Search

Comparative performance evaluation has taken different forms depending upon the purposes of performance monitoring and the types of measures available. This paper investigates the different performance measurement systems in place in the social care setting, in particular for older people receiving community care services. In England, earlier systems to assist performance management within organizations have been eclipsed by national systems of regulation with top- down implementation of standards and measures. In Northern Ireland, by contrast, organizations have been compared descriptively without the use of national targets. Internationally, in Japan, organizations arranging similar services have had more local information available collected in a bottom-up fashion with greater employment of service user-level data. These differences in performance evaluation are located within an analytical framework permitting comparisons of system design and the use of measures. Conclusions are drawn concerning the breadth of evidence available for successfully monitoring service provision in this setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International comparison of performance has become an influential lever for change in the provision of public services. For health care, patients' views and opinions are increasingly being recognized as legitimate means for assessing the provision of services, to stimulate quality improvements, and more recently, in evaluating system performance. This has shifted the focus of analyses towards the use of individual-level surveys of performance from the perspective of the user and raises the issue of how to compare appropriately self-reported data across institutional settings and population groups. Using data on health systems responsiveness across 17 EU countries contained within the World Health Survey, this paper outlines the issues that arise in comparative inference that relies on respondent self-reports. The problem of systematic reporting behaviour is described and illustrated together with potential solutions brought about through the use of anchoring vignettes. Our results show large differences in the rankings of country performance once adjustment for systematic country-level reporting behaviour has been undertaken compared to the ranking observed in the raw unadjusted data. The use of anchoring vignettes as a means to obtain comparability in self-reported survey instruments of performance promises to be a fundamental tool for international comparative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decade, external assessments of organizational effectiveness have played an increasingly pivotal role in the regulation of UK local authorities. Unlike most approaches to evaluation, which are concerned with the implementation and outcomes of policies, programmes or interventions, these assessments are concerned primarily with internal organizational processes. And in contrast to traditional forms of public services inspection, which focus on specific services, they seek to judge the capacity of an organization as a whole. Inspectors in England, Scotland and Wales have taken different approaches to assessments of local authorities, but in all three cases their judgements have excited considerable interest among policy-makers, achieving a much higher level of utilization than is usual for evaluative activities and being credited with leading to significant improvements in public service organizations. There are, however, important questions about the validity of the measures they use and the sustainability of this approach to driving public services improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on what some sceptics see as disillusionment with conventional evaluation practice, in that many governments experience only limited use of evaluation findings. This has contributed to a significant increase in results-based performance measurement. Yet not everyone in the evaluation community welcomes this development. The authors make the point that significant complementarities exist between evaluation and performance measurement and therefore the boundaries between these practices may need to be redefined. In other words, evaluators will need to enter into a constructive dialogue with performance management practitioners. By investigating their methodological similarities and differences, the authors argue that evaluation studies and performance measurement are highly complementary forms of knowledge production. Finally, they argue that evaluation tools may in fact strengthen a number of the identified shortcomings of performance measurement systems when applied in performance management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that one of the reasons for unsatisfactory performance is the single-sighted and narrow scope of performance management models applied in most of the OECD countries. Performance targets are normally set from a single organization's perspective, which is not sufficient given the complex nature of societal problems that public agencies deal with. In the worst case, single-unit performance targeting and maximization of an organization's self-interest produces suboptimal results rather than positive impacts for society as a whole. After a critical assessment of existing performance management models, we suggest a more comprehensive approach. In our extended framework, the overall performance has been broken down into three fields of performance. The first field covers the enabling performance factors such as learning, process development and resources. The second field consists of a single organization's performance targets, i.e. measurable outputs delivered to customers and immediate results generated by these activities. The third field of our framework is called the multi-organizational sphere of effectiveness where positive results can only be created by multi-actor performance clusters. We conclude by discussing the potential strengths and weaknesses of the framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Worldwide, governments are under increasing pressure to deliver results. There is general recognition of the importance of performance measurement and a results-oriented focus for effective public management. The shift from inputs to outputs and outcomes is accompanied by an increased use of performance indicators and policy targets. Critics point to the negative effects of static forms of performance-measuring and governance: simplification, resistance to change and a strategic use of indicators. They stress the need for an approach to governance that respects and is responsive to diversity and dynamism. Such an approach to public policy should recognize the importance of stakeholders' opinions and motives and, hence, dialogue. Herein, policy evaluation can help by systematically questioning the validity of policy goals and performance indicators. Based upon recent experiences with results-oriented budgeting in the Netherlands, this article outlines a possible approach to a responsive, 'verifying' policy evaluation. Against the background of the traditional functions of evaluation in results-oriented management (assessing efficiency and effectiveness), the paradoxical nature of performance indicators is considered: on the one hand they are 'frozen ambitions', yet on the other they must facilitate dialogue and learning. Building on these attributes, a dynamic perspective on evaluation is put forward. In this, using information and insights from stakeholders, policy evaluation should explicitly question the validity of the policy objectives and performance indicators without compromising their value and significance altogether. In this way, the evaluator may fulfil the ambition of the 'argumentative turn' in policy evaluation: to help to raise the quality of dialogue and decision-making between stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]