Part Two
7.1 Types of Accountability to Government
monopoly position as no other organisation could provide their services, which are politically sensitive. They perceive that government is unlikely to withdraw their funding. The services they provide are also subject to minimal regulation, and they perceive that they will not be called to account for anything more than the limited reporting they currently undertake.
The CE and board of Case 1 introduced policies to ensure they maintained their independence from government. Every service they provide must not accept more than 50% government funding. They perceive themselves accountable to government but in a limited and measured way.
Resource dependency theorists, as outlined in the theoretical framework, predict that those organisations who are dependent on a funder will perceive themselves accountable to that funder. Respondents showed some resource dependent tendencies. Those who perceived themselves most reliant on government funding prioritised the accountability relationship with government higher than those that did not see themselves reliant.
The relationship between funding and perceptions of accountability is, however, more complex than the resource dependency theorists paint. It was not the perception of actual dependence on government funding that correlated with perceptions of accountability but rather the perceived stability of the funding, the degree to which the organisation perceived itself locked into the dependence on government funding, and the degree to which government regulation affected the operations of the organisation.
7.1.1 Accounting for Funding
This was the most common perception of accountability to government and was expressed in two slightly different ways. The first, expressed by seven respondents, was a ‘means to an end’ or a ‘funder’ relationship. The organisation receives funds from government and perceives itself accountable for spending them appropriately.
Government is perceived as the funder and the organisation as the recipient of funds.
Government may be one of many funders.
The second perception, of six respondents, is a legal expression, or a ‘contractor’
relationship. The organisations thought themselves accountable for the specific outputs that they were contracted to deliver. Government was perceived as the purchaser and the organisation as the provider. The relationship was formal, legal, commercial, and professional.
The organisations reliant on government contracts for resources perceived themselves engaged in both ‘contractor’ and ‘funder’ relationships (Cases 2 and 4).
CEs are most focused on the ‘contractor’ relationship. This can be linked to their lead role in the negotiation and management of contracts, and in reporting to government and the board on progress. Management perceived themselves engaged in the ‘funder’ relationship. While thinking they were accountable to the CE for delivery of specific outputs, management took a more service-orientated approach;
funding was a means to achieve this.
7.1.2 Regulatory Compliance
Six respondents conceptualised their accountability to government in terms of regulatory compliance. Respondents from Case 3 thought particularly about this.
Case 3 received minimal government funding and, while acknowledging its importance, found compliance with regulation costly and time consuming.
This accountability relationship engenders fear. It was a common theme that services (and indeed most activities in the country) were subject to too much regulation. Multiple references were made to a recent court case involving the prosecution of a volunteer sports administrator for the death of one of her event’s
competitors21. Respondents feared that they may not comply one day and so be held personally liable.
I can envisage a day when you won’t be able to have cake stalls because the food wouldn’t have been prepared in a commercial kitchen (3:3).
I think it is a sad thing [increasing level of government regulation] in that you end up losing a lot of the voluntary sector in your community because they can’t afford to comply or don’t have the knowledge to comply and get scared of it (3:3).
Respondents from Cases 1 and 4, while acknowledging the importance of regulation that improves the quality of care, were fretful about the perceived increase in the demands of regulations. They noted that no additional government funding was provided to enable the higher standards to be met.
7.1.3 The Aura of Taxpayer Money
A mystique around spending taxpayers’ money meant two respondents thought they had an added sense of accountability to government. This can be linked to the need for the organisation to maintain its reputation and legitimacy. Being seen to spend taxpayers’ money wisely was part of this.
Most respondents, however, perceived money from government as another input or payment for services.
21 Astrid Anderson, the organiser of the 2001 Le Race cycle race in Christchurch, was convicted of criminal nuisance following the death of a competitor in the race. The court case in 2003 had a high media profile given the potential ramifications of its outcome for future event organisers. A number of school principals cancelled camps in fear of liability following the decision. Media attention focused on the organisers of the Tauranga, Katikati, Te Puke and Waiora Christmas parades who decided to cancel Santa’s lolly scramble fearing criminal liability should any child be hurt by falling sweets or the ensuing scramble for them. The conviction was eventually quashed on appeal in 2004.
Government contracts and there is an expectation that you meet your contractual arrangements and it is really not more complicated than that but once you start getting into the emotional area of ‘you people are spending taxpayers dollars’ it is a beautiful excuse for [a government department] again to indulge in its exercise of power (4:7).
Indeed, when perceptions of taxpayer money are compared with perceptions of funding from private donors (another important source of funding), donor dollars are held in higher regard.
I am accountable to the man in the street who gives his money and it is really our job to make sure that money is used well (1:3).
This is possibly because donor funds are not tagged to specific outputs, as government funding is, and can be used at the organisation’s discretion. Funds from private sources are also more precarious. How much the public will donate in one year, or how much is bequeathed, varies.