Chapter 6: Public Health, Justice, and Systems Responses to Substance Use

Substance use disorder is increasingly treated as a public health concern rather than simply a matter of personal behavior or crime. A public health approach asks a different question. Instead of focusing only on why one person uses, it looks at how risk, protection, and access to care are spread across whole communities, and at how to reduce harm while building the conditions that support long-term health. The reach is wide, because substance misuse touches healthcare, schools, workplaces, families, and public safety all at once (Office of the Surgeon General, 2016).

Prevention runs through all of this, and it works at every stage of life. The goal is to keep substance misuse from starting, to catch problems early when it does, and to support recovery once problems have taken hold. This work rarely happens in one place. Schools, healthcare systems, public education campaigns, and community groups tend to share it, each strengthening protection while lowering exposure to risk (Office of the Surgeon General, 2016).

Harm reduction is a central part of this approach. It means using practical steps to lower the dangers of substance use even when a person is not ready to stop (National Harm Reduction Coalition, n.d.). The point is to keep people alive and reduce injury, which also keeps the door open to treatment and recovery later. In practice this looks like naloxone distribution, overdose education, syringe service programs, and outreach in the community. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) frames harm reduction as a respectful, community-centered approach built on dignity and health rather than punishment or exclusion (SAMHSA, 2023b).

Medication is another major piece, especially for opioid use disorder. Drugs such as buprenorphine and methadone help many people stay in treatment, lower their overdose risk, and hold more stability over time. The evidence for them is strong, yet stigma and limited treatment capacity still keep them out of reach in many communities. That gap is why a public health approach pushes to expand proven treatment and to chip away at the policies and attitudes that keep people from seeking it (SAMHSA, 2021).

Public health also means watching for new risks and moving quickly when they appear. Agencies track overdose patterns and shifts in the drug supply to guide where prevention and resources should go. The death rate from synthetic opioids other than methadone, a category that includes fentanyl, climbed for nearly a decade before peaking in 2022. That surge is what pushed the profession toward faster overdose response and tighter community coordination (Garnett & Miniño, 2024). The rate fell 35.6 percent between 2023 and 2024, though synthetic opioids were still involved in 47,735 deaths that year, so the work those years demanded remains necessary (Garnett & Miniño, 2026).

None of this removes personal responsibility or downplays the real risks of substance misuse. The point is simply that lasting solutions take more than punishment. Prevention, treatment access, recovery support, and harm reduction all work to reduce suffering and improve health for both the person and the community. For social workers, seeing substance use through this lens points toward responses built on dignity, sound evidence, and realistic paths to recovery rather than shame and exclusion.

Substance use has long been tied to the criminal legal system in the United States. Even as addiction is more often seen as a health condition, much of the response still runs through police, courts, prisons, and community supervision. These systems shape who gets treatment, who gets punished, and how a community comes to understand addiction in the first place. In that sense, the criminal legal response is never only about enforcement. It also carries a set of beliefs about responsibility, public safety, and who deserves help.

The shape of that response was set earlier. Two developments from Chapter 5 still govern the ground. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 built the federal scheduling system (Controlled Substances Act, 1970). The War on Drugs then expanded enforcement and sentencing through the late twentieth century, and those choices produced racial disparities even though people of different races used substances at similar rates (Alexander, 2010). That history is not settled background. It is the architecture the present system still works inside, so scheduling decisions made in 1970 continue to shape criminal penalties, prescribing, and what research is permitted. What has shifted is the language. As the opioid epidemic widened, more policymakers and clinicians began describing addiction as a health problem rather than only a crime (National Institute on Drug Abuse [NIDA], 2020b). This section looks at what that shift has and has not changed in practice.

SAMHSA maps these points of contact using the Sequential Intercept Model, which describes how people with mental and substance use disorders come into contact with and move through the criminal justice system. The model runs from community services through law enforcement, initial detention and court hearings, jails and courts, reentry, and community corrections (SAMHSA, 2024). Four of those points carry most of the weight for substance use: first response, the courts, custody, and community supervision. Each one decides whether a person is treated as a patient, a defendant, or both.

Police are usually the first point of contact. Deflection and pre-arrest diversion programs give officers an option other than a charge, routing a person toward treatment at the moment of contact rather than after adjudication. One program evaluation followed 263 adults arrested for low-level drug-related offenses. Those who did not engage, and those who engaged without completing, were more likely than completers to be arrested and incarcerated over the following year. Overdose mortality within that year was 5.8 percent for those who did not engage, 3.3 percent for non-completers, and 2.0 percent for completers (Nyland et al., 2024). These groups were defined by how far each participant got in a voluntary program rather than by random assignment, so the findings show what completion is associated with rather than what the program caused.

Drug courts remain the best-known judicial response. They combine a judge’s oversight with required treatment, drug testing, and close supervision, with the aim of reducing incarceration and supporting recovery (Marlowe, 2010). More than 4,000 treatment courts now operate nationwide, including adult drug courts, which make up about half of them. A multisite evaluation by the National Institute of Justice, which followed participants enrolled between 2005 and 2009, found participants less likely than a comparison group to report committing crimes in the prior year, 40 percent compared with 53 percent. They were also less likely to report using any drugs, 56 percent compared with 76 percent (Office of Justice Programs, 2024). These remain the best national outcome data available, and they describe drug courts as they operated more than fifteen years ago. Results like those explain the model’s durability, though the standing critiques have not gone away. Access is uneven from one county to the next, and participation can feel coerced when the alternative is jail. Treatment also stays tied to the court rather than being offered as ordinary healthcare.

Inside jails and prisons the gap between need and service is clearest. Among state prisoners who met the criteria for a substance use disorder in the year before admission, 33 percent had taken part in any alcohol or drug treatment program since entering prison, as had 46 percent of federal prisoners (Maruschak et al., 2021). Among jail inmates who met the criteria for drug dependence or abuse, only 19 percent had taken part in any drug treatment program since admission (Bronson et al., 2017). The jail figure comes from an older survey that used different language for the same condition, so the two should be read side by side rather than as a trend. Medication access shows the same pattern in more recent data. A national survey of jails conducted between 2022 and 2023 found that 43.8 percent offered any form of medication for opioid use disorder. Only 12.8 percent made it available to anyone with the disorder, though 70.1 percent offered some type of substance use treatment or recovery support (Flanagan Balawajder et al., 2024). Federal guidance has moved toward closing that gap, and SAMHSA now publishes implementation guidelines for medications for opioid use disorder in state prisons (SAMHSA, 2025).

Community supervision reaches more people than incarceration does, and it draws far less attention. More than two-thirds of people under correctional supervision at the end of 2023 were on probation or parole in the community, an estimated 3,772,000, while almost one-third, 1,852,900, were held in prisons or jails (Gann & Kaeble, 2025). The community-supervision population fell to an estimated 3,681,900 by the end of 2024 (Kaeble, 2026). Supervision carries conditions such as drug testing, treatment mandates, curfews, and employment requirements, and violating any of them can return a person to custody without a new offense. Incarceration accounted for 18 percent of probation exits where the type of exit was known, and about 29 percent of known parole exits in 2024 (Kaeble, 2026). For someone with a substance use disorder this creates a particular bind, because a return to use is both a predictable feature of the condition and a violation of the terms of release.

One recent policy change works directly on the handoff out of custody. In 2023 the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services opened a demonstration opportunity that allows states to use Medicaid for certain services in the 90 days before a person’s expected release date. States taking it up must cover case management and a 30-day supply of prescribed medications at release. They must also cover medication-assisted treatment for all types of substance use disorder, with accompanying counseling (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2023). Section 6.4 returns to what happens when handoffs like this one hold and when they break.

For social workers, making sense of these systems means looking at both what they intend and what they actually produce over time. The criminal legal system reaches into treatment access, family stability, work, housing, and a community’s trust in institutions. Good practice depends on seeing how addiction connects to policing, courts, incarceration, supervision, and the wider inequality running through all of them.

Substance use disorders reach into nearly every system a person and their family touch over a lifetime. When problems intensify, several of them tend to get involved at once: healthcare, schools, child welfare, housing, and community organizations. No single system can handle the whole picture on its own, so the response usually depends on coordination across professions and community supports (Office of the Surgeon General, 2016).

Healthcare is often where a substance-related problem first gets noticed, whether through a primary care visit, an emergency department, or a mental health provider. These settings handle screening, assessment, treatment, and follow-up support. The trouble is that prevention and treatment for substance misuse have traditionally been delivered separately from mental health and general health care. Integrated care models try to close that gap through the systematic coordination of general and behavioral health care. That coordination matters because substance use, mental disorders, and other general medical conditions are so often interconnected. Having a substance use disorder roughly doubles the odds of developing another chronic and costly illness such as arthritis, chronic pain, heart disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes, or asthma (Office of the Surgeon General, 2016).

Schools matter for prevention and early help. Counseling services, student assistance programs, and collegiate recovery efforts work to lower risk and support students who are struggling. Schools also tend to spot problems early, because a drop in grades, missed days, or behavior changes can be the first visible sign of substance misuse. But how a school responds makes a difference. Pushing students out through harsh discipline usually deepens the disconnection rather than fixing it.

Child welfare often enters the picture when there are concerns about a child’s safety or a family’s stability. Substance misuse does not by itself mean someone is a harmful parent, but it can add stress and disrupt caregiving in ways that draw the system in. That puts child welfare in a hard position, balancing the child’s safety against keeping the family together and offering real support. Families in this situation usually need coordinated help across healthcare, schools, courts, recovery services, and extended family (Begun et al., 2020).

Housing and recovery supports weigh heavily on how recovery goes over the long run. Among people receiving treatment for opioid use disorder, being unhoused or unstably housed is associated with more severe opioid use, more overdose risk behavior, and more severe depression and PTSD symptoms than being stably housed (Kelly et al., 2025). Recovery housing, peer organizations, support groups, and sober living settings add the structure, accountability, and connection that help recovery hold. Recovery housing in particular has been associated with decreased substance use, a reduced likelihood of return to use, lower rates of incarceration, higher income, increased employment, and improved family relationships (SAMHSA, 2023a).

Because so many systems are involved, working across professions has become essential. Social workers, nurses, physicians, counselors, peer specialists, educators, and probation officers often have to coordinate care for the same person. That only works with open communication, a clear sense of each person’s role, and respect across disciplines. It also depends on recognizing that a client is usually moving through several of these systems at once. NASW sets practice standards that treat this interdisciplinary and interorganizational collaboration as a core expectation of social work in health care settings. The standards hold that teamwork and good communication among practitioners improve care delivery and client outcomes (NASW, 2016).

The wider community shapes recovery too, through everyday things like transportation, work, childcare, culturally responsive services, and social connection. Recovery rarely happens alone. It holds more often when supportive relationships and coordinated systems lower the barriers in front of a person instead of adding to them.

One of the most stubborn problems in substance use treatment is fragmentation: systems that are supposed to work together but mostly operate on their own. In a short stretch of time, a person may pass through an emergency department, a detox program, inpatient treatment, outpatient counseling, probation, recovery housing, child welfare, and community supports. Each one handles a piece of the problem, but they rarely coordinate well. So the person and their family end up navigating a maze of services during the very moments when they are least able to, in the middle of instability, stress, and crisis.

Continuity of care is how well services stay connected and responsive as a person moves between them. When it breaks down, the results are predictable: missed appointments, dropped treatment, interrupted medication, repeated crises, and a return to use. The biggest gaps tend to open at the handoffs, right after a hospital stay, a release from jail, a detox, or a discharge from residential treatment.

Hospitals often struggle with what happens after discharge from an overdose or other substance-related crisis. A person may be stabilized and sent out with no clear follow-up, no way to get there, no plan to continue medication, and no referral that actually connects. Jails and prisons release people the same way, back into the community without a real link to housing, healthcare, or treatment. These gaps are especially dangerous. Many people who go untreated during incarceration lose tolerance to opioids because they have stopped using. On release they may return to the doses they used before, not realizing their bodies can no longer handle them (NIDA, 2020a). The mortality data match that pattern: in the first two weeks after release from prison, the risk of death from overdose was 129 times that of other state residents (Binswanger et al., 2007).

Where a person lives, and who is available to help, shapes access too. Rural communities often lack behavioral health providers, medication treatment programs, transportation, and recovery resources. Even where services exist on paper, long waitlists, insurance rules, cost, and too few providers can push real access out of reach. Shortages of addiction counselors, mental health and substance use disorder social workers, psychiatrists, and other behavioral health professionals remain a problem across much of the country. As of March 2026, about 148.6 million people lived in a Mental Health Professional Shortage Area, roughly 43 percent of the U.S. population, a share computed from the designation counts the Health Resources and Services Administration reissues each quarter (Health Resources and Services Administration, 2026). The national average wait for behavioral health services was 48 days (National Council for Mental Wellbeing, 2025, as cited in National Center for Health Workforce Analysis, 2025).

Fragmentation also blocks communication between the professionals involved. Healthcare, schools, courts, behavioral health, and child welfare each keep their own records, eligibility rules, privacy standards, and reporting requirements. The result is that a person often has to retell the same history and sit through the same assessments and intakes at every new door, because the providers behind those doors are not coordinating.

Integrated care and case management try to pull these pieces back together. Much of that work falls to social workers and case managers, who help people manage referrals, transportation, insurance, medication access, housing applications, court requirements, and scheduling. Recovery-oriented systems of care make the larger point that recovery rarely rests on treatment alone. SAMHSA’s working definition describes recovery as supported by four dimensions. Health means overcoming or managing one’s disease or symptoms. Home means a stable and safe place to live. Purpose means meaningful daily activities along with the independence, income, and resources to take part in society. Community means the relationships and social networks that provide support, friendship, love, and hope. The same definition treats recovery as holistic, encompassing a person’s whole life, which means addressing practical matters like transportation and education alongside housing, employment, clinical treatment, primary and dental care, social networks, and community participation (SAMHSA, 2012).

Technology has taken on a bigger role in tying systems together. Telehealth, electronic health records, shared referral systems, and virtual recovery supports all grew quickly after the COVID-19 pandemic. They opened up access for some people, especially in rural and underserved areas, but they also raised new questions about privacy, who actually has the devices and connection to use them, and whether care holds together across different platforms.

For social workers, the lesson is that success often turns on what happens between systems, not just inside any one program. People with substance use disorders rarely need a single service. They usually need coordinated help across healthcare, behavioral health, housing, recovery, legal, and family systems at the same time. A large part of the work, then, is helping people move through systems that were never built to work together smoothly.

Substance use disorder is never handled by one system alone. It plays out across institutions that decide who can reach care, who faces punishment, who gets a real chance at recovery, and who finds stability. For social workers, that means knowing how these systems work, where they intersect, and how to push for the coordination, access, dignity, and continuity of care that the people they serve depend on.

The systems described throughout this chapter do not operate on their own resources. Substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery services in the United States draw substantially on public funding, whether directly through federal, state, and local government programs or indirectly through grants that originate with those same governments. As of 2015, public sources covered roughly 56 percent of spending on substance use treatment, with private insurance and Medicaid the two largest individual payers at 29 percent and 25 percent (SAMHSA, 2019). Block grants administered through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration fund prevention and treatment services in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, six Pacific jurisdictions, and one tribal entity (SAMHSA, 2023c). Specific legislation, such as the 21st Century Cures Act discussed earlier, has directed large sums toward states facing the opioid crisis. The State Targeted Response grant program it established provided nearly $1 billion over two years to 57 states and territories (Office of Inspector General, 2020). The practical reality is that the availability of services, the populations those services can reach, and the conditions attached to their use are shaped by decisions made in the political arena.

This has a direct consequence for anyone entering the profession. Because so much of this work is supported by public funding, the resources available to clients can expand or contract based on legislative and budgetary decisions that practitioners do not control but are affected by every day. A change in eligibility rules can determine whether a client qualifies for treatment. A shift in appropriations can open or close a program. A new law can expand access to a medication or restrict it. Practitioners who do not follow these developments can find themselves unprepared when the resources they rely on change, and the people most affected are usually the clients who have the fewest alternatives.

Policy Literacy as Professional Competence

For these reasons, staying informed about current legislation and policy is not a separate political activity that exists outside of practice. It is part of competent practice itself. A practitioner needs to understand how services are funded, what current laws govern access and eligibility, and how pending legislation could change the landscape in which they work. This knowledge allows practitioners to plan realistically, to help clients access resources before those resources disappear, and to recognize when a policy change is about to affect the people they serve. Policy literacy is not optional knowledge for specialists. It is foundational knowledge for anyone whose work relies on publicly funded resources.

Advocacy as Part of the Work

Policy awareness leads naturally to advocacy. Practitioners occupy a position that few others hold. They see directly how policy decisions affect real people, and they can speak to those effects with a credibility that administrators and legislators often lack. Advocacy in this context does not require holding office or running a campaign. It can mean informing clients of their rights, communicating with policymakers about the consequences of proposed changes, participating in professional organizations that shape policy positions, providing testimony or data about community needs, and ensuring that the voices of people affected by substance use are present when decisions are made. NASW treats social and political action as an ethical responsibility to the broader society, calling on social workers to advocate for changes in policy and legislation that improve social conditions (NASW, 2021). That responsibility exists because the conditions shaping people’s lives are decided in arenas where those people are often unrepresented.

This responsibility connects to the broader purpose of this textbook. Understanding substance use requires understanding the systems that respond to it, and understanding those systems requires recognizing that they exist within a political and economic structure that is always subject to change. A practitioner who grasps this is better prepared to serve clients well, to anticipate change rather than be surprised by it, and to contribute to a system that more fully meets the needs of the people it is meant to serve.

Advocacy. Action taken to influence policy and funding decisions in order to protect or expand access to care.

Continuity of care. The smooth, ongoing connection of services over time so that a person does not lose support when moving between providers or systems.

Deflection. The earliest form of diversion, connecting a person to treatment at the point of police contact, before an arrest or charge is made.

Diversion. Programs that route people with substance-related offenses toward treatment and services instead of jail or prison, at any point from police contact through sentencing.

Fragmented systems. Services that operate separately and do not communicate well, leaving gaps that people can fall through.

Harm reduction. An approach that aims to reduce the negative consequences of substance use rather than requiring abstinence as the only acceptable goal.

Interprofessional collaboration. Coordinated work among professionals from different sectors, such as health care, social work, and the justice system, to support a shared client.

Prevention. Efforts to stop substance problems before they start or to catch them early, often organized into primary, secondary, and tertiary levels.

Public health approach. A way of responding to substance use that focuses on prevention, population-level health, and reducing harm rather than punishment.

Sequential Intercept Model. A framework that maps the points where people with mental and substance use disorders come into contact with the criminal legal system, from community services through community corrections.

Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.

Begun, A. L., Bares, C. B., & Chartier, K. G. (2020). Social environmental contexts of addictive behavior. In A. L. Begun & M. M. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of social work and addictive behaviors (pp. 110–128). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429203121-8

Binswanger, I. A., Stern, M. F., Deyo, R. A., Heagerty, P. J., Cheadle, A., Elmore, J. G., & Koepsell, T. D. (2007). Release from prison — A high risk of death for former inmates. New England Journal of Medicine, 356(2), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa064115

Bronson, J., Stroop, J., Zimmer, S., & Berzofsky, M. (2017). Drug use, dependence, and abuse among state prisoners and jail inmates, 2007–2009 (NCJ 250546). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/dudaspji0709.pdf

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2023). Opportunities to test transition-related strategies to support community reentry and improve care transitions for individuals who are incarcerated (SMD #23-003). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/smd23003.pdf

Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801–904 (1970). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title21/chapter13&edition=prelim

Flanagan Balawajder, E., Ducharme, L., Taylor, B. G., Lamuda, P. A., Kolak, M., Friedmann, P. D., Pollack, H. A., & Schneider, J. A. (2024). Factors associated with the availability of medications for opioid use disorder in US jails. JAMA Network Open, 7(9), Article e2434704. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34704

Gann, S., & Kaeble, D. (2025). Correctional populations in the United States, 2023 — Statistical tables (NCJ 310413). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/cpus23st.pdf

Garnett, M. F., & Miniño, A. M. (2024). Drug overdose deaths in the United States, 2003–2023 (NCHS Data Brief No. 522). National Center for Health Statistics. https://doi.org/10.15620/cdc/170565

Garnett, M. F., & Miniño, A. M. (2026). Drug overdose deaths in the United States, 2023–2024 (NCHS Data Brief No. 549). National Center for Health Statistics. https://doi.org/10.15620/cdc/174639

Health Resources and Services Administration. (2026). Designated HPSA quarterly summary. Bureau of Health Workforce, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://data.hrsa.gov/default/generatehpsaquarterlyreport

Kaeble, D. (2026). Probation and parole in the United States, 2024 (NCJ 311290). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/ppus24.pdf

Kelly, L., Hindmarch, G. M., Watkins, K. E., McCullough, C. M., Griffin, B. A., Meredith, L. S., Mendon-Plasek, S., Komaromy, M., & Hunter, S. B. (2025). Association between housing status and mental health and substance use severity among individuals with opioid use disorder and co-occurring depression and/or PTSD. BMC Primary Care, 26(1), Article 250. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02947-2

Marlowe, D. B. (2010). Research update on adult drug courts (NCJ 234287). National Drug Court Institute. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/research-update-adult-drug-courts

Maruschak, L. M., Bronson, J., & Alper, M. (2021). Alcohol and drug use and treatment reported by prisoners: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016 (NCJ 252641). Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/adutrpspi16st.pdf

National Association of Social Workers. (2016). NASW standards for social work practice in health care settings. https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=fFnsRHX-4HE%3d&portalid=0

National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English

National Center for Health Workforce Analysis. (2025). State of the behavioral health workforce, 2025. Health Resources and Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://bhw.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/bureau-health-workforce/data-research/Behavioral-Health-Workforce-Brief-2025.pdf

National Harm Reduction Coalition. (n.d.). Principles of harm reduction. Retrieved July 26, 2026, from https://harmreduction.org/about-us/principles-of-harm-reduction/

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020a, June). Criminal justice DrugFacts. National Institutes of Health. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/criminal-justice

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020b). Drugs, brains, and behavior: The science of addiction. National Institutes of Health. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction

Nyland, J. E., Zhang, A., Balles, J. A., Nguyen, T. H., White, V., Albert, L. A., Henningfield, M. F., & Zgierska, A. E. (2024). Law enforcement-led, pre-arrest diversion-to-treatment may reduce crime recidivism, incarceration, and overdose deaths: Program evaluation outcomes. Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment, 165, Article 209458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.josat.2024.209458

Office of Inspector General. (2020). States’ use of grant funding for a targeted response to the opioid crisis (OEI-BL-18-00460). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-BL-18-00460.pdf

Office of Justice Programs. (2024). Treatment courts: Overview. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/feature/treatment-courts/overview

Office of the Surgeon General. (2016). Facing addiction in America: The Surgeon General’s report on alcohol, drugs, and health. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424857/

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2012). SAMHSA’s working definition of recovery (Publication No. PEP12-RECDEF). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/pep12-recdef.pdf

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2019). Behavioral health spending & use accounts, 2006–2015 (HHS Publication No. SMA-19-5095). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/bhsua-2006-2015-508.pdf

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2021). Medications for opioid use disorder (Treatment Improvement Protocol Series No. 63, Publication No. PEP21-02-01-002). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/pep21-02-01-002.pdf

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2023a). Best practices for recovery housing (Publication No. PEP23-10-00-002). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/best-practices-for-recovery-housing-pep23-10-00-002.pdf

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2023b). Harm reduction framework. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/harm-reduction/framework

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2023c). Substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery services block grant. https://www.samhsa.gov/grants/block-grants/subg

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2024). The Sequential Intercept Model (SIM). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.samhsa.gov/communities/criminal-juvenile-justice/sequential-intercept-model

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2025). Guidelines for implementing medications for opioid use disorder treatment in state prisons (Publication No. PEP25-02-003). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://library.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/oud-treatment-state-prisons-pep25-02-003.pdf