Challenges and strategies in applying performance measurement to federal public health programs

Evaluation and Program Planning

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 365-372

  DeGroff, Amy ^a   Schooley, Michael ^a   Chapel, Thomas ^a   Poister, Theodore H ^b  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION AND HEALTH PROMOTION   (United States)

^b GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Performance management; Performance measurement; Program evaluation

Indexed keywords

ACCOUNTABILITY; DECISION MAKING; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; PUBLIC HEALTH;

ARTICLE; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC HEALTH; STANDARD; UNITED STATES; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; STANDARDS;

EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; PUBLIC HEALTH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 77954044119     PISSN: 01497189     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Baldridge National Quality Program. Available at: Accessed 03/06/2010. http://www.baldrige.nist.gov/.
2. Behn R.D. Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review 2003, 63(5):586-606.
3. Blalock A.B., Barnow B.S. Is the new obsession with performance management masking the truth about social programs?. Quicker better cheaper? Managing performance in American Government 2001, Rockefeller Institute Press, Albany, NY. D.W. Forsythe (Ed.).
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). About CDC. Available at: Accessed May 25, 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm.
5. DeGroff, A. (2009). New public management and governance collide: Federal-level performance measurement in networked public management environments. Dissertation. Georgia Institute of Technology.
6. Derthick M. New towns in town: Why a federal program failed 1972, Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
7. Fossett J., Gais T., Thompson F.J. Federalism and performance measurement: Health insurance, food stamps, and the take-up challenge. Quicker better cheaper? managing performance in American Government 2001, Rockefeller Institute Press, Albany, NY. D.W. Forsythe (Ed.).
8. Frederickson, D. G. (2003). Performance measurement and third party government: A study of the implementation of the government performance and results act in five health agencies. Dissertation. Indiana University.
9. Government Executive. 2009. Available at: Accessed December 4, 2009. http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0509/051109e1.htm.
10. Government Performance and Results Act. (1993). Public Law 103-162.
11. Grizzle G.A. Performance measurement and dysfunction: The dark side of quantifying work. Public Performance and Management Review 2002, 25(4):363-369.
12. Harmon M.M., Mayer R.T. Organization theory for public administration 1986, Chateline Press, Burke, VA.
13. Hatry H.P. Where the rubber meets the road: Performance measurement for state and local public agencies. New Directions for Evaluation 1997, 75(Fall):31-44.
14. Hatry H.P. Performance measurement: Getting results 1999, Urban Institute Press, Washington, DC.
15. Healthy People. (2010). Available at: Accessed May 25, 2009. http://www.healthypeople.gov/.
16. Heinrich C.J. Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review 2002, 62(6):712-725.
17. Heinrich C.J. Evidence-based policy and performance management: Challenges and prospects is two parallel movements. The American Review of Public Administration 2006, 37(3):255-277.
18. Hill C.J., Lynn L. Is hierarchical governance in decline? Evidence from empirical research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2005, 15(2):173-195.
19. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (2009). Available at: Accessed May 25, 2009. http://www.ihi.org/ihi.
20. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies The future of the public's health in the 21st century 2003, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
21. International Organization for Standardization. (2009). Available at: Accessed May 25, 2009. http://www.iso.org/iso/home.htm.
22. Jennings E.T., Haist M.P. Putting performance measurement in context. The art of governance: Analyzing management and administration 2004, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC. P.A. Ingraham, L.E. Lynn (Eds.).
23. Kelly J.M. Why we should take performance measurement on faith (facts being hard to come by and not terribly important). Public Performance and Management Review 2002, 25(4):375-380.
24. Light P.C. The tides of reform: Making government work 1945-1995 1997, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
25. Mark M.M., Henry G.T., Julnes G. Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs 2000, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
26. National Breast and Cervical Early Detection Program. (2009). Available at: Accessed May 25, 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/NBCCEDP.
27. National Public Health Performance Standards Program. (2009). Available at: Accessed May 25, 2009. http://www.phf.org/nphpsp.
28. Newcomer K.E. Using performance measurement to improve programs. New Directions for Evaluation 1997, 75:5-14.
29. Office of Management and Budget. (2009). Bush's President's Management Agenda, including PART. Available at: Accessed March 6, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/rewrite/budintegration/pma_index.html.
30. Osborne D., Gaebler T. Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector 1992, Penguin Books, New York.
31. Perrin B. Effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation 1998, 19(3):367-379.
32. Peters B.G., Pierre J.B. Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 1998, 8(2):223-243.
33. Poister T.H. Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations 2003, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
34. Pressman J., Wildavsky A. Implementation 1973, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
35. Radin B.A. 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):111-135.
36. Radin B.A. A comparative approach to performance management: Contrasting the experience of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. International Journal of Public Administration 2003, 26(1):1355-1376.
37. Radin B.A. Challenging the performance movement 2006, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.
38. Schalock R.L., Bonham G.S. Measuring outcomes and managing for results. Evaluation and Program Planning 2003, 26:229-235.
39. Schick A. Getting performance measures to measure up. Quicker better cheaper? managing performance in American Government 2001, Rockefeller Institute Press, Albany, NY. D.W. Forsythe (Ed.).
40. Six Sigma®: Quality Resources for Achieving Six Sigma Results. Available at: Accessed 03/06/2010. http://www.isixsigma.com/.
41. Starr G., Rogers T., Schooley M., Porter S., Wiesen E., Jamison N. Key outcome indicators for evaluating comprehensive tobacco control programs 2005, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
42. U.S.Government Accountability Office Performance measurement and evaluation: Definitions and relationships 2005, U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-05-739SP, Washington, DC.
43. U.S.Government Accountability Office OMB's PART reviews increased agencies' attention to improving evidence of program results 2005, U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-06-67, Washington, DC.
44. U.S.Government Accounting Office Managing for results: Analytic challenges in measuring performance 1997, U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138, Washington, DC.
45. U.S.Government Accounting Office Managing for results: Prospects for effective implementation of GPRA 1997, U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/AIMD-97-113, Washington, DC.
46. U.S.Government Accounting Office Managing for results: Measuring program results that are under limited federal control 1998, U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/GGD-99-16, Washington, DC.
47. U.S.Government Accounting Office Continuing challenges to effective GPRA implementation. Committee on government reform 2000, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.
48. U.S.Government Accounting Office Results-oriented government: GPRA has established a solid foundation for achieving greater results 2004, U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO-04-38, Washington, DC.
49. Weiss C.H. Evaluation 1998, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 2nd ed.
50. Wilson J.Q. Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it 1989, Basic Books.
51. Wholey J.S. Performance based management: Responding to the challenges. Public Productivity and Management Review 1999, 22(3):288-307.