Public performance management systems: Embedding practices for improved success

Public Performance and Management Review

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 108-132

  Newcomer, Kathryn ^a   Caudle, Sharon ^b  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

accountability; performance management; performance informed budgeting; results management

Indexed keywords

EID: 84864940164     PISSN: 15309576     EISSN: 15579271     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2753/PMR1530-9576350106     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (61)

1. Behn, R.D. (2007). What all mayors would like to know about Baltimore's CitiStat performance strategy. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
2. Behn, R.D. (2008). Designing PerformanceStat. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(2), 206-235.
3. Boyle, R. (2009). Performance reporting: Insights from international practice. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
4. Brass, C.T. (Ed.). (2011). Obama administration agenda for government performance: Evolution and related issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service Memorandum. Washington, DC.
5. Brass, C.T., Williams, E.D., & Nunez-Neto, B. (Eds.) (2010). Congress and program evaluation: An overview of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and related issues. Congressional Research Service Report. Washington, DC.
6. Breul, J.D., & Kamensky, J.M. (2008). Federal government reform: Lessons from Clinton's "Reinventing Government" and Bush's "Management Agenda" initiatives. Public Administration Review, 68(6 [Supplement]), 1009-1026.
7. Bromberg, D. (2009). Performance measurement: A system with a purpose or a purposeless system? Public Performance & Management Review, 33(2), 214-221.
8. Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059-1066.
9. Courty, P., Heinrich, C.J., & Marschke, G.R. (2005). Setting the standard in performance measurement systems. International Public Management Journal, 8(3), 321-347.
10. Curristine, T. (2005a). Government performance: Lessons and challenges. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(1), 127-151.
11. Curristine, T. (2005b). Performance information in the budget process: Results of the OECD 2005 Questionnaire. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(2), 87-131.
12. Curristine, T. (2008). Sequencing and pacing of performance budgeting reforms. Summary of the Fifth Annual Meeting of SBO Network on Performance and Results, October 27-28. Paris: OECD.
13. De Bruijn, H. (2002). Performance measurement in the public sector: Strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(7), 578-594.
14. Forsythe, D.W. (2001). Pitfalls in designing and implementing performance management systems. In D.W. Forsythe (Ed.), Quicker, better, cheaper: Managing performance in American government (pp. 519-551). Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
15. Frederickson, D.G., & Frederickson, G. (2006). Measuring the performance of the hollow state. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
16. Fryer, K., Antony, J., & Ogden, S. (2009). Performance management in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22(6), 478-498.
17. Hammer, M. (2007). The 7 deadly sins of performance measurement and how to avoid them. Sloan Management Review, 48(3), 19-28.
18. Hatry, H.P., Morley, E., Rossman, S.B., & Wholey, J.S. (2003). How federal programs use outcome information: Opportunities for federal managers. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
19. Heinrich, C.J. (1999). Do government bureaucrats make effective use of performance management information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3), 363-393.
20. Heinrich, C.J. (2002). Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector: implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 712-725.
21. Heinrich, C.J. (2004a). Improving public-sector performance management: One step forward, two steps back? Public Finance and Management, 4(3), 317-351.
22. Heinrich, C.J. (2004b). Performance management as administrative reform: Is it improving government performance? Public Finance and Management, 4(3), 240-246.
23. Heinrich, C.J. (2007). Evidence-based policy and performance management: Challenges and prospects in two parallel movements. American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), 255-277.
24. Heinrich, C.J. (2010). Third-party governance under No Child Left Behind: Accountability and performance management challenges in supplemental educational services provision. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 59-80.
25. Heinrich, C.J. (in press). How credible is the evidence, and does it matter? An analysis of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Administration Review.
26. Heinrich, C.J., & Marschke, G.R. (2010). Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(1), 183-208.
27. Heinrich, C.J., Lynn, L.E., Jr., & Milward, H. (2010). A state of agents? Sharpening the debate and evidence over the extent and impact of the transformation of governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 3-19.
28. Jennings, E.T., Jr., & Haist, M.P. (2004). Putting performance measurement in context. In P.A. Ingraham & L.E. Lynn, Jr. (Eds.), The art of governance: Analyzing management and administration (pp. 152-194). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
29. Kelly, J.M. (2008). Performance reporting: An emerging imperative with unintended consequences. State and Local Government Review, 40(2), 84-91.
30. Lu, Y., Willoughby, K., & Arnett, S. (2009). Legislating results: Examining the legal foundations of PBB systems in the states. Public Performance & Management Review, 33(2), 266-287.
31. Lynn, L.E., Jr., Heinrich, C.J., & Hill, C.J. (2000). Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 233-262.
32. Marschke, G. (2004). An empirical investigation of gaming responses to performance incentives, Journal of Labor Economics, 22(1), 23-50.
33. Mayne, J. (2005). Using performance information for managing and budgeting: Challenges, lessons, and opportunities. Working paper of senior budget officials. Second Annual Meeting of OECD SBO Network on Performance and Results, April 21-22. Paris.
34. McAdam, R., Hazlett, S.-A., & Casey, C. (2005). Performance management in the UK public sector: Addressing multiple stakeholder complexity. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(3), 256-273.
35. McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66(6 [Supplement]), 33-43.
36. Metzenbaum, S.H. (2006). Performance accountability: The five building blocks and six essential practices. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
37. Metzenbaum, S.H. (2009). Performance management recommendations for the new administration. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
38. Moynihan, D.P. (2008a). Learning under uncertainty: Networks in crisis management. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 350-365.
39. Moynihan, D.P. (2008b). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
40. Moynihan, D.P. (2009). How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and structural perspectives. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1097-1105.
41. Newcomer, K. (2010). Putting performance first: A new performance improvement and analysis framework. In J.D. Breul, K. Newcomer, J.P. Goldman, P.L. Posner, & S. Schooner (Eds.), Framing a public management research agenda (pp. 7-16). Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
42. Newcomer, K.E. (2007a). Measuring government performance. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(3), 307-329.
43. Newcomer, K.E. (2007b). How does program performance assessment affect program management in the federal government? Public Performance and Management Review, 30(3), 332-350.
44. Newcomer, K.E., & Redburn, F. (2008). Achieving real improvement in federal policy and program outcomes: The next frontier. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
45. Newcomer, K.E., & Scheirer, M.A. (2001). Using evaluation to support performance management: A guide for federal executives. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
46. Ohemeng, F. (2010). The dangers of internationalization and "one-size-fits-all" in public sector management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(7), 578-594.
47. Olsson, T.M. (2007). Reconstructing evidence-based practice: An investigation of three conceptualisations of EBP. Evidence & Policy, 3(2), 271-285.
48. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). Public sector modernization: The way forward. Paris.
49. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007). Performance budgeting in OECD countries. Paris.
50. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2008). Performance budgeting: A users' guide. Paris.
51. Perrin, B. (2006). Moving from outputs to outcomes: Practical advice from governments around the world. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
52. Peters, B.G. (2010). American public policy: Promise & performance (8th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
53. Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance management in practice: A comparative study of executive agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 25-44.
54. Radin, B.A. (2003). A comparative approach to performance management: Contrasting the experience of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(12), 1355-1376.
55. Radin, B.A. (2009). What can we expect from performance measurement activities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(3), 505-512.
56. Sterck, M., & B. Scheers. (2006). Trends in performance budgeting in seven OECD countries. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(1), 47-72.
57. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2008). Government performance: Lesson learned for the next administration on using performance information to improve results. GAO-08-1026T (July 24
58. Wang, X.-H. (2002). Perception and reality in developing an outcome performance measurement system. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(6), 805-829.
59. Wang, X.-H. (2008). Convincing legislators with performance measures. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(6), 654-667.
60. Wholey, J.S. (2002). Making results count in public and nonprofit organizations: Balancing performance with other values. In K. Newcomer et al. (Eds.), Meeting the challenges of performance-oriented government (pp. 13-35). Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration/Center for Accountability and Performance.
61. Zients, J. (2009). Testimony before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security (September 24). Available at www.whitehouse. gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/testimony/ 092409-government.pdf, accessed March 28, 2011.