Heterogeneous Roles and Heterogeneous Practices: Understanding the Adoption and Uses of Nonprofit Performance Evaluations

Abstract

Evaluating the performance of nonprofit organizations has been of growing importance for the last several decades. Although there is much good that can come out of self-improvement, there is substantial heterogeneity within the sector that calls into question the usefulness of ''across the board'' evaluation tools. In this article, the authors assess nonprofit evaluation practices, at both the organizational and the programmatic levels. Through a multitheoretical framework, the authors explore the extent to which the adoption and uses of evaluation reflect strategic alignment with heterogeneous nonprofit roles or the institutionalization of the organizational environment. The authors find evidence that institutional perceptions are consistent predictors of whether nonprofit organizations adopt particular practices. Diverse roles are not consistently associated with the adoption of particular practices, but the uses of evaluation are diverse and specific to nonprofit organizations' unique strategies and roles.

The Adoption of Outcome Measurement in Human Service Nonprofits

“…From an institutional theory perspective, performance measurement is a largely symbolic (or ceremonial) practice to acquire institutional legitimacy by conforming to institutional norms (e.g., Eckerd & Moulton, 2010;Lee & Nowell, 2015;Modell, 2009;Roy & Seguin, 2000;Yang, 2009). In our study, we found that coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures have positive and significant influences on the adoption of outcome measurement.…”

“…Institutional theory holds that organizations seek to obtain legitimacy because it enhances organizational growth and survival by providing means to acquire various resources such as capital, human resources, technology, and networks (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994;Dart, 2004;Eckerd & Moulton, 2010;Meyer & Rowan, 1977;Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002;Zucker, 1987). In this regard, Dart (2004) argues that institutional theory is "built around the concept of legitimacy" (p. 415).…”

“…Carman (2007) asked interviewees and survey respondents to describe the types of data (e.g., program expenditures, activities, outputs, and outcomes) they collect. Eckerd and Moulton (2010) also asked their survey respondents to indicate the types of evaluation method (e.g., program outputs, long-term program impact or outcome) adopted by their organizations. On the other hand, instead of taking this dichotomous approach, Thomson (2010) developed an index for measuring the extent of outcome measurement based on the number of expected outcomes, level of outcomes (short-term, intermediate, and end), and number of outcomes supported by organization's evaluation tools.…”

Evaluation Logics in the Third Sector

“…Performance measurement and evaluation is an important and increasingly demanding practice in the third sector (Reed & Morariu, 2010, Benjamin, 2008Carman, 2007, Eckerd & Moulton, 2011Charities Evaluation Service, 2008;Bagnoli & Megali, 2010). There is a focus on how to improve the measurement and evaluation of third sector organisations through multi-dimensional frameworks (Bagnoli & Megali, 2010) and balanced scorecards (Kaplan, 2001) and through linkages to strategic decision making (LeRoux & Wright, 2010).…”

“…A diversity of approaches can generate debate about the design of particular performance measurement and evaluation techniques and the relative merits of the different types of information that they produce (Charities Evaluation Service, 2008;Reed & Morariu, 2010;Waysman & Savaya, 1997;Eckerd & Moulton, 2011). A common disagreement in such debates concerns the claim that case studies and stories can be 'subjective' whereas performance indicators and statistics are more 'objective' (e.g., see discussion in Jacobs et al, 2010;Wallace et al, 2007;Abma, 1997;Porter & Kramer, 1999).…”