Public Performance Management Systems

References

• Behn, R. D. (2007). What all mayors would like to know about Baltimore's CitiStat performance strategy. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Behn, R. D. (2008). Designing PerformanceStat. Public Performance & Management Review, 32(2), 206-235.
   Google Scholar
• Boyle, R. (2009). Performance reporting: Insights from international practice. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Brass, C. T. (Ed.). (2011). Obama administration agenda for government performance: Evolution and related issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service Memorandum. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Brass, C. T., Williams, E. D., & Nunez-Neto, B. (Eds.) (2010). Congress and program evaluation: An overview of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and related issues. Congressional Research Service Report. Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Breul, J. D., & Kamensky, J. M. (2008). Federal government reform: Lessons from Clinton's "Reinventing Government" and Bush's "Management Agenda" initiatives. Public Administration Review, 68(6 [Supplement]), 1009-1026.
   Google Scholar
• Bromberg, D. (2009). Performance measurement: A system with a purpose or a purposeless system? Public Performance & Management Review, 33(2), 214-221.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2007). The whole-of-government approach to public sector reform. Public Administration Review, 67(6), 1059-1066.
   Google Scholar
• Courty, P., Heinrich, C. J., & Marschke, G. R. (2005). Setting the standard in performance measurement systems. International Public Management Journal, 8(3), 321-347.
   Google Scholar
• Curristine, T. (2005a). Government performance: Lessons and challenges. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(1), 127-151.
   Google Scholar
• Curristine, T. (2005b). Performance information in the budget process: Results of the OECD 2005 Questionnaire. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 5(2), 87-131.
   Google Scholar
• Curristine, T. (2008). Sequencing and pacing of performance budgeting reforms. Summary of the Fifth Annual Meeting of SBO Network on Performance and Results, October 27-28. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• De Bruijn, H. (2002). Performance measurement in the public sector: Strategies to cope with the risks of performance measurement. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(7), 578-594.
   Google Scholar
• Forsythe, D. W. (2001). Pitfalls in designing and implementing performance management systems. In D. W. Forsythe (Ed.), Quicker, better, cheaper: Managing performance in American government (pp. 519-551). Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frederickson, D. G., & Frederickson, G. (2006). Measuring the performance of the hollow state. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fryer, K., Antony, J., & Ogden, S. (2009). Performance management in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22(6), 478-498.
   Google Scholar
• Hammer, M. (2007). The 7 deadly sins of performance measurement and how to avoid them. Sloan Management Review, 48(3), 19-28.
   Google Scholar
• Hatry, H. P., Morley, E., Rossman, S. B., & Wholey, J. S. (2003). How federal programs use outcome information: Opportunities for federal managers. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   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), 363-393.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J. (2004a). Improving public-sector performance management: One step forward, two steps back? Public Finance and Management, 4(3), 317-351.
   Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J. (2004b). Performance management as administrative reform: Is it improving government performance? Public Finance and Management, 4(3), 240-246.
   Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J. (2007). Evidence-based policy and performance management: Challenges and prospects in two parallel movements. American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), 255-277.
   Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J. (2010). Third-party governance under No Child Left Behind: Accountability and performance management challenges in supplemental educational services provision. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 59-80.
   Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J. (in press). How credible is the evidence, and does it matter? An analysis of the Program Assessment Rating Tool. Public Administration Review.
   Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J., & Marschke, G. R. (2010). Incentives and their dynamics in public sector performance management systems. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(1), 183-208.
   Google Scholar
• Heinrich, C. J., Lynn, L. E., Jr., & Milward, H. (2010). A state of agents? Sharpening the debate and evidence over the extent and impact of the transformation of governance. aJournal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 3-19.
   Google Scholar
• Jennings, E. T., Jr., & Haist, M. P. (2004). Putting performance measurement in context. In P. A. Ingraham & L. E. Lynn, Jr. (Eds.), The art of governance: Analyzing management and administration (pp. 152-194). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, J. M. (2008). Performance reporting: An emerging imperative with unintended consequences. State and Local Government Review, 40(2), 84-91.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, Y., Willoughby, K., & Arnett, S. (2009). Legislating results: Examining the legal foundations of PBB systems in the states. Public Performance & Management Review, 33(2), 266-287.
   Google Scholar
• Lynn, L. E., Jr., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2000). Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 233-262.
   Google Scholar
• Marschke, G. (2004). An empirical investigation of gaming responses to performance incentives, Journal of Labor Economics, 22(1), 23-50.
   Google Scholar
• Mayne, J. (2005). Using performance information for managing and budgeting: Challenges, lessons, and opportunities. Working paper of senior budget officials. Second Annual Meeting of OECD SBO Network on Performance and Results, April 21-22. Paris.
   Google Scholar
• McAdam, R., Hazlett, S.-A., & Casey, C. (2005). Performance management in the UK public sector: Addressing multiple stakeholder complexity. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(3), 256-273.
   Google Scholar
• McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66(6 [Supplement]), 33-43.
   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
• Metzenbaum, S. H. (2009). Performance management recommendations for the new administration. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2008a). Learning under uncertainty: Networks in crisis management. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 350-365.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2008b). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moynihan, D. P. (2009). How do public organizations learn? Bridging cultural and structural perspectives. Public Administration Review, 69(6), 1097-1105.
   Google Scholar
• Newcomer, K. (2010). Putting performance first: A new performance improvement and analysis framework. In J. D. Breul, K. Newcomer, J. P. Goldman, P. L. Posner, & S. Schooner (Eds.), Framing a public management research agenda (pp. 7-16). Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Newcomer, K. E. (2007a). Measuring government performance. International Journal of Public Administration, 30(3), 307-329.
   Google Scholar
• Newcomer, K. E. (2007b. How does program performance assessment affect program management in the federal government? Public Performance and Management Review, 30(3), 332-350.
   Google Scholar
• Newcomer, K. E., & Redburn, F. (2008). Achieving real improvement in federal policy and program outcomes: The next frontier. Washington, DC: National Academy of Public Administration.
   Google Scholar
• Newcomer, K. E., & Scheirer, M. A. (2001). Using evaluation to support performance management: A guide for federal executives. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Ohemeng, F. (2010). The dangers of internationalization and "one-size-fits-all" in public sector management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(7), 578-594.
   Google Scholar
• Olsson, T. M. (2007). Reconstructing evidence-based practice: An investigation of three conceptualisations of EBP. Evidence & Policy, 3(2), 271-285.
   Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). Public sector modernization: The way forward. Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2007). Performance budgeting in OECD countries. Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2008). Performance budgeting: A users' guide. Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Perrin, B. (2006). Moving from outputs to outcomes: Practical advice from governments around the world. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, B. G. (2010). American public policy: Promise & performance (8th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance management in practice: A comparative study of executive agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 25-44.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B. A. (2003). A comparative approach to performance management: Contrasting the experience of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(12), 1355-1376.
   Google Scholar
• Radin, B. A. (2009). What can we expect from performance measurement activities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(3), 505-512.
   Google Scholar
• Sterck, M., & B. Scheers. (2006). Trends in performance budgeting in seven OECD countries. Public Performance & Management Review, 30(1), 47-72.
   Google Scholar
• U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2008). Government performance: Lesson learned for the next administration on using performance information to improve results. GAO-08-1026T (July 24).
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X.-H. (2002). Perception and reality in developing an outcome performance measurement system. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(6), 805-829.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, X.-H. (2008). Convincing legislators with performance measures. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(6), 654-667.
   Google Scholar
• Wholey, J. S. (2002). Making results count in public and nonprofit organizations: Balancing performance with other values. In K. Newcomer et al. (Eds.), Meeting the challenges of performance-oriented government (pp. 13-35). Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration/Center for Accountability and Performance.
   Google Scholar
• Zients, J. (2009). Testimony before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security (September 24). Available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/testimony/092409_government.pdf
   Google Scholar