Improving the Quality of Outcome Evaluation Plans

Improving performance? The adoption and implementation of quality systems in U.K. nonprofits

“…In the words of one of the study Implementation of any quality system necessarily consumes organizational resources participants, "Quality needs to be seen as part of the way the organization does things." These findings are consistent with the argument by Poole, Davis, Risman, and Nelson (2001) that nonprofits should involve all their internal groupings in the adoption of quality systems at the earliest possible stage, as well as the suggestion of Murray (2004) that any measurements should be compared to clearly stated goals. Board members and service volunteers as well as paid staff at all levels should be given, our study suggests, the opportunity to be involved early in debates about systems, so that the implementation stage feels less like an imposition and more like an exciting change that will bring organizational benefits for staff and users, and so that implementation can be in accord with the existing organizational culture.…”

“…Still further pressures come from clients, potential clients, and the general public, who seek reassurance that organizations that receive tax privileges can demonstrate that they are working effectively and ethically without wasting resources (Hoefer, 2000). As nonprofits on both sides of the Atlantic move ever more deeply into the role of public services providers (Her Majesty' s Treasury, 2002;Salamon, 2003), the pressure to demonstrate performance improvement is set to continue (Poole, Davis, Risman, and Nelson, 2001), driven in part by pressures to be businesslike.…”

A Survey of Non-profit Organizations Evaluation Methods

“…So, what are the factors that affect the quality of impact assessment? Dennis L. Poole et al (2001) proposed five predictor variables, such as organizational culture, management support, participation, technology, financial support which will have an impact on the quality of impact assessment, and used empirical test of path analysis methods. (Results shown in Figure 2) As a result of the analysis from Figure 2, we can see the quality of financial support for the impact assessment had no significant effects.…”

Nonprofits and evaluation: Managing expectations from the leader's perspective

“…They can also develop structures conducive for ECB, such as an ECB plan, inclusion of evaluation in organizational policies and procedures, a system for reporting and monitoring, and incorporation of a feedback mechanism and effective communication system (Stufflebeam, 2002;Volkov & King, 2005). Organizational culture is an important factor for ECB and for participation in program evaluation (Grudens-Schuck, 2003;Marais, 1998;Mesch & McClelland, 2006;Poole, Davis, Reisman, & Nelson, 2001). EDs can recognize their internal and external organizational contexts by building an internal supportive culture for ECB while integrating the demands from external stakeholders (Volkov & King, 2005).…”