InventoryofStateSubstanceAbuse

Prevention and TreatmentActivities

and Expenditures

ExecutiveOfficeofthePresident

OfficeofNationalDrug ControlPolicy

November2006
Acknowledgements 

This publication was sponsored by the Executive Office of the President, Office of National 

Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Janet Wiersema and other staff at JBS International produced 

this publication under a contract to ONDCP, contract number 233-02-0085, Task Order number 

2. June S. Sivilli served as Project Officer for this study and resulting publication. 

Disclaimer 

The opinions expressed herein are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the 

official policy of the Federal Government. 

Public Domain Notice 

All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may be reproduced without 

permission from ONDCP or the authors. Citation of the source is appreciated. Suggested 

citation: 

Office of National Drug Control Policy (2006). Inventory of State Substance Abuse 

Prevention and Treatment Activities and Expenditures 

Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President (Publication No. NCJ 216918) 

Electronic Access to Publication 

This document can be accessed electronically through the following World Wide Web address: 

http://whitehousedrugpolicy.gov 

Originating Office 

Executive Office of the President 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

Washington, DC 20503 

Publication Number NCJ 216918 

Printed in January 2007 
Executive Summary

This document describes how States spend the funds allocated to them by the Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) Block Grant Program for substance abuse 

prevention and treatment services and how States allocate their own funding for these services. 

Policy officials can use the information in this document to assist in the review of the effectiveness of 

the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant. Reviewing expenditures data 

can contribute to the development of policy formulation for future expenditures. 

While recognizing the significant time lag associated with some of the data in this document—the 

actual expenditures that States report in their Block Grant application cover a period of time that 

occurred 3 years prior to the submission year—there remains utility in analyzing this information. It 

provides a wealth of details on how the States implement and fund prevention and treatment 

programs. For example, substance abuse prevention efforts vary widely by State. Medicaid funding 

is being used for treatment services by 27 States. Some States are not contributing their own funds 

to prevention efforts. 

One policy issue of concern is how best to get States to spend formula grant money effectively and 

to replicate their own best efforts. In addition, policymakers are interested in information from the 

States that conduct evaluations and analyze outcomes. Policy officials are concerned with 

identifying and promoting effective programs. For example, SAMHSA’s National Outcomes 

Measures (NOMS) initiative is beginning to provide outcome data on prevention and treatment 

programs funded by the Block Grant. 

It is hoped that policy officials at the State and Federal level will find this document useful as they 

examine and review programs and make future funding decisions. 

Overview 

This 2006 Inventory of State Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Activities and 

Expenditures provides a succinct, State-by-State overview of SAPT Block Grant and other funding 

and activities. It updates and expands ONDCP’s initial 1999 Inventory of State Prevention Activities 

Funded Under the 20 Percent Block Grant Prevention Set-Aside prepared by the National 

Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors (NASADAD). Specifically, it contains State 

profiles and aggregate findings that highlight expenditure distributions for substance abuse 

prevention and treatment activities from the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) 

Block Grant and other funding sources for the 50 States and the District of Columbia1

. The State 

profiles and Aggregate Findings also describe States’ prevention and treatment services and 

delivery systems; treatment clients with regard to modality, treatment gap, and rate of co-occurring 

disorder; and States’ resource development activities, such as needs assessment and planning, 

evaluation, and training and assistance. The Inventory captures activities funded wholly or partially 

by the Block Grant and, in some cases, other funding sources. Expenditure information is taken from 

the SAPT Block Grant applications for State fiscal year (FY) 2003 through FY 2006. Narrative 

information about the Single State Agency (SSA) structure, services, and activities reflects the most 

recent information available, unless otherwise indicated. 

NASADAD contributed to this Inventory by providing feedback and suggestions regarding which data 

and information to include in the State profiles, how to approach States for feedback and review of 

profiles, and selecting initial States with which to pilot the review process and the profiles. The 

Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) contributed to the Inventory by 

1 The Inventory does not include expenditure or financial information from private third-party payers such as commercial health 

insurers. 

i 
Executive Summary Inventory of State Profiles 

providing access to needed data, and in particular, the State SAPT Block Grant applications, and by 

reviewing a final draft of this Inventory. 

Single State Agency Structure and Function 

Most SSAs are located in departments of health or human services, but some are located in 

departments of mental health or are independent State agencies. SSAs continue to contract with 

substate entities, such as community substance abuse/mental health centers, county governments, 

regional State authorities, private nonprofit or for-profit organizations, and tribal entities, to provide 

services at regional, county, and local levels. By working with these localized entities, SSAs are 

able to facilitate the development of prevention and treatment programs that are designed to 

address specific regional and local concerns and issues. 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

SSAs receive funds for substance abuse prevention and treatment from a variety of sources 

including the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) SAPT Block 

Grant, other SAMHSA funds, other Federal funds, State funds, Medicaid, and local funds. In addition 

to dispersing Block Grant funds to States and territories, SAMHSA supports substance abuse 

prevention and treatment efforts through a broad range of competitive discretionary grants awards. 

Several of the grants awarded through the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) or the 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) support the National Drug Control Strategy and are 

designated Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRNS). These programs include the 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG), Access to Recovery (ATR), and 

State Brief Intervention, Referral, and Treatment (SBIRT), and are highlighted in the Aggregate 

Findings section of this Inventory. 

Nationally, SSA expenditures increased 13 percent between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $3.5 to $4.0 

billion (figure 1). The proportions of SSA expenditures from differing funding sources remained 

stable during this time. Expenditures from Block Grant and from State funds were roughly equal with 

the Block Grant contributing between 41 and 43 percent of total expenditures and State funds 

consistently contributing 42 to 44 percent of expenditures. 

Figure 1. Sum of Funding Sources (in billions of dollars) for All States and the District of 

Columbia, FYs 2000–2003 (n=51) 

0 

500,000,000 

1,000,000,000 

1,500,000,000 

2,000,000,000 

2,500,000,000 

3,000,000,000 

3,500,000,000 

4,000,000,000 

4,500,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

Block Grant 

ii 
Inventory of State Profiles Executive Summary 

While the cumulative snapshot of States show a roughly even split between expenditures of Block 

Grant and State funds, individual States varied greatly in the proportion of expenditures by funding 

source (table 1). For example, in FY 2003, 19 States reported that most (50 percent or more) of 

their total expenditures derived from the SAPT Block Grant, and 13 States reported that most (50 

percent or more) derived from State funds: 

• States indicating that the majority of their expenditures came from Block Grant funds 

included Wisconsin (for which Block Grant funds accounted for 87 percent of total 

expenditures), Texas (86 percent), Alabama (77 percent), and Mississippi (75 percent). 

States using the smallest proportions of Block Grant funds, when compared with other 

States, included Wyoming and Alaska (at 13 percent each) and the District of Columbia (18 

percent). 

• States indicating that the majority of their expenditures derived from State funds included 

New York, the District of Columbia, and Alaska (for which State funds accounted for 69 

percent of total expenditures), and Connecticut (65 percent). States spending the smallest 

proportions of State funds, when compared with other States, included Texas (12 percent), 

Wisconsin (13 percent), and Alabama (15 percent). 

• One-half of the States reported spending Medicaid funds in their Block Grant application, and 

half did not. For those that did not report Medicaid expenditures, it is possible that their 

Medicaid funds flowed through a different State agency, other than the SSA. For the 25 

States reporting Medicaid expenditures along with their Block Grant and other funds, the 

States spending the highest proportions of Medicaid funds, when compared with other 

States, included Vermont (for which Medicaid accounted for 41 percent of total 

expenditures), Oregon (37 percent), Arizona (36 percent), and Kansas (32 percent). Those 

reporting the smallest proportions included Oklahoma (less than 1 percent) and Alaska, 

Colorado, and Maryland (at 1 percent each). 

iii 
Executive Summary Inventory of State Profiles 

Table 1. Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources, FY 2003 

State Block Grant Medicaid State All Other* Total 

$ % $ % $ % $ % $ 

Alabama 23,970,196 77 2,548,051 8 4,726,255 15 0 0 31,244,502 

Alaska 4,492,456 13 181,547 1 23,476,081 69 5,816,294 17 33,966,378 

Arizona 30,548,743 39 28,092,326 36 14,750,878 19 5,473,374 7 78,865,321 

Arkansas 12,169,977 63 0 0 5,561,349 29 1,538,451 8 19,269,777 

California 250,772,440 44 115,743,764 21 191,858,917 34 5,419,284 1 563,794,405 

Colorado 23,366,008 66 341,854 1 11,039,209 31 565,836 2 35,312,907 

Connecticut 16,879,723 21 0 0 52,773,004 65 12,074,646 15 81,727,373 

Delaware 6,577,245 34 0 0 12,163,775 63 458,511 2 19,199,531 

Dist. of Columbia 6,266,666 18 0 0 24,177,215 69 4,446,944 13 34,890,825 

Florida 95,064,189 50 7,490,671 4 68,182,836 36 19,826,826 10 190,564,522 

Georgia 47,462,679 49 0 0 46,378,871 48 2,407,940 3 96,249,490 

Hawaii 7,083,900 39 0 0 9,045,643 49 2,252,096 12 18,381,639 

Idaho 6,787,163 62 0 0 3,819,401 35 379,476 3 10,986,040 

Illinois 67,994,327 28 45,445,971 19 121,083,194 50 6,914,612 3 241,438,104 

Indiana 33,446,723 73 0 0 10,594,118 23 1,682,810 4 45,723,651 

Iowa 12,915,707 28 12,459,958 27 15,552,074 34 4,783,870 10 45,711,609 

Kansas 12,343,401 39 10,265,226 32 7,742,315 24 1,417,371 4 31,768,313 

Kentucky 20,752,134 57 0 0 13,991,159 38 1,717,358 5 36,460,651 

Louisiana 25,959,665 45 0 0 22,605,911 39 9,176,686 16 57,742,262 

Maine 6,462,370 21 7,535,560 24 10,857,890 35 5,959,290 19 30,815,110 

Maryland 32,114,739 29 1,509,383 1 65,241,515 59 12,206,447 11 111,072,084 

Massachusetts 34,174,108 41 0 0 45,637,409 55 3,047,432 4 82,858,949 

Michigan 58,143,061 51 28,144,755 25 21,923,111 19 5,131,953 5 113,342,880 

Minnesota 21,783,707 22 2,014,998 2 58,088,886 58 17,582,485 18 99,470,076 

Mississippi 14,139,924 75 0 0 4,184,548 22 499,409 3 18,823,881 

Missouri 26,268,669 33 22,346,941 28 28,046,792 35 3,815,059 5 80,477,461 

Montana 6,577,245 48 1,200,971 9 3,830,948 28 1,962,639 14 13,571,803 

Nebraska 7,926,182 38 2,109,870 10 10,314,101 49 779,312 4 21,129,465 

Nevada 12,860,149 68 0 0 3,651,093 19 2,424,466 13 18,935,708 

New Hampshire 6,577,245 50 0 0 6,038,503 46 440,972 3 13,056,720 

New Jersey 47,139,236 44 0 0 56,553,000 53 2,602,085 2 106,294,321 

New Mexico 8,614,912 25 0 0 22,243,367 63 4,226,704 12 35,084,983 

New York 115,999,936 25 0 0 318,739,459 69 29,545,085 6 464,284,480 

North Carolina 38,135,024 41 0 0 50,884,907 55 4,126,931 4 93,146,862 

North Dakota 4,984,093 30 3,133,330 19 6,721,455 40 1,931,534 12 16,770,412 

Ohio 66,942,269 40 34,174,236 20 58,286,164 35 7,355,204 4 166,757,873 

Oklahoma 17,788,840 40 189,727 0 22,564,922 51 3,402,519 8 43,946,008 

Oregon 16,098,172 35 17,236,406 37 11,360,557 24 1,676,494 4 46,371,629 

Pennsylvania 59,336,807 52 0 0 41,976,000 37 12,759,980 11 114,072,787 

Rhode Island 6,577,245 24 5,099,558 18 12,451,874 45 3,636,268 13 27,764,945 

South Carolina 20,661,633 57 875,635 2 7,128,044 20 7,337,061 20 36,002,373 

South Dakota 4,608,895 48 0 0 3,302,009 35 1,645,246 17 9,556,150 

Tennessee 29,391,224 70 0 0 7,966,574 19 4,615,891 11 41,973,689 

Texas 133,322,329 86 0 0 18,467,532 12 3,358,783 2 155,148,644 

Utah 16,914,130 53 0 0 11,488,452 36 3,320,604 10 31,723,186 

Vermont 4,927,888 27 7,368,676 41 5,259,682 29 440,872 2 17,997,118 

Virginia 42,526,592 52 0 0 39,859,035 48 0 0 82,385,627 

Washington 35,125,673 30 31,346,544 27 48,253,834 41 2,437,558 2 117,163,609 

West Virginia 8,564,801 53 0 0 7,577,063 47 0 0 16,141,864 

Wisconsin 25,877,350 87 0 0 3,897,323 13 0 0 29,774,673 

Wyoming 3,193,795 13 678,589 3 6,770,302 28 13,595,841 56 24,238,527 

SOURCE: FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Other funding sources include other Federal, local, and other sources such as private foundations and the tobacco Master Settlement 

Agreement. 

iv 
Inventory of State Profiles Executive Summary 

Expenditures and Activities from All Funding Sources 

Nationally, the majority of SSA expenditures went toward treatment and rehabilitation services, 

accounting for 79 to 80 percent of total expenditures between FYs 2000 and 2003 (figure 2). 

Prevention services consistently accounted for 14 to 15 percent of expenditures during this time 

period, and administrative costs and HIV early intervention received 4 percent and 2 percent, 

respectively. 

Figure 2. National Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity, FYs 2000–2003 (n=51) 

-

500,000,000 

1,000,000,000 

1,500,000,000 

2,000,000,000 

2,500,000,000 

3,000,000,000 

3,500,000,000 

4,000,000,000 

4,500,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

All States, with the exception of Alaska, spent most of their funding on treatment and rehabilitation 

services in FY 20032

 (range 39 to 93 percent)(table 2). While all States met the 20 percent set-aside 

requirement by spending 20 percent or more of Block Grant funds for primary prevention activities3

, 

prevention expenditures from all funding sources (including State, other Federal, and other sources) 

comprised a substantially smaller proportion. In fact, most States spent less than 20 percent of their 

funds from all sources on prevention services (range 5 to 29 percent) and less than 10 percent on 

other services or activities (range 0 to 33 percent). Specifically: 

• States spending the highest proportions of funds from all sources on prevention services, 

when compared with other States, included Wyoming (29 percent), Alaska (28 percent), and 

Maine and Rhode Island (at 27 percent each). States spending the lowest proportions of 

funds from all sources on prevention services included Minnesota (5 percent), Maryland (7 

percent), and Arizona (8 percent). 

• States spending the highest proportion of funds from all sources on treatment and 

rehabilitation services included Minnesota (93 percent), Arizona (89 percent), North Dakota 

(88 percent), and Vermont (88 percent). States spending the lowest proportion on treatment 

services included Alaska (33 percent), Wyoming (63 percent), and New Mexico (63 percent). 

2

 On the FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant application, Form 4, Alaska indicated spending 39 percent of funds on treatment services, 33 

percent on administrative activities, and 28 percent on prevention services in FY 2003. 3 DHHS Block Grant 45 CFR Section 96.124 (2005)

v 
Executive Summary Inventory of State Profiles 

Table 2. Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity, FY 2003 

State 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation Prevention Other* Total 

$ % $ % $ % $ 

Alabama 24,129,432 77 4,930,210 16 2,094,860 7 31,154,502 

Alaska 13,157,654 39 9,510,064 28 11,298,660 33 33,966,378 

Arizona 70,096,302 89 6,261,531 8 2,507,488 3 78,865,321 

Arkansas 15,280,827 79 2,406,920 12 1,582,030 8 19,269,777 

California 481,632,747 85 61,791,700 11 20,369,958 4 563,794,405 

Colorado 28,963,031 82 6,181,247 18 168,629 0 35,312,907 

Connecticut 65,261,577 80 15,154,964 19 1,310,832 2 81,727,373 

Delaware 14,530,937 76 4,075,557 21 593,037 3 19,199,531 

District of Columbia 28,268,893 81 4,681,009 13 1,940,923 6 34,890,825 

Florida 153,859,450 81 27,493,129 14 9,211,943 5 190,564,522 

Georgia 79,868,994 83 13,244,426 14 3,136,070 3 96,249,490 

Hawaii 12,301,075 67 4,117,265 22 1,963,299 11 18,381,639 

Idaho 8,357,348 76 2,413,305 22 215,387 2 10,986,040 

Illinois 208,006,565 86 21,734,501 9 11,697,038 5 241,438,104 

Indiana 34,210,952 75 8,667,531 19 2,845,168 6 45,723,651 

Iowa 37,161,700 81 6,948,442 15 1,601,487 4 45,711,629 

Kansas 27,020,852 85 3,732,685 12 1,014,776 3 31,768,313 

Kentucky 26,168,067 72 8,967,526 25 1,325,058 4 36,460,651 

Louisiana 49,954,362 87 5,191,933 9 2,595,967 4 57,742,262 

Maine 20,344,891 66 8,323,201 27 2,147,018 7 30,815,110 

Maryland 96,230,477 87 7,885,787 7 6,955,820 6 111,072,084 

Massachusetts 72,270,519 87 7,825,701 9 2,762,729 3 82,858,949 

Michigan 85,880,552 76 17,953,763 16 9,508,565 8 113,342,880 

Minnesota 92,788,214 93 5,465,144 5 1,216,718 1 99,470,076 

Mississippi 14,359,497 76 2,827,985 15 1,636,399 9 18,823,881 

Missouri 67,434,569 84 8,311,621 10 4,731,271 6 80,477,461 

Montana 10,913,500 80 1,980,822 15 677,481 5 13,571,803 

Nebraska 18,050,881 85 2,576,895 12 501,689 2 21,129,465 

Nevada 12,730,406 67 4,918,396 26 1,286,906 7 18,935,708 

New Hampshire 9,145,582 70 2,729,283 21 1,181,855 9 13,056,720 

New Jersey 90,709,111 85 11,332,318 11 4,253,165 4 106,294,594 

New Mexico 22,203,382 63 7,588,143 22 5,293,458 15 35,084,983 

New York 357,775,191 77 74,922,798 16 31,586,491 7 464,284,480 

North Carolina 75,522,116 81 9,947,685 11 7,731,061 8 93,200,862 

North Dakota 14,874,104 88 2,044,914 12 31,394 0 16,950,412 

Ohio 130,209,265 78 24,806,999 15 11,741,609 7 166,757,873 

Oklahoma 35,627,533 81 5,510,949 13 2,807,526 6 43,946,008 

Oregon 40,399,863 87 5,166,858 11 804,908 2 46,371,629 

Pennsylvania 73,283,402 64 21,223,136 19 19,566,249 17 114,072,787 

Rhode Island 18,261,896 66 7,403,938 27 2,099,111 8 27,764,945 

South Carolina 26,948,891 75 7,953,854 22 1,099,628 3 36,002,373 

South Dakota 7,554,638 79 1,495,705 16 505,807 5 9,556,150 

Tennessee 29,062,010 69 9,228,890 22 3,682,789 9 41,973,689 

Texas 105,369,967 68 38,564,386 25 11,214,291 7 155,148,644 

Utah 22,749,973 72 7,955,561 25 1,017,652 3 31,723,186 

Vermont 15,830,540 88 1,727,071 10 439,507 2 17,997,118 

Virginia 69,711,951 85 8,511,634 10 4,162,042 5 82,385,627 

Washington 102,176,682 87 10,095,235 9 4,891,692 4 117,163,609 

West Virginia 14,000,418 87 1,784,561 11 358,885 2 16,143,864 

Wisconsin 22,430,769 75 7,244,160 24 99,744 0 29,774,673 

Wyoming 15,351,449 63 6,976,763 29 1,910,315 8 24,238,527 

SOURCE: FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4

*Other activities include HIV early intervention, TB services, and administrative costs.

vi 
Inventory of State Profiles Executive Summary 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Nationally, States spent a greater proportion of State funds on treatment services (88 percent) than 

they did Block Grant funds (70 percent). Conversely, States spent more Block Grant funds on 

prevention services (23 percent) than they did State funds (6 percent). 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Nationally, the majority of Block Grant expenditures went toward treatment and rehabilitation 

services, accounting for 70 to 71 percent of total Block Grant expenditures from FYs 2000 to 2003 

(figure 3). Block Grant expenditures for treatment services increased steadily during this time from 

$1.1 billion nationwide in FY 2000 to $1.2 billion in FY 2003. Expenditures on prevention services 

accounted for 21 to 23 percent of Block Grant expenditures and increased from from $324 million in 

FY 2000 to $372 million in FY 2003. On average, States spent between 3 and 4 percent of 

expenditures each on HIV early intervention services and administrative costs. 

Figure 3. National Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity, FYs 2000–2003 (n=51) 

0 

200,000,000 

400,000,000 

600,000,000 

800,000,000 

1,000,000,000 

1,200,000,000 

1,400,000,000 

1,600,000,000 

1,800,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Examination of individual State expenditures is similar to the national average. SSAs spent an 

average of 70 percent of Block Grant funds on treatment and rehabilitation services (range 61 to 80 

percent), 23 percent on prevention services (range 20 to 31 percent), 7 percent on other services 

and activities (range 0 to 14 percent) in FY 2003 (table 3). Specific findings include the following: 

• All States met the SAPT Block Grant 20-percent set-aside requirement: all States spent 20 

percent or more on primary prevention services. 

• Thirty-three States exceeded the 20-percent set-aside requirement for 2003 expenditures. 

States spending a greater proportion of Block Grant funds on prevention services included 

Idaho (31 percent), Hawaii (29 percent), and Kentucky, Nebraska, Connecticut, New Mexico, 

and Texas (27 percent each). 

• Eighteen States met the 20 percent set-aside requirement, but did not exceed it. 

vii 
Executive Summary Inventory of State Profiles 

Table 3. Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity, FY 2003 

State Treatment Prevention 

HIV Early 

Intervention* Other** BG Total 

$ % $ % $ % $ 

Alabama 17,152,741 72 4,930,210 21 1,249,858 5 637,387 3 23,970,196 

Alaska 3,408,015 76 899,135 20 0 0 185,306 4 4,492,456 

Arizona 22,343,290 73 6,115,130 20 1,527,437 5 562,886 2 30,548,743 

Arkansas 9,192,448 76 2,406,920 20 0 0 570,609 5 12,169,977 

California 176,162,084 70 57,199,375 23 12,187,398 5 5,223,583 2 250,772,440 

Colorado 18,280,906 78 4,916,473 21 0 0 168,629 1 23,366,008 

Connecticut 11,418,255 68 4,617,482 27 843,986 5 0 0 16,879,723 

Delaware 4,469,272 68 1,514,936 23 328,862 5 264,175 4 6,577,245 

Dist. of Columbia 4,398,806 70 1,330,593 21 120,016 2 417,251 7 6,266,666 

Florida 63,319,338 67 24,719,689 26 4,753,209 5 2,271,953 2 95,064,189 

Georgia 33,490,123 71 10,836,486 23 2,484,821 5 651,249 1 47,462,679 

Hawaii 4,341,242 61 2,080,096 29 360,071 5 302,491 4 7,083,900 

Idaho 4,484,320 66 2,087,456 31 0 0 215,387 3 6,787,163 

Illinois 47,434,191 70 13,768,851 20 3,399,717 5 3,391,568 5 67,994,327 

Indiana 24,620,121 74 7,185,330 21 0 0 1,641,272 5 33,446,723 

Iowa 9,543,565 74 2,726,377 21 0 0 645,785 5 12,915,707 

Kansas 8,973,931 73 2,852,110 23 0 0 517,360 4 12,343,401 

Kentucky 15,197,700 73 5,550,682 27 0 0 3,752 0 20,752,134 

Louisiana 18,171,765 70 5,191,933 20 1,297,984 5 1,297,983 5 25,959,665 

Maine 4,870,969 75 1,363,847 21 0 0 227,554 4 6,462,370 

Maryland 22,480,317 70 6,422,948 20 1,605,737 5 1,605,737 5 32,114,739 

Massachusetts 23,660,678 69 7,825,701 23 1,490,933 4 1,196,796 4 34,174,108 

Michigan 42,021,077 72 13,249,022 23 0 0 2,872,962 5 58,143,061 

Minnesota 16,324,664 75 4,610,981 21 0 0 848,062 4 21,783,707 

Mississippi 9,897,947 70 2,827,985 20 706,996 5 706,996 5 14,139,924 

Missouri 19,841,893 76 5,253,735 20 0 0 1,173,041 4 26,268,669 

Montana 4,913,384 75 1,316,159 20 0 0 347,702 5 6,577,245 

Nebraska 5,545,248 70 2,134,625 27 0 0 246,309 3 7,926,182 

Nevada 8,999,740 70 2,573,503 20 643,008 5 643,898 5 12,860,149 

New Hampshire 4,895,715 74 1,352,668 21 0 0 328,862 5 6,577,245 

New Jersey 32,660,983 69 10,679,913 23 2,356,962 5 1,441,378 3 47,139,236 

New Mexico 5,882,851 68 2,343,564 27 0 0 388,497 5 8,614,912 

New York 83,470,927 72 23,845,680 21 5,800,010 5 2,883,319 2 115,999,936 

North Carolina 25,017,161 66 7,954,361 21 1,960,751 5 3,256,751 9 38,135,024 

North Dakota 3,970,641 80 1,013,452 20 0 0 0 0 4,984,093 

Ohio 47,461,285 71 16,270,812 24 0 0 3,210,172 5 66,942,269 

Oklahoma 13,341,630 75 3,557,768 20 0 0 889,442 5 17,788,840 

Oregon 12,073,630 75 3,219,634 20 0 0 804,908 5 16,098,172 

Pennsylvania 41,341,898 70 12,627,524 21 3,178,073 5 2,189,312 4 59,336,807 

Rhode Island 4,738,905 72 1,727,982 26 0 0 110,358 2 6,577,245 

South Carolina 15,429,544 75 4,136,827 20 1,033,082 5 62,180 0 20,661,633 

South Dakota 3,450,509 75 927,941 20 0 0 230,445 5 4,608,895 

Tennessee 19,452,248 66 6,973,848 24 1,514,511 5 1,450,617 5 29,391,224 

Texas 87,289,044 65 35,844,543 27 6,666,557 5 3,522,185 3 133,322,329 

Utah 12,690,265 75 3,693,865 22 0 0 530,000 3 16,914,130 

Vermont 3,695,916 75 985,578 20 0 0 246,394 5 4,927,888 

Virginia 29,852,916 70 8,511,634 20 2,126,330 5 2,035,712 5 42,526,592 

Washington 24,587,971 70 9,118,562 26 0 0 1,419,140 4 35,125,673 

West Virginia 6,468,098 76 1,784,561 21 0 0 312,142 4 8,564,801 

Wisconsin 19,496,217 75 6,281,389 24 0 0 99,744 0 25,877,350 

Wyoming 2,376,379 74 637,139 20 0 0 180,277 6 3,193,795 

SOURCE: FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4

*States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate of 10 or more per 100,000 must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities.

**Other activities include HIV early intervention, TB services, and administrative costs.

viii 
Inventory of State Profiles Executive Summary 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Nationally, SSA expenditures of State funds increased from $1.5 billion in FY 2000 to $1.7 billion in 

FY 2003 (figure 4). The largest proportion of expenditures consistently went toward treatment and 

rehabilitation activities, accounting for 86 to 88 percent of State funding, and increasing from $1.3 

billion in FY 2000 to $1.4 billion in FY 2003. Expenditures on prevention services consistently 

accounted for 6 to 8 percent of total State funding during this time period, and administrative costs 

accounted for 5 to 6 percent of total State expenditures. 

Figure 4. National Expenditures of State Funds by Activity, FYs 2000–2003 (n=51) 

0 

200,000,000 

400,000,000 

600,000,000 

800,000,000 

1,000,000,000 

1,200,000,000 

1,400,000,000 

1,600,000,000 

1,800,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Examination of individual State data shows greater variation in the distribution of expenditures from 

State sources than from the Block Grant. In FY 2003, SSAs spent an average of 88 percent of State 

funds on treatment and rehabilitation services (range 37 to 100 percent), 6 percent on prevention 

services (range 0 to 25 percent), and 6 percent on other services including administrative costs, HIV 

early intervention, and tuberculosis services (table 4). Specific findings include: 

• Only three SSAs spent 20 percent or more of State funds on prevention services (table 4). 

These States included Wisconsin (25 percent), Tennessee (23 percent), and Rhode Island 

(20 percent). 

• Seventeen SSAs spent 0 percent of State funds on prevention services (including three 

SSAs that expended so little, it accounted for 0 percent). States spending 0 percent of State 

funds on prevention services are indicated in bold on table 4. 

ix 
Executive Summary Inventory of State Profiles 

Table 4. Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity, FY 2003* 

State Treatment Prevention Other** Total 

$ % $ % $ % $ 

Alabama 4,518,640 96 0 0 207,615 4 4,726,255 

Alaska 8,691,771 37 3,670,956 16 11,113,354 47 23,476,081 

Arizona 14,604,477 99 146,401 1 0 0 14,750,878 

Arkansas 4,641,505 83 0 0 919,844 17 5,561,349 

California 189,402,376 99 274,836 0 2,181,705 1 191,858,917 

Colorado 10,340,271 94 698,938 6 0 0 11,039,209 

Connecticut 49,250,158 93 3,056,000 6 466,846 1 52,773,004 

Delaware 10,061,665 83 2,102,110 17 0 0 12,163,775 

District of Columbia 21,262,226 88 1,607,513 7 1,307,476 5 24,177,215 

Florida 64,407,293 94 1,588,762 2 2,186,781 3 68,182,836 

Georgia 46,378,871 100 0 0 0 0 46,378,871 

Hawaii 7,959,833 88 25,000 0 1,060,810 12 9,045,643 

Idaho 3,819,401 100 0 0 0 0 3,819,401 

Illinois 110,833,082 92 6,234,718 5 4,015,394 3 121,083,194 

Indiana 9,590,831 91 35,838 0 967,449 9 10,594,118 

Iowa 14,173,390 91 945,924 6 432,760 3 15,552,074 

Kansas 6,408,370 83 864,529 11 469,416 6 7,742,315 

Kentucky 10,892,858 78 1,776,995 13 1,321,306 9 13,991,159 

Louisiana 22,605,911 100 0 0 0 0 22,605,911 

Maine 7,756,371 71 1,183,963 11 1,917,556 18 10,857,890 

Maryland 60,455,542 93 1,462,839 2 3,323,134 5 65,241,515 

Massachusetts 45,562,409 100 0 0 75,000 0 45,637,409 

Michigan 11,334,531 52 4,115,363 19 6,473,217 30 21,923,111 

Minnesota 56,866,067 98 854,163 1 368,656 1 58,088,886 

Mississippi 4,088,372 98 0 0 96,176 2 4,184,548 

Missouri 24,292,141 87 773,017 3 2,981,634 11 28,046,792 

Montana 3,541,745 92 0 0 289,203 8 3,830,948 

Nebraska 9,969,310 97 89,411 1 255,380 2 10,314,101 

Nevada 3,609,093 99 42,000 1 0 0 3,651,093 

New Hampshire 4,186,535 69 998,975 17 852,993 14 6,038,503 

New Jersey 55,445,770 98 652,405 1 454,825 1 56,553,000 

New Mexico 14,074,316 63 3,677,961 17 4,491,090 20 22,243,367 

New York 253,564,695 80 42,507,362 13 22,667,402 7 318,739,459 

North Carolina 48,371,348 95 0 0 2,513,559 5 50,884,907 

North Dakota 6,690,061 100 0 0 31,394 0 6,721,455 

Ohio 47,325,308 81 3,263,239 6 7,697,617 13 58,286,164 

Oklahoma 19,786,536 88 860,302 4 1,918,084 9 22,564,922 

Oregon 10,375,167 91 985,390 9 0 0 11,360,557 

Pennsylvania 26,653,952 63 5,057,069 12 10,264,979 24 41,976,000 

Rhode Island 8,400,066 67 2,473,724 20 1,578,084 13 12,451,874 

South Carolina 7,123,678 100 0 0 4,366 0 7,128,044 

South Dakota 3,056,701 93 0 0 245,308 7 3,302,009 

Tennessee 5,536,445 69 1,843,963 23 586,166 7 7,966,574 

Texas 16,934,997 92 673,295 4 859,240 5 18,467,532 

Utah 10,059,708 88 941,092 8 487,652 4 11,488,452 

Vermont 4,332,636 82 741,493 14 185,553 4 5,259,682 

Virginia 39,859,035 100 0 0 0 0 39,859,035 

Washington 44,325,677 92 976,673 2 2,951,484 6 48,253,834 

West Virginia 7,532,320 99 0 0 46,743 1 7,577,063 

Wisconsin 2,934,552 75 962,771 25 0 0 3,897,323 

Wyoming 5,854,362 86 378,773 6 537,167 8 6,770,302 

SOURCE: FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4

*States spending 0 percent of State funds on prevention services are indicated in bold.

**Other activities include HIV early intervention, TB services, and administrative costs.

x 
Inventory of State Profiles Executive Summary 

Prevention Services 

The SSA is the agency responsible for administering substance abuse prevention programs across 

any given State. Most States incorporate a risk- and protective-factor-focused theoretical framework. 

States increasingly use the Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF) tool to strengthen prevention 

systems. Many States also use the Institute of Medicine classification system to select and 

implement strategies and ensure that they address “universal,” “selective,” and “indicated” 

populations. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

SSA expenditures on prevention activities remained fairly stable from FY 2000 through FY 2003 and 

increased slightly over time from $538 million in FY 2000 to $560 million in FY 2003 (figure 5). The 

majority of prevention expenditures derived from the Block Grant, which accounted for 60 to 67 

percent of total prevention expenditures during this time period (increasing from $324 million in FY 

2000 to $372 million in FY 2003). Expenditures from State funds accounted for 18 to 21 percent of 

total prevention expenditures, and other Federal funds accounted for 14 to 18 percent. 

Some States were awarded a PRNS grant through CSAP, including the SPF SIG. Expenditures from 

these sources are generally reported by States as other Federal expenditures. 

Figure 5. National Expenditures for Prevention Services by Funding Source, FYs 2000–2003 

(n=51) 

0 

100,000,000 

200,000,000 

300,000,000 

400,000,000 

500,000,000 

600,000,000 

700,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Block Grant 

For seven SSAs, all (100 percent) of their prevention expenditures came from the Block Grant. 

These States included Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Virginia, and 

West Virginia. 

Core Strategies 

Nationally, Block Grant expenditures for CSAP prevention core strategies rose steadily from $328 

million in FY 2000 to $372 million in FY 2003 (figure 6). The distribution of expenditures remained 

relatively stable during this period. Expenditures on education activities consistently accounted for 

35 to 40 percent of total expenditures during this period, and community-based processes 

accounted for 17 to 19 percent of expenditures. 

xi 
Executive Summary Inventory of State Profiles 

Figure 6. National Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy, FYs 2000–2003 (n=51) 

-

50,000,000 

100,000,000 

150,000,000 

200,000,000 

250,000,000 

300,000,000 

350,000,000 

400,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem Identification and 

Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Most States use a regional configuration to provide substance abuse treatment services, but the 

treatment service delivery method varies widely across States. Some States administer services 

themselves, contract with regional or local entities to provide services, or contract with other entities 

to plan for, manage, and implement services. Many States have both publicly and privately funded 

treatment programs, and others contract out all or most of their treatment services. Generally, Statefunded services are available to individuals who have low incomes, are indigent, or cannot afford 

treatment for alcohol or drug addiction. All States are required to provide a continuum of care that 

includes outreach, early identification and intervention, assessment, placement, and movement 

within appropriate levels of treatment, as well as continuing care and support services during the 

recovery phase. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Nationally, expenditures on treatment and rehabilitation activities increased from $2.7 billion in FY 

2000 to $3.2 billion in FY 20034

 (figure 7). The proportion of expenditures from the different funding 

sources remained stable during this time. State funds consistently accounted for 46 to 48 percent of 

total expenditures on treatment (ranging from $1.3 billion in FY 2000 to $1.5 billion in FY 2003). 

Block Grant funds accounted for 37 to 39 percent of total expenditures on treatment services, and 

Medicaid accounted for 10 to 12 percent of expenditures. 

Some States were awarded a PRNS grant through CSAT, including ATR and SBIRT. Expenditures 

from these sources are generally reported by States as other Federal expenditures. 

4 The Inventory does not include expenditure or financial information from private third-party payers such as commercial health 

insurers. 

xii 
Inventory of State Profiles Executive Summary 

Figure 7. National Expenditures for Treatment Services by Funding Source, FYs 2000–2003 (n=51) 

0 

500,000,000 

1,000,000,000 

1,500,000,000 

2,000,000,000 

2,500,000,000 

3,000,000,000 

3,500,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

Block Grant 

Admissions 

Treatment programs in 48 responding States totaled more than 2 million admissions in 2002. Half of 

the persons admitted for treatment and rehabilitation services had a primary diagnosis of drug 

problems, and more than one-third had a primary diagnosis of an alcohol problem (figure 8). 

Nationally, the largest number of admissions, by far, was for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment 

services which accounted for 66 percent of total admissions, followed by detoxification admissions 

(at 18 percent)(figure 9). 

Figure 8. Percentage of Admissions by Figure 9. Percentage of Clients by Type 

Primary Diagnosis, FY 2002 of Treatment, FY 2002

Alcohol Detoxification 

35% 18% 

Drug Outpatient 

49% 66% 

None Residential 

Indicated 16% 

16% 

n=2.1 million admissions n=2.1 million admissions 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application, SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application, 

Form 7a; reported data from State FY 2002 Form 7a; reported data from State FY 2002

xiii 
2002 

0-4.9% 

5.0-9.9%

10.0-14.9%15.0-19.9%20.0-24.9%25.0-29.9%30.0-34.9%35.0-39.9%

40% and above 

Executive Summary Inventory of State Profiles 

The treatment clients in one-quarter of the States had average rates of co-occurring disorders 

between 15 and 20 percent, and nearly one-fifth of States had average rates of co-occurring 

disorders between 20 and 25 percent (figure 10). 

Figure 10. Number of States by Rate of Co-Occurring Disorders Among Treatment Clients, FY 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Number of States 

Average Rate of Co-Occurring Disorders 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), 2002 

Resource Development Activities 

Nationally, SSA expenditures for resource development activities from the SAPT Block Grant 

increased from $64 to $74 million between FYs 2000 and 2003 (figure 11). Expenditures were in 

various areas: planning, coordinating, and needs assessment; training; information technology; and 

quality assurance. 

Figure 11. National Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity, FYs 

2000–2003 (n=51) 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, and 

Needs Assessment 

xiv 
Inventory of State Profiles Executive Summary 

Discretionary Awards 

In addition to dispersing Block Grant funds to States and territories, SAMHSA supports substance 

abuse prevention and treatment efforts through a broad range of the competitive discretionary grants 

awards. Several of the grants awarded through CSAP or CSAT support the National Drug Control 

Strategy and are designated PRNS. These programs include the SPF SIG, ATR, and SBIRT. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

In FY 2004, CSAP dispersed monies through 23 discretionary grants programs. Overall, CSAP 

awarded 994 awards totaling $193 million to the 50 States and the District of Columbia. These 

programs addressed prevention areas, such as the following: enhancing an agency’s infrastructure 

to deliver prevention services; focusing on specific drugs such as methamphetamine and ecstasy; 

providing trainings, conferences, and resource-related grants; and combining substance abuse and 

HIV prevention. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

In FY 2004, CSAT dispersed monies through 30 discretionary grants programs. Overall, CSAT 

awarded 564 awards totaling nearly $344 million to the 50 States and the District of Columbia. 

These programs addressed treatment areas, including the following: enhancing an agency’s 

capacity to deliver treatment services; providing treatment to specific populations such as homeless 

persons, pregnant/post-partum women, or persons with co-occurring disorders; and enhancing data 

systems and other infrastructure to improve delivery of treatment services. ATR, a CSAT grant 

program, is a presidential initiative to increase capacity and provide client choice. 

xv 
Section I: Introduction

This document describes how States spend the funds allocated to them by the Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration’s (SAMHSA’s) Block Grant Program for substance abuse 

prevention and treatment services and how States allocate their own funding for these services. 

Policy officials can use the information in this document to assist in the review of the effectiveness of 

the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant. Reviewing expenditures data 

can contribute to the development of policy formulation for future expenditures. 

While recognizing the significant time lag associated with some of the data in this document—the 

actual expenditures that States report in their Block Grant application cover a period of time that 

occurred 3 years prior to the submission year—there remains utility in analyzing this information. It 

provides a wealth of details on how the States implement and fund prevention and treatment 

programs. For example, substance abuse prevention efforts vary widely by State. Medicaid funding 

is being used for treatment services by 27 States. Some States are not contributing their own funds 

to prevention efforts. 

One policy issue of concern is how best to get States to spend formula grant money effectively and 

to replicate their own best efforts. In addition, policymakers are interested in information from the 

States that conduct evaluations and analyze outcomes. Policy officials are concerned with 

identifying and promoting effective programs. For example, SAMHSA’s National Outcomes 

Measures (NOMS) initiative is beginning to provide outcome data on prevention and treatment 

programs funded by the Block Grant. 

It is hoped that policy officials at the State and Federal level will find this document useful as they 

examine and review programs and make future funding decisions. 

ONDCP and the National Drug Control Strategy 

Congress has long recognized that substance abuse is a problem with profound consequences for 

individuals and families and the long-term well-being and stability of the Nation. In 1988, with the 

passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, Congress established the White House Office of National Drug 

Control Policy (ONDCP).

5

 The principal purpose of ONDCP is to coordinate the anti-drug efforts of 

the various agencies and departments of the Federal government, to consult with States and 

localities and assist their anti-drug efforts, and to formulate and promote the National Drug Control 

Strategy. 

As part of his first National Drug Control Strategy in 2002, President Bush established 2- and 5-year 

goals to reduce drug use among both youth and adults by 10 percent in 2 years and by 25 percent in 

5 years. Data for youth use show that efforts are succeeding and that the Nation is on track to 

achieve the 5-year goal this year. 

The 2006 National Drug Control Strategy6 retains these specific goals and focuses on three priorities 

for achieving them—stopping illegal drug use before it starts, treating America’s drug users, and 

disrupting the market supply of illegal drugs. This balance of prevention, drug treatment, and supply 

reduction highlights the multiple avenues of effort needed to achieve the single goal of reducing drug 

use. 

5 ONDCP Food and Drugs 21 CFR Section 1401.2 (2006) 6 Office of National Drug Control Policy, The White House, February 2006. The President’s National Drug Control Strategy.

1 
Section 1: Introduction Inventory of State Profiles 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment 

Single State Agencies (SSAs) have the major responsibility for overseeing the delivery of substance 

abuse prevention and treatment services using an array of funding sources. The federally funded 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant program allocates funds on a 

formula basis for the prevention and treatment of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug abuse. This 

mechanism allows SSAs to use SAPT Block Grant resources on the basis of local need while 

holding States responsible for addressing clear requirements. The SAPT Block Grant program has 

been the foundation for building the States’ capacity to plan for, develop, and support the policies 

and services necessary to address community needs. 

States apply for SAPT Block Grant funds each year. They provide a comprehensive plan for meeting 

specific grant program requirements, and they report on expenditures and activities undertaken in 

previous years. Grant program requirements include expending at least 20 percent of grant funds on 

primary prevention activities, expending at least 5 percent on substance abuse treatment services 

for pregnant women and women with dependent children, and providing substance abuse treatment 

services for injection drug users. 

In addition to SAPT, funds from Medicaid, State and local sources, and discretionary awards from 

the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) generally flow through 

SSAs as part of the overall SSA budget. 

Documenting Anti-drug Efforts 

A key ONDCP responsibility is to document how Federal and other funding resources are used to 

prevent and treat substance abuse. The Administration has also set a high priority on performance 

results. Program information and key indicators of performance are increasingly assessed to 

understand how SSAs expend Federal, State, and other resources to reduce substance abuse. 

Programs and efforts that do not reduce substance abuse may be restructured or eliminated to 

ensure that taxpayer money is used wisely. 

This 2006 Inventory of State Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Activities and 

Expenditures provides a succinct, State-by-State overview of SAPT Block Grant and other funding 

and activities. It updates ONDCP’s initial 1999 Inventory of State Prevention Activities Funded Under 

the 20 Percent Block Grant Prevention Set-Aside prepared by the National Association of State 

Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors by providing current substance abuse prevention expenditure and 

activity information reported in SAPT Block Grant applications for fiscal years 2003–2006. It also 

expands the scope of the previous Inventory by incorporating information for treatment services, 

clients, activities, and expenditures, as well as SAMHSA demonstration and discretionary grant 

funding. 

The substance abuse expenditure data are supplemented with descriptions of State strategies, 

services, and performance information. For each State profile, the Inventory includes: 

• An overview of the structure and function of the State agency responsible for delivering substance 

abuse prevention and treatment services 

• A brief overview of substance abuse prevention and treatment services in the State 

• Expenditures on treatment and prevention activities from various funding sources, including the 

SAPT Block Grant, Other Federal, State funds, Medicaid, and other sources7 

• SAPT Block Grant Expenditures on CSAP six core prevention strategies and on resource 

development activities for prevention and treatment 

7 This Inventory does not include expenditure or financial information from private third-party payers such as commercial health 

insurers. 

2 
Inventory of State Profiles Section 1: Introduction 

• Treatment statistics by admission, type of program, and need for service 

• A brief description of resource and infrastructure development activities, including planning and 

needs assessment, evaluation, and training 

Preceding the State profiles is a section on Aggregate Findings which outlines trends in State 

substance abuse prevention and treatment expenditures funded by the SAPT Block Grant and other 

funding sources; a snapshot of prevention and treatment services and activities; resource 

development strategies; and treatment client information. The Aggregate Findings section provides 

policymakers and other interested parties with a concise perspective on the national substance 

abuse prevention and treatment system and offers a picture of the substantial resources being 

committed across the Nation to reduce the level of substance abuse. This section also highlights the 

array of substance abuse prevention and treatment strategies and services in place. By looking 

across communities, we can better assess the existing structural, program, and funding strengths 

and the remaining needs. 

The 2006 State Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Inventory is designed to 

share information about our national substance abuse prevention and treatment system and to be a 

reference guide for Federal and State officials, service providers, and members of the public with an 

interest in the resources and services offered. Hopefully, the information contained in this Inventory 

will benefit those who plan for and build the system and, ultimately, those it must effectively serve. 

3
Section II: Aggregate Findings

Structure and Function 

Typically, the Single State Agency (SSA) is designated to receive and administer the Substance 

Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration (SAMHSA). Most SSAs are located in departments of health and/or human 

services, but some SSAs are located in departments 

of mental health or are independent State agencies. 

Some SSAs work closely with the Governor’s office Pennsylvania oversees a system of 49 

and other State agencies, whereas others work single county authorities (SCAs) to provide 

more independently. publicly funded prevention and treatment 

services. SCAs are responsible for 

Most SSAs do not deliver treatment and prevention program planning and service provision 

throughout Pennsylvania’s 67 counties and services directly. Rather, SSAs usually deliver their often contract with local programs to services through a substate delivery system at a deliver services. regional, county, and/or local level. Substate entities

include geographically determined planning districts, 

regional community substance abuse/mental health centers, public/private planning and action 

councils, county government, regional State authorities, private nonprofit or for-profit organizations, 

community-based agencies or coalitions, colleges and universities, and tribal entities.

The substate entities receiving funding from the SSAs maintain 

South Carolina contracts with an important role in planning, implementing, and evaluating 

33 county alcohol and drug substance abuse prevention and treatment programs. States 

abuse authorities to provide either contract exclusively with regional or local entities or 

direct services to citizens in all contract with a combination of State, regional, and local entities. 46 counties. It also partners Although SSAs do not generally provide direct services, they do with public, private, and social provide training and technical assistance to their substate sector organizations to provide providers to plan for, deliver, and monitor the alcohol, tobacco quality ATOD services. and other drug (ATOD) services. 

Additional information regarding the structure and Indiana has local coordinating 

function of SSAs can be found in the prevention, councils in each of its 92 counties 

treatment, and resource development sections of that are responsible for planning 

this report. ATOD prevention, treatment, and 

law enforcement-related services. 

SSAs have multiple funding streams, including the 

SAPT Block Grant, SAMHSA discretionary grants, other Federal monies, State funds, private 

foundations, and other sources. The next section summarizes SSA funding sources and distribution 

of funds by activity. 

5 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Nationally, SSA expenditures increased steadily from FYs 2000 to 2003 from $3.5 to $4.0 million, 

and the proportion of expenditures from the different funding sources remained stable1

 (figures 2.1– 

2.3, table 2.1). The expenditures from the Block Grant and from State funds were roughly equal, with 

the Block Grant contributing between 41 and 43 percent of total expenditures (and increasing from 

$1.5 billion in FY 2000 to $1.6 billion in FY 2003) and State funds consistently contributing 42 to 44 

percent of expenditures (increasing from $1.5 to $1.7 billion during the same period). 

Figure 2.1. Expenditures by Funding Figure 2.2. Expenditures by Funding Source, FY 2000 Source, FY 2003 

State 

Medicaid

7% 

1% 42% 

Local State Local 

43% 1% Other Other

1% 1% 

Other 

Federal Block Grant Other Block Grant

43% Federal 6% 41% 4%Medicaid 

N=$3.5 billion 10% 

N=$4.0 billion 

Figure 2.3. National Expenditures for All Single State Agencies by Funding Source, FYs 2000–2003 

(n=51) 

0 

500,000,000 

1,000,000,000 

1,500,000,000 

2,000,000,000 

2,500,000,000 

3,000,000,000 

3,500,000,000 

4,000,000,000 

4,500,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

Block Grant 

1 The Inventory does not include expenditure or financial information from private third-party payers such as commercial health 

insurers. 

6 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Table 2.1. Sum of Expenditures for All Single State Agencies by Funding Source, FYs 2000–2003 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Block Grant 1,513,832,485 43 1,554,930,564 41 1,608,109,297 42 1,638,665,605 41 

Medicaid 262,845,138 7 306,791,483 8 322,400,472 8 387,624,547 10 

Other Federal 199,884,140 6 206,855,944 5 170,311,286 4 164,681,453 4 

State 1,484,216,227 42 1,651,132,311 44 1,630,772,174 43 1,679,088,556 43 

Local 27,896,629 1 35,990,172 1 40,185,629 1 40,632,387 1 

Other 22,229,354 1 38,765,827 1 49,079,776 1 43,081,669 1 

TOTAL* 3,510,903,973 100 3,794,466,301 100 3,820,858,634 100 3,953,774,217 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4

NOTE: Not all FY 2006 Block Grant applications were approved by SAMHSA at time of publication.

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

While the cumulative snapshot of States show a roughly even split between expenditures of Block 

Grant and State funds, individual States varied greatly in the proportion of expenditures by funding 

source (table 2.2). For example, in FY 2003, 19 States reported that most (50 percent or more) of 

their total expenditures derived from the SAPT Block Grant, and 13 States reported that most (50 

percent or more) derived from State funds: 

• States indicating that the vast majority (75 percent or more) of their expenditures came from 

Block Grant funds included Wisconsin (for which Block Grant funds accounted for 87 percent 

of total expenditures), Texas (86 percent), Alabama (77 percent), and Mississippi (75 

percent). States spending the smallest proportion of Block Grant funds, when compared with 

other States, included Wyoming and Alaska (at 13 percent each), and the District of 

Columbia (18 percent). 

• States indicating that the majority of their expenditures derived from State funds included 

New York, the District of Columbia, and Alaska (for which State funds accounted for 69 

percent of total expenditures), and Connecticut (65 percent). States spending the smallest 

proportions of State funds included Texas (12 percent), Wisconsin (13 percent), and 

Alabama (15 percent). 

• One-half of the States reported spending Medicaid funds on substance abuse treatment in 

their Block Grant application and half did not. For those that did not report Medicaid 

expenditures, it is possible that their Medicaid funds flowed through a different State agency, 

other than the SSA. For the 25 States reporting Medicaid expenditures along with their Block 

Grant and other funds, the States spending the highest proportions of Medicaid funds, when 

compared with other States, included Vermont (for which Medicaid accounted for 41 percent 

of total expenditures), Oregon (37 percent), Arizona (36 percent), and Kansas (32 percent). 

Those reporting the smallest proportions included Oklahoma (less than 1 percent), and 

Alaska, Colorado, and Maryland (at 1 percent each). 

• Several of the States had a substantial proportion of funds coming from other sources, 

including other Federal, local, and other sources. States with the higher proportion of funds 

coming from other sources included Wyoming (56 percent, of which 38 percent were from 

tobacco settlement monies and 18 percent were from other Federal sources), South Carolina 

(20 percent from other Federal and other sources), Maine (19 percent from other Federal 

sources), and Minnesota (18 percent from local and other sources). 

7 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Table 2.2. Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Source s, FY 2003 

State Block Grant Medicaid State All Other* Total 

$ % $ % $ % $ % $ 

Alabama 23,970,196 77 2,548,051 8 4,726,255 15 0 0 31,244,502 

Alaska 4,492,456 13 181,547 1 23,476,081 69 5,816,294 17 33,966,378 

Arizona 30,548,743 39 28,092,326 36 14,750,878 19 5,473,374 7 78,865,321 

Arkansas 12,169,977 63 0 0 5,561,349 29 1,538,451 8 19,269,777 

California 250,772,440 44 115,743,764 21 191,858,917 34 5,419,284 1 563,794,405 

Colorado 23,366,008 66 341,854 1 11,039,209 31 565,836 2 35,312,907 

Connecticut 16,879,723 21 0 0 52,773,004 65 12,074,646 15 81,727,373 

Delaware 6,577,245 34 0 0 12,163,775 63 458,511 2 19,199,531 

Dist. of Columbia 6,266,666 18 0 0 24,177,215 69 4,446,944 13 34,890,825 

Florida 95,064,189 50 7,490,671 4 68,182,836 36 19,826,826 10 190,564,522 

Georgia 47,462,679 49 0 0 46,378,871 48 2,407,940 3 96,249,490 

Hawaii 7,083,900 39 0 0 9,045,643 49 2,252,096 12 18,381,639 

Idaho 6,787,163 62 0 0 3,819,401 35 379,476 3 10,986,040 

Illinois 67,994,327 28 45,445,971 19 121,083,194 50 6,914,612 3 241,438,104 

Indiana 33,446,723 73 0 0 10,594,118 23 1,682,810 4 45,723,651 

Iowa 12,915,707 28 12,459,958 27 15,552,074 34 4,783,870 10 45,711,609 

Kansas 12,343,401 39 10,265,226 32 7,742,315 24 1,417,371 4 31,768,313 

Kentucky 20,752,134 57 0 0 13,991,159 38 1,717,358 5 36,460,651 

Louisiana 25,959,665 45 0 0 22,605,911 39 9,176,686 16 57,742,262 

Maine 6,462,370 21 7,535,560 24 10,857,890 35 5,959,290 19 30,815,110 

Maryland 32,114,739 29 1,509,383 1 65,241,515 59 12,206,447 11 111,072,084 

Massachusetts 34,174,108 41 0 0 45,637,409 55 3,047,432 4 82,858,949 

Michigan 58,143,061 51 28,144,755 25 21,923,111 19 5,131,953 5 113,342,880 

Minnesota 21,783,707 22 2,014,998 2 58,088,886 58 17,582,485 18 99,470,076 

Mississippi 14,139,924 75 0 0 4,184,548 22 499,409 3 18,823,881 

Missouri 26,268,669 33 22,346,941 28 28,046,792 35 3,815,059 5 80,477,461 

Montana 6,577,245 48 1,200,971 9 3,830,948 28 1,962,639 14 13,571,803 

Nebraska 7,926,182 38 2,109,870 10 10,314,101 49 779,312 4 21,129,465 

Nevada 12,860,149 68 0 0 3,651,093 19 2,424,466 13 18,935,708 

New Hampshire 6,577,245 50 0 0 6,038,503 46 440,972 3 13,056,720 

New Jersey 47,139,236 44 0 0 56,553,000 53 2,602,085 2 106,294,321 

New Mexico 8,614,912 25 0 0 22,243,367 63 4,226,704 12 35,084,983 

New York 115,999,936 25 0 0 318,739,459 69 29,545,085 6 464,284,480 

North Carolina 38,135,024 41 0 0 50,884,907 55 4,126,931 4 93,146,862 

North Dakota 4,984,093 30 3,133,330 19 6,721,455 40 1,931,534 12 16,770,412 

Ohio 66,942,269 40 34,174,236 20 58,286,164 35 7,355,204 4 166,757,873 

Oklahoma 17,788,840 40 189,727 0 22,564,922 51 3,402,519 8 43,946,008 

Oregon 16,098,172 35 17,236,406 37 11,360,557 24 1,676,494 4 46,371,629 

Pennsylvania 59,336,807 52 0 0 41,976,000 37 12,759,980 11 114,072,787 

Rhode Island 6,577,245 24 5,099,558 18 12,451,874 45 3,636,268 13 27,764,945 

South Carolina 20,661,633 57 875,635 2 7,128,044 20 7,337,061 20 36,002,373 

South Dakota 4,608,895 48 0 0 3,302,009 35 1,645,246 17 9,556,150 

Tennessee 29,391,224 70 0 0 7,966,574 19 4,615,891 11 41,973,689 

Texas 133,322,329 86 0 0 18,467,532 12 3,358,783 2 155,148,644 

Utah 16,914,130 53 0 0 11,488,452 36 3,320,604 10 31,723,186 

Vermont 4,927,888 27 7,368,676 41 5,259,682 29 440,872 2 17,997,118 

Virginia 42,526,592 52 0 0 39,859,035 48 0 0 82,385,627 

Washington 35,125,673 30 31,346,544 27 48,253,834 41 2,437,558 2 117,163,609 

West Virginia 8,564,801 53 0 0 7,577,063 47 0 0 16,141,864 

Wisconsin 25,877,350 87 0 0 3,897,323 13 0 0 29,774,673 

Wyoming 3,193,795 13 678,589 3 6,770,302 28 13,595,841 56 24,238,527 

SOURCE: FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Other funding sources include other Federal, local, and other sources such as private foundations and the tobacco Master Settlement 

Agreement. 

8 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Expenditures and Activities from All Funding Sources 

Nationally, the majority of SSA expenditures went toward treatment and rehabilitation services, 

accounting for 79 to 80 percent of total expenditures between FYs 2000 and 2003 (figures 2.4–2.6, 

table 2.3). Prevention services consistently accounted for 14 to 15 percent of expenditures during 

this time period, and administrative costs and HIV early intervention received 4 percent and 2 

percent, respectively. 

Figure 2.4. Expenditures by Activity, FY Figure 2.5. Expenditures by Activity, FY 

2000 2003 

Prevention Prevention 

15% 14% 

HIV Early HIV Early 

Intervention Intervention

Treatment 2% Treatment 2%

79% 80% 

Administration Administration 

4% 4% 

N=$3.5 million N=$4.0 million 

Figure 2.6. National Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity, FYs 2000–2003 (n=51) 

-

500,000,000 

1,000,000,000 

1,500,000,000 

2,000,000,000 

2,500,000,000 

3,000,000,000 

3,500,000,000 

4,000,000,000 

4,500,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

9 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Table 2.3. Sum of Expenditures (in billions of dollars) for All Single State Agencies by Activity, 

FYs 2000–2003 (n=51) 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment 2,753,404,373 79 3,003,554,843 79 3,034,892,821 79 3,168,430,731 80 

Prevention 538,163,654 15 575,751,775 15 552,362,815 14 559,967,101 14 

Tuberculosis 2,405,072 0 2,601,125 0 2,375,284 0 2,385,672 0 

HIV Early Intervention 64,332,629 2 64,588,100 2 68,807,191 2 68,089,871 2 

Administration 152,598,245 4 147,970,458 4 162,420,523 4 154,900,842 4 

TOTAL* 3,510,903,973 100 3,794,466,301 100 3,820,858,634 100 3,953,774,217 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

All States, with the exception of Alaska, spent most of their funding on treatment and rehabilitation 

services2 in FY 2003 (range 39 to 93 percent)(table 2.4). While all States met the 20 percent setaside requirement by spending 20 percent or more of Block Grant funds for primary prevention 

activities3

, prevention expenditures from all funding sources (including State, other Federal, and 

other sources) comprised a substantially smaller proportion. In fact, most States spent less than 20 

percent of their funds from all sources on prevention services (range 5 to 29 percent) and less than 

10 percent on other services or activities (range 0 to 33 percent). Specifically: 

• States spending the highest proportion of funds from all sources on prevention services, 

when compared with other States, included Wyoming (29 percent), Alaska (28 percent), and 

Maine and Rhode Island (at 27 percent each). States spending the lowest proportions of 

funds from all sources on prevention services included Minnesota (5 percent), Maryland (7 

percent), and Arizona (8 percent). 

• States spending the highest proportion of funds from all sources on treatment and 

rehabilitation services included Minnesota (93 percent), Arizona (89 percent), North Dakota 

(88 percent), and Vermont (88 percent). States spending the lowest proportion on treatment 

services included Alaska (33 percent), Wyoming (63 percent), and New Mexico (63 percent). 

• Most States spent less than 10 percent on other activities, and only 4 States indicated 

spending more than 10 percent on other activities. These States included Alaska (which 

spent 33 percent on administrative activities), Pennsylvania (which spent 14 percent on 

administration and 3 percent on HIV early intervention), New Mexico (which spent 15 percent 

on administration), and Hawaii (which spent approximately 7 percent on administration and 3 

percent on HIV early intervention). 

2 On the FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant application, Form 4, Alaska indicated spending 39 percent of funds on treatment services, 33 

percent on administrative activities, and 28 percent on prevention services in FY 2003. 3 DHHS Block Grant 45 CFR Section 96.124 (2005)

10 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Table 2.4 Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity, FY 2003 

State 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation Prevention Other* Total 

$ % $ % $ % $ 

Alabama 24,129,432 77 4,930,210 16 2,094,860 7 31,154,502 

Alaska 13,157,654 39 9,510,064 28 11,298,660 33 33,966,378 

Arizona 70,096,302 89 6,261,531 8 2,507,488 3 78,865,321 

Arkansas 15,280,827 79 2,406,920 12 1,582,030 8 19,269,777 

California 481,632,747 85 61,791,700 11 20,369,958 4 563,794,405 

Colorado 28,963,031 82 6,181,247 18 168,629 0 35,312,907 

Connecticut 65,261,577 80 15,154,964 19 1,310,832 2 81,727,373 

Delaware 14,530,937 76 4,075,557 21 593,037 3 19,199,531 

District of Columbia 28,268,893 81 4,681,009 13 1,940,923 6 34,890,825 

Florida 153,859,450 81 27,493,129 14 9,211,943 5 190,564,522 

Georgia 79,868,994 83 13,244,426 14 3,136,070 3 96,249,490 

Hawaii 12,301,075 67 4,117,265 22 1,963,299 11 18,381,639 

Idaho 8,357,348 76 2,413,305 22 215,387 2 10,986,040 

Illinois 208,006,565 86 21,734,501 9 11,697,038 5 241,438,104 

Indiana 34,210,952 75 8,667,531 19 2,845,168 6 45,723,651 

Iowa 37,161,700 81 6,948,442 15 1,601,487 4 45,711,629 

Kansas 27,020,852 85 3,732,685 12 1,014,776 3 31,768,313 

Kentucky 26,168,067 72 8,967,526 25 1,325,058 4 36,460,651 

Louisiana 49,954,362 87 5,191,933 9 2,595,967 4 57,742,262 

Maine 20,344,891 66 8,323,201 27 2,147,018 7 30,815,110 

Maryland 96,230,477 87 7,885,787 7 6,955,820 6 111,072,084 

Massachusetts 72,270,519 87 7,825,701 9 2,762,729 3 82,858,949 

Michigan 85,880,552 76 17,953,763 16 9,508,565 8 113,342,880 

Minnesota 92,788,214 93 5,465,144 5 1,216,718 1 99,470,076 

Mississippi 14,359,497 76 2,827,985 15 1,636,399 9 18,823,881 

Missouri 67,434,569 84 8,311,621 10 4,731,271 6 80,477,461 

Montana 10,913,500 80 1,980,822 15 677,481 5 13,571,803 

Nebraska 18,050,881 85 2,576,895 12 501,689 2 21,129,465 

Nevada 12,730,406 67 4,918,396 26 1,286,906 7 18,935,708 

New Hampshire 9,145,582 70 2,729,283 21 1,181,855 9 13,056,720 

New Jersey 90,709,111 85 11,332,318 11 4,253,165 4 106,294,594 

New Mexico 22,203,382 63 7,588,143 22 5,293,458 15 35,084,983 

New York 357,775,191 77 74,922,798 16 31,586,491 7 464,284,480 

North Carolina 75,522,116 81 9,947,685 11 7,731,061 8 93,200,862 

North Dakota 14,874,104 88 2,044,914 12 31,394 0 16,950,412 

Ohio 130,209,265 78 24,806,999 15 11,741,609 7 166,757,873 

Oklahoma 35,627,533 81 5,510,949 13 2,807,526 6 43,946,008 

Oregon 40,399,863 87 5,166,858 11 804,908 2 46,371,629 

Pennsylvania 73,283,402 64 21,223,136 19 19,566,249 17 114,072,787 

Rhode Island 18,261,896 66 7,403,938 27 2,099,111 8 27,764,945 

South Carolina 26,948,891 75 7,953,854 22 1,099,628 3 36,002,373 

South Dakota 7,554,638 79 1,495,705 16 505,807 5 9,556,150 

Tennessee 29,062,010 69 9,228,890 22 3,682,789 9 41,973,689 

Texas 105,369,967 68 38,564,386 25 11,214,291 7 155,148,644 

Utah 22,749,973 72 7,955,561 25 1,017,652 3 31,723,186 

Vermont 15,830,540 88 1,727,071 10 439,507 2 17,997,118 

Virginia 69,711,951 85 8,511,634 10 4,162,042 5 82,385,627 

Washington 102,176,682 87 10,095,235 9 4,891,692 4 117,163,609 

West Virginia 14,000,418 87 1,784,561 11 358,885 2 16,143,864 

Wisconsin 22,430,769 75 7,244,160 24 99,744 0 29,774,673 

Wyoming 15,351,449 63 6,976,763 29 1,910,315 8 24,238,527 

SOURCE: FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4

*Other activities include HIV early intervention, TB services, and administrative costs.

11 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Nationally, States spent a greater proportion of State funds on treatment services (88 percent) than 

they did Block Grant funds (70 percent). Conversely, States spent more Block Grant funds on 

prevention services (23 percent) than they did State funds (6 percent). 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Nationally, the majority of Block Grant expenditures went toward treatment and rehabilitation 

services, accounting for 70 to 71 percent of total Block Grant expenditures from FY 2000 to 2003 

(figures 2.7–2.8). Block Grant expenditures for treatment services increased steadily during this time 

from $1.1 billion nationwide in FY 2000 to $1.2 billion in FY 2003 (figure 2.9, table 2.5). Expenditures 

on prevention services accounted for 21 to 23 percent of Block Grant expenditures and increased 

from from $324 million in FY 2000 to $372 million in FY 2003. On average, States spent between 3 

and 4 percent of expenditures each on HIV early intervention services and administrative costs. 

Figure 2.7. Expenditures of Block Grant Figure 2.8. Expenditures of Block Grant 

Funds by Activity, FY 2000 Funds by Activity, FY 2003 

Prevention Prevention 

21% 23% Treatment Treatment 

71% HIV Early 70% HIV Early 

4% 

Intervention 

Intervention 

4% Administration 

4% Administration 

N=$1.5 billion N=$1.6 billion 3% 

Figure 2.9. National Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity, FYs 2000–2003 (n=51) 

0 

200,000,000 

400,000,000 

600,000,000 

800,000,000 

1,000,000,000 

1,200,000,000 

1,400,000,000 

1,600,000,000 

1,800,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

12 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Table 2.5. Sum of Block Grant Expenditures for All Single State Agencies by Activity, FYs 2000– 

2003 (n=51) 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment 1,077,449,834 71 1,096,467,378 71 1,140,561,755 71 1,154,602,763 70 

Prevention 324,333,222 21 351,498,950 23 357,719,619 22 371,997,015 23 

Tuberculosis 1,910,753 0 1,872,945 0 1,791,262 0 1,772,419 0 

HIV Early Intervention 56,500,716 4 55,529,386 4 55,956,302 3 57,636,309 4 

Administration 53,637,960 4 49,561,905 3 52,080,359 3 52,657,099 3 

TOTAL* 1,513,832,485 100 1,554,930,562 100 1,608,109,297 100 1,638,665,605 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4

NOTE: States with a s pecified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV Early Intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

Examination of individual State expenditures is similar to the national average. SSAs spent an 

average of 70 percent of Block Grant funds on treatment and rehabilitation services (range 61 to 80 

percent), 23 percent on prevention services (range 20 to 31 percent), 7 percent on other services 

and activities (range 0 to 14 percent) in FY 2003 (table 2.6). Specific findings include the following: 

• All States met the SAPT Block Grant 20-percent set-aside requirement: all States spent 20 

percent or more of Block Grant funds on primary prevention activities. 

• Thirty-three States exceeded the 20-percent set-aside requirement for 2003 expenditures. 

States spending a greater proportion of Block Grant funds on prevention services when 

compared with other States included Idaho (31 percent), Hawaii (29 percent), and Kentucky, 

Nebraska, Connecticut, New Mexico, and Texas (27 percent each). 

• Eighteen States met the 20 percent set-aside requirement, but did not exceed it. 

• States spending the greatest proportions of Block Grant expenditures on treatment, when 

compared with other States, included North Dakota (80 percent), Colorado (78 percent), and 

Alaska, Arkansas, Missouri, and West Virginia (76 percent each). States spending the 

smallest proportions included Hawaii (61 percent), Texas (65 percent), and Tennessee, 

North Carolina, and Idaho (66 percent each). 

• Twenty-one States spent 5 percent or more of Block Grant funds on HIV early intervention in 

FY 2003. 

13 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Table 2.6. Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity, FY 2003 

State Treatment Prevention 

HIV Early 

Intervention* Other** BG Total 

$ % $ % $ % $ 

Alabama 17,152,741 72 4,930,210 21 1,249,858 5 637,387 3 23,970,196 

Alaska 3,408,015 76 899,135 20 0 0 185,306 4 4,492,456 

Arizona 22,343,290 73 6,115,130 20 1,527,437 5 562,886 2 30,548,743 

Arkansas 9,192,448 76 2,406,920 20 0 0 570,609 5 12,169,977 

California 176,162,084 70 57,199,375 23 12,187,398 5 5,223,583 2 250,772,440 

Colorado 18,280,906 78 4,916,473 21 0 0 168,629 1 23,366,008 

Connecticut 11,418,255 68 4,617,482 27 843,986 5 0 0 16,879,723 

Delaware 4,469,272 68 1,514,936 23 328,862 5 264,175 4 6,577,245 

Dist. of Columbia 4,398,806 70 1,330,593 21 120,016 2 417,251 7 6,266,666 

Florida 63,319,338 67 24,719,689 26 4,753,209 5 2,271,953 2 95,064,189 

Georgia 33,490,123 71 10,836,486 23 2,484,821 5 651,249 1 47,462,679 

Hawaii 4,341,242 61 2,080,096 29 360,071 5 302,491 4 7,083,900 

Idaho 4,484,320 66 2,087,456 31 0 0 215,387 3 6,787,163 

Illinois 47,434,191 70 13,768,851 20 3,399,717 5 3,391,568 5 67,994,327 

Indiana 24,620,121 74 7,185,330 21 0 0 1,641,272 5 33,446,723 

Iowa 9,543,565 74 2,726,377 21 0 0 645,785 5 12,915,707 

Kansas 8,973,931 73 2,852,110 23 0 0 517,360 4 12,343,401 

Kentucky 15,197,700 73 5,550,682 27 0 0 3,752 0 20,752,134 

Louisiana 18,171,765 70 5,191,933 20 1,297,984 5 1,297,983 5 25,959,665 

Maine 4,870,969 75 1,363,847 21 0 0 227,554 4 6,462,370 

Maryland 22,480,317 70 6,422,948 20 1,605,737 5 1,605,737 5 32,114,739 

Massachusetts 23,660,678 69 7,825,701 23 1,490,933 4 1,196,796 4 34,174,108 

Michigan 42,021,077 72 13,249,022 23 0 0 2,872,962 5 58,143,061 

Minnesota 16,324,664 75 4,610,981 21 0 0 848,062 4 21,783,707 

Mississippi 9,897,947 70 2,827,985 20 706,996 5 706,996 5 14,139,924 

Missouri 19,841,893 76 5,253,735 20 0 0 1,173,041 4 26,268,669 

Montana 4,913,384 75 1,316,159 20 0 0 347,702 5 6,577,245 

Nebraska 5,545,248 70 2,134,625 27 0 0 246,309 3 7,926,182 

Nevada 8,999,740 70 2,573,503 20 643,008 5 643,898 5 12,860,149 

New Hampshire 4,895,715 74 1,352,668 21 0 0 328,862 5 6,577,245 

New Jersey 32,660,983 69 10,679,913 23 2,356,962 5 1,441,378 3 47,139,236 

New Mexico 5,882,851 68 2,343,564 27 0 0 388,497 5 8,614,912 

New York 83,470,927 72 23,845,680 21 5,800,010 5 2,883,319 2 115,999,936 

North Carolina 25,017,161 66 7,954,361 21 1,960,751 5 3,256,751 9 38,135,024 

North Dakota 3,970,641 80 1,013,452 20 0 0 0 0 4,984,093 

Ohio 47,461,285 71 16,270,812 24 0 0 3,210,172 5 66,942,269 

Oklahoma 13,341,630 75 3,557,768 20 0 0 889,442 5 17,788,840 

Oregon 12,073,630 75 3,219,634 20 0 0 804,908 5 16,098,172 

Pennsylvania 41,341,898 70 12,627,524 21 3,178,073 5 2,189,312 4 59,336,807 

Rhode Island 4,738,905 72 1,727,982 26 0 0 110,358 2 6,577,245 

South Carolina 15,429,544 75 4,136,827 20 1,033,082 5 62,180 0 20,661,633 

South Dakota 3,450,509 75 927,941 20 0 0 230,445 5 4,608,895 

Tennessee 19,452,248 66 6,973,848 24 1,514,511 5 1,450,617 5 29,391,224 

Texas 87,289,044 65 35,844,543 27 6,666,557 5 3,522,185 3 133,322,329 

Utah 12,690,265 75 3,693,865 22 0 0 530,000 3 16,914,130 

Vermont 3,695,916 75 985,578 20 0 0 246,394 5 4,927,888 

Virginia 29,852,916 70 8,511,634 20 2,126,330 5 2,035,712 5 42,526,592 

Washington 24,587,971 70 9,118,562 26 0 0 1,419,140 4 35,125,673 

West Virginia 6,468,098 76 1,784,561 21 0 0 312,142 4 8,564,801 

Wisconsin 19,496,217 75 6,281,389 24 0 0 99,744 0 25,877,350 

Wyoming 2,376,379 74 637,139 20 0 0 180,277 6 3,193,795 

SOURCE: FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4

*States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate of 10 or more per 100,000 must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities.

**Other activities include HIV early intervention, TB services, and administrative costs.

14 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Nationally, SSA expenditures of State funds increased from $1.5 billion in FY 2000 to $1.7 billion in 

FY 2003 (figure 2.12, table 2.7). The largest proportion of expenditures consistently went toward 

treatment and rehabilitation activities, accounting for 86 to 88 percent of State funding, and 

increasing from $1.3 billion in FY 2000 to $1.4 billion in FY 2003 (figures 2.10–2.11). Expenditures 

on prevention services consistently accounted for 6 to 8 percent of total State funding during this 

time period, and administrative costs accounted for 5 to 6 percent of total State expenditures. 

Figure 2.10. Expenditures of State Funds Figure 2.11. Expenditures of State Funds 

by Activity, FY 2000 by Activity, FY 2003 

Prevention Prevention 

8% 6% 

HIV Early HIV Early Treatment Intervention Treatment Intervention 

86% 1% 88% 1% 

Administration Administration 

5% 5% 

N=$1.5 billion N=$1.7 billion 

Figure 2.12. National Expenditures of State Funds by Activity, FYs 2000–2003 (n=51) 

0 

200,000,000 

400,000,000 

600,000,000 

800,000,000 

1,000,000,000 

1,200,000,000 

1,400,000,000 

1,600,000,000 

1,800,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

15 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Table 2.7. Expenditures of State Funds for All Single State Agencies by Activity, FYs 2000–2003 

(n=51) 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment 1,284,639,457 86 1,449,613,033 88 1,420,400,518 87 1,479,740,375 88 

Prevention 112,766,350 8 115,746,768 7 103,749,822 6 98,543,763 6 

Tuberculosis 453,050 0 578,437 0 532,669 0 564,241 0 

HIV Early Intervention 7,449,812 1 8,657,897 1 12,632,048 1 9,913,994 1 

Administration 78,907,558 5 76,536,176 5 93,457,117 6 90,326,183 5 

TOTAL* 1,484,216,227 100 1,651,132,311 100 1,630,772,174 100 1,679,088,556 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Examination of individual State data shows greater variation in the distribution of expenditures from 

State sources than from the Block Grant. In FY 2003, SSAs spent an average of 88 percent of State 

funds on treatment and rehabilitation services (range 37 to 100 percent), 6 percent on prevention 

services (range 0 to 25 percent), and 6 percent on other services including administrative costs, HIV 

early intervention, and tuberculosis services (table 2.8). Specific findings include: 

• Only three SSAs spent 20 percent or more of State funds on prevention services. These 

States included Wisconsin (25 percent), Tennessee (23 percent), and Rhode Island (20 

percent). Other SSAs spending a larger proportion of State funds on prevention activities 

included Michigan (19 percent), Delaware, New Hampshire, and New Mexico (at 17 percent 

each). 

• Seventeen SSAs spent 0 percent of State funds on prevention services (including three 

SSAs that expended so little, it accounted for 0 percent). States spending 0 percent of State 

funds on prevention services are indicated in bold on table 2.8. 

• The majority of SSAs (43 of the 50 States and the District of Columbia) spent 75 percent or 

more of State funds on treatment and rehabilitation services, of which 7 SSAs spent all (100 

percent) of their State funds on treatment. The seven States spending 100 percent were 

Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Virginia. 

Other SSAs spending a large proportion of State funds on treatment included Arizona, 

California, Nevada, and West Virginia (at 99 percent each). States spending the smallest 

proportions included Alaska (37 percent), Michigan (52 percent), and Pennsylvania and New 

Mexico (at 63 percent each). 

• Most States spent less than 20 percent of State funds on other activities. SSAs indicating 

spending the greatest proportions of State funds on other activities included Alaska (which 

spent 47 percent on administration), Michigan (which spent 20 percent on administration and 

10 percent on HIV early intervention), Pennsylvania (which spent 24 percent on 

administration), New Mexico (which spent 20 percent on administration), Maine (which spent 

15 percent on administration and 3 percent on HIV early intervention), and Arkansas (which 

spent 17 percent on administration). Ten SSAs did not spend State funds on other activities. 

16 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Table 2.8. Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity, FY 2003* 

State Treatment Prevention Other** Total 

$ % $ % $ % $ 

Alabama 4,518,640 96 0 0 207,615 4 4,726,255 

Alaska 8,691,771 37 3,670,956 16 11,113,354 47 23,476,081 

Arizona 14,604,477 99 146,401 1 0 0 14,750,878 

Arkansas 4,641,505 83 0 0 919,844 17 5,561,349 

California 189,402,376 99 274,836 0 2,181,705 1 191,858,917 

Colorado 10,340,271 94 698,938 6 0 0 11,039,209 

Connecticut 49,250,158 93 3,056,000 6 466,846 1 52,773,004 

Delaware 10,061,665 83 2,102,110 17 0 0 12,163,775 

District of Columbia 21,262,226 88 1,607,513 7 1,307,476 5 24,177,215 

Florida 64,407,293 94 1,588,762 2 2,186,781 3 68,182,836 

Georgia 46,378,871 100 0 0 0 0 46,378,871 

Hawaii 7,959,833 88 25,000 0 1,060,810 12 9,045,643 

Idaho 3,819,401 100 0 0 0 0 3,819,401 

Illinois 110,833,082 92 6,234,718 5 4,015,394 3 121,083,194 

Indiana 9,590,831 91 35,838 0 967,449 9 10,594,118 

Iowa 14,173,390 91 945,924 6 432,760 3 15,552,074 

Kansas 6,408,370 83 864,529 11 469,416 6 7,742,315 

Kentucky 10,892,858 78 1,776,995 13 1,321,306 9 13,991,159 

Louisiana 22,605,911 100 0 0 0 0 22,605,911 

Maine 7,756,371 71 1,183,963 11 1,917,556 18 10,857,890 

Maryland 60,455,542 93 1,462,839 2 3,323,134 5 65,241,515 

Massachusetts 45,562,409 100 0 0 75,000 0 45,637,409 

Michigan 11,334,531 52 4,115,363 19 6,473,217 30 21,923,111 

Minnesota 56,866,067 98 854,163 1 368,656 1 58,088,886 

Mississippi 4,088,372 98 0 0 96,176 2 4,184,548 

Missouri 24,292,141 87 773,017 3 2,981,634 11 28,046,792 

Montana 3,541,745 92 0 0 289,203 8 3,830,948 

Nebraska 9,969,310 97 89,411 1 255,380 2 10,314,101 

Nevada 3,609,093 99 42,000 1 0 0 3,651,093 

New Hampshire 4,186,535 69 998,975 17 852,993 14 6,038,503 

New Jersey 55,445,770 98 652,405 1 454,825 1 56,553,000 

New Mexico 14,074,316 63 3,677,961 17 4,491,090 20 22,243,367 

New York 253,564,695 80 42,507,362 13 22,667,402 7 318,739,459 

North Carolina 48,371,348 95 0 0 2,513,559 5 50,884,907 

North Dakota 6,690,061 100 0 0 31,394 0 6,721,455 

Ohio 47,325,308 81 3,263,239 6 7,697,617 13 58,286,164 

Oklahoma 19,786,536 88 860,302 4 1,918,084 9 22,564,922 

Oregon 10,375,167 91 985,390 9 0 0 11,360,557 

Pennsylvania 26,653,952 63 5,057,069 12 10,264,979 24 41,976,000 

Rhode Island 8,400,066 67 2,473,724 20 1,578,084 13 12,451,874 

South Carolina 7,123,678 100 0 0 4,366 0 7,128,044 

South Dakota 3,056,701 93 0 0 245,308 7 3,302,009 

Tennessee 5,536,445 69 1,843,963 23 586,166 7 7,966,574 

Texas 16,934,997 92 673,295 4 859,240 5 18,467,532 

Utah 10,059,708 88 941,092 8 487,652 4 11,488,452 

Vermont 4,332,636 82 741,493 14 185,553 4 5,259,682 

Virginia 39,859,035 100 0 0 0 0 39,859,035 

Washington 44,325,677 92 976,673 2 2,951,484 6 48,253,834 

West Virginia 7,532,320 99 0 0 46,743 1 7,577,063 

Wisconsin 2,934,552 75 962,771 25 0 0 3,897,323 

Wyoming 5,854,362 86 378,773 6 537,167 8 6,770,302 

SOURCE: FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4

*States spending 0 percent of State funds on prevention services are indicated in bold.

**Other activities include HIV early intervention, TB services, and administrative costs.

17 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The SSA is responsible for administering Arizona - Over the past decade, Arizona’s 

prevention system has evolved into a researchbased, comprehensive system based on a risk

and protective factor framework. Arizona 

employs a logic model to identify appropriate 

targets for prevention, select strategies, and 

evaluate outcomes. The State has integrated 

prevention services into the treatment and 

rehabilitation continuum; this integration 

stretches resources to serve more people with 

appropriate services. 

prevention programs across the State. Most 

States have systems in place to select or 

develop, implement, monitor, and evaluate 

prevention programs that address ATOD 

issues. Most States also have a theoretical 

framework that focuses on risk and protective 

factors with the aim of reducing risk factors and 

increasing protective factors related to 

substance abuse among individuals and their 

peers, families, schools, and communities. 

Some States also mention using other 

theoretical frameworks, most notably, those focusing on assets and resiliency. Generally, States 

indicate wanting to help their residents build healthy lifestyles and acquire skills that reduce their risk 

of later developing alcohol or drug dependence. States indicate implementing programs to develop 

strong, positive self-images among their residents and to educate residents about the dangers of 

alcohol and drugs among children, adolescents, and adults. 

Many States mention using the Institute of Medicine classification system for selecting and 

implementing strategies and ensuring that they 

address “universal,” “selective,” and “indicated” Virginia - The Prevention Service Unit 

Manager is part of the Governor’s Office for 

Substance Abuse Prevention Collaborative, 

which is developing and maintaining a 

statewide, cross-system social data indicator 

and youth survey database and developing a 

statewide prevention plan. The collaborative 

includes the State prevention directors in the 

departments of education, social services, 

juvenile justice, criminal justice, motor vehicles, 

and health; the Alcohol Beverage Control 

Board; the Virginia Tobacco Settlement 

Foundation; and the National Guard. 

populations. States also mention making sure 

that prevention is integrated into the treatment 

and rehabilitation continuum and support early 

intervention strategies for those who have 

participated in illegal use of ATOD to determine 

whether behavior can be reversed through 

education. Most SSAs partner and/or collaborate 

with other State agencies such as departments 

of police, education, justice, highway safety, 

health, and transportation; the National Guard; 

and Safe and Drug-Free Schools to deliver 

prevention services.

States are recognizing the Center for Substance 

Abuse Prevention (CSAP) shift to using the Srategic Prevention Framework (SPF) as a tool to 

strengthen prevention systems and are becoming more actively engaged in implementing the steps 

of the SPF, which include (1) conducting a comprehensive needs assessment to assess population 

needs and to measure resources and readiness to meet those needs; (2) building capacity among 

the prevention workforce to deliver prevention services 

and strategies; (3) planning a comprehensive 

approach to prevention programs, policies, and New Mexico - New Mexico maintains the 

philosophy that prevention strategies and

programs are best formulated at the local level.

Therefore, the system is designed to empower 

local communities and prevention providers. 

Programs located throughout New Mexico 

provide a wide variety of prevention services, 

and are required to submit a community needs 

assessment, a community plan, an 

implementation plan, and an outcome 

evaluation plan. 

strategies to have the most impact; (4) implementing 

programs that have proved to be effective; and (5) 

evaluating the chosen policies, strategies, and 

programs and their impact on program recipients and 

communities. CSAP has awarded SPF State Incentive 

Grants (SIGs) to 17 States to help States strengthen 

their prevention infrastructure to deliver prevention 

services. 

18 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Single State Agency Responsibilities 

The SSA responsibilities for prevention activities generally involve one or more of the following: 

• Conducting statewide needs assessment and planning or assisting substate entities in 

conducting needs assessment and planning for prevention services 

• Marketing prevention to policymakers and State leaders; developing and implementing a 

policy that addresses ATOD prevention 

• Procuring and managing funding, including the SAPT Block Grant, the SIG/SPF SIG, 

SAMHSA discretionary grants, State monies, and other funds

• Procuring, contracting for, and managing substance abuse prevention contracts 

• Selecting, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating prevention programs and strategies 

• Fostering networks and/or Wisconsin - The Brighter Futures Initiative (BFI)

is a legislatively created initiative that funds 10

youth development programs, with the goal to 

assist youth and families in becoming safe, 

healthy, self-sufficient members of their 

community. BFI grantees receive enhanced 

technical assistance and access to current 

research on best practices in community, youth, 

and family development strategies to achieve 

their stated goals and benchmarks. 

collaboration with other State agencies 

and among substate entities 

• Selecting and supporting strategies to 

train and maintain an effective 

prevention workforce 

• Meeting Synar requirements related to 

youth access to tobacco

System Configuration 

The configuration of State prevention services delivery systems varies. States administer programs 

at the State level or contract with other entities at the regional, county, or local level. States may 

select public, private, for-profit, not-for-profit, or a mix of such agencies to deliver services. As such, 

States or substate entities are responsible for an array of activities, including one or more of the 

following: 

• Sponsoring/providing conferences, training, and/or technical assistance to providers and 

others; workforce development training for providers, State and substate staff, and others 

involved in prevention efforts; workplace development; community coalition building; and 

youth mentoring 

• Providing technical assistance to contractors on evidence-based programs, building 

infrastructure, conducting needs assessment, and/or developing coalitions

• Selecting and implementing evidence- and research-based programs targeting outcomes 

and/or intervening variables such 

as risk and protective factors 

Rhode Island - Key to the State’s prevention 

strategy and infrastructure is the Student 

Assistance Plan (SAP), which operates in 21 high 

schools and 25 junior and middle schools 

throughout the State. SAP places student 

assistance counselors in every secondary school 

to assess and educate students. SAP’s design is 

built on a research foundation, has been a core 

component of Rhode Island’s prevention system 

for more than two decades, and is nationally 

recognized for its effectiveness. 

• Partnering and/or collaborating 

with community coalitions, 

community task forces and policy 

boards, universities and colleges, 

and school districts 

• Implementing nonscience-based 

strategies such as information 

dissemination and participating at 

health fairs, community festivals, 

conferences, and other large 

public gatherings 

19 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Most States indicate that their South Dakota - The two-tiered Diversion Program refers

juveniles entering the court system for alcohol- or drugrelated offenses to either the Primary Prevention Program 

(10 hours) or the Intensive Prevention Program (30 hours). 

Each includes a family component and an early intervention 

strategy. 

primary target population is youth. 

Others mention targeting children 

of people who abuse substances, 

parents, school personnel, housing 

authority staff and residents, senior 

citizens, college or university 

students, employees, participants 

in juvenile and adult probation programs, and the disabled community. Some States mention 

targeting specific ethnic minorities, including Native Americans, African Americans, and/or 

Hispanics/Latinos. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

SSA expenditures on prevention activities remained fairly stable from FY 2000 through FY 2003 and 

increased slightly over time from $538 million in FY 2000 to $560 million in FY 2003 (figure 2.15, 

table 2.9). The majority of prevention expenditures derived from the Block Grant, which accounted 

for 60 to 67 percent of total prevention expenditures (increasing from $324 million in FY 2000 to 

$372 million in FY 2003)(figures 2.13–2.14). Expenditures from State funds accounted for 18 to 21 

percent of total prevention expenditures, and other Federal funds accounted for 14 to 18 percent. 

Some States were awarded a Program of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) grant through 

CSAP, including the SPF SIG. Expenditures from these sources are generally reported by States as 

other Federal expenditures. Additional information on PRNS and the SPF SIG is found in the 

Discretionary Funding portion of the Aggregate Findings. 

Figure 2.13. Expenditures on Prevention Figure 2.14. Expenditures on Prevention 

Services by Funding Source, FY 2000 Services by Funding Source, FY 2003 

State

21% 

Block Grant 

60% 

1% 

N=$538 million 

Other 

18% 1%

Federal

14% 

Other State Other 

Block Grant Other 

67% Federal

18%

N=$560 million 

20 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Figure 2.15. National Expenditures for Prevention Services by Funding Source, FYs 2000–2003 

(n=51) 

0 

100,000,000 

200,000,000 

300,000,000 

400,000,000 

500,000,000 

600,000,000 

700,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Block Grant 

Table 2.9. Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources, 

FYs 2000–2003 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Block Grant 324,333,222 60 351,498,950 61 357,719,619 65 371,997,015 67 

Other Federal 96,615,991 18 100,978,133 18 80,817,742 15 80,170,874 14 

State 112,766,350 21 115,746,768 20 103,749,822 19 98,543,763 18 

Local 880,632 0 1,000,170 0 965,623 0 1,026,142 0 

Other 3,567,459 1 6,527,754 1 9,110,009 2 8,229,307 1 

TOTAL* 538,163,654 100 575,751,775 100 552,362,815 100 559,967,101 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

In 2003, 67 percent of national expenditures on prevention services came from Block Grant funds 

(range 9 to 100 percent), 18 percent came from the State (range 0 to 57 percent), 14 percent came 

from other Federal sources (range 0 to 69 percent), and 1 percent came from local and other 

sources (range 0 to 30 percent)(table 2.10). Specific highlights include the following: 

• Seven SSAs received all (100 percent) of their prevention funds from the Block Grant. 

These States included Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Virginia, 

and West Virginia. Other States spending a higher proportion Block Grant funds on 

prevention services, when compared with other States, included Arizona (98 percent), New 

Jersey (94 percent), and California and Texas (93 percent each). SSAs for which Block 

Grant funds constituted the smallest proportions included Wyoming and Alaska (at 9 

percent), Maine (16 percent), and Rhode Island (23 percent). 

• Seventeen SSAs spent 0 percent of State funds on prevention services (including three 

SSAs that expended so little, it accounted for 0 percent). States spending 0 percent of 

State funds on prevention services are indicated in bold on table 2.8. 

• States spending the largest proportion of State funds on prevention services, when 

compared with other States, included New York (57 percent), Delaware (52 percent), New 

Mexico (48 percent), and Vermont (43 percent). 

21 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

• States spending the largest proportion of funds from other Federal sources, when 

compared with other States, included Maine (69 percent), Wyoming (56 percent), Alaska 

(52 percent), and North Dakota (50 percent). Fifteen States received no prevention funding 

from other Federal sources. 

• Eight States spent local and other funds for prevention activities in FY 2003. These States 

included Connecticut (30 percent), Wyoming (30 percent), and Pennsylvania (5 percent). 

Per Capita Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Prevention Services 

On average, per capita Block Grant funding for Figure 2.16. Block Grant Expenditures on 

primary prevention activities increased steadily for Prevention Services Per Capita, FYs 2001–2003 

the United States as a whole, from $1.15 in FY (n=51) 2000 to $1.28 in FY 2003 (figure 2.16). 

Examination of individual State-level data show 1.30 

that States varied somewhat in their Block Grant 

expenditures per capita on prevention services 

(range $0.88 to $2.39 for FY 2003). Specific 

findings for FY 2003 include the following: 

• States spending the greatest amount of 

Dollars per Capita 1.25 

1.20 

1.15 

1.10 

Block Grant funds per capita on 1.05 

prevention activities included the District FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

of Columbia ($2.39 per capita), 

Delaware ($1.85), Hawaii ($1.67) and 

Texas ($1.62). 

• States with the lowest rate of Block Grant funding per capita were Arkansas ($0.88 per 

capita), Oregon ($0.90), Minnesota ($0.91), and Missouri ($0.92). See figure 2.17 and Appendix A 

for details. 

22 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Table 2.10. Expenditures for Prevention Services by From All Funding Sources, FY 2003 

State Block Grant Other Federal State Local and Other Total 

$ % $ % $ % $ % $ 

Alabama 4,930,210 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,930,210 

Alaska 899,135 9 4,939,973 52 3,670,956 39 0 0 9,510,064 

Arizona 6,115,130 98 0 0 146,401 2 0 0 6,261,531 

Arkansas 2,406,920 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,406,920 

California 57,199,375 93 4,317,489 7 274,836 0 0 0 61,791,700 

Colorado 4,916,473 80 565,836 9 698,938 11 0 0 6,181,247 

Connecticut 4,617,482 30 2,993,489 20 3,056,000 20 4,487,993 30 15,154,964 

Delaware 1,514,936 37 458,511 11 2,102,110 52 0 0 4,075,557 

District of Columbia 1,330,593 28 1,742,903 37 1,607,513 34 0 0 4,681,009 

Florida 24,719,689 90 0 0 1,588,762 6 1,184,678 4 27,493,129 

Georgia 10,836,486 82 2,407,940 18 0 0 0 0 13,244,426 

Hawaii 2,080,096 51 2,012,169 49 25,000 1 0 0 4,117,265 

Idaho 2,087,456 86 325,849 14 0 0 0 0 2,413,305 

Illinois 13,768,851 63 1,730,932 8 6,234,718 29 0 0 21,734,501 

Indiana 7,185,330 83 1,446,363 17 35,838 0 0 0 8,667,531 

Iowa 2,726,377 39 3,276,141 47 945,924 14 0 0 6,948,442 

Kansas 2,852,110 76 16,046 0 864,529 23 0 0 3,732,685 

Kentucky 5,550,682 62 1,639,849 18 1,776,995 20 0 0 8,967,526 

Louisiana 5,191,933 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,191,933 

Maine 1,363,847 16 5,775,391 69 1,183,963 14 0 0 8,323,201 

Maryland 6,422,948 81 0 0 1,462,839 19 0 0 7,885,787 

Massachusetts 7,825,701 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,825,701 

Michigan 13,249,022 74 589,378 3 4,115,363 23 0 0 17,953,763 

Minnesota 4,610,981 84 0 0 854,163 16 0 0 5,465,144 

Mississippi 2,827,985 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,827,985 

Missouri 5,253,735 63 2,284,869 27 773,017 9 0 0 8,311,621 

Montana 1,316,159 66 664,663 34 0 0 0 0 1,980,822 

Nebraska 2,134,625 77 494,934 18 89,411 3 36,925 1 2,755,895 

Nevada 2,573,503 52 2,299,133 47 42,000 1 3,760 0 4,918,396 

New Hampshire 1,352,668 50 377,640 14 998,975 37 0 0 2,729,283 

New Jersey 10,679,913 94 0 0 652,405 6 0 0 11,332,318 

New Mexico 2,343,564 31 1,566,618 21 3,677,961 48 0 0 7,588,143 

New York 23,845,680 32 8,569,756 11 42,507,362 57 0 0 74,922,798 

North Carolina 7,954,361 80 1,993,324 20 0 0 0 0 9,947,685 

North Dakota 1,013,452 50 1,031,462 50 0 0 0 0 2,044,914 

Ohio 16,270,812 66 5,272,948 21 3,263,239 13 0 0 24,806,999 

Oklahoma 3,557,768 65 1,092,879 20 860,302 16 0 0 5,510,949 

Oregon 3,219,634 62 961,834 19 985,390 19 0 0 5,166,858 

Pennsylvania 12,627,524 59 2,549,326 12 5,057,069 24 989,217 5 21,223,136 

Rhode Island 1,727,982 23 3,202,232 43 2,473,724 33 0 0 7,403,938 

South Carolina 4,136,827 52 3,801,608 48 0 0 15,419 0 7,953,854 

South Dakota 927,941 62 567,764 38 0 0 0 0 1,495,705 

Tennessee 6,973,848 76 411,079 4 1,843,963 20 0 0 9,228,890 

Texas 35,844,543 93 1,587,694 4 673,295 2 458,854 1 38,564,386 

Utah 3,693,865 46 3,320,604 42 941,092 12 0 0 7,955,561 

Vermont 985,578 57 0 0 741,493 43 0 0 1,727,071 

Virginia 8,511,634 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,511,634 

Washington 9,118,562 90 0 0 976,673 10 0 0 10,095,235 

West Virginia 1,784,561 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,784,561 

Wisconsin 6,281,389 87 0 0 962,771 13 0 0 7,244,160 

Wyoming 637,139 9 3,882,248 56 378,773 5 2,078,603 30 6,976,763 

SOURCE: FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

23 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Figure 2.17. Block Grant Expenditures Per Capita on Prevention Services, FY 2003 

SOURCE: FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant applications and U.S. Census estimates 

Core Strategies 

SAMHSA requires States to submit information about their activities related to CSAP’s six core 

prevention strategies in their Block Grant application which include information dissemination, 

education, alternatives, problem identification and referral, community-based processes, and 

environmental strategies4

. SAMHSA also requests that States document their reported and intended 

expenditures in the same six areas in the SAPT Block Grant application. A description of the 

strategies is provided below. To see highlights from States and the District of Columbia, see 

Appendix B. 

Information Dissemination activities provide awareness and knowledge of the nature and extent of 

substance use, abuse, and addiction and their effects on individuals, families, and communities. 

These activities also provide knowledge and awareness of available prevention resources, 

programs, and services. Information dissemination is characterized by one-way communication from 

the source to the audience, with limited contact between the two. Examples of information activities 

include clearinghouses/ information resource centers, media campaigns, brochures, resource 

directories, radio/TV public service announcements, speaking engagements, and health fairs/health 

promotion. 

4 DHHS Block Grant 45 CFR Section 96.124 (2005) 

24 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Education activities affect critical life and social skills, including decisionmaking, refusal skills, and 

critical analysis of media messages. These activities involve two-way communication, with the 

interaction between the educator/facilitator and the participant being the basis of the activity. 

Activities under this strategy include classroom and/or small group sessions for youth or other 

groups, parenting and family management classes, peer leader/helper programs, and groups for 

children with parents who abuse substances. 

Alternative activities provide opportunities for persons from target populations to participate in 

activities that exclude ATOD use. The underlying assumption is that constructive and healthy 

activities offset the attraction to or otherwise meet the needs usually filled by alcohol, tobacco, and 

drugs. Examples of activities under this strategy include drug-free dances and parties, youth and/or 

adult leadership activities, community drop-in centers, and community service activities. 

Problem identification and referral activities identify persons who have participated in illegal use 

of tobacco or alcohol and those who have experimented in the first use of illicit drugs to assess 

whether their behavior can be reversed through education. They do not include any activities to 

determine whether a person is in need of treatment. Examples of such activities include employee 

assistance programs, student assistance programs, and driving under the influence (DUI)/driving 

while intoxicated education programs. 

Community-based process strategies enhance the ability and capacity of the community to 

effectively provide ATOD prevention and treatment services. Activities in this strategy include 

organizing, conducting needs assessments, planning, enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of 

service implementation, evaluation, interagency collaboration, coalition building, and networking. 

Examples of activities used for this strategy include fostering sustainable community coalitions, 

engaging local stakeholders (government officials, schools, law enforcement, and others), 

conducting community and volunteer training, systematic planning, procuring funding, and 

community teambuilding. 

Environmental strategies establish or change written and unwritten community standards, codes, 

attitudes, and norms, thereby influencing incidence and prevalence of ATOD use and abuse in the 

general population. This strategy is divided into two subcategories to distinguish between activities 

that center on legal and regulatory initiatives and those that relate to the service and action-oriented 

initiatives. Examples of activities used for this strategy include promoting the establishment and 

review of ATOD use policies in schools, review and advocacy of laws that limit ATOD use in public 

places, technical assistance to communities to maximize local enforcement efforts governing 

availability and distribution of alcohol and tobacco, modifying alcohol and tobacco advertising 

practices, and product pricing strategies. 

While not an original CSAP core strategy, activities that fall under the Section 1926 category are of 

interest to and monitored by CSAP. Activities in this category are generally designed to facilitate 

State compliance of the Synar amendment regulation with the aim of reducing youth access to 

tobacco products5. Activities in Section 1926 may include merchant or community education, or 

conducting the Synar compliance inspection survey and analyzing the results. 

The other category that States complete as part of the Block Grant application is designed to 

capture spending outside the core prevention strategies. Expenditures in this category may include 

the hiring of contractors to provide specific technical assistance and/or resource development 

activities, such as quality assurance, research/evaluation, and information systems (this is described 

in greater detail later in the Aggregate Findings); and other prevention activities that cannot be 

classified under the six prevention strategies. 

5 DHHS Block Grant 45 CFR Section 96.130 (2005) 

25 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Nationally, Block Grant expenditures for CSAP prevention core strategies increased steadily from 

$328 million in FY 2000 to $372 million in FY 2003 (figure 2.20, table 2.11). The distribution of 

expenditures remained relatively stable during this period. Expenditures on education activities 

accounted for 35 to 40 percent of total expenditures during this period, and community-based 

process accounted for 17 to 19 percent of funding (figure 2.18–2.19). Problem identification and 

referral and alternatives each accounted for approximately 10 percent of total funding on core 

strategies. 

Figure 2.18. Expenditures of Block Grant Figure 2.19. Expenditures of Block Grant 

Funds by Core Strategy, FY 2000 Funds by Core Strategy, FY 2003 

Alternatives Education Education Alternatives 11% 40% 35% 10%

Problem Problem Identification Identification and Referral and Referral 11% 

9% 

Information Information 

Dissemination Community- Dissemination

14% Based 13% CommunitySection 1926 Based

Process Section 1926 

2% Other Other Process

19% 2% 19% 

Environmental 

2% Environmental 2% 

6% 

N=$328 million N=$372 million 5% 

Figure 2.20. National Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategies, FYs 2000–2003 

-

50,000,000 

100,000,000 

150,000,000 

200,000,000 

250,000,000 

300,000,000 

350,000,000 

400,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem Identification and 

Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

26 
2003 

Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Table 2.11. Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy, FYs 2000– 

Strategy 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 46,648,589 14 61,915,036 18 48,985,997 14 50,079,526 13 

Education 115,580,653 35 121,616,501 35 140,048,930 39 147,465,094 40 

Alternatives 34,603,930 11 36,503,534 10 33,982,248 10 38,653,401 10 

Problem Identification and 

Referral 37,035,536 11 40,184,461 12 37,499,214 11 31,987,165 9 

Community-Based Process 62,213,085 19 60,577,797 17 64,809,135 18 70,306,824 19 

Environmental 19,210,089 6 15,109,477 4 17,674,906 5 20,332,166 5 

Other 6,816,289 2 7,153,152 2 7,269,615 2 6,543,726 2 

Section 1926 5,608,827 2 5,819,171 2 5,983,249 2 6,929,228 2 

TOTAL* 327,716,998 100 348,879,129 100 356,253,294 100 372,297,130 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. Dollars spent may not be consistent from table to table due to State reporting 

discrepancies in the Block Grant applications. 

27 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Single State Agency Responsibilities 

The primary SSA responsibilities for treatment activities generally involve one or more of the 

following: 

• Conducting statewide needs assessment 

and planning of treatment services California -. Previously the SSA’s role in 

planning and implementing treatment services 

was largely fiduciary. However, the SSA has 

revised its role to one in which the State takes 

the lead in planning, focuses on actual program 

performance in its monitoring activities,

emphasizes evidence-based practices in its 

technical assistance, and continually improves all 

the systems that support treatment services. 

• Administration of State and Federal funds 

and compliance with funding requirements 

• Development of programs to address the 

needs of special populations 

• Delivery of technical assistance, training, 

and other workforce development 

activities for contracted service providers 

and affiliate agencies 

• Quality assurance of contracted services 

• Financial support to providers through a competitive bid, grants program, or contracts 

• Participation in planning groups and committees concerned with substance abuse, cooccurring substance use and mental disorders, and the treatment system

• Review of provider licensing, including fiscal and data systems reviews 

System Configuration Kansas – The Kansas treatment system 

has one point of entry for clients in the four 

Regional Alcohol and Drug Assessment 

Centers (RADACs). RADACs provide 

assessments, outreach, and clinical 

utilization reviews for persons and families 

needing substance abuse treatment 

services in their identified regions, among 

other things. 

Most States use a regional configuration to provide 

substance abuse treatment services. States administer 

services themselves, contract with regional or local 

entities to provide services, or contract with other entities 

to plan for, manage, and implement services. Most States 

have both publicly and privately funded treatment 

programs, and some States contract out all or most of 

their treatment services. Typically, the types of agencies 

that SSA contract with include the following: 

• County governments, which may provide direct services or contract out for services 

• Community-based programs 

• Hospitals 

• Not-for-profit organizations Iowa – Iowa has operated under a managed 

care system since FY 1996. Providers are

reimbursed using the SAPT Block Grant, and 

State appropriations are contracted to deliver 

substance abuse treatment services to an 

agreed-on minimum number of clients or 

covered lives. 

• For-profit organizations

• Managed care organizations 

• Correctional programs

• Operating while intoxicated programs

Generally, State-funded services are available to individuals who have low incomes, are indigent, or 

cannot afford treatment for alcohol or drug addiction. All States are required to provide a continuum 

28 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

of care that includes outreach, early identification and intervention, assessment, placement, and 

movement within appropriate levels of treatment, as well as continuing care and support services 

during the recovery phase. 

Treatment services are designed to maintain a cost-effective, high-quality continuum of care for 

rehabilitating individuals who abuse alcohol and drugs. Most States support basic services that 

include diagnostic evaluation, client motivational counseling, primary treatment, and followup 

counseling. Substance abuse treatment services generally include opioid substitution, intensive 

inpatient, long-term residential, outpatient, recovery house, involuntary, youth residential, and youth 

outpatient services. In addition, States support and promote peer-based programs, such as 

Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous to provide support during and after the primary 

treatment phase. 

Crisis services are typically short in Virginia – Virginia’s SSA does not provide direct

alcohol and drug treatment services. Rather, 

services are contracted to 40 community 

services boards (CSBs) located throughout the 

State, which provide direct substance abuse 

treatment services or contract for services 

through local providers. The CSBs vary in their 

composition, organizational structures, and array 

of services. 

duration and provided in inpatient or 

outpatient settings. Inpatient rehabilitation 

services include intensive evaluation and 

services in a medically supervised setting. 

Residential services offer intensive 

treatment and rehabilitation, community 

residential services, and supportive living 

services. Outpatient services are delivered 

at different levels of intensity based on the 

severity of problems presented and include 

medically supervised services, outpatient rehabilitation services, and nonmedically supervised 

outpatient services. Methadone treatment programs administer methadone by prescription in 

conjunction with a variety of other rehabilitative assistance. 

States’ target populations for services generally include those who are poor, underinsured, or 

uninsured. As stipulated in SAPT Block Grant requirements, individuals who are a high priority for 

admission to treatment services are pregnant women and people who inject drugs. Other 

populations targeted for treatment services include youth and adults with substance use problems in 

the criminal justice system, individuals with dual diagnoses, children at risk of substance abuse or 

with substance use problems, children under the supervision of the State, and older adults with 

substance use problems. Additionally, some States specify giving priorities to women on welfare, 

persons with communicable diseases, deaf and hard-of-hearing persons, homeless persons, and 

social services-involved parents. 

29 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Nationally, expenditures on treatment and rehabilitation activities increased from $2.7 billion in FY 

2000 to $3.2 billion in FY 2003 (figure 2.23, table 2.12)6

. The proportion of expenditures from the 

different funding sources remained stable during this time (figures 2.21–2.22). State funds 

consistently accounted for 46 to 48 percent of total expenditures on treatment (ranging from $1.3 

billion in FY 2000 to $1.5 billion in FY 2003). Block Grant funds accounted for 37 to 39 percent of 

total expenditures on treatment services, and Medicaid accounted for 10 to 12 percent of 

expenditures. 

Some States were awarded a Program of Regional and National Significance (PRNS) grant through 

CSAT, including Access to Recovery (ATR) and Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral and 

Treatment (SBIRT). Expenditures from these sources are generally reported by States as other 

Federal expenditures. Information about PRNS, ATR, and SBIRT are found in the Discretionary 

Funding section of the Aggregate Findings. 

Figure 2.21. Expenditures on Treatment Figure 2.22. Expenditures on Treatment 

Services by Funding Source, FY 2000 Services by Funding Source, FY 2003

Other Other Local Local 1% 1% 1% 1% 

Block Grant Block Grant 

36% 39% State State

46% 48% 

Other Medicaid Other Medicaid 

N=$2.7 billion Federal 10% Federal 12% 

N=$3.2 billion 3% 2% 

Figure 2.23. National Expenditures for Treatment Services by Funding Source, FYs 2000–2003 

(n=51) 

0 

500,000,000 

1,000,000,000 

1,500,000,000 

2,000,000,000 

2,500,000,000 

3,000,000,000 

3,500,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

Block Grant 

6 The Inventory does not include expenditure or financial information from private third-party payers such as commercial health 

insurers. 

30 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Table 2.12. Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Source s, 

FYs 2000–2003 (n=51) 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Block Grant 1,077,449,834 39 1,096,467,378 37 1,140,561,755 38 1,154,602,763 36 

Medicaid 262,729,447 10 306,360,660 10 322,250,498 11 387,480,029 12 

Other Federal 86,737,787 3 88,890,282 3 77,230,820 3 77,523,265 2 

State 1,284,639,457 46 1,449,613,033 48 1,420,400,518 47 1,479,740,375 48 

Local 23,674,923 1 31,198,832 1 35,668,926 1 35,783,850 1 

Other 18,172,925 1 31,024,658 1 38,780,304 1 33,300,449 1 

TOTAL* 2,753,404,373 100 3,003,554,843 100 3,034,892,821 100 3,168,430,731 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Most (48 percent) of the expenditures for treatment and rehabilitation services came from State 

funds in FY 2003 (range 13 percent to 75 percent), followed by the Block Grant, which accounted for 

36 percent of all treatment expenditures (range 15 to 87 percent). For some States, funds from 

Medicaid contributed to overall treatment expenditures (range 0 to 47 percent)(table 2.13). Specific 

findings include the following: 

• SSAs spending the highest proportions of State funds for treatment services, when 

compared with other States, included Connecticut (75 percent), the District of Columbia (75 

percent), New York (71 percent), and Delaware (69 percent). SSAs spending a smaller 

proportion of State funds on treatment included Wisconsin and Michigan (13 percent each), 

Texas (16 percent), and Tennessee and Alabama (19 percent each). 

• States spending the highest proportions of Block Grant funds on treatment services, when 

compared with other States, included Wisconsin (87 percent), Texas (83 percent), and 

Indiana (72 percent). States spending the smallest proportions of Block Grant funds on 

treatment included Wyoming (15 percent), District of Columbia (16 percent), and Connecticut 

(17 percent). 

• Half of the SSAs indicated spending Medicaid funds for treatment services. The SSAs 

spending a higher proportion of Medicaid funds for treatment services included Vermont (47 

percent), Oregon (43 percent), and Arizona (40 percent). Half of the SSAs did not indicate 

using Medicaid funds for treatment services. 

31 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Table 2.13. Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources, 

FY 2003 

State Block Grant Medicaid State All Other* Total 

$ % $ % $ % $ % $ 

Alabama 17,152,741 71 2,458,051 10 4,518,640 19 0 0 24,129,432 

Alaska 3,408,015 26 181,547 1 8,691,771 66 876,321 7 13,157,654 

Arizona 22,343,290 32 28,092,326 40 14,604,477 21 5,056,209 7 70,096,302 

Arkansas 9,192,448 60 0 0 4,641,505 30 1,446,874 9 15,280,827 

California 176,162,084 37 115,743,764 24 189,402,376 39 324,523 0 481,632,747 

Colorado 18,280,906 63 341,854 1 10,340,271 36 0 0 28,963,031 

Connecticut 11,418,255 17 0 0 49,250,158 75 4,593,164 7 65,261,577 

Delaware 4,469,272 31 0 0 10,061,665 69 0 0 14,530,937 

Dist. of Columbia 4,398,806 16 0 0 21,262,226 75 2,607,861 9 28,268,893 

Florida 63,319,338 41 7,490,671 5 64,407,293 42 18,642,148 12 153,859,450 

Georgia 33,490,123 42 0 0 46,378,871 58 0 0 79,868,994 

Hawaii 4,341,242 35 0 0 7,959,833 65 0 0 12,301,075 

Idaho 4,484,320 54 0 0 3,819,401 46 53,627 1 8,357,348 

Illinois 47,434,191 23 45,445,971 22 110,833,082 53 4,293,321 2 208,006,565 

Indiana 24,620,121 72 0 0 9,590,831 28 0 0 34,210,952 

Iowa 9,543,565 26 12,459,958 34 14,173,390 38 984,787 3 37,161,700 

Kansas 8,973,931 33 10,265,226 38 6,408,370 24 1,373,325 5 27,020,852 

Kentucky 15,197,700 58 0 0 10,892,858 42 77,509 0 26,168,067 

Louisiana 18,171,765 36 0 0 22,605,911 45 9,176,686 18 49,954,362 

Maine 4,870,969 24 7,535,560 37 7,756,371 38 181,991 1 20,344,891 

Maryland 22,480,317 23 1,509,383 2 60,455,542 63 11,785,235 12 96,230,477 

Massachusetts 23,660,678 33 0 0 45,562,409 63 3,047,432 4 72,270,519 

Michigan 42,021,077 49 28,144,755 33 11,334,531 13 4,380,189 5 85,880,552 

Minnesota 16,324,664 18 2,014,998 2 56,866,067 61 17,582,485 19 92,788,214 

Mississippi 9,897,947 69 0 0 4,088,372 28 373,178 3 14,359,497 

Missouri 19,841,893 29 22,202,423 33 24,292,141 36 1,098,112 2 67,434,569 

Montana 4,913,384 45 1,200,971 11 3,541,745 32 1,257,400 12 10,913,500 

Nebraska 5,545,248 31 2,109,870 12 9,969,310 55 426,453 2 18,050,881 

Nevada 8,999,740 71 0 0 3,609,093 28 121,573 1 12,730,406 

New Hampshire 4,895,715 54 0 0 4,186,535 46 63,332 1 9,145,582 

New Jersey 32,660,983 36 0 0 55,445,770 61 2,602,358 3 90,709,111 

New Mexico 5,882,851 26 0 0 14,074,316 63 2,246,215 10 22,203,382 

New York 83,470,927 23 0 0 253,564,695 71 20,739,569 6 357,775,191 

North Carolina 25,017,161 33 0 0 48,371,348 64 2,133,607 3 75,522,116 

North Dakota 3,970,641 27 3,313,330 22 6,690,061 45 900,072 6 14,874,104 

Ohio 47,461,285 36 34,174,236 26 47,325,308 36 1,248,436 1 130,209,265 

Oklahoma 13,341,630 37 189,727 1 19,786,536 56 2,309,640 6 35,627,533 

Oregon 12,073,630 30 17,236,406 43 10,375,167 26 714,660 2 40,399,863 

Pennsylvania 41,341,898 56 0 0 26,653,952 36 5,287,552 7 73,283,402 

Rhode Island 4,738,905 26 5,099,558 28 8,400,066 46 23,367 0 18,261,896 

South Carolina 15,429,544 57 875,635 3 7,123,678 26 3,520,034 13 26,948,891 

South Dakota 3,450,509 46 0 0 3,056,701 40 1,047,428 14 7,554,638 

Tennessee 19,452,248 67 0 0 5,536,445 19 4,073,317 14 29,062,010 

Texas 87,289,044 83 0 0 16,934,997 16 1,145,926 1 105,369,967 

Utah 12,690,265 56 0 0 10,059,708 44 0 0 22,749,973 

Vermont 3,695,916 23 7,368,676 47 4,332,636 27 433,312 3 15,830,540 

Virginia 29,852,916 43 0 0 39,859,035 57 0 0 69,711,951 

Washington 24,587,971 24 31,346,544 31 44,325,677 43 1,916,490 2 102,176,682 

West Virginia 6,468,098 46 0 0 7,532,320 54 0 0 14,000,418 

Wisconsin 19,496,217 87 0 0 2,934,552 13 0 0 22,430,769 

Wyoming 2,376,379 15 678,589 4 5,854,362 38 6,442,119 42 15,351,449 

SOURCE: FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

32 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Per Capita Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Treatment Services 

On average, Block Grant funding for treatment and Figure 2.24. Block Grant Expenditures on 

rehabilitation activities increased steadily for the Treatment Services Per Capita, FYs 2001–2003 United States as a whole, from $3.82 per capita in 

FY 2000 to $3.97 per capita in FY 2003 (figure 4.00 

2.24). Examination of individual State-level data 

show that States varied greatly in their Block 

Grant expenditures per capita on treatment 

services (range $2.97 to $ 7.89 for FY 2003). 

Specific findings for FY 2003 include the 

following: 

Dollars per Capita3.95 

3.90 

3.85 

3.80 

3.75 

3.70 

• States with the highest rates of Block FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Grant funding per capita on treatment 

services were the District of Columbia 

($7.89 per capita), North Dakota ($6.27), Vermont ($5.97), and Delaware ($5.46). 

• States with the lowest rates of Block Grant funding per capita were North Carolina ($2.97 per 

capita), New Mexico ($3.13), Nebraska ($3.19), and Minnesota ($3.23). See figure 2.25 and 

Appendix C for details. 

Figure 2.25. Block Grant Expenditures Per Capita on Treatment Services, FY 2003 

SOURCE: FY 2006 SAPT Block Grant applications and U.S. Census estimates 

33 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

None 

Indicated 

Alcohol 

35% 

Admissions 

States are requested to complete Form 7a, Treatment Utilization Matrix, as part of their Block Grant 

application. This form instructs States to indicate the number of clients admitted with a primary 

diagnosis of alcohol or drug use by type of treatment modality. Of the 50 States and the District of 

Columbia, 48 submitted this form in their 2005 SAPT Block Grant indication7

. 

Treatment programs in the 47 responding States Figure 2.26. Percentage of Admissions by totaled more than 2 million admissions. Of these, Primary Diagnosis, FY 2002 half were reported as having a primary diagnosis 

of drug problems and more than a third were 

reported as having an alcohol problem for their 

primary diagnosis (figure 2.26). Drug 

49% The majority of admissions (66 percent) were for 

ambulatory (outpatient) treatment and included 

methadone and non-methadone outpatient, 

intensive outpatient, and detoxification treatment 16%

n=2.1 million admissions services (figures 2.27–2.28, table 2.14). Of these 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application, admissions, the largest number (nearly 1.1 

Form 7a; reported data from State FY 2002 million) were for outpatient (non-methadone) 

treatment. 

Eighteen percent of admissions nationwide were for detoxification treatment services (24-hour care) 

and included hospital inpatient and free-standing residential treatment. Among the detoxification 

services, most (nearly 350,000 admissions) were admitted for free-standing residential care. 

Sixteen percent of admissions were for Figure 2.27. Percentage of Admissions by residential treatment services and Primary Diagnosis, FY 2002 included hospital inpatient and short- and 

long-term residential treatment services. 

Of these, most admissions were for short- Detoxification 

18% term residential treatment (176,000 

admissions), followed by long-term Outpatient

residential treatment (156,000 66%

admissions). Residential 

16% 

n=2.1 million admissions 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application, 

Form 7a; reported data from State FY 2002 

7 States not submitting information included Alaska, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

34 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Figure 2.28. National Number of Admissions by Type of Care* (N=21 million), FY 2002 

-

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

Hospital inpatient

Free-standing residential 

Hospital inpatient

Short-term residential

Long-term residential

Outpatient (methadone)

Outpatient (non-methadone)

Intensive outpatient

Detoxification (outpatient) 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application, Form 7a; reported data for State FY 2002 

*47 States completed Form 7a in the FY 2005 Block Grant application and are included in this table. States not 

included were Alaska, the District of Columbia, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

Table 2.14. Total Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care, FY 2002 (n=48 States) 

Total Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

Type of Care Total Alcohol Drug Not 

Problems Problems Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 10,138 11,672 1,156 22,966 

Free-standing residential 159,640 140,733 48,188 348,561 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 2,655 2,869 742 6,266 

Short-term residential 52,101 90,893 33,234 176,228 

Long-term residential 36,910 85,486 33,758 156,154 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 1,278 73,561 17,789 92,628 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 409,327 517,720 164,154 1,091,201 

Intensive outpatient 57,264 97,826 30,766 185,856 

Detoxification (outpatient) 1,588 28,477 26 30,091 

TOTAL 730,901 1,049,237 329,813 2,109,951 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application, Form 7a; reported data for State FY 2002 

35 
0-4.9% 

5.0-9.9%

10.0-14.9%15.0-19.9%20.0-24.9%25.0-29.9%30.0-34.9%35.0-39.9%

40% and above 

Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Co-Occurring Disorders 

The Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) provides information on the demographic and substance 

abuse characteristics of the Nation’s substance abuse treatment facility admissions, as reported 

through individual State administrative data systems. All 50 States and the District of Columbia 

submitted data for 2002. Thirty-seven States reported whether clients admitted for substance abuse 

treatment also had a presenting psychiatric problem. Using data from the 37 States, calculations 

(with imputation) were conducted to estimate the rates of persons admitted with co-occurring 

psychiatric problems and substance abuse issues for all States. (See Appendix D for details of the 

methods used to calculate the rates of co-occurring disorders). 

When grouping the States by their average rate of co-occurring disorder (in 5 percent increments), 

calculations showed that one-quarter of the States had average rates of co-occurring disorders 

between 15 and 20 percent and nearly one-fifth of States had average rates of co-occurring 

disorders between 20 and 25 percent (range 0 to 68 percent)(figure 2.29). 

The State rates of co-occurring disorders varied only slightly when separating out clients with a 

primary diagnosis of alcohol abuse from those with a primary diagnosis of drug abuse in combination 

with alcohol. Appendix E provides State details. 

Figures 2.30–2.31 show the average rate of co-occurring disorder among treatment clients by State 

for clients admitted as using alcohol only and for those admitted for using alcohol in combination with 

other drugs. 

Figure 2.29. Number of States by Rate of Co-Occurring 

Disorders Among Treatment Clients, FY 2002 

0 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

Number of States 

Average Rate of Co-Occurring Disorders

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002 

36 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Figure 2.30. Rate of Co-Occurring Disorders Among Persons Admitted for Alcohol Abuse , 2002

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

Figure 2.31. Rate of Co-Occurring Disorders Among Persons Admitted for Illicit Drug Abuse , 2002

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

37 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Treatment Gap 

Alcohol: The definition of a person needing, but not receiving, treatment for an alcohol problem is 

that he or she meets the criteria for abuse of or dependence on alcohol according to the Diagnostic 

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV TR), but has not 

received specialty treatment for an alcohol problem in the past year. 

The percentage of persons aged 12 or older needing, but not receiving, treatment for alcohol 

problems was 7.2 percent in 2002–20038

. Persons aged 18 to 25 had the highest rate of needing, 

but not receiving, treatment (16.9 percent). When examining State averages for persons aged 12 or 

older, the States with the lowest rates of persons needing, but not receiving, treatment for alcohol 

abuse or dependence were Tennessee (5.7 percent), Alabama (5.8 percent), and New Jersey (5.8 

percent). The States with the highest rates were Montana (10.0 percent), South Dakota (9.6 

percent), and Nebraska (9.5 percent). Figure 2.32 and Appendix F provide details by State. 

Figure 2.32. Percentages of Persons Needing, but Not Receiving, Treatment for Alcohol Use in 

Past Year Among Persons Aged 12 or Older, by State, 2002–2003 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; data are combined for 2002 and 2003 

8 www.drugabusestatistics.samhsa.gov/2k3State/ch5.htm 

38 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Illicit Drugs: The definition of a person needing, but not receiving, treatment for an illicit drug 

problem is that he or she meets the criteria for abuse of or dependence on illicit drugs according to 

the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision 9

 but has 

not received specialty treatment for an illicit drug problem in the past year. Specialty treatment is 

treatment received at a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility (inpatient or outpatient), hospital 

(inpatient only), or mental health center

10. 

The percentage of persons aged 12 or older needing, but not receiving, treatment for illicit drug use 

problems was 2.7 percent in 2002–2003. Persons aged 18 to 25 had the highest rate of needing, but 

not receiving, treatment (7.5 percent). When examining State averages for persons aged 12 or older, 

the States with the lowest rates of persons needing, but not receiving, treatment for illicit drug abuse 

or dependence were Alabama, Kansas, and Pennsylvania (at 2.2 percent each). The States with the 

highest rates were New Mexico (3.5 percent), Vermont (3.4 percent), and Rhode Island (3.2 

percent). Figure 2.33 and Appendix G provide details by State. 

Figure 2.33. Percentages of Person Needing, but Not Receiving, Treatment for Illicit Drug Use in 

Past Year Among Persons Aged 12 or Older, by State, 2002–2003 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; data are combined for 2002 and 2003 

9 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. 

Washington DC, 2000 10 SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, combined data for 2002 and 2003 

39 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities

Planning and Needs Assessment Activities 

States are moving toward conducting comprehensive needs assessments that use a variety of 

primary and secondary data sources to determine their populations’ need for services, identify 

resources and gaps in services, and gauge provider and community readiness and capacity to 

deliver services. States are also becoming more sophisticated in prioritizing their needs and 

developing plans on how to best meet them. Brief descriptions about how States conduct needs 

assessments and plan for services are below. To see examples of such activities and State 

highlights see Appendix H. 

Conducting Needs Assessments 

Most States use national standardized instruments to assess ATOD prevention and treatment needs 

that include questions about ATOD use, risk and protective factors, and consequences related to 

ATOD use11. For most States, these data provide a statewide estimate of need at the State level 

only. Some States have enhanced the survey methodology and/or developed their own instruments 

so that they also provide estimates at a regional, county, or local level to facilitate regional or local 

planning. 

States also appear to make good use of information from other sources including archival and social 

indicator data from other State and local agencies, program monitoring information, and both formal 

and informal input from community members, providers, local officials, and members from target 

populations. 

States generally make the needs assessment findings available to their substate entities, local 

providers, and the general public. Methods used to disseminate findings include posting them on 

State Web sites, creating detailed printed reports, and distributing them via CD-ROM. 

Developing Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Prevention and Treatment Plans 

All States conduct ATOD prevention and treatment planning at some level, yet the planning 

processes and resulting plans vary considerably in scope and content. For some States, planning 

for prevention and treatment services is a combined process within the SSA resulting in an 

integrated ATOD prevention and treatment plan. For some States, plans are the result of active 

collaboration with other State agencies and address a variety of public health issues and health 

promotion concerns, in addition to ATOD prevention and treatment. Some States may have a standalone strategic plan for prevention and another one for treatment. Some States have the active 

involvement of the Governor’s office in their ATOD planning, and in others a structured planning 

process is mandated by the State legislature to meet a need and/or achieve a desired outcome. 

Some States require planning by their substate entities, and others require comprehensive planning 

from their providers. 

11 The national instruments and/or data sources most cited include the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, National Survey on Drug Use 

and Health, Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, Youth Tobacco Survey, 

Kids Count Survey, and State Treatment Needs Assessment Project data. 

40 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Evaluation Activities 

States use a variety of methods to monitor and evaluate their ATOD prevention and treatment 

policies, programs, and strategies, and they assess their providers at a variety of levels including 

programmatic, fiscal, and compliance and for achievement of goals, objectives, and client outcomes. 

States are primarily interested in determining whether programs are doing what they said they would 

do, serving the numbers of persons in the anticipated strategies, and having an intermediate or longterm impact. Brief descriptions about how States monitor and evaluate services are below. To see 

examples of such activities and State highlights, see Appendix H. 

Evaluating Outcomes 

States are moving increasingly toward evaluating the outcomes of their services, strategies, 

programs, and policies. Although most States have a formal process for monitoring their substance 

abuse prevention and treatment services, not as many are evaluating the long-term results, or 

outcomes, of their funded programs and strategies. While some States are adept at measuring 

program-specific outcomes, others are not. The capacity to measure outcomes is becoming more of 

an issue as States are increasingly being required to collect and analyze population or communitylevel outcome data. As States move toward collecting and analyzing population-level data, States 

will increasingly be able to link needs assessment and evaluation activities. 

Computerized Management Information Systems 

Many States have developed and/or use administrative databases to collect information about the 

persons served, strategies employed, and other characteristics of their ATOD prevention and 

treatment systems. Such systems allow States to describe the population served, treatment or 

prevention strategies delivered, length of delivery, and, depending on the sophistication of the 

evaluation methodology, performance outcomes. 

Training and Technical Assistance Activities 

All States indicated wanting to maintain a well-qualified and trained workforce to deliver prevention 

and treatment services. Most States do not have a written and formal workforce development plan, 

but many SSAs will only contract with provider agencies that have staff development requirements, 

require certification or credentialing of provider staff, and offer or support a variety of trainings, 

workshops, conferences, and institutes. In addition, SSAs collaborate with other agencies such as 

the Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies (CAPTs), the Addiction Technology 

Transfer Centers (ATTCs), colleges, universities, and other training entities to strengthen their 

workforce. SSAs also provide technical assistance to substate entities and providers to enhance 

skills in delivering effective prevention and treatment services and offer Web-based resources. 

States also strengthen the prevention and treatment workforces through other methods such as by 

maintaining a resource clearinghouse or library, working with the college and/or university system to 

develop the workforce, and using designated Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resources 

(RADAR) Network Centers to disseminate information and provide assistance. To see examples of 

training and technical assistance activities and State highlights see Appendix H. 

41 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Nationally, Block Grant funding for resource development activities increased from $64 million in FY 

2000 to $74 million in FY 2003 (figure 2.36, table 2.15). There were slight changes in the distribution 

of funds: expenditures on quality assurance and program development decreased slightly during this 

period, from 23 to 19 percent and from 17 to 14 percent respectively, and expenditures on training 

and information systems increased from 13 to 18 percent and from 16 to 19 percent, respectively 

(figures 2.34–2.35). 

Figure 2.34. Expenditures of Block Grant Figure 2.35. Expenditures of Block Grant 

Funds by Resource Development Activity, Funds by Resource Development Activity, 

FY 2000 FY 2003 

Information Planning, Planning, 

Coordination, Information Coordination, Systems

16% and Needs Systems and Needs 

Assessment 19% Assessment 

Research and 19% 

Research and 

18% 

Evaluation

Evaluation 10% Quality Quality 8% Assurance Program Assurance Program 19% Development 23% 

Development 17% 

Training 14% Training 

Education 13% 18% 

3% Education 

N=$64 million 3% N=$74 million 

Figure 2.36. Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity, FYs 2000– 

2003 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, and 

Needs Assessment 

42 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Table 2.15. Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development 

Activity, FYs 2000–2003 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

and Needs Assessment 11,302,508 18 13,041,761 20 12,300,231 18 14,248,411 19 

Quality Assurance 15,249,896 23 14,400,483 22 16,065,296 24 13,701,459 19 

Training 8,008,501 13 9,045,182 14 9,624,839 14 13,152,565 18 

Education 1,593,711 3 2,060,864 3 1,952,244 3 1,877,090 3 

Program Development 10,711,161 17 10,897,592 16 9,370,367 14 10,273,517 14 

Research and Evaluation 6,547,267 10 5,617,797 8 4,922,473 7 5,706,620 8 

Information Systems 10,284,749 16 11,541,230 17 13,731,384 20 14,986,691 19 

TOTAL* 63,697,793 100 66,604,909 100 67,966,834 100 73,946,353 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. Dollars spent may not be consistent from table to table due to State reporting 

discrepancies in the Block Grant applications. 

43 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding

In addition to dispersing Block Grant funds to States and territories, SAMHSA supports substance 

abuse prevention and treatment efforts through a broad range of the competitive discretionary grants 

awards. Discretionary grants permit the Federal Government, according to specific authorizing 

legislation, to exercise judgment (discretion) in selecting the applicant/recipient organization through 

a competitive grant process. Several of the grants awarded through CSAP or Center for Substance 

Abuse Treatment (CSAT) support the National Drug Control Strategy and are designated as PRNS. 

These programs include the SPF SIG, ATR, and SBIRT, which are described later in this report. 

During the grants re-engineering process in 2003, all of SAMHSA’s discretionary grant programs 

were reviewed and most were placed in one of the following four broad categories for funding12. 

• Services Grants address gaps in services and/or increase the applicant’s ability to meet the 

needs of specific populations and/or specific geographical areas with serious, emerging 

problems. 

• Infrastructure Grants increase the capacity of the mental health and/or substance abuse 

service systems through needs assessments, the coordination of funding streams, and/or the 

development of provider networks, workforces, data infrastructure, and so on. 

• Best-Practices Planning and Implementation Grants help grantees identify substance 

abuse treatment and prevention and mental health practices that could effectively meet local 

needs, develop plans for implementation of these practices, and pilot-test practices before 

full-scale implementation. 

• Service -to-Science Grants support and evaluate innovative practices that are already in 

place. 

The eligible recipients vary by grant award. Some grants are eligible to specific entities, such as the 

Governor’s office or community coalitions, and others are available to a variety or wider range of 

entities. Most discretionary grant programs are for multiyear projects, but some may be for 1 year 

only. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

In FY 2004 CSAP dispersed monies through 23 discretionary grants programs. These programs 

addressed a variety of prevention areas, including enhancing an agency’s infrastructure to deliver 

prevention services, prevention of specific drugs such as methamphetamine and ecstasy, trainings, 

conferences and resource-related grants, and combined substance abuse and HIV prevention. 

Overall, CSAP awarded 994 awards to the 50 States and the District of Columbia in FY 2004, 

totaling nearly $193 million (table 2.16). 

12 http://alt.samhsa.gov/samhsa_news/VolumeXII_1/article4_1.htm 

44 
2004 

Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Table 2.16. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Grants Awarded to States, FY 

CSAP Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Average $ 

Amount per 

Award 

American Indian/Alaska Native National Resource Center 1 1,047,050 1,047,050 

Anti-Drug Coalition 1 994,100 994,100 

Centers for Application of Prevention Technology 1 337,588 337,588 

Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy & Other Club Drugs 

Prevention Services 17 4,970,052 292,356 

CSAP 2004 Earmarks 15 3,588,703 239,247 

Drug Free Communities 717 63,448,406 88,492 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 23 1,519,505 66,065 

Emergency Response 1 50,000 50,000 

Family Strengthening 4 1,657,521 414,380 

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome / Effects 1 5,777,580 5,777,580 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Expansion Cooperative Agreements 17 1,081,812 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Youth Services Cooperative 

Agreements 15 954,540 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 50 16,600,860 332,017 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 4 Services 21 7,151,074 340,527 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 45 11,250,000 250,000 

Iowa Methamphetamine Prevention Sole Source 1 399,949 399,949 

Prevention of Methamphetamine and Inhalant Use 14 4,720,079 337,149 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 6 150,000 25,000 

SE Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies 1 481,920 481,920 

Single Sole Source Grant to the Iowa Department of 

Public Health 2004 1 200,000 200,000 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreements* 13 24,767,318 1,905,178 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants* 17 39,966,405 2,350,965 

Youth Transition into the Workplace 12 1,799,771 149,981 

TOTAL 994 192,914,233 

SOURCE: www.shamhsa.gov

*Grants were open only to Governors’ offices of SSAs.

45 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Examples of Discretionary Awards for Prevention 

Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy and Other Club Drugs Prevention Services 

The Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy and Other Club Drugs Prevention Services grants are 

intended to expand and strengthen effective, culturally appropriate ecstasy and other club drugs 

prevention services at the State and local levels. Grant recipients were SSAs or equivalent agencies 

of tribal governments. Although eligibility is limited to governmental entities, these governmental 

entities are required to partner with local community organizations (public or private) in developing 

and implementing the grant project. 

CSAP granted 17 awards for a total of nearly $5 million to 11 State and Native American tribal 

governments to prevent ecstasy and other club drug use (table 2.17). The dollar amount awarded to 

the State/entity was a standard amount of $292,356 per award, although some States received more 

than one award. 

Table 2.17. Number of Awards and Amount 

Awarded for the Cooperative Agreement for 

Ecstasy and Other Club Drugs Prevention 

Services Grant by State, FY 2004 

State Number of 

Awards 

Total $ 

Amount 

Arizona 1 292,356 

California* 2 584,712 

Connecticut 1 292,356 

Florida 2 584,712 

Hawaii 1 292,356 

Maryland 1 292,356 

Massachusetts 1 292,356 

Mississippi 1 292,356 

Oregon 2 584,712 

Pennsylvania 1 292,356 

Texas 4 1,169,424 

TOTAL 17 4,970,052 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

*Of the two awards to California, one went to the California 

Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs and one went to the 

Jamul Indian Village. 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreement for Community-Based Action 

The SIGs call for Governors to develop and implement a comprehensive statewide substance abuse 

prevention strategy to optimize the use of State and Federal substance abuse prevention funding 

streams and resources including the 20-percent primary prevention set-aside from the SAPT Block 

Grant, the funds from this SIG program, and the additional financial support from Federal agencies, 

States, and communities. The SIG program has three goals: (1) coordination of funding, (2) 

development of a comprehensive State prevention system, and (3) assistance in measuring 

progress in reducing substance use by establishing targets for measures included in the NSDUH. 

CSAP awarded 13 State Incentive Cooperative Agreements for Community-Based Action to 13 

Governors’ or District offices (figure 2.37). The grant amount ranged from $300,000 (to the District of 

Columbia) to $4 million (to California and Texas)(table 2.18). 

46 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Figure 2.37. State Incentive Cooperative Agreement for Community-Based Action, FY 2004 

Table 2.18. State and Award Amounts for 

the State Incentive Cooperative Agreement 

for Community-Based Action Grant, FY 

2004 

State Total $ Amount 

Alabama 3,000,000 

California 4,000,000 

Connecticut 750,000 

District of Columbia 300,000 

Michigan 2,967,318 

Montana 750,000 

New Mexico 750,000 

Nevada 3,000,000 

New York 750,000 

Ohio 3,000,000 

Oregon 750,000 

Texas 4,000,000 

Utah 750,000 

TOTAL 24,767,318 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

47 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants (SPF SIGs) 

The SPF SIG program is one of SAMHSA’s Infrastructure Grant programs. SAMHSA’s Infrastructure 

Grant programs support an array of activities to help grantees build a solid foundation for delivering 

and sustaining effective substance abuse and/or mental health services. The SPF SIGs, in 

particular, provide funding to States to implement SAMHSA’s SPF to: 

• Prevent the onset and reduce the progression of substance abuse, including childhood and 

underage drinking 

• Reduce substance abuse-related problems in communities 

• Build prevention capacity and infrastructure at the State and community levels 

This program helps States enhance the prevention infrastructure and service delivery system 

throughout the State. Eligibility for the SPF SIG is limited to the immediate office of the Governor in 

those States and territories that receive the SAPT Block Grant. 

CSAP awarded 17 SPF SIGs to 17 Governors’ offices (figure 2.38). Each award was in the amount 

of $2,350,965 (CSAP’s total award for the 17 States was nearly $40 million). 

Figure 2.38. Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants, FY 2004 

48 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Other Discretionary Awards to Single State Agencies 

SSAs, in addition to other types of entities, were eligible to apply for other discretionary grant 

programs, may have received a sole source award, or were the sole recipient of a grant project. 

These awards could be awarded for a single year or multiple years. Highlights of these awards for 

FY 2004 include the following: 

• Alaska received nearly $5.8 million for the Comprehensive, Integrated Approach to Fetal 

Alcohol Syndrome: Prevention, Intervention, and Service Delivery, a 5-year congressionally 

earmarked project that is jointly funded by CSAP and CSAT to provide prevention activities 

including education and training of service providers, public school students and their 

families, and the general public. Interventions will include family planning, alcohol treatment, 

and other services for women of childbearing age at high risk for having a child with Fetal 

Alcohol Syndrome/alcohol-related birth defects. 

• The Iowa Department of Public Health was awarded the Iowa Methamphetamine 

Prevention Sole Source award for nearly $400,000 to develop a prevention initiative based 

on a CSAP model program. Schools and communities receiving funding will have a choice of 

three model programs: Reconnecting Youth, Strengthening Families, and Life Skills Training. 

This is part of a 3-year grant. 

• The Iowa Department of Public Health was awarded the Single Sole Source Grant to the 

Iowa Department of Public Health for $200,000 for a 1-year award (no description available). 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

In FY 2004 CSAT dispursed monies through 30 discretionary grants programs. These programs 

addressed a variety of areas, including enhancing an agency’s capacity to deliver treatment 

services; providing treatment to specific populations such as homeless persons, pregnant/postpartum women, or persons with co-occurring disorders; and enhancing data systems and other 

infrastructure to improve delivery of treatment services. Overall, CSAT awarded 564 awards to the 

50 States and the District of Columbia, totaling nearly $344 million (table 2.19). 

49 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

Table 2.19. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Grants Awarded to States, 

FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grants 

Number 

of 

Awards 

Total $ Amount 

Average $ 

Amount per 

Award 

Access to Recovery* 15 99,410,000 6,627,333 

Addiction Technology Transfer Center 14 9,111,338 650,810 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 41 15,490,218 377,810 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 24 6,292,653 262,194 

DATA Physician Clinical Support System 1 499,681 499,681 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 38 9,176,223 241,480 

Grants for Accreditation of Opioid Treatment Providers 4 750,000 187,500 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 68 32,427,885 476,881 

Iowa Methamphetamine Treatment Sole Source, 2003 1 499,963 499,963 

Methamphetamine Populations 6 2,965,536 494,256 

NASADAD State Collaborative Activity 1 500,000 500,000 

Pregnant/Post-Partum Women 20 9,848,190 492,410 

Recovery Community Service 21 5,528,195 263,247 

Recovery Community Support - Facilitating 3 1,050,000 350,000 

Recovery Community Support - Recovery 5 1,747,559 349,512 

Rehabilitation and Restitution 1 1,350,000 1,350,000 

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment 17 7,829,723 460,572 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 8 386,700 48,338 

Sole Source for Hawaii 1 297,967 297,967 

State Data Infrastructure* 32 3,199,960 99,999 

State Targeted Capacity Expansion (TCE) Screening, 

Brief Intervention, Referral, and Treatment* 7 22,198,826 3,171,261 

Strengthening Access and Retention* 13 2,528,580 194,506 

Strengthening Communities , Youth 12 8,454,272 704,523 

Targeted Capacity, HIV/AIDS 138 63,073,333 457,053 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 36 16,803,029 466,751 

TCE Innovative Treatment 6 2,940,703 490,117 

TCE Minority Populations 6 2,999,755 499,959 

TCE Rural Populations 6 2,994,695 499,116 

Treatment of Persons With Co-Occurring SubstanceRelated and Mental Disorders* 7 7,404,167 1,057,738 

Youth Offender Reentry Program 2004 12 5,821,671 485,139 

TOTAL 564 343,580,822 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov

*Grants were open only to Governors’ offices or SSAs.

50 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Examples of Discretionary Awards for Treatment 

Access to Recovery (ATR) 

ATR is a Presidential initiative promoting the use of vouchers to provide client choice among 

substance abuse treatment and recovery support service providers. It is also intended to expand 

access to a comprehensive array of clinical treatment and recovery support options and increase 

substance abuse treatment capacity. Recipient organizations are limited to the chief executive 

officer (e.g., Governor) in the States, territories, and the District of Columbia or the head of a tribal 

organization. 

The way it works: When a person seeks

treatment, professionals assess the 

individual’s needs, offer a voucher for the 

level of care required, and refer the person 

to a variety of providers who can offer such

services. The individual then selects a 

provider and “pays” for the treatment with 

the voucher. The provider redeems the 

voucher through the organization 

administering the State’s program. 

ATR’s three key objectives are as follows:

1. Increase the Nation’s treatment capacity—States 

are required to broaden their base of providers.

2. Expand consumer choice—Nonprofit, proprietary, 

community-based, and faith-based programs that 

are licensed/certified by the States are eligible 

providers. 

3. Reward performance with financial incentives 

CSAT awarded 15 ATR grants totaling more than $99 million to 15 entities (figure 2.39). The award 

amounts ranged from nearly $1 million (Wyoming) to $8 million (awarded to 10 States). California 

received two ATR awards; one was awarded to the governor’s office and the other went to the 

California Rural Indian Health Board. 

Figure 2.39. Access to Recovery Awards, FY 2004 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

51 
Section II: Aggregate Findings Inventory of State Profiles 

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

The purpose of the SBIRT grant program is to expand Table 2.19. State and Award Amounts for and enhance State substance abuse treatment service the Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral, systems by expanding the State’s continuum of care to and Treatment Grant, FY 2004 include screening, brief intervention, referral, and brief 

treatment in general medical and other community 

settings. 

All States, territories, and federally recognized Indian 

tribes were eligible to apply, but the applicant must be the 

immediate State Governor’s office (for territories and 

Indian tribes, the office of the chief executive officer). 

CSAT awarded seven SBIRT grants to States. Six of the 

seven awards were for approximately $3 million, and one 

was for $2 million (Alaska)(table 2.19). SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

State Total $ Amount 

Alaska 2,176,494 

California 3,331,238 

Illinois 3,346,000 

New Mexico 3,346,000 

Pennsylvania 3,307,430 

Texas 3,346,000 

Washington 3,345,664 

TOTAL 22,198,826 

State Data Infrastructure 

The primary goal of this program is to help SSAs report performance measures for planned SAPT 

Block Grant/Performance Partnerships Grants (PPGs). Funds assist States, in collaboration with one 

another and with CSAT, to develop administrative data infrastructure for collecting and reporting 

PPG and related information. Funds can also be used to train State staff to collect and analyze 

performance data. 

Applicants are limited to SSAs. 

CSAT awarded more than $3 million to 32 SSAs (figure 2.40). Each award was for approximately 

$100,000. 

State Incentive Grants (COSIG) for Treatment of Persons With Co-Occurring SubstanceRelated and Mental Disorders 

SAMHSA’s Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) and CSAT jointly fund this program for States 

to develop and enhance the infrastructure of States and their treatment service systems to increase 

the capacity for accessible, effective, comprehensive, Table 2.20. State and Award Amounts for 

coordinated/integrated, and evidence-based treatment the State Incentive Grant for Treatment of 

services to persons with co-occurring substance use and Persons with Co-Occurring Substancemental disorders and their families. Related and Mental Disorders, FY 2004 

Only the immediate State Governors’ offices were eligible 

for this grant because they have the greatest potential to 

provide the multiagency leadership to develop the State’s 

infrastructure/treatment service systems. 

CSAT/CMHS awarded seven COSIG grants to seven 

States for a total of more than $7 million for FY 2004 as part 

of a 5-year grant. Awards ranged from more than $900,000 

(Missouri) to approximately $1 million (five of seven 

States)(table 2.20). SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

State Total $ Amount 

Alaska 1,071,750 

Arkansas 1,100,000 

Hawaii 1,009,743 

Louisiana 1,095,298 

Missouri 931,722 

Pennsylvania 1,095,654 

Texas 1,100,000 

TOTAL 7,404,167 

52 
Inventory of State Profiles Section II: Aggregate Findings 

Figure 2.40. State Data Infrastructure Awards, FY 2004 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Other Discretionary Awards to Single State Agencies 

SSAs, in addition to other types of entities, were eligible to apply for other discretionary grant 

programs, may have received a sole source award, or were the sole recipient of a grant project. 

These awards could be awarded for a single year or multiple years. Highlights of these awards for 

FY 2004 included the following: 

• The Iowa Department of Public Health was awarded the Iowa Methamphetamine 

Treatment Sole Source grant for nearly $500,000 to expand the service capacity for adults 

who abuse methamphetamine in the central Iowa area through targeted case management 

and to assist clients in accessing treatment and continuing care services. 

• The Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services was awarded $1.35 

million for Rehabilitation and Restitution. Although awarded to the State, this program will 

operate in Cuyahoga County in collaboration with the county’s Department of Justice Affairs. 

This program will provide substance abuse treatment and supportive services for more than 

5 years to persons who are charged with certain first-time nonviolent felonies to improve 

treatment retention and outcome, reduce the stigma of past substance abuse and 

nonviolent criminal activity, and reduce criminal activity. The project promotes multisystem 

collaboration and provides linkages to substance treatment, educational and vocational 

services, restitution and community services, and gender-specific family support services. 

• Nebraska was awarded a SAMHSA Conference Grant in the amount of $50,000 to provide 

the most current information on problem gambling and co-occurring substance abuse from 

the leading experts in the field. 

53 
Section III: Explanation and Layout of State Profiles

The State profiles are organized in the following 

manner: 

State Contact Information 

[1] The name and contact information for the 

Single State Agency (SSA) director is presented. 

This person is the individual designated as the 

primary contact for the State alcohol, tobacco, 

and other drug (ATOD) agency. 

Structure and Function 

[2] This narrative portion describes the overall 

structure, role, and responsibilities of the State 

agencies that are charged with receiving and 

administering the Substance Abuse Prevention 

and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant from the 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA) and other ATOD 

monies. Information summarizes the State 

hierarchical structure of ATOD services in the 

State. 

1

3 

2 

[3] An organization chart that depicts the SSA hierarchical structure is also presented. 

Funding Overview 

[4] This section discusses overall ATOD 

expenditures in the State for FYs 2000 

through 2003 broken down by sources 

(including Block Grant, Medicaid, other 

Federal, State, local, and other source 

contributions). 

[5] Pie charts depict total SSA expenditures 

for FYs 2000 and 2003 broken down by 

funding source in terms of each funding 

source as a proportion of overall funds. 

[6] The bar graph shows SSA expenditures 

broken down by funding source in terms of 

dollar amount for FYs 2000 through 2003. 

[7] The table depicts SSA expenditures 

broken down by funding source in exact 

dollar amounts for FYs 2000 through 2003. 

4 

6 

5 

7 

55 
Section III: Explanation and Layout of State Profiles Inventory of State Profiles 

Following this section, with an identical 

layout of charts, graphs, and tables, are 

sections with the following information: 

8 • Overall ATOD expenditures from all 

funding sources by activity 

(including treatment and 

rehabilitation, prevention, 

tuberculosis, HIV early intervention, 

and administration) for FYs 2000 

through 2003 

• SAPT Block Grant expenditures by 

activity for FYs 2000 through 2003 

• Expenditure of State funds by 

activity for FYs 2000 through 2003 

10 Prevention Services 

[8] A narrative section provides a brief 

description of the State’s prevention system, 

services, and strategies. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

[9] This section describes prevention 11 

expenditures in the State for FYs 2000-2003 

broken down by funding source (including 

Block Grant, State, other Federal, Medicaid, 

local, and other source contributions). 

[10] Pie charts depict prevention expenditures 12 

for FYs 2000 and 2003 broken down by type 

of funding source in terms of proportion of 

overall prevention funds. 

[11] The bar graph shows prevention 

expenditures from FYs 2000 through 2003 

broken down by funding source in dollar 13 

amounts. 

[12] A table depicts prevention expenditures 

broken down by funding source in exact dollar 

amounts for FYs 2000 through 2003. 

9 

56 
Inventory of State Profiles Section III: Explanation and Layout of State Profiles 

Core Strategies 

[13] This section provides examples of 

activities and strategies undertaken by the 

SSA for each of the Center for Substance 

Abuse Prevention (CSAP) six core strategies 

in FY 2004. The six core strategies include 

information dissemination, education, 

alternatives, community-based processes, 

environmental, and problem identification and 

referral. 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for 

Core Strategies 

[14] This section describes SAPT Block Grant 

expenditures for FYs 2000 through 2003 

broken down by CSAP prevention core 

strategies. 

[15] Pie charts depict Block Grant expenditures 

for FYs 2000 and 2003 broken down by CSAP 

core strategy in terms of core strategy as a 

proportion of total Block Grant CSAP funds. 

14 

16 

17 

15 

[16] The bar graph shows Block Grant 

expenditures for FYs 2000 through 2003 broken down by CSAP core strategy in dollar amounts.

[17] The table depicts Block Grant 

expenditures broken down by CSAP core 

strategy in exact dollar amounts for FYs 

2000-2003. 

18 Treatment and Rehabilitation 

Services 

[18] A narrative section provides a brief 

description of the State’s treatment and 

rehabilitation system, services, and 

strategies. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

19 [19] This section describes treatment 

funding in the State for FYs 2000-2003 

broken down by funding source (including 

Block Grant, State, other Federal, 

20 Medicaid, local, and other source 

contributions). 

[20] Pie charts depict treatment 

expenditures in FYs 2000 and 2003 

broken down by funding source in terms 

type of funding sources as a proportion of 

overall treatment funds. 

57 
Section III: Explanation and Layout of State Profiles Inventory of State Profiles 

[21] The bar graph shows treatment 

expenditures from FYs 2000 through 2003 

broken down by funding source in dollar 

amounts. 

[22] The table depicts treatment 

expenditures broken down by source in 

exact dollar amounts for FYs 2000 through 

2003. 

Admissions 

[23] This section describes the total number 

of persons admitted to treatment during FY 

2002 as well as type of treatment persons 

received, type of substance abuse problem, 

and gaps in treatment. 

[24] Admissions: A table depicts the 

number of treatment admissions in FY 2002 

broken down by type of substance abuse 

problem (alcohol and illicit drugs) and type 

of care (including detoxification, 

rehabilitation/residential, and outpatient). 

21 

22 

23 

26 

[25] Co-occurring Disorder: A table 

depicts the number of treatment 

admissions in FY 2002 where at least 

one substance is known broken down 

by the percentage of those with a cooccurring psychiatric problem. 

[26] Treatment Gap: A table depicts 

persons who needed, but did not 

receive, substance abuse treatment in 

FYs 2002 and 2003 broken down by 

age. 

24

25

58 
Inventory of State Profiles Section III: Explanation and Layout of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

[27] This narrative section describes the 

State’s activities in the infrastructure and 

resource development areas of planning, 

needs assessment, evaluation, training, and 

technical assistance activities. 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for 

Resource Development Activities 

[28] This section discusses Block Grant 

expenditures for resource development 

activities for FYs 2000 through 2003. 

[29] Pie charts depict expenditures on 

resource development activities for FYs 

2000 and 2003 broken down by type of 

activity as a proportion of the total 

expenditures. 

[30] The bar graph shows Block Grant 

expenditures on resource development 

activities in FYs 2000 through 2003 broken 

down by type of activity in terms of dollar 

amount. 

27 

[31] The table depicts Block Grant 

expenditures on resource development 

activities by type of activity in exact dollar 

amount for FYs 2000 through 2003. 28

29

30

31

59 
Section III: Explanation and Layout of State Profiles Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse 

Prevention 

[32] This section discusses the amount 

of CSAP discretionary funds awarded in 

FY 2004 by type of award. 

[33] The table depicts the number of 

CSAP discretionary awards for FY 

2004, as well as the amount and type of 

each award. 

Center for Substance Abuse 

Treatment 

[34] This section discusses the amount 

of CSAT discretionary funds awarded in 

FY 2004 by type of award. 

[35] The table depicts the number of 

CSAT discretionary awards for FY 2004, 

as well as the amount and type of each 

award. 

32 

33 

34 

35 

60 
Section IV:

State Profiles

61
Services

Development

ALABAMA 

State SSA Director 

Mr. J. Kent Hunt 

Associate Commissioner for Substance Abuse 

Substance Abuse Services Division 

Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation 

RSA Union Building 

P.O. Box 301410 

Montgomery, AL 36130-1410 

Phone: 334-242-3961 

Fax: 334-242-0759 

E-mail: kent.hunt@mh.alabama.gov 

Web site: www.mh.state.al.us 

Structure and Function 

The Alabama Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation is the State 

agency responsible for serving Alabama citizens with mental illness, mental 

retardation, and substance abuse problems. The Substance Abuse Services Division 

(SASD) is located within this agency and is the Single State Agency (SSA) 

responsible for the development, coordination, and management of a comprehensive 

system of treatment and prevention services for alcoholism/drug addiction and 

abuse. This responsibility encompasses contracting for services with local providers, monitoring 

service contracts, evaluating and certifying service programs according to departmental standards 

for substance abuse programs, and developing models for a continuum of treatment and prevention 

services. 

Specifically, the SASD funds these services through contracts with certified nonprofit providers 

throughout the 22 catchment areas and 4 regions of Alabama. The catchment areas are governed 

by planning boards, whose major responsibility is operating Alabama’s Community Mental Health 

Centers (CMHCs), which deliver alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) prevention and treatment 

services. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Mental Health & 

Mental Retardation 

Substance Abuse Services 

Division (SASD) 

Prevention 

Contracts & Billing 

Co-Occurring Disorders 

Adult Services 

Outreach 

Treatment (Methadone) 

Information Services 

Certification 

Medicaid 

Adolescent Services 

Training & Workforce 

63 
Alabama Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Single State Agency (SSA) funding increased steadily in Alabama from FYs 2000 to 2003. In FY 

2003, SSA funds totaled $31.2 million—up from $29.2 million in FY 2000. During this time, the 

distribution of funds changed somewhat. Although funding from the Block Grant remained relatively 

stable, funding from other Federal sources decreased over time from constituting 6 percent of total 

funds to providing no funds. Also, Medicaid funding increased from 4 to 8 percent of the total, and 

State funding increased from 13 to 15 percent. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid 

4% Medicaid 

Other 8% 

Federal 

6% SAPT Block SAPT Block

Grant Grant State 

77% State 77% 15% 13% 

N=$29,158,534 N=$31,244,502 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Source s 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 22,197,312 76 22,994,659 77 23,828,000 79 23,970,196 77 

Medicaid 1,225,143 4 1,596,592 5 1,731,560 6 2,548,051 8 

Other Federal 1,826,578 6 821,241 3 265,334 1 0 0 

State 3,909,501 13 4,425,304 15 4,478,312 15 4,726,255 15 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 77,566 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 29,158,534 100 29,915,362 100 30,303,206 100 31,244,502 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

64 
Inventory of State Profiles Alabama 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the more than $31.2 million expended in Alabama, more than three-fourths of FY 2003 

expenditures (77 percent) in Alabama went toward treatment services, with only 16 percent toward 

prevention services. This distribution of funds has remained relatively stable since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

15% Prevention 

HIV Early Treatment 16%

Intervention Treatment 77% HIV Early 4% 78% Intervention 

4% Administration 

3% Administration 

N=$29,158,534 N=$31,244,502 3% 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2005 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 6,529,483 22 5,641,327 19 21,929,354 72 24,129,432 77 

Alcohol Treatment 7,505,963 26 4,986,466 17 

Drug Treatment 8,694,808 30 11,491,829 38 

Prevention 4,439,462 15 5,669,052 19 6,234,537 21 4,930,210 16 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 1,109,866 4 1,149,733 4 1,191,400 4 1,249,858 4 

Administration 878,952 3 976,955 3 947,915 3 845,002 3 

Total* 29,158,534 100 29,915,362 100 30,303,206 100 31,244,502 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant 

funds (usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

65 
Alabama Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Of the $24 million in Block Grant expenditures in FY 2003 in Alabama, 71 percent went toward 

treatment services, 21 percent toward prevention services, and the rest toward HIV early 

intervention (5 percent) and administration costs (3 percent). This distribution has remained 

relatively stable since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

HIV Early 

Prevention Prevention 

20% 21% 

HIV Early Treatment 

Intervention Treatment Intervention 73% 

5% 71% 5% 

Administration Administration 

2% 3% 

N=$22,197,312 N=$23,970,196 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 16,105,288 68 17,152,741 71 

Alcohol Treatment 7,505,963 34 4,986,466 22 

Drug Treatment 8,694,808 39 11,491,829 50 

Prevention 4,439,462 20 4,847,811 21 5,969,203 25 4,930,210 21 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 1,109,866 5 1,149,733 5 1,191,400 5 1,249,858 5 

Administration 447,213 2 518,820 2 562,109 2 637,387 3 

Total* 22,197,312 100 22,994,659 100 23,828,000 100 23,970,196 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activ ities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

66 
N 3,909,501

Inventory of State Profiles Alabama 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, State ATOD expenditures increased substantially from $3.9 to $4.7 

million. The distribution of State expenditures during this time period also changed. The proportion 

of State expenditures allocated for treatment services increased from 89 to 96 percent, and the 

proportion allocated for administration costs declined from 11 to 4 percent of the total. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Administration 

Administration 11% 

Treatment Treatment 4%

89% 96%

= 

N=$3,909,501 N=$4,726,255 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and Rehabilitation 3,477,762 89 4,044,735 91 4,092,506 91 4,518,640 96 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 431,739 11 380,569 9 385,806 9 207,615 4 

Total* 3,909,501 100 4,425,304 100 4,478,312 100 4,726,255 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

67 
Alabama Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The goal of Alabama’s prevention system is to develop, implement, maintain, and evaluate programs 

that address ATOD issues. The objectives for reaching this goal include (1) a statewide informational 

network of regional clearinghouses that support various prevention programs and activities with 

information and materials, (2) statewide family strengthening programs to provide education 

activities to members of dysfunctional families in which children are at risk, (3) a statewide system of 

programs that target at-risk individuals by providing them with opportunities that help to place them 

in control of some parts of their lives, (4) a statewide system of programs that focus upon the 

identification of those who have indulged in illegal/age-inappropriate use of ATOD to determine if 

this behavior can be reversed through education, (5) a training system that allows for communitybased training to be tailored to meet the needs identified by respective communities, and (6) a 

statewide campaign against the use of tobacco and alcohol products by adolescents. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 prevention expenditures in Alabama increased slightly from $4.4 to 

$4.9 million. Since FY 2000 all of prevention spending has been funded by the Block Grant. 

Block Grant funds for prevention services rose between FYs 2000 and 2002 from $1.00 per capita to 

$1.33 per capita. In FY 2003, Block Grant funds for prevention returned closer to the earlier level at 

$1.10 per capita. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant 100% 100% 

N=$4,930,210 N=$4,439,462 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

68 
Inventory of State Profiles Alabama 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,439,462 100 4,847,811 86 5,969,203 96 4,930,210 100 

Other Federal 0 0 821,241 14 265,334 4 0 0 

State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 4,439,462 100 5,669,052 100 6,234,537 100 4,930,210 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Regional clearinghouses facilitate community speaking engagements, 

Health Fairs and other health promotion events, and technical assistance 

for the general population and various disciplines . 

Education 

Funds support interactive classroom education, specific programs for highrisk youth within alternative educational centers, family strengthening and 

parenting programs, and programs for pregnant women and teens . 

Alternatives 

Programs enhance cultural and education skills coupled with community 

recreational activities . Funds also support Youth Wilderness Programs and 

summer and alternative afterschool programs. 

Community-Based Processes 

Processes include workshops and in-service training modalities . The State 

partners with other community professionals that interface with children 

and youth services . 

Environmental 

Presentations that depict the hidden message contained within the 

alcohol/tobacco advertisements are continually being developed, 

distributed, and shown to local civic and parent organizations, youth 

groups , and all concerned consortiums. 

Problem Identification & Referral Programs are designed to offer specialized services for youth referred by 

the juvenile justice system and education. 

69 
Alabama Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Expenditures for the prevention core strategies increased slightly from $4.4 million in FY 2000 to 

$4.9 million in FY 2003. Of the Block Grant funds for FY 2003, 60 percent were spent on substance 

abuse education, followed by alternatives (16 percent), information dissemination (8 percent), and 

environmental strategies (7 percent). The distribution of funds remained similar over time. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Alternatives 

20% Problem ID 

16% Problem ID 

and Referral and Referral 

3% Community- 1% 

Based Education Community- Education 

Based 59% Process 60% 

Process 2% Environmental Environmental 2% 

3% 7% 

Other Information Section 1926 - Other Information

Dissemination 2% 6% Tobacco Dissemination 

10% 1% 8% 

N=$4,439,461 N=$4,930,210 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

by Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 435,704 10 473,054 10 477,567 8 394,417 8 

Education 2,640,987 59 2,568,668 53 3,665,262 61 3,017,288 61 

Alternatives 888,108 20 932,647 19 931,196 16 788,834 16 

Problem ID and Referral 112,425 3 38,340 1 59,491 1 44,372 1 

Community-Based Process 98,809 2 101,373 2 101,476 2 78,883 2 

Environmental 150,705 3 395,178 8 393,967 7 325,394 7 

Other 76,825 2 338,539 7 340,244 6 281,022 6 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 35,898 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 4,439,461 100 4,847,799 100 5,969,203 100 4,930,210 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

70 
Inventory of State Profiles Alabama 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

SASD primarily contracts with “310 Boards,” authorized to provide planning, research, and services 

for substance abuse populations and persons living with mental illness or mental retardation. The 

310 Boards, in turn, provide services directly and/or subcontract with nearly 50 agencies and 

corporations statewide. 

SASD provides residential rehabilitation, residential detoxification, residential treatment for pregnant 

and postpartum women, residential rehabilitation for pregnant women, inpatient detoxification, 

outpatient detoxification, intensive outpatient (IOP) program services, IOP/outpatient services, 

specialized women’s programs, and methadone treatment programs. Additional services include 

case management; crisis residential; ancillary services; in-home intervention for post partum women; 

and HIV counseling, medical assessment, and testing. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment funding increased over time in Alabama from $22.7 million in FY 2000 to $24.1 million in 

FY 2003. Most (71 percent) of the $24.1 million spent on treatment services in FY 2003 came from 

the Block Grant, a similar proportion to the funds spent in FY 2000. Nineteen percent of treatment 

expenditures came from State funds (an increase from 15 percent in FY 2000), and 10 percent from 

Medicaid (an increase from 5 percent). 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant funds for treatment services rose from $3.64 per capita to 

$3.81 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid Medicaid 

5% 10% 

SAPT Block Other

Grant Federal State 

72% 

SAPT Block

8% 19% 

71% 

State 

15% 

Grant 

N=$24,129,432 N=$22,730,254 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

71 
Alabama Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 16,200,771 72 16,478,295 74 16,105,288 73 17,152,741 71 

Medicaid 1,225,143 5 1,596,592 7 1,731,560 8 2,458,051 10 

Other Federal 1,826,578 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 3,477,762 15 4,044,735 18 4,092,506 19 4,518,640 19 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 22,730,254 100 22,119,622 100 21,929,354 100 24,129,432 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Alabama’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 20,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, most of which were admitted for intensive outpatient or short-term 

residential. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=20,445) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 402 617 1 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 1,121 2,184 66 

Long-term residential 560 931 7 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 8 233 3 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 0 0 0 

Intensive outpatient 4,928 8,774 610 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 7,019 12,739 687 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate more than 19,000 admissions (where at least 

one substance was known), of which nearly 4,000 were for alcohol only. Calculations (with 

imputation) from TEDS data show that 11.5 percent of persons admitted to treatment programs 

reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary when 

separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For 

a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

72 
Inventory of State Profiles Alabama 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 3,815 11.3 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 15,681 11.6 

Total 19,496 11.5 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 215,000 persons aged 12 and older (5.8 

percent of Alabama’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 82,000 

persons (2.2 percent) needed, but did not receive treatment, for illicit drug use in Alabama. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure 

2002–2003 

% 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 5.81 4.65 13.20 4.65 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.22 4.25 5.94 1.28 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

73 
Alabama Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

The Management Steering Committee (MSC) is the vehicle for fulfilling State mental health and 

substance abuse planning purposes. MSC convenes four standing subcommittees, one of which is 

the Substance Abuse Coordinating Subcommittee (SACS). SACS, which meets monthly, is 

responsible for coordinating planning processes and making budgetary recommendations to MSC 

that are related to substance abuse. 

Alabama is in the midst of a “Systems Improvement Initiative,” which will implement a prevention and 

treatment outcome evaluation process. Individual client discharge and outcome data will be collected 

beginning October 1, 2006. System outcome evaluations will be available by September 30, 2007, 

and will be reported with the 2008 SAPT Block Grant Application. 

Evaluation 

A community-based planning process is facilitated by mental health boards to assess the risk and 

protective factors approach to prevention services. Community capacity development is at the 

forefront to integrate resources and develop a collaborative effort. 

It is the overarching goal of prevention services to problem solve and improve the collective wellbeing of target populations. Community planning goals are to understand the consumption and 

consequences of patterns that need to be addressed to reach outcome-based prevention. 

Training and Assistance 

SASD operates the Office of Training and Workforce Development to provide training for substance 

abuse program staff in various locations throughout the State. In 2004, 15 training events reached 

462 participants. Trainings included programs on co-occurring disorders, infectious diseases, crisis 

intervention, case management, and community program standards. 

74 
Inventory of State Profiles Alabama 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant expenditures on resource development activities were not consistent in Alabama. In FYs 

2000 and 2002, Alabama spent 100 percent of resource development funds on training activities 

(nearly $77,000 in FY 2000 and over $55,000 in FY 2002). Alabama did not spend any funds on 

resource development activities in FYs 2001 or 2003. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on 

Resource Develoment Activities

Training 

100% 

Alabama did not report any 

expenditures on resource 

development activities for FY 

2003. 

N=$76,823 

Block Grant Expenditures by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

60,000 

70,000 

80,000 

90,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 0 0 N/R** - 0 0 

N/R -

Quality Assurance 0 0 N/R - 0 0 N/R -

Training (post-employment) 76,823 100 N/R - 55,149 100 N/R -

Education (pre-employment) 0 0 N/R - 0 0 N/R -

Program Development 0 0 N/R - 0 0 N/R -

Research and Evaluation 0 0 N/R - 0 0 N/R -

Information Systems 0 0 N/R - 0 0 N/R -

Total* 76,823 100 N/R - 55,149 100 N/R -

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

** N/R = Not Reported 

75 
Alabama Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded $4.6 million in 15 discretionary grants 

for prevention services to entities in Alabama during FY 2004. Most (12 of the 15) were for drug-free 

communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Award Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 12 1,010,812 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 350,000 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 1 250,000 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreement 1 3,000,000 

Total for Prevention 15 4,610,812 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded $3.2 million in discretionary funds for 

treatment services to Alabama in FY 2004. Most (nearly $1.7 million) went to HIV/AIDS targeted 

capacity grants. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 1 399,392 

Pregnant/Post-Partum Women 1 404,052 

Strengthening Communities – Youth 1 749,716 

Targeted Capacity – HIV/AIDS 4 1,669,624 

Total for Treatment 7 3,222,784 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

76 
ALASKA 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Cristy Willer, Director 

Division of Behavioral Health 

Alaska Department of Health and Social Services 

P.O. Box 110620 

Juneau, AK 99811-0620 

Phone: 907-269-3410 

Fax: 907-465-2668 

E-mail: cristy_willer@health.state.ak.us 

Web site: www.hss.state.ak.us/dbh 

Structure and Function 

Alaska’s Division of Behavioral Health (DBH) works with children, youth, adults, 

and families in the areas of substance use, mental health, mental illness, and 

overall individual health. DBH was created in 2003 when Alaska’s Department 

of Health and Social Services (DHSS) was reorganized. DBH represents the 

merging of the former Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse and the Division 

of Mental Health. The integration of the two divisions allows Alaska to provide 

more holistic, comprehensive services to its citizens, particularly those 

experiencing co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders. 

DBH’s Behavioral Health Integration Project is currently implementing a range of State-level system 

change strategies to provide even more welcoming, accessible, integrated, continuous, and 

comprehensive services to Alaskans with co-occurring disorders. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health and 

Social Services (DHHS)

Division of Behavioral 

Health (DBH)

Administrative Treatment and Prevention and Program Integrity Policy and 

Support Recovery Section Early intervention Section Planning Section 

Section 

77 
Alaska Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Alaska’s overall Single State Agency (SSA) funding fluctuated between FYs 2000 and 2003 ranging 

from $31.4 million in FY 2001 to nearly $36.5 million in FY 2002. In FY 2003, expenditures 

decreased to nearly $34 million. The State provided most (69 percent) of the funding in FY 2003 (up 

from 63 percent in FY 2000) followed by other Federal sources at 17 percent (down from 26 percent 

in FY 2000). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other 

Federal Other

26% Federal 

17% State 

69% Medicaid State 

1% 

SAPT Block 63% 

Grant SAPT Block 

11% Grant 

N=$32,222,018 13% N=$33,966,378 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 3,440,623 11 3,859,949 12 3,395,857 9 4,492,456 13 

Medicaid 0 0 2,050,985 7 486,584 1 181,547 1 

Other Federal 8,332,971 26 2,732,800 9 9,116,606 25 5,816,294 17 

State 20,448,424 63 22,710,800 72 23,451,740 64 23,476,081 69 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 32,222,018 100 31,354,534 100 36,450,787 100 33,966,378 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

78 
Inventory of State Profiles Alaska 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

The dollar amount and the proportion allocated the different activities fluctuated dramatically in 

Alaska between FYs 2000 and 2003. Expenditures on treatment services increased from nearly 

$20.7 million in FY 2000, to nearly $25.4 million in FY 2002, then decreased dramatically to $10.2 

million in FY 2002, and increased slightly to $13.2 million in FY 2003. Expenditures on prevention 

services and administrative activities also fluctuated dramatically during this period. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

25% 

Treatment 28% 

39% 

Treatment Administration

11% 64% 

Administration 

N=$32,222,018 N=$33,966,378 33% 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 18,129,717 56 24,332,347 78 10,160,564 28 13,157,654 39 

Alcohol Treatment 1,324,474 4 560,400 2 

Drug Treatment 1,204,218 4 460,000 1 

Prevention 8,149,109 25 4,589,290 15 11,606,631 32 9,510,064 28 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 0 0 104,070 0 0 0 

Administration 3,414,500 11 1,412,497 5 14,579,522 40 11,298,660 33 

Total* 32,222,018 100 31,354,534 100 36,450,787 100 33,966,378 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

79 
Alaska Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant funding totaled nearly $4 million in FY 2003, an increase from over $3.4 million in FY 

2000. Allocation proportions for those funds remained relatively stable over those two periods. 

However, actual dollars spend on treatment services increased by more than $1 million. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 22% 

20% Treatment 

76% 

Treatment 

73%

Administration Administration 5% 

4% 

N=$3,440,623 N=$4,492,456 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 2,434,962 63 2,438,862 72 3,408,015 76 

Alcohol Treatment 1,324,474 38 0 0 

Drug Treatment 1,204,218 35 460,000 12 

Prevention 739,900 22 771,990 20 804,196 24 899,135 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 104,070 3 0 0 

Administration 172,031 5 192,997 5 48,729 1 185,306 4 

Total* 3,440,623 100 3,859,949 100 3,395,857 100 4,492,456 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

80 
Inventory of State Profiles Alaska 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State funds fluctuated dramatically in Alaska between FYs 2000 and 2003. In FY 2003, Alaska 

contributed nearly $23.5 million toward SSA activities—a $3 million increase over its FY 2000 

expenditures. During this time period, State funds earmarked for treatment declined from nearly 

$16.2 million to $8.7 million (and the proportion allocated to treatment decreased from 79 percent in 

FY 2000 to 37 percent in FY 2003). Expenditures on prevention and administrative activities 

increased during this period, with expenditures on administrative activities more than quadrupling in 

dollar amount. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment 

37% Prevention 

16% Prevention 

11% 

Treatment Administration Administration 79% 10% 47% 

N=$20,448,424 N=$23,476,081 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and Rehabilitation 16,187,557 79 19,846,400 87 5,544,019 24 8,691,771 37 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 560,400 2 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 2,161,567 11 1,084,500 5 3,769,882 16 3,670,956 16 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 2,099,300 10 1,219,500 5 14,137,839 60 11,113,354 47 

Total* 20,448,424 100 22,710,800 100 23,451,740 100 23,476,081 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

81 
Alaska Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

DBH’s Prevention and Early Intervention Services unit has integrated several previously existing 

programs into a comprehensive approach to health promotion, substance abuse prevention, mental 

disorder prevention, and early intervention. Toward that end, DBH oversees seven prevention and 

early intervention programs. These programs utilize environmental and educational strategies to 

involve communities in prevention efforts, as well as a resiliency model that builds on the knowledge 

of risk and protective factors. The programs stress culturally appropriate services for Alaskans. 

Additionally, the State allows for aggressive underage purchasing enforcement for alcohol and 

tobacco. 

DBH recognizes that Alaskans of all ages have one of the highest per capita alcohol consumption 

rates in the Nation. As a result, the State is very proactive in their prevention efforts, with three DBH 

prevention programs specifically targeting alcohol prevention: the Alcohol and Drug Information 

School, the Alcohol Safety Action Program, and the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) prevention 

program. 

DBH is currently developing a database for easier collection and analysis of prevention data 

received from agencies throughout the State. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Expenditures on prevention services fluctuated between FYs 2000 and 2003. In particular, funding 

from other Federal sources and the State varied substantially, while SAPT Block Grant funds 

remained stable and increased steadily over time. In FY 2003, Alaska’s SSA spent more than $9.5 

million on prevention services, of which, 52 percent came from other Federal sources (a decrease 

from 64 percent in FY 2000), and 39 percent came from the State (an increase from 27 percent in 

FY 2000). 

Per capita, SAPT Block Grant funding for prevention services increased from $1.18 in FY 2000 to 

$1.39 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

64% 52% SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant

Grant 9%

9%

State State 

27% N=$8,149,109 39% N=$9,510,064 

82 
Inventory of State Profiles Alaska 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 739,900 9 771,990 17 804,196 7 899,135 9 

Other Federal 5,247,642 64 2,732,800 60 7,032,553 61 4,939,973 52 

State 2,161,567 27 1,084,500 24 3,769,882 32 3,670,956 39 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 8,149,109 100 4,589,290 100 11,606,631 100 9,510,064 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Akeela, Inc., provides Substance Abuse Prevention Library services 

including a lending library, resource lists/bibliographies, distribution of 

free publications issued by DHSS, and a Web site 

(www.alaskaprevention.org). NCADD is an Alaska Radar site for 

distribution of Federal publications in Southeast Alaska. 

Education 

SAPT grant recipients provide ongoing substance use and abuse 

education through formalized programs and statewide conferences 

involving youth, adults, families, service providers , and agencies . 

Alternatives 

The State works closely with community partners and active youth and 

parent groups to offer recreational alternatives to alcohol and drug use 

such as family nights, dances, arts and crafts, and teen leadership 

institutes . 

Community-Based Processes 

Akeela, Inc., provides technical assistance and training to local 

communities and community-based organizations to build prevention 

programming, prevention capacity, and prevention readiness. 

Environmental Environmental strategies include the support of aggressive alcohol and 

tobacco enforcement at the local level. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

The Alaska Screening Tool enables mental health providers to screen 

for substance abuse disorders and to refer or treat based on the results . 

The Alaska Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) provides substance 

abuse screening and case management for DWI and other 

misdemeanor cases . 

83 
Alaska Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Overall Block Grant funding for CSAP core prevention strategies increased between FYs 2000 and 

2003 from about $740,000 to nearly $900,000. Most of the funds in FY 2003 funds were spent on 

education (33 percent), community-based processes (26 percent), and information dissemination (23 

percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Education Alternatives Problem ID Alternatives Problem ID 12% 8% and Referral Education 11% and Referral 

8% 

33% 3%

Community- CommunityInformation Based Based 

Dissemination Process Process 

35% 25% 26% 

Environmental 

Section 1926 - Information 5% Environmental Tobacco Dissemination 

7% N=$739,900 23% 4% 

N=$899,135 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 251,300 34 200,000 26 120,000 15 207,500 23 

Education 92,000 12 150,000 19 398,000 49 297,955 33 

Alternatives 60,000 8 125,000 16 85,000 11 97,000 11 

Problem ID and Referral 60,175 8 181,990 24 0 0 25,000 3 

Community-Based 

Process 186,425 25 65,000 8 201,196 25 233,680 26 

Environmental 40,000 5 50,000 6 0 0 38,000 4 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 50,000 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 739,900 100 771,990 100 804,196 100 899,135 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

84 
Inventory of State Profiles Alaska 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Alaska funds a full range of treatment services, including detoxification, residential, intermediate 

(interim services), outpatient, aftercare, and methadone maintenance. DBH works with 69 publicly 

funded and 14 privately funded treatment programs throughout the State. Because of Alaska’s rural 

nature, a full continuum of care is not available in each community. As a result, the entire extended 

State continuum of services is available to residents through the use of a pool of transportation 

funds. Additionally, six programs in Alaska deliver services to pregnant women and women with 

dependent children. 

In 2003, Alaska was one of seven States awarded a SAMHSA Co-Occurring State Incentive Grant 

(COSIG) for infrastructure and service delivery enhancement in treating persons with co-occurring 

disorders. This award affirmed DBH’s emphasis on the integration of substance abuse and mental 

health services throughout the State. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Expenditures on treatment services in Alaska declined between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from nearly 

$20.7 to $13.2 million). In particular, State funds for treatment services declined by approximately 

half during this time period, from $16.2 to $8.7 million. 

Block Grant funding per capita for treatment services fluctuated in Alaska: it increased from $4.03 in 

FY 2000 to $4.58 in FY 2001, then decreased to $3.81 in FY 2002, and again increased in FY 2003 

to $5.26. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other 

Other Federal

Federal 7% State 9% State Medicaid 66% 

79% SAPT Block 1%

Grant SAPT Block 

12% Grant 

26% 

N=$13,157,654 

N=$20,658,409 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

85 
Alaska Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 2,528,692 12 2,894,962 11 2,438,862 24 3,408,015 26 

Medicaid 0 0 2,050,985 8 486,584 5 181,547 1 

Other Federal 1,942,160 9 0 0 1,691,099 17 876,321 7 

State 16,187,557 78 20,406,800 80 5,544,019 55 8,691,771 66 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 20,658,409 100 25,352,747 100 10,160,564 100 13,157,654 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

The number of persons admitted by type of treatment care for FY 2002 (Form 7a) was not included 

in Alaska’s FY 2005 Block Grant Application. Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate 

approximately 5,000 admissions (where at least one substance is known), of which nearly 3,000 are 

for alcohol only. Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 23 percent 

of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or 

drug use. This rate varied slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in 

combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: 

Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 2,705 19.8 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 2,307 26.1 

Total 4,976 22.7 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 39,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.8 

percent of Alaska’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use, and 16,000 

persons (3.1 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Alaska. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.76 5.37 18.23 6.44 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 3.13 5.55 8.08 1.83 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

86 
Inventory of State Profiles Alaska 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Alaska is dedicated to developing ongoing processes for collecting service need data, collecting and 

reviewing annual grantee data, and administering regular surveys for developing clear and accurate 

statewide needs assessments regarding treatment and prevention for substance use, abuse, and 

dependency. DBH utilizes nationally available data, such as the Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

(YRBS), the Behavior Risk Factor Survey (BRFS), the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring 

System (PRAMS), and the National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). The State also 

monitors the trends of use, utilization, and requests for service as reported by the statewide 

prevention and treatment providers. 

In 2003, Alaska entered into a partnership with SAMHSA to develop the AKAIMS data collection 

system, an evolving data collection environment for providing valid information to all behavioral 

health care service stakeholders. This system will ultimately be replicated with other States. 

Additionally, Alaska released two reports in 2002 providing detailed information related to cost and 

need of prevention and treatment services throughout the State. DHSS also contracted with the 

Alaska Comprehensive and Specialized Evaluation Services (ACSES) to conduct a needs 

assessment of the mental health and substance abuse service needs of Alaskan children and youth. 

Evaluation 

The Program Integrity section of DBH is dedicated to evaluating Alaska’s substance abuse 

prevention and treatment services. Toward that end, the Safety and Quality Assurance Program is a 

collaborative effort of DBH and the Division of Health Care Services. The collaboration aims to 

ensure that public funds provided for treatment and services are used as intended and to promote 

high quality services throughout the State’s mental health system. The Safety and Quality 

Assurance Program provides clinical chart reviews to agencies and evaluates recipient records for 

standard adherence, service quality, and professional clinical practices. 

Additionally, DBH implemented a Behavioral Health Integration Project to help the State incorporate 

a top-down, bottom-up partnership between each level of the service system in order to provide 

high-quality, comprehensive services. 

Training and Assistance 

Alaska is committed to maintaining a highly trained force of substance abuse prevention and 

treatment professionals. It does so through a variety of conferences and workshops. The 

Substance Abuse Directors Association of Alaska facilitates a 3-day “Annual School on Addictions” 

to provide training to addiction professionals, mental health counselors, social workers, rehabilitation 

counselors, treatment and prevention program directors, community leaders, students, and others. 

Recently, Akeela, Inc., worked with DBH to “Alaskanize” the Western CAPT’s Substance Abuse 

Prevention Specialist Training and conducted 5-day training sessions across the State. DBH’s 

Quality Assurance Section also provides training and training material to mental health providers 

upon request, including the GAFTREE workshop. 

87 
Alaska Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Alaska did not report any 

expenditures for resource 

development activities for FYs 2000 

through 2003. 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment N/R** - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Quality Assurance N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Training N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Education N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Program Development N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Research and Evaluation N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Information Systems N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Total* N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

** N/R = Not Reported 

88 
Inventory of State Profiles Alaska 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded more than $6.5 million in nine 

discretionary grants to entities in Alaska during FY 2004. The largest single award, for nearly $5.8 

million, was targeted at fetal alcohol syndrome and its effects. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

CSAP 2004 Earmarks 1 198,820 

Drug Free Communities 7 561,622 

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome / Effects 1 5,777,580 

Total 9 6,538,022 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded nearly $8.8 million in discretionary 

grants to a wide range of Alaskan entities. The largest awards were granted to State targeted 

capacity expansion screening-brief intervention referral treatment (for nearly $2.2 million) and 

treatment of persons with co-occurring disorders (for over $1.0 million. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 6 1,839,085 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 1 400,000 

Pregnant/Post-Partum Women 1 499,986 

Recovery Community Service 1 220,000 

Residential SA TX 1 500,000 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

State TCE Screening Brief Intervention Referral 

Treatment 1 2,176,494 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 4 1,977,149 

Treatment of Persons w/Co-Occurring Substance 

Related and Mental Disorders 1 1,071,750 

Total 17 8,784,464 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

89 
ARIZONA 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Christina Dye, Bureau Chief 

Bureau of Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention 

Division of Behavioral Health Services 

Arizona Department of Health Services 

150 North 18th Avenue, Suite 220 

Phoenix, AZ 85007-3228 

Phone: 602-364-4595 

Fax: 602-364-4763 

E-mail: dyec@azdhs.gov 

Web site: www.azdhs.gov/bhs/index.htm 

Structure and Function 

The Arizona Department of Health Services/Division of Behavioral Health 

(ADHS/DBHS) administers statewide behavioral health programs and services for 

children, adults, and their families, including treatment, support/preventive care, 

and emergency and crisis response. Within DBHS, the Bureau for Substance 

Abuse Treatment and Prevention Services (BSTAP) is responsible for fiscal and 

programmatic oversight, monitoring, and technical assistance/training for 

substance abuse service delivery. The agency contracts with five regional 

organizations to administer care delivery systems in specific geographic areas (Regional Behavioral 

Health Authorities [RBHAs]), as well as with three Tribal Behavioral Health Authorities (TBHAs). The 

RBHAs are capitated managed-care agencies responsible for providing a full range of substance 

abuse prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation services. 

Additionally, the Behavioral Health Planning Council assists DBHS in planning and administering the 

public treatment system. The Council comprises 30 members from the mental health and substance 

abuse services field; consumers, parents, and family members; Native Americans and other minority 

populations; and delegates from the RBHAs/TBHAs and several state agencies. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Arizona Department of 

Health Services (ADHS) 

Division of Behavioral 

Health Services (DBHS) 

Arizona State 

Hospital 

Financial 

Operations 

Clinical 

Services 

Quality and 

Compliance 

Office of Grievances 

and Appeals 

Bureau of 

Adult 

Services 

Bureau of 

Substance 

Abuse Treatment 

and Prevention 

(BSATP) 

Bureau of 

Children’s 

Services 

Behavioral Health 

Applications of 

Information 

Technology 

Services 

Bureau of 

Quality 

Management 

and Evaluation 

Bureau of 

Planning and 

Council 

Support 

91 
9

1

Arizona Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 total Single State Agency (SSA) funding in Arizona increased from 

$55.9 to $78.9 million. This large increase was largely driven by an increase in Medicaid funding 

during that time period, from $4.3 to $28.1 million. During these years, the Block Grant as a 

proportion of total funds declined from 48 to 38 percent, State funds declined from 33 to 19 percent, 

and other Federal funds declined from 8 to 0 percent. By contrast, Medicaid as a proportion of total 

funds increased dramatically from 8 to 38 percent. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid 

Other Medicaid 

36% Federal

SAPT Block 8% SAPT Block 

Grant Grant

48% 38% 

Local

3% 

8% 

State 

33% 

N=$78,865,32

N=$55,890,25 Local State 

7% 19% 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

90,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 27,127,147 48 27,464,395 39 28,117,057 40 30,548,743 38 

Medicaid 4,319,789 8 21,265,913 30 20,606,849 29 28,092,326 36 

Other Federal 4,243,926 8 2,738,561 4 596,246 1 337,165 0 

State 18,270,505 33 14,931,000 21 16,025,660 23 14,750,878 19 

Local 1,928,892 3 3,922,383 6 5,312,695 8 5,136,209 7 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 55,890,259 100 70,322,252 100 70,658,507 100 78,865,321 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

92 
9 1

Inventory of State Profiles Arizona 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the $78.9 million in SSA expenditures in FY 2003 nearly 90 percent were allocated toward 

treatment services, and 8 percent toward prevention services. By contrast, in FY 2000, 82 percent of 

total funds were spent on treatment and 14 percent on prevention. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment 

89% Treatment Prevention Prevention 

82% 14% HIV Early 8% 

Intervention HIV Early 

2% Intervention 

Administration 2% Administration 2% 

N=$55,890,25 N=$78,865,32 1% 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

90,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 8,303,815 15 59,580,609 85 62,515,230 88 70,096,302 89 

Alcohol Treatment 19,106,184 34 0 0 

Drug Treatment 18,005,136 33 0 0 

Prevention 7,885,779 14 8,599,105 12 6,254,952 9 6,261,531 8 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 1,356,977 2 1,356,105 2 1,357,221 2 1,527,437 2 

Administration 1,232,368 2 786,433 1 531,104 1 980,051 1 

Total* 55,890,259 100 70,322,252 100 70,658,507 100 78,865,321 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

93 
Arizona Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures in Arizona increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $27.1 to $30.5 

million. Nearly three-fourths of the Block Grant expenditures were earmarked for treatment, and 20 

percent were earmarked for prevention services. This distribution has remained stable since FY 

2000. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

20% 20% 

Treatment HIV Early Treatment HIV Early

Intervention 73% Intervention 

5% 

72% 

5% 

Administration Administration 

3% 2% 

N=$27,127,147 N=$30,548,743 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 19,690,054 72 20,807,126 74 22,343,290 73 

Alcohol Treatment 7,929,302 29 0 0 

Drug Treatment 11,648,027 43 0 0 

Prevention 5,426,916 20 5,819,691 21 5,635,130 20 6,115,130 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 1,356,977 5 1,356,105 5 1,357,221 5 1,527,437 5 

Administration 765,925 3 598,545 2 317,580 1 562,886 2 

Total* 27,127,147 100 27,464,395 100 28,117,057 100 30,548,743 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

94 
Inventory of State Profiles Arizona 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 State expenditures for alcohol and drug abuse services declined from 

$18.3 to $14.8 million. During that time period nearly all State expenditures went toward treatment 

services. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Prevention Prevention Treatment 97% 1% 1% 99% 

Administration 

2% 

N=$18,270,505 N=$14,750,878 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 2,160,026 12 14,776,500 99 15,868,560 99 14,604,477 99 

Alcohol Treatment 9,247,990 51 0 0 

Drug Treatment 6,357,109 35 0 0 

Prevention 154,172 1 154,500 1 157,100 1 146,401 1 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 351,208 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 18,270,505 100 14,931,000 100 16,025,660 100 14,750,878 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

95 
Arizona Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Over the past decade, DBHS’ prevention system has evolved into a research-based, comprehensive 

system based on a risk and protective factor framework. DBHS employs a logic model to identify 

appropriate targets for prevention, to select strategies, and to evaluate outcomes. The State has 

also been able to integrate prevention services into the treatment and rehabilitation continuum, 

which helps to stretch resources to serve more people with appropriate services. 

The TBHAs and RBHAs contract with local community providers, through which nearly 400 local 

communities receive prevention services. DBHS recently created an alternative, non-licensed 

provider type known as community service agencies (CSAs). CSAs are non-traditional providers 

that deliver support services to the community, including health promotion, living-skills training, and 

peer and family support. Each of the RBHAs also maintains satellite Regional Alcohol and Drug 

Awareness Resources (RADAR) prevention sites, which distribute written materials pertaining to 

health and wellness issues in both English and Spanish. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 prevention funding declined from $6.3 to $7.9 million in Arizona. 

During that time period, the proportion of total prevention funds supported by the Block Grant 

increased from 69 to 98 percent, and the proportion supported by other Federal sources declined 

from nearly 30 percent to 0. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant prevention expenditures remained fairly stable, ranging 

from $1.04 to $1.10 per capita. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other 

Federal State SAPT Block SAPT Block 29% Grant 2% Grant

69% 98%

State 

N=$7,885,779 2% N=$6,261,531 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

96 
Inventory of State Profiles Arizona 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 5,426,916 69 5,819,691 68 5,635,130 90 6,115,130 98 

Other Federal 2,304,691 29 2,624,914 31 462,722 7 0 0 

State 154,172 2 154,500 2 157,100 3 146,401 2 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 7,885,779 100 8,599,105 100 6,254,952 100 6,261,531 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Satellite prevention sites disseminate information in English 

and Spanish. DHS distributes the bimonthly “Prevention 

Bulletin” to healthcare providers . ADHS provided technical 

assistance for a position paper on prevention. 

Education 

Activities include classroom -based life skills training, parent 

support and education; community education, and professional 

education. 

Alternatives Strategies include afterschool programs, prosocial recreational 

activities, adventure-based programs, and mentoring programs. 

Community-Based Processes 

Mobilization efforts include partnerships with Federal, State, 

and local agencies; schools; health providers; community 

organizations; teen groups; religious organizations; private 

corporations; and tribal communities . 

Environmental 

DBHS participates in community-based coalitions focusing on 

changing environmental conditions. Tucson youth participated 

in a prevention program and drafted antibullying legislation 

ultimately passed by the State legislature. 

Problem Identification and Referral Funds support training to community groups including law 

enforcement, school staff, and emergency responders . 

97 
Arizona Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for prevention core strategies in Arizona rose slightly between FYs 2000 and 

2003 from $5.4 to $6.1 million. During that time period, education received the largest proportion of 

CSAP core strategies (63 percent in FY 2000 and 52 percent in FY 2003), followed by alternatives 

(22 percent in FY 2000 and 35 percent in FY 2003). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Problem ID 

22% and Referral Alternatives

2% 35% 

CommunityBased Education CommunityProcess 52% Based 

Education 7% Process 

63% 1% Environmental 

Information 2% Information Environmental 

N=$5,426,916 Dissemination N=$6,115,130 Dissemination 1% 

4% 11% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 196,306 4 210,513 4 283,439 5 700,000 11 

Education 3,421,318 63 3,668,936 63 2,912,048 52 3,140,000 51 

Alternatives 1,196,349 22 1,282,935 22 1,752,024 31 2,140,000 35 

Problem ID and Referral 135,672 2 145,492 2 45,200 1 25,130 0 

Community-Based Process 365,096 7 391,520 7 321,210 6 55,000 1 

Environmental 112,175 2 120,295 2 321,209 6 55,000 1 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 5,426,916 100 5,819,691 100 5,635,130 100 6,115,130 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

98 
Inventory of State Profiles Arizona 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

DBHS contracts for regionalized systems of behavioral health services through the five RBHAs and 

three TBHAs. The remaining 17 tribal communities are served through the RBHA system. T/RBHAs 

are responsible for the planning, contracting, monitoring, and delivery of behavioral health services 

within their region. Through their subcontractors, the RBHAs provide short- and long-term inpatient 

and residential treatment beds, outpatient and intensive outpatient treatment, rehabilitation services, 

and 24-hour crisis services, including mobile units, inpatient, and community-based detoxification 

treatment. 

DBHS recently completed the Co-Occurring Disorder Treatment Initiative, which established an 

evidence-based best practices model for service delivery to adults with multiple behavioral health 

disorders. The initiative received the Governor’s Award for Excellence. DBHS is also part of a 

collaborative effort to develop a new service system for individuals with co-occurring substance 

abuse and psychiatric disorders. DBHS continues to expand its Women’s Treatment Services and 

Supervision Network, which provides services and diversion opportunities for female offenders. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment expenditures in Arizona increased dramatically between FYs 2000 and 2003, from $45.4 

to $70.1 million. This increase was largely due to a substantial increase in Medicaid funding during 

this time period. During these years the proportion of treatment funds supported by the Block Grant 

declined from 43 to 32 percent, as did the proportion provided by the State (from 39 to 21 percent). 

By contrast, Medicaid’s proportion of treatment funds increased from 10 to 40 percent as did the 

proportion of local funds (from 4 to 7 percent). 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002 Block Grant treatment expenditures in Arizona ranged from $3.72 to 

$3.83 per capita. In FY 2003, per capita treatment expenditures increased to $4.01. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid 

10% SAPT Block 

Other Grant Medicaid 

SAPT Block 

Federal 32% 40%

Grant 

4% 43% 

State Local 

39% 7% State N=$70,096,302 Local 21%

4% N=$45,415,135 

99 
Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 19,577,329 43 19,690,054 33 20,807,126 33 22,343,290 32 

Medicaid 4,319,789 10 21,265,913 36 20,606,849 33 28,092,326 40 

Other Federal 1,824,000 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 17,765,125 39 14,776,500 25 15,868,560 25 14,604,477 21 

Local 1,928,892 4 3,848,142 6 5,232,695 8 5,056,209 7 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 45,415,135 100 59,580,609 100 62,515,230 100 70,096,302 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Arizona Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Admissions 

Arizona’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 50,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment. 

100 
Inventory of State Profiles Arizona 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=50,305) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 1,054 688 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 123 119 0 

Short-term residential 0 0 0 

Long-term residential 477 1,049 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 93 3,175 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 15,827 26,308 0 

Intensive outpatient 574 818 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 18,148 32,157 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate approximately 2,500 admissions (where at 

least one substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that 

approximately 18 percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem 

combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate varied slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse 

versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data 

sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 710 15.8 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 1,801 18.8 

Total 2,511 18.0 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 399,000 persons aged 12 and older (9.0 

percent of Arizona’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 142,000 

persons (3.2 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Arizona. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and 

older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 9.02 7.16 18.75 7.54 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 3.21 6.65 7.80 1.88 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; data are combined for 2002 and 2003 

101 
Arizona Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Arizona collects a variety of fiscal, clinical, and qualitative data to drive planning and to monitor 

substance abuse prevention and treatment services throughout the State. In 2003, DBHS 

implemented a comprehensive network sufficiency analysis, known as the Arizona Logic Model, 

which uses data from multiple sources to determine the sufficiency of provider networks. 

In 2002, DBHS released a study demonstrating the relationship between risk and outcome variables 

that predict problem behavior for each county in the State. This study helped localities tailor 

prevention programs specifically for their communities. The agency also utilizes information from the 

RBHAs to assess prevention needs relevant to local planning regions. 

Additionally, the Arizona Substance Abuse Treatment Needs Assessment Study (AZNAS) generated 

seven reports on various aspects of substance abuse prevalence in the State among adults, juvenile 

arrestees, the general household population, and three tribal nations. 

Evaluation 

DBHS monitors the substance abuse prevention and treatment services on many levels. Evaluation 

methods include independent case reviews, regular and special data queries and reports, annual 

administrative reviews of each T/RBHA, reviews of contract deliverables, customer satisfaction 

surveys, consumer complaints, access to care standards, incidents of seclusion and restraint, and 

“mystery shoppers.” 

Arizona took part in the national Treatment Outcome Prospective Pilot Study (TOPPS I), completed 

in 1999, and has been selected to participate in the TOPPS II study. This prospective study tracks 

patient outcomes among adults participating in substance abuse treatment. The agency also 

recently conducted an evaluation on the effects of a Social Model Detoxification in two successful 

pilot programs funded by the State tobacco tax. Findings from these initiatives will be incorporated 

into future evaluations of DBHS services. 

Training and Assistance 

DBHS provides and supports training and workforce development programs focused on best 

practices in substance use services. Many are facilitated in collaboration with other organizations, 

such as the Association of Community Psychiatrists and Child Protective Services. The agency cosponsors the Annual Summer School on Substance Abuse, which provides training on family 

centered addictions treatment, adolescent substance abuse treatment, co-occurring disorders, drug 

courts, cultural competence, and other best practice approaches. 

DBHS recently established a specialized Training Unit which provides internal training to DBHS staff 

and which develops and coordinates training with the T/RBHAs and their providers. The T/RBHAs 

also offer technical assistance to their providers in applying needs assessment data to their program 

focus and design. Arizona holds an annual statewide prevention providers meeting, and results from 

the recent Prevention Needs Assessment serve as a focus of the training. 

102 
Inventory of State Profiles Arizona 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Arizona did not report any expenditures on resource development activities for FYs 2000 

through 2002. 

Arizona did not report any 

expenditures for resource 

development activities for FYs 2000 

through 2003. 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment N/R** 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Quality Assurance N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Training N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Education N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Program Development N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Research and Evaluation N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Information Systems N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Total* N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

**N/R = Not Reported 

103 
Arizona Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Arizona received $8.3 million in 38 Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary 

grants in FY 2004. Nineteen of the 38 grants were awarded to drug-free communities (totaling $1.7 

million). The largest single award was a Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF 

SIG) (for nearly $2.4 million). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy & Other Club Drugs 

Prevention Services 1 292,356 

Drug Free Communities 19 1,698,785 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Expansion Cooperative Agreements 3 190,908 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Youth Services Cooperative 

Agreements 2 127,272 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 4 1,307,361 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 4 Services 3 1,045,434 

Prevention of Meth and Inhalant Use 3 943,511 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Youth Transition into the Workplace 2 299,964 

Total 38 8,256,556 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

In FY 2004, Arizona received $10.9 million in Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) 

discretionary funds for treatment services. The single largest type of grant was awarded to targeted 

capacity-HIV/AIDS, which received 5 of the 25 grants at $2.4 million. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 3 1,193,141 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 250,000 

Grants for Accreditation of OTPs 1 469,168 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 2 800,000 

Recovery Community Service 3 726,179 

Residential SA TX 1 496,369 

Strengthening Access and Retention 1 199,998 

Strengthening Communities -Youth 2 1,396,169 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 3 1,459,985 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 5 2,407,794 

TCE Minority Populations 2 999,986 

Youth Offender Reentry Program 2004 1 500,000 

Total 25 10,898,789 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

104 
ARKANSAS 

State SSA Director 

Joe M. Hill, Director 

Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention 

Division of Behavioral Health Services 

Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services 

4313 West Markham Street 

Third Floor Administration 

Little Rock, AR 72205 

Phone: (501) 686-9866 

Fax: (501) 686-9035 

E-mail: joe.hill@arkansas.gov 

Web site: www.state.ar.us/dhs/dmhs 

Structure and Function 

The mission of the State of Arkansas, Department of Health and Human Services, 

Division of Behavioral Health Services (DBHS), Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

Prevention (OADAP) is to help Arkansas citizens live productive lives free from the 

abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. OADAP is the Single State Agency 

(SSA) for Arkansas and its responsibilities are to fund, license, coordinate, monitor, 

and provide technical assistance and programming in prevention, education, 

intervention, treatment, training, and public information related to substance abuse. OADAP 

comprises the following sections: Administration; Treatment Services Section, which includes the 

Program Compliance and the Drug and Alcohol Safety Educational Program and Medical Services; 

Prevention Services Section; Data Management Section; and the Strategic Prevention Framework 

State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) Program. 

OADAP’s goals include the following: (1) to act as a strong advocate for comprehensive alcohol, 

tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) abuse education, intervention, prevention, and treatment services 

and to assure that these programs are identified and presented to lawmakers key decisionmakers; 

(2) to assure the provision of comprehensive treatment and prevention services to citizens who have 

an ATOD abuse problem or potential problems; (3) to assure that comprehensive services are 

tailored to the specific needs of individuals within each county and region of the State; (4) to assure 

that all services provided for the alcohol and drug abuser meet minimum standards required for 

quality care; (5) to distribute available resources in the most cost efficient and cost effective process 

available; (6) to coordinate with other entities to maximize utilization of resources and services; (7) to 

provide comprehensive educational and training resources that are responsive to the changing and 

diverse needs of ATOD abuse in Arkansas; and (8) to create and sustain a constituency of citizens 

to act as advocates for substance abuse issues. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Division of Behavioral Health Services (DBHS) 

Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention (OADAP) 

Data Development & System Evaluation Treatment Services Prevention Services 

SPF SIG Program 

Program Compliance & Outcome Monitoring Medical Services 

Alcohol Safety Program 

105 
Arkansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, total SSA funding increased from $18.4 to $19.3 million. Most (63 

percent) SSA funding in FY 2003 was provided by the Block Grant, 29 percent by the State, and 7 

percent by other Federal sources. These proportions are similar to those in FYs 2000 through 2002. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

9% 7% 

SAPT Block

SAPT Block State Grant

Grant State 30% 63%

61% 29% 

Local 

1% 

N=$18,369,468 N=$19,269,777 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 11,322,249 62 11,867,929 62 12,331,662 64 12,169,977 63 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 1,585,961 9 1,434,283 8 1,288,509 7 1,337,067 7 

State 5,461,258 30 5,412,732 28 5,327,700 28 5,561,349 29 

Local 0 0 282,754 1 333,610 2 201,384 1 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 18,369,468 100 18,997,698 100 19,281,481 100 19,269,777 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

106 
Inventory of State Profiles Arkansas 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, the proportion of total SSA funds spent on treatment increased (from 

74 to 80 percent), while the proportion spent on prevention declined (from 17 to 12 percent), and the 

proportion spent on administration costs remained relatively stable (between 8 and 9 percent). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

17% Prevention 

Treatment Treatment 12%

74% 80% 

Administration 

9% Administration 

8% 

N=$18,369,468 N=$19,269,777 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 14,339,782 75 14,526,525 75 15,280,827 79 

Alcohol Treatment 6,652,138 36 0 0 

Drug Treatment 6,894,852 38 0 0 

Prevention 3,108,946 17 3,002,378 16 3,240,669 17 2,406,920 12 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,713,532 9 1,655,538 9 1,514,287 8 1,582,030 8 

Total* 18,369,468 100 18,997,698 100 19,281,481 100 19,269,777 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

107 
Arkansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, Block Grant funds in the State increased from $11.3 to $12.2 million. 

During that time period the allocation of funds remained relatively stable with most (75 to 77 percent) 

going toward treatment services, 19 to 20 percent toward prevention, and 4 to 5 percent toward 

administration costs. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Prevention Treatment Prevention

76% 20% 75% 20% 

Administration Administration 

4% 5% 

N=$11,322,249 N=$12,169,977 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 9,145,761 77 9,248,747 75 9,192,448 76 

Alcohol Treatment 4,158,048 37 0 0 

Drug Treatment 4,400,761 39 0 0 

Prevention 2,254,167 20 2,243,910 19 2,466,332 20 2,406,920 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 509,273 4 478,258 4 616,583 5 570,609 5 

Total* 11,322,249 100 11,867,929 100 12,331,662 100 12,169,977 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

108 
Inventory of State Profiles Arkansas 

 Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures for alcohol and drug abuse services remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 

and 2003, ranging from $5.3 to $5.6 million. The allocation of funds also remained stable during that 

time period, with most (83 percent in FY 2003) going toward treatment services and 17 percent 

toward administration costs. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment Administration Administration

83% 83% 17% 17% 

N=$5,461,258 N=$5,561,349

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 4,458,664 82 4,555,962 86 4,641,505 83 

Alcohol Treatment 2,261,701 41 0 0 

Drug Treatment 2,261,702 41 0 0 

Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 937,855 17 954,068 18 771,738 14 919,844 17 

Total* 5,461,258 100 5,412,732 100 5,327,700 100 5,561,349 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

109 
Arkansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

OADAP funds community-based prevention programs to address substance abuse prevention 

programming at the local level. OADAP supports prevention services statewide through thirteen (13) 

Prevention Resource Centers (PRCs). The PRCs are responsible for representing ATOD 

prevention-related issues/needs/concerns to and within their assigned counties and for participating 

in appropriate efforts of the various prevention-related networks within their designated region. 

Establishing and maintaining good working relationships is an on-going effort for the PRC. The 

PRCs are responsible for providing services related to the six primary prevention strategies of 

Information Dissemination, Education, Alternatives, Problem Identification and Referral, Communitybased Processes, and Environmental strategies. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, prevention funding declined from $3.1 to $2.4 million. During that time 

period, the source of the funds changed dramatically. In FY 2003 all prevention funds were derived 

from the Block Grant, whereas in FY 2000 only 73 percent came from the Block Grant and 27 

percent came from other Federal sources. 

Block Grant funding per capita for prevention services remained fairly stable from FY 2000 to FY 

2003, and increased slightly. In FY 2000, Block Grant expenditures were $0.84 per capita and in FY 

2003, expenditures were $0.88 per capita. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

SAPT Block Other

Federal SAPT Block Grant 

27% Grant 

73% 100% 

N=$3,108,946 N=$2,406,920 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

110 
Inventory of State Profiles Arkansas 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 2,254,167 73 2,243,910 75 2,466,332 76 2,406,920 100 

Other Federal 854,779 27 758,468 25 774,337 24 0 0 

State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 3,108,946 100 3,002,378 100 3,240,669 100 2,406,920 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Information dissemination is conducted via a library, clearinghouse, 

presentations, newspaper ads, and health fairs, booths at 

conferences/workshops, and State or national awareness campaigns. 

Education Strategies include the Mid-South Summer School, Prevention Institute, and 

Teacher Training. 

Alternatives Alternative efforts include community service opportunities, athletic and 

recreational activities, cultural events/celebrations, retreats, and field trips. 

Community-Based Processes 

Processes include community volunteer training, action planning for 

community decisionmakers, leadership/mobilization training, teacher 

training, interagency collaboration, coalition building, networking, and task 

force development. 

Environmental 

Activities center on changing attitudes and norms within the community, 

including assistance to communities and coalitions in promoting smokefree restaurants, monitoring the enforcement of laws relative to the sale of 

alcohol and tobacco to minors and providing alcohol, tobacco education for 

retailers, and provide opportunities for individual college and university 

campuses. 

Problem Identification and Referral OADAP developed and updated a resource directory of available services 

within each region and delivered the Drugs Don’t Work Program. 

111 
Arkansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for prevention core strategies increased slightly between FYs 2000 and 2003 

from $2.3 to $2.7 million. During that time period these funds were spread across various types of 

activities, including educational strategies, information dissemination strategies, and communitybased processes. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Problem ID Strategy Problem ID 

Alternatives and Referral Alternatives and Referral 

Education 3% 3% Community- Education 2% 4% 

29% 25% Community­ Based Based Process Process

25% 21% 

Environmental Environmental 

7% 4% 

Other Information Information Other 

Section 1926 - 8% Dissemination Dissemination Section 1926 - 18% 

23% Tobacco 24% Tobacco

2% 2% 

N=$2,254,167 N=$2,655,801 

Expenditures fo Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 524,559 23 548,713 24 540,908 22 630,385 24 

Education 668,120 30 619,638 28 677,665 27 679,815 26 

Alternatives 64,751 3 51,619 2 48,830 2 48,751 2 

Problem ID and Referral 62,621 3 70,104 3 93,180 4 106,045 4 

Community-Based Process 564,940 25 556,572 25 620,221 25 557,331 21 

Environmental 149,327 7 94,343 4 83,727 3 106,045 4 

Other 184,225 8 215,317 10 344,400 14 466,832 18 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 35,624 2 87,604 4 57,401 2 60,597 2 

Total* 2,254,167 100 2,243,910 100 2,466,332 100 2,655,801 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

112 
Inventory of State Profiles Arkansas 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

SAPT Block Grant funds are allocated to local public or non-profit private entities for the provision of 

priority services including outpatient care, residential care, and subordinate or supportive services 

and early intervention services. State funds are used to purchase a portion of these services as well 

as the purchase of medical detoxification. Detoxification services are provided locally through 

OADAP contracted providers who contract with local hospitals when needed to provide inpatient 

detoxification services. In addition, OADAP funds statewide specialty programs for injection drug 

users (IDUs) and pregnant and parenting women. OADAP funds one IDU clinic in conjunction with 

the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. This program provides a comprehensive program 

of treatment services utilizing prescription methadone as an adjunct to treatment. OADAP funds 

seven special women’s services programs which provide unique services for pregnant women and 

women with children. The OADAP administers a contract with the city of Little Rock to provide 

treatment services for specific populations. 

Responsibilities of the Division of Treatment Services include (1) serving as the State methadone 

authority; (2) allocating treatment funding; (3) developing new programs and protocols, including 

Regional Alcohol and Drug Detoxification (RADD), dually diagnosed, and involuntary commitments; 

and (4) coordinating services between DBHS and OADAP providers for dually diagnosed individuals 

in need of substance abuse services; and (5) licensing authority for all drug and alcohol treatment 

programs in the State. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment funds in Arkansas increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $13.6 to $15.3 million). 

During this time period, the Block Grant provided 61 to 64 percent of treatment funds, the State 

provided approximately one third, and other Federal funds accounted for 3 to 8 percent. 

Block Grant treatment expenditures per capita ranged from $3.20 in FY 2000 to $3.42 in FY 2002. 

In FY 2003, Block Grant expenditures for treatment services were $3.37 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

8% 3% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant State State Grant

64% 61% 30% 33% 

Local 

1%

N=$13,546,990 N=$15,280,827 

113 
Arkansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

18,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 8,558,809 64 9,145,761 64 9,248,747 64 9,192,448 61 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 464,778 3 452,603 3 388,206 3 1,245,490 8 

State 4,523,403 33 4,458,664 31 4,555,962 31 4,641,505 30 

Local 0 0 282,754 2 333,610 2 201,384 1 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 13,546,990 100 14,339,782 100 14,526,525 100 15,280,827 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Arkansas’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 15,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for short-term residential or outpatient (nonmethadone) treatment. 

114 
Inventory of State Profiles Arkansas 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis (N=14,922) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 1,076 1,048 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 2,012 5,285 0 

Long-term residential 22 162 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 180 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 1,934 2,949 0 

Intensive outpatient 69 185 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 5,113 9,809 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate nearly 14,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 23 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary substantially when separating out alcohol-only abuse 

versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data 

sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 2,912 20.7 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 10,884 23.3 

Total 13,796 22.7 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 163,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.3 

percent of Arkansas’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use, and 60,000 

persons (2.7 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Arkansas. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.33 6.08 17.14 5.76 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.67 4.75 7.51 1.52 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

115 
Arkansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

OADAP conducts a treatment needs assessment project, helping CSAT achieve one of its outcome 

measurements for the GPRA project. OADAP will utilize data from the treatment needs assessment 

project to aid in future planning activities. OADAP conducts the annual Arkansas Prevention Needs 

Assessment Student Survey using the Communities That Cares instrument. Confidential reports will 

be provided to the participating school buildings/districts, and public reports compiling data at the 

county, region, and State levels will be developed and posted on the OADAP Web page. OADAP 

collects approximately 46 archival data indicators for each of Arkansas’ 75 counties and make this 

information available to communities through the PRC’s clearinghouses. This data are provided via 

printed material, the Web, and a CD-Rom. 

Evaluation 

Evaluation activities for prevention services are conducted in a variety of ways. A Statement of 

Work is negotiated and established to determine the expected performance of each contract or 

grant. OADAP assigns a project officer, who becomes the contact person for activities carried out 

through the contract, to oversee each contract of grant. Quarterly progress reports are required for 

prevention grants and submitted to the project officer. 

Two data sources are used by OADAP Prevention Section to evaluate the overall progress of the 

State. These sources are the Arkansas Prevention Needs Assessment Student Survey, conducted 

annually, and archival risk factor data that captures data from other State agencies that is relevant to 

substance abuse prevention. 

OADAP evaluates its funded treatment programs using the following methods: all alcohol and drug 

treatment programs are required to enter admission, treatment and discharge data regarding the 

client treatment episode into the Alcohol and Drug Management Information System, funded 

programs are required to submit waiting list information, programs are licensed by OADAP, DBHS, 

conducts yearly sight audits of funded programs, the OADAP auditor conducts periodic service to 

billing audits of funded programs, funded programs must submit a Continuing Application Package 

report annually, and program audits must be submitted annually. 

Training and Assistance 

The OADAP uses approximately 3 percent of the funds available under the Block Grant for alcohol 

and drug services to provide training for direct care providers, teachers, criminal justice system 

personnel, primary care providers, and parents in alcohol and drug abuse information and skill 

development. 

116 
Inventory of State Profiles Arkansas 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities increased over time from $422,000 in FY 

2000 to $790,000 in FY 2003. The distribution of these funds changed during this time period, with a 

greater proportion going towards planning, coordination, and needs assessment in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Planning, Development Activities Development Activities 

Coordination, Quality Quality 

Needs 

Education

4% 

Assurance Planning, Assurance 

Assessment 9% Coordination, 8%

Needs 

Research and Assessment 

Evaluation 

11% 

35% Training 

35% 

Program 

8% 

Development Training Research and 

19% 49% Evaluation Program 

9% Development 

13% 

N=$421,952 N=$789,762 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

600,000 

700,000 

800,000 

900,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 46,685 11 45,210 10 222,232 36 274,126 35 

Quality Assurance 39,957 9 35,871 8 45,583 7 59,423 8 

Training 205,010 49 252,484 55 56,416 9 281,076 36 

Education 16,115 4 15,765 3 15,795 3 1,500 0 

Program Development 78,562 19 76,852 17 214,543 35 102,108 13 

Research and Evaluation 35,623 8 34,458 7 57,401 9 71,529 9 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 421,952 100 460,640 100 611,970 100 789,762 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

117 
Arkansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

In FY 2004 Arkansas received six Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary 

grants (all for drug-free communities) totaling $597,000. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grants Number of

 Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 6 597,836 

Total 6 597,836 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Arkansas received $1.3 million in Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) discretionary 

grants in FY 2004: one for effective adolescent treatment and one for the treatment of persons with 

co-occurring disorders. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 243,884 

Treatment of Persons with Co-Occurring Substance 

Related and Mental Disorders 1 1,100,000 

Total 2 1,343,884 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

118 
CALIFORNIA 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Kathryn P. Jett, Director 

California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 

1700 K Street, Fifth Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone: 916-445-1943 

Fax: 916-324-7338 

E-mail: kjett@adp.state.ca.us 

Web site: www.adp.cahwnet.gov/default.html 

Structure and Function 

The Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP), established in 1978, is the 

Single State Agency (SSA) that leads the State’s drug prevention, treatment, and 

recovery efforts. ADP’s vision is healthy individuals and communities free of alcohol 

and other drug problems. Its mission is to lead California’s strategy to reduce 

alcohol and other drug problems by developing, administering, and supporting 

prevention and treatment programs. It has six key functions: administer funding to 

counties who provide alcohol and other drug treatment and prevention services; 

certify, license, monitor, and audit alcohol and other drug programs; develop and 

implement prevention programs and strategies; ensure that clients receive a consistent and 

acceptable level of service; provide public information on alcohol and other drug problems and 

programs; and develop a plan to address problem gambling in California and develop a problem 

gambling prevention program. 

ADP is organizationally located under the Secretary of the Health and Human Services Agency and 

is organized around four program areas: Program Services Division, Licensing and Certification 

Division, Office of Criminal Justice Collaboration, and Office of Problem Gambling. The four 

programs receive support from: Administration, Applied Research and Analysis, Communications, 

Information Management Services, Grants Management, Legal Services, and Legislative and 

External Affairs. 

Three groups provide input to the direction of ADP: The Governor’s Prevention Policy Advisory 

Council, the Director’s Advisory Council, and the County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators 

Association of California. (CADPAAC). In addition, ADP has established interagency agreements 

with other State agencies involved in alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) treatment, including 

the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) and the Department of Mental Health (DMH). 

Single State Agency Structure 

Office of Legal 

Services 

Program 

Services 

Division 

Health and Human Services Agency 

Office of 

Legislative & 

External Affairs 

Communications Office of Grants 

Management 

Licensing & 

Certification 

Division 

Division of 

Administration 

Information 

Management 

Services Division 

Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 

Office of 

Criminal 

Justice 

Collaboration 

Office of Applied 

Research & 

Analysis 

Office of 

Problem 

Gambling 

119 
California Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

California’s SSA expenditures totaled more than $563 million in FY 2003, an increase from $379 

million in FY 2000 In FY 2003 most (44 percent) of the expenditures were derived from the Block 

Grant, followed by 34 percent from the State. This represents a change from FY 2000 when Block 

Grant funds accounted for more than half of total expenditures (59 percent), followed by State and 

Medicaid funds, which each accounted for 19 percent of total expenditures. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid 

19% SAPT Block 21% 

Grant 

Other 44% Other 

SAPT Block Federal Federal 

Grant 

N=$563,794,40 

5 

3% 1%

59%

State State 

19% 34% 

N=$379,276,26

7

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

100,000,000 

200,000,000 

300,000,000 

400,000,000 

500,000,000 

600,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 222,904,011 59 234,563,653 43 250,004,553 48 250,772,440 44 

Medicaid 73,312,027 19 99,484,304 18 76,350,986 15 115,743,764 21 

Other Federal 12,751,922 3 9,711,546 2 3,656,739 1 5,419,284 1 

State 70,308,307 19 196,371,856 36 196,095,283 37 191,858,917 34 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 379,276,267 100 540,131,359 100 526,107,561 100 563,794,405 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

120 
5

Inventory of State Profiles California 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the $563 million in ATOD funding expenditures in California in FY 2003, most (86 percent) went 

towards treatment services, followed by 11 percent for prevention services. While total dollars for 

treatment expenditures increased, prevention fund dollars decreased in FY 2003 when compared to 

FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Administration 

N=$379,276,26

7 

Prevention 

N=$563,794,40 

Prevention 

Treatment 18% 11% HIV Early Treatment 78% Intervention HIV Early 86% 2% Intervention Administration 

3% 1% 

1% 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

0 

100,000,000 

200,000,000 

300,000,000 

400,000,000 

500,000,000 

600,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 139,052,572 37 465,698,785 86 451,786,994 86 481,632,747 86 

Alcohol Treatment 78,016,807 20 826,482 0 

Drug Treatment 78,023,760 21 0 0 

Prevention 69,392,171 18 56,776,831 11 55,777,201 11 61,791,700 11 

Tuberculosis 131,508 0 106,497 0 29,078 0 38,372 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 10,785,533 3 11,618,189 2 12,151,706 2 12,187,398 2 

Administration 3,873,916 1 5,104,575 1 6,362,582 1 8,144,188 1 

Total* 379,276,267 100 540,131,359 100 526,107,561 100 563,794,405 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

121 
0

California Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Treatment and rehabilitation activities accounted for 70 percent of the over $250 million in Block 

Grant expenditures in FY 2003—similar to their proportion in FY 2000. Dollar and distribution 

percentages during this time period have remained relatively stable for prevention, HIV early 

intervention, and administrative activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

24% 23% 

HIV Early Treatment Treatment HIV Early Intervention 70% 70% Intervention 5% 

Administration 5%

1% Administration 

2% 

N=$222,904,01 N=$250,772,44 1 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

50,000,000 

100,000,000 

150,000,000 

200,000,000 

250,000,000 

300,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 401,226 0 170,393,194 73 181,154,956 72 176,162,084 70 

Alcohol Treatment 78,016,807 35 0 0 

Drug Treatment 78,023,760 35 0 0 

Prevention 52,507,764 24 48,871,293 21 53,013,837 21 57,199,375 23 

Tuberculosis 131,508 0 106,497 0 29,078 0 38,372 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 10,785,533 5 11,618,189 5 12,151,706 5 12,187,398 5 

Administration 3,037,413 1 3,574,480 2 3,654,976 1 5,185,211 2 

Total* 222,904,011 100 234,563,653 100 250,004,553 100 250,772,440 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

122 
Inventory of State Profiles California 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, expenditures of State funds by the SSA for alcohol and drug abuse 

services increased dramatically (from $70.3 to $191.9 million). Nearly all of this funding was directed 

toward treatment and rehabilitation activities (ranging from 91 percent in FY 2000 to 99 percent in 

FY 2003). 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Treatment 

Treatment 9% 99% Administration 

91% 1% 

N=$70,308,307 N=$191,858,91 

7 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

50,000,000 

100,000,000 

150,000,000 

200,000,000 

250,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 64,052,534 91 194,623,560 99 194,033,124 99 189,402,376 99 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 826,482 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 6,095,730 9 0 0 346,439 0 274,836 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 160,043 0 921,814 0 1,715,720 1 2,181,705 1 

Total* 70,308,307 100 196,371,856 100 196,095,283 100 191,858,917 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

123 
California Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The Program Services Division – Prevention is located within the ADP. Prevention is carried out at 

the local level through counties, which determine how their primary prevention funds best meet 

identified community needs and priorities. California emphasizes evidence-based community 

prevention approaches and strategies. ADP has several specific prevention requirements: (1) 

assess needs with data, (2) prioritize and commit to purpose, (3) establish actions and 

measurements, (4) use proven prevention actions, and (5) evaluate measured results and make 

improvements. 

Prevention Services works with the Department of Health Services (DHS) to prevent underage 

tobacco use, in support of California’s Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act and 

to meet Synar Requirements. In addition, ADP has a continuing relationship with the California 

Prevention Collaborative (CPC), an association of more than 200 organizations. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

California spent nearly $62 million on prevention services in FY 2003, a decrease from $69.3 million 

in FY 2000. In FY 2003, nearly all (93 percent) of prevention expenditures came from Block Grant 

funds, with the remainder from other Federal funds. By contrast, in FY 2000, Block Grant funds 

constituted three quarters (75 percent) of total prevention expenditures, other Federal funds 

constituted 16 percent of the total, and State funds were 9 percent. 

Per capita, the SAPT Block Grant funding for prevention services ranged from $1.54 to $1.61 

between FYs 2000 and 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Other 

Federal Other 

SAPT Block 16% SAPT Block Federal

Grant 7% 

75% State 93% 

9% 

Grant 

N=$69,392,171 N=$61,791,700 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

124 
Inventory of State Profiles California 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 52,507,764 76 48,871,293 86 53,013,837 95 57,199,375 93 

Other Federal 10,788,677 16 7,905,538 14 2,416,925 4 4,317,489 7 

State 6,095,730 9 0 0 346,439 1 274,836 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 69,392,171 100 56,776,831 100 55,777,201 100 61,791,700 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include the following: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

The Department Resource Center (DRC) identifies, acquires, and transfers 

information regarding program development, best practices, alcohol/drug effects, 

drug-free workplaces, Red Ribbon Week, etc., to the ATOD field. It provides research 

assistance and referrals through local assistance and staffs information booths at 

conferences/workshops/events throughout the State. It also provides publications, 

interacts with the general public, and supports mentoring activities. 

Education 

Strategies include outreach and training to support youth, communities, and special 

service populations through technical assistance contractors. Technical assistance is 

provided for environmental prevention techniques; mentoring for counties, 

communities, and government agencies; prevention; training to the faith community; 

and year-round general prevention campaigns. 

Alternatives 

County alcohol and other drug prevention programs provide infrastructure for 

statewide youth activities, such as alcohol and drug-free recreation activities and 

youth/adult leadership activities. 

Community-Based 

Processes 

ADP’s Prevention Services funds technical assistance for local initiatives identified by 

community groups, prevention practitioners, schools, neighborhood associations, and 

county administrators. 

Environmental 

ADP’s Prevention Services funds technical assistance and training, demonstration 

projects, collaboration, and dissemination of information about environmental 

approaches. Audiences include city planners, community groups, prevention 

practitioners, the educational community, neighborhood associations, county 

administrators, and other public policymakers. 

Problem Identification and 

Referral 

ADP’s Prevention Services funds opportunities for minority youth to participate in 

programs by providing programs with technical assistance and expertise in serving 

minority populations. Prevention Services supports the Governor's Mentoring 

Partnership programs by promoting quality assurance standards and coordinating the 

State employee mentor recruitment campaign. Also, efforts are taken to ensure that 

mentoring is available to special populations. 

125 
California Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

The $57.2 million in Block Grant funding for CSAP core strategies in California was distributed 

widely among the various prevention core strategies. The FY 2003 distribution was nearly identical 

to FY 2000 allocation percentages: education was the top priority, accounting for 36 percent of 

funding in FY 2003, followed by community-based process strategies at 29 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy Alternatives Alternatives 

12%

Problem ID 

and Referral Education 

13%

Environmental

3%

Section 1926 -

Tobacco 

6% 

Education Problem ID

4% and Referral 37% 36% 

Community- 4% 

Based CommunityProcess Based 

26% Information Process Information Dissemination 29% Dissemination Section 1926 - Environmental 9% 13% Tobacco 4%

4%

N=$52,507,764 N=$57,199,375 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 6,945,960 13 5,415,406 11 6,286,213 12 4,990,976 9 

Education 19,068,194 36 15,780,085 32 18,970,249 36 20,406,760 36 

Alternatives 6,404,361 12 6,509,981 13 7,481,735 14 7,711,899 13 

Problem ID and Referral 2,294,159 4 2,195,348 4 2,088,489 4 2,229,269 4 

Community-Based Process 13,730,453 26 15,682,340 32 14,442,947 27 16,601,262 29 

Environmental 2,064,637 4 1,288,133 3 1,744,205 3 1,964,577 3 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 2,000,000 4 2,000,000 4 2,000,000 4 3,294,632 6 

Total* 52,507,764 100 48,871,293 100 53,013,838 100 57,199,375 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

126 
Inventory of State Profiles California 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

The Program Services Division – Treatment is responsible for the management and monitoring of 

California’s publicly funded treatment and recovery services. Previously the State’s role in planning 

and implementing treatment services was largely fiduciary, with ADP allocating funds to counties 

and monitoring fiscal compliance. ADP is in the process of re-engineering the system and delivery 

of alcohol and other drug services. The State’s role in planning and implementing treatment services 

is multifaceted. ADP is initiating a series of changes that will lead to the specification of core 

program outcomes that originate in a research-based approach to continually improve the ATOD 

prevention and treatment system and the services provided clients. 

ADP is currently revising the range of services it provides to better reflect the Continuum of Care 

Model developed by the Institute of Medicine and to improve the health and safety of the citizens of 

California. Through this approach, ADP anticipates offering a continuum of substance abuse 

services that responds to the chronic nature of ATOD problems. 

Central to this redesign, ADP is implementing a client data collection system for both prevention and 

treatment, the California Outcomes Measurement System (CalOMS), in which counties and 

providers transmit client data electronically to a central data base on a wide range of substance 

abuse measures. Client treatment questions have been administered since January 1, 2006, at both 

intake and discharge and are designed to yield data on change while in treatment. As designed, the 

CalOMS treatment data collection system will not only produce data for the SAMHSA-required 

National Outcome Measures, but will also yield customized data for counties and providers that 

describe clients being served and that will identify and facilitate the greater use of successful 

treatment approaches. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Total treatment funding in California increased sharply between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $295 

million to $481.6 million). In FY 2003, the largest source of treatment funding came from the State 

(at 39 percent of the total), with an almost equal 37 percent from Block Grant funds. This distribution 

represents a change from FY 2000, when the Block Grant funded over half of treatment 

expenditures. 

Block Grant funding per capita for treatment and rehabilitation expenditures increased from $4.60 in 

FY 2000 to $4.97 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid SAPT Block 24% 25% Grant 

SAPT Block 37%

Grant

53%

State

22% State

N=$295,093,13 7 

N=$481,632,74 39%

9

127 
California Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

100,000,000 

200,000,000 

300,000,000 

400,000,000 

500,000,000 

600,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 156,441,793 53 170,393,194 37 181,154,956 40 176,162,084 37 

Medicaid 73,312,027 25 99,484,304 21 76,350,986 17 115,743,764 24 

Other Federal 1,286,785 0 1,197,727 0 247,928 0 324,523 0 

State 64,052,534 22 195,450,042 42 194,033,124 43 189,402,376 39 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 295,093,139 100 466,525,267 100 451,786,994 100 481,632,747 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

California’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that more than 242,000 persons were admitted 

to treatment during FY 2002. 

128 
Inventory of State Profiles California 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=242,462) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 43 33 0 

Free-standing residential 15,134 16,334 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 1,992 4,422 0 

Long-term residential 9,562 29,396 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 14,341 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 23,976 91,016 0 

Intensive outpatient 2,243 11,141 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 37 22,792 0 

Total 52,987 189,475 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate nearly 212,000 admissions (where at least 

one substance is known), of which nearly 21,000 are for alcohol only. Calculations (with imputation) 

from TEDS data show that approximately 5 percent of persons admitted to treatment programs 

reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate varied slightly when 

separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a 

discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 20,735 6.4 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 191,102 4.5 

Total 211,837 4.7 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 1,978,000 persons aged 12 and older (6.9 

percent of California’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

798,000 persons (2.8 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in California. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 6.95 5.05 14.54 5.84 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.81 4.57 7.33 1.72 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data are for 2002 and 2003 

129 
California Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

ADP is actively engaged in planning for the continuous improvement of ATOD service delivery. ADP 

uses statutory planning requirements and incorporates customer-based input from county providers, 

consumers, and interested citizens into its quality improvement effort. 

ADP uses a wide variety of data for needs assessment including “The Indicators of Alcohol and Drug 

Abuse,” “The Quarterly Drug and Alcohol Treatment Admissions Report,” “The Drug and Alcohol 

Treatment Access Report,” and “The California Student Survey.” Furthermore, ADP uses information 

from past studies (State Treatment Needs Assessment Program and the California Substance Use 

Survey) to refine estimates of treatment need for the State and counties. 

Evaluation 

County alcohol and drug program administrators are responsible for continually monitoring and 

enhancing their local programs and ensuring compliance with all required standards. In addition, the 

County Monitoring Branch performs annual onsite monitoring of county administrative systems to 

ensure compliance with SAPT funding requirements. 

State licensing and certification staff review residential ATOD treatment programs at least 

every 2 years. When a complaint is filed, an analyst initiates an investigation within 10 working days 

of receipt of the complaint. If the complaint is substantiated or deficiencies are noted, a written 

Notice of Deficiency is issued, and licensees are required to respond in writing with a plan of 

corrective action. 

Training and Assistance 

As part of its strategic planning and continued enhancement of alcohol and other drug prevention, 

treatment, and recovery services, ADP provides training and technical assistance through the State 

Medical Director and technical assistance contractors that assist in designing and implementing the 

statewide continuum of care. ADP funds statewide technical assistance and training through 

workshops, symposiums, and training events for staff working in publicly funded prevention and 

treatment services programs. ADP also provides onsite assistance/services tailored to the needs of 

constituent groups requesting services. 

130 
Inventory of State Profiles California 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

With the exception of FY 2002, SAPT Block Grant funding for resource development activities in 

California remained over $5 million from FYs 2000 to 2003. In FY 2003, half (50 percent) of these 

funds were spent on program development—an increase from FY 2000, when only 26 percent of 

total funds were spent on this activity. By contrast, the percent of expenditures for information 

systems decreased over time from 47 percent to 19 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Planning, Development ActivitiesQuality 

Coordination, Planning, Assurance 

Needs Coordination, Information 8% 

Systems Assessment Needs 

47% 12% Quality Assessment

Assurance 11%

Training 4%

Information

5% Systems 

Program 19% 

Research and Development Evaluation 26% 

6% 

Program 

Development Research and 

Evaluation 50%

6% 

Training 

6% 

N=$5,350,615 N=$5,522,932 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY2002 FY2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 647,635 12 570,862 11 500,274 12 628,776 11 

Quality Assurance 201,084 4 102,608 2 411,544 10 421,569 8 

Training 261,245 5 252,940 5 233,038 5 344,104 6 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 1,394,371 26 1,595,652 32 980,526 23 2,756,126 50 

Research and Evaluation 346,280 6 437,573 9 672,524 16 330,997 6 

Information Systems 2,500,000 47 2,071,625 41 1,531,969 35 1,041,360 19 

Total* 5,350,615 100 5,031,260 100 4,329,875 100 5,522,932 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

131 
California Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded more than $15 million in 73 discretionary 

grants to entities in California during FY 2004. More than $6.5 million (44 percent) of that funding 

was targeted at HIV/AIDS services. More than a quarter (27 percent) went to State incentive 

cooperative agreements, and another quarter was awarded to different drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy & Other Club Drugs 

Prevention Services 2 584,712 

Drug Free Communities 42 3,819,656 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 1 68,682 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Expansion Cooperative Agreements 4 254,544 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Youth Services Cooperative 

Agreements 3 190,908 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 7 2,346,117 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 4 Services 5 1,745,220 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 8 2,000,000 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreements 1 4,000,000 

Total 73 15,009,839 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded more than $45.5 million in discretionary 

grants to a wide range of California entities during FY 2004. The largest awards were targeted at 

Access to Recovery (ATR) ($13.3 million), HIV/AIDS targeted capacity ($8.6 million), and homeless 

addictions treatment ($5.8 million). 

132 
Inventory of State Profiles California 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Access to Recovery 2 13,305,261 

Addiction Technical Transfer Center 1 663,320 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 6 2,380,613 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 7 1,730,154 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 13 5,827,743 

Methamphetamine Populations 3 1,496,543 

Pregnant/Post-Partum Women 4 1,997,727 

Recovery Community Support - Facilitating 1 350,000 

Recovery Community Support - Recovery 1 347,559 

Residential SA TX 2 1,000,000 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 1 50,000 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

State TCE Screening Brief Intervention Referral 

Treatment 1 3,331,238 

Strengthening Access and Retention 1 200,000 

Strengthening Communities -Youth 1 749,086 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 3 1,485,938 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 18 8,557,872 

TCE Rural Populations 1 499,956 

Youth Offender Reentry Program 2004 3 1,444,475 

Total 70 45,517,485 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

133 
(EISS)

COLORADO 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Janet Wood, Director 

Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division 

Colorado Department of Human Services 

4055 South Lowell Boulevard 

Denver, CO 80236 

Phone: 303-866-7486 

Fax 303-866-7481 

E-mail: janet.wood@state.co.us 

Web site: www.cdhs.state.co.us 

Structure and Function 

The Department of Human Services (DHS) is the Single State Agency (SSA) 

under which the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division (ADAD) falls. ADAD formulates 

a comprehensive State plan for alcohol and drug abuse programs, ensures 

compliance with SAPT Block Grant requirements, conducts surveys of the need 

for substance abuse services and purchases those services, monitors grants, 

and implements and enforces rules and conditions that might be imposed on 

programs and staff that deliver substance abuse services. 

To fulfill its mission, ADAD is organized into four sections: Prevention Services Section (PSS), 

Treatment Section, Evaluation and Information Services (EISS), and Fiscal and Contract Monitoring. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Human 

Services (DHS) 

Administrative Services Adult Services

Division of Mental 

Health 

Colorado State 

Mental Health 

Institutes 

Alcohol and Drug 

Abuse Division 

(ADAD) 

Supportive Housing 

for Homeless Program 

Traumatic Brain 

Injury Program 

Prevention Services 

Section (PSS) Treatment Section Evaluation and Information Services 

Fiscal and Contract 

Monitoring 

Children, Youth and 

Family Services 

Office of Behavioral 

Health & Housing 

135 
Colorado Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Colorado’s overall SSA funding totaled more than $35.3 million in FY 2003—up from $31.2 million in 

FY 2000. The distribution of funds remained fairly stable during this time, with funding from the Block 

Grant and the State increasing over time. In FY 2003 two-thirds of total SSA funding was provided 

by the Block Grant, and just under one-third was provided by the State. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Medicaid 

Federal 1% Other 

6% Federal 

2% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block State 

Grant State Grant

31% 

28% 66% 66%

N=$31,245,576 N=$35,312,907 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 20,297,398 65 21,382,601 59 22,213,303 60 23,366,008 66 

Medicaid 103,025 0 213,153 1 347,525 1 341,854 1 

Other Federal 1,971,198 6 4,013,659 11 3,207,486 9 565,836 2 

State 8,873,955 28 10,508,475 29 11,467,444 31 11,039,209 31 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 31,245,576 100 36,117,888 100 37,235,758 100 35,312,907 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

136 
Inventory of State Profiles Colorado 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Most (82 percent) of Colorado’s SSA expenditures went toward treatment services in FY 2003, and 

18 percent toward prevention services. This distribution of funds was similar over time from FY 2000 

to 2003. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment Prevention 

79% 82% Prevention 19% 

18% 

Administration 

2% 

N=$31,245,576 N=$35,312,907 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 9,301,717 30 11,828,050 33 28,924,014 78 28,963,031 82 

Alcohol Treatment 7,624,481 24 10,585,539 29 

Drug Treatment 7,967,876 26 5,799,845 16 

Prevention 5,820,944 19 7,637,657 21 8,105,021 22 6,181,247 18 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 530,558 2 266,797 1 206,723 1 168,629 0 

Total* 31,245,576 100 36,117,888 100 37,235,758 100 35,312,907 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

137 
Colorado Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, Block Grant funding in Colorado rose from $20.3 to $23.4 million. 

The distribution of Block Grant funds over that time period remained relatively stable, with 76 to 78 

percent going toward treatment and rehabilitation services, 21 percent toward prevention services, 

and the remainder toward administration costs. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Treatment Treatment Prevention 21% 

76% 78% 21%

Administration Administration

3% 1% 

N=$20,297,398 N=$23,366,008 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 17,326,013 78 18,280,906 78 

Alcohol Treatment 7,624,481 38 10,585,539 50 

Drug Treatment 7,967,876 39 5,799,845 27 

Prevention 4,192,483 21 4,730,420 22 4,680,567 21 4,916,473 21 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 512,558 3 266,797 1 206,723 1 168,629 1 

Total* 20,297,398 100 21,382,601 100 22,213,303 100 23,366,008 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

138 
Inventory of State Profiles Colorado 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures on alcohol and drug abuse services in Colorado increased from $8.9 million in 

FY 2000 to $11 million in FY 2003. In FY 2003, nearly all (94 percent) of State funding was spent on 

treatment services (down slightly from 99 percent in FY 2000) and 6 percent on prevention services 

(up from only 1 percent in FY 2000). 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention

Treatment Treatment

1% 6% 

99% 94%

N=$8,873,955 N=$11,039,209 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 8,738,692 98 10,212,560 97 10,897,258 95 10,340,271 94 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 117,263 1 295,915 3 570,186 5 698,938 6 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 18,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 8,873,955 100 10,508,475 100 11,467,444 100 11,039,209 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

139 
Colorado Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The State's primary prevention goals are to develop, implement, maintain, and evaluate, on a 

statewide basis, prevention programs that address alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) issues. 

This includes reducing risk factors and increasing protective factors related to substance abuse 

among individuals and their peers, family, school, and community. In order to accomplish this goal 

and to document results, data are collected from several sources, including ADAD's Prevention 

Evaluation Partnership (PEP). 

ADAD funds approximately 50 prevention programs across the State by encouraging prevention 

programs to impact multiple levels of social structures including individuals, families, groups, 

institutions, and communities of the major ethnic and cultural groups in Colorado. ADAD also 

encourages programs to promote local ownership, to select ethnically and culturally sensitive 

approaches, to emphasize short- and long-term outcomes, and to develop a diverse constituency of 

local professionals, parents, educators, and volunteers. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding in Colorado increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $5.8 to $6.2 million. 

The proportions of funds received from the different funding sources also changed during this time 

period: the Block Grant increased from 72 percent of total prevention funding to 80 percent, State 

funds increased from 2 to 11 percent, and other Federal funds decreased from 26 to 9 percent of 

total funding. 

Per capita expenditures for prevention services in Colorado ranged from $0.97 to $1.07 between 

FYs 2000 and 2002. In FY 2003 prevention expenditures rose slightly to $1.08 per capita. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other 

Federal SAPT Block 

Other 9% Grant SAPT Block Federal 80% Grant State

26% 72% 11% 

State 

2% 

N=$5,820,944 N=$6,181,247 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

9,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

140 
Inventory of State Profiles Colorado 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,192,483 72 4,730,420 62 4,680,567 58 4,916,473 80 

Other Federal 1,511,198 26 2,611,322 34 2,854,268 35 565,836 9 

State 117,263 2 295,915 4 570,186 7 698,938 11 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 5,820,944 100 7,637,657 100 8,105,021 100 6,181,247 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include the following: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

The Prevention Information Center (PIC) and Regional Alcohol and 

Drug Awareness Resources (RADAR) Clearinghouse disseminate 

a broad collection of videos, curricula, print, posters, CSAP media 

campaign information, and other resources. In addition, the PIC 

houses the resources of STEPP, the tobacco prevention office at 

the Department of Public Health & Environment. 

Education 

The most frequent service types provided are parenting/family 

management, educational services for youth groups, and small 

group sessions. The 12-week Multi-Ethnic Parenting Curriculum 

continues to be provided to high-risk parents. 

Alternatives 

Alternative activities target youth of all ethnic groups who 

participate in programs statewide. A major focus of the strategy is 

mentoring/significant other programs. Other alternative activities 

include an "Arts in Prevention" program and seven afterschool or 

early evening programs. 

Community-Based Processes 

Community-based activities focus on local communities, including 

prevention subcontractor-providers, community organizations, task 

forces, and coalitions. ADAD continues to fund a statewide 

Regional Prevention Center Services contract to oversee the work 

of seven Regional Prevention Specialists, based in the seven 

substate planning areas, to provide training and technical 

assistance to residents of the respective region. 

Environmental 

The majority of services focus on preventing underage sale 

of tobacco/Synar, environmental consultation to communities, and 

managing public policy efforts. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

The major focus of adult problem identification and referral involves 

the development of a group of small and very small businesses 

that form a consortium to deal with worksite substance abuse 

problems. 

141 
Colorado Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for CSAP prevention core strategies increased from $4.2 to $4.9 million 

between FYs 2000 and 2003. The distribution of funds remained relatively stable over the years, 

with community-based processes and alternatives receiving the largest proportions. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Education Alternatives Education Alternatives 15% 23% 13% 

Environmental 

6% 

24%

Information 

Information Problem ID Dissemination Problem ID 

and Referral Dissemination and Referral 13% 

17% 1% 6% Section 1926 ­

Other Tobacco Community5% 

Community- 2% Other Based 

Environmental 

Based 18% Process 

4% 23% Process 

30% N=$4,192,483 N=$4,916,473 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 713,620 17 828,856 18 553,907 17 643,918 13 

Education 637,873 15 740,877 16 398,331 12 642,653 13 

Alternatives 980,570 23 1,139,098 24 844,243 26 1,175,404 24 

Problem ID and Referral 231,229 6 268,568 6 151,369 5 68,446 1 

Community-Based 

Process 1,275,746 30 1,481,753 31 1,010,120 31 1,106,912 23 

Environmental 147,508 4 171,328 4 151,233 5 306,796 6 

Other 205,937 5 0 0 0 0 863,230 18 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 99,940 2 105,936 3 109,114 2 

Total* 4,192,483 100 4,730,420 100 3,215,139 100 4,916,473 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

142 
Inventory of State Profiles Colorado 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Staffed by a director and nine treatment field managers, the Treatment Section provides oversight to 

the managed service organizations (MSOs) and to the Special Women’s Services (SWS) programs, 

oversees training and staff development activities for the State’s substance abuse workforce, and 

coordinates adolescent services. The Treatment Section also is responsible for ensuring 

compliance with SAPT Block Grant requirements, including developing clinical standards that 

incorporate SAPT Block Grant requirements. 

With staff from the licensing component, Treatment Section staff conduct onsite licensing reviews of 

service providers. Toward that end, Treatment Section staff have been cross-trained to conduct 

fiscal and data systems reviews. Treatment Section staff collaborate with other provider systems, 

such as county child welfare agencies, to implement joint programming involving substance-abusing 

clients. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment expenditures in Colorado increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $24.9 to $29 

million). The proportion of funds from the different funding sources remained stable during that time 

with the largest proportion coming from the Block Grant (contributing 58 to 63 percent of the total), 

followed by the State (ranging from 35 to 38 percent). 

Block Grant treatment expenditures in Colorado increased from $3.60 to $4.02 per capita between 

FYs 2000 and 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other Medicaid 

Federal 1% 

2% 

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant State 

Grant State 63% 36% 

63% 35% 

N=$24,894,074 N=$28,963,031 

Expenditures on Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

143 
Colorado Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 15,592,357 63 16,385,384 58 17,326,013 60 18,280,906 63 

Medicaid 103,025 0 213,153 1 347,525 1 341,854 1 

Other Federal 460,000 2 1,402,337 5 353,218 1 0 0 

State 8,738,692 35 10,212,560 36 10,897,258 38 10,340,271 36 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 24,894,074 100 28,213,434 100 28,924,014 100 28,963,031 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Colorado’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 68,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for free-standing residential services. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis (N=68,381) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 48,331 2,456 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 1,368 1,881 0 

Long-term residential 53 319 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 38 1,375 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 4,797 6,388 0 

Intensive outpatient 584 791 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 55,171 13,210 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data also indicate more than 68,000 admissions (where at 

least one substance is known), of which nearly 49,000 are for alcohol only. Calculations (with 

imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 12 percent of persons admitted to 

treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate 

varied when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with 

other drugs. Approximately 7 percent of persons admitted for abusing alcohol only were 

diagnosed with a psychiatric problem and 24 percent of persons admitted for abusing alcohol in 

combination with other drugs were diagnosed as having a psychiatric problem. (For a discussion 

of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

144 
Inventory of State Profiles Colorado 

Percent of Admissi ons with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 48,639 7.3 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 18,911 23.9 

Total 67,550 11.9 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 315,000 persons aged 12 and older (8.6 

percent of Colorado’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 112,000 

persons (3.0 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Colorado. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 8.55 6.24 20.00 6.87 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 3.04 4.72 9.68 1.66 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

145 
Colorado Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Using ADAD's Prevention Evaluation Partnership (PEP) Outcome Evaluation System, ADAD 

determines the number of persons served in each CSAP strategy. PEP collects statistics from every 

prevention provider on a monthly basis. Funds are targeted to communities and populations at risk 

for substance abuse and to those with limited or no prevention resources. The CSAP high-risk 

populations are major targets for Block Grant-funded services in each of the substate planning 

areas. In addition, all providers and potential providers are required to provide an assessment of 

need. County-level social indicator data from the Colorado Prevention-Related Indicators Report was 

also available for determining need for services. 

Evaluation 

ADAD’s treatment dollars are allocated to 4 managed service organizations and their 40 

subcontractor providers. Accountability is ensured by a variety of means that include onsite 

monitoring of providers. The detailed assessment tools contain elements that correspond to each of 

the terms of the ADAD contracts and subcontracts and specifically address all of the fiscal and 

clinical Block Grant requirements. The primary focus of the interviews and reviews of program 

records, including client records, is to examine the administration and delivery of services delivered 

to Colorado priority populations, which include the five Federal priority populations. The women’s 

treatment coordinator and the controlled substance administrator are involved in all visits, assuring 

adequate attention to each agency’s compliance with admissions, interim services, and other priority 

population requirements. 

ADAD prevention staff does onsite visits to contractor sites every other year. In between visits there 

is telephone and e-mail communication to assure that everything is on schedule. The focus of the 

site visits is continuous quality improvement. The regional prevention consultant from the 

geographic area in which the site is located may also attend. Site visits provide an opportunity to 

explore strategies for enhancing performance and to ensure that contractual obligations are being 

met. The contractors receiving the largest amount of prevention funds from ADAD are in the Denver 

metro area. The Prevention Services Section works with them on a continuous basis, thereby 

knowing their strengths and challenges and providing technical assistance. 

Training and Assistance 

In FY 2004 ADAD cosponsored six interagency regional prevention summits held across the State 

involving a cross-section of health, education, mental health, and substance abuse services 

providers. These sessions provided valuable information about workforce development needs as 

participants responded to a series of "Core Competencies" recommendations presented by the 

Prevention Leadership Council. 

ADAD's prevention services staff actively participate on the PLC workforce development planning 

group, which in SFY 2004 participated in a Southwest Regional Prevention Workforce Initiative in 

Houston, Texas, to link workforce competencies with prevention planning. 

Other training offered annually includes ADAD Research Forums, Prevention Specialist Training, 

Annual Detox Subcontractor Provider Training, DUI Treatment Subcontractor Provider Training, 

Counselor Certification Training, Specialized Women's Services (SWS) Subcontractor Provider 

Training, and Annual Detox Subcontractor Provider Training. 

146 
Inventory of State Profiles Colorado 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

After increasing between FYs 2000 and 2002, Block Grant funding for resource development 

activities in Colorado declined to $645,000 in FY 2003. In FY 2003, quality assurance received the 

largest proportion (54 percent) of these funds, program development received 17 percent, and 

research and evaluation received 16 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities Planning, 

Coordination, Information 

Systems Needs 

Quality 8% Assessment 

Assurance Research and

5% 

Quality Information 43% Evaluation

Systems 16% Assurance 

28% Program 54% 

Development 

Training 

1% 

Research and 17% 

Training Education Evaluation Program 3% 4% 9% Development Education 

9% 3% N=$833,548 N=$644,957 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 38,113 5 41,267 5 65,228 7 0 0 

Quality Assurance 367,038 44 437,308 53 449,338 47 352,905 55 

Training 23,789 3 29,016 4 28,400 3 5,544 1 

Education 23,789 3 29,016 4 28,400 3 27,722 4 

Program Development 73,717 9 41,485 5 137,679 14 107,081 17 

Research and Evaluation 76,225 9 82,534 10 84,872 9 102,915 16 

Information Systems 230,877 28 159,992 19 156,415 16 48,790 8 

Total* 833,548 100 820,618 100 950,332 100 644,957 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

147 
Colorado Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Colorado received more than $5.5 million in Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

discretionary awards in FY 2004. The largest single award was for the Strategic Prevention 

Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 18 1,650,952 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 1 70,328 

Family Strengthening 1 394,175 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 340,500 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 2 500,000 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 2 50,000 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant 1 2,350,965 

Youth Transition into the Workplace 1 149,990 

Total 27 5,506,941 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded the State $4.7 million in 13 discretionary 

grants for treatment services in FY 2004. The largest recipient of funds was homeless addictions 

treatment at $1.2 million. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 1 386,740 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 2 499,995 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 2 1,188,366 

Recovery Community Support - Recovery 1 350,000 

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment 1 485,845 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 1 50,000 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 1 499,735 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 2 649,201 

TCE Minority Populations 1 499,933 

Total 13 4,709,815 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

148 
CONNECTICUT 

State SSA Director 

Thomas A. Kirk, Jr., Ph.D., Commissioner 

Connecticut Department of Mental 

Health and Addiction Services 

P.O. Box 341431, MS-14 COM 

Hartford, CT 06134 

Phone: 860-418-6700 

Fax: 860-418-6691 

E-mail: thomas.kirk@po.state.ct.us 

Web site: www.dmhas.state.ct.us 

Structure and Function 

The Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) is the designated 

Single State Agency (SSA) for the prevention and treatment of alcohol and other 

substance abuse. Its mission is to improve the quality of life of the people of 

Connecticut by providing an integrated network of comprehensive, effective, and 

efficient mental health and addiction services that foster self-sufficiency, dignity, and 

respect. Substance abuse programs funded by DMHAS are organized into five 

regions. The Department’s Prevention Unit oversees the delivery of prevention 

services through local providers. Treatment programs are administered through the 

Health Care Systems Unit within the Division of Community Services and Hospitals (CSH). In 

addition, CSH has established the Women and Children’s Program, and it offers HIV Early 

Intervention services in the context of substance abuse treatment to clients admitted to particular 

programs located in area with high rates of AIDS. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Women’s 

Services 

Department of Mental Health and 

Addiction Services 

(DMHAS) 

Prevention Unit 

Community-Based 

Prevention Initiatives 

Tobacco Prevention 

and Enforcement 

Regional System 

1) Southwest 

2) South Central 

3) Eastern 

4) North Central 

5) Northwest 

HIV/AIDS 

Health Care Statewide

Systems Unit Services

Community Services and 

Hospital Division (CHS)

149 
Connecticut Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Connecticut’s overall Single State Agency (SSA) funding has remained fairly constant over time 

increasing slightly from $79.7 million in FY 2000 to $81.7 million in FY 2003. SAPT Block grant 

funding has remained relatively stable during this time period, hovering at above $16 million 

annually. State funds have consistently accounted for more than half of Connecticut’s SSA funding 

and have consistently represented the largest funding component since FY 2000. 

FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

8% 11% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant State 21% 21%

64% State 

64% 

Other Other 

7% 4% 

N=$79,734,913 N=$81,727,373 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

90,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 16,405,660 21 16,609,936 20 16,793,393 21 16,879,723 21 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 9,146,800 11 7,894,307 10 5,521,608 7 6,384,922 8 

State 51,324,669 64 51,528,852 63 51,037,170 65 52,773,004 64 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 2,857,784 4 5,994,077 7 5,689,724 7 5,689,724 7 

Total* 79,734,913 100 82,027,172 100 79,041,895 100 81,727,373 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

150 
Inventory of State Profiles Connecticut 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

The majority of SSA funding was targeted toward treatment and rehabilitation activities from FY 

2000 to 2003. Funding for treatment services remained stable, hovering at about 80 percent of total 

SSA funds. Funding for services also remained stable, accounting for 19 to 20 percent of total funds 

during this time period. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Prevention Treatment Prevention

80% 19% 79% 19% 

HIV Early HIV Early 

Intervention Intervention 

N=$79,734,913 1% N=$81,727,373 2% 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

90,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 51,404,748 65 64,124,295 78 62,794,807 79 65,261,577 79 

Alcohol Treatment 4,644,218 6 0 0 

Drug Treatment 6,990,881 9 0 0 

Prevention 15,525,701 19 16,736,780 20 15,072,493 19 15,154,964 19 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 1,169,365 1 1,166,097 1 1,174,595 1 1,310,832 2 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 79,734,913 100 82,027,172 100 79,041,895 100 81,727,373 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

151 
Connecticut Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Funding allocations remained relatively stable over FYs 2000 to 2003: most of the Block Grant 

funds were spent on treatment and rehabilitation activities (ranging from 67 percent to 71 percent), 

while prevention consistently accounted for approximately one-quarter of total Block Grant 

expenditures. HIV early intervention services consistently accounted for 5 percent of SAPT Block 

Grant funds. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

27% 

Prevention 

24% Treatment 

Treatment 71% 

68% 

HIV Early HIV Early Intervention Intervention 

5% 5% 

N=$16,405,660 N=$16,879,723 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

18,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 11,446,829 69 11,176,506 67 11,418,255 68 

Alcohol Treatment 4,644,218 28 0 0 

Drug Treatment 6,990,881 43 0 0 

Prevention 3,950,278 24 4,332,611 26 4,777,217 28 4,617,482 27 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 820,283 5 830,496 5 839,670 5 843,986 5 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 16,405,660 100 16,609,936 100 16,793,393 100 16,879,723 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

152 
Inventory of State Profiles Connecticut 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Connecticut contributed nearly $53 million toward SSA activities in FY 2003. The vast majority of 

State funds were directed to treatment and rehabilitation activities (accounting for over 90 percent of 

total funding for FYs 2000 to 2003). Connecticut expended 10 percent or less of State funds on 

prevention services during the same time period. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

6% Prevention 

10% Treatment HIV Early Treatment 93% Intervention 90% 1% 

N=$51,324,669 N=$52,773,004 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 46,065,224 90 47,470,775 92 47,423,081 93 49,250,158 93 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 5,032,158 10 3,722,476 7 3,279,164 6 3,056,000 6 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 227,287 0 335,601 1 334,925 1 466,846 1 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 51,324,669 100 51,528,852 100 51,037,170 100 52,773,004 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

153 
Connecticut Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Connecticut’s prevention services are based on scientific models and best practices. They are 

provided through a comprehensive system that matches services to the needs of the individuals and 

local communities. This system builds the capacity of all individuals, organizations, and institutions 

within the State and empowers local communities to actively participate in substance abuse 

prevention. 

DMHAS administers and funds more than 100 prevention coalitions, and 60 community-based 

prevention programs provide services statewide or at the regional or local level. There are more than 

130 local prevention councils, 14 regional action councils, multiple State university partnerships, and 

a tobacco prevention and enforcement program supporting Connecticut’s prevention services 

network. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Connecticut consistently spent more than $15 million on prevention services from FY 2000 to FY 

2003 (peaking in FY 2001 at $16.7 million). Funding from the SAPT Block Grant increased slightly 

during that time from 25 percent in FY 2000 to 30 percent in FY 2003. State and other Federal 

funding sources decreased during this time period from approximately 30 percent to 20 percent 

each. 

The SAPT Block Grant funding per capita on prevention services increased from $1.16 in FY 2000 to 

$1.32 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

SAPT Block Other SAPT Block Other 

Grant Federal

State 

33% 

Grant 

25% 

Federal 

N=$15,525,701 

29% 

Other 

13% 

30% 20% 

State 

20% 

Other 

30% N=$15,154,964 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

18,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

154 
Inventory of State Profiles Connecticut 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 3,950,278 25 4,332,611 26 4,777,217 32 4,617,482 30 

Other Federal 4,474,630 29 4,366,380 26 2,528,119 17 2,993,489 20 

State 5,032,158 32 3,722,476 22 3,279,164 22 3,056,000 20 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 2,068,635 13 4,315,313 26 4,487,993 30 4,487,993 30 

Total* 15,525,701 100 16,736,780 100 15,072,493 100 15,154,964 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination Strategies include speaking engagements, media campaigns, and health 

fair materials distribution. 

Education Education includes peer leadership/helper programs, parenting and family 

management programs, and classroom or small group sessions. 

Alternatives Funds support youth/adult leadership activities, community drop-in centers, 

and intergenerational programs. 

Community-Based Processes Training on prevention strategies and theory and technical assistance in 

program development and implementation are provided. 

Environmental 

Environmental strategies include tobacco enforcement and compliance, 

public policy efforts (e.g., regulation, taxes, and legislative changes), and 

changing institutional norms (e.g., workplace, school, and community 

policies). 

Problem Identification and Referral Funds support student and employee assistance programs, aid for children 

of substance abusers, parent support groups, diversion and programs. 

155 
Connecticut Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Education, information dissemination, and alternatives accounted the majority of the expenditures on 

CSAP core strategies for FYs 2000 to 2003. In FY 2002, information dissemination activities 

represented more than two-thirds of the expenditures, and education accounted for 10 percent of the 

prevention expenditures. The FY 2002 figures, however, appear to be a 1-year phenomenon. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core Strategy Problem ID Strategy

Alternatives and Referral

19% 2% Education 

Community- 35% 

Alternatives 

Education 21% Based 39% 

Process Problem ID 

4% and Referral 

Environmental 4% 

Section 1926 - 2% CommunityInformation Tobacco Based 

4% Information Dissemination Process

Dissemination 30% 9% 

31% 

N=$3,950,278 N=$4,617,482 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 1,186,712 30 1,253,139 29 3,310,466 69 1,428,588 31 

Education 1,553,689 39 1,357,290 31 483,360 10 1,595,913 35 

Alternatives 743,665 19 1,237,767 29 253,502 5 953,197 21 

Problem ID and Referral 73,958 2 110,442 3 154,596 3 205,263 4 

Community-Based Process 177,025 4 230,380 5 471,635 10 416,058 9 

Environmental 65,359 2 143,593 3 103,658 2 18,463 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 149,870 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 3,950,278 100 4,332,611 100 4,777,217 100 4,617,482 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

156 
Inventory of State Profiles Connecticut 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Connecticut’s substance abuse treatment system consists of a network of private and publicly 

operated programs. These programs provide a broad spectrum of addiction services including pretreatment, residential detoxification, residential rehabilitation, outpatient, methadone maintenance 

and ambulatory drug detoxification, and ancillary support services. The DMHAS-funded andoperated programs (about 170 community-based programs; 3 inpatient facilities) serve medically 

indigent individuals. In addition, the needs of family members are incorporated into overall treatment 

program designs. Specialty programs (e.g., age-appropriate, cultural, and gender specific) are 

available and serve committed youth, women, and persons of color. 

The treatment system has many accomplishments, such as the following: enacted legislation 

mandating substance abuse parity for group and individual health insurance; developed, in 

cooperation with other State agencies, a common data bank for maintaining State substance abuse 

data; expanded the Jail Re-interview program to enhance the utilization of community-based 

treatment resources; and changed the State mandatory minimum sentencing statutes giving judges 

greater discretion for sentencing non-violent drug offenses. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

The majority of funding for treatment and rehabilitation for FYs 2000 through FY 2003 came from the 

State. During this time period, the amount contributed by the State increased, both in dollar amount 

(from $46.1 to $49.3 million) and in proportion of total funding (from 74 to 76 percent). Funding from 

the Block Grant remained fairly stable during this time period, while funding from other Federal 

sources decreased. 

The Block Grant funding per capita for treatment and rehabilitation services in Connecticut declined 

slightly, from $3.41 in FY 2000 to $3.28 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source Other 

Other Federal

Federal 5% 

7% 

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant State Grant 

State 17% 76% 18%

74% Other

Other 2%

1%

N=$65,261,577 N=$63,039,847 

157 
Connecticut Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 11,635,099 18 11,446,829 18 11,176,506 18 11,418,255 17 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 4,550,375 7 3,527,927 6 2,993,489 5 3,391,433 5 

State 46,065,224 73 47,470,775 74 47,423,081 76 49,250,158 75 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 789,149 1 1,678,764 3 1,201,731 2 1,201,731 2 

Total* 63,039,847 100 64,124,295 100 62,794,807 100 65,261,577 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Connecticut’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 36,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis (N=35,905) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 1,299 1,203 5 

Free-standing residential 3,864 7,698 11 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 400 454 2 

Short-term residential 913 1,541 2 

Long-term residential 848 2,031 2 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 3,015 1 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 4,393 4,615 58 

Intensive outpatient 1,041 1,715 1 

Detoxification (outpatient) 117 676 0 

Total 12,875 22,948 82 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

158 
Inventory of State Profiles Connecticut 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate more than 44,000 admissions (where at least 

one substance is known), of which more than 8,000 are for alcohol only. Calculations (with 

imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 19 percent of persons admitted to treatment 

programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary 

when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. 

(For discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 8,206 18.9 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 35,803 19.1 

Total 44,009 19.0 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 80,000 persons aged 12 and older (2.8 

percent of Connecticut’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in 

Connecticut. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure 

2002–2003 

% 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 6.44 5.24 18.16 4.90 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.81 5.05 8.19 1.73 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; 2002–2003; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

159 
Connecticut Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Connecticut maintains five Health and Human Services Delivery Areas (HHSDAs) to plan prevention 

and treatment services. Regional planning and coordination infrastructure is strengthened by 

Regional Action Councils (RACs). These subregional organizations consist of public–private 

partnerships charged with program development and coordination. 

The Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Policy Council (ADPC), a legislatively mandated public/private 

stakeholder body, developed the Statewide Interagency Substance Abuse Plan (SISAP) to guide 

Connecticut’s prevention and treatment service delivery system. The SISAP identifies strategies for 

developing and implementing a comprehensive, statewide multi-agency blueprint for substance 

abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement. 

Prevention and treatment needs assessment data are obtained from multiple sources: (1) the Adult 

Household Survey that provides prevalence estimates; (2) a survey of all prevention providers to 

identify priority populations, service gaps, and barriers; (3) a DMHAS survey of regional providers 

and RACs; (4) an assessment of current data infrastructure; (5) a study on the need for treatment 

among probationers; and (6) an analysis of administrative client-level treatment data. 

Evaluation 

The State supports and conducts evaluations of its prevention and treatment activities and 

programs. The prevention evaluation design, conducted by the University of Connecticut Health 

Center, focuses on documenting activities and accomplishments of the Governor’s Prevention 

Initiative for Youth. In addition, the evaluation assesses State-, regional-, and community-level 

changes in the prevention delivery system that strengthens the use of science-based strategies. 

Treatment evaluation activities include conducting surveys and examining pre-existing data, such as 

the Connecticut Youth Tobacco Survey 2000 and the Social Indicators Data: Connecticut’s 169 

Towns. 

The DMHAS Health Care Systems and Quality Management and Improvement units are responsible 

for monitoring the performance of behavioral health treatment programs that receive both grant and 

fee-for-service funding from the Department. These units work directly with private, nonprofit 

substance abuse treatment providers primarily through Regional Teams located across the State. 

Primary mechanisms for performance monitoring include a minimum of biannual analyses of 

provider data, onsite reviews, and consumer satisfaction surveys. Contracted agencies that are 

found to have deficiencies in any of the above areas are considered to be “under review” and are 

requested to submit corrective action plans. These plans are reviewed and monitored until 

satisfactory compliance is achieved. 

Training and Assistance 

The DMHAS Training Collaborative provides training on prevention and treatment issues. The 

prevention training courses are based on an annual provider survey, and follow performance and 

certification requirements. In addition, the Multicultural Leadership Institute provides training on 

multicultural issues, and the Connecticut Assets Network provides training on youth and community 

asset building. With respect to treatment, the DMHAS Education and Training Division, collaborates 

with the Wheeler Clinic to provide training on co-occurring and substance use disorders and other 

areas of treatment. Also, DMHAS implemented a Recovery Institute that provides a range of 

evidence-preferred practice courses. 

160 
Inventory of State Profiles Connecticut 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Connecticut spent over $1.1 million on prevention-related resource development activities with SAPT 

Block Grant funds in FY 2003. Planning, coordination, and needs assessment activities account for 

the bulk of those funds (62 percent). Since FY 2000, planning, coordination and needs assessment 

and training activities have been flip-flopping as Connecticut’s number-one and number-two 

priorities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Information 

Systems 

Training (post- Planning, 38% 

employment) Coordination, Planning, 

47% Needs Coordination, 

Assessment Needs 

53% Assessment 

62% 

N=$1,132,774 N=$735,429 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

1,600,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 391,767 53 873,536 64 445,369 42 703,582 62 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training 343,662 47 482,060 36 621,229 58 0 0 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Research and Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0 429,192 38 

Total* 735,429 100 1,355,596 100 1,066,598 100 1,132,774 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SA PT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

161 
Connecticut Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded more than $5.5 million in 25 

discretionary grants to entities in Connecticut during FY 2004. The largest single award of funds 

was for a State Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) ($2.3 million), which is 

intended to develop and enhance State prevention infrastructure. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Award Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy & Other Club Drugs 

Prevention Services 1 292,356 

Drug Free Communities 20 1,740,003 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 1 49,437 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Series 1 348,679 

SPF SIG 1 2,350,965 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreement 1 750,000 

Total for Prevention 25 5,531,440 

SOURCE www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded more than $12 million in 13 

discretionary funds to Connecticut. The largest single source of funds was the Access to Recovery 

(ATR) grant that provides new resources to expand treatment capacity, encourage client choice, and 

strengthen recovery support services. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards in for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Access to Recovery 1 7,591,723 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 3 680,001 

Recovery Community Support – Recovery 1 350,000 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Strengthening Communities – Youth 1 750,000 

Targeted Capacity – HIV/AIDS 5 2,253,587 

TCE Innovative Treatment 1 500,000 

Total for Treatment 13 12,225,311 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

162 
DELAWARE 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Renata J. Henry, Director 

Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Delaware Health and Social Services 

Main Administration Building 

1901 North DuPont Highway, Room 188 

New Castle, DE 19720 

Phone: (302) 255-9398 

Fax: 302-255-4427 

E-mail: renata.henry@state.de.us 

Web site: www.dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dsamh/index.html 

Structure and Function 

The Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), Division of Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health (DSAMH) is Delaware’s designated Single State Agency (SSA). 

The mission of DSAMH is to improve the quality of life for adults having mental illness, 

alcoholism, drug addiction, or gambling addiction by promoting their health and wellbeing, fostering their self-sufficiency, and protecting those who are at risk. DSAMH 

provides services for substance abuse prevention and treatment. 

Service coordination continues to be a main priority of the State's Alcohol and Drug Services system. 

There are 13 cabinet-level agencies under the Governor including DHSS and the Department of 

Services to Children, Youth, and their Families (DSCYF). Since 1987, SAPT Block Grant-funded 

prevention and treatment service delivery responsibilities have been shared between DHSS/DSAMH 

and DSCYF/Division of Child Mental Health Services (DCMHS). During FY 2002, A Memorandum 

of Agreement (MOA) became effective between the DSAMH and DSCYF that outlined agreements 

for funding, responsibilities, and service provision under the Substance Abuse Prevention and 

Treatment Block Grant program. Also in effect as of FY 2005 is a MOA between DSAMH and 

Division of Public Health which outlined agreements for funding, contracting, and monitoring services 

for HIV/AIDS prevention and early intervention for substance abusers in Delaware. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Delaware Health and Social 

Services (DHSS) 

Division of Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health (DSAMH) 

Compliance Consumer Relations 

Community 

Mental Health 

Services 

Substance 

Abuse 

Services 

Delaware 

Psychiatric 

Center 

Planning and 

Program 

Development 

Administration Training and 

Staff 

Development 

Treatment 

Prevention 

Fiscal Management 

Information 

Systems Program Accountability 

Monitoring Licensing Contacts 

163 
Delaware Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Total SSA funding in Delaware increased between FYs 2000 and 2003—from $14.5 to $19.2 million. 

Funding from the Block Grant and other Federal sources was relatively stable over time, while State 

expenditures increased substantially in FYs 2002 and 2003. The State provided most (64 percent) of 

the total funding in FY 2003, followed by the Block Grant (at 34 percent). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

3% 2% 

SAPT Block 

Grant

SAPT Block 

State Grant

38% 59% 34% 

State 

64% 

N=$14,493,707 N=$19,199,531 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 5,533,552 38 6,230,383 36 6,468,740 31 6,577,245 34 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 446,125 3 443,587 3 467,173 2 458,511 2 

State 8,514,030 59 10,733,442 62 13,992,720 67 12,163,775 64 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 14,493,707 100 17,407,412 100 20,928,633 100 19,199,531 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

164 
Inventory of State Profiles Delaware 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the $19 million in SSA funding in FY 2003, most (76 percent) went toward treatment services in 

Delaware and 21 percent went toward prevention services. This distribution of funds reflects a slight 

change from FY 2000, as expenditures on treatment services accounted for 80 percent of total 

expenditures and expenditures on prevention activities accounted for 17 percent. Funding for HIV 

early intervention and administration was relatively stable during this time. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Treatment Prevention 

HIV Early 

21% Treatment 80% 17% 

76% HIV Early Intervention Intervention 

2% 2% 

Administration Administration 

1% 1% N=$14,493,70 

7 N=$19,199,531 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and Rehabilitation 7,594,708 53 14,115,641 81 17,363,566 83 14,530,937 76 

Alcohol Treatment 2,056,140 14 0 0 

Drug Treatment 1,907,809 13 0 0 

Prevention 2,533,978 17 2,725,121 16 2,994,799 14 4,075,557 21 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 246,333 2 345,365 2 310,000 1 328,862 2 

Administration 154,739 1 221,285 1 258,749 1 264,175 1 

Total* 14,493,707 100 17,407,412 100 20,928,633 100 19,199,531 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

165 
Delaware Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Total Block Grant funds in Delaware have remained remarkably similar between FYs 2001 ($6.2 

million) and 2003 ($6.6 million). Over two-thirds (68 percent) of total Block Grant funding was 

earmarked for treatment services in FY 2003, followed by prevention services at 23 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

Treatment 21% Treatment 23% 

72% 68% HIV Early 

Intervention HIV Early 

4% Intervention 

Administration 5% 

N=$5,533,552 3% N=$6,577,245 Administration 

4% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 

0 0 4,336,516 70 4,441,091 69 4,469,272 68 

Alcohol Treatment 2,056,140 37 0 0 

Drug Treatment 1,907,809 34 0 0 

Prevention 1,168,531 21 1,327,217 21 1,457,381 23 1,514,936 23 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 246,333 4 345,365 6 310,000 5 328,862 5 

Administration 154,739 3 221,285 4 258,749 4 264,175 4 

Total* 5,533,552 100 6,230,383 100 6,467,221 100 6,577,245 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

166 
Inventory of State Profiles Delaware 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures increased substantially from $8.5 million in FY 2000 to $14.0 million in FY 2002, 

and then decreased to $12.2 million in FY 2003. The fluctuations were most notable in the State’s 

expenditures on treatment services, which went from $7.6 million (in FY 2000) to $12.9 million (in FY 

2002), and back to $10.1 million (in FY 2003). Funding for prevention activities increased during this 

time period (from $920,000 to $2.1 million). In FY 2003, treatment services received 83 percent of 

total funds and prevention services received 17 percent of funds. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment 

Treatment Prevention 83%

17% 

Prevention 89% 11% 

N=$8,514,030 N=$12,163,775 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 7,594,708 89 9,779,125 91 12,922,475 92 10,061,665 83 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 919,322 11 954,317 9 1,070,245 8 2,102,110 17 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 8,514,030 100 10,733,442 100 13,992,720 100 12,163,775 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

167 
Delaware Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

DSAMH contracts with three providers for a portion of adult prevention services. Each of these 

providers serves high-risk populations identified though needs assessment studies and employs 

multiple strategies across universal, selected, and indicated populations. DSAMH also utilizes 

prevention set-aside funds to continue programs offering alternatives to substance abuse. In 

addition, DSAMH continues to collaborate and provide staff support for the First State Prevention 

Coalition, an interagency working group that monitors prevention efforts nationwide. Partners include 

the Department of Education, the Department of Services for Children, Youth and their Families 

(DSCYF), the Department of Public Safety and Homeland Security, and the Division of Public 

Health. 

The DCMHS, a division of DSCYF, provides voluntary mental health and substance abuse treatment 

services to children up to age 18 who have mental health or substance abuse problems and their 

families. Office of Prevention and Early Intervention (OPEI), located within DSCYF, works with 

children, youth, families, communities, schools and more to provide public information, alcohol, 

tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) education programs and services, community and professional 

mobilization, and alternative programs. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Total prevention funding in Delaware increased from $2.5 million in FY 2000 to $4.1 million in FY 

2003. In FY 2003, 52 percent of funding originated from the State, followed by 37 percent from the 

Block Grant and 11 percent from other Federal sources. By contrast, in FY 2000, 46 percent of 

funding originated from the Block grant, 36 percent from the State, and 18 percent from other 

Federal sources. 

Block Grant expenditures on prevention activities increased steadily in Delaware, from $1.49 per 

capita in FY 2000 to $1.85 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other Other 

Federal SAPT Block Federal 

18% Grant 11% 

37% 

SAPT Block 

Grant 

46% 

State 

36% 

State 

N=$4,075,557 52% N=$2,533,978 

168 
Inventory of State Profiles Delaware 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

4,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 1,168,531 46 1,327,217 49 1,457,381 49 1,514,936 37 

Other Federal 446,125 18 443,587 16 467,173 16 458,511 11 

State 919,322 36 954,317 35 1,070,245 36 2,102,110 52 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 2,533,978 100 2,725,121 100 2,994,799 100 4,075,557 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination Dissemination activities include purchasing and distributing materials related 

to alcohol and drug abuse prevention to children, youth, and adults . 

Education Funds support statewide conferences, in-person education, and training. 

Alternatives 

Strategies include the secure purchasing of service contract(s) with 

community-based organization(s) that possess community 

organization/development expertise to conduct alternative activities designed 

to provide accurate ATOD information and to improve the social, educational, 

and vocational well-being of at-risk children and youth. These activities are 

designed to reshape their leisure time activities to increase their resistance to 

spending their free time experimenting with ATOD. 

Community-Based Processes 

Funds support the development of effective community coalitions through 

funding for the Delaware Prevention Network and other programs that 

encourage parent, youth, and community groups to form alliances to address 

ATOD issues. 

Environmental Strategies include supporting Synar compliance efforts and participating in the 

National Prevention Network and in the First State Prevention Coalition. 

Problem Identification & Referral 

Funds support efforts in schools to identify children with problems and provide 

them with services and linkages to community resources by assisting in data 

collection and outcome measurement. 

169 
N

Delaware Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for CSAP core strategies totaled $1.5 million in Delaware in FY 2003. Most (82 

percent) of these funds went toward education activities, an increase form 59 percent in FY 2000. 

Funding for alternative and environmental strategies decreased during this time period, from 25 

percent to 4 percent, and from 6 percent to 0 percent, respectively. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives

25% CommunityBased 

Information 

Dissemination

12%

Alternatives

4% 

N=$1,514,936 

CommunityProcess Based 

1% Process 

Education Environmental 2%

82% Education 6% 

59% Information 

Dissemination

9%

N=$1,079,294 

=1,514,936 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

1,600,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 97,357 9 170,347 13 195,839 13 186,567 12 

Education 643,327 60 653,881 49 854,522 59 1,234,871 82 

Alternatives 267,123 25 308,863 23 84,327 6 67,015 4 

Problem ID and Referral 0 0 0 0 256,289 18 0 0 

Community-Based Process 9,620 1 9,791 1 6,930 0 24,489 2 

Environmental 61,867 6 71,985 5 59,475 4 1,994 0 

Other 0 0 112,350 8 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 1,079,294 100 1,327,217 100 1,457,382 100 1,514,936 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

170 
Inventory of State Profiles Delaware 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

DSAMH provides public substance abuse treatment services for adults, primarily through contracts 

with private agencies. DSAMH provides a range of treatment services including screening and 

assessment, detoxification, outpatient treatment, intensive outpatient treatment, opioid treatment, 

and residential treatment. The residential services include modified therapeutic treatment 

communities and halfway houses. One residential treatment program accepts pregnant women and 

allows them to keep the infants with them in treatment after delivery. 

DSAMH also has specialized assessment and case management for adult offenders with 

alcohol/drug abuse problems who are involved in the drug courts. These services are provided by 

the DSAMH-operated Treatment Access Center (TASC). Additionally, DSAMH coordinates the 

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry program to provide services to offenders returning to the 

community from incarceration. 

In order to improve treatment performance and outcomes, Delaware has established a performancebased contracting system with outpatient providers. The system uses contracts and payments to 

programs to reward performance on the basis of increase admission and client engagement 

(engagement/utilization), active participation (session attendance), and program completion. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

As reported previously, expenditures on treatment and rehabilitation in Delaware fluctuated between 

FYs 2000 and 2003, as a result of changes in State funding. After increasing in FY 2002 to $17.4 

million, treatment expenditures declined in FY 2003 to $14.5 million. During the same time period, 

SAPT Block Grant funding remained relatively stable and increased slightly. 

Block Grant funding for treatment and rehabilitation in Delaware increased from $5.04 per capita in 

FY 2000 to $5.46 per capita in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant State Grant

69% 

State 

34% 66% 31%

N=$11,558,65 N=$14,530,937 

7 

171 
Delaware Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 3,963,949 34 4,336,516 31 4,441,091 26 4,469,272 31 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 7,594,708 66 9,779,125 69 12,922,475 74 10,061,665 69 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 11,558,657 100 14,115,641 100 17,363,566 100 14,530,937 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Delaware’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 9,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=8,689) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 1,266 1,719 5 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 219 340 1 

Long-term residential 130 318 7 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 625 23 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 990 2,552 38 

Intensive outpatient 62 398 2 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 2,667 5,952 70 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

172 
Inventory of State Profiles Delaware 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate nearly 6,800 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 4 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of 

alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see 

Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 1,080 3.7 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 5,719 3.6 

Total 6,799 3.6 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 47,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.1 

percent of Delaware’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 17,000 

persons (2.6 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Delaware. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.09 5.50 17.19 5.56 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.60 4.50 6.70 1.65 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

173 
Delaware Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

In addition to providing prevention activities through contractual arrangements, DSAMH continued to 

study the prevalence and prevention of alcohol and drug abuse and related problems through a 

statewide needs assessment project that included two statewide surveys, a prevention resource and 

cost study, and a social indicators study. 

Evaluation Activities 

DHSS, Division of Management Services (DMS) is responsible for the Program Evaluation Unit, 

which oversees the implementation of the Department’s Evaluation Policy, mandating evaluation of 

its programs as an "essential activity ... to re-design operations so that they more effectively meet 

client needs." Activities include conducting evaluations of DSAMH programs and providing technical 

assistance and training in evaluation. Technical assistance includes designing surveys for 

measuring customer satisfaction, conducting focus groups, analyzing data, and collaborating in 

developing requests for evaluation proposals. 

Training and Assistance Activities 

Training and assistance activities for alcohol and other drug abuse prevention and treatment 

services are provided through DHSS/DSAMH, DSCYF/DCMHS, and DSCYF/OPEI. 

DHSS/DSAMH’s training office offers year-round training sessions relating to substance abuse 

prevention and treatment services, including an intensive series of workshops offered at the Annual 

Summer Institute. DSCYF/DCMHS offers a variety of training and assistance activities. 

DSCYF/OPEI sponsors an annual conference designed to enhance the professional skills related to 

preventing child abuse and neglect, substance abuse, delinquency and mental health problems in 

youth and to emphasize the importance of programs and best practices that are research based and 

proven effective in the field of prevention and early intervention. 

174 
Inventory of State Profiles Delaware 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, Block Grant expenditures on resource development activities in 

Delaware increased from approximately $631,000 to $921,000. Training activities have consistently 

received the largest proportion of funds, accounting for 44 percent in FY 2003. Other areas receiving 

a larger proportion of funds were planning, coordination, and needs assessment (18 percent), quality 

assurance (15 percent), and program development (13 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities Quality 

Planning, Quality Planning, Assurance 

Research and 

Evaluation

3% Program Education

Development 5%

Coordination, 

Needs 

Assessment

17% 

Assurance Coordination, 15% 20% Needs 

Assessment 

18% 

Information Information Training 

Systems Training 44% 

38% Systems

14% 8% Research and 

Evaluation

2% Program 

Development

13% 3% 

N=$630,779 N=$921,331 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 106,156 17 54,155 12 100,826 12 165,977 18 

Quality Assurance 123,197 20 52,964 12 99,071 11 138,977 15 

Training 235,576 37 174,793 39 372,612 42 397,848 43 

Education 34,000 5 0 0 0 0 250 0 

Program Development 20,657 3 102,287 23 182,361 21 123,899 13 

Research and Evaluation 20,657 3 0 0 0 0 21,707 2 

Information Systems 90,536 14 65,202 15 121,866 14 72,673 8 

Total* 630,779 100 449,401 100 876,736 100 921,331 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

175 
Delaware Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Delaware received about $150,000 in Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary 

prevention funds in FY 2004, all of which went toward drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 2 149,939 

Total 2 149,939 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) discretionary treatment funds totaled nearly $1.4 

million in FY 2004 in Delaware. Funds were awarded to State data infrastructure projects, homeless 

addictions treatment, and targeted capacity-HIV/AIDS. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 1 498,826 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 2 766,175 

Total 4 1,365,001 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

176 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Robert L. Johnson 

Senior Deputy Director, Substance Abuse Services 

Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration 

D.C. Department of Health 

825 North Capitol Street, NE. Suite 3132 

Washington, DC 20002 

Phone: 202-442-5898 

Fax: 202-442-9429 

E-mail: robert.johnson1@dc.gov 

Web site: dchealth.dc.gov/services 

Structure and Function 

The Addiction Prevention and Recovery Administration’s (APRA) primary purpose 

is the prevention of substance abuse, while identifying, treating, and rehabilitating 

individuals within the District of Columbia. APRA is the District’s designated Single 

State Agency (SSA) that provides oversight, ensures access, sets standards, and 

monitors the quality of services delivered as a result of an ongoing continuum of 

substance abuse prevention and treatment. APRA serves as the “one-stop” agency 

for the prevention and treatment of substance abuse in the District of Columbia. 

The APRA philosophy is multi-faceted and multi-targeted and uses a results-oriented methodology 

with a science-based approach to substance abuse prevention and treatment. APRA combines three 

fundamental elements to provide the most effective and innovative strategies in the city’s fight 

against alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs: (1) prevention, (2) treatment, and (2) aftercare. APRA 

offers effective residential, outpatient and aftercare programs as it collaborates with communitybased organizations, schools, and religious institutions to help those in need. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health 

Prevention and Youth 

Treatment 

Public Policy & Special 

Populations 

Clinical Services 

Certification & Quality Faith Based Services

Client Services 

Research Evaluation and 

Grants 

Addiction Prevention 

& Recovery 

Administration 

177 
District of Columbia Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

In FY 2003, nearly $34.9 million was available in Washington, DC, for SSA funding, a substantial 

increase from the amount spent in FY 2000 ($28.6 million). Of the FY 2003 expenditures, 69 percent 

came from the State, 18 percent from the Block Grant, 7 percent from other Federal sources, and 

the remainder from local and other sources. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal

Local

4% 

6% 7% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

State Grant State Grant 

73% 18% 69% 17%

Other

Other 2%

4%

N=$28,586,993 N=$34,890,825 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,952,603 17 5,095,492 18 6,156,854 16 6,266,666 18 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 3,200 0 0 0 

Other Federal 1,706,310 6 1,706,310 6 4,439,301 12 2,483,043 7 

State 20,754,056 73 20,754,056 72 24,814,000 66 24,177,215 69 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,361,836 4 

Other 1,174,024 4 1,174,024 4 2,241,059 6 602,065 2 

Total* 28,586,993 100 28,729,882 100 37,654,414 100 34,890,825 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

178 
Inventory of State Profiles District of Columbia 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Most (82 percent) of the SSA funding in FY 2003 in Washington, DC, was spent on treatment and 

rehabilitation, 13 percent was spent on prevention services, and 4 percent on HIV early intervention. 

The distribution of funds in FY 2003 was similar to that in FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

12% 

Treatment Treatment Prevention HIV Early 

84% 82% 13% Intervention 

HIV Early 2% 

Administration Intervention 

2% 4% 

Administration 

N=$28,586,993 N=$34,890,825 1% 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 27,345,364 73 28,268,893 81 

Alcohol Treatment 9,080,097 32 9,390,608 33 

Drug Treatment 14,513,664 51 14,265,189 50 

Prevention 3,365,187 12 3,476,753 12 5,400,241 14 4,681,009 13 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 692,543 2 588,491 2 43,324 0 1,523,672 4 

Administration 634,502 2 1,008,844 4 4,865,485 13 417,251 1 

Total* 28,586,993 99 28,729,882 100 37,654,414 100 34,890,825 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

179 
District of Columbia Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant expenditures increased from $5 to $6.3 million. In FY 

2003, most (70 percent) of Block Grant funds for SSA activities was spent on treatment and 

rehabilitation, followed by prevention (21 percent) and administration (7 percent) and HIV early 

intervention services (2 percent). The distribution of funds per activity has remained relatively stable 

since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

21% 20% 

HIV Early Treatment HIV Early 

Treatment 

73% 

Intervention 70% Intervention 

3% 2% 

Administration Administration 4% 

7% 

N=$4,952,603 N=$6,266,666 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 4,549,956 74 4,398,806 70 

Alcohol Treatment 1,745,286 35 2,055,797 40 

Drug Treatment 1,842,025 37 1,593,550 31 

Prevention 994,331 20 1,104,897 22 1,126,727 18 1,330,593 21 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 167,543 3 63,491 1 43,324 1 120,016 2 

Administration 203,418 4 277,760 5 436,847 7 417,251 7 

Total* 4,952,603 100 5,095,495 100 6,156,854 100 6,266,666 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

180 
Inventory of State Profiles District of Columbia 

Expenditures of State Funds 

In FY 2003, State expenditures totaled $24.2 million—up from $20.5 million in FY 2000. Most (74 to 

88 percent) of State expenditures during that time period went toward treatment activities, and 7 to 8 

percent went toward prevention services. Expenditures for administration costs and activities spiked 

in FY 2002 at $4.4 million, and comprised 18 percent of expenditures during that year. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

7% Prevention 

7% 

HIV Early Treatment

88%

Treatment 

HIV Early 

3% 

Intervention 88% 

Intervention 

Administration 5% 

2% 

N=$20,454,056 N=$24,177,215 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 18,455,562 74 21,262,226 88 

Alcohol Treatment 6,826,048 33 6,826,048 33 

Drug Treatment 11,243,315 55 11,243,315 54 

Prevention 1,428,609 7 1,428,609 7 1,929,800 8 1,607,513 7 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 525,000 3 525,000 3 0 0 1,307,476 5 

Administration 431,084 2 731,084 4 4,428,638 18 0 0 

Total* 20,454,056 100 20,754,056 100 24,814,000 100 24,177,215 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

181 
District of Columbia Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

APRA’s prevention programs and services are administered through the Office of Prevention and 

Youth Services (OPYS). OPYS generally utilizes a broad range of proven prevention strategies 

including education and information, alternative activities, community-based and environmental 

enhancement programs, and early intervention strategies. Although children and youth are the 

primary beneficiaries, OPYS recognizes that varied levels of prevention and youth treatment, 

including intervention and referrals, are appropriate for all residents, regardless of age. 

The OPYS aggressively spreads its message of prevention at numerous events throughout the year: 

health fairs, community festivals, conferences, and other large public gatherings. Classroom 

presentations are provided for public and charter schools in the District, and OPYS staff are 

requested to speak at a variety of conferences and community meetings. In close partnership with 

the DC Public Schools (DCPS) and the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), APRA provides 

intervention assistance for youth who may need referrals for treatment and other social services. 

Prevention program grants are disbursed by APRA to community-based organizations that deliver 

science- and evidence-based alcohol tobacco and other drug (ATOD) prevention program models. 

Working to increase the capacity of prevention providers through workshops, training, and technical 

assistance, APRA supports the continued certification of prevention workers and the credibility of 

their field. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Expenditures on prevention activities increased from $3.4 million in FY 2000 to $4.7 million in FY 

2003 (after peaking in FY 2002 at $5.4 million). The funds for prevention services came from the 

State (34 to 42 percent of total funding), the Block Grant (21 to 32 percent), and other Federal 

sources (27 to 38 percent). 

Block Grant prevention funds in Washington, DC, increased from $1.74 per capita in FY 2000 to 

$2.39 per capita in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other Other 

Federal 

State

34%

Federal 

State

42%

28% 38% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant

30% 28% 

N=$3,365,187 N=$4,681,009 

182 
Inventory of State Profiles District of Columbia 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Sources 

Funding Source 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 994,331 30 1,104,897 32 1,126,727 21 1,330,593 28 

Other Federal 942,247 28 943,247 27 2,028,661 38 1,742,903 37 

State 1,428,609 42 1,428,609 41 1,929,800 36 1,607,513 34 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 315,053 6 0 0 

Total* 3,365,187 100 3,476,753 100 5,400,241 100 4,681,009 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Information materials on alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs are distributed to the 

public in various forums including 367 public health and community awareness 

events. Spanish language and Asian language materials were also distributed to 

address the language issues in the multicultural communities. 

Education 

Prevention education sessions were held in DC Public and Charter Schools, to staff 

and participants in the Dept. of Employment Services, to Youth Opportunity 

Centers, and to eight Ward Core Teams. 

Alternatives 

Substance abuse prevention/intervention services are funded for 50 Latino youth, a 

collaborative project serving 120 Asian Pacific Islander youth, and science-based 

prevention projects under the State Incentive Grant (SIG) program. 

Community-Based Processes 

APRA staff maintains a working relationship with and/or collaborated with 

community-based organizations to identify ways to support community efforts 

against violence and ATOD abuse. 

Environmental 

APRA distributes tobacco compliance literature to tobacco vendors; provided 

workshops for tobacco merchants on restrictions of sales of tobacco to minors and 

how to spot fake IDs; and conducted focus groups with youth, prevention 

professionals, community leaders , and regional representatives to gather input on 

the best approaches for prevention and community action in support of ATOD 

goals . 

Problem Identification and 

Referral 

APRA provides training to school-based mental health counselors in early 

identification techniques and screening instruments . 

183 
District of Columbia Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Of the $1.3 million available from CSAP for core prevention strategies in FY 2003, the largest portion 

(24 percent) went toward information dissemination (a large increase from FY 2000), 21 percent 

went toward education, 17 percent toward alternative strategies, 16 percent toward communitybased processes, and the remainder toward a variety of other prevention core strategies. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Alternatives 

Education 

Environmental

3% 

23% Education 17% 

30% 21% Problem ID 

and Referral 

Problem ID 8% 

and Referral Community- Information 

7% Based 

Process 

Dissemination 

12% Community- Information 

16% Section 1926 - Based Dissemination

Tobacco Process 24% Section 1926 - Environmental 

19% Tobacco Other 5% 

8% 1%

6% 

N=$1,050,000 N=$1,330,593 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 127,000 12 127,000 12 237,296 21 326,232 25 

Education 310,000 30 310,000 30 210,357 19 287,260 22 

Alternatives 240,000 23 240,000 23 203,717 18 220,634 17 

Problem ID and Referral 73,000 7 73,000 7 97,638 9 105,687 8 

Community-Based Process 200,000 19 200,000 19 201,568 18 207,168 16 

Environmental 35,000 3 35,000 3 65,561 6 70,932 5 

Other 0 0 0 0 10,590 1 12,680 1 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 65,000 6 65,000 6 100,000 9 100,000 8 

Total* 1,050,000 100 1,050,000 100 1,126,727 100 1,330,593 100 

SOURCE: FY 2003–2005 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Forms 4 and 11 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

184 
Inventory of State Profiles District of Columbia 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

APRA’s treatment services are extensive and include youth treatment, central intake, assessment 

and referral, 24-hour detoxification, residential treatment, outpatient and methadone programs, 

pregnant and postpartum women’s treatment programs, crisis intervention, education, counseling 

and employment opportunity programs, case management, legal and social services referrals, 

HIV/AIDS counseling and testing, substance abuse awareness for seniors, mental health screening 

and referrals, and patient advocacy. 

In addition to prevention services, the development of the District’s Youth Substance Abuse 

Treatment System is also a function of the OPYS. Building upon its tradition of coordination with 

non-profit, private, and government institutions, OPYS now has a full range of youth treatment 

services across the city. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment expenditures in the District of Columbia increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from 

$23.6 to $28.3 million. The District provided approximately three-fourths of total treatment funding 

during that time period, and the Block Grant provided 15 to 17 percent. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002 Block Grant expenditures per capita in the District ranged from $6.28 

to $8.06. In FY 2003, per capita expenditures on treatment decreased slightly to $7.89—the highest 

amount per capita among all States. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other 

Other Federal

Local

5% 

Federal 2%

3% State 

SAPT Block State 75% SAPT Block Grant

77% Grant 16%

15% Other 

Other 2%

5%

N=$28,268,893 

N=$23,593,761 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

185 
District of Columbia Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 3,587,311 15 3,649,347 15 4,549,956 17 4,398,806 16 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 3,200 0 0 0 

Other Federal 763,063 3 763,063 3 2,410,640 9 643,960 2 

State 18,069,363 77 18,069,363 76 18,455,562 67 21,262,226 75 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,361,836 5 

Other 1,174,024 5 1,174,024 5 1,926,006 7 602,065 2 

Total* 23,593,761 100 23,655,797 100 27,345,364 100 28,268,893 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Washington, DC’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 5.500 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for free-standing residential services. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis (N=5,659) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 268 

Free-standing residential 0 0 3,879 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 6 

Short-term residential 0 0 77 

Long-term residential 0 0 427 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 92 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 0 0 449 

Intensive outpatient 0 0 445 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 16 

Total 0 0 5,659 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data also indicate more than 5,500 admissions (where at 

least one substance is known), of which over 5,000 were admitted for treatment of alcohol in 

combination with other drug abuse. Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that 

approximately 6 percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem 

combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary when separating out alcohol-only abuse 

versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data 

sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

186 
Inventory of State Profiles District of Columbia 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 640 5.5 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 5,019 5.8 

Total 5,659 5.8 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 43,000 persons aged 12 and older (8.9 

percent of the District of Columbia’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol 

use and 14,000 persons (3.0 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in the 

District of Columbia. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure 2002–2003 

% 12 and older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and 

older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 8.88 2.48 16.09 8.03 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 3.02 3.80 8.13 1.94 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; 2002-2003; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

187 
District of Columbia Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

APRA provides support to the Mayor’s Interagency Task Force on Substance Abuse Prevention, 

Treatment and Control, to develop the first citywide comprehensive substance abuse strategy for the 

District of Columbia. Administrative data sets from the Department of Corrections, Department of 

Human Services, and the Metropolitan Policy Department as well as the Department of Health were 

used to analyze the social and economic cost of substance use. 

In 2000, the DC Department of Health contracted to conduct the Nation’s first-ever, comprehensive 

citywide household survey on substance abuse in order to understand the District’s substance abuse 

problem. 

Evaluation 

APRA has actively worked toward the design and installation of a Web-based data management 

system. The system will include client-level data to track completed referrals throughout the provider 

system. This will eventually enable APRA to compile micro and macro data sets for reporting to 

SAMHSA and for conducting needs assessments. 

The Office of Certification and Regulation (OCR) conducts inspections and monitors substance 

abuse treatment programs for compliance with applicable laws and regulations, provides training to 

substance abuse treatment programs, provides consulting and technical assistance to substance 

abuse treatment program, and provides grants certification to programs that meet the requirements. 

Training and Assistance 

APRA provides training on confidentiality, case management skills, anger management, relapse 

trauma, patient rights, universal precautions, best practices, and co-occurring disorders. 

Specifically, APRA provides conferences and workshops to youth workers. In addition, APRA 

provides prevention grantees with information and training on the implementation of the new 

programs and sustainability training. Vendor Education/Merchant Training is provided to ensure that 

establishments do not violate the tobacco sales laws and to learn how to spot fake IDs. In addition, 

APRA supports the training of drug counselors in preparation for CAC certification and provides 

training to the faith-based community. 

188 
Inventory of State Profiles District of Columbia 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant expenditures for resource development activities in Washington, DC, increased from 

$232,000 in FY 2000 to $275,000 in FY 2003. Most of the expenditures in FY 2003 went toward 

research and evaluation (22 percent), information systems (22 percent), and planning, coordination, 

and needs assessment (14 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development ActivitiesQuality Development ActivitiesQuality Planning, 

Research and 

Evaluation

25% 

Planning, 

Research and 

Evaluation

22% 

Assurance Assurance Coordination, Coordination, 14% Needs 14% 

Needs 

Training Assessment Training Assessment 

8% 14% 7%

12% 

Information Information Education Education

Systems 12% Systems 10% 

22% 17% 

Program 

Program Development 

Development 11% 

12% 

N=$232,000 N=$274,994 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

50,000 

100,000 

150,000 

200,000 

250,000 

300,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 27,000 12 27,000 14 29,700 12 39,240 14 

Quality Assurance 32,000 14 32,000 17 35,000 14 39,424 14 

Training 18,000 8 18,000 9 18,000 7 20,600 7 

Education 28,000 12 28,000 15 29,000 11 28,486 10 

Program Development 28,000 12 18,000 9 29,000 11 31,397 11 

Research and Evaluation 59,000 25 29,000 15 64,000 25 58,461 21 

Information Systems 40,000 17 40,000 21 52,000 20 57,386 21 

Total* 232,000 100 192,000 100 256,700 100 274,994 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

189 
District of Columbia Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded the District of Columbia six discretionary 

funding grants totaling $1.4 million in FY 2004. Much of the money is going towards the HIV/AIDS 

Cohort Series (nearly $1 million). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Award Number of 

Awards 

Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 1 100,000 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Series Youth Services Cooperative 

Agreement 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Series 2 648,750 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Series 1 250,000 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreement 1 300,000 

Total for Prevention 6 1,362,386 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

In FY 2004 Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded nearly $2.5 million in 

discretionary funds (six grants) to Washington, DC. Nearly $1.million is targeted for HIV/AIDS. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards 

Total $ Amount 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 249,989 

Homeless Addiction Treatment 1 617,830 

NASADAD State Collaborative Activity 1 500,000 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Targeted Capacity – HIV/AIDS 2 995,155 

Total for Treatment 6 2,462,974 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

190 
FLORIDA 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Stephenie Colston, Director 

Substance Abuse Program Office 

Florida Department of Children and Families 

1317 Winewood Boulevard 

Building 6, Suite 300 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 

Phone: 850-921-2495 

Fax: 850-487-2627 

E-mail: stephenie_colston@dcf.state.fl.us 

Web site: www.dcf.state.fl.us/mentalhealth/sa 

Structure and Function 

The Department of Children and Families, Substance Abuse Program Office 

(SAPO), is the Single State Agency (SSA) for substance abuse prevention and 

treatment. SAPO, working with the Governor’s Office of Drug Control (ODC), is 

dedicated to (1) developing a comprehensive system of prevention, 

emergency/detoxification, treatment, and recovery support services for 

individuals and families at risk of or affected by substance abuse and (2) 

promoting their safety, well-being, and self-sufficiency. 

SAPO is located centrally in Tallahassee with Substance Abuse and Prevention Coordinators 

located throughout Florida in the Department’s district (substate planning areas) and regional 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Offices. SAPO, ODC, and the Statewide Drug Policy Advisory 

Council within the Governor’s Office, developed a comprehensive, 5-year drug control strategy 

(Florida Drug Control Strategy) that emphasizes a collaborative, coordinated approach at State, 

county, and municipal levels. 

SAPO functions include planning, policy development, implementation, and administration; 

administration of funds; purchase of a comprehensive and integrated system of care; and the 

regulation of services and treatment facilities. It partners with other agencies to provide health, 

education, and social services for individuals and their families who are at risk of or need substance 

abuse services. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Children and 

Families 

Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health

Substance Abuse Program 

Office (SAPO)

Contract Planning and Financial Licensure and Treatment and Policy District 

Management Analysis Management Regulations Prevention Integration and Operations 

Services Information 

Systems 

191 
Florida Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Florida’s overall SSA funding totaled nearly $190.6 million in FY 2003—up from $167.7 million in FY 

2000. Over that time period, the largest source of SSA funding was the Block Grant, accounting for 

about half of total funds, followed by the State, accounting for almost 40 percent of total funds. 

Other Federal funds, however, declined during that time period (from 14 to 7 percent of the total), 

and Medicaid jumped from less than 1 percent to 4 percent of the total. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Medicaid Other 

Federal 

Other

3%

4% Federal 

14% 7% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant 

50% 48% State State 

38% 36%

N=$167,737,586 N=$190,564,522 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

50,000,000 

100,000,000 

150,000,000 

200,000,000 

250,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 81,263,908 48 86,669,748 49 90,044,401 52 95,064,189 50 

Medicaid 210,000 0 557,124 0 7,272,496 4 7,490,671 4 

Other Federal 23,227,978 14 21,021,259 12 15,828,456 9 13,903,435 7 

State 63,035,700 38 69,254,830 39 61,262,128 35 68,182,836 36 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,923,391 3 

Total* 167,737,586 100 177,502,961 100 174,407,481 100 190,564,522 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

192 
Inventory of State Profiles Florida 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the nearly $190.6 million in total SSA expenditures in FY 2003, most (82 percent) went toward 

treatment services, 14 percent toward prevention services, and the remainder toward HIV early 

intervention (2 percent) and administrative costs (2 percent). These proportions have remained 

relatively stable since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

12% 14% 

Treatment HIV Early Treatment HIV Early 83% Intervention 82% Intervention 2% 

2% 

Administration Administration 3% 

2% 

N=$167,737,586 N=$190,564,522 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

0 

50,000,000 

100,000,000 

150,000,000 

200,000,000 

250,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 19,128,313 11 146,374,030 82 147,847,778 85 153,859,450 81 

Alcohol Treatment 48,468,752 29 0 0 

Drug Treatment 69,458,030 41 0 0 

Prevention 20,846,727 12 23,919,792 13 18,066,324 10 27,493,129 14 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 4,063,195 2 4,333,485 2 4,502,220 3 4,753,209 2 

Administration 5,772,569 3 2,875,654 2 3,991,159 2 4,458,734 2 

Total* 167,737,586 100 177,502,961 100 174,407,481 100 190,564,522 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

193 
Florida Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures increased $13.8 million between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from over $81.3 to 

nearly $95.1 million). In FY 2003, two-thirds of the Block Grant funds were designated for treatment 

services, and approximately one-fourth for prevention. This distribution shows a change since FY 

2000 when the proportion of funds spent on prevention was only 20 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention

20% Prevention 

Treatment 26%

70% HIV Early 67%

Intervention 

Treatment 

HIV Early 5% Intervention 

Administration 5% 

5% Administration N=$81,263,908 N=$95,064,189 2% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 60,551,174 70 65,427,850 73 63,319,338 67 

Alcohol Treatment 23,493,692 29 0 0 

Drug Treatment 33,666,521 41 0 0 

Prevention 16,252,782 20 20,918,217 24 18,008,880 20 24,719,689 26 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 4,063,195 5 4,333,485 5 4,502,220 5 4,753,209 5 

Administration 3,787,718 5 866,872 1 2,105,451 2 2,271,953 2 

Total* 81,263,908 100 86,669,748 100 90,044,401 100 95,064,189 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

194 
Inventory of State Profiles Florida 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Nearly all (95 percent) of the $68.2 million in State funds for SSA activities in FY 2003 were spent on 

treatment services. Only 2 percent were spent on prevention activities and 3 percent on 

administrative costs. While the expenditure dollar amounts fluctuated during this time, these 

proportions have remained relatively stable since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Treatment Treatment 2%

Administration 97% 95% Administration 

3% 

3% 

N=$63,035,700 N=$68,182,836 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 67,159,431 97 59,355,580 97 64,407,293 94 

Alcohol Treatment 24,975,060 40 0 0 

Drug Treatment 35,791,509 57 0 0 

Prevention 284,280 0 86,617 0 20,840 0 1,588,762 2 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,984,851 3 2,008,782 3 1,885,708 3 2,186,781 3 

Total* 63,035,700 100 69,254,830 100 61,262,128 100 68,182,836 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States w ere not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

195 
Florida Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

In 1998, Florida was awarded a State Incentive Grant (SIG) by CSAP that was pivotal in leveraging 

collaboration across State agencies. It provided resources to more fully develop a prevention unit 

within the SAPO, funded development of the Florida Prevention System (the prevention component 

of the Florida Drug Control Strategy), and provided resources at the local provider level targeting 

youth through the delivery of science- or evidence-based programs. Additionally, the SIG was 

crucial to the development of ODC and the ensuing collaboration between it and the SAPO. 

In Florida, “where prevention is a shared responsibility,” the Department of Children and Families is 

transitioning to a science-based system for planning, implementing, and evaluating its prevention 

programs. The Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey (FYSAS)—Communities That Care—is the 

basis for many prevention policy and local programming/funding decisions. 

In FY 2002, SAPO entered into a contract with the Florida Faith-Based Association to develop and 

publish a statewide Faith-Based Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention Provider Directory. 

The directory is intended to facilitate integration of faith-based providers with the public prevention 

and treatment community. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Nearly $27.5 million of SSA expenditures went toward prevention services in FY 2003—nearly $7 

million more than the amount spent in FY 2000. Block Grant funds accounted for most of the funding 

during this period (accounting for 90 percent of the total in FY 2003), while funding from other 

Federal sources decreased substantially (from over $4.3 million in FY 2000 to no funding in FY 

2003) and State funding increased (from nearly $285,000 to $1.6 million). 

Block Grant funding for prevention services in Florida increased from $1.01 to $1.45 per capita 

between FYs 2000 and 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other State SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Federal 6% Grant

78% 21% 90% Other 

State 4% 

1% 

N=$20,846,727 N=$27,493,129 

196 
Inventory of State Profiles Florida 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 16,252,782 78 20,918,217 87 18,008,880 100 24,719,689 90 

Other Federal 4,309,665 21 2,914,958 12 36,604 0 0 0 

State 284,280 1 86,617 0 20,840 0 1,588,762 6 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,184,678 4 

Total* 20,846,727 100 23,919,792 100 18,066,324 100 27,493,129 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include the following: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Information dissemination includes statewide clearinghouse activities through the 

Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association, the Red Ribbon Program, and 

health fairs. 

Education School- and community-based group sessions use model programs such as 

“Too Good for Drugs” and “Life Skills Training.” 

Alternatives Drug-free education programs, such as drug-free dances and peer leader 

programs are provided. 

Problem Identification and 

Referral 

Funding supports student and employee assistance programs and training for 

community caregivers. 

Community-based process Processes include community organizing, collaboration, and coordination 

initiatives. 

Environmental 

Funds support the promotion of drug use policy reviews in schools and 

communities. The “Think About It” campaign (a statewide radio and billboard 

initiative) targets youth and parents and reached 68% of Florida’s population. 

197 
Florida Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

SAPT Block Grant funding for prevention core strategies increased substantially between FY 2000 

and 2003 from $16.3 million to $24.7 million. Most of the increase is attributable to a dramatic 

increase in funding on education activities (from $6.3 to $15.4 million). In FY 2003, education 

activities accounted for 62 percent of total funding for core strategies, followed by information 

dissemination (12 percent) and alternative strategies (9 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy Problem ID 

Alternatives Alternatives and Referral 

12% Problem ID 9% 4% CommunityBased and Referral 

Process Education 6% 

39% 7% Community- Environmental 

Based 6% 

Process Education Information 

24% 62% Dissemination 

Environmental 

Information 12% 

1% 

Dissemination 

18% N=$16,252,783 N=$24,719,688 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 2,957,628 18 3,606,301 17 2,220,495 12 3,047,938 12 

Education 6,267,986 39 11,392,061 54 11,224,935 62 15,407,782 62 

Alternatives 1,962,663 12 1,698,559 8 1,582,981 9 2,172,861 9 

Problem ID and Referral 950,833 6 1,964,221 9 693,342 4 951,708 4 

Community-Based Process 3,959,004 24 1,830,344 9 1,233,608 7 1,693,298 7 

Environmental 154,669 1 426,732 2 1,053,519 6 1,446,101 6 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 16,252,783 100 20,918,218 100 18,008,880 100 24,719,688 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

198 
Inventory of State Profiles Florida 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Through its 13 district offices and the SunCoast regional office, SAPO purchases detoxification 

treatment, residential treatment, day and night treatment, outpatient treatment, medication, 

methadone maintenance treatment, assessment, case management, and other wraparound 

services. Florida has approximately 1,506 licensed individual treatment agencies operated by 497 

programs located throughout the State. 

Individuals who are a high priority for admission to treatment are pregnant women and injection drug 

users (IDUs). Other targeted populations for treatment include adults with substance abuse 

problems, parents who put children at risk, adults with substance abuse problems in the criminal 

justice system, dually diagnosed individuals, children at risk of substance abuse, children under the 

supervision of the State, children not under the supervision of the State with substance abuse 

problems, adults at-risk of substance abuse, and older adults with substance abuse problems. 

Florida received funding under the Presidential Initiative Access to Recovery (ATR), a Federal 

voucher program for clinical treatment and recovery support services. The MyFlorida Access to 

Recovery Program targets $6.8 million per year for 3 years (through August 2007) to five Florida 

districts. The voucher program focuses on high-need populations, including individuals involved with 

the criminal justice system; families putting children at risk; and populations specific to each region, 

such as persons with co-occurring disorders, older adults, and individuals who abuse prescription 

drugs. The program provides client choice among treatment and recovery support providers, 

expands access to a comprehensive array of treatment and recovery support options, and increases 

treatment capacity. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

SSA funding for treatment and rehabilitation increased between FYs 2000 ($137.1 million) and 2003 

($153.9 million). During that time period, State and the Block Grant funds each accounted for just 

over 40 percent of the total. Other Federal funding decreased during this time from $18.9 million 

(and 14 percent of the total) to $13.9 million (9 percent). Medicaid and other funding sources made 

up much of the difference. 

Block Grant funding for treatment in Florida increased from $3.56 to $3.72 per capita between FYs 

2000 and 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other Medicaid Other 

Federal 

Other

3%

5% Federal 

14% 9% 

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block State 

Grant 

Grant 

41% 42% State 42%

44%

N=$137,055,095 N=$153,859,450 

199 
Florida Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

140,000,000 

160,000,000 

180,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 57,160,213 42 60,551,174 41 65,427,850 44 63,319,338 41 

Medicaid 210,000 0 557,124 0 7,272,496 5 7,490,671 5 

Other Federal 18,918,313 14 18,106,301 12 15,791,852 11 13,903,435 9 

State 60,766,569 44 67,159,431 46 59,355,580 40 64,407,293 42 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,738,713 3 

Total* 137,055,095 100 146,374,030 100 147,847,778 100 153,859,450 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Florida’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 80,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, most of which were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) and freestanding residential treatment. 

200 
Inventory of State Profiles Florida 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis (N=83,330) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 12,575 8,949 189 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 0 0 0 

Long-term residential 4,025 10,312 438 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 11 1,750 7 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 13,649 24,941 3,984 

Intensive outpatient 740 1,770 204 

Detoxification (outpatient) 92 156 18 

Total 31,092 47,878 4,840 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate more than 74,000 admissions (where at least 

one substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 25 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate varied only slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus 

abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see 

Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 19,697 20.1 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 54,349 26.2 

Total 74,046 24.6 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 904,000 persons aged 12 and older (6.5 

percent of Florida’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use, and 395,000 

persons (2.8 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Florida. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 6.47 4.93 16.46 5.22 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.83 5.20 7.76 1.83 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

201 
Florida Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

The Florida Legislature recently created the Florida Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Corporation, Inc., a non-profit entity comprised of professionals and consumers appointed by the 

Governor, Senate, and House of Representatives. The State planning process will integrally involve 

the corporation in identifying service needs, framing strategic directions, and developing 

recommendations to the legislature regarding staffing and funding resource needs. 

The results of the 2004 Florida Youth Substance Abuse Survey (FYSAS) provide both State- and 

county-level prevalence and risk and protective factor profiles. This effort used two survey 

instruments, the Communities that Care Youth Survey and the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey. A 

total of 60,000 surveys were distributed. This information is used by the Governor’s Office of Drug 

Control, State agencies, and community organizations to determine policy initiatives and funding 

priorities. 

Additionally, the State uses household survey data to determine the treatment needs of the adult 

population in each of the substate planning areas. 

Evaluation 

To support the implementation of evidence-based prevention programs, the Department of Children 

and Families contracts with two organizations to obtain program-specific evaluation plans and 

evaluation assistance, collect and analyze outcome and process data, and develop a management 

information system. 

Training and Assistance 

The State, along with the Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association, provides training and 

technical support. A system for certifying counselors is supported through the Certification Board for 

Addictions Professionals of Florida. The Department of Children and Family Services, Substance 

Abuse Office, contracts with private providers for substance abuse prevention education, training, 

and treatment referrals. Each of the State’s contracted providers must include a reciprocal Web link 

on their prospective Web sites for increased exposure and accessibility of planned training activities 

throughout the year. 

202 
Inventory of State Profiles Florida 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block grant funds for resource development activities (treatment and prevention) increased slightly 

between FYs 2000 and 2003, from $1.3 to $1.5 million. Funds were spent on a variety of activities 

during this time period, with the majority going toward program development; planning, coordination, 

and needs assessment; and quality assurance. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Planning, Development Activities 

Coordination, 

Needs 

Assessment 

19% 

Information 

Systems 

5% 

Research and 

Evaluation 

17% 

Quality 

Assurance 

9% 

Training 

14% 

Education 

4% 

Program 

Development 

32% 

N=$1,314,917 

FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Quality 

Planning, Assurance 

Coordination, 22% 

Needs 

Assessment 

22% Training 

Information 12% 

Systems 

13% Education 

2% Research and Program Evaluation Development 5% 

24% 

N=$1,549,084 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 252,684 19 313,375 11 311,033 22 335,635 22 

Quality Assurance 112,304 9 376,050 13 311,033 22 335,635 22 

Training 180,967 14 219,362 8 167,479 12 180,727 12 

Education 57,604 4 31,337 1 23,926 2 25,817 2 

Program Development 421,140 32 940,124 33 358,884 25 387,272 25 

Research and Evaluation 224,609 17 501,400 17 71,777 5 77,453 5 

Information Systems 65,609 5 501,400 17 191,405 13 206,545 13 

Total* 1,314,917 100 2,883,048 100 1,435,537 100 1,549,084 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

203 
Florida Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded over $8.5 million in discretionary 

prevention grant funds to Florida entities. These grants included the Drug Free Communities 

Support (20 of the 40 total grants awarded), HIV/AIDS, and SIG programs. 

CSAP Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy & Other Club Drugs 

Prevention Services 2 584,712 

CSAP 2004 Earmarks 1 497,050 

Drug Free Communities 20 1,842,518 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 2 142,650 

Family Strengthening 1 394,175 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Youth Services Cooperative 

Agreements 2 127,272 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 3 985,813 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 4 Services 1 350,000 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 5 1,250,000 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 2 50,000 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Total 40 8,575,155 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded $21.1 million in discretionary treatment 

grant funds to Florida entities. These grants included the Targeted Capacity-HIV/AIDS, homeless, 

residential treatment, adolescent treatment, drug court, and pregnant/postpartum women’s 

programs. The largest single award was the ATR grant for $6.8 million.

Discretionary Programs Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Access to Recovery 1 6,813,101 

Addiction Technical Transfer Center 1 650,000 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 3 1,186,695 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 2 844,985 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 3 698,668 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 5 2,521,642 

Pregnant/Post-Partum Women 4 1,999,443 

Residential SA TX 2 970,210 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 1 50,000 

Strengthening Access and Retention 1 200,000 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 2 999,640 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 9 4,214,223 

Total 34 21,148,607 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

204 
GEORGIA 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Neil Kaltenecker, Director 

Office of Addictive Diseases, Division of Mental Health, 

Developmental Disabilities and Addictive Diseases 

Georgia Department of Human Resources 

Two Peachtree Street, NW 

Suite 22-394 

Atlanta, GA 30303-3171 

Phone: 404-657-2331 

Fax: 404-657-2256 

E-mail: njkaltenecker@dhr.state.ga.us 

Web site: mhddad.dhr.georgia.gov/portal/site 

Structure and Function 

The Georgia Department of Human Resources’ (DHR)’s Division of Mental Health, 

Developmental Disabilities and Addictive Diseases (MHDDAD), is the Single State 

Agency (SSA) responsible for mental health, alcohol and drug abuse, and 

development disabilities services. In addition to substance abuse treatment, 

MHDDAD provides prevention services aimed at reducing abuse and related 

problems. 

MHDDAD is responsible for State agency planning, receiving funds, approving regional plans, 

allocating funds, evaluation, consultation, technical assistance, and management support to all 

publicly operated or funded mental health, drug abuse, and mental retardation programs in Georgia. 

Services are provided across the State through contracts with 25 community service boards, boards 

of health, various private providers, and State-operated regional hospitals. In addition, services are 

offered through a regional system with planning and oversight by five regional offices. The regional 

office is an extension of the MHDDAD State office to the local area to provide closer access to 

providers and consumers. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Human Resources 

(DHR) 

Five Regional Offices/Boards 

• Regional Coordinators 

• Mental Health/Addictive Disease Adult Specialists 

• Child and Adolescent Mental Health/Addictive Disease Specialists 

• Performance Improvement/Planning Specialists 

Program Development and Operations 

Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and 

Addictive Diseases (MHDDAD) 

Office of Addictive Diseases 

205 
Georgia Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Georgia’s overall SSA funding totaled nearly $96.3 million in FY 2003, an increase from $80.6 million 

in FY 2000. In FY 2003, the Block Grant accounted for approximately half of total SSA funds as did 

the State. These proportions have remained relatively stable since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

3% 3% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant State State Grant

51% 48% 46% 49% 

N=$80,574,476 N=$96,249,490 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 41,396,779 51 44,792,764 50 46,420,319 49 47,462,679 49 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 2,176,091 3 2,195,846 2 2,138,368 2 2,407,940 3 

State 37,001,606 46 43,274,920 48 45,364,935 48 46,378,871 48 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 80,574,476 100 90,263,530 100 93,923,622 100 96,249,490 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

206 
Inventory of State Profiles Georgia 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the nearly $96.3 million expended in FY 2003, most of the funding (83 percent) went toward 

treatment and rehabilitation activities, followed by prevention services (14 percent) and HIV early 

intervention services (3 percent). The distribution of funds has remained quite stable from FYs 2000 

through 2003. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

13% 14% HIV Early Treatment Treatment HIV Early Intervention 83% 82% Intervention 3% 

3% 

N=$80,574,476 

Administration Administration 

1% 1% 

N=$96,249,490 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 75,838,836 84 79,733,602 85 79,868,994 83 

Alcohol Treatment 35,194,781 44 0 0 

Drug Treatment 31,727,913 39 0 0 

Prevention 10,455,447 13 11,748,264 13 11,754,382 13 13,244,426 14 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 2,127,213 3 2,252,640 2 2,337,352 2 2,484,821 3 

Administration 1,069,122 1 423,790 0 98,286 0 651,249 1 

Total* 80,574,476 100 90,263,530 100 93,923,622 100 96,249,490 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

207 
Georgia Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant funding in Georgia increased from $41.4 to $47.5 million. 

During that time, over 70 percent of Block Grant funds were spent on treatment and rehabilitation 

activities and 20 to 23 percent were spent on prevention activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

Treatment 20% 23%

Treatment

72% HIV Early 71% HIV Early Intervention 

Intervention 5% 

5% Administration 

3% Administration 

1% N=$41,396,779 N=$47,462,679 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 32,563,916 73 34,368,667 74 33,490,123 71 

Alcohol Treatment 15,233,548 37 0 0 

Drug Treatment 14,687,540 35 0 0 

Prevention 8,279,356 20 9,552,418 21 9,616,014 21 10,836,486 23 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 2,127,213 5 2,252,640 5 2,337,352 5 2,484,821 5 

Administration 1,069,122 3 423,790 1 98,286 0 651,249 1 

Total* 41,396,779 100 44,792,764 100 46,420,319 100 47,462,679 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

208 
6 1

Inventory of State Profiles Georgia 

Expenditures of State Funds 

The State contributed $46.4 million toward SSA activities in FY 2003—up from $37 million in FY 

2000. All of the funds provided by the State have consistently been directed toward treatment 

services only. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment 

100% 100% 

N=$37,001,60 N=$46,378,87 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 43,274,920 100 45,364,935 100 46,378,871 100 

Alcohol Treatment 19,961,233 54 0 0 

Drug Treatment 17,040,373 46 0 0 

Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 37,001,606 100 43,274,920 100 45,364,935 100 46,378,871 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

. 

209 
Georgia Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

MHDDAD contracts for prevention services that are specifically designed to reduce the risks 

associated with substance use and abuse. A major goal is to implement science-based prevention 

throughout the State. Currently, six statewide prevention programs are funded out of the State office 

with SAPT Block Grant funds: Drugs Don’t Work Program, Helpline Georgia, Maternal Substance 

Abuse and Child Development Project, Red Ribbon Campaign, Georgia Substance Abuse 

Prevention in Higher Education Initiative, and Georgia Alliance for Drug Endangered Children. 

Regional offices also conduct research-based prevention programs under contract. MHDDAD is 

continuing its efforts to expand the prevention provider pool in rural areas of the State. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Expenditures on prevention services increased steadily over time, from $10.5 million in FY 2000 to 

$13.2 million in FY 2003. Most of these funds were provided from the Block Grant (constituting 79 to 

82 percent of total funding), followed by other Federal sources (ranging from 18 to 21 percent of the 

total). 

Per capita, the SAPT Block Grant funding for prevention services increased steadily from $1.01 in 

FY 2000 to $1.24 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

SAPT Block Other

Other SAPT Block 

Grant Federal

Federal Grant 

79% 18%

21% 82% 

N=$10,455,447 N=$13,244,426 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

210 
Inventory of State Profiles Georgia 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 8,279,356 79 9,552,418 81 9,616,014 82 10,836,486 82 

Other Federal 2,176,091 21 2,195,846 19 2,138,368 18 2,407,940 18 

State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 10,455,447 100 11,748,264 100 11,754,382 100 13,244,426 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Dissemination is provided through s peaking engagements with 

parent and professional groups , clearinghouse and information 

resource centers, and the dissemination of printed material and 

newsletters. 

Education Activities include parenting and family management services , 

classroom educational services, and education for youth groups. 

Alternatives 

Alternative strategies include alcohol, tobacco, and other drugfree social and recreational events as well as youth and adult 

leadership functions. 

Community-Based Processes Processes include community team activities (e.g., multi-agency 

coordination), and the assessment of community needs. 

Environmental 

Environmental strategies incorporate consultation to communities , 

prevention of underage alcoholic beverage sales , and prevention 

of underage sales of tobacco. 

Problem Identification and Referral Various assistance programs for students and employees are 

employed as problem identification strategies. 

211 
Georgia Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for core prevention strategies in Georgia increased from $8.3 to $10.8 million 

between FYs 2000 and 2003. During this time, the majority of funds were directed at education 

activities (ranging from 45 to 50 percent of total funding). In FY 2003, other strategies receiving 

funds included information dissemination (15 percent), alternatives (15 percent), and communitybased processes (12 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Problem ID 

11% and Referral Alternatives 

Problem ID 

3% 15% 

and Referral 

Community- 4% CommunityBased Education Based Education 

Process 45% Process 50%

Other 17% 12% 

Environmental 3% Other 5% 

Information Section 1926 - Information 

1% 

Dissemination Tobacco Section 1926 ­

11% 5% Dissemination Tobacco 

15% 3% 

N=$8,279,356 N=$10,836,486 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 908,496 11 1,071,621 11 1,149,571 12 1,711,502 16 

Education 4,087,590 50 4,320,503 45 4,571,230 48 4,938,158 46 

Alternatives 923,747 11 1,377,032 14 1,287,402 13 1,576,900 15 

Problem ID and Referral 276,132 3 370,666 4 205,009 2 427,802 4 

Community-Based 

Process 1,346,217 16 1,480,830 16 1,261,125 13 1,251,865 12 

Environmental 23,252 0 183,207 2 557,622 6 491,923 5 

Other 267,551 3 471,460 5 229,133 2 102,534 1 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 446,371 5 277,099 3 354,922 4 335,802 3 

Total* 8,279,356 100 9,552,418 100 9,616,014 100 10,836,486 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

212 
Inventory of State Profiles Georgia 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Georgia provides a continuum of substance abuse treatment services as identified through the 

planning efforts of its seven regions and through statewide needs assessment activities. Senior 

regional coordinators are responsible for both State hospital and community services and for 

integrating the two into a single system that is more easily accessible to State residents. The 

regional offices oversee Georgia’s network of MHDDAD services and are the contact points for 

people needing treatment for substance abuse and for mental illness. 

The array of substance abuse treatment services varies by region. The network of services includes 

group counseling and outpatient services, detoxification services, short-term and long-term intensive 

residential programs, and methadone clinics. Pregnant women are given priority for all addiction 

programs; Ready for Work programs provide treatment for women on welfare; and adolescent 

substance abuse services include assessment, outpatient treatment, and family education. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment expenditures increased by nearly $13 million between FYs 2000 and FY 2003 (from 

$66.9 to nearly $79.9 million). During this time, the State provided the majority of funds (ranging from 

55 to 58 percent of total treatment expenditures), followed closely by the State (which provided 42 to 

45 percent of the total). 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002 Block Grant treatment funds in Georgia increased from $3.64 to $4.00 

per capita. In FY 2003, per capita funds declined to $3.83. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block State Grant State Grant 55% 42% 58% 45% 

N=$66,922,694 N=$79,868,994 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

90,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

213 
Georgia Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 29,921,088 45 32,563,916 43 34,368,667 43 33,490,123 42 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 37,001,606 55 43,274,920 57 45,364,935 57 46,378,871 58 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 66,922,694 100 75,838,836 100 79,733,602 100 79,868,994 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Georgia’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that more than 135,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=136,677) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 172 145 32 

Free-standing residential 4,643 5,902 1,846 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 12 30 0 

Short-term residential 563 1,276 260 

Long-term residential 398 1,315 325 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 254 11 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 39,542 69,909 2,946 

Intensive outpatient 1,444 4,172 927 

Detoxification (outpatient) 164 381 8 

Total 46,938 83,384 6,355 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate more than 32,000 admissions (where at least 

one substance is known), of which more than 9,000 were for alcohol only. Calculations (with 

imputation) from TEDS data show that none of the persons admitted to treatment programs in 

Georgia reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary 

when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. 

(For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

214 
Inventory of State Profiles Georgia 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 9,031 0.0 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 23,179 0.0 

Total 32,210 0.0 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 488,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.1 

percent of Georgia’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use, and 176,000 

persons (2.6 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Georgia. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and 

older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.07 4.68 14.94 5.99 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.55 4.79 5.92 1.62 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

215 
Georgia Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

The regional boards are responsible for assessing local needs, planning services, and providing a 

consumer and family voice in decisions about priorities. Regional coordinators and boards work 

together to develop a formal plan that conveys the region’s needs and expectations for improving 

services. Regional plans are completed in time to influence State-level budget priorities and other 

DHR planning efforts. Regional plans provide a foundation for development of an overall State plan 

for service that synthesizes and integrates the plans of all regional offices. 

Prevention planning efforts are guided by the MHDDAD-sponsored Georgia Substance Abuse 

Prevention Needs Assessment. In addition, MHDDAD conducts a Substance Abuse Treatment 

Needs Assessment, the core component of which is a large statewide household survey that 

provides estimates of geographical and demographic patterns of alcohol and other drug abuse and 

dependence for adults and adolescents. 

Evaluation 

A proposal to conduct a statewide evaluation of prevention services and programs is being 

developed. During FY 2004, MHDDAD found that 46 percent of children and youth served by 

regional prevention services benefited from a science/evidence-based program, representing a 10­

percent increase over the previous year. 

Training and Assistance 

The State offers a range of training activities and educational services. The Prevention Credentialing 

Consortium Georgia, Inc., delivers prevention certification training to ensure standards of excellence 

in the field. Regional prevention specialist meetings are held, as are focus on topics such as 

evaluation, outcome measures, funding, and drug-free workplace programs. A training initiative by 

Emory University provided a series of trainings for childcare workers caring for youngsters whose 

mothers are in drug treatment. 

Training for substance abuse treatment professionals are offered by professional organizations, 

colleges and universities, and private providers. For example, the Southeast ATTC sponsored a 

train-the-trainer session on “Best Practices in Addiction Treatment.” MHDDAD co-sponsored a 

training on “Understanding and Assisting the Substance Abuse Offender.” Opioid treatment provider 

nurses and counselors attended an HIV orientation and OraSure Training. MHDDAD also cosponsored the Georgia Addiction Counselors’ Association semiannual conference and co-hosts the 

southeastern School of Alcohol and Drug Studies. 

216 
Inventory of State Profiles Georgia 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Georgia did not report any 

expenditures for resource 

development activities for FYs 2000 

through FY 2003. 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment N/R** 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Quality Assurance N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Training N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Education N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Program Development N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Research and Evaluation N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Information Systems N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

Total* N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 N/R 0 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

** N/R = Not reported 

217 
Georgia Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded more than $2.6 million in 17 

discretionary grants to entities in Georgia during FY 2004. Over half ($1.4 million) of that funding 

was targeted at HIV/AIDS services, and the rest was awarded to 13 drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 13 1,224,422 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 3 1,046,310 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 4 Services 1 350,000 

Total 17 2,620,732 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded nearly $2.9 million in discretionary 

grants to a wide range of Georgia entities during FY 2004. The largest awards were targeted at 

HIV/AIDS targeted capacity ($900,000) and the largest single award was for the Addiction Technical 

Transfer Center ($645,750). 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Addiction Technical Transfer Center 1 645,750 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 1 600,000 

Recovery Community Service 1 220,000 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 2 900,000 

Youth Offender Reentry Program 2004 1 500,000 

Total 6 2,865,750 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

218 
HAWAII 

State SSA Director 

Keith Yamamoto, Chief 

Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division 

Hawaii State Department of Health 

Kakuhihewa Building 

601 Kamokila Boulevard, Room 360 

Kapolei, HI 96707 

Phone: 808-692-7506 

Fax: 808-692-7521 

E-mail: keith.yamamoto@doh.hawaii.gov 

Web Site: www.hawaii.gov/health/substance-abuse 

Structure and Function 

The Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division (ADAD) is a component of the Hawaii 

Department of Health, Behavioral Health Administration. The ADAD is the Single State 

Agency (SSA) for Hawaii and provides the leadership necessary for developing and 

delivering quality substance abuse prevention, intervention, and treatment services for 

Hawaii residents. ADAD’s primary functions are grants and contracts management, 

clinical consultation, quality assurance, training, accreditation of substance abuse treatment 

programs, certification of substance abuse counselors and program administrators, policy 

development, planning and interagency coordination, client/program data collection/information 

systems, and needs assessment. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health 

Public Information 

Office 

Administrative Offices 

Health 

Resources 

Administration

Administrative 

Services

Behavioral Health 

Administration

Alcohol and Drug 

Abuse Division 

(ADAD) 

Community and 

Consultative 

Services Branch

Environmental 

Health 

Administration

Program 

Development 

Services

219 
Hawaii Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Hawaii’s overall SSA funding totaled nearly $18.4 million in FY 2003—up approximately $5 million 

over FY 2000 expenditures. The largest source of funding in FY 2003 was the State at 49 percent of 

the total, followed by Block Grant (39 percent) and other Federal funds (12 percent). This 

distribution represents a change from FY 2000 when the Block Grant contributed 50 percent and 

other Federal funds contributed 2 percent, but the State’s relative share has remained the same at 

49 percent of total funding. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

2% 12% 

SAPT Block 

Grant

SAPT Block 

State Grant

49% 49% 39% State 

49% 

N=$13,561,771 N=$18,381,639 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 6,732,434 50 6,928,177 45 6,932,683 44 7,083,900 39 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 251,402 2 1,473,295 10 789,742 5 2,252,096 12 

State 6,577,935 49 6,898,548 45 8,160,295 51 9,045,643 49 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 13,561,771 100 15,300,020 100 15,882,720 100 18,381,639 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

220 
Inventory of State Profiles Hawaii 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the nearly $18.4 million in SSA expenditures in FY 2003, 68 percent was targeted for treatment 

and rehabilitation services, 22 percent for prevention services, and 7 percent for administrative 

costs. Looking at spending over time, this proportional breakdown decreased for treatment (from 74 

percent of the total in FY 2000) and administration (from 9 percent) and increased for prevention 

(from 14 percent). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

14% 22% 

HIV Early 

Intervention HIV Early Treatment Treatment 3% Intervention 74% 

Administration 67% 2%

9% Administration 

9% 

N=$13,561,771 N=$18,381,639 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 8,947, 603 66 10,253,908 67 11,229,730 71 12,301,075 68 

Alcohol Treatment 369,340 3 0 0 

Drug Treatment 701,701 5 0 0 

Prevention 1,923,214 14 3,271,477 21 2,664,404 17 4,117,265 22 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 349,193 3 197,157 1 170,000 1 599,998 3 

Administration 1,270,720 9 1,577,478 10 1,818,586 11 1,363,301 7 

Total* 13,561,771 100 15,300,020 100 15,882,720 100 18,381,639 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

221 
Hawaii Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Treatment and rehabilitation activities accounted for the largest share (62 percent) of the more than 

$7 million in SAPT Block Grant funding for Hawaii in FY 2003, followed by prevention (at 29 

percent). Dollar values and distribution percentages for HIV early intervention and administrative 

activities were consistent with Block Grant spending requirements and restrictions during this time 

period. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention

25% 29% Treatment Treatment

66% HIV Early 62% 

HIV Early Intervention

5% Intervention 

5% Administration 

4% Administration 

4% N=$6,732,434 N=$7,083,900 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity. 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 3,645,861 54 4,381,800 63 4,551,653 66 4,341,242 62 

Alcohol Treatment 369,340 5 0 0 

Drug Treatment 403,953 6 0 0 

Prevention 1,710,149 25 2,054,437 30 2,027,908 29 2,080,096 29 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 349,193 5 197,157 3 0 0 360,071 5 

Administration 253,938 4 294,783 4 353,122 5 302,491 4 

Total* 6,732,434 100 6,928,177 100 6,932,683 100 7,083,900 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

222 
Inventory of State Profiles Hawaii 

Expenditures of State Funds 

SSA expenditures from State funds have increased steadily over time. Hawaii contributed over $9 

million toward SSA activities in FY 2003—almost $2.5 million more than its FY 2000 expenditures. 

The increased funding was directed primarily toward treatment and rehabilitation activities, which 

accounted for 88 percent of State funds—a slight increase from their 85 percent allocation in FY 

2000. Administrative activities accounted for 12 percent of State funds, a slight decrease from FY 

2000 (when administration accounted for 15 percent). 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment 

Administration 88% 85% Administration 

15% 12% 

N=$6,577,935 N=$9,045,643 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 5,301,742 81 5,872,108 85 6,678,077 82 7,959,833 88 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 297,748 4 0 0 

Prevention 24,303 0 13,427 0 13,427 0 25,000 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 170,000 2 0 0 

Administration 954,142 15 1,013,013 15 1,298,791 16 1,060,810 12 

Total* 6,577,935 100 6,898,548 100 8,160,295 100 9,045,643 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

223 
Hawaii Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

ADAD’s overall objectives are to ensure that a broad range of prevention programs, services, and 

activities reach individuals, families, schools, and communities, with an emphasis on Hawaii’s youth. 

ADAD supports prevention approaches in local communities that are based on sound research, 

evidence-based findings or best practices, and outcome-focused frameworks. 

Prevention programs are contractually required to establish an appropriate set of measurable 

outcomes, performance targets, and milestones and periodically assess their progress towards 

achieving them. Such assessments or evaluations are to be used to refine their outcomes, 

performance targets, and milestones and improve their programs. Prevention programs are also 

required to collaborate or coordinate with other services in the community. Many programs use 

multiple prevention strategies. A community partnerships initiative will address prevention needs 

identified by communities through a planning process. Community-based providers will be required 

to select and implement evidence-based programs appropriate to their communities that focus on 

serving youth ages 11–17. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Hawaii spent more than $4 million on prevention services in FY 2003—more than double what it 

spent in FY 2000. While the dollar amount from Block Grant funds remained relatively stable during 

this time, funds from other Federal sources fluctuated (from approximately $189,000 in FY 2000, to 

$2.0 million in FY 2003). The proportion of dollars spent from the different sources changed over 

time. Block Grant funds constituted 50 percent of total expenditures in FY 2003 (down from 89 

percent in FY 2000), and other Federal funds constituted 49 percent (compared with only 10 percent 

in FY 2000). 

Prevention per capita funding from the Block Grant has increased over time from $1.41 in FY 2000 

to $1.67 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

SAPT Block 

Grant Other SAPT Block Other

Federal Grant Federal 

10% 50% 

89% 

49% 

State 

1% 

N=$1,923,214 N=$4,117,265 State 

1% 

224 
Inventory of State Profiles Hawaii 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

4,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 1,710,149 89 2,054,437 63 2,027,908 76 2,080,096 50 

Other Federal 188,762 10 1,203,613 37 623,069 23 2,012,169 49 

State 24,303 1 13,427 0 13,427 1 25,000 1 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 1,923,214 100 3,271,477 100 2,664,404 100 4,117,265 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

The Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resource (RADAR) Center is an 

information clearinghouse and library that develops and/or disseminates 

resource directories, newsletters, brochures, and informational displays for 

community libraries and participates in community and health fairs. 

Education 

Agricultural program for grades K–6, based on Hawaiian cultural practices and 

values, integrates environmentally sound and culturally appropriate agricultural 

activities into elementary school education. 

Alternatives 

Alternatives include an afterschool club for girls and a supportive network to ease 

the transition from elementary to intermediate school and intermediate to high 

school. 

Community-Based Processes 

Activities include planning and/or conducting the statewide student alcohol, 

tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) use survey and statewide telephone household 

survey to assess adult substance use; providing technical assistance to develop 

and update informational tools to support community prevention planning; and 

supporting an evaluation of State Incentive Grant (SIG)-funded prevention 

programs. 

Environmental 

Strategies include conducting compliance tobacco inspections to prevent the sale 

of tobacco products to minors pursuant to Synar requirements, and training youth 

to be peer leaders and community advocates to prevent underage drinking. 

Problem Identification and 

Referral 

Activities include a program that uses pharmacists to conduct individual 

assessments and utilization reviews of prescription and over-the-counter 

medications used by the elderly. 

225 
Hawaii Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

The distribution of Block Grant funding for Hawaii’s prevention activities among the core prevention 

strategies shifted somewhat between FYs 2000 and 2003. In FY 2003, Hawaii spent most of the 

core strategy funding on community based processes (28 percent), followed by information 

dissemination (25 percent), and education (21 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy 

Alternatives Problem ID Education Alternatives 

Education 25% and Referral 21% 17% Problem ID 

29% and Referral 

5% 

5% 

CommunityBased CommunityProcess Based 

3% Information Process 

Environmental Dissemination 28% 

Information Section 1926 -

Dissemination Tobacco 

3% 25% Section 1926 - Environmental

32% 3% Tobacco 1%

N=$1,710,149 3% 

N=$2,080,096 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 541,713 32 587,724 29 647,333 32 515,455 25 

Education 500,030 29 469,194 23 446,412 22 438,888 21 

Alternatives 427,931 25 487,816 24 446,987 22 362,864 17 

Problem ID and Referral 81,903 5 78,439 4 79,100 4 95,186 5 

Community-Based Process 54,413 3 318,065 15 331,587 16 590,032 28 

Environmental 46,795 3 44,618 2 18,600 1 14,525 1 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 57,364 3 68,581 3 57,889 3 63,146 3 

Total* 1,710,149 100 2,054,437 100 2,027,908 100 2,080,096 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

226 
4 5

Inventory of State Profiles Hawaii 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Hawaii’s treatment efforts are designed to promote a statewide, culturally appropriate, 

comprehensive system of services to meet the treatment and recovery needs of individuals and 

families. ADAD-funded treatment programs are contractually required to collaborate or coordinate 

their services with other appropriate services in the community. Pregnant women and injection drug 

users (IDUs) receive priority for admission. The treatment services include adult residential, 

outpatient, intensive outpatient, day treatment, nonmedical residential detoxification, and therapeutic 

living programs; adolescent school-based and residential treatment; specific programs for pregnant 

substance-abusing women and women with dependent children; methadone outpatient treatment, 

interim, and outreach services for IDUs; outpatient intervention services for homeless adults; 

residential and intensive outpatient and day treatment for the dually diagnosed; and intensive 

outpatient and outpatient treatment for ex-offenders. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment expenditures in Hawaii increased by over $2 million between FYs 2000 and 2003. In FY 

2003, State funding accounted for nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of treatment and rehabilitation 

expenditures and Block Grant funding accounted for 35 percent. By contrast, in FY 2000 the State 

funded 56 percent of treatment services, and the Block Grant funded 44 percent (although Block 

Grant dollars going toward treatment services remained relatively unchanged between those two 

periods). 

Block Grant funding per capita for treatment and rehabilitation services has fluctuated slightly: from 

$3.65 in FY 2000 up to $3.69 in FY 2002 and back down to $3.48 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

SAPT Block SAPT Block State Grant State Grant 56% 

44% 35% 65%

N=$10,018,64 N=$12,301,07 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

227 
Hawaii Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,419,154 44 4,381,800 43 4,551,653 41 4,341,242 35 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 5,599,490 56 5,872,108 57 6,678,077 59 7,959,833 65 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 10,018,644 100 10,253,908 100 11,229,730 100 12,301,075 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Hawaii’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that more than 4,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted to outpatient (non-methadone) treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis (N=4,291) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 315 221 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient 

(rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 0 0 0 

Long-term residential 163 801 90 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 55 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 512 1,317 6 

Intensive outpatient 219 592 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 1,209 2,986 96 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate nearly 6,500 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 27 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate varied when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of 

alcohol in combination with other drugs. Approximately 35 percent of persons admitted for abusing 

alcohol only were diagnosed with a psychiatric problem, and 26 percent of persons admitted for 

abusing alcohol in combination with other drugs were diagnosed as having a psychiatric problem. 

(For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

228 
Inventory of State Profiles Hawaii 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 937 34.7 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 5,484 25.8 

Total 6,421 27.1 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 72,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.3 

percent of Hawaii’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 26,000 

persons (2.6 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Hawaii. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.31 6.19 17.85 5.79 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.63 5.47 7.73 1.43 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

229 
Hawaii Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

With funding from a 3-year prevention needs assessment contract from the Center for Substance 

Abuse Prevention (CSAP), the State completed a prevention needs assessment survey of 

adolescents in school, a social indicators study, a community prevention resource assessment, and 

an integrative report that included findings from the three main studies. Data from the student survey 

are incorporated in community planning workbooks. Communities receive training to use the data to 

assess prevention needs. Block Grant funds were later used to conduct another statewide student 

alcohol and other drug use survey to assess trends in substance use among Hawaii’s youth, assess 

treatment and prevention needs, and measure risk and protective factors. ADAD also commissioned 

a statewide telephone household survey to assess substance use and treatment needs among the 

adult population. Data from ADAD’s treatment and prevention needs assessment studies continue to 

be used to support ongoing service planning, resource allocation, and public information and 

education activities. Data are made available on the Department of Health’s Web site. 

Evaluation 

ADAD conducts onsite program and fiscal monitoring annually of both treatment and prevention 

programs to ensure contract compliance and appropriate provision of services. ADAD’s monitoring 

protocols include detailed sections on the administrative policies and procedures, service and client 

records, and other documentation that programs must maintain. For treatment programs, contract 

compliance includes meeting the requirements of ADAD’s waitlist management, capacity, and 

interim services policies and procedures. To carry out Block Grant requirements regarding 

independent peer reviews, ADAD uses independent peer review teams to assess Block Grantfunded treatment programs for adherence to standards, quality assurance, and outcomes of 

treatment. The results of each team’s analysis are reported to the treatment programs and to ADAD. 

Training and Assistance 

The kinds of training and continuing education opportunities offered by ADAD are based on input 

from treatment and prevention providers, assessments of past trainings, types of educational 

resources and technical assistance available, discussions with training consultants, collaborations 

with other agencies, and SAPT Block Grant-related issues and requirements. The issues and topics 

addressed by provider workshops and training have included the following: client confidentiality; 

ethical standards for substance abuse counselors; motivational interviewing; using ASAM PPC-2R; 

co-occurring disorders; substance abuse prevention specialist training; and use of demographic, risk 

and protective factors, and archival data to support prevention planning. 

230 
Inventory of State Profiles Hawaii 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Hawaii nearly tripled its Block Grant spending on resource development activities, increasing from 

approximately $323,000 in FY 2000 to nearly $1 million FY 2003. The FY 2003 funds were spread 

across a wide range of activities, with the largest portion (38 percent) going toward planning, 

coordination, and needs assessment (up from 7 percent in FY 2000). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Planning, 

Coordination, 

Program 

Assessment 

Needs 

Development 

32% 7% 

Quality 

Assurance 

42% 

Training

19%

N=$322,605 

FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities 

Information Planning, 

Systems Coordination,

3%

Training 

7% 

Needs 

Assessment Research and 

38% Evaluation

13%

Program 

Development Quality 

20% Assurance 

19% 

N=965,687 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 24,000 7 0 0 149,998 19 363,835 38 

Quality Assurance 135,195 42 162,961 41 187,740 24 180,491 19 

Training 61,560 19 76,500 19 81,287 10 63,512 7 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 101,850 32 105,974 27 154,387 20 197,816 20 

Research and Evaluation 0 0 0 0 129,999 17 130,033 13 

Information Systems 0 0 54,000 14 78,893 10 30,000 3 

Total* 322,605 100 399,435 100 782,304 100 965,687 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

231 
Hawaii Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded nearly $2.4 million in 12 discretionary 

grants to entities in Hawaii during FY 2004. Four of those grants, totaling more than $1 million, were 

targeted at HIV/AIDS. Five of the grants ($475,000) were awarded to drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy & Other Club Drugs 

Prevention Services 1 292,356 

CSAP 2004 Earmarks 1 248,525 

Drug Free Communities 5 475,000 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Expansion Cooperative Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 350,000 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 4 Services 1 350,000 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 1 250,000 

Prevention of Meth and Inhalant Use 1 350,000 

Total 12 2,379,517 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded nearly $2.4 million in discretionary 

grants to a wide range of Hawaii entities during FY 2004. The largest awards were targeted at cooccurring disorders ($1 million), residential treatment ($500,000), and drug courts ($400,000). 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 1 400,000 

Residential SA TX 1 500,000 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 1 48,600 

Sole Source for Hawaii 1 297,967 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Treatment of Persons with Co-Occurring Substance 

Related and Mental Disorders 1 1,009,743 

Total 6 2,356,310 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

232 
(SAPS)

IDAHO 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Bethany Gadzinski, Program Manager 

Substance Abuse Program 

Division of Behavioral Health 

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare 

P.O. Box 83720, 3rd Floor 

Boise, ID 83720-0036 

Phone: 208-334-5756 

Fax: 208-332-7331 

E-mail: gadzinsb@idhw.state.id.us 

Web site: www.healthandwelfare.idaho.gov 

Structure and Function 

The Bureau of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Program Services (SAPS) 

operates within Idaho’s Division of Family & Community Services (DFCS) of the 

State’s Department of Health and Welfare. SAPS is the designated Single State 

Agency (SSA) in Idaho, and it partners with seven Regional Substance Abuse 

Authorities (RSAAs) to assess regional needs and assets for substance abuse 

prevention and treatment services. The partnership sets local service priorities, 

allocates available resources, and evaluates the effectiveness of programs. 

Treatment and prevention services are delivered through contracts between the 

RSAAs and public and private agencies. The RSAAs are then grouped into three Integrated Service 

Areas (ISAs) for planning and delivering specialized services, such as detoxification and residential 

care for women with dependent children. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Division of 

Health 

Division of 

Welfare

Department of 

Health and Welfare 

Division of Family & 

Community Services 

(DFCS) 

Division of 

Information & 

Technical Services 

Substance Abuse 

Program Services 

Adult Mental Health 

Program 

Children Mental 

Health Program 

Child Welfare 

Service Program 

Adult Developmental 

Disability Program 

Infant Toddler 

Program 

Division of 

Medicaid 

Division of 

Human 

Resources 

233 
Idaho Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Idaho’s overall SSA funding totaled nearly $11.0 million in FY 2003—an increase from over $8.9 

million in FY 2000. Funding peaked in FY 2001 at $12.4 million, due to a spike in funds from the 

State. In FY 2003 the Block Grant provided 62 percent of total funding (down from 66 percent in FY 

2000), and the State provided 35 percent (up from 30 percent in FY 2000). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

4% 3% 

SAPT Block 

State Grant 

SAPT Block 

State 

30% 62% 

Grant 

66% 35%

N=$8,935,962 N=$10,986,040 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 5,943,750 66 6,329,272 51 6,752,450 62 6,787,163 62 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 349,709 4 529,182 4 529,402 5 379,476 3 

State 2,642,503 30 5,525,088 45 3,627,100 33 3,819,401 35 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 8,935,962 100 12,383,542 100 10,908,952 100 10,986,040 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

234 
Inventory of State Profiles Idaho 

Activities and Expenditures From All Sources 

Of the nearly $11 million expended in FY 2003, over three-fourths (76 percent) of SSA expenditures 

went toward treatment services, 22 percent toward prevention activities, and 2 percent toward 

administrative costs. The distribution of funds over time remained relatively stable, except for a 

spike in FY 2001 expenditures on treatment services. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Prevention Prevention 

81% Treatment 22% 16% 76% 

Administration Administration 3% 

2% 

N=$8,935,962 N=$10,986,040 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 2,734,305 31 5,598,563 45 8,206,068 75 8,357,348 76 

Alcohol Treatment 2,229,267 25 2,523,331 20 

Drug Treatment 2,236,260 25 2,210,292 18 

Prevention 1,451,323 16 1,778,098 14 2,507,044 23 2,413,305 22 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 284,807 3 273,258 2 195,840 2 215,387 2 

Total* 8,935,962 100 12,383,542 100 10,908,952 100 10,986,040 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

235 
Idaho Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant funds in Idaho increased from $5.9 to $6.8 million between FYs 2000 and 2003. The 

distribution of Block Grant funds during that time period also changed: the proportion of funds spent 

on treatment declined from 75 to 66 percent, while the proportion of funds spent on prevention 

services increased from 20 to 31 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 31% 

20% 

Treatment 

75% 

Treatment 

Administration 66% Administration 

5% 3% 

N=$5,943,750 N=$6,787,163 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 4,578,968 68 4,484,320 66 

Alcohol Treatment 2,229,267 37 2,523,331 40 

Drug Treatment 2,236,260 38 2,210,292 35 

Prevention 1,193,416 20 1,322,391 21 1,977,642 29 2,087,456 31 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 284,807 5 273,258 4 195,840 3 215,387 3 

Total* 5,943,750 100 6,329,272 100 6,752,450 100 6,787,163 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

236 
Inventory of State Profiles Idaho 

Expenditures of State Funds 

The State contributed $3.8 million toward SSA activities in FY 2003—up from $2.6 million in FY 

2000. State funding peaked dramatically in FY 2001 at nearly $5.3 million. From FYs 2001 through 

2003, State funding was directed exclusively toward treatment and rehabilitation activities. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment

100% 100%

N=$2,642,503 N=$3,819,401 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 2,642,503 100 5,525,088 100 3,627,100 100 3,819,401 100 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 2,642,503 100 5,525,088 100 3,627,100 100 3,819,401 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

237 
Idaho Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Idaho utilizes an array of strategies to foster the development of anti-use attitudes and beliefs among 

its citizens and to facilitate the development of social and learning skills. Youth education programs 

in particular focus on healthy lifestyles, the development of anti-use beliefs and values, social skills, 

and age-appropriate education on the effects and outcomes of alcohol, drug, and tobacco use. The 

State has recently focused on providing culturally relevant prevention services to its Hispanic 

residents. 

Idaho utilizes its Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resources (RADAR) network to implement 

Red Ribbon Week, during which it provides education on issues related to substance abuse and 

how to help youth lead alcohol- and drug-free lives. SAPS also partners with the Tobacco 

Prevention and Control Program and the Idaho Tobacco-free Alliance to reduce youth tobacco 

access and use. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, prevention funding increased from nearly $1.5 to $2.4 million. In 

particular, Block Grant expenditures on prevention activities increased substantially from $1.2 million 

to $2.1 million. During this time period, the Block Grant provided most of the prevention funding 

(from 74 to 86 percent of the total), with the remainder originating from other Federal sources 

(ranging from 14 to 26 percent of the total). 

Block Grant prevention expenditures per capita increased steadily over time, totaling $0.92, $1.00, 

and $1.47 in FYs 2000, 2001, and 2002, respectively. In FY 2003 per capita expenditures continued 

to increase to $1.53. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

SAPT Block SAPT Block Other Other Grant Grant Federal 82% Federal 86% 

14% 18% 

N=$1,451,323 N=$2,413,305 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

238 
Inventory of State Profiles Idaho 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 1,193,416 82 1,322,391 74 1,977,642 79 2,087,456 86 

Other Federal 257,907 18 455,707 26 529,402 21 325,849 14 

State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 1,451,323 100 1,778,098 100 2,507,044 100 2,413,305 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include the following: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

SPAS funds the printing of a parenting skills book (English and Spanish) 

used in substance abuse treatment programs serving women of childbearing age, child protection offices, and schools and partners with Boise 

State University to maintain the Idaho RADAR Network Center, which 

maintains 27 associate centers . 

Education 

Funds provide education to students, teachers, parents, professionals and 

community members on substance abuse issues through a partnership 

with the Idaho Commission on Hispanic Affairs (ICHA) and facilitate the 

annual Idaho Prevention Conference and annual Youth Empowerment 

conference, which educates youth on substance abuse, healthy lifestyles, 

and prosocial values . 

Alternatives 

Strategies include afterschool activities, mentoring, social skill 

development, evening recreational programs, value development 

programs, and programs for parents and youth of all ages. Most activities 

are focused in communities with few recreational/entertainment options or 

limited means to access such activities . 

Community-Based Processes 

Processes use Community Resource Development Specialists (CRDS) in 

each of the seven regions to coordinate and plan prevention activities with 

local governments and public and private entities . SPAS is involved in the 

Idaho Drug Court Coordinating Committee which oversees a drug court in 

each region. 

Environmental 

SAPS produces radio and television anti-alcohol commercials in English 

and Spanish that air during optimal youth listening/viewing times . RSAAs 

educate State legislators on issues related to substance abuse and the 

effectiveness of prevention and treatment services. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Strategies include partnership with the Child Welfare Services Program to 

expand onsite substance abuse screening and case management in all 

seven regions . SAPS also partners with juvenile probation agencies, 

community organizations, counseling programs, and schools to target 

youth with multiple risk factors to provide education, screenings, and 

referrals . 

Other: Best Practices 

SAPS also implemented the Substance Prevention Program Standards 

that establishes minimum requirements for staff qualifications, participant 

safety, program selection, and documentation. 

239 
Idaho Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

The $2.1 million in Block Grant funding in FY 2003 for prevention core strategies in Idaho is 

distributed across a wide range of core strategies, including information dissemination (24 percent), 

Section 1926-tobacco (22 percent), education (16 percent), and problem identification and referral 

(14 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Problem ID Alternatives Education 11% and Referral Community- Education 

21% 

Other

33% 

2% Based 16% 11% Problem ID 

and Referral 

Process 14% 

6% Community- Information 

Dissemination Environmental Information Based 

9% 8% Dissemination Process 

24% 5% 

Section 1926 - Other Environmental 

Tobacco Section 1926 - 3% 5% 

10% Tobacco 

N=$1,193,417 22% N=$2,087,456 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 109,416 9 73,637 6 111,500 6 484,099 24 

Education 246,059 21 425,674 32 641,856 32 338,222 16 

Alternatives 132,836 11 141,541 11 177,691 9 234,751 11 

Problem ID and Referral 29,696 2 4,782 0 69,644 4 301,949 14 

Community-Based 

Process 69,033 6 92,485 7 195,959 10 104,224 5 

Environmental 100,000 8 84,327 6 131,656 7 113,546 5 

Other 381,377 32 366,059 28 452,136 23 54,643 3 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 125,000 10 133,886 10 197,200 10 456,022 22 

Total* 1,193,417 100 1,322,391 100 1,977,642 100 2,087,456 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

240 
Inventory of State Profiles Idaho 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

The goal of Idaho’s treatment services is to eliminate the dependence on alcohol and other drugs 

among its citizens. Toward that end, SAPS provides a continuum of substance abuse treatment 

services. These services include individual and group counseling, education, social setting 

residential and detoxification services, and case management in outpatient or residential settings. 

Additionally, in Idaho’s rural areas, contractors support several small offices to make treatment 

services accessible to residents in remote areas. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Total treatment expenditures in Idaho increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $7.2 to nearly 

$8.4 million). During that time period, State funds as a proportion of total treatment expenditures 

increased from 37 to 46 percent, while Block Grant funds as a proportion declined from 62 to 53 

percent. 

Block Grant treatment funding ranged from $3.41 to $3.58 per capita between FYs 2000 and 2002. 

In FY 2003, per capita Block Grant treatment funding declined to $3.28. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

1% 1% 

SAPT Block State SAPT Block 46% State Grant Grant

37% 53% 62% 

N=$7,199,832 N=$8,357,348 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

241 
Idaho Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,465,527 62 4,733,623 46 4,578,968 56 4,484,320 54 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 91,802 1 73,475 1 0 0 53,627 1 

State 2,642,503 37 5,525,088 53 3,627,100 44 3,819,401 46 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 7,199,832 100 10,332,186 100 8,206,068 100 8,357,348 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Idaho’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 6,500 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, most of which were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone). 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=6,475) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 0 0 248 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 0 0 563 

Long-term residential 0 0 259 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 0 0 4,867 

Intensive outpatient 0 0 538 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 0 0 6,475 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate nearly 5,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known), of which over 1,000 were admitted for alcohol only. Calculations (with 

imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 27 percent of persons admitted to treatment 

programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate varied slightly 

when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. 

(For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

242 
Inventory of State Profiles Idaho 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 1,077 23.0 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 3,863 28.7 

Total 4,940 27.4 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 89,000 persons aged 12 and older (8.2 

percent of Idaho’s population) needed, but did not receive treatment for alcohol use and 30,000 

persons (2.8 percent) needed, but did not receive treatment for illicit drug use in Idaho. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 8.18 7.69 18.00 6.23 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.75 5.82 7.21 1.34 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

243 
Idaho Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

SAPS contracts with consultants and the University of Idaho to collect and analyze needs 

assessment data for the seven regions. The regional RSAA committees meet regularly to review the 

needs assessment results along with data from other State agencies. This regional emphasis 

assures local planning relevant to local needs. This information is available on the Internet to both 

professionals and the general public. In turn, community resource development specialists provide 

support to the RSAAs. The State also conducts a comprehensive needs assessment every 4 years. 

SAPS is currently working to develop an on-line needs assessment data collection system to aid 

agencies and communities in their prevention and treatment efforts. 

Evaluation 

Historically, Idaho has not had a comprehensive evaluation system for its prevention and treatment 

services. However, SAPS has recently developed a standard pre- and post-test evaluation for each 

participant in all funded programs. For those individuals placed on waiting lists, the SAPS maintains 

a manual log, which records the date of contact, documents provision of interim services, and 

concludes with date of admission to treatment. 

Training and Assistance 

In partnership with other agencies, SAPS facilitates the annual Idaho Prevention Conference and the 

annual Idaho Conference on Alcohol and Drug Dependency. The Idaho Educators of Addiction 

Studies (IDEAS!) provides distance learning opportunities in partnership with the Northwest Frontier 

Addiction Technology Transfer Center and also maintains a Web site. SAPS has produced a 

brochure to help substance abuse professionals access educational opportunities. 

Through the IDEAS! workgroup, the State is developing a minor degree curriculum for university 

students—and professionals—wishing to focus their studies in substance abuse prevention. 

Significantly, SAPS recently implemented the Substance Abuse Prevention Program Standards, 

which establish minimum requirements for staff qualifications, participant safety, program selection, 

and documentation. 

244 
Inventory of State Profiles Idaho 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Idaho spent over $456,000 on resource development activities in FY 2003 (up $100,000 from the 

amount spent in FY 2000). The distribution of funds changed during this period: In FY 2003, Idaho 

spent 24 percent on planning, coordination, and needs assessment (up from no funding in FY 2000), 

19 percent on education activities (down from 29 percent), and 8 percent on program development 

(down from 32 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Information Quality Planning, Quality 

Assurance Assurance Systems Coordination, 9% 13% Needs 

Training 

14% 

Training Assessment 

16% 24% 12%

Information Program Systems Development 14% Education 32%

Education Research and 19%

Program 29% Evaluation Development 

N=$357,618 10% 

8% N=$456,022 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 0 0 44,797 12 145,520 32 108,563 24 

Quality Assurance 31,222 9 22,054 6 53,520 12 59,190 13 

Training 58,278 16 95,059 26 45,886 10 53,752 12 

Education 105,058 29 135,327 37 117,000 26 84,730 19 

Program Development 113,060 32 63,832 17 90,210 20 38,683 8 

Research and Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 46,730 10 

Information Systems 50,000 14 5,000 1 0 0 64,374 14 

Total* 357,618 100 366,069 100 452,136 100 456,022 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

245 
Idaho Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded more than $764,000 in eight 

discretionary grants to entities in Idaho during FY 2004. Seven of those grants (over $600,000), 

were awarded to drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 7 614,501 

Youth Transition into the Workplace 1 150,000 

Total 8 764,501 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded nearly $8.4 million in discretionary 

grants to three entities in Idaho during FY 2004. Most of this funding was targeted at Access to 

Recovery (ATR) ($7.6 million). 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Access to Recovery 1 7,591,723 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 1 400,000 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 1 359,988 

Total 3 8,351,711 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

246 
ILLINOIS 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Theodora Binion Taylor, Director 

Division of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse 

Illinois Department of Human Services 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 5-600 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Phone: 312-814-2300 

Fax: 312-814-3838 

E-mail: theodora.binion-taylor@illinois.gov 

Web site: www.dhs.state.il.us/oasa 

Structure and Function 

The Illinois Division of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse (DASA) is the State’s designated 

Single State Agency (SSA) to provide substance abuse prevention and treatment 

services. DASA is a division of the Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS). While 

treatment and prevention services are technically managed by different DHS entities 

(DASA and the Bureau of Substance Abuse Prevention [BSAP]), the two units maintain 

continuous communication and coordination. Together, they provide Illinois residents 

with services and resources that respond to all their needs and characteristics. To meet 

these unique and varied needs, DASA and BSAP partner with other State systems, including child 

welfare, mental health, supportive housing, domestic violence, aging, corrections, and TANF. 

The BSAP prevention network includes a mix of 127 local, regional, and statewide programs housed 

in public and private agency settings and educational institutions. The Illinois Network to Organize 

the Understanding of Community Health (InTouch) provides system management assistance to 

these programs through its 1 general prevention and 19 regional entities. InTouch representatives 

deliver technical assistance and consultative services for the approximately 100 BSAP-funded local 

programs and coalitions. Additionally, BSAP directly manages eight statewide contracts that support 

the overall prevention system. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Human Services 

(DHS) 

Division of Alcoholism and 

Substance Abuse (DASA) 

Division of Community Health 

and Prevention 

Bureau of 

Program 

Services 

Bureau of 

Administration and 

Quality Assurance 

Bureau of 

Management 

Operations 

Bureau of Program 

Development and 

Evaluation 

Bureau of Planning 

and Performance 

Measurement 

Office of Family 

Health Services 

Office of 

Prevention 

Bureau of Substance 

Abuse Prevention 

(BSAP) 

127 Local, regional, and statewide 

prevention programs 

Office of Management Information 

Systems 

Office of Business Services 

Office of Mental Health and 

Developmental Disabilities Services 

Office of Budget 

Office of Contract Administration 

Office of Family Services 

Office of Clinical Administrative and Program Support 

247 
Illinois Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Illinois’ overall SSA funding totaled over $241.4 million in FY 2003—up from $233.6 million in FY 

2000. In FY 2003 the State provided half total funds, followed by the Block Grant (at 28 percent) 

and Medicaid (at 19 percent). This distribution is similar to those in FYs 2000, 2001, and 2002. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Other Medicaid Other 

17% Federal 19% Federal 

4% 3% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant

28% 26% 

State State 

53% 50% 

N=$233,594,100 N=$241,438,104 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

50,000,000 

100,000,000 

150,000,000 

200,000,000 

250,000,000 

300,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 61,204,360 26 65,196,054 27 67,579,749 29 67,994,327 28 

Medicaid 40,430,007 17 40,506,815 17 40,640,350 17 45,445,971 19 

Other Federal 9,660,141 4 8,840,540 4 5,997,073 3 6,481,038 3 

State 121,979,543 53 123,165,892 52 120,281,380 51 121,083,194 50 

Local 320,049 0 433,579 0 433,574 0 433,574 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 233,594,100 100 238,142,880 100 234,932,126 100 241,438,104 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

248 
Inventory of State Profiles Illinois 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Most (87 percent) of the total $241.4 million in SSA funds in FY 2003 were spent on treatment 

services, and 9 percent were spent on prevention. This distribution of expenditures is nearly identical 

to the distributions in FYs 2000, 2001, and 2002. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

10% Treatment Treatment 9% HIV Early HIV Early 86% 87% Intervention Intervention 

1% 1% 

Administration Administration 

3% 3% 

N=$233,594,100 N=$241,438,104 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

0 

50,000,000 

100,000,000 

150,000,000 

200,000,000 

250,000,000 

300,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 157,104,292 67 158,694,967 67 200,706,206 85 208,006,565 87 

Alcohol Treatment 14,873,799 6 15,921,954 7 

Drug Treatment 27,622,769 12 29,569,344 12 

Prevention 23,407,309 10 22,996,682 10 21,326,691 9 21,734,501 9 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 3,060,382 1 3,305,719 1 3,378,987 1 3,399,717 1 

Administration 7,525,549 3 7,654,214 3 9,520,242 4 8,297,321 3 

Total* 233,594,100 100 238,142,880 100 234,932,126 100 241,438,104 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

249 
Illinois Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant funding in Illinois increased from $61.2 to $68 million between FYs 2000 and 2003. 

During that time period the allocation of funds remained stable, with 69 to 70 percent going toward 

treatment services, 20 percent toward prevention services, and 5 percent each toward HIV early 

intervention and administration costs. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention Treatment 20% Treatment 20%

69% HIV Early 70% 

HIV Early Intervention 

Intervention 5% 

5% Administration Administration 

6% 5% 

N=$61,204,360 N=$67,994,327 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 47,156,227 70 47,434,191 70 

Alcohol Treatment 14,873,799 24 15,921,954 24 

Drug Treatment 27,622,769 45 29,569,344 45 

Prevention 12,251,304 20 13,191,171 20 13,684,899 20 13,768,851 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 3,060,382 5 3,305,719 5 3,378,987 5 3,399,717 5 

Administration 3,396,106 6 3,207,866 5 3,359,636 5 3,391,568 5 

Total* 61,204,360 100 65,196,054 100 67,579,749 100 67,994,327 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

250 
Inventory of State Profiles Illinois 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Illinois contributed more than $120 million toward SSA activities in FYs 2000 through 2003. 

Allocation percentages of those State funds remained stable, with the bulk (more than 90 percent) 

going toward treatment and rehabilitation activities. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

5% 

Prevention Prevention Treatment Treatment

6% 92% 

Administration 

92% 

Administration 

2% 3%

N=$121,979,543 N=$121,083,194 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

140,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 112,216,553 92 113,295,979 92 109,097,580 91 110,833,082 92 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 6,719,707 6 6,417,490 5 6,294,500 5 6,234,718 5 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 3,043,283 2 3,452,423 3 4,889,300 4 4,015,394 3 

Total* 121,979,543 100 123,165,892 100 120,281,380 100 121,083,194 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

251 
Illinois Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Illinois’ approach to substance abuse prevention builds on an evidence-based, risk, and protective 

factor framework. The State’s prevention network is a three-tiered system, including a mix of local, 

regional, and statewide programs housed in both public and private settings. These providers fall 

into three main categories. Comprehensive community-based providers deliver programming in 

their service areas, targeting the community at large and emphasizing young people. InTouch is a 

management system of 18 regional agencies providing technical assistance, coalition- and 

partnership-building support, and referral services to help each prevention service area maximize 

resources and coordinate efforts. Finally, statewide grants fund numerous programs that support 

the overall prevention system, including the Center for Prevention Research and Development at the 

University of Illinois, the Illinois Drug Education Alliance (IDEA), and the Illinois Alcoholism and Drug 

Dependence Association. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funds totaled more than $21.7 million in FY 2003—down slightly from $23.4 million in FY 

2000. In FY 2003, Block Grant funds accounted for the majority (63 percent) of prevention 

expenditures, the State provided 29 percent of prevention funds, and other Federal funds provided 8 

percent. 

Per capita, the SAPT Block Grant funding for prevention services has steadily increased over time, 

from $0.98 in FY 2000 to $1.09 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other 

Other Federal 

Federal 8% 

SAPT Block 19% 

Grant

SAPT Block 52% State Grant 

29% State 63% 

29% 

N=$23,407,309 N=$21,734,501 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

252 
Inventory of State Profiles Illinois 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 12,251,304 52 13,191,171 57 13,684,899 64 13,768,851 63 

Other Federal 4,436,298 19 3,388,021 15 1,347,292 6 1,730,932 8 

State 6,719,707 29 6,417,490 28 6,294,500 30 6,234,718 29 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 23,407,309 100 22,996,682 100 21,326,691 100 21,734,501 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

DASA produces radio and television public service announcements (PSAs ) 

and participates in local health fairs . InTouch offices develop and distribute 

local resource directories, host cable television shows, and house lending 

libraries. DASA makes available brochures on alcohol and substance 

abuse on its Web site in English and Spanish. 

Education 

Strategies include a school-based K-12 curriculum, life skills education, 

and other programming; parenting and family management classes; peer 

leader/helper programs; preschool programs, and education programs for 

youth groups . 

Alternatives 

Funding facilitates drug-free dances and parties for youth; peer 

leader/helper retreats for junior and senior high school students; “Fun 

Nights” summer programs at local schools/religious institutions; and 

youth/adult leadership programs, including local Operation Snowball and 

the 2-week Illinois Teen Institute. 

Community-Based Processes 

Activities include volunteer parent trainings, neighbor action team trainings , 

religious organization staff trainings, multi-agency and multi-disciplinary 

collaborations , community team building; and improving access to services 

for TANF recipients . 

Environmental 

Efforts include technical assistance to coalitions in order to facilitate State 

policy change; promotion of the review of AOD policies in schools, 

businesses , and community organizations; and promotion of 

tobacco/alcohol compliance checks . 

Problem Identification and Referral Funds support employee assistance programs and provide training and 

technical assistance to the Student Assistance Program Team . 

253 
Illinois Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for core prevention strategies increased slightly between FYs 2000 and 2003 

(from $12.3 to $13.8 million). In FY 2003 education received the largest portion (41 percent) of 

funding, followed by community-based processes (at 35 percent). This represents a change from 

FY 2000, when community-based process strategies received only 8 percent and alternatives 

received 31 percent of funding. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core Strategy FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy 

Alternatives Problem ID 

7% and Referral 

Information 

Dissemination

16% 

Alternatives 

2% 31% Education Education 43% Community­ Community- 41% Based Based 

Process Process 

35% 8% 

Environmental Information Environmental 

2% Dissemination 1% 

N=$12,251,304 14% N=$13,768,851 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 1,960,209 16 2,110,587 16 2,052,600 15 1,927,639 14 

Education 5,268,061 43 5,276,469 40 5,884,120 43 5,645,229 41 

Alternatives 3,797,904 31 1,451,029 11 1,231,560 9 963,820 7 

Problem ID and Referral 0 0 0 0 136,840 1 275,377 2 

Community-Based Process 980,104 8 3,957,351 30 4,105,200 30 4,819,098 35 

Environmental 245,026 2 395,735 3 273,680 2 137,688 1 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 12,251,304 100 13,191,171 100 13,684,000 100 13,768,851 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

254 
Inventory of State Profiles Illinois 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Illinois’ alcohol and other drug abuse treatment system is organized according to DHS’s 5 

geographic regions, which are further broken down into DASA’s 20 service networks. Through this 

treatment system, the State provides evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation to alcoholand other drug-abusing persons and their families. Such services include detoxification, intensive 

outpatient services, other outpatient services, residential rehabilitation programs, early intervention 

programs, HIV testing and counseling, case management, community intervention, and residential 

child care programs. 

Treatment services are delivered through a continuum approach, with individual clients moving from 

one level of care to another based upon their assessed needs. Services are delivered under 

contract by community-based agencies. This system (1) enables clients to be assessed and treated 

as close to their home communities as possible, (2) allows communities to take ownership of their 

programs, and (3) facilitates public information and other adjunct services. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, total treatment and rehabilitation expenditures in Illinois increased 

from $199.6 to $208 million. More than half of that total was supported by State funding—slightly 

lower than its proportion in FY 2002. Block Grant funds and Medicaid contributed about one-quarter 

each of total treatment expenditures in FY 2003. 

Block Grant spending on treatment services per capita increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from 

$3.42 to $3.75. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid Other Medicaid Other 

20% Federal 22% Federal 

2% 2% 

SAPT Block 

Grant 

SAPT Block 

Grant

21% State 

23% State 

57% 53% 

N=$199,600,860 N=$208,006,565 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

50,000,000 

100,000,000 

150,000,000 

200,000,000 

250,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

255 
Illinois Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 42,496,568 21 45,491,298 22 47,156,227 23 47,434,191 23 

Medicaid 40,430,007 20 40,506,815 20 40,640,350 20 45,445,971 22 

Other Federal 4,137,683 2 4,458,594 2 3,378,475 2 3,859,747 2 

State 112,216,553 56 113,295,979 55 109,097,580 54 110,833,082 53 

Local 320,049 0 433,579 0 433,574 0 433,574 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 199,600,860 100 204,186,265 100 200,706,206 100 208,006,565 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Illinois’ SAPT Block Grant application indicates that more than 175,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=177,612) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 5,370 15,403 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 4,250 10,230 1 

Long-term residential 1,759 6,709 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 26 12,515 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 40,262 64,625 308 

Intensive outpatient 6,321 9,828 6 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

TOTAL 57,988 119,310 315 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate nearly 77,500 admissions (where at least one 

substance was known), of which nearly 62,000 were admitted for abusing alcohol in combination 

with other drugs. Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 18 percent 

of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or 

drug use. This rate did not vary when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in 

combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: 

Methodology.) 

256 
Inventory of State Profiles Illinois 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 15,750 17.3 

Alcohol in combination with 

any other drugs 61,743 18.1 

Total 77,493 17.9 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 855,000 persons aged 12 and older (8.3 

percent of Illinois’ population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use, and 255,000 

persons (2.5 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Illinois. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 8.31 5.84 18.98 6.77 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.48 5.01 6.96 1.34 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

257 
Illinois Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Illinois’ prevention and treatment systems are driven by a regionally distinct needs-based approach. 

Using the Illinois Household Study, the DHS Automated Reporting and Training System (DARTS, 

the State’s primary client data system), and other sources, DHS evaluates regional trends, census 

data, economic data, admissions, and other information to assess treatment needs and to plan and 

budget treatment services. Each year, the State also compiles a comprehensive data book 

evaluating alcohol and drug trends and variables affecting usage and treatment needs and 

outcomes. 

DASA recently completed a 3-year Treatment Needs Assessment Project. One project component 

was a Social Indicator Study, through which all needs assessment data dating from 1996 were 

converted into a client-centered database. 

BSAP utilizes several tools to assess prevention needs. Through a partnership with Chestnut Health 

Systems and the University of Illinois, BSAP developed a statewide system for assessing prevention 

needs, monitoring program services and activities, and evaluating outcomes. The Lighthouse 

Institute conducts the annual Illinois Youth Survey, whose results are made available to every school 

in the State. Additionally, the Outcome Measurement Menu is a survey tool that program grantees 

can utilize to conduct comprehensive assessments of their local communities. 

Evaluation 

BSAP partners with the Center for Prevention Research and Development (CPRD) at the University 

of Illinois to evaluate the statewide substance abuse prevention system. Through a Center for 

Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) grant, CPRD is helping BSAP integrate a data-driven 

planning, implementation, and evaluation process into prevention initiatives. A Web-based 

management information system called OnTrack provides real-time reports on services delivered to 

local prevention managers as well as policymakers. Additionally, to build local capacity, CPRD and 

Prevention First, Inc. (Illinois’ Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resources [RADAR] center) 

conduct regional trainings for prevention providers on the basics of gathering, summarizing, and 

reporting process evaluation data. 

Training and Assistance 

DASA regularly provides or sponsors training and technical assistance activities for alcohol and 

substance abuse program staff and other professionals. Training and assistance topics are 

assessed on the basis of legislative developments, program requests, identified needs, drug use 

trends, contractual and licensure requirements, joint agency projects, site visit reviews, and 

implementation of best practice models. Prevention First, Inc., maintains a Web site providing 

information on available trainings. 

For day-to-day assistance, DASA’s Bureau of Program Services houses a Help Desk to receive 

faxed questions from program staff and forward them to appropriate sources of assistance. 

Additionally, CPRD conducts a biannual workforce survey to better understand what prevention 

providers face in their own communities, and to thereby support their efforts more efficiently. 

258 
Inventory of State Profiles Illinois 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Illinois declined from $924,000 to 

$523,000 between FYs 2000 and 2003. During this time period, research and evaluation activities 

accounted for the largest portion of resource development funds (ranging from 48 to 59 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Planning, Quality Planning, Training 

Coordination, Assurance Coordination, 8%

Needs 20% Needs 

Assessment Assessment

15% 25% 

Program Information 

Development Systems 

16% 12% Research and 

Evaluation Research and 

55% Evaluation 

49% N=$923,677 N=$522,626 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 136,000 15 103,330 24 91,480 21 131,480 25 

Quality Assurance 188,000 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training 0 0 70,559 17 34,218 8 42,000 8 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 150,000 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Research and 

Evaluation 449,677 49 204,624 48 255,777 59 287,902 55 

Information Systems 0 0 44,365 10 53,621 12 61,244 12 

Total* 923,677 100 422,878 100 435,096 100 522,626 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

259 
Illinois Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded nearly $6.5 million in 37 discretionary 

grants to entities in Illinois during FY 2004. Much of the funding ($2.5 million) was awarded to 29 

drug-free communities. The largest single award was for the Strategic Prevention Framework State 

Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) ($2.4 million). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

CSAP 2004 Earmarks 1 258,466 

Drug Free Communities 29 2,543,341 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Expansion Cooperative Agreements 2 127,272 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 349,739 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 4 Services 1 350,000 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 2 500,000 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Total 37 6,479,783 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Access to Recovery (ATR) was the single largest Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) 

discretionary award to Illinois at $7.6 million. The two next largest portions of the funding went 

toward State TCE screening brief intervention referral treatment ($3.3 million) and homeless 

addictions treatment ($2.1 million). The remaining awards were directed toward a wide variety of 

targeted activities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Access to Recovery 1 7,591,723 

Addiction Technical Transfer Center 1 650,000 

Grants for Accreditation of OTPs 1 231,158 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 4 2,099,092 

Recovery Community Service 2 510,429 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

State TCE Screening Brief Intervention Referral 

Treatment 1 3,346,000 

Strengthening Access and Retention 1 198,187 

Strengthening Communities -Youth 1 710,578 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 2 1,000,000 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 4 1,787,444 

TCE Innovative Treatment 1 489,000 

Total 20 18,713,611 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

260 
INDIANA 

State SSA Director 

John Viernes, Deputy Director 

Addiction Services, Substance Abuse Prevention, and Disaster Management 

Division of Mental Health and Addiction 

Indiana Family and Social Services Administration 

402 West Washington Street, Room W353 

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2739 

Phone: 317-232-7913 

Fax: 317-233-3472 

E-mail: john.viernes@fssa.in.gov 

Web site: www.in.gov/fssa/servicemental 

Structure and Function 

Indiana’s Division of Mental Health and Addiction (DMHA) is the designated Single State 

Agency (SSA) in Indiana. The DMHA is housed within the Family and Social Services 

Administration (FSSA) and it is responsible for coordinating substance abuse prevention 

and treatment services throughout the State. The creation of DMHA is a result of a 1992 

reorganization of the Indiana Departments of Human Services, Mental Health, and Public 

Welfare. 

DMHA stresses a community-based approach to substance abuse treatment and prevention. Local 

Coordinating Councils (LCCs) in each of Indiana’s 92 counties are responsible for planning 

substance abuse treatment, prevention, and law enforcement-related services. The activities of the 

LCCs are facilitated by the Governor’s Council for a Drug-Free Indiana (GCDFI). Treatment 

services are provided by local Community Mental Health Centers. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Division of Mental Health and Addiction (DHMA) 

Programs & 

Grants 

Finance Provider & Community 

Relations Operations 

Office of Emergency 

Services 

Office of Public 

Policy 

SAPT Block Grant 

Programs 

Methadone/ Medication 

Assistance Treatment 

State Prevention 

Framework (SPF-SIG) 

MH and SA Emergency 

Response 

Prevention 

Co-Occurring, Gambling Disorders 

Gambling Prevention 

Bureaus of Addiction Treatment 

261 
Indiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Indiana’s SSA funding remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 2003, increasing to $45.8 

million in FY 2003. The proportion of expenditures by funding source also held steady between FYs 

2000 and 2003, with Block Grant funding comprising nearly three quarters of expenditures (73 

percent) in FY 2003, followed by the State at nearly one quarter (23 percent). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other 

N=$45,188,983 

Other Federal 

Federal 4% 

4% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant State Grant State 

72% 24% 73% 23% 

N=$45,723,651 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 32,446,790 72 32,842,685 73 33,251,526 73 33,446,723 73 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 1,967,699 4 1,403,213 3 1,598,843 4 1,682,810 4 

State 10,774,494 24 10,529,846 24 10,435,566 23 10,594,118 23 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 45,188,983 100 44,775,744 100 45,285,935 100 45,723,651 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

262 
Inventory of State Profiles Indiana 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

As with overall SSA funding, the distribution of these funds also remained very stable between FYs 

2000 and 2003. In FY 2003, three quarters (75 percent) of expenditures went toward treatment 

services, 19 percent for prevention services, and the remaining 6 percent allocated to administrative 

(4 percent) and HIV early intervention (2 percent) costs. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 19% 

Treatment 20% 

HIV Early Treatment 74% HIV Early Intervention 75% Intervention 2% 

2% Administration Administration 

4%

4% 

N=$45,188,983 N=$45,723,651 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 33,584,031 74 34,210,952 75 

Alcohol Treatment 13,620,262 30 13,744,859 31 

Drug Treatment 19,599,889 43 19,779,188 44 

Prevention 9,131,022 20 8,432,329 19 8,756,899 19 8,667,531 19 

Tuberculosis 221,281 0 242,078 1 268,605 1 226,264 0 

HIV Early Intervention 1,000,000 2 858,409 2 900,000 2 900,000 2 

Administration 1,616,529 4 1,718,881 4 1,776,400 4 1,718,904 4 

Total* 45,188,983 100 44,775,744 100 45,285,935 100 45,723,651 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

263 
Indiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures in Indiana have remained remarkably stable over the last several years, 

totaling nearly $33.5 million in FY 2003. The distribution of these funds has also remained stable 

over the past several years, with three-fourths (75 percent) going toward treatment services in FY 

2003, 21 percent toward prevention services, and 4 percent toward administrative costs. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 21% 

22% 

Treatment 

Treatment 75% 

73% 

Administration Administration 

5% 4% 

N=$32,446,790 N=$33,446,723 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 24,150,116 73 24,620,121 74 

Alcohol Treatment 9,683,721 30 9,824,319 30 

Drug Treatment 13,935,110 43 14,137,435 43 

Prevention 7,088,729 22 7,054,407 21 7,252,065 22 7,185,330 21 

Tuberculosis 152,915 0 180,829 1 185,732 1 158,815 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,586,315 5 1,645,695 5 1,663,613 5 1,482,457 4 

Total* 32,446,790 100 32,842,685 100 33,251,526 100 33,446,723 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

264 
Inventory of State Profiles Indiana 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State dollars expended have remained relatively constant between FYs 2000 and 2003, ranging 

from $10.4 to $10.8 million. The distribution of State funds has also remained stable. In FY 2003, 

most of the expenditures (91 percent) were for treatment services, followed by 8 percent for HIV 

early intervention, and 1 percent for tuberculosis. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

1% Tuberculosis Treatment Tuberculosis Treatment 1% 89% 1% 91% 

HIV Early 

Intervention HIV Early 8% Intervention 

9% 

N=$10,774,494 N=$10,594,118 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 9,433,915 90 9,590,831 91 

Alcohol Treatment 3,936,541 37 3,920,540 37 

Drug Treatment 5,664,779 53 5,641,753 54 

Prevention 101,608 1 45,095 0 18,778 0 35,838 0 

Tuberculosis 68,366 1 61,249 1 82,873 1 67,449 1 

HIV Early Intervention 1,000,000 9 858,409 8 900,000 9 900,000 8 

Administration 3,200 0 2,800 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 10,774,494 100 10,529,846 100 10,435,566 100 10,594,118 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

265 
Indiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Indiana’s locally-based prevention system, facilitated by the 92 LCCs, is based on a variety of 

statewide networks implemented at the local level. This local autonomy allows the State to provide 

services based on the unique needs of each community. Each LCC develops a 3-year plan for its 

county based on needs assessment data, and these plans are updated annually. DMHA is currently 

working to compile and coordinate the prevention activities of the local LCCs in order to create a 

comprehensive statewide strategic plan. 

A key partner in Indiana’s prevention system is the Indiana Prevention Resource Center (IPRC) at 

Indiana University. The IPRC provides statewide support in the areas of needs assessment, student 

surveys, education, Internet-based resources, and local community support for prevention services. 

Furthermore, Indiana’s prevention system includes partnerships with other key State agencies, 

including the GCDFI, the Department of Education, the Department of Health, the Criminal Justice 

Institute, the Interagency Council on Drugs (IAC), and others. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention expenditures have decreased slightly between FYs 2000 and 2003, from $9.1 million to 

nearly $8.7 million. The sources of prevention funds shifted slightly during this time period: the Block 

Grant as a proportion of prevention funds increased from 78 to 83 percent, while other Federal funds 

decreased from 21 to 17 percent. 

Block Grant prevention expenditures in Indiana ranged narrowly between FYs 2000 and 2003 from 

$1.15 to $1.18 per capita. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding Source Funding Source 

SAPT Block Other SAPT Block Other Federal Grant 

21% Grant Federal

78% 83% 17% 

State 

1% 

N=$9,131,022 N=$8,667,531 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

266 
Inventory of State Profiles Indiana 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 7,088,729 78 7,054,407 84 7,252,065 83 7,185,330 83 

Other Federal 1,940,685 21 1,332,827 16 1,486,056 17 1,446,363 17 

State 101,608 1 45,095 1 18,778 0 35,838 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 9,131,022 100 8,432,329 100 8,756,899 100 8,667,531 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by the Block Grant include the following: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

The State’s Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resources (RADAR) 

center, Indiana Prevention Resource Center (IPRC), provides customized 

prevention and treatment information for the Hispanic/Latino community; 

IPRC creates monthly public service announcements (PSAs) on substance 

abuse issues. DMHA facilitates the Serving the Hoosier Assurance Plan 

through Education (SHAPE) to inform the public about publicly-funded 

AOD services. 

Education 

DMHA facilitates substance abuse prevention programs for pregnant and 

post-partum women and teens and conducts the Indiana Leadership 

Academy to promote empowerment and recovery-oriented strategies for 

those with co-occurring disorders. 

Alternatives 

Activities include the statewide Afternoons R.O.C.K., an afterschool 

program for youth ages 10-14, which builds resiliency, resistance s kills, 

and community service, Project L.E.A.D, an adolescent prevention program 

providing leadership experience addressing alcohol and drugs 

Community-Based Processes 

DMHA funds 16 community coalitions, delivers services in partnership with 

Healthy Family Services to 21,000 families in 56 sites across the State 

each year, and helps individuals recovering from addiction to re-integrate 

into the community. 

Environmental 

DMHA partners with the Division of Families and Children to promote 

Healthy Family Services, involving home support workers who connect 

initials to community resources. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Strategies include the presence of substance abuse counselors at public 

welfare offices, the Prenatal Substance Use Prevention Program, 

automatic referrals following positive illicit drug tests, and a partnership with 

the Department of Corrections. 

267 
Indiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for core prevention strategies in the State has remained relatively stable 

between FYs 2000 and 2003 and has increased steadily over time. In FY 2003, expenditures on 

core strategies totaled $7.3 million. The distribution of funds during that time period has varied 

slightly, with the allocation of funds for education increasing from 47 percent in FY 2000 to 61 

percent in FY 2003. Other shifts in funding include alternative strategies, which decreased from 13 

percent of total expenditures to 6 percent, and information dissemination which decreased from 18 

percent to 14 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy Problem ID 

Alternatives Alternatives and Referral 

13% Problem ID 3% Community­ 6% 

Information 

Dissemination

18% 

and Referral Based 

5% Process 

Education 

Community­ 12%

47% Environmental Based 

4% Process Education 

12% 61% Information 

Environmental Dissemination 

5% 14% 

N=$7,088,729 N=$7,311,851 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 1,261,794 18 953,254 14 1,015,289 14 1,023,659 14 

Education 3,374,235 48 3,527,204 50 4,406,633 61 4,445,605 61 

Alternatives 921,535 13 1,175,735 17 402,098 6 402,152 6 

Problem ID and Referral 340,259 5 278,428 4 207,142 3 212,044 3 

Community-Based Process 836,470 12 815,350 12 892,852 12 899,358 12 

Environmental 354,436 5 304,436 4 328,051 5 329,033 4 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 7,088,729 100 7,054,407 100 7,252,065 100 7,311,851 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

268 
Inventory of State Profiles Indiana 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Indiana provides a continuum of substance abuse treatment services for its citizens. These services 

include individualized treatment plans, 24-hour crisis intervention services, case management and 

assertive case management, outpatient services, day treatment/partial hospitalization, medical 

evaluation, acute stabilization services including detoxification treatment, residential services, and 

family support services. These services are provided by DMHA-certified entities, including 

Community Mental Health Centers, organized treatment service networks, and independent 

agencies. 

In 1995, Indiana implemented the Hoosier Assurance Plan (HAP), a managed plan which provides 

publicly funded alcohol and other drug services to eligible persons. Eligible recipients include dually 

diagnosed individuals, chronically addicted women who are pregnant or who have dependent 

children, persons who are deaf, and persons requiring methadone treatment. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment expenditures in Indiana have increased steadily over time, from $33.2 million in FY 2000 

to $34.2 million in FY 2003. The sources of treatment funds have also remained relatively 

unchanged during this time period. In FY 2003, Block Grant funds accounted for nearly threequarters (72 percent) of total treatment expenditures, while the State paid for approximately onequarter (28 percent) in that same year. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant treatment expenditures increased slightly from $3.88 to 

$3.97 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

SAPT Block State SAPT Block State Grant 29% Grant 28% 71% 72% 

N=$33,220,151 N=$34,210,952 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

269 
Indiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 23,618,831 71 23,961,754 71 24,150,116 72 24,620,121 72 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 9,601,320 29 9,562,293 29 9,433,915 28 9,590,831 28 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 33,220,151 100 33,524,047 100 33,584,031 100 34,210,952 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Indiana’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 30,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, most of which were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=30,451) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 147 104 0 

Free-standing residential 122 163 1 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 314 249 0 

Short-term residential 672 868 6 

Long-term residential 5 7 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 165 100 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 14,059 11,940 211 

Intensive outpatient 661 656 1 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 15,980 14,152 319 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data also indicate over 29,000 admissions (where at least 

one substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 19 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate varied slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of 

alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see 

Appendix D: Methodology.) 

270 
Inventory of State Profiles Indiana 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 8,025 17.7 

Any other drugs 21,378 19.6 

Total 29,403 19.1 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 361,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.2 

percent of Indiana’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 127,000 

persons (2.5 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Indiana. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.15 5.51 18.15 5.36 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.52 4.14 6.96 1.47 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

271 
Indiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Indiana statutory code promotes coordination among these community partners in order to avoid 

gaps in treatment, prevention, and law enforcement/justice services. The Mental Health Advisory 

Council provides assistance to DMHA in planning mental health activities. 

The State utilizes PREV-STATTM, a tool developed and maintained by the IPRC at Indiana 

University-Bloomington, to assess prevention needs throughout the State. Using social, 

demographic, and geographic data, PREV-STATTM creates a statistical picture that can be as broad 

as the entire State or as specific as a particular neighborhood. Indiana’s use of this tool allows for 

precision planning of prevention programs by matching population needs with appropriate prevention 

services, promoting more effective allocation of limited resources. 

The State also utilizes three key surveys to identify substance use habits, as well as risk and 

protective factors, among Indiana youth: (1) “Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Use by Indiana 

Children and Adolescents,” (2) an IPRC survey, and (3) pre- and post-test surveys of gateway drug 

use among middle school youth enrolled in DMHA’s afterschool program, “Afternoons R.O.C.K.” 

Evaluation 

Indiana requires all local prevention providers to measure participant-centered outcomes through 

pre- and post-test instruments and surveys. In addition, annual surveys are conducted in Indiana’s 

schools. Together, these surveys measure prevalence of alcohol, tobacco, and substance use, as 

well as perceived risks and peer attitudes among youth. 

Training and Assistance 

Indiana relies on strong partners such as Healthy Families Indiana, the Indiana Association of 

Prevention Professionals, the GCDFI, and the IPRC to provide training opportunities and support to 

prevention professionals across the State. IPRC maintains an online reference library, a lending 

library, and provides technical assistance in to communities on many topics, such as grant writing, 

program evaluation, and public health. Through the “Prevention Newsline,” IPRC delivers 

information on the latest trends and issues related to substance abuse prevention. Additionally, the 

ACT Center of Indiana provides technical assistance regarding implementation of Assertive 

Community Treatment (ACT), integrated dual diagnosis treatment, and other evidence-based 

practices. 

272 
Inventory of State Profiles Indiana 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002 SAPT Block Grant funding for resource development activities in 

Indiana declined slightly to $1.1 million. Research and evaluation (at 37 percent) and information 

systems (at 31 percent) comprised over two-thirds of spending activities. The remainder of funds 

were disbursed among several strategies: program development; quality assurance; training; and 

planning, coordination, and needs assessment. Indiana did not report any expenditures on resource 

development activities in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Quality 

Research and 

Evaluation

37%

Coordination, 

Needs 

Assessment 

4%

Information 

Systems

31%

Planning, Assurance

7% 

Training 

4% 

Program 

Development 

17% 

Indiana did not report any 

expenditures for resource 

development activities in FY 

2003. 

N=$1,260,051 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 44,213 4 44,213 4 57,962 6 0 0 

Quality Assurance 87,367 7 72,607 6 73,120 7 0 0 

Training 52,000 4 439,250 39 102,880 10 0 0 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 218,900 17 226,864 20 206,865 20 0 0 

Research and Evaluation 469,439 37 181,191 16 415,939 40 0 0 

Information Systems 388,132 31 161,944 14 193,492 18 0 0 

Total* 1,260,051 100 1,126,069 100 1,050,258 100 0 0 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

273 
Indiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

In FY 2004, the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded Indiana $1.7 million in 

discretionary prevention funding. Most of the awards (16 of 17) went toward drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 16 1,370,940 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 350,000 

Total 17 1,720,940 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded $1.9 million in discretionary funding for 

treatment in Indiana in FY 2004. The majority (nearly $1 million) is allocated for targeted capacityHIV/AIDS. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 1 481,037 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 2 959,836 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 1 331,576 

Total 5 1,872,449 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

274 
IOWA 

State SSA Director 

Janet Zwick, Deputy Director 

Division of Behavioral Health and Professional Licensure 

Department of Public Health 

Lucas State Office Building 

321 E. 12th Street 

Des Moines, IA 50319-0075 

Phone: 515-281-4417 

Fax: 515-281-4535 

E-mail: jzwick@idph.state.ia.us 

Web site: www.idph.state.ia.us/bhpl/default.asp 

Structure and Function 

The Iowa Department of Public Health (DPH) is the Single State Agency (SSA) 

responsible for ensuring the development and implementation of comprehensive 

substance abuse prevention and treatment programs. DPH is a cabinet-level 

department whose director reports to the Governor. The responsibility for publicly 

funded substance abuse prevention and treatment in the State is delegated to the 

Division of Behavioral Health and Professional Licensure (DBHPL) as a result of a 

DPH reorganization. The DBHPL Director also serves as the DPH Deputy Director. 

DBHPL includes the Bureau of Substance Abuse, Bureau of Professional Licensure, Bureau of 

Disability Prevention, and the Office of Substance Abuse Prevention, among other programs and 

boards. DBHPL’s responsibilities include regulation and licensing of substance abuse provider 

agencies, investigation of complaints brought against provider agencies, competitive contracting, 

management of the managed care contractor, collaboration with the Department of Human Services 

(DHS) in a Medicaid initiative, ensuring effective and collaborative use of resources, collaboration 

with sister agencies such as the Department of Corrections (DOC), Iowa Office of Drug Control 

Policy (ODCP), and Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning 

(CJJP), and dissemination of substance abuse information to the public. A total of 18 FTEs 

administer and manage DBHPL matters relative to substance abuse services, including a Prevention 

Team that oversees prevention activities and the State Incentive Grant (SIG). The Division uses six 

regions for treatment planning and divides the State into 23 prevention planning regions. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Public 

Health (DPH) 

Division of Behavioral Health and 

Professional Licensure (DBHPL) 

� Bureau of Professional Licensure 

� Bureau of Substance Abuse 

� Bureau of Disability Prevention 

� Office of Substance Abuse Prevention 

� Office of Gambling Treatment and 

Prevention 

� Abuse Education Review Panel 

� Anatomical Gift Public Awareness and 

Transplantation Fund 

� Domestic Violence Prevention Program 

� Personnel, Planning and Education 

� Strategic and Performance Planning 

� Substitute Medical Decision-Making Board 

275 
Iowa Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Expenditures for substance abuse services in Iowa increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from 

$40.1 to $45.7 million. State funds as a proportion of total SSA funds declined during that time 

period from 40 to 35 percent, as did the Block Grant proportion (from 31 to 28 percent), while 

Medicaid’s proportion increased slightly (from 25 to 27 percent) as did that for other Federal sources 

(from 4 to 10 percent). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid 

27% 25% 

Other 

Other Federal SAPT Block 

4% SAPT Block Federal 

Grant Grant 10% 

31% 28% 

State 

40% State 

35% 

N=$40,694,485 N=$45,711,609 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

45,000,000 

50,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 12,542,219 31 12,698,390 34 12,838,644 29 12,915,707 28 

Medicaid 10,175,843 25 6,010,999 16 12,773,362 29 12,459,958 27 

Other Federal 1,697,905 4 2,563,457 7 3,323,852 7 4,783,870 10 

State 16,278,518 40 15,665,001 42 15,591,509 35 15,552,074 35 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 40,694,485 100 36,937,847 100 44,527,367 100 45,711,609 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

276 
Inventory of State Profiles Iowa 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Nearly all (81 percent) of Iowa’s SSA expenditures in FY 2003 went toward treatment services, 15 

percent toward prevention services, and 4 percent toward administration activities. This distribution 

is similar to that in FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Treatment Treatment Prevention 

12% 81% 85% 15% 

Administration 

3% Administration 

4% 

N=$40,694,485 N=$45,711,609 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 25,090,909 63 21,123,390 57 37,104,314 83 37,161,700 81 

Alcohol Treatment 4,633,786 11 4,691,483 13 

Drug Treatment 4,633,786 11 4,691,484 13 

Prevention 5,085,977 12 5,081,335 14 6,014,834 14 6,948,442 15 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,250,027 3 1,350,155 4 1,408,219 3 1,601,487 4 

Total* 40,694,485 100 36,937,847 100 44,527,367 100 45,711,609 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

277 
Iowa Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 2003, increasing slightly 

from $12.5 to $12.9 million. The distribution of these funds remained identical during that time 

period, with about three-quarters (74 percent) allocated for treatment services, 21 percent for 

prevention services, and 5 percent for administration costs. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

21% 21% 

Treatment Treatment

74% 74% 

Administration Administration 

5% 5% 

N=$12,542,219 N=$12,915,727 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 9,486,603 74 9,543,565 74 

Alcohol Treatment 4,633,786 37 4,691,483 37 

Drug Treatment 4,633,786 37 4,691,484 37 

Prevention 2,647,537 21 2,680,503 21 2,710,109 21 2,726,377 21 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 627,110 5 634,920 5 641,932 5 645,785 5 

Total* 12,542,219 100 12,698,390 100 12,838,644 100 12,915,727 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

278 
Inventory of State Profiles Iowa 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Iowa’s State expenditures for substance use services declined slightly between FYs 2000 and 2003 

from $16.3 to $15.6 million. Most (91 percent) State expenditures in FY 2003 were spent on 

treatment services and 6 percent on prevention services. This distribution of funds was similar during 

FYs 2000 through 2002. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 6% Treatment 9% Treatment 

88% Administration 91% Administration 3% 

3% 

N=$16,278,518 N=$15,552,074 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

18,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 14,349,203 88 14,264,174 91 14,205,252 91 14,173,390 91 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 1,413,170 9 930,692 6 980,068 6 945,924 6 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 516,145 3 470,135 3 406,189 3 432,760 3 

Total* 16,278,518 100 15,665,001 100 15,591,509 100 15,552,074 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

279 
Iowa Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The Division of Behavioral Health and Professional Licensure, Office of Substance Abuse 

Prevention performs these activities: (1) coordinates and collaborates with multiple State agencies 

and organizations for assessment, planning, and implementation of statewide prevention initiatives; 

(2) coordinates trainings and monitors funding to local community-based organizations for alcohol, 

tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) prevention services; and (3) provides technical assistance to 

individuals, groups, and contracted organizations. 

In FY 2004, an estimated 200,000 individuals were reached through prevention programs. Half the 

program service hours were devoted to the core initiatives of work place development, community 

coalition building, and youth mentoring. The Iowa Youth Survey showed a reduction in substance 

use, more communities are taking action against methamphetamine, and model and evidence-based 

programs are producing positive outcomes. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention expenditures in Iowa totaled $6.9 million in FY 2003, an increase since FY 2000. The 

largest funding source for prevention expenditures was other Federal funds at 47 percent of the total 

in FY 2003, followed by the Block Grant (39 percent), and State funds (14 percent). This distribution 

represents quite a change since FY 2000, when the Block Grant supported more than half of total 

prevention funds, the State supported 28 percent, and other Federal funds supported 20 percent. 

Block Grant prevention expenditures increased slightly from $0.90 to $0.93 per capita between FYs 

2000 and 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other 

Other Federal Federal 20% SAPT Block 47%

Grant

SAPT Block 39%

Grant

52% 

State State 

28% 14% 

N=$5,085,977 N=$6,948,442 

280 
Inventory of State Profiles Iowa 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 2,647,537 52 2,680,503 53 2,710,109 45 2,726,377 39 

Other Federal 1,025,270 20 1,470,140 29 2,324,657 39 3,276,141 47 

State 1,413,170 28 930,692 18 980,068 16 945,924 14 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 5,085,977 100 5,081,335 100 6,014,834 100 6,948,442 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

The statewide information center provides materials to the public and supports 

campaigns such as Red Ribbon Week. Dissemination also occurs through health 

fairs, presentations, coalitions, and forums. 

Education Activities focus on curricula, process, and programs with parents, teachers, 

students, and workplaces. 

Alternatives Strategies include alcohol-free teen dances, holiday parties, and Red Ribbon 

rallies. 

Problem Identification and 

Referral 

Training for schools, businesses, and communities on implementing programs 

such as student and employee assistance and drinking drivers is provided. 

Community-based process 

Interagency collaboration, coalition building, and networking occur to enhance 

services, including the Iowa Youth Survey and Iowa Tobacco Survey. The State 

initiated the Youth Development Collaboration. 

Environmental 

IDPH established and changed written community standards and codes and 

participated in Tobacco Free Iowa strategy to secure tobacco settlement dollars 

for substance abuse prevention. 

281 
Iowa Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

SAPT Block Grant expenditures for prevention core strategies remained stable between FYS 2000 

and 2003 at about $2.7 million. The distribution of these funds, however, shifted during this time 

period. Funding for education decreased, both in proportion and in dollar amount during this time. In 

FY 2000 the largest recipient of Block Grant funding for core prevention strategies was education (at 

31 percent), whereas in FY 2003, the largest recipient was Section 1926-tobacco (at 26 percent of 

the total.) 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Alternatives Problem ID Problem ID Education 

Education 

Section 1926 -

Tobacco

25% 

8% 

and Referral Community- 19% 

Section 1926 -

Tobacco

26% 

N=$2,726,376 

5% and Referral

31% Based 5% 5% Community- Process Based 12% Process Environmental Information 20% 2% Dissemination 

Environmental 20% Information 5% 

Dissemination 

17% 

N=$2,710,110 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 460,177 17 455,217 17 495,019 18 536,428 20 

Education 842,179 31 868,550 32 571,373 21 528,735 19 

Alternatives 207,825 8 160,268 6 177,141 7 148,779 5 

Problem ID and Referral 139,788 5 107,117 4 107,897 4 132,280 5 

Community-Based Process 330,570 12 372,654 14 552,241 20 548,765 20 

Environmental 52,044 2 46,571 2 128,910 5 149,795 5 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 677,527 25 670,126 25 677,527 25 681,594 25 

Total* 2,710,110 100 2,680,503 100 2,710,108 100 2,726,376 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

282 
Inventory of State Profiles Iowa 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Iowa is divided into 22 service areas for substance abuse treatment. DBHPL, Bureau of Substance 

Abuse, licenses and monitors treatment programs, which include community- and hospital-based 

programs, assessment and evaluation services, Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) correctional 

programs, and correctional institutional programs. 

The Iowa Plan for Behavioral Health (Iowa Plan) targets individuals with substance abuse treatment 

and mental health needs. It is an at-risk plan for managed care services under a 1915 (b) waiver for 

Medicaid enrollees. Providers are reimbursed using SAPT Block Grant, and State appropriations are 

contracted to deliver substance abuse treatment services to an agreed upon minimum number of 

clients or covered lives. Iowa has operated under a managed care system since SFY 1996. Merit 

Behavioral Care of Iowa (MBCI) currently administers the system. MBCI contracts with IDPH and 

Medicaid-funded service providers as well as Medicaid-only funded service providers. Programs 

provide a variety of services that include screening, evaluation, intake assessment, treatment, 

continuing care, followup services, and detoxification. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Funding for treatment increased in Iowa from $34.4 to $37.2 million between FYs 2000 and 2003. 

Funding from Medicaid increased, both in dollar amount and in proportion of total funding during this 

time. Funding from other sources remained relatively stable in dollar amount, but decreased in 

proportion of total funding, due to the increase in Medicaid funds. 

Block Grant expenditures per capita on treatment services remained relatively stable in Iowa 

between FYs 2000 and 2003, increasing from $3.16 in FY 2000 to $3.24 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid Medicaid 

30% 34% 

SAPT Block Other SAPT Block Other

Grant Federal Grant Federal

27% 2% 26% 3% 

N=$34,358,481 State N=$37,161,700 State 

41% 37% 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

283 
Iowa Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 9,267,572 27 9,382,967 31 9,486,603 26 9,543,565 26 

Medicaid 10,175,843 30 6,010,999 20 12,773,362 34 12,459,958 34 

Other Federal 565,863 2 848,217 3 639,097 2 984,787 3 

State 14,349,203 41 14,264,174 47 14,205,252 38 14,173,390 37 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 34,358,481 100 30,506,357 100 37,104,314 100 37,161,700 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding 

Admissions 

Iowa’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 20,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=19,641) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 905 453 0 

Free-standing residential 0 0 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 80 76 0 

Short-term residential 1,145 2,124 0 

Long-term residential 109 249 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 17 160 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 5,630 5,279 47 

Intensive outpatient 1,397 1,935 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 18 17 0 

Total 9,301 10,293 47 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate more than 27,000 admissions (where at least 

one substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that 33 percent of 

persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or 

drug use. This rate varied slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol 

in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: 

Methodology.) 

284 
Inventory of State Profiles Iowa 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where 

at Least One 

Substance Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 7,971 27.8 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 19,090 35.3 

Total 27,061 33.1 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 187,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.6 

percent of Iowa’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 58,000 

persons (2.4 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Iowa. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure 

2002–2003 

% 12 and older % 12–17 %18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.64 7.01 18.20 5.72 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.36 4.18 6.00 1.43 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; 2002-2003; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

285 
Iowa Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Iowa has a comprehensive description of the prevalence of substance use by various drugs, with 

estimates of both prevention and treatment needs for substate areas and indications of the specific 

population subgroups that have the highest needs. Data are obtained through multiple adult 

household surveys of substance use prevalence, abuse, dependency, and treatment needs; surveys 

on risk and protective factors for substance abuse and prevention; studies of social indicators, 

women’s treatment needs, treatment needs of minority communities and seniors, and the cost 

effectiveness of treatment. All of the needs assessment data are used to develop the State 

prevention and treatment strategic plans. 

A strategic planning process is used to develop Iowa’s prevention system. All 10 State departments 

and the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy formed a State Steering Committee, and attendees 

at the regional planning meetings generate and prioritize recommendations. The Division completes 

and publishes the State Plan for Substance Abuse Prevention based on information/ 

recommendations obtained from the regional forums. Core services include coalition building, 

mentoring, and workplace programming. 

Evaluation 

DBHPL requires reporting by contracted providers and monitors substance abuse services through a 

patient complaint process, licensure reviews, testing procedures, and reviews of data sent to the 

Substance Abuse Reporting System (SARS). It funds an outcome monitoring system that completes 

followup on a percentage of clients and analyzes data for treatment outcomes. The State is 

developing a data warehouse so analysis of substance abuse data and correctional data will be 

enhanced. The outcomes for correctional clients within treatment programs will be analyzed to 

further enhance quality treatment services. 

Training and Assistance 

DBHPL provides continuing education for employees of facilities that provide prevention activities 

and treatment services. It contracts with the Iowa Substance Abuse Program Director’s Association 

(SAPDA) Training Resources, to provide training to providers as well as the general public. A 

training needs assessment is completed and an annual training plan is developed. Activities and 

services are provided through direct procurement, subcontractors or grantees, or intergovernmental 

agreements. Cultural competency is a required part of every training event provided by Training 

Resources. Some training sessions are conducted over a fiber-optic communications network. 

286 
Inventory of State Profiles Iowa 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant expenditures for resource development activities in the State declined slightly between 

FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $719,000 to $624,000). These expenditures were disseminated among 

several main resource development activities in FY 2003 including quality assurance (which 

received 43 percent of funds), training (20 percent), research and evaluation (20 percent), and 

program development (10 percent). This distribution of funds was similar in FYs 2000 through 2002. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities 

Training 

18% 

Quality 

Assurance 

Information 

Systems 

4% 

Program 

41% Development 

10% 

Research and 

Planning, Evaluation 

Coordination, 23% 

Needs 

Assessment 

4% N=$719,011 

Development Activities 

Training 

20% 

Quality 

Assurance Program

Development 43%

10%

Planning, Research and 

Coordination, Evaluation 

Needs 20% 

Assessment 

4% N=$623,841 

Information 

Systems 

3% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

600,000 

700,000 

800,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 29,443 4 19,260 3 21,233 3 22,398 4 

Quality Assurance 288,945 40 299,904 40 281,723 40 266,711 43 

Training 129,980 18 129,010 17 117,979 17 125,222 20 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 73,358 10 67,516 9 66,790 10 65,294 10 

Research and Evaluation 168,106 23 222,035 29 196,021 28 125,221 20 

Information Systems 29,179 4 19,193 3 18,548 3 18,995 3 

Total* 719,011 100 756,918 100 702,294 100 623,841 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

287 
Iowa Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded $2.6 million in discretionary 

prevention grant funds to Iowa entities for FY 2004. These grants included the Drug Free 

Communities Support (19 of the 23 grants awarded) and the Methamphetamine and Inhalant Use 

programs. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards 

Total $ 

Amount 

Drug Free Communities 19 1,625,508 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 1 47,377 

Iowa Methamphetamine Prevention Sole Source 2003 1 399,949 

Prevention of Methamphetamine and Inhalant Use 1 335,618 

Single Sole Source Grant to the Iowa Department of 

Public Health 2004 1 200,000 

Total 23 2,608,452 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded $2.7 million in discretionary treatment 

grant funds to Iowa entities. These grants included Methamphetamine and Inhalant Use, 

Strengthening Communities, Residential Treatment, and State Data Infrastructure. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Addiction Technical Transfer Center 1 650,000 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 2 244,549 

Iowa Methamphetamine Treatment Sole Source -2003 1 499,963 

Residential SA Treatment 1 434,935 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Strengthening Communities -Youth 1 750,000 

Total 7 2,679,447 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

288 
KANSAS 

State SSA Director 

Mr. David A. Dickinson, Director 

Addiction and Prevention Services 

Health Care Policy 

Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services 

Docking State Office Building 

915 SW Harrison Street, 10th Floor 

Topeka, KS 66612-1570 

Phone : 785-368-6245 

Fax: 785-296-3773 

E-mail: ddickinson@srskansas.org 

Web site: www.srskansas.org/hcp/AAPSHome.htm 

Structure and Function 

The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) is the designated 

Single State Agency (SSA) that has statutory responsibility to provide substance 

abuse, addiction, and prevention services for Kansas. The Addiction and 

Prevention Services section (AAPS) within SRS provides administrative 

leadership by promoting effective public policy and developing and evaluating programmatic and 

human resources. The mission of SRS and AAPS is “ensuring a comprehensive system of quality 

services for the prevention and treatment of addictions in Kansas.” AAPS has adopted these 

guidelines to fulfill the mission: (1) invest in results, (2) ensure no wrong door to treatment, (3) 

maintain a commitment to quality, and (4) change attitudes and build partnerships. 

The Governor and SRS Secretary receive advice and guidance from a number of key stakeholder 

groups in planning and delivering prevention and addiction services. These groups include the 

Kansas Citizens Committee on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse, established by State statute and 

whose members include legislators and other system stakeholders such as child welfare, 

corrections, mental health, educators, program providers, grassroots groups, and consumers. This 

committee provides guidance on policies and program issues related to substance abuse prevention 

and treatment. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Social and Rehabilitation 

Services (SRS) 

Division of Health Care Policy 

(HCP) 

Addiction and Prevention 

Services (AAPS) 

Performance, Evaluation and 

Research Team (PERT) 

Grants and Contracts 

HCP Operations 

289 
Kansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Approximately $31.8 million was set spent on substance abuse treatment and prevention services in 

Kansas in FY 2003, an increase from $24.5 million in FY 2000. The Block Grant accounted for 38 

percent of the expenditures in FY 2003 (down from 45 percent in FY 2000), followed by Medicaid 

funding at 32 percent (up from 22 percent in FY 2000), State funding at 24 percent (down from 29 

percent in FY 2000), and other Federal sources at 4 percent. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid 

State

29% 

N=$24,541,020 

22% 32% 

Other 

SAPT Block Federal SAPT Block 

Grant 4% Grant Other 

45% 40% Federal 

4% 

State 

24% 

N=$31,768,313 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 11,060,004 45 11,699,847 43 12,280,272 41 12,343,401 39 

Medicaid 5,463,847 22 7,613,775 28 8,142,507 27 10,265,226 32 

Other Federal 888,865 4 837,202 3 1,814,030 6 1,417,371 4 

State 7,128,304 29 7,318,772 27 7,383,567 25 7,742,315 24 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 24,541,020 100 27,469,596 100 29,620,376 100 31,768,313 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

290 
Inventory of State Profiles Kansas 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the $32.8 million SSA expenditures in FY 2003, 85 percent was spent on treatment, 12 percent 

on prevention, and 3 percent on administration. This distribution has remained relatively stable 

since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment 

83% Prevention 85% 

Prevention 

14% 12% 

Administration Administration 

3% 3% 

N=$24,541,020 

N=$31,768,313 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 5,463,847 22 23,118,190 84 24,918,271 84 27,020,852 85 

Alcohol Treatment 7,762,509 32 0 0 

Drug Treatment 7,083,905 29 0 0 

Prevention 3,478,490 14 3,307,378 12 3,693,090 12 3,732,685 12 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 27,000 0 0 0 

Administration 752,269 3 1,044,028 4 982,015 3 1,014,776 3 

Total* 24,541,020 100 27,469,596 100 29,620,376 100 31,768,313 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

291 
Kansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures totaled over $12.3 million in FY 2003, up from $11.1 million in FY 2000. 

About three-fourths of the Block Grant funds during that time period in FY 2005 went towards 

treatment activities, followed by 23 percent toward prevention. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 23% 

Treatment 22% 

Treatment 76% 

73% 

Administration Administration 

2% 4%

N=$11,060,004 N=$12,343,401 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 8,739,614 75 9,308,015 76 8,973,931 73 

Alcohol Treatment 4,392,664 40 0 0 

Drug Treatment 4,008,654 36 0 0 

Prevention 2,396,960 22 2,524,139 22 2,481,203 20 2,852,110 23 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 261,726 2 436,094 4 491,054 4 517,360 4 

Total* 11,060,004 100 11,699,847 100 12,280,272 100 12,343,401 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

292 
Inventory of State Profiles Kansas 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, State expenditures on alcohol and drug abuse services remained 

relatively stable, increasing from $7.1 million in FY 2000 to $7.7 million in FY 2003. In FY 2003 most 

(83 percent) of the funds went toward treatment services, with 11 percent of the funds spent on 

prevention services and 6 percent on administration costs. This distribution of funds was similar in 

FYs 2000 through 2002. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention Treatment 11% 14% Treatment 

79% 83% 

Administration 

Administration 6% 

7% 

N=$7,128,304 N=$7,742,315 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

9,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 6,075,885 83 6,059,749 82 6,408,370 83 

Alcohol Treatment 2,967,202 41 0 0 

Drug Treatment 2,707,807 38 0 0 

Prevention 962,752 14 783,239 11 882,419 12 864,529 11 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 27,000 0 0 0 

Administration 490,543 7 459,648 6 414,399 6 469,416 6 

Total* 7,128,304 100 7,318,772 100 7,383,567 100 7,742,315 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

293 
Kansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

AAPS funds a comprehensive infrastructure based on prevention science. The infrastructure 

supports research-based practices, a data-driven process, and outcomes-based planning and 

evaluation. This prevention infrastructure comprises: 

• 13 Regional Prevention Centers (RPCs) that cover all 105 counties and provide technical 

assistance and training 

• The Kansas Family Partnership, which provides statewide advocacy and support for 

community coalitions, support for other initiatives, and prevention training

• YouthFriends of Kansas, which provides volunteers for school-based mentoring and training 

for school personnel 

• The Communities That Care student drug use survey and the evaluation of community 

coalitions 

The Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF) is the overarching prevention approach that provides a 

collaborative framework and a course of action to support the healthy development of children. The 

framework builds on a solid foundation of research and evaluation and supports outcome-based 

planning and community capacity building 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding in Kansas remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 2003, ranging from 

$3.5 to $3.7 million. About three-fourths of the State’s prevention funding came from the Block Grant 

in FY 2003; the remainder from the State. This distribution has changed somewhat from FY 2000, 

when Block Grant funds accounted for 69 percent of prevention resources, the State accounted for 

28 percent, and other Federal funds accounted for 3 percent. 

Block Grant funds for prevention services increased from $0.89 per capita in FY 2000 to $1.05 per 

capita in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source Other 

Federal

3%

SAPT Block 

Grant SAPT Block State 

69% State Grant 23% 

28% 77% 

N=$3,478,490 

N=$3,732,685 

294 
Inventory of State Profiles Kansas 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 2,396,960 69 2,524,139 76 2,481,203 67 2,852,110 77 

Other Federal 118,778 3 0 0 329,468 9 16,046 0 

State 962,752 28 783,239 24 882,419 24 864,529 23 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 3,478,490 100 3,307,378 100 3,693,090 100 3,732,685 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Kansas Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resources (RADAR) 

Distribution Center, part of a comprehensive network, disseminates researchbased resources, including pamphlets, books, and videos. 

Education 

Education efforts include Red Ribbon Rallies, a m ethamphetamine conference, 

a mock alcohol and drug disaster drill, and an updated tobacco retailer training 

online. 

Alternatives 

RPCs assist community partnerships in outcomes -based planning, hold backto-school events, and serve school districts through YouthFriends of Kansas, a 

school-based mentoring program. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

RPCs maintain resources to make treatment referrals and provide staff to 

develop workforce programming for social workers regarding prevention 

strategies for TANF populations. 

Community-based Processes RPCs assist coalitions and task forces and promote use of the Communities 

That Care model. 

Environmental 

The Kansas statute on endangering a child through the sale, distribution, or 

manufacture of methamphetamine was changed from a misdemeanor to a 

felon, tobacco retailer licenses were made part of the public record, and the 

number of smoke-free establishments was increased. 

295 
Kansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant funding for core prevention strategies in Kansas increased 

from $2.4 to nearly $2.9 million. During that time period, community-based processes received the 

largest proportion of funds, and the remainder was spent on a variety of strategies. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core Strategy FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Education Alternatives Education Alternatives 

18% 8% Problem ID 19% 12% 

Problem ID and Referral and Referral Information 3% 

Information 3%

10%

Dissemination 

Dissemination 

16% 

Environmental Community8% Community- Environmental Based Based 

12% Process Process 

38% 53% 

N=$2,396,960 N=$2,852,110 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 239,696 10 550,009 22 384,800 16 442,640 16 

Education 431,453 18 625,010 25 403,123 16 533,658 19 

Alternatives 191,757 8 150,002 6 183,238 7 331,148 12 

Problem ID and Referral 71,909 3 125,002 5 91,619 4 97,916 3 

Community-Based 

Process 1,270,389 53 925,014 37 641,333 26 1,107,676 39 

Environmental 180,756 8 125,002 5 128,267 5 332,913 12 

Other 0 0 0 0 648,823 26 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 11,000 0 24,100 1 0 0 6,159 0 

Total* 2,396,960 100 2,524,139 100 2,481,203 100 2,852,110 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

296 
Inventory of State Profiles Kansas 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

The Kansas SRS/AAPS-funded addiction treatment system offers a continuum of services: (1) 

intermediate treatment, (2) intensive outpatient treatment, (3) social detoxification treatment that 

provides 24-hour, non-hospital based residential treatment, (4) reintegration treatment, and (5) 

methadone treatment. 

This SRS/AAPS-funded treatment system has one point of entry in the four Regional Alcohol and 

Drug Assessment Centers (RADACs). RADACs provide assessments, outreach, and clinical 

utilization reviews for persons and families needing substance abuse treatment services in their 

identified regions. RADACs also assess service delivery through reviews and clinical monitoring. 

With the exception of outpatient services, social detoxification services, and services for pregnant 

women and women with dependent children, services are pre-approved through the RADACs. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Funding for treatment and rehabilitation in Kansas increased steadily over the years, from $20.3 

million in FY 2000 to $27 million in FY 2003. In FY 2003 Medicaid was the single largest funding 

source for treatment services at 38 percent of the total funding, followed by the Block Grant at 33 

percent and the State at 24 percent. In contrast, in FY 2000 the Block Grant was the largest source 

of treatment funding (at 41 percent), followed by the State (at 28 percent) and then Medicaid (at 27 

percent). 

Block Grant funding for treatment services increased between FYs 2000 and 2002 from $3.12 per 

capita to $3.43 per capita. In FY 2003, those funds decreased slightly to $3.29 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid Medicaid

27% 38%

SAPT Block 

Grant SAPT Block 

41% Other Grant

Federal 33% Other 

4% Federal 

5% 

N=$20,310,261 State N=$27,020,852 State 

28% 24% 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

297 
Kansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 8,401,318 41 8,739,614 38 9,308,015 37 8,973,931 33 

Medicaid 5,463,847 27 7,613,775 33 8,142,507 33 10,265,226 38 

Other Federal 770,087 4 688,916 3 1,408,000 6 1,373,325 5 

State 5,675,009 28 6,075,885 26 6,059,749 24 6,408,370 24 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 20,310,261 100 23,118,190 100 24,918,271 100 27,020,852 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Kansas’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 16,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment. 

The majority of these persons were admitted for outpatient, free-standing residential and short-term 

residential treatment services. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=16,389) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 1,357 1,382 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 1,117 1,837 0 

Long-term residential 607 853 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 3,613 4,210 0 

Intensive outpatient 571 853 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 7,265 9,124 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate more than 14,000 admissions (where at least 

one substance was known), of which nearly 3,000 were for alcohol only. Calculations (with 

imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 23 percent of persons admitted to treatment 

programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary 

when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. 

(For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

298 
Inventory of State Profiles Kansas 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 2,726 22.2 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 11,716 23.1 

Total 14,442 22.9 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 151,000 persons aged 12 and older (6.9 

percent of Kansas’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use, and 48,000 

persons (2.2 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Kansas. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 6.85 4.98 17.70 5.02 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.20 3.88 6.29 1.16 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; data are combined for 2002 and 2003 

299 
Kansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Planning occurs at the regional and county levels. Treatment service regions comprise five 

geographic areas that cover all 105 Kansas counties. The 13 RPCs cover prevention services in all 

counties. 

Planning and evaluation relies on several sources of data including Communities That Care (CTC), a 

student survey that collects 57 archival indicators. These data are now available through an online 

portal that has enhanced the use of the CTC data for school districts and communities across the 

State. Furthermore, in FY 2005, a community profile builder tool will be added to allow communities 

to integrate important trend data into needs assessment documents. Social indicator data reporting 

will be expanded to provide more direct access and ensure linkages with risk and protective factor 

trends. 

Although Kansas has not conducted a statewide formal treatment needs assessment since 1995, it 

is planning to select a vendor to perform an updated assessment. 

Evaluation 

In FY 2004, think tanks were established to review indicators of effectiveness on a continual basis in 

order to create a single, statewide approach across State agencies. This approach has the potential 

to help determine the cost-benefit ratio of prevention and treatment services. 

AAPS is revising its standards for treatment services, the counselor credentialing process, and its 

policies and procedures manual. Capacity, tuberculosis services, and women’s treatment services 

are monitored through data collection. Contractual agreements with State-funded programs include 

requirements for priority services for pregnant women, women with children, injection drug users 

(IDUs), and HIV-diagnosed clients. 

Training and Assistance 

Kansas provides a variety of training and assistance activities to treatment and prevention personnel 

and providers. For treatment, a survey is administered to understand the needs of the Kansas 

addiction workforce. NIDA principles are disseminated and newsletters feature articles on and links 

to best practices. The Kansas Connecting Research to Services group also identifies evidencebased practices to disseminate to the field. Specialized training covers topics such as brain-related 

research and cognitive behavior approaches. AAPS continues to partner with other agencies, such 

as the Department of Corrections and Department of Health and Environment, to leverage training 

opportunities. 

For prevention, a Prevention Workforce Survey was administered to determine the most effective 

professional development approach to recruit, train, and retain a competent prevention workforce. A 

long-range training schedule and strategies are under development. SRS/AAPS is developing online 

resources and updating training in the Communities That Care operating system that moves 

community coalitions toward science-based prevention processes. SRS/AAPS contracted with the 

Kansas Family Partnership to coordinate training opportunities and in FY 2005, the Kansas Family 

Partnership will also assume responsibility for management of the State’s prevention professional 

credentialing system. 

300 
Inventory of State Profiles Kansas 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

In FY 2003, Block Grant expenditures for resource development activities in Kansas totaled 

$526,000, a decrease from earlier years. The largest proportion (45 percent) of these funds was 

earmarked for information systems, whereas in FY 2000 the largest proportion of funds (40 percent) 

was earmarked for research and evaluation projects. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities Quality 

Planning, Quality 

Information 

Systems

45% 

Assurance

Coordination, 

Research and 

Evaluation

40% 

Assurance Planning, 8% Training 

22% Coordination, Needs 10% Needs Assessment Program Assessment 30% Research and Development 33% Evaluation 8% 

4% 

N=$657,962 N=$525,650 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

600,000 

700,000 

800,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 195,000 30 170,000 26 195,000 27 173,678 33 

Quality Assurance 147,000 22 0 0 147,000 20 39,827 8 

Training 0 0 195,000 30 50,296 7 50,376 10 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 50,000 8 35,000 5 50,000 7 0 0 

Research and Evaluation 265,962 40 250,000 38 265,962 36 18,586 4 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 21,937 3 243,183 46 

Total* 657,962 100 650,000 100 730,195 100 525,650 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

301 
Kansas Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded 15 prevention grants to Kansas in FY 

2004 totaling nearly $1.2 million. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Awards Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 15 1,153,759 

Total 15 1,153,759 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) did not award any discretionary grants to 

Kansas during FY 2004. 

302 
KENTUCKY 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Donna Hillman, Director 

Department for Mental Health and Mental Retardation Services 

Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse 

100 Fair Oaks 4E-D 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Phone: 502-564-2880 

Email: Donna.Hillman@ky.gov 

Web site: mhmr.ky.gov 

Structure and Function 

The Cabinet for Health and Family Services was created by the Governor in 

July 2004 and includes the Department for Mental Health and Mental 

Retardation Services. Within the Department for Mental Health and Mental 

Retardation Services, the Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse, the 

Single State Agency (SSA), is responsible for alcohol and other drug abuse prevention and 

treatment services. 

The Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse includes the Program Support Branch 

(Treatment Branch) that has primary responsibility for community alcohol and drug abuse treatment 

services and supports detoxification, family, residential, transition living, intensive outpatient, and 

other outpatient services. The Substance Abuse Prevention Program also resides in the Division of 

Mental Health and Substance Abuse and continues to oversee statewide prevention services and 

training. It oversees a network of 14 Regional Prevention Centers that provide technical assistance 

and training on prevention strategies. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department for Mental Health and 

Mental Retardation Services 

Division of Mental Health and 

Substance Abuse 

Substance Abuse Prevention Program Support (Treatment) 

Driving Under the 

Influence Program 

Early Intervention 

Program 

Cabinet for Health and Family 

Services 

303 
Kentucky Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Although peaking in FY 2001 at $40.4 million, overall expenditures by Kentucky’s SSA remained 

fairly stable between FYs 2000 and 2003. Kentucky’s overall SSA funding totaled $36.5 million in FY 

2003. Block grant funding accounted for 57 percent of total expenditures in FY 2003 and State 

funding accounted for 38 percent. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

13% 5% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block Grant Grant State 

54% State 57% 

38% 

33% 

N=35,907,030 N=$36,460,651 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

45,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 19,276,066 54 19,841,212 49 20,646,000 56 20,752,134 57 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 4,693,037 13 5,048,029 12 1,381,470 4 1,717,358 5 

State 11,937,927 33 15,555,997 38 14,814,707 40 13,991,159 38 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 35,907,030 100 40,445,238 100 36,842,177 100 36,460,651 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

304 
Inventory of State Profiles Kentucky 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Nearly three quarters (71 percent) of the $36.5 million SSA expenditures in FY 2003 were allocated 

for treatment services, followed by prevention (at 25 percent) and administration costs (at 4 percent). 

This is a slight change from FY 2000 when treatment accounted for 68 percent of expenditures and 

prevention accounted for 26 percent. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention Treatment 26% Treatment 68% 25%

71% 

Administration Administration 

6% 4% 

N=$35,907,030 N=$36,460,651 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

45,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 25,939,685 64 26,272,631 71 26,168,067 71 

Alcohol Treatment 13,628,330 38 0 0 

Drug Treatment 10,715,574 30 0 0 

Prevention 9,504,298 26 12,950,898 32 9,212,534 25 8,967,526 25 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 2,058,828 6 1,554,655 4 1,357,012 4 1,325,058 4 

Total* 35,907,030 100 40,445,238 100 36,842,177 100 36,460,651 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

305 
Kentucky Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures for SSA activities in Kentucky have remained relatively stable over the 

years and have increased steadily from $19.3 million in FY 2000 to nearly $20.8 million in FY 2003. 

The distribution of funds has also remained stable. In FY 2003, 73 percent of the total funds were 

spent on treatment services, and 27 percent were spent on prevention services. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

25% Treatment 

27% 

Treatment Prevention

73% 74% 

Administration

1%

N=$19,276,066 N=$20,752,134 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 14,800,709 75 14,841,177 72 15,197,700 73 

Alcohol Treatment 7,559,139 39 0 0 

Drug Treatment 6,718,758 35 0 0 

Prevention 4,734,441 25 5,020,754 25 5,781,340 28 5,550,682 27 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 263,728 1 19,749 0 23,483 0 3,752 0 

Total* 19,276,066 100 19,841,212 100 20,646,000 100 20,752,134 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

306 
Inventory of State Profiles Kentucky 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures increased from $11.9 million in FY 2000 to $15.6 million in FY 2001, and 

declined to $14.0 million in FY 2003. A large portion (78 percent) of Kentucky’s State expenditures 

for substance abuse services were spent on treatment in FY 2003. Prevention expenditures, 

peaking in FY 2001 at $3.7 million, increased from just over $800,000 in FY 2000 to nearly $1.8 

million in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention

7% 13% Treatment Treatment 

81% 78% 

Administration Administration 

12% 9% 

N=$11,937,927 N=$13,991,159 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

18,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 10,319,455 66 10,923,788 74 10,892,858 78 

Alcohol Treatment 5,647,449 47 0 0 

Drug Treatment 3,996,816 34 0 0 

Prevention 829,508 7 3,702,636 24 2,557,390 17 1,776,995 13 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,464,154 12 1,533,906 10 1,333,529 9 1,321,306 9 

Total* 11,937,927 100 15,555,997 100 14,814,707 100 13,991,159 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

307 
Kentucky Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The Kentucky prevention system is based on interagency linkages and 14 Regional Prevention 

Centers that provide technical assistance and training on evidence-based prevention strategies. The 

objectives of the system are to assist in the development of community task forces and policy 

boards; raise community awareness; educate and train target groups, including youth, parents, 

school personnel, housing authority staff and residents, senior citizens, and employees of 

businesses; assist community efforts at problem identification and referral; support a network of 

RADAR associates; and provide alternative activities for youth through teen leadership activities. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention expenditures, after peaking in FY 2001 at nearly $13.0 million, declined to about $9.0 in 

FY 2003. The distribution of funding sources for prevention services also changed during that time 

period. In FY 2003, the Block Grant accounted for 62 percent of prevention funding, followed by 

State resources (at 20 percent) and other Federal resources (at 18 percent). In contrast, Block Grant 

funds accounted for 50 percent of funding in FY 2000, followed by other Federal (at 41 percent). 

Block Grant funds for prevention in Kentucky increased from $1.17 per capita in FY 2000 to $1.41 in 

FY 2002. In FY 2003 Block Grant funds for prevention activities decreased slightly to $1.35 per 

capita. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source 

Other 

Federal 

Other 18% 

Federal SAPT Block SAPT Block 41% 

Grant Grant

50% 62%

State 

20% 

State 

N=$9,504,298 9% N=$8,967,526 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

308 
Inventory of State Profiles Kentucky 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,734,441 50 5,020,754 39 5,781,340 63 5,550,682 62 

Other Federal 3,940,349 41 4,227,508 33 873,804 9 1,639,849 18 

State 829,508 9 3,702,636 29 2,557,390 28 1,776,995 20 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 9,504,298 100 12,950,898 100 9,212,534 100 8,967,526 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 14 associate RADAR Centers disseminate information to communities. 

Education State police deliver the DARE program. The juvenile justice system 

utilizes the Early Intervention Program. 

Alternatives 

Youth Empower Strategy (Y.E.S.) engages youth in substance abuse 

prevention efforts. Other strategies include training on alcohol 

environmental strategies and media literacy. 

Community-based Processes 

The Champions program, a network of regional and county action 

groups, solicits local funding and in-kind support for evidence-based 

prevention projects. Regional Prevention Centers assist the groups with 

team building and planning. 

Environmental 

Champions groups and Regional Prevention Centers raise community 

awareness of alcohol advertising, marketing strategies, pricing issues, 

and smoke-free environments. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Training and certification of community agencies assess and educate 

driving under intoxication (DUI) offenders. The Division trains and 

consults with schools and community groups on effective referrals for 

those with alcohol and drug problems. 

309 
Kentucky Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funds for prevention activities in Kentucky reached a high of $5.8 million in FYs 2001 

and 2002 and were $5.6 million in FY 2003. The largest amount of funds (41 percent) from the Block 

Grant for prevention went toward the information dissemination strategy followed by strategies and 

the “other” category (24 percent). The proportion of funds targeted at community-based processes 

decreased during this time from 40 percent in FY 2000 to 15 percent in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy 

Environmental CommunityBased Environmental 4% 

Process 10% 

Community- Other Problem ID 15%

Based 28% and Referral Other

Process 3% 

Alternatives 24% 41% Section 1926 - 5% 

Tobacco Section 1926 - Problem ID 

3% Education Tobacco and Referral Information 1% 1% 1% Dissemination Information Alternatives Education 10% Dissemination 1% 12% 41% 

N=$5,550,682 N=$4,734,441 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 486,646 10 491,136 9 502,464 9 2,254,159 41 

Education 551,533 12 289,108 5 1,156,674 20 61,147 1 

Alternatives 64,886 1 38,316 1 20,649 0 268,086 5 

Problem ID and Referral 32,443 1 208,994 4 427,252 7 190,965 3 

Community-Based Process 1,914,143 41 1,580,421 28 1,863,516 32 836,981 15 

Environmental 194,659 4 272,477 5 412,672 7 573,695 10 

Other 1,328,017 28 2,782,397 49 1,311,953 23 1,310,472 24 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 162,114 3 54,800 1 86,160 1 55,177 1 

Total* 4,734,441 100 5,717,649 100 5,781,340 100 5,550,682 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

310 
Inventory of State Profiles Kentucky 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Kentucky’s treatment services are provided through community-based detoxification, residential, 

transitional, and outpatient service entities. In addition, an array of self-help programs, such as 

Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and Oxford House for recovering persons and their 

family members are an integral part of the community-based treatment delivery system. 

The treatment branch of the Single State Agency oversees the treatment functions including: (1) 

statewide planning and program development of treatment services, (2) administration of State and 

Federal funds, (3) development of programs to address the needs of special populations (i.e., 

women, adolescents, DUI offenders, injection drug users [IDUs], members of minority populations), 

(4) delivery of technical assistance for contracted service providers and affiliate agencies, and (5) 

quality assurance for contracted services. In addition, the branch administers the Kentucky 

Treatment Outcome Study to measure the impact of professional treatment on clients served. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment expenditures in Kentucky increased slightly from $24.3 million in FY 2000 to $26.2 million 

in FY 2003. The proportion of funds expended from the different funding sources remained stable 

during this time. In FY 2003, the majority Block Grant accounted for the majority (58 percent) of 

treatment expenditures, followed by the State (42 percent). 

Treatment expenditures per capita increased slightly from $3.53 in FY 2000 to $3.69 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other 

Federal

2%

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant State 

58% State 58% 42%

40% 

N=$24,343,904 N=$26,168,067 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

311 
Kentucky Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 14,277,897 58 14,800,709 57 14,841,177 56 15,197,700 58 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 421,742 2 819,521 3 507,666 2 77,509 0 

State 9,644,265 40 10,319,455 40 10,923,788 42 10,892,858 42 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 24,343,904 100 25,939,685 100 26,272,631 100 26,168,067 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

In examining admissions by specific treatment modality, Kentucky provided services over 40,000 

clients in State Fiscal Year 2003 (July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2003). 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=40,415) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 2,454 3,645 166 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 1,014 2,181 175 

Long-term residential 146 489 22 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 474 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 7,818 9,646 10,626 

Intensive outpatient 607 993 139 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 12,039 17,428 11,128 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

The Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) number for total unduplicated (across modalities and 

provider organizations)1

 clients served was over 18,000 (where at least one substance was known). 

Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that nearly 38 percent of persons admitted to 

treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate did 

not vary when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other 

drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

1 For example, in the specific service modality table, clients may have been admitted to residential, intensive outpatient, and 

outpatient at different points in the year. The modality specific admission table shows each of these admissions, unduplicated within 

each modality. Hence a client who was admitted twice to residential was not counted twice. 

312 
Inventory of State Profiles Kentucky 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 5,624 36.9 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 12,858 38.1 

Total 18,482 37.7 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission rec ords with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

While the National Survey of Drug Use and Health reports over 200,000 Kentucky residents 12 and 

over needing treatment for alcohol abuse or dependence and 88,000 for illicit drug use, State data 

are somewhat higher. In conducting a household survey using an adapted version of the NSDUH 

instrument, 423,502 met criteria for needing treatment using DSM-IV criteria or self reported need for 

treatment in 1999. The State contracts with the University of Kentucky Center on Drug and Alcohol 

Research to conduct the household survey of over 5,000 households to estimate the need for 

treatment. A current study has just been completed in 2005 with approximately the same finding. 

The adolescent survey has been completed but data have not yet been released form this study. 

Preliminary findings suggest that over 5 percent of the adolescent population needs treatment for 

substance use problems. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 5.90 5.21 14.15 4.55 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.56 5.02 6.98 1.49 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

313 
Kentucky Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

The Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse contracts with the University of Kentucky 

Center on Drug and Alcohol Research to conduct epidemiological studies to determine incidence 

and prevalence of substance abuse statewide, in the substate planning areas (SPAs), and at county 

levels. Data for planning purposes are also reported by the 14 Regional Mental Health and Mental 

Retardation Boards, and each board submits an annual service plan and budget to the Division of 

Mental Health and Substance Abuse. The data are used in the annual budget planning process. 

These plans serve as the basis for community substance abuse prevention and treatment services 

in the geographic regions. The University of Kentucky Center on Drug and Alcohol Research 

conducts household surveys using the core variables and measures from the NSDUH instrument 

and adds Kentucky specific measures as well. The current plan is to conduct an adult survey 

approximately every 2 years and an adolescent every 2 years on the alternate years of the adult 

surveys. Needs are analyzed factoring in those who have received treatment. 

Evaluation 

The Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse monitors all Regional Mental Health/Mental 

Retardation Board programs off-site through regular data reporting and on-site through routine 

liaison activities and formal monitoring visits every 2 years. Regional Prevention Centers report their 

activities and outcomes into the Substance Abuse Prevention Program’s Web-based data system. 

Staff then monitor the database entries and provide a monthly report to each center. Annually, 

Substance Abuse Prevention Program staff review the data and calculate performance measures 

regarding delivery of priority services and achievement of outcomes. The Division of Mental Health 

and Substance Abuse also contracts with University of Kentucky Center on Drug and Alcohol 

Research to conduct a substance abuse treatment outcome study on an ongoing annual basis. 

Baseline data are collected by clinicians during intake using a PDA-based data collection instrument 

based on the CSAT GPRA. Data are synchronized to UK CDAR and clients who consent to followup 

interviews are contacted by UK CDAR 12 months after treatment to assess change after treatment. 

Followup findings are published each year using a sample of about 20 percent of consenting clients 

who are selected randomly within a sample frame stratified by region of the State. Followup results 

parallel findings from other national studies on increased abstinence, decreased days of use by 

those still using, reduced crime, and increased employment. The State uses these data to evaluate 

the overall outcomes of treatment and to estimate cost offsets from treatment. In this State, for 

every $1.00 spent on treatment, there is a $4.52 saving in cost to Kentuckians through crime 

reductions and increased employment taxes. These data are reported to the Governor and State 

legislature annually. 

Training and Assistance 

The State supports education and training for prevention and treatment professionals. Many 

trainings are provided by the Prevention Academy and the Kentucky School of Alcohol and Other 

Drug Studies. Prevention Academy targets Regional Prevention Center staff, early intervention 

specialists, and others with 2 weeks of intensive training in basic prevention concepts. The Kentucky 

School offers a 1-week event each summer with workshops on prevention and treatment topics. The 

Seven Counties Services’ Jefferson Alcohol and Drug Abuse Center (JADAC) Training Institute 

provides training for counselors on best practices for treatment. Conferences are also held 

throughout the State and other resources include online courses. A workforce development needs 

assessment is being conducted to formulate a statewide training and development plan with a focus 

on developing leadership among new providers, training new specialists, and supporting 

professional certification. 

314 
Inventory of State Profiles Kentucky 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

SAPT Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Kentucky totaled $2.6 million in FY 

2003. The type of activity that received most of these funds in FY 2003 was program development 

(at 35 percent of the total), followed by research and evaluation (at 28 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities 

Research and Program Evaluation Development 31% 32% 

Information 

Systems 

5% 

Planning, 

Coordination, 

Training Needs 

25% Assessment 

7% 

N=$1,887,987 

FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities 

Systems 

1% 

Planning, 

Coordination, 

Training Quality Needs 

23% Assurance Assessment 

5% 8% 

Research and 

Evaluation 

28% 

Program 

Development Information 

35% 

N=$2,602,543 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 139,759 7 75,123 4 6,386 0 196,090 8 

Quality Assurance 0 0 214,243 10 36,815 2 118,141 5 

Training 465,000 25 425,455 21 407,160 19 599,581 23 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 612,811 32 1,002,998 49 961,274 46 930,788 35 

Research and Evaluation 585,417 31 0 0 570,894 27 733,299 28 

Information Systems 85,000 5 348,783 17 116,000 6 24,644 1 

Total* 1,887,987 100 2,066,602 100 2,098,529 100 2,602,543 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

315 
Kentucky Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded more than $5.2 million in discretionary 

prevention grant funds to Kentucky entities in FY 2004. Most (28 of the 31 grants awarded) of these 

grants funded drug-free communities programs ($2.6 million). The largest single award was for the 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant program (SPF SIG) (nearly $2.4 million). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

CSAP 2004 Earmarks 1 74,558 

Drug Free Communities 28 2,637,649 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 1 75,000 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Total 31 5,238,172 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.com 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded $4.0 million in discretionary treatment 

grant funds to Kentucky entities in FY 2004. These grants funded pregnant/post-partum women 

programs ($1 million), Targeted Capacity- HIV/AIDS ($500,000), and Adult, Juvenile, and Family 

Drug Courts ($400,000), among others. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 1 400,000 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 1 112,333 

Pregnant/Post-Partum Women 2 999,998 

Recovery Community Support - Facilitating 1 350,000 

Strengthening Communities -Youth 1 691,104 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 1 495,697 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 2 885,389 

Total 10 4,034,521 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

316 
LOUISIANA 

State SSA Director 

Michael Duffy, Assistant Secretary 

Office for Addictive Disorders 

Louisiana Office of Health and Hospitals 

1201 Capitol Access Road, P.O. Box 2790, Bin 18 

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-2790 

Phone: 225-342-6717 

Fax: 225-342-3875 

E-mail: mduffy@dhh.la.gov 

Web site: www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices 

Structure and Function 

The Office for Addictive Disorders (OAD) is the designated Single State Agency 

(SSA) in Louisiana. It is part of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals 

and is focused on building and operating a system of prevention and treatment 

services that are client/family centered, evidence based, outcome driven, and cost 

effective. OAD envisions a State in which substance abuse prevention and 

treatment services are widely available and delivered by highly trained professionals. 

OAD offers services through eight regional/district offices located throughout the State. Each region 

has an assigned regional manager who administers all programs and services through Stateoperated, contractual agreements and specific interagency agreements. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health 

and Hospitals 

The Office of Addictive 

Disorders (OAD) 

Prevention 

Human Resources Fiscal 

COSIG (cooccurring 

disorder) 

Research, 

Evaluation, 

and 

Information 

Technology 

State Treatment

Boards 

Access to 

Recovery 

Grant 

317 
Louisiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Louisiana’s total SSA expenditures totaled $57.7 million in FY 2003—a large increase from FY 2000 

when they totaled $46.2 million. The sources of funding also changed. In FY 2003, the largest 

source of SSA expenditures came from the Block Grant at 45 percent of total funds (compared with 

54 percent in FY 2000), followed by 39 percent from the State (compared with 31 percent in FY 

2000). During both time periods, about 15 percent of total SSA funds came from other Federal and 

other sources. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

SAPT Block 

Other

10%

Federal

5% 

State 

SAPT Block 

Grant 

Other

11% 

Federal

5% 

State

Grant 31% 45% 39% 

54% 

N=$46,151,403 N=$57,742,262 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 24,828,318 54 25,137,470 43 25,826,897 47 25,959,665 45 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 2,083,300 5 2,068,326 4 2,172,566 4 2,663,927 5 

State 14,465,437 31 25,319,402 43 19,892,420 36 22,605,911 39 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 4,774,348 10 6,455,113 11 7,377,858 13 6,512,759 11 

Total* 46,151,403 100 58,980,311 100 55,269,741 100 57,742,262 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

318 
Inventory of State Profiles Louisiana 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Most of the FY 2003 SSA expenditures in Louisiana went toward treatment services (87 percent), 

followed by prevention activities (9 percent). This distribution of funding was similar in FYs 2000 

through 2002. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 11% 

9% 

HIV Early Treatment Treatment HIV Early Intervention 83% 87% Intervention

3% 2% 

Administration Administration 

3% 2% 

N=$46,151,403 N=$57,742,262 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 21,323,085 45 33,842,841 57 47,521,672 86 49,954,362 87 

Alcohol Treatment 8,689,911 19 8,798,114 15 

Drug Treatment 8,689,911 19 8,798,114 15 

Prevention 4,965,664 11 5,027,494 9 5,165,379 9 5,191,933 9 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 1,241,416 3 1,256,874 2 1,291,345 2 1,297,984 2 

Administration 1,241,416 3 1,256,874 2 1,291,345 2 1,297,983 2 

Total* 46,151,403 100 58,980,311 100 55,269,741 100 57,742,262 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

319 
Louisiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant funds in Louisiana have remained relatively stable over the past several years 

(increasing from $24.8 million in FY 2000 to $26 million in FY 2003), as has the distribution of funds 

to various services. Most (70 percent) of Block Grant funds in FY 2003 were earmarked for 

treatment services, followed by prevention services (at 20 percent) and HIV early intervention and 

administration costs (at 5 percent each). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention

20% Prevention Treatment 

Treatment 20%

HIV Early 70% 

70% HIV Early Intervention 

5% Intervention 

Administration 5%

5% Administration 

5% 

N=$24,828,318 N=$25,959,665 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 18,078,828 70 18,171,765 70 

Alcohol Treatment 8,689,911 35 8,798,114 35 

Drug Treatment 8,689,911 35 8,798,114 35 

Prevention 4,965,664 20 5,027,494 20 5,165,379 20 5,191,933 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 1,241,416 5 1,256,874 5 1,291,345 5 1,297,984 5 

Administration 1,241,416 5 1,256,874 5 1,291,345 5 1,297,983 5 

Total* 24,828,318 100 25,137,470 100 25,826,897 100 25,959,665 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

320 
Inventory of State Profiles Louisiana 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures in Louisiana increased dramatically between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $14.5 to 

$22.6 million). One hundred percent of State funds were spent on treatment services—a stable 

proportion since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment

100% 100%

N=$14,465,437 N=$22,605,911 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 14,465,437 100 25,319,402 100 19,892,420 100 22,605,911 100 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 14,465,437 100 25,319,402 100 19,892,420 100 22,605,911 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

321 
Louisiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The State’s prevention goal is to develop, implement, maintain, and evaluate research-based 

prevention programs that address alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) issues. This mission 

includes reducing high-risk behaviors associated with alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs and 

increasing the availability and effectiveness of a general health promotion and education message. 

The Division of Prevention Services addresses the mission by: (1) funding a minimum of 40 

community-based prevention projects using the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention’s (CSAP’s) 

six core strategies and following best practices; (2) promoting an evidence-based operating system 

to reduce the average age of onset for alcohol use using the steps of the Strategic Prevention 

Framework (SPF); (3) sponsoring youth drug prevention camps that are offered throughout the 

State; and (4) working to prevent underage tobacco and alcohol use. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention expenditures in the State have remained relatively stable since FY 2000 and totaled 

$5.2 million in FY 2003. The SAPT Block Grant constituted 100 percent of Louisiana’s prevention 

funding in FYs 2000-2003. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant prevention funding increased slightly from $1.11 to $1.16 

per capita. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant

100% 100% 

N=$4,965,664 N=$5,191,933 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

4,850,000 

4,900,000 

4,950,000 

5,000,000 

5,050,000 

5,100,000 

5,150,000 

5,200,000 

5,250,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

322 
Inventory of State Profiles Louisiana 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,965,664 100 5,027,494 100 5,165,379 100 5,191,933 100 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 4,965,664 100 5,027,494 100 5,165,379 100 5,191,933 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Programs act as modified ATOD information clearinghouses . 

Regional Prevention Coordinators deliver presentations at schools, 

churches, agencies, and places of employment. 

Education 

Activities include instruction in life, social, refusal skills; delivery of 

parenting classes; use of youth and adult focus groups; and 

teleconferencing. 

Alternatives Activities include wilderness treks, ropes courses for team building, 

drug-free dances, summer camps, and basketball tournaments. 

Community-Based Processes 

Regional managers and prevention coordinators provide training 

and technical assistance in mobilization, resource assessment, 

drug abuse trends, new prevention strategies, use of the State’s 

MIS system, and grant writing. 

Environmental 

Programs work with local governments on changes in ordinances 

regarding underage tobacco and alcohol use, conduct compliance 

checks , and educate merchants on sales to minors. 

Problem Identification and Referral The State provides an employee assistance program. 

323 
Louisiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for prevention strategies remained remarkably stable between FYs 2000 and FY 

2003, when funds totaled $5.2 million. The distribution of funds per core strategy also remained 

similar during that time period. In FY 2003, just over one-third of Block Grant prevention funds was 

spent on education, 23 percent each went toward alternative strategies and information 

dissemination, and 12 percent toward community-based processes. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy 

Alternatives Alternatives 

Section 1926 -

Tobacco

19% 23% Education Problem ID Education Problem ID 34% and Referral 37% and Referral 

7% Community- 1% 

Based CommunityBased 

Environmental 7% 

Process 

Process 

Information 8% Information Section 1926 - 12% 

Dissemination Dissemination Tobacco 

21% 23% 4% 

4% N=$4,965,664 N=$5,191,933 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 1,043,477 21 1,143,447 23 617,698 12 1,194,145 23 

Education 1,689,670 34 1,989,170 40 2,419,271 47 1,921,014 37 

Alternatives 943,820 19 1,043,820 21 1,273,879 25 1,201,822 23 

Problem ID and Referral 352,597 7 14,957 0 15,210 0 26,920 1 

Community-Based 

Process 353,847 7 453,847 9 467,119 9 623,032 12 

Environmental 397,253 8 197,253 4 167,202 3 25,000 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 185,000 4 185,000 4 205,000 4 200,000 4 

Total* 4,965,664 100 5,027,494 100 5,165,379 100 5,191,933 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

324 
Inventory of State Profiles Louisiana 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

OAD conducts public forums in the regions and districts to identify treatment needs. A recurrent 

theme is a lack of adolescent treatment services including limited residential services for 

adolescents. Also, there is the need for services for persons with co-occurring disorders, training on 

faith-based initiatives, advocacy and legislative support, medical detoxification facilities, and halfway 

houses. 

The State currently provides a continuum of services that includes medically supported and social 

detoxification programs, outpatient treatment programs, inpatient programs, a new adolescent 

inpatient program, drug court programs, and the IMPACT program run by the Department of Public 

Safety and Corrections that provides halfway house beds and aftercare services. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment expenditures increased substantially between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $38.7 to $50 

million. In FY 2003, the State provided the largest proportion (46 percent) of treatment funding, the 

Block Grant provided 36 percent, other Federal funding provided 5 percent, and other sources 

provided 13 percent. By contrast, in FY 2000 the Block Grant provided the largest proportion of 

treatment funding, followed by the State. 

Block Grant treatment funding between FYs 2000 and 2003 increased steadily from $3.89 per capita 

to $4.05 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

Other

13% 

5% 5% 

State State SAPT Block SAPT Block 46%

37% Grant Grant

46% 36% 

Other 

N=$38,702,907 12% N=$49,954,362 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

325 
Louisiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 17,379,822 45 17,596,228 34 18,078,828 38 18,171,765 36 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 2,083,300 5 2,068,326 4 2,172,566 5 2,663,927 5 

State 14,465,437 37 25,319,402 49 19,892,420 42 22,605,911 45 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 4,774,348 12 6,455,113 13 7,377,858 16 6,512,759 13 

Total* 38,702,907 100 51,439,069 100 47,521,672 100 49,954,362 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Louisiana’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 26,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone), short-term 

residential, and free-standing residential. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=26,250) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 492 569 3 

Free-standing residential 1,949 4,169 42 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 2,224 4,276 44 

Long-term residential 235 814 53 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 2,790 3,956 208 

Intensive outpatient 1,575 2,690 161 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 9,265 16,474 511 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data System (TEDS) data indicate more than 28,000 admissions (where at least 

one substance was known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that less than 1 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined 

with alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus 

abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, 

see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

326 
Inventory of State Profiles Louisiana 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 4,402 0.2 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 24,102 0.3 

Total 28,504 0.3 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 265,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.3 

percent of Louisiana’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

104,000 persons (2.9 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Louisiana. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.34 5.09 16.67 5.81 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.89 4.25 6.77 1.90 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

State Needs Assessment Information 

Louisiana, with assistance from a contractor, developed its own needs assessment methodology in 

1999. The State has used these methods since that time. Findings for Louisiana’s State fiscal year 

2004 are shown in the following table. 

Identified vs. Unmet Need 

Service Type Identified Need* 

Need Met by 

Admissions 

(SFY 2004) 

% in Need of 

Treatment 

Adults 318,857 30,204 

(10%) 90% 

Adolescents 56,702 2,387 

(5%) 95% 

All Admissions 375,559** 32,591 

(9%) 91% 

*State of Louisiana: Integrated Population Estimates of Substance Abuse Treatment Needs (HermanStahl, Kuo, Moore, Teagle, Rachal, Becnel, Simmons, & Duffy, 1999)

**This number includes 74,400 persons (adults and adolescents) identified in need of treatment for 

gambling, of which 1,215 (2%) were admitted into treatment.

327 
Louisiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

The Governor’s Commission on Addictive Disorders, a 13-member body selected by the Governor, 

(1) advises OAD concerning State policies for alcohol and drug abuse, (2) recommends an annual 

State plan that sets forth proposed policy and programs, (3) serves as the liaison among State and 

local governmental entities concerning substance abuse prevention and treatment, and (4) reports to 

the Governor, Secretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals, and legislative bodies. A Drug 

Policy Control Board established by the legislature advises elected officials regarding needed 

resources. An Interagency Coordinating Council and Children’s Cabinet Youth Commission support 

the delivery of services for children and their families among State agencies. 

To distribute new prevention and treatment funds OAD combines the results of State treatment 

needs assessment studies and the CSAP prevention needs assessment and risk and protective 

factors data gathered through the Communities That Care (CTC) youth survey. Historical funding 

and input from regional managers and public forums are used to determine allocations for existing 

programs. 

To address the need for services for individuals with co-occurring disorders, OAD continues its 

partnership with the Office of Mental Health. Input from participants in public forums in 2004 

identified the need for services for persons with co-occurring disorders as one of the top five issues 

in the State. To address this need for services, OAD collaborated with OMH and was awarded a Cooccurring State Infrastructure Grant (COSIG) through SAMHSA. 

Evaluation 

OAD monitors program compliance by conducting executive staff meetings and quarterly meetings 

with regional managers. It generates special reports that focus on utilization, productivity, and MIS 

data. A peer review program is in place to ensure and enhance the quality of treatment services by 

sharing programmatic and clinical expertise across regional administrations, programs, and 

profession disciplines, and to identify strengths and weaknesses in the service delivery system. A 

summary report of peer review findings and recommendations is sent to each program and OAD. In 

addition, there are quarterly OAD onsite inspections of treatment programs and quarterly program 

activity reports. Treatment programs and facilities are reviewed annually to determine if they meet 

licensure standards. 

Training and Assistance 

OAD coordinates workgroups with Louisiana colleges and universities, the Louisiana State Board of 

Certification for Substance Abuse Counselors, and the Gulf Coast Addiction Technology Transfer 

Center to address the educational needs of counselors and prevention professionals. Education and 

training services are provided by the Southwest CAPT, colleges and universities, and OAD. 

OAD delivers intense training and technical assistance to individual regions on an ongoing basis. 

The training and assistance is provided in the areas identified by a needs assessment. Examples of 

training provided to staff include prevention research, planning and evaluation, and contract 

development. 

Texas Christian University conducted a statewide study of the impact of training on clinical practice. 

It provides outcome data and the affects the extent to which clinicians adopt co-occurring best 

practices and solution-focused therapy into direct practice. The study also assesses elements that 

affect adoption and influence outcomes. 

328 
Inventory of State Profiles Louisiana 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, Block Grant expenditures on resource development activities more 

than doubled (from $1.3 to $3.2 million). During that time period, information systems strategies 

received the most funds, but the proportions differed—49 percent in FY 2000 compared with 71 

percent in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Planning, Development Activities Planning, 

Coordination, Coordination, 

Needs 

2%

Needs 

Assessment Assessment 

19% 3% Information Information Quality Systems Systems Training 71% Training Assurance 

49% 16% 19% 2% 

Program 

Program Development 

Development Research and Research and 8% 

Evaluation Evaluation 

N=$1,289,812 8% N=$3,200,000 3% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 249,000 19 275,000 18 208,000 7 100,000 3 

Quality Assurance 5,000 0 10,000 1 85,000 3 70,000 2 

Training 205,000 16 320,000 21 1,016,000 33 600,000 19 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 100,000 8 30,000 2 20,000 1 50,000 2 

Research and 

Evaluation 100,000 8 150,000 10 88,000 3 110,000 3 

Information Systems 630,812 49 770,000 50 1,660,000 54 2,270,000 71 

Total* 1,289,812 100 1,555,000 100 3,077,000 100 3,200,000 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

329 
Louisiana Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded $1 million in discretionary funds for 

prevention in FY 2004. Most (5 of the 7) awards went to drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Awards Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

CSAP 2004 Earmarks 1 298,230 

Drug Free Communities 5 75,000 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 4 Services 1 350,000 

Total 7 1,070,514 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded a total of nearly $10 million in 

discretionary funds for treatment in FY 2004. The majority of funds ($7.6 million) went toward 

Access to Recovery (ATR) grants. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Awards Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 1 70,581 

Access to Recovery 1 7,591,723 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 2 911,948 

Treatment of Persons with Co-Occurring Substance 

Related and Mental Disorders 1 1,095,298 

Strengthening Access and Retention 1 197,179 

Total 7 9,966,729 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

330 
MAINE 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Kimberly A. Johnson, Director 

Office of Substance Abuse 

Maine Department of Health and Human Services 

11 State House Station 

AMHI Complex 

Marquardt Building, Third Floor 

Augusta, ME 04333-0159 

Phone: 207-287-2595 

Fax: 207-287-4334 

E-mail: kimberly.johnson@maine.gov 

Web site: www.maine.gov/dhhs/bds/osa 

Structure and Function 

The Maine Office of Substance Abuse (OSA), part of the State’s Department of Health 

and Human Services is the Single State Agency (SSA) responsible for the planning, 

development, implementation, regulation, and evaluation of substance abuse services 

in Maine. OSA provides leadership in substance abuse prevention, intervention, and 

treatment. Its goal is to enhance the health and safety of Maine citizens through the 

reduction of the overall impact of substance use, abuse, and dependency. 

There are three divisions within the SSA: (1) the Prevention/Information and Resource Center, which 

oversees prevention contracts in the State, provides prevention research and State planning, 

manages a State prevention consumer resource center, and liaisons with other State agencies 

involved with prevention; (2) Intervention, which oversees and administers the Driver Education and 

Evaluation Program (DEEP) and the Operating Under the Influence (OUI) driver education program; 

(3) Treatment, which oversees contracted alcohol and drug treatment programs in the State and 

provides oversight for special populations treatment needs, such as women’s specialized services 

and also serves as the State Methadone Authority (SMA), and works with Department of Corrections 

to oversee jail-based treatment programs and liaisons with the Maine Judicial Branch for Maine’s 

adult and adolescent drug courts. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health and 

Human Services 

Office of Substance Abuse 

(OSA) 

Information Services 

Prevention/Information Intervention Treatment

and Resource Center 

Fiscal/Contracting 

331 
Maine Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Total SSA funding in Maine increased sharply between FYs 2000 and 2003—from $16.2 million to 

$30.8 million. While all funding sources increased in dollar value, the most dramatic was Medicaid— 

which increased from $500,000 (3 percent of FY 2000 expenditures) to $7.5 million (24 percent of 

FY 2003 expenditures). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid 

3% Other Medicaid 

Federal 24% 

19% Other 

Federal 

19% 

SAPT Block 

Grant SAPT Block 

37% Grant 

21% 

State State 

41% 36% 

N=$16,220,509 N=$30,815,110 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 5,943,750 37 6,243,750 26 6,468,749 20 6,462,370 21 

Medicaid 500,000 3 2,746,749 11 8,341,561 26 7,535,560 24 

Other Federal 3,123,321 19 4,006,844 16 5,082,658 16 5,959,290 19 

State 6,653,438 41 6,583,357 27 6,405,159 20 10,857,890 35 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 4,705,920 19 5,477,415 17 0 0 

Total* 16,220,509 100 24,286,620 100 31,775,542 100 30,815,110 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

332 
Inventory of State Profiles Maine 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

The distribution of total SSA funds remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 2003. 

Approximately two-thirds of funds were allocated for treatment and rehabilitation services and a 

quarter went toward prevention activities. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 25% 

Treatment 27%

66%

Treatment 

66% 

HIV Early 

Intervention 

Administration 1% 

9% Administration 

N=$16,220,509 N=$30,815,110 

6% 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 6,220,925 38 16,532,608 68 21,693,184 68 20,344,891 66 

Alcohol Treatment 2,231,384 14 0 0 

Drug Treatment 2,168,216 13 0 0 

Prevention 4,071,733 25 6,024,516 25 7,869,329 25 8,323,201 27 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 282,670 1 293,360 1 

Administration 1,528,251 9 1,603,977 7 1,930,359 6 1,853,658 6 

Total* 16,220,509 100 24,286,620 99 31,775,542 100 30,815,110 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

333 
Maine Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures for SSA activities in Maine increased slightly between FYs 2000 and 

2003—from $5.9 to $6.5 million. The distribution of those funds remained relatively stable over the 

two periods: about three-quarters of the funds went toward treatment and rehabilitation services, 

one-fifth to one-quarter went toward prevention services, and the remainder went toward 

administrative costs. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

Treatment 23% 21% Treatment 74% 

75% 

Administration Administration 

3% 4% 

N=$5,943,750 N=$6,462,370 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 4,661,293 75 4,752,911 73 4,870,969 75 

Alcohol Treatment 2,231,384 38 0 0 

Drug Treatment 2,168,216 36 0 0 

Prevention 1,338,728 23 1,274,235 20 1,389,802 21 1,363,847 21 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 205,422 3 308,222 5 326,036 5 227,554 4 

Total* 5,943,750 100 6,243,750 100 6,468,749 100 6,462,370 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

334 
Inventory of State Profiles Maine 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures increased considerably between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $6.7 to $10.9 million). 

Treatment and rehabilitation activities accounted for a declining majority of those funds (from 79 to 

71 percent) between the two periods, while prevention activities increased in proportion (from 2 to 11 

percent). 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

2% 

N=$10,857,890 

11% 

Treatment Treatment HIV Early Administration 71%

79% Intervention 

19% 3% 

Administration 

15% 

N=$6,653,438 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 5,263,594 79 5,010,037 76 4,421,043 69 7,756,371 71 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 126,322 2 308,988 5 243,055 4 1,183,963 11 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 282,670 4 293,360 3 

Administration 1,263,522 19 1,264,332 19 1,458,391 23 1,624,196 15 

Total* 6,653,438 100 6,583,357 100 6,405,159 100 10,857,890 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

335 
Maine Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

OSA’s approach to substance abuse prevention uses research-based concepts, tools, skills, and 

strategies to reduce the risk of alcohol and other drug-related problems. The Prevention Services 

System (PSS) administers contracts funded from a variety of sources. These include the Safe and 

Drug-free Schools and Communities Act (SDFSCA) monies (Title IV-A of the No Child Left Behind 

Act), the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (SAPTBG), Enforcing Underage 

Drinking Laws (EUDL) monies (Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention), One ME--Stand 

United for Prevention (State Incentive Grant [SIG]), and Fund for Healthy Maine monies (tobacco 

settlement funding). 

Approximately 170 school systems receive SDFSCA funding through an annual application 

process. Types of programs funded include substance abuse counselors, bullying prevention, 

programs, and student assistance teams. 

Currently 40 programs are funded using the SAPTBG. All of these programs were selected 

through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Types of programs funded include alternative 

schools, afterschool, peer leader, service learning, and arts-related programs. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding more than doubled between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $4.1 to $8.3 million). In 

particular, Federal funds from sources other than the Block Grant increased sharply and paid for a 

growing majority of prevention expenditures between those two periods (from 64 percent in FY 2000 

to nearly 70 percent in FY 2003). State funding also increased dramatically (from $126,000 to $1.2 

million, and from 3 percent to 14 percent of prevention expenditures). 

Block Grant prevention funds ranged from $0.99 to $1.07 per capita between FYs 2000 and 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

State 

3% 

Other 

SAPT Block Other Federal

Grant Federal SAPT Block 70%

64% 33% Grant 

16% 

State 

14% 

N=$4,071,733 N=$8,323,201 

336 
Inventory of State Profiles Maine 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

9,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 1,338,728 33 1,274,235 21 1,389,802 18 1,363,847 16 

Other Federal 2,606,683 64 3,282,655 54 4,741,662 60 5,775,391 69 

State 126,322 3 308,988 5 243,055 3 1,183,963 14 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 1,158,638 19 1,494,810 19 0 0 

Total* 4,071,733 100 6,024,516 100 7,869,329 100 8,323,201 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Communications strategies include public education, social marketing 

campaigns , and media advocacy approaches that encourage various 

media outlets to change the way they portray substance use issues in 

order to ultimately influence policy changes. 

Education OSA staff provides educational presentations to groups, and contracted 

agencies deliver curriculum -based programs. 

Alternatives 

Increasingly, schools and communities are working together to incorporate 

recreational, enrichment, and leisure activities into their approach to 

prevention. Drop-in recreation centers, afterschool and weekend programs, 

dances, community service activities, tutoring, mentoring, and other events 

are offered in these programs as alternatives to substance abuse, violence, 

and other dangerous activities . 

Community-Based Processes 

Coalition development was given a boost using State Incentive Grant (SIG) 

funding. Many stand-alone programs became connected with a One ME 

coalition and many One ME coalitions worked with other groups in their 

area such as Communities for Children, Healthy Maine Partnerships , and 

Healthy Community coalitions. 

Environmental 

This strategy continued to be more extensively used primarily by One ME 

Coalitions. Fourteen of the coalitions adopted either Communities 

Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol or Community Intervention Trials. 

Problem Identification and Referral Strategies include school surveys and needs assessment. 

337 
Maine Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for prevention core strategies in Maine remained stable between FYs 2000 and 

2003, at approximately $1.3 million. Education was the highest priority during this time, receiving 30 

percent of Block Grant prevention funds in FY 2003. The remaining funds were distributed among a 

wide variety of core strategies, particularly information dissemination, alternative strategies, and 

community-based process strategies. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Alternatives Problem ID 

18% 15% and Referral 

Education 7% Education Community- 30% 

42% Based CommunityProcess Based 

14% Process 

Environmental 14% 

2% Information Environmental 

Information 

Tobacco Dissemination Other 5% 

Dissemination 18% Section 1926 ­

17% 

7% Tobacco 3% 

8% 

Section 1926 ­

N=$1,338,728 N=$1,327,847 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

1,600,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 222,971 17 192,540 15 222,621 16 236,339 18 

Education 569,815 42 387,314 30 386,083 28 416,419 30 

Alternatives 235,358 18 236,184 19 221,339 16 193,098 15 

Problem ID and Referral 0 0 58,026 5 60,400 4 87,450 7 

Community-Based 

Process 185,809 14 249,538 20 283,072 20 190,964 14 

Environmental 24,775 2 27,550 2 34,471 2 64,035 5 

Other 0 0 23,083 2 81,817 6 39,542 3 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 100,000 7 100,000 8 100,000 7 100,000 8 

Total* 1,338,728 100 1,274,235 100 1,389,803 100 1,327,847 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

338 
Inventory of State Profiles Maine 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

The Treatment Team of the Office of Substance Abuse assists service providers with the 

coordination, planning, and implementation of alcohol and drug abuse programs. The services 

provided by the team include technical assistance to providers for program development, content 

and best practices, financial support to programs through a competitive bid process, participation in 

planning groups and committees concerned with substance abuse, coexisting disorders of 

substance abuse and mental illness, and the treatment system. 

OSA contracts for treatment services throughout the State, which is divided into three regions, with 

one OSA treatment staff person assigned as a liaison to each region’s OSA-contracted alcohol and 

drug programs. The treatment section also provides oversight for special populations treatment 

needs, such as women’s specialized services and also serves as the SMA. 

There are approximately 175 licensed adult and adolescent substance abuse treatment facilities in 

Maine, which offer treatment modalities including the following: overnight shelters, extended 

shelters, detoxification services, medically monitored and managed inpatient treatment, short- and 

long-term residential treatment, halfway houses, outpatient treatment, and intensive outpatient 

treatment. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment funding in Maine nearly doubled between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $10.6 to $20.3 

million), largely due to a dramatic increase in Medicaid funding. With Medicaid’s increased 

representation among treatment expenditures (from 5 to 37 percent), all other sources shrank in 

proportion between the two comparison periods. 

Per capita, Block Grant funding for treatment services increased from $3.44 to $3.72 between FYs 

2000 and 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid Other Medicaid 

5% Federal 37%

4%

SAPT Block Other Grant SAPT Block Federal

Grant State 24% 1% 50% 41% 

State 

38% N=$10,620,525 N=$20,344,891 

339 
Maine Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,399,600 41 4,661,293 28 4,752,911 22 4,870,969 24 

Medicaid 500,000 5 2,746,749 17 8,341,561 38 7,535,560 37 

Other Federal 457,331 4 692,766 4 330,870 2 181,991 1 

State 5,263,594 50 5,010,037 30 4,421,043 20 7,756,371 38 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 3,421,763 21 3,846,799 18 0 0 

Total* 10,620,525 100 16,532,608 100 21,693,184 100 20,344,891 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Maine’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 9,000 persons were admitted to treatment 

during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment services. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis (N=9,134) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 99 124 0 

Free-standing residential 610 77 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 10 3 0 

Short-term residential 216 220 0 

Long-term residential 599 337 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 974 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 5,469 2,812 1,036 

Intensive outpatient 585 623 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 7,588 5,170 1,036 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

340 
Inventory of State Profiles Maine 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate nearly 12,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 31 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined 

with alcohol or drug use. This rate varied when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse 

of alcohol in combination with other drugs. Approximately 25 percent of persons admitted for 

abusing alcohol only were diagnosed with a psychiatric problem and 35 percent of persons 

admitted for abusing alcohol in combination with other drugs were diagnosed as having a 

psychiatric problem. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 4,635 24.9 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 7,236 35.3 

Total 11,871 31.2 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 73,000 persons aged 12 and older (6.6 

percent of Maine’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 32,000 

persons (2.8 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Maine. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 6.59 5.43 17.24 5.15 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.84 5.35 8.95 1.61 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

341 
Maine Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

The OSA uses data from its State Treatment Needs Assessment Project (STNAP) to identify and 

target treatment needs throughout the State. Because each of the three planning regions has a 

unique client base, the STNAP data allows Maine to be specific to meet the needs of those clients. 

In Round II of Maine’s STNAP, a Treatment System Study and the final Integration Study have 

provided very useful data and reports. In particular, a series of maps representing Maine’s 

Treatment System, overlaid with the need by ASAM level, has proved to be particularly effective and 

useful. 

Maine also collects data through its Maine Youth Drug and Alcohol Use Survey to guide its planning 

for prevention and treatment services. 

Evaluation 

The OSA has performance-based contracting for all its contracts. For treatment contracts, 

effectiveness and efficiency reports are produced on a regular basis throughout the contract period 

to enable OSA and the contractor to review its performance. Maine has also implemented a 

Performance Based Prevention System that allows it to collect performance data on its prevention 

contracts. All other contracts have performance measures that are monitored periodically through a 

variety of methods. 

Furthermore, OSA has an advisory body, Maine’s Substance Abuse Services Commission. The 

Commission provides OSA with feedback on its planning process and works with OSA on resource 

allocation. The Substance Abuse Services Commission holds a public hearing each year to enable 

the public and interested parties to provide feedback regarding the SAPT Block Grant. 

Training and Assistance 

OSA provides current information and education to employees of prevention and treatment agencies 

across the State through a contract with AdCare, a local education and training agency affiliated with 

New England Institute of Addiction Services (NEIAS), to assist in the planning, development, and 

delivery of the trainings, seminars, and conferences. Additionally, the Addiction Technology Transfer 

Center (ATTC) generates opportunities for bringing additional information and resources for 

workforce development issues. 

342 
Inventory of State Profiles Maine 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Maine declined between FYs 2000 and 

2003, from approximately $156,000 to $135,000). Priorities shifted dramatically between the two 

periods: training activities, previously accounting for nearly three-quarters of the resource 

development funds, were totally eliminated—to be replaced by a growing focus on information 

systems (accounting for nearly half of FY 2003 expenditures), program development (32 percent), 

and planning, coordination, and needs assessment activities (21 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities Planning, Information Coordination, Systems Needs 

28% Assessment Information 

21% Systems 

47% 

Training Program 

N=$155,899 72% Development 

N=$134,578 32% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

50,000 

100,000 

150,000 

200,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 0 0 12,516 16 21,785 19 28,843 21 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training 111,653 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 0 0 19,584 26 32,678 28 43,264 32 

Research and Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Information Systems 44,246 28 43,873 58 63,041 54 62,471 46 

Total* 155,899 100 75,973 100 117,504 100 134,578 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

343 
Maine Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded more than $3.7 million to Maine in FY 

2004 in discretionary funding for prevention. The majority of funds went toward Strategic Prevention 

Framework State Incentive Grants (SPF SIG). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 8 687,167 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 350,000 

Prevention of Methamphetamine and Inhalant Use 1 349,997 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Total 11 3,738,129 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

In FY 2004, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded Maine nearly $750,000 in 

discretionary funding for treatment. Monies went toward adult, juvenile, and family drug courts; 

effective adolescent treatment; and State data infrastructure. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Adult Juvenile and Fam ily Drug Courts 1 394,813 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 249,997 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Total 3 744,810 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

344 
Management

MARYLAND 

State SSA Director 

Peter F. Luongo, Ph.D., Director 

Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration 

Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene 

Spring Grove Hospital Center 

Vocational Rehabilitation Building

 55 Wade Avenue 

Catonsville, MD 21228 

Phone: 410-402-8610 

Fax: 410-402-8601 

E-Mail: pluongo@dhmh.state.md.us 

Web site: www.maryland-adaa.org/ka/index.cfm 

Structure and Function 

The Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration (ADAA) is the Single State Agency 

(SSA) responsible for the planning, development, and funding of services to prevent 

harmful involvement with alcohol and other drugs and to treat the illness of chemical 

dependency. ADAA maintains a constant focus on resident needs, responsive 

programming, and fiscal accountability. Further, ADAA recognizes and supports the 

role of local government in the development of appropriate substance abuse 

prevention, intervention, and addiction treatment activities. 

The ADAA is located within the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) and in addition to the 

Office of Executive Direction comprises four divisions: 

• Management Services Division (MSD)—is responsible for the agency budget and the Federal Block 

Grant application. This unit processes and monitors grant awards, tracks agency expenditures, and 

offers fiscal assistance to Maryland’s 24 jurisdictions. The MSD is responsible for the provision of 

procurement, contract management, and personnel services for the entire administration. 

• Community Services Division (CSD)—liaises prevention and treatment services providers The Justice 

Services Section is an essential component of this division. Staff are responsible for coordinating 

court-ordered evaluations and referrals to treatment from the 350 district and circuit court judges. 

• Information Services Division (ISD)—collects, maintains, and reports statistical information Quality 

Assurance Division (QAD)—evaluates effectiveness of the service network. The QAD also responds 

to legislation regarding alcohol and drug abuse treatment issues during the time the Maryland 

General Assembly is in session. The Office of Education and Training for Addiction Services 

(OETAS) delivers training for treatment and prevention clinicians and program management staff. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) 

Executive Operations 

and Quality 

Health Care Operations Public Health Systems 

Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

Administration (ADAA) 

Management Services 

Division (MSD) 

Community 

Services Division 

Quality Assurance 

Division (QAD) 

Information Services 

Division (ISD) 

Technical Assistance Regional Teams 

Office Legislation 

and Regulation Office of Education 

and Training 

Addiction Services 

Justice Services Section 

Compliance Section 

345 
Maryland Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Maryland’s SSA funds totaled over $111 million in FY 2003, a steady increase from FY 2000. During 

that time period, State funds accounted for about 60 percent of that total, and Block Grant funds 

accounted for nearly 30 percent of that total. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Medicaid 

Federal 1% 

1% 

State SAPT Block State SAPT Block 59% Grant 58% Grant

32% 29% 

Other N=$92,526,844 Other Local N=$111,072,084 7% Local 

2% 

7% 4% 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 29,389,161 32 31,079,266 30 31,950,492 29 32,114,739 29 

Medicaid 115,894 0 115,894 0 211,807 0 1,509,383 1 

Other Federal 719,867 1 965,825 1 31,903 0 0 0 

State 54,442,086 58 62,293,645 61 65,685,309 60 65,241,515 59 

Local 1,445,782 2 1,445,782 1 4,963,862 5 4,328,589 4 

Other 6,414,054 7 6,445,154 6 6,330,909 6 7,877,858 7 

Total* 92,526,844 100 102,345,566 100 109,174,282 100 111,072,084 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

346 
Inventory of State Profiles Maryland 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Expenditures for substance abuse treatment services accounted for most (more than 80 percent) of 

the SSA expenditures since FY 2000. Funding for treatment steadily increased, and funding for 

prevention declined slightly. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

9% HIV Early Treatment Treatment 7% HIV Early Intervention 87% 84% Intervention 2% 

Administration Administration 1% 

5% 5% 

N=$92,526,844 N=$111,072,084 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 57,887,363 62 65,194,498 64 93,949,918 86 96,230,477 87 

Alcohol Treatment 7,200,344 8 7,467,414 7 

Drug Treatment 12,678,250 14 13,868,055 14 

Prevention 8,228,447 9 8,325,961 8 8,751,609 8 7,885,787 7 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 1,469,458 2 1,553,963 2 1,597,525 1 1,605,737 1 

Administration 5,062,982 5 5,935,675 6 4,875,230 4 5,350,083 5 

Total* 92,526,844 100 102,345,566 100 109,174,282 100 111,072,084 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

347 
Maryland Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures totaled more than $32 million in FY 2003, a relatively stable total since FY 

2000. The majority (70 percent) of dollars in FY 2003 went toward treatment services, followed by 

prevention services (20 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 20% Treatment 24% 

68% Treatment

HIV Early 70% HIV Early 

Intervention Intervention 

5% 5% 

Administration Administration 

N=$29,389,161 3% N=$32,114,739 5% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 21,802,473 68 22,480,317 70 

Alcohol Treatment 7,200,344 24 7,467,414 24 

Drug Treatment 12,678,250 44 13,868,055 45 

Prevention 7,159,942 24 7,257,456 23 7,591,979 24 6,422,948 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 1,469,458 5 1,553,963 5 1,597,525 5 1,605,737 5 

Administration 881,167 3 932,378 3 958,515 3 1,605,737 5 

Total* 29,389,161 100 31,079,266 100 31,950,492 100 32,114,739 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

348 
Inventory of State Profiles Maryland 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Maryland State expenditures on treatment and prevention services increased substantially between 

FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $54.4 to $65.2 million). Nearly all (92 percent) of FY 2003 State funds 

went toward treatment services, a relatively stable proportion since FY 2000. Only 2 percent of State 

funds have been spent on prevention since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Prevention Treatment Prevention 

92% 2% 93% 2%

Administration Administration 

6% 5% 

N=$54,442,086 N=$65,241,515 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 50,137,078 92 57,444,213 92 60,959,468 93 60,455,542 93 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 1,068,505 2 1,068,505 2 1,159,630 2 1,462,839 2 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 3,236,503 6 3,780,927 6 3,566,211 5 3,323,134 5 

Total* 54,442,086 100 62,293,645 100 65,685,309 100 65,241,515 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

349 
Maryland Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Maryland’s ADAA supports a statewide prevention network—the Prevention Coordinators network— 

that uses a community development model as its primary method of planning and implementing 

prevention services. 

ADAA funds approximately 614 community prevention programs statewide, and SAPT funds are 

awarded to 6 subdivisions to target high-risk youth at 41 sites throughout these subdivisions. 

Additionally, the Homeless Demonstration Grant provides a continuum of alcohol, tobacco, and other 

drug (ATOD) prevention activities for approximately 230 participants in Baltimore. ADAA continues 

to fund four strategically located College/University ATOD Prevention Centers in the western, 

central, eastern, and southern regions of the State. These centers have taken leadership roles for 

all colleges in their respective regions. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 prevention funding in Maryland declined from $8.2 to $7.9 million. The 

Block Grant’s proportion of total prevention funds declined from 87 to 81 percent during this time 

period, and the State’s proportion increased from 13 to 19 percent. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002 Block Grant prevention funds in Maryland ranged from $1.35 to $1.40 

per capita. In FY 2003 Block Grant expenditures per capita dropped to $1.17. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant State State 87% 81%

13% 19% 

N=$8,228,447 N=$7,885,787 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

350 
Inventory of State Profiles Maryland 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 7,159,942 87 7,257,456 87 7,591,979 87 6,422,948 81 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 1,068,505 13 1,068,505 13 1,159,630 13 1,462,839 19 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 8,228,447 100 8,325,961 100 8,751,609 100 7,885,787 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Regional Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Centers are located on four 

Maryland university campuses. Dissemination also occurs via 

health/community fairs, and media campaigns . 

Education Activities include parenting skill-training programs and training for SAMHSA 

model program implementation, and peer leadership programs for youth. 

Alternatives 

Strategies include Project Graduation activities and grants for communitybased organizations to provide before and afterschool ATOD prevention 

programs. 

Community-Based Processes 

Training and technical assistance that implements model programs is 

provided to prevention coordinators, their staff, and community 

representatives. Funds also support assistance in the development of 

ATOD programs and activities . 

Environmental Technical assistance is provided to community groups and organizations 

on how to develop appropriate legislative and media resources . 

Problem Identification and Referral Funding supports s tudent assistance programs. 

351 
Maryland Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Fund for Core Strategies 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 total Block Grant funds declined from over $7.2 to $6.4 million. Since 

FY 2000 about half of Block Grant expenditures were directed to community-based processes and 

about half were directed toward problem identification and referral. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Community- CommunityBased Problem ID Based Problem ID 

Process and Referral Process and Referral 

49% 51% 49% 51% 

N=$7,159,942 N=$6,422,948 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 10,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 

Education 10,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 

Alternatives 10,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 

Problem ID and Referral 3,633,720 51 3,683,452 51 3,854,059 51 3,257,853 51 

Community-Based 

Process 3,491,222 49 3,539,004 49 3,702,920 49 3,130,095 49 

Environmental 5,000 0 5,000 0 5,000 0 5,000 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 7,159,942 100 7,257,456 100 7,591,979 100 6,422,948 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

352 
Inventory of State Profiles Maryland 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

The State of Maryland's continuum of care offers various modalities of treatment, in which individuals 

move from one modality to another, based on their needs. The modalities include outpatient, 

intensive outpatient, and residential (including halfway houses, therapeutic communities, extended 

care, intermediate care, medication assistance, and detoxification services within various 

modalities). Over 50,000 treatment episodes were provided within these modalities in FY 2002. 

ADAA requires all programs to give priority admission to pregnant women. Such patients are not 

allowed to be placed on the waiting list or be subject to involuntary termination. Furthermore, all 

funded treatment programs in Baltimore, where there is the highest incidence of injection drug use 

(IDU), participate in a central referral process—a mechanism that allows programs to refer patients 

on the day of initial contact. ADAA has in place a management information system by which 

capacity levels are monitored and has instructed all programs that any individual who requests and 

is in need of treatment be placed in the appropriate treatment within 10 days or be referred to 

another certified program. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 treatment funding in Maryland increased from $77.8 to $96.2 million. 

State funds accounted for two-thirds of Maryland’s funding for treatment and rehabilitation during this 

time period. The SAPT Block Grant accounted for about one quarter of total treatment funds. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant treatment funds in Maryland increased steadily from $3.74 

to $4.08 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Medicaid 

2% 

State State

64% SAPT Block 63% SAPT Block Grant Grant 

23% 26% 

Other Other 

8% Local N=$77,765,957 8% Local N=$96,230,477 

2% 4% 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

353 
Maryland Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 19,878,594 26 21,335,469 25 21,802,473 23 22,480,317 23 

Medicaid 115,894 0 115,894 0 211,807 0 1,509,383 2 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 50,137,078 64 57,444,213 66 60,959,468 65 60,455,542 63 

Local 1,445,782 2 1,445,782 2 4,963,862 5 4,328,589 4 

Other 6,188,609 8 6,188,609 7 6,012,308 6 7,456,646 8 

Total* 77,765,957 100 86,529,967 100 93,949,918 100 96,230,477 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Maryland’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 56,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=56,114) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 0 0 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 848 2,575 2,523 

Long-term residential 587 1,109 1,244 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 536 5,949 2,839 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 6,281 11,811 15,907 

Intensive outpatient 454 1,876 1,575 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 8,706 23,320 24,088 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data—which include programs funded through the Block Grant 

and programs that are not—indicate more than 70,000 admissions (where at least one substance is 

known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 24 percent of 

persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or 

drug use. This rate varied slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in 

combination with other drugs. Approximately 19 percent of persons admitted for abusing alcohol 

only were diagnosed with a psychiatric problem and 25 percent of persons admitted for abusing 

alcohol in combination with other drugs were diagnosed as having a psychiatric problem. (For a 

discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

354 
Inventory of State Profiles Maryland 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 14,455 19.3 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 56,194 24.7 

Total 70,649 23.6 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 317,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.1 

percent of Maryland’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 119,000 

persons (2.7 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Maryland. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and 

older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.09 5.19 15.17 6.08 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.68 4.96 8.62 1.43 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

355 
Maryland Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Through the Governor’s Cabinet Council on Crime Control and Juvenile Justice an annual crime 

control and prevention plan is prepared. The council’s framework is an extensive committee and 

task force structure with membership that ensures the input and involvement of citizens, providers, 

human service professionals, business leaders, local government representatives, and legislators. 

ADAA uses the truncated Poisson probability distribution to estimate Statewide and local need 

based on analysis of treatment episode data. All certified treatment programs in Maryland, both 

public and private, are required to report to the Substance Abuse Management Information System 

(SAMIS). Based on data from SAMIS, The Outlook and Outcomes Annual Report is produced and 

distributed statewide. This report and other selected patient-based data and treatment utilization 

reports provides details of treatment services delivered in every sector of the State. 

Besides SAMIS, Maryland also gathers pertinent information through its program advisor offices. 

These prevention and treatment offices serve as the major liaison between ADAA and the AOD 

treatment and prevention providers throughout the State. Information gathered by these offices on 

abuse trends and targeted populations serve as an important mechanism that compliments the 

sometimes more formalized data collection systems. 

Evaluation 

The Treatment Compliance Office is responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining 

service improvement strategies that will enhance the quality of addiction treatment services that are 

provided in Maryland. Two strategies used to meet this goal are compliance reviews and complaint 

investigations. 

The data in Outlook and Outcomes reflect the status of substance abuse treatment, intervention, and 

prevention programs in Maryland, the services they deliver, and the populations that they serve. 

Data collected through the tracking of patients who have entered the treatment system provide a rich 

repository of information on activity and treatment outcomes in the statewide treatment network. The 

identification of these trends and patterns leads to long-term planning to meet the population needs 

and to outcome measures that ensure quality treatment and fiscal accountability. 

Training and Assistance 

The ADAA's Office of Education and Training for Addiction Services (OETAS) delivers training 

events, including courses approved for prevention certification or recertification. The ADAA 

sponsors management conferences and regional skill application training for clinical supervisors, 

prevention coordinators, and program managers. 

356 
Inventory of State Profiles Maryland 

Expenditures of Block Grant Fund for Resource Development Activities 

The total dollar amount for resource development activities in Maryland remained relatively stable 

from FYs 2000 through 2003 at about $135,000. During this time period, 100 percent of SAPT Block 

Grant funding for resource development activities went towards training activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Training Training 100% 100% 

N=$135,050 N=$137,775 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

20,000 

40,000 

60,000 

80,000 

100,000 

120,000 

140,000 

160,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training 135,050 100 136,775 100 137,775 100 137,775 100 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Research and 

Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 135,050 100 136,775 100 137,775 100 137,775 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

357 
Maryland Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary funds for prevention activities in 

Maryland totaled $2.8 million in FY 2004. Eight of the 10 awards went to Drug Free Communities 

grantees totaling $624,000. The largest single award was for Family Strengthening for $475,000. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards in Maryland for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy & Other Club Drugs 

Prevention Services 1 292,356 

Drug Free Communities 8 623,554 

Family Strengthening 1 474,997 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Youth Services Cooperative 

Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 345,825 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 4 Services 2 700,000 

Youth Transition into the Workplace 2 300,000 

Total 16 2,800,368 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded 10 discretionary grants to Maryland 

entities totaling $4.5 million in FY 2004. The largest single award was a CSAT 2004 Earmarks grant. 

The area receiving the most funds was targeted capacity-HIV/AIDS (at 1.3 million). 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards in Maryland for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Addiction Technical Transfer Center 1 649,933 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 1 994,100 

DATA Physician Clinical Support System 1 499,681 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 238,490 

Residential SA Treatment 1 250,174 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 3 1,315,406 

TCE Innovative Treatment 1 500,000 

Total 10 4,547,784 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

358 
MASSACHUSETTS 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Michael Botticelli, Assistant Commissioner 

Bureau of Substance Abuse Services 

Massachusetts Department of Public Health 

250 Washington Street, Third Floor 

Boston, MA 02108-4619 

Phone: 617-624-5151 

Fax: 617-624-5185 

E-mail: michael.botticelli@state.ma.us 

Web site: www.mass.gov/dph/bsas/bsas.htm 

Structure and Function 

The Executive Office of Health and Human Services (EOHHS) is the Single State 

Agency (SSA) under which the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau 

of Substance Abuse Services (BSAS), falls. The BSAS oversees the substance 

abuse prevention and treatment services in the Commonwealth. BSAS 

responsibilities include licensing programs and counselors, funding and monitoring 

prevention and treatment services, providing access to treatment for the indigent and uninsured, 

developing and implementing policies and programs, and tracking substance abuse trends in the 

State. 

The BSAS mission is to promote an integrated, consumer-based, culturally competent continuum of 

substance abuse and addiction prevention, intervention, treatment and recovery support services 

which are (1) responsive to the needs of individuals, families and communities, and (2) committed to 

quality, availability and accessibility. BSAS envisions a Commonwealth, which understands the 

impact of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) problems and addictions; fully supports a 

continuum of prevention, early intervention, and treatment services which are accessible to everyone 

across the lifespan in culturally competent settings; eliminates the stigma attached to individuals and 

families with ATOD problems and addictions; and promotes a culture of recovery and healthy life 

choices for all. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Center for Office of 

Community Tobacco 

Health Control 

Department of Public Health 

Bureau of 

Substance Abuse 

Services (BSAS) 

HIV/AIDS 

Bureau 

Bureau of Family 

and Community 

Health 

Office of 

Healthy 

Communities 

Office of 

Multi-Cultural 

Health 

Administration and Finance 

Adult Treatment and Regional 

Operations 

Prevention Unit 

Office of Statistics and Evaluation 

Planning and Development 

Youth and Young Adult Services 

Licensing Unit 

Regional Services 

Housing Homeless 

Adolescent Treatment 

Youth Adult Services 

359 
Massachusetts Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

SSA total expenditures for Massachusetts declined between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $93.4 million 

to $82.9 million)—largely due to declines in funding from the State and from Federal sources other 

than the Block Grant. State funds, however, continued to pay for more half of all expenditures. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal 

N=$93,416,161 

Federal

7% 4%

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant 

36% State State 41% 

55% 57% 

N=$82,858,949 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 33,214,336 36 33,627,906 38 33,999,328 43 34,174,108 41 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 6,475,035 7 6,459,178 7 3,230,989 4 3,047,432 4 

State 53,726,790 57 48,306,748 55 41,831,940 53 45,637,409 55 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 93,416,161 100 88,393,832 100 79,062,257 100 82,858,949 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

360 
Inventory of State Profiles Massachusetts 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Despite the funding decline, the relative distribution of total SSA funds remained stable between FYs 

2000 and 2003. Treatment and rehabilitation activities continued to account for the vast majority of 

expenditures. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Prevention Treatment Prevention 

87% 10% HIV Early 88% 9% 

Intervention HIV Early 

2% Intervention 

Administration 2% 

1% Administration 

1% 

N=$93,416,161 

N=$82,858,949 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 57,166,550 61 51,276,475 58 68,746,791 87 72,270,519 88 

Alcohol Treatment 11,944,358 13 12,076,684 14 

Drug Treatment 11,944,358 13 12,076,684 14 

Prevention 9,532,167 10 10,229,593 12 7,251,989 9 7,825,701 9 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 1,807,563 2 1,756,396 2 1,774,983 2 1,565,933 2 

Administration 1,021,165 1 978,000 1 1,288,494 2 1,196,796 1 

Total* 93,416,161 100 88,393,832 100 79,062,257 100 82,858,949 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding 

361 
Massachusetts Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures for SSA activities in Massachusetts increased slightly between FYs 2000 

and 2003 (from $33.2 to $34.2 million). The distribution of those funds shifted slightly over the two 

periods: treatment and rehabilitation activities accounted for a declining majority (from 72 percent to 

69 percent), offset by a slight increase in prevention activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

20% 

Prevention 

23% Treatment 

HIV Early Treatment HIV Early 

Intervention 69% 

72% 

Intervention 

5% 4% 

Administration Administration 

3% 4% 

N=$33,214,336 N=$34,174,108 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 24,207,078 71 23,660,678 69 

Alcohol Treatment 11,944,358 36 12,076,684 36 

Drug Treatment 11,944,358 36 12,076,684 36 

Prevention 6,643,740 20 6,815,142 20 6,803,773 20 7,825,701 23 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 1,660,715 5 1,681,396 5 1,699,983 5 1,490,933 4 

Administration 1,021,165 3 978,000 3 1,288,494 4 1,196,796 4 

Total* 33,214,336 100 33,627,906 100 33,999,328 100 34,174,108 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

362 
Inventory of State Profiles Massachusetts 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State funding in Massachusetts declined considerably between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $53.7 

million to $45.6 million). Nearly all of those funds were spent on treatment and rehabilitation 

activities. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment

100% 

100% 

N=$53,726,790 N=$45,637,409 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 53,651,790 100 48,231,748 100 41,756,940 100 45,562,409 100 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 75,000 0 75,000 0 75,000 0 75,000 0 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 53,726,790 100 48,306,748 100 41,831,940 100 45,637,409 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

363 
Massachusetts Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The Office of Healthy Communities, under the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, has 

organized the Massachusetts prevention system into six Regional Centers for Healthy Communities 

(RCHCs). In so doing, Massachusetts is promoting a statewide capacity-building system to support 

healthier communities and to reduce alcohol and substance abuse with an emphasis on youth 

development. The RCHC’s provide new and more effective ways to build support for health and 

safety related initiatives in communities across the Commonwealth. The goals of the RCHC’s are to 

promote partnerships among regional and local public health leaders, encourage collaboration 

among communities to reduce the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, and mobilize youth and 

young adults for leadership and civic action. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding declined in Massachusetts between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $9.5 to $7.8 

million). With the elimination of other Federal funds, the Block Grant became the sole source of 

prevention funding in FY 2003. 

Block Grant expenditures on prevention activities increased from FY 2000 to FY 2003, both in total 

value (from $6.6 million to $7.8 million) and per capita (from $1.04 to $1.22). 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

SAPT Block 

Grant Other SAPT Block 

Federal Grant 

30% 100% 

70% 

N=$9,532,167 N=$7,825,701 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

364 
Inventory of State Profiles Massachusetts 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 6,643,740 70 6,815,142 67 6,803,773 94 7,825,701 100 

Other Federal 2,888,427 30 3,414,451 33 448,216 6 0 0 

State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 9,532,167 100 10,229,593 100 7,251,989 100 7,825,701 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Information dissemination strategies include bilingual media campaigns, 

health promotion clearinghouse, policy development initiatives, and 

conferences. 

Education Activities include afterschool and school prevention programs and training 

and technical assistance. 

Alternatives Funding supports creative writing contests, photography, theater 

productions, community service, adventure and team-building activities. 

Community-Based Processes 

Regional Centers for Healthy Communities provide community health 

planning, prevention program planning, evaluation, organizational 

development, and professional development. 

Environmental 

Consultation and training is provided to community-based groups, 

coalitions, organizations, and schools on how to maximize the 

effectiveness of environmental strategies that decreased ATOD use. 

Problem Identification and Referral Strategies include street outreach programs and court diversion programs. 

365 
Massachusetts Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for prevention core strategies in Massachusetts increased from $6.6 million to 

$7.8 million between FYs 2000 and 2003. Community-based process strategies remained the 

highest priority in FY 2003, at 45 percent of the Block Grant prevention funds—slightly down from 43 

percent in FY 2000. Education—the second highest priority—also declined slightly in proportion, 

while information dissemination strategies increased somewhat, accounting for 15 percent of FY 

2003 Block Grant prevention funding. Smaller proportions of the funds were spent on environmental, 

alternative, and problem identification and referral strategies. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Problem ID Alternatives Problem ID Education 6% Education and Referral 

22% 6% and Referral 27% 3% 1% 

Community- Community- Information Based Information Based 

Dissemination Process Dissemination Process

9% 

43% 15% 45% Environmental

12% Environmental

11% 

N=$6,643,740 N=$7,825,701 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

9,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 579,999 9 678,788 10 1,224,679 18 1,158,204 15 

Education 1,798,460 27 1,642,449 24 816,453 12 1,745,131 22 

Alternatives 370,056 6 847,804 12 476,264 7 477,368 6 

Problem ID and Referral 223,894 3 144,481 2 204,113 3 78,257 1 

Community-Based Process 2,852,158 43 2,651,090 39 2,857,585 42 3,537,217 45 

Environmental 819,173 12 850,530 12 1,224,679 18 829,524 11 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 6,643,740 100 6,815,142 100 6,803,773 100 7,825,701 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

366 
Inventory of State Profiles Massachusetts 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

The BSAS works to ensure the delivery of the highest quality, culturally competent, cost-effective 

array of alcohol and other treatment and recovery services to individuals, families, and communities 

in Massachusetts. BSAS also ensures that HIV education and prevention programs are incorporated 

into treatment services and that priority for admission to treatment is given to the high-risk 

intravenous drug users and to pregnant and addicted women. 

The array of treatment services includes acute treatment services, transitional support services, 

residential rehabilitation services, and ambulatory services (outpatient counseling, acupuncture 

programs, intensive outpatient treatment, and dual diagnosis programs). BSAS funds 28 program 

types and provides licensure to 389 separate nonprofit and private substance abuse treatment 

programs. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment expenditures in Massachusetts declined by nearly $8.8 million between FYs 2000 and 

2003, totaling about $72.2 million in the latter year. This decline reflected decreases from all funding 

sources, particularly the State. Nevertheless, the State continued to fund the largest portion of those 

expenditures (63 percent), while Block Grant funds accounted for one-third of FY 2003 expenditures. 

Per capita, Block Grant treatment funding in the State declined from $3.75 to $3.69 during the two 

comparison years. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal 

N=$81,055,266 

Federal 

N=$72,270,519 

4% 4% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant State

State 29% 33% 63%

67% 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

90,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

367 
Massachusetts Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 23,888,716 29 24,153,368 32 24,207,078 35 23,660,678 33 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 3,514,760 4 3,044,727 4 2,782,773 4 3,047,432 4 

State 53,651,790 66 48,231,748 64 41,756,940 61 45,562,409 63 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 81,055,266 100 75,429,843 100 68,746,791 100 72,270,519 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Massachusetts’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 140,000 persons were admitted 

to treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) and freestanding residential treatment services. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=140,614) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 17,878 33,028 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 3,788 3,352 0 

Long-term residential 2,727 5,665 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 10,932 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 37,877 23,894 0 

Intensive outpatient 0 0 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 659 814 0 

Total 62,929 77,685 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate nearly 68,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 32 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined 

with alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus 

abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, 

see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

368 
Inventory of State Profiles Massachusetts 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 12,115 32.0 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 55,402 32.0 

Total 67,517 32.0 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 423,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.9 

percent of Massachusetts’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use, and 

168,000 persons (3.1 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in 

Massachusetts. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.86 7.15 18.08 6.31 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 3.12 6.08 10.41 1.60 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; data are combined for 2002 and 2003 

369 
Massachusetts Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

The Commonwealth is divided into six substate planning areas, or regions (Western, Central, 

Northeast, Southeast, Metrowest, and Metro-Boston). Within each region, the DPH identifies natural 

service areas (CHNAs) into which providers and communities are clustered. The CHNAs (27 in the 

State) are a vehicle for partnership between the communities and State agencies that enhance the 

effort in developing a preventive, primary care health model in each community. 

BSAS obtains needs assessment data from a variety of sources. These studies include (1) the 

MassCaLL team, which looks at social indicator measures of substance abuse, (2) the Criminal 

Justice Needs Assessment study, (3) the Treatment Needs Among the Elderly in Primary Care 

Settings, (4) the Substance Abuse Surveillance Network Study, (5) the Treatment Needs Among 

IDUs Study, (6) Triennial School Survey, (7) the Youth Health Survey, and (8) BRFSS Telephone 

Survey. 

Evaluation 

All BSAS treatment providers under contract must document all service delivery phases from intake 

to discharge, including a summary of the discharge destination. Beginning with the assessment, 

data are collected. Data collection, documentation, and tracking are vital to BSAS’s understanding 

of the success of the provider’s transition/discharge planning efforts and is reflected in outcomes as 

stated in contract performance measures. 

Data collection efforts by contracted prevention programs illustrate the range of prevention services 

through a variety of data collection efforts. These efforts provide BSAS with valuable information 

about both short- and long-term outcomes. Contracted providers provide monthly activity reports 

through a MIS system and matched pre-post Core Measure surveys to look at individual change. 

Additionally, the Youth Health Survey, a statewide survey, helps evaluate communities’ progress 

throughout the Commonwealth. 

Training and Assistance 

BSAS provides continuing education trainings for employees of facilities that provide substance 

abuse treatment services and has recently expanded core training to include advance training on 

fiscal management and board development as well as emerging issues pertinent to the substance 

abuse services field. BSAS also developed culturally appropriate and gender-specific training. 

Finally, BSAS enhanced technologies to enable the use of distance learning techniques. 

BSAS also offers a variety of training and assistance opportunities to its prevention workforce. BSAS 

offered a series of trainings through their first Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)­

funded State Incentive Grant (SIG) that were open to anyone interested in learning more about 

prevention. Other trainings in this series were mandated for BSAS funded providers and included 

topics such as evidence-based prevention, the strategic prevention framework, combating racism, 

and drug trends and implications for prevention practice. 

BSAS also provides training and technical assistance through its Regional Centers for Healthy 

Communities. Each regional center has a resource library, conducts training, and provides technical 

assistance to BSAS-funded and nonfunded programs. Finally, BSAS funds a training institute, 

collaborates with the Northeast CAPT, and encourages prevention programs and agencies to attend 

trainings offered, not only by the Bureau, but by other agencies, such as the New England 

Technology Transfer Center. 

370 
Inventory of State Profiles Massachusetts 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Massachusetts increased from nearly 

$3.9 million in FY 2000 to over $4.4 million in FY 2003. Priorities shifted dramatically between the 

two periods, with a new focus on information systems and education, the elimination of program 

development and research and evaluation activities, and a decline in activities involving training, 

quality assurance, and planning, coordination, and needs assessment. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Quality 

Planning, Quality Planning, Assurance 

Coordination, Assurance Coordination, 2% Training 

Needs 10% Needs 14% 

Assessment Assessment 

24% Training 17%

27% Education 

Research and 21%

Evaluation 

Information 18% 

Systems 

Program 46% 

Development 

N=$3,859,816 21% N=$4,419,615 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 912,591 24 846,222 23 534,025 12 760,000 17 

Quality Assurance 399,477 10 251,200 7 0 0 75,000 2 

Training 1,017,129 26 1,190,112 33 640,562 15 637,960 14 

Education 0 0 824,500 23 678,438 16 915,622 21 

Program Development 824,378 21 493,150 14 0 0 0 0 

Research and Evaluation 706,241 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 2,463,583 57 2,031,033 46 

Total* 3,859,816 100 3,605,184 100 4,316,608 100 4,419,615 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

371 
Massachusetts Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded more than $5.6 million in 41 

discretionary grants to entities in Massachusetts during FY 2004. Nearly half of those grants were 

targeted at drug-free communities, and nearly half went toward HIV/AIDS services. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy & Other Club Drugs 

Prevention Services 1 292,356 

Drug Free Communities 29 2,665,360 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Expansion Cooperative Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 4 1,104,341 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 4 Services 2 518,126 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 4 1,000,000 

Total 41 5,643,819 

SOURCE www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded nearly $11.5 million in discretionary 

grants to a wide range of Massachusetts entities during FY 2004. The largest awards were directed 

at targeted capacity for HIV/AIDS (more than $4.5 million), homeless addictions treatment (nearly 

$1.9 million), and the Youth Offender Reentry Program (nearly $1 million). 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 2 786,114 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 3 688,343 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 4 1,893,728 

Pregnant/Post-Partum Women 2 947,043 

Recovery Community Service 1 324,999 

State Data Infrastructure 1 99,960 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 1 50,000 

Strengthening Access and Retention 1 200,000 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 1 500,000 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 10 4,501,159 

TCE Rural Populations 1 500,000 

Youth Offender Reentry Program 2004 2 963,170 

Total 29 11,454,516 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

372 
MICHIGAN 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Donald Allen, Director 

Bureau of Substance Abuse and Addiction Services 

Office of Drug Control Policy 

Michigan Department of Community Health 

320 South Walnut Street, Fifth Floor 

Lansing, MI 48933-2014 

Phone: 517-373-2724 

Fax: 517-241-2199 

E-mail: allendon@michigan.gov 

Web site: www.michigan.gov/odcp 

Structure and Function 

The Michigan Bureau of Substance Abuse and Addiction Services (BSAAS) 

serves as the Single State Agency (SSA) and reports to two units within the 

Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH)—the Office of Drug Control 

Policy (ODCP) and Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Administration 

(MHSAS). 

Operating within the BSAAS are as follows: Division of Substance Abuse and 

Gambling Services, Substance Abuse Contract Management Section, Substance Abuse Treatment 

Section, and Substance Abuse Prevention Section; Division of Law Enforcement & Drug Education, 

Law Enforcement Grants Section, and Drug Education Grants Section. The State procures 

substance abuse services primarily through 16 substate entities established pursuant to Michigan 

Public Act 368, of 1978 as amended, called Coordinating Agencies (CAs), which serve 83 counties; 

Medicaid substance abuse benefits are administered through 18 Specialty Prepaid Inpatient Health 

Plans. The CAs are either local governmental units under the auspices of one or more counties or 

are free-standing nonprofit entities. CAs are responsible for comprehensive planning, review, and 

data collection. Monitoring and evaluating services are provided through contracts with licensed 

substance abuse providers to deliver a continuum of substance abuse prevention and treatment 

services. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Governor 

Department of Community Health 

(MDCH) 

Mental Health and Substance Abuse 

Services (MHSAS) 

Bureau of Substance Abuse and 

Addiction Services (BSAAS) 

Office of Drug Control 

Policy (ODCP) 

Division of Substance Abuse and 

Gambling Services (DSAGS) 

Division of Law Enforcement and Drug 

Education 

Substance Abuse Contract 

Management Section 

Substance Abuse 

Treatment Section 

Substance Abuse 

Prevention Section 

Law Enforcement 

Grants Section 

Drug Education 

Grants Section 

373 
6 0

Michigan Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Total SSA funding in Michigan was $113.3 million in FY 2003, an increase from $107.5 million in FY 

2002. Interestingly, funding for FY 2000 and 2001 were slightly higher than 2002, at $110.8 million 

and $111.9 million, respectively. Funding sources for total substance abuse expenditures in FY 

2003 were divided among Block Grant funds (51 percent), Medicaid (25 percent), and the State (19 

percent). These proportions are relatively the same for the previous three FYs (2000, 2001 and 

2002). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid 22% 

25% 

Other SAPT Block 

Federal Grant 

SAPT Block 

Grant Other 

51% 2% 51% Federal 

5% 

State 

25% State 

19% N=$110,888,48 N=$113,342,88 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 56,510,128 51 57,213,767 51 57,845,696 54 58,143,061 51 

Medicaid 24,347,273 22 25,980,257 23 27,082,285 25 28,144,755 25 

Other Federal 1,955,778 2 1,113,158 1 1,347,631 1 5,131,953 5 

State 28,075,307 25 27,565,798 25 21,178,910 20 21,923,111 19 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 110,888,486 100 111,872,980 100 107,454,522 100 113,342,880 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

374 
6 0

Inventory of State Profiles Michigan 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Total SSA expenditures were stable between FYs 2000 and 2003, and the distribution of funds, per 

type of activity also remained relatively stable. For example, in FY 2003 most (76 percent) of total 

expenditures were earmarked for treatment services. In FY 2000, 2001 and 2002, the proportions, 

were virtually equal (76 percent, 75 and 74 percent, respectively). For each year, approximately 16 

percent was spent on prevention (with the exception of 2002, when 17 percent was spent on 

prevention), 6 percent on administration, and 2 percent on HIV Early Intervention. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

16% Prevention 

16% 

HIV Early 

Treatment HIV Early Intervention Treatment

76% 2% 76% Intervention 

Administration 2% 

Administration 6% 

6% 

N=$110,888,48 N=$113,342,88 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 24,347,273 22 25,980,257 23 79,936,657 74 85,880,552 76 

Alcohol Treatment 29,614,480 27 29,392,230 26 

Drug Treatment 29,614,481 27 29,392,230 26 

Prevention 18,212,667 16 18,228,538 16 18,292,904 17 17,953,763 16 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 2,464,664 2 2,315,999 2 2,273,730 2 2,145,741 2 

Administration 6,634,921 6 6,563,726 6 6,951,231 6 7,362,824 6 

Total* 110,888,486 100 111,872,980 100 107,454,522 100 113,342,880 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

375 
Michigan Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

In FY 2003, Block Grant expenditures were $58.1 million in Michigan, a relatively stable total since 

FY 2000. Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of that total is expected to go toward treatment services 

followed by prevention services at 23 percent, which is also relatively stable since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention

21% Prevention 

Treatment Treatment 23%

72% 74% Administration

5%

Administration 

5% 

N=$56,510,128 N=$58,143,061 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 41,629,289 72 42,021,077 72 

Alcohol Treatment 20,872,269 37 20,983,676 37 

Drug Treatment 20,872,270 37 20,983,676 37 

Prevention 11,940,083 21 12,385,727 22 13,324,122 23 13,249,022 23 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 2,825,506 5 2,860,688 5 2,892,285 5 2,872,962 5 

Total* 56,510,128 100 57,213,767 100 57,845,696 100 58,143,061 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

376 
Inventory of State Profiles Michigan 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Overall State funding decreased from $28.1 million in FY 2000 to $21.9 million in FY 2003. About 

half of State expenditures went toward treatment services in FYs 2002 and 2003, an increase from 

FYs 2000 and 2001, when 60 percent of State expenditures went toward treatment services. During 

FYs 2002 and 2003, approximately 20 percent of State funds went toward administration costs and 

prevention services, and 10 percent toward HIV early intervention services. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 19% 

18% 

HIV Early HIV Early Treatment 

Treatment 51% Intervention

Intervention 59% 10%

9% 

Administration Administration

14% 20% 

N=$28,075,307 N=$21,923,111 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 10,620,336 50 11,334,531 52 

Alcohol Treatment 8,335,989 30 8,187,237 30 

Drug Treatment 8,335,989 30 8,187,237 30 

Prevention 5,129,250 18 5,172,287 19 4,280,125 20 4,115,363 19 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 2,464,664 9 2,315,999 8 2,273,730 11 2,145,741 10 

Administration 3,809,415 14 3,703,038 13 4,004,719 19 4,327,476 20 

Total* 28,075,307 100 27,565,798 100 21,178,910 100 21,923,111 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

377 
Michigan Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The Division of Substance Abuse and Gambling Services (DSAGS) is assigned principal 

responsibility for providing leadership and guidance for prevention services in the State. DSAGS 

contracts with the 16 CAs to provide statewide alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) treatment 

and prevention services. CAs then contract with community providers for actual delivery of services. 

DSAGS works closely with CAs and providers to institute research-based/theory-driven prevention 

activities and requires 90 percent of CA-contracted prevention services to be research based and 

theory driven. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding remained stable between FYs 2000 and 2003 at approximately $18.0 million. 

Most of the funding for prevention services came from the Block Grant, which increased in 

proportion over time from 66 percent of total funding in FY 2000 to 74 percent in FY 2003. State 

funds accounted for approximately one quarter of prevention expenditures during this period (28 

percent in FYs 2000 and 2001, and 23 percent in FYs 2002 and 2003). 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant expenditures for prevention increased steadily in 

Michigan, from $1.20 per capita (in FY 2000) to $1.31 per capita (in FY 2003). 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other 

Other Federal 

Federal 3% 

SAPT Block 6%

SAPT Block 

Grant Grant 

66% State

74% State 23%

28% 

N=$18,212,667 N=$17,953,763 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

378 
Inventory of State Profiles Michigan 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 11,940,083 66 12,385,727 68 13,324,122 73 13,249,022 74 

Other Federal 1,143,334 6 670,524 4 688,657 4 589,378 3 

State 5,129,250 28 5,172,287 28 4,280,125 23 4,115,363 23 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 18,212,667 100 18,228,538 100 18,292,904 100 17,953,763 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

The Michigan Resource Center (MRC), a statewide clearinghouse, 

supports a statewide toll-free information line, materials distribution, 

speaking engagements, local resources directories, and health fair/health 

promotion initiatives. 

Education 

Activities include parent education and family management 

classes/trainings, peer leadership and peer assistance programs, 

classroom presentations/curricula, educational support groups, youth group 

education initiatives, preschool programs, and mentoring activities. 

Alternatives Minimal State or Federal funds are used to support alternative strategies 

for adult mentoring programs. 

Community-Based Processes 

Funding supports community assessment of risk and protective factors, 

systematic/multi-faceted planning, technical assistance, volunteer trainings, 

community team building, resource identification, program development, 

environmental strategy training, and a m ini-grant program. 

Environmental 

Strategies include measures to impact point-of-sale issues; technical 

assistance to communities throughout the State to maximize local 

enforcement procedures governing the availability, sale, and distribution of 

tobacco to minors; tobacco law enforcement trainings; and increased 

compliance check activity. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Funds support training and implementation of student assistance programs 

for students who have experimented or indulged in illegal use of alcohol, 

tobacco, and other drugs and for students at risk of such behaviors. 

Programs also include driving while under the influence (DUI)/and driving 

while intoxicated education programs, minor in possession (MIP) programs, 

and court-coordinated programs for youth and parents. 

379 
.

Michigan Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Of the $13.2 million Block Grant expenditures in Michigan for FY 2003, 44 percent was spent on 

education activities, 28 percent for community-based processes, 9 percent for information 

dissemination, 8 percent for problem identification and referral, and 8 percent for environmental 

strategies. This distribution by prevention core strategies has remained relatively stable since FY 

2000. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy 

Problem ID Alternatives 

and Referral 3% Problem ID 

8% Community- and Referral 

Based 8% 

Process Education Community- Education 20% 44% Based 54% 

Environmental Process 

4% 28% 

Information 

N=$11,940,083 Dissemination N=$13,249,022 Information Environmental

14% Dissemination 8%

9% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 1,731,312 14 1,734,002 14 1,865,377 14 1,192,412 9 

Education 6,328,244 53 6,316,721 51 6,795,302 51 5,829,569 44 

Alternatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 397,471 3 

Problem ID and Referral 955,207 8 990,858 8 1,065,930 8 1,059,922 8 

Community-Based Process 2,447,717 20 2,848,717 23 3,064,548 23 3,709,726 28 

Environmental 477,603 4 495,429 4 532,965 4 1,059,922 8 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 11,940,083 100 12,385,727 100 13,324,122 100 13,249,022 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

380 
Inventory of State Profiles Michigan 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Treatment services that must be available within a CA include outpatient, intensive outpatient, 

subacute detoxification, short-term residential, long-term residential, methadone, and assessment 

and referral. In addition to the minimal required service set, many CAs provide the following: 

therapeutic community, case management, treatment for co-occurring disorders, urinalysis, and 

acupuncture. 

Programs serving injection drug users (IDUs) contact the CA when they are at or above 90 percent 

capacity. CAs are required to report this capacity data on a monthly basis. CAs are also required to 

submit a Federal Priority Population Waiting List form verifying that either no pregnant women or 

IDU clients were waiting for services more than the allowed time, or listing those who were. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Michigan’s expenditures on treatment services fluctuated between FYs 2000 and FY 2003 (from 

$83.6 million in FY 2000 to $85.9 million in FY 2003). While Block Grant and Medicaid funds 

remained relatively stable during this period, funding from the State decreased (from $16.7 to $11.3 

million). 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant expenditures on treatment services in Michigan remained 

stable, and ranged from $4.15 per capita (In FY 2002) to $4.20 per capita (in FY 2001). 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid 

33% 

State 

N=$85,880,552 13%

Medicaid

29% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Other Grant

50% Federal 49% 

1% Other

Federal 

State 5% 

N=$83,576,234 20% 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

381 
Michigan Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 41,744,539 50 41,967,352 50 41,629,289 52 42,021,077 49 

Medicaid 24,347,273 29 25,980,257 31 27,082,285 34 28,144,755 33 

Other Federal 812,444 1 442,634 1 604,747 1 4,380,189 5 

State 16,671,978 20 16,374,474 19 10,620,336 13 11,334,531 13 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 83,576,234 100 84,764,717 100 79,936,657 100 85,880,552 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Michigan’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 65,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2003. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=65,584) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 3,651 4,480 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 2,894 4,065 6 

Long-term residential 1,437 2,170 85 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 61 2,491 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 19,902 15,046 165 

Intensive outpatient 3,765 5,366 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 31,710 33,618 256 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2003 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate more than 64,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known), of which over 18,000 are for alcohol only. Calculations (with imputation) from 

TEDS data show that approximately 12 percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported 

a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary when separating out 

alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the 

different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

382 
Inventory of State Profiles Michigan 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where 

at Least One 

Substance Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 18,651 10.3 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 45,706 12.4 

Total 64,357 11.8 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 667,000 persons aged 12 and older (8.1 

percent of Michigan’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 215,000 

persons (2.6 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Michigan. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure 

2002-2003 

% 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 8.05 6.22 17.31 6.70 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.60 5.88 7.19 1.33 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

383 
Michigan Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Regional planning by CAs depends on data obtained from several types of needs assessment 

studies, including community surveys, community forums, key informants, treatment outcomes, and 

social indicators. CAs also use results from the MDCH/ODCP substance abuse needs assessment 

studies. Community forums have included public hearings conducted by CAs in compliance with 

MDCP/ODCP annual planning requirements and often include numerous other public hearings and 

activities conducted by CAs. 

MDCH/ODCP assesses prevention needs locally by requiring CA prevention coordinators to survey 

their region and provide information within their annual plans. This process is supported and 

contributed to by the statewide Prevention Needs Assessment (PNA), a 3-year project which has 

been conducted and completed by MDCH/ODCP and was funded through a Federal grant. The 

PNA consists of a school survey, a community prevention services assessment (COMPSA) survey, 

compilation of community indicators, and a synthesis of parts the aforementioned parts. 

Rates of individuals in treatment specific to regions are obtained from the statewide data system. 

Social indicator data used by CAs is obtained from census data, the Treatment Needs Assessment 

Report, health statistics from local health departments, and Michigan State Police Uniform Crime 

Reports (UCRs), among others. 

Evaluation 

Treatment services are evaluated through these methods: 

1. Quarterly performance indicator reports, capturing data on penetration rates, client 

satisfaction, access timeliness, and other factors.

2. Analyses of TEDS and encounter data. 

3. Reviews of the SAMHSA NOMS outcome data. 

Training and Assistance 

The major investment in training and professional development is channeled through a contract with 

the Michigan Association of Community Mental Health Boards. This statewide training program 

emphasizes prevention, treatment, and administrative topics. All 16 coordinating agencies distribute 

the bimonthly training calendar published by the Substance Abuse Training Project, which is funded 

by MDCH/ODCP. CAs sponsored or provided 40 trainings in FY 2004. 

384 
Inventory of State Profiles Michigan 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Between FY 2000 and FY 2003, SAPT Block Grant funding for resource development activities 

jumped from nearly $1.6 million to nearly $4.7 million. Of the $4.7 million in FY 2003, 41 percent 

went toward quality assurance, 39 percent to planning, coordination, and needs assessment, and 15 

percent toward information systems. This is a change from FY 2000, when 29 percent went towards 

planning, coordination, and needs assessment, 26 percent went towards information systems, and 

18 percent went toward training. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Quality Planning, Assurance Planning, 

Quality 

Assessment Assessment 

Coordination, Coordination, 

Information 

Systems 

Program 

15% 

Development

4% 

13% Needs Needs 

Assurance 

29% Training 39% 41% 

18% 

Training 

Information Program 1% 

Systems Development 

26% 14% 

N=$1,555,000 N=$4,658,288 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 450,000 29 955,000 36 1,800,000 39 1,833,288 39 

Quality Assurance 200,000 13 600,000 22 1,900,000 41 1,895,000 41 

Training 280,000 18 300,000 11 30,000 1 30,000 1 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 225,000 14 225,000 8 200,000 4 200,000 4 

Research and Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Information Systems 400,000 26 600,000 22 700,000 15 700,000 15 

Total* 1,555,000 100 2,680,000 100 4,630,000 100 4,658,288 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

385 
Michigan Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Michigan received nearly $7.7 million in Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

discretionary funds in FY 2004. Most grants (16 of the 23) were awarded for drug-free communities. 

The largest single grants were for a State Incentive Cooperative Agreement (nearly $3 million) and a 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) ($2.4 million). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 16 1,351,518 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Expansion Cooperative Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Youth Services Cooperative 

Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 271,597 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 1 250,000 

Prevention of Methamphetamine and Inhalant Use 1 349,942 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreements 1 2,967,318 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Total 23 7,668,612 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Nearly $5.5 million in Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) discretionary funds was 

awarded to Michigan in FY 2004. Five of 13 of these awards were for targeted capacity-HIV/AIDS. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of Awards Total $ Amount 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 1 347,935 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 2 467,911 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 1 389,428 

Recovery Community Service 1 324,965 

Strengthening Communities -Youth 1 750,000 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 1 488,505 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 5 2,199,664 

TCE Innovative Treatment 1 500,000 

Total 13 5,468,408 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

386 
MINNESOTA 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Donald R. Eubanks, Director 

Chemical Health Division 

Minnesota Department of Human Services 

P.O. Box 64977 

St. Paul, MN 55164-0977 

Phone: 651-431-2457 

Fax: 651-431-7449 

E-mail: don.eubanks@state.mn.us 

Web site: www.dhs.state.mn.us/main 

Structure and Function 

The Minnesota Chemical Health Division (CHD) is a division within the Department 

of Human Services (DHS), Chemical and Mental Health Services (CMHS), as of 

October 2004. CHD has 23.5 FTE and three operating units: Operations, Grants 

Management and Program Development Section (GMPDS), and American Indian 

Programs. The CHD is the designated Single State Agency (SSA) for Minnesota. 

In Minnesota, there is no organizational separation between prevention and treatment activities. 

Funding planning and policy are conducted for both activities by the Operations section. The 

Operations unit is responsible for needs assessment, policy and procedure development, SAPT 

Block Grant fund management and compliance, budgeting, and peer review. The Operations unit 

also manages the fee-for-service chemical dependency treatment funding program (CCDTF). 

GMPDS is responsible for grants management and evaluation, prevention services, women’s 

services, Synar compliance, training State agency and provider staff, and capacity and program 

development. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Chemical & Mental Health 

Services (CMHS) 

Chemical Health 

Division (CHD) 

Children’s Mental 

Health Division 

Mental Health Division State Operated 

Services Division 

Department of Human Services 

(DHS) 

Operations, Accounting, 

& Policy Development 

American Indian 

Program 

Grant Management & Program 

development Section (GMPDS) 

387 
Minnesota Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Minnesota’s SSA funding totaled $99.5 million in FY 2003—an increase of almost $10 million since 

FY 2000. The State carried the majority (58 percent) of FY 2003 expenditures, Block Grant funding 

accounted for 22 percent, and local resources accounted for 17 percent. These proportions are 

similar to those in FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid 

Medicaid 4% 

2% State 

State 58% 

SAPT Block 57% SAPT Block 

Grant Grant

23% 22% 

Other 

2% Other 

N=$89,792,409 1% N=$99,470,076 Local Local 

17% 14% 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 20,877,637 23 21,137,597 23 21,672,297 23 21,783,707 22 

Medicaid 3,366,822 4 7,103,704 8 7,503,598 8 2,014,998 2 

Other Federal 435,822 0 822,474 1 0 0 0 0 

State 51,200,491 57 45,964,036 49 47,946,092 50 58,088,886 58 

Local 12,295,620 14 16,580,773 18 16,807,636 18 16,627,562 17 

Other 1,616,017 2 1,332,851 1 1,787,901 2 954,923 1 

Total* 89,792,409 100 92,941,435 100 95,717,524 100 99,470,076 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

388 
Inventory of State Profiles Minnesota 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Nearly all (over 90 percent) of Minnesota’s SSA expenditures went toward treatment services from 

FYs 2000 through 2003. By contrast, 5 to 7 percent of total SSA funds go toward prevention 

services. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Prevention Prevention 

92% Treatment 5% 7% 94% Administration Administration 

1% 1% 

N=$89,792,409 N=$99,470,076 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 251,540 0 85,292,456 92 89,217,203 93 92,788,214 93 

Alcohol Treatment 48,722,280 54 0 0 

Drug Treatment 32,944,113 37 0 0 

Prevention 6,630,363 7 6,354,567 7 5,328,057 6 5,465,144 5 

Tuberculosis 335,865 0 377,385 0 406,770 0 431,209 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 908,248 1 917,026 1 765,494 1 785,509 1 

Total* 89,792,409 100 92,941,435 100 95,717,524 100 99,470,076 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

389 
Minnesota Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

In FY 2003, Minnesota spent approximately $21.8 million in SAPT Block Grant funds, a relatively 

stable amount since FY 2000. Two-thirds of the total went toward treatment services in FY 2003 (up 

from 72 percent in FY 2000), and 21 percent went toward prevention strategies (down from 25 

percent in FY 2000). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 25% 

21% Treatment Treatment 

75% 72% 

Administration Administration 

3% 4% 

N=$20,877,637 N=$21,783,707 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 15,031,643 71 16,343,933 75 16,324,664 75 

Alcohol Treatment 8,684,438 42 0 0 

Drug Treatment 6,252,217 30 0 0 

Prevention 5,220,033 25 5,332,732 25 4,475,538 21 4,610,981 21 

Tuberculosis 79,276 0 66,482 0 87,332 0 62,553 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 641,673 3 706,739 3 765,494 4 785,509 4 

Total* 20,877,637 100 21,137,596 100 21,672,297 100 21,783,707 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

390 
Inventory of State Profiles Minnesota 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures on alcohol and drug abuse services increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 

(from $51.2 to $58.1 million). Nearly all (96 to 98 percent) State expenditures were spent on 

treatment during this time period, and only 1 to 2 percent went toward prevention services. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

2% Treatment Prevention Treatment 

1% Tuberculosis 98% 96% 

1% Tuberculosis

1% 

Administration 

1% 

N=$51,200,491 N=$58,088,886 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 44,421,011 97 46,774,135 98 56,866,067 98 

Alcohol Treatment 29,670,767 57 0 0 

Drug Treatment 19,780,512 39 0 0 

Prevention 1,226,048 2 1,021,835 2 852,519 2 854,163 1 

Tuberculosis 256,589 1 310,903 1 319,438 1 368,656 1 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 266,575 1 210,287 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 51,200,491 100 45,964,036 100 47,946,092 100 58,088,886 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

391 
Minnesota Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The Minnesota ATOD Prevention Coordinating Council (MAPCC) enhances collaboration and 

partnership in the area of prevention. Prevention programs use either Center for Substance Abuse 

Prevention (CSAP) evidence-based model programs or the evidence-based alcohol, tobacco, and 

other drug (ATOD) prevention principles. Each funded program is based on the risk and protective 

factor framework. This focus on scientifically defensible interventions helps prevention practitioners 

maintain accountability and improve their capacity to provide effective services. 

Minnesota has six resource centers that offer prevention services statewide. The services offered 

range from prevention materials and resources to guidance on access to treatment, with a few 

resource centers focused on specific communities of people. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Minnesota’s ATOD prevention expenditures declined from $6.6 to $5.5 million between FYs 2000 

and 2003. Funding from all three primary sources declined in dollar value during this time period, 

while the distribution of funds remained fairly stable. The Block Grant’s proportion of prevention 

funds increased from 79 to 84 percent, the State’s proportion declined slightly from 18 to 16 percent, 

and the proportion of other Federal sources declined from 3 to 0 percent. 

Block Grant funds for prevention services in Minnesota declined steadily between FYs 2000 and 

2002 (from $1.06 to $0.89 per capita). In FY 2003, that amount totaled $0.91 per capita. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other 

Federal 

3% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant State 

79% 

State Grant 

18% 84% 16%

N=$6,630,363 N=$5,465,144 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

392 
Inventory of State Profiles Minnesota 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 5,220,033 79 5,332,732 84 4,475,538 84 4,610,981 84 

Other Federal 184,282 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 1,226,048 18 1,021,835 16 852,519 16 854,163 16 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 6,630,363 100 6,354,567 100 5,328,057 100 5,465,144 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

The six clearinghouses/resource centers develop resource directories, 

media campaigns, print materials, public service announcements, health 

fairs, speakers bureaus, video presentations, and a network of prevention 

resources for communities. 

Education 

Activities include s chool and community discussions, parenting classes, 

statewide conferences, cultural education, peer leader and mentoring 

programs, and preschool ATOD prevention programs. 

Alternatives 

Programs that provide activities , such as afterschool activities and skill 

building in schools , are designed to provide constructive and healthy 

alternatives to offset the attraction of substance use for young people. 

Community-Based Processes Funds support community and volunteers training, multi-agency 

collaboration/coordination, and community team-building activities. 

Environmental 24 projects include the environmental strategy as part of their array of 

prevention strategies. 

Problem Identification and Referral Services include student and employee assistance programs as well as 

juvenile and adult offender programs. 

Other: Traditional/Cultural 

Support for cultural activities includes funding for the participation of elders 

and the transmission of tribal history, values, and beliefs for Native 

American prevention programs, as well as other culturally based activities 

for African American, Chicano/Latino, and Asian populations . 

393 
Minnesota Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Fund for Core Strategies 

In Minnesota, Block Grant expenditures for prevention services declined slightly between FYs 2000 

and 2003 (from $5.2 to $4.6 million). These funds were split among a wide variety of core strategies, 

with education receiving the largest proportion in FY 2000, and information dissemination receiving 

the largest amount in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy

Alternatives 

10% Problem ID Education and Referral

33% 14% CommunityBased 

Process 

10% 

Information 

Dissemination 

29% 

Environmental 

Section 1926 - 2% 

Tobacco 

2% 

N=$5,220,033 

FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy 

Education Alternatives 

21% 15% 

Problem ID 

and Referral 

12% 

Information 

Other 

5% 

CommunityDissemination Based 

26% Process 

17% 

Section 1926 - Environmental 

Tobacco 3% 

1% 

N=$4,610,981 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 1,519,753 29 1,378,220 26 1,302,842 29 1,208,818 26 

Education 1,673,237 33 1,117,513 21 857,265 19 951,850 21 

Alternatives 526,250 10 633,934 12 514,970 12 698,923 15 

Problem ID and Referral 733,492 14 690,950 13 458,553 10 552,770 12 

Community-Based 

Process 540,048 10 1,009,627 19 872,318 19 795,875 17 

Environmental 120,497 2 161,691 3 139,828 3 117,175 3 

Other 0 0 247,612 5 213,533 5 240,927 5 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 106,756 2 93,185 2 116,229 3 44,643 1 

Total* 5,220,033 100 5,332,732 100 4,475,538 100 4,610,981 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

394 
Inventory of State Profiles Minnesota 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Minnesota has the benefit of a robust treatment system for chemical dependency that is able to 

provide treatment on demand for nearly all types of treatment needs. There were no cases (in 2004) 

where treatment was not provided due to a lack of overall treatment capacity. 

CMHS believes that no single treatment approach is appropriate for all individuals, and that finding 

the right treatment program involves careful consideration. Treatment approaches and services 

include inpatient facilities, outpatient programs, halfway houses, extended care, detoxification 

centers, mental health assessment/treatment, and Alcoholics Anonymous or other support groups. 

Treatment services are provided through the CCDTF in which counties and tribal governments have 

responsibility for assessing and placing people in treatment to the more than 400 treatment 

providers in the State. 

New licensing standards in 2004 allow for more flexible and individualized care with more capability 

for programs to address mental health issues during substance abuse treatment. Funds will be used 

to provide training in the various areas that will be part of the new treatment format, including mental 

health training. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Expenditures on treatment services (CCDTF only, which account for 45 percent of all treatment 

admissions in the State) in Minnesota increased steadily between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $81.9 to 

$92.8 million). During that time period, the State contributed the majority (at 61 percent) of treatment 

funding, followed by the Block Grant (18 percent), and local sources (15 to 18 percent). 

Detoxification services are not included in this funding data because they are supported by county 

funds at an estimated cost of $16 million per year. 

Block Grant funding for treatment services in Minnesota ranged from $3.02 per capita to $3.25 per 

capita between FYs 2000 and 2002. In FY 2003, per capita funding totaled $3.23. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid Medicaid 

4% 2% State 

State 61% 

61% SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant

18% 18%

Other

Other 1%

2%

Local N=$81,917,933 Local N=$92,788,214 18% 15% 

395 
Minnesota Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 14,936,655 18 15,031,643 18 16,343,933 18 16,324,664 18 

Medicaid 3,366,822 4 7,103,704 8 7,503,598 8 2,014,998 2 

Other Federal 251,540 0 822,474 1 0 0 0 0 

State 49,451,279 60 44,421,011 52 46,774,135 52 56,866,067 61 

Local 12,295,620 15 16,580,773 19 16,807,636 19 16,627,562 18 

Other 1,616,017 2 1,332,851 2 1,787,901 2 954,923 1 

Total* 81,917,933 100 85,292,456 100 89,217,203 100 92,788,214 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Minnesota’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 20,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for intensive outpatient treatment or shortor long-term residential treatment. 

396 
Inventory of State Profiles Minnesota 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=20,159) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 0 0 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 454 459 16 

Short-term residential 2,046 2,521 94 

Long-term residential 2,844 2,825 150 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 1,118 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 0 0 0 

Intensive outpatient 3,929 3,539 164 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 9,273 10,462 424 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate more than 38,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known), of which nearly 14,000 are for alcohol only. Calculations (with imputation) from 

TEDS data show that 21 percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric 

problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate varied only slightly when separating out 

alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the 

different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 13,651 19.6 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 24,414 21.7 

Total 38,065 20.9 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 340,000 persons aged 12 and older (8.1 

percent of Minnesota’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

107,000 persons (2.6 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Minnesota. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 8.14 6.55 19.75 6.26 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.57 5.46 6.97 1.36 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; data are combined for 2002 and 2003 

397 
Minnesota Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Two substate planning areas (the Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan Areas) are identified for 

reporting activities and State needs assessment activities. 

Prevention and treatment needs assessment data are obtained from the Adult Household Survey 

and the Minnesota Student Survey, administered to adolescents in mainstream public schools, 

alternative education centers, residential behavioral treatment programs, and juvenile correctional 

facilities. Furthermore, two councils (the State Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Advisory Council and 

the American Indian Advisory Council) review the Block Grant spending plan and identify unmet 

needs. 

Evaluation 

Minnesota is a Federal pilot State for the Minimum Data Set Version 3 (MDS-3)—a Web-based data 

collection and report system that enables providers, substate entities, and State agencies to 

uniformly collect and analyze prevention services data. 

Training and Assistance 

Projects are funded to provide specific training to professionals providing prevention and treatment 

services to women, and an additional project provides training on the special treatment and recovery 

issues for American Indian women. Funds are also used to provide services to American Indian 

chemically dependent people. Conferences include the Prevention Program Sharing Conference, 

Post-Secondary Institutions Conference, Making Prevention Work Conference, and the American 

Indian Chemical Dependency Summer Institute. 

Staff also present trainings and educational seminars at several other events during the year and 

provide trainings to programs when a need for additional training is identified during licensing 

reviews. Professional licensure requires annual training and extensive requirements for cultural 

competency training. 

398 
Inventory of State Profiles Minnesota 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Minnesota declined between FYs 2000 

and 2003 (from $2 to $1.5 million). In FY 2003, the largest proportion of these funds went toward 

planning, coordination, and needs assessment, and the remainder was distributed among a wide 

array of activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Quality Planning, Assurance 

Coordination, 14% 

Needs 

Assessment Training 

22% 12%

Information Education 

Systems 6% 

11% 

Program 

Research and Development 

Evaluation 13% 

22% 

N=$1,990,305 

FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development ActivitiesQuality 

Research and 

Evaluation 

14% 

Planning, 

Coordination, 

Needs 

Assessment 

30% 

Information 

Systems 

7% 

Assurance 

13% 

Training 

15% 

Education 

3% 

Program 

Development 

18% 

N=$1,487,544 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 434,089 22 554,880 24 522,920 25 465,670 30 

Quality Assurance 270,135 14 328,171 14 205,467 10 193,482 13 

Training 230,676 12 290,893 13 301,756 15 219,252 15 

Education 127,621 6 82,053 4 77,917 4 41,296 3 

Program Development 265,750 13 325,529 14 355,088 17 265,091 18 

Research and 

Evaluation 442,511 22 447,331 19 422,252 21 205,710 14 

Information Systems 219,523 11 278,145 12 165,553 8 97,043 7 

Total* 1,990,305 100 2,307,002 100 2,050,953 100 1,487,544 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

399 
Minnesota Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded 15 grants to Minnesota totaling $1.7 

million in FY 2004. Twelve of the 15 grants were for drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 12 1,099,063 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Expansion Cooperative Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 2 500,000 

Total 15 1,662,699 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) discretionary awards totaled more than 248,000 

in Minnesota in FY 2004. All of the grants were CSAT 2004 Earmark awards. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 2 248,525 

Total 2 248,525 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

400 
MISSISSIPPI 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Herbert L. Loving, Division Director 

Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

Mississippi Department of Mental Health 

1101 Robert E. Lee Building 

239 North Lamar Street 

Jackson, MS 39201 

Phone: 601-359-1288 

Fax: 601-576-4040 

E-mail: herb.loving@dmh.state.ms.us 

Web site: www.mississippi.gov 

Structure and Function 

The Mississippi Department of Mental Health administers the public system of alcohol 

and drug abuse prevention and treatment services in Mississippi through the Division of 

Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services (DADAS) located in the Bureau of Mental Health. 

These services are provided through a statewide network, which includes State-operated 

facilities, regional community mental health centers, and other nonprofit communitybased programs. 

The DADAS is the designated Single State Agency (SSA) for Mississippi and is responsible for 

establishing, maintaining, monitoring, and evaluating a statewide system of alcohol and drug abuse 

services, including prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. DADAS has designed a system of 

services for alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment reflecting its philosophy that alcohol 

and drug abuse is a treatable and preventable illness. 

A variety of outpatient and community-based residential alcohol and drug abuse prevention and 

treatment services are provided by regional community mental health/mental retardation centers 

(CMHCs). The DADAS's goal is for each CMHC to have a full range of treatment options available 

for the citizens in its region. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Board of Mental Health 

Department of Mental 

Health 

Bureau of Administration Bureau of Mental Health Bureau of Mental 

Retardation 

Division of Community 

Mental Health 

Services 

Division of Alcohol and 

Drug Abuse Services 

(DADAS) 

Division of Children 

and Youth Services 

Division of 

Accreditation and 

Licensure 

Division of Alzheimer’s 

Disease and Other 

Dementia 

401 
Mississippi Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

SSA funding in Mississippi totaled more than $18.8 million in FY 2003—about $1.2 million more than 

in FY 2000. The Block Grant continued to fund three-fourths of the total, and the State funded more 

than one-fifth (22 percent) of the total. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other 

Other Federal 

Federal 2% 

2% SAPT Block

SAPT Block State Grant 

State Grant 22% 75% 

22% 75% 

Other 

1% Other 

1% 

N=$17,583,349 N=$18,823,881 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 13,183,451 75 13,610,335 75 14,067,607 75 14,139,924 75 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 373,178 2 373,178 2 373,178 2 373,178 2 

State 3,912,684 22 3,949,673 22 4,133,058 22 4,184,548 22 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 114,036 1 119,737 1 120,220 1 126,231 1 

Total* 17,583,349 100 18,052,923 100 18,694,063 100 18,823,881 100 

SOURCE: FY 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Forms 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

402 
Inventory of State Profiles Mississippi 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

The distribution of SSA funds in the State remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 2003, 

with more than three-quarters directed toward treatment services, 15 percent toward prevention 

services, and 4 percent each toward HIV early intervention and administrative costs. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

15% 15% Tuberculosis 

Treatment HIV Early Treatment 1%

Intervention 76% HIV Early 4% Intervention 

77% 

Administration 4% 

4% 

Administration 

4% 

N=$17,583,349 N=$18,823,881 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 14,263,397 76 14,359,497 76 

Alcohol Treatment 8,836,813 50 9,002,746 50 

Drug Treatment 4,630,687 26 4,763,618 26 

Prevention 2,636,690 15 2,722,067 15 2,813,521 15 2,827,985 15 

Tuberculosis 79,737 0 83,723 0 90,165 0 96,176 1 

HIV Early Intervention 740,249 4 800,253 4 823,600 4 833,227 4 

Administration 659,173 4 680,516 4 703,380 4 706,996 4 

Total* 17,583,349 100 18,052,923 100 18,694,063 100 18,823,881 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding 

403 
Mississippi Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant funding totaled more than $14.1 million in FY 2003—about $1 more than in FY 2000. 

The distribution of Block Grant funds in Mississippi remained stable, with most (70 percent) 

remaining allocated for treatment, 20 for prevention services, and 5 percent each for HIV early 

intervention and administration costs. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

20% 20% 

Treatment HIV Early Treatment HIV Early 70% Intervention 70% Intervention 

5% 5% 

Administration 

5% Administration 

5% 

N=$13,183,451 N=$14,139,924 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 9,847,326 70 9,897,947 70 

Alcohol Treatment 4,630,688 35 4,763,618 35 

Drug Treatment 4,630,687 35 4,763,618 35 

Prevention 2,636,690 20 2,722,067 20 2,813,521 20 2,827,985 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 626,213 5 680,516 5 703,380 5 706,996 5 

Administration 659,173 5 680,516 5 703,380 5 706,996 5 

Total* 13,183,451 100 13,610,335 100 14,067,607 100 14,139,924 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding 

404 
Inventory of State Profiles Mississippi 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures remained relatively unchanged between FYs 2000 and 2003, hovering around $4 

million. Nearly all (98 percent) the State funds went toward treatment and rehabilitation services, and 

2 percent for tuberculosis services. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment

98% Tuberculosis 98% Tuberculosis

2% 2%

N=$3,912,684 N=$4,184,548 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 4,042,893 98 4,088,372 98 

Alcohol Treatment 3,832,947 98 3,865,950 98 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 79,737 2 83,723 2 90,165 2 96,176 2 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 3,912,684 100 3,949,673 100 4,133,058 100 4,184,548 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

405 
Mississippi Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

DADAS funds a statewide network of 29 prevention programs located in 15 CMHCs and 14 

community-based organizations. The CMHCs are the foundation and primary service providers for 

the mental health system, offering a full range of mental health, substance abuse treatment, and 

prevention activities in a designated number of counties. Each CMHC has a designated staff 

person, a prevention coordinator, who is responsible for substance abuse prevention services, 

including developing RFPs for sub-grantees, monitoring programs and maintaining prevention 

activity information in an online tracking database, and providing technical assistance. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Since FY 2000, the Block Grant has funded 100 percent of prevention activities in Mississippi. The 

total amount of prevention funds increased slightly between FYs 2000 and 2003—from $2.6 million 

to $2.8 million. 

Per capita, Block Grant prevention funding increased from $0.93 to $0.98 between those two 

comparison years. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant 

100% 100% 

N=$2,636,690 N=$2,827,985 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

2,500,000 

2,550,000 

2,600,000 

2,650,000 

2,700,000 

2,750,000 

2,800,000 

2,850,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

406 
Inventory of State Profiles Mississippi 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 2,636,690 100 2,722,067 100 2,813,521 100 2,827,985 100 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 2,636,690 100 2,722,067 100 2,813,521 100 2,827,985 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination Information dissemination activities include public service announcements, 

speakers’ bureaus, health fairs, and newsletters. 

Education 

Funding supports youth leadership programs; mentoring, tutoring, and 

service-learning projects; youth leadership conferences; and afterschool 

enrichment activities. 

Alternatives 

Strategies incorporate youth leadership conferences, scholarships to 

disadvantaged youth, creative arts works by youth, community and youth 

volunteers, and day camps for girls and boys. 

Community-Based Processes 

The Jackson Community Prevention Coalition members attend monthly 

neighborhood meetings of associations and serve on councils and 

coalitions. Central Prevention Services recruits leaders from faith-based 

other grass roots organizations and provides training, supports, and 

prevention curriculum. 

Environmental Activities include merchant education trainings on tobacco legislation. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Problem identification and referral is inherent in most of Mississippi’s 

prevention programs and is usually conducted on an individual basis. All 

programs utilize DADA’s Alcohol and Drug Treatment and Prevention 

Resources Directory to make referrals whenever the need arises. 

407 
Mississippi Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

The distribution of Block Grant funding among prevention core strategies remained fairly stable in 

Mississippi between FYs 2000 and 2003. The largest proportions were allocated to information 

dissemination (slightly more than one-third) and education (slightly less than one-third), and the rest 

was distributed among a wide range of core strategies. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Problem ID Alternatives Problem ID 

Education 

Section 1926 -

Tobacco

5%

9% and Referral Community- 9% and Referral 

12% Based Education

Information 

Dissemination

35% 

30% 12% Community­ Process 31% Based 

6% Process 

Environmental 5% 

4% Environmental 

4% 

Information Section 1926 ­

Dissemination Tobacco

34% 4%

N=$2,636,690 N=$2,827,985 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 896,475 34 898,282 33 928,462 33 989,795 35 

Education 791,007 30 816,620 30 844,056 30 876,675 31 

Alternatives 237,302 9 272,207 10 281,352 10 254,519 9 

Problem ID and Referral 316,403 12 326,648 12 337,623 12 339,358 12 

Community-Based 

Process 158,201 6 163,324 6 168,811 6 141,400 5 

Environmental 105,468 4 108,883 4 112,541 4 113,119 4 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 131,834 5 136,103 5 140,676 5 113,119 4 

Total* 2,636,690 100 2,722,067 100 2,813,521 100 2,827,985 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

408 
Inventory of State Profiles Mississippi 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Central to the comprehensive substance abuse service system is the belief that persons with alcohol 

and drug abuse problems are most effectively treated in their community, close to their personal 

resources and support systems, including their families and jobs. Therefore, the geographic areas in 

which statewide alcohol and drug abuse services have been developed correspond to the 15 

community mental health regions which serve the residents of several counties. 

The Mississippi treatment continuum includes specialized services for pregnant women, pregnant 

women with dependent children, adolescents, youth with dual diagnoses, adults in need of 

vocational rehabilitation, clients with tuberculosis or HIV/AIDS, prisoners, female ex-offenders, and 

dually diagnosed adult males. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment expenditures in Mississippi increased by nearly $1 million between FYs 2000 and 2003, 

from $13.5 to $14.4 million. The proportion of funds originating from the different funding sources 

remained stable during this time. In FY 2003, the Block Grant funded 69 percent of expenditures, 

while State funds constituted 28 percent. 

Per capita, Block Grant treatment funding in the State increased from $3.25 to $3.44 during the two 

comparison years. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other Other 

N=$14,359,497 

Federal 

N=$13,467,500 

Federal 

3% 3% 

State State SAPT Block SAPT Block 28%

28% Grant Grant 

69% 69% 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

409 
Mississippi Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 9,261,375 69 9,527,236 69 9,847,326 69 9,897,947 69 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 373,178 3 373,178 3 373,178 3 373,178 3 

State 3,832,947 28 3,865,950 28 4,042,893 28 4,088,372 28 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 13,467,500 100 13,766,364 100 14,263,397 100 14,359,497 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Mississippi’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 21,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) and shortterm residential services. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=21,367) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 0 0 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 2,104 3,907 0 

Long-term residential 264 617 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 6,378 6,868 0 

Intensive outpatient 587 642 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 9,333 12,034 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate nearly 11,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 29 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate varied only slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus 

abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see 

Appendix D: Methodology.) 

410 
Inventory of State Profiles Mississippi 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 2,656 31.5 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 8,237 28.4 

Total 10,893 29.2 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 143,000 persons aged 12 and older (6.2 

percent of Mississippi’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

58,000 persons (2.5 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Mississippi. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 6.17 3.47 13.69 5.06 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.52 3.92 6.26 1.55 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

411 
Mississippi Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Prevention and treatment needs assessment data are obtained from multiple sources: the Adult 

Population Household Study, the Needs Assessment Survey conducted by the DADAS Advisory 

Council, a Needs Assessment Study funded by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, the 

Adolescent Study, Social Indicator Study, and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey. 

Evaluation 

Compliance with RFP requirements is monitored on annual site visits and through data entered 

monthly by all funded prevention programs on the web-based data collection tool, SureTool. 

SureToolTM quickly and easily collects and compiles data needed for the Center for Substance 

Abuse Prevention’s (CSAP) required Minimum Data Set reporting, and includes information such as 

the core strategies, prevention dollars expended, science-based program classification, the Institute 

of Medicine’s classification, and other program-specific information. 

Training and Assistance 

The DADAS staff provide ongoing technical assistance to alcohol/drug abuse services on regularly 

schedule site, certification, and record monitoring visits, as well as to providers requesting help in 

specific areas. An annual conference and other advanced training and prevention conferences are 

also supported by DADAS. 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Mississippi did not report any 

expenditures for resource 

development activities for FY 2000 

through FY 2003. 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment N/R** - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Quality Assurance N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Training N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Education N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Program Development N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Research and Evaluation N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Information Systems N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Total* N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

SOURCE: FY 2003–2005 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Forms 4b 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

N/R = Not Reported 

412 
Inventory of State Profiles Mississippi 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded Mississippi $2.2 million in 

discretionary funding for prevention in FY 2004. Nine of the 14 grants (and more than $750,000) 

went toward drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy & Other Club Drugs 

Prevention Services 1 292,356 

Drug Free Communities 9 792,832 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Youth Services Cooperative 

Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 329,254 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 1 250,000 

SE Ctr for Appl. Of Prev Technologies 1 481,920 

Total 14 2,209,998 

SOURCE www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

In FY 2004, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded Mississippi just over 

$320,000 in discretionary treatment funding. Grants were awarded to State data infrastructure and 

targeted capacity-HIV/AIDS. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 1 221,556 

Total 2 321,556 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

413 
MISSOURI 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Michael Couty, Director 

Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

Missouri Department of Mental Health 

P.O. Box 687 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

Phone: 573-751-9499 

Fax: 573-751-7814 

E-mail: michael.couty@dmh.mo.gov 

Web site: www.dmh.missouri.gov/ada/adaindex.htm 

Structure and Function 

The Missouri Department of Mental Health (DMH) is the Single State Agency 

(SSA) responsible for substance abuse treatment and prevention services in the 

State. DMH oversees the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (DADA), among 

others. 

DADA administers services for substance abuse prevention and treatment, the 

Substance Abuse Traffic Offender Program (SATOP), the Compulsive Gambling Treatment 

Program, training initiatives, and statewide planning efforts. Operating sections within DADA include 

the following eight units: treatment, clinical review (conducts utilization reviews of client clinical 

plans), prevention, administration, Oxford Houses (manages funds for groups establishing 

residential housing for recovering clients), staff development and training, planning, and district 

administration. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Mental 

Health (DMH) 

Division of Alcohol and 

Drug Abuse (DADA) 

Western 

District 

Central 

District 

Eastern 

District 

Staff Development 

and Training 

Administration Federal 

Programs 

Clinical 

Review 

Treatment 

Prevention 

Housing 

Operations 

Contract and 

Tobacco 

Compliance 

Substance Abuse 

Traffic Offender 

Program (SATOP) 

Research and 

Statistics 

415 
Missouri Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

SSA expenditures in Missouri increased between FYs 2000 and 2002, from $72.6 to $80.5 million. 

The State’s proportion of these funds declined from 41 to 34 percent during this time period, the 

Block Grant’s proportion remained stable (at 33 percent) as did the proportion supported by other 

Federal sources (at 5 percent). By contrast, the proportion of SSA funds supported by Medicaid 

increased from 21 to 28 percent. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid 21% Other 

Federal

5% SAPT Block 

Other SAPT Block Grant 

Federal Grant 33% 

5% 33% 

State 

41% 

N=$72,572,313 

State

34% 

28% 

N=$80,477,461 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

90,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 24,223,136 33 25,157,268 33 26,134,320 34 26,268,669 33 

Medicaid 14,953,268 21 17,532,176 23 19,728,656 25 22,346,941 28 

Other Federal 3,307,043 5 3,464,547 5 3,342,906 4 3,815,059 5 

State 30,088,866 41 29,319,153 39 28,712,545 37 28,046,792 35 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 72,572,313 100 75,473,144 100 77,918,427 100 80,477,461 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

416 
Inventory of State Profiles Missouri 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

The distribution of SSA funds in Missouri remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 2003. 

During this time period, treatment received the majority of funds (from 81 to 84 percent), prevention 

received 10 to 11 percent of total funds, and administration costs and HIV early intervention received 

the remainder. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Treatment 10% Treatment Prevention 

HIV Early 84% 10% HIV Early 81% Intervention Intervention 

4% 2% 

Administration Administration 

5% 4% 

N=$72,572,313 N=$80,477,461 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 19,267,827 27 19,094,881 25 64,766,054 83 67,434,569 84 

Alcohol Treatment 18,252,109 25 19,696,985 26 

Drug Treatment 20,758,065 29 22,853,212 30 

Prevention 7,461,959 10 7,325,055 10 8,356,151 11 8,311,621 10 

Tuberculosis 131,780 0 312,496 0 126,646 0 108,616 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 2,978,228 4 1,991,293 3 1,335,758 2 1,463,790 2 

Administration 3,722,345 5 4,199,222 6 3,333,818 4 3,158,865 4 

Total* 72,572,313 100 75,473,144 100 77,918,427 100 80,477,461 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

417 
Missouri Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant funds for Missouri have increased steadily since FY 2000, increasing from $24.2 to 

$26.3 million by FY 2003. The proportion of total funds going toward treatment services increased 

during this time period (from 66 to 76 percent), while the proportion of funds going toward HIV early 

intervention declined from 10 to 0 percent. The proportion of funds spent on prevention services and 

administration costs, however, remained stable (at 20 and 4 percent, respectively). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention

20% Prevention 

Treatment 20% Treatment 

66% HIV Early 76% 

Intervention Administration 

10% 4% 

Administration 

4% N=$24,223,136 N=$26,268,669 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 19,706,989 75 19,841,893 76 

Alcohol Treatment 7,623,044 31 8,933,636 36 

Drug Treatment 8,308,083 35 9,897,805 39 

Prevention 4,848,824 20 5,033,395 20 5,226,864 20 5,253,735 20 

Tuberculosis 42,153 0 40,191 0 35,100 0 27,644 0 

HIV Early Intervention 2,339,822 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,061,210 4 1,252,241 5 1,165,367 4 1,145,397 4 

Total* 24,223,136 100 25,157,268 100 26,134,320 100 26,268,669 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

418 
Inventory of State Profiles Missouri 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002, State funds declined from $30.1 to $28 million in Missouri. Distribution 

of State funds, however, remained stable during that time period, with more than 85 percent going 

toward treatment, 6 percent for administration costs, and 3 percent for prevention services. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

3% 3% 

HIV Early HIV Early Intervention Treatment 

Treatment Intervention

2% 86%

89% 5% 

Administration Administration 

6% 6% 

N=$30,088,866 N=$28,046,792 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 12,160,289 41 11,342,480 39 24,934,331 87 24,292,141 86 

Alcohol Treatment 6,708,203 22 6,393,497 22 

Drug Treatment 7,857,418 26 7,695,593 26 

Prevention 898,710 3 309,968 1 909,634 3 773,017 3 

Tuberculosis 48,358 0 122,562 0 40,193 0 31,960 0 

HIV Early Intervention 563,984 2 1,710,213 6 1,237,137 4 1,368,284 5 

Administration 1,851,904 6 1,744,840 6 1,591,250 6 1,581,390 6 

Total* 30,088,866 100 29,319,153 100 28,712,545 100 28,046,792 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

419 
Missouri Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The five components of the DADA’s prevention system (Community 2000, school-based initiative, 

community-based services for youth and others, regional support centers [RSC]s), and the statewide 

training and resource center) combine to create a continuum of prevention services available to all 

populations and all regions of the State. 

Highlights of these unique components follow: 

• Community 2000 is a network of volunteer, community teams focusing on reducing the incidence 

of substance use and abuse in their communities and changing community norms toward 

substance use by youth and others. 

• RSCs are the primary source of technical assistance support for the Community 2000 teams. 

Each RSC has a mobilizer or prevention specialist who works directly with the teams in his or her 

area and assists with the development of teams and task forces in communities that desire to 

develop one. Also, through their tobacco retailer education activities, the RSCs play a key role in 

Missouri's efforts to limit the sales of tobacco products to underage youth. 

In addition, the Leadership to Keep Children Alcohol Free, a unique coalition of Governors' spouses, 

Federal agencies, and public and private organizations, is an initiative to prevent the use of alcohol 

by children ages 9 to 15. It is the only national effort that focuses on alcohol use in this age group. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding increased between FYs 2000 and 2002 from $7.5 to $8.3 million. The distribution 

of these funds remained stable during this time period. In FY 2003, 64 percent of prevention funds 

came from the Block Grant, 9 percent from the State, and 27 percent from other Federal sources. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant prevention funds ranged from $0.86 to $0.92 per capita. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source 

Other 

Federal Other 

23% SAPT Block Federal SAPT Block Grant 27% Grant 64% 

65% 

State 

12% State 

9% N=$7,461,959 N=$8,311,621 

420 
Inventory of State Profiles Missouri 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

9,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,848,824 65 5,033,395 69 5,226,864 63 5,253,735 64 

Other Federal 1,714,425 23 1,981,692 27 2,219,653 27 2,284,869 27 

State 898,710 12 309,968 4 909,634 11 773,017 9 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 7,461,959 100 7,325,055 100 8,356,151 100 8,311,621 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination Materials distribution occurs at health and prevention fairs, parades, and 

resource fairs and via presentations and speakers bureaus . 

Education 

Activities include training and technical assistance, classroom curricula, 

prevention newsletter, training resource center conference, and other 

family and youth programs. 

Alternatives Coalition activities promote healthy alternatives via youth development 

activities, racial/ethnic cultural activities, and afterschool activities . 

Community-Based Processes 

Funding supports the Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resource 

(RADAR) network, 11 Regional Support Centers, and a statewide resource 

center. The University of Missouri sites make available information to 

practitioners. 

Environmental Strategies include a newsletter, legislation, tv ad campaigns, and university 

coalitions . 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Funds support children of substance abusers screenings and services, 

youth substance abuse identification and services, and hearing impaired 

services and referrals . 

421 
Missouri Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Fund for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for prevention core strategies increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $4.8 

to $5.3 million. The largest portion of these funds went toward education activities, and the 

remainder was spread widely among a variety of prevention core strategies. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Problem ID Alternatives CommunityEducation 

Section 1926 -

Tobacco

4%

2% and Referral Community- 8% Based 

30% 3% Process Based Education 17% Process 

39% 17%

Environmental Environmental 

9% 6% 

Other Other 

7% 12% 

Information Information Section 1926 -

Dissemination N=$4,848,824 Dissemination Tobacco 

N=$5,253,735 

28% 11% 7% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 1,333,700 28 679,838 14 617,757 12 583,888 11 

Education 1,440,309 30 1,267,306 25 1,605,006 31 2,013,427 38 

Alternatives 111,978 2 728,278 14 743,559 14 408,855 8 

Problem ID and Referral 156,967 3 22,499 0 55,729 1 4,855 0 

Community-Based 

Process 842,492 17 1,048,741 21 704,650 13 904,643 17 

Environmental 437,068 9 338,893 7 447,218 9 332,268 6 

Other 333,032 7 398,358 8 552,549 11 647,458 12 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 193,278 4 549,482 11 500,396 10 358,341 7 

Total* 4,848,824 100 5,033,395 100 5,226,864 100 5,253,735 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

422 
Inventory of State Profiles Missouri 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

DADA contracts with 34 general treatment service programs and 43 agencies that provide 

Comprehensive Substance Abuse Treatment and Rehabilitation (CSTAR) programs. Clinical 

treatment and recovery support services are designed to provide a continuum of services to assist 

individuals with substance use disorders in achieving and maintaining recovery. 

A comprehensive package of individualized services and therapeutic structured activities is designed 

to achieve and promote recovery from substance abuse. These services have three basic levels of 

intensity and routinely include assessment, individual and group counseling, family counseling, 

participation in self-help groups, and other supportive measures. Detoxification and residential 

support services are offered for those who need a safe drug-free environment early in the treatment 

process. 

Unique highlights of these services include the following: 

• Recovery Support Services offer an array of activities, resources, relationships, and services 

designed to assist an individual's integration into the community, participation in treatment, 

improved functioning, and recovery from substance use disorders. 

• CSTAR is a unique approach to substance abuse and addiction treatment. It offers a flexible 

combination of clinical services, living arrangements, and support services that are 

individually tailored for each client. CSTAR focuses on providing a complete continuum of 

recovery services, including extended outpatient services, in the community and, where 

possible, close to home. Under the CSTAR umbrella are specialized women’s treatment 

programs, adolescent treatment programs, and women offenders’ programs. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2002 and 2003 treatment funding in Missouri increased substantially from $58.3 to 

$67.4 million. The dollar amounts of funding from the Block Grant, Medicaid, and other Federal 

sources increased during this time period, while the dollar amount from the State decreased. The 

proportion of funds supported by the State also declined from 47 to 36 percent, Medicaid’s 

proportion increased from 25 to 33 percent, and the Block Grant’s proportion remained relatively 

stable at almost 30 percent. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant funding for treatment in Missouri increased from $2.84 to 

$3.47 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid Medicaid 

25% Other 33% 

Federal 

1% SAPT Block Other 

SAPT Block Grant Federal

Grant 29% 2%

27% 

State State 

47% 36% 

N=$58,278,001 N=$67,434,569 

423 
Missouri Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 15,931,127 27 18,831,441 31 19,706,989 30 19,841,893 29 

Medicaid 14,837,577 25 17,101,353 28 19,578,682 30 22,202,423 33 

Other Federal 783,387 1 280,714 0 546,052 1 1,098,112 2 

State 26,725,910 46 25,431,570 41 24,934,331 38 24,292,141 36 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 58,278,001 100 61,645,078 100 64,766,054 100 67,434,569 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Missouri’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 50,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for intensive outpatient and outpatient (nonmethadone) treatment services. 

424 
Inventory of State Profiles Missouri 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=48,449) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 14 4 5 

Free-standing residential 2,684 1,882 3,116 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 1,619 3,087 3,052 

Long-term residential 173 655 563 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 1 268 72 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 5,998 4,587 5,699 

Intensive outpatient 2,021 6,091 6,858 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 12,510 16,574 19,365 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate more than 41,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known), of which nearly 10,000 are for alcohol only. Calculations (with imputation) from 

TEDS data show that approximately 20 percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported 

a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate varied slightly when separating 

out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of 

the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where 

at Least One 

Substance Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 9,845 16.3 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 31,396 20.7 

Total 41,241 19.6 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 357,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.6 

percent of Missouri’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 130,000 

persons (2.8 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Missouri. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.63 6.09 19.32 5.78 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.78 4.66 8.01 1.60 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

425 
Missouri Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Missouri DMH’s five planning regions used by DADA are divided further into service areas consisting 

of clusters of counties. In contrast to the planning regions, the service areas are large enough to 

support most substance abuse service modalities yet small enough for the services to be 

geographically accessible to the residences. To support program planning at this level of detail, data 

on prevention and treatment needs, social indicators, and client demographics are aggregated to the 

service areas for analysis. 

Prevention and treatment needs assessment data are obtained from copious sources: the 

Household Telephone Survey, Substance Abuse and Need for Treatment Among Missouri Jail 

Inmates; Prevention Needs of Statewide School-Aged Population, Substance Use, Delinquent 

Behavior & Risk and Protective Factors Among Students in the State of Missouri; Substance Use 

and Need for Treatment Among the Household Population in Missouri; Integrating Population 

Estimates of Treatment Need in Missouri; and the Missouri Student Survey. Additional special 

studies provide information and data for needs of the two fastest growing racial/ethnic groups in the 

State: Latinos and Asian/Pacific Islanders. Results from most of the studies are posted on the DADA 

Web site. 

Evaluation 

The DADA monitors administrative and clinical functions and annually reports outcome measures in 

the State budget. Among quantitative performance measures are the expenditure percentages for 

services and administration, the number of clients serviced, the number of clients and families 

housed, the occupancy rates of supported client housing, and the number of youth and families 

serviced by evidence-based prevention programs. 

The programmatic performance of contracted treatment service providers is evaluated by the DADA 

through formal yearly surveys, periodic certification surveys, periodic peer reviews, and unscheduled 

incident inquiries. ADA regional staff performs yearly safety and basic assurance reviews of each 

program to assure compliance with State contracts requirements and Federal Block Grant goals. 

Training and Assistance 

The Statewide Training and Resource Center (STRC) conducts a variety of activities and programs 

on behalf of the DADA and the overall State prevention system. The STRC provides resources, 

training, and technical assistance for the RSC and community-based service providers and conducts 

a number of statewide prevention conferences and workshops throughout the year. STRC also 

operates a consultant resource bank with resources available to the prevention community, 

administers the Community 2000 mini-grant program, and operates the statewide RADAR resource 

site. 

426 
Inventory of State Profiles Missouri 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funds for resource development activities increased dramatically between FYs 2000 and 

2002, from approximately $186,000 to $535,000. In FY 2000, 84 percent of funds went toward 

training activities and the remainder went toward planning, coordination, and needs assessment. In 

FY 2003, however, program development received the largest portion (36 percent) of funds; 

planning, coordination, and needs assessment received 32 percent, and research and evaluation 

received 21 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities Quality 

Planning, 

Training

84% 

Planning, Assurance 

Coordination, 1% 

Coordination, 

Needs Needs 

Assessment Education Training Assessment 

32% 7% 

3% 

16% 

Program 

Development 

36% Research and 

N=$186,914 Evaluation N=$535,422 

21% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

600,000 

700,000 

800,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 29,745 16 267,047 41 282,446 39 168,997 32 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 2,161 0 7,000 1 

Training 157,169 84 177,748 27 9,390 1 16,875 3 

Education 0 0 0 0 70,698 10 37,212 7 

Program Development 0 0 79,263 12 172,013 24 191,434 36 

Research and 

Evaluation 0 0 125,834 19 195,076 27 113,904 21 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 186,914 100 649,892 100 731,784 100 535,422 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

427 
Missouri Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary funds for prevention totaled $4.2 

million in Missouri in FY 2004. Thirteen of the 17 awards were for drug-free communities. The 

largest single award was a Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG) for 

$2.3 million. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 13 1,103,899 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 1 75,000 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 350,000 

Prevention of Meth and Inhalant Use 1 349,073 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Total 17 4,228,937 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Approximately $12 million was awarded to Missouri in Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

(CSAT) discretionary grants in FY 2004. The largest single award was for the Access to Recovery 

(ATR) program for $7.6 million. Other awards included the Addiction Technical Transfer Center, 

Homeless Addictions Treatment, and Targeted Capacity—HIV/AIDS. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards 

Total $ 

Amount 

Access to Recovery 1 7,591,723 

Addiction Technical Transfer Center 2 1,299,930 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 239,589 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 2 996,575 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Strengthening Communities -Youth 1 407,658 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 3 1,365,425 

Treatment of Persons with Co-Occurring Substance 

Related and Mental Disorders 1 931,722 

Total 13 12,932,622 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

428 
MONTANA 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Joan Cassidy, Chief 

Chemical Dependency Bureau 

Addictive and Mental Disorders Division 

Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services 

P.O. Box 202905 

Helena, MT 59620-2905 

Phone: 406-444-6981 

Fax: 406-444-9389 

E-mail: jcassidy@mt.gov 

Web site: www.dhs.state.mn.us/main 

Structure and Function 

The Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) is the 

designated Single State Agency (SSA) for alcohol and drug treatment and 

prevention in Montana. Responsibilities for alcohol and drug services are 

delegated to the Addictive and Mental Disorders Division (AMDD), which 

falls under DPHHS. AMDD is charged with implementing and improving 

systems of prevention and treatment for Montana residents with addictive 

and mental disorders. 

AMDD units include the Chemical Dependency Bureau (CDB), which assesses alcohol and drug 

treatment and prevention needs and is responsible for providing alcohol and drug services to lowincome Montana residents; the Operations Bureau (OB), which is responsible for data management 

and collection, Federal reporting, contract development and monitoring, and accounting functions; 

Mental Health Services Bureau (MHSB), which is responsible for the development, evaluation, and 

oversight of the mental health services delivery system; and Montana Mental Health Nursing Care 

Center (MMHNCC), which is charged with providing nursing care to Montana residents whose 

mental disorders would make them ineligible for care at other nursing homes throughout the State. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Montana State 

Hospital 

(MSH) 

Montana Chemical 

Dependency Center 

(MCDC) 

Budget 

Fiscal 

Information 

System s 

Contacts 

Department of Public Health and 

Human Services (DPHHS) 

Addictive and Mental Disorders 

Division (AMDD) 

Operations 

Bureau (OB) 

Mental Health 

Services Bureau 

(MHSB) 

Chemical 

Dependency 

Bureau (CDB) 

Montana Mental 

Health Nursing Care 

Center (MMHNCC) 

SPF SIG 

Program Planning 

Outcomes 

Program 

Administration 

Administrative 

Office 

429 
Montana Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

SSA funding in Montana inched up between FYs 2000 and 2003—from $12.9 to about $13.6 million. 

The Block Grant funded nearly half of the FY 2003 total, and the State funded more than onequarter—increases over FY 2000 proportions. Other Federal funding sources declined during that 

time period. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid 

7% Other 9% Other 

Federal Federal 

19% 

State 

20% 

Local 

10% 

5% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant

44% 49% State 

28% 

Local 

9% 

N=$12,875,211 N=$13,571,803 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 5,584,315 44 6,243,750 46 6,468,750 50 6,577,245 49 

Medicaid 894,441 7 923,724 7 1,459,446 11 1,200,971 9 

Other Federal 2,411,287 19 2,411,287 18 527,128 4 705,239 5 

State 2,636,366 20 2,517,842 19 3,161,125 25 3,830,948 28 

Local 1,348,802 10 1,348,802 10 1,226,636 10 1,257,400 9 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 12,875,211 100 13,445,405 100 12,843,085 100 13,571,803 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

430 
Inventory of State Profiles Montana 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Treatment and rehabilitation activities increased as a proportion of SSA funds in Montana between 

FYs 2000 and 2003—from 68 to 80 percent. Conversely, prevention activities declined, both in 

dollar value and proportion. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 15% 

27% Treatment 

Treatment 

68%

80%

Administration 

5% 

Administration

5%

N=$12,875,211 N=$13,571,803 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 1,348,802 11 1,348,802 10 10,265,851 80 10,913,500 80 

Alcohol Treatment 4,253,266 33 4,899,169 36 

Drug Treatment 3,136,192 24 3,075,100 23 

Prevention 3,463,218 27 3,596,220 27 1,855,235 14 1,980,822 15 

Tuberculosis 18,491 0 18,506 0 18,840 0 18,840 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 398,562 3 0 0 

Administration 655,242 5 507,608 4 304,597 2 658,641 5 

Total* 12,875,211 100 13,445,405 100 12,843,085 100 13,571,803 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

431 
Montana Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures in Montana increased by nearly $1 million between FYs 2000 and 2003 

(from around $5.6 to $6.6 million). Treatment and rehabilitation activities continued to account for 

three-quarters of those expenditures, while prevention activities accounted for one-fifth. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

20% 

Prevention 

20% 

Treatment Treatment

75% 75% 

Administration Administration 

5% 5% 

N=$5,584,315 N=$6,577,245 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 4,817,206 74 4,913,384 75 

Alcohol Treatment 2,225,135 40 2,929,501 47 

Drug Treatment 1,963,345 35 1,935,138 31 

Prevention 1,117,785 20 1,250,787 20 1,328,107 21 1,316,159 20 

Tuberculosis 18,491 0 18,506 0 18,840 0 18,840 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 259,559 5 109,818 2 304,597 5 328,862 5 

Total* 5,584,315 100 6,243,750 100 6,468,750 100 6,577,245 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

432 
Inventory of State Profiles Montana 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures increased by nearly $1.2 million between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $2.6 to $3.8 

million). Treatment and rehabilitation activities accounted for an increasing majority of those funds 

(from 86 percent in FY 2000 to 92 percent in FY 2003). Administrative costs declined in proportion 

(from 14 to 8 percent) during the same time period. No State funds were allocated for prevention 

activities. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment

86% Administration 

14% 

Administration 92% 

8% 

N=$3,830,948 

N=$2,636,366 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

4,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 2,762,563 87 3,541,745 92 

Alcohol Treatment 1,455,689 55 1,378,485 55 

Drug Treatment 818,825 31 775,398 31 

Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 398,562 13 0 0 

Administration 361,852 14 363,959 14 0 0 289,203 8 

Total* 2,636,366 100 2,517,842 100 3,161,125 100 3,830,948 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

433 
Montana Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Mandated in 1993, the Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) for State Prevention Programs’ 

mission is to create and sustain a coordinated, comprehensive system of prevention services in the 

State of Montana. The strategies of the ICC include the coordination of a statewide approach to 

prevention, and the developing, implementing, maintaining, and evaluating of prevention programs. 

All of Montana’s 56 counties provide prevention services through a system of 17 State-approved 

programs. The 14 prevention programs are responsible for development of strategies based on local 

risk and protective factors, as well as the implementation of State-level initiatives including 

organizing communities to participate in evidence-based programs, campaigns to reduce youth 

access to tobacco and alcohol, and the development of other prevention programs and activities. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding in Montana declined between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $3.5 to less than $2 

million)—driven by a sharp decline in Federal funding sources other than the Block Grant. Federal 

sources dwindled from about two-thirds to about one-third of total prevention expenditures, while the 

reverse held true for Block Grant funding. During this time, Block Grant dollars spent remained 

stable and increased slightly. 

Per capita, Block Grant spending on prevention in Montana increased from $1.24 to $1.43 over the 

two comparison periods. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

SAPT Block Other SAPT Block Other

Grant Federal Grant Federal

32% 68% 66% 34%

N=$3,463,218 N=$1,980,822 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

434 
Inventory of State Profiles Montana 

Single Sta te Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 1,117,785 32 1,250,787 35 1,328,107 72 1,316,159 66 

Other Federal 2,345,433 68 2,345,433 65 527,128 28 664,663 34 

State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 3,463,218 100 3,596,220 100 1,855,235 100 1,980,822 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Materials are available for use throughout the year for prevention-related 

activities, including school presentations, health fairs, and related activities. 

The Prevention Connection is published quarterly and goes to a current 

mailing list of close to 2,000. 

Education 

Activities include classroom presentations, working with youth groups, 

providing family management classes, and working with community 

leaders. Under the terms of the prevention contracts, programs are 

required to implement programs based in the principles and strategies 

identified as best practices. AMDD also conducts trainings for school and 

community personnel, presents assemblies, and make public presentations 

to the general public. 

Alternatives 

Activities include camps, drug-free social activities, youth leadership 

activities, and mentoring. Most notable is the project developed in the city 

of Missoula, the Flagship Project at CS Porter Middle School. This project 

is located in a school with an annual student turnover of 50%. Each of the 

14 programs was designed to provide children and youth with caring 

adults, safe places, opportunities to serve, a healthy start, and marketable 

skills. 

Community-Based Processes 

Prevention specialists continue to be actively involved in community 

coalitions, especially in the 11 communities that received funding under the 

State Incentive Grant (SIG) process. 

Environmental 

AMDD continues to work with WE CARD to provide education to 

merchants on Montana’s law regarding sales of tobacco products to 

minors. AMDD has also continued the program of merchant education 

through store surveys that was begun with the SFY 2003 contract period. 

During the SFY 2004 contract period, this activity was expanded to include 

more of the rural/frontier counties. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

AMDD recently developed a new Minor In Possession (MIP) course for use 

by State-approved programs. The new course places a stronger emphasis 

on current knowledge regarding addiction. Local programs are involved in 

providing student assistance program, employee assistance programs, and 

prevention assessments services within their service areas. In addition, 

programs use Block Grant funds to support participants in MIP classes, in 

some cases. 

435 
Montana Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Fund for Core Strategies 

Community-based process strategies received the majority (59 percent) of Block Grant funding for 

prevention core strategies in Montana in FY 2003—an increase from their 38 percent share in FY 

2000. Some of this increase was offset by a decline in information dissemination strategies (from 18 

percent to 7 percent). The remainder of the funding was spread among a wide variety of strategies. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Environmental Environmental 

7% Other 11% Section 1926 -

Alternatives

9% 

12% Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Community- Tobacco 4% Information 

Based 3%

Information Community- Dissemination 

Process

38% Dissemination Based Education 

7%

18% Process 9%

Problem ID 59% Alternatives Education and Referral Problem ID 7%

10%

3% and Referral 

3% 

N=$1,117,785 N=$1,316,159 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 200,365 18 166,601 15 176,899 13 92,094 7 

Education 109,207 10 106,256 10 112,824 8 121,255 9 

Alternatives 99,571 9 123,167 11 130,780 10 97,121 7 

Problem ID and Referral 29,711 3 43,240 4 45,912 3 44,529 3 

Community-Based 

Process 431,277 39 533,492 48 566,470 43 757,415 58 

Environmental 77,314 7 64,068 6 68,028 5 150,195 11 

Other 134,848 12 23,015 2 183,725 14 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 35,492 3 40,939 4 43,469 3 53,550 4 

Total* 1,117,785 100 1,100,778 100 1,328,107 100 1,316,159 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

436 
Inventory of State Profiles Montana 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

AMDD contracts for alcohol and drug treatment service programs across the State’s three regions. 

AMDD-funded treatment modalities include outpatient treatment, intensive outpatient treatment, 

assessment, family therapy, case management, individual and group probation and parole, 

individual and group waiting list monitoring, inpatient and day treatment, and transitional housing. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Single State Agency funding for treatment in Montana increased somewhat between FYs 2000 and 

2003 (from $8.7 to $10.9 million). This increase was driven largely by an increase in funding from 

the State and by a slightly smaller increase in Block Grant dollars. Thus, Block Grant dollars 

accounted for a declining share of treatment expenditures (from 49 to 45 percent), while the State 

share increased somewhat (from 26 to 32 percent). 

Per capita, Block Grant treatment funds increased from $4.64 to $5.35 between the two comparison 

periods. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid 

10% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Local 

12% 

11% 

State Grant State Grant 

32% 49% 26% 45% 

Local

15%

N=$8,738,260 N=$10,913,500 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

437 
Montana Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,188,480 48 4,864,639 52 4,817,206 47 4,913,384 45 

Medicaid 894,441 10 923,724 10 1,459,446 14 1,200,971 11 

Other Federal 32,023 0 32,023 0 0 0 0 0 

State 2,274,514 26 2,153,883 23 2,762,563 27 3,541,745 32 

Local 1,348,802 15 1,348,802 14 1,226,636 12 1,257,400 12 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 8,738,260 100 9,323,071 100 10,265,851 100 10,913,500 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Montana’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 7,500 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment 

services. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=7,703) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 397 120 0 

Free-standing residential 0 0 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 252 187 0 

Short-term residential 743 673 0 

Long-term residential 43 35 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 2,511 1,709 0 

Intensive outpatient 546 487 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 4,492 3,211 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate nearly 7,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 19 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate varied slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of 

alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see 

Appendix D: Methodology.) 

438 
Inventory of State Profiles Montana 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where 

at Least One 

Substance Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 2,112 17.3 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 4,584 20.4 

Total 6,696 19.4 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 76,000 persons aged 12 and older (10.0 

percent of Montana’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 22,000 

persons (2.9 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Montana. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 9.99 10.37 22.55 7.69 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.90 6.42 8.02 1.49 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

439 
Montana Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

DPHHS is required to develop a 4-year plan for alcohol and drug prevention and treatment in the 

State and to publish plan updates every 2 years. CDB and other AMDD units participate in the 

development of the State plan, in various other planning efforts, and in training activities. 

Additionally, the Governor’s Drug Policy Task Force (GDPTF), a 22-member group of legislators, 

providers, community advocates, law enforcement, and other community members, was convened 

in 2002 and ended its work with a comprehensive report and related recommendations to the 

Governor and attorney general. The Governor reconvened the task force again in June 2004 to 

address the methamphetamine issue Montana faces. 

Needs assessment is based on various sources including the Native American survey, the Adult 

Treatment Needs Assessment, and the Youth Prevention Needs Assessment. AMDD conducted the 

Native American survey on six of the seven reservations in Montana, accomplished by agreements 

with the tribal counsels. The Adult Treatment Needs Assessment provides the ADMM with a 

baseline for data-driven strategic planning. An objective is to establish provider service area profiles 

and to match resources to populations reflected in the Household Survey. Montana updated 

Provider Service Area profiles on an annual basis and used the Household Survey and the Youth 

Risk and Protective Factor Survey. The Youth Prevention Needs Assessment was conducted in 

March 2004. A sample size of approximately 22,500 8th, 10th, and 12th graders responded 

statewide. 

Evaluation 

AMDD has established performance outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of Montana’s 

adult and youth prevention and treatment initiatives. Providers and stakeholders are asked to 

participate in ongoing planning sessions to develop effectiveness indicators and define best and 

promising prevention and treatment practices. 

Training and Assistance 

The AMDD provides a system of training in partnership with the Department of Labor’s Licensing 

Bureau, the Montana Addictions Service Providers, and the Montana Licensed Addiction Counselors 

association and other agencies. Certified chemical dependency counselors are made available to 

trainers. The AMDD also works with the University of Great Falls, Addiction Training Center, to plan 

and provide training opportunities for both chemical dependency and mental health counselors in 

Montana. 

Additionally, through a technical assistance request to the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 

AMDD hosted a conference for Native American mental health and addictions counselors in July and 

August of 2002 to address and the provision of services to Native American persons with cooccurring diagnosis. 

440 
Inventory of State Profiles Montana 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Montana remained unchanged between 

FYs 2000 and 2003. The distribution of that $110,000 also remained unchanged: 38 percent was 

directed at planning, coordination, and needs assessment activities; 37 percent was directed at 

program development activities; and the remaining 25 percent funded training activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Planning, 

Program 

Development

37% 

Training Planning, Training 

Coordination, 25% Coordination, 25% 

Needs Needs 

Assessment Assessment

38% 38% 

Program 

N=$110,000 Development N=$110,000 

37% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

20,000 

40,000 

60,000 

80,000 

100,000 

120,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 41,000 37 41,000 37 41,000 37 41,000 37 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training 28,000 25 28,000 25 28,000 25 28,000 25 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 41,000 37 41,000 37 41,000 37 41,000 37 

Research and Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 110,000 100 110,000 100 110,000 100 110,000 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

441 
Montana Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded more than $2 million in discretionary 

prevention funding to Montana in FY 2004. Most funds went toward drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 14 1,288,142 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreements 1 750,000 

Total 15 2,038,142 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

One Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) grant of $319,000 was awarded to adult, 

juvenile, and family drug courts in FY 2004. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 1 319,500 

Total 1 319,500 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

442 
NEBRASKA 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Ron Sorensen, Administrator 

Division of Behavioral Health Services 

Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services 

P.O. Box 98925 

Lincoln, NE 68509-8925 

Phone: 402-471-7791 

Fax: 402-471-7859 

E-mail: ron.sorensen@hhss.ne.gov 

Web site: www.hhs.state.ne.us/sua/suaindex.htm 

Structure and Function 

The Division of Behavioral Health (DBH) is the Single State Agency (SSA) 

responsible for the statewide planning, organizing, coordinating, and delivery of 

behavioral health services including mental health, substance abuse, addiction 

services, problem gambling, and treatment and prevention activities. 

Adult substance abuse services funded by DBH include prevention, emergency services, short-term 

residential treatment, intermediate residential treatment, halfway house treatment, therapeutic 

community, intensive outpatient treatment, partial care, outpatient methadone maintenance, 

community support, and women’s and children’s specialized treatment. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Division of Behavioral 

Health (DBH) 

Managed 

Care 

Quality 

Assurance 

Gambling 

Addictions 

Alcohol/Substance 

Abuse Program

Substance 

Abuse/Mental 

Health Prevention 

6 Behavioral Health Programs 

Office of Consumer 

Affairs 

443 
Nebraska Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Total SSA funding in Nebraska increased substantially between FYs 2000 and 2003, from $13.6 to 

$21.3 million—largely driven by a near doubling in State funding and by the introduction of Medicaid 

funding in FY 2003. Block Grant dollars remained relatively stable but declined as a percentage of 

expenditures (from 54 to 37 percent), while the State funding share increased to nearly half of FY 

2003 expenditures. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Medicaid Other 

Federal 10% Federal 

5% 2% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant State Grant 

41% State 37% 

49% 

54% 

Local 

N=$13,641,519 2% N=$21,308,465 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 7,472,914 54 7,689,486 52 7,885,645 53 7,926,182 37 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,109,870 10 

Other Federal 629,606 5 419,129 3 416,000 3 494,934 1 

State 5,538,999 41 5,604,615 38 5,771,139 39 10,314,101 49 

Local 0 0 1,115,265 8 739,846 5 463,378 2 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 13,641,519 100 14,828,495 100 14,812,630 100 21,308,465 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

444 
Inventory of State Profiles Nebraska 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Treatment and rehabilitation activities increased as a proportion of SSA funds in Nebraska between 

FYs 2000 and 2003—from 74 percent to 85 percent. Conversely, prevention activities declined in 

proportion, although the dollar value of prevention activities remained relatively stable. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Treatment Prevention 

21% 85% 

Treatment 

74% 13%

Administration 

Administration 2%

5%

N=$13,641,519 N=$21,308,465 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 5,272,999 39 11,217,605 76 11,305,363 76 18,050,881 85 

Alcohol Treatment 2,614,928 19 0 0 

Drug Treatment 2,241,282 16 0 0 

Prevention 2,872,665 21 2,951,416 20 2,862,985 19 2,755,895 13 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 639,645 5 659,474 4 644,282 4 501,689 2 

Total* 13,641,519 100 14,828,495 100 14,812,630 100 21,308,465 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

445 
Nebraska Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures in Nebraska increased slightly between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $7.4 

million to $7.9 million). Treatment and rehabilitation activities increased slightly as a percentage of 

Block Grant expenditures during those two periods (from 65 percent to 70 percent), while prevention 

activities declined in proportion (from 30 to 27 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

30% Treatment Treatment 27%

65% 70% 

Administration Administration 

5% 3% 

N=$7,472,914 N=$7,926,182 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

9,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 4,921,920 64 5,108,271 65 5,545,248 70 

Alcohol Treatment 2,614,928 35 0 0 

Drug Treatment 2,241,282 30 0 0 

Prevention 2,243,059 30 2,383,092 31 2,383,092 30 2,134,625 27 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 373,645 5 384,474 5 394,282 5 246,309 3 

Total* 7,472,914 100 7,689,486 100 7,885,645 100 7,926,182 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

446 
Inventory of State Profiles Nebraska 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures for substance abuse services nearly doubled between FYs 2000 and 2003, from 

$5.5 to $10.3 million. The majority of funds during this time period went toward treatment and 

rehabilitation services, ranging from 95 percent of the total in FY 2000 to 97 percent in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Treatment Treatment 1% Administration 97% 95% Administration 5% 

2% 

N=$5,538,999 N=$10,314,101 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 5,272,999 95 5,307,294 95 5,457,246 95 9,969,310 97 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 0 0 22,321 0 63,893 1 89,411 1 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 266,000 5 275,000 5 250,000 4 255,380 2 

Total* 5,538,999 100 5,604,615 100 5,771,139 100 10,314,101 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

447 
Nebraska Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Nebraska provides comprehensive substance abuse prevention services through the six behavioral 

health regions of Nebraska. The State contracts with each of the six behavioral health regions to 

provide prevention coordination and service delivery (either through direct service or through 

subcontracts with service providers) in order to ensure effective management of prevention 

resources and a comprehensive array of needed services. 

Through this system, programming is implemented in all 93 counties of the State throughout the 

course of the fiscal year. Nebraska funds prevention service delivery through regional contracts, 

direct grants, and subcontracts through the behavioral health regions. Prevention services are 

available to the general public and specific at-risk groups such as children of substance abusers. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding in Nebraska declined slightly between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $2.9 million to 

$2.8 million). Block Grant funding remained fairly stable, both in dollar amount and in proportion of 

total funding for prevention activities. In FY 2003, Block Grant funds accounted for 78 percent of total 

expenditures and other Federal sources contributed 18 percent. 

Per capita Block Grant prevention funds in Nebraska declined from $1.31 in FY 2000 to $1.23 in FY 

2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source 

Other 

SAPT Block Federal 

Grant SAPT Block 18%

78% Other Grant Federal 78% State 22% 

3% 

Local 

N=$2,872,665 N=$2,755,895 1% 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

448 
Inventory of State Profiles Nebraska 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 2,243,059 78 2,383,092 81 2,383,092 83 2,134,625 78 

Other Federal 629,606 22 419,129 14 416,000 15 494,934 18 

State 0 0 22,321 1 63,893 2 89,411 3 

Local 0 0 126,874 4 0 0 36,925 1 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 2,872,665 100 2,951,416 100 2,862,985 100 2,755,895 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grants include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

The Nebraska Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resources (RADAR) 

Clearinghouse provides technical assistance and support to the Associate 

RADAR Network centers located in Regional Prevention Centers and 

community-based prevention centers around the State. 

Education 

Education services are designed to be culturally and developmentally 

appropriate and to address an array of services (including family 

management classes with a strong substance abuse prevention 

component) as well as classroom and small group sessions for 

preschoolers, school-age youth, adults, and middle-aged and older adults. 

Alternatives 

Each Behavioral Health Region provides (or contracts) for youth/adult 

leadership services, supports training for adult sponsors and drug-free 

youth groups, provides for mentoring services, and provides for community 

activities that encourage youth to abstain from alcohol, tobacco, and other 

drugs, and encourage adults to model low-risk use of alcohol. Additionally, 

community drop-in centers are supported on Native American reservations 

and in North and South Omaha. 

Community-Based Processes 

Regional Prevention Centers assist local community coalitions with broadbased memberships (including public and behavioral health, education, law 

enforcement, and public safety) to identify priority local substance abuse 

prevention needs and select and implement locally and culturally 

appropriate substance abuse prevention strategies. 

Environmental 

Regional Prevention Centers, community coalitions, and local providers 

work with local law enforcement to reduce minor access to alcohol. Other 

enforcement efforts include increased enforcement of adult procurement of 

alcohol for minors. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

School Community Intervention Programs (SCIP) create knowledgeable, 

interdisciplinary school-based teams that can effectively identify students at 

risk of developing substance abuse problems and design and implement 

early interventions. 

449 
Nebraska Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funding for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for prevention core strategies in Nebraska remained relatively stable between 

FYs 2000 and 2003 (totaling $2.2 and $2.1 million, respectively). The largest share of the FY 2003 

dollars went toward community-based process activities (28 percent) and education (27 percent), 

and a wide range of activities accounted for the balance. Priorities appeared to shift between the 

two periods, with a decline in information dissemination activities (from 21 to 10 percent of Block 

Grant prevention expenditures) and an increase in community-based process activities (from 16 to 

28 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core Strategy FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy 

Alternatives Alternativ es 

Education 9% Problem ID Education 9% Problem ID

27% 

and Referral 27% and Referral 

13% 9%

Community- Information Based Dissemination CommunityInformation Process 

10% Based 

Dissemination 16% Process Environmental Section 1926 ­ 21% 

Section 1926 - 12% Tobacco Environmental 28% 

Tobacco 2% 15% 

2% N=$2,243,059 N=$2,134,625 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 477,789 21 450,884 19 464,863 20 202,865 10 

Education 596,787 27 561,346 24 554,341 23 584,649 27 

Alternatives 206,751 9 246,286 10 253,923 11 183,778 9 

Problem ID and Referral 291,952 13 361,777 15 324,673 14 182,330 9 

Community-Based 

Process 365,824 16 431,687 18 445,072 19 606,724 28 

Environmental 268,686 12 293,774 12 302,882 13 324,164 15 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 35,270 2 37,338 2 37,338 2 50,115 2 

Total* 2,243,059 100 2,383,092 100 2,383,092 100 2,134,625 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

450 
Inventory of State Profiles Nebraska 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

DBH is statutorily responsible for the overall statewide planning of substance abuse and mental 

health services and contracts with the six regions in Nebraska annually to fund authorized services 

to clients who meet the DBH sliding-scale fee schedule. Regions are required to “develop, maintain, 

and provide system coordination for a provider network, including providers who can provide all 

levels of care, cornerstone services, prevention services, and the special services for the region’s 

geographical area to meet the behavioral health needs of persons who meet the State’s clinical and 

financial criteria,” according to the Guidelines for the Submission of the FY 2000 Regional 

Behavioral Health Plan of Expenditures. In addition to substance abuse services, regions provide 

mental health and vocation rehabilitation services. Five of the regions contract with providers for 

substance abuse treatment service delivery, and one region manages its own treatment system. 

Each region has a Regional Governing Board (RGB) composed of a county commissioner from each 

county within the region. RGBs make the decisions regarding the regional administration and 

appoint members to the Regional Advisory committee (RAC). The RAC in turn makes 

recommendations to the RGB regarding all service needs, funding allocations, and subcontractors. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

SSA funding for treatment in Nebraska increased sharply between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $10.1 

to nearly $18.1 million). This increase was driven largely by a considerable increase in funding from 

the State and by the introduction of Medicaid funding in FY 2003. Block Grant dollars also 

increased, but less dramatically, thus accounting for a declining share of treatment expenditures 

(from 48 to 31 percent). 

Per capita, Block Grant treatment funds increased from $2.83 to $3.19 between the two comparison 

periods. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid 

Local

2%

12% 

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant 

Grant 

State 31% 

48% State 52% 

55% 

N=$10,129,209 N=$18,050,881 

451 
Nebraska Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,856,210 48 4,921,920 44 5,108,271 45 5,545,248 31 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,109,870 12 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 5,272,999 52 5,307,294 47 5,457,246 48 9,969,310 55 

Local 0 0 988,391 9 739,846 7 426,453 2 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 10,129,209 100 11,217,605 100 11,305,363 100 18,050,881 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Nebraska’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 16,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which over 11,000 were admitted for alcohol problems. Most of 

Nebraska’s clients were admitted for free-standing residential and outpatient (non-methadone) 

treatment services. 

452 
Inventory of State Profiles Nebraska 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=15,840) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 6,482 355 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 910 1,105 0 

Long-term residential 304 443 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 46 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 2,831 1,985 0 

Intensive outpatient 739 640 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 11,266 4574 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate more than 8,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 20 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate varied only slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus 

abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see 

Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where 

at Least One 

Substance Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 3,206 17.6 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 4,806 21.1 

Total 8,012 19.7 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 135,000 persons aged 12 and older (9.5 

percent of Nebraska’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 37,000 

persons (2.6 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Nebraska. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 9.51 8.42 23.20 7.03 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.64 5.36 6.25 1.55 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

453 
Nebraska Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Funding from SAMHSA through the Nebraska State Incentive Cooperative Agreement (SICA) has 

facilitated the development of important prevention and treatment planning and needs assessment 

infrastructure. Approximately 32,000 students from 146 public and private school districts throughout 

65 counties participated in the Nebraska Risk and Protective Factor Student Survey (NRPFSS) in 

the fall of 2003. In October, 2005, survey participation increased to approximately 42,000 students in 

191 school districts in 72 counties. Data from this survey, which measures incidence and 

prevalence of substance abuse, antisocial behaviors, and problem gambling, as well as source and 

place of substance abuse, has been instrumental in providing communities and schools with locallevel, actionable information for needs assessment and planning purposes. Currently, three-fourths 

of the State’s population are covered by comprehensive community plans that use NRPFSS data to 

identify and address priority issues through carefully-selected locally and culturally-appropriate 

evidence-based strategies. 

In FY 2004 extensive training on needs assessment, a workbook for communities, and opportunities 

for communities to participate in a risk and protective factor survey were offered throughout the 

State. 

Nebraska also uses NSDUH results, social indicator data, service utilization data, and data collected 

by provider agencies in the Magellan Client Data System to look at prevalence, utilization and 

penetration rates to facilitate needs assessment and planning for treatment services. 

Evaluation 

Monitoring of activities is conducted in combination with the Regional Behavioral Health Authorities, 

which reviews program compliance with contracts and regulations based on the draft Audit 

Orientation Workbook. This workbook summarizes the Federal Block Grant Requirement, State 

regulations, and contract compliance issues. The Regional Behavioral Health Authority staff conduct 

program audits each year in each agency. Every agency that provides direct counseling services 

must be licensed by the DHHS Regulation and Licensure. 

Through the Nebraska SICA initiative, the State has been engaged in a comprehensive systematic 

transformation guided by the Nebraska Partners in Prevention. This group has focused on 

developing State, regional, and local systems for assessing needs, planning, mobilizing decisionmakers, implementing evidence-based programs, and evaluating the effectiveness of strategies. 

Training and Assistance 

The DBH contracts with Lincoln Medical Education Foundation to provide core education course 

training throughout the State to prepare future counselors for meeting Nebraska's Certified Alcohol 

and Drug Abuse Counselor Certification Requirements. 

The Nebraska Prevention System is undergoing extensive system change facilitated by the SICA 

grant. SICA funds have provided for State, regional, and local training in assessment; mobilization; 

strategic planning; selection and implementation of locally and culturally appropriate evidence-based 

policies, practices, and programs; evaluation; and sustainability in planning. A particular emphasis 

has been placed upon organizational development of multi-sector partnerships and environmental 

prevention strategies. 

454 
Inventory of State Profiles Nebraska 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Nebraska increased considerably 

between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $314,000 to $870,000). Planning, coordination, and needs 

assessment activities accounted for the largest share (58 percent) of the FY 2003 funding—although 

this percentage was lower than the FY 2000 share (68 percent). Training and education each 

accounted for 17 percent of expenditures in FY 2003, and program development activities accounted 

for 8 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Quality Training Training 

Assurance 15% 17%

2%

Education Planning, Education

15% Coordination, 17%

Needs 

Assessment Program Planning, Development Coordination, 58% 

8% 

Needs 

Assessment 

68% N=$314,360 N=$870,256 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 214,870 68 250,000 70 0 0 513,187 58 

Quality Assurance 6,800 2 6,800 2 6,800 5 0 0 

Training 46,345 15 48,850 14 81,933 57 145,450 17 

Education 46,345 15 49,000 14 54,622 38 143,619 17 

Program Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 68,000 8 

Research and Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 314,360 100 354,650 100 143,355 100 870,256 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

455 
Nebraska Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Nebraska received three Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary awards 

totaling nearly $263,000 in FY 2004. All of these funds went toward drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 3 262,899 

Total 3 262,899 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

In FY 2004, Nebraska received four Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) discretionary 

grants totaling nearly $1.2 million. Most ($1 million) is allocated for targeted capacity expansion. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 1 50,000 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 2 1,000,000 

Total 4 1,150,000 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

456 
NEVADA 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Maria D. Canfield, Bureau Chief 

Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

Nevada State Health Division 

505 East King Street, Room 500 

Carson City, NV 89701-3703 

Phone: 775-684-4190 

Fax: 775-684-4185 

E-mail: mcanfield@nvhd.state.nv.us 

Web site: health2k.state.nv.us/BADA 

Structure and Function 

The Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (BADA) is the Single State Agency (SSA) 

for the State of Nevada and is responsible for alcohol and other drug treatment and 

prevention. The mission of BADA is to reduce the impact of substance abuse in 

Nevada and has three objectives: (1) statewide formulation and implementation of 

a State plan for prevention, intervention, treatment and recovery of substance 

abuse; (2) statewide coordination and implementation of State and Federal funding 

for alcohol and drug abuse programs; and (3) statewide development and 

publication of standards for certification and the authority to certify treatment levels 

of care and prevention programs. BADA does not provide direct treatment or 

prevention services; rather, BADA provides oversight and funding for community-based and 

nonprofit agencies that perform these services. Organizationally, BADA is one of seven units in the 

Health Division of the Nevada Department of Human Resources. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health 

and Human Services 

Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

(BADA) 

Health Division 

State Incentive 

Grant 

SAPT Block 

Grant 

Data, Planning, 

and Evaluation 

Fiscal Prevention Treatment

457 
Nevada Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, total SSA expenditures in Nevada increased steadily from $14.5 to 

$18.9 million. The proportion of funds supported by the Block Grant remained relatively stable (at 67 

to 68 percent), while the dollar amount increased from $10.2 to $12.7 million. The proportion of 

funds supported by the State declined from 28 to 19 percent, and the proportion of funds supported 

by other Federal sources increased from 5 to 13 percent during that same time period. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other 

5% 

N=$14,518,587 

Federal Other 

Federal 

13% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant State Grant

67% 28% 68% 

State 

19% 

N=$18,935,708 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 9,619,717 66 10,767,511 71 11,290,684 69 12,860,149 68 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 758,821 5 467,224 3 1,398,327 9 2,405,666 13 

State 4,122,910 28 3,940,646 26 3,585,591 22 3,651,093 19 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 17,139 0 16,500 0 21,800 0 18,800 0 

Total* 14,518,587 100 15,191,881 100 16,296,402 100 18,935,708 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

458 
Inventory of State Profiles Nevada 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

In FY 2003 the largest proportion (68 percent) of total SSA expenditures went toward treatment, 

followed by prevention (at 26 percent), and HIV early intervention and administration costs at (3 

percent each). By contrast, in FY 2000 treatment received 71 percent of the total, followed by 

prevention at 19 percent, administration costs at 7 percent, and HIV early intervention at 3 percent. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 19% 

26% HIV Early Treatment Treatment 

Intervention 68% 71% 

3% HIV Early

Intervention Administration 

3% 7% 

Administration 

N=$14,518,587 3% 

N=$18,935,708 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 3,770,032 26 3,787,596 25 11,553,745 71 12,730,406 68 

Alcohol Treatment 3,216,586 22 3,658,964 24 

Drug Treatment 3,260,533 22 3,743,627 25 

Prevention 2,805,699 19 2,717,984 18 3,598,736 22 4,918,396 26 

Tuberculosis 0 0 28,340 0 0** 0 33,843 0 

HIV Early Intervention 482,806 3 538,373 4 594,249 4 643,008 3 

Administration 982,931 7 716,997 5 549,672 3 610,055 3 

Total* 14,518,587 100 15,191,881 100 16,296,402 100 18,935,708 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

**Included in HIV expenditures 

459 
Nevada Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures in Nevada increased from $9.6 to $12.9 million between FYs 2000 and 

2003. The majority of funds (70 percent) in FY 2003 was spent on treatment services, followed by 

prevention (at 20 percent of the total) and HIV early intervention and administration costs (at 5 

percent each). The distribution of funds in FY 2000 was similar. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

23% Treatment 20% Treatment 

67% 70%

HIV Early 

Intervention 

HIV Early 

Intervention 

5% 5% 

Administration Administration 

5% 5% 

N=$9,619,717 N=$12,860,149 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 7,888,484 70 8,999,740 70 

Alcohol Treatment 3,216,586 33 3,657,290 34 

Drug Treatment 3,260,533 34 3,741,953 35 

Prevention 2,180,200 23 2,265,120 21 2,258,279 20 2,573,503 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 28,340 0 0 0 33,843 0 

HIV Early Intervention 482,806 5 538,373 5 594,249 5 643,008 5 

Administration 479,592 5 536,435 5 549,672 5 610,055 5 

Total* 9,619,717 100 10,767,511 100 11,290,684 100 12,860,149 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

460 
Inventory of State Profiles Nevada 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures declined between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $4.1 to $3.7 million. Nearly all (99 

percent) State funds for alcohol and drug abuse in FY 2003 were spent on treatment activities. In 

FY 2000, only 87 percent of funds went toward treatment activities, and 12 percent went toward 

administration costs. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Treatment 1% Prevention 87% Treatment Administration 1% 99% 12% 

N=$4,122,910 N=$3,651,093 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 3,577,571 87 3,563,136 90 3,543,591 99 3,609,093 99 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 42,000 1 196,948 5 42,000 1 42,000 1 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 503,339 12 180,562 5 0 0 0 0 

Total* 4,122,910 100 3,940,646 100 3,585,591 100 3,651,093 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

461 
Nevada Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

BADA funds programs throughout the State of Nevada to reduce and prevent substance abuse. 

Prevention activities are targeted toward persons from birth to age 25. Several projects are geared 

toward BADA’s goal of supporting prevention services to underserved populations, including Native 

Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, African Americans, juvenile and probation programs, and the disabled 

community. BADA funds and works with 13 community-based coalitions statewide, who serve as 

regional prevention centers, to develop local strategies and plans to address prevention. The 

coalition strategy also increases provider capacity through a planning process, which includes grant 

writing and other resource development activities. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, prevention funding increased substantially in Nevada from $2.8 to 

$4.9 million. This increase was largely driven by a dramatic increase in funding from other Federal 

sources (from $583,000 to $2.3 million). During that time period the Block Grant’s proportion of the 

funds declined (from 78 to 52 percent of the total), while other Federal sources as a proportion of the 

total rose (from 21 to 47 percent). 

Prevention expenditures per capita from Block Grant funds remained fairly stable during this time, 

increasing slightly from $1.08 in FYs 2000 and 2001 to $1.15 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant Other Other Grant 78% Federal Federal 52% 

21% 47%

State

1% State 

1% 

N=$2,805,699 N=$4,918,396 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

462 
Inventory of State Profiles Nevada 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 2,180,200 78 2,265,120 83 2,258,279 63 2,573,503 52 

Other Federal 583,499 21 255,916 9 1,294,097 36 2,299,133 47 

State 42,000 1 196,948** 7 42,000 1 42,000 1 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 4,360 0 3,760 0 

Total* 2,805,699 100 2,717,984 100 3,598,736 100 4,918,396 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

**Funding from the master tobacco settlement, used to support local prevention coalitions

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Strategies include an information clearinghouse; display of materials 

with various community partners such as schools, businesses, 

healthcare offices and government offices; and distribution of 3 tons of 

materials at the annual Summer Institute. 

Education 

Strategies include integrating a prevention education component in 

prevention programs, most of which are SAMHSA model programs 

and evidence-based prevention programs, and providing technical 

assistance to programs transitioning to evidence-based prevention 

programs. 

Alternatives Strategies include offering alternative programs as described within 

the CSAP six strategies , including the National Youth Sports Program. 

Community-Based Processes Strategies include utilizing the CSAP Seven Step Planning Model to 

use in local community planning. 

Environmental Strategies include addressing risk and protection identified by local 

coalitions. 

Problem Identification and Referral Strategies included funding of a Crisis Call Center, which refers 

individuals into needed services. 

463 
Nevada Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for core prevention strategies in Nevada rose slightly between FYs 2000 and 

2003 (from $2.2 to $2.6 million). During this time period the distribution of funds among the core 

strategies remained relatively stable, with education receiving the majority of funds (56 to 59 

percent), followed by alternative strategies (ranging from 24 to 36 percent), and the remainder going 

toward a wide array of strategies. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core Strategy FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy 

Alternatives Problem ID Alternatives Problem ID 

Information 

Dissemination

7%

24% and Referral 

and Referral 24% 

1% 

1% 

Community- Community- Based Based Education Process Process Education

59% 5% 5% 56% 

Environmental Environmental 4%

4% 

Section 1926 - Information 

N=$2,180,200 N=$2,573,503 Tobacco Dissemination 

3% 7% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 152,614 7 50,000 2 158,080 7 180,145 7 

Education 1,286,318 59 820,423 36 1,261,884 56 1,447,867 56 

Alternatives 523,248 24 813,576 36 541,987 24 617,641 24 

Problem ID and Referral 21,802 1 22,621 1 22,583 1 25,735 1 

Community-Based 

Process 109,010 5 468,000 21 112,914 5 128,675 5 

Environmental 87,208 4 20,000 1 90,331 4 102,940 4 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 70,500 3 70,500 3 70,500 3 

Total* 2,180,200 100 2,265,120 100 2,258,279 100 2,573,503 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

464 
Inventory of State Profiles Nevada 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

BADA funds 27 provider organizations to provide substance abuse treatment services throughout 

the State. Providers must meet the Substance Abuse Treatment Program Operating and Access 

Standards (POAS), a set of progressive guidelines requiring funded providers to implement ASAM 

PPC-2R, establish centers of excellence throughout the State and adopt NIDA’s Thirteen Principles 

of Effective Treatment. The continuum of services provided in Nevada include intervention, 

comprehensive evaluation, detoxification, residential, outpatient, intensive outpatient, and 

transitional housing for adults and adolescents. Civil protective custody and opioid maintenance 

treatment are also funded for adults. 

The BADA Advisory Board is a self-perpetuated committee composed of staff from 15 SSA-funded 

treatment and prevention provider agencies, including prevention coalitions. The Advisory Board, in 

collaboration with BADA staff, conducts planning activities for the SSA, meets bimonthly, and 

advises the SSA Bureau Chief and staff on issues related to policy development, protocols, requests 

for SAPT Block Grant Applications, and a continuous quality improvement strategy. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, treatment expenditures in Nevada increased from $10.2 to $12.7 

million. In FY 2003, the Block Grant provided 71 percent of these funds, and the State provided 28 

percent. 

Block Grant funding per capita increased over time from $3.21 in FY 2000 to $4.01 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Other Other 

2% 

N=$10,247,151 

Federal Federal 

1% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block State 

Grant State Grant 28% 

63% 35% 71% 

N=$12,730,406 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

465 
Nevada Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 6,477,119 63 7,399,243 66 7,888,484 68 8,999,740 71 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 175,322 2 211,308 2 104,230 1 106,533 1 

State 3,577,571 35 3,563,136 32 3,543,591 31 3,609,093 28 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 17,139 0 16,500 0 17,440 0 15,040 0 

Total* 10,247,151 100 11,190,187 100 11,553,745 100 12,730,406 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Nevada’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 12,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) and freestanding residential treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=11,910) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 1,575 1,215 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 581 1,083 0 

Long-term residential 238 834 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 329 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 2,092 2,972 0 

Intensive outpatient 290 701 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 4,776 7,134 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate approximately 10,500 admissions (where at least 

one substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that 9 percent of 

persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol 

or drug use. This rate varied slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of 

alcohol in combination with other drugs. Approximately 5 percent of persons admitted for 

abusing alcohol only were diagnosed with a psychiatric problem and nearly 11 percent of 

persons admitted for abusing alcohol in combination with other drugs were diagnosed as having 

a psychiatric problem. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: 

Methodology.) 

466 
Inventory of State Profiles Nevada 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 2,817 5.4 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 7,687 10.5 

Total 10,504 9.1 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 139,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.8 

percent of Nevada’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 48,000 

persons (2.7 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Nevada. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.83 6.80 15.54 6.75 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.69 5.40 7.75 1.54 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; data are combined for 2002 and 2003 

467 
Nevada Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

A prevention needs assessment was finalized in 2003 and updated in 2005 using data from various 

sources including the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health 

(NSDUH), the State’s Prevention Data Management System, the Department of Education, and 

2000 Census data. The primary purpose of the assessment was to define and collect a core set of 

risk and protective indicators to better identify specific needs for individual populations at the State 

and local levels. The results of the needs assessment are available on BADA’s Web site for easy 

access by service providers, coalitions, legislators, and local officials. 

BADA completed its treatment needs assessment in 2003 and updated it in 2005. The needs 

assessment included data sources including the Household Survey, Women of Childbearing Years 

Study, Substance Abuse Need for Treatment among Arrestees, and the Social Indicator Study. The 

data are updated biennially and are used to identify local needs and trends in substance abuse and 

to facilitate local strategic planning. 

Prevention planning is focused on the risk and protective factors model. Prevention Coalitions 

develop comprehensive community plans that address local substance abuse prevention issues. 

Nevada is divided into three substate regions for block grant treatment planning purposes. The 

primary treatment planning document is the Program Operating and Access Standards (POAS). 

Evaluation 

BADA employs several mechanisms to ensure that funded programs comply with the conditions of 

their award and negotiated scope of work. Each funded program must be certified by the State prior 

to receiving funding and must sign subgrant award documents specifying the type of services to be 

provided and specific requirements on the program. Program compliance monitoring takes place 

annually and focuses on administrative, programmatic, and fiscal activities to ensure that programs 

are meeting both State and Federal requirements. In addition, BADA conducts in-depth fiscal 

monitoring on every funded program every 3 years. All funding is awarded on a competitive basis 

for up to three year project periods with possible annual non-competing renewals assuming success 

progress on negotiated scopes of work. Programs failing to fulfill their scopes of work (both number 

of clients and levels of care provided) are reduced in funding. 

In 2006 Nevada instituted a standardized assessment (the ASI-lite) built into its new data system, 

the Nevada Health Information Provider Performance System (NHIPPS), which has been adapted 

from the Texas BHIPS system. Also beginning in 2006, BADA is instituting a performance 

improvement system with financial incentives. 

Training and Assistance 

While BADA is not legislatively responsible for certifying substance abuse personnel and monitoring 

continuing education requirements, BADA is committed to providing such opportunities to its 

treatment and prevention workforce. Workshops on a diverse range of topics are provided through 

the University of Nevada, Reno’s Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies 

(CASAT). Classes are offered in both Las Vegas and Reno, as well as through videoconferencing, 

via the Internet, and on compressed video to accommodate providers in outlying rural areas. 

BADA, in partnership with CASAT, conducts an annual 5-day Summer Institute. The institute 

features both prevention and treatment topics and offers the opportunity to attend keynote 

addresses and workshops. Key areas of emphasis at the recent institute were co-occurring 

diagnoses and post-trauma, and enhancing community prevention through policy and the community 

readiness model. 

468 
Inventory of State Profiles Nevada 

Expenditures of Block Grant Fund for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 

(from nearly $724,000 to $1 million). Research and evaluation as well as planning, coordination, and 

needs assessment activities received the majority of funds. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Quality Planning, Quality 

Planning, 

Research and 

Evaluation

29% 

Assurance Coordination, Assurance 

Coordination, 10% Needs 17%

Needs Assessment Assessment Training Training 27%

29% 15% 21% 

Program Information Information Development Systems Systems 3% 11%

11% Research and 

Evaluation 

27% 

N=$723,371 N=$1,005,441 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 208,118 29 132,405 20 288,252 29 275,682 27 

Quality Assurance 69,775 10 69,775 11 137,388 14 168,338 17 

Training 154,000 21 146,068 22 200,000 20 149,797 15 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 0 0 0 0 57,152 6 31,245 3 

Research and Evaluation 208,500 29 220,395 34 230,221 23 267,548 27 

Information Systems 82,978 11 82,978 13 94,602 9 112,831 11 

Total* 723,371 100 651,621 100 1,007,615 100 1,005,441 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

469 
Nevada Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary funding for prevention in Nevada 

totaled $10.1 million in FY 2004. Most of the funds went toward the Western Center for the 

Application of Prevention Technology, the State Incentive Cooperative Agreements and Strategic 

Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 8 725,000 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 1 75,000 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Expansion Cooperative Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 318,075 

Prevention of Methamphetamine and Inhalant Use 1 310,225 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreements 1 3,000,000 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Western Center for the Application of Prevention 

Technology 1 3,273,951 

Total 15 10,116,852 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Nevada received six Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) discretionary funding grants for 

treatment in FY 2004, totaling $2.2 million. The largest recipient of these funds was targeted 

capacity for HIV/AIDS. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Addiction Technical Transfer Center 1 674,861 

Recovery Community Service 1 199,872 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Strengthening Access and Retention 1 200,000 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 2 991,399 

Total 6 2,166,132 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

470 
NEW HAMPSHIRE 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Joseph P. Harding, Director 

Office of Alcohol and Drug Policy 

New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services 

105 Pleasant Street, Main Building 

Concord, NH 03301 

Phone: 603-271-6104 

Fax: 603-271-6105 

E-mail: jharding@dhhs.state.nh.us 

Web site: www.dhhs.nh.gov 

Structure and Function 

The Office of Alcohol and Drug Policy (OADP) is located within the Department of Health 

and Human Services (DHHS), Office of the Commissioner and serves as the Single State 

Agency (SSA) for New Hampshire. The SSA is a Federal designation that is responsible 

for the oversight of the SAPT Block Grant, serves as the State Methadone Authority (SMA) 

and is the key contact on other Federal alcohol and other drug-related initiatives. The 

primary function of the Office of Alcohol and Drug Policy to develop and implement policy 

and to provide leadership, visibility, and advocacy for issues related to alcohol and other 

drug abuse prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery. The director also serves as the 

executive director of the Governor’s Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, 

Intervention and Treatment. 

OADP works closely with the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Section and the Alcohol and Drug 

Abuse Treatment Section at the Division of Public Health Services (DPHS) at DHHS. DPHS has 

administrative responsibility including contract monitoring for all publicly funded prevention and 

treatment programs supported by the DHHS. DPHS provides prevention and treatment services, via 

a competitive bid process, through a network of community based non-profit providers. The mission 

of DHHS, relating to substance abuse is “to significantly reduce alcohol and drug abuse and its 

social, health, and behavioral consequences for the citizens of New Hampshire through public policy 

and resource development, education, and supporting initiatives that ensure the delivery of effective 

and coordinated prevention and treatment services.” 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) 

Office of Alcohol & Drug Policy (OADP) 

Research & Policy 

Development 

Integration & 

Training 

Division of Public Health Services (DPHS) 

Bureau of 

Laboratory Services 

Bureau of Disease 

Control 

Bureau of Community 

Health Services 

Bureau of 

Prevention Services 

Bureau of Policy 

Performance 

Mental and Child Health Section 

STD/HIV Prevention Section 

Rural Health/Primary Care Section 

Alcohol and Other Treatment Section 

Community Health Development Section 

Nutrition and Health Promotion Section 

Chronic Disease Prevention and Control Section 

Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention 

Section 

Radiological Health Section 

471 
New Hampshire Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Total SSA funding in New Hampshire remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 2003 

(ranging from $12.3 in FY 2000 to $13.6 million in FY 2002). The Block Grant supported about half 

of total funding during this time period. The State’s proportion of total funding, however, rose 

substantially between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from 32 to 46 percent), while other Federal sources as a 

proportion fell (from 20 to only 3 percent). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

20% 3% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant State Grant 

51% 46% 48% 

State 

32% 

N=$12,327,660 N=$13,056,720 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 5,943,750 48 6,243,750 49 6,468,750 48 6,577,245 50 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 2,474,505 20 2,401,544 19 851,174 6 440,972 3 

State 3,909,405 32 4,154,731 32 6,275,502 46 6,038,503 46 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 12,327,660 100 12,800,025 100 13,595,426 100 13,056,720 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

472 
Inventory of State Profiles New Hampshire 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

The distribution of funds changed slightly in New Hampshire between FYs 2000 and 2003. 

Treatment, as a proportion of total funds, increased from 61 percent in FY 2000 to 70 percent in FY 

2003, while funding for prevention decreased as a proportion (and in dollar amount) from 28 percent 

in FY 2000 to 21 percent in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

28% 21% 

Treatment Treatment 

61% 70% 

Administration 

Administration 9%

11% 

N=$12,327,660 N=$13,056,720 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 2,999,510 24 7,771,383 61 8,679,452 64 9,145,582 70 

Alcohol Treatment 2,223,908 18 0 0 

Drug Treatment 2,223,908 18 0 0 

Prevention 3,509,736 28 3,672,547 29 3,272,322 24 2,729,283 21 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,370,598 11 1,356,095 11 1,643,652 12 1,181,855 9 

Total* 12,327,660 100 12,800,025 100 13,595,426 100 13,056,720 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

473 
New Hampshire Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant funding in New Hampshire rose from $5.9 to $6.6 million between FYs 2000 and 2003. 

The distribution of funds remained relatively stable during this time period, with treatment services 

receiving the bulk of funds (about three fourths), prevention activities receiving about 20 percent of 

the total, and administration costs receiving about 5 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by 

Activity Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

20% 21% 

Treatment Treatment 

75% 74% 

Administration 

Administration 5% 

5% 

N=$5,943,750 N=$6,577,245 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and Rehabilitation 0 0 4,698,932 75 4,849,283 75 4,895,715 74 

Alcohol Treatment 2,223,908 37 0 0 

Drug Treatment 2,223,908 37 0 0 

Prevention 1,198,747 20 1,248,750 20 1,296,030 20 1,352,668 21 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 297,187 5 296,068 5 323,437 5 328,862 5 

Total* 5,943,750 100 6,243,750 100 6,468,750 100 6,577,245 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

474 
Inventory of State Profiles New Hampshire 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures on alcohol and drug abuse services increased substantially between FYs 2000 

and 2003 (from $3.9 to $6 million). Funding for both treatment and prevention activities increased 

during this period, while funding for administrative costs decreased. In FY 2003, treatment services 

received 69 percent of State funds, prevention received 17 percent, and administration costs totaled 

14 percent. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

17% 

Treatment Treatment Administration 69%

73% 27% 

Administration 

14% 

N=$3,909,405 N=$6,038,503 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and Rehabilitation 2,835,994 73 2,835,869 68 3,805,756 61 4,186,535 69 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 0 0 258,835 6 1,149,531 18 998,975 17 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,073,411 27 1,060,027 26 1,320,215 21 852,993 14 

Total* 3,909,405 100 4,154,731 100 6,275,502 100 6,038,503 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

475 
New Hampshire Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Prevention activities and services in New Hampshire are procured through a competitive contracting 

process to community-based providers and coalitions throughout New Hampshire’s 10 counties. 

The core functions for DPHS’s prevention unit are prevention systems advocacy; contracts 

management; workforce development; information dissemination; guidance for prevention policy 

development; and technical assistance for coalition development, program implementation, and 

performance outcomes. 

The New Hampshire’s Governor’s Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention, Intervention 

and Treatment was legislatively established and serves in an advisory capacity to the Governor 

regarding the delivery of effective and coordinated alcohol and drug abuse prevention, intervention, 

and treatment services. The commission develops a statewide plan for the effective prevention of 

alcohol and drug abuse, particularly among youth. The Governor’s Commission is also responsible 

for allocating prevention funding from State liquor sale profits. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

In New Hampshire, prevention funding declined between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $3.5 to $2.7 

million). This decline was largely due to a substantial decrease in funding from Federal sources 

other than the Block Grant. As a result, the proportion of expenditures from the different funding 

sources also shifted during this time period. The Block Grant’s proportion of prevention funds rose 

from 34 to 49 percent, the State’s proportion rose dramatically from 0 to 37 percent, and other 

Federal funds as a proportion declined from 66 to 14 percent. 

Block Grant funding for prevention per capita in New Hampshire remained stable over time, ranging 

from $0.97 in FY 2000 to $1.05 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other 

Federal 

14% 

SAPT Block Other 

Grant SAPT Block Federal 

Grant 34% 66% 

49% State 

37% 

N=$3,509,736 N=$2,729,283 

476 
Inventory of State Profiles New Hampshire 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 1,198,747 34 1,248,750 34 1,296,030 40 1,352,668 49 

Other Federal 2,310,989 66 2,164,962 59 826,761 25 377,640 14 

State 0 0 258,835 7 1,149,531 35 998,975 37 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 3,509,736 100 3,672,547 100 3,272,322 100 2,729,283 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include the following: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Strategies include providing support to communities by offering information 

and other resources, promoting awareness of cultural diversity and changing 

demographics in New Hampshire, and increasing DPHS’s marketing and 

telecommunication efforts of prevention programs. 

Education 

Strategies include providing education on issues regarding substance abuse 

prevention strategies and initiatives using a 6-hour curriculum “Initial Training 

on Substance Abuse” and collaborating with State agencies, task forces and 

other related groups, including Friends of Recovery NH (FOR NH), DHHS 

Children’s Care Management Collaborative, the CARE NH Grant Team, and 

the Task Force on Women’s Issues and Substance Abuse. 

Alternatives 

Strategies include tracking the number of youth in alternative programs and 

increasing the number of high school students involved in teen leadership 

trainings, which included Peer Leader/Peer Helper programs and the NH Teen 

Institute Summer Program. 

Community-Based Processes 

Strategies include the development and support of community-based 

coalitions and county/regional substance abuse groups and increasing the 

inclusion of minority-related issues in prevention initiatives throughout the 

State. 

Environmental Strategies include supporting enforcement of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug 

(ATOD) laws and policies, including Synar compliance. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Strategies include the provision of training on identification of substance abuse 

problems in adolescents and elders to prevention providers , funding Student 

Assistance Programs (SAP), and developing the Challenge Course as a 

prevention and early intervention program. 

477 
New Hampshire Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for prevention core strategies in New Hampshire remained relatively stable 

between FYs 2000 and 2003, ranging from $1.2 to $1.3 million. The distribution of these funds was 

also stable over time. In FY 2003, one quarter of funds were spent on education activities, 20 

percent were spent each on alternatives and problem identification and referral, and 15 percent was 

spent on information dissemination activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Education Alternatives Education Alternatives 

29% 21% 25%

Other

10% 

20% 

Problem ID 

and Referral Information Problem ID 

21% Dissemination and Referral 

Information 20% 

Dissemination Other Community- 15% Community16% 5% Based Based 

Process Process 

8% N=$1,198,747 N=$1,315,449 10% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 188,750 16 197,115 16 194,405 15 198,289 15 

Education 350,000 29 358,365 29 324,007 25 327,891 25 

Alternatives 250,000 21 258,365 21 259,206 20 263,090 20 

Problem ID and Referral 250,000 21 258,365 21 259,206 20 263,090 20 

Community-Based 

Process 100,000 8 108,365 9 129,603 10 133,486 10 

Environmental 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 59,997 5 68,175 5 129,603 10 129,603 10 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 1,198,747 100 1,248,750 100 1,296,030 100 1,315,449 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

478 
Inventory of State Profiles New Hampshire 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Treatment services are provided through a competitive bid contracts with community-based nonprofit service providers. Treatment services provided by DPHS include social detoxification, 

outpatient, intensive outpatient, short- and long-term residential treatment services, specialized 

services for women and children, as well as outpatient and residential services for adolescents. 

DPHS also provides outpatient methadone maintenance services. 

A workgroup has been established to develop a plan to create a co-occurring disorders treatment 

program for individuals with serious behavioral health and substance abuse problems that do not 

rise to the level of severe and persistently mentally ill (SPMI), as current treatment facilities to do not 

specifically accommodate these persons. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment funding increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $7.4 to $9.1 million. During that time 

period, the Block Grant’s proportion of treatment funding declined from 60 to 53 percent, while the 

State’s proportion increased from 38 to 46 percent. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002 Block Grant treatment funding per capita increased from $3.59 to 

$3.80. In FY 2003, treatment funding per capita remained stable at $3.80. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

2% 1% 

SAPT Block State

SAPT Block 46% 

Grant 

State Grant 

38% 53%

60%

N=$7,447,326 N=$9,145,582 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

479 
New Hampshire Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,447,816 60 4,698,932 60 4,849,283 56 4,895,715 53 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 163,516 2 236,582 3 24,413 0 63,332 1 

State 2,835,994 38 2,835,869 36 3,805,756 44 4,186,535 46 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 7,447,326 100 7,771,383 100 8,679,452 100 9,145,582 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

New Hampshire’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 6,000 persons were admitted 

to treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=5,961) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 0 0 1,049 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 0 0 698 

Long-term residential 0 0 239 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 0 0 3,693 

Intensive outpatient 0 0 282 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 0 0 5,961 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate nearly 5,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 11 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of 

alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see 

Appendix D: Methodology.) 

480 
Inventory of State Profiles New Hampshire 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 1,616 10.5 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 3,126 11.5 

Total 4,742 11.2 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 93,000 persons aged 12 and older (8.7 

percent of New Hampshire’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

32,000 persons (3.0 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in New 

Hampshire. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 8.64 7.33 22.30 6.69 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 3.01 6.54 10.57 1.35 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; data are combined for 2002 and 2003 

481 
New Hampshire Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

DPHS relies on a variety of external agencies and community-based initiatives to assist in assessing 

the need for services. These resources include the Suicide Prevention Coalition, Prenatal and 

Women’s Services Task Force, Juvenile Justice State Advisory Group, Child Welfare Advisory 

Council, Health Care Transition Fund Advisory Group, Interbranch and Juvenile Justice Committee, 

as well as Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), Youth Risk Behavior Survey, DWI arrests, 

Juvenile Justice Drug Related Arrests, and Regional United Way Needs Assessments. A formal 

treatment needs assessment was funded by CSAT in 2000 and is utilized for treatment planning. 

For prevention planning, technical assistance is being provided to assess prevention needs 

assessment capabilities and to develop a plan for improving the system. 

New Hampshire uses a variety of resources for planning substance abuse treatment and prevention 

services. The DHHS develops a substance abuse treatment plan based on needs assessment 

findings through the ongoing State Health Planning Process. In conjunction with this effort, the 

Governor’s Commission on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse is engaged in a statewide needs 

assessment and planning initiative, which will result in recommendations and actions to further 

enhance treatment and prevention services in the State. 

Evaluation 

DPHS monitors its contracted providers through ongoing annual site visits, case record reviews, and 

periodic technical assistance visits by DPHS’s central office staff. In addition, DPHS has two staff 

specialists to directly oversee HIV and TB issues with contracted treatment providers. 

New Hampshire monitors its prevention contractors through monthly prevention tracking forms 

(based on the six Center for Substance Abuse Prevention strategies), annual site reviews, and 

quarterly work plan/reports. The work plans include meeting the projected target audience, progress 

towards proposed outcomes, levels of collaboration with other resources, and quality improvement. 

Training and Assistance 

DPHS offers a variety of training and technical assistance opportunities to its prevention and 

treatment workforce including a contract with the NH Training Institute for prevention and treatment 

related trainings. DPHS staff provides technical assistance to providers that focus on evidencebased strategies. DPHS also offers the Prevention Seminar Series five times a year and sponsors 

the New Hampshire Substance Abuse Conference, which deals with both treatment and prevention 

topics and draws over 300 participants. Other agencies also offer training and assistance, including 

the Northeast CAPT, which offers training and assistance consistent with the prevention core 

competencies and performance domains; the Training Institute; and the New England School of 

Prevention Studies (for which DPHS provides scholarships). 

482 
Inventory of State Profiles New Hampshire 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

New Hampshire did not report spending any funds on resource development activities during FYs 

2000 through 2003. 

New Hampshire did not report any 

expenditures for resource 

development activities from FY 2000 

through FY 2003. 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment N/R** - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Quality Assurance N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Training N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Education N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Program Development N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Research and Evaluation N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Information Systems N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Total* N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

** N/R = Not Reported 

483 
New Hampshire Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded over $3.2 million in discretionary 

funding to New Hampshire in FY 2004. The greatest number of awards was for Drug Free 

Communities (10 of 11 awards), while the largest single award was for the Strategic Prevention 

Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 10 886,336 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Total 11 3,237,301 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded one discretionary grant to New 

Hampshire which totaled nearly $300,000. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 1 294,350 

Total 1 294,350 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

484 
NEW JERSEY 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Raquel Mazon Jeffers, Acting Director 

Division of Addiction Services 

New Jersey Department of Human Services 

120 South Stockton Street, PO Box 362 

Trenton, NJ 08625-0362 

Phone: 609-292-5760 

Fax: 609-292-3816 

E-mail: raquel.jeffers @dhs.state.nj.us 

Web site: www.state.nj.us/humanservices/das/index/htm 

Structure and Function 

The Division of Addiction Services (DAS), Department of Human Services, is the Single 

State Agency (SSA) for New Jersey and is responsible for prevention and treatment policy 

and programs, licensing substance abuse treatment agencies, protecting patients in 

substance abuse treatment, and collecting data on substance abuse issues. 

The Office of Prevention and Training Services within DAS contracts for community-based 

prevention education and early intervention services. The Office of Quality Treatment funds, 

monitors, and supports, through contracting and regulation, substance abuse treatment programs 

statewide. The Office of Network Development and Capacity Expansion maintains, manages, 

develops, and licenses substance abuse treatment agencies, as well as administers and monitors 

activities related to county planning and addiction treatment program development. The Office of 

Planning and New Initiatives maximizes DAS’ access to addiction resources and supports 

development of new and innovative services to treat and prevent substance use disorders. The 

Office of Policy Development is responsible for forming policy and for the integration of information 

systems management, research, quality effective treatment, and public awareness efforts. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Human 

Services 

Office of the 

Director 

Office of 

Intradepartmental 

Relations 

Office of 

Administrative 

Services 

Office of Prevention 

and Training 

Services 

Office of 

Quality 

Treatment 

Office of Network 

Development and 

Capacity Expansion 

Office of Planning 

and New Initiatives 

Office of Policy 

Development 

Division of 

Addiction Services 

(DAS) 

485 
New Jersey Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

SSA funding increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $97.6 to $106.3 million. During this time, 

State funding increased by nearly $10 million, from $46.7 million to $56.6 million. The proportion of 

expenditures from the different funding sources remained fairly stable from FYs 2000 to 2003, with 

the State providing most of the funds (ranging from 48 to 53 percent), followed closely by the Block 

Grant (providing 44 to 46 percent of the total). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other 

Local

2% 

Federal 

4% 

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant

Grant State 44% State 

46% 48% 54% 

Local 

2% 

N=$97,583,476 N=$106,294,321 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 45,111,530 46 45,917,338 44 46,896,236 44 47,139,236 44 

Medicaid* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 3,478,588 4 5,607,972 5 1,462,801 1 319,585 0 

State 46,740,854 48 49,794,590 48 56,258,000 53 56,553,000 53 

Local 2,252,504 2 2,261,999 2 2,282,500 2 2,282,500 2 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total** 97,583,476 100 103,581,899 100 106,899,537 100 106,294,321 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Medicaid figures are not reported as the SSA does not directly receive reimbursement; rather, providers directly receive 

reimbursement 

** Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

486 
Inventory of State Profiles New Jersey 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

In New Jersey most (85 percent) of the SSA funds in FY 2003 were spent on treatment services, 

and 11 percent were spent on prevention services. In FY 2000, the distribution of SSA funds was 

similar. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

13% 

HIV Early Treatment 11% Treatment 

85% 82% HIV Early Intervention 

2% Intervention 

2% 

Administration Administration 3% 

2% 

N=$97,583,476 N=$106,294,321 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 85,514,561 83 91,560,882 86 90,708,838 85 

Alcohol Treatment 30,058,355 31 0 0 

Drug Treatment 50,127,291 51 0 0 

Prevention 12,225,998 13 13,773,429 13 10,956,895 10 11,332,318 11 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 2,272,596 2 2,316,929 2 2,340,943 2 2,356,962 2 

Administration 2,899,236 3 1,976,980 2 2,040,817 2 1,896,203 2 

Total* 97,583,476 100 103,581,899 100 106,899,537 100 106,294,321 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

487 
New Jersey Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant funds in New Jersey remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from 

$45.1 to $47.1 million). In FY 2003, the majority (69 percent) of funds were allocated for treatment, 

followed by about one-quarter for prevention services, 5 percent for HIV early intervention, and 3 

percent for administration costs. The distribution of Block Grant expenditures in FY 2000 was similar 

to that in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

20% Prevention Treatment Treatment 23% 

HIV Early 69% 72% HIV Early Intervention 

Intervention 5% 

5% Administration 

3% Administration 

3% 

N=$45,111,530 N=$47,139,236 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 32,302,815 70 33,037,563 70 32,660,983 69 

Alcohol Treatment 12,063,237 27 0 0 

Drug Treatment 20,105,393 45 0 0 

Prevention 9,156,001 20 9,769,734 21 9,907,508 21 10,679,913 23 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 2,272,596 5 2,316,929 5 2,340,943 5 2,356,962 5 

Administration 1,514,303 3 1,527,860 3 1,610,222 3 1,441,378 3 

Total* 45,111,530 100 45,917,338 100 46,896,236 100 47,139,236 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

488 
Inventory of State Profiles New Jersey 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures rose considerably between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $46.7 to $56.6 million). 

During this time period, most (95-98 percent) of the funds were spent on treatment services. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

2% Treatment Prevention Treatment 98% 1% 95% Administration 

3% Administration 

1% 

N=$46,740,854 N=$56,553,000 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 48,114,737 97 54,875,550 98 55,445,770 98 

Alcohol Treatment 16,631,061 36 0 0 

Drug Treatment 27,718,435 59 0 0 

Prevention 1,006,425 2 1,230,733 2 951,855 2 652,405 1 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,384,933 3 449,120 1 430,595 1 454,825 1 

Total* 46,740,854 100 49,794,590 100 56,258,000 100 56,553,000 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

489 
New Jersey Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

DAS funds competitive community-based contracts to deliver prevention services in the State. The 

contracts are funded based on priorities that result from the needs assessment organized by the 21 

County Offices on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. Prevention contractees are required to provide 

services to the target populations identified by the County Planning Committees, follow a sciencebased curriculum, have a Certified Prevention Specialist on staff, and provide services consistent 

with the “Standards for Agencies Providing Substance Abuse Prevention Services.” 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, prevention expenditures in New Jersey declined from $12.2 to $11.3 

million. In FY 2003, nearly all (94 percent) of prevention funds were derived from the Block Grant 

and 6 percent came from the State. By contrast, in FY 2000, three-fourths of prevention funds came 

from the Block Grant, 8 percent came from the State, and 17 percent from other Federal sources. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002, Block Grant prevention funds ranged from $1.09 and $1.16 per capita. 

In FY 2003, per capita prevention funds increased to $1.24. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other SAPT Block SAPT Block Federal Grant Grant 

17% 94% State 75% 

6% 

State 

8% 

N=$12,225,998 N=$11,332,318 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

490 
Inventory of State Profiles New Jersey 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 9,156,001 75 9,769,734 71 9,907,508 90 10,679,913 94 

Other Federal 2,063,572 17 2,772,962 20 97,532 1 0 0 

State 1,006,425 8 1,230,733 9 951,855 9 652,405 6 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 12,225,998 100 13,773,429 100 10,956,895 100 11,332,318 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

The “We Check for 21 Too” initiative increases parental 

awareness of the negative consequences associated with 

underage drinking. 

Education The “Training for Strengthening Families Program” targets ages 

6 through 12 and 10 through 14. 

Alternatives 

Alternatives include a parenting project that takes a core group 

of parents who encourage other parents to support values that 

do not encourage underage drinking. 

Community-Based Processes 

Anti-alcohol and drug advertisements are displayed on 

billboards, milk cartons, paper placemats, shopping bags, and 

in newspapers. 

Environmental Twelve colleges received subgrants to implement a social 

norms campaign. 

Problem Identification and Referral Funds support a toll-free 24-hour telephone information and 

referral service. 

491 
New Jersey Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

In FY 2003 Block Grant funding in New Jersey for prevention core strategies totaled $10.7 million. 

During this time period, education received about half of the funds, and the remainder was disbursed 

among a wide variety of strategies. Funding for community-based processes increased substantially 

from FY 2000 to 2003, from $366,000 to $2.2 million. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Problem ID Alternatives Problem ID 

and Referral 8% 5% and Referral 

5% 10% 

CommunityEducation Based CommunityProcess Education 56% Based

4% 48% Process 

Environmental 21% 

18% Environmental 

Information 6% N=$9,156,001 Dissemination N=$10,679,913 Information 

Dissemination

9% 10% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 824,040 9 879,276 9 974,303 10 1,067,991 10 

Education 5,127,361 56 5,471,051 56 4,887,183 49 5,126,358 48 

Alternatives 732,480 8 781,579 8 544,718 5 533,996 5 

Problem ID and Referral 457,800 5 488,487 5 908,514 9 1,067,991 10 

Community-Based Process 366,240 4 390,789 4 1,800,970 18 2,242,782 21 

Environmental 1,648,080 18 1,758,552 18 791,820 8 640,795 6 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 9,156,001 100 9,769,734 100 9,907,508 100 10,679,913 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

492 
Inventory of State Profiles New Jersey 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

New Jersey strives to increase client access to drug and alcohol treatment services and appropriate 

levels of care through a strong emphasis on its “no wrong door” philosophy. As part of this 

philosophy, DAS has increased co-occurring funding to addictions treatment agencies and 

developed close working relationships with the New Jersey Division of Mental Health Services. 

DAS maintains a continuum of substance abuse treatment services that includes inpatient, 

outpatient, and post-treatment recovery support. In FY 2004, it expanded and enhanced this 

continuum of services by funding additional Methadone Intensive Outpatient programs. DAS funded 

Residential Assisted Partial Care Programs where clients live in a Department of Consumer Affairs 

licensed facility and are transported to receive treatment and/or supportive services. DAS also 

funded a new 50-bed adolescent residential program that accepts adolescents with co-occurring 

disorders. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment funding in New Jersey increased by about $10 million between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from 

$80.2 to $90.7 million). During this time period, the State’s proportion of these funds increased from 

55 to 61 percent, while the Block Grant’s proportion declined from 40 to 36 percent. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002, treatment expenditures in New Jersey ranged from $3.81 to $3.85 per 

capita. In FY 2003, per capita treatment funds declined slightly to $3.78. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Other 

Federal 

2% 

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant State 

Grant State 36% 61% 

55% 40% 

Local 

Local N=$80,185,646 3% N=$90,709,111 

3% 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

493 
New Jersey Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 32,168,630 40 32,302,815 38 33,037,563 36 32,660,983 36 

Medicaid* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 1,415,016 2 2,835,010 3 1,365,269 1 319,858 0 

State 44,349,496 55 48,114,737 56 54,875,550 60 55,445,770 61 

Local 2,252,504 3 2,261,999 3 2,282,500 2 2,282,500 3 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total** 80,185,646 100 85,514,561 100 91,560,882 100 90,709,111 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Medicaid figures are not reported as the SSA does not directly receive reimbursement; rather, providers directly receive 

reimbursement 

** Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

New Jersey’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 43,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for detoxification, short-term residential and 

outpatient (non-methadone). 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=42,647) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 1,968 7,311 5 

Free-standing residential 1,712 2,990 11 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 124 166 2 

Short-term residential 1,374 2,684 24 

Long-term residential 403 2,810 7 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 35 2,931 24 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 4,248 5,459 28 

Intensive outpatient 2,202 3,684 24 

Detoxification (outpatient) 25 2,396 0 

TOTAL 12,091 30,431 125 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data—which include programs funded through the Block Grant 

and programs that are not—indicate more than 54,000 admissions (where at least one substance is 

known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 6 percent of 

persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or 

drug use. This rate did not vary when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in 

combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: 

Methodology.) 

494 
Inventory of State Profiles New Jersey 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 8,626 6.6 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 45,889 6.0 

Total 54,515 6.1 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 412,000 persons aged 12 and older (5.8 

percent of New Jersey’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

161,000 persons (2.3 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in New 

Jersey. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 5.81 4.97 15.91 4.48 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.27 4.64 7.07 1.28 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

495 
New Jersey Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

DAS conducts treatment needs assessment studies that include a statewide telephone household 

survey; a survey of the mental health population; a social indicator study that functions as a primary 

planning document for County Coordinators and other local planners; a capture-recapture analysis 

to estimate treatment need; an analysis of client level treatment data; and a study that links 

administrative databases such as hospital discharge data, mortality records, and mental health 

treatment service records. The treatment needs assessment studies also provide estimates for 

prevention needs in the State. Data from the needs assessment activities have a major impact on 

both treatment and prevention planning. 

Evaluation 

DAS supports a peer review process that uses credentialed professionals from the Addiction 

Treatment Providers of New Jersey organization to assure the quality of care that is delivered to 

substance abuse patients and to improve the system of care. The peer review process generates 

independent suggestions for service delivery improvement. In addition to records review, the staff’s 

treatment knowledge, skill levels, and attitude are analyzed by a questionnaire survey. Also 

evaluated are the intake process and appropriateness of the admissions, appropriateness of the 

treatment plans, specificity of the documentation with regard to treatment plan implementation and 

patient progress, appropriateness of the discharge and aftercare plan, and evidence of treatment 

outcome. Further, the peer review process assesses the physical environment, staffing pattern, and 

staff training provisions. 

New Jersey requires that its funded prevention programs measure and document their program’s 

progress towards meeting its goals and objectives. In applying for funding, they must provide the 

evaluation instrument to be used, who will be collecting the data, the timeframes for data collection, 

and provide credentials for the individual who will be preparing their year end evaluation report. 

Additionally, the New Jersey Middle School Survey, based on the Communities That Care Survey, 

collects prevalence data on substance use and related behaviors, including risk and protective 

factors. 

Training and Assistance 

DAS funds the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence of New Jersey (NCADD-NJ) 

to organize and manage a statewide training and education system for persons delivering alcohol, 

tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) services. Courses are available for staff seeking certification. DAS 

also continues to fund the Professional Development Initiative and training by the 

AddictionTreatment Providers of New Jersey. In addition, the Office of Prevention and Training 

Services trains agencies to implement the Strengthening Families program, and works closely with 

the Alcohol and Drug Counselor Committee of the State Board of Marriage and Family Therapy 

Examiners. 

A workforce development plan has been drafted to identify parameters for clinical supervision, 

university field placement supervision, a mentoring program for provider staff, as well as 

scholarships for continuing education programs. 

496 
Inventory of State Profiles New Jersey 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

SAPT Block Grant funding for resource development activities in New Jersey increased between 

FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $7.6 to $8.7 million). In FY 2003, the largest recipient of Block Grant funds 

is training (receiving 58 percent of the total), whereas in FY 2000, the largest recipient was quality 

assurance (receiving 67 percent of the total). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities

Planning, Planning, 

Coordination, Coordination, 

Needs Needs 

Assessment Assessment

15% 15% 

Information 

Training 

Information 

Systems Systems Quality 26% 58% 18% Assurance 

Education 67% 

1% 

N=$7,644,268 N=$8,664,706 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 1,132,530 15 1,152,700 15 1,167,656 15 1,292,199 15 

Quality Assurance 5,161,528 68 4,618,323 62 4,806,965 61 0 0 

Training 10,000 0 100,000 1 100,000 1 5,004,442 58 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 1 

Program Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Research and Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Information Systems 1,340,210 18 1,609,737 22 1,829,744 23 2,268,065 26 

Total* 7,644,268 100 7,480,760 100 7,904,365 100 8,664,706 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

497 
New Jersey Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded nearly $1.1 million in discretionary 

prevention funding in FY 2004 in New Jersey. Most funds are allocated for drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 10 825,722 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 1 250,000 

Total 11 1,075,722 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded more than $7.1 million in discretionary 

funding for treatment in New Jersey in FY 2004. Most funds ($4 of the $7.1 million) are earmarked 

for ATR. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Access to Recovery (ATR) 1 4,048,918 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 230,893 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 2 796,400 

Recovery Community Service 1 224,997 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 4 1,837,664 

Total 9 7,138,872 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

498 
NEW MEXICO 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Karen Meador, Director 

Behavioral Health Services Division 

New Mexico Department of Health 

Harold Runnels Building 

1190 St. Francis Drive, Room N 3300 

Sante Fe, NM 87502 

Phone: 505-827-2658 

Fax: 505-827-0097 

E-mail: karen.meador@state.nm.us 

Web site: www.newmexico.gov/government.php 

Structure and Function 

The Department of Health (DOH), Behavioral Health Services Division (BHSD), is 

New Mexico’s Single State Agency (SSA) for substance abuse. BHSD contracts for 

behavioral health services, including mental health, alcoholism, and other substance 

abuse services; establishes standards for service delivery; establishes criteria for 

determining individual eligibility for services; and maintains a management 

information system for reporting clinical and fiscal information. Its mission is to 

provide an effective, accessible, regionally coordinated and integrated continuum of 

behavioral health prevention and treatment services. These services are consumer-driven and 

provided in the least restrictive setting for eligible persons so that they may become stabilized and 

their functioning levels may improve. 

A primary task of BHSD is the implementation of a regional care coordination system. Regional care 

coordinators for five regions contract and oversee treatment services in their respective region. 

BHSD regional program managers act as liaisons to coordinate and oversee efforts of regional care 

coordinators. The BHSD’s Prevention Services Bureau (PSB) staff manages statewide prevention 

services and serves as liaisons to monitor services and contractual accountability in the regions. 

On July 1, 2005, BHSD partnered with several New Mexico State agencies in the development and 

implementation of the New Mexico Interagency Behavioral Health Purchasing Collaborative service 

delivery system. More information regarding the Collaborative can be found at: 

www.state.nm.us/hsd/bhdwg. In addition, BHSD has since reorganized the BHSD to better support 

the Collaborative goals and objectives. The new structure consists of two bureaus: (1) Operations 

and Community Support Bureau and (2) Practice and Workforce Development Bureau. Staff who 

oversee Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention services are housed within both bureaus. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health (DOH) 

Behavioral Health Services Division 

(BHSD) 

Prevention Services Bureau 

(PSB) 

5 Regions 

Community-Based Services Bureau 

499 
New Mexico Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Total SSA funding in New Mexico increased substantially between FYs 2000 and 2003, from $21.7 

million in FY 2000 to $35.1 million in FY 2003. This increase was mainly due to a large increase in 

State funds during this time period. In FY 2003, the majority (63 percent) of SSA funds came from 

the State, 25 percent came from the Block Grant, and 12 percent were from other Federal sources. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

16% 12% 

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant

Grant 25%

38%

State State 

46% 63% 

N=$21,681,140 N=$35,084,983 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 8,261,541 38 8,364,410 27 8,116,336 24 8,614,912 25 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 3,494,948 16 4,718,370 15 4,850,201 14 4,226,704 12 

State 9,924,651 46 17,889,585 58 20,558,285 61 22,243,367 63 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 21,681,140 100 30,972,365 100 33,524,822 100 35,084,983 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

500 
Inventory of State Profiles New Mexico 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

From FYs 2000 to 2003, the majority of SSA funds went toward treatment services (57 percent or 

greater), followed by prevention services (ranging from 22 to 34 percent), and administrative costs (9 

to15 percent). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

34% 22% 

Treatment 

Treatment 63%

57%

Administration Administration 

9% 15% 

N=$21,681,140 N=$35,084,983 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 21,315,615 64 22,203,382 63 

Alcohol Treatment 6,692,011 31 10,767,567 35 

Drug Treatment 5,621,458 26 10,215,555 33 

Prevention 7,348,509 34 7,513,108 24 10,269,315 31 7,588,143 22 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 2,019,162 9 2,476,135 8 1,939,892 6 5,293,458 15 

Total* 21,681,140 100 30,972,365 100 33,524,822 100 35,084,983 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

501 
New Mexico Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, Block Grant expenditures in New Mexico remained relatively stable, 

ranging from $8.3 to $8.6 million. The allocation of Block Grant expenditures also remained stable 

during that time period, with 68 percent of funds going toward treatment services in FY 2003, 27 

percent toward prevention services, and 5 percent toward administration costs. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention

25% 27% Treatment Treatment

70% 68% 

Administration Administration

5% 5% 

N=$8,261,541 N=$8,614,912 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 5,605,328 69 5,882,851 68 

Alcohol Treatment 2,891,541 35 3,030,524 36 

Drug Treatment 2,891,541 35 3,097,743 37 

Prevention 2,066,544 25 1,965,135 23 2,176,048 27 2,343,564 27 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 411,915 5 271,008 3 334,960 4 388,497 5 

Total* 8,261,541 100 8,364,410 100 8,116,336 100 8,614,912 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

502 
Inventory of State Profiles New Mexico 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, State expenditures for alcohol and drug abuse services more than 

doubled (from $9.9 to $22.2 million), with most of the increase going towards treatment services. 

Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of FY 2003 State funds were spent on treatment services, with the 

remaining funds split between prevention services (17 percent) and administration costs (20 

percent). 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 17% 

22% 

Treatment 

Treatment 63% 

66% 

Administration Administration 20%

12% 

N=$9,924,651 N=$22,243,367 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 14,747,504 72 14,074,316 63 

Alcohol Treatment 3,800,470 38 6,970,253 39 

Drug Treatment 2,729,917 28 7,117,812 40 

Prevention 2,180,461 22 2,049,549 11 4,514,876 22 3,677,961 17 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,213,803 12 1,751,971 10 1,295,905 6 4,491,090 20 

Total* 9,924,651 100 17,889,585 100 20,558,285 100 22,243,367 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

503 
New Mexico Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The BHSD’s Prevention Services Bureau (PSB) ensures that there is a comprehensive continuum of 

prevention services in place through contracts with community coalitions and community-based 

programs. Consistent throughout New Mexico’s prevention system is the philosophy that prevention 

strategies and programs are best formulated at the local level. The system is designed to empower 

local communities and prevention providers. The programs are located throughout New Mexico and 

provide a wide variety of prevention services. Each program submits a community needs 

assessment, a community plan, an implementation plan, and an outcome evaluation plan. 

Two targeted initiatives are in place to respond to the unique needs of border communities and 

Native American populations. The Border Initiative Grant Program addresses the needs of 

communities on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border and provides opportunities for the 

collaboration of American and Mexican prevention advocates. The State also fosters development of 

prevention leadership within the Native American community. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention expenditures in New Mexico rose slightly from FYs 2000 to 2003, totaling $7.6 million in 

FY 2003. The State provided most (48 percent) of prevention funding in FY 2003, followed by the 

Block Grant (31 percent), and other Federal sources (21 percent of the total). This distribution 

represents a change from earlier years when other Federal monies comprised 42 percent of total 

expenditures (in FY 2000), followed by the Block Grant (30 percent) and the State (28 percent). 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant prevention expenditures per capita ranged from $1.07 

to $1.25. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Other Source

Federal Other 

State

30% 

42% Federal 

21% 

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant 

Grant 28% 

31% 

State 

48% 

N=$7,348,509 N=$7,588,143 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

504 
Inventory of State Profiles New Mexico 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 2,066,544 28 1,965,135 26 2,176,048 21 2,343,564 31 

Other Federal 3,101,504 42 3,498,424 47 3,578,391 35 1,566,618 21 

State 2,180,461 30 2,049,549 27 4,514,876 44 3,677,961 48 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 7,348,509 100 7,513,108 100 10,269,315 100 7,588,143 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include the following: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Monthly public service announcements to local media raise awareness 

of laws pertaining to alcohol sales. Posters, stickers, and other 

materials are distributed to merchants explaining laws regarding 

tobacco sales to youth. 

Education Activities include SMART Moves curriculum to 200 youth and 12 weekly 

classes for parents of Dare to Be You programming. 

Alternatives 

Alternative strategies include intergenerational community service 

projects through a National Indian Youth Leadership program and 

afterschool programming for 70 Indian youth. 

Community-Based Processes 

Funds helped establish a Caring Community Committee with 

representatives from schools, youth, and parents, as well as two 

community clean-up events. 

Environmental 

The BHSD introduced a 10-percent local options gross receipts tax on 

alcohol and developed and implemented the Mescalero Apache Tribal 

resolution prohibiting sales of tobacco to minors on the reservation. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

A Mental Health/Substance Abuse Program Directory was developed 

and provided to all programs. A 1-800 Information/Hotline is available 

for information and referrals. 

505 
New Mexico Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Although Block Grant funding for core prevention strategies in New Mexico remained relatively 

stable between FYs 2000 and 2003 (totaling $2.3 million in FY 2003), the distribution of funds shifted 

somewhat. The largest shift was among funding for alternative strategies (which decreased from 17 

percent of total funding in FY 2000 to 1 percent in FY 2003). In FY 2003, most of the Block Grant 

funding went toward community-based process (43 percent) and education activities (25 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core Strategy 

Strategy Problem ID 

Alternatives and Referral 

Education Alternatives Education 1% 1% 

Information 17% 17% 25% 

Community- Dissemination Problem ID Based 8% and Referral Process Section 1926 ­ 8% Information 43% Tobacco Dissemination

1% 13% Environmental 

9% Community- Section 1926 - Environmental 

Based Tobacco 7% 

N=$2,066,544 10% N=$2,343,564 Process

40%

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 

169,545 8 183,732 9 287,238 13 309,350 13 

Education 355,587 17 548,197 28 548,364 25 590,579 25 

Alternatives 355,587 17 365,464 19 23,936 1 25,779 1 

Problem ID and Referral 173,934 8 91,366 5 21,760 1 23,436 1 

Community-Based 

Process 816,521 40 456,830 23 922,644 42 993,671 43 

Environmental 177,785 9 184,732 9 154,502 7 166,393 7 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 17,585 1 134,814 7 217,604 10 234,356 10 

Total* 2,066,544 100 1,965,135 100 2,176,048 100 2,343,564 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

506 
Inventory of State Profiles New Mexico 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Substance abuse treatment services are provided in the five regions through contracts that are 

based on a system of community care. The continuum of care includes outpatient treatment, 

intensive outpatient treatment, nonresidential partial hospitalization, residential treatment, and 

inpatient treatment services. Cross-regional access is arranged for rural regions that are unable to 

provide a regional residential or inpatient treatment resource. The target populations for services are 

those who are poor, underinsured, or uninsured. The Interagency Behavioral Health Purchasing 

Collaborative, established in FY 2005 and through the State’s RFP process, awarded the FY 2006 

statewide behavioral health contract to ValueOptions-New Mexico. The collaborative receives input 

from the Governor’s Behavioral Health Planning Council. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, treatment funds increased dramatically, from $12.3 to $22.2 million. 

This increase was driven largely by an increase in State funding during that time period. In FY 2003, 

close to two-thirds of FY 2003 funds originated from the State, 26 percent from the Block Grant, and 

10 percent from other Federal sources. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant expenditures on treatment and rehabilitation services 

ranged from $3.02 to $3.34 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Other 

Federal 

10% 

SAPT Block 

Grant

SAPT Block 

State Grant State 

53% 47% 26%

64% 

N=$12,313,469 N=$22,203,382 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

507 
New Mexico Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 5,783,082 47 6,128,267 29 5,605,328 26 5,882,851 26 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 0 0 766,790 4 962,783 5 2,246,215 10 

State 6,530,387 53 14,088,065 67 14,747,504 69 14,074,316 64 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 12,313,469 100 20,983,122 100 21,315,615 100 22,203,382 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

New Mexico’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 14,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=13,755) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 118 268 0 

Free-standing residential 449 0 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 864 285 0 

Long-term residential 275 128 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 590 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 7,985 2,629 0 

Intensive outpatient 0 0 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 113 51 0 

Total 9,804 3,951 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate nearly 2,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that nearly 19 percent of 

persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or 

drug use. This rate varied slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in 

combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: 

Methodology.) 

508 
Inventory of State Profiles New Mexico 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where At 

Least One Substance 

is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 805 16.1 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 1,027 20.3 

Total 1,832 18.5 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

Note: In November 2005, New Mexico resubmitted their TEDS data for admissions beginning July 

1, 2001 through June 30, 2005. Upon review of this profile, the SSA indicated that the following 

information more adequately reflects the substance abuse admissions by primary diagnosis for the 

2002 calendar year: 

Admissions 

2002 

Total Admissions 

Alcohol only 2,688 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 1,090 

Other drug 1,754 

Other/Unknown 1,179 

Total 6,711 

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 142,000 persons aged 12 and older (9.4 

percent of New Mexico’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

53,000 persons (3.5 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in New 

Mexico. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol us e 

9.40 7.46 21.52 7.45 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 3.50 5.64 10.19 1.92 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

509 
New Mexico Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

BHSD uses a number of methodologies to review its five regions to determine the highest incidence, 

prevalence, and the greatest needs. A needs assessment based on input from a series of statewide 

focus groups, interviews with providers and others in the behavioral health system, analysis of State 

agency databases, computer projections, and comparisons with national and regional statistics form 

the basis of planning. In addition, estimates of regional drug dependence come from the National 

Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). 

One of the BHSD’s long-established planning methodologies is the support provided by the 

Department of Health’s Division of Epidemiology (EPI). BHSD uses EPI reports in planning and 

providing strategic direction regarding what services need to be funded. EPI is instrumental in 

assisting BHSD to reallocate behavioral health funding in a more equitable distribution using a 

weighted factor formula. EPI also maintains a major role in conducting and providing data from the 

Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System that is useful for planning prevention services. 

Evaluation 

Regional care coordinators are responsible for quality assurance. Each regional quality assurance 

office conducts independent reviews of all substance abuse treatment programs in their respective 

regions. Included in this review process are quarterly chart audits and annual site visits. Technical 

assistance and corrective action plans have been required in such areas as treatment goal setting, 

discharge planning, cultural issues documentation, and implementation of the Addiction Severity 

Index. 

The Quality Management Bureau of the Division of Health Improvement (DHI), a sister division to 

BHSD, monitors all substance abuse providers for SAPT Block Grant requirements. BHSD staff 

accompanies DHI staff on onsite visits to monitor and evaluate contract providers. The site visit 

includes a review of policies and procedures. BHSD oversight also involves tracking reports and 

providing technical assistance. 

Prevention providers are required to monitor and evaluate their programs, with assistance, when 

needed from BHSD and the Southwest Center for the Application of Prevention Technology. New 

Mexico is moving toward outcome monitoring as a way to evaluate its array of statewide prevention 

strategies. 

Training and Assistance 

Statewide training is provided for prevention and treatment service providers, interagency groups, 

regional care coordinators, State facilities personnel, Native American project staff, consumers, 

college students, and other professionals providing ancillary services in the five BHSD regions. In 

addition, training is conducted to promote best practice models for co-occurring and 

pharmacotherapy interventions and for women’s service issues. 

BHSD continues to be the primary sponsor of the annual Southwest Regional Behavioral Health 

Conference and co-sponsor of the Four Corners Training Consortium with courses on 12 core 

functions. The statewide Web site posts educational events for consideration. Other training 

activities include the Prevention Training Program that conducts workshops in all regions; a strategic 

plan that promotes professional certification and credentialing; creation of the New Mexico 

Prevention Training Coursework Matrix; and collaboration with the DWI program to promote 

professional credentialing. 

510 
Inventory of State Profiles New Mexico 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities increased slightly from FYs 2000 to 2003, 

from $1.1 to $1.3 million. Funds were fairly evenly spread among activities such as planning, 

coordination, and needs assessment; program development; research and evaluation; training; and 

quality assurance. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities Planning, Quality Planning, Quality 

Coordination, 

Program 

Development

21% 

Assurance Coordination, Assurance

Needs 15% Needs 14% 

Assessment Assessment

20% 21% 

Information Information Training 

Systems Training Systems 27% 

8% 26% 8% 

Research and Research and 

Evaluation Evaluation 

10% N=$1,090,913 10% Program 

Development N=$1,296,350

20% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 217,797 20 226,673 20 247,356 21 272,043 21 

Quality Assurance 164,443 15 174,425 15 166,177 14 182,810 14 

Training 288,609 26 302,785 26 312,621 27 343,897 27 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 224,820 21 237,112 21 235,697 20 259,273 20 

Research and Evaluation 106,413 10 110,482 10 122,527 10 134,781 10 

Information Systems 88,831 8 93,528 8 94,122 8 103,546 8 

Total* 1,090,913 100 1,145,005 100 1,178,500 100 1,296,350 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

511 
New Mexico Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded over $5.3 million in discretionary 

funding to New Mexico entities in FY 2004. Most of the awards went to Drug Free Community 

grantees. The largest single award was a Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant 

(SPF SIG). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

CSAP 2004 Earmarks 1 347,935 

Drug Free Communities 14 1,216,602 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 350,000 

Prevention of Meth and Inhalant Use 1 331,856 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreements 1 750,000 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Total 19 5,347,358 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded New Mexico seven discretionary 

grants totaling $12.9 million in FY 2004. Over half ($7.6 million) of the funding went to Access to 

Recovery (ATR) projects and $3.3 million went toward State TCE screening brief intervention referral 

treatment projects. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Access to Recovery 1 7,591,723 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 1 149,115 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 249,435 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 1 600,000 

State TCE Screening Brief Intervention Referral 

Treatment 1 3,346,000 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 1 499,994 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 1 478,853 

Total 7 12,915,120 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

512 
NEW YORK 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Henry F. Zwack, Executive Deputy Commissioner 

New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services 

1450 Western Avenue 

Albany, NY 12203 

Phone: 518-457-1758 

Fax: 518-457-5474 

E-mail: henryzwack@oasas.state.ny.us 

Web site: www.oasas.state.ny.us/www/home.cfm 

Structure and Function 

In New York, the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) 

is the designated Single State Agency (SSA) for administration of the Federal 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant. Located within 

the Department of Mental Hygiene, OASAS has cabinet-level status. It operates 

13 Addiction Treatment Centers that provide short-term inpatient rehabilitation 

treatment services and oversees the Nation’s largest and most diverse addiction 

system, comprising more than 1,200 licensed treatment and 300 prevention providers. Through this 

system, OASAS plans for the future; strengthens communities, schools, and families through 

prevention; assures accessible, cost-effective, quality services; monitors services to ensure they are 

delivered according to applicable standards and in the best interest of New Yorkers; meets individual 

needs through specialized services; links programs with research to improve results; and promotes a 

productive, well-trained workforce. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Mental Hygiene 

Office of Mental Office of Alcoholism and Office of Mental Retardation 

Health Substance Abuse and Developmental 

Services (OASAS) Disabilities

Division of 

Management 

Resources and 

Quality 

Assurance 

Division of 

Financial, Capital, 

and Information and Performance and 

Technology 

Management 

Division of 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Services 

Division of 

Systems/Program 

Analysis 

Affairs 

Division of 

Legal 

Prevention Treatment Systems Addiction 

Services Services Development and Treatment 

Public Education Centers 

513 
New York Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 SSA expenditures in New York increased slightly but steadily from 

$445.1 to $464.3 million. In FY 2003, the State provided 69 percent of total SSA funding, the Block 

Grant provided 25 percent and other Federal sources provided 6 percent. This distribution has 

remained similar since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal

5% 6%

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant State State Grant 24% 69% 71% 25% 

N=$445,087,064 N=$464,284,480 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

100,000,000 

200,000,000 

300,000,000 

400,000,000 

500,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 104,711,014 24 108,498,254 24 111,896,675 24 115,999,936 25 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 22,564,531 5 32,531,701 7 30,797,267 7 29,545,085 6 

State 317,811,519 71 309,733,486 69 315,533,798 69 318,739,459 69 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 445,087,064 100 450,763,441 100 458,227,740 100 464,284,480 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

514 
Inventory of State Profiles New York 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

More than three-fourths (77 percent) of FY 2003 SSA expenditures were spent on treatment 

services, followed by 16 percent on prevention services and 5 percent on administration costs. This 

distribution has remained relatively stable since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

17% 16% 

Treatment HIV Early Treatment HIV Early 73% Intervention 

2% 

Intervention 77% 

2% 

Administration Administration 

8% 5% 

N=$445,087,064 N=$464,284,480 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

100,000,000 

200,000,000 

300,000,000 

400,000,000 

500,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 270,415,078 61 318,072,428 71 346,058,897 76 357,775,191 77 

Alcohol Treatment 24,978,688 6 0 0 

Drug Treatment 30,844,958 7 0 0 

Prevention 75,567,372 17 92,466,624 21 75,134,231 16 74,922,798 16 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 7,355,541 2 6,338,552 1 10,641,333 2 7,272,509 2 

Administration 35,925,427 8 33,885,837 8 26,393,279 6 24,313,982 5 

Total* 445,087,064 100 450,763,441 100 458,227,740 100 464,284,480 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

515 
New York Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures in New York have increased slowly but steadily since FY 2000. In FY 

2003, they reached $116 million. Most (72 percent) of the FY 2003 funds were spent on treatment 

services (up from 66 percent in FY 2000), and 21 percent on prevention services (down from 24 

percent in FY 2000). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

24% 21% 

Treatment Treatment

66% HIV Early HIV Early 72% 

Intervention Intervention 

5% 5% 

Administration Administration 

5% 2% 

N=$104,711,014 N=$115,999,936 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

140,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 13,769,440 13 73,084,861 67 77,671,088 69 83,470,927 72 

Alcohol Treatment 24,978,688 24 0 0 

Drug Treatment 30,556,640 29 0 0 

Prevention 25,534,948 24 24,668,598 23 23,337,739 21 23,845,680 21 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 5,236,603 5 5,424,913 5 5,594,848 5 5,800,010 5 

Administration 4,634,695 5 5,319,882 5 5,293,000 5 2,883,319 2 

Total* 104,711,014 100 108,498,254 100 111,896,675 100 115,999,936 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

516 
Inventory of State Profiles New York 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures increased slightly from $317.8 million in FY 2000 to $319 million in FY 2003. 

Nearly all of the funding (80 percent) in FY 2003 went toward treatment services, 13 percent toward 

prevention services, and 7 percent toward administration costs. This distribution remained relatively 

stable since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

13% Prevention 

HIV Early Treatment Treatment 13% 

79% Intervention 80% 

1% 

Administration 

Administration 7% 

7% 

N=$317,811,519 N=$318,739,459 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

50,000,000 

100,000,000 

150,000,000 

200,000,000 

250,000,000 

300,000,000 

350,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 249,625,498 79 233,635,757 75 247,803,140 79 253,564,695 80 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 288,318 0 0 0 

Prevention 42,176,565 13 55,155,061 18 41,891,149 13 42,507,362 13 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 2,118,938 1 913,639 0 5,046,485 2 1,472,499 0 

Administration 23,602,200 7 20,029,029 6 20,793,024 7 21,194,903 7 

Total* 317,811,519 100 309,733,486 100 315,533,798 100 318,739,459 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

517 
New York Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

OASAS’ Division of Prevention and Treatment Services was created to functionally locate in one 

organizational entity an integrated continuum of prevention, treatment, and recovery resources for 

chemical dependence and compulsive gambling which would facilitate OASAS’ development of 

policies and practices for the field. Its Bureau of Prevention adopted a risk and protective factor 

framework that guides the operation of the entire prevention system. Field offices (located 

organizationally within the Division of Systems/Program Performance and Analysis) provide 

extensive support to prevention providers and local governmental units. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Using Federal discretionary grants and the State Incentive Cooperative Agreement, New York’s 

prevention spending increased in FY 2001 (to $92.5 million) and then, with these grants’ ending, 

declined to $74.9 million in FY 2003. Comparing the initial period of this report (FY 2000) to FY 

2003, however, the proportion of expenditures from the different funding sources remained relatively 

stable. In FY 2003, the largest source of prevention funds was the State (providing 57 percent of the 

total), followed by the Block Grant (32 percent) and other Federal funds (11 percent). 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002 Block Grant prevention expenditures per capita declined slightly (from 

$1.34 to $1.22 per capita); in FY 2003, they totaled $1.24 per capita. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other Other 

Federal Federal

10% 11%

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant

Grant State 32%

34% 57% 

56% 

State 

N=$75,567,372 N=$74,922,798 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

518 
Inventory of State Profiles New York 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 25,534,948 34 24,668,598 27 23,337,739 31 23,845,680 32 

Other Federal 7,855,859 10 12,642,965 14 9,905,343 13 8,569,756 11 

State 42,176,565 56 55,155,061 60 41,891,149 56 42,507,362 57 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 75,567,372 100 92,466,624 100 75,134,231 100 74,922,798 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include the following: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

A listserv is operated by the NE CAPT and moderated by OASAS. 

Revisions were made to the OASAS Web page to provide a more 

visible prevention component. 

Education A training component was developed to assist local providers and 

communities to use data for effective planning. 

Alternatives Local partnerships generate alternative strategies identified through 

the Communities That Care planning process. 

Community-Based Processes 

A working relationship with the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention’s Underage Drinking National Technical 

Assistance Center supports underage drinking teams in the State. 

Media literacy training is provided at the local level. 

Environmental 

Strategies include the distribution of the Healthy Campus 

Communities manual on college alcohol and other drug use 

prevention. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Programming supporting this strategy focuses on high-risk youth 

(indicated populations within the IOM model) and features both 

curriculum -based interventions and at-risk counseling approaches. 

Two SAMHSA Model Programs used across the State are 

Reconnecting Youth and Project Success. Other approaches 

include short-term problem resolution focused individual, family, 

group, and crisis counseling and referral and Student Assistancebased models. 

519 
New York Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for core prevention strategies has remained relatively stable over time, declining 

from $25.5 million in FY 2000 to $23.8 million in FY 2003. The distribution of funds has changed. In 

FY 2003, New York spent an equal proportion of funds (17 percent) on all of the six core strategies. 

This represents a change from previous years when problem identification and referral constituted 

41 percent, education constituted 20 percent, and information dissemination accounted for 13 

percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Education Alternatives Education Alternatives 

20% 8% 16% 17% 

Information Information Problem ID 

Dissemination Problem ID Dissemination and Referral 

13% and Referral 16% 17% 

41% Environmental 

9% Community- Environmental CommunityBased 17% Based N=$23,845,680 

Process N=$25,534,948 Process 

9% 17% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 3,319,543 13 3,206,917 13 3,033,906 13 3,974,280 17 

Education 5,106,990 20 4,933,720 20 4,667,548 20 3,974,280 17 

Alternatives 2,042,796 8 1,973,488 8 1,867,019 8 3,974,280 17 

Problem ID and Referral 10,469,329 41 10,114,125 41 9,568,472 41 3,974,280 17 

Community-Based Process 2,298,145 9 2,220,174 9 2,100,397 9 3,974,280 17 

Environmental 2,298,145 9 2,220,174 9 2,100,397 9 3,974,280 17 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 25,534,948 100 24,668,598 100 23,337,739 100 23,845,680 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

520 
Inventory of State Profiles New York 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

OASAS oversees a treatment continuum of care that includes crisis, inpatient rehabilitation, 

residential, outpatient, and methadone treatment services, and itself operates 13 Addiction 

Treatment Centers. Through OASAS’ Division of Systems/Program Performance and Analysis, 

OASAS brings together information and processes in order to identify emerging needs and capture 

trends, identify and assist struggling providers, develop and adopt evidence-based practices, and 

evaluate data for components that determine success. 

Crisis services are typically short in duration and provided in inpatient or outpatient settings. 

Inpatient rehabilitation services include intensive evaluation and services in a medically supervised 

setting. Residential services offer intensive treatment and rehabilitation, community residential 

services, and supportive living services. Outpatient services are delivered at different levels of 

intensity based on the severity of problems presented and can include medically supervised 

services, outpatient rehabilitation services, and non-medically supervised outpatient services. 

Methadone treatment services administer methadone by prescription in conjunction with a variety of 

other rehabilitative assistance. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, treatment expenditures increased from $326.2 to $357.8 million. In FY 

2003, the State provided the majority (71 percent) of treatment funds (down from 77 percent in FY 

2000), the Block Grant provided 23 percent and other Federal funds provided 6 percent (up from 2 

percent in FY 2000). 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002 Block Grant treatment expenditures per capita in New York increased 

steadily from $3.65 to $4.05 per capita. In FY 2003 they continued to increase to $4.34 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Other Other Federal Federal 

6% 2%

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant State State Grant 23%

77% 71% 21% 

N=$326,238,724 N=$357,775,191 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

50,000,000 

100,000,000 

150,000,000 

200,000,000 

250,000,000 

300,000,000 

350,000,000 

400,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

521 
New York Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 69,304,768 21 73,084,861 23 77,671,088 22 83,470,927 23 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 7,020,140 2 11,351,810 4 20,584,669 6 20,739,569 6 

State 249,913,816 77 233,635,757 73 247,803,140 72 253,564,695 71 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 326,238,724 100 318,072,428 100 346,058,897 100 357,775,191 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

New York’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 135,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=136,774) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 0 0 28,631 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 0 0 11,224 

Long-term residential 0 0 23,139 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 11,917 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 0 0 58,135 

Intensive outpatient 0 0 3,728 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 0 0 136,774 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data—which include programs funded through the Block Grant 

and programs that are not—indicate that nearly 305,000 persons were admitted to substance abuse 

programs (where at least one substance is known), of which approximately 62,000 were for alcohol 

only. Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 25 percent of persons 

admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. 

This rate varied slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in 

combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: 

Methodology.) 

522 
Inventory of State Profiles New York 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 62,058 23.8 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 242,929 25.7 

Total 304,987 25.3 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 1,077,000 persons aged 12 and older (6.8 

percent of New York’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

435,000 persons (2.7 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in New York. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 6.77 5.36 15.53 5.50 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.74 4.98 8.38 1.52 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

523 
New York Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Planning for prevention and treatment services in the State is undertaken through a 5-year 

comprehensive, statewide effort; the current “Statewide Comprehensive Plan for Chemical 

Dependence and Gambling Services for 2006-2010” focuses on performance improvement within 

the OASAS prevention and treatment systems and reinforces the agency’s commitment to quality 

prevention, treatment, recovery and support services. In addition and in partnership with local 

governmental units (LGUs), consisting of New York City and the 57 counties outside the City, 

OASAS annually produces local services plan guidelines to assist the city and counties develop the 

local plans that respond to all individuals in need of prevention and treatment services. The 

guidelines provide information on policies, priorities, and new approaches endorsed by OASAS. 

OASAS uses a needs assessment model that determines overall service needs for each county, 

current resources, and unmet needs. Service-specific need estimates for each county are developed 

and maintained by OASAS, using survey-based prevalence estimates, U.S. Census data, expert 

opinion, and current utilization figures from the management information system. Needs assessment 

data are provided to the counties as part of the local services plan guidelines. The Advisory Council 

on Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services reviews and comments on the statewide 5-year plan, 

among other functions. Membership includes the Commissioner of OASAS, the Chair of the 

Conference of Local Mental Hygiene Directors, consumers, service providers, and payers of 

treatment services. All local governments have a community services board. 

Evaluation 

OASAS uses a variety of mechanisms to ensure that funded and nonfunded programs provide 

quality services. These mechanisms include data-driven local services planning; project review; 

certification and inspection; serving as a central coordinating point for complaints against 

credentialed counselors/prevention practitioners; operating the patient advocacy unit; conducting 

priority program investigations and targeted compliance reviews; budget preparation and claims and 

consolidated fiscal reporting; management information system and program performance monitoring; 

program evaluation that incorporates the Consolidated Client Data System, Workscope/Objective 

Attainment System, Integrated Program Monitoring and Evaluation System, and conducting 

evaluations of individual programs and program types; auditing; district and field offices; and local 

governmental units. 

Training and Assistance 

To ensure that a qualified and competent workforce continues to support the service delivery system 

in the years ahead, OASAS established a Steering Committee on Workforce Development and 

reengineered the counselor and prevention practitioner credentialing process. OASAS also 

maintains partnerships with academic institutions to expand the number of colleges/universities that 

offer course work relevant to New York State’s credentials, hosted Item Writing Workshops to 

ensure that the international counselor examination is more relevant for New York counselors, and 

works closely with professional organizations to enhance the addictions workforce. 

OASAS develops, revises, and updates existing training curricula designed to reinforce core 

competencies and provide for more advanced and specialized training and skill development. 

Training/Technical Assistance Unit staff developed new curricula on “The 12 Core Functions of the 

Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Counselor” and “The 12 Core Functions of the Alcoholism and 

Substance Abuse Counselor for Clinical Supervisors.” OASAS continues to focus on overseeing and 

making training available through the Education and Training Provider Certification System, 

including the On-Line Training Calendar. 

524 
Inventory of State Profiles New York 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

All (nearly $600,000) of SAPT Block Grant funding for resource development activities in FY 2003 

went toward information systems activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Information Information 

Systems Systems 

100% 100% 

N=$650,308 N=$599,559 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Research and 

Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Information Systems 650,308 100 1,242,180 100 1,210,188 100 599,559 100 

Total* 650,308 100 1,242,180 100 1,210,188 100 599,559 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

525 
New York Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

In FY 2004 New York was awarded $7.3 million in Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

discretionary funds. Nearly all of these (43 of 57 grants awarded) went toward drug-free 

communities, totaling $3.9 million. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 43 3,931,360 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 4 255,718 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Expansion Cooperative Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 3 953,835 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 4 Services 2 699,656 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 2 500,000 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreements 1 750,000 

Youth Transition into the Workplace 1 149,981 

Total 57 7,304,186 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) discretionary funds in New York are expected to 

total nearly $18.8 million in FY 2004. Targeted capacity-HIV/AIDS received the largest dollar amount 

(at $6.8 million), followed by homeless addictions treatment (at $4.2 million). 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 5 1,614,205 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 1 99,410 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 249,938 

Grants for Accreditation of OTPs 1 42,174 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 9 4,235,621 

Recovery Community Service 3 874,349 

Recovery Community Support - Recovery 1 350,000 

Residential SA TX 1 500,000 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 1 38,100 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Strengthening Access and Retention 1 169,943 

Strengthening Communities -Youth 1 749,961 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 2 1,000,000 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 15 6,770,336 

TCE Minority Populations 1 500,000 

TCE Innovative Treatment 1 499,999 

Youth Offender Reentry Program 2004 2 994,928 

Total 47 18,788,964 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

526 
NORTH CAROLINA 

State SSA Director 

Flo Stein, Chief, Community Policy Management 

Division of Mental Health 

Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Services 

Department of Health of Human Services 

325 N. Salisbury Street 

Raleigh, NC 27699-3007 

Phone: 919-733-4670 

Fax: 919-733-4556 

E-mail: flo.stein@ncmail.net 

Web site: www.dhhs.state.nc.us/mhddsas/sas/index.htm 

Structure and Function 

The Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance 

Abuse Services (DMHDDSAS) is the designated Single State Agency (SSA) 

and provides leadership in planning, developing, and organizing a statewide 

system of alcohol and other drug services. It coordinates and communicates 

policies and strategies that educate, encourage, and empower individuals, families, organizations, 

and local communities to respond proactively to prevention, intervention, and treatment issues. 

DMHDDSAS is one of five divisions under the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). 

The organizational units of DMHDDSAS include the Director’s Office (includes strategic leadership 

and oversight), State Operated Services (includes substance abuse treatment centers), Community 

Policy Management (includes the functions of the SSA for substance abuse), Advocacy and 

Customer Service (includes community customer services), Resource/Regulatory Management 

(includes systems management, budgeting, contracting), and Operations Support (includes 

communications, strategic planning, and training). 

Community-based substance abuse services are provided through a network of area authorities or 

county programs. These programs are being transitioned to become local management entities 

(LMEs) that oversee and manage local services and are responsible for planning and budgeting. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health and 

Human Services (DHHS) 

Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance 

Abuse Services (DMHDDSAS) 

State 

Operated 

Services 

Community 

Policy 

Management 

Resources 

Regulatory 

Management 

Operations 

Support 

Clinical 

Policy 

Advocacy and 

Customer 

Services 

Implementation 

Manager 

Operations Manager 

Best Practices 

Local Management 

Entities (LME) Systems 

Justice System 

Quality Management 

Prevention and Early Intervention 

Employee Assistance Program 

527 
North Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

After peaking in FY 2001 at $98.9 million, North Carolina’s overall SSA funding decreased in FYs 

2002 and 2003, totaling $93.1 million in FY 2003. The proportion of funding from the Block Grant 

increased from FY 2000 (from constituting 36 percent of the total in FY 2000 to 41 percent in FY 

2003) while funding from other Federal sources decreased substantially from 12 to 4 percent during 

the same time period. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal 

N=$92,989,261 

Federal

N=$93,146,862 

12% 4%

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant

Grant State 

State 41% 

36% 55%

52% 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 33,680,936 36 34,472,623 35 35,377,284 39 38,135,024 41 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 11,020,397 12 14,896,397 15 5,333,027 6 4,126,931 4 

State 48,287,928 52 49,569,418 50 50,524,601 55 50,884,907 55 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 92,989,261 100 98,938,438 100 91,234,912 100 93,146,862 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

528 
Inventory of State Profiles North Carolina 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the $93.1 million expended in FY 2003, North Carolina spent more than $74.6 million for 

treatment and rehabilitation—81 percent of total funds. Prevention expenditures constituted 11 

percent of total funds, and HIV early intervention, administrative costs, and tuberculosis services 

constituted the remainder. This distribution is similar to that of previous fiscal years. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

12% 

Tuberculosis 

N=$93,146,862 

Prevention 

1% 11% 

HIV Early Treatment 

Treatment Tuberculosis

82% Intervention 81% 

1% 

2% HIV Early 

Administration Intervention 

3% 2% 

Administration 

N=$92,989,261 5%

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 53,934,693 58 78,500,816 79 74,617,458 82 75,522,116 81 

Alcohol Treatment 12,292,137 13 0 0 

Drug Treatment 9,924,413 11 0 0 

Prevention 11,317,112 12 14,631,493 15 10,732,287 12 9,947,685 11 

Tuberculosis 1,350,000 1 1,350,000 1 1,350,000 1 1,350,000 1 

HIV Early Intervention 1,586,493 2 1,723,631 2 1,768,865 2 1,960,751 2 

Administration 2,584,413 3 2,732,498 3 2,766,302 3 4,420,310 5 

Total* 92,989,261 100 98,938,438 100 91,234,912 100 93,146,862 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

529 
North Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant funding increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $33.7 to $38.2 million). Allocation 

proportions for those funds remained relatively stable over those two periods: approximately twothirds of the Block Grant funds went to treatment and rehabilitation, while prevention represented 

about one-fifth. HIV early intervention services accounted for 5 percent of Block Grant funds. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

20% 21% 

Treatment 

66% Tuberculosis Treatment Tuberculosis 

4% 65% 4%

HIV Early HIV Early 

Intervention Intervention 

Administration 5% Administration 5% 

5% 5% 

N=$33,680,936 N=$38,189,024 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

45,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 20,914,704 61 23,193,744 66 25,017,161 66 

Alcohol Treatment 12,292,137 36 0 0 

Drug Treatment 9,924,413 29 0 0 

Prevention 6,843,846 20 8,760,657 25 7,295,811 21 7,954,361 21 

Tuberculosis 1,350,000 4 1,350,000 4 1,350,000 4 1,350,000 4 

HIV Early Intervention 1,586,493 5 1,723,631 5 1,768,865 5 1,960,751 5 

Administration 1,684,047 5 1,723,631 5 1,768,864 5 1,906,751 5 

Total* 33,680,936 100 34,472,623 100 35,377,284 100 38,189,024 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

530 
Inventory of State Profiles North Carolina 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures on SSA activities increased from $48.3 to $50.9 million between FYs 2000 and 

2003. During that time period, most (95 to 98 percent) State funds paid for treatment services and 

the remainder went toward administrative activities (2 to 5 percent). 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment Administration 98% Administration 95% 5%

2% 

N=$48,287,928 N=$50,884,907 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 47,387,562 98 48,560,551 98 49,527,163 98 48,371,348 95 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 900,366 2 1,008,867 2 997,438 2 2,513,559 5 

Total* 48,287,928 100 49,569,418 100 50,524,601 100 50,884,907 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

531 
North Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The Prevention and Early Intervention Team, Community Policy Section, is the designated Office of 

Prevention. The Team’s mission is to reduce, delay, and prevent substance use and abuse by 

children, adolescents, and adults. Contracts with LMEs and their provider agencies implement a 

myriad of prevention initiatives and innovations. Local programs are encouraged to use evidencebased programs in planning to address the six core strategies. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, total prevention expenditures declined from $11.3 to nearly $10 

million. In FY 2003, the Block Grant covered 80 percent of total prevention expenditures, and other 

Federal funds covered the remaining 20 percent. This represents a shift from FY 2000, when the 

Block Grant covered 60 percent of prevention funds, and other Federal sources covered the 

remaining 40 percent. 

The SAPT Block Grant funding per capita on prevention services fluctuated in North Carolina, 

increasing from $0.85 in FY 2000 to $1.07 in FY 2001 and then decreasing to $0.88 in FY 2002. In 

FY 2003, per capita funds for prevention rebounded to $0.94. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Other Other Grant 

60% 80% Federal Federal 20%

40% 

N=$11,317,112 N=$9,947,685 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

532 
Inventory of State Profiles North Carolina 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 6,843,846 60 8,760,657 60 7,295,811 68 7,954,361 80 

Other Federal 4,473,266 40 5,870,836 40 3,436,476 32 1,993,324 20 

State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 11,317,112 100 14,631,493 100 10,732,287 100 9,947,685 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Statewide Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resources (RADAR) 

center and affiliates disseminate information and maintain a Web site 

and newsletter The Next Step. Mini-grants support prevention resource 

centers for specific population groups. 

Education 

Prevention professionals are trained through the Governor’s Academy 

for Prevention Professionals , Area Health Education Centers offer 

trainings, and various conferences are held. 

Alternatives Alternatives include the Prom -Promise initiative, ropes courses, health 

fairs, drug-free essay contents , and art exhibits. 

Community-Based Processes 

Workshops are held for professionals in the school s ystem, and 

community collaborative entities and faith-based groups meet on a 

regional basis. 

Environmental Strategies include a retailer training and beverage server program . 

Problem Identification and Referral LME professionals are trained to identify risk and protective factors and 

make referrals to indicated programs. 

533 
North Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant expenditures on prevention cores strategies increased over time from over $6.8 million 

in FY 2000 to nearly $8 million in FY 2003. The largest portion of Block Grant funds for prevention 

strategies in FY 2003 was spent on education, 23 percent was spent on information dissemination, 

16 percent on community-based processes, and 12 percent on problem identification and referral. 

This distribution of funding was relatively stable from FYs 2000 to 2003. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Problem ID 

Alternatives Problem ID 

Section 1926 -

Tobacco

3%

9% and Referral 

Information 

Dissemination

23%

5% and Referral 

12% 12% 

Education Community- Education Community­ 36% Based 37% Based 

Process Process 

17% 16% 

Environmental Environmental 

5% 7% 

Dissemination 1% 

17% 

Information Other 

N=$6,843,846 N=$7,954,361 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 1,233,163 18 2,283,272 26 1,622,932 22 1,810,410 23 

Education 2,506,466 37 3,065,250 35 2,540,241 35 3,037,253 38 

Alternatives 607,088 9 564,725 6 282,249 4 365,418 5 

Problem ID and Referral 789,625 12 970,707 11 1,058,434 15 950,549 12 

Community-Based 

Process 1,179,028 17 1,207,459 14 1,270,120 17 1,245,399 16 

Environmental 315,148 5 287,561 3 282,249 4 545,332 7 

Other 36,765 1 257,310 3 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 176,563 3 124,373 1 239,586 3 0 0 

Total* 6,843,846 100 8,760,657 100 7,295,811 100 7,954,361 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

534 
Inventory of State Profiles North Carolina 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

The implementation of LMEs reformed the delivery of substance abuse treatment in North Carolina. 

LMEs ensure (1) that direct services are purchased from local private, nonprofit organizations, and 

(2) that quality care is provided to consumers in their catchment areas. The State will continue to 

provide an array of treatment services through local providers, including detoxification, crisis 

stabilization, outpatient, inpatient, residential, halfway house, and specialized services to women and 

injection drug users (IDUs). 

Target populations are eligible to receive additional services beyond the basic services offered to all 

consumers. Adult target populations are IDUs and those with communicable diseases, women, 

criminal justice and driving under intoxication (DUI) offenders, deaf and hard-of-hearing persons, 

homeless persons, and social services-involved parents. Children and adolescents who are at high 

risk or who abuse substances are also targeted for additional services. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Expenditures on treatment remained relatively stable from FYs 2000 to 2003, ranging from $74.6 to 

$78.5 million. The distribution of funds also remained similar over time. Funding from the State 

constituted the majority of treatment expenditures (62 to 66 percent), followed by the SAPT Block 

Grant (27 to 33 percent). 

The SAPT Block Grant funding per capita for treatment and rehabilitation services decreased from 

$2.75 in FY 2000 to $2.55 in FY 2001. In FY 2002, per capita funding rebounded to $2.79, and in FY 

2003 it continued to increase to $2.97. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Other Funding Source 

Other 

Federal 

3% 

SAPT Block 

Federal

9% 

N=$76,151,243 

SAPT Block 

Grant State Grant 

29% State 33% 64%

62% 

N=$75,522,116 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

90,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

535 
North Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 22,216,550 29 20,914,704 27 23,193,744 31 25,017,161 33 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 6,547,131 9 9,025,561 11 1,896,551 3 2,133,607 3 

State 47,387,562 62 48,560,551 62 49,527,163 66 48,371,348 64 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 76,151,243 100 78,500,816 100 74,617,458 100 75,522,116 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

North Carolina’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that 32,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, most of which were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone, freestanding residential, and short-term residential. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=32,000) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 139 120 0 

Free-standing residential 1,997 1,767 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 170 144 0 

Short-term residential 1,338 2,102 0 

Long-term residential 364 645 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 1,113 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 9,170 10,200 435 

Intensive outpatient 874 1,277 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 75 70 0 

Total 14,127 17,438 435 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate slightly more than 30,000 admissions (where at 

least one substance is known), of which nearly 10,000 were for alcohol only Calculations (with 

imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 56 percent of persons admitted to treatment 

programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This figure varied 

slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other 

drugs. Approximately 60 percent of persons admitted for abusing alcohol only were diagnosed 

with a psychiatric problem and 54 percent of persons admitted for abusing alcohol in 

536 
Inventory of State Profiles North Carolina 

combination with other drugs were diagnosed as having a psychiatric problem. (For a discussion 

of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 9,959 59.7 

Any other drugs 20,086 54.2 

Total 30,045 56.0 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 427,000 North Carolina residents aged 12 

and older (6.3 percent of the State’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol 

use, and 177,000 persons (2.6 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 6.31 5.34 16.04 4.80 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.62 5.21 6.65 1.60 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

537 
North Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Substate planning is carried out at multiple levels. Counties are grouped into catchment areas 

served by the LMEs and into four regions. Areas that have the highest prevalence and greatest need 

are primarily determined at the area and regional levels. Data and recommendations from the LMEs 

and Regional Management Teams to DMHDDSAS and section chiefs are the basis for State plans. 

The Commission for DMHDDSAS regulates and advises the DMHDDSAS regarding all State plans. 

Various State, regional, and local advisory councils advise and assist the SSA on service needs, 

priority populations, and linkages with other State initiatives. 

The Substance Abuse Services section uses an Annual Performance Agreement that includes 

reporting by each LME to assure that programs serve communities with the highest prevalence and 

greatest need. Based on regular analysis of these reports, site visits are conducted on a sample of 

programs to assess allocation of resources with the highest levels of local needs. Multiple prevention 

and treatment needs assessment studies are used in strategic planning. 

Evaluation 

The Substance Abuse Services section maintains performance agreements with the LMEs that 

outline appropriate use of SAPT Block Grant funds. They monitor treatment and prevention service 

delivery to high-risk populations. At least 5 percent of programs receiving SAPT Block Grant funding 

are scheduled and reviewed each year. 

Training and Assistance 

Continuing education and training is provided to substance abuse, prevention, child and adolescent, 

and adult human service professionals regarding alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) use, 

abuse, and dependence. Education and training services are provided through: (1) annual 

conferences, summits, and schools, (2) best practice models for professionals in the mental health, 

developmental disabilities, and substance abuse fields, (3) annual scholarships for attendance at 

alcohol and other drug school programs, (4) specialized training regarding targeted populations, and 

(5) training on science-based model programs. 

538 
Inventory of State Profiles North Carolina 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant expenditures for resource development activities more than doubled between FYs 2000 

and 2003 (from $1.9 to $5.5 million). The proportion of funds spent on the different activities also 

shifted. In FY 2003, 37 percent of the total was spent on research and evaluation (compared to 9 

percent in FY 2000) and 19 percent was spent on information systems (compared with 1 percent in 

FY 2000). In contrast, in FY 2000, 44 percent was spent on education activities and only 8 percent 

was spent on education activities in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities

Planning, Training Planning, 

13%

Training Coordination, 

Program 

Development

2% 

17% 

Coordination, Needs Education 

Needs Assessment 8% 

Assessment 27% Program 19% Development Information Information Systems 4%

Systems 1% 19% 

Research and Education 

Evaluation 44% Research and 

9% Evaluation 

N=$1,911,149 N=$ 5,513,583 37% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 521,186 27 1,271,343 33 532,613 21 1,066,384 19 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training 323,070 17 709,850 18 449,128 18 713,499 13 

Education 845,366 44 542,232 14 567,003 22 441,756 8 

Program Development 33,462 2 324,723 8 226,959 9 212,668 4 

Research and Evaluation 177,985 9 863,582 22 347,161 14 2,039,638 37 

Information Systems 10,080 1 132,906 3 407,665 16 1,039,638 19 

Total* 1,911,149 100 3,844,636 100 2,530,529 100 5,513,583 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

539 
North Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded more than $1.5 million in 12 

discretionary grants to entities in North Carolina during FY 2004. Eight of the 12 grants were 

awarded to drug-free communities, and nearly half ($7 million) of the funds were targeted at 

HIV/AIDS cohort services. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 8 681,392 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 349,364 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 4 Services 1 350,000 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 1 25,000 

Youth Transition into the Workplace 1 149,987 

Total 12 1,555,743 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded more than $1.8 million in seven 

discretionary funds to North Carolina. Much of those funds ($773,840) were targeted at HIV/AIDS. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 249,967 

Recovery Community Service 2 495,138 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Strengthening Access and Retention 1 200,000 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 2 773,840 

Total 7 1,818,945 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

540 
NORTH DAKOTA 

State SSA Director 

Ms. JoAnne Hoesel, Director 

Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 

North Dakota Department of Human Services 

1237 W. Divide Avenue, Suite 1C 

Bismarck, ND 58501-1208 

Phone: 701-328-8924 

Fax: 701-328-8969 

E-mail: sohoej@state.nd.us 

Web site: www.state.nd.us/humanservices/services/mentalhealth 

Structure and Function 

The Department of Human Services, Mental Health and Substance Abuse 

Services Division (DMHSAS) is the designated Single State Agency (SSA) that 

provides leadership for the planning, development, and oversight of a system of 

care for children, adults, and families with severe emotional disorders, mental 

illness, and/or substance abuse issues. Mental health and substance abuse 

services are delivered through eight Regional Human Service Centers and the North Dakota State 

Hospital in Jamestown. DMHSAS also contracts with four Native American Tribes for reservation 

services. The regional centers serve designated multicounty areas and provide substance abuse 

treatment and other core services. The North Dakota Commission on Drug and Alcohol Abuse 

Comprehensive Three-Year Plan for Prevention, Treatment and Enforcement also includes the 

State’s comprehensive statewide plan for substance abuse prevention. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Medical 

Services 

Program and 

Policy 

Division of Mental 

Health/Substance Abuse 

Services Division (DMHSAS)* 

Human Service 

Centers 

Economic 

Assistance 

Institutions Administration 

Children and Family Services 

Disability Services 

Aging Services 

Department of 

Human Services 

* Program Divisions have oversight responsibility for county social services. 

541 
North Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

SSA total expenditures for North Dakota increased from nearly $11.6 in FY 2000 to nearly $16.8 in 

FY 2003. State funding remained relatively stable in dollar value between those two periods but 

declined in proportion (from about 60 percent to 39 percent of total expenditures). Block Grant 

funding increased somewhat in dollar value but remained relatively stable in proportion (at about 30– 

31 percent of total expenditures). Medicaid and other Federal funding sources increased, both in 

dollar value and in proportion. Nevertheless, State funding continues to be the largest funding 

source. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid Other 

5% 

State

Other

4% 

8%

19% Federal 

SAPT Block State 

60% 

Other 

4% N= $11,571,787 

SAPT Block 

Grant Grant

31% 30% 

39% 

N= $16,770,412 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

18,000,000 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 3,627,405 31 3,174,888 27 2,663,625 23 4,984,093 30 

Medicaid 609,494 5 530,188 5 569,841 5 3,133,330 19 

Other Federal 5,461 0 671,898 6 809,010 7 1,263,949 8 

State 6,825,322 59 6,725,635 58 6,822,700 60 6,721,455 40 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 504,105 4 450,370 4 477,238 4 667,585 4 

Total* 11,571,787 100 11,552,979 100 11,342,414 100 16,770,412 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

542 
Inventory of State Profiles North Dakota 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Treatment activities continue to account for the vast majority of SSA expenditures. That majority, 

however, shrank between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from 93 percent to 88 percent), while prevention 

activities increased, both in proportion and dollar value. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment 

93% Prevention 88% Prevention 

7% 12% 

N= $11,571,787 N= $16,770,412 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

18,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 9,439,930 83 14,874,104 89 

Alcohol Treatment 3,834,254 33 2,680,091 23 

Drug Treatment 6,963,424 60 7,246,169 63 

Prevention 774,109 7 1,626,719 14 1,902,484 17 2,044,914 12 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,394 0 

Total* 11,571,787 100 11,552,979 100 11,342,414 100 16,770,412 101 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

543 
North Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant funding in North Dakota increased from about $3.6 million in FY 2000 to nearly $5 

million in FY 2003. Approximately 80 percent of those dollars continued to fund treatment activities, 

while approximately 20 percent continued to fund prevention activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Prevention Treatment Prevention 

79% 21% 80% 20% 

N= $3,627,405 N= $4,984,093 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 1,565,708 59 3,970,641 80 

Alcohol Treatment 1,013,204 28 630,604 20 

Drug Treatment 1,840,092 51 1,704,965 54 

Prevention 774,109 21 839,319 26 1,097,917 41 1,013,452 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 3,627,405 100 3,174,888 100 2,663,625 100 4,984,093 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

544 
Inventory of State Profiles North Dakota 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State funding in North Dakota remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 2003, at about 

$6.7–$6.8 million. All of those funds were spent on treatment activities. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment 

100% 100% 

N= $6,825,322 N= $6,721,455 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 6,822,700 100 6,690,061 100 

Alcohol Treatment 2,423,672 36 1,815,921 27 

Drug Treatment 4,401,650 64 4,909,714 73 

Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,394 0 

Total* 6,825,322 100 6,725,635 100 6,822,700 100 6,721,455 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

545 
North Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Eight regional and four Tribal area Regional Prevention Coordination entities are contracted to build 

comprehensive community coalitions, provide technical assistance, and develop strategic plans for 

implementation of science-based model prevention programs and activities that will prevent the 

abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and other (ATOD) drugs. The Division distributes prevention funds using 

a competitive process to address the six core prevention strategies. A North Dakota Prevention 

Resource Center maintains a large library of written and video materials covering a wide range of 

topics. Items are loaned to any citizen free of charge. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding in North Dakota increased sharply between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from about $7.7 

million to more than $2 million). About half of the FY 2003 funding came from the Block Grant, and 

the other half came from other Federal sources—a change from FY 2000, when the Block Grant 

funded all prevention expenditures. 

Per capita, Block Grant prevention expenditures increased from $1.21 to $1.60 between those two 

periods. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Other SAPT Block SAPT Block Federal Grant Grant 50% 100% 

50% 

N= $774,109 N= $2,044,914 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

546 
Inventory of State Profiles North Dakota 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 774,109 100 839,319 52 1,097,917 58 1,013,452 50 

Other Federal 0 0 668,473 41 804,567 42 1,031,462 50 

State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 118,927 7 0 0 0 0 

Total* 774,109 100 1,626,719 100 1,902,484 100 2,044,914 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

The Prevention Resource Center lends videos, books, curricula, and other 

materials to schools, law enforcement agencies, churches, social service 

agencies, and others. 

Education 

DMHSAS collaborates with the Central CAPT for trainings to prevention 

specialists . Training is offered to substance abuse professionals at 

conferences. 

Alternatives Alternatives include teen centers, afterschool and tutoring programs, and 

youth mentoring programs. 

Community-Based Processes Regional prevention coordinators identify community resources and engage 

in coalition and community team building. 

Environmental 

Technical assistance is offered to communities to conduct surveys and work 

with coalitions. Funding provides support for tobacco enforcement 

programs. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Funding supports juvenile drug court programs, use of Prime for Life 

curriculum for driving under intoxication (DUI) offenders, and Families and 

Schools Together for hospitals. 

547 
North Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Nearly half (47 percent) of the $1 million in Block Grant funding for core prevention strategies in FY 

2003 was allocated to community-based process strategies—lower than the 62 percent allocated in 

FY 2000, but stable in dollar value. Nearly one-third of the FY 2003 funding went toward information 

dissemination, similar to the FY 2000 allocation. Education strategies increased between the two 

periods, both in dollar value and proportion, accounting for 13 percent of Block Grant prevention 

funding in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Problem ID Education 

and Referral Education 

5% 

1% 13% 

Information 

Community- Dissemination 

Information Based 31%

Dissemination Process 

Community- 32% 47%

Based 

Section 1926 - Process Section 1926 -

Tobacco Environmental 62% Tobacco 

1% 7%

N=$774,109 1%

N=$1,013,452

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 238,696 31 297,953 35 353,000 32 324,628 32 

Education 36,521 5 112,000 13 138,101 13 129,154 13 

Alternatives 1,523 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Problem ID and Referral 10,862 1 0 0 1,000 0 1,000 0 

Community-Based 

Process 471,701 61 353,672 42 514,944 47 473,726 47 

Environmental 3,465 0 62,413 7 76,872 7 70,944 7 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 11,341 1 13,281 2 14,000 1 14,000 1 

Total* 774,109 100 839,319 100 1,097,917 100 1,013,452 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

548 
Inventory of State Profiles North Dakota 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

The State provides a continuum of care based on the ASAM levels of care, which includes the 

following types of treatment: assessment and early intervention, clinically managed low-intensity 

residential, clinically managed high-intensity, medically monitored intensive inpatient, partial 

hospitalization/day treatment, intensive outpatient, outpatient, social detoxification, and medically 

monitored inpatient detoxification. Adolescents and adults receive a full array of services based on 

their needs at the eight regional human service centers. Increases in SAPT Block Grant funds are 

distributed to the service centers for specific populations found to be in high need and that are 

underserved. These increases include services for adolescents and Native Americans and additional 

residential treatment services. 

DMHSAS/DHS is piloting a SAMHSA evidenced-based model of integrated dual disorder treatment 

at the Southeast Human Services Center. State legislation in 2005 funded a residential treatment 

program (ASAM 111.5 or 111.1) specifically for individuals dependent upon methamphetamine. This 

will provide individualized residential services using the MATRIX model. DMHSAS contracts for this 

service and is grant manager. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment funding in North Dakota increased considerably between FYs 2000 and 2003, from about 

$10.8 to nearly $14.9 million. State funding dollars remained relatively level between those two 

periods but declined in proportion (from 63 percent of FY 2000 treatment expenditures to 45 percent 

of FY 2003 expenditures), primarily due to increased Medicaid funding. Block Grant dollars 

increased but continued to account for slightly more than one-quarter of treatment expenditures. 

Per capita, Block Grant treatment funding in North Dakota varied widely over the last several years. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2001, it decreased from $4.45 to $3.67 and then to $2.47 in FY 2002. In FY 

2003, Block Grant funding rebounded to $6.26 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid Other 

6% 

Other

4%

22% Federal 

2% 

SAPT Block State SAPT Block 

Grant 63% Grant

26% 27% 

State 

45% Other 

5% N= $10,797,678 N= $14,874,104 

549 
North Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 2,853,296 26 2,335,569 24 1,565,708 17 3,970,641 27 

Medicaid 609,494 6 530,188 5 569,841 6 3,313,330 22 

Other Federal 5,461 0 3,425 0 4,443 0 232,487 2 

State 6,825,322 63 6,725,635 68 6,822,700 72 6,690,061 45 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 504,105 5 331,443 3 477,238 5 667,585 4 

Total* 10,797,678 100 9,926,260 100 9,439,930 100 14,874,104 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

North Dakota’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 14,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis (N=13,720) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 268 160 71 

Free-standing residential 178 106 39 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 230 151 35 

Short-term residential 478 226 132 

Long-term residential 54 38 9 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 4,811 3,244 2,047 

Intensive outpatient 915 567 104 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 6,934 4,386 2,400 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

550 
Inventory of State Profiles North Dakota 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate more than 3,200 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 36 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate varied slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of 

alcohol in combination with other drugs. Approximately 31 percent of persons admitted for abusing 

alcohol only were diagnosed with a psychiatric problem and 38 percent of persons admitted for 

abusing alcohol in combination with other drugs were diagnosed as having a psychiatric problem. 

(For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 959 31.2 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 2,288 37.8 

Total 3,247 35.9 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 52,000 persons aged 12 and older (9.9 

percent of North Dakota’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

14,000 persons (2.6 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in North 

Dakota. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 9.91 9.46 25.71 6.66 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.59 5.37 6.90 1.31 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

551 
North Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

The North Dakota Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse holds stakeholder meetings to develop 

the comprehensive 3-year plan for prevention, treatment, and enforcement. The State conducts the 

Youth Risk Behavior Study (YRBS) and the Telephone Household Survey. These data, together with 

social indicator data and State Outcome Measures (SOMMS) from each of the eight human service 

regions, are used to determine areas of highest need in the State. 

Traditionally, the State has used a formula for distribution of base funding for treatment to each 

region. The formula takes into account special populations. Prevention funds are distributed evenly 

to the substate planning areas that correspond with the eight regional service center regions and 

four tribal service areas. The State plans to distribute prevention funds based on a formula similar to 

that used for treatment. 

Evaluation 

The Treatment Outcomes Performance Pilot Studies (TOPPS) examine outcomes resulting from 

addiction treatment received at the North Dakota State Hospital. Results of the study are used in 

planning future service delivery. All regional service centers receive a biennial licensure review and 

independent peer review. They are monitored for compliance with SAPT Block grant requirements. 

The State recently revamped its evaluation process and will be able to report on the National 

Outcome Measures (NOMS). 

Training and Assistance 

DMHSAS sponsors or co-sponsors training activities for treatment providers that include the Alcohol 

and Substance Abuse Summit, the Dual Diagnosis Conference, cross-training for substance abuse 

and vocational rehabilitation staff, and the promotion of referrals. Prevention providers receive 

training at the Annual Prevention Conference, the Kids at Risk Conference, and the Roughrider 

Health Promotion Conference. Other trainings are offered through Drug Free North Dakota and from 

the Central CAPT, covering evidence-based models, Project Northland, prevention competencies, 

and the DUI Seminar/Prime for Life program, among others. DMHSAS is also planning statewide 

training in the MATRIX model. 

552 
Inventory of State Profiles North Dakota 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities in North Dakota increased sharply (from 

$140,000 to more than $775,000) between FYs 2000 and 2003. Distribution of those funds changed 

dramatically between the two periods: planning, coordination, and needs assessment activities 

replaced the earlier focus on training, program development, and research and evaluation. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Planning, Development Activities 

Coordination, Program Research and Needs Development Evaluation Assessment 14%

29% 4% 

Education Planning, 

2% Coordination, Training Needs 46% 

Training Assessment 

Program 16% 68% 

Development 

21% N=$140,000 N=$775,868 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource 

Development Activity 

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

600,000 

700,000 

800,000 

900,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 5,000 4 0 0 42,575 22 525,330 68 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training 65,000 46 58,536 67 91,900 48 124,274 16 

Education 0 0 21,000 24 18,750 10 14,250 2 

Program Development 30,000 21 0 0 0 0 110,044 14 

Research and Evaluation 40,000 29 0 0 28,000 15 0 0 

Information Systems 0 0 8,476 10 11,500 6 1,970 0 

Total* 140,000 100 88,012 100 192,725 100 775,868 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

. 

553 
North Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

North Dakota received two grants for drug-free communities, totaling $147,196 in Center for 

Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary funding in FY 2004. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 2 147,196 

Total 2 147,196 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

North Dakota did not receive any discretionary grants from Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

(CSAT) in FY 2004. 

554 
OHIO 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Carolyn Givens, Director 

Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services 

280 North High Street, 12th Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215-2550 

Phone: 614-752-8359 

Fax: 614-728-4936 

E-mail: givens@ada.state.oh.us 

Web site: www.odadas.state.oh.us 

Structure and Function 

Ohio’s alcohol and other drug services system is composed of the Ohio Department of 

Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services (ODADAS), 50 community boards, known as the 

Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services (ADAS) and Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental 

Health Services (ADAMHS) Boards, and over 900 local programs. ODADAS is the 

designated Single State Agency that provides statewide leadership in establishing a 

high quality addiction, prevention, treatment, and recovery services system of care 

that is effective, accessible, and valued by all Ohioans. To achieve this mission, ODADAS plans, 

initiates, and coordinates an extensive system of services. ODADAS, by statute (Am. Sub. H.B. 

317), coordinates the alcohol and other drug services of State departments, the criminal justice 

system, law enforcement, the legislature, local programs, and prevention and treatment 

professionals. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Legislative Liaison 

Office of 

Communication and 

Training 

Management and 

Information Services 

Division of Treatment and 

Recovery Services 

Division of Prevention 

Services 

Division of Fiscal 

Services 

Division of Planning, 

Outcomes, and Research 

Office of Legal 

Services 

Division of Quality 

Improvement 

Division of Human 

Resources 

Office of Medicaid 

Services 

Ohio Department of 

Alcohol and Drug 

Addiction Services 

(ODADAS) 

555 
Ohio Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

SSA funding in Ohio increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $152.1 to $167 million. In FY 2003 

the Block Grant provided the largest portion (41 percent) of total funds, followed by the State (at 35 

percent), Medicaid (at 20 percent), and other Federal sources (at 4 percent). These proportions 

were similar to those in FYs 2000, 2001, and 2002. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid 

17% Other 

State

35%

20% Other 

Federal Federal 

4% SAPT Block 4%

SAPT Block Grant Grant State 41%

42% 37% 

N=$152,054,044 N=$166,757,873 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

140,000,000 

160,000,000 

180,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 65,062,200 43 65,872,337 42 66,599,900 41 66,942,269 40 

Medicaid 25,567,219 17 29,079,448 19 29,591,089 18 34,174,236 20 

Other Federal 5,897,284 4 4,159,123 3 7,149,151 4 7,355,204 4 

State 55,527,341 37 55,971,106 36 58,834,091 36 58,286,164 35 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 152,054,044 100 155,082,014 100 162,174,231 100 166,757,873 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

556 
Inventory of State Profiles Ohio 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

In FY 2003 most (78 percent) of the SSA expenditures in Ohio were spent on are treatment services, 

followed by prevention services (15 percent), and administration costs (6 percent). This distribution 

was similar to that in FYs 2000 through 2002. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 15% 

Treatment HIV Early 

78% 

16% Treatment 

78% Intervention

1% 

Administration Administration 

6% 6% 

N=$152,054,044 N=$166,757,873 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

140,000,000 

160,000,000 

180,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 118,827,087 78 119,831,763 77 126,905,199 78 130,209,265 78 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 24,509,613 16 23,305,869 15 22,830,749 14 24,806,999 15 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 1,924,036 1 1,886,539 1 1,848,808 1 

Administration 8,717,344 6 10,020,346 6 10,551,744 7 9,892,801 6 

Total* 152,054,044 100 155,082,014 100 162,174,231 100 166,757,873 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

557 
Ohio Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Total Block Grant expenditures in Ohio remained relatively stable over the past several years, 

ranging from a low of $65 million in FY 2000 to a high of $67 million in FY 2003. The distribution of 

these funds was stable during this time period. In FY 2003, treatment received the majority (71 

percent) of Block Grant funds, prevention services received about one-quarter, and administration 

received 5 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 20% 

Treatment Treatment 24%

75% 71% 

Administration 

5% Administration 

5% 

N=$65,062,200 N=$66,942,269 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 48,730,057 75 49,259,605 75 49,047,183 74 47,461,285 71 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 13,079,032 20 13,319,115 20 14,222,722 21 16,270,812 24 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 3,253,111 5 3,293,617 5 3,329,995 5 3,210,172 5 

Total* 65,062,200 100 65,872,337 100 66,599,900 100 66,942,269 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

558 
Inventory of State Profiles Ohio 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 State expenditures for alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) 

services in Ohio increased from $55.5 to $58.3 million. Treatment as a proportion of total 

expenditures increased from 76 to 81 percent during this time period, prevention’s proportion 

declined from 14 to 6 percent, and administration’s proportion remained stable at 10 to 11 percent of 

the total. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 6% 

14% Treatment HIV Early 

Treatment 81% Intervention 

76% 3% 

Administration 

10% Administration 

10% 

N=$55,527,341 N=$58,286,164 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 42,331,174 76 41,175,019 74 47,334,992 80 47,325,308 81 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 7,853,986 14 6,435,663 11 3,011,445 5 3,263,239 6 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 1,924,036 3 1,886,539 3 1,848,808 3 

Administration 5,342,181 10 6,436,388 11 6,601,115 11 5,848,809 10 

Total* 55,527,341 100 55,971,106 100 58,834,091 100 58,286,164 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

559 
Ohio Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

ODADAS distributes primary prevention funds to the 50 local boards. Based on community 

prevalence, needs, and priorities each board contracts with local service providers for ATOD 

prevention services. ODADAS funds community efforts in primary prevention, such as components 

of the Urban Minority Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Outreach Programs and special grant initiatives. It 

also provides training opportunities for Ohio’s prevention providers and youth. 

In 2002, the State received a State Incentive Grant (SIG) from the Center for Substance Abuse 

Prevention (CSAP). ODADAS manages the $3- million award to develop and implement a 

comprehensive substance abuse prevention strategy to optimize the use of all funding streams and 

resources and to support implementation of evidence-based prevention planning processes and 

programs. The evidence-based interventions consist of 12 different youth- and family-focused 

strategies (e.g., Athena, Parenting Wisely) and 2 environmental strategies (e.g., Communities 

Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol) being implemented in single communities, plus 5 other 

multicommunity interventions (e.g., LifeSkills Training, All Stars). 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding in Ohio remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 2003, ranging from 

$22.8 to $24.8 million. During this time period the Block Grant’s proportion of prevention funding 

increased from 53 to 66 percent as did the proportion of other Federal sources (from 15 to 21 

percent). By contrast, the State’s proportion of the total declined from 32 to 13 percent. 

Block Grant funding per capita for prevention services in Ohio increased steadily from FYs 2000 

through 2002, from $1.15 to $1.25. In FY 2003 per capita expenditures increased further to $1.42. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Other Source 

Federal 

15% 

Other 

Federal 

21% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant 

53% State 66% 

Grant 

32% State 

13% 

N=$24,509,613 N=$24,806,999 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

560 
Inventory of State Profiles Ohio 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 13,079,032 53 13,319,115 57 14,222,722 62 16,270,812 66 

Other Federal 3,576,595 15 3,551,091 15 5,596,582 25 5,272,948 21 

State 7,853,986 32 6,435,663 28 3,011,445 13 3,263,239 13 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 24,509,613 100 23,305,869 100 22,830,749 100 24,806,999 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by SAPT Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Strategies include information for tobacco vendors on health concerns of 

tobacco use and State law regarding sales to minors and the Ohio Resource 

Network for Safe and Drug-Free Schools (the Regional Alcohol and Drug 

Awareness Resources [RADAR] site, and six satellite centers). Strategies 

also provide support to local grantees for speakers’ bureaus, 

health/community fairs, and media campaigns. 

Education 

The Local Teen Institute provides programs for middle and high school youth. 

Other activities include medication misuse prevention programs for senior 

citizens. Head Start staff and administrators are trained about ways to 

integrate ATOD prevention information into the Head Start curriculum. 

Alternatives Community-based organizations provide afterschool prevention programs, 

mentoring, and tutorial programming for youth. 

Community-Based Processes 

Ohio Violence Prevention Process provides skill-building trainings for adults , 

and local Boards are encouraged to provide seed money to community-based 

organizations. Two youth conferences (Teen Institute [TI] and Junior TI) and 

two adult conferences (Ohio Drug and Alcohol Studies Institute and the Ohio 

Prevention Education Conference) are held annually. 

Environmental 

Ohio Parents for Drug Free Youth provide statewide training and technical 

assistance to 42 Ohio colleges and universities on high-risk drinking 

prevention and program development. ODADAS provides support to 14 drugfree community coalitions. 

Problem Identification and 

Referral 

Six Prevention at Work programs build drug-free workplace programming. The 

programs collaborate with a county job and family services agency and a 

shelter to identify individuals whose behaviors can be reversed through 

education. 

561 
Ohio Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for prevention activities in Ohio increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from 

$13.1 to $16.3 million. The allocation of funds remained similar during that time period with nearly 

half going toward education-related services. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Problem ID Alternatives Problem ID 

Information 

Dissemination

15%

2% and Referral Community- 2% and Referral 

13% Based 13% 

Process CommunityEducation 14% Based Education 

48% Process Environmental 49% 

14% 7% Environmental 

Section 1926 ­ 7% 

Tobacco 

Information 1% 

Dissemination N=$13,079,032 N=$16,270,812 15% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

18,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 1,983,202 15 2,032,497 15 2,160,264 15 2,471,948 15 

Education 6,321,294 48 6,478,418 49 6,885,666 48 7,879,134 48 

Alternatives 278,116 2 285,029 2 302,947 2 346,656 2 

Problem ID and 

Referral 1,659,600 13 1,700,851 13 1,807,770 13 2,068,597 13 

Community-Based 

Process 1,788,261 14 1,832,710 14 1,947,919 14 2,228,966 14 

Environmental 965,609 7 989,610 7 1,051,819 7 1,203,577 7 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 82,950 1 0 0 66,337 0 71,934 0 

Total* 13,079,032 100 13,319,115 100 14,222,722 100 16,270,812 100 

SOURCE: FY 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

562 
Inventory of State Profiles Ohio 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

ODADAS’ goal is to fund services proportionate to the State’s prevalence of alcohol and other drug 

problems and to the need for alcohol and other drug prevention and treatment services. The 

community boards determine local needs, plan, contract for services, and monitor local programs. 

The majority of funds are distributed on a modified per capita basis. Exceptions to this approach are 

for initiatives for populations with critical treatment needs, i.e., pregnant women and addicted 

offenders. As a result of these initiatives, ODADAS is actively involved at the State level with welfare 

reform and in State sentencing reform. 

A priority area for ODADAS is the provision of treatment services for pregnant and parenting women. 

Continuing efforts are also made to establish improved access to and accountability for offender 

treatment. ODADAS makes treatment available to offenders through the Treatment Alternatives to 

Street Crime, drug court programs, and partnership with the Ohio Supreme Court. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment funding in Ohio increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $118.8 to $130.2 million. 

The distribution of funds during this time remained fairly stable. In FY 2003, the largest portion of 

funds came from the Block Grant (at 37 percent of the total) and the State (at 36 percent), followed 

by Medicaid (at 26 percent). 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002 Block Grant expenditures per capita on treatment in Ohio remained 

stable, ranging from $4.29 to $4.33. In FY 2003, Block Grant expenditures on treatment and 

rehabilitation declined to $4.15 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid 

Medicaid 26% 

22% Other Other Federal Federal SAPT Block SAPT Block 1% 2% Grant Grant

40% 37% 

State State 

36% 36%

N=$118,827,087 N=$130,209,265 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

140,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

563 
Ohio Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 48,730,057 41 49,259,605 41 49,047,183 39 47,461,285 36 

Medicaid 25,567,219 22 29,079,448 24 29,591,089 23 34,174,236 26 

Other Federal 2,198,637 2 317,691 0 931,935 1 1,248,436 1 

State 42,331,174 36 41,175,019 34 47,334,992 37 47,325,308 36 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 118,827,087 100 119,831,763 100 126,905,199 100 130,209,265 100 

SOURCE: FY 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Ohio’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 130,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment 

services. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=130,894) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 117 212 3 

Free-standing residential 1,470 2,606 218 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 1,154 2,406 0 

Long-term residential 405 673 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 10 2,562 492 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 42,839 44,121 13,568 

Intensive outpatient 7,155 9,037 937 

Detoxification (outpatient) 281 628 0 

Total 53,431 62,245 15,218 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate more than 55,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known), of which nearly 14,000 were for alcohol only. Calculations (with imputation) 

from TEDS data show that approximately 27 percent of persons admitted to treatment programs 

reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate varied slightly when 

separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a 

discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

564 
Inventory of State Profiles Ohio 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 13,836 23.0 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 41,470 28.6 

Total 55,306 27.2 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 702,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.5 

percent of Ohio’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 245,000 

persons (2.6 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Ohio. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.47 5.59 17.69 5.97 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.61 5.24 7.76 1.36 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

565 
Ohio Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

ODADAS prepared a comprehensive statewide alcohol and drug addiction services plan (Five-Year 

State Plan, SFYs 2004-2008) that provides the State and its system of boards and local providers 

with strategic direction. The plan describes current policy concerns and priorities and performance 

objectives that support the strategic direction. The Five-Year Plan was developed with the 

assistance of a wide variety of constituents representing multiple service systems (e.g., education, 

health, child welfare, housing) as well as departments and agencies. The Governor’s Advisory 

Council on Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services, comprising State departments, local boards, 

providers, families, and the judiciary, reviewed and approved the plan. Ohio’s community boards are 

also required to assess community needs for alcohol and other drug prevention and treatment 

services, establish priorities, develop plans, and contract with local programs to provide services. 

Information and data used to assist in the development of performance objectives and priorities for 

the Five-Year Plan were obtained from multiple sources. These sources include the Ohio Substance 

Abuse Monitoring Network, PRIDE and Youth Risk Behavior Survey data, ODADAS’ Multi-Agency 

Community Services Information System (MACSIS), ADAMHS/ADAS Boards’ community plans, and 

regional focus groups and town meetings. MACSIS provides trend information about clients served 

in Ohio’s publicly funded treatment system. It provides data about admissions, client demographics, 

and drug of choice. MACSIS also provides data on service delivery based on the six core prevention 

strategies and the Institute of Medicine’s categories of universal, selected, and indicated. 

Evaluation 

ODADAS assesses and strives to improve the quality and appropriateness of services delivered by 

providers through independent peer review, review of MACSIS data, and other means. Each of 

Ohio’s boards uses independent peer review to assess the quality of treatment services. Board 

financial records are examined as part of ODADAS’ compliance review process. 

ODADAS provides requires all Board-contracted treatment agencies to use the ODADAS protocol 

for Levels of Care placement criteria for adult and youths and requires all treatment programs to be 

certified by ODADAS and have a quality assurance program. 

Training and Assistance 

Alcohol and other drug prevention and treatment service providers are offered professional 

development and training opportunities by ODADAS. These opportunities include the annual Ohio 

Drug and Alcohol Studies Institute that featured more than 70 professional development sessions 

and continuing education credits; the Outcome Framework Initiative to create an outcome 

management infrastructure; and the Ohio Prevention Education Conference. Outcome core trainings 

are held for prevention and treatment program staff with followup consultations for participating 

agencies. Statewide training for staff in the Public Children’s Services Agency are held and focused 

on confidentiality. Cross-Disciplinary training provides criminal justice and substance abuse 

treatment professionals with instruction to foster working relationships between the systems. New 

trainings in FY 2004 included the Faith in the AOD System conference, Medication-Assisted 

Treatment conference, and Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Town Hall meeting. 

566 
Inventory of State Profiles Ohio 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Ohio 

declined slightly from $1.9 to $1.7 million. The distribution of funds changed somewhat during this 

time period. In FY 2000, most of the expenditures went toward quality assurance (40 percent) and 

planning, coordination, and needs assessment (36 percent). In FY 2003, while quality assurance 

activities still received nearly half of funds (46 percent), information systems received 50 percent of 

total expenditures, and planning, coordination, and needs assessment’s activities received only 2 

percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Planning, Planning, 

Coordination, Coordination, 

Needs Quality Needs Quality Assessment Assurance Assessment

Program 

Development

2% 

Assurance

36% 40% 2%

46% 

Information 

Systems 

50% 

Information Program N=$1,880,822 N=$1,673,043 

Systems Development

14% 10%

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 682,352 36 675,310 36 1,297,015 61 40,544 2 

Quality Assurance 758,174 40 735,109 40 725,707 34 770,742 46 

Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 184,850 10 184,850 10 60,238 3 40,545 2 

Research and 

Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Information Systems 255,446 14 255,446 14 40,450 2 821,212 50 

Total* 1,880,822 100 1,850,715 100 2,123,410 100 1,673,043 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

567 
Ohio Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary funding for Ohio prevention efforts in 

FY 2004 totaled $6.2 million. Most of the grants (20 of the 28) went toward drug-free communities. 

The largest single award was a State Incentive Cooperative Agreement for $3 million. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

CSAP 2004 Earmarks 1 497,050 

Drug Free Communities 20 1,743,773 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 4 261,145 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 349,328 

Prevention of Methamphetamine and Inhalant Use 1 350,000 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreements 1 3,000,000 

Total 28 6,201,296 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

In FY 2004, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) discretionary funding for treatment 

in Ohio totaled nearly $7.7 million. Awards included grants for Targeted Capacity-HIV/AIDS, Adult 

Juvenile and Family Drug Courts, and Rehabilitation and Restitution. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 3 1,200,000 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 2 497,134 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 2 766,354 

Recovery Community Support - Recovery 1 350,000 

Rehabilitation and Restitution 1 1,350,000 

Strengthening Communities -Youth 1 750,000 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 2 987,824 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 4 1,760,747 

Total 16 7,662,059 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

568 
OKLAHOMA 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Ben Brown, Deputy Commissioner 

Oklahoma Department of Mental 

Health and Substance Abuse Services 

P.O. Box 53277 

Oklahoma City, OK 73152-3277 

Phone: 405-522-3877 

Fax: 405-522-0637 

E-mail: bbrown@odmhsas.org 

Web site: www.odmhsas.org 

Structure and Function 

The Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 

(ODMHSAS) is the State’s Single State Agency (SSA) for substance abuse 

services. A governing board provides oversight regarding function and 

activities related to the care, treatment, and recovery of persons suffering from 

mental illness and substance abuse. 

ODMHSAS provides services through a statewide network of programs. Programs for individuals 

dependent on alcohol or other drugs range from outpatient counseling to extended residential 

treatment. ODMHSAS also supports prevention programs to reduce the occurrence of substance 

abuse among young people. Area Prevention Resource Centers are funded to offer education and 

assistance to schools, parents, and community groups. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Mental Health 

and Substance Abuse Services 

(ODMHSAS) 

Division of Mental Health 

Services 

Division of Substance Abuse 

Services 

Criminal Justice 

Services 

Drug Court/ 

Co-Occurring Services 

Prevention 

Services 

Treatment Services 

569 
Oklahoma Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Total SSA funding for drug and alcohol abuse services in Oklahoma increased between FYs 2000 

and 2003 from $33.7 to $43.9 million. In FY 2003, more than half (52 percent) of the funding came 

from the State (up from 43 percent in FY 2000), followed by 40 percent from the Block Grant (down 

from 49 percent in FY 2000), and 8 percent from other Federal sources. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Other Other 

1% Federal Federal 

7% 8% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block Grant Grant State 40%

49% 43% State 

52% 

N=$33,688,975 N=$43,946,008 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 16,559,798 49 17,257,097 47 17,697,861 38 17,788,840 40 

Medicaid 188,449 1 189,727 1 189,727 0 189,727 0 

Other Federal 2,471,021 7 3,352,843 9 10,901,470 24 3,402,519 8 

State 14,469,707 43 15,910,330 43 17,355,772 38 22,564,922 51 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 33,688,975 100 36,709,997 100 46,144,830 100 43,946,008 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

570 
Inventory of State Profiles Oklahoma 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the $43.9 million in FY 2003 total SSA funds, most (81 percent) were allocated for treatment 

services, 13 percent for prevention services, and 6 percent for administration costs. This distribution 

represents a change from FY 2000, when 74 percent went toward treatment services and 18 percent 

went toward prevention. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention

18% Treatment Prevention 

Treatment 81% 13% 

74% 

Administration Administration 

8% 6% 

N=$33,688,975 N=$43,946,008 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 12,462,933 37 26,835,996 73 30,915,967 67 35,627,533 81 

Alcohol Treatment 6,245,984 19 0 0 

Drug Treatment 6,173,864 18 0 0 

Prevention 6,220,911 18 7,266,632 20 7,084,182 15 5,510,949 13 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 2,585,283 8 2,607,369 7 8,144,681 18 2,807,526 6 

Total* 33,688,975 100 36,709,997 100 46,144,830 100 43,946,008 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

571 
Oklahoma Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures in Oklahoma increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $16.6 to $17.8 

million. The distribution of funds was very stable during this time period: treatment received most 

(three-fourths) of the Block Grant expenditures, prevention services received 20 percent, and 

administration costs received 5 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

20% 20% Treatment Treatment 

75% 75% 

Administration Administration

5% 5% 

N=$16,559,798 N=$17,788,840 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 12,942,823 75 13,273,396 75 13,341,630 75 

Alcohol Treatment 6,245,984 38 0 0 

Drug Treatment 6,173,864 37 0 0 

Prevention 3,311,960 20 3,451,419 20 3,539,572 20 3,557,768 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 827,990 5 862,855 5 884,893 5 889,442 5 

Total* 16,559,798 100 17,257,097 100 17,697,861 100 17,788,840 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

572 
Inventory of State Profiles Oklahoma 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures for alcohol and drug abuse services increased dramatically between FYs 2000 

and 2003 from $14.5 to $22.6 million. In FY 2003, treatment received most (87 percent) of State 

funds (up from 82 percent in FY 2000), administration costs received 9 percent (down from 12 

percent in FY 2000), and prevention received 4 percent (down slightly from 6 percent in FY 2000). 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

6% Treatment Prevention Treatment 

82% 87% 4%

Administration Administration

12% 9%

N=$14,469,707 N=$22,564,922 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 11,772,287 81 13,268,321 83 14,769,476 85 19,786,536 88 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 940,127 6 897,495 6 777,243 4 860,302 4 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,757,293 12 1,744,514 11 1,809,053 10 1,918,084 9 

Total* 14,469,707 100 15,910,330 100 17,355,772 100 22,564,922 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

573 
Oklahoma Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

ODMHSAS supports prevention programs to help young people build healthy lifestyles and acquire 

skills that reduce their risk of later developing alcohol or drug dependence. These programs involve 

training to develop strong, positive self-images, education about the dangers of alcohol and other 

drugs, literature and educational videos, and assistance to community groups in establishing 

effective organizations to fight substance abuse. To implement its prevention programs, ODMHSAS 

funds a network of 18 Area Prevention Resource Centers, as well as other programs offering 

education and assistance to schools, parents, and community groups. Three specialty centers 

provide services for specific populations throughout the State: the University of Oklahoma American 

Indian Institute, the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences African American 

Institute, and the Latino Community Development Center. State monies fund a fourth specialty 

center educating Oklahomans about fetal alcohol spectrum. A mentoring program for high-risk 

children who are referred through the juvenile justice system is also funded through State resources. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding in Oklahoma between FYs 2000 and 2002 ranged from $6.2 to $7 million. In FY 

2003 these funds declined to $5.5 million. The proportion of prevention funds supported by the Block 

Grant increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from 53 to 64 percent of the total, while other Federal 

funds as a proportion of the total declined from 32 to 20 percent. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant prevention expenditures per capita ranged narrowly 

between $0.96 and $1.02. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other 

Federal SAPT Block Federal 

Other 

32% 20% Grant 

SAPT Block 64% Grant

53%

State State 16%

15% 

N=$6,220,911 N=$5,510,949 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

574 
Inventory of State Profiles Oklahoma 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 3,311,960 53 3,451,419 47 3,539,572 50 3,557,768 64 

Other Federal 1,968,824 32 2,917,718 40 2,767,367 39 1,092,879 20 

State 940,127 15 897,495 12 777,243 11 860,302 16 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 6,220,911 100 7,266,632 100 7,084,182 100 5,510,949 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of prevention strategies funded by the Block Grant include the following: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

The Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences 

supplements the efforts of the Partnership for a Drug-Free 

America that target underage alcohol use and seek support for 

public service announcements (PSAs). 

Education 

Training for teachers, counselors, volunteers, and others fosters 

sustainability of prevention efforts. Funding also supports the 

delivery of “A Pregnant Pause” education program on fetal 

alcohol spectrum and the delivery of the youth leadership camp 

‘Project Under 21’ program focused on underage alcohol use. 

Alternatives 

The State sponsors drug-free dances and team-building activities 

and maintains “Teenline” for teens and young adults that 

provides trained volunteers to talk callers through problems and 

concerns. 

Community-Based Processes Activities support for community-based coalitions and training for 

coalitions on risk and protective factors. 

Environmental 

Partnerships are formed with tobacco and alcohol outlets to 

educate them about youth access issues and with the Oklahoma 

Highway Safety Office on a media campaign at football games 

with drinking prevention messages. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

The booklet the “Yellow Pages” lists statewide substance abuse 

prevention and treatment providers as well as mental health and 

domestic violence programs. 

Other: Logic models are used by community coalitions and prevention 

programs. 

575 
Oklahoma Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funds for prevention strategies have remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 

2003, increasing from $3.3 to $3.6 million. In FY 2003, community-based processes received the 

majority (62 percent) of Block Grant core strategy funds. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Education 

Alternatives Problem ID Education Alternatives

23% 

3% and Referral Information 10% 4%

1% Dissemination

16%

Section 1926 ­

Information Community- Tobacco 

Dissemination Based 1%

13%

Other Process Environmental CommunityEnvironmental 46% 7% Based 

11% Process 3% N=$3,311,960 N=$3,557,768 62% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 442,939 13 412,046 12 530,935 15 569,242 16 

Education 767,769 23 719,328 21 601,727 17 355,776 10 

Alternatives 88,588 3 117,553 3 141,582 4 142,310 4 

Problem ID and Referral 29,529 1 18,272 1 3,539 0 3,557 0 

Community-Based 

Process 1,535,547 46 1,694,776 49 1,986,569 56 2,213,948 62 

Environmental 88,588 3 83,444 2 247,770 7 245,485 7 

Other 359,000 11 406,000 12 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 27,450 1 27,450 1 

Total* 3,311,960 100 3,451,419 100 3,539,572 100 3,557,768 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding 

576 
Inventory of State Profiles Oklahoma 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

ODMHSAS contracts with private, nonprofit, certified agencies to provide detoxification, residential, 

halfway house, outpatient, intensive outpatient, and early intervention services. Seven ODMHSASoperated agencies provide residential and outpatient treatment services. In addition, the University 

of Oklahoma Health Sciences Centers provides screening, assessment, and treatment planning for 

children with fetal alcohol spectrum. ODMHSAS contracts with six agencies to provide early 

intervention services to selected schools to work with school personnel and parents. The 

Department of Human Services provides screening, assessments, and outpatient substance abuse 

services to TANF clients and child welfare clients. The Oklahoma legislature continues to fund drug 

court programs. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections funds substance abuse screening and 

assessment, residential treatment, and other services at prisons, community correction centers, and 

for individuals in the probation and parole system. 

ODMHSAS set a priority on strengthening substance abuse case management to promote effective 

referrals and linkage for services in and outside of the substance abuse arena. An experienced case 

management professional is on staff to assist with this priority. Further, ODMHSAS contracts for or 

operates multiple programs to provide integrated co-occurring treatment services. Four agencies 

provide residential treatment and five provide outpatient or intensive outpatient care. A full-time staff 

member focuses exclusively on co-occurring services. Overall, ODMHSAS is moving toward a more 

integrated system of services for mental health, domestic violence, and substance abuse. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Funds for treatment in Oklahoma increased from $24.9 to $35.6 million between FYS 2000 and 

2003. The State provided the majority (56 percent) of treatment funds in FY 2003, followed by the 

Block Grant (37 percent) and other Federal funds (6 percent). This distribution represents a shift 

since FY 2000 when the State provided only 47 percent of the total and the Block Grant provided 

half. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant treatment expenditures in Oklahoma increased from $3.60 

to $3.81 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Other Funding Source 

Medicaid Other Federal 

1% Federal 6% 

2% Medicaid 

1% 

SAPT Block 

Grant State SAPT Block State 

47% Grant 56% 50% 

37% 

N=$24,882,781 N=$35,627,533 

577 
Oklahoma Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 12,419,848 50 12,942,823 48 13,273,396 43 13,341,630 37 

Medicaid 188,449 1 189,727 1 189,727 1 189,727 1 

Other Federal 502,197 2 435,125 2 2,683,368 9 2,309,640 6 

State 11,772,287 47 13,268,321 49 14,769,476 48 19,786,536 56 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 24,882,781 100 26,835,996 100 30,915,967 100 35,627,533 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding 

Admissions 

Oklahoma’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 22,000 persons were admitted for 

treatment services during FY 2002. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis (N=22,333) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 110 65 0 

Free-standing residential 1,729 2,382 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 972 2,811 92 

Long-term residential 313 720 298 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 3,917 8,117 780 

Intensive outpatient 5 20 2 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 7,047 14,114 1,172 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

578 
Inventory of State Profiles Oklahoma 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate nearly 17,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 40 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate varied slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of 

alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see 

Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 4,020 41.7 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 12,901 39.7 

Total 16,921 40.1 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 188,000 persons aged 12 and older (6.6 

percent of Oklahoma’s population) needed, but did not receive treatment for alcohol use and 78,000 

persons (2.7 percent) needed, but did not receive treatment for illicit drug use in Oklahoma. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older 

% 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and 

older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 6.61 5.41 16.77 4.83 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.74 4.91 7.25 1.56 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

579 
Oklahoma Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Oklahoma is divided into eight substate planning regions. Regional Advisory Boards are being 

encouraged to merge with community coalitions to involve local persons in departmental planning. 

Coalitions develop needs assessments in their communities to identify resources and gaps in 

services. They prioritize the needs and develop plans on how best to fill those gaps. 

ODMHSAS conducts a series of surveys to determine the needs for substance abuse treatment 

among various population groups. The studies result in a series of reports. The Oklahoma State 

Treatment Needs Assessment Studies, Alcohol and Other Drugs report includes information on 

incidence, prevalence, and need. Data are collected by substate planning regions. The Provider 

Management Reports and Regional Provider Management Reports utilize information from the 

Integrated Client Information System (ICIS), which contains information used throughout the year for 

planning. 

Prevention needs assessment data are obtained from the County-Based Inferential Indicators for 

Substance Abuse and Other Prevention Issues report and include social indicators such as per 

capita income, dropout rates, and juvenile arrest rates, among others. Other prevention data are 

collected through the Oklahoma Kid’s Count Data Book, the Oklahoma Tobacco Survey Report, the 

Oklahoma Prevention Needs Assessment Survey, and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. 

Evaluation 

Information on treatment clients and client services is maintained in the ICIS database. Services are 

linked to client characteristics and clients are tracked across agencies and over time. An annual 

Data Book summarizes demographic information and services for clients served in ODMHSASfunded agencies. The report is accessible through the ODMHSAS Web site. The Provider 

Management Reports and the Regional Provider Management Reports, using ICIS data, provide 

facilities and program staff with up-to-date performance indicator information. At least 5 percent of 

treatment programs receiving SAPT Block grant funds receive an independent peer review each 

year to assess and improve the quality and appropriateness of treatment services. 

Training and Assistance 

ODMHSAS provides continuing education for staff who provide prevention and treatment services. 

Training includes the annual Substance Abuse Conference. ODMHSAS also provides trainings each 

year for substance abuse staff through the Donahue series that includes such topics as the 

Addiction Severity Index, Infectious Diseases Management and Treatment, Motivational 

Interviewing, and Women and Addiction, among others. Prevention training programs focus on 

topics such as community mobilization and prevention specialist certification issues. 

580 
Inventory of State Profiles Oklahoma 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant expenditures on resource development activities in Oklahoma more than doubled 

between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $454,000 to $1.3 million). In FY 2003 planning, coordination, and 

needs assessment activities received the largest proportion (46 percent) of resource development 

funds, followed by training (at 22 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Planning, Quality Quality 

Coordination, Assurance Planning, Assurance 

8% Needs Coordination, 12% 

Assessment Training Needs 

Training 18% 21% Assessment 

46% 22%

Program 

Research and Education Development

Evaluation 6% 6%

35% Program Information Research and 

Development Systems Evaluation

12% 6% 8%

N=$454,000 N=$1,257,000 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 80,000 18 100,000 16 100,000 16 579,000 46 

Quality Assurance 38,000 8 75,000 12 75,000 12 150,000 12 

Training 95,000 21 130,000 21 130,000 21 276,000 22 

Education 25,000 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 55,000 12 60,000 10 60,000 10 75,000 6 

Research and Evaluation 161,000 35 171,000 28 171,000 28 105,000 8 

Information Systems 0 0 80,000 13 80,000 13 72,000 6 

Total* 454,000 100 616,000 100 616,000 100 1,257,000 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

581 
Oklahoma Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary prevention funds in Oklahoma 

totaled $1.7 million in FY 2004. Drug-free communities received 14 of the 17 grants and totaled 

nearly $1.3 million. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Centers for Application of Prevention Technology 1 337,588 

Drug Free Communities 14 1,256,566 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 1 73,264 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Youth Services Cooperative 

Agreements 1 63,636 

Total 17 1,731,054 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

In FY 2004 Oklahoma received $1.5 million in Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) 

discretionary funds for treatment. Grants were awarded for homeless addictions treatment, 

pregnant/post-partum women, and State data infrastructure. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 2 904,513 

Pregnant/Post-Partum Women 1 499,984 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Total 4 1,504,497 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

582 
OREGON 

State SSA Director 

Robert E. Nikkel, Administrator 

Office of Mental Health and Addiction Services 

Department of Human Services 

500 Summer Street, NE, E-86 

Salem, OR 97301-1118 

Phone: 503-945-9704 

Fax: 503-373-7327 

E-mail: robert.e.nikkel@state.org 

Web Site: www.dhs.state.or.us 

Structure and Function 

Oregon’s Single State Agency (SSA) for substance abuse is the Office of 

Mental Health and Addiction Services (OMHAS), located in the Department of 

Human Services (DHS) under the Health Services program area. OMHAS 

oversees the statewide substance abuse prevention and treatment systems 

with guidance and assistance from a variety of committees, commissions, and 

partnerships. The substate alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) service 

delivery system consists of Oregon’s 36 counties (each of which has a local alcohol and drug 

planning council), the 9 tribes, and statewide initiatives, among others. 

OMHAS’ mission is to assist Oregonians and their families to become independent, healthy, and 

safe by (1) promoting resilience and recovery through culturally competent, integrated, evidencebased treatments of addictions, pathological gambling, mental illness, and emotional disorders and 

(2) preventing and reducing the negative effects of alcohol, other drugs, gambling addiction, and 

mental health disorders. To accomplish the mission, OMHAS works with community partners to plan, 

deliver service, and enhance program quality. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Children’s Mental Health 

& Medicaid Policy 

Addictions Policy 

and Program 

Development 

Housing & 

Homeless 

Department of Health 

Services (DHS) 

Office of Mental Health & 

Addictions Services 

(OMHAS) 

Acute Care, Mental 

Health Services 

EvidenceBased 

Practice 

Community Development 

Quality Improvement & 

Certification 

Gambling 

Support 

Services 

Program 

Analyses & 

Evaluation 

583 
Oregon Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Oregon’s overall SSA funding for FYs 2000 to 2003 fluctuated during FYs 2000 through 2003 from a 

low of $43.2 million in FY 2001 to a high of $53.8 million in FY 2000. Both Medicaid and State 

funding varied considerably during that time period, while Block Grant funding remained relatively 

stable, and other Federal sources decreased. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid 

28% 37% 

SAPT Block 

Other Grant SAPT Block

28% Federal Grant 

10% 35% 

Other 

Federal 

4% 

State State 

34% N=$53,811,461 24% N=$46,371,629 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 15,268,109 28 15,477,534 36 15,844,227 32 16,098,172 35 

Medicaid 15,265,645 28 9,901,750 23 22,478,528 46 17,236,406 37 

Other Federal 5,227,002 10 2,142,959 5 1,640,947 3 1,676,494 4 

State 18,050,705 34 15,723,028 36 9,403,341 19 11,360,557 24 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 53,811,461 100 43,245,271 100 49,367,043 100 46,371,629 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

584 
Inventory of State Profiles Oregon 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

The distribution of SSA funds from FY 2000 to 2003 was fairly stable. Of the $46.4 million 

expenditures in FY 2003, most went toward treatment and rehabilitation services (87 percent), 

followed by prevention activities (11 percent). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Prevention Treatment Prevention 

14% 85% 87% 11% 

Administration 

Administration 1% 

2% 

N=$53,811,461 N=$46,371,629 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 44,168,222 89 40,399,863 87 

Alcohol Treatment 25,279,203 47 20,938,691 48 

Drug Treatment 20,100,999 37 16,865,331 39 

Prevention 7,667,854 14 4,667,372 11 4,406,610 9 5,166,858 11 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 763,405 1 773,877 2 792,211 2 804,908 2 

Total* 53,811,461 100 43,245,271 100 49,367,043 100 46,371,629 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

585 
Oregon Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures increased steadily from FYs 2000 to 2003 (from $15.3 to $16.1 million). 

The allocation of funds for both treatment and prevention services remained stable during that time 

period, with 75 percent allocated to treatment and rehabilitation and 20 percent allocated to 

prevention. Administration activities and costs accounted for 5 percent of expenditures during this 

time period. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

20% 20% Treatment Treatment 

75% 75% 

Administration Administration

5% 5% 

N=$15,268,109 N=$16,098,172 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

18,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 11,883,171 75 12,073,630 75 

Alcohol Treatment 5,828,353 38 6,169,000 40 

Drug Treatment 5,622,729 37 5,439,150 35 

Prevention 3,053,622 20 3,095,507 20 3,168,845 20 3,219,634 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 763,405 5 773,877 5 792,211 5 804,908 5 

Total* 15,268,109 100 15,477,534 100 15,844,227 100 16,098,172 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

586 
Inventory of State Profiles Oregon 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Oregon’s contribution toward SSA activities between FYs 2000 and 2003 varied substantially from a 

high of $18.1 million in FY 2000 to a low of $9.4 million in FY 2002. In FY 2003, State expenditures 

totaled $11.4 million, with the vast majority of funds (91 percent) being directed toward treatment 

and rehabilitation services and 9 percent allocated for prevention activities. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention Treatment 9% 7% Treatment 

93% 91% 

N=$18,050,705 N=$11,360,557 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 8,632,799 92 10,375,167 91 

Alcohol Treatment 10,419,192 58 8,932,514 57 

Drug Treatment 6,343,935 35 6,048,740 38 

Prevention 1,287,578 7 741,774 5 770,542 8 985,390 9 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 18,050,705 100 15,723,028 100 9,403,341 100 11,360,557 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

587 
Oregon Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

OMHAS oversees the statewide substance abuse prevention system with guidance and assistance 

from a variety of committees, commissions, and partnerships. OMHAS contracts with directly with 36 

counties, 9 Tribes, and other entities, for community-based prevention services. The counties and 

Tribes either provide the prevention services and activities themselves or subcontract for services 

with community-based providers. In addition, OMHAS contracts with four direct contractors for 

specific prevention services that are not responsibilities of counties and Tribes. Examples include 

SYNAR compliance, statewide 24-hour Helpline, drug-free workplace prevention efforts, and Asianspecific prevention services. Finally, Oregon has more than 70 community coalitions that are active 

in the State to prevent substance abuse. 

Oregon has adopted three frameworks as guidelines for implementing its prevention services: the 

Communities that Care framework, the Institute of Medicine framework, and the six primary 

prevention strategies funded by the SAPT Block Grant. Statewide strategies focus on reducing 

underage drinking, implementing community development strategies, and improving parenting skills. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Oregon’s prevention expenditures fluctuated considerably between FYs 2000 and 2003. The SAPT 

Block Grant, as a prevention funding source, remained relatively stable in dollar value throughout 

that timeframe, accounting for $3.2 million in spending. Other Federal funding and State sources 

were more volatile, and decreased substantially, both in dollar amount and in proportion of total 

funding. 

The SAPT Block Grant funding per capita on prevention services remained stable, from FYs 2000 to 

2003, ranging from $0.89 to $0.90. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

43% 19%

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant

40% 62% State 

19% 

State

17%

N=$7,667,854 N=$5,166,858 

588 
Inventory of State Profiles Oregon 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

9,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 3,053,622 40 3,095,507 66 3,168,845 72 3,219,634 62 

Other Federal 3,326,654 43 830,091 18 467,223 11 961,834 19 

State 1,287,578 17 741,774 16 770,542 17 985,390 19 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 7,667,854 100 4,667,372 100 4,406,610 100 5,166,858 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Awareness materials are distributed statewide through the Oregon 

Partnership Resource Center. OMHAS partnered with Safeway stores 

to display messages on underage drinking in stores and on bags. 

Education Mentoring and peer-leader/helper programs increase parental skills 

and train peer helpers to help youth resist the use of drugs. 

Alternatives Activities are designed to provide youth with positive ways to spend 

their time. 

Community-Based Processes 

OMHAD increased the number of multidisciplinary community teams 

that include citizens from businesses, faith communities, and law 

enforcement as well as parents, teachers and youth. 

Environmental 

The partnership with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission educates 

and offers team training for communities about effective community 

prevention policies and practices. 

Problem Identification and Referral The statewide helpline provides referrals to local treatment and 

prevention services. 

589 
Oregon Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

The distribution of Block Grant funding between FYs 2000 and 2003 remained proportionately level 

among the various core prevention strategy expenditures. Problem identification and referral have 

consistently accounted for the largest portion of the funds (31 percent), followed by education (20 

percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Education Alternatives Education Alternatives

20% 11% 11%

20% 

Information Problem ID Information Problem ID Dissemination and Referral Dissemination and Referral

10% 31% 10% 31% 

Environmental Community- Environmental Community- Based 14% 14% 

Based 

Process Process 

14% 

N=$3,053,622 14% N=$3,219,636 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 305,362 10 305,363 10 316,885 10 321,964 10 

Education 610,725 20 610,724 20 633,769 20 643,927 20 

Alternatives 335,898 11 335,898 11 348,573 11 354,160 11 

Problem ID and Referral 946,623 31 946,623 31 982,342 31 998,087 31 

Community-Based 

Process 427,507 14 427,507 14 443,638 14 450,749 14 

Environmental 427,507 14 427,507 14 443,638 14 450,749 14 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 3,053,622 100 3,053,622 100 3,168,845 100 3,219,636 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

590 
Inventory of State Profiles Oregon 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

OMHAS supports a continuum of substance abuse treatment services through county and tribal 

financial assistance agreements. Regional services are funded through a combination of direct 

contracts, county contracts, and local options. OMHAS, with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson 

Foundation, is also addressing barriers to consumers entering and transitioning between appropriate 

levels of care; realigning aspects of the State’s clinical, administrative, and financial infrastructure to 

enable counties, providers, and consumers to customize treatment to community attributes and to 

prepare for Access to Recovery (ATR) vouchers; quantifying cost savings for Medicaid and other 

State human services achieved by investing in substance abuse treatment; and recommending 

attributes of more modernized and less fragmented information systems. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 treatment expenditures in Oregon varied substantially, from a low of 

$37.8 million in FY 2001 to a high of $45.4 million in FY 2000, with expenditures at $40.4 million in 

FY 2003. Medicaid, Block Grant, and State funding accounted for the majority of spending, 

comprising 42 percent, 30 percent, and 26 percent of expenditures respectively in FY 2003. 

SAPT Block Grant funding per capita for treatment and rehabilitation services remained stable from 

FY 2000 through 2003, increasing from $3.34 to $3.39 during that time period. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid Medicaid 

34% 42% 

Other SAPT Block 

Federal Grant 

SAPT Block 

4% 30%

Grant

25% Other 

Federal 

State 2% 

State 26%

N=$45,380,202 37% N=$40,399,863

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

591 
Oregon Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 11,451,082 25 11,608,150 31 11,883,171 27 12,073,630 30 

Medicaid 15,265,645 34 9,901,750 26 22,478,528 51 17,236,406 43 

Other Federal 1,900,348 4 1,312,868 3 1,173,724 3 714,660 2 

State 16,763,127 37 14,981,254 40 8,632,799 20 10,375,167 26 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 45,380,202 100 37,804,022 100 44,168,222 100 40,399,863 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Oregon’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that more than 15,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment 

services. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=15,052) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 2,654 0 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 0 0 0 

Long-term residential 1,741 0 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 10,657 0 0 

Intensive outpatient 0 0 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 15,052 0 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data—which include programs funded through the Block Grant 

and programs that are not—indicate more than 50,000 admissions (where at least one substance is 

known), of which more than 16,000 were for alcohol only. Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS 

data show that nearly 22 percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric 

problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate varied slightly when separating out alcoholonly abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the 

different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

592 
Inventory of State Profiles Oregon 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 16,402 19.1 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 33,981 22.6 

Total 50,383 21.5 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 204,000 persons aged 12 and older (6.9 

percent of Oregon’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use, and 85,000 

persons (2.9 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Oregon. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 6.93 5.78 16.86 5.40 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.88 5.07 9.17 1.53 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

593 
Oregon Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Under the guidance of the Governor’s Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs (GCADAP), 

OMHAS initiates and facilitates State- and local-level planning for substance abuse prevention and 

treatment services. Planning begins with county profiles that identify specific needs for alcohol and 

drug prevention and treatment services and describes prevention and treatment strategies. The 

planning process involves meetings with various State agencies, local committees, councils, 

contractors, and advocates. The meetings develop strategies, set priorities, and establish criteria for 

delivering services. 

OMHAS uses various data sources to develop the county profiles. Prevention and treatment needs 

are assessed from the Household Survey and the Oregon Healthy Teens School Survey data. 

OMHAS also uses social indicator data from the Client Processing and Monitoring System (CPMS) 

and the statewide Law Enforcement Data Set. 

OMHAS facilitates the planning process, provides technical assistance, and develops reports to 

share with participants and GCADAP. Each county has a Local Alcohol and Drug Planning Council 

with members who reflect the community’s geographic and social diversity. Local councils then 

develop specific plans and submit them to OMHAS for review and approval. The GCADAP reviews 

and approves final plans on behalf of the Governor. 

Evaluation 

OMHAS develops quarterly performance measures at county and provider levels. These indicators 

are designed to measure access to services and treatment outcomes relative to levels of need. 

Observations are shared quarterly with local committees and contractors. OMHAS provides 

technical assistance as needed. 

OMHAS monitors prevention activities through three primary methods. First, each county and Tribe 

is required to provide OMHAS with a biennial prevention plan and track services through the use of 

the Minimum Data Set (MDS). Second, OMHAS requires each county and Tribe to complete an 

annual report on the services provided. Third, a site review is conducted with each county and Tribe 

every 2 years. 

Training and Assistance 

OMHAS provides quality training on evidence-based practices using Netlink and Train the Trainer 

models. Training efforts are partnerships with other organizations and include the following: ASAM 

PPC-2R Training of Trainers; clinical supervision courses; a conference on “Back to Basics,” an 

institute on “Evidence-based Practice for the 21st Century,” Matrix Model training; and training on 

“Best Practices in Treatment.” Prevention training is integrated into all Oregon communities. OMHAS 

offers instruction on topics such as community mobilization, risk and protective factors, underage 

drinking, and cultural diversity and competence. 

Integrated service courses are a substantial component of OMHAS training. For example, more than 

380 substance abuse and child welfare professionals receive training annually on treatment and 

case management of families affected by methamphetamine, alcohol, and other drug use. This 

training curriculum was developed with support form OMHAS and is now carried out each year with 

financial support from the Department’s child welfare section. OMHAS also collaborated with the 

Oregon Department of Education to provide the Annual Prevention of Violence Institute. 

594 
Inventory of State Profiles Oregon 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Oregon spent over $500,000 on resource development activities in FY 2003. The bulk of that 

spending (53 percent) was for planning, coordination, and needs assessment activities, followed by 

training (27 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities Quality Quality 

Assurance Assurance 

7% 7% 

Planning, Training Planning, Training 27% Coordination, Coordination, 27% Needs Needs 

Assessment Assessment Education Education 53% 53% 3% 3% 

Program 

Research and Program Research and Development 

Evaluation Development Evaluation 6% 

4% 6% 4% 

N=$482,193 N=$511,125 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

600,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 255,379 53 262,817 53 N/R - 270,702 53 

Quality Assurance 34,984 7 36,003 7 N/R - 37,083 7 

Training 132,363 27 136,217 27 N/R - 140,304 27 

Education 13,990 3 14,398 3 N/R - 14,830 3 

Program Development 27,986 6 28,801 6 N/R - 29,665 6 

Research and 

Evaluation 17,491 4 18,001 4 N/R - 18,541 4 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 N/R - 0 0 

Total* 482,193 100 496,237 100 N/R - 511,125 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

N/R = Not reported 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

595 
Oregon Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded more than $5.7 million in 39 

discretionary grants to entities in Oregon during FY 2004. More than three-quarters of the grants 

were awarded to drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

AI / AN National Resource Center 1 1,047,050 

Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy & Other Club Drugs 

Prevention Services 2 584,712 

Drug Free Communities 30 2,686,896 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 2 149,907 

Prevention of Methamphetamine and Inhalant Use 1 349,857 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 1 25,000 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreements 1 750,000 

Youth Transition into the Workplace 1 149,873 

Total 39 5,743,295 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded more than $5.7 million in discretionary 

funds to 15 entities in Oregon, representing a broad spectrum of diverse populations, services, and 

modalities. The largest dollar amounts went toward residential substance abuse treatment grants, 

followed by drug court grants (adult, juvenile, and family). 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Addiction Technical Transfer Center 1 644,457 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 2 726,720 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 250,000 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 1 376,109 

Methamphetamine Populations 1 498,275 

Pregnant/Post-Partum Women 1 500,000 

Recovery Community Service 1 317,768 

Recovery Community Support - Facilitating 1 350,000 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Residential Substance Abuse Treatment 2 780,335 

Strengthening Access and Retention 1 200,000 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 1 500,000 

TCE Minority Populations 1 500,000 

Total 15 5,743,664 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

596 
PENNSYLVANIA 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Gene R. Boyle, Director 

Bureau of Drug and Alcohol Programs 

Pennsylvania Department of Health 

02 Kline Plaza, Suite B 

Harrisburg, PA 17104 

Phone: (717) 783-8200 

Fax: (717) 787-6285 (fax) 

E-mail: eboyle@state.pa.us 

Web site: www.dsf.health.state.pa.us 

Structure and Function 

The Pennsylvania Department of Health’s (DOH) Bureau of Drug and Alcohol 

Programs (BDAP) is the designated Single State Agency (SSA) for the 

prevention and treatment of substance abuse throughout the State. Toward that 

end, BDAP oversees a system of Single County Authorities (SCAs) to provide 

publicly funded prevention and treatment services. The 49 SCAs are responsible 

for program planning and service provision throughout Pennsylvania’s 67 counties and often 

contract with local programs to deliver services. The Bureau of Community Program Licensure and 

Certification, another bureau within DOH, oversees the licensing of these local programs. Through 

the SCA system, BDAP facilitates statewide planning, monitoring, and training of all prevention and 

treatment efforts. 

Current BDAP prevention initiatives include a unique partnership with the Pennsylvania National 

Guard. Through this program, the National Guard supports the SCAs and community-based 

prevention providers by leading or staffing prevention activities, transporting materials, providing 

multimedia and conferencing services, coordinating a speakers bureau, and many others. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Health Planning and 

Assessment 

Department of Health (DOH) 

Quality Assurance Health Promotion and 

Disease Prevention 

Bureau of Facility 

Licensure and 

Certification 

Bureau of Community 

Licensure and 

Certification 

Bureau of Managed 

Care 

Bureau of Drug and 

Alcohol Programs 

(BDAP) 

Bureau of Community 

Disease 

Bureau of Chronic 

Diseases and Injury 

Prevention 

Bureau of Family 

Health 

Administration 

597 
Pennsylvania Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, total SSA funding in Pennsylvania increased from $108.7 to $114.1 

million. The proportion of funds from the different funding sources remained very stable during this 

time period—more than half of total funds were provided by the Block Grant, 37 to 38 percent by the 

State, 7 percent from local sources, and 1 to 4 percent from other Federal sources. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

2% 4% 

State State 

38% SAPT Block 37% 

Grant 

SAPT Block 

Grant

53% 52% 

Local Local 

7% 7% 

N=$108,655,960 N=$114,072,787 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 57,670,348 53 58,388,433 53 59,033,336 53 59,336,807 52 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 1,859,826 2 1,624,627 1 2,237,501 2 4,919,164 4 

State 41,244,663 38 42,336,000 38 42,076,000 38 41,976,000 37 

Local 7,881,123 7 8,015,296 7 7,485,348 7 7,840,816 7 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 108,655,960 100 110,364,356 100 110,832,185 100 114,072,787 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

598 
Inventory of State Profiles Pennsylvania 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

In FY 2003, the largest proportion (67 percent) of SSA funding went toward treatment services, 

prevention received 19 percent, and administration received 14 percent. This distribution was 

similar to that in FYs 2000 through 2002. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

17% 19% 

HIV Early 

Intervention HIV Early 

3% Treatment Treatment Intervention 

67% 64% 3% Administration 

13% Administration 

14% 

N=$108,655,960 N=$114,072,787 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 36,365,097 33 37,091,528 34 72,815,077 66 73,283,402 64 

Alcohol Treatment 18,225,956 17 17,025,434 15 

Drug Treatment 18,691,398 17 19,564,160 18 

Prevention 18,054,254 17 19,152,095 17 19,255,944 17 21,223,136 19 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 2,968,973 3 2,986,620 3 3,095,039 3 3,178,073 3 

Administration 14,350,282 13 14,544,519 13 15,666,125 14 16,388,176 14 

Total* 108,655,960 100 110,364,356 100 110,832,185 100 114,072,787 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

599 
Pennsylvania Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures in Pennsylvania remained stable between FYs 2000 and 2003, ranging 

between $57.7 and $59.3 million. The distribution of funds during this time period was also quite 

stable. In FY 2003 treatment services received the majority (70 percent) of Block Grant funds, 

prevention services received 21 percent, HIV early intervention received 5 percent, and 4 

administration received 4 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

20% 21%

HIV Early HIV Early 

Treatment Intervention Intervention Treatment 72% 5% 5% 

Administration 70% Administration 

3% 4% 

N=$57,670,348 N=$59,336,807 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activi ty 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 5,847,172 10 5,919,629 10 41,672,914 71 41,341,898 70 

Alcohol Treatment 16,569,956 29 15,267,434 26 

Drug Treatment 18,691,398 32 19,564,160 34 

Prevention 11,751,650 20 12,526,643 21 12,351,037 21 12,627,524 21 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 2,968,973 5 2,986,620 5 3,095,039 5 3,178,073 5 

Administration 1,841,199 3 2,123,947 4 1,914,346 3 2,189,312 4 

Total* 57,670,348 100 58,388,433 100 59,033,336 100 59,336,807 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

600 
Inventory of State Profiles Pennsylvania 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures on alcohol and drug abuse services remained relatively stable between FYs 

2000 and 2003, and totaled nearly $43 million in FY 2003. The distribution of funds also remained 

stable, with treatment services receiving the largest proportion (about two-thirds) in FY 2003, 

followed by administration at 24 percent, and prevention services at 12 percent. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 12% 

13% 

Treatment Treatment

65% 64% Administration Administration 

24% 22% 

N=$41,244,663 N=$41,976,000 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

45,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 25,102,520 61 26,486,694 63 26,845,487 64 26,653,952 63 

Alcohol Treatment 1,656,000 4 1,758,000 4 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 5,364,834 13 5,552,587 13 5,400,151 13 5,057,069 12 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 9,121,309 22 8,538,719 20 9,830,362 23 10,264,979 24 

Total* 41,244,663 100 42,336,000 100 42,076,000 100 41,976,000 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

601 
Pennsylvania Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

BDAP takes an evidence-based approach to substance abuse prevention. Within that context, 

BDAP strives to reduce risk factors associated with substance use and to develop healthy lifestyles 

among its citizens. This risk and protective factor approach is community specific, built on local 

needs assessment data. Each SCA identifies these local needs and is responsible for planning, 

coordinating, and administering funds for appropriate prevention services in their jurisdiction. The 

SCAs develop a 5-year comprehensive planning and service delivery plan which addresses 

prioritized risk and protective factors, includes needs as identified by community stakeholders, and 

focuses on performance-based elements. Approximately 150 registered prevention providers 

promote these prevention strategies and services statewide. 

BDAP collaborates with other agencies in its prevention efforts. Its partnership with the 

Pennsylvania National Guard marks a strong and unique effort to prevent substance abuse among 

citizens in a comprehensive, responsive, and cost-efficient way. BDAP also participates in many 

statewide and national prevention initiatives, including the Safe Children Coalition, Student 

Assistance Programs, State Incentive Grant (SIG), and the First Spouse’s National Leadership 

Initiative to reduce alcohol use among youth. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding in Pennsylvania increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $18.1 to $21.2 

million. In FY 2003 the Block Grant was the largest contributor to prevention funding (providing 59 

percent of the total), followed by the State (at 24 percent), other Federal sources (at 12 percent), and 

local funds (at 5 percent). The largest increase in funding during this period came from other Federal 

funding, which comprised 0 percent of prevention funding in FY 2000 and 12 percent in FY 2003. 

Block Grant prevention funding per capita increased from $0.96 in FY 2000 to $1.02 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other 

State Federal 

30% 12% 

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant State

Grant 59% 24%

65% 

Local 

5% Local 

5% 

N=$18,054,254 N=$21,223,136 

602 
Inventory of State Profiles Pennsylvania 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 11,751,650 65 12,526,643 65 12,351,037 64 12,627,524 59 

Other Federal 57,138 0 199,569 1 539,133 3 2,549,326 12 

State 5,364,834 30 5,552,587 29 5,400,151 28 5,057,069 24 

Local 880,632 5 873,296 5 965,623 5 989,217 5 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 18,054,254 100 19,152,095 100 19,255,944 100 21,223,136 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include the following: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

BDAP disseminates information on substance abuse through DOH’s statewide 

public information clearinghouse, Red Ribbon campaigns , resource libraries, 

satellite downloads, public service announcements, medial literacy, and 

speakers. 

Education 

Activities include classroom and/or small group sessions for youth and adults, 

parenting and family management classes, mentoring and tutoring, and 

experiential learning programs, all of which seek to develop decisionmaking 

and refusal skills. 

Alternatives 

Activities include drug-free events; community centers; athletic, recreational, 

and adventure activities; community service activities; and afterschool 

programs. 

Community-Based Processes 

BDAP works with community-based organizations to develop community 

assessments, strategic plans, community mobilization, collaboratives, and 

program evaluations. BDAP also provides in-service training of school 

teachers on substance abuse prevention. 

Environmental 

Strategies include promoting the establishment and review of drug use policies 

in schools and government, technical assistance to communities, the 

Communities That Care program, and the statewide advisory committee for 

local planning coordination. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

The Student Assistance Plan provides assessment of students experiencing 

academic and social problems and makes referrals to appropriate outpatient, 

inpatient, residential, support, school-based, and community-based services. 

603 
Pennsylvania Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, Block Grant funding for prevention core strategies increased from 

$11.8 to $12.6 million. Education continued to receive about half of prevention core strategies funds 

in FY 2003, and the remainder was spread across a wide variety of strategies.

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by 

Core Strategy Core Strategy 

Alternatives Alternatives 

10% 9% 

Problem ID Problem ID and Referral Community- and Referral 

8% Community­ Based Education 

Education 7% Based 

Process 50%

53% Process Environmental 10% Environmental 11% 2% 2% 

Other Other 

N=$11,751,650 Information Section 1926 - 2% 

N=$12,627,524 Information Section 1926 - 2% 

Dissemination Tobacco Dissemination Tobacco 

13% 2% 17% 2% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 1,485,920 13 1,787,041 14 2,087,597 17 2,088,114 17 

Education 6,196,382 53 6,681,879 53 6,226,671 50 6,181,155 48 

Alternatives 1,173,918 10 1,143,743 9 1,103,591 9 1,100,360 9 

Problem ID and Referral 968,435 8 941,196 8 923,070 7 1,132,564 9 

Community-Based 

Process 1,224,263 10 1,249,430 10 1,333,837 11 1,372,309 11 

Environmental 258,732 2 275,544 2 238,687 2 254,310 2 

Other 250,867 2 235,371 2 209,629 2 259,763 2 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 193,133 2 212,439 2 227,955 2 238,949 2 

Total* 11,751,650 100 12,526,643 100 12,351,037 100 12,627,524 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

604 
Inventory of State Profiles Pennsylvania 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

BDAP offers a continuum of treatment services through the SCA network, including outpatient and 

intensive outpatient counseling, methadone maintenance, partial hospitalization, halfway houses, 

non-hospital detoxification and rehabilitation, and hospital-based detoxification and rehabilitation. In 

addition to these services provided by approximately 700 licensed treatment providers, BDAP also 

requires the provision of case management services for clients involved in drug and alcohol 

treatment. Case management assures standard screening for emergent care needs, proper 

placement within the continuum of care, as well as access to ancillary services such as primary 

health care, mental health care, housing, vocational training, employment, and support networks. 

BDAP collaborates with many other state agencies to provide specialized services, such as those for 

the homeless, individuals involved with the criminal justice system, and clients with co-occurring 

disorders. 

During FY 2004, the Criminal Justice Special Considerations workgroup completed “Understanding, 

Assessing, and Treating Substance Abuse among the Criminal Justice Population.” This researchto-practice brief assists providers in providing appropriate and effective treatment to clients involved 

in the criminal justice system. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment funding remained stable between FYs 2000 and 2003, hovering around $73 million. 

During that time period, the Block Grant provided the majority of funding (56 percent in FY 2003), 

followed by the State (at 36 percent), and other Federal and local sources. 

Block Grant spending on treatment services ranged narrowly between $3.31 and $3.38 per capita 

during in FYs 2000 through 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

2% 3%

SAPT Block SAPT Block State State Grant Grant 37% 36%

56% 56% 

Local Local 

5% 5% 

N=$73,282,451 N=$73,283,402 

605 
Pennsylvania Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 41,108,526 56 40,751,223 55 41,672,914 57 41,341,898 56 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 1,697,548 2 1,260,134 2 1,185,353 2 1,940,204 3 

State 26,758,520 37 28,244,694 38 26,845,487 37 26,653,952 36 

Local 3,717,857 5 3,425,071 5 3,111,323 4 3,347,348 5 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 73,282,451 100 73,681,122 100 72,815,077 100 73,283,402 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Pennsylvania’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 75,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone), short-term 

residential, and free-standing residential treatment. 

606 
Inventory of State Profiles Pennsylvania 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=74,771) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 431 467 734 

Free-standing residential 1,796 3,266 4,644 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 247 294 647 

Short-term residential 2,535 3,328 7,124 

Long-term residential 937 1,994 4,664 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 63 1,166 861 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 10,145 6,506 17,968 

Intensive outpatient 998 1,395 2,561 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 17,152 18,416 39,203 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate more than 58,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 19 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined 

with alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus 

abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, 

see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 13,923 18.1 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 44,334 19.5 

Total 58,257 19.2 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 675,000 persons aged 12 and older (6.5 

percent of Pennsylvania’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

231,000 persons (2.2 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in 

Pennsylvania. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 6.54 5.20 17.60 4.93 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.24 4.80 7.21 1.11 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; data are combined for 2002 and 2003 

607 
Pennsylvania Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

BDAP utilizes the Performance Based Prevention System (PBPS), which tracks services provided 

and connects them with established goals and objectives, including the Center for Substance Abuse 

Prevention’s (CSAP)’s six core strategies. The system is used by more than 1,500 prevention 

workers for assessing prevention needs. Further, each SCA conducts a biannual standardized local 

needs assessment. The results of these local assessments are entered into a centralized data 

center and are reviewed by BDAP. The SCAs then base their prevention service delivery plans 

(“work statements”) on the analysis of the identified needs. 

SCAs are also required to conduct a biannual standardized treatment needs assessment utilizing 

common data elements by which each SCA will estimate its drug prevalence, incidence, and 

treatment demand. SCAs will then use their treatment needs assessments as the base from which to 

formulate their treatment plans. The treatment planning process should provide local accountability 

and reporting regarding the goals and activities of the SCA, identify and address trends and needs 

based on the population being served, identify the funding required to address those needs, and 

identify changes in the system that would improve the quality of treatment programs’ services and 

support services. 

Evaluation 

BDAP’s Division of Program Monitoring has the primary responsibility to oversee SCAs adhere to 

grant agreement requirements and carry out their administrative functions effectively to assure the 

timely access to and the provision of a quality service delivery system, as well as efficiently manage 

all available resources at the local level. Towards that end, staff conduct annual 2-3-day onsite 

Quality Assurance Assessments (QAAs) of the SCAs. The QAA process is designed to assess the 

SCAs administratively, fiscally, and programmatically. Additionally, internal fiscal reviews by BDAP’s 

Fiscal Section occur throughout the fiscal year and provide a close inspection of fiscal reports and 

budget information associated with BDAP dollars. 

Training and Assistance 

BDAP facilitates regional and mini-regional trainings on prevention and treatment issues. The 3-day 

regional trainings include didactic, interactive, and skill-building sessions that help practitioners 

infuse state-of-the-art research into their everyday practice. Mini-regional trainings consist of six 

training modules, each of which includes four distinct 6-hour trainings. Training staff rotate these 

modules throughout the 6 statewide districts, so that each district receives all 24 modules each year. 

Additionally, during FY 2004, BDAP facilitated trainings with the lead prevention staff of each SCA 

on how to conduct local needs assessment focus groups. 

To assess training needs, DOH and BDAP staff conducts formal assessments at regional trainings, 

as well as informal assessments throughout the year. 

BDAP provides technical assistance to the SCAs and contracted prevention providers in the areas of 

compliance monitoring, evaluation, system management, data analysis, and the development and 

implementation of evidenced-based practices. BDAP also makes available on its Web site a variety 

of prevention and treatment publications, manuals, and reports. 

608 
Inventory of State Profiles Pennsylvania 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities increased from $4.7 million in FY 2000 to 

$6.7 million in FY 2003. Quality assurance activities received the largest portion of funds, at 30 

percent of the total in FY 2000 and 54 percent in FY 2003, followed by program development at 24 

percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Planning, Development Activities 

Planning, 

Program 

Development

22% 

Quality Coordination, 

Training

5% 

Coordination, Assurance Needs 

Needs Assessment 30%

Assessment 12%

17% Information 

Information Systems Quality 

Systems 4% Assurance 

10% Training Research and 54% 

Research and 10% Evaluation 

Evaluation 1% Program 

11% Development 

24% 

N=$4,665,371 N=$6,694,244 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 805,154 17 741,066 15 853,831 19 782,537 12 

Quality Assurance 1,414,751 30 1,589,318 33 1,554,329 35 3,668,215 54 

Training 443,604 10 479,748 10 340,326 8 343,451 5 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 1,013,178 22 1,230,993 25 1,143,676 26 1,591,697 24 

Research and Evaluation 521,616 11 436,840 9 114,218 3 68,959 1 

Information Systems 467,068 10 357,992 7 424,637 10 239,385 4 

Total* 4,665,371 100 4,835,957 100 4,431,017 100 6,694,244 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

609 
Pennsylvania Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary funding for prevention in 

Pennsylvania totaled $3.5 million in FY 2004. The largest proportion of funding went toward drugfree communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy & Other Club Drugs 

Prevention Services 1 292,356 

CSAP 2004 Earmarks 5 596,461 

Drug Free Communities 18 1,544,419 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 3 750,000 

Prevention of Meth and Inhalant Use 1 350,000 

Total 28 3,533,236 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Discretionary funding from the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) totaled more than 

$10 million in FY 2004. The largest awards went toward State TCE screening brief intervention 

referral treatment and targeted capacity for HIV/AIDS. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Addiction Technical Transfer Center 1 633,673 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 2 248,525 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 218,384 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 1 535,116 

Pregnant/Post-Partum Women 1 500,000 

Recovery Community Service 1 225,000 

Residential SA TX 1 494,695 

State TCE Screening Brief Intervention Referral 

Treatment 1 3,307,430 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 6 2,809,085 

Treatment of Persons w/Co-Occuring Substance Related 

and Mental Disorders 1 1,095,654 

Total 16 10,067,562 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

610 
RHODE ISLAND 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Craig S. Stenning, Executive Director 

Division of Behavioral Healthcare Services 

Rhode Island Department of Mental 

Health, Retardation, and Hospitals Barry Hall 

14 Harrington Road, Third Floor 

Cranston, RI 02920-3080 

Phone: 401-462-2338 

Fax: 401-462-6636 

E-mail: cstenning@mhrh.state.ri.us 

Web site: www.mhrh.ri.gov 

Structure and Function 

Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention Services (SATPS) is the designated 

Single State Agency (SSA) that leads the delivery of substance abuse prevention and 

treatment services in Rhode Island. SATPS is a unit within Behavioral Healthcare 

Services (BHS), a division of Rhode Island’s Department of Mental Health. BHS 

seeks to prevent and reduce alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) abuse and related unhealthy 

behavior through the development of a focused, comprehensive, and integrated statewide 

prevention and treatment system. Toward that end, SATPS contracts with community-based 

prevention and treatment programs dispersed geographically throughout the State. 

SATPS works closely with other State agencies, including the Departments of Corrections, 

Education; Health; and Children, Youth and Families, as well as with State-level collaborations, on 

issues such as homelessness, domestic violence, and drug courts. 

Additionally, SATPS has facilitated the development of community prevention groups and the 

consumer advocacy group Rhode Island Communities for Addiction Recovery Efforts (RICARES), 

which receives CSAT and Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) funding. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Mental Health, 

Retardation, and Hospitals 

Division of 

Developmental 

Disabilities 

Division of 

Behavioral 

Healthcare Services 

Hospitals and 

Community 

Rehabilitative Services 

Management 

Services 

Office of 

Operations 

Integrated Mental Health Substance Abuse Treatment & 

Prevention Services (SATPS) 

Administration & Contract 

Management Unit 

Treatment Program 

Unit 

Planning and Prevention 

Program Unit 

Treatment Accountability 

for Safer Communities 

(TASC) Unit 

Student 

Assistance 

Programs (46) 

State Incentive 

Grants (25 

recipients) 

Science-Based 

Demonstration 

Projects (5) 

Local Substance 

Abuse Prevention 

Initiatives (8) 

Local Task 

Forces (39) 

In-Rhodes 

Prevention 

Resource Center 

611 
Rhode Island Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

SSA funding in Rhode Island between FYs 2000 and 2003 increased from $24.4 to $27.8 million. 

During that time period, the State’s proportion of total funds declined from 54 to 45 percent, the 

Block Grant’s proportion remained stable at 24 percent, Medicaid’s proportion remained relatively 

stable at 17 to 18 percent, and the proportion of other Federal funds increased from 5 to 13 percent. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Medicaid 

Medicaid Other 

Federal 18% 

17% Federal 

5% 13% 

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant

Grant 24% 

24% 

State State 

54% 45% 

N=$24,447,611 N=$27,764,945 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 5,943,750 24 6,243,750 25 6,468,750 26 6,577,245 24 

Medicaid 4,254,337 17 4,942,870 20 5,295,970 21 5,099,558 18 

Other Federal 1,299,097 5 1,495,909 6 920,633 4 3,636,268 13 

State 12,950,427 54 12,293,949 49 12,304,803 49 12,451,874 45 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 24,447,611 100 24,976,478 100 24,990,156 100 27,764,945 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

612 
Inventory of State Profiles Rhode Island 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

SSA funding for treatment services in Rhode Island remained stable at 65 percent of total funding 

between FYs 2000 and 2003. During that time period the distribution of SSA funds changed for 

prevention services and HIV early intervention services. Prevention as a proportion of SSA funds 

increased (from 19 to 27 percent), while HIV early intervention as a proportion declined (from 7 to 0 

percent). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

19% 27% 

Treatment HIV Early 

65% Intervention Treatment 

7% 65% 

Administration Administration 8%

9% 

N=$24,447,611 N=$27,764,945 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 12,507,360 51 17,480,041 70 18,175,672 73 18,261,896 65 

Alcohol Treatment 2,239,716 9 0 0 

Drug Treatment 1,326,173 5 551,160 2 

Prevention 4,614,280 19 4,483,140 18 4,441,975 18 7,403,938 27 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 1,647,391 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 2,112,691 9 2,462,137 10 2,372,509 9 2,099,111 8 

Total* 24,447,611 100 24,976,478 100 24,990,156 100 27,764,945 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

613 
Rhode Island Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures increased in Rhode Island between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $5.9 to $6.6 

million). The distribution of these funds also changed during this time period. Between FYs 2000 

and 2003 the proportion of Block Grant funds that treatment services received increased (from 50 to 

72 percent), prevention services increased (from 21 to 26 percent), but HIV early intervention 

declined drastically (from 28 to 0 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention

21%

Prevention 

Treatment 26% 

50% Treatment 

72% 

HIV Early Administration 

Intervention 2% 

Administration 28%

1%

N=$5,943,750 N=$6,577,245 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and Rehabilitation 0 0 4,682,085 75 4,755,951 74 4,738,905 72 

Alcohol Treatment 2,239,716 37 0 0 

Drug Treatment 775,013 13 0 0 

Prevention 1,247,656 21 1,344,236 22 1,567,077 24 1,727,982 26 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 1,647,391 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 33,974 1 217,429 3 145,722 2 110,358 2 

Total* 5,943,750 100 6,243,750 100 6,468,750 100 6,577,245 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

614 
Inventory of State Profiles Rhode Island 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures on alcohol and drug treatment services declined slightly between FYs 2000 and 

2003 (from $13 to $12.5 million). The distribution of these funds also remained similar, with 

treatment receiving the majority of State funds (at 65 to 67 percent), prevention receiving 20 to 21 

percent, and administration receiving 13 to 14 percent. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

21% 20%

Treatment Treatment 

65% 67% 

Administration 

Administration 13% 

14% 

N=$12,950,427 N=$12,451,874 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 7,753,784 60 7,535,391 61 7,995,618 65 8,400,066 67 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 551,160 4 551,160 4 

Prevention 2,781,280 21 2,521,223 21 2,311,894 19 2,473,724 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,864,203 14 1,686,175 14 1,997,291 16 1,578,084 13 

Total* 12,950,427 100 12,293,949 100 12,304,803 100 12,451,874 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

615 
Rhode Island Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Rhode Island’s approach to prevention services is evidence based with an emphasis placed on 

outcome measurement. In order to implement effective substance abuse prevention strategies, 

SATPS works closely with its substate prevention system. The agency contracts with 25 State 

Incentive Grant (SIG) recipients, 5 science-based demonstration projects, 8 local substance abuse 

prevention initiatives, and 35 local task forces to provide services based on unique community needs 

and assets. 

Key to the State’s prevention strategy and infrastructure is the Student Assistance Plan (SAP), which 

operates in 21 high schools and 25 junior and middle schools throughout the State. SAP’s design is 

built on a foundation of national prevention research. Through the program, SATPS places student 

assistance counselors in every secondary school to assess and educate students. SAP has been a 

core component of Rhode Island’s prevention system for more than two decades and is nationally 

recognized for its effectiveness. 

SATPS collaborated with other State agencies and community partners to develop a comprehensive 

statewide substance abuse prevention plan for the Governor’s Children’s Cabinet. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding in Rhode Island increased dramatically between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $4.6 

to $7.4 million). The sources of funding have also changed during this time period. The State’s 

proportion of prevention funds declined (from 60 to 33 percent), the Block Grant’s proportion also 

declined (from 27 to 23 percent), while the proportion of other Federal sources increased (from 13 to 

44 percent). 

Block Grant funding per capita for prevention activities increased during this period from $1.19 in FY 

2000 to $1.61 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source Other 

Federal Other 

13% 

State

33% 

Federal 

44% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant 

23% 27% State

60%

N=$4,614,280 N=$7,403,938 

616 
Inventory of State Profiles Rhode Island 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 1,247,656 27 1,344,236 30 1,567,077 35 1,727,982 23 

Other Federal 585,344 13 617,681 14 563,004 13 3,202,232 44 

State 2,781,280 60 2,521,223 56 2,311,894 52 2,473,724 33 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 4,614,280 100 4,483,140 100 4,441,975 100 7,403,938 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Strategies include the dissemination of information through In-Rhodes, the 

State Regional Alcohol and Drug Awarness Resources (RADAR) center, 

distribution of statewide ATOD resource directories, maintenance of a 24-hour 

helpline, media campaigns, and development of public service 

announcements. 

Education 

SATPS facilitates the Student Assistance Program, funds demonstration 

projects and local initiatives promoting prevention through activities such as life 

skills training, family strengthening programs, literacy services, and job skills 

training. 

Alternatives 

Activities include trainings for peer leaders to promote prevention in their own 

communities, afterschool programs, weekly educational groups, career and 

college guidance programs, and cultural activities. 

Community-Based Processes 

SATPS coordinates a statewide network of legislatively mandated communitybased task forces, primarily responsible for developing prevention plans based 

on community needs assessments. 

Environmental 

SATPS partners with the Departments of Education and Health on the Student 

Health Survey Committee to develop a centralized youth surveillance and data 

collection system, provides drug court services for the Superior and Family 

Court, and works with law enforcement and community task forces to reduce 

the sale of alcohol to youth. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Strategies include the Student Assistance Program and the Treatment 

Alternatives for Safer Communities, which provides evaluation, assessment, 

and referral services for substance-using offenders. 

617 
Rhode Island Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for prevention core strategies in Rhode Island increased between FYs 2000 and 

2003 (from over $1.2 to $1.7 million). In FY 2003, education received nearly half of the funds, 

problem identification and referral received about 36 percent, and the remainder went to alternative 

strategies, information dissemination, and miscellaneous core strategies. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy 

Alternatives Alternatives 

6% 3% 

Problem ID Problem ID 

and Referral and Referral Education 27% 

48% 36%

Education 

Other 49% Other 

4% 4% 

N=$1,247,656 

Information 

N=$1,727,982 Information 

Dissemination Dissemination

15% 8%

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 191,903 15 149,103 11 133,285 9 142,992 8 

Education 593,550 48 571,959 43 767,589 49 844,653 49 

Alternatives 75,439 6 48,260 4 33,555 2 55,733 3 

Problem ID and Referral 339,288 27 574,914 43 559,163 36 621,727 36 

Community-Based Process 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Environmental 0 0 0 0 73,485 5 0 0 

Other 47,476 4 0 0 0 0 62,877 4 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 1,247,656 100 1,344,236 100 1,567,077 100 1,727,982 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

618 
Inventory of State Profiles Rhode Island 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

SATPS supports a statewide system of community-based substance abuse treatment services that 

are dispersed throughout Rhode Island. In addition to smaller, locally based agencies, four of the 

eight regional mental health treatment facilities now provide alcohol and other drug treatment 

services. The State works with local providers to ensure that high-quality, comprehensive, and 

clinically appropriate services are accessible to all residents. Indigent clients receive care through 

the Medicaid-funded RIte Care Program. 

Treatment services are available in a variety of settings, including outpatient treatment, minorityspecific outpatient (Latino and Asian) treatment, women’s day and residential treatment, outpatient 

methadone treatment, residential treatment, adolescent day and residential treatment, and 

detoxification programs. 

In response to recent needs assessment findings, SATPS is in the process of developing services 

specifically for clients with co-occurring disorders, gambling addiction, and transitional needs. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Funding for treatment services in the State increased slightly between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from 

$16.1 to $18.3 million). In FY 2003 the State was the largest contributor to treatment expenditures 

(at 46 percent of the total), followed by Medicaid (at 28 percent) and the Block Grant (at 26 percent). 

Block Grant funding for treatment and rehabilitation increased substantially during this time, from 

$2.87 per capita in FY 2000 to $4.41 per capita in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid Other Medicaid 

26% Federal 28% 

3% 

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant

Grant 26%

19%

State 

State 46% 

52% 

N=$16,073,249 N=$18,261,896 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

619 
Rhode Island Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 3,014,729 19 4,682,085 26 4,755,951 26 4,738,905 26 

Medicaid 4,254,337 26 4,942,870 27 5,295,970 29 5,099,558 28 

Other Federal 499,239 3 319,695 2 128,133 1 23,367 0 

State 8,304,944 52 8,086,551 45 7,995,618 44 8,400,066 46 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 16,073,249 100 18,031,201 100 18,175,672 100 18,261,896 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Rhode Island’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 14,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=13,774) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 1,270 1,941 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 17 11 0 

Short-term residential 23 33 0 

Long-term residential 367 943 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 1,922 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 2,732 3,350 0 

Intensive outpatient 242 423 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 4 496 0 

TOTAL 4,655 9,119 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate more than 13,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 25 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined 

with alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus 

abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, 

see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

620 
Inventory of State Profiles Rhode Island 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 2,640 25.4 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 10,642 25.4 

Total 13,282 25.4 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 81,000 persons aged 12 and older (9.0 

percent of Rhode Island’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

29,000 persons (3.2 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Rhode 

Island. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 9.01 6.28 23.85 6.65 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 3.18 5.54 11.23 1.42 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; data are combined for 2002 and 2003 

621 
Rhode Island Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

All prevention providers are required to enter data on a monthly basis into the Performance Based 

Prevention System (PBPS), an integrated data management system. PBPS includes a planning 

module based on a risk and protective factor framework, allowing SATPS to assess prevention 

needs throughout the State. SATPS also works closely with other State agencies to ensure that 

substance use questions are included in all surveys of Rhode Island youth. Additionally, the agency 

utilizes information from the Student Accountability for Learning and Teaching (SALT)—a survey of 

students, teachers, staff, and parents, Youth Risk Behavior Study, Youth Tobacco Study and Kids 

Count surveys to determine prevention needs. 

SATPS is currently working closely with CSAP and local prevention providers to develop a statewide 

prevention framework based on existing needs and best practices. 

Evaluation 

SATPS utilizes the Internet-based PBPS to track prevention service data and program outcomes. 

Further, BHS contracted with the University of Rhode Island to help develop capacity within the 

prevention system. The long-term goal of this collaboration was to improve statewide outcomes 

through effective planning, use, and evaluation of science-based prevention strategies. 

Recent evaluations have enabled SATPS to close gaps in many areas of prevention and treatment, 

including case management, culturally responsive services, and extended care for chronic clients. 

Training and Assistance 

The State contracts with the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Association (DATA) to provide training and 

workforce development services to professionals throughout the statewide prevention system. As 

part of this contract, DATA conducts assessments to determine current training needs. SATPS also 

collaborates with DATA, CSAP’s Northeast Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies 

(NECAPT), the Safe and Drug Free Schools Coordinator, and other agencies to conduct training and 

technical assistance initiatives for agencies seeking to implement evidence-based programs. 

The State collaborates with the New England Institute of Addiction Studies, CSAP, and the NECAPT 

to produce two annual conferences: the New England School of Prevention Studies and the New 

England School of Addiction Studies. 

Rhode Island offers four levels of professional certification in the field of substance abuse and 

prevention. It is currently the only State offering a Prevention Supervisor Credential. SATPS funds 

an extensive training program through the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Association that supports a 

certification program for all counselors. 

622 
Inventory of State Profiles Rhode Island 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Rhode Island declined very slightly 

between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $197,000 to $135,000). In FY 2000, three-quarters of the funds 

went toward training and one-fourth toward research and evaluation, whereas in FY 2003 all of the 

funds went toward training. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Research and 

Evaluation

24%

Training Training

76% 100%

N=$197,253 

N=$135,056 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

50,000 

100,000 

150,000 

200,000 

250,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training 149,777 76 74,252 56 153,761 100 135,056 100 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Research and Evaluation 47,476 24 57,606 44 0 0 0 0 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 197,253 100 131,858 100 153,761 100 135,056 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

623 
Rhode Island Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Rhode Island received $2.5 million in Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary 

grants in FY 2004. Most of the funds went toward the Strategic Prevention Framework State 

Incentive Grant (SPF SIG). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 2 165,465 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Total 3 2,516,430 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

In FY 2004, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded the State $3.1 million in 

discretionary grants for treatment activities. Almost half of the funds went toward targeted capacity 

for HIV/AIDS. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Addiction Technical Transfer Center 1 650,000 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 1 400,000 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 249,875 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Strengthening Access and Retention 1 192,945 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 3 1,468,763 

Total 8 3,061,583 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

624 
SOUTH CAROLINA 

State SSA Director 

Mr. W. Lee Catoe, Director 

South Carolina Department of 

Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services 

101 Executive Center Drive, Suite 215 

Columbia, SC 29210 

Phone: 803-896-5551 

Fax: 803-896-5557 

E-mail: leecatoe@daodas.state.sc.us 

Web site: www.daodas.state.sc.us 

Structure and Function 

The Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services (DAODAS) is the Single 

State Agency (SSA) for alcohol and other drug abuse programming. DAODAS is a 

cabinet-level agency, reporting directly to the Governor. Its mission is to ensure the 

provision of quality services to prevent or reduce the negative consequences of 

substance use and addictions. DAODAS contracts with 33 county alcohol and drug abuse authorities 

to provide direct services to citizens in all 46 counties of the State. It also partners with public, 

private, and social sector organizations to provide quality prevention, intervention, and treatment 

services. In addition, DAODAS facilitates a gambling addiction program, as well as the 

DRUGSTORE Information Clearinghouse and the toll-free Drug Information Access Line (DIAL). 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Alcohol and 

Other Drug Abuse Services 

(DAODAS) 

Division of 

Operations 

Division of External Affairs 

& Provider Support 

Division of Program 

Accountability 

Accounting 

Procurement & 

Human Resources 

Grants & Contracts 

Management 

Information and 

Research 

Utilization Review 

Gambling Services 

Prevention & 

Planning Section 

Treatment Section 

Alcohol & Drug 

Safety Action 

Program 

625 
South Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Total SSA expenditures in South Carolina declined steadily from FYs 2000 through 2003, from $43 

to $36 million. In FY 2003, the single largest source of funds came from the Block Grant (at 57 

percent of the total), 20 percent from the State, 16 percent from other Federal sources, and 5 

percent from other sources. This represents a change from FY 2000, when 43 percent of SSA funds 

came from the Block Grant, 27 percent from the State, 17 percent from other Federal sources, and 

10 percent from Medicaid. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid 

10% 2% Other 

Other Federal 

Federal 16% 

17% SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant

43% State 57% 

20% 

State 

27% Other Other 5%

3% N=$42,996,577 N=$36,002,373 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 18,663,528 43 19,670,678 49 20,555,962 55 20,661,633 57 

Medicaid 4,303,637 10 1,185,422 3 1,022,760 3 875,635 2 

Other Federal 7,134,303 17 7,982,801 20 5,841,233 16 5,714,912 16 

State 11,770,060 27 10,014,654 25 8,654,022 23 7,128,044 20 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 1,125,049 3 1,413,903 4 1,325,608 4 1,622,149 5 

Total* 42,996,577 100 40,267,458 100 37,399,585 100 36,002,373 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

626 
Inventory of State Profiles South Carolina 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the $36 million in total SSA expenditures in FY 2003, three-fourths were allocated for treatment 

services, and 22 percent for prevention services. Although total dollars expended on treatment 

decreased during this time period, the distribution of funds during these years remained fairly similar. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Treatment Prevention 22% 

18% Treatment 

75% 

80% 

HIV Early HIV Early Intervention Intervention 

3% 2% 

N=$42,996,577 N=$36,002,373 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 20,900,239 49 16,515,006 41 27,715,365 74 26,948,891 75 

Alcohol Treatment 7,966,253 19 7,835,333 19 

Drug Treatment 5,502,442 13 6,815,540 17 

Prevention 7,632,280 18 8,055,866 20 8,594,242 23 7,953,854 22 

Tuberculosis 62,180 0 62,180 0 62,180 0 62,180 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 933,183 2 983,533 2 1,027,798 3 1,037,448 3 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 42,996,577 100 40,267,458 100 37,399,585 100 36,002,373 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

627 
South Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures in South Carolina remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 2003, 

increasing from $18.7 to $20.7 million. In FY 2003, three-fourths of the total was spent on treatment 

services, followed by 20 percent for prevention services and 5 percent for HIV early intervention. 

This distribution of funds was similar to that in FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 23% 

20% 

Treatment Treatment

72% 75% 

HIV Early HIV Early 

Intervention Intervention 

5% 5% 

N=$18,663,528 N=$20,661,633 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activi ty 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 15,329,584 75 15,429,544 75 

Alcohol Treatment 7,966,253 43 7,835,333 40 

Drug Treatment 5,502,442 29 6,815,540 35 

Prevention 4,199,470 23 3,974,092 20 4,136,400 20 4,136,827 20 

Tuberculosis 62,180 0 62,180 0 62,180 0 62,180 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 933,183 5 983,533 5 1,027,798 5 1,033,082 5 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 18,663,528 100 19,670,678 100 20,555,962 100 20,661,633 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

628 
Inventory of State Profiles South Carolina 

Expenditures of State Funds 

South Carolina State expenditures declined steadily between FYs 2000 and 2003, from $11.8 to 

$7.1 million. Since FY 2000 all funds have been allocated for treatment services. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment

100% 100%

N=$11,770,060 N=$7,128,044 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 11,770,060 100 10,014,654 100 8,654,022 100 7,123,678 100 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,366 0 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 11,770,060 100 10,014,654 100 8,654,022 100 7,128,044 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

629 
South Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

South Carolina’s prevention services are based upon principles of sound research. Services are 

designed to identify and reduce factors that place an individual or a community at risk of 

experiencing problems. At the same time, DAODAS also works to strengthen protective factors to 

help prevent the development of problems among high-risk groups and the public at large. 

DAODAS administers prevention programs through 11 areas, including community-based prevention 

services; Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.); FaithWorks; the Governor’s Cooperative 

Agreement for Prevention (G-CAP); the Safe and Drug-free Schools and Communities program; 

retailer and server education programs; and prevention services in the areas of infectious disease, 

underage drinking, and underage use of tobacco. DAODAS also provides training and assistance 

for parents regarding alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) use by minors. 

DAODAS recently implemented new evidence-based multi-session prevention education programs 

for youths age 10-20, which resulted in significant decreases in the use of alcohol, marijuana, and 

cigarettes among participants. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, prevention funding in South Carolina remained stable, ranging from 

$7.6 million to $8 million. In FY 2003, about half of prevention funding was supported by the Block 

Grant and about half from other Federal sources. This differs somewhat from the funding sources in 

FY 2000, when 55 percent came from the Block Grant, 37 percent from other Federal sources, and 8 

percent from other sources. 

Per capita Block Grant funding for prevention services in South Carolina were fairly stable during 

FYs 2000 through 2003, ranging from $.98 to $1.04. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other 

8% 

Other 

Federal Other 37% 

SAPT Block Federal

SAPT Block Grant 48%

Grant 52%

55% 

N=$7,632,280 N=$7,953,854 

630 
Inventory of State Profiles South Carolina 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,199,470 55 3,974,092 49 4,136,400 48 4,136,827 52 

Other Federal 2,835,794 37 4,081,774 51 4,418,086 51 3,801,608 48 

State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 597,016 8 0 0 39,756 0 15,419 0 

Total* 7,632,280 100 8,055,866 100 8,594,242 100 7,953,854 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Four regional Prevention Resource Centers disseminate information to the 

general public. Funding also supports the DRUGSTORE Information 

Clearinghouse and the toll-free Drug Information Access Line. 

Education 

Education includes SC Teen Institute sessions focusing on youth 

leadership and prevention strategies and approximately 50,000 public 

service announcements in the media. 

Alternatives Events include mentoring activities , afterschool activities , and youth 

training and youth leadership programs. 

Community-Based Processes 

Coalitions strengthen prevention through efforts such as workforce 

development, increased technological capacity, agency linkages, a 

community needs and resources assessment, and the development of a 

comprehensive community prevention strategy. 

Environmental Strategies include merchant education on underage drinking and a working 

agreement with law enforcement to enhance tobacco enforcement. 

Problem Identification and Referral Funds support problem identification and referral services through the 

schools , as well as through driving under the influence (DUI) programs. 

Other: Management Information 

System 

Strategies include a statewide, Internet-based prevention reporting system 

that has helped to identify underserved populations, including those with 

limited English proficiency and the dually diagnosed. 

631 
South Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for prevention services totaled $4.1 million in FY 2003. The single largest 

funding target was education (receiving about half of funds), followed by community-based 

processes (20 percent) and information dissemination (16 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core Strategy FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Problem ID Alternatives Alternatives 

10% Problem ID 6% 

and Referral 

Education and Referral 1% Community34% 2% Based Community- Process Based 

Education 20% Process 

21% 51% Environmental 

Environmental Other 4% 

5% Information Section 1926 - Other Information 

2% 

Dissemination Tobacco 0% Dissemination 26% 2% N=$4,199,470 16% N=$4,136,828 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

4,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 1,080,151 26 1,111,012 28 1,149,558 28 680,475 16 

Education 1,397,549 33 1,642,785 41 1,716,692 42 2,086,640 50 

Alternatives 416,872 10 338,079 9 339,111 8 250,225 6 

Problem ID and 

Referral 93,523 2 49,138 1 52,352 1 39,907 1 

Community-Based 

Process 902,114 21 559,955 14 606,601 15 828,414 20 

Environmental 218,221 5 180,173 5 192,957 5 159,974 4 

Other 0 0 0 0 79,129 2 91,193 2 

Section 1926 ­

Tobacco 91,040 2 92,950 2 0 0 0 0 

Total* 4,199,470 100 3,974,092 100 4,136,400 100 4,136,828 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

632 
Inventory of State Profiles South Carolina 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Through its network of nationally accredited county authorities, DAODAS provides a comprehensive 

continuum of treatment services for individuals and families. Specific services include a range of 

outpatient treatment services, intensive outpatient treatment, halfway houses, social model 

detoxification, freestanding medical detoxification, residential treatment, inpatient treatment, and day 

treatment. These services include specialized services for women and children, services to 

adolescents, and services to incarcerated and paroled individuals. DAODAS also coordinates 

services for adolescents preparing to leave residential treatment settings to help them reintegrate 

successfully into their families and communities. Additionally, DAODAS provides early intervention 

services by identifying those in the early stages of alcohol and substance abuse through the school 

system, the criminal justice system, the workplace, and other social systems. 

AODAS coordinates regular meetings between treatment directors and women’s services 

coordinators, enabling agencies to refer clients to other providers within the network rather than 

being placed on waiting lists. Those on waiting lists receive interim services and intensive case 

management services via telephone contact. 

Despite statewide budget cuts during FY 2004, DAODAS not only maintained its continuum of 

treatment services, but added residential treatment beds for women and expanded an adolescent 

treatment facility. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, treatment funding in South Carolina declined substantially from $34.4 

to $26.9 million. Funding from the Block Grant increased over time (in both proportion and in dollar 

value), while funding from the State decreased. The two largest resources for FY 2003 funding were 

the Block Grant (at 58 percent of the total) and the State (supporting 26 percent). 

Block Grant expenditures on treatment and rehabilitation increased from $3.35 per capita in FY 2000 

to $3.72 per capita in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid Medicaid Other 3% Other 

Other

2%

13% Federal Federal 

13% 7% 

SAPT Block State

SAPT Block Grant 26%

Grant 58% 

38% State 

34% Other 

6% 

N=$34,368,934 N=$26,948,891 

633 
South Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 13,468,695 38 14,650,873 47 15,329,584 55 15,429,544 58 

Medicaid 4,303,637 13 1,185,422 4 1,022,760 4 875,635 3 

Other Federal 4,298,509 13 3,901,027 13 1,423,147 5 1,913,304 7 

State 11,770,060 34 10,014,654 32 8,654,022 31 7,123,678 26 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 528,033 2 1,413,903 5 1,285,852 5 1,606,730 6 

Total* 34,368,934 100 31,165,879 100 27,715,365 100 26,948,891 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

South Carolina’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 4,500 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) or freestanding residential treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis (N=4,413) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 2,397 2,016 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 38 142 0 

Long-term residential 42 185 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 157 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 9,501 5,894 0 

Intensive outpatient 1,540 2,082 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 1 0 0 

Total 2,397 2,016 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

634 
Inventory of State Profiles South Carolina 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data—which include programs funded through the Block Grant 

and programs that are not—indicate nearly 26,000 admissions (where at least one substance is 

known), of which more than 11,000 are for alcohol only. Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS 

data show that approximately 8 percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a 

psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate varied slightly when separating out 

alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. Approximately 4 

percent of persons admitted for abusing alcohol only were diagnosed with a psychiatric problem and 

10 percent of persons admitted for abusing alcohol in combination with other drugs were diagnosed 

as having a psychiatric problem. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: 

Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 11,381 4.5 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 14,280 10.2 

Total 25,661 7.7 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 250,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.4 

percent of South Carolina’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

82,000 persons (2.4 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in South 

Carolina. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.38 4.50 18.58 5.78 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.43 4.32 7.31 1.31 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

635 
South Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

South Carolina assesses the treatment and prevention needs of its citizens locally, regionally, and 

statewide. The 46 counties are grouped into 4 regions to facilitate this assessment. 

DAODAS utilizes two primary data sources in determining needs for prevention and treatment in 

South Carolina. The State Treatment Needs Assessment Program (STNAP) involves telephone 

surveys of adolescents and adults, a survey of the Medicaid-eligible population, and a hospitalmental health-alcohol-drug client treatment utilization study. These data are used in varying 

combinations to identify trends, determine areas of greatest need, and suggest necessary shifts in 

program and service emphasis. Additionally, the Substance Abuse Agencies management 

Information System (SAAMIS) is a vital planning and information source for monitoring emerging 

trends, as well as service-provider performance. 

Evaluation 

DAODAS tracks statewide client outcome measures for intervention and treatment programs 

through the Coordinated County Review process, county alcohol and drug abuse authorities 

outcome evaluation results, and the outcome indicator data from SAAMIS. The State utilizes 

individualized outcome measures for specific populations, based on involvement with the criminal 

justice system, employment status, relapse history, housing status, and social consequences of 

abuse. Further, throughout the State, service providers notify DAODAS when they have reached 90 

percent of their capacity. In this way, DAODAS is able to monitor utilization of services and manage 

capacity and waiting lists. Additionally, DAODAS provides technical assistance to help agencies 

optimize capacity and reduce no-show percentages. 

South Carolina currently monitors outcome measures for prevention services as well, and DAODAS 

is now developing a statewide prevention outcome evaluation system, based on core measures from 

the Governor’s Comprehensive Strategy for Youth Substance Abuse Prevention. 

Training and Assistance 

DAODAS provides training to meet the diverse credentialing, certification and/or licensing, and 

continuing education needs of prevention and treatment staff throughout the State. Many of these 

education and professional development initiatives are provided in collaboration with other health 

and human service organizations. DAODAS also sponsors quarterly trainings for specific 

populations, such as prevention coordinators, treatment directors, and youth coordinators. Best 

practices information is available on the DAODAS Web site. DAODAS continues to expand its 

regional training services, including increased utilization of teleconferencing. DAODAS recently 

facilitated the 30th South Carolina School of Alcohol and Other Drug Studies. Additionally, 

recognizing a growing need, DAODAS sponsored a technical assistance conference for faith- and 

community-based organizations in 2004. 

636 
Inventory of State Profiles South Carolina 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant funding for resource development activities declined from 

$354,000 to $208,000. Distribution of funds per type of activity also varied widely over that time 

period. In FY 2003 most (55 percent) of the total in funds for resource development activities were 

spent on training, followed by 33 percent on information systems. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Planning, Training Quality 

Coordination, 15% Assurance 

2% Needs 

Assessment Training 37% Information 

55% Systems 

33% 

Research and 

Research and Evaluation 

Evaluation 48% 

N=$354,052 10% N=$208,090 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

50,000 

100,000 

150,000 

200,000 

250,000 

300,000 

350,000 

400,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 129,358 37 6,988 5 94,669 34 0 0 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 105,511 38 3,800 2 

Training 54,746 15 11,361 8 40,148 15 115,650 55 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Research and 

Evaluation 169,948 48 122,634 87 29,725 11 20,600 10 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 6,500 2 68,040 33 

Total* 354,052 100 140,983 100 276,553 100 208,090 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

637 
South Carolina Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

South Carolina was awarded nearly $700,000 in discretionary funding ffrom the Center for Subtance 

Abuse Prevention (CSAP) in FY 2004. Seven of the eight grants were awarded to drug-free 

communities and one was a drug-free communities mentoring award. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 7 646,485 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 1 49,904 

Total 8 696,389 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

In FY 2004, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded South Carolina more than 

$2 million in discretionary funding for treatment services. Grants were awarded for adult, juvenile, 

and family drug court; targeted capacity expansion; and TCE innovative treatment and rural 

populations. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 2 688,000 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 1 416,052 

TCE Innovative Treatment 1 451,704 

TCE Rural Populations 1 494,739 

Total 5 2,050,495 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

638 
SOUTH DAKOTA 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Gilbert Sudbeck, Division Director 

Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

South Dakota Department of Human Services 

Hillsview Prop Plaza, East Hwy 34 

c/o 500 East Capitol Avenue 

Pierre, SD 57501-5070 

Phone: 605-773-3123 

Fax: 605-773-7076 

E-mail: gib.sudbeck@state.sd.us 

Web site: www.state.sd.us/dhs/ADA/Index.htm 

Structure and Function 

The Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse (DADA) is South Dakota’s designated 

Single State Agency (SSA) for substance abuse prevention and treatment efforts. 

It is one of the eight divisions of the South Dakota Department of Human Services 

(DHS). 

DADA partners with other DHS departments in order to meet the varied needs of South Dakotans. 

These primarily include the Departments of Corrections, Social Services, and Health. Additionally, 

the Alcohol and Drug Advisory Council is a legislatively mandated board which advises DADA on 

statewide prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation needs. The Advisory Council also assists DADA 

in coordinating activities between State and local agencies and private service providers. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Human 

Services (DHS) 

Office of Budget 

and Finance 

Legal/Human 

Rights 

Public Information/ 

Special Projects 

Division 

of Mental 

Health 

Division of the 

Blind and Visually 

Impaired 

Division of 

Rehabilitative 

Services 

Division of 

Alcohol and Drug 

Abuse (DADA) 

Division of 

Developmental 

Disabilities 

Human 

Services 

Center 

South Dakota 

Developmental 

Center 

Prevention Resource 

Centers (4) 

Community Mobilization 

Projects (12) 

Diversion Program Core Treatment 

Service Agencies (13) 

Primary Prevention Program 

Intensive Prevention Program 

639 
South Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, total SSA funding in South Dakota increased by $1.5 million (from $8 

to nearly $9.6 million). The largest funding source in FY 2003 was the Block Grant constituting 48 

percent of the total, followed by the State (35 percent) and other Federal funds (17 percent). These 

proportions are similar to those in FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

21% 17% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant

44% 48% 

State 

State 35% 

35% 

N=$8,057,224 N=$9,556,150 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 3,529,799 44 3,959,993 42 4,388,101 46 4,608,895 48 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 1,699,466 21 2,356,155 25 2,168,095 23 1,645,246 17 

State 2,827,959 35 3,176,730 33 3,033,428 32 3,302,009 35 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 8,057,224 100 9,492,878 100 9,589,624 100 9,556,150 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

640 
Inventory of State Profiles South Dakota 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Most (79 percent) of SSA funds in FY 2003 were spent on treatment activities, 16 percent on 

prevention activities, and 5 percent on administration costs. By contrast, in FY 2000, only 70 

percent of total SSA funds went toward treatment services, one-fourth went toward prevention 

services, and 5 percent toward administration costs. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention

25% Prevention Treatment 

16% 79% Treatment 

70% 

Administration Administration 

5% 5% 

N=$8,057,224 N=$9,556,150 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 3,017,368 37 3,872,138 41 7,359,924 77 7,554,638 79 

Alcohol Treatment 1,328,373 16 1,487,989 16 

Drug Treatment 1,312,091 16 1,480,121 16 

Prevention 2,027,364 25 2,228,050 23 1,658,964 17 1,495,705 16 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 372,028 5 424,580 4 570,736 6 505,807 5 

Total* 8,057,224 100 9,492,878 100 9,589,624 100 9,556,150 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

641 
South Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures rose by more than $1 million between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $3.5 to 

$4.6 million). However, during that time period the distribution of Block Grant funds remained stable: 

three-fourths went toward treatment services, 20 percent toward prevention activities, and 5 percent 

toward administration costs. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

20% 20% 

Treatment Treatment

75% 75% 

Administration Administration 

5% 5% 

N=$3,529,799 N=$4,608,895 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 3,291,159 75 3,450,509 75 

Alcohol Treatment 1,328,373 38 1,487,989 38 

Drug Treatment 1,312,091 37 1,480,121 37 

Prevention 712,845 20 793,883 20 878,845 20 927,941 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 176,490 5 198,000 5 218,097 5 230,445 5 

Total* 3,529,799 100 3,959,993 100 4,388,101 100 4,608,895 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

642 
Inventory of State Profiles South Dakota 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, State expenditures on alcohol and drug abuse related services 

increased from $2.9 to $3.3 million. During this time period, nearly all (91 to 93 percent) of the funds 

went toward treatment, 0 to1 percent went toward prevention activities, and 7 percent toward 

administration costs. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention

1% Administration 

Treatment Administration Treatment 7% 

92% 7% 93%

N=$2,827,959 N=$3,302,009 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 2,608,530 92 2,950,160 93 2,746,208 91 3,056,701 93 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 23,902 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 195,527 7 226,570 7 287,220 9 245,308 7 

Total* 2,827,959 100 3,176,730 100 3,033,428 100 3,302,009 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

643 
South Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

DADA stresses evidence-based programs and strategies in its efforts to prevent substance abuse 

among its citizens. The recently approved statewide prevention plan is driven by client and program 

outcomes, rather than the historical emphasis on program process. South Dakota has focused its 

prevention efforts in four key areas. 

First, four Prevention Resource Centers (PRCs) distribute information; assist schools in developing 

alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) policies, programming, and curricula; help community and 

parent groups develop prevention activities; and serve as Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness 

Resource (RADAR) network sites throughout the State. Second, 12 Community Mobilization 

Projects (CMPs) work to establish community advisory committees, assist in local needs 

assessment, and develop short- and long-term goals in meeting the identified community needs. 

Finally, the two-tiered Diversion Program refers juveniles entering the court system for alcohol- or 

drug-related offenses to either a Primary Prevention Program (10 hours) or an Intensive Prevention 

Program (30 hours). (Each includes a family component and an early intervention strategy.) The 

fourth area is School-based Prevention Programming. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding in South Dakota declined between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $2 to $1.5 million. 

In FY 2003, most (62 percent) of prevention expenditures derived from the Block Grant and 38 

percent from other Federal sources. By contrast, in FY 2000, only 35 percent of prevention 

expenditures came from the Block Grant and 64 percent from other Federal sources. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002, Block Grant prevention expenditures per capita rose from $0.94 to 

$1.16. In FY 2003, Block Grant expenditures on prevention services continued to increase to $1.21 

per capita. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

SAPT Block 

State 

1% 

N=$2,027,364 

Other SAPT Block Other Grant Federal Grant Federal 35% 64% 62% 38% 

N=$1,495,705 

644 
Inventory of State Profiles South Dakota 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 712,845 35 793,883 36 878,845 53 927,941 62 

Other Federal 1,290,617 64 1,434,167 64 780,119 47 567,764 38 

State 23,902 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 2,027,364 100 2,228,050 100 1,658,964 100 1,495,705 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Activities include media promotions, health fairs, newsletters, literature 

dissemination and the Red Ribbon campaign, primarily facilitated by the 

PRCs. 

Education 

Through the PRCs, DADA funds training programs for youth and adults on 

topics such as National Helpers, student assistance, Walking the Talk 

(Parenting as Prevention), risk and resiliency, Improvisational Theater, and 

principles of effectiveness. 

Alternatives Activities include two improvisational theater trainings and communitysponsored drug-free events through the local CMPs. 

Community-Based Processes 

Strategies include the funding of community prevention specialists through 

the Core Service Agencies and other agencies and partnerships between 

DADA and the city governments and school districts of Sioux Falls and 

Rapid City, which provide a range of prevention programming through the 

schools. 

Environmental 

DADA funds structured prevention programming for high-risk youth through 

contracts with local providers, support local task forces in the areas of 

policy development. DADA trains teachers and prevention advocates and 

works with local community, parent, and youth groups. 

Problem Identification and Referral Strategies include the Diversion Program for juvenile offenders and 

screenings and assessments of adult offenders. 

645 
South Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for prevention core strategies in South Dakota rose slightly from nearly 

$713,000 in FY 2000 to nearly $928,000 in FY 2003. The distribution of these funds went to a wide 

array of strategies, with most (37 percent each in FY 2003) going toward education and information 

dissemination. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy 

Education 

22% Information Information

Dissemination Dissemination Education 

40% 37% 37% 

Alternatives 

12% 

Other Environmental 

1% Community- 2% Community- Alternatives 

9% Environmental Based Based 

4% Process Process 

21% 15% 

N=$712,845 N=$927,941 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 284,344 40 274,738 35 319,038 36 344,358 37 

Education 157,873 22 253,923 32 215,242 24 344,390 37 

Alternatives 88,083 12 90,740 11 90,493 10 82,724 9 

Problem ID and Referral 0 0 0 0 63,450 7 0 0 

Community-Based Process 147,494 21 120,233 15 149,620 17 134,719 15 

Environmental 25,523 4 23,496 3 20,406 2 21,750 2 

Other 9,528 1 30,754 4 20,596 2 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 712,845 100 793,884 100 878,845 100 927,941 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

646 
Inventory of State Profiles South Dakota 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

DHS’ goal is to promote the highest level of independence for all individuals. To that end, DADA 

provides substance abuse treatment services in progressive levels of care, according to the unique 

needs of each individual. These services include clinically-managed residential detoxification 

programs, corrections substance abuse programs, outpatient treatment, day treatment, early 

intervention, gambling treatment, intensive outpatient treatment, clinically managed low-intensity 

residential programs, medically monitored intensive inpatient treatment, and core service agencies. 

DADA’s Corrections Substance Abuse Program provides a continuum of substance abuse services 

to adults and juveniles who are either incarcerated or on parole. Through this program, South 

Dakota works to equip these individuals to live substance- and crime-free lives. 

Approximately 30 percent of clients in State-funded treatment programs are Native American. As a 

result, DADA has recently partnered with tribal communities throughout the State to evaluate and 

enhance alcohol and substance abuse treatment resources. Additionally, DADA continues its recent 

emphasis on identifying and treating substance abusing pregnant women and teens. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, treatment funding in South Dakota increased from $5.7 to $7.6 million. 

In FY 2003, the largest source of treatment funding was the Block Grant (constituting 46 percent of 

treatment funds), followed by the State (at 40 percent) and other Federal sources (at 14 percent). 

This distribution varies slightly from the FY 2000 distribution. 

Block Grant expenditures on treatment and rehabilitation increased substantially between FYs 2000 

and 2002 from $3.49 to $4.33 per capita. In FY 2003, Block Grant expenditures on treatment 

continued to increase to $4.51 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

7% 14% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant

46% 47% State State 

46% 40% 

N=$5,657,832 N=$7,554,638 

647 
South Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 2,640,464 47 2,968,110 43 3,291,159 45 3,450,509 46 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 408,838 7 921,978 13 1,322,557 18 1,047,428 14 

State 2,608,530 46 2,950,160 43 2,746,208 37 3,056,701 40 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 5,657,832 100 6,840,248 100 7,359,924 100 7,554,638 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

South Dakota’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 15,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, most of which were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment 

services. 

648 
Inventory of State Profiles South Dakota 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=15,338) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 1,690 951 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 118 66 0 

Long-term residential 572 322 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 7,017 3,947 0 

Intensive outpatient 1,028 578 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 10,425 4,913 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate nearly 7,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 21 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate varied only slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus 

abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see 

Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 2,933 18.9 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 4,050 21.6 

Total 6,983 20.5 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 60,000 persons aged 12 and older (9.6 

percent of South Dakota’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

15,000 persons (2.4 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in South 

Dakota. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 9.59 8.55 24.04 6.92 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.37 5.08 6.20 1.21 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

649 
South Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

South Dakota’s prevention needs are assessed at the local level. As part of any funding application, 

communities must present a needs assessment, including objectives and strategies based on the 

identified needs. The primary assessment instruments are the Search Survey and the Tri-Ethnic 

Center (Colorado) survey. The Search Survey assesses the well-being of youth in grades 6 through 

12 using a framework of 40 developmental assets. With the Tri-Ethnic Center, DADA conducted a 

State-wide evaluation of the impact of a Community Readiness Model to stimulate prevention 

activities in rural areas. 

DADA periodically develops a statewide position paper on the prevention needs throughout South 

Dakota. Written with input from the Departments of Health, Commerce, and Social Services, the 

Attorney General’s office, and local non-profit prevention entities, the report and its 

recommendations were disseminated to all prevention and treatment providers throughout the State. 

To assess treatment needs, DADA utilizes the State Treatment Needs Assessment Program, which 

includes a household telephone survey and a face-to-face survey of Native American adults. DADA 

recently completed the second round of a statewide treatment prevalence and needs assessment 

analysis. The information helped the State identify those populations, areas, and localities in South 

Dakota with greatest need for alcohol and substance abuse services. Specifically, as a result of this 

assessment, DADA expanded treatment programming for pregnant substance-abusing women and 

funded two new residential treatment units. 

Evaluation 

DADA works on an ongoing basis with the Departments of Corrections, Social Services, and Health, 

as well as local prevention and treatment professionals, to ensure that all services meet the needs of 

the individuals they serve. DADA also conducts biannual accreditation surveys to evaluate the 

effectiveness of prevention and treatment programs. For programs specifically serving women who 

are pregnant or who have dependent children, DADA conducts onsite program reviews and provides 

technical assistance. Additionally, DADA partners with Mountain Plains Research to conduct 

outcome studies of all individuals completing intensive outpatient, day treatment, and medically 

monitored inpatient treatment. 

Training and Assistance 

In general, DADA determines ongoing training needs based on the annual work plans submitted by 

local agencies. Through these plans, providers identify their general training needs, as well as 

specific needs based on current drug trends and rural issues. 

DADA provides funding to the Chemical Dependency Association to provide two annual conferences 

and to local agencies for the training of prevention and treatment professionals. Recognizing recent 

trends, in 2004, DADA conducted a statewide conference on the prevention and treatment of 

methamphetamine use. DADA is also providing technical assistance to address cultural AOD 

needs, particularly with respect to the State’s Native American citizens. Various reports and 

manuals are also available on the DADA Web site. 

650 
Inventory of State Profiles South Dakota 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities in South Dakota increased from over 

$39,000 in FY 2000 to over $51,000 in FY 2003. The distribution of fund shifted during this time 

period. In FY 2003, three quarters of these funds went toward research and evaluation (compared 

with only 29 percent in FY 2000), 14 percent went toward training (similar to the proportion in FY 

2000), and 10 percent toward program development (compared with 58 percent in FY 2000). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Training Training Research and 

13% 14%

Evaluation

29% Program 

Development 

10% 

Program 

Development Research and 

58% Evaluation 

76% 

N=$39,120 N=$51,185 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

10,000 

20,000 

30,000 

40,000 

50,000 

60,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training 4,905 13 22,791 44 2,550 5 6,920 14 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 22,689 58 9,176 18 21,033 41 5,320 10 

Research and Evaluation 11,526 29 19,741 38 27,570 54 38,945 76 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 39,120 100 51,783 100 51,153 100 51,185 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

651 
South Dakota Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary awards for the State totaled more 

than $772,000 in FY 2004. More than half went toward CSAP 2004 earmarks. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

CSAP 2004 Earmarks 1 472,198 

Drug Free Communities 3 249,968 

Emergency Response 1 50,000 

Total 5 772,166 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

In FY 2004, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded just under $550,000 to 

South Dakota in discretionary funding for treatment. Most of these funds went toward CSAT 2004 

earmarks. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number\ 

of Awards Total $ Amount 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 2 447,345 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Total 3 547,345 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

652 
(70 local contracts)

TENNESSEE 

State SSA Director 

Stephanie W. Perry, M.D., Assistant Commissioner 

Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services 

Tennessee Department of Health 

Snodgrass Tennessee Tower 

312 Eighth Avenue North, 26th Floor 

Nashville, TN 37243-0001 

Phone: 615-741-1921 

Fax: 615-532-2419 

E-mail: stephanie.perry@state.tn.us 

Web site: www.state.tn.us/health/A&D/index.htm 

Structure and Function 

The Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services (BADAS) is Tennessee’s 

designated Single State Agency (SSA) and is responsible for planning, 

developing, administering, and evaluating substance abuse prevention and 

treatment services throughout the State. BADAS’ mission is to reduce substance abuse by 

promoting prevention and by reducing high-risk behaviors through community programs and 

activities to ensure that treatment services are available for all individuals in need. Housed within 

Tennessee’s Department of Health (DOH), BADAS functions through five primary divisions. Through 

its Prevention Services Division, BADAS contracts with local prevention service providers throughout 

DOH’s 18 regions. Additionally, BADAS facilitates two main program areas: the Alcohol and Drug 

Addiction Treatment Fund (ADAT) for driving under the influence (DUI) offenders and Training and 

Education Services. In its efforts to develop and coordinate effective services throughout the State, 

BADAS partners with other State agencies, counties, cities, and communities. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health 

(DOH) 

Bureau of Health Services 

Administration 

Bureau of Alcohol & Drug Abuse 

Services (BADAS) 

Community 

Prevention Initiative 

Administrative 

Services 

Finance and 

Systems 

Prevention Services 

Intensive Focus Programs 

(26 contracts) Clearinghouse (1) 

Special Focus Prevention 

Programs (4) 

SPF SIG (40 

community coalitions) 

Managed Care 

Services 

Treatment Services and 

Program Design

653 
Tennessee Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Total SSA funding for alcohol and drug abuse services in Tennessee increased between FYs 2000 

and 2003 (from $36 to $42 million), driven largely by increases in Block Grant funding and other 

funding sources. The largest source of funding during this time period was the Block Grant, 

constituting 69 to 73 percent of total funds. The second largest source of funding was the State, 

ranging from 19 to 25 percent of total funds. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other 

Federal 

5% 

State State 25% SAPT Block 

SAPT Block 19% Grant 

Grant 70% 

73% 

Other Other 

2% 6% 

N=$36,018,717 N=$41,973,689 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

45,000,000 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 25,999,363 72 28,299,310 73 29,240,906 69 29,391,224 70 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 128,371 0 274,847 1 1,586,872 4 1,964,738 5 

State 8,953,030 25 8,952,885 23 8,952,813 21 7,966,574 19 

Local 58,440 0 63,488 0 62,678 0 76,153 0 

Other 879,513 2 1,200,699 3 2,584,015 6 2,575,000 6 

Total* 36,018,717 100 38,791,229 100 42,427,284 100 41,973,689 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

654 
Inventory of State Profiles Tennessee 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

The distribution of total SSA funding remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 2003. 

Treatment services received the majority of funds (ranging from 67 to 69 percent of the total), 

followed by prevention (at 22 to 25 percent), administration costs (at 5 percent), and HIV early 

intervention (at 3 or 4 percent). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

23% 22% 

Treatment 

68% HIV Early Treatment HIV Early 

Intervention 69% Intervention 

4% 4% 

Administration Administration 

5% 5% 

N=$36,018,717 N=$41,973,689 

Expenditure From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

45,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 1,264,187 3 28,630,790 67 29,062,010 69 

Alcohol Treatment 12,514,049 35 11,870,758 31 

Drug Treatment 11,940,732 33 13,289,891 34 

Prevention 8,322,765 23 8,888,862 23 10,428,097 25 9,228,890 22 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 1,309,983 4 1,414,966 4 1,281,227 3 1,601,467 4 

Administration 1,931,188 5 2,062,565 5 2,087,170 5 2,081,322 5 

Total* 36,018,717 100 38,791,229 100 42,427,284 100 41,973,689 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

655 
Tennessee Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, Block Grant expenditures increased from $26 to $29.4 million in 

Tennessee. The distribution of funds during this time, however, remained quite stable. The largest 

recipient of funds was treatment services (at 66 percent in FY 2003), followed by prevention 

activities (at 24 percent), and HIV early intervention and administration costs (at 5 percent each). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 23% 

24% 

HIV Early Treatment Treatment 

69% 66% HIV Early Intervention 

Intervention 5% 

5% Administration 

Administration 3% 

5% 

N=$25,999,363 N=$29,391,224 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 19,639,717 67 19,452,248 66 

Alcohol Treatment 8,728,153 34 8,383,046 30 

Drug Treatment 9,034,348 35 10,549,546 37 

Prevention 6,043,025 23 6,603,984 23 6,855,010 23 6,973,848 24 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 1,309,983 5 1,414,966 5 1,281,227 4 1,514,511 5 

Administration 883,854 3 1,347,768 5 1,464,952 5 1,450,617 5 

Total* 25,999,363 100 28,299,310 100 29,240,906 100 29,391,224 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

656 
Inventory of State Profiles Tennessee 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures declined between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $9 to $8 million) and the distribution 

of funds shifted slightly. Most of the State funds went toward treatment services (at 65 percent in FY 

2000 and 70 percent in FY 2003), followed by prevention (23 percent in FY 2003), and 

administration costs (7 percent in FY 2003). 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention

24% Prevention 

23% 

Treatment 

Treatment 70%

65%

Administration Administration 11% 

7% 

N=$8,953,030 N=$7,966,574 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 6,407,058 72 5,536,445 69 

Alcohol Treatment 2,906,383 32 3,487,712 39 

Drug Treatment 2,906,384 32 2,740,345 31 

Prevention 2,151,369 24 2,010,031 22 1,986,215 22 1,843,963 23 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,614 0 

Administration 988,894 11 714,797 8 559,540 6 554,552 7 

Total* 8,953,030 100 8,952,885 100 8,952,813 100 7,966,574 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

657 
Tennessee Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

BADAS’ Prevention Services Division provides technical assistance, training, and support to local 

and statewide alcohol, tobacco, and drug (ATOD) prevention programs. BADAS takes both a 

theory-based and an evidence-based approach to substance abuse prevention. Services reflect 

current best practices and are continuously evaluated as to process and outcomes. Prevention 

services are provided through contracts with community-based organizations and primarily target 

youth who demonstrate two or more risk factors for developing ATOD use problems. BADAS also 

targets student leaders throughout the State to teach them prevention strategies and to help them 

implement these strategies in their own school and/or community settings. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 prevention expenditures in Tennessee increased from $8.3 to $9.2 

million. During this time period, the Block Grant’s proportion of total prevention funding increased 

slightly (from 72 to 76 percent), while the State’s declined (from 26 to 20 percent). 

Block Grant expenditures for prevention activities increased from $1.06 per capita in FY 2000 to 

$1.19 per capita in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Other Source

Federal Other 

N=$8,322,765 

2% 

N=$9,228,890 

Federal 

4% 

State SAPT Block SAPT Block 26% State

Grant Grant 20%

76%

72% 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

658 
Inventory of State Profiles Tennessee 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 6,043,025 73 6,603,984 74 6,855,010 66 6,973,848 76 

Other Federal 128,371 2 274,847 3 1,586,872 15 411,079 4 

State 2,151,369 26 2,010,031 23 1,986,215 19 1,843,963 20 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 8,322,765 100 8,888,862 100 10,428,097 100 9,228,890 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

The statewide clearinghouse provides materials to provider agencies and 

the general public, supports a toll-free information line, distributes a 

brochure describing prevention and treatment services throughout the 

State, produces media campaigns, and maintains a Web site for 

professionals and the general public. Regional agencies disseminate 

community-specific information under the Community Prevention Initiative 

for Children. 

Education 

BADAS provides training, supervision, consultation, and other resources in 

school systems. Regional Prevention Coordinators provide prevention 

education services to agencies and communities. The Annual Youth Power 

trainings equip parents, teachers, and students to conduct local prevention 

efforts. 

Alternatives 

BADAS partners with the Mini Teen Institute and Regional Teen Institute to 

hold the annual statewide Teen Leadership Conference for high school 

students throughout the State. BADAS provides consultation and training to 

school staff and youth as they develop drug-free activities, peer/helper 

programs, community services, and peer-led educational programs. 

Community-Based Processes 

Through the Faith Initiative, BADAS promotes local church involvement in 

outreach, training, and education services which target pre-adolescent 

children living in single-parent households in inner-city housing 

developments. The Deaf and Hard of Hearing Program implements 

prevention curricula for hearing-impaired students and also recruits, 

screens, and trains local volunteers to implement the curricula in their own 

communities. 

Environmental 

Collaborative partners include the Department of Agriculture and DOH’s 

Tobacco Control Section to enforce tobacco policies and educate youth 

about the dangers of tobacco use. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

BADAS facilitates community-based intensive focus groups for youth 

displaying high risk behaviors as identified by schools, the juvenile court 

system , and/or families. 

659 
Tennessee Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant expenditures on prevention core strategies increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 from 

$6 to $7 million. The distribution of funds remained stable during that time period, with problem 

identification and referral receiving 36 percent of the funds, and education and information 

dissemination strategies each receiving one-quarter of the funds. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy 

Alternatives

Education 4%

25% Problem ID 

and Referral 

36% 

Information CommunityDissemination Based 

25% Process

4%

Environmental

4%

Section 1926 -

Tobacco 

2% 

N=$6,043,025 

Strategy 

Alternatives

Education 6%

25% Problem ID 

and Referral

36%

Information CommunityDissemination Based 

25% 

Section 1926 -

Tobacco 

1% 

Process 

6% 

Environmental 

1% 

N=$6,973,848 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 1,510,756 25 1,631,699 25 1,693,722 25 1,723,084 25 

Education 1,510,756 25 1,631,699 25 1,693,722 25 1,723,084 25 

Alternatives 241,721 4 391,608 6 406,495 6 413,542 6 

Problem ID and Referral 2,211,489 36 2,414,915 36 2,506,706 36 2,550,163 36 

Community-Based 

Process 237,891 4 391,608 6 406,495 6 413,542 6 

Environmental 237,891 4 65,268 1 67,748 1 68,923 1 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 92,521 2 77,187 1 80,122 1 81,510 1 

Total* 6,043,025 100 6,603,984 100 6,855,010 100 6,973,848 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

660 
Inventory of State Profiles Tennessee 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

BADAS is responsible for planning, developing, administering, and evaluating the statewide 

substance abuse treatment system. Toward that end, BADAS provides a continuum of care that 

includes outreach, early identification and intervention, assessment, placement, and movement 

within appropriate levels of treatment, as well as aftercare and support services during the recovery 

phase. BADAS contracts with community-based organizations to provide treatment services, which 

specifically include adolescent residential and day treatment, family intervention and referral, halfway 

houses, HIV/AIDS outreach, the Life Development Program, medical detoxification, outpatient 

services, programs for pregnant women, residential rehabilitation, social setting (non-medical) 

detoxification, women’s intensive outpatient services, and wraparound services. 

BADAS also oversees the Alcohol and Drug Addiction Treatment (ADAT) Program. ADAT provides 

alcohol and drug abuse treatment services for repeat DUI offenders who are directed into treatment 

by court order and who are deemed indigent by the court. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment funding in Tennessee increased steadily between FYs 2000 and 2003 from $24.5 to 

$29.1 million. The proportion of treatment funding from the Block Grant and the State decreased 

during this time period (from 72 to 67 percent and from 24 to 19 percent respectively), while the 

proportion of funds from other Federal sources and other sources increased. 

Per capita funding from the Block Grant increased during this time, from $3.11 to $3.33. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by Funding Source Funding Source

Other 

State 

Federal 

5% State 

24% SAPT Block 

SAPT Block Grant 19%

Grant 67%

72% Other

4% Other 

9% 

N=$24,454,781 N=$29,062,010 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

661 
Tennessee Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 17,762,501 72 18,932,592 72 19,639,717 69 19,452,248 67 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,498,317 5 

State 5,812,767 24 6,228,057 24 6,407,058 22 5,536,445 19 

Local 0 0 63,488 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 879,513 4 1,200,699 5 2,584,015 9 2,575,000 9 

Total* 24,454,781 100 26,424,836 100 28,630,790 100 29,062,010 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Tennessee’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 15,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for intensive outpatient treatment and for 

short-term residential treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=15,078) 

Alcohol 

Problems 

Drug 

Problems 

None 

Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 183 115 0 

Free-standing residential 1,101 1,261 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 59 470 0 

Short-term residential 1,355 2,405 0 

Long-term residential 435 1,137 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 837 651 0 

Intensive outpatient 1,819 3,250 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 5,789 9,289 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

662 
Inventory of State Profiles Tennessee 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate more than 7,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 6 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary much when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus 

abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see 

Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 1,671 5.1 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 5,514 6.6 

Total 7,185 6.2 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 273,000 persons aged 12 and older (5.7 

percent of Tennessee’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

122,000 persons (2.5 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in 

Tennessee. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 5.70 4.62 14.41 4.38 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.54 4.43 6.71 1.59 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

663 
Tennessee Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

DOH is engaged in community diagnosis, a planning process across Tennessee’s 95 counties. 

Through this process, community-based agencies assess local health care needs, including 

substance abuse prevention and treatment needs, as well as the social, economic, and political 

realities affecting the local delivery of services. 

Additionally, BADAS contracted with the DOH to develop the Tennessee Social Indicator Study. The 

study is an ongoing effort to collect and analyze county-level risk and protective factors for 

adolescent substance abuse. From these data, BADAS is able to identify county- and regional-level 

risk factors and incorporate them into needs assessment and prevention planning. BADAS also 

completed the Tennessee Prevention Needs Assessment in FY 2003. 

Evaluation 

The Tennessee Alcohol and Drug Prevention Outcome Longitudinal Evaluation (TADPOLE) is an 

evaluation system that measures the outcomes of State-funded alcohol and drug prevention 

programs for youth and adolescents ages 8 to 19. TADPOLE uses two self-report survey 

instruments: (1) the Student Attitudinal Inventory for youth and adolescents in grades 6 to 12 and (2) 

the Children’s Self-Concept Attitudinal Inventory for youth and adolescents in grades 3 to 6. 

With respect to treatment services evaluation, the Institute for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Evaluation (I-SATE) conducts outcome evaluation research to determine the efficacy of alcohol and 

drug treatment outcomes throughout Tennessee. A partnership between BADAS and the University 

of Memphis, I-SATE produces reports allowing practitioners and policymakers to evaluate treatment 

protocols and funding streams. BADAS’ Financial and Systems Division also supports confidential 

databases which allow local treatment service providers to enter client treatment and outcome data 

for evaluation purposes. 

Training and Assistance 

BADAS’ Training and Education Services Program provides an educational forum for all 

professionals associated with the prevention, intervention, and treatment of alcohol and substance 

abuse in Tennessee. Training services are coordinated by the Bureau’s Alcohol and Drug Training 

Coordinator, as well as six full-time Regional Training Coordinators (RTCs) throughout the State. 

The RTCs assess the unique training needs of professionals in their region. 

BADAS also sponsors the statewide annual Tennessee Advanced School on Addictions, during 

which national experts provide training on the most current trends in prevention, intervention, and 

treatment. The event draws approximately 350 participants each year. 

Recognizing the unique treatment needs of individuals dealing with both substance/alcohol abuse 

and mental health disorders, BADAS developed The Co-Occurring Disorders Project. Through the 

project, BADAS trains program administrators, counselors, and healthcare providers about the 

unique needs of these clients. 

664 
Inventory of State Profiles Tennessee 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Tennessee 

increased slightly (from $368,000 to $411,000). All of the funding during that time period went 

toward training. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities

Training Training 100% 100% 

N=$368,177 N=$411,079 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

1,600,000 

1,800,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training 368,177 100 272,451 100 1,586,872 100 411,079 100 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Research and Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 368,177 100 272,451 100 1,586,872 100 411,079 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

665 
Tennessee Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

In FY 2004 Tennessee received more than $3.6 million in discretionary funding from the Center for 

Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP). Most of the funds came from the Strategic Prevention 

Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 9 821,678 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Expansion Cooperative Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Youth Services Cooperative 

Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 350,000 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Total 13 3,649,915 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Tennessee received nearly $10.4 million in Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) 

discretionary awards for treatment services in FY 2004, most of which went toward Access to 

Recovery (ATR) services. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Access to Recovery 1 5,938,532 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 1 391,468 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 3 1,399,386 

Recovery Community Service 1 200,000 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 3 1,433,122 

TCE Minority Populations 1 499,836 

TCE Rural Populations 1 500,000 

Total 12 10,362,344 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

666 
Section

TEXAS 

State SSA Director 

Dave R. Wanser, Ph.D., Deputy Commissioner 

Behavioral and Community Health Services 

Division of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 

Texas Department of State Health Services 

1100 West 49th Street, M-751 

Austin, TX 78756-3199 

Phone: 512-458-7376 

Fax: 512-458-7477 

E-mail: dave.wanser@dshs.state.tx.us 

Web site: www.tcada.state.tx.us/finding/index.shtml 

Structure and Function 

The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) was formed in 2005 

as a result of the consolidation of the Texas Department of Health, the 

Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, and the Commission on 

Alcohol and Drug Abuse. DSHS is the designated Single State Agency (SSA) 

and includes the Division for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services as 

an agency of the Texas health and human services system. The merger of 

mental health and substance abuse services in Texas is designed to promote 

cost-effective system integration and the capacity to address the health, mental health, and 

substance abuse issues of citizens. DSHS’s mission is to promote optimal health for individuals and 

communities while providing effective health, mental health, and substance abuse services. 

DSHS funds about 200 prevention and treatment providers that deliver approximately 450 programs 

through 11 Health Services Regions (HSRs). In FFY 2005, all prevention and treatment services in 

the State were renegotiated and contracted through a statewide procurement. Other substance 

abuse functions of DSHS are monitoring drug trends in Texas; analyzing data and conducting 

surveys related to substance abuse and gambling; building alliances with other public and private 

agencies, including law enforcement and corrections, to look for ways to reduce the State’s 

substance abuse problems; and providing a 24-hour hotline for those who need crisis counseling or 

drug and alcohol information. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of State Health 

Services (DSHS) 

Division of Mental Health and 

Substance Abuse Services 

Community Mental Health and 

Substance Abuse Services Hospital Services 

Program Services 

Unit 

Contracts 

Management Unit 

Quality 

Management Unit 

667 
Texas Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 total SSA funding in Texas declined from $174.5 to $155.1 million. The 

single largest funding source in FY 2003 was the Block Grant (at 86 percent of the total) followed by 

the State (at 12 percent). This distribution represents a change from FY 2000, when the Block Grant 

represented 76 percent of total funds. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid 

7% Other Other Federal Federal 1%

3% SAPT Block 

Grant State State SAPT Block 86% 12% Grant 13%

76% Other Other 

1% 1% 

N=$174,493,087 N=$155,148,644 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

50,000,000 

100,000,000 

150,000,000 

200,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 132,649,225 76 127,289,421 76 132,649,226 94 133,322,329 86 

Medicaid 11,922,431* 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 5,453,534 3 12,457,975 7 2,446,687 2 2,124,630 1 

State 23,316,421 13 27,091,202 16 6,007,342 4 18,467,532 12 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 1,151,476 1 492,765 0 269,413 0 1,234,153 1 

Total** 174,493,087 100 167,331,363 100 141,372,668 100 155,148,644 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Although Texas had Medicaid expenditures in years subsequent to FY 2000, they aren’t reflected in the table. The separate 

reporting of Medicaid expenditure is due to a separate allocation strategy for the managed care program after FY 2000. 

** Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

668 
Inventory of State Profiles Texas 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the $155.1 million spent in FY 2003, most (68 percent) of SSA expenditures went toward 

treatment services and one-quarter went toward prevention services. By slight contrast, in FY 2000, 

72 percent of SSA funds went toward treatment and only 18 percent toward prevention. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention

18% Prevention 

25% 

HIV Early 

Intervention Treatment Treatment HIV Early

72% 4% 68% Intervention Administration 

4% 6% 

Administration 

3% 

N=$174,493,087 N=$155,148,644 

Expenditure From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

50,000,000 

100,000,000 

150,000,000 

200,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 32,688,664 19 104,121,962 62 83,776,789 59 105,369,967 68 

Alcohol Treatment 46,427,229 27 0 0 

Drug Treatment 46,427,229 27 0 0 

Prevention 31,834,217 18 47,906,158 29 47,502,227 34 38,564,386 25 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 7,107,400 4 7,478,302 4 6,628,175 5 6,832,866 4 

Administration 10,008,348 6 7,824,941 5 3,465,477 2 4,381,425 3 

Total* 174,493,087 100 167,331,363 100 141,372,668 100 155,148,644 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

669 
Texas Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures in Texas remained relatively stable since FY 2000, ranging from $127.3 

million in FY 2001 to $133.3 million in FY 2003. Services for treatment received the majority of funds 

(65 percent) in FY 2003, prevention activities received 27 percent, and HIV early intervention and 

administration costs received the remainder. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

20% Prevention 

27% 

Treatment HIV Early Treatment

70% Intervention 65% 

5% HIV Early

Intervention Administration 

5% 5% Administration 

N=$132,649,225 3% N=$133,322,329 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

140,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 75,013,681 59 81,198,694 61 87,289,044 65 

Alcohol Treatment 46,427,229 35 0 0 

Drug Treatment 46,427,229 35 0 0 

Prevention 26,529,845 20 40,998,900 32 41,356,880 31 35,844,543 27 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 6,632,461 5 7,478,302 6 6,628,175 5 6,666,557 5 

Administration 6,632,461 5 3,798,538 3 3,465,477 3 3,522,185 3 

Total* 132,649,225 100 127,289,421 100 132,649,226 100 133,322,329 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

670 
Inventory of State Profiles Texas 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Texas State expenditures for drug and alcohol abuse services changed dramatically over the past 

several years. Between FYs 2000 and 2002 total expenditures declined by $17.3 million (from $23.3 

to $6 million). However, between FYs 2002 and 2003 State expenditures increased to $23.3 million. 

The distribution of funds also changed dramatically between FYs 2000 and 2003. The proportion of 

State funds spent on treatment services increased from 64 to 91 percent, while prevention’s 

proportion declined from 23 to 4 percent. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 23% 

4% 

Treatment HIV Early Treatment Administration 

64% Intervention 91% 5% 

2%

Administration

11% 

N=$23,316,421 N=$18,467,532 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 15,002,199 64 16,429,426 61 322,361 5 16,934,997 92 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 5,304,372 23 6,740,740 25 5,684,981 95 673,295 4 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 474,939 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 2,534,911 11 3,921,036 14 0 0 859,240 5 

Total* 23,316,421 100 27,091,202 100 6,007,342 100 18,467,532 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

671 
Texas Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The Department funds 11 Prevention Resource Centers across the State that provide communities 

with prevention information, resources, and expertise. Key prevention resources include the 

Substance Abuse Services Library and Clearinghouse; the Partnership for a Drug-Free Texas that 

generates more than $10 million in advertising and media exposure; the Texas Red Ribbon 

Campaign that teaches students about the benefits of a drug-free lifestyle; and the Statewide 

Prevention Training Program that provides schools and community groups with access to prevention 

training, conferences, and workshops. 

DSHS-funded providers implement prevention programs that specifically target universal; selective 

(target a subset of the general population that is at-risk); and indicated (designed for those already 

experimenting with drugs or exhibit other problem behaviors) groups. Each funded provider further 

defines the target population by age, gender, ethnicity, risk and protective factors, patterns of 

substance use, social and cultural characteristics, knowledge, beliefs, values, attitudes, and needs. 

Strategies that target families are encouraged. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 total prevention funding in Texas increased from $31.8 to $38.6 

million. Nearly all (93 percent) prevention funds were supported by the Block Grant in FY 2003, 

whereas in FY 2000, 83 percent came from the Block Grant and 17 percent came from the State. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2002 Block Grant prevention funds in Texas increased from $1.27 to $1.90 

per capita. In FY 2003 per capita spending for prevention services totaled $1.62. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other 

Federal 

4% 

SAPT Block State SAPT Block State Grant 17% Grant 2% 83% 93% 

Other 

1% 

N=$31,834,217 N=$38,564,386 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

672 
Inventory of State Profiles Texas 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 26,529,845 83 40,998,900 86 41,356,880 87 35,844,543 93 

Other Federal 0 0 60,440 0 190,953 0 1,587,694 4 

State 5,304,372 17 6,740,740 14 5,684,981 12 673,295 2 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 106,078 0 269,413 1 458,854 1 

Total* 31,834,217 100 47,906,158 100 47,502,227 100 38,564,386 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Activities include a DSHS Web page, and a library and clearinghouse that 

offer information statewide. The statewide campaign “2young2drink” 

includes billboards and public awareness events. 

Education 

Strategies include evidence-based school and community programs, 

groups for children of substance abusers, parenting and family 

management classes, peer leader, and mentoring programs, and minors 

and tobacco education and information classes. 

Alternatives 

Strategies include athletic and recreational activities, retreats, field trips, 

drug-free parties and dances, community drop-in centers, and community 

service projects. 

Community-Based Processes 

Funds support community volunteer training, neighborhood action 

planning, teacher training, coalition building, and multicultural leadership 

training. 

Environmental Strategies include drug-free school zones, alcohol and tobacco education 

for retailers, and education of policymakers on gaps in services. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Funding supports community-based 24-hour telephone information lines 

and referrals to services and school-based early identification of problems 

and referrals. 

673 
Texas Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant prevention funds in Texas increased from $29.7 to $35.8 

million. In FY 2003, more than half (56 percent) of these funds were spent on education, and the 

remainder was spread among a variety of prevention core strategies. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Education 

Alternatives Alternatives Problem ID 

24% 

7% Problem ID 7% and Referral 

and Referral 12% 

Information 15% CommunityDissemination Education Based 

4% 56% Process 

Community­ Other 11%

Based Environmental 10% Process 5% 

Environmental 26% Information Other 

14% Dissemination 1% 

N=$29,677,676 8% N=$35,844,543 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

45,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 1,296,709 4 16,891,271 45 2,942,594 7 2,788,649 8 

Education 7,000,983 24 7,694,205 20 21,708,893 52 20,382,837 57 

Alternatives 1,947,653 7 2,870,759 8 3,181,798 8 2,353,395 7 

Problem ID and 

Referral 4,589,088 15 5,974,267 16 4,663,911 11 4,154,632 12 

Community-Based 

Process 7,567,074 25 2,819,909 7 6,785,124 16 4,014,392 11 

Environmental 4,244,037 14 597,717 2 1,767,345 4 1,780,364 5 

Other 2,955,409 10 946,519 3 291,323 1 370,274 1 

Section 1926 ­

Tobacco 76,723 0 42,791 0 15,892 0 0 0 

Total* 29,677,676 100 37,837,438 100 41,356,880 100 35,844,543 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

674 
Inventory of State Profiles Texas 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

DSHS contracts with treatment programs to provide services in the 11 Health Services Regions. 

Each region has detoxification and residential treatment services for adults and adolescents. 

Intensive outpatient and supportive outpatient services are also funded in each region. Specialized 

female programs and pharmacotherapy programs are funded in every major population center. At 

least one co-occurring psychiatric and substance abuse disorder provider is funded in each region. 

Multiple methadone programs are licensed in the State. Ambulatory detoxification services are being 

added to the treatment continuum. 

Substance abuse treatment for adults engages the client and the family in recovery efforts from 

outreach through continuing care. Youth treatment assists individuals aged 13-17 in achieving and 

maintaining a drug-free life by identifying strengths, weaknesses, and mental health issues. 

Specialized female treatment services are specifically designed for pregnant women and women 

with dependent children. Pharmacotherapy services are available for those who are addicted to 

opioids and who may receive methadone and LAAM. 

Specific initiatives in the State include: 

? Access to Recovery (ATR) is an initiative to increase access to substance abuse services using 

vouchers that will operate through drug courts in six Texas counties. 

? Partnership for Drug-Free Texas is an arm of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America that 

generates millions of dollars in advertising and media exposure to encourage Texas youth to 

make wise choices about alcohol and other drugs. 

? The border Initiative fosters healthy border communities through accessible and culturally 

comprehensive substance abuse prevention and treatment services along the Texas-Mexico 

border. 

? The Behavioral Health Integrated Provider System (BHIPS) is a nationally recognized Web-based 

electronic health record and billing/reporting system for behavioral health providers that offers 

tools for clinicians to ensure provision of consistent care. 

? Pregnant Post Partum Intervention comprises programs that provide onsite, gender-specific 

outreach, intervention, motivational counseling, case management, treatment referral, and 

continuing care for women with substance abuse problems. 

? The TCU, Dwayne Simpson Treatment Process Model, was adopted statewide as a required 

evidence-based practice for all contracted treatment programs. 

? The statewide Drug Demand Reduction Advisory Committee is legislatively mandated by statute to 

develop a single statewide strategy for drug demand reduction and make recommendations to the 

legislature. The committee is chaired by the SSA and includes all State agencies involved in 

prevention, treatment, and enforcement. 

675 
Texas Inventory of State Profiles 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment expenditures in Texas have varied over the past several years. Between FYs 2000 and 

2002 expenditures declined from $125.5 to $83.8 million, but in FY 2003 they increased to $105.4 

million. The Block Grant was the largest funding source for treatment services during this time period 

(providing 74 percent of funds in FY 2000 and 82 percent in FY 2003), followed by the State 

(providing 12 percent in FY 2000 and 16 percent in FY 2003). 

Block Grant treatment expenditures declined from $4.43 to $3.74 per capita in Texas between FYs 

2000 and 2002. In FY 2003, treatment expenditures per capita rebounded to $3.95. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Other 

Medicaid Federal 

9% 1% 

Other SAPT Block SAPT Block State

Federal Grant Grant 16%

4% 82% 74% Other 

State 1% 

12% 

N=$125,543,122 Other N=$105,369,967

1% 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

140,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 92,854,458 74 75,013,681 72 81,198,694 97 87,289,044 83 

Medicaid 11,922,431 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 4,762,047 4 12,292,168 12 2,255,734 3 536,936 1 

State 15,002,199 12 16,429,426 16 322,361 0 16,934,997 16 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 1,001,987 1 386,687 0 0 0 608,990 1 

Total* 125,543,122 100 104,121,962 100 83,776,789 100 105,369,967 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

676 
Inventory of State Profiles Texas 

Admissions 

Texas’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 53,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for short-term residential, outpatient (nonmethadone), or free-standing residential treatment services. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=52,801) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 5,054 6,895 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 5,550 10,803 0 

Long-term residential 365 2,996 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 1,535 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 4,388 8,422 0 

Intensive outpatient 1,971 4,822 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 17,328 35,473 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate nearly 35,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 20 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate did not vary when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of 

alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see 

Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 5,092 19.7 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 29,698 19.9 

Total 34,790 19.9 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 1,287,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.4 

percent of Texas’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 427,000 

persons (2.5 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Texas. 

677 
Texas Inventory of State Profiles 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.43 5.65 16.62 5.91 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.47 4.91 6.39 1.31 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

678 
Inventory of State Profiles Texas 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Multiple surveys provide needs data on adults in the general population, elementary and secondary 

school students, individuals in the adult and juvenile justice systems, college students, Texans living 

on the Mexico border, and parents and their children. Substance use prevention, intervention, and 

treatment needs at the State and substate levels are calculated using data from the Texas Survey of 

Substance Use among Adults and the Texas School Survey of Substance Use among Students. 

Additionally, as results of other surveys and synthetic estimates become available, need estimates 

are developed for special populations and high-risk groups. A new methodology to assess 

prevention need was developed in 2004 that takes into consideration the elements of universal, 

selective, and indicated prevention needs to better target particular populations in the State. 

A funding formula is designed to produce equity in funding across and within all regions of the State. 

The simplified formula includes population as the most heavily weighted factor at 75 percent-­

poverty representing 20 percent of the formula, and need weighted at 5 percent of the formula. 

Evaluation 

The Community Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Section, Quality Management Unit, 

provides leadership, design, and coordination of quality management services. The unit uses 

performance-based risk assessment to identify contractors at high risk for delivery of poor quality 

services and implements appropriate interventions to increase compliance and service quality. The 

unit also responds to complaints, advocates for consumer rights, and provides data analysis and 

information to management and external stakeholders. Quality Management works closely with the 

Program Services and Contract Management Units to assure effective and efficient delivery of 

services. 

In 2004, a new process to measure outcomes of prevention programs was implemented. Prevention 

and intervention service providers are required to report outcome data on a quarterly basis and are 

reviewed quarterly. Performance measure data are reported monthly and compiled data are 

reviewed quarterly by DSHS staff. A team approach is used by DSHS to provide contract oversight 

and to examine and assess provider performance, compliance with contract requirements, and 

quality of services. 

A peer review process is in place that includes a review of client record data to assess the process 

of screening, assessment, and treatment planning. The peer reviewers and DSHS staff analyze the 

data to identify trends and issues around quality, effectiveness, and appropriateness of treatment 

services. 

Training and Assistance 

DSHS provides continuing education units to professionals who work in the substance abuse field. 

Prevention conferences offer tracks on such topics as coalition building, advanced prevention, 

leadership, and science-based prevention. Annual institutes include tracks on successful 

engagement and retention strategies, cultural competency in health care settings, counseling 

essentials, improving administration, and drug courts. In FFY 2005, DSHS plans to offer regional 

trainings and conferences and a Summer Institute providing both prevention and treatment sessions 

for professionals and community volunteers. 

679 
Texas Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

In FY 2003 Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Texas totaled $7.1 million, a 

decrease from FY 2000. Quality assurance received the largest portion (40 percent) of these funds 

in FY 2003, followed by program development (at 23 percent) and information systems (at 24 

percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities

Research and Information Information 

Evaluation Systems Program Systems 

2% 24% 21% Development Planning, 23% 

Coordination, 

Program Needs 

Development Assessment Training 35% 2%

11% 

Training Quality Quality 

5% Assurance Assurance 

37% 40% 

N=$9,916,947 N=$7,069,917 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 19,949 0 60,598 1 90,765 1 136,567 2 

Quality Assurance 3,701,381 37 2,867,820 38 2,906,882 37 2,823,254 40 

Training 486,257 5 258,890 3 854,573 11 785,154 11 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 3,424,708 35 2,410,358 32 2,440,198 31 1,634,543 23 

Research and 

Evaluation 194,493 2 140,298 2 15,874 0 0 0 

Information Systems 2,090,159 21 1,908,714 25 1,599,848 20 1,690,399 24 

Total* 9,916,947 100 7,646,678 100 7,908,140 100 7,069,917 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

680 
Inventory of State Profiles Texas 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded over $14 million in discretionary 

prevention grant funds to Texas entities in FY 2004. These grants included Drug Free Communities 

(22 of the 46 total grants awarded), HIV/AIDS, and Cooperative Agreements for Ecstacy and Other 

Club Drugs Prevention services. The largest single grants were the State Incentive Cooperative 

Agreement and the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Cooperative Agreement for Ecstasy & Other Club Drugs 

Prevention Services 4 1,169,424 

Drug Free Communities 22 1,978,632 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Expansion Cooperative Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Youth Services Cooperative 

Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 6 2,055,983 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 4 Services 1 342,638 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 6 1,500,000 

Prevention of Meth and Inhalant Use 1 350,000 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreements 1 4,000,000 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Youth Transition into the Workplace 2 300,000 

Total 46 14,174,914 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded nearly $26.3 million in discretionary 

treatment grant funds to Texas entities in FY 2004. These grants included the Targeted CapacityHIV/AIDS, Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts, and Homeless Addictions Treatment. The largest single 

grant awards were for ATR and State Targeted Capacity Expansion (TCE) - Screening Brief 

Intervention Referral Treatment. 

681 
Texas Inventory of State Profiles 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grants Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Access to Recovery 1 7,591,723 

Addiction Technical Transfer Center 1 649,424 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 2 798,279 

CSAT 2004 Earmarks 2 646,165 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 2 495,000 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 6 2,997,067 

Methamphetamine Populations 1 500,000 

Pregnant/Post-Partum Women 1 500,000 

Recovery Community Service 1 322,499 

Residential SA TX 1 454,876 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

State TCE Screening Brief Intervention Referral 

Treatment 1 3,346,000 

Strengthening Access and Retention 1 181,588 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 2 719,684 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 11 5,388,656 

Treatment of Persons w/Co-Occuring Substance Related 

and Mental Disorders 1 1,100,000 

Youth Offender Reentry Program 2004 1 500,000 

Total 36 26,290,961 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

682 
UTAH 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Mark Payne, Director 

Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Utah Department of Human Services 

120 North 200 West Street, Room 209 

Salt Lake City, UT 84103 

Phone: 801-538-3939 

Fax: 801-538-9892 

E-mail: mpayne@utah.gov 

Web site: www.hsdsa.utah.gov 

Structure and Function 

The Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health (DSAMH) is the Single State 

Agency (SSA) for public substance abuse and mental health programs in Utah and is 

charged with ensuring that prevention and treatment services are available 

throughout the State. DSAMH monitors and evaluates mental health services and 

substance abuse services through an annual site review process, review of local 

area plans, and outcome data. DSAMH also provides technical assistance and 

training to the local authorities, evaluates the effectiveness of prevention and 

treatment programs, and disseminates information to stakeholders. 

Under Utah law, local substance abuse and mental health authorities are responsible for providing 

services to their residents. A local authority is generally the governing body of a county. There are 

29 counties in Utah and 13 local authorities. Some counties have joined together to provide services 

for their residents. By legislative intent, no substance abuse or community mental health center is 

operated by the State. DSAMH contracts with the local county governments statutorily designated as 

local substance abuse authorities and local mental health authorities to provide prevention and 

treatment services. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Human Services 

Support Services Office of Services 

Review Programs 

Office of 

Recovery 

Services 

Office of 

Administrative 

Support 

Office of 

Human 

Resources 

Office of Fiscal 

Operations 

Office of 

Technology 

Office of 

Licensing 

Office of 

Administrative 

Hearings 

Public 

Information 

Division of Aging & 

Services 

Office of Public 

Guardian 

County Local Authority 

Utah State 

Hospital 

Division of 

Child and 

Family 

Services 

Division of 

Juvenile 

Justice 

Services 

Division of 

Services for 

People with 

Disabilities 

Division of 

Substance 

Abuse & 

Mental Health 

(DSAMH) 

683 
7 6

Utah Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Total SSA funding in Utah increased from $28.5 to $31.7 million between FYs 2000 an 2003. The 

largest funding source during that time period was the Block Grant (totaling 51 to 54 percent of the 

total), followed by the State (34 to 37 percent) and other Federal sources (9 to 14 percent). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal Federal 

12% 10% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block Grant Grant State 

State 54% 36% 

37% 

51% 

N=$28,530,40 N=$31,723,18 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 Funding Source $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 14,551,928 51 15,791,123 52 16,460,288 54 16,914,130 53 

Medicaid* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Other Federal 3,371,589 12 4,170,118 14 2,763,229 9 3,320,604 10 

State 10,606,890 37 10,456,346 34 11,264,151 37 11,488,452 36 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total** 28,530,407 100 30,417,587 100 30,487,668 100 31,723,186 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

*Medicaid funding is managed by the Department of Health. 

** Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

684 
Inventory of State Profiles Utah 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the $31.7 million SSA expenditures in FY 2003, nearly three-fourths were spent on treatment and 

rehabilitation services, and one-fourth was spent on prevention activities. The distribution of funds 

was similar since FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 25% 

25% 

Treatment Treatment 

72% 70% Administration Administration 

5% 3% 

N=$28,530,40 N=$31,723,18 7 6 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 22,040,496 72 22,749,973 72 

Alcohol Treatment 8,399,649 29 9,155,461 30 

Drug Treatment 11,508,284 40 12,196,322 40 

Prevention 7,280,604 26 7,866,045 26 7,443,416 24 7,955,561 25 

Tuberculosis 28,230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,341,869 5 1,199,759 4 1,003,756 3 1,017,652 3 

Total* 28,530,407 100 30,417,587 100 30,487,668 100 31,723,186 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

685 
8 0

Utah Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, Block Grant expenditures in Utah rose from $14.6 to $16.9 million. 

Three quarters of Block Grant funds went toward treatment activities in FY 2003, followed by 22 

percent toward prevention activities, and 3 percent toward administration costs. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

22% 

Prevention 

Treatment 21% Treatment

76% 75% 

Administration Administration 

3% 3% 

N=$14,580,15 N=$16,914,13 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

18,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 12,614,230 77 12,690,265 75 

Alcohol Treatment 5,156,507 35 5,595,542 35 

Drug Treatment 5,876,802 40 5,941,658 38 

Prevention 3,043,619 21 3,730,856 24 3,292,058 20 3,693,865 22 

Tuberculosis 28,230 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 475,000 3 523,067 3 554,000 3 530,000 3 

Total* 14,580,158 100 15,791,123 100 16,460,288 100 16,914,130 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

686 
0 2

Inventory of State Profiles Utah 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures for alcohol and drug abuse services also increased between FYs 2000 and 2003 

(from $10.6 to $11.5 million). In FY 2003, 88 percent of State funds were spent on treatment 

services, 8 percent on prevention activities, and 4 percent on administration costs. By contrast, in 

FY 2000 only 69 percent went toward treatment activities, and one fourth went toward prevention 

activities. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

25% Prevention 

Treatment Treatment 8%

69% 88% Administration 

4% 

Administration 

6% 

N=$10,606,89 N=$11,488,45 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 9,276,266 82 10,059,708 88 

Alcohol Treatment 2,573,248 24 2,949,714 28 

Drug Treatment 4,778,889 45 5,478,040 52 

Prevention 2,619,246 25 1,560,462 15 1,538,129 14 941,092 8 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 635,507 6 468,130 4 449,756 4 487,652 4 

Total* 10,606,890 100 10,456,346 100 11,264,151 100 11,488,452 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

687 
Utah Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The mission of the prevention unit of the DSAMH is to provide leadership and advocacy and to 

improve the quality of service through public education; technical assistance; collaboration; 

expansion of resources; and development, promotion, and monitoring of effective practices that will 

empower local authorities, support consumers and families, influence policymakers, and inform the 

general public. The Utah framework for prevention integrates the risk and protective factor model 

and the Institute of Medicine continuum of care model. DSAMH collaborates with the Department of 

Health to perform tobacco prevention and control activities. Prevention Services in Utah are 

administered by the Local Substance Abuse Authorities (LSAAs), with guidance from DSAMH. Each 

LSAA submits an annual plan for prevention activities, which is reviewed by DSAMH. 

Utah was awarded a State Incentive Cooperative Agreement (SICA) by the Center for Substance 

Abuse Prevention (CSAP) in 2000 to target youth ages 12-17. The goals of the SICA were to 

develop a comprehensive, statewide, sustainable prevention strategy using the risk and protective 

factors framework; implement science-based prevention approaches; and demonstrate a reduction 

of research-based indicators that affect youth. In 2003, Utah was awarded a SIG-Enhancement 

grant to expand the success model established in the SICA to focus on the prevention and early 

intervention needs of 18-25 year-old college students at Utah’s public colleges and universities. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding in Utah remained relatively stable between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $7.3 to $8 

million). The distribution of funds shifted during this time. In FY 2003, the Block Grant constituted 46 

percent of prevention funding, followed by other Federal sources at 42 percent and State funds at 12 

percent. By contrast, in FY 2000 the Block Grant constituted 42 percent, other Federal sources 

constituted 22 percent, and the State constituted 36 percent of total prevention funds. 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, Block Grant prevention funding increased from $1.36 to $1.55 per 

capita. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

Other 

Federal Other 

22% Federal SAPT Block 

42% Grant

Grant

SAPT Block 

46% 

42% 

State State 

36% 12% 

N=$7,280,604 N=$7,955,561 

688 
Inventory of State Profiles Utah 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

9,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 3,043,619 42 3,730,856 47 3,292,058 44 3,693,865 46 

Other Federal 1,617,739 22 2,574,727 33 2,613,229 35 3,320,604 42 

State 2,619,246 36 1,560,462 20 1,538,129 21 941,092 12 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 7,280,604 100 7,866,045 100 7,443,416 100 7,955,561 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include the following: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Strategies include dissemination of information via the seven Utah Family 

Centers throughout the State, which also serve as the State Regional 

Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resources (RADAR) depositories. 

Education Strategies include the sponsorship of “Prevention Dimensions,” a K-12 

school-based prevention education curriculum. 

Alternatives 

Strategies include supporting the Governing Youth Council (GYC) for high 

school students involved in the promotion of anti-drug and anti-violence 

activities throughout the State. 

Community-Based Processes 

Strategies include the Annual Fall Conference on Substance Abuse to 

provide professional education and development opportunities for 

individuals in the substance abuse field. 

Environmental DSAMH works collaboratively with the Department of Health to conduct 

underage tobacco purchase compliance checks. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Strategies include referral and assessment for driving under the influence 

(DUI) offenders, and youth with first offenses for tobacco, alcohol, and 

other drugs. 

689 
Utah Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for prevention core strategies in Utah rose from $3 to $3.7 million between FYs 

2000 and 2003. During this time period, the largest recipient of the funding went toward education 

(56 percent of the total). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core Strategy

Strategy

Alternatives Alternatives 

14% 14% 

Information 

Dissemination

11% 

Problem ID Problem ID 

and Referral and Referral 

Community- Education 

Education 6% 6%

Based 56% Community­ 56% Process Based 

Environmental 9% Process

9% 

Information Environmental 

Dissemination 4% 

11% 

4% 

N=$3,043,622 N=$3,693,865 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 329,706 11 404,151 11 355,542 11 398,937 11 

Education 1,714,212 56 2,101,273 56 1,853,429 56 2,079,646 56 

Alternatives 413,284 14 506,602 14 447,720 14 502,366 14 

Problem ID and Referral 197,187 6 241,711 6 213,984 7 240,101 6 

Community-Based 

Process 279,404 9 342,492 9 299,577 9 336,142 9 

Environmental 109,829 4 134,627 4 121,806 4 136,673 4 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 3,043,622 100 3,730,856 100 3,292,058 100 3,693,865 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

690 
Inventory of State Profiles Utah 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Substance abuse treatment services in Utah are delivered through LSAAs. As the SSA, DSAMH 

contracts with counties to provide these services. Counties may either operate as single entities or 

join with multiple counties in multicounty organizations, and counties may either provide direct 

services or contract out for services. Each LSAA is required to provide for a continuum of services, 

including general outpatient, intensive outpatient, day treatment, jail services, residential and 

detoxification. Methadone treatment is provided by one publicly funded methadone treatment 

program, which operates sites in Salt Lake City and Provo. 

DSAMH also funds drug courts, including nine adult felony courts, four dependency courts, and 

three juvenile courts. Three therapeutic communities in Utah correctional facilities were also funded 

and represent ongoing coordination between DSAMH and the criminal justice system. The 

Collaborative Interventions for Addicted Offenders (CIAO) program targets parolees and 

probationers with serious substance abuse issues, and is funded by DSAMH in partnership with the 

Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 treatment expenditures in Utah increased from $19.9 to $22.7 million. 

More than half of treatment expenditures were paid for by the Block Grant in FY 2003 (a similar 

proportion to that in FY 2000), and 44 percent were paid for by the State (compared with only 37 

percent in FY 2000). 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 Block Grant expenditures on treatment services increased from $4.92 

to $5.33 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Other 

Federal 

8% 

N=$19,907,93 

3 

SAPT Block SAPT Block State Grant Grant 44% State 56% 55% 

37% 

N=$22,749,97 

3 

691 
Utah Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 11,033,309 55 11,537,200 54 12,614,230 57 12,690,265 56 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 1,522,487 8 1,386,829 6 150,000 1 0 0 

State 7,352,137 37 8,427,754 39 9,276,266 42 10,059,708 44 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 19,907,933 100 21,351,783 100 22,040,496 100 22,749,973 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Utah’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 21,000 persons were admitted to treatment 

during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment services. 

692 
Inventory of State Profiles Utah 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=21,142) 

Alcohol 

Problems 

Drug 

Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 8 0 0 

Free-standing residential 1,890 2,121 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 321 1,338 0 

Long-term residential 379 994 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 550 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 3,901 6,262 0 

Intensive outpatient 658 2,209 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 2 0 0 

Total 7,165 13,491 0 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate more than 11,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 31 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined 

with alcohol or drug use. This rate varied only slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse 

versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data 

sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 2,173 29.0 

Any other drugs 8,994 31.7 

Total 11,167 31.2 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 115,000 persons aged 12 and older (6.3 

percent of Utah’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 49,000 

persons (2.7 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Utah. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 6.33 4.71 12.89 4.71 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.69 4.22 5.42 1.59 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combned data for 2002 and 2003 

693 
Utah Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Substate planning is conducted by the LSAAs under the direction of DSAMH. DSAMH provides 

technical assistance, data, and training to LSAAs, and LSAAs submit area plans to DSAMH, where 

the plan is reviewed and modified as necessary. 

Treatment and prevention needs assessment studies are conducted by DSAMH to facilitate substate 

planning by the LSAAs. Treatment needs assessment studies include the Adult Treatment Needs 

Assessment Telephone study and the Native American Reservation Study, funded by the Center for 

Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) State Treatment Needs Assessment program (STNAP). In 

addition, A Prison Inmate study was conducted, as well as the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring 

(ADAM) study. Prevention needs assessment studies include the Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

(jointly administered by the State Office of Education) and the Youth Tobacco Survey (jointly 

administered by the Utah Department of Health). Data from the prevention and treatment needs 

assessment studies were disseminated to the LSAAs, and technical assistance was provided to 

interpret the data. 

Evaluation 

DSAMH monitors the performance of each LSAA using a variety of methods. First, each LSAA must 

submit an area plan for treatment and prevention. In addition, each LSAA and its subcontractors 

receive an annual site visit. The site visit consists of a review of the physical facility, program 

operation, client records, as well as interviews with staff and clients to determine program 

compliance. Verification of submitted data also takes place during the site visit review. Any 

deficiencies or non-compliance with the rules require a written plan of action to correct deficiencies 

and a timeline achieve compliance. 

Training and Assistance 

DSAMH has many training opportunities for its substance abuse treatment and prevention 

workforce. DSAMH sponsors an Annual Fall Conference on Substance Abuse in which substance 

abuse professionals from the community attend and participate in one of four tracks: Administrative, 

Adult and Juvenile Justice, Prevention, and Treatment. DSAMH also co-sponsors the Annual 

University of Utah School on Alcoholism and Other Drug Dependencies and scholarships are 

allocated to LSAAs for individuals to attend the week-long school. 

Three statewide conferences are sponsored by DSAMH: The Annual Drug Endangered Children’s 

conference; the Critical Issues Facing Children and Adolescents conference; and the Generations 

Conference (adult issues). In addition, DSAMH, in conjunction with the Utah State Office of 

Education, provides regional trainings on the “Prevention Dimensions” curriculum for teacher 

inservice teams. The teams train K-12 teachers to effectively implement the Prevention Dimensions 

curriculum in Utah’s classrooms. In addition DSAMH sponsors intensive, 40-hour training for new 

instructors for the PRIME for Life program for DUI offenders and provides recertification trainings for 

previously certified instructors. 

694 
Inventory of State Profiles Utah 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

In FY 2000 Utah spent $2.8 million of Block Grant funds for resource development activities. The 

largest proportion (40 percent) of funds were spent on planning, coordination, and needs 

assessment, 20 percent on program development, and the remainder was spread over several other 

types of activities. This distribution of funds was similar in FY 2001. Utah did not indicate spending 

any monies on resource development activities in FYs 2002 or 2003. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities

Planning, Quality 

Assurance Coordination, 11% Needs 

Assessment

Education 

1% 

Information 

Systems 

Training 

40% 11% 

Program 

6% Research and Development Evaluation 20%

11% 

N=$2,791,772 

Utah did not report any 

expenditures for resource 

development activities for FY 2003. 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 1,126,072 40 1,089,900 41 N/R** - N/R -

Quality Assurance 318,258 11 294,000 11 N/R - N/R -

Training 300,712 11 300,300 11 N/R - N/R -

Education 27,380 1 27,700 1 N/R - N/R -

Program Development 553,574 20 532,700 20 N/R - N/R -

Research and Evaluation 297,009 11 293,800 11 N/R - N/R -

Information Systems 168,767 6 150,200 6 N/R - N/R -

Total* 2,791,772 100 2,688,600 100 N/R - N/R -

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

** N/R = Not Reported 

695 
Utah Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

In FY 2004, Utah received 10 discretionary grants from the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

(CSAP) totaling $1.7 million. The largest grant ($750,000) went toward a State incentive 

cooperative agreement. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 7 649,721 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 1 51,000 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 1 250,000 

State Incentive Cooperative Agreements 1 750,000 

Total 10 1,700,721 

SOURCE : www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Utah received more than $1.9 million in Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) 

discretionary grants for treatment in FY 2004. Adult, juvenile, and family drug courts received the 

most funding at $692,000. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 2 692,354 

Residential SA TX 1 462,284 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 1 192,924 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 1 497,400 

Total 6 1,944,962

 SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

696 
VERMONT 

State SSA Director 

Ms. Barbara Cimaglio, Deputy Commissioner 

Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs 

Vermont Department of Health 

Agency of Human Services 

P.O. Box 70 

Burlington, VT 05402 

Phone: 802-951-1258 

Fax: 802-951-1275 

E-mail: bcimagl@vdh.state.vt.us 

Web site: www.state.vt.us/adap 

Structure and Function 

The Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs (ADAP) is the State’s lead agency for 

alcohol and drug abuse prevention and treatment and serves as the Single State Agency 

(SSA) for the State of Vermont. Organizationally, ADAP is located in the Department of 

Health and is led by a Deputy Commissioner of Health for Alcohol and Drug Abuse. The 

mission of ADAP is to help Vermonters prevent and eliminate the problems caused by 

alcohol and other drug use. 

ADAP is organized into three functional units: treatment, prevention, and training. In partnership 

with other public and private organizations, ADAP plans, supports, and evaluates a comprehensive 

system that provides education, prevention, intervention treatment recovery, and research services. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health 

Mental Health Services Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

Programs (ADAP) 

Public Health 

Treatment Prevention 

697 
Vermont Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Total SSA funding increased in Vermont between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $14 to $18 million). 

Medicaid, as a proportion of total funding, increased during this time period (from 23 to 42 percent), 

the Block Grant’s proportion remained fairly stable (ranging from 27 to 30 percent), the State’s 

proportion increased (from 21 to 29 percent), and the proportion supported by other Federal funds 

declined dramatically (from 29 to 2 percent). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Medicaid 

23% 42% 

State 

21% 

SAPT Block Other SAPT Block

Grant Federal Grant 

29% 27% Other 27% 

Federal 

2% 

State 

29% 

N=$13,993,523 N=$17,997,118 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 3,774,105 27 4,234,075 28 4,691,812 30 4,927,888 27 

Medicaid 3,177,773 23 4,320,717 28 5,555,143 36 7,368,676 41 

Other Federal 4,157,834 29 668,317 4 476,774 3 440,872 2 

State 2,883,811 21 6,050,335 40 4,865,235 31 5,259,682 29 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 13,993,523 100 15,273,444 100 15,588,964 100 17,997,118 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

698 
Inventory of State Profiles Vermont 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, SSA funding for treatment services increased, both in dollar amounts 

and as a proportion of total funding. In FY 2000, treatment services received 66 percent of SSA 

funding, and in FY 2003, expenditures on treatment services increased to account for 88 percent of 

funding. Funding for prevention services and administrative activities decreased in both dollar 

amounts and proportions. Prevention expenditures constituted 25 percent of SSA funds in FY 2000 

and decreased to comprise 10 percent in FY 2003. Similarly, the proportion of funds on 

administrative activities declined from 9 to 2 percent during this time period. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

25% 

Prevention 

Treatment 10% Treatment 88% 

66% Administration 

Administration 2% 

9% 

N=$13,993,523 N=$17,997,118 

Expenditure From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 6,461,606 46 9,256,163 61 13,155,544 84 15,830,540 88 

Alcohol Treatment 1,424,725 10 1,693,630 11 

Drug Treatment 1,405,854 10 1,481,926 10 

Prevention 3,459,649 25 1,809,721 12 1,460,818 9 1,727,071 10 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,241,689 9 1,032,004 7 972,602 6 439,507 2 

Total* 13,993,523 100 15,273,444 100 15,588,964 100 17,997,118 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

699 
Vermont Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant funding in Vermont increased from $3.8 to $4.9 million between FYs 2000 and 2003. 

While the dollar amount of funding increased for all activities, the distribution of these funds 

remained stable. Treatment services received the largest proportion (75 percent) of funds during this 

time period, followed by prevention at 20 percent, and administration costs at 5 percent. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

20% 20% Treatment Treatment 

75% 75% 

Administration Administration 

5% 5% 

N=$3,774,105 N=$4,927,888 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 3,518,859 75 3,695,916 75 

Alcohol Treatment 1,424,725 38 1,693,630 40 

Drug Treatment 1,405,854 37 1,481,926 35 

Prevention 754,821 20 846,815 20 938,362 20 985,578 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 188,705 5 211,704 5 234,591 5 246,394 5 

Total* 3,774,105 100 4,234,075 100 4,691,812 100 4,927,888 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

700 
Inventory of State Profiles Vermont 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures on alcohol and drug abuse services in Vermont increased substantially between 

FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $2.9 to $5.3 million). In FY 2003 treatment services received the majority 

(82 percent) of funds (up from 76 percent in FY 2000), prevention received 14 percent (up from 5 

percent in FY 2000), and administration received 4 percent (down from 19 percent in FY 2000). 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

5% 

Prevention Treatment Treatment 14% 76% 

82% Administration Administration 19% 

4% 

N=$2,883,811 N=$5,259,682 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 2,167,620 75 4,414,876 73 3,635,296 75 4,332,636 82 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 158,369 5 962,906 16 522,456 11 741,493 14 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 557,822 19 672,553 11 707,483 15 185,553 4 

Total* 2,883,811 100 6,050,335 100 4,865,235 100 5,259,682 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

701 
Vermont Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The Vermont substance abuse prevention infrastructure has several components. A network of 10 

Regional Prevention Consultants (RPCs) provides consultation services, training, and technical 

assistance to local community coalitions, schools, agencies, and other key prevention stakeholders. 

The PRCs are located in satellite offices throughout the State and reflect the grassroots nature of 

prevention services in Vermont. Another component of the Vermont prevention infrastructure is the 

New Directions Coalitions, which are 18 of the 23 previous State Incentive Grant (SIG) recipients 

who have acquired diverse funding, including ADAP, which funds 13 of the 18 coalitions. In addition, 

regional community grants are given to communities to implement community-based prevention 

activities. Another aspect of the prevention infrastructure are statewide grants, which are given to 

nine projects with a statewide focus on early childhood, preschool, youth leadership, management 

information services, education, and program evaluation. Finally, Student Assistance Professionals 

(SAPs) focus on early intervention and are supported by schools statewide. 

Tobacco programming is administered by the Tobacco Control Prevention Program within the 

Department of Health. While this program is not managed by ADAP, the divisions work closely 

together. The Tobacco Control Prevention Program funds 21 tobacco coalitions throughout the 

state, and 7 of the 21 tobacco coalitions are also New Directions Coalitions. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding in Vermont declined between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $3.5 to $1.7 million). The 

funding sources supporting prevention activities also changed during this time period. In FY 2003, 

the Block Grant provided more than half (57 percent) of prevention funds, and the State provided 43 

percent. In contrast, in FY 2000, other Federal sources provided the majority (73 percent) of 

prevention funds, followed by the Block Grant at 22 percent and the State at only 5 percent. 

Block Grant expenditures per capita increased over time, from $1.24 in FY 2000 to $1.59 in FY 

2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source 

Other 

SAPT Block Federal SAPT Block

State Grant 73% Grant

22% 57% 43%

State 

5% N=$3,459,649 N=$1,727,071 

702 
Inventory of State Profiles Vermont 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 754,821 22 846,815 47 938,362 64 985,578 57 

Other Federal 2,546,459 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 158,369 5 962,906 53 522,456 36 741,493 43 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 3,459,649 100 1,809,721 100 1,460,818 100 1,727,071 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Strategies include distribution of print materials and videotapes via a 

lending library, distribution of the Parent Handbook on alcohol, tobacco, 

and other drug (ATOD) prevention, and delivery of presentations on 

substance abuse prevention concepts and strategies statewide. 

Education 

Strategies include promotion of effective curricula by the 10 regional 

prevention consultants, linking schools with community-based substance 

abuse prevention initiatives, and providing training for school staff. 

Alternatives 

Strategies include providing training and technical assistance to afterschool 

programs, teen centers, and other alternative programs by regional 

prevention specialists. 

Community-Based Processes 

Strategies include providing consultation and facilitation services to 

coalitions, partnerships, groups, and agencies on planning and 

implementing prevention and early intervention strategies. 

Environmental 

Strategies include providing training and consultation on development and 

implementation of school ATOD policies by the regional prevention 

consultants; and providing linkages between local coalitions, SAPs, and 

local Stop Alcohol Risk Teams (START). 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Strategies include working with VT Department of Education and the 

Vermont Freemasons to organize and implement one CARE training to 

develop school support and referral systems for students in distress. 

703 
Vermont Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Most (54 percent) of the $1 million in Block Grant funding for prevention core strategies in Vermont 

went toward education in FY 2003. Community-based processes received nearly 30 percent, and 

the remainder of funds was divided among problem identification and referral, alternatives, and 

environmental strategies. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Alternatives 

3% Problem ID 5% Problem ID 

Education and Referral and Referral 

36% 16% 8%

Community- CommunityBased Education Based 

Information Process 54% Process

Dissemination 17% 29% 

3% Other Environmental Environmental 

1% 24% 4% 

N=$754,821 N=$985,578 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 22,528 3 61,164 7 61,164 7 1,792 0 

Education 270,501 36 312,902 33 312,902 33 534,475 54 

Alternatives 19,809 3 9,871 1 9,871 1 44,445 5 

Problem ID and Referral 124,369 16 325,706 35 325,706 35 76,256 8 

Community-Based 

Process 124,625 17 77,998 8 77,998 8 290,386 29 

Environmental 181,725 24 140,167 15 140,167 15 38,224 4 

Other 11,264 1 10,554 1 10,554 1 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 754,821 100 938,362 100 938,362 100 985,578 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

704 
Inventory of State Profiles Vermont 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

ADAP contracts with 18 nonprofit treatment providers throughout Vermont to provide substance 

abuse treatment services. These services include 8 residential treatment programs, 9 intensive 

outpatient programs, and 22 outpatient programs. In addition, Vermont has an opiate treatment 

program which has as many persons enrolled in the program as are on the waiting list. To address 

the long waiting list, Vermont has developed mobile opiate addiction treatment units for clients in 

rural areas through the Governor’s DETER (Drug Education, Treatment, Enforcement & 

Rehabilitation) Initiative. This plan funds nearly $3 million in new programs and services, 

coordinates existing resources into a single statewide initiative, and focuses on providing a 

sustainable strategy to address today’s substance abuse problems and reduce tomorrow’s risk. 

ADAP administers the assessment, referral, and treatment of driving under the influence (DUI) 

offenders. The Public Inebriate Program provides temporary supervised shelter, assessment 

services, and if warranted, referral to treatment for intoxicated people who are a danger to 

themselves and others. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment funding in Vermont increased substantially between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from $9.3 to 

$15.8 million). During this time period, Medicaid as a proportion of treatment funding, increased from 

35 to 47 percent (and also increased in dollar amount from $3.2 to $7.4 million). The proportion of 

funding from the State also increased from 23 to 27 percent. By contrast, the Block Grant’s 

proportion of treatment funding declined from 30 to 23 percent, and other Federal funds as a 

proportion declined from 12 to 3 percent. 

Block Grant funding per capita for treatment services increased substantially over time in Vermont. 

In FY 2000, Block Grant funding per capita for treatment services was $4.64, and this increased to 

$5.18 in FY 2001, $5.71 in FY 2002, and $5.97 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid Medicaid 

35% 47% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block Grant Grant 23%

30%

Other Other 

Federal Federal

12% State 3% 

State 27% 

23% 

N=$9,292,185 N=$15,830,540 

705 
Vermont Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

14,000,000 

16,000,000 

18,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 2,830,579 30 3,175,556 26 3,518,859 27 3,695,916 23 

Medicaid 3,177,773 35 4,320,717 35 5,555,143 42 7,368,676 47 

Other Federal 1,116,213 12 520,570 4 446,246 3 433,312 3 

State 2,167,620 23 4,414,876 36 3,635,296 28 4,332,636 27 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 9,292,185 100 12,431,719 100 13,155,544 100 15,830,540 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Vermont’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 9,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment 

and short-term residential treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis (N=9,036) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 359 310 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 1,092 967 0 

Long-term residential 47 70 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 3,385 2,153 126 

Intensive outpatient 318 209 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 5,201 3,709 126 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

706 
Inventory of State Profiles Vermont 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate nearly 5,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 20 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate varied only slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus 

abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. Approximately 18 percent of persons admitted for 

abusing alcohol only were diagnosed with a psychiatric problem and 21 percent of persons admitted 

for abusing alcohol in combination with other drugs were diagnosed as having a psychiatric problem. 

(For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with 

Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 1,629 18.2 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 3,100 21.3 

Total 4,729 20.2 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 39,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.3 

percent of Vermont’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 18,000 

persons (3.4 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Vermont. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.30 6.43 18.33 5.51 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 3.39 7.19 11.52 1.49 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

707 
Vermont Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Vermont is divided into two planning regions for prevention and treatment services: Chaplain Valley, 

which includes Burlington, Vermont’s largest city, its most diverse economic region, and several of 

the largest colleges; and the rest of the State, which is largely rural. DADA prepares an annual plan 

for the SAPT Block Grant for inclusion in the Vermont Agency of Human Services Single State Block 

Grant application to the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Prevention planning uses, among other things, data collected in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

(YRBS) and the Behavioral Risk Factor Survey (BRFS). Prevention Planning is also based upon 

analysis of “trends over time” and “comparison of Vermont vs. National data.” In 2003, over 31,000 

students (grades 8-12) from 153 schools participated in the YRBS. 

The State monitors the availability of treatment services by measuring treatment utilization at each 

treatment program, and by monitoring monthly admissions waiting lists. Funding is reduced to 

programs that do not maintain 90 percent utilization of capacity and reallocated to over-utilized 

programs. 

Evaluation 

ADAP ensures quality treatment by setting performance standards and monitoring compliance of 

contracted providers. ADAP is also responsible for licensing substance abuse counselors who 

practice in Vermont. 

One tool that Vermont uses to monitor its prevention services is the Prevention Management 

Information System (PMIS). The PMIS tracks service delivery and target group numbers, as well as 

service delivery by the 10 Prevention Consultants. Specifically, data is collected on which setting, 

the type of service, which prevention strategy, the target group and the domains for each activity 

provided. 

Training and Assistance 

Training is provided for both the treatment and prevention workforce in Vermont. ADAP maintains 

the Vermont Addiction Education Center which disseminates information regarding treatment, 

intervention, and prevention, and develops statewide and regional conferences for substance abuse 

education. ADAP participates in the annual New England Institute of Addictions Conference and the 

New England Institute of Addictions Advanced School by providing faculty, staff, and scholarships. 

In addition, the NE Center for the Application of Prevention Technology (NE CAPT) and the Vermont 

Consortium of Addiction Training coordinates with ADAP to maximize training for prevention 

professionals on evidence-based prevention practices. 

ADAP participates in the Substance Abuse Workforce Development Committee, comprising 

professionals from higher education, prevention, treatment and recovery organizations, in addition to 

State Government representatives. Its mission is to improve Vermont’s workforce capacity through 

recruitment, retention, education, training, and development in the areas of substance abuse 

prevention, intervention, treatment, continuing care/recovery, and enforcement. Accomplishments of 

this group include compiling data from Vermont and New Hampshire colleges on substance abuse 

and prevention-related course offerings at the bachelor’s and master’s levels in an effort to promote 

careers in substance abuse, to facilitate the certification process, and to create a consortium of 

colleges to enhance and develop substance abuse course offerings that comply with certification 

requirements. 

708 
Inventory of State Profiles Vermont 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Vermont increased from over $530,000 in 

FY 2000 to nearly $730,000 in FY 2003. The majority of funds during this time period went toward 

quality assurance (ranging from 52 to 89 percent), and the remainder was spread among a variety of 

activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Training Research and Training 

3% Evaluation 2% Research and 

6% Evaluation Quality 10% Quality Information Assurance 

Assurance Systems 77% Information

82% 3% Systems

Planning, Planning, 1% 

Coordination, Coordination, 

N=$536,446 Needs N=$729,482 Needs 

Assessment Assessment

6% 10%

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

600,000 

700,000 

800,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activities 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 32,518 6 16,086 3 23,700 5 70,594 10 

Quality Assurance 438,986 82 464,708 89 246,200 52 562,642 77 

Training 14,040 3 15,000 3 175,000 37 17,500 2 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Research and Evaluation 32,518 6 16,083 3 23,700 5 70,594 10 

Information Systems 18,384 3 11,942 2 7,336 2 8,152 1 

Total* 536,446 100 523,819 100 475,936 100 729,482 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

709 
Vermont Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

In FY 2004, Vermont received $1.4 million in Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) 

discretionary awards. Most of these funds went toward drug-free communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 17 1,308,572 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 1 75,000 

Total 18 1,383,572 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) discretionary funding for treatment totaled nearly 

$600,000 in Vermont in FY 2004. Most of the funds went toward services for pregnant/post-partum 

women. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Pregnant/Post-Partum Women 1 499,957 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Total 2 599,957 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

710 
VIRGINIA 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Ken Batten, Director 

Office of Substance Abuse Services 

Department of Mental Health, Mental 

Retardation and Substance Abuse Services 

P.O. Box 1797 

Richmond, VA 23218-1797 

Phone: (804)-786-3906 

Fax: (804)-786-4320 

E-mail: ken.batten@co.dmhmrsas.virginia.gov 

Web site: www.virginia.gov/cmsportal 

Structure and Function 

The Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse 

Services (DMHMRSAS) is responsible for establishing, maintaining, and 

promoting the development of mental health, mental retardation and substance 

abuse services, and is the Single State Agency (SSA) for substance abuse. 

The mission of the Department is to provide leadership and service to improve Virginia’s system of 

quality treatment, habilitation, and prevention services for individuals and their families whose lives 

are affected by mental illness, mental retardation, or substance use disorders. It seeks to promote 

dignity, choice, recovery, and the highest levels of participation in work, relationships, and all 

aspects of community life for these individuals. Programs are not administered directly through 

DMHMRSAS, but through contracts with 40 Community Service Boards (CSBs) that may provide 

services directly or through contracts with private providers and serve as the single point of entry for 

Virginia’s publicly funded mental health, mental retardation, and substance abuse services. 

The Office of Substance Abuse Services has oversight over the substance abuse treatment and 

prevention programs. Oversight duties include providing technical assistance to local and State 

agencies, reviewing all applications for State and Federal funds or services, recommending 

legislation regarding needed services, fostering training programs, coordinating alcohol and drug 

research, providing periodic inspections of alcohol and drug programs, and maintaining a list of 

approved programs. 

Secretary of Health and Human 

Single State Agency Structure Resources 

Department of Mental Health, Mental 

Retardation and Substance Abuse 

Services (DMHMRSAS)

Division of Facility Office of Health Division of Division of Division of Office of 

Management and Quality Care Finance and Community Administrative and Human Rights 

Administration Services Regulatory Compliance 

Office of Mental Office of Mental Office of Office of Community Office of Child and 

Health Services Retardation Substance Abuse Contracting Family Services

Services

Community Program Community Program Prevention Research and 

Planning and Standards Monitoring and Oversight Evaluation 

711 
Virginia Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

SSA funding in Virginia increased steadily over time from $78.7 million in FY 2000 to $82.4 million in 

FY 2003. Since 2000, approximately half of Virginia’s substance abuse expenditures were from the 

SAPT Block Grant, and slightly less than half were from State expenditures. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

SAPT Block SAPT Block State Grant State Grant 49% 52% 48% 50% 

Other

1%

N=$78,740,484 N=$82,385,627 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

90,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 39,245,298 50 40,929,104 49 42,309,094 52 42,526,592 52 

Medicaid 291,703 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 38,503,482 49 40,202,220 49 39,492,092 48 39,859,035 48 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 700,001 1 1,699,999 2 0 0 0 0 

Total* 78,740,484 100 82,831,323 100 81,801,186 100 82,385,627 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

712 
Inventory of State Profiles Virginia 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

The distribution of funding among the various SSA services and activities has been stable since 

2000. The majority of expenditures went toward treatment and rehabilitation activities (86 percent in 

2000 and 2001, and 85 percent in 2002 and 2003). Prevention services consistently received 10 

percent of funds, and the remaining funds went toward HIV early intervention activities and 

administrative costs. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 10% 

Treatment 10% HIV Early HIV Early 86% Intervention Treatment Intervention 

3% 85% 3% 

Administration 

1% Administration 

2% 

N=$78,740,484 N=$82,385,627 

Expenditure From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

90,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 39,495,186 50 41,902,219 51 69,241,146 85 69,711,951 85 

Alcohol Treatment 14,455,538 18 15,167,239 18 

Drug Treatment 13,793,778 18 14,363,958 17 

Prevention 7,965,941 10 8,206,542 10 8,509,884 10 8,511,634 10 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 2,006,085 3 2,036,990 2 2,115,456 3 2,126,330 3 

Administration 1,023,956 1 1,154,375 1 1,934,700 2 2,035,712 2 

Total* 78,740,484 100 82,831,323 100 81,801,186 100 82,385,627 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States with a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

713 
Virginia Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant funding for SSA activities increased steadily over time, from $39.4 to $42.5 million, from 

FY 2000 to FY 2003, respectively. The distribution of Block Grant expenditures among SSA activities 

has also been stable since FY 2000. Treatment accounted for the majority of Block Grant 

expenditures (72 percent in 2000 and 2001; 70 percent in 2002 and 2003) and prevention 

expenditures have remained consistent at 20 percent for all four years. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

N=$42,526,592 

Prevention 

N=$39,245,298 

Prevention 

20% 20% 

HIV Early 

HIV Early Treatment Intervention Treatment Intervention 72% 5% 70% 5% Administration 

3% Administration 

5% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

45,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 29,749,054 70 29,852,916 70 

Alcohol Treatment 14,455,538 37 15,167,239 37 

Drug Treatment 13,793,778 35 14,363,958 35 

Prevention 7,965,941 20 8,206,542 20 8,509,884 20 8,511,634 20 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 2,006,085 5 2,036,990 5 2,115,456 5 2,126,330 5 

Administration 1,023,956 3 1,154,375 3 1,934,700 5 2,035,712 5 

Total* 39,245,298 100 40,929,104 100 42,309,094 100 42,526,592 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

NOTE: States w ith a specified HIV/AIDS case rate (10 or more per 100,000) must spend a portion of their SAPT Block Grant funds 

(usually 5%) on HIV early intervention activities. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

714 
Inventory of State Profiles Virginia 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State funding remained fairly stable from FYs 2000 to 2003, ranging from $38.5 million in FY 2000 to 

$40.2 million in FY 2001. All of State funds were expended for treatment and rehabilitation activities 

during this time period. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Treatment

100% 100%

N=$38,503,482 N=$39,859,035 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 38,503,482 100 40,202,220 100 39,492,092 100 39,859,035 100 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 38,503,482 100 40,202,220 100 39,492,092 100 39,859,035 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

715 
Virginia Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

The prevention mission of Virginia DMHMRSAS is to reduce the incidence and prevalence of 

dependence on and addiction to alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs by strategically addressing the 

risk factors associated with these disorders. The emphasis is on the enhancement of protective 

factors and reduction of risk factors. 

The Prevention Service Unit Manager is part of the Governor’s Office for Substance Abuse 

Prevention (GOSAP) Collaborative. The collaborative includes the State prevention directors in the 

Department of Education, Social Services, Juvenile Justice, Criminal Justice Services, Motor 

Vehicles, Health, the Alcohol Beverage Control Board, the Virginia Tobacco Settlement Foundation, 

and the National Guard. The group is developing and maintaining a statewide, cross-system social 

data indicator and youth survey database. A statewide prevention plan is also being developed. 

Prevention services also utilize the 40 CSBs as a single entry point for the publicly funded system. 

Each CSB has a prevention director that administers or contracts for prevention services. 

GOSAP is the recipient of a 3-year State Incentive Grant (SIG). The majority of the SIG is to award 

20 subgrants for the implementation of community-oriented, evidence-based prevention practices to 

fill gaps in critical prevention services in 44 communities. GOSAP also sponsors other prevention 

initiatives, including Kidsafe Virginia, a program initiated in 2002 to provide personal safety 

resources to students, parents, educators, and public safety professionals throughout Virginia; the 

Youth Alcohol and Drug Prevention Project, a student-run conference empowering youth to change 

their lives through leadership; and The Youth Public Safety Advisory Council, a channel for options 

and feedback of Virginia high school youth about school and community safety issues. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention expenditures in Virginia increased steadily over time, from nearly $8 million in FY 2000 to 

$8.5 million in FY 2003. All prevention activities were funded exclusively by the SAPT Block Grant 

for all four years (FYs 2000 – 2003). 

Block Grant expenditures per capita remained stable during these years, ranging from $1.12 to 

$1.17. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant 

100% 100% 

N=$7,965,941 N=$8,511,634 

716 
Inventory of State Profiles Virginia 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Source s 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 7,965,941 100 8,206,542 100 8,509,884 100 8,511,634 100 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 7,965,941 100 8,206,542 100 8,509,884 100 8,511,634 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Strategies include informational mailings, regional meetings, and onsite training on 

request at the CSBs; information clearinghouse; and distribution of the Directory of 

Virginia Prevention Researchers and Evaluators. 

Education 

Strategies include co-sponsoring the Virginia Summer Institute for Addiction 

Studies; supporting the Strengthening Families Initiative; and to conduct basic and 

advanced training quarterly in the Performance Based Prevention System. 

Alternatives 

Strategies include supporting collaborative activities involving other community 

service providers, organizations , and individual citizens, as well as provision of 

technical assistance and training on the planning, implementation, and evaluation 

of alternative activities as requested by prevention directors. 

Community-Based Processes 

Strategies include provision of training and technical assistance on the communitybased planning process to prevention personnel on the State and local levels, and 

representation on many State and local prevention activities, including GOSAP 

KIDSafe Conference Planning Committee, VA Youth Tobacco Prevention 

Research to Practice Grant Request and Conference Planning Committee, Virginia 

Tobacco Settlement Strategic Planning Committee, and CSAP Regional Alcohol 

and Drug Awareness Resources (RADAR) Network Steering Committee. 

Environmental 

Strategies include distribution of merchant awareness materials to store owners 

and clerks and teaming with the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) board to conduct 

inspections related to Virginia youth access to tobacco legislation. 

Problem Identification and 

Referral 

Strategies include continued support of the eight LINK projects, student assistance 

programs in collaboration with local school systems, and employee assistance 

programs. 

717 
Virginia Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

The distribution of Block Grant funds among the core prevention strategies remained quite stable 

from FYs 2000 to 2003. Education consistently received the majority of funds (from 41 to 49 percent 

of total funding). The remaining funds were distributed among a variety of activities, including 

community-based process, information dissemination, problem identification and referral, and 

alternative strategies. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core Strategy FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy 

Alternatives 

10% Problem ID Community- Alternatives 

Problem ID and Referral 11% Based 

Other

2%

and Referral

12% Process 14% 

Education Environmental 

14% Education Community45% Based 

Other Process 

15% 

2% 42% 

2% Environmental Information Section 1926 ­

Dissemination Tobacco Information 3% 

Dissemination 

N=$7,965,941 14% 1% 

13% N=$8,511,634 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

9,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 1,096,702 14 984,432 12 1,097,191 13 1,123,368 13 

Education 3,517,452 44 3,344,894 41 4,148,474 49 3,574,957 42 

Alternatives 825,871 10 985,986 12 793,366 9 932,670 11 

Problem ID and Referral 957,645 12 936,260 11 746,937 9 1,168,336 14 

Community-Based Process 1,130,288 14 1,282,792 16 1,133,031 13 1,270,763 15 

Environmental 176,448 2 235,425 3 226,443 3 257,316 3 

Other 174,171 2 171,932 2 196,782 2 151,706 2 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 87,364 1 264,821 3 167,660 2 32,518 0 

Total* 7,965,941 100 8,206,542 100 8,509,884 100 8,511,634 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

718 
Inventory of State Profiles Virginia 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Virginia’s DMHMRSAS does not provide direct alcohol and drug treatment services. Rather, 

services are contracted to 40 CSBs located throughout the State. The CSBs provide direct 

substance abuse services or contract for services through local providers. The CSBs vary in their 

composition, organizational structures, and array of services and include operating CSBs (which are 

nongovernmental entities that provide direct services or contract for services), administrative CSBs 

(which employ city or county employees that provide direct services or contract for services), and 

policy advisory CSBs (which serve in an advisory role to a local government entity that provides 

direct services or contracts for services). 

DMHMRSAS has also funded education and collaboration efforts to target child welfare and 

substance abuse services providers throughout Virginia regarding perinatal substance use and 

Virginia’s Substance Exposed Infant Legislation. A variety of special education initiatives regarding 

perinatal addiction and the impact of maternal substance use on children for medical providers, child 

welfare staff, and front-line and in-home service providers have been funded. 

In addition, there are 6 publicly funded and 11 privately funded opioid treatment programs statewide. 

A staff person in the Office of Substance Abuse Services is the delegated opioid treatment authority, 

and works with the Office of Licensure to ensure that programs comply with state licensure 

requirements, which are more stringent than the Federal guidelines. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Expenditures on treatment and rehabilitation services in Virginia increased from $67.7 million in FY 

2000 to $69.7 million in FY 2003. The State has consistently funded 56 to 57 percent of treatment 

expenditures, while the SAPT Block Grant has funded between 41 and 43 percent of treatment 

expenditures. 

Block Grant expenditures on treatment have remained fairly stable in Virginia, ranging from $3.98 to 

$4.11 per capita. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other 

1% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block

Grant Grant State 

43% State 42% 57% 57% 

N=$67,744,502 N=$69,711,951 

719 
Virginia Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

70,000,000 

80,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 28,249,316 42 29,531,197 41 29,749,054 43 29,852,916 43 

Medicaid 291,703 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 38,503,482 57 40,202,220 56 39,492,092 57 39,859,035 57 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 700,001 1 1,699,999 2 0 0 0 0 

Total* 67,744,502 100 71,433,416 100 69,241,146 100 69,711,951 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Virginia did not include the number of persons admitted by type of treatment care for FY 2002 (Form 

7a) in their FY 2005 Block Grant Application. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate 

more than 22,000 admissions (where at least one substance is known) of which nearly 18,000 were 

admitted for substance abuse treatment of alcohol in combination with other drugs. Calculations 

(with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 18 percent of persons admitted to 

treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate did 

not vary when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other 

drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 4,446 18.2 

Any other drugs 17,825 18.4 

Total 22,271 18.4 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

720 
Inventory of State Profiles Virginia 

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 418,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.1 

percent of Virginia’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 159,000 

persons (2.7 percent) needed, but did not receive treatment, for illicit drug use in Virginia. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure 12 and older 12–17 18–25 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.08 6.01 17.15 5.59 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.69 5.51 7.95 1.46 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

721 
Virginia Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Virginia is divided into five Health Planning Regions (HPRs) for substate planning. DMHMRSAS 

allocates funding for the 40 CSBs based on population of the catchment area, need for services, and 

ability to pay. Need for service indicators include substance abuse-related deaths; arrests for 

sale/distribution of a controlled substance, arrests for possession of a controlled substance, 

prevalence of AIDS attributable to intravenous drug use, average level of disability among substance 

abuse clients served, poverty rate, and unemployment rate. Each CSB is also required to develop a 

community-based prevention plan based on the Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF) model. 

Virginia has conducted a substance abuse treatment needs assessment, which included a 

Household Telephone Survey of Adults, Substance Abuse Need for Treatment Among Arrestees 

(SANTA), Social Indicator Study, and household survey of adolescents. Data from the studies were 

entered in the Virginia Social Data Base which is updated regularly. The Virginia State prevention 

needs assessment studies includes a community youth survey, a community resource assessment, 

and a social indicator study. 

Evaluation 

The evaluation of substance abuse treatment and prevention services in Virginia is accomplished 

through a variety of methods. First, each CSB must submit a plan for services, including a 

community-based prevention plan based on the SPF, which includes monitoring and evaluation. 

Also, Virginia DMHMRSAS makes periodic site visits to the CSB to ensure compliance. 

DMHMRSAS uses a quality improvement approach to obtain needed changes in service operations 

of the CSBs, and will, on occasion, make performance contract addenda to ensure necessary 

changes in services. DMHMRSAS also performs licensure, regulation, and consultation services to 

the CSBs. 

Training and Assistance 

Virginia DMHMRSAS provides training opportunities for both treatment and prevention providers. 

Staff assistance and financial support is provided by DMHMRSAS for the Virginia Summer Institute 

for Addiction Studies (VSIAS). The institute is designed to train prevention specialists and 

substance abuse counselors in basic and advanced skill development. Program administrators are 

also trained in advance program management techniques. The Mid Atlantic ATTC delivers a 12­

month training curriculum that highlights the 12 core functions associated with substance abuse 

treatment and recovery. The curriculum meets the academic requirements for State substance 

abuse certification and licensure through the Virginia Department of Health Professions. In addition, 

DMHMRSAS staff conducts quarterly basic and advanced training in the Performance Based 

Prevention System. 

722 
Inventory of State Profiles Virginia 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Virginia more than doubled from FY 2000 

to 2003 (from over $770,000 to $1.5 million, respectively). Funding was widely distributed among 

different areas, including quality assurance; planning, coordination, and needs assessment; program 

development; and research and evaluation. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development ActivitiesProgram Training Training 

Program 6% Development 18% 

Development 19% 

Quality 21% Quality Research and

Assurance Assurance Evaluation

22% 30%

16% 

Planning, Research and Planning, 

Coordination, Evaluation Coordination, Information 

Needs Information 20% Needs Systems 

Assessment Systems Assessment 14% 

13% 6% N=$771,108 15% N=$1,520,212 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

200,000 

400,000 

600,000 

800,000 

1,000,000 

1,200,000 

1,400,000 

1,600,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 102,057 13 170,969 25 261,097 20 232,442 15 

Quality Assurance 162,662 21 184,741 27 372,646 29 456,560 30 

Training 136,655 18 29,536 4 142,551 11 91,049 6 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 162,662 21 138,029 20 313,255 24 288,369 19 

Research and Evaluation 158,021 20 58,728 9 129,919 10 242,840 16 

Information Systems 49,051 6 99,513 15 78,241 6 208,952 14 

Total* 771,108 100 681,516 100 1,297,709 100 1,520,212 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

723 
Virginia Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded nearly $4 million to Virginia in 26 

discretionary grants in FY 2004. Most of the funding ($1.6 million) and awards (18 of the 26) went to 

Drug Free Community grantees. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Anti-Drug Coalition 1 994,100 

CSAP 2004 Earmarks 1 99,410 

Drug Free Communities 18 1,568,577 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 2 Youth Services Cooperative 

Agreements 1 63,636 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 349,989 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 3 750,000 

Youth Transition into the Workplace 1 149,976 

Total 26 3,975,688 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded nearly $2.9 million in discretionary 

grants to Virginia in FY 2004. Most of the awards went to the Addiction Technical Transfer Center, 

for residential treatment, and for the targeted capacity HIV/AIDS or rural populations’ grants. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

SAMHSA Conference Grants 1 50,000 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 1 500,000 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 1 400,000 

TCE Rural Populations 1 500,000 

Residential SA Treatment 1 500,000 

Strengthening Access and Retention 1 188,740 

Addiction Technical Transfer Center 1 649,990 

Total 8 2,888,730

 SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

724 
WASHINGTON 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Doug E. Allen, Director 

Washington State Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse 

P.O. Box 45330 

Olympia, WA 98504-5330 

Phone: 360-725-3700 

Fax: 360-438-8078 

E-mail: allende@dshs.wa.gov 

Structure and Function 

The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) has broad statutory 

authority to plan, establish, and maintain substance abuse prevention and 

treatment programs. The Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse (DASA) is the 

unit within DSHS that functions as the Single State Agency (SSA) for 

Washington. The goal of this division is to reduce the likelihood of persons 

becoming chemically dependent or experiencing negative consequences from 

misusing drugs and to provide for recovery. To accomplish its goal DASA (1) certifies providers of 

treatment services; (2) contracts with counties, tribes, and treatment organizations to provide 

services to persons who cannot pay the full cost of needed treatment; and (3) coordinates a 

comprehensive program of drug prevention and early intervention. The division works with county 

governments, Tribes, nonprofit organizations, and other State agencies to develop programs, and 

performs seven major program management functions: program policy and planning, program 

implementation and oversight, certification and evaluation of providers, fiscal and contract 

management, training and technical assistance, management information system, and 

comprehensive program research and outcome studies. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Social & Health 

Services (DSHS) 

Aging & 

Disability 

Services 

Administration 

Children’s 

Administration 

Economic 

Services 

Administration 

Health & Recovery Services 

Administration 

Juvenile 

Rehabilitation 

Administration 

Division of Alcohol and 

Substance Abuse (DASA) 

Office of Program Services 

Prevention and Treatment 

Services 

Regional Administrators 

725 
Washington Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 total SSA expenditures increased from $107 to nearly $117.2 million. 

In FY 2003, the State provided the largest proportion (40 percent) of total funds, followed by the 

Block Grant (at 30 percent) and Medicaid (27 percent). This distribution represents a change since 

FY 2000 when the State provided nearly 50 percent of SSA funds, and Medicaid provided 17 

percent of funds. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Medicaid Other Medicaid 

17% Federal 

6% 

State Local 

1% 40%

27% 

Other 

Federal

SAPT Block SAPT Block

2%

Grant Grant

30% 30%

State 

47% 

N=$107,062,525 N=$117,163,609 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

140,000,000 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 Funding Source $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 31,732,096 30 33,750,256 30 34,946,027 30 35,125,673 30 

Medicaid 17,704,369 17 22,795,496 20 24,619,090 21 31,346,544 27 

Other Federal 6,454,368 6 3,029,599 3 3,968,409 3 1,814,572 2 

State 50,806,275 47 52,812,663 47 52,454,495 45 48,253,834 40 

Local 365,417 0 520,051 0 537,244 0 622,986 1 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 107,062,525 100 112,908,065 100 116,525,265 100 117,163,609 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

726 
Inventory of State Profiles Washington 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Of the $117.2 in total SSA expenditures in FY 2003, 87 percent was spent on treatment activities, 9 

percent on prevention services, and 4 percent on administration costs. This distribution is similar to 

those in FYs 2000, 2001 and 2002. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 9% Treatment 

10% Treatment 85% 

87% Administration

Administration 4% 

5% 

N=$107,062,525 N=$117,163,609 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

140,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 90,695,985 85 97,949,645 87 100,393,972 86 102,176,682 87 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 10,884,604 10 9,114,844 8 11,069,777 9 10,095,235 9 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 5,481,936 5 5,843,576 5 5,061,516 4 4,891,692 4 

Total 107,062,525 100 112,908,065 100 116,525,265 100 117,163,609 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

727 
Washington Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

SAPT Block Grant expenditures in Washington increased from $31.7 to $35.1 million between FYs 

2000 and 2003. The distribution of Block Grant funds during this time remained relatively stable. In 

FY 2003, treatment activities received the largest proportion (70 percent), followed by prevention 

activities (at 26 percent) and administration costs (4 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

Treatment 23% 26% Treatment

72% 70% 

Administration Administration 

5% 4% 

N=$31,732,096 N=$35,125,673 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

40,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 22,795,536 72 24,202,190 72 25,353,204 73 24,587,971 70 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 7,360,525 23 7,864,273 23 7,930,079 23 9,118,562 26 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 1,576,035 5 1,683,793 5 1,662,744 5 1,419,140 4 

Total* 31,732,096 100 33,750,256 100 34,946,027 100 35,125,673 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

728 
Inventory of State Profiles Washington 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003 State expenditures declined slightly from $50.8 to $48.3 million. In FY 

2003, most (92 percent) of State funds were spent on treatment services (up from 87 percent in FY 

2000), followed by 6 percent on administration costs and 2 percent on prevention activities (down 

from 7 percent from FY 2000). 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention 2% 

7% Administration Treatment Treatment Administration 

87% 92% 6%

6% 

N=$50,806,275 N=$48,253,834 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

10,000,000 

20,000,000 

30,000,000 

40,000,000 

50,000,000 

60,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 44,334,274 87 48,735,720 92 45,916,025 88 44,325,677 92 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 3,524,079 7 1,250,571 2 3,139,698 6 976,673 2 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 2,947,922 6 2,826,372 5 3,398,772 6 2,951,484 6 

Total* 50,806,275 100 52,812,663 100 52,454,495 100 48,253,834 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

729 
Washington Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

DASA’s Prevention Program is aimed at preventing alcohol, tobacco, and other (ATOD) drug use 

and abuse to reduce their negative consequences and minimize future needs for substance abuse 

treatment. The program covers all segments of the population at potential risk for substance use and 

abuse, although the primary focus of the program is on children who have not yet begun use or are 

still only experimenting. 

DASA’s prevention philosophy adopts a risk and protective factor approach as the cornerstone of its 

efforts to prevent alcohol and other drug abuse. It contracts with the Department of Social and 

Health Services’ Research and Data Analysis unit to compile risk and protection profiles for each of 

the State’s 39 counties that are used to support program planning, resource allocation, and the 

development of outcome measures. 

DASA supports a statewide system of county programs and a statewide network of tribal programs. 

Several special initiatives are in place and include a student assistance program; the Federal Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention project that supports community-based 

environmental strategies; media efforts; a mentoring program; and training and technical resources 

for special populations. Other strategies pursued by communities are being implemented and 

include peer support programs, cross-age teaching models, parent training, task force development, 

and education and support programs for children of substance users, among others. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Prevention funding in Washington totaled nearly $10 million in FY 2003, down slightly from $10.9 

million in FY 2000. In FY 2003, the Block Grant provided most (90 percent) of these funds, followed 

by 10 percent from the State. This is a dramatic shift from FY 2000 when the Block Grant provided 

68 percent of prevention funds, and the State provided 32 percent. 

Block Grant prevention expenditures ranged from $1.25 to $1.31 per capita in Washington between 

FYs 2000 and 2002. In FY 2003 per capita prevention expenses increased to $1.49. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source

SAPT Block SAPT Block State Grant Grant State

32% 68% 90% 10%

N=$10,884,604 N=$10,095,235 

730 
Inventory of State Profiles Washington 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

12,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 7,360,525 68 7,864,273 86 7,930,079 72 9,118,562 90 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 3,524,079 32 1,250,571 14 3,139,698 28 976,673 10 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 10,884,604 100 9,114,844 100 11,069,777 100 10,095,235 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Resources include a clearinghouse and information center for 

prevention professionals, parents, students, school personnel, 

community members, as well as the electronic newsletter “Prevention 

E-briefs.” 

Education 

Activities include education programs in community colleges, technical 

colleges, and universities; parent education programs; and peer 

helper programs. 

Alternatives Funding supports community drop-in centers and youth/adult 

leadership activities. 

Community-Based Processes Activities include community team building, systematic planning, and 

community and volunteer training. 

Environmental Funding supports the promotion of ATOD policies in schools and 

monitoring and changing advertising practices. 

Problem Identification and Referral Programs include driving un der the influence (DUI) programs, student 

assistance programs, and drug-free business initiatives. 

731 
Washington Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Washington’s SAPT Block Grant funding for prevention strategies increased from FYs 2000 and 

2003 from $7.4 to $9.1 million. During this time, education received the majority (59 percent) of 

prevention core strategies funds, and the remainder were spread among a wide array of activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy

Alternatives Problem ID Alternatives 

13% and Referral 13% Problem ID 

5% and Referral 

5% CommunityEducation Community- Based Education 

59% Based Process 59% 

Process 6% 

Information Other 6% 

Dissemination 16% 

17% Information 

N=$7,360,525 N=$9,118,562 Dissemination 

1% 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

2,000,000 

4,000,000 

6,000,000 

8,000,000 

10,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 1,211,813 16 1,294,748 16 0 0 45,593 1 

Education 4,299,184 58 4,593,417 58 4,031,180 51 5,325,240 58 

Alternatives 972,558 13 1,039,119 13 1,047,563 13 1,203,650 13 

Problem ID and 

Referral 375,003 5 400,668 5 403,641 5 465,047 5 

Community-Based 

Process 470,593 6 502,800 6 499,595 6 583,588 6 

Environmental 31,374 0 33,521 0 33,782 0 36,474 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 1,914,318 24 1,458,970 16 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 7,360,525 100 7,864,273 100 7,930,079 100 9,118,562 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

732 
Inventory of State Profiles Washington 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

DASA-funded services are available to individuals who are low-income, indigent, or are 

unemployable as a result of their alcohol or other drug addiction. Treatment services are designed to 

maintain a cost-effective, quality continuum of care for rehabilitating individuals who abuse alcohol 

and other drugs. DASA supports basic services that include diagnostic evaluation, client motivational 

counseling, primary treatment, and followup counseling. Treatment includes opiate substitution, 

intensive inpatient, long-term residential, outpatient, recovery house, involuntary, youth residential, 

and youth outpatient services. In addition, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous provide 

peer support throughout and after the primary treatment phase. 

Special efforts are made to serve pregnant women and new mothers, families with children, 

recipients of child welfare and child protective services, adolescents, ethnic minorities, criminal 

justice system referrals, injection drug users (IDUs), persons with HIV/AIDS, and persons with cooccurring mental health and substance abuse disorders. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment expenditures in Washington increased by more than $10 million between FYs 2000 and 

2003 (from $90.7 to $102.2 million). Most (44 percent) of FY 2003 treatment funds came from the 

State (down from 49 percent in FY 2000), followed by 31 percent from Medicaid (up dramatically 

from 20 percent in FY 2000), and 24 percent from the Block Grant. 

Block Grant treatment funds per capita increased from $3.86 to $4.18 between FYs 2000 and 2002. 

In FY 2003, per capita funds declined to $4.01. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Medicaid Other Medicaid 

20% Federal

6%

State 

44% 

31% 

Other 

SAPT Block Federal

Grant 1% SAPT Block 

24% Grant

25%

State 

49% 

N=$90,695,985 N=$102,176,682 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

120,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

733 
Washington Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 22,795,536 25 24,202,190 25 25,353,204 25 24,587,971 24 

Medicaid 17,704,369 20 22,795,496 23 24,619,090 25 31,346,544 31 

Other Federal 5,496,389 6 1,696,188 2 3,968,409 4 1,455,495 1 

State 44,334,274 49 48,735,720 50 45,916,025 46 44,325,677 44 

Local 365,417 0 520,051 1 537,244 1 460,995 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 90,695,985 100 97,949,645 100 100,393,972 100 102,176,682 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Washington’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that over 50,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non methadone and intensive 

outpatient treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=50,281) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 0 0 7,913 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term residential 0 0 7,139 

Long-term residential 0 0 2,113 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 1,422 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 0 0 19,782 

Intensive outpatient 0 0 11,912 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 0 0 50,281 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate nearly 42,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known). Calculations (with imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 23 

percent of persons admitted to treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with 

alcohol or drug use. This rate varied when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of 

alcohol in combination with other drugs. Approximately 16 percent of persons admitted for abusing 

alcohol only were diagnosed with a psychiatric problem and 24 percent of persons admitted for 

abusing alcohol in combination with other drugs were diagnosed as having a psychiatric problem. 

(For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

734 
Inventory of State Profiles Washington 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where 

at Least One 

Substance Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 7,067 15.5 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 34,862 24.3 

Total 41,929 22.8 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 350,000 persons aged 12 and older (7.0 

percent of Washington’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use and 

154,000 persons (3.1 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in 

Washington. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 7.00 5.70 17.79 5.33 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 3.08 5.76 10.00 1.53 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

Washington conducted a statewide assessment of need and calculated the treatment gap for 

residents who qualify financially and clinically for DASA-funded treatment services but who, because 

of the limits of available funding, do not receive it. (This is in contrast to the NSDUH study above 

which calculates a treatment gap for the entire statewide population, regardless of income and 

need.) To compute the treatment gap, Washington established an estimate of all residents at or 

below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level and in need of treatment. Persons with private 

insurance, access to military health services, or those enrolled in the subsidized portion of the 

Washington Basic Health Plan were not included. The following equation was then used: 

# qualifying for and requiring DASA-funded treatment minus those receiving it 

Treatment = X 100

Gap Rate # qualifying for and requiring DASA-funded treatment 

Findings from this study in FY 2003 show that the treatment gap for all adults aged 18 and older was 

nearly 74 percent and the treatment gap for adolescents was 69 percent. 

Target Population 

Needing & Eligible 

for DASA-Funded 

Treatment 

Treatment with 

DASA-Funded 

Support 

Received 

Eligible 

Individuals 

Unserved 

Number of Treatment Gap 

Rate 

(Unserved Need) 

All adults aged 18 and older 96,196 25,339 70,857 73.7% 

Adolescents (aged 12–17) 18,930 5,875 13,055 69.0% 

Total 115,126 31,214 83,912 72.9% 

735 
Washington Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

DASA completed a Strategic Plan for 2004-2009 that identifies key priorities and enables it to 

position its work in the context of the overarching mission to promote healthy lifestyles and support 

recovery. The delivery of treatment services occurs through contracts with each of the 39 counties’ 

Substate Planning Areas (SPAs) and through contracts with agencies serving clients statewide. 

Planning for statewide services is based on utilization data with input from advisory groups. Planning 

for services through the SPAs is based on needs assessment, population data, and risk factors. 

Funding allocations are reviewed and adjusted by advisory groups. 

DASA collects treatment service data through the TARGET (Treatment Assessment Report 

Generation Tool) management information system and generates statewide and countywide 

summary reports. DSHS’ Research and Data Analysis unit conducts the Washington State Needs 

Assessment Household Survey. Data from the survey and the TARGET system provide updated 

need data. DASA also produces a report on Tobacco, Alcohol, and Other Drug Abuse Trends in the 

State. The report is made available to the counties for use in developing their substance abuse 

needs assessments and for county planning. 

DASA requires a biennial needs assessment for prevention services at the county level. Archival risk 

and protective factor data and Healthy Youth Survey data are provided to counties. Counties are 

required to the review the data in a public forum with prevention agencies, coalitions, and others. 

The needs assessments are submitted to DASA. 

Evaluation 

The Department of Health monitors and licenses facilities and DASA oversees the quality of the 

treatment provided, ensuring that all treatment and prevention program providers incorporate best 

practices and recent research findings into their programs. DASA certification staff monitor treatment 

providers to ensure compliance with rules and regulations on an ongoing basis. The TARGET 

management information system allows DASA managers to retrieve and conduct analysis of a broad 

range of client service data. A peer review process also is in place and coordinated by a committee 

of the Citizens Advisory Council on Alcoholism and Drug Addiction. Peer review covers both 

recruitment of providers and the evaluation of outcomes. Recommendations for change resulting 

from the peer review are directed to the full council, and if adopted, to DASA for action. 

Training and Assistance 

DASA conducts or cosponsors institutes, regional training sessions, conferences, academies, 

summits, and continuing education activities for prevention and treatment professionals, other 

professionals, parents, youth, and policymakers. For example, hundreds of individuals attended 

multiple Substance Abuse Prevention Specialist Training events, including an advanced online 

prevention professional training. Treatment agency administrators were trained on business 

practices and human resource development issues. An annual prevention summit targeted issues of 

interest to the field and 12 regional skill-based training sessions focused on issues facing treatment 

providers in each region. Over 120 participants completed the Co-occurring Disorders Case 

Management Academy. 

736 
Inventory of State Profiles Washington 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities declined slightly between FYs 2000 and 

2003 from $3.5 to $3.1 million. In FY 2003 the largest proportion (38 percent) of resource 

development activities funds was spent on planning, coordination, and needs assessment (down 

from 47 percent in FY 2000), followed by quality assurance at 20 percent (up from 10 percent in FY 

2000). The remaining funds went towards a variety of activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource Development Activities 

Information Development Activities 

Planning, Systems Coordination, 

Training

15%

Information Planning, Research and 8% Needs Systems Coordination, Evaluation Assessment Research and 6% Needs 

13% 

Program 47% Evaluation Assessment 

Development 8% 38% Program 

5% Development

Education 13%

7% Quality Quality

Training Assurance Assurance 

10% 10% 20% 

N=$3,454,183 N=$3,116,406 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 1,575,288 46 1,551,038 50 1,478,785 39 1,173,638 38 

Quality Assurance 352,233 10 286,520 9 637,576 17 625,240 20 

Training 354,464 10 362,531 12 407,964 11 454,949 15 

Education 243,443 7 255,536 8 270,695 7 0 0 

Program Development 185,678 5 250,740 8 558,861 15 395,895 13 

Research and 

Evaluation 453,524 13 276,579 9 192,064 5 264,727 8 

Information Systems 289,553 8 141,125 5 258,228 7 201,957 6 

Total* 3,454,183 100 3,124,069 100 3,804,173 100 3,116,406 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

737 
Washington Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) discretionary funding for prevention in Washington 

totaled nearly $5.2 million in 2004. Most (29 of 31) of the grants were awarded to drug-free 

communities. 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 29 2,582,806 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 5 Services 1 250,000 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Total 31 5,183,771 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) discretionary treatment funding in FY 2004 totaled 

$13.9 million in Washington. More than half ($7.6 million) went toward Access to Recovery (ATR) 

grant. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Access to Recovery 1 7,591,723 

Adult Juvenile and Family Drug Courts 1 400,000 

Effective Adolescent Treatment 1 248,576 

Grants for Accreditation of OTPs 1 7,500 

Methamphetamine Populations 1 470,718 

Recovery Community Service 1 342,000 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

State TCE Screening Brief Intervention Referral 

Treatment 1 3,345,664 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 2 927,664 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 1 500,000 

Total 11 13,933,845 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

738 
WEST VIRGINIA 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Stephen S. Mason, Director 

Division on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse 

Bureau for Behavioral Health and Health Facilities 

350 Capitol Street, Room 350 

Charleston, WV 25301-3702 

Phone: 304-558-2276 

Fax: 304-558-1008 

E-mail: stevemason@wvdhhr.org 

Web site: www.wvdhhr.org/bhhf 

Structure and Function 

The Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (DADA) of the Bureau of Behavioral 

Health and Health Facilities, Department of Health and Human Resources, is the 

Single State Agency (SSA) for substance abuse treatment and prevention services 

for adults and adolescents in West Virginia. DADA’s other primary responsibilities 

are to manage Block Grant funding, identify service needs, facilitate training, and 

provide leadership for collaborative community efforts in prevention and treatment. Substance 

abuse treatment services are administered through the State’s 13 community behavioral health 

centers and other agencies. Prevention services are coordinated through the West Virginia 

Prevention Resource Center (WVPRC), which employs 16 Community Development Specialists, the 

core of the development and implementation of the statewide prevention system. 

Single State Agency Structure 

West Virginia 

Department of Health and Human 

Resources 

Bureau for Health & Health Facilities 

Division of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse 

(DADA) 

Adolescent Services 

Adult Treatment Services 

Women and Women with Children 

Services 

Problem Gambler’s Project 

739 
West Virginia Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

West Virginia’s overall SSA funding declined dramatically from FYs 2000 to 2003, from $25.7 to 

$16.1 million. This decline was primarily due to Block Grant funding shrinking by half, as well as the 

decline of other Federal funding. The only funding source to remain stable from FYs 2000 to 2003 

was State funding, which held at around $7.6 million. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other 

Federal 

2% 

SAPT Block State Grant SAPT Block

State 47% Grant 

29% 53% 

69% 

N=$25,746,849 N=$16,141,864 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 17,941,948 69 8,531,829 58 8,565,063 53 8,564,801 53 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 421,816 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 7,383,085 29 6,261,444 42 7,555,167 47 7,577,063 47 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 25,746,849 100 14,793,273 100 16,120,230 100 16,141,864 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

740 
Inventory of State Profiles West Virginia 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

West Virginia’s treatment and rehabilitation services expenditures declined sharply between FYs 

2000 and 2001, then leveled off at $14.0 million between FYs 2001 and 2003. Prevention 

expenditure dollars remained level throughout the FY 2000 to 2003 timeframe, at about $1.8 million. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Prevention Treatment 

Prevention 92% 87% 7% 11% 

Administration 

1% Administration 

2% 

N=$25,746,849 N=$16,141,864 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 15,690,977 61 12,742,532 86 13,988,073 87 14,000,418 87 

Alcohol Treatment 4,379,241 17 0 0 

Drug Treatment 3,549,453 14 0 0 

Prevention 1,762,169 7 1,783,048 12 1,764,465 11 1,784,561 11 

Tuberculosis 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 335,009 1 267,693 2 367,692 2 358,885 2 

Total* 25,746,849 100 14,793,273 100 16,120,230 100 16,141,864 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

741 
West Virginia Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant expenditures declined dramatically between FYs 2000 and 2001, from $17.9 to $8.5 

million. Funding for treatment services was cut in half during this time, and then leveled off between 

FYs 2001 and 2003 at $6.3 million. Prevention expenditures held stable from FYs 2000 to 2003, at 

$1.8 million. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Prevention 

88% 21% Prevention Treatment 

10% 75% 

Administration Administration 

2% 4% 

N=$17,941,948 N=$8,564,801 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 7,928,695 44 6,520,149 76 6,479,065 76 6,468,098 75 

Alcohol Treatment 4,379,241 24 0 0 

Drug Treatment 3,549,453 20 0 0 

Prevention 1,762,169 10 1,783,048 21 1,764,465 21 1,784,561 21 

Tuberculosis 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 292,390 2 228,632 3 321,533 4 312,142 4 

Total* 17,941,948 100 8,531,829 100 8,565,063 100 8,564,801 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

742 
Inventory of State Profiles West Virginia 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, State expenditures for alcohol and drug abuse services fluctuated 

slightly, totaling $7.6 million in FY 2003. The funding was directed almost exclusively toward 

treatment and rehabilitation activities during that timeframe. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Administration Treatment Administration

99% 1% 99% 1%

N=$7,383,085 N=$7,579,063 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 7,340,466 99 6,222,383 99 7,509,008 99 7,532,320 99 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 42,619 1 39,061 1 46,159 1 46,743 1 

Total* 7,383,085 100 6,261,444 100 7,555,167 100 7,579,063 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

743 
West Virginia Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Prevention services in West Virginia are funneled through the WVPRC, which works to build the 

capacity of individuals, organizations, and agencies to promote the well-being of their communities. 

While WPPRC does not provide direct services, they do provide training and technical assistance, 

communication and information sharing, and accountability and evaluation. The WVPRC is a jointly 

owned and controlled public/private partnership administratively housed at the Marshall University 

and fiscally administered by the Marshall University Research Cooperation. Its 16 Community 

Development Specialists are specially trained and certified professionals who work locally in their 

communities to enhance West Virginia’s prevention system. 

West Virginia is in the third year of a Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Strategic 

Planning Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG). The SPF SIG is contracted to WVPRC, and 

the State and WVPRC are integrating workplans for SPF SIG and Block Grant activities. The SPF 

SIG is also providing the impetus and the opportunity for the State to improve its data collection 

processes. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

All prevention expenditures in West Virginia from FYs 2000 to 2003 came from the Block Grant, 

whose dollar value was remarkably stable throughout this timeframe at about $1.8 million. 

Per capita, the SAPT Block Grant funding for prevention services has also been relatively stable, at 

$0.98, $0.99, $0.98, and $0.99, respectively, in FYs 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding 

Source Source 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant 

100% 100% 

N=$1,762,169 N=$1,784,561 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

300,000 

600,000 

900,000 

1,200,000 

1,500,000 

1,800,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

744 
Inventory of State Profiles West Virginia 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 1,762,169 100 1,783,048 100 1,764,465 100 1,784,561 100 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 1,762,169 100 1,783,048 100 1,764,465 100 1,784,561 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Strategies include a prevention Web site with an online magazine 

that features prevention and related issues and clearinghouse 

information dissemination. 

Education 

Strategies focus on opportunities to learn from and participate in 

science-based prevention education programs such as BABES and 

Keep a Clear Mind. 

Alternatives 

Alternatives include providing technical assistance to communities 

for providing alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD)-free activities 

for teens and implementing youth leadership development activities. 

Community-Based Processes 

Funding provides training and technical assistance to communities 

to help them identify high-risk target groups, identify and secure 

resources for prevention for youth, and implement community 

prevention activities. 

Environmental 

Funds support the receipt of training in the area of policy, codes, 

regulations, and legislation that involve substance use issues that 

may adversely affect youth. Activities also include monitoring youth 

tobacco access laws. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Activities target youth already involved in substance use or abuse, 

as well as employees via the AFL-CIO employee assistance 

program (EAP). 

745 
West Virginia Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant expenditures in West Virginia, as mentioned previously, held constant from FYs 2000 to 

2003, totaling nearly $1.8 million in FY 2003. The breakdown of Block Grant funding by core 

strategy varied greatly throughout this timeframe, however. The core prevention strategies 

representing the greatest expenditures were information dissemination and community-based 

process. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy

Education Alternatives 

6% 13% Problem ID Information 

and Referral Dissemination 

5% 20% 

Section 1926 ­

Tobacco

4% CommunityEnvironmental Based 

8% Process 

44% 

N=$1,762,169 

FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy 

Education Alternatives 

11% 10% Problem ID 

Information and Referral 

Dissemination 5%

23% 

Community- Environmental Based 

5% Process 

46% 

N=$1,784,561 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 357,540 20 358,039 20 818,848 46 406,959 23 

Education 111,603 6 267,635 15 399,487 23 202,714 11 

Alternatives 223,896 13 86,830 5 107,399 6 183,413 10 

Problem ID and Referral 91,076 5 358,039 20 203,646 12 90,608 5 

Community-Based 

Process 767,819 44 538,842 30 151,668 9 817,022 46 

Environmental 138,866 8 86,831 5 83,417 5 83,845 5 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 71,369 4 86,832 5 0 0 0 0 

Total* 1,762,169 100 1,783,048 100 1,764,465 100 1,784,561 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a * Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

746 
Inventory of State Profiles West Virginia 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

DADA contracts with the State’s 13 community behavioral health centers for substance abuse 

treatment services. Treatment services available in West Virginia include several modalities: lowintensity outpatient services, home/community based services, transitional living services, 

nonmedical detoxification services, intensive outpatient treatment services, day treatment services, 

congregate therapeutic living services, long-term residential rehabilitation services, medically 

monitored inpatient/residential treatment services, medically managed acute inpatient treatment 

services, medically managed detoxification services, and public inebriate shelters. The primary 

method of treatment is individual outpatient treatment because of the remoteness of the clientele 

and difficulties with transportation. 

Admission priority clients include pregnant injection drug users (IDUs), pregnant women, and IDUs. 

DADA is also integrating mental health services into substance abuse treatment for co-occurring 

clients. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Treatment expenditures in West Virginia held steady at $14.0 million from FYs 2001 to 2003, after a 

sharp decline from FYs 2000 to 2001. The State’s share of funding for treatment and rehabilitation 

increased slightly between FYs 2000 to 2003 (from $7.3 million to $7.5 million) and also increased 

as a proportion of West Virginia’s expenditures by FY 2003 (from about one-third to more than half). 

Block Grant dollars dropped between FYs 2000 and 2001 (from $15.9 to $6.5 million), then leveled 

off between FYs 2001 and 2003. 

Per capita, Block Grant funding for treatment and rehabilitation expenditures decreased over time 

from $8.77 in FY 2000 to $3.57 in 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

Other 

Federal 

2% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

State Grant State Grant 

31% 46% 54% 67% 

N=$23,619,671 N=$14,000,418 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

747 
West Virginia Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block 

Grant 15,857,389 67 6,520,149 51 6,479,065 46 6,468,098 46 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 421,816 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 7,340,466 31 6,222,383 49 7,509,008 54 7,532,320 54 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 23,619,671 100 12,742,532 100 13,988,073 100 14,000,418 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

West Virginia did not include the number of persons admitted by type of treatment care for FY 2002 

(Form 7a) in their FY 2005 Block Grant Application. Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data 

indicate more than 2,000 admissions (where at least one substance is known). Calculations (with 

imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 65 percent of persons admitted to treatment 

programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate varied slightly 

when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. 

(For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 1,036 68.1 

Any other drugs 1,521 63.5 

Total 2,257 65.3 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 95,000 persons aged 12 and older (6.2 

percent of West Virginia’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use, and 

38,000 persons (2.5 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in West 

Virginia. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 6.17 6.31 15.53 4.64 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.46 5.29 8.37 1.18 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

748 
Inventory of State Profiles West Virginia 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

West Virginia is divided into four substate planning areas for prevention and treatment, with slight 

variations in the counties that constitute the four prevention planning areas. West Virginia has 

received technical assistance to conduct State treatment and prevention needs assessment studies. 

The first attempt, a key informants and community members survey on prevention priorities, did not 

yield enough responses to be statistically significant. In the absence of a statewide planning 

prevention or treatment needs assessment, the WVPRC relies on its network across the State to 

work with communities. West Virginia is using its SPF SIG to conduct a detailed needs assessment 

for prevention services. DASIS funding will support the expansion of the Archival Indicator Data to 

include treatment-specific indicators as well as prevention indicators. In addition, DADA held seven 

open forums focusing on children’s mental health, adult mental health, and substance abuse. 

Training and Assistance 

West Virginia co-sponsors the Annual Conference of the West Virginia Association of Alcohol and 

Drug Abuse Counselors, which provides CEUs for providers in their licensure efforts. Training 

efforts for treatment providers is also focused on the STAR model and ASAM Placement Criteria. 

DADA also supports the WVPRC in its efforts to certify the CDS prevention professionals by 

participation in the education reimbursement program. DADA also continues to sponsor and host 

the annual “Share the Vision” conference, which provides both treatment and prevention 

professionals the opportunity to update their skills. 

749 
West Virginia Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

West Virginia did not report spending any Block Grant funds on resource development activities for 

FYs 2000 through 2003. 

West Virginia did not report spending 

any Block Grant funds for resource 

development activities for FY 2000 

through FY 2003. 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment N/R** - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Quality Assurance N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Training N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Education N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Program Development N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Research and 

Evaluation N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Information Systems N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

Total* N/R - N/R - N/R - N/R -

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

** N/R = Not Reported 

750 
Inventory of State Profiles West Virginia 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded more than $2.8 million in seven 

discretionary grants to entities in West Virginia during FY 2004. Most of the funding was for the 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants (SPF SIGs). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 4 374,996 

Drug Free Communities Mentoring 1 75,000 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Total 7 2,800,961 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded more than $1.5 million in discretionary 

grants to three entities in West Virginia during FY 2004. The largest portion of the funding was 

directed to homeless addictions treatment, followed by targeted capacity expansion, and youth 

offenders. 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 1 592,195 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 1 497,900 

Youth Offender Reentry Program 2004 1 419,448 

Total 3 1,509,543 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

751 
WISCONSIN 

State SSA Director 

John T. Easterday, Ph.D., Associate Administrator 

Bureau of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 

Division of Disability and Elder Services 

Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services 

P.O. Box 7851 

Madison, WI 53707-7851 

Phone: 608-267-9391 

Fax: 608-266-2579 

E-mail: eastejt@dhfs.state.wi.us 

Web site: dhfs.wisconsin.gov 

Structure and Function 

The Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS), Bureau of Mental Health 

and Substance Abuse Services (BMHSAS), is Wisconsin’s designated Single State 

Agency (SSA) for providing substance abuse prevention and alcohol and other drug 

abuse (AODA) services. BMHSAS’s mission is to support and improve the quality 

and effectiveness of mental health and substance abuse services in order to create a 

recovery-focused system for the people of Wisconsin. BMHSAS envisions a society 

where all persons have optimal physical and mental health; where mental health, 

substance abuse dependency, and addiction are recognized as health issues; and where stigma and 

other barriers to recovery are eliminated. This mission and vision are realized by several guiding 

principles: invest for results and outcomes, change attitudes, build partnerships, commit to quality, 

and work on a common goal to assure that there will be access to individualized treatment and 

recovery. In addition to its central office, BMHSAS maintains five regional offices: Northeast, 

Northern, Southeastern, Southern, and Western. 

The work of BMHSAS fall primarily into two categories for both prevention and treatment: program 

planning and evaluation monitoring and program and systems development. Program planning and 

evaluation activities include outcome identification, data system analysis, needs assessment 

activities, program coordination activities, and contract/grants management. The program and 

systems development activities include reviewing the biennial budget, following legislation, 

coordinating training, and managing programmatic areas. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health and Family Services 

(DHFS) 

Division of Public Health Division of Disability and 

Elder Services 

Division of Children and 

Family Services 

Bureau of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services 

(BMHSAS) 

� Mental Health Services and Evaluation 

� Integrated Systems Development 

� Substance Abuse Services and Contracts 

� State Incentive Grant 

� Youth AODA Prevention 

� Brighter Futures Initiative 

753 
Wisconsin Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Wisconsin’s SSA funding increased from $28.8 million in FY 2000 to $29.8 million in FY 2003. The 

distribution of expenditures remained fairly stable during this time period. In FY 2003 most (87 

percent) of the expenditures came from the Block Grant, followed by 13 percent from the State—a 

distribution similar to that of FY 2000. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

State 

SAPT Block 

State Grant 

SAPT Block 

Grant 

15% 85% 87%

13% 

N=$29,774,673 

N=$28,780,879 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 24,530,479 85 24,837,927 88 24,525,217 86 25,877,350 87 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 4,250,400 15 3,384,699 12 3,969,339 14 3,897,323 13 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 28,780,879 100 28,222,626 100 28,494,556 100 29,774,673 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

754 
Inventory of State Profiles Wisconsin 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

The $22.4 million allocated for treatment services in Wisconsin in FY 2003 represented threequarters (76 percent) of total SSA expenditures, while prevention services accounted for the 

remaining one-quarter (24 percent). Prevention as a proportion of total expenditures increased 

slightly from FYs 2000 to 2003, from 18 to 24 percent, while treatment as a proportion of total 

expenditures decreased from 80 to 76 percent. 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Treatment Prevention Prevention 

80% Treatment 24% 18% 

76% 

Administration 

2% 

N=$28,780,879 N=$29,774,673 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 3,970,400 14 3,104,699 11 22,958,071 81 22,430,769 75 

Alcohol Treatment 9,780,942 33 9,893,921 35 

Drug Treatment 9,780,941 33 9,893,921 35 

Prevention 5,186,096 18 5,267,585 19 5,536,485 19 7,244,160 24 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early 

Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 625,000 2 62,500 0 0 0 99,744 0 

Total* 28,780,879 100 28,222,626 100 28,494,556 100 29,774,673 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

755 
Wisconsin Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Treatment and rehabilitation activities accounted for 76 percent of the nearly $25.9 million in Block 

Grant funding for Wisconsin in FY 2003—down slightly from their share of 76 percent in FY 2000. 

Prevention activities increased slightly from FYs 2000 to 2003, both in dollar value and proportion. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditure by Activity 

Prevention 

Prevention Treatment 24% 

20% 76% 

Treatment 

78% 

Administration 

2% N=$25,877,350 

N=$25,092,979 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 0 0 0 0 19,268,732 79 19,496,217 75 

Alcohol Treatment 9,780,942 39 9,893,921 40 

Drug Treatment 9,780,941 39 9,893,921 40 

Prevention 4,906,096 20 4,987,585 20 5,256,485 21 6,281,389 24 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 625,000 2 62,500 0 0 0 99,744 0 

Total* 25,092,979 100 24,837,927 100 24,525,217 100 25,877,350 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

756 
Inventory of State Profiles Wisconsin 

Expenditures of State Funds 

State expenditures for alcohol and drug abuse services in Wisconsin fluctuated between FYs 2000 

and 2003. During this time period, expenditures on treatment decreased as a proportion of total 

funds (as well as in actual dollar amount) from 93 to 75 percent, while expenditures on prevention 

activities increased from 7 to 25 percent. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention

Treatment 

7% Treatment 25% 

93% 75% 

N=$4,250,400 N=$3,897,323 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

4,000,000 

4,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 3,970,400 93 3,104,699 92 3,689,339 93 2,934,552 75 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 280,000 7 280,000 8 280,000 7 962,771 25 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 4,250,400 100 3,384,699 100 3,969,339 100 3,897,323 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

757 
Wisconsin Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Wisconsin, a recipient of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP)’s State Incentive Grant 

(SIG), is in the process of reinventing its substance abuse prevention system to improve prevention 

programming by eliminating duplication, filling service gaps, and coordinating funding. The SIG 

Advisory Committee is completing a comprehensive, long-range prevention plan, utilizing two 

strategic planning committees: one includes DHFS’s Division of Public Health, Division of Children 

and Family Services; the other committee includes the two entities above plus the Department of 

Public Instruction (which manages Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities) and the 

Department of Transportation (which manages the driving while intoxicated and youth alcohol 

education programs). 

The Brighter Futures Initiative (BFI) is a legislatively created initiative that funds 10 youth 

development programs. This program’s overall goal is to assist youth and families to be safe, 

healthy, self-sufficient members of their community. BFI grantees receive enhanced technical 

assistance and access to the most current research on best practices in community, youth, and 

family development strategies to achieve the stated goals and benchmarks. 

DMHSAS also helps enhance employers’ capacity to implement and sustain a drug-free workplace 

as a primary prevention strategy. This coordination, the result of the Employee Assistance Program 

(EAP) Survey analysis, is included in the Governor’s proclamation designating October as EAP and 

Drug Free Workplace Awareness Month. Other prevention activities include management of the 

tobacco prevention program through the Division of Public Health, and an initiative to support 

substance abuse prevention outcomes of high-risk Native American youth. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Wisconsin spent more than $7.2 million on prevention services in FY 2003—a substantial increase 

from FY 2000 expenditures. Between those two periods, Block Grant funding dollars decreased as a 

proportion of prevention expenditures (from 95 to 87 percent), while State funds increased (from 5 to 

13 percent). 

Per capita, Block Grant prevention funding increased from $0.91 in FY 2000 to $1.15 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding Source Source 

State SAPT Block 

5% Grant SAPT Block State 

87% Grant 13% 

95% 

N=$5,186,096 N=$7,244,160 

758 
Inventory of State Profiles Wisconsin 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 4,906,096 95 4,987,585 95 5,256,485 95 6,281,389 87 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 280,000 5 280,000 5 280,000 5 962,771 13 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 5,186,096 100 5,267,585 100 5,536,485 100 7,244,160 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Information dissemination activities include statewide clearinghouse 

activities through the Wisconsin Clearinghouse for Prevention Resources, 

Prevention Outlook newsletter, and Web sites. 

Education Strategies include a statewide prevention conference and prevention 

specialist workshops. 

Alternatives 

Programs include the Wisconsin Regional Teen Institute and the 

development and implementation of a community substance abuse 

prevention action plan. 

Community-Based Processes Brighter Futures Initiative (BFI) supports community participation and 

involvement to promote the health and well-being of children and families. 

Environmental Funds support education, policy, creation of local laws and ordinances, and 

training of community coalition members. 

Problem Identification and Referral 

Funds support each county and Tribe in providing onsite problem 

identification and referral services, as well as emergency after-hours 

hotline systems. 

759 
Wisconsin Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

In FY 2003, the $6.3 million in Block Grant funding for core prevention strategies was distributed 

widely among the strategies. Thirty-nine percent of funding went toward education activities (up 

from 14 percent in FY 2000), 19 percent went toward alternative strategies, and 14 percent went 

toward problem identification and referral activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core Strategy FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy 

Education Alternatives Alternatives 

14%

Environmental

12% 

15% 19% 

Problem ID and 

Information 

Dissemination

11% 

Problem ID 

Referral and Referral 

Information 12% 14% CommunityDissemination Education Based 

24% 39% Process CommunitySection 1926 ­ 7% Based Environmental 

Tobacco Process 9% 

1% 22% Section 1926 ­

Tobacco 

N=$5,139,671 1% N=$6,279,320 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information 

Dissemination 1,233,521 24 551,571 11 569,853 11 690,725 11 

Education 719,554 14 1,957,267 39 2,020,389 38 2,435,728 39 

Alternatives 770,951 15 822,199 16 984,292 19 1,193,071 19 

Problem ID and Referral 616,761 12 707,759 14 725,268 14 879,105 14 

Community-Based 

Process 1,130,728 22 378,192 8 414,439 8 439,552 7 

Environmental 592,156 12 494,597 10 466,244 9 565,139 9 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 76,000 1 76,000 2 76,000 1 76,000 1 

Total* 5,139,671 100 4,987,585 100 5,256,485 100 6,279,320 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

760 
Inventory of State Profiles Wisconsin 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Wisconsin operates under a county-administered, State-supervised substance abuse service 

system. A full continuum of substance abuse services is purchased through the 72 counties and 11 

tribal governments throughout Wisconsin. These services include emergency outpatient, medically 

managed inpatient detoxification, medically monitored residential detoxification, ambulatory 

detoxification, medically managed inpatient, medically monitored, outpatient, day, and transitional 

residential treatment services, as well as residential intoxication monitoring, and narcotic treatment 

for opiate addiction. 

Pregnant women receive priority admission to treatment. Other targeted populations for treatment 

include women, participants in the criminal justice system, youth, and injection drug users (IDUs). 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Between FYs 2000 and 2003, total expenditures on treatment services in Wisconsin remained fairly 

stable, totaling $22.4 million in FY 2003. The Block Grant funded 87 percent of those expenditures, 

and the State funded the remaining 13 percent, representing a fairly stable proportion since FY 

2000. 

Block Grant funding per capita declined slightly from $3.64 in FY 2000 to $3.56 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source

SAPT Block 

SAPT Block State Grant 

13% 83% State Grant 

17% 87% 

N=$22,430,769 

N=$23,532,283 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

761 
Wisconsin Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 19,561,883 83 19,787,842 86 19,268,732 84 19,496,217 87 

Medicaid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other Federal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

State 3,970,400 17 3,104,699 14 3,689,339 16 2,934,552 13 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 23,532,283 100 22,892,541 100 22,958,071 100 22,430,769 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Wisconsin’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that nearly 30,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone treatment. 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=29,998) 

Alcohol 

Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 3,228 199 298 

Free-standing residential 892 632 58 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 163 56 40 

Short-term residential 467 224 8 

Long-term residential 1,625 996 44 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 222 768 17 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 12,483 4,239 1,469 

Intensive outpatient 1,183 657 30 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 20,263 7,771 1,964 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data indicate more than 19,000 admissions (where at least one 

substance is known), of which more than 10,000 are for alcohol only. Calculations (with imputation) 

from TEDS data show that approximately 20 percent of persons admitted to treatment programs 

reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate varied only slightly when 

separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination with other drugs. (For a 

discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

762 
Inventory of State Profiles Wisconsin 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 10,437 19.2 

Any other drugs 8,615 20.6 

Total 19,052 19.9 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 405,000 persons aged 12 and older (8.9 

percent of Wisconsin’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use, and 

104,000 persons (2.3 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Wisconsin. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 8.92 7.00 22.25 6.80 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.28 5.67 6.84 0.99 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

763 
Wisconsin Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

BMHSAS works closely with the Governor’s State Council on Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse 

(SCAODA) to ensure its mission, vision, and values are carried out. The SCAODA drafts a 4-year 

plan to guide the State’s AODA treatment and prevention services, as well as direct cooperative 

agreements between State agencies to clarify responsibilities for implementing the plan. The DHFS 

Secretary chairs the SCAODA, and two BMHSAS staff also work with the SCODA. 

Wisconsin’s substate planning is divided into six planning areas, encompassing multiple counties 

and tribal governments, that plan substance abuse treatment and prevention services. Planning is 

done on the county level, and counties are required to hold public hearings for citizen input into 

Block Grant planning. SCAODA is statutorily responsible for overseeing and advising on planning, 

evaluation, and legislation addressing substance abuse in Wisconsin. It works with the regional 

directors to ensure that citizens have input into county-level treatment and prevention plans. 

The State Treatment Needs Assessment Program (STNAP) studies are used for assessing 

treatment needs in Wisconsin. The primary data set for assessing prevention needs is the Youth 

Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), conducted every other year. Secondary prevention data sets include 

the Wisconsin Clearinghouse for Prevention Resources study “Defining Prevention Needs for 

Wisconsin’s Youth: Nation and State Resources Facts and Figures” and the Brighter Futures 

Initiative data set. 

Evaluation 

Monitoring and evaluation activities are conducted at the regional level. Each of the 5 regional 

offices participate in quality improvement activities, monitor program compliance with performance 

and outcome standards, and provide technical assistance to assure compliance with all Federal and 

State legislation, rules and regulations, and policies. The regional offices also receive and review all 

State/county contracts for human services in their region. 

Prevention program monitoring for the SAPT Block Grant services is limited to monthly expenditure 

reports and annual progress reports by the county or tribe. Direct grants to nonprofit organizations 

report monthly expenditures and provide quarterly progress reports. The State’s Human Service 

Reporting System (HSRS) provides data for the chemical dependency treatment system, exclusive 

of tribal programs that do not report on HSRS. 

Training and Assistance 

BMHSAS provides continuing education for the treatment workforce through counselor certification 

core courses, clinical supervisor training, and statewide monthly teleconferences on research-based 

addiction treatment. Training is also provided to improve substance abuse and mental health 

services for older persons in collaboration with the Bureau of Aging and Long-Term Care Resources. 

BMHSAS also oversees the Minority Training Project, an ongoing statewide training initiative to 

support the growth and development of ethnic minority substance abuse professionals. 

The Wisconsin Clearinghouse for Prevention Resources has taken the lead in providing training to 

Wisconsin’s prevention workforce. The Clearinghouse sponsored prevention specialist workshops 

and organized a prevention conference (the first in more than 10 years). The conference was 

designed to promote best practices, research-based programs, and environmental strategies to help 

sustain and improve the effectiveness of local and State programs. 

764 
Inventory of State Profiles Wisconsin 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

In FY 2003, Wisconsin directed all its Block Grant resource development funds ($97,000) toward 

planning, coordination, and needs assessment activities. These funds were considerably reduced 

from those in FY 2000, when all of the funds were directed toward training activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Planning, 

Coordination, 

Training Needs 

100% Assessment 

100% 

N=$283,000 N=$97,000 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

50,000 

100,000 

150,000 

200,000 

250,000 

300,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activities 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 0 0 0 0 69,500 100 97,000 100 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Training 283,000 100 283,000 100 0 0 0 0 

Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Program Development 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Research and Evaluation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Information Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 283,000 100 283,000 100 69,500 100 97,000 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

765 
Wisconsin Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded more than $2.8 million in 25 

discretionary grants to entities in Wisconsin during FY 2004. Nearly three-quarters of that funding 

was awarded to 23 drug-free communities grantees 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 23 2,094,349 

Family Strengthening 1 394,174 

HIV/AIDS Cohort 3 Services 1 350,000 

Total 25 2,838,523 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded more than $11 million in discretionary 

grants to a wide range of Wisconsin entities in FY 2004. The largest awards were granted to Access 

to Recovery (ATR) (nearly 70 percent of total discretionary funds), followed by targeted capacity 

expansion (about 9 percent). 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAT Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Access to Recovery 1 7,591,723 

Pregnant/Post-Partum Women 1 500,000 

Homeless Addictions Treatment 1 511,465 

Targeted Capacity Expansion 2 1,000,000 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 1 312,608 

Youth Offender Reentry Program 2004 1 499,650 

TCE Rural Populations 1 500,000 

Total 9 11,015,446 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

766 
WYOMING 

State SSA Director 

Mr. Steve Gilmore, Administrator 

Substance Abuse Division 

Wyoming Department of Health 

6101 Yellowstone Road,Suite 220 

Cheyenne, WY 82002 

Phone: 307-777-6494 

Fax: 307-777-5849 

E-mail: sgilmo@state.wy.us 

Web site: www.sad.state.wy.us 

Structure and Function 

The Substance Abuse Division (SAD) is Wyoming’s designated Single State 

Agency (SSA) and is tasked with providing substance abuse treatment and 

prevention services to the citizens of Wyoming. SAD’s mission is to help Wyoming 

communities change attitudes and behaviors about the use and abuse of both 

legal and illegal substances (drugs, alcohol, and tobacco). It aims to help 

communities develop and implement programs to prevention use of all substances by minors, 

prevent use of illegal substances by adults, and treat substance misuse, abuse, and addiction. 

Substance abuse treatment and prevention programs in Wyoming are provided via community 

facilities, through its drug courts, as well as both nonprofit and for-profit agencies. Additionally, SADcertified substance abuse services are provided in all of Wyoming’s correctional facilities. 

Single State Agency Structure 

Department of Health 

Community and 

Family Health 

Developmental 

Disabilities 

Mental 

Health 

Substance Abuse 

Division (SAD) 

Prevention 

Services Aging 

Administration Tobacco Prevention Prevention Treatment 

Fiscal/Payments CDC Tobacco 

Initiative 

SPF SIG Women’s Programs 

Data Management 

Information 

Technology 

Tobacco Cessation 

and Prenatal 

Programs 

Synar Program 

Underage 

Drinking 

Contracts SAPT 

Block Grant 

Co-occurring 

Disorders 

Methamphetamine 

Coordination 

Access to Recovery 

(ATR) 

Epidemiology Drug Courts 

767 
Wyoming Inventory of State Profiles 

Single State Agency Funding Overview 

Wyoming’s overall single State agency (SSA) funding nearly doubled between FYs 2000 and 2003 

(from $12.7 to $24.2 million)—largely driven by a 10-fold increase in the “other” funding category, 

which accounted for the largest share (38 percent) of FY 2003 expenditures. The distribution of 

remaining funding sources shifted correspondingly between those two periods: State funding shrank 

from 56 to 28 percent of expenditures, even though the dollar decline was minimal; Block Grant 

funding declined in proportion despite a dollar increase; and other Federal funding doubled in dollar 

value but stayed relatively stable in proportion. Much of the “other Federal funding increase during 

this time period derived from the tobacco settlement account, which funded the Wyoming State 

Legislature-approved Substance Abuse Control Plan (SACP). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Funding Source FY 2003 Expenditures by Funding Source 

Other Other 

Federal

Other

7% 

Federal

N=$24,238,527 

State 

16% 18% 28%

Medicaid Medicaid

1% 3% 

SAPT Block State SAPT Block 

Grant 57% Grant 

13% 19% Other

38%

N=$12,657,094 

Expenditures by Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 2,452,377 19 2,751,180 13 3,048,693 10 3,193,795 13 

Medicaid 142,702 1 143,701 1 395,552 1 678,589 3 

Other Federal 2,072,524 16 4,333,302 21 4,223,281 14 4,318,810 18 

State 7,087,683 57 6,696,949 32 6,662,693 22 6,770,302 28 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 901,808 7 7,187,149 34 15,376,616 52 9,277,031 38 

Total* 12,657,094 100 21,112,281 100 29,706,835 100 24,238,527 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

768 
Inventory of State Profiles Wyoming 

Activities and Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

Corresponding to the near doubling in overall SSA funding between FYs 2000 and 2003, 

expenditures for prevention activities approximately doubled too. Treatment and rehabilitation 

activity expenditures increased more moderately, accounting for a shrinking majority of total 

expenditures (from 70 percent to 63 percent). 

FY 2000 Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 29%

29% 

Treatment Treatment 63%

70%

Administration Administration

1% 8% 

N=$12,657,094 N=$24,238,527 

Expenditures From All Funding Sources 

by Activity 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

30,000,000 

35,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures From All Funding Sources by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 7,448,158 58 11,581,695 55 20,811,396 70 15,351,449 63 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 1,500,000 12 2,434,250 12 

Prevention 3,610,861 29 5,863,395 28 7,278,805 25 6,976,763 29 

Tuberculosis 16,000 0 19,920 0 23,000 0 20,172 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 82,075 1 1,213,021 6 1,593,634 5 1,890,143 8 

Total* 12,657,094 100 21,112,281 100 29,706,835 100 24,238,527 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

769 
Wyoming Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant and State Funds 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds 

Block Grant funding totaled nearly $3.2 million in FY 2003, up from $2.5 million in FY 2000. The 

distribution of those funds remained stable over those two periods: approximately three-quarters 

were spent on treatment and rehabilitation activities, and about one-fifth on prevention activities. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Activity 

Prevention Prevention 

21% 20% 

Treatment Treatment

75% Tuberculosis 74% Tuberculosis 

1% 1% Administration 

3% Administration 

5% 

N=$2,452,377 N=$3,193,795 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

0 

500,000 

1,000,000 

1,500,000 

2,000,000 

2,500,000 

3,000,000 

3,500,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 1,840,805 75 2,121,925 77 2,263,519 74 2,376,379 74 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Prevention 513,497 21 604,335 22 609,739 20 637,139 20 

Tuberculosis 16,000 1 19,920 1 23,000 1 20,172 1 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 82,075 3 5,000 0 152,435 5 160,105 5 

Total* 2,452,377 100 2,751,180 100 3,048,693 100 3,193,795 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

770 
Inventory of State Profiles Wyoming 

Expenditures of State Funds 

Wyoming contributed nearly $6.8 million toward SSA activities in FY 2003—slightly less than the 

$7.1 million contributed in FY 2000. The largest portion of State funds continued to target treatment 

and rehabilitation activities, although that share shrank somewhat between the two comparison 

periods (from 95 percent to 86 percent). Administrative costs increased correspondingly, while 

prevention expenditures remained relatively stable. 

FY 2000 State Expenditures by Activity FY 2003 State Expenditures by Activity 

6% 

Prevention Treatment Treatment Prevention 86%

95% 5% Administration 

8% 

N=$7,087,683 N=$6,770,302 

Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Administration 

HIV Early Intervention 

Tuberculosis 

Prevention 

Treatment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of State Funds by Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Treatment and 

Rehabilitation 5,208,910 74 4,593,700 69 5,889,169 88 5,854,362 86 

Alcohol Treatment 0 0 0 0 

Drug Treatment 1,500,000 21 1,432,316 21 

Prevention 378,773 5 378,773 6 378,563 6 378,773 6 

Tuberculosis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

HIV Early Intervention 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Administration 0 0 292,160 4 394,961 6 537,167 8 

Total* 7,087,683 100 6,696,949 100 6,662,693 100 6,770,302 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4; States were not required to report separate expenditures for 

alcohol and drug treatment for FYs 2002 and 2003. 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

771 
Wyoming Inventory of State Profiles 

Prevention Services 

Prevention services are guided by the five-step Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive 

Grant (SPF SIG) planning process, which includes a data-driven model. Prevention providers are 

also guided by the Wyoming Youth Development Framework created by the Wyoming Youth 

Development Collaborative (WYDC). 

Prevention services in Wyoming include tobacco-free schools and communities, Synar and tobacco 

enforcement, and the SPF SIG. These services are provided for by about 35 percent contracted 

prevention and tobacco prevention providers. State-adopted prevention standards call for agencies 

receiving Federal prevention funds to use a community-based planning model to obtain and keep 

their certification. 

Prevention Funding and Expenditures 

Wyoming spent nearly $7 million on prevention services in FY 2003, nearly doubling the $3.6 million 

spent in FY 2000. More than half of those dollars continued to come from Federal sources other 

than the Block Grant, and more than one-quarter continued to be from sources in the “other funding” 

category—most of which comprises monies from the State tobacco settlement. “Other Federal” 

funding and “other funding” increased sharply between the two comparison years. State funds 

remained unchanged in dollar value, thus shrinking in proportion. Block Grant funds also shrank 

somewhat proportionately, but increased slightly in dollar value. 

Per capita, Block Grant funding for prevention services increased from $1.04 in FY 2000 to $1.27 in 

FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Prevention Expenditures by Funding FY 2003 Prevention Expenditures by Funding

Source Source Other Other Federal Federal 51% 

56% 

SAPT Block SAPT Block 

Grant Grant

14% 9% 

State State 

Other 10% Other 5% 

25% 30% 

N=$3,610,861 N=$6,976,763 

772 
Inventory of State Profiles Wyoming 

Expenditures for Prevention Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

1,000,000 

2,000,000 

3,000,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

6,000,000 

7,000,000 

8,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Prevention Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 513,497 14 604,335 10 609,739 8 637,139 9 

Other Federal 1,816,783 50 4,051,489 69 3,791,879 52 3,882,248 56 

State 378,773 10 378,773 6 378,563 5 378,773 5 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 901,808 25 828,798 14 2,498,624 34 2,078,603 30 

Total* 3,610,861 100 5,863,395 100 7,278,805 100 6,976,763 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Core Strategies 

Examples of core prevention strategies supported by Block Grant funds include: 

Core Strategy Examples of Activities 

Information Dissemination 

Strategies include television and radio public service 

announcements, local newsletters , booths , and presentations at 

local health fairs. 

Education 

Education activities includes classroom and small group sessions, 

parenting and family management classes, peer leader/helper 

programs, youth education programs, and children of substance 

abusers programs. 

Alternatives 

Funds support drug-free dances and parties, youth/adult leadership 

activities, community drop-in centers, and community service 

activities. 

Community-Based Processes 

SAD supports Block Grant subrecipients in community-wide 

planning efforts by the publication of planning and needs 

assessment data, including summary data and archival data. 

Community-based processes include community and volunteer 

training, systematic planning, multi-agency coordination and 

collaboration, assessing services and funding, and community 

teambuilding. 

Environmental 

SAD promotes the establishment and review of alcohol, tobacco, 

and other drug (ATOD) use policies in schools , provides technical 

assistance to communities to maximize local enforcement 

procedures , and modifies alcohol and tobacco advertisement 

practices . 

Problem Identification and Referral 

SAD supports employee assistance programs and student 

assistance programs. The SPF SIG process is used to identify 

consumption and other data. Identified problems are addressed 

through community-based strategies. 

773 
Wyoming Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Core Strategies 

Block Grant funding for core prevention strategies increased somewhat between FYs 2000 and 2003 

(from about $513,000 to about $637,000). Priorities shifted dramatically between the two 

comparison periods, with a sharp drop in expenditures for information dissemination strategies— 

from more than half (58 percent) of FY 2000 expenditures to only 15 percent of FY 2003 

expenditures—and smaller declines in expenditures for environmental and Section 1926-tobacco 

strategies. Instead, funds increasingly shifted toward a range of strategies, including education, 

alternatives, problem identification and referral, community-based process strategies, and 

environmental strategies. 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures by Core FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures by Core 

Strategy Strategy 

Education Community2% Based Education Alternatives 

Process 20% 20% 

20% 

Problem ID 

Environmental and Referral 

14% Information 

10% Dissemination 

Dissemination Section 1926 - 15% 

Information 

58% Tobacco Environmental Community­ 6% 5% Based 

Process

N=$513,497 N=$638,759 30%

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Core Strategy 

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

600,000 

700,000 

FY 

2000 

FY 

2001 

FY 

2002 

FY 

2003 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 

Other 

Environmental 

Community-Based Process 

Problem ID and Referral 

Alternatives 

Education 

Information Dissemination 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Core Strategy 

Strategy FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Information Dissemination 295,647 58 108,780 18 109,753 18 95,571 15 

Education 10,653 2 187,344 31 189,019 31 129,048 20 

Alternatives 1,454 0 24,173 4 24,390 4 127,427 20 

Problem ID and Referral 2,423 0 90,650 15 91,461 15 63,714 10 

Community-Based Process 101,780 20 132,954 22 134,143 22 191,142 30 

Environmental 72,700 14 12,087 2 12,195 2 31,857 5 

Other 0 0 48,347 8 48,778 8 0 0 

Section 1926 - Tobacco 28,840 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total* 513,497 100 604,335 100 609,739 100 638,759 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4a 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

774 
Inventory of State Profiles Wyoming 

Treatment and Rehabilitation Services 

Wyoming offers a wide range of evidence-based substance abuse treatment services. These 

services include social detoxification, outpatient services, intensive outpatient services, short- and 

long-term residential treatment, transitional care, and continuing care. These services are based 

upon the Comprehensive Substance Abuse Community (CSAC) initiative, which outlines a threetiered substance abuse treatment delivery system. The CSAC provides directly or through referrals 

the full continuum of services, from assessment and referral to case management, treatment, and 

continuing care. The CSACs act as hub agencies by integrating and coordinating services offered 

by all other private and public programs and agencies within a community. Wyoming also has six 

women-specific treatment programs, is engaged in a co-occurring disorders initiative with the Mental 

Health Division, and includes drug courts within its treatment services. 

Wyoming was awarded an Access to Recovery (ATR) grant—a Presidential Initiative to expand 

treatment opportunities for people in need of substance abuse treatment and recovery support 

services. One goal of the Wyoming ATR project is help integrate the juvenile justice and substance 

abuse treatment systems by providing a treatment continuum of care to all youth involved with the 

courts. A second project goal is to expand the definition of adequate treatment to include quality 

aftercare support services for youth involved in substance abuse treatment services, including 

services provided by faith-based organizations. 

Treatment Funding and Expenditures 

Overall funding for treatment and rehabilitation increased sharply between FYs 2000 and 2003 (from 

$8.9 to $15.4 million). The most dramatic part of that increase came from the recent introduction of 

funds from the “other” category, comprised mostly by tobacco settlement funds. State funding for 

treatment and rehabilitation declined somewhat between the two comparison periods (from $6.7 to 

$5.9 million), but still accounted for a large—albeit reduced—share (38 percent) of funds. 

Block Grant funding per capita for treatment and rehabilitation services increased from $3.73 in FY 

2000 to $4.73 in FY 2003. 

FY 2000 Treatment Expenditures by FY 2003 Treatment Expenditures by 

Funding Source Funding Source 

Other Other State

Federal Federal 38%

3% 1%

Medicaid Medicaid

2% 4%

SAPT Block State SAPT Block 

74% Grant Grant 15% Other

21% 42% 

N=$8,948,158 N=$15,351,449 

775 
Wyoming Inventory of State Profiles 

Expenditures for Treatment Services by 

Funding Source 

0 

5,000,000 

10,000,000 

15,000,000 

20,000,000 

25,000,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Other 

Local 

State 

Other Federal 

Medicaid 

SAPT Block Grant 

Single State Agency Expenditures for Treatment Services From All Funding Sources 

Funding Source FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

SAPT Block Grant 1,840,805 21 2,121,925 15 2,263,519 11 2,376,379 15 

Medicaid 142,702 2 143,701 1 395,552 2 678,589 4 

Other Federal 255,741 3 0 0 0 0 81,852 1 

State 6,708,910 75 6,026,016 43 5,889,169 28 5,854,362 38 

Local 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Other 0 0 5,724,303 41 12,263,156 59 6,360,267 42 

Total* 8,948,158 100 14,015,945 100 20,811,396 100 15,351,449 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

Admissions 

Wyoming’s SAPT Block Grant application indicates that more than 5,000 persons were admitted to 

treatment during FY 2002, of which most were admitted for outpatient (non-methadone) treatment 

services. 

776 
Inventory of State Profiles Wyoming 

Number of Persons Admitted by Type of Treatment Care 

Type of Care 

Total Number Admissions by Primary Diagnosis 

(N=5,124) 

Alcohol Problems Drug Problems None Indicated 

Detoxification (24-hour care) 

Hospital inpatient 0 0 0 

Free-standing residential 170 58 0 

Rehabilitation/Residential 

Hospital inpatient (rehabilitation) 0 0 0 

Short-term rehabilitation 63 40 0 

Long-term residential 271 390 0 

Ambulatory (Outpatient) 

Outpatient (methadone) 0 0 0 

Outpatient (non-methadone) 2,180 1,191 17 

Intensive outpatient 404 340 0 

Detoxification (outpatient) 0 0 0 

Total 3,088 2,019 17 

SOURCE: FY 2005 SAPT Block Grant Application Form 7a; Reported data for State FY 2002 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) data also indicate more than 5,000 admissions (where at least 

one substance is known), of which more than 2,000 were for alcohol only. Calculations (with 

imputation) from TEDS data show that approximately 19 percent of persons admitted to 

treatment programs reported a psychiatric problem combined with alcohol or drug use. This rate 

varied slightly when separating out alcohol-only abuse versus abuse of alcohol in combination 

with other drugs. (For a discussion of the different data sources, see Appendix D: Methodology.) 

Percent of Admissions with a Psychiatric Problem by Primary Diagnosis 

Admissions 

2002 

Admissions Where at 

Least One Substance 

Is Known 

% with Psychiatric 

Problem* 

Alcohol only 2,107 17.8 

Alcohol in combination with 

other drugs 3,033 20.5 

Total 5,140 19.4 

SOURCE: Treatment Episode Data Set, 2002

*Values are imputed for admission records with missing information on other psychiatric diagnoses.

According to the National Survey of Drug Use and Health, 36,000 persons aged 12 and older (8.7 

percent of Wyoming’s population) needed, but did not receive, treatment for alcohol use, and 10,000 

persons (2.5 percent) needed, but did not receive, treatment for illicit drug use in Wyoming. 

Treatment Gap by Age Group 

Measure % 12 and 

older % 12–17 % 18–25 % 26 and older 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for alcohol use 8.71 7.13 23.02 6.22 

Needing but not receiving 

treatment for illicit drug use 2.46 4.23 7.82 1.19 

SOURCE: National Survey on Drug Use and Health; combined data for 2002 and 2003 

777 
Wyoming Inventory of State Profiles 

Resource Development Activities 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Wyoming’s substance abuse treatment planning and needs assessment have been affected by new 

treatment standards that focus on evidence-based treatment procedures. Data and IT plans are 

being developed in conjunction with the Mental Health Division as part of a statewide data 

infrastructure project. A State plan for treatment infrastructure has been developed and includes the 

collection of standardized data on all treatment clients. In addition, pilot testing has begun on the 

collection of encounter data to better understand the cost of treatment services in Wyoming. A 

driving under the influence (DUI) strategic plan has been developed to address priorities for building 

statewide DUI infrastructure following the passage of the first DUI felony law in Wyoming, requiring 

third-time DUI offenders to receive substance abuse assessment. 

Wyoming’s prevention needs assessment utilizes CSAP’s WestCAPT Collaborative Comprehensive 

Prevention Planning Process, a five-step community planning model. Data are collected from Block 

Grant prevention contractors, State Incentive Grant (SIG) subrecipients, schools, and others. From 

the prevention needs assessment and evaluation reports, local and State prevention plans are 

developed. In addition, several prevention providers utilize Web-based tools to identify local 

prevention resources. The SAD is utilizing the SPF SIG process. 

Evaluation 

Wyoming monitors and evaluates is strategies using the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the Behavioral 

Risk Factor Surveillance System, and through reviewing its needs assessment data. 

Training and Assistance 

Wyoming offers a variety of training and conference opportunities for its treatment and prevention 

providers. Substance abuse treatment training needs were identified and a Behavioral Health 

Institute was developed to meet the identified training needs. The annual institute provided 

evidence-based skills building training to treatment providers. Treatment providers were also 

provided with competency-based training on the ASI, ASAM, and GAIN instruments. Prevention 

providers were trained in the application of the Risk and Protective Factors Model of Prevention, 

which includes training in community readiness, needs assessment, prioritizing goals, conducting 

resource assessments, and applying evidence-based practices followed by evaluation of prevention 

programs. 

The State sponsored several treatment and prevention providers to attend regional and national 

trainings and conferences. Treatment providers were represented at several events: the 

Delinquency, Crime and Substance Abuse Services for Adolescent conference, the 10th Annual 

Adult Drug Court Training Conference; and the National Rural Institute on Alcohol and Drug Abuse. 

Prevention providers attended the National Prevention Network’s Annual Research Conference and 

the CADCA Conference. 

778 
Inventory of State Profiles Wyoming 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds for Resource Development Activities 

Block Grant funding for resource development activities in Wyoming increased dramatically between 

FYs 2000 and 2003 (from about $21,000 to about $531,000) with all of the FY 2000 funds going 

toward training activities. While training dollars more than doubled by FY 2003, they accounted for 

only 11 percent of FY 2003 resource development expenditures, reflecting an influx of new funding 

in FY 2003 for planning, coordination, and needs assessment activities (72 percent of expenditures) 

and information systems activities (17 percent). 

FY 2000 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource FY 2003 Block Grant Expenditures on Resource 

Development Activities Development Activities 

Information 

Systems 

17% 

Training 

100% Planning, 

11% 

Training 

Coordination, 

Needs 

Assessment 

72% 

N=$21,210 N=$531,326 

Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by 

Resource Development Activity 

0 

100,000 

200,000 

300,000 

400,000 

500,000 

600,000 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Information Systems 

Research and Evaluation 

Program Development 

Education 

Training 

Quality Assurance 

Planning, Coordination, Needs 

Assessment 

Single State Agency Expenditures of Block Grant Funds by Resource Development Activity 

Activity FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

$ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % $ Spent % 

Planning, Coordination, 

Needs Assessment 0 0 0 0 N/R** - 379,384 72 

Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 N/R - 0 0 

Training 21,210 100 0 0 N/R - 59,890 11 

Education 0 0 5,000 1 N/R - 0 0 

Program Development 0 0 0 0 N/R - 0 0 

Research and Evaluation 0 0 146,048 41 N/R - 0 0 

Information Systems 0 0 202,971 57 N/R - 92,052 17 

Total* 21,210 100 354,019 100 N/R - 531,326 100 

SOURCE: FYs 2003–2006 SAPT Block Grant Applications, Form 4b 

* Totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

** N/R = Not reported 

779 
Wyoming Inventory of State Profiles 

Discretionary Funding 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

The Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) awarded nearly $2.7 million in five 

discretionary grants to Wyoming entities during FY 2004. Most of the funding (over $2.3 million) was 

awarded as a Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant (SPF SIG). 

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

Drug Free Communities 4 347,251 

Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grants 1 2,350,965 

Total 5 2,698,216 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

The Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) awarded more than $1.5 million in three 

discretionary grants to Wyoming. The largest single award, for nearly $1 million, is to improve 

Access to Recovery (ATR). 

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Discretionary Awards for FY 2004 

CSAP Discretionary Grant Number of 

Awards Total $ Amount 

State Data Infrastructure 1 100,000 

Access to Recovery 1 978,681 

Targeted Capacity - HIV/AIDS 1 489,402 

Total 3 1,568,083 

SOURCE: www.samhsa.gov 

780 
Appendix A: 

Block Grant Expenditures per Capita on Prevention Activities, FYs 2000–2003 

State 

Prevention Expenditures per Capita 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

United States 1.15 1.23 1.24 1.28 

Alabama 1.00 1.09 1.33 1.10 

Alaska 1.18 1.22 1.26 1.39 

Arizona 1.05 1.10 1.04 1.10 

Arkansas 0.84 0.83 0.91 0.88 

California 1.54 1.42 1.52 1.61 

Colorado 0.97 1.07 1.04 1.08 

Connecticut 1.16 1.26 1.38 1.32 

Delaware 1.49 1.67 1.81 1.85 

District of Columbia 1.74 1.94 2.00 2.39 

Florida 1.01 1.28 1.08 1.45 

Georgia 1.01 1.14 1.12 1.24 

Hawaii 1.41 1.68 1.64 1.67 

Idaho 0.92 1.00 1.47 1.53 

Illinois 0.98 1.05 1.09 1.09 

Indiana 1.16 1.15 1.18 1.16 

Iowa 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 

Kansas 0.89 0.93 0.91 1.05 

Kentucky 1.17 1.23 1.41 1.35 

Louisiana 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.16 

Maine 1.05 0.99 1.07 1.04 

Maryland 1.35 1.35 1.40 1.17 

Massachusetts 1.04 1.07 1.06 1.22 

Michigan 1.20 1.24 1.33 1.31 

Minnesota 1.06 1.07 0.89 0.91 

Mississippi 0.93 0.95 0.98 0.98 

Missouri 0.86 0.89 0.92 0.92 

Montana 1.24 1.38 1.46 1.43 

Nebraska 1.31 1.39 1.38 1.23 

Nevada 1.08 1.08 1.04 1.15 

New Hampshire 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.05 

New Jersey 1.09 1.15 1.16 1.24 

New Mexico 1.13 1.07 1.17 1.25 

New York 1.34 1.29 1.22 1.24 

North Carolina 0.85 1.07 0.88 0.94 

North Dakota 1.21 1.32 1.73 1.60 

Ohio 1.15 1.17 1.25 1.42 

Oklahoma 0.96 1.00 1.02 1.02 

Oregon 0.89 0.89 0.90 0.90 

783 
Appendix A Inventory of State Profiles 

State 

Prevention Expenditures per Capita 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Pennsylvania 0.96 1.02 1.00 1.02 

Rhode Island 1.19 1.27 1.47 1.61 

South Carolina 1.04 0.98 1.01 1.00 

South Dakota 0.94 1.05 1.16 1.21 

Tennessee 1.06 1.15 1.18 1.19 

Texas 1.27 1.92 1.90 1.62 

Utah 1.36 1.63 1.41 1.55 

Vermont 1.24 1.38 1.52 1.59 

Virginia 1.12 1.14 1.17 1.15 

Washington 1.25 1.31 1.31 1.49 

West Virginia 0.97 0.99 0.98 0.99 

Wisconsin 0.91 0.92 0.97 1.15 

Wyoming 1.04 1.22 1.22 1.27 

784 
Appendix B 

CSAP Core Strategies for Prevention

Highlights from States and the District of Columbia

SAMHSA requires States to submit information about their activities related to CSAP’s six core 

prevention strategies in their Block Grant application which include information dissemination, 

education, alternatives, problem identification and referral, community-based processes, and 

environmental. SAMHSA also requests that States document their reported and intended 

expenditures in the same six areas in the SAPT Block Grant application1

. A description of the 

strategies and highlights from State findings is provided below. 

Information Dissemination 

• The District of Columbia distributes information on alcohol, tobacco, and drugs to the public 

in various forums including more than 350 annual public health and community awareness 

events. Spanish- and Asian-language materials are distributed to address the language issues 

in the multicultural communities. 

• Idaho’s SSA funds the printing of a parenting skills book (English and Spanish), which is used 

in substance abuse treatment programs serving women of childbearing age, child protection 

offices, and schools. It also partners with Boise State University to maintain the Idaho Regional 

Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resources (RADAR) Network Center, which maintains 27 

associate centers. 

• The Illinois SSA produces radio and television public service announcements and participates 

in local health fairs. Its 18 regional substate offices (called InTouch) develop and distribute 

local resource directories, host cable television shows, and house lending libraries. Division of 

Alcohol and Substance Abuse (DASA) makes available brochures on alcohol and substance 

abuse on its Web site in English and Spanish. 

• North Dakota’s Prevention Resource Center lends videos, books, curricula, and other 

materials to schools, law enforcement agencies, faith-based organizations, social service 

agencies, and others.

• West Virginia’s SSA has a prevention Web site with an online magazine that features 

prevention and related issues and clearinghouse information dissemination.

Education 

• Alabama funds support interactive classroom education, specific programs for high-risk 

youth in alternative educational centers, family strengthening and parenting programs, and 

programs for pregnant women and teens. 

• Colorado provides a 12-week Multi-Ethnic Parenting Curriculum to high-risk parents and 

provides educational services for youth groups and small group sessions. 

1 DHHS Block Grant 45 CFR Section 96.124 (2005). 

785 
Appendix B Inventory of State Profiles 

• Ohio’s Head Start staff and administrators are trained about ways to integrate ATOD 

prevention information into the Head Start curriculum. Ohio’s funds also support the Local 

Teen Institute, which provides programs for middle and high school youth, and an 

educational program providing senior citizens with information about prevention of 

medication misuse. 

• Oklahoma’s funds support the delivery of A Pregnant Pause education program on fetal 

alcohol spectrum and the delivery of the youth leadership camp Project Under 21 program 

focused on underage alcohol use. Funds also support training for teachers, counselors, 

volunteers, and others to foster sustainability of prevention efforts. 

• Utah sponsors Prevention Dimensions, a K-12 school-based prevention education 

curriculum.

Alternatives 

• Indiana funds the statewide Afternoons R.O.C.K., an afterschool program for youth ages 10 

to 14, which builds resiliency and resistance skills and encourages community service. 

• Louisiana funds activities such as wilderness treks, rope courses for teambuilding, drug-free 

dances, summer camps, and basketball tournaments. 

• Massachusetts supports creative writing contests, photography workshops, theater 

productions, community service, and adventure and team-building activities.

• Strategies in Mississippi include youth leadership conferences, scholarships to 

disadvantaged youth, creative arts workshops for youth, community and youth volunteers, 

and day camps for girls and boys. 

• Rhode Island’s funds support training for peer leaders to promote prevention in their 

communities, afterschool programs, weekly educational groups, career and college guidance 

programs, and cultural activities. 

Problem identification and referral 

• Delaware’s funds support efforts in schools to identify children with problems and provide 

them with services and linkages to community resources by assisting in data collection and 

outcome measurement. 

• Hawaii’s activities include a program that uses pharmacists to conduct individual 

assessments and utilization reviews of prescription and over-the-counter medications used 

by the elderly as well as to provide followup and referral services. 

• Missouri’s funds support screenings and services for children of people who abuse 

substances, youth substance abuse identification and services, and hearing-impaired 

services and referrals. 

• Nebraska’s School Community Intervention Programs create knowledgeable, 

interdisciplinary school-based teams that can effectively identify students at risk of 

developing substance use problems and design and implement early interventions.

• Utah’s strategies include referral and assessment for DUI offenders and youth with first-time 

ATOD use offenses. 

786 
Inventory of State Profiles Appendix: B 

Community-based processes 

• Michigan’s funding supports community assessment of risk and protective factors, 

systematic/multifaceted planning, technical assistance, volunteer trainings, community teambuilding, resource identification, program development, environmental strategy training, and 

a minigrant program. 

• Nebraska’s Regional Prevention Centers assist local community coalitions with broad-based 

memberships (including public and behavioral health, education, law enforcement, and 

public safety) in identifing priority local substance abuse prevention needs and selecting and 

implementing locally and culturally appropriate substance abuse prevention strategies. 

• Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Drug and Alcohol Programs (BDAP) works with community-based 

organizations to develop community assessments, strategic plans, community mobilization, 

collaboratives, and program evaluations; BDAP also provides in-service training of school 

teachers on substance abuse prevention. 

• Rhode Island’s SSA coordinates a statewide network of legislatively mandated communitybased task forces primarily responsible for developing comprehensive prevention plans 

based on community needs assessments. 

• West Virginia’s funds provide training and technical assistance to communities to help them 

identify high-risk target groups, identify and secure resources for prevention of youth ATOD 

use, and implement community ATOD use prevention activities. 

Environmental 

• Arizona supported Tucson youth who participated in a prevention program and drafted antibullying legislation ultimately passed by the State legislature. 

• Florida’s Think About It campaign (a statewide radio and billboard initiative) targets youth 

and parents and reached 68 percent of Florida’s population. Funds also support the 

promotion of drug use policy reviews in schools and communities. 

• Iowa established and changed written community standards and codes and participated in 

Tobacco Free Iowa, a strategy to secure tobacco settlement dollars for substance abuse 

prevention. 

• The Kansas statute on endangering a child through the sale, distribution, or manufacture of 

methamphetamine was changed from a misdemeanor to a felony; tobacco retailer licenses 

were made part of the public record; and the number of smoke-free establishments was 

increased. 

• Maryland provides technical assistance to community groups and organizations on how to 

develop appropriate legislative and media resources. 

• New Jersey awarded subgrants to 12 colleges to implement a social norms campaign. 

• New Mexico’s SSA introduced a 10-percent local options gross receipts tax on alcohol and 

developed and implemented the Mescalero Apache Tribal resolution prohibiting sales of 

tobacco to minors on the reservation. 

• Strategies in Texas include drug-free school zones, alcohol and tobacco education for 

retailers, and education of policymakers on gaps in services. 

787 
Appendix B Inventory of State Profiles 

Other 

• The Idaho SSA implemented the Substance Prevention Program Standards that establish 

minimum requirements for staff qualifications, participant safety, program selection, and 

documentation. 

• Minnesota’s funds provide support for cultural activities including the participation of elders 

and the transmission of tribal history, values, and beliefs for Native American prevention 

programs, as well as other culturally based activities for African American, Hispanic/Latino, 

and Asian populations. 

• Strategies in South Carolina include a statewide, Internet-based prevention reporting 

system that has identified underserved populations, including those with limited English 

proficiency or with dual diagnoses. 

788 
Appendix C: 

Block Grant Expenditures per Capita on Treatment Activities, FYs 2000–2003 

State

Expenditures per Capita 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

United States 3.82 3.85 3.96 3.97 

Alabama 3.64 3.69 3.59 3.81 

Alaska 4.03 4.58 3.81 5.26 

Arizona 3.79 3.72 3.83 4.01 

Arkansas 3.20 3.40 3.42 3.37 

California 4.60 4.94 5.18 4.97 

Colorado 3.60 3.70 3.85 4.02 

Connecticut 3.41 3.33 3.23 3.28 

Delaware 5.04 5.45 5.51 5.46 

District of Columbia 6.28 6.41 8.06 7.89 

Florida 3.56 3.70 3.92 3.73 

Georgia 3.64 3.87 4.00 3.83 

Hawaii 3.65 3.59 3.69 3.48 

Idaho 3.44 3.58 3.41 3.28 

Illinois 3.42 3.63 3.75 3.75 

Indiana 3.88 3.91 3.92 3.97 

Iowa 3.16 3.20 3.23 3.24 

Kansas 3.12 3.24 3.43 3.29 

Kentucky 3.53 3.64 3.63 3.69 

Louisiana 3.89 3.94 4.04 4.05 

Maine 3.44 3.62 3.66 3.72 

Maryland 3.74 3.97 4.01 4.08 

Massachusetts 3.75 3.78 3.78 3.69 

Michigan 4.19 4.20 4.15 4.17 

Minnesota 3.03 3.02 3.25 3.23 

Mississippi 3.25 3.33 3.44 3.44 

Missouri 2.84 3.34 3.47 3.47 

Montana 4.64 5.37 5.29 5.35 

Nebraska 2.83 2.86 2.96 3.19 

Nevada 3.21 3.53 3.64 4.01 

New Hampshire 3.59 3.73 3.80 3.80 

New Jersey 3.81 3.80 3.85 3.78 

New Mexico 3.17 3.34 3.02 3.13 

New York 3.65 3.83 4.05 4.34 

North Carolina 2.75 2.55 2.79 2.97 

North Dakota 4.45 3.67 2.47 6.27 

789 
Appendix C Inventory of State Profiles 

State

Expenditures per Capita 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 

Ohio 4.29 4.33 4.30 4.15 

Oklahoma 3.60 3.73 3.81 3.81 

Oregon 3.34 3.34 3.37 3.39 

Pennsylvania 3.35 3.31 3.38 3.34 

Rhode Island 2.87 4.42 4.45 4.41 

South Carolina 3.35 3.61 3.74 3.72 

South Dakota 3.49 3.92 4.33 4.51 

Tennessee 3.11 3.29 3.39 3.33 

Texas 4.43 3.52 3.74 3.95 

Utah 4.92 5.04 5.40 5.33 

Vermont 4.64 5.18 5.71 5.97 

Virginia 3.98 4.11 4.08 4.04 

Washington 3.86 4.04 4.18 4.01 

West Virginia 8.77 3.62 3.59 3.57 

Wisconsin 3.64 3.66 3.54 3.56 

Wyoming 3.73 4.30 4.54 4.73 

790 
Appendix D: 

Methodology 

Introduction 

This 2006 Inventory of State Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Activities and 

Expenditures was developed to highlight State activities and trends in expenditures for substance 

abuse prevention and treatment services. The first step in creating the inventory was to scan 

available data sources to determine what existing data and information would be of interest and 

could be incorporated into the inventory. Researchers wanted to use secondary data sources 

whenever possible for two reasons: most of the needed documentation already existed; and to 

reduce the States’ burden for providing information. 

Once the data sources were agreed upon, researchers secured approval from SAMHSA for use of 

the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant information. An initial data template 

and draft State profile was developed and presented to ONDCP and NASADAD for their feedback 

and suggestions. NASADAD representatives shared their experience with developing the 1999 

Inventory of State Prevention Activities Funded Under the 20 Percent Prevention Set-Aside of the 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant. Researchers also worked with NASADAD 

to determine with which States to the pilot State profile review process. 

After piloting the review process and the draft profiles with nine States, the remaining profiles were 

developed, FedExed to States for their review, and finalized, incorporating State feedback. Findings 

from all the States were aggregated into the Aggregate Findings section of the Inventory. Finally, 

the Inventory, in its entirety, was reviewed by ONDCP and SAMHSA prior to publication. 

Data Sources 

At the project outset, many potentially relevant data sources were reviewed for possible inclusion in 

the Inventory. These sources included information on State substance abuse prevention and 

treatment systems, funding streams, services, activities, and recipients. After careful examination 

and consideration of the data sources, the following were selected: 

• Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant (FYs 2003–2006) 

• State and SSA Web sites 

• Treatment Episode Data Set (2002) 

• National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) (2002) 

• U.S. Census Estimates (2003) 

• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Web site 

• State-submitted information 

Detailed information of the data sources and how they were used in the Inventory follows. 

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant: The Substance Abuse Prevention 

and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant program distributes funds to 60 eligible States, territories, the 

District of Columbia, and the Red Lake Nation through a formula, based upon specified economic 

and demographic factors. The Block Grant program's overall goal is to support and expand 

substance abuse prevention and treatment services, while providing maximum flexibility to the 

States. By statute, States and territories may expend Block Grant funds only for the purpose of 

planning, carrying out, and evaluating activities related to these services2

. 

2

 http://www.samhsa.gov/budget/B2005/spending/cj_48.aspx 

791 
Appendix: D Inventory of State Profiles 

State applicants completed numerous narrative sections and forms to describe how they intend to 

expend the grant, their needs assessment and planning processes, client information, policies and 

procedures, and other areas of relevance. Applicants also addressed activities to meet current legal 

requirements including provisions and funding set-asides. Examples include a 20-percent set-aside 

for prevention activities and an up-to-5-percent set-aside for HIV early intervention activities for 

States whose HIV/AIDS case rates exceed 10 per 100,000. 

This Inventory uses State SAPT Block Grant applications from FYs 2003 through 2006. For FYs 

2005 and 2006 applications, up-to-date information was available from the online Block Grant 

Application System (BGAS). Earlier applications were available in hard copy only. 

Narrative Sections 

Narrative sections from States’ Block Grant applications were used to describe overall State 

systems, prevention and treatment services, and resource development activities including planning 

and needs assessment, evaluation activities, and training and assistance for their State’s workforce. 

The primary Block Grant narrative sections used for the Inventory include the following: 

• Goal 1 – Continuum of Substance Abuse Treatment Services 

• Goal 2 – 20-percent Set-Aside for Primary Prevention 

• Goal 11 – Continuing Education 

• Goal 12 – Coordinate Services 

• Goal 13 – Assessment of Need 

• 1. Planning 

• BG Attachment D – Program Compliance Monitoring 

Forms 

Forms with quantitative information were used to describe SSA expenditures from the Block Grant 

and other sources, the amount of expenditures by activity, and the number of clients by type of 

treatment modality. These forms do not include funding from private third-party payers such as 

commercial health insurers. The primary Block Grant forms used for the Inventory include the 

following: 

• Form 4 – Substance Abuse State Agency Spending Report 

• Form 4a – Primary Prevention Expenditures Checklist 

• Form 4b – Resource Development Activities Checklist 

• Form 7a – Treatment Utilization Matrix 

State and SSA Web Sites: Both State and SSA Web sites provided substantial State-specific 

information about the organization and structure of the substance abuse prevention and treatment 

delivery systems in the States. Information from these Web sites, and from SSA Web sites in 

particular, contributed greatly to the narrative sections of the State profiles. 

Treatment Episode Data Set: The Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) is an administrative data 

system providing descriptive information about the national flow of admissions to providers of 

substance abuse treatment. The TEDS series was designed to provide annual data on the number 

and characteristics of persons admitted to public and private substance abuse treatment programs 

receiving public funding. The unit of analysis is treatment admissions. TEDS provides information on 

a variety of service setting and client characteristics, including number of prior treatments, 

substance(s) abused, frequency of use, employment status, and presence of psychiatric problems. 

TEDS also provides information on client demographics such as age, race, gender, income, marital 

status, and education. 

For this Inventory, TEDS information, housed at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data 

Archive (SAMHDA), was used specifically to determine the prevalence of co-occurring disorders for 

abusers of alcohol or alcohol in combination with other drugs. A variety of data, including 

792 
Inventory of State Profiles Appendix: D 

“admissions where at least one substance is known” and “percent with psychiatric problem(s)” were 

downloaded from the SAMHDA Web site and analyzed. While all 50 States and the District of 

Columbia submitted data in 2002, only 37 States included information regarding whether clients 

admitted for substance abuse treatment also had a presenting psychiatric problem. Estimated rates 

were calculated (with imputations) for persons admitted with co-occurring psychiatric problems and 

substance abuse issues for all States. 

National Survey on Drug Use and Health: The National Survey on Drug Use and Health 

(NSDUH) (formerly called the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) reports on the 

prevalence, patterns, and consequences of drug and alcohol use and abuse in the general U.S. 

civilian non-institutionalized population age 12 and older. Data are collected on the use of illicit 

drugs, the nonmedical use of licit drugs, and use of alcohol and tobacco products. The survey is 

conducted annually and produces drug and alcohol use incidence and prevalence estimates at 

the State level. 

This Inventory includes 2002 NSDUH findings on the treatment gap in each State. Specifically, 

information was used on the percentage of persons needing, but not receiving, treatment for 

alcohol use, and the percentage of persons needing, but not receiving, treatment for illicit drug 

use. 

U.S. Census Estimates: U.S. Census estimates were utilized to calculate SAPT Block Grant 

Expenditures per capita for both prevention and treatment. Population estimates for 2000 through 

2003 were downloaded from the US Census Web site and imported into Excel for analysis3

. 

SAMSHA Web site: The SAMHSA Web site provided background and award information for Center 

for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) and Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) 

discretionary grant amounts, descriptions, and aims. It also provided background information on 

SAPT Block Grant requirements and on SAMHSA’s and the Nation’s approach to substance abuse 

prevention and treatment services. 

State-submitted Information: For some State profiles, States were asked for specific information 

not available from the above-mentioned data sources. Examples include current organization charts, 

information on SSA reorganizations, information on resource development activities, and any 

changes in prevention or treatment services delivery. 

Methods 

After determining which data sources would provide the most useful and up-to-date information, a 

data collection template was developed to include both descriptive narrative and quantitative 

information, such as expenditure data. The following key areas were identified and incorporated into 

the template: 

• SSA structure, including its placement within the State system and the services delivery 

system. This section includes an organization chart. 

• Expenditure information, including: 

o total SSA expenditures by funding source 

o total SSA expenditures by activity 

o total SSA expenditures on prevention activities by funding source 

o total SSA expenditures on treatment activities by funding source 

o SAPT Block Grant expenditures by activity 

o SAPT Block Grant expenditures on CSAP core prevention strategies 

3

 http://www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2003-01.csv 

793 
Appendix: D Inventory of State Profiles 

o SAPT Block Grant expenditures on system resource development activities 

o SAPT Block Grant expenditures per capita on prevention and treatment 

o State expenditures by activity 

• Descriptive information about States’ prevention and treatment systems 

• Descriptive information about State’s efforts to plan and conduct needs assessments, 

evaluate strategies, and train and provide assistance to strengthen their prevention and 

treatment workforce 

• Descriptive information about the number of treatment clients served by modality, treatment 

gap, and rates of co-occurring disorder among treatment clients 

• CSAP and CSAT discretionary grant awards 

After the template was developed, information was extracted from the previously mentioned data 

sources to complete the template for each State. Qualitative and narrative information was taken 

largely from the SAPT Block Grant applications and the SSA Web sites. Most of the quantitative 

information was downloaded and printed off of the BGAS Web site and then hand-entered into a 

database for analysis. An Excel template was developed for State-specific expenditure information, 

and the data were run for each State. Qualitative and quantitative information were integrated into a 

Word document for each State profile. 

After draft profiles were developed, the profiles and the profile review process were piloted with nine 

States. Data collection and reporting were adjusted slightly based on pilot findings. As draft profiles 

were finalized, they were express-mailed to each SSA. Any State-specific questions were 

highlighted. After States reviewed the profiles and provided feedback and suggestions, the profiles 

were revised and reviewed internally for final approval. 

After the majority of States reviewed the profiles and provided feedback, the multiple data sources 

were analyzed and synthesized to develop the Aggregate Findings section. The quantitative 

information for the Aggregate Findings was analyzed in Excel and SPSS. 

Limitations 

During the course of this project, several State Governments, and specifically the SSAs, had been 

recently reorganized, were in the process of reorganizing, or were planning to reorganize. Every 

effort was made to present most recent information. However, due to the changing nature of the 

SSAs and State Governments, readers should realize that the narrative information and the 

organization charts reflect the current configuration of the SSA and service delivery at the time of 

publication. 

While the data sources used allowed ONDCP to present fairly consistent data for all of the States, 

they do have some inherent limitations. 

Expenditure Information: Most expenditure information was taken from the State SAPT Block 

Grant applications. Thus, consistent data were available for all States by Federal fiscal year. 

However, the Federal fiscal year does not usually correspond with the State fiscal year or their 

reporting year. States were required to report Block Grant expenditures aligned with the Federal 

fiscal year, but were allowed to report the remaining expenditure information from the other funding 

streams as they correspond to a State fiscal year. Therefore, the Form 4 from any given application 

reports total expenditures for a particular SAPT Block Grant award for the Federal fiscal year, and it 

reports expenditures for a single State fiscal year for all other funding category columns. Since 

State fiscal years vary across States, actual expenditure reporting periods, while similar, may not be 

identical. 

794 
Inventory of State Profiles Appendix: D 

Additionally, while most States take care to indicate on Form 4 expenditures from all funding 

streams, some States may not indicate all expenditure information, especially for sources other than 

the Block Grant. If States left out expenditure information from Form 4, and did also not submit this 

information during the profile review, then this information was not included in the Inventory. 

Finally, Block Grant expenditure information was taken from the BGAS system for FYs 2005 and 

2006 (and hard copies for FYs 2003 and 2004). At the time of publication of the Inventory 3 States 

did not have SAMHSA Block Grant approval for their FY 2006 application (Alaska, Massachusetts, 

and Pennsylvania). Since all SSAs reviewed the State profiles for their State, which included 

expenditure information, these numbers are thought to be accurate. However, it is possible that the 

expenditures may change, especially for the 35 States awaiting SAMHSA approval of their Block 

Grant application. 

The discretionary grant award information was taken from the SAMHSA Web site. The site had two 

pages of discretionary award information by State: one was a summary page, and the other provided 

details. For several States, the information on these two pages was inconsistent, and the 

discrepancies could not be explained. In these cases, the page that presented the details was used 

so that a fuller picture could be presented, including the name of award, number of awards, and the 

total dollar amounts. 

Client Treatment Information: Client treatment information was taken from three data sources: The 

SAPT Block Grant application, TEDS, and NSDUH. The SAPT Block Grant application asks States 

to report the number of client admissions by primary diagnosis and type of care (Form 7a). On this 

form, States are asked to report the number of clients admitted and served using SAPT Block Grant 

funds. However, States’ monies are generally blended with funds from other sources, making it 

difficult to get an accurate client count by funding source. Therefore, the number indicated gives a 

good idea, but not necessarily an exact count, of the number treated with Block Grant expenditures. 

TEDS data used to determine the rates of co-occurring disorder among the treatment clients have 

some inherent limitations4

. Several specific limitations might influence Inventory findings: 

• Only 37 States reported information on whether their treatment clients had a presenting 

psychiatric problem. Since not all States reported on this issue, precise State estimates were 

unavailable on the rate of co-occurring disorders. However, through calculating (with 

imputation), fairly accurate estimations were developed of co-occurring disorders for all 

States. 

• TEDS consists of treatment admissions, and therefore may include multiple admissions 

for the same client. Thus, any statistics derived from the data will represent admissions, 

not clients. 

• The number and client mix of TEDS records depends, to some extent, on external 

factors, including the availability of public funds. In States with higher funding levels, a 

larger percentage of the substance-abusing population may be admitted to treatment, 

including the less severely impaired and the less economically disadvantaged. 

• About half the States report data on all clients in facilities required to report to the State. 

However, some States report only those clients whose treatment is paid for with 

State/public funds. 

• States may include or exclude reporting by certain sectors of the treatment population, 

and these sectors may change over time. For example, treatment programs based in the 

criminal justice system may or may not be administered through the State SSA. 

4 For a complete discussion of limitations associated with TEDS data, see 

http://www.nationaloutcomemeasures.samhsa.gov/new_reserve/substance_info.asp 

795 
Appendix: D Inventory of State Profiles 

Detoxification facilities, which can generate large numbers of admissions, are not 

uniformly considered treatment facilities and are not uniformly reported by all States. 

• Public funding constraints may direct States to selectively target special populations -­

for example, pregnant women, adolescents, or the dually diagnosed. The 

representations of these populations in the data may vary accordingly. 

Because of these limitations, TEDS researchers indicate that State-to-State comparisons must 

be made with extreme caution. 

Interpreting these tables and comparing across States should be done cautiously and should 

take into account the many sources of variation detailed above. 

NSDUH data were used to determine the treatment gap for alcohol and other drugs for each State. 

This data source also has inherent limitations, including the following5

: 

• The data are self-reports of drug use, and their value depends on respondents' truthfulness 

and memory. Therefore, some underreporting and overreporting may have taken place. 

• Because the survey’s target population is defined as the noninstitutionalized civilian 

population of the United States, it excludes a small proportion (slightly less than 2 percent) of 

the population. The subpopulations excluded are members of the active-duty military and 

persons in institutional group quarters (such as hospitals, prisons, nursing homes, and 

treatment centers). If these groups’ drug use differs from that of the noninstitutionalized 

civilian population, NSDUH may provide slightly inaccurate estimates of drug use in the total 

population. 

• The estimates for treatment gap include the entire State population. While this calculation 

allows for comparisons across States, it may not give a true picture of the treatment gap 

among the target populations of single State agencies, which generally include the 

uninsured, indigent, and others with minimal means to pay for substance abuse treatment 

services. 

5 For a complete discussion of limitations associated with NSDUH data, see 

http://www.nationaloutcomemeasures.samhsa.gov/new_reserve/subs tance_info.asp 

796 
Appendix E: 

Rates of Psychological Problems in Combination with Alcohol and Other Drug Use of 

Treatment Clients, by State (TEDS 2002) 

State 

Alcohol Only Any Other Drugs Total 

Rate 

(%) N Std. Deviation 

Rate 

(%) N Std. Deviation 

Rate 

(%) N Std. Deviation 

Alabama 11.3 3,815 0.2553 11.6 15,681 0.2653 11.5 19,496 0.2634 

Alaska 19.8 2,705 0.3215 26.1 2,307 0.3812 22.7 5,012 0.3516 

Arizona 15.8 710 0.0601 18.8 1,801 0.0602 18.0 2,511 0.0617 

Arkansas 20.7 2,912 0.0758 23.3 10,884 0.0748 22.7 13,796 0.0757 

California 6.4 20,735 0.2449 4.5 191,102 0.2068 4.7 211,837 0.2109 

Colorado 7.3 48,639 0.2510 23.9 18,911 0.4218 11.9 67,550 0.3174 

Connecticut 18.9 8,206 0.0751 19.1 35,803 0.0749 19.0 44,009 0.0749 

Delaware 3.7 1,080 0.1788 3.6 5,719 0.1765 3.6 6,799 0.1769 

District of Columbia 5.5 640 0.2276 5.8 5,019 0.2338 5.8 5,659 0.2331 

Florida 20.1 19,697 0.3412 26.2 54,349 0.3994 24.6 74,046 0.3857 

Georgia 0.0 9,031 0.0020 0.0 23,179 0.0034 0.0 32,210 0.0031 

Hawaii 34.7 937 0.4341 25.8 5,484 0.3775 27.1 6,421 0.3875 

Idaho 23.0 1,077 0.4212 28.7 3,863 0.4523 27.4 4,940 0.4463 

Illinois 17.3 15,750 0.0721 18.1 61,743 0.0732 17.9 77,493 0.0731 

Indiana 17.7 8,025 0.0681 19.6 21,378 0.0681 19.1 29,403 0.0686 

Iowa 27.8 7,971 0.4479 35.3 19,090 0.4775 33.1 27,061 0.4702 

Kansas 22.2 2,726 0.4151 23.1 11,716 0.4212 22.9 14,442 0.4201 

Kentucky 36.9 5,624 0.4824 38.1 12,858 0.4855 37.7 18,482 0.4846 

Louisiana 0.2 4,402 0.0435 0.3 24,102 0.0496 0.3 28,504 0.0488 

Maine 24.9 4,635 0.4325 35.3 7,236 0.4774 31.2 11,871 0.4632 

Maryland 19.3 14,455 0.3828 24.7 56,194 0.4142 23.6 70,649 0.4086 

Massachusetts 32.0 12,115 0.4665 32.0 55,402 0.4663 32.0 67,517 0.4664 

Michigan 10.3 18,651 0.3038 12.4 45,706 0.3288 11.8 64,357 0.3219 

Minnesota 19.6 13,651 0.0757 21.7 24,414 0.0747 20.9 38,065 0.0757 

Mississippi 31.5 2,656 0.4566 28.4 8,237 0.4412 29.2 10,893 0.4452 

Missouri 16.3 9,845 0.3694 20.7 31,396 0.4048 19.6 41,241 0.3971 

Montana 17.3 2,112 0.0642 20.3 4,584 0.0657 19.4 6,696 0.0667 

Nebraska 17.6 3,206 0.0702 21.1 4,806 0.0749 19.7 8,012 0.0750 

Nevada 5.4 2,817 0.2246 10.5 7,687 0.3066 9.1 10,504 0.2878 

New Hampshire 10.5 1,616 0.2555 11.5 3,126 0.2532 11.2 4,742 0.2540 

New Jersey 6.6 8,626 0.2490 6.0 45,889 0.2370 6.1 54,515 0.2389 

New Mexico 16.1 805 0.3659 20.3 1,027 0.3999 18.5 1,832 0.3858 

New York 23.8 62,058 0.3455 25.7 242,929 0.3796 25.3 304,987 0.3730 

North Carolina 59.7 9,959 0.4905 54.2 20,086 0.4980 56.0 30,045 0.4962 

North Dakota 31.2 959 0.4632 37.8 2,288 0.4848 35.9 3,247 0.4794 

Ohio 23.0 13,836 0.4208 28.6 41,470 0.4514 27.2 55,306 0.4446 

797 
Appendix: E Inventory of State Profiles 

State 

Alcohol Only Any Other Drugs Total 

Rate 

(%) N Std. Deviation 

Rate 

(%) N Std. Deviation 

Rate 

(%) N Std. Deviation 

Oklahoma 41.7 4,020 0.4927 39.7 12,901 0.4890 40.1 16,921 0.4899 

Oregon 19.1 16,402 0.0725 22.6 33,981 0.0742 21.5 50,383 0.0755 

Pennsylvania 18.1 13,923 0.0671 19.5 44,334 0.0702 19.2 58,257 0.0698 

Rhode Island 25.4 2,640 0.4352 25.4 10,642 0.4351 25.4 13,282 0.4351 

South Carolina 4.5 11,381 0.2061 10.2 14,280 0.3027 7.7 25,661 0.2658 

South Dakota 18.9 2,933 0.0675 21.6 4,050 0.0651 20.5 6,983 0.0674 

Tennessee 5.1 1,671 0.2198 6.6 5,514 0.2477 6.2 7,185 0.2416 

Texas 19.7 5,092 0.0819 19.9 29,698 0.0824 19.9 34,790 0.0823 

Utah 29.0 2,173 0.4278 31.7 8,994 0.4332 31.2 11,167 0.4323 

Vermont 18.2 1,629 0.0659 21.3 3,100 0.0617 20.2 4,729 0.0648 

Virginia 18.2 4,446 0.2526 18.4 17,825 0.2593 18.4 22,271 0.2580 

Washington 15.5 7,067 0.3386 24.3 34,862 0.4133 22.8 41,929 0.4030 

West Virginia 68.1 1,036 0.4665 63.5 1,521 0.4817 65.3 2,557 0.4760 

Wisconsin 19.2 10,437 0.0732 20.6 8,615 0.0716 19.9 19,052 0.0728 

Wyoming 17.8 2,107 0.0664 20.5 3,033 0.0648 19.4 5,140 0.0667 

Total 18.1 428,842 0.3135 19.7 1,342,729 0.3353 19.3 1,771,571 0.3302 

798 
799 

Needing But Not Receiving Treatment for Alcohol Use in Past Year, by Age Group and State: Percentages, Annual Averages 

Based on 2002 and 2003, NSDUH 

Alabama 5.81 (4.80 – 7.01) 4.65 (3.51 – 6.13) 13.20 (11.00 – 15.77) 4.65 (3.54 – 6.09) 

Alaska 7.76 (6.45 – 9.32) 5.37 (4.15 – 6.93) 18.23 (15.61 – 21.18) 6.44 (4.91 – 8.40) 

Arizona 9.02 (7.58 – 10.71) 7.16 (5.52 – 9.24) 18.75 (15.94 – 21.92) 7.54 (5.88 – 9.63) 

Arkansas 7.33 (6.14 – 8.73) 6.08 (4.72 – 7.80) 17.14 (14.49 – 20.17) 5.76 (4.47 – 7.41) 

California 6.95 (6.27 – 7.71) 5.05 (4.28 – 5.95) 14.54 (13.08 – 16.13) 5.84 (5.03 – 6.77) 

Colorado 8.55 (7.26 – 10.03) 6.24 (4.88 – 7.95) 20.00 (17.08 – 23.27) 6.87 (5.42 – 8.66) 

Connecticut 6.44 (5.33 – 7.77) 5.24 (4.00 – 6.85) 18.16 (15.53 – 21.13) 4.90 (3.68 – 6.50) 

Delaware 7.09 (5.97 – 8.41) 5.50 (4.26 – 7.07) 17.19 (14.70 – 20.00) 5.56 (4.32 – 7.13) 

District of 

Columbia 8.88 (7.37 – 10.66) 2.48 (1.69 – 3.64) 16.09 (13.40 – 19.20) 8.03 (6.28 – 10.20) 

Florida 6.47 (5.79 – 7.22) 4.93 (4.20 – 5.79) 16.46 (14.92 – 18.13) 5.22 (4.45 – 6.12) 

Georgia 7.07 (5.91 – 8.45) 4.68 (3.54 – 6.17) 14.94 (12.45 – 17.82) 5.99 (4.66 – 7.66) 

Hawaii 7.31 (6.08 – 8.78) 6.19 (4.67 – 8.16) 17.85 (14.97 – 21.14) 5.79 (4.41 – 7.56) 

Idaho 8.18 (6.96 – 9.60) 7.69 (6.07 – 9.69) 18.00 (15.36 – 20.98) 6.23 (4.85 – 7.97) 

Illinois 8.31 (7.54 – 9.15) 5.84 (5.04 – 6.76) 18.98 (17.38 – 20.68) 6.77 (5.86 – 7.81) 

Indiana 7.15 (6.02 – 8.47) 5.51 (4.26 – 7.10) 18.15 (15.46 – 21.21) 5.36 (4.14 – 6.91) 

Iowa 7.64 (6.47 – 9.01) 7.01 (5.55 – 8.82) 18.20 (15.45 – 21.32) 5.72 (4.45 – 7.32) 

Kansas 6.85 (5.75 – 8.15) 4.98 (3.71 – 6.67) 17.70 (15.06 – 20.69) 5.02 (3.80 – 6.60) 

Kentucky 5.90 (4.82 – 7.20) 5.21 (4.01 – 6.76) 14.15 (11.81 – 16.86) 4.55 (3.39 – 6.07) 

Louisiana 7.34 (6.20 – 8.66) 5.09 (3.94 – 6.55) 16.67 (14.15 – 19.53) 5.81 (4.51 – 7.45) 

Maine 6.59 (5.46 – 7.94) 5.43 (4.23 – 6.95) 17.24 (14.62 – 20.22) 5.15 (3.92 – 6.73) 

Maryland 7.09 (5.91 – 8.49) 5.19 (3.99 – 6.71) 15.17 (12.60 – 18.16) 6.08 (4.73 – 7.78) 

Total 7.19 5.59 16.89 5.73 

Total 12–17 18–25 26 or Older 

95% Prediction 95% Prediction 95% Prediction 95% Prediction 

State Estimate Interval Estimate Interval Estimate Interval Estimate Interval 

AGE GROUP (Years) 

Appendix F:
Appendix: F Inventory of State Profiles 

800 

Needing But Not Receiving Treatment for Alcohol Use in Past Year, by Age Group and State: Percentages, Annual Averages 

Based on 2002 and 2003, NSDUH 

Massachusetts 7.86 (6.58 – 9.37) 7.15 (5.62 – 9.07) 18.08 (15.29 – 21.26) 6.31 (4.89 – 8.12) 

Michigan 8.05 (7.26 – 8.91) 6.22 (5.39 – 7.16) 17.31 (15.86 – 18.86) 6.70 (5.76 – 7.78) 

Minnesota 8.14 (6.91 – 9.58) 6.55 (5.14 – 8.31) 19.75 (16.92 – 22.93) 6.26 (4.91 – 7.95) 

Mississippi 6.17 (5.08 – 7.47) 3.47 (2.58 – 4.66) 13.69 (11.35 – 16.42) 5.06 (3.83 – 6.65) 

Missouri 7.63 (6.48 – 8.97) 6.09 (4.80 – 7.69) 19.32 (16.61 – 22.36) 5.78 (4.51 – 7.38) 

Montana 9.99 (8.43 – 11.80) 10.37 (8.31 – 12.87) 22.55 (19.64 – 25.74) 7.69 (5.91 – 9.95) 

Nebraska 9.51 (8.14 – 11.09) 8.42 (6.70 – 10.55) 23.20 (20.14 – 26.57) 7.03 (5.49 – 8.96) 

Nevada 7.83 (6.49 – 9.40) 6.80 (5.35 – 8.61) 15.54 (13.02 – 18.44) 6.75 (5.24 – 8.66) 

New Hampshire 8.64 (7.28 – 10.22) 7.33 (5.77 – 9.28) 22.30 (19.37 – 25.53) 6.69 (5.17 – 8.62) 

New Jersey 5.81 (4.77 – 7.06) 4.97 (3.75 – 6.56) 15.91 (13.26 – 18.96) 4.48 (3.35 – 5.96) 

New Mexico 9.40 (7.87 – 11.20) 7.46 (5.73 – 9.66) 21.52 (18.32 – 25.11) 7.45 (5.68 – 9.71) 

New York 6.77 (6.02 – 7.62) 5.36 (4.56 – 6.29) 15.53 (14.06 – 17.11) 5.50 (4.62 – 6.54) 

North Carolina 6.31 (5.22 – 7.60) 5.34 (4.07 – 6.96) 16.04 (13.45 – 19.02) 4.80 (3.61 – 6.36) 

North Dakota 9.91 (8.51 – 11.51) 9.46 (7.47 – 11.91) 25.71 (22.41 – 29.31) 6.66 (5.11 – 8.64) 

Ohio 7.47 (6.73 – 8.28) 5.59 (4.83 – 6.47) 17.69 (16.21 – 19.27) 5.97 (5.10 – 6.97) 

Oklahoma 6.61 (5.50 – 7.93) 5.41 (4.16 – 7.00) 16.77 (14.02 – 19.94) 4.83 (3.64 – 6.38) 

Oregon 6.93 (5.82 – 8.23) 5.78 (4.53 – 7.35) 16.86 (14.35 – 19.71) 5.40 (4.19 – 6.93) 

Pennsylvania 6.54 (5.87 – 7.28) 5.20 (4.46 – 6.07) 17.60 (16.10 – 19.20) 4.93 (4.15 – 5.85) 

Rhode Island 9.01 (7.57 – 10.69) 6.28 (4.82 – 8.16) 23.85 (20.54 – 27.51) 6.65 (5.04 – 8.72) 

South Carolina 7.38 (6.15 – 8.83) 4.50 (3.39 – 5.96) 18.58 (15.78 – 21.75) 5.78 (4.41 – 7.54) 

South Dakota 9.59 (8.24 – 11.13) 8.55 (6.75 – 10.77) 24.04 (20.93 – 27.45) 6.92 (5.41 – 8.82) 

Total 12–17 18–25 26 or Older 

95% Prediction 95% Prediction 95% Prediction 95% Prediction 

State Estimate Interval Estimate Interval Estimate Interval Estimate Interval 

AGE GROUP (Years) 
Inventory of State Profiles Appendix: F 

801 

Needing But Not Receiving Treatment for Alcohol Use in Past Year, by Age Group and State: Percentages, Annual Averages 

Based on 2002 and 2003, NSDUH 

AGE GROUP (Years) 

Total 12–17 18–25 26 or Older 

State Estimate 

95% Prediction 

Interval Estimate 

95% Prediction 

Interval Estimate 

95% Prediction 

Interval Estimate 

95% Prediction 

Interval 

Tennessee 5.70 (4.67 – 6.95) 4.62 (3.49 – 6.08) 14.41 (11.76 – 17.54) 4.38 (3.28 – 5.82) 

Texas 7.43 (6.75 – 8.17) 5.65 (4.81 – 6.63) 16.62 (15.19 – 18.15) 5.91 (5.10 – 6.84) 

Utah 6.33 (5.22 – 7.65) 4.71 (3.49 – 6.32) 12.89 (10.49 – 15.75) 4.71 (3.47 – 6.37) 

Vermont 7.30 (6.15 – 8.64) 6.43 (5.05 – 8.15) 18.33 (15.59 – 21.43) 5.51 (4.26 – 7.10) 

Virginia 7.08 (5.94 – 8.43) 6.01 (4.62 – 7.78) 17.15 (14.61 – 20.01) 5.59 (4.31 – 7.23) 

Washington 7.00 (5.85 – 8.34) 5.70 (4.43 – 7.31) 17.79 (15.15 – 20.78) 5.33 (4.08 – 6.94) 

West Virginia 6.17 (5.13 – 7.40) 6.31 (4.94 – 8.04) 15.53 (13.05 – 18.38) 4.64 (3.52 – 6.08) 

Wisconsin 8.92 (7.60 – 10.44) 7.00 (5.42 – 8.98) 22.25 (19.34 – 25.46) 6.80 (5.34 – 8.62) 

Wyoming 8.71 (7.43 – 10.19) 7.13 (5.62 – 9.00) 23.02 (19.97 – 26.37) 6.22 (4.82 – 7.99) 

NOTE: Needing But Not Receiving Treatment refers to respondents classified as needing treatment for alcohol, but not receiving treatment for an alcohol 

problem at a specialty facility (i.e., drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities [inpatient or outpatient], hospitals [inpatient only], and mental health centers). 

NOTE: Estimates are based on a survey-weighted hierarchical Bayes estimat ion approach, and the 95 percent prediction (credible) intervals are 

generated by Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. 

Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002 and 2003. 
803 

Needing But Not Receiving Treatment for Illicit Drug Use in Past Year, by Age Group and State: Percentages, Annual 

Averages Based on 2002 and 2003, NSDUH 

AGE GROUP (Years) 

Total 12–17 18–25 26 or Older 

State Estimate 

95% Prediction 

Interval Estimate 

95% Prediction 

Interval Estimate 

95% Prediction 

Interval Estimate 

95% Prediction 

Interval 

Total 2.66 5.00 7.45 1.50 

Alabama 2.22 (1.80 – 2.73) 4.25 (3.18 – 5.66) 5.94 (4.59 – 7.67) 1.28 (0.89 – 1.84) 

Alaska 3.13 (2.53 – 3.85) 5.55 (4.26 – 7.21) 8.08 (6.38 – 10.19) 1.83 (1.22 – 2.74) 

Arizona 3.21 (2.59 – 3.96) 6.65 (5.04 – 8.72) 7.80 (6.12 – 9.90) 1.88 (1.28 – 2.74) 

Arkansas 2.67 (2.17 – 3.28) 4.78 (3.67 – 6.20) 7.51 (5.84 – 9.61) 1.52 (1.06 – 2.19) 

California 2.81 (2.46 – 3.20) 4.57 (3.84 – 5.44) 7.33 (6.28 – 8.54) 1.72 (1.35 – 2.19) 

Colorado 3.04 (2.51 – 3.69) 4.72 (3.58 – 6.22) 9.68 (7.72 – 12.09) 1.66 (1.15 – 2.38) 

Connecticut 2.81 (2.24 – 3.52) 5.05 (3.82 – 6.64) 8.19 (6.38 – 10.46) 1.73 (1.17 – 2.56) 

Delaware 2.60 (2.11 – 3.21) 4.50 (3.42 – 5.91) 6.70 (5.14 – 8.70) 1.65 (1.16 – 2.34) 

District of 

Columbia 3.02 (2.33 – 3.90) 3.80 (2.74 – 5.25) 8.13 (6.23 – 10.55) 1.94 (1.26 – 2.99) 

Florida 2.83 (2.47 – 3.24) 5.20 (4.44 – 6.09) 7.76 (6.75 – 8.90) 1.83 (1.45 – 2.32) 

Georgia 2.55 (2.07 – 3.14) 4.79 (3.65 – 6.27) 5.92 (4.52 – 7.72) 1.62 (1.13 – 2.30) 

Hawaii 2.63 (2.06 – 3.34) 5.47 (4.10 – 7.27) 7.73 (5.91 – 10.05) 1.43 (0.89 – 2.29) 

Idaho 2.75 (2.28 – 3.32) 5.82 (4.49 – 7.50) 7.21 (5.69 – 9.10) 1.34 (0.91 – 1.97) 

Illinois 2.48 (2.19 – 2.81) 5.01 (4.28 – 5.86) 6.96 (6.04 – 8.02) 1.34 (1.04 – 1.72) 

Indiana 2.52 (2.05 – 3.10) 4.14 (3.06 – 5.56) 6.96 (5.42 – 8.91) 1.47 (1.03 – 2.11) 

Iowa 2.36 (1.89 – 2.96) 4.18 (3.08 – 5.64) 6.00 (4.56 – 7.85) 1.43 (0.96 – 2.12) 

Kansas 2.20 (1.77 – 2.72) 3.88 (2.85 – 5.26) 6.29 (4.84 – 8.12) 1.16 (0.78 – 1.72) 

Kentucky 2.56 (2.09 – 3.14) 5.02 (3.84 – 6.52) 6.98 (5.43 – 8.94) 1.49 (1.04 – 2.13) 

Louisiana 2.89 (2.32 – 3.58) 4.25 (3.16 – 5.71) 6.77 (5.30 – 8.60) 1.90 (1.32 – 2.73) 

Maine 2.84 (2.32 – 3.47) 5.35 (4.11 – 6.95) 8.95 (7.17 – 11.11) 1.61 (1.11 – 2.34) 

Maryland 2.68 (2.20 – 3.27) 4.96 (3.78 – 6.48) 8.62 (6.80 – 10.86) 1.43 (0.99 – 2.07) 

Appendix G: 
Appendix: G Inventory of State Profiles 

804 

Needing But Not Receiving Treatment for Illicit Drug Use in Past Year, by Age Group and State: Percentages, Annual 

Averages Based on 2002 and 2003, NSDUH 

AGE GROUP (Years) 

Total 12–17 18–25 26 or Older 

95% Prediction 95% Prediction 95% Prediction 95% Prediction 

State Estimate Interval Estimate Interval Estimate Interval Estimate Interval 

Massachusetts 3.12 (2.57 – 3.80) 6.08 (4.67 – 7.89) 10.41 (8.23 – 13.09) 1.60 (1.11 – 2.31) 

Michigan 2.60 (2.29 – 2.94) 5.88 (5.05 – 6.83) 7.19 (6.28 – 8.23) 1.33 (1.02 – 1.73) 

Minnesota 2.57 (2.10 – 3.14) 5.46 (4.17 – 7.11) 6.97 (5.40 – 8.95) 1.36 (0.93 – 1.99) 

Mississippi 2.52 (2.03 – 3.12) 3.92 (2.89 – 5.29) 6.26 (4.80 – 8.13) 1.55 (1.07 – 2.24) 

Missouri 2.78 (2.29 – 3.38) 4.66 (3.58 – 6.04) 8.01 (6.36 – 10.04) 1.60 (1.13 – 2.26) 

Montana 2.90 (2.39 – 3.52) 6.42 (4.95 – 8.29) 8.02 (6.34 – 10.10) 1.49 (1.02 – 2.17) 

Nebraska 2.64 (2.15 – 3.24) 5.36 (4.04 – 7.08) 6.25 (4.79 – 8.11) 1.55 (1.07 – 2.23) 

Nevada 2.69 (2.19 – 3.31) 5.40 (4.09 – 7.10) 7.75 (6.06 – 9.86) 1.54 (1.06 – 2.21) 

New Hampshire 3.01 (2.48 – 3.65) 6.54 (5.08 – 8.38) 10.57 (8.48 – 13.09) 1.35 (0.89 – 2.03) 

New Jersey 2.27 (1.84 – 2.80) 4.64 (3.55 – 6.04) 7.07 (5.46 – 9.11) 1.28 (0.88 – 1.85) 

New Mexico 3.50 (2.81 – 4.36) 5.64 (4.13 – 7.67) 10.19 (7.92 – 13.01) 1.92 (1.27 – 2.90) 

New York 2.74 (2.40 – 3.11) 4.98 (4.24 – 5.84) 8.38 (7.34 – 9.56) 1.52 (1.17 – 1.96) 

North Carolina 2.62 (2.11 – 3.25) 5.21 (3.94 – 6.85) 6.65 (5.12 – 8.59) 1.60 (1.11 – 2.31) 

North Dakota 2.59 (2.12 – 3.17) 5.37 (4.10 – 7.00) 6.90 (5.37 – 8.82) 1.31 (0.88 – 1.93) 

Ohio 2.61 (2.32 – 2.94) 5.24 (4.49 – 6.11) 7.76 (6.80 – 8.85) 1.36 (1.06 – 1.75) 

Oklahoma 2.74 (2.23 – 3.36) 4.91 (3.75 – 6.42) 7.25 (5.61 – 9.32) 1.56 (1.06 – 2.28) 

Oregon 2.88 (2.36 – 3.51) 5.07 (3.90 – 6.56) 9.17 (7.35 – 11.38) 1.53 (1.06 – 2.21) 

Pennsylvania 2.24 (1.96 – 2.55) 4.80 (4.08 – 5.64) 7.21 (6.24 – 8.32) 1.11 (0.83 – 1.47) 

Rhode Island 3.18 (2.60 – 3.88) 5.54 (4.13 – 7.40) 11.23 (8.98 – 13.97) 1.42 (0.93 – 2.14) 

South Carolina 2.43 (1.97 – 2.99) 4.32 (3.21 – 5.79) 7.31 (5.66 – 9.40) 1.31 (0.90 – 1.90) 

South Dakota 2.37 (1.93 – 2.91) 5.08 (3.82 – 6.73) 6.20 (4.80 – 7.98) 1.21 (0.80 – 1.81) 

Tennessee 2.54 (2.03 – 3.17) 4.43 (3.30 – 5.91) 6.71 (5.03 – 8.89) 1.59 (1.10 – 2.31) 

Texas 2.47 (2.17 – 2.80) 4.91 (4.16 – 5.78) 6.39 (5.50 – 7.42) 1.31 (1.00 – 1.72) 

Utah 2.69 (2.16 – 3.33) 4.22 (3.08 – 5.75) 5.42 (4.12 – 7.09) 1.59 (1.08 – 2.36) 

Vermont 3.39 (2.83 – 4.07) 7.19 (5.63 – 9.13) 11.52 (9.38 – 14.07) 1.49 (0.99 – 2.23) 

Virginia 2.69 (2.19 – 3.30) 5.51 (4.17 – 7.24) 7.95 (6.28 – 10.01) 1.46 (0.99 – 2.14) 
Inventory of State Profiles Appendix: G 

805 

Needing But Not Receiving Treatment for Illicit Drug Use in Past Year, by Age Group and State: Percentages, Annual 

Averages Based on 2002 and 2003, NSDUH 

AGE GROUP (Years) 

Total 12–17 18–25 26 or Older 

State Estimate 

95% Prediction 

Interval Estimate 

95% Prediction 

Interval Estimate 

95% Prediction 

Interval Estimate 

95% Prediction 

Interval 

Washington 3.08 (2.56 – 3.71) 5.76 (4.43 – 7.47) 10.00 (8.01 – 12.42) 1.53 (1.06 – 2.19) 

West Virginia 2.46 (2.04 – 2.97) 5.29 (4.06 – 6.86) 8.37 (6.64 – 10.49) 1.18 (0.82 – 1.69) 

Wisconsin 2.28 (1.89 – 2.75) 5.67 (4.28 – 7.48) 6.84 (5.32 – 8.74) 0.99 (0.68 – 1.44) 

Wyoming 2.46 (1.98 – 3.06) 4.23 (3.17 – 5.62) 7.82 (6.04 – 10.06) 1.19 (0.78 – 1.81) 

NOTE: Needing But Not Receiving Treatment refers to respondents classified as needing treatment for illicit drugs, but not receiving 

treatment for an illicit drug problem at a specialty facility (i.e., drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities [inpatient or outpatient], 

hospitals [inpatient only], and mental health centers). Illicit Drugs include marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), inhalants, 

hallucinogens, heroin, or prescription-type psychotherapeutic (nonmedical use). 

NOTE: Estimates are based on a survey-weighted hierarchical Bayes estimation approach, and the 95 percent prediction (credible) 

intervals are generated by Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. 

Source: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002 and 2003. 

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k3State/EstimatesTables.htm#tab19 
Appendix H: 

Resource Development Activities for Prevention and Treatment
 

Highlights from States and the District of Columbia
 

Planning and Needs Assessment 

Conducting Needs Assessments 

Examples of States’ activities related to ATOD prevention and treatment needs assessment include 

the following: 

•	 Using the Illinois Household Study, the Department of Human Services Automated 

Reporting and Training System (DARTS, the State’s primary client data system), and other 

sources, DHS evaluates regional trends, census data, economic data, admissions, and other 

information to assess treatment needs and to plan and budget treatment services. Each 

year, the State also compiles a comprehensive data book evaluating alcohol and drug trends 

and variables affecting usage and treatment needs and outcomes. DASA recently completed 

a 3-year Treatment Needs Assessment Project. One project component was a Social 

Indicator Study, through which all needs assessment data dating from 1996 were converted 

into a client-centered database. 

•	 Indiana uses PREV-STATTM, a tool developed and maintained at Indiana UniversityBloomington, to assess prevention needs throughout the State. Using social, demographic, 

and geographic data, PREV-STATTM creates a statistical picture that can be as broad as the 

entire State or as specific as a particular neighborhood. Indiana’s use of this tool allows for 

precision planning of prevention programs by matching population needs with appropriate 

prevention services, promoting more effective allocation of limited resources. 

•	 Round II of Maine’s State Treatment Needs Assessment Project and the final Integration 

Study have provided very useful data and reports. In particular, a series of maps 

representing Maine’s treatment system, overlaid with the need by ASAM level, has proved to 

be particularly effective and useful. 

•	 Massachusetts obtains needs assessment data from a variety of sources. These studies 

include the MassCaLL team, which looks at social indicator measures of substance abuse; 

the Criminal Justice Needs Assessment study; the Treatment Needs Among the Elderly in 

Primary Care Settings; the Substance Abuse Surveillance Network Study; the Treatment 

Needs Among IDUs Study; Triennial School Survey; the Youth Health Survey; and BRFSS 

Telephone Survey. 

•	 Tennessee is engaged in “community diagnosis,” a planning process across Tennessee’s 

95 counties. Through this process, community-based agencies assess local healthcare 

needs, including substance abuse prevention and treatment needs, as well as the social, 

economic, and political realities affecting the local delivery of services. 

In addition, the Tennessee SSA contracted with the Department of Health to develop the 

Tennessee Social Indicator Study, which is an ongoing effort to collect and analyze countylevel risk and protective factors for adolescent substance abuse. From these data, the SSA 

is able to identify county- and regional-level risk factors and incorporate them into needs 

assessment and prevention planning. Tennessee also completed the Tennessee Prevention 

Needs Assessment in FY 2003. 

807 
Appendix: H	 Inventory of State Profiles 

•	 Utah conducted a Prison Inmate study, as well as the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring study 

as part of its comprehensive needs assessment. 

Developing ATOD Prevention and Treatment Plans 

Examples of States with a legislative mandate for planning include the following: 

•	 The Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Policy Council, a legislatively mandated public/private 

stakeholder body, developed the Statewide Interagency Substance Abuse Plan (SISAP) to 

guide Connecticut’s prevention and treatment service delivery system. The SISAP identifies 

strategies for developing and implementing a comprehensive, statewide multiagency 

blueprint for substance abuse prevention, treatment, and enforcement. 

•	 The Florida Legislature recently created the Florida Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Corporation, Inc., a nonprofit entity comprising professionals and consumers appointed by 

the Governor, Senate, and House of Representatives. The State planning process will 

integrally involve the corporation in identifying service needs, framing strategic directions, 

and developing recommendations to the legislature regarding staffing and funding resource 

needs. 

Examples of States that have planning processes developed by the Governor’s office or with active 

involvement of that office include the following: 

•	 The Maryland Governor’s Cabinet Council on Crime Control and Juvenile Justice prepares 

an annual crime control and prevention plan. The council’s framework is an extensive 

committee and task force structure with membership that ensures the input and involvement 

of citizens, providers, human service professionals, business leaders, local government 

representatives, and legislators. 

•	 The Ohio SSA prepared a comprehensive 5-year statewide alcohol and drug addiction 

services plan that provides the State and its system of boards and local providers with 

strategic direction. A wide variety of constituents representing multiple service systems (e.g., 

education, health, child welfare, housing) as well as departments and agencies assisted in 

developing the plan. The Governor’s Advisory Council on Alcohol and Drug Addiction 

Services, comprising State departments, local boards, providers, families, and the judiciary, 

reviewed and approved the plan. 

•	 In Oregon, under the guidance of the Governor’s Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

Programs, the SSA initiates and facilitates State- and local-level planning for substance 

abuse prevention and treatment services. Planning begins with county profiles that identify 

specific needs for alcohol and drug prevention and treatment services and describes 

prevention and treatment strategies. The planning process involves meetings with various 

State agencies, local committees, councils, contractors, and advocates. Participants in the 

meetings develop strategies, set priorities, and establish criteria for delivering services. 

Many States require substate entities to develop plans, generally at a regional or local level. States 

with a formal regional planning system include the following: 

•	 In Georgia, regional boards are responsible for assessing local needs, planning services, 

and providing a consumer and family voice in decisions about priorities. Regional 

coordinators and boards work together to develop a formal plan that conveys the region’s 

needs and expectations for improving services. These plans are completed in time to 

influence State-level budget priorities and other planning efforts and provide a foundation for 

development of an overall State plan for service that synthesizes and integrates the plans of 

all regional offices. 

•	 The Idaho SSA contracts with consultants and the University of Idaho to collect and analyze 

needs assessment data for the seven regions. Regional committees meet regularly to review 

808 
Inventory of State Profiles	 Appendix: H 

the needs assessment results along with data from other State agencies and conduct local 

planning relevant to local needs. 

•	 Oklahoma is divided into eight substate planning regions. Regional advisory boards are 

encouraged to merge with community coalitions to involve local persons in departmental 

planning. Coalitions develop needs assessments in their communities to identify resources 

and gaps in services. They prioritize the needs and develop plans on how best to fill those 

gaps. 

Some States have special planning processes established to address particular emerging needs or 

issues. Examples of such processes include the following: 

•	 Montana’s Governor’s Drug Policy Task Force, a 22-member group of legislators, providers, 

community advocates, law enforcement, and other community members, was convened in 

2002 and ended its work with a comprehensive report and related recommendations to the 

Governor and attorney general. The Governor reconvened the task force in June 2004 to 

address the methamphetamine issue Montana faces. 

•	 Wyoming developed a DUI strategic plan to address priorities for building statewide DUI 

infrastructure following the passage of the first DUI felony law in Wyoming, requiring thirdtime DUI offenders to receive substance abuse assessment. 

Evaluation Activities 

Evaluating Outcomes 

States evaluate treatment and rehabilitation programs to determine which types of treatment are 

effective for various populations with various addictions. Examples of States’ treatment evaluation 

activities include the following: 

•	 Arizona took part in the national Treatment Outcomes and Performance Pilot Study (TOPPS 

I), completed in 1999, and has been selected to participate in the TOPPS II study. This 

prospective study tracks outcomes among adults participating in substance abuse treatment. 

The SSA also recently conducted an evaluation on the effects of a Social Model 

Detoxification in two successful pilot programs funded by the State tobacco tax. Findings 

from these initiatives will be incorporated into future evaluations of Arizona services. 

•	 Kentucky’s SSA contracts to conduct a substance abuse treatment outcome study on an 

annual basis. Baseline data are collected by clinicians during intake, and clients who consent 

to followup interviews are contacted 12 months after treatment to assess change after 

treatment. Followup findings are published yearly using a sample of about 20 percent of 

consenting clients who are selected randomly within a sample frame stratified by region of 

the State. The State uses these data to evaluate the overall outcomes of treatment and to 

estimate cost offsets from treatment. These data are reported to the Governor and State 

legislature annually. 

•	 In Tennessee, the Institute for Substance Abuse Treatment Evaluation (I-SATE) conducts 

outcome evaluation research to determine the efficacy of alcohol and drug treatment 

outcomes throughout Tennessee. A partnership between the SSA and the University of 

Memphis, I-SATE produces reports allowing practitioners and policymakers to evaluate 

treatment protocols and funding streams. The SSA also supports confidential databases that 

allow local treatment service providers to enter client treatment and outcome data for 

evaluation purposes. 

Evaluating outcomes for prevention strategies and programs is challenging, and many States are in 

the early stages of monitoring such outcomes. Examples of State systems that monitor outcomes 

include the following: 

809 
Appendix: H	 Inventory of State Profiles 

•	 Illinois partners with the Center for Prevention Research and Development (CPRD) at the 

University of Illinois to evaluate the statewide substance abuse prevention system. Through 

a CSAP grant, CPRD is helping the SSA integrate a data-driven planning, implementation, 

and evaluation process into prevention initiatives. A Web-based management information 

system called OnTrack provides real-time reports on services delivered to local prevention 

managers as well as policymakers. 

•	 Indiana requires all local prevention providers to measure participant-centered outcomes 

through pretest and posttest instruments and surveys. 

•	 South Carolina monitors outcome measures for prevention services and is developing a 

statewide prevention outcome evaluation system, based on core measures from the 

Governor’s Comprehensive Strategy for Youth Substance Abuse Prevention. 

•	 The Tennessee Alcohol and Drug Prevention Outcome Longitudinal Evaluation (TADPOLE) 

is an evaluation system that measures the outcomes of State-funded alcohol and drug 

prevention programs for youth and adolescents between ages 8 and 19. TADPOLE uses two 

self-report survey instruments: (1) the Student Attitudinal Inventory for youth and adolescents 

in grades 6 to 12 and (2) the Children’s Self-Concept Attitudinal Inventory for youth and 

adolescents in grades 3 to 6. 

Computerized Management Information Systems 

Examples of administrative databases, including Web-enabled databases, include the following: 

•	 Kentucky’s Regional Prevention Centers report their activities and outcomes into the SSA’s 

Web-based data system. Staff then monitor the database entries and provide a monthly 

report to each center. Annually, Substance Abuse Prevention Program staff review the data 

and calculate performance measures regarding delivery of priority services and achievement 

of outcomes. 

•	 The data in Maryland’s Outlook and Outcomes reflect the status of substance abuse 

treatment, intervention, and prevention programs in Maryland; the services they deliver; and 

the populations they serve. Data collected through the tracking of patients who have entered 

the treatment system provide a rich repository of information on activity and treatment 

outcomes in the statewide treatment network. The identification of these trends and patterns 

leads to long-term planning to meet the population needs and to outcome measures that 

ensure high-quality treatment and fiscal accountability. 

•	 Minnesota is a Federal pilot State for the Minimum Data Set Version 3—a Web-based data 

collection and report system that enables providers, substate entities, and State agencies to 

uniformly collect and analyze prevention services data. 

•	 In Oklahoma, information on treatment clients and client services is maintained in the 

Integrated Client Information System (ICIS) database. Services are linked to client 

characteristics, and clients are tracked across agencies and over time. ICIS data provide 

facilities and program staff with up-to-date performance indicator information. 

•	 Pennsylvania counties use the Performance Based Prevention System (PBPS) to track the 

provision of prevention services and connect them with identified goals and actual outcomes. 

PBPS has become a main tool in the SSA’s efforts to provide performance-based substance 

abuse services. In addition, the SSA relies on the Client Information System, a statewide 

computer application that uses the Federal Minimum Data Sets, as part of the evaluation 

process. 

•	 The Texas Behavioral Health Integrated Provider System (BHIPS) is a Web-based computer 

system for SSA-funded providers that support a case management service delivery system. 

The SSA developed this system that captures demographic, service, and clinical data about 

substance abuse treatment patients, tracking their utilization of services and progress as well 

810 
Inventory of State Profiles	 Appendix: H 

as providing information for State and Federal reporting requirements. In addition, it allows 

the sharing of valuable client data between providers and networks across the State. 

Prevention providers also use BHIPS to report the numbers of persons reached in their 

prevention strategies, the strategies used, and the number of students who completed the 

program successfully. 

Other Methods for Monitoring Strategies and Programs 

In addition to using administrative databases to monitor programs, States employ other strategies to 

determine whether their providers are delivering high-quality services. These mechanisms include 

contract and fiscal monitoring, regular onsite visits, review of treatment case record, certification and 

inspection, independent peer review, and compliance reviews. Examples of specific monitoring and 

evaluation activities undertaken by States include the following: 

•	 Alaska’s Safety and Quality Assurance Program provides clinical chart reviews to agencies 

and evaluates recipient records for standard adherence, service quality, and professional 

clinical practices. 

•	 The Hawaii SSA conducts onsite program and fiscal monitoring annually of both treatment 

and prevention programs to ensure contract compliance and appropriate provision of 

services. The SSA’s monitoring protocols include detailed sections on the administrative 

policies and procedures, service and client records, and other documentation that programs 

must maintain. 

•	 Nevada employs several mechanisms to ensure that funded programs comply with the 

conditions of their award and negotiated scope of work. Each funded program must be 

certified by the State before receiving funding and must sign subgrant award documents 

specifying the type of services to be provided and specific requirements of the program. 

Program compliance monitoring takes place annually and focuses on administrative, 

programmatic, and fiscal activities to ensure that programs are meeting both State and 

Federal requirements. 

•	 New Jersey supports a peer review process that uses credentialed professionals from the 

Addiction Treatment Providers of New Jersey organization to ensure the quality of care that 

is delivered to substance abuse patients and to improve the system of care. The peer review 

process includes a review of client record data to assess the process of screening, 

assessment, and treatment planning and allows the State to identify trends and issues 

related to quality, effectiveness, and appropriateness of treatment services. In addition, the 

staff’s treatment knowledge, skill levels, and attitude are analyzed by a survey questionnaire. 

•	 Pennsylvania program monitoring staff conduct week-long quality assurance assessments 

of each SCA every 18 months, as well as review each SCA’s required documentation to 

ensure that SCA services are meeting client needs as well as BDAP requirements. 

•	 The Texas SSA uses a performance-based risk assessment process to identify contractors 

at high risk of delivering poor-quality services and implements appropriate interventions to 

increase compliance and service quality. 

Training and Technical Assistance Activities 

Examples of State collaboration with regional CAPTs and ATTCs include the following: 

•	 The Idaho Educators of Addiction Studies (IDEAS!) provides distance-learning opportunities 

in partnership with the Northwest Frontier ATTC and maintains a Web site. 

•	 Vermont’s SSA coordinates with the Northeast Center for the Application of Prevention 

Technology and the Vermont Consortium of Addiction Training to maximize training for 

prevention professionals on evidence-based prevention practices. 

811 
Appendix: H	 Inventory of State Profiles 

Examples of annual conference or institutes supported by State agencies include the following: 

•	 The Substance Abuse Directors Association of Alaska facilitates a 3-day Annual School on 

Addictions to provide training to addiction professionals, mental health counselors, social 

workers, rehabilitation counselors, treatment and prevention program directors, community 

leaders, students, and others. 

•	 Arizona’s SSA co-sponsors the Annual Summer School on Substance Abuse, which 

provides training on family-centered addictions treatment, adolescent substance abuse 

treatment, co-occurring disorders, drug courts, cultural competence, and other best-practice 

approaches. 

•	 The South Carolina SSA recently facilitated the 30th South Carolina School of Alcohol and 

Other Drug Studies. 

•	 Tennessee’s SSA sponsors the statewide annual Tennessee Advanced School on 

Addictions, during which national experts provide training on the current trends in prevention, 

intervention, and treatment. 

•	 The Texas annual institutes include tracks on successful engagement and retention 

strategies, cultural competence in healthcare settings, counseling essentials, administration, 

and drug courts. 

In addition to annual conferences and institutes, States support regular training sessions and 

workshops in a variety of prevention- and treatment-related areas, including the following: 

•	 Alabama trains its workforce on co-occurring disorders, infectious diseases, crisis 

intervention, case management, and community program standards, among other areas. 

•	 The SSA of the District of Columbia provides training on confidentiality, case management 

skills, anger management, relapse trauma, patient rights, universal precautions, best 

practices, and co-occurring disorders. Specifically, Addiction Prevention and Recovery 

Administration (APRA) provides conferences and workshops for youth workers. In addition, 

APRA supports the training of drug counselors in preparation for Certified Addiction 

Counselor certification and provides training to the faith-based community. 

•	 Georgia offers a range of training activities and educational services. The Prevention 

Credentialing Consortium Georgia, Inc., delivers prevention certification training to ensure 

standards of excellence in the field. 

•	 In Kentucky, many training sessions are provided by the Prevention Academy and the 

Kentucky School of Alcohol and Other Drug Studies. Prevention Academy targets Regional 

Prevention Center staff, early intervention specialists, and others with 2 weeks of intensive 

training in basic prevention concepts. The Kentucky School offers a 1-week event each 

summer with workshops on prevention and treatment topics. 

•	 Wyoming prevention providers are trained in the application of the risk and protective factors 

model of prevention, which includes training in community readiness, needs assessment, 

prioritizing goals, conducting resource assessments, and applying evidence-based practices 

followed by evaluation of prevention programs. 

States strengthen the prevention and treatment workforces through other methods, in addition to the 

above. Examples of other strategies include maintaining a library, working with the college and 

university system to develop the workforce, and using designated RADAR Network Centers to 

disseminate information and provide assistance. Examples of these strategies include the following: 

•	 Through the IDEAS! workgroup, Idaho is developing a minor degree curriculum for university 

students—and professionals—wishing to focus on substance abuse prevention. Significantly, 

the SSA recently implemented the Substance Abuse Prevention Program Standards, which 

812 
Inventory of State Profiles	 Appendix: H 

establish minimum requirements for staff qualifications, participant safety, program selection, 

and documentation. 

•	 The Indiana Prevention Resource Center (IPRC) at Indiana University is a statewide 

clearinghouse for prevention technical assistance and information about alcohol, tobacco, 

and drugs for Indiana. It is Indiana’s officially designated RADAR Center, and it maintains an 

online reference library and a lending library and provides technical assistance to 

communities on many topics, such as grant writing, program evaluation, and public health. 

Through the “Prevention Newsline,” IPRC delivers information on the latest trends and 

issues related to substance abuse prevention. 

•	 Recognizing a growing need, the South Carolina SSA sponsored a technical assistance 

conference for faith- and community-based organizations in 2004. 

•	 Recognizing the unique treatment needs of individuals dealing with co-occurring 

substance/alcohol use and mental disorders, Tennessee developed the Co-Occurring 

Disorders Project. Through the project, the SSA trains program administrators, counselors, 

and healthcare providers about the unique needs of these clients. 

•	 Vermont’s SSA participates in the Substance Abuse Workforce Development Committee, 

which comprises professionals from higher education, prevention, treatment, and recovery 

organizations, in addition to State government representatives. Its mission is to improve 

Vermont’s workforce capacity through recruitment, retention, education, training, and 

development in the areas of substance abuse prevention, intervention, treatment, continuing 

care/recovery, and enforcement. Accomplishments of this group include compiling data from 

Vermont and New Hampshire colleges on substance abuse- and prevention-related courses 

at the bachelor’s and master’s levels to promote careers in substance abuse, facilitate the 

certification process, and create a consortium of colleges to enhance and develop substance 

abuse courses that comply with certification requirements. 

813 
Appendix I 

Abbreviations* 

ATOD Alcohol, Tobacco, and other Drug 

ATR Access to Recovery 

ATTC Addiction Technology Transfer Center 

CAPT Center for the Application of Prevention Technology 

CMHS Center for Mental Health Services 

COSIG State Incentive Grant/Treatment of Persons With Co-Occurring SubstanceRelated and Mental Disorders 

CSAP Center for Substance Abuse Prevention 

CSAT Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 

FY Fiscal year 

NASADAD National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors 

NSDUH National Survey of Drug Use and Health 

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy 

PPG Performance Partnership Grant 

PRNS Programs of Regional and National Significance 

RADAR Regional Alcohol and Drug Awareness Resources Network 

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

SAPT Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment 

SBIRT Screening, Brief Intervention, Referral, and Treatment 

SPF SIG Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant 

SPF Strategic Prevention Framework 

SSA Single State Agency 

TCE Targeted Capacity Expansion 

TEDS Treatment Episode Data Set 

*Covers only abbreviations found in the Executive Summary, Introduction, Aggregate Findings, 

and Appendices. Does not include abbreviations found in State profile. 

815