While attention has been paid to a few cities and counties exhibiting effective performancemeasurement systems, most U.S. local governments have been active in the development and use of performance measurement for several decades. This research examines the effects of performance-measurement information on budgetary decision making, communication, and other operations of U.S. local governments. Data are drawn from a national survey of city and county administrators and budgeters that included nearly 300 governments. Findings indicate the use of performance measurement by local departments is pervasive, although survey respondents are less enthusiastic about measurement effectiveness. Study results show subtle distinctions between city and county officials in their use of performance measurement for budgetary purposes and processes. Research findings indicate the consistent, active integration of measures throughout the budget process is important in determining real budget and communication effects in local governments.The distinctions within and across levels of government in the United States and their success with regard to performance-measurement implementation are many. At the federal level, for example, agencies are scrutinized regarding their adherence to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, as well as to recent governmentwide and program-specific performance-related initiatives of the President's Management Agenda. The Government Performance and Results Act holds agencies accountable for performance and results reporting within a performance-budgeting process. The Bush management agenda calls for more substantive attention to performance measurement and its integration with budgeting decisions: a more realistic and long-term perspective of what government agencies do, how to measure what they do, and how to attribute costs to specific results. Today's federal agencies are held to higher standards as far as the level of transparency of performance information they afford internally and to the public, as well as how this information contributes to program results and eventually the community at large (Ellig 2000).Selected state and local governments are often cited for their advanced practices related to results-oriented systems. 1 While most governments at these levels have adopted some sort of application of performance measurement, successful or effective implementation of a performancebased system has been recognized as much less comprehensive. This research examines the perceptions of local administrators and budgeters about performance-measurement effectiveness and its applicability to management and budgeting practices in their governments. Our study is based on the premise that performance-measurement apJulia Melkers is an associate professor of public administration at the University of Illinois-Chicago, where she teaches and conducts research on performance measurement and public management. She has worked with numerous governments on the development and use of performance measures...

No abstract

This research presents implications of the global pandemic for local government resiliency in the United States. The authors explore insights from local government officials and managers on the front lines of response and recovery efforts to the biological natural disaster. Findings from the latest nationwide survey of U.S. local governments regarding their preparedness for weather‐related natural disasters also inform responses to the current crisis. Results indicate that local governments are innovating and taking strategic actions to fight the virus, even as COVID‐19 has exposed social inequities that are exacerbated as the virus spreads. Survey findings of disaster readiness of local governments to weather‐related disasters shows that small, resource‐poor governments will not be able to respond well and social inequities will grow. Policy strategies at all levels of government must recognize and account for these inequities as threat of this virus subsides, to support stronger, more effective readiness for the next biological catastrophe.

Budgeters' Views of State Performance-Budgeting Systems: Distinctions across BranchesGiven that a majority of states have had some sort of performance-budgeting initiative on the books for several years, how has implementation of such reform progressed? To answer this question, we surveyed legislative and executive budgeters from the 50 states, asking them for their impressions of performance-budgeting implementation in their state. Specifically, we asked these budget officers about the reasons for introducing performance budgeting in their state; the types of activities required of their system; responsible oversight bodies; extent of application across state agencies and departments; and perceived levels of effectiveness and problems experienced with implementation of the budget reform. Our findings indicate that implementation of performance-based budgeting systems is proceeding slowly. While there are some benefits to highlight, results show that implementing performance budgeting is not without problems-perhaps the greatest being differing perceptions of use and success among budget players, particularly across branches of government. Julia E. Melkers is an associate professor of public administration at the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University. Her teaching and research interests are performance measurement, public management, and science-and technology-based economic development. She has worked with several governmental organizations in the areas of performance assessment and performance-measurement development. Email: jmelkers@gsu.edu.Katherine G. Willoughby is an associate professor of public administration at the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University. Her teaching and research interests are public budgeting, financial management, and policy analysis. She has conducted extensive research in the area of state government budget process, specifically relating to the decisions of executive and legislative budgeters. She has also worked with a number of governments and governmental organizations regarding technology, privacy, and government performance.

A modern budget reform, performance-based budgeting (PBB) emphasizes the measurement of government performance by agencies and public servants. In this article we define PBB as requiring strategic planning regarding agency mission, goals and objectives, and a process that requests quantifiable data that provide meaningful information about program outcomes. Performance-based budgeting requirements are now pervasive in the states. Of forty-seven states with PBB requirements, thirty-one have legislated the process to be conducted, while sixteen have initiated the reform through budget guidelines or instructions. 1 What remains unknown, yet of vital interest to state administrators, their staff, legislators, and citizens, regards implementation status of PBB systems. How many states are utilizing a PBB process as prescribed by law or administrative directive? And if PBB has been implemented, has it been successful regarding improvement of agency effectiveness and decision making about spending? Perhaps most importantly, has PBB influenced appropriation decisions?This research is based on responses to a mail survey of executive and legislative budgeters regarding the PBB system established in their state. Results discussed in this article consider budgeters' response about PBB implementation status and effectiveness as conducted. We find that there are differing perceptions across the branches of government regarding both the extent of PBB implementation as well as its success. Results show that states with better-known PBB systems have not necessarily realized greater success in terms of effectiveness from this budget reform than states with less popularly known systems, at least as perceived by the budgeters included in this article.A modern budget reform, performance-based budgeting (PBB) emphasizes the measurement of government performance by agencies and public servants. For purposes of study, we have defined PBB as requiring strategic planning regarding agency mission and goals, and a process that requests quantifiable data that provide meaningful information about program outcomes. At the state level, all but three states have performance-based budgeting requirements, and most have established these requirements within the last few years. Of these forty-seven states, thirty-one have legislated PBB to be conducted, while sixteen have initiated the reform through budget guidelines or instructions. Only three states, Arkansas,Massachusetts,and New York do not have either type of mandate to conduct PBB. 2 Interest in and the catalyst for budget reform arises from public discontent with the results of budgeting. That is, as long as the public remains dissatisfied with both the size and the make-up of the budget pie, there will be efforts to fix, improve, and/or innovate public budgeting process to make it more "rational," more objective, or less political. We consider the current emphasis on measuring results of state spending or on the more entrepreneurial approach to budgeting to have arisen out of such public ...