SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Anechiarico, F., & Smith, D. C. (2006, June). Performance as integrity, integrity as performance: A new paradigm for public administration. Presented at the ASPA conference, Public Sector Performance: A Trans-Atlantic Dialogue, in Leuven, Belgium.
  • Auletta, K. (1979). The streets were paved with gold. New York: Random House.
  • Behn, R. (2007). What all mayors would like to know about Baltimore's CitiStat. IBM Center for the Business of Government.
  • Benson, L. (2006, November). What makes Washington State's GMAP program tick? Prepared for the 28th annual research conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Madison, Wisconsin.
  • de Lancer, P., & Holzer, M. (2008). Performance measurement: Building theory, improving practice. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
  • Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
  • Frederickson D. G., & Frederickson, G. (2007). Measuring the performance of the hollow state. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  • General Accounting Office (GAO). (2004). Results-oriented government: GPRA has established a solid foundation for achieving greater results. Washington, DC: Author.
  • Hatry, H. P., Fountain, J. R., Jr., Sullivan, J. M., & Kremer, L. (1990). Service efforts and accomplishments reporting: Its time has come. Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).
  • Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government. Reading, MA: Addison and Wesley.
  • Ostom, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In P. A.Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 3571). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  • Peter, L. J. (1969). The Peter principle. New York: William Morrow & Co.
  • Radin, B. (1997, November). The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hydra-headed monster or flexible management tool? Presented at Nineteenth Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy and Management, Washington, DC.
  • Radin, B. (2006). Challenging the performance movement, accountability, complexity and democratic value. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  • Rivlin, A. (1971). Systematic thinking for social action. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
  • Roberts, A. (1997). Performance based organizations: Assessing the Gore Plan. Public Administration Review, 57, 465477.
  • Safir, H. (n.d). The CompStat process. Prepared by the Office of Management Analysis and Planning, Police Department of the City of New York.
  • Smith, D., & Grinker, W. (1993, August). HRA adrift: Social spending without direction. City Journal.
  • Smith, D. C. (1993, October). Performance management in New York City: The Mayor's Management Plan and Report System in the Koch Administration. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Research Conference of the Association of Public Policy and Management, Washington, DC.
  • Smith, D. C., & Bratton, W. (2001). Performance management in New York City: CompStat and the revolution in police management. Quicker, better, cheaper? Managing performance in American government. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  • Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Tullock, G. (1965). The politics of bureaucracy. Washington, DC: Public Affairs Press.
  • Ukeles, J. (1982). Doing more with less: Turning public management around. New York: Amacom.
  • Veblen, T. (1898). Why is economics not an evolutionary science. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12.
  • Viteritti, J. P. (1978). New York's Management Plan and Reporting System: A descriptive analysis. Public Administration Review, 38, 376381.
  • Weisburd, D., Mastrofski, S. D., Greenspan, R., & Willis, J. J. (2004). The growth of CompStat in American policing. Police Foundation Reports.
  • Weiss, C. (1995). Nothing as practical as a good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives. In J. P.Connell, A. C.Kubisch, L. B.Schorr, & C. H.Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods and contexts (pp. 116). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
  • Radin, B. A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  • Weiss, C. H. (1983). Ideology, interests, and information: The basis of policy positions. In D.Callahan & B.Jennings (Eds.), Ethics, the social sciences, and policy analysis (pp. 213245). New York, NY: Plenum Press.