AMERICAN RESOURCES

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Improving Business Reporting — A Customer Focus (Comprehensive Report of the Special Committee on Financial Reporting), 1994

Cochran III, Jay, Maurice McTique and Steve Richardson, 3rd Annual Performance Report Scorecard: Which Federal Agencies Inform the Public, Urban Institute, May 2002
Comment: this document, the third such report assessing US federal agency GPRA performance reports, can be accessed at the web site of the George Mason University Mercatus Center.

(Florida) Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, PB2 Status Report — Recent Initiatives Strengthen Florida’s Performance Based Budgeting System, Report No. 00-15, November 2000
Comment: this document can be accessed from the OPPAGA web site. The OPPAGA is generally acknowledged as being among the state government agencies at the forefront of performance measurement and reporting.

Melkers, Julia E, Willoughby, Katherine G et al. Georgia State University ad GASB Performance Measurement at the State and Local Levels: A Summary of Survey Results. November 2002

Minnesota Planning, Minnesota Milestones: 1998
Comment: see the general web site for Minnesota Milestones initiative.

O’Connell, Paul E., Using Performance Data for Accountability: The New York City Police Department’s CompStat Model of Police Management, August 2001. 
Comment: this paper is one of a series on Managing for Results. It describes how dissemination, discussion and use of crime statistics changed the focus of internal accountability and improved performance. It also describes similar approaches in other jurisdictions and sectors and draws out (primarily behavioral) implementation guidelines. It and other papers in the series can be accessed from the website of the IBM (formerly PriceWaterhouseCoopers) Endowment for the Business of Government.

(The) Performance Institute, Creating a Performance-based Electronic Government, October 30, 2002
Comment: this document, which examines progress in citizen-centered electronic government initiatives in U.S. federal agencies, can be accessed from the Institute’s web site.

Results-Oriented Cultures: Insights for US Agencies from Other Countries performance Management Initiatives GAO-02-862, August 2002.

United States General Accounting Office

http://www.gao.gov/a>

United States General Accounting Office, Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under the Results Act: An Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking, February 1998
Comment: this document outlines a series of questions that members of Congress could ask in relation to Agency plans. These questions, of course, would be equally relevant as a self-diagnostic for those who are generating these plans. This document can be accessed from the GAO web site.

Ibid, Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers, February 1999
Comment: this document, building on earlier reports on the subject, draws on good practices from agencies’ fiscal year 1999 performance plans. This document can be accessed from the GAO web site.

Ibid, Major Management Challenges and Risks — A Governmentwide Perspective, January 1999
Comment: this report is part of the “Performance and Accountability Series”. It can be accessed from the GAO web site.

Ibid, Managing for Results: Challenges Facing Agencies in Producing Credible Performance Information, February 2000
Comment: this document discusses weaknesses GAO has identified in agencies’ performance plans and their implications for performance reports, challenges that agencies face in producing credible performance information, and how performance reports can be used to address data credibility issues. Also see the GAO web site.

Ibid, Managing for Results — Using GPRA to Help Congressional Decsionmaking and Strengthen Oversight, March 22, 2000
Comment: this statement of the Comptroller General before the House of Representatives Sub-Committee on Rules and Organization of the House can be accessed from the GAO web site.

Ibid, Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views Show Need for Ensuring Top Leadership Skills, October 2000
Comment: this document is one of two documents looking at the issue of managers’ perceptions and observations on results-oriented topics such as the presence, use and usefulness of performance measures, hindrances to measuring and using performance information, etc. A follow-up to an earlier 1997 survey, this report is based on a questionnaire-survey of almost 4000 mid and upper level managers and supervisors in 28 executive branch agencies. The document can be accessed from the GAO web site.

Ibid, Managing for Results: Views on Ensuring the Usefulness of Agency Performance Information to Congress, January 2000
Comment: this document focused on three federal agencies. It looked at the issue of the information needs of congressional committee members (via interviews with committee staff) and the ways in which agencies and committee staff could work together to better meet these needs. The report can be accessed from the GAO web site.

United States General Accounting Office: Report to Congressional Committees. Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance. May 1997. OMB’s web site.

United States General Accounting Office: Report to Congressional Committees. The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven. June 1997.

(US) Office of Management and Budget, A Citizen’s Guide to the Federal Budget, February 2002

 

INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES

Australia

http://www.australia.gov.au

Australian National Audit Office. Agencies Performance Monitoring of Commonwealth Government Business Enterprises. Commonwealth of Australia, 2000.

Australian National Audit Office, Better Practice Guide — Performance Information in Portfolio Budget Statements, May 2002.

Australian National Audit Office & Department of Finance & Administration, Better Practice in Annual Performance Reporting, 2004

Australian National Audit Office and Department of Finance, Better Practice Principles for Performance Information, November 1996
Comment: this document can be accessed from the Audit Office web site.

Australian National Audit Office. Government Business Enterprise Monitoring Practices. Commonwealth of Australia, 1996.

Australian National Audit Office.  Principles and Better Practices: Corporate Governance in Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Discussion Paper. 1999.

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), Report 388 — Review of the Accrual Budget Documentation, June 2002: Australian National Audit Office Report No. 11 2003-2004 Annual Performance Reporting

[Australian] Productivity Commission, Report on Government Services, January 2001
Comment: one of several reports produced annually since 1995, which provide a comparative analysis of performance indicators data on key Commonwealth/State services — also see Productivity Commission web site.

Civil Service of Australia. How to Classify Public Bodies. Cabinet Office of the United Kingdom: June 2003.

Department of Finance and Administration, Australian Government. Governance Arrangements for Commonwealth Government Business Enterprises. June 1997

(Western Australia) Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Citizenship: Building a Shared Future, (Discussion Paper), April 2000
Comment: this document — and the government’s response to it — can be accessed at the department’s website.

Ibid, Consulting Citizens: A Resource Guide, April 2002
Comment: this document can be accessed at the department’s web site.

Ireland

http://www.irlgov.ie

Government of Ireland, Delivering Better Government, Department of Finance, May 1996
Comment: this document can be accessed from Department of Finance web site.

New Zealand

http://www.govt.nz

Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit. “Briefing to the Incoming Minister for State Owned Enterprises”. New Zealand: CCMAU, December 2004.

Crown Company Monitoring Unit. “Owner’s Expectations Manual”. New Zealand: CCMAU, March 2002.

Mascarenhas, R.C. “Interim Evaluation of Performance Budgeting in New Zealand” Searching for Efficiency in the Public Sector. 2001

New Zealand State Services Commission, Improving Accountability: Setting the Scene, Occasional Paper No. 10, August 1999
Comment: this paper, and the following, are part of the State Services Commission’s ‘Improving Accountability’ project. These documents can be accessed from the Commission’s web site; see also — Shick, Allen.

Office of the Controller and Auditor-General of New Zealand 

Office of the Controller and Auditor-General of New Zealand, Accountability of Executive Government to Parliament, June 1999.

Ibid, Performance Reporting in the Public Sector, 1991

Ibid, Public Consultation and Decision-making in Local Government, 1998.

Ibid, Towards Service Excellence: The Responsiveness of Government Agencies to Their Clients, August 1999.
Comment: this document reports on the results of a special audit of five government services. Among other matters, it suggests a variety of best practice criteria associated with matters such as: understanding the client, providing access to services, delivering the service, resourcing service delivery and judging on and reporting service performance.

Schick, Allen, The Spirit of Reform: Managing the New Zealand State Sector in a Time of Change, New Zealand State Services Commission and the Treasury, August 1996
Comment: a seminal document that was commissioned to provide an independent study of the New Zealand State sector management framework. The document can be accessed from the Commission’s web site.

State Services Commission New Zealand. “Review of the Centre-Paper Three- Improving Alignment:  Crown Entities- Power to Act”. State Services Commission, December 2002.

State Services Commission New Zealand. “Review of the Centre-Paper Three- Improving Alignment: Crown Entities”. State Services Commission, December 2002.

State Services Commission New Zealand. “Review of the Centre- Paper Four- Departmental Accountability and Reporting Arrangements”. State Services Commission, December 2002.

State Services Commission, New Zealand. Review of the Centre-Crown Entities Governance. State Services Commission, August 2003.

Norway

Lassen, Vivi. In Search of Results/Performance Management Practices in Norway. Directorate of Public Management, Norway. PUMA/PAC. 1997.

South Africa

www.gov.za

Ministry of Public Enterprises Republic of South Africa. An Accelerated Agenda Towards the Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises: Policy Framework. Republic of South Africa, 2000.

Wehner, Joachim. “Best Practices of Public Accounts Committees” The Handbook for Public Accounts Committees.  Budget Information Service Institute for Democracy in South Africa. November 2002.

United Kingdom

http://www.direct.gov.uk

(UK) Audit Commission, Performance Measurement as a Tool for Modernizing Government, December 1999
Comment: this paper was prepared for Treasury. It draws on the Commission’s experience and learning over the last decade in devising systems of performance measurement and review for local government. The report can be accessed from the Effective Performance Division, Cabinet Office web site.

(UK) Cabinet Office, Modernising Government, (white paper), March 1999
Comment: this document sets direction for the organization, management and delivery of public services beyond 2000; the white paper can be accessed from the Cabinet Office’s web site.

Ibid, Wiring It Up — Whitehall’s Management of Cross-Cutting Policies and Services, January 2000
Comment: this document is a report of the Performance and Innovation Unit. It can be accessed from the Cabinet Office web site.

(UK) Treasury, Cabinet Office, National Audit Office, Audit Commission and Office for National Statistics, Choosing the Right Fabric: A Framework for Performance Information, 2000
Comment: this document summarizes the common thinking of the aforementioned organizations on the topic of performance information. The framework sets out general principles behind producing high quality performance information. It can be accessed from HM Treasury web site.

(UK) National Audit Office, Good Practice in Performance Reporting in Executive Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies, March 2000
Comment: this document is the NAO’s first general report on performance measurement and reporting in central government. It was developed in consultation with the Cabinet office, the Treasury, and the agencies concerned. It can be accessed from NAO’s web site.

 

International Organizations

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

www.oecd.org

Merrifield, Juliet, Learning Citizenship, (Discussion Paper), Revised August 2001
Comment: this document can be accessed at OECD’s Public Management web site.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises”. OECD, December 2004.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “OECD Principles of Corporate Governance”. OECD, 2004.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Written Survey on “Strengthening Government-Citizen Connections”, July 1999.

OECD, Questionnaire on Using Information Technology to Strengthen Government-Citizen Connections, November 1999.

OECD, Toward a New Role for the Legislature, January 2001
Comment: this document can be accessed at the OECD’s web site.

OECD, Engaging Citizens in Policy-making: Information, Consultation and Public Participation, October 2001
Comment: this document can be accessed at OECD’s Public Management web site.

OECD, Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation Policy-making, November 2001
Comment: this document can be accessed at OECD’s Public Management web site.

OECD, Public Sector Modernization — Governing for Performance, [Gov/PUMA(2003)20/REV]  Mar 2004.

OECD, OECD Report on Parliamentary Procedures and Relations, January 2001.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “OECD Principles of  Corporate Governance”. OECD, 2004.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. “OECD Guidelines on Corporate Governance of State-Owned Enterprises”. OECD, December 2004.

World Health Organization

http://www.who.int

World Health Organization, The World Health Report 2000 — Health Systems: Improving Performance, June 2000
Comment: this report provides an extensive assessment of the performance of country health systems. It can be accessed from the WHO web site.

Other International Sources

IFAC Public Sector Committee, Governance in the Public Sector: A Governing Body Perspective, International Federation of Accountants, August 2001
Comment: this document can be accessed from IFAC’s website.

International Federation of Accountants, Performance Reporting by Government Business Enterprises, January 1996 [
Comment: also see IFAC’s website.

Mayne, John. and Zapico-Goni, Eduardo. eds. Monitoring Performance in the Public Sector: Future Directions from International Experience. Transaction Publishers New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K). 1997. PP. 253-275.

McGee, David G., The Overseers: Public Accounts Committees and Public Spending, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Pluto Press, 2002
Comment: this document, and others, can be ordered from the website of the CPA.

Worldwide Economic Forum & Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Conformance or Performance and Other Dilemmas in Corporate Governance, 2001

 

OTHER SOURCES

Abramson, Mark A. (ed.), Toward a 21st Century Public Service: Reports from Four Forums, The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government, January 2001
Comment: this document can be accessed from the Endowment’s web site.

Accenture, eGovernment Leadership: Engaging the Customer, The Government Executive Series, 2003.

GASB. Fountain, James, Campbell, Wilson. et al.  Report on the GASB Citizen Discussion Groups on Performance Reporting. July 2002.

GASB. Fountain, James, Campbell, Wilson. Special Report Summary — Reporting Performance Information : Suggested Criteria for effective Communication. October 2003.

GASB. Hatry, Harry P., Fountain Jr., James R., et al. eds. Adapted text from Service Efforts and Accomplishments: Its Time Has Come — An Overview. 2002

GASB National Academy of Public Administration.  Report on Survey of State and Local Government Use and Reporting of Performance Measures: First Questionnaire Results. September 1997.

Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Performance Measurement at the State and Local Level: A Summary of Survey Results, 2001

Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting: Its Time Has Come — An Overview, 1990
Comment: there are several related, sector-specific research reports/monographs that focus on this general topic of service efforts and accomplishments reporting; see www.rutgers.edu/Accounting/raw/seagov/pmg/index.html for several links to related performance management, measurement and reporting initiatives at the international, national, state, local and institutional levels.

Governmental Accounting Standards Board and National Academy of Public Administration, Report on Survey of State and Local Government Use of Performance Measures — First Questionnaire Results, September 1997
Comment: this document can be accessed from GASB web site — see above.

Governmental Accounting Standards Board, State and Local Government Case Studies on Use and the Effects of Using Performance Measures for Budgeting, Management and Reporting, 2000
Comment: this installment reports on the results of 6 state and 6 local government case studies, with more to follow. This work is part of a major five-phase project that is looking at a wide range of related issues. The next phases will be looking at users’ responses to performance measures and will focus primarily on citizen users and other citizen connections — see GASB web site above, for further information.

Hibbard, Judith H, Strategies for Reporting Health Plan Performance Information To Consumers: Evidence from Controlled Studies, 2002.
Health services Research, Volume 37 Issue 2 Page 291 — April 2002.

Hatry, Harry. et al. Excellence in Managing (Book) October 1991 (Awarded a Certificate of Merit for distinguished research by the Governmental Research Association in 1992)

Hatry, Harry P., et al. How Federal Programs Use Outcome Information: Opportunities for Federal Managers. May 2003.
(Contains 16 case studies of federal programs, managing with outcome information, identifies successful practices, making outcome information more useful, etc.)

Hatry, Harry P., Morley, Elaine, Cowan, Jake.  Making Use of Outcome Information for Improving Services: Recommendations for Non-Profit Organizations (Discussion Papers) September 2002.
 (Contains information on non-profit use of outcome information internally, etc.)

Hatry, Harry. Performance Measurement / Getting Results. Urban Institute Press. Washington D.C. 1999.

Joint Committee on Corporate Governance, Beyond Compliance: Building a Governance Culture, Final Report, November 2001
Comment: this document can be accessed from the Joint Committee’s web site.

Knowledge Transfer: Looking beyond health, report on conference 2000

Ladd A. & mark A. Ward,  An Investigation Of Environmental Factors Influencing Knowledge Transfer,  Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, August 2002.

Larson, Peter and Amanda Coe, Managing Change: The Evolving Role of the Commonwealth’s Top Public Servants, Public Policy Forum, December 1998
Comment: this document can be accessed from the PPF web site.

Liner, Blaine E., Hatry, Harry P. et al.  Making Results-Based government (Research Report) April 2001. (Identifies good practices and lessons learned by states that have moved ahead in governing-for-results and to provide recommendations for improving those efforts. This document is a compilation of findings about the state of the art and the practice of governing-for-results)

National Academy of Public Administration, Performance Notes
Comment: these notes report on a series of discussions or papers written held under the aegis of the Performance Consortium. All of these notes can be accessed through the NAPA’s Center for Improving Government Performance web site. Among the topics/discussions are the following:

• Challenges of Data: Collection, Verification and Use (November 3, 1999)
• Communicating to Congress about Data (March 1, 2000)
• Timely, Cost-Effective and Useful Outcome Data (by Harry Hatry and Shelli Robinson, June 2000).

National Partnership for Reinventing Government, Balancing Measures: Best Practices in Performance Management, August 1999
Comment: this report was based on a combination of interviews, questionnaire surveys and case studies. It identifies and discusses a wide range of best practices concerning the creation of measures, use of data, linkages to day-to-day operations, and leadership roles. Embedded in the electronic report are numerous web-links to specific best practices at the local, state, federal and international levels. The report can be accessed from the NPR web site, which was officially closed in January 2001, but has been preserved as of this date at: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/default.html.

Newcomer, Kathryn, Jennings, Jr., Edward T. et al. eds. Meeting the Challenges of Performance-Oriented Government. Center for Accountability and Performance. 2002.

Oregon Progress Board, Board Minutes, Meeting of May 20, 2003

Oregon Progress Board, Results-Based Strategic Planning: The Oregon Experience, 2004

O’Shea, Dan. Looney, Sarah. and King, Christopher T. The Alignment of Workforce Performance Measures and Policymaker Needs in Ten Leading-Edge States. Ray Marshall Center for the Study of Human Resources. March 2004.

Portland, Oregon (City of), Service Efforts and Accomplishments: 1998-99, March 2000
Comment: this extensive document is the ninth annual report on City Government Performance — prepared by the Audit Services Division in cooperation with the City’s largest bureaus. It reports on the results of the City’s nine major public services as well as providing information from six comparison cities. It also reports on the results of a citizen survey. The report can be accessed from www.ci.portland.or.us/auditor.

Review of the Literature on dissemination and Knowledge Utilization, national centre for the Dissemination of Disability Research, 1996

Stewart, D., The Role of Information in Public Accountability, in A. Hopwood and C. Tompkins (eds.) Issues in Public Sector Accounting, Oxford, 1984

Webb, Kenneth, Hatry, Harry. Obtaining Citizen Feedback (Book) September 2002.

Wholey, Joseph S. “Defining, Improving, and Communication Program Quality”. Visions of Quality. vol.7 pp. 201-216. 2001

Wholey, Joseph S. “Improving Performance and Accountability: Responding to Emerging Management Challenges” in Stewart, I. and Mendelson, M. Evaluating Social Programs and Problems: Visions for the New Millennium. 2003. pp.43-61.

Wholey, Joseph S. “Managing for Results: Roles for Evaluators in a New Management Era”. American Journal of Evaluation. Vol.22 pp. 343-347. 2001

Wholey, Joseph S. “Using Policy evaluation to Support Decisionmaking and Improve Program Performance” . The Japanese Journal of Evaluation Studies.  Vol. 3, no.2, The Japanese Evaluation Society. September 2003.

Wye, Chris, Performance Management: a “Start Where You Are, Use What You Have” Guide, October 2002
Comment: includes a section on using performance information that describes a range of uses and provides suggestions for overcoming barriers to use.  It, and other managing for results titles, can be accessed from www.businessofgovernment.org