Models of Performance‐Measurement Use in Local Governments: Understanding Budgeting, Communication, and Lasting Effects

While attention has been paid to a few cities and counties exhibiting effective performance measurement systems, most U.S. local governments have been active in the development and use of performance measurement for several decades. This research examines the effects of performance-measurement information on budgetary decision making, communication, and other operations of U.S. local governments. Data are drawn from a national survey of city and county administrators and budgeters that included nearly 300 governments. Findings indicate the use of performance measurement by local departments is pervasive, although survey respondents are less enthusiastic about measurement effectiveness. Study results show subtle distinctions between city and county officials in their use of performance measurement for budgetary purposes and processes. Research findings indicate the consistent, active integration of measures throughout the budget process is important in determining real budget and communication effects in local governments.

[1]  Harry P. Hatry,et al.  Performance Measurement: Getting Results , 2007 .

[2]  Katherine G. Willoughby,et al.  Local Governments as E-Governments: Meeting the Implementation Challenge , 2005 .

[3]  Arie Halachmi,et al.  A BRIEF NOTE ON THE METHODOLOGY OF MEASURING PRODUCTIVITY OF SERVICES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL , 2002 .

[4]  G. Grizzle,et al.  Implementing Performance‐Based Program Budgeting: A System‐Dynamics Perspective , 2002 .

[5]  A. Franklin An Examination of the Impact of Budget Reform on Arizona and Oklahoma Appropriations , 2002 .

[6]  D. Moynihan,et al.  Beyond Measurement: Managing for Results in State Government , 2001 .

[7]  P. Julnes,et al.  Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and Implementation , 2001 .

[8]  Paul Mavima,et al.  Comprehensive Administrative Reform Implementation: Moving beyond Single Issue Implementation Research , 2001 .

[9]  R. Kluvers An Analysis of Introducing Program Budgeting in Local Government , 2001 .

[10]  J. Melkers,et al.  Budgeters' Views of State Performance-Budgeting Systems: Distinctions across Branches , 2001 .

[11]  Robert D. Lee,et al.  Performance Measurement in State Budgeting: Advancement and Backsliding from 1990 to 1995 , 2000 .

[12]  Evan M. Berman,et al.  Performance Measurement in U.S. Counties: Capacity for Reform , 2000 .

[13]  Xiaohu Wang,et al.  Performance Measurement in Budgeting: A Study of County Governments , 2000 .

[14]  Julia Melkers,et al.  Implementing PBB: Conflicting Views of Success , 2000 .

[15]  J. Smith The Benefits and Threats of Pbb: An Assessment of Modern Reform , 1999 .

[16]  A. Schwartz,et al.  Using Adjusted Performance Measures for Evaluating Resource Use , 1999 .

[17]  Theodore H. Poister,et al.  Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice , 1999 .

[18]  Meagan M. Jordan,et al.  Performance Budgeting and Performance Funding in the States: A States Assessment , 1999 .

[19]  N. Caiden Public Service Professionalism for Performance Measurement and Evaluation , 1998 .

[20]  Julia Melkers,et al.  The State of the States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50 , 1998 .

[21]  Guy B. Adams,et al.  Budgetary Reform Through Organizational Learning , 1997 .

[22]  David N. Ammons Overcoming the Inadequacies of Performance Measurement in Local Government: The Case of Libraries and Leisure Services , 1995 .

[23]  G. Grizzle Does Budget Format Really Govern the Actions of Budgetmakers , 1986 .

[24]  ラッセル M. ロバ-ト 情報公開10年の歩み--シンポジウムレポ-ト(訳)-2-情報の自由法の忠実な実施--ある行政部門における実際例(Public Administration Review,No.4 1979) , 1981 .