Facilities and Clients
Clients in Treatment per 100,000 Population
Back to Main TOC
This chapter presents facility data by State or jurisdiction. Facilities operated by Federal agencies are included in the States in which the facilities are located, although these facilities may have clients from other States.
Table 5.1 details the 2002 N-SSATS survey response rate. The number of treatment facilities and clients in each State or jurisdiction is summarized in Table 5.2. Tables 5.3 to 5.19 provide State-level detail on tables presented in earlier chapters. Table 5.20 presents, by substance abuse problem, the number of clients by State or jurisdiction age 18 and over per 100,000 population for the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Tables 5.21 to 5.24 present State-level data on clients under age 18.
Table 5.1. The overall response rate for the survey was 96 percent. Only Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands had response rates below 90 percent, and these were 87 percent and 80 percent, respectively.
Table 5.2. More than half of all facilities (51 percent) and more than half of all clients in treatment (55 percent) on March 29, 2002, were located in 10 States. California accounted for the largest proportion of both facilities and clients, at 13 percent and 14 percent, respectively. New York had 9 percent of all facilities and 12 percent of all clients. The other 8 States that accounted for the majority of facilities and clients were Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington.
Table 5.20. For the United States, there were 471 clients in treatment per 100,000 population age 18 and older on March 29, 2002.
Figure 6 maps the rates of clients in treatment by State.
The rate was highest for persons with both alcohol and drug problems (221 per 100,000), followed by drug abuse only (149 per 100,000), and alcohol abuse only (100 per 100,000). While these rates can suggest the extent of the underlying substance abuse problem, they also reflect the level of resources available for treatment and should be interpreted with caution.