Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Foreword -- Acknowledgements -- Contents -- About the Author -- Abbreviations -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- I Confronting the Evidence-Based Proverb -- 1 Policy Knowledge, Politics, and a Proverb of Decision Making -- The Evidence-Based Proverb and Policy Knowledge as Panacea -- A Research Approach to Tackle the Evidence-Based Proverb -- Organization of the Book -- References -- 2 No Panacea: The Purposes, Uses, and Limitations of Policy Knowledge -- Defining a Typology of Policy Knowledge -- The Purposes and Creation of Policy Knowledge -- Direct and Indirect Uses of Data, Information, and Evidence -- Program Design and the Production of Policy Knowledge -- References -- 3 Challenging the Proverb: A Balanced Model for Governance Decisions -- Politics and Policy Knowledge as Drivers of Decision Making -- The Rational-Comprehensive Model -- The Political-Incremental Model -- Exceptions to the Dominant Models -- A Balanced Framework of Politics and Policy Knowledge -- Political Elements of Policy Knowledge -- References -- 4 The Performance Movement and Other Evidence-Based Reforms -- The Performance Movement: 50 Years of Evidence-Based Reforms -- Planning Programming Budgeting System (PPBS) -- Management by Objective (MBO) -- Presidential Management Initiatives (PMI) -- Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) -- Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) -- Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) -- National Performance Review (NPR) -- Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART) -- GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) -- President's Management Agenda -- Assessing the Performance Movement -- Evidence-Based Policy: The Modern Reform Agenda -- Decision Making in Federal Education Policy -- References -- II Politics and Policy Knowledge in Federal Education -- 5 The Roots of Modern Federal Education Policy.

AbstractThe typical problems associated with performance management are particularly evident as the complexity of policy issues increases. "Wicked" policy areas with cross-cutting responsibilities, uncertain solutions, and constantly evolving problems are strongly subject to the pathology of the rational-scientific approach. One effort the U.S. government is making to mitigate these limitations is the designation of some of these areas as cross-agency priority goals. In theory, directed collaboration among the multiple agencies responsible will bring different perspectives, definitions, and potential solutions to the surface, and will allow for a critical and iterative approach toward measurement of performance toward the policy goal. However, history has shown that performance efforts have a tendency to return to the pathologies of the rational-scientific chain. This article examines three of these goals: climate change, cybersecurity, and Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) education, and considers the extent to which requiring collaboration in performance management results in increased adoption of the political-realistic chain of performance management.