Suchergebnisse

AbstractPerformance measurement has often been defined in contrast with program evaluation. However, many now recognize that the methods and experiences of performance measurement and program evaluation can support and strengthen each other, thereby making relevant and timely contributions to evidence‐based decision making. The argument in this chapter is that recent developments, emphasizing citizen engagement and incorporating community indicators, broaden the opportunities for collaboration between program evaluators and performance measurement professionals. Such collaboration, with an appreciation of the complementary strengths of the two approaches, can not only improve the practice of evaluation, but also enhance governance. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Association.

For much of the 20th century, accountability and performance measurement in the public sector centered on financial accounting, focusing on questions of how much money was spent and on what. Improved performance was mostly defined in terms of managerial efficiency. Recently, however, accountability has taken on a broader meaning to include the results of public actions. This emphasis on 'managing for results' has yielded the GPRA (Government Performance and Results Act) approach in the US government. Efforts to promote accountability with this emphasis, however, have occasioned a backlash. In particular, some have criticized the information that results from performance measurement systems as inadequate for the task of guiding government resource allocation decisions. That task, say critics, is the domain of program evaluation. In reviewing the contributions of performance measurement and its limitations, this article concludes that accountability needs are better addressed when program evaluators and performance measurement practitioners cooperate.

How can the Hispanic community in Utah strengthen its active engagement in government? Interviews by the authors with key government and community‐based organization representatives offer evidence on (1) who is being engaged in the Hispanic community, (2) what are the barriers to engagement, and (3) which modes of engagement are likely to be effective and under what conditions. Findings indicate that only a small elite in the Hispanic community is currently involved. Even for the elite, engagement is fairly superficial. Historical patterns characterize the Hispanic community limited interaction. The peculiar nature of Utah government also reduces their participation. Pragmatic lessons are drawn to enhance substantially improved partnerships, build comprehensive action plans, and strengthen government commitment to civic inclusion that transcend Utah and apply to diverse minority communities everywhere.