The professional researcher as change agent in the government-performance movement

Public Administration Review

Volumn 62, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 699-711

  Coplin, William D ^a   Merget, Astrid E ^a   Bourdeaux, Carolyn ^a  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041813281     PISSN: 00333352     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1540-6210.00252     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ammons, David. 1994. The Role of Professional Associations in Establishing and Promoting Performance Standards for Local Government. Public Productivity and Management Review 17(3): 281-98.
2. _, ed. 1995a. Accountability for Performance: Measurement and Monitoring in Local Government, Practical Management Series. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
3. _. 1995b. Overcoming the Inadequacies of Performance Measurement in Local Government: The Case of Libraries and Leisure Services. Public Administration Review 55(1): 37-47.
4. _. 1996. Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
5. _. 1997. Raising the Performance Bar. Locally. Public Management 79(9): 10-16.
6. Ammons, David, Charles Coe, and Michael Lombardo. 2001. Performance-Comparison Projects in Local Government: Participant Perspectives. Public Administration Review 61(1): 100-10.
7. Barrett, Katherine, and Richard Greene. 1999. Grading the States: A Management Report Card. Governing, February 1999. Available at http://www.governing.com/gpp/gp9intro.htm. Accessed August 21, 2000.
8. _. 2000. Grading the Cities: A Report Card on Urban Management. Governing 13(5): 22-28.
9. Berman, Evan, and Xiaohu Wang. 2000. Performance Measurement in U.S. Counties: Capacity for Reform. Public Administration Review 60(5): 409-20.
10. Bruder, Kenneth, and Edward Gray. 1994. Public Sector Benchmarking: A Practical Approach. Public Management 76(9): 9-14.
11. Coe, Charles. 1999. Local Government Benchmarking: Lessons from Two Major Multigovernment Efforts. Public Administration Review 59(2): 110-23.
12. Community Benchmarks Program. 1998 Selected Government Performance Outcomes for the City of Syracuse: Comparisons of the Six Residential TNT Sectors in the Areas of Crime, Fire, Streets, Trash and Parks. Alan K. Campbell Public Affairs Institute, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. Available at http:// www.maxwell.syr.edu/benchmarks/newsite/docs/Lobfiles/ lobpart4.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2000.
13. Cope, Glen Hahn. 1987. Local Government Budgeting and Productivity: Friends or Foes? Public Productivity Review 41: 45-57.
14. _. 1997. Bureaucratic Reform and Issues of Political Responsiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7(3): 461-71.
15. Coplin, William D., and Carol Dwyer. 2000. Does Your Government Measure Up? Basic Tools for Local Officials and Citizens. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
16. Danziger, Sheldon. 1998. Welfare Reform Policy from Nixon to Clinton: What Role for Social Science? Paper presented at the Social Sciences and Policy Making Symposium, March 13-14, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
17. deLeon, Linda, and Robert Denhardt. 2000. The Political Theory of Reinvention. Public Administration Review 60(2): 89-97.
18. Durant, Robert. 1999. The Political Economy of Results-Oriented Management in the "Neoadministrative State": Lessons from the NCDHHS Experience. American Review of Public Administration 29(4): 307-31.
19. Education Week on the Web. 2000. Quality Counts '99. January 11, 1999. Available from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/ gc99/. Accessed August 1, 2000.
20. Fairfax County. 1999. A Manual For Performance Measurement.
21. Frederickson, H. George. 1996. Comparing the Reinventing Government Movement and New Public Administration. Public Administration Review 56(3): 263-69.
22. Gearhardt, Jon. 1999. Activity-Based Management and Performance Measurement Systems. Government Finance Review 15(1): 13-16.
23. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1997. Measuring Performance: Strengths and Weaknesses. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
24. Gore, Al. 1994. Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less: Status Report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
25. Governmental Accounting Standards Board and National Academy of Public Administration. 1997. Survey of State and Local Government Use and Reporting of Performance Measures, First Questionnaire Results. Available at www.rutgers.edu/ Accounting/raw/seagov/pmgl project/survey/toc.html and http://www.rutgers.edu/Accounting/raw/seagov/pmg/project/ survey/toc.html. Accessed August 7, 2000.
26. Grifel, Stuart. 1994. Organizational Culture: Its Importance in Performance Measurement. Public Management 76(9): 519-23.
27. Grizzle, Gloria. 1987. Linking Performance to Funding Decisions: What is the Budgeter's Role? Public Productivity and Management Review 10(3): 33-45.
28. Hatry, Harry. 1994. Eleven Ways to Make Performance Measurement More Useful to Public Managers. Public Management 16(9): S15-18.
29. _. 1999. Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
30. Hou, Yilin, and Patricia Wallace Ingraham. 1999. An Education-Information Model of the Civil Society. Paper presented at Symposium on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, October 22-23, Maxwell School, Syracuse University.
31. International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 1998. ICMA's Center for Performance Management. Public Management 80(7): 24.
32. Kittredge, William, and Gerald Kissler. 1998. Oregon Shines: Updating the Oregon State Strategic Plan. Social Science Journal 35(4): 543-63.
33. Kopczynski, Mary, and Michael Lombardo. 1999. Comparative Performance Measurement: Insights and Lessons Learned from a Consortium Effort. Public Administration Review 59(2): 124-34.
34. Kravchuk, Robert S., and Ronald W. Schack. 1996. Designing Effective Performance-Measurement Systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review 56(4): 348-58.
35. Lynch, Thomas, and Susan Day. 1996. Public Sector Performance Measurement. Public Administration Quarterly 19(4): 404-19.
36. Mandell, Lee. 1997. Performance Measurement and Management Tools in North Carolina Local Government: Revisited. Public Administration Quarterly 21(1): 96-127.
37. Melkers, Julia, and Katherine Willoughby. 1998. The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review 58(1): 66-73.
38. Milakovich, Michael. 1995. Improving Service Quality: Achieving High Performance in the Public and Private Sectors. Delray Beach, FL: St. Lucie Press.
39. _. 1998. The Status of Results-Driven Customer Service Quality in Government. Public Productivity and Management Review 17(2): 47-54.
40. Moe, Ronald, and Robert Gilmour. 1995. Rediscovering the Principles of Public Administration: The Neglected Foundation of Public Law. Public Administration Review 55(2): 135-43.
41. Oregon Progress Board. 2000. Benchmark Update, July 10, 2000. Available at http://www.econ.state.or.us/opb. Accessed August 1, 2000.
42. Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin Books.
43. O'Toole, Daniel, Brian Stipak, and Jack Rabin. 1988. Budgeting and Productivity Revisited: The Local Government. Public Productivity and Management Review 12(1): 1-12.
44. Poister, Theodore, and Gregory Streib. 1994. Municipal Management Tools from 1976 to 1993. Public Productivity and Management Review 18(2): 115-25.
45. _. 1999. Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice. Public Administration Review 59(4): 325-35.
46. Portland Multnomah Progress Board. 1996. 1996 Annual Report: Community Benchmarks. Portland, OR: City of Portland.
47. Rivenbark, William C., and K. Lee Carter. 2000. Benchmarking and Cost Accounting: The North Carolina Approach. Journal of Public Budgeting. Accounting and Financial Management 12(1): 125-37.
48. Theurer, Jim. 1998. Seven Pitfalls to Avoid When Establishing Performance Measures. Public Management 80(7): 21-24.
49. Voeglin, Eric. 1987. The New Science of Politics: An Introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50. Walters, Jonathan. 1998. Measuring Up: Governing's Guide to Performance Measurement for Geniuses (and Other Public Managers). Washington, DC: Governing Books.
51. Wang, Xiaohu, and Gerasimos A. Gianakis. 1999. Public Officials' Attitudes towards Subjective Performance Measures. Public Productivity and Management Review 22(4): 537-53.
52. Wholey, Joseph. 1999. Performance-Based Management. Public Productivity and Management Review 22(3): 288-307.
53. Wholey, Joseph, and Harry Hatry. 1992. The Case for Performance Monitoring. Public Administration Review 52(6): 604-10.