Procedures intended to provide accountability in relationships between governments and nonprofit organizations often focus on ways to catch and punish mistakes rather than on ways to improve service to the public. Usually, this is because the parties create their expectations for the relationship independently. However, many public services can be improved if governments and nonprofits work together to learn what needs to be done to address public needs more effectively. Mutual accountability involves key stakeholders in dialogue to determine responsibilities, authorize discretion, establish reporting procedures, and create review processes for the relationship. Mutual accountability requires extra time and effort but may be appropriate when the parties are unclear about how best to address public problems and when they have altruistic values.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ammons, D. N. (Ed.). (1995). Accountability for performance: Measurement and monitoring in local government. Washington, DC: ICMA.
2.
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Argyris, C. (1994, July-August). Good communication that block slearning. Harvard Business Review, pp.77-85.
4.
Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
5.
Bardach, E., & Lesser, C. (1996). Accountability in human services collaboratives-For what? And to whom? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(2), 197-224.
6.
Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
7.
Behn, R. D., & Kant, P. A. (1999). Strategies for avoiding the pitfalls of performance contracting. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22(4), 470-489.
8.
Berner, M., & Bronson, M. (2003). Program evaluation in local governments: Building consensus through collaboration. Popular Government, 68(2), 29-34.
9.
Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (1992). Leadership for the common good: Tackling public problems in a shared-power world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Cooper, P. J. (2003). Governing by contract. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
11.
DeHoog, R. H. (1984). Contracting out for human services: Economic, political, and organizational perspectives. Albany: State University of New York Press.
12.
Dicke, L. A. (2002). Ensuring accountability in human services contracting: Can stewardship theory fill the bill? American Review of Public Administration, 32(4), 455-470.
13.
Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14.
Johnston, J. M., & Romzek, B. S. (1999). Contracting and accountability in state Medicaid reform: Rhetoric, theories, and reality. Public Administration Review, 59(5), 383-399.
15.
Keating, E. K., & Frumkin, P. (2003). Reengineering nonprofit financial accountability: Toward a more reliable foundation for regulation. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 3-15.
16.
Kerns, K. P. (1996). Managing for accountability: Preserving the public trust in public and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Kettl, D. F. (1993). Sharing power: Public governments and private markets. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
18.
Klingner, D. E., Nalbandian, J., & Romzek, B. S. (2002). Politics, administration, and markets: Conflicting expectations and accountability. American Review of Public Administration, 32(2), 117-144.
19.
Radin, B. A., & Romzek, B. S. (1996). Accountability expectations in an intergovernmental arena: The National Rural Development Partnership. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 26(2), 59-81.
20.
Roberts, N. C. (2002). Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: Resolving the accountability paradox. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 658-669.
21.
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1998). Accountability. In J. M. Shafritz (Ed.), International encyclopedia of public policy and administration (pp. 6-11). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
22.
Romzek, B. S., & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Cross pressures of accountability: Initiative, command, and failure in the Ron Brown plane crash. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 240-253.
23.
Romzek, B. S., & Johnston, J. M. (1999). Reforming Medicaid through contracting: The nexus of implementation and organizational culture. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 107-139.
24.
Schwarz, R. M. (1994). The skilled facilitator: Practical wisdom for developing effective groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
Sclar, E. D. (2000). You don’t always get what you pay for: The economics of privatization. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.
26.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
27.
Vinzant, J. C. (1998). Where values collide: Motivation and role conflict in child and adult protective services. American Review of Public Administration, 28(4), 347-366.
28.
Waterman, R. W., & Meier, K. J. (1998). Principal-agent models: An expansion? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 173-202.
29.
Weissert, C. S. (2001). Reluctant partners: The role of preferences, incentives, and monitoring in program compliance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(4), 435-453.
30.
Whitaker, G. P. (1980). Coproduction: Citizen participation in service delivery. Public Administration Review, 40(3), 240-246.
