Performance Information Use in Local Government: Monitoring Relationships with Emergency Medical Services Agencies

References

• Amirkhanyan, A. A. (2009). Collaborative performance measurement: Examining and explaining the prevalence of collaboration in state and local government contracts. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 523–554. doi:10.1093/jopart/mun022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amirkhanyan, A. A. (2010). Monitoring across sectors: Examining the effect of nonprofit and for-profit contractor ownership on performance monitoring in state and local contracts. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 742–755. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02202.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amirkhanyan, A. A. (2011). What is the effect of performance measurement on perceived accountability effectiveness in state and local government contracts? Public Performance & Management Review, 35(2), 303–339. doi:10.2753/pmr1530-9576350204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ammons, D. N. (2007). Performance measurement a tool for accountability and performance improvement. County and Municipal Government in North Carolina, 16, 1–12.
   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(2), 304–318. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00864.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boyne, G. A. (2010). Performance management: Does it work?. In R. M. Walker, G. A. Boyne, & G. A. Brewer (Eds.), Public management and performance: Research directions (pp. 207–226). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brant, R. (1990). Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics, 46(4), 1171–1178. doi:10.2307/2532457
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, T.L., Potoski, M, & Van Slyke, D. M. (2007). Trust and contract completeness in the public sector. Local Government Studies, 33(4), 607–623. doi:10.1080/03003930701417650
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. M. (2012). Performance information use and accountability. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), s105–s107. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02640.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubnick, M. J., & Frederickson, H. G. (2010). Accountable agents: Federal performance measurement and third-party government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(s1), i143–i159. doi:10.1093/jopart/mup039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez, S. (2007). What works best when contracting for services? An analysis of contracting performance at the local level in the US. Public Administration, 85(4), 1119–1141. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00688.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halachmi, A. (2005). Performance measurement: Test the water before you dive in. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 255–266. doi:10.1177/0020852305053884
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J. (1999). Do government bureaucrats make effective use of performance management information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(3), 363–394. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024415
   Google Scholar
• de Lancer Julnes, P., & 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:10.1111/0033-3352.00140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroll, A. (2013). The other type of performance information: Nonroutine feedback, its relevance and use. Public Administration Review, 73(2), 265–276. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02648.x
   Web of Science ®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/j.1540-6210.2005.00443.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merchant, K. A., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2007). Management control systems: Performance measurement, evaluation and incentives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Milward, H. B. (1996). Introduction. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(2), 193–195.
   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(4), 849–866. doi:10.1093/jopart/muq004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myers, J. B., Slovis, C. M., Eckstein, M., Goodloe, J. M., Isaacs, S. M., Loflin, J. R., Mechem, C. C., Richmond, N. J., & Pepe, P. E. (2008). Evidence-based performance measures for emergency medical services systems: A model for expanded EMS benchmarking. Prehospital Emergency Care, 12(2), 141–151. doi:10.1080/10903120801903793
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). (2009). Emergency medical services performance measures: Recommended attributes and indicators for system and service performance. Retrieved from http://www.ems.gov/pdf/811211.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45–52. doi:10.2307/976691
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, S. (2004). Measuring accountability for results in interagency collaboratives. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 591–606. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00406.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development. (2013). Municipal statistics reports. Retrieved from http://munstatspa.dced.state.pa.us/Reports.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, S. (2004, July). The myths of horizontal governance: Is the third sector really a partner? Paper presented at the 6th International Conference of the International Society for Third-Sector Research on Contesting Citizenship and Civil Society in a Divided World, Toronto, Canada. https://www.istr.org/resource/resmgr/working_papers_toronto/phillips.susan.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59(4), 325–335. doi:10.2307/3110115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner, P. L. (2002). Accountability challenges of third party government. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The tools of government: A guide to the new governance (pp. 523–551). New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romzek, B. S., & Johnston, J. M. (2005). State social services contracting: Exploring the determinants of effective contract accountability. Public Administration Review, 65(4), 436–449. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00470.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sclar, E. D. (2000). You don’t always get what you pay for: The economics of privatization. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195–218. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2005.00129.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Bueren, E. M., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (2003). Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 193–212. doi:10.1093/jpart/mug017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Slyke, D. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 157–187. doi:10.1093/jopart/mul012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science, 9(2), 141–159. doi:10.1287/orsc.9.2.141
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zeemering, E. (2012). The problem of democratic anchorage for interlocal agreements. American Review of Public Administration, 42(1), 87–103. doi:10.1177/0275074010397532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar