The Barack Obama administration advanced open government initiatives to make federal administration more open, accountable, and responsive to citizens. Yet a question remains whether federal administrators took notice. This article examines changes in the extent to which U.S. federal agencies have integrated the three core principles of open government-transparency, public participation, and collaboration-into their performance planning. By analyzing 337 annual performance plans of 24 major federal agencies from fiscal years 2001 to 2016, the authors found that, overall, the level of integration of open government into performance planning has been trending higher since the early 2000s. During the Obama presidency, integration initially rose sharply but later declined. Findings also show that agencies' stated core values regarding open government are not consistently integrated into their performance plans. The implications of these findings for incorporating democratic-constitutional values into holistic performance management are considered. Evidence for Practice • U.S. federal agencies can, and do, incorporate democratic-constitutional values into their performance management schemes. • Agencies with open government values explicitly listed in their value statements are no more likely than other agencies to include open government in their performance plans. In other words, agencies' stated core values are not consistently integrated into their performance plans. • The declining level of integration of open government activities into performance planning may result in less attention, reduced investment of resources, and weaker efforts by federal agencies to foster more transparent, participatory, and collaborative governance. • It is important for agencies to incorporate democratic-constitutional values (which are not central to agency mission but are important governmental attributes in their own right) into performance planning. Models such as the GPRA Modernization Act may offer a starting point for balanced approaches.

No abstract

of faculty members in NASPAA accredited programs were female and 66% were male. Although these numbers are up significantly from 2000 (12% female and 88% male faculty members), there are still obstacles for women in higher education. One of these is the balancing being a successful academic and a parent. Two new books address just this issue.The books Professor Mommy: Finding Work-Family Balance in Academia written by Rachel Connelly and Kristen Ghodsee and Do Babies Matter? Gender and Family in the Ivory Tower written by Mary Ann Mason, Nicholas H. Wolfinger, and Marc Goulden both talk about the challenges that women who pursue careers in academia and have a family face throughout their careers. The most noticeable difference between the two books is that they approach the solution to the challenges of work-family balance in academia in different ways. While noting the need for universities to adopt more family-friendly policies, Connelly and Ghodsee focus instead on providing a variety of concrete strategies for individuals-especially women-who pursue academic careers and want to have children. In contrast, Mason, Wolfinger, and Goulden focus on exploring the options available for universities to create a family-friendly work environment for faculty members and graduate students. In addition, Professor Mommy is in many ways specific to the humanities and social sciences and largely relies on normative approach, whereas Do Babies Matter focuses more on the natural sciences and uses an empirical, quantitative approach.Professor Mommy and Do Babies Matter contribute to the ongoing discussion of the work/ family balance of mothers with doctoral degrees that begun by texts such as Mama PhD: Women Write About Motherhood and Academic Life (2008) by Elrena Evans and Caroline Grant and Motherhood, the Elephant in the Laboratory: Women Scientists Speak Out (2010) by EmilyMonosson. In comparison, Professor Mommy contains more positive messages for young scholars who want to have children than do the other two books. Connelly and Ghodsee's overall idea is that women can become successful professors and mothers even in the current (not so familyfriendly) institutional environment because there are women who have done it and "have it all" like themselves. This idea is consistent with Sheryl Sandberg's (2013) advice for young women to Lean In. Both the book Lean In and Professor Mommy are realistic and practical how-to books for women with career ambitions but both give the impression that institutional changes are not always necessary for women to balance work and family life. Nevertheless, Professor Mommy would be engaging and practical to read for graduate students and young scholars on the tenure track who lack time as well as power to change the culture of their institutions. Do Babies Matter, however, puts more emphasis on institutional changes than on individual women's actions.