Almost all state governments have adopted legislative or administrative mandates to manage for results. These mandates require agencies to engage in strategic planning and performance measurement, with the hope that performance information will be used to change decision-making behavior and improve performance. This article examines case studies of Alabama, Virginia, and Vermont to understand how corrections managers react to and use these mandates. The findings indicate a high degree of variation in case outcomes, ranging from compliance, to performance improvement efforts, to a questioning of the basic goals of corrections. There is a common logic that explains how managing for results is used however, based on organization’s leadership agenda, and informed by knowledge of environmental challenges and opportunities.
American Correctional Association. (2000). 2000 American Correctional Association directory. Lanham, MD: Author.
2.
Ban, C. (1995). How do public managers manage? Bureaucratic constraints, organizational culture, and the potential for reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Barbour County et al., v. Michael Haley et al., Civil Action Nos. CV-92-388SH, CV-92-399-SH (C.C. Montgomery County 2001).
4.
Brudney, J. L., Hebert, F. T., & Wright D. S. (1999). Reinventing government in the American states: Measuring and explaining administrative reform. Public Administration Review, 59, 19-30.
5.
DiIulio, J. (1990). Managing a barbed-wire bureaucracy: The impossible job of corrections commissioner. In E. C. Hargrove & J. C. Glidewell (Eds.), Impossible jobs in public management (pp. 49-71). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
6.
Franklin, A. (2000). An examination of bureaucratic reactions to institutional controls. Public Performance and Management Review, 24, 8-21.
7.
Gahan, C., & Hannibal, M. (1998). Doing qualitative research using QSR Nudist. London: Sage.
8.
Joyce, P. G., & Tompkins, S. (2002). Using performance information for budgeting: Clarifying the framework and investigating recent state experience. In K. Newcomer, E. Jennings, C. Broom, & A. Lomax (Eds.), Meeting the challenges of performance-oriented government (pp. 61-96). Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.
9.
Lemley, E. C. (2001). Designing restorative justice policy: An analytical perspective. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12, 43-65.
10.
Lin, A. C. (2000). Reform in the making: The implementation of social policy in prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1989). Implementation and public policy. New York: University Press of America.
12.
Melkers, J. E., & Willoughby, K. G. (1998). The state of the states: Performance-based budgeting requirements in 47 out of 50. Public Administration Review, 58, 66-73.
13.
Melkers, J. E., & Willoughby, K. G. (2001). Budgeters’ views of state performance-budgeting systems: Distinctions across branches. Public Administration Review, 61, 54-64.
14.
Moynihan, D. P. (2001). The state of the states in managing for results (Alan K. Campbell Public Affairs Institute Working Paper). Available from www.maxwell.syr.edu/gpp/
15.
Moynihan, D. P. (in press). Managing for results in an impossible job: Solution or symbol?International Journal of Public Administration.
16.
Moynihan, D. P., & Ingraham, P. W. (2003). Look for the silver lining: When performance-based accountability systems work. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 469-490.
17.
National Council of State Legislatures. (2001). The book of states. Lexington, KY: Author.
18.
Ogle, R. S. (1998). Theoretical perspectives on correctional structure, evaluations, and change. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 9, 43-71.
19.
Poister, T. H., & Streib, G. (1999). Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review, 59, 325-335.
20.
Shtull, P. (1999). Assessment of the Vermont Department of Corrections vision, mission, and values, and principles 1998 revision.Report to the Vermont Department of Corrections.
21.
Snell, R., & Grooters, J. (2000). Governing-for-results: Legislation in the states. A Report to the Urban Institute. Available from www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/results-based-stategovt.pdf
22.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Managing for results: State experiences provide insights for federal management reforms (GAO/GGD-95-22). Washington, DC: Author.
23.
Vermont Department of Corrections. (2000). Facts and figures. Available from www.doc.state.vt.us
24.
Virginia Department of Corrections. (1999). Strategic performance Budgeting plan 2000-2002. Richmond, VA: Author.
25.
Wang, X. (2000). Performance measurement in budgeting: A study of county governments. Public Budgeting and Finance, 20, 102-118.
26.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
27.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
