OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Fifty percent of adolescents have tried an illicit drug and 70% have tried alcohol by the end of high school. Further, despite 7-9% of youth 12-17 meeting criteria for a substance use disorder only 1 in 10 actually receive it. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence based process that facilitates early identification and treatment for adults and adolescents in community (primary care) facilities. Despite the documented effectiveness of SBIRT, no research has examined the implementation of SBIRT in school settings by school-based mental health personnel. The purpose of the present study was to identify facilitators and barriers to SBIRT implementation by school-based personnel in secondary schools. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Participants included 30 school and community service providers including: teachers, school counselors, school psychologists, school administrators (principals and central office staff), city council members, school board members, community mental health services providers as well as state level individuals from the department of Adolescent Substance Use and the Office of Drug Control Policy. Interview guides were developed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify facilitators and barriers regarding the following: inner setting, outer setting, individuals involved, and intervention (SBIRT). The six-phase framework of Thematic Analysis (TA) was employed to analyze the data. We specifically used the deductive method to analyze the data with a pre-determined theory in mind (CFIR) to move to hypothesis building, and coding the data. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Contrary to research conducted outside of the schools under the auspices that schools do not have the time or interest in providing school-based substance use interventions, several themes emerged identifying a receptivity, willingness, and eagerness to provide these services. Specifically, school-based mental health professionals (i.e., school counselors, school psychologists) being aware of adolescent substance use in their schools, but not knowing how to appropriately handle such disclosures. Further, school-based mental health personnel indicated that they would want additional training on how to identify and provide services to adolescents with substance use needs. School-based administrators also indicated a receptivity to addressing substance use with an acknowledgement that schools would need to move from a punitive model for substance use infractions to a treatment model. Some identified barriers to implementation included lack of awareness of community treatment settings for referrals and anonymity or lack thereof of substance use screening. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: While the data analyzed come from a limited sample in one school district, the present study found that schools could be potential settings for the early identification and intervention of adolescent substance use. Findings from this study contribute to our understanding of school and community receptivity to school-based interventions. Future research should identify training needs of school-based mental health personnel to assist in the early identification and prevention of substance use disorders.