How Evaluation and Auditing Can Help Bring Accountability into the Twenty-First Century

Forging a Strategic and Comprehensive Approach to Evaluation Within Public and Nonprofit Organizations

“…x–xi). Nevertheless, capacity and approaches to build the theory and practice of both program evaluation and performance measurement have suffered from an arguably false dichotomy—in which performance measurement has been viewed as totally separate and even at odds with evaluation research and practice—that has been constructed by evaluation scholars and practitioners (for discussion, see Blalock, 1999; Greene, 1999; Perrin, 1999, 2007; Bernstein, 1999; Blalock & Barnow, 2001; Nielsen and Ejler, 2008). The separation has been perpetuated by both academics and practitioners who view the activities as serving different clients and/or potential users.…”

“…Some critics of performance measurement have distanced that practice from what they characterize as more rigorous evaluation and have highlighted a perceived lack of benefits from the resources directed toward measurement processes. The likelihood that performance measurement and reporting processes within government will lead to improved programmatic performance has been questioned for a variety of reasons (Dubnick & Frederickson, 2011; Ebrahim, 2005, 2010; Feller, 2002; Hood, 2006, 2012; Mayne, 2007; Moynihan, 2008, 2009, 2011; Moynihan & Lavertu, 2012; Newcomer, 1997; Perrin, 1999, 2007; and Radin, 2006, 2009). Some critics argue that simply deciding what to measure is subjective; managers are likely to devote limited resources to collecting data for external account-takers, and such data are unlikely to be useful to informing internal learning (Newcomer, 1997; Moynihan, 2008).…”

“…Situating performance measurement and analytics within a strategic and well-coordinated evaluation approach could facilitate organizational learning from performance data. Performance management in its narrow conception frequently has not been conducive to promoting learning and improvement (Dubnick & Frederickson, 2011; Feller, 2002; Hood, 2006, 2012; Mayne, 2007; Moynihan, 2008, 2009, 2011; Moynihan & Lavertu, 2012; Perrin, 1999, 2007 and Radin, 2006, 2009). But with more intentional design, evaluation activities (including measurement and analysis) could be orchestrated to contribute more effectively to learning, policy deliberations, strategy formulation, implementation, and performance.…”

Rethinking accountability in complex and horizontal network delivery systems

“…Flowing from this general understanding of accountability in public administration is a plethora of rules, norms, procedures, and structures that institutionalize the “giving of accounts,” the computation of performance and liability of agents (Auditor General of Canada ; Dubnick ; Aucoin ). Accountability in such a context evokes computation, calculation or some form of reckoning (Perrin, Bemelmans‐Videc and Lonsdale ; Jarvis and Thomas ).…”

“…The alternative view of accountability advanced here shifts the emphasis of accountability from a static to a dynamic approach (Perrin, Bemelmans‐Videc and Lonsdale ), focusing on continuous and responsive learning (Aucoin and Heintzman ). This view is consistent with Bovens’ (2010: 951) conceptualization of accountability as centred on the relationships and institutional arrangements through which actors and/or organizations are held accountable by another individual or institutional forum.…”