The Strategic Management of Accountability in Nonprofit Organizations: An Analytical Framework
The Strategic Management of Accountability in Nonprofit Organizations: An Analytical Framework
复制标题
非营利组织问责制的战略管理：分析框架
DOI：
10.2307/976528
复制
发表时间：
1994
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
K. Kearns
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Kearns
私营非营利组织在国民经济中构成了一个巨大且不断增长的部门，在提供广泛的社会和人类服务方面，它们是政府的重要合作伙伴。(1)非营利部门的规模和影响力的增长导致了包括政府监督机构、私人捐赠者和基金会、客户、媒体和一般公众在内的不同利益相关者的可见度和公众监督的增加。任何怀疑非营利部门问责日益重要的人，只需浏览专业期刊和报纸的头条新闻，就能找到相反的证据。最近一期《慈善纪事》(1993年1月26日)的报道内容包括：参议院一个特别委员会试图打击选定慈善机构的松懈财务报告；修改IRS=表格，要求提供更多有关慈善机构高级官员工资的信息；加利福尼亚州总检察长关于该州非营利性资金筹集的报告；以及慈善机构不愿对其志愿者进行绩效评估。关注非营利部门的问责问题并不是一个新现象(私人慈善和公共需求委员会，1975)。事实上，自美国出现第三部门以来，公众对该部门的适当作用的审查和争议已经存在了200多年(霍尔，1987A)。这场辩论在去年美国联合之路(United Way Of America)全国办公室发生争议后重新展开，引发了全国媒体、公众，特别是非营利性专业人士的兴趣风暴。今天，在整个非营利部门，人们对以下问题重新产生了兴趣：从实际结果和影响来衡量非营利组织的增值表现(Kanter and Summers，1987；O‘Connell，1988；Drucker，1990)；确保受托人和其他志愿者理解并履行他们的法律和专业责任(Dayton，1987；Carver，1990；Panus，1992)；公开披露与筹资和高管薪酬有关的运营实践(更好的商业局理事会，1982；Hills Bush，1992；Kahn，1992)；以及履行与非营利活动的公共补贴(即免税)相关的显性或隐性义务(阿克曼，1982；西蒙，1987；高卢和博罗夫斯基，1993)。关注非营利组织问责的基本原理问责制的一般概念对大多数政府官员来说都很熟悉，无论是选举产生的还是任命的，但对非营利组织的专业人员来说可能不太熟悉。在关于公共管理和私人管理之间区别的大量文献中，问责的构成要素--政治选民、公共授权、监督机构、制衡和媒体监督--作为政府和营利性组织各自管理背景下的核心区别加以介绍(Allison，1980；Miles，1982，第39-41页)。此外，问责制是公共政策和管理学院课程中的一个普遍主题。因此，甚至在开始他们的职业生涯之前，未来的公务员就已经接触到管理公众期望和在具体的法律和程序问责框架内工作的概念。在商业部门，公共问责的概念在过去三十年里也受到了更多的关注。今天，大多数标准的商业课本都包含关于社会责任、商业伦理和与政府互动的章节，许多商学院现在提供关于这些主题的完整课程。对政府和企业问责制的兴趣产生了大量关于这一主题的文献，集中在问责制的操作定义上(Shafritz，1992，p.…
Private nonprofit organizations comprise a vast and growing sector of the national economy, and they are a vital partner with government in the provision of a wide range of social and human services.(1) Growth in the size and influence of the nonprofit sector has led to increased visibility and public scrutiny by diverse stakeholders including government oversight agencies, private donors and foundations, clients, the media, and the public at large. Anyone who doubts the growing importance of accountability in the nonprofit sector need only scan the headlines of the professional periodicals and newspapers for evidence to the contrary. One recent issue of The Chronicle of Philanthropy (January 26, 1993) contained stories on: the attempts of a special Senate committee to crack down on lax financial reporting by selected charities; modifications of IRS = forms requesting more information on salaries of charities' top officials; a report from California's attorney general on nonprofit fund raising in that state; and the reluctance of charities to conduct performance evaluations of their volunteers. Attention to issues of accountability in the nonprofit sector is not a new phenomenon (Commission on Private Philanthropy and Public Needs, 1975). In fact, public scrutiny and controversy over the appropriate role of the sector has existed for more than 200 years, since the emergence of the third sector in the United States (Hall, 1987a). The debate was revived with intensity following last years controversy in the national office of the United Way of America which sparked a fire storm of interest in the national media, among the general public, and especially in nonprofit professional circles. Today, throughout the nonprofit sector, there is renewed interest in issues such as: measuring the value-added performance of nonprofit organizations in terms of actual outcomes and impacts (Kanter and Summers, 1987; O'Connell, 1988; Drucker, 1990); ensuring that trustees and other volunteers understand and fulfill their legal and professional responsibilities (Dayton, 1987; Carver, 1990; Panus, 1992); public disclosure of operating practices related to fund raising and executive compensation (Council of Better Business Bureaus, 1982; Hills Bush, 1992; Kahn, 1992); and fulfilling explicit or implicit obligations associated with public subsidies (i.e., tax exemptions) of nonprofit activities (Ackerman, 1982; Simon, 1987; Gaul and Borowski, 1993). Rationale for Focusing on Accountability in Nonprofit Organizations The general notion of accountability is quite familiar to most government officials, whether elected or appointed, but perhaps less familiar to nonprofit professionals. In the substantial literature dealing with distinctions between public and private management, the contributing elements of accountability-political constituencies, public mandates, oversight agencies, checks and balances, and media scrutiny--are presented as core differences in the respective managerial contexts of governmental and for-profit organizations (Allison, 1980; Miles, 1982, pp. 39-41). Also, accountability is a prevalent theme in the curricula of schools of public policy and management. Therefore, even before they begin their careers, prospective public servants are exposed to the concept of managing public expectations and working within specific legal and procedural frameworks of accountability. In the business sector, as well, the concept of public accountability has received more attention in the last three decades. Today, most standard business texts contain chapters on social responsibility, business ethics, and interactions with government, and many business schools now offer full courses on these topics. The interest in accountability in government and business has produced a wealth of literature on the topic that has focused on operational definitions of accountability (Shafritz, 1992, p. …