IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM)

e-ISSN: 2278-487X, p-ISSN: 2319-7668. Volume 17, Issue 2.Ver. III (Feb. 2015), PP 70-76
www.iosrjournals.org

Performance Measurement and Management in NonGovernmental Organizations

Mohammed Abo Ramadan1, Elio Borgonovi2
1

(PhD candidate of Economics and Management of Technology ''DREAMT'', University of Pavia, Italy)
2
(CERGAS, Bocconi University, Italy)

Abstract: Over many years ago, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been always stuck in some
concepts such as inputs, outputs, outcomes, impact and sustainability. Money raised, money spent, resources
allocated and projects implemented. This process requires a comprehensive understanding of how performance
is managed and measured by NGOs and what aspects of performance lead to successful financial performance,
efficiency and effectiveness. In this paper we provide a review of the different definitions and frameworks of
performance measurement and management in NGOs sector.
Keywords: NGOs, program/project, performance indicators/measures, performance measurement and
management.

I.

Introduction

In the past, the work of NGOs was based mainly on ethical-social motivation and technical
professionalism through the participation of physicians, doctors, nurses, engineers, etc. Most of NGOs were
involved in international cooperation for development, natural disasters and humanitarian emergencies.
Nowadays and also in the future, the ethical-social motivation and technical professionalism are not sufficient
since NGOs need to evaluate how the limited financial and non-financial resources can be efficiently and
effectively utilized. Furthermore, the nature of the working environment of NGOs forces these organizations to
assess and enhance their strategies and performance. In fact, the working environment of NGOs is dynamic and
risky and the overall effectiveness of these organizations requires meeting the various demands of stakeholders
through building realistic performance measurement and management systems. In order to guarantee success,
NGOs first have to develop and implement effective systems of managing and measuring their performance.
NGOs are required to manage and evaluate their performance from multiple perspectives, taking into account
the projects/programs performance, the agenda of donors, the needs of beneficiaries and the internal
effectiveness. Nevertheless, the concept of NGOs performance has been defined in different theoretical
frameworks and used for different managerial processes. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to review the
literature of performance measurement and management in NGOs in order to clarify how the various approaches
and definitions of NGOs performance can be applied in different processes.

II.

Performance Measurement And Management Practices In NGOs

In the performance measurement and management literature of NGOs, the significance and advantages
of utilizing performance measurement and management to different organizational management structures,
techniques and processes have been broadly proved (Teelken, 2008). The literature reveals theoretical
frameworks and empirical investigations that exhibit the necessity of performance measurement and
management to strategy at all levels, organizational transparency, organizational objectivity, organizational
learning, efficiency, performance enhancement and effectiveness. Measuring and managing performance in
NGOs is not only a tool of planning that assists these organizations to assess their impact, outcomes and outputs.
It can be likewise regarded as a strong instrument for inward feedback and learning. It thus seems to be the main
way to effectively process and handle information within NGOs and to disseminate it to the concerned
stakeholders such as targeted communities, partners, donors and other public local governments. The concept of
performance measurement and management in NGOs is extremely vital since it concentrates these organizations
in the use of the performance information in their decision making framework. This implies that managing and
assessing the performance is considered to be a pre-requisite for NGOs strategic planners to improve their
functions. Moreover, it is closely associated with the budgetary system inside NGOs since these organizations
are considered to be fundraising-oriented. A further reason of the necessity of performance measurement and
management in NGOs is the need for transparency and accountability toward different stakeholders. This is due
to the fact that there is a sort of pressure from stakeholders on NGOs to demonstrate how they perform their
operations.

DOI: 10.9790/487X-17237076

www.iosrjournals.org

70 | Page

Performance Measurement and Management in Non-Governmental Organizations

In NGOs literature, many authors offered a number of definitions of measuring performance. For
instance, Poister (2003) mentioned that performance measurement is a method of identifying, controlling and
utilizing different objective measures of the organization's performance and its programs on regular basis.
Furthermore, Lindblad (2006) considered performance measurement as the utilization of objectives, indicators
and information to assess NGOs interventions and services. Ferreira and Otley (2009) treated it as a mechanism
of assessing people, teams and the overall organization. Miller (2007) viewed performance measurement as a
program assessment method that evaluates efficiency and effectiveness of a program and its impact. Carman
(2007) claimed that performance measurement is a systematic evaluation of a program's outputs, inputs and
impacts. Still, there has been always little consensus over how to define and measure performance in NGOs
since these organizations have unclear goals and uncertain relationship between programs' activities and
outcomes (Newman and Wallender, 1978; Fottler, 1981; Kanter and Summers, 1987). Performance of NGOs
has been defined by Yuchtman and Seashore (1967), Pfeffer and Salancik (1978), Kanter and Summers (1987)
as the demonstrated ability to acquire the necessary resources for organizational survival. Nevertheless,
acquiring the necessary resources for survival is not the only dimension of measuring NGOs performance.
Kareithi and Lund (2012) argued that the primary mission of these NGOs is focused on goals desired by their
targeted beneficiaries and their communities, so the performance of these organizations should be assessed by
their effectiveness and efficiency to achieve mutually identified social goals.
One important part of NGOs performance measurement, that has been a concern for a long period, is to
understand the appropriate indicators that should be taken into account when measuring and evaluating NGOs
performance (Herman and Renz, 1999; Gill et al., 2005). The research on NGOs performance measurement
examined two main issues: internal indicators and external indicators. According to Argyris (1964) and Bennis
(1966), the internal indicators of measuring NGOs performance are related to ''Organizational Health''. These
indicators concern the financial performance of NGOs including access to funding, budgeting efficiency,
expenses and costs (Ritchie and Kolodinsky 2003; Gill et al., 2005). On the opposite, the external indicators
address the link between the NGO and the environment. For instance, Yuchtman and Seashore (1967) proposed
a system resource framework which defines NGOs performance as the capability to derive benefits from the
surroundings toward the best acquisition of the financial needs and requirements for their survival. Their
framework is based on the idea of NGOs ability to sustain a good connection with the environment (Keeley,
1978; Miles, 1980; Connolly et al., 1980; Boschken, 1994).
In general, NGOs can assess their performance through creating performance indicators and then
gathering information related to these indicators. Carman (2007) saw that the most utilized performance
indicators by NGOs incorporate efficiency, effectiveness, fundraising, costs, audits and beneficiaries'
satisfaction. Teelken (2008) used four performance indicators to evaluate NGOs operations: efficiency,
effectiveness, economy and efficacy. Similarly, Fine and Snyder (1999) stressed that performance measurement
in NGOs includes identifying and assessing indicators which mainly address efficiency and effectiveness.
Ammons (1996) introduced two more indicators that are productivity and workload. Benjamin and Misra (2006)
mentioned that measuring performance in NGOs should look at inputs, outputs, outcomes and impact.
Fine and Snyder (1999) defined the relationship between inputs utilized and outputs achieved as
efficiency, while effectiveness is considered as a measure used to determine up to what extent is an organization
achieving its planned goals and targets. Other authors relied on the notion ''outcomes'' to refer to effectiveness.
For instance, Morley et al. (2001) defined outcomes as a certain result or quality of an organizations program or
project. Efficiency is the optimal use of financial and other non-financial resources (labor, time and expertise) to
achieve the planned results. It is the extent to which a program has converted or is expected to convert its
resources/inputs economically into results in order to achieve the maximum outputs. Usually the relationship
between input measures and output measures produces efficiency. The inputs measures track mainly a program
or project's inputs such as staff, time and funds, while the output measures are results generated from the
utilization of a program's inputs mainly related to the number of beneficiaries served and number of products
provided in comparison with the planned objectives of that program. On the other hand, outcomes or
effectiveness measures refer to those indicators that explain a qualitative difference in the lives of the
beneficiaries targeted by an NGO or its intervention (Lindgren, 2001). In other words, it mainly examines the
extent to which the stated objectives of a program have been met. (Zimmerman and Stevens, 2006). These
measures include participation of the stakeholders and beneficiaries' satisfaction. Beneficiaries' satisfaction
measures give another vital mean for assessing NGOs performance and may serve as one outcome or one
indicator of effectiveness. Niven (2008) said that beneficiaries' satisfaction can be measured through access,
timeliness, selection and availability. Finally, the impact performance addresses the extent of achieving the
overall objective of a program (such as community building, sectors development, standard of living and
changes in people life). The impact usually considers the long term consequences of achieving objectives and
bigger socio-economic change. It tries to identify the whole influence of a program or intervention on
communities or people outside the immediate targeted beneficiaries.
DOI: 10.9790/487X-17237076

www.iosrjournals.org

71 | Page

Performance Measurement and Management in Non-Governmental Organizations

Furthermore, Niven (2008) mentioned that partnership and quality can be also other important
indicators for measuring NGOs social performance. Partnership is assessed by the number of partners, their
relevance to the work field of an NGO and their satisfaction, while quality is measured by donors' satisfaction,
innovation of the services and sticking to the international standards of quality.
Considering the financial performance of NGOs, fundraising efficiency is the main variable that has
been heavily mentioned and highlighted in the literature. Andreasen and Kotler (2008) defined fundraising
efficiency as a process of obtaining funds for NGOs survival. The fundraising efficiency is measured using
donors dependency ratio (Epstein and McFarlan, 2011). Lewis (2009) also mentioned that the resource
generation ratio is another measure used to evaluate fundraising efficiency. Other measures such as the amount
of funding costs and the response rate of funding proposals are used also for evaluating fundraising efficiency
(Niven, 2008). Although fundraising efficiency is the most related measure in evaluating the financial
performance of NGOs, other measures are also considered. These measures are linked to financial transparency
inside NGOs as it has been suggested by ''Standards for Charity Accountability of the Better Business Bureau
Organization'' (2008). Financial transparency means that NGOs must make information about their financial
activities available to relevant stakeholders. This involves preparing accurate, complete and timely financial
reports and making them accessible to stakeholders, including donors.
Finally, after a deep examination of the literature we can sum up the most used performance indicators
in NGOs and their definitions as presented in table 1.
Table 1: Summary of the performance measures in NGOs literature
Performance Measures
Fundraising efficiency
Financial transparency
Programs/ Projects financial efficiency
Programs/ Projects non- financial efficiency

Outcomes performance (effectiveness)

Impact performance
Partnership
Quality

III.

Description
The ability of an NGO to access to funding.
Preparing reports and submitting them to the concerned stakeholders.
The best use of the funds or financial resources to achieve the required or the planned
outputs.( This measures the relationship between the financial inputs and the outputs)
The best use of the non-financial resources to achieve the required or the planned outputs.
(This measures the relationship between the non-financial inputs, such as time, staff,
expertise and the outputs)
To what extent have the outcomes of an NGO's program been achieved?
The long-term consequences of an NGO's program including positive or negative effects.
The level of networking with partners, their relevance and satisfaction.
The quality of services provided by an NGO.

Review On Performance Measurement And Management Frameworks In NGOs

Many authors have developed performance measurement frameworks for the NGO sector in the recent
years. In general, there are not many models and frameworks for assessing the performance of NGOs as much
as the frameworks available for the private sector. Moreover, the reliance on the traditional financial-based
indicators of performance, like return on assets, liabilities or profitability ratios cannot be applied to NGOs
(Herman and Renz, 1997). The literature review reveals a number of performance measurement frameworks in
NGOs. For instance, Ritchie and Kolodinsky (2003) proposed a framework for assessing the financial
performance of NGOs. The framework involves fundraising efficiency, public support, expenses and cost
efficiency. Similarly, Standards for Charity Accountability of the Better Business Bureau proposed a framework
for measuring NGOs performance in which the performance measures include the financial aspect, effectiveness
and governance. In their model, the financial aspect is not only represented by fundraising efficiency but
involves also managing and producing clear and accurate financial statements and budgets.
Another framework has been offered by AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) which is the
biggest NGO membership institution for people who exceed the age of fifty in USA (Datar et al., 2007). The
AARP foundation's framework consists of the following measures: resources and stewardship, people, social
impact value, organization leadership and integration as presented in table 2. These measures of the AARP are
matched with inputs, outputs, outcomes and social impact measures.
Table 2: AARP performance matrix
Performance Measures
Resources and stewardship (inputs)

People (outcomes)
Organizational leadership and
(outputs)
Social Impact and Value (impact)

integration

Sub-Measures
Amount of dollars generated.
Percentage of fundraising costs.
Level of operating reserves.
Employees' satisfaction.
Gender diversity of employees.
Strategic plan.
Number of volunteers.
Number of beneficiaries served.
Number of beneficiaries affected by AARP programs.

Source: adapted from Datar et al. (2007)

DOI: 10.9790/487X-17237076

www.iosrjournals.org

72 | Page

Performance Measurement and Management in Non-Governmental Organizations

Several authors like Buckmaster (1999), Poole et al. (2000), Poister (2003), Tom and Frentzel (2005),
Epstein and Buhovac (2009) developed Program-Based frameworks for measuring NGOs performance, taking
into account mainly the program/project-based measures such as inputs, outputs, activities, outcomes and
impacts.
For instance, Buckmaster (1999) proposed the Outcome Measurement framework highlighting inputs,
processes, outputs and outcomes as performance measures of NGOs. The outcome measurement is composed of
a series of stages starting with the determination of the program or the intervention's objectives, then the
identification of the outcomes' indicators, involving the stakeholders to take part in the evaluation process and
finally communicating the information to influence the organizational learning capability.
Also, Poole et al. (2000) developed the Performance Accountability Quality Scale (PAQS) that gives
a structure for getting experts feedbacks concerning the performance measurement in NGOs. The PAQS
consists of twenty one-components that represent seven performance measurement indicators: resource,
activities, outputs, outcomes, goals, indicators and evaluation plan as shown in table 3.
Table 3: Program accountability quality scale
Scales
Resources

Description
Project's ingredients (funds, personnel, community
support and beneficiaries).

Activities

Methods used to accomplish the program goals.

Outputs

Results produced by the program.

Outcomes

Short term measures of progress toward achieving the

goals.

Goals

Long-term desired effects.

Indicators

Specific and observable measures regarding whether

the program has achieved an intended outcome.

Evaluation
plan

A systematic method to generate reliable and valid data

to measure progress toward the outcomes.

Subscales
Resources identification.
Comprehensiveness.
Matching the type of the program.
The logic link to outputs.
Sufficient activities to achieve the outcomes.
The numbers of participants.
The numbers of events/processes.
The time frame of outputs.
The logical link to the goal(s).
Change statements.
Outcomes rather than activities or outputs.
The intended effect of the program on the need.
The inclusion of wide community impact.
Specific and measurable indicators.
Valid measures of the outcomes.
Efficient measures.
The indicators are important to the changes.
The reliability of the data collection method.
Available resources for implementation.
Efficient measurement of progress toward the outcomes.
Realistic evaluation plan.

Source: adapted from Poole et al. (2000)

The Generic Program Logic model is another performance framework created by Poister (2003) in
order to enable NGOs measuring the progress of their activities and whether they are producing results or not.
The main components of this framework are resources, activities, outputs, initial outcomes, intermediate
outcomes and long-term outcomes with the recognition of the external influences.
Moreover, Tom and Frentzel (2005) created the Hierarchy of Cause and Effect. Here, the authors
stressed that NGOs must determine the indicators of performance, develop a cause and effect framework since
the indicators are highly integrated and finally measure these indicators and respond according to the results.
The key performance indicators proposed by Tom and Frentzel are the activities, outputs, outcomes and ultimate
impacts.
Finally, Epstein and Buhovac (2009) developed the Input-Impact framework. Their framework
considers mission and vision of NGOs as a priority. Moreover, it recognizes strategy, organizational structure
and systems to be part of the inputs. The input-impact framework evaluates inputs, activities, outputs (internally
and externally), outcomes and impacts. Finally, the authors saw that there is a causal linkage map among the
performance measures as viewed in Fig.1.

Figure 1: casual linkage gap

Source: adapted from Epstein and Buhovac (2009)

DOI: 10.9790/487X-17237076

www.iosrjournals.org

73 | Page

Performance Measurement and Management in Non-Governmental Organizations

Other authors went to develop Multi-Dimensional frameworks to evaluate NGOs performance. For
example, Kendall and Knapp (2000) proposed the Adapted Production of Welfare (POW) that consists of
resource inputs, cost, non-resources inputs, outputs, short-term outcomes and the final outcomes. The model
also defines four criteria of performance: economy (financial resources performance), effectiveness (outcomes),
efficiency (inputs-outputs link) and equity. In this model, the working environment, which can be analyzed by
the PEST analysis, has an effect on the main criteria of performance. The authors also expanded their model to
take into account the leader choice and participation in the NGO's processes and outputs. Hence, they organized
the following performance measures for NGOs: economy, effectiveness, choice efficiency, equity, participation,
advocacy and innovation.
Kaplan (2001) developed the Adapted Balanced Scorecard for NGOs. This is a multi-featured
framework for managing and measuring performance proposed originally for the private sector and has been
adjusted to become appropriate for measuring performance of NGOs (Kaplan, 2001, Niven, 2008). The main
assumption of this framework is that the mission statement, not profits, becomes the main point that must be met
by NGOs through the following perspectives:
1- The financial perspective: funds growth, fundraising and funds distribution.
2- The customer perspective: beneficiary's satisfaction, satisfaction of other stakeholders and market growth.
3- The internal key processes perspective: internal efficiency, quality, volunteering development and
information communication.
4- The innovation and learning perspective: the organizations capability to adjust to changes required by the
environment and producing innovative products.
Also, Cutt (1998) presented the Adapted Balanced Scorecard for Public and Private Nonprofit
Organizations emphasizing cost effectiveness rather than profit. He argues that the performance measurement
system should serve as the starting point of organizational governance and management control. His framework
is presented in table 4.
Table 4: ''Cutt'' adapted balanced scorecard
Performance Measures
Strategic contexts
Intermediate run scorecard
Long run strategic performance

Sub-Measures
Mission, long-term strategic objectives and long run financial estimates.
Service effectiveness, customer results, internal business results, innovation
and learning results, financial results and financial constraint results.
Long run strategic outcomes and constraints outcomes.

Source: adapted from Cutt (1988)

The Annual Impact Monitoring and Evaluation System (AIMES) is an alternate performance
measurement and management framework proposed by Henderson et al. (2002). The authors relied on indicators
and steps which are very close to the balanced scorecard. Moreover, Paton (2003) developed the ''Dashboard"
for Social Enterprises that is closely linked to the balanced scorecard but it is much more related to the
operational level rather than the strategic one. The components of the dashboard framework include current
results, risks, changing projects and assets/capabilities.
Neely et al. (2001) proposed the Performance Prism Framework for public institutions and NGOs.
This multidimensional model is not mainly designed for measuring the program performance such as inputs,
outputs, outcomes and impacts, but rather focuses on the perspective of the key processes and the stakeholder
view of NGOs. This framework incorporates strategies, capabilities, processes, stakeholder's satisfaction and
contribution. The authors added that this framework can assist NGOs to define their performance indicators with
respect to the stakeholder's needs and the key processes of NGOs.
Another multidimensional model was created by Mullen (2004) for Human Service Organizations.
The model divides the NGO performance measures into the NGO's intervention, the geographical aspect of the
NGO's operations and the outcomes evaluation taking into account economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and
efficacy.
Furthermore, the Multidimensional and Integrated Model of Nonprofits Organizational Effectiveness
(MIMNOE) developed by Sowa et al. (2004) considers the term NGOs effectiveness to be divided into two
types: management and program effectiveness. Management effectiveness refers to the structure and systems
inside NGOs, while program effectiveness mainly concerns about measuring and assessing outcomes that are
caused due to the NGO's interventions.
Lampkin et al. (2006) created the Common Outcome Framework. In this framework, the authors
developed performance measures composed of the program-based measures (satisfaction and participation),
community-based measures (community building and socio-economic change), participant based measures
(knowledge, behaviors and status) and the organization-based measures (finance, structure and management).
Finally, the framework of Decision Making Grid was developed by Samples and Austin (2009). The

DOI: 10.9790/487X-17237076

www.iosrjournals.org

74 | Page

Performance Measurement and Management in Non-Governmental Organizations

framework is closely linked to Sowa et al. model (2004). The authors relied on program effectiveness and
management effectiveness adding financial performance to their framework.

IV.

Conclusion

Measuring performance represents a vital mechanism for improving the work of NGOs since these
organizations face complicated challenges in delivering their programs and services. It helps NGOs to maximize
their social impact and achieve their ultimate objectives. The paper aimed at reviewing performance
measurement and management definitions and systems in NGOs. It mainly highlighted the different frameworks
of measuring performance and the key performance indicators mentioned in the literature.

V.

Recommendations: Toward A Comprehensive Framework Of Performance

Measurement And Management In NGOs

Although the literature shows several definitions and approaches of performance measurement and
management in NGOs, there still is no mutual agreement regarding what are the main components and measures
that should be utilized to assess NGOs performance. Moxham (2010) saw that this is due to the confusion of the
terminologies of performance in NGOs. The literature also demonstrates that the organizational and internal
indicators have been partially addressed in the performance measurement and management frameworks
(Carman, 2007; Thomson, 2010). The majority of the frameworks highlighted mainly the programs/project
performance and ignored somehow the organizational processes and functions. Hence, there is a strong need to
rely on a framework that covers all the areas of NGOs. Practically, an effective framework in NGOs should be
applied to the financial aspect, the organizational processes and functions and the program/project performance.
Such a framework can be implemented only through defining objectives, defining performance indicators,
collecting data, analyzing the indicators and finally evaluating them and taking corrective actions if necessary.
Fig.2 illustrates a comprehensive performance measurement and management framework including clear steps
of measuring performance in NGOs with the identification of the main performance indicators that should be
used to evaluate NGOs performance.

Figure 2: performance measurement and management framework in NGOs.

Source: Authors

References
[1].
[2].
[3].
[4].
[5].
[6].
[7].

Ammons, D. (1996). Municipal benchmarks: assessing local performance and establishing community standards. Calif: Sage,
Thousand Oaks.
Andreasen, A. R., and Kotler, P. (2008). Strategic marketing for nonprofit organizations. (7 th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River.
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. New York: John Wiley.
Benjamin, L., and Misra, K. (2006). Doing good work. International Journal of Rural Management, 2(2), pp. 147-162.
Bennis, W. G. (1966). Changing organizations: Essays on the development and evolution of human organizations. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Better
Business
Bureau.
(2008).
Standards
for
Charity
Accountability.
September
6,
2008,
from
http://us.bbb.org/WWWRoot/SitePage.aspx?site=113&id=4dd040fd-08af-4dd2-aaa0dcd66c1a17fc.
Boschken, H. L. (1994). Organizational performance and multiple constituencies. Public Administration Review, 54(3), pp. 308312.

DOI: 10.9790/487X-17237076

www.iosrjournals.org

75 | Page

Performance Measurement and Management in Non-Governmental Organizations

[8].
[9].
[10].
[11].
[12].
[13].
[14].
[15].
[16].
[17].
[18].
[19].
[20].
[21].
[22].

[23].
[24].
[25].
[26].
[27].
[28].
[29].
[30].
[31].
[32].
[33].
[34].
[35].
[36].
[37].
[38].
[39].
[40].
[41].
[42].
[43].
[44].
[45].
[46].
[47].
[48].
[49].
[50].

Buckmaster, N. (1999). Associations between outcome measurement, accountability and learning for non-profit organizations.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12(2), pp. 186-97.
Carman, J. (2007). Evaluation practice among community-based organizations: Research into the reality. American Journal of
Evaluation, 28(1), pp. 60-75.
Connolly, T., Conlon, E., and Deutsch, S. (1980). Organizational effectiveness: A multiple constituency approach. Academy of
Management Review, 5(2), pp. 211-217.
Cutt, J. (1998). Performance measurement in non-profit organizations: Integration and focus within comprehensiveness. Asian
Journal of Public Administration, 20(1), pp. 3-29.
Datar, M., Leonard, B., Epstein, J., and Goodwin, F. (2007). AARP Foundation. Harvard Business School case, N9-107-051.
Boston: Harvard Business School.
Epstein, J., and Buhovac, R. (2009). Improving performance measurements: not-for-profit organizations. Certified Management
Accountant, 83(7), pp. 16-21.
Epstein, J., and McFaralan, W. (2011). Joining a nonprofit board: What you need to know. Jossey-Bass Publications.
Ferreira, A., and Otley, D. (2009). The design and use of performance management systems: An extended framework for analysis.
Management Accounting Research, 20(4), pp. 263-282.
Fine, T., and Snyder, L. (1999). What is the difference between performance and benchmarking?. Public Management, 81(1), pp.
24-25.
Fottler, M. (1981). Is management really generic?. Academy of Management Review, 6, pp.1-12.
Gill, M., Flynn, R.J., and Reissing, E. (2005). The governance self-assessment checklist: An instrument for assessing board
effectiveness. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(3), pp. 271-294.
Henderson, D., Chase B, and Woodson, B. (2002). Performance measures for NPOs: How one organization developed a way to
collect meaningful information?. Journal of Accountancy, 193(1), pp. 6368.
Herman, R. D, and Renz, D.O. (1997). Multiple constituencies and the social construction of nonprofit organization effectiveness.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(2), pp. 185-206.
Herman, R. D., and Renz, D. O. (1999). Theses on nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 28(2), pp. 107-126.
Kanter, R. M., and Summers, D. (1987). Doing well while doing well: Dilemmas of performance measurement in nonprofit
organizations and the need for multiple contingency approach. In W. W. Powell (Ed), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook
(pp. 154-166). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kaplan, R. (2001). Strategic performance measurement and management in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 11(3), pp. 354-372.
Kareithi, RNM., and Lund, C. (2012). Review of NGO performance research published in academic journals between 1996 and
2008. South African Journal of Science: 108(11/12), Article # 755, pp. 1-8.
Keeley, M. (1978). A Social justice approach to organizational evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, pp. 272-292.
Kendall, J., and Knapp, M. (2000). Measuring the performance of voluntary organizations. Public Management: An International
Journal of Research and Theory, 2(1), pp. 105132.
Lampkin, L., Winkler, M., Kerlin, J., Hatry, H., Natenshon, D., Saul, J., Melkers, J., and Seshadri, A. (2006). Building a co mmon
outcome framework to measure non-profit performance. Research report: Urban Institute.
Lewis,T. (2009). Practical financial management for NGOs-Mango. Management Accounting for Non-Governmental Organizations
Lindblad, M.R. (2006). Performance measurement in local economic development. Urban Affairs Review, 41(5), pp. 646-672.
Lindgren, L. (2001). The Non-profit sector meets the performance-management movement. Evaluation: 7(3), pp. 285-303.
Miles, R. H. (1980). Macro-organizational behavior. Santa Monica: Goodyear.
Miller, J. (2007). An effective performance measurement system: Developing an effective performance measurement system for
city of Elmira sub-grantees. Unpublished manuscript, New York: Binghamton University, State University of New York.
Morley, E., Vinson, E., and Hatry, H. (2001). Outcome measurement in nonprofit organizations: Current practices and
recommendations. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Moxham, C. (2010). Help or hindrance?: Examining the role of performance measurement in UK nonprofit organizations. Public
Performance and Management Review, 33(3), pp. 342-354.
Mullen, E. (2004). Outcomes measurement: A social work framework for health and mental health policy and practice. Social Work
in Mental Health, 2 (2/3), pp. 77-93.
Neely, A., Adams, C., and Crowe, P. (2001). Performance prism in practice. Measuring Business Excellence, 5(2), pp. 6-12.
Newman, W.H., and Wallender, H.W. (1978). Managing not-for-profit enterprises. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), pp. 24Niven, P. (2008). Balanced scorecard: Step-by-step for government and nonprofit agencies. New Jersey: Wiley.
Paton, R. (2003). Managing and measuring social enterprise. London: Sage Publications.
Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York:
Harper & Row Publisher.
Poister, T. (2003). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations. New York: Wiley.
Poole, D., Nelson, J., Carnahan, S., Chepenik, N., and Tubiak, C. (2000). Evaluating performance measurement systems in
nonprofit agencies: The program accountability quality scale (PAQS). American Journal of Evaluation, 21(1), pp. 1526.
Ritchie, W., and Kolodinsky, R. (2003). Nonprofit organization financial performance measurement: An evaluation of new and
existing financial performance measures. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(4), pp. 367-378.
Samples, M., and Austin, M. (2009). Performance management in non-profit human service organizations: working paper,
University of California: Mack Center on Nonprofit Management in the Human Services.
Sowa, J., Selden, S., and Sandfort, J. (2004). No longer unmeasurable?: A multidimensional integrated model of nonprofit
organizational effectiveness. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), pp. 711-728.
Teelken, C. (2008). The intricate implementation of performance measurement systems: Exploring developments in professionalservice organizations in the Dutch non-profit sector. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 74(4), pp. 615-635.
Tom, B., and Frentzel, B. (2005). Performance-based management builds support and funding. Nonprofit World, 23(6), pp. 28-29.
Thomson, D. (2010). Exploring the role of funders performance reporting mandates in nonprofit performance measurement.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), pp. 611-629.
Yuchtman, E., and Seashore, S.E. (1967). A system approach to organizational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32(4),
pp. 891-903.
Zimmerman, J., and Stevens, B. (2006). The use of performance measurement in South Carolina nonprofits. Nonprofit Management
and Leadership, 16(3), pp. 315-327.

DOI: 10.9790/487X-17237076

www.iosrjournals.org

76 | Page