A good story, well told: rules for evaluating human services programs.

Well-conducted evaluations highlight human services programs strengths and weaknesses and may lead to improvements in individual programs and to a more effective and efficient mix of programs provided to clients. This potential is not currently being met to any degree, however, because evaluations a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Social Work Vol. 39; pp. 233 - 237
Autor principal: Hoefer, Richard
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: National Association of Social Workers March 1994
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=508509710&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 508509710
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00378046
        SWR
      jtl: Social Work
      issn: 00378046
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: March 1994
      vid: 39
      pid: 271
      pub: National Association of Social Workers
    artinfo:
      ui: 508509710
      ppf: 233
      ppct: 4
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
              size: 316KB
      tig:
        atl: A good story, well told: rules for evaluating human services programs.
      aug:
        au: Hoefer, Richard
      su:
        Human services
        Evaluation
      sug:
        subj:
          Human services
          Evaluation
      ab: Well-conducted evaluations highlight human services programs strengths and weaknesses and may lead to improvements in individual programs and to a more effective and efficient mix of programs provided to clients. This potential is not currently being met to any degree, however, because evaluations are not being employed to any great extent by decision makers. Stiff evaluations are not wanted by program makers for a number of reasons, including a reticence to collect potentially detrimental information; the cost, trouble, and time involved in more rigorous evaluations; and a lack of training in program evaluation and in the commissioning of a rigorous evaluation effort. A number of evaluation rules and corollaries are presented that provide a handy checklist for practitioners developing or assessing evaluation plans.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N