Governments use various performance measures to ensure that public services delivered by private-sector providers are safe and meet citizens’ particular needs. These measures can include awarding accreditation and assessing citizen satisfaction. However, few studies have investigated how objective performance measures relate to citizens’ subjective evaluations of providers from the perspective of service users. To fill this gap in the literature, this study closely explores a particular case of the Korean childcare market in which governments administer a large number of private-sector providers that play a dominant role in delivering public services. Our findings indicate the positive accreditation–satisfaction link is weakened when parents may not be aware of a provider's accreditation status or when their selected service provider is nonprofit, as opposed to for-profit. Overall, this study suggests that it is important to understand why there is some degree of incongruence between objective and subjective measures and how these two different performance indicators converge in the data. Special attention should be given to bridging the gap by closely reviewing institutional pressure on service providers and a symbolic impression of accreditation.
AmirkhanyanA. A. (2010). Monitoring across sectors: Examining the effect of nonprofit and for-profit contractor ownership on performance monitoring in state and local contracts. Public Administration Review, 70(5), 742–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02202.x
2.
BeaulieuN. D.EpsteinA. M. (2002). National committee on quality assurance health-plan accreditation: Predictors, correlates of performance, market impact. Medical Care, 40(4), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200204000-00008
3.
BekkersR. H. F. P. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in The Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764003258102
4.
BoltonR. N.DrewJ. H. (1991). A multistage model of customers’ assessments of service quality and value. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1086/208564
5.
CarmanJ.FredericksK. (2013). Nonprofits and accreditation: Exploring the implications for accountability. International Review of Public Administration, 18(3), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2013.10805263
6.
CarterD. L.SappA. D. (1994). Issues and perspectives of law enforcement accreditation: A national study of police chiefs. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(3), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(94)90016-7
7.
CasileM.Davis-BlakeA. (2002). When accreditation standards changes: Factors affecting differential responsiveness of public and private organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069291
8.
ChanF. K. Y.ThongJ. Y. L.BrownS. A.VenkateshV. (2021). Service design and citizen satisfaction with e-government services: A multidimensional perspective. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 874–894. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13308
9.
CharbonneauÉVan RyzinG. (2012). Performance measures and parental satisfaction with New York City schools. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010397333
10.
DrevsF.TscheulinD.LindenmeierJ. (2014). Do patient perceptions vary with ownership status? A study of nonprofit, for-profit, and public hospital patients. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 164–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012458179
11.
EgglestonK.ZeckhauserR. (2002). Government contracting for health care. In DonahueJ. D.Nye JrJ. S. (Eds.), Market-based governance: Supply side, demand side, upside, and downside (pp. 29–65). Brookings Institution Press.
12.
FengN. C.NeelyD. G.SlattenL. A. D. (2016). Accountability standards for nonprofit organizations: Do organizations benefit from certification programs?International Journal of Public Administration, 39(6), 470–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1023444
13.
FrumkinP.GalaskiewiczJ. (2004). Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 283–307. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh028
GrönroosC. (2000). Service management and marketing: A customer relationship management approach. Wiley.
16.
HandyF. (1997). Coexistence of nonprofit, for-profit and public sector institutions. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 68(2), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8292.00043
17.
HansmannH. B. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. The Yale Law Journal, 89(5), 835–901. https://doi.org/10.2307/796089
18.
HeuerA. J. (2004). Hospital accreditation and patient satisfaction: Testing the relationship. Journal for Healthcare Quality: Official Publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality, 26(1), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-1474.2004.tb00471.x
19.
HibbardJ. H.JewettJ. J. (1997). Will quality report cards help consumers?Health Affairs (Project Hope), 16(3), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.16.3.218
20.
IshimineK.TaylerC.ThorpeK. (2009). Accounting for quality in Australian childcare: A dilemma for policymakers. Journal of Education Policy, 24(6), 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930903207695
21.
JamesO. (2009). Evaluating the expectations disconfirmation and expectations anchoring approaches to citizen satisfaction with local public services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum034
22.
JamesO. (2011). Managing citizens’ expectations of public service performance: Evidence from observation and experimentation in local government. Public Administration, 89(4), 1419–1435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01962.x
23.
JilkeS.Van RyzinG. G.Van de WalleS. (2016). Responses to decline in marketized public services: An experimental evaluation of choice overload. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(3), 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv021
24.
KellyJ. M. (2005). The dilemma of the unsatisfied customer in a market model of public administration. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00432.x
25.
KellyJ. M.SwindellD. (2002). A multiple-indicator approach to municipal service evaluation: Correlating performance measurement and citizen satisfaction across jurisdictions. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 610–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00241
26.
KimS. (2017). Lessons learned from public and private contract managers for effective local government contracting out: The case of New Jersey. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(9), 756–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1193751
27.
KimS.KimM. (2022). Citizen satisfaction in the public sector. In SchedlerK. (Ed.), Elgar encyclopedia of public management (pp. 205–207). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
28.
KimY. (2014). Measuring quality of curriculum implementation and teaching in childcare centers using accreditation standards in South Korea. Child Indicators Research, 7(2), 387–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-013-9219-1
29.
KimY.KimG. (2013). Seoul type accredited childcare center and service quality: Focusing the differences in accredited and unaccredited providers. Korean Journal of Policy Analysis and Evaluation, 23(2), 139–164. http://www.kapae.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=search_paper&wr_id=933
30.
KinneyE. (1994). Private accreditation as a substitute for direct government regulation in public health insurance programs: When is it appropriate?Law and Contemporary Problems, 57(4), 47–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1192056
31.
Korea Institute of Child Care and Education (KICCE) (2016). Public type child care performance and challenges [in Korean].
32.
KromreyJ. D.Rendina-GobioffG. (2003). An empirical comparison of regression analysis strategies with discrete ordinal variables. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 29(1), 30–43.
33.
LeeJ. B. (2023). Do health vouchers broaden the choices of citizens with low socioeconomic status? An analysis of Medicaid in Brooklyn. Public Management Review, 25(3), 459–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1974715
34.
LeeJ. B.ShinD. (2023). How policy instruments shape recipients’ evaluations of service: The case of housing policy for military personnel in Korea. Public Performance & Management Review, 46(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2101132
35.
LeeM.SeoM.ChoiY.EomJ. (2012). A research on advancement of quality based evaluation authentication of childcare center. Korea Institute of Child Care and Education. Ministry of Health and Welfare of South Korea. [in Korean].
36.
LimH. Y.KimH. J. (2014). The study of parents’ perception on accreditation system of public type child care centers. Journal of Korean Child Care and Education, 10(5), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.14698/jkcce.2014.10.5.063
37.
MarshallM. N.ShekelleP. G.LeathermanS.BrookR. H. (2000). The public release of performance data: What do we expect to gain? A review of the evidence. JAMA, 283(14), 1866–1874. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.14.1866
38.
McCabeB.PonomariovB.EstradaF. (2018). Professional cities: Accredited agencies, government structure, and rational choice. Public Administration Review, 78(2), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12806
39.
Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) (2020). The manual of accreditation program of public type childcare center. Republic of Korea [in Korean].
40.
Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) (2021). The 2021 guideline for childcare program (appendices). Republic of Korea [in Korean].
41.
Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) and Korea Institute of Child Care and Education (KICCE) (2018a). A research on the actual childcare conditions in the nation- A report on childcare centers. Republic of Korea [in Korean].
42.
Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) and Korea Institute of Child Care and Education (KICCE) (2018b). A research on the actual childcare conditions in the nation –A report households research. Republic of Korea [in Korean].
43.
Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) and Korea Institute of Child Care and Education (KICCE) (2011). Monitoring and evaluations of pilot program for public and autonomous type childcare centers. Republic of Korea [in Korean].
44.
OliverR. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405
45.
OliverR. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
46.
ParkE.JunH. (2017). Has the universal free childcare policy been successful? Issues and challenges for early childhood education and care in Korea. In LiM.FoxJ., & GrieshaberS. (Eds.), Contemporary issues and challenge in early childhood education in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 51–64). Springer Nature.
47.
ParkM.ChoR. (2019). A study on the effect analysis of child care center accreditation system and public type child care center policy. Korean Policy Studies Review, 28(1), 37–70. https://doi.org/10.33900/KAPS.2019.28.1.2
48.
ParksR. B. (1984). Linking objective and subjective measures of performance. Public Administration Review, 44(2), 118–127. https://doi.org/10.2307/975862
49.
RheeO. (2007). Childcare policy in Korea: Current status and major issues. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 1(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/2288-6729-1-1-59
50.
SanyalB. C.MartinM. (2007). Quality assurance and the role of accreditation: An overview. In Global University Network for Innovation (Ed.), Higher education in the world 2007. Accreditation for quality assurance: What is at stake? (2nd ed., pp. 3–17). Palgrave Macmillan.
51.
ScrivensE. (1997). Assessing the value of accreditation systems. The European Journal of Public Health, 7(1), 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/7.1.4
52.
Seoul Welfare Foundation (SWF) (2020). A guideline for Seoul Type childcare accreditation [in Korean].
53.
SongM.KimM.FaveroN. (2020). Social class, ingroup–outgroup comparison, and citizen evaluations: Is user satisfaction linked to outcome disparities. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(2), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019874445
54.
StiglerG. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 2(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/3003160
55.
StipakB. (1979). Citizen satisfaction with urban services: Potential misuse as a performance indicator. Public Administration Review, 39(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/3110378
56.
TaylorA. B.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2006). Loss of power in logistic, ordinal logistic, and probit regression when an outcome variable is coarsely categorized. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(2), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405278580
57.
TeodoroM. P.HughesA. G. (2012). Socializer or signal? How agency accreditation affects organizational culture. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 583–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02531.x
58.
Van RyzinG. G. (2004). Expectations, performance, and citizen satisfaction with urban services. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20020
59.
Van RyzinG. G. (2006). Testing the expectancy disconfirmation model of citizen satisfaction with local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(4), 599–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui058
60.
Van RyzinG. G.ImmerwahrS.AltmanS. (2008). Measuring street cleanliness: A comparison of New York City’s scorecard and results from a citizen survey. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00863.x
61.
Van SlykeD. M. (2007). Agents or stewards: Using theory to understand the government-nonprofit social service contracting relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(2), 157–187. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul012
ZellmanG. L.PerlmanM.LeV.-N.SetodjiC. M. (2008). Assessing the validity of the Qualistar early learning quality rating and improvement system as a tool for improving child-care quality. Rand Corporation.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
