gamblers assistance program (gap) evaluation
Post on 02-Jan-2016
33 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
GAMBLERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (GAP) EVALUATION
PPC Team: Mark, Denise, Carmen, Anna, Jenn E., Janell, Noel, JotaPé
6 November 2007
2
Overview Introduction: why do we care?AdministrationGeneral Goal of GAPComponents of GAPGAP Expenditures FY06-07Objective Program EvaluationNational Outcome Measures (NOMs) Main FindingsCurrent activitiesQuestions/comments
3
Introduction: Why do we care?
Pathological Gamblers:1.14% U.S. adult population is affected
= 2.25 million people1.Nebraska adult population affected
= 17,741 U.S. Social Costs: $25.3B2
Nebraska Social Costs: $200M1. Shaffer et al. (1997). Estimating the Prevalence of Disordered Gambling Behavior in
the United States and Canada: A Meta Analysis. Boston: Harvard Medical School.
2. Grinols, E. (2004). Gambling in America. Costs and Benefits. Cambridge: University Press.
4
Gamblers Assistance Program (GAP)DHHS-Division of Behavioral Health
Administration
Coordinator: Eric Hunsberger, MS
5
The general goal of the program is “To reduce the negative impact of problem gambling in Nebraska.”
General Goal of GAP
GAP facilitates:
Access to Services
Treatment Outreach Public Education
6
Components of GAP
Initiatives Data Collection System
Workforce Development
Certification
Voucher program
Contract Management
Public Awareness Campaign
Helpline
Helpline data
Magellan data
Other Sources:•Nebraska Risk and Protective Factor Student Survey (NRPFSS)•Mental Health Statistics Improvement Program (MHSIP)
7
GAP Expenditures FY06-07
FY07 GAP EXPENDITURES
Training6%
Helpline8%
Prevention 8%
Administration8%
Outpatient63%
Data Collection1%
PPC Evaluation 6%
FY06 GAP EXPENDITURES
Training7%
Helpline10%
Administration7%
Outpatient76%
8
Objective of the evaluation:Assess the internal structure and data
collection system of the program.
Internal Structure: Formative Evaluation
Data Collection System: Summative Evaluation (a.k.a. Outcome Evaluation)
Objective Program Evaluation July/2006 – July/2007
9
Surveys InterviewsFocus Groups
Consumers Providers Stakeholders
Evaluation tools:
Target population:
Formative and Summative EvaluationFormative Evaluation
Summative Evaluation
Data Sets:
Statistical analysis:
Magellan Data
Helpline Data
Parametric and non parametric
NOMs
16
National Outcome Measures (NOMs)
SAMHSA. Measuring outcomes to improve services• Reduced morbidity• Decreasing involvement with the
criminal justice system• Improving social connectedness to
others in the community• Increased access to services for both
mental health and substance abuse.• Retention in substance abuse
treatment
17
• Finding safe and stable housing • Getting and keeping a job or
enrolling and staying in school• Client perception of care• Cost-effectiveness• Use of evidence-based treatment
practices.
NOMs (cont’)
18
Main Findings
Provider Focus Groups and interviews• Training and certification offered by GAP is
widely valued by providers.• Data entry to the online system was
described as a significant source of frustration.
Consumer Survey• Nearly 90% of the consumers ranked GAP
services as “Excellent.” • Nearly two-thirds of consumers found that all
GAP services received were useful.
19
Helpline data:• Proportion of younger callers (ages 18-25)
has doubled in the last four years from 6% in 2001 to 12% in 2006.
Magellan data:• People who received both individual and
group treatments were significantly more likely to complete treatment than those receiving only group or only individual treatment.
Main Findings (Cont’)
20
Main Findings (cont’)
Magellan Data (cont’):• Single males are two times more
likely to engage in gambling activities than single women.
• Men begin gambling at a significantly younger age than women.
21
• Prevention Program: Garfield, Loup, and Wheeler counties gambling prevention program evaluation (GLW Children’s Council Inc.)
• Technical Assistance: Helpline MS Access database
• Biannual Report and Final Report
Current Activities
top related