Performance measurement is a hot topic among practitioners and academics. This article describes a pedagogical approach that requires students to learn the state of the art in performance measurement for a particular municipal service and compare those findings with facts on the ground in two communities. Students are also required to interview elected officials and senior executives to garner their opinions on the implementation of performance measurement. This triangulated approach gives students a sense of realpolitik regarding performance measurement implementation in the absence of a commonly accepted reporting model. It also provides them with an approach that will help them design measures for their respective communities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlvarezEvelynet al.1999 “Hialeah and South Miami: A Comparison of Performance Based Budgeting in Code Enforcement,” PAD 6227, Public Finance and the Budgetary Process, Florida International University. November 30.
2.
AmmonsDavid. 1999. “A Proper Mentality for Benchmarking.” Public Administration Review, 59(2): 105–109.
3.
AndersonRobertet al.1999. “Parks and Recreation Performance Measurement: Survey of Practices in North Miami and Miami Shores,” PAD 6227, Public Finance and the Budgetary Process, Florida International University. November 30.
4.
Bofford-Entinet al.2000. “Performance Measures for Housing Activities: City of Miami Beach, City of Miami.” PAD 6227, Public Finance and the Budgetary Process, Florida International University. April 12.
5.
BransfordMarket al.1999. “Performance Measurement in the Miami-Dade Fire Department and Coral Gables Fire Department.” PAD 6227, Public Finance and the Budgetary Process, Florida International University, November 30.
6.
CoeCharles. 1999 “Local Government Benchmarking: Lessons from Two Major Multigovernment Efforts.” Public Administration Review, 59(2): 110–123.
7.
DenhardtRobert B.2001. “The Big Questions of Public Administration Education.” Public Administration Review, 61(5): 526–534.
8.
EvansAngelaRichard FonsecaDulce PalacioPalacioIgnacio. “Law Enforcement Service Delivery and Performance Measurements.” PAD 6227, Public Finance and the Budgetary Process, Florida International University. April 12, 2000.
9.
GlaserMarkDenhardtRobert. 2000. “Local Government Performance Through the Eyes of Citizens” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 12(1): 49–73.
10.
GoreAl. 1993. Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less: Report of the National Performance Review.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11.
GrizzleGloria A.1985. “Essential Skills for Financial Management: Are MPA Students Acquiring Necessary Competencies?” Public Administration Review, 45(6): 840–844.
12.
HarrisJean. 1995. “Service Efforts and Accomplishments Standards: Fundamental Questions of an Emerging Concept.” Public Budgeting and Finance, 15(4): 18–37.
13.
HatryHarryJames FountainJonathan SullivanKremerLorraine. 1990. Service Efforts and Accomplishments Reporting: Its Time Has Come.Norwalk, CT: Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
14.
HummelRalph. 1990. “Uncovering Validity Criteria for Stories Managers Hear and Tell.” American Review of Public Administration, 20(4): 303–314.
15.
JonesLarry J.1991. “Public Financial Management Curriculum and Course Design: A Response to the National Task Force Report.” Public Budgeting and Financial Management, 3(1): 171–190.
16.
KeehleyPatriciaSteven MeditaSue MacBrideLongmireLaura. 1997. Benchmarking for Best Practices in the Public Sector: Achieving Performance Breakthroughs in Federal, State, and Local Agencies.San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
17.
KopczynskiMaryLombardoMichael. 1999. “Comparative Performance Measurement: Insights and Lessons Learned from a Consortium Effort.” Public Administration Review, 59(2): 124–134.
18.
Mikesell john. 1999. Fiscal Administration: Analysis and Applications for the Public Sector (5th ed.). Ft. Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace.
19.
MorleyElaineBryantScott PHatryHarry. 2001. Comparative Performance Measurement.Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
20.
OsborneDavidGaeblerTed. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public SectorReading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
21.
PoisterTheodoreStreibGregory. 1999. “Performance Measurement in Municipal Government: Assessing the State of the Practice.” Public Administration Review, 59(4): 325–335.
22.
PurchonSamuelet al.1999. “A Study of Performance Measures in the Cities of Miami and Coral Gables Fires Departments.” PAD 6227, Public Finance and the Budgetary Process, Florida International University. November 30.
23.
RaimondoHenry. 1992Economics of State and Local Government.New York: Praeger.
24.
RitzerGeorge. 1975. Sociology: A Multiple Paradigm Science.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
25.
RivenbarkWilliam. 2000. Personal communications, October 26.
26.
RivenbarkWilliamKellyJanet. 1999. “Performance Measurements Local Government Response.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 12(1): 74–86.
27.
RoqueMartaTina SmithMichelle RobersonJohnsonGhislane. 2000. “Performance Measurement: A Comparative Analysis of the Cities of Homestead and North Bay Village Public Works Departments.” PAD 6227, Public Finance and the Budgetary Process, Florida International University. April 12.
28.
WangXiaohu. 1999. “Conditions to Implement Outcome-Oriented Performance Budgeting: Some Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management, 11(4): 533–552.
29.
SheltonMichaelAlbeeTroy. 2000. “Financial Performance Monitoring and Customer-Oriented Governments Case Study.” Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial Management, 12(1): 87–105.
