Why Be Accountable? Exploring Voluntary Accountability of Australian Private Ancillary Funds

Williamson, Alexandra; Luke, Belinda; Furneaux, Craig

doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12255

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Reflecting RQ1, Mashaw’s (2006) framing questions of how, and with what outcomes or consequences, are explored in the literature on nonprofit and philanthropic evaluation, describing findings around giving and receiving accounts (Benjamin, 2008), differences in means of accountability to different stakeholder groups (Busuioc & Lodge, 2017), and programme outcomes or results-based accountability (Weir & Watts, 2013). Reflecting RQ2, Mashaw’s (2006) framing questions of why, and in what circumstances, are explored in the philanthropic evaluation literature, detailing themes of voluntary accountability (Williamson et al, 2018), objective and subjective measures (Fry, 1995), and concerns regarding accountability (Kamuf, 2007; Messner, 2009).…”

Section: Literature and Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance measurement, evaluation and accountability in public philanthropic foundations

Williamson

Kingston

2021

Evaluation Journal of Australasia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Philanthropic foundations routinely evaluate and measure the performance of nonprofit organisations to which they distribute funds, as well as the programmes that are funded. Another aspect of philanthropic foundations’ evaluation processes, which receives comparatively little attention within academic or practitioner literature, concerns evaluations of grant applications. While the focus of philanthropic evaluation literature is mainly on ‘how evaluation is done’, the focus of this article is on ‘how evaluation is understood’. This article details perspectives from interviews with 28 managers and trustees of Public Ancillary Funds as part of a wider study on the accountability of foundations. These public foundations must fundraise from the public, and donations to them are deductible against the taxable income of the donor, resulting in a significant element of accountability to the public for their effectiveness and evaluation of the distribution of their funds. Four main themes emerged through the exploration of how evaluation is understood from the perspective of these senior foundation leaders: motivations, values, criteria and processes of evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Literature and Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance measurement, evaluation and accountability in public philanthropic foundations

Williamson

Kingston

2021

Evaluation Journal of Australasia

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, the sub‐fund structure adds a layer of opacity that may invite suspicion and challenge the PubAFs’ perceived legitimacy. As sub‐funds within PubAFs become larger and more influential, they may need to embrace voluntary transparency or risk creating distrust, potentially representing both an asset and a liability for PubAFs, their donors and grantees (Williamson et al., 2018).…”

Section: Background Context and Theoretical Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the field of public ancillary funds

Williamson

Luke

2021

Aust J Public Adm

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyses and profiles public ancillary funds (PubAFs), charitable trusts that act as intermediaries between public donors and approved nonprofit beneficiary organisations. PubAFs are an important part of Australia's philanthropic landscape given their public benefit purpose, yet little is known about this sector's characteristics and identities. This paper examines PubAFs, analysing online databases and reports and PubAF websites (where available). Based on the analysis of data from three sources: the Australian Charities and Not‐for‐profits Commission, Australian Taxation Office, and websites of 991 PubAFs (where available), this study provides valuable insights for the public, philanthropic practitioners, and researchers. Findings systematically map the field to develop an extended taxonomy, as a basis for promoting understanding and legitimacy beyond PubAFs’ moral intentions, providing valuable insights into an opaque group of organisations at a time when the philanthropic sector's transparency is limited and legitimacy is being questioned.

show abstract

“…Within nonprofit accountability literature questions are posed to enable NPOs to broaden their understanding of accountability and to facilitate more meaningful discussions of the topic (Ebrahim, 2016;Jordan, 2007;Murtaza, 2012;Najam, 1996;O'Dwyer and Boomsma, 2015;Schmitz, Raggo and Vijfeijken, 2012;Williamson, Luke and Furneaux, 2018). These questions form a conceptual accountability framework for NPOs (Ebrahim, 2016) In order to position this accountability framework critically, the lens of dialogic accounting theory is applied.…”

Section: Literature Review Accountability In Nposmentioning

confidence: 99%

From monologic to dialogic

Kingston

Furneaux

Zwaan

et al. 2019

AAAJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Why Be Accountable? Exploring Voluntary Accountability of Australian Private Ancillary Funds

Cited by 10 publications

References 45 publications

Performance measurement, evaluation and accountability in public philanthropic foundations

Performance measurement, evaluation and accountability in public philanthropic foundations

Mapping the field of public ancillary funds

From monologic to dialogic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About