The EPAStat Quarterly Report and Lessons Learned

References

• Andrews, R., Boyne, G.A., & Walker, R.M. (2006). Subjective and objective measures of organizational performance: An empirical exploration. In G.A. Boyne, K.J. Meier, L.J. O'Toole, Jr., & R.M. Walker (Eds.), Public service performance: Perspectives on measurement and management (pp. 14-34). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Behn, R.D. (2008). 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
• Breul, J.D. (2007). GPRA—A foundation for performance budgeting. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 312-331.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, S., & Brand, R. (1993). Total quality management in government: A practical guide for the real world. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Congressional Research Service. (2008). Environmental laws: Summaries of major statutes administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Cummings, E. (2008). Making EPAstat work for you [Presentation]. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency. www.epa.gov/oei/symposium/2008/documents/theater_a/making_epastat_work.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency. (2008a, July 25). Building and instituting success at EPA: President's Quality Award 2008 application. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency. (2008b). EPAStat topic broadcast information guide. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Executive Session on Public Sector Performance Management. (2001). Memorandum: Re: Get results through performance management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Kennedy School of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Hatry, H.P. (2008, October). Governing for results: Improving federal government performance and accountability. Suggestions for the new federal administration. Paper presented at the Government Performance Workshop, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/901197_federal_government_performance.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ho, A. (2007). GPRA after a decade: Lessons from the Government Performance and Results Act and related federal reforms. Introduction. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(3), 307-311.
   Google Scholar
• Kellman, S. (2008). The "Kennedy School school" of research on innovation in government. In S.E. Borins (Ed.), Innovations in government: Research, recognition, and replication (pp. 28-51). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Long, E., & Franklin, A.L. (2004). The paradox of implementing the Government Performance and Results Act: Top-down direction for bottom-up implementation. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 309-319.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, Y. (2008). Managing the design of performance measures. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(1), 7-24.
   Google Scholar
• Morley, E., Bryant, S.P., & Hatry, H.P. (2001). Comparative performance measurement. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Public Administration. (1998). Resolving the paradox of environmental protection: An agenda for Congress, EPA, and the states. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Newcomer, K.E., & Scheirer, M.A. (2001). Using evaluation to support performance management: A guide for federal executives. Washington, DC: PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Peacock, M. (2007, January 12). Memorandum: Performance measurement: The road ahead. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Peacock, M. (2008, June 19). Memorandum: Implementation of EPAstat. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B.A. (1998). The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hydraheaded monster or flexible management tool? Public Administration Review, 58(4), 307-316.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B.A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B.A. (2007). Managing to measure [Book review]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 680-682.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, W.A. (2006). Improving environmental regulation at the EPA: The challenge in balancing politics, policy, and science. In N.J. Vig & M.E. Kraft (Eds.), Environmental policy: New directions for the twenty-first century (pp. 169-192). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waterman, R.W., Rouse, A.A., & Wright, R.L. (2004). Bureaucrats, politics, and the environment. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wholey, J. (2006). Quality control: Assessing the accuracy and usefulness of performance measurement systems. In H.P. Hatry (Ed.), Performance measurement: Getting results (2d ed., pp. 267-286). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
   Google Scholar