Human Services: The Three Types Of Accountability

What is accountability? Accountability is, “a requirement, usually impose by a funding source that an agency perform according to a certain set of standards” (Mandell & Schram, 2012, p. 550). In human services filed, accountability has always been a significant component. Being accountable basically define as the responsibility to answer questions concerning decisions and/or actions. Nowadays, as federal, state, and local requirements, detail of policy is spelled out in human service system (American Public Human Services Association [APHSA], 2013). Under the accountability, there are three categories develop: (1) financial, (2) performance, and (3) political/democratic accountability (Brinkerhoff, 2003).
First, financial accountability is
using the tools of auditing, budgeting, and accounting to obtain information about utilization of financial resources, tracking distribution, and reporting on distribution. Second, performance accountability talks about representing and accounting for performance, “in light of agreed-upon performance targets” (Brinkerhoff, 2003, p. 11). For example, performance accountability focuses on service, outputs, and results. Third, political/ democratic accountability has to do with the organizations, processes, and mechanisms which make sure, “that government delivers on electoral promises, fulfills the public trust, aggregates and represents citizens’ interests, and responds to societal needs and concerns” (Brinkerhoff, 2003, p. 11).
In human services agencies, direct services care are influenced by accountability standards.
In An Introduction to Human Services book, Mandell and Schram (2012) stated, “agencies are increasingly under the gun for accountability and effectiveness” (p. 550). Agencies have to concern with quantity and numbers which can hinder the quality of service. For example, accountability issues can arise in health services delivery. Three purpose of accountability can assessed these issues which are to control the misuse of public resources, to provide assurance that resources are used and authority exercised according to legal procedures, and to support improved service delivery and management by getting feedback and learning (Brinkerhoff, 2003). Those purposes directly related to accountability of financial and performance. Currently, some factors reflect the concern with accountability and health systems, such as dissatisfaction with
performance.
Correspondingly, accountability has importance role because of the necessary of the particular knowledge, as well as, “the size and scope of health care bureaucracies in both the public and private sectors, accord health system actors significant power to affect people’s lives and well-being” (Brinkerhoff, 2003, p. 15). For example, accountability is enforced though the ability of clients to shift from clinics which have low quality and performance to high quality and performance if public health clinics are required to compete for clients on the basis of publicly available information on quality and performance. Public versus private providers have some differences in accountability demands, such as service delivery to poor and underserved population. Profit, nonprofit, business, or government, leaders of any organization have to deal with endless demands from many constituents challenging legally responsible performance (Ebrahim, 2010).
When a problem of trust rises, leaders pay attentions to accountability, specifically nonprofit leaders. Prioritizing accountability demands is the most challenging for leadership and management. Problem, such as citizens or donors might want to know where their money spent, and regulators pressure to demonstrate serving, “a public purpose and thus merit tax-exempt status” (Ebrahim, 2010, p. 1).The widely used and required by federal or state laws of accountability are disclosure statements and reports, for example application requirements for tax exemption and annual fillings which request disclosures on finances, organizational structure, and programs. Moreover, three different accountabilities are expected from leaders of organization to be accountable. First, relationship with funders or patrons means upward accountability. Second, relationship with clients means downward accountability. Third, internal accountability concerns with nonprofit themselves, “an organization’s responsibility to its mission and staff” (Ebrahim, 2010, p.
5).
For direct service providers, “reward and salary structures, employment status, and plus staff supervision and reporting can have important impacts on accountability” (Brinkerhoff, 2003, p. 38). For example, attitudinal factors, professional norms, moral, and religious value can influence the extent to which individual service providers feel accountable for the service they offer to clients.