Drug and Alcohol Services Information System Series: S-13

Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS): 1999

Data on Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities

Office of Applied Studies

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
i

OFFICE OF APPLIED STUDIES

Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS): 1999

Data on Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration


	



  #"$ % " &"         !   "

'() 
&&  "&##   '
() * * &" +!   ") ,'()

 +") +  )  !  " *) ,'()  ") % -*) ".

 ", /01.23.2445, "$  " %  * '(  6  ""* '(,

 " " % #&"! * 7  % +  8 * ""&&     " "&

9"+ 9 ", #" % ## *
 + "  -! 
": 

"& )  &  +* &"! % * 
 &&   "*") ;) 6 ".

 ;*)  ":" '"$ 
&& ()  * &&  "  :<,

	 

 !  ## +   #"    #  "!   !*  #" " "#  % "

#!  " &"!  !   ",  " "& " 

## ,


 

"# !*  " )& "& +)&"!  " +" &"""  + &"!.

 " '(,      "&      !  .

 " '(,<  "   =

 "	 +"	&"	""		+	&"! "	'(

,
,	9">	/1?@

"; )		/40?3./1?@

'145(	?A0./A44										5.044.3/2.AA0A										=	5.044.?03.?002



 

  #  "    " * "+   <" <  < " "

 	"%=

#=BB%%%,+  ,,+"

#=BB%%%,,+"

#=BB%%%,,"+





)	
&& 	"&	## 	 

@A44	 	
)	""!	5A.54@

"; )	*	/40@3

# 	/445
iii

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v

List of Figures............................................................................................................................... vii

Highlights ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Chapter 1. Description of the Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) Survey .............................. 3

Survey History ................................................................................................................................ 3

UFDS in the Context of the Drug and Alcohol Services Information System (DASIS) ............... 4

Survey Coverage ............................................................................................................................ 5

Unit of response ........................................................................................................................ 5

Expansion of survey coverage .................................................................................................. 5

Data collection .......................................................................................................................... 7

Non-response ............................................................................................................................ 7

Exclusions................................................................................................................................. 7

Changes in Survey Content ............................................................................................................ 7

Procedures for the 1999 UFDS....................................................................................................... 8

Field period and reference date ................................................................................................ 8

Survey coverage ....................................................................................................................... 8

Data collection method ............................................................................................................. 8

Content ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Responding facilities ................................................................................................................ 9

Quality assurance...................................................................................................................... 9

Further Data Considerations and Limitations ................................................................................ 9

Organization of the Report ........................................................................................................... 10

Terminology ................................................................................................................................. 10

Chapter 2. Trends in Facility Characteristics ......................................................................... 11

Number of Facilities and Methadone Facilities ........................................................................... 11

Facility Ownership ....................................................................................................................... 12

Managed Care ............................................................................................................................... 13

Programs for Special Groups........................................................................................................ 14

TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv

Chapter 3. Facility Characteristics and Services..................................................................... 21

Type of Payment Accepted .......................................................................................................... 21

Sliding Fee Scale Offered ............................................................................................................. 21

Type of Care Offered.................................................................................................................... 21

Methadone/LAAM Dispensed...................................................................................................... 21

Substance Abuse Problem Treated ............................................................................................... 21

Primary Focus ............................................................................................................................... 22

Programs for Special Groups........................................................................................................ 22

Chapter 4. State Data ................................................................................................................. 29

Survey Response .......................................................................................................................... 29

Appendix. UFDS 1999 Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 45

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
v

LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 1

1.1 Survey contents: NDATUS/UFDS/N-SSATS 1992-2000 ................................................. 8

1.2 Facility function: UFDS 1999 ............................................................................................ 9

Chapter 2

2.1 Substance abuse treatment facilities by ownership and dispensing of

methadone/LAAM: 1992-1999.

Number and percent distribution ...................................................................................... 15

2.2 Substance abuse treatment facilities with managed care contracts, by

ownership: 1995-1999.

Number and percent ......................................................................................................... 16

2.3 Substance abuse treatment facilities with managed care contracts, by State

or jurisdiction: 1995-1999.

Number and percent ......................................................................................................... 17

2.4 Substance abuse treatment facilities offering programs for special groups:

1995-1999.

Number and percent ......................................................................................................... 19

Chapter 3

3.1 Substance abuse treatment facilities by type of payment accepted and

sliding fee scale, according to ownership: 1999.

Number and percent ......................................................................................................... 23

3.2 Substance abuse treatment facilities by type of care offered and dispensing

of methadone/LAAM, according to ownership: 1999.

Number and percent ......................................................................................................... 24

3.3 Substance abuse treatment facilities by substance abuse problem treated,

according to ownership: 1999.

Number and percent distribution ...................................................................................... 25
vi

3.4 Substance abuse treatment facilities by primary focus, according to

ownership: 1999.

Number and percent distribution ...................................................................................... 26

3.5 Substance abuse treatment facilities offering programs for special groups,

according to ownership: 1999.

Number and percent ......................................................................................................... 27

Chapter 4

4.1 Sample accounting and response rate by State or jurisdiction: UFDS 1999 .................... 30

4.2 Substance abuse treatment facilities by ownership, according to State or

jurisdiction: 1999.

Number and percent distribution ...................................................................................... 32

4.3 Substance abuse treatment facilities by type of payment accepted and

sliding fee scale, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999.

Number and percent ......................................................................................................... 34

4.4 Substance abuse treatment facilities by type of care offered and dispensing

of methadone/LAAM, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999.

Number and percent ......................................................................................................... 36

4.5 Substance abuse treatment facilities by substance abuse problem treated,

according to State or jurisdiction: 1999.

Number and percent distribution ...................................................................................... 38

4.6 Substance abuse treatment facilities by primary focus, according to State or

jurisdiction: 1999.

Number and percent distribution ...................................................................................... 40

4.7 Substance abuse treatment facilities offering programs for special groups,

according to State or jurisdiction: 1999.

Number and percent ......................................................................................................... 42

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1 Numbers of facilities and clients in treatment: UFDS 1992-1999 ..................................... 6

Fig. 2 Numbers of facilities and methadone facilities: UFDS 1992-1999 ................................. 11

Fig. 3 Facility ownership: UFDS 1992-1999.............................................................................. 12

Fig. 4 Facilities with managed care contracts, by ownership: UFDS 1995-1999 ...................... 13

Fig. 5 Facilities with programs for special groups: UFDS 1995-1999 ....................................... 14
viii
1

HIGHLIGHTS

This report presents results from the 1999Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, an

annual survey of facilities providing substance abuse

treatment, conducted by the Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration

(SAMHSA). UFDS is designed to collect data on

the location, characteristics, and use of alcoholism

and drug abuse treatment facilities and services

throughout the 50 States, the District of Columbia,

and other U.S. jurisdictions. Selected findings are

given below.

 The number of facilities reporting in 1999 increased by 13 percent over 1998. The turnover in facilities was much greater than indicated

by this number—the 13 percent increase was

the net result of expanded survey coverage, a

response rate increase of 10 percent, facility

closings, and normal year-to-year variation in

which facilites choose to respond.

 In 1999, private non-profit facilities made up

the bulk of the system (60 percent; see Table

2.1), followed by private for-profit (26 percent)

and State/local government (11 percent).

 Over half (54 percent) of all facilities had managed care contracts in 1999, as compared to

32 percent in 1995 (Table 2.2). All ownership

categories showed an increase in the percentage with managed care contracts.

 Outpatient rehabilitation was the most widely

available type of care, offered by 82 percent of

all facilities (Table 3.2). Residential rehabilitation was offered by 25 percent of all facilities.

Partial hospitalization programs were offered

by 19 percent of facilities, and outpatient detoxification by 13 percent. Residential detoxification and hospital inpatient treatment (either

detoxification or rehabilitation) were each offered by 5 to 8 percent of all facilities.

 Almost half (45 percent) of all facilities offered

special programs for the dually-diagnosed

(Table 2.4).

 About one-third (34 percent) of facilities had

programs for adolescents (Table 2.4).

 About one in five facilities (22 percent) offered

programs for persons with HIV/AIDS or pregnant/postpartum women (Table 2.4).
2
3

CHAPTER 1

DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIFORM FACILITY DATA SET (UFDS) SURVEY

This report presents tabular information andhighlights from the 1999 Uniform Facility Data

Set (UFDS) survey, conducted between October

1999 and April 2000, with a reference date of

October 1, 1999. It was the 23rd in a series of

national surveys designed to collect data on the location, characteristics, and use of alcohol and drug

abuse treatment facilities and services throughout

the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and other

U.S. jurisdictions.1 The Office of Applied Studies,

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), plans and directs the

UFDS survey.

The UFDS survey is designed to collect information from all facilities2 in the United States, both

public and private, that provide substance abuse

treatment. UFDS provides the mechanism for quantifying the dynamic character and composition of

the United States substance abuse treatment delivery system. The UFDS objectives are:

● to assist SAMHSA and State and local governments in assessing the nature and extent of

services provided in State-supported and other

treatment facilities, and in forecasting treatment

resource requirements;

● to update SAMHSA’s Inventory of Substance

Abuse Treatment Services (I-SATS) of all

known drug and alcohol abuse treatment facilities;

● to analyze general treatment services trends and

to conduct comparative analyses for the nation,

regions, and States;

● to generate the National Directory of Drug

and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Programs, a

compendium of facilities approved by State

substance abuse agencies for the provision of

substance abuse treatment; and

● to update the information in SAMHSA’s Substance Abuse Treatment Facility Locator, a

searchable database of facilities approved by

State substance abuse agencies for the provision of substance abuse treatment, available on

the Internet at:

http://findtreatment.samhsa.gov

Survey History

UFDS has evolved from national survey efforts

begun in the 1970s by the National Institute on Drug

Abuse (NIDA) to measure the scope and use of

drug abuse treatment services in the United States.

The sixth of these surveys, conducted in 1976, introduced the data elements and format that have

formed the core of subsequent surveys. These include organizational setting, service orientation, services available, clients in treatment by type of care,

capacity, and annual revenue sources and amounts.

The 1976 survey, called the National Drug Abuse

Treatment Utilization Survey, was repeated in 1977

and 1978. In 1979, the National Institute on Alco1 The jurisdictions include the territories of American Samoa and Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, the

Republic of Palau, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

2 In this report, entities responding to UFDS are referred

to as “facilities.” This designation is consistent with

the title of the survey, although, as discussed later in

the report, a “facility” may be a program-level, cliniclevel, or multi-site respondent.
4

hol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) became a

cosponsor of the survey, alcoholism treatment facilities were added, and the study was renamed the

National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment Utilization Survey. This survey was repeated in 1980 and

1982. In 1984, a one-page version was used (the

National Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Program Inventory). In 1987, the full version of the survey was

reinstated, and it was renamed the National Drug

and Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey (NDATUS).

NDATUS was conducted annually from 1989 to

1993. In 1992, with the creation of SAMHSA, responsibility for conducting the survey shifted to

SAMHSA’s Office of Applied Studies. The survey

was redesigned, and conducted annually as the Uniform Facility Data Set survey from 1995 to 1998.

During these years, the survey was conducted by

mail with telephone follow-up of non-respondents.

The 1999 survey year was a transition year during

which the survey was redesigned, and an abbreviated telephone survey of treatment facilities was

conducted. In 2000, a redesigned full mail survey

will be reinstated. This will be known as the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS).

UFDS in the Context of the Drug and Alcohol Services Information System (DASIS)

UFDS is one of the three components of

SAMHSA’s Drug and Alcohol Services Information System (DASIS). The core of DASIS is the

Inventory of Substance Abuse Treatment Services

(I-SATS), a continuously-updated, comprehensive

listing of all known substance abuse treatment facilities. The other components of DASIS are the

UFDS survey and the Treatment Episode Data Set

(TEDS), a client-level database of persons admitted to substance abuse treatment. A unique ID number assigned to each facility by I-SATS is used in

the collection of facility-level data (UFDS) and client-level data (TEDS) so that the three data sets

can be linked. Together, they provide national- and

State-level information on the numbers and characteristics of individuals admitted to alcohol and drug

treatment programs and describe the facilities that

deliver care to those individuals.

The I-SATS is the list frame for UFDS. Facilities in

the I-SATS fall into three general categories. These

are distinguished by the services provided, the components of DASIS of which they are part, and the

relationship of the facility to its State substance abuse

agency. These categories are described below.

Treatment facilities approved by State

substance abuse agencies and reporting to

TEDS

The largest group of facilities (about 8,000 in 1999)

includes facilities that are licensed or certified by

the State substance abuse agency to provide substance abuse treatment (or are administratively

tracked for other reasons), and are required by the

State agency to provide TEDS client-level data.

State DASIS representatives maintain this segment

of the I-SATS by reporting new facilities, closures,

and address changes to SAMHSA.

Treatment facilities approved by State

substance abuse agencies but not reporting to

TEDS

This group (about 4,500 facilities in 1999) includes

treatment facilities that are licensed, certified, or

otherwise approved by the State substance abuse

agency (or are administratively tracked for other

reasons), but that are not required by the State

agency to provide TEDS client-level data. Some

private for-profit facilities fall into this category. This

group also includes programs operated by Federal

agencies (the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Department

of Defense, and the Indian Health Service). I-SATS

records for Federally-operated facilities are updated

annually through lists provided by these agencies.
5

Treatment facilities not approved by State

substance abuse agencies

This group of facilities (about 2,900 in 1999) represents the ongoing SAMHSA effort to make the

I-SATS as comprehensive as possible by including

treatment facilities that State substance abuse agencies, for a variety of reasons, do not track. Many of

these facilities are private for-profit, small group

practices, or hospital-based programs. Most of them

are identified through periodic screening of alternative source databases (see Expansion of survey

coverage, below). State substance abuse agencies

are given the opportunity to review these facilities

and to add them to the State agency-approved list,

if appropriate.

Survey Coverage

The use of the I-SATS as the list frame for UFDS

imposes certain constraints related to the unit of

response and the scope of facilities included. In

addition, the expansion of the I-SATS to provide a

more complete enumeration of substance abuse

treatment facilities means that year-to-year comparisons of the numbers of facilities reporting to

UFDS must be interpreted with caution.

Figure 1 is a time line detailing the major changes

in survey scope and administration that may have

affected the numbers of reporting facilities and clients. Beginning in 1992, SAMHSA introduced expanded efforts to obtain information from

non-responding facilities. This resulted in a 25 percent increase in the number of facilities and a 16

percent increase in the number of clients between

1991 and 1992. Beginning in 1995, changes in data

collection methods enabled more complete identification of duplicate reporting by networks of facilities, causing a slight reduction in the total number of

facilities. In subsequent years, the number of facilities again increased, as efforts were made (detailed

below) to expand the survey coverage and to include all sites at which treatment was provided.

Unit of response

UFDS is designed to collect data from each physical location where treatment services are provided.

Accordingly, SAMHSA requests that State substance abuse agencies use the point of delivery of

service (i.e., physical location) as the defining factor for a facility. It also requests that facilities be

included in the I-SATS, UFDS, and TEDS at the

same administrative level so that record linkage

among the three data sets is valid. Because of the

different State administrative systems, however,

there are some inconsistencies in implementation.

For example, in some States, multiple treatment

programs (e.g., detoxification, residential, and outpatient) at the same address and under the same

management have separate State licenses. These

are treated as separate by the State substance abuse

agency, and are given separate I-SATS ID numbers. In other States, multiple sites are included as

a single entity under a parent or administrative unit.

In many of these cases, individual sites can report

services data in the UFDS survey, but client data

are available only at a higher administrative level.

Beginning in 1995, efforts have been made to identify facility networks and to eliminate duplicate reporting by networks. For most facilities, reporting

level remains consistent from year to year. However, beginning in 1998, an emphasis was placed

on collecting minimum information from all physical

locations, and this has resulted in an increase in the

number of facilities.

Expansion of survey coverage

The great majority of treatment facilities in the ISATS are administratively monitored by State substance abuse agencies. Therefore, the scope of

facilities included in the I-SATS is affected by differences in State systems of licensure, certification,

accreditation, and the disbursement of public funds.

For example, some State substance abuse agencies regulate private facilities and individual practitioners while others do not. In some States,
* BOP = Bureau of Prisons

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey (NDATUS) 1992-1993; Uniform Facility Data Set 

(UFDS) survey 1995-1999.

Figure 1

Numbers of facilities and clients in treatment: UFDS 1992-1999

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Thousands

0

5

10

15

20

800

900

1000

1100

1992

Follow-up of

a sample of 

non-responding

facilities:

25% inc. in facilities

16% inc. in clients

1995

Enhanced identification

of duplicate reporting:

7% dec. in facilities

7% inc. in clients

1997

Enhanced reporting

base;

exclusion of DUI/DWI

& BOP* facilities:

2% inc. in facilities

1% dec. in clients

1993

Follow-up of

all non-responding

facilities:

2% inc. in facilities

No change in clients

1996

Centralized data 

collection:

1% dec. in facilities

7% dec. in clients

1998

Enhanced reporting

base; exclusion of

BOP* facilities;

24% inc. in facilities

12% inc. in clients

1999

Enhanced reporting

base; exclusion of

incarceration facilities;

13% inc. in facilities

6

(survey not conducted)

Clients in treatment 

(not collected in 1999)

Facilities 
7

hospital-based substance abuse treatment facilities

are not licensed through the State substance abuse

agency.

To address these differences, SAMHSA conducted

a large-scale effort during 1995 and 1996 to identify substance abuse treatment facilities that, for a

variety of reasons, were not on the I-SATS. Some

15 source lists were considered, and facilities not

on the I-SATS were contacted to ascertain whether

they provided substance abuse treatment. As expected, this yielded a number of hospital-based and

small private facilities that were not on the I-SATS.

(These facilities were surveyed in 1995 and 1996,

but they were not included in the published results

of the survey until 1997.) Analysis of the results of

this effort led to similar but more targeted updates

before the 1998 and 1999 UFDS. Potential new

facilities were identified using data from the American Business Index (ABI), the annual American

Hospital Association survey, and SAMHSA’s Inventory of Mental Health Organizations, which were

the three source lists from 1995 to 1996 that had

yielded the most new facilities. Additional facilities

are also identified during the survey itself by survey

participants, who are asked to report all of the treatment facilities in their administrative networks. These

facilities are initially included as not State agencyapproved (see above). State substance abuse agencies are given the opportunity to review these facilities

and to add them to the State agency-approved list,

if appropriate.

Data collection

Until 1996, State substance abuse agencies distributed and collected the UFDS survey forms. Beginning in 1996, data collection was centralized;

SAMHSA has mailed UFDS forms directly to and

collected forms directly from the facilities, and has

conducted survey or follow-up telephone interviews

with the facility director or his/her assignee. 3 Office of Applied Studies, SAMHSA (2000). Substance

Abuse Treatment in Adult and Juvenile Correctional

Facilities: Findings from the Uniform Facility Data

Set 1997 Survey of Correctional Facilities. Drug and

Alcohol Services Information System Series: S-9.

Non-response

Beginning in 1992, SAMHSA expanded efforts to

obtain information from non-responding facilities.

A representative sample of non-respondents was

contacted and administered an abbreviated version

of the survey instrument via telephone. In 1993 and

later years, this effort was extended to all non-responding facilities. In 1997, a series of measures

was introduced to enhance the survey response rate.

These included advance notification and improved

methods for updating address and contact information. In 1999, use of the abbreviated telephone

instrument resulted in a non-response rate of only 5

percent. For 95 percent of facilities in the sample, it

was possible either to complete the survey or to

determine that the facilities had closed or were otherwise ineligible.

Exclusions

Facilities operated by the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)

were excluded from the 1997 and subsequent

UFDS because SAMHSA introduced a separate

survey of correctional facilities.3 In 1999, facilities

treating incarcerated persons only were identified

and excluded. In 1997 only, facilities offering only

DUI/DWI programs were excluded.

Changes in Survey Content

Since 1992, SAMHSA has made adjustments each

year to the survey design, both to minimize nonresponse and to include areas of emerging interest

such as the role of managed care.
8

Table 1.1 shows the major content areas for the

NDATUS and UFDS surveys before 1999, in

1999, and planned for the 2000 N-SSATS survey.

The 1999 UFDS, conducted by telephone, collected

less information than in previous years.

Procedures for the 1999 UFDS

Field period and reference date

The field period for the 1999 UFDS was from

October 1999 through April 2000, with a reference date of October 1, 1999.

Survey coverage

The sample consisted of all active treatment facilities that were on the I-SATS as of about six weeks

before the survey reference date (October 1,

1999). These facilities were contacted by telephone.

Facilities added by State substance abuse agencies

or discovered during the field interviews were also

included in the survey.

Data collection method

In 1999, the UFDS survey was conducted as a

computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI; see

Appendix).

Content

The 1999 UFDS survey instrument is reproduced

in the Appendix. Respondents provided information on treatment services offered on October 1,

1999. Topics included:

● Facility identification information

● Substance abuse services (prevention, intake/

assessment/referral, treatment/detoxification,

administrative, halfway house, DUI/DWI)

● Ownership

● Hotline operation

● Primary focus (substance abuse, mental health,

other)

● Special programs provided (adolescents, dually diagnosed, HIV/AIDS, pregnant/postpartum women, other women’s groups, criminal

justice clients)

Table 1.1

Survey contents: NDATUS/UFDS/N-SSATS 1992-2000

NDATUS/UFDS/N-SSATS survey year

2000

Survey contents 1992-1993 1995 1996-1998 1999 (planned)

Ownership XXXXX

Services offered XXXXX

No. of clients by age, sex, and race/ethnicity XXX

No. of clients (total and under age 18) X

No. of beds XXX X

Types of payment accepted X XX

Licensure/certification of facility/staff X XX

Sources and amounts of revenue XXX

Managed care agreements XXXX
9

● Types of treatment provided

● Hospital inpatient (detoxification, rehabilitation, or both)

● Non-hospital residential (detoxification,

rehabilitation, or both)

● Outpatient (ambulatory detoxification, day

treatment/partial hospitalization, intensive

outpatient, other outpatient)

● Managed care participation

● Types of payment accepted

● Subsidized care

● Sliding fee scale

● Facility accreditation

● Staff licensure/certification

Responding facilities

The initial sample included 19,435 facilities believed

to offer substance abuse treatment. Eighteen percent of the sample (n = 3,461) were determined to

be ineligible for the survey. A facility was ineligible

if: a) it had closed by October 1, 1999; b) it was

not providing substance abuse treatment services

on October 1, 1999; or c) it treated incarcerated

persons only. Of the remaining 15,974 facilities, five

percent (n = 735) could not be contacted or declined to participate. A total of 15,239 facilities (95

percent of eligible facilities) reported that they provided substance abuse treatment and/or detoxification services on October 1, 1999, either alone or

in conjunction with other substance abuse services.

Table 1.2. Facilities provided a range of substance

abuse treatment/detoxification, prevention, and other

services (e.g., intake, assessment, referral, and administration). About two-thirds of facilities (64 percent) engaged in prevention activities. Only one

percent of facilities were limited to the provision of

treatment/detoxification services.

Quality assurance

Range and consistency checks were built into the

CATI system. Calls were monitored periodically.

Further Data Considerations and Limitations

As with any data collection effort, certain procedural considerations and data limitations must be

taken into account when interpreting data from the

1999 UFDS. Some of these are outlined above.

Some general issues are discussed here; considerations and limitations of specific data items are discussed where the data are presented.

● UFDS attempts to obtain responses from all

known treatment facilities, but it is a voluntary

survey. There is no adjustment for facility nonresponse.

● Item non-response was minimal in the CATI

survey. There are instances of non-response in

most data items, however, and some variables

have an explicit Unknown response option. If

facility ownership was missing, its value was

imputed from the facility’s 1998 response when

possible. For the remaining variables, when a

facility did not report complete information, it

was excluded from the tabulations for which

data were missing. As a result, the number of

Table 1.2

Facility function: UFDS 1999

Other

Treat- subment/ stance

detoxi- Preven- abuse

fication tion services No. %

XX X 9,700 63.7

X X 5,229 34.3

X 220 1.4

X X 90 0.6

 15,239 100.0
10

treatment facilities on which tables are based

varies somewhat from table to table. The number of facilities actually reporting data is generally included in each table.

● Multiple responses were allowed for certain

variables (e.g., services provided, facility setting, and specialized programs). Tabulations of

these variables include the total number of facilities reporting each response.

Organization of the Report

The balance of this report is organized into four

analytic sections. Chapter 2 presents broad trends

in facility characteristics for 1992 to 1999 (except

1994, when the UFDS survey was not conducted).

Chapter 3 describes key characteristics of facilities

and programs. Finally, Chapter 4 presents Statelevel detail of the tables presented in Chapter 3.

Terminology

Ownership is a term used throughout the report

and the tables. Ownership indicates the type of entity owning or responsible for the operation of the

facility: private for-profit, private non-profit, or government (Federal, State, local, or tribal).
11

CHAPTER 2

TRENDS IN FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

This chapter presents trends in facilitycharacteristics for 1992 to 1999 (the survey

was not conducted in 1994). It should be kept in

mind, however, that the list frame, methods, and

survey instrument have changed during this period.

These changes are detailed in Chapter 1.

Number of Facilities and Methadone

Facilities

Table 2.1 and Figure 2. The number of facilities

reporting in 1999 increased by 13 percent over

1998 (which in turn represented an increase of 24

percent over 1997). The number of facilities reporting in 1999 that they dispensed methadone or

LAAM increased by 49 percent over 1998. There

were two primary reasons for these increases. First,

SAMHSA continued to expand the survey coverage by identifying substance abuse treatment facilities not on the I-SATS. It is important to note that

these additions were not necessarily new facilities,

but were facilities not previously included in the

UFDS survey. Second, the response rate for the

1999 survey was about 10 percentage points higher

Figure 2

Number of facilities and methadone facilities: UFDS 1992-1999

1992 1993 1994* 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

0

500

1000

1500

5000

10000

15000

* Survey not conducted in 1994.

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey (NDATUS) 1992-1993; Uniform Facility Data Set 

(UFDS) survey 1995-1999.

All facilities Methadone facilities
12

than the rate in 1998. This is important because no

adjustment for non-response is made in the survey

data.

There was significant turnover in facilities responding to the survey. Almost one-third (32 percent) of

the 15,239 treatment facilities that responded to the

1999 UFDS did not participate in the 1998 survey.

The number of new facilities was partially offset by

3,137 facilities that responded in 1998 but not in

1999. This yielded a net increase of 1,784 facilities.

Facility Ownership

Table 2.1 and Figure 3. Despite substantial increases in the number of facilities reporting—the

number of private for-profit facilities reporting increased by 56 percent from 1997 to 1999, and the

number of private non-profit facilities increased by

40 percent—the overall structure of the treatment

system (as reflected in the UFDS ownership data)

remained relatively constant.

In 1999, private non-profit facilities made up the

bulk of the system (60 percent), followed by private for-profit (26 percent) and State/local government (11 percent).

Figure 3

Facility ownership: UFDS 1992-1999

1992 1993 1994* 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

0%

25%

50%

75%

* Survey not conducted in 1994.

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey (NDATUS) 1992-1993; Uniform Facility Data Set 

(UFDS) survey 1995-1999.

Private non-profit Private for-profit State/local government 

Federal government Tribal government 
13

Managed Care

Table 2.2 and Figure 4. Information on managed

care has been collected since 1995, when facilities

were first asked whether they had managed care

contracts. About 54 percent of facilities had managed care contracts in 1999, as compared to 32

percent in 1995. All ownership categories showed

an increase in the percentage with managed care

contracts. Privately-owned facilities were more

likely to have contracts than were governmentowned facilities.

Table 2.3. The proportion of managed care facilities increased in all States between 1995 and 1999.

Figure 4

Facilities with managed care contracts, by ownership:

UFDS 1995-1999

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Private non-profit Private for-profit Local government 

State government Federal government Tribal government 

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey 1995-1999.
14

Programs for Special Groups

Table 2.4 and Figure 5. Facilities may offer treatment programs designed to address the specific

needs of certain groups. These groups include the

dually diagnosed (persons with a mental illness and

co-occurring substance abuse), adolescents, persons with HIV/AIDS, and pregnant or postpartum

women. These data were collected in 1995 and

from 1997 to 1999. There has been some fluctuation over time in the proportion of facilities offering

programs for special groups. However, the differences are small, and probably reflect the changing

composition of the sample. The proportion of facilities with programs for the dually-diagnosed

ranged from 38 to 48 percent. Thirty-four to 39

percent of facilities had programs for adolescents.

About one in five facilities (22 percent) offered programs for persons with HIV/AIDS or pregnant/

postpartum women.

Figure 5

Facilities with programs for special groups:

UFDS 1995-1999

1995* 1996** 1997 1998 1999 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

* Mail respondents only; telephone respondents did not receive this part of the survey.

** Data on special programs were not collected in 1996.

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey 1995-1999.

Dually-diagnosed Adolescents

HIV/AIDS Pregnant/postpartum women
1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Total 11,270 11,496 10,746 10,641 10,860 13,455 15,239 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Ownership

Private non-profit 6,852 7,020 6,514 6,482 6,498 7,489 9,077 60.8 61.1 60.6 60.9 59.8 55.7 59.6 

Private for-profit 2,327 2,384 2,342 2,373 2,550 3,775 3,976 20.6 20.7 21.8 22.3 23.5 28.1 26.1 

State/local government 1,536 1,549 1,399 1,323 1,370 1,694 1,689 13.6 13.5 13.0 12.4 12.6 12.6 11.1 

Federal government 351 388 339 323 293 317 321 3.1 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.1 

Tribal government 204 155 152 140 149 180 176 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.2 

Facilities dispensing

methadone/LAAM 664 690 616 902 768 811 1,206 5.9 6.0 5.7 8.5 7.1 6.0 7.9 

15

Table 2.1

Substance abuse treatment facilities by ownership and dispensing of methadone/LAAM: 1992-19991

Number and percent distribution

1

 Survey reference dates were: Sept. 30, 1992; Oct. 1, 1993; Oct. 2, 1995; Oct. 1, 1996-1999. No survey was conducted in 1994. See Chapter 1 for changes in the survey 

base, methods, and instruments that affect analysis of trends over time.

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Drug and Alcoholism Treatment Unit Survey (NDATUS), 

1992-1993; Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, 1995-1999.

Ownership and

dispensing of

methadone/LAAM

Number of facilities Percent distribution

Number of facilities Percent of all facilities
 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Total 10,746 10,641 10,860 13,455 15,239 3,473 4,511 5,040 5,987 8,256 32.3 42.4 46.4 44.5 54.2 

Private non-profit 6,514 6,482 6,498 7,489 9,077 2,206 2,862 3,186 3,657 5,169 33.9 44.2 49.0 48.8 56.9 

Private for-profit 2,342 2,373 2,550 3,775 3,976 997 1,251 1,390 1,750 2,244 42.6 52.7 54.5 46.4 56.4 

Local government 877 868 887 1,105 1,134 193 284 316 388 501 22.0 32.7 35.6 35.1 44.2 

State government 522 455 483 589 555 55 60 91 106 228 10.5 13.2 18.8 18.0 41.1 

Federal government 339 323 293 317 321 7 32 33 53 77 2.1 9.9 11.3 16.7 24.0 

Tribal government 152 140 149 180 176 15 22 24 33 37 9.9 15.7 16.1 18.3 21.0 

 

16 

1

 Survey reference dates were: Oct. 2, 1995; Oct. 1, 1996-1999. See Chapter 1 for a discussion of changes in the survey base, methods, and instruments that affect analysis of 

trends over time.

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, 1995-1999.

Table 2.2

Substance abuse treatment facilities with managed care contracts, by ownership: 1995-19991

Number and percent

Ownership

Number of facilities Number with managed care contracts Percent with managed care contracts
 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Total 10,746 10,641 10,860 13,455 15,239 3,473 4,511 5,040 5,987 8,256 32.3 42.4 46.4 44.5 54.2 

Alabama 70 58 77 110 131 17 18 17 24 54 24.3 31.0 22.1 21.8 41.2 

Alaska 73 68 60 73 84 9 13 16 16 17 12.3 19.1 26.7 21.9 20.2 

American Samoa 1 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Arizona 98 107 142 212 263 29 53 64 87 132 29.6 49.5 45.1 41.0 50.2 

Arkansas 56 54 55 75 66 11 15 17 24 32 19.6 27.8 30.9 32.0 48.5 

California 1,264 1,299 1,178 1,462 1,698 155 230 286 340 474 12.3 17.7 24.3 23.3 27.9 

Colorado 168 167 143 221 469 44 53 68 91 206 26.2 31.7 47.6 41.2 43.9 

Connecticut 189 170 209 253 291 59 81 117 170 218 31.2 47.6 56.0 67.2 74.9 

Delaware 50 41 41 46 54 17 18 18 25 36 34.0 43.9 43.9 54.3 66.7 

District of Columbia 43 45 40 60 74 7 11 9 16 21 16.3 24.4 22.5 26.7 28.4 

Fed. of Micronesia 2 4 1 2 2 -- 1 -- -- -- -- 25.0 -- -- -- 

Florida 610 587 526 610 778 147 185 208 222 387 24.1 31.5 39.5 36.4 49.7 

Georgia 95 100 152 227 308 20 30 50 63 123 21.1 30.0 32.9 27.8 39.9 

Guam 1 1 1 1 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Hawaii 72 64 69 73 75 24 26 26 30 34 33.3 40.6 37.7 41.1 45.3 

Idaho 35 34 39 58 60 7 13 11 18 28 20.0 38.2 28.2 31.0 46.7 

Illinois 494 445 467 557 592 183 206 218 260 336 37.0 46.3 46.7 46.7 56.8 

Indiana 159 288 251 313 321 57 169 155 187 214 35.8 58.7 61.8 59.7 66.7 

Iowa 69 70 78 123 139 39 50 61 94 124 56.5 71.4 78.2 76.4 89.2 

Kansas 179 185 145 178 209 38 83 81 89 116 21.2 44.9 55.9 50.0 55.5 

Kentucky 257 268 231 259 298 57 97 105 85 146 22.2 36.2 45.5 32.8 49.0 

Louisiana 110 127 137 172 183 18 29 31 37 57 16.4 22.8 22.6 21.5 31.1 

Maine 98 102 131 162 198 36 42 57 79 113 36.7 41.2 43.5 48.8 57.1 

Maryland 318 293 304 346 363 90 84 133 162 206 28.3 28.7 43.8 46.8 56.7 

Massachusetts 256 251 310 370 418 143 169 197 220 280 55.9 67.3 63.5 59.5 67.0 

Michigan 642 613 597 642 605 307 362 368 391 432 47.8 59.1 61.6 60.9 71.4 

Minnesota 251 253 239 283 275 107 152 137 164 195 42.6 60.1 57.3 58.0 70.9 

Mississippi 53 59 71 93 124 8 13 16 19 41 15.1 22.0 22.5 20.4 33.1 

Missouri 130 138 142 259 319 51 82 78 112 174 39.2 59.4 54.9 43.2 54.5 

Montana 36 36 45 58 66 5 7 8 10 24 13.9 19.4 17.8 17.2 36.4 

 

See notes at end of table.

17 

State or 

jurisdiction 2

Table 2.3

Substance abuse treatment facilities with managed care contracts, by State or jurisdiction: 1995-19991

Number and percent

Number of facilities Number with managed care contracts Percent with managed care contracts
 

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Nebraska 112 107 97 113 109 52 43 42 51 75 46.4 40.2 43.3 45.1 68.8 

Nevada 64 61 71 96 102 21 24 30 29 43 32.8 39.3 42.3 30.2 42.2 

New Hampshire 39 52 54 77 75 19 22 33 40 44 48.7 42.3 61.1 51.9 58.7 

New Jersey 236 229 237 314 328 81 88 104 142 184 34.3 38.4 43.9 45.2 56.1 

New Mexico 69 69 71 124 125 13 13 26 37 64 18.8 18.8 36.6 29.8 51.2 

New York 1,042 1,039 1,184 1,235 1,336 509 590 693 705 866 48.8 56.8 58.5 57.1 64.8 

North Carolina 111 135 139 271 323 25 53 49 104 171 22.5 39.3 35.3 38.4 52.9 

North Dakota 43 44 40 51 44 12 13 16 22 23 27.9 29.5 40.0 43.1 52.3 

Ohio 459 476 484 552 578 160 219 207 232 324 34.9 46.0 42.8 42.0 56.1 

Oklahoma 118 118 108 161 165 22 44 40 49 61 18.6 37.3 37.0 30.4 37.0 

Oregon 159 154 160 194 240 84 98 103 123 178 52.8 63.6 64.4 63.4 74.2 

Palau 1 1 1 1 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Pennsylvania 498 505 475 544 636 243 321 331 377 509 48.8 63.6 69.7 69.3 80.0 

Puerto Rico 146 155 64 132 127 2 1 2 6 27 1.4 0.6 3.1 4.5 21.3 

Rhode Island 68 63 59 65 63 34 47 44 46 52 50.0 74.6 74.6 70.8 82.5 

South Carolina 80 73 64 79 102 27 34 39 42 56 33.8 46.6 60.9 53.2 54.9 

South Dakota 55 56 51 64 66 3 11 10 14 31 5.5 19.6 19.6 21.9 47.0 

Tennessee 74 82 132 211 223 29 54 84 145 159 39.2 65.9 63.6 68.7 71.3 

Texas 578 419 504 673 756 119 135 154 193 315 20.6 32.2 30.6 28.7 41.7 

Utah 98 89 112 137 138 17 20 29 37 63 17.3 22.5 25.9 27.0 45.7 

Vermont 19 18 20 46 46 15 15 17 31 38 78.9 83.3 85.0 67.4 82.6 

Virgin Islands 3 3 4 3 5 -- -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- 20.0 

Virginia 122 125 153 209 257 42 61 72 105 155 34.4 48.8 47.1 50.2 60.3 

Washington 333 295 298 331 363 146 161 159 166 236 43.8 54.6 53.4 50.2 65.0 

West Virginia 51 63 81 81 137 13 29 43 44 88 25.5 46.0 53.1 54.3 64.2 

Wisconsin 247 240 269 347 370 94 108 145 192 250 38.1 45.0 53.9 55.3 67.6 

Wyoming 42 42 47 46 60 6 15 16 20 23 14.3 35.7 34.0 43.5 38.3 

 - - - - - - -

 - - - - - - -

Table 2.3

Substance abuse treatment facilities with managed care contracts, by State or jurisdiction: 1995-19991

Number and percent

-- Quantity is zero.

1

 Survey reference dates were Oct. 2, 1995; Oct. 1, 1996-1999. See Chapter 1 for changes in the survey base, methods, and instruments that affect analysis of trends 

over time.

2

 Facilities operated by Federal agencies are included in the States in which the facilities are located.

Number with managed care contracts Percent with managed care contracts

18 

State or 

jurisdiction 2

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, 1995-1999.

Number of facilities
 

Special group 1995 2

1996 31997 1998 1999 1995 21996 31997 1998 1999

Total 8,736 10,641 10,860 13,455 15,239 

Dually-diagnosed 3,295 n/a 5,255 6,416 6,818 37.7 n/a 48.4 47.7 44.7 

Adolescents 3,144 n/a 4,195 5,163 5,131 36.0 n/a 38.6 38.4 33.7 

HIV/AIDS 1,497 n/a 2,566 2,576 3,368 17.1 n/a 23.6 19.1 22.1 

Pregnant/postpartum women 1,890 n/a 2,200 2,493 3,271 21.6 n/a 20.3 18.5 21.5 

 

19

Number of facilities Percent of all facilities

Table 2.4

Substance abuse treatment facilities offering programs for special groups: 1995-19991

Number and percent

1

 Survey reference dates were Oct. 2, 1995; Oct. 1, 1996-1999. See Chapter 1 for changes in the survey base, methods, and instruments that 

affect analysis of trends over time.

2

 Mail respondents only. Telephone respondents did not receive this part of the survey.

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set survey, 1995-

1999.

n/a Data not collected.

3

 Data on special programs were not collected in 1996.
20
21

This chapter describes key characteristics offacilities and programs in 1999. Facilities are

described in terms of ownership, that is, the type of

entity owning or responsible for the operation of

the facility: private for-profit, private non-profit, or

government (Federal, State, local, or tribal).

Type of Payment Accepted

Table 3.1. Cash/self-payment and private insurance

were the most widely accepted forms of payment

for substance abuse treatment (accepted by 90

percent and 74 percent of facilities, respectively).

Medicaid was accepted by just over half of all facilities (56 percent). Federal military insurance and

Medicare were accepted by less than half of all facilities (47 percent and 45 percent, respectively).

The type of payment accepted varied considerably

by ownership. Local and State government-owned

facilities and private non-profit facilities were more

likely to accept Medicaid and Medicare than were

private for-profit, Federal, or tribal facilities. Federal military insurance was most likely to be accepted by Federal government-owned facilities in

general (65 percent), and by the Dept. of Veterans

Affairs (VA) in particular (72 percent).

Sliding Fee Scale Offered

Table 3.1. A sliding fee scale for substance abuse

treatment was offered by about two-thirds (68 percent) of all facilities. The sliding fee scale was most

likely to be offered in local and State governmentowned and private non-profit facilities (81 percent,

73 percent, and 72 percent, respectively).

Type of Care Offered

Table 3.2. Outpatient rehabilitation was the most

widely available type of care, offered by 82 percent of all facilities. Residential rehabilitation was

offered by 25 percent of all facilities. Partial hospitalization programs were offered by 19 percent of

facilities, and outpatient detoxification by 13 percent. Residential detoxification and hospital inpatient treatment (either detoxification or rehabilitation

were each offered by 5 to 8 percent of all facilities.

Facilities owned by the Federal government (and in

particular by the VA) were most likely to offer each

of the different types of care. Ninety-five percent

offered outpatient rehabilitation, about 40 percent

each offered outpatient detoxification and partial

hospitalization, and 28 percent offered residential

rehabilitation. While 91 percent of private for-profit

facilities offered outpatient rehabilitation, none of the

other types of care was offered by more than 16

percent of these facilities.

Methadone/LAAM Dispensed

Table 3.2. Methadone/LAAM was dispensed by

8 percent of all facilities. Facilities most likely to

dispense methadone/LAAM were Federal government facilities (14 percent), particularly the facilities

operated by the VA (23 percent). Private for-profit

facilities were also more likely than average to dispense methadone/LAAM (11 percent).

Substance Abuse Problem Treated

Table 3.3. As recently as 1980, the Federal government surveyed facilities treating alcohol and drug

abuse separately. By 1999, however, the vast majority of facilities (96 percent) treated both alcohol

CHAPTER 3

FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS AND SERVICES
22

and drug abuse. The Department of Defense had

the highest proportion of facilities that treated only

one of the two problems (19 percent); all of these

facilities treated alcohol abuse only.

Primary Focus

Table 3.4. About two-thirds of facilities (65 percent) reported that treating substance abuse problems was their primary focus of activity. Seventeen

percent reported that mental health treatment was

their primary focus, and 14 reported that they focused on substance abuse and mental health equally.

Programs for Special Groups

Table 3.5. Facilities may offer treatment programs

designed to address the specific needs of certain

groups. These groups include the dually diagnosed

(persons with a mental illness and co-occurring substance abuse), adolescents, persons with HIV/

AIDS, and pregnant or postpartum women. Special programs may also be designed to address

women’s needs (other than co-occurring pregnancy)

or for persons in the criminal justice system (facilities treating incarcerated persons only were excluded from this survey; see Chapter 1.) Many

facilities offer treatment for persons arrested while

driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI)

or driving while intoxicated (DWI).

Overall, nearly half (45 percent) of all facilities provided programs for the dually diagnosed. These

services were most likely to be provided by VAowned facilities (73 percent). Facilities least likely

to have programs for the dually diagnosed were

Department of Defense-owned facilities (32 percent).

About 34 percent of facilities offered programs for

adolescents. Programs for adolescents were most

likely to be offered by the Indian Health Service

(59 percent) and tribal government-owned facilities (62 percent). Adolescent programs were least

likely to be available in VA-owned or Department

of Defense-owned facilities (1 percent and 5 percent, respectively).

About one-fifth (22 percent) of facilities offered

programs for persons with HIV/AIDS. These programs were most likely to be available in VA-owned

facilities (33 percent), and least likely to be offered

by Department of Defense-owned and private forprofit facilities (10 percent and 16 percent, respectively).

Programs for pregnant or postpartum women were

offered by 22 percent of facilities. These were most

likely to be offered at facilities owned by the Indian

health service or tribal governments (32 percent and

29 percent, respectively), and by local or State

government-owned facilities (31 percent and 27

percent, respectively). These programs were least

likely to be offered by the VA (7 percent), Department of Defense (10 percent), and by private forprofit facilities (14 percent).

Other women’s groups were relatively widely available, in 41 percent of all facilities, ranging from 27

percent of Department of Defense-owned facilities

to 55 percent of tribal government-owned facilities.

Facilities offering programs for persons in the criminal justice system were relatively widely available,

at 47 percent of all facilities.

Special programs for those arrested for DUI/DWI

were offered by 38 percent of all facilities. These

programs were most likely to be found in private

for-profit and Department of Defense facilities (51

percent each).
Ownership Total

Cash/

self-pay

Private

insurance

MedicareMedicaid

Federal 

military 

insurance

Cash/

self-pay

Private

insurance

MedicareMedicaid

Federal 

military 

insurance

Total 15,239 13,647 11,204 6,789 8,545 7,096 10,353 89.6 73.5 44.6 56.1 46.6 67.9 

Private non-profit 9,077 8,111 6,624 4,324 5,766 4,231 6,546 89.4 73.0 47.6 63.5 46.6 72.1 

Private for-profit 3,976 3,903 3,052 1,387 1,462 1,663 2,390 98.2 76.8 34.9 36.8 41.8 60.1 

Local or county government 1,134 1,014 858 627 823 623 915 89.4 75.7 55.3 72.6 54.9 80.7 

State government 555 463 424 327 371 329 404 83.4 76.4 58.9 66.8 59.3 72.8 

Federal government 321 98 174 65 54 208 51 30.5 54.2 20.2 16.8 64.8 15.9 

Dept. of Veterans Affairs 168 81 130 46 34 121 43 48.2 77.4 27.4 20.2 72.0 25.6 

Dept. of Defense 116 6 25 5 4 70 1 5.2 21.6 4.3 3.4 60.3 0.9 

Indian Health Service 22 5 13 9 10 10 3 22.7 59.1 40.9 45.5 45.5 13.6 

Other 15 6 6 5 6 7 4 40.0 40.0 33.3 40.0 46.7 26.7 

Tribal government 176 58 72 59 69 42 47 33.0 40.9 33.5 39.2 23.9 26.7 

23

Number of facilities Percent of all facilities

Offers 

sliding fee 

scale

Type of payment accepted

Table 3.1

Substance abuse treatment facilities by type of payment accepted and sliding fee scale, according to ownership: 1999

Number and percent

Type of payment accepted

Offers 

sliding 

fee scale

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, October 1, 1999.
Ownership Detox Rehab Detox Rehab Detox Rehab Detox Rehab Detox Rehab Detox Rehab

Total 15,239 1,973 12,527 2,855 1,237 3,788 1,159 803 1,206 12.9 82.2 18.7 8.1 24.9 7.6 5.3 7.9 

Private non-profit 9,077 983 7,075 1,783 845 2,921 654 427 581 10.8 77.9 19.6 9.3 32.2 7.2 4.7 6.4 

Private for-profit 3,976 618 3,607 617 192 413 294 230 430 15.5 90.7 15.5 4.8 10.4 7.4 5.8 10.8 

Local or county government 1,134 166 979 207 89 172 100 46 100 14.6 86.3 18.3 7.8 15.2 8.8 4.1 8.8 

State government 555 65 402 99 67 150 45 59 45 11.7 72.4 17.8 12.1 27.0 8.1 10.6 8.1 

Federal government 321 127 305 124 37 91 61 38 46 39.6 95.0 38.6 11.5 28.3 19.0 11.8 14.3 

Dept. of Veterans Affairs 168 85 160 86 30 73 49 29 38 50.6 95.2 51.2 17.9 43.5 29.2 17.3 22.6 

Dept. of Defense 116 35 115 31 5 10 8 5 3 30.2 99.1 26.7 4.3 8.6 6.9 4.3 2.6 

Indian Health Service 22 5 17 4 -- 4 2 2 4 22.7 77.3 18.2 -- 18.2 9.1 9.1 18.2 

Other 15 2 13 3 2 4 2 2 1 13.3 86.7 20.0 13.3 26.7 13.3 13.3 6.7 

Tribal government 176 14 159 25 7 41 5 3 4 8.0 90.3 14.2 4.0 23.3 2.8 1.7 2.3 

Hosp. inpatient Outpatient Partial

hospitalization

Residential Hosp. inpatient

Total

Outpatient Partial

hospitalization

Residential

24

Table 3.2

Substance abuse treatment facilities by type of care offered and dispensing of methadone/LAAM, according to ownership: October 1, 1999

Number and percent

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, October 1, 1999.

-- Quantity is zero.

Number of facilities Percent of all facilities

Type of care offered

Methadone/

LAAM

Type of care offered

Methadone/

LAAM
Ownership

Both alcohol

and drug abuse

Drug abuse

only

Alcohol abuse

only

Both alcohol

and drug abuse

Drug abuse

only

Alcohol abuse

only

Total 15,239 14,686 388 165 100.0 96.4 2.5 1.1 

Private non-profit 9,077 8,819 183 75 100.0 97.2 2.0 0.8 

Private for-profit 3,976 3,757 168 51 100.0 94.5 4.2 1.3 

Local or county government 1,134 1,095 29 10 100.0 96.6 2.6 0.9 

State government 555 544 8 3 100.0 98.0 1.4 0.5 

Federal government 321 297 -- 24 100.0 92.5 -- 7.5 

Dept. of Veterans Affairs 168 168 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

Dept. of Defense 116 94 -- 22 100.0 81.0 -- 19.0 

Indian Health Service 22 22 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

Other 15 13 -- 2 100.0 86.7 -- 13.3 

Tribal government 176 174 -- 2 100.0 98.9 -- 1.1 

Number of facilities Percent distribution

25

-- Quantity is zero.

Table 3.3

Substance abuse treatment facilities by substance abuse problem treated, according to ownership: 1999

Number and percent distribution

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, October 1, 1999.

Problem treated

Total

Problem treated

Total
Ownership Total

Substance

abuse

services

Mental

health

services

Balance of

 SA and 

MH services

General

health

services Other Total

Substance

abuse

services

Mental

health

services

Balance of

 SA and 

MH services

General

health

services Other

Total 15,239 9,859 2,573 2,069 171 567 100.0 64.7 16.9 13.6 1.1 3.7 

Private non-profit 9,077 6,045 1,394 1,155 104 379 100.0 66.6 15.4 12.7 1.1 4.2 

Private for-profit 3,976 2,456 859 542 16 103 100.0 61.8 21.6 13.6 0.4 2.6 

Local or county government 1,134 681 173 212 15 53 100.0 60.1 15.3 18.7 1.3 4.7 

State government 555 346 112 78 6 13 100.0 62.3 20.2 14.1 1.1 2.3 

Federal government 321 206 34 44 25 12 100.0 64.2 10.6 13.7 7.8 3.7 

Dept. of Veterans Affairs 168 91 21 27 21 8 100.0 54.2 12.5 16.1 12.5 4.8 

Dept. of Defense 116 86 13 13 2 2 100.0 74.1 11.2 11.2 1.7 1.7 

Indian Health Service 22 19 -- 2 1 -- 100.0 86.4 -- 9.1 4.5 -- 

Other 15 10 -- 2 1 2 100.0 66.7 -- 13.3 6.7 13.3 

Tribal government 176 125 1 38 5 7 100.0 71.0 0.6 21.6 2.8 4.0 

-- Quantity is zero.

Primary focus Primary focus

26

Table 3.4

Substance abuse treatment facilities by primary focus, according to ownership: 1999

Number and percent distribution

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, October 1, 1999.

Number of facilities Percent distribution
Ownership Total

Duallydiagnosed

Adolescents

Persons

with HIV/

 AIDS

Pregnant/

postpartum

women

Other 

women's

groups

Criminal

justice

Duallydiagnosed

Adolescents

Persons

with HIV/

 AIDS

Pregnant/

postpartum

women

Other 

women's

groups

Criminal

justice

Total 15,239 6,818 5,131 3,368 3,271 6,222 7,176 5,848 44.7 33.7 22.1 21.5 40.8 47.1 38.4 

Private non-profit 9,077 4,030 3,199 2,206 2,146 3,903 4,399 3,004 44.4 35.2 24.3 23.6 43.0 48.5 33.1 

Private for-profit 3,976 1,658 1,180 648 537 1,297 1,755 2,041 41.7 29.7 16.3 13.5 32.6 44.1 51.3 

Local or county government 1,134 581 433 262 354 571 586 443 51.2 38.2 23.1 31.2 50.4 51.7 39.1 

State government 555 289 185 141 149 250 283 171 52.1 33.3 25.4 26.8 45.0 51.0 30.8 

Federal government 321 180 25 76 34 104 72 113 56.1 7.8 23.7 10.6 32.4 22.4 35.2 

Dept. of Veterans Affairs 168 123 2 56 11 59 38 43 73.2 1.2 33.3 6.5 35.1 22.6 25.6 

Dept. of Defense 116 37 6 11 12 31 18 59 31.9 5.2 9.5 10.3 26.7 15.5 50.9 

Indian Health Service 22 12 13 6 7 8 10 6 54.5 59.1 27.3 31.8 36.4 45.5 27.3 

Other 15 8 4 3 4 6 6 5 53.3 26.7 20.0 26.7 40.0 40.0 33.3 

Tribal government 176 80 109 35 51 97 81 76 45.5 61.9 19.9 29.0 55.1 46.0 43.2 

Table 3.5

Substance abuse treatment facilities offering programs for special groups, according to ownership: 1999

Number and percent

27

Number of facilities Percent of all facilities

Special group

DUI/

DWI

Special group

DUI/

DWI

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, October 1, 1999.
28
29

This chapter presents facility data byState or jurisdiction. Facilities operated by

Federal agencies are included in the States in which

the facilities are located, although these facilities may

have clients from other States.

These tables are presented for reference only. Care

should be taken in drawing any conclusions about

differences between States. As discussed in Chapter 1, States differ in their systems of licensure/certification and disbursement of public funds. These

factors affect the scope of facilities included in UFDS

for each State, and it may create artifactual differences among States. Also, no adjustments were

made for survey non-response.

Table 4.1 details the 1999 UFDS survey response

rate. Tables 4.2 to 4.7 provide State-level detail on

tables presented in earlier chapters and will not be

discussed.

CHAPTER 4

STATE DATA

Survey Response

Table 4.1. For the United States, the overall response rate was 95 percent, ranging from 86 percent for Hawaii to 100 percent for Iowa and

Wyoming. Puerto Rico, the largest of the non-State

jurisdictions surveyed, had a response rate of 94

percent.
 

State or jurisdiction 1

Total

sample

Ineligible 

respondents 2

NonrespondentsEligible 

respondents

Response 

rate (%) 3

All facilities 19,435 3,461 735 15,239 95.4 

Alabama 157 25 1 131 99.2 

Alaska 99 10 5 84 94.4 

Arizona 349 54 32 263 89.2 

Arkansas 99 30 3 66 95.7 

California 2,130 327 105 1,698 94.2 

Colorado 677 177 31 469 93.8 

Connecticut 362 66 5 291 98.3 

Delaware 78 22 2 54 96.4 

District of Columbia 104 25 5 74 93.7 

Fed. of Micronesia 3 -- 1 2 66.7 

Florida 1,205 327 100 778 88.6 

Georgia 361 44 9 308 97.2 

Guam 1 -- -- 1 100.0 

Hawaii 101 14 12 75 86.2 

Idaho 90 26 4 60 93.8 

Illinois 785 173 20 592 96.7 

Indiana 426 89 16 321 95.3 

Iowa 167 28 -- 139 100.0 

Kansas 260 43 8 209 96.3 

Kentucky 365 50 17 298 94.6 

Louisiana 214 25 6 183 96.8 

Maine 269 63 8 198 96.1 

Maryland 439 61 15 363 96.0 

Massachusetts 485 58 9 418 97.9 

Michigan 708 87 16 605 97.4 

Minnesota 339 61 3 275 98.9 

Mississippi 151 23 4 124 96.9 

Missouri 389 56 14 319 95.8 

Montana 75 8 1 66 98.5 

Nebraska 137 26 2 109 98.2 

 

See notes at end of table.

30

Table 4.1

Sample accounting and response rate by State or jurisdiction: UFDS 1999
State or jurisdiction 1

Total

sample

Ineligible 

respondents 2

NonrespondentsEligible 

respondents

Response 

rate (%) 3

Nevada 132 21 9 102 91.9

New Hampshire 97 20 2 75 97.4

New Jersey 413 57 28 328 92.1

New Mexico 163 24 14 125 89.9

New York 1,588 223 29 1,336 97.9

North Carolina 381 48 10 323 97.0

North Dakota 49 4 1 44 97.8

Ohio 791 200 13 578 97.8

Oklahoma 212 42 5 165 97.1

Oregon 293 46 7 240 97.2

Palau 1 -- -- 1 100.0

Pennsylvania 787 122 29 636 95.6

Puerto Rico 167 32 8 127 94.1

Rhode Island 80 16 1 63 98.4

South Carolina 116 12 2 102 98.1

South Dakota 82 13 3 66 95.7

Tennessee 273 45 5 223 97.8

Texas 1,100 286 58 756 92.9

Utah 169 24 7 138 95.2

Vermont 66 15 5 46 90.2

Virgin Islands 5 -- -- 5 100.0

Virginia 314 44 13 257 95.2

Washington 417 40 14 363 96.3

West Virginia 192 53 2 137 98.6

Wisconsin 458 72 16 370 95.9

Wyoming 64 4 -- 60 100.0

1

 Facilities operated by Federal agencies are included in the States in which the facilities are located.

2

 A facility was ineligible if: a) it had closed by October 1, 1999; b) it was not providing substance abuse 

treatment services on October 1, 1999; or c) it treated incarcerated persons only.

31

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 

Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, October 1, 1999.

-- Quantity is zero.

Table 4.1

Sample accounting and response rate by State or jurisdiction: UFDS 1999

3 Response rate is calculated as 'Eligible respondents' divided by ('Total sample' less 'Ineligible 

respondents').
VA DoD IHS Other VA DoD IHS Other

Total 15,239 9,077 3,976 1,134 555 168 116 22 15 176 100.0 59.6 26.1 7.4 3.6 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 1.2 

Alabama 131 64 40 12 2 7 4 1 -- 1 100.0 48.9 30.5 9.2 1.5 5.3 3.1 0.8 -- 0.8 

Alaska 84 52 12 6 -- 1 3 -- 1 9 100.0 61.9 14.3 7.1 -- 1.2 3.6 -- 1.2 10.7 

Arizona 263 154 78 -- 2 3 4 5 -- 17 100.0 58.6 29.7 -- 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.9 -- 6.5 

Arkansas 66 52 8 -- 5 1 -- -- -- -- 100.0 78.8 12.1 -- 7.6 1.5 -- -- -- -- 

California 1,698 1,079 381 195 8 9 10 1 2 13 100.0 63.5 22.4 11.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.8 

Colorado 469 192 238 18 13 2 4 -- -- 2 100.0 40.9 50.7 3.8 2.8 0.4 0.9 -- -- 0.4 

Connecticut 291 227 42 4 13 2 2 -- -- 1 100.0 78.0 14.4 1.4 4.5 0.7 0.7 -- -- 0.3 

Delaware 54 35 16 -- 2 1 -- -- -- -- 100.0 64.8 29.6 -- 3.7 1.9 -- -- -- -- 

District of Columbia 74 39 13 10 10 1 1 -- -- -- 100.0 52.7 17.6 13.5 13.5 1.4 1.4 -- -- -- 

Fed. of Micronesia 2 -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- 1 -- 100.0 -- -- -- 50.0 -- -- -- 50.0 -- 

Florida 778 448 289 23 6 7 5 -- -- -- 100.0 57.6 37.1 3.0 0.8 0.9 0.6 -- -- -- 

Georgia 308 103 69 50 74 3 7 -- 2 -- 100.0 33.4 22.4 16.2 24.0 1.0 2.3 -- 0.6 -- 

Guam 1 -- -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- 100.0 -- -- -- 100.0 -- -- -- -- -- 

Hawaii 75 62 6 -- 4 -- 2 -- 1 -- 100.0 82.7 8.0 -- 5.3 -- 2.7 -- 1.3 -- 

Idaho 60 19 28 4 3 1 2 -- -- 3 100.0 31.7 46.7 6.7 5.0 1.7 3.3 -- -- 5.0 

Illinois 592 388 170 19 7 6 2 -- -- -- 100.0 65.5 28.7 3.2 1.2 1.0 0.3 -- -- -- 

Indiana 321 223 80 12 5 1 -- -- -- -- 100.0 69.5 24.9 3.7 1.6 0.3 -- -- -- -- 

Iowa 139 116 8 7 5 2 -- -- -- 1 100.0 83.5 5.8 5.0 3.6 1.4 -- -- -- 0.7 

Kansas 209 111 68 17 7 3 2 1 -- -- 100.0 53.1 32.5 8.1 3.3 1.4 1.0 0.5 -- -- 

Kentucky 298 188 96 7 5 1 1 -- -- -- 100.0 63.1 32.2 2.3 1.7 0.3 0.3 -- -- -- 

Louisiana 183 73 51 9 43 3 2 -- -- 2 100.0 39.9 27.9 4.9 23.5 1.6 1.1 -- -- 1.1 

Maine 198 100 86 3 1 3 1 -- 1 3 100.0 50.5 43.4 1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 -- 0.5 1.5 

Maryland 363 144 142 27 44 3 3 -- -- -- 100.0 39.7 39.1 7.4 12.1 0.8 0.8 -- -- -- 

Massachusetts 418 309 84 11 6 6 1 1 -- -- 100.0 73.9 20.1 2.6 1.4 1.4 0.2 0.2 -- -- 

Michigan 605 351 186 42 9 5 -- -- -- 12 100.0 58.0 30.7 6.9 1.5 0.8 -- -- -- 2.0 

Minnesota 275 153 84 13 10 2 -- -- -- 13 100.0 55.6 30.5 4.7 3.6 0.7 -- -- -- 4.7 

Mississippi 124 54 14 30 20 2 3 -- 1 -- 100.0 43.5 11.3 24.2 16.1 1.6 2.4 -- 0.8 -- 

Missouri 319 206 93 4 8 4 3 -- 1 -- 100.0 64.6 29.2 1.3 2.5 1.3 0.9 -- 0.3 -- 

Montana 66 34 16 4 1 1 1 1 -- 8 100.0 51.5 24.2 6.1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 -- 12.1 

 

See notes at end of table.

Number of facilities

Ownership Ownership

Private

nonprofitLocal

govt

State

Total govt

Private

forprofit

Table 4.2

Substance abuse treatment facilities by ownership, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999

Number and percent distribution

Federal govt

Tribal

govt Total

Private

nonprofitLocal

govt

State

govt

Federal govt

Tribal

govt

Percent distribution

32

Private

forprofit

State or 

jurisdiction 1
VA DoD IHS Other VA DoD IHS Other

Nebraska 109 74 18 5 3 3 1 1 -- 4 100.0 67.9 16.5 4.6 2.8 2.8 0.9 0.9 -- 3.7 

Nevada 102 45 43 5 2 2 -- 1 -- 4 100.0 44.1 42.2 4.9 2.0 2.0 -- 1.0 -- 3.9 

New Hampshire 75 48 18 4 4 1 -- -- -- -- 100.0 64.0 24.0 5.3 5.3 1.3 -- -- -- -- 

New Jersey 328 205 97 17 4 1 4 -- -- -- 100.0 62.5 29.6 5.2 1.2 0.3 1.2 -- -- -- 

New Mexico 125 68 29 3 7 2 1 2 1 12 100.0 54.4 23.2 2.4 5.6 1.6 0.8 1.6 0.8 9.6 

New York 1,336 917 221 136 46 10 1 -- -- 5 100.0 68.6 16.5 10.2 3.4 0.7 0.1 -- -- 0.4 

North Carolina 323 91 113 80 27 3 5 2 1 1 100.0 28.2 35.0 24.8 8.4 0.9 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 

North Dakota 44 9 18 1 9 1 1 -- -- 5 100.0 20.5 40.9 2.3 20.5 2.3 2.3 -- -- 11.4 

Ohio 578 488 42 22 6 18 1 -- 1 -- 100.0 84.4 7.3 3.8 1.0 3.1 0.2 -- 0.2 -- 

Oklahoma 165 98 18 16 12 1 5 3 1 11 100.0 59.4 10.9 9.7 7.3 0.6 3.0 1.8 0.6 6.7 

Oregon 240 129 67 35 2 -- -- -- -- 7 100.0 53.8 27.9 14.6 0.8 -- -- -- -- 2.9 

Palau 1 -- -- 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- 100.0 -- -- 100.0 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Pennsylvania 636 450 166 11 2 7 -- -- -- -- 100.0 70.8 26.1 1.7 0.3 1.1 -- -- -- -- 

Puerto Rico 127 103 5 -- 18 1 -- -- -- -- 100.0 81.1 3.9 -- 14.2 0.8 -- -- -- -- 

Rhode Island 63 50 10 -- 1 1 1 -- -- -- 100.0 79.4 15.9 -- 1.6 1.6 1.6 -- -- -- 

South Carolina 102 29 25 30 13 1 4 -- -- -- 100.0 28.4 24.5 29.4 12.7 1.0 3.9 -- -- -- 

South Dakota 66 41 8 1 3 3 1 2 -- 7 100.0 62.1 12.1 1.5 4.5 4.5 1.5 3.0 -- 10.6 

Tennessee 223 168 41 7 3 4 -- -- -- -- 100.0 75.3 18.4 3.1 1.3 1.8 -- -- -- -- 

Texas 756 386 270 42 31 10 14 -- 1 2 100.0 51.1 35.7 5.6 4.1 1.3 1.9 -- 0.1 0.3 

Utah 138 61 37 32 3 1 2 1 -- 1 100.0 44.2 26.8 23.2 2.2 0.7 1.4 0.7 -- 0.7 

Vermont 46 39 5 1 -- 1 -- -- -- -- 100.0 84.8 10.9 2.2 -- 2.2 -- -- -- -- 

Virgin Islands 5 2 -- 1 2 -- -- -- -- -- 100.0 40.0 -- 20.0 40.0 -- -- -- -- -- 

Virginia 257 78 57 85 26 3 8 -- -- -- 100.0 30.4 22.2 33.1 10.1 1.2 3.1 -- -- -- 

Washington 363 174 130 26 4 4 4 -- -- 21 100.0 47.9 35.8 7.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 -- -- 5.8 

West Virginia 137 116 10 2 4 5 -- -- -- -- 100.0 84.7 7.3 1.5 2.9 3.6 -- -- -- -- 

Wisconsin 370 194 118 39 6 3 -- -- -- 10 100.0 52.4 31.9 10.5 1.6 0.8 -- -- -- 2.7 

Wyoming 60 38 12 5 2 2 -- -- -- 1 100.0 63.3 20.0 8.3 3.3 3.3 -- -- -- 1.7 

Local

govt

State

govt

Federal govt

Tribal

govt

State

govt Total

Private

nonprofit

Number of facilities Percent distribution

State or 

jurisdiction 1

Ownership Ownership

Total

Private

nonprofit

Private

forprofitLocal

govt

Private

forprofit

33

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, October 1, 1999.

1

 Facilities operated by Federal agencies are included in the States in which the facilities are located.

Table 4.2

Substance abuse treatment facilities by ownership, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999

Number and percent distribution

-- Quantity is zero.

Federal govt

Tribal

govt
State or 

jurisdiction 1Total

Cash/

self-pay

Private

insurance

MedicareMedicaid

Federal 

military 

insurance

Cash/

self-pay

Private

insurance

MedicareMedicaid

Federal 

military 

insurance

Total 15,239 13,647 11,204 6,789 8,545 7,096 10,353 89.6 73.5 44.6 56.1 46.6 67.9 

Alabama 131 118 102 51 66 82 76 90.1 77.9 38.9 50.4 62.6 58.0 

Alaska 84 62 59 25 42 41 51 73.8 70.2 29.8 50.0 48.8 60.7 

Arizona 263 228 156 84 86 91 162 86.7 59.3 31.9 32.7 34.6 61.6 

Arkansas 66 65 56 32 31 47 51 98.5 84.8 48.5 47.0 71.2 77.3 

California 1,698 1,494 863 406 489 428 1,127 88.0 50.8 23.9 28.8 25.2 66.4 

Colorado 469 428 282 122 155 179 339 91.3 60.1 26.0 33.0 38.2 72.3 

Connecticut 291 264 231 168 212 129 221 90.7 79.4 57.7 72.9 44.3 75.9 

Delaware 54 47 35 21 37 15 35 87.0 64.8 38.9 68.5 27.8 64.8 

District of Columbia 74 48 30 24 27 18 30 64.9 40.5 32.4 36.5 24.3 40.5 

Fed. of Micronesia 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 100.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 

Florida 778 706 548 280 358 350 563 90.7 70.4 36.0 46.0 45.0 72.4 

Georgia 308 282 244 188 198 191 216 91.6 79.2 61.0 64.3 62.0 70.1 

Guam 1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Hawaii 75 41 32 16 17 17 17 54.7 42.7 21.3 22.7 22.7 22.7 

Idaho 60 53 47 16 21 26 28 88.3 78.3 26.7 35.0 43.3 46.7 

Illinois 592 570 494 291 348 272 442 96.3 83.4 49.2 58.8 45.9 74.7 

Indiana 321 312 273 221 228 200 217 97.2 85.0 68.8 71.0 62.3 67.6 

Iowa 139 131 129 72 125 76 107 94.2 92.8 51.8 89.9 54.7 77.0 

Kansas 209 197 173 86 107 122 144 94.3 82.8 41.1 51.2 58.4 68.9 

Kentucky 298 290 218 159 151 178 227 97.3 73.2 53.4 50.7 59.7 76.2 

Louisiana 183 159 121 72 77 89 111 86.9 66.1 39.3 42.1 48.6 60.7 

Maine 198 187 172 103 162 116 162 94.4 86.9 52.0 81.8 58.6 81.8 

Maryland 363 334 268 170 202 152 261 92.0 73.8 46.8 55.6 41.9 71.9 

Massachusetts 418 374 300 251 279 172 298 89.5 71.8 60.0 66.7 41.1 71.3 

Michigan 605 576 518 332 405 318 461 95.2 85.6 54.9 66.9 52.6 76.2 

Minnesota 275 260 253 112 128 145 85 94.5 92.0 40.7 46.5 52.7 30.9 

Mississippi 124 117 94 66 69 69 81 94.4 75.8 53.2 55.6 55.6 65.3 

Missouri 319 287 247 117 163 172 234 90.0 77.4 36.7 51.1 53.9 73.4 

Montana 66 58 59 29 42 43 49 87.9 89.4 43.9 63.6 65.2 74.2 

 

See notes at end of table.

34

Number of facilities Percent of all facilities

Type of payment accepted

Sliding

fee scale

offered

Type of payment accepted

Sliding

fee scale

offered

Table 4.3

Substance abuse treatment facilities by type of payment accepted and sliding fee scale, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999

Number and percent
State or 

jurisdiction 1Total

Cash/

self-pay

Private

insurance

MedicareMedicaid

Federal 

military 

insurance

Cash/

self-pay

Private

insurance

MedicareMedicaid

Federal 

military 

insurance

Nebraska 109 94 88 59 73 67 76 86.2 80.7 54.1 67.0 61.5 69.7 

Nevada 102 94 77 35 36 48 66 92.2 75.5 34.3 35.3 47.1 64.7 

New Hampshire 75 71 55 48 52 42 60 94.7 73.3 64.0 69.3 56.0 80.0 

New Jersey 328 291 232 155 185 128 250 88.7 70.7 47.3 56.4 39.0 76.2 

New Mexico 125 91 77 49 58 58 70 72.8 61.6 39.2 46.4 46.4 56.0 

New York 1,336 1,203 1,091 749 1,086 642 1,087 90.0 81.7 56.1 81.3 48.1 81.4 

North Carolina 323 301 248 158 165 157 192 93.2 76.8 48.9 51.1 48.6 59.4 

North Dakota 44 38 35 17 18 23 13 86.4 79.5 38.6 40.9 52.3 29.5 

Ohio 578 525 484 331 470 346 449 90.8 83.7 57.3 81.3 59.9 77.7 

Oklahoma 165 135 114 62 96 81 91 81.8 69.1 37.6 58.2 49.1 55.2 

Oregon 240 215 202 89 141 105 171 89.6 84.2 37.1 58.8 43.8 71.3 

Palau 1 1 -- -- -- -- 1 100.0 -- -- -- -- 100.0 

Pennsylvania 636 570 475 302 429 251 410 89.6 74.7 47.5 67.5 39.5 64.5 

Puerto Rico 127 30 8 5 6 5 18 23.6 6.3 3.9 4.7 3.9 14.2 

Rhode Island 63 54 53 25 49 36 50 85.7 84.1 39.7 77.8 57.1 79.4 

South Carolina 102 92 81 48 66 59 48 90.2 79.4 47.1 64.7 57.8 47.1 

South Dakota 66 51 49 30 36 40 30 77.3 74.2 45.5 54.5 60.6 45.5 

Tennessee 223 205 172 115 115 146 142 91.9 77.1 51.6 51.6 65.5 63.7 

Texas 756 613 443 239 348 278 442 81.1 58.6 31.6 46.0 36.8 58.5 

Utah 138 133 116 78 89 92 96 96.4 84.1 56.5 64.5 66.7 69.6 

Vermont 46 43 43 21 39 31 39 93.5 93.5 45.7 84.8 67.4 84.8 

Virgin Islands 5 3 3 2 1 1 4 60.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 80.0 

Virginia 257 236 219 135 144 187 158 91.8 85.2 52.5 56.0 72.8 61.5 

Washington 363 342 324 138 201 135 246 94.2 89.3 38.0 55.4 37.2 67.8 

West Virginia 137 132 130 121 127 117 91 96.4 94.9 88.3 92.7 85.4 66.4 

Wisconsin 370 337 323 236 252 236 214 91.1 87.3 63.8 68.1 63.8 57.8 

Wyoming 60 57 57 27 37 46 43 95.0 95.0 45.0 61.7 76.7 71.7 

35

Number of facilities

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, October 1, 1999.

-- Quantity is zero.

1

 Facilities operated by Federal agencies are included in the States in which the facilities are located.

Table 4.3

Substance abuse treatment facilities by type of payment accepted and sliding fee scale, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999

Number and percent

Percent of all facilities

Type of payment accepted

Sliding

fee scale

offered

Type of payment accepted

Sliding

fee scale

offered
Total Detox Rehab Detox Rehab Detox Rehab Detox Rehab Detox Rehab Detox Rehab

Total 15,239 1,973 12,527 2,855 1,237 3,788 1,159 803 1,206 12.9 82.2 18.7 8.1 24.9 7.6 5.3 7.9 

Alabama 131 22 111 26 8 32 15 9 17 16.8 84.7 19.8 6.1 24.4 11.5 6.9 13.0 

Alaska 84 17 76 18 10 25 6 -- 2 20.2 90.5 21.4 11.9 29.8 7.1 -- 2.4 

Arizona 263 38 221 30 21 67 16 9 39 14.4 84.0 11.4 8.0 25.5 6.1 3.4 14.8 

Arkansas 66 13 58 22 17 25 8 4 3 19.7 87.9 33.3 25.8 37.9 12.1 6.1 4.5 

California 1,698 271 1,259 345 227 644 76 60 135 16.0 74.1 20.3 13.4 37.9 4.5 3.5 8.0 

Colorado 469 23 416 43 20 74 17 11 16 4.9 88.7 9.2 4.3 15.8 3.6 2.3 3.4 

Connecticut 291 54 224 70 20 83 22 15 51 18.6 77.0 24.1 6.9 28.5 7.6 5.2 17.5 

Delaware 54 9 42 12 3 11 4 2 5 16.7 77.8 22.2 5.6 20.4 7.4 3.7 9.3 

District of Columbia 74 17 57 16 4 19 11 8 13 23.0 77.0 21.6 5.4 25.7 14.9 10.8 17.6 

Fed. of Micronesia 2 -- 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 -- 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 

Florida 778 74 648 166 54 200 41 29 45 9.5 83.3 21.3 6.9 25.7 5.3 3.7 5.8 

Georgia 308 49 255 107 30 64 37 27 24 15.9 82.8 34.7 9.7 20.8 12.0 8.8 7.8 

Guam 1 -- 1 1 -- 1 -- 1 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 -- 100.0 -- 

Hawaii 75 17 71 18 7 15 5 3 6 22.7 94.7 24.0 9.3 20.0 6.7 4.0 8.0 

Idaho 60 6 54 7 7 14 8 7 2 10.0 90.0 11.7 11.7 23.3 13.3 11.7 3.3 

Illinois 592 80 542 109 39 102 52 29 65 13.5 91.6 18.4 6.6 17.2 8.8 4.9 11.0 

Indiana 321 58 290 83 20 47 53 32 14 18.1 90.3 25.9 6.2 14.6 16.5 10.0 4.4 

Iowa 139 10 130 35 9 32 10 7 4 7.2 93.5 25.2 6.5 23.0 7.2 5.0 2.9 

Kansas 209 18 203 35 14 36 8 8 6 8.6 97.1 16.7 6.7 17.2 3.8 3.8 2.9 

Kentucky 298 24 268 26 18 47 21 15 15 8.1 89.9 8.7 6.0 15.8 7.0 5.0 5.0 

Louisiana 183 24 130 44 20 54 26 23 18 13.1 71.0 24.0 10.9 29.5 14.2 12.6 9.8 

Maine 198 14 176 18 3 22 10 5 6 7.1 88.9 9.1 1.5 11.1 5.1 2.5 3.0 

Maryland 363 63 318 46 26 70 13 8 52 17.4 87.6 12.7 7.2 19.3 3.6 2.2 14.3 

Massachusetts 418 63 299 63 25 129 42 34 56 15.1 71.5 15.1 6.0 30.9 10.0 8.1 13.4 

Michigan 605 52 540 77 33 98 24 20 34 8.6 89.3 12.7 5.5 16.2 4.0 3.3 5.6 

Minnesota 275 27 217 60 34 99 21 21 15 9.8 78.9 21.8 12.4 36.0 7.6 7.6 5.5 

Mississippi 124 14 90 27 20 44 20 17 2 11.3 72.6 21.8 16.1 35.5 16.1 13.7 1.6 

Missouri 319 48 295 92 41 73 23 17 12 15.0 92.5 28.8 12.9 22.9 7.2 5.3 3.8 

Montana 66 3 58 7 4 8 4 4 3 4.5 87.9 10.6 6.1 12.1 6.1 6.1 4.5 

 

See notes at end of table.

Residential Hosp. inpatient

Number of facilities Percent of all facilities

State or 

jurisdiction 1

Type of care offered

Methadone/

LAAM

Type of care offered

Methadone/

LAAM

Outpatient Partial

hospitalization

Residential

36

Table 4.4

Substance abuse treatment facilities by type of care offered and dispensing of methadone/LAAM, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999

Number and percent

Hosp. inpatient Outpatient Partial

hospitalization
Total Detox Rehab Detox Rehab Detox Rehab Detox Rehab Detox Rehab Detox Rehab

Nebraska 109 9 91 14 11 31 5 4 2 8.3 83.5 12.8 10.1 28.4 4.6 3.7 1.8 

Nevada 102 13 89 13 5 22 8 6 10 12.7 87.3 12.7 4.9 21.6 7.8 5.9 9.8 

New Hampshire 75 9 65 11 9 16 7 3 2 12.0 86.7 14.7 12.0 21.3 9.3 4.0 2.7 

New Jersey 328 54 292 77 13 56 23 17 31 16.5 89.0 23.5 4.0 17.1 7.0 5.2 9.5 

New Mexico 125 23 109 26 14 27 11 8 8 18.4 87.2 20.8 11.2 21.6 8.8 6.4 6.4 

New York 1,336 225 983 206 74 288 118 82 239 16.8 73.6 15.4 5.5 21.6 8.8 6.1 17.9 

North Carolina 323 53 275 72 26 56 26 19 18 16.4 85.1 22.3 8.0 17.3 8.0 5.9 5.6 

North Dakota 44 8 39 17 5 11 5 4 1 18.2 88.6 38.6 11.4 25.0 11.4 9.1 2.3 

Ohio 578 56 525 117 26 135 48 33 19 9.7 90.8 20.2 4.5 23.4 8.3 5.7 3.3 

Oklahoma 165 20 133 29 12 45 15 10 4 12.1 80.6 17.6 7.3 27.3 9.1 6.1 2.4 

Oregon 240 35 215 34 21 54 8 5 17 14.6 89.6 14.2 8.8 22.5 3.3 2.1 7.1 

Palau 1 1 1 1 -- -- 1 1 -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- 

Pennsylvania 636 41 496 138 50 169 46 28 51 6.4 78.0 21.7 7.9 26.6 7.2 4.4 8.0 

Puerto Rico 127 11 22 10 48 109 4 4 7 8.7 17.3 7.9 37.8 85.8 3.1 3.1 5.5 

Rhode Island 63 11 52 12 6 16 2 2 11 17.5 82.5 19.0 9.5 25.4 3.2 3.2 17.5 

South Carolina 102 8 87 27 6 19 20 18 4 7.8 85.3 26.5 5.9 18.6 19.6 17.6 3.9 

South Dakota 66 5 49 8 5 26 5 4 -- 7.6 74.2 12.1 7.6 39.4 7.6 6.1 -- 

Tennessee 223 23 195 54 25 60 21 14 6 10.3 87.4 24.2 11.2 26.9 9.4 6.3 2.7 

Texas 756 80 614 132 53 219 67 45 62 10.6 81.2 17.5 7.0 29.0 8.9 6.0 8.2 

Utah 138 26 115 36 13 39 8 5 7 18.8 83.3 26.1 9.4 28.3 5.8 3.6 5.1 

Vermont 46 7 41 9 4 9 2 2 1 15.2 89.1 19.6 8.7 19.6 4.3 4.3 2.2 

Virgin Islands 5 1 4 -- 2 2 -- -- -- 20.0 80.0 -- 40.0 40.0 -- -- -- 

Virginia 257 35 209 61 24 49 34 15 14 13.6 81.3 23.7 9.3 19.1 13.2 5.8 5.4 

Washington 363 43 326 41 20 56 16 14 15 11.8 89.8 11.3 5.5 15.4 4.4 3.9 4.1 

West Virginia 137 25 112 22 12 28 13 4 2 18.2 81.8 16.1 8.8 20.4 9.5 2.9 1.5 

Wisconsin 370 37 287 77 16 97 44 24 13 10.0 77.6 20.8 4.3 26.2 11.9 6.5 3.5 

Wyoming 60 6 51 7 2 13 7 5 1 10.0 85.0 11.7 3.3 21.7 11.7 8.3 1.7 

Methadone/

LAAM

Outpatient Partial

hospitalization

Residential Hosp. inpatient Outpatient Partial

hospitalization

Residential Hosp. inpatient State or 

jurisdiction 1

Type of care offered

Methadone/

LAAM

Type of care offered

Number of facilities Percent of all facilities

37

-- Quantity is zero.

1

 Facilities operated by Federal agencies are included in the States in which the facilities are located.

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, October 1, 1999.

Table 4.4

Substance abuse treatment facilities by type of care offered and dispensing of methadone/LAAM, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999

Number and percent
State or jurisdiction 1

Total Total

Total 15,239 14,686 388 165 100.0 96.4 2.5 1.1 

Alabama 131 125 6 -- 100.0 95.4 4.6 -- 

Alaska 84 84 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

Arizona 263 245 17 1 100.0 93.2 6.5 0.4 

Arkansas 66 62 4 -- 100.0 93.9 6.1 -- 

California 1,698 1,617 58 23 100.0 95.2 3.4 1.4 

Colorado 469 454 4 11 100.0 96.8 0.9 2.3 

Connecticut 291 279 9 3 100.0 95.9 3.1 1.0 

Delaware 54 54 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

District of Columbia 74 69 4 1 100.0 93.2 5.4 1.4 

Fed. of Micronesia 2 2 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

Florida 778 754 18 6 100.0 96.9 2.3 0.8 

Georgia 308 296 9 3 100.0 96.1 2.9 1.0 

Guam 1 1 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

Hawaii 75 74 -- 1 100.0 98.7 -- 1.3 

Idaho 60 60 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

Illinois 592 576 10 6 100.0 97.3 1.7 1.0 

Indiana 321 316 5 -- 100.0 98.4 1.6 -- 

Iowa 139 138 1 -- 100.0 99.3 0.7 -- 

Kansas 209 205 4 -- 100.0 98.1 1.9 -- 

Kentucky 298 289 7 2 100.0 97.0 2.3 0.7 

Louisiana 183 174 8 1 100.0 95.1 4.4 0.5 

Maine 198 195 2 1 100.0 98.5 1.0 0.5 

Maryland 363 346 12 5 100.0 95.3 3.3 1.4 

Massachusetts 418 410 4 4 100.0 98.1 1.0 1.0 

Michigan 605 595 6 4 100.0 98.3 1.0 0.7 

Minnesota 275 268 3 4 100.0 97.5 1.1 1.5 

Mississippi 124 122 1 1 100.0 98.4 0.8 0.8 

Missouri 319 313 4 2 100.0 98.1 1.3 0.6 

Montana 66 66 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

 

See notes at end of table.

Percent distribution

Problem treated Problem treated

Drug abuse

only

Alcohol abuse

only

38

Table 4.5

Substance abuse treatment facilities by substance abuse problem treated, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999

Number and percent distribution

Both alcohol

and drug abuse

Drug abuse

only

Alcohol abuse

only

Both alcohol

and drug abuse

Number of facilities
State or jurisdiction 1

Total Total

Nebraska 109 109 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

Nevada 102 96 6 -- 100.0 94.1 5.9 -- 

New Hampshire 75 74 1 -- 100.0 98.7 1.3 -- 

New Jersey 328 314 8 6 100.0 95.7 2.4 1.8 

New Mexico 125 122 1 2 100.0 97.6 0.8 1.6 

New York 1,336 1,170 122 44 100.0 87.6 9.1 3.3 

North Carolina 323 316 2 5 100.0 97.8 0.6 1.5 

North Dakota 44 44 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

Ohio 578 573 1 4 100.0 99.1 0.2 0.7 

Oklahoma 165 160 2 3 100.0 97.0 1.2 1.8 

Oregon 240 235 3 2 100.0 97.9 1.3 0.8 

Palau 1 1 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

Pennsylvania 636 632 4 -- 100.0 99.4 0.6 -- 

Puerto Rico 127 118 7 2 100.0 92.9 5.5 1.6 

Rhode Island 63 61 1 1 100.0 96.8 1.6 1.6 

South Carolina 102 98 1 3 100.0 96.1 1.0 2.9 

South Dakota 66 64 1 1 100.0 97.0 1.5 1.5 

Tennessee 223 221 2 -- 100.0 99.1 0.9 -- 

Texas 756 724 27 5 100.0 95.8 3.6 0.7 

Utah 138 138 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

Vermont 46 45 1 -- 100.0 97.8 2.2 -- 

Virgin Islands 5 5 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

Virginia 257 254 1 2 100.0 98.8 0.4 0.8 

Washington 363 360 1 2 100.0 99.2 0.3 0.6 

West Virginia 137 136 -- 1 100.0 99.3 -- 0.7 

Wisconsin 370 367 -- 3 100.0 99.2 -- 0.8 

Wyoming 60 60 -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- 

-- Quantity is zero.

1

 Facilities operated by Federal agencies are included in the States in which the facilities are located.

Problem treated Problem treated

Both alcohol

and drug abuse

Drug abuse

only

Alcohol abuse

only

Both alcohol

and drug abuse

Drug abuse

only

Alcohol abuse

only

Number of facilities Percent distribution

39

Table 4.5

Substance abuse treatment facilities by substance abuse problem treated, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999

Number and percent distribution

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, October 1, 1999.
State or jurisdiction 1

Total

Substance

abuse

services

Mental

health

services

Balance of

SA and MH

services

General

health

services Other Total

Substance

abuse

services

Mental

health

services

Balance of

SA and MH

services

General

health

services Other

Total 15,239 9,859 2,573 2,069 171 567 100.0 64.7 16.9 13.6 1.1 3.7 

Alabama 131 78 27 16 6 4 100.0 59.5 20.6 12.2 4.6 3.1 

Alaska 84 64 6 9 2 3 100.0 76.2 7.1 10.7 2.4 3.6 

Arizona 263 140 62 45 4 12 100.0 53.2 23.6 17.1 1.5 4.6 

Arkansas 66 35 22 8 -- 1 100.0 53.0 33.3 12.1 -- 1.5 

California 1,698 1,299 145 159 16 79 100.0 76.5 8.5 9.4 0.9 4.7 

Colorado 469 301 76 64 -- 28 100.0 64.2 16.2 13.6 -- 6.0 

Connecticut 291 194 46 42 4 5 100.0 66.7 15.8 14.4 1.4 1.7 

Delaware 54 38 7 8 -- 1 100.0 70.4 13.0 14.8 -- 1.9 

District of Columbia 74 50 8 9 4 3 100.0 67.6 10.8 12.2 5.4 4.1 

Fed. of Micronesia 2 2 -- -- -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- -- -- 

Florida 778 484 137 129 2 26 100.0 62.2 17.6 16.6 0.3 3.3 

Georgia 308 134 89 78 2 5 100.0 43.5 28.9 25.3 0.6 1.6 

Guam 1 -- -- 1 -- -- 100.0 -- -- 100.0 -- -- 

Hawaii 75 62 8 3 -- 2 100.0 82.7 10.7 4.0 -- 2.7 

Idaho 60 39 9 8 2 2 100.0 65.0 15.0 13.3 3.3 3.3 

Illinois 592 361 100 95 9 27 100.0 61.0 16.9 16.0 1.5 4.6 

Indiana 321 123 124 59 4 11 100.0 38.3 38.6 18.4 1.2 3.4 

Iowa 139 113 11 8 4 3 100.0 81.3 7.9 5.8 2.9 2.2 

Kansas 209 113 59 23 1 13 100.0 54.1 28.2 11.0 0.5 6.2 

Kentucky 298 141 84 59 2 12 100.0 47.3 28.2 19.8 0.7 4.0 

Louisiana 183 142 27 11 1 2 100.0 77.6 14.8 6.0 0.5 1.1 

Maine 198 117 31 39 5 6 100.0 59.1 15.7 19.7 2.5 3.0 

Maryland 363 278 36 32 4 13 100.0 76.6 9.9 8.8 1.1 3.6 

Massachusetts 418 227 93 67 10 21 100.0 54.3 22.2 16.0 2.4 5.0 

Michigan 605 322 168 81 7 27 100.0 53.2 27.8 13.4 1.2 4.5 

Minnesota 275 226 18 21 4 6 100.0 82.2 6.5 7.6 1.5 2.2 

Mississippi 124 61 42 20 -- 1 100.0 49.2 33.9 16.1 -- 0.8 

Missouri 319 209 60 41 2 7 100.0 65.5 18.8 12.9 0.6 2.2 

Montana 66 48 6 9 -- 3 100.0 72.7 9.1 13.6 -- 4.5 

 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

See notes at end of table. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Primary focus

40

Table 4.6

Substance abuse treatment facilities by primary focus, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999

Number and percent distribution

Number of facilities Percent distribution

Primary focus
State or jurisdiction 1

Total

Substance

abuse

services

Mental

health

services

Balance of

SA and MH

services

General

health

services Other Total

Substance

abuse

services

Mental

health

services

Balance of

SA and MH

services

General

health

services Other

Nebraska 109 52 23 29 1 4 100.0 47.7 21.1 26.6 0.9 3.7 

Nevada 102 64 17 17 -- 4 100.0 62.7 16.7 16.7 -- 3.9 

New Hampshire 75 30 35 7 -- 3 100.0 40.0 46.7 9.3 -- 4.0 

New Jersey 328 189 72 56 1 10 100.0 57.6 22.0 17.1 0.3 3.0 

New Mexico 125 65 24 29 1 6 100.0 52.0 19.2 23.2 0.8 4.8 

New York 1,336 1,125 71 93 16 31 100.0 84.2 5.3 7.0 1.2 2.3 

North Carolina 323 188 57 65 -- 13 100.0 58.2 17.6 20.1 -- 4.0 

North Dakota 44 30 4 7 1 2 100.0 68.2 9.1 15.9 2.3 4.5 

Ohio 578 348 95 93 13 29 100.0 60.2 16.4 16.1 2.2 5.0 

Oklahoma 165 105 26 24 2 8 100.0 63.6 15.8 14.5 1.2 4.8 

Oregon 240 174 17 41 1 7 100.0 72.5 7.1 17.1 0.4 2.9 

Palau 1 1 -- -- -- -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- -- -- 

Pennsylvania 636 441 94 68 10 23 100.0 69.3 14.8 10.7 1.6 3.6 

Puerto Rico 127 118 5 3 -- 1 100.0 92.9 3.9 2.4 -- 0.8 

Rhode Island 63 45 12 4 -- 2 100.0 71.4 19.0 6.3 -- 3.2 

South Carolina 102 73 16 9 2 2 100.0 71.6 15.7 8.8 2.0 2.0 

South Dakota 66 38 13 9 1 5 100.0 57.6 19.7 13.6 1.5 7.6 

Tennessee 223 85 96 35 -- 7 100.0 38.1 43.0 15.7 -- 3.1 

Texas 756 541 107 73 8 27 100.0 71.6 14.2 9.7 1.1 3.6 

Utah 138 65 34 25 4 10 100.0 47.1 24.6 18.1 2.9 7.2 

Vermont 46 27 11 6 -- 2 100.0 58.7 23.9 13.0 -- 4.3 

Virgin Islands 5 1 -- 2 -- 2 100.0 20.0 -- 40.0 -- 40.0 

Virginia 257 125 58 62 2 10 100.0 48.6 22.6 24.1 0.8 3.9 

Washington 363 298 21 34 2 8 100.0 82.1 5.8 9.4 0.6 2.2 

West Virginia 137 47 61 25 1 3 100.0 34.3 44.5 18.2 0.7 2.2 

Wisconsin 370 160 85 93 10 22 100.0 43.2 23.0 25.1 2.7 5.9 

Wyoming 60 23 18 16 -- 3 100.0 38.3 30.0 26.7 -- 5.0 

Number of facilities Percent distribution

Primary focus Primary focus

41

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, October 1, 1999.

-- Quantity is zero.

Table 4.6

Substance abuse treatment facilities by primary focus, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999

Number and percent distribution

1

 Facilities operated by Federal agencies are included in the States in which the facilities are located.
State or 

jurisdiction 1Total

Duallydiagnosed

Adolescents

Persons

with HIV/

 AIDS

Pregnant/

postpartum

women

Other

women's

groups

Criminal

justice

DUI/

DWI

Duallydiagnosed

Adolescents

Persons

with HIV/

 AIDS

Pregnant/

postpartum

women

Other

women's

groups

Criminal

justice

DUI/

DWI

Total 15,239 6,818 5,131 3,368 3,271 6,222 7,176 5,848 44.7 33.7 22.1 21.5 40.8 47.1 38.4 

Alabama 131 43 40 24 26 35 38 33 32.8 30.5 18.3 19.8 26.7 29.0 25.2 

Alaska 84 36 32 6 12 30 25 48 42.9 38.1 7.1 14.3 35.7 29.8 57.1 

Arizona 263 113 82 54 54 109 144 103 43.0 31.2 20.5 20.5 41.4 54.8 39.2 

Arkansas 66 36 18 15 16 18 28 26 54.5 27.3 22.7 24.2 27.3 42.4 39.4 

California 1,698 681 442 431 445 652 829 276 40.1 26.0 25.4 26.2 38.4 48.8 16.3 

Colorado 469 206 207 72 82 199 282 308 43.9 44.1 15.4 17.5 42.4 60.1 65.7 

Connecticut 291 148 75 90 74 152 110 41 50.9 25.8 30.9 25.4 52.2 37.8 14.1 

Delaware 54 30 19 13 6 21 22 13 55.6 35.2 24.1 11.1 38.9 40.7 24.1 

District of Columbia 74 37 9 34 14 42 36 17 50.0 12.2 45.9 18.9 56.8 48.6 23.0 

Fed. of Micronesia 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 100.0 100.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 

Florida 778 352 249 202 141 273 405 351 45.2 32.0 26.0 18.1 35.1 52.1 45.1 

Georgia 308 125 88 61 58 83 125 124 40.6 28.6 19.8 18.8 26.9 40.6 40.3 

Guam 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 

Hawaii 75 31 38 19 27 33 44 14 41.3 50.7 25.3 36.0 44.0 58.7 18.7 

Idaho 60 24 27 2 10 19 26 27 40.0 45.0 3.3 16.7 31.7 43.3 45.0 

Illinois 592 278 223 134 148 232 275 325 47.0 37.7 22.6 25.0 39.2 46.5 54.9 

Indiana 321 144 120 53 52 110 137 147 44.9 37.4 16.5 16.2 34.3 42.7 45.8 

Iowa 139 44 70 19 29 49 74 73 31.7 50.4 13.7 20.9 35.3 53.2 52.5 

Kansas 209 76 76 23 30 60 95 123 36.4 36.4 11.0 14.4 28.7 45.5 58.9 

Kentucky 298 123 81 29 54 87 132 196 41.3 27.2 9.7 18.1 29.2 44.3 65.8 

Louisiana 183 86 76 35 31 74 72 57 47.0 41.5 19.1 16.9 40.4 39.3 31.1 

Maine 198 90 65 35 37 76 89 134 45.5 32.8 17.7 18.7 38.4 44.9 67.7 

Maryland 363 173 121 103 79 173 186 195 47.7 33.3 28.4 21.8 47.7 51.2 53.7 

Massachusetts 418 229 103 143 80 202 182 92 54.8 24.6 34.2 19.1 48.3 43.5 22.0 

Michigan 605 238 165 81 110 249 262 275 39.3 27.3 13.4 18.2 41.2 43.3 45.5 

Minnesota 275 101 80 35 48 96 75 90 36.7 29.1 12.7 17.5 34.9 27.3 32.7 

Mississippi 124 81 19 18 13 28 35 63 65.3 15.3 14.5 10.5 22.6 28.2 50.8 

Missouri 319 129 93 66 52 83 155 144 40.4 29.2 20.7 16.3 26.0 48.6 45.1 

Montana 66 32 41 13 19 34 35 41 48.5 62.1 19.7 28.8 51.5 53.0 62.1 

 

See notes at end of table.

Number of facilities Percent of all facilities

Special group Special group

42

Table 4.7

Substance abuse treatment facilities offering programs for special groups, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999

Number and percent
State or 

jurisdiction 1Total

Duallydiagnosed

Adolescents

Persons

with HIV/

 AIDS

Pregnant/

postpartum

women

Other

women's

groups

Criminal

justice

DUI/

DWI

Duallydiagnosed

Adolescents

Persons

with HIV/

 AIDS

Pregnant/

postpartum

women

Other

women's

groups

Criminal

justice

DUI/

DWI

Nebraska 109 49 49 9 23 32 32 45 45.0 45.0 8.3 21.1 29.4 29.4 41.3 

Nevada 102 39 31 19 23 36 53 38 38.2 30.4 18.6 22.5 35.3 52.0 37.3 

New Hampshire 75 37 22 12 11 26 25 18 49.3 29.3 16.0 14.7 34.7 33.3 24.0 

New Jersey 328 140 120 88 62 151 136 150 42.7 36.6 26.8 18.9 46.0 41.5 45.7 

New Mexico 125 70 54 29 32 52 79 58 56.0 43.2 23.2 25.6 41.6 63.2 46.4 

New York 1,336 675 483 483 323 825 720 462 50.5 36.2 36.2 24.2 61.8 53.9 34.6 

North Carolina 323 157 105 65 78 123 169 200 48.6 32.5 20.1 24.1 38.1 52.3 61.9 

North Dakota 44 22 21 2 10 22 14 24 50.0 47.7 4.5 22.7 50.0 31.8 54.5 

Ohio 578 252 210 72 116 226 287 114 43.6 36.3 12.5 20.1 39.1 49.7 19.7 

Oklahoma 165 75 65 42 40 70 79 71 45.5 39.4 25.5 24.2 42.4 47.9 43.0 

Oregon 240 119 108 39 67 142 131 149 49.6 45.0 16.3 27.9 59.2 54.6 62.1 

Palau 1 1 1 -- -- -- 1 -- 100.0 100.0 -- -- -- 100.0 -- 

Pennsylvania 636 287 221 132 115 257 297 206 45.1 34.7 20.8 18.1 40.4 46.7 32.4 

Puerto Rico 127 29 28 47 10 16 37 9 22.8 22.0 37.0 7.9 12.6 29.1 7.1 

Rhode Island 63 28 20 21 21 34 25 27 44.4 31.7 33.3 33.3 54.0 39.7 42.9 

South Carolina 102 36 45 20 40 50 54 52 35.3 44.1 19.6 39.2 49.0 52.9 51.0 

South Dakota 66 24 41 13 15 16 25 32 36.4 62.1 19.7 22.7 24.2 37.9 48.5 

Tennessee 223 120 56 44 38 72 90 44 53.8 25.1 19.7 17.0 32.3 40.4 19.7 

Texas 756 321 256 192 159 235 388 108 42.5 33.9 25.4 21.0 31.1 51.3 14.3 

Utah 138 77 58 28 38 55 79 56 55.8 42.0 20.3 27.5 39.9 57.2 40.6 

Vermont 46 27 22 7 7 28 26 21 58.7 47.8 15.2 15.2 60.9 56.5 45.7 

Virgin Islands 5 3 -- 1 1 1 2 3 60.0 -- 20.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 

Virginia 257 144 89 66 79 130 127 96 56.0 34.6 25.7 30.7 50.6 49.4 37.4 

Washington 363 127 138 46 102 171 145 244 35.0 38.0 12.7 28.1 47.1 39.9 67.2 

West Virginia 137 70 73 31 45 48 62 57 51.1 53.3 22.6 32.8 35.0 45.3 41.6 

Wisconsin 370 175 131 40 59 164 151 189 47.3 35.4 10.8 15.9 44.3 40.8 51.1 

Wyoming 60 25 22 8 8 19 22 38 41.7 36.7 13.3 13.3 31.7 36.7 63.3 

Table 4.7

Substance abuse treatment facilities offering programs for special groups, according to State or jurisdiction: 1999

Number and percent

43

SOURCE: Office of Applied Studies, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Uniform Facility Data Set (UFDS) survey, October 1, 1999.

-- Quantity is zero.

1

 Facilities operated by Federal agencies are included in the States in which the facilities are located.

Number of facilities Percent of all facilities

Special group Special group
44
45

This Appendix contains the 1999 UFDS questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered

using computer-assisted telephone interviewing

(CATI). The CATI program has been abridged to

make it easier to read. Skip patterns noted in this

version were part of the CATI program. Unless

otherwise noted, skips were made to the next appropriate question.

APPENDIX

UFDS 1999 QUESTIONNAIRE
46


	





	



 
!

 	
		

















 

!

	


 	



 	



 
"





  !


"# $%	&

'()* +","-#"

.%,/! )
#"

0( 
1"-#"

2" 
")"-#"

"1"
33""&#&)"#&"&"1/)"&	



	



	



4444 %

  !"#$

# 

$


$
$




"%"

&$
'()

'*
)

!

# +


,-"$













!.

 

 

# /0










 

 


# 1




2
,-"
$




3


"





!.

 

 

# 4





 

 

  %!"&$"'(")$

5 
%6
"






67/86/






0





 	

0

	

0 	

0

9 
&6
"








67/86/

 

 

: /"
$



"!!!
*




 



;
	

0#




 



;
	

2

'

	

2

.

"


"

	

2

0


	

2

2

<




	

2

	

2


: 
+,


"

6

=
4



6

6

'-

&

	



./>+


0
5,")/36444444444444444444447





: 
+/


?
$









 

 

@ 6
"





,4
















A"

!<




"  





!.

 	

 

	

  	

 

@ 	
	


	

 

	

 

@ 
-.",6
"





 	

 

	

  	

 

@ 	
	






B 6
"

$"






 

 

  %"!"#$


C /

"

	
		














6
"






"

"	

+

	

$


D
	

$

'+


	

$

	

$

C2 
/&

"

"





E



'4

:FG:FG





C /"




"


 	

+

	

+ 	

+

C 
/"

!!!

4

 


4"



 

'4

"
;


,


"


3


.

 6
"


H44D



 

 

F 6
"












-



 


4


" 

'6

"


 +
"













0
!6
"

"









"

!!!

 4


 

 

 6" 
,$





.

 

 

 &

$>/=84/6+

 

 

 &




$


 

 

 
$
3



 

 

 I
J,*1K>/+L14D1*I7H6-1&L=/616<<+/1.

 

 

 +


"


 

 

 
6
"
"


$



"





J





 

 

# 

$


$"

$




""


	

# >


 

 

# *
 



 

 

# 4"0




 

 

5 
%

$0




$

M
2






*

6
2
 


L
 

'-


.*


9 
%0

$0




$

"M
2







6
2
 


L
 

'-


.*


: 
%

$


$0




$


"

: 4

"
2
,
2


!



""#9

"!.

 

 

: &

;


"
,
#F











$0!.

 

 

: /


 

 


: 




 

 

: 
+




$0



"










-//--





@ 


$"
"
""&

$
'()

'*
)

"
"!

6
"!!!

@ I

 "

 

 

@ D
"

 

 

@ D"*1K+




"

?






!

 

 

@ 4 



D,12K4 




+
"!.

 

 

@ <

"
I>4D&7+I>4D& =4

L/I4L1

 

 

@ &



 

 


@ />+


"

 

 

@ 6
"

"
"




5,")/364444444444444447 

 

@ 6
	
		
"

	

"





;





 

 

B 6
"

";







+
 


4 

'*


B 6
"

 

 

C 

"




$




;








 

 

 
*""""12/3










"!&

"





$

""


$!

 N
I


4


>I

;
,NI4>.

 

 

 I


4


L
<,I4L<.

 

 


 *
I

O"4
,*IO4.

 

 

 
*""""12/"


"

"

+"

 

 

 
*""""124
"
"










 

 

#F 




0
 




	



/0
"



'*
0



5,")/36444444444444444444447

.+
"
J





 4/$
0
"

"3




!

# /"





3#	
	4##355	

5 *
$/30
	
		32
!

5 
6-.*"



"32
3#

703	!/




	

. 	

.

 	

.



5 
6-."*"7&"32








8%9%%:





9 6
	
		$

 	





	



 	





9 
78	
		37LH











##  9	5:	!97	3;	<	
7##
4953	5=75	5

#3	<9939	
		5#		53	;

	>#<	9935705075

3	
		5!<9	9	
		5		5
	>#!#9739
	>5$"95

=75	53?
7##930759<33:73:55573;#		53	


$	

#5 <

"







+

"$+4D>+43		33374075

#
9
	5"33435!6


"$
+4D>+43

/
$$$$!!

!
"
0





"
6


"$

 

 

#5 "2( "2-""'""'*""

("".""'*"!*'$

;<%=<;<<<=>

1 3A
/!0"


"

!