Performance measurement in U.S. counties: Capacity for reform

Public Administration Review

Volumn 60, Issue 5, 2000, Pages 409-420

  Berman, Evan ^a   Wang, XiaoHu ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040438787     PISSN: 00333352     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/0033-3352.00104     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ammons, David. 1995. Accountability for Performance: Measurement and Monitoring in Local Government. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
2. _. 1996. Benchmarking for Local Government. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
3. Berman, Evan. 1998. Productivity in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
4. Berry, Frances, William Berry, and Stephen Foster. 1998. The Determinants of Success in Implementing an Expert System in State Government. Public Administration Review 58(4): 293-306.
5. Broom, Cheryle. 1995. Performance-Based Government Models: Building a Track Record. Public Budgeting and Finance 15(4): 3-17.
6. Brown, Mark, Darcy Hitchcock, and Marsha Willard. 1994. Why TQM Fails (And What To Do About It). Chicago: Irwin.
7. Carroll, James. 1995. The Rhetoric of Reform and Political Reality in the National Performance Review. Public Administration Review 55(3): 302-11.
8. Center for Accountability and Performance. 1998. Performance Measurement: Concepts and Techniques. Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.
9. Cigler, Beverly. 1995. County Governance in the 1990s. State and Local Government Review 27(1): 55-70
10. Cope, Glen H. 1997. Bureaucratic Reform and Issues of Political Responsiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(3): 461-71.
11. Counties USA. 1997. A Directory of United States Counties. Detroit, MI: Omnigraphics.
12. Gerhart, Craig. 1995. Management Involvement. In Accountability for Performance, edited by D. Ammons, 187-95. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
13. Gianakis, Jerry, and Jeffrey Stone. 1997. Measuring the Performance of the Municipal Organization: An Implementation Tale of Two Cities. Administrative Theory and Praxis 19(3): 73-87.
14. Greiner, John. 1996. Positioning Performance Measurement for the Twenty-First Century. In Organizational Performance Measurement in the Public Sector, edited by A. Halachmi and G. Bouckeart, 11-50. Westport, CT: Quorum.
15. Grifel, Stuart. 1994. Organizational Culture: Its Importance in Performance Measurement. Public Management 76(9): 19-20.
16. Grizzle, Gloria. 1982. Measuring State and Local Government Performance: Issues to Resolve before Implementing a Performance Measurement System. State and Local Government Review 14(September): 132-6.
17. Hakes, J. 1996. Comparing Outputs to Outcomes. PA Times 19(10): 1-2.
18. Hatry, Harry, et al. 1992. How Effective Are Your Community Services? Procedures for Measuring Their Quality. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute and International City/County Manager Association.
19. Harris, Jean. 1995. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Standards: Fundamental Questions of an Emerging Concept. Public Budgeting and Finance 15(4): 18-37.
20. Holzer, Marc, and Kathe Callahan. 1998. Government at Work: Best Practices and Model Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
21. Honadle, Beth. 1981. A Capacity Building Framework: A Search for Concept and Purpose. Public Administration Review 41(5): 575-80.
22. International City/County Management Association. 1998. Municipal Yearbook 1998. Washington, DC: International City/ County Management Association.
23. Jones, L.R., and Jerry McCaffery. 1997. Implementing the Chief Financial Officers Act and the Government Performance and Results Act in the Federal Government. Public Budgeting and Finance 17(1): 35-55.
24. Joyce, Philip. 1993a. The Reiterative Nature of Budget Reform: Is There Anything New in Federal Budgeting? Public Budgeting and Finance 14(3): 36-46.
25. _.1993b. Using Performance Measures for Federal Budgeting: Proposals and Prospects. Public Budgeting and Finance 14(4): 3-17.
26. Keehley, P., S. Medlin, S. MacBride, and L. Longmore. 1997. Benchmarking for Best Practices in the Public Sector. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27. Kettl, Donald. 1994. Reinventing Government? Appraising the National Performance Review. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
28. Leithe, Joni. 1997. Implementing Performance Measurement in Government. Chicago, IL: Government Finance Officer Association.
29. Lewis, Edward, and George Taylor. 1994. Policymaking/Implementing Activities of Elected County Executives and Appointed County Administrators: Does Form of Government Make A Difference? International Journal of Public Administration 15(5): 935-53.
30. Mascarenhas, R.C. 1996. Searching for Efficiency in the Public Sector: Interim Evaluation of Performance Budgeting in New Zealand. Public Budgeting and Finance 16(3): 13-26.
31. Melkers, Julia, and Katherine Willoughby. 1998. The State of States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 of 50. Public Administration Review 58(1): 66-73.
32. Menzel, Donald. 1996. The American County: Frontiers of Knowledge. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
33. Mikesell, John. 1995. Fiscal Administration: Analysis and Applications for the Public Sector. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
34. Poister, Theodore, and Gregory Streib. 1999. Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice. Public Administration Review 59(4): 325-35.
35. Pressman, Jeffrey, and Aaron Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
36. Radin, Beryl. 1998. The Government Performance and Results Act: Hydra-Headed Monster or Flexible Management Tool. Public Administration Review 58(4): 307-16.
37. Romzek Barbara. 1998. Where the Buck Stops. In Transforming Government, edited by P. Ingraham, J. Thompson, and R. Sanders, 193-219. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
38. Rubin, Irene. 1997. The Politics of Public Budgeting: Getting and Spending, Borrowing and Balancing. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
39. Sabatier, Paul, and Daniel Mazmanian. 1979. The Condition of Effective Implementation. Policy Analysis 5(4): 481-504.
40. Salzer, Mark, Carol Nixon, L. James, A. Shut, Marc Karver, and Leonard Bickman, 1997. Validating Quality Indicators: Quality as Relationship Between Structure, Process, and Outcome. Evaluation Review 21(3): 293-309.
41. Stokes, Anthony, and Beverly Monaco. 1997. Can Technology Really Help Your Results Act Implementation? The Public Manager 26(3): 21-4.
42. Streib, Gregory. 1992. Professional Skill and Support or Democratic Principles. Administration and Society 24(1): 22-40.
43. Streib, Gregory, and William Waugh. 1991. Probing the Limits of County Reform in an Era of Scarcity: A National Survey of County Administrators and Executives. Public Administration Quarterly 15 (3): 378-95.
44. Svara, James. 1993. The Possibility of Professionalism in County Management. International Journal of Public Administration 16(12): 2051-80.
45. Theurer, Jim. 1998. Seven Pitfalls to Avoid (When Establishing Performance Measures). Public Management 80(7): 21-4.
46. Tigue Patricia, and Dennis Strachota. 1994. The Use of Performance Measures in City and County Budgets. Chicago, IL: Government Finance Officers Association.
47. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1997. Census of Governments: Finances of County and Municipal Governments. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
48. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1997. The Result Act: Observations on the Office of Management and Budget's July 1997 Draft Strategic Plan. Washington DC: General Accounting Office.
49. _.1998. The Results Act: Assessment of the Government-wide Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 1999. Washington DC: General Accounting Office.
50. Van Wart, Montgomery. 1995. The First Step in the Reinvention Process: Assessment. Public Administration Review 55(5): 429-38
51. Walters, Jonathan. 1998. Measuring Up. Washington, DC: Governing Books.
52. Wholey, Joseph, and Harry Hatry. 1992. The Case for Performance Monitoring. Public Administration Review 52(6): 604-10.
53. Wildavksy, Aaron. 1972. The Self-Evaluating Organization. Public Administration Review 41(4): 480-5.