International Handbook of Practice-Based Performance Management

Handbooks

Edited by: Patria de Lancer Julnes, Frances Stokes Berry, Maria P. Aristigueta & Kaifeng Yang

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Part I: State of the Art

    Part II: Using Performance Information to Improve Program Performance and Accountability

    Part III: Informing and Involving Citizens and other Stakeholders

    Part IV: Performance Budgeting

    Part V: Quality and Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations

    Part VI: Pulling it all Together

  • Dedication

    To our children—Thomas, Peter, and Alexander Katherine and David Laura, Claudia, and Robert Ivy

    Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Introduction

    “The Public Service is a public trust,” offered Florida Governor Reubin O'Donovan Askew in his inaugural address in January 1971. This sentiment, reflecting the ideals of public service in a democracy, underlies the modern performance measurement movement. Considerable efforts have been made in advancing this movement. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, financial auditing was widely used at all levels of government (as it still continues to be) to ensure that money was not stolen or grossly misused. In the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the private sector management techniques of total quality management (TQM), customer service, and measurement of processes and activities diffused widely across all levels of the public sector. Governments around the world were also adopting market-based ideologies (often combining democratic reforms with open economies). Countries with many government-owned assets, such as Great Britain, divested themselves and turned to the private sector to help restart sluggish economies, transform sluggish government sectors with competition and management reforms, and, in general, reduce the size of government to the private sector.

    This is the historical context of the “New Public Management,” which has evolved from the 1980s to the present into a broad series of often radical innovations known as “performance management systems.” Implementation of measurement systems, however, has revealed challenges and complications in their use. Recent approaches have acknowledged these limitations and developed new practice-based strategies for effective ongoing measurement of program activities and use in guiding management. It is our goal for this handbook to serve as the vehicle for dissemination of these cutting-edge strategies.

    With this goal in mind, we have invited nationally and internationally known scholars and practitioners to contribute chapters that range from introductions, to different aspects of performance management, to case studies describing experiences of government entities around the world, to hands-on application of techniques for improving government's use of performance data. Thus, the information should be useful to students, academics, and practitioners interested in developing and sustaining performance management systems.

    After the prefatory grounding provided in Part I, “State of the Art,” chapters in the following four parts of the handbook are organized as follows:

    • Introduction to the section
    • Theoretical discussions and cases
    • Skill building

    Within each part, there is an introductory chapter that discusses the latest theories and major debates surrounding a particular aspect of performance management. This introduction identifies the major themes that will be discussed in the subsequent chapters and relates them to existing theory and practice. This introductory chapter of each part is followed by three theoretical discussion and/or case study chapters. Each chapter provides background information on performance measurement and management in the particular state, region, or country the chapter focuses on, describing and analyzing the experiences and providing some lessons learned. These chapters also include questions intended to elicit further discussion in a classroom setting. Third, concluding each part, readers will find a skill-building chapter that provides explicit “how-to” guidance, focusing on one or several aspects of the themes of the section. The guidance is provided through discussion of techniques, methods, and/or exemplary practice.

    The handbook ends with the concluding Part VI, “Pulling It All Together,” which summarizes and analyzes the major themes that emerge in this volume. To prepare us for confronting these themes, we now offer some definitions of terms that will be used throughout the handbook. This is followed by a brief description of the 23 chapters included in this handbook.

    What is Performance Management?

    As succinctly put by Harry P. Hatry in Chapter 1 in this volume, using performance information “transforms performance measurement into performance management” (p. 1). Joe Wholey (1999) goes further in his definition by stating that performance-based management or managing for results is “the purposeful use of resources and information to achieve and demonstrate measurable progress toward agency and program goals” (p. 288).

    As can be concluded from the definitions provided above, an essential component of performance management is performance measurement, the regular and careful monitoring of program implementation and outcomes (de Lancer Julnes, 2006). Such careful monitoring requires that organizations develop performance measurement systems that can provide numerical data and narratives for analysis to assess progress toward organizational goals and objectives (Wholey, 1999). Thus, a performance measurement system should include the following types of indicators or measures of performance:

    • Inputs are the funds (budget amounts), number of staff, and other resources that are used in government agencies.
    • Outputs are the specific activities or immediate results of the program services that are funded by the inputs. So, for example, the outputs of a training program on accounting spreadsheets would be the number of people trained during the session, while the outputs for a transportation program would be the number of miles of road paved.
    • Outcomes are the consequences of outputs and are often more complex to measure.
      • Intermediate outcome: an outcome, to include quality measures, that is expected to lead to a desired end but is not an end in itself. An example of intermediate outcomes would be teachers improving the curricula used in their classrooms after completing a curriculum improvement workshop.
      • End outcome: the end result that is sought, such as the number of students mastering a subject.
    • Efficiency measures indicate the ratio of output-to-input or outcome-to-input. This is also call “unit-cost ratio.”
    • Explanatory information provides the context for readers to interpret data. This is especially important when outcomes are poor or better than expected.

    The information provided by these indicators can then be used by managers for budget formulation, resource allocation, employee motivation, accountability to stakeholders and the public, reporting, program evaluation and control, improving the quality of programs, and enhancing citizens' trust.

    The different uses of performance measurement are discussed and illustrated throughout this book. Furthermore, some chapters focus on a critical aspect of performance management: having a high-quality performance measurement system.

    Chapter Content Descriptions
    Part I: State of the Art

    Part I serves as an introduction to the handbook, providing the context for the theoretical and practical discussions that will be presented in the chapters ahead. The three chapters included here relate the historical and theoretical background of performance management in the public and nonprofit sectors. They also discuss the future direction of performance management and the areas in which there needs to be more research in order to support practice.

    An assessment of current trends around the world leads Harry P. Hatry to predict in his chapter, “Emerging Developments in Performance Measurement: An International Perspective,” that the public sector accountability for results and for using information to improve services is here to stay. However, Hatry also notes that, for a number of reasons, certain performance measurement efforts will not continue at the current pace. After providing an overview of current performance measurement efforts at different levels of government, across sectors, and in disadvantaged countries, Hatry reviews recently emerged technical developments that have greatly improved the quality of performance data and highlights what is still missing in this arena. After pointing out an almost exclusive use of performance information for accountability, he discusses emerging ways to encourage effective use of performance information by decision makers.

    Kathryn Newcomer notes in her introductory chapter to this volume, “Assessing Performance in Nonprofit Service Agencies,” that, increasingly, nonprofit agencies are asking questions about the results of their programs. Newcomer explores the factors that have contributed to these demands, including those as varied as local governments and private foundations. She also explains that even though there is evidence that service providers are measuring output and, to a limited extent outcomes, in order to meet demands for programmatic performance information, this has not gone unopposed. The measuring of performance has created tensions for executives and managers of social services because of the choices they must make when designing and implementing performance measurement systems. Newcomer discusses this tension and also provides some insight into the less-tractable and still-evolving challenges facing nonprofit service providers.

    In the chapter “Performance: A New Public Management Perspective,” Owen E. Hughes provides us with a theoretical and cross-national discussion about transition from traditional public administration to managerial models like “New Public Management” (NPM). Central to this discussion is the idea that improving performance is fundamental for most managerial reforms. While traditional models of public administration reform sought to improve performance, for a number of reasons they fell short of this goal. One of those reasons addressed by Hughes is the inherent difficulty of measuring performance in the public sector. Nonetheless, Hughes argues that it is necessary for governments to measure performance in order to show that public purposes are being served. To make this point, Hughes discusses the NPM perspective in the context of performance management. He also explores the purposes of performance management, the need for performance measurement, and the criticisms often raised about performance indicators. The chapter also provides an overview of the different management reforms that have become part of the NPM.

    Part II: Using Performance Information to Improve Program Performance and Accountability

    To introduce Part II, Patria de Lancer Julnes deals with the thorny question about the potential contribution of performance information. In her chapter, “Can Performance Measurement Support Program Performance Improvement and Accountability?,” de Lancer Julnes provides a discussion about the major debates surrounding the claims of the contributions of performance measurement to decision making and accountability. She develops her arguments on the basis of the notion that performance measurement may have a less direct, but nonetheless important, impact than proponents of the tool might hope. She also discusses an apparent accountability paradox-accountability efforts may actually hinder performance improvement, the limitations of performance measurement, and ways to overcome those limitations. Examples of state and local government performance measurement systems in the United States are provided at the end of the chapter.

    In their chapter, Monica Brezzi, Laura Raimondo, and Francesca Utili discuss “Using Performance Measurement and Competition to Make Administrations Accountable: The Italian Case,” an innovative program designed to elicit competitive and cooperative behaviors in order to encourage performance improvement and accountability in six southern regions of Italy. The program is called the “6% performance reserve system” and was part of a development program, cofinanced by the European Union, that Italy started in 1999 to help increase territorial competitiveness and attract capital to the southern regions. It distributed €2.6 billion (6% of the total amount of a large development program for southern regions financed by the European Union) to administrations in those regions, based on their performance results on 12 indicators. Using agency theory, Brezzi, Raimondo, and Utili provide insight into why the “6% performance reserve system” worked and about the challenges encountered during the implementation of such a highly complex program.

    The chapter “Recognizing Credible Performance Reports: The Role of the Government Auditor in Canada,” by Barry Leighton, deals with three poignant questions about the quality and truthfulness of performance reports: Was the intended audience satisfied with the quality of the performance information presented? Did people get the right information? Was the information balanced, understandable, and credible? In this context, Leighton discusses how certain events have led to what he calls an “audit society,” increasingly demanding independent assurance of the fairness and reliability of performance reports. Leighton presents Canada's attempt to address these demands through the Office of the Auditor General's “model for good performance reporting.” Using a logic model approach, the model's criteria focus on the accomplishments of the department or agency and the quality and use of performance information. Leighton concludes that despite some weaknesses, the model seems to work and provides useful lessons for those interested in instituting similar performance information audit models.

    In their chapter, “Advancing Performance Measurement and Management for Accountability: King County's Collaborative, Incremental Approach,” Cheryle Broom and Edward T. Jennings, Jr. use the theory of incremental decision making to describe and explain the efforts of King County, in Washington State, to implement a performance management system. That King County has made only baby steps toward developing and implementing their system does not surprise the authors. It is not unusual for organizations with competing interests to use this approach. Broom and Jennings explain that such strategy has allowed the county to build a foundation for a viable countywide performance measurement program transparent to King County's citizens. The county has been able to build on experience; policymakers appear to have embraced the concept; and there appears to be buy-in from other participants.

    Based on the notion that governments need good analysis, David N. Ammons presents in his chapter, “Analyzing Performance Data,” a number of relatively easy-to-use techniques for analyzing performance data. Ammons argues that applying these techniques can greatly improve the usefulness of performance information for management decision making. The impetus for this chapter is Ammons's own observation that managers tend to focus on reporting data for accountability purposes and miss the chance to develop information that can help them improve service delivery. To help decrease this gap, Ammons discusses a variety of techniques “suitable to addressing common governmental problems.” Thus, for example, Ammons illustrates how to use ratios and performance standards and benchmarks to answer staffing questions. He also shows how a simple adjustment for inflation can make an analysis of revenues and expenses more useful and accurate from one year to the next.

    Part III: Informing and Involving Citizens and other Stakeholders

    In Chapter 9 of this handbook, “Making Performance Measurement Relevant: Informing and Involving Stakeholders in Performance Measurement,” Kaifeng Yang discusses the rationale, importance, practice, and challenges of informing and involving citizens in performance measurement. He argues that since government agencies often have multiple, competing, and changing expectations, their performance measurement has to be understood in relation to an open and dynamic process of coalition building and policy making in which stakeholders must be involved. Yang challenges public managers to take advantage of the accountability pressure and emphasize performance management from the wider perspective of democracy, governance, and citizenship as part of an integrated effort to solve public problems.

    In his chapter, “Citizen-Involved Performance Measurement: The Case of Online Procedures Enhancement for Civil Applications in Seoul,” Seungbeom Choi demonstrates the effects and success factors of the OPEN system, an award-winning reform program developed by the Seoul Metropolitan Government, in South Korea. OPEN is an Internet-based system that posts online the details of the status of 26 civil applications in areas such as transportation, urban planning, and construction. Both government and citizens can use the system to monitor the performance of the civil servants processing the applications. Citizens can also obtain additional information and communicate with civil servants via the system. Initial evidence shows that the OPEN system has increased transparency, reduced corruption, enhanced productivity, and improved citizen trust in government. Choi further attributes the success to factors such as strong leadership, creative use of information technology, decentralization, citizen participation, and effective strategic management.

    Education performance and accountability is an important policy area, and whether and how stakeholders can be involved in this area is of great significance. In “Performance Measurement and Educational Accountability: The U.S. Case,” Katherine E. Ryan briefly reviews education performance measurement and critically analyzes the standards, assessments, and accountability requirements of standards-based education reform as manifested by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). In particular, she examines the potential role of stakeholders, such as states, school districts, public officials, educators, parents, students, and citizens, in determining standards, assessments, and accountability. Acknowledging that these stakeholders have had limited participation in discussions about education performance measurement, Ryan proposes that values inquiry and public engagement can be employed to facilitate stakeholder and citizen action to improve school accountability.

    Both performance measurement and stakeholder participation are activities that may be lengthy, costly, and technically demanding. In integrating the two types of activities, one faces even more barriers and hindrances. However, in “Experience With Trained Observers in Transition and Developing Countries: Citizen Engagement in Monitoring Results,” Katharine Mark shows that simple techniques such as trained-observer rating can be used to achieve the integration even when resources are limited. Laypeople, especially stakeholders such as community residents, can be trained to use well-designed ordinal rating scales to evaluate a specific public service area and make recommendations. With cases from traditional and developing countries, Mark illustrates the principles, processes, methods, and positive effects of using trained-observer rating in local governments. She demonstrates that this technique can produce rapid results, facilitate community improvement, and result in strengthened and durable collaboration between civil society and government.

    Starting from the observation that traditional bureaucratic institutions and performance measurement are not friendly to citizen participation, Marc Holzer and Kathryn Kloby, in “Helping Government Measure Up: Models of Citizen-Driven Government Performance Measurement Initiatives,” offer an in-depth review of citizen-driven models of performance measurement and argue that institutions and mechanisms outside of government can be designed to align administrative policies with citizen preferences. They review five best practices from projects sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Performance Assessment of Municipal Government program. The five cases show that citizens and nonprofits can work with local governments or alone to identify performance aspects they value most, help collect performance data, monitor government performance, and push for performance improvement. Holzer and Kloby also identify four challenges of citizen-driven performance measurement: how to ensure transparency and cooperation from government agencies, how to maintain the integrity of such efforts, how to improve the marketability of such initiatives, and how to make them sustainable by creating win-win partnerships.

    Part IV: Performance Budgeting

    The introductory chapter to Part IV, titled “Performance Budgeting Internationally: Assessing Its Merits,” is written by Frances Stokes Berry. She introduces a short history of the development of performance budgets, summarizes the studies that assess the use of performance data in decision making and management, and addresses the issues that must be resolved to increase the effectiveness and use of performance budget information. This sets the stage for in-depth case studies of how performance budgeting is carried out in states and countries around the world.

    Developing a standard framework of budgetary reforms that incorporate performance measures is the starting point for “Performance-Based Budgeting in Latin and South America: Analyzing Recent Reforms in the Budgetary Systems of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico,” written by David Arellano-Gault and Edgar E. Ramirez de la Cruz. After the presentation of commonalities, the authors provide short case studies of budgetary reforms in the four countries. While all four countries share similar forms of government and similar economic and social problems, the budgeting systems function very differently and allow for some distinct comparisons and lessons to be drawn. They also demonstrate that the political economy of the countries can greatly impact the success or failure of a management reform like budgeting. Budgeting reform is often considered a technical reform, but, in fact, it influences important decisions about whether programs receive more government funding, how allocation decisions will be made, and what the role is of the central budget agency to the program agencies. All of these issues raise conflict and keep a “technical” management system like budgeting from being implemented smoothly and fully.

    The state of Florida was an early adopter of performance-based budgeting among the states (in 1994) and was viewed as an exemplar of a central budgeting system with widespread agency discretion over the development of performance measures and targets. Martha Wellman and Gary VanLandingham, in “Performance-Based Budgeting in Florida: Great Expectations, More Limited Reality,” provide an insider's view of the experience. Their chapter provides a rich discussion of the key issues addressed in implementing a major systemwide reform and links deficiencies in the process back to the scholarly literature on budgeting—demonstrating that some of the key frustrations continue under Florida's performance-based budgeting. The authors conclude that much useful information for managers, citizens, and policymakers is generated under this new system but that full usage is still in its infancy; one can view the glass as “half full” or “half empty,” and they believe the evidence points most accurately to the glass being half full.

    Two countries that have the best international reputations in the last two decades for comprehensive and workable performance management systems are New Zealand and Australia. John Halligan, in “Performance Management and Budgeting in Australia and New Zealand,” provides a comparative discussion of how these two systems developed across three generations of change and the choices made in each country to make their systems distinctive and different from each other. These countries have tackled some of the perennial questions of public administration: Can policy development and implementation be separated? How can transparency and accountability best be achieved? What is the role of incentives and sanctions on managers' performances? What should the relative roles of central agencies and program agencies be vis-à-vis performance implementation and decision making? Halligan concludes that parliamentary systems of government may provide the most conducive environment to the adoption of comprehensive performance management systems but that even in a supportive environment, performance data are used at best sporadically for resource allocation.

    To conclude Part IV, Carl Moravitz writes a lively skill-building chapter, “Performance-Based Budgeting: Integrating Objectives and Metrics With People and Resources,” on the U.S. federal government's budgeting system. He gives many examples from current studies of how performance budgeting is working (or not) at the federal level and how its integration into broader management systems of strategic planning, human resource management, and information technology systems can improve organizational performance. Drawing on his many years working in federal agencies and advising them on system improvement, Moravitz provides a seasoned view of the best and the still-to-be-developed operations of performance-based budgeting in a large national government.

    Part V: Quality and Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations

    Maria P. Aristigueta introduces this part of the handbook with her chapter, “The Integration of Quality and Performance.” In this chapter, Aristigueta explores the theoretical disconnect in the quality and performance movements. She defines quality and the requirements of performance management and explores the changing definitions of the movements that have occurred in order to allow for the integration of quality and performance. Through a number of examples, Aristigueta illustrates the integration of performance and quality movements in the United States. Trends such as the use of the balance scorecard and quality award programs (e.g., Baldrige Award, Delaware Quality Award) as well as quality and performance initiatives at the state and local levels are explored. Software available for quality initiatives is also mentioned as a step to successful implementation of quality and performance initiatives.

    In his chapter, “Quality and Performance Management: Toward a Better Integration?,” Wouter Van Dooren argues that quality management and performance management are disconnected and need to be integrated. His discussion includes the next steps in the development of quality models and performance management. In particular, Van Dooren asks how performance management and quality management should adapt in order to deal with supraorganizational realities, such as multiorganizational collaborative networks within and across policy sectors. The rephrasing of performance management and quality management is complicated by an increasing awareness of the need for collaboration in networks. Performance measurement, performance management, and quality management have to adapt to new organizational realities.

    In “Performance Information of High Quality: How to Develop a Legitimate, Functional, and Sound Performance Measurement System,” Miekatrien Sterck and Geert Bouckaert discuss the availability of high-quality performance information as a crucial condition for success of performance and quality management. They argue that a systems approach is necessary, as the quality of a performance measurement system is more than the technical quality of the indicators. Besides producing valid and reliable information, a performance measurement system should be legitimate and functional. It has to be supported by the employees of an organization and has to contribute to the goals of the organization. Quality of information has to be a point of interest throughout the measurement process. Control measures have to be taken and an ex post and independent audit of the performance measurement system may be necessary. Auditing performance information may provide incentives to further improve the performance measurement system, but the benefits should outweigh the costs, and organizations have to determine the acceptable level of data quality.

    In the “how-to chapter” in this part of the handbook, “Applying the Common Assessment Framework in Europe,” Nick Thijs and Patrick Staes explain the quality management movement and its rise in Europe. This brief historical and contextual overview is useful in providing context to the Common Assessment Framework (CAF), a quality management tool specially designed by and for public sector organizations of the European Union. Thijs and Staes examine a shift in thinking about quality from a focus on inspection and control, output, and assurance to a focus on the processes, to reach a final state where quality management is seen as organizational management. Performance management from this point of view becomes organizational performance management and quality, a necessary component to a well-functioning public sector organization. The last part of this chapter focuses in detail on the CAF in practice and the application of the CAF as a European quality tool. On the basis of experiences with the implementation of the CAF, practical remarks and recommendations are formulated.

    Part VI: Pulling it all Together

    Performance management can be viewed from the perspective of three levels, write John M. Kamensky and Jay Fountain in “Creating and Sustaining a Results-Oriented Performance Management Framework.” Those levels are the microlevel (individual agencies), the mesolevel (across policy areas and agencies and jurisdictions), and the macrolevel (across national levels). Each level offers a different set of uses of performance measures and performance systems that require performance measurement in contracts and through intergovernmental or international grants. The authors go on to offer detailed and step-by-step advice on how to use and implement a performance management system in the micro- and mesolevels. For those managers who are given the tasks of getting their employees to contribute to and use a performance measurement system, they offer proven steps and best practices to make the performance management effort a success.

    Patria de LancerJulnes, Frances StokesBerry, Maria P.Aristigueta, KaifengYang

    Prologue

    Patria de LancerJulnes, Frances StokesBerry, Maria P.Aristigueta, KaifengYang

    “The Public Service is a public trust,” offered Florida Governor Reubin O'Donovan Askew in his inaugural address in January 1971. This sentiment, reflecting the ideals of public service in a democracy, underlies the modern performance measurement movement. Considerable efforts have been made in advancing this movement. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, financial auditing was widely used at all levels of government (as it still continues to be) to ensure that money was not stolen or grossly misused. In the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the private sector management techniques of total quality management (TQM), customer service, and measurement of processes and activities diffused widely across all levels of the public sector. Governments around the world were also adopting market-based ideologies (often combining democratic reforms with open economies). Countries with many government-owned assets, such as Great Britain, divested themselves and turned to the private sector to help restart sluggish economies, transform sluggish government sectors with competition and management reforms, and, in general, reduce the size of government to the private sector.

    This is the historical context of the “New Public Management,” which has evolved from the 1980s to the present into a broad series of often radical innovations known as “performance management systems.” Implementation of measurement systems, however, has revealed challenges and complications in their use. Recent approaches have acknowledged these limitations and developed new practice-based strategies for effective ongoing measurement of program activities and use in guiding management. It is our goal for this handbook to serve as the vehicle for dissemination of these cutting-edge strategies.

    With this goal in mind, we have invited nationally and internationally known scholars and practitioners to contribute chapters that range from introductions, to different aspects of performance management, to case studies describing experiences of government entities around the world, to hands-on application of techniques for improving government's use of performance data. Thus, the information should be useful to students, academics, and practitioners interested in developing and sustaining performance management systems.

    After the prefatory grounding provided in Part I, “State of the Art,” chapters in the following four parts of the handbook are organized as follows:

    • Introduction to the section
    • Theoretical discussions and cases
    • Skill building

    Within each part, there is an introductory chapter that discusses the latest theories and major debates surrounding a particular aspect of performance management. This introduction identifies the major themes that will be discussed in the subsequent chapters and relates them to existing theory and practice. This introductory chapter of each part is followed by three theoretical discussion and/or case study chapters. Each chapter provides background information on performance measurement and management in the particular state, region, or country the chapter focuses on, describing and analyzing the experiences and providing some lessons learned. These chapters also include questions intended to elicit further discussion in a classroom setting. Third, concluding each part, readers will find a skill-building chapter that provides explicit “how-to” guidance, focusing on one or several aspects of the themes of the section. The guidance is provided through discussion of techniques, methods, and/or exemplary practice.

    The handbook ends with the concluding Part VI, “Pulling It All Together,” which summarizes and analyzes the major themes that emerge in this volume. To prepare us for confronting these themes, we now offer some definitions of terms that will be used throughout the handbook. This is followed by a brief description of the 23 chapters included in this handbook.

    What is Performance Management?

    As succinctly put by Harry P. Hatry in Chapter 1 in this volume, using performance information “transforms performance measurement into performance management” (p. 1). Joe Wholey (1999) goes further in his definition by stating that performance-based management or managing for results is “the purposeful use of resources and information to achieve and demonstrate measurable progress toward agency and program goals” (p. 288).

    As can be concluded from the definitions provided above, an essential component of performance management is performance measurement, the regular and careful monitoring of program implementation and outcomes (de Lancer Julnes, 2006). Such careful monitoring requires that organizations develop performance measurement systems that can provide numerical data and narratives for analysis to assess progress toward organizational goals and objectives (Wholey, 1999). Thus, a performance measurement system should include the following types of indicators or measures of performance:

    • Inputs are the funds (budget amounts), number of staff, and other resources that are used in government agencies.
    • Outputs are the specific activities or immediate results of the program services that are funded by the inputs. So, for example, the outputs of a training program on accounting spreadsheets would be the number of people trained during the session, while the outputs for a transportation program would be the number of miles of road paved.
    • Outcomes are the consequences of outputs and are often more complex to measure.
      • Intermediate outcome: an outcome, to include quality measures, that is expected to lead to a desired end but is not an end in itself. An example of intermediate outcomes would be teachers improving the curricula used in their classrooms after completing a curriculum improvement workshop.
      • End outcome: the end result that is sought, such as the number of students mastering a subject.
    • Efficiency measures indicate the ratio of output-to-input or outcome-to-input. This is also call “unit-cost ratio.”
    • Explanatory information provides the context for readers to interpret data. This is especially important when outcomes are poor or better than expected.

    The information provided by these indicators can then be used by managers for budget formulation, resource allocation, employee motivation, accountability to stakeholders and the public, reporting, program evaluation and control, improving the quality of programs, and enhancing citizens' trust.

    The different uses of performance measurement are discussed and illustrated throughout this book. Furthermore, some chapters focus on a critical aspect of performance management: having a high-quality performance measurement system.

    Chapter Content Descriptions
    Part I: State of the Art

    Part I serves as an introduction to the handbook, providing the context for the theoretical and practical discussions that will be presented in the chapters ahead. The three chapters included here relate the historical and theoretical background of performance management in the public and nonprofit sectors. They also discuss the future direction of performance management and the areas in which there needs to be more research in order to support practice.

    An assessment of current trends around the world leads Harry P. Hatry to predict in his chapter, “Emerging Developments in Performance Measurement: An International Perspective,” that the public sector accountability for results and for using information to improve services is here to stay. However, Hatry also notes that, for a number of reasons, certain performance measurement efforts will not continue at the current pace. After providing an overview of current performance measurement efforts at different levels of government, across sectors, and in disadvantaged countries, Hatry reviews recently emerged technical developments that have greatly improved the quality of performance data and highlights what is still missing in this arena. After pointing out an almost exclusive use of performance information for accountability, he discusses emerging ways to encourage effective use of performance information by decision makers.

    Kathryn Newcomer notes in her introductory chapter to this volume, “Assessing Performance in Nonprofit Service Agencies,” that, increasingly, nonprofit agencies are asking questions about the results of their programs. Newcomer explores the factors that have contributed to these demands, including those as varied as local governments and private foundations. She also explains that even though there is evidence that service providers are measuring output and, to a limited extent outcomes, in order to meet demands for programmatic performance information, this has not gone unopposed. The measuring of performance has created tensions for executives and managers of social services because of the choices they must make when designing and implementing performance measurement systems. Newcomer discusses this tension and also provides some insight into the less-tractable and still-evolving challenges facing nonprofit service providers.

    In the chapter “Performance: A New Public Management Perspective,” Owen E. Hughes provides us with a theoretical and cross-national discussion about transition from traditional public administration to managerial models like “New Public Management” (NPM). Central to this discussion is the idea that improving performance is fundamental for most managerial reforms. While traditional models of public administration reform sought to improve performance, for a number of reasons they fell short of this goal. One of those reasons addressed by Hughes is the inherent difficulty of measuring performance in the public sector. Nonetheless, Hughes argues that it is necessary for governments to measure performance in order to show that public purposes are being served. To make this point, Hughes discusses the NPM perspective in the context of performance management. He also explores the purposes of performance management, the need for performance measurement, and the criticisms often raised about performance indicators. The chapter also provides an overview of the different management reforms that have become part of the NPM.

    Part II: Using Performance Information to Improve Program Performance and Accountability

    To introduce Part II, Patria de Lancer Julnes deals with the thorny question about the potential contribution of performance information. In her chapter, “Can Performance Measurement Support Program Performance Improvement and Accountability?,” de Lancer Julnes provides a discussion about the major debates surrounding the claims of the contributions of performance measurement to decision making and accountability. She develops her arguments on the basis of the notion that performance measurement may have a less direct, but nonetheless important, impact than proponents of the tool might hope. She also discusses an apparent accountability paradox-accountability efforts may actually hinder performance improvement, the limitations of performance measurement, and ways to overcome those limitations. Examples of state and local government performance measurement systems in the United States are provided at the end of the chapter.

    In their chapter, Monica Brezzi, Laura Raimondo, and Francesca Utili discuss “Using Performance Measurement and Competition to Make Administrations Accountable: The Italian Case,” an innovative program designed to elicit competitive and cooperative behaviors in order to encourage performance improvement and accountability in six southern regions of Italy. The program is called the “6% performance reserve system” and was part of a development program, cofinanced by the European Union, that Italy started in 1999 to help increase territorial competitiveness and attract capital to the southern regions. It distributed €2.6 billion (6% of the total amount of a large development program for southern regions financed by the European Union) to administrations in those regions, based on their performance results on 12 indicators. Using agency theory, Brezzi, Raimondo, and Utili provide insight into why the “6% performance reserve system” worked and about the challenges encountered during the implementation of such a highly complex program.

    The chapter “Recognizing Credible Performance Reports: The Role of the Government Auditor in Canada,” by Barry Leighton, deals with three poignant questions about the quality and truthfulness of performance reports: Was the intended audience satisfied with the quality of the performance information presented? Did people get the right information? Was the information balanced, understandable, and credible? In this context, Leighton discusses how certain events have led to what he calls an “audit society,” increasingly demanding independent assurance of the fairness and reliability of performance reports. Leighton presents Canada's attempt to address these demands through the Office of the Auditor General's “model for good performance reporting.” Using a logic model approach, the model's criteria focus on the accomplishments of the department or agency and the quality and use of performance information. Leighton concludes that despite some weaknesses, the model seems to work and provides useful lessons for those interested in instituting similar performance information audit models.

    In their chapter, “Advancing Performance Measurement and Management for Accountability: King County's Collaborative, Incremental Approach,” Cheryle Broom and Edward T. Jennings, Jr. use the theory of incremental decision making to describe and explain the efforts of King County, in Washington State, to implement a performance management system. That King County has made only baby steps toward developing and implementing their system does not surprise the authors. It is not unusual for organizations with competing interests to use this approach. Broom and Jennings explain that such strategy has allowed the county to build a foundation for a viable countywide performance measurement program transparent to King County's citizens. The county has been able to build on experience; policymakers appear to have embraced the concept; and there appears to be buy-in from other participants.

    Based on the notion that governments need good analysis, David N. Ammons presents in his chapter, “Analyzing Performance Data,” a number of relatively easy-to-use techniques for analyzing performance data. Ammons argues that applying these techniques can greatly improve the usefulness of performance information for management decision making. The impetus for this chapter is Ammons's own observation that managers tend to focus on reporting data for accountability purposes and miss the chance to develop information that can help them improve service delivery. To help decrease this gap, Ammons discusses a variety of techniques “suitable to addressing common governmental problems.” Thus, for example, Ammons illustrates how to use ratios and performance standards and benchmarks to answer staffing questions. He also shows how a simple adjustment for inflation can make an analysis of revenues and expenses more useful and accurate from one year to the next.

    Part III: Informing and Involving Citizens and other Stakeholders

    In Chapter 9 of this handbook, “Making Performance Measurement Relevant: Informing and Involving Stakeholders in Performance Measurement,” Kaifeng Yang discusses the rationale, importance, practice, and challenges of informing and involving citizens in performance measurement. He argues that since government agencies often have multiple, competing, and changing expectations, their performance measurement has to be understood in relation to an open and dynamic process of coalition building and policy making in which stakeholders must be involved. Yang challenges public managers to take advantage of the accountability pressure and emphasize performance management from the wider perspective of democracy, governance, and citizenship as part of an integrated effort to solve public problems.

    In his chapter, “Citizen-Involved Performance Measurement: The Case of Online Procedures Enhancement for Civil Applications in Seoul,” Seungbeom Choi demonstrates the effects and success factors of the OPEN system, an award-winning reform program developed by the Seoul Metropolitan Government, in South Korea. OPEN is an Internet-based system that posts online the details of the status of 26 civil applications in areas such as transportation, urban planning, and construction. Both government and citizens can use the system to monitor the performance of the civil servants processing the applications. Citizens can also obtain additional information and communicate with civil servants via the system. Initial evidence shows that the OPEN system has increased transparency, reduced corruption, enhanced productivity, and improved citizen trust in government. Choi further attributes the success to factors such as strong leadership, creative use of information technology, decentralization, citizen participation, and effective strategic management.

    Education performance and accountability is an important policy area, and whether and how stakeholders can be involved in this area is of great significance. In “Performance Measurement and Educational Accountability: The U.S. Case,” Katherine E. Ryan briefly reviews education performance measurement and critically analyzes the standards, assessments, and accountability requirements of standards-based education reform as manifested by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). In particular, she examines the potential role of stakeholders, such as states, school districts, public officials, educators, parents, students, and citizens, in determining standards, assessments, and accountability. Acknowledging that these stakeholders have had limited participation in discussions about education performance measurement, Ryan proposes that values inquiry and public engagement can be employed to facilitate stakeholder and citizen action to improve school accountability.

    Both performance measurement and stakeholder participation are activities that may be lengthy, costly, and technically demanding. In integrating the two types of activities, one faces even more barriers and hindrances. However, in “Experience With Trained Observers in Transition and Developing Countries: Citizen Engagement in Monitoring Results,” Katharine Mark shows that simple techniques such as trained-observer rating can be used to achieve the integration even when resources are limited. Laypeople, especially stakeholders such as community residents, can be trained to use well-designed ordinal rating scales to evaluate a specific public service area and make recommendations. With cases from traditional and developing countries, Mark illustrates the principles, processes, methods, and positive effects of using trained-observer rating in local governments. She demonstrates that this technique can produce rapid results, facilitate community improvement, and result in strengthened and durable collaboration between civil society and government.

    Starting from the observation that traditional bureaucratic institutions and performance measurement are not friendly to citizen participation, Marc Holzer and Kathryn Kloby, in “Helping Government Measure Up: Models of Citizen-Driven Government Performance Measurement Initiatives,” offer an in-depth review of citizen-driven models of performance measurement and argue that institutions and mechanisms outside of government can be designed to align administrative policies with citizen preferences. They review five best practices from projects sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Performance Assessment of Municipal Government program. The five cases show that citizens and nonprofits can work with local governments or alone to identify performance aspects they value most, help collect performance data, monitor government performance, and push for performance improvement. Holzer and Kloby also identify four challenges of citizen-driven performance measurement: how to ensure transparency and cooperation from government agencies, how to maintain the integrity of such efforts, how to improve the marketability of such initiatives, and how to make them sustainable by creating win-win partnerships.

    Part IV: Performance Budgeting

    The introductory chapter to Part IV, titled “Performance Budgeting Internationally: Assessing Its Merits,” is written by Frances Stokes Berry. She introduces a short history of the development of performance budgets, summarizes the studies that assess the use of performance data in decision making and management, and addresses the issues that must be resolved to increase the effectiveness and use of performance budget information. This sets the stage for in-depth case studies of how performance budgeting is carried out in states and countries around the world.

    Developing a standard framework of budgetary reforms that incorporate performance measures is the starting point for “Performance-Based Budgeting in Latin and South America: Analyzing Recent Reforms in the Budgetary Systems of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico,” written by David Arellano-Gault and Edgar E. Ramirez de la Cruz. After the presentation of commonalities, the authors provide short case studies of budgetary reforms in the four countries. While all four countries share similar forms of government and similar economic and social problems, the budgeting systems function very differently and allow for some distinct comparisons and lessons to be drawn. They also demonstrate that the political economy of the countries can greatly impact the success or failure of a management reform like budgeting. Budgeting reform is often considered a technical reform, but, in fact, it influences important decisions about whether programs receive more government funding, how allocation decisions will be made, and what the role is of the central budget agency to the program agencies. All of these issues raise conflict and keep a “technical” management system like budgeting from being implemented smoothly and fully.

    The state of Florida was an early adopter of performance-based budgeting among the states (in 1994) and was viewed as an exemplar of a central budgeting system with widespread agency discretion over the development of performance measures and targets. Martha Wellman and Gary VanLandingham, in “Performance-Based Budgeting in Florida: Great Expectations, More Limited Reality,” provide an insider's view of the experience. Their chapter provides a rich discussion of the key issues addressed in implementing a major systemwide reform and links deficiencies in the process back to the scholarly literature on budgeting—demonstrating that some of the key frustrations continue under Florida's performance-based budgeting. The authors conclude that much useful information for managers, citizens, and policymakers is generated under this new system but that full usage is still in its infancy; one can view the glass as “half full” or “half empty,” and they believe the evidence points most accurately to the glass being half full.

    Two countries that have the best international reputations in the last two decades for comprehensive and workable performance management systems are New Zealand and Australia. John Halligan, in “Performance Management and Budgeting in Australia and New Zealand,” provides a comparative discussion of how these two systems developed across three generations of change and the choices made in each country to make their systems distinctive and different from each other. These countries have tackled some of the perennial questions of public administration: Can policy development and implementation be separated? How can transparency and accountability best be achieved? What is the role of incentives and sanctions on managers' performances? What should the relative roles of central agencies and program agencies be vis-à-vis performance implementation and decision making? Halligan concludes that parliamentary systems of government may provide the most conducive environment to the adoption of comprehensive performance management systems but that even in a supportive environment, performance data are used at best sporadically for resource allocation.

    To conclude Part IV, Carl Moravitz writes a lively skill-building chapter, “Performance-Based Budgeting: Integrating Objectives and Metrics With People and Resources,” on the U.S. federal government's budgeting system. He gives many examples from current studies of how performance budgeting is working (or not) at the federal level and how its integration into broader management systems of strategic planning, human resource management, and information technology systems can improve organizational performance. Drawing on his many years working in federal agencies and advising them on system improvement, Moravitz provides a seasoned view of the best and the still-to-be-developed operations of performance-based budgeting in a large national government.

    Part V: Quality and Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations

    Maria P. Aristigueta introduces this part of the handbook with her chapter, “The Integration of Quality and Performance.” In this chapter, Aristigueta explores the theoretical disconnect in the quality and performance movements. She defines quality and the requirements of performance management and explores the changing definitions of the movements that have occurred in order to allow for the integration of quality and performance. Through a number of examples, Aristigueta illustrates the integration of performance and quality movements in the United States. Trends such as the use of the balance scorecard and quality award programs (e.g., Baldrige Award, Delaware Quality Award) as well as quality and performance initiatives at the state and local levels are explored. Software available for quality initiatives is also mentioned as a step to successful implementation of quality and performance initiatives.

    In his chapter, “Quality and Performance Management: Toward a Better Integration?,” Wouter Van Dooren argues that quality management and performance management are disconnected and need to be integrated. His discussion includes the next steps in the development of quality models and performance management. In particular, Van Dooren asks how performance management and quality management should adapt in order to deal with supraorganizational realities, such as multiorganizational collaborative networks within and across policy sectors. The rephrasing of performance management and quality management is complicated by an increasing awareness of the need for collaboration in networks. Performance measurement, performance management, and quality management have to adapt to new organizational realities.

    In “Performance Information of High Quality: How to Develop a Legitimate, Functional, and Sound Performance Measurement System,” Miekatrien Sterck and Geert Bouckaert discuss the availability of high-quality performance information as a crucial condition for success of performance and quality management. They argue that a systems approach is necessary, as the quality of a performance measurement system is more than the technical quality of the indicators. Besides producing valid and reliable information, a performance measurement system should be legitimate and functional. It has to be supported by the employees of an organization and has to contribute to the goals of the organization. Quality of information has to be a point of interest throughout the measurement process. Control measures have to be taken and an ex post and independent audit of the performance measurement system may be necessary. Auditing performance information may provide incentives to further improve the performance measurement system, but the benefits should outweigh the costs, and organizations have to determine the acceptable level of data quality.

    In the “how-to chapter” in this part of the handbook, “Applying the Common Assessment Framework in Europe,” Nick Thijs and Patrick Staes explain the quality management movement and its rise in Europe. This brief historical and contextual overview is useful in providing context to the Common Assessment Framework (CAF), a quality management tool specially designed by and for public sector organizations of the European Union. Thijs and Staes examine a shift in thinking about quality from a focus on inspection and control, output, and assurance to a focus on the processes, to reach a final state where quality management is seen as organizational management. Performance management from this point of view becomes organizational performance management and quality, a necessary component to a well-functioning public sector organization. The last part of this chapter focuses in detail on the CAF in practice and the application of the CAF as a European quality tool. On the basis of experiences with the implementation of the CAF, practical remarks and recommendations are formulated.

    Part VI: Pulling it all Together

    Performance management can be viewed from the perspective of three levels, write John M. Kamensky and Jay Fountain in “Creating and Sustaining a Results-Oriented Performance Management Framework.” Those levels are the microlevel (individual agencies), the mesolevel (across policy areas and agencies and jurisdictions), and the macrolevel (across national levels). Each level offers a different set of uses of performance measures and performance systems that require performance measurement in contracts and through intergovernmental or international grants. The authors go on to offer detailed and step-by-step advice on how to use and implement a performance management system in the micro- and mesolevels. For those managers who are given the tasks of getting their employees to contribute to and use a performance measurement system, they offer proven steps and best practices to make the performance management effort a success.

    References
    de Lancer Julnes, P.Performance measurement: An effective tool for government accountability? The debate goes on. Evaluation, 12219–235. (2006). http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1356389006066973
    Wholey, J.Performance-based management: Responding to the challenges. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22288–307. (1999). http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3380705

    Acknowledgments

    We are deeply Government indebted to our board of advisors: Allen Lomax, U.S. Accountability Office; Vache Gabrielyan, American University of Armenia; Gerasimos (Jerry) Gianakis, Suffolk University; George Julnes, Utah State University; Martha Marshall, Management Consultant; Byron Price, Rutgers University; and Shawn (XiaoHu) Wang, University of Central Florida. They all did a commendable job providing a multitude of timely, insightful, challenging, and positive comments and recommendations on early drafts of the chapters included in this handbook.

    Many thanks also to all the authors and coauthors for their excellent contributions to this handbook. But we are especially grateful to John Kamensky and Jay Fountain. They had the monumental task of reading every single one of the chapters in order to come up with a concluding chapter of their own that synthesizes diverse ideas and provides practical guidance for advancing the practice of performance-based management. They also provided useful feedback to several authors on the early drafts of their chapters.

    The unique features of our handbook, integrating theory and practice from an international perspective, are possible because many of the chapters were originally presentations made at the International Symposium on Practice-Based Performance Management held during the annual meeting of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) in April 2005. The symposium was cosponsored by ASPA's Center for Accountability and Performance (CAP) and the IBM Center for the Business of Government, with the goal of doing what is accomplished too rarely: bringing together the foremost experts in a field and integrating their wisdom with applied skill-building workshops.

    Finally, we wish to thank Lisa Cuevas, at Sage Publications, for believing in our book.

  • About the Editors

    Patria de Lancer Julnes is an Associate Professor and Director of the Graduate Program in the Department of Political Science at Utah State University. Dr. de Lancer Julnes's research interests include performance management, government accountability, and public administration education and government reform in Latin America. She and Marc Holzer are recipients of the 2001 Public Administration Review William and Frederick Mosher Award for best article written by an academician, and the 2001 Center for Accountability and Performance (CAP) Joseph S. Wholey Distinguished Scholarship Award for the article titled “Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation.” She is past cochair and board member of CAP.

    Frances Stokes Berry is Director and Frank Sherwood Professor of Public Administration at the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy. Dr. Berry's scholarly research covers four areas: policy innovation, diffusion and change, strategic and performance management, implementation and utilization of policy and administrative reform, and the utilization of computer technologies in public and nonprofit agencies. She serves on seven editorial boards of academic journals. On campus at Florida State University, Dr. Berry serves as Chair of the FSU Commission on the Status of Women, on the Executive Committee of the College of Social Sciences, and as a member of the FSU Athletic Committee and Chair of its Academic Standards Subcommittee.

    Maria P. Aristigueta is a Professor and Director of the School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy at the University of Delaware. Dr. Aristigueta's teaching and research interests are primarily in the areas of public sector management and include topics around the issues of performance measurement, strategic planning, civil society, and organizational behavior. She is the coauthor with Robert Denhardt and Janet Vinzant Denhard of the text Administrative Behavior in Public Administration, published by Sage, 2002. She is also the author of Managing for Results in State Government, published in 1999.

    Kaifeng Yang is an Assistant Professor of the Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University. His research interests include public and performance management, citizen participation, e-governance, and organizational theory. He has published in various journals, including Public Administration Review, Administration & Society, Public Performance & Management Review, and Public Integrity, among others. In the area of performance measurement, he is currently working on projects that scientifically assess how political environments affect the implementation of results-based management and how managing for results affects the social identification process in government agencies.

    About the Contributors

    David N. Ammons is Professor of Public Administration and Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Among his six books on local government management are Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards (2001) and Tools for Decision Making: A Practical Guide for Local Government (2002). Early in his career, he served on the staffs of four municipalities—Fort Worth, Texas; Hurst, Texas; Phoenix, Arizona; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee—in various administrative capacities.

    David Arellano-Gault holds a PhD from the University of Colorado. He is a professor at Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE) in Mexico City. He has recently published Dilemmas for Local Management (2006) and “Maturation of Public Administration in a Multicultural Environment: Lessons From the Anglo-Saxon, Latin, and Scandinavian Political Traditions,” International Journal of Public Administration (2004). He is also editor of the academic journal Gestión y Política Pública [Public Management and Policy] and a member of the board of editors of Public Administration Review.

    Geert Bouckaert is Director of the Public Management Institute, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven (Belgium). His research interests are in performance management, financial management, and public sector reform. He has published extensively in the leading public administration journals. His recent books include Public Management Reform: An International Comparison (with C. Pollitt, 2004).

    Monica Brezzi has a doctorate in statistics. Since 1998, she has been working at the Public Investment Evaluation Unit (UVAL) of the Ministry of Economic Development, Rome, Italy. Her research interests and main responsibilities include quantitative methods for programming and evaluation of regional development policy, and design of incentive mechanisms for public administrations to measure performance on institutional enhancement and citizen services.

    Cheryle Broom, a recognized leader in promoting performance-based government, is King County Auditor, Seattle, Washington. Other positions include First Deputy Inspector General for the New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Legislative Auditor for Washington State, President of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA), and Chair of ASPA's Center for Accountability and Performance. She has contributed to publications, forums, and training programs on performance measurement and management nationally and internationally.

    Seungbeom Choi holds a PhD from the University of Southern California and is a professor of public administration at Hankyong National University, Korea. He has published books and a number of articles on public management, urban administration, urban politics, and place marketing. He is a part-time consultant for local governments, hired by the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. He is also conducting projects on the evaluation of Research and Development programs funded by Gyonggi Province. He is currently studying urban image management and place marketing.

    Jay Fountain is a consultant in financial and performance management for government. From 1987 to 2005, he was Assistant Director of Research for the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), in Norwalk, Connecticut. Among other projects, he was a lead researcher on the series of research reports on service efforts and accomplishments reporting and case studies on the use and effect of using performance information by state and local governments. He has continued with GASB as a consultant on the Reporting Service Performance Information project.

    John Halligan is Professor of Public Administration and Head, School of Business and Government, University of Canberra, Australia. His publications are concentrated in the fields of public sector reform and public management, and his current research interests are in the fields of government institutions and comparative public management and governance. He is currently completing a book with Geert Bouckaert, Performance Management: A Comparative Approach, to be published in 2007.

    Harry P. Hatry is a Distinguished Fellow and Director of the Public Management Program for The Urban Institute, in Washington, D.C. He pioneered methods for U.S. government and human services agencies to measure the performance of their programs. He has been a leader in developing performance management/measurement and evaluation procedures for federal, state, and local public and private agencies—both in the United States and developing countries. He has authored or coauthored numerous books, reports, and articles describing performance measurement procedures

    Marc Holzer is a Board of Governors Professor and Dean of the School for Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers-Newark. Since 1975, Dr. Holzer has directed the National Center for Public Productivity. His research addresses issues of public performance, e-governance, comparative public administration, and the influence of culture on management. He is a member of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and past president of the American Society for Public Administration.

    Owen E. Hughes is Professor and Deputy Dean in the Faculty of Business and Economics at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, and also Deputy Dean of the Australia and New Zealand School of Government—a consortium of 12 universities and 6 governments. He has BA and PhD degrees from the University of Western Australia. He is best known internationally for his book Public Management and Administration, currently in its third edition (2003), and twice translated into Chinese.

    Edward T. Jennings Jr., PhD, is Director of the Martin School of Public Policy and Administration at the University of Kentucky. Dr. Jennings is a fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and past president of the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA). In 2004, he received the Charles H. Levine Award for Excellence in Public Administration from ASPA and the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. He is a specialist in the development, implementation, and evaluation of public policy.

    John M. Kamensky is an Associate Partner with IBM Global Business Services and a Senior Research Fellow for the IBM Center for the Business of Government. During 24 years of public service, he had a significant role in helping pioneer the federal government's performance and results orientation. Previously, Mr. Kamensky served as Vice President Gore's deputy for the National Performance Review and worked at the Government Accountability Office, where he helped develop the Government Performance and Results Act.

    Kathryn Kloby is an assistant professor of political science at Monmouth University in New Jersey. Her work with the National Center for Public Productivity includes fund-raising, curriculum development, and delivering online courses. Her research interests are performance measurement and reporting, public sector accountability, and citizen participation.

    Barry Leighton is Principal, Results Measurement, at the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, where he is responsible for auditing evaluation and other forms of performance measurement and for how well this performance information is reported to Parliament. He also audits Statistics Canada and is currently conducting audits on the 2006 Census and on the management of the quality of health statistics. Dr. Leighton provides expert advice to fellow performance auditors on methodology, quantitative methods, sampling, and surveying.

    Katharine Mark is a senior research associate at The Urban Institute. Her work includes introducing performance management to local governments in Eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America and providing training to improve monitoring of project outcomes by international development agencies. Recent publications include “Legislating for Results: Briefs for State Legislatures” (with Harry Hatry), prepared with the National Conference of State Legislatures for The Annie E. Casey Foundation, and “Assessing the Benefits of Performance Management in Eastern Europe: Experience With Local Governments in Hungary, Albania, and Georgia” (with Ritu Nayyar-Stone).

    Carl Moravitz, with over 30 years of experience in managing and directing budgets, is currently a senior consultant at IBM Global Business Services. He has served as budget director for the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, and deputy director for resource management at the Voice of America. His leadership in performance budgeting includes the development of a prototype Results Act-compliant performance budget that has served as the model for the presentation of integrated budget and performance plans to Office of Management and Budget and Congress.

    Kathryn Newcomer is the Director of the School of Public Policy and Public Administration at the George Washington University. She regularly conducts research and training for nonprofit and government agencies on performance measurement and program evaluation. Dr. Newcomer has published five books and numerous articles in journals on program evaluation. She is a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and is president of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA).

    Laura Raimondo has an MSc in development economics and a PhD in agricultural economics and policy. Dr. Raimondo is the Director of the Public Investment Evaluation Unit (UVAL), in the Ministry of Economic Development, Italy. She coordinated the Performance Reserve Technical Group in charge of evaluating the allocation of financial incentives to public administrations in the 2000–2003 period. She worked as senior economist at the World Bank.

    Edgar E. Ramirez de la Cruz is Assistant Professor at Arizona State University. He holds a PhD in public administration from the Askew School at Florida State University. His research interests include urban policy, networking practices in public administration, and administrative reforms in Latin America. His dissertation research examined the impact of political institutions and social networks on land-use regulation and growth management.

    Katherine E. Ryan is an Associate Professor in the Educational Psychology Department at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). After receiving a PhD in 1988, she worked as an evaluator for a decade before joining the UIUC faculty in 1999. Her research interests include educational evaluation and the intersection of educational accountability issues and high-stakes assessment. In her most recent work, she considers how high-stakes assessment and accountability systems are used in place of educational evaluation to evaluate teachers and schools. She has developed a model for how schools and communities can address educational accountability through their own evaluation capacity-building efforts.

    Patrick Staes is head consultant of public office at the Belgian Federal Government Service Personnel and Organisation. He is currently Seconded National Expert at the European Institute of Public Administration, in Maastricht, the Netherlands, where he is responsible for the CAF Resource Centre.

    Miekatrien Sterck is Assistant to the Director, Strategic Policy Support Division, Department of Education and Training, Government of Flanders. She is involved in an international comparative research program on public sector financial management reform. Her fields of interest are performance budgeting, performance measurement, and evolutions in auditing.

    Nick Thijs is a researcher at the European Institute of Public Administration, Public Management and Comparative Public Administration Unit, in Maastricht, the Netherlands. His research topics focus on quality management and implementing quality management systems, instruments, and techniques in public sector organizations from a change management perspective.

    Francesca Utili, PhD, is Senior Economist at the Policy Analysis Division of the Ministry for Economic Development in Italy. She obtained a doctorate in applied economics in Rome, and has been a visiting scholar at Cambridge and Nuffield College, Oxford. Her research interests are economic analysis for regional programming and evaluation, income distribution, and performance of public administrations.

    Wouter Van Dooren is a researcher at the Public Management Institute of the Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium, and Postdoctoral Fellow of the Research Foundation-Flanders. Dr. Van Dooren's research interests include supply and demand of performance measurement and the financial relations between central and local government with a particular focus on subsidies. His research has been published in Financial Accountability and Management and Public Management Review.

    Gary VanLandingham is Director of the Florida Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, which is the entity responsible for evaluating performance-based budgeting efforts in Florida. He has over 25 years of state government policy experience, has chaired the National Legislative Program Evaluation Society and the Southeast Evaluation Association, and holds a doctorate in public policy from the Florida State University.

    Martha Wellman was Chief Legislative Analyst, Office of Program Policy and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), Florida Legislature. Ms. Wellman had a bachelor of arts degree from the University of Michigan and a master's of business administration from Florida State University. In 1977, she began working in the Florida legislative auditor's program evaluation unit, which later became OPPAGA. She coordinated OPPAGA's performance-based, program-budgeting activities and supervised higher-education projects. Sadly, Ms. Wellman died in 2007 before this book was published.


    • Loading...
Back to Top

Copy and paste the following HTML into your website