Making management count: A case for theory- and evidence-based public management

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 497-505

  Smith, Dennis C ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 67449094415     PISSN: 02768739     EISSN: 15206688     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pam.20444     Document Type: Note

References (63)

1. See Weiss (1995).
2. See Ostom (1999).
3. See Osborne and Gaebler (1992).
4. See Thompson (1967).
5. For Anthony Downs (1967), a major criterion for defining a bureau is the condition that a "major portion of its output is not evaluated by any markets external to the organization by means of voluntary quid pro quo transactions." Consequently, "there is no direct relationship between the services a bureau provides and the income it receives for providing them.".
6. Of course, measuring per se in the public sector is not a new story."Performance" in the public sector was traditionally gauged by increases in budget, staffing, and acquisition of functions (and resources) from other agencies. A number of studies predicated on the assumption that public-sector organizations cannot measure results that matter theorized perverse measures such as ability to satisfy the demands of superiors, explaining the dysfunctions of bureaucracy. They range from the popular works such as Peter (1969) to more scholarly analysis epitomized by Downs (1967) and Tullock (1965).
7. See Auletta (1979).
8. For a history of the creation of the MMPRS, see Ukeles (1982).
9. See Smith (1993).
10. In 2008 the printed report has outcomes measures for almost all agencies, is far shorter, spells out the logic of the agency's mission explicitly, and refers readers to very extensive reports and data available on the Web, including performance data disaggregated to the neighborhood level, at nyc.gov. Examples are weekly precinct crime data, and school-by-school test and attendance data.
11. The original blueprint for the Mayor's Planning, Management, and Reporting System provided for a system very similar to CitiStat, a performance management system modeled after CompStat but developed and used citywide by Mayor O'Malley in Baltimore (see Behn, 2007). At the time of the 1989 study of the MMPRS, a manual that mapped out all parts of the planning and management parts of the system, as well as the reporting, had become a forgotten document (Smith, 1993).
12. For an examination of the dearth of analysis in the Dinkins Administration, see Smith and Grinker (1993).
13. An implicit outcome orientation had been introduced into policing in New York in the problem-solving community policing model of Commissioners Lee Brown and Raymond Kelly because problem solving, to communities, is not increased activity, but increased safety. While never acknowledged by Rudy Giuliani, the now widely known reversal of the long trend upward in crime began in New York City with community policing (1990-1993).
14. A careful and insightful survey of the diffusion of CompStat to police agencies with more than 100 officers found that it "has in fact diffused widely across the landscape of American policing." Unfortunately, the study followed a longstanding tradition in public administration of more interest in the implementation of reforms but less in their results. The study does not report even asking, much less answering, whether CompStat has reduced crime in those cities.
15. See Weisburd et al. (2004). Crime has dramatically declined in Los Angeles, a city very different from New York, since William Bratton brought CompStat there when he became Chief of Police. L.A. is now the second safest big city in America, after New York.
16. See Radin (2006).
17. de Lancer and Holzer (2008).
18. Frederickson and Frederickson (2007).
19. Rivlin. (1971).
20. "Scorecard," the city's systematic observation-based street cleanliness rating system, was a path-breaking outcome measure (people care about the cleanliness of their street, not the tons of garbage collected, as reported before Scorecard) and have been fairly widely imitated (Smith, 1993). For a general work on performance measurement.
21. see Hatry et al. (1990).
22. For a critical discussion of the issues confronted in implementing GPRA, see Radin (1997).
23. See also Roberts (1997).
24. This was Thorstein Veblen's argument: that developing countries did not have to start the industrial revolution where England did, but could all the lesson learned at start at the higher level. See Veblen (1898).
25. See Benson (2006).
26. See Safir (n.d.).
27. Frank Anechiarico and the author have criticized performance management practices for failing to include issues of ethics and integrity that are integral to public sector outcomes (see Anechiarico & Smith, 2006)
28. Smith and Bratton (2001).
29. Weiss (1995).
30. Smith and Purtell (2007).
31. GAO, 2004
32. See Radin (2006).
33. This discussion draws on Weiss (1983).
34. Managers of some processes need weekly or even daily reporting, their bosses may find the monthly reports are sufficient to their needs, and twice a year to the public may be as much as citizens have need of or time for, as long as the performance data are indicators of conditions that affect them, reported on a scale that is relevant to them.
35. Kovner, D'Aquila, and Fine (forthcoming).
36. See http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/awards.html?id=3722. The author was the site visitor for this Innovation Award Finalist review.
37. Anechiarico, F., & Smith, D. C. (2006, June). Performance as integrity, integrity as performance: A new paradigm for public administration. Presented at the ASPA conference, Public Sector Performance: A Trans-Atlantic Dialogue, in Leuven, Belgium.
38. Auletta, K. (1979). The streets were paved with gold. New York: Random House.
39. Behn, R. (2007). What all mayors would like to know about Baltimore's CitiStat. IBM Center for the Business of Government.
40. Benson, L. (2006, November). What makes Washington State's GMAP program tick? Prepared for the 28th annual research conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Madison, Wisconsin.
41. de Lancer, P., & Holzer, M. (2008). Performance measurement: Building theory, improving practice. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
42. Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
43. Frederickson D. G., & Frederickson, G. (2007). Measuring the performance of the hollow state. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
44. General Accounting Office (GAO). (2004). Results-oriented government: GPRA has established a solid foundation for achieving greater results. Washington, DC: Author.
45. Hatry, H. P., Fountain, J. R., Jr., Sullivan, J. M., & Kremer, L. (1990). Service efforts and accomplishments reporting: Its time has come. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).
46. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison and Wesley.
47. Ostom, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 35-71). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
48. Peter, L. J. (1969). The Peter principle. New York: William Morrow & Co.
49. Radin, B. (1997, November). The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hydraheaded monster or flexible management tool? Presented at Nineteenth Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy and Management, Washington, DC.
50. Radin, B. (2006). Challenging the performance movement, accountability, complexity and democratic value. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
51. Rivlin, A. (1971). Systematic thinking for social action. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
52. Roberts, A. (1997). Performance based organizations: Assessing the Gore Plan. Public Administration Review, 57, 465-477.
53. Safir, H. (n.d). The CompStat process. Prepared by the Office of Management Analysis and Planning, Police Department of the City of New York.
54. Smith, D., & Grinker, W. (1993, August). HRA adrift: Social spending without direction. City Journal.
55. Smith, D. C. (1993, October). Performance management in New York City: The Mayor's Management Plan and Report System in the Koch Administration. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Research Conference of the Association of Public Policy and Management, Washington, DC.
56. Smith, D. C., & Bratton, W. (2001). Performance management in New York City: CompStat and the revolution in police management. Quicker, better, cheaper? Managing performance in American government. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
57. Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw Hill.
58. Tullock, G. (1965). The politics of bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.
59. Ukeles, J. (1982). Doing more with less: Turning public management around. New York: Amacom.
60. Veblen, T. (1898). Why is economics not an evolutionary science. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12.
61. Viteritti, J. P. (1978). New York's Management Plan and Reporting System: A descriptive analysis. Public Administration Review, 38, 376-381.
62. Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S. D., Greenspan, R., & Willis, J. J. (2004). The growth of Comp-Stat in American policing. Police Foundation Reports.
63. Weiss, C. (1995). Nothing as practical as a good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods and contexts (pp. 1-16). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.