Citation

Heinrich CJ. Am. Rev. Public Admin. 2007; 37(3): 255-277.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2007, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/0275074007301957

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Both the evidence-based policy and performance management movements aim to improve government effectiveness by developing and utilizing a more rigorous base of information and scientific evidence to guide decisions about program design, funding, implementation, and management. In practice, however, differences and tensions between these movements--such as their methods and standards for assembling and analyzing data, and the strategic timing and use of this information to influence policy and hold public managers accountable for performance--could limit their success. Using cases and empirical studies, this article considers questions about what should count as evidence, how it should be communicated, who should judge the quality and reliability of evidence and performance information, and how to achieve a balance between processes that produce rigorous information for decision making and those that foster democratic governance and accountability. Recommendations are made for improving government effectiveness by using more rigorous information in decision making, along with acknowledgment of the limitations and risks associated with such efforts.