| Abstract: | The need to measure qualitative outcomes is well documented. This article argues that despite this recognition many programs are still evaluated using unreliable numerical indicators. This has particular ramifications for community service programs that deal with the sharp end of social problems. While the New Zealand government has instigated a comparatively detailed approval standards, the Queensland government's community service guidelines are still applied almost on an ad hoc, case by case basis. Both New Zealand and Queensland performance indicators are directed towards process outputs, with a primary focus of government being centred on financial accountability. The satisfaction of the client remains the core responsibility of the service provider, but there is little assessment of how successful programs are in meeting individual requirements. This article suggests that there needs to be the development of a more collaborative relationship between governments and community service organisations, to ensure both financial and social objectives are fully realised. |
