Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation & the Health Professions
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Riggin, L. J. C.
Right arrow Articles by York, R. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Riggin, L. J. C.
Right arrow Articles by York, R. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Using a Set-Aside to Encourage the Evaluation of Public Health Service Programs

Leslie J. C. Riggin

Stephanie L. Shipman

Robert L. York

U.S. General Accounting Office

For over 20years, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has had the authority to use up to 1% of the annual Public Health Service (PHS) appropriations for the evaluation of federal health programs. However, recent changes to the Public Health Service Act put not only a ceiling (1%) but also afloor (0.2%) on the funds that the secretary can set asidefor evaluation. The changes to the legislation are intended to encourage HHS to dedicate more funds to evaluation, focus the funds set aside for evaluation on studies of PHS program implementation and effectiveness, and regularly report the findings of the evaluations to Congress. These changes respond to concerns raised by the U.S. General Accounting Office in a study of the PHS evaluation set-aside conducted for Congress.

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 18, No. 1, 3-12 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/016327879501800101
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eval Health ProfHome page
P. L. Johnson
Evaluation of U.S. Public Health Service Programs: Organization and Management
Eval Health Prof, September 1, 1996; 19(3): 311 - 324.
[Abstract] [PDF]