Challenges and strategies in applying performance measurement to federal public health programs
Performance measurement is widely accepted in public health as an important management tool supporting program improvement and accountability. However, several challenges impede developing and implementing performance measurement systems at the federal level, including the complexity of public health problems that reflect multiple determinants and involve outcomes that may take years to achieve, the decentralized and networked nature of public health program implementation, and the lack of reliable and consistent data sources and other issues related to measurement. All three of these challenges hinder the ability to attribute program results to specific public health program efforts. The purpose of this paper is to explore these issues in detail and offer potential solutions that support the development of robust and practical performance measures to meet the needs for program improvement and accountability. Adapting performance measurement to public health programs is both an evolving science and art. Through the strategies presented here, appropriate systems can be developed and monitored to support the production of meaningful data that will inform effective decision making at multiple levels.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Schalock, Robert L. & Bonham, Gordon S., 2003. "Measuring outcomes and managing for results," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 229-235, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:4:p:365-372. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.