Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Progress of Four Programs From The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act 1st Edition and Medicine Engineering National Academies of Sciences
Progress of Four Programs From The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act 1st Edition and Medicine Engineering National Academies of Sciences
https://ebookmeta.com/product/evaluation-of-the-congressionally-
directed-medical-research-programs-review-process-1st-edition-
and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/triennial-review-of-the-national-
nanotechnology-initiative-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-
national-academies-of-sciences/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/data-breach-aftermath-and-recovery-
for-individuals-and-institutions-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-
edition-and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/driving-action-and-progress-on-
obesity-prevention-and-treatment-proceedings-of-a-workshop-1st-
edition-and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/
Measuring Trauma Workshop Summary 1st Edition And
Medicine Engineering National Academies Of Sciences
https://ebookmeta.com/product/measuring-trauma-workshop-
summary-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-
of-sciences/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/review-of-the-marine-recreational-
information-program-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-
national-academies-of-sciences/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/national-security-space-defense-
and-protection-public-report-1st-edition-and-medicine-
engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-next-generation-of-biomedical-
and-behavioral-sciences-researchers-breaking-through-1st-edition-
and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-of-sciences/
Progress of Four Programs
from the Comprehensive
Addiction and Recovery Act
Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies
Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or
(202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Study Staff
KATHLEEN STRATTON, Study Director
ANDREW MERLUZZI, Program Officer (until August 2020)
KELLY McHUGH, Research Associate (from October 2020)
MISRAK DABI, Financial Business Partner
CRYSTI PARK, Administrative Assistant
ROSE MARIE MARTINEZ, Senior Board Director
Reviewers
The committee of this study thanks Dr. David Gustafson for his
service in the early phases of this report. The committee also thanks
both the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
and the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act grantees for
their work, and for providing information to the National Academies
for this study.
Preface
SUMMARY
REFERENCES
APPENDIXES
A SUPPLEMENTARY PROGRAM INFORMATION
B SUMMARY TABLES OF CSAT GPRA DATA
C SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS IN REPORT 1
D COMMITTEE BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES
Boxes and Tables
BOXES
1-1 Statement of Task
TABLES
S-1 Limitations of Data Sources Used by the Committee
S-2 Summary of the PPW-PLT and BCOR Programs
S-3 Summary of the OD Treatment Access and FR-CARA Programs
OD overdose
OD Improving Access to Overdose Treatment (CARA
Treatment program)
Access
OD Tx ARF summary report from the OD Treatment Access
reporting form
OUD opioid use disorder
PAF public access file
PPW pregnant and postpartum women
PPW-PLT State Pilot Grant Program for Treatment for PPW
(CARA Program)
SA substance abuse
SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration
SBIRT SAMHSA Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to
Treatment
SSA State Agency for Substance Abuse
SUD substance abuse disorder
Summary
1. The first report will recommend outcomes and metrics for each
of the four programs that grantees should collect and report to
SAMHSA.
2. The second report will review reported outcomes and metrics to
assess progress toward achieving program goals.
3. The third and final report will review the specified programs for
their effectiveness in achieving their respective goals, as
measured by the metrics identified, and will provide
recommendations to Congress concerning the appropriate
allocation of resources to such programs to ensure cost-
effectiveness in the federal government’s response to the opioid
epidemic.
The present report is the second of the three. The first was
released on May 14, 2020, and a summary of its recommendations
can be found in Appendix C of this report.4
To address its charge for the second report, the committee
gathered data from SAMHSA about each of the grant programs. The
committee’s specific methodological approach is outlined in Chapters
2 and 3. In general, however, the committee requested information
on work plans, evaluation plans, and progress reports from the
principal investigator of each grant and from SAMHSA.5 Varying
amounts of information were received from 56 of 87 total grantees.6
For the first report, SAMHSA provided the funding opportunity
announcements (FOAs) and mandatory reporting tools for each of the
four programs. For this present report, SAMHSA has additionally
provided data summaries for the PPW-PLT and BCOR programs in the
form of data outputs from the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment
(CSAT) Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) tool, as well
as redacted grantee annual progress reports. For the OD Treatment
Access and FR-CARA programs, SAMHSA provided summaries
generated from text-based answers to the questions in the Center for
Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Division of State Programs-
Management Reporting Tool (DSP-MRT) and from an additional
program-specific reporting tool for OD Treatment Access.
Individual grantee progress reports received from SAMHSA were
heavily redacted, resulting in much contextual information not being
available to the committee. SAMHSA explained that their agreements
with grantees prohibited SAMHSA from sending the committee
unredacted program progress reports. To fill in some of these gaps,
the committee reached out to individual grantees to request
additional information; a limited number of unredacted reports were
received. After an initial review of all of the materials received, the
committee contacted SAMHSA with clarifying questions about the
data, and the agency’s responses were used in the creation of this
report.
The committee’s approach to assessing progress toward achieving
program objectives was broadly informed by several conceptual
methodological approaches applied within the constraints of the
available data. Given the limitations of the information and the
distinct nature of the four grant programs, the committee assessed
progress by reviewing and matching information received to each of
the required and allowable activities specified in the FOAs (see Tables
S-2 and S-3). The committee considered whether there was evidence
regarding progress in terms of planning and implementation steps
(e.g., hiring, training staff, relationship building) and outcomes (e.g.,
client-based substance use outcomes, naloxone distribution and use,
public education, trainings conducted). Importantly, the committee
notes that the grantees of all four CARA programs have continued
implementing the programs since the point in time at which they
submitted these required reporting materials to SAMHSA. As such,
this report does not reflect grantees’ most recent progress.
The committee encountered many limitations in the data sources it
received from SAMHSA. Table S-1 presents a summary of these
limitations and their impact on the committee’s analysis.
TABLE S-1 Limitations of Data Sources Used by the Committee
NOTE: BCOR = Building Communities of Recovery; CSAP = Center for Substance
Abuse Prevention; CSAT = Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; FR-CARA = First
Responders-Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act; PPW-PLT = State Pilot
Grant Program for Treatment for Pregnant and Postpartum Women; SAMHSA =
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
The committee found evidence from both the CSAT GPRA data and
from the progress reports that grantees in both programs were
operational in a number of activities, including providing services to
clients, conducting important community outreach, providing
community education, and, to some extent, building systems and
infrastructure. For example, the GPRA data indicate that, although
they were below planned goals, intake interviews have been
conducted for 839 clients in the PPW-PLT program and 2,022 in the
BCOR program.
All PPW-PLT grantees were functioning, recruiting, and serving
clients, but at varying levels. All programs lagged behind in the
recruitment goals they had set, and most programs had lower follow-
up interview rates than the 80 percent expected by SAMHSA. Some
programs cited greatly delayed approval for first-year budgets as an
early setback, as well as a lack of clarification on certain questions
regarding client eligibility and permitted uses of SAMHSA funds. It
seems that they would have benefited from greater support, technical
assistance, and training on aspects of programming and evaluation.
The information on integrated treatment and system change–related
goals was sparse, and these aspects were not evaluated by any
quantitative data but rather came from descriptions in the progress
reports, when grantees provided them.
The BCOR program was funded by SAMHSA primarily to support
the “development, expansion, enhancement, and delivery of”
community and statewide recovery support services (RSS). Based on
a review of redacted progress reports and GPRA data (which were
not designed for activities beyond direct client service provision), the
committee finds that the BCOR programs as a whole made progress
toward this goal. The progress reports indicate a wide range of ways
in which RSS were developed, expanded, and enhanced, and the
GPRA data indicate that many clients directly received RSS, although
the data do not allow for assessment of how effective those services
were. Individual grantee programs, based on the progress reports,
were more or less successful. Some of this depends on how well
developed a grantee’s program had already been prior to receiving
this funding, its ability to hire staff and implement infrastructure
needs, and the specifics of its own goals. Many programs addressed
the additional allowable activities: “(1) build connections through
infrastructure building between recovery networks, between recovery
care organizations, and with other RSS; (2) reduce the stigma
associated with drug and alcohol addiction; and (3) conduct public
education and outreach on issues relating to drug and alcohol
addiction and recovery” (SAMHSA, 2017a). Each of these is assessed
only via the progress reports.
IMPACT OF COVID-19
The committee understands that the COVID-19 pandemic
inevitably has affected grantees’ ability to function as envisioned in
their grant applications. A few grantees mentioned COVID-19 in the
material received by the committee. Evidence shows that since the
start of the pandemic, substance use and overdoses have both
increased (Ahmad et al., 2020; CDC, 2020a; Czeisler et al., 2020;
Slavova et al., 2020; Stack et al., 2020). The committee
acknowledges that the pandemic might slow progress, especially in
implementation. SAMHSA has COVID19-related guidance for their
grantees.7 The committee looks forward to hearing from SAMHSA
and the grantees about innovative steps taken to reach those with
SUD, for example, by providing services through telehealth.
CONCLUSIONS
The committee concludes, based on information provided by
SAMHSA, that grantees providing data have shown at least some
progress in planning and implementing the four Comprehensive
Addiction and Recovery Act programs under review. The degree of
implementation and progress and the nature of supporting data
vary across programs, grantees, and specific activities; data were
not provided on all grantees.
The committee concludes that it cannot determine whether these
programs have had specific, identifiable impacts on people with
substance use disorders. It is very possible that these programs
have had a positive impact on people’s substance use and on their
health and well-being, but the limitations of the information
provided do not allow for confidence in such a determination.
__________________
1 See https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/524/text
(accessed March 13, 2020).
2 See https://www.cadca.org/comprehensive-addiction-and-recovery-act-cara
(accessed March 13, 2020).
3 See https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-115HPRT29457/pdf/CPRT-115
HPRT29457.pdf (accessed January 5, 2021).
4 For the full report, see NASEM, 2020b.
5 Public Access File available by request via the National Academies. See https://
www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-specific-programs-in-the-comprehe
nsive-addiction-and-recovery-act (accessed March 10, 2021).
6 The committee received information from 6 of 6 PPW-PLT grantees, 25 of 27
BCOR grantees, 4 of 6 OD Treatment Access grantees, and 21 of 48 FR-CARA
grantees.
7 See https://www.samhsa.gov/coronavirus (accessed December 31, 2020).
1
Introduction and
Background