Assessment of performance reports: A comparative perspective

Quality Matters: Seeking Confidence in Evaluating, Auditing, and Performance Reporting

Volumn 11, Issue , 2018, Pages 29-297

  Boyle, Richard ^a  

^a Institute of Public Administration in Ireland   (Ireland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85084580239     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781351322447-14     Document Type: Chapter

References (42)

1. Besleme, K., Maser, E., and Silverstein, J. 1999. A Community Indicator Case Study: Addressing the Quality of Life in Two Communities. San Francisco, CA: Redefining Progress.
2. Bouckaert, G. 1993. “Measurement and Meaningful Management.” Public Productivity and Management Review. 17 (1): 31-44.
3. Boyle, R. 2001. Review of Annual Progress Reports. Committee for Public Management Research Discussion Paper No. 18. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.
4. Cabinet Office. 1998. Next Steps Agencies: Guidance on Annual Reports. London: Cabinet Office.
5. Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. 2001. Performance Report. Ottawa: Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
6. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 2002. 2001-2002 Annual Report. Ottawa: Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
7. CCAF. 2002. Reporting Principles: Taking Public Performance Reporting to a New Level. Ottawa: Canadian Comprehensive Audit Foundation.
8. Coe, C. 1999. “Local Government Benchmarking: Lessons from Two Major Multigovemment Efforts.” Public Administration Review 59 (2): 110-123.
9. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. 1999. Best Value and Audit Commission Performance Indicators for 2000/2001. London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
10. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. 2002. Requirements for Annual Reports. Canberra: Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
11. Ellig, J. 2000. Performance Report Scorecard: Which Federal Agencies Inform the Public? Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
12. Freer, S. 2001. “Rewarding Reporting.” Public Finance (November 30-December 6): 29.
13. General Accounting Office. 1998. The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.
14. General Accounting Office. 1999. Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and Validation of Agency Performance Information. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.
15. Government of Alberta. 2002. Measuring Up 2001/2002 Annual Report. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Treasury.
16. Governmental Accounting Standards Board. 1994. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting. Concept Statement No. 2, Norwalk, CT: Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
17. Hatry, H. 1999. Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
18. Institute of Public Administration Australia. 2001. The Judging Criteria. www.wa.ipaa.org.au/lonnie/criteria.html
19. Institute of Public Administration Australia. 2002. Report of Judges on the 2000/2001 Annual Reports, www.act.ipaa.org.au
20. Johnsen, A. 1999. “Implementation Mode and Local Government Performance Measurement: A Norwegian Experience.” Financial Accountability and Management 15(1): 41-66.
21. Law, J. 2001. “Accountability and Annual Reports: The Case of Policing.” Public Policy and Administration 16 (1): 75-90.
22. Maricopa County. 2002. Managing for Results: Performance Measure Certification. Maricopa County, AZ: Internal Audit Report.
23. Mayne, J. 1997. “Accountability for Program Performance: A Key to Effective Performance Monitoring and Reporting,” in Mayne, J., and Zapico-Goni, E. (eds.), Monitoring Performance in the Public Sector: Future Directions from International Experience. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
24. National Audit Office. 2000. Good Practice in Performance Reporting in Executive Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies. HC272. London: The Stationery Office.
25. National Audit Office. 2001. Measuring the Performance of Government Departments. HC301. London: The Stationery Office.
26. OECD. 1995. Governance in Transition. Paris: OECD.
27. Office of the Auditor General of Canada. 2000a. 2000 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons: Chapter 19. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
28. Office of the Auditor General of Canada. 2000b. Audit Criteria for the Assessment of the Fairness and Reliability of Performance Information. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
29. Office of the Auditor General of Canada. 2002. Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons: Chapter 6-A Model for Rating Departmental Performance Reports. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada.
30. Office of the Controller and Auditor General. 2002. Reporting Public Sector Performance, 2nd ed. Wellington: Office of the Controller and Auditor General.
31. Office of Management and Budget. 2000. Circular No. A-ll. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.
32. Oregon Progress Board. 2001. Achieving the Oregon Shines Vision: The 2001 Benchmark Performance Report. Oregon: Oregon Progress Board.
33. Public Futures. 2001. Measuring Performance of Government Departments-International Developments.
34. Sandahl, R. 1997. “Performance Monitoring Systems: A Basis for Decisions?” in Mayne, J., and Zapico-Goni, E. (eds.), Monitoring Performance in the Public Sector: Future Directions from International Experience. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
35. Sharman Lord. 2001. Holding to Account: The Review of Audit and Accountability for Central Government. London: H.M. Treasury.
36. Streib, G. D., and Poister, T. H. 1999. “Assessing the Validity, Legitimacy and Functionality of Performance Measurement Systems in Municipal Governments.” American Review of Public Administration 29 (2): 107-123.
37. Smith, P. 1995. “Outcome-Related Performance Indicators and Organisational Control in the Public Sector,” in Holloway, J., Lewis, J., and Mallory, G. (eds.), Performance Measurement and Evaluation, pp. 192-216. London: Sage Publications.
38. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2002a. Guidelines for the Preparation of Departmental Performance Reports 2001-2002. Ottawa: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
39. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2002b. Canada's Performance 2002. Ottawa: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
40. United Way of America. 1999. Community Status Reports and Targeted Community Interventions: Drawing a Distinction. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.
41. Wholey, J. 1999. “Quality Control: Assessing the Accuracy and Usefulness of Performance Measurement Systems,” in Hatry, H., Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
42. Wolf, A. 2000. “Accountability in Public Administration,” in International Institute of Administrative Sciences Accountability in Public Administration: Reconciling Democracy, Efficiency and Ethics. Brussels: International Institute of Administrative Sciences.