Steering International NGOs through Time: The Influence of Temporal Structuring in Government Accountability Requirements

Abstract

Relying on qualitative interview data from three U.S.-based government-funded international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs), this article explores the temporal structuring, that is, the timing of governmental accountability requirements and their impact on nonprofit organizations. The article reports that, entrenched within government accountability requirements and expectations are temporal structures that serve as powerful levers for influencing, ensuring, and verifying INGOs' financial integrity and stewardship of the federal dollars awarded to them. The article draws the following conclusion: that government's accountability practices are operationalized through ex ante, midcourse, and ex post temporal structures, all of which, combined with verification and explanatory accountability processes, effectively serve to steer, direct, and control the managerial and operational decisions of INGOs.

Does Revenue Concentration Really Bring Organizational Efficiency? Evidence From Habitat for Humanity

“…Specifically, those nonprofit organizations that have a fully concentrated revenue structure are those that heavily rely on a dominant source of revenue. According to transaction cost theory, they are more likely to avoid various transaction costs (Chikoto-Schultz & Sakolvittayanon, 2020), such as search costs (Chikoto-Schultz & Neely, 2016;Hung & Hager, 2019), negotiation costs, and/or governance costs (Chikoto, 2015;Ebrahim, 2003;Gronbjerg, 1993;Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003;Young, 2007), incurred when diversifying revenue structures. Second, the nonprofit organizations that have a fully diverse revenue structure are those that generate equal amounts of revenues from different sources.…”

“…Moreover, there are also costs associated with ensuring the parties involved do not deviate from the contract. These include, but are not limited to, managing diverse motivations, preferences, and objectives of multiple funders (Gronbjerg, 1993;Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003;Young, 2007) and meeting different accountability requirements (Chikoto, 2015;Ebrahim, 2003). As efficiency is associated with using the least amount of resources (Coupet & Berrett, 2018), concentrating revenue streams may avoid incurring these different types of transaction costs and save on expenses (Hung & Hager, 2019), which in turn may make nonprofits more efficient.…”

Nonprofit cash holdings and spending: The missing role of government funding

“…This finding suggests that greater accountability pressures for charitable nonprofits receiving government funds would result in higher proportions of spending on programs among nonprofits with cash holdings. Several studies (Chikoto, ; Jung & Moon, ; Lipsky & Smith, ) have documented the various types of administrative controls nonprofits are subject to on receiving government funds that limit a nonprofit organization's financial autonomy. Furthermore, government funding in the form of contracts and grants tends to be program‐restricted funding that aligns with a nonprofit's mission (Pettijohn & Boris, ).…”

“…Several scholars emphasize that government funding can be an effective monitoring mechanism to prevent adverse actions in financial management among nonprofits by increasing accountability (Ferris, ; Guo, ; Kramer & Terrel, ; Lipsky & Smith, ). In other words, by requiring organizations to adhere to an array of formal regulations, including regular process reports and administrative oversight (Chikoto, ; Jung & Moon, ; Lipsky & Smith, ), the government essentially acts as a monitor (Candler & Dumont, ; Ferris, ; Jung & Moon, ). From the individual donor's perspective, government funding may also be beneficial as an indirect tool to reduce managers' incentives for using revenue for personal gain, contrary to the goals of donor‐provided funds.…”

Public Participation and Transparency: Does Open Governance Promote Inclusion and Accountability?

“…The reason for this outlook lies in the role of international organisations in influencing the governance contexts of regions and countries (Abbott 2008;Acharya 2017;Fioretos 2011) through accords, treatises or other forms of contracted conditions. Such influence can be appraised as positive if accompanied by knowledge transfer and support for local expertise or, on the contrary, be taken as negative on the basis of secrecy, favouritism and inclined to maintaining to uneven and dependent power structures (Burger and Owens 2010;Chikoto 2015;O'Dwyer and Boomsma 2015). In the field of transparency a number of entities have appeared during the past twenty years addressing issues of openness and participation; the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) came to life in 2003, the Open Budget Initiative's (OBI) Open Budget Survey (OBS) was first published in 2006, while the Open Government Partnership (OGP), an international organisation founded in the context of a United Nations Summit, was created in 2011 seeking to further extend the supranational dedication to foster transparent decision-making and promote civic participation (OGP 2019).…”