What's so Controversial about Performance Measurement? a Historical Analysis

Background and Purpose

Performance measurement is a longstanding practice in the profession of social work in the United States, yet controversies over the merits of performance measurement persist. In this paper, we historically trace the debates surrounding performance measurement. We ask: How has the relationship between performance measurement and the mission of social work been portrayed throughout the history of social work and what are the implications for social work scholarship and practice today?   

Methods:

We employed a systematic literature review to collect our data. Data was collected from two types of sources: (1) academic databases (Articles Plus, Web of Science, Social Services Abstract) and (2) the National Conference on Social Welfare Proceedings (Conference of Charities and Correction 1882-1916; National Conference of Charities and Correction 1917-1956). The review was restricted to publications that are written in English and pertain to performance measurement in the field of social work in the United States. This search yielded 154 distinct papers, with publications dating from 1894 to 2018.

Our analytical approach is informed by discourse analysis. We view the term, performance measurement, as an ongoing socio-cultural, historically contingent project and a site of struggle where definitions and descriptions of social life are contested, such as the boundaries of the social work profession and what can (and cannot) be measured.

Results:

An analysis of the historical and contemporary literature reveals that three controversies have persisted in the social work scholarship over performance measurement: (1) the role of improving performance measurement practices in the professionalization of the social work field, (2) how performance measurement practices interact with the multiple accountabilities social workers face, including clients, the public, the profession, and the social scientific field (e.g. the impact of expert versus local knowledge in informing performance metrics), and (3) the push and pull of ideological (in)congruences between performance measurement and the values and mission of social work (e.g. decoupling or outcome myopia). Despite the persistence of these controversies, we found that the tacit assumptions that undergird them, including notions of evidence in science, what constitutes a profession, and gender roles, have shifted over time, and that these shifts are closely linked to historical changes in the broader environment.

Conclusions and Implications

We conclude that throughout history, performance measurement discursively presents as a double-edged sword: it can advance the field scientifically while also reducing professional autonomy. Meanwhile, discussion of performance measurement often returns to the idea that the use of new accountability technologies can advance the field’s legitimacy and transparency while also introducing top-down, standardized processes which may further limit professional discretion. While these are important tensions, we emphasize that undergirding them are tacit assumptions about normative ideals social workers care about, including the relationship between evidence and equity and “rationality” and gender roles, and that these assumptions have shifted over time. Our paper therefore invites reflection on the role of performance measurement in current social work practice with the goal of imagining future alternatives.