as well as training in methodology, statistics, and the range of service settings in which mental health care is delivered. The report recommended a national mentorship program and suggested that NIMH explore opportunities to partner with MCHB, AHRQ of HRSA, CMHS/SAMHSA, and CSAP/SAMHSA to create and fund research training activities. As in many other reports, the emphasis of the blueprint was on treatment, not prevention. That report did note that, whereas overall NIMH funding, including K awards, had increased impressively over the preceding decade, the percentage of funds allocated to individual and institutional training grants, particularly those addressing child mental health, had not kept pace.
An example of a broadly positioned training program is Project Mainstream (Multi-Agency Initiative on Substance Abuse Training and Education for America), which is administered by AMERSA (Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse) and funded by HRSA and SAMHSA.24 The objectives of this project include the conduct of interdisciplinary faculty development programs and the creation of regional training networks as well as a national electronic communications resource to support faculty development in the area of substance abuse. This program has targeted training in 15 different health professions. The Project Mainstream strategic plan states that all graduating trainees should be competent in identifying and referring for assistance the children of parents with substance use disorders and advising communities about resources for effective substance use prevention programs, such as specialty-specific curricula and tools. Another goal of the strategic plan is to convene representatives of certification, accreditation, and licensure boards to consider how their organizations can contribute to substance use training through their requirements and testing processes. There is not a similar effort for multispecialty training in mental disorders identification, treatment, and prevention.
These data suggest that numbers of prevention science trainees have increased substantially since the 1994 IOM report. However, no conclusive statement can be made about the magnitude of growth in numbers of prevention scientists. It is likely that the numbers continue to fall short of needs and the opportunities to create, demonstrate efficacy of, and implement preventions that promise to reduce MEB disorders.
Since 1994, when the focus of training was on prevention researchers, training and education needs have broadened. These now include other basic researchers who serve as discovery engines as well as a broad array