In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

8฀ Effectivesness of Services to "Youth-at-Risk": The Case of Outreaching Social Work Howard Chi-ho Chen g There ar e various kind s o f service s availabl e t o th e at-ris k yout h wh o exhibit differen t degree s o f risk y behaviours . Amon g th e services , Outreaching Social Work (OSW) has the longest history of developmen t since June 1979 . In this paper, th e first focu s wil l be on discussing th e relationship between servic e effectiveness an d service improvement i n the cas e o f OS W servic e a s thi s typ e o f yout h servic e i s designe d specifically fo r youth-at-ris k (YAR) . An evaluatio n o f th e histor y an d advantage s o f OS W servic e evaluation i n Hon g Kon g will the n b e pointed out . Ther e wil l als o b e an analysi s o f why som e youth worker s i n OS W service resist servic e evaluation. Finally , th e discussio n wil l shif t toward s possibl e futur e development o f OSW in context of service evaluation and effectivenes s based o n th e qualit y improvemen t proces s model . Measurability o f Huma n Service s In the Socia l Welfare Departmen t Annua l Report 2001, the Director of Social Welfare wrot e i n th e foreword : Year 2001 was a year of major breakthroughs. The long-debated Lum p Sum Gran t Syste m wa s formall y introduce d i n Januar y 2001 . Thi s new mod e o f subvention , characterize d b y flexibility , autonom y an d accountability i n the use of resources is now practiced by 15 0 NGOs. Together the y accoun t fo r 96 % o f th e tota l recurren t welfar e subventions. A revised syste m fo r allocatin g ne w servic e units base d on quality , cost-effectivenes s an d innovation wa s put firml y i n plac e during th e year (Directo r o f Socia l Welfare, 2002 : 1). 88฀HOWARD ฀CHI-HO ฀CHENG฀ The term s "accountability" , "quality" , "cost-effectiveness " an d "innovation" hav e bee n greatl y promote d i n recen t years . Al l NG O workers, includin g youth workers, would fin d thes e concepts familiar . But a t th e sam e tim e the y would als o hold a mixed lov e hate attitud e towards thes e terms. Professional socia l workers understand the y hav e entered a perio d o f accountability , responsibilit y an d evidence-base d practice a s socia l services , includin g yout h service , ar e no w relyin g heavily o n publi c funding . Consequently , thes e service s hav e t o b e accountable t o the government an d service-users . For every dolla r an d cent spen t o n a service , emphasi s shoul d b e o n efficienc y an d effectiveness. Nevertheless , whe n talkin g abou t evaluatin g th e effectiveness o f socia l services , on e woul d argu e tha t ther e ar e lot s of changing variables that affect servic e delivery and service outcomes, t o the poin t wher e i t i s difficul t t o predic t accurat e evaluation . Furthermore, these variables are complicated and mutually influencing , particularly i n th e contex t o f working with th e YAR. This i s why i t i s not surprisin g t o fin d man y yout h worker s agains t servic e evaluation . There are many reason s including individual, societa l and cultura l that accoun t fo r th e emergenc e o f youth-at-risk . I t woul d b e difficul t for social workers to change over a few months or a year the behaviour s of many of these youngsters who have been manifesting suc h problem s for ove r a decad e o r more . Th e Governmen t ha s bee n adoptin g a paradoxical attitud e i n evaluatin g ou r services . When th...

Share