See how often facilities offering residential substance use treatment reported a tailored co-occurring disorders program or group in SAMHSA’s 2024 survey.
In SAMHSA’s 2024 public-use file, 2,673 of 3,485 included facility records offering non-hospital residential substance use treatment (76.7%) reported a program or group tailored to people with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders.
The count covers the 50 states and DC. The survey asked about the program at the facility location, which could offer care in several settings. The result describes how often those locations reported a tailored program or group. Download national and state counts (CSV).
How common were co-occurring programs at residential SUD facilities?
Of the 3,485 included records, 812 gave a valid response without reporting a tailored program or group. Seven additional residential records lacked a valid program answer and are outside the percentage. This distinction matters when using the counts in market research. A missing answer cannot tell a reader what a facility offered.
Co-occurring disorders describe mental and substance use disorders that affect the same person. The survey item concerns a program or group designed for that population. The questionnaire lists “Clients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders” under question A15a and instructs facilities to mark the category only if they have a tailored program or group. A facility could serve people in that group without selecting the survey option.
Compare short-term and long-term residential settings
The largest group of records in this analysis reported offering both short-term and long-term residential substance use treatment. That group had 1,705 valid answers. The comparison below uses mutually exclusive groups. “Only” refers to the two residential treatment options and leaves open whether the facility also reported detoxification, outpatient, or other services.
| Residential treatment reported | Valid program answers | Reported a tailored program | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Short-term only | 761 | 580 | 76.2% |
| Long-term only | 1,019 | 700 | 68.7% |
| Both short-term and long-term | 1,705 | 1,393 | 81.7% |
| All included records | 3,485 | 2,673 | 76.7% |
The 2024 codebook labels CTYPERC3 and CTYPERC4 as non-hospital residential short-term and long-term treatment. A site that reported only residential detoxification falls outside this analysis. For a different cohort, see the detox facility analysis, which starts with sites that reported detoxification and examines whether those records also reported residential treatment and IOP.
The differences across the three groups are descriptive. The survey gives each facility record equal weight in this analysis. A difference could reflect the types of organizations, services, or communities represented in each group. The data do not show that offering an additional residential setting leads a facility to add a tailored program.
Compare state counts with their denominators
Use the denominator for the geography you are quoting. For California, the denominator is 619 included records offering short-term or long-term non-hospital residential substance use treatment. Of those, 523 reported a tailored program or group. The same definition applies to each row.
| Geography | Valid program answers | Reported a tailored program | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | 619 | 523 | 84.5% |
| Florida | 176 | 142 | 80.7% |
| Illinois | 94 | 64 | 68.1% |
| New York | 187 | 122 | 65.2% |
| Texas | 107 | 85 | 79.4% |
| District of Columbia | 5 | 5 | 100.0% |
DC illustrates why the counts matter. Its percentage represents five answers. One different response in that group would move the result by 20 percentage points. States also differ in how many locations each operator runs. The CSV covers all 50 states and DC and counts locations as represented in the public-use file. It cannot tell you how many separate provider organizations offer the program.
What the facility survey can tell a buyer
The results help buyers recognize that residential substance use care and a tailored co-occurring program frequently appear in the same facility record. If your team offers both, use that actual mix of services to evaluate your record system. Identify which services staff provide at the residential site and which require a referral. If one location offers services in several settings, check what each team can see when a person moves between them.
The public-use file contains facility reports from 2024. It does not confirm a program’s current availability, capacity, staffing, clinical model, or outcomes. It also does not show which people used the tailored program. For information about a specific provider, confirm its current program details with that provider. For purchasing decisions, bring your own service mix and operating responsibilities to the software evaluation.
What can a residential buyer ask a vendor to demonstrate?
Use one fictional residential admission with a mental health follow-up. In one version the same organization provides the follow-up. In the second version an outside clinician receives a referral and sends a visit summary. Use the same case with every vendor. Keep the discussion on staff responsibilities and the information they need for the handoff.
| Role | What to look for in the demo |
|---|---|
| Admissions | The receiving team can find the referral reason, the planned setting, and the person responsible for follow-up. |
| Residential clinician | The clinician can find the residential treatment plan and tell which parts of the record came from an outside clinician. |
| Program lead | Staff can see whether the follow-up is still pending and who is expected to act next. |
| Billing lead | The reviewer can trace a sample charge to its documented service, program, and location. |
Ask who can correct a location or service assignment, how another team learns of the change, and how the original entry is preserved. Record what the vendor demonstrates. Compare the outcome with the records and teams your organization actually uses. Residential EHR overview · Addiction treatment EHR buyer guide.
Reproduce and cite the counts
Use the Delimited archive on the 2024 N-SUMHSS data files page. Open NSUMHSS_2024_PUF_CSV.csv.
- Keep records with a state or DC code in
LOCATIONSTATE. Keep bothCTYPERC3andCTYPERC4equal to 0 or 1, with at least one equal to 1. This selects 3,492 facility records. - Keep records with
SRVC31_SUequal to 0 or 1 for the percentage. This removes seven records with no valid program answer. The result is 3,485 records. - Group by geography and the two residential setting answers. Count
SRVC31_SU=1as reporting a tailored program or group. Divide by the valid answers in that group and round to one decimal place. - Sum the state and DC counts before computing the national percentage. The national result uses 2,673 records reporting a tailored program or group and 3,485 valid answers. This is an unweighted count.
Cite the Ease Health analysis of the 2024 SAMHSA N-SUMHSS public-use file with the year, geographic scope, numerator, and denominator. Use “facility records offering non-hospital residential substance use treatment that reported a tailored program or group.” See the other analyses and their source data.
Frequently Asked Questions
How common were tailored co-occurring programs at residential substance use facilities?
In the 50 states and DC, 2,673 of 3,485 included records offering non-hospital residential substance use treatment (76.7%) reported a program or group tailored to people with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders.
Does this show that the tailored program was offered in the residential setting?
The survey asked about the program or group at the facility location. A location could offer residential and outpatient services. The response does not identify the setting where the tailored program was delivered.
How did facilities offering short-term and long-term residential treatment compare?
Among records with a valid program answer, 580 of 761 short-term-only records (76.2%), 700 of 1,019 long-term-only records (68.7%), and 1,393 of 1,705 records offering both (81.7%) reported a tailored program or group.
How many records did the analysis exclude for a missing program answer?
Seven of the 3,492 records reporting short-term or long-term non-hospital residential substance use treatment lacked a valid program answer. The analysis reports those seven separately from the 812 valid records that did not report a tailored program.
