Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/7235

Bill Overview

Title: Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services Block Grant Act of 2022

Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2027 and modifies the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant, which supports state, tribal, and territorial efforts to prevent and treat substance use disorders. Specifically, the bill expands the scope of the grant to include the provision of recovery support services. Grant recipients must include information about recovery support activities in their plans for expending grant funds. Additionally, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration must conduct a study to develop a model needs assessment process for grant recipients to use when determining the allocation of grant funding among prevention, treatment, and recovery support activities. The bill also revises multiple provisions to eliminate stigmatizing terms (e.g., substance abuse) and otherwise align with current legislative drafting conventions.

Sponsors: Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]

Target Audience

Population: People with substance use disorders

Estimated Size: 40300000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

outreach worker (Ohio)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The expansion to include recovery supports is vital because staying clean is a daily struggle that needs consistent help.
  • Having more inclusive, non-stigmatizing language reflects respect for people like me.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 3
Year 2 6 3
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 8 3
Year 20 7 2

IT specialist (California)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm not sure if this will really change anything for someone like me without structured programs in workplaces.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 4

student (New York)

Age: 19 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Improved awareness and understanding might help people like my family, but direct care isn't for me right now.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

construction worker (Texas)

Age: 34 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Better structured support will make a big difference after court supervision ends.
  • Language changes help but actions speak louder.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 3

retired (Florida)

Age: 53 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The change in grant focus to recovery is positive; it gives hope to seniors who may still battle fear of relapse.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 5

freelance artist (Virginia)

Age: 24 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Don't think it affects me much now, but knowing help is there if needed is a slight comfort.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

nurse (Minnesota)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could help improve job satisfaction by providing more resources and better patient outcomes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 4

retired military (Washington)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Recovery support makes a difference, especially if services consider veterans' unique needs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 6 3

therapist (Massachusetts)

Age: 37 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The expanded focus supports holistic recovery, which I passionately advocate for in mental health reform.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

small business owner (Arizona)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Feels optimistic that more funds for recovery can reduce recidivism rates for others like him.
  • Mentoring opportunities could benefit from policy changes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 5 4

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $1800000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2000000000)

Year 2: $1840000000 (Low: $1640000000, High: $2040000000)

Year 3: $1880000000 (Low: $1680000000, High: $2080000000)

Year 5: $1960000000 (Low: $1760000000, High: $2160000000)

Year 10: $2150000000 (Low: $1950000000, High: $2350000000)

Year 100: $3900000000 (Low: $3700000000, High: $4100000000)

Key Considerations