• Summary: As social work engages with the ideology of evidence-based practice it becomes important to accurately document service activities and outcomes. This often proves problematic, as utilization of systems to collect data for evaluation is fraught with ideological, epistemological, and skill-based difficulties. This article describes a `multiple case study' consisting of: ) a multi-agency evaluation with inconsistent implementation of a data collection system; and 2) a follow-up cross-sectional study of social workers' use of computers and data systems.
• Findings: Four components related to practitioner utilization of data systems were identified: skills and experience with using computers, perceived ease of use, utility of the data, and attitudes about data. The latter may point to underlying epistemological and ontological issues regarding evidence-based practice in direct service settings.
• Applications : It is important to understand the interacting personal, professional, and organizational factors that influence social workers' use of information systems. The findings suggest that improving worker skill and comfort with data systems as well as maintaining an open dialogue about how data will be used may be key components of efforts to improve practitioner utilization of data systems.
Ames, N. (1999) Social Work Recording: A New Look at an Old Issue , Journal of Social Work Education35(2): 227-37.
2.
Barrett, S. (1999) Information Systems: An Exploration of the Factors Influencing Effective Use, Journal of Research on Computing in Education32(1): 4-17.
3.
Bernard, H.R. (2000) Social Research Methods. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
4.
Carrilio, T. (2003) Learning from Experience? A Review of Three California Initiatives Addressing the Needs of Vulnerable Families, Social Policy Journal2 (2/3): 5-25.
5.
Carrilio, T. (2005a) Management Information Systems: Why are They Underutilized in the Social Services?, Administration in Social Work29(2): 43-61.
6.
Carrilio, T.E. (2005b) Looking Inside the "Black Box": A Methodology for Measuring Program Implementation and Informing Social Services Policy Decisions, Social Policy Journal4(3/4): 1-17.
7.
Carrilio, T., Kasser, J. and Moretto, A. (1985) Management Information Systems: Who is in Charge? , Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work66(7): 417-23.
8.
Carrilio, T., Packard, T. and Clapp, J. (2003) Nothing In - Nothing Out: Barriers to Data Based Program Planning, Administration in Social Work27(4): 61-75.
9.
Clapp, J.D., Burke, C. and Stanger, L. (1998) The Institutional Environment, Strategic Response and Program Adaptation: A Case Study, Journal of Applied Social Sciences22(1): 87-95.
10.
Despont-Gros, C., Mueller, H. and Lovis, C. (2005) Evaluating User Interactions with Clinical Information Systems: A Model Based on Human-Computer Interaction Models, Journal of Biomedical Informatics38: 244-55.
11.
Dorsey, D. (2002) Information Technology, in J. Hedge and E. Pulkalos (eds) Implementing Organizational Interventions, pp. 110-32. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Fitch, D. (2005) The Diffusion of Information Technology in the Human Services: Implications for Social Work Education, Journal of Teaching in Social Work25(1/2): 191-204.
13.
Fitzgerald, B. and Murphy, C. (1994) Introducing Executive Information Systems into Organizations: Separating Fact from Fallacy, Journal of Information Technology9: 288-96.
14.
Gambrill, E. (1999) Evidence-based Practice: An Alternative to Authority-based Practice, Families in Society80(4): 341-50.
15.
Gambrill, E. (2003) Evidence-based Practice: Sea Change or the Emperors New Clothes?, Journal of Social Work Education391(1): 2-23.
16.
Gray, M. and McDonald, C. (2006) Pursuing Good Practice?, Journal of Social Work6(1): 7-20.
17.
Hasenfeld, Y. and Patti, R. (1992) The Utilization of Research in Administrative Practice , in A. Grasso and I. Epstein (eds) Research Utilization in the Social Services , pp. 221-39. New York: The Haworth Press.
18.
Hernandez, M. (2000) Using Logic Models and Program Theory to Build Outcome Accountability, Education and Treatment of Children23(1): 24-40.
19.
Hodges, S. and Hernandez, M. (1999) How Organizational Culture Influences Outcome Information Utilization, Evaluation and Program Planning22(2): 183-97.
20.
Horsch, K. (1996) Results-based Accountability Systems: Opportunities and Challenges, The Evaluation Exchange2(1): 2-3, website of the Harvard Family Research Project, available online at: [http://www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue3/theory1.html], accessed January 2007.
21.
Howard, M., McMillen, C. and Pollio, D. (2003) Teaching Evidence-Based Practice: Toward a New Paradigm for Social Work Education, Research on Social Work Practice13(2): 234-59.
22.
Karger, H. and Stoesz, D. (2006) American Social Welfare Policy: A Pluralist Approach , 5th edn. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
Kettner, P., Moroney, R. and Martin, L. (1999) Building a Management Information System, in Designing and Managing Programs: An Effectiveness Based Approach , 2nd edn, pp. 139-69. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
24.
Landsverk, J., Carrilio, T., Connelly, C. and Ganger, W. (2001) Healthy Families San Diego: Final Technical Report , submitted to the California Department of Social Services, The Wellness Foundation and The Stuart Foundation, Childrens Hospital Child and Adolescent Services Research Center, San Diego .
25.
Lederer, A. and Mendelow, A. (1988) Convincing Top Management of the Strategic Potential of Information Systems, MIS Quarterly December: 525-34.
26.
Lewis, J., Lewis, M., Packard, T. and Souflee, F. (2001) Designing and Using Information Systems, in Management of Human Service Programs, pp. 209-34. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
27.
Monnickendam, M. (1999) Computer Systems that Work: A Review of Variables Associated with System Use, Journal of Social Service Research26(2): 71-94.
28.
Monnickendam, M. and Eaglstein, A.S. (1993) Computer Acceptance by Social Workers: Some Unexpected Research Findings, Computers in Human Services9(3/4): 409-24.
29.
Mutschler, E. (1992) Computers in Agency Settings, in A. Grasso and I. Epstein (eds) Research Utilization in the Social Services, pp. 325-44. New York: The Haworth Press.
30.
Mutschler, E. and Hasenfeld, Y. (1986) Integrated Information Systems for Social Work Practice, Social Work Sept/Oct: 345-9.
31.
Ogborne, A., Braun, K. and Rush, B. (1998) Developing an Integrated Information System for Specialized Addiction Treatment Agencies, Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research25(1): 100-09.
32.
Pollio, D. (2006) The Art of Evidence-Based Practice, Research on Social Work Practice16(2): 224-32.
33.
Poole, D., Nelson, J., Carnahan, S.Chepenick, N.G. and Tubiak, C. (2000) Evaluating Performance Measurement Systems in Nonprofit Agencies: The Program Accountability Quality Scale (PAQS), American Journal of Evaluation21(1): 15-26.
34.
Qureschi, H. (2004) Evidence in Policy and Practice: What Kinds of Research Designs?, Journal of Social Work4(1): 7-23.
35.
Rossi, P., Freeman, H. and Lipsey, M. (1999) Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 6th edn. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
36.
Rubin, A. and Babbie, E. (2005) Research Methods for Social Work. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Brooks/Cole.
37.
Schoech, R. (1995) Information Systems, in R. Edwards (ed.) Encyclopedia of Social Work, 19th edn, pp. 1470-9. Washington, DC: NASW Press.
38.
Schoech, R. (1999) Human Services Technology: Understanding, Designing, and Implementing Computer and Internet Applications in the Social Services . New York: The Haworth Press.
39.
Scheirer, M.A. (2000) Getting More "Bang" for Your Performance Measures Buck, American Journal of Evaluation21(2): 139-49.
40.
Sluyter, G. (1998) Improving Organizational Performance (#74 in the SAGE Human Services Guides Series). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
41.
Webb, S. (2001) Some Considerations on the Validity of Evidence-Based Practice in Social Work, British Journal of Social Work31: 57-79.
42.
Yin, R. (1993) Applications of Case Study Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
43.
Yin, R. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
