS on 
specified forms and in accordance with instructions provided by the HHS 
awarding office.4  Potential grantees, such as State agencies, tribal 
 
 
1
 We did not include mandatory block grants or mandatory formula grants in this study.  Discretionary grants 
are those for which the Operating Division may exercise judgment (discretion) in determining the recipient 
and the amount of the award.  Block grants, which have minimal Federal administrative requirements or 
restrictions, typically give States substantial discretion over the type of activities that the grants support.  
Formula grants use a formula to determine the amount provided; to obtain a formula grant, a State must provide 
a plan/application indicating how it plans to use this amount.  HHS Grants Policy Statement (GPS), I-3. HHS 
Grants Policy Directive (GPD) 1.02.  
2
 SAMHSA Fiscal Year 2011 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees. 
3
  Three regulations provide uniform administrative requirements for HHS grants:  45 CFR pt. 74 applies to 
institutions of higher education, hospitals, other nonprofit organizations, and commercial organizations; 
45 CFR pt. 92 applies to State, local, and tribal governments; and 45 CFR pt. 96 applies to block grants (which 
our sample did not include).  Additionally, HHS GPDs, the Grants Policy Statement, and the awarding agency 
Grants Administration Manual (AAGAM) establish further requirements for HHS grant programs.  The GPDs 
direct Department staff regarding HHSs policies, standards, and procedures.  The AAGAM implements the 
GPDs.  The GPS also provides grantees with up-to-date policy guidance and information on HHS and its 
discretionary grant process.  The GPS is generally made binding on grantees through the grant terms and 
conditions. 
4
 HHS GPD 1.02.  January 1, 2007. 
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  1 
   
   
organizations, and local organizations, submit grant applications to request 
funding to operate programs that further the mission of SAMHSA. 
Notice of Grant Award.  SAMHSA issues each grantee a Notice of Grant 
Award that describes the terms and conditions of its grant.  SAMHSA uses 
Notices of Grant Award throughout the grant period to inform grantees of 
changes in the grant amounts awarded and/or additional conditions placed 
on the grants, such as a requirement to submit additional reports. 
Continuation Applications.  On an annual basis, SAMHSA grantees must 
submit continuation applications to indicate progress made on their 
projects and to request further grant funds.  Each continuation application 
should compare accomplishments to the grantee goals and milestones 
established for the budget period.  The continuation application should 
also include, if applicable, an explanation of the reasons the grantee did 
not meet the goals and/or milestones.  Federal regulation requires grantees 
to submit continuation applications before the next budget period begins.5  
To improve SAMHSAs workflow, SAMHSA requires grantees to submit 
continuation applications earlier than Federal regulations require.   
Financial Status Reports.  Financial Status Reports document the financial 
status of the award.  Financial Status Reports must be submitted 90 days 
after the annual budget period ends, and a final Financial Status Report 
must be submitted 90 days after the project period ends.6 
SAMHSAs Responsibilities 
To fulfill its role with regard to the stewardship of Federal funds, 
SAMHSA grants management and program staff assess grantee 
performance by reviewing grant file documents, such as continuation 
applications, Financial Status Reports, and related documents.7   
Grant File Documentation.  The GPD requires grant-awarding agencies to 
create and maintain grant files.8  A third-party reviewer should be able to 
follow the paper trail for the grant from the grant application through the 
 
 
5
 HHS GPS, pp. i-17.34, and Supplementary Instructions for the Continuation Application Process, 
HHS-5161-1 (revised August 2007). 
6
 45 CFR  74.52(a) and 92.41(b).  SAMHSA uses the project period system of funding for discretionary 
grants it awards.  Under this system, projects are programmatically approved for support in their entirety, but 
are funded in annual increments called budget periods.  The total project period consists of the initial 
competitive segment and the budget periods for the grant.  In the Federal Financial Report Instructions issued 
by SAMHSA, project periods are also referred to as grant periods.  Accessed at 
http://www.samhsa.gov/dtac/CCPtoolkit/pdf/FFR-425_instructions.pdf on October 31, 2011.  The Federal 
Financial Report (FFR, or Standard Form 425) replaced the Financial Status Report beginning in FY 2011.  The 
due dates remain the same. 
7
 HHS GPD 3.06.   
8
 Ibid. 
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  2 
   
   
grants closeout, including decisions made and actions taken in between.  
An official file must be created for each grant and must contain the 
following documentation, as applicable: 
  signed copies of applications and all documentation related to review 
and approval of the applications, 
  all Notices of Grant Awards, 
  postaward correspondence, 
  site visit reports, 
  records of telephone calls and postaward technical assistance provided, 
  documentation related to enforcement actions,9 
  required continuation applications and Financial Status Reports, 
  evidence of awarding agency review and acceptance of continuation 
applications and Financial Status Reports, and 
  closeout documentation.10 
High-Risk Grantees.  SAMHSA may designate a grantee as high risk if the 
grantee has a history of poor performance, poor business practices, 
financial instability, or inadequate management systems.11  SAMHSA may 
make this designation at the time of the award or after awarding the grant.  
Federal regulations list the special award conditions that may be imposed 
on high-risk grantees, but the regulations do not specify which special 
award conditions must be imposed.12  SAMHSA uses the Notice of Grant 
Award to indicate what, if any, special conditions are placed on the 
grantee.  Grantees must comply with the conditions to resolve their 
high-risk designation.  Some grantees may resolve issues quickly, thus 
ending their high-risk designation, while others may require considerably 
longer periods.   
SAMHSA Interaction With Grantees 
SAMHSA Grants Management Specialists (GMS) and Project Officers 
(PO) are the primary individuals who interact with granteestypically, 
with the grantee project directors.  Interactions can focus on grants 
 
 
9
 SAMHSA may impose enforcement actions on grants awarded to grantees to ensure compliance with Federal 
rules and regulations.  45 CFR  74.62(a) and 92.43(a). 
10
 Official files must also contain a review of any deviations from the approved grant and prior approval 
requests.  GPD 3.06.  A deviation includes any activity disapproved or restricted as a condition of the award.  
We did not include identification of deviations in our grant file review. 
11
 45 CFR  74.14 and 92.12.   
12
 45 CFR  92.12 and 74.14.  
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  3 
   
   
monitoring or providing technical assistance.  HHS grants policy creates a 
responsibility for SAMHSA to provide consultation and technical 
assistance to grantees, although no Federal requirements exist regarding 
frequency or types of interactions.13 
GMSs Interactions.  GMSs ensure that Federal financial and 
programmatic interests are protected by assessing grantees financial 
performance and business management capabilities.  The type of oversight 
activity required varies according to the type of award and whether the 
grantee has been designated as high risk.14  GMSs are responsible for 
reviewing requests for reimbursement, as necessary; maintaining 
documentation of corrective actions, if any, taken by the recipient; and 
monitoring documentation of assistance to the recipient in resolution of 
any identified deficiencies.15  GMSs are responsible for monitoring report 
due dates and following up on delinquent reports.16  GMSs activities 
include working with the POs, other SAMHSA officials, and the grantees 
to develop, as necessary, corrective action plans; monitor improvement; 
and arrange appropriate technical assistance. 
POs Interactions.  POs monitor the conduct and progress of grants.  
POs collaborate with grantees in the planning and implementation of the 
grant and in evaluation activities.  POs interactions with grantees might 
include answering questions about specific policies, advising grantees on 
programmatic issues, providing technical assistance, and requesting 
clarification of any required documents as necessary. 
METHODOLOGY 
Data Collection and Analysis 
Our methodology included two principal elements:  (1) reviews of grant 
files and (2) surveys of the GMSs, POs, and grantee project directors 
responsible for administering sampled grants.  Of the 2,281 discretionary 
grants funded by SAMHSA in 2009, we selected a stratified random 
sample of 130 grants.  We then reviewed the complete grant files for each 
sampled grant to determine the extent to which SAMHSA maintained 
grant files in accordance with Federal requirements.  Additionally, we 
 
 
13
 GPD 3.06, AAGAM 3.06.106.  HHS GPS, p. I-5, January 1, 2007.   
14
 The terms and conditions of the award reflect the type of award and whether the grantee has been designated 
high risk.  SAMHSA Grants:  Standard Terms and Conditions of Award.  Accessed at http://www.samhsa.gov 
on October 18, 2010. 
15
 AAGAM  2.01.101-7C.   
16
 HHS GPD 3.06.  Accessed at http://dhhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/aboutog/ogpoe/gpdhome.html on August 25, 2011. 
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  4 
   
   
surveyed the GMSs, POs, and grantee project directors associated with the 
sampled grants to describe SAMHSAs interactions with grantees. 
Scope 
This evaluation reviewed a sample of SAMHSA discretionary grants 
funded during 2009.  We did not seek to determine the appropriateness of 
SAMHSAs awarding of the grants or the appropriateness of SAMHSAs 
designation of high-risk grantees.  We also did not seek to determine the 
accuracy of the information in required reports or appropriateness of 
grantee expenditures, nor did we seek to independently validate survey 
responses. 
Sample Selection 
We requested from SAMHSA a list of grants that received funding in 
2009.  From this list, we selected a stratified random sample of 130 of the 
2,281 SAMHSA discretionary grants as shown in Table 1.  Stratum 1 
contained 2,157 grants awarded to grantees that SAMHSA never 
designated as high risk, and Stratum 2 contained 124 grants awarded to 
grantees that SAMHSA designated prior to December 31, 2009, as high 
risk.  We selected a stratified random sample of 100 grants from 
Stratum 1 and 30 grants from Stratum 2.  We chose to stratify based on the 
designation of risk status in an effort to determine whether differing 
reporting requirements affected the contents of grant files and levels of 
interaction with SAMHSA.  We found that grant file documentation was 
substantial for both grantee strata, and we were unable to identify specific 
differences between the two strata with regard to the amount and type of 
documented communication in the grant files. 
Table 1:  SAMHSA Grant Population and Sample Size for 2009 
Population 
Strata Definition  Sample Size 
Size 
1. Grants to Grantees Not Designated as High Risk  2,157  100 
2. Grants to Grantees Designated as High Risk  124  30 
     Total  2,281  130 
Source:  SAMHSA grant information, 2011.   
 
We projected the results of our grant file reviews to the universe of 
2,281 grants awarded in 2009.   
Grant File Reviews 
We reviewed the official grant files for all of the 130 grants in our sample 
to determine whether SAMHSA maintained them in accordance with 
Federal requirements.  Specifically, we sought to determine the extent to 
which the grant files enabled a third party to follow the paper trail for 
SAMHSA grants.  We reviewed these files to determine whether 
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  5 
   
   
SAMHSA ensured that grantees submitted required documents and 
whether grantees complied with any special award requirements.  We also 
reviewed grant files for evidence that SAMHSA reviewed and approved 
submitted documents and for evidence of interactions between SAMHSA 
and grantees.  For each grant file we reviewed, we completed a review 
form in which we indicated which documents we found in the file. 
To determine the level and type of interactions between SAMHSA and 
grantees as documented in the grant files, we reviewed letters, emails, 
telephone logs, and notes that SAMHSA staff made regarding the grants. 
Required Reports.  We reviewed the grant files to determine whether 
required Notices of Grant Award were included.  When these notices were 
present, we reviewed them for the amount or change in the amount of the 
grant awards and any additional conditions imposed upon grantees.  
We also reviewed the grant files to determine whether required 
continuation applications: 
  were in the grant files and had been submitted timely; 
  compared accomplishments with grantee goals and milestones 
established for the budget period; and 
  explained why grantee goals and milestones were not met, if 
applicable. 
Finally, we determined whether required Financial Status Reports were in 
the grant files and had been received within 90 days after the close of the 
budget period.  For continuation applications and Financial Status Reports, 
we reviewed correspondence in the grant files to determine whether 
SAMHSA staff followed up with grantees on late reports. 
To determine the extent to which SAMHSA actively monitored grants, we 
reviewed the grant files for evidence that SAMHSA reviewed required 
reports.  We considered evidence of review to be signatures on required 
reports, emails regarding reports in the grant files, and/or records of 
telephone calls with grantees related to required reports. 
Because none of the sampled grantees had closed out their grants, we did 
not review the grant files for closeout documentation. 
GMS and PO Surveys 
We surveyed the 18 GMSs and 75 POs assigned to the 130 sampled 
grants.  We received responses from all 18 GMSs and, with the assistance 
of SAMHSA officials and after repeated attempts, 66 POs assigned to 
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  6 
   
   
97 grants.17  We asked GMSs and POs questions about their experiences 
collecting grant file documents and about their interactions with grantees.  
We asked specifically about grantees responsiveness, timeliness, and the 
completeness of their responses.  We asked GMSs and POs whether any 
additional or different interactions would be helpful.  We also asked GMSs 
and POs about their experiences monitoring and interacting with high-risk 
grantees.  We received from SAMHSA the names and contact information 
for the GMS and PO assigned to each of the grants in 2009.  However, 
because SAMHSA regularly reassigns staff to different grants, sometimes 
more than one GMS and/or PO was assigned to the same grant.  For this 
reason, we did not project the result of our surveys to SAMHSA staff. 
Grantee Surveys 
For each of 130 of the sampled grants, we asked SAMHSA to identify the 
corresponding project director and provide his or her contact information 
during the grant project period.18  We then asked 127 of those grantee 
project directors to complete an online survey.  We asked questions about 
their interactions with GMSs and POs, and asked whether any additional 
or different interactions would have been helpful.  We also asked project 
directors about their experiences submitting required documents.  For 
grantees designated as high risk, we asked the project directors about their 
efforts to comply with the additional award conditions placed on their 
grants and their interactions with SAMHSA concerning their high-risk 
designations.  We received responses from 121 of the 127 project 
directors. 
Using similar survey questions, we compared the responses from 
SAMHSA staff with those from grantee project directors to verify the 
frequency and types of their interactions with one another.  To further 
describe the frequency and types of interactions, we compared letters, 
emails, and notes from telephone calls in the grant files to the survey 
responses from SAMHSA staff and grantee project directors. 
Standards 
This study was conducted in accordance with the Quality Standards for 
Inspection and Evaluation issued by the Council of the Inspectors General 
on Integrity and Efficiency. 
 
 
17
 SAMHSA staff indicated that the nonresponding POs were out of the office during our survey period 
because of medical issues, work-related issues (such as site visits), or retirement. 
18
 We did not email electronic surveys to 3 of the project directors of the 130 grants in our sample.  In one of 
these instances, we were unable to contact the one project director because of an ongoing OIG investigation, but 
we reviewed the official grant file and surveyed the assigned GMS and PO.  In another case, we attempted to 
contact the identified project director, but the grant period had ended in September 2010 and the grant was no 
longer operational.  In the third instance, we were unable to identify the grantees correct contact information.   
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  7 
   
   
FINDINGS 
Almost all SAMHSA grant files were maintained in 
accordance with Federal requirements  
The GPD requires grant-awarding agencies to create and maintain an 
official file for each grant, containing certain documentation, as 
applicable.19  As third-party reviewers, we were able to follow the grant 
paper trail for all grants.  We easily identified sections of the grant files 
containing grant applications, Notices of Grant Awards, continuation 
applications, Financial Status Reports, and correspondence between 
SAMHSA and grantees.  We also found evidence that clearly 
demonstrated that SAMHSA staff reviewed and approved 
grantee-submitted documents and took action to obtain missing 
documents. 
Grant files contained most, but not all, required documents 
Most grant files contained required documents, but a few were missing 
initial applications, continuation applications, or Financial Status Reports.  
Table 2 summarizes the information we found in the files for the sampled 
grants.  Appendix A presents the point intervals and confidence intervals 
for all population estimates. 
Table 2:  Contents of Grant Files 
Projected 
Required Document  Percentage of 
Grant Files* 
Application  98 
Notice(s) of Grant Award  100 
Continuation application  98 
Financial Status Report  97 
Source: OIG review of sample grant files, 2011. 
* Projection is based on 130 reviewed grant files. 
Applications.  Ninety-eight percent of grant files contained applications.  
Two grant files in our sample that were missing applications had 
originated with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and been transferred to 
SAMHSA.  SAMHSA staff reported that DOJ retained the applications for 
these grants; however, we did not verify this statement.  We noted that 
SAMHSA did not maintain copies of the applications. 
 
 
19 HHS GPD  3.06.  Accessed at http://dhhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/aboutog/ogpoe/gpdhome.html on 
August 25, 2011. 
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  8 
   
   
Notices of Grant Awards.  All of the sampled grant files contained at least 
one Notice of Grant Award for 2009.20  In addition to reviewing grant files 
to see whether they contained Notices of Grant Awards, we reviewed the 
content of the notices.  This latter review indicated that SAMHSA staff 
identified deficiencies in the operation of some grants, imposed corrective 
actions, and followed up on them.  Eighty-two percent of grants contained 
Notices of Grant Awards that placed special award conditions (e.g., 
revised budget, financial management review) on the grantees.  Because of 
the large amount of documented communication in the grant files, we 
were unable to determine whether each corrective action was actively 
monitored.  However, we found that 110 grant files contained Notices of 
Grant Awards that placed special award conditions on grantees, which we 
considered to be evidence that SAMHSA was actively monitoring grants.  
For a complete list of the special award conditions that SAMHSA placed 
on grantees, see Appendix B. 
Continuation Applications.  Ninety-eight percent of the grant files 
contained continuation applications.  All continuation applications we 
reviewed compared accomplishments with the programs goals and 
milestones. 
We specifically reviewed grant files for the timeliness of continuation 
applications submitted in 2009.  All of the continuation applications were 
timely based on the Federal regulation. 
Financial Status Reports.  Approximately 4 percent of grant files were 
missing Financial Status Reports.  We were unable to determine why the 
files did not include these reports.  In the grant files that contained 
Financial Status Reports, 70 percent of the reports had been submitted 
timely.  We were unable to determine whether the remaining 30 percent 
had been submitted timely because some grants had multiple reports 
submitted in the same time period and we were unable to identify the 
original submitted report.   
Postaward Correspondence.  SAMHSAs grant files include a separate 
section for postaward correspondence.  We reviewed files for postaward 
correspondence, such as letters, documentation of email exchanges 
between SAMHSA and grantees, and notes related to telephone calls.  
Postaward correspondence included communication between SAMHSA 
and grantees regarding topics such as budgets, late reports, changes in 
 
 
20
 Notices of Grant Awards can be revised because of changes in the grant amount, imposition of additional 
requirements on a grantee, or designation of a grantee being designated as high risk.  Consequently, we 
expected to find multiple notices in some grant files. 
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  9 
   
   
grantee personnel, upcoming closeouts of grants, and site visits.  For a list 
of the types of postaward correspondence we found, see Appendix C. 
Most SAMHSA staff and grantee project directors 
reported positive interactions; however, some 
SAMHSA staff and grantee project directors identified 
obstacles to communication 
SAMHSA and grantee project directors reported positive interactions; 
however, both groups reported opportunities for improvement.  Obstacles 
such as lack of staff availability, technical assistance, and quality of 
response were some of the specific areas identified as needing 
improvement. 
SAMHSA staff and grantee project directors reported positive 
interactions and helpful technical assistance 
Interactions.  SAMHSA staff and grantee project directors reported 
positive interactions with one another.  GMSs and POs reported that 
grantees responded timely and completely to requests.  Table 3 shows how 
GMSs and POs rated their interactions with grantees. 
Table 3:  GMS/PO Perceptions of Interactions With Grantees 
Statement  Number of GMSs/POs in Agreement 
GMSs (n=18)  POs (n=66) 
 
Grantee is responsive  17  64 
Grantee responses are timely  15  61 
Grantee responses are complete  12  63 
Grantee communicates well  17  61 
Turnover among grantee staff has caused problems  3  5 
Source:  OIG review of sampled grant files, 2011. 
Most grantee project directors reported that their GMSs and POs 
responded timely and completely to requests.  Table 4 shows how grantee 
project directors rated their interactions with GMSs and POs. 
Table 4:  Grantee Project Directors Perceptions of Interactions 
With GMSs and POs 
Number of Grantee Project 
Statement 
Directors in Agreement (n=120) 
Regarding GMSs  Regarding POs 
 
GMS/PO is responsive  92  110 
GMS/PO responses are timely  81  97 
GMS/PO responses are complete  87  97 
GMS/PO responses occur at appropriate frequency  84  93 
GMS/PO turnover has caused problems  30  17 
Source:  OIG review of sampled grant files, 2011. 
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  10 
   
   
Technical Assistance.  Of the grantee project directors responding to our 
survey, 96 percent reported that the technical assistance they received 
from SAMHSA staff was helpful.  The most common issues for which 
project directors reported requesting technical assistance were what the 
required documents should contain, what the reporting requirements were, 
and when prior approval was needed. 
SAMHSA staff and grantee project directors reported some 
obstacles 
SAMHSA staff and grantee project directors identified obstacles to 
interaction and suggested improvements in technical assistance to grantees 
and quality of response between SAMHSA staff and grantees. 
Three of eighteen GMSs reported experiencing obstacles to interactions 
with granteesspecifically, lack of grantee skill and technology 
limitations.  Of the 66 POs responding to our survey, 9 reported 
experiencing obstacles to interactions with grantees; the most commonly 
reported obstacle was availability of grantees. 
Eighteen percent of grantee project directors responding to our survey 
reported obstacles to interactions with their GMSs.  The most common 
obstacles reported were late responses, nonresponse, and GMSs lack of 
knowledge.  Other obstacles included GMS turnover, inconsistent 
information, and GMSs workloads.  Fifteen percent of sampled grantee 
project directors who responded to our survey reported obstacles to 
communicating with their POs.  The most commonly reported obstacles 
were availability and workload.   
Technical Assistance.  Thirteen percent of grantee project directors who 
responded to the survey stated that more technical assistance would be 
helpful.  They suggested that receiving more technical assistance shortly 
after issuance of the Notice of Grant Award on basic subjects, such as 
grant administration and required reporting, would have better prepared 
them as grantees. 
Perceived Attitudes of SAMHSA Staff.  Ten of the one hundred twenty 
grantee project directors who responded to our survey reported that they 
perceived their GMSs and/or POs had negative attitudes towards grantees.  
One project director suggested that the [grants management] staff provide 
objective support to the grantees without judgment and conviction.  It 
seems that the [grants management] department is very critical of 
programs and its obvious in the way they speak to the project staff. 
Perceived Quality of Response.  Six of the one hundred twenty grantee 
project directors who responded to our survey reported that they perceived 
their GMSs and/or POs as lacking a commitment to quality.  These project 
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  11 
   
   
directors described SAMHSA staff as performing only to minimum 
requirements.  One project director reported that when asked questions, 
SAMHSA staff provided only short answers.  The project director also 
indicated that SAMHSA could be more open and engaged with grantees to 
help better manage their grants.  
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  12 
   
   
CONCLUSION 
SAMHSA maintains grant files in accordance with Federal requirements, 
and most SAMHSA staff and grantee project directors reported positive 
interactions with one another.  However, a few grant files did not contain 
all required documents, and a few SAMHSA staff and the grantee project 
directors identified concerns with their interactions and/or suggested 
improvements.  Given the overall completeness and quality of the grant 
files and the low incidence of identified problems, we are not making 
formal recommendations to SAMHSA.  Still, we encourage SAMHSA to 
strive to obtain and maintain all required documents.  Also, SAMHSA 
may want to consider information from this report to improve interactions 
between SAMHSA staff and grantee project directors. 
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
RESPONSE 
SAMHSA concurred with our report as written and provided no further 
comments.  We did not make any changes to the report as a result of the 
agency comments.  For the full text of SAMHSAs comments, see 
Appendix D. 
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  13 
   
   
APPENDIX A 
Table A:  Point Estimates and Confidence Intervals for Selected Statistics 
Table A:  Point Estimates and Confidence Intervals for Selected Statistics 
Sample  Point  95-Percent Confidence 
Grant File Document 
Size (n)  Estimate  Interval 
Applications in grant files  130  98.5  94.599.8 
Notice(s) of Grant Awards in grant files  130  100.0  95.4100.0 
Notice(s) of Grant Awards with special award conditions  130  81.8  73.588.0 
Continuation applications in grant files  95  97. 9  92.699.7 
Continuation applications received on time  95  100.0  96.2100.0 
Financial Status Report in grant files   94  96.4  89.798.8 
Financial Status Report missing from grant files  94  3.6  1.210.3 
Financial Status Report received on time (and in grant files)  89  70.5  59.379.6 
Financial Status Report in grant files, but we were unable to determine 
89  29.6  20.340.7 
timeliness 
Grantee project directors reporting helpful technical assistance  107  96.2  89.798.7 
Grantee project directors reporting obstacles to interactions with 
113  17.9  11.526.7 
Grants Management Specialists 
Grantee project directors reporting obstacles to interactions with 
119  14.7  9.023.1 
Project Officers 
Grantee project directors reporting that more technical assistance 
119  12.6  7.420.7 
would be helpful 
Source:  Office of Inspector General review of sampled grant files, 2011. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  14 
   
   
APPENDIX B 
Table B:  Additional Grantee Requirements Found in Notices of Grant 
Awards 
Table B:  Examples of Additional Grantee Requirements Identified in Notices of Grant Awards 
Requirements Imposed on Grantees  Total* 
Revised budgets  32 
Grantee Financial Management Review  27 
Change in personnel   20 
Revised documents  10 
Participant protection procedures  8 
Budget justifications  7 
Required missing reports (i.e., Financial Status Reports, continuation applications) and forms  7 
Indirect Cost Rate Agreement  6 
Required technical assistance  5 
Government Performance Results Act compliance procedures  5 
Prior approval of purchases  4 
Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments certification  4 
Response to other concerns  4 
Signed tribal resolutions  3 
Clarifying information  3 
Limitation on grantee activities or expenditures  2 
* Notices of Grant Awards often included multiple additional requirements; therefore, these will not add to the 110 Notices of Grant Awards 
found in the grant files.  Because we were unable to identify all additional requirements, we are not projecting the results of this analysis. 
Source:  Office of Inspector General review of sampled grant files, 2011. 
 
 
 
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  15 
   
   
APPENDIX C 
Table C:  Examples of Agency-Grantee Communication Found in Sampled 
Grant Files 
 
Table C:  Examples of Topics of Communication Between Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration Staff and Sampled Grantees 
Subject Matter  Total* 
Budget  40 
Carryover  29 
Late Financial Status Reports/other late reports  24 
Key personnel  22 
Closeout  15 
Indirect Cost Rate Agreements  15 
Continuation applications  15 
Forms/reports  14 
No-cost extensions  12 
Site visit  12 
Allowable cost  12 
Participant protection  6 
Application process  6 
Financial reviews  5 
Excluded Parties List System** checks  5 
Supporting documentation  5 
Special conditions/enforcement actions (corrective action plans)  4 
Cost allocations  3 
Due dates  2 
Memorandums of Understanding between States and counties  2 
Federal match rate/cost sharing  2 
Rent/real estate  2 
Technical assistance  2 
Tribal resolutions  1 
Needs assessments  1 
Interest expense  1 
Programmatic questions  1 
Extensions to file  1 
Office of Inspector General requests for investigations  1 
* Correspondence found in grant files often included multiple topics; therefore, these will not add to 130 sampled grant files.   
** The Excluded Parties List System identifies those parties excluded throughout the U.S. Government from receiving Federal contracts or 
certain subcontracts and from certain types of Federal financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits. 
Source:  Office of Inspector General review of sampled grant files, 2011. 
 
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  16 
  APPENDIX D 
Agency Comments 
~SAMiiSA

~ 
1 Chok. CIIo"Y Road' Rockville, MO 20867 
www.aamhsa.~  ' -877-SAMHSA-1 (1 ,871-728-4727) 
JAN  4 2012 
TO:  Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General 
Office of Inspector General (OIG) 
FROM:  Administrator 
SUBJECT:  OlG Drafl Report: SAMHSA 's Administration qfGrants, OEI-07-JO
00220 
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has reviewed the above 
subject document and concurs with the document as written. 
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 
ParK la -S,lJyd~:ro. 
Behavioral Health Is Essential To Health    Prevention Works    Treatment is Effective    People Recover 
OEI-07 -10-00220  SAMHSA's Administration of Grants  17   
   
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 
This report was prepared under the direction of Brian T. Pattison, Regional 
Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections in the Kansas City 
regional office; Deborah K. Walden, Deputy Regional Inspector General; 
and Brian T. Whitley, Deputy Regional Inspector General.   
Michael Barrett served as the project leader for this study.  Other principal 
Office of Evaluation and Inspections staff from the Kansas City regional 
office who contributed to the report include Tricia Fields, Rae Hutchison, 
and Michala Walker; central office staff who contributed include 
Heather Barton and Kevin Farber.  
OEI-07-10-00220   SAMHSAs Administration of Grants  18 
   
Office of Inspector General 
http://oig.hhs.gov 
 
The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as amended, is 
to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) programs, as well as the 
health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs.  This statutory mission is carried out through 
a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and inspections conducted by the following operating 
components: 
Office of Audit Services 
The Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides auditing services for HHS, either by conducting audits with 
its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others.  Audits examine the performance of 
HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying out their respective responsibilities and are 
intended to provide independent assessments of HHS programs and operations.  These assessments help 
reduce waste, abuse, and mismanagement and promote economy and efficiency throughout HHS. 
Office of Evaluation and Inspections 
The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts national evaluations to provide HHS, Congress, 
and the public with timely, useful, and reliable information on significant issues.  These evaluations focus 
on preventing fraud, waste, or abuse and promoting economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of 
departmental programs.  To promote impact, OEI reports also present practical recommendations for 
improving program operations.  
Office of Investigations 
The Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations of fraud and 
misconduct related to HHS programs, operations, and beneficiaries.  With investigators working in all 
50 States and the District of Columbia, OI utilizes its resources by actively coordinating with the 
Department of Justice and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities.  The investigative 
efforts of OI often lead to criminal convictions, administrative sanctions, and/or civil monetary penalties. 
Office of Counsel to the Inspector General 
The Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides general legal services to OIG, rendering 
advice and opinions on HHS programs and operations and providing all legal support for OIGs internal 
operations.  OCIG represents OIG in all civil and administrative fraud and abuse cases involving HHS 
programs, including False Claims Act, program exclusion, and civil monetary penalty cases.  In 
connection with these cases, OCIG also negotiates and monitors corporate integrity agreements.  OCIG 
renders advisory opinions, issues compliance program guidance, publishes fraud alerts, and provides other 
guidance to the health care industry concerning the anti-kickback statute and other OIG enforcement 
authorities.