Program Evaluation and Quality Management
The steady outcry for demonstrating quality outcomes for community psychiatry and public mental health programs is long standing and has been responded to in various ways—from a collective yawn in some quarters to outstanding efforts and advances in others. While most of the laborers in the mental health field are highly conscientious and diligent in providing proven, effective and high-quality services, the ability to demonstrate that this is the case can be quite challenging. The mechanics of program evaluation can be daunting when working at the level of an agency or mental health system. More practical efforts typically examine new or distinct programs of limited size and scope and employ methods usually seen in experimental studies of mental health interventions, or quasi-experimental approaches without a defined comparison or control group. Repeated measures approaches can lend themselves to program evaluation projects where baseline data is collected and follow-ups occur at subsequent intervals comparing the same individuals to themselves over time. In addition to these well-established approaches to program evaluation, other valuable and sometimes less demanding methods have been developed. These include program fidelity measurement, quality of life and treatment satisfaction surveys, organizational readiness and atmosphere surveys, evidence-based practice implementation, and reference-based benchmarking methodologies.
KeywordsTransportation Income Stein
- Deming, W. E. (1913). The new economics for industry, government, education. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.Google Scholar
- Eisen, S. V., Dill, D. L., & Grob, M. C. (1994). Reliability and validity of a brief patient-report instrument for psychiatric outcome evaluation. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 45, 242–247.Google Scholar
- Ganju, V., Beall, M. A., Callahan, N., Dailey, W., Dumont, J., Hornik, J. A., et al. (1996). The MHSIP consumer-oriented mental health report card. Washington, DC: Center for Mental Health Services (SAMHSA, DHHS).Google Scholar
- Gortner, S., & Schultz, P. (1988). Approaches to nursing science methods. Image, 20, 22–23.Google Scholar
- Gowin, D., & Millman, J. (1981). Toward reform of program evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 3(6), 85–87.Google Scholar
- Lutterman, T., Ganju, V., Schacht L., Shaw R., Monihan K., and Huddle M. (2003). National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, Sixteen State study on mental health performance measures.Google Scholar
- Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 315–340.Google Scholar
- National Institute of Mental Health. (2011). 2012 Budget report. Retrieved from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/budget/cj2012.pdf.
- National Alliance on Mental Illness. (2007). Assertive community treatment: Investment yields outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=ACT-TA_Center&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=52382.
- Praed Foundation. (2007). About the ANSA. Retrieved from http://www.praedfoundation.org/About%20the%20ANSA.html.
- Praed Foundation. (2008). Children and adolescent needs and strengths mental health manual. Retrieved from http://www.praedfoundation.org/CANS-MH%20Manual.pdf.
- Roberts, M., & Steele, R. (Eds.). (2005). Program evaluation approaches to service delivery in child and family mental health. In Handbook of mental health services for children, adolescents, and families. EBSCO Publishing NetLibrary. [Printed Feb 14, 2011 3:32 pm via University of Alabama-Birmingham, eISBN:9780306485602].Google Scholar
- Rushing, S., & Lefkovitz, P. (2008). Learning from top performers. Behavioral Healthcare, 28(2), 30–31.Google Scholar
- Schalock, R. L. (2001). Outcome-based evaluation (2nd ed.). EBSCO Publishing-NetLibrary. [Printed on Feb 28, 2011 3:12 pm via University of Alabama-Birmingham, eISBN:9780306464584].Google Scholar