More Funding for Rehabilitation and Prevention

February 8, 2010 on 6:42 pm | In Uncategorized | 1 Comment

On February 1, 2010 the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) issued its proposed budget for 2011 addiction treatment and prevention programs, citing a 13 percent increase in spending for prevention and education as well as an increase of nearly 4 percent for drug treatment services.

While the proposed increases are welcome, many in the drug rehab field feel that too much money is spent on the supply reduction and not enough on the demand reduction, as there is still a very wide gap of those who need drug rehab centers vs. those who actually get some type of help.

In fact, roughly 22 million people report past-month use of illicit drugs yet only about 2 million people receive some type of addiction treatment.

Given the amount of wasteful spending and bureaucratic tendencies, it is doubtful that governmental interdiction will make any substantial impact in the near future on the problem. Just like with rehabilitation programs who don’t get results, they have to continually justify their own existence by showing how bad the problem really is, when if they would just get results then they would have all the resources they needed to handle the problem.

1 Comment »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. What a great commentary. As a provider of Mental Health and Substance Abuse counseling services I have come to understand Addiction as a Mental Health issue: A maladaptive behavior to cope with mental health issues such as Trauma, and other mood or personality disorders. Having departed from traditional treatment applications, i.e. the Minnesota Model or Recovery Model, I have found that there is a greater “buy-in” to treatment. I would agree that a lot of money is being thrown into “rehab programs” and that an inordinate amount of time is spent in generating the appearance of treatment efficacy. Treatment outcomes need to be rethought. In lieu of sustained abstinence, how about positive outcomes in the client’s functioning in family, community, and work? How about if we look at reduced involvement with the legal system? How about if we examine education and clinical practice requirements for providers? Would a person qualify to be a Mental Health Counselor simply because he or she has recovered from a mental health disorder? Does it make sense to put training wheels on an intern and allow them to provide counseling services just because they are abstinent from use of Alcohol or Other Drugs?

    It is good to see and be a part of a debate that invites us all to rethink recovery and to imagine realistic and flexible treatment interventions and outcomes

    Comment by Lodestar_LCPC — February 19, 2010 #

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^