Legislator uses of public performance reports: Findings from a five-year study

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 7-25

  McDavid, James C ^a   Huse, Irene ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

accountability; measuring effectiveness; performance measurement; program management; public performance reports

Indexed keywords

EID: 84856477151     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: 15570878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1098214011405311     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Aucoin, P. (2008). "New public management" and the quality of government: Coping with the new political governance in Canada. Paper presented at the Conference on New Public Management and the Quality of Government, SOG and the Quality of Government Institute, University of Gotenburg, Sweden.
2. Aucoin P.,Jarvis M.Modernizing government accountability: A framework for reform. 2005;Vol. 2007. Ottawa, ON: Canada School of Public Service.
3. Auditor General of British Columbia. (1999). A review of the estimates process in British Columbia. Victoria: Queen's Printer for British Columbia.
4. Auditor General of British Columbia. (2003). Performance reporting principles for the British Columbia public sector: Principles endorsed by the government, Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Auditor General of British Columbia. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2003/special/performance-reporting-principles-british-columbia-public-.
5. Auditor General of British Columbia. Strengthening public accountability: A journey on a road that never ends. Victoria: Queen's Printer for British Columbia; 2006:.
6. Auditor General of British Columbia. Strengthening accountability in British Columbia: Trends and opportunities in performance reporting. Victoria: Queen's Printer for British Columbia; 2008:.
7. Auditor General of British Columbia & Deputy Ministers' Council. Enhancing accountability for performance in the British Columbia public sector. Victoria: Queen's Printer for British Columbia; 1995:.
8. Auditor General of British Columbia & Deputy Ministers' Council. Enhancing accountability for performance: A framework and an implementation plan-Second joint report. Victoria: Queen's Printer for British Columbia; 1996:.
9. Barzelay M.Central audit institutions and performance auditing: A comparative analysis of organizational strategies in the OECD.Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration. 1997;10:235-260.
10. Behn R.The psychological barriers to performance management: Or 'why isn't everyone jumping on the performance management bandwagon?'.Public Performance & Management Review. 2002;26:5-25.
11. Behn R.Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures.Public Administration Review. 2003;63:586-606.
12. Bevan G.,Hood C.What's measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system.Public Administration. 2006;84:517-538.
13. Borins S.The new public management is here to stay.Canadian Public Administration-Administration Publique Du Canada. 1995;38:122-132.
14. Bouckaert G.,Halligan J.Managing performance: International comparisons. New York, NY: Routledge; 2008:.
15. Credibility, transparency and accountability-Improving the B.C. budget process. Victoria: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations; 1999:.
16. Carroll B.W.,Dewar D.I. Performance management: Panacea or fools' gold?. Handbook of Canadian public administration. Dunn C., ed. Don Mills: Oxford University Press; 2002:413-429.
17. Cavalluzzo K.S.,Ittner C.D.Implementing performance measurement innovations: Evidence from government.Accounting, Organizations and Society. 2004;29:243-267.
18. CCAF-FCVI. (2006a, September2006). Trends in the use of performance information: Conference hears from legislators, auditors, senior officials. Retrieved July 12, 2007, fromhttp://www.ccaf-fcvi.com/english/updates/VictoriaConference09-01-06.html.
19. CCAF-FCVI. (2006b). Users and uses: Towards producing and using better public performance reporting: Perspectives and solutions. Ottawa, ON: CCAF-FCVI.
20. CCAF-FCVI. (2007a, March15). CCAF'S improved public performance reporting program gets guidance from task force. Retrieved July 12, 2007, fromhttp://www.ccaf-fcvi.com/english/updates/PPRPTaskForce03-15-07.html.
21. CCAF-FCVI. (2007b, February15). How to improve public performance reports: Major topic at conference chaired by CCAF. Retrieved July 12, 2007, fromhttp://www.ccaf-fcvi.com/english/updates/VictoriaConference02-15-07.html.
22. Coulson A.Targets and terror: Government by performance indicators.Local Government Studies. 2009;35:271-281.
23. De Bruijn H.Managing performance in the public sector. 2007). Managing performance in the public sector. 2nd ed.London: Routledge; 2007:.
24. de Lancer Julnes P.Performance measurement: An effective tool for government accountability? The debate goes on.Evaluation. 2006;12:219-235.
25. Dubnick M.Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms.Public Performance & Management Review. 2005;28:376-417.
26. Epstein P.D.Get ready: The time for performance measurement is finally coming!.Public Administration Review. 1992;52:513-519.
27. Feller I.Performance measurement redux.The American Journal of Evaluation. 2002;23:435-452.
28. Fryer K.,Antony J.,Ogden S.Performance management in the public sector.International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2009;22:478-498.
29. Gill D. Managing for results in New Zealand-The search for the "Holy Grail?". Holy grail or achievable quest? International perspectives on public sector performance management. Switzerland: KPMG Global Public Sector Practice; 2008:29-40.
30. Gore A.Creating a government that works better and costs less: Report of the national performance review. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1993:.
31. Halachmi A.Performance measurement is only one way of managing performance.International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 2005b;54:502-516.
32. Hatry H.P.Performance measurement: Fashions and fallacies.Public Performance & Management Review. 2002;25:352-358.
33. Hood C.A public management for all seasons?.Public Administration. 1991;69:3-19.
34. Hood C.The "new public management" in the 1980s: Variations on a theme.Accounting, Organizations and Society. 1995;20:93-109.
35. HoodCDixonRWilsonD. (2010). 'Managing by numbers': The way to make public services better? Preparing for a new era of public service performance management. The Public Services Programme, 1-4. Retrieved fromhttp://www.publicservices.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/policy-briefing-nov2009.pdf.
36. Hood C.,Peters G.The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox?.Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2004;14:267-282.
37. Johnson C.,Talbot C.The UK Parliament and performance: Challenging or challenged?.International Review of Administrative Sciences. 2007;73:113-131.
38. Mark M.M.,Henry G.T.The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence.Evaluation. 2004;10:35-57.
39. Mayne J.Challenges and lessons in implementing results-based management.Evaluation. 2007;13:87-109.
40. Ministry of Finance. (2009). Report of the budget process review panel. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/enns_bprr09.pdf.
41. Moynihan D.P.Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform.Public Administration Review. 2006;66:77-89.
42. Moynihan D.P.Dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2008:.
43. Mulgan R.Holding power to account: Accountability in modern democracies. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2003:.
44. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Modernising government: The way forward. Paris: OECD; 2005:.
45. Osborne D.,Gaebler T.Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1992:.
46. Perrin B.Effective use and misuse of performance measurement.The American Journal of Evaluation. 1998;19:367-379.
47. Perrin B.Performance measurement: Does the reality match the rhetoric? A rejoinder to Bernstein and Winston.The American Journal of Evaluation. 1999;20:101-111.
48. Pollitt C.Performance information for democracy: The missing link?.Evaluation. 2006;12:38-55.
49. PollittC. (2007). Who are we, what are we doing, where are we going?Retrieved August 9, 2008, fromhttp://www.koz-gazdasag.hu/images/stories/2per1/8-pollitt.pdf.
50. Pollitt, C. (2008, May). Performance blight and the tyranny of light? Accountablity in advanced performance measurement regimes. Paper presented at the Kettering Seminar, Dayton, Ohio.
51. Pollitt, C. (2010, November). Performance management: A life. Notes supporting a seminar presentation at Australian National University, Canberra.
52. Pollitt, C., Harrison, S., Bal, R., Dowswell, G., & Jerak-Zuiderent, S. (2007). Conceptualising the development of performance measurement systems. Paper presented at the European group for Public Administration Annual Study Group on Performance and Quality, Madrid.
53. Radin B.Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2006:.
54. Radnor Z.,McGuire M.Performance management in the public sector: Fact or fiction?.Performance Management in the Public Sector. 2004;53:245-260.
55. Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. (2006, December). Report of Proceedings. British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia.
56. Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. (2008, November24). Transcript of proceedings (Hansard). Retrieved fromhttp://www.leg.bc.ca/cmt/38thparl/session-4/pac/hansard/P1124am-23.pdf.
57. Standing Committee on Public Accounts. (2009, January). Hansard Verbatim Report. Regina, Saskatchewan: Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan.
58. Steele G. Re-aligning resources and expectations: Getting legislators to do what they 'should'. Paper presented at the 25th Anniversary Conference of CCAF-FCVI; 2005 Ottawa, ON; 2005.
59. Thomas, P. G. (2004a, May). Control, trust, performance and accountability: The changing meaning of four key administrative values. Paper presented at the Professional Planning Exchange-Symposium 2004, Ottawa Conference Centre, Ottawa, Canada.
60. ThomasP. G. (2004b). Performance measurement, reporting and accountability: Recent trends and future directions. Public Policy Paper Series. Retrieved July 20, 2008, fromhttp://www.uregina.ca/sipp/documents/pdf/PPP23_P%20Thomas.pdf.
61. ThomasP. G. (2006). Performance measurement, reporting, obstacles and accountability: Recent trends and future directions. ANU E Press-Australian National University. Retrieved October 25, 2009, fromhttp://epress.anu.edu.au/anzsog/performance/pdf/performance-whole.pdf.
62. Thomas P.G.Public service of the 21st century: Trust, leadership and accountability.Optimum Online. 2007;37:1-5.
63. ThomasP. G. (2008). Why is performance-based accountability so popular in theory and so difficult in practice? In KPMG (Ed.), Holy grail or achievable quest? (pp. 169-191). Zürich: KPMG Global Public Sector Practice.
64. Van Dooren, W. & Van de Walle, S. (Eds.). (2008). Performance information in the public sector: How it is used. Basingstoke, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
65. Wholey J.S.,Hatry H.P.The case for performance monitoring.Public Administration Review. 1992;52:604-610.