Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dohmh Outcomes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DOHMH officials describe program metrics, data challenges and expansion plans at Council oversight hearing
Summary
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene leaders told the Council they use program-specific outcome measures across 800+ programs, reported IMT gains (23 percentage-point housing increase, 5-point drop in jail admissions), supportive housing counts (~12,817 units), syringe outreach cleanup totals and outlined steps to standardize reporting and improve data integration.
City health officials testified before the New York City Council Committee on Mental Health, Disabilities and Addiction about how the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene measures outcomes and equity across city-funded mental health programs.
Dr. Jean Wright, Executive Deputy Commissioner for the Division of Mental Hygiene, said the department supports more than 800 mental health programs and described a program-by-program approach to evaluation. She cited recent program outcomes: IMT (Intensive Mobile Treatment) participants saw a 23 percentage-point increase in stable housing and a 5 percentage-point reduction in jail admissions between pre-enrollment and the most recent year; the department contracts for 12,817 supportive housing units and reported being on track for 13,000 units by year end. DOHMH also reported a 28% reduction in overdose deaths in 2024 and set a goal of a 10% reduction in suicide by 2030.
Agency staff said they collect demographic information (gender/gender identity, race and ethnicity, age group) across programs and increasingly disaggregate race and ethnicity in more specific categories. The health department described a "passport" contract rating (excellent/good/satisfactory/poor/unsatisfactory) that provides a baseline assessment; unsatisfactory ratings can lead to corrective action plans and potential nonrenewal if problems persist after technical assistance.
On data systems, witnesses said the department stitches together multiple provider platforms and relies on the Center for Population Health Data for coordination. DOHMH acknowledged limitations: disparate provider data systems, lag in some administrative data (housing retention, hospitalization, criminal-legal outcomes), and the need to balance collection burden with time spent on direct services. DOHMH said it is exploring program-by-program data linkages to broader administrative datasets (for example Medicaid) and uses academic partners for large-scale evaluations where appropriate.
Providers and advocates who testified urged greater transparency and shared data access. Multiple IMT providers requested regular IMT reporting and a public dashboard similar to the state's ACT dashboard so teams can review trends, identify inequities and learn from outcomes. DOHMH said it is adding staff to spot-check provider data entry points and has updated program guidelines and corrective-action procedures following a Comptroller audit.
Public commenters and community providers repeatedly urged that quantitative metrics be complemented with qualitative measures that capture culturally competent, trauma-informed care and the time-intensive work of community clinics. Several panelists also urged reduced reporting burden for smaller community-based organizations and better-funded data infrastructure.
What happens next: DOHMH and Council staff signaled continued collaboration on standardized reporting templates, quality-improvement work, procurement timelines for FY26 funding and follow-up on data-linkage options.
