DEPARTMENT 

 of HEALTH 

and HUMAN 

SERVICES 

Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration 

FY 2010 Online Performance 

Appendix 
i

Introduction 

The FY 2010 Online Performance Appendix is one of several documents that fulfill the 

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

requirements. HHS achieves full compliance with the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993 and Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-11 and A-136 

through the HHS agencies’ FY 2010 Congressional Justifications and Online 

Performance Appendices, the Agency Financial Report, and the HHS Citizens’ Report. 

These documents are available at http://www.hhs.gov/asrt/ob/docbudget/index.html. 

The FY 2010 Congressional Justifications and accompanying Online Performance 

Appendices contain the updated FY 2008 Annual Performance Report and FY 2010 

Annual Performance Plan. The Agency Financial Report provides fiscal and high-level 

performance results. The HHS Citizens’ Report summarizes key past and planned 

performance and financial information.
Message from the Administrator 

I am pleased to present the FY 2010 Online Performance Appendix for the Substance 

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

the monitoring and management of SAMHSA programs in the area of substance abuse 

prevention, substance abuse treatment, and mental health services programs. 

SAMHSA has established a clear vision for its work -- a life in the community for 

everyone. To realize this vision, the Agency has sharply focused its mission on building 

resilience and facilitating recovery for people with or at risk for mental or substance use 

disorders. SAMHSA is gearing all of its resources -- programs, policies and grants -- 

toward that outcome. Through the use of performance data, SAMHSA can monitor 

these programs, policies and grants and ensure a life in the community for everyone. 

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

in the FY 2010 Online Performance Appendix is accurate, complete, and reliable. 

//s// 

Eric B. Broderick, D.D.S., M.P.H. 

Acting Administrator 

Assistant Surgeon General 

ii
***This Page Intentionally Left Blank*** 

 iii
Table of Contents 

Introduction ............................................................................................................i 

Message from the Administrator ........................................................................... ii 

Table of Contents................................................................................................. iv 

List of Tables ....................................................................................................... vi 

Summary of Performance Targets and Results ....................................................1 

Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) ..........................................................2 

Mental Health Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRNS)..........3 

Suicide Prevention.........................................................................................3 

Youth Violence (Safe Schools/Healthy Students – SS/HS) ...........................6 

Trauma-Informed Services (National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative – 

NCTSI).........................................................................................................11 

Co-Occurring State Incentive Grants (COSIG) ............................................16 

Remaining Capacity Programs ....................................................................18 

Mental Health Programs of Regional and National Significance – Science 

and Service Activities...................................................................................22 

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their 

Families (Children’s Mental Health Initiative – CMHI) .....................................25 

Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) ..............32 

Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH)..................37 

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant (MHBG)...............................41 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)................................................48 

Prevention Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) – 

Capacity ..........................................................................................................49 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants (SPF SIG)............49 

Minority AIDS Initiative: Substance Abuse Prevention, HIV Prevention and 

Hepatitis Prevention for Minorities and Minorities Re-entering Communities 

Post-Incarceration (HIV) (Cohort 6) .............................................................55 

Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking (STOP Act).........................62 

Prevention Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) – 

Science and Service ....................................................................................64 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant – 20% Prevention 

Set-Aside.........................................................................................................67 

Synar Amendment Implementation Activities...............................................67 

Other Set-Aside Activities ............................................................................69 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT).................................................75 

iv
v

Treatment Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) - Capacity

........................................................................................................................75 

Access to Recovery (ATR) ..........................................................................75 

Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral and Treatment (SBIRT)...................79 

Criminal Justice - Substance Abuse Drug Courts........................................80 

Criminal Justice – Ex-Offender Re-Entry Program ......................................86 

All Other Capacity........................................................................................87 

Treatment Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) – 

Science and Service ....................................................................................90 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (SAPTBG) – 

Treatment Activities.........................................................................................93 

Office of Applied Studies (OAS)..........................................................................98 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (SAPTBG) - National 

Surveys ...........................................................................................................99 

Agency Support for the Strategic Plan..............................................................101 

Summary of Full Cost .......................................................................................103 

Summary of Findings and Recommendations from Completed Program 

Evaluations .......................................................................................................105 

Discontinued Performance Measures ...............................................................110 

New Performance Measures ............................................................................111 

Disclosure of Assistance by Non-Federal Parties .............................................112 
List of Tables 

Table 1: Summary of Targets and Results for SAMHSA ......................................1

Performance Tables for the Center for Mental Health Services

Table 2: Measure 2.3.57: Reduce the number of suicide deaths..........................3

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

health and suicide awareness campaigns on college campuses.....................3

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

suicide prevention: cumulative.........................................................................3

Table 5: Measure 2.3.60: Increase the total number of youth screened: 

cumulative .......................................................................................................4

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

hotline..............................................................................................................4

Table 7: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Suicide Prevention Programs ..........................................................................5

Table 8: Measure 3.2.04: Increase the number of children served .......................6

Table 9: Measure 3.2.05: Improve student outcomes and systems outcomes: 

a) Decrease the percentage of middle school students who have been in a 

physical fight on school property .....................................................................7

Table 10: Measure 3.2.06: Improve student outcomes and systems outcomes: 

a) Decrease the percentage of high school students who have been in a 

physical fight on school property ....................................................................7

Table 11: Measure 3.2.07: Improve student outcomes and systems outcomes: 

b) Decrease the percentage of middle school students who report current 

substance use .................................................................................................7

Table 12: Measure 3.2.08: Improve student outcomes and systems outcomes: 

b) Decrease the percentage of high school students who report current 

substance use .................................................................................................8

Table 13: Measure 3.2.09: Improve student outcomes and systems outcomes: 

c) Increase the percentage of student's attending school................................8

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

mental health services.....................................................................................8

Table 15: Measure 3.2.21: Percentage of grantees that provided screening 

and/or assessments that is coordinated among two or more agencies or 

shared across agencies...................................................................................9

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

personnel on mental health topics...................................................................9

Table 17: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Safe Schools/Healthy Students Program ......................................................10

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

adolescents receiving trauma-informed services...........................................11

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

clinically significant improvement) .................................................................11

vi
Table 20: Measure 3.2.03: Dollars spent per person served ..............................12

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

children and adolescents receiving trauma-informed services ......................12

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

trained in providing trauma-informed services...............................................12

Table 23: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Trauma-Informed Services Program .............................................................13

Table 24: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Trauma-Informed Services Program (continued)...........................................14

Table 25: Measure 1.2.17: Increase the number of persons with co-occurring 

disorders served ...........................................................................................16

Table 26: Measure 1.2.18: Increase the percentage of treatment programs that 

a) Screen for co-occurring disorders .............................................................16

Table 27: Measure 1.2.19: b) Assess for co-occurring disorders........................16

Table 28: Measure 1.2.20: c) Treat co-occurring disorders through collaborative, 

consultative, and integrated models of care ..................................................16

Table 29: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Co-Occurring State Incentive Grant Program................................................17

Table 30: Measure 1.2.03: Rate of consumers reporting positively about 

perception of care (program participants)......................................................18

Table 31: Measure 1.2.05: Increase the percentage of clients receiving services 

who report improved functioning....................................................................18

Table 32: Measure 1.2.07: Percentage of people in the United States with 

serious mental illnesses in need of services from the public mental health 

system, who receive services from the public mental health system ............18

Table 33: Measure 1.2.06: Number of a) evidence based practices (EBPs) 

implemented..................................................................................................19

Table 34: 1.2.08: b) Adults: percentage of population coverage for each (reported 

as percentage of service population receiving any evidence based practice) 

......................................................................................................................19

Table 35: Measure 1.2.09: c) Children: percentage of population coverage for 

each (reported as percentage of service population receiving any evidence 

based practice)..............................................................................................19

Table 36: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Remaining Capacity Programs......................................................................20

Table 37: Measure 1.4.06: Number of people trained by CMHS Science and 

Service Programs ..........................................................................................22

Table 38: Measure 1.4.07: Percentage of those trained by the program who 

report they were very satisfied with training...................................................22

Table 39: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Science and Service......................................................................................23

Table 40: Measure 3.2.11: Increase the percent of funded sites that will exceed a 

30 percent improvement in behavioral and emotional symptoms among 

children receiving services for 6 months........................................................25

vii
Table 41: Measure 3.2.12: Improve children's outcomes and systems outcomes: 

a) Increase percentage of children attending school 80% or more of time after 

12 months......................................................................................................25

Table 42: Measure 3.2.13: Improve children's outcomes and systems outcomes: 

b) Increase percentage with no law enforcement contacts at 6 months .......25

Table 43: Measure 3.2.14: Decrease average days of inpatient facilities among 

children served in systems of care at 6 months.............................................26

Table 44: Measure 3.2.15: Percent of systems of care that are sustained 5 years 

post Federal Funding.....................................................................................26

Table 45: Measure 3.2.16: Increase number of children receiving services ......26

Table 46: Measure 3.2.17: Increase total savings for in-hospital patient care 

costs per 1,000 children served ....................................................................27

Table 47: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their 

families ..........................................................................................................27

Table 48: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their 

families (continued) .......................................................................................28

Table 49: Measure 3.4.08: Increase percentage of complaints of alleged abuse 

not withdrawn by the client that resulted in positive change for the client in 

her/his environment, community, or facility, as result of PAIMI involvement 32

Table 50: Measure 3.4.09: Increase percentage of complaints of alleged neglect 

substantiated not withdrawn by the client that resulted in positive change for 

the client in her/his environment, community, or facility, as a result of PAIMI 

involvement ...................................................................................................32

Table 51: Measure 3.4.10: Increase percentage of complaints of alleged rights 

violations substantiated and not withdrawn by the client that resulted in 

positive change through the restoration of client rights, expansion or 

maintenance of personal decision-making ....................................................33

Table 52: Measure 3.4.11: Percent of interventions on behalf of groups of PAIMIeligible individuals that were concluded successfully ....................................33

Table 53: Measure 3.4.12: Increase in the number of people served by the PAIMI 

program .........................................................................................................33

Table 54: Measure 3.4.13: Ratio of persons served/impacted per 

activity/intervention .......................................................................................34

Table 55: Measure 3.4.14: Cost per 1,000 individuals served/impacted ............34

Table 56: Measure 3.4.19: The number attending public education/constituency 

training and public awareness activities ........................................................34

Table 57: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Program...........35

Table 58: Measure 3.4.15: Increase the percentage of enrolled homeless 

persons who receive community mental health services...............................37

Table 59: Measure 3.4.16: Increase number of homeless persons contacted ...37

Table 60: Measure 3.4.17: Increase percentage of contacted homeless persons 

with serious mental illness who become enrolled in services ........................38

viii
Table 61: Measure 3.4.18: Average Federal cost of enrolling a homeless person 

with serious mental illness in services ...........................................................38

Table 62: Measure 3.4.20: Provide training for PATH providers on SSI/SSDI 

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

receiving benefits...........................................................................................39

Table 63: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness .............................39

Table 64: Measure 2.3.07: Reduce rate of adult readmissions to State psychiatric 

hospitals within 30 days; and within 180 days: 1) Adults: a) 30 days ...........41

Table 65: Measure 2.3.08: 1) Adults: b) 180 days ..............................................41

Table 66: Measure 2.3.09: 2) Children/adolescents: a) 30 days.........................42

Table 67: Measure 2.3.10: 2) Children/adolescents: b) 180 days.......................42

Table 68: Measure 2.3.11: Number of a) evidence based practices (EBPs) 

implemented..................................................................................................42

Table 69: Measure 2.3.12: b) Adults-percentage of population coverage for each 

(reported as percentage of service population receiving any evidence based 

practice).........................................................................................................43

Table 70: Measure 2.3.13: c) Children-percentage of population coverage for 

each (reported as percentage of service population receiving any evidencebased practice)..............................................................................................43

Table 71: 2.3.15: Increase rate of consumers/family members reporting positively 

about outcomes (a) Adults.............................................................................43

Table 72: Measure 2.3.16: Increase rate of consumers/family members reporting 

positively about outcomes (b) Children/adolescents......................................44

Table 73: Measure 2.3.17: Number of persons receiving evidence-based 

practices per $10,000 of mental health block grant dollars spent..................44

Table 74: Measure 2.3.14: Increase number of people served by the public 

mental health system.....................................................................................44

Table 75: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant Program ............................45

Performance Tables for the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention

Table 76: Measure 2.3.19: 30-day use of alcohol among youth age 12-17 .......49

Table 77: Measure 2.3.20: 30-day use of other illicit drugs age 12 and up ........49

Table 78: Measure 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..................................................................................49

Table 79: Measure 2.3.22: Percent of SPF SIG States showing a decrease in 

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

of alcohol b) age 21 and up ...........................................................................50

Table 80: Measure 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 ................................................................................50

Table 81: Measure 2.3.24: Percent of SPF SIG states showing a decrease in 

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

illicit drugs b) age 18 and up..........................................................................50

ix
Table 82: Measure 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 ....................................................51

Table 83: Measure 2.3.26: 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 b) age 18 and up...............................................51

Table 84: Measure 2.3.27: Percent of SPF SIG states showing an increase in 

state level estimates of survey respondents (age 12-17) who somewhat 

disapprove or strongly disapprove of substance use.....................................51

Table 85: Measure 2.3.28: Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and 

strategies implemented: cumulative ..............................................................51

Table 86: Measure 2.3.29: Percent of grantee states that have performed needs 

assessments..................................................................................................52

Table 87: Measure 2.3.30: Percent of grantee States that have submitted State 

plans..............................................................................................................52

Table 88: Measure 2.3.31: Percent of grantee States with approved plans........52

Table 89: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant Program ..................53

Table 90: Measure 2.3.35: Percent of program participants that rate the risk of 

substance abuse as moderate or great a) age 12-17....................................55

Table 91: Measure 2.3.38: Percent of program participants that rate the risk of 

substance abuse as moderate or great b) age 18 and up .............................55

Table 92: Measure 2.3.39: Percent of participants who used alcohol at pre-test 

who report a decrease in use of alcohol at post-test (user decrease): a) age 

12-20 .............................................................................................................55

Table 93: Measure 2.3.40: Percent of participants who used alcohol at pre-test 

who report a decrease in use of alcohol at post-test (user decrease): b) age 

21 and up ......................................................................................................56

Table 94: Measure 2.3.41: Percent of participants who report no alcohol use at 

pre-test who remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability): a) age 12-20 

......................................................................................................................56

Table 95: Measure 2.3.42: Percent of participants who report no alcohol use at 

pre-test who remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability): b) age 21 and 

up ..................................................................................................................56

Table 96: Measure 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 .............................................................................................................56

Table 97: Measure 2.3.44: Percent of participants who used illicit drugs at pretest who report a decrease in 30-day use at post-test (user decrease): b) age 

18 and up ......................................................................................................57

Table 98: Measure 2.3.45: Percent of participants who report no illicit drug use at 

pre-test who remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability): a) age 12-17 

......................................................................................................................57

Table 99: Measure 2.3.46: Percent of participants who report no illicit drug use at 

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

up ..................................................................................................................57

x
Table 100: Measure 2.3.47: Percent of program participants (age 12-17) who 

somewhat disapprove or strongly disapprove of substance use....................57

Table 101: Measure 2.3.48: Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and 

strategies implemented by HIV program grantees: cumulative......................58

Table 102: Measure 2.3.56: Number of individuals exposed to substance 

abuse/hepatitis education services................................................................58

Table 103: Measure 2.3.70: Cost per participant improved on one or more 

measures between pre-test and post-test .....................................................58

Table 104: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s 

Programs of Regional and National Significance: Other Capacity Activities: 

Minority AIDS Initiative ..................................................................................59

Table 105: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s 

Programs of Regional and National Significance: Other Capacity Activities: 

Minority AIDS Initiative (continued)................................................................60

Table 106: Measure 3.3.01: Percentage of coalitions that report at least 5% 

improvement in the past 30-day use of alcohol in at least two grades ..........62

Table 107: Measure 3.3.02: Percentage of coalitions that report improvement in 

youth perception of risk from alcohol in at least two grades ..........................62

Table 108: Measure 3.3.03: Percentage of coalitions that report improvement in 

youth perception of parental disapproval on the use of alcohol in at least two 

grades ...........................................................................................................62

Table 109: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from STOP 

Act .................................................................................................................63

Table 110: Measure 2.3.71: Number of people provided technical assistance 

(TA) Services.................................................................................................64

Table 111: Measure 2.3.72: Percentage of TA recipients who reported that they 

are very satisfied with the TA received ..........................................................64

Table 112: Measure 2.3.73: Percentage of TA recipients who reported that their 

ability to provide effective services improved a great deal.............................64

Table 113: Measure 2.3.74: Percentage of TA recipients who reported that the 

TA recommendations have been fully implemented......................................64

Table 114: Measure 2.3.75: Number of persons receiving prevention information 

directly ..........................................................................................................65

Table 115: Measure 2.3.76: Number of persons receiving prevention information 

indirectly from advertising, broadcast, or website..........................................65

Table 116: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s 

Programs of Regional and National Significance: Science and Service 

Activities ........................................................................................................66

Table 117: Measure 2.3.49: Increase number of States (including Puerto Rico) 

whose retail sales violations is at or below 20%............................................67

Table 118: Measure 2.3.62: Number of States (excluding Puerto Rico) reporting 

retail tobacco sales violation rates below 10% ..............................................67

Table 119: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s 

SAPTBG: Synar Amendment Implementation Activities................................68

Table 120: Measure 2.3.53: Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and 

strategies implemented, cumulative ..............................................................69

xi
Table 121: Measure 2.3.69: Percent of program costs spent on evidence-based 

practices (EBP) .............................................................................................70

Table 122: Measure 2.3.54: Number of participants served in prevention 

programs .......................................................................................................70

Table 123: Measure 2.3.63: Percent of states showing an increase in state level 

estimates of survey respondents who rate the risk of substance abuse as 

moderate or great (age 12-17) ......................................................................70

Table 124: Measure 2.3.64: Percent of states showing an increase in state level 

estimates of survey respondents who rate the risk of substance abuse as 

moderate or great (age 18+)..........................................................................70

Table 125: Measure 2.3.65: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level 

estimates of percent of survey respondents who report 30 day use of alcohol 

(age 12-20)....................................................................................................71

Table 126: Measure 2.3.66: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level 

estimates of percent of survey respondents who report 30 day use of alcohol 

(age 21+) ......................................................................................................71

Table 127: Measure 2.3.67: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level 

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

illicit drugs (age 12-17) ..................................................................................71

Table 128: Measure 2.3.68: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level 

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

illicit drugs (age 18+) ....................................................................................71

Table 129: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s 

SAPTBG 20% Set-aside Activities.................................................................72

Table 130: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s 

SAPTBG 20% Set-aside Activities (continued)..............................................73

Performance Tables for the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment

Table 131: Measure 1.2.32: Increase the number of clients gaining access to 

treatment .......................................................................................................75

Table 132: Measure 1.2.33: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services 

who a) had no past month substance use .....................................................75

Table 133: Measure 1.2.34: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services 

who b) had improved family and living conditions..........................................76

Table 134: Measure 1.2.35: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services 

who c) had no/reduced involvement with the criminal justice system ...........76

Table 135: Measure 1.2.36: Increase the percentage of adult receiving services 

who d) had improved social support..............................................................76

Table 136: Measure 1.2.37: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services 

who are) were currently employed or engaged in productive activities .........77

Table 137: Measure 1.2.39: Cost per client served.............................................77

Table 138: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s 

Access to Recovery Program ........................................................................77

Table 139: Measure 1.2.40: Increase the number of clients served....................79

Table 140: Measure 1.2.41: Increase the percentage of clients receiving services 

who had no past month substance use .........................................................79

xii
Table 141: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s 

Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral and Treatment Program....................79

Table 142: Measure 1.2.62: Juvenile Drug Courts: Percentage of clients that 

complete treatment........................................................................................80

Table 143: Measure 1.2.63: Juvenile Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: a) Were currently employed or engaged in productive 

activities.........................................................................................................80

Table 144: Measure 1.2.64: Juvenile Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: b) Had a permanent place to live in the community 80

Table 145: Measure 1.2.65: Juvenile Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: c) Had no involvement with the criminal justice 

system ...........................................................................................................81

Table 146: Measure 1.2.66: Juvenile Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: d) Experienced no/reduced alcohol or illegal drug 

related health, behavioral or social consequences........................................81

Table 147: Measure 1.2.67: Juvenile Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: e) Had no past month substance use ......................81

Table 148: Measure 1.2.68: Juvenile Drug Courts: Percent of drug court 

participants who exhibit a reduction in substance use while in the drug court 

program. Measured in conjunction with DOJ.................................................81

Table 149: Measure 1.2.69: Juvenile Drug Courts: Reduce cost-per-client served 

......................................................................................................................82

Table 150: Measure 1.2.70: Juvenile Drug Courts: Increase number of clients 

served ...........................................................................................................82

Table 151: Measure 1.2.71: Adult Drug Courts: Percentage of clients that 

complete treatment........................................................................................82

Table 152: Measure 1.2.72: Adult Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: a) Were currently employed or engaged in productive 

activities.........................................................................................................82

Table 153: Measure 1.2.73: Adult Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who b) Had a permanent place to live in the community .83

Table 154: Measure 1.2.74: Adult Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: c) Had no involvement with the criminal justice 

system ...........................................................................................................83

Table 155: Measure 1.2.75: Adult Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: d) Experienced no/reduced alcohol or illegal drug 

related health, behavioral or social, consequences.......................................83

Table 156: Measure 1.2.76: Adult Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: e) Had no past month substance use ......................83

Table 157: Measure 1.2.77: Adult Drug Courts: Percent of drug court participants 

who exhibit a reduction in substance use while in the drug court program. 

Measured in conjunction with DOJ ................................................................84

Table 158: Measure 1.2.78: Adult Drug Courts: Reduce cost-per-client served 84

Table 159: Measure 1.2.79: Adult Drug Courts: Increase number of clients 

served............................................................................................................84

xiii
Table 160: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s 

Substance Abuse Treatment Drug Courts Program ......................................84

Table 161: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s 

Substance Abuse Treatment Drug Courts Program (continued) ...................85

Table 162: Measure 1.2.80: Number of clients served........................................86

Table 163: Measure 1.2.81: Percentage of clients who had no past month 

substance use ...............................................................................................86

Table 164: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s 

Ex-Offender Re-Entry Program .....................................................................86

Table 165: Measure 1.2.25: Increase percentage of adults receiving services 

who: Had no past month substance use........................................................87

Table 166: Measure 1.2.26: Increase the number of clients served....................87

Table 167: Measure 1.2.27: Increase percentage of adults receiving services 

who: a) Were currently employed or engaged in productive activities ..........88

Table 168: Measure 1.2.28: Increase percentage of adults receiving services 

who: b) Had a permanent place to live in the community ..............................88

Table 169: Measure 1.2.29: Increase percentage of adults receiving services 

who: c) Had no involvement with the criminal justice system ........................88

Table 170: Measure 1.2.30: Increase percentage of adults receiving services 

who: d) Experienced no/reduced alcohol or illegal drug related health, 

behavioral or social, consequences...............................................................89

Table 171: Measure 1.2.31: Increase the percentage of grantees in appropriate 

cost bands .....................................................................................................89

Table 172: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s 

Programs of Regional and National Significance: Other Capacity Activities..89

Table 173: Measure 1.4.01: Report implementing improvements in treatment 

methods on the basis of information and training provided by the program ..90

Table 174: Measure 1.4.02: Increase the number of individuals trained per year 

......................................................................................................................91

Table 175: Measure 1.4.03: Increase the percentage of drug treatment 

professionals trained by the program who a) Would rate the quality of the 

events as good, very good, or excellent .......................................................91

Table 176: Measure 1.4.04: Increase the percentage of drug treatment 

professionals trained by the program who b) Shared any of the information 

from the events with others ...........................................................................91

Table 177: Measure 1.4.05: Increase the percentage of grantees in appropriate 

cost bands .....................................................................................................92

Table 178: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s 

Programs of Regional and National Significance: Science and Service 

Activities ........................................................................................................92

Table 179: Measure 1.2.43: Number of admissions to substance abuse treatment 

programs receiving public funding.................................................................93

Table 180: Measure 1.2.45: Increase the percentage of States and Territories 

that express satisfaction with Technical Assistance (TA) provided................93

Table 181: Measure 1.2.47: Increase the percentage of States in appropriate 

cost bands .....................................................................................................94

xiv
xv

Table 182: Measure 1.2.48: Percentage of clients reporting abstinence from drug 

use at discharge ............................................................................................94

Table 183: Measure 1.2.49: Percentage of clients reporting abstinence from 

alcohol at discharge.......................................................................................94

Table 184: Measure 1.2.50: Percentage of clients reporting being employed/in 

school at discharge........................................................................................95

Table 185: Measure 1.2.51: Percentage of clients reporting no involvement with 

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

Table 186: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s 

SAPTBG – Treatment Activities.....................................................................96

Performance Tables for the Office of Applied Studies

Table 187: Measure 4.4.01: Availability and timeliness of data for the a) National 

Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)....................................................99

Table 188: Measure 4.4.02: Availability and timeliness of data for the b) Drug 

Abuse Warning Network (DAWN)..................................................................99

Table 189: Measure 4.4.03: Availability and timeliness of data for the c) Drug and 

Alcohol Services Information System (DASIS) ...........................................100

Table 190: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from OAS’s 

National Surveys .........................................................................................100

Agency tables

Table 191: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 1 Health Care: Improve the safety, 

quality, affordability and accessibility of health care, including behavioral 

health care and long-term care....................................................................101

Table 192: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 2 Public Health Promotion and 

Protection, Disease Prevention, and Emergency Preparedness: Prevent and 

control disease, injury, illness and disability across the lifespan, and protect 

the public from infectious, occupational, environmental and terrorist threats.

....................................................................................................................101

Table 193: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 3 Human Services: Promote the 

economic and social well-being of individuals, families, and communities. .102

Table 194: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 4 Scientific Research and Development: 

Advance scientific and biomedical research and development related to 

health and human services..........................................................................102

Table 195: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 1 Health Care

....................................................................................................................103

Table 196: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 2 Public Health 

Promotion and Protection, Disease Prevention, and Emergency 

Preparedness ..............................................................................................103

Table 197: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 3 Human 

Services.......................................................................................................104

Table 198: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 4 Scientific 

Research and Development ........................................................................104

Table 199: Discontinued Performance measures .............................................110

Table 200: New Performance Measures...........................................................111
Summary of Performance Targets and Results 

Table 1: Summary of Targets and Results for SAMHSA1

Fiscal 

Year 

Total 

Targets 

Targets with 

Results 

Reported 

Percent of 

Targets with 

Results 

Reported 

Total 

Targets 

Met 

Percent of 

Targets 

Met 

2005 78 77 99% 50 65% 

2006 88 85 97% 50 59% 

2007 126 123 98% 81 66% 

2008 153 99 65% 69 70% 

2009 158 0 N/A 0 N/A 

2010 150 0 N/A 0 N/A 

 

1

 Run on Program Performance Tracking System 4/27/09. 

1
2

***This Page Intentionally Left Blank*** 
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Mental Health Programs of Regional and National Significance 

(PRNS) 

Suicide Prevention 

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

FY Target Result

Out-Year 

Target

30,584 (2012) Apr 30, 2015

2010 30,684 Apr 30, 2013

2009 30,784 Apr 30, 2012

2008 30,984 Apr 30, 2011

2007 31,084 Apr 30, 2010

2006 N/A 33,300 

(Historical Actual)

2005 N/A 32,637 

(Historical Actual)

 

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

health and suicide awareness campaigns on college campuses (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 681,425 Dec 31, 2010

2009 662,774 Dec 31, 2009

2008 662,774 681,425 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 Set Baseline 662,774 

(Baseline)

 

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

suicide prevention: cumulative (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 212,226 Dec 31, 2010

2009 127,065 Dec 31, 2009

2008 97,742 176,855 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 Set Baseline 75,186 

(Baseline)

 

3
4

Table 5: Measure 2.3.60: Increase the total number of youth screened: cumulative 

(Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 20,160 Apr 30, 2011

2009 16,800 Apr 30, 2010

2008 Set Baseline 13,618 

(Baseline)

 

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

hotline (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 555,132 Dec 31, 2010

2009 538,963 Dec 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 513,298 

(Baseline)
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Table 7: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Suicide Prevention Programs 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.57 National Vital 

Statistics Report, 

Centers for Disease 

Control and 

Prevention 

See Technical Notes in National Vital Statistics Reports 

at the following link: 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/n

vsr56/nvsr56_16.pdf Data reporting for this survey 

has a three year lag time. Due to the lag in “number of 

suicide deaths” data reporting, measuring performance 

of the programs in real time or setting realistic targets 

for out years is difficult. 

2.3.58 Suicide Prevention 

Exposure, 

Awareness and 

Knowledge Survey 

(SPEAKS). This 

survey is part of the 

Garrett Lee Smith 

program cross-site 

evaluation, and is 

conducted annually. 

Evaluation coordinators at ORC Macro have built 

multiple types of data validation techniques into the 

cross-site evaluation to establish the accuracy and 

reliability of data used to measure the outcome 

measures. These techniques include double entry of 

data; range checks coded into the data entry program; 

and assessing concurrent validity with other measures 

of the same indicator. 

2.3.59 Training Exit Survey 

(TES) and a Training 

Activity Report (TAR) 

as part of the GLS 

cross-site evaluation 

Evaluation coordinators at ORC Macro have built 

multiple types of data validation techniques into the 

cross-site evaluation to establish the accuracy and 

reliability of data used to measure the outcome 

measures. These techniques include double entry of 

data; range checks coded into the data entry program; 

and assessing concurrent validity with other measures 

of the same indicator. 

2.3.60 Data for the number 

of youth screen are 

reported in the Early 

Identification Referral 

and Follow-up (EIRF) 

Aggregate and 

Individual Forms from 

14 Cohort 1 & 2 sites

Evaluation coordinators at ORC Macro have built 

multiple types of data validation techniques into the 

cross-site evaluation to establish the accuracy and 

reliability of data used to measure the outcome 

measures. These techniques include double entry of 

data; range checks coded into the data entry program; 

and assessing concurrent validity with other measures 

of the same indicator. 

2.3.61 The number of calls 

answered is reported 

in the National 

Suicide Prevention 

LifeLine Monthly 

Report 

Specialists in information technology at the National 

Suicide Prevention LifeLine evaluation center validate 

phone records received from Sprint to determine the 

number of calls received and answered at 1-800-273-

TALK. 

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

activities related to the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, as well as the Suicide 

5
6

Prevention Hotline, Suicide Prevention Resource Center and an American 

Indian/Alaska Native Suicide Prevention Initiative. 

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

number of suicide deaths (2.3.57) represents national data. FY 2008 data for 

measure 2.3.57 will not be available until FY 2011. Measure 2.3.57 (suicide 

deaths) was developed as an indicator for the HHS strategic plan based on the 

long-term goals of SAMHSA. 

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

prevention efforts are measured by the number of students who are exposed to 

mental health and suicide awareness campaigns on grantee college campuses. 

The number of individuals trained (2.3.59) includes mental health professionals 

as well as teachers, police officers, social service providers, advocates, coaches, 

and other individuals who frequently interact with youth. 

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

Youth Screened (2.3.60), and Increase the Number of Calls Answered by the 

Suicide Hotline (2.3.61). Baselines for both measures were captured in FY 2008. 

All targets, for which data were available, were met for this program in 2008. 

Ambitious targets for all measures were set for FY 2009 and FY 2010. 

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

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

FY Target Result

2010 2,328,500 Dec 31, 2010

2009 2,328,500 Dec 31, 2009

2008 1,062,963 2,328,500 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 1,062,963 1,845,1102

(Target Exceeded)

2006 Set Baseline 1,062,963 

(Baseline)

 

2

 The result for 2007 reported in the FY 2009 Congressional Justification was preliminary. 

Additional data has been reported by grantees and the final result is reported here. 
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Table 9: Measure 3.2.05: Improve student outcomes and systems outcomes: a) 

Decrease the percentage of middle school students who have been in a physical 

fight on school property (Outcome)3

FY Target Result

2010 35% Dec 31, 2010

2009 34.4% Dec 31, 2009

2008 36% 34.4% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 30% 36.6% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 Set Baseline 30.8% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 10: Measure 3.2.06: Improve student outcomes and systems outcomes: a) 

Decrease the percentage of high school students who have been in a physical 

fight on school property (Outcome)

FY Target Result

2010 28% Dec 31, 2010

2009 23.7% Dec 31, 2009

2008 29% 23.7% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 24% 29.8% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 Set Baseline 24.2% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 11: Measure 3.2.07: Improve student outcomes and systems outcomes: b) 

Decrease the percentage of middle school students who report current substance 

use (Outcome)

FY Target Result

2010 15% Dec 31, 2010

2009 13.7% Dec 31, 2009

2008 16% 13.7% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 16% 16% 

(Target Met)

2006 Set Baseline 16.9% 

(Baseline)

 

 

3

 Successful result is below target 

7
Table 12: Measure 3.2.08: Improve student outcomes and systems outcomes: b) 

Decrease the percentage of high school students who report current substance 

use (Outcome)4

FY Target Result

2010 34% Dec 31, 2010

2009 33% Dec 31, 2009

2008 35% 33% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 35% 35% 

(Target Met)

2006 Set Baseline 35.3% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 13: Measure 3.2.09: Improve student outcomes and systems outcomes: c) 

Increase the percentage of student's attending school (Outcome)5

FY Target Result

2009 93% Dec 31, 2009

2008 93% 93% 

(Target Met)

2007 93% 95.1% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 Set Baseline 92.6% 

(Baseline)

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

health services (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 66% Dec 31, 2010

2009 66% Dec 31, 2009

2008 46% 66% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 46% 46% 

(Target Met)

2006 Set Baseline 45.5% 

(Baseline)

 

 

4 Successful result is below target

5 Measure 3.2.10 will be retired from public reporting in FY 2010. The FY 2009 data will be 

available in December 2009 and thus will be reported publicly in the FY 2011 Congressional 

Justification. 

8
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

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

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

agencies (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 69% Dec 31, 2010

2009 68.1% Dec 31, 2009

2008 67.1% 62.4% 

(Target Not Met)

2007 Set Baseline 66.1% 

(Baseline)

 

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

personnel on mental health topics (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 67% Dec 31, 2010

2009 66.4% Dec 31, 2009

2008 65.4% 64% 

(Target Not Met)

2007 Set Baseline 64.4% 

(Baseline)

9
Table 17: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Safe Schools/Healthy Students Program 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.2.04 Grantee reports Grantees implement various forms of 

data validation as part of their local 

evaluations. To establish the accuracy 

and reliability of data used to measure 

the outcome performance, local 

evaluators require double entry of data; 

range checks coded into the data entry 

program; or assessing concurrent 

validity with other measure of the same 

indicator among other things. 

3.2.05 

3.2.06

3.2.07

3.2.08 

3.2.09

3.2.10

3.2.21

3.2.22 

Data on children’s outcomes were 

reported in the grantees’ ED524 BiAnnual Report submitted to their 

GPO every six months. The methods 

for collecting these measures varied 

by grantee, but were generally 

student self-report for the violence 

and substance use measures and 

school records for attendance and 

mental health services. 

Grantees implement various forms of 

data validation as part of their local 

evaluations. To establish the accuracy 

and reliability of data used to measure 

the outcome performance, local 

evaluators require double entry of data; 

range checks coded into the data 

entry program; or assessing 

concurrent validity with other 

measure of the same indicator 

among other things. 

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

was set at an approximate target level. Subsequently, more grants were awarded 

than anticipated and the number of children served was significantly higher than 

the target. All targets for student outcomes were met in FY 2008. 

GPRA measures are defined as follows: Violent incidents (3.2.06) are defined by 

the percentage of students that have experienced violence at least once in the 

past 12 months as measured by a student survey item. Substance use (3.2.07) 

is defined as the percentage of students that report having used alcohol in the 

past 30 days. For the “Increase mental health services to students and families 

(3.2.10)” measure, the definition of mental health services is determined by the 

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

percentage of students that receive services following a mental health referral. 

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

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

districts calculate attendance differently, particularly with distinctions between 

“excused” and “unexcused” absences. Also, some sites track classes missed 

rather than days missed. The cohort funded in FY 2007 was not required to 

report on this measure so data presented are from the FY 2005 and FY 2006 

cohorts. The program plans to retire this measure in FY 2010. 

10
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Trends across years are difficult to interpret as data include grantees from 

different award years and are thus in different stages of implementation. 

However, recent improvements in the various measures are likely the result of 

the program managing to targeted outcomes. As such, extensive technical 

assistance is provided to help grantees achieve positive outcomes. 

Trauma-Informed Services (National Child Traumatic Stress Initiative 

– NCTSI) 

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

adolescents receiving trauma-informed services (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 29,000 Dec 31, 2010

2009 16,955 Dec 31, 2009

2008 33,910 28,878 

(Target Not Met)

2007 33,910 31,446 

(Target Not Met)

2006 39,600 33,910 

(Target Not Met)

2005 53,860 50,660 

(Target Not Met)

 

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

significant improvement) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 69% Dec 31, 2010

2009 69% Dec 31, 2009

2008 37% 69% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 37% 56% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 37% 35% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 Set Baseline 37% 

(Baseline)

 

11
Table 20: Measure 3.2.03: Dollars spent per person served (Efficiency)6

FY Target Result

2010 $718 Dec 31, 2010

2009 $718 Dec 31, 2009

2008 $774 $948 

(Target Not Met)

2007 $480 $774 

(Target Not Met)

2006 $493 $741 

(Target Not Met)

2005 Set Baseline $497 

(Baseline)

 

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

children and adolescents receiving trauma-informed services (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 3,217 Dec 31, 2010

2009 2,925 Dec 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 975 

(Baseline)

 

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

trained in providing trauma-informed services. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 100,800 Dec 31, 2010

2009 96,000 Dec 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 91,517 

(Baseline)

 

6

 Successful result is below target 

12
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

13

Table 23: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Trauma-Informed Services Program 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.2.01 Data for number of children 

served are reported 

quarterly by grantees 

utilizing a program-wide 

electronic Service 

Utilization Form (eSUF). 

Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) 

performs significant validation on data reported 

by the NCTSI Centers for the eSUF and Core 

Data Set and the systems used to collect that 

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

data integrity checks, validation and quality 

control of the batch loading processes and 

databases, extracts used to produce 

analysis data sets and reports that are 

generated from the data collected. 

Evaluation coordinators at ORC Macro have 

built multiple types of data validation 

techniques into the architecture of the Webbased General Adoption Assessment Survey 

(GAAS) to ensure the collection of clean, 

correct and meaningful data, and avoid data 

corruption or security vulnerabilities as well 

as missing, incomplete or inappropriate data.

3.2.02 Baseline and follow-up data 

are collected through the 

Core Data Set (CDS), a 

secure web-based system, 

and three standardized 

behavioral/symptomology 

measures (CBCL, TSCC, 

and PTSD-RI) are used to 

assess improvement in 

children’s outcomes. 

Data for training are 

based on General 

Adoption Assessment 

Survey (GAAS) results 

from the Adoption of 

Methods/Practices 

component of the NCTSI 

National Cross-Site 

Evaluation. 

Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) 

performs significant validation on data reported 

by the NCTSI Centers for the eSUF and Core 

Data Set and the systems used to collect that 

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

data integrity checks, validation and quality 

control of the batch loading processes and 

databases, extracts used to produce 

analysis data sets and reports that are 

generated from the data collected. 

Evaluation coordinators at ORC Macro have 

built multiple types of data validation 

techniques into the architecture of the Webbased 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.
Table 24: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Trauma-Informed Services Program (continued) 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.2.03 The Efficiency Measure is 

calculated by dividing the 

budget devoted to clinical 

services by the number 

of children and 

adolescents receiving 

trauma-informed 

services. Data for 

number of children 

served are reported 

quarterly by grantees 

utilizing a program-wide 

electronic Service 

Utilization Form (eSUF). 

Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) 

performs significant validation on data reported 

by the NCTSI Centers for the eSUF and Core 

Data Set and the systems used to collect that 

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

data integrity checks, validation and quality 

control of the batch loading processes and 

databases, extracts used to produce 

analysis data sets and reports that are 

generated from the data collected. 

Evaluation coordinators at ORC Macro have 

built multiple types of data validation 

techniques into the architecture of the Webbased General Adoption Assessment Survey 

(GAAS) to ensure the collection of clean, 

correct and meaningful data, and avoid data 

corruption or security vulnerabilities as well 

as missing, incomplete or inappropriate data.

3.2.23 TRAC on-line data 

reporting and collection 

system. 

All TRAC data are automatically checked as they 

are input into TRAC. Validation and verification 

checks are run on the data as they are being 

entered. The system will not allow any data 

that are out of range or violate skip patterns 

to be saved into the database. 

3.2.24 Data for number of 

professional trained is 

reported quarterly by 

grantees utilizing a 

program-wide electronic 

Service Utilization Form 

(eSUF). 

Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) 

performs significant validation on data reported 

by the NCTSI Centers for the eSUF and Core 

Data Set and the systems used to collect that 

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

data integrity checks, validation and quality 

control of the batch loading processes and 

databases, extracts used to produce 

analysis data sets and reports that are 

generated from the data collected. 

Evaluation coordinators at ORC Macro have 

built multiple types of data validation 

techniques into the architecture of the Webbased 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.

14
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

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

network of organizations involved in the evaluation, treatment, and support of 

children and their families impacted by traumatic stress. The Network includes 

three components: (1) the National Center for Child Traumatic Stress (NCCTS, 

Category 1), (2) Intervention Development and Evaluation Centers (Category 2), 

and (3) Community Treatment and Services Centers (Category 3). The NCTSN 

is currently comprised of 48 funded Centers. 

In FY 2008, the reported estimated number of children receiving services 

(measure 3.2.01) was 15 percent lower than the projected target for that year. 

This number is down approximately 8 percent from FY 2007 primarily due to the 

relatively large number of established NCTSN centers that provided direct 

services that are no longer funded from the FY 2003 Cohort (14 Category-3 

centers). 

Although there were several new centers added during FY 2007 (15 sites total, 

10 Category-3 sites and 5 Category-2 sites), this decrease in number of children 

served also reflects: 1) start-up time needed to establish direct services at these 

new sites, 2) a change in focus of previously funded sites from providing direct 

clinical services to training, and 3) the actual number of new centers providing 

direct clinical services. It should also be noted that this number does not include 

the more than four thousand children and families served by formerly funded 

centers that mobilized to respond to natural disasters including Hurricanes 

Gustav and Ike. Currently, this measure is an estimate of clients served based on 

quarterly reports from grantees. As this does not allow for a true unduplicated 

count, SAMHSA will be retiring this measure in FY 2011. The NCTSI began 

using a web-based GPRA data collection system called Transformation 

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

unduplicated count of children served. In FY 2008, the baseline for this new 

measure (3.2.23) was 975. This result is significantly lower than the estimated 

number served in measure 3.2.01 due to the fact that not all grantees are fully 

utilizing the TRAC system. This is the result of factors such as delays in human 

subjects review at some sites and various staffing/budget constraints. The target 

for 2009 anticipates significant improvement in compliance with the use of the 

TRAC system. SAMHSA expects compliance to continue to improve 

considerably over time as we are providing additional technical assistance and 

working aggressively with grantees to improve compliance with TRAC. 

 

The target for improving children’s outcomes was exceeded considerably again 

in FY 2008. Clinically significant improvement is demonstrated as an 

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

three standardized assessment measures given to children. The program 

examined this result, and it appears to be a result of the maturation of the grant 

program. 

15
The NCTSN efficiency measure (3.2.03, dollars spent per person served) is 

calculated by dividing the total dollar amount awarded to grantees by the number 

who received direct services from those grantees. As discussed above, the 

number of children served decreased in FY 2008 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. Since this measure is calculated using the current estimated client 

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

client measure which would include an unduplicated count of number served 

(3.2.23) in the denominator. 

 Co-Occurring State Incentive Grants (COSIG) 

Table 25: Measure 1.2.17: Increase the number of persons with co-occurring 

disorders served (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 103,679 Oct 31, 2010

2009 103,679 Oct 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 103,679 

(Baseline)

 

Table 26: Measure 1.2.18: Increase the percentage of treatment programs that 

a) Screen for co-occurring disorders (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 68% Oct 31, 2010

2009 68% Oct 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 68% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 27: Measure 1.2.19: b) Assess for co-occurring disorders (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 32% Oct 31, 2010

2009 32% Oct 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 32% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 28: Measure 1.2.20: c) Treat co-occurring disorders through collaborative, 

consultative, and integrated models of care (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 53% Oct 31, 2010

2009 53% Oct 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 53% 

(Baseline)

16
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Table 29: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s CoOccurring State Incentive Grant Program 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.17

1.2.18

1.2.19

1.2.20 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

All data are automatically checked as they are input to 

SAIS. Validation and verification checks are run on the 

data as they are being entered. The system will not allow 

any data that are out of range or violate skip patterns to 

be saved into the database. 

This program is jointly administered by CMHS and CSAT. 

People with co-occurring substance abuse and mental disorders are individuals 

who have at least one psychiatric disorder as well as an alcohol or drug use 

disorder. While these disorders may interact differently in any one person (e.g., 

an episode of depression may trigger a relapse into alcohol abuse, or cocaine 

use may exacerbate schizophrenic symptoms) at least one disorder of each type 

can be diagnosed independently of the other. The first three years of these 

grants focus on infrastructure development and enhancements. Grantees have 

the flexibility to identify specific infrastructure development and enhancement 

activities that support the goals selected and respond to the needs and priorities 

they have identified. Certain areas of infrastructure development (e.g., 

standardized screening and assessment, complementary licensure and 

credentialing requirements, service coordination and network building, financial 

planning, and information sharing) reflect critical pathways for establishing 

complementary service delivery capacity in substance abuse and mental health 

service systems. After this period, grantees implemented service pilot programs, 

which generated data for the above outcome measures. In July 2007, COSIG 

States were required to begin collecting the necessary data, with the first reports 

due in October 2008. FY 2008 is the first year the data is available and baselines 

have been established. Grants will end at the close of FY 2010. Data is being 

collected from grantees through CSAT’s Services Accountability Improvement 

System (SAIS). 

17
18

Remaining Capacity Programs7 

Table 30: Measure 1.2.03: Rate of consumers reporting positively about 

perception of care (program participants) (Outcome)8

FY Target Result

2010 98% Dec 31, 2010

2009 98% Dec 31, 2009

2008 98% 94.8% 

(Target Not Met)

2007 Set Baseline 98%9

(Baseline)

 

Table 31: Measure 1.2.05: Increase the percentage of clients receiving services 

who report improved functioning (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 54% Dec 31, 2010

2009 54% Dec 31, 2009

2008 93% 50.5% 

(Target Not Met)

2007 Set Baseline 93%10

(Baseline)

 

Table 32: Measure 1.2.07: Percentage of people in the United States with serious 

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

receive services from the public mental health system (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

Out-Year 

Target

50% (2015) Dec 31, 2015

2005 Set Baseline 44% 

(Baseline)

 

 

7

 Includes Jail Diversion, Older Adults, HIV/AIDS, and Services in Supportive Housing programs. 

8

 Measure has been changed from Rate of consumers/family members reporting positively about 

outcomes (program participants). CMHS dropped measure 1.2.04 and change measure 1.2.03 

to “Rate of consumers reporting positively about perception of care.” 9

 Due to the implementation of the TRAC reporting system midyear FY 2007, data reported for FY 

2007 will only contain a partial year. 

10 In December 2007, the TRAC reporting capability was incomplete. Once the system was 

completed, SAMHSA noted that the earlier manual calculation was done incorrectly. The 

correct formula is now programmed into the reporting system, which should minimize 

future reporting errors. 
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Table 33: Measure 1.2.06: Number of a) evidence based practices (EBPs) 

implemented (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 4.1 per State Dec 31, 2011

2009 4 per State Dec 31, 2010

2008 4 per State Dec 31, 2009

2007 3.8 per State 4 per State 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 3.3 per State 3.9 per State 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 2.8 per State 3.9 per State11

(Target Exceeded)

 

Table 34: 1.2.08: b) Adults: percentage of population coverage for each (reported 

as percentage of service population receiving any evidence based practice) 

(Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 10.5% Dec 31, 2011

2009 10.8% Dec 31, 2010

2008 10.8% Dec 31, 2009

2007 10.8% 9.4% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 10.3% 9.5% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 9.8% 9.7%

(Target Not Met but Improved)

 

Table 35: Measure 1.2.09: c) Children: percentage of population coverage for each 

(reported as percentage of service population receiving any evidence based 

practice) (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 3.5% Dec 31, 2011

2009 3.5% Dec 31, 2010

2008 3.5% Dec 31, 2009

2007 2.6% 3.2% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 2.3% 2.2% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 2% 3.4%

(Target Exceeded)

 

11 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. 

19
Table 36: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Remaining Capacity Programs 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.03

1.2.05 

TRAC on-line data reporting and 

collection system. 

All TRAC data are automatically 

checked as they are input into TRAC. 

Validation and verification checks are 

run on the data as they are being 

entered. The system will not allow 

any data that are out of range or 

violate skip patterns to be saved into 

the database. 

1.2.07 For the long term measure, the 

numerator is the number of people 

receiving services through the state 

public mental health system, as 

reported by the Uniform Reporting 

System 

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

cmhs/MentalHealthStatistics) The 

denominator is derived from the 

National Co-morbidity Study 

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

census data, and the 1997 CMHS 

Client-Patient Sample Survey, as 

reported in Mental Health 2000 and 

Mental Health 2002 (see 

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

cmhs/MentalHealthStatistics/) 

See 

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

cmhs/MentalHealthStatistics/about_u

rs2002.asp. Data validation for the 

Co-Morbidity Study is available at 

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

1.2.06

1.2.08

1.2.09 

Uniform Reporting System See 

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

cmhs/MentalHealthStatistics/about_u

rs2002.asp 

Measures 1.2.01 and 1.2.02 represent 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 pertaining to the consumer's perception of the services he/she 

received during the last 30 calendar days 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. These measures will be retired in FY 2010 as they were 

20
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

21

included in the 2005 performance assessment as temporary measures until the 

PRNS was able to produce data from TRAC. 

Measures 1.2.03, although worded identically to the long-term measure, reflects 

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

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

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

report improved functioning. This outcome is comprised of responses to the 

questions about how effectively the consumer is able to deal with daily problems, 

the ability to control his or her life, the ability to deal with crisis, how well he or 

she is getting along with family members, how well he or she does in social 

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

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

completed, SAMHSA noted that the earlier manual calculation was done 

incorrectly which accounts for the missing the target by 42.5 percent. The 

correct formula is now programmed into the reporting system, which 

should minimize future reporting errors. Subsequent targets will be set 

accordingly. 

Measure 1.2.08 is the percentage of adult service population receiving any 

evidence-based practice. The evidence-based practices measures reflect the 

program’s efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of mental health 

services. For FY 2007, the target for the number of evidence-based practices

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

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

percent for children. These targets were set at an approximate target level, and 

the deviation from that level is slight. 
Mental Health Programs of Regional and National Significance – 

Science and Service Activities12

Table 37: Measure 1.4.06: Number of people trained by CMHS Science and Service 

Programs (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 4,237 Dec 31, 2010

2009 4,237 Dec 31, 2009

2008 N/A 4,036 

(Historical Actual)

2007 N/A 4,852 

(Historical Actual)

2006 N/A 4,647 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 38: Measure 1.4.07: Percentage of those trained by the program who report 

they were very satisfied with training (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 80% Dec 31, 2010

2009 80% Dec 31, 2009

2008 N/A 76% 

(Historical Actual)

2007 N/A 79% 

(Historical Actual)

2006 N/A 70% 

(Historical Actual)

 

12 Programs included in reporting are the HIV/AIDS education, the Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities National Resource Center for Substance Abuse and Mental health, and the 

Statewide Family Network Training and Technical Assistance Center. 

22
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Table 39: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Science and Service 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.4.06

1.4.07 

Participants direct report 

on standardized 

questionnaires 

administered at the 

completion of each 

training course. 

HBCU data are automatically checked as they are 

input to SAIS. Validation and verification checks 

are run on the data as they are being entered. 

The system will not allow any data that are out 

of range or violate skip patterns to be saved 

into the database. HIV/AIDS Education and 

Statewide Family Network Training and 

Technical Assistance Center data validation 

procedures involve initial review and 

consultation with the site representative to 

resolve obvious discrepancies; double data 

entry and comparison; and several rounds of 

logical and edit checks. Note: These measures 

should be available through the TRAC system 

starting next year. 

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

programs. The mental health programs within Science and Service include 

HIV/AIDS Education, Statewide Family and Consumer Network Technical 

Assistance Center, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) 

Center of Excellence. These programs disseminate best-practices information to 

grantees and the field, helping to ensure that SAMHSA’s Capacity programs 

build and improve services capacity in the most efficient, effective and 

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

essential and cost-effective support to building effective capacity in communities 

that do not receive grant funds from SAMHSA. SAMHSA hopes to include 

additional data from more of its science and service activities in the future. 

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

disseminates knowledge and training on the treatment of the neuropsychiatric 

and psychological sequelae of HIV/AIDS. Untreated and unidentified 

neuropsychiatric and mental health complications related to HIV/AIDS lead to 

more serious problems, delayed care, non-adherence to care, impaired quality of 

life and increased morbidity and mortality. In FY 2008, 2,236 front line providers 

were trained (face-to-face) with MHCPE, including psychiatrists, psychologists, 

social workers, care managers, nurses, primary care practitioners, and medical 

students, as well as clergy, and other workers in the mental health arena. 

The Statewide Family and Consumer Network Technical Assistance Center 

provides individualized, developmentally sensitive, strength-based training and 

technical assistance in the context of peer-to-peer learning environments to 

promote the development of autonomous Statewide Family and Consumer 

23
Networks. The National Center focuses on the 42 SAMHSA funded Statewide 

Family/Consumer Networks (SFN) within five categories of training and technical 

assistance activities, which include production and dissemination of education 

and resource materials, technical assistance, training development teams, 

educational and resource materials and training include topics related to the 

needs of the SFN as determined through a three Phase Organizational 

Assessment process. All training and technical assistance activities are driven 

by a set of operating principles designed to increase organizational capacity of 

Networks, so that they can sponsor and sustain a continuum of activities that 

transform their state mental health service systems, which in turn will improve 

outcomes for children with mental health conditions and their families. 

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

Excellence is to continue the effort to network the 103 HBCUs throughout the 

United States and promote workforce development through expanding 

knowledge of best practices, leadership development and encouraging 

community partnerships that enhance the participation of African-Americans in 

the substance abuse treatment and mental health professions. The 

comprehensive focus of the HBCU – Center for Excellence will simultaneously 

expand service capacity on campuses and in other treatment venues. 

24
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children 

and Their Families (Children’s Mental Health Initiative – CMHI) 

Table 40: Measure 3.2.11: Increase the percent of funded sites that will exceed a 

30 percent improvement in behavioral and emotional symptoms among children 

receiving services for 6 months (Outcome)13

FY Target Result

2010 60% Dec 31, 2010

Table 41: Measure 3.2.12: Improve children's outcomes and systems outcomes: a) 

Increase percentage of children attending school 80% or more of time after 12 

months (Outcome)14

FY Target Result

2010 86.3% Dec 31, 2010

2009 86.3% Dec 31, 2009

2008 84% 86.3% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 84% 87% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 84% 89.7% 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 83% 80.2% 

(Target Not Met)

 

Table 42: Measure 3.2.13: Improve children's outcomes and systems outcomes: b) 

Increase percentage with no law enforcement contacts at 6 months (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 71.7% Dec 31, 2010

2009 71.7% Dec 31, 2009

2008 69% 71.7% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 70% 71% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 68% 69.3% 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 53% 68.3% 

(Target Exceeded)

 

 

13 Long-term measure only. No annual targets have been set. 14 This measure has been slightly revised. It was previously reported as “75% or more of the 

time.” However, the measure has been calculated using an 80% threshold since 2004. Therefore, 

this revision brings the measure text in line with the calculation. 

25
Table 43: Measure 3.2.14: Decrease average days of inpatient facilities among 

children served in systems of care at 6 months (Outcome)15

FY Target Result

2010 -2 Dec 31, 2010

2009 -2 Dec 31, 2009

2008 -2 -1.05 

(Target Not Met)

2007 -2 -1.78 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2006 -3.65 -1 

(Target Not Met)

2005 -3.65 -1.75 

(Target Not Met)

 

Table 44: Measure 3.2.15: Percent of systems of care that are sustained 5 years 

post Federal Funding (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

Out-Year 

Target

90% (2013) Dec 31, 2013

2009 85% Dec 31, 2009

2008 80% 77.8% 

(Target Not Met)

 

Table 45: Measure 3.2.16: Increase number of children receiving services (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 13,051 Dec 31, 2010

2009 13,051 Dec 31, 2009

2008 10,000 13,051 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 9,120 10,871 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 9,120 10,339 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 9,120 9,200 

(Target Exceeded)

 

 

15 Successful result is below target. For example, FY 2007 the target was -2. To have achieved 

the target, the program would need a smaller number (i.e. -2.5 or -3). 

26
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Table 46: Measure 3.2.17: Increase total savings for in-hospital patient care costs 

per 1,000 children served (Efficiency)16

FY Target Result

2010 $2,376,000 Dec 31, 2010

2009 $2,376,000 Dec 31, 2009

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

(Target Not Met)

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

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2006 Set Baseline $1,335,000 

(Baseline)

Table 47: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their families 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.2.11 Data on children’s outcomes are 

collected from a multi-site outcome 

study. Data on clinical outcomes 

were derived from Reliable Change 

Index scores (Jacobson & Truax, 

1991), calculated from entry into 

services to six months for the 

Total Problem scores of the Child 

Behavior Checklist (CBCL, 

Achenbach, 2001) 

The Reliable Change Index is a 

standardized method developed by 

Jacobson and his colleagues to 

measure change between two data 

points. The Reliable Change Index 

has a clear-cut criterion for 

improvement that has been 

psychometrically tested and found to be 

sound (Jacobson & Truax, 1991). 

3.2.12 Data on children’s attendance are 

collected from a multi-site outcome 

study. 

Validity analyses were conducted for 

school attendance and law enforcement 

contacts. School attendance was found 

to have a positive relationship with 

school performance. Children who 

attended school frequently also had 

some tendency to receive good grades.

The correlation between the two was 

.313 (p = .000). 

3.2.13 Delinquency is reported using a 

self-report survey 

Validity analyses were conducted for 

school attendance and law enforcement 

contacts. 

 

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

27
Table 48: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Comprehensive Community Mental Health Services for Children and Their families 

(continued) 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.2.14 The decrease in days of inpatient facilities utilization per 

child is calculated for a sample of children with complete 

data on inpatient hospitalization use at both intake and 6 

months assessment points. Decrease in inpatient 

hospitalization days = total number of inpatient days at 6 

months – total number of inpatient days at intake. The 

scale used to assess inpatient-residential treatment is 

the Living Situations Questionnaire, was adapted from 

the Restrictiveness of Living Environments Scale and 

Placement Stability Scale (ROLES) developed by 

Hawkins and colleagues (1992) 

Data are validated 

by evaluation 

contractor and 

subject to project 

officer review. 

3.2.15 Former grantee communities are surveyed 5 years after 

funding ends 

Data are validated 

by evaluation 

contractor and 

subject to project 

officer review 

3.2.16 Grantee reports Data are validated 

by evaluation 

contractor and 

subject to project 

officer review 

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 

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

The behavioral and emotional functioning of children, youth and families is a key 

outcome of the CMHI program. This long-term indicator reports the percent of 

funded sites that exceed a 30 percent improvement in behavioral and emotional 

symptoms for children and youth who have received program services for six 

months. The baseline obtained for 2001 indicated that 30 percent of funded 

grantees satisfied the criteria of a 30 percent improvement established for this 

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

percentage to 60 percent of funded grantee sites. Accordingly, the target set for 

28
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

2010 represents an increase of 100 percent in performance over the baseline 

obtained when this indicator was initiated. This is a very ambitious increase in 

target for this CMHI indicator, particularly given that data collected at program 

entry indicate that some children and youth entering CMHI services are 

demonstrating more clinically significant behavioral and emotional symptomology 

in recent years compared to earlier program funding years. There have also 

been other shifts and changes in populations of focus for some communities 

funded in FY 2005 and FY 2008, including an emphasis on serving very young 

children. 

The FY 2008 target for increase school attendance among clients of the CMHI 

program, measure 3.2.12, was set at an approximate level and the deviation from 

that level is slight. The target was exceeded by 2.3 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. 

The FY 2008 target for no law enforcement contact after six months of enrollment 

in the program among clients in the CMHI program (3.2.13) was set at an 

approximate level, and the deviation from that level is slight. The FY 2008 target 

was exceeded by 2.7 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 2010 targets are set at the 

performance level that was achieved in FY 2008. 

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

an approximate target level. The FY 2008 target was not achieved. This can be 

partially explained by the use of inpatient hospitalization prior to enrollment which 

changes from year to year due to the population of children enrolling in services 

during each fiscal year. The number of children hospitalized before they are 

enrolled in the program differs from year to year and can result in smaller or 

larger decreases observed. If the average utilization prior to program intake is 

relatively low, then the decreases in average number of days per child that can 

be achieved by the program will be low as well. When percentage change in use 

is examined, the percentage decrease in FY 2008 (66 percent) is greater than 

the percentage decrease achieved in FY 2007 (62 percent), demonstrating a 

positive change in the grantees’ ability to reduce the utilization of inpatient care. 

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. 

29
The efficiency measure (3.2.17) reflects per-unit savings in costs. The wording of 

the measure was changed to better reflect the intent of this measure (total inpatient care cost savings). The FY 2008 target for reduction in costs of inpatient 

care was not met. Although one of the main goals of the program is to provide 

least restrictive services to children and youth served by the grantees, more 

restrictive services, like inpatient hospitalization, which are also among the most 

expensive to provide, are sometimes required. This measure is also reflective of 

the variability of each cohort of grantees’ utilization of in-hospital care services. 

Although alternatives to in-hospital care are used by CMHI systems of care 

whenever possible, this level of care may be necessary for some children. The 

2008 result is tied to the reduction to in-hospital days as reported in measure 

3.2.14; both of the 2008 targets were not met, but did exceed the percentage 

decrease baseline set in FY 2007. 

Measure 3.2.15 is a long-term measure to assess sustainability of Federallyfunded communities after Federal funding ceases. Former grantee communities 

are surveyed five years after funding ends. The baseline set in 2004 was a result 

of an assessment of the performance of grantee sites funded in 1994. Since 

1994, an additional 123 communities have been funded to provide mental health 

services for children, youth and their families through the CMHI program. These 

communities are located throughout the United States and the territories and 

there is substantial variation in the economic, socio-cultural and other needed 

resources to ensure that a Federally-funded CMHI grantee community can 

remain sustained after Federal funding ends. Given the proportion of sites that 

were able to remain sustained five years after Federal program funding ended for 

communities funded by CMHI in 1994, 80 percent was set as an ambitious target 

for performance on this long-term indicator for 2008. 

The long-term sustainability indicator (3.2.15) was estimated using data from the 

nine communities funded in 1997. The data on whether communities were 

sustained were collected through a Web-based survey administered to four key 

stakeholders in each grant community (e.g., the current or former site project 

director, a key person responsible for children’s mental health in the community, 

a family member, and a representative from another child-serving agency). A 

community was defined as sustained if the community retained flexible funds and 

sustained at least 50 percent of non-restrictive services, 50 percent of system-ofcare features and mechanisms, and 50 percent of system of care goals. The 

definition accounts for changes in both the (a) system of care relative to the grant 

period and (b) the absolute level at which the system of care operates 5 years 

post-funding. 

The target of 80 percent was nearly achieved, with 78 percent of communities 

funded in 1997 (7 out of 9) achieving sustainability five years past the cessation 

of federal grant funding. The two communities whose systems of care were not 

sustained were both Tribal communities which, historically, have had limited 

access to Federal funding alternatives which promote the sustainability of 

30
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

programs. According to the Tribal Financing Study, conducted by the National 

Evaluation, financial sustainability of Tribal system of care communities can be 

challenging, because tribes often do not have much infrastructure in place for 

providing mental health services, especially getting those services reimbursed by 

Medicaid. Remote locations impact everything from fund availability to Internet 

connectivity (which has implications for timely billing). Financing of Tribal 

systems of care is further complicated by the impact of Tribal–State history on 

the willingness and ability to pursue financial partnerships. 

 

The FY 2008 target for the number of children served (3.2.16) was exceeded by 

over 30 percent, reflecting a level of effort by grantee communities and a greater 

need for services. In FY 2008, 16 grantees completed their grant funding cycle 

and CMHS awarded 18 new grants. The targets for FY 2009 and FY 2010 are 

especially ambitious given that the first year of the grant is a planning year, and 

grantees do not enroll children in services. 

One of the main goals of CMHI is to provide least restrictive services to children 

and youth served by the grantees (3.2.17). More restrictive services, like 

inpatient hospitalization, are also among the most expensive services to provide. 

Fewer children are receiving inpatient/residential treatment services as 

community-based care increases its reach throughout the nation, partly because 

fewer children are receiving inpatient/residential treatment services as 

community-based care increase its reach throughout the nation. This change in 

the service delivery approach is for mental health care for children is partly due to 

the success for the CMHI program and its system of care community-based 

model of care and services. 

It should be noted that grantees funded in FY 2005 and FY 2008 are serving 

proportionately larger numbers of very young children who generally have shorter 

and less frequent hospitalizations. Accordingly, fewer children entering CMHI 

program services have required inpatient/residential treatment services which 

can affect the estimates generated for this indicator. 

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

targets and results for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and 

outcomes associated with activities supported by funding from the prior fiscal 

year. 

31
Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness 

(PAIMI) 

Table 49: Measure 3.4.08: Increase percentage of complaints of alleged abuse not 

withdrawn by the client that resulted in positive change for the client in her/his 

environment, community, or facility, as result of PAIMI involvement (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

Out-Year 

Target

88% (2013) Jul 31, 2014

2010 84% Jul 31, 2011

2009 84% Jul 31, 2010

2008 84% Jul 31, 2009

2007 85% 83% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 84% 84% 

(Target Met)

2005 83% 78% 

(Target Not Met)

 

Table 50: Measure 3.4.09: Increase percentage of complaints of alleged neglect 

substantiated not withdrawn by the client that resulted in positive change for the 

client in her/his environment, community, or facility, as a result of PAIMI 

involvement (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

Out-Year 

Target

94% (2013) Jul 31, 2014

2010 88% Jul 31, 2011

2009 85% Jul 31, 2010

2008 85% Jul 31, 2009

2007 84% 88% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 89% 88% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2005 88% 83% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

 

32
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Table 51: Measure 3.4.10: Increase percentage of complaints of alleged rights 

violations substantiated and not withdrawn by the client that resulted in positive 

change through the restoration of client rights, expansion or maintenance of 

personal decision-making 

FY Target Result

Out-Year 

Target

95% (2013) Jul 31, 2014

2010 90% Jul 31, 2011

2009 90% Jul 31, 2010

2008 90% Jul 31, 2009

2007 90% 86% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2006 95% 85% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 95% 87% 

(Target Not Met)

 

Table 52: Measure 3.4.11: Percent of interventions on behalf of groups of PAIMIeligible individuals that were concluded successfully (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

Out-Year 

Target

95% (2013) Jul 31, 2014

2010 97% Jul 31, 2011

2009 95% Jul 31, 2010

2008 95% Jul 31, 2009

2007 95% 97% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 Set Baseline 95% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 53: Measure 3.4.12: Increase in the number of people served by the PAIMI 

program (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 22,325 Jul 31, 2011

2009 22,325 Jul 31, 2010

2008 22,325 Jul 31, 2009

2007 23,500 18,694 

(Target Not Met)

2006 23,500 18,998 

(Target Not Met)

2005 23,100 21,371 

(Target Not Met)

 

33
Table 54: Measure 3.4.13: Ratio of persons served/impacted per 

activity/intervention (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 430 Jul 31, 2011

2009 420 Jul 31, 2010

2008 420 Jul 31, 2009

2007 420 473 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 410 407 

(Target Not Met)

2005 390 411 

(Target Exceeded)

 

Table 55: Measure 3.4.14: Cost per 1,000 individuals served/impacted (Efficiency)17

FY Target Result

2010 $1,950 Jul 31, 2011

2009 $2,000 Jul 31, 2010

2008 $2,000 Jul 31, 2009

2007 $2,000 $1,989 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 $2,100 $2,316 

(Target Not Met)

2005 $2,200 $2,072 

(Target Exceeded)

 

Table 56: Measure 3.4.19: The number attending public education/constituency 

training and public awareness activities (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 120,000 Oct 31, 2011

2009 120,000 Oct 31, 2010

2008 120,000 Oct 31, 2009

2007 Set Baseline 119,423 

(Baseline)

 

17 Successful result is below target 

34
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Table 57: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Program 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.4.08

3.4.09

3.4.10

3.4.11

3.4.12 

Data are derived from standardized annual 

Program Performance Reports in which grantees 

estimate the potential number of individuals 

impacted through a pre-defined list of 7 possible 

interventions (e.g., group advocacy 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 grantees 

estimate the potential number of individuals 

impacted through a pre-defined list of 7 

possible interventions (e.g., group advocacy 

non-litigation, facility monitoring services, class 

litigation). The ratio measure is calculated by 

using the total number of persons served and 

impacted as the numerator and the total number 

of complaints addressed and intervention 

strategies conducted as the denominator 

The information provided 

in the annual reports is 

checked for reliability 

during on-site PAIMI 

Program visits, annual 

reviews, and budget 

application reviews 

3.4.14

3.4.19 

Data are derived from standardized annual 

Program Performance Reports in which grantees 

estimate the potential number of individuals 

impacted through a pre-defined list of 7 possible 

interventions (e.g., group advocacy non-litigation, 

facility monitoring services, class litigation). The 

cost measure is calculated by using the total 

PAIMI allotment as the numerator and the total 

number of persons served/impacted as the 

denominator. 

The information provided 

in the annual reports is 

checked for reliability 

during on-site PAIMI 

Program visits, annual 

reviews, and budget 

application reviews 

Measure 3.4.08 is to increase percentage of complaints of alleged abuse, not 

withdrawn by the client that resulted in positive change for the client in the safety 

or welfare of their environment, as a result of PAIMI involvement (same as longterm measure). The FY 2007 target was missed by two percent. The 

performance target for this measure was set at an approximate target level, and 

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

activity performance 

Measure 3.4.09 is the percentage of cases of alleged neglect resolved in client’s 

favor. The FY 2007 target was exceeded. 

Measure 3.4.10 is the percentage of cases of alleged rights violations resolved in 

client’s favor. The FY 2007 target was not met. Using what appears to have 

been an atypical outcome for FY 2004, the targets set for this measure were 

35
overly ambitious for FY 2005 and FY 2006 as demonstrated by the actuals for 

those years. Targets for FY 2008 – 2009 are ambitious at 90 percent compared 

to the 4-year average of 86 percent. 

Measure 3.4.11, the percentage of interventions on behalf of groups of PAIMIeligible individuals that were concluded successfully, was exceeded. Successful 

conclusion would include positive change in a policy, law, regulation, or other 

barrier for persons with disabilities, change in the environment to increase safety 

or welfare for persons with disabilities, positive change through the restoration of 

client rights, the expansion or maintenance of personal decision-making, or the 

elimination of other barriers to personal decision-making for persons with 

disabilities, securing access to administrative or judicial processes, securing 

information about their rights and strategies to enforce their rights, or persons 

with disabilities taking action to advocate on their own behalf. 

Measure 3.4.12 is to increase in the number of people served by the PAIMI 

program. The FY 2007 target was not met. This measure is the most volatile 

because of the number of factors that can influence the outcome. Part of this 

volatility is inherent in the nature of the PAIMI Program which includes both an 

individual case and systemic focus. This balance shifts over time from a more 

individual case emphasis to a more systemic emphasis not only within individual 

programs but nationally across all programs as well. Also, the case-mix can 

impact this outcome, as individuals with more complex and extensive needs will 

require more time and resources which will reduce the total number of persons 

that can be served. Finally, although the program provides education and 

outreach, the number of persons served is ultimately determined by the number 

of persons who seek services which may vary over time. Because of all of these 

factors, the targets for FY 2008-2009 have been maintained at 22,325, which is 

still well above the 4-year average of 21,059. 

Both efficiency measures exceeded their targets for FY 2007 (3.4.13 ratio of 

persons served/impacted per activity/intervention and 3.4.14, Cost per 1,000 

individuals served/impacted). These measures demonstrate how the program is 

able to maximize the number of persons who benefit from the services provided, 

with emphasis on those services that impact the largest number of individuals 

and at the least cost. 

Steps are being taken to improve the program performance for the PAIMI 

Program. A PAIMI Program Peer Review process is in place for the Annual 

Program Performance Report which assesses and provides specific feedback 

regarding strengths and weaknesses of the program as well as specific 

recommendations for ongoing quality improvement. Also, the PAIMI Programs 

within each State Protection & Advocacy (P&A) agency are monitored via on-site 

reviews on a regular schedule. These on-site monitoring reviews are conducted 

by independent consultants and provide SAMHSA with an assessment of key 

areas: governance, legal, fiscal and consumer/constituent services/activities of 

36
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

the State’s PAIMI Program. Following these site visits, the consultants issue a 

report that summarizes its program findings and when appropriate, may include 

recommendations for technical assistance and/or corrective action. These steps 

are expected to improve performance so that annual and long-term targets can 

be met. 

A baseline was set for measure 3.4.19, the number attending public education/ 

constituency training and public awareness activities, in FY 2007. An FY 2009 

target has been established at 120,000. 

Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness (PATH) 

Table 58: Measure 3.4.15: Increase the percentage of enrolled homeless persons 

who receive community mental health services (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

Out-Year 

Target

50% (2013) Jul 31, 2014

2010 47% Jul 31, 2011

2009 46% Jul 31, 2010

2008 45% Jul 31, 2009

2007 45% 37% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 N/A 38% 

(Historical Actual)

2005 N/A 41% 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 59: Measure 3.4.16: Increase number of homeless persons contacted 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 160,000 Jul 31, 2011

2009 151,000 Jul 31, 2010

2008 150,000 Jul 31, 2009

2007 157,500 142,352 

(Target Not Met)

2006 157,000 148,655 

(Target Not Met)

2005 154,500 148,679 

(Target Not Met)

 

37
Table 60: Measure 3.4.17: Increase percentage of contacted homeless persons 

with serious mental illness who become enrolled in services (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 55% Jul 31, 2011

2009 55% Jul 31, 2010

2008 55% Jul 31, 2009

2007 45% 55%18

(Target Exceeded)

2006 45% 52%

(Target Exceeded)

2005 47% 48%18

(Target Exceeded)

 

Table 61: Measure 3.4.18: Average Federal cost of enrolling a homeless person 

with serious mental illness in services (Efficiency)19

FY Target Result

2010 $668 Jul 31, 2011

2009 $668 Jul 31, 2010

2008 $668 Jul 31, 2009

2007 $668 $674 

(Target Not Met)

2006 $668 $623 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 $668 $66820

(Target Met)

 

 

18 Revised from previously reported result. In order to more accurately reflect the true outcome of 

the measure Percentage of contacted persons with SMI who are enrolled in services, the 

calculation has been revised. Prior calculations used the entire number contacted as the 

denominator. The revised calculation will use only those who are eligible for services as the 

denominator. Eligibility criteria are defined as consumers who are experiencing homelessness or 

are at imminent risk of homelessness and have Serious Mental Illness (SMI) including cooccurring substance use disorders 

19 Successful result is below target. 20 Actuals for FY 2005 are different from those reported in previous Congressional Justifications. 

The previous figure, $950 for FY 2005, were calculated incorrectly 

38
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Table 62: Measure 3.4.20: Provide training for PATH providers on SSI/SSDI 

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

receiving benefits (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 4,927 Dec 31, 2010

2009 4,927 Dec 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 4,927 

(Baseline)

Table 63: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Projects for Assistance in Transition from Homelessness 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.4.15

3.4.16

3.4.17

3.4.18

3.4.20 

Data are submitted 

annually to 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. 

Measure 3.4.15 reflects the PATH program’s legislative intent that it will provide a 

link to, and depend upon, community-based services, particularly mental health 

services, funded primarily by States. An analysis of data for this measure 

indicated that some States were performing poorly on this measure. As a result, 

the FY 2007 target was not met. In response, the PATH TA Center determined 

that many States do not accurately collect information about the number of 

persons who receive community mental health services. The PATH TA Center 

has begun providing on-site and online assistance to help programs better 

understand how to report on this measure. A new long-term target for FY 2013 

has been set at 50 percent. 

In addition, SAMHSA awarded a contract in FY 2008 to begin working with 

States to utilize the Department of Housing and Urban Development Homeless 

Management Information System (HMIS) to assist in obtaining individual level 

outcome data from PATH-funded efforts. In FY 2009 CMHS will redesign the 

PATH Annual Report. This process will enable the program to transition the 

report to a more outcome-based reporting system that is responsive to the needs 

of SAMHSA as well as the PATH providers, reflect real consumer outcomes, and 

will complete the program’s alignment with HMIS data elements. 

The number of individuals served is a key measure for SAMHSA programs that 

fund services. The target for Measure 3.4.16 was not met for FY 2007, which 

triggered a re-examination of how this measure is calculated. The PATH program 

39
is planning to request permission to collect data on all persons served using both 

Federal and match funds. As part of its data collection package renewal of the 

PATH data collection tool in 2009, the program will redesign it to collect data on 

all services provided with PATH Federal and matching funds. Currently the 

report requires providers to report on only the proportion of services provided 

with PATH Federal funds. Our analysis of the data indicates that there are 

inconsistencies in how this is applied and that we are missing critical information 

on services delivered. We believe that the provision of a full instead of a partial 

report will improve the quality of the data and improve the measures for the 

program. Using the Federal-only calculation is an incomplete indicator for 

performance as the States serve more PATH-eligible consumers than is currently 

being reported. 

Measure 3.4.17 is an indicator of enrollment of PATH-eligible clients in 

supportive services other than mental health services. The calculation for this 

measure was revised to more accurately reflect the true outcome. Prior 

calculations used the entire number contacted in the calculation. The revised 

calculation uses only those eligible for services, which explains why the 2007 

target was exceeded by 10 percent. Future targets have been adjusted upward. 

Eligibility criteria are defined as consumers who are experiencing homelessness 

or are at imminent risk of homelessness and have serious mental illness 

including co-occurring substance use disorders. 

The target for the PATH efficiency measure (3.4.18) was not met for FY 2007. 

This measure will also be affected by the proposed change to collect information 

on all persons served and not just persons served by Federal PATH funds.21 The 

current calculation uses the Federal appropriation divided by the number of 

persons served by Federal PATH funds only. Because the current data only 

includes the number of persons served with Federal funds, this measure is 

currently reported as the total cost, including the Federal grant and matching 

funds, of enrolling a person in services. If programs begin to report information 

on all persons served including those served with funding from other sources, 

PATH will be able to accurately capture the Federal cost per person served in 

addition to the total cost per person served. 

Measure 3.4.20 is a measure of a key output of the program: The number of 

PATH providers trained on Supplemental Security Income/Social Security 

Disability Insurance (SSI/SSDI) Outreach, Access, and Recovery (SOAR). This 

output is important in that once PATH providers acquire this training; they are 

 

21 PATH funds represent over 23 percent of the total dollar amount earmarked by provider 

agencies for serving homeless people with mental illnesses. These funds are worth more than 

their face value because they must be matched by State and local resources. For every $3 in 

Federal funds, State or local agencies must put forward $1 in cash or in-kind services. 

40
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

41

better able to assist PATH clients in applying and getting income benefits for 

which they are eligible.22 

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

targets and results for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and 

outcomes associated with activities supported by funding from the prior fiscal 

year. 

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant (MHBG) 

Table 64: Measure 2.3.07: Reduce rate of adult readmissions to State psychiatric 

hospitals within 30 days; and within 180 days: 1) Adults: a) 30 days (Outcome)23

FY Target Result

2010 9.3% Sep 30, 2011

2009 8.5% Sep 30, 2010

2008 8.5% Sep 30, 2009

2007 8.7% 9.8% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 8.3% 9.4% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 7.6% 9% 

(Target Not Met)

 

Table 65: Measure 2.3.08: 1) Adults: b) 180 days (Outcome)

FY Target Result

2010 20% Sep 30, 2011

2009 19% Sep 30, 2010

2008 19% Sep 30, 2009

2007 19.1% 20.3% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 19.2% 19.6% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 17% 19.6% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

 

22 Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) are 

disability income benefits administered by the Social Security Administration (SSA) that generally 

also provide either Medicaid and/or Medicare health insurance to individuals who are eligible. 

Accessing these benefits is often a critical first step in recovery. For people, who are homeless 

with mental health problems that impair cognition or who are returning to the community from 

institutions (jails, prisons or hospitals), access to these programs can be extremely challenging. 

The application process for SSI/SSDI is complicated, detailed, and often difficult to navigate. 

Typically, about 10-15 percent of individuals who are homeless have these benefits. 

23 Successful result is performance below target. 
Table 66: Measure 2.3.09: 2) Children/adolescents: a) 30 days (Outcome)24

FY Target Result

2010 6.5% Sep 30, 2011

2009 5.8% Sep 30, 2010

2008 5.8% Sep 30, 2009

2007 5.9% 6.7% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 6% 6.4% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2005 6.4% 6.6% 

(Target Not Met)

 

Table 67: Measure 2.3.10: 2) Children/adolescents: b) 180 days (Outcome)

FY Target Result

2010 14.5% Sep 30, 2011

2009 13.9% Sep 30, 2010

2008 13.9% Sep 30, 2009

2007 14% 15.3% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 13.6% 14.2% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2005 12.9% 14.5% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

 

Table 68: Measure 2.3.11: Number of a) evidence based practices (EBPs) 

implemented (Output)25

FY Target Result

2010 4.1 per State Sep 30, 2011

2009 4.0 per State Sep 30, 2010

2008 4.0 per State Sep 30, 2009

2007 4.0 per State 4.0 per State 

(Target Met)

2006 3.3 per State 3.9 per State 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 2.8 per State 3.9 per State 

(Target Exceeded)

 

 

24 Successful result is performance below target. 25 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 

42
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Table 69: Measure 2.3.12: b) Adults-percentage of population coverage for each 

(reported as percentage of service population receiving any evidence based 

practice) (Output)26

FY Target Result

2010 10.5% Sep 30, 2011

2009 10.5% Sep 30, 2010

2008 10.5% Sep 30, 2009

2007 10.4% 9.4% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 10.3% 9.5% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 9.8% 9.7% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

 

Table 70: Measure 2.3.13: c) Children-percentage of population coverage for each 

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

practice) (Output)

FY Target Result

2010 3.5% Sep 30, 2011

2009 3.5% Sep 30, 2010

2008 3.5% Sep 30, 2009

2007 3.4% 3.2% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2006 2.3% 2.2% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 2% 3.4% 

(Target Exceeded)

 

Table 71: 2.3.15: Increase rate of consumers/family members reporting positively 

about outcomes (a) Adults (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 72% Sep 30, 2011

2009 72% Sep 30, 2010

2008 72% Sep 30, 2009

2007 73% 71% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 74% 71% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 73% 71% 

(Target Not Met)

 

26 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 

43
 

Table 72: Measure 2.3.16: Increase rate of consumers/family members reporting 

positively about outcomes (b) Children/adolescents (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 73% Sep 30, 2011

2009 73% Sep 30, 2010

2008 73% Sep 30, 2009

2007 68% 65% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 67% 73% 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 65% 73% 

(Target Exceeded)

 

Table 73: Measure 2.3.17: Number of persons receiving evidence-based practices 

per $10,000 of mental health block grant dollars spent (Efficiency) 

FY Target Result

2010 7.0 Sep 30, 2011

2009 6.5 Sep 30, 2010

2008 4.0 Sep 30, 2009

2007 4.0 6.5 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 4.0 5.7 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 N/A 4.0 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 74: Measure 2.3.14: Increase number of people served by the public mental 

health system (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 6,300,000 Sep 30, 2011

2009 6,250,000 Sep 30, 2010

2008 6,200,000 Sep 30, 2009

2007 5,753,633 6,121,641 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 5,725,008 5,979,379 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 5,227,437 5,878,035 

(Target Exceeded)

44
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

Table 75: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CMHS’s 

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant Program 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.07

2.3.08

2.3.09 

2.3.10

2.3.11 

2.3.12 

2.3.13 

2.3.15

2.3.16

2.3.14 

Uniform Reporting System. See 

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

cmhs/MentalHealthStatistics/about_u

rs2002.asp 

2.3.17 Uniform Reporting System. This 

measure is calculated by dividing 

the number of adults with SMI and 

children/adolescents with SED who 

received evidence based practices 

during the FY by the MHBG 

allocation for the FY in question, 

multiplied by 10,000 

See 

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

cmhs/MentalHealthStatistics/about_u

rs2002.asp 

Measure 2.3.07 is to reduce the rate of readmissions to State psychiatric 

hospitals for adults within 30 days from their discharge from the hospital. The FY 

2007 target was not met. Readmission rates were slightly above target levels. It 

appears that the initial targets for FY 2003 – FY 2005, which were set from the 

FY 2002 baseline, may have been too ambitious since the targets have not been 

met in any of the previous fiscal years. In response to the unexpected level of 

difficulty experienced by the States in reducing these rates, the target for FY 

2007 was increased to 8.7 percent, but this also proved to be too ambitious. FY 

2010 targets have been increased to allow time for states to make adjustments to 

service planning in response to the existing rates.

Measure 2.3.08 is the readmission rate for adults within 180 days from their 

discharge from the hospital. The FY 2007 target was not met. Readmission rates 

were slightly above target levels. It appears that the initial targets for FY 2003 – 

FY 2005, which were set from the FY 2002 baseline, may have been too 

ambitious since the targets have not been met in any of the previous fiscal years. 

In response to the unexpected level of difficulty experienced by the States in 

reducing these rates, the target for FY 2007 was increased to 19.1 percent, but 

this also proved to be too ambitious. FY 2010 targets have been increased to 

allow time for states to make adjustments to service planning in response to the 

existing rates.

45
Measure 2.3.09 is the readmission rate for children within 30 days from their 

discharge from the hospital The FY 2007 target was not met. Readmission rates 

were slightly above target levels. It appears that since the actuals for FY 2004 

and FY 2005 were just above the targets, the targets for FY 2006 and FY 2007 

were lowered with the expectation that the rate would continue to fall. 

Unfortunately that is not the case since the rates have been increasing. In 

response to the unexpected level of difficulty experienced by the States in 

reducing these rates, the target for FY 2010 was increased to 6.5 percent, to 

allow time for states to make adjustments to service planning in response to the 

existing rates.

Measure 2.3.10 is the readmission rate for children within 180 days from their 

discharge from the hospital. The FY 2007 target was not met. It appears that the 

targets that were set from the FY 2003 baseline may have been too ambitious 

since the targets have not been met in any of the previous fiscal years. In 

response to the unexpected level of difficulty experienced by the States in 

reducing these rates, the target for FY 2007 was increased to 14.0 percent, but 

this also proved to be too ambitious. FY 2010 targets have been increased to 

allow time for states to make adjustments to service planning in response to the 

existing rates. 

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

members (children) reporting positively about the outcomes of the services that 

they received in helping to the problems that brought them into treatment. The 

performance target for these 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. The target for adults and children were slightly missed. 

Future targets for adults have been reduced on the basis of prior year 

performance. Targets for children were raised based on performance in FY 2005 

and 2006 but may need to be reconsidered based on performance in FY 2007. 

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

the efficiency and effectiveness of mental health services. The efficiency 

measure was exceeded (2.3.17). This indicator provides a measure of the 

number of evidence-based practices (EBPs) implemented per State. The use of 

EBPs allows mental health providers and programs to more reliably improve 

services, achieve optimal outcomes and has demonstrated a consistent, positive 

impact on of the lives of people who have experienced mental health problems. 

The target was exceeded. For FY 2007, the target for the number of evidence 

based practices was exceeded (2.3.11). The evidence based practice

percentage of coverage for adults (2.3.12) was missed by just one percent and 

for children (2.3.13) the target was missed by just two-tenths of one percent. It 

appears that the program over-estimated the level of progress that states could 

make in the access of these programs for these populations in the allotted time. 

Measure 2.3.14 provides a measure of the number of consumers served by the 

public mental health system. Targets for 2006 and 2007 were met. 

46
Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) 

47

Steps are being taken to improve the program performance for the MHBG 

Program. A Program Peer Review process is in place for the Annual Plan and 

Implementation Report which assesses and provides specific feedback regarding 

strengths and weaknesses of the program as well as specific recommendations 

for ongoing quality improvement. Also, the State Mental Health Authorities within 

each State are monitored via on-site reviews on a regular schedule. These onsite monitoring reviews are conducted by independent consultants and provide 

an assessment of key areas of service delivery and infrastructure. Following 

these site visits, the consultants issue a report that summarizes its program 

findings and when appropriate, may include recommendations for technical 

assistance. All of these activities allow CMHS to identify areas of under 

performance and target improvement through provision of technical assistance 

and training. 
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

***This Page Intentionally Left Blank*** 

48
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

49

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Prevention Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) – 

Capacity 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants (SPF SIG)27

Table 76: Measure 2.3.19: 30-day use of alcohol among youth age 12-17 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

Out-Year 

Target

15% (2013) Dec 31, 2014

2010 15% Dec 31, 2011

2005 Set Baseline 18.6% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 77: Measure 2.3.20: 30-day use of other illicit drugs age 12 and up (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

Out-Year 

Target

5% (2013) Dec 31, 2014

2010 5% Dec 31, 2011

2005 Set Baseline 8.6% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 78: Measure 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 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 50.4% Dec 31, 2011

2009 51.8% Dec 31, 2010

2008 51.8% 47.1% 

(Target Not Met)

2007 Set Baseline 47.1% 

(Baseline)

 

 

27 Target decreases are due to budget decreases 
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 79: Measure 2.3.22: Percent of SPF SIG States showing a decrease in state level 

estimate of percent of survey respondents who report 30-day use of alcohol b) age 21 

and up (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 31.4% Dec 31, 2011

2009 32.3% Dec 31, 2010

2008 32.3% 41.2%28

(Target Exceeded)

2007 Set Baseline 29.4% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 80: Measure 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 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 59.8% Dec 31, 2011

2009 61.5% Dec 31, 2010

2008 61.5% 55.9% 

(Target Not Met)

2007 Set Baseline 55.9% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 81: Measure 2.3.24: Percent of SPF SIG states showing a decrease in state level 

estimates of survey respondents who report 30-day use of other illicit drugs b) age 18 

and up (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 47.2% Dec 31, 2011

2009 48.5% Dec 31, 2010

2008 48.5% 29.4%29

(Target Not Met)

2007 Set Baseline 44.1% 

(Baseline)

 

 

28 Data revised from previously reported. 29 Data revised from previously reported. 

50
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 82: Measure 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 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 78.7% Dec 31, 2011

2009 80.9% Dec 31, 2010

2008 80.9% 50% 

(Target Not Met)

2007 Set Baseline 73.5% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 83: Measure 2.3.26: 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 b) age 18 and up (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 50.4% Dec 31, 2011

2009 51.8% Dec 31, 2010

2008 51.8% 29.4% 

(Target Not Met)

2007 Set Baseline 47.1% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 84: Measure 2.3.27: Percent of SPF SIG states showing an increase in state level 

estimates of survey respondents (age 12-17) who somewhat disapprove or strongly 

disapprove of substance use. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 84.9% Dec 31, 2011

2009 87% Dec 31, 2010

2008 87.3% 67.6% 

(Target Not Met)

2007 Set Baseline 79.4% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 85: Measure 2.3.28: Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and strategies 

implemented: cumulative (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 1400 Dec 31, 2011

2009 1166 Dec 31, 2010

2008 470 781 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 Set Baseline 396 

(Baseline)

 

51
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 86: Measure 2.3.29: Percent of grantee states that have performed needs 

assessments (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 97%30 Dec 31, 2011

2009 100% Dec 31, 2010

2008 100% 100% 

(Target Met)

2007 100% 100% 

(Target Met)

2006 100% 92.3% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 Set Baseline 100% 

(Baseline)

Table 87: Measure 2.3.30: Percent of grantee States that have submitted State plans 

(Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 60%31 Dec 31, 2011

2009 95.2% Dec 31, 2010

2008 100% 95.2%32

(Target Not Met)

2007 85% 96.2% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 50% 92.3% 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 Set Baseline 28% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 88: Measure 2.3.31: Percent of grantee States with approved plans (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 54%33 Dec 31, 2011

2009 85.7% Dec 31, 2010

2008 100% 85.7%34

(Target Not Met)

2007 85% 88.5% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 25% 69.2% 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 Set Baseline 9% 

(Baseline)

 

30 Cohort 1: 100%; Cohort 2: 100%; Cohort 3: 94% 

31 Cohort 1: 100%; Cohort 2: 100%;Cohort 3: 63% 

32 Includes 100% of Cohort I and 2 and 88% of Cohort 3 

33 Cohort 1: 100%; Cohort 2: 100%;Cohort 3: 63% 

34 Includes 100% of Cohort I and 2 and 88% of Cohort 3 

52
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 89: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s Strategic 

Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant Program 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.19 

2.3.20 

Long term national 

measures are obtained from 

published National Survey 

on Drug Use and Health 

reports 

Information on methodology and data verification for the 

NSDUH is available at 

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/met

hods.cfm. Data related to state activities are submitted 

by state grantees to the SPF SIG Cross-Site Evaluation 

contractor. The Cross-site Evaluation team 

works with them to insure that data are complete and 

accurate. 

2.3.21

2.3.22

2.3.23 

2.3.24

2.3.25 

2.3.26 

2.3.27 

Baselines and annual 

targets for each state 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/met

hods.cfm. Data related to state activities are submitted 

by state grantees to the SPF SIG Cross-Site Evaluation 

contractor. The Cross-site Evaluation team works 

with them to insure that data are complete and 

accurate. 

2.3.28 

2.3.29 

2.3.30

2.3.31 

Output measures are 

obtained from grantee 

administrative reports 

Data related to state activities are submitted by state 

grantees to the SPF SIG Cross-Site Evaluation 

contractor. The Cross-site Evaluation team works 

directly with them to insure that data are complete and 

accurate. State Project Officers also review the data to 

assure accuracy. An online data entry system is being 

developed to increase access and ease of use for data 

entry and compliance monitoring. 

The Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant Program (SPF SIG) is a 

program that supports the delivery of effective programs, policies, and practices to 

prevent substance use through a five-step process of the Strategic Prevention 

Framework (SPF). The SPF SIG grants are awarded to States and territories that are 

required to go through multiple stages of the SPF process before they begin to fund 

communities that also go through the SPF steps before implementing services. These 

initial steps lead to a substantial delay between the time the grants are awarded and the 

time that community change is observable. Results of these services are reflected by 

state estimates published in surveys such as the National Survey on Drug Use and 

Health (NSDUH). 

The SPF SIG grantees met or exceeded their FY 2008 outcome/output targets on three 

measures. These included measure 2.3.22, the percent of SPF SIG states showing a 

53
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

54

 

decrease in state level estimate of percent of survey respondents who report 30-day 

use of alcohol for ages 21 and up, and measure 2.3.28, number of evidence-based 

programs implemented. They also met their target on Measure 2.3.29 on percent of 

States that performed their needs assessments. It could be that these targets were 

more sensitive to change and/or more easily achieved than other targets. The reduction 

in use could also be related to the increased numbers of EBPs being implemented. 

At the same time, the SPF SIG States failed to meet their targets for the other 

measures. These failures resulted from a variety of methodological and statistical 

issues. The data used to determine the percent of States improving on each measure 

are from 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. Since the initial Cohort 135 grantees were funded in 

2005, these data cannot reflect actual SPF SIG impacts. Lastly, State-level percentages 

of use and non-use are affected by numerous factors external to prevention programs, 

such as state-level demographic and socioeconomic changes. Such changes include 

raising unemployment, the population make-up and family stability which all contribute 

to increased substance use and are outside the control of this program. 

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

and later cohorts of SPF SIG states. The earlier cohorts will have completed several of 

the initial SPF steps, but the later cohorts are just beginning the SPF implementation 

process. 

The SPF concept has expanded beyond the current SPF SIG grantee States and 

territories to other States and territories. For example, 51 States/territories now use 

SPF or the equivalent for conducting needs assessments, 53 for building State capacity; 

53 for planning; 43 for program implementation and 29 use SPF or the equivalent for 

evaluation efforts. 

35 SPF-SIG grants were awarded over several different years in cohorts. Cohort 1 (21 States) was 

funded at the end of FY 2004. Cohort 2 (5 States) was funded in FY 2005. All States in Cohorts 1 and 2 

have now funded sub-recipient communities. Cohort 3 (16 total, including 5 tribes and 1 jurisdiction) was 

funded in September 2006. 
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Minority AIDS Initiative: Substance Abuse Prevention, HIV Prevention and 

Hepatitis Prevention for Minorities and Minorities Re-entering Communities 

Post-Incarceration (HIV) (Cohort 6)36

Table 90: Measure 2.3.35: Percent of program participants that rate the risk of substance 

abuse as moderate or great a) age 12-17 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 87% Aug 31, 2011

2009 76.6% Aug 31, 2010

2008 75.8% Aug 31, 2009

2007 89% 87.6%37

(Target Not Met)

2006 Set Baseline 88.6% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 91: Measure 2.3.38: Percent of program participants that rate the risk of substance 

abuse as moderate or great b) age 18 and up (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 93% Aug 31, 2011

2009 85.1% Aug 31, 2010

2008 84.2% Aug 31, 2009

2007 Set Baseline 94.4%38

(Baseline)

 

Table 92: Measure 2.3.39: Percent of participants who used alcohol at pre-test who report 

a decrease in use of alcohol at post-test (user decrease): a) age 12-20 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 76.6% Aug 31, 2011

2009 76.6% Aug 31, 2010

2008 75.1% Aug 31, 2009

2007 Set Baseline 74.4% 

(Baseline)

 

 

36 HIV Cohort 7 serves different population groups so baseline data from this cohort will be established 

and entered in FY 2010. 

37 Final FY 2007 result. Data in the 09CJ was preliminary. 38 Final FY 2007 result. Data in the 09CJ was preliminary. 

55
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 93: Measure 2.3.40: Percent of participants who used alcohol at pre-test who report 

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

FY Target Result

2010 60.8% Aug 31, 2011

2009 60.8% Aug 31, 2010

2008 59.6% Aug 31, 2009

2007 Set Baseline 59% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 94: Measure 2.3.41: Percent of participants who report no alcohol use at pre-test 

who remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability): a) age 12-20 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 95.3% Aug 31, 2011

2009 95.3% Aug 31, 2010

2008 93.4% Aug 31, 2009

2007 Set Baseline 92.5% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 95: Measure 2.3.42: Percent of participants who report no alcohol use at pre-test 

who remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability): b) age 21 and up (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 92% Aug 31, 2011

2009 92% Aug 31, 2010

2008 90.2% Aug 31, 2009

2007 Set Baseline 89.3% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 96: Measure 2.3.43: Percent of participants who used illicit drugs at pre-test who 

report a decrease in 30-day use at post-test (user decrease): a) age 12-17 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 92.3% Aug 31, 2011

2009 92.3% Aug 31, 2010

2008 90.5% Aug 31, 2009

2007 Set Baseline 89.6% 

(Baseline)

 

56
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 97: Measure 2.3.44: Percent of participants who used illicit drugs at pre-test who 

report a decrease in 30-day use at post-test (user decrease): b) age 18 and up (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 70.6% Aug 31, 2011

2009 70.6% Aug 31, 2010

2008 69.2% Aug 31, 2009

2007 Set Baseline 68.5% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 98: Measure 2.3.45: Percent of participants who report no illicit drug use at pre-test 

who remain non-users at post-test (non-user stability): a) age 12-17 (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 94.9% Aug 31, 2011

2009 94.9% Aug 31, 2010

2008 93% Aug 31, 2009

2007 Set Baseline 92.1% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 99: Measure 2.3.46: Percent of participants who report no illicit drug use at pre-test 

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

FY Target Result

2010 94.6% Aug 31, 2011

2009 94.6% Aug 31, 2010

2008 92.7% Aug 31, 2009

2007 Set Baseline 91.8% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 100: Measure 2.3.47: Percent of program participants (age 12-17) who somewhat 

disapprove or strongly disapprove of substance use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 82.8% Aug 31, 2011

2009 82.8% Aug 31, 2010

2008 81% Aug 31, 2009

2007 Set Baseline 70.3%39

(Baseline)

 

 

39 Final FY 2007 result. Data in the 09CJ was preliminary. 

57
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 101: Measure 2.3.48: Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and strategies 

implemented by HIV program grantees: cumulative (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 545 Aug 31, 2011

2009 394 Aug 31, 2010

2008 243 Aug 31, 2009

2007 Set Baseline 162 

(Baseline)

 

Table 102: Measure 2.3.56: Number of individuals exposed to substance abuse/hepatitis 

education services (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 2,327 Aug 31, 2011

2009 2,305 Aug 31, 2010

2008 2,283 Aug 31, 2009

2007 Set Baseline 2,260 

(Baseline)

 

Table 103: Measure 2.3.70: Cost per participant improved on one or more measures 

between pre-test and post-test (Output)40

FY Target Result

2010 $20,167 Aug 31, 2011

2009 $20,167 Aug 31, 2010

2008 Set Baseline $22,18941

(Baseline)

 

40 Successful result is performance below target. 41 Calculations are extremely over-inflated due to exclusion of participant counts in other than direct 

services. Efforts are being made to gather those data which will then be used to provide more realistic 

projected targets. 

58
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 104: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s Programs 

of Regional and National Significance: Other Capacity Activities: Minority AIDS Initiative 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.35 

2.3.38 

2.3.39 

2.3.40

2.3.41 

2.3.42 

2.3.43

2.3.44 

2.3.45 

2.3.46 

2.3.47 

2.3.56 

Data are provided by grantees. 

A web-based data collection 

and reporting mechanism has 

been implemented and all 

grantees have received training 

in using the system. 

Data are carefully collected, cleaned, analyzed, and 

reported by CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic 

Coordination and Consolidation Center (DACCC). 

After data are entered, the DACCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any 

data problems identified is transmitted to the 

Government Project Officer (GPO) who works with 

the Program Directors (PD's) to resolve. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits 

to the files. The edited files are then sent to CSAP 

staff and the DACCC Data Analysis Team for 

analysis and reporting. 

2.3.48 Data are provided by grantees. 

A web-based data collection 

and reporting mechanism has 

been implemented and all 

grantees have received training 

in using the system. 

Data are carefully collected, cleaned, analyzed, and 

reported by CSAP’s integrated Data Analytic 

Coordination and Consolidation Center (DACCC). 

After data are entered, the DACCC Data 

Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any 

data problems identified is transmitted to the 

Government Project Officer (GPO) who works with 

the Program Directors (PD's) to resolve. The Data 

Management Team then makes any required edits 

to the files. The edited files are then sent to CSAP 

staff and the DACCC Data Analysis Team for 

analysis and reporting. 

59
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 105: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s Programs 

of Regional and National Significance: Other Capacity Activities: Minority AIDS Initiative 

(continued) 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.70 Data will be provided by 

grantees. A web-based data 

collection and reporting 

mechanism has been 

implemented and all grantees 

have received training in using 

the system. 

Data are carefully collected, cleaned, analyzed, and 

reported by CSAP’s integrated Data Analysis 

Coordination and Consolidation Center (DACCC). 

After data are extracted from the web-based data 

entry system, the DACCC’s Data Management 

Team reviews the data for completeness and 

accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted 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 DACCC’s Data Analysis Team for analysis 

and reporting. The Data Analysis Team compares 

participants’ baseline and exit responses to survey 

items measuring past-30-day use, disapproval of 

use, and perception of risk of substance use. A 

participant who improved on at least one measure 

and did not become worse on any of the other 

measures is defined as “improved.” Total program 

cost for the Fiscal Year is divided by the number of 

improved participants to construct the measure. 

The goal of the HIV cohort 6 program is to increase the capacity of communities serving 

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

Hepatitis prevention services. Evidence-based interventions are defined by inclusion in 

one or more of the three categories: a) included in Federal registries of evidence-based 

interventions; b) reported (with positive effects on the primary targeted outcome) in 

peer-reviewed journals; or c) documented effectiveness supported by other sources of 

information and the consensus judgment of informed experts.42 

The program also incorporates SAMHSA's National Outcome Measures (NOMs), which 

is SAMHSA’s core data collection requirement for all grant programs. This program is 

also using an approved efficiency measure (2.3.70) and a new measure on the number 

of individuals exposed to substance abuse/hepatitis education services. These 

measures will illustrate the impact of outreach efforts. Other measures reflect use for 

 

42 Examples of HIV EBP’s include Voices/Voces and the Sista Program which is listed in the CDC 

Directory of Evidence Based Interventions (DEBI). More information on EBP’s can be found in Identifying 

and Selecting Evidence-Based Interventions Revised Guidance document for the Strategic Prevention 

Framework State Incentive Grant Program. HHS Pub. No. (SMA-4205). CSAP/SAMHSA, 2009. 

http://www.samhsa.gov/shin/

60
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

both those who had used drugs before entering the program and those who had not. 

This last set of measures require person-level matched data to assess person-level 

program outcomes on non-user stability and user decrease to assess “improvement” 

and are used as a basis for calculating effectiveness. These matched data apply to 

clients who have participated in prevention interventions lasting at least 30 days. 

Change is assessed by following each client from program entry to program exit and to 

3 to 6 months follow-up. These matched data will be reported in August 2009. 

As a part of CSAP’s NOMs, cost efficiency is very important and therefore, CSAP has 

added a cost per improved client measure in order to monitor cost effectiveness. This 

measure is defined as the total cost of the HIV program divided by the number of 

participants who “improved.” A program participant is considered “improved” if 

baseline-to-exit comparisons indicate improvement on at least one NOM ATOD43

measure. These include non-user stability, reduction in 30-day use, increase in 

perception of harm or perceived disapproval or non-user stability on at least one 30-day 

substance use measure and no worse on any other NOM. Since estimating the number 

of persons served by environmental strategies is extremely difficult, the cost per client 

calculation currently includes only those directly served by a program lasting over 30 

days. This has resulted in a significant overestimation in the cost per person served. 

For the HIV cohort 6 program, cost per improved participant (direct services only) was 

$22,189. SAMHSA is working on ways to better estimate the number served by 

environmental strategies and shorter programs, and hopes to incorporate a more 

representative estimate of persons served in the cost per client measure in the future. 

Since this program has changed substantially by focusing on much higher risk minority 

and re-entry populations and including the SPF, CSAP has had to establish new 

baseline measures for FY 2008. However, CSAP will not be able to assess progress on 

them until FY 2009 in August, when the program will be able to report actual HIV cohort 

6 data. The delay in data availability allows for complete online submission of grantee 

data and time for required cleaning and analysis. 

 

43 Alcohol, Tobacco, or Other Drugs 

61
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking (STOP Act) 

Table 106: Measure 3.3.01: Percentage of coalitions that report at least 5% improvement 

in the past 30-day use of alcohol in at least two grades (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 41% Dec 31, 2010

2009 40% Dec 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 40% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 107: Measure 3.3.02: Percentage of coalitions that report improvement in youth 

perception of risk from alcohol in at least two grades (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 63.4% Dec 31, 2010

2009 62.2% Dec 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 60.9% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 108: Measure 3.3.03: Percentage of coalitions that report improvement in youth 

perception of parental disapproval on the use of alcohol in at least two grades (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 56.7% Dec 31, 2010

2009 55.6% Dec 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 54.5% 

(Baseline)

62
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

 Table 109: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from STOP Act 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

3.3.01

3.3.02

3.3.03 

The STOP Act program 

provides additional funds to 

current or prior Drug Free 

Community Program (DFC) 

grantees to support activities 

targeting underage alcohol. 

As is the case with the DFC 

grantees, STOP ACT 

Grantees collect alcoholrelated performance data 

using a variety of school and 

community surveys and 

report them online with the 

COMET (Coalition Online 

Management and Evaluation 

Tool) system every two 

years. According to the Act, 

STOP Act grantees cannot 

be required to collect data 

other than already being 

collected for DFC program. 

The baseline measures for three alcohol use 

measures, namely, past 30 day use, perception of risk 

and parent disapproval were developed as follows: 

each grantees was scored as a success (improved as 

described) or not a success for each of these alcohol 

measures. The number of successes was divided by 

the number of grantees for whom data were available 

and multiplied by 100 to arrive at these baseline 

numbers. Additional information on COMET can be 

found at http://www.ondcp.gov/dfc/comet.html

These data are submitted to DACCC for cleaning, 

editing and analysis before being used by CSAP for 

performance requirements and additional analyses. 

The Sober Truth on Preventing Underage Drinking (STOP Act) program provides 

current or previously funded Drug Free Community grantees with an additional $50,000 

funding to support substance abuse prevention environmental strategies targeted to 

stop underage drinking. The purpose of this program is to prevent and reduce alcohol 

use among youth in communities throughout the United States. It was created to 

strengthen collaboration among communities, the Federal Government, and State, local 

and tribal governments; to enhance intergovernmental cooperation and coordination; to 

serve as a catalyst for increased citizen participation and greater collaboration among 

all sectors and organizations of a community that first demonstrates a long-term 

commitment to reducing alcohol use among youth; and to disseminate to communities 

timely information regarding state-of-the-art practices and initiatives that have proven to 

be effective in preventing and reducing alcohol use among youth. 

STOP Act grantees are required to report performance on three core measures. These 

are 1) 30 day alcohol use, 2) perception of harm from alcohol use and 3) parental 

disapproval of alcohol use. These measures are consistent with Drug Free Community 

program measures, as instructed by Congressional language. 

63
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Prevention Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) – 

Science and Service 

Table 110: Measure 2.3.71: Number of people provided technical assistance (TA) 

Services (Output)44

FY Target Result

2010 21,117 Dec 31, 2010

2009 21,117 Dec 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 21,117 

(Baseline)

 

Table 111: Measure 2.3.72: Percentage of TA recipients who reported that they are very 

satisfied with the TA received (Outcome)45

FY Target Result

2010 69.1% Dec 31, 2010

2009 69.1% Dec 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 69.1% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 112: Measure 2.3.73: Percentage of TA recipients who reported that their ability to 

provide effective services improved a great deal (Outcome)

FY Target Result

2010 53.4% Dec 31, 2010

2009 53.4% Dec 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 53.4% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 113: Measure 2.3.74: Percentage of TA recipients who reported that the TA 

recommendations have been fully implemented (Outcome)45

FY Target Result

2010 54% Dec 31, 2010

2009 54% Dec 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 54% 

(Baseline)

 

 

44 Includes CAPTs and FASD programs 45 Includes only the CAPT program 

64
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

65

Table 114: Measure 2.3.75: Number of persons receiving prevention information directly 

(Output)46

FY Target Result

2010 120,223 Dec 31, 2010

2009 120,223 Dec 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 120,223 

(Baseline)

 

Table 115: Measure 2.3.76: Number of persons receiving prevention information 

indirectly from advertising, broadcast, or website (Output)

FY Target Result

2010 906,707 Dec 31, 2010

2009 906,707 Dec 31, 2009

2008 Set Baseline 906,707 

(Baseline)

 

46 Includes contract activities under the Best practices component of PRNS 
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 116: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s Programs 

of Regional and National Significance: Science and Service Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.71 The number of persons 

provided direct technical 

assistance (TA) includes those 

served by several CSAP 

initiatives. These include: 1) 

the Centers for the Application 

of Prevention Technology 

(CAPTs) which provide TA to 

the CSAP discretionary 

program grantees, including 

the SPF-SIG, HIV and 

Methamphetamine grantees; 

and 2) the Fetal Alcohol 

Spectrum Disorder (FASD) 

Center of Excellence which 

provides TA to the FASD 

program. 

Each of these activities uses a quality control 

protocol for collecting and submitting its data and is 

overseen by CSAP staff. These data are then 

submitted to the Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center (DACCC) for cleaning, editing 

and analysis before being used by CSAP for 

performance reporting and other analyses. More 

information can be found on the following websites: 

http://captus.samhsa.gov/home.cfm

http://www.fasdcenter.samhsa.gov/ 

2.3.72 

2.3.73

2.3.74 

The CAPTs collect data 2 

months after the TA completion 

either on site or electronically. 

These data are then submitted to the Data Analytic 

Coordination and Consolidation Center (DACCC) for 

cleaning, editing and analysis before being used by 

CSAP for performance reporting and other analyses.

2.3.75 The participating Communitybased organizations (CBOs) 

collect this information by using 

an OMB approved evaluation 

form. 

These forms are sent with a coded postage-paid 

envelope, used for receipt tracking. Clarification of 

fields entered on the evaluation form is sought from 

the respondents and/or the website: 

www.stopalcoholabuse.gov/townhall/. The data 

are entered into SPSS and MS Word for analysis 

and then submitted to DACCC for cleaning, editing 

and analysis before being used by CSAP for 

analyses. 

2.3.76 Participating Community-based 

organizations (CBOs) collect 

this information from the media

These forms are sent with a coded postage-paid 

envelope, used for receipt tracking. Clarification of 

fields entered on the evaluation form is sought from 

the respondents and/or the website: 

www.stopalcoholabuse.gov/townhall/. The data 

are entered into SPSS and MS Word for analysis 

and then submitted to DACCC for cleaning, editing 

and analysis before being used by CSAP for 

analyses. 

SAMHSA has introduced six new measures to reflect CSAP’s substantial and 

increasing role in training, technical assistance and prevention information 

dissemination. Previously in this document, CSAP included data from the Centers for 

66
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPT), but those measures have been retired 

in favor of aggregate reporting across several of the technical assistance activities. 

While these are not always construed as direct services programs, TA programs serve 

many more persons at a much lower cost and play an important role in advancing the 

field of substance abuse prevention. The measures include several of the CSAP 

technical assistance activities and there are plans to incorporate more activities in the 

near future. Newer service and science technical assistance contracts data will be 

combined in the future with CAPT data. 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant – 20% 

Prevention Set-Aside 

Synar Amendment Implementation Activities 

Table 117: Measure 2.3.49: Increase number of States (including Puerto Rico) whose 

retail sales violations is at or below 20% (Outcome)47

FY Target Result

2010 52 Jun 30, 2011

2009 52 Jun 30, 2010

2008 52 52 

(Target Met)

2007 52 52 

(Target Met)

2006 52 52 

(Target Met)

2005 52 50 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

 

Table 118: Measure 2.3.62: Number of States (excluding Puerto Rico) reporting retail 

tobacco sales violation rates below 10% (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 28 Jun 30, 2011

2009 29 Jun 30, 2010

2008 28 26 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2007 Set Baseline 2548

(Baseline)

 

47 The 20% retail sales violation data apply to the 50 States, D.C., and Puerto Rico 48 FY 2007 Actual was inadvertently reported as 27 (the FY 2006 Actual) 

67
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 119: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s SAPTBG: 

Synar Amendment Implementation Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.49 

2.3.62 

The data source is the 

Synar report, part of the 

SAPT Block Grant 

application submitted 

annually by each State. 

States must certify that Block Grant data are accurate. The 

validity and reliability of the data are ensured through 

technical assistance, conducting random unannounced 

checks, and the confirmation of the data by scientific 

experts, site visits and other similar steps. 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. 

The Synar Regulation requires the 50 States, the District of Columbia and the 8 U.S. 

Territories to: 1) have in effect a law prohibiting any manufacturer, retailer, or distributor 

of tobacco products from selling or distributing such products to any individual younger 

than age 18; 2) Enforce this law; 3) Conduct annual, unannounced inspections (referred 

to as the Synar survey) in a way that provide a valid probability sample of tobacco sales 

outlets accessible to minors; 4) Negotiate interim targets and a date to achieve a 

noncompliance rate (or retailer violation rate) of no more than 20 percent (SAMHSA 

required that each State reduce its retailer violation rate (RVR) to 20 percent or less by 

FY 2003); and 5) Submit an annual report detailing State activities to enforce its law. 

The measures in these tables refer to the results of each State’s Synar survey and 

reflect the percentage of retail outlets in the survey that sold tobacco to youth. 

The Synar program has been successful in reducing youth access to tobacco through 

retail sources. While the national weighted average retailer violation rate for the 50 

States and the District of Columbia (weighted by State population) was 40.1 percent in 

FY 1997, the rate has steadily fallen since then, to 9.9 percent in FY 2008. Since FY 

2006, all 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have been in compliance 

with the Synar requirements. 

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 percent which is in keeping 

with the initial intent of the Synar legislation, to reduce minors’ access to tobacco 

products. It is also consistent with research49 suggesting that effectively reducing youth 

 

49 Jason LA, Ji PY, Anes MD, Birkhead SH. Active enforcement of cigarette control laws in the prevention 

of cigarette sales to minors. JAMA. 1991; 266:3159-3161.Forster JL, Murray DM. Wolfson M, Blaine TM, 

Wagenaar AC, Hennrikus DJ. The effects of community policies to reduce youth access to tobacco. AM J 

Public Health. 1998; 88:1193-1198. 

68
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

69

access requires rates lower than the 20 percent target. The second measure (retailer 

violation rate of less than 10%) only includes the 50 States and D.C. because these are 

the entities included when SAMHSA publishes the annual national weighted retailer 

violation rate. 

While this does not change the legally required target rate of 20 percent, it provides 

CSAP and States with a program goal that fits the legislative intent. In FY 2007, 25 

States reported rates below 10 percent and in FY 2008, 26 States reported rates below 

10 percent. 

In addition to setting targets for State, the Synar Amendment established penalties for 

noncompliance. The penalty for a State is loss of up to 40 percent of its Substance 

Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant funds. In lieu of this penalty, in 

every year since 2000, Congress has provided an alternative penalty (Section 

214/Section 218/Section 213/Section 212) mechanism by which a State can avoid the 

40% reduction in its SAPT Block Grant if the State stipulates that it will spend its own 

funds to improve compliance with the law. The alternative penalty also stipulates that 

SAPT BG funds can not be withheld from a U.S. Territory that receives less than 

$1,000,000 in SAPT Block Grant funds for failing to meet the Synar requirements. The 

first measure (retailer violation rate of 20% or less) includes Puerto Rico because 

Puerto Rico is subject to a monetary penalty for failing to meet the Synar requirements 

because it receives more than $1,000,000 in SAPT BG funds, while the other U.S. 

Territories are not. The second measure ((retailer violation rate of less than 10%) only 

includes the 50 States and DC because these are the entities included when SAMHSA 

publishes the annual national weighted retailer violation rate. 

Other Set-Aside Activities 

Table 120: Measure 2.3.53: Number of evidence-based policies, practices, and strategies 

implemented, cumulative (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 37,044 Aug 31, 2011

2009 24,022 Aug 31, 2010

2008 11,000 17,056 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 Set Baseline 10,090 

(Baseline)

 
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 121: Measure 2.3.69: Percent of program costs spent on evidence-based practices 

(EBP) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 71% Aug 31, 2011

2009 70% Aug 31, 2010

2008 Set Baseline 69% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 122: Measure 2.3.54: Number of participants served in prevention programs 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 17,482,060 Aug 31, 2011

2009 17,482,060 Aug 31, 2010

2008 17,482,060 25,258,287 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 Set Baseline 6,322,551 

(Baseline)

 

Table 123: Measure 2.3.63: Percent of states showing an increase in state level estimates 

of survey respondents who rate the risk of substance abuse as moderate or great (age 

12-17) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 45.1% Aug 31, 2011

2009 45.1% Aug 31, 2010

2008 Set Baseline 45.1% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 124: Measure 2.3.64: Percent of states showing an increase in state level estimates 

of survey respondents who rate the risk of substance abuse as moderate or great (age 

18+) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 27.5% Aug 31, 2011

2009 27.5% Aug 31, 2010

2008 Set Baseline 27.4% 

(Baseline)

 

70
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 125: Measure 2.3.65: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level estimates 

of percent of survey respondents who report 30 day use of alcohol (age 12-20) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 51% Aug 31, 2011

2009 51% Aug 31, 2010

2008 Set Baseline 51% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 126: Measure 2.3.66: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level estimates 

of percent of survey respondents who report 30 day use of alcohol (age 21+) (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 37.3% Aug 31, 2011

2009 37.3% Aug 31, 2010

2008 Set Baseline 37.3% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 127: Measure 2.3.67: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level estimates 

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

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 52.9% Aug 31, 2011

2009 52.9% Aug 31, 2010

2008 Set Baseline 52.9% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 128: Measure 2.3.68: Percent of states showing a decrease in state level estimates 

of percent of survey respondents who report 30 day use of other illicit drugs (age 18+) 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 33.3% Aug 31, 2011

2009 33.3% Aug 31, 2010

2008 Set Baseline 33.3% 

(Baseline)

71
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 129: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s SAPTBG 

20% Set-aside Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.53 Reported by 

States in the 

Block Grant 

Applications 

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

CSAT and CSAP project officers for accuracy and compliance. 

Discussions between project officers and states are scheduled to 

clarify ambiguities or inconsistencies in data which are resolved 

prior to approval. The Data Analytic Coordination and Consolidation 

Center (DACCC) Data Management Team reviews the data for 

completeness and accuracy. Information on any data problems 

identified is transmitted to the DACCC Government Project Officer 

who works with the Program Project Officers and grantees to 

identify a resolution. Communications are supported by regularly 

submitted program data inventories, preliminary reports and 

variable by variable cleaning sheets. The Data Management team 

then makes any required edits to the files. The edited files are then 

available to the DACCC Data Analysis Team for analysis and 

reporting. Grantees are instructed in the use of data collection 

protocols through grantee meetings and questionnaire 

administrative guides. The Block Grant Technical Assistance 

providers have also received training and have begun providing TA 

to the states. 

2.3.69

2.3.54 

Reported by 

States in the 

Block Grant 

Applications. 

Information on methodology and data verification for the NSDUH is 

available at http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/met

hods.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 Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center (DACCC) Data Management Team reviews 

the data for completeness and accuracy. Information on any data 

problems identified is transmitted to the DACCC Government 

Project Officer who works with the Program Project Officers and 

grantees to identify a resolution. Communications are supported by 

regularly submitted program data inventories, preliminary reports 

and variable by variable cleaning sheets. The Data Management 

team then makes any required edits to the files. The edited files are 

then available to the DACCC Data Analysis Team for analysis and 

reporting. Grantees are instructed in the use of data collection 

protocols through grantee meetings and questionnaire 

administrative guides. The Block Grant Technical Assistance 

providers have also received training and have begun providing TA 

to the states. 

72
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

Table 130: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAP’s SAPTBG 

20% Set-aside Activities (continued) 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

2.3.63

2.3.64

2.3.65

2.3.66

2.3.67

2.3.68 

Outcome data 

are from the 

National 

Survey on 

Drug Use and 

Health. 

Information on methodology and data verification for the NSDUH is 

available at http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/met

hods.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 Data Analytic Coordination and 

Consolidation Center (DACCC) Data Management Team reviews the 

data for completeness and accuracy. Information on any data 

problems identified is transmitted to the DACCC Government Project 

Officer who works with the Program Project Officers and grantees to 

identify a resolution. Communications are supported by regularly 

submitted program data inventories, preliminary reports and variable 

by variable cleaning sheets. The Data Management team then makes 

any required edits to the files. The edited files are then available to 

the DACCC Data Analysis Team for analysis and reporting. Grantees 

are instructed in the use of data collection protocols through grantee 

meetings and questionnaire administrative guides. The Block Grant 

Technical Assistance providers have also received training and have 

begun providing TA to the states. 

Former measures 2.3.50, 2.3.51, and 2.3.52 have been used in recent years as proxy 

measures for the Substance Abuse and Prevention Block Grant 20% Prevention Setaside. They were national population-based measures taken from the National Survey 

on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) and did not reflect change at the State/grantee level 

(each State is a grantee so the terms are interchangeable). As a result, they have been 

retired. They have been replaced with separate measures reflecting the percentage of 

States/grantees improving on State-level estimates from the NSDUH. The table 

includes FY 2008 actual data for these measures. 

We have added a new efficiency measure (2.3.69), the percent of block grant dollars 

spent on evidence-based practices (EBPs)50. In FY 2008, this was 69 percent. These 

programs have been demonstrated to be effective. Thus the proportion of total grant 

dollars spent on EBPs is an indicator of the ability of the program to channel resources 

towards proven-effective strategies, that is, an indicator of the efficient use of resources. 

 

50 Evidence-based interventions are defined by inclusion in one or more of the three categories: a) 

included in Federal registries of evidence-based interventions; b) reported (with positive effects on the 

primary targeted outcome) in peer-reviewed journals; or c) documented effectiveness supported by other 

sources of information and the consensus judgment of informed experts. 

73
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

74

The remaining measures have reported baseline data for FY 2008 and have set targets 

for FY 2009 and FY 2010. 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. The 

target for numbers served for FY 2008 was exceeded substantially as was the number 

of EBPs implemented. 

There are a total of 60 States/territories that receive the SAPT BG 20% Prevention Setaside funds. FY 2008 is the first year that numbers served data are being reported after 

the full implementation of the NOMs when this reporting became required. The baseline 

and target for this year were based on numbers obtained from 28 States/territories that 

voluntarily submitted these data before the reporting became required of all grantees. 

Every effort was made to extrapolate from the voluntarily submitted data to project FY 

2008 numbers that would be supplied by all 60 grantees. The extrapolation corrected for 

the population sizes of the reporting and non-reporting States/territories in FY 2007 but 

did not take into consideration differences across States/territories in the status of their 

data collection infrastructure or other factors that might influence the completeness of 

the reported data. This may explain why the actual figure exceeded the projected 

target. 

Results for the 20% prevention set-aside activities in the SAPT Block Grant are reported 

for the compliance year of the program. Output results are aligned with NSDUH state 

outcome estimates for a comparable timeframe. For example, output data reported in 

2009 reflect the compliance year of 2006. Outcome data reported in 2009 reflect data 

reported in the 2008 NSDUH, which are based on pooled 2006-2007 data. 
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

75

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) 

Treatment Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) - 

Capacity 

Access to Recovery (ATR) 

Table 131: Measure 1.2.32: Increase the number of clients gaining access to treatment 

(Output)51

FY Target Result

2010 65,000 Oct 31, 2010

2009 65,000 Oct 31, 2009

2008 30,000 50,845 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 50,000 79,150 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 50,000 96,959 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 25,000 23,138 

(Target Not Met)

 

Table 132: Measure 1.2.33: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who a) 

had no past month substance use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 82% Oct 31, 2010

2009 81% Oct 31, 2009

2008 80% 82.3% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 81% 84.7% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 79% 81.4% 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 Set Baseline 78% 

(Baseline)

 

 

51 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 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. 
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

Table 133: Measure 1.2.34: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who b) 

had improved family and living conditions (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 53% Oct 31, 2010

2009 52% Oct 31, 2009

2008 52% 52.9% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 52% 59.9% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 63% 51% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 Set Baseline 62% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 134: Measure 1.2.35: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who c) 

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

FY Target Result

2010 96.0 Oct 31, 2010

2009 96.0 Oct 31, 2009

2008 96.0 96.0 

(Target Met)

2007 97.0 97.6 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 95.0 96.8 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 Set Baseline 95.0 

(Baseline)

 

Table 135: Measure 1.2.36: Increase the percentage of adult receiving services who d) 

had improved social support (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 91% Oct 31, 2010

2009 90% Oct 31, 2009

2008 90% 91.7% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 90% 75.1% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 90% 90% 

(Target Met)

2005 Set Baseline 89% 

(Baseline)

 

76
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

77

Table 136: Measure 1.2.37: Increase the percentage of adults receiving services who are) 

were currently employed or engaged in productive activities (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 54% Oct 31, 2010

2009 53% Oct 31, 2009

2008 53% 59.1% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 50% 61.7% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 57% 50% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 Set Baseline 56% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 137: Measure 1.2.39: Cost per client served (Efficiency)52

FY Target Result

2010 $1,572 Oct 31, 2010

2009 $1,588 Oct 31, 2009

2008 $1,605 $1,888 

(Target Not Met)

2007 N/A $1,605 

(Historical Actual)

Table 138: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s Access to 

Recovery Program 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.32

1.2.33 

1.2.34 

1.2.35 

1.2.36

1.2.37

1.2.39 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

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

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they 

are being entered. The system will not allow any data that are 

out of range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the 

database. 

CSAT uses a series of key output and outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of 

its Services Programs. The primary key output measure used is the number of clients 

served. This measure represents an unduplicated count of individuals who have 

received services through grants in CSAT's Access to Recovery Program. All outcome 

measures are based on a follow-up assessment conducted six months post admission 

to the program. Abstinence from substance use is a key outcome of the Program. This 

measure examines the substance use patterns of the clients. The percent reported 

 

52 Successful result is below target. 
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

reflects the percent of individuals who have reported no use of alcohol or illegal drugs in 

the past 30 days at follow-up. The measure of employment/education shows the 

percent of people employed or in school or a job training program. The criminal justice 

measure refers to those clients who have reported no arrests in the past 30 days. 

Social connectedness measures the percent of people who attend self-help or support 

groups in support of their recovery. Stability in housing refers to the percent of people 

who own/rent their own house or apartment. These measures combined provide a 

holistic view of the effectiveness of the services being provided by this program. 

All FY 2008 outcome targets for this program were met or exceeded. Based on data, 

targets were set at appropriate levels and were neither missed nor substantially 

exceeded. 

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

performed exceptionally well once infrastructure and program processes were fully in 

place. Eleven (out of 24) cohort 2 grantees had experience implementing ATR as they 

had also received cohort 1 grants. This accounted for a very quick start-up for these 11 

grantees. Grantees were able to begin serving clients within three months post award 

which accounts for the spike in client numbers as compared to the original target set. 

The first cohort of grantees ended in FY 2007. The second cohort of ATR grantees 

began providing services in FY 2008. Targets for FY 2008 were set lower to allow the 

new grantees to develop the appropriate infrastructure for a voucher-based system. In 

addition, the focus on methamphetamine users in the second cohort may have led to 

more significant barriers to service than the ATR population at large; therefore, targets 

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

and FY 2009 were set during ATR’s performance assessment in CY 2007. 

In conjunction with the ATR performance assessment, an efficiency measure has been 

established. This measure, cost-per-client served, has been implemented with the 

second cohort of ATR grantees that were awarded in September 2007. SAMHSA is 

developing further refinements in this efficiency measure. The FY 2008 target for this 

measure was not met. 

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

and results for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes 

associated with activities supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. It is expected 

that with the funds available for reinvestment in the Access to Recovery Program, the 

2011 target for number of clients served will be approximately 33,500. 

78
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

79

Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral and Treatment (SBIRT) 

Table 139: Measure 1.2.40: Increase the number of clients served (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 139,650 Oct 31, 2010

2009 139,650 Oct 31, 2009

2008 139,650 192,840 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 184,597 138,267 

(Target Not Met)

2006 156,820 182,770 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 70,544 155,267 

(Target Exceeded)

 

Table 140: Measure 1.2.41: Increase the percentage of clients receiving services who had 

no past month substance use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 50% Oct 31, 2010

2009 50% Oct 31, 2009

2008 48% 46.5% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2007 48% 45.7% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 41.8% 47.5% 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 Set Baseline 39.8% 

(Baseline)

Table 141: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s 

Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral and Treatment Program 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.40

1.2.41 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

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

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they 

are being entered. The system will not allow any data that are 

out of range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the 

database. 

The target for numbers served in FY 2008 was substantially exceeded. This measure 

reflects the number of clients who were screened through the SBIRT program. These clients 

may have screened negative, required a brief intervention, a brief treatment or a referral to 

treatment. As seen in the data above, the target for FY 2007 was missed due to a grantee 

experiencing issues with a subcontractor which ultimately led to the termination of the 

subcontract. SAMHSA worked with the grantee to address and resolve the issue. As 
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

evidenced in the data for FY 2008, the issue has been resolved and grantees exceeded the 

target for number of clients to be served. 

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

i.e., reported no use of alcohol or illegal drugs in the past 30 days at the six month follow-up 

assessment, was set at an appropriate target level, and the deviation from that level is slight. 

There was no effect on overall program or activity performance. 

Criminal Justice - Substance Abuse Drug Courts 

 Table 142: Measure 1.2.62: Juvenile Drug Courts: Percentage of clients that complete 

treatment (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2009 75% Oct 31, 2009

2008 74% 75.1% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 69% 73% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 N/A 68% 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 143: Measure 1.2.63: Juvenile Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: a) Were currently employed or engaged in productive activities 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2009 88% Oct 31, 2009

2008 87% 86% 

(Target Not Met)

2007 87% 86% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 N/A 86% 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 144: Measure 1.2.64: Juvenile Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: b) Had a permanent place to live in the community (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2009 82% Oct 31, 2009

2008 81% 81% 

(Target Met)

2007 78% 80% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 N/A 77% 

(Historical Actual)

 

80
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

81

Table 145: Measure 1.2.65: Juvenile Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: c) Had no involvement with the criminal justice system 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2009 93% Oct 31, 2009

2008 92% 94.3% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 91% 91% 

(Target Met)

2006 N/A 90.3% 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 146: Measure 1.2.66: Juvenile Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: d) Experienced no/reduced alcohol or illegal drug related health, 

behavioral or social consequences (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2009 93% Oct 31, 2009

2008 92% 92% 

(Target Met)

2007 90% 91.2% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 N/A 89% 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 147: Measure 1.2.67: Juvenile Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients 

receiving services who: e) Had no past month substance use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2009 73% Oct 31, 2009

2008 72% 69% 

(Target Not Met)

2007 69% 71% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 N/A 68% 

(Historical Actual)

Table 148: Measure 1.2.68: Juvenile Drug Courts: Percent of drug court participants who 

exhibit a reduction in substance use while in the drug court program. Measured in 

conjunction with DOJ. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 N/A Oct 31, 2010

 
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

Table 149: Measure 1.2.69: Juvenile Drug Courts: Reduce cost-per-client served 

(Outcome)53

FY Target Result

2009 $5,610 Oct 31, 2009

2008 $5,905 $6,790 

(Target Not Met)

2007 $6,742 $6,463 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 N/A $8,742 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 150: Measure 1.2.70: Juvenile Drug Courts: Increase number of clients served 

(Output) 

FY Target Result

2009 449 Oct 31, 2009

2008 929 783 

(Target Not Met)

2007 821 856 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 N/A 477 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 151: Measure 1.2.71: Adult Drug Courts: Percentage of clients that complete 

treatment (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 67% Oct 31, 2010

2009 67% Oct 31, 2009

2006 N/A 66% 

(Historical Actual)

2005 N/A 61% 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 152: Measure 1.2.72: Adult Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients receiving 

services who: a) Were currently employed or engaged in productive activities (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 89% Oct 31, 2010

2009 88% Oct 31, 2009

2006 N/A 86% 

(Historical Actual)

2005 N/A 70% 

(Historical Actual)

 

 

53 Successful result is below target. 

82
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

83

Table 153: Measure 1.2.73: Adult Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients receiving 

services who b) Had a permanent place to live in the community (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 82% Oct 31, 2010

2009 82% Oct 31, 2009

2006 N/A 77% 

(Historical Actual)

2005 N/A 69.9% 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 154: Measure 1.2.74: Adult Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients receiving 

services who: c) Had no involvement with the criminal justice system (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 93% Oct 31, 2010

2009 93% Oct 31, 2009

2006 N/A 90.3% 

(Historical Actual)

2005 N/A 89% 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 155: Measure 1.2.75: Adult Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients receiving 

services who: d) Experienced no/reduced alcohol or illegal drug related health, 

behavioral or social, consequences (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 93% Oct 31, 2010

2009 93% Oct 31, 2009

2006 N/A 89% 

(Historical Actual)

2005 N/A 86.6% 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 156: Measure 1.2.76: Adult Drug Courts: Increase percentage of clients receiving 

services who: e) Had no past month substance use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 73% Oct 31, 2010

2009 73% Oct 31, 2009

2006 N/A 68% 

(Historical Actual)

2005 N/A 67% 

(Historical Actual)

 
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

Table 157: Measure 1.2.77: Adult Drug Courts: Percent of drug court participants who 

exhibit a reduction in substance use while in the drug court program. Measured in 

conjunction with DOJ. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 N/A Oct 31, 2010

 

Table 158: Measure 1.2.78: Adult Drug Courts: Reduce cost-per-client served (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 $5,554 Oct 31, 2010

2009 $5,610 Oct 31, 2009

 

Table 159: Measure 1.2.79: Adult Drug Courts: Increase number of clients served 

(Output)54

FY Target Result

2010 2832 Oct 31, 2010

2009 960 Oct 31, 2009

2006 N/A 357 

(Historical Actual)

2005 N/A 796 

(Historical Actual)

Table 160: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s 

Substance Abuse Treatment Drug Courts Program 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.62

1.2.63

1.2.64

1.2.65 

1.2.66

1.2.67

1.2.69

1.2.70

1.2.71

1.2.72

1.2.73

1.2.74

1.2.75

1.2.76

1.2.78

1.2.79 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

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

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they 

are being entered. The system will not allow any data that are 

out of range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the 

database. 

 

54 Successful result is below target. 

84
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

85

Table 161: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s 

Substance Abuse Treatment Drug Courts Program (continued) 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.68

1.2.77 

To be determined To be determined 

The Treatment Drug Court program funds several types of grants including those 

specifically for juvenile or adult clients and those focused on families. SAMHSA reports 

performance data for the adult and juvenile drug courts separately. As a result, the 

juvenile and adult measures are both included in this document, but data and targets 

are reported separately based on which grants are currently funded (adult or juvenile). 

 The last cohort of adult drug court grants was funded in FY 2005 and FY 2006. During 

FY 2007 and FY 2008, no adult drug courts were funded by SAMHSA. The current 

juvenile drug court grantees have been funded since FY 2006, but that funding will end 

in FY 2009. SAMHSA intends to award grants for both juvenile and adult drug courts in 

FY 2009. 

CSAT uses a series of key output and outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of 

its Services Programs. The primary key output measure used is the number of clients 

served. This measure represents an unduplicated count of individuals who receive 

services through grants in CSAT's Treatment Drug Court Program. All outcome 

measures are based on a follow-up assessment conducted six months post admission 

to the program. Abstinence from substance use is a key outcome of the Program. This 

measure examines the substance use patterns of the clients. The percent reported 

reflects the percent of individuals who have reported no use of alcohol or illegal drugs in 

the past 30 days at follow-up. The measure of employment/education shows the 

percent of people employed or in school or a job training program. The criminal justice 

measure refers to those clients who have reported no arrests in the past 30 days. 

Stability in housing refers to the percent of people who own/rent their own house or 

apartment. These measures combined provide a holistic view of the effectiveness of 

the services being provided by this program. 

The Treatment Drug Court Program met or exceeded its housing, criminal justice, social 

consequences, and treatment completion targets. Employment and abstinence targets 

were slightly missed. The targets were missed by a small amount and program 

performance was not affected. 

The targets for number served and cost per client served were missed. This was due to 

the fact that the juvenile drug court grants in this program were in their last year and 

were phasing out their projects during FY 2008. As adult drug court grants were not 

funded for 2008, data are not available for this group. Data for the adult drug court 

program will be reported in FY 2009. 
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

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

and results for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes 

associated with activities supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, 

adjustments to 2010 funding will be reflected in the targets set for 2011. The increase 

in funds in the Criminal Justice portfolio will result in a target of approximately 7,000 

clients (including Drug Courts and Ex-Offender Re-Entry).” 

Criminal Justice – Ex-Offender Re-Entry Program 

Table 162: Measure 1.2.80: Number of clients served (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 1,312 Oct. 31, 2010

 

Table 163: Measure 1.2.81: Percentage of clients who had no past month substance use 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 68.9% Oct. 31, 2010

Table 164: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s ExOffender Re-Entry Program 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.80

1.2.81 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

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

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they 

are being entered. The system will not allow any data that are 

out of range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the 

database. 

CSAT uses a series of key output and outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of 

its Services Programs. The primary key output measure used is the number of clients 

served. This measure represents an unduplicated count of individuals who have 

received services through grants in CSAT's Ex-Offender Re-Entry Program. All 

outcome measures are based on a follow-up assessment conducted six months post 

admission to the program. Abstinence from substance use is a key outcome of the 

program. This measure examines the substance use patterns of the clients. The 

percent reported reflects the percent of individuals who have reported no use of alcohol 

or illegal drugs in the past 30 days at follow-up. 

Baseline data for these two measures has been determined based on the previous 

cohort of grantees. Targets for 2010 have been set in accordance with the baseline 

data. 

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

and results for any given fiscal year primarily reflect the outputs and outcomes 

86
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

87

associated with activities supported by funding from the prior fiscal year. Therefore, 

adjustments to 2010 funding will be reflected in the targets set for 2011. The increase 

in funds in the Criminal Justice portfolio will result in a target of approximately 7,000 

clients (including Drug Courts and Ex-Offender Re-Entry).” 

All Other Capacity55

Table 165: Measure 1.2.25: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who: Had no 

past month substance use (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 62% Oct 31, 2010

2009 61% Oct 31, 2009

2008 63% 62% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2007 63% 59% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 67% 63% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 65% 64.1% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

Table 166: Measure 1.2.26: Increase the number of clients served (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 34,784 Oct 31, 2010

2009 31,659 Oct 31, 2009

2008 35,334 33,446 

(Target Not Met)

2007 35,334 35,516 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 34,300 35,334 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 30,761 34,014 

(Target Exceeded)

 

 

55 Includes TCE General, HIV/AIDS Outreach, Addiction Treatment for Homeless Persons, Assertive 

Adolescent and Family Treatment, Family and Juvenile Drug Courts, Young Offender Re-Entry Program, 

Pregnant and Post-Partum Women, Recovery Community Service – Recovery, Recovery Community 

Service – Facilitating, and Child and Adolescent State Incentive Grants. 
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

Table 167: Measure 1.2.27: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who: a) Were 

currently employed or engaged in productive activities (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 51% Oct 31, 2010

2009 50% Oct 31, 2009

2008 52% 54.3% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 52% 57% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 49% 52% 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 47% 48.9% 

(Target Exceeded)

 

Table 168: Measure 1.2.28: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who: b) Had 

a permanent place to live in the community (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 49% Oct 31, 2010

2009 49% Oct 31, 2009

2008 51% 47% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2007 53% 46% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 51% 49.3% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2005 Set Baseline 49.2% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 169: Measure 1.2.29: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who: c) Had 

no involvement with the criminal justice system (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 95% Oct 31, 2010

2009 94% Oct 31, 2009

2008 96% 96% 

(Target Met)

2007 96% 96% 

(Target Met)

2006 98% 96% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 98% 96% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

 

88
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

89

Table 170: Measure 1.2.30: Increase percentage of adults receiving services who: d) 

Experienced no/reduced alcohol or illegal drug related health, behavioral or social, 

consequences (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 66% Oct 31, 2010

2009 65% Oct 31, 2009

2008 67% 68% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 67% 65% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 67% 67% 

(Target Met)

2005 85% 65% 

(Target Not Met)

 

Table 171: Measure 1.2.31: Increase the percentage of grantees in appropriate cost bands 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 79% Oct 31, 2011

2009 78% Oct 31, 2010

2008 80% Oct 31, 2009

2007 80% 80% 

(Target Met)

2006 80% 81% 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 80% 81% 

(Target Exceeded)

Table 172: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s Programs 

of Regional and National Significance: Other Capacity Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.25

1.2.26

1.2.27

1.2.28

1.2.29

1.2.30

1.2.31 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

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

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they 

are being entered. The system will not allow any data that are 

out of range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the 

database. 

CSAT uses a series of key output and outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of 

its Services Programs. The primary key output measure used is the number of clients 

served. This measure represents an unduplicated count of individuals who have 

received services through grants in CSAT's Other Capacity programs. All outcome 

measures are based on a follow-up assessment conducted six months post admission 
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

to the program. Abstinence from substance use is a key outcome of these programs. 

This measure examines the substance use patterns of the clients. The percent reported 

reflects the percent of individuals who have reported no use of alcohol or illegal drugs in 

the past 30 days at six month follow-up. The measure of employment/education shows 

the percent of people employed or in school or a job training program. The criminal 

justice measure refers to those clients who have reported no arrests in the past 30 

days. Social connectedness measures the percent of people who attend self-help or 

support groups in support of their recovery. Stability in housing refers to the percent of 

people who own/rent their own house or apartment. These measures combined provide 

a holistic view of the effectiveness of the services being provided by the Other Capacity 

Programs. The efficiency measure of grantees in appropriate cost bands gives the 

percent of grantees that fall into acceptable cost ranges for each modality of treatment 

provided. 

The targets for employment, criminal justice, health consequences and social 

connectedness were either met or exceeded. The targets for abstinence, housing and 

number served were missed; however, the deviation is slight and does not affect overall 

program performance. Targets for FY 2009 are lower than FY 2008 target due to 

anticipated funding decreases. In addition, the target for the efficiency measure was 

met.56

Treatment Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) – 

Science and Service57

Table 173: Measure 1.4.01: Report implementing improvements in treatment methods on 

the basis of information and training provided by the program (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 90% Oct 31, 2010

2009 90% Oct 31, 2009

2008 90% 92% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 93% 90% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 89% 93% 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 85% 87% 

(Target Exceeded)

 

 

56 Percentage of grantees that provide drug treatment services within approved cost per person bands is 

measured by the type of treatment including outpatient non-methadone, outpatient methadone, and 

residential treatment services. The cost ranges are for outpatient non-methadone $1000-$5000, 

outpatient methadone $1500-$8000, and residential $3000-$10,000. 

57 Includes Knowledge Application Program, Faith Based Initiatives, Strengthening Treatment Access and 

Retention, Addiction Technology Transfer Centers, and SAMHSA Conference Grants. 

90
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

91

Table 174: Measure 1.4.02: Increase the number of individuals trained per year (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 20,516 Oct 31, 2010

2009 20,516 Oct 31, 2009

2008 20,516 21,490 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 23,141 20,516 

(Target Not Met)

2006 28,916 23,141 

(Target Not Met)

2005 36,077 28,630 

(Target Not Met)

 

Table 175: Measure 1.4.03: Increase the percentage of drug treatment professionals 

trained by the program who a) Would rate the quality of the events as good, very good, or 

excellent (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 96% Oct 31, 2010

2009 96% Oct 31, 2009

2008 96% 95% 

(Target Not Met)

2007 96% 95% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 96% 96% 

(Target Met)

2005 93% 95% 

(Target Exceeded)

 

Table 176: Measure 1.4.04: Increase the percentage of drug treatment professionals 

trained by the program who b) Shared any of the information from the events with others 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 92% Oct 31, 2010

2009 92% Oct 31, 2009

2008 90% 93.5% 

(Target Exceeded)

2007 90% 89% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2006 88% 87% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2005 86% 86% 

(Target Met)

 
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

Table 177: Measure 1.4.05: Increase the percentage of grantees in appropriate cost bands 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 100% Oct 31, 2011

2009 100% Oct 31, 2010

2008 100% Oct 31, 2009

2007 100% 100% 

(Target Met)

2006 100% 100% 

(Target Met)

2005 100% 100% 

(Target Met)

Table 178: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s Programs 

of Regional and National Significance: Science and Service Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.4.01

1.4.02

1.4.03

1.4.04

1.4.05 

Services 

Accountability 

Improvement 

System 

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

Validation and verification checks are run on the data as they 

are being entered. The system will not allow any data that are 

out of range or violate skip patterns to be saved into the 

database. 

 The output measure used for this program is number of participants trained, which reflects 

the total number of participants who attended a CSAT-funded training, meeting, or received 

technical assistance. The outcome measures used reflect the percent of people who 

reported sharing information with others, whether or not the participants applied the 

information, and whether there was overall satisfaction with the event quality. All output and 

outcome targets except one were either met or exceeded, including: implementing 

improvements in treatment methods; sharing information from events with others; increasing 

the percentage of grantees in appropriate cost bands, which reflects a range of cost 

appropriate for a Science and Service participant; and increasing the number of clients 

served. The target for 1.4.03 (increasing percentage of treatment professionals who rate the 

quality of events highly) was missed; however, the deviation is slight and does not affect 

overall program performance. 

92
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

93

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (SAPTBG) – 

Treatment Activities 

Table 179: Measure 1.2.43: Number of admissions to substance abuse treatment 

programs receiving public funding (Output)58

FY Target Result

2010 1,881,515 Nov 30, 2012

2009 1,881,515 Nov 30, 2011

2008 1,881,515 Nov 30, 2010

2007 2,003,324 2,372,302 

(Target Exceeded)59

2006 1,983,490 1,849,891 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2005 1,963,851 1,849,528 

(Target Not Met)

 

Table 180: Measure 1.2.45: Increase the percentage of States and Territories that express 

satisfaction with Technical Assistance (TA) provided (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 97% Nov 30, 2011

2009 97% Nov 30, 2010

2008 97% Nov 30, 2009

2007 97% 92% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2006 97% 83% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 97% 91% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

 

58 Formerly Number of Clients Served. Wording change approved by OMB 12/4/07 59 Prior to FY 2007, the data for this measure came from the Treatment Episode Data Set component of 

the SAMHSA Drug and Alcohol Services Information System. Beginning in FY 2007, the data source is 

the State data repository of the Web Block Grant Application System. 
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

Table 181: Measure 1.2.47: Increase the percentage of States in appropriate cost bands 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 68% Nov 30, 2011

2009 68% Nov 30, 2010

2008 67% Nov 30, 2009

2007 67% 65% 

(Target Not Met)

2006 100% 65% 

(Target Not Met)

2005 Set Baseline 100% 

(Baseline)

 

Table 182: Measure 1.2.48: Percentage of clients reporting abstinence from drug use at 

discharge (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 70.3% Nov 30, 2011

2009 69.3% Nov 30, 2010

2008 69.3% Nov 30, 2009

2007 68.3% 73.7% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 N/A 68.3% 

(Historical Actual)

Table 183: Measure 1.2.49: Percentage of clients reporting abstinence from alcohol at 

discharge (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 74.7% Nov 30, 2011

2009 74.7% Nov 30, 2010

2008 74.7% Nov 30, 2009

2007 73.7% 80.9% 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 N/A 73.7% 

(Historical Actual)

 

94
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

95

Table 184: Measure 1.2.50: Percentage of clients reporting being employed/in school at 

discharge (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 43.9% Nov 30, 2011

2009 42.9% Nov 30, 2010

2008 42.9% Nov 30, 2009

2007 N/A 42.9% 

(Historical Actual)

2006 N/A 40.9% 

(Historical Actual)

 

Table 185: Measure 1.2.51: Percentage of clients reporting no involvement with the 

criminal justice system (Outcome) 

FY Target Result

2010 88.9% Nov 30, 2011

2009 88.9% Nov 30, 2010

2008 88.9% Nov 30, 2009

2007 N/A 88.9% 

(Historical Actual)

2006 N/A 88.9% 

(Historical Actual)
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

Table 186: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from CSAT’s SAPTBG 

– Treatment Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation 

1.2.43 Data are collected through standard 

instruments and submitted through the 

Treatment Episode Set. Data are then 

uploaded to CSAT’s State data repository, 

the Web Block Grant Application System 

(WEBBGAS). In addition, States can make 

direct updates to data in WebBGAS and are 

required to verify that the data in the system 

are correct. 

All data are automatically checked as 

they are submitted through the internal 

control processes in the Treatment 

Episode Data Set. Validation and 

verification checks run on the data as 

they are being entered. The system will 

not allow any data that are out of range 

or violate skip patterns to be saved into 

the database. 

1.2.45 Data are collected through standard 

instruments and submitted through the 

Treatment Episode Set. TA data are 

collected through an annual customer 

satisfaction survey with the 

States/territories on the Block Grant 

activities 

All data are automatically checked as 

they are submitted through the internal 

control processes in the Treatment 

Episode Data Set. Validation and 

verification checks run on the data as 

they are being entered. The system will 

not allow any data that are out of range 

or violate skip patterns to be saved into 

the database 

1.2.47

1.2.48

1.2.49

1.2.50

1.2.51 

Data are collected through standard 

instruments and submitted through the 

Treatment Episode Set. TA data are 

collected through an annual customer 

satisfaction survey with the 

States/territories on the Block Grant 

activities. 

All data are automatically checked as 

they are submitted through the internal 

control processes in the Treatment 

Episode Data Set. Validation and 

verification checks run on the data as 

they are being entered. The system will 

not allow any data that are out of range 

or violate skip patterns to be saved into 

the database. 

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

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

and the other one reflects abstinence from alcohol at discharge. Discharge is defined as 

the date of last service and abstinence is defined as no reported use of either alcohol or 

drugs in the past 30 days. Baseline data have been reported and both measures 

exceeded their FY 2007 targets. Measures have also been added for employment and 

criminal justice involvement. 

The performance target for admissions for FY 2006 was set at an approximate 

appropriate target level, and the deviation from that level is slight. There was no effect 

on overall program or activity performance. The target of number of admissions was 

exceeded with a total of 2.3 million admissions reported. The number of admissions 

reflects the number of entrances into services provided under the block grant program. 

All outcome targets (abstinence from drugs and alcohol use) were either met or 

96
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT)

97

 

exceeded. The measure related to percentage of grantees in cost bands60 was missed 

by a slight deviation which did not affect overall program performance. 

Prior to FY 2007, the data for this measure (1.2.43) came from the Treatment Episode 

Data Set component of the SAMHSA Drug and Alcohol Services Information System. 

Beginning in FY 2007, the data source is the State data repository of the Web Block 

Grant Application System. This system contains more comprehensive and verified 

information on the measure. 

60 Percentage of states that provide drug treatment services within approved cost per person bands is 

measured by the type of treatment including outpatient non-methadone, outpatient methadone, and 

residential treatment services. The cost ranges are for outpatient non-methadone $1000-$5000, 

outpatient methadone $1500-$8000, and residential $3000-$10,000. 
Office of Applied Studies (OAS)

**Page intentionally left blank**

98
Office of Applied Studies 

Office of Applied Studies (OAS) 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (SAPTBG) - 

National Surveys 

Table 187: Measure 4.4.01: Availability and timeliness of data for the a) National Survey 

on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 8 months Sep 30, 2010

2009 8 months Sep 30, 2009

2008 8 months 8 months 

(Target Met)

2007 8 months 8 months 

(Target Met)

2006 8 months 8 months 

(Target Met)

2005 8 months 8 months 

(Target Met)

 

Table 188: Measure 4.4.02: Availability and timeliness of data for the b) Drug Abuse 

Warning Network (DAWN) (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 10 months Oct 31, 2010

2009 10 months Oct 31, 2009

2008 10 months 22 months 

(Target Not Met)

2007 12 months 14 months 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2006 15 months 16 months 

(Target Not Met)

2005 9 months 12 months 

(Target Not Met)

 

99
Office of Applied Studies (OAS)

Table 189: Measure 4.4.03: Availability and timeliness of data for the c) Drug and Alcohol 

Services Information System (DASIS) (Output) 

FY Target Result

2010 10 months Sep 30, 2010

2009 10 months Sep 30, 2009

2008 10 months 10 months 

(Target Met)

2007 15 months 8 months 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 15 months 9 months 

(Target Exceeded)

2005 16 months 13 months 

(Target Exceeded)

 

Table 190: Data Source and Validation for Performance Measures from OAS’s National 

Surveys 

Measure Data Source Data 

Validation 

4.4.01 Publication date of “Results from the National Survey on Drug Use 

and Health: National Findings” 

Project officer 

review 

4.4.02 Publication date of “Drug Abuse Warning Network: National 

Estimates of Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits” 

Project officer 

review 

4.4.03 Publication date of the “Inventory of Substance Abuse Treatment 

Services” report 

Project officer 

review 

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

target for the Drug Abuse Warning Network System was set at an approximate target 

level, and the deviation from that level was 12 months. There was an effect on overall 

program or activity performance. The delay in publication occurred because the 

national estimates were calculated incorrectly by the contractor. This required a 

detailed examination of their process for weighting and estimation. New weights had to 

be produced. These required extensive quality assurance. The publication had to be 

rewritten. The target for the Drug and Alcohol Services Information System was met. 

100
Agency Support for the Strategic Plan 

Agency Support for the Strategic Plan 

Table 191: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 1 Health Care: Improve the safety, quality, 

affordability and accessibility of health care, including behavioral health care and longterm care.

HHS Strategic Goals SAMHSA Goal 1: 

Accountability: 

Measure and Report 

Program Performance

SAMHSA Goal 

2: Capacity: 

Increase Service 

Availability

SAMHSA Goal 3: 

Effectiveness: 

Improve Service 

Quality

1.1 Broaden health 

insurance and long-term 

care coverage.

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 

1.2 Increase health care 

service availability and 

accessibility.

Not applicable X Not applicable 

1.3 Improve health care 

quality, safety and 

cost/value.

Not applicable Not applicable X 

1.4 Recruit, develop, and 

retain a competent health 

care workforce.

Not applicable X Not applicable 

Table 192: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 2 Public Health Promotion and Protection, 

Disease Prevention, and Emergency Preparedness: Prevent and control disease, injury, 

illness and disability across the lifespan, and protect the public from infectious, 

occupational, environmental and terrorist threats.

HHS Strategic Goals SAMHSA Goal 1: 

Accountability: 

Measure and Report 

Program Performance

SAMHSA Goal 

2: Capacity: 

Increase Service 

Availability

SAMHSA Goal 3: 

Effectiveness: 

Improve Service 

Quality

2.1 Prevent the spread of 

infectious diseases.

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 

2.2 Protect the public 

against injuries and 

environmental threats.

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 

2.3 Promote and encourage 

preventive health care, 

including mental health, 

lifelong healthy behaviors 

and recovery.

Not applicable X Not applicable 

2.4 Prepare for and respond 

to natural and man-made 

disasters.

Not applicable X Not applicable 

101
Agency Support for the Strategic Plan 

102

Table 193: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 3 Human Services: Promote the economic and 

social well-being of individuals, families, and communities.

HHS Strategic Goals SAMHSA Goal 1: 

Accountability: 

Measure and Report 

Program Performance

SAMHSA Goal 

2: Capacity: 

Increase Service 

Availability

SAMHSA Goal 3: 

Effectiveness: 

Improve Service 

Quality

3.1 Promote the economic 

independence and social 

well-being of individuals and 

families across the lifespan.

Not applicable X Not applicable 

3.2 Protect the safety and 

foster the well being of 

children and youth.

Not applicable X Not applicable 

3.3 Encourage the 

development of strong, 

healthier and supportive 

communities.

Not applicable X Not applicable 

3.4 Address the needs, 

strengths and abilities of 

vulnerable populations.

Not applicable X Not applicable 

Table 194: SAMHSA linkages with Goal 4 Scientific Research and Development:

Advance scientific and biomedical research and development related to health and human 

services.

HHS Strategic Goals SAMHSA Goal 1: 

Accountability: Measure 

and Report Program 

Performance

SAMHSA Goal 2: 

Capacity: 

Increase Service 

Availability

SAMHSA Goal 3: 

Effectiveness: 

Improve Service 

Quality

4.1 Strengthen the pool of 

qualified health and 

behavioral science 

researchers.

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 

4.2 Increase basic 

scientific knowledge to 

improve human health and 

human development.

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 

4.3 Conduct and oversee 

applied research to 

improve health and wellbeing.

Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 

4.4 Communicate and 

transfer research results 

into clinical, public health 

and human service 

practice.

X Not applicable Not applicable 
Full Cost 

Summary of Full Cost 

(Budgetary Resources in Thousands) 

Table 195: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 1 Health Care 

HHS Strategic Goals 

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Omnibus

FY 2010 

President's 

Budget 

Request

1.1 Broaden health insurance and long-term care 

coverage. 

0.000 0.000 0.000

1.2 Increase health care service availability and 

accessibility. 

1,885,737 1,933,313 1,994,874

1.3 Improve health care quality, safety and 

cost/value. 

1,255 1,673 1,672

1.4 Recruit, develop, and retain a competent 

health care workforce. 

48,030 44,912 44,861

Agency Subtotal Goal 1 1,935,022 1,979,898 2,041,407

Agency Total 3,356,329 3,466,491 3,525,467

Table 196: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 2 Public Health 

Promotion and Protection, Disease Prevention, and Emergency Preparedness 

HHS Strategic Goals

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Omnibus

FY 2010 

President's 

Budget 

Request

2.1 Prevent the spread of infectious diseases. 0.000 0.000 0.000

2.2 Protect the public against injuries and 

environmental threats. 

0.000 0.000 0.000

2.3 Promote and encourage preventive health 

care, including mental health, lifelong healthy 

behaviors and recovery. 

949,478 972,551 963,756

2.4 Prepare for and respond to natural and manmade disasters. 

0.000 0.000 0.000

Agency Subtotal Goal 2 949,478 972,551 963,756

Agency Total 3,356,329 3,466,491 3,525,467

103
Evaluations 

104

Table 197: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 3 Human Services 

HHS Strategic Goals

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Omnibus

FY 2010 

President's 

Budget 

Request

3.1 Promote the economic independence and 

social well-being of individuals and families 

across the lifespan. 

0.000 0.000 0.000

3.2 Protect the safety and foster the well being of 

children and youth. 

140,761 148,612 148,919

3.3 Encourage the development of strong, 

healthier and supportive communities. 

148,452 157,520 154,990

3.4 Address the needs, strengths and abilities of 

vulnerable populations. 

109,667 139,367 147,856

Agency Subtotal Goal 3 398,880 445,499 451,765

Agency Total 3,356,329 3,466,491 3,525,467

Table 198: SAMHSA program full cost associated with HHS Goal 4 Scientific Research 

and Development 

HHS Strategic Goals

FY 2008 

Actual

FY 2009 

Omnibus

FY 2010 

President's 

Budget 

Request

4.1 Strengthen the pool of qualified health and 

behavioral science researchers. 

0.000 0.000 0.000

4.2 Increase basic scientific knowledge to improve 

human health and human development. 

0.000 0.000 0.000

4.3 Conduct and oversee applied research to 

improve health and well-being. 

0.000 0.000 0.000

4.4 Communicate and transfer research results 

into clinical, public health and human service 

practice. 

72,949 68,543 68,539

Agency Subtotal Goal 4 72,949 68,543 68,539

Agency Total 3,356,329 3,466,491 3,525,467
Evaluations 

Summary of Findings and Recommendations from 

Completed Program Evaluations 

Further details on SAMHSA’s completed evaluations completed during any fiscal year 

can be found at the HHS Policy Information Center website 

(http://aspe.hhs.gov/pic/performance) 

Title: Evaluation of the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness 

(PAIMI) Program: Phase III Evaluation Report

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA’s Center for Mental Health Services 

The independent evaluation of the PAIMI Program found that individual PAIMI programs 

provide those individuals with psychiatric disability a voice in the exercise of their rights 

and are highly successful in achieving client and system goals and objectives. Findings 

show that PAIMI clients are very satisfied with the individual advocate or attorney who 

provided their services. Of the PAIMI clients surveyed: 82 percent believe the 

advocate/attorney listened to their story and truly understood their circumstance; 92 

percent believe their advocate/attorney did everything they could do to obtain the 

outcome s/he wanted; 70 percent felt the quality of their representation was “excellent,” 

and 24 percent felt it was “good.” Twenty percent of grantees sampled report that they 

met or partially met all projected goals and objectives, and overall, grantees reported 

having met 93 percent of targeted goals and objectives. The evaluation also found that 

P&A Executive Directors felt that resource levels influence PAIMI’s capability for work in 

vital areas such as jail advocacy, outreach, hospital monitoring, and housing. 

Title: HIV Cohort 4 and 5 APR Evaluation

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

These two programs were designed to address the following three goals: 

1. Increase provision of effective integrated substance abuse and HIV prevention 

services to minority youth and adults at-risk for substance abuse and HIV 

infection. 

2. Increase number of community-based organizations that provide effective 

integrated substance abuse and HIV prevention services to minority youth and 

adults at-risk for substance abuse and HIV infection. 

3. Increase the capacity of community-based organizations to successfully sustain 

their integrated prevention services. – 

There were 22 cohort 4 and 45 cohort 5 grantees totaling 67. Nineteen or 86 percent of 

the cohort 4 and 33 or 73 percent of the cohort 5 grantees submitted data abstract 

forms totaling 52 or 78 percent. About 50 percent of them were community-based 

organizations located primarily in urban areas. More than half implemented evidencebased programs with the two most popular ones being “Be Proud, Be Responsible,” and 

“Street Smart.” For the most part, social learning and cognitive theory served as their 

theoretical framework. Most program participants were in the 12-17 and 18-25 year-old 

105
Evaluations 

age groups. The majority were Black and Hispanic and there were slightly more 

females than males. The most commonly used recruitment strategies were word-ofmouth, telephone, radio and community outreach. Both individual and group 

interventions were used. The individual interventions included risk reduction 

counseling, education, health education, peer education and mentoring. The most 

commonly employed group interventions were skill building, health education, and 

cultural enhancement activities. Thirteen of the grantees conducted HIV testing and 27 

provided other health care services. 

Sixteen or (73 percent) of the 22 cohort 4 and 40 or 89 percent of the 45 cohort 5 

grantees submitted participant level data equaling 56 or 84 percent of the total 67 

grantees. From this pool of data, 48 percent could be used to assess program 

outcomes. This equals 3,207 participants of whom 61.9 percent were from cohort 4 and 

38.1 percent from cohort 5. At baseline, these participants exhibited lower perception of 

risk attitudes towards smoking and binge drinking as well as disapproval of substance 

use by peers than did National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), respondents. 

On the other hand the participants reported higher past 30 day substance use rates 

than did the NSDUH respondents. 

In order to determine how effective the program was only data from matched participant 

pairs could be used. The number of matched pairs of program entry and exit for youth 

ranged from 3,400 to 2,620, and for adults they ranged from 300 to 350. For perception 

of harm, the program demonstrated positive change for all measures except for adults 

and drinking to 4-5 drink/day. Likewise for disapproval of substance use, the program 

demonstrated positive increases for all measures except for adults in regard to smoking 

1-2 packs/day and smoking marijuana once per twice/day. The numbers of matched 

pairs for non-user stability and user decrease declined substantially. For non-user 

stability the number of youth matched pairs ranged from 1,065 to 2,080, however the 

rates of non-user stability remained high ranging from 90-99 percent. For adults the 

number of matched pairs declined to 70 to 380, but here too the non-user percentages 

remained high ranging from 83-100 percent For past 30 day user decrease, the number 

of youth matched pairs declined further, but the results were impressive ranging from 60 

percent for alcohol to 100 percent for heroin. For adults the declines were also 

impressive ranging from 31 percent for cigarettes to 59 percent for cocaine. 

Title: National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS): 2007. Data 

on Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies 

This report presents results from the 2007 National Survey of Substance Abuse 

Treatment Services (N-SSATS), an annual census of facilities providing substance 

abuse treatment. Conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA), N-SSATS is designed to collect data on the location, 

106
Evaluations 

characteristics, and use of alcoholism and drug abuse treatment facilities and services 

throughout the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and other U.S. jurisdictions. 

A total of 14,359 facilities completed the survey. The 13,648 facilities eligible for this 

report had a one-day census of 1,135,425 clients enrolled in substance abuse treatment 

on March 30, 2007. There were 85,518 clients under age 18 in treatment on March 30, 

2007, making up 8 percent of the total population in treatment on that date. Forty five 

percent of all clients were in treatment for both alcohol and drug abuse, 36 percent were 

in treatment for drug abuse only, and 19 percent were in treatment for abuse of alcohol 

alone. Eighty-seven percent of facilities had clients in treatment for co-occurring mental 

health and substance abuse disorders. Forty percent of all clients were in treatment for 

these disorders. 

Title: Results from the 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National 

Findings 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies 

The 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health was administered to a sample of 

67,870 persons representative of the U.S. civilian, non-institutional population aged 12 

or older. This initial report on the 2007 data provided national estimates of rates of use, 

numbers of users, persons meeting criteria for substance use disorders, substance use 

treatment, and other measures related to illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco products. 

Results also were presented for measures of mental health problems, including major 

depressive episode and serious psychological distress, as well as data on the cooccurrence of substance use disorders and mental health problems. In 2007, an 

estimated 19.9 million Americans aged 12 and older (8.0 percent) were current (past 

month) illicit drug users, a rate similar to that in 2006 (8.3 percent or 20.4 million users) 

and in 2002-2005. Among youths aged 12 to 17, 9.5 percent were current illicit drug 

users, down from 11.6 percent in 2002. Current marijuana use among youths aged 12-

17 declined from 8.2 percent in 2002 to 6.7 percent in 2007. In 2007, 127 million 

persons aged 12 or older (51.1 percent) were current alcohol users; 57.8 million (23.0 

percent) engaged in binge drinking at least once in the past month. Underage drinking 

(ages 12-20) has remained unchanged since 2002, and was 27.9 percent in 2007. The 

rate of current use of any tobacco product among persons aged 12 or older decreased 

from 29.6 percent in 2006 to 28.6 percent in 2007; current cigarette smoking declined 

from 26.0 percent in 2002 to 24.2 percent in 2007. Among youths aged 12-17, the rate 

changed little from 2006 (10.4 percent) to 2007 (9.8 percent) but is lower than the rate 

in 2002 (13.0 percent). In 2007, an estimated 23.2 million persons aged 12 or older (9.4 

percent) needed treatment for an alcohol or illicit drug problem. Of those persons, 2.4 

million (10.4 percent) received treatment at a specialty facility; 20.8 million in need of 

treatment did not receive care. In 2007, an estimated 16.5 million adults aged 18 or 

older (7.5 percent) and 2.0 million youths aged 12 to 17 (8.2 percent) had a major 

depressive episode (MDE) in the past year. Around 24.3 million adults aged 18 or older 

(10.9 percent) had serious psychological distress (SPD) in the past year. 

107
Evaluations 

108

Title: Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) –1996-2006. National Admissions to 

Substance Abuse Treatment Services 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies 

This report presents results from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) for 2006, and 

trend data for 1996 to 2006. The report provides information on the demographic and 

substance abuse characteristics of the 1.8 million annual admissions to treatment for 

abuse of alcohol and/or drugs in facilities that report to individual State administrative 

data systems. Between 1996 and 2006, TEDS treatment admissions were dominated 

by five substances: alcohol, opiates (primarily heroin), marijuana, cocaine, and 

stimulants (primarily methamphetamine). These substances together consistently 

accounted for between 95 and 96 percent of all TEDS admissions from 1996 through 

2006. The age distribution of TEDS admissions changed between 1996 and 2006. The 

proportion of TEDS admissions aged 25 to 34 years declined from 34 percent in 1996 to 

25 percent in 2006. This decline was offset by overall increases in the proportions of 

both older and younger admissions. The proportion of older admissions (aged 45 and 

older) increased from 13 percent in 1996 to 22 percent in 2006. The proportion of 

younger admissions (less than 25 years of age) increased from 22 percent in 1996 to 26 

percent in 2006. 

Title: Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) Highlights - 2007 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies 

This report presents summary results from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) for 

2007. The report provides information on the demographic and substance abuse 

characteristics of the 1.8 million annual admissions to treatment for abuse of alcohol 

and drugs in facilities that report to individual State administrative data systems. This 

summary report is issued in advance of the full TEDS report for 1997-2007. It includes 

demographic data and all items from the TEDS Minimum Data Set. The full report also 

will include data from the Supplemental Data Set, State data, and State rates. 

Five substances accounted for 96 percent of all TEDS admissions in 2007: alcohol (40 

percent); opiates (19 percent; primarily heroin); marijuana/hashish (16 percent); cocaine 

(13 percent); and stimulants (8 percent, primarily methamphetamine). Sixty-two percent 

of TEDS admissions in 2007 entered ambulatory treatment, 20 percent entered 

detoxification, and 18 percent entered rehabilitation/residential treatment. In 2007, 

more than one-third (37 percent) of TEDS admissions were referred to treatment 

through the criminal justice system. One-third (33 percent) of TEDS admissions 

represented self or individual referrals. 
Evaluations 

Title: Assessment of California’s Mental Health Parity Law: A Step Toward Broader 

Mental Health System Reform 

Coordinating Office: SAMHSA’s Center for Mental Health Services 

This study addressed various questions: what are issues/problems in legislation 

implementing parity (equivalence between mental health benefits and general health 

care benefits in health insurance plans); how have costs and use changed as a result of 

parity; and what are consumer, employer, insurer, and provider opinions about the 

effects of the law? Federal and state legislation require benefit parity. The scope and 

application of these legislative efforts are often limited. California implemented parity 

legislation in 2000 that provides for equal coverage for severe mental illnesses and 

covers children with one or more mental disorders. Unlike the parity legislation enacted 

in many other states, small businesses are not exempt. The size and complexity of 

California's economy and health care market make its parity mandate especially 

important to understand. 

o Health plans reported that outpatient mental health utilization increased following 

passage of the law requiring parity 

o Cost increases were reported to be nominal due to the use of managed care 

o Stakeholders did not feel that parity relieved the financial burden on the public 

mental health system 

109
Discontinued Performance Measures 

Discontinued Performance Measures 

The following table includes a list of performance measures which have been 

discontinued since being reported in the Online Performance Appendix of the 

FY 2009 Congressional Justification available on the SAMHSA website at 

http://www.samhsa.gov/Budget/FY 2009/SAMHSA_Online_appendix.pdf. Measures 

which are planned for retirement, but which still have data to report have been included 

in the program performance data tables on preceding pages. 

Table 199: Discontinued Performance measures 

Center Program Measure Unique 

Identifier 

CMHS PRNS - Remaining Capacity 1.2.04 

CMHS COSIG 1.2.21 

CSAP PRNS - Capacity 2.3.18 

CSAP PRNS – Minority AIDS 2.3.34 

CSAP PRNS Science and Service: CAPTs 2.3.32 

2.3.33 

CSAP SAPTBG – 20% Prevention Set-Aside 2.3.55 

CSAT ATR 1.2.38 

CSAT Substance Abuse Drug Courts 

1.2.56 

1.2.57 

1.2.58 

1.2.59 

1.2.60 

1.2.61 

CSAT SAPTBG – Treatment Activities 1.2.46 

110
Disclosure of Non-Federal Assistance 

New Performance Measures 

The following table includes a list of performance measures which have been added 

since the publication of the Online Performance Appendix of the FY 2009 Congressional 

Justification (available on the SAMHSA website at http://www.samhsa.gov/Budget/FY 

2009/SAMHSA_Online_appendix.pdf). 

Table 200: New Performance Measures 

Center Program Measure 

Unique Identifier 

CMHS Suicide Prevention 2.3.60 

2.3.61 

CMHS Trauma-Informed Services 3.2.23 

3.2.24 

CMHS PRNS - Science and Service 1.4.06 

1.4.07 

CSAP PRNS – Minority AIDS 2.3.70 

CSAP PRNS - STOP Act 3.3.01 

3.3.02 

3.3.03 

CSAP PRNS - Science & Service 2.3.71 

2.3.72 

2.3.73 

2.3.74 

2.3.75 

2.3.76 

CSAT Criminal Justice - Substance Abuse Drug Courts 1.2.62 

1.2.63 

1.2.64 

1.2.65 

1.2.66 

1.2.67 

1.2.68 

1.2.69 

1.2.70 

1.2.71 

1.2.72 

1.2.73 

1.2.74 

1.2.75 

1.2.76 

1.2.77 

1.2.78 

1.2.79 

CSAT Criminal Justice – Ex-Offender Re-Entry 1.2.80 

1.2.81 

111
Disclosure of Non-Federal Assistance 

112

Disclosure of Assistance by Non-Federal Parties 

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

2008 Annual Performance Report.