2006
DOI: 10.1002/nml.143
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: This article examines accountability processes in a nonprofitN ONPROFITS HAVE HISTORICALLY operated in a sector that some have considered above criticism. Times are changing, however, and nonprofit status no longer places an organization beyond reproach. Today, nonprofit organizations are expected to incorporate multiple systems of accountability that identify outcomes and demonstrate transparency in financing and decision making. Accordingly, scholars have noted a growing attention in the sector toward increa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
171
0
4

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 159 publications
(179 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
4
171
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…There is unease about what and how things are measured and how this interferes with organisational operations and values (Christensen and Ebrahim, 2006;Townley, 2011;Turco, 2012). This paper shows that there is resistance to the directives and demands of funders.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There is unease about what and how things are measured and how this interferes with organisational operations and values (Christensen and Ebrahim, 2006;Townley, 2011;Turco, 2012). This paper shows that there is resistance to the directives and demands of funders.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Social auditing and accountability controlled by outside stakeholders (Ebrahim, 2003(Ebrahim, , 2005, and conducted with the purpose of managing and mediating competition in the field of care and social mission, is causing discomfort (Turco, 2012). There is also fear that the auditing process, with ensuing performance management, has detrimental effects on organisational culture and staff morale (Christensen & Ebrahim, 2006;Hwang & Powell, 2004;Townley, 2011). This paper makes a contribution to the understanding of how evaluation and social impact measurement is part of organisational strategy, with a difference between what organisations are asked to do, what they say they are doing, and what they are doing in practice.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In such cases, both ex post verification and explanatory accounts may be used to reduce such ambiguities. And because of the existence of the propensity to intentionally hide unfavorable information in principal-agent relationships (Frumkin 2001;Posner 2002;Bornstein 2006;Christensen and Ebrahim 2006;Carman 2010), ex post verification accounts through audits (e.g., A133 Audits for INGOs receiving $500,000 or more of federal funding), M&E reports, and annual reports all serve to validate information on actual resource allocation and use, and performance (relative to ex ante baselines). Hence, ex post controls compel INGOs to disclose key data with respect to budgets and performance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a narrow view, accountability could then be defined as the answerability to a higher authority in a bureaucratic chain of command (Kearns, 1996). This reveals three fundamental questions: who is accountable (NPOs), to whom (Flemish government) and for what (Christensen and Ebrahim, 2006). Concerning this latter question, Cho and Gillespie (2006) argue that government's main goal is to ensure the provision of services to citizens by imposing standards on quality.…”
Section: Strategic Management Practicesmentioning
confidence: 99%