Still Reliant Upon Public Funding, Community Groups Must Diversify to Survive

Even in the face of shrinking federal and state budgets, the public sector remains a vital funding source for alcohol and other drug treatment and prevention organizations. According to "Leading from the Ground Up," Join Together's third national survey of the community movement against substance abuse, public sector funding accounts for 78 percent of substance abuse coalition budgets.

The biggest chunk of funding comes from the federal government, which contributes 43 percent of overall program financing. However, federal participation is even higher for some segments, such as groups founded as CSAP Community Partnerships (87 percent federally funded) and school-based or drug-free school groups (55 percent federally funded -- generally through the Department of Education's Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program).

Unfortunately, both the CSAP demonstration grants that funded the Community Partnerships program and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program have experienced significant budget cuts in recent years. Also, grants under the Community Partnerships program will soon expire, leaving more than 200 of these groups with little choice but to find alternative funding methods.

State governments also provide a significant portion of funding for coalitions (24 percent), as do local government entities (12 percent). Some states fund Governors' anti-drug councils or statewide prevention agencies. States also are required to contribute funds in order to receive federal grants; In fact, according to the latest State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Profile (SADAP) report, total state spending on drug treatment and prevention actually exceeded federal spending by a small margin.

A good example of local government participation comes from Connecticut, where line-item appropriations in the budgets of six local towns help fund the Regional Youth Substance Abuse Project (RYSAP).

In a time where balanced budgets have become almost an article of faith among politicians, however, social programs -- including substance abuse programs -have faced a double whammy of federal and state cutbacks. This is particularly bad news for programs that rely on a single funding source, since almost invariably that source resides somewhere in the public sector.

The good news is that the Join Together survey found that 69 percent of coalitions receive money from multiple sources. "Diversified funding is a major element in long-term survival and stability for coalitions," according to the Join Together survey.

Increasingly, community coalitions are looking toward the private sector as an untapped source of revenues. Foundations, for example, currently contributed just 4 percent of coalition funding. Partly this is due to the fact that many coalitions are only now beginning to seek out funding from private charities, but it also may be because community groups have not directed their appeals to the right places. National foundations, for example, get the most attention (and applications) from community groups -- but often are the least likely to fund a purely local program. Community foundations and foundations and corporate giving programs of local companies would be far more fertile territory to explore.

Substance abuse organizations also must learn to properly frame their appeals to foundations. Few foundations, for example, identify substance abuse as a funding priority. But many -- especially community foundations -- are very interested in programs that help at-risk youth, promote health and wellness, aid the homeless and serve communities. Clearly, substance abuse programs do many or all of these things: that message must be communicated to the foundation.

Not surprisingly, coalitions that have the most holistic approach to the problem of substance abuse also have the greatest diversity of funding. "Coalitions with more than one source of funds have taken on a broader array of issues than those with a single funding source," the survey notes. "For instance, coalitions with multiple funding sources of funds are more likely to participate in other coalitions within their communities and are more likely to address treatment and aftercare, early identification and HIV/AIDS."

Broad-based collaborative approaches not only appeal to foundations, but also can lead to unexpected funding sources. For example, a link between San Antonio Fighting Back and the local Chamber of Commerce yielded a $90,000 weatherization grant from the Department of Energy: the money was used to teach 15 at-risk youths and substance-abusing women the home weatherization trade.

Other private sources accounted for the remaining 17 percent of coalition funding, according to the Join Together survey. Increasingly, non-profit organizations are looking to alternative funding methods to replace declining federal revenues, including selling services and starting businesses.

Among the groups surveyed by Join Together, non-governmental health providers received the greatest percentage of their budget (46 percent) from private sources other than foundations. Doubtless this figure largely represents treatment providers who get insurance and self-pay reimbursement for their services. But even groups that don't provide treatment can receive reimbursement for providing services. For example, Washington, D.C.'s Corporation Against Drug Abuse has built a successful business consulting with employers to provide drug-free workplace services. Non-profit community groups also have started businesses that utilize the skills of at-risk and addicted clients, such as the bakery run by Maine's York County Shelters, which generates annual revenues of approximately $100,000.

A service-oriented approach also can help programs squeeze more dollars out of the public sector. For example, the Northeast Oklahoma Council on Alcoholism has contracts with the state to oversee court-ordered community service programs, programs for sex offenders and drunk driving education classes.

"Coalitions are being asked to accept enormous burdens with small resource bases," notes the Join Together survey. Most coalitions (35 percent) spend less than $50,000 per year; 28 percent spend between $50 and $250000; 15 percent spend between $250,000; and $500,000 and 22 percent -- mostly government coalitions -- spend more than $500,000.

The bad news is that the magnitude of the substance abuse problems demands much greater levels of support. The good news is that these groups have proven that they can make a difference even on a shoestring budget, and that even modest increases in funding generated by alternative funding methods can make a difference in these communities.