This article considers the findings of a survey of evaluators practising in Australian health and welfare organisations to learn about strategy in outcomes evaluation design. Outcomes evaluation is identified as an opportunity for health and welfare programs to learn if and how different practice interventions are contributing to the achievement of desired outcomes, for the purpose of building an evidence base for advancing the wellbeing of people. Results indicate that current strategy to determine client outcomes in these sectors is typified by reliance on program logic models and funding specifications, with limited translation of best practice evidence or client wellbeing preferences. We suggest that clarity of purpose is an important consideration for non-profit programs embarking on evaluation design, bringing attention to the need for skill development and better resourcing of non-profit organisations to support the production of evaluations capable of contributing to best practice evidence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlstonM. (2015). Social work and AJSI.Australian Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), pp. 37–51.
2.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2011). National outcome measures for early childhood development: Development of an indicator-based reporting framework.Canberra: Author.
3.
BondiL., CarrD., ClarkC., & CleggC. (Eds.). (2011). Towards professional wisdom: Practical deliberation in the people professions.New York: Routledge.
4.
CartwrightN. (2013). Knowing what we are talking about: why evidence doesn't always travel.Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 9(1), pp. 97–112.
5.
ChenH. (2015). Practical program evaluation: theory-driven evaluation and the integrated evaluation perspective (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
DohertyB., EcclestonR., HansenE., NatalierK., & ChurchillB. (2015). Building evaluation capacity in micro community organisations—more burden than benefit?Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 15(4), pp. 29–37.
7.
EvansS. P. (2017). What should social welfare seek to achieve? Applying the capability approach.Ethics and Social Welfare, 11(1), pp. 19–32.
FitzgeraldS., RainnieA., GoodsC., & MorrisL. (2014). The restructuring of WA human services and its implications for the not-for-profit sector.Australian Journal of Social Issues, 49(4), pp. 509–528.
GarganiJ. (2013). What can practitioners learn from theorists’ logic models?Evaluation & Program Planning, 38, pp. 81–88.
12.
GoodrickD. (2013). Fundamentals of program evaluation in public policy: Course notes (unpublished), ACSPRI, Australian National University, Canberra.
13.
HerbertJ. (2015). Towards program evaluation for practitioner learning: Human service practitioners’ perceptions of evaluation.Australian Social Work, 68(4), pp. 438–452.
14.
HallM. (2014). Evaluation logics in the third sector.Voluntas, 25(2), pp. 307–336.
15.
HallJ. N. (2013). Pragmatism, evidence, and mixed methods evaluation.New Directions for Evaluation, 2013(138), pp. 15–26.
16.
KelleherH., MacDougallC., & MurphyB. (2007). Understanding health promotion.Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
17.
KushnerS. (2016). The illogic of logic models.Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 16(1), pp. 4–10.
18.
KushnerS. (2014). Why we should focus on understanding the individual in evaluation.Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 14(1), pp. 4–11.
19.
McCoyA., RoseD., & ConnollyM. (2013). Developing evaluation cultures in human service organisations.Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 13(1), pp. 15–20.
20.
NkwakeA. M. (2012). Working with assumptions in international development program evaluation.New York: Springer.
21.
OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being.OECD Publishing.
22.
OwenA., SamsaP., FildesD., GrootemaatP., & EagarK. (2010). Measuring outcomes in community care: an exploratory study.Wollongong, NSW: Centre for Health Service Development, University of Wollongong.
PlathD. (2006). Evidence-based practice: current issues and future directions.Australian Social Work, 59(1), pp. 56–72.
25.
SalterK. J., & KothariA. (2014). Using realist evaluation to open the black box of knowledge translation: A state-of-the-art review.Implementation Science, 9(1), pp. 155.
26.
ScrivenM. (1999). The fine line between evaluation and explanation.Research on Social Work Practice, 9(4), pp. 521–524.
27.
SheldonB., & MacDonaldG. (2009). A textbook of social work.London: Routledge.
28.
ShlonskyA., & BallanM. (2011). Evidence-informed practice in child welfare: Definitions, challenges and strategies.Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal, 29, pp. 25–42.
29.
TrochimW. M. K. (1998). An evaluation of Michael Scriven's ‘Minimalist theory: The least theory that practice requires’.American Journal of Evaluation, 19(2), pp. 243–250.
30.
VolkovB. B. (2011). Internal evaluation a quarter-century later: A conversation with Arnold J. Love.New Directions for Evaluation, 132, pp. 5–12.
31.
WeissC. H. (1997). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies.Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.
YatesB. T., & MarraM. (2016). Social return on investment (SROI): Problems, solutions … and is SROI a good investment?Evaluation and Program Planning, 64, pp. 136–144.
