Nonprofit Service Delivery for Government : Accountability Relationships and Mechanisms

When government purchases social services under contract from a nonprofit organisation, a clear accountability relationship is created. The NPO must give an account for the use of the funds and achievement of outcomes to the funder. This paper explores how accountability is enacted in two different types of funding relationships in Queensland. Support is found for the argument that different relationships have different approaches to accountability.

Patterns of boardroom discussions around the accountability process in a nonprofit organisation

This chapter sets out to identify patterns at play in boardroom discussions around the design and adoption of an accountability system in a nonprofit organisation. To this end, it contributes to the scarce literature showing the backstage of management accounting systems (Berry, 2005), investment policy determining (Kreander, Beattie & McPhail, 2009; Kreander, McPhail & Molyneaux, 2004) and financial planning strategizing (Parker, 2004) or budgeting (Irvine 2005). The paucity of publications is due to issues raised by confidentiality preventing attendance at those meetings (Irvine, 2003), Irvine & Gaffikin, 2006). However, often, the implementation of a new control technology occurs over a long period of time that might exceed the duration of a research project (Quattrone & Hopper, 2001, 2005). Recent trends consisting of having research funded by grants from private institutions or charities have tended to reduce the length of such undertakings to a few months or rarely more than a couple of years (Parker, 2013);

What Costs Accountability? Financial Accountability, Mission and Fundraising in Nonprofits

Although greater calls for accountability have been articulated by academics, policy makers and donors in the recent years, a stream of thought has been questioning where the giving of an account should stop. In conveying the limits to the giving of an account (Messner, 2009) and associated transparency (Roberts, 2009), critical accounting scholars have also pointed to as yet unresolved contradictions intrinsic to accountability (McKernan, 2012), especially when it comes to be operationalised (Joannides, 2012). The impact of accountability's discharging on nonprofits' strategy or operations has to date been underexplored (Dhanni & Connelly, 2012; Tucker & Parker, 2013). Accordingly, this chapter seeks to contribute to this body of literature on the consequences of accountability on fundraising strategies in nonprofits, questioning whether accountability practice may hamper the effectiveness of the nonprofit sector by restraining the fundraising profession. Our chapter seeks to fill a dual theoretical gap. Firstly, only a number of publications have investigated the interplay between accountability and the making of organisational strategy (Parker, 2002, 2003b, 2011, 2012, 2013; Tucker & Parker, 2013). Therefore, we seek to fill a theoretical gap as to the impact of accountability on the conduct of straegic operations. By questioning whether accountability hampers fundraising strategy in non-profits we are also contributing to the literature balancing accountability and the mission. In this literature, it appears that money and the mission are often conflictual, financial managers being often seen by mission advocates as guardians shielding organisational resources (Chiapello, 1993, 1998; Lightbody, 2000, 2003). Another approach shows that making nonprofits accountable to capital and multiple stakeholders (donors, public authorities) leaders to changes in organisational culture (O'Dwyer & Unerman, 2007; Unerman & Bennett, 2004; Underman & O'Dwyer, 2006a, 2006b, 2008). By examining a small number of cases we show how accountability practices result in fundraising adapting and adjusting under such external pressures and constraints. We also show accountability systems may have a direct impact on the conduct of strategic operations, which might hamper mission conduct.

Is it RIP for the IEP? The future of individual education plans in an era of accountability

This article presents a brief overview of the development of the Individual Education Plan (IEP) and prompts teachers to question its use and relevance in an era of accountability in Australian schools. Many Australian teachers do not realise that the IEP was adopted from the United States where is was legislated practice based on that country's Human Rights Legislation. It is not included in the Australian policy context. Though not embedded in the legislation of many other countries, it became a process and a product synonymous with the education of students with disability worldwide. In the era of standards-based education and curriculum for all, the relevance of the IEP process and product has been questioned or re-imaged in some Australian schools. The story of one school leader, Violet, is presented here as an example.

Meta-regulation approach to raise social accountability In global supply firms

This Article proposes a meta-regulation approach to address the gap between the objectives, commitment, practice and outcome in the accountability practice of the global supply chain in the developing countries. The literatures on the accountability practice in the global supply chains typically focuses on the strategies for raising corporate social accountability standards in multinational buying firms and seldom focuses on this strategies in the outsourced firms in the developing countries. This article tries to fill this void by examining the situation in Bangladesh, the third largest RMG supply country in the world. It conceptualizes a meta-regulation approach with the aim of raising social accountability practice in this industry. It shows that this regulation approach is suitable to effectively raise this practice standard in a perspective where the non-legal drivers are meagrely low, global buying firms are highly profit driven and the governmental agencies are either inadequate or highly corrupt.

Stakeholder pressures on corporate climate change-related accountability and disclosures: Australian evidence

This study investigates stakeholder pressures on corporate climate change-related accountability and disclosure practices in Australia. While existing scholarship investigates stakeholder pressures on companies to discharge their broader accountability through general social and environmental disclosures, there is a lack of research investigating whether and how stakeholder pressures emerge to influence accountability and disclosure practices related to climate change. We surveyed various stakeholder groups to understand their concerns about climate change-related corporate accountability and disclosure practices. We present three primary findings: first, while NGOs and the media have some influence, institutional investors and government bodies (regulators) are perceived to be the most powerful stakeholders in generating climate change-related concern and coercive pressure on corporations to be accountable. Second, corporate climate change-related disclosures, as documented through the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), are positively associated with such perceived coercive pressures. Lastly, we find a positive correlation between the level of media attention to climate change and Australian corporate responses to the CDP. Our results indicate that corporations will not disclose climate change information until pressured by non-financial stakeholders. This suggests a larger role for non-financial actors than previously theorized, with several policy implications.

Information Accountability Framework (IAF)

POSTER: Information Accountability Framework (IAF) to mitigate and manage the risk of data breaches and unauthorised used of medical information (e.g., Electronic Health Records)

The security and privacy of usage policies and provenance logs in an Information Accountability Framework

The potential benefits of shared eHealth records systems are promising for the future of improved healthcare. However, the uptake of such systems is hindered by concerns over the security and privacy of patient information. The use of Information Accountability and so called Accountable-eHealth (AeH) systems has been proposed to balance the privacy concerns of patients with the information needs of healthcare professionals. However, a number of challenges remain before AeH systems can become a reality. Among these is the need to protect the information stored in the usage policies and provenance logs used by AeH systems to define appropriate use of information and hold users accountable for their actions. In this paper, we discuss the privacy and security issues surrounding these accountability mechanisms, define valid access to the information they contain, discuss solutions to protect them, and verify and model an implementation of the access requirements as part of an Information Accountability Framework.

Nurses' accountability for stroke quality of care: part one: Review of the literature on nursing-sensitive patient outcomes

Over the past decade, an exciting area of research has emerged that demonstrates strong links between specific nursing care activities and patient outcomes. This body of research has resulted in the identification of a set of "nursing-sensitive outcomes"(NSOs). These NSOs may be interpreted with more meaning when they are linked to evidence-based best practice guidelines, which provide a structured means of ensuring care is consistent among all health care team members, across geographic locations, and across care settings. Uptake of evidence-based best practices at the point of care has been shown to have a measurable positive impact on processes of care and patient outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic, narrative review of the literature regarding the clinical effectiveness of nursing management strategies on stroke patient outcomes sensitive to nursing interventions. Subsequent investigation will explore current applications of nursing-sensitive outcomes to patients with stroke, and identify and validate measurable NSOs within stroke care delivery.

NAPLAN, MySchool and accountability: Teacher perceptions of the effects of testing

This paper explores Rizvi and Lingard’s (2010) idea of the “local vernacular” of the global education policy trend of using high-stakes testing to increase accountability and transparency, and by extension quality, within schools and education systems in Australia. In the first part of the paper a brief context of the policy trajectory of National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) is given in Australia. In the second part, empirical evidence drawn from a survey of teachers in Western Australia (WA) and South Australia (SA) is used to explore teacher perceptions of the impacts a high-stakes testing regime is having on student learning, relationships with parents and pedagogy in specific sites. After the 2007 Australian Federal election, one of Labor’s policy objectives was to deliver an “Education Revolution” designed to improve both the equity and excellence in the Australian school system1 (Rudd & Gillard, 2008). This reform agenda aims to “deliver real changes” through: “raising the quality of teaching in our schools” and “improving transparency and accountability of schools and school systems” (Rudd & Gillard, 2008, p. 5). Central to this linking of accountability, the transparency of schools and school systems and raising teaching quality was the creation of a regime of testing (NAPLAN) that would generate data about the attainment of basic literacy and numeracy skills by students in Australian schools.