Advancing public sector performance analysis

Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry

Volumn 24, Issue 5 SPEC. ISS., 2008, Pages 373-389

  Heinrich, Carolyn J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

Evidence based policy; Experimental and nonexperimental evaluation; Performance analysis

Indexed keywords

STATISTICAL METHODS;

EMPIRICAL STUDIES; EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY; EXPERIMENTAL AND NONEXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION; PERFORMANCE ANALYSES; PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS; PUBLIC PROGRAMS; PUBLIC SECTORS;

PROBLEM SOLVING;

EID: 55349121201     PISSN: 15241904     EISSN: 15264025     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asmb.725     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (44)

1. Radin B. The Government Performance and Results Act and the tradition of federal management reform: square pegs in round holes? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2000; 10(1): 11-35.
2. Radin B. Challenging the Performance Movement. Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC, 2006.
3. Heinrich CJ. False or fitting recognition? The use of high performance bonuses in motivating organizational achievements. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2007; 26(2):281-304.
4. Coalition of Evidence Based Policy website, http://coexgov.securcsites. net/index.php [10 September 2006].
5. Sanderson I. Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration 2002; 80(1): 1-22.
6. U.K. Cabinet Office. 1999. Modernising Government. London: Stationery Office, http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm43/4310/4310.htm [8 September 2006].
7. Pear R. A.M.A. to develop measure of quality of medical care. The New York Times, 21 February 2006.
8. Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Aiming for evidence-based gun policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2006; 25(3):691-735.
9. Young K, Ashby D, Boaz A, Grayson L. Social science and the evidence-based policy movement. Social Policy and Society 2002; 1(3):215-224.
10. Shulock N. The paradox of policy analysis: if it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 1999; 18(2):226-244.
11. Heckman JJ, Heinrich CJ, Smith JA. The Performance of Performance Standards. The Journal of Human Resources 2002; 37(4):778-811.
12. Schochet PZ. Does Job Corps work? Impact and benefit-cost findings from the National Job Corps Study. Working Paper, Mathematica Policy Research, 2006.
13. Burghardt J, Schochet PZ, McConnell S, Johnson T, Gritz RM, Glazerman S, Homrighausen J, Jackson R. Does Job Corps work? Mathematica Policy Research Report No. 8140-530, 2001.
14. Ferri M, Amato L, Davoli M. Alcoholics anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence. The Cochrane Library Issue 2006; 3:1-22.
15. Bakalar N. One-two punch for 12 steps? Wisconsin State Journal 2006; July 27:A7.
16. Heckman JJ, Smith JA. Assessing the case for social experiments. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1995; 9(2):85-110.
17. Greenberg DH, Michalopoulos C, Robins PK. Do experimental and nonexperimental evaluations give different answers about the effectiveness of government-funded training programs? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2006; 25(3):523-552.
18. Furstenberg F. Teenage childbearing as a public issue and private concern. Annual Review of Sociology 2003; 29:23-39.
19. Pawson R. Evidence-based policy: in search of a method. ESRC U.K. Centre for evidence-based policy and practice, Working Paper 3, University of London, 2001.
20. Dyke A, Heinrich CJ, Mueser P, Troske K. The effects of welfare-to-work program activities on labor market outcomes. Journal of Labor Economics 2006; 24(3):567-607.
21. Barnow B, Gubits DB. Review of recent pilot, demonstration, research and evaluation initiatives to assist in the implementation of programs under the Workforce Investment Act. Strategic Plan for Pilots, Demonstrations, Research, and Evaluations, 2002-2007, Chapter 5, U.S. Department of Labor, 2002.
22. Greenberg DH, Cebulla A, Bouchet S. Report on a meta-analysis of welfare-to-work program outcomes. Discussion Paper No. 1312-05. Institute for Research on Poverty. 2005.
23. Bloom D, Michalopoulos C. How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Employment and Income: A Synthesis of Research. Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation: New York, 2001.
24. Coalition for Evidence Based Policy. Bringing evidence-driven progress to education. Report of the Coalition for Evidence Based Policy, November 2002.
25. Koretz D. Limitations in the use of achievement tests as measures of educators' productivity. The Journal of Human Resources 2002; 37(4):752-777.
26. Jacob BA. Accountability, incentives and behavior: evidence from school reform in Chicago. Journal of Public Economics 2005; 89(5-6):761- 796.
27. Bevan G, Hood C. What's measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration 2006; 84(3):517-538.
28. Courty P, Marschke G. An empirical investigation of gaming responses to performance incentives. Journal of Labor Economics 2004; 22(1):23-56.
29. Jacob BA, Levitt SD. Rotten apples: an investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2003; CXVIII(3):843-877.
30. Wiseman M. The high performance bonus. The George Washington University, Institute of Public Policy, 2004, WP007, http://www.gwu.edu/~gwipp/papers.htm.
31. Heinrich CJ, Choi Y. Performance-based contracting in social welfare programs. The American Review of Public Administration 2007; 37(4):409-435.
32. Marston G, Watts R. Tampering with the evidence: a critical appraisal of evidence-based policy-making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs 2003; 3(3): 143-163.
33. Rosenstock L, Lee LJ. Attacks on science: the risks to evidence-based policy. American Journal of Public Health 2002; 92(1): 14-18.
34. Vaughn RG. Transparency - the mechanisms: open government and accountability. Issues of Democracy, U.S. Department of State Volume 2000; 5(2):13-20.
35. Callahan RF, Gilbert GR. End-user satisfaction and design features of public agencies. The American Review of Public Administration 2005; 35(1):57-73.
36. Courty P, Heinrich CJ, Marschke GR. Setting the standard in performance measurement systems. International Public Management Journal 2005; 8(3):321-347.
37. Heinrich CJ. Improving public-sector performance management: one step forward, two steps back? Public Finance and Management 2004; 4(3):317-351.
38. Trutko J, Barnow B, Farrell M, Glosser A. Earnings replacement outcomes for dislocated workers: extent of variation and factors accounting for variation in earnings replacement outcomes across state and local workforce investment boards. Final Report to the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration, March 2005.
39. Van Ryzin G. Expectations, performance and citizen satisfaction with urban services. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2004; 23(3):433-448.
40. Kelly JM. The dilemma of the unsatisfied customer in a market model of public administration. Public Administration Review 2005; 65(1):76-84.
41. Churchill GA, Surprenant C. An investigation into the determinants of customer satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research 1982; 19(4):491-504.
42. Smith JA, Whalley A, Wilcox N. Are program participants good evaluators? Working Paper, University of Michigan, 2006.
43. Dillon S. As 2 Bushes try to fix schools, tools differ. The New York Times, 28 September 2006.
44. Thorn CA, Meyer RH. Longitudinal data systems to support data-informed decision making: a tri-state partnership between Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Report of the Wisconsin Center for Education Research, 2006.