Performance measure reforms have greatly influenced the operations of government entities over the past two decades. This case study investigates the impact of these reforms on nonprofit human service organizations in Oregon, a state with a long history of performance activities. The authors pursue two research questions: (1) what impact did these reforms have on the performance and capacity of the nonprofit entities engaged in human services. and (2) what is the impact of the reported performance on the funding decisions made by the state legislature. The authors observe substantial improvement in the performance of the nonprofit organizations as well as increased capacity for their future performance. Somewhat surprisingly, the authors also observe that funding for programs with common performance measures received large increases in funding, whereas programs with unique measures were cut dramatically. The authors compare outcomes measurement from performance measurement, accounting, and evaluation perspectives and conclude with several suggestions for future research.
Barman, E. ( 2007). What is the bottom line for nonprofit organizations? A history of measurement in the British voluntary sector. Voluntas, 18, 101-115.
2.
Behn, R.D. ( 2002). The psychological barriers to performance management: Or why isn’t everyone jumping on the performance-management bandwagon ? Public Performance and Management Review, 26, 5-25.
3.
Behn, R.D. ( 2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63, 586-606.
4.
Benard, B. ( 1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school, and community. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
5.
Benjamin, L.M. ( 2008). Account space: How accountability requirements shape nonprofit practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly , 37, 201-223.
6.
Bronfenbrenner, U. ( 1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Bruner, C. ( 1991). Thinking collaboratively: Ten questions and answers to help policy makers improve children’s services. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium .
8.
Burke, J. ( 2005). Ontario’s municipal performance measurement program . Government Finance Review, 21, 22-27.
9.
Carman, J. ( 2009a) The accountability movement: What’s wrong with this theory of change?Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly online first, published on January 27, 2009 .
10.
Carman, J. ( 2009b). Nonprofits, funders, and evaluation: Accountability in action. American Review of Public Administration, 39, 374-390.
11.
Children’s Care Team, Oregon Legislative Assembly. ( 1993). A positive future for Oregon’s children and families . (Available from the State of Oregon Legislative Administration, Legislative Library, Oregon State Capitol, Salem, OR 97310)
12.
Cunningham, G.M., & Harris, J.E. ( 2005). Toward a theory of performance reporting to achieve public sector accountability: A field study. Public Budgeting & Finance, 25, 15-42.
13.
Drucker, P.F. ( 1974). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices . New York: Harper and Row.
14.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow S., & Tinkler, J. ( 2005). New Public Management is Dead- Long Live Digital-Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 16, 467-495.
Ebrahim, A. ( 2005). Accountability Myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 56-87.
17.
Foltin, C. ( 2008). Unrest in government accounting. CPA Journal, 78, 26-31.
18.
Forbes, D.P. ( 1998). Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit organization effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27, 183-202.
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). ( 1993). Service efforts and accomplishments reporting: Public policy statement. Available at http://www.gfoa.org/services/policy/gfoapp1.shtml
21.
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). ( 2002). Performance measurement and the government accounting standards board: Public policy statement. Available at http://www.gfoa.org/services/policy/gfoapp1.shtml
22.
Harris, J. ( 1995). Service efforts and accomplishments reporting: Fundamental questions of an emerging concept. Public Budgeting & Finance , 15, 18-37.
23.
Hatry, H.P., Fountain Jr, J.R., Sullivan, J.M., & Kremer, L. ( 1990). Service efforts and accomplishments reporting: Its time has come. Stamford, CT: Government Accounting Standards Board.
24.
Heinrich, Carolyn J.2007. "Evidence-based policy and performance management: Challenges and Prospects in Two Parallel Movements." The American Review of Public Administration37(3): 255-277.
25.
Hood, C. ( 1995). The "New Public Management" in the 1980’s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society , 20, 93-109.
26.
Hood, C. ( 2008). Performance measurement: Indicating the way to better public services?Paper prepared for the Mexico 2008 World Bank Conference on Performance Budgeting, June 9-10 2008, Mexico City.
27.
Hood, C., & Peters, G. ( 2004). The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of Paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 267-282.
28.
Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. ( 1992). The Balanced Scorecard-Measures that Drive Performance . Harvard Business Review, 79, 71-79.
29.
Kelly, J.M., & Rivenbark, W.C. (2008). Budget theory in local government: The process-outcome conundrum. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 20, 457-481.
30.
Klay, W.E., & McCall, S.M. (2005). Confronting the perplexing issues of SEA reporting. Journal of Government Financial Management , 54, 10-14.
31.
Klay, W.E., McCall, S.M., & Baybes, C.E. ( 2004). Should financial reporting by government encompass performance reporting? Origins and implications of the GFOA-GASB conflict . In A. Khan, & W. B. Hildreth (Eds.), Financial management theory in the public sector (pp. 115-140). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
32.
Kretzmann, J.P., & McKnight, J.L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University .
33.
Lapsley, I. ( 2008). The NPM Agenda: Back to the future. Financial Accountability & Management, 24, 77-96.
34.
Luft, J. ( 2009). Nonfinancial information and accounting: A reconsideration of benefits and challenges. Accounting Horizons, 23, 307-326.
35.
Luksetich, W. ( 2008). Government funding and nonprofit organizations . Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 434-442.
36.
McCall, S.M. ( 2009). An analysis of local government performance measurement reports. unpublished dissertation from Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL.
37.
McCall, T. ( 1970). Goals for a livable Oregon: An action partnership for the 70’s. Available from http://www.orgov.org/perfmeasures.html
38.
Melaville, A.I., & Blank, M.J. (with Asayesh, Gelarah). (1993). Together we can: A guide for crafting a profamily system of education and human services. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
39.
Melkers, J. ( 2006). On the road to improved performance: Changing organizational communication through performance management. Public Performance & Management Review, 30, 73-95.
40.
Morley, E., Bryant, S. and Hatry, H.2001. Comparative Performance Measurement, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
41.
Olson, O., Guthrie, J. , & Humphrey, C. (Eds.). (1998). Global warning-Debating international developments in new public financial management. Bergen, Norway: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.
42.
Olson, O.,Guthrie, J. , & Humphrey, C. (Eds.). (2007). Into the shadows-A reflection on international developments in public sector accounting presented to the 30th Annual Congress of the European Accounting Association, 25-27 April 2007. Lisbon, Portugal. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1360535
43.
Oregon Joint Legislative Audit Committee. ( 2000, December). Audit of Oregon’s programs for children and families: Interim report (Report No. 00-5). Salem, OR.
44.
Oregon Joint Legislative Audit Committee. ( 2002, December). Audit of Oregon’s programs for children and families: Evaluation of local coordinated comprehensive planning (Report No. 02-2). Salem, OR.
45.
Oregon Progress Board. (2005, November). Measuring success in coordinated planning for children and families: An assessment of local plan outcomes. Salem, OR. Available online.
46.
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS). (2007). Salem, OR: Legislative Counsel Committee of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Oregon.
47.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. ( 1992). Reinventing government. New York: Plume.
48.
Patton, M.Q. ( 1982). Practical evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49.
Radin, B.A. ( 2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
50.
Ridley, C.E., & Simon, H.A. ( 1938). Measuring municipal activities: A survey of suggested criteria and reporting forms for appraising administration. Chicago: International City Managers’ Association .
51.
Rivenbark, W.C., Ammons, D.N., & Roenigk, D.J. ( 2005). Benchmarking for results. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina School of Government .
52.
Rivenbark, W.C., & Menter, P.W. ( 2006). Building results-based management capacity in nonprofit organizations: The role of local government. Public Performance & Management Review, 29, 255-266.
53.
Schorr, L.B. ( 1993). Shifting to outcome-based accountability: A minimalist approach for immediate use. Washington, DC: National Alliance for Restructuring Education.
54.
Smith, K.A., & Cheng, R. ( 2006). Assessing reforms of government accounting and budgeting . Public Performance & Management Review, 30, 10-30.
55.
Smith, K.A., Cheng, R., Smith, O., & Schiffel, L. ( 2008). Performance reporting by state agencies: Bridging the gap between current practice and the GASB suggested criteria. Journal of Government Financial Management, 57, 42-47.
56.
Smith, K.A., & Schiffel, L. ( 2006). Intersection of accounting and performance measurement . In H. Frank (Ed.), Public financial management (pp. 579-615). Taylor and Francis.
57.
Smith, K.A., & Schiffel, L. ( 2009). Improvements in city government performance reporting . Journal of Government Financial Management, 58, 36-42.
58.
Stake, R.E. ( 1975, November). Program evaluation: Particularly responsive evaluation. Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign .
59.
Tassie, B., Murray, D., 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, 347-363.
60.
Taylor, J. ( 2006). Performance measurement in Australian and Hong Kong Government Departments. Public Performance & Management Review, 29, 334-357.
61.
Weiss, C.H. ( 1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
62.
Wholey, J.S. ( 1983). Evaluation and effective public management. Boston: Little, Brown.
63.
Williams, D.W. ( 2003). Measuring government in the early twentieth century . Public Administration Review, 63, 643-659.
