The most recent reform in public service delivery is predicated on an assumption that the kinds of activities that managers can measure are the dimensions of service that citizens value. The link between administrative performance measures and citizen satisfaction with services has been tested within cities but not among cities, owing to data comparability difficulties. This test for a relationship between police and fire service performance and citizen satisfaction with police and fire services across 50 localities does not reveal the result predicted in the public management literature. Some implications and recommendations for future specifications of the relationship are offered in conclusion.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ammons, David N. 1996. Municipal benchmarks: Assessing local performance and establishing community standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
Barzelay, Michael, with Babak J. Armajani. 1992. Breaking through bureaucracy: A new vision for managing in government. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
3.
Berman, Evan, and XiaoHu Wang. 2000. Performance measurement in U.S. counties. Public Administration Review60 (5): 409-420.
4.
Brown, Karin, and Phillip B. Coulter. 1983. Subjective and objective measures of police service delivery. Public Administration Review43 (1): 50-58.
5.
Brudney, Jeffrey L., and Robert E. England. 1982. Urban policy making and subjective service evaluations: Are they compatible? Public Administration Review42 (2): 127-135.
6.
Coe, Charles K. 2000. Performance measurement: Grading report cards and single performance measures. Paper presented at the 2000 annual conference of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., August.
7.
Glaser, Mark A. 1994. Tailoring performance measures to fit the organization: From generic to germane. Public Productivity and Management Review17 (3): 303-319.
8.
Glaser, Mark A., and John W. Bardo. 1994. A five stage approach for improved use of citizen surveys in public investment decisions. State and Local Government Review26 (3): 161-172.
Hood, Christopher. 1998. The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric and public management. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
11.
International City/County Management Association. 1997. Comparative performance measurement: FY 1995 data report. Washington, DC: ICMA.
12.
International City/County Management Association. 1998. Comparative performance measurement: FY 1996 data report. Washington, DC: ICMA.
13.
International City/County Management Association. 1999a. Comparative performance measurement: FY 1997 data report. Washington, DC: ICMA.
14.
International City/County Management Association. 1999b. Comparative performance measurement: FY 1998 data report. Washington, DC: ICMA.
15.
International City/County Management Association. 2000. Comparative performance measurement: FY 1999 data report. Washington, DC: ICMA.
16.
Julnes, Patria de Lancer, and Marc Holzer. 2001. Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review61 (6): 693-705.
17.
Kelly, Janet M., and David Swindell. 2002. Performance monitoring and citizen satisfaction: Correlating administrative outcomes and citizen evaluation of service quality. Public Administration Review62 (5): 610-620.
18.
Kirlin, John J. 2001. Big questions for a significant public administration. Public Administration Review61 (2): 140-143.
19.
Lynn, Laurence E., Jr., Carolyn J. Heinrich, and Carolyn J. Hill. 2000. Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory10 (2): 233-261.
20.
Lyons, William E., David Lowry, and Ruth Hoogland DeHoog. 1992. The politics of dissatisfaction. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
21.
Melkers, Julia, Katherine G. Willoughby, Brian James, and James Fountain. 2002. Performance measures at the state and local levels: A summary of survey results. Norwalk, CT: Governmental Standards Accounting Board.
22.
Miller, Thomas I., and Michelle Miller. 1992. Assessing excellence poorly: The bottom line in local government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management11 (4): 612-623.
23.
Miller, Thomas I., and Michelle A. Miller. 1991. Citizen surveys: How to do them, how to use them, what they mean. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
O'Toole, Laurence J., and Kenneth J. Meier. 1999. Modeling the impact of public management: Implications of the structural context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory9 (4): 505-526.
26.
Parks, Roger B. 1984. Linking objective and subjective measures of performance. Public Administration Review44 (2): 118-127.
27.
Percy, Stephen L. 1986. In defense of citizen evaluations as performance measures. Urban Affairs Quarterly22 (1): 66-83.
28.
Pollitt, Christopher. 1993. Managerialism and the public services: Cuts or cultural change in the 1990s? 2d ed. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
29.
Poister, Theodore H., and Gary T. Henry. 1994. Citizen ratings of public and private service quality: A comparative perspective. Public Administration Review54 (2): 155-159.
30.
Poister, Theodore H., and Gregory Streib. 1999. Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice. Public Administration Review59 (4): 325-335.
31.
Rosentraub, Mark S., and Lyke Thompson. 1981. The use of surveys of satisfaction for evaluations. Policy Studies Journal9 (7): 990-999.
32.
Stipak, Brian. 1979. Citizen satisfaction with urban services: Potential misuse as a performance indicator. Public Administration Review39 (1): 46-52.
33.
Swindell, David, and Janet M. Kelly. 2000. Linking citizen satisfaction data to performance measures: A preliminary evaluation. Public Productivity and Management Review24 (1): 30-52.
