Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

1. Evaluation paradigms and approaches have been evolving.

There is a strong trend in the evaluation field towards participatory and empowerment evaluation, with greater involvement of consumers in the process. As well, there is a need for evaluation which is practical and timely and takes a "utilization" focus on helping programs improve. This approach can provide a better understanding of what works best under given circumstances and can identify implications for future directions.

2. There is insufficient information about the full costs of disability, and the fiscal relationships among disability programs are unclear.

More research is needed to identify clearly the full range of direct and indirect costs of disability, which in turn will permit more meaningful determination of the cost-effectiveness of various programs and measures.

The fact that benefits from program measures and expenditures may accrue in different cost centres is one of the biggest obstacles to systemic change. Disability management interventions have sometimes failed to obtain the support of senior management and human resource officials, despite an impressive return on investment, because expenditure reductions accrue to programs other than those that incur the cost.

3. Greater consensus is needed on appropriate outcome measures for evaluating disability policy.

A consolidation of success criteria will enhance measurability of disability-related programs. To this end some suggestions are presented in the section on evaluation implications. However, additional conceptual and methodological explorations are needed, to generalize objective criteria as well as to generalize indicators. Quality of life and cost-effectiveness are two general areas suggested for consideration. More specific examples of measurements of quality of life could look at successful completion of training programs; labour force participation; community work or alternatively, less dependency on income support programs. In cost-effectiveness we need to estimate the full cost of disability to society (income support and other programs from federal and provincial governments and the private sector, and the under-utilization of disabled individuals).

Without agreement on at least the general goals of policies, it can be difficult or impossible to focus evaluation efforts. Consequently, evaluation findings may not be considered meaningful or accepted. There is particular potential for using the concept of quality of life as a primary outcome indicator, along with considerations of cost-effectiveness.

Quality of life is commonly thought of as having two dimensions: subjective assessments by individuals about various aspects of their life experiences, and objective indicators of life conditions. It includes considerations such as independent living, community inclusion and integration. It provides a way of thinking about outcomes from the perspective of the consumer and from a quality point of view. Quality of life now represents a major field of study in the disability area, and has been receiving extensive international attention.

Cost-effectiveness has also been identified as an important measure of effectiveness. It is therefore striking that so little conceptual attention has been paid to what this concept means in practice for assessing the costs and benefits of disability policies and programs. In particular, there has been limited work done to identify the full costs of disability. Cost-effectiveness analyses of disability policies and programs also need to take into account the full costs and benefits, recognizing that costs can occur in one program area, with savings and benefits in another, or over an extended time frame. Without a proper consideration of all costs and benefits, it is not possible to conduct meaningful cost-effectiveness analysis.