Promoting Evidence-Informed Governance: Lessons from Evaluation

References

• Barzelay, M., & Campbell, C. (2003). Preparing for the future: Strategic planning in the U.S. Air Force. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Behn, R.D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586-606.
   Google Scholar
• Boruch, R. (2007). Encouraging the flight of error: Ethical standards, evidence standards, and randomized trials. In G. Julnes & D.J. Rog (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation (pp. 55-73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Caracelli, V.J., & Greene, J.C. (1997). Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In J.C. Greene & V.J. Caracelli (Eds.), Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms (pp. 19-32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Chelimsky, E. (2007). Factors influencing the choice of methods in federal evaluation practice. In G. Julnes & D.J. Rog (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation (pp. 13-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, M.D., March, J.G., & Olsen, J.P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.
   Google Scholar
• Cooksy, L.J., Gill, P., & Kelly, P.A. (2001). The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24(2), 119-128.
   Google Scholar
• de Lancer Julnes, P. (2006a). Engaging citizens in governance-for-results: Opportunities and challenges. In M. Holzer (Ed.), Citizen-driven performance (pp. 161-187). Seoul: Seoul Development Institute.
   Google Scholar
• de Lancer Julnes, P. (2006b). Performance measurement: An effective tool for government accountability? The debate goes on. Evaluation, 12(2), 219-235.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• de Lancer Julnes, P., & Mixcoatl, G. (2006). Governors as agents of change: A comparative study of performance measurement initiatives in Utah and Campeche. Public Performance and Management Review, 29(4), 405-432.
   Google Scholar
• Dusenbury, P., Liner, B., & Vinson, E. (2000). States, citizens, and local performance management. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Gramlich, E.M. (1990). Benefit-cost analysis for government programs. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J.C. (2007). Method choices are contextual, contingent, and political. In G. Julnes & D.J. Rog (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation (pp. 111-113). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Halachmi, A. (2002). Who gets what when and how: Performance measures for accountability? For improved performance? International Review of Public Administration, 7(1), 1-11.
   Google Scholar
• Hatry, H.P. (1999). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• House, E.R. (1991). Realism in research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 2-9.
   Google Scholar
• Julnes, G., & Foster, E. M. (2001). Crafting evaluation in support of welfare reform. In G. Julnes & E.M. Foster (Eds.), Outcomes of welfare reform for families who leave TANF (pp. 3-8). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Julnes, G., & Mark, M.M. (1998). Evaluation as sensemaking: Knowledge construction in a realist world. In G. Henry, G. Julnes, & M.M. Mark (Eds.), Realist evaluation: An emerging theory in support of practice (pp. 33-52). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Julnes, G., & Rog, D.J. (2007a). Current federal policies and controversies over methodology in evaluation. In G. Julnes & D.J. Rog (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation (pp. 1-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Julnes, G., & Rog, D.J. (2007b). Pragmatic support for policies on methodology. In G. Julnes & D.J. Rog (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation (pp. 129-147). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, J.M. (2002). If you only knew how well we are performing, you'd be highly satisfied with the quality of our service. National Civic Review, 91(3), 283-292.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, J.M., & Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps toward a model of citizen satisfaction. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(3), 271-288.
   Google Scholar
• Kravchuk, R.S., & Schack, R.W. (1996). Designing effective performance-measurement systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review, 56(4), 348-358.
   Google Scholar
• Mark, M.M., Henry, G.T., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving public and nonprofit policies and programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Newcomer, K. (Ed.). (1997). Using performance measurement to improve public and nonprofit programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Nutley, S., Walter, I., & Davies, H.T.O. (2003). From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9(2), 125-148.
   Google Scholar
• Okun, A.M. (1975). Equality and efficiency: The big tradeoff. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M.Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Perrin, B. (1998). Effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(3), 367-379.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B.A. (1998). The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hydra-headed monster or flexible management tool? Public Administration Review, 58(4), 307-316.
   Google Scholar
• Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W., & Freeman, H.E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach. 7th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1-22.
   Google Scholar
• Scriven, M.S. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R.W. Tyler, R.M. Gagne, & M.S. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39-83). Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.
   Google Scholar
• Shadish, W., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
   Google Scholar
• Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Leviton, L.C. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Silverstein, R., Julnes, G., & Nolan, R. (2005). What policymakers need and must demand from research regarding the employment rate of persons with disabilities. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23(3), 399-448.
   Google Scholar
• Tharp, R.G. (1981). The metamethodology of research and development. Educational Perspectives, 20(1), 42-48.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Scientifically based evaluation methods. Federal Register, January 25, pp. 3585-3589.
   Google Scholar
• van Helden, J., Johnsen, A., & Vakkuri, J. (2006, June). Exploring the USA-Europe divide in public sector performance measurement research. Paper presented at the Second Transatlantic Dialogue, Leuven, Belgium.
   Google Scholar
• Vinni, R. (2006, June). Total quality management and paradigms of public administration. Paper presented at the Second Transatlantic Dialogue, Leuven, Belgium.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, C.H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Wholey, J.S. (1979). Evaluation: Promise and performance. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Wholey, J.S. (1983). Evaluation and effective public management. Boston: Little, Brown.
   Google Scholar
• Wholey, J.S. (1997). Trends in performance measurement: Challenges for evaluators. In E. Chelimsky & W.R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 124-133). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar