DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
W;\ SH I!\'CTOi\, UC 	20201 
JON~ 6 2015 
TO: 	 Pamela S. Hyde 
Administrator 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
FROM:  Suzanne Mm-rin 
Deputy Inspect<H" General 
for ENaiuation and Inspections 
SUBJECT: 	 "tvlemorandum Report:  SAMHSA Has Improved Outcome Reportingfor 
th e Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant, 
OEI-04-12-00160 
This memorandum report provides information about the reporting ofnational outcome 
measures (NOMs) for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration ' s 
(SAMHSA) largest grant program , the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block 
Grant (SABG).  SAMHSA's effmis to improve outcome measurement for the SABG 
program achieved nearly complete repmiing compliance by the grantees in our review. 
SAMHSA's use of existing data sources to populate data fields for grantees, as well as its 
oversight of and technical assistance to grantees on outcome measurement, may have 
contributed to this success. 
To more efficiently evaluate the SABG program's performance, SAMHSA has proposed 
substantial changes to the SABG application for fiscal years (FY s) 2016 and 2017. 
Therefore, we offer no recommendations but are providing this information for 
SAMHSA ' s consideration as it develops and implements its planned changes. 
SUMMARY 
SAMHSA leads public health effmis to improve the quality and availability of prevention 
and treatment services for substance abuse and mental illness.  One such effort is the 
SABG program, which provides over $1.7 billion each FY to States, tenitories, and tribes 
(hereinafter referred to collectively as "grantees") to prevent and treat substance abuse. 1 
We collected information and documentation from SAMHSA and from the SABG 
applications for FYs 2011 and 2012 from 10 purposively selected grantees.  We found 
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Budge ts in Brieffrom FY 2002 to FY 2015 . 
Accessed at http ://www .hh s. gov/budget/ on December 3, 2014.  Page 2  Pamela S. Hyde 
 
that SAMHSA had developed outcome measures to assess the performance of its 
programs, including the SABG program.  Of the 10 selected grantees, all but 1 had data 
in their applications regarding all measures related to treatment and prevention.  The 
remaining grantee did not have data for one of the seven treatment measures; it stated that 
it was developing a new system to adequately collect data for that measure.  However, 
that grantee did have data for all prevention measures.  Further, SAMHSA conducted 
onsite reviews and provided technical assistance to grantees, in part to improve the 
reporting of outcomes.   
 
SAMHSA has proposed substantial changes to its application for FYs 20162017 to more 
efficiently evaluate the SABG programs performance.  Therefore, we offer no 
recommendations but are providing this information for SAMHSAs consideration as it 
develops and implements these changes.  We encourage SAMHSA to continue working 
with grantees to improve their capabilities for reporting and collecting datain 
particular, those capabilities related to outcome measurement. 
 
BACKGROUND 
 
SAMHSA is required to collect performance data and analyze the effectiveness of its 
programs.2  In recent years, SAMHSA reports that it has made significant strides in 
improving performance and outcome measurement for its block grant programs, 
including the SABG program.  In particular, according to SAMHSA, it has streamlined 
performance reporting and management, validated data quality, linked different data 
sources, and promoted evidence-based decisionmaking.3   Additionally, SAMHSA  
continues to be committed to improving the data collection of performance and outcome 
measures, and it has made efforts to streamline and reduce reporting burden while 
enhancing the access and use of available data without overburdening grantees or 
SAMHSAs infrastructure.4  
 
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant  
The SABG was established in 1992 to provide funding to grantees for planning, carrying 
out, and evaluating activities to prevent and treat substance abuse.5  Within SAMHSA, 
the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and the Center for Substance Abuse 
Treatment (CSAT) administer the SABG program. 
 
                                                 
2 HHS is required to report on the performance of the entire  Department each year (5 U.S.C.  306), and 
each HHS Operating Division, such as SAMSHA, provides information to that report. See, e.g., FY 2013  
HHS Annual Performance Report and Performance Plan (February 2012).   
3 SAMHSA, Fiscal Year 2016  Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, p. 15.  Accessed 
at http://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/samhsa-fy2016-congressional-justification.pdf on May 12, 
2015. 
4  Ibid., p. 15. 
5 P.L. No. 102-321, Title II,   202  (amending Title XIX, Part B of the Public Health  Service Act (PHSA) to  
add a new Subpart B (42 U.S.C.   300x-21    300x-35)).   Grantees administer the SABG subject to the 
restrictions in Title XIX of the PHSA (42 U.S.C.   300x-21 et seq.) and implementing regulations  found 
at 45 CFR pt. 96.  
SAMHSA Has Improved Outcome Reporting for SABG (OEI-04-12-00160)   Page 3  Pamela S. Hyde 
 
Each grantee must apply annually for SABG funds and can submit applications 
electronically through the Web Block Grant Application System.6  Grantees must have 
the flexibility to distribute SABG funds to subrecipients (e.g., local government entities 
and community- and faith-based organizations).7  Grantees and subrecipients must 
deliver (1) substance abuse prevention activities to individuals and communities impacted 
by substance abuse and (2) substance use disorder treatment and recovery support 
services to impacted individuals and families.8  As part of its application, each grantee is 
also required to submit to SAMHSA an annual report that describes its progress in 
meeting prevention and treatment goals, objectives, and activities.9   
 
SAMHSAs Onsite Reviews of SABG Grantees  
SAMHSA is required to conduct onsite grantee reviews to monitor SABG expenditures 
in at least 10 States, territories, or tribes each FY.10  Within SAMHSA, CSAP and CSAT 
conduct these onsite reviews to ensure that grantees comply with SABG program  
requirements and receive any technical assistance needed to improve the delivery of 
substance abuse services.    
 
If CSAP identifies noncompliance with SABG program requirements during its onsite 
reviews, it requires grantees to take followup action.  For example, if a grantee fails to 
make its SABG plan available to the public for comment or to correctly report 
information to SAMHSA, CSAP requires the grantee to take followup action.11  CSAP 
also suggests potential enhancements to grantees if it identifies any areas for 
improvement.   
 
In its onsite reviews, CSAT assesses grantees compliance with SABG program  
requirements and identifies needs for technical assistance.  If grantees need technical 
assistance related to data, CSAT refers the issue to the Center for Behavioral Health 
Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ), which has primary responsibility for the collection, 
analysis, and dissemination of SAMHSAs behavioral health data.  Regardless of whether 
CSAT identifies any grantee needs for data-related technical assistance, grantees can also 
solicit assistance and support directly from CBHSQ.   
 
   
                                                 
6 SAMHSA, Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant, last updated February 2015.  

Accessed at http://www.samhsa.gov/grants/block-grants/sabg  on May 12, 2015.  

7 Ibid. 

8 Ibid. 

9 Section 1942 of the PHSA  (42 U.S.C.  300x-52) and the implementing regulation at 45 CFR 

 96.122(f)(1)(ii).  In the application, SABG  grantees use information for the fiscal year 3 years prior to the 

fiscal year for which the grantee is applying for SABG funds to  describe progress made in meeting 

prevention and treatment goals, objectives, and activities. 

10 Section 1945(g) of the PHSA (42  U.S.C.  300x-55(g)).  

11 These PHSA requirements are found at sections 1922 (a)(1) (42  U.S.C.   300x-22(a)(1)), 1941 (42 
 
U.S.C.   300x-51) and  1942 (42 U.S.C.  300x-52)). 
SAMHSA Has Improved Outcome Reporting for SABG (OEI-04-12-00160)   Page 4  Pamela S. Hyde 
 
Historical Concerns with SAMHSAs Performance and Outcome Measurement  
In 2004, the Government  Accountability Office (GAO) reported that SAMHSA had not 
identified necessary strategies to achieve and measure its long-term goals.12  In addition, 
in 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)using the Program  Assessment 
Rating Toolhad rated the SABG program as ineffective, giving it a score of 8 percent 
on program results and accountability.13    
 
METHODOLOGY 
 
From the 60 grantees that received SABG funding in FYs 2011 and 2012, we purposively 
selected for each of the 10 HHS regions the grantee that had the highest amount of 
funding in those two years in that region.14, 15  These 10 selected grantees, shown in 
Appendix A, collectively accounted for 50 percent of SABG funding in both FYs 2011 
and 2012. We collected information and documentation from each of the 10 selected 
grantees. In particular, we collected and reviewed their SABG applications for FYs 2011 
and 2012. We determined the completeness of the outcome data that the grantees 
reported in their applications, but we did not verify the accuracy of these data.  
 
Additionally, we collected information and documentation from SAMHSA.  In particular, 
we collected and reviewed documentation related to all onsite reviews that CSAT and 
CSAP conducted in FYs 2011 and 2012.16  We then determined for each grantee whether 
CSAP required followup action and/or suggested potential enhancements that were 
specifically related to outcome measures.17  Additionally, we determined for each grantee 
whether CSAT identified technical assistance needs related to outcome measures.  We 
also determined whether CBHSQ provided technical assistance to grantees in FYs 2011 
and 2012. 
 
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. 
  
   
                                                 
12 GAO,  Substance Abuse and  Mental  Health  Services Administration: Planning for Program Changes and 
 
Future Workforce Needs is Incomplete, GAO-04-683.  Accessed at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-
683 on  May 13, 2015.  

13 OMB, Detailed Information on  the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Assessment, 

2003.  Accessed at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/ 
 
10001066.2003.html on May 20, 2015.  The Program Assessment Rating Tool, which rated Federal 
 
programs on their effectiveness, was instituted in 2002 and  discontinued in 2009. 

14 SABG  grantees consisted of  50 States, 8 territories, 1 tribe, and the District of Columbia. 

15 HHS, HHS Region Map, June 2006 (last reviewed).  Accessed at 

http://www.hhs.gov/about/regionmap.html  on May 13, 2015.   

16 Five of the ten selected SABG  grantees for which we reviewed applications had received an onsite 

review from CSAP and/or CSAT in FYs 2011  or 2012. 

17 For one grantee, CSAP suggested a potential enhancement that was already included in a followup action 

that CSAP  was requiring the grantee to take.  To avoid duplication, we included the required followup
  
action in our analysis and  did not include the potential enhancement. 

SAMHSA Has Improved Outcome Reporting for SABG (OEI-04-12-00160)   Page 5  Pamela S. Hyde 
 
RESULTS 
 
SAMHSA developed outcome measures to assess its programs performance 
In conjunction with States and other stakeholders, SAMHSA developed NOMs to assess 
performance and improve accountability of its programs.  As shown in Table 1, NOMs 
are composed of domains, outcomes, and measures.  The domain for each NOM has an 
expected outcome, as well as treatment and/or prevention measures that are used to 
determine whether the expected outcome was achieved.  In their SABG applications for 
FYs 2011 and 2012, grantees were required to report on eight NOM domains.  
Specifically, they reported data for 7 treatment measures and 13 prevention measures, and 
these data were used to determine whether the expected outcome for each NOM domain  
was achieved.  
 
Table 1: NOMs Domains, Outcomes, and Measures, FYs 2011 and 2012  
Treatment    Prevention  
NOM  Domain   Outcome  
Measures   Measures  
30-day use  
Clients with no alcohol use at 
admission versus discharge 
Perception of risk/harm of use  
Reduced  Abstinence From  
1 
Morbidity   Drug/Alcohol Use 
Age of first use 
Clients with no drug use at 
admission versus discharge 
Perception of disapproval/attitudes 
Increased/Retained  Perception of workplace policy 
Employment/  Employment or   Clients employed or in school at 
2 
Education  Return to/Stay in   admission versus discharge  Average daily school attendance 
School  rate  
Clients without arrests (prior  Alcohol-related traffic fatalities 
Crime and  Decreased Criminal 
3  30 days) at admission versus 
Criminal Justice   Justice Involvement 
discharge  Alcohol- and drug-related arrests  
Clients being in stable housing 
Stability in  Increased Stability in 
4  situation at admission versus  Not applicable* 
Housing  Housing 
discharge 
Increased Social  Clients participating in self-help 
Social  Family communication around 
5  Supports/Social  and/or support groups at 
Connectedness   drug and alcohol use 
Connectedness   admission versus discharge 
Increased Access to 
Number of persons served by age, 
6  Access/Capacity  Services (Service  Not applicable* 
gender, race and ethnicity 
Capacity)  
Number of evidence-based 
programs and strategies 
Increased Retention 
Length of stay from admission 
7  Retention   in Treatment-
to discharge  Percentage of youth seeing, 
Substance Abuse 
reading, watching, or listening to a 
prevention message 
Use of Evidence- Use of Evidence- Number of evidence-based 
8  Not applicable* 
Based Practices  Based Practices  programs and strategies 
*Treatment or prevention measure was under development in FYs 2011 or 2012. 

Note: The Employment/Education domain has three prevention measures; however, one of  these prevention measuresalcohol-, tobacco-,
  
and other drug-related suspensions and expulsionswas under development in FYs 2011 and 2012. 

Source:  OIG review of FY 2011 and 2012 SABG applications for  selected grantees, 2015. 

 
SAMHSA Has Improved Outcome Reporting for SABG (OEI-04-12-00160)   Page 6  Pamela S. Hyde 
 
To reduce grantees data collection and reporting burden, SAMHSA may pre-fill data 
fields associated with certain treatment and prevention measures in applications using 
available data.  For treatment measures, data fields in the Web Block Grant Application 
System are automatically populated using aggregated State data contained in the 
Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS).  TEDS is a national client-level database on 
substance abuse treatment.  It compiles data extracts from States systems using a 
predetermined format and, if necessary, converts State data elements to standard TEDS 
data definitions.18  SAMHSA uses TEDS to measure program performance, as well as to 
conduct comparisons and identify trends related to substance abuse treatment, at the 
national or State level. 
 
For most prevention measures, data fields in the Web Block Grant Application System 
are automatically populated using data from the National Survey on Drug Use and 
Health, the National Center for Education Statistics National Public Education Finance 
Survey, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Fatality Analysis Reporting 
System, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports.19  The National 
Survey on Drug Use and Health is an annual survey of the United States civilian 
noninstitutional population aged 12 and older that provides national and State-level 
estimates on the use of tobacco products, alcohol, and illicit drugs, and on mental 
health.20  For the remaining prevention measures, grantees provide the data in the 
application, which SAMHSA uses to monitor trends in grantee-level prevention 
outcomes and to identify technical assistance needs. 
 
Of the 10 selected SABG grantees, all but one had data in their FY 2011 and 2012 
applications for all required treatment and prevention measures  
Of the 10 selected SABG grantees, 9 had data in their FY 2011 and 2012 applications for 
all treatment and prevention measures.  The remaining selected grantee did not have data 
in its application for one of the seven treatment measures, but it had data for all 
13 prevention measures.  In its FY 2011 and 2012 applications, this grantee stated that it 
was developing a new system to adequately collect the treatment-measure-related data 
that its application was lacking at that time.   
 
SAMHSA conducted onsite reviews and provided technical assistance to SABG 
grantees, in part, to improve outcome reporting  
SAMHSA conducted onsite reviews for a total of 28 grantees in FY 2011 and 15 grantees 
in FY 2012.21  Within SAMHSA, CSAP and CSAT conduct onsite reviews to ensure that 
                                                 
18 SAMHSA, Treatment Episode Data  Set (TEDS) State Instruction Manual with  State TEDS  Submission  
System (STSS) Guide, Version 3.2, May 2014.  Accessed at 
http://wwwdasis.samhsa.gov/dasis2/manuals/teds_manual.pdf  on  May 13, 2015.  
19 SAMHSA, SABG Uniform Application, FYs 2011  and  2012.  See also  SAMHSA, Detailed Key Findings 
from the Independent Evaluation of the SAPT Block Grant  Program, June 2009, p. 8.  
20  Section  505 of  the PHSA (42 U.S.C.  290aa-4); the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, About the 
Survey.  Accessed at https://nsduhweb.rti.org/respweb/project_description.html  on May 14, 2015.  The 
survey is  funded  by SAMHSA and conducted by Research Triangle  Institute.  
21 Three grantees in FY 2011 and four grantees  in FY 2012 received onsite reviews from both CSAP and 
CSAT. 
SAMHSA Has Improved Outcome Reporting for SABG (OEI-04-12-00160)   Page 7  Pamela S. Hyde 
 
grantees comply with SABG program requirements and receive any technical assistance 
needed to improve the delivery of substance abuse services.  
 
CSAP conducted onsite reviews in FYs 2011 and 2012 for 26 grantees.  In FY 2011, 
CSAP required three grantees to take followup actions regarding deficiencies with data 
collection and reporting of prevention NOMs.  During these onsite reviews, CSAP also 
identified potential enhancements to improve the data collection and/or reporting of 
prevention NOMs for 11 grantees, and most grantees indicated that they would pursue 
implementation of these potential enhancements.  
 
In addition, CSAT conducted onsite reviews in FYs 2011 and 2012 for 24 grantees and 
identified technical assistance needs, though none of these needs were related to 
treatment NOMs.  CBHSQ provided ongoing technical assistance to grantees related to 
treatment NOMs during our review period.   
 
CSAP required followup actions and suggested potential enhancements related to 
prevention NOMs. CSAP requires followup action of grantees when its onsite reviews 
identify noncompliance with SABG program requirements, such as failing to correctly 
report information to SAMHSA.  Most of the 26 grantees for which CSAP conducted 
onsite reviews in FYs 2011 and 2012 complied with data collection and reporting 
requirements of prevention NOMs.  However, CSAP required followup action for three 
grantees in FY 2011 related to deficiencies with the collection of data for and the 
reporting of prevention NOMs. It did not require followup action for this reason for any 
grantees in FY 2012. 
  
Of the three grantees for which CSAP required followup actions, one was not collecting 
and reporting data for prevention measures associated with all programs funded through 
the portion of the SABG that is set aside for primary prevention strategies for substance 
abuse.22  In this case, CSAP required the grantee to report in its applications the data for 
all SABG-funded prevention programs for the next compliance year and all subsequent 
years. This grantee did so in its subsequent application.  Another grantee reported on all 
but one prevention measure in its application, and CSAP required it to report on all 
prevention measures.  This grantee did so in its subsequent applications.  The remaining 
grantee did not report data for all prevention measures.  As a result, CSAP required it to 
report these data in subsequent applications.  This grantee is working toward taking this 
action by enhancing its data collection system to ensure that it accurately and completely 
reports on all prevention measures. 
 
CSAP suggests potential enhancements to grantees if it identifies any areas for 
improvement during onsite reviews; grantees implementation of these potential 
enhancements is voluntary.  In FYs 2011 and 2012, CSAP suggested 15 potential 
enhancements to 11 grantees to improve the data collection and/or reporting of 
prevention NOMs. Table 2 categorizes the types of NOM-related potential enhancements 
that CSAP suggested to grantees.    
                                                 
22 Grantees are required to spend no less than  20 percent of SABG  funds on  primary prevention strategies 
for substance abuse.  45 CFR   96.12496.125.  
SAMHSA Has Improved Outcome Reporting for SABG (OEI-04-12-00160)   Page 8  Pamela S. Hyde 
 
Table 2: Categorization of Potential Enhancements Related to Data Collection and/or 
Reporting of Prevention NOMs, FYs 2011 and 2012  
Number of Potential 
Enhancements  
Category  
FY 2011   FY 2012  
Enhancing system that collects data for and reports on 
6  3 
prevention NOMs 
Accurately reporting data for prevention NOMs in 
2  1 
applications  
Increasing subrecipient ability to collect and report data for 
2  0 
prevention NOMs 
Developing quality  assurance process to ensure correct 
1  0 
reporting for prevention NOMs  
     Total  11   4 
Source:  OIG review of CSAP documentation from FY 2011 and 2012 onsite reviews of grantees, 2015. 
 
In FY 2011, CSAP suggested to 8 grantees 11 potential enhancements related to the data 
collection and/or reporting of prevention NOMs.  For five grantees, CSAP suggested one 
potential enhancement per grantee; all but one indicated that they would pursue 
implementation.  For the remaining three grantees, CSAP suggested two NOM-related 
potential enhancements per grantee.  One of these grantees indicated that it would pursue 
implementation for both potential enhancements, one did so for one of the two potential 
enhancements, and the remaining grantee indicated that it would take no action regarding 
either potential enhancement.   
 
In FY 2012, CSAP suggested to three grantees four potential enhancements related to the 
data collection and/or reporting of prevention NOMs.  All three grantees indicated that 
they would pursue implementation of these potential enhancements. 
 
CSAT conducted onsite reviews, and CBHSQ provided ongoing technical assistance 
related to treatment NOMs. CSAT conducted site visits in FYs 2011 and 2012 for 
24 grantees and identified technical assistance needs; however, none of these needs were 
related to treatment NOMs.  Additionally, when CSAT conducted these grantee site visits, 
it compiled information on grantees readiness to report on NOMs.  All 24 grantees 
collected or planned to collect data for treatment NOMs that were defined in FYs 2011 
and 2012. 
 
In addition, in FYs 2011 and 2012, CBHSQ provided ongoing technical assistance and 
support to grantees related to treatment NOMs by, for example, responding to questions 
related to data reporting and submission in TEDS, consulting with grantees on 
approaches to capture and report data given the grantees service delivery structures and 
computer systems, and bringing together grantees that have similar issues so that they can 
confer with and assist one another. CBHSQ provided this technical assistance and 
SAMHSA Has Improved Outcome Reporting for SABG (OEI-04-12-00160)   Page 9  Pamela S. Hyde 
 
support through various methods, including conference/phone calls, emails, Webinars, 
and instruction manuals.   
 
CONCLUSION 
 
SAMHSAs efforts to improve outcome measurement for the SABG program achieved 
nearly complete reporting compliance by the grantees in our review.  SAMHSAs use of 
existing data sources to populate data fields for grantees, as well as SAMHSAs oversight 
of and technical assistance to grantees on outcome measurement, may have contributed to 
this success.  Of the 10 selected grantees in our review, all but 1 had data in their 
applications for FYs 2011 and 2012 regarding all measures related to treatment and 
prevention. The remaining grantee did not have data for one of the seven treatment 
measures; it stated that it was developing a new system to adequately collect data for that 
measure.  However, that grantee did have data for all prevention measures.  Further, 
SAMHSA conducted onsite reviews and provided technical assistance to grantees, in part 
to improve the reporting of outcomes.  In addition, SAMHSA continues to improve the 
data collection of performance and outcome measures and has made efforts to streamline 
and reduce reporting burden while enhancing access and use of available data.   
 
To more efficiently evaluate the SABG programs performance, SAMHSA has proposed 
changes to the SABG application for FYs 2016 and 2017specifically, client-level 
measures that will build upon existing data systems, namely TEDS.23  Although some of 
these measures overlap with the treatment and prevention measures that grantees reported 
in their SABG applications for FYs 2011 and 2012, some measures are new and some  
existing measures have been revised.  The deadline for grantees to provide feedback to 
SAMHSA on these proposed changes was May 1, 2015. 
 
Because SAMHSA has proposed these substantial changes to the SABG application, we 
offer no recommendations but are providing this information for SAMHSAs 
consideration as it develops and implements its planned changes.  We encourage 
SAMHSA to continue working with grantees to improve their capabilities for reporting 
and collecting datain particular, those capabilities related to outcome measurement.   
 
This report is being issued directly in final form because it contains no recommendations.  
If you have comments or questions about this report, please provide them within 60 days.  
Please refer to report number OEI-04-12-00160 in all correspondence.  
   
                                                 
23 SAMHSA, Provide Feedback on Proposed Client-Level Measures for Block Grant Programs. Accessed 
at http://store.samhsa.gov/blockgrant/feedback/index.html  on  March 13, 2015.   
SAMHSA Has Improved Outcome Reporting for SABG (OEI-04-12-00160)   Page 10  Pamela S. Hyde 
 
APPENDIX A  
 
SABG Funding by Selected Grantee, FYs 2011 and 2012 
 
FY 2011   FY 2012  
Grantee and HHS Region  
Percentage of   Percentage of  
SABG Funding   SABG Funding  
SABG Funding  SABG Funding 
California (Region IX)   $249,428,956   14.7%  $248,892,428  14.7%  
Texas (Region VI)  $135,246,934   8.0%  $134,956,016  8.0%  
New  York (Region II)   $114,884,455   6.8%  $114,637,337  6.8%  
Florida (Region IV)  $99,796,302   5.9%  $99,581,639  5.9%  
Illinois (Region V)  $69,493,373   4.1%  $69,343,892  4.1%  
Pennsylvania (Region III)  $58,766,078   3.5%  $58,639,671  3.5%  
Washington (Region X)  $34,787,819   2.1%  $34,712,990  2.1%  
Massachusetts (Region I)   $34,146,666   2.0%  $34,073,216  2.0%  
Colorado (Region  VIII)  $26,159,532   1.5%  $26,103,262  1.5%  
Missouri (Region VII)  $26,016,004   1.5%  $25,960,043  1.5% 
     Total (Selected Grantees)   $848,726,119   50.1%   $846,900,494  50.1% 
     Total (All Grantees)   $1,693,519,655   100.0%   $1,689,876,866  100.0%  
Source:  SAMHSA,  Department of Health and Human Services FY 2013 Substance Abuse and  Mental Health Services 
Administration  Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, pp. 156157.  
 
 
 
  
SAMHSA Has Improved Outcome Reporting for SABG (OEI-04-12-00160)