NCJ Number
47521
Journal
Social Work Volume: 23 Issue: 3 Dated: (MAY 1978) Pages: 226-232
Date Published
1978
Length
7 pages
Annotation
THE RESULTS-ORIENTED SOCIAL SERVICES EVALUATION (ROSSE) AGENCY-CENTERED APPROACH TO DELIVERY AND REVIEW OF HUMAN SERVICES PROGRAMS IS DESCRIBED AND ITS POTENTIALS ARE ASSESSED.
Abstract
THE ROSSE MODEL WAS DEVELOPED BY UNITED WAY TO ACCOMMODATE CONCERNS ABOUT THE POLITICAL, TECHNICAL, ORGANIZATIONAL, AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF DECISIONMAKING WHILE PROVIDING A KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR SERVICE DELIVERY AND REVISION. THE ROSSE MODEL ENCOMPASSES PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND PLANNING, ACTIVITY DELINEATION AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION, AND EVALUATION OF PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAM. THE ROSSE FRAMEWORK IDENTIFIES OPERATION, PRODUCTION, AND PROGRAM IMPACT OBJECTIVES FOR EVALUATION. THE STATEMENT OF THESE THREE TYPES OF OBJECTIVES WOULD INCLUDE THE SITUATION OR CONDITION TO BE ATTAINED, THE TIME PARAMETERS FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES, THE TARGETED POPULATION, AND THE QUANTITY OR AMOUNT OF CHANGE TO BE ACHIEVED. CHANGE SHOULD BE SPECIFIED IN CONCRETE AND QUANTIFIABLE TERMS AND IF POSSIBLE SHOULD INCLUDE STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE. VALID MEASUREMENT INDICATORS AND TECHNIQUES SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS SHOULD BE DOCUMENTED IN TERMS OF RATIOS OF IMPACT TO TARGET GROUPS. FINALLY THE ACTUAL RESULTS SHOULD BE COMPARED WITH THE PROJECTED RESULTS TO DETERMINE THE DEGREE OF SUCCESS. THE ROSSE MODEL PROVIDES AN IDEALIZED FRAMEWORK WHICH WILL REQUIRE MODIFICATION TO MEET THE REALITIES OF THE SERVICE DELIVERY PROCESS. DIFFICULTIES IN APPLYING THIS APPROACH MAY INCLUDE DIFFICULTY IN QUANTIFYING PROGRAM GOALS, A LACK OF DIRECT AND/OR PRECISE MEASUREMENTS OR INDICATORS OF SUCCESS, AND THE DEGREE OF SUBJECTIVITY INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES IN SUCH SERVICES AS COUNSELING. THE TIMING OF THE OUTCOME MEASURE AND THE DEGREE OF CHANGE DESIRED WILL ALSO AFFECT THE CRITERIA OF SUCCESS. WHILE THE FORMAT PROPOSED DOES NOT PRECLUDE EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION DESIGNS, MOST AGENCIES SETTING OBJECTIVES WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO USE STANDARDS OF RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OR CONTROL GROUPS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT INTERAGENCY COMPARISONS MAY PROVIDE A BASIS FOR OBJECTIVELY ASSESSING PROGRAM SUCCESS. REPORTS ON THE SUCCESS, PARTIAL SUCCESS OR FAILURE TO ATTAIN OBJECTIVES CAN PROVIDE RESOURCE ALLOCATORS AND ADMINISTRATORS WITH INFORMATION FOR A DYNAMIC REVIEW OF PROGRAM PROBLEMS AND ADVANTAGES, FINANCIAL NEEDS, AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT. NOTES ARE PROVIDED. (JAP)