This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Moynihan, D. P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Impact of Managing for Results Mandates in Corrections: Lessons From Three States

Texas A&M University

Almost all state governments have adopted legislative or administrative mandates to manage for results. These mandates require agencies to engage in strategic planning and performance measurement, with the hope that performance information will be used to change decision-making behavior and improve performance. This article examines case studies of Alabama, Virginia, and Vermont to understand how corrections managers react to and use these mandates. The findings indicate a high degree of variation in case outcomes, ranging from compliance, to performance improvement efforts, to a questioning of the basic goals of corrections. There is a common logic that explains how managing for results is used however, based on organization’s leadership agenda, and informed by knowledge of environmental challenges and opportunities.

Key Words: management • strategic planning • performance management • performance measurement • reform

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Vol. 16, No. 1, 18-37 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0887403403261278


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?