"Many studies of collaborative school-linked programs suffer from high attrition, control groups that are not comparable, and a wide range of unique outcomes, some of which are based on measures of unknown reliability and validity. Few data are reported on implementation of process. In addition, many evaluation reports do not document the magnitude of program effects nor include information on costs, making it difficult to judge the practical significance of the programs.

Often collaborative school-linked programs make use of varied (and sometimes conflicting) goals, assumptions, definitions, procedures, and analytic tools. Additionally, studies of these programs are frequently designed by teams of researchers from several disciplines and social and health care agencies that have a service-delivery perspective.

Innovative programs are designed to achieve specific outcomes. Systematic evaluation of the program's implementation is central to the validation and improvement of the program. The traditional treatment/yield paradigm and classic pre- and posttest control group experimental designs, while useful from a conclusion-oriented evaluation perspective, are not sufficient in determining whether a program has been successfully implemented. Evaluations must include documentation of the following:

Evaluating the collaborativeness of these programs poses a major challenge. There are few direct measures of collaborativeness. Should it be measured by linkages among institutions, by the accessibility of services to clients, or by the satisfaction of the collaborators?

The evaluation of collaborative school-linked programs requires identifying a wide range of client outcomes. Evaluators should be concerned not only with process and implementation data, but also with measuring improvement in student academic achievement, school attendance, graduation rates, decreased pregnancy rates, coping skills, reduced behavioral problems, and other cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes. Most import, collaborative programs need to document whether their clients are able to access readily an increased number of community resources." (pp. 304-305)