City Adoption of Federal Performance Measurement Requirements

References

• Bozeman, B. (2000). Bureaucracy and red tape. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Buntz, C.G., & Radin, B. (1983). Managing intergovernmental conflict: The case of human services. Public Administration Review, 43(5), 403-410.
   Google Scholar
• Chubb, J.E. (1985). The political economy of federalism. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 994-1014.
   Google Scholar
• Chun, Y.H., & Rainey, H.G. (2005). Goal ambiguity in U.S. federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(1), 1-30.
   Google Scholar
• Coe, C.K. & Brunet, J.R. (2006). Organizational report cards: Significant impact or much ado about nothing? Public Administration Review, 66(1): 90-100.
   Google Scholar
• Folger, R. (1989). Significance tests and the duplicity of binary decisions. Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 155-160.
   Google Scholar
• Gormley, W.T., & Weimer, D.L. (1999). Organizational report cards. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Handley, D.M. (2007). Challenges of bottom-up implementation: The Community Development Block Grant and the Government Performance and Results Act. Journal of Public Administration and Management 12(4): 70-95.
   Google Scholar
• Hatry, H. (1999). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jenks, S. (1994). County compliance with North Carolina's solid-waste mandate: A conflict-based model. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 24(2), 17-36.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J.W., Rainey, H.G., & Chun, Y.H. (2009). Of politics and purpose: Political salience and goal ambiguity of U.S. federal agencies. Public Administration, 87(3), 457-484.
   Google Scholar
• Nathan, R.P., Dommel, P.R., Liebschutz, S.F., & Morris, M.D. (1977). Monitoring the block grant program for community development. Political Science Quarterly, 92(2), 219-244.
   Google Scholar
• Nicholson-Crotty, S. (2004). Goal conflict and fund diversion in federal grants to the states. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 110-122.
   Google Scholar
• O'Connell, L. (2005). Program accountability as an emergent property: The role of stakeholders in a program's field. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 85-93.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Ouchi, W.G. (1980). Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 129-141.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B.A. (2000). Intergovernmental relationships and the federal performance movement. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 30(1-2), 143-158.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, N.C. (2002). Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: Resolving the accountability paradox. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 658-669.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenfeld, R.A., Reese, L.A., Georgeau, V., & Wamsley, S. (1995). Community Development Block Grant spending revisited: Patterns of benefit and program institutionalization. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 25(4), 55-72.
   Google Scholar
• Stenberg, C.W. (2008). Block grants and devolution: A future tool? In T.J. Conlan & P.L. Posner (Eds.), Intergovernmental management for the 21st century (pp. 263-285). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, D. (2002). The policy paradox: The art of political decision-making (Rev. Ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Office of Management and Budget (USOMB). (2004). Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Washington, DC. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/part/index.html
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Office of Management and Budget (USOMB). (2006). OMB's 2006 PART performance measurements for Community Development Block Grant. Washington, DC. http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articlesview/2851/1/312/
   Google Scholar
• Veasey, R.L. (1988). Devolutionary federalism and Elazar's typology: The Arkansas response to Reagan's new federalism. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 18(1), 61-77.
   Google Scholar