DEPARTMENT 

of HEALTH 

and HUMAN 

SERVICES 

 FISCAL YEAR 

 2011 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration 

 

Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees 

Online Performance Appendix 
**Page Intentionally Left Blank** 

1 
INTRODUCTION 

The FY 2011 Online Performance Appendix is one of several documents that fulfill the 

Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) performance planning and reporting 

requirements. HHS achieves full compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act 

of 1993 and Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-11 and A-136 through the HHS 

agencies’ FY 2011 Congressional Justifications and Online Performance Appendices, the 

Agency Financial Report, and the HHS Summary of Performance and Financial Information 

Report. These documents are available at http://www.hhs.gov/budget/docbudget.htm. 

The FY 2011 Congressional Justification and accompanying Online Performance Appendix 

contains the updated FY 2009 Annual Performance Report and FY 2011 Annual Performance 

Plan. The Agency Financial Report provides fiscal and high-level performance results. The HHS 

Citizens’ Report summarizes key past and planned performance and financial information. 

2 
**Page Intentionally Left Blank** 

3 
MESSAGE FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR 

I am pleased to present the FY 2011 Online Performance Appendix for the Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The report represents the monitoring 

and management of SAMHSA programs in the area of substance abuse prevention, substance 

abuse treatment, and mental health services programs. 

This justification and accompanying Online Performance Appendix includes a more direct link 

between the budget discussion and program performance. Performance measurement and 

reporting at SAMHSA provide a comprehensive set of outcomes in 31 major areas enabling 

SAMHSA to share with stakeholders its progress toward achieving three strategic goals: 

• Measure and report performance 

• Increase service availability 

• Improve service quality 

SAMHSA, with its many partners, has a shared vision for what needs to be accomplished. 

SAMHSA has established a performance framework for linking agency-wide goals with program 

priorities and targeting resources to meet the needs of those with substance abuse and mental 

illness and their families. Through ongoing performance measurement and management, 

SAMHSA can monitor its progress and achievements and strive for continued improvement. 

The Online Performance Appendix includes the most recent performance data for our largest 

and most well-known programs. This year some of SAMHSA’s programs have reported data 

reflecting substantially lower achievement than previous years’ trends. SAMHSA believes these 

results may have been impacted by the current economic situation and anticipate many of these 

data to return to previous trends in coming months and years. As a result, SAMHSA has not 

revised targets for subsequent years based on FY 2009 data. We hope to see improvement as 

the economic climate continues to improve, but will continue to monitor these performance 

measures to ensure effectiveness of SAMHSA programs. 

In the FY 2011 Online Performance Appendix, SAMHSA has expanded the display of its 

performance tables to include targets for FY 2012. As many of SAMHSA’s grant awards are 

made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results for any given fiscal year primarily 

reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities supported by funding from the prior 

fiscal year. Therefore, the performance tables throughout the two documents includes targets 

for the year impacted by the FY 2011 funding proposed here. 

To the best of my knowledge, the performance data reported by SAMHSA for inclusion in the 

FY 2011 Online Performance Appendix is accurate, complete, and reliable. 

//s// 

Pamela S. Hyde, J.D. 

Administrator 

4 
**Page Intentionally Left Blank** 

5 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................2 

Message from the Administrator...................................................................................................................4 

Summary of Performance Targets and Results..........................................................................................14 

Table 1: Summary of Targets and Results for SAMHSA,

...............................................................14 

Performance Detail .....................................................................................................................................16 

Mental Health Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRNS)...............................................16 

Suicide Prevention ..............................................................................................................................16 

Table 2: Reduce the number of suicide deaths ..............................................................................16 

Table 3: Increase the number of students exposed to mental health and suicide awareness 

campaigns on college campuses....................................................................................................16 

Table 4: Increase the total number individuals trained in youth suicide prevention .......................17 

Table 5: Increase the total number of youth screened ...................................................................17 

Table 6: Increase the number of calls answered by the suicide hotline .........................................17 

Table 7: Data Source and Validation ..............................................................................................18 

Safe Schools/Healthy Students ..........................................................................................................20 

Table 8: Increase the number of children served............................................................................20 

Table 9: Decrease the percentage of middle school students who have been in a physical fight on 

school property................................................................................................................................20 

Table 10: Decrease the percentage of high school students who have been in a physical fight on 

school property................................................................................................................................21 

Table 11: Decrease the percentage of middle school students who report current substance use 

........................................................................................................................................................21 

Table 12: Decrease the percentage of high school students who report current substance use .22 

Table 13: Increase the percentage of students attending school .................................................22 

Table 14: Increase the percentage of students who receive mental health services ...................23 

Table 15: Percentage of grantees that provided screening and/or assessments that is coordinated 

among two or more agencies or shared across agencies ............................................................23 

Table 16: Percentage of grantees that provide training of school personnel on mental health topics 

........................................................................................................................................................24 

Table 17: Data Source and Validation ...........................................................................................24 

National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative ...........................................................................................25 

Table 18: Increase the estimated number of children and adolescents receiving trauma-informed 

services .........................................................................................................................................25 

Table 19: Improve percentage showing clinically significant improvement ....................................26 

Table 20: Dollars spent per person served,

 ..................................................................................26 

Table 21: Increase the unduplicated count of the number of children and adolescents receiving 

trauma-informed services ..............................................................................................................27 

Table 22: Increase the number of child-serving professionals trained in providing trauma-informed 

services .........................................................................................................................................27 

Table 23: Data Source and Validation ............................................................................................28 

Table 24: Data Source and Validation (continued)........................................................................29 

Mental Health Services – Homelessness Programs...........................................................................31 

Table 25: Increase the number of clients served ..........................................................................31 

Table 26: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who report improved functioning 

........................................................................................................................................................31 

Table 27: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who were currently employed ...32 

Table 28: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had no/reduced involvement 

with the criminal justice system .....................................................................................................32 

6 
Table 29: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had a permanent place to live 

in the community ...........................................................................................................................32 

Table 30: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had improved social support 

........................................................................................................................................................33 

Table 31: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who report positively about 

perception of care .........................................................................................................................33 

Table 32: Data Source and Validation ...........................................................................................33 

Mental Health System Transformation Grants,, ..................................................................................34 

Table 33: Increase the number of policy changes completed as a consequence of the 

Comprehensive Mental Health Plan (CMHP) ...............................................................................34 

Table 34: Number of persons in the mental health care and related workforce who have been 

trained in service improvements recommended by the CMHP .....................................................35 

Table 35: Increase the number of financing policy changes completed as a consequence of the 

CMHP ............................................................................................................................................35 

Table 36: Increase the number of organizational changes completed as a consequence of the 

CMHP ............................................................................................................................................36 

Table 37: Increase the number of organizations that regularly obtain and analyze data relevant to 

the goals of the CMHP ..................................................................................................................36 

Table 38: Increase the number of consumers and family members that are members of Statewide 

consumer- and family-run networks ..............................................................................................36 

Table 39: Increase the number of programs implementing practices consistent with the CMHP 37 

Table 40: Data Source and Validation ............................................................................................37 

Other Mental Health Capacity Activities..............................................................................................38 

Table 41: Rate of consumers reporting positively about perception of care...................................38 

Table 42: Increase the percentage of clients receiving services who report improved functioning 

........................................................................................................................................................39 

Table 43: Percentage of people in the United States with serious mental illnesses in need of 

services from the public mental health system, who receive services from the public mental health 

system ...........................................................................................................................................39 

Table 44: Number of evidence based practices implemented ......................................................39 

Table 45: Number of Adults: percentage of population coverage for each ..................................40 

Table 46: Number of Children: percentage of population coverage for each ................................40 

Table 47: Data Source and Validation ...........................................................................................41 

Mental Health PRNS - Science and Service Activities,

.......................................................................42 

Table 48: Number of people trained by CMHS Science and Service Programs ..........................42 

Table 49: Percentage of those trained by the program who report they were very satisfied with 

training ...........................................................................................................................................43 

Table 50: Data Source and Validation ...........................................................................................43 

Children's Mental Health Services ......................................................................................................44 

Table 51: Increase the percent of funded sites that will exceed a 30 percent improvement in 

behavioral and emotional symptoms among children receiving services for 6 months ................44 

Table 52: Increase percentage of children attending school 80% or more of time after 12 months 

........................................................................................................................................................45 

Table 53: Increase percentage with no law enforcement contacts at 6 months ...........................45 

Table 54: Decrease average days of inpatient facilities among children served in systems of care 

at 6 months ....................................................................................................................................46 

Table 55: Percent of systems of care that are sustained 5 years post Federal funding ...............46 

Table 56: Increase number of children receiving services ............................................................47 

Table 57: Increase total savings for in-hospital patient care costs per 1,000 children served ....47 

Table 58: Data Source and Validation ...........................................................................................48 

Table 59: Data Source and Validation (continued)........................................................................49 

7 
Protection & Advocacy........................................................................................................................51 

Table 60: Increase percentage of complaints of alleged abuse not withdrawn by the client that 

resulted in positive change for the client in her/his environment, community, or facility, as result of 

PAIMI involvement ........................................................................................................................51 

Table 61: Increase percentage of complaints of alleged neglect substantiated not withdrawn by 

the client that resulted in positive change for the client in her/his environment, community, or 

facility, as a result of PAIMI involvement ......................................................................................52 

Table 62: Increase percentage of complaints of alleged rights violations substantiated and not 

withdrawn by the client that resulted in positive change through the restoration of client rights, 

expansion or maintenance of personal decision-making, or elimination of other barriers to 

personal decision-making, as a result of PAIMI involvement .......................................................52 

Table 63: Percent of interventions on behalf of groups of PAIMI-eligible individuals that were 

concluded successfully .................................................................................................................53 

Table 64: Increase in the number of people served by the PAIMI program .................................53 

Table 65: Ratio of persons served/impacted per activity/intervention ..........................................54 

Table 66: Cost per 1,000 individuals served/impacted ................................................................54 

Table 67: The number attending public education/constituency training and public awareness 

activities .........................................................................................................................................55 

Table 68: Data Source and Validation ............................................................................................55 

Projects to Assist in the Transition from Homelessness (PATH)........................................................57 

Table 69: Increase the percentage of enrolled homeless persons who receive community mental 

health services ..............................................................................................................................57 

Table 70: Increase number of homeless persons contacted ........................................................58 

Table 71: Increase percentage of contacted homeless persons with serious mental illness who 

become enrolled in services ..........................................................................................................58 

Table 72: Average Federal cost of enrolling a homeless person with serious mental illness in 

services .........................................................................................................................................59 

Table 73: Provide training for PATH providers on SSI/SSDI Outreach, Access, Recovery to ensure 

eligible homeless clients are receiving benefits ............................................................................59 

Table 74: Data Source and Validation ...........................................................................................59 

Mental Health Block Grant ..................................................................................................................61 

Table 75: Reduce rate of adult readmissions to State psychiatric hospitals within 30 days ........61 

Table 76: Reduce rate of adult readmissions to State psychiatric hospitals within 180 days ......62 

Table 77: Reduce rate of child/adolescent readmissions to State psychiatric hospitals within 30 

days ...............................................................................................................................................62 

Table 78: Reduce rate of child/adolescent readmissions to State psychiatric hospitals within 180 

days ...............................................................................................................................................63 

Table 79: Number of evidence based practices implemented ......................................................63 

Table 80: Adult: Percentage of adult population coverage for each ..............................................64 

Table 81: Children: Percentage of population coverage for each...................................................64 

Table 82: Increase rate of consumers reporting positively about outcomes ................................65 

Table 83: Increase rate of family members reporting positively about outcomes .........................65 

Table 84: Number of persons receiving evidence-based practices per $10,000 of mental health 

block grant dollars spent ...............................................................................................................66 

Table 85: Increase number of people served by the public mental health system .......................66 

Table 86: Data Source and Validation ...........................................................................................67 

Substance Abuse Prevention PRNS.......................................................................................................69 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants....................................................................69 

Table 87: 30-day use of alcohol among youth age 12-17 .............................................................69 

Table 88: 30-day use of other illicit drugs age 12 and up .............................................................69 

Table 89: Percent of SPF SIG States showing a decrease in state level estimate of percent of 

survey respondents (age 12-20) who report 30-day use of alcohol ..............................................69 

8 
Table 90: Percent of SPF SIG States showing a decrease in state level estimate of percent of 

survey respondents (age 21 and up) who report 30-day use of alcohol .......................................70 

Table 91: Percent of SPF SIG states showing a decrease in state level estimates of survey 

respondents (age 12-17) who report 30-day use of other illicit drugs ...........................................70 

Table 92: Percent of SPF SIG states showing a decrease in state level estimates of survey 

respondents (age 18 and up) who report 30-day use of other illicit drugs ....................................71 

Table 93: Percent of SPF SIG states showing an increase in state level estimates of survey 

respondents (age 12-17) who rate the risk of substance abuse as moderate or great ................71 

Table 94: Percent of SPF SIG states showing an increase in state level estimates of survey 

respondents (age 18 and up) who rate the risk of substance abuse as moderate or great .........72 

Table 95: Percent of SPF SIG states showing an increase in state level estimates of survey 

respondents (age 12-17) who somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove of substance use. .72 

Table 96: Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and strategies implemented ...............73 

Table 97: Percent of grantee states that have performed needs assessments ...........................73 

Table 98: Percent of grantee States that have submitted State plans .........................................74 

Table 99: Percent of grantee States with approved plans ............................................................74 

Table 100: Data Source and Validation ..........................................................................................75 

Partnerships for Success ....................................................................................................................77 

Table 101: Increase the number of sub-recipient communities funded through the Partnerships for 

Success grants ..............................................................................................................................77 

Table 102: Increase the number of communities who report an increase in prevention activities 

that are supported by collaboration and leveraging of funding streams .......................................77 

Table 103: Increase the number of EBPs implemented by sub-recipient communities ...............77 

Table 104: Increase the number of sub-recipient communities that improved on one or more 

targeted NOMs indicators .............................................................................................................78 

Table 105: Data Source and Validation ..........................................................................................78 

Minority AIDS Initiative: Substance Abuse Prevention, HIV Prevention and Hepatitis Prevention for 

Minorities and Minorities Re-entering Communities Post-Incarceration........................................79 

Table 106: Percent of program participants (age 12-17) that rate the risk of substance abuse as 

moderate or great ..........................................................................................................................79 

Table 107: Percent of program participants (age 18 and up) that rate the risk of substance abuse 

as moderate or great .....................................................................................................................79 

Table 108: Percent of participants (age 12-20) who used alcohol at pre-test who report a decrease 

in use of alcohol at post-test ..........................................................................................................80 

Table 109: Percent of participants (age 21 and up) who used alcohol at pre-test who report a 

decrease in use of alcohol at post-test ..........................................................................................80 

Table 110: Percent of participants (age 12-20) who report no alcohol use at pre-test who remain 

non-users at post-test ....................................................................................................................80 

Table 111: Percent of participants (age 21 and up) who report no alcohol use at pre-test who 

remain non-users at post-test ........................................................................................................81 

Table 112: Percent of participants (age 12-17) who used illicit drugs at pre-test who report a 

decrease in 30-day use at post-test ...............................................................................................81 

Table 113: Percent of participants (age 18 and up) who used illicit drugs at pre-test who report a 

decrease in 30-day use at post-test ...............................................................................................81 

Table 114: Percent of participants (age 12-17) who report no illicit drug use at pre-test who remain 

non-users at post-test ....................................................................................................................82 

Table 115: Percent of participants (age 18 and up) who report no illicit drug use at pre-test who 

remain non-users at post-test ........................................................................................................82 

Table 116: Percent of program participants (age 12-17) who somewhat disapprove or strongly 

disapprove of substance use .........................................................................................................82 

Table 117: Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and strategies implemented by HIV 

program grantees............................................................................................................................83 

Table 118: Number of individuals exposed to substance abuse/hepatitis education services .....83 

9 
Table 119: Cost per participant improved on one or more measures between pre-test and posttest .................................................................................................................................................84 

Table 120: Data Source and Validation .........................................................................................84 

Table 121: Data Source and Validation (continued) ......................................................................85 

Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking...................................................................................87 

Table 122: Percentage of coalitions that report at least 5% improvement in the past 30-day use of 

alcohol in at least two grades ........................................................................................................87 

Table 123: Percentage of coalitions that report improvement in youth perception of risk from 

alcohol in at least two grades ........................................................................................................87 

Table 124: Percentage of coalitions that report improvement in youth perception of parental 

disapproval on the use of alcohol in at least two grades ..............................................................88 

Table 125: Data Source and Validation ..........................................................................................88 

Prevention PRNS - Science and Service Activities ............................................................................89 

Table 126: Number of people provided technical assistance Services ........................................89 

Table 127: Percentage of technical assistance (TA) recipients who reported that they are very 

satisfied with the TA received .......................................................................................................90 

Table 128: Percentage of TA recipients who reported that their ability to provide effective services 

improved a great deal ...................................................................................................................90 

Table 129: Percentage of TA recipients who reported that the TA recommendations have been 

fully implemented ..........................................................................................................................90 

Table 130: Number of persons receiving prevention information directly .....................................91 

Table 131: Number of persons receiving prevention information indirectly from advertising, 

broadcast, or website ....................................................................................................................91 

Table 132: Data Source and Validation .........................................................................................92 

Substance Abuse Treatment PRNS .......................................................................................................94 

Access to Recovery ............................................................................................................................94 

Table 133: Increase the number of clients gaining access to treatment ......................................94 

Table 134: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had no past month 

substance use ...............................................................................................................................94 

Table 135: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had improved family and 

living conditions .............................................................................................................................95

Table 136: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had no/reduced involvement 

with the criminal justice system .....................................................................................................95 

Table 137: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had improved social support 

........................................................................................................................................................96 

Table 138: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who were currently employed or 

engaged in productive activities ....................................................................................................96 

Table 139: Cost per client served .................................................................................................97 

Table 140: Data Source and Validation ..........................................................................................97

Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT)......................................................98 

Table 141: Increase the number of clients served ........................................................................98 

Table 142: Increase the percentage of clients receiving services who had no past month 

substance use ...............................................................................................................................99 

Table 143: Data Source and Validation .........................................................................................99 

Juvenile and Adult Drug Courts ........................................................................................................100 

Table 144: Juvenile: Percentage of clients that complete treatment ..........................................100 

Table 145: Juvenile: Increase percentage of clients receiving services who were currently 

employed or engaged in productive activities .............................................................................100 

Table 146: Juvenile: Increase percentage of clients receiving services who had a permanent place 

to live in the community ...............................................................................................................101 

10 
Table 147: Juvenile: Increase percentage of clients receiving services who had no involvement 

with the criminal justice system ...................................................................................................101 

Table 148: Juvenile: Increase percentage of clients receiving services who experienced 

no/reduced alcohol or illegal drug related health, behavioral or social consequences ..............102 

Table 149: Juvenile: Increase percentage of clients receiving services who had no past month 

substance use .............................................................................................................................102 

Table 150: Juvenile: Percent of drug court participants who exhibit a reduction in substance use 

while in the drug court program ....................................................................................................102 

Table 151: Juvenile: Reduce cost-per-client served ...................................................................103 

Table 152: Juvenile: Increase number of clients served .............................................................103 

Table 153: Adult: Percentage of clients that complete treatment ...............................................104 

Table 154: Adult: Increase percentage of clients receiving services who were currently employed 

or engaged in productive activities ..............................................................................................104 

Table 155: Adult: Increase percentage of clients receiving services who had a permanent place to 

live in the community ...................................................................................................................105 

Table 156: Adult: Increase percentage of clients receiving services who had no involvement with 

the criminal justice system ..........................................................................................................105 

Table 157: Adult: Increase percentage of clients receiving services who experienced no/reduced 

alcohol or illegal drug related health, behavioral or social, consequences .................................105 

Table 158: Adult: Increase percentage of clients receiving services who had no past month 

substance use .............................................................................................................................106 

Table 159: Adult: Percent of drug court participants who exhibit a reduction in substance use while 

in the drug court program. ...........................................................................................................106 

Table 160: Adult: Reduce cost-per-client served ........................................................................106 

Table 161: Adult: Increase number of clients served ..................................................................107 

Table 162: Data Source and Validation .......................................................................................107 

Ex-Offender Re-Entry Program.........................................................................................................109 

Table 163: Number of clients served ..........................................................................................109 

Table 164: Percentage of clients who had no past month substance use .................................109 

Table 165: Data Source and Validation ........................................................................................109 

Grants for the Benefit of Homeless Individuals.................................................................................110 

Table 166: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had no past month substance 

use ...............................................................................................................................................110 

Table 167: Increase the number of clients served ......................................................................110 

Table 168: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who were currently employed or 

engaged in productive activities ..................................................................................................111 

Table 169: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had a permanent place to live in 

the community .............................................................................................................................111 

Table 170: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had no involvement with the 

criminal justice system ................................................................................................................111 

Table 171: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had improved social support 

......................................................................................................................................................112 

Table 172: Data Source and Validation ........................................................................................112 

Treatment PRNS - Other Capacity ...................................................................................................113 

Table 173: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had no past month substance 

use ...............................................................................................................................................113 

Table 174: Increase the number of clients served ......................................................................113 

Table 175: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who were currently employed or 

engaged in productive activities ..................................................................................................114 

Table 176: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had a permanent place to live in 

the community .............................................................................................................................114 

Table 177: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had no involvement with the 

criminal justice system ................................................................................................................115 

11 
Table 178: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who experienced no/reduced alcohol 

or illegal drug related health, behavioral or social, consequences .............................................115 

Table 179: Increase the percentage of grantees in appropriate cost bands ..............................116 

Table 180: Data Source and Validation ........................................................................................116 

Treatment PRNS - Science and Service...........................................................................................117 

Table 181: Report implementing improvements in treatment methods on the basis of information 

and training provided by the program .........................................................................................117 

Table 182: Increase the number of individuals trained per year .................................................118 

Table 183: Increase the percentage of drug treatment professionals trained by the program who 

would rate the quality of the events as good, very good, or excellent ........................................118 

Table 184: Increase the percentage of drug treatment professionals trained by the program who 

shared any of the information from the events with others .........................................................119 

Table 185: Increase the percentage of grantees in appropriate cost bands ..............................119 

Table 186: Data Source and Validation ........................................................................................120 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (SAPTBG).................................................121 

Treatment Activities...........................................................................................................................121 

Table 187: Number of admissions to substance abuse treatment programs receiving public 

funding .........................................................................................................................................121 

Table 188: Increase the percentage of States and Territories that express satisfaction with 

Technical Assistance provided ....................................................................................................121 

Table 189: Increase the percentage of States in appropriate cost bands ..................................122 

Table 190: Percentage of clients reporting abstinence from drug use at discharge ...................122 

Table 191: Percentage of clients reporting abstinence from alcohol at discharge .....................123 

Table 192: Percentage of clients reporting being employed/in school at discharge ...................123 

Table 193: Percentage of clients reporting no involvement with the Criminal Justice System ...124 

Table 194: Data Source and Validation ........................................................................................124 

Prevention Set-Aside .............................................................................................................................. 

Synar Amendment Implementation Activities ...................................................................................126 

Table 195: Increase number of States (including Puerto Rico) whose retail sales violations is at or 

below 20% ...................................................................................................................................126 

Table 196: Number of States (excluding Puerto Rico) reporting retail tobacco sales violation rates 

below 10% ...................................................................................................................................126 

Table 197: Data Source and Validation .......................................................................................127 

Figure 1: States Reporting Retailer Violation Rates At or Below 20% and Below 10% ...............129 

Other Set-Aside Activities .................................................................................................................130 

Table 198: Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and strategies implemented ...........130 

Table 199: Percent of program costs spent on evidence-based practices (EBP) ......................130 

Table 200: Number of participants served in prevention programs ............................................131 

Table 201: Percent of states showing an increase in state level estimates of survey respondents 

who rate the risk of substance abuse as moderate or great (age 12-17) ...................................131 

Table 202: Percent of states showing an increase in state level estimates of survey respondents 

who rate the risk of substance abuse as moderate or great (age 18+) ......................................132 

Table 203: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level estimates of percent of survey 

respondents who report 30 day use of alcohol (age 12-20) .......................................................132 

Table 204: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level estimates of percent of survey 

respondents who report 30 day use of alcohol (age 21+) ...........................................................133 

Table 205: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level estimates of percent of survey 

respondents who report 30 day use of other illicit drugs (age 12-17) .........................................133 

Table 206: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level estimates of percent of survey 

respondents who report 30 day use of other illicit drugs (age 18+) ............................................134 

Table 207: Data Source and Validation .......................................................................................134 

Table 208: Data Source and Validation (continued).....................................................................135 

12 
SAPTBG - National Surveys .............................................................................................................137 

Table 209: Availability and timeliness of data for the National Survey on Drug Use and Health 137 

Table 210: Availability and timeliness of data for the Drug Abuse Warning Network ..................137 

Table 211: Availability and timeliness of data for the Drug and Alcohol Services Information 

System .........................................................................................................................................138 

Table 212: Data Source and Validation .......................................................................................138 

Cross-Center Initiatives.........................................................................................................................139 

Mental Health/Substance Abuse SBIRT...........................................................................................139 

Table 213: Increase the number of individuals screened for mental disorders and substance use 

disorders........................................................................................................................................139 

Table 214: Increase the number of individuals receiving a brief intervention for MH and/or SUD139 

Table 215: Increase number of individuals assessed and referred for specialty MH and/or SA 

treatment .......................................................................................................................................139 

Table 216: Increase the percentage of individuals receiving mental health and/or substance abuse 

treatment services who report improved functioning ....................................................................139 

Table 217: Data Source and Validation .......................................................................................140 

Co-Occurring State Incentive Grants................................................................................................141 

Table 218: Increase the number of persons with co-occurring disorders served .......................141 

Table 219: Increase the percentage of treatment programs that screen for co-occurring disorders 

......................................................................................................................................................141 

Table 220: Increase the percentage of treatment programs that assess for co-occurring disorders 

......................................................................................................................................................141 

Table 221: Increase the percentage of treatment programs that treat co-occurring disorders 

through collaborative, consultative, and integrated models of care ............................................142 

Table 222: Data Source and Validation ........................................................................................142 

SAMHSA's Health Information Network............................................................................................143 

Table 223: Total number of SAMHSA knowledge products disseminated .................................143 

Table 224: Total number of individuals referred for treatment resources ...................................143 

Table 225: Data Source and Validation ........................................................................................144 

Overview of Performance..........................................................................................................................146 

Strategic Plan............................................................................................................................................149 

SAMHSA Linkages to HHS Strategic Plan ...............................................................................................150 

Table 226: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 1 Health Care ...............................................................150 

Table 227: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 2 Public Health Promotion and Protection, Disease 

Prevention, and Emergency Preparedness ..................................................................................150 

Table 228: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 3 Human Services ........................................................151 

Table 229: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 4 Scientific Research and Development ......................151 

Additional Items.........................................................................................................................................152 

Full Cost Table ......................................................................................................................................152 

Table 230: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 1 Health Care.......................152 

Table 231: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 2 Public Health Promotion and 

Protection, Disease Prevention, and Emergency Preparedness..................................................152 

Table 232: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Gal 3 Human Services..................153 

Table 233: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 4 Scientific Research and 

Development .................................................................................................................................153 

Evaluations Included in HHS Evaluations Database for FY 2009 ........................................................154 

13 
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE TARGETS AND RESULTS 

Table 1: Summary of Targets and Results for SAMHSA1,2

Fiscal 

Year 

Total 

Targets 

Targets with 

Results 

Reported 

Percent of Targets 

with Results 

Reported 

Total 

Targets 

Met 

Percent of 

Targets Met 

2006 99 96 97% 61 64% 

2007 141 138 98% 96 70% 

2008 164 156 95% 106 68% 

2009 170 90 53% 53 59% 

2010 168 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

2011 171 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

2012 190 N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 

1 As of Program Performance Tracking System (PPTS) Report run 1/22/10. 

2 During FY 2009, the method for calculating the Summary of Measures Table was revised. As a result of this change, the number 

of total targets and other calculations for SAMHSA performance measures have changed somewhat from those previously 

published in the FY 2010 President’s Budget. 

14 
**Page Intentionally Left Blank** 

15 
PERFORMANCE DETAIL 

 

MACRO PROGRAM: MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS OF REGIONAL AND 

NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

 

PROGRAM: SUICIDE PREVENTION 

 

Table 2: Measure 2.3.57: Reduce the number of suicide deaths (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 30,584 Apr 30, 2015 

2011 30,684 Apr 30, 2014 

2010 30,684 Apr 30, 2013 

2009 30,784 Apr 30, 2012 

2008 30,984 Apr 30, 2011 

2007 31,084 Apr 30, 2010 

2006 N/A 33,300 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 3: Measure 2.3.58: Increase the number of students exposed to mental health 

and suicide awareness campaigns on college campuses (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 739,615 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 681,425 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 681,425 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 662,774 1,037,974 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 662,774 681,425 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 662,774 

(Baseline) 

 

16 
Table 4: Measure 2.3.59: Increase the total number individuals trained in youth suicide 

prevention3

 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 36,202 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 35,371 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 35,371 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 29,323 83,724 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 97,742 101,669 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 75,186 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 5: Measure 2.3.60: Increase the total number of youth screened4 (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 3,360 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 3,360 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 3,360 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 3,360 27,132 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 Set Baseline 3,182 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 6: Measure 2.3.61: Increase the number of calls answered by the suicide hotline 

(Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 666,158 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 555,132 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 555,132 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 538,963 619,813 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 Set Baseline 513,298 

(Baseline) 

 

3

This measure has been revised for the FY 2011 President's Budget. Previously the measure was cumulative. It has been revised 

to report its data annually. As a result, targets for FY 2009 and 2010 were adjusted and data provided here may appear to differ 

from those previously published in the FY 2010 President's Budget.

4

 This measure has been revised for the FY 2011 President's Budget. Previously the measure was cumulative. It has been revised 

to report its data annually. As a result, targets for FY 2009 and 2010 were adjusted and data provided here may appear to differ 

from those previously published in the FY 2010 President's Budget. 

17 
Table 7: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Suicide 

Prevention Programs 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.57 National Vital 

Statistics Report, 

Centers for Disease 

Control and 

Prevention 

See Technical Notes in National Vital Statistics Reports at the 

following link: 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_16.pdf. Data 

reporting for this survey has a three year lag time. Due to the lag in 

“number of suicide deaths” data reporting, measuring performance of 

the programs in real time or setting realistic targets for out years is 

difficult. 

2.3.58 Suicide Prevention 

Exposure, 

Awareness and 

Knowledge Survey 

(SPEAKS). This 

survey is part of the 

Garrett Lee Smith 

program cross-site 

evaluation, and is 

conducted annually. 

Evaluation coordinators at ORC Macro have built multiple types of 

data validation techniques into the cross-site evaluation to establish 

the accuracy and reliability of data used to measure the outcome 

measures. These techniques include double entry of data; range 

checks coded into the data entry program; and assessing concurrent 

validity with other measures of the same indicator. 

2.3.59 Training Exit 

Survey (TES) and a 

Training Activity 

Report (TAR) as 

part of the GLS 

cross-site 

evaluation 

Evaluation coordinators at ORC Macro have built multiple types of 

data validation techniques into the cross-site evaluation to establish 

the accuracy and reliability of data used to measure the outcome 

measures. These techniques include double entry of data; range 

checks coded into the data entry program; and assessing concurrent 

validity with other measures of the same indicator. 

2.3.60 Data for the number 

of youth screen are 

reported in the 

Early Identification 

Referral and 

Follow-up (EIRF) 

Aggregate and 

Individual Forms 

from 14 Cohort 1 & 

2 sites 

Evaluation coordinators at ORC Macro have built multiple types of 

data validation techniques into the cross-site evaluation to establish 

the accuracy and reliability of data used to measure the outcome 

measures. These techniques include double entry of data; range 

checks coded into the data entry program; and assessing concurrent 

validity with other measures of the same indicator. 

2.3.61 The number of calls 

answered is 

reported in the 

National Suicide 

Prevention LifeLine 

Monthly Report 

Specialists in information technology at the National Suicide 

Prevention LifeLine evaluation center validate phone records received 

from Sprint to determine the number of calls received and answered at 

1-800-273-TALK. 

 

18 
Agency Program, Measure 2.3.57 - 2.3.61 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

SAMHSA’s Suicide Prevention portfolio includes campus, State, and tribal activities related to 

the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, as well as the Suicide Prevention Hotline, Suicide 

Prevention Resource Center and an American Indian/Alaska Native Suicide Prevention 

Initiative. 

Baseline data have been reported for both outcome and output measures. The number of 

suicide deaths (2.3.57) represents national data. FY 2008 data for measure 2.3.57 will not be 

available until FY 2011. Measure 2.3.57 (suicide deaths) was developed as an indicator for the 

HHS strategic plan based on the long-term goals of SAMHSA. 

Measure 2.3.58 is a key performance output measure for the program. Suicide prevention 

efforts are measured by the number of students who are exposed to mental health and suicide 

awareness campaigns on grantee college campuses. Since the baseline was set in 2007, 

performance for this measure has exceeded the targets set for the last two years. In FY 2009, 

356,549 additional students were exposed to mental health and suicide awareness campaigns 

on college campuses compared to the previous year. The number of individuals trained (2.3.59) 

is also an important indicator of program penetration as well as increased suicidal awareness. 

Since 2005, the program has trained 423,680 mental health professionals, teachers, police 

officers, social service providers, advocates, coaches, and other individuals who frequently 

interact with youth. 

Two output measures were added in FY 2008: Increase the Total Number of Youth Screened 

(2.3.60), and Increase the Number of Calls Answered by the Suicide Hotline (2.3.61). Baselines 

for both measures were captured in FY 2008 and both were exceeded in 2009. All targets for 

which data were available were exceeded for this program in 2009. Ambitious targets for all 

measures were set for FY 2010, FY 2011, and FY 2012. 

19 
PROGRAM: SAFE SCHOOLS/HEALTHY STUDENTS 

 

Table 8: Measure 3.2.04: Increase the number of children served (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 2,328,500 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 2,328,500 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 2,328,500 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 2,328,500 3,154,305 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 1,062,963 2,328,500 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 1,062,963 1,845,110 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 Set Baseline 1,062,963 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 9: Measure 3.2.05: Decrease the percentage of middle school students who 

have been in a physical fight on school property5

 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 34% Dec 31, 2012 

2011 34% Dec 31, 2011 

2010 34% Dec 31, 2010 

2009 34.4% 23.8% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 36% 34.4% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 30% 36.6% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 Set Baseline 30.8% 

(Baseline) 

 

 

5

Successful result is below target

20 
Table 10: Measure 3.2.06: Decrease the percentage of high school students who 

have been in a physical fight on school property6

 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 23% Dec 31, 2012 

2011 23% Dec 31, 2011 

2010 23% Dec 31, 2010 

2009 23.7% 16.1% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 29% 23.7% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 24% 29.8% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 Set Baseline 24.2% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 11: Measure 3.2.07: Decrease the percentage of middle school students who 

report current substance use7 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 13% Dec 31, 2012 

2011 13% Dec 31, 2011 

2010 13% Dec 31, 2010 

2009 13.7% 13.3% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 16% 13.7% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 16% 16% 

(Target Met) 

2006 Set Baseline 16.9% 

(Baseline) 

 

 6

Successful result is below target

7

Successful result is below target

21 
Table 12: Measure 3.2.08: Decrease the percentage of high school students who 

report current substance use8

 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 33% Dec 31, 2012 

2011 33% Dec 31, 2011 

2010 33% Dec 31, 2010 

2009 33% 31.1% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 35% 33% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 35% 35% 

(Target Met) 

2006 Set Baseline 35.3% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 13: Measure 3.2.09: Increase the percentage of students attending school9

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2010 Discontinued N/A 

2009 93% 94.5% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 93% 93% 

(Target Met) 

2007 93% 95.1% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 Set Baseline 92.6% 

(Baseline) 

 

 8

Successful result is below target

9

Measure 3.2.09 will be retired from public reporting in FY 2010. Please see explanation in the narrative for this program. 

22 
Table 14: Measure 3.2.10: Increase the percentage of students who receive mental 

health services (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 66% Dec 31, 2012 

2011 66% Dec 31, 2011 

2010 66% Dec 31, 2010 

2009 66% 74.4% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 46% 66% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 46% 46% 

(Target Met) 

2006 Set Baseline 45.5% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 15: Measure 3.2.21: Percentage of grantees that provided screening and/or 

assessments that is coordinated among two or more agencies or shared across 

agencies (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 69% Dec 31, 2012 

2011 69% Dec 31, 2011 

2010 69% Dec 31, 2010 

2009 68.1% 73.9% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 67.1% 62.4% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 Set Baseline 66.1% 

(Baseline) 

 

23 
Table 16: Measure 3.2.22: Percentage of grantees that provide training of school 

personnel on mental health topics (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 67% Dec 31, 2012 

2011 67% Dec 31, 2011 

2010 67% Dec 31, 2010 

2009 66.4% 73.9% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 65.4% 64% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 Set Baseline 64.4% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 17: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Safe 

Schools/Healthy Students Program 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.2.04 Grantee reports Grantees implement various forms of data 

validation as part of their local evaluations. To 

establish the accuracy and reliability of data 

used to measure the outcome performance, 

local evaluators require double entry of data; 

range checks coded into the data entry 

program; or assessing concurrent validity with 

other measure of the same indicator among 

other things. 

3.2.05 

3.2.06 

3.2.07 

3.2.08 

3.2.09 

3.2.10 

3.2.21 

3.2.22 

Data on children’s outcomes were reported 

in the grantees’ ED524 Bi-Annual Report 

submitted to their GPO every six months. 

The methods for collecting these measures 

varied by grantee, but were generally 

student self-report for the violence and 

substance use measures and school 

records for attendance and mental health 

services. 

Grantees implement various forms of data 

validation as part of their local evaluations. To 

establish the accuracy and reliability of data 

used to measure the outcome performance, 

local evaluators require double entry of data; 

range checks coded into the data entry 

program; or assessing concurrent validity with 

other measure of the same indicator among 

other things. 

 

Agency Program 1.2, Measure 3.2.04 - 3.2.22 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

Since the baseline was set in 2006, the performance targets for measure 3.2.05, number of 

24 
children served, have consistently been exceeded. Since the targets were set more grants were 

awarded than had been anticipated and the resulting number of children served was 

significantly higher than the targets. The significant increase in 2009 can be attributed to the fact 

that the 2008 cohort became fully operational in its violence prevention activities in 2009. 

In addition, all targets for student outcomes were exceeded in FY 2009. This excellent 

performance can be attributed in part to the capacity of the larger than usual 2005 cohort of 40 

grantees were at their peak in providing violence prevention services. GPRA measures are 

defined as follows: Violent incidents (3.2.06) are defined by the percentage of students that 

have experienced violence at least once in the past 12 months as measured by a student 

survey item. This percentage has decreased from 2006 to 2009 by 23% for middle school 

students and 33% for high school students. Substance use (3.2.07) is defined as the 

percentage of students that report having used alcohol in the past 30 days, which has also 

decreased over 20% over the same time period. For the “Increase mental health services to 

students and families (3.2.10)” measure, the definition of mental health services is determined 

by the grantee with guidance from their project officer. This measure represents the percentage 

of students that receive services following a mental health referral and has increased nearly 

30% since 2006. 

School attendance (3.2.09) is defined as the average attendance rate among the schools 

served by this program. This measure has been problematic in that districts calculate 

attendance differently, particularly with distinctions between “excused” and “unexcused” 

absences. Also, some sites track classes missed rather than days missed. The cohort funded in 

FY 2007 was not required to report on this measure so data presented are from the FY 2005 

and FY 2006 cohorts. As a result, the program plans to retire this measure in FY 2010. 

PROGRAM: NATIONAL CHILD TRAUMATIC STRESS INITIATIVE (NCTSI) 

 

Table 18: Measure 3.2.01: Increase the estimated number of children and adolescents 

receiving trauma-informed services10 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 Discontinued N/A 

2010 29,000 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 16,955 25,143 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 33,910 28,878 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 33,910 31,446 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 39,600 33,910 

(Target Not Met) 

 

 10 Measure 3.2.01 will be retired from public reporting in FY 2010. Please see explanation in the narrative for this program. 

25 
Table 19: Measure 3.2.02: Improve children's outcomes (percent showing clinically 

significant improvement) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 69% Dec 31, 2012 

2011 69% Dec 31, 2011 

2010 69% Dec 31, 2010 

2009 69% 76% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 37% 69% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 37% 56% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 37% 35% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

Table 20: Measure 3.2.03: Dollars spent per person served11,12 (Efficiency) 

FY Target Result 

2011 Discontinued N/A 

2010 $718 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 $718 $1511 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 $774 $948 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 $480 $774 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 $493 $741 

(Target Not Met) 

 

 11Successful result is below target. 

12Measure 3.2.03 will be retired from public reporting in FY 2010. Please see explanation in the narrative for this program. 

26 
Table 21: Measure 3.2.23: Increase the unduplicated count of the number of children 

and adolescents receiving trauma-informed services (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 3,217 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 3,217 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 3,217 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 2,925 1,922 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2008 Set Baseline 975 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 22: Measure 3.2.24: Increase the number of child-serving professionals trained 

in providing trauma-informed services (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 100,800 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 100,800 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 100,800 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 96,000 95,186 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2008 Set Baseline 91,517 

(Baseline) 

 

27 
Table 23: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for National 

Child Traumatic Stress Initiative - NCTSI 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.2.01 Data for number of children served are reported 

quarterly by grantees utilizing a program-wide 

electronic Service Utilization Form (eSUF). 

Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) 

performs significant validation on data 

reported by the NCTSI Centers for the 

eSUF and Core Data Set and the 

systems used to collect that data. 

(“Validation” includes, but is not limited 

to, data integrity checks, validation and 

quality control of the batch loading 

processes and databases, extracts 

used to produce analysis data sets and 

reports that are generated from the 

data collected.) Evaluation coordinators 

at ORC Macro have built multiple types 

of data validation techniques into the 

architecture of the Web-based General 

Adoption Assessment Survey (GAAS) 

to ensure the collection of clean, 

correct and meaningful data, and avoid 

data corruption or security 

vulnerabilities as well as missing, 

incomplete or inappropriate data. 

3.2.02 Baseline and follow-up data are collected through 

the Core Data Set (CDS), a secure web-based 

system, and three standardized 

behavioral/symptomology measures (CBCL, 

TSCC, and PTSD-RI) are used to assess 

improvement in children’s outcomes. Data for 

training are based on General Adoption 

Assessment Survey (GAAS) results from the 

Adoption of Methods/Practices component of the 

NCTSI National Cross-Site Evaluation. 

Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) 

performs significant validation on data 

reported by the NCTSI Centers for the 

eSUF and Core Data Set and the 

systems used to collect that data. 

(“Validation” includes, but is not limited 

to, data integrity checks, validation and 

quality control of the batch loading 

processes and databases, extracts 

used to produce analysis data sets and 

reports that are generated from the 

data collected.) Evaluation coordinators 

at ORC Macro have built multiple types 

of data validation techniques into the 

architecture of the Web-based General 

Adoption Assessment Survey (GAAS) 

to ensure the collection of clean, 

correct and meaningful data, and avoid 

data corruption or security 

vulnerabilities as well as missing, 

incomplete or inappropriate data. 

28 
Table 24: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for National 

Child Traumatic Stress Initiative - NCTSI (continued) 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.2.03 The Efficiency Measure is calculated by 

dividing the budget devoted to clinical 

services by the number of children and 

adolescents receiving trauma-informed 

services. Data for number of children 

served are reported quarterly by grantees 

utilizing a program-wide electronic 

Service Utilization Form (eSUF). 

Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) 

performs significant validation on data reported 

by the NCTSI Centers for the eSUF and Core 

Data Set and the systems used to collect that 

data. (“Validation” includes, but is not limited to, 

data integrity checks, validation and quality 

control of the batch loading processes and 

databases, extracts used to produce analysis 

data sets and reports that are generated from 

the data collected.) Evaluation coordinators at 

ORC Macro have built multiple types of data 

validation techniques into the architecture of the 

Web-based General Adoption Assessment 

Survey (GAAS) to ensure the collection of clean, 

correct and meaningful data, and avoid data 

corruption or security vulnerabilities as well as 

missing, incomplete or inappropriate data. 

3.2.23 TRAC on-line data reporting and 

collection system. 

All TRAC data are automatically checked as 

they are input into TRAC. Validation and 

verification checks are run on the data as they 

are being entered. The system will not allow any 

data that are out of range or violate skip 

patterns to be saved into the database. 

3.2.24 Data for number of professional trained is 

reported quarterly by grantees utilizing a 

program-wide electronic Service 

Utilization Form (eSUF). 

Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) 

performs significant validation on data reported 

by the NCTSI Centers for the eSUF and Core 

Data Set and the systems used to collect that 

data. (“Validation” includes, but is not limited to, 

data integrity checks, validation and quality 

control of the batch loading processes and 

databases, extracts used to produce analysis 

data sets and reports that are generated from 

the data collected.) Evaluation coordinators at 

ORC Macro have built multiple types of data 

validation techniques into the architecture of the 

Web-based General Adoption Assessment 

Survey (GAAS) to ensure the collection of clean, 

correct and meaningful data, and avoid data 

corruption or security vulnerabilities as well as 

missing, incomplete or inappropriate data. 

 

29 
Agency Program 1.3, Measure 3.2.01 - 3.2.24 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

The National Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN) is a nationwide collaborative network of 

organizations involved in the evaluation, treatment, and support of children and their families 

impacted by traumatic stress. The Network includes three components: (A) the National Center 

for Child Traumatic Stress (NCCTS, Category 1), (B) Intervention Development and Evaluation 

Centers (Category 2), and (C) Community Treatment and Services Centers (Category 3). The 

NCTSN is currently comprised of 59 funded Centers. 

The trend for measure 3.2.01, the estimated number of children receiving services, shows a 

decrease of 26% from 2006 to 2009. This downward trend is primarily due to the relatively large 

number of established NCTSN centers that provided direct services from the FY 2003 Cohort 

that were no longer funded as of FY 2007 (14 Category 3 centers). Although there were several 

new centers added during FY 2007 (15 sites total, 10 Category 3 sites and 5 Category 2 sites), 

during 2008 (8 sites total, 8 Category 3 sites) and 2009 (36 sites total, 1 Category 1 site, 9 

Category 2 sites, and 26 Category 3 sites), this decrease in number of children served also 

reflects: (A) start-up time needed to establish direct services at these new sites, (B) a change in 

focus of previously funded sites from providing direct clinical services to training, and (C) the 

actual number of new centers providing direct clinical services. It should also be noted that this 

number does not include the more than four thousand children and families served by formerly 

funded centers that mobilized to respond to natural disasters including Hurricanes Gustav and 

Ike. Currently, this measure is an estimate of clients served based on quarterly reports from 

grantees. As this does not allow for a true unduplicated count, SAMHSA will be retiring this 

measure in FY 2011. The NCTSI began using a web-based GPRA data collection system called 

Transformation Accountability (TRAC) System in FY 2008 which ensures the capture of an 

unduplicated count of children served. In FY 2008, the baseline for this new measure (3.2.23) 

was 975. This result is significantly lower than the estimated number served in measure 3.2.01 

due to the fact that not all grantees are fully utilizing the TRAC system. This is the result of 

factors such as delays in human subjects review at some sites and various staffing/budget 

constraints. Although the result for 2009 was an increase of nearly 1,000 children served over 

2008, the target was not met. SAMHSA expects compliance to continue to improve considerably 

over time as we are providing additional technical assistance and working aggressively with 

grantees to improve compliance with TRAC. 

The target for improving children’s outcomes was exceeded considerably again in FY 2009 and 

has nearly doubled since 2006. Clinically significant improvement is demonstrated as an 

improvement of a standard deviation or more (10-15+) on at least one of the three standardized 

assessment measures given to children. The program examined this result, and it appears to be 

a result of the maturation of the grant program. 

The NCTSN efficiency measure (3.2.03, dollars spent per person served) is calculated by 

dividing the total dollar amount awarded to grantees by the number who received direct services 

from those grantees. As discussed above, the number of children served decreased in FY 2009 

due to fluctuations in the grant cycle, and more importantly, that direct service provision may not 

be a grantee’s primary strategy for increasing access of children and their families to trauma30 
informed interventions. Since this measure is calculated using the current estimated client 

count, SAMHSA intends to retire it in FY 2011 and replace it with a cost per improved client 

measure which would include an unduplicated count of number served (3.2.23) in the 

denominator. 

PROGRAM: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES – HOMELESSNESS PROGRAMS13

 

Table 25: Measure 3.4.01: Increase the number of clients served (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 2,784 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 2,262 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 2,223 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 2,145 878 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 Set Baseline 548 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 26: Measure 3.4.02: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who 

report improved functioning (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 68.4 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 68.4 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 68.4 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 68.4 54.8 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 Set Baseline 68.4 

(Baseline) 

 

 13Prior to FY 2010 president's Budget, Homelessness data was reported in the CMHS Other Capacity table

31 
Table 27: Measure 3.4.03: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who 

were currently employed (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 15.6 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 15.6 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 15.6 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 15.6 9.1 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 Set Baseline 15.6 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 28: Measure 3.4.04: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who 

had no/reduced involvement with the criminal justice system (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 98.2 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 98.2 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 98.2 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 98.2 97.5 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 Set Baseline 98.2 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 29: Measure 3.4.05: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who 

had a permanent place to live in the community (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 60.6 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 60.6 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 60.6 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 60.6 74.2 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 Set Baseline 60.6 

(Baseline) 

 

32 
Table 30: Measure 3.4.06: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who 

had improved social support (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 78 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 78 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 78 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 78 70 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 Set Baseline 78 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 31: Measure 3.4.07: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who 

report positively about perception of care (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 96.1 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 96.1 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 96.1 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 96.1 94.5 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 Set Baseline 96.1 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 32: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Mental Health 

Services - Homelessness Programs 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.4.01 

3.4.02 

3.4.03 

3.4.04 

3.4.05 

3.4.06 

3.4.07 

Data are collected through 

standard instruments and 

submitted through the TRAC online data reporting and collection 

system. 

All TRAC data are automatically checked as they are 

input into TRAC. Validation and verification checks are 

run on the data as they are being entered. The system will 

not allow any data that are out of range or violate skip 

patterns to be saved into the database. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 3.4.01 - 3.4.07 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

33 
The purpose of Services in Supportive Housing program is to help prevent or reduce chronic 

homelessness by funding services for individuals and families experiencing chronic 

homelessness in coordination with existing permanent supportive housing programs and 

resources. Supportive housing provides consumers with long-term, community-based housing 

options by providing individuals and families who experience chronic homelessness the 

appropriate services and treatment needed to stay housed in a permanent setting. This housing 

approach combines housing assistance and intensive individualized support services to people 

with serious psychiatric conditions and those with co-occurring mental and substance use 

disorders. As of December 2009, the Services in Supportive Housing grantees have provided 

more than 1000 persons with comprehensive and coordinated mental health and related 

services. More than one-half (54.8 percent) of the individuals served demonstrated 

improvement in behavioral functioning and represent an 65-85 percent reduction in the usage of 

high cost services such as hospitalizations and emergency room use. 

PROGRAM: MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION GRANTS14,15,16

 

Table 33: Measure 1.2.10: Increase the number of policy changes completed as a 

consequence of the Comprehensive Mental Health Plan (CMHP) (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 103 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 2 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 29 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 31 191 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 69 81 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 82 

(Baseline) 

 

 

14Program was formally known as Mental Health State Incentive Grants for Transformation.

15This program is still under development and performance measures will be added once the program is finalized. In the interim, 

targets for FY 2011 and FY 2012 have been included and are subject to change.

16 FY 2011 targets for this program drop off due to grants coming to a natural end. 

34 
Table 34: Measure 1.2.11: Number of persons in the mental health care and related 

workforce who have been trained in service improvements recommended by the CMHP 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 4,095 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 746 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 16,557 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 8,218 52,748 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 34,629 50,850 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 3,276 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 35: Measure 1.2.12: Increase the number of financing policy changes completed 

as a consequence of the CMHP (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 54 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 0 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 19 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 18 47 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 29 49 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 43 

(Baseline) 

 

35 
Table 36: Measure 1.2.13: Increase the number of organizational changes completed 

as a consequence of the CMHP (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 159 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 0 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 64 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 223 148 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2008 93 127 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 40 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 37: Measure 1.2.14: Increase the number of organizations that regularly obtain 

and analyze data relevant to the goals of the CMHP (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 46 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 0 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 794 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 239 6841 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 562 102 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2007 Set Baseline 37 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 38: Measure 1.2.15: Increase the number of consumers and family members 

that are members of Statewide consumer- and family-run networks (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 5,784 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 0 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 3,510 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 15,445 82,113 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 4,257 4,627 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 62,411 

(Baseline) 

 

36 
Table 39: Measure 1.2.16: Increase the number of programs implementing practices 

consistent with the CMHP (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 219 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 0 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 1,227 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 633 1,256 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 587 1,238 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 175 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 40: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Mental Health 

System Transformation Grants 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.10 

1.2.11 

1.2.12 

1.2.13 

1.2.14 

1.2.15 

1.2.16 

TRAC on-line data 

reporting and 

collection system. 

All TRAC data are automatically checked as they are input into TRAC. 

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they are being 

entered. The system will not allow any data that are out of range or 

violate skip patterns to be saved into the database. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 1.2.10 - 1.2.16 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

In an effort to reach a larger number of states and communities, the FY 2010 the Mental Health 

Systems Transformation grant awards will be smaller than the earlier grant awards and allow 

the grantees the flexibility to identify and address critical system and capacity reform needs in 

their respective communities. The new grants will build on existing infrastructure by supporting 

States, counties and local communities in implementing activities such as workforce training, 

implementation of evidence-based practices, and improving access to quality mental health 

services. Necessary changes to policies and organizational structures to support improved 

mental health services will also be supported. In addition, the FY 2010 grants will provide States 

and communities the opportunity to expand the much needed treatment capacity and allow 

grantees to identify emerging treatment needs, especially those emerging in the context of the 

economic crisis. 

Performance targets for this program were all exceeded in 2009 except one output measure 

37 
(1.2.13) and one outcome measure (1.2.15) where the targets were not met: Measure 1.2.10, 

number of policy changes completed as a consequence of the CHMP, is an important indicator 

of the program as policy change provides the framework for mental health system 

transformation. The number of policy changes has increased each year since the baseline was 

set in 2007 and the 2009 target was exceeded. Workforce development is another important 

indicator of infrastructure development. Measure 1.2.11, the number of persons in the mental 

health care and related workforce who have been trained in service improvements 

recommended by the CHMP, has increased significantly each year since baseline; targets have 

been exceeded each year. Measure 1.2.15, Increase the number of consumers and family 

members that are members of statewide consumer- and family-run networks is another 

important outcome and an indicator of mental health transformation. Ensuring that mental health 

care is consumer and family driven is a key factor in mental health transformation as evidenced 

by the level of consumer and family involvement. The target was significantly exceeded in 2009. 

Finally, measure 1.2.16, increase the number of programs implementing practices consistent 

with the CHMP is an indicator of the extent to which programs are evidence-based and recovery 

focused. Outcomes have increased significantly each year over baseline and targets were 

exceeded. 

PROGRAM: MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS OF REGIONAL AND NATIONAL 

SIGNIFICANCE - OTHER MENTAL HEALTH CAPACITY ACTIVITIES17

 

Table 41: Measure 1.2.03: Rate of consumers reporting positively about perception of 

care (program participants)18 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 98% Dec 31, 2012 

2011 98% Dec 31, 2011 

2010 98% Dec 31, 2010 

2009 98% 95.2% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2008 98% 94.8% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 Set Baseline 98% 

(Baseline)19

 

 

17Prior to 2008, includes Jail Diversion, Older Adults, HIV/AIDS, and Services in Supportive Housing programs. Beginning in 2009,

data from Services in Supportive Housing will be reported under Homelessness Activities

18Measure has been changed with OMB approval from Rate of consumers/family members reporting positively about outcomes 

(program participants). SAMHSA dropped measure 1.2.04 and change measure 1.2.03 to “Rate of consumers reporting positively 

about perception of care.” 

19Due to the implementation of the TRAC reporting system midyear FY 2007, data reported for FY 2007 will only contain a partial 

year.

38 
Table 42: Measure 1.2.05: Increase the percentage of clients receiving services who 

report improved functioning (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 54% Dec 31, 2012 

2011 54% Dec 31, 2011 

2010 54% Dec 31, 2010 

2009 54% 52.8% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2008 93% 50.5% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 Set Baseline 93% 

(Baseline)20

 

Table 43: Measure 1.2.07: Percentage of people in the United States with serious 

mental illnesses in need of services from the public mental health system, who receive 

services from the public mental health system (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

Out-Year 

Target 50% (2015) Dec 31, 2015 

 

Table 44: Measure 1.2.06: Number of evidence based practices (EBPs) implemented 

(Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 4.2 per State Dec 31, 2013 

2011 4.2 per State Dec 31, 2012 

2010 4.1 per State Dec 31, 2011 

2009 4 per State Dec 31, 2010 

2008 4 per State 4.2 per State 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 3.8 per State 4 per State 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 3.3 per State 3.9 per State 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

 20In December 2007, the TRAC reporting capability was incomplete. Once the system was completed, SAMHSA noted that the 

earlier manual calculation was done incorrectly. The correct formula is now programmed into the reporting system, which should 

minimize future reporting errors.

39 
Table 45: Measure 1.2.08: Number of Adults: percentage of population coverage for 

each (reported as percentage of service population receiving any evidence based 

practice) (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 10.5% Dec 31, 2013 

2011 10.5% Dec 31, 2012 

2010 10.5% Dec 31, 2011 

2009 10.8% Dec 31, 2010 

2008 10.8% 8% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 10.8% 9.4% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 10.3% 9.5% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

Table 46: Measure 1.2.09: Number of Children: percentage of population coverage for 

each (reported as percentage of service population receiving any evidence based 

practice) (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 3.5% Dec 31, 2013 

2011 3.5% Dec 31, 2012 

2010 3.5% Dec 31, 2011 

2009 3.5% Dec 31, 2010 

2008 3.5% 3% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 2.6% 3.2% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 2.3% 2.2% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

40 
Table 47: Data Source and Validation or Performance Measures for Mental Health 

Programs of Regional and National Significance - Other Mental Health Capacity 

Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.03 

1.2.05 

TRAC on-line data reporting and 

collection system. 

All TRAC data are automatically checked as they are 

input into TRAC. Validation and verification checks 

are run on the data as they are being entered. The 

system will not allow any data that are out of range 

or violate skip patterns to be saved into the 

database. 

1.2.07 For the long term measure, the 

numerator is the number of people 

receiving services through the state 

public mental health system, as 

reported by the Uniform Reporting 

System 

(http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/

cmhs/MentalHealthStatistics) The 

denominator is derived from the 

National Co-morbidity Study 

Replication (http://archpsyc.amaassn.org/cgi/content/full/62/6/593), 

census data, and the 1997 CMHS 

Client-Patient Sample Survey, as 

reported in Mental Health 2000 and 

Mental Health 2002 (see 

http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/

cmhs/MentalHealthStatistics/) 

See http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/

cmhs/MentalHealthStatistics/about_urs2002.asp. 

Data validation for the Co-Morbidity Study is 

available at 

http://archpsyc.amaassn.org/cgi/content/full/62/6/593

1.2.06 

1.2.08 

1.2.09 

Uniform Reporting System See http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/

cmhs/MentalHealthStatistics/about_urs2002.asp 

Agency Program 1.4, Measure 1.2.03 - 1.2.09 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

Measure 1.2.03 reflects results for participants in the mental health PRNS service programs. 

Baseline data for consumers has been reported. The target for FY 2008 was missed slightly. 

Measure 1.2.05 is to increase the percentage of clients receiving services who report improved 

functioning. This outcome is comprised of responses to questions about how effectively the 

consumer is able to deal with daily problems, the ability to control his or her life, the ability to 

deal with crisis, how well he or she is getting along with family members, how well he or she 

41 
handles social situations and at work or school; and if symptoms are bothersome. In December 

2007, the TRAC reporting capability was incomplete. Once the system was completed, 

SAMHSA noted that the earlier manual calculation was done incorrectly which accounts for 

missing the target by 42.5 percent. The correct formula is now programmed into the reporting 

system, which should minimize future reporting errors. Subsequent targets will be set 

accordingly. 

Measure 1.2.08 is the percentage of adult service population receiving any evidence-based 

practice. The evidence-based practices measures reflect the program’s efforts to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of mental health services. For FY 2007, the target for the number of 

evidence-based practices was exceeded. The evidence based practice percentage of coverage 

for adults was missed by just one percent while the target was exceeded by half of one percent 

for children. These targets were set at an approximate target level, and the deviation from that 

level is slight. 

PROGRAM: MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS OF REGIONAL AND NATIONAL 

SIGNIFICANCE - SCIENCE AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES21,22

 

Table 48: Measure 1.4.06: Number of people trained by CMHS Science and Service 

Programs (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 4,237 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 4,237 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 4,237 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 4,237 3,534 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 N/A 4,036 

(Historical Actual) 

2007 N/A 4,852 

(Historical Actual) 

2006 N/A 4,647 

(Historical Actual) 

 

 

21Prior to 2008, includes HIV/AIDS education and Historically Black Colleges and Universities National Resource Center for 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health. Beginning in 2009, data from Services in Supportive Housing will be reported under 

Homelessness Activities.

22In the FY 2010 President's Budget, it was erroneously noted that Statewide Family/Consumer TA Center contributed to the 

Science and Services measures. This is not the case and thus has been removed from the list of participating programs. 

42 
Table 49: Measure 1.4.07: Percentage of those trained by the program who report they 

were very satisfied with training (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 80% Dec 31, 2012 

2011 80% Dec 31, 2011 

2010 80% Dec 31, 2010 

2009 80% 81.4% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 N/A 76% 

(Historical Actual) 

2007 N/A 79% 

(Historical Actual) 

2006 N/A 70% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 50: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Mental Health 

Programs of Regional and National Significance - Science and Service Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.4.06 

1.4.07 

Participant’s direct report on 

standardized questionnaires 

administered at the 

completion of each training 

course. 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) data are 

automatically checked as they are input to SAIS. Validation 

and verification checks are run on the data as they are being 

entered. The system will not allow any data that are out of 

range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the database. 

HIV/AIDS Education and Statewide Family Network Training 

and Technical Assistance Center data validation procedures 

involve initial review and consultation with the site 

representative to resolve obvious discrepancies; double data 

entry and comparison; and several rounds of logical and edit 

checks. Note: These measures should be available through 

the TRAC system starting next year. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 1.4.06 - 1.4.07 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

SAMHSA’s Science and Service programs are complements to the Capacity programs. The 

mental health programs within Science and Service include HIV/AIDS Education, and 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Center of Excellence. These programs 

disseminate best-practices information to grantees and the field, helping to ensure that 

SAMHSA’s Capacity programs build and improve services capacity in the most efficient, 

43 
effective and sustainable way possible. The Science and Service programs are also an 

essential and cost-effective support to building effective capacity in communities that do not 

receive grant funds from SAMHSA. SAMHSA hopes to include additional data from more of its 

science and service activities in the future. 

The Mental Health Care Provider Education (MHCPE) in HIV/AIDS Program disseminates 

knowledge and training on the treatment of the neuropsychiatric and psychological sequelae of 

HIV/AIDS. Untreated and unidentified neuropsychiatric and mental health complications related 

to HIV/AIDS lead to more serious problems, delayed care, non-adherence to care, impaired 

quality of life and increased morbidity and mortality front line providers were trained (face-toface) with MHCPE, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, care managers, 

nurses, primary care practitioners, and medical students, as well as clergy, and other workers in 

the mental health arena. 

The purpose of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Center of Excellence is to 

continue the effort to network the 103 HBCUs throughout the United States and promote 

workforce development through expanding knowledge of best practices, leadership 

development and encouraging community partnerships that enhance the participation of 

African-Americans in the substance abuse treatment and mental health professions. The 

comprehensive focus of the HBCU – Center for Excellence will simultaneously expand service 

capacity on campuses and in other treatment venues. 

The target for Measure 1.4.06 was not met. The number trained includes the MHCPE HIV/AIDS 

education training and the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) National 

Resource Center for Substance Abuse and Mental Health training. MHCPE provides the 

majority of the number trained for this measure and a 12 percent reduction has occurred in the 

numbers of persons trained face-to-face in the past two years. The program relies heavily on 

volunteer trainers, and increased demands on their time given current economic conditions for 

trainers as well as trainees, has resulted in a smaller number trained. Satisfaction with the 

training remains high as evidenced by the target being exceed in Measure 1.4.07, percentage of 

those trained by the program who report they were very satisfied with training. 

PROGRAM: CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 

 

Table 51: Measure 3.2.11: Increase the percent of funded sites that will exceed a 30 

percent improvement in behavioral and emotional symptoms among children receiving 

services for 6 months23 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

Out-Year 

Target 60% (2015) Dec 31, 2015 

2010 60% Dec 31, 2010 

 

 

23Long-term measure only. No annual targets have been set.

44 
Table 52: Measure 3.2.12: Increase percentage of children attending school 80% or 

more of time after 12 months24 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 86.3% Dec 31, 2012 

2011 86.3% Dec 31, 2011 

2010 86.3% Dec 31, 2010 

2009 86.3% 89.2% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 84% 86.3% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 84% 87% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 84% 89.7% 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

Table 53: Measure 3.2.13: Increase percentage with no law enforcement contacts at 6 

months (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 71.7% Dec 31, 2012 

2011 71.7% Dec 31, 2011 

2010 71.7% Dec 31, 2010 

2009 71.7% 68.9% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 69% 71.7% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 70% 71% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 68% 69.3% 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

 24This measure has been slightly revised. It was previously reported as “75% or more of the time.” However, the measure has been 

calculated using an 80% threshold since 2004. Therefore, this revision brings the measure text in line with the calculation. 

45 
Table 54: Measure 3.2.14: Decrease average days of inpatient facilities among 

children served in systems of care at 6 months25 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 -2 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 -2 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 -2 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 -2 -0.12 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 -2 -1.05 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 -2 -1.78 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2006 -3.65 -1 

(Target Not Met) 

 

Table 55: Measure 3.2.15: Percent of systems of care that are sustained 5 years post 

Federal funding (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

Out-Year 

Target 90% (2013) Dec 31, 2013 

2009 85% 64.1% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 80% 77.8% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

 25Successful result is below target. For example, FY 2007 the target was -2. To have achieved the target, the program would need 

a smaller number (i.e. -2.5 or -3). 

46 
Table 56: Measure 3.2.16: Increase number of children receiving services (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 13,578 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 13,051 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 13,051 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 13,051 10,762 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 10,000 13,051 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 9,120 10,871 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 9,120 10,339 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

Table 57: Measure 3.2.17: Increase total savings for in-hospital patient care costs per 

1,000 children served 26 (Efficiency) 

FY Target Result 

2012 $2,376,000 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 $2,376,000 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 $2,376,000 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 $2,376,000 $160,000 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 $2,670,000 $1,401,750 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 $2,670,000 $2,376,000 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2006 Set Baseline $1,335,000 

(Baseline) 

 

 26Wording for this measure has changed slightly to make the measure more clear.

47 
Table 58: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Children's 

Mental Health Services 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.2.11 Data on children’s outcomes are collected 

from a multi-site outcome study. Data on 

clinical outcomes were derived from Reliable 

Change Index scores (Jacobson & Truax, 

1991), calculated from entry into services to 

six months for the Total Problem scores of the 

Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL, Achenbach, 

2001) 

The Reliable Change Index is a 

standardized method developed by 

Jacobson and his colleagues to measure 

change between two data points. The 

Reliable Change Index has a clear-cut 

criterion for improvement that has been 

psychometrically tested and found to be 

sound (Jacobson & Truax, 1991). 

3.2.12 Data on children's attendance are collected 

from a multi-site outcome study. 

Validity analyses were conducted for school 

attendance and law enforcement contacts. 

School attendance was found to have a 

positive relationship with school 

performance. Children who attended school 

frequently also had some tendency to 

receive good grades. The correlation 

between the two was .313 (p = .000). 

3.2.13 Delinquency is reported using a self-report 

survey 

Validity analyses were conducted for school 

attendance and law enforcement contacts. 

3.2.14 The decrease in days of inpatient facilities 

utilization per child is calculated for a sample 

of children with complete data on inpatient 

hospitalization use at both intake and 6 

months assessment points. Decrease in 

inpatient hospitalization days = total number 

of inpatient days at 6 months – total number 

of inpatient days at intake. The scale used to 

assess inpatient-residential treatment is the 

Living Situations Questionnaire, was adapted 

from the Restrictiveness of Living 

Environments Scale and Placement Stability 

Scale (ROLES) developed by Hawkins and 

colleagues (1992) 

Data are validated by evaluation contractor 

and subject to project officer review. 

3.2.15 Former grantee communities are surveyed 5 

years after funding ends 

Data are validated by evaluation contractor 

and subject to project officer review 

3.2.16 Grantee reports Data are validated by evaluation contractor 

and subject to project officer review 

48 
Table 59: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Children's 

Mental Health Services (continued) 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.2.17 The efficiency measure is computed by calculating the average 

decrease in days of inpatient facilities utilization per child at six 

months and multiplying the decrease by the average daily 

hospitalization charges. The cost savings figure is then converted to 

a rate per 1,000 children served by the program across all sites. 

The average daily hospitalization charges = $1,335. National 

estimates of average daily hospitalization charges were obtained 

from Health Care Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample 

(NIS) 2001 

Data are validated b y 

evaluation contractor 

and subject to project 

officer review 

 

Agency Program, Measure 3.2.11 - 3.2.17 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

Measure 3.2.11 is a long-term measure only. No annual targets have been set. The behavioral 

and emotional functioning of children, youth and families is a key outcome of the Children’s 

Mental Health Initiative (CMHI) program. This long-term indicator reports the percent of funded 

sites that exceed a 30 percent improvement in behavioral and emotional symptoms for children 

and youth who have received program services for six months. The baseline obtained for 2001 

indicated that 30 percent of funded grantees satisfied the criteria of a 30 percent improvement 

established for this important long-term outcome indicator. The program seeks to double this 

percentage to 60 percent of grantee sites. Accordingly, the target set for FY 2010 represents an 

increase of 100 percent in performance over the baseline obtained when this indicator was 

initiated. This is a very ambitious increase in target for this CMHI indicator, particularly given 

that data collected at program entry indicate that some children and youth entering CMHI 

services are demonstrating more clinically significant behavioral and emotional symptomology in 

recent years compared to earlier program funding years. There have also been other shifts and 

changes in populations of focus for some communities funded in FY 2005, FY 2008, and FY 

2009 including an emphasis on serving very young children. 

The FY 2009 target for increase school attendance among clients of the CMHI program, 

measure 3.2.12, was set at the level achieved by the program in FY 2008. The FY 2009 target 

was exceeded by 2.9 percent. Grantees vary in the populations they serve, and those grantees 

that serve high-risk and/or older children may be less able to achieve these high levels of school 

attendance. Performance targets for this measure have been exceeded year over year since 

2002, except for 2005 where the target was missed by less than one percent. Given that the 

national average for school attendance is 75%, and this program deals with a population that 

generally has greater difficulty attending school than children as a whole do, performance for 

this measure has been excellent. 

49 
The target for no law enforcement contact after six months of enrollment in the program among 

clients in the CMHI program (3.2.13) was increased for FY 2009; however, this target was not 

met and missed by 2.8 percent. The FY 2009 target was set at the performance level achieved 

by the program in FY 2008, which was the maximum performance level of the last four years. 

Since baseline was set in FY 2002, the target has been consistently exceeded though 2008. 

Given that grantees vary in the populations they target, e.g. those that target high-risk and/or 

older children, this overall performance demonstrates that the systems of care approach 

effectively reduces law enforcement contacts. 

The FY 2009 target for reduction in hospital days was not achieved for Measure 3.2.14: 

Decrease average days of inpatient facilities among children served in systems of care at 6 

months. Performance of this measure has not met targets over the last four years, which can be 

partially accounted for by the fact that the number of children hospitalized before they were 

enrolled in the program differs from year to year resulting in smaller or larger decreases 

observed. For example, if the average utilization of inpatient hospitalization prior to program 

intake is relatively low, then decreases in average number of days per child that can be 

achieved by the program will be low as well. During FY 2009, many funded communities did not 

enroll children with prior inpatient hospitalization use, and did not have any inpatient use at 

follow-up. Given these changes in funded communities, SAMHSA will be reviewing its GPRA 

measures and may be adding new measures in FY 2010. 

Grantees funded in FY 2005 serve proportionately larger numbers of very young children who 

generally have shorter and less frequent hospitalizations. Given this change in populations 

served, and the sensitivity of the measure to the length of hospitalization prior to service intake, 

the targets for this measure remain stable through FY 2009. 

The efficiency measure (3.2.17) reflects per-unit savings in costs. The wording of the measure 

was changed to better reflect the intent of this measure (total in-patient care cost savings). The 

FY 2009 target for reduction in costs of inpatient care was not met. Although, one of the main 

goals of the program is to provide least restrictive services to children and youth served by the 

grantees, more restrictive services, like inpatient hospitalization, which are also among the most 

expensive to provide, are sometimes required. This measure is also reflective of the variability 

of each cohort of grantees’ utilization of in-hospital care services. Although alternatives to inhospital care are used by CMHI systems of care whenever possible, this level of care may be 

necessary for some children. The FY 2009 result is tied to the reduction to in-hospital days as 

reported in measure 3.2.14; both of the 2009 targets were not met, due to the fact that many 

grantees did not serve populations, including very young children, who utilize any inpatient 

hospitalization services (neither at intake nor at follow-up). 

Measure 3.2.15 is a long-term measure to assess sustainability of Federally-funded 

communities after Federal funding ceases. Former grantee communities are surveyed five years 

after funding ends. The baseline set in FY 2004 was a result of an assessment of the 

performance of grantee sites funded in 1994. Since 1994, an additional 123 communities have 

been funded to provide mental health services for children, youth and their families through the 

CMHI program. These communities are located throughout the United States and the territories 

and there is substantial variation in the economic, socio-cultural and other needed resources to 

ensure that a Federally-funded CMHI grantee community can remain sustained after Federal 

funding ends. Given the proportion of sites that were able to remain sustained five years after 

Federal program funding ended for communities funded by CMHI in 1994, 80 percent was set 

as an ambitious target for performance on this long-term indicator. The annual performance 

target was increase to 85 percent for FY 2009 and the target was not met. 

50 
The long-term sustainability indicator (3.2.15) was estimated using data from the nine 

communities funded in FY 1997. The data on whether communities were sustained were 

collected through a Web-based survey administered to four key stakeholders in each grant 

community (e.g., the current or former site project director, a key person responsible for 

children’s mental health in the community, a family member, and a representative from another 

child-serving agency). A community was defined as sustained if the community retained flexible 

funds and sustained at least 50 percent of non-restrictive services, 50 percent of system-of-care 

features and mechanisms, and 50 percent of system of care goals. The definition accounts for 

changes in both the (a) system of care relative to the grant period and (b) the absolute level at 

which the system of care operates 5 years post-funding. 

The target of 85 percent was not met, with 64.1 percent of communities funded in 1998 (9 of our 

14) achieving sustainability five years past the cessation of federal grant funding. This result 

may reflect economic conditions affecting the availability of local and State funding within the 

areas where these communities are located. 

The FY 2009 target for the number of children served (3.2.16) was not met. In FY 2008, 16 

grantees completed their grant funding cycle and SAMHSA’s CMHS awarded 18 new grants. 

The first year of the grant is a planning year, and grantees do not enroll children in services. In 

addition, the communities funded in 2003-2004 are towards the end of their funding cycle, when 

historically, enrollment into services declines. These trends in the currently funded group of 

grantees are likely to have a significant impact on the number of children and youth served in 

the CMHI program. 

PROGRAM: PROTECTION & ADVOCACY 

 

Table 60: Measure 3.4.08: Increase percentage of complaints of alleged abuse not 

withdrawn by the client that resulted in positive change for the client in her/his 

environment, community, or facility, as result of PAIMI involvement (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

Out-Year 

Target 88% (2013) Jul 31, 2014 

2012 84% Jul 31, 2013 

2011 84% Jul 31, 2012 

2010 84% Jul 31, 2011 

2009 84% Jul 31, 2010 

2008 84% 87% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 85% 83% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 84% 84% 

(Target Met) 

 

51 
Table 61: Measure 3.4.09: Increase percentage of complaints of alleged neglect 

substantiated not withdrawn by the client that resulted in positive change for the client in 

her/his environment, community, or facility, as a result of PAIMI involvement (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

Out-Year 

Target 94% (2013) Jul 31, 2014 

2012 88% Jul 31, 2013 

2011 88% Jul 31, 2012 

2010 88% Jul 31, 2011 

2009 85% Jul 31, 2010 

2008 85% 84% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 84% 88% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 89% 88% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

 

Table 62: Measure 3.4.10: Increase percentage of complaints of alleged rights 

violations substantiated and not withdrawn by the client that resulted in positive change 

through the restoration of client rights, expansion or maintenance of personal decisionmaking, or elimination of other barriers to personal decision-making, as a result of 

PAIMI involvement (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

Out-Year 

Target 95% (2013) Jul 31, 2014 

2012 90% Jul 31, 2013 

2011 90% Jul 31, 2012 

2010 90% Jul 31, 2011 

2009 90% Jul 31, 2010 

2008 90% 89% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2007 90% 86% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2006 95% 85% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

52 
Table 63: Measure 3.4.11: Percent of interventions on behalf of groups of PAIMIeligible individuals that were concluded successfully (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

Out-Year 

Target 95% (2013) Jul 31, 2014 

2012 97% Jul 31, 2013 

2011 97% Jul 31, 2012 

2010 97% Jul 31, 2011 

2009 95% Jul 31, 2010 

2008 95% 97% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 95% 97% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 Set Baseline 95% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 64: Measure 3.4.12: Increase in the number of people served by the PAIMI 

program (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 22,325 Jul 31, 2013 

2011 22,325 Jul 31, 2012 

2010 22,325 Jul 31, 2011 

2009 22,325 Jul 31, 2010 

2008 22,325 17,468 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 23,500 18,694 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 23,500 18,998 

(Target Not Met) 

 

53 
Table 65: Measure 3.4.13: Ratio of persons served/impacted per activity/intervention 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 430 Jul 31, 2013 

2011 430 Jul 31, 2012 

2010 430 Jul 31, 2011 

2009 420 Jul 31, 2010 

2008 420 1,177 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 420 473 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 410 407 

(Target Not Met) 

 

Table 66: Measure 3.4.14: Cost per 1,000 individuals served/impacted 27 (Efficiency) 

FY Target Result 

2012 $1,950 Jul 31, 2013 

2011 $1,950 Jul 31, 2012 

2010 $1,950 Jul 31, 2011 

2009 $2,000 Jul 31, 2010 

2008 $2,000 $1,886 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 $2,000 $1,989 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 $2,100 $2,316 

(Target Not Met) 

 

 

27Successful result is below target. 

54 
Table 67: Measure 3.4.19: The number attending public education/constituency 

training and public awareness activities (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 120,000 Oct 31, 2013 

2011 120,000 Oct 31, 2012 

2010 120,000 Oct 31, 2011 

2009 120,000 Oct 31, 2010 

2008 120,000 83,070 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 Set Baseline 119,423 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 68: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Protection 

and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) Programs 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.4.08 

3.4.09 

3.4.10 

3.4.11 

3.4.12 

Data are derived from standardized annual 

Program Performance Reports in which 

grantees estimate the potential number of 

individuals impacted through a pre-defined list 

of 7 possible interventions (e.g., group 

advocacy non-litigation, facility monitoring 

services, class litigation). 

The information provided in the annual 

reports is checked for reliability during onsite PAIMI Program visits, annual reviews, 

and budget application reviews. 

3.4.13 Data are derived from standardized annual 

Program Performance Reports in which 

grantees estimate the potential number of 

individuals impacted through a pre-defined list 

of 7 possible interventions (e.g., group 

advocacy non-litigation, facility monitoring 

services, class litigation). The ratio measure is 

calculated by using the total number of 

persons served and impacted as the 

numerator and the total number of complaints 

addressed and intervention strategies 

conducted as the denominator. 

The information provided in the annual 

reports is checked for reliability during onsite PAIMI Program visits, annual reviews, 

and budget application reviews. 

3.4.14 

3.4.19 

Data are derived from standardized annual 

Program Performance Reports in which 

grantees estimate the potential number of 

individuals impacted through a pre-defined list 

of 7 possible interventions (e.g., group 

advocacy non-litigation, facility monitoring 

services, class litigation). The cost measure is 

calculated by using the total PAIMI allotment 

as the numerator and the total number of 

persons served/impacted as the denominator. 

The information provided in the annual 

reports is checked for reliability during onsite PAIMI Program visits, annual reviews, 

and budget application reviews. 

55 
 

Agency Program, Measure 3.4.08 - 3.4.19 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

Measure 3.4.08 is to increase percentage of complaints of alleged abuse, not withdrawn by the 

client that resulted in positive change for the client in the safety or welfare of their environment, 

as a result of PAIMI involvement (same as long-term measure). The FY 2008 target was 

exceeded by three percent. The performance target for this measure was set at an approximate 

target level, and the deviation from that level is slight. There was no effect on overall program or 

activity performance. 

Measure 3.4.09 is the percentage of cases of alleged neglect resolved in client’s favor. The FY 

2008 target was missed by one percent. The performance target for this measure was set at an 

approximate target level, and the deviation from that level is slight. There was no effect on 

overall program or activity performance. 

Measure 3.4.10 is the percentage of cases of alleged rights violations resolved in client’s favor. 

The FY 2008 target was not met by one percent, but improved by three percent over the 2007 

actual. The performance target for this measure was set at an approximate target level, and the 

deviation from that level is slight. There was no effect on overall program or activity 

performance. Using what appears to have been an atypical outcome for FY 2004, the targets 

set for this measure were overly ambitious for FY 2005 and FY 2006 as demonstrated by the 

actuals for those years. Targets for FY 2009 – 2010 are ambitious at 90 percent compared to 

the 4-year average of 86 percent. 

Measure 3.4.11, the percentage of interventions on behalf of groups of PAIMI-eligible 

individuals that were concluded successfully, was exceeded. Successful conclusion would 

include positive change in a policy, law, regulation, or other barrier for persons with disabilities, 

change in the environment to increase safety or welfare for persons with disabilities, positive 

change through the restoration of client rights, the expansion or maintenance of personal 

decision-making, or the elimination of other barriers to personal decision-making for persons 

with disabilities, securing access to administrative or judicial processes, securing information 

about their rights and strategies to enforce their rights, or persons with disabilities taking action 

to advocate on their own behalf. 

Measure 3.4.12 is to increase in the number of people served by the PAIMI program. The FY 

2008 target was not met. This measure is the most volatile because of the number of factors 

that can influence the outcome. Part of this volatility is inherent in the nature of the PAIMI 

Program which includes both an individual case and systemic focus. This balance shifts over 

time from a more individual case emphasis to a more systemic emphasis not only within 

individual programs but nationally across all programs as well. Also, the case-mix can impact 

this outcome, as individuals with more complex and extensive needs will require more time and 

resources which will reduce the total number of persons that can be served. Finally, although 

the program provides education and outreach, the number of persons served is ultimately 

determined by the number of persons who seek services which may vary over time. Because of 

all of these factors, the targets for FY 2009-2010 have been maintained at 22,325, which is still 

56 
well above the 4-year average of 21,059. 

Both efficiency measures exceeded their targets for FY 2008 (3.4.13 ratio of persons 

served/impacted per activity/intervention and 3.4.14, Cost per 1,000 individuals 

served/impacted). These measures demonstrate how the program is able to maximize the 

number of persons who benefit from the services provided, with emphasis on those services 

that impact the largest number of individuals and at the least cost. 

Steps are being taken to improve the program performance for the PAIMI Program. A PAIMI 

Program Peer Review process is in place for the Annual Program Performance Report which 

assesses and provides specific feedback regarding strengths and weaknesses of the program 

as well as specific recommendations for ongoing quality improvement. Also, the PAIMI 

Programs within each State Protection & Advocacy (P&A) agency are monitored via on-site 

reviews on a regular schedule. These on-site monitoring reviews are conducted by independent 

consultants and provide SAMHSA with an assessment of key areas: governance, legal, fiscal 

and consumer/constituent services/activities of the State’s PAIMI Program. Following these site 

visits, the consultants issue a report that summarizes its program findings and when 

appropriate, may include recommendations for technical assistance and/or corrective action. 

These steps are expected to improve performance so that annual and long-term targets can be 

met. 

A baseline was set for measure 3.4.19, the number attending public education/ constituency 

training and public awareness activities, in FY 2007. An FY 2009 target has been established at 

120,000. 

PROGRAM: PROJECTS TO ASSIST IN THE TRANSITION FROM HOMELESSNESS 

 

Table 69: Measure 3.4.15: Increase the percentage of enrolled homeless persons who 

receive community mental health services (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

Out-Year 

Target 50% (2013) Jul 31, 2014 

2012 47% Jul 31, 2013 

2011 47% Jul 31, 2012 

2010 47% Jul 31, 2011 

2009 46% Jul 31, 2010 

2008 45% 47% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 45% 37% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 N/A 38% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

57 
Table 70: Measure 3.4.16: Increase number of homeless persons contacted (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 195,850 Jul 31, 2013 

2011 182,000 Jul 31, 2012 

2010 160,000 Jul 31, 2011 

2009 151,000 Jul 31, 2010 

2008 150,000 134,932 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 157,500 142,352 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 157,000 148,655 

(Target Not Met) 

 

Table 71: Measure 3.4.17: Increase percentage of contacted homeless persons with 

serious mental illness who become enrolled in services (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 55% Jul 31, 2013 

2011 55% Jul 31, 2012 

2010 55% Jul 31, 2011 

2009 55% Jul 31, 2010 

2008 55% 54% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 45% 55% 

(Target Exceeded)28

2006 45% 52% 

(Target Exceeded)29

 

 28Revised from previously reported result. In order to more accurately reflect the true outcome of the measure Percentage of 

contacted persons with SMI who are enrolled in services, the calculation has been revised. Prior calculations used the entire 

number contacted as the denominator. The revised calculation will use only those who are eligible for services as the denominator. 

Eligibility criteria are defined as consumers who are experiencing homelessness or are at imminent risk of homelessness and have 

Serious Mental Illness (SMI) including co-occurring substance use disorders

29Revised from previously reported result. In order to more accurately reflect the true outcome of the measure Percentage of 

contacted persons with SMI who are enrolled in services, the calculation has been revised. Prior calculations used the entire 

number contacted as the denominator. The revised calculation will use only those who are eligible for services as the denominator. 

Eligibility criteria are defined as consumers who are experiencing homelessness or are at imminent risk of homelessness and have 

Serious Mental Illness (SMI) including co-occurring substance use disorders

58 
Table 72: Measure 3.4.18: Average Federal cost of enrolling a homeless person with 

serious mental illness in services30 (Efficiency) 

FY Target Result 

2012 $668 Jul 31, 2013 

2011 $668 Jul 31, 2012 

2010 $668 Jul 31, 2011 

2009 $668 Jul 31, 2010 

2008 $668 $669 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2007 $668 $674 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 $668 $623 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

Table 73: Measure 3.4.20: Provide training for PATH providers on SSI/SSDI Outreach, 

Access, Recovery (SOAR) to ensure eligible homeless clients are receiving benefits 

(Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 5,832 Dec 31, 2012 

2011 5,420 Dec 31, 2011 

2010 4,927 Dec 31, 2010 

2009 4,927 5,104 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 Set Baseline 4,927 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 74: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Projects to 

Assist in the Transition from Homelessness (PATH) Programs 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.4.15 

3.4.16 

3.4.17 

3.4.18 

3.4.20 

Data are submitted annually 

to SAMHSA by States, which 

obtain the information from 

local human service 

agencies that provide 

services. 

SAMHSA’s CMHS has developed additional error checks to 

screen data and contacts States and local providers 

concerning accuracy when data is reported outside expected 

ranges. CMHS has also issued guidance to all States and 

localities on data collection and monitors compliance with 

data collection through increased site visits to local PATHfunded agencies. 

 

 

30Successful result is below target.

59 
Agency Program, Measure 3.4.15 - 3.4.20 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

Measure 3.4.15 reflects the PATH program’s legislative intent that it will provide a link to, and 

depend upon, community-based services, particularly mental health services, funded primarily 

by States. An analysis of data for this measure indicated that some States were performing 

poorly on this measure. As a result, the FY 2007 target was not met. In response, the PATH TA 

Center determined that many States do not accurately collect information about the number of 

persons who receive community mental health services. The PATH TA Center has begun 

providing on-site and online assistance to help programs better understand how to report on this 

measure. A new long-term target for FY 2013 has been set at 50 percent. 

In addition, SAMHSA awarded a contract in FY 2008 to begin working with States to utilize the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development Homeless Management Information System 

(HMIS) to assist in obtaining individual level outcome data from PATH-funded efforts. In FY 

2009, SAMHSA redesigned the PATH Annual Report. It now reflects real consumer outcomes 

and completes the program’s alignment with HMIS data elements. 

The number of individuals served is a key measure for SAMHSA programs that fund services. 

The target for Measure 3.4.16 was not met for FY 2007, which triggered a re-examination of 

how this measure is calculated. The PATH program now collects data on all persons served 

using both Federal and match funds. Previously, the program required providers to report on 

only the proportion of services provided with PATH Federal funds. Our previous analysis of the 

data indicated that there were inconsistencies in how this formula was applied and that the 

program was missing critical information on services delivered. Using the Federal-only 

calculation was an incomplete indicator for performance as the States serve more PATH-eligible 

consumers than we had reported. As these changes were implemented in FY 2009, the target 

for Measure 3.4.16 was not met again for FY 2008, but the program expects to meet future 

targets. 

Measure 3.4.17 is an indicator of enrollment of PATH-eligible clients in supportive services other 

than mental health services. The calculation for this measure was revised to more accurately 

reflect the true outcome. Prior calculations used the entire number contacted in the calculation. 

The revised calculation uses only those eligible for services, which explains why the 2007 target 

was exceeded by 10 percent. The 2008 target was missed by one percent. The performance 

target for this measure was set at an approximate target level, and the deviation from that level 

is slight. There was no effect on overall program or activity performance. Eligibility criteria are 

defined as consumers who are experiencing homelessness or are at imminent risk of 

homelessness and have serious mental illness including co-occurring substance use disorders. 

The target for the PATH efficiency measure (3.4.18) was not met for FY 2008, the 2008 target 

was missed by one dollar. The performance target for this measure was set at an approximate 

target level, and the deviation from that level is slight. There was no effect on overall program or 

activity performance. Performance for this measure FY 2005 through FY 2008 has been 

excellent. Targets have either been met (2005) or exceeded (2006) and for the most recent two 

years, they were missed by only six dollars and one dollar respectively. This measure will also 

60 
be affected by the proposed change to collect information on all persons served and not just 

persons served by Federal PATH funds.31 The current calculation uses the Federal 

appropriation divided by the number of persons served by Federal PATH funds only. Because 

the current data only includes the number of persons served with Federal funds, this measure is 

currently reported as the total cost, including the Federal grant and matching funds, of enrolling 

a person in services. If programs begin to report information on all persons served including 

those served with funding from other sources, PATH will be able to accurately capture the 

Federal cost per person served in addition to the total cost per person served. 

Measure 3.4.20 is a measure of a key output of the program: The number of PATH providers 

trained on Supplemental Security Income/Social Security Disability Insurance (SSI/SSDI) 

Outreach, Access, and Recovery (SOAR). The target for 2009 was exceeded, and 19,220 have 

been trained since the initiative began. This output is important in that once trained, PATH 

providers are better able to assist PATH clients in applying for and getting the income benefits 

for which they are eligible.32

PROGRAM: MENTAL HEALTH BLOCK GRANT 

 

Table 75: Measure 2.3.07: Reduce rate of adult readmissions to State psychiatric 

hospitals within 30 days33 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 9.8% Sep 30, 2013 

2011 9.8% Sep 30, 2012 

2010 9.3% Sep 30, 2011 

2009 8.5% Sep 30, 2010 

2008 8.5% 9.4% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2007 8.7% 9.8% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 8.3% 9.4% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

 31 PATH funds represent over 23 percent of the total dollar amount earmarked by provider agencies for serving homeless people 

with mental illnesses. These funds are worth more than their face value because they must be matched by State and local 

resources. For every $3 in Federal funds, State or local agencies must put forward $1 in cash or in-kind services.

32 Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) are disability income benefits administered 

by the Social Security Administration (SSA) that generally also provide either Medicaid and/or Medicare health insurance to 

individuals who are eligible. Accessing these benefits is often a critical first step in recovery. For people, who are homeless with 

mental health problems that impair cognition or who are returning to the community from institutions (jails, prisons or hospitals), 

access to these programs can be extremely challenging. The application process for SSI/SSDI is complicated, detailed, and often

difficult to navigate. Typically, about 10-15 percent of individuals who are homeless have these benefits.

33Successful result is below target.

61 
Table 76: Measure 2.3.08: Reduce rate of adult readmissions to State psychiatric 

hospitals within 180 days34 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 20% Sep 30, 2013 

2011 20% Sep 30, 2012 

2010 20% Sep 30, 2011 

2009 19% Sep 30, 2010 

2008 19% 21.8% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 19.1% 20.3% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 19.2% 19.6% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

Table 77: Measure 2.3.09: Reduce rate of Child/adolescent readmissions to State 

psychiatric hospitals within 30 days35 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 6.5% Sep 30, 2013 

2011 6.5% Sep 30, 2012 

2010 6.5% Sep 30, 2011 

2009 5.8% Sep 30, 2010 

2008 5.8% 8.2% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 5.9% 6.7% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 6% 6.4% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

 

 34Successful result is below target.

35Successful result is below target.

62 
Table 78: Measure 2.3.10: Reduce rate of Child/adolescent readmissions to State 

psychiatric hospitals within 180 days36 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 15.3% Sep 30, 2013 

2011 15.3% Sep 30, 2012 

2010 14.5% Sep 30, 2011 

2009 13.9% Sep 30, 2010 

2008 13.9% 17.1% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 14% 15.3% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 13.6% 14.2% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

 

Table 79: Measure 2.3.11: Number of evidence based practices (EBPs) implemented37

(Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 4.2 per State Sep 30, 2013 

2011 4.2 per State Sep 30, 2012 

2010 4.1 per State Sep 30, 2011 

2009 4.0 per State Sep 30, 2010 

2008 4.0 per State 4.2 per State 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 4.0 per State 4.0 per State 

(Target Met) 

2006 3.3 per State 3.9 per State 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

 36Successful result is below target.

37National average of evidence-based practices per state, based on 35 States reporting. Excludes Medication Management and 

Illness Self-Management, which continue to undergo definitional clarification.

63 
Table 80: Measure 2.3.12: Adult: Percentage of adult population coverage for each 

(reported as percentage of service population receiving any evidence based practice) 38

(Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 10.5% Sep 30, 2013 

2011 10.5% Sep 30, 2012 

2010 10.5% Sep 30, 2011 

2009 10.5% Sep 30, 2010 

2008 10.5% 8% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 10.4% 9.4% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 10.3% 9.5% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

Table 81: Measure 2.3.13: Children: Percentage of population coverage for each 

(reported as percentage of service population receiving any evidence based practice) 39

(Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 3.5% Sep 30, 2013 

2011 3.5% Sep 30, 2012 

2010 3.5% Sep 30, 2011 

2009 3.5% Sep 30, 2010 

2008 3.5% 3% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 3.4% 3.2% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2006 2.3% 2.2% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

 38National average of evidence-based practices per state, based on 35 States reporting. Excludes Medication Management and 

Illness Self-Management, which continue to undergo definitional clarification

39National average of evidence-based practices per state, based on 35 States reporting. Excludes Medication Management and 

Illness Self-Management, which continue to undergo definitional clarification.

64 
Table 82: Measure 2.3.15: Increase rate of consumers (adults) reporting positively 

about outcomes (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 72% Sep 30, 2013 

2011 72% Sep 30, 2012 

2010 72% Sep 30, 2011 

2009 72% Sep 30, 2010 

2008 72% 72% 

(Target Met) 

2007 73% 71% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 74% 71% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

Table 83: Measure 2.3.16: Increase rate of family members (children/adolescents) 

reporting positively about outcomes (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 73% Sep 30, 2013 

2011 73% Sep 30, 2012 

2010 73% Sep 30, 2011 

2009 73% Sep 30, 2010 

2008 73% 64% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 68% 65% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 67% 73% 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

65 
Table 84: Measure 2.3.17: Number of persons receiving evidence-based practices per 

$10,000 of mental health block grant dollars spent (Efficiency) 

FY Target Result 

2012 7.0 Sep 30, 2013 

2011 7.0 Sep 30, 2012 

2010 7.0 Sep 30, 2011 

2009 6.5 Sep 30, 2010 

2008 4.0 6.7 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 4.0 6.5 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 4.0 5.7 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

Table 85: Measure 2.3.14: Increase number of people served by the public mental 

health system40 (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 6,300,000 Sep 30, 2013 

2011 6,300,000 Sep 30, 2012 

2010 6,300,000 Sep 30, 2011 

2009 6,250,000 Sep 30, 2010 

2008 6,200,000 6,332,983 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 5,753,633 6,121,641 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 5,725,008 5,979,379 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

 

40The FY 2010, FY 2011 and FY 2012 targets have been set at 6.3 million persons served (slightly lower than the most recent 

actual) based on the expectation that the current recession will impact the service delivery systems of the State Mental Health

Authorities and may result in fewer persons receiving mental health care nationally.

66 
Table 86: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Mental Health 

Block Grant 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.07 

2.3.08 

2.3.09 

2.3.10 

2.3.11 

2.3.12 

2.3.13 

2.3.15 

2.3.16 

2.3.14 

Uniform Reporting System. See http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/

cmhs/MentalHealthStatistics/about_urs2002.asp

2.3.17 Uniform Reporting System. This measure 

is calculated by dividing the number of 

adults with SMI and children/adolescents 

with SED who received evidence based 

practices during the FY by the MHBG 

allocation for the FY in question, 

multiplied by 10,000 

See http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/

cmhs/MentalHealthStatistics/about_urs2002.asp

 

Agency Program, Measure 2.3.07 - 2.3.14 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

Measure 2.3.07 is to reduce the rate of readmissions to State psychiatric hospitals for adults 

within 30 days from their discharge from the hospital. The FY 2008 target was not met. 

Readmission rates were slightly above target levels. It appears that the initial targets for FY 

2003 – FY 2005, which were set from the FY 2002 baseline, may have been too ambitious since 

the targets have not been met in any of the previous fiscal years. In response to the unexpected 

level of difficulty experienced by the States in reducing these rates, the target for FY 2007 was 

increased to 8.7 percent, but this also proved to be too ambitious. FY 2010 targets have been 

increased to allow time for States to make adjustments to service planning in response to the 

existing rates. 

Measure 2.3.08 is the readmission rate for adults within 180 days from their discharge from the 

hospital. The FY 2008 target was not met. Readmission rates were slightly above target levels. 

It appears that the initial targets for FY 2003 – FY 2005, which were set from the FY 2002 

baseline, may have been too ambitious since the targets have not been met in any of the 

previous fiscal years. In response to the unexpected level of difficulty experienced by the States 

in reducing these rates, the target for FY 2007 was increased to 19.1 percent, but this also 

proved to be too ambitious. FY 2010, FY 2011 and FY 2012 targets have been increased to 

allow time for States to make adjustments to service planning in response to the existing rates. 

67 
Measure 2.3.09 is the readmission rate for children within 30 days from their discharge from the 

hospital the FY 2008 target was not met. Readmission rates were slightly above target levels. It 

appears that since the actuals for FY 2004 and FY 2005 were just above the targets, the targets 

for FY 2006 and FY 2007 were lowered with the expectation that the rate would continue to fall. 

Unfortunately, that is not the case since the rates have been increasing. In response to the 

unexpected level of difficulty experienced by the States in reducing these rates, the target for FY 

2010 was increased to 6.5 percent, to allow time for States to make adjustments to service 

planning in response to the existing rates. 

Measure 2.3.10 is the readmission rate for children within 180 days from their discharge from 

the hospital. The FY 2008 target was not met. It appears that the targets that were set from the 

FY 2003 baseline may have been too ambitious since the targets have not been met in any of 

the previous fiscal years. In response to the unexpected level of difficulty experienced by the 

States in reducing these rates, the target for FY 2007 was increased to 14.0 percent, but this 

also proved to be too ambitious. FY 2010, FY 2011 and FY 2012 targets have been increased 

to allow time for States to make adjustments to service planning in response to the existing 

rates. 

Measures 2.3.15 and 2.3.16 reflect the rate of consumers (adults) and family members 

(children) reporting positively about the outcomes of the services that they received in helping to 

the problems that brought them into treatment. The target for adults was met; the target for 

children was slightly missed. Future targets for adults have been reduced on the basis of prior 

year performance. 

The evidence-based practices measures reflect the program’s efforts to improve the efficiency 

and effectiveness of mental health services. The efficiency measure was exceeded (2.3.17). 

This indicator provides a measure of the number of evidence-based practices (EBPs) 

implemented per State. The use of EBPs allows mental health providers and programs to more 

reliably improve services, achieve optimal outcomes and has demonstrated a consistent, 

positive impact on of the lives of people who have experienced mental health problems. The 

target was exceeded. For FY 2008, the target for the number of evidence based practices was 

exceeded (2.3.11). The evidence based practice percentage of coverage for adults (2.3.12) was 

missed by 2.5% percent and for children (2.3.13) the target was missed by just one-half of one 

percent. It appears that the program over-estimated the level of progress that states could make 

in the access of these programs for these populations in the allotted time. Measure 2.3.14 

provides a measure of the number of consumers served by the public mental health system. 

Targets for FY 2007 and FY 2008 were exceeded. 

Steps are being taken to improve the program performance for the MHBG Program. A Program 

Peer Review process is in place for the Annual Plan and Implementation Report which 

assesses and provides specific feedback regarding strengths and weaknesses of the program 

as well as specific recommendations for ongoing quality improvement. Also, the State Mental 

Health Authorities within each State are monitored via on-site reviews on a regular schedule. 

These on-site monitoring reviews are conducted by independent consultants and provide an 

assessment of key areas of service delivery and infrastructure. Following these site visits, the 

consultants issue a report that summarizes its program findings and when appropriate, may 

include recommendations for technical assistance. All of these activities allow SAMHSA to 

identify areas of under-performance and target improvement through provision of technical 

assistance and training. 

 

68 
MACRO PROGRAM: SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAMS OF 

REGIONAL AND NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

 

PROGRAM: STRATEGIC PREVENTION FRAMEWORK STATE INCENTIVE 

GRANTS41

 

Table 87: Measure 2.3.19: 30-day use of alcohol among youth age 12-17 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

Out-Year 

Target 15% (2013) Dec 31, 2014 

2010 15% Dec 31, 2011 

 

Table 88: Measure 2.3.20: 30-day use of other illicit drugs age 12 and up (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

Out-Year 

Target 5% (2013) Dec 31, 2014 

2010 5% Dec 31, 2011 

 

Table 89: Measure 2.3.21: Percent of SPF SIG States showing a decrease in state 

level estimate of percent of survey respondents (age 12-20) who report 30-day use of 

alcohol (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 55.9% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 50.4%42 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 50.4% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 50.4% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 51.8% 55.9% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 51.8% 47.1% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 Set Baseline 47.1% 

(Baseline) 

 

 41Data have been revised from previously reported. Previously, data collected in a given year were reported as a result for the 

following year: for example, results reported for 2008 reflected data collected in 2007. In order to achieve consistency throughout 

SAMHSA, reporting has been revised so that results reported for a given year reflect data actually collected in that year, so that 

results for 2008 reflect data collected in 2008.

42Includes Cohorts 3 & 4. Cohort 4 began the SPF process July 2009.

69 
Table 90: Measure 2.3.22: Percent of SPF SIG States showing a decrease in state 

level estimate of percent of survey respondents (age 21 and up) who report 30-day use 

of alcohol (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 47.1% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 31.4%43 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 31.4% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 31.4% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 32.3% 47.1% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 32.3% 41.2% 

(Target Exceeded)44

2006 Set Baseline 29.4% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 91: Measure 2.3.23: Percent of SPF SIG states showing a decrease in state 

level estimates of survey respondents (age 12-17) who report 30-day use of other illicit 

drugs (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 67.6% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 59.8%45 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 59.8% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 59.8% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 61.5% 67.6% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 61.5% 55.9% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 Set Baseline 55.9% 

(Baseline) 

 

 43Includes Cohorts 3& 4. Cohort 4 began the SPF process July 2009.

44Data revised from previously reported.

45Includes Cohorts 3 & 4. Cohort 4 began the SPF process July 2009.

70 
Table 92: Measure 2.3.24: Percent of SPF SIG states showing a decrease in state 

level estimates of survey respondents (age 18 and up) who report 30-day use of other 

illicit drugs (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 40% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 38.2%46 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 47.2% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 47.2% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 48.5% 38.2% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2007 48.5% 29.4% 

(Target Not Met)47

2006 Set Baseline 44.1% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 93: Measure 2.3.25: Percent of SPF SIG states showing an increase in state 

level estimates of survey respondents (age 12-17) who rate the risk of substance abuse 

as moderate or great (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 50% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 47.1%48 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 78.7% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 78.7% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 80.9% 47.1% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 80.9% 50% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 Set Baseline 73.5% 

(Baseline) 

 

 46Includes Cohorts 3 & 4. Cohort 4 began the SPF process July 2009.

47Data revised from previously reported.

48Includes Cohorts 3 & 4. Cohort 4 began the SPF process July 2009.

71 
Table 94: Measure 2.3.26: Percent of SPF SIG states showing an increase in state 

level estimates of survey respondents (age 18 and up) who rate the risk of substance 

abuse as moderate or great (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 48% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 44.1%49 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 50.4% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 50.4% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 51.8% 44.1% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2007 51.8% 29.4% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 Set Baseline 47.1% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 95: Measure 2.3.27: Percent of SPF SIG states showing an increase in state 

level estimates of survey respondents (age 12-17) who somewhat disapprove or 

strongly disapprove of substance use. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 80% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 76.5%50 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 84.9% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 84.9% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 87% 76.5% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2007 87.3% 67.6% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 Set Baseline 79.4% 

(Baseline) 

 

 49Includes Cohorts 3 & 4. Cohort 4 began the SPF process July 2009. 

50Includes Cohorts 3 & 4. Cohort 4 began the SPF process July 2009. 

72 
Table 96: Measure 2.3.28: Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and 

strategies implemented51 (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 274 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 39752 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 234 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 234 Aug 31, 2010 

2008 470 731 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 470 385 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 Set Baseline 396 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 97: Measure 2.3.29: Percent of grantee states that have performed needs 

assessments (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 100% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 100% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 97%53 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 100% 100% 

(Target Met) 

2008 100% 100% 

(Target Met) 

2007 100% 100% 

(Target Met) 

2006 100% 92.3% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

 51 This measure has been revised for the FY 2011 President's Budget. Previously the measure was cumulative. It has been revised 

to report its data annually. As a result, targets and data provided here may appear to differ from those previously published in the FY 

2010 President's Budget. 

52Includes Cohorts 3 & 4. Cohort 4 began the SPF process July 2009.

53Cohort 1: 100%; Cohort 2: 100%; Cohort 3: 94%

73 
Table 98: Measure 2.3.30: Percent of grantee States that have submitted State plans 

(Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 100% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 100% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 60%54 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 95.2% 100% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 100% 95.2% 

(Target Not Met)55

2007 85% 96.2% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 50% 92.3% 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

Table 99: Measure 2.3.31: Percent of grantee States with approved plans (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 80% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 80% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 54%56 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 85.7% 100% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 100% 85.7% 

(Target Not Met)57

2007 85% 88.5% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 25% 69.2% 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

 

 54Cohort 1: 100%; Cohort 2: 100%;Cohort 3: 63%

55Includes 100% of Cohort I and 2 and 88% of Cohort 3

56Cohort 1: 100%; Cohort 2: 100%; Cohort 3: 63%

57Includes 100% of Cohort 1 and 2 and 88% of Cohort 3

74 
Table 100: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Strategic 

Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.19 

2.3.20 

Long term national 

measures are obtained from 

published National Survey 

on Drug Use and Health 

reports. 

Information on methodology and data verification for the 

NSDUH is available at 

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/methods.cfm. Data related 

to state activities are submitted by state grantees to the SPFSIG Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site 

Evaluation team works with them to insure that data are 

complete and accurate. 

2.3.21 Long term national 

measures are obtained from 

published National Survey 

on Drug Use and Health 

reports. 

Information on methodology and data verification for the 

NSDUH is available at 

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/methods.cfm. Data related 

to state activities are submitted by state grantees to the SPFSIG Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site 

Evaluation team works with them to insure that data are 

complete and accurate. 

2.3.22 

2.3.23 

2.3.24 

2.3.25 

2.3.26 

2.3.27 

Baselines and annual 

targets for each state are 

calculated using 2 years of 

pooled data from the 

National Survey on Drug 

Use and Health. Since 

state-level sample sizes will 

vary from year-to-year, to 

ensure sufficient statistical 

reliability, baselines and 

annual targets and 

estimates are calculated by 

pooling samples from two 

consecutive years. This 

year, state-level change is 

assessed by comparing 

estimates derived from the 

2005/2006 pooled sample 

with those derived from the 

2006/2007 pooled sample. 

Information on methodology and data verification for the 

NSDUH is available at 

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/methods.cfm. Data related 

to state activities are submitted by state grantees to the SPFSIG Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site 

Evaluation team works with them to insure that data are 

complete and accurate. 

2.3.28 

2.3.29 

2.3.30 

2.3.31 

Output measures are 

obtained from grantee 

administrative reports. 

Data related to state activities are submitted by state grantees 

to the SPF-SIG Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Crosssite Evaluation team works directly with them to insure that 

data are complete and accurate. State Project Officers also 

review the data to assure accuracy. An online data entry 

system is being developed to increase access and ease of 

use for data entry and compliance monitoring. This is 

expected to be operational in January, 2010. 

 

75 
Agency Program, Measure 2.3.19 - 2.3.31 

NOTE: Some data have changed from those previously reported. Previously, data were 

reported as a result for the following year. For example, results for 2008 reflected data collected 

in 2007. In order to achieve consistency across SAMHSA, reporting has been revised so that 

results reflect data actually collected in that year. 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

The Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant Program (SPF SIG) is a program 

that supports the delivery of effective programs, policies, and practices to prevent substance 

abuse through a five-step process of the Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF). The SPF SIG 

grants are awarded to States and territories that are required to go through multiple stages of 

the SPF process before they begin to fund communities that also go through the SPF steps 

before implementing services. For this reason, there are several years between the time the 

grants are awarded and the time that community and State change are observable. Results of 

these services are reflected by state estimates published in surveys such as the National 

Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). 

The SPF SIG grantees met or exceeded three of their FY 2008 outcome targets. These 

included 30-day use of alcohol for ages 12-20 and 21 and up, and 30-day use of other illicit 

drugs for ages 12-17. Grantees also met or exceeded output targets such as the number of 

evidence-based programs implemented, and measures of successful infrastructure 

accomplishments. The observed reductions in alcohol and other illicit drug use could be related 

to the increased numbers of evidence-based programs (EBPs) being implemented. 

The SPF SIG program can demonstrate a number of accomplishments. For example, SPF SIG 

Cohort 1 and 2 data show that, 731 (68.9%) interventions implemented were evidence-based. 

This number has almost doubled over the past several years. Over 82% of Cohort 1 and 2 

communities reporting demonstrated an improvement in their targeted outcomes. Similarly, 

between 2005/2006 and 2006/2007, SPF SIG states showed greater reductions in underage 

drinking and youth drug use and greater improvements in perceived risk of use than non-SPF 

SIG states. 

The SPF concept has expanded beyond the current SPF SIG grantee states and territories to 

other states and territories. For example, 51 states/territories now use SPF or the equivalent for 

conducting needs assessments, 53 for building state capacity; 53 for planning; 43 for program 

implementation; and 29 uses SPF or the equivalent for evaluation efforts. Forty-two SPF SIG 

grants have funded 597 communities for Cohorts 1, 2, and 3. 

At the same time, the SPF SIG states failed to meet their targets for other measures. These 

failures could reflect a variety of methodological and statistical issues, or the targets could be 

affected by numerous factors external to prevention programs that are outside the control of this 

program, such as the economy. 

Targets for some of the measures are lower in future years because they include both earlier 

and later cohorts of SPF SIG states. The earlier cohorts will have completed several of the initial 

76 
SPF steps, but Cohort 3 was funded in 2006 and will be completing steps 1 and 2, while the 

latest cohort (Cohort 4), funded July 1, 2009, is at the beginning the SPF process. SAMHSA 

funded the additional Cohort 4 of SPF SIGs by funding 25 new SPF state, territory, and tribe 

grantees with an expectation of these SPF SIG grantees having funded their communities within 

the next 6 to 12 months upon obtaining approval from SAMHSA to do so. 

PROGRAM: PARTNERSHIPS FOR SUCCESS 

 

Table 101: Measure 2.3.77: Increase the number of sub-recipient communities funded 

through the Partnerships for Success grants (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 150 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 48 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 Set Baseline Aug 31, 2011 

 

Table 102: Measure 2.3.78: Increase the number of communities who report an 

increase in prevention activities that are supported by collaboration and leveraging of 

funding streams (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 75 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 24 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 Set Baseline Aug 31, 2011 

 

Table 103: Measure 2.3.79: Increase the number of EBPs implemented by subrecipient communities (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 300 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 96 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 Set Baseline Aug 31, 2011 

 

77 
Table 104: Measure 2.3.80: Increase the number of sub-recipient communities that 

improved on one or more targeted NOMs indicators (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 30 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 24 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 Set Baseline Aug 31, 2011 

 

 

Table 105: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for 

Partnerships for Success Grants 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.77 

2.3.79 

2.3.80 

Output measures are 

obtained from grantee 

administrative reports. 

Data related to state activities will be submitted to SAMHSA’s data 

collection and analysis contracts will insure that data are complete 

and accurate. SAMHSA Project Officers also review the data to 

ensure accuracy. It is anticipated that this program will eventually 

be included in the online data entry system available via PMRTS. 

2.3.78 Output measures are 

obtained from grantee 

administrative reports. 

Data related to state activities will be submitted to SAMHSA’s data 

collection and analysis contracts will insure that data are complete 

and accurate. SAMHSA Project Officers also review the data to 

ensure accuracy. It is anticipated that this program will eventually 

be included in the online data entry system available via PMRTS. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 2.3.77 - 2.3.80 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

This new program is designed to provide eligible States, Tribes and U.S. territories with 

additional funding to extend their strategic prevention framework activities to further reduce 

state-wide substance abuse rates. They are encouraged to set meaningful performance targets 

and to leverage and coordinate Federal-state coordinated funding to ensure sufficient impact to 

meet their performance targets. The program incorporates incentive awards to those who have 

reached or exceeded these prevention performance targets. 

78 
PROGRAM: MINORITY AIDS INITIATIVE: SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION, HIV 

PREVENTION AND HEPATITIS PREVENTION FOR MINORITIES AND MINORITIES 

RE-ENTERING COMMUNITIES POST-INCARCERATION (HIV)58,59,60

 

Table 106: Measure 2.3.35: Percent of program participants (age 12-17) that rate the 

risk of substance abuse as moderate or great (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 87% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 87% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 87% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 76.6% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 75.8% 90.1% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 89% 87.6% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 Set Baseline 88.6% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 107: Measure 2.3.38: Percent of program participants (age 18 and up) that rate 

the risk of substance abuse as moderate or great (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 93% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 93% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 93% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 85.1% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 84.2% 96.5% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 94.4% 

(Baseline) 

 

 58Previously, data collected in a given FY were reported in the following year. For example, results for 2008 would reflect data 

collected in 2007. In order to achieve consistency across SAMHSA, reporting has been revised so that results for a given FY reflect 

data actually collected in that year, except where otherwise noted.

59HIV Cohort 7 serves different population groups so baseline data from this cohort will be established and entered in FY 2010.

60The out years of this program are under development and performance measures will be added once the program is finalized. In 

the interim, targets for FY 2011 and FY 2012 have been included and are subject to change. 

79 
Table 108: Measure 2.3.39: Percent of participants (age 12-20) who used alcohol at 

pre-test who report a decrease in use of alcohol at post-test (user decrease) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 76.6% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 76.6% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 76.6% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 76.6% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 75.1% 58.1% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 Set Baseline 74.4% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 109: Measure 2.3.40: Percent of participants (age 21 and up) who used alcohol 

at pre-test who report a decrease in use of alcohol at post-test (user decrease) 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 60.8% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 60.8% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 60.8% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 60.8% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 59.6% 60.4% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 59% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 110: Measure 2.3.41: Percent of participants (age 12-20) who report no alcohol 

use at pre-test who remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 95.3% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 95.3% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 95.3% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 95.3% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 93.4% 93.7% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 92.5% 

(Baseline) 

 

80 
Table 111: Measure 2.3.42: Percent of participants (age 21 and up) who report no 

alcohol use at pre-test who remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 92% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 92% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 92% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 92% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 90.2% 90.3% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 89.3% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 112: Measure 2.3.43: Percent of participants (age 12-17) who used illicit drugs at 

pre-test who report a decrease in 30-day use at post-test (user decrease) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 92.3% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 92.3% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 92.3% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 92.3% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 90.5% 67.3% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 Set Baseline 89.6% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 113: Measure 2.3.44: Percent of participants (age 18 and up) who used illicit 

drugs at pre-test who report a decrease in 30-day use at post-test (user decrease) 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 70.6% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 70.6% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 70.6% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 70.6% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 69.2% 59.1% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 Set Baseline 68.5% 

(Baseline) 

 

81 
Table 114: Measure 2.3.45: Percent of participants (age 12-17) who report no illicit 

drug use at pre-test who remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 94.9% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 94.9% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 94.9% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 94.9% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 93% 96% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 92.1% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 115: Measure 2.3.46: Percent of participants (age 18 and up) who report no illicit 

drug use at pre-test who remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 94.6% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 94.6% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 94.6% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 94.6% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 92.7% 93.4% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 91.8% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 116: Measure 2.3.47: Percent of program participants (age 12-17) who 

somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove of substance use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 82.8% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 82.8% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 82.8% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 82.8% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 81% 72.9% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2007 Set Baseline 70.3% 

(Baseline) 

 

82 
Table 117: Measure 2.3.48: Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and 

strategies implemented by HIV program grantees61 (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 110 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 11062 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 270 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 160 Aug 31, 2010 

2008 160 509 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 162 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 118: Measure 2.3.56: Number of individuals exposed to substance 

abuse/hepatitis education services (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 1,535 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 1,53563 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 2,327 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 2,305 Aug 31, 2010 

2008 2,283 3,298 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 2,260 

(Baseline) 

 

 61This measure has been revised for the FY 2011 President's Budget. Previously the measure was cumulative. It has been revised 

to report its data annually. As a result, targets and data provided here may appear to differ from those previously published in the FY 

2010 President's Budget. 

62This measure is expected to decline in FY 2011 following the close-out of Cohort 6 grants and newer Cohorts not yet functioning

at optimum levels.

63This measure is expected to decline in FY 2011 following the close-out of Cohort 6 grants and newer Cohorts not yet functioning

at optimum levels.

83 
Table 119: Measure 2.3.70: Cost per participant improved on one or more measures 

between pre-test and post-test64 (Efficiency) 

FY Target Result 

2012 $10,890 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 $10,890 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 $20,167 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 $20,167 Aug 31, 2010 

2008 $20,167 $10,890 

(Target Exceeded)65

2007 Set Baseline $22,189 

(Baseline)66

 

 

Table 120: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Minority 

AIDS Initiative Grants 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.35 

2.3.38 

2.3.39 

2.3.40 

2.3.41 

2.3.42 

2.3.43 

2.3.44 

2.3.45 

2.3.46 

2.3.47 

2.3.48 

2.3.56 

Data are provided by grantees. 

A web-based data collection and 

reporting mechanism has been 

implemented and all grantees 

have received training in using 

the system. 

Data are carefully collected, cleaned, analyzed, and 

reported by SAMHSA’s integrated Data Analysis 

Coordination and Consolidation Center (DACCC). After 

data are entered, the DACCC Data Management Team 

reviews the data for completeness and accuracy. 

Information on any data problems identified is transmitted 

through the use of "cleaning sheets" to the Government 

Project Officer (GPO) and the grantee to resolve. The 

Data Management Team then makes any required edits 

to the files. The edited files are then sent to SAMHSA 

staff and the DACCC Data Analysis Team for analysis 

and reporting. 

 

64Successful result is performance below target.

65Calculations have been adjusted somewhat from earlier years. See additional detail in the narrative. 

66Calculations are extremely over-inflated due to exclusion of participant counts in other than direct services. Efforts are being 

made to gather those data which will then be used to provide more realistic projected targets. 

84 
Table 121: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Minority 

AIDS Initiative Grants (continued) 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.70 Data will be provided by 

grantees. A web-based data 

collection and reporting 

mechanism has been 

implemented and all grantees 

have received training in using 

the system. 

Data are carefully collected, cleaned, analyzed, and 

reported by SAMHSA’s integrated Data Analysis 

Coordination and Consolidation Center (DACCC). After 

data are extracted from the web-based data entry 

system, the DACCC’s Data Management Team reviews 

the data for completeness and accuracy. Information on 

any data problems identified is transmitted via "cleaning 

sheets" to the Government Project officer and grantee to 

identify a resolution. The Data Management Team then 

makes any required edits to the files. The edited files are 

then available to SAMHSA staff and the DACCC’s Data 

Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. The Data 

Analysis Team compares participants’ baseline and exit 

responses to survey items measuring past-30-day use, 

disapproval of use, and perception of risk of substance 

use. A participant who improved on at least one measure 

and did not become worse on any of the other measures 

is defined as “improved.” Total program cost for direct 

services more than 30 days for the Fiscal Year is divided 

by the number of improved participants in those 

programs to construct the measure. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 2.3.35 - 2.3.70 

NOTE: Some data have been revised from those previously reported. Previously, data collected 

in a given year was reported as a result for the following year: for example, results reported for 

2008 reflected data collected in 2007. In order to achieve consistency throughout SAMHSA, 

reporting has been revised so that results reported for a given year reflect data actually 

collected in that year, so that results for 2008 reflect data collected in 2008. 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

The goal of the Substance Abuse and HIV prevention program is to increase the capacity of 

communities serving minority target populations to deliver evidence-based prevention services. 

Evidence-based interventions are defined by inclusion in one or more of the three categories: a) 

included in Federal registries of evidence-based interventions; b) reported (with positive effects 

on the primary targeted outcome) in peer-reviewed journals; or c) documented effectiveness 

supported by other sources of information and the consensus judgment of informed experts.67 

 

67 Examples of HIV EBP’s include Voices/Voces and the Sista Program which is listed in the CDC Directory of Evidence Based 

Interventions (DEBI). More information on EBPs can be found in Identifying and Selecting Evidence-Based Interventions. Revised 

85 
The program also incorporates SAMHSA's National Outcome Measures (NOMs), which is 

SAMHSA’s core data collection requirement for all grant programs. This program is also using 

an approved efficiency measure (2.3.70) and a measure on the number of individuals exposed 

to substance abuse/hepatitis education services (2.3.56). These measures will illustrate the 

impact of outreach efforts to reach at risk minority subpopulations. Future cohorts do not include 

a focus on hepatitis. Other measures reflect program effects for both those who had used drugs 

before entering the program and those who had not. This last set of measures requires personlevel matched data to assess person-level program outcomes such as non-user stability and 

user decrease to assess “improvement”, and are used as a basis for calculating effectiveness. 

These matched data apply to clients who have participated in prevention interventions lasting at 

least 30 days. Thus, they do not reflect the broad range of shorter programs and outreach 

efforts serving many more thousands of people. Change is assessed by following each 

participant from program entry to program exit and to 3 to 6 month follow-up. Since this program 

has changed substantially by focusing on much higher risk minority and re-entry populations 

and by incorporating the SPF process, SAMHSA had to establish new baseline measures in FY 

2007 using data collected during FY 2007. Cohort 7 data will be available in FY 2010. Both 

cohorts are now submitting their progress reporting online in SAMHSA’s PMRTS to increase 

availability of real time data submission and availability. 

Data collected during FY 2008 indicate that ten of the above measures reached or exceeded 

their targets. Of the measures that did not reach their targets, 2.3.43 and 2.3.44 (user decrease, 

illicit drugs other than marijuana for ages 12-17 and 18+) are based on small sample sizes 

because most participants were not users. Measure 2.3.56 (number of people exposed to 

education services) indicates an increase of over 30 percent in the number served from FY 

2007 to FY 2008. Measure 2.3.47 (percent of youth disapproving peer substance use) indicates 

an improvement over FY 2007 (from 70.3 percent to 72.9 percent), although it did not reach the 

FY 2008 target of 81 percent. 

There are other findings of interest, although they are not GPRA measures. For example, HIV 

Cohort 6 participants are more likely to report recent use of marijuana and illicit substances than 

the general U.S. population; therefore, the program is reaching its target population: those at 

high risk. The program was also effective in improving knowledge about substance use, HIV, 

and hepatitis. Youth participants increased their knowledge scores by 13.4 percentage points 

and adult participants raised their scores by 5.9 percentage points. Furthermore, the program 

had disproportionate effects on males vs. females, with males showing more improvement in 

perceived risk and peer disapproval than females. 

SAMHSA has added a cost per improved client measure in order to monitor cost effectiveness. 

This measure is defined as the total cost of the HIV program divided by the number of 

participants who improved. A program participant is considered to have improved if baseline-toexit comparisons indicate improvement on at least one NOM ATOD68 measure. These include 

non-user stability, reduction in 30-day use, increase in perception of harm or perceived 

disapproval or non-user stability on at least one 30-day substance use measure and no worse 

on any other NOM. Estimating the number of persons served by environmental strategies is 

extremely difficult. Therefore, this has resulted in a significant overestimation in the cost per 

person served improved, because total program dollars were divided by only the number of 

 

Guidance document for the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant Program.HHS Pub. No. (SMA-4205). 

CSAP/SAMHSA, 2009. http://www.samhsa.gov/shin

68 Alcohol, Tobacco, or Other Drugs

86 
clients directly served by a program lasting over 30 days. For the HIV Cohort 6 program 

grantees, cost per improved participant (direct services lasting 30 or more days only) was 

$22,189 in FY 2007. Based on process data from grantee reports, SAMHSA estimates that no 

more than half of total program costs are used for direct services lasting 30 or more days. This 

suggests that a more realistic number for program costs per improved participant is 

approximately $10,890. As a result of this examination, SAMHSA has revised the calculation 

used for this measure to include only dollars spent on direct services divided by the number of 

program participants who “improved.” 

The FY 2010 cohort will continue to focus on high-risk minority subpopulations. The details of 

this revised program are still under development and performance measures will be added once 

the program is finalized. In the interim, targets for FY 2011 and FY 2012 have been included 

and are subject to change. 

PROGRAM: PREVENTION PRNS - SOBER TRUTH ON PREVENTING UNDERAGE 

DRINKING 

 

Table 122: Measure 3.3.01: Percentage of coalitions that report at least 5% 

improvement in the past 30-day use of alcohol in at least two grades (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 41% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 41% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 41% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 40% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 Set Baseline 40% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 123: Measure 3.3.02: Percentage of coalitions that report improvement in youth 

perception of risk from alcohol in at least two grades (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 63.4% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 63.4% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 63.4% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 62.2% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 Set Baseline 60.9% 

(Baseline) 

 

87 
Table 124: Measure 3.3.03: Percentage of coalitions that report improvement in youth 

perception of parental disapproval on the use of alcohol in at least two grades 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 56.7% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 56.7% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 56.7% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 55.6% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 Set Baseline 54.5% 

(Baseline) 

 

 

Table 125: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Sober Truth 

on Preventing Underage Drinking Grants 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.3.01 

3.3.02 

3.3.03 

The STOP Act program provides 

additional funds to current or prior 

Drug Free Community Program 

(DFC) grantees to support 

activities targeting underage 

alcohol. As is the case with the 

DFC grantees, STOP ACT 

Grantees collect alcohol-related 

performance data using a variety 

of school and community surveys 

and report them online with the 

COMET (Coalition Online 

Management and Evaluation 

Tool) system every two years. 

According to the Act, STOP Act 

grantees cannot be required to 

collect data other than already 

being collected for DFC program. 

The baseline measures for three alcohol use measures, 

namely, past 30 day use, perception of risk and parent 

disapproval were developed as follows: each grantees 

was scored as a success (improved as described) or not 

a success for each of these alcohol measures. The 

number of successes was divided by the number of 

grantees for whom data were available and multiplied by 

100 to arrive at these baseline numbers. Additional 

information on COMET can be found at 

http://www.ondcp.gov/dfc/comet.html. These data are 

submitted to DACCC for cleaning, editing and analysis 

before being used by SAMHSA for performance 

requirements and additional analyses. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 3.3.01 - 3.3.03 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

The Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking (STOP Act) program provides current or 

previously funded Drug Free Community grantees with an additional $50,000 funding to support 

88 
substance abuse prevention environmental strategies targeted to stop underage drinking. The 

purpose of this program is to prevent and reduce alcohol use among youth in communities 

throughout the United States. It was created to strengthen collaboration among communities, 

the federal government, and state, local and tribal governments; to enhance intergovernmental 

cooperation and coordination; to serve as a catalyst for increased citizen participation and 

greater collaboration among all sectors and organizations of a community that first 

demonstrates a long-term commitment to reducing alcohol use among youth; and to 

disseminate to communities timely information regarding state-of-the-art practices and initiatives 

that have proven to be effective in preventing and reducing alcohol use among youth. The initial 

program, funded in FY 2008, provided 79 four-year grants to local communities. In FY 2009, 20 

more grants were awarded to strengthen these important efforts. 

STOP Act grantees are required to report performance on three core measures. These are 1) 

30 day alcohol use, 2) perception of harm from alcohol use and 3) parental disapproval of 

alcohol use. These measures are consistent with Drug Free Community program measures, as 

instructed by Congressional language. Baselines have been established for the STOP Act 

GPRA measures. Current data show that over 30 percent of strategies implemented by STOP 

Act grantees focus on community education/raising awareness. 

An evaluation of the STOP ACT program is planned that will examine: 

1. What effects result from the STOP Act program funding on attitudes and behaviors 

associated with underage drinking above and beyond the effects of DFC and/or SPF SIG 

funding? 

2. Do STOP Act new and/or prevention strategies add to the mix of existing strategies funded 

through other sources in improving outcomes? 

PROGRAM: PREVENTION PRNS - SCIENCE AND SERVICE ACTIVITIES 

 

Table 126: Measure 2.3.71: Number of people provided technical assistance (TA) 

Services69 (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 21,420 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 21,420 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 21,117 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 21,117 Aug 31, 2010 

2008 Set Baseline 22,889 

(Baseline)70

 

 

69Updated to include Centers for the Application of Prevention Technology (CAPTs), Native American Center of Excellence 

(NACE), Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), MEI, and Prevention Fellowships

70Actual has been updated from previously reported and now contains data from the additional science and service activities. 

89 
Table 127: Measure 2.3.72: Percentage of TA recipients who reported that they are 

very satisfied with the TA received71 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 69.1% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 69.1% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 69.1% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 69.1% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 Set Baseline 69.6% 

(Baseline)72

 

Table 128: Measure 2.3.73: Percentage of TA recipients who reported that their ability 

to provide effective services improved a great deal73 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 53.4% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 53.4% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 53.4% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 53.4% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 Set Baseline 65.4% 

(Baseline)74

 

Table 129: Measure 2.3.74: Percentage of TA recipients who reported that the TA 

recommendations have been fully implemented75 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 54% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 54% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 54% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 54% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 Set Baseline 55.4% 

(Baseline)76

 

71Includes CAPTs, NACE, and Prevention fellowships.

72Actual has been updated from previously reported and now contains data from the additional science and service activities. 

73Includes CAPTs and Prevention Fellowships.

74Actual has been updated from previously reported and now contains data from the additional science and service activities. 

75Includes only the CAPTs.

76Actual has been updated from previously reported and now contains data from the additional science and service activities. 

90 
 

Table 130: Measure 2.3.75: Number of persons receiving prevention information 

directly77 (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 120,223 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 120,223 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 120,223 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 120,223 Aug 31, 2010 

2008 Set Baseline 122,992 

(Baseline)78

 

Table 131: Measure 2.3.76: Number of persons receiving prevention information 

indirectly from advertising, broadcast, or website79 (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 906,707 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 906,707 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 906,707 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 906,707 Aug 31, 2010 

2008 Set Baseline 1,211,382 

(Baseline)80

 

 

 

77Includes Town Hall Meetings and FASD.

78Actual has been updated from previously reported and now contains data from the additional science and service activities. 

79Includes Town Hall Meetings, FASD, and MEI (Community Outreach).

80Actual has been updated from previously reported and now contains data from the additional science and service activities. 

91 
Table 132: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Prevention 

Programs of Regional and National Significance – Science and Service Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.71 The number of persons provided 

direct technical assistance (TA) 

includes those served by several 

initiatives. These include: 1) the 

Centers for the Application of 

Prevention Technology (CAPTs) 

which provide TA to the 

SAMHSA CSAP discretionary 

program grantees, including the 

SPF-SIG, HIV and 

Methamphetamine grantees; and 

2) the Fetal Alcohol Spectrum 

Disorder (FASD) Center of 

Excellence which provides TA to 

the FASD program. 

Each of these activities uses a quality control protocol for 

collecting and submitting its data and is overseen by 

SAMHSA staff. These data are then submitted to the 

Data Analytic Coordination and Consolidation Center 

(DACCC) for cleaning, editing and analysis before being 

used by SAMHSA for performance reporting and other 

analyses. More information can be found on the 

following websites: http://captus.samhsa.gov/home.cfm;

http://www.fasdcenter.samhsa.gov/. 

2.3.72 

2.3.73 

2.3.74 

The CAPTs collect data 2 

months after TA completion 

either on site or electronically. 

These data are then submitted to the Data Analytic 

Coordination and Consolidation Center (DACCC) for 

cleaning, editing and analysis before being used by 

SAMHSA for performance reporting and other analyses. 

2.3.75 The participating Communitybased organizations (CBOs) 

collect this information by using 

an OMB approved evaluation 

form. 

These forms are sent with a coded postage-paid 

envelope, used for receipt tracking. Clarification of fields 

entered on the evaluation form is sought from the 

respondents and/or the website: 

http://www.stopalcoholabuse.gov/townhall/. The data are 

entered into SPSS and MS Word for analysis and then 

submitted to DACCC for cleaning, editing and analysis 

before being used by SAMHSA for analyses. 

2.3.76 Participating Community-based 

organizations (CBOs) collect this 

information from the media 

These forms are sent with a coded postage-paid 

envelope, used for receipt tracking. Clarification of fields 

entered on the evaluation form is sought from the 

respondents and/or the website: 

http://www.stopalcoholabuse.gov/townhall/. The data are 

entered into SPSS and MS Word for analysis and then 

submitted to DACCC for cleaning, editing and analysis 

before being used by SAMHSA for analyses. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 2.3.71 - 2.3.76 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

SAMHSA has introduced six new measures to reflect SAMHSA CSAP’s substantial and 

92 
increasing role in training, technical assistance and prevention information dissemination. In 

prior years, SAMHSA included data from the Centers for Application of Prevention Technologies 

(CAPT), but those measures have been retired in favor of aggregate reporting across several of 

the technical assistance activities. While these are not always construed as direct services 

programs, TA programs serve many more persons at a much lower cost and play an important 

role in advancing the field of substance abuse prevention. 

The measures include several of the technical assistance activities and there are plans to 

incorporate more activities in the near future. Starting in FY 2010, we anticipate including data 

from additional service and science technical assistance contracts in addition to the CAPT such 

as the Native American Center of Excellence (NACE), Faith based, Town Hall Meetings (THM), 

Reach Out Now Teach Ins (RONTI), The Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) and Border 

Initiative contracts. These are described below: 

• NACE provides comprehensive substance abuse prevention and related technical 

assistance services to Native governments, organizations, and peoples. 

• THM and the RONTI are communication initiatives that develop informational materials 

and disseminate them nationwide to individual communities. 

• The Border Initiative- U.S. Counties along the Mexican Border Initiative provides training 

and technical assistance on the Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF) process within 

the 24 counties contiguous to the U.S. Border. The primary audiences are local 

prevention providers living and working in all venues (e.g., schools, community centers, 

workplace, and faith-based organizations) within the contiguous counties and the 

communities comprising those counties. 

• The FASD Center for Excellence identifies gaps and trends in the field, synthesizing 

these findings, and develops appropriate materials about Fetal Alcohol Spectrum 

Disorder for health and social service professionals, communities, States, and Tribal 

Organizations. 

• The Faith-Based Initiative provides capacity-building assistance to community-based 

faith partners that serve racial and ethnic minorities, community partners with a history of 

serving people affected by or infected with HIV/AIDS, and other prevention providers. 

Targets have been kept relatively stable because the focus for technical assistance is now on 

regional rather than individual services, which allows us to use fewer events to achieve 

outcomes. 

93 
MACRO PROGRAM: SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAMS OF 

REGIONAL AND NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

 

PROGRAM: ACCESS TO RECOVERY 

 

Table 133: Measure 1.2.32: Increase the number of clients gaining access to 

treatment81 (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 70,75082 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 33,500 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 65,000 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 65,000 89,595 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 30,000 50,845 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 50,000 79,150 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 50,000 96,959 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

Table 134: Measure 1.2.33: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who 

had no past month substance use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 83% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 82% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 82% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 81% 81% 

(Target Met) 

2008 80% 82.3% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 81% 84.7% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 79% 81.4% 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

 

81Initial Access to Recovery grants were made in August 2004, close to the end of FY 2004. Services were not necessarily provided

in the same year Federal funds were obligated. Thus, although the baseline reported for FY 2005 represented people served in FY

2005, most of the funding consisted of FY 2004 dollars. With the FY 2004 grants, it was estimated that 125,000 clients would be

served over the three year grant period. The second cohort of grants was awarded in September 2007. 82 The targets for numbers served for ATR were determined based on previous funding information for the third cohort of this 

Program. They have been published in the most recent RFA. As a result, FY 2012 targets have remained as published and not 

been adjusted based on funding levels in FY 2011.

94 
Table 135: Measure 1.2.34: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who 

had improved family and living conditions (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 54% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 53% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 53% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 52% 47% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 52% 52.9% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 52% 59.9% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 63% 51% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

Table 136: Measure 1.2.35: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who 

had no/reduced involvement with the criminal justice system (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 96% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 96% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 96% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 96% 96% 

(Target Met) 

2008 96% 96% 

(Target Met) 

2007 97% 97.6% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 95% 96.8% 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

95 
Table 137: Measure 1.2.36: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who 

had improved social support (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 91% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 91% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 91% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 90% 91% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 90% 91.7% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 90% 75.1% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 90% 90% 

(Target Met) 

 

Table 138: Measure 1.2.37: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who 

were currently employed or engaged in productive activities (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 55% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 54% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 54% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 53% 49% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 53% 59.1% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 50% 61.7% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 57% 50% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

96 
Table 139: Measure 1.2.39: Cost per client served83 (Efficiency) 

FY Target Result 

2012 $1,413 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 $2,985 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 $1,572 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 $1,588 $1,071 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 $1,605 $1,888 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 N/A $1,605 

(Historical Actual) 

 

 

Table 140: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Access to 

Recovery Grants 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.32 

1.2.33 

1.2.34 

1.2.35 

1.2.36 

1.2.37 

1.2.39 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

All data are automatically checked as they are input to SAIS. 

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they are 

being entered. The system will not allow any data that are out of 

range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the database. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 1.2.32 - 1.2.39 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

SAMHSA’s CSAT uses a series of key output and outcome measures to assess the 

effectiveness of its Services Programs. The primary key output measure used is the number of 

clients served. This measure represents an unduplicated count of individuals who have received 

services through grants in Access to Recovery Program. All outcome measures are based on a 

follow-up assessment conducted six months post admission to the program. Abstinence from 

substance use is a key outcome of the program. This measure examines the substance use 

patterns of the clients. The percent reported reflects the percent of individuals who have 

reported no use of alcohol or illegal drugs in the past 30 days at follow-up. The measure of 

employment/education shows the percent of people employed or in school or a job training 

program. The criminal justice measure refers to those clients who have reported no arrests in 

 

83Successful result is below target.

97 
the past 30 days. Social connectedness measures the percent of people who attend self-help or 

support groups in support of their recovery. Stability in housing refers to the percent of people 

who own/rent their own house or apartment. These measures combined provide a holistic view 

of the effectiveness of the services being provided by this program. 

All FY 2008 outcome targets for this program were met or exceeded. Based on data, targets 

were set at appropriate levels and were neither missed nor substantially exceeded. Targets for 

abstinence, criminal justice involvement, social connectedness and number of clients served 

were all exceeded in FY 2009. 

The target for number of clients served was exceeded. Grantees performed exceptionally well 

once infrastructure and program processes were fully in place. Eleven (out of 24) Cohort 2 

grantees had experience implementing ATR as they had also received Cohort 1 grants. This 

accounted for a very quick start-up for these 11 grantees. Grantees were able to begin serving 

clients within three months post award, which accounts for the spike in client numbers as 

compared to the original target set. The first cohort of grantees ended in FY 2007. The second 

cohort of ATR grantees began providing services in FY 2008. Targets for FY 2008 were set 

lower to allow the new grantees to develop the appropriate infrastructure for a voucher-based 

system. In addition, the focus on methamphetamine users in the second cohort may have led to 

more significant barriers to service than the ATR population at large; therefore, targets have 

been kept at levels that are achievable but still ambitious. Targets for FY 2008 and FY 2009 

were set during ATR’s performance assessment in CY 2007. 

Data for the second cohort of ATR shows a positive trend in its key measure of number of 

clients served. This measure shows an increase in clients served of over 38,000 clients. Though 

data are available from FY 2005, trend data from that time through the present do not yield an 

appropriate comparison as a new cohort began in FY 2007. 

PROGRAM: SCREENING, BRIEF INTERVENTION AND REFERRAL TO 

TREATMENT 

Table 141: Measure 1.2.40: Increase the number of clients served (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 47,500 84 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 139,650 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 139,650 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 139,650 185,648 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 139,650 192,840 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 184,597 138,267 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 156,820 182,770 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

84Target lower than last year's actual due to grants coming to a natural end and new SBIRT dollars being spent on grants to the 

Mental Health SBIRT program. 

98 
 

Table 142: Measure 1.2.41: Increase the percentage of clients receiving services who 

had no past month substance use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 50% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 50% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 50% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 50% 34% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 48% 46.5% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2007 48% 45.7% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 41.8% 47.5% 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

Table 143: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Screening, 

Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment Grants 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.40 

1.2.41 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

All data are automatically checked as they are input to SAIS. 

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they are 

being entered. The system will not allow any data that are out of 

range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the database. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 1.2.40 - 1.2.41 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

The target for numbers served in FY 2008 was substantially exceeded. This measure reflects 

the number of clients who were screened through the SBIRT program. These clients may have 

screened negative, required a brief intervention, a brief treatment or a referral to treatment. As 

seen in the data above, the target for FY 2007 was missed due to a grantee experiencing issues 

with a subcontractor which ultimately led to the termination of the subcontract. SAMHSA worked 

with the grantee to address and resolve the issue. As evidenced in the data for FY 2008, the 

issue has been resolved and grantees exceeded the target for number of clients to be served. 

The target for number of clients receiving services who had no past month substance use, i.e., 

reported no use of alcohol or illegal drugs in the past 30 days at the six month follow-up 

assessment, was set at an appropriate target level, and the deviation from that level is slight. 

99 
There was no effect on overall program or activity performance. 

Data show a general positive trend in number of clients served by year. From FY 2005 to FY 

2006, there was an increase of approximately 27,000; from FY 2007 to FY 2008, there was an 

increase of approximately 54,000 clients. While FY 2008 to FY 2009 shows a decrease in 

number served, this is expected as a cohort of grantees ended during this time period. The 

outcome measure of abstinence has also had a general positive trend from FY 2005 to FY 

2008; though this is not seen in the current reporting year. 

PROGRAM: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - JUVENILE AND ADULT DRUG COURTS 

 

Table 144: Measure 1.2.62: Juvenile: Percentage of clients that complete treatment 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 76% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 76% Oct 31, 2011 

2009 75% N/A85

2008 74% 75.1% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 69% 73% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 N/A 68% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 145: Measure 1.2.63: Juvenile: Increase percentage of clients receiving services 

who were currently employed or engaged in productive activities (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 88% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 88% Oct 31, 2011 

2009 88% 89% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 87% 86% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 87% 86% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 N/A 86% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

 85The treatment completion measure for juveniles is collected upon discharge from treatment. Due to the small number of grantees 

during FY 2009, this measure could not be calculated with any reliability. 

100 
Table 146: Measure 1.2.64: Juvenile: Increase percentage of clients receiving services 

who had a permanent place to live in the community (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 82% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 82% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 N/A Oct 31, 2010 

2009 82% 79% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 81% 81% 

(Target Met) 

2007 78% 80% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 N/A 77% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 147: Measure 1.2.65: Juvenile: Increase percentage of clients receiving services 

who had no involvement with the criminal justice system (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 95% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 95% Oct 31, 2011 

2009 93% 92% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 92% 94.3% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 91% 91% 

(Target Met) 

2006 N/A 90.3% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

101 
Table 148: Measure 1.2.66: Juvenile: Increase percentage of clients receiving services 

who experienced no/reduced alcohol or illegal drug related health, behavioral or social 

consequences (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 93% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 93% Oct 31, 2011 

2009 93% 99% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 92% 92% 

(Target Met) 

2007 90% 91.2% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 N/A 89% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 149: Measure 1.2.67: Juvenile: Increase percentage of clients receiving services 

who had no past month substance use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 73% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 73% Oct 31, 2011 

2009 73% 73% 

(Target Met) 

2008 72% 69% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 69% 71% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 N/A 68% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 150: Measure 1.2.68: Juvenile: Percent of drug court participants who exhibit a 

reduction in substance use while in the drug court program (Developmental) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2010 N/A Oct 31, 2010 

 

102 
Table 151: Measure 1.2.69: Juvenile: Reduce cost-per-client served86 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 $5,610 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 $5,610 Oct 31, 2011 

2009 $5,610 $5,215 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 $5,905 $6,790 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 $6,742 $6,463 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 N/A $8,742 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 152: Measure 1.2.70: Juvenile: Increase number of clients served (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 1881 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 146387 Oct 31, 2011 

2009 449 376 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 929 783 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 821 856 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 N/A 477 

(Historical Actual) 

 

 

86Successful result is below target.

87 This target has been revised from the FY 2010 President’s Budget based on the FY 2010 Appropriation.

103 
Table 153: Measure 1.2.71: Adult: Percentage of clients that complete treatment88

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 54% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 53% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 53% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 67% 51% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 N/A 66% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 154: Measure 1.2.72: Adult: Increase percentage of clients receiving services 

who were currently employed or engaged in productive activities89 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 65% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 64% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 64% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 88% 63% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 N/A 86% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

 88Targets set for this measure in the FY 2010 President's Budget were based on Juvenile Drug Court data. Data for Adult Drug 

Courts clients is now available. As a result, the targets for FY 2010, 2011 and 2012 have been revised to be more appropriate to the 

population of this program. 

89Targets set for this measure in the FY 2010 President's Budget were based on Juvenile Drug Court data. Data for Adult Drug 

Courts clients is now available. As a result, the targets for FY 2010, 2011 and 2012 have been revised to be more appropriate to the 

population of this program. 

104 
Table 155: Measure 1.2.73: Adult: Increase percentage of clients receiving services 

who had a permanent place to live in the community90 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 43% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 42% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 42% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 82% 41% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 N/A 77% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 156: Measure 1.2.74: Adult: Increase percentage of clients receiving services 

who had no involvement with the criminal justice system (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 93% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 93% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 93% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 93% 95% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 N/A 90.3% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 157: Measure 1.2.75: Adult: Increase percentage of clients receiving services 

who experienced no/reduced alcohol or illegal drug related health, behavioral or social, 

consequences (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 93% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 93% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 93% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 93% 89% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 N/A 89% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

 90Targets set for this measure in the FY 2010 President's Budget were based on Juvenile Drug Court data. Data for Adult Drug 

Courts clients is now available. As a result, the targets for FY 2010, 2011 and 2012 have been revised to be more appropriate to the 

population of this program. 

105 
Table 158: Measure 1.2.76: Adult: Increase percentage of clients receiving services 

who had no past month substance use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 73% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 73% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 73% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 73% 89% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 N/A 68% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 159: Measure 1.2.77: Adult: Percent of drug court participants who exhibit a 

reduction in substance use while in the drug court program. Measured in conjunction 

with DOJ. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2010 N/A Oct 31, 2010 

 

Table 160: Measure 1.2.78: Adult: Reduce cost-per-client served91 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 $6,000 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 $5,554 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 $5,554 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 $5,610 $4,320 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

 

91Successful result is below target.

106 
Table 161: Measure 1.2.79: Adult: Increase number of clients served (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 6770 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 526592 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 2832 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 960 1,183 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 N/A 357 

(Historical Actual) 

 

 

Table 162: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Juvenile and 

Adult Drug Courts Grants 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.62 

1.2.63 

1.2.64 

1.2.65 

1.2.66 

1.2.67 

1.2.69 

1.2.70 

1.2.71 

1.2.72 

1.2.73 

1.2.74 

1.2.75 

1.2.76 

1.2.78 

1.2.79 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

All data are automatically checked as they are input to SAIS. 

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they are 

being entered. The system will not allow any data that are out of 

range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the database. 

1.2.68 

1.2.77 

To be determined To be determined 

 

Agency Program, Measure 1.2.62 - 1.2.79 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

 

92The FY 2011 target has been revised based on the assumption that SAMHSA will fund primarily Adult Drug Courts with FY 2010 

funds. This target may be revised if this does not occur. This target has been revised from the FY 2010 President’s Budget based on 

the FY 2010 Appropriation.

107 
The Treatment Drug Court program funds several types of grants including those specifically for 

juvenile or adult clients and those focused on families. SAMHSA reports performance data for 

the adult and juvenile drug courts separately. As a result, the juvenile and adult measures are 

both included in this document, but data and targets are reported separately based on which 

grants are currently funded (adult or juvenile). The last cohort of adult drug court grants was 

funded in FY 2005 and FY 2006. During FY 2007 and FY 2008, no adult drug courts were 

funded by SAMHSA. The current juvenile drug court grantees have been funded since FY 2006, 

but that funding will end in FY 2009. In FY 2009, SAMHSA awarded a new cohort of grants for 

both juvenile and adult drug courts. 

SAMHSA CSAT uses a series of key output and outcome measures to assess the effectiveness 

of its Services Programs. The primary output measure used is the number of clients served. 

This measure represents an unduplicated count of individuals who receive services through 

grants in Treatment Drug Court Program. All outcome measures are based on a follow-up 

assessment conducted six months post admission to the program. Abstinence from substance 

use is a key outcome of the program. This measure examines the substance use patterns of the 

clients. The percent reported reflects the percent of individuals who have reported no use of 

alcohol or illegal drugs in the past 30 days at follow-up. The measure of employment/education 

shows the percent of people employed or in school or a job training program. The criminal 

justice measure refers to those clients who have reported no arrests in the past 30 days. 

Stability in housing refers to the percent of people who own/rent their own house or apartment. 

These measures combined provide a holistic view of the effectiveness of the services being 

provided by this program. 

The Treatment Drug Court Program met or exceeded its housing, criminal justice, social 

consequences, and treatment completion targets. Employment and abstinence targets were 

missed. The targets were missed by a small amount and program performance was not 

affected. In 2009, for the Juvenile Drug Court Program, targets for employment/education, 

health consequences, abstinence from substance use were all met. The number of clients 

served target was not met; however, this was due to the grants being in their final wind-down 

year. 

In the Adult Courts, targets for number served, criminal justice involvement, and abstinence 

were all met. The 2009 targets for employment and housing status were set based on Juvenile 

Drug Court data as this was the data available at the time. New targets have been revised for 

this Program based on actual data from FY 2009. 

For Juvenile Drug Courts, the trend in number served from FY 2006 is consistent with 

expectations based on funding of juvenile drug court cohorts. The trend seen is positive from 

2006 to 2007. From 2008 to 2009, there was an expected decrease as the grant cohort ended. 

Abstinence increased over time with a 68% rate in FY 2006 and a 73% rate in FY 2009. 

108 
PROGRAM: CRIMINAL JUSTICE - EX-OFFENDER RE-ENTRY PROGRAM 

 

Table 163: Measure 1.2.80: Number of clients served (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 3,712 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 2,91293 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 1,312 Oct 31, 2010 

 

Table 164: Measure 1.2.81: Percentage of clients who had no past month substance 

use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 69% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 70% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 68.9% Oct 31, 2010 

 

 

Table 165: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Ex-Offender 

Re-Entry Grants 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.80 

1.2.81 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

All data are automatically checked as they are input to SAIS. 

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they are 

being entered. The system will not allow any data that are out of 

range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the database. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 1.2.80 - 1.2.81 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

SAMHSA’s CSAT uses a series of key output and outcome measures to assess the 

effectiveness of its Services Programs. The primary key output measure used is the number of 

clients served. This measure represents an unduplicated count of individuals who have received 

services through grants in Ex-Offender Re-Entry Program. All outcome measures are based on 

a follow-up assessment conducted six months post admission to the program. Abstinence from 

 

93 This target has been revised from the FY 2010 President’s Budget based on the FY 2010 Appropriation. 

109 
substance use is a key outcome of the program. This measure examines the substance use 

patterns of the clients. The percent reported reflects the percent of individuals who have 

reported no use of alcohol or illegal drugs in the past 30 days at follow-up. 

Baseline data for these two measures has been determined based on the previous cohort of 

grantees. Targets for 2010 have been set in accordance with the baseline data. 

PROGRAM: GRANTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS (GBHI)

Table 166: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had no past month 

substance use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 67.4% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 67.4% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 67.4% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 66.9% 66.4% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 N/A 66.9% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 167: Increase the number of clients served (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 7,005 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 7,005 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 7,005 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 5,730 6,935 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 N/A 5,730 

(Historical Actual) 

 

110 
Table 168: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who were currently 

employed or engaged in productive activities (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 32.7% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 32.7% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 32.7% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 34.7% 31.7% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 N/A 34.7% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 169: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had a permanent 

place to live in the community (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 25.6% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 25.6% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 25.6% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 23.6% 24.6% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 N/A 23.6% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 170: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had no involvement 

with the criminal justice system (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 96.8% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 96.8% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 96.8% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 96.2% 95.8% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 N/A 96.2% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

111 
Table 171: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had improved social 

support (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 89.3% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 89.3% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 89.3% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 85.9% 88.3% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 N/A 85.9% 

(Historical Actual) 

Table 172: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Grants for 

the Benefit of Homeless Individuals Program 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

TBD Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

All data are automatically checked as they are input to SAIS. 

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they are 

being entered. The system will not allow any data that are out of 

range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the database. 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse 

Treatment manages two grant portfolios under its Grants for the Benefit of Homeless Individuals 

(GBHI) program, both of which provide focused services to individuals with a substance use 

disorder or who have co-occurring disorders. 

FY 2009 data show that the GBHI Program has performed successfully with respect to its 

outcome measures. Targets for clients served, improved living conditions and social support 

were met or exceeded. Targets for abstinence and involvement in the criminal justice system 

were missed by less than one percent. 

112 
PROGRAM: TREATMENT PRNS - ALL OTHER CAPACITY94

 

Table 173: Measure 1.2.25: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had 

no past month substance use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 62% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 62% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 62% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 61% 66% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 63% 62% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2007 63% 59% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 67% 63% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

Table 174: Measure 1.2.26: Increase the number of clients served (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 34,784 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 34,784 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 34,784 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 31,659 32,939 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 35,334 33,446 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 35,334 35,516 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 34,300 35,334 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

 94Includes TCE General, HIV/AIDS Outreach, Addiction Treatment for Homeless Persons, Assertive Adolescent and Family 

Treatment, Family and Juvenile Drug Courts, Young Offender Re-Entry Program, Pregnant and Post-Partum Women, Recovery 

Community Service – Recovery, Recovery Community Service – Facilitating, and Child and Adolescent State Incentive Grants. 

113 
Table 175: Measure 1.2.27: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who were 

currently employed or engaged in productive activities (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 51% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 51% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 51% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 50% 44% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 52% 54.3% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 52% 57% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 49% 52% 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

Table 176: Measure 1.2.28: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had 

a permanent place to live in the community (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 49% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 49% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 49% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 49% 44% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 51% 47% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2007 53% 46% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 51% 49.3% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

 

114 
Table 177: Measure 1.2.29: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who had 

no involvement with the criminal justice system (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 95% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 95% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 95% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 94% 96% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 96% 96% 

(Target Met) 

2007 96% 96% 

(Target Met) 

2006 98% 96% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

Table 178: Measure 1.2.30: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who 

experienced no/reduced alcohol or illegal drug related health, behavioral or social, 

consequences (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 66% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 66% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 66% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 65% 86% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 67% 68% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 67% 65% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 67% 67% 

(Target Met) 

 

115 
Table 179: Measure 1.2.31: Increase the percentage of grantees in appropriate cost 

bands (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 79% Oct 31, 2013 

2011 79% Oct 31, 2012 

2010 79% Oct 31, 2011 

2009 78% 79% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 80% 80% 

(Target Met) 

2007 80% 80% 

(Target Met) 

2006 80% 81% 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

 

Table 180: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Treatment 

Programs of Regional and National Significance - All Other Capacity Grants 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.25 

1.2.26 

1.2.27 

1.2.28 

1.2.29 

1.2.30 

1.2.31 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

All data are automatically checked as they are input to SAIS. 

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they are 

being entered. The system will not allow any data that are out of 

range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the database. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 1.2.25 - 1.2.31 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

SAMHSA’s CSAT uses a series of key output and outcome measures to assess the 

effectiveness of its Services Programs. The primary key output measure used is the number of 

clients served. This measure represents an unduplicated count of individuals who have received 

services through grants in Other Capacity programs. All outcome measures are based on a 

follow-up assessment conducted six months post admission to the program. Abstinence from 

substance use is a key outcome of these programs. This measure examines the substance use 

patterns of the clients. The percent reported reflects the percent of individuals who have 

reported no use of alcohol or illegal drugs in the past 30 days at six month follow-up. The 

measure of employment/education shows the percent of people employed or in school or a job 

116 
training program. The criminal justice measure refers to those clients who have reported no 

arrests in the past 30 days. Social connectedness measures the percent of people who attend 

self-help or support groups in support of their recovery. Stability in housing refers to the percent 

of people who own/rent their own house or apartment. These measures combined provide a 

holistic view of the effectiveness of the services being provided by the Other Capacity 

Programs. The efficiency measure of grantees in appropriate cost bands gives the percent of 

grantees that fall into acceptable cost ranges for each modality of treatment provided. 

The targets for employment, criminal justice, health consequences and social connectedness 

were either met or exceeded. The targets for abstinence, housing and number served were 

missed; however, the deviation is slight and does not affect overall program performance. 

Targets for FY 2009 are lower than FY 2008 target due to anticipated funding decreases. In 

addition, the target for the efficiency measure was met.95 In 2009, The Capacity Program met or 

exceeded the following targets: number of clients served, abstinence from use, criminal justice 

involvement, health consequences. 

Data on number served show a positive trend from 2005 to 2006 and 2006 to 2007. There was 

a slight downward trend from 2007 to 2008 and a negligible downward trend from 2008 to 2009. 

Data on abstinence shows a positive trend from 2005 to 2009 with a rate of 66% in FY 2009 and 

64.1% in FY 2005. 

PROGRAM: TREATMENT PRNS - SCIENCE AND SERVICE96

 

Table 181: Measure 1.4.01: Report implementing improvements in treatment methods 

on the basis of information and training provided by the program (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 90% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 90% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 90% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 90% 82% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 90% 92% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 93% 90% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 89% 93% 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

 

95 Percentage of grantees that provide drug treatment services within approved cost per person bands is measured by the type of 

treatment including outpatient non-methadone, outpatient methadone, and residential treatment services. The cost ranges are for

outpatient non-methadone $1,000-$5,000, outpatient methadone $1,500-$8,000, and residential $3,000-$10,000.

96Includes Knowledge Application Program, Faith Based Initiatives, Strengthening Treatment Access and Retention, Addiction 

Technology Transfer Centers, and SAMHSA Conference Grants. 

117 
Table 182: Measure 1.4.02: Increase the number of individuals trained per year 

(Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 20,516 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 20,516 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 20,516 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 20,516 22,943 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 20,516 21,490 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 23,141 20,516 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 28,916 23,141 

(Target Not Met) 

 

Table 183: Measure 1.4.03: Increase the percentage of drug treatment professionals 

trained by the program who would rate the quality of the events as good, very good, or 

excellent (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 96% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 96% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 96% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 96% 95% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 96% 95% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 96% 95% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 96% 96% 

(Target Met) 

 

118 
Table 184: Measure 1.4.04: Increase the percentage of drug treatment professionals 

trained by the program who shared any of the information from the events with others 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 92% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 92% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 92% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 92% 85% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 90% 93.5% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 90% 89% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2006 88% 87% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

 

Table 185: Measure 1.4.05: Increase the percentage of grantees in appropriate cost 

bands (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 100% Oct 31, 2013 

2011 100% Oct 31, 2012 

2010 100% Oct 31, 2011 

2009 100% 100% 

(Target Met) 

2008 100% 100% 

(Target Met) 

2007 100% 100% 

(Target Met) 

2006 100% 100% 

(Target Met) 

 

 

119 
Table 186: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for Treatment 

Programs of Regional and National Significance - Science and Service Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.4.01 

1.4.02 

1.4.03 

1.4.04 

1.4.05 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

All data are automatically checked as they are input to SAIS. 

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they are 

being entered. The system will not allow any data that are out of 

range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the database. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 1.4.01 - 1.4.05 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

The output measure used for this program is number of participants trained, which reflects the 

total number of participants who attended a SAMHSA CSAT-funded training, meeting, or 

received technical assistance. The outcome measures used reflect the percent of people who 

reported sharing information with others, whether or not the participants applied the information, 

and whether there was overall satisfaction with the event quality. All output and outcome targets 

except one were either met or exceeded, including: implementing improvements in treatment 

methods; sharing information from events with others; increasing the percentage of grantees in 

appropriate cost bands, which reflects a range of cost appropriate for a Science and Service 

participant; and increasing the number of clients served. The target for 1.4.03 (increasing 

percentage of treatment professionals who rate the quality of events highly) was missed; 

however, the deviation is slight and does not affect overall program performance. 

From FY 2005, there was a downward trend in number of clients served to the number served in 

2006 and 2007. However, this is consistent with the number of programs included in this 

reporting group. From 2007 to 2009, there is a positive trend with 22,943 participants trained as 

compared to 20,516. A consistent trend is seen in those who rate the overall quality of the event 

as good, very good or excellent. Data show that this measure is consistently high at rates over 

95%. 

 

120 
MACRO PROGRAM: SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT BLOCK 

GRANT (SAPTBG)

 

PROGRAM: SAPTBG - TREATMENT ACTIVITIES 

 

Table 187: Measure 1.2.43: Number of admissions to substance abuse treatment 

programs receiving public funding97 (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 2,372,302 Nov 30, 2014 

2011 1,881,515 Nov 30, 2013 

2010 1,881,515 Nov 30, 2012 

2009 1,881,515 Nov 30, 2011 

2008 1,881,515 2,272,250 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 2,003,324 2,372,302 

(Target Exceeded)98

2006 1,983,490 1,849,891 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

 

Table 188: Measure 1.2.45: Increase the percentage of States and Territories that 

express satisfaction with Technical Assistance (TA) provided99 (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2010 Discontinued N/A 

2009 97% Nov 30, 2010 

2008 97% Nov 30, 2009100

2007 97% 92% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2006 97% 83% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

 

97Formerly Number of Clients Served. Wording change approved by OMB 12/4/07.

98Prior to FY 2007, the data for this measure came from the Treatment Episode Data Set component of the Drug and Alcohol 

Services Information System. Beginning in FY 2007, the data source is the State drug repository of the Web Block Grant Application 

System. 

99 Measure 1.2.45 will be retired from public reporting in FY 2010. Please see explanation in the narrative for this program. 

100 The data for the final years of this measure are unavailable. As a result, this measure will be discontinued after the FY 2011 

President’s Budget.

121 
Table 189: Measure 1.2.47: Increase the percentage of States in appropriate cost 

bands (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 71% Nov 30, 2013 

2011 70% Nov 30, 2012 

2010 68% Nov 30, 2011 

2009 68% Nov 30, 2010 

2008 67% 77% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 67% 65% 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 100% 65% 

(Target Not Met) 

 

Table 190: Measure 1.2.48: Percentage of clients reporting abstinence from drug use 

at discharge (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 70% Nov 30, 2013 

2011 70.3% Nov 30, 2012 

2010 70.3% Nov 30, 2011 

2009 69.3% Nov 30, 2010 

2008 69.3% 73.7% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 68.3% 73.7% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 N/A 68.3% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

122 
Table 191: Measure 1.2.49: Percentage of clients reporting abstinence from alcohol at 

discharge (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 75% Nov 30, 2013 

2011 74.7% Nov 30, 2012 

2010 74.7% Nov 30, 2011 

2009 74.7% Nov 30, 2010 

2008 74.7% 78.2% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 73.7% 80.9% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 N/A 73.7% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

Table 192: Measure 1.2.50: Percentage of clients reporting being employed/in school 

at discharge (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 43% Nov 30, 2013 

2011 43.9% Nov 30, 2012 

2010 43.9% Nov 30, 2011 

2009 42.9% Nov 30, 2010 

2008 42.9% 37.2% 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 N/A 42.9% 

(Historical Actual) 

2006 N/A 40.9% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

123 
Table 193: Measure 1.2.51: Percentage of clients reporting no involvement with the 

Criminal Justice System (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 89% Nov 30, 2013 

2011 88.9% Nov 30, 2012 

2010 88.9% Nov 30, 2011 

2009 88.9% Nov 30, 2010 

2008 88.9% 92% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 N/A 88.9% 

(Historical Actual) 

2006 N/A 88.9% 

(Historical Actual) 

 

 

Table 194: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for SAPTBG - 

Treatment Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.43 Data are collected through standard 

instruments and submitted through the 

Treatment Episode Set. Data are then uploaded 

to SAMHSA’s State data repository, the Web 

Block Grant Application System (WEBBGAS). 

In addition, States can make direct updates to 

data in WebBGAS and are required to verify 

that the data in the system are correct. 

All data are automatically checked as they 

are submitted through the internal control 

processes in the Treatment Episode Data 

Set. Validation and verification checks run 

on the data as they are being entered. 

The system will not allow any data that 

are out of range or violate skip patterns to 

be saved into the database. 

1.2.45 Data are collected through standard 

instruments and submitted through the 

Treatment Episode Set. TA data are collected 

through an annual customer satisfaction survey 

with the States/territories on the Block Grant 

activities. 

All data are automatically checked as they 

are submitted through the internal control 

processes in the Treatment Episode Data 

Set. Validation and verification checks run 

on the data as they are being entered. 

The system will not allow any data that 

are out of range or violate skip patterns to 

be saved into the database. 

1.2.47 

1.2.48 

1.2.49 

1.2.50 

1.2.51 

Data are collected through standard 

instruments and submitted through the 

Treatment Episode Set. TA data are collected 

through an annual customer satisfaction survey 

with the States/territories on the Block Grant 

activities. 

All data are automatically checked as they 

are submitted through the internal control 

processes in the Treatment Episode Data 

Set. Validation and verification checks run 

on the data as they are being entered. 

The system will not allow any data that 

are out of range or violate skip patterns to 

be saved into the database. 

 

124 
Agency Program, Measure 1.2.43 - 1.2.51 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

The long-term measure of change in abstinence at discharge is being retired and being 

replaced with two annual measures; one reflects abstinence from drug use at discharge and the 

other one reflects abstinence from alcohol at discharge. Discharge is defined as the date of last 

service and abstinence is defined as no reported use of either alcohol or drugs in the past 30 

days. Baseline data have been reported and both measures exceeded their FY 2007 targets. 

Measures have also been added for employment and criminal justice involvement. 

The performance target for admissions for FY 2006 was set at an approximate appropriate 

target level, and the deviation from that level is slight. There was no effect on overall program or 

activity performance. The target of number of admissions was exceeded with a total of 2.3 

million admissions reported. The number of admissions reflects the number of entrances into 

services provided under the block grant program. All outcome targets (abstinence from drugs 

and alcohol use) were either met or exceeded. The measure related to percentage of grantees 

in cost bands101 was missed by a slight deviation which did not affect overall program 

performance. 

Prior to FY 2007, the data for this measure (1.2.43) came from the Treatment Episode Data Set 

component of the SAMHSA Drug and Alcohol Services Information System. Beginning in FY 

2007, the data source is the State data repository of the Web Block Grant Application System. 

This system contains more comprehensive and verified information on the measure. 

Data show consistent high performance across years with respect to key program measures of 

abstinence from both illegal drugs and alcohol use. The SAPT Program continues to exceed its 

targets on these key measures. In addition, data show that over 2.2 million client admissions 

have been made in FY 2008 exceeding the target set for the year. 

 

101 Percentage of states that provide drug treatment services within approved cost per person bands is measured by the type of 

treatment including outpatient non-methadone, outpatient methadone, and residential treatment services. The cost ranges are for

outpatient non-methadone $1,000-$5,000, outpatient methadone $1,500-$8,000, and residential $3,000-$10,000.

125 
PROGRAM: SAPTBG - PREVENTION SET-ASIDE – SYNAR AMENDMENT 

IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES

 

Table 195: Measure 2.3.49: Increase number of States (including Puerto Rico) whose 

retail sales violations is at or below 20%102 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 52 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 52 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 52 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 52 Aug 31, 2010 

2008 52 52 

(Target Met) 

2007 52 52 

(Target Met) 

2006 52 52 

(Target Met) 

 

Table 196: Measure 2.3.62: Number of States (excluding Puerto Rico) reporting retail 

tobacco sales violation rates below 10% (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 28 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 26 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 25 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 28 Aug 31, 2010 

2008 29 22 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 28 26 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2006 Set Baseline 25 

(Baseline)103

 

102The 20% retail sales violation data apply to the 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

103FY 2007 Actual was inadvertently reported as 27 (the FY 2006 Actual) [when? In the FY 2010 PB?]

126 
Table 197: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for SAPTBG - 

Prevention Set-Aside – Synar Amendment Implementation Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.49 

2.3.62 

The data source is the 

Synar report, part of the 

SAPT Block Grant 

application submitted 

annually by each State. 

States must certify that Block Grant data are accurate. The 

validity and reliability of the data are ensured through technical 

assistance, conducting random unannounced checks, and the 

confirmation of the data by scientific experts, site visits and other 

similar steps. SAMHSA is able to provide leadership and 

guidance to States on appropriate sample designs and other 

technical requirements, based on scientific literature and 

demonstrated best practices for effective implementation of 

Synar. Data sources for the baseline and measures are derived 

from State project officers’ logs and from organizations that were 

awarded State technical assistance contracts. The analysis is 

based upon the actual requests/responses received, therefore 

providing a high degree of reliability and validity. 

Agency Program, Measure 2.3.49 - 2.3.62 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

The Synar Regulation requires the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the 8 U.S. territories 

to: 1) have in effect a law prohibiting any manufacturer, retailer, or distributor of tobacco 

products from selling or distributing such products to any individual younger than age 18; 2) 

enforce this law; 3) conduct annual, unannounced inspections (referred to as the Synar survey) 

in a way that provide a valid probability sample of tobacco sales outlets accessible to minors; 4) 

negotiate interim targets and a date to achieve a noncompliance rate (or retailer violation rate) 

of no more than 20 percent (SAMHSA required that each state reduce its retailer violation rate 

(RVR) to 20 percent or less by FY 2002); and 5) submit an annual report detailing state 

activities to enforce its law. The measures in these tables refer to the results of each state’s 

Synar survey and reflect the percentage of retail outlets in the survey that sold tobacco to youth. 

The Synar program has been successful in reducing youth access to tobacco through retail 

sources. While the national weighted average retailer violation rate for the 50 states, Puerto 

Rico and the District of Columbia (weighted by state population) was 40.1 percent in FY 1996, 

the rate steadily fell to 9.9 percent in FY 2007. However, the national weighted average retailer 

violation rate slightly rebounded in FY 2008 to 10.9 percent. There are several potential reasons 

for the increase. First, one of the greatest predictors of a state’s retailer violation rate is the 

amount and reach of a state’s youth tobacco access enforcement efforts. Specifically, states 

that have consistent state-wide enforcement of youth tobacco access laws tend to have much 

lower RVRs than states without such rigorous enforcement programs. However, the Synar 

regulation specifically forbids states from spending SAPTBG monies to fund the enforcement of 

their access laws. Consequently, states must utilize other sources of funding (usually state 

general funds, Master Settlement Agreement funds, or funds dedicated for this purpose to a 

127 
state enforcement agency) for enforcement purposes. In a worsening economy and as state 

budgets decrease, these funds are at risk. As a result, some states are reducing the number of 

enforcement inspections they conduct, which has the potential to result in higher retailer 

violation rates. At the same time, states have been cutting the budgets of their comprehensive 

tobacco control programs, most notably cutting back funds spent on anti-smoking campaigns 

that had been funded by nationwide 1998 settlement of a class-action lawsuit against the 

tobacco industry (Master Settlement Agreement). Many tobacco control advocates believe that 

cuts in comprehensive tobacco control programs has lead to the leveling off of youth tobacco 

use rates between 2003 and 2007, after a period of rapid decline between 1997 and 2003. We 

are seeing a similar leveling off in the retailer violation rates reported by states. 

SAMHSA is working with states to address this issue, including holding sessions at the 10th 

National Workshop on topics such as the impact of the recession on Synar: what states are 

doing to maintain outcomes with less money and how to use local tobacco licensing to help fund 

enforcement. Additionally, the newly passed FDA tobacco regulation will provide states with 

funding to enforce youth tobacco access laws, which will hopefully result in a decrease in the 

RVR. 

Since FY 2005, all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have been in compliance 

with the Synar requirements. 

Since each state has met the 20 percent requirement for the past four years, SAMHSA set a 

new program goal to encourage all states to reduce the sales rate to less than 10 percent which 

is in keeping with the initial intent of the Synar legislation, to reduce minors’ access to tobacco 

products. It is also consistent with research104 suggesting that effectively reducing youth access 

requires rates lower than the 20 percent target. 

While this does not change the legally required target rate of 20 percent, it provides SAMHSA 

and states with a program goal that fits the legislative intent. In FY 2006, 25 states reported 

rates below 10 percent. In FY 2007, 26 states reported rates below 10 percent and in FY 2008, 

22 states reported rates below 10 percent. Due to the factors explained above, SAMHSA has 

lowered the target for FY 2010 to be more feasible in this economic environment. SAMHSA has 

increased the targets for FY 2011 and FY 2012 in the hopes that the economy will regain its 

stability. 

 

104 Jason LA, Ji PY, Anes MD, Birkhead SH. Active enforcement of cigarette control laws in the prevention of cigarette sales to 

minors. JAMA. 1991; 266:3159-3161.Forster JL, Murray DM. Wolfson M, Blaine TM, Wagenaar AC, Hennrikus DJ. The effects of 

community policies to reduce youth access to tobacco. AM J Public Health. 1998; 88:1193-1198.

128 
Figure 1: States Reporting Retailer Violation Rates At or Below 20% and Below 10%105

In addition to setting targets for states, the Synar Amendment established penalties for 

noncompliance. The penalty for a state is loss of up to 40 percent of its Substance Abuse 

Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant funds. In lieu of this penalty, in every year since 

2000, Congress has provided an alternative penalty (Section 214/Section 218/Section 

213/Section 212) mechanism by which a state can avoid the 40 percent reduction in its SAPT 

Block Grant if the state stipulates that it will spend its own funds to improve compliance with the 

law. The alternative penalty also stipulates that SAPTBG funds can not be withheld from a U.S. 

territory that receives less than $1,000,000 in SAPT Block Grant funds for failing to meet the 

Synar requirements. The first measure (retailer violation rate of 20 percent or less) includes 

Puerto Rico because Puerto Rico is subject to a monetary penalty for failing to meet the Synar 

requirements because it receives more than $1,000,000 in SAPTBG funds, while the other U.S. 

territories are not. The second measure (retailer violation rate of less than 10 percent) only 

includes the 50 states and DC because these are the entities included when SAMHSA 

publishes the annual national weighted retailer violation rate. 

 

105 Note: The first measure States at or below 20% includes the 50 States, DC and PR while the second measure States below 

10% only includes the 50 States and DC.

129 
PROGRAM: SAPTBG – PREVENTION SET-ASIDE – OTHER SET-ASIDE ACTIVITIES 

Table 198: Measure 2.3.53: Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and 

strategies implemented106 (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 10,393 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 10,393 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 7,000 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 7,000 Aug 31, 2010 

2008 7,000 10,393 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 11,000 17,056 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 Set Baseline 10,090 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 199: Measure 2.3.69: Percent of program costs spent on evidence-based 

practices (EBP) (Efficiency) 

FY Target Result 

2012 75% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 75% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 71% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 71% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 70% 75% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 69% 

(Baseline) 

 

 106This measure has been revised for the FY 2011 President's Budget. Previously the measure was cumulative. It has been 

revised to report its data annually. As a result, targets and data provided here may appear to differ from those previously published 

in the FY 2010 President's Budget. 

130 
Table 200: Measure 2.3.54: Number of participants served in prevention programs 

(Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 70,647,674 Aug 31, 2013 

2011 70,647,674 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 17,482,060 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 17,482,060 Aug 31, 2010 

2008 17,482,060 70,647,674 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 17,482,060 25,258,287 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 Set Baseline 6,322,551 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 201: Measure 2.3.63: Percent of states showing an increase in state level 

estimates of survey respondents who rate the risk of substance abuse as moderate or 

great (age 12-17) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 47.1% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 47.1% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 45.1% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 45.1% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 45.1% 47.1% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 45.1% 

(Baseline) 

 

131 
Table 202: Measure 2.3.64: Percent of states showing an increase in state level 

estimates of survey respondents who rate the risk of substance abuse as moderate or 

great (age 18+) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 37.3% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 37.3% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 27.5% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 27.5% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 27.5% 37.3% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 27.4% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 203: Measure 2.3.65: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level 

estimates of percent of survey respondents who report 30 day use of alcohol (age 12-

20) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 52.9% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 52.9% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 51% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 51% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 51% 52.9% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 51% 

(Baseline) 

 

132 
Table 204: Measure 2.3.66: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level 

estimates of percent of survey respondents who report 30 day use of alcohol (age 21+) 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 47.1% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 47.1% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 37.3% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 37.3% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 37.3% 47.1% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 37.3% 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 205: Measure 2.3.67: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level 

estimates of percent of survey respondents who report 30 day use of other illicit drugs 

(age 12-17) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 64.7% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 64.7% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 52.9% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 52.9% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 52.9% 64.7% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 52.9% 

(Baseline) 

 

133 
Table 206: Measure 2.3.68: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level 

estimates of percent of survey respondents who report 30 day use of other illicit drugs 

(age 18+) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 37.3% Aug 31, 2013 

2011 37.3% Aug 31, 2012 

2010 33.3% Aug 31, 2011 

2009 33.3% Aug 31, 2010 

2008 33.3% 37.3% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 Set Baseline 33.3% 

(Baseline) 

 

 

Table 207: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for SAPTBG – 

Prevention Set-Aside – Other Set-Aside Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.53 Reported by 

States in the 

Block Grant 

Applications 

Data, as well as the entire SAPT application, are reviewed jointly by 

SAMHSA’s CSAT and CSAP project officers for accuracy and 

compliance. Discussions between project officers and states are 

scheduled to clarify ambiguities or inconsistencies in data which are 

resolved prior to approval. The Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center (DACCC) Data Management Team reviews the 

data for completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DACCC Government Project Officer who 

works with the Program Project Officers and grantees to identify a 

resolution. Communications are supported by regularly submitted 

program data inventories, preliminary reports and variable by variable 

cleaning sheets. The Data Management team then makes any required 

edits to the files. The edited files are then available to the DACCC Data 

Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. Grantees are instructed in the 

use of data collection protocols through grantee meetings and 

questionnaire administrative guides. The Block Grant Technical 

Assistance providers have also received training and have begun 

providing TA to the states. 

134 
Table 208: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for SAPTBG – 

Prevention Set-Aside – Other Set-Aside Activities (continued) 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.69 

2.3.54 

Reported by 

States in the 

Block Grant 

Applications. 

Information on methodology and data verification for the NSDUH is 

available at http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/methods.cfm. Data, as 

well as the entire SAPT application, are reviewed jointly by SAMHSA’s 

CSAT and CSAP project officers for accuracy and compliance. 

Discussions between project officers and states are scheduled to clarify 

ambiguities or inconsistencies in data which are resolved prior to 

approval. The Data Analytic Coordination and Consolidation Center 

(DACCC) Data Management Team reviews the data for completeness 

and accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is transmitted 

to the DACCC Government Project Officer who works with the Program 

Project Officers and grantees to identify a resolution. Communications 

are supported by regularly submitted program data inventories, 

preliminary reports and variable by variable cleaning sheets. The Data 

Management team then makes any required edits to the files. The edited 

files are then available to the DACCC Data Analysis Team for analysis 

and reporting. Grantees are instructed in the use of data collection 

protocols through grantee meetings and questionnaire administrative 

guides. The Block Grant Technical Assistance providers have also 

received training and have begun providing TA to the states. 

2.3.63 

2.3.64 

2.3.65 

2.3.66 

2.3.67 

2.3.68 

Outcome data 

are from the 

National Survey 

on Drug Use and 

Health. 

Information on methodology and data verification for the NSDUH is 

available at http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/methods.cfm. Data, as 

well as the entire SAPT application, are reviewed jointly by SAMHSA’s 

CSAT and CSAP project officers for accuracy and compliance. 

Discussions between project officers and states are scheduled to clarify 

ambiguities or inconsistencies in data which are resolved prior to 

approval. The Data Analytic Coordination and Consolidation Center 

(DACCC) Data Management Team reviews the data for completeness 

and accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is transmitted 

to the DACCC Government Project Officer who works with the Program 

Project Officers and grantees to identify a resolution. Communications 

are supported by regularly submitted program data inventories, 

preliminary reports and variable by variable cleaning sheets. The Data 

Management team then makes any required edits to the files. The edited 

files are then available to the DACCC Data Analysis Team for analysis 

and reporting. Grantees are instructed in the use of data collection 

protocols through grantee meetings and questionnaire administrative 

guides. The Block Grant Technical Assistance providers have also 

received training and have begun providing TA to the states. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 2.3.53 - 2.3.68 

NOTE: Some data have changed from those previously reported. Previously, data were 

reported as a result for the following year. For example, results for 2008 reflected data collected 

in 2007. In order to achieve consistency across SAMHSA, reporting has been revised so that 

results reflect data actually collected in that year. 

135 
As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

Compliance years reflect results three years prior to the current submission. Therefore, the FY 

2008 percentages reported in the tables were obtained from the FY 2009 application and 

calculated by comparing state estimates from pooled 2005-2006 samples with estimates from 

pooled 2006-2007 samples. 

The prevention efficiency measure (2.3.69) is the percent of block grant dollars spent on 

evidence-based practices (EBPs).107 In FY 2007, this was 69 percent and increased to 75 

percent in data received in FY 2008 (in the FY 2009 Block Grant application). Because these 

programs have been demonstrated to be effective, the proportion of total grant dollars spent on 

EBPs is an indicator of the ability of the program to channel resources towards proven-effective 

strategies, that is, an indicator of the efficient use of resources. 

The targets for numbers served up through FY 2010 reflect projections based on the FY 2007 

baseline which aggregates the results from 28 voluntary State reports. The projection assumes 

that all states will report on this new data reporting requirement and takes into account the size 

of states that did/did not voluntarily report for FY 2007. The target for numbers served for FY 

2008 was exceeded substantially as was the number of EBPs implemented. Targets beginning 

in 2011 reflect this adjustment. 

The numbers reported for FY 2008 are substantially higher than the previous year. The large 

difference in the reported numbers served reflects states’ continuing efforts to bring their data 

collection systems in line with the National Outcome Measures (NOMs). As a result of increased 

correspondence between states’ ability to provide accurate data on the people served and 

populations reached by their interventions, the reported numbers have increased substantially 

since the NOMs were fully implemented for the first time. A large portion of the increase in 

reported numbers is due to larger reported numbers of people reached through environmental 

strategies. These have extensive reach through advertising, print, radio, and television public 

service announcements. As many of the audiences for these media campaigns overlap, there 

would be duplication in the numbers provided by the states. States are not capable of correcting 

for this due to the design of their management information systems. 

These improvements in states’ ability to report accurate NOMs data have contributed to the 

program’s ability to meet its performance targets. The program met or exceeded all of its FY 

2009 targets. 

Results for the 20 percent prevention set-aside activities in the SAPT Block Grant are reported 

for the compliance year of the program. Output results are aligned with NSDUH state outcome 

estimates for a comparable timeframe. 

Although state level change cannot be attributed directly to the SAPT activities, a number of 

state level estimates indicate that progress is being made toward reducing substance use and 

 

107 Evidence-based practices are defined by inclusion in one or more of the three categories: a) included in Federal registries of 

evidence-based interventions; b) reported (with positive effects on the primary targeted outcome) in peer-reviewed journals; or c) 

documented effectiveness supported by other sources of information and the consensus judgment of informed experts.

136 
its associated risk factors. For example, state-level changes in perception of risk of harm from 

substance use between 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 indicate that with respect to youth ages 12 

to17, almost half of the state grantees (47.1 percent) showed improvement. Nineteen state 

grantees (37.3 percent) showed improvement among respondents ages 18 or older. Thirty-eight 

states (74.5 percent) showed an improvement in the composite disapproval measure for youth 

ages 12 to 17 between 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 .State-level changes in past 30-day 

substance use between 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 indicated that 27 state grantees (52.9 

percent) achieved a decrease in past 30-day alcohol use for underage youth. 

PROGRAM: SAPTBG - NATIONAL SURVEYS108

 

Table 209: Measure 4.4.01: Availability and timeliness of data for the National Survey 

on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2011 8 months Sep 30, 2011 

2010 8 months Sep 30, 2010 

2009 8 months 8 months 

(Target Met) 

2008 8 months 8 months 

(Target Met) 

2007 8 months 8 months 

(Target Met) 

2006 8 months 8 months 

(Target Met) 

 

Table 210: Measure 4.4.02: Availability and timeliness of data for the Drug Abuse 

Warning Network (DAWN) (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2011 10 months Oct 31, 2012 

2010 10 months Oct 31, 2011 

2009 10 months Oct 31, 2010 

2008 10 months 13 months 

(Target Not Met but Improved)109

2007 12 months 22 months 

(Target Not Met)110

2006 15 months 16 months 

(Target Not Met) 

 

108The National Surveys are completed using contracts instead of grants. As a result, they are awarded earlier in the fiscal year 

than grants. There is no delay between fiscal year funding and the performance year. As a result, FY 2012 targets have not been

set for these performance measures as they have been for programs that are funded using grants. 

109This was erroneously reported as 22 months in the FY 2010 President's Budget. 

110This data was erroneously reported at 14 months in the FY 2010 President's Budget. 

137 
Table 211: Measure 4.4.03: Availability and timeliness of data for the Drug and 

Alcohol Services Information System (DASIS) (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2011 10 months Sep 30, 2011 

2010 10 months Sep 30, 2010 

2009 10 months 10 months 

(Target Met) 

2008 10 months 10 months 

(Target Met) 

2007 15 months 8 months 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 15 months 9 months 

(Target Exceeded) 

 

Table 212: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for SAPTBG - 

National Surveys 

Measure Data Source Data 

Validation 

4.4.01 Publication date of “Results from the National Survey on Drug Use and 

Health: National Findings” 

Project officer 

review 

4.4.02 Publication date of “Drug Abuse Warning Network: National Estimates of 

Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits” 

Project officer 

review 

4.4.03 Publication date of the “Inventory of Substance Abuse Treatment 

Services” report 

Project officer 

review 

 

Agency Program, Measure 4.4.01 - 4.4.03 

The National Surveys are implemented using multi-year contracts instead of grants and as a 

result have funding schedules than grants. There is no delay between fiscal year funding and 

the performance year. As a result, FY 2012 targets have not been set for these performance 

measures as they have been for programs that are funded using grants. 

The three performance measures for the National Surveys measure the timeliness of the 

publication of reports after the conclusion of data collection. The target for the publication of the 

National Survey on Drug Use and Health was met in FY 2008 and FY 2009. The performance 

target for publication of the Drug Abuse Warning Network System reports for 2006, 2007, and 

2008 were not met because of technical errors by the contractor which required that the reports 

be pulled, rewritten, and disseminated. All reports are now updated and the 2009 data release 

will meet the target of November 2009. There was no affect on overall program or activity 

performance. The target for publication of the Drug and Alcohol Services Information System 

was met in FY 2009. 

 

138 
MACRO PROGRAM: CROSS-CENTER INITIATIVES 

PROGRAM: SAMHSA'S MENTAL HEALTH/SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING, 

BRIEF INTERVENTION AND REFERRAL TO TREATMENT 

Table 213: Increase the number of individuals screened for mental disorders (including 

PTSD) and substance use disorders

FY Target Result 

2012 58,456 Dec 31, 2012 

Table 214: Increase the number of individuals receiving a brief intervention for MH 

and/or SUD

FY Target Result 

2012 9,998 Dec 31, 2012 

Table 215: Increase number of individuals assessed and referred for specialty MH 

and/or SA treatment

FY Target Result 

2012 2,449 Dec 31, 2012 

Table 216: Increase the percentage of individuals receiving mental health and/or 

substance abuse treatment services who report improved functioning

FY Target Result 

2012 47% Dec 31, 2012 

139 
Table 217: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for SAMHSA's 

Mental Health/Substance Abuse Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to 

Treatment 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

TBD Data source has not been determined 

at this time but will most likely be a 

common co-occurring data collection 

tool that will be collected by the TRAC 

on-line data reporting and collection 

system for mental health grantees and 

SAIS on-line data reporting and 

collection system for treatment 

grantees. 

All TRAC and SAIS data are automatically 

checked as they are input into TRAC. Validation 

and verification checks are run on the data as 

they are being entered. The system will not allow 

any data that are out of range or violate skip 

patterns to be saved into the database. 

Agency Program 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supporting by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will 

be reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

This SAMHSA program will establish a public health approach to serving individuals with and at 

risk for mental illnesses and substance abuse disorders, including Post-Traumatic Stress 

Disorder (PTSD). Specifically, this program seeks to enhance and expand the capacity of 

community based settings to provide clinically and culturally appropriate screening, assessment 

and referral to specialty treatment services for individuals with and at risk for these disorders. 

SAMHSA is building on the success of the existing SBIRT program by adopting critical aspects 

of the SBIRT program to include not only the provision of appropriate services, but also to 

expand behavioral health system capacity for mental health disorder prevention/mental health 

promotion, screening, access to quality, integrated, individualized care and treatment that 

fosters recovery from mental health and substance abuse related issues. Additionally, this 

program will expand the service settings of SBIRT to include non-traditional settings such as 

One Stop shops and employment centers. 

140 
PROGRAM: CO-OCCURRING STATE INCENTIVE GRANTS 

 

Table 218: Measure 1.2.17: Increase the number of persons with co-occurring 

disorders served (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2012 124,524 Oct 31, 2012 

2011 103,679 Oct 31, 2011 

2010 103,679 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 103,679 94,034 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 Set Baseline 103,679 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 219: Measure 1.2.18: Increase the percentage of treatment programs that 

screen for co-occurring disorders (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 68% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 68% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 68% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 68% 29% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 Set Baseline 96.1% 

(Baseline)111

 

Table 220: Measure 1.2.19: Increase the percentage of treatment programs that 

assess for co-occurring disorders (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 32% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 32% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 32% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 32% 17% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 Set Baseline 76.4% 

(Baseline)112

 

111Previously reported result was calculated using erroneous unit of analysis. It has been revised from the FY 2010 President's 

Budget.

141 
 

Table 221: Measure 1.2.20: Increase the percentage of treatment programs that treat

co-occurring disorders through collaborative, consultative, and integrated models of 

care (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2012 53% Oct 31, 2012 

2011 53% Oct 31, 2011 

2010 53% Oct 31, 2010 

2009 53% 6% 

(Target Not Met) 

2008 Set Baseline 50.4% 

(Baseline)113

 

 

Table 222: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for SAMHSA's 

Co-Occurring State Incentive Grants 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.17 

1.2.18 

1.2.19 

1.2.20 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

All data are automatically checked as they are input to SAIS. 

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they are 

being entered. The system will not allow any data that are out of 

range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the database. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 1.2.17 - 1.2.20 

As this program’s grant awards are made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results 

for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities 

supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, FY 2011 appropriated funding will be 

reflected in the targets set for FY 2012. 

People with co-occurring substance abuse and mental disorders are individuals who have at 

least one psychiatric disorder as well as an alcohol or drug use disorder. While these disorders 

may interact differently in any one person (e.g., an episode of depression may trigger a relapse 

into alcohol abuse, or cocaine use may exacerbate schizophrenic symptoms) at least one 

disorder of each type can be diagnosed independently of the other. The first three years of 

these grants focus on infrastructure development and enhancements. Grantees have the 

flexibility to identify specific infrastructure development and enhancement activities that support 

the goals selected and respond to the needs and priorities they have identified. Certain areas of 

infrastructure development (e.g., standardized screening and assessment, complementary 

 

112Previously reported result was calculated using erroneous unit of analysis. It has been revised from the FY 2010 President's 

Budget.

113Previously reported result was calculated using erroneous unit of analysis. It has been revised from the FY 2010 President's 

Budget.

142 
licensure and credentialing requirements, service coordination and network building, financial 

planning, and information sharing) reflect critical pathways for establishing complementary 

service delivery capacity in substance abuse and mental health service systems. After this 

period, grantees implemented service pilot programs, which generated data for the above 

outcome measures. In July 2007, CO-SIG States were required to begin collecting the 

necessary data, with the first reports due in October 2008. FY 2008 is the first year the data is 

available and baselines have been established. Grants will end at the close of FY 2010. Data is 

being collected from grantees through the Services Accountability Improvement System (SAIS). 

PROGRAM: SAMHSA'S HEALTH INFORMATION NETWORK (SHIN)114

 

Table 223: Measure 4.4.04: Total number of SAMHSA knowledge products 

disseminated (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2011 8,607,392115 May 31, 2011 

2010 13,909,297 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 13,909,297 16,360,389 

(Target Exceeded) 

2008 Set Baseline 13,909,297 

(Baseline) 

 

Table 224: Measure 4.4.05: Total number of individuals referred for treatment 

resources (Output) 

FY Target Result 

2011 216,871116 May 31, 2011 

2010 373,916 Oct 31, 2010 

2009 Set Baseline 373,916 

(Baseline) 

 

 

 

114The SAMHSA’s Health Information Network is completed using contracts instead of grants. As a result, they are awarded earlier 

in the fiscal year than grants. There is no delay between fiscal year funding and the performance year. As a result, FY 2012 targets 

have not been set for these performance measures as they have been for programs that are funded using grants. 

115Contract ends April 30, 2011, with final report due 30 days after. Target for 2011 is an estimate based on activity for 7 months 

(or 58 per cent) of FY 2011. 

116Contract ends April 30, 2011, with a final report due 30 days after. Target for 2011 is an estimate based on activity for 7 months 

(or 58 percent) of FY 2011. 

143 
Table 225: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures for SAMHSA's 

Health Information Network 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

4.4.04 The number of knowledge products 

disseminated by SAMHSA includes (1) physical 

inventory shipped by SHIN warehouse on 

behalf of SAMHSA, HHS-OWH, PDFA and 

ONDCP; (2) the number of electronic items 

successfully e-mailed via SAMHSA’s eNetwork; 

and (3) the number of physical SAMHSA News 

copies sent to subscribers beginning in October 

2008. 

SHIN uses an inventory and order 

management system to track physical 

inventory and shipment data. This 

inventory and order management system 

implements a relational database that is 

supported with log files and data change 

tracking that provides data validation at 

each functional process. Data is validated 

through one additional step during its 

transition to the data warehouse reporting 

system. Distribution of electronic items is 

reported to SHIN by GovDelivery, a third 

party vendor that serves multiple Federal 

agencies and the White House. SAMHSA 

News' subscriber database is maintained 

by IQ Solutions and volume is validated by 

reports from a third party fulfillment center 

on number of copies sent. 

4.4.05 The number of individuals SHIN refers to 

treatment facilities/resources includes (1) the 

number of calls answered by the SAMHSA 

Treatment Line (800.662.HELP); and (2) the 

number of callers to other SHIN managed 

phone numbers who select the option to speak 

to an Information Specialist regarding treatment 

resources. 

Calls answered on the SAMHSA 

Treatment Line are reported to SHIN by 

Verizon. The SHIN contact center 

manager reviews the data daily, monthly, 

and annually for consistency. IQ Solutions 

telephony system (InterTel) tracks the 

number of treatment calls answered on 

other SHIN-managed lines including 

SAMHSA7, ONDCP, and the legacy 

NCADI and NMHIC telephone numbers. 

Referrals are measured by the number of 

callers to these lines who select the 

recorded option that they are looking for 

treatment referral support. 

 

Agency Program, Measure 4.4.04 – 4.4.05 

SAMHSA has introduced two new measures to reflect the substantial and increasing role in 

knowledge product dissemination of the SAMHSA Health Information Network (SHIN). The 

SHIN contract serves all three SAMHSA Centers and SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies, and 

is managed by SAMHSA’s Office of Communications. 

The SAMHSA Health Information Network is funded by a contract that is awarded earlier in the 

fiscal year than most grants. Consequently, there is no delay between fiscal year funding and 

the performance year. For this reason, and also because the SHIN contract ends in April 30, 

2011, FY 2012 targets have not been set for this performance measure and FY 2011 targets are 

based upon 7 months of activity. 

144 
The first measure to monitor SHIN’s impact is the total number of knowledge products 

disseminated. For FY 2009, the target for number of SAMHSA knowledge products 

disseminated was substantially exceeded. Two factors are primarily responsible for this 

outcome: (1) copies of SAMHSA News distributed to subscribers were included for the first time 

in FY 2009; and (2) inventory of several highly popular publications was not available for much 

of FY 2008 due to resource constraints. (SHIN is not primarily responsible for inventory 

replenishment; printing costs are defrayed from other SAMHSA funds.) In addition, no increase 

is anticipated in SHIN resources for the remainder of the contract. For these reasons, the target 

for FY 2010 is maintained at the baseline level. The target for FY 2011 also assumes level 

performance. SAMHSA will launch a new, unified SHIN Website in the first quarter of FY 2011. 

While we expect that this new site ultimately will enhance the dissemination of SAMHSA 

knowledge products, distribution will likely drop during the transition to the new site until users 

become familiar with the change. 

SAMHSA will also be reporting on a second SHIN performance measure for treatment referrals. 

These inquiries represent a large majority of calls received by SHIN and provide a valuable 

public service. Baseline data has been reported for FY 2009. As with the product dissemination 

measure, SAMHSA has assumed level performance of this measure and has set targets 

accordingly. 

SAMHSA is considering the addition of other dissemination measures in future years, but the 

necessary taxonomy and IT infrastructure must be in place before those measures can be 

developed. The taxonomy and certain automated reporting functions will not be fully deployed 

until the new, unified SHIN Web site is launched in November/December 2010. 

145 
OVERVIEW OF PERFORMANCE 

SAMHSA uses performance data to manage grants, contracts and data collection activities, and 

to report performance results to the President, Congress, and other stakeholders. SAMHSA’s 

performance measures include both long-term and annual measures covering clients and 

systems outcomes, outputs, and efficiencies. SAMHSA’s performance measures are built 

around three strategic goals: Accountability, Capacity, and Effectiveness. These goals, in turn, 

link with relevant HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives. 

SAMHSA’s Data Strategy, which is available at http://samhsa.gov/about/DataStrategyPlan.pdf, 

established three goals for FY 2007 through FY 2011: 

• Goal 1: Provide periodic national information on the incidence and prevalence of 

substance abuse and mental illness; associated characteristics of individuals and 

communities; specialty and non-specialty treatment and prevention providers and their 

services; and payers and financing of such services. 

• Goal 2: Provide effective performance information from block/formula and discretionary 

grant programs through developing and implementing SAMHSA-wide performance 

measures and rigorous evaluations. 

• Goal 3: Promote the use of interoperable electronic health records and health 

information technology to improve quality and safety of care, increase administrative 

efficiencies, and encourage consumer and family participation in their health care. 

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has partnered 

with the States and SAMHSA grantees to implement the National Outcome Measures (NOMs) 

for prevention and treatment of substance use and/or mental disorders. The NOMs have been 

defined to embody meaningful, real life outcomes for people who are striving to attain and 

sustain recovery; build resilience; and work, learn, live, and participate fully in their communities. 

As of February 2009, most States are fully reporting NOMs for mental health services, 

substance abuse prevention, and substance abuse treatment. In addition to reporting these 

measures to SAMHSA, States are using these NOMs within their own systems to measure 

outcomes at the State and substate level. State Substance Abuse Agencies reported the 

following outcomes for treatment services provided during 2007 and submitted through the 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant application: 

• For the 51 States that reported data in the Abstinence from Drug/Alcohol Use Domain 

for alcohol, 51 of 51 identified improvements in client abstinence. Forty-five of these 

States reported improvements based on information submitted to TEDS and 6 reported 

improvements based on their own data collection systems. 

• Similarly, for the 51 States that reported data in the Reduced Morbidity—Abstinence 

from Drug/Alcohol Use Domain for drug use, 50 of 51 identified improvements in client 

abstinence. Forty-four of these States reported improvements based on information 

submitted to TEDS and six reported improvements based on their own data collection 

systems. 

• For the 51 States that reported data in the Employment Domain, 46 of 51 identified 

improvements in client employment. Forty-one of these States reported improvements 

146 
based on information submitted to TEDS and five reported improvements based on their 

own data collection systems. 

• For the 51 States that reported in the Criminal Justice Domain, 36 of 40 reported an 

increase in clients with no arrests based on data reported to TEDS. 

• For the 51 States that reported data in the Stability in Housing Domain, 38 of 47 

identified improvements in stable housing for clients based on data reported to TEDS. 

The National Outcome Measures for prevention use State-level estimates for the NSDUH. 

Combined NSDUH samples for 2006 and 2007 showed the following improvements over the 

combined samples for 2005 and 2006: 

• Twenty-seven States (52.9 percent) showed a decrease in past-30-day alcohol use in 

the 12-17 age group. Twenty-eight States (54.9 percent) showed an increase in the 

perception of risk of harm from having five or more drinks of an alcoholic beverage once 

or twice a week among the same age group. 

• Twenty-five States (49.0 percent) showed a decrease in past-30-day marijuana use 

among persons aged 12-17. Twenty-one States (41.2 percent) showed an increase in 

perception of risk of harm from smoking marijuana once or twice per week among the 

same age group. 

• Twenty-nine States (56.9 percent) witnessed increases in the age of first marijuana use, 

while 31 States (60.8 percent) had increases in the age of first alcohol use. 

• Thirty-two States (62.7 percent) witnessed an increase in percentages of persons aged 

12-17 reporting that they somewhat or strongly disapproved of their peers having one or 

two drinks of an alcoholic beverage nearly every day. 

• Thirty-four States (66.7 percent) showed increased percentages of persons aged 12-17 

reporting that their close friends would somewhat or strongly disapprove of their smoking 

one or more packs of cigarettes a day. 

• Fifteen States showed higher percentages of employed persons aged 15-17 reporting 

that they would be more likely to work for an employer who randomly tests for drugs and 

alcohol. This constitutes 57.7 percent of the 26 States for which valid comparisons of 

this measure were possible across the two combined samples. 

• Twenty-five States (49.0 percent) showed increased percentages of persons aged 12-17 

reporting a conversation with a parent/guardian about the dangers of alcohol, tobacco, 

or other drugs during the past 12 months. 

• Twelve States showed increased percentages of persons aged 12-17 who reported 

having been exposed to substance abuse prevention messages during the past 12 

months. 

State-level outcome data for mental health are currently reported by State Mental Health 

Agencies through the URS. The following outcomes for services provided during 2008 show 

that: 

• For the 49 States that reported data in the Employment Domain, 21 percent of the 

mental health consumers were in competitive employment. (This is an expansion of the 

reporting base by one State.) 

• For the 49 States that reported data in the Housing Domain, 80 percent of the mental 

health consumers were living in private residences. 

• For the District of Columbia and 50 States that reported data in the Access/Capacity 

Domain, State mental health agencies provided mental health services for 21 people per 

1,000 population. All States and the District of Colombia report this measure. 

147 
• For the 47 States that reported data in the Retention Domain, only nine percent of the 

mental health patients returned to a State hospital within 30 days of State hospital 

discharge. 

• For the 49 States that reported data in the Perception of Care Domain, 70 percent of 

adult mental health consumers and 75 percent of families of child/adolescent consumers 

reported that, as a direct result of the mental health services they received, they were 

doing better. 

SAMHSA also continues to refine its performance data for discretionary programs as data 

collection procedures are implemented and improved. Each Center now has an automated webbased system for collection of performance data from their discretionary grants. Grantees are 

required to submit data within a specified time frame on clients served in their program. Those 

data are then used to produce regular reports which are used for program management and 

shared with senior SAMHSA and other Federal officials. SAMHSA has also revised its 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant application to include more 

performance information. The data from both the discretionary grants and the block grants are 

used in public reports and for SAMHSA’s Annual Performance Report and its Annual 

Performance Plan to Congress. 

SAMHSA’s performance goals and targets are reported for 31 major programs and activities. 

Detailed performance tables are reported within the narrative summaries for each of those 

programs and activities in the Congressional Justification. For Programs of Regional and 

National Significance, major activities such as the Strategic Prevention Framework and Access 

to Recovery are reported individually; smaller activities are reported in aggregate. The Online 

Performance Appendix provides historical and current data and targets as well as additional 

detail about trends in program performance. 

In the FY 2011 Online Performance Appendix, SAMHSA has expanded the display of its 

performance tables to include targets for FY 2012. As many of SAMHSA’s grant awards are 

made late in the fiscal year, performance targets and results for any given fiscal year primarily 

reflect the outputs and outcomes associated with activities supported by funding from the prior 

fiscal year. Therefore, the performance tables throughout the two documents include targets for 

the year that will be revised according to FY 2011 appropriated funding. 

148 
 

STRATEGIC PLAN 

SAMHSA’s strategic plan encompasses three strategic goals: Accountability, Capacity, and 

Effectiveness. Accountability activities support performance measurement and transparency; 

Capacity activities are designed to increase service availability; and Effectiveness activities aim 

to improve service quality. All SAMHSA activities support at least one HHS strategic objective; 

most support more than one. 

SAMHSA’s Accountability activities primarily support Strategic Objective 4.4: Communicate and 

transfer research results into clinical, public health, and human service practice. These include 

SAMHSA’s National Surveys and the SAMHSA Health Information Network. 

SAMHSA’s Capacity activities are distributed among HHS Strategic Goals 1, 2, and 3. 

SAMHSA’s largest program, the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant, 

primarily supports objective 1.2, Increase health care service availability and accessibility; the 

prevention set-aside of the Block Grant supports objective 2.3: Promote and encourage 

preventive health care, including mental health, lifelong healthy behaviors and recovery. The 

Mental Health Block Grant also supports objective 2.3, as do some of the discretionary capacity 

programs in both mental health and prevention. All treatment capacity programs, as well as 

several mental health discretionary programs, support objective 1.2. CMHS’s Homeless 

Prevention and the PATH and PAIMI formula grants, support objective 3.4: Address the needs, 

strengths and abilities of vulnerable populations. SAMHSA’s youth-focused capacity activities, 

including Youth Violence Prevention and the National Trauma Stress Network support objective 

3.2: Protect the safety and foster the well-being of children and youth. Community-focused 

prevention programs, including the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants and 

the Sober Truth of Preventing Underage Drinking Grants, support objective 3.3: Encourage the 

development of strong, healthy and supportive communities. 

SAMHSA’s Effectiveness programs comprise the Science and Service Portfolio. The National 

Repository of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices supports objective 1.3: Improve health 

care quality, safety and cost/value. Most technical assistance and training activities including the 

Minority Fellowship Program support objective 1.4: Recruit, develop, and retain a competent 

health care workforce; remaining science and service activities are distributed among objectives 

2.3 and 3.3. 

As the nation moves toward mental health parity and health reform, SAMHSA will continue to 

examine its strategic plan and goals to assure that they are consistent with national needs and 

priorities. 

149 
SAMHSA LINKAGES TO HHS STRATEGIC PLAN 

The table below shows the alignment of SAMHSA’s strategic goals with HHS Strategic 

Plan goals. 

Table 226: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 1 Health Care: Improve the safety, quality, 

affordability and accessibility of health care, including behavioral health care and 

long-term care 

HHS Strategic Goals 

SAMHSA Goal 1: 

Accountability: 

Measure and 

Report Program 

Performance 

SAMHSA Goal 2: 

Capacity: Increase 

Service Availability 

SAMHSA Goal 3: 

Effectiveness: 

Improve Service 

Quality 

1.1 Broaden health insurance and 

long-term care coverage. No No No

1.2 Increase health care service 

availability and accessibility. No X No

1.3 Improve health care quality, 

safety and cost/value. No No X 

1.4 Recruit, develop, and retain a 

competent health care workforce. No X No

Table 227: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 2 Public Health Promotion and Protection, 

Disease Prevention, and Emergency Preparedness: Prevent and control disease, 

injury, illness and disability across the lifespan, and protect the public from 

infectious, occupational, environmental and terrorist threats 

HHS Strategic Goals 

SAMHSA Goal 1: 

Accountability: 

Measure and 

Report Program 

Performance 

SAMHSA Goal 2: 

Capacity: Increase 

Service Availability 

SAMHSA Goal 3: 

Effectiveness: 

Improve Service 

Quality 

2.1 Prevent the spread of 

infectious diseases. No No No

2.2 Protect the public against 

injuries and environmental 

threats. 

No No No

2.3 Promote and encourage 

preventive health care, including 

mental health, lifelong healthy 

behaviors and recovery. 

No X No

2.4 Prepare for and respond to 

natural and man-made disasters. No X No

150 
Table 228: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 3 Human Services: Promote the economic 

and social well-being of individuals, families, and communities 

HHS Strategic Goals 

SAMHSA Goal 1: 

Accountability: 

Measure and 

Report Program 

Performance 

SAMHSA Goal 2: 

Capacity: Increase 

Service Availability 

SAMHSA Goal 3: 

Effectiveness: 

Improve Service 

Quality 

3.1 Promote the economic 

independence and social wellbeing of individuals and families 

across the lifespan. 

No X No

3.2 Protect the safety and foster 

the well being of children and 

youth. 

No X No

3.3 Encourage the development 

of strong, healthier and supportive 

communities. 

No X No

3.4 Address the needs, strengths 

and abilities of vulnerable 

populations. 

No X No

Table 229: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 4 Scientific Research and Development 

Advance scientific and biomedical research and development related to health 

and human services 

HHS Strategic Goals 

SAMHSA Goal 1: 

Accountability: 

Measure and 

Report Program 

Performance 

SAMHSA Goal 2: 

Capacity: Increase 

Service Availability 

SAMHSA Goal 3: 

Effectiveness: 

Improve Service 

Quality 

4.1 Strengthen the pool of 

qualified health and behavioral 

science researchers. 

No No No

4.2 Increase basic scientific 

knowledge to improve human 

health and human development. 

No No No

4.3 Conduct and oversee applied 

research to improve health and 

well-being. 

No No No

4.4 Communicate and transfer 

research results into clinical, 

public health and human service 

practice. 

X No No

151 
ADDITIONAL ITEMS 

FULL COST TABLE 

Methodology: Reporting full cost involves two types of information. First, the full cost for each 

program is calculated. Second, SAMHSA sums those estimates by each Program’s alignment 

with the HHS Strategic Plan goals and objectives. 

Each Program is reporting full cost information using the HHS standard methodology. 

SAMHSA’s application of the methodology involves assigning Program Management dollars 

across budget lines based upon the number of FTEs directly assigned to the program. 

Table 230: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 1 Health Care 

(Dollars in Millions) 

HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives FY 

2009 

FY 

2010 

FY 

2011 

1.1 Broaden health insurance and long-term care 

coverage. 

0 0 0

1.2 Increase health care service availability and 

accessibility. 1,933.636 1,997.988 2,026.157

1.3 Improve health care quality, safety and cost/value. 1.668 1.670 1.697

1.4 Recruit, develop, and retain a competent health 

care workforce. 44.396 44.489 43.580

Agency Subtotal Goal 1 1,979.701 2,044.147 2,071.434

Agency Total 3,466.491 3,563.209 3,673.596

Table 231: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 2 Public Health 

Promotion and Protection, Disease Prevention, and Emergency Preparedness 

(Dollars in Millions) 

HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives FY 

2009 

FY 

2010 

FY 

2011 

2.1 Prevent the spread of infectious diseases. 0 0 0

2.2 Protect the public against injuries and 

environmental threats. 0 0 0

2.3 Promote and encourage preventive health care, 

including mental health, lifelong healthy behaviors and 

recovery. 

971.520 988.690 1,006.250

2.4 Prepare for and respond to natural and man-made 

disasters. 0 0 0

Agency Subtotal Goal 2 971.520 988.690 1,006.250

Agency Total 3,466.491 3,563.209 3,673.596

152 
Table 232: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Gal 3 Human Services 

(Dollars in Millions) 

HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives FY 

2009 

FY 

2010 

FY 

2011 

3.1 Promote the economic independence and social 

well-being of individuals and families across the 

lifespan. 

0 0 0

3.2 Protect the safety and foster the well being of 

children and youth. 148.921 152.649 154.899

3.3 Encourage the development of strong, healthier 

and supportive communities. 158.032 161.487 178.357

3.4 Address the needs, strengths and abilities of 

vulnerable populations. 139.773 145.897 160.321

Agency Subtotal Goal 3 446.727 460.033 493.578

Agency Total 3,466.491 3,563.209 3,673.596

Table 233: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 4 Scientific 

Research and Development (Dollars in Millions) 

HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives FY 

2009 

FY 

2010 

FY 

2011 

4.1 Strengthen the pool of qualified health and 

behavioral science researchers. 0 0 0

4.2 Increase basic scientific knowledge to improve 

human health and human development. 0 0 0

4.3 Conduct and oversee applied research to improve 

health and well-being. 0 0 0

4.4 Communicate and transfer research results into 

clinical, public health and human service practice. 68.544 70.338 102.333

Agency Subtotal Goal 4 68.544 70.338 102.333

Agency Total 3,466.491 3,563.209 3,673.596

153 
 

EVALUATIONS INCLUDED IN HHS EVALUATIONS DATABASE FOR FY 2009 

Further details on SAMHSA's completed evaluations completed during any fiscal year can be 

found at the HHS Policy Information Center website (http://aspe.hhs.gov/pic/performance). 

Report Title: National Evaluation of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students (1999-2001) 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA's Center for Mental Health Services 

Key Study Question: To assess whether SS/HS grants develop systemic change that results 

in beneficial outcomes for children, families, and schools. 

Summary: The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Interdepartmental Initiative (SS/HS) is a 

landmark effort supported by an unprecedented collaboration among the Departments of 

Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice. The goals were to: (1) help students 

develop the skills and emotional resilience necessary to promote positive mental health, engage 

in prosocial behavior, and prevent violent behavior and drug use; (2) ensure that all students 

learn in a safe, disciplined, and drug-free environment; and (3) develop an infrastructure that will 

institutionalize and sustain integrated services. This national evaluation of SS/HS was designed 

to document how coalitions and collaborations at the community level develop systemic change 

that results in beneficial outcomes for children, families, and schools. 

Report Title: Campus Suicide Prevention Program Cross-site Evaluation, Garrett Lee Smith 

(GLS) Memorial Act 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA's Center for Mental Health Services 

Key Study Question: To assess whether GLS grants increased early identification, awareness, 

and knowledge related to suicide prevention on college campuses. 

Summary: To address the need for evaluation in the field of suicide prevention and to respond 

to Congress’s request for a cross-site evaluation of the Garrett Lee Smith Suicide Prevention 

Program, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) requires 

that all grant recipients participate in a national cross-site evaluation. This participation allows 

for large sample comparisons of early intervention activities and the collection of information on 

the use of best and promising practices. The cross-site evaluation will establish the largest 

database available to the public, policymakers, grantees, and the suicide prevention field of 

gatekeeper training experiences, early identification activity outcomes, referral network 

processes and agency interactions, college student and faculty/staff awareness and knowledge 

related to suicide, and campus suicide prevention infrastructures. A final report for this 

evaluation will be submitted to SAMHSA for this evaluation by June 1, 2010. A no-cost 

extension was given to the evaluation contract to complete data analysis. 

154 
Report Title: Evaluation of the Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children 

and their Families Program – Phase III 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA's Center for Mental Health Services 

Summary: The Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) conducted a third phase of the 

evaluation with a six-year evaluation of 22 grant communities funded in fiscal years 1999 and 

2000 on April 30, 2007. During the 6 year grant program, 10,722 children were enrolled in 

systems of care in these communities. Evaluators hired at each site gathered descriptive data 

on demographics and clinical characteristics, as well as child clinical and functional outcomes, 

family outcomes, and service experience. System of care development, service costs, evidencebased treatments, and program sustainability were assessed. Outcomes data collection on a 

representative sample included areas such as child behavioral and emotional problems and 

strengths, functioning in the home, school, and community, and caregiver strain. Descriptive 

and demographic data were obtained for 9,456 children. The average age of these children was 

12.4 years, and 66% were boys; 50.5% were White. The most common diagnoses were 41 

percent with attention deficit hyperactivity disorders, 35.3% with mood disorders, and 27.6% 

with oppositional defiant disorder. Children and youth made significant improvements in 

behavioral and emotional problems, functioning in home, school, and community, strengths and 

school performance. Caregivers reported significant reductions in strain associated with caring 

for a child with a serious emotional disturbance. Findings are available in a range of 

publications. Findings are included within mandated annual Reports to Congress. 

Report Title: Cooperative Agreements to Evaluate Housing Approaches for Persons with 

Serious Mental Illness - Phase II 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA's Center for Mental Health Services 

Summary: This multi-site, longitudinal study examined the effects of supported housing 

compared to housing approaches in the more traditional residential continuum on resident 

outcomes. Across six study sites, 952 individuals with serious mental illness were placed in 

either supported housing or one of the comparison housing approaches. Major outcome 

measures included residential tenure, time in initial placement, homelessness, hospitalization, 

and mental health symptoms. Hierarchical linear models controlling on baseline site and group 

differences were used to examine change in the outcomes over an 18-month period. Significant, 

sustained increases were found for all measures of residential stability and modest increases in 

mental health and several other outcome measures, regardless of the specific housing 

approach. There were no differential effects for supported housing compared to the other 

housing approaches on any of the outcomes tested nor differences that can be accounted for by 

the various features examined. Age and mental health hospitalization history were the two most 

common moderators of resident outcomes. The findings demonstrate the potency of housing 

with supports for people with severe mental illnesses. The lack of differential findings offers 

providers some flexibility in their approaches and use of housing stock. In the context of 

consumer preferences, housing that incorporates the principles of supported housing may be 

the best direction for providers to strive. 

155 
Report Title: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Time-Limited Interventions for Homeless 

Families 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA's Center for Mental Health Services 

Summary: SAMHSA funded the Collaborative Initiative on Homeless Families as five-year, twophased program and service evaluation study. Data were collected at baseline and three followup time points (3-, 9-, and 15-months) from 1573 homeless mothers at the eight sites 

participating in the Homeless Families Program. A basic premise for the program was that a 

primary emphasis on short-term interventions and appropriate follow-up targeted to homeless 

mothers with psychiatric and/or substance use disorders who are caring for their dependent 

children would result in movement out of homelessness, stability in housing placement, 

decreased alcohol and drug use, and improvement in mental health and family functioning at 

both the parent and child levels. It was specifically designed to be the first multi-site evaluation 

of the effectiveness of innovative interventions in addressing the particular treatment and 

service needs of homeless families. Overall, the average rate of change for families on most 

outcomes, including mental health, substance use, trauma recovery, and residential status, was 

positive, regardless of whether they were served in the target interventions or in comparison 

interventions (typically, whatever services are generally available). Even samples of mothers 

with specific needs (e.g., heightened mental health needs, those with prior substance abuse) 

generally improved on those specific outcomes. There was also some indication that more 

availability of onsite mental health services and onsite substance abuse services related to 

better outcomes for homeless mothers as well and even more so for individuals with those 

specific needs. 

Report Title: Client/Patient Sample Survey Evaluation 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA's Center for Mental Health Services 

Summary: The 2007 CPSS contract was extended through April 2008. Because analysis of the 

2007 CPSS dataset was not part of the original contract responsible for conducting the survey in 

the field and development of the final dataset, another contract was tasked with providing an 

analysis of the 2007 CPSS dataset. A draft SAMHSA report is currently under major revision, 

with an expected publication date in 2010. 

Report Title: Minority AIDS Initiative (MAI) Cross-Site Evaluation of Cohorts 6, 7, 8 and Future 

Grant Programs 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Summary: The Minority AIDS Initiative (MAI) cross-site evaluation of Cohorts 6, 7, 8 and future 

grant programs to prevent substance abuse and HIV uses CSAP’s Strategic Prevention 

Framework (SPF) to gain a broader understanding of substance abuse and HIV prevention and 

to inform future work in this field. The SPF calls for grantees to assess community needs, build 

capacity, plan, implement evidence-based programs and evaluate their effectiveness. This 

information includes the program effects on clients’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related 

to the risks of substance abuse and risky sexual behavior. The goals are to 1) aggregate data 

from similar programs serving similar participants to detect smaller and more complex program 

effects, 2) compare the effects of different interventions implemented across different sites, 3) 

explore the impacts of similar interventions on different categories of participants served at 

different sites, and 4) examine the effects of similar programs delivered in different 

156 
environments. These analyses will employ quantitative and qualitative analyses of individual 

client level entry, exit and follow-up survey data, program level progress report information 

though the Management Reporting Tool (MRT) and program descriptions. The quantitative data 

shall incorporate CSAP’s required NOMs and GPRA performance measurement data and other 

variables where appropriate and focus on process/dosage and output/outcomes linked to the 

programs’ objectives. 

Report Title: Evaluation of Methamphetamine Preventions Abuse Program 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA's Center of Substance Abuse Prevention 

Summary: Program evaluation is not the same as performance measurement, which is the 

ongoing monitoring and reporting of program outputs and outcomes, particularly the 

documentation of progress towards pre-established goals. The collection of performance 

measures addresses the target populations served, the type of program activities conducted 

(process), the direct products and services delivered by a program (outputs), and/or the results 

of those products and services (outcomes). In contrast, program evaluations usually examine a 

broader range of performance information than is normally collected on an ongoing basis. This 

program is tracking and monitoring program performance of the twelve Methamphetamine 

grantees as described above. Of those twelve grantees, eight grantees are prevention 

intervention focused and the other four are a combination of prevention intervention and 

infrastructure development grantees. The primary focus of the evaluation includes an analysis of 

program performance based on the National Outcomes Measures (NOMs) and program specific 

data on youth and adults. This program started in October of 2006 and differs from the previous 

Methamphetamine program because it specifically focuses on Methamphetamine intervention 

and infrastructure development in the actual high-risk communities that it affects. The current 

reporting cycle runs every 4th and 8th month of the fiscal year with a year-end report expected 

to be complete by end of this calendar year. Methamphetamine grantee data are collected 

annually. Performance data are analyzed and reported yearly and over time. All the data is 

collected online on the Performance Management Reporting and Training system 

(www.pmrts.samhsa.gov ) and is available to the grantees and hopefully in the future to the 

public for secondary analysis. 

Report Title: Cross-Site Evaluation Report on the Strategic Prevention Framework State 

Incentive Grants, Cohort 1 and 2 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Summary: The cross-site evaluation design is a quasi-experimental, process oriented study at 

three levels: (a) national level across states/jurisdictions, (b) state level, and (c) sub-recipient 

community level. Evaluation data are collected through interviews of state level program 

personnel and through Web-based community level instruments. State level interviews are 

conducted once at the beginning of the grant cycle and once toward the end of the grant period. 

Community level data are reported twice a year. 

The cross-site evaluation provides a comprehensive evaluation of Cohorts I and II of the 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants (SPF SIG) program. SAMHSA’s SPF 

lays out five ordered steps to guide states and communities through a logical planning process. 

Evaluation of this framework is expected enable grantees to promote better decision-making 

around assessment of community needs and resources, planning around prevention activity, 

selection and delivery of prevention service and strategies, and meaningful monitoring and 

evaluation. 

157 
Report Title: Cross-Site Evaluation Report on the Strategic Prevention Framework State 

Incentive Grants, Cohort 3 and 4 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA's Center of Substance Abuse Prevention 

Summary: This cross-site evaluation study received funding in FY 2009 and is based on a 

nested design that combined data at three different levels: (a) the grantee state/jurisdiction, (b) 

the subrecipient community, and (c) the individual service recipient. State/Jurisdiction Program 

Directors are interviewed twice, once at the beginning of their grant period and once at the end, 

about the grantee needs assessment, infrastructure building, program implementation, and 

evaluation activities. The subrecipient communities submit community-level data semi-annually, 

describing their needs assessment, infrastructure/capacity building, and program 

implementation activities, using an online data entry system designed specifically for this group 

of funded communities and available on the Performance Management and Reporting Training 

System which is the centralized data collection portal for CSAP’s programs (PMRTS). Data are 

collected from individual service recipients of direct prevention services lasting 30 days or 

longer at program entry, program exit, and six months following program completion, using 

CSAP’s National Outcome Measures for Youth (ages 12-17) and Adults (ages 18 or older). Data 

are also collected from participants receiving less exposure to prevention services. Population 

data are obtained to assess environmental strategy outcomes. Analyses will focus on the 

individual and interactive effects of infrastructure and program characteristics on outcomes by 

demographic group as well as geographic areas. 

Report Title: Results from the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National 

Findings 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies 

Summary: The 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health was administered to a sample of 

68,736 persons representative of the U.S. civilian, non-institutional population aged 12 or older. 

This initial report on the 2008 data provided national estimates of rates of use, numbers of 

users, persons meeting criteria for substance use disorders, substance use treatment, and other 

measures related to illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco products. Results also were presented for 

measures of mental health problems, including serious mental illness and major depressive 

episode, as well as data on the co-occurrence of substance use disorders and mental health 

problems. In 2008, an estimated 20.1 million Americans aged 12 and older (8.0 percent) were 

current (past month) illicit drug users, a rate the same as that in 2007 (8.3 percent) and similar 

to that in 2002-2006. Among youths aged 12 to 17, 9.3 percent were current illicit drug users, 

down from 11.6 percent in 2002 but statistically unchanged from the 9.5 percent seen in 2007. 

Current marijuana use among youths aged 12-17 declined from 8.2 percent in 2002 to 6.7 

percent in 2008. In 2008, 129 million persons aged 12 or older (51.6 percent) were current 

alcohol users, and 58.1 million (23.3 percent) engaged in binge drinking (five or more drinks on 

the same occasion) at least once in the past month. Underage (ages 12-20) drinking in the past 

month declined from 28.8 percent in 2002 to 26.4 percent in 2008 and binge drinking in this age 

group declined from 19.3 to17.4 percent. The rate of current cigarette smoking among persons 

aged 12 or older declined from 26.0 percent in 2002 to 23.9 percent in 2008. From 2007 to 

2008, current cigarette smoking among youths aged 12-17 declined from 9.8 to 9.1 percent, 

continuing a decrease from its rate of 13.0 percent in 2002, the earliest year for which the 

survey provides trendable data. In 2008, an estimated 23.1 million persons aged 12 or older 

(9.2 percent) needed treatment for an alcohol or illicit drug problem. Of those persons, 2.3 

million (9.9 percent) received treatment at a specialty facility; 20.8 million in need of treatment 

did not receive it. In 2008, an estimated 9.8 million adults aged 18 or older (4.4 percent) had 

158 
serious mental illness. The rate of past year major depressive episode in 2008 was 6.4 percent 

for persons aged 18 or older and 8.3 percent among adolescents aged 12 to 17. 

Report Title: State Estimates of Substance Use from the 2006–2007 National Surveys on Drug 

Use and Health (http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k7State/toc.cfm) 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies 

Summary: Researchers prepared State estimates for 23 measures of substance use or mental 

health problems based on the 2006 and 2007 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health. The 

surveys are ongoing and cover the civilian, non-institutionalized population of the 50 States and 

the District of Columbia aged 12 years or older. These estimates are based on combined data 

collected from 135,672 respondents surveyed in 2006 and 2007. Past month use of illicit drugs 

among persons aged 12 or older ranged from 5.2% in Iowa to 12.5% in Rhode Island. The 

percentage of persons aged 12 or older who used an illicit drug in the past month increased in 

the period between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 in Arizona, Kentucky, New Mexico, Rhode 

Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Decreases were observed in Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, 

and Pennsylvania. Iowa had the lowest rate of past month marijuana use among persons age 

12 or older (3.8%) while Rhode Island had the highest rate (10.3%). Utah had the lowest rate of 

past month underage (age 12 to 20) binge drinking of alcohol (13.3%) and North Dakota had the 

highest rate (29.5%). Increases in underage binge drinking between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 

occurred in Connecticut (from 21.2% to 23.5%) and the District of Columbia (from 18.9% to 

22.5%). Underage binge drinking rates decreased in Texas (from 17.6% to 16.3%) and Utah 

(from 17.0% to 13.3%) during the same time period. The percentage of persons with a 

substance use disorder (i.e., dependent on or abuse of illicit drugs or alcohol) ranged from 7.5% 

in New Jersey to 12.6% in the District of Columbia. Hawaii had the lowest rate of adults aged 18 

or older who experienced a major depressive episode in the past year (5.0%) while Tennessee 

had the highest rate (9.8%). 

Report Title: Substate estimates from the 2004-2006 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health 

(http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/substate2k8/toc.cfm) 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies 

Summary: This report presents estimates for 23 substance abuse and mental health-related 

behavior levels in 345 substate regions representing all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

The results were based on the combined data from SAMHSA's 2004 to 2006 National Surveys 

on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) and involved responses from 203,870 people aged 12 or 

older throughout the United States. The report offers highly detailed analyses of the substance 

abuse and mental health problems occurring within smaller geographical areas. During 2004-

2006, 4.9 percent of all persons in the U.S. aged 12 or older had used a pain reliever for 

nonmedical use within the past year. Estimates ranged from 2.5 percent in District of Columbia's 

Ward 7 to 7.9 percent in Florida's Circuit 1. Oklahoma (Oklahoma County and Tulsa County), 

Tennessee (Region 1 and Region 4 [Davidson]), Utah (Salt Lake County and Weber-Morgan), 

and West Virginia (Northern C and D, and South Central II) had more than one substate region 

among the regions with the highest 15 prevalence rates. Regions with the 15 lowest rates 

included 5 in the District of Columbia (Wards 4 through 8), 3 in South Dakota (Region 2, Region 

3, and Region 6), 2 in Maryland (Montgomery and Prince George's Counties), and 2 in 

Pennsylvania (Regions 19, 26, 28, and 42 and Regions 5, 18, 23, 24, and 46). The highest rate 

of past month cigarette use was in West Virginia's South Central II region (35.4 percent), and 

the lowest rate was in Utah County, Utah (15.9 percent). The majority of the 15 substate regions 

with the highest rates of past month cigarette use were in Kentucky (3 regions) and West 

159 
Virginia (6 regions). Of the 15 substate regions with the lowest rates of past month cigarette 

use, 9 were in California and 4 were in Utah. 

Report Title: Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) –1997-2007. National Admissions to 

Substance Abuse Treatment Services 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies 

Summary: This report presents results from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) for 2006, 

and trend data for 1997 to 2007. The report provides information on the demographic and 

substance abuse characteristics of the 1.8 million annual admissions to treatment for abuse of 

alcohol and/or drugs in facilities that report to individual State administrative data systems. 

Between 1997 and 2007, TEDS treatment admissions were dominated by five substances: 

alcohol, opiates (primarily heroin), marijuana, cocaine, and stimulants (primarily 

methamphetamine). These substances together consistently accounted for between 95 and 96 

percent of all TEDS admissions from 1997 through 2007. The age distribution of TEDS 

admissions changed between 1996 and 2006. The proportion of TEDS admissions aged 25 to 

34 years declined from 32 percent in 1997 to 26 percent in 2007. This decline was offset by 

overall increases in the proportions of both older and younger admissions. The proportion of 

older admissions (aged 45 and older) increased from 14 percent in 1997 to 23 percent in 2007. 

The proportion of younger admissions (less than 25 years of age) increased from 22 percent in 

1997 to 26 percent in 2007. 

Report Title: National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS): 2008. Data 

on Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies 

Summary: This report presents results from the 2008 National Survey of Substance Abuse 

Treatment Services (N-SSATS), an annual census of facilities providing substance abuse 

treatment. Conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

(SAMHSA), N-SSATS is designed to collect data on the location, characteristics, and use of 

alcoholism and drug abuse treatment facilities and services throughout the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, and other U.S. jurisdictions. 

A total of 14,423 facilities completed the survey. The 13,688 facilities eligible for this report had 

a one-day census of 1,192,490 clients enrolled in substance abuse treatment on March 30, 

2007. There were 85,518 clients under age 18 in treatment on March 30, 2008, making up 7 

percent of the total population in treatment on that date. Forty-six percent of all clients were in 

treatment for both alcohol and drug abuse, 35 percent were in treatment for drug abuse only, 

and 19 percent were in treatment for abuse of alcohol alone. Eighty-eight percent of facilities 

had clients in treatment for co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders. Thirtynine percent of all clients were in treatment for these disorders. 

Report Title: Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2007: Area Profiles Of Drug-Related Mortality 

Coordinating 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies 

Summary:The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) is a public health surveillance system 

that monitors drug-related deaths referred to medical examiners and coroners (ME/Cs) in 

selected metropolitan areas and States. Findings in this publication reflect data on drug-related 

deaths that occurred during calendar year 2007 and were reported by participating ME/Cs to 

160 
DAWN. In selected tables, data from reporting year 2006 are included for comparison. The 

Office of Applied Studies (OAS) of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible for 

DAWN. 

 

161 
162 

**Page Intentionally Left Blank**