Grant Writing for Drug Courts: How to Fund Sweat Patch Programs After Changes to SAMHSA

Why Funding Drug Court Monitoring Is Changing and How to Adapt

Funding a drug court program has never been simple. Now, with changes to SAMHSA grant structures, the challenge has grown.

For many courts, these shifts have meant fewer direct federal dollars for testing and monitoring. At the same time, caseloads are rising, local drug trends are evolving, and the demand for accountability is higher than ever.

The good news: Courts that adapt their funding strategies can thrive.

The PharmChek® Drugs of Abuse Sweat Patch offers a proven, court-admissible way to strengthen compliance monitoring and participant accountability. But implementing or expanding a sweat patch program requires planning and funding.

This guide provides practical tools to help you find, secure, and sustain funding for continuous monitoring in the post-SAMHSA landscape. You’ll get ready-to-use grant narrative tips and techniques, sample cost-comparison data, examples of funding sources, and the insights of judicial leaders who have done it successfully.

The New Drug Court Funding Landscape After SAMHSA Grant Cuts

What Do the SAMHSA Funding Changes Mean for Drug Courts?

In recent years, SAMHSA has shifted away from certain direct grant programs that historically supported drug courts. Some courts that relied on these funds now face a gap.

Federal priorities have not disappeared, but the pathway to funding has changed. Today, courts are more likely to find competitive opportunities through the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), and other specialized funding streams, each with its own priorities and reporting requirements.

How Have These Shifts Impacted Grant Competition and Priorities?

• More competition for fewer large federal grants.
• Greater emphasis on measurable outcomes and sustainability.
• There is an increased need to diversify funding beyond a single source.

Timeline of Key Changes:

• 2022: SAMHSA signals funding shifts toward broader behavioral health initiatives.
• 2023: Final Oral Fluid Mandatory Guidelines take effect; federal interest in diverse specimen types grows.
• 2024: Courts report reduced direct SAMHSA grant awards; pivot toward DOJ/BJA and state-level sources.

Where Can Drug Courts Find Funding Now?

Funding opportunities for drug court monitoring programs now span multiple levels of government and the private sector. Diversifying your funding mix helps reduce risk if one stream ends unexpectedly.

What Federal Grants Are Available for Continuous Drug Monitoring?

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), remains the largest competitive funding source for technology-based monitoring. Adult Drug Court and Veterans Treatment Court Discretionary Grant Programs can cover tools like the PharmChek® Sweat Patch.

Pitch tip: Show how continuous monitoring improves public safety and reduces recidivism. Include a detailed evaluation plan—BJA reviewers weigh measurable outcomes heavily.

How Can State Grants and Opioid Settlement Funds Be Used?

Opioid settlement funds, such as the approx­­imately $31.4 million South Dakota has already received, have the potential to support existing rehabilitation programs—if they’re released from state oversight. Attorney General Marty Jackley, joined by the mayors of Sioux Falls and Rapid City, recently called for immediate action to expand addiction services (The Dakota Scout).

The Opioid Settlement Tracker (by Christine Minhee, J.D.) compiles each state’s spending plan, timelines, and allowable uses. It’s an essential tool for identifying opportunities.

Judge Greg Pinski, who covered this topic during PharmChem’s RISE25 presentation, advises: “Don’t overlook the opioid settlement funds. If you can show how your monitoring program fits prevention, treatment, and recovery priorities, you’ve got a strong case.”

What Local Budgets or Partnerships Can Support Programs?

City and county budgets, community foundations, and nonprofit partnerships can fund pilot programs or participant costs. Smaller, local grants often have less competition and can serve as bridge funding while larger applications are pending.

Ed Gilligan, Director of Juvenile Court Services in Yuma, Arizona and another presenter at PharmChem’s RISE25 presentation, cited an example of local funding: “We had a local foundation that, after seeing how our high-risk participants were graduating at higher rates with the patch, agreed to fund the sweat patches for that group.”

Which Private and Corporate Grants Should You Consider?

Civic organizations, retail-based programs, and corporate philanthropy can be surprisingly effective. Walmart’s Community Grant Program, for instance, offers $250–$5,000 grants to eligible government entities and nonprofits for projects with clear community benefits.

Pitch tip: Tie your request directly to the funder’s stated priorities, such as reducing relapse, strengthening families, and improving public safety.

Judge Pinski summed it up during RISE25: “Don’t wait for one perfect grant. Stack smaller wins until the program pays for itself.”

Key Takeaway: Most successful programs blend multiple sources from the start, ensuring they can continue beyond the initial grant term.

How Continuous Monitoring with the PharmChek® Sweat Patch Improves Outcomes and Saves Costs

Traditional urine testing has limits. It offers a snapshot in time and is vulnerable to scheduling gaps or manipulation.

The PharmChek® Sweat Patch continuously collects and stores evidence of drug use over 7 to 10 days. If a participant uses drugs at any point during the wear period, or in the 24 to 48 hours before application, that use will be detected upon lab analysis.

Programs using our sweat patch often discover missed drug use in participants who consistently tested negative through urine. This improved detection helps courts intervene sooner and provide more targeted support.

Ed Gilligan described his program’s experience at RISE25: "We were seeing fewer missed-test sanctions because PharmChek® kept people engaged. That helped us keep them in the program long enough to graduate, and it cut down on probation violations."

Why Is FDA Clearance Important for Legal Defensibility?

The PharmChek® Sweat Patch is FDA-cleared as a drug collection device—an industry distinction of such importance that it cannot be overstated. Every presumptive positive is confirmed using LC-MS/MS, the platinum standard in forensic toxicology, virtually eliminating the risk of false positives.

Courts across the country have admitted PharmChek® results into evidence. In one PharmChek® Academy session, Dr. Suman Rana of THINKTOX said, "...on the PharmChek® website, they’ve done an excellent job putting a list of the major court cases where the sweat patch was admitted as evidence. Because the patch is FDA-cleared, courts look at it as a valid device, and it’s easier to get it admitted. Courts have regularly relied on that FDA clearance as an indicator of reliability."

Grant-Writing Strategies for Funding Continuous Drug Monitoring Programs

Winning grant support for continuous drug monitoring programs requires more than explaining what the PharmChek® Sweat Patch does. Funders want to see how your work aligns with their priorities, improves public safety, and delivers measurable results. By framing your proposal around the outcomes they value and backing it with local data, participant success stories, and cost savings, you position your program as a smart investment in both accountability and recovery.

How Do You Align Your Proposal with Funder Priorities?

Start by analyzing the funder’s mission statement and past awards. Make explicit connections between your program’s goals and the outcomes the funder values most.

If a foundation’s priority is “safe and healthy communities,” your proposal should explicitly connect continuous monitoring to community safety outcomes.

How to Prove ROI Using Local Data and Testimonials

Use local compliance rates, participant success stories, and cost savings projections.

Judge Pinski emphasized during RISE25 that “if you can show funders you save the county more than you cost it, you have a much easier conversation.”

What Does Continuous Drug Monitoring Cost?

Cost Table: Estimated Total Cost of Testing per Participant, per Month

The following table is provided as an illustrative model only. Figures are based on commonly reported public cost ranges for supplies, staffing, and laboratory confirmation, not on actual program invoices. Costs will vary depending on jurisdiction, negotiated lab rates, staff wages, and participant volume. Courts and agencies should substitute their own data when preparing grant applications or budget justifications.

Common Grant-Writing Mistakes That Can Sink Your Drug Court Proposal

• Vague outcomes without measurable targets.
• No sustainability plan beyond the initial grant term.
• Missing attachments like letters of support or MOUs.

Case Study: How Judge Pinski Secured $5 Million for a Drug Court Program

When Judge Greg Pinski’s court pursued a large-scale grant, success hinged on two factors: deep stakeholder engagement and a data-driven narrative.

They involved treatment providers, probation officers, and even local employers in planning. They provided clear KPIs and an evaluation plan from the outset.

Pinski’s advice: “Funders want to see that you’re not just buying equipment, you’re building a system that works.”

Quick Takeaways:

• Engage all stakeholders before writing.
• Use clear, specific budget justifications.
• Tie every expense to an outcome.

How to Build a Sustainable, Multi-Source Funding Plan for Drug Court Monitoring

Tracking and Reporting Outcomes to Keep Your Funding Flowing

Securing grant dollars is only the first step. Maintaining those dollars, and building on them, depends on proving your program’s impact year after year.

Funders want evidence that their investment is driving real results. The strongest way to deliver that evidence is to show exactly how your program’s resources and activities are tied to measurable changes in participant behavior, court efficiency, and public safety.

One effective tool for this is a logic model.

What Is a Logic Model, and How Do You Create One for a Sweat Patch Program?

A logic model is a simple, structured way to describe how your program works and why it will achieve its intended results.

Here’s how to create one:

When you present this in your proposal, keep the entries specific and measurable. Instead of saying “improve compliance,” say “increase compliance rate from 70% to 85% within 12 months.” Instead of “reduce violations,” say “reduce probation violations by 20% within 3 years.”

A well-written logic model doesn’t just satisfy a grant requirement, it becomes a management tool for your team. It also keeps your program focused on outcomes and makes annual reporting to funders straightforward, strengthening your case for renewed or expanded funding.

How to Turn Your Logic Model into Measurable Proof

Once you’ve mapped out your logic model, the next step is translating those short- and long-term outcomes into a structured evaluation plan.

An evaluation table is one of the most effective ways to do this because it forces you to define exactly how you’ll measure success, where the data will come from, and how often you’ll report it.

Here’s how to build one for a sweat patch program:

When you put this into a grant proposal, it’s less about the format and more about showing funders that you have a disciplined, repeatable process for monitoring your results.

Funders want confidence that their investment will be tracked with rigor and that the findings will be used to make adjustments, not just stored in a report.

By pairing your logic model with a clear evaluation plan, you create a closed loop:

• The logic model explains what you plan to do and why it will work.
• The evaluation plan proves whether it’s working and how you know.

That loop is what makes funders feel confident continuing to invest in your program.

Long-Term Budget Planning for Continuous Drug Monitoring Programs

A strong proposal does more than show how you’ll spend grant funds in Year One. It demonstrates how the program will remain viable and cost-effective long after the grant term ends.

For continuous monitoring with the PharmChek® Sweat Patch, the budget should reflect:

• Direct costs of implementation (patch kits, lab analysis with LC-MS/MS confirmation, training, and supplies).
• Indirect costs that often decrease over time (staffing for collections, transportation, and chain-of-custody administration).
• Cost offsets that improve the program’s overall return on investment (reduced missed-test sanctions, avoided incarceration costs, and more efficient staff utilization).

The table below provides a five-year projection for a sweat patch program serving 40 participants, with one patch applied per week. Figures are based on generic public cost ranges and conservative savings assumptions, not actual program numbers.

Budget Table: Five-Year Projection

The five-year projection below is an example built on stated assumptions and conservative savings estimates. It is intended to demonstrate how a program might transition from grant dependence to local sustainability. Actual costs and offsets should be recalculated using each jurisdiction’s staffing, participant fees, court costs, and negotiated vendor pricing.

*Cost Offsets may include: Staff Time, Missed-Test Sanctions, Avoided Jail Days

Assumptions:

• SAMHSA grant cuts have shifted the funding landscape. Drug courts can no longer rely on direct SAMHSA support and must pursue diversified funding streams, especially DOJ/BJA discretionary grants, state-level sources, opioid settlement funds, and private foundations.
• Diversification is critical for sustainability. The most successful programs combine multiple sources—federal, state, local, and private—so they are not disrupted if one funding stream ends.
• Continuous monitoring aligns with funder priorities. The PharmChek® Sweat Patch improves compliance, reduces missed-test sanctions, and lowers recidivism—key outcomes that funders value. Its FDA clearance also strengthens legal defensibility in court.
• Grant proposals must be outcome-driven. Funders prioritize measurable results, clear evaluation plans, and long-term sustainability over one-time purchases. Using local data, cost savings, and participant success stories strengthens applications.
• Logic models and evaluation plans are essential. Mapping inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes—and pairing them with structured evaluation tables—demonstrates accountability and ensures ongoing funding.
• Cost savings make a strong ROI case. Compared to frequent observed UAs, the sweat patch reduces staff time, cuts down on missed-test sanctions, and avoids jail days, lowering overall participant costs.
• Attachments and stakeholder support matter. Strong proposals include letters of support, MOUs, training plans, evaluation frameworks, and sustainability strategies to prove readiness and long-term viability.
• Sustainability comes from planning ahead. Programs should transition from grant dependence to local funding and participant fees within a few years, using cost offsets and efficiency gains to strengthen financial stability.

Narrative for Reviewers

In Year 1, grant funding jump-starts the program by covering the largest share of costs while local match and participant fees establish shared investment.

By Year 3, grant dependence is minimal, and by Year 4, the program is fully supported through local contributions and participant fees.

The built-in cost offsets:

• Fewer court hearings for missed tests
• Reduced incarceration days
• Less staff time spent on collections

These factors make the program more efficient each year, and this blended funding approach not only sustains the program but also protects it from the disruption of a single funding stream ending.

Key Takeaways

• SAMHSA grant cuts have shifted the funding landscape. Drug courts can no longer rely on direct SAMHSA support and must pursue diversified funding streams, especially DOJ/BJA discretionary grants, state-level sources, opioid settlement funds, and private foundations.
• Diversification is critical for sustainability. The most successful programs combine multiple sources—federal, state, local, and private—so they are not disrupted if one funding stream ends.
• Continuous monitoring aligns with funder priorities. The PharmChek® Sweat Patch improves compliance, reduces missed-test sanctions, and lowers recidivism—key outcomes that funders value. Its FDA clearance also strengthens legal defensibility in court.
• Grant proposals must be outcome-driven. Funders prioritize measurable results, clear evaluation plans, and long-term sustainability over one-time purchases. Using local data, cost savings, and participant success stories strengthens applications.
• Logic models and evaluation plans are essential. Mapping inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes—and pairing them with structured evaluation tables—demonstrates accountability and ensures ongoing funding.
• Cost savings make a strong ROI case. Compared to frequent observed UAs, the sweat patch reduces staff time, cuts down on missed-test sanctions, and avoids jail days, lowering overall participant costs.
• Attachments and stakeholder support matter. Strong proposals include letters of support, MOUs, training plans, evaluation frameworks, and sustainability strategies to prove readiness and long-term viability.
• Sustainability comes from planning ahead. Programs should transition from grant dependence to local funding and participant fees within a few years, using cost offsets and efficiency gains to strengthen financial stability.

Securing the Future of Drug Court Monitoring

Post-SAMHSA funding shifts have challenged drug courts, but they’ve also opened doors to new partnerships and diversified funding.

Continuous monitoring with the PharmChek® Sweat Patch aligns with funder priorities for accountability, equity, and measurable results.

With the right strategy, courts can secure funding that sustains programs for years.