State and Local Government Review

Vol. 35, No. 3 (Fall 2003): 196205

RESEARCH NOTE

Management Innovation in
Smaller Municipal Government
William C. Rivenbark and Janet M. Kelly

has monitored a quarter-century of evolution

in innovative management practices
in municipal government. Based on the sample of municipalities from which management
surveys were drawn, zero-based budgeting and
management-by-objectives gave way to performance measurement and benchmarking
during this period. With rare exception, the
management innovation studies sponsored
by the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) have been limited
to municipalities with populations of 25,000
and above.
Although the survey response rate tends
to be higher and innovative management
practices more common in larger municipalities (Coplin, Merget, and Bourdeaux 2002),
limiting the study of management innovation
to the 1,395 municipalities with populations
of 25,000 and above is problematic. There
are 5,586 municipalities in the population
range of 2,500 to 24,999 in the United States,
constituting 80 percent of the 6,981 municipalities in the nation with populations of
2,500 and above (ICMA 2002). This article
explores management innovation in the 80
percent of municipalities that we know little
about, building on the extensive literature
established from the 20 percent of municUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

196

ipalities, which have populations of 25,000

and above.
Based on a national survey of smaller municipalities, we present the adoption rates of
certain management tools and compare them
with the rates of larger municipalities obtained
from previously published survey results. We
then distinguish between adoption and implementation of innovation (see de Lancer Julnes
and Holzer 2001) to determine whether the
tools that establish the framework of performance management have actually been used
to enhance decision-making processes in the
core functions of management. Finally, we
present the implications of this research and
previous studies on management innovation
in local government.

Management Tools in
Municipal Government
Management innovation research, initiated
by Fukuhara (1977) and sponsored by the
ICMA, shows the progress of adoption of
certain management practices in municipal
government. Based on a survey of municipalities with populations of 25,000 and above,
Fukuhara (1977) reported that 64 percent of
the respondents were engaged in program
evaluation, 43 percent embraced productivState and Local Government Review

Downloaded from slg.sagepub.com by Maya Puspita on October 18, 2016

Management Innovation

ity improvement, and 41 percent adopted

management by objectives.1 Poister and McGowan (1984) partially replicated the research
of Fukuhara (1977) by surveying 1,052 municipalities with populations between 25,000
and 1 million. They found that 67 percent of
the respondents were engaged in productivity
improvement and 68 percent adopted performance monitoring.2
Poister and Streib (1989) continued the
research of Poister and McGowan (1984) on
certain management practices in municipal
government by surveying 1,068 senior ofcials from municipalities with populations
between 25,000 and 1 million.3 The authors
reported that 80 percent of the respondents
used program evaluation and approximately
68 percent embraced performance monitoring ( the same percentage as that reported by
Poister and McGowan 1984). The percentage
of municipalities engaged in productivity improvement decreased from 67 percent (as
previously reported) to 54 percent. Poister
and Streib (1989) also found that slightly
more than 60 percent of the respondents
constructed strategic plans either at the organizational level or within selected programs. Poister and Streib (1994) replicated
their survey on management practices in municipal government in 1993, reporting the
ndings from a survey instrument mailed to
1,126 municipalities with populations between 25,000 and 1 million.4 Similar to the
earlier results, the more recent survey revealed that between 70 and 75 percent of
municipalities were engaged in program evaluation and performance monitoring, 53 percent used productivity improvement programs, and 63 percent embraced strategic
planning either organizationwide or within
selected programs.

Performance Management
in Municipal Government
Structure and leadership are needed to incorporate performance measurement into management decision-making processes (Kelly

and Rivenbark 2003). The elements of performance management include strategic planning, which articulates the objectives toward
which progress is measured; performance
measurement, which tracks outputs, outcomes, and efciencies; benchmarking, which
sets targets and makes performance comparisons; and program evaluation, which links
efforts captured by performance measures to
outcomes. These tools are used to make service policy decisions.
Two caveats of performance management
must be noted, however. First, service policy
decisions are informed by performance, not
necessarily determined by performance.
Budgetary decisions, for example, reect citizen preferences, political mandates, scal
constraints, decisions made in previous years,
and the professional norms of public administrators. They may be informed by performance data because these other factors are
accounted for during budget preparation.
Second, not all of the four managerial tools
must be adopted before performance management can take place. Many localities do
not employ either internal or external benchmarks, and program evaluation may be sporadic based on whether the municipalities can
support internal audit staff or afford external
program auditors. However, performance
measurement is certainly essential for performance management, and strategic planning
is almost as important.
Performance Measurement
Performance measurement is necessary but
not sufcient for performance management.
De Lancer Julnes and Holzer (2001) distinguished between adoption and implementation. Developing and adopting a performance measurement and monitoring system
provides the foundation for performance
management by collecting the necessary performance data and producing the necessary
performance measures in terms of output
(workload), efciency, and outcome (effectiveness) of service delivery (Ammons 2001a).
Implementation reects the actualization of
197

Fall 2003
Downloaded from slg.sagepub.com by Maya Puspita on October 18, 2016

Rivenbark and Kelly

performance management when the analysis

and the reporting of performance statistics
become a meaningful part of the information that managers and elected ofcials use
to make decisions (Hatry 1999).
In discussing management tools, it is important to differentiate between collect and
report performance data and use performance data for decision making. Fortunately, a recent study conducted by Poister
and Streib (1999) provides a basis of comparison for implementation, just as their
previous work did for adoption. They noted,
however, that the extent to which performance measurement has permeated local
government in the United States is difcult
to determine, given varying research approaches, denitions of performance terminology, and types of local government samples (Poister and Streib 1999).
Regarding performance measurement adoption, Poister and Streibs 1997 survey of 1,218
senior ofcials from municipalities with populations exceeding 25,000 found that performance measurement was more prevalent
in larger organizations, as predicted. This
nding was evidenced by the 30 percent of
the municipalities under 50,000 in population
that adopted performance measures and over
half of the jurisdictions with populations of
100,000 and more that adopted them.5 The
authors found that performance data were
most commonly used (implemented) with
tracking performance over time (77.2 percent), establishing performance targets (54.5
percent), and obtaining feedback on customer
satisfaction (31.9 percent). Other relevant
ndings were that over half of the respondents used performance measures for external
benchmarking and 57 percent of the respondents used them for program evaluation.
Strategic Planning
Streib and Poister (2002) conducted one of
the more comprehensive studies specically
on the management tool of strategic planning. Analyzing a survey mailed to 1,247
elected and appointed ofcials in municipal
198

governments with populations of 25,000 and

above, the authors found that 45 percent of
the respondents were under way with their
rst plan (11 percent) or had completed one
(10 percent) or more plans (24 percent) in the
last ve years.6 An important aspect of this
study was the focus on the impact of strategic
planning as a decision-making tool, ranging
from focusing the councils agenda on important issues to making sound decisions regarding programs, systems, and resources. This
analysis followed the critical split between
adoption and implementation.

Performance Management
in Local Government
The line of inquiry specically aimed at exploring performance management in county
government has recently been fueled by the
work of Berman, West, and Wang (1999),
Berman and Wang (2000), and Wang (2000).
Based on a survey mailed to all 856 counties
with populations over 50,000, Berman and
Wang (2000) reported that 33.6 percent of
U.S. counties collected performance statistics. Their research specically focused on the
capacity within county government to adopt
and implement performance measurement.
Using the same database for those counties engaged in performance measurement,
Berman, West, and Wang (1999) found that
performance measures were extremely common in the function of human resource management, and Wang (2000) reported similar
results for the use of performance measures
in county budget cycles.7
Other research also has expanded the literature in regard to performance management in local government. Based on a survey of 1,000 local government ofcials from
jurisdictions with populations of 10,000 and
above, Cope (1987) reported that 60 percent
of the respondents collected performance indicators during their annual budget process,
and 61.5 percent said that performance statistics were very useful in dening future budget
needs.8 Cope (1987) also found that a majorState and Local Government Review

Downloaded from slg.sagepub.com by Maya Puspita on October 18, 2016

Management Innovation

ity of the respondents believed that performance indicators were accurate and reliable.
OToole and Stipak (1988) complemented the
work of Cope (1987) by reporting that at least
80 percent of the jurisdictions used all types
of performance measures (output, efciency,
and outcome) and that roughly 46 percent
of budget ofcials believed that output and
outcome measures inuence scal allocation
decisions. These ndings were based on a
stratied sample of 750 local government
practitioners from jurisdictions of all sizes
and types.9
The literature on county government and
the studies that combine all types of localities
provide valuable insight into performance
management practice. One interpretation is
that decision-making processes based on
performance may have moved beyond innovation and into mainstream public management, responding to the number of organizations that have adopted and implemented
management tools like performance measurement. With the exception of Cope (1987) and
OToole and Stipak (1988), however, the
majority of studies that support this interpretation are based on municipalities with populations of 25,000 and above.

Methodology
A survey questionnaire was mailed to a stratied sample of 1,143 municipalities with
populations of 2,500 and above in September
2002. The mailing labels were obtained from
the Government Finance Ofcers Association
(GFOA), which randomly selected 1,500 jurisdictions from its active membership roster
of approximately 6,100 municipalities. Not
all of the mailing labels were usable after
they were purged for duplication. (Multiple
nance ofcers from the same jurisdiction
often are members of the GFOA.)
The potential respondents were asked to
return their completed questionnaires in selfaddressed, stamped envelopes that were included in the initial mailing. Postcards were
mailed two weeks after the initial mailing to

the entire sample of 1,143, encouraging potential respondents to participate in the study
and giving them the option of downloading
another copy of the survey from an identied
Web site if their original copy was misplaced.
This methodology produced 346 usable survey responses, providing a response rate of
slightly over 30 percent.
The results of this analysis are based on
the survey questionnaires mailed specically
to the 894 public nance ofcers working
in municipalities with populations of 2,500
to 24,999. Useable responses were received
from 281 jurisdictions, providing a response
rate of 31 percent. The response rate is consistent with Cope (1987) but less than the
response rates of Poister and Streib (1989;
1994; 1999). An explanation for the lower response rate is the sample frame itself; there is
a demonstrated positive relationship between
size of government and response rate. The
distribution of responses was roughly proportional to the population distribution of the
sample. The responding municipalities represented the following forms of government: 67
percent council-manager, 14 percent strong
mayor, 10 percent weak mayor, and 9 percent
other. We conclude that the sample is neutral
with regard to size but may be biased positively toward management innovation, given
the number of responses representing the
council-manager form of government and
that the sample was drawn from the GFOA
membership roster (an organization that promotes management innovation).

Results
The rst section of the survey was used to
obtain feedback on the use of strategic planning in smaller municipalities, including
the participation of various stakeholders.
Table 1 shows that most of the respondents
(33 percent) used strategic planning at both
the organizational and programmatic level.
Sixty-one percent of the respondents were
engaged in strategic planning at some level
within their organizations. This nding is
199

Fall 2003
Downloaded from slg.sagepub.com by Maya Puspita on October 18, 2016

Rivenbark and Kelly

Table 1. Reported Adoption Rates

of Strategic Planning
Level of Planning

Percent

Used organizationwide
and programmatic levels
Used only organizationwide
Used only at programmatic level
Not used in any systematic way
Not used as management tool

92

33

54
26
65
44

19
9
23
16

N = 281.

consistent with that of Poister and Streib

(1989); in that study, approximately 60 percent of the municipalities with populations
of 25,000 and above used strategic planning
either at the organizational level or within
selected programs.
Strategic planning in local government
begins with initiating and agreeing on a
meaningful and productive process, including
the identication of key stakeholders (Bryson
1988). Respondents engaged in strategic
planning reported that stakeholders included
senior managers (65 percent) and elected ofcials (62 percent). This nding would be
expected in local government because senior
managers and elected ofcials possess the
most inuence over decision-making processes of policy and administration. Moreover, only 23 percent of the respondents included citizens (the stakeholders who receive
municipal services) and approximately 14
percent included line managers and employees
(the stakeholders who provide them). Because
the support of these stakeholders is critical to
the success of strategic planning, these low
percentages are of concern. Other stakeholders occasionally used by the respondents were
economic interest groups, neighborhood
groups, and regional representatives.10
Performance measurement represents the
major component of performance management, providing decision makers with fundamental information on service delivery.
Table 2 shows the reported adoption rates of
performance measurement in smaller munici200

pal government. Approximately 17 percent of

the respondents indicated that their organizations required performance measurement
by all programs or within selected programs.
Thirty-nine percent reported that they did
not collect and report performance measures
in any systematic way, indicating that some
programs in these municipalities may be
measuring their performance for internal
management purposes but are not required
to submit their performance measures along
with budget requests. The remaining 44 percent reported that they did not use performance measurement at all.
The survey instrument also included a
question regarding the kinds of performance
measures typically collected and reported.
Table 3 shows the percentage of respondents
that collected each type of performance measure. A follow-up statistic on the percentage
of jurisdictions that collected at least one type
of performance measure was then calculated
from the data used to construct Table 3. This
calculation revealed that approximately 37
percent of smaller municipalities were en-

Table 2. Reported Adoption Rates of

Performance Measurement
Degree of Adoption
Used by all programs
Used by selected programs
Not used in any systematic way
Not used as management tool

Percent

35
13
110
123

12
5
39
44

N = 281.

Table 3. Types of Performance

Measures Collected
Measures

Percent

Output (workload)
Efficiency
Outcome (effectiveness)
Customer satisfaction
Target

30
17
23
22
18

N = 281.

State and Local Government Review

Downloaded from slg.sagepub.com by Maya Puspita on October 18, 2016

Management Innovation

gaged in performance measurement to some

degree. This nding is consistent with the
study conducted by Poister and Streib (1999)
in which 30 percent of municipalities under
50,000 in population collected performance
measures. It also corresponds to the research
of Berman and Wang (2000) in which 33.6
percent of counties collected such measures.
The results also are similar to those from
a survey conducted by OToole and Stipak
(1988). We found that output (workload) and
outcome (effectiveness) measures were collected more often than efciency measures.
Although the percentages in Table 3 are much
less compared with the results of OToole and
Stipak (1988), the relative emphasis on output and outcome measures over efciency
measures is the same. One explanation for
this nding is the lack of emphasis on cost
accounting in smaller jurisdictions, representing the capacity to recast nancial data to calculate the unit cost of service provision.
One aspect of performance management
that is growing in popularity in local government is benchmarking, or searching for superior management strategies (best practices)
of service delivery (Poister and Streib 1999).
However, a cursory review of benchmarking
consortiums like the national comparative
initiative managed by the ICMA or the regional benchmarking project managed by the
Institute of Government at the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill revealed that
most participating jurisdictions have populations above 25,000. That observation is supported by this study, with only 6 percent of
the respondents indicating that they have participated in a formal benchmarking process.
However, 29 percent reported that program
managers used external comparisons informally to put their performance data within
the context of other service providers. Poister
and Streib (1999) reported that over half of
larger municipalities engaged in performance
measurement used benchmarking to some degree, so this nding seems consistent, given
the adoption rates of performance measures
previously described.

Program evaluation is a management tool

that has been used in local government for
the past 30 years, providing local ofcials
with a methodology to address the efciency
and effectiveness of service delivery. It also
sets the stage for performance budgeting,
especially when the recommendations of an
evaluation have budgetary implications. The
percentage of respondents that reported the
use of program evaluation in this survey was
only 22 percent. This outcome is well below
the ndings of Fukuhara (1977) and Poister
and Streib (1989; 1994; 1999) for larger municipalities. Because program evaluation has
substantial time, effort, and expertise costs,
this nding may reveal a capacity gap between
larger and smaller municipalities.
The nal questions on the survey instrument were specically designed to distinguish
implementation of performance measurement
(which we have dened as performance management) from adoption of performance measurement. Respondents were given a menu of
ways in which performance data may be used.
Table 4 shows how smaller municipalities have
implemented performance data, including using them in conjunction with the planning
function (35 percent), tracking the progress
toward goals and objectives (30 percent), and
analyzing performance trends over time (24
percent). These percentages are considerably less than those identied by Poister and
Streib (1999) regarding the implementation
of performance measurement.
The most common use of performance
data reported by 39 percent of respondents
was budget presentation. This nding suggests three previously unknown aspects of
performance measurement in smaller municipal government. First, smaller organizations
that have a GFOA member on staff are actively engaged in increasing the professional
appearance of their budget documents as
evidenced by the GFOAs emphasis on its
distinguished budget presentation awards
program and the reporting of performance
measures as a recommended (but not required) practice. Second, the nding reveals
201

Fall 2003
Downloaded from slg.sagepub.com by Maya Puspita on October 18, 2016

Rivenbark and Kelly

Table 4. Reported Use of Performance Data

Data Use
Planning (organizationwide
and programmatic levels)
Tracking progress toward
goals and objectives
Trend analysis (tracking
performance data over time)
Allocation of resources
Budget presentation
Employee evaluations
Citizen education
Monitoring external contracts
Performance auditing
Other

Percent
35
30
24
16
39
27
15
7
9
2

N = 281.

that performance data were added to budget

documents after budgetary decisions were
nalized, evidenced by the 16 percent of
respondents that reported data use for the
allocation of resources. This nding suggests
that smaller municipalities are missing an opportunity to use performance data during the
budget preparation process.
Third, it seems that performance data
were included in budget documents even
for programs that do not collect or report
performance measures (39 percent report
measures in the budget, and 37 percent collect them). This nding reveals that there is
not always agreement on the denition of
a performance measure. The budget ofce
may add statistics like police response time,
tons of residential refuse collected, and collection rate for utility billing to the programs
respective budget page. These additions often
are made informally between budget directors and department heads, who may discuss
some numbers for the budget document,
which they may or may not consider performance measures.
Other noteworthy ndings are that 27
percent of respondents used performance
data to support employee evaluation and 15
percent used them for citizen education,
suggesting that the ostensible purpose of
202

any performance measurement system (operational accountability of service delivery)

is present in smaller municipalities. A nal
result, shown in Table 4, is that 16 percent
of respondents (GFOA members) reported
using performance data for the allocation of
resources. This percentage seems small given
the current level of emphasis on performance
budgeting by professional organizations like
the GFOA and the American Society for
Public Administration (ASPA).

Implications and Conclusion

The results of this study clearly show that
elements of performance management have
found their way into smaller municipal government. The data reveal that 61 percent of
the respondents were engaged in strategic
planning at some level within the organization, 37 percent collected at least one type
of performance measure, and 35 percent
embraced benchmarking either formally or
informally. The data also reveal that performance management is present to some
degree. Thirty percent of respondents used
performance data to track progress toward
goals and objectives, and 25 percent used
performance data to track performance results over time.
There is insufcient evidence to determine
the extent to which these ndings show progress toward adoption and implementation of
performance management tools in smaller
municipalities because survey researchers
often ignore smaller organizations. However,
capacity for performance measurement must
precede the practice of performance management. Elements of capacity include stakeholder support, training, and leadership. The
results of this study indicate that smaller
municipalities may be lacking in the capacity
necessary for performance measurement.
In a survey of county government, Berman and Wang (2000) found that stakeholder
support was critical to the capacity of performance measurement but that the denition of
stakeholder was sometimes limited to senior
State and Local Government Review

Downloaded from slg.sagepub.com by Maya Puspita on October 18, 2016

Management Innovation

managers and elected ofcials. Their data

and the data for this analysis revealed that
line managers and employees were rarely
considered stakeholders in the planning process. Those who have the responsibility for
data collection and reporting had little input
regarding development of missions, goals,
and objectives, which is when performance
intentions often are established. The limited denition of stakeholder becomes even
more problematic considering that turnover
of elected ofcials and senior managers is
higher than that of middle management and
line employees. It is difcult to build institutional support for an ongoing performance
measurement program when those who are
responsible for its maintenance are not represented at its creation.
Another capacity issue reported by Berman
and Wang (2000) deals with the ability of staff
to distinguish between the various types of
performance measures (i.e., input, output,
outcome, and efciency). Without training,
staff may not know that outcome measures are
the most important and the most difcult to
track. Because the goal of a performance measurement system is to monitor progress toward increasing program quality and because
outcome measures are indicators of quality, it
is easy to understand how a capacity gap in
training could result in a poor performance
measurement program. Smaller municipalities
may have fewer resources for training than do
larger municipalities and may be at a disadvantage in this critical component of capacity.
In the survey instrument used for this analysis,
only 14 percent of respondents indicated that
their municipality provided training in performance measurementfewer than half of the
municipalities collecting and reporting performance measures.
Leadership is essential to the capacity for
management innovation and for performance
management. There is no paucity of leadership in smaller municipalities, but compared
with larger municipalities there may be greater obstacles to innovation. Advocacy for management innovation can occur both inside and

outside the organization. However, internal

and external change agents must acknowledge
that natural impediments to management reform are prevalent in smaller organizations.
The most obvious impediment is the lack of
resources to invest in initiatives beyond that
of direct service delivery. Another is that
leaders in smaller municipalities often function as generalists and have less time to build
internal management capacity. There also are
political and sociological differences between
smaller and larger municipalities that limit
organizational evolution and management
innovation. However, this study shows that
smaller municipalities can and do innovate
and have made progress toward performance
management. In strategic planning, for example, their progress matches that of larger
municipalities.
External change agents often come from
public-sector professional organizations such
as the GFOA and ASPA. We suggest that the
GFOAs distinguished budget presentation
awards program has been an important inducement toward performance measurement
in smaller municipalities. Moreover, Coplin,
Merget, and Bourdeaux (2002) have suggested that the role of the professional researcher as change agent should be expanded
to include advocate, consultant, coordinator,
catalyst, and educator of the performance
movement in governmental organizations.
The expanded role of the professional researcher as change agent cannot continue to
be primarily directed toward larger municipalities. One could argue that the supply of
technical assistance from professional organizations like the GFOA and from researchers
who also function as change agents is driven
by the demand from larger organizations.
Perhaps a useful next step is nding performance management champions in smaller
organizations and determining how they overcome the capacity problems of adoption and
implementation. The data from this study
clearly show that champions do exist in
smaller municipalities, as evidenced by the
research of Ammons (2001b).
203

Fall 2003
Downloaded from slg.sagepub.com by Maya Puspita on October 18, 2016

Rivenbark and Kelly

On a nal note, the Governmental Accounting Standards Boards (GASB) initiative

to expand general-purpose external nancial
reporting to include its version of performance measurement (service, efforts, and accomplishments) may have special implications
for smaller localities. The standards-setting
board is moving forward on reporting considerations, informed by a multiyear study on
performance measurement in mainly larger
municipalities and urban counties because
these localities are the ones that measure
performance.11 However, the standards will
apply to all localities, regardless of their capacity for compliance and producing accurate,
reliable, and comparable performance data.
The more we can learn about the adoption
and implementation of management tools
in smaller municipal government, the more
likely a new performance reporting requirement can be structured as an opportunity for
management innovation rather than an expensive burden for audit compliance.

William C. Rivenbark is an assistant professor

in the School of Government at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research
involves local government organization and administration, focusing primarily on performance
and nancial management. Recent publications
include articles in Government Finance Review, Journal of Public Affairs Education,
Popular Government, Public Administration Quarterly, and Public Performance &
Management Review.
Janet M. Kelly is the Albert A. Levin Professor of Urban Studies and Public Service in the
Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland
State University. Her research interests include
public budgeting and nancial management, intergovernmental scal relations, and performance
measurement. Recent publications include articles
in the American Journal of Public Administration, Public Administration Review, and Public Performance & Management Review.
204

Professors Kelly and Rivenbark are coauthors of

Performance Budgeting for State and Local
Government (M.E. Sharpe, 2003).

Notes
1. The survey instrument used for the analysis in
Fukuhara (1977) was mailed to 950 municipalities
in 1976. Responses were obtained from 404 jurisdictions, producing a response rate of 43 percent.
The survey was specically aimed at larger municipalities on the assumption that these organizations
would have more resources to dedicate to improving
productivity. Other management tools in the study
included program, zero-based, and target-based
budgeting; management information systems; performance auditing; management incentive programs; and productivity bargaining.
2. The survey was distributed in three different mailings during late 1982 and early 1983, producing 460
usable responses for a response rate of 44 percent.
Poister and McGowan (1984) did not report on
program evaluation.
3. The survey instrument was distributed in two mailings, one in late 1987 and another in January 1988.
This methodology produced 451 responses, a response rate of 42 percent. The study also replicated
the work of Poister and McGowan (1984) on the
effectiveness of certain management tools.
4. The survey was mailed in the fall of 1993, producing
520 usable surveys for a response rate of 46 percent.
This research effort was aimed at the adoption of
specic management tools in municipal government, the adoption of traditional management
tools over time, and the effectiveness ratings of
management tools in 1987 and 1993.
5. The data used by Poister and Streib (1999) were
obtained from a survey mailed to 1,218 senior ofcials from municipal jurisdictions with populations
exceeding 25,000 during the spring and summer
of 1997. The authors used two different mailings,
obtaining 695 completed surveys for a response rate
of 57 percent.
6. The ICMA provided the mailing list used by Streib
and Poister (2002). The survey methodology produced 510 responses for a response rate of 41
percent.
7. The survey used by Berman, West, and Wang (1999),
Berman and Wang (2000), and Wang (2000) was
mailed in late 1998, producing 311 responses for an
initial response rate of approximately 36 percent. A
telephone survey was then conducted for a random
sample of 106 counties, providing an overall effective response rate of slightly over 48 percent.
8. Cope (1987) surveyed nance directors in the summer and fall of 1985, mailing the questionnaires to
both municipal and county jurisdictions. Responses
were received from 358 localities, producing a response rate of approximately 36 percent.

State and Local Government Review

Downloaded from slg.sagepub.com by Maya Puspita on October 18, 2016

Management Innovation
9. The data used to support the ndings of OToole
and Stipak (1988) were collected during 1985 and
1986 using a mail questionnaire. The sample was
drawn from the active membership roster of the
GFOA with no parameters regarding size of jurisdictions or types of jurisdictions (city, county,
school, or special district). This methodology produced 526 returned questionnaires for a response
rate of over 70 percent.
10. The survey instrument provided the chamber of
commerce as an example of an economic interest
group and council of government as an example of
a regional representative.
11. For more information on this initiative, see the
Web site of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) at www.gasb.org or see GASB
(1994).

References
Ammons, David N. 2001a. Municipal benchmarks, 2d ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
_________ . 2001b. Performance measurement in North
Carolina cities and towns. Popular Government 67,
no. 1: 1117.
Berman, Evan, and XiaoHu Wang. 2000. Performance
measurement in U.S. counties: Capacity for reform.
Public Administration Review 60, no. 5: 40920.
Berman, Evan M., Jonathan P. West, and XiaoHu Wang.
1999. Using performance measurement in human
resource management. Review of Public Personnel
Administration 19, no. 2: 531.
Bryson, John M. 1988. Strategic planning for public and
nonprot organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cope, Glen Hahn. 1987. Local government budgeting
and productivity: Friends or foes? Public Productivity
Review 10, no. 3: 4557.
Coplin, William D., Astrid E. Merget, and Carolyn
Bourdeaux. 2002. The professional researcher as
change agent in the government-performance movement. Public Administration Review 62, no. 6: 699
711.
de Lancer Julnes, Patria, and Marc Holzer. 2001. Promoting the utilization of performance measures in

public organizations: An empirical study of factors

affecting adoption and implementation. Public Administration Review 61, no. 6: 693708.
Fukuhara, Rackham S. 1977. Productivity improvement
in cities. The municipal yearbook. Washington, DC:
International City/County Management Association.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).
1994. Concepts statement no. 2 on service efforts and accomplishments reporting. Norwalk, CT: GASB.
Hatry, Harry P. 1999. Performance measurement. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
International City/County Management Association
(ICMA). 2002. The municipal yearbook. Washington,
DC: ICMA.
Kelly, Janet M., and William C. Rivenbark. 2003. Performance budgeting for state and local government.
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
OToole, Daniel E., and Brian Stipak. 1988. Budgeting
and productivity revisited: The local government
picture. Public Productivity Review 12, no. 1: 112.
Poister, Theodore H., and Robert P. McGowan. 1984.
The use of management tools in municipal government: A national survey. Public Administration Review
44, no. 3: 21523.
Poister, Theodore H., and Gregory Streib. 1989. Management tools in municipal government: Trends over
the past decade. Public Administration Review 49, no.
3: 24048.
_________ . 1994. Municipal management tools from
1976 to 1993: An overview and update. Public Productivity & Management Review 18, no. 2: 11525.
_________ . 1999. Performance measurement in municipal government: Assessing the state of the practice.
Public Administration Review 59, no. 4: 32535.
Streib, Gregory, and Theodore H. Poister. 2002. The
use of strategic planning in municipal governments.
The municipal yearbook. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
Wang, XiaoHu. 2000. Performance measurement in
budgeting: A study of county governments. Public
Budgeting & Finance 20, no. 3: 10218.

205

Fall 2003
Downloaded from slg.sagepub.com by Maya Puspita on October 18, 2016