Search

This paper examines how credit unions manage accountability to government in the lightly-regulated context of Indonesia. Adopting a qualitative methodology involving a case study approach, two credit unions are examined, through focus group discussions with credit union management and review of credit unions’ annual reports and strategic plans. Findings reveal few formal compliance-based accountability mechanisms in relation to government, and limited emphasis on these mechanisms by credit unions. However, informally, credit unions involved government in various strategic ways to demonstrate accountability and legitimacy, and seek support from them, thereby managing the regulatory space to maintain a lightly-regulated context. This paper provides insights into how credit unions adopted a predominantly co-operative approach to manage and negotiate a space of limited regulation by actively demonstrating legitimacy and accountability. Presented in the form of an engagement pyramid involving four levels (i.e. compliance, self-regulation within the sector, engaging with regulators, and selectively challenging regulation perceived as unfair or unhelpful), this approach is particularly important given the seemingly less effective regulatory frameworks in more developed countries. It provides a reference for other organisations, both within the third sector and beyond, to consider how their actions might respond to and constructively shape the regulatory space, beyond comply or evade.

Enabled by the underpinnings of critical theory, this article discusses research methodology developed with the aim of empowering beneficiaries within Third Sector Organisations, through their participation in organisational evaluation processes. The discussion on methodology in this article occurs at three levels: conceptual, processual, and reflexive. The conceptual level explores ontological and epistemological assumptions that shape the critical approach. At the processual level, research methods are explored, drawing on case studies involving interviews with beneficiaries. In interviewing beneficiaries, Third Sector research becomes a means of representing this group. Finally, the reflexive level explores how findings from the processual level enable praxis through the development of approaches supporting beneficiaries’ participation in organisational evaluation processes. As such, Third Sector research can engage beneficiary participation, in order to promote more effective beneficiary participation organisationally.

This multiple-case study examines the adoption of a case management system (CMS) across two community organisations in Australia using organizational routines as a theoretical lens. Both the adopters and the vendor were interviewed to explore how the CMS was instituted in the adopting organisations. Many of the concerns or problems associated with a CMS as reported in the literature were not supported in this study. Although the two cases differed significantly in terms of size and resources, the findings show that the adoption of CMS led to new ostensive and performative routines around data collection and service delivery in both organisations. This had implications for accountability and organisational learning. In particular, better access to data improved visibility and reporting on the provision of services and subsequently supported fundraising. This study also highlights some of the situational factors that facilitate or impede the transition to a CMS such as the critical role of the CMS administrator and the way the change is managed in adopting organisations. Overall, this study contributes to the discourse on CMS by providing some evidence to support a more nuanced view of CMS including as ‘systems of accountability’ or even a ‘necessity’ of the digital age rather than merely as ‘instruments of neoliberal policy’ and enablers of bureaucratisation of social work.

This study examines place-based philanthropy in public ancillary funds (PubAFs) in Australia. While PubAFs vary greatly in their purposes, stakeholders, and operating models, place emerges as a strong element of foundations’ perceived identity, strategic focus, and grantmaking. This article advances the understanding of philanthropic giving by investigating and identifying the perceptions of place by PubAF managers and trustees, contributing to a novel and valuable “insiders” perspective on PubAFs. Drawing on Agnew’s three elements of place, namely location, locale, and sense of place, key findings highlight PubAFs’ ties to place in multiple contexts and dimensions. This qualitative study contributes to understandings of the ways in which place shapes and defines giving by public foundations, overlaps and interacts with foundations’ mission and strategy, and affects philanthropic impact.

Public Ancillary Funds (PubAFs) are grantmaking philanthropic foundations, largely held to be independent. However, some PubAFs exist in significant and exclusive relationships (dyadic partnerships) with a dominant stakeholder involving shared values, strategy, resources, and goals. This paper examines the benefits and challenges for PubAFs of being in a dyadic partnership and how this relationship affects their identity, accountability, and independence. Interviews with 28 PubAFs reveal significant differences between the operating forms and practices of PubAFs in dyadic partnerships, and those which were not. While dyadic partnerships are most commonly associated with donor organisations that establish and provide ongoing funding to foundations (e.g. corporate foundations), this study’s findings show that to be a limited understanding, with PubAFs existing in dyadic partnerships in a range of different contexts. Further, the closeness and exclusiveness of a dyadic partnership presented both benefits and challenges which PubAFs must actively manage over time.

This research explores how organisational responses to the Covid-19 pandemic changed the accountability assemblage within an Australian membership-based nonprofit organisation (NPO), specifically in relation to how the NPO interacts with its beneficiaries via digital platforms. This research draws on Deleuze and Guattari’s (2013) understandings of assemblages to explore change that resulted in enhanced accountability and inclusion within an Australian membership-based NPO. Data included interviews conducted during the 2020 Covid-19 crisis with 10 beneficiaries, two staff members, and three board/committee members, and organisational documents. Data was analysed using rhizoanalysis, an analytical approach seeking to “give readings of experiences in assemblages” (Cumming, 2015, p. 14), drawn from understandings of the rhizome (Deleuze & Guattari, 2013). Findings suggest the addition of Covid-19 into the accountability assemblage ruptured the established territory and cast a ‘line of flight’ where change was affected in a way that fostered inclusivity and beneficiary satisfaction through enhanced digital engagement. This paper presents the mapping of this change and resultant impacts upon accountability relationships and organisational processes toward member-beneficiaries. Contributions to knowledge include highlighting systemic organisational issues where beneficiaries with an increased agency can still struggle to be heard in accountability relationships; understanding how organisational responses to unanticipated change can bring benefits in terms of accountability processes, and employing digital tools in response to unexpected challenges can enhance accountability. The paper also makes a theoretical contribution by demonstrating how theories of assemblages can explain organisational change. References:Cumming, T. (2015). Challenges of ‘thinking differently’with rhizoanalytic approaches: A reflexive account. International journal of research & method i

Enabled by the underpinnings of critical theory, this article discusses research methodology developed with the aim of empowering beneficiaries within Third Sector Organisations, through their participation in organisational evaluation processes. The discussion on methodology in this article occurs at three levels: conceptual, processual, and reflexive. The conceptual level explores ontological and epistemological assumptions that shape the critical approach. At the processual level, research methods are explored, drawing on case studies involving interviews with beneficiaries. In interviewing beneficiaries, Third Sector research becomes a means of representing this group. Finally, the reflexive level explores how findings from the processual level enable praxis through the development of approaches supporting beneficiaries’ participation in organisational evaluation processes. As such, Third Sector research can engage beneficiary participation, in order to promote more effective beneficiary participation organisationally.

Organizational survival is a primary current focus, as the unforeseen economic effects of the pandemic ravage the civil sector. Over time, however, we turn to questions of resilience: How can organizations prepare for rare, but devastating, financial shocks? Three months of funds to cover operating expenses are often described as a suitable savings target. However, organizations differ greatly in their revenue volatility, which suggests that “3 months” may severely underestimate the reserves that certain organizations should hold. We measure revenue volatility and calculate reserve fund targets for 25 nonprofit subsectors, showing sharp differences in optimal savings levels ranging up to 1 year of total expenses. We also explore organizational characteristics associated with revenue volatility. We argue for a resilience strategy that goes beyond optimizing the contents of the revenue portfolio. Funders and nonprofit practitioners should consider the broader context of financial resilience that includes correctly sized reserves as a stabilizing force.

The research presented within this paper case studies two nonprofit organisations in order to gain the perspectives of beneficiaries, staff, and board members on the participation of beneficiaries in evaluating the organisation. The aim of the research is to reconsider more traditional beneficiary participative evaluation approaches through the critical lens of dialogic accounting theory. The research draws on theories of dialogic accounting and transformative participatory evaluation to posit an agonistic approach to beneficiary participative evaluation. Findings reveal the importance of considering patterns of beneficiary engagement within the nonprofit organisation, what beneficiaries want the outcome of the evaluation to be, and the operation of pluralism at multiple levels. All of these are important so as to avoid an accountability ‘sham-ritual’, where beneficiary engagement is symbolic rather than substantive. Findings lead to the development of participative evaluation frameworks for each case studied.

Purpose: Informed by the critical perspective of dialogic accounting theory, the purpose of this paper is to explore the use of evaluation as a means of enhancing accountability to beneficiaries within nonprofit organisations (NPOs). As a stakeholder group frequently marginalised by traditional accounting practices, the participation of beneficiaries within a NPO’s accountability structure is presented as a means of increasing social justice. Design/methodology/approach: The research design used case studies involving two NPOs, examining documents and conducting interviews across three stakeholder groups, within each organisation. Findings: Findings reveal that when viewed on beneficiaries’ terms, accountability to beneficiaries, through participative evaluation, needs to consider the particular timeframe of beneficiary engagement within each organisation. This temporal element positions downwards accountability to beneficiaries within NPOs as multi-modal. Research limitations/implications: The research poses a limit to statistical generalisability outside of the specific research context. However, the research prioritises theoretical generalisation to social forms and meanings, and as such provides insights for literature. Practical implications: In acknowledging that beneficiaries have accountability needs dependent upon their timeframe of participation, NPOs can better target their downwards accountability structures. This research also has practical implications in its attempt to action two of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. Originality/value: This paper makes a contribution to the limited research into nonprofit accountability towards beneficiaries. Dialogic accounting theory is enacted to explore how accountability can be practised on beneficiaries’ terms.

The research presented within this paper case studies two nonprofit organisations in order to gain the perspectives of beneficiaries, staff, and board members on the participation of beneficiaries in evaluating the organisation. The aim of the research is to reconsider more traditional beneficiary participative evaluation approaches through the critical lens of dialogic accounting theory. The research draws on theories of dialogic accounting and transformative participatory evaluation to posit an agonistic approach to beneficiary participative evaluation. Findings reveal the importance of considering patterns of beneficiary engagement within the nonprofit organisation, what beneficiaries want the outcome of the evaluation to be, and the operation of pluralism at multiple levels. All of these are important so as to avoid an accountability ‘sham-ritual’, where beneficiary engagement is symbolic rather than substantive. Findings lead to the development of participative evaluation frameworks for each case studied.

In Western economies, the charging of interest for loans is just something that is rarely questioned. It is deemed necessary, in order to generate income and to offset the risk that loans might not be repaid (Benfield, 1968). Modern Western legal prohibitions against usury, such as they are, centre on the notion of preventing financial service organisations from charging excessive interest (Lewison, 1999), which is certainly how modern dictionaries define it (Oxford Living Dictionaries, 2017). However, this was, and is, not always the case.

Private Ancillary Funds are Australian endowed philanthropic foundations that exist for public benefit purposes but are privately funded and controlled. However, with discretionary public reporting and few regulatory obligations, Private Ancillary Funds have been criticized for their absence of public accountability. This case study explores the choice of qualitative research methods using an abductive paradigm, and the implications of that choice in conducting the first empirical research in an influential but controversial public policy field. Findings from 10 semi-structured interviews with Private Ancillary Fund managers and trustees revealed that Private Ancillary Funds choose to voluntarily hold themselves accountable primarily for internal reasons relating to their values, mission, and purpose. Reflective insights are offered on the foci, challenges, and practicalities of inaugurating an empirical base for discourse in a field where opinion has previously dominated.

Purpose – Informed by the critical perspective of dialogic accounting theory, this paper explores the use of evaluation as a means of enhancing accountability to beneficiaries within nonprofit organisations. As a stakeholder group frequently marginalised by traditional accounting practices, the participation of beneficiaries within a nonprofit organisation’s accountability structure is presented as a means of increasing social justice. Design/methodology/approach - The research design used case studies involving two nonprofit organisations, examining documents and conducting interviews across three stakeholder groups, within each organisation. Findings – Findings reveal that when viewed on beneficiaries’ terms, accountability to beneficiaries, through participative evaluation, needs to consider the particular timeframe of beneficiary engagement within each organisation. This temporal element positions downwards accountability to beneficiaries within nonprofit organisations as multi-modal. Research limitations – The research poses a limit to statistical generalisability outside of the specific research context. However, the research prioritises theoretical generalisation to social forms and meanings, and as such provides insights for literature. Practical implications – In acknowledging that beneficiaries have accountability needs dependent upon their timeframe of participation, nonprofit organisations can better target their downwards accountability structures. This research also has practical implications in its attempt to action two of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. Originality/value – This paper makes a contribution to the limited research into nonprofit accountability towards beneficiaries. Dialogic accounting theory is enacted to explore how accountability can be practised on beneficiaries’ terms.

Purpose – Informed by the critical perspective of dialogic accounting theory, this paper explores the use of evaluation as a means of enhancing accountability to beneficiaries within nonprofit organisations. As a stakeholder group frequently marginalised by traditional accounting practices, the participation of beneficiaries within a nonprofit organisation’s accountability structure is presented as a means of increasing social justice. Design/methodology/approach - The research design used case studies involving two nonprofit organisations, examining documents and conducting interviews across three stakeholder groups, within each organisation. Findings – Findings reveal that when viewed on beneficiaries’ terms, accountability to beneficiaries, through participative evaluation, needs to consider the particular timeframe of beneficiary engagement within each organisation. This temporal element positions downwards accountability to beneficiaries within nonprofit organisations as multi-modal. Research limitations – The research poses a limit to statistical generalisability outside of the specific research context. However, the research prioritises theoretical generalisation to social forms and meanings, and as such provides insights for literature. Practical implications – In acknowledging that beneficiaries have accountability needs dependent upon their timeframe of participation, nonprofit organisations can better target their downwards accountability structures. This research also has practical implications in its attempt to action two of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. Originality/value – This paper makes a contribution to the limited research into nonprofit accountability towards beneficiaries. Dialogic accounting theory is enacted to explore how accountability can be practised on beneficiaries’ terms.

The changing regulatory and economic landscape of the Australian not-for-profit (NFP) sector is placing unprecedented pressures on charitable institutions impacting how they manage their financial and non-financial resources. While government procurement services has traditionally been the predominant source of revenue for many Australian charities, Australia’s governments have placed increasing emphasis on quasi-market procurement arrangements and have changed their procurement and pricing policies. These changes have escalated the pressure on charities’ operational and financial models. To meet these challenges and to pursue their goals sustainably, Australia’s charities are increasingly seeking opportunities for resource sharing collaborations and strategic restructures such as mergers, acquisitions and divestments with the intention of driving down costs, expanding their service offerings and building new skills. This research report, led by a cross-institutional team from RMIT, the University of Western Australia and Queensland University of Technology, provides insights on the nature and extent of resource sharing collaborations and strategic restructure activities undertaken by Australian charities. Based on a questionnaire survey of the CEOs and directors/committee members of Australian charities, the study offers more nuanced insights into the drivers and outcomes associated with resource collaborations and strategic restructures,taking into consideration organizational size and sectoral features.

The aim of this paper is to consider why Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs), endowed philanthropic foundations with no public reporting requirements, engage in accountability in its various forms. This exploratory, qualitative study reports on perspectives on accountability from 10 semi‐structured interviews with PAF managers and/or trustees from three Australian states. Through the lens of March and Olsen's (2011) logics of action and Karsten's (2015) typology of motivational forms for voluntary accountability, findings show that although logics of appropriateness and consequentiality explain many reasons why PAFs engage in voluntary accountability, some reasons do not fit comfortably within either logic. The findings challenge conceptions embedded in much non‐profit accountability literature that motivations for and purposes of accountability are linked with sustainability and survival. By examining this subset of non‐profit organisations subject to limited regulatory accountability, a clearer understanding of motivations for voluntary accountability is achieved.

Purpose: This paper explores social enterprise accountability with respect to their dual social and financial objectives. Drawing on theories of accountability, stakeholders, and institutional logics, this paper examines to whom and how social enterprises are accountable, focusing on the potential differences in accountability where social enterprises have a dominant versus a diversified commercial customer base. Design: Case studies on four work-integrated social enterprises are analysed. Primary data includes interviews with General Managers of each social enterprise. Secondary data includes social media, websites and internal and external reports. Findings: Findings reveal accountability is largely influenced by dominant stakeholders (dominant commercial customers and parent organisations). Further, a connection between to whom and how social enterprises are accountable was noted, with formal accountability directed to the main stakeholders of the social enterprises, while less formal types of accountability were directed to less powerful stakeholders. Originality/value: The integrated nature of the social enterprises facilitated complementarity rather than conflict amongst their commercial and social logics. While formal accountability was directed to those with power, expectations of these stakeholders ensured social and commercial logics were balanced, highlighting the importance of powerful stakeholders supporting both logics for social enterprises to effectively manage their hybridity. Conclusions consider the importance of social enterprises’ reporting practices.