@book{coe_2017, title={Managing Public and Nonprofit Organizations}, ISBN={9781315160146}, url={http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315160146}, DOI={10.4324/9781315160146}, publisher={Routledge}, author={Coe, Charles}, year={2017}, month={Jul} }
 @book{coe_2009, title={Handbook of urban services: A basic guide for local governments}, ISBN={9780765622938}, publisher={Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe}, author={Coe, C. K.}, year={2009} }
 @article{coe_2008, title={Preventing local government fiscal crises: Emerging best practices}, volume={68}, ISSN={["1540-6210"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00913.x}, abstractNote={ What type of oversight should states exercise over local units in order to prevent fiscal crises? This article discusses a sequence of three best practices that some states use to prevent fiscal emergencies. They first monitor local government finances to predict fiscal distress. After detecting signs of fiscal distress, states actively assist local units in ameliorating the problem. Finally, assistance notwithstanding, if a situation becomes grave, states require local units to take strong remedial measures, including increasing taxes and reducing expenditures. }, number={4}, journal={PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW}, author={Coe, Charles K.}, year={2008}, pages={759–767} }
 @book{coe_2007, title={Governmental and nonprofit financial management}, ISBN={1567261833}, publisher={Vienna, VA: Management Concepts}, author={Coe, C. K.}, year={2007} }
 @article{coe_brunet_2006, title={Organizational report cards: Significant impact or much ado about nothing?}, volume={66}, ISSN={["0033-3352"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00558.x}, abstractNote={Despite a recent spate of organizational report cards, relatively little is known about their impact on consumers ’ choices or public policy. Th is study identifi es 32 report cards that compare government performance across states in a variety of policy domains. Th ese report cards fall into four categories according to their issuer: governments, commercial enterprises, academics, and advocacy groups. Government-generated report cards are directed at improving consumer choice and enhancing service quality. Commercial enterprises seek to increase profi ts and readership. Academics generally take a value-neutral approach, looking to stimulate public policy debate. Public interest groups, think tanks, and foundations indirectly measure public policy impact by the amount of media attention generated.}, number={1}, journal={PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW}, author={Coe, CK and Brunet, JR}, year={2006}, pages={90–100} }
 @article{coe_2003, title={Usefully engaging local budget analysts during budget execution}, volume={35}, DOI={10.1177/0160323x0303500105}, abstractNote={OVER 35 YEARS AGO, Schick (1966) discussed how the emphasis on budgeting had changed from control in the early part of the 20th century (characterized by the executive budget movement and expenditure oversight), to an emphasis on managing agencies in the late 1930s to 1950s, to a policy orientation launched by the Planning, Programming, Budgetary System (PPBS) in the 1960s. All three orientations continue to have a role in budgeting (Schick 1966), but the movement away from control continued during the 1970s with reforms such as management by objectives (MBO) and zero-based budgeting (ZBB). The 1980s saw little reform, perhaps because of the prevalence of antigovernment sentiment, but the 1990s witnessed the full-blown return of efforts to integrate performance information into state and local budgeting. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) encouraged the development of performance information for financial reporting. The International City/ County Management Association (ICMA) and the Urban Institute created the Center for Performance Management in 1994. The “reinventing movement” similarly stimulated budgetary reform (Osborne and Gaebler 1992), and 47 states adopted performance budgeting by 1998 (Melkers and Willoughby 1998). Usefully Engaging Local Budget Analysts during Budget Execution}, number={1}, journal={State and Local Government Review}, author={Coe, C. K.}, year={2003}, pages={48–56} }
 @article{ammons_coe_lombardo_2001, title={Performance-comparison projects in local government: Participants' perspectives}, volume={61}, ISSN={["0033-3352"]}, DOI={10.1111/0033-3352.00009}, abstractNote={How do officials of participating local governments assess the value of their involvement in performance‐comparison projects, including related costs and benefits? In this article, three prominent projects involving city and county governments are examined from the perspective of the participants themselves, revealing gaps between high expectations and subsequent results, but nevertheless suggesting an array of benefits for participants.}, number={1}, journal={PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW}, author={Ammons, DN and Coe, C and Lombardo, M}, year={2001}, pages={100–110} }
 @article{coe_wiesel_2001, title={Police budgeting: Winning strategies}, volume={61}, ISSN={["0033-3352"]}, DOI={10.1111/0033-3352.00142}, abstractNote={Based on a national survey of police chiefs with a follow‐up focus group, this article discusses budgetary strategies that police departments used to be successful in budgeting. The strategies include: using crime and workload data judiciously; capitalizing on sensational crime incidents; effectively getting the message out; carefully mobilizing interest groups; strategic planning; playing the federal grants game; working closely with the chief executive and elected officials; and involving all departmental staff levels in budgeting.}, number={6}, journal={PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW}, author={Coe, CK and Wiesel, DL}, year={2001}, pages={718–727} }
 @article{coe_1999, title={Local government benchmarking: Lessons from two major multigovernment efforts}, volume={59}, ISSN={["0033-3352"]}, DOI={10.2307/977631}, abstractNote={Benchmarking and performance measurement are increasingly "hot" subjects among public administrators. A brief historical summary of events illustrates this point. In 1992 the Urban Institute and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) jointly published the book How Effective Are Your Community Services? Procedures for Promoting Results. In 1992 the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) promoted performance measurement by approving a Resolution Encouraging the Use of Performance Measurement and Reporting for Government Organizations. At the federal level, in 1993 Congress adopted the Government and Performance and Results Act requiring all federal agencies to develop one-year performance plans and five-year strategic plans. In 1994 the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) circulated for comment a proposal that local governments include measures of service effort and accomplishment in their external reporting. Among research-based efforts sparked by the performance measurement drive are two projects that attempt to develop uniform measures so that managers can compare the performance of different city and county governments. In 1993, the Large City Executive Forum, an association of city managers in jurisdictions with more than a 200,000 population, joined with ICMA to form the Comparative Performance Measurement Consortium. Initially comprising of 34 jurisdictions, the group eventually grew to 44 cities and counties. The managers in the consortium initially decided to compare performance in four service areas: fire, police, neighborhood services, and support services. In contrast to ICMA's national project, the second project is limited to a single state, North Carolina. In 1994 the budget director of Winston-Salem, concerned about the inaccuracy of intergovernmental service comparisons being made among the large North Carolina cities, proposed to the North Carolina Local Government Budget Association that interested members of the association undertake a performance measurement project. These governments, working with the staff of the Institute of Government (IOG) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, began an extensive effort in 1995. This article compares the methodology used in the ICMA and IOG projects. The results from each project suggest strongly that benchmarking performance results among local governments may be more difficult than theorized. Successfully comparing costs (inputs) requires that a comprehensive cost accounting system be created. The IOG project established such a system, collecting direct costs, indirect costs, equipment costs, and facilities costs. In contrast, the ICMA project collected only direct costs. Likewise, measuring outcomes is surprisingly difficult because definitions differ widely. Both these benchmarking efforts suggest ways of overcoming these difficulties. This article will begin with a brief overview of each benchmarking effort. It will then look at the often unexpected obstacles they encountered and how they attempted to surmount them. It will conclude with some broader lessons that these experiences suggest for local government benchmarking. The IOG Project's Methodology After the IOG project was proposed in North Carolina, representatives from several large cities and counties and staff from the Institute of Government, the North Carolina League of Municipalities, and the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners formed a steering committee to prepare a project proposal. In 1995 the IOG hired a project coordinator. Seven large cities, seven large counties, and 14 medium-sized and small cities and counties agreed to participate in the project (the participation fee was $3,000). The steering committee divided the project into three phases. Phase 1, which included the seven large cities, was completed in September 1997; Phases 2 and 3, which included the large counties and smaller governments, ended in 1998. …}, number={2}, journal={PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW}, author={Coe, C}, year={1999}, pages={110–123} }
 @inbook{coe_reese_1998, title={Budgeting essentials for human resource managers}, booktitle={Handbook of human resource management in government  (1st ed.)}, publisher={San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass}, author={Coe, C. and Reese, C. C.}, year={1998}, pages={536–558} }