Evidence-Based Practice: Challenging the Rational Wisdom

References

• Ammons, D. N. (1999). A proper mentality for benchmarking. Public Administration Review., 59(2), 105–109. doi:10.2307/977630
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ammons, D. N., & Rivenbark, W. C. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Administration Review, 68, 304–318. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00864.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aos, S. (2011). Using evidence to maximize return on taxpayer investment. In K. Bogenschneider, O. Little, & S. Eddy (Eds.), Evidence-based budgeting: Making decisions to move wisconsin forward. The University of Wisconsin Madison.
   Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00322
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berman, E., & Wang, X. (2002). Performance measurement in U.S. counties: Capacity for reform. Public Administration Review, 60(5), 409–420. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. The American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–415. doi:10.2307/1963526
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G., & Balk, W. (1991). Public productivity measurement: Diseases and cures. Public Productivity & Management Review, 15(2), 229–235. doi:10.2307/3380763
   Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance: International comparisons. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Brudney, J. L., & Hebert, R. T. (1987). State agencies and their environments: Examining the influence of important external actors. The Journal of Politics, 49, 186–206. doi:10.2307/2131140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brudney, J. L., Hebert, R. T., & Wright, D. (1999). Reinventing government in the American states: Measuring and explaining administrative reform. Public Administration Review, 59(1), 19–30. doi:10.2307/977476
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elazar, D. (1976). Federalism vs. Decentralization: The drift from authenticity. Publius, 6(4), 9–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elazar, D. J. (1982). Confederation and federal liberty. Publius, 12(4), 1–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frederickson, D. G., & Frederickson, H. G. (2006). Measuring the Performance of the hollow state. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, J. L. (2008). The forgotten regional organizations: Creating capacity for economic development. Public Administration Review, 68(1), 110–125. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00841.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, J. L., & Jennings, E. T., Jr. (2008). Taking chances: Evaluating risk as a guide to better use of best practices. Public Administration Review, 68, 695–708. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00908.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, J. L., & Jennings, E. T., Jr. (2010). Assessing the Use and weight of information and evidence in U.S. state policy decisions. Policy and Society, 29(2), 137–147. doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, J. L., & Jennings, E. T., Jr. (2012). Administrators’ perspectives on successful interstate collaboration: The drug effectiveness review project. State & Local Government Review, 44(2), 127–136.
   Google Scholar
• Head, B. W. (2008). Three lenses of evidence-based policy. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67(1), 1–11. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00564.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heikkila, T., & Isett, K. R. (2007). Citizen involvement and performance management in special-purpose governments. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 238–248. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00710.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00253
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J. (2007). Evidence-based policy and performance management: Challenges and prospects in two parallel movements. American Review of Public Administration, 37, 255–277. doi:10.1177/0275074007301957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hou, Y., Lunsford, R. S., Sides, K. C., & Jones, K. A. (2011). State performance-based budgeting in boom and bust years: An analytical framework and survey of the states. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 370–388. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02357.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jennings, E. T., & Hall, J. L. (2011). State agency attention to scientific sources of information to guide program operations. In A. Shillabeer, T. F. Buss, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Evidence-based public management: Practices, issues and prospects. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Jennings, E. T., & Hall, J. L. (2012). Evidence-based practice and the use of information in state agency decision-making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 245–266. doi:10.1093/jopart/mur040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Julnes, P. D. L., & Holzer, M. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 693–708. doi:10.1111/puar.2001.61.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamensky, J. M. (2011). Governing with foresight: Institutional changes to enhance fact-based presidential decision-making. In A. Shillabeer, T. F. Buss, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Evidence-based public management: Practices, issues and prospects. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, J. (2005). The dilemma of the unsatisfied customer in a market model of public administration. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 76–84. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00432.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koppell, J. G. S. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder”. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94–108. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00434.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Maynard, R. (2006). Evidence-based decision making: What will it take for decision makers to decide. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25, 249–266. doi:10.1002/pam.20169
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDavid, J. C., & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2006). Program evaluation and performance measurement: An introduction to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of performance-measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180–190. doi:10.1111/puar.2005.65.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2006). Managing for results in state government: Evaluating a decade of reform. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 77–89. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00557.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The Dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., & Ingraham, P. W. (2003). Looking for the silver lining: When performance-based accountability systems work. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 469–490. doi:10.1093/jopart/mug032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2010). The big question for performance management: Why do managers use performance information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20, 849–866. doi:10.1093/jopart/muq004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932).
   Google Scholar
• Newcomer, K. E. (2001). Tracking and probing program performance: Fruitful path or blind alley for evaluation professionals? The American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 337–341. doi:10.1177/109821400102200308
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poister, T. H. (2010). The future of strategic planning in the public sector: Linking strategic management and performance. Public Administration Review, 70(S1), S246–S254. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02284.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poister, T. H., Aristigueta, M., & Hall, J. L. (2014). Managing and Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2003). Evaluating public management reforms: An international perspective. In H. Wollmann (Ed.), Evaluation in public sector reform: Concepts and practice in international perspective. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Provan, K. G., Beagles, J. E., Mercken, L., & Leischow, S. J. (2013). Awareness of evidence-based practices by organizations in a publicly funded smoking cessation network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 133–153. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP.
   Google Scholar
• Romzek, B. S. (2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(1), 21–44. doi:10.1177/0020852300661004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 47, 227–238. doi:10.2307/975901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell, J., & Greenhalgh, T. (2011). Policy making through a rhetorical lens. In J. Glasby (Ed.), Evidence, policy, and practice: Critical perspectives in health and social care. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanderson, I. (2002). Making sense of ‘what works’: Evidence-based policy making as instrumental rationality? Public Policy and Administration, 17(3), 61–75. doi:10.1177/095207670201700305
   Google Scholar
• Volden, C. (2006). States as policy laboratories: Emulating success in the children’s health insurance program. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 294–312. doi:10.1111/ajps.2006.50.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899. doi:10.2307/1954434
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wamsley, G. L., & Zald, M. N. (1973). The political economy of public organizations. Public Administration Review, 33, 62–73. doi:10.2307/974786
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wholey, J., & Hatry, H. (1992). The case for performance monitoring. Public Administration Review, 52(6), 604–610. doi:10.2307/977173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, K., & Holzer, M. (2006). The performance-trust link: Implications for performance measurement. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 114–126. doi:10.1111/puar.2006.66.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, K., & Hsieh, J. Y. (2007). Managerial effectiveness of government performance measurement: Testing a middle-range model. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 861–879. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00774.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar