Julia Melkers

Budgeters' Views of State Performance-Budgeting Systems: Distinctions across Branches

Given 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.

Explaining Citizen-Initiated Contacts with Municipal Bureaucrats Lessons from the Atlanta Experience

Citizen-initiated contacts represent an important, yet perplexing, category of political participation. The authors attempt to provide a comprehensive explanation of when and why citizens initiate contacts. They draw from prior research to summarize knowledge about these contacts and the measurement problems that have plagued earlier research. To explore the bases for citizen-initiated contacts, they use survey data on contacts with various municipal departments of the city of Atlanta. Logistic regressions of 15 different types of contacts reveal perceived needs as the most consistently significant predictor of most types. The influence of socioeconomic status over contacting is indirect.

On the Road to Improved Performance

The rationale behind performance measurement requirements at all levels of government has to do with changing the way budget decisions are made. Supporters of performance measurement requirements argue that the use of performance measures will enhance, or even change, the way that budget discussions and subsequent decisions are made. This research addresses the following questions: How does the implementation and use of performance measures change the way that actors in the budget process communicate? Do performance measurement activities change traditional relations and communication patterns? Further, does communication with the public also change? This paper presents data from a recent national survey of state and local governments. Findings show that the implementation of performance measures and the use of performance data in the budget process change the perceptions and actual communication patterns of policymakers, budgeters, and agency and department staff, as well as the media and public. Comparisons are offered among levels of government, as well as across agency types and budget actors. An explanatory model is presented addressing the relation between organizational factors and communication outcomes. This research is important in furthering our understanding of how budget decision processes are affected by the implementation of performance measurement requirements and processes.

Politics and the political setting as an influence on evaluation activities: National research and technology policy programs in the United States and Canada

Program evaluation activities in the United States, after a long history of decentralized, uncoordinated activity, have taken a new turn. It is called performance measurement. A portion of this history, and the recent changes, may be explained by characteristics of the political environment. In contrast, Canada has a long history of centralized, coordinated evaluation of its federal programs. In this paper, we identify particular attributes of the Canadian and the, U.S. political systems that we posit are related to each nations respective evaluation system. Specifically, we address the following factors differentiating the evaluation experience in both countries as being a function of (1) the level of centralization; (2) legislative history; (3) legislative precedent; and (4) political support for evaluation. Using case studies of research and development program evaluations in both countries, we examine the forces at work that shape the design and implementation of evaluation programs. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of recent changes in both systems for their respective evaluation systems and processes.

Assessing the Outcomes of State Science and Technology Organizations

Since the 1990s, we have witnessed tremendous growth in performance-measurement activities in government. Legislative mandates have pushed most states to require state-funded entities to identify performance measures and report performance data in the budget process. Furthermore, measuring performance has become an important trend in public management practice. How have state science and technology (S&T) programs responded to these requirements and trends? This article extends prior work on performance measurement in state S&T programs. It presents data from a recent national survey of the directors of key S&T agencies in each of the 50 states. Findings reveal the struggles that these agencies face in the development of appropriate performance measures and their integration in the budget process. Details on appropriate measures, best measures, the measurement development process, and reporting techniques are provided. Strengths and weaknesses of existing measurement systems are presented.

Developing and transfering technology in state S&T programs: Assessing performance

By 1996, all states had established a program focusing on the development of technology and technology-based economic development. As more agencies move to performance-based management, state S&T programs are increasingly under pressure to report outcome and output data for their programmatic activities. This paper presents findings on the extent and use of performance measurement and evaluation efforts in state science and technology programs. The 1995–96 study was based on a series of eight case studies and a mail survey of science and technology-based programs in all fifty states. The findings show that three groups of measures emerged as most important to state science and technology programs: employment-related data, leveraged or matching fund data, and anecdotal evidence. State programs are especially pressured to report short-term outcomes, yet show economic benefits. Many state program managers find value in performance data—the reseacch shows that the primary reason that many states assess their performance is the value of performance information as a management tool.

Focus Issue: Science- and Technology-Based Economic Development

The outcomes of scientific and technological advancements have long been recognized as being important to our regional and national economies. Along the way, we have matured from regarding jumping on the “high-tech” bandwagon as the cure-all for economic development to recognizing the much broader role that technology plays in the economy. In this issue, we bring together new academic research as well as practitioner experiences on a range of aspects relevant to the practice and application of technology-based economic development. As a subfield of economic development, science and technology (S&T) activities are often perceived as falling on two sides of the same fence. On one side, the overall process and success are based on sound new knowledge creation, breakthrough discoveries, successful collaborative relationships, and sometimes just a bit of luck. In this view, researchers and practitioners focus on the nature of the science and technology itself, new findings and knowledge, and the scientific and research process. Yet, from an economic development perspective (the other side of the fence), the successes of scientific discoveries hinge on the ability to create new jobs and new firms and to demonstrate positive effects on economies. In this view, technology is seen as a driver for economic development. The challenge lies in the fact that the ability of even outstanding technological advances to make a difference in the economy depends on adequate business knowledge, identification of markets, and sound business practices. In this issue, we present a series of articles addressing current and important topics within the realm of technology-based economic development. The articles are organized into three sections. In the first section, three articles address various aspects of public strategies for fostering S&Tbased economic development. Here, the articles focus on both federaland state-level efforts. First, J. Scott Hauger from the American Association for the Advancement of Science addresses the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). EPSCoR was established in 1979 by the U.S. National Science Foundation to enhance the quality of science and thus the ability of scientists in states with smaller research bases to compete more successfully for federal research grants. This article traces EPSCoR’s emerging role in S&T-based economic development, with a focus on three states, and provides an overview of economic development activities associated with EPSCoR. Next, Walter H. Plosila of the Batelle Memorial Institute draws from years of experience in working with state S&T-based economic development organizations. In this article, he provides not only an overview of important trends in state-led efforts but also the legacies that have developed from this support. Finally, Maryann P. Feldman of the University of Toronto and Johanna L. Francis of Johns Hopkins University take the perspective of the small start-up firms in the technology-based arena. Here, they ask us to consider the needs of new firms in terms of state assistance. The second group of articles in this special issue addresses the all-important role of universities in fostering economic development and support for higher education. Irwin Feller of Pennsylvania State University addresses the discrepancy between state policies for technology-based economic development and for the support of higher education. In particular, he considers the relationship between state education funding and increased pressures to earmark federal academic research and development (R&D) funds. Next, looking at universities as important sources of the S&T