Performance Measurement in U.S. Counties: Capacity for Reform

This study examines the capacity of U.S. counties to undertake performance measurement. Based on a national survey of counties with populations over 50,000, the authors address the following questions: To what extent do counties implement performance measurement? Which capacities must be present for different levels of implementation and success? What can counties do to increase their capacity for performance measurement? And, what is the effect of county structure and functions on the use of performance measurement? This study finds that the success of performance measurement is greatly affected by counties' underlying organizational capacities.

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

[2]  Patricia Tigue,et al.  The use of performance measures in city and county budgets , 1994 .

[3]  Marc Holzer,et al.  Government at Work: Best Practices and Model Programs , 1997 .

[4]  Philip G. Joyce.  Using Performance Measures for Federal Budgeting: Proposals and Prospects , 1993 .

[5]  Gregory Streib.  Professional Skill and Support for Democratic Principles , 1992 .

[6]  Mark S. Hamm,et al.  The Conditions of Effective Implementation , 1989 .

[7]  William D. Berry,et al.  The Determinants of Success in Implementing an Expert System in State Government , 1998 .

[8]  Cheryle A. Broom,et al.  Performance-Based Government Models: Building a Track Record , 1995 .

[9]  The Reiterative Nature of Budget Reform: Is There Anything New in Federal Budgeting? , 1993 .

[10]  I. Rubin.  The Politics of Public Budgeting: Getting and Spending, Borrowing and Balancing , 1990 .

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

[12]  J. Wholey,et al.  The Case for Performance Monitoring. , 1992 .

[13]  M. Wart.  The First Step in the Reinvention Process: Assessment , 1995 .

[14]  G. Taylor,et al.  Policy making/implementing activities of elected county executives and appointed county administrators: Does form of government make a difference? , 1994 .

[15]  D. Kettl.  Reinventing Government?: Appraising the National Performance Review , 1994 .

[16]  Harry P. Hatry,et al.  How Effective Are Your Community Services?: Procedures for Measuring Their Quality , 1992 .

[17]  J. Mikesell.  Fiscal Administration: Analysis and Applications for the Public Sector , 1982 .

[18]  L. R. Jones,et al.  Implementing the Chief Financial Officers Act and the Government Performance and Results Act in the Federal Government , 1997 .

[19]  R. Mascarenhas.  Searching for Efficiency in the Public Sector: Interim Evaluation of Performance Budgeting in New Zealand , 1996 .

[20]  David N. Ammons.  Accountability for performance : measurement and monitoring in local government , 1995 .

[21]  A. Wildavsky.  The Self-Evaluating Organization , 1972 .

[22]  W. Waugh,et al.  Probing the Limits of County Reform in an Era of Scarcity: A National Survey of County Administrators and Executives , 1991 .

[23]  J. Rabin,et al.  Public budgeting and finance , 1997 .

[24]  G. H. Cope.  Bureaucratic Reform and Issues of Political Responsiveness , 1997 .

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

[26]  Jody Harris,et al.  行政機関の業績測定 : 政策評価の概念と手法 : ワークブック = Performance measurement : concepts and techniques , 1998 .

[27]  James H. Svara.  The possibility of professionalism in county management , 1993 .

[28]  John Stuart Mill,et al.  A CAPACITY-BUILDING FRAMEWORK: A SEARCH FOR CONCEPT AND PURPOSE , 1981 .

[29]  J. D. Carroll,et al.  The Rhetoric of Reform and Political Reality in the National Performance Review , 1995 .

[30]  Mark Graham Brown,et al.  Why TQM fails and what to do about it , 1994 .

[31]  M. Salzer,et al.  Validating Quality Indicators , 1997, Evaluation review.