Evidence-Based Policy and Performance Management

Both the evidence-based policy and performance management movements aim to improve government effectiveness by developing and utilizing a more rigorous base of information and scientific evidence to guide decisions about program design, funding, implementation, and management. In practice, however, differences and tensions between these movements—such as their methods and standards for assembling and analyzing data, and the strategic timing and use of this information to influence policy and hold public managers accountable for performance—could limit their success. Using cases and empirical studies, this article considers questions about what should count as evidence, how it should be communicated, who should judge the quality and reliability of evidence and performance information, and how to achieve a balance between processes that produce rigorous information for decision making and those that foster democratic governance and accountability. Recommendations are made for improving government effectiveness by using more rigorous information in decision making, along with acknowledgment of the limitations and risks associated with such efforts.

[1]  Carolyn J. Heinrich,et al.  Administration the American Review of Public Performance-based Contracting in Social Welfare Programs on Behalf Of: American Society for Public Administration Performance-based Contracting in Social Welfare Programs Study Objectives and Approach Theoretical Models of Government Contracting Incomplet , 2022 .

[2]  L. Amato,et al.  Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programmes for alcohol dependence. , 2006, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[3]  F. Furstenberg.  Teenage childbearing as a public issue and private concern , 2003 .

[4]  Beryl A. Radin,et al.  The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hydra-Headed Monster or Flexible Management Tool? , 1998 .

[5]  Carolyn J. Heinrich.  False or fitting recognition? The use of high performance bonuses in motivating organizational achievements , 2007 .

[6]  Van Ryzin,et al.  Expectations, performance, and citizen satisfaction with urban services , 2004 .

[7]  Gerald Marschke,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of Gaming Responses to Explicit Performance Incentives , 2002, Journal of Labor Economics.

[8]  Kenneth R. Troske,et al.  The Effects of Welfare‐to‐Work Program Activities on Labor Market Outcomes , 2005, Journal of Labor Economics.

[9]  Gerald Marschke,et al.  Setting the Standard in Performance Measurement Systems , 2005 .

[10]  Janet M. Kelly,et al.  The Dilemma of the Unsatisfied Customer in a Market Model of Public Administration , 2005 .

[11]  W. Gormley.  Using Organizational Report Cards , 2003 .

[12]  D. Greenberg,et al.  Do Experimental and Nonexperimental Evaluations Give Different Answers about the Effectiveness of Government-Funded Training Programs?. , 2006 .

[13]  Gerald Marschke,et al.  An Empirical Investigation of Gaming Responses to Performance , 1997 .

[14]  I. Sanderson.  Is it ‘what works’ that matters? Evaluation and evidence‐based policy‐making , 2003 .

[15]  Rob Watts,et al.  Tampering with the evidence: a critical appraisal of evidence-based policy-making , 2003 .

[16]  D. Koretz.  Limitations in the Use of Achievement Tests as Measures of Educators' Productivity , 2002 .

[17]  I. Sanderson.  Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence-Based Policy Making , 2002 .

[18]  Gilbert A. Churchill,et al.  An Investigation into the Determinants of Customer Satisfaction , 1982 .

[19]  Dan Bloom,et al.  How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Employment and Income: A Synthesis of Research. , 2001 .

[20]  D. Lewis,et al.  Does Performance Budgeting Work? An Examination of the Office of Management and Budget’s PART Scores , 2006 .

[21]  Longitudinal Data Systems to Support Data-Informed Decision Making: A Tri-State Partnership Between Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin , 2006 .

[22]  B. Radin.  The Government Performance and Results Act and the Tradition of Federal Management Reform: Square Pegs in Round Holes? , 2000 .

[23]  Annette Boaz,et al.  Social Science and the Evidence-based Policy Movement , 2002, Social Policy and Society.

[24]  K Walshe,et al.  Evidence-based management: from theory to practice in health care. , 2001, The Milbank quarterly.

[25]  B. McCormack,et al.  What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice? , 2004, Journal of advanced nursing.

[26]  James J. Heckman,et al.  Assessing the Case for Social Experiments , 1995 .

[27]  L. Rosenstock,et al.  Attacks on science: the risks to evidence-based policy. , 2002, American journal of public health.

[28]  C. Hood,et al.  What's measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system , 2006 .

[29]  Nancy B. Shulock,et al.  The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? , 1999 .

[30]  Rebecca A. Maynard,et al.  Presidential address: Evidence-based decision making: What will it take for the decision makers to care? , 2006 .

[31]  M. B. Sanger.  The Welfare Marketplace: Privatization and Welfare Reform , 2003 .

[32]  P. Cook,et al.  Aiming for evidence-based gun policy , 2006 .

[33]  Richard F. Callahan,et al.  End-User Satisfaction and Design Features of Public Agencies , 2005 .

[34]  J Gabbay,et al.  Implementation of evidence-based medicine: evaluation of the Promoting Action on Clinical Effectiveness programme , 2001, Journal of health services research & policy.