Government Performance Measurement Research Articles

Overcoming the Inadequacies of Performance Measurement in Local Government: The Case of Libraries and Leisure Services

The key to meaningful advances in performance measurement in local may lie in meeting public interest challenge. In this case, challenge will be met not only by formulating measures that address public interest but, perhaps more critically, by reporting measures that capture public interest. Advocates of improved performance measurement in local have long emphasized importance of suitable performance yardsticks for municipal functions in lieu of private sector's bottom-line measure of profit or loss. Absent a marketplace barometer of product value and customer satisfaction, well-conceived measures of municipal services would nevertheless offer a gauge of progress or slippage over time--and perhaps even a gauge of performance adequacy relative to targets, standards, or comparison jurisdictions. A scorecard that could provide such would be as vital to public sector success as it is in any other endeavor where evolving strategies are predicated on knowledge of whether one is winning or losing (Hatry, 1978; 28; Hatry et al., 1992; xv, 207). For many years, measurement proponents have urged local governments to report not only how much they spend, but also how much work they do, how well they do it, how efficiently, and, ideally, what their actions achieve. Advocates have promised that more sophisticated measurement systems will undergird processes, better inform resource allocation decisions., enhance legislative oversight, and increase accountability. The call for improved performance measurement, heeded by some local governments but unheeded by many others, has been taken up by a series of new voices throughout this century with only minor variations in fundamental message. Among recent developments have been resolutions passed by National Academy of Public: Administration (NAPA) in 1991 and by American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) in 1992 encouraging performance reporting (Epstein, 1992), and declaration of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) that information about service efforts and accomplishments (SEA) is an essential element of accountability and that such should have a place in general purpose external financial reporting (Hatry et al., 1990; v; GASB, 1992; iii; GASB; 1994; 1-3; Wholey and Hatry, 1992). Despite growing momentum in support of performance measurement and even recent legislation requiring measurement at federal level and in some states,[1] as yet no decree has forced broad compliance at local level. Moreover, even where legislative mandates seemingly have settled debate, issues of performance measurement defy solution and remain controversial. Measurement, in fact, recently has been labeled as one of the big questions in public (Behn, 1993). What may prove distinctive and perhaps decisive in current wave of performance measurement advocacy is recently attenuated focus on citizen--both as a consumer of performance measurement reports (Hatry et al, 1990) and as a source of input for performance measures (i.e., as an evaluator of adequacy of particular services or as a judge of overall local performance [e.g., Miller and Miller, 1991]). The recent surge of interest in service quality and in satisfying citizen-customer, key elements of total quality management and reinventing government movements, may prove to be a major boon to a reintensified focus on performance measurement (e.g., Cohen and Brand, 1993; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). A half century ago, Clarence Ridley and Herbert Simon (1943) identified citizens, along with managers and city council members, as key beneficiaries of improved performance measurement. With proper measures, they suggested, citizens would have a simple yardstick by which to gauge whether they were getting efficient or inefficient government (Ridley and Simon, 1943; ix). …

Performance Measurement in Local Government – Concept and Practice

In most industrialized economies the services sector accounts for more than half the GNP. Moreover, the services sector, unlike other sectors, has grown steadily over the past two decades. The productivity of the sector, on the other hand, has remained broadly static over the comparable period. Thus service productivity improvement is one of the major challenges facing many managers today. Measurement is an integral component of any drive to improve productivity. Measurement of service performance is notoriously difficult but possible. Local authorities form a significant part of the service sector. Performance measurement in a local authority is a complex task because: local authorities offer a wide range of services with both tangible and intangible outputs; customers rarely pay an economical price for the services; there is no profit measure; and there is no apparent direct link between services and cost to electors. Examines the “performance measurement” concepts put forward by various influential organizations and the “performance measurement” procedures adopted by three different local authorities. Case studies demonstrate the difficulties of measuring performance, particularly effectiveness and the different strategies adopted by different organizations.

Performance measurement and change in local government: A general case and a childcare application

This article first makes a general case for the use of multi‐dimensional performance measurement (PM) in local government as a way of helping managers cope with environmental and organizational change, and then applies it to a social services departments childcare team. Based on a case study of PM at Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council, the article's proposals are complementary to those of the Audit Commission and the Citizen's Charter, and are intended to improve local services in two ways: by forging closer links between objectives, strategies and daily operations; and encouraging more fundamental service process redesign where necessary.

Performance measurement in local government

Emphasis on improving performance in the public sector has led to the development of systems for measuring performance in local government. This article reports on the author's research into this development, presenting information on how local authorities measure performance; which dimensions of performance they attempt to measure; and how they use performance‐measurement information. Existing systems of measuring performance are evaluated in relation to an ideal system. The conclusion is that, although few authorities currently have a coherent system for measuring performance, pressure for continued development of such systems should yield improvements.

Output and performance measurement in government: The state of the art Martin Cave, Maurice Kogan and Robert Smith Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, 1990, 191 pp

Output and performance measurement in government: The state of the art Martin Cave, Maurice Kogan and Robert Smith Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, 1990, 191 pp

Making indicators perform

Getting to grips with the technical difficulties of performance measurement should not blind us to the fact that political factors can be as important as technical ones in the management of organisations, particularly in the public sector. Government Departments carry out different tasks and work within different traditions. The combination of political and contingent factors should lead us to expect that performance measurement in government will be diverse in its operation.

Party Goals and Government Performance in Parliamentary Democracies

From assumptions of parties as rational actors, this study develops four measures of government performance: duration, mode of resignation, subsequent alternation, and electoral success. These measures are used in a test of competing hypotheses concerning minority government performance in parliamentary democracies. Minority governments are conventionally portrayed as poor performers, but tests of this proposition have been seriously limited. An alternative hypothesis depicts minority governments as rational cabinet solutions without significant performance liabilities. These hypotheses are tested against an extensive cross-national data set including 323 postwar governments in 15 parliamentary democracies. The conventional wisdom about minority governments is not supported by the evidence. In some respects, minority governments are clearly superior to majority coalitions. Moreover, minority government formation may enhance systemic responsiveness and accountability. The findings support the explanation of minority governments as rational cabinet solutions.

Party Goals and Government Performance in Parliamentary Democracies

From assumptions of parties as rational actors, this study develops four measures of government performance: duration, mode of resignation, subsequent alternation, and electoral success. These measures are used in a test of competing hypotheses concerning minority government performance in parliamentary democracies. Minority governments are conventionally portrayed as poor performers, but tests of this proposition have been seriously limited. An alternative hypothesis depicts minority governments as rational cabinet solutions without significant performance liabilities. These hypotheses are tested against an extensive cross-national data set including 323 postwar governments in 15 parliamentary democracies. The conventional wisdom about minority governments is not supported by the evidence. In some respects, minority governments are clearly superior to majority coalitions. Moreover, minority government formation may enhance systemic responsiveness and accountability. The findings support the explanation of minority governments as rational cabinet solutions.