Adler PS

Bovens M

Brown TL

Donahue JD

Dubnick M

Fenno RF

Frank RH

Frederickson DG

Freeman J

Joaquin M

Kettl DF

Moynihan DP

Osborne D

Patton MQ

Radin B

Sclar ED

 As state governments expand the use of private contractors to provide public services, they create challenges to performance management and accountability. Using the framework of accountability as a social relationship, we evaluate New Jersey’s oversight practices. We combine data from interviews and observation with a comprehensive analysis of the institutional framework. We raise two key questions. First, what causes New Jersey to neglect its performance management responsibilities? Second, how can New Jersey and other states strengthen their performance management and accountability practices? We posit that the state must retain some level of internal monitoring capacity as a core element of government. Effective oversight requires rebuilding administrative capacity and implementing ongoing, flexible, relational contract management that involves key stakeholders and does not put the entire burden of performance measurement on direct service providers. In this way, performance management and accountability can be linked together as tools for reflection and learning. </jats:p

Contracting, performance management, and accountability

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref