The key to meaningful advances in performance measurement in local government may lie in meeting the public interest challenge. In this case, the challenge will be met not only by formulating measures that address the public interest but, perhaps more critically, by reporting measures that capture public interest. Advocates of improved performance measurement in local government have long emphasized the importance of suitable performance yardsticks for municipal functions in lieu of the private sector's bottom-line measure of profit or loss. Absent a marketplace barometer of product value and customer satisfaction, well-conceived measures of municipal services would nevertheless offer a gauge of progress or slippage over time--and perhaps even a gauge of performance adequacy relative to targets, standards, or comparison jurisdictions. A scorecard that could provide such information would be as vital to public sector success as it is in any other endeavor where evolving strategies are predicated on the knowledge of whether one is "winning or losing" (Hatry, 1978; 28; Hatry et al., 1992; xv, 207). For many years, measurement proponents have urged local governments to report not only how much they spend, but also how much work they do, how well they do it, how efficiently, and, ideally, what their actions achieve. Advocates have promised that more sophisticated measurement systems will undergird management processes, better inform resource allocation decisions., enhance legislative oversight, and increase accountability. The call for improved performance measurement, heeded by some local governments but unheeded by many others, has been taken up by a series of new voices throughout this century with only minor variations in the fundamental message. Among recent developments have been resolutions passed by the National Academy of Public: Administration (NAPA) in 1991 and by the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) in 1992 encouraging performance reporting (Epstein, 1992), and the declaration of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) that "information about service efforts and accomplishments (SEA) is an essential element of accountability" and that such information should have a place in general purpose external financial reporting (Hatry et al., 1990; v; GASB, 1992; iii; GASB; 1994; 1-3; Wholey and Hatry, 1992). Despite growing momentum in support of performance measurement and even recent legislation requiring measurement at the federal level and in some states,[1] as yet no decree has forced broad compliance at the local level. Moreover, even where legislative mandates seemingly have settled debate, issues of performance measurement defy simple solution and remain controversial. Measurement, in fact, recently has been labeled as one of "the big questions" in public management (Behn, 1993). What may prove distinctive and perhaps decisive in the current wave of performance measurement advocacy is the recently attenuated focus on the citizen--both as a consumer of performance measurement reports (Hatry et al, 1990) and as a source of input for performance measures (i.e., as an evaluator of the adequacy of particular services or as a judge of overall local government performance [e.g., Miller and Miller, 1991]). The recent surge of interest in service quality and in satisfying the citizen-customer, key elements of the "total quality management" and "reinventing government" movements, may prove to be a major boon to a reintensified focus on performance measurement (e.g., Cohen and Brand, 1993; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). A half century ago, Clarence Ridley and Herbert Simon (1943) identified citizens, along with managers and city council members, as key beneficiaries of improved performance measurement. With proper measures, they suggested, citizens would have a "simple yardstick" by which to gauge whether they were getting "efficient government or inefficient government" (Ridley and Simon, 1943; ix). …