WK1 Assignment

History of Accountability, Program Evaluation, and Program

Effectiveness in Human Services

Introduction

This animated time line depicts major developments in the human services field. Each time

period has hyperlinks with more detailed information.

Since the 1780s in the United States, both nonprofit and for-profit organizations have managed

and taken responsibility for social welfare. How do these organizations and human services

programs know they are making a difference or achieving the outcomes they set for their

programs? The shift from pure benevolence to helping professions highlighting accountability of

the human services programs has caused a demand for effective program evaluation to support

program accountability.

Accountability today is generally considered to comprise three equally important dimensions:

efficiency, quality, and effectiveness. When discussing accountability within the context of the

administration of the human services, it is helpful to review how the concept has evolved over

the years from the 1960s to the present day.

The first time period (1960–1970) set the stage for the move to accountability. The second time

period (1970–1980) provided insights into the formulation and development of accountability.

Finally, the third time period (1980–1990) saw the evolution of accountability in the

administration of human services to the form most widely used today.

1960s

Because society generally accepted the intrinsic value of the human services, prior to the 1960s,

the concept of accountability in administration practice received little attention.

The advent of contracting in the late 1960s began to change the nature of accountability in

administration of human services agencies (both public and private). Also during the late 1960s,

three major public policy changes led to increased contracting between government human

services agencies and their nonprofit counterparts.

Policy Change 1

States were authorized for the first time under the human services titles of the Social Security

Act to contract with private nonprofit human services agencies. Prior to this change, states could

contract only with other governments.

Policy Change 2

The U.S. Congress placed no upper limit on the amount of federal funding states could earn for

providing services under the human services titles of the Social Security Act (Title XX). This

apparent policy oversight meant that the federal government was required to reimburse “such

sums as may be necessary” to cover all approved human services provided by states.

Policy Change 3

States were authorized to utilize “donated” funds to satisfy federal matching funds requirements.

Donated funds were funds provided by other governments or nonprofit agencies. The effect of

this change was that states could expand the types and amounts of human services provided

without incurring any additional expenses themselves. All states had to do was act as brokers,

bringing together the 75% federal funding with the 25% donated matching funds.

REFERENCES

Kettner, P., & Martin, L. L. (1998). Accountability in purchase of service contracting. In M.

Gibelman & H. W. Demone (Eds.), The privatization of human services: Policy and practice

issues (Vol. 1, pp. 183–204). New York, NY: Springer.

Martin, L., & Frahm, K. (2010). The changing nature of accountability in administrative practice.

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 37(1), 137–148.

The result of these three policy changes was to shift the focus away from programmatic accountability and, in particular, the efficiency (outputs), quality, and effectiveness (outcomes) of the human services programs. As state and local governments and nonprofit human services agencies joined forces to generate as much federal funding as possible, financial accountability became the focus of the field in the 1960s.

1970s

During the mid-1970s, the predominant mode of human services delivery changed from direct

government delivery to private-sector delivery.

Since most of public funding for human services during this period came from the federal

government, so too did the policies concerning accountability. Most human services contracts

and grants were of the cost reimbursement type during this period. As a result, considerable

effort was made to ensure compliance with federal laws and regulations so as not to jeopardize

funding.

Cost reimbursement

Cost reimbursement contracts are contracts in which government and nonprofit human services

agencies were reimbursed for their expenses without regard to performance (the numbers of

clients served, the quality of the service provided, or the numbers of client outcomes achieved).

They were required to meet policy standards, not prove program effectiveness.

The negative impact of the cost reimbursement funding relationships between government fund

providers and human services programs cannot be overstated. Government funding was not

generally tied to considerations of programmatic accountability and client outcomes, and

therefore, there was no emphasis on program accountability or measuring the effectiveness of

programs.

REFERENCES

Martin, L., & Frahm, K. (2010). The changing nature of accountability in administrative practice.

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 37(1), 137–148.

This environment eventually fostered backlash from the human services, and at least some

stakeholders began to question whether human services programs were actually producing

desired results. Even though the need to shift away from financial accountability was

acknowledged by practitioners by the late 1970s, there was no concerted attempt to move in the

direction of programmatic accountability.

In short, there was no real attempt to connect the efficiency, quality, or outcomes of services

provided to clients at the micro/direct-practice level with the policies and practices adopted at the

macro/administrative-practice level.

1980s

The 1980s brought about several changes in the administration of human services agencies and

programs. These changes significantly altered how accountability was conceptualized.

The Reagan administration replaced the Title XX program with the Social Services Block Grant, accompanied by an overall reduction in funding from the federal government.

The prevailing model for human services policies and practices shifted from uniform federal standards to a more decentralized model with state and local governments

determining their own service delivery policies and priorities.

At the administrative-practice level, accountability came to mean ensuring that contracted nonprofit agencies performed properly.

Fueling the need for programmatic accountability was the pressure to maintain service levels in the face of decreased federal funding. Issues of how to contain costs by

increasing efficiency, quality, and effectiveness became more relevant.

State and local governments became more concerned with holding nonprofits accountable for contract performance.

Some state agencies began experimenting with the collection of client outcome data.

Although programmatic accountability became more relevant, financial accountability continued

to dominate. However, the need to determine programmatic accountability had now been

recognized, and state and local governments began to include performance measures in their

contracts with nonprofits. By the end of the 1980s, state and local governments began to

formulate performance standards, though still taking a backseat to financial accountability, and

to look at outputs, quality, and outcomes as a part of overall programmatic accountability.

REFERENCES

Martin, L., & Frahm, K. (2010). The changing nature of accountability in administrative practice.

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 37(1), 137–148.

1990s Policy and regulatory changes that took place during the 1990s altered the nature of accountability in the field of human services. Administrative policies and regulations at all government levels (federal, state, and local) began to take the shape of performance expectations being regularly included in contracts and grants. In addition, stakeholders and funding sources became increasingly dissatisfied with the argument that the effectiveness of human services programs was too difficult to measure. During the 1990s, several major public policy changes advanced programmatic accountability, including the following:

1. Government Performance and Results Act In 1993, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) was passed into law mandating that all federal departments report their performance annually to the president and Congress. By this time, most state and local governments, as well as nonprofit human services agencies, were heavily dependent upon federal funds. Consequently, the move to performance measurement had a major impact. GPRA changed the accountability landscape by making programmatic accountability in the form of efficiency, effectiveness, and quality the “law of the land” for organizations receiving federal funding.

2. National Performance Review As a supplement and expansion of GPRA, the National Performance Review (Vice President Al Gore’s “Reinventing Government” initiative) focused more specifically on program outcomes.

3. Managed care

4. Governmental Accounting Standards Board Service Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) reporting initiative

The Services Efforts and Accomplishments (SEA) reporting initiative of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) was similar to GPRA but was targeted to state and local governments. GASB is the body responsible for establishing generally accepted accounting standards for state and local governments. SEA reporting brought a standardized and systematic approach to the reporting of programmatic accountability. SEA reporting brought a standardized and systematic approach to the reporting of programmatic accountability. SEA reporting consists of three primary elements:

1. Service efforts

Service efforts are the inputs or resources that are used to provide a program or service.

2. Service accomplishments

Service accomplishments comprise two major components: outputs, or the number of units of service produced by a program; and outcomes, or measures of the results, accomplishments, or impacts of programs. Outputs are the services actually provided and can be further subdivided into outputs which measure program efficiency and outputs which measure program quality standards. Output performance measures provide information about type and amount of services or goods. Because SEA reporting systematically stresses outputs, quality, and outcomes, it provides state and local governments with a comprehensive approach to the assessment of programmatic accountability.

3. Ratios that compare service efforts and service accomplishments

As a result of the performance measurement movement, state and local governments moved to performance-based contracting (PBC) with their nonprofit (and now for-profit) human services contractors. Performance-based contracting (PBC) was based on the belief that contract agencies would perform better when financial accountability was linked to programmatic accountability. During the 1990s, the PBC approach did result in significant increases in the efficiency (outputs), quality, and effectiveness (outcomes) of human services agencies and programs.

© Laureate Education, Inc.

REFERENCES

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, §20, (1993).

Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). (1994). Concepts statement no. 2: Service

efforts and accomplishments reporting. Norwalk, CT: Author.

Martin, L., & Frahm, K. (2010). The changing nature of accountability in administrative practice.

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 37(1), 137–148.