Search results

The notion of accountability in social policy has changed to reflect changes in the UK public sector. In the 1960s and 1970s, professional accountability was seen as compatible with the development of the welfare state. Accountability was in fact rarely discussed but this changed as ideas about consumerism and citizen participation took hold. Accountability to service users became accepted, albeit briefly. The growth of systems of financial control and cash limiting of public sector services have led to demands for greater accountability to central government. Considers the growth of these views and the parallel development of managerialism within organizations in the context of the police and the probation service.

This article aims to focus on one of the most intriguing issues related to the public sector reforms: the accountability systems. In particular the paper aims to deal with the relationships between accounting‐based reforms, forms of accountability, and people‐changing or people‐processing approaches to service provision within Italian social work.

The paper draws on the accountability and people changing/processing literature to interpret and discuss the evidence gathered in an in‐depth longitudinal case study conducted in a social service public organization between 2007 and 2009.

The article reveals that the case study site had developed two distinct groups of services: “Territoriali” and “Residenziali”. “Territoriali” engage in a traditional mode of social care, they provide professional support to clients with, sometimes, quite intractable problems, and aim to modify clients' characteristics, behaviour and attitudes. In contrast, “Residenziali” deal with, and often outsource, more standardized care packages in the form of residential care, day care and some home‐based services. The accounting reforms were received very differently in these two areas. “Territoriali” was resistant to the changes but, in large part, “Residenziali” embraced them. The article then argues that this reflected the extent to which each service area was willing and able to implement a people‐processing rather than a people‐changing approach. The adoption of the people‐processing method had profound implications for the ways that accountability was both experienced and delivered in the services.

This article deals with the under‐researched area of social care. It integrates two literatures not previously articulated together: accountability and people changing/processing. A three‐year longitudinal study is presented, enabling an in‐depth appreciation of the changes affecting social services and the differential responses to accounting and consequent shifts in accountability in two contrasting service areas.

The chapter considers the change of position of the Home Office on the value of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in England and Wales which took place around 2003 after the end of the Crime Reduction Programme (CRP). Before the CRP Home Office researchers had shown little interest in RCTs; after it, they came close to arguing that no other kinds of evaluation research were worth doing. This represented a reversal of a position that had dominated Home Office thinking on the issue for almost 30 years – that RCTs were in general impractical and unlikely to produce clear-cut results. This view was based in part on the experience of RCTs in the 1970s, which led influential researchers to conclude that the method could not be transferred from medicine to criminal justice. But, disappointed with the lack of definite results from the CRP, the Home Office turned back to RCTs as a potential source of certainty about what works. The chapter considers two recent scholarly exchanges on the question, in relation to an evaluation of a community crime reduction programme, for which an experimental design was attempted but not achieved, and to Lawrence Sherman's recent advocacy of RCTs and his use of research on restorative justice as an example of the successful use of the method. The chapter argues that the restorative justice research, while of very high quality, does not provide as clear an example of the use of an RCT as Sherman claims, and concludes with some reflections on the inherent difficulties of criminal justice evaluation, and on the lack of a predictable, rational relationship between research quality and policy influence.

There is a a great deal of literature on performance measurement and accountability in government. Governments around the world have invested large amounts to develop performance measurement systems, the results of which are mediocre at best. There is also a growing recognition that financial performance measures alone measure only limited aspects of an organisation’s performance. To improve performance measurement systems and accountability to different stakeholders, non‐financial indicators have been developed for the for‐profit sector. Prior research in the local government sector in the state of Victoria, Australia, showed low levels of accountability and very little performance measurement taking place. However, significant changes have been imposed on the sector, enhancing local and central accountability, making it more business‐like, and focussing on the need to measure performance. This research studied the extent to which performance measurement systems are currently being used in practice in Victorian local government, the factors which lead to the use of performance measurement and the extent of non‐financial indicators. The results revealed a substantial increase in the level of use of performance measurement in the sector, related to increased emphasis on accountability and organisational changes imposed on the sector by the state government. The performance of both people and programs is now being measured. Although there is an emphasis on financial and budgetary measures for financial accountability, the use of non‐financial measures in determining outcome accountability is increasing. Customer service and quality are two of the areas in which non‐financial performance measures are being developed.

This paper aims to explore the perceived drivers behind the implementation of performance measurement systems (PMSs) in Indonesian local government (ILG). It analytically assesses Indonesia’s attempt to introduce PMSs by addressing three research questions: Do organisations in developing countries actually use PMSs to aid decision-making and help plan for future performance improvement? (RQ1) Do the three isomorphic pressures exist in the development and use of PMSs? (RQ2) and If institutional isomorphism is evident, can accountability exist within the development and use of PMSs given these pressures? (RQ3).

This research explores the perceived drivers behind the implementation of performance measurement systems (PMSs) in Indonesian local government (ILG). It analytically assesses Indonesia’s attempt to introduce a PMS by addressing three research questions: RQ1 Do organisations in developing countries actually use PMSs to aid decision-making and help plan for future performance improvement? RQ2 Do the three isomorphic pressures exist in the development and use of PMSs? and RQ3 If institutional isomorphism is evident, can accountability exist within the development and use of PMSs given these pressures.

Results determined that although employees perceived coercive isomorphism as being a driver of ILG compliance with President B.J. Habibie’s presidential instruction (Inpres No. 7/1999), the Laporan Akuntabilitas Kinerja Institusi Pemerintah/Performance Accountability Report of State Apparatus (known as LAKIP), many councils were still not reporting and those who were, were not doing it well. Many councils lacked management motivation, with some choosing to merely mimic (mimetic isomorphism) what others were doing. Better-resourced councils made use of external consultants or local universities where knowledge was shared (normative isomorphism).

An understanding of factors influencing the development and use of performance measures, in turn, can be used not only to improve PMSs in the future but to improve the quantity and quality of LAKIP reporting.

The theoretical development and interpretation of this research is drawn from institutional theory with a major contribution being that it provides an in-depth conceptual overview and understanding of factors influencing the development and use of performance measures. Further, it fills a gap in the literature exploring PMSs and accountability in a developing country – in this case, Indonesia.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and critically evaluate the systems of accounting and accountability for the Constituency Development Fund (CDF) in Kenya. It suggests a new framework of accounting and accountability that places the goals and aspirations expressed in public discourse at the centre of accountability.

The theoretical insights of Bourdieu and Foucault are mobilized so as to tease out the nature of power relations between the various fields associated with the CDF in Kenya. The study analyses newspaper commentaries as text for identifying the main themes associated with the management of the CDF in Kenya.

The paper finds that the CDF's systems of accounting and accountability are skewed towards the needs of centralized national planning and development, contrary to its expressed aim of bringing about citizens' participation in development.

Use of newspaper commentaries and reports does not necessarily represent the views of the majority of the people of Kenya.

A new framework is suggested which places the goals and aspirations of public discourse at the centre of accounting with the various capitals suggested by these goals and aspirations forming the dimensions on which the CDF can be accounted for. Novel forms of accounting and accountability are suggested which include presentation of CDF implementation and results at public forums where the managers of CDF can be interrogated on the basis of the goals and aspirations expressed in public discourse.

Study of the CDF systems of accounting and accountability is a unique contribution to accounting for development in developing countries.

The purpose of this paper is to review and critique the field of public sector accounting research. Many nation states deliver essential public services. In recent times, many of these nations have been involved in programmes of “modernisation”, which, in part, means that these public services now are significantly managed, delivered and governed by private and third sector organisations.

The paper employs a literature‐based analysis and critique of public sector accounting articles published in the selected journals from 1992 to 2006. From this, a descriptive meta‐analysis of the characteristics of the research will be discussed. Finally, a conceptual analysis of the selected literature will be used to evaluate the field and address a possible future research agenda.

The descriptive analysis highlights that among the research papers reviewed several interesting patterns emerged concerning public service research. Also, the dominance of Australasia and UK research was noted. The extent of research in different levels of government/jurisdiction indicated that the majority of research was organisationally based. Finally, when the various functional types of accounting are considered, management accounting remained the most researched area of interest.

The paper only considered research within eight selected journals and over the period 1992 to 2006. Therefore, for instance, US mainstream public sector accounting research has not been reviewed.

The main implications of the paper are that “contextual” public service accounting research has a strong tradition and, through the process of reflection and critique of the body of work, several important insights are provided in order to highlight areas for further research and policy development.

This research paper comparatively reviews online accountability practices in public, private and nonprofit organizations, using the hospital industry as a case of analysis.

The authors conducted a quantitative content analysis of 240 US hospital websites, sampled from the 2016 American Hospital Association (AHA) database. Online Accountability Practices (OAP) instrument was utilized, and it included five dimensions as follows: accessibility, engagement, performance, governance and mission.

There were statistically significant differences in online accountability practices among the three sectors. Nonprofit organizations were leading the way in their overall online accountability practices. They were more likely to score higher on engagement, performance and mission dimensions. We explain this finding through the prism of multiple accountabilities, guided by the stakeholder theory. Private organizations had the lowest scores on every online accountability dimension, except for accessibility. Consistent with previous literature, private organizations were more likely to make information accessible in the online sphere, but not necessarily meaningful or reliable for evaluating organizational performance. Public organizations had the strongest scores within the governance dimension, placing importance on disclosing organizational leadership and sharing information on their governance structures.

This project contributes to theory building on accountability in the online environment. It argues that the distinction between two forms of accountability (functional and holistic) is applicable in the online environment, while accessibility and performance dimensions of online accountability closely align with the functional (hierarchical) form of accountability, and a more holistic approach to accountability includes dimensions like engagement, governance and mission. In addition, this project is the first of its kind to apply the stakeholder theory to accountability practices in three sectors of the economy and how the stakeholder theory provides guidance as a basis of understanding the forms of accountability (functional and holistic) that are most likely aligned with organizations in three sectors of the economy.

The results of this study point to a number of implications for hospital patients, families, hospital administration, healthcare professionals and policymakers. These implications can be broadly divided into two groups as follows: policy implications and management implications. Policy implications pertain to the national dialog and interorganizational deliberations of sector-wide policy to enrich accountability practices; while management implications are concerned with local, intraorganizational discussions among administrators and organizational leaders on formulating specific strategies and tactics.

This research paper contributes to empirical studies on organizational accountability in the online environment. It enriches our understanding of how organizations in different sectors present themselves to the public.

Nonprofit museums and performing arts organizations have become subject to closer attention in recent years, following the collapse of some seemingly stable cultural organizations. These events have stimulated a renewed interest in accountability and technology in nonprofit cultural organizations, as they are put under pressure to provide value for money. At the same time, technology has an important role to play in the extent to which nonprofit cultural organizations utilize available resources efficiently and effectively. Consequently, this study examines nine nonprofit museums and performing arts organizations in Victoria, Australia and establishes that while technology is used to increase viability and to some extent promote vitality, it does not solve all the problems for museums and performing arts organizations.Part of the reason for this is due to the fact that the notion of accountability has been hijacked by accountants and economists, enabling some to forget the true mission of these nonprofit museums and performing arts organizations, which are vitality‐oriented.

This paper aims to examine empirically whether the system of public expenditure reporting is capable of delivering financial accountability, focusing on the UK government's use of private finance for roads.

Publicly available documents from the public and private sector partners for 11 roads contracts are examined, together with a publicly provided bridge paid for via tolls as a comparator.

Reporting by both public and private sectors is limited and opaque, such that accountability to the public is inadequate. The evidence also shows that the scale of the additional expenditure generated by private finance warrants greater disclosure and scrutiny than is currently the case.

These findings, which occur in the roads sector where projects are large and visible, are likely to be replicated elsewhere in the public sector. Accountability issues may be even more problematic in public bodies where reporting is more diffuse. Furthermore, the proliferation of other forms of private finance increases the problems of reporting clear financial information, the lack of which not only makes informed public debate about public and fiscal policy impossible but also may lead to the wrong policy choice.

There has been little ex post facto examination as to whether extant reporting requirements permit understanding and scrutiny of the cost of private finance. The paper presents a desired list of annual disclosure, highlighting an information gap.