Evaluation approaches in mental health: implications of the new federalism.
Since the introduction of federal mental health legislation in 1963, there has been a changing emphasis on evaluation and accountability. With direct federal funding of community mental health services, accountability demands were met through expectations for local agency evaluation activities which were overseen by federal authorities. The advent of the New Federalism and the shift to block grant funding of mental health services to state mental health authorities have shifted responsibility for evaluation to the states and local programs. This paper reviews federal mental health statutes to trace the extent and locus of required evaluation activities and discusses two approaches to carrying out program evaluation: "top-down" where the evaluation topic, method, and data collection are mandated by an administering or funding body; and "bottom-up" approaches where the subject, method of study, and data to be collected are developed in response to a felt need at the local agency level. A case study of each approach as used at the state level in mental health is examined. Based on the literature and the case studies, conclusions are presented on the pro's and con's of each method in meeting accountability demands and the barriers which must be overcome for either method to be successful.
D003155:Community Mental Health Centers / Q000592:standards*; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D006302:Health Services Research / Q000379:methods*; D008824:Michigan; D011635:Public Health Administration / Q000592:standards*; D012941:Social Responsibility; D013219:State Government