Back to Basics
Nonprofits are under increased accountability pressures to demonstrate their effectiveness. Output measurement (how much is produced) is disregarded as simplistic. Emphasis is made instead on measuring outcomes (changes in the lives of beneficiaries) or impacts (effects developed relative to the mis...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Marta Rey-Garcia [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2017 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Nonprofit management & leadership - Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 1990, 27(2017), 4, Seite 493 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:27 ; year:2017 ; number:4 ; pages:493 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1002/nml.21259 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC1995223530 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a2200265 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC1995223530 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20210716203229.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 170721s2017 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1002/nml.21259 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a PQ20171228 |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC1995223530 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)GBVOLC1995223530 | ||
| 035 | |a (PRQ)proquest_journals_19048360153 | ||
| 035 | |a (KEY)0209249220170000027000400493backtobasics | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 300 |q ZDB |
| 100 | 0 | |a Marta Rey-Garcia |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Back to Basics |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2017 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Nonprofits are under increased accountability pressures to demonstrate their effectiveness. Output measurement (how much is produced) is disregarded as simplistic. Emphasis is made instead on measuring outcomes (changes in the lives of beneficiaries) or impacts (effects developed relative to the mission of the nonprofit, or the overall public good), and a growing portion of organizations state that they measure these effects. However, we question the assumption that outputs such as the number of beneficiaries served are being adequately measured. We first review existing research gaps on results measurement practices and discuss the main types of obstacles to the quality and utility of evaluation data. In this context, we argue for the need to reground nonprofit evaluation in the profound knowledge available about beneficiary populations. We discuss the potential and limitations of reach, a basic output indicator that is defined as the number of individuals directly affected by a nonprofit, and explore the organizational drivers of reach measurement. Evidence from 2,229 nonprofits shows they still lack adequate data on the beneficiaries they serve, face relevant conceptual and practical hurdles when trying to identify them, and are significantly influenced by organizational factors in their capacity to track them. Our research not only shows that nonprofits fail to adequately measure outputs, but also that measuring the number of beneficiaries served and how they are served is not as straightforward as outcome and impact advocates suggest. Practitioners and funders are reminded of the need to place beneficiaries at the core of their evaluation efforts. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Nonprofit organizations | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Beneficiaries | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Effectiveness | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Kellie Liket |4 oth | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Luis Ignacio Alvarez-Gonzalez |4 oth | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Karen Maas |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Nonprofit management & leadership |d Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 1990 |g 27(2017), 4, Seite 493 |w (DE-627)165902353 |w (DE-600)31668-4 |w (DE-576)265626641 |x 1048-6682 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:27 |g year:2017 |g number:4 |g pages:493 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.21259 |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://search.proquest.com/docview/1904836015 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-WIW | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_26 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 27 |j 2017 |e 4 |h 493 | ||
| author_variant |
m r g mrg |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:10486682:2017----::akoa |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2017 |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| allfields |
10.1002/nml.21259 doi PQ20171228 (DE-627)OLC1995223530 (DE-599)GBVOLC1995223530 (PRQ)proquest_journals_19048360153 (KEY)0209249220170000027000400493backtobasics DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 ZDB Marta Rey-Garcia verfasserin aut Back to Basics 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Nonprofits are under increased accountability pressures to demonstrate their effectiveness. Output measurement (how much is produced) is disregarded as simplistic. Emphasis is made instead on measuring outcomes (changes in the lives of beneficiaries) or impacts (effects developed relative to the mission of the nonprofit, or the overall public good), and a growing portion of organizations state that they measure these effects. However, we question the assumption that outputs such as the number of beneficiaries served are being adequately measured. We first review existing research gaps on results measurement practices and discuss the main types of obstacles to the quality and utility of evaluation data. In this context, we argue for the need to reground nonprofit evaluation in the profound knowledge available about beneficiary populations. We discuss the potential and limitations of reach, a basic output indicator that is defined as the number of individuals directly affected by a nonprofit, and explore the organizational drivers of reach measurement. Evidence from 2,229 nonprofits shows they still lack adequate data on the beneficiaries they serve, face relevant conceptual and practical hurdles when trying to identify them, and are significantly influenced by organizational factors in their capacity to track them. Our research not only shows that nonprofits fail to adequately measure outputs, but also that measuring the number of beneficiaries served and how they are served is not as straightforward as outcome and impact advocates suggest. Practitioners and funders are reminded of the need to place beneficiaries at the core of their evaluation efforts. Nonprofit organizations Beneficiaries Effectiveness Kellie Liket oth Luis Ignacio Alvarez-Gonzalez oth Karen Maas oth Enthalten in Nonprofit management & leadership Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 1990 27(2017), 4, Seite 493 (DE-627)165902353 (DE-600)31668-4 (DE-576)265626641 1048-6682 nnns volume:27 year:2017 number:4 pages:493 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.21259 Volltext https://search.proquest.com/docview/1904836015 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_26 AR 27 2017 4 493 |
| spelling |
10.1002/nml.21259 doi PQ20171228 (DE-627)OLC1995223530 (DE-599)GBVOLC1995223530 (PRQ)proquest_journals_19048360153 (KEY)0209249220170000027000400493backtobasics DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 ZDB Marta Rey-Garcia verfasserin aut Back to Basics 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Nonprofits are under increased accountability pressures to demonstrate their effectiveness. Output measurement (how much is produced) is disregarded as simplistic. Emphasis is made instead on measuring outcomes (changes in the lives of beneficiaries) or impacts (effects developed relative to the mission of the nonprofit, or the overall public good), and a growing portion of organizations state that they measure these effects. However, we question the assumption that outputs such as the number of beneficiaries served are being adequately measured. We first review existing research gaps on results measurement practices and discuss the main types of obstacles to the quality and utility of evaluation data. In this context, we argue for the need to reground nonprofit evaluation in the profound knowledge available about beneficiary populations. We discuss the potential and limitations of reach, a basic output indicator that is defined as the number of individuals directly affected by a nonprofit, and explore the organizational drivers of reach measurement. Evidence from 2,229 nonprofits shows they still lack adequate data on the beneficiaries they serve, face relevant conceptual and practical hurdles when trying to identify them, and are significantly influenced by organizational factors in their capacity to track them. Our research not only shows that nonprofits fail to adequately measure outputs, but also that measuring the number of beneficiaries served and how they are served is not as straightforward as outcome and impact advocates suggest. Practitioners and funders are reminded of the need to place beneficiaries at the core of their evaluation efforts. Nonprofit organizations Beneficiaries Effectiveness Kellie Liket oth Luis Ignacio Alvarez-Gonzalez oth Karen Maas oth Enthalten in Nonprofit management & leadership Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 1990 27(2017), 4, Seite 493 (DE-627)165902353 (DE-600)31668-4 (DE-576)265626641 1048-6682 nnns volume:27 year:2017 number:4 pages:493 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.21259 Volltext https://search.proquest.com/docview/1904836015 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_26 AR 27 2017 4 493 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1002/nml.21259 doi PQ20171228 (DE-627)OLC1995223530 (DE-599)GBVOLC1995223530 (PRQ)proquest_journals_19048360153 (KEY)0209249220170000027000400493backtobasics DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 ZDB Marta Rey-Garcia verfasserin aut Back to Basics 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Nonprofits are under increased accountability pressures to demonstrate their effectiveness. Output measurement (how much is produced) is disregarded as simplistic. Emphasis is made instead on measuring outcomes (changes in the lives of beneficiaries) or impacts (effects developed relative to the mission of the nonprofit, or the overall public good), and a growing portion of organizations state that they measure these effects. However, we question the assumption that outputs such as the number of beneficiaries served are being adequately measured. We first review existing research gaps on results measurement practices and discuss the main types of obstacles to the quality and utility of evaluation data. In this context, we argue for the need to reground nonprofit evaluation in the profound knowledge available about beneficiary populations. We discuss the potential and limitations of reach, a basic output indicator that is defined as the number of individuals directly affected by a nonprofit, and explore the organizational drivers of reach measurement. Evidence from 2,229 nonprofits shows they still lack adequate data on the beneficiaries they serve, face relevant conceptual and practical hurdles when trying to identify them, and are significantly influenced by organizational factors in their capacity to track them. Our research not only shows that nonprofits fail to adequately measure outputs, but also that measuring the number of beneficiaries served and how they are served is not as straightforward as outcome and impact advocates suggest. Practitioners and funders are reminded of the need to place beneficiaries at the core of their evaluation efforts. Nonprofit organizations Beneficiaries Effectiveness Kellie Liket oth Luis Ignacio Alvarez-Gonzalez oth Karen Maas oth Enthalten in Nonprofit management & leadership Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 1990 27(2017), 4, Seite 493 (DE-627)165902353 (DE-600)31668-4 (DE-576)265626641 1048-6682 nnns volume:27 year:2017 number:4 pages:493 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.21259 Volltext https://search.proquest.com/docview/1904836015 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_26 AR 27 2017 4 493 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1002/nml.21259 doi PQ20171228 (DE-627)OLC1995223530 (DE-599)GBVOLC1995223530 (PRQ)proquest_journals_19048360153 (KEY)0209249220170000027000400493backtobasics DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 ZDB Marta Rey-Garcia verfasserin aut Back to Basics 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Nonprofits are under increased accountability pressures to demonstrate their effectiveness. Output measurement (how much is produced) is disregarded as simplistic. Emphasis is made instead on measuring outcomes (changes in the lives of beneficiaries) or impacts (effects developed relative to the mission of the nonprofit, or the overall public good), and a growing portion of organizations state that they measure these effects. However, we question the assumption that outputs such as the number of beneficiaries served are being adequately measured. We first review existing research gaps on results measurement practices and discuss the main types of obstacles to the quality and utility of evaluation data. In this context, we argue for the need to reground nonprofit evaluation in the profound knowledge available about beneficiary populations. We discuss the potential and limitations of reach, a basic output indicator that is defined as the number of individuals directly affected by a nonprofit, and explore the organizational drivers of reach measurement. Evidence from 2,229 nonprofits shows they still lack adequate data on the beneficiaries they serve, face relevant conceptual and practical hurdles when trying to identify them, and are significantly influenced by organizational factors in their capacity to track them. Our research not only shows that nonprofits fail to adequately measure outputs, but also that measuring the number of beneficiaries served and how they are served is not as straightforward as outcome and impact advocates suggest. Practitioners and funders are reminded of the need to place beneficiaries at the core of their evaluation efforts. Nonprofit organizations Beneficiaries Effectiveness Kellie Liket oth Luis Ignacio Alvarez-Gonzalez oth Karen Maas oth Enthalten in Nonprofit management & leadership Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 1990 27(2017), 4, Seite 493 (DE-627)165902353 (DE-600)31668-4 (DE-576)265626641 1048-6682 nnns volume:27 year:2017 number:4 pages:493 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.21259 Volltext https://search.proquest.com/docview/1904836015 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_26 AR 27 2017 4 493 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1002/nml.21259 doi PQ20171228 (DE-627)OLC1995223530 (DE-599)GBVOLC1995223530 (PRQ)proquest_journals_19048360153 (KEY)0209249220170000027000400493backtobasics DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 300 ZDB Marta Rey-Garcia verfasserin aut Back to Basics 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Nonprofits are under increased accountability pressures to demonstrate their effectiveness. Output measurement (how much is produced) is disregarded as simplistic. Emphasis is made instead on measuring outcomes (changes in the lives of beneficiaries) or impacts (effects developed relative to the mission of the nonprofit, or the overall public good), and a growing portion of organizations state that they measure these effects. However, we question the assumption that outputs such as the number of beneficiaries served are being adequately measured. We first review existing research gaps on results measurement practices and discuss the main types of obstacles to the quality and utility of evaluation data. In this context, we argue for the need to reground nonprofit evaluation in the profound knowledge available about beneficiary populations. We discuss the potential and limitations of reach, a basic output indicator that is defined as the number of individuals directly affected by a nonprofit, and explore the organizational drivers of reach measurement. Evidence from 2,229 nonprofits shows they still lack adequate data on the beneficiaries they serve, face relevant conceptual and practical hurdles when trying to identify them, and are significantly influenced by organizational factors in their capacity to track them. Our research not only shows that nonprofits fail to adequately measure outputs, but also that measuring the number of beneficiaries served and how they are served is not as straightforward as outcome and impact advocates suggest. Practitioners and funders are reminded of the need to place beneficiaries at the core of their evaluation efforts. Nonprofit organizations Beneficiaries Effectiveness Kellie Liket oth Luis Ignacio Alvarez-Gonzalez oth Karen Maas oth Enthalten in Nonprofit management & leadership Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 1990 27(2017), 4, Seite 493 (DE-627)165902353 (DE-600)31668-4 (DE-576)265626641 1048-6682 nnns volume:27 year:2017 number:4 pages:493 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.21259 Volltext https://search.proquest.com/docview/1904836015 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_26 AR 27 2017 4 493 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Nonprofit management & leadership 27(2017), 4, Seite 493 volume:27 year:2017 number:4 pages:493 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Nonprofit management & leadership 27(2017), 4, Seite 493 volume:27 year:2017 number:4 pages:493 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Nonprofit organizations Beneficiaries Effectiveness |
| dewey-raw |
300 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Nonprofit management & leadership |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Marta Rey-Garcia @@aut@@ Kellie Liket @@oth@@ Luis Ignacio Alvarez-Gonzalez @@oth@@ Karen Maas @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2017-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
165902353 |
| dewey-sort |
3300 |
| id |
OLC1995223530 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1995223530</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210716203229.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">170721s2017 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1002/nml.21259</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20171228</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1995223530</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1995223530</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)proquest_journals_19048360153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0209249220170000027000400493backtobasics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="q">ZDB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marta Rey-Garcia</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Back to Basics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nonprofits are under increased accountability pressures to demonstrate their effectiveness. Output measurement (how much is produced) is disregarded as simplistic. Emphasis is made instead on measuring outcomes (changes in the lives of beneficiaries) or impacts (effects developed relative to the mission of the nonprofit, or the overall public good), and a growing portion of organizations state that they measure these effects. However, we question the assumption that outputs such as the number of beneficiaries served are being adequately measured. We first review existing research gaps on results measurement practices and discuss the main types of obstacles to the quality and utility of evaluation data. In this context, we argue for the need to reground nonprofit evaluation in the profound knowledge available about beneficiary populations. We discuss the potential and limitations of reach, a basic output indicator that is defined as the number of individuals directly affected by a nonprofit, and explore the organizational drivers of reach measurement. Evidence from 2,229 nonprofits shows they still lack adequate data on the beneficiaries they serve, face relevant conceptual and practical hurdles when trying to identify them, and are significantly influenced by organizational factors in their capacity to track them. Our research not only shows that nonprofits fail to adequately measure outputs, but also that measuring the number of beneficiaries served and how they are served is not as straightforward as outcome and impact advocates suggest. Practitioners and funders are reminded of the need to place beneficiaries at the core of their evaluation efforts.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nonprofit organizations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Beneficiaries</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Effectiveness</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kellie Liket</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Luis Ignacio Alvarez-Gonzalez</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Karen Maas</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Nonprofit management & leadership</subfield><subfield code="d">Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 1990</subfield><subfield code="g">27(2017), 4, Seite 493</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)165902353</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)31668-4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)265626641</subfield><subfield code="x">1048-6682</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:27</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:493</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.21259</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://search.proquest.com/docview/1904836015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">27</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="h">493</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Marta Rey-Garcia |
| spellingShingle |
Marta Rey-Garcia ddc 300 misc Nonprofit organizations misc Beneficiaries misc Effectiveness Back to Basics |
| authorStr |
Marta Rey-Garcia |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)165902353 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
300 - Social sciences |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1048-6682 |
| topic_title |
300 ZDB Back to Basics Nonprofit organizations Beneficiaries Effectiveness |
| topic |
ddc 300 misc Nonprofit organizations misc Beneficiaries misc Effectiveness |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 300 misc Nonprofit organizations misc Beneficiaries misc Effectiveness |
| topic_browse |
ddc 300 misc Nonprofit organizations misc Beneficiaries misc Effectiveness |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| author2_variant |
k l kl l i a g liag k m km |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Nonprofit management & leadership |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
165902353 |
| dewey-tens |
300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Nonprofit management & leadership |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)165902353 (DE-600)31668-4 (DE-576)265626641 |
| title |
Back to Basics |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC1995223530 (DE-599)GBVOLC1995223530 (PRQ)proquest_journals_19048360153 (KEY)0209249220170000027000400493backtobasics |
| title_full |
Back to Basics |
| author_sort |
Marta Rey-Garcia |
| journal |
Nonprofit management & leadership |
| journalStr |
Nonprofit management & leadership |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2017 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
493 |
| author_browse |
Marta Rey-Garcia |
| container_volume |
27 |
| class |
300 ZDB |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Marta Rey-Garcia |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1002/nml.21259 |
| dewey-full |
300 |
| title_sort |
back to basics |
| title_auth |
Back to Basics |
| abstract |
Nonprofits are under increased accountability pressures to demonstrate their effectiveness. Output measurement (how much is produced) is disregarded as simplistic. Emphasis is made instead on measuring outcomes (changes in the lives of beneficiaries) or impacts (effects developed relative to the mission of the nonprofit, or the overall public good), and a growing portion of organizations state that they measure these effects. However, we question the assumption that outputs such as the number of beneficiaries served are being adequately measured. We first review existing research gaps on results measurement practices and discuss the main types of obstacles to the quality and utility of evaluation data. In this context, we argue for the need to reground nonprofit evaluation in the profound knowledge available about beneficiary populations. We discuss the potential and limitations of reach, a basic output indicator that is defined as the number of individuals directly affected by a nonprofit, and explore the organizational drivers of reach measurement. Evidence from 2,229 nonprofits shows they still lack adequate data on the beneficiaries they serve, face relevant conceptual and practical hurdles when trying to identify them, and are significantly influenced by organizational factors in their capacity to track them. Our research not only shows that nonprofits fail to adequately measure outputs, but also that measuring the number of beneficiaries served and how they are served is not as straightforward as outcome and impact advocates suggest. Practitioners and funders are reminded of the need to place beneficiaries at the core of their evaluation efforts. |
| abstractGer |
Nonprofits are under increased accountability pressures to demonstrate their effectiveness. Output measurement (how much is produced) is disregarded as simplistic. Emphasis is made instead on measuring outcomes (changes in the lives of beneficiaries) or impacts (effects developed relative to the mission of the nonprofit, or the overall public good), and a growing portion of organizations state that they measure these effects. However, we question the assumption that outputs such as the number of beneficiaries served are being adequately measured. We first review existing research gaps on results measurement practices and discuss the main types of obstacles to the quality and utility of evaluation data. In this context, we argue for the need to reground nonprofit evaluation in the profound knowledge available about beneficiary populations. We discuss the potential and limitations of reach, a basic output indicator that is defined as the number of individuals directly affected by a nonprofit, and explore the organizational drivers of reach measurement. Evidence from 2,229 nonprofits shows they still lack adequate data on the beneficiaries they serve, face relevant conceptual and practical hurdles when trying to identify them, and are significantly influenced by organizational factors in their capacity to track them. Our research not only shows that nonprofits fail to adequately measure outputs, but also that measuring the number of beneficiaries served and how they are served is not as straightforward as outcome and impact advocates suggest. Practitioners and funders are reminded of the need to place beneficiaries at the core of their evaluation efforts. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Nonprofits are under increased accountability pressures to demonstrate their effectiveness. Output measurement (how much is produced) is disregarded as simplistic. Emphasis is made instead on measuring outcomes (changes in the lives of beneficiaries) or impacts (effects developed relative to the mission of the nonprofit, or the overall public good), and a growing portion of organizations state that they measure these effects. However, we question the assumption that outputs such as the number of beneficiaries served are being adequately measured. We first review existing research gaps on results measurement practices and discuss the main types of obstacles to the quality and utility of evaluation data. In this context, we argue for the need to reground nonprofit evaluation in the profound knowledge available about beneficiary populations. We discuss the potential and limitations of reach, a basic output indicator that is defined as the number of individuals directly affected by a nonprofit, and explore the organizational drivers of reach measurement. Evidence from 2,229 nonprofits shows they still lack adequate data on the beneficiaries they serve, face relevant conceptual and practical hurdles when trying to identify them, and are significantly influenced by organizational factors in their capacity to track them. Our research not only shows that nonprofits fail to adequately measure outputs, but also that measuring the number of beneficiaries served and how they are served is not as straightforward as outcome and impact advocates suggest. Practitioners and funders are reminded of the need to place beneficiaries at the core of their evaluation efforts. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-WIW GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_26 |
| container_issue |
4 |
| title_short |
Back to Basics |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.21259 https://search.proquest.com/docview/1904836015 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Kellie Liket Luis Ignacio Alvarez-Gonzalez Karen Maas |
| author2Str |
Kellie Liket Luis Ignacio Alvarez-Gonzalez Karen Maas |
| ppnlink |
165902353 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1002/nml.21259 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T20:56:33.238Z |
| _version_ |
1803592865667874816 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC1995223530</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210716203229.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">170721s2017 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1002/nml.21259</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20171228</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC1995223530</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC1995223530</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)proquest_journals_19048360153</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0209249220170000027000400493backtobasics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="q">ZDB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marta Rey-Garcia</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Back to Basics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nonprofits are under increased accountability pressures to demonstrate their effectiveness. Output measurement (how much is produced) is disregarded as simplistic. Emphasis is made instead on measuring outcomes (changes in the lives of beneficiaries) or impacts (effects developed relative to the mission of the nonprofit, or the overall public good), and a growing portion of organizations state that they measure these effects. However, we question the assumption that outputs such as the number of beneficiaries served are being adequately measured. We first review existing research gaps on results measurement practices and discuss the main types of obstacles to the quality and utility of evaluation data. In this context, we argue for the need to reground nonprofit evaluation in the profound knowledge available about beneficiary populations. We discuss the potential and limitations of reach, a basic output indicator that is defined as the number of individuals directly affected by a nonprofit, and explore the organizational drivers of reach measurement. Evidence from 2,229 nonprofits shows they still lack adequate data on the beneficiaries they serve, face relevant conceptual and practical hurdles when trying to identify them, and are significantly influenced by organizational factors in their capacity to track them. Our research not only shows that nonprofits fail to adequately measure outputs, but also that measuring the number of beneficiaries served and how they are served is not as straightforward as outcome and impact advocates suggest. Practitioners and funders are reminded of the need to place beneficiaries at the core of their evaluation efforts.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nonprofit organizations</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Beneficiaries</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Effectiveness</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kellie Liket</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Luis Ignacio Alvarez-Gonzalez</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Karen Maas</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Nonprofit management & leadership</subfield><subfield code="d">Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 1990</subfield><subfield code="g">27(2017), 4, Seite 493</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)165902353</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)31668-4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)265626641</subfield><subfield code="x">1048-6682</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:27</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:4</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:493</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nml.21259</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://search.proquest.com/docview/1904836015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-WIW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_26</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">27</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">4</subfield><subfield code="h">493</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399581 |