Assessing Operational and Collaborative Performance Management: A Case Study of PhillyStat

REFERENCES

• Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2003). Collaborative public management. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (2004). Performance leadership: 11 better practices that can ratchet up performance. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (2005). The core drivers of CitiStat. International Public Management Journal, 8(3), 295–319.
   Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (2006). The varieties of CitiStat. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 332–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (2007). What all mayors would like to know about Baltimore’s CitiStat performance strategy. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved from www.irep-irff.org/doc/anticr/BehnReportCiti.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (2008a). Designing PerformanceStat: Or what are the key strategic choices that a jurisdiction or agency must make when adapting the CompStat/CitiStat class of performance strategies?. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(2), 206–235.
   Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (2008b). The seven big errors of PerformanceStat. Policy Briefs. Cambridge, MA: Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, Taubman Center for State and Local Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/thebehnreport/Behn,%207PerformanceStatErrors.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (2010). Collaborating for performance: Or can there exist such a thing as CollaborationStat?. International Public Management Journal, 13(4), 429–470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bens, C. (2005). CitiStat: Performance measurement with attitude. National Civic Review, 94(2), 78–80.
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(S6), 44–55.
   Google Scholar
• Bunge, M. (2004). How does it work? The search for explanatory mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 182–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eterno, J. A. (2010). The NYPD’s CompStat: Compare statistics or compose statistics. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 12(3), 426–449.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gullino, S. (2009). Urban regeneration and democratization of information access: CitiStat experience in Baltimore. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(6), 2012–2019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatry, H., & Davies, E. (2011). A guide to data-driven performance reviews. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved from www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/A%20Guide%20to%20Data-Driven%20Performance%20Reviews.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Maple, J., & Mitchell, C. (1999). The crime fighter. New York, NY: DoubleDay.
   Google Scholar
• Mazerolle, L., Rombouts, S., & McBroom, J. (2007). The impact of COMPSTAT on reported crime in Queensland. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30(2), 237–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66(S6), 33–43.
   Google Scholar
• Perez, T., & Rushing, R. (2007). The CitiStat model: How data-driven government can increase efficiency and effectiveness. Center for American Progress. Retrieved from www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/04/citistat.html
   Google Scholar
• Schachtel, M. R. B. (2003). CitiStat and the Baltimore neighborhood indicators alliance: Using information to improve communication and community. National Civic Review, 90(3), 253–266.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, C. W. (2003). Bureaucratic landscapes: Interagency cooperation and the preservation of biodiversity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review, 66(S6), 20–32.
   Google Scholar
• Thornburgh, D. B., Kingsley, C., & Rando, M. (2010). Smart cities: PerformanceStat at 15. Philadelphia, PA: Fels Institute of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Timoney, J. F. (2010). Beat cop to top cop. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 5–31.
   Google Scholar
• Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S. D., Greenspan, R., & Willis, J. J. (2004). The growth of Compstat in American policing. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Retrieved from www.policefoundation.org/pdf/growthofcompstat.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., & Weisburd, D. (2003). CompStat in practice: An in-depth analysis of three cities. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Retrieved from www.policefoundation.org/pdf/compstatinpractice.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Willis, J. J., Mastrofski, S. D., Weisburd, D., & Greenspan, R. (2003). CompStat and organizational change in the Lowell police department: Challenges and opportunities. Washington, DC: Police Foundation. Retrieved from www.policefoundation.org/pdf/compstat.pdf
   Google Scholar