2011
DOI: 10.1007/s11266-011-9204-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Non-Governmental and Not-for-Profit Organizational Effectiveness: A Modern Synthesis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
173
0
7

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 184 publications
(181 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
1
173
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…As noted recently, there is very limited empirical evidence on the measurement of effectiveness within nonprofit organizations and a lack of a unified conceptualization of effectiveness and validated measures (Cho, 2007;Lecy, Schmitz, & Swedlund, 2012). There is a gap in the effectiveness research that focuses primarily on coalitions and community-based work.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As noted recently, there is very limited empirical evidence on the measurement of effectiveness within nonprofit organizations and a lack of a unified conceptualization of effectiveness and validated measures (Cho, 2007;Lecy, Schmitz, & Swedlund, 2012). There is a gap in the effectiveness research that focuses primarily on coalitions and community-based work.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hence, efficiency is related to the conversion of inputs into outputs and how inputs are transformed into output successfully, while effectiveness reflects the relationship between output and objectives (Sulaiman & Zakari, 2015). Helmig et al (2014) and Lecy, Schmitz, and Swedlund (2012) have pointed that efficiency can be considered as a part and a subset of effectiveness. This view is supported by Mouzas (2006) who highlights that effectiveness has broader scope in which it consider quality, creation of value added, employee satisfaction, output interaction with the social and economic environment.…”
Section: Performance Measurement Of Waqf Institutionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This means that any observed impact is likely to be attributed to multiple factors and actors, rather than solely through the efforts of INGOs (Ebrahim & Rangan, 2010;Fowler, 1996). Third, there are institutional barriers that hamper the development of a strong focus on conducting program evaluation and/or impact assessment within INGOs, such as the internal culture of INGOs that values action more than reflection, the limitations of the instruments and expertise INGOs use to evaluate their own programs, the lack of financial flexibility to hire a specialist in the area of evaluation and assessment, and the fact that rigorous evaluation and assessment are simply not required by some funders (Barber & Bowie, 2008;Campbell, 2002;Edwards & Hulme, 1996;Fowler, 1997;Lecy, Schmitz, & Swedlund, 2011).…”
Section: Program Evaluation and Impact Assessment In Ingo Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the substantial scholarly attention that has been placed on the roles of program evaluation and impact assessment in INGOs, many areas of discussion remain in need of further examination, including how to define, operationalize, and measure indicators that accurately capture INGO performance and impact; identifying suitable measurement systems for the work of INGOs; standardizing the social indicators of effectiveness for INGOs across diverse fields of nonprofit work and resolving whether that is even a worthy goal to strive for; and determining to what extent program evaluation and/or impact assessment are being conducted within INGOs (Abdel-Kader & Wadongo, 2011;Bouchard, 2009;Lecy, Schmitz, & Swedlund, 2011). We argue that the final topic of discussion is of fundamental importance as it establishes a foundation through which the other discussions can occur.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%