2017
DOI: 10.1080/23303131.2017.1302899
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Cost of Accountability for Small Human Service Contractors

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
2
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…During the Great Recession, some nonprofits reported government contracts acted as buffers helping the nonprofit weather tough economic times (Salamon et al, 2009) by serving as a reliable funding source (Besel et al, 2011). However, unreimbursed costs harmed the accountability of human service nonprofits (Never & de Leon, 2017) and forced nonprofits to cut jobs and salaries (Never & de Leon, 2014). Park and Mosely (2017) found some human service nonprofits remained successful with government funding during the economic downturn, while others faced decline or were forced to turn to entrepreneurial strategies.…”
Section: Human Services During the Great Recessionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During the Great Recession, some nonprofits reported government contracts acted as buffers helping the nonprofit weather tough economic times (Salamon et al, 2009) by serving as a reliable funding source (Besel et al, 2011). However, unreimbursed costs harmed the accountability of human service nonprofits (Never & de Leon, 2017) and forced nonprofits to cut jobs and salaries (Never & de Leon, 2014). Park and Mosely (2017) found some human service nonprofits remained successful with government funding during the economic downturn, while others faced decline or were forced to turn to entrepreneurial strategies.…”
Section: Human Services During the Great Recessionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To cope in this landscape, organisations have increased their bureaucratic capacity by hiring more employees with academic backgrounds. Seen through the eyes of an economist, these are increased transaction costs in the form of personnel costs for preparing applications, negotiations with funding bodies and authorities, ongoing monitoring, control of acquired grants and continuous and time-consuming cooperation with the authorities extending the grants (FitzGerald et al, 2019;Never & Leon, 2017;Wiley & Berry, 2018). From a broader perspective, the criticism also refers to how this increasingly earmarked funding renders the organisations less welcoming for volunteers (Henriksen et al, 2008;Smith, 2018) and changes the organisational character from a solidarity ethos to professionalised and competitively oriented supplier (Milbourne & Murray, This criticism was challenged by Mulgan (2015), who claimed that voluntary social organisations have generally been better at promising than delivering results.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For at kunne klare sig i dette landskab har organisationerne øget deres bureaukratiske kapacitet, saerligt i form af flere ansatte akademikere. Set gennem en økonoms øjne er der tale om øgede transaktionsomkostninger i form af personaleomkostninger til udarbejdelse af ansøgninger, forhandling med fonde og myndigheder samt løbende monitorering, kontrol med erhvervede bevillinger samt løbende og tidskraevende samarbejde med de bevilligende myndigheder (FitzGerald et al 2019;Never & Leon 2017;Wiley & Berry 2018). I et bredere perspektiv indbefatter kritikken også, at den mere målrettede finansiering gør, at organisationerne bliver mindre imødekommende for frivillige (Smith 2018;Henriksen et al 2008), mindre politisk uafhaengige (Ibsen 2020) og aendrer organisatorisk karakter fra solidarisk ethos til professionaliserede og konkurrenceorienterede leverandører (Milbourne & Murray 2017), hvilket også kan reducere organisationernes rolle, som folkelige og demokratisk dannende institutioner (Boje 2017).…”
unclassified