<script type="text/javascript">
<!--
document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>');
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://www.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=undefined&type=result"></script>');
-->
</script>
SUMMARY This paper addresses the issues, for those involved in planning and managing human services, of evaluating the quality of such services as part of the service provision process. It begins by examining the nature of quality itself and moves on to look at the links between quality of life and quality of service in human services. It then assesses existing models of evaluation which might be applied and highlights their strengths and limitations. The paper argues that many of the models have their roots in areas outside of direct service provision and consequently are not appropriate for implementation in this context. It concludes by reviewing some principles to guide the evaluation of service quality by service managers, and suggests how these might be applied in practice to the evaluation of the quality of human services. The 'quality dimension' has been placed firmly on the agenda for human services in the 1990s. This has resulted largely from national political imperatives and resultant legislative changes, though professional groups would also say that they have long been pursuing this as a key issue in the provision of human services. Whichever is your preferred explanation, the result is to require human service managers and plan ners to take a hard look at the issue of quality and its measurement in service provision. This paper addresses the implications of this for those involved in the process. In doing so, it focuses on the evaluation of quality as an ongo ing part of the service provision process rather than as an external, and
citations This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 33 | |
popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |