BankerRobert D.MoreyR. C.. 1986. The use of categorical variables in data envelopment analysis. Management Science12: 1613–27.
2.
BankerRobert D.CharnesA.CooperW.. 1984. Models for estimation of technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science30: 1078–92.
3.
BankerRobert D.CharnesA.CooperW.SwartsJ.ThomasD.. 1989. An introduction to data envelopment analysis with some models and their uses. Research in Government and Non-Profit Accounting5: 125–64.
CallenJ. L.1991. Data envelopment analysis: Partial survey and applications for management accounting. Journal of Management Accounting3: 35–56.
6.
ChalosP.CherianJ.. 1995. An application of data envelopment analysis to public sector performance measurement and accountability. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy14: 143–60.
7.
CharnesA.CooperW.RhodesE.. 1978. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operations Research2: 429–44.
8.
City of Portland, Oregon. 1995. Office of the City Auditor. Service efforts and accomplishments reporting 1993–94. Portland.
9.
City of Sunnyvale, California. 1997. City of Sunnyvale, California program performance budget. Sunnyvale.
10.
CloningerD.SartoriusL.. 1979. Crime rates, clearance rates and enforcement effort: The case in Houston, Texas. American Journal of Economics and Sociology38: 389–402.
11.
DyeThomas. 1966. Politics, economics, and the public: Policy outcomes in the American states. Chicago: Rand McNally.
12.
EngertF. 1996. The reporting of school district efficiency: The adequacy of ratio measures. Public Budgeting and Financial Management8: 247–71.
13.
FarrellM. J.1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society120: 253–90.
14.
Florida Commission on Government Accountability to the People (FCGAP). 1996a. States doing benchmarking reports. Tallahassee.
15.
FarrellM. J.1996b. The Florida benchmarks report. Tallahassee.
16.
Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. 1997. Performance-based program budgeting in context: History and comparison. Tallahassee.
17.
FountainJayRoobM.. 1994. Service efforts and accomplishments measures. Public Management76: 6–12.
18.
GanleyJ.A.CubbinJ.S.. 1992. Public sector efficiency measurement: Applications of data envelopment analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
19.
GAO. See U.S. General Accounting Office.
20.
GASB. See Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
21.
GolanyB.RollY.. 1993. Some extensions of techniques to handle non-discretionary factors in data envelopment analysis. The Journal of Productivity Analysis4: 419–32.
22.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). 1991. Service efforts and accomplishments reporting: Its time has come—Public health. Norwalk, Conn.: GASB.
23.
GuptaD.K.1994. Decisions by the numbers: An introduction to quantitative techniques for public policy analysis and management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
24.
HairJ. F.AndersonR. E.TathamR. L.BlackW. C.. 1992. Multivariate data analysis with readings. New York: Macmillian.
25.
HatryHarryFiskD.. 1992. Measuring productivity in the public sector. In Public productivity handbook.HolzerM., ed. New York: Marcel Dekker.
26.
International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 1997. Comparable performance measurement: FY 1995 data report. Washington, D.C.: ICMA.
27.
JurasP. E.KaspinJ.MartinD.. 1994. An analysis of gainsharing in a health care setting. Health Care Supervisor13: 44–50.
28.
LewinA. Y.MoreyR. C.. 1986. Measuring the relative efficiency and output potential of public sector organizations. International Journal of Policy Analysis and Information Systems5: 267–85.
29.
LewinA. Y.MoreyR. C.CookT. J.. 1982. Evaluating the administrative efficiency of the courts. Omega10: 401–11.
30.
LovellK.WaltersL. C.WoodL. L.. 1994. Stratified models of education production using modified DEA and regression analysis. In Data envelopment analysis: Theory, methodology and applications.CharnesA.CooperW.LewinA.SeifordL., eds. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
31.
MaltzM. 1975. Measures of effectiveness for crime reduction programs. Operation Research23: 452–74.
32.
MartinLarryKettnerPeter. 1996. Measuring the performance of human service programs. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
33.
Minnesota Planning. 1996. Minnesota milestones—1996 progress report. St. Paul.
34.
NyhanRonald C.MartinLarry L.. 1999. Comparative performance measurement: A primer on data envelopment analysis. Public Productivity and Management Review22 (forthcoming).
35.
Oregon Progress Board. 1994. Governing for results: Using benchmarks to define and measure progress toward strategic priorities. Salem.
36.
OzcanY. A.CotterM. A.. 1994. An assessment of efficiency of area agencies on aging in Virginia through data envelopment analysis. The Gerontologist34: 363–70.
37.
RuggieroJ. 1996. On measurement of technical efficiency in the public sector. European Journal of Operations Research90: 553–65.
38.
SeifordLarry. 1996. Data envelopment analysis: The evolution of the state of the art 1978–1995. The Journal of Productivity Analysis7: 99–137.
39.
ShermanH.D.1984. Hospital efficiency measurement and evaluation: Empirical test of a new technique. Medical Care22: 2922–35.
40.
SpendoliniM. 1992. The benchmarking book. New York: AMACON.
41.
State of Maine. 1997. Performance budgeting notes—August 15 1997. Augusta.
42.
Texas State Auditor's Office1997. An audit report on performance measures at twenty-six agencies, August 1997. Austin.
43.
ThanassoulisE.EmrouznejadA.. 1996. Warwick Windows DEA. Coventry, UK: Warwick.
44.
ThanassoulisE.EmrouznejadA.. 1996. Exploring quality targets in the provision of perinatal care in England using data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research80: 588–607.
45.
TracyR. 1996. Development and use of outcome information: Portland, Oregon. Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration.
46.
TracyR.JeanE. P.. 1993. Measuring government performance: Experimenting with service efforts and accomplishments reporting in Portland, Oregon. Government Finance Review9: 11–14.
47.
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 1995. Managing for results: Critical actions for measuring performance. Washington, D.C.: GAO.
48.
U.S. News and World Report. 1997. New York (September 29): 44–54.