The current randomized clinical trial assessed the utility of providing routine outcome monitoring with feedback to clinicians in an intensive outpatient program in which the primary method of treatment was group therapy. Patients were randomized into feedback and no-feedback conditions. The feedback samples (n = 161) were composed predominantly of African American married women, with an average age of 42 years and approximately 14.6 years of education; 144 (89%) were employed. Four master’s-level clinicians received the outcomes of patients’ progress on a weekly basis. There were no significant differences between the feedback and treatment-as-usual (TAU) condition on the on-track/off-track status throughout treatment or at the end of treatment. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between the feedback and TAU groups on reliable change indices, the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised Global Severity Index, the Sheehan Disability Scale, therapeutic alliance, Global Assessment of Functioning, number of days of treatment attended, or satisfaction with treatment measures. However, all pre–post treatment measures showed moderate to large effect sizes (d = .42 to 2.05). Clinicians were surveyed with a 10-item questionnaire, and their overall average rating of the usefulness of the feedback was quite high. Our findings suggest that with more effective treatment, the impact of therapist feedback is lessened. These results also raise questions about the generalizability of feedback studies that relied on individual psychotherapy clients who tended to be younger Caucasian females primarily drawn from university settings with relatively low levels of distress. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved)