I found this week's reading in the Jossey-Bass handbook to be very interesting regarding accountability. I specifically was interested in whom non-profits are accountable to, because that focus can be extremely challenging. We learned that there are three different ways as to "whom" non-profits can be accountable to. According to Ebrahim (2010), they are categorized as upward (to donors, foundations, government, etc), downward (to the community, or constituents) and horizontal (to each other within the organization, and carry out the mission).
The question I pose is, which is most important? Or are they all equal? The easy answer is that they are equal but I do not believe they are. In my opinion, and it's just an opinion, that the hand that feeds you is whom you are most accountable to. Therefore, upward accountability is extremely important because it is the donors and foundations who are providing you with the funds to serve the community and thus carry out the mission of the organization.
I think this is a topic for much debate. I ask again, which is most important? It's hard to argue for just one because as I said, each of them can be equally important. I curious to see others can support how downward or horizontal accountability is more important than upward accountability.
-Matt Schofield
Great questions Matt! People may groan, as I’ve said this before, but the “accountability to whom” question may be best answered within the context of the field of the organization in question. (Anyone care to counter this? I'd like to hear another opinion!)
ReplyDeleteFor example, an arts and cultural organization whose mission is to provide the public with access to diverse artwork could easily have their hands tied by funders or donors who want the organization to limit what they present. Controversies like the Chocolate Jesus Sculpture prove that some interest groups do try to exert control over what is or is not “art.” http://www.cbc.ca/arts/artdesign/story/2007/03/30/sweet-lord.html/
The Tioga County Historical Society has a fund of several thousand to be used only on African American programming. This is a good purpose for that money, but for any organization having a temporarily hard time paying their electric bill, this is very frustrating. * It’s a case where the hand that feeds you is giving you food only if you perform a certain trick.
Ebrahim does note that most funders and donors are sensitive to the organization’s needs, but I am a little wary of the organization that doesn’t feel equal if not greater accountability to those whom they serve, over those who exert control in the forum of funding. In addition, if the hands that feed you are “customers” because you are a service-based organization, will the underprivileged receive what they need as well?
*Very few grants to arts and cultural organizations are operating grants; most are for specific projects only. The United Cultural Fund for Broome County is unique because they actually give operating grants to organizations like the Roberson Museum, Tri-Cities opers, EPAC and the Cider Mill Playhouse. From hard-copy literature from the UCF that I have, I know that in 2007 they gave the Roberson a $92,725 operating grant. http://www.bcartscouncil.com/united_cultural_fund.asp/
This is a very tricky question to answer. On one hand, nonprofits exist because of the people who use their services and therefore, it seems like it would be most important to be accountable to the population an organization serves. On the other hand, nonprofit organization also exists because of their donors, so how can we say that it isn't most important to be accountable to the people who provide the funds that make it possible for an organization to operate? While I think organizations of course need to be accountable to both the donors and the populations they serve, I believe an organization’s main focus should be on what it can do for its clients, not what it can do for its funders. Nonprofits obviously do not want to lose funders because they are vital to the longevity of the organization, but ultimately I believe that an organization needs to put its clients before all else. Should a situation occur in which a funder did not want was best for the organization then, it would probably be best for that organization to cut its ties with the funder and find someone else to provide that kind of support. Generally, funders should want what is best for an organization and the clients it serves so I do not really think we need to question too frequently who is most important. If organizations are true to their mission, they should know the answer to this question should they be put in a situation to choose.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrea that the question of "to whom" depends a lot on the service organization and context in which it serves. Nonprofits should always be held accountable to their donors because donors want to know how money is being used and because a nonprofit cannot exist without donors (with the exception of rare cases of highly successful social enterprise projects). However, the question of accountability toward beneficiaries is more tricky. In many situations, the beneficiaries are individuals who are underserved, uneducated, and disempowered. While one would hope that a nonprofit would do its best to meet its goals and mission, the individuals who receive services are often not in a place to advocate for themselves for different or better services. Also, beneficiaries of social services often do not have other options available to them, and if other options are available, beneficiaries are not likely to be aware of the existence of the service or how to access it. All of that being said, beneficiaries, especially those who pay little to no fees for services, are powerless when compared to the donors who fund organizations. Although I would hope we would ask for and value feedback from beneficiaries of services, I think all to often this group of marginalized people remains lowest on the totem pole when it comes to organizational accountability.
ReplyDeleteThese are very interesting questions, Matt! After giving these questions some thought and changing my mind several times, my opinion is that upward and downward accountability are equal in importance.
ReplyDeleteAs we learned from our reading, one of the purposes of organizations' feedback is fund accountability. Organizations must show their funders that they have used the funds given to them for the purposes in which they were intended to be used. Without fund accountability, organizations would lose their credibility, funding, and ability to carry out their missions.
On the other hand, downward accountability is very important, as well. Organizations must be accountable to the people they serve, because doing so will cause organizations to provide services that are more in line with what the public needs and wants.
I am glad that I was not the only one who notice the negative perception that has been put on beneficiaries from some nonprofit funders and providers. I think this 'bad romance' among funders, providers and beneficiaries is why nonprofits are often scrutinized. With for-profit, you know people are investing in these businesses for money. But with non-profit, you are investing in lives. Nothing is more precious than a life. So, when the public hear about scandals in nonprofits that usually are due to failure of transparency, it hurts the human soul and ultimately trust.
ReplyDeleteThank you to all of you for your feedback and great responses. It certainly makes us all think in different ways.
ReplyDelete