2008
DOI: 10.1002/ev.266
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring outcomes of United Way–funded programs: Expectations and reality

Abstract: In 1996, United Way of America (UWA)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
32
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Next, themes were analyzed for outcomes (see Table 3). Data analysis indicated that each theme yielded an outcome (i.e., a beneficial result, effect, or change stemming from program involvement) (Hatry, van Houten, Plantz, & Taylor, 1996;Hendricks, Plantz, & Pritchard, 2008).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Next, themes were analyzed for outcomes (see Table 3). Data analysis indicated that each theme yielded an outcome (i.e., a beneficial result, effect, or change stemming from program involvement) (Hatry, van Houten, Plantz, & Taylor, 1996;Hendricks, Plantz, & Pritchard, 2008).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, coercive isomorphism is measured by asking if the nonprofit organization receives funding from the United Way . As one of the first national agencies to request its network members to make a distinction between outcomes and outputs, the United Way has promoted the adoption of outcome measurement in the United States since the early 1990s (Ebrahim & Rangan, 2010) and requires its grantees to conduct outcome measurement (Hendricks, Plantz, & Pritchard, 2008). This can exert coercive pressure on the grantee organizations.…”
Section: Measures: Independent Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…LA can leverage improvement through improved educational decision-making (Arnold, 2010;Norris, Baer, Leonard, Pugliese, & Lefrere, 2008;Vatrapu, Tplovs, Fujita, & Bull, 2011), clearer institutional and individual goal setting (Hendricks, Plantz, & Pritchard, 2008), more timely and frequent feedback for students and teachers (Ha, Bae, & Park, 2000;Hamalainen, Suhonen, Sutinen, & Toivonen, 2004;Merceron & Yacef, 2005;Suthers, Ravi, Medina, Joseph, & Dwyer, 2008), the individualization of teaching and learning (Beck & Mostow, 2008;Farzan, 2004;Heraud, France, & Mille, 2004;Lu, 2004;Talavera & Gaudioso, 2004), and the generation 1. How can we incorporate the LA data into a broader effort to understand how a digital curriculum is used?…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%