Is Constituent Feedback Living up to Its Promise? Provider Perceptions of Feedback Practices in Nonprofit Human Service Organizations

Abstract

In recent years, leaders of nonprofit human service organizations and their funders have made a significant investment in systematic data collection and analysis to analyze program activities. Using data gathered from a survey and 5 focus groups of members of a national organization of human service providers, this study evaluates providers' perceptions of the practices they use to gather feedback from service beneficiaries and other stakeholders. The study developed a 6-element framework of feedback purposes to frame current practices. The study found that providers are actively engaged in feedback activities but are dissatisfied with their efforts, attributable to disagreements over the purpose of feedback, concerns over the value of data collection instruments, and the lack of organizational capacity.

Understanding third sector performance measurement system design: a literature review

“…Moxham (2010) finds a weak link between performance measurement and performance improvement in a sample of UK third sector organizations and concludes that performance measurement systems appear to have been developed primarily, and almost exclusively, to monitor and assess the use of external funding. Similarly, Campbell (2010) reports on performance feedback mechanisms used in US third sector organizations and finds that feedback is of inconsistent value as its purpose is unclear. Campbell (2010) concludes that third sector service providers emphasize the need for feedback to inform service and programme improvement, yet the perception of these providers is that funders see accountability as the key reason for eliciting feedback.…”

“…Similarly, Campbell (2010) reports on performance feedback mechanisms used in US third sector organizations and finds that feedback is of inconsistent value as its purpose is unclear. Campbell (2010) concludes that third sector service providers emphasize the need for feedback to inform service and programme improvement, yet the perception of these providers is that funders see accountability as the key reason for eliciting feedback.…”

Program Performance and Multiple Constituency Theory

“…As Ebrahim (2005) argues, this dynamic tends to exclude provider and service recipients' perspectives on performance and de-emphasizes critical benefits of performance measurement, such as organizational learning. Other researchers have offered similar critiques of how funders approach performance measurement (Benjamin, 2012;Bonbright, Campbell, & Nguyen, 2009;Campbell, 2010); adopting a multiple constituency approach when assessing program performance has the potential to address those concerns. Acknowledging the power relationships that define performance measurement and the distinct perspectives of participants could lead to the development of more comprehensive and useful performance measurement processes.…”

Nonprofit Performance

“…For example, we can envision research that uses client outcome data to identify cases where above average results are found and then backward map to identify the drivers of high performance, privileging not just what organizations and their staff do but what clients do on their own behalf. We could also see this research aligning with growing efforts to examine the effficacy of constituent feedback mechanisms, which also recognize the importance of client agency and voice (Campbell 2010). Whatever tack researcher and practice take, we can no longer afford to ignore or deny the central role of client agency in nonprofit performance.…”

“…We could also see this research aligning with growing efforts to examine the effficacy of constituent feedback mechanisms, which also recognize the importance of client agency and voice (Campbell 2010). For example, we can imagine an effort to explore whether and how to incorporate co-determination work into existing program outcome measurement models.…”