Hypotheses about Performance Measurement in Counties: Findings from a Survey

This research examines hypotheses about the prevalence of performance measurement in counties. It focuses on organizational relationships, structures, and goals that are relevant to theories of management reform in government. Based on a national survey of counties, it finds that legislative and citizen support, the active involvement of central management, and mission orientation further the deployment of performance measurement. While ensuring that professional competency and adequate resources are associated with performance measurement, gaining external support and top management commitment are more important. This study also examines the importance of decentralized decision-making structures and efforts to make government more entrepreneurial. Governments in the United States have a long history of reporting performance indicators (General Accounting Office [GAO] 1997a; Hatry 1978; Poister and Streib 1984; 1989; 1994). Although a considerable amount of literature has recently emerged about performance measurement (Ammons 1996; Behn 1995; Broom 1995; Governmental Accounting Standards Board [GASB] 1990; GASB and National Academy of Public Administration 1997; Tracy and Jean 1993), few studies provide much theoretical analysis with empirical data about these efforts. Some studies describe the characteristics of performance measures currently in use (Poister and Streib 1999; Tigue 1994; Tigue and Strachota 1994), while others examine implementation efforts (GAO 1998; Melkers and Willoughby 1998; Kravchuk and Schack 1996; Radin 1998; Roberts 1997) and their challenges (GAO 1998; Mikesell 1995; Radin 1998; Roberts 1997). By contrast, this research focuses the impact of organizational relationships, structures, and goals on the deployment of performJ-PART 11(2000):3:403-428 ance measurement. It examines hypotheses that are relevant to 403/ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory at R uers U nirsity on A uust 2, 2010 http://jpaordjournals.org D ow nladed fom Performance Measurement: Findings from a Survey 'This study focuses on the deployment of performance measurement rather than on purposes of performance measurement activities or the impact of performance measurement. Frequently, research utilizes the term use to refer to all these phenomena. By using deployment rather than use we hope to avoid confusion. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion. the development of theory about management reform, organizational improvement, and accountability in public organizations. The empirical data for diis study are based on a national survey of performance measurement in counties with populations over fifty thousand. County governments are studied because although anecdotal evidence suggests that many counties have increased their activities in recent years, very little systematic research exists about the management capabilities of counties (Cigler 1995; Menzel 1996; Streib 1996; Svara 1993 and 1996; Marando and Reeves 1991). Performance measurement is of particular relevance to counties because of their role in intergovernmental relations and because of a growing need to provide accountability and performance information to their residents. In addition, counties are presumed to vary greatly in their professional competency, centralization of decision making, mission orientation, resource availability, and other factors that we theoretically relate to performance measurement. This study provides empirical evidence about these hypotheses. In this study we define deployment as the prevalence of performance measures in county service functions. Prevalence concerns both the extent of performance measurement (e.g., in which county functions are performance measures most often, and least often, found?) and the nature of such prevalence, that is, whether performance measures include both outputs and outcomes. A caveat of this research is that it does not attempt to assess what the consequences (or outcomes) of deploying performance measurement might be. As a relatively new management practice, it is still too early to tell in many jurisdictions. However, this manuscript does provide additional information about the intended purposes of performance measurement.'