Using GPRA to Improve Services

Lessons from Wisconsin

SAMHSA Strategic Planning for Providers to Improve Business Practices October 2009, Arlington, VA

Michael Nunley, Ph.D.

Coordinator of Research and Evaluation

Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division

Eight points in this presentation

Two philosophical points Four bits of practical advice Two examples

Milwaukee WIser Choice 2500-3000 clients/year

– 15% Specific Corrections Populations (Reentry, Alternative to Revocation, Pre-Trial Diversion, Milwaukee County Drug Court)

– 85% “General Population” (45% Criminal Justice-involved)

3 CIUs (+ Drug Court CIU) 5 Recovery Support Coordinator Agencies

(+ Drug Court RSC) 43 Clinical Treatment Providers 66 Non-clinical Recovery Support Service Providers

Program Evaluation Process

Two philosophical points

Client outcomes should be integrated into ALL system management

Follow-Up GPRA offers the best outcomes data available

Four bits of practical advice

Four bits of practical advice

1. Keep it Simple– NOMs offers good minimal set

2. Run Regular Quarterly Reports– Avoid Ad-hoc analyses

3. Tie GPRA Results to Other Data

4. Show Change with Rolling Data

Milwaukee WIser Choice

First Example:Intensity of Day Treatment

First Example:Intensity of Day Treatment

First Example:Intensity of Day Treatment Conclusions

– More hours Day Treatment in first 28 daysmay improve long-term recovery

– Need to continue to monitor data

Second Example:Hispanic-Latino Ethnicity

Second Example:Hispanic-Latino Ethnicity

Second Example:Hispanic-Latino Ethnicity Conclusions

– Those self-identified as Hispanic-Latino are more likely to have positive factors at intake but improve less after six months

– Early drop-out from treatment may be reason