Cataloguing Federal Programs for Serious Mental Illness and Serious 

Emotional Disturbance

ISMICC federal officials are conducting a government-wide inventory of programs, services, 

surveillance efforts, and research related to serious mental illness (SMI) and to serious emotional 

disturbance (SED). This is a broad undertaking to catalogue more than 160 federal programs across 

eight federal departments. 

A significant catalyst to the congressional authorization of the Interdepartmental Serious Mental 

Illness Coordinating 

Committee was the 

conclusion of a 2014 

Government Accounting 

Office (GAO) report on 

federal coordination of 

programs that address 

SMI in their purviews. 

GAO found 112 programs 

across those eight 

departments totaling about 

$5.7 billion in programs 

devoted to serving people who have SMI. In that report, GAO recommended that HHS establish a 

mechanism to facilitate intra- and interagency coordination, including actions that would assist with 

identifying the programs, resources, and potential gaps in federal efforts to support people who have 

SMI.

In September 2017, ISMICC compiled a list of 168 federal programs based on the input from 

ISMICC federal designees, on information from the 2014 GAO Report, and on a review of federal 

agency websites. Table 3.1 of the 2017 ISMICC Report to Congress

(https://www.samhsa.gov/ismicc) created an index of federal programs and led to the design of the 

inventory that we are undertaking.

As the ISMICC Report to Congress underscored, 

all federal sources account for nearly half of all 

spending on mental and substance use disorders.

ISMICC members recognized the needs to 

increase understanding of the scale and scope of 

existing federal department programs and to 

inform interdepartmental coordination. Such a 

detailed inventory will equip the ISMICC 

implementation workgroups to better coordinate 

efforts and to better enable ISMICC to conduct 

the mandated evaluation of the federal effort by the end of the advisory council’s five-year tenure.

Most important, a detailed inventory will help clarify strengths and gaps across services for people 

who have SMI or SED, with the aim of improving services for those with greatest need.

Recommendation 1.3 – Create a 

comprehensive inventory of federal 

activities that affect the provision of 

services for people with SMI and SED. –

ISMICC 2017 Report to Congress 
This spring, ISMICC’s Data Implementation 

Workgroup (IW1) designed a set of spreadsheets

to collect information for the inventory. The 

design had to account for differences in each

department’s mission, population of focus, 

authorization and appropriation, and the 

performance metrics. To do so, we organized 

spreadsheets according to four program types: 

1. Service Delivery or Payment: What are the 

federal supports for SMI and SED around 

housing, income assistance, primary health care, behavioral health care including mental and 

substance abuse treatment, reducing justice involvement, case management, employment, and 

education? Examples include Veterans Health Administration (VHA), DoD health care facilities, 

Indian Health Service, TRICARE, Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program 

(CHIP), Social Security disability programs, and Housing Assistance programs.

2. Program Grants: How does the federal government support service delivery and accelerate the 

implementation of effective practices? Examples include time-limited grant programs to fund 

development of promising models at the state, tribal, and local levels; longer-term, formula-funded 

programs; and grants to provide technical assistance and support.

3. Data Collection: What federal data are collected on incidence, prevalence, and distribution of 

behavioral health disorders within departments? What federal data are available on access, quality, 

and affordability of behavioral health care? Examples include surveys and other surveillance 

programs that provide information on the incidence, prevalence, and distribution of disorders; and 

quality measurement and reporting.

4. Research and Evaluation: How does the federal government 

measure the impact of its programs on people who have SMI and

SED; on their families; and on communities? Examples include 

basic and applied research that help us better understand the 

course of a disorder and the means to prevent, cure, or lessen its 

impact; demonstrations and evaluations of prevention, treatment, 

and support models that can improve the lives of people who 

have SMI and SED.

The ISMICC reviewed the plan at their June 6, 2018 meeting and 

staff finalized the design over the remainder of the summer. Juan 

Martinez, MD, (interning in public health at SAMHSA) took the

initial step to populate the cells of the inventory with as much 

information as he could find – using a combination of 

information from the first ISMICC report to Congress, from the 

GAO report, and from ISMICC member-departments’ public-facing websites. A department-specific

spreadsheet was then sent to each of the ISMICC designees for them to review, to correct and to edit 

the spreadsheet by the beginning of December. We are hoping to receive the completed spreadsheets 

by the middle of November and to report findings as they are available.

It will be critical to identify gaps that 

occur either through the absence of 

essential policies or programs, or 

through programs that fail to reach 

all of those in need.

– ISMICC 2017 Report to Congress