Abstract:
The mechanisms of accountability of government-voluntary sector contracting are
problematic for both government agencies and voluntary organisations. If they are to
be revised, new mechanisms need to be appropriate for both parties. While the
public accountability system has been relatively well described and analysed, the
accountability systems of voluntary organisations have not. This research aimed to
explore accountability from the perspective of voluntary sector managers and board
members asking to whom, for what and why they thought themselves accountable.
Four organisational case studies were undertaken involving 34 in-depth interviews
with managers and board members. Interview data was triangulated with document
analysis and supplemented with field observations.
The results showed that respondents thought themselves most accountable to their
clients. Clients were prioritised because respondents were focused on maintaining
their organisations' legitimacy. Being seen to provide quality services to clients
meant that their organisations were viewed in a positive light by key stakeholders,
including funders. A group of internal stakeholders (staff, members and the board)
were considered second most important. Staff were seen as important because they
delivered the organisations' services. The support of members also brought
legitimacy. Government agencies were ranked third. Government funding was
viewed as a 'means to an ends': an input needed to provide a quality service to
clients.
An implication of the findings for the reform of the accountability mechanisms of
contracting is that the assumptions that the current system is based on - influenced
by agency theory - may not be valid. Respondents were found to have similar goals
to government agencies: achieving positive outcomes for clients. The goal
incongruence assumed by agency theory was not identified.
