{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023939808481532147, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02188782489740082, 'mean_word_length': 6.206896551724138, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Sustaining Citizen-Driven Performance Improvement: Models for Adoption and Issues of Sustainability

Introduction: Measuring performance of government draws a considerable amount of attention from professional associations, scholars and practitioners. Pioneering organizations such as the American Society for Public Administration, the Government Financial Officers Association, the International City/County Managers Association, and the Urban Institute have been instrumental in developing performance measurement as a managerial tool through technical assistance, training and education. For decades now, active research and practice by scholars and practitioners in this area has suggested elements and methods for measuring and improving the performance of government. Two approaches to measuring and improving government performance are evident in the literature. First, there are those that emphasize the purpose, techniques and utility of performance measurement as a tool for increasing productivity (Behn, 2003; Hatry 1999; Halachmi 2002a; Halachmi 2002b). Research relevant to these emphases highlights the current state of practice and organizational obstacles that impact the degree to which performance measurement systems are employed (Behn, 2002; Berman and Wang, 2000; Holzer and Yang, 2004; Poister and Streib, 1999). Overall, emphasis is placed on the organizational benefits of measuring performance and basing decisions on performance data.