Audit rips use of fed funds for substance abuse fight

Thursday, April 13, 2000 | 11:28 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Taxpayer dollars have been misdirected in Nevada's fight against alcohol and drug abuse, a legislative audit says.

The audit, released Wednesday, sharply criticized the state Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, which had five different chiefs in four years and a staff turnover rate of 24 percent.

The bureau is not spending its federal funds to target high-risk groups, Deputy Legislative Auditor Jane Bailey said.

"As a result, pregnant drug and alcohol abusers and IV drug users may not be receiving adequate services or may not be aware that services are available to them at no charge," Bailey said.

In addition, the federal grant money may have been spent for services to individuals who had insurance or Social Security benefits.

Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, chairman of the Legislative Audit Committee which received the report, said, "I'm surprised the feds haven't moved on us yet."

But Legislative Auditor Gary Crews said there is a "good chance" the bureau could be in for federal sanctions.

After the bureau was bounced from under the auspices of one government department to another, it was returned to the Human Resources Department last year and put under the control of the state Health Division.

Yvonne Sylva, Health Division director, asked for the audit to check on the condition of the agency.

She said the problems uncovered by the audit are "more extensive than we anticipated," but she does not believe they "affected the care in the community." She said the examination will allow the bureau to make improvements.

In fiscal 1999 the bureau's budget of $11.9 million included 65.4 percent in federal grants.

The bureau, created in 1960, doesn't have a plan for the development and distribution of prevention and treatment services, evidenced by problems in Washoe County. The Reno area had the highest level of alcohol abuse in the state in 1999, but it didn't get any state liquor tax revenue for prevention.

"The bureau could not demonstrate it gave priority to areas of the state where there is a shortage of personnel to treat alcohol abuse or that it has determined the areas where a shortage exists," said Bailey, who was in charge of the audit.

Bailey said the bureau has not complied with federal regulations for spending money for high-risk groups such as pregnant women, IV drug users, and those with HIV or tuberculosis. There were no programs to publicize the services for women and IV drug users.

The agency relied on the private programs that received grants to do the publicity, but in five of the nine programs audited, there was no outreach provided for these high-risk groups, according to the audit.

There was no system established to determine the availability of services to high-risk groups. If one program was filled, the bureau was supposed to refer the client to another program.

"For example, if a pregnant woman cannot be admitted to a treatment program, the provider is to notify the bureau," Bailey said. "The bureau must try to find another treatment program with available capacity for the client. If no treatment program has available capacity to treat the client, specific interim services must be provided within 48 hours."

But that goal fell through the cracks.

Federal regulations required 35 percent of the block grant to be spent on alcohol services and 35 percent on drug services. In one case the audit found that 83 percent went for drug programs and 17 percent for alcohol treatment.

The examination said the bureau did not properly manage a $100,000 revolving loan fund to be used by nonprofit organizations for homes for recovering substance abusers. Since 1990, 11 of the 14 loans have defaulted and at least seven of the 14 homes have closed.

The audit found that the agency failed to get adequate documentation in determining if the nonprofit groups would qualify and it never took adequate steps to recover on the defaulted loans.

In addition, the audit found one employee made 75 personal long-distance telephone calls on the state system and two long-distance calls on the state credit card. The staff member never reimbursed the agency.

Violations of the open-meeting law also were cited. The bureau's advisory board on certification of counselors closed their meetings on issues that were not confidential by law. Agendas were never posted and minutes of the meeting were never prepared, the audit found.