The federal GPRA evaluation mandate: Is social work ready?

Social Policy Journal

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 51-74

  Davis, Tamara S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Evaluation research; GPRA; National center for social work research; Participatory evaluation; Performance measurement

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937387046     PISSN: 15332942     EISSN: 15332950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J185v01n03_05     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Austin, D. M. (1988). The political economy of human service programs. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
2. Austin, D. M. (1998). A report on progress in the development of research resources in social work. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin, School of Social Work.
3. Barkdoll, G.,&Bosin, M. R. (1997). Targeted planning: A paradigm for the public service. Long Range Planning. 30(4), 529-539.
4. Campbell, J.,&Johnson, J. R. (1995). Struggling to reach common ground. Behavioral Healthcare Tomorrow, May/June, 40, 45-46.
5. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (1999). Evaluating federal research programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. Davis, T. (2001, March). Performance and ongoing evaluation methods: Implications for social work education. Paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Dallas, TX.
7. Ellig, J. (2000, May). Performance report scorecard: Which federal agencies inform the public? Mercatus Center, George Mason University. [On-line]. Available: (http://www.mercatus.org/scorecard/index.html).
8. Feldman, R. A.,&Siskind, A. B. (1997). Foreword. In E. J. Mullen&J. L. Magnabosco (Eds.), Outcomes measurement in the human services (pp. xv-xvi). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
9. Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Report 103-62, 107 Stat. 285.
10. H.R. 2883, The Government Performance and Results Act Technical Amendments of 1998. 105th Cong. (1998), (98-224 GOV).
11. Hoechstetter, S. (2001, Winter). Key strategist shares thoughts on legislative advocacy. Social Work Education Reporter. 49(1), 1, 40.
12. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. (1994). A guide to establishing programs for assessing outcomes in clinical settings. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Author.
13. Kahn, A. J. (1999). The social work research domain in historical perspective: The first 100 years. In M. Potocky-Tripodi & T. Tripodi (Eds.), New directions for social work practice research (pp. 9-38). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
14. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
15. Kautz, J. R. III., Netting, F. E., Huber, R., Borders, K.,&Davis, T. S. (1997). The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: Implications for social work practice. Social Work. 42(4), 364-373.
16. Kravchuk, R. S., & Schack, R. W. (1996). Designing effective performance-measurement systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review. 56(4), 348-358.
17. Lynn, L. E. Jr. (1998). Requiring bureaucracies to perform: What have we learned from the U.S. Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)? (Working Paper Series: 98-3). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies.
18. Martin, L. L. (1993). Total quality management in the human service organizations (Sage Human Services Guide 67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19. Martin, L. L., & Kettner, P. M. (1996). Measuring the performance of human service programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning. 22, 65-72.
21. Mullen, E. J., & Magnabosco, J. L. (Eds.). (1997). Outcomes measurement in the human services. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
22. National Academy of Public Administration. (1994, November). Toward useful performance measurement: Lessons learned from initial pilot performance plans prepared under the Government Performance and Results Act (A report by the NAPA Advisory Panel on Improving Government Performance). Washington, DC: Author.
23. National Academy of Public Administration. (1998). Effective implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act (A study by the Panel on Improving Government Performance). Washington, DC: Author.
24. National Association of Social Workers. (1996). Code of ethics. (Available from the National Association of Social Workers, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002-4241).
25. National Center for Social Work Research Act. S. 178/H.R. 3214, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999).
26. National Center for Social Work Research Act. S. 70/H.R. 663, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (2001).
27. Oss, M. (1995). Shawnee Hills: A case study in outcomes assessment. Behavioral Health Management. May/June, 31-32.
28. Poole, D. L., Nelson, J., Carnahan, S., Chepenik, N. G., & Tubiak, C. (2000). Evaluating performance measurement systems in nonprofit agencies: The Program Accountability Quality Scale (PAQS). American Journal of Evaluation. 21(1), 1-12.
29. Potocky-Tripodi, M., & Tripodi, T. (Eds.). (1999). New directions for social work practice research. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
30. Radin, B. A. (1998). The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hydra- headed monster or flexible management tool? Public Administration Review. 58(4), 307-316.
31. The Results Act: It matters now. (1997, August). [On-line]. Available: (http://www. freedom.gov/results/results1.asp).
32. The Results Act: It’s the law. (1997, November). [On-line]. Available: (http://www. freedom.gov/results/finalreport).
33. Rossi, P. H. (1999). Program outcomes: Conceptual and measurement issues. In E. J. Mullen & J. L. Magnabosco (Eds.), Outcomes measurement in the human services:Cross-cutting issues and methods (pp. 20-34). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
34. Seven years of GPRA: “Has the Results Act provided results?," 106th Cong., 2d Sess. (2000). (Testimony of The Honorable Richard K. Armey).
35. Sohng, S. S. L. (1992). Consumers as research partners. Journal of Progressive Human Services. 3(2), 1-14.
36. Task Force on Social Work Research. (1991, November). Building social work knowledge for effective services and policies: A plan for research development. Austin:The University of Texas at Austin, School of Social Work.
37. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Strategic Plan FY2001-2006. [On-line]. Available: (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hhsplan/index.htm#Contents).
38. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, Guidance for Applicants (GFA) No. SM-02-002.
39. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration FY2002 Performance Plan, FY2001 GPRA Performance Plan, and FY2000 Performance Report. [On-line]. Available: (http://www.samhsa.gov/ budget/budget.html).
40. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Managing for results: Analytic challenges in measuring performance (Report No. GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138). Washington, DC: Author.
41. U.S. General Accounting Office (1997). Performance budgeting: Past initiatives offer insights for GPRA implementation (Report No. GAO/AIMD-97-46). Washington, DC: Author.
42. U.S. General Accounting Office (1998). Managing for results: Measuring program results that are under limited federal control (Report No. GAO/GGD-99-16). Washington, DC: Author.
43. U.S. General Accounting Office (1999). Observations on the Department of Health and Human Services’ performance plan for fiscal year 2000 (Report No. GAO/HEHS-99-149R). Washington, DC: Author.
44. U.S. General Accounting Office (2000). Managing for results: Continuing challenges to effective GPRA implementation. (Report No. GAO/T-GGD-00-178). Washington, DC: Author.
45. U.S. General Accounting Office (2000). Program evaluation: Studies helped agencies measure or explain program performance. (Report No. GAO/GGD-00-204). Washington, DC: Author.
46. Whalon, S. M. (1995). Re-engineering, re-tooling, re-thinking: Guideposts to preparing for managed care. Caring, Summer. 8-11.