The nature of measurement across the hybridised social sector: A systematic review of reviews

Abstract

AbstractPerformance measurement and management serve as the key elements for demonstrating accountability to funders and stakeholders for many social entities. Although substantial study has been completed to understand the measurement practices employed by specific models of social entities, there is an absence of studies taking a broader perspective on organisational performance measurement across the entire system. A systematic review of reviews methodology identified previous systematic and meta‐studies of social performance measurement and management practices across the entire sector. The 19 reviews identified examined the measurement and management practices of a range of hybrid social entities including non‐profits, social enterprises, corporate social responsibility undertakings, impact investments and bonds, government departments, and knowledge‐intensive public organisations. The motivations of demonstrating accountability and learning opportunities for improvement are congruous across all entities. However, the approaches and methods employed to measure impact and meet these objectives are distinct between the different entity forms. Furthermore, acknowledgement of the different measurement approaches of other hybrid social entities was notably absent perhaps indicating a lack of knowledge dissemination across the broader system. Some barriers and complexities seem to be generalised across all hybrid entities; however, other challenges appear to be unique to specific hybrid models and measurement approaches. Through amalgamating a broad range of papers, we present opportunities to strengthen performance measurement and management across an increasingly hybridised social sector.Points for practitioners Performance measurement and management are crucial for demonstrating accountability and improving social impact for all forms of hybrid entities including non‐profits, social enterprises, corporate social responsibility undertakings, impact investments and bonds, government departments, and knowledge‐intensive public organisations. While the measurement practices of these organisational entities have been studied separately, there has been a lack of understanding as to the common practices and deviations across a hybrid organisational system. Practitioners should explore the different approaches and methods employed by the various social impact entities to identify opportunities for improved practice. Meeting the information needs of the diverse range of stakeholders in social services sector poses a challenge for all social initiatives. However, our review highlights the importance of ensuring that the voice and perspectives of social service recipients are adequately represented.