The movement toward program evaluation and performance-based budgeting generally in government bodes well for the field of substance abuse. It will help reinforce the findings of research on the effectiveness of quality programs and help quantify, for the first time on a broad scale, the impact that treatment has on individuals and communities. Policymakers should require existing and new treatment initiatives to track a range of key outcome variables, including living and employment status, criminal justice involvement, and retention in treatment. (See Policy Statement 6, Measuring Outcomes and Evaluating the Impact of a Re-Entry Initiative, for more on assessing program effectiveness.) Ready availability of state and program-level data on treatment effectiveness should significantly raise awareness and support for treatment among the public, the media, and policymakers. (See Policy Statement 7, Educating the Public About the Re-Entry Population, for a discussion of how increasing public information can lead to support for policy change.)

As part of a broader shift toward accountability in the public sector, many states have taken a leadership role in creating evaluation mechanisms. SAMHSA has been moving toward outcomes-measurement as well, with discussions of transitioning the SAPT Block Grant into a "Performance Partnership" Block Grant (PPG). A National Policy Panel convened by Join Together, a project of the Boston University School of Public Health, constructed a detailed argument for greater use of results-based management by federal funding agencies. ^[1]  

Federal authorities have demonstrated their willingness to work with the states to develop performance tracking systems. Chief challenges include the current lack of data collection and reporting infrastructure support and of agreement on cost-efficient and effective methods for tracking outcomes. Implementing SAMHSA's grant-required "Performance Partnership" will require a significant investment of federal funds to create or enhance data infrastructure. Since each state data collection system differs from the next in terms of administration authority, systems used, hardware and software, and available resources, a great degree of flexibility will be necessary to attain the mutual goal of efficient outcome reporting. (See Policy Statement 5, Promoting Systems Integration and Coordination, for further discussion of the challenges of linking information systems.)