NATIONAL CENTER FOR

PUBLIC PRODUCTIVITY

NCPP Home

of Public Administration           

NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES

The purpose of this list of annotated resources is to provide citations and descriptions of performance measurement and citizen participation resources for educators.  In addition, a more comprehensive bibliography is also provided on this site.

Ammons, D. N. (1996).  Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

This book is a collection of benchmarks, tools that are useful in gauging and improving the service delivery performance of local governments.  The author indicates that the collection of indicators was gleaned from the documents of more than 100 local governments of various sizes scattered across the nation.  With these benchmarks, municipal officials can make comparisons that will provide them an internal gauge as well as an external gauge, in having the performance of their organization stack against other jurisdictions. Ammons excluded workload measures because of their limited usefulness in cross-jurisdictional comparisons and their inability to answer the “how well” and “how efficiently” questions. He also excluded unit costs because of their extreme vulnerability to inflation, economic differentials, and accounting vagaries. 

He cautions that benchmarks are most effective in the hands of peoples who know how to use them and understand their limitations

 Blanche-Kapplen, S. & Lissman, L. (1996). Development and Use of Outcome Information in Government. Oregon Adult and Family Services. ASPA's Center for Accountability and Performance: Washington, DC.

The Oregon Adult and Family service Division, serving as part of pilot test under the “Oregon Option” for new forms of intergovernmental cooperation with the federal government based on managing for results developed and used performance measures as a core tool in the redesign of its culture and management.  Rather than focusing on process or input measures, it placed the emphasis on outcomes, which would provide quantifiable measures that the legislature, staff, and the public could use to gauge its progress.  It moved from a long held mission of determining eligibility to a mission of promoting client self-sufficiency. It tracked performance measures at various organizational levels and sent performance reports to its partners to stimulate a team approach to achieve the desired results. Through this process, it learned about factors affecting outcomes, its service cycles, and outcome-based systems. 

Broom, C. A. & McGuire, L. A.  (1995).  Performance-Based Government Models: Building a Track Record. Public Budgeting and Finance Journal. 15 (4): 3-17. 

 These authors review performance-based government efforts undertaken by the states of Texas, Oregon, Minnesota, Virginia, and Florida in terms of the stated need, the approach, and the results to date.  They discuss the elements of success and the lessons learned from these performance-based government pioneers.  Such study was undertaken to answer broad questions of whether the performance-based programs implemented by these states could be sustained over long period.

 Campbell, M. D. (1997).  Outcome and Performance Measurement Systems: An Overview, a www document available from the Alliance for Redesigning Government at URL: http://www.alliance.napawash.org/ALLIANCE /Picases.nsf/. 

 Michael Campbell discusses and defines the concept of performance accountability.  He describes a performance accountability system that comprises three components, which are defining outcomes, measuring performance, and reporting results.  In his overview, the performance accountability system is called “outcome and performance measurement system”.

Cothran, D. A. (1993).  Entrepreneurial Budgeting: An Emerging Reform? Public Administration Review, 53 (5): 445-454. 

 Dan Cothran examines three new approaches to budgeting that use decentralization in order to stimulate entrepreneurial behavior by public administrators.  These approaches include a method of expenditure control budgeting used by some municipalities in the United States, the second method of budgeting for results used by several industrialized democratic governments, and the third method of mission budgeting proposed for use to improve US defense budgeting at the Pentagon.  The author claims that, after top policy makers have established their overall control through general guidelines, these approaches decentralize actual management decisions the same way as the market by providing agency managers with incentives to be more efficient and effective.  Furthermore, they aim to make administrators more accountable for the results of their decisions by monitoring actual performance more than in the past. 

 Gianakis, G. (1996).  Integrating Performance Measurement and Budgeting.  In A. Halachmi and G. Bouckaert (eds.), Organizational Performance and Measurement in Public Sector.  Toward Service, Effort and Accomplishment Reporting.  Westport: Quorum Books.

 Gerasimos Gianakis examines the possible benefits, the potential problems, and the salient issues associated with the use of performance data in the typical municipal budget process.  He first outlines the history of budget reform to provide perspectives on the program performance measurement issue.  Second, he describes how performance data might be used in conjunction with a variety of budget formats and examines the ramifications of the use of performance measures in each format.  Finally, he summarizes the prospects for integrating performance measurement and budgeting.  He asserts that the successful implementation of the GASB measurement project will not directly affect the resource allocation processes of municipal governments.  But, he contends that a program measurement system tied to the resource allocation process can help enhance communication in the policy-making process.  He claims that citizen surveys can enhance communication and participation and, hence, the political rationality of the resource allocation process.  Finally, he indicates that, in order to realize the allocative efficiencies promised by the integration of performance measurement and budgeting, the resource allocation decision-making process should use outcome or results-oriented measures of program effectiveness. 

 Hatry, H. P, Fountain, J. R., Jr., & Sullivan, J. M. (1990). Overview. In H. P Hatry, J. R. Fountain, J. M. Sullivan, & L. Kremer (Eds.), Service efforts and accomplish­ments reporting: Its time has come An overview (pp. 1-49). Norwalk, CT: Governmental Accounting Standards Board.

 In these series of research reports, the authors analyze the state of the art in service efforts and accomplishments measurement and reporting for twelve service areas of state and local government.  These reports include a set of performance measures for each service areas, which are intended to serve as a starting point for those governments wishing to establish their own performance measures.

Kravchuck, R. and R. Schack (1996).  Designing Effective Performance Measurement Systems Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review 56: 348-358.

These authors assess the challenges posed for public sector decision makers by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).  They contend that increasing reliance on formal measurement approaches, at the expense of "hands-on" management and evaluation, will present decision-making problems for senior public officials.  Paradoxically, these authors also assert that performance measures may misinform as much as they inform, if users are unaware of the subtle limitations of measurement systems. The authors argue that the rigors of general systems theory can contribute to effective compliance with GPRA. Hence, they present ten general design principles for effective performance measurement systems.

 Lynch, D. T. and Day, S. E. (1996).  Public Sector Performance Measurement. Public Administration Review, 19 (4), 404-419. 

Thomas Lynch and Susan Day review the evolution of the governmental performance measure concept and comment on its contemporary development in terms of history, state of the art, theoretical considerations of performance measurement. They also suggest the implications of the current developments in terms of contemporary and future public administration.

Martin, L. L. (1997). Outcome Budgeting: A New Entrepreneurial Approach To Budgeting. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 9(1), 108-126.

Lawrence Martin attempts to shed some initial lights on the topic of outcome budgeting, which is receiving increased attention in government today. He tries to answer the questions of what outcome budgeting is and whether such concept is really something new or an old one revisited. He provides in his discussion a conceptual framework for thinking about outcome budgeting along with two examples of outcome budgeting drawn from the states of Florida and Oregon.

Melkers, J. &  Willoughby K. (1998). The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review 58(1), 66-73.

The authors examine the trend toward improving performance in government by analyzing the foundations for conducting performance-based budgeting in the United States. The survey of 50 states regarding existing or planned legislation related to PBB as well as administrative requirements allowed them to review legislation and budget guidelines to determine their scope and focus. Their findings show that all but 3 states have performance-based budgeting requirements, and most have established these requirements within the last few years. Thirty-one states have legislated performance-based budgeting to be conducted, while 16 states have initiated this reform through budget guidelines or instructions. Their research serves as a stepping-stone to determining effective methods to create and sustain this budget system in the states.

Oregon Progress Board. (1994). Oregon Benchmarks: Standards for Measuring Statewide Progress and Institutional Performance. A Report to the 1995.  Legislature. December.

Oregon is considered as one of the states in the nation to be at the forefront of current performance measure efforts and has developed benchmarks, useful tool for gauging and improving performance in state government.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

This book identifies ten principles of entrepreneurial characteristics necessary to achieve government reinvention and indicates that flexibility, creativity, and responsiveness of public organizations are catalysts for government change into a decentralized entrepreneurial model. Gaebler and Osborne further assert that the presence of certain characteristics such as mission-driven; results-oriented; enterprising; customer-driven; community-owned; decentralized and market oriented are critical for an entrepreneurial government to exist within the reinvention framework. While these principles of government have been identified with government reinvention, these authors assert that crises and certain conditions can quicken changes in government' s approach to governing. These conditions include fiscal stress, squeeze on administrative expenditure, decentralization of previously centralized controls, threat of privatization of certain government functions. Gaebler and Osborne also observe that factors such as strong leadership, continuity of leadership, a shared vision, trust, and outside resources are potent motivators toward important change in government.

Rubin, I. (1996). Budgeting for Accountability: Municipal Budgeting for the 1990s. Public Budgeting and Finance 16 (Summer): 112-132.

Rubin describes changes that are taking place and suggest additional changes to make local budgeting more accountable. The author indicates that in the 1990s, the increased focus on accountability, due to widespread public belief that government was uncontrollable and responsible only to special interests, has lead local budgeters to embark on efforts to improve the budget accountability to the public.

Shick, A. (1990).  Budgeting for Results: Recent Developments in Five Industrialized Countries.  Public Administration Review, 50 (1), 26-34.

Schick describes findings concerning the experience of five industrialized countries with results-oriented management reforms. He assessed the efforts that Australia, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, and the UK have undertaken to budget for results. He attempts to grasp why the old problem of the use of performance measures in allocating resources has received renewed attention in these democratic countries. He explains that the interest in productivity is clearly related to fiscal stress and to the squeeze imposed on administrative expenditure. Furthermore, delegation of previously centralized controls has stirred a rethinking of the role of the central budget organization. He asserts that the primary contemporary emphasis is not so much on generating new measures as on fostering a managerial environment that is attentive to performance when funds are parceled out. He concludes that in practice, none of the governments has forged a tight relationship between resources and results.

Southern Growth Policies Board. (1996). Results-Oriented Government. A Guide to Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement in the Public sector. Research Triangle Park, NC: Southern Growth Policies Board.

The Board recognized that the lack of widespread familiarity with techniques that have proven effective in both public and private sector applications constitutes a major stumbling block to implementing effective planning and performance measurement. It thus provides a guide for a unique and flexible training program in goal-setting and performance measurement. The training program is designed to provide a comprehensive curriculum in strategic planning, benchmarking best practices, performance measurement, using performance results for project management, performance-based budgeting and contracting, and in creating environment that supports results-oriented management.

U.S. Congressional Budget Office (1993). Using Performance Measures in the Federal Budget Process. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

The Office analyzes the use of performance measures in the budget process. Its study attempts to review the issues raised by performance budgeting in the context of past and current efforts to link performance measures and budgeting. The study focuses on two points, which are the status of the current federal performance measurement efforts and specific observations designed to inject a note of caution into the ongoing debate about performance measurement and budgeting.

PUBLICATIONS JOURNALS & RESEARCH

MODEL PROGRAMS

Last Edited:

06/25/2003

Return to NCPP's
Citizen-Driven Government Performance Home Page
A Project of the National Center for Public Productivity funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation