Research on public sector performance measurement highlights its problematicnature (Cavalluzzo and Ittner, 2004; and Lee, 2008). An over-reliance onfinancial measures and excessive non-financial metrics are just some of theproblems identified (Modell, 2004). Concerns have also been raised withinthe field of practice. Notwithstanding the multiple purposes that outcomemeasurement can fulfil in the public sector (Behn, 2003), the utility of outcomeand output frameworks has been widely criticised. In Australia, for example, ithas been claimed that ‘reporting on outcomes is inadequate and some outcomesare so broad and general as to be virtually meaningless for budget accountingpurposes’ (Tanner, 2008, p.3). These criticisms have been such that, at theCommonwealth Government level, there has been a shift from outcome-outputreporting frameworks to the measurement of programs, with the jury still out onwhether these changes have enhanced transparency and accountability. Overall,there is consensus that deficiencies exist in performance measurement practiceswithin the public sector.The purpose of this paper is to report on a research project concerned withthe development and testing of what was labelled ‘a return on investment (ROI)performance measurement framework’ by an Australian public sector agency.The authors were provided unique access to an Australian law enforcementagency, which was challenged and influenced by new public management (NPM)pressures (Hood, 1991). In pursuing its objective, the paper acknowledges theimportant critical literature on public sector reform and NPM (for example,Broadbent and Guthrie, 1992; and Carnegie and West, 2005) but does notseek to add to it. Rather, the paper reports on developments in a case studyorganisation through ‘being involved’ and thereby initiates debate on what theauthors view as influences on contemporary performance measurement practice