Academic Bibliography

 Search 200 years of publications by Ghent University researchers.
Advanced search
1 file | 290.76 KB
Add to list
  1. Search results
  2. Standardization or discretionary spac...

Standardization or discretionary space? A mixed-method study on government-imposed performance measurement instruments in social services

Elien Mathys, Peter Raeymaeckers, Ben Suykens (UGent) and Aaron Van Steenlandt (UGent)
(2024) SOCIAL SERVICE REVIEW. 98(1). p.4-33
Author
Organization
Project
Abstract
Despite the increased scientific interest in performance measurement instruments (PMIs) on the part of funders, governments, and social service organizations (SSOs), studies on professionals' use of these instruments in their daily practice are still scarce. We examine the extent to which the characteristics of the organization and social worker explain how government-imposed PMIs are used. Using a mixed-method approach, we study social workers at a Belgian public SSO. Through in-depth interviews, we provide insight into the factors that influence their decision-making process when they rate clients. Subsequently, we draw on a quantitative survey (N=143) to verify the extent to which the results of our qualitative study are generalizable to a broader population. Our project shows that the instrument's inability to capture complex problems and to include the client's voice means that government-imposed PMIs cannot live up to the promise of standardized outcome measurement.
Keywords
Sociology and Political Science, discretionary space, performance measurement instruments, social service organizations, social work, MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATIONS, POLICY, LESSONS, ACCOUNTABILITY, RESPONSES, JUDGMENT, ADOPTION, QUESTION, SYSTEMS

Downloads

  • Download
    Mathys et al. (2024) Standardization or Discretionary Space - A Mixed-Method Study on Government-Imposed Performance Measurement Instruments in Social Services.pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 290.76 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Mathys, Elien, et al. “Standardization or Discretionary Space? A Mixed-Method Study on Government-Imposed Performance Measurement Instruments in Social Services.” SOCIAL SERVICE REVIEW, vol. 98, no. 1, 2024, pp. 4–33, doi:10.1086/727886.
APA
Mathys, E., Raeymaeckers, P., Suykens, B., & Van Steenlandt, A. (2024). Standardization or discretionary space? A mixed-method study on government-imposed performance measurement instruments in social services. SOCIAL SERVICE REVIEW, 98(1), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.1086/727886
Chicago author-date
Mathys, Elien, Peter Raeymaeckers, Ben Suykens, and Aaron Van Steenlandt. 2024. “Standardization or Discretionary Space? A Mixed-Method Study on Government-Imposed Performance Measurement Instruments in Social Services.” SOCIAL SERVICE REVIEW 98 (1): 4–33. https://doi.org/10.1086/727886.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Mathys, Elien, Peter Raeymaeckers, Ben Suykens, and Aaron Van Steenlandt. 2024. “Standardization or Discretionary Space? A Mixed-Method Study on Government-Imposed Performance Measurement Instruments in Social Services.” SOCIAL SERVICE REVIEW 98 (1): 4–33. doi:10.1086/727886.
Vancouver
1.
Mathys E, Raeymaeckers P, Suykens B, Van Steenlandt A. Standardization or discretionary space? A mixed-method study on government-imposed performance measurement instruments in social services. SOCIAL SERVICE REVIEW. 2024;98(1):4–33.
IEEE
[1]
E. Mathys, P. Raeymaeckers, B. Suykens, and A. Van Steenlandt, “Standardization or discretionary space? A mixed-method study on government-imposed performance measurement instruments in social services,” SOCIAL SERVICE REVIEW, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 4–33, 2024.
@article{01HR4AWWWRRM3AD9XFV4NR7G5P,
  abstract     = {{Despite the increased scientific interest in performance measurement instruments (PMIs) on the part of funders, governments, and social service organizations (SSOs), studies on professionals' use of these instruments in their daily practice are still scarce. We examine the extent to which the characteristics of the organization and social worker explain how government-imposed PMIs are used. Using a mixed-method approach, we study social workers at a Belgian public SSO. Through in-depth interviews, we provide insight into the factors that influence their decision-making process when they rate clients. Subsequently, we draw on a quantitative survey (N=143) to verify the extent to which the results of our qualitative study are generalizable to a broader population. Our project shows that the instrument's inability to capture complex problems and to include the client's voice means that government-imposed PMIs cannot live up to the promise of standardized outcome measurement.}},
  author       = {{Mathys, Elien and Raeymaeckers, Peter and Suykens, Ben and Van Steenlandt, Aaron}},
  issn         = {{0037-7961}},
  journal      = {{SOCIAL SERVICE REVIEW}},
  keywords     = {{Sociology and Political Science,discretionary space,performance measurement instruments,social service organizations,social work,MANAGEMENT,ORGANIZATIONS,POLICY,LESSONS,ACCOUNTABILITY,RESPONSES,JUDGMENT,ADOPTION,QUESTION,SYSTEMS}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{1}},
  pages        = {{4--33}},
  title        = {{Standardization or discretionary space? A mixed-method study on government-imposed performance measurement instruments in social services}},
  url          = {{http://doi.org/10.1086/727886}},
  volume       = {{98}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}
Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: