IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rrpaxx/v13y2008i1p11-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

(Not) Measuring the Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution: Lessons from U.S. State Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Rosemary O’Leary
  • Carla Pizzarella

Abstract

This research examines the use of performance measurement in environmental conflict resolution (ECR) programs in United States state-level programs. Data are drawn from a survey of state administrators of ECR programs. Findings indicate that the use of performance measurement by state programs is scarce as only six states reported measuring the performance of their ECR program. Study results show many reasons for this finding: lack of staff, lack of time, lack of funding, lack of knowledge concerning how to do performance measurement, lack of knowledge as to how to measure the success of ECR, lack of cost information about alternatives to ECR, too many outside factors intervening in ECR efforts, and not all states have ECR programs. Research findings indicate lessons learned from the states that have attempted measuring the performance of their ECR programs: good management of process, personalize the program, marshall all resources, keep sight of the big picture, and be prepared for the political side of performance measurement.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosemary O’Leary & Carla Pizzarella, 2008. "(Not) Measuring the Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution: Lessons from U.S. State Programs," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 11-26, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rrpaxx:v:13:y:2008:i:1:p:11-26
    DOI: 10.1080/12294659.2008.10805109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/12294659.2008.10805109
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/12294659.2008.10805109?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rrpaxx:v:13:y:2008:i:1:p:11-26. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RRPA20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.