in exploring developmental pathways and healthy development of young people. The committee requested historical data on prevention and treatment research and narrative information on FY 2006 funding from NIMH, NIDA, and NIAAA. However, these institutes were not able to provide uniform data and, with the exception of NIMH, were not able to provide longitudinal data. None routinely tracks its prevention research projects as universal, selective, or indicated.

NIMH was able to provide the most comprehensive financial data. Although both prevention and treatment intervention research funding increased between 1999 and 2006, prevention intervention research funding represented a smaller proportion of the overall NIMH budget than treatment intervention research (6.62 percent versus 8.75 percent, respectively, in FY 2006). If research aimed at “prevention of negative sequelae of clinical episodes, such as comorbidity, disability, and relapse or recurrence” were classified as treatment intervention research, consistent with the committee’s definitions of prevention and treatment (see Chapter 3), the discrepancy between funding for prevention (6.72 percent in 2006) and treatment intervention research (14 percent in 2006) would be considerably greater (see Figure 12-1). In addition, both the percentage increase between 1999 and 2006 (80 and 102 percent for prevention and treatment intervention research, respectively) and the total funding ($94.4 and $122.8 million, respectively, in FY 2006) were much less for prevention than for treatment intervention research.

Consistent with the 1994 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research funding for prevention research4 on drug abuse was proportionately greater than the funding for prevention research on mental disorders. Between 1999 and 2006, the proportion of NIDA’s total appropriation expended for prevention ranged from 13.4 to 14.5 percent, while that of NIMH ranged from 5.7 to 7.6 percent during the same time period. The vast majority of NIAAA prevention research in FY 2007, the only year for which estimates were provided, focused on underage drinking.


Organizational Structure. When the 1994 IOM report was published, NIMH, NIDA, and NIAAA each had a prevention research branch; only NIDA has one today. The NIDA prevention research branch remains in the Division of Epidemiology, Services, and Prevention Research (previously called the Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research). NIAAA now has a Division of Epidemiology and Prevention Research, which works collaboratively with other divisions. NIMH has established an associate director position in the Office of the Director with coordinating respon-

4

NIDA was not able to provide an accounting of treatment research.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement