Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
American Journal of Evaluation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (6)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Scheirer, M. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Getting More "Bang" for Your Performance Measures "Buck"

Mary Ann Scheirer

Evaluation & Performance Measures Consultant, 4616 Hillbrook Drive, Annandale VA 22003, MAScheirer{at}aol.com

Funders of intervention programs and services at the federal, state, and local levels are requiring greater accountability via the use of performance measures. Data from these measures are usually reported descriptively for the entire program. It is suggested here that performance measure data that are already being collected could become much more useful, at low additional cost, by further analyzing the relationships among the measures, especially across time. By using logic models to show expected relationships among several types of measures, and then analyzing variability among program delivery units for those measures, evaluators could provide evidence for the hypothesized connections among program delivery, outputs, and desired outcomes. Such analyses also would help to link two major purposes for performance measurement—program improvement and accountability to the public—which are often viewed as contrasting or even incompatible uses.

American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 21, No. 2, 139-149 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/109821400002100202
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Social WorkHome page
T. E. Carrilio
Accountability, Evidence, and the Use of Information Systems in Social Service Programs
Journal of Social Work, April 1, 2008; 8(2): 135 - 148.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Journal of EvaluationHome page
R. A. Gordon and C. J. Heinrich
Modeling Trajectories in Social Program Outcomes for Performance Accountability
American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 2004; 25(2): 161 - 189.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Economic Development QuarterlyHome page
K. P. Voytek, K. L. Lellock, and M. A. Schmit
Developing Performance Metrics for Science and Technology Programs: The Case of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program
Economic Development Quarterly, May 1, 2004; 18(2): 174 - 185.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 EvaluationHome page
L. Lindgren
The Non-profit Sector Meets the Performance-management Movement: A Programme-theory Approach
Evaluation, July 1, 2001; 7(3): 285 - 303.
[Abstract] [PDF]