I examine the extent of outcome measurement in nonprofit organizations and the relationship that outcome measurement has to funders’ reporting mandates. Conclusions are derived from analysis of FY2002 survey and site visit data for 237 Detroit nonprofits and a comparison of FY2002 and FY2007 performance measures for 110 of those nonprofits that were subjected to new outcome reporting requirements instituted by the City of Detroit. Resource dependence and institutional theory frameworks are used to interpret the findings. The data support the conclusion that funders’ outcome reporting mandates affect the extent of outcome measurement among nonprofits, even where resource constraints limited measurement prior to the mandates. Yet the impact is not universal. Further research to better understand the contextual factors that affect responses to measurement mandates is proposed.
Ammons, D.N. ( 2002). Performance measurement and managerial thinking. Public Performance & Management Review, 25, 344-347.
2.
Ammons, D.N., & Rivenbark, W.C. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Administration Review , 68, 304-318.
3.
Barzelay, M. ( 2001). The new public management: Improving research and policy dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
Barzelay, M., & Armajani, B.J. (1992). The post-bureaucratic paradigm in historical perspective. In M. Barzelay & B. J. Armajani (Eds.), Breaking through bureaucracy: A new vision for managing in government (pp. 115-133). Berkeley: University of California Press.
5.
Behn, R.D. ( 2002). The psychological barriers to performance management: Or why isn’t everyone jumping on the performance-management bandwagon ? Public Performance & Management Review, 26(1), 5-25.
6.
Berman, E. ( 2002). How useful is performance measurement. Public Performance & Management Review, 25, 348-351.
7.
Berman, E., & Wang, X. ( 2000). Performance measurement in U.S. counties: Capacity for reform. Public Administration Review, 60, 409-420.
8.
Berry, M., & Ikerd, J. ( 1996). Outcome budgeting: Catawba County, NC. Washington, DC: ASPA, Center for Accountability and Performance.
9.
Bowden, M. ( 1996). Development and use of outcome information in government: Oregon Department of Transportation. Washington, DC: ASPA, Center for Accountability and Performance.
10.
Campbell, D. ( 2002). Outcomes assessment and the paradox of nonprofit accountability . Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12, 243-259.
11.
Cannon, J. ( 1996). Utah tomorrow. Washington, DC: ASPA, Center for Accountability and Performance.
12.
Carman, J.G. ( 2007). Evaluation practice among community-based organizations: Research into the reality. American Journal of Evaluation , 28(1), 60-75.
13.
Carman, J.G. ( 2009). Nonprofits, funders, and evaluation: Accountability in action. The American Review of Public Administration, 39, 374-390.
14.
Carman, J.G., & Fredericks, K.A. (2008). Nonprofits and evaluation: Empirical evidence from the field. In J. G. Carman & K. A. Fredericks (Eds.), Nonprofits and evaluation. New directions for evaluation (Vol. 119, pp. 51-71). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Clay, J.A. & Bass, V. ( 2002). Aligning performance measurement with key management processes. Government Finance Review18, 18, 26-29.
16.
Cutt, J., Bragg, D., Balfour, K., Murray, V., & Tassie, W. ( 1996). Nonprofits accommodate the information demands of public and private funders. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 7(1), 45-67.
17.
de Lancer Julnes, P., & Holzer, M. ( 2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61, 693-708.
18.
Fine, A.H., Thayer, C.E., & Coghlan, A.T. ( 2000). Program evaluation practice in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10, 331-340.
19.
Franklin, A.L. ( 2002). An examination of the impact of budget reform on Arizona and Oklahoma appropriations. Public Budgeting and Finance , 22(3), 26-45.
20.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C.R. ( 1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1022.
21.
Grizzle, G.A., & Pettijohn, C.D. (2002). Implementing performance-based program budgeting: A system-dynamics perspective. Public Administration Review, 62(1), 51-62.
22.
Halachmi, A. ( 2002). Performance measurement, accountability, and improved performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 25, 370-374.
Hatry, H.P. ( 2002). Performance measurement: Fashions and fallacies. Public Performance & Management Review, 25, 352-358.
25.
Heinrich, C.J. ( 1999). Do government bureaucrats make effective use of performance management information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3), 363-393.
26.
Hendricks, M., Plantz, M.C., & Pritchard, K.J. (2008). Measuring outcomes of United Way- funded programs: Expectations and reality. In J. G. Carman & M. Freeman (Eds.), Nonprofits and evaluation: New directions for evaluation (Vol. 119, pp. 13-35). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
27.
Ho, A.T.-K. (2006). Accounting for the value of performance measurement from the perspective of Midwestern mayors. Journal of public administration research and theory, 16, 217-237.
28.
Hoefer, R. ( 2000). Accountability in action? Program evaluation in nonprofit human service agencies. Nonprofit Management and Leadership , 11, 167-177.
29.
Jackson, M. ( 1996). Lessons learned from Minnesota’s government performance report. Washington, DC: ASPA, Center for Accountability and Performance.
30.
Kamensky, J.M. ( 1993). Program performance measures: Designing a system to manage for results. Public Productivity & Management Review, 16, 395-402.
31.
Light, P.C. ( 2004). Sustaining nonprofit performance: The case for capacity building and the evidence to support it. Washington, DC : Brookings Institution Press.
32.
Marshall, M. ( 1996). Development and use of outcome information in government, Prince William County, Virginia. Washington, DC: ASPA Center for Accountability and Performance.
33.
Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65, 180-190.
34.
Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. ( 1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
35.
Morley, E., Vinson, E., & Hatry, H.P. ( 2001). Outcome measurement in nonprofit organizations. Waldorf, MD: Independent Sector.
36.
Moynihan, D.P. ( 2006). What do we talk about when we talk about performance? Dialogue theory and performance budgeting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 151-168.
37.
Newcomer, K.E. ( 1997). Using performance measurement to improve programs. In K. E. Newcomer (Ed.), Using performance measurement to improve public and nonprofit programs (pp. 5-14). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38.
Nicholson-Crotty, S., Theobald, N.A., & Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2006, January/February). Disparate measures: Public managers and performance measurement strategies. Public Administration Review, 101-113.
39.
Oliver, C. ( 1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145-179.
40.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G.R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective (Classic ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
41.
Poole, D.L., Nelson, J., Carnahan, S., Chepenik, N.G., & Tubiak, C. ( 2000). Evaluating performance measurement systems in nonprofit agencies: The program accountability quality scale (PAQS). American Journal of Evaluation, 21(1), 15-26.
42.
Sawhill, J.C., & Williamson, D. (2001). Mission impossible? Measuring success in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11, 371-386.
43.
Schmid, H. ( 2004). Organization-environment relationships: Theory for management practice in human service organizations. Administration in social work, 28(1), 97-113.
Sheehan, R. ( 1996). Mission accomplishment as philanthropic effectiveness: Key findings from the excellence in philanthropy project. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(1), 110-123.
46.
Stone, M.M., Bigelow, B., & Crittenden, W. (1999). Research on strategic management in nonprofit organizations: Synthesis, analysis, and future directions. Administration & Society, 31, 193-213.
47.
Tassie, B., Murray, V., Cutt, J., & Bragg, D. ( 1996). Rationality and politics: What really goes on when funders evaluate the performance of fundees? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(3), 347-363.
48.
United Way of America. (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach. Alexandria, VA: Author.
49.
United Way of America. (2000). Agency experiences with outcome measurement. Alexandria, VA: Author.
50.
Wiener, S.J., Kirsch, A.D., & McCormack, M.T. (2002). Balancing the scales: Measuring the roles and contributions of nonprofit organizations and religious congregations . Washington, DC: Independent Sector .
51.
Willoughby, K.G., & Melkers, J.E. ( 2000). Implementing PBB: Conflicting views of success. Public Budgeting and Finance20(1), 105-120.
52.
Yang, K., & Hsieh, J.Y. ( 2007). Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: Testing a middle-range model. Public Administration Review , 67, 861-879.
53.
Zimmermann, J.A.M., & Stevens, B.W. ( 2006). The use of performance measurement in South Carolina nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16, 315-327.
