Autonomy and accountability in social services nonprofits: Japan and UK

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to describe two recent investigations of social services nonprofits (SSNs) in Japan and UK shed light on the subject of autonomy in relation to accountability.Design/methodology/approachThis is effected through an exploration of questions such as: to what extent can we say that SSNs operate “autonomously” in Japan and UK? How do executives in these agencies perceive their own statutory organisation (SO)? To whom exactly are the SSNs accountable? What accountability mechanisms are in effect? How much time do these agencies spend on meeting the requirements of these accountability measures? Do SSN executives consider that accountability demands enhance or inhibit the ability of their organisation to fulfill its mission?FindingsA close relationship is found between the way in which executive directors view downward accountability demands (accountability to clients or society at large) and the way they perceive SOs. From the discussion of the findings, it became apparent that Japanese executives, who approached downward accountability from its external dimension (i.e. the community at large), appeared to experience a more positive relationship with SOs than their British counterparts, who approached downward accountability almost exclusively from its internal dimension (i.e. in terms of their organisation's users), resulting in their perception of statutory accountability demands as a positive or negative influence on their organisation's mission.Originality/valueThis research makes an important contribution to the understanding of collaborative relations between government and nonprofits, as well as providing meaningful insights in the search for an alternative governance system for the provision of social services under a post welfare‐state regime.

Managing evaluation: A community arts organisation's perspective

“…Focussing on measurable benefits may mean that softer, less quantifiable outcomes were ignored or sidelined (Amin, Cameron, & Hudson, 2002), leading to the organisation operating in ways distinct from its original ethos (Carmel & Harlock, 2008). Organisations may also focus more upon their accountability to funders and less on those they seek to benefit (Laratta, 2009). The scope or direction of community arts projects may be influenced by requirements for evaluation (Angus, 2002), with the art being seen as ‘merely instrumental to prescribed social outcomes and public policy agendas’ (Putland, 2008: 266).…”

Untitled

“…In general, these studies focus on the relevance of collaboration for attaining new resources for the organizations, and the management of diverging stakeholder interests in the process. The authors ask questions about the ways of organizing work and decision-making (Imperatori & Ruta, 2015;Ridley-Duff, 2009) and about the relationships of power, autonomy, and impact between SEs and resource providers (Kwong, Tasavori, & Wunmei Cheung, 2017;Laratta, 2009). Unlike in previous strands, the institutional literature provides an explicit theory and conceptualization of collaboration.…”

Contract Management and Performance of Road Maintenance Projects: The Case of Arua Municipality

“…Maintenance Projects Kelman (1994) defines contract administration as a set of activities performed by government officials (client's representatives) after a contract has been awarded to determine how well the government (client) and the contractor perform to meet the requirements of the contract. While strategizing to ensure that contract management successfully takes the right course, all the parties involved must pay keen attention to all provisions in the given or existing contract (Sanders, Locke, Moore, & Autry, 2007;Laratta (2009) and Saunders (2000) as cited by Oluka and Basheka, 2013). Successful and efficient contract management practices are those that meet the needs of the company's (client's) stakeholders, achieve optimum conditions and value in regard to the allocation of scarce tax payers' resources, ensure rational and efficient use of funds available, stimulate valuable competition and manage the risk and potential liabilities to the buyer, thereby improving service delivery.…”