This article examines the extent to which different types of funders are asking nonprofit organizations for evaluation and performance measurement data, and describes the many ways in which nonprofit organizations are responding to these requests. The picture that emerges is one that is decidedly mixed, illustrating a range of behaviors that challenges the current perception that most, if not all, funders are asking nonprofit organizations for more evaluation and performance measurement data. The data collected during this study show that only those nonprofit organizations that receive considerable funding from the federal government and the United Way are engaging in program evaluation and performance measurement, compared to nonprofit organizations that receive more funding from state and local governments, foundations, and other sources. Furthermore, the extent to which nonprofit organizations are subjected to external monitoring and descriptive reporting requirements also varies according to the type and amount of funding.
Associated Grantmakers, Inc. (2007). For grantseekers: Common reporting form. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://www.agmconnect.org/GrantSeekers/commonreportform.doc
2.
Averch, H.A. (2004). Using expert judgment. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 282-309). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
3.
Beam, D.R., & Conlan, T.J. (2002). Grants. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 340-380). New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
Bernstein, S.R. (1991). Contracted services: Issues for the nonprofit agency manager. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 20, 429-443.
5.
BoardSource & Independent Sector. ( 2003 ). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and implications for nonprofit organizations . Retrieved September 12, 2004, from http://www.boardsource.org/clientfiles/Sarbanes-Oxley.pdf
6.
Boris, E.T., Renz, L., Barve, A., Hager, M.A., & Hobor, G. (2006). Foundation expenses and compensation: How operating characteristics influence spending. Retrieved January 19, 2008 , from http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=311281
7.
Braverman, M.T., Constantine, N.A., & Slater, J.A. (2004). Foundations and evaluation: Contexts and practices for effective philanthropy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Brody, E., & Cordes, J.J. (1999). Tax treatment of nonprofit organizations: A two-edged sword? In E. T. Boris & C. E. Steurele (Eds.), Nonprofits and government: Collaboration and conflict (pp. 142-176). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
9.
Brody, E. (2002). Accountability and the public trust. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
10.
Carman, J.G. (2001). Community foundations: A growing resource for community development. Nonprofit Management and Leadership , 12(1), 7-24.
11.
Chan, Y.L. (2004). Performance measurement and adoption of balanced scorecards: A survey of municipal governments in the USA and Canada. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17, 204-221. Retrieved October 9, 2006, from PAIS International database.
12.
Coe, C.K., & Brunet, J.R. (2006). Organizational report cards: Significant impact or much ado about nothing? Public Administration Review, 66(1), 90-100.
13.
Conner, R.F., Kuo, V., Melton, M.S., & Millett, R.A. (2004). Adapting evaluation to accommodate foundations' structural and cultural characteristics. In M. T. Braverman, N. A. Constantine, & J. A. Slater (Eds.), Foundations and evaluation: Contexts and practices for effective philanthropy (pp. 166-184). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Cutt, J., & Murray, V. (2000). Accountability and effectiveness evaluation in non-profit organizations. New York: Routledge.
15.
Dicke, L.A. (2002). Ensuring accountability in human services contracting: Can stewardship theory fit the bill? American Review of Public Administration, 32(4), 455-470.
16.
Fleishman, J.L. (1999). Public trust in not-for-profit organizations and the need for regulatory reform. In C. T. Clotfelter & T. Erlich (Eds.), Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in a changing America (pp. 172-197). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
17.
Glover, D.D. (1989). Monitoring field activities through on-site inspections . In J. S. Wholey, K. E. Newcomer, & Associates (Eds.), Improving government performance: Evaluation strategies for strengthening public agencies and programs. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
18.
Gormley, Jr., W.T. (2004). Using organizational report cards. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 628-648). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Hatry, H.P., Wholey, J.S., & Newcomer, K.E. (2004). Other issues and trends in evaluation. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (pp. 670-684). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Heimovics, R.D., Herman, R.D., & Jurkiewicz, C.L. (1993). Executive leadership and resource dependence in nonprofit organizations: A frame analysis. Public Administration Review, 53(5), 419-427.
21.
Henderson, M., Whitaker, G.P., & Altman-Sauer, L. (2003, Fall). Nonprofit-government relationships. Popular Government, 69(1), 18-29.
22.
Howell, E.M., & Yemane, A. (2006). An assessment of evaluation designs: Case studies of 12 large federal evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation , 6(27), 219-236.
23.
Jeavons, T.H. (2005). Ethical nonprofit management. In R. D. Herman (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (2nd ed., pp. 345-370). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Jos, P.H., & Tompkins, M.E. (2004). The accountability paradox in an age of reinvention: The perennial problem of preserving character and judgment. Administration and Society, 36(3), 255-281.
25.
Kearns, K.P. (1996). Managing for accountability: Preserving the public trust in public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
26.
Lawrenz, F., Keiser, N., & Lavoie, B. (2003). Evaluative site visits: A methodological review . American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 341-352.
27.
Lee, B.R., McMillen, J.C., Knudsen, K., & Woods, C.M. (2007). Quality-directed activities and barriers to quality in social service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 31(2), 67-85.
28.
Light, P.C. (2006). The tides of reform revisited: Patterns in making government work, 1945-2002. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 6-19.
29.
Love, A. (2004). Implementation evaluation. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (2nd ed., pp. 63-97). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
30.
Martin, L.J., & Kettner, P.M. (1996). Measuring the performance of human service programs . Sage Human Service Guides71. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
McLaughlin, J.A., & Jordan, G.B. (2004). Using logic models. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (2nd ed., pp. 7-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
32.
Mott, A. (2006). Hand in hand: Evaluation and organizational development . Nonprofit Quarterly, 13(1), 42-47.
33.
Moynihan, D.P. (2001). The state of the states in managing for results. Working paper. Syracuse, NY: Alan K. Campbell Public Affairs Institute at Syracuse University. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from www.maxwell.syr.edu/gpp/pds/The_State_of_the_States_In_MFR.pdf
34.
Murphy, D.M., & Mitchell, R. (2007). Building evaluation capacity in North Carolina's nonprofit sector: A survey report. Raleigh, NC: Institute for Nonprofits.
35.
Murray, V. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of nonprofit organizations . In R. D. Herman (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management (2nd ed., pp. 345-370). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36.
Newcomer, K.E., Hatry, H.P., & Wholey, J.S. (2004). Meeting the need for practical evaluation approaches . In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (2nd ed., pp. xxxiii-xliv). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
37.
Niven, P.R. (2003). Balanced scorecard: Step-by-step for government and nonprofit agencies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
38.
O'Sullivan, E., & Rassel, G.R. (1999). Research methods for public administrators (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
39.
Office of Management and Budget. (2004). Program evaluation: What constitutes strong evidence of program effectiveness? Retrieved December 9, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/2004_program_eval.pdf
40.
OMB Watch. (1998). Measuring the measurers: A nonprofit assessment of the Government Performance and Results Act. 1742 Connecticut Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20009.
41.
Ostrower, F. (2006). Foundation approaches in effectiveness: A typology . Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(5), 510-516.
42.
Plantz, M.C., Greenway, M.T., & Hendricks, M. (1997). Outcome measurement: Showing results in the nonprofit sector. In K. E. Newcomer (Ed.), Using performance measurement to improve public and nonprofit programs. New directions for evaluation (Vol. 75, pp. 15-30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
43.
Poole, D.L., Davis, J.K., Reisman, R., & Nelson, J.E. (2001). Improving the quality of outcome evaluation plans . Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(4), 405-421.
44.
Rossi, P.H., & Freeman, H.E. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach (5th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
45.
Salamon, L.A. (1999). America's nonprofit sector: A primer (2nd ed.). New York: The Foundation Center.
46.
Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
47.
Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
48.
Shannon, J., Clement, D., & Chase, R. (2000). From protest to progress? Outcomes measurement and nonprofit evaluation capacity at United Way of the Saint Paul area. Paper presented at the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action, New Orleans, LA.
49.
Stoecker, R. (1997). The CDC model of urban redevelopment: A critique and an alternative. Journal of Urban Affairs, 19(1), 1-22.
50.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1999). Social service privatization: Ethics and accountability challenges in state contracting. A report to Congressional requesters. GAO/HEHS-99-41.
51.
United Way of America. (2000). Agency experiences with outcome measurement: Survey findings. Alexandria, VA: 701 North Fairfax Street. Retrieved October 1, 2004, from http://national.unitedway.org/outcomes/files/agencyom.pdf
52.
Volkov, B.B., & King, J.A. (2005, October). A grounded checklist for implementing evaluation capacity building in organizations. Paper presented at the Joint Meeting of the American Evaluation Association and Canadian Evaluation Society, Toronto, Canada.
53.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (n.d.). Evaluation handbook (item number 1203). Collateral Management Company , 1255 Hill Brady Road, Battle Creek, MI 49015.
54.
Walker, G., & Grossman, J. (1999). Philanthropy and outcomes: Dilemmas in the quest for accountability. In C. T. Clotfelter & T. Erlich (Eds.), Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector in a changing America (pp. 449-460). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
55.
Weiss, C.H., Murphy-Graham, & Birkeland, S. (2005). An alternate route to policy influence: How evaluations affect D.A.R.E. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 12-30.
56.
Werner, A. (2004). A guide to implementation research. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
57.
Whitaker, G.P., Altman-Sauer, L., & Henderson, M. (2004). Mutual accountability between governments and nonprofits: Moving beyond "surveillance" to "service." American Review of Public Administration, 34(2), 115-133.
58.
Williams, G. (2002, October 31). United Way crafts new accountability standards. Chronicle of Philanthropy, 15(2), 57-58.
59.
Wing, K.T. (2004). Assessing the effectiveness of capacity-building initiatives: Seven issues for the field. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(1), 153-160.
60.
Wyszomirski, M.J. (2002). Arts and culture. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
