Community Mental Health Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 217–234 | Cite as

Performance measures for mental health programs: Something better, something worse, or more of the same?

  • Heather Keppler-Seid
  • Charles Windle
  • J. Richard Woy
Articles

Abstract

Current pressures for establishment of accountability systems based on performance measures for mental health programs are likely to improve services only if such systems are accompanied by supportive research, preparatory orientation, wide participation, tested data systems, and elimination of other redundant accountability procedures. A 4-phase, 3-functional level model is proposed to guide implementation.

Keywords

Public Health Mental Health Data System Health Psychology Health Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aaron, H.J.Politics and the Professors: The Great Society in perspective. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1978Google Scholar
  2. Balk, W.L. Toward a government productivity ethic.Public Administration Review. 1978,38, 46–50Google Scholar
  3. Becker, W.M. Method for establishing performance criteria through use of expert panels—An innovation.Psychological Reports, 1979,44, 1247–1251.Google Scholar
  4. Bonner, J.T., Duncan, J.W., Goldstein, H., & Hagan, R.L. Policy relevance and the integrity of statistics.Statistical Reporter, 1980,80–4, 64–69.Google Scholar
  5. Bureau of Community Health Services.Instruction Manual for the BCHS common reporting requirements. (Revised). U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, January 1978.Google Scholar
  6. Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H., & Gustafson, D.H.Group Techniques for Program Planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott, Foresman & Co. 1975.Google Scholar
  7. Drucker, P.F.Management: tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York: Harper & Row, 1974.Google Scholar
  8. Elmore, R.F. Organizational models of social program implementation.Public Policy, 1978,26, 185–228.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Fontane, P.E. Improving program evaluation with reciprocal indicators,Social Indicators Research, 1975,2, 211–221.Google Scholar
  10. Garn, H.A., Flax, M.J., Springer, M., & Taylor, J.B.Models for indicator development: A framework for policy analysis. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. Gorry, G.A. & Goodrich, T.J. On the role of values in program evaluation.Evaluation Quarterly, 1978,1, 561–572.Google Scholar
  12. Greer, S., Hedlund, R.D., & Gibson, J.L. Introduction: The accountability of institutions in urban society. In S. Greer, R.D. Hedlund & J.L. Gibson (Eds.),Accountability in Urban Society: Public Agencies Under Fire. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1978, 9–12.Google Scholar
  13. Gurel, L. The human side of evaluating human services programs: Problems and prospects. In M. Guttentag & E.L. Struening (Eds.),Handbook of Evaluation Research (Vol. 2), Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1975, 11–28.Google Scholar
  14. Gutek, B.A. Strategies for studying client satisfaction.Journal of Social Issues, 1978,34, 44–56.Google Scholar
  15. Hammer, R.J. Citizen participation in program evaluation. In W. Neigher, R.J. Hammer, & G. Landsberg (Eds.),Emerging Developments in Mental Health Program Evaluation. New York: Argold Press, 1977, 393–405.Google Scholar
  16. Hatry, H.P. Overview of performance measurement principles and techniques. Unpublished manuscript, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.: 1979.Google Scholar
  17. House, E.R. Justice in evaluation.Evaluation Studies, 1976,1, 75–100.Google Scholar
  18. Krause, M.S. & Howard, K.I. Program evaluation in the public interest: A new research methodology.Community Mental Health Journal, 1976,12, 291–300.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. McAuliffe, W.E. Measuring the quality of medical care: process versus outcome.Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 1979,57, 118–152.Google Scholar
  20. McLerran, A.E., Grinspoon, L., & Gudeman, J.E. A surfeit of surveys: Escalating data demands on community mental health centers.Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 1979,30, 243–247.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Parloff, M.B. Can psychotherapy research guide the policymaker? A little knowledge may be a dangerous thing.American Psychologist, 1979,34, 296–306.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pottinger, P.S. Defining competence in the mental health professions. Presentation at American Psychological Association Convention. New York, September 1979.Google Scholar
  23. President's Commission on Mental Health,Report to the President: Task Panel Report. Volume 4. Appendix. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978.Google Scholar
  24. Schick, A. From analysis to evaluation.Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1971,394, 57–71.Google Scholar
  25. Schick, A. A death in the bureaucracy: The demise of federal PPB.Public Administration Review, 1973,33, 146–156.Google Scholar
  26. Silver, G.A.A Spy in the House of Medicine, Germantown, Maryland: Aspen Systems Corporation, 1976.Google Scholar
  27. Skinner, B.F. Between freedom and despotism.Psychology Today. September 1977.Google Scholar
  28. Taylor, R.L. & Torrey, E.F. The pseudo-regulation of American Psychiatry,American Journal of Psychiatry, 1972,129, 658–663.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Turner, J.C. & TenHoor, W.J. The NIMH Community Support Program: Pilot approach to a needed social reform.Schizophrenia Bulletin, 1978,4, 319–348.Google Scholar
  30. Weiss, C.H. The politics of evaluation. In W. Neigher, R.J. Hammer & G. Landsberg (Eds.),Emerging Developments in Mental Health Program Evaluation, New York: Argold Press, 1977, 471–489.Google Scholar
  31. When “MIN” means more.Innovations, Spring, 1979, 19–20.Google Scholar
  32. Wholey, J.S.Evaluation: Promise and performance. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1979.Google Scholar
  33. Wholey, J.S., Nay, J.N., Scanlon, J.W., & Schmidt, R.E. Evaluation: When is it really needed?Evaluation, 1975,2(2), 89–93.Google Scholar
  34. Windle, C. Developmental trends in program evaluation.Evaluation and Program Planning. 1979,2, 193–196.Google Scholar
  35. Windle, C. & Woy, J.R. When to apply various program evaluation approaches.Evaluation, 1977,4, 35–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Windle, C. & Neigher, W. Ethical problems in program evaluation: Advice for trapped evaluators.Evaluation and Program Planning, 1978,1, 97–107.Google Scholar
  37. Windle, C. Neal, J., & Zinn, H.K. Stimulating equity of services to non-whites in CMHCs.Community Mental Health Journal, 1979,15, 155–166.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. World Health Organization.Statistical indicators for the planning and evaluation of public health programmes. Geneva, 1971.Google Scholar
  39. Yankelovitch, D. & Kaagan, L. Proposition 13 one year later: What it is and what it isn't.Social Policy, 197910(3), 19–23.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heather Keppler-Seid
  • Charles Windle
  • J. Richard Woy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations