Opportunities for program evaluators to facilitate performance-based management

Evaluation and Program Planning

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 63-71

  Scheirer, M A ^a   Newcomer, K ^b  

^a Eval Perf Measures Consultant   (United States)

^b GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Data quality; Evaluation uses; GPRA; Indicators; Logic models; Outcomes measurement; Performance measurement

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002529467     PISSN: 01497189     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0149-7189(00)00047-1     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Behn, R. D. & Kant, P. A. (1999). Strategies for avoiding the pitfalls of performance contracting. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22(4), 420-489.
2. Bickman, L. (1987). Using program theory in evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, Vol. 33, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3. Chen, H. -T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
4. Cooley, L. (1994). Challenges and opportunities for performance measurement at USAID. USAID Evaluation News, 1.
5. Hatry, H. (1999). Performance measurement: getting results, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
6. Hendricks, M. (2000). Attribution: can we soothe the achilles' heel of performance measurement? Presentation at the CA/GAO/GWU Brown Bag Lunch Services, 19 April 2000.
7. MacLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: a tool for telling your program's performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 65-72.
8. Marquart, J. M. (1990). A pattern-matching approach to link program theory and evaluation data. In L. Bickman, Advances in program theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation, #47. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
9. Mayne, J. (1999). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance measures sensibly. Paper published by the Canadian Office of the Auditor General of Canada, June.
10. Perrin, E. B., Durch, J. S. & Skillman, S. M. (Eds.). (1999). Health Performance Measurement in the Public Sector: Principles and Policies for Implementing an Information Network. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
11. Reynolds, A. F. (1998). Confirmatory program evaluation: a method for strengthening causal inference. American Journal of Evaluation, 19 (2), 203-221.
12. Scheirer, M. A. (1994). Designing and using process evaluation. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry & K. E. Newcomber, Handbook of practical program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Scheirer, M. A. (2000). Getting more 'bang' for your performance measures 'bucks'. American Journal of Evaluation, in press.
14. US General Accounting Office (1998a). (GAO/GGD-98-26). Performance measurement and evaluation: Definitions and relationships, Washington, DC: USGAO.
15. US General Accounting Office (1998b). (GAO/GGD-10.1.20). The results act: an evaluator's guide to assessing agency annual performance plans. Washington, DC: USGAO.
16. United Way of America (1996). Measuring program outcomes: a practical approach. Alexandria, VA: United Way.
17. Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation, (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18. Wholey, J. S. (1979). Evaluation: Promise and performance, Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
19. Wholey, J. S. (1987). Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory. In L. Bickman, Using program theory in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, #33. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20. Wholey, J. S. (1999). Performance-based measurement: responding to the challenges. Public Productivity and Management Review, 2 (3), 288-307.