Mandated Evaluation in Community Mental Health Centers: Framework for a New Policy
Experience with federally mandated Community Mental Health Center (CMHC) program evaluation (P.L. 94-63) is examined in terms of three issues: (1) the purposes which evaluation serves; (2) the values about evaluation held by key participants; and (3) limitations in both evaluation technology and CMH...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Evaluation review 1981-10, Vol.5 (5), p.620-638 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 638 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 620 |
container_title | Evaluation review |
container_volume | 5 |
creator | Flaherty, Eugenie Walsh Windle, Charles |
description | Experience with federally mandated Community Mental Health Center (CMHC)
program evaluation (P.L. 94-63) is examined in terms of three issues: (1) the purposes
which evaluation serves; (2) the values about evaluation held by key participants; and (3)
limitations in both evaluation technology and CMHC context and resources. Eight
generic principles for government role in evaluation are derivedfrom this experience. The
principles suggest two different roles—accountability to the public and program
amelioration. Government requirements should be concerned solely with the former.
Specific recommendations for implementing these two roles are given. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0193841X8100500503 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61539739</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0193841X8100500503</sage_id><sourcerecordid>61539739</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c361t-24cc3e9603074ba699c66ee717ff6cd58a523d0e051b4ce225776c2b323c70f33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0U1LxDAQBuAgCq6rf8BTQRAvdWeSJmmOUlZX2MWLgreSTafapR9r0wr7721ZD6KoEBgCz_vCMIydI1wjaj0DNCKO8DlGADk-ccAmKCUPheHqkE1GEI7imJ14vwEAhEhPmFrZOrMdZcH83Za97YqmDoo6SJqq6uui2wUrqjtbBguyZfcaJMOPWn_KjnJbejr7nFP2dDt_TBbh8uHuPrlZhk4o7EIeOSfIKBCgo7VVxjiliDTqPFcuk7GVXGRAIHEdOeJcaq0cXwsunIZciCm73Pdu2-atJ9-lVeEdlaWtqel9qlAKo4X5F0ozlCPEA7z6E6JWqCGKFA704hvdNH1bD_umyI1EMRSOiu-VaxvvW8rTbVtUtt2lCOl4nPTncYbQbB_y9oW-1P6e-ADOoovt</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1295135101</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Mandated Evaluation in Community Mental Health Centers: Framework for a New Policy</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Flaherty, Eugenie Walsh ; Windle, Charles</creator><creatorcontrib>Flaherty, Eugenie Walsh ; Windle, Charles</creatorcontrib><description>Experience with federally mandated Community Mental Health Center (CMHC)
program evaluation (P.L. 94-63) is examined in terms of three issues: (1) the purposes
which evaluation serves; (2) the values about evaluation held by key participants; and (3)
limitations in both evaluation technology and CMHC context and resources. Eight
generic principles for government role in evaluation are derivedfrom this experience. The
principles suggest two different roles—accountability to the public and program
amelioration. Government requirements should be concerned solely with the former.
Specific recommendations for implementing these two roles are given.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0193-841X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-3926</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8100500503</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Center/Centers ; Community mental health services ; Community/Communities/Communitarian ; Evaluation research ; Evaluation/Evaluations/Evaluative ; Mental health ; Regulation</subject><ispartof>Evaluation review, 1981-10, Vol.5 (5), p.620-638</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c361t-24cc3e9603074ba699c66ee717ff6cd58a523d0e051b4ce225776c2b323c70f33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0193841X8100500503$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X8100500503$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21799,27844,27848,27903,27904,33754,43600,43601</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Flaherty, Eugenie Walsh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Windle, Charles</creatorcontrib><title>Mandated Evaluation in Community Mental Health Centers: Framework for a New Policy</title><title>Evaluation review</title><description>Experience with federally mandated Community Mental Health Center (CMHC)
program evaluation (P.L. 94-63) is examined in terms of three issues: (1) the purposes
which evaluation serves; (2) the values about evaluation held by key participants; and (3)
limitations in both evaluation technology and CMHC context and resources. Eight
generic principles for government role in evaluation are derivedfrom this experience. The
principles suggest two different roles—accountability to the public and program
amelioration. Government requirements should be concerned solely with the former.
Specific recommendations for implementing these two roles are given.</description><subject>Center/Centers</subject><subject>Community mental health services</subject><subject>Community/Communities/Communitarian</subject><subject>Evaluation research</subject><subject>Evaluation/Evaluations/Evaluative</subject><subject>Mental health</subject><subject>Regulation</subject><issn>0193-841X</issn><issn>1552-3926</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1981</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0U1LxDAQBuAgCq6rf8BTQRAvdWeSJmmOUlZX2MWLgreSTafapR9r0wr7721ZD6KoEBgCz_vCMIydI1wjaj0DNCKO8DlGADk-ccAmKCUPheHqkE1GEI7imJ14vwEAhEhPmFrZOrMdZcH83Za97YqmDoo6SJqq6uui2wUrqjtbBguyZfcaJMOPWn_KjnJbejr7nFP2dDt_TBbh8uHuPrlZhk4o7EIeOSfIKBCgo7VVxjiliDTqPFcuk7GVXGRAIHEdOeJcaq0cXwsunIZciCm73Pdu2-atJ9-lVeEdlaWtqel9qlAKo4X5F0ozlCPEA7z6E6JWqCGKFA704hvdNH1bD_umyI1EMRSOiu-VaxvvW8rTbVtUtt2lCOl4nPTncYbQbB_y9oW-1P6e-ADOoovt</recordid><startdate>198110</startdate><enddate>198110</enddate><creator>Flaherty, Eugenie Walsh</creator><creator>Windle, Charles</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>JILTI</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198110</creationdate><title>Mandated Evaluation in Community Mental Health Centers</title><author>Flaherty, Eugenie Walsh ; Windle, Charles</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c361t-24cc3e9603074ba699c66ee717ff6cd58a523d0e051b4ce225776c2b323c70f33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1981</creationdate><topic>Center/Centers</topic><topic>Community mental health services</topic><topic>Community/Communities/Communitarian</topic><topic>Evaluation research</topic><topic>Evaluation/Evaluations/Evaluative</topic><topic>Mental health</topic><topic>Regulation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Flaherty, Eugenie Walsh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Windle, Charles</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 32</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Evaluation review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Flaherty, Eugenie Walsh</au><au>Windle, Charles</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Mandated Evaluation in Community Mental Health Centers: Framework for a New Policy</atitle><jtitle>Evaluation review</jtitle><date>1981-10</date><risdate>1981</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>620</spage><epage>638</epage><pages>620-638</pages><issn>0193-841X</issn><eissn>1552-3926</eissn><abstract>Experience with federally mandated Community Mental Health Center (CMHC)
program evaluation (P.L. 94-63) is examined in terms of three issues: (1) the purposes
which evaluation serves; (2) the values about evaluation held by key participants; and (3)
limitations in both evaluation technology and CMHC context and resources. Eight
generic principles for government role in evaluation are derivedfrom this experience. The
principles suggest two different roles—accountability to the public and program
amelioration. Government requirements should be concerned solely with the former.
Specific recommendations for implementing these two roles are given.</abstract><cop>Thousand Oaks, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0193841X8100500503</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0193-841X |
ispartof | Evaluation review, 1981-10, Vol.5 (5), p.620-638 |
issn | 0193-841X 1552-3926 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61539739 |
source | PAIS Index; SAGE Complete; Sociological Abstracts; Periodicals Index Online; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Center/Centers Community mental health services Community/Communities/Communitarian Evaluation research Evaluation/Evaluations/Evaluative Mental health Regulation |
title | Mandated Evaluation in Community Mental Health Centers: Framework for a New Policy |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T10%3A10%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Mandated%20Evaluation%20in%20Community%20Mental%20Health%20Centers:%20Framework%20for%20a%20New%20Policy&rft.jtitle=Evaluation%20review&rft.au=Flaherty,%20Eugenie%20Walsh&rft.date=1981-10&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=620&rft.epage=638&rft.pages=620-638&rft.issn=0193-841X&rft.eissn=1552-3926&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0193841X8100500503&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E61539739%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1295135101&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0193841X8100500503&rfr_iscdi=true |