現代複雜的經濟體系，是透過各種不同類型的組織，共同運作著；而非營利組織正是其中極為重要的一種類型。 非營利組織和一般企業最主要的差異在於績效的衡量，而衡量績效又必須以客觀完整的績效指標為前提；所以，本研究選定文敎基金會為研究對象，透過對各文敎基金會執行長的問卷調查及深度訪談，了解各基金會對績效指標的看法，以補過去僅從政府主管機關立場，或是從學者看法的角度，來選擇績效指標的不足。 研究結果顯示，基金會在進行自我績效評估時，所採用的績效指標有三個主要向度：1.組織的運作：包括組織、員工、作業、財務，以及組織與外部團體的關係等；2.組織對社會的實質貢獻：包括理念、目標，以及品質等；3.組織與顧客的互動關係：包括組織舉辦活動的頻率、參與活動的顧客人數、活動及顧客人數的成長、員工及義工的人數，以及外部對組織的認同。就單項績效指標來看，最受重視的前三項指標為：1.服務品質；2.資源是否有效運用於最需要的人；以及3.工作及活動對社會的貢獻。而最不受重視的三項指標為：1.基金會成立時間的長短；2.員工人數的成長，及3.參加基金會之會員數。 基本上，績效指標具有層級的特性；本研究的結論可作為第一和第二層級指標的參考，第二層以下的績效指標，以及各層級績效指標的相對權數，則有待更進一步深入的研究。後續研究並可嘗試將政府主管機關、學者，以及本研究的結論加以整合，提出一更趨完整的績效指標架構。

Major differences between nonprofit and for profit organizations can be found from the measurement of institutional effectiveness. An objective and thorough per-formance indicator system is needed to accurately measure performance. Thus the purpose of this research is to identify which proper performance indicators are appli-cable to educational and cultural foundations. Research was conducted through mailed questionnaires and indepth interveiws, seeking the subjective opinions of the executives in these foundations. Central to this study are the foundation executives' opinions, rath-er than those of outside academics or government bureaucrats. This study concluded that all the indicators identified by the foundation exectives can be classified into three major categories: 1. the overall management of the-foundation: including organizations、employees、operations、finance, and the rela-tionship with employees and participating volunteers, and society's recognition of the foundation. As to the individual indicators, the three most valued indicators are: 1. the quality of the service the foundation provides; 2. whether the resources are allocated correctly; and 3. the foundation's contribution to society. Moreover, the three least valued indicators are: 1. the historical duration of the foundation; 2. the growth in the number of its empolyees; and 3. the total membership in the foundation. Basically, the performance indicator system should be hierachical. The conclu-sions of this research are only meaningful at the first and the second levels. The future research could try to search for lower levels' indicators and the relative weights of all indicators at all levels. And the consolidation of the authorities', scholars', and execu-tives' indicator rankings will make the perfomance indicator system more effective.