DEPARTMENT 

of HEALTH 

and HUMAN 

SERVICES 

Fiscal Year 

2009 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration 

Online Performance
 

Appendix
 

1 
Introduction 

The 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 HHS agencies’ FY 2009 Congressional Justifications and Online Performance 

Appendices, the Agency Financial Report and the HHS Performance Highlights. These 

documents can be found at: http://www.hhs.gov/budget/docbudget.htm and 

http://www.hhs.gov/afr/. 

The Performance Highlights briefly summarizes key past and planned performance and 

financial information. The Agency Financial Report provides fiscal and high-level 

performance results. The FY 2009 Department’s Congressional Justifications fully 

integrate HHS’ FY 2007 Annual Performance Report and FY 2009 Annual Performance 

Plan into its various volumes. The Congressional Justifications are supplemented by the 

Online Performance Appendices. Where the Justifications focus on key performance 

measures and summarize program results, the Appendices provide performance 

information that is more detailed for all HHS measures. 

The SAMHSA Congressional Justification and Online Performance Appendix can be 

found at http://www.samhsa.gov/Budget/FY2009/index.aspx. 

1 
FY Total 

Targets 

Results Reported Targets 

Number % Met Not Met % Met 

2004 43 43 100% 29 14 67% 

2005 55 54 99% 29 25 54% 

2006 75 74 99% 37 37 50% 

2007 82 48 59% 25 23 52% 

2008 109 

2009 113 

Summary of Performance Targets and Results Table 

SAMHSA 

2 
# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 

FY 2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target 

(FY 

2012) 

Target Actual Target Actual 

Long-Term Objective: Reduce the number of youth suicide deaths and attempts. 

2.3.57 

Reduce the 

number of 

suicide deaths 

32,439 Apr-08 Apr-09 31,084 Apr-10 30,984 Apr-08 30, 

584 

Increase the 

number of 

students 

2.3.58 

exposed to 

mental health 

and suicide Baseline 662,774 662,774 662,774 

awareness 

campaigns on 

college 

campuses 

Increase the 

2.3.59 

total number 

individuals 

trained in youth 

suicide 

 Baseline 75,186 97,742 127,065 

prevention 

SAMHSA’s Suicide Prevention portfolio includes campus, state, and tribal activities 

related to the FY 2004 Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, as well as a Suicide Prevention 

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

Suicide Prevention Initiative. 

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

of suicide deaths represents national data. The number of individuals trained includes 

mental health professionals as well as teachers, police officers, social service providers, 

advocates, coaches, and other individuals who frequently interact with youth. The 

output measures reflect data from the Suicide Prevention Hotline. 

Performance Detail 

Mental Health Services – Programs of Regional and National Significance 

Suicide Prevention 

3 
# Key 

Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Target 

FY 2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target 

3.2.04 

Increase 

the number 

of children 

served 

 Base 

line 1,062,963 1,062,963 1,098,214 1,062,963 1,062,963 

3.2.05 

Improve 

student 

outcomes 

and 

systems 

outcomes: 

(a) 

Decrease 

the number 

of violent 

incidents at 

schools 1 

(1) Middle 

schools 

 Base 

line 30.8% 30% 36.6% 36% 36% 

3.2.06 2) High 

schools Base line 24.2% 24% 29.8% 29% 29% 

3.2.07 

(b) 

Decrease 

students’ 

substance 2 use 

(1) Middle 

schools 

 Base 

line 16.9% 16% 16% 16% 16% 

3.2.08 (2) High 

schools Base line 35.3% 35% 35% 35% 35% 

3.2.09 

(c) Improve 

students’ 

school 3 attendance

 Base 

line 92.6% 93% 95.1% 93% 93% 

3.2.10 

(d) 

Increase 

mental 

health 

services to 

students 

and 

families4 

 Base 

line 45.5% 46% 46% 46% 46% 

1

Average percentage from sites reporting on students who have experienced some sort of violent incident at least once. 2

Average percentage of sites reporting students’ use of alcohol at least once in the last 30 days. 3

Average attendance rate reported by sites. 

4 Average percentage of students receiving services following a mental health referral. 

Youth Violence (Safe Schools/Healthy Students-SS/HS) 

4
 
FY FY Out- FY FY FY 2006 FY 2007 2008 2009 Year # 2004 2005 Key Outputs Target/ Target/ Target/ Target/ Target/ Actual Actual Actual Actual Est. Est. Est. Est. Est. 

Percentage of 

grantees that 

provided 

screening and 

/ or 

assessments Base- 66.1 3.2.21 that is 67.1% 68.1% line % coordinated 

among two or 

more 

agencies or 

shared across 

agencies. 

Percentage of 

grantees that 

provide 

training of Base- 3.2.22 64.4% 65.4% 66.4% school line 

personnel on 

mental health 

topics 

Appropriated 

Amount $94.3 $94.2 $93.2 $93.2 $93.0 $75.7 

($ Million) 

# Key 

Outcomes 

FY FY 

2004 2005 

Actual Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY FY 

2008 2009 

Target Target 

OutYear 

Target Target Actual Target Actual 

Long-Term Objective: Increase the specialized adaptation of effective treatment and service 

approaches for communities across the country 

3.2.01 

Increase 

the number 

of children 

and 

51,296 50,660 39,600 33,910 33,910 31,446 33,910 16,955 

Number of children served (3.2.04): The performance target for this measure was set at 

an approximate target level, and the 3% deviation from that level is slight. There was no 

effect on overall program or activity performance 

Improve student outcomes and systems outcomes: (a) Decrease the number of violent 

incidents at Middle schools and High Schools (3.2.05-3.2.06): Data collection for this 

program was just beginning last year, and preliminary baselines were set for measures 

based on FY 2006 data available for only 6.3 percent of the total number of children 

served or 67,361. Actual FY2006 baseline data for 3.2.05 (38%) and 3.2.06 (28.9%) 

suggests that the initial baseline underestimated levels of violence, and as a result the 

FY 2007 target was not met (a seven percentage point deficiency is reported). Targets 

were revised for FY2008 and FY 2009 based on actual FY2006 and FY2007 data. 

Trauma-Informed Services (National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative -

NCTSI) 

5
 
# Key 

Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Target Actual Target Actual 

adolescents 

receiving 

traumainformed 

services 

3.2.02 

Improve 

children’s 

outcomes 37% 37% 35% 37% 56% 37% 37% 

Dollars 

3.2.03 Spent per 

person 

served * 

 $497 $493 $741 $480 $774** $774 $774 

*This measure was approved by OMB in May 2006 as an interim efficiency measure until a final 

PRNS-wide efficiency measure is developed. 

**Corrected from previously reported result 

In FY 2007, the reported number of children receiving services (measure 3.2.01) was 

31,446, 7 percent lower than the projected target of 33,910. Nineteen of 32 currently 

funded Category III centers, which are the primary service delivery systems in the 

National Child Traumatic Stress Network, began the final year of their awards. Typically, 

grantees in their final year may have modest service numbers drop due to “draw-down” 

activities. Further, direct service provision may not be a grantee’s primary strategy for 

increasing access of children and their families to trauma-informed interventions. This 

measure has had a downward trend over the last four years. In FY 2007, CMHS 

implemented a web-based GPRA data collection system called Transformation 

Accountability (TRAC). The NCTSI began using the TRAC in early FY 2008 and will 

ensure the capture of an unduplicated count of children served, thus the reported 

numbers are expected to be lower. Future targets have been adjusted based on data 

from the new system. 

The target for improving children’s outcomes was exceeded considerably in FY 2007, 

after declining slightly from 2005 to 2006. The program is examining this result, which 

appears to be anomalous compared with those of the last two years. Targets have been 

kept at stable levels until additional years of data are obtained. 

Dollars Spent per person served. The efficiency measure simply divides the budget for 

the program by the number served. As discussed above, the number of children served 

decreased in FY 2007 due to fluctuations in the grant cycle, and that direct service 

provision may not be a grantee’s primary strategy for increasing access of children and 

their families to trauma-informed interventions. Future targets are based on anticipated 

fluctuations in the grant cycle. 

Remaining Capacity Activities 

PRNS Combined Capacity (includes Jail Diversion, Older Adults, and 

HIV/AIDS) 

6
 
# Key 

Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Target Actual Target Actual 

Long-Term Objective: Capacity programs include services program, which provide funding to implement 

service improvements using evidence based practices, and infrastructure programs, which identify and 

implement needed changes. 

1.2.01 Rate of 71% 71%* 73.5% 71% 74% Sept- 71% 71% 

consumers 08 

reporting 

positively 

about 

outcomes 

(State 

mental 

health 

system) 

1.2.02 Rate of 65% 73%* 71% 73% 71.5% Sept- 74% 74% 

family 

members 

08 

reporting 

positively 

about 

outcomes 

(State 

mental 

health 

system) 

1.2.03 Rate of Baseline 98% 98% 98% 

consumers 

reporting 

positively 

about 

outcomes 

(program 

participants) 

** 

1.2.04 Rate of Baseline Dec- Dec- Decfamily 

members 

08 08 08* 

reporting 

positively 

about 

outcomes 

(program 

participants) 

** 

1.2.05 Increase Baseline 93%* 93%* 93%* 

the 

percentage 

of clients 

receiving 

services 

who report 

improved 

functioning 

1.2.07 Percentage 

of people in 

 44 % 2015: 

50 

percent 

7 
 

# Key 

Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target 

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 

*Due to a transcription error, the result for 2005 was incorrectly reported in previous GPRA
 

reports. The correct result is reported here. 

**Due to the implementation of the TRAC reporting system in FY 2007, data received by 

December 2007 is incomplete. 

*** Data for this measure is collected from programs serving children , which did not begin using 

the TRAC system until FY 2008. 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

Year 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutTarget/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

Long-Term Objective 3: 

1.2.06 

Number of 

a) evidence 

based 

practices 

(EBPs) 

implemented 

2.3 per 

state** 3.9 3.3 3.9 3.8 Sept08 4.0 4.0 

Number of b) 

Adults -

percentage of 

population 

coverage for 

each 

1.2.08 (reported as 

percentage of 9.3%*** 9.7% 10.3% 9.5% 10.8% Sept08 10.8% 10.8% 

service 

population 

receiving any 

evidence 

based 

practice) 

1.2.09 Number of c) 

Children - 1.7%*** 3.4% 2.3% 2.2% 2.6% Sept08 2.6% 2.6% 

8 
 

 

 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

Year 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutTarget/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

percentage of 

population 

coverage for 

each 

(reported as 

percentage of 

service 

population 

receiving any 

evidence 

based 

practice) 

Appropriated 

Amount 

($ Million) 

$67.4 $107.2 $83.7 $80.2 $101.3 $25.8 

* **National 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 

Measures 1.2.01 and 1.2.02 reflect the results for the nationwide public mental health 

system, as reflected in data from the Uniform Reporting System, and includes people 

receiving services in state psychiatric hospitals as well as those receiving services 

through community mental health programs The performance target for consumers and 

family members reporting positively about outcomes were set at an approximate target 

level, and the deviation from that level is slight. There was no effect on overall program 

or activity performance 

The last two annual measures, although worded identically to the long-term measure, 

reflect results for participants in CMHS PRNS service programs. Baseline data for 

consumers has been reported. Baseline data for family members will be reported for FY 

2008 because data for these measures is collected from programs serving children, 

which did not begin using the TRAC system until FY 2008. 

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

efficiency and effectiveness of mental health services. For FY 2006, the target for the 

number of evidence based practices was exceeded for States reporting. The evidence 

based practice percentage of coverage for adults was missed by just .08 percent and for 

children; the target was missed by just one-tenth of one percent. These targets were set 

at an approximate target level, and the deviation from that level is slight. There was no 

effect on overall program or activity performance 

A study to recommend a cost efficiency measure will be conducted FY 2008. It is 

expected that baseline data will be available by October 2009. This measure is 

expected to be applied to all program activities. 

Co-occurring State Incentive Grants 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target

1.2.18 

Increase the 

percentage 

of treatment 

programs 

that 

(a) Screen 

for cooccurring 

disorders 

See 

narrative 

Base 

line 

Nov09 Nov09 Nov09 

1.2.19 

(b) Assess 

for cooccurring 

disorders 

See 

narrative 

Base 

line 

Nov09 Nov09 Nov09 

1.2.20 

(c) Treat cooccurring 

disorders 

through 

collaborative, 

consultative, 

and 

integrated 

models of 

care. 

See 

narrative 

Base 

line 

Nov09 Nov09 Nov09 

1.2.21 

Increase 

percentage 

of clients 

who 

experience 

reduced 

impairment 

from their cooccurring 

disorders 

following 

treatment 

See 

narrative 

Base 

line 

Nov09 Nov09 Nov09 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

Year 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutTarget/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

1.2.17 

Increase 

the 

number of 

persons 

with cooccurring 

disorders 

served. 

See 

narrative 

Base 

line 

Nov09 Nov09 Nov09 

Appropriated 

Amount 

($ Million) 

$15.4 $19.8 $18.6 $13.9 $7.9 $.4 

10 
 

 

 

This program is jointly administered by CMHS and CSAT. 

The first three years of these grants focus on infrastructure development and 

enhancements. After this period, grantees may implement service pilot programs, which 

will generate data for the above outcome measures. Although baseline data was 

originally expected to be reported by December 2006, it has been delayed due to 

refinements needed in the data collection instrument and procedures. 

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their 

Families (Children’s Mental Health Initiative) 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 

Target Actual 

FY 2007 

Target Actual 

FY 2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

Year 

Target 

OutLong term Objective: Improve the accessibility and effectiveness of services for children and youth with serious mental health 

challenges and their families. 

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 months 

(LT) 

60% 

(FY 

2010) 

3.2.12 

Improve 

children’s 

outcomes and 

systems 

outcomes 

(a) Increase 

percentage 

attending 

school 80% or 

more of time 

after 12 

months 

90.9% 80.2% 84% 89.7% 84% 87% 84% 84% 

3.2.13 

Improve 

children’s 

outcomes and 

systems 

outcomes 

(b) Increase 

percentage 

67.6% 68.3% 68% 69.3% 70% 71% 69% 69% 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

Year 

Target 

OutTarget Actual Target Actual 

with no law 

enforcement 

contacts at 6 

months 

3.2.14 

(c) Decrease 

average days 

of inpatient 

facilities 

among 

children 

served in 

systems of 

care (at 6 

months) 

-2.03 -1.75 -3.65 -1.00 -2.00 -1.78 -2.00 -2.00 

3.2.15 

Long Term 

Goal: Percent 

of systems of 

care that are 

sustained 5 

years post 

Federal 

Funding 

80% 

3.2.17 

Decrease in 

inpatients 

care costs per 

1,000 children 

served 

Baseline $1,335,000 $2,670,000 $2,376,000 $2,670,000 $2,670,0 

00 

Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

Year 

Target 

OutTarget Actual Target Actual 

3.2.16 

Increase 

number of 

children 

receiving 

services 

10,521 9,200 9,120 10,339 9,120 10,871 10,000 10,000 

Appropriated 

Amount ($ in 

Millions) 

$102.3 $105.1 $104.0 $104.0 $102.2 $114.4 

The FY 2007 target for school attendance, measure 3.2.12, was set at an approximate 

level, and the deviation from that level is slight. The target was exceeded by 3 percent. 

Targets have been maintained level for a number of reasons: 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 for 

this measure will vary somewhat depending on the mix of grantees and individuals 

served in any given year. However, the actual figure obtained for FY 2007 indicates that 

the program performed better than the average population of children and youth in the 

United States; this despite the fact that children and youth served by the program 

12
 
 

experience serious mental health challenges that are likely to impede their school 

attendance. Performance on this measure has fluctuated over the last four years with 

no clear trend. 

The FY 2007 target for no law enforcement contact was set at an approximate level, and 

the deviation from that level is slight. The FY 2007 target was exceeded by 1 percent. 

However, grantees vary in the populations they target, and those grantees that serve 

youth in the juvenile justice system may be less able to achieve reductions in law 

enforcement contacts. Performance for this measure will vary somewhat depending on 

the mix of grantees and individuals served in any given year. The FY 2008 and 2009 

targets are set at approximately the average performance level of the last four years. 

The performance target for reduction in days of inpatient care (measure 3.2.14) was set 

at an approximate target level, and the deviation from that level is slight. The FY 2007 

target was nearly achieved. However, there was almost 80 percent improvement, which 

is equal to a reduction of .78 days as compared to the result obtained in FY 2006. 

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 2009. 

The efficiency measure reflects per-unit changes in costs. The performance target for 

measure 3.2.17 was set at an approximate target level, and the deviation from that level 

is slight. The FY 2007 target for reduction in costs of inpatient care was nearly 

achieved. However, there was almost 73 percent improvement as compared to the 

result obtained in FY 2006. 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, are also among the most expensive to provide. 

The 2007 result may be due to the reduction in in-hospital days as reported in measure 

3.2.14. Since that indicator may vary, as discussed above, targets have been kept level. 

The FY 2007 target for the number of children served was exceeded by 19 percent, 

reflecting a level of effort by grantee communities and a greater need for services. The 

2007 target for the program was ambitious given that the program was funded at roughly 

the same level in FY 2007 as in the prior two years. In 2008, 16 grantees will complete 

their grant funding cycle and CMHS expects to award approximately 17 new grants. The 

first year of the grant is a planning year, and grantees do not enroll children in services, 

Numbers served are expected to decline through 2009 and rise beginning in 2010. 

Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target

Long-Term Objective: Protect and advocate for the rights of people with mental illnesses. 

3.4.08 

Increase 

percentage of 

complaints of 

alleged abuse and 

not withdrawn by 

82 78 84 84 85 Jul-08 84 84 2012: 

88 % 

13
 
 

 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target

the client that 

resulted in positive 

change for the 

client in her/his 

environment, 

community, or 

facility, as a result 

of PAIMI 

involvement (same 

as long-term 

measure) 

3.4.09 

Increase 

percentage of 

complaints of 

alleged neglect 

substantiated and 

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 (same 

as long-term 

measure) 

82 83 89 88 84 Jul-08 85 85 2012: 

94 % 

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 decisionmaking, as a result 

of PAIMI 

involvement (same 

as long-term 

measure) 

95 87 95 85 90 Jul-08 90 90 2012: 

97 % 

3.4.11 

Percent of 

interventions on 

behalf of groups of 

PAIMI-eligible 

individuals that 

were concluded 

Base 

line 95 95 Jul-08 95 95 2013: 

97 % 

14
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target

successfully (same 

as long-term 

measure) 

3.4.12 

Increase in the 

number of people 

served by the 

PAIMI program 

22,120 21,371 23,500 18,998 23,500 Jul-08 22,325 22,325 

3.4.13 

Ratio of persons 

served/impacted 

per 

activity/intervention 

354 411 410 407 420 Jul-08 420 420 

3.4.14 

Cost per 1,000 

individuals 

served/impacted 

2,431 2,072 2,100 2,316 2,000 Jul-08 2,000 2,000 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

Year 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutTarget/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

3.4.19 

The number attending 

public 

education/constituency 

training and public 

awareness activities 

Baseline Oct 08 

Appropriated 

Amount 

($ Million) 

$34.6 $34.3 $34.0 $34.0 $34.8 $34.0 

Measure 3.4.08, Increase percentage of complaints of alleged abuse and 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 (same as long-term measure), 

Target was met. 

Measure 3.4.09, The percentage of cases of alleged neglect resolved in client’s favor. . 

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, percentage of cases of alleged rights violations resolved in client”s 

favor. Target was not met. Using what appears to have been an atypical outcome for 

FY 2004, the targets set for this measure were overly ambitious for FY 2005 (95%) and 

FY 06 (95%) as demonstrated by the actuals for FY 2005 (87%) and FY 2006 (85%). 

Targets for FY 2007 – 2009 are still ambitious at 90% compared to the 4-year average of 

86%. 

Measure 3.4.12, increase in the number of people served by the PAIMI program. 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 

15
 
 

 

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 does 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 2008 – 

2009 have been maintained at 22,325, which is still well above the 4-year average of 

21,059. 

Efficiency measures: 3.4.13 ratio of persons served/impacted per activity/intervention 

and 3.4.14, Cost per 1,000 individuals served/impacted were not met. Since each of 

these measures includes number of persons served in their calculation, they are subject 

to the same factors as described above for number of persons served. 

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 P&A’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. 

Mental Health Services - Projects for Assistance in Transition from 

Homelessness (PATH) 

# Key 

Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 

Target Actual 

FY 2007 

Target Actual 

FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target 

Long-Term Objective : Expand the availability of services to homeless individuals with serious mental illnesses. 

3.4.15 

Increase 

the 

percentage 

of enrolled 

homeless 

persons 

who 

receive 

community 

mental 

health 

services 

41% 38% 

2010: 

40 

percent 

3.4.16 

Increase 

number of 

homeless 

persons 

contacted1 

156,766 148,679 157,000 148,655 157,500 Jul-08 150,000 150,000 

16
 
 

 

 

# Key 

Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target 

3.4.17 

Increase 

percentage 

of 

contacted 

homeless 

persons 

with 

serious 

mental 

illness who 

become 

enrolled in 

services 

(same as 

long-term 

measure) 

37% 40% 45% 40% 45% Jul-08 45% 45% 

2010: 

45 

percent 

3.4.18 

Maintain 

average 

Federal 

cost of 

enrolling a 

homeless 

person 

with 

serious 

mental 

illness in 

services 

($668 by 

FY 2005) 

$581* $668* $668 $623 $668 Jul-08 $668 $668 

*Data have been corrected from previous submissions. 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

Year 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutTarget/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

3.4.20 

Provide training 

for PATH 

providers on 

SSI/SSDI 

Outreach, Access, 

Recovery (SOAR) 

to ensure eligible 

homeless clients 

are receiving 

benefits. 

Baseline Oct 09 

Appropriated 

Amount 

($ Million) 

$49.8 $54.8 $54.2 $54.2 $53.3 $59.6 

The target for Measure 3.4.16 was not met for FY 2006. The number of individuals 

served is a key measure for all SAMHSA programs that fund services. For the PATH 

program, outreach to homeless individuals creates the opportunity for appropriate 

services. The missed target is due to the program’s recent focus on SSI/SSDI Outreach, 

Access, Recovery (SOAR) which trains PATH providers on how to ensure homeless 

clients are properly enrolled in the benefit programs. Once trained, providers spend 

significantly more time with clients in this process which subsequently reduces the total 

number served, but ultimately results in better outcomes because clients are more likely 

17
 
to receive appropriate benefits and thus have more resources to avoid homelessness. 

Targets have subsequently been changed to reflect this new focus. 

Measure 3.4.17 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. The program missed the 2006 target of 45 percent with 

performance at 40 percent. The program maintained the 2005 performance level in 

2006 which is a three percent increase in performance over 2004. 

A new long-term target has been set at 45 percent. In addition, the program will conduct 

a study in 2008 to explore the feasibility of utilizing the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development Homeless Management Information System to assist in obtaining 

outcome data from PATH-funded efforts. The PATH program and HUD are currently 

working to define data elements for outreach to individuals who are homeless. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mental Health Services – Community Mental Health Services Block Grant 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target 

Long-Term Objective 1: Support existing public services and encourage the development of creative and 

cost-effective systems of community-based care for people with serious mental disorders. 

2.3.07 

Reduce* rate of 

readmissions to State 

psychiatric hospitals 

(a) within 30 days; 

and, (b) within 180 

days (same as longterm measure) 

Adults: 30 days 

9% 9% 8.3% 9.4% 8.7% Sept08 8.5% 8.5% 

2.3.08 Adults: 180 days 20.3% 19.6% 19.2% 19.6% 19.1% Sept08 19.0% 19.0% 

2.3.09 Children/adolescents: 

30 days 6.5% 6.6% 6.0% 6.4% 5.9% Sept08 5.8% 5.8% 

2.3.10 Children/adolescents: 

180 days 14.7% 14.5% 13.6% 14.2% 14.0% Sept08 13.9% 13.9% 

2.3.15 

Increase rate of 

consumers/family 

members reporting 

positively about 

outcomes (same as 

long-term measures)

 (a) Adults 

71% 71% 74% 71% 73% Sept08 72% 72% 

2.3.16 (b) 

Children/adolescents 65% 73% 67% 73% 68% Sept08 73% 73% 

2.3.17 

Number of persons 

receiving evidencebased practices per 

$10,000 of mental 

health block grant 

dollars spent 

3.27 3.95 4.01 5.7 4.03 Sept08 4.03 4.03 

* Successful result is performance below target 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY

Target/ 

Est. 

2006 

Actual 

F

Target/ 

Est. 

Y 20

Actual 

07 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

Year 

Target 

/ Est. 

Out2.3.11 

Number of 

a) evidence 

based 

practices 

(EBPs) 

implemented 

2.3 per 

state 3.9 3.3 3.9 3.9 Sept08 4.0 4.0 

2.3.12 b) Adults - 9.3% 9.7% 10.3% 9.5% 10.4% Sept- 10.5% 10.5% 

19
 
 

 

 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY

Target/ 

Est. 

2006 

Actual 

F

Target/ 

Est. 

Y 20

Actual 

07 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

Year 

Target 

/ Est. 

Outpercentage of 

population 

coverage for 

each 

(reported as 

percentage of 

service 

population 

receiving any 

evidence 

based 

practice)** 

08 

2.3.13 

c) Children - 

percentage of 

population 

coverage for 

each 

(reported as 

percentage of 

service 

population 

receiving any 

evidence 

based 

practice) 

1.7% 3.4% 2.3% 2.2% 3.4% Sept08 3.5% 3.5% 

2.3.14 

Increase 

number of 

people served 

by the public 

mental health 

system 

5,696,526 5,878,035 5,725,008 5,979,379 5,753,633 Sept08 5,800,000 5,800,000 

Appropriated 

Amount 

($ Million) 

$434.6 $432.7 $427.9 $428.2 $420.7 $420.7 

** National 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 

Measure 2.3.07, Reduce rate of readmissions to State psychiatric hospitals for adults 

within 30 Days 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 2006 was increased to 8.3%, but 

this also proved to be too ambitious. Future targets have been increased but also 

demonstrate a gradual decrease in the expectation that the rates for readmission for 

adults within 30 days will decline over time as states make adjustments to service 

planning in response to the existing rates. 

Measure 3.2. 08, Readmission rate for adults within 180 days: 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 

20
 
 

Measure 2.3.09, Readmission rate for children within 30 days: 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 2.3.10, Readmission rate for children within 180 days: 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 

Measures 2.3.15 and 2.3.16 reflect the rate of consumers (adults) and family members 

(children) reporting positively about outcomes. The performance target for these 

measures were set at an approximate target level, and the deviation from that level is 

slight. There was no effect on overall program or activity performance The target for 

adults was slightly missed, and the target for children was slightly exceeded. Future 

targets for children have been raised. 

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. For FY 2006, the target for the number of evidence based practices was 

exceeded. The evidence based practice percentage of coverage for adults was missed 

by just .08 percent and for children; the target was missed by just one-tenth of one 

percent. These targets were set at an approximate target level, and the deviation from 

that level is slight. There was no effect on overall program or activity performance 

Steps are being taken to improve the program performance for the MHBG Program. A 

Program Peer Review process 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. 

Substance Abuse Prevention – Programs of Regional and National 

Significance 

CSAP PRNS (Combined programs) 

# Key 

Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target 

Long-T

problems 

erm Objective: 1: to prevent, reduce and /or delay substance use and substance use related 

2.3.18 

Percent of 

services 

within cost 

bands for 

universal, 

selected, 

and 

50% 50% 67% 55% 41% 60% 65% 

21 
# Key 

Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target 

indicated 

interventions 

: Combined 

PRNS 

programs 

This CSAP PRNS efficiency measure was approved by OMB in December 2005 and 

was based on the original State Incentive Grant and HIV programs. The measure will 

continue to be reported for combined PRNS programs. The FY 2007 result of 41% is 

14% below the projected target of 55%. SAMHSA received cost band results from HIV 

cohort 6 grantees at the end of this year, but data are incomplete. Sixty-one out of 81 

grantees reported on this measure. Furthermore, this particular cohort of grantees 

appears to implement environmental (population-based) interventions as well as direct 

services. Grantees who did so, did not include numbers served by environmental 

strategies in their calculations, therefore the numbers served is underestimated and the 

resulting cost per participant is overestimated. Plans are being developed to provide 

technical assistance and training to these grantees at the upcoming grantee meeting. 

Findings on this measure from the SPF SIG program are expected in October 2008 

because at the state level, and again at the community level, all five steps of the 

Strategic Prevention Framework must be completed. This causes a substantial time lag 

before these efficiency data can be reported. 

22 
# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 

FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target 

(FY 

2010) 

Target Actual Target Actual 

Long-Term Objective: To change systems an

substance abuse and its associated problems b

a life in the community for everyone 

d outcomes at the state level, to prevent, reduce and/or delay 

y promoting resilience and facilitating recovery so that there is 

2.3.19 

30-day use of 

alcohol among 

youth age 12-17 

 18.6 

% 15 % 

2.3.20 

30-day use of 

other illicit drugs 

age 12 and up 

 8.6 % 5 % 

2.3.21 

Percent of SPF 

SIG States 

showing a 

decrease in state 

level estimate of 

percent of survey 

respondents who 

report 30-day use 

of alcohol 

a) age 12-20 

 Base 

line 47.1% 51.8% 51.8% 

2.3.22 b) age 21 and up Base 

line 29.4% 32.3% 32.3% 

2.3.23 

Percent of SPF 

SIG states 

showing a 

decrease in state 

level estimates of 

survey 

respondents who 

report 30-day use 

of other illicit 

drugs 

a) age 12-17 

 Baseline 55.9% 61.5% 61.5% 

2.3.24 b) age 18 and up Baseline 44.1% 48.5% 48.5% 

2.3.25 

Percent of SPF 

SIG states 

showing an 

increase in state 

level estimates of 

survey 

respondents who 

rate the risk of 

substance abuse 

as moderate or 

great 

a) age 12-17 

 Baseline 73.5% 80.9% 80.9% 

2.3.26 b) age 18 and up Baseline 47.1% 51.8% 51.8% 

23 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 
 

 

 

 

 

 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 

FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target 

(FY 

2010) 

Target Actual Target Actual 

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. 

Baseline 79.4% 87.3% 87.3% 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

Year 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutTarget/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

2.3.28 

Number of 

evidencebased 

policies, 

practices, 

and 

strategies 

implemented 

Baseline 396^ 470 470 

2.3.29 

Percent of 

grantee 

states that 

have 

performed 

needs 

assessments 

100% 100% 92.3%* 100% 100% 

*** 100% 100% 

2.3.30 

Percent of 

grantee 

states that 

have 

submitted 

state plans 

28% 50% 92.3%* 85% 96.2% 

**** 100% 62%1 

2.3.31 

Percent of 

grantee 

states with 

approved 

plans 

9% 25% 69.2% 

** 85% 88.5%* 100% 55%2 

Appropriated 

Amount 

($ Million) 

$86.3 $88.0 $106 $105 $105 $95.4 

* Includes 100 percent of Cohort I and 40 percent of Cohort II 

**Includes 85.7 percent of Cohort I and 0 percent of Cohort II 

***Includes 100 percent of Cohorts I and II. 

 Includes 100% cohort I and 80% cohort II. 

^ reflects cohort I (327), cohort II (69) 

24 
1

100% of cohorts 2 and 3, and 25% of cohort 4 

2 100% of cohorts 2 and 3, and 10% of cohort 4 

Since this program aims to change systems and outcomes at the state level, 

performance data for the SPF SIG outcome measures reflect the percentage of states 

that achieve increases or reductions on each indicator at the State level, using state 

estimates from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Baseline data have been 

reported for 2007 for the outcome measures and for the number of evidence-based 

practices. 

For the output measures, the target for percent of grantee states that have performed 

needs assessments was met. The performance targets for percent of grantee states 

that have submitted state plans and percent of grantee states with approved plans were 

set at an approximate target level, and the deviation from that level is slight. There was 

no effect on overall program or activity performance. 

Targets for some of the outcome measures are lower for 2009 because they include 

both earlier cohorts, which are expected to have completed these steps, and later 

cohorts, which are just beginning the Strategic Prevention Framework. Cohort One (21 

States) was funded at the end of FY 2004 while Cohort Two (5 States) was funded in FY 

2005. All States in Cohorts One and Two have now funded sub-recipient communities. 

Cohort Three (16 total, including 5 tribes and one jurisdiction) was funded in September 

2006. All are in the process of submitting and receiving approval for their plans. 

The impact of this program is already being felt throughout the states. For example, 

forty eight states now use SPF or the equivalent for prevention planning; 42 for building 

state capacity; 52 for planning; 34 for program implementation and 22 states use SPF or 

the equivalent for evaluation efforts. 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

All Other Capacity 

Minority AIDS Initiative: Substance Abuse Prevention, HIV Prevention and 

Hepatitis Prevention for Minorities and Minorities Re-entering Communities 

Post-Incarceration 

# Key 

Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

F

Target 

Y 2

Actual 

006 F

Target 

Y 2

Actual 

007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target 

Long-T

hepatitis prevention servic

erm Objective: to expand a

es to loca

nd sustain community-based organizations to provi

ions resid

de substance abuse, H

unities of color. 

IV and 

2.3.34 

30-day use of 

other illicit 

drugs age 12 

and up **  

Baseline 

l and re-e nca ntry (post i rcerati

15.7% 

*** 15% *** 

on) populat

8% Retiring 

ing in comm

Retiring 

2.3.35 

Percent of 

program 

participants 

that rate the 

risk of 

substance 

abuse as 

moderate or 

great** (age 

12-17) 

Baseline 88.6% 89% 75.1% 75.8% 76.6% 

2.3.38 

Percent of 

program 

participants 

that rate the 

risk of 

substance 

abuse as 

moderate or 

great b)age 

18 and up 

Baseline 83.4% 84.2% 85.1% 

2.3.39 

Percent of 

participants 

who used 

alcohol at pretest who report 

a decrease in 

use of alcohol 

at post-test 

(user 

decrease): 

a) age 12-20 

Baseline May08 

1% 

above 

baseline 

2% 

above 

baseline 

2.3.40 b) age 21 and 

up 

Baseline May08 

1% 

above 

baseline 

2% 

above 

baseline 

2.3.41 

Percent of 

participants 

who report no 

alcohol use at 

pre-test who 

remain nonusers at posttest (non-user 

stability): 

a) age 12-20 

Baseline May08 

1% 

above 

baseline 

2% 

above 

baseline 

26
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# Key 

Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target 

2.3.42 b) age 21 and 

up 

Baseline May08 

1% 

above 

baseline 

2% 

above 

baseline 

2.3.43 

Percent of 

participants 

who used illicit 

drugs at pretest who report 

a decrease in 

30-day use at 

post-test (user 

decrease): 

a) age 12-17 

Baseline May08 

1% 

above 

baseline 

2% 

above 

baseline 

2.3.44 b) age 18 and 

up 

Baseline May08 

1% 

above 

baseline 

2% 

above 

baseline 

2.3.45 

Percent of 

participants 

who report no 

illicit drug use 

at pre-test who 

remain nonusers at posttest (non-user 

stability): 

a) age 12-17 

Baseline May08 

1% 

above 

baseline 

2% 

above 

baseline 

2.3.46 b) age 18 and 

up 

Baseline May08 

1% 

above 

baseline 

2% 

above 

baseline 

2.3.47 

Percent of 

program 

participants 

(age 12-17) 

who somewhat 

disapprove or 

strongly 

disapprove of 

substance use 

Baseline 80.4% 81% 82% 

2.3.56 Number of 

individuals 

exposed to 

substance 

abuse/hepatitis 

education 

services 

Baseline May08 1% 

above 

baseline 

2% 

above 

baseline 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

Year 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutTarget/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

2.3.48 

Number of 

evidencebased 

policies, 

practices, and 

strategies 

Baseline May08 81 85 

27
 
 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

Year 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutTarget/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

implemented 

by HIV 

program 

grantees 

Appropriated 

Amount 

($ Million) 

$39.7 $39.8 $39.4 $39.4 $39.4 $39.4 

The goal of the HIV cohort VI program is to increase the capacity of communities serving 

the target populations to deliver evidence-based substance abuse prevention, HIV and 

Hepatitis prevention services. This program was redesigned to incorporate the Strategic 

Prevention Framework model. 

The program is implementing SAMHSA's OMB-approved National Outcome Measures, 

including the efficiency measure. In addition, a new measure has been added to reflect 

the number of individuals exposed to substance abuse/hepatitis education services, to 

illustrate the performance of outreach and numbers served. Cohort VI began serving 

participants during FY 2007. 

Some baseline data are somewhat delayed due to a system problem in the online data 

collection and reporting system Limited data for HIV Cohorts IV and V are available. 

Data for these cohorts were submitted voluntarily by grantees using data that had been 

collected for their own purposes since each grant’s inception. The aggregate reporting 

makes it difficult to report the data separately by fiscal year. It is also impossible to 

calculate measures that require person-level matched data, such as non-user stability 

and user decrease. These HIV cohorts 4 and 5 aggregate data do not allow comparison 

of person-level changes. Data standards have been improved with subsequent cohorts. 

The 2007 target for 30-day use of other illicit drugs age 12 and up was substantially 

exceeded. The result was based on limited data for HIV Cohorts IV and V. More 

complete and accurate data is expected for future cohorts. This measure is being 

replaced by several revised measures that will reflect use for both those who had used 

drugs before entering the program and those who had not. 

Perceived risk, on the other hand, fell 14% short of the target with 75% rather than 89% 

perceiving moderate or great risk of substance abuse. This result was likely caused by 

the differences in program among the various cohorts and/or lack of data collection and 

reporting standardization. 

Since both of these results are likely due to data issues rather than program activities, 

the impact on program participants is negligible. Plans are being developed to provide 

all HIV grantees with technical assistance and training in data collection and reporting at 

the next grantee meeting. 

Performance data for the new measures is expected in May 2008. These baseline data 

are somewhat delayed due to a system problem in the online data collection and 

reporting system 

All Other Science and Service 

28 
# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target 

Long-Term Objective 1: to provide technical assistance and training to grantee States, Tribal 

Organizations and Community based organizations 

2.3.33 

Increase the 

percent of 

clients 

reporting that 

CAPT services 

substantively 

enhanced their 

ability to carry 

out their 

prevention 

work 

Baseline 70% 75% 92% 88% Retiring 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutYear 

Target/ 

Est.

Target/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

2.3.32 

Increase the 

number of 

persons 

provided TA 

services 

19,911 28,160 31,000 28,123 32,000 24,121 22,800 Retiring 

Appropriated 

Amount 

($ Million) 

$11.5 $15.1 $13.7 $12.2 $12.0 $4.4 

Ninety two percent of CAPT program recipients reported that their ability was enhanced 

by the training, exceeding the target of 75% by 17 percentage point. The target was 

ambitious given that it was considerably higher than the previous year’s baseline of 70%. 

The CAPT’s service delivery approach shifted in 2007 in accordance with 

SAMHSA/CSAP’s mission to focus more on providing substantive technical assistance 

services designed to enhance the systemic capacity of prevention systems to implement 

the Strategic Prevention Framework. The result reflects the success of this approach. 

The 2007 figure for the number of persons served is 24,121, which is lower than the 

target of 32,000 person-contacts by 7,879. The CAPT approach shifted from providing 

general training services to a more customized training-of-trainers (TOT) approach 

designed to enhance the systemic capacity of state training systems. These training-oftrainers events generally have fewer participants participating in longer, more intensive 

events, with these participants eventually extending the reach of CAPT services by 

providing additional training on the Strategic Prevention Framework within their states. 

The number of individuals receiving technical Assistance within their States from these 

CAPT-trained trainers is not captured in these figures. 

Centers for the Application of Prevention Technologies 

29 
Funding for the Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies, while eliminated 

in the PRNS program, will be funded at a reduced amount under the SAPTBG Set-Aside 

in FY 2009. 

30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Substance Abuse Prevention - 20% Prevention Set-aside, Substance Abuse 

Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant 

Synar Amendment Implementation Activities (Section 1926)* 

# Key 

Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 

FY 2008 

Target 

FY 2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target

Long-Te

to impro

rm Objective: To 

ve State and com

reduce incidence and preva

ctivities and servi

lence of substance ab

ces and accountabilit

use by providing assistance to States 

2.3.49 

Increase 

number of 

States** 

whose retail 

sales 

violations is 

at or below 

20% 

49 

munity s

50 

ystems, a

52 52 52 52 Retiring 

y 

Retiring 

2.3.62 

Number of 

States 

reporting 

retail tobacco 

sales 

violation rates 

below 10% 

Baseline 27 28 29 

*Synar activities are not a grant program, but are authorized under the 20% Prevention Set-aside. 

**States include the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

Performance has steadily improved, and for the last two years, all States met or 

exceeded the 20 percent goal. The mean violation rate across all States/Territories was 

10.42 percent. Further, 46 States/Territories reported sales violation rates of 15 percent 

or under, and 26 reported rates below 10 percent, showing that those States achieved 

significantly better results than those required by law. 

Because of such significant improvement, CSAP has set a new program goal to 

encourage all States to reduce the sales rate to less than 10% which is in keeping with 

the initial intent of the legislation, to reduce minors access to tobacco products, and also 

consistent with research suggesting that to effectively reduce youth access requires rate 

lower than the 20% target. This in no way changes the required target rate of 20%, but 

provides CSAP and States with a program goal that fits the legislative intent. 

31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20% Prevention Set-aside 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 

FY 2008 

Target 

FY 2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target 

(FY 

2012) 

Target Actual Target Actual 

Long-Term Objective: To reduce incidence and prevalence of substance abuse by providing assistance to States to 

improve State and community systems, activities and services and accountability 

2.3.50 

Increase 

perception of 

harm of drug 

use* 

72.3% 40% 73.2% 75% 73% Retiring Retiring 

2.3.51 

Improvements 

in non-use 

(percent ages 

12 and older 

who report 

that they have 

never used 

illicit 

substances)* 

54.2% 55% 53.9% 56% 53.9% Retiring Retiring 

2.3.52 

Improvements 

in use (30-day 

use)* 

7.9% 7.4% 8.1% 6.9% 8.3% Retiring Retiring 5.8% 

2.3.54 

Number of 

participants 

served in 

prevention 

programs 

Baseline 6,322,551 17,482,060 17,482,060 

2.3.55 

Percent of 

services 

within cost 

bands for 

universal, 

selected, and 

indicated 

interventions 

Baseline 49%** 54% 54% 

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) 

Baseline 

Sept-08 

9/2008 

2.3.64 Percent of 

states 

showing an 

32
 
 

 

 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 

FY 2008 

Target 

FY 2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target 

(FY 

2012) 

Target Actual Target Actual 

increase in 

state level 

estimates of 

survey 

respondents 

who rate the 

risk of 

substance 

abuse as 

moderate or 

great (age 

18+) 

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) 

2.3.66 Percent of 

states 

Baseline 

Sept-08 

9/2008 

showing a 

decrease in 

state level 

estimates of 

percent of 

survey 

respondents 

who report 30 

day use of 

alcohol (age 

21+) 

2.3.67 Percent of 

states 

Baseline 

Sept-08 

9/2008 

showing a 

decrease in 

state level 

estimates of 

percent of 

survey 

respondents 

who report 30 

day use of 

other illicit 

33
 
# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 

FY 2008 

Target 

FY 2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target 

(FY 

2012) 

Target Actual Target Actual 

drugs (age 

12-17) 

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+) 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutYear 

Target/ 

Est.

Target/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

2.3.53 

Number of 

evidencebased 

policies, 

practices, and 

strategies 

implemented 

 Baseline 10,090** 11,000 12,000 

Appropriated 

Amount 

($ Million) 

$356 $355 $352 $352 $352 $356 

* FY 2006 NSDUH does not report composite results. CSAP’s Data Coordination and Consolidation Center 

therefore recalculated the baseline and FY 2006 results as the mean of the separate NSDUH results for 

each drug of the percent of respondents reporting perceived moderate to great risk of any of the drugs. 

**Data received by December 2007 for FY 2007 is preliminary 

The performance targets for perceived harm and non-use used measures were set at an 

approximate target. The deviations are slight and are within the range of the survey 

confidence interval. There was no measurable effect on overall program performance. 

Since these measures do not directly reflect the 20% Set-Aside, they are being retired 

and replaced with separate measures reflecting the percentage of States improving on 

State-level estimates from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. 

The performance target for 30-day use was not met. This measure reflects use of any 

illicit substance in the past 30 days, as measured by the National Survey on Drug Use 

and Health. The overall rate of current illicit drug use among persons aged 12 or older 

in 2006 (8.3 percent) was similar to the rate in 2005 (8.1 percent) and has remained 

stable since 2002 (8.3 percent). This measure, is being retired as an annual measure 

34
 
 

 

 

 

for the 20% Set-Aside, and is being replaced by State-level measures as described 

above. Baseline data for the new measures will be reported in September 2008. 

The remaining measures have reported baseline data for FY 2007 and have set targets 

for FY 2008 and 2009. The targets for numbers served reflect projections based on the 

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 who did/did not voluntarily report for 2007. 

Substance Abuse Treatment – Programs of Regional and National 

Significance 

Access to Recovery* (ATR) 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

Out-Year 

(FY 2010) 

Target Actual Target Actual Target

Long-Te

connect

rm Objective 1: Incre

edness and Criminal 

ase the 

Justice i

quality of 

nvolvem

life as ref

ent of clients se

lected by 

rved 

drug use, employment, housing, social 

1.2.33 

Increase the 

percentage of 

adults receiving 

services who: 

a) had no past 

month 

substance use 

78% 79% 81.4% 81% 84.7% 80% 81% 82% 

1.2.34 

b) had improved 

family and living 

conditions 

62% 63% 51% 52% 59.9% 52% 52% 52% 

1.2.35 

c) had 

no/reduced 

involvement 

with the criminal 

justice system 

95% 95% 96.8% 97% 97.6% 96% 96% 97% 

1.2.36 d) had improved 

social support 89% 90% 90% 90% 75.1% 90% 90% 91% 

1.2.37 

e) were 

currently 

employed or 

engaged in 

productive 

activities 

56% 57% 50% 50% 61.7% 53% 53% 53% 

1.2.38 

f) had improved 

retention in 

treatment 

22.8% 24% 30.2% 31% 35.6% Retiring Retiring 

1.2.39 

Decrease the 

cost-per-client 

served 

$1,605 $1,605 $1,588 $1,572 

* Initial 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 

35 
 

 

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. 

1 The first cohort of grantees ended in FY 2007.
 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

Year 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutTarget/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

1.2.32 

Increase the 

number of 

clients 

gaining 

access to 

treatment 

23,138 50,000 96,959 50,000 79,150 30,000 65,000 65,000 

Appropriated 

Amount 

($ Million) 

$99.4 $99.2 $98.2 $98.7 $99.7 

All FY 2007 targets for this program were met or exceeded except social support, which was 

missed. For all measures except 1.2.32 (number of clients), 1.2.36 (social support), and 

1.2.37 (employment), the performance target 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. 

The target for number of clients served was substantially exceeded. Grantees performed 

exceptionally well once infrastructure and program processes were full in place. The targets 

for future years reflect the new cohort of grantees, which will be in their first year of service 

delivery in 2008 and thus are expected to serve fewer clients. The second cohort of grantees 

(to begin reporting performance data in FY 2008) will have a significant focus on 

methamphetamine users. These clients may require additional resources beyond those of 

other clients, which may result in a decrease in numbers served. Targets have been set in 

collaboration with OMB. 

The target for improved social support was missed, although the actual performance of 75% 

reflects a significant achievement. CSAT is reviewing program information and consulting 

with grantees to determine the reason for the decline, and will continue to work with grantees 

in cohort 2 to improve data on this particular measure. Since the 2007 results appears to be 

an anomaly compared to the previous two years’ results of 89% and 90%; targets are being 

maintained at an ambitious level until further information is obtained. 

The 2007 target for employment was significantly exceeded, reflecting very active effort by 

grantees to ensure that clients improved their overall life quality. The target was set based 

on actual performance for the previous two years and was equal to the actual performance in 

2006. The second cohort of grantees includes a significant emphasis on methamphetamine 

users, who are expected to present additional challenges for securing employment beyond 

those of other clients. Therefore the 2007 level of performance is not expected to continue in 

future years. Targets for 2008 and 2009 are still higher than the 2007 target and thus 

represent an ambitious level. 

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 are lower to allow the new grantees to 

develop the appropriate infrastructure. In addition, methamphetamine users in the second 

cohort may have more significant barriers than the ATR population at large; therefore, targets 

36 
FY FY Out- FY FY FY 2006 FY 2007 2008 2009 Year # 2004 2005 Key Outputs Target/ Target/ Target/ Target/ Target/ Actual Actual Actual Actual Est. Est. Est. Est. Est.

Increase the 

1.2.40 number of 69,161 155,267 156,820 182,770 184,597 138,267 139,650 139,650 

clients served 

Appropriated 

Amount $23.4 $25.9 $29.6 $29.6 $56.2 

($ Million) 

FY FY FY 2006 FY 2007 FY FY # Out-Year Key Outcomes 2004 2005 2008 2009 Target Actual Actual Target Actual Target Actual Target Target 

Long-Term Objective 1: Expand screening for substance abuse and the provision of brief intervention and brief 

treatment in primary care settings 

Increase the 

percentage of 

clients 

receiving 1.2.41 39.8% 41.8% 47.5% 48% 45.7% 48% 50% services who 

had no past 

month 

substance use 

have been kept at levels that are achievable but still ambitious. Targets for FY 2008 and FY 

2009 were set in collaboration with OMB during ATR’s PART review in CY 2007. 

In conjunction with the ATR PART review, a new efficiency measure has been established. 

This new measure, cost-per-client served, will be implemented with the new cohort of ATR 

grantees that were awarded in September 2007. SAMHSA is developing further 

refinements in this efficiency measure 

Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral and Treatment 

The targets for clients served for FY 2007 were missed due to problems experienced by one 

of the primary grants in the program involving their internal processes. CSAT has worked 

with the State to ensure that better processes are currently in place. 

The target for number of clients receiving services who had no past month substance use 

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. 

The target for clients served in FY 2007 was missed due to problems experienced by one of 

the primary grants involving their internal processes. CSAT has worked with the State to 

ensure that better processes are currently in place. Seven of the eleven current grantees are 

in the last year of funding in FY 2008 and are expected to serve fewer clients. Performance 

for programs funded with 2009 funds, which will be awarded at the end of FY 2009, will be 

reflected in 2010 performance data. 

All other Capacity 

37 
Capacity Programs Included in this Budget Line 

TCE/General Population Family Drug Courts Recovery Community 

Service – Recovery 

HIV/AIDS/Outreach Juvenile Drug Courts Recovery Community 

Service – Facilitating 

Addiction Treatment for 

Homeless Persons 

Young Offender Re-entry 

Program 

Co-Occurring State 

Incentive Grants 

Assertive Adolescent and 

Family Treatment 

Pregnant and Post-partum 

Women 

Child and Adolescent State 

Incentive Grants 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target

Long-Te

connect

rm Objective 1: Incre

edness and CJ involve

ase the q

ment of 

uality of lif

clients served 

e as reflected by drug use, employment, housing, social 

1.2.25 

Had no past 

month 

substance use 

63% 64.1% 67% 63% 63% 59% 63% 61% 

** 

1.2.27 

Increase 

percentage of 

adults receiving 

services who: 

a) Were 

currently 

employed or 

engaged in 

productive 

activities 

45% 48.9% 49% 52% 52% 57% 52% 50% 

** 

1.2.28 

b) Had a 

permanent place 

to live in the 

community 

49.2%* 51% 49.3% 53% 46% 51% 49% 

** 

1.2.29 

c) Had no 

involvement with 

the criminal 

justice system 

95% 96% 98% 96% 96% 96% 96% 94% 

** 

1.2.30 

d) Experienced 

no/reduced 

alcohol or illegal 

drug related 

health, 

behavioral or 

social, 

consequences 

82% 65% 67% 67% 67% 65% 67% 65% 

** 

1.2.31 

Increase the 

percentage of 

grantees in 

appropriate cost 

bands 

80% 81% 80% 81% 80% Oct08 80% 78% 

** 

*Targets for FY 2009 and FY 2010 are lower than actual data reported in previous years due to 

anticipated funding decreases. 

38 
# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutYear 

Target/ 

Est. 

Target/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

Increase the 

1.2.26 number of 

clients 30,217 34,014 34,300 35,334 35,334 35,516 35,334** 31,659** 

served 

Appropriated 

Amount 

($ Million) 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Out-Year 

(FY 2010 ) 

Target Actual Target Actual Target Target Target 

Long-Term Objective 1: Increase the quality of life as reflected by drug use, employment, housing, 

social connectedness and CJ involvement of clients served

 1.2.56 Increase number of 

clients served Baseline 1,437 1,250* 1,322 1,335 1,335 4,006 

1.2.57 Had no past month 

substance use (same 

as long term 

measure) 

Baseline 75.7 76.7 76.8 77.8 78.8 79.8 

1.2.58 Increase percentage 

of adults receiving 

services who: 

a) Were currently 

employed or 

engaged in 

productive activities 

Baseline 73.2 74.2 77.4 78.2 79.2 80.2 

1.2.59 b) Had a permanent 

place to live in the 

community 

Baseline 57.9 58.9 72.7 73.7 74.7 75.7 

1.2.60 c) Had no 

involvement with the 

criminal justice Baseline 93.4 94.3 92.8 93.8 94.8 95.8 

system 

1.2.61 d) Experienced 

no/reduced alcohol 

or illegal drug related 

health, behavioral or Baseline 90.2 91.2 92.1 93.1 94.1 95.1 

social, consequences 

The target for criminal justice involvement was met. The targets for all other measures 

were set at an approximate target level and the deviation from that level is slight. 

Targets for clients served and employment were slightly exceeded. Targets for stable 

housing, abstinence, health consequences were not met by 7%, 4%, and 2% 

respectively. 

Treatment Drug Courts 

39 
Knowledge Application Addiction Technology 

Program Transfer Centers 

Faith Based Initiatives SAMHSA Conference Grants 

Strengthening Treatment 

Access and Retention 

# Key Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 

2008 

Target 

FY 

2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target Actual Target Actual Target

Long-Term Objective 1: Enhance knowledge dissemination through trainings, technical assistance and meetings 

Report 

implementing 

improvements in 

treatment methods 

1.4.01 on the basis of 

information and 83% 87% 89% 93% 93% 90% 90% 90 

training provided 

by the program 

(same as long-term 

measure) 

Increase the 

percentage of drug 

treatment 

professionals 

trained by the 

1.4.03 program who 

a) Would rate the 

quality of the 

events as good, 

93.2% 95% 96% 96% 96% 95% 96% 96% 

very good, or 

excellent* 

1.4.04 

b) Shared any of 

the information 

from the events 84% 86% 88% 87% 90% 89% 90% 92% 

with others 

1.4.05 

Increase the 

percentage of 

grantees in 

appropriate cost 

bands 

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Oct08 100% 100% 

The target for number of clients served in FY 07 was decreased due to a decrease in 

funding. Targets for subsequent years are adjusted to reflect funding levels. The target 

for FY 07 number of clients served was exceeded. 

FY 07 targets for abstinence from use, employment, housing, social consequences were 

met or exceeded. The target for criminal justice involvement was missed by slightly 

more than 1%, a slight deviation that did not affect program performance. 

Science and Service 

Science and Service Programs Included in this Budget Line 

*Target equal to 2007 performance level 

40 
 

 

 

 

 

# Key Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

Year 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutTarget/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

1.4.02 

Increase the 

number of 

individuals 

trained per year 

35,370 28,630 28,916 23,141 23,141 20,516 20,516 20,516* 20,516* 

Appropriated 

Amount 

($ Million) 

$46.4 $36.7 $29.3 $29.6 $14.1 

All targets except number of persons trained were set at an approximate target level, and the 

deviation from that level is slight. There was no effect on overall program or activity 

performance. 

The target for persons trained was missed by 2,600 clients (approximately 11%). This is due 

to a reduction in programs relating to Science and Service in FY 2007. Several grant 

programs were in their wind-down phase during FY 2007. The number of individuals trained 

has declined each year for the past four years. Targets have been adjusted to reflect that 

these grants game to a natural end. 

Substance Abuse Treatment - Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment 

Block Grant 

# Key 

Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 

FY 2008 

Target 

FY 2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target 

FY 

2012 

Target Actual Target Actual 

Long-Term Objective: Expand capacity to provide services nationwide to those affected with 

substance use disorders 

1.2.42 

Percentage 

of clients 

reporting 

change in 

abstinence 

at discharge 

43 % 46 % Retiring 

1.2.48 

Percentage 

of clients 

reporting 

abstinence 

from drug 

use at 

discharge 

68.3% 68.3% Nov-08 69.3% 69.3% 

1.2.49 

Percentage 

of clients 

reporting 

abstinence 

from alcohol 

at discharge 

73.7% 73.7% Nov-08 74.7% 74.7% 

1.2.46 

Increase the 

percentage 

of Technical 

Assistance 

events that 

result in 

systems, 

program or 

82% 100% 95% 100% Retiring Retiring Retiring Retiring 

41 
 

 

 

# Key 

Outcomes 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 

FY 2008 

Target 

FY 2009 

Target 

OutYear 

Target 

FY 

2012 

Target Actual Target Actual 

practice 

change 

1.2.47 

Increase the 

percentage 

of States in 

appropriate 

cost bands 

100% 100% 65% 67% Oct-08 70% 70% 

1.2.50 

Percentage 

of clients 

reporting 

being 

employed/in 

school at 

discharge 

40.9% 42.9% 42.9% 42.9% 

1.2.51 

Percentage 

of clients 

reporting no 

involvement 

with the 

Criminal 

Justice 

System 

88.9% 88.9% 88.9% 88.9% 

# Key 

Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

Target/ 

Est. 

Out-Year 

Target/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

1.2.43 

Number of 

admissions to 

substance 

abuse 

treatment 

programs 

receiving 

public 

funding** 

1,875,026 1,849,528 1,983,490 1,861,869 2,003,324 Oct-09 1,881,515* 1,881,515* 2,005,220 

1.2.44 

Increase the 

number of 

States and 

Territories 

voluntarily 

reporting 

performance 

measures in 

their SAPT 

Block Grant 

application. 

36 37 40 53 55 Oct-08 Retiring Retiring 

1.2.45 

Increase the 

percentage of 

States and 

Territories 

that express 

satisfaction 

with 

Technical 

Assistance 

(TA) provided 

88% 91% 97% 83% 97% Oct-08 97% 85%* 

42
 
 

 

# Key 

Outputs 

Appropriated 

Amount 

($ Million) 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

$1,779.1 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

$1,775.6 

FY

Target/ 

Est. 

2006 

Actual 

$1,757.4 

FY

Target/ 

Est. 

2

Actual 

$1,758.6 

007 FY 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

$1,758.7 

FY 2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

$1,778.6 

Target/ 

Est. 

Out-Year 

*Targets for FY 2008 and 2009 are lower than targets or actual data reported in previous years due to the 

impact of budget for the SAPT Block Grant. 

**Formerly Number of Clients Served. Wording change approved by OMB 12/4/07. FY 2008 and 2009
 

target change approved 1/9/08. 

FY 2006 is the most recent year for which data is available for this program. 

The long-term measure of change in abstinence at discharge is retiring and being replaced 

with two annual measures; one reflects abstinence from drug use at discharge and one 

reflects abstinence from alcohol at discharge. Baseline data have been reported. 

New measures have also been added for employment and criminal justice involvement. 

The number of admissions measure is one of SAMHSA’s National Outcome Measures, 

which, when fully implemented, will provide more direct and accurate data on number of 

clients served by reporting an unduplicated count of clients. The unduplicated reporting will 

be phased in among the States. As States begin to report unduplicated counts, the 

Treatment Episode Data Set might show that that the number of admissions has gone down, 

since readmissions of the same individual in the reporting period would be counted as a 

single client served. Targets may be adjusted to reflect this change. The performance target 

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 1.2.46, Increase the percentage of Technical Assistance events that result in 

systems, program or practice change, was exceeded for 2006. The performance target 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. This measure is retiring because the 

program’s limited technical assistance resources are being redirected to National Outcome 

Measures implementation, instead of systems change. Further, technical assistance is not 

the main purpose of the program. 

The target for percent of grantees in appropriate cost bands was missed for 2006. A 

substantial number of the States have and are in the process of implementing new or 

modified data collection systems in response to the mandated National Outcome Measures 

reporting. These new systems have been focusing on quality of client change data and have 

not yet refined the cost reporting portions. CSAT expects that once refinements are made to 

this component of these systems, an increase in this figure will be seen. 

The target for the number of States and Territories voluntarily reporting performance 

measures in their SAPT Block Grant application was substantially exceeded. Performance 

has steadily increased over the last four years. The target for 2007 has been increased. 

Since reporting of performance measures is now mandatory, the measure for voluntary 

reporting is being retired. 

43
 
The target for technical assistance satisfaction was missed for 2006. The actual data were 

derived from a new survey on Technical Assistance implemented in FY 2007 The data are 

preliminary, resulting from a subset of States reporting overall impact of Technical 

Assistance. Thirty-three of sixty states have submitted their responses to the survey with 

overall satisfaction reported at 83%. It is expected that the overall percentage will increase 

as the remaining data are received. 

National Surveys 

# Key 

Outputs 

FY 

2004 

Actual 

FY 

2005 

Actual 

FY 2006 FY 2007 2008 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

2009 

Target/ 

Est. 

FY 

Year 

Target/ 

Est. 

OutTarget/ 

Est. Actual Target/ Est. Actual 

4.4.01 

Availability 

and 

timeliness 

of data for 

the: 

a) National 

Survey on 

Drug Use 

and Health 

(NSDUH) 

8 mos. 8 mos. 8 mos. 8 mos. 8 mos. 8 mos. 8 mos. 8 mos. 

4.4.02 

b) Drug 

Abuse 

Warning 

Network 

(DAWN) 

8 mos. 12 

mos. 

15 

mos. 

16 

mos. 

12 

mos. 

14 

mos. 

10 

mos. 

10 

mos. 

4.4.03 

c) Drug 

and 

Alcohol 

Services 

Information 

System 

(DASIS) 

11 

mos. 

13 

mos. 

15 

mos. 

9 mos. 15 

mos. 

8 

mos. 

10 

mos. 

10 

mos. 

The target for the National Survey on Drug Use and Health was met. The performance 

target for the Drug Abuse Warning System 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. The target for the Drug and Alcohol Services Information System was 

exceeded due to greater efficiency. 

44 
 

 

Discussion of SAMHSA’s Strategic Plan 

SAMHSA’s activities support the Agency strategic goals of Accountability, Capacity, and 

Effectiveness, as well as the Department’s strategic objectives. 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; Capacity activities 

primarily support 1.2, 1.4, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4; and Effectiveness Activities 

primarily support 1.3. 

•	 Strategic Objective 1.2 Increase health care service availability and accessibility: 

The Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (treatment portion), 

most discretionary treatment programs and other direct service programs 

primarily support this objective. 

•	 Strategic Objective 1.3 Improve health care quality, safety and cost/value: 

SAMHSA’s Effectiveness activities, including the National Registry of Evidencebased Programs and Practices and the SAMHSA Health Information Network 

primarily support this objective. SAMHSA also works toward improved cost/value 

in all its programs through its efficiency measures. 

•	 Strategic Objective 1.4 Recruit, develop, and retain competent health care 

workforce: Most of SAMHSA’s Science and Service activities support this 

objective. 

•	 Strategic Objective 2.3 Promote and encourage preventive health care, including 

mental health, lifelong healthy behaviors and recovery: Most substance abuse 

prevention activities, including the 20% prevention set-aside of the Substance 

Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant and the Strategic Prevention 

Framework State Incentive Grants support this objective. The Community 

Mental Health Services Block Grant, and Suicide Prevention activities also 

primarily support this objective. Many other SAMHSA activities contribute to this 

objective. 

•	 Strategic Objective 2.4 Prepare for and respond to natural and man-made 

disasters: SAMHSA’s Disaster activities support this objective. 

•	 Strategic Objective 3.1 Promote the economic independence and social wellbeing of individuals and families across the lifespan: Most of SAMHSA’s 

activities contribute to improving the social well-being of individuals with or at risk 

for substance abuse and mental illness, and their families. Social connectedness 

is one of SAMHSA’s National Outcome Measures. 

•	 Strategic Objective 3.2 Protect the safety and foster the well being of children 

and youth: SAMHSA’s Youth Violence Prevention program Children and Family 

programs; and Children’s Mental Health Program primarily support this initiative. 

•	 Strategic Objective 3.3 Encourage the development of strong, healthy and 

supportive communities: the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive 

Grants and other prevention efforts, contribute to this objective. 

•	 Strategic Objective 3.4 Address the needs, strengths and abilities of vulnerable 

populations: SAMHSA’s Seclusion & Restraint activities, homelessness 

prevention programs; Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness, 

and Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness primarily support 

this objective. 

•	 Strategic Objective 4.4 Communicate and transfer research results into clinical, 

public health and human service practice: SAMHSA’s National Surveys support 

45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

this objective. The National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices 

and the SAMHSA Health Information Network also contribute to this objective. 

SAMHSA Strategic Goals 

 Accountability: 

Measure and Report 

Program 

Performance 

Capacity: Increase 

Service Availability 

Effectiveness: 

Improve Service 

Quality 

HHS Strategic Goals 

1. Health Care: Improve the safety, quality, affordability and accessibility of health care, including 

behavioral health care and long-term care 

1.1 Broaden health insurance and 

long-term care coverage 

1.2 Increase health care service 

availability and accessibility 

x 

1.3 Improve health care quality, 

safety, and cost/value 

x 

1.4 Recruit, develop, and retain a 

competent health care workforce 

x 

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. 

2.1 Prevent the spread of 

infectious diseases 

2.2 Protect the public against 

injuries and environmental threats 

2.3 Promote and encourage 

preventive health care, including 

mental health, lifelong healthy 

behaviors and recovery 

x 

2.4 Prepare for and respond to 

natural and man-made disasters 

x 

3. Human Services: Promote the economic and social well-being of individuals, families and 

communities 

3.1 Promote the economic 

independence and social wellbeing of individuals and families 

across the lifespan 

x 

3.2 Protect the safety and foster 

the well being of children and 

youth 

x 

3.3 Encourage the development 

of strong, healthy and supportive 

communities 

x 

3.4 Address the needs, strengths 

and abilities of vulnerable 

populations 

x 

4. Scientific Research and Development: Advance scientific and biomedical research and 

development related to health and human services 

4.1 Strengthen the pool of 

qualified health and behavioral 

science researchers 

4.2 Increase basic scientific 

knowledge to improve human 

health and human development 

4.3 Conduct and oversee applied 

research to improve health and 

well-being 

4.4 Communicate and transfer 

research results into clinical, 

x 

46 
 

 

SAMHSA Strategic Goals 

 Accountability: 

Measure and Report 

Program 

Performance 

Capacity: Increase 

Service Availability 

Effectiveness: 

Improve Service 

Quality 

public health and human service 

practice 

Summary of Full Cost 

(Allocated Budgetary Resources in Millions) 

HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives 

SAMHSA 

FY 2007 

SAMHSA 

FY 2008 

SAMHSA 

FY 2009 

Strategic Goal 1: Health Care Improve the safety, quality, 

affordability and accessibility of health care, including behavioral 

health care and long-term care. 

1.1 Broaden health insurance and long-term care coverage. --- --- ---

1.2 Increase Health Care service availability and accessibility. 2,251.1 2,279.8 2,164.4 

MENTAL HEALTH PRNS 279.8 315.9 172.6 

Rate of consumers reporting positively about outcomes (State 

MH System) 35.0 39.5 21.6 

Rate of family members reporting positively about outcomes 

(State MH System) 1/ 35.0 39.5 21.6 

Rate of family members reporting positively about outcomes 

(Program Participants) 1/ 35.0 39.5 21.6 

Number of evidence-based practices implemented 35.0 39.5 21.6 

Percentage of coverage for each EBP (adults) 35.0 39.5 21.6 

Percentage of coverage for each EBP (children) 35.0 39.5 21.6 

Increase the percentage of clients receiving services who report 

improved functioning 1/ 35.0 39.5 21.6 

Percentage of people in the United States with serious mental 

health illnesses in need of services from the public mental health 

system, who receive services from the public mental health system 35.0 39.5 21.6 

MENTAL HEALTH DRUG COURTS 2/ --- --- 2.5 

CO-OCCURRING SIGs 14.8 8.3 .5 

Increase the percentage of treatment programs that screen for 

co-occurring disorders 3.0 1.7 .1 

Increase the percentage of treatment programs that assess for 

co-occurring disorders 3.0 1.7 .1 

Increase the percentage of treatment programs that treat cooccurring disorders through collaborative, consultative, and 

integrated models of care 3.0 1.7 .1 

Increase percentage of clients who experience reduced 

impairment from their co-occurring disorders following treatment 3.0 1.7 .1 

Increase the number of persons with co-occurring disorders 

served 3.0 1.7 .1 

CSAT CAPACITY 388.9 391.0 344.0 

Increase the number of clients served 55.6 55.9 49.1 

47
 
HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives 

SAMHSA 

FY 2007 

SAMHSA 

FY 2008 

SAMHSA 

FY 2009 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who were 

currently employed or engaged in productive activities 55.6 55.9 49.1 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had a 

permanent place to live in the community 55.6 55.9 49.1 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had no 

involvement in the criminal justice system 55.6 55.9 49.1 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who 

experience no/reduced alcohol or illegal drug related health, 

behavioral, or social consequences 55.6 55.9 49.1 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had no 

past month substance use 55.6 55.9 49.1 

Increase the percentage of grantees in appropriate cost bands 55.6 55.9 49.1 

TREATMENT DRUG COURTS 10.8 10.5 40.3 

Increase the number of clients served 1.5 1.5 5.8 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who were 

currently employed or engaged in productive activities 1.5 1.5 5.8 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had a 

permanent place to live in the community 1.5 1.5 5.8 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had no 

involvement in the criminal justice system 1.5 1.5 5.8 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who 

experience no/reduced alcohol or illegal drug related health, 

behavioral, or social consequences 1.5 1.5 5.8 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had no 

past month substance use 1.5 1.5 5.8 

Increase the percentage of grantees in appropriate cost bands 1.5 1.5 5.8 

ACCESS TO RECOVERY 103.9 101.6 106.3 

Increase the number of clients gaining access to treatment 13.0 12.7 15.2 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had no 

past month substance use 13.0 12.7 15.2 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had 

improved family and living conditions 13.0 12.7 15.2 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had no 

involvement in the criminal justice system 13.0 12.7 15.2 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had 

improved social support 13.0 12.7 15.2 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who were 

currently employed or engaged in productive activities 13.0 12.7 15.2 

Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who had 

improved retention in treatment 13.0 12.7 15.2 

Decrease the cost per client served 13.0 12.7 ---

SCREENING, BRIEF INTERVENTION, REFERRAL & 31.2 30.7 59.8 

48
 
bands 

 

HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives 

SAMHSA 

FY 2007 

SAMHSA 

FY 2008 

SAMHSA 

FY 2009 

TREATMENT 

Increase number of clients served 15.6 15.3 29.9 

Increase percentage of clients receiving services who had no 

past month substance use 15.6 15.3 29.9 

SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION & TREATMENT BLOCK 

GRANT (80%) 1,421.7 1,421.9 1,438.4 

Percentage of clients reporting change in abstinence at 158.0 177.7 ---

discharge Percentage of clients reporting abstinence from drug use at 

discharge 158.0 177.7 205.5 

Percentage of clients reporting abstinence from alcohol at 

discharge 158.0 177.7 205.5 

Number of admissions to substance abuse treatment programs 

receiving public funding 158.0 177.7 205.5 

Increase the percentage of States in appropriate cost bands 158.0 177.7 205.5 

Percentage of clients reporting being employed/in school at 

discharge 158.0 177.7 205.5 

Percentage of clients reporting no involvement with the Criminal 

Justice System 158.0 177.7 205.5 

Increase the number of States and Territories voluntarily 

reporting performance measures in their SAPT Block Grant 158.0 --- ---

applications 

Increase percentage of States and Territories that express 

satisfaction with technical assistance provided 158.0 177.7 205.5 

1.3 Improve health care quality, safety and cost/value. --- --- ---

1.4 Recruit, develop, and retain a competent health care workforce. 31.2 30.1 15.1 

CSAT SCIENCE AND SERVICE PROGRAMS 31.2 30.1 15.1 

Increase the number of individuals trained per year 6.2 6.0 3.0 

Increase the percentage of drug treatment professionals trained 

by the program who would rate the quality of events as good, very 

good or excellent 6.2 6.0 3.0 

Increase the percentage of drug treatment professionals trained 

by the program who shared any of the information from the event 

with others 6.2 6.0 3.0 

Increase the percentage of drug treatment professionals trained 

by the program who report implementing improvements in 

treatment methods on the basis of information and training 

provided by the program 6.2 6.0 3.0 

Increase the percentage of grantees in the appropriate cost 6.2 6.0 3.0 

Strategic 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. 

2.1 Prevent the spread of infectious diseases. --- --- ---

2.2 Protect the public against injuries and environmental threats. --- --- ---

49
 
 

HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives 

SAMHSA 

FY 2007 

SAMHSA 

FY 2008 

SAMHSA 

FY 2009 

2.3 Promote and encourage preventive health care, including 

mental health, lifelong healthy behaviors and recovery. 1,047.8 1,054.6 1,010.0 

SUICIDE PREVENTION 38.5 51.3 37.2 

Reduce the number of suicide deaths 12.8 17.1 12.4 

Increase the number of students exposed to mental health and 

suicide awareness campaigns on college campuses 12.8 17.1 12.4 

Increase the total number of individuals trained in youth suicide 

prevention 12.8 17.1 12.4 

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT 436.8 429.4 429.7 

Reduce rate of readmissions to State psychiatric hospitals 

(Adults:30 days) 39.7 39.0 39.1 

Reduce rate of readmissions to State psychiatric hospitals 

(Adults:180 days) 39.7 39.0 39.1 

Reduce rate of readmissions to State psychiatric hospitals 

(Children:30 days) 39.7 39.0 39.1 

Reduce rate of readmissions to State psychiatric hospitals 

(Children:180 days) 39.7 39.0 39.1 

Number of evidence-based practices implemented 39.7 39.0 39.1 

Percentage of coverage for each EBP (adults) 39.7 39.0 39.1 

Percentage of coverage for each EBP (children) 39.7 39.0 39.1 

Increase number of people served by the public mental health 

system 39.7 39.0 39.1 

Increase rate of consumers/family members reporting positively 

about outcomes 39.7 39.0 39.1 

Increase rate of family members reporting positively about 

outcomes 39.7 39.0 39.1 

Number of person receiving evidence-based practices per 

$10,000 of mental health block grant dollars spent 39.7 39.0 39.1 

SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION PRNS (combined 

programs) 43.4 46.6 26.9 

Percent of services within cost bands for universal, selected, and 

indicated interventions 43.4 46.6 26.9 

STRATEGIC PREVENTION FRAMEWORK SIGs 118.1 117.4 110.2 

30-day use of alcohol among youth age 12-17 9.8 9.8 9.2 

30-day use of other illicit drugs age 12 and up 9.8 9.8 9.2 

Percent of grantee states that have performed needs 9.8 9.8 9.2 

assessments Percent of grantee states that have submitted state plans 9.8 9.8 9.2 

Percent of grantee states with approved state plans 9.8 9.8 9.2 

Percent of SPF-SIG States showing a decrease in state level 

estimate of percent of survey respondents who report 30-day use 

of alcohol (12-20) 9.8 9.8 9.2 

Percent of SPF-SIG States showing a decrease in state level 

estimate of percent of survey respondents who report 30-day use 

of alcohol (21+) 9.8 9.8 9.2 

50
 
 

HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives 

SAMHSA 

FY 2007 

SAMHSA 

FY 2008 

SAMHSA 

FY 2009 

Percent of SPF-SIG states showing a decrease in state level 

estimates of survey respondents who report 30-day use of other 

illicit drugs (12-17) 9.8 9.8 9.2 

Percent of SPF-SIG states showing a decrease in state level 

estimates of survey respondents who report 30-day use of other 

illicit drugs (18+) 9.8 9.8 9.2 

Percent of SPF-SIG states showing an increase in state level 

estimates of survey respondents who rate the risk of substance 

abuse as moderate or great (12-17) 9.8 9.8 9.2 

Percent of SPF-SIG states showing an increase in state level 

estimates of survey respondents who rate the risk of substance 

abuse as moderate or great (18+) 9.8 9.8 9.2 

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 9.8 9.8 9.2 

MINORITY AIDS INITIATIVE 44.2 44.2 45.5 

30-day use of other illicit drugs age 12 and up 3.2 --- ---

Percent of program participants age 12-17 that rate the risk of 

substance abuse as moderate or great 3.2 3.4 3.5 

Percent of program participants age 18+ that rate the risk of 

substance abuse as moderate or great 3.2 3.4 3.5 

Percent of participants who used alcohol at pre-test who report a 

decrease in use of alcohol at post-test (user decrease): age 12-20 3.2 3.4 3.5 

Percent of participants who used alcohol at pre-test who report a 

decrease in use of alcohol at post-test (user decrease): age 21 and 

up 3.2 3.4 3.5 

Percent of participants who report no alcohol use at pre-test who 

remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability): age 12-20 3.2 3.4 3.5 

Percent of participants who report no alcohol use at pre-test who 

remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability): age 21 and up 3.2 3.4 3.5 

Percent of participants who used illicit drugs at pre-test who 

report a decrease in 30-day use at post-test (user decrease): age 3.2 3.4 3.5 

12-17 Percent of participants who used illicit drugs at pre-test who 

report a decrease in 30-day use at post-test (user decrease): age 

18 and up 3.2 3.4 3.5 

Percent of participants who report no illicit drug use at pre-test 

who remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability): age 12-17 3.2 3.4 3.5 

Percent of participants who report no illicit drug use at pre-test 

who remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability): age 18 and 

up 3.2 3.4 3.5 

Percent of program participants (age 12-17) who somewhat 

disapprove or strongly disapprove of substance use 3.2 3.4 3.5 

Number of individuals exposed to substance abuse/hepatitis 

education services 3.2 3.4 3.5 

51
 
 

 

 

 

 

HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives 

SAMHSA 

FY 2007 

SAMHSA 

FY 2008 

SAMHSA 

FY 2009 

Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and strategies 

implemented by HIV program grantees 3.2 3.4 3.5 

PREVENTION SCIENCE AND SERVICE (CAPTS) 10.7 9.5 ---

Increase the percent of clients reporting that CAPT services 

substantively enhanced their ability to carry out their prevention 

work 5.4 4.8 ---

Increase the number of persons provided TA services 5.4 4.8 ---

SYNAR AMENDMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES .7 .7 .7 

Increase number of States whose retail sales violation rate is at 

or below 20% 

Number of States reporting retail tobacco sales violation rates 

below 10% --- --- ---

20% PREVENTION SET-ASIDE 355.4 355.5 359.6 

Increase perception of harm of drug use 59.2 --- ---

Improvements in non-use 59.2 --- ---

Improvement in 30-day use 59.2 --- ---

Number of participants served in prevention programs 59.2 39.5 119.9 

Percent of services within cost bands for universal, selected, and 

indicated interventions 59.2 39.5 119.9 

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) --- 39.5 ---

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 and up) --- 39.5 ---

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) --- 39.5 ---

Percent of states showing a decrease in state level estimates of 

percent of survey respondents who report 30 day use of alcohol 

(age 21 and up) --- 39.5 ---

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) --- 39.5 ---

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 and up) --- 39.5 ---

Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and strategies 

implemented 59.2 39.5 119.9 

Strategic Goal 3: Human Services Promote the economic 

and social well-being of individuals, families and 

communities. 

3.1 Promote the economic independence and social wellbeing of individuals and families across the lifespan. --- --- ---

3.2 Protect the safety and foster the well being of children 

and youth. 223.6 226.5 209.6 

52
 
 

 

HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives 

SAMHSA 

FY 2007 

SAMHSA 

FY 2008 

SAMHSA 

FY 2009 

TRAUMA-INFORMED SERVICES (NCTSI) 31.3 34.9 17.4 

Increase number of children and adolescents receiving traumainformed services 10.4 11.6 5.8 

Improve children’s outcomes 10.4 11.6 5.8 

Dollars spent per person served 3/ 10.4 11.6 5.8 

YOUTH VIOLENCE (Safe Schools/Healthy Students) 85.7 86.7 75.0 

Increase number of children served 9.5 9.6 8.3 

Decrease number of violent incidents at middle schools 9.5 9.6 8.3 

Decrease number of violent incidents at high schools 9.5 9.6 8.3 

Decrease students' substance use (middle schools) 9.5 9.6 8.3 

Decrease students' substance use (high schools) 9.5 9.6 8.3 

Improve students' school attendance 9.5 9.6 8.3 

Increase mental health services to students and families 9.5 9.6 8.3 

Percentage of grantees that provided screening and / or 

assessments that is coordinated among two or more agencies or 

shared across agencies. 9.5 9.6 8.3 

Percentage of grantees that provide training of school personnel 

on mental health topics 9.5 9.6 8.3 

COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 

FOR CHILDREN & THEIR FAMILIES 106.6 104.8 117.1 

Increase percentage attending school 80% or more of the time 

after 12 months 17.8 17.5 19.5 

Increase percentage with no law enforcement contacts at 6 

months 3.0 17.5 19.5 

Decrease average days of impatient facilities among children 

served in systems of care (at 6 months) 17.8 17.5 19.5 

Percent of systems of care that are sustained 5 years post 

Federal Funding 17.8 17.5 19.5 

Decrease in inpatients care costs per 1,000 children served 17.8 17.5 19.5 

Increase number of children receiving services 17.8 17.5 19.5 

3.3 Encourage the development of strong, healthy and 

supportive communities. --- --- ---

3.4 Address the needs, strengths and abilities of vulnerable 

populations. 90.2 90.1 95.7 

PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH 

MENTAL ILLNESS (PAIMI) 35.0 35.9 35.0 

Increase percentage of complaints of alleged abuse, 

substantiated and not withdrawn by the client, that resulted in 

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

or facility, as a result of PAIMI involvement 5.0 4.5 5.0 

Increase percentage of complaints of alleged neglect, 

substantiated and not withdrawn by the client, that resulted in 

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

or facility, as a result of PAIMI involvement 5.0 4.5 5.0 

53
 
 

 

 

 

HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives 

SAMHSA 

FY 2007 

SAMHSA 

FY 2008 

SAMHSA 

FY 2009 

Increase percentage of complaints of alleged rights violations, 

substantiated and not withdrawn by the client, that resulted in 

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

or facility, as a result of PAIMI involvement 5.0 4.5 5.0 

Percent of interventions on behalf of groups of PAIMI-eligible 

individuals that were concluded successfully (same as long-term 

measure) 5.0 4.5 5.0 

Increase in the number of people served by the PAIMI program 5.0 4.5 5.0 

Ratio of persons served/impacted per activity/intervention 5.0 4.5 5.0 

Cost per 1,000 individuals served/impacted 5.0 4.5 5.0 

The number attending public education/constituency training and 

public awareness activities --- 4.5 ---

PROJECTS FOR ASSISTANCE IN TRANSITION FROM 

HOMELESSNESS (PATH) 55.2 54.2 60.7 

Increase the percentage of enrolled homeless persons who 

receive community mental health services 13.8 10.8 15.2 

Increase number of homeless persons contacted 13.8 10.8 15.2 

Increase percentage of contacted homeless persons with serious 

mental illnesses who become enrolled in services 13.8 10.8 15.2 

Average Federal cost of enrolling a homeless person with serious 

mental illness in services 13.8 10.8 15.2 

Provide training for PATH providers on SSI/SSDI Outreach, 

Access, Recovery (SOAR) to ensure eligible homeless clients are 

receiving benefits --- 10.8 ---

Strategic Goal 4: Scientific Research and Development 

Advance scientific and biomedical research and 

development related to health and human services. 

4.1 Strengthen the pool of qualified health and behavioral 

science researchers. --- --- ---

4.2 Increase basic scientific knowledge to improve human 

health and human development. --- --- ---

4.3 Conduct and oversee applied research to improve health 

and well-being. --- --- ---

4.4 Communicate and transfer research results into clinical, 

public health and human service practice. 75.5 78.5 81.7 

BG SET-ASIDE NATIONAL SURVEYS NON-ADD 75.5 78.5 81.7 

Availability and timeliness of data for National Survey on Drug 

Use and Health 48.9 52.0 54.8 

Availability and timeliness of data for Drug Abuse Warning 

Network 17.2 17.2 17.5 

Availability and timeliness of data for the Drug and Alcohol 

Services Information System 9.4 9.3 9.3 

Total 3,327.0 3,356.3 3,154.9 

1/ Includes Jail Diversion, Older Adults, and HIV/AIDS programs. 

2/ Performance measures for mental health drug courts will be reported in a future submission. 

54
 
 

SAMHSA SAMHSA SAMHSA 

HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

3/This measure was approved by OMB in May 2006 as an interim 

efficiency measure until a "final" PRNS-wide efficiency measure is 

developed. 

55
 
List of Program Evaluations Completed During the Fiscal Year 

Evaluation of the Impact of the Buprenorphine Waiver 

Family Treatment Drug Court Evaluation 

Outcome Findings for Mental Health and At-Risk Drinking from the Primary Care 

Research in Substance Use and Mental Health for the Elderly Multisite Study (PRISM-E) 

Evaluation of Mentoring and Family Strengthening Youth Substance Abuse Prevention 

Initiatives 

Ecstasy and Other Club Drugs Prevention Initiative 

Cross-site Evaluation of the Crisis Counseling Program: 2005 Hurricanes 

Katrina/Rita/Wilma 

What is the impact of building community consensus to adopt and implement evidencedbased or exemplary practices for those with Serious Mental Illness and Serious 

Emotional Disturbance? 

Evaluation of Minority Substance Abuse and HIV Prevention Initiatives and Targeted 

Capacity Program: Cohort 3 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) 1995-2005 - National Admissions to Substance 

Abuse Treatment Services 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) Highlights 2005--National Results from the 2006 

National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH): National Findings 

Comparing Drug Testing and Self-Report of Drug Use among Youths and Young Adults 

in the General Population 

National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services: 2006 Data on Substance 

Abuse Treatment Facilities 

State Estimates of Substance Use from the 2004-2005 National Surveys on Drug Use 

and Health 

Worker Substance Use and Workplace Policies and Programs 

Further detail on the findings and recommendations of the program evaluations 

completed during the fiscal year can be found at the HHS Policy Information Center, 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/pic/login/dataentry/index.cfm, including program improvement 

resulting from the evaluation. 

56 
Information on Use of Non-Parties 

No non-Federal entities were involved in any significant role in the preparation of 

SAMHSA’s 2009 Justification of Congressional Estimates or Online Performance 

Appendix. 

57 
Discontinued Performance Measures 

Program Measure 

Number 

Measure Last year of 

data reporting 

Substance Abuse Prevention, HIV 

Prevention, and Hepatitis Prevention 

for Minorities and Minorities ReEntering Communities PostIncarceration 

2.3.34 30-day use of other 

illicit drugs age 12 and 

up 

FY 2007 

Centers for the Application of 

Prevention Technologies 

2.3.32 Increase the number 

of persons provided 

technical assistance 

services 

FY 2008 

Centers for the Application of 

Prevention Technologies 

2.3.33 Increase the percent 

of clients reporting 

that CAPT services 

substantively 

enhanced their ability 

to carry out their 

prevention work 

FY 2008 

Synar Amendment Activities 2.3.49 Increase number of 

States whose retail 

violation rates is at or 

below 20% 

FY 2007 

20% Prevention Set-Aside 2.3.50 Increase perception of 

harm of drug use 

FY 2007 

20% Prevention Set-Aside 2.3.51 Improvements in nonuse (percent ages 12 

and older who report 

that they have never 

used illicit substances) 

FY 2007 

20% Prevention Set-Aside 2.3.52 Improvements in use 

(30-day use) 

FY 2007 

Access to Recovery 1.2.38 Increase the 

percentage of adults 

receiving services 

who had improved 

retention in treatment 

FY 2007 

Substance Abuse Prevention and 

Treatment Block Grant 

1.2.46 Increase the 

percentage of 

technical assistance 

events that result in 

systems, program, or 

practice change 

FY 2006 

Substance Abuse Prevention and 

Treatment Block Grant 

1.2.44 Increase the number 

of States and 

Territories voluntarily 

reporting performance 

measures in their 

SAPT Block Grant 

application 

FY 2007 

58 
Data Source and Validation Tables 

ID Data Source Data Validation 

SUICIDE PREVENTION 

2.3.57 National Vital 

Statistics Report, 

Centers for Disease 

Control and 

Prevention 

See Technical Notes in National Vital Statistics Reports 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_19.pdf : Data 

reporting for this survey has a 3 year lag time. The 2005 data 

is expected out in April 2008. 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. 

YOUTH VIOLENCE (SAFE SCHOOLS/HEALTHY STUDENTS ) 

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 Data on children’s 

outcomes were 

reported in the 

grantees’ ED524 BiAnnual Report 

submitted to their 

GPO every six 

months. The methods 

for collecting these 

measures varied by 

grantee, but were 

generally student selfreport 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 

3.2.06 Data on children’s Grantees implement various forms of data validation as part of 

59 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

outcomes were 

reported in the 

grantees’ ED524 BiAnnual Report 

submitted to their 

GPO every six 

months. The methods 

for collecting these 

measures varied by 

grantee, but were 

generally student selfreport for the violence 

and substance use 

measures and school 

records for attendance 

and mental health 

services. 

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 

3.2.07 Data on children’s 

outcomes were 

reported in the 

grantees’ ED524 BiAnnual Report 

submitted to their 

GPO every six 

months. The methods 

for collecting these 

measures varied by 

grantee, but were 

generally student selfreport 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 

3.2.08 Data on children’s 

outcomes were 

reported in the 

grantees’ ED524 BiAnnual Report 

submitted to their 

GPO every six 

months. The methods 

for collecting these 

measures varied by 

grantee, but were 

generally student selfreport 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 

3.2.09 Data on children’s Grantees implement various forms of data validation as part of 

60 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

outcomes were 

reported in the 

grantees’ ED524 BiAnnual Report 

submitted to their 

GPO every six 

months. The methods 

for collecting these 

measures varied by 

grantee, but were 

generally student selfreport for the violence 

and substance use 

measures and school 

records for attendance 

and mental health 

services. 

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 

3.2.10 Data on children’s 

outcomes were 

reported in the 

grantees’ ED524 BiAnnual Report 

submitted to their 

GPO every six 

months. The methods 

for collecting these 

measures varied by 

grantee, but were 

generally student selfreport 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 

3.2.21 Data on children’s 

outcomes were 

reported in the 

grantees’ ED524 BiAnnual Report 

submitted to their 

GPO every six 

months. The methods 

for collecting these 

measures varied by 

grantee, but were 

generally student selfreport 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 

3.2.22 Data on children’s Grantees implement various forms of data validation as part of 

61 
 

ID Data Source Data Validation 

outcomes were 

reported in the 

grantees’ ED524 BiAnnual Report 

submitted to their 

GPO every six 

months. The methods 

for collecting these 

measures varied by 

grantee, but were 

generally student selfreport for the violence 

and substance use 

measures and school 

records for attendance 

and mental health 

services. 

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 

TRAUMA-INFORMED SERVICES (NATIONAL CHILD TRAUMATIC STRESS INITIATIVE) 

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 followup data are collected 

through the Core Data 

Set (CDS), a secure 

web-based system, 

and three 

standardized 

behavioral/symptomol 

ogy 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 

 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. 

62 
 

 

 

ID Data Source Data Validation 

NCTSI National 

Cross-Site Evaluation. 

3.2.03 The Efficiency 

Measure is calculated 

by dividing the budget 

devoted to clinical 

services by the 

number of children 

and adolescents 

receiving traumainformed 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. 

MENTAL HEALTH PRNS CAPACITY—COMBINED PROGRAMS 

1.2.01 Uniform Reporting 

System 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

1.2.02 Uniform Reporting 

System 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

1.2.03 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. 

1.2.04 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. 

1.2.05 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. 

1.2.06 Uniform Reporting 

System 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

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 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp.Data validation for the Co-Morbidity 

Study is available at http://archpsych.amaassn.org/cgi/content/full/62/6/593 

63 
 

ID Data Source Data Validation 

Reporting System 

(http://www.mentalhea 

lth.samhsa.gov/cmhs/ 

MentalHealthStatistics 

) The denominator is 

derived from the 

National Co-morbidity 

Study Replication 

(http://archpsych.amaassn.org/cgi/content/f 

ull/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.mentalheal 

th.samhsa.gov/cmhs/ 

MentalHealthStatistics 

/) 

1.2.08 Uniform Reporting 

System 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

1.2.09 Uniform Reporting 

System 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

CO-OCCURRING SIGs 

1.2.17 Data are provided by 

grantees on GPRA 

data collection form 

Data are subject to project officer review 

1.2.18 Data are provided by 

grantees on GPRA 

data collection form 

Data are subject to project officer review 

1.2.19 Data are provided by 

grantees on GPRA 

data collection form 

Data are subject to project officer review 

1.2.20 Data are provided by 

grantees on GPRA 

data collection form 

Data are subject to project officer review 

1.2.21 Data are provided by 

grantees on GPRA 

data collection form 

Data are subject to project officer review 

COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR CHILDREN & THEIR 

FAMILIES 

3.2.11 Data on children’s 

outcomes are 

collected from a multisite outcome study. 

Data on clinical 

outcomes were 

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). 

64 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

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, 1991). 

). 

3.2.12 Data on children’s 

outcomes are 

collected from a multisite 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 selfreport 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 inpatientresidential 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) 

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). 

3.2.15 Former grantee 

communities are 

surveyed 5 years after 

Data are validated by evaluation contractor and subject to 

project officer review 

65 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

funding ends 

3.2.16 Grantee reports Data are validated by evaluation contractor and subject to 

project officer review 

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 

PROTECTION & ADVOCACY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS (PAIMI) 

3.4.08 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 nonlitigation, facility 

monitoring services, 

class litigation). 

The information provided in the annual reports is checked for 

reliability during on-site PAIMI Program visits, annual reviews, 

and budget application reviews 

3.4.09 Data are derived from 

standardized annual 

Program Performance 

Reports in which 

grantees estimate the 

potential number of 

The information provided in the annual reports is checked for 

reliability during on-site PAIMI Program visits, annual reviews, 

and budget application reviews 

66 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

individuals impacted 

through a pre-defined 

list of 7 possible 

interventions (e.g., 

group advocacy nonlitigation, facility 

monitoring services, 

class litigation). 

3.4.10 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 nonlitigation, facility 

monitoring services, 

class litigation). 

The information provided in the annual reports is checked for 

reliability during on-site PAIMI Program visits, annual reviews, 

and budget application reviews 

3.4.11 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 nonlitigation, facility 

monitoring services, 

class litigation). 

The information provided in the annual reports is checked for 

reliability during on-site PAIMI Program visits, annual reviews, 

and budget application reviews 

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 nonlitigation, facility 

monitoring services, 

class litigation). 

The information provided in the annual reports is checked for 

reliability during on-site PAIMI Program visits, annual reviews, 

and budget application reviews 

3.4.13 Data are derived from 

standardized annual 

Program Performance 

Reports in which 

The information provided in the annual reports is checked for 

reliability during on-site PAIMI Program visits, annual reviews, 

and budget application reviews 

67 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

grantees estimate the 

potential number of 

individuals impacted 

through a pre-defined 

list of 7 possible 

interventions (e.g., 

group advocacy nonlitigation, 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 

3.4.14 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 nonlitigation, 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 on-site PAIMI Program visits, annual reviews, 

and budget application reviews 

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., 

The information provided in the annual reports is checked for 

reliability during on-site PAIMI Program visits, annual reviews, 

and budget application reviews 

68 
 

 

ID Data Source Data Validation 

group advocacy nonlitigation, 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. 

PROJECTS FOR ASSISTANCE IN TRANSITION FROM HOMELESSNESS (PATH) 

3.4.15 Data are submitted 

annually to CMHS by 

States, which obtain 

the information from 

local human service 

agencies that provide 

services 

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 PATH-funded agencies. 

3.4.16 Data are submitted 

annually to CMHS by 

States, which obtain 

the information from 

local human service 

agencies that provide 

services 

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 PATH-funded agencies. 

3.4.17 Data are submitted 

annually to CMHS by 

States, which obtain 

the information from 

local human service 

agencies that provide 

services 

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 PATH-funded agencies. 

3.4.18 Data are submitted 

annually to CMHS by 

States, which obtain 

the information from 

local human service 

agencies that provide 

services 

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 PATH-funded agencies. 

3.4.20 Data are submitted 

annually to CMHS by 

States, which obtain 

the information from 

local human service 

agencies that provide 

services 

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 PATH-funded agencies. 

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT 

2.3.07 Uniform Reporting 

System. 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

69 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.08 Uniform Reporting 

System. 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

2.3.09 Uniform Reporting 

System. 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

2.3.10 Uniform Reporting 

System. 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

2.3.11 Uniform Reporting 

System. 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

2.3.12 Uniform Reporting 

System. 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

2.3.13 Uniform Reporting 

System. 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

2.3.14 Uniform Reporting 

System. 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

2.3.15 Uniform Reporting 

System. 

See 

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

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

2.3.16 Uniform Reporting 

System. 

See 

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

ics/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/MentalHealthStatist 

ics/about_urs2002.asp 

CSAP PRNS—Combined Capacity Programs 

2.3.18 A literature review and 

archival grantee files 

were used to establish 

the baselines. 

Subsequent targets 

were developed using 

information from 

Expectmore.gov in 

conjunction with 

review of PRNS 

trends over time and 

CSAP’s Data Center (DCC) used a number of outside experts 

in prevention and economics to review existing materials and 

develop the prevention cost bands. Cost data and numbers 

served data are submitted by grantees and are examined by 

the DACCC to verify, validate and refine the cost band ranges. 

FY 2005 and 2006 ranges have been updated using the CPI for 

FY 2006. Grantees have been provided with administrative 

guidance in how to report data for the cost-band measure. TA 

contractors have received training in data collection and 

reporting for this measure and are now providing TA upon 

request. 

70 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

expert opinion. 

STRATEGIC PREVENTION FRAMEWORK SIGs 

2.3.19 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 states to the SPF SIG CrossSite Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site Evaluation team 

works directly with grantees to insure that data are complete 

and accurate 

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 states to the SPF SIG CrossSite Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site Evaluation team 

works directly with grantees to insure that data are complete 

and accurate 

2.3.21 Baselines and annual 

targets for each state 

will be calculated 

using 2 years of 

pooled data from the 

National Survey on 

Drug Use and Health. 

Pooled NSDUH data 

from 2003/2004 and 

2004/2005 were used 

to calculate the 2007 

figures. 2006 state 

estimates were 

received too late to 

use in calculations. 

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 states to the SPF SIG 

Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site Evaluation 

team works directly with grantees to insure that data are 

complete and accurate. 

2.3.22 Baselines and annual 

targets for each state 

will be calculated 

using 2 years of 

pooled data from the 

National Survey on 

Drug Use and Health. 

Pooled NSDUH data 

from 2003/2004 and 

2004/2005 were used 

to calculate the 2007 

figures. 2006 state 

estimates were 

received too late to 

use in calculations. 

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 states to the SPF SIG 

Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site Evaluation 

team works directly with grantees to insure that data are 

complete and accurate. 

2.3.23 Baselines and annual 

targets for each state 

will be calculated 

using 2 years of 

pooled data from the 

National Survey on 

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 states to the SPF SIG 

Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site Evaluation 

team works directly with grantees to insure that data are 

71 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

Drug Use and Health. 

Pooled NSDUH data 

from 2003/2004 and 

2004/2005 were used 

to calculate the 2007 

figures. 2006 state 

estimates were 

received too late to 

use in calculations. 

complete and accurate. 

2.3.24 Baselines and annual 

targets for each state 

will be calculated 

using 2 years of 

pooled data from the 

National Survey on 

Drug Use and Health. 

Pooled NSDUH data 

from 2003/2004 and 

2004/2005 were used 

to calculate the 2007 

figures. 2006 state 

estimates were 

received too late to 

use in calculations. 

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 states to the SPF SIG 

Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site Evaluation 

team works directly with grantees to insure that data are 

complete and accurate. 

2.3.25 Baselines and annual 

targets for each state 

will be calculated 

using 2 years of 

pooled data from the 

National Survey on 

Drug Use and Health. 

Pooled NSDUH data 

from 2003/2004 and 

2004/2005 were used 

to calculate the 2007 

figures. 2006 state 

estimates were 

received too late to 

use in calculations. 

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 states to the SPF SIG 

Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site Evaluation 

team works directly with grantees to insure that data are 

complete and accurate. 

2.3.26 Baselines and annual 

targets for each state 

will be calculated 

using 2 years of 

pooled data from the 

National Survey on 

Drug Use and Health. 

Pooled NSDUH data 

from 2003/2004 and 

2004/2005 were used 

to calculate the 2007 

figures. 2006 state 

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 states to the SPF SIG 

Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site Evaluation 

team works directly with grantees to insure that data are 

complete and accurate. 

72 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

estimates were 

received too late to 

use in calculations. 

2.3.27 Baselines and annual 

targets for each state 

will be calculated 

using 2 years of 

pooled data from the 

National Survey on 

Drug Use and Health. 

Pooled NSDUH data 

from 2003/2004 and 

2004/2005 were used 

to calculate the 2007 

figures. 2006 state 

estimates were 

received too late to 

use in calculations. 

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 states to the SPF SIG 

Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site Evaluation 

team works directly with grantees to insure that data are 

complete and accurate. 

2.3.28 Output measures are 

obtained from grantee 

administrative reports 

Data related to state activities are submitted by states to the 

SPF SIG Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site 

Evaluation team works directly with grantees 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. 

2.3.29 Output measures are 

obtained from grantee 

administrative reports 

Data related to state activities are submitted by states to the 

SPF SIG Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site 

Evaluation team works directly with grantees 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. 

2.3.30 Output measures are 

obtained from grantee 

administrative reports 

Data related to state activities are submitted by states to the 

SPF SIG Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site 

Evaluation team works directly with grantees 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. 

2.3.31 Output measures are 

obtained from grantee 

administrative reports 

Data related to state activities are submitted by states to the 

SPF SIG Cross-Site Evaluation contractor. The Cross-site 

Evaluation team works directly with grantees 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. 

MINORITY AIDS INITIATIVE 

2.3.34 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased data collection 

and reporting 

mechanism has been 

Data are carefully collected, cleaned, analyzed, and reported 

by CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

73 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

implemented and all transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

grantees have the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

received training in Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

using the system. The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.35 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased 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 CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.36 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased 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 CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.38 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased 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 CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.39 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased 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 CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.40 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased 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 CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

74 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.41 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased 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 CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.42 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased 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 CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.43 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased 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 CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.44 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased 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 CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.45 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased 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 CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.46 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased data collection 

Data are carefully collected, cleaned, analyzed, and reported 

by CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

75 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

and reporting Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

mechanism has been accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

implemented and all transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

grantees have the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

received training in Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

using the system. The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.47 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased 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 CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.48 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased 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 CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

2.3.56 Data will be provided 

by grantees. A webbased 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 CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center. After data are entered, the DCCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems identified is 

transmitted to the Government Project officer who works with 

the Program project Officers to identify a resolution. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits to the files. 

The edited files are then available to CSAP staff and the DCCC 

Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. 

CENTERS FOR THE APPLICATION OF PREVENTION TECHNOLOGIES 

2.3.32 CAPT Annual 

Reports. The reports 

reflect data from the 

national CAPT data 

collection system. 

Each CAPT follows a quality control protocol prior to collecting 

and submitting data, and CSAP has established an external 

quality control system through a support contractor overseen 

by CSAP staff. 

2.3.33 CAPT Annual 

Reports. The reports 

reflect data from the 

national CAPT data 

collection system. 

Each CAPT follows a quality control protocol prior to collecting 

and submitting data, and CSAP has established an external 

quality control system through a support contractor overseen 

by CSAP staff. 

SYNAR AMENDMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES 

2.3.49 The data source is the 

Synar report, part of 

the SAPT Block Grant 

application submitted 

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 

76 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

annually by each 

State. 

other similar steps. CSAP 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. 

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. CSAP 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. 

20% PREVENTION SET-ASIDE 

2.3.50 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 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 DCCC Data Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DCCC 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 DCCC 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.. 

2.3.51 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 CSAT and CSAP project officers for accuracy and 

compliance. Discussions between project officers and states 

77 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

are scheduled to clarify ambiguities or inconsistencies in data 

which are resolved prior to approval. 

The DCCC Data Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DCCC 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 DCCC 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.. 

2.3.52 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 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 DCCC Data Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DCCC 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 DCCC 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.. 

2.3.53 Reported by States in 

the Block Grant 

Applications 

Data, as well as the entire SAPT application, are reviewed 

jointly by 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 DCCC Data Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DCCC 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. 

78 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

The Data Management team then makes any required edits to 

the files. The edited files are then available to the DCCC 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.. 

2.3.54 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 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 DCCC Data Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DCCC 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 DCCC 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.. 

2.3.55 Reported by States in 

the Block Grant 

Applications. 

Data, as well as the entire SAPT application, are reviewed 

jointly by 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 DCCC Data Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DCCC 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 DCCC 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 Outcome data are 

from the National 

Survey on Drug Use 

Information on methodology and data verification for the 

NSDUH is available at 

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/methods.cfm. 

79 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

and Health. 

Data, as well as the entire SAPT application, are reviewed 

jointly by 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 DCCC Data Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DCCC 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 DCCC 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.. 

2.3.64 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 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 DCCC Data Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DCCC 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 DCCC 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.. 

2.3.65 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 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. 

80 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

The DCCC Data Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DCCC 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 DCCC 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.. 

2.3.66 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 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 DCCC Data Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DCCC 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 DCCC 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.. 

2.3.67 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 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 DCCC Data Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DCCC Government Project 

Officer who works with the Program Project Officers and 

grantees to identify a resolution. Communications are 

81 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

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 DCCC 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.. 

2.3.68 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 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 DCCC Data Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DCCC 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 DCCC 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.. 

ACCESS TO RECOVERY 

1.2.32 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. 

1.2.33 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. 

1.2.34 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. 

1.2.35 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. 

82 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.36 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. 

1.2.37 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. 

1.2.38 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. 

1.2.39 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. 

SCREENING, BRIEF INTERVENTION, REFERRAL & TREATMENT 

1.2.40 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. 

1.2.41 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. 

CSAT CAPACITY—Combined programs 

1.2.25 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. 

1.2.26 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. 

1.2.27 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. 

1.2.28 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. 

1.2.29 Services All data are automatically checked as they are input to SAIS. 

83 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

Accountability 

Improvement System 

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. 

1.2.30 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. 

1.2.31 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. 

Treatment Drug Courts 

1.2.56 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. 

1.2.57 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. 

1.2.58 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. 

1.2.59 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. 

1.2.60 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. 

1.2.61 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. 

CSAT SCIENCE AND SERVICE PROGRAMS 

1.4.01 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. 

1.4.02 Services 

Accountability 

All data are automatically checked as they are input to SAIS. 

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they 

84 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

Improvement System 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. 

1.4.03 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. 

1.4.04 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. 

1.4.05 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. 

SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION & TREATMENT BLOCK GRANT 

1.2.42 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. 

1.2.43 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. 

1.2.44 Data are collected 

through standard 

instruments and 

submitted through the 

Treatment Episode 

Set. TA data are 

collected through an 

annual customer 

satisfaction survey 

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 

85 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

with the 

States/territories on 

the Block Grant 

activities 

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 

1.2.46 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 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. 

1.2.48 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 

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. 

86 
ID Data Source Data Validation 

the Block Grant 

activities. 

1.2.49 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. 

1.2.50 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. 

1.2.51 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. 

BLOCK GRANT SET-ASIDE NATIONAL SURVEYS 

4.4.01 Publication date of 

NSDUH report 

Project officer review 

4.4.02 Publication date of 

DAWN report 

Project officer review 

4.4.03 Publication date of 

DASIS report 

Project officer review 

87 
 

Target vs. Actual Performance 

Performance Measures with Slight Differences 

“The performance target for the following measures 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.” 

Program Measure 

Unique Identifier 

Youth Violence (Safe Schools/Healthy Students) 3.2.04 

Youth Violence (Safe Schools/Healthy Students 3.2.09 

PRNS Combined Capacity * 1.2.01 

PRNS Combined Capacity * 1.2.02 

PRNS Combined Capacity * 1.2.06 

PRNS Combined Capacity * 1.2.08 

PRNS Combined Capacity * 1.2.09 

Children’s Mental Health Initiative 3.2.12 

Children’s Mental Health Initiative 3.2.13 

Children’s Mental Health Initiative 3.2.14 

Children’s Mental Health Initiative 3.2.17 

Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness* 3.4.09 

Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness* 3.4.18 

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant* 2.3.07 

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant* 2.3.08 

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant* 2.3.09 

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant* 2.3.10 

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant* 2.3.11 

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant* 2.3.13 

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant* 2.3.14 

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant* 2.3.15 

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant* 2.3.16 

20% Prevention Set-Aside 2.3.50 

20% Prevention Set-Aside 2.3.51 

Access to Recovery 1.2.33 

Access to Recovery 1.2.34 

Access to Recovery 1.2.35 

Access to Recovery 1.2.38 

Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral, and Treatment 1.2.41 

Treatment—All Other Capacity 1.2.25 

Treatment—All Other Capacity 1.2.26 

Treatment—All Other Capacity 1.2.27 

Treatment—All Other Capacity 1.2.28 

Treatment—All Other Capacity 1.2.30 

Treatment—All Other Capacity 1.2.31 

Treatment Science and Service 1.4.01 

Treatment Science and Service 1.4.03 

Treatment Science and Service 1.4.04 

Treatment Science and Service 1.4.05 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant* 1.2.46 

National Surveys 4.4.02 

*FY 2006 data 

88