Implementation of Goal Attainment Scaling in ...

Implementation of Goal Attainment Scaling in Residential Theatment: An Administrative Model ROBERTE BARTEUI ISRAEL COLON

Since Goal Attainment Sc'aling is both technical and practice-based, it offers objectit'e evaluatiort standard.stlut involve client panicipatiotr. Its implementation, however like any new .\\tstem, requires procedural shifts that present challenges to agenc) adminisffation and staJf.

Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is a program evaluation system that has gained widespreaduse since its introductionby Kiresuk and ShermanI l 9681. Although it was originally designedfor comurunity mental health programs, its use in other settings is extensive.Cytrynbaum et al. [979] reviewed4l programsand provided the following anay of settingsin which GAS has been employed: school/classroom, crisis intervention services, day treatment prograrns, outpatient services, inpatient services, a mental health training program, a dental school, a summercamp, and a miscellaneouscategory.This evaluationmodel has becomeso popular that an early bibliography[Garwick, McCree, Brintinall 19761 reported over 200 published and unpublished

Robert F. Bartelt, M.S.W., is Administraton Silver Springs-Martin Luthu Scftool, Plymoutft Meeting, PA.Israel CoI6n, Ph.D., is /ssi.rlanf Pn{eisor School of Sot'iol Administration, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. WO9-4O211821O7O424-I| $01.25 o Child Welfare League of America

Bartelt. Col6n / GAS in Residential Tieatmett

425

citations.Ajournal,GoalAttainmentRcview,is|imitedentirelytoGASand however' there is related topics. ln spite of its popularity anclclevelopment' system' The little literature on the implementation of this rather technical program Evaluation Centei in Minneapolisprovidesonly technicalassistance' have cas! studiesreport their implementationexperiences,and methodologies and evolved to evaluate the exient of program implementation[Leithwood administraMontgomery 1980, Patton 19781.Issuessuch as staff resistance, not been have however' involvement, staff of tive style, and the degree systematically addressed' vantagean The authors' concern here is to report from an administrative setting for treatmel)t residential a at experience in implementing GAS the model was Although model' children, and to propose an implementation apparent little is there GAS' of developed through ihe specific application of any irnplementation the to reason why the model cannot be applied evaluation system.

Planning considerations' The processof planning a program evaluation entails many English and [1974] in Hasenfeld by iO"ntifi"a Several relevant .on."in, (2) criteria, eva|uation of (l) determination human service programs are: and (4) consemethodology of evaluation, (3) administrationof evaluation, on staff and evaluation of effect the are: quences.dvo additional concerns funding environment.(i'e', agency's the clients, and the evaluation'seffect on services)' sintilar providing agencies sources,board of directors, and other TheadministratoratSi|verSprings-MartinLutherSchoolhadtoweighthe treatment implications of these considerationsfor a children's residential system GAS, the explored'* were fu.itity. After several evaluation systems eliminates extent' large to a was selectedbecauseit is client specific and thus, theproblemofdevelopingnormativestandardsorcriteriaapp|icabletoal| involving clientsin clienrs[Hasenfeldana nngtish lg74l.lr also allows for investment potential the evaluation processitseif, thereby increasingclients' age and ol years 18 in treatment. Although the population studied was GAS' younger, age did not appear to be an obstacle to using

* This exploration began by attending a workshop, "The ABC's