Strategic planning and performance measurement: engaging the community to develop performance metrics

References

• Adcroft, A., and R. Willis. 2005. “The (un)intended Outcome of Public Sector Performance Measurement.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 18 (5): 386–400. doi:10.1108/09513550510608859.
   Google Scholar
• Alonso, W., and P. Starr. 1987. The Politics of Numbers. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Ammons, D. N. 2013. “Signs of Performance Measurement Progress among Prominent City Governments.” Public Performance and Management Review 36 (4): 507–528. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576360401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ammons, D. N., and W. C. Rivenbark. 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/puar.2008.68.issue-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2008. “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18 (4): 543–571. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. 2014. The PerformanceStat Potential: A Leadership Strategy for Producing Results. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berry, F. S. 1994. “Innovation in Public Management: The Adoption of Strategic Planning.” Public Administration Review 54: 322–330. doi:10.2307/977379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biesta, G. J. 2015. Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G., and B. G. Peters. 2002. “Performance Measurement and Management: The Achillies’ Heel in Administrative Modernization.” Public Performance and Management Review 25 (4): 359–362.
   Google Scholar
• Boyne, G. A., K. J. Meier, L. J. O’Toole, and R. M. Walker. 2006. Public Service Performance: Perspectives on Measurement and Management. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. M. 2011. Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bryson, J. M., and M. Q. Patton. 2015. “Analyzing and Engaging Stakeholders.” In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, edited by K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, and J. S. Wholey, 30–54. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, B., and M. M. Mark. 2006. “Toward More Effective Stakeholder Dialogue: Applying Theories of Negotiation to Policy and Program Evaluation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 36 (12): 2834–2863.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caracelli, V. J. 2000. “Evaluation Use at the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century.” In The Expanding Scope of Evaluation Use, edited by V. Caracelli and H. Preskill, 99–111. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Cousins, J. B., and K. A. Leithwood. 1986. “Current Empirical Research on Evaluation Utilization.” Review of Educational Research 56 (3): 331–364. doi:10.3102/00346543056003331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dirsmith, M. W., T. J. Fogarty, and P. Gupta. 2000. “Institutional Pressures and Symbolic Displays in a GAO Context.” Organization Studies 21 (3): 515–537. doi:10.1177/0170840600213002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doberstein, C., and H. Millar. 2014. “Balancing a House of Cards: Throughput Legitimacy in Canadian Governance Networks.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne De Science Politique 47 (2): 259–280. doi:10.1017/S0008423914000420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Down, S., and M. Hughes. 2009. “When the ‘subject’ and the ‘researcher’ Speak Together: Co-producing Organizational Ethnography.” In Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life, edited by S. Ybema, D. Yanow, H. Wels, and F. Kamsteeg, 83–98. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Eckerd, A. 2014. “Two Approaches to Nonprofit Financial Ratios and the Implications for Managerial Incentives.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 44 (3): 437–456. doi:10.1177/0899764013518845.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckerd, A., and S. Moulton. 2011. “Heterogeneous Roles and Heterogeneous Practices: Understanding the Adoption and Uses of Nonprofit Performance Evaluations.” American Journal of Evaluation 32 (1): 98–117. doi:10.1177/1098214010381780.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Folz, D. H., R. Abdelrazek, and Y. Chung. 2009. “The Adoption, Use, and Impacts of Performance Measures in Medium-size Cities.” Public Performance and Management Review 33 (1): 63–87. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576330103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukuyama, F. 2013. “What Is Governance?” Governance 26 (3): 347–368. doi:10.1111/gove.2013.26.issue-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funnell, S. C., and P. J. Rogers. 2011. Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Gans, H. 1976. “Personal Journal: B. On the Methods Used in This Study.” In The Research Experience, edited by M. P. Golden, 49–59. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.
   Google Scholar
• Gianakis, G. A. 2002. “The Promise of Public Sector Performance Measurement: Anodyne or Placebo?” Public Administration Quarterly 26 (1/2): 35–64.
   Google Scholar
• Hatry, H. 2006. Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: Urban Insititute.
   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/puar.2002.62.issue-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J., and G. Marschke. 2010. “Incentives and Their Dynamics in Public Sector Performance Management Systems.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 29 (1): 183–208. doi:10.1002/pam.v29:1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, A. 2005. “Accounting for the Value of Performance Measurement from the Perspective of Midwestern Mayors.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (2): 217–237. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui046.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holzer, M., and K. Kloby. 2005. “Public Performance Measurement: An Assessment of the State-of-the-art and Models for Citizen Participation.” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 54 (7): 517–532. doi:10.1108/17410400510622205.
   Google Scholar
• Johnsen, A. 2005. “What Does 25 Years of Experience Tell Us about the State of Performance Measurement in Public Policy and Management?” Public Money & Management 25 (1): 9–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavertu, S. 2016. “We All Need Help: “big Data” and the Mismeasure of Public Administration.” Public Administration Review 76 (6): 864–872. doi:10.1111/puar.2016.76.issue-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonti, Z., and R. Gregory. 2007. “Accountability or Countability? Performance Measurement in the New Zealand Public Service, 1992–2002.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 66 (4): 468–484. doi:10.1111/ajpa.2007.66.issue-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, Y. 2008. “Managing the Design of Performance Measures: The Role of Agencies.” Public Performance and Management Review 32 (1): 7–24. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576320101.
   Google Scholar
• Matti, S., C. Lundmark, and K. Ek. 2017. “Managing Participation: Prospects for Learning and Legitimacy-creation in Swedish Water Management.” Water Policy 19 (1): 99–114. doi:10.2166/wp.2016.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzenbaum, S. H. 2006. Performance Accountability: The Five Building Blocks and Six Essential Practices. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Mimba, N. P. S., G. J. Helden, and S. Tillema. 2013. “The Design and Use of Performance Information in Indonesian Local Governments under Diverging Stakeholder Pressures.” Public Administration and Development 33 (1): 15–28. doi:10.1002/pad.1612.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modell, S. 2004. “Performance Measurement Myths in the Public Sector: A Research Note.” Financial Accountability & Management 20 (1): 39–55. doi:10.1111/fam.2004.20.issue-1.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. 2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., and S. Lavertu. 2012. “Does Involvement in Performance Management Routines Encourage Performance Information Use? Evaluating GPRA and PART.” Public Administration Review 72 (4): 592–602. doi:10.1111/puar.2012.72.issue-4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P., and S. K. Pandey. 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
• Moynihan, D. P., S. K. Pandey, and B. E. Wright. 2012. “Prosocial Values and Performance Management Theory: Linking Perceived Social Impact and Performance Information Use.” Governance 25 (3): 463–483. doi:10.1111/gove.2012.25.issue-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newcomer, K. E. 1997. “Using Performance Measurement to Improve Programs.” New Directions for Evaluation 75: 5–14. doi:10.1002/ev.1076.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholson-Crotty, S., N. A. Theobald, and J. Nicholson-Crotty. 2006. “Disparate Measures: Public Managers and Performance Measurement Strategies.” Public Administration Review 66 (1): 101–113. doi:10.1111/puar.2006.66.issue-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandey, S. K., and D. P. Moynihan. 2006. “Bureaucratic Red Tape and Organizational Performance: Testing the Moderating Role of Culture and Political Support.” In Public Service Performance: Perspectives on Measurement and Management, edited by G. A. Boyne, K. J. Meier, L. J. O’Toole, and R. M. Walker, 130–151. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. 1998. “Discovering Process Use.” Evaluation 4 (2): 225–233. doi:10.1177/13563899822208437.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. 2003. “Utilization-focused Evaluation.” In International Handbook of Educational Evaluation, edited by T. Kellaghan, DL Stufflebeam, 223–242. New York: Springer.
   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/puar.2010.70.issue-s1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poister, T. H. 2015. “Performance Measurement: Monitoring Performance Outcomes.” In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, edited by K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, and J. S. Wholey, 100–124. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C. 2013. “The Logics of Performance Management.” Evaluation 19 (4): 346–363. doi:10.1177/1356389013505040.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pressman, J. L., and A. Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B. 2006. Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity, and Democratic Values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sandfort, J., and S. Moulton. 2015. Effective Implementation in Practice: Integrating Public Policy and Management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Sanger, M. B. 2008. “From Measurement to Management: Breaking through the Barriers to State and Local Performance.” Public Administration Review 68 (s1): S70–S85. doi:10.1111/puar.2008.68.issue-s1.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, V. A. 2013. “Democracy and Legitimacy in the European Union Revisited: Input, Output and ‘throughput’.” Political Studies 61 (1): 2–22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00962.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, J. C. 1998. Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sloan, M. 2009. “The Effects of Nonprofit Accountability Ratings on Donor Behavior.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 38 (2): 220–236. doi:10.1177/0899764008316470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchman, M. C. 1995. “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches.” Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 571–610. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomlinson, M. W., and G. P. Kelly. 2013. “Is Everybody Happy? the Politics and Measurement of National Wellbeing.” Policy & Politics 41 (2): 139–157. doi:10.1332/030557312X655530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Den Hove, S. 2006. “Between Consensus and Compromise: Acknowledging the Negotiation Dimension in Participatory Approaches.” Land Use Policy 23 (1): 10–17. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.09.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dooren, W., G. Bouckaert, and J. Halligan. 2010. Performance Management in the Public Sector. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vyas, R., and A. L. Souchon. 2003. “Symbolic Use of Export Information: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Conceptual Development and Key Consequences.” International Marketing Review 20 (1): 67–94. doi:10.1108/02651330310462275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, C. H. 1979. “The Many Meanings of Research Utilization.” Public Administration Review 39 (3): 426–431. doi:10.2307/3109916.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, C. H. 1988. “Evaluation for Decisions: Is Anybody There? Does Anybody Care?” Evaluation Practice 9 (1): 5–20. doi:10.1016/S0886-1633(88)80017-5.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, K., and M. Holzer. 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