This study focuses on whether state Departments of Transportations (DOTs) with quantifiable performance targets have better road repair and maintenance outcomes than DOTs without quantifiable performance targets. We also examine state DOT use of quantifiable pavement condition targets to examine differences across states in terms of agency and governance/legislative factors. While the results are mixed, they suggest that state agency capacity may be related to the use of concrete and specific performance measures. Furthermore, these concrete and specific performance measures may be related to the use of external accountability bodies and citizen participation. This suggests that quantifiable performance targets may be a useful tool for decision making, planning, and resource allocation in pursuit of desired performance outcomes.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Center for Excellence in Project Finance. (2010). A CFO’s Handbook on performance management. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
2.
American Society of Civil Engineers. (2013). 2013 report card for America’s infrastructure. Reston, VA: Author.
3.
AmmonsD. N.RivenbarkW. C. (2008). Factors influencing the use of performance data to improve municipal services: Evidence from the North Carolina benchmarking project. Public Administration Review, 68, 304-318.
4.
BairdM. E.StammerR. E.Jr. (2000). Measuring the performance of state transportation agencies: Three perspectives. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1729, 26-34.
BehnR. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63, 586-606.
7.
BremmerD.CottonK.HamiltonB. (2005). Emerging performance measurement responses to changing political pressures at state departments of transportation: Practitioners’ perspective. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1924, 175-183.
8.
BoyneG. A.ChenA. A. (2007). Performance targets and public service improvement. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 455-477.
9.
ConoverW. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
10.
de Lancer JulnesP.HolzerM. (2001). Promoting the utilization of performance measures in public organizations: An empirical study of factors affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review, 61, 693-708.
11.
DransfieldR. D.BrightwellR. (2012). How to get on top of statistics: Design and analysis for biologists, with R. London, England: InfluentialPoints LLP.
EbdonC. (2003). Capital management. In (AlanK. (Ed.), Paths to performance in state and local government: Final report from the Maxwell School (pp. 71-100). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Campbell Public Affairs Institute.
14.
FalcocchioJ. (2004). Performance measures for evaluating transportation systems: Stakeholder.
15.
GiffordJ.CarlisleW. (2004). Virginia Department of Transportation’s dashboard performance measurement and reporting system: Going the full monty. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1895, 207-219.
16.
Government Performance Project. (2003). Paths to performance in state and local government. Syracuse, NY: Alan K. Campbell Public Affairs Institute, Syracuse University.
17.
HatryH. P. (2006). Performance measurement: Getting results (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
18.
HartgenD. T.FieldsM. G.FeigenbaumB. (2014). 21st Annual Report on the Performance of State Highway Systems (1984–2012). Los Angeles, CA: The Reason Foundation. Retrieved from: http://reason.org/files/21st_annual_highway_report.pdf
19.
HeinrichC. J. (2002). Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 62, 712-725.
20.
IngrahamP. W.DonahueA. K. (2000). Dissecting the black box revisited: Characterizing government management capacity. In HeinrichC. J.LynnL. E.Jr. (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspectives (pp. 292-318). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
21.
IngrahamP. W.JoyceP. G.DonahueA. D. (2003). Government performance: Why management matters. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
22.
IngrahamP. W.MoynihanD. P. (2001). Beyond measurement: Managing for results in state government. In ForsytheD. (Ed.), Quicker, better, cheaper? Managing performance in American government (pp. 311-335). Albany: State University of New York Press.
23.
JimenezB. S.PaganoM. A. (2012). What factors affect management quality? State infrastructure management and the government performance project. Public Works Management & Policy, 17, 124-151.
24.
KellyJ. M. (2003). Citizen satisfaction and administrative performance measures: Is there really a link?Urban Affairs Review, 38, 855-866.
25.
LathamG. P. (2004). The motivational benefits of goal-setting. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(4), 126-129.
26.
LockeE. A.LathamG. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
27.
MarrB. (2009). Managing and delivering performance. New York, NY: Routledge.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (2006). Performance measures and targets for transportation asset management (Report 551). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
31.
O’ConnellL.YusufJ.-E.HackbartM. (2009). Transportation commissions as accountability structures: A review of their statutory roles and other attributes. American Review of Public Administration, 39, 409-424.
32.
PapagiannakisA.GharaibehN.WeissmannJ.WimsattA. (2009). Pavement score synthesis (Report No. FHWA/TX-09/0-6386-1). College Station: Texas Transportation Institute. Retrieved from http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-6386-1.pdf
33.
Pew Center on the States and The Rockefeller Foundation. (2011). Measuring transportation investments: The road to results. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts and The Rockefeller Foundation.
34.
PickrellS.NeumannL. (2000). Use of performance measures in transportation decision making. Paper presented at the Conference on Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, Irvine, CA.
35.
PlantJ. F. (2007). The big questions of transportation policy and administration in the twenty-first century. In PlantJ. F. (Ed.), Handbook of transportation policy and administration (pp. 3-9). New York, NY: CRC Press.
36.
PoisterT. H. (1997). A survey of performance measurement systems in state transportation departments. Public Works Management & Policy, 1(4), 323-341.
37.
PoisterT. H. (2007). Performance measurement in transportation agencies: State of the practice. In PlantJ. F. (Ed.), Handbook of transportation policy and administration (pp. 485-504). New York, NY: CRC Press.
38.
PoisterT. H. (2008). Measuring performance in public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
39.
PoisterT. H.PashaO. Q.EdwardsL. H. (2013). Does performance management lead to better outcomes? Evidence from the US Public Transit Industry. Public Administration Review, 73, 625-636.
40.
RallJ.WheetA.FarberN. J.ReedJ. B. (2011). Transportation governance and finance: A 50-state review of state legislatures and departments of transportation. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures and the AASHTO Center for Excellence in Project Finance.
41.
RodgersR.HunterJ. E. (1992). A foundation of good management practice in government: Management by objectives. Public Administration Review, 52, 27-39.
42.
SalisburyR.HeinzJ. (1970). A theory of policy analysis and some preliminary applications. In SharkanskyI. (Ed.), Policy analysis in political science (pp. 39-60). Chicago, IL: Markham.
43.
Smart Growth America and Taxpayers for Common Sense. (2011). Repair priorities: Transportation spending strategies to save taxpayer dollars and improve roads. Washington, DC: Author.
44.
Smart Growth America and Taxpayers for Common Sense. (2014). Repair priorities 2014: Transportation spending strategies to save taxpayer dollars and improve roads. Washington, DC: Author.
45.
ThomsonD. E. (2010). Exploring the role of funders’ performance reporting mandates in nonprofit performance measurement. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 611-629.
46.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1996). Executive guide: Effectively implementing the Government Performance and Results Act. Washington, DC: Author.
47.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2010). Statewide transportation planning: Opportunities exist to transition to performance-based planning and federal oversight (Report to the Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives). Washington, DC: Author.
48.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2015). Surface transportation: DOT is progressing toward a performance-based approach, but states and grantees report potential implementation challenges (Report to Congressional Addressees). Washington, DC: Author.
49.
Van DoorenW.BouckaertG.HalliganJ. (2015). Performance management in the public sector. New York, NY: Routledge.
50.
VerbeetenF. H. (2008). Performance management practices in public sector organizations: Impact on performance. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21, 427-454.
51.
WalkerR. M.DamanpourF.DeveceC. A. (2011). Management innovation and organizational performance: The mediating effect of performance management. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 367-386.
52.
WholeyJ. S. (1999). Performance-based management: Responding to the challenges. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22, 288-307.
53.
WholeyJ. S.HatryH. P. (1992). The case for performance monitoring. Public Administration Review, 52, 604-610.
54.
YusufJ.-E.LeavittW. M. (2014). The case for performance management in public works and infrastructure. Public Works Management and Policy, 9, 204-218.
55.
YusufJ.-E.O’ConnellL.HackbartM.WallaceC. (2008). An empirical examination of the statutory characteristics and effects of highway and transportation commissions on DOT capital management capacity. Public Works Management and Policy, 12, 533-543.
