Assessing the Validity, Legitimacy, and Functionality of Performance Measurement Systems in Municipal Governments

• Author: Theodore H. Poister,Gregory D. Streib
• DOI: 10.1177/02750749922064300
• Published date: 01 June 1999
• Date: 01 June 1999
• Subject Matter: Articles

ARPA/June1999Streib,Poister/PERFORMANCEMEASUREMENT SYSTEMS

ASSESSING THE VALIDITY,

LEGITIMACY, AND FUNCTIONALITY

OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

SYSTEMS IN MUNICIPAL

GOVERNMENTS

GREGORY D. STREIB

THEODORE H. POISTER

Georgia State University

Thereis now great interest in the use of performance measurement and there have been a number of

studies that focused on municipal governments. The findings to date tend to be descriptive. This

analysis seeks to add to this discussion by comparing real world conditions with the criteria out-

lined in a prescriptive model. The authors look at the validity, legitimacy, and functionality of

municipal performance measures. The data on the use of performance measures come from a

detailed survey that was mailed to all municipalities with populations larger than 25,000. The

analysis identifies weaknesses in all of the areasthat were examined, though there are a number of

municipal governments that have developedvery sophisticated performance measurement systems.

The authors also offer some thoughts on what can be done to enhance municipal performance

measures.

Theconceptofperformancemeasurementhas been around for many years

(Taylor,1911), and it has been presented as a useful local government manage-

ment tool since the 1940s (Ridley & Simon, 1943). Despite its long lineage,

however,it only received a moderate levelof attention overthelast fivedecades.

Now a resurgence is underway, and performance measurement has become an

essential component of professional public management.

Evidence for this trend comes in many forms. Landmark events include the

resolutionspassed by the National Academy of Public Administration (in 1991)

and the American Society for Public Administration (in 1992) encouraging per-

formance measurement and reporting. The importance of performance measure-

ment as an essential management practice was emphasized by the Government

AUTHORS’NOTE: The authors would like to thank PeteHortman, Amy Hamilton, and Rick Powell,

who helped with the preparation of this article.

AMERICAN REVIEW OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION,Vol. 29 No. 2, June 1999 107-123

© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.

107

Accounting Standards Board (GASB), which produced a series of reports call-

ing for improved reporting of service efforts and accomplishments (Epstein,

1992). The importance of performance measurement has also been acknowl-

edgedbytheInternationalCity/CountyManagementAssociation(ICMA),which

created a Comparative Performance Measurement Consortium of 44 cities and

counties to collaborate on developing measurement systems and defining best

practices. There have also been important developments at the federal level,

such as the 1993 Government Performance & Results Act, and many states have

been developing performance measurement systems (Broom, 1995; Melkers &

Willoughby, 1998).

In academic literature, influential authors such as Joseph Wholey and Harry

Hatry (1992) have expressed strong support for performance measurement,

arguing that it was a “keycomponent of informed public management” (p. 604).

Books like Reinventing Government by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler

(1992) also helped stimulate interest in performance measures. On the applied

side, excellent books have provided a foundation for the use of more sophisti-

cated performance measurement techniques (Ammons, 1996; Hatry et al., 1992).

There Are Still Unanswered Questions

This study seeks to answer some fundamental questions about the use of per-

formance measurement in municipal governments. Our goal is to provide a gen-

eral assessment of where municipal governments stand in terms of their efforts

to employ this important tool. As we will discuss in the methodology section,

our data come from a national survey of municipalities with populations larger

that 25,000.

At the time we developed our survey, we were building on a limited knowledge

base addressing performance measurement in municipal governments. The data

at the time came mostly from broad-based surveys (Poister & Streib, 1989,

1994) that contained only a few items about the use of performance measures.

There was also some existing literature raising questions about the usefulness of

performance measures. For example, George Downsand Patrick Larkey (1986)

argued that cities placed little emphasis on the use of performance measures and

that they are extremely difficultto implement effectively. Also, David Ammons

(1995) noted that local officials appeared committed to performance measures,

but that “detailed investigationoften casts doubt on the number of such systems

beingclaimed and on rhetoric declaring dedication to the performance measure-

ment enterprise” (p. 41).

Sincewe first beganour study,newer research has begunto circulate that also

presents survey data on the use of performance measurement in local govern-

ments (GASB and The National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA],

1997; Streib & Poister, 1998). These studies have helped giveboth researchers

and practitioners a better sense of the state of the art, but the findings are mostly

108 ARPA / June 1999