PERFORMANCE BUDGETING IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT



PERFORMANCE BUDGETING IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

Janet M. Kelly

Albert A. Levin Chair for Public Service

Levin College of Urban Affairs, UR 238-A

Cleveland State University

2121 Euclid Avenue

Cleveland OH 44115

(216) 687-5269

jkelly@urban.csuohio.edu

and

William C. Rivenbark

Assistant Professor

School of Government

CB# 3330 Knapp Building

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Chapel Hill NC 27599-3330

(919) 962-3707

rivenbark@iogmail.iog.unc.edu

ABSTRACT

Greater detail about how municipalities use performance information during their annual budget processes emerges when performance budgeting is defined as a process rather than an outcome. Such a definition is justified by the multiple accountabilities associated with public budgeting. Based on a national survey, we conclude that municipal governments of all sizes are building capacity for performance budgeting by measuring program performance and using performance measures to evaluate budget requests. Program performance information is rarely determinate for budget requests, nor is it formally required, but it is often used in budget deliberations(especially when the budget request is new or significantly expanded.

INTRODUCTION

The interaction of multiple accountabilities associated with the budget process precludes determinate budgeting systems, yet multiple accountabilities are essential to democratic government. Financial accountability is well understood; there is a set of generally accepted standards for accounting and reporting enforced by internal and external auditors. Political accountability also is well understood, though not always embraced by public finance officers when it seems to contradict their professional norms. Operational accountability is somewhere between financial and political accountability and is the driving force behind the adoption of performance budgeting. Each program has a service mission, which provides the direction for service delivery goals. Progress toward those goals is monitored by quantitative indicators of program performance. Operational accountability is achieved when program managers assume responsibility for the way inputs are transformed into outputs and outcomes. Performance budgeting occurs when performance information is used to inform budget allocation decisions for those programs.

There has never been an agreed upon definition for performance budgeting in the public budgeting literature.[1] Clearly, performance budgeting has a normative component, suggesting that resources should be located on the basis of their most efficient and effective operational use. There are two important assumptions inherent in this approach to budgeting. The first is that a performance focus can do for the public sector what it, anecdotally, did for the private sector(enhance efficiency and effectiveness. The second is that efficiency and effectiveness are what the public desires most from their public services. Students of public policy know that programs often have multiple, overlapping goals that rarely enjoy stakeholder consensus. Programs with goal consensus often cannot produce reliable outcome measures of program performance. Even if goal consensus and outcome measures are available, program managers might not have the causal knowledge necessary to affect changes that improve program performance.

We acknowledge that multiple accountabilities, untested assumptions, vague goals, and limited causal knowledge characterize the annual budget process.[2] Therefore, we reject the notion of determinacy in performance budgeting. In a determinate system, operational accountability trumps political and financial accountability. The notion of an apolitical approach to budgetary decision-making has some appeal. But, as Smith noted, determinate performance budgeting can undercut traditional (external) politics and replace it with internal politics, especially the politics of selecting performance measures, while adding nothing to operational accountability. [3]

We prefer a definition of performance budgeting that concentrates on the budget process rather than budget outcomes.[4] Our goal is to look for meaningful incorporation of performance information into budget deliberations by program managers, public finance officers, senior administrators, and elected officials as evidence of performance budgeting. Simply including performance measures in the budget document for presentation does not qualify as performance budgeting. However, supporting budget requests with performance measures and using those measures during budget deliberations does constitute performance budgeting, even when the resulting allocation decision seems at odds with the performance information.

Having established a process definition of performance budgeting, we direct our attention to the adoption and implementation patterns of performance budgeting in state and local government. We reviewed state studies because we used the results from them to help frame an appropriate research approach to performance budgeting in local government. We parse the difference between adoption and implementation and then narrow our focus to municipalities to assess the availability of performance data for budgetary decisions, and how and when performance measures enter the municipal budget process. We pay special attention to certain differences between smaller and larger jurisdictions, as adoption and implementation of performance measurement and performance budgeting in smaller municipalities have been understudied.

STATUS OF PERFORMANCE BUDGETING IN STATES AND LOCALITIES

Performance measures may be put to different uses. The use that concerns us here is budgetary decision-making. When program managers use performance measures to make decisions about service delivery, the process is generally called performance management. Performance management can stand without performance budgeting, but performance budgeting cannot stand without performance management. That is, performance budgeting does not begin in the budget office. It must originate with a commitment from program managers to identify service objectives and to monitor progress toward those objectives with performance measures. Performance budgeting occurs when performance information becomes part of the annual budget process during the request, deliberation, and adoption phases.

Issues Raised by State Studies

While states’ experience with forms of performance budgeting traces back to the 1950s,[5] recent research reveals a gap between formal adoption of performance budgeting and the actual use of performance measures for budgetary decision-making. By one count, forty-seven out of fifty states have some sort of performance budgeting requirement, defined as “requiring strategic planning regarding agency mission, goals, and objectives, and a process that requests quantifiable data that provides meaningful information about program outcomes.”[6] Willoughby and Melkers noted that, although forty-seven states had adopted performance budgeting, only twenty-nine had implemented it, and the implementation process in those states was sometimes limited or incomplete.[7] Performance budgeting requirements were motivated primarily by the desire to improve agency effectiveness and to improve the quality of decision-making in governmental organizations.[8] However, performance budgeting has not significantly changed how resources were allocated after implementation.[9]

Jordan and Hackbart studied the extent to which states used performance measures during budget preparation to guide resource allocation decisions.[10] The study defined performance budgeting as performance funding, allocating or distributing a percentage of the appropriated funds contingent upon measures of agency performance. Note the definition for performance funding was a percentage of the appropriated funds, permitting policy imperatives and financial factors to enter into allocation decisions. Based on that definition, Jordan and Hackbart determined that ten states used performance budgeting: Arkansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

An update on state budgeting systems in 2002 conducted by the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) revealed an important feature of performance budgeting in state government.[11] The NASBO asked states to identify their “approach” to budgeting. Twenty-nine indicated a traditional, line-item approach. Maine self-identified as the only state with a stand-alone performance budgeting approach, though New Mexico was transitioning toward it.[12] The other nineteen states revealed that they incorporated performance measures along with financial information during the annual budget process, characterizing the result as a “hybrid” budget. In sixteen of the nineteen states, the hybridization was between traditional and performance budgeting. Three of the nineteen states (Florida, Montana, and North Dakota) reported combining performance budgeting with zero-based budgeting, incremental budgeting, and program budgeting.[13] The NASBO study suggested that most states report performance information at the program level, but only about half submitted their performance data with their budget requests. The rest used performance data when the budget document was assembled. Therefore, only about a third of states collecting and reporting performance data were actually doing what we have defined as performance budgeting(using performance information in the budget deliberation process.

Issues Raised by Local Government Studies

Previous research indicated that performance measurement has become a widely adopted management tool, especially in larger municipalities,[14] but relatively little is known about how performance measures are used in the local budget process.[15] Of respondent municipalities over 25,000, approximately 23 percent reported having citywide performance measurement systems, and about two-thirds of the 23 percent reported their performance measures were very important or important to their budget process.[16] In a two-step study of 545 municipalities with populations over 50,000, Wang solicited detailed information on how performance measures were used from a qualitative process.[17] The response rate to the survey was low (18.5 percent) but the level of detail from the qualitative process was high. His results suggested that about one-third of chief executives think performance measures impact council budget allocation decisions, and those impacts are most likely to occur when managers use performance measures to develop and justify budget requests.[18]

Of special interest to this effort, a 1986 survey drawn from the active membership roster of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) returned the result that 87 percent of respondents used performance measures of program effectiveness.[19] A smaller, but considerable, proportion (47 percent) reported that performance measures influenced fiscal allocation decisions. These findings supported those of Cope from a survey of municipal finance directors (populations of 10, 000 and above) where 60% colleted some kind of performance indicator and 61% of those collecting performance information used it to help determine future budget needs.[20] Most finance officers whose jurisdictions used performance measures found the measures reliable most of the time (70 percent) and 93 percent believed that performance indicators improved productivity, at least in some departments.[21]

In a survey of 856 U.S. counties with populations over 50,000, Berman and Wang reported that 33.6 percent of counties collected performance statistics.[22] Their research specifically focused on the county’s management capacity to adopt and implement performance measurement. Using the same database, for those counties engaged in performance measurement, Berman, West, and Wang found that performance measures were most often used for human resource management.[23] Wang reported similar results for the use of performance measures in county budget processes.[24] Axelrod’s findings were consistent with to the previously described studies in one respect; 66 percent of municipalities and 46 percent of counties had adopted some sort of performance measure system. However, Axelrod reported that they rarely used performance measures for budget purposes.[25]

2002 MUNICIPAL PUBLIC FINANCE OFFICERS SURVEY

Guided by the results of these survey efforts, we explored multiple aspects of performance budgeting in municipalities. We wanted to discover when performance information entered the municipal budget process and how it was used for decision-making. We also wanted to discern differences in use of performance measurement and performance budgeting between larger and smaller municipalities. Earlier surveys of the same population we chose for this research, active members of the GFOA, revealed that smaller jurisdictions tended toward substantially lower levels of budgetary analysis in general and productivity analysis in particular.[26] This finding was consistent with the literature relating size of jurisdiction to management capacity in municipal government generally[27] and budgeting innovation in particular.[28]

The tendency to find a correlation between adoption of innovation and size, along with higher survey response rates for larger municipalities, helps explain why survey samples are often drawn from municipalities with populations 25,000 and above. This convention continues in municipal research despite the fact that 80% of all municipalities fall in the population range 2,500–24,999.[29] Since much of the early survey research on performance measurement was limited to larger municipalities,[30] it has been harder to monitor the expansion of adoption of performance measurement and performance budgeting in smaller municipalities.

In Fall 2002 we mailed a survey questionnaire to a stratified random sample of 1,143 municipalities with populations of 2,500 and above drawn from the GFOA’s active membership roster of approximately 6,100.[31] There were 346 usable survey responses, for a response rate of slightly over 30 percent. The smallest population grouping of 2,500 to 9,999 comprised 58 percent of the respondents. Municipalities with populations between 10,000 and 49,999 comprised 35 percent of the respondents, and municipalities with populations of 50,000 and above comprised 7 percent of the respondents. The distribution of responses was roughly proportional to the stratification, with municipalities between 10,000 and 49,999 slightly over-represented.[32]

The selection of the active membership roster of the GFOA as the population introduced some bias into the results, as would surveys drawn from memberships in other professional organizations such as the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). We assume that persons who are members of these organizations are more likely to have adopted management and budget innovations as a result of their exposure to current practices in local government, and therefore their responses may over-represent progressive localities. However, the comparisons of adoption and implementation of performance measurement and performance budgeting made between this survey and that of previous investigators remain relevant as most of those surveys also were drawn from members of professional organizations. Only Cope’s survey of finance directors in municipalities with populations of 10,000 and above was not drawn from a professional organization’s membership list.[33]

GENERAL FINDINGS

We begin our exploration of performance budgeting with the adoption rates of management tools that support performance budgeting. Approximately sixty percent of the responding municipalities reported using strategic planning at some level in the organization. Twenty-one percent reported using a performance-based management system. Other management systems reported included management-by-objective (26 percent), continuous process improvement (16 percent), total quality management (7 percent), and the balanced scorecard (1 percent). These findings seem consistent with previous studies, and with those shown in Table 1, which suggests that most municipalities have voluntarily adopted a performance measurement system. Management innovations are rarely mandated in municipal government. Table 1 suggests that smaller municipalities are more likely to have a formal policy and lower voluntary compliance while larger municipalities are more likely to have an informal policy and higher compliance.

[Table 1 about here]

The types of performance measures collected by municipalities also were consistent with the pattern suggested by previous research. The respondents relied primarily on inputs (27 percent), outputs (31 percent), efficiency (20 percent), and targets (20 percent). About 10 percent of the respondents used their performance measures for benchmarking; however, the benchmarking was often informal and non-systematic (67 percent).

How municipalities used performance data varied. Forty percent used performance data for budget presentation, 35 percent for planning, 30 percent to track progress toward goals, 25 percent for employee evaluations, 24 percent for trend analysis, 17 percent for citizen education, and 7 percent for monitoring external contracts. While budget presentation does not qualify as performance budgeting, it does provide evidence that performance measures are being used to convey some feedback on operational accountability in budget documents.

Performance data auditing was rare among respondent municipalities of all sizes. Approximately eighty percent of the respondents indicated that performance data were never audited, while 5 percent reported annual auditing and 15 percent reported auditing “as needed.” When performance data auditing occurred, staff analysts (14 percent) conducted them as opposed to internal (3 percent) or external (4 percent) auditors. This result may indicate the limited capacity of smaller municipalities to support internal auditors or to contract with external auditors beyond the annual financial engagement. Those municipalities that collected and reported performance, but did not audit the data, cited that time is the main reason for not auditing (15 percent) followed by lack of training (11 percent), lack of qualified personnel (8 percent), and cost (8 percent). Another 5 percent selected “other” as the reason for not auditing data and offered some colorful reasons. Among them were suspicions that the measures managers reported were self-serving or “bogus” and that senior executives were less interested in accuracy than in whether the numbers reflected well on the organization.

A quarter of the respondents reported using citizen satisfaction as a performance measure. Although citizen surveys have long been advocated as a means to assess citizen service preferences and satisfaction with different services,[34] their use as an outcome measure of service performance as a part of a performance measurement program is more recent (Miller and Miller, 1991).[35] Twenty-four percent of larger municipalities reported conducting regular citizen surveys to assess customer satisfaction for selected municipal services. Medium sized municipalities reported using surveys slightly more frequently than their larger counterparts (29 percent), while smaller municipalities used them only occasionally (16 percent).

Training in performance measurement for program managers did not appear to be size-related. Smaller municipalities reported that their managers did not receive training (52.2 percent) or did not receive training in any systematic way (34.3 percent). The numbers were similar for medium-sized and larger municipalities. In medium-sized municipalities, 43 percent of managers received no training at all and 40 percent no training in any systematic way. In larger municipalities, 40 percent of managers received no training in performance measurement and 36 percent received no systematic training.

PERFORMANCE BUDGETING IN MUNICIPALITIES

Next, we examined when and how performance measures were incorporated into the budget process. The GFOA Distinguished Budget Presentation Awards program encourages, though does not require, service objectives and performance indicators by department and program in the budget document. Table 2 reveals that the incorporation of performance measures into the budget process is significant in all municipal size groups, but especially in larger municipalities.

[Table 2 about here]

The traditional line-item format characterizes most municipal budgets, and for good reason. While alternative presentations may facilitate some kinds of deliberations, revenue and expenditure information must be maintained by object code for the annual audit of financial statements. It may not be efficient to maintain one format for the budget document and another for financial statements, especially when most users of budget and financial information are accustomed to the line-item presentation. This helps explain why most respondent municipalities relied on the traditional line-item format (76 percent), though roughly a fifth (21 percent) indicated they augment that format with a program or performance presentation (a hybrid budget). A small number of municipalities used a program budget format (17 percent), a zero-based format (11 percent) and exclusively a performance format (4 percent).

The respondents that reported using a performance budgeting format reported that program managers were required to submit performance measures with their annual budget request (57 percent), which indicates that performance measures were being used for budget deliberation and not just for presentation. For those respondents using a program budgeting approach, the requirement to submit measures as part of the budget process was lower (24 percent), and even lower for the line-item budget (11 percent). However, for those using a hybrid budget system, the numbers were highest (43 percent), suggesting that most municipal line-item budgets are “hybridized” by performance data for decision-making purposes.

We turn now to survey responses that suggest how performance measures are used in allocation decisions. The next set of questions involved how municipal budget officers used performance measures to evaluate department requests. The questions were framed to permit respondents to choose between varying levels of use. Table 3 presents their responses by size category. We expected responses to the first question(the use of performance data to evaluate every request(to be low, but did not expect the smaller municipalities to report a higher level of consistent use than larger municipalities. The regular use of performance data for routine and new or expanded requests was relatively constant across size categories. A size difference was evident in the final question about the infrequent use of performance data, though not unexpected based on previous research and what we know about management capacity limitations in very small governments.

[Table 3 about here]

Among all 346 respondent municipalities, five percent indicated that every budget request was evaluated in light of relevant performance information, but 12 percent reported that performance information was usually part of every budget allocation decision. Performance data were more likely to be used during deliberations for new or expanded budget requests (17 percent), but less likely to be used for marginal adjustments to past appropriations. Respondents indicated that budget requests are deliberated primarily on financial and policy issues (40 percent) more than on performance issues. In the open-ended section of the survey, respondents often indicated that performance is more likely to be relevant when resources are available and the request is not inconsistent with current policy initiatives.

The final exploration of performance budgeting in municipalities involved the budget officers’ perceptions of how elected officials use performance measures to inform their deliberations. Some caution is in order here, as the respondents are public finance officers and not elected officials themselves. However, budget officers are typically present in budget hearings, and often questioned by mayors and council members about their budget recommendations. Only five percent of the respondents reported that elected officials request performance data during their budget deliberations, and only seven percent indicated that performance data were “usually” relevant to the allocation decision.

However, 88 percent of the respondents indicated that elected officials referred to performance data during their deliberations if the data were present, suggesting that elected officials may find performance data informative but not determinate for their allocation decisions. Finally, 20 percent of respondents indicated that performance data were more likely to be used for a new or expanded appropriation, indicating that performance is more relevant to non-routine budget decisions by elected officials, just as it is for non-routine budget recommendations by budget officers.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

As Caiden pointed out, “even relevant, accurate, and timely data will serve no purpose unless they are actually used.”[36] Wang noted that funding decisions are “fundamentally political, not performance based.”[37] State studies have not demonstrated a consistent impact of performance budgeting on budget outcomes. Performance results had no demonstrated impact on the budget office’s spending recommendation or on staffing recommendations in fifteen executive departments in Missouri.[38] Georgia’s experience, ongoing since 1977, demonstrated that a requirement to use performance data in the budget process did not create its own capacity; appropriate and reliable measures did not “just happen” after they were mandated.[39] Florida encountered serious problems with the implementation of its Government Performance and Accountability Act that were not unlike the federal experience. A recent review of the Florida experience identified some challenges for the future of performance budgeting, including how to incorporate performance information in legislative appropriations decisions and how to approach administrative sanctions for agencies that fail to meet performance standards.[40] (Grizzle and Pettijohn, 2002).

Moreover, state budget officers reported that the mandate for performance budgeting often came without adequate time, financial resources, executive and legislative leadership and interest in performance information at all levels of state government.[41] Twenty-five percent of state budget officers said that performance funding was a success in their states; sixty-four percent said it was not. Yet, eighty-six percent of responding state budget officers predicted that performance funding would be expanded in their states.[42]

To the observer looking for evidence of performance budgeting’s success in municipalities by changes in budget outcomes, the results may be similarly disappointing. However, if one accepts that performance budgeting does not require outcome changes to be fully successful, the prospects are brighter. When relevant performance data are produced along with the program’s budget request, budget officers typically consider the data during the recommendation phase. When performance data are presented to elected officials during their budget deliberations, a full 88 percent of respondents indicated that those elected officials were likely to refer to the data in the course of their deliberations. The critical factor, then, is the availability of relevant performance data for decision-making and its use in deliberations, not whether budget outcomes changed in some discernable way. The greater barrier to performance budgeting is not reluctance to use performance information when it is available (especially for new or major changes in appropriation); the barrier is having the appropriate measures available for use.

There is yet another reason for advocates of performance budgeting to cheer, though we add a caution to the good news. Smaller municipalities are making strides in implementation of performance management and budgeting rivaling that of larger municipalities. We credit the GFOA’s decision to include performance measures in the criteria for its Distinguished Budget Presentation Award as a powerful incentive. But we stop short of asserting that performance data are used because they are presented. The least productive use of performance measures in the budget process is to enhance presentation without consideration of the performance information during deliberation. Jreisat noted in his review of the use of performance measures by finance officers in Florida that there seem to be few incentives for meaningful integration of information into the budget process.[43] Collecting and reporting data without analyzing it may be a pure time and effort cost. That is, if managers are asked to submit performance data for budget presentation but make no other use of it, no benefit accrues.

If the information collected for budgetary purposes is not used outside the budget process, then the information collection effort has not contributed to the overall productivity of the government. In fact, it may actually have constituted a drain on productivity.[44]

We concur that there is no benefit to public budgeting from the addition of performance information for presentation purposes, but we are suggesting that, according to our survey, performance information often informs deliberations when it is available. The key to realizing the benefit from performance data in the budget process lies in the timing of its entry into the process. If performance budgeting is defined as a commitment to produce and regard performance data during budget deliberations, we have evidence of progress toward that goal. This survey suggested that performance budgeting may be a natural conclusion to performance measurement, though the constraints of resource availability, policy priorities and, frankly, political imperative will always appropriately preclude its determinacy in budget outcomes.

Table 1. Performance Measurement System Adoption by Size

| |No |No, not in any |Yes, but only for certain |Yes, but requirement is |Yes, it is written policy |

| | |systematic way |departments |informal |for all departments |

|2,500 to 9,999 |44.3% |38.8% |4.5% |7.5% |5.0% |

|10,000 to 49,999 |40.8% |40.0% |5.8% |8.3% |5.0% |

|50,000 or more |32.0% |28.0% |12.0% |28.0% |0% |

N=346

Table 2. Program Managers Required to Submit Performance Measures as Part of Annual Budget Requests

| |No |No, not in any |No, though managers |Yes, but only certain |Yes, measures accompany |

| | |systematic way |often do |programs or departments |budget requests |

|2,500 to 9,999 |51.2% |24.4% |9.0% |5.5% |10.0% |

|10,000 to 49,999 |45.0% |15.8% |6.7% |5.0% |27.5% |

|50,000 or more |28.0% |28.0% |4.0% |4.0% |36.0% |

N=346

Table 3. Performance Measures Used to Inform Budget Decisions

| |Performance data used |Performance data usually |Performance data usually used|Requests evaluated on financial|

| |to evaluate every |used to evaluate every |to evaluate new or expanded |and/or policy basis, |

| |request |request |requests |performance data rarely used |

|2,500 to 9,999 |6.5% |10.9% |17.9% |38.8% |

|10,000 to 49,999 |3.3% |12.5% |15% |38.3% |

|50,000 or more |4.0% |12.0% |24% |4.0% |

N=346

-----------------------

[1] Philip G. Joyce, “Appraising Budget Appraisal: Can You Take Politics Out of Budgeting?” Public Budgeting and Finance 16, no. 4 (1996): 21-25.

[2] Aaron Wildavsky, “The Political Implications of Budgetary Reform,” Public Administration Review 21, no. 3 (1961): 183-190.

[3] James Fielding Smith, “The Benefits and Threats of PBB: An Assessment of Modern Reform,” Public Budgeting and Finance 19, no. 1 (1999): 3-15.

[4] Janet M. Kelly and William C. Rivenbark, Performance Budgeting for State and Local Government, (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2003).

[5] Allen Schick, Budget Innovation in the States, (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1971).

[6] Julia Melkers and Katherine Willoughby, “The State of the States: Performance-based Budgeting Requirements in 47 Out of 50,” Public Administration Review 58, no. 1 (1998): 66(73, p. 66.

[7] Katherine G. Willoughby and Julia E. Melkers, “Implementing PBB: Conflicting Views of Success,” Public Budgeting and Finance 20, no. 1 (2000): 105-120.

[8] Julia E. Melkers and Katherine G. Willoughby, “Budgeters’ Views of State Performance-budgeting Systems: Distinctions Across Branches,” Public Administration Review 61, no 1 (2001): 54(64.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Meagan Jordan and Merl M. Hackbart, “Performance Budgeting and Performance Funding in the States: A Status Assessment,” Public Budgeting and Finance 19, no. 1 (1999): 68(88.

[11] National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), Budget Processes in the States, 2002 [report on-line]; available from : accessed 16 July 2003.

[12] Ibid., 45.

[13] Ibid.

[14] See Theodore H. Poister and Gregory Streib, “Performance Assessment in Municipal Government,” Public Administration Review 59, no. 4 (1999): 325(335 and Gregory Streib and Theodore H. Poister, “Performance Measurement in Municipal Governments,” in The Municipal Yearbook, (Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, 1998).

[15] Patricia Tigue and Dennis Strachota, The Use of Performance Measures in City and County Budgets, (Chicago, IL: Government Finance Officers Association, 1994).

[16] Poister and Streib, “Performance Assessment in Municipal Government,” 330.

[17] Xiaohu Wang, “Assessing Performance Measurement Impact: A Study of US Local Governments,” Public Performance & Management Review 26, no. 1 (2002): 26-43.

[18] Ibid., 35.

[19] Daniel E. O’Toole and Brian Stipak, “Budgeting and Productivity Revisited: The Local Government Picture,” Public Productivity Review 7, no. 1 (1988): 1-12.

[20] Glen Hahn Cope, “Local Government Budgeting and Productivity: Friends or Foes?” Public Productivity Review 10, no. 3 (1987): 45(57.

[21] Ibid., 55.

[22] Evan Berman and XiaoHu Wang, “Performance Measurement in U.S. Counties: Capacity for Reform,” Public Administration Review 60, no. 5 (2000): 409(420.

[23] Evan Berman, Jonathan P. West and XiaoHu Wang, “Using Performance Measurement in Human Resource Management,” Review of Public Personnel Administration 19, no. 2 (1999): 5-31.

[24] Xiaohu Wang, “Performance Measurement in Budgeting: A Study of County Governments” Public Budgeting and Finance 20, no. 3 (2000): 102-118.

[25] David Axelrod, A Budget Quartet: Critical Policy and Management Issues, (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989).

[26] O’Toole and Stipak, “Budgeting and Productivity Revisited.”

[27] William D Coplin, Astrid E. Merget, and Carolyn Bourdeaux, “The Professional Researcher as Change Agent in the Government-performance Movement,” Public Administration Review 62, no. 6 (2002): 699(711.

[28] Cope, “Local Government Budgeting and Productivity.”

[29] William C. Rivenbark and Janet M. Kelly, “Management Innovation in Smaller Municipal Government,” State and Local Government Review, in press.

[30] See Rackham S. Fukuhara, “Productivity Improvement in Cities” in The Municipal Yearbook, (Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, 1977); Theodore H. Poister and Robert P. McGowan, “The Use of Management Tools in Municipal Government: A National Survey,” Public Administration Review 44, no. 3 (1984): 215(223; Theodore H. Poister and Gregory Streib, “Management Tools in Municipal Government: Trends Over the Past Decade,” Public Administration Review 49, no. 3 (1989): 240(248; Theodore H. Poister and Gregory Streib, “Municipal Management Tools from 1976 to 1993: An Overview and Update,” Public Productivity & Management Review 18, no. 2 (1994): 115(125.

[31] The GFOA randomly selected 1,500 jurisdictions from its municipalities. After the mailing labels were purged for duplication, 1143 total surveys were mailed. Multiple finance officers from the same jurisdiction are often members of the GFOA.

[32] The GFOA membership database generally reflects the size distribution of cities in the US. Roughly 54% of all cities are in the size range 2,500–9,999, 37% in the size range 10,000–49,999, and 9% in the size range 50,000 and above. Our sample drew 54% of respondents from the lowest range, 37% from the middle range and 9% from the high range.

[33] Cope, “Local Government Budgeting and Productivity.”

[34] See Kenneth Webb and Harry P. Hatry, Obtaining Citizen Feedback: The Application of Citizen Surveys to Local Governments, (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 1973) and Harry P. Hatry, et al., How Effective Are Your Community Services? Procedures for Monitoring the Effectiveness of Municipal Services, (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute and the International City Management Association, 1977).

[35] Thomas I. Miller and Michelle A. Miller, Citizen Surveys: How to Do Them, How to Use Them, What They Mean, (International City/County Management Association: Washington, DC, 1991).

[36] Naomi Caiden, “Public Service Professionalism for Performance Measurement and Evaluation,” Public Budgeting and Finance 18, no. 1 (1998): 35(52, p. 40.

[37] Wang, Performance Measurement in Budgeting,” 36.

[38] Michael Connelly and Gary Tompkins, “Does Performance Matter: A Study of State Budgeting,” Policy Studies Review 8, no. 3 (1989): 288(299.

[39] Thomas P. Lauth, “Performance Evaluation in the Georgia Budgetary Process,” Public Budgeting and Finance 5, no. 1 (1985): 67(82.

[40] Gloria A. Grizzle and Carole D. Pettijohn, “Implementing Performance-based Program Budgeting: A System-dynamics Perspective,” Public Administration Review 62, no. 1 (2002): 51(62.

[41] Melkers and Willoughby, “Budgeters’ Views of State Performance-budgeting Systems.”

[42] Jordan and Hackbart, “Performance Budgeting and Performance Funding in the States.”

[43] Jamil E. Jreisat, “Productivity Measurement and Finance Officers,” Public Productivity and Management Review 13, no. 4 (1990): 315-239.

[44] Cope, “Local Government Budgeting and Productivity,” 46.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download