The role of funders in Driving Nonprofit Performance Measurement and Use in Strategic Management

References

• Ammons, D. N. (2002). Performance measurement and managerial thinking. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 344-347.
   Google Scholar
• 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(2), 304-318.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Berman, E. (2002). How useful is performance measurement? Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 348-351.
   Google Scholar
• Berman, E., & Wang, X. (2000). Performance measurement in U. S. counties: Capacity for reform. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 409-420.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, F. S., Brower, R. S., & Flowers, G. (2000). Implementing performance accountability in Florida: What changed, what mattered, and what resulted? Public Productivity & Management Review, 23(3), 338-358.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, M., & Ikerd, J. (1996). Outcome budgeting: Catawba County, NC. Washington, DC: ASPA Center for Accountability and Performance.
   Google Scholar
• Boris, E. T., & Steuerle, C. E. (2006). Scope and dimensions of the nonprofit sector. In W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 66-88). New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowden, M. (1996). Development and use of outcome information in government: Oregon Department of Transportation. Washington, DC: ASPA Center for Accountability and Performance.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, D. (2002). Outcomes assessment and the paradox of nonprofit accountability. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(3), 243-259.
   Google Scholar
• Cannon, J. (1996). Utah tomorrow. Washington, DC: ASPA Center for Accountability and Performance.
   Google Scholar
• Carman, J. G. (2007). Evaluation practice among community-based organizations: Research into the reality. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1), 60-75.
   Google Scholar
• Carman, J. G. (2009). Nonprofits, funders, and evaluation: Accountability in action. The American Review of Public Administration, 39(4), 374-390.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Clay, J. A., & Bass, V. (2002). Aligning performance measurement with key management processes. Government Finance Review 18 (18), 26-29.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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(6), 693-708.
   Google Scholar
• Ellen, I. G., Schill, M. H., Susin, S., & Schwartz, A. E. (2001). Building homes, reviving neighborhoods: Spillovers from subsidized construction of owner-occupied housing in New York City. Journal of Housing Research, 12(2), 185-216.
   Google Scholar
• Fine, A. H., Thayer, C. E., & Coghlan, A. T. (2000). Program evaluation practice in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10, 331-340.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022.
   Google Scholar
• Grizzle, G. A., & Pettijohn, C. D. (2002). Implementing performance-based program budgeting: A system-dynamics perspective. Public Administration Review, 62(1), 51-62.
   Google Scholar
• Halachmi, A. (2002). Performance measurement, accountability, and improved performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 370-374.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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(2), 217-237.
   Google Scholar
• Hoefer, R. (2000). Accountability in action? Program evaluation in nonprofit human service agencies. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(2), 167-177.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, M. (1996). Lessons learned from Minnesota's government performance report. Washington, DC: ASPA Center for Accountability and Performance.
   Google Scholar
• Kamensky, J. M. (1993). Program performance measures: Designing a system to manage for results. Public Productivity & Management Review, 16(4), 395-402.
   Google Scholar
• Marshall, M. (1996). Development and use of outcome information in government, Prince William County, Virginia. Washington, DC: ASPA Center for Accountability and Performance.
   Google Scholar
• Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180-190.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
   Google Scholar
• Morley, E., Vinson, E., & Hatry, H. P. (2001). Outcome measurement in nonprofit organizations. Waldorf, MD: Independent Sector.
   Google Scholar
• 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(2), 151-168.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholson-Crotty, S., Theobald, N. A., & Nicholson-Crotty, J. (2006). Disparate measures: Public managers and performance measurement strategies. Public Administration Review, January/February, 101-113.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145-179.
   Google Scholar
• Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2003). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective (Classic ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Sawhill, J. C., & Williamson, D. (2001). Mission impossible? Measuring success in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11(3), 371-386.
   Google Scholar
• Schmid, H. (2004). Organization-environment relationships: Theory for management practice in human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 28(1), 97-113.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, D. E. (2010). Exploring the role of funders' performance reporting mandates in nonprofit performance measurement. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(4), 611-629.
   Google Scholar
• United Way of America (UWA). (2000). Agency experiences with outcome measurement. Alexandria, VA.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Willoughby, K. G., & Melkers, J. E. (2000). Implementing PBB: Conflicting views of success. Public Budgeting and Finance, 20(1), 105-120.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, K., & Hsieh, J. Y. (2007). Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: Testing a middle-range model. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 861-879.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmermann, J. A. M., & Stevens, B. W. (2006). The use of performance measurement in South Carolina nonprofits. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(3), 315-327.
   Google Scholar