Advertisement

Program specification: A precursor to program monitoring and quality improvement. A case study from Boysville of Michigan

  • Sue Ann Savas
  • William M. Fleming
  • Erika E. Bolig
Articles

Abstract

As a result of new accreditation standards, diminishing resources, community concern with recidivism, and state agencies and foundations requiring more rigorous evaluations, program accountability is becoming a necessity for social services providers and contractors alike. In the subsequent discussion, Boysville of Michigan's program specification process is described; specifically, the ways in which the process has been useful for monitoring program operations, identifying quality improvement indicators, designing ongoing program evaluations, and developing consensus and continuity with respect to program theory and procedures. In addition, benefits, lessons learned, and implications for services delivery are discussed.

Keywords

Service Provider Quality Improvement Service Delivery Social Service Program Monitoring 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Council on Accreditation 1997 Self-Study Manual for Behavioral Health Care Services and Community Support and Education Services. Volume I: Generic and Service Sections. New York: Council on Accreditation of Services for Families and Children, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Curtis LA: Lord, how dare we celebrate? Practical policy reform in delinquency prevention and youth investment.Future Choices: Toward a National Youth Policy 1992; 3(3):44–61.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Savas SA: How do we propose to help children and families? In: Pecora PJ, Seelig WR, Zirps FA, et al. (Eds.):Quality Improvement and Evaluation in Child and Family Services: Managing Into the Next Century. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1996, pp. 37–52.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grasso A, Epstein I: Management by measurement: Organizational dilemmas and opportunities.Administration in Social Work 1987; 11:89–100.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Savas SA, Epstein I, Grasso AJ: Client characteristics, family contacts, and treatment outcomes.Child and Youth Services 1993; 16:125–137.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Collins M, Epstein I, Barbarin O, et al.: Re-designing a clinical information system: A description of the process in a human service agency.Computers in Human Services 1996; 13:19–36.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pecora PJ, Fraser MW, Nelson KE, et al.:Evaluating Family-Based Services. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zirps FA, Cassafer DJ: Quality improvement in the agency: What does it take? In: Pecora PJ, Seelig WR, Zirps FA, et al. (Eds.):Quality Improvement and Evaluation in Child and Family Services: Managing Into the Next Century. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1996, pp. 145–174.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Traglia JJ, Massinga R, Pecora PJ, et al.: Implementing an outcome-oriented approach to case planning and service improvement. In: Pecora PJ, Seelig WR, Zirps FA, et al. (Eds.):Quality Improvement and Evaluation in Child and Family Services: Managing Into the Next Century. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1996, pp. 77–98.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wholey JS:Evaluation and Effective Public Management. Boston: Little, Brown, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wholey JS: Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. In: Wholey JS, Hatry HP, Newcomer KE (Eds.):Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994, pp. 15–39.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weiss CH: Theory Based Evaluation: Past, Present and Future. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Atlanta, GA, November 8, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen H, Rossi P:Using Theory to Improve Program and Policy Evaluations. New York: Greenwood, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumpfer KL, Shur GH, Ross JG, et al.:Measurement in Prevention: A Manual on Selecting and Using Instruments to Evaluate Prevention Programs. DHHS CSAP Technical Report-8. DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) 93-2041. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    An Introduction to Quality Improvement in Health Care. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Behavioral Healthcare Management 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sue Ann Savas
    • 1
  • William M. Fleming
    • 2
  • Erika E. Bolig
    • 3
  1. 1.Boysville of MichiganClinton
  2. 2.School of Education and Human Sciences, Family and Consumer SciencesBerry CollegeMount Berry
  3. 3.Boysville of MichiganClinton

Personalised recommendations