Are Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics Better Positioned to Provide Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Services Tailored to IPV/DV Survivors?

Background and Purpose: Intimate partner violence and domestic violence (IPV/DV) are significant public health concerns closely linked to co-occurring mental health (MH) and substance use disorder (SUD) conditions (Cafferky et al., 2018; Gezinski et al., 2021; Galano et al., 2025). However, service delivery remains fragmented, often addressing MH, SUD, and IPV/DV needs separately (Ogden et al., 2026). Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinics (CCBHCs) are designed for integrated MH and SUD care. This study examines whether CCBHCs are better positioned than their non-CCBHC counterparts in offering MH and/or SUD programs tailored to IPV/DV survivors, and organizational factors associated with providing such tailored services.

Methods: Using data from the 2024 National Substance Use and Mental Health Services Survey (N-SUMHSS; SAMHSA, 2025), we included 5,753 outpatient MH facilities that reported providing MH and SUD services (755 CCBHCs, 1,272 traditional community mental health centers [CMHCs], and 3,726 other outpatient facilities). The outcome was a four-level categorical variable capturing the provision of MH and/or SUD services tailored for IPV/DV survivors: (1) neither MH nor SUD services tailored for IPV/DV survivors; (2) tailored MH services, but no tailored SUD services; (3) tailored SUD services, but no tailored MH services; and (4) both MH and SUD tailored for IPV/DV survivors. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate associations of facility type (CCBHC, CMHC, other outpatient) with the service provision outcome; facility-level covariates included ownership (private for-profit, non-profit, government), small practice, faith-based affiliation, offering auxiliary DV services, funding, and payment options.

Results: Across all models, CCBHCs consistently showed significantly higher odds of providing both MH and SUD services tailored to IPV/DV survivors, compared to CMHCs; the association was strongest when compared to facilities with no IPV/DV tailored services (vs. CMHC, aOR = 2.40, 95% CI [1.73, 3.31], p < .001). Receiving SAMHSA funding was significantly associated with providing both MH and SUD services tailored to IPV/DV survivors, when compared with facilities offering only MH tailored services (aOR = 2.21, 2.21 [1.44, 3.40], p < .001) and facilities offering neither tailored services (aOR = 1.42, 1.42 [1.15, 1.75], p < .01). Factors including for-profit status, small practice, faith-based affiliation, and offering no-charge service, were also associated with offering both MH and SUD services tailored to IPV/DV survivors (vs. facilities offering neither).

Conclusions and Implications: Findings suggest that CCBHCs are better positioned to offer both MH and SUD services tailored to IPV/DV survivors (vs. CMHCs). The significance of SAMHSA funding in sustaining IPV/DV-tailored MH and SUD programming is evident. Given the wide reach of CMHCs to structurally marginalized IPV/DV survivors, future research and advocacy for equitable service access may attend to structural and funding barriers limiting CMHCs’ capacity to tailor MH and SUD services for IPV/DV survivors, and the expansion of CCBHC certification support and SAMHSA funding to CMHCs serving IPV/DV survivors experiencing service disparities due to social, racial, and economic marginalizations.