An important challenge in the design of performance measurement, accountability, and incentive systems is the establishment of relevant benchmark levels of performance, also known as performance standards. We review information economics literature and draw simple lessons for the construction of performance standards. We demonstrate the relevance of these lessons in the context of a job training government organization.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonKathryn and Richard Burkhauser and RaymondJ.1993. “The Effect of Creaming on Placement Rates under the Job Training Partnership Act.” Industrial and Labor Relation Review.46(1)613–624.
2.
BarnowBurt2000. “Exploring the Relationship between Performance Management and Program Impact.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.19(1) pp. 118–141.
3.
BarnowBurt S. and Jeffrey A. Smith. 2002. What Does the Evidence from Employment and Training Programs Reveal about the Likely Effects of Ticket-to-Work on Service Provider Behavior?Working paper. University of Maryland.
4.
BouckaertGeert1993. Measurement and Meaningful Management. Public Performance and Management Review 17(1)31–43.
5.
BrooksArthur C.2000. The use and Misuse of Adjusted Performance Measures. Journal of Policy Analysis Management 19(2)323–29.
6.
CourtyPascal and GeraldMarschke 2004 (Forthcoming). Making Government Accountable: Lessons from a Federal Job Training Program. Public Administration Review.
7.
CourtyPascal and GeraldMarschke2003. “Performance Funding in Federal Agencies: A Case Study of a Federal Job Training Program.” Public Budgeting and Finance.23(3) pp. 22–48.
8.
CraggMichael1997. Performance Incentives in the Public Sector: Evidence from the Job Training Partnership Act, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. 13(1) pp. 147–168.
9.
DickinsonKatherine P., WestRichard W., KoganDeborah J., DruryDavid A., FranksMarlene S., SchlichtmannLaura, and MaryVencill1988. Evaluation of the Effects of JTPA Performance Standards on Clients, Services, and Costs. Research Report No.88–16, National Commission for Employment Policy.
10.
DixitAvinash 2002, Incentives and Organizations in the Public Sector, Journal of Human Resources, 37 (4), 696–727.
11.
HatryHarry1999. Mini-Symposium on Intergovernmental Comparative Performance Data. Public Administration Review 59(2)101–104.
12.
HeckmanJames J., HeinrichCarolyn, and Jeffrey A. Smith. 2002. The Performance of Performance Standards. The Journal of Human Resources.37(4)778–811.
13.
HeckmanJames J. and Jeffrey A. Smith 2003. “The Determinants of Participation in a Social Program: Evidence from the Job Training Partnership Act,” IZA Discussion Paper no.798.
14.
HeckmanJames J., SmithJeffrey A., and NancyClements1997. “Making the Most Out of Programme Evaluations and Social Experiments: Accounting for Heterogeneity in Programme Impacts.” Review of Economic Studies.64(4)487–535.
15.
HeckmanJames J., SmithJeffrey A. and ChristopherTaber1996. “What Do Bureaucrats Do? the Effects of Performance Standards and Bureaucratic Preferences on Acceptance in the JTPA Program.” In Gary Libecap, ed. Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Growth, Vo. 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 191–217.
16.
HeinrichCarolyn2002. Outcomes-Based Performance Management in the Public Sector: Implications for Government Accountability and Effectiveness. Public Administration Review 62(6)712–725.
17.
HeinrichCarolyn2003. Improving Public-Sector Performance Management: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?Working paper. University of Wisconsin.
18.
JohnstonJanet W.1987. The Job Training Partnership Act: A Report by the National Commission for Employment Policy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
19.
KravchukRobert and RonaldSchack1996. Designing Effective Performance-Measurement Systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. Public Administration Review 56(4)348–358.
20.
MarschkeGerald2003. Performance Incentives and Organizational Behavior: Evidence from a Federal Bureaucracy. Working paper. University of Albany, State University of New York.
21.
PrendergastC. (1999), The Provision of Incentives in Firms, Journal of Economic Literature, 37 (1), 7–63.
22.
RubensteinRoss, SchwartzAmy Ellen, and LeannaStiefel2003. Better than Raw: A Guide to Measuring Organizational Performance with Ajdusted Performance Measures. Public Administration Review 63(5)607–615.
23.
StiefelLeanna, RubensteinRoss, and Amy Ellen Schwartz. 1999. Using Adjusted Performance Measures for Evaluating Resource Use. Public Budgeting and Finance 19(3)67–87.
24.
TaylorFrederick Winslow1911. Principles and Methods of Scientific Management. Journal of Accountancy12(2)117–24.
25.
WholeyJoseph1999. Performance-Based Management. Public Performance and Management Review 22(3)288–307.
26.
WholeyJoseph and HarryHatry1992. The Case for Performance Monitoring. Public Administration Review 52(6)604–610.
