Comparing How to Compare: An Evaluation of Alternative Performance Measurement Systems in the Field of Social Care

Abstract

Comparative performance evaluation has taken different forms depending upon the purposes of performance monitoring and the types of measures available. This paper investigates the different performance measurement systems in place in the social care setting, in particular for older people receiving community care services. In England, earlier systems to assist performance management within organizations have been eclipsed by national systems of regulation with topdown implementation of standards and measures. In Northern Ireland, by contrast, organizations have been compared descriptively without the use of national targets. Internationally, in Japan, organizations arranging similar services have had more local information available collected in a bottom-up fashion with greater employment of service user-level data. These differences in performance evaluation are located within an analytical framework permitting comparisons of system design and the use of measures. Conclusions are drawn concerning the breadth of evidence available for successfully monitoring service provision in this setting.

Performance measurement and NPOs' effectiveness: does internal stakeholders' trust matter? Evidence from Palestine

“…There are different reasons for these conflicting views among scholars pertaining to PM in this sector. For instance, Clarkson et al (2010) found that PM systems and indicators differ from one context to another. Others such as Amirkhanyan (2010) reported that NPOs that provide services on behalf of government agencies are more likely to be evaluated based on qualitative indicators that are mainly concerned with the public image of NPOs and their ability to comply with the legislation.…”

Social service as glasshouses? On the use and consequences of the Open Comparison system in Swedish social services

“…With an institutional perspective on organizations, the possible areas of use can be increased further to include symbolic and signaling functions, which means that a lot of information systems are used as symbols of rationality, as means to signal possession of knowledge (Feldman & March, 1981), or as “panopticons” in order to monitor and discipline the staff of the organization (Macintosh & Quattrone, 2010). This observation is important since implementation of PM systems does not necessarily mean utilization of such systems (Johansson & Siverbo, 2009; see also Clarkson et al., 2010; Siverbo, 2014; Van Dooren & Van de Walle, 2008).…”