MHSIP UPDATES

January 2000

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

49TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE ON MENTAL HEALTH STATISTICS

ABack to the Future: Out of the Past@

Sponsored by Center for Mental Health Services & Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program

May 30 - June 2, 2000

Location: Renaissance Mayflower Hotel

1127 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

Call for Abstracts

Behavioral healthcare has changed directions. In the future, delivery of services will not only reflect new technologies, but also will incorporate better knowledge of practices and outcomes. Providers will need to meet the demands placed upon them by consumers and family members. We are seeking presentations that relate to the role of data and information in the past, present, and future of:

- POLICY: How are our policy issues changing?

- PRACTICE: How are practices in the field changing?

- TECHNOLOGY: How is technology changing

Particular attention will be given to the role of human rights in each of these areas. Presentations may also incorporate two or more topic areas. Abstract forms are available at: www.mhsip.org, or www.mentalhealth.org/cmhs/MentalHealthStatistics/NatlConf2000.htm, or by calling 301 443-3343.

Final date for abstract submissions is February 15, 2000.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Annual Conference on Rural Mental Health

ABridging Space and Time: Rural Mental Health in a New Age@

Call for Abstracts

The National Association of Rural Mental Health is seeking abstract submissions on research, model projects, or established practices on consumers, competence, cost, communicating, and connecting. For additional information,contact Cathy Britain 541 962-3430(cbritain@orednet.org); or LuAnn Rice 320 202-1820 (narmh@facts.ksu.edu). Abstracts are due by February 25, 2000.

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR

How does the saying go? AMay you live in interesting times.@ There is certainly much going on in mental health and the MHSIP community that is interesting these days. Those of you who missed the National Conference missed a lot of interesting presentations and discussions--about the White House Conference on Mental Health and the Surgeon General=s report on mental health; the NASMHPD President=s Task Force on Performance Measures; the CMHS-sponsored 16-state indicator pilot grants; the definition and measurement of recovery; the Abt Associates data framework project; the MHSIP focus group meetings; and much more.

Other articles in this issue of MHSIP Updates will provide overviews of the continued activities related to some of the projects reported on at the National Conference. I am going to spend a few lines here discussing the MHSIP focus group meetings that were held last Spring and the planning retreat held this past Fall.

With support from CMHS, MHSIP hosted two meetings in May and June 1999 to focus attendees= thoughts on Are-inventing MHSIP.@ Representatives of a broad group of stakeholders were invited to attend, including consumers, family members, providers, state and federal agencies, and researchers. Participants were given a packet of materials prior to the meetings to ensure they had background information about the current status of mental health statistics in general and the MHSIP Policy Group in particular. All of the papers shared with the focus groups are available in the MHSIP website library (www.mhsip.org) and I encourage you all to read them and share them. Not only do they outline many of the issues facing those in mental health and working with mental health data systems today, but they also highlight the MHSIP values that guide our responses to these issues: consumer-involvement, cooperation and voluntary participation, data-based decision-making, etc.

The task laid before focus group participants was to brainstorm about the possible future form of the MHSIP organization and the content of the MHSIP agenda. Though the groups had no overlapping members, their responses were similar. Suggested activities included improving access to data; getting standards adopted across systems; addressing issues of control and confidentiality; establishing links with other service areas; developing a report card for major plans; demonstrating the importance of mental health services to primary care providers; measuring criminal justice system involvement and health care access; identifying technology applications for mental health data systems; providing technical assistance to states; taking the next steps with the CMHS-funded data framework project (see the website article and other documents on this topic); and developing a national data system based on standardized public domain software.

The organizational mechanisms suggested for accomplishing the proposed activities were also similar. One option both groups offered was to establish the MHSIP Policy Group as a subcommittee of the CMHS Advisory Council.

Another recommendation made by one group was to create an organization to carry out functions related to technology, data standards, and other topics, and have the MHSIP Policy Group serve as the board of directors for that organization. Under this scenario, the Policy Group would provide direction for activities, infuse MHSIP values into each project, and evaluate results, with the support of a fulltime staff, and input from an advisory group of other organizations= representatives.

Another option was to organize MHSIP like a building trade congress whose members vote on decisions periodically.

Another idea was to create a coalition of organizations with similar goals and activities to promote a combined agenda. This ACoordinating Council for Mental Health Measurement Standards@ might have separate divisions to address guidelines, report cards, indicators or other elements of the data framework project mentioned earlier. Under this option, a core working group would draft a statement of issues and develop a strategic plan in a brief paper, then solicit other groups to participate in a Asummit@ meeting. It was suggested initial contacts include groups like NAMI, AMBHA, HCFA, HSRI, CPRI and NASMHPD. These groups would be surveyed to identify common objectives and obstacles, and to determine what structure and activities would make them want to participate.

So, more interesting ideas. What do you think? The MHSIP Policy Group met September 13 and 14 to discuss these ideas and more. Some of the focus group members were invited to attend the first day, then the MHSIP Group concentrated the second day on a discussion of what MHSIP might look like and do in the future. If you like (or don=t like) any of the topics or scenarios I=ve described above, or have an even better alternative, please contact me immediately at SDavis@odmhsas.org. The future is openChelp us shape it.

Steve Davis, Ph.D.

Chair, MHSIP Policy Group

USER GROUP NEWS

THE SOUTHERN STATES MHSIP USERS GROUP (SoSMUG)

The Southeastern States MHSIP Users Group (SoSMUG) continues to serve as a focal point for regional linkages among its 14 member states. SOSMUG encompasses a geographic area that extends from Virginia and West Virginia westward to Texas and Oklahoma.

In regional news, SoSMUG was well represented at the National Conference on Mental Health Statistics this summer. There were MHSIP representatives from 11 of the 14 states in the region at the conference. A special meeting was held with Dr. Ron Manderscheid of the Center for Mental Health Services to discuss MHSIP grant activities. The meeting also served as a forum for several chairpersons to describe the activities within their regional user groups (RUGs). It was pointed out that the RUG organizations offer a unique means by which MHSIP representatives share experiences with the neighboring states of their region. While this "under the RUG" form of technical assistance is often not widely publicized or noted, several attendees pointed to it as one of the key benefits of RUG organizations.

Prior to the National Statistics Conference, SoSMUG members expressed interest in having our Fall 1999 meeting in conjunction with the Southern Regional Conference on Mental Health Statistics, which was held in Charleston, SC, October 31 - November 3. The MHSIP Midwestern States Users Group (MUG) decided at the National Statistics Conference to adopt a similar plan. The two RUGs held simultaneous but separate meetings and focused primarily on state updates. It was agreed that both groups would use the concurrent meetings in Charleston to plan for a possible joint RUG meeting next Spring. Chris Power, chair of MUG, said several MUG members are interested in performance measures and particularly in what the State of Texas is doing in this area. This interest could mesh with current SoSMUG plans to have the Lone Star State serve as host for our Spring 2000 gathering.

Ed Payne

WESTERN STATES DECISION SUPPORT GROUP (WSDSG)

The final 1999 meeting of the WSDSG was held in the State of Washington. Agenda items included the state of the State; consumer activities; recovery; and inter-system coordination. Models of recovery were reviewed and discussion initiated about MHSIP data support for important constructs under recovery. Washington State training for mental health and alcohol/drug case managers was reviewed along with other cross-system initiatives. Presenters included the Commissioner, consumers, and Directors of both Eastern and Western Branches of the Washington Institute for Mental Illness Research and Training (WIMIRT).

In the Western States, AZ, CA, ID, ND, and WA have consumer e-mail discussion lists, and AK, CA, HI, ID, and WA have consumer oriented web pages. Most of these are hosted at http://www.peoplewho.net. Nationally, at least 22 states have consumer lists, again mostly at People Who Net, and there are many related web pages.

Chuck McGee

WICHE, CO

STATE HIGHLIGHTS

Arizona: Bernadette E. Phelan, Ph.D. was recently appointed as the new Principal Investigator for the Arizona State MHSIP grant projects (State Reform Grant and the State Indicator Pilot Grant). Dr. Phelan is currently the Manager of Research, Evaluation and Dissemination for the Arizona Department of Health Services/Division of Behavioral Health Services.

State Reform Grant Implementation. A standing request for no cost extension and carryover of funds has been filed to SAMHSA. The implementation of this grant project started more slowly than was projected. However, toward the second year of the grant implementation, remarkable changes in the oversight of the state behavioral health system were realized. These included internal reorganization that was supportive of the proposed increased oversight capacity of the State, establishment of the Quality Management Committee, institution of reforms in the oversight processes and procedures, strengthened technical capacity for data management, and implementation of performance indicators. Future direction will lead the State towards expanded performance indicators, better data/information dissemination for monitoring, planning, evaluation and policy/decision making, and improved feedback mechanism to and from providers/constituencies.

State Indicator Pilot Grant Report. Progress in grant implementation for the past nine months was reported, as follows: (1) development and initial implementation of the expanded statewide performance indicators; (2) adoption of the MHSIP consumer survey for statewide implementation; (3) increased use of data in RBHA monitoring; (4) standardized data content for bench marking among the RBHAs and with other states; and (5) improved stakeholder participation. The barriers to implementation were: (1) reorganization, which resulted in personnel turnover; (2) staff capacity (with the increased demand for oversight, the Division faced problems both in terms of staff skills and number); (3) RBHA compliance for complete data submission; (4) RBHA capacity to fully respond to the requirements of the new system; and (5) technical problems related to data availability, quality, uniformity and integrity. A better future is expected as the Division begins to hire staff with the required skills.

Georgia: A Primer on Permes (Performance Measurement and Evaluation System).

PERMES is a comprehensive outcome evaluation and measurement system designed to improve the performance and quality capabilities of the MHMRSA state system, regional systems, and individual providers. System priorities and general policy guidelines are set by the PERMES Steering Committee which represents a broad range of system stakeholders.

Work on the project began in November 1997 through a federal grant from the Center for Mental Health Services, Survey and Analysis Branch. The first year of work focused on seeking input and consensus from stakeholder groups throughout the state to develop the core set of initial indicators. Project activities next focused on data collection and evaluation methodologies. These approaches were modeled after successful efforts in other states and recommended practices from national organizations. Collection and evaluation of the data on the initial set of indicators will begin in FY 2000. Data and indicators will be refined and expanded over time, to better assess quality, value, impact and satisfaction.

The goal of this process is to create a set of recognized standards used in the evaluation of services and outcomes in Georgia=s MHMRSA system. Once the methodology is fully developed, regions and providers will be able to benchmark themselves against statewide data. PERMES is an integral component of an overall approach to performance management which incorporates goal setting, outcome evaluation, quality improvement and public accountability.

During March and April, the PERMES consumer survey was piloted in the middle Georgia area (Region 8). Nearly 700 consumers representing all disabilities and ages, participated. The surveys, which are designed to evaluate satisfaction, service preferences and outcomes, were administered by consumer surveyors in sites operated by four community service boards and one private provider in the region. Generally, the survey process and instrument worked well. Changes are under way to correct the problems identified through the pilot. The consumer survey is scheduled to be administered statewide, using regional consumer survey teams, in the fall of 1999.

Minnesota: Minnesota is in the last year of its State Reform Grant. The grant has focused on testing a 19-item version of the MHSIP Consumer Survey as well as developing performance indicators. The grant activities have focused on indicators related to a state initiative to redesign county-based service systems serving adults with serious and persistent mental illness. Regional meetings have been held quarterly around the state to discuss performance indicators as well as reactions to the MHSIP Consumer Survey. The survey is completed anonymously by consumers who have received services for at least 6 months. Over 1,600 surveys have been completed so far as part of the evaluation of the mental health initiatives.

Some consumers have indicated difficulty with the scaling from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. The A-B-C-D-F school style scaling that Louisiana developed as part of its State Reform grant was discussed with the regional groups. There was positive reaction to that scaling. However some consumers still preferred to reduce the number of scaling categories to Yes-No or Agree-Neutral-Disagree. Two questions from the Minnesota version of the MHSIP scale are being used as performance indicators for the Federal Block Grant. In these two performance indicators the AAgree@ and AStrongly Agree@ responses are being combined.

Jerry Storck, Ph.D.

Minnesota

North Carolina: The North Carolina Division of Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Services (NCDMH/DD/SAS) continues to refine its efforts in the collection of outcomes data. The Client Outcome Inventory (COI) has been in use in 10 area mental health programs since March, 1999 and in use in the remaining 30 area mental health programs since May, 1999. The COI was designed to collect information on clients whose primary disability is mental health or substance abuse. A separate instrument, the DD C0I is being developed to focus on the needs of consumers with developmental disabilities. The EI COI is being designed to gather information on all children ages birth through 5 years, served in the NCDMH/DD/SAS system. The goal was to finalize all three instruments and have the revised instruments in use effective October 1, 1999. A full time outcomes coordinator has been hired

The second administration of the 21 item MHSIP Consumer Satisfaction Survey was scheduled for the week of July 19-25, 1999. Approximately 30,000 forms were mailed out (adult, child and parent) in English and Spanish versions. The forms were developed in an optical scan format using TELEFORM software.

The NCDMH/DD/SAS consumer data warehouse began July J, 1999. The demographic and clinical components are fully operational; the outcomes and consumer survey components will become operational by June 30, 2000. All data requirements and data modeling are complete, as well as technical development and pilot testing. The consumer data warehouse features a Client server (Sybase) structure, graphical user interface (GUI) query tools (SAS and Infomaker), and plans for Internet accessibility.

Oklahoma: The Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (DMHSAS) is currently implementing two CMHS-funded projects, the Oklahoma Mental Health Indicator Pilot Project and the Oklahoma Performance and Outcomes Monitoring System for Children's Mental Health Services. For the former project, DMHSAS is working with 15 other states to develop and implement comparable mental health performance measures within and among states. A key part of the program is the involvement of key stakeholders in planning, development and oversight of project activities. DMHSAS has established an Expert Panel composed of consumer and family representatives, treatment providers and departmental administrative staff. The Panel has reviewed and made recommendations for the performance indicators being piloted for the DMHSAS report card and contract compliance. The Panel has studied measures from the Five-State Feasibility Study, the NASMHPD President's Task Force on Performance Indicators and the Oryx State Psychiatric Hospital Indicators to be included in the department=s report card.

Modified versions of the MHSIP Consumer Report Card have been piloted for use with adult and adolescent consumers, and parents. At the conclusion of the pilot phase, June30, 1999, the data was linked with treatment data so additional data elements such as SMI/SED status and diagnosis could be added to each record. Along with other performance indicators, the anonymous survey data has been sent to the 16-State grant workgroups for interstate analysis.

The purpose of the second project is to demonstrate the utility of a children's coordinated data system among various child-serving agencies. The initial demonstration will be the aggregation of county-level data for children in early-childhood service programs using data from DMHSAS, and the Departments of Education, Human Services and Health.

All databases involved in the Children=s Coordinated Data System Project have been refined and updated to the point that matching and analysis can be undertaken with little change to the various systems. The single exception is the database of services related to Oklahoma's Early 1ntervention Program serving infants and toddlers with developmental delays. An Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) is completed by the Department of Education (DOE) for each child entering the program. Services are provided through the Department of Health (DOH). Because DOE uses a Macintosh system, while DOH uses an IBM-supported system, data integration is very difficult, There has been little success in determining whether children are receiving the prescribed services. Further, many of the data items were written as open-ended fields and are difficult to quantify for program evaluation. Using FoxPro software, the DMHSAS grant project's senior programmer has reprogrammed the database to operate on both Macintosh and IBM-compatible equipment. DOE project staff, DMHSAS grant staff, and others have re-designed the open-ended data fields for specific responses, and added data elements to collect information previously abstracted from paper files to permit easier matching with other agencies' data. The new data system is designed to collect data correctly and efficiently, and will provide information necessary for a rigorous evaluation design and to meet service planners' needs. Once the data integration has been completed, a report of children in the programs by county, poverty status. and other relevant characteristics will be compiled.

Steve Davis, Ph.D.

Oklahoma

Wyoming: The public mental health system in Wyoming continues to manifest sweeping changes as a result of health care reform and planning initiatives. Change continues to impact the system at all levels with organizational and functional changes at the state level; in the delivery of inpatient care and expansion of residential care at the state hospital; and in the range and capacity of services at the community level. In response to these changes, Wyoming's information system has evolved from the implementation of the FN-10 data standards to a system incorporating outcome and performance measures. System milestones over the past two years include the definition, identification and quantfication of target populations; production of the Wyoming Public Mental Health System of Care Plan; development of Wyoming Public Mental Health System Practice Guidelines; and the creation of Wyoming's version of the MHSIP Consumer-Oriented Report Card. Moreover, current research efforts include a pilot project managed by Wyoming's consumer and family organizations with technical assistance through the Mental Health division of the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE). The short version of the MHSIP consumer survey has been administered toclients in seven counties throughout the state. Data analysis and reporting processes are currently underway. Wyoming submitted an application to CMHS for the recent round of State Reform Grants and received an award for the grant. This funding will be critical to support planned efforts for data integration and analysis activities through development of the Wyoming Information Network. Data from the MHSIP Consumer-Oriented Report Card, the Wyoming Client Information System, organizational and human resource data, and performance and outcome measures will be integrated via the Information Network. Once analyzed, data and information will be made available to decision-makers and the general public through the Division's web site.

Marla Smith

CONSUMER ISSUES

The Recovery Advisory Group, which consists of 12 consumer leaders from across the country, has been meeting monthly by teleconference to discuss recovery, its various definitions in the light of our own experiences, and methods of measurement. Distribution of recovery literature, responses from email queries about recovery activities and stories, and articles and scales to measure recovery, has informed the discussion, and provided a library on recovery for group members. The discussion of definitions culminated in the development of a Recovery Model which was presented at the National Conference on Mental Health Statistics in 1999.

In addition to this activity, Ruth Ralph, Chair of the Recovery Advisory Group and her research assistant, Kathryn Kidder, have collected and organized a compendium of instruments to measure recovery and information about their development and testing. This compendium was delivered to HSRI in July. A paper entitled ACan We Measure Recovery@ was also presented at the 1999 National Conference on Mental Health Statistics. This paper summarized recovery measures. It was pointed out that while there may be many more recovery measures than expected, many of them measure attitudes of feelings about recovery, rather than recovery, per se. It was also noted that often the measures were very new, and have had very little testing beyond the development stage.

A review of recovery literature is being updated with materials recently received. The Recovery Advisory Group is proposing to continue to meet to (1) expand upon the model with real life examples, from published and unpublished personal stories of consumers; and (2) develop measure(s) of recovery based upon the model, and experiences of recovery. Funding for this effort will be needed, and discussion as to how to obtain such funding will be continued.

Ruth Ralph

MHSIP Policy Group Member

MHSIP GRANT REPORT

New Grants

We are pleased to announce five new State Reform Grants have been awarded for FY >99 year.

The State of Kansas plans an integration and synthesis of information in the data system which will help provide information that will be critical to stakeholder needs. This process will focus on performance measures and there will be broad participation by stakeholders in the process. The Principal Investigator for the project is Mark Votaw.

The State of Maine State Reform Grant will focus on design and implementation of data integration and information system coordination among four state service departments which includes the Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse Services Department. The project plan is to enhance and integrate the Department=s performance and outcome indicators into the overall system. The Principal Investigator is Walter Lowell.

The State of Ohio grant will be integrating the multi-agency community service information system into its behavioral healthcare systems which include the five public psychiatric hospitals and the community support network. Benchmark measures being developed will include JCAHO/Oryx requirements, but more importantly, will address quality of client care. Unique identifiers will be standardized across data systems. The Principal Investigator is Ann Paschall.

The Virgin Islands= State Reform Grant project activities will include developing and integrating performance indicators using the MHSIP Report Card as a framework, implementing the MHSIP consumer survey, and introducing Web-based technology to enhance sharing of information. The Principal Investigator is Jaslene Williams.

The State of Wyoming State Reform Grant project will enhance the design and implementation of the Wyoming Performance Indicator System, conduct a statewide consumer and family driven survey, enhance data integration, analysis, and synthesis capabilities of the community mental health providers, and establish an information network and website for access to mental health data reporting. Marla Smith is the Principal Investigator.

At this time, 45 States have received State Reform Grants. State Reform Grantees and grantee project summaries can be accessed on the MHSIP website, www.mhsip.org.

The Sixteen-State Indicator Pilot Grants

As a collaborative team, State MHSIP principal investigators and State Planner counterparts representing the 16-State Indicator Pilot grants met on July 8 in Washington, DC to plan goals and activities for the second year of the grant. State principal investigators presented individual reports on grant progress in the first year. Sub-group leaders presented updates on development and data collection for these indicators--penetration/rates, level of functioning and symptoms indicators, assertive community treatment and supported employment indicators, and consumer surveys.

The group decided to collect data on the following performance indicators in year 2: Penetration/Utilization Rates; Consumer Perception of Access; Consumer Participation in Treatment Planning; Consumer Perception of Quality/Appropriateness; Consumer Perception of Outcome; Contact within 7 days following Hospital Discharge; Readmission Within 30 Days-Inpatient; and Per Member per Month Average Resources.

Indicators to be tested in year 2 include Consumers linked to Primary Health Services; Family Involvement in Treatment for Children/Adolescents; School Improvement (Children); Adult Employment; Health Status/Mortality; Living Situation (including homeless); and involvement in the Criminal Justice System.

Indicators to be developed further are Adults Receiving Assertive Community Treatment and Adults in Supported Employment; Adults in Supported Housing; Level of Functioning and Symptoms; Recovery/Hope/Personhood; Reduced Substance Abuse; and Consumer/Family/Involvement in Policy; Quality Assurance, and Planning.

Indicators to be integrated with the Oryx Project, as feasible, will be Adults receiving atypical medications, Seclusion, Restraint, Medication Errors, Consumer Injuries, and Elopement.

The detailed framework of the 32 indicators to be piloted (NASMHPD Framework of Performance Indicators) can be accessed on www.nasmhpd.org/nri/document.htm.

If you would like additional information on the sixteen state project, you may access documents the mhsip website at www.mhsip.org under Projects.

The sixteen States receiving State Indicator Pilot Grants are: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Washington, DC, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State.

Olinda Gonzalez

CMHS

Practice Guidelines Coalition

The Practice Guidelines Coalition (PGC) is an emerging multi-disciplinary, multi-organizational partnership that is dedicated to better behavioral health care through the dissemination and implementation of non-proprietary clinical practice guidelines for behavioral health providers that are based on a broad consensus about the best available evidence. The development of PGC was launched by two national meetings funded by OBSSR and CMHS at SAMHSA that gathered over 50 representatives from managed care associations, other behavioral health care provider groups, behavioral science associations, professional groups, consumer groups, and the government. Participants agreed they could foster the development of clinical practice guidelines that are very brief, evidence-based, readily understandable by practitioners, focused on core clinical processes and measurable outcomes, nationally disseminated, multi-disciplinary, and available in the public domain. Participants generally agreed that credible non-proprietary practice guidelines would best be fostered through a broad, consensus building process based on a working partnership among all the key constituencies in behavioral health, avoiding any hint of disciplinary, professional, corporate, or guild bias.

The group was not sure, however, that such a Coalition was feasible. To assess empirically whether this approach was useful and to pilot processes of review and guideline development that were efficient, open, and participatory, two demonstration guidelines projects were launched with the intention of formalizing the Coalition when concrete examples of the results were available. The draft guidelines, on panic disorder and management of chronic pain, are available.

The process that evolved was very efficient. A scientific subcommittee examined the most cited literature and literature suggested by the participating societies. A main panel then considered all forms of input (scientific, clinical, and so on) and answered a limited set of key questions. The main panel consisted of two scientists (one medical, one not), two consumers (one a recipient of care, one an advocate), two clinicians, and two representatives of systems of care or managers (one public sector, one private sector). This process focused the group on not only the most important facts, but also those around which a multi-disciplinary consensus could form. The draft guidelines provide an interesting example of what such an approach produces. The main text of the guideline can fit on a single sheet of paper, yet it does indeed seem to summarize the core of the known facts about panic disorder. Supplementary documents provide a consumer information sheet, and medical and psychosocial appendices.

With the distribution of products, the PGC has recently begun accepting applications for formal membership from organizations relevant to behavioral health care that wish to foster the goals of the Coalition. The intention is to hold the first formal meeting of PGC as a membership organization early in 2000 and to begin a more extensive sequence of product development. The draft guideline and more information is available at the PGC website: www.unr.edu/psych/pgc or from PGC, Department of Psychology /296, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557-0062.

Steven C. Hayes

Co-Chair, Practice Guidelines Coalition and Department of Psychology, University of Nevada

NEW PUBLICATIONS

Survey and Analysis Branch Documents

Structuring Approaches and Legal Issues for Provider-Sponsored Managed Care Networks for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment Services, September 1999.

Mental Health, United States, 1998 Risk Adjustment for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, February 1999.

Fitting the Pieces Together: Building Outcome Accountability in Child Mental Health and Child Welfare Systems, October 1998.

Facing our Future Together: Policy Perspectives on Behavioral Health Care, September 1998.

Psychosocial Rehabilitation in a Managed- Care World - 1, Winter 1999

Psychosocial Rehabilitation in a Managed-Care World - 2, Spring 1999

To order single copies, please write to:

CMHS/DSCSD/SAB

5600 Fishers Lane, 15C-04

Rockville, Maryland 20857

Phone: (301) 443-3343 Fax: (301) 443-7926

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

Substance Abuse in the 21st Century: Positioning the Nation for Progress

February 29-March 2, 2000

Simi Valley, CA

National Center of Addiction & Substance Abuse

(212) 841-5200

A System of Care for Children=s Mental Health: Expanding the Research Base

March 5-8, 2000

Clearwater Beach, FL

Florida Mental Health Institure/University of South Florida

(813) 974-2403

The Santa Fe Summit on Behavioral Health

March 15-18, 2000

Santa Fe, NM

The American College of Mental Health Administration

(215) 244-0670

Behavioral Health Outcomes Management

April 13-14, 2000

Boston, MA

Institute for Internaltional Research

(888) 670-8200

In the Public Interest: Building Communities That Care

April 29-May 2, 2000

National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare

(301) 984-6200

10th Annual University of Maryland School of Advanced EAP Management and Practice

April 30-May 3, 2000

University of Maryland at Baltimore

Graduate School of Social Work

(202) 223-2399

National Conference on Mental Health Statistics

May 30-June 2, 2000

Washington, DC

(301) 443-3343

Training Institutes-Developing Local Systems of Care for Children and Adolescents with Emotional Disturbances and their Families: Improving Policy and Practice

June 9-13, 2000

New Orleans, LA

(202) 687-5000

MHSIP Updates January 2000

CREDITS

MHSIP Updates is prepared periodically by members of the Policy Group for the Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program to inform those interested in the mission of MHSIP about recent events, actions, and new directions for MHSIP. The mission of MHSIP is to enhance decision support systems that are focused on meeting the needs of persons with mental disorders. The MHSIP pursues this mission in the spirit of voluntary collaboration and cooperation through the development of data standards; the promotion of integrated data bases; and the encouragement of more effective utilization of data for research, management, and public policy.

MHSIP Policy Group Members: Steve Davis, Ph.D., Chair; Vijay Ganju, Ph.D., Past Chair; Neal Adams, M.D., (CA); Paolo del Vecchio, (CMHS); Elizabeth Edgar,(NAMI); Olinda Gonzalez, Ph.D., (CMHS); Cynthia Hopkins, (TX); Randy Koch, Ph.D., (VA); Ronald W. Manderscheid, Ph.D., (CMHS); Ruth Ralph, Ph.D. (ME); Mary Smith, Ph.D., (IL), Peter Steinmann, (NV); Leslie Tremaine, Ed.D., (LA); Ronald Tremper, (RI). The non- voting members are Ted Lutterman, (NASMHPD RI); Cecil Wurster, (Consultant).

The Division of State and Community Systems Development, CMHS, Joyce T. Berry, Ph.D., Director, continues to provide financial support for the MHSIP Policy Group, with primary liaison by Ronald W. Manderscheid, Ph.D. The Policy Group welcomes your questions, comments, and suggestions.

Correspondence may be directed to Ronald W. Manderscheid, Ph.D., CMHS, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rm 15C-04, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-3343; Fax (301) 443-7926; E-mail rmanders@samhsa.gov.

MHSIP Policy Group

c/o Steve Davis, Ph.D.

ODMHSAS

P. O. Box 53277

Oklahoma City, OK 73152