The Non-profit Sector Meets the Performance-management Movement: A Programme-theory Approach

Evaluation

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 285-303

  Lindgren, Lena ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

democracy; non profit sector; performance measures; programme theory

Indexed keywords

EID: 84958524098     PISSN: 13563890     EISSN: 14617153     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/13563890122209694     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Act 1996: 882. Förordning om myndigheters årsredovisning mm.
2. Act 1998: 973. Förordning om folkbildning.
3. Batterham, R. (1994) How Can We Argue with Performance Indicators? An Analysis of the Sources of the Power and Dysfunction in the Use of Performance Indicators. Melbourne: Centre for Program Evaluation, The University of Melbourne.
4. Bergmark, Å. (1994) Från bidrag till ersättning?Stockholm: Sköndalsinstitutet.
5. Blalock, A. B. (1999) ‘Evaluation Research and the Performance Management Movement’, Evaluation5(2): 117–149.
6. Budget Documents for Popular Adult Education (1991– 2000). Stockholm: Swedish Government.
7. Campbell, D. T. (1979) ‘Assessing the Impact of Planned Social Change’, Evaluation and Program Planning2: 67–90.
8. Dahl, R. (1989) Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9. Davies, I. C. (1999) ‘Evaluation and Performance Management in Government’, Evaluation5(2): 150–159.
10. Dewey, J. (1897) ‘Ethical Principles Underlying Education’, in Third Yearbook of the National Herbert Society for the Scientific Study of Teaching. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
11. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge, NJ: Princeton University Press.
12. Funnel, S. (1997) ‘Program Logic: An Adaptable Tool for Designing and Evaluating Programs’, in Evaluation News & Comment6(1): 5–17.
13. Garbutcheon Sing, M. (1990) ‘Performance Indicators – Indicators or Vindicators of Inequity?’, Education Links36: 18–20.
14. Ginsberg, P. E (1984) ‘The Dysfunctional Side Effects of Quantitative Indicator Production’, Evaluation and Program Planning7: 1–12.
15. Grob, G. F. (1999) ‘Saving the World through Outcome Measurement’, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, Orlando 1999.
16. Hatry, H. P. (1997) ‘Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Performance Measurement for State and Local Public Agencies’, in K. Newcomer (ed.) Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs. New Directions for Evaluation 75, pp. 31–44. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
17. Held, D. (1996) Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
18. Johansson, S. (1999) ‘Från självständiga aktörer till pålitliga underleverantörer’, paper presented at the Nordic Conference on Research about the Third Sector, Stockholm.
19. Leat, D. (1996) ‘Are Voluntary Organisations Accountable?’, in D. Billis and M. Harris (eds) Voluntary Agencies. Challenges of Organisation & Management. London: Macmillan Press.
20. Lindgren, L. (1996) Kan en filthatt stärka demokratin?Stockholm: Carlsson.
21. Lindgren, L. (1997) Excellens i flexibilitet. Stockholm: National Council of Adult Education.
22. Lindgren, L. (2000) Varken privat eller offentligt. Manuscript to be published by the Centre for Research on the Public Sector, Gothenburg University.
23. Lundström, T. and F. Wijkström (1997) The Nonprofit Sector in Sweden. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
24. Mayne, J. and E. Zapico-Goni (eds) (1999) Monitoring Performance in the Public Sector. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
25. Mintzberg, H. (1996) ‘Managing Government, Government Management’, Harvard Business Review74(3): 75–83.
26. Mohan, R. (1999) ‘Clarifying Legislative Intent through Performance Measurement’, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Evaluation Association, Orlando 1999.
27. National Audit Bureau (1999) Folkbildning. Styrning och kontroll. Stockholm: National Audit Bureau.
28. National Council of Adult Education (2000) Verksamhetsberättelse. Stockholm: National Council of Adult Education.
29. Newcomer K. (ed.) (1997) Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs. New Directions for Evaluation 75. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
30. Pateman, C. (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Patton, M. (1997) Utilization Focused Evaluation. London: Sage.
32. Perrin, B. (1998) ‘Effective Use and Misuse of Performance Measurement’, American Journal of Evaluation19(3): 367–379.
33. Perrin, B. (1999) ‘Performance Measurement: Does the Reality Match the Rhetoric? A Rejoinder to Bernstein and Winston’, American Journal of Evaluation20(1): 101–111.
34. Pestoff, V. A. (1998) Beyond the Market and State. Social Enterprises and Civil Democracy in a Welfare Society. Aldershot: Ashgate.
35. Peters, G. B. and D. J. Savoie (eds) (1998) Taking Stock: Assessing Public Sector Reforms. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
36. Plantz, M. C., M. Taylor Greenway and M. Hendricks (1997) ‘Outcome Measurement: Showing Results in the Nonprofit Sector’, in K. Newcomer (ed.) Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and Nonprofit Programs. New Directions for Evaluation 75, pp. 15–30. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
37. Pollitt, C. (1993) Managerialism and the Public Services, 2nd edn.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
38. Rogers, P., T. M. Hacsi, A. Petrosino and T. A. Huebner (eds) (2000) Program Theory in Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities. New Directions for Evaluation 87. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
39. Scheirer, M. A. (2000) ‘Getting More “Bang” for your Performance Measurement “Buck”’, American Journal of Evaluation21(2): 139–149.
40. Streeck, W. and P. C. Schmitter (eds) (1985) Private Interest Government. Beyond State and Market. London: Sage.
41. Swedish Government (2000) En Uthållig Demokrati [A Sustainable Democracy]. Official Report, 2000: 1. Stockholm: Fritzes Offentliga Publikationer.
42. Weiss, C. (1997) ‘Theory-Based Evaluation: Past, Present, and Future’, in D. Fournier and D. J. Rog (eds) Progress and Future Directions in Evaluation: Perspectives on Theory, Practice, and Methods. New Directions for Evaluation 76, pp. 41–55. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
43. Winston, J. A. (1999) ‘Performance Indicators – Promises Unmet: A Response to Perrin’, American Journal of Evaluation20(1): 95–99.
44. Wistow, G., M. Knapp, B. Hardy and C. Allen (1994) Social Care in a Mixed Economy. Buckingham: Open University Press.