University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Accountability in public -private partnerships

(USC Thesis Other)

Accountability in public -private partnerships

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality o f the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
by
Muhittm Acar
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment o f the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION)
December 2001
Copyright 2001 Muhittin Acar
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
U M I Number 3065755
Copyright 2001 by
Acar M uhittin
A ll rights reserved.
U M I*
U M I Microform 3065755
Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
A ll rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor M l 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
T he G raduate School
U n iv ersity Park
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-1695
Thi s dissertation, written by
HuViiHin A c a r ___________
Under the direction o f his~. Dissertat i on
Commi t t ee, and approved by all its me mb e r s ,
has been presented to and accepted by Th e
Gr aduat e S c h o o l , in partial fulfillment of
requi rements for the degree o f
D O C TO R O F P H ILO SO PH Y
Dean o f Graduate Studies
D ate December 17 . 2001
D IS S E R T tM M lTT E E
r
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation
to my parents, §ukriiye and Ibrahim Acar,
and
to the memory o f my dearest friend, the late Administrative Judge, Mahmut Kabukcu
It is an honor to acknowledge and thank my parents for the unconditional love and
unwavering support that they continue to provide me and my siblings. My mother,
SQkruye Acar, never had the opportunity to go to school. My father, Ibrahim Acar,
had only three-years o f formal education. Thanks to my parents’ love of education,
three of their six children have bachelors degrees and two have Ph.Ds. I am
profoundly grateful for the sacrifices my parents had to endure along the way. I
especially applaud their wisdom and courage for providing my three sisters with
equal educational opportunities in an environment where sending girls to high
school, let alone college, was largely unheard o f at the time.
Mahmut and I became friends when both of us were studying at Ankara University’s
School of Political Sciences. Over the years, we have struggled together to overcome
similar difficulties and dilemmas, and shared our dreams and moments of joy. He got
married, became a father, and suddenly died, all of which happened while I was
studying away from home. Mahmut was a man o f character, courage, and
compassion. I deeply miss his presence every day. May he rest in peace.
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOW LEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, my heartfelt appreciation goes to Dr. Peter J. Robertson,
my Chair, and to Dr. Richard A. Sundeen, and Dr. Priscilla Wohlstetter, my
committee members. I am grateful for their excellent guidance and advice, and for
providing encouragement and support when I most needed them. My deepest debt is
to Dr. Robertson, who offered constructive criticism and sound counsel at every
stage of my doctoral studies, and who also provided valuable editorial help in the
preparation of the final copy of this dissertation. I must add that I greatly appreciate
and very much enjoyed the many stimulating conversations on a wide range of topics
that we had over the years.
I want to express my appreciation to three outstanding teachers from
Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz School, Dr. Harry Faulk, Dr. David Krackhardt,
and Dr. Sharon McCarthy, for providing inspiration and insight, as well as strong
support in my doctoral applications. I was also fortunate to be a student of an
exceptional group of scholars at USC. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the
invaluable contributions that the following individuals made to my preparation
leading to this dissertation: Dr. Paul Adler, Dr. Brian Borys, Dr. Rose Clayton, Dr.
Terry Cooper, Dr. David Lopez-Lee, Dr. Robert Stallings, and Dr. Shui Yan Tang. I
am especially grateful to Dr. Cooper, for his sound advice and support both as a
member of my Guidance Committee and as Director o f Doctoral Programs in Public
Administration.
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I also wish to express my appreciation to the many individuals and
organizations that, in one way or another, facilitated my graduate studies in the
United States. First and foremost, I am very much grateful for the scholarship
provided by Republic o f Turkey and Adnan Menderes University. I am also grateful
to Dr. Elizabeth Graddy, Dr. Thomas Cummings, and Dr. Koichi Mera and Huge
Evans, for providing valuable learning opportunities for me as a teaching assistant,
lab instructor, and facilitator and coordinator, respectively. I am deeply grateful to
Dr. Cezmi Onciier, President o f Adnan Menderes University, and Dr. Halil Qivi,
Dean of the School o f Economics and Administrative Sciences, for providing strong
support at every stage o f my graduate studies. 1 would also like to thank the staff at
Adnan Menderes University and at USC who did so much to make the process move
smoothly. June Muranaka o f SPPD and Ahmet Gungor of Adnan Menderes
University deserve special acknowledgement for their extremely helpful attitudes.
I also want to acknowledge a special debt to the leadership and staff of the
National Association o f Partners in Education and the Partnership Directors
Network, for graciously providing access to their meetings during the 15 th Partners in
Education National Symposium. Dr. Barbara Hopkins and Eiko Moriyama deserve
special recognition for their help in recruiting fellow partnership practitioners for the
field research conducted for and reported in this dissertation. I am also most grateful
to all the partnership practitioners who took time to participate in this field research.
I appreciate the time, information and insight they shared with me. Any errors of
fact, interpretation and omission are of course my responsibility.
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In the coarse o f my studies at the USC, I met with a wide range of Turkish,
American, and international friends, including Nobuyuki Ainoya, Ibrahim
Aldanmaz, Dr. Nitin Bhatt, §ukru Bilir, Richard Callahan, Youngsoo Choi, Dr.
Elizabeth Columa, Alpaslan Qetin, Kemal Demirciler, Hakan Doganer, Dr. Ami
Doshi, Chao Guo, Shih Cho David Huang, Tim Huerta, Jill Humpries, Dr. Ne§e
Kanoglu, Dr. Utku Kanoglu, Tolga Koker, Ayten Nalbant, Nail and Beyza Oztas, Dr.
Mehmet Ali Ozturk, Otto Paredes, Joseph Parker, Vandana Prakash, Arial and Ana
Maria Ramirez, Asaf Behzat §ahin, Rym Saidane, Jonathan Van Speier, Motti and
Yael Tali as, Mustafa Tinmaz, Bart Verbelen, Dr. Gojko Vuckovic, Dr. Soner
Yildmm, and Mete Yildiz. I cherish their friendship, and am thankful for anything
and everything they have shared with me over the years. I am especially indebted to
Nail, Chao, and Ayten, for their extraordinary help and support during my stay in
Los Angeles through the final stage of this dissertation.
I am also indebted to my old friends, Ziya Altunyaldiz, Dr. §akir Berber,
Mehmet Comert, Ugur Emek, Cengiz Erkoyuncu, Eyup Sabri Kaya, Cengiz Koca,
and Fatih Ozer, and to my cousins Mehmet Konukcu and Namik §enol, for their
unwavering support.
My colleagues and friends in Nazilli were also very supportive with abundant
good will. My distinguished colleague and friend, Dr. Huseyin Ozgur, deserves
special acknowledgement for the strong moral support and able technical assistance
he provided during the writing of earlier drafts of this dissertation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Last but not least, in addition to my parents, §ukruye and ibrahim Acar, I am
deeply grateful to my brothers Tahir and Muharrem, my brother-in-law Erkin, my
sisters Aynur, Keziban, and Zulfiye, and my sister-in-law Nakiye who provided
ongoing moral support during my graduate studies. My nephews Erol, Ibrahim,
Oguz, and Ami Emre, and my nieces Hacer, Ozlem, and Ash Ege, continue to be
source of joy and inspiration for me.
This dissertation could not have been possible without the support,
contributions, and advice of the people listed above, as well as many others. They
have contributed more than I know or they would admit. To all of them, my deepest
gratitude.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
TABLE O F CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List o f Tables viii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1 - Introduction 1
Chapter 2 - Conceptual Framework 15
Chapter 3 - Research Design and Methodology 69
Chapter 4 - Findings 89
Chapter 5 - Discussion 163
Bibliography 206
Appendix I 223
Sample e-mail message sent to prospective participants
Appendix 2 225
Interview guide
Appendix 3 227
Interview questions related to each research issue
Appendix 4 229
Coding processes and categories
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
3.1 Participants by Title, and Organizational and Sectoral Affiliation 75
3.2 Participants by Level o f Education 77
3.3 Participants by Major o f Study
77
3.4 Participants by Professional Experience 78
4.1 Words or Phrases Associated with Accountability 90
4.2 Functions and Purposes o f Accountability 92
4.3 Accountability to Whom
99
4.4 Accountability for What 105
4.5 Sectoral Differences
107
4.6 Sector More Concerned with Accountability 107
4.7 Place of Accountability in Partnerships 116
4.8 Information on Activities and Performance 121
4.9 Informal-Formal Dimension in Accountability 125
4.10 Consequences of Accountability 133
4.11 Challenges and Difficulties 136
4.12 Recommendations 148
vtii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this exploratory study has been to identify, describe, and
evaluate the critical issues and challenges associated with accountability in public-
private partnerships. The data for the study were drawn from field research focusing
on public-private partnerships formed between K-12 schools and private and
nonprofit organizations in the United States. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews
were conducted with forty practitioners, many o f whom were partnership
coordinators/directors. The participants come from seventeen different states and all
three sectors.
The study found that accountability is becoming more salient and significant
in the functioning of educational partnerships. It was also found that outcomes-
oriented and client-oriented views of accountability were more prevalent among the
practitioners, along with partnership accountability, community accountability, and
quasi-professional accountability. The analysis of the findings pointed to five distinct
roles for accountability; mapping and manifesting expectations, mobilizing and
motivating (ex-ante), monitoring and measuring progress and performance,
modifying, and mobilizing and motivating (ex-post). The most frequently cited
difficulties associated with accountability in partnerships were the availability of and
access to information, sectoral and personal differences, and frequent changes in
personnel, resources, and partners. The most frequently offered recommendations for
creating successful public-private partnerships and maintaining effective
accountability in these systems were mapping and mutually-adjusting expectations,
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
building relationships, developing measures and a measurement system, and
identifying and involving all relevant stakeholders.
It was concluded that, to provide effective accountability in and o f multi
sectoral partnerships, the collective and collaborative nature o f partnerships as well
as the com plex and com plicated nature o f accountability issues involved should be
acknowledged and appreciated, and cross-w alking o f traditional organizational and
sectoral boundaries should be anticipated and attempted. It was further maintained
that accountability in collaborative settings should be conceived as a continuous and
com prehensive process, should emphasize and reflect collective responsibility and
consensus, and should encourage the use o f a creative com bination o f informal and
formal means and mechanisms. The study concludes with a discussion o f the
meaning o f and conditions for answerability in multi-sectoral networks and
partnerships, followed by implications for future research, management and
education.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Accountability has been the subject o f many scholarly articles and books, and much
popular discussion. In recent years, there has also been a significant growth in both
scholarly and practitioner-oriented literature focusing on interorganizational
collaboration and networks in general, and public-private partnerships in specific.
Yet, compared to what has been written about accountability in and o f single,
autonomous, hierarchic organizations, little has been written on accountability in the
context o f interorganizational networks and public-private partnerships. The topic
has largely been neglected. This study constitutes one of the first attempts to remedy
the paucity o f research on the topic. The purpose of the study is thus, to identify,
describe, and evaluate the critical issues and challenges associated with
accountability in public-private partnerships. The data for the study are drawn from a
field research focusing particularly on the public-private partnerships formed to
accomplish tasks in the area of education in the United States.
1.1 Changing Task Environments o f Public Organizations
Twenty-seven years ago, in an A dm inistration & Society article, one of the greatest
thinkers of Public Administration, the late Dwight Waldo, discussed two scenarios
about the organizational future, namely, totalitarianism and anarchy, along with
some implications of each for public morality. Under “the anarchy scenario” he
outlined four themes that, taken together, reflect well some o f the major changes that
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
have long been taking place in the task environments within which public
organizations have to live and operate. According to Waldo (1974:278-279),
First, ...{there is} a trend away from bureaucratic organization—that is,
hierarchical organization characterized by acceptance o f authority,
discipline, regularity, sharply delineated competencies and positions, a
career within the organization— ... {toward} temporary, collegial, and
organic styles o f organizations. Second, there is w ide agreem ent that
‘ m ixed’ organizations w ill have an increasingly large role [in the
fu tu re]. By ‘mixed’ is here meant organizations in which the traditional
attitudes, values, and rules o f ‘public’ and ‘private’ are mixed and
mingled, to the extent that these old categories become meaningless for
at least a large part of the organizational world. ... Third, it is widely
observed that because society is so complex, the scope o f problems so
large, the chains of cause and effect so long and complicated, the
demands o f the fu tu re w ill rest not so much on the efficient management
o f single, discrete organizations but on the—there is no good w ord here:
'management ’ ? 'coordination ’ ?—o f chains, complexes, and system s o f
organization. Fourth, there is now a large literature calling attention to
the growth o f super-, or multi-, or transnational organizations. ... Now,
these four trends are not, o f course, to be thought of as independent
phenomena. They overlap and intertwine, each being more or less an
aspect of the other. Much of what is seen as taking place is captured in
Harlan Cleveland’s dictum: “The future is horizontal.” (emphasis
added).
The four developments anticipated and discussed by Dwight Waldo more than
a quarter century ago have indeed increasingly becoming realities of today. First,
while hierarchical organization and its many attentive features are still recognizable
in the way many societal functions and institutions are organized within and across
different nations, there has also been a move away from hierarchical and centralized
organizational models to horizontal and decentralized ones across many different
countries. Starting with the matrix, there is now a long list of organizational forms,
such as cluster, cellular, and virtual, all of which point to the increased use of cross-
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
functional/cross-departmental forms o f organizing within and across different
organizations. In the words o f Parsons (1998: 87), in many issue areas, “hierachy
gives way to heterarchy.”
Second, the use o f various forms of partnerships that bring together
organizations from different sectors (i.e., public, private, and non-profit) has become
more widespread than ever before. Public-private partnerships have emerged as a
new tool or method o f addressing important societal concerns and delivering services
through the collaborative efforts and thus the combined strengths of organizations
and individuals from multiple sectors. Various forms o f this new multi-sectoral
institutional arrangement have been utilized in such diverse issue areas as the
environment (e.g., Long and Arnold, 1995; McCoy-Thompson, 1998), economic
development (e.g., Bennett and Krebs, 1991; Collin, 1998; Colman, 1989), urban
renewal (e.g., McNeil, 1995; Sweath and Anthony, 1995), health care (e.g.,
Alexander, Comfort, and Weiner, 1998), human services (e.g., Bardach and Lesser,
1996; Mandell, 1994), and education (e.g., Cuban, 1983; Mann, 1984, 1987a, 1987b;
National Alliance o f Business, 1991; Solomon, 1991).
Third, there is a growing realization of the complexities o f interorganizational
alliances and networks as well as the challenges and opportunities they present in the
functioning o f many public, private, and nonprofit organizations (e.g., deLeon, 1994;
Gulati, 1998; Kanter, 1994; Korac-Boisvert and Kozmin, 1994; LaPorte, 1996;
Powell, 1990). Put differently, in many issue areas, “iron cages give way to plastic
nets or, . . .bureaucratization gives way to...Jiletisation and bureaucracy gives way to
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
filetarc/jy” (Parsons, 1998: 91, from French word ‘filet’, or net; emphasis in
original).
Finally, with recent trends toward globalization, the number and importance
of ‘supra-, multi-, or transnational organizations’ (e.g., the United Nations, the
European Union, the NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, multi-national
corporations and multi-national nongovernmental organizations) have increased
tremendously.
These developments have no doubt changed and will continue to affect both
the way public services are organized and delivered, and how we define, examine,
and evaluate them. While occurring at different levels and with varying degrees of
speed and success, these four major developments, as Waldo (1974) pointed out,
influence one another in many ways. For instance, globalization increases the
likelihood that many more multi-national, multi-organizational, and multi-sectoral
networks and partnerships will be formed to tackle problems that require the
cooperation of actors coming from different organizations, sectors, and nations (e.g.,
Fox, 2001; Gray, 1990; Kanter, 1994; Lindenberg, 2001; Ohmae, 1989). Likewise, to
keep up with the changing characteristics o f the environment within which they
function, and to manage effectively in an increasingly networked world,
organizations may find it highly useful to revise their internal structures and
processes, aiming to create more flexible and more outward-looking forms and
processes (e.g., Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998; Painter, Isaac-Henry, and Rouse,
1997).
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
More importantly, however, all these developments call our attention to,
among others, two overarching challenges, distinct yet related. The first challenge
relates to the question of how to manage effectively interdependencies existing
within as well as between organizations, sectors, and nations. In other words, as such
interdependencies become increasingly salient and important in the functioning of
many different types of organizations, so are the importance of policies and
processes aiming to manage them effectively. The second challenge draws the topic
a bit closer to home. It concerns the issue o f envisioning and developing a set of
accountability policies and processes that, at once, are conducive to effective
coordination o f the polices and activities of those autonomous yet interdependent
actors, and are adequate to gauge correctly, if not precisely, the effects on their
individual and common objectives o f the decisions and actions taken by the same
actors either jointly, or each acting alone. Framed this way, the question of
accountability becomes important whenever and wherever there is a need to
coordinate the decisions and actions o f at least two autonomous actors.
The changes described above pose significant accountability challenges for
people involved in collaborative undertakings within and between organizations,
sectors, and nations, as well as for those who have a stake in monitoring the progress
and performance of those collaborative undertakings, hi a sense, the changes in all
four categories deserve some attention because o f the accountability challenges they
present to the members and managers of many different organizations, including
public organizations. For instance, Parsons (1998) defines and discusses a dozen
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
issues falling into the first category (e.g., shifting from hierarchical discipline to
regulation, from rigid structures to flexible, ad hoc structures, from clear, shared
public service values to unclear, fragmented values). He then goes on to submit that
these changes, taken together, have rendered the traditional view of responsibility
obsolete, or unattainable at best. He argues that:
(A)s we enter the millennium we must turn and bid farewell to the liberal
idea o f responsible representative government as the best way to hold
our rulers to account. We have, in short, to devise fuzzy systems of
democracy to ensure that our fuzzy forms of responsibility work (p. 88).
Similarly, by focusing on the changes in the fourth category, we might ask, for
instance, what are the implications o f the increasing power of the EU for public
service ethics and accountability in the region and beyond? The focus of the current
study is, nonetheless, on the implications for public accountability of the
developments in the second and third categories cited above, which will be discussed
next.
1.2 Accountability in M ulti-sectoral Networks and Partnerships
The question of how best to hold organizations accountable for their actions and
performance has long been a matter o f concern in the public, private, and nonprofit
sectors. In the context o f public organizations, the discussion can be traced back to
the now classic Friedrich-Finer exchange o f the 1940s, where the main issue was
whether society should rely more on expertise and professionals (Friedrich, 1940), or
politics and politicians (Finer, 1941) in the pursuit of its interests in public policy
processes (cf. Sutherland, 1993). The former believed that “modem bureaucracy is
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
capable o f self-control,” while the latter argued that “it is necessary to maintain
strong external oversight over government agents and agencies” (Romzek, 1996: 97).
Dwight Waldo’s now classic The A dm inistrative State (1948) is a detailed testament
to the complexity and challenges surrounding the so-called politics-administration
dichotomy in modem government, hi fact, the blurring o f the boundaries between
policy formulation and policy implementation has only intensified since then. So has
the debate among scholars of political science and public administration about its
implications for public accountability in a democratic polity. For instance, writing on
public accountability some twenty-seven years ago, Johnson, (1974: 3) eloquently
observed the challenging characteristics o f the issue, by singling out as the chief
culprit the increased complexity of both public services themselves and the
administrative structures created to undertake them:
Few would dispute that we now live in conditions in which it is difficult
to say precisely what we mean in practice by ‘accountability5 in
administration, and even more difficult to assert with confidence that we
know how to enforce i t It is clear that much of the difficulty both in
respect o f definition and enforceability can be attributed to the scale and
character o f the public activities and services for which we wish to
establish accountability, and to the complexity and novelty o f the
executive structures which have been devised to undertake these tasks.
The apparent simplicity o f the political and administrative geography in
which our traditional notions o f accountability were shaped and put to
work has been supplanted by a map of administrative life of appalling
complexity and uncertainty. We have literally lost the capacity to
provide even a reasonably complete and accurate map o f the public and
quasi-public sector, let alone to describe with precision the conditions
under which many of the bodies in it are operating and the extent to
which they find themselves in relationships o f accountability.
Yet the blurring of the boundaries between policy making and implementation,
and thus politics and administration, through the creation of new public
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
organizations has been only one of the many challenges confronting those interested
in the issue o f public accountability. Among the developments that complicated the
issue o f public accountability over time was the devolution or “downloading” of
public authority and resources from central/federal governments to state and local
governments as well as toward nonprofit and private organizations, a trend which has
intensified in the US after the New Federalism of the Reagan Administration.
Salamon (1989: 11) captures well the issue at hand when he asserts that:
(T)hird party government creates serious problems o f management and
accountability for which standard public administration theory fails to
prepare us. This is because...third party government places significant
shares o f the authority for running federal programs into the hands of
nonfederal, often nonpublic, institutions over which federal managers
have imperfect control at best.
Adding to this complexity is the fact that there are now more interactions between
individuals and organizations that cut across organizations, jurisdictions, and sectors.
In fact, we have increasingly came to live in what Rhodes (1997: 7) calls a
‘differentiated polity’, a polity characterized by functional and institutional
specialization and the fragmentation of policies and politics through
intergovernmental relations, policy networks, governance, and so on. There remains
the critical and not-so-unassuming task o f identifying, describing, and addressing the
accountability challenges that all these and other sim ilar developments continue to
bring to the members of a ‘differentiated polity1 , including the scholars and
practitioners of public administration. Weber (1999: 451) contributed significantly to
the debate on accountability when he posed the following provocative question,
S
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
capturing well some o f the major changes that have been in the making in the
contemporary world of public administration for quite some time:
(T)he American polity is on the verge o f redefining a broadly acceptable
system o f democratic accountability. The problem is: What does an
effective system of accountability look like in a world o f decentralized
governance, shared power, collaborative decision processes, results-
oriented management, and broad civic participation?
More to the point, however, is the wanting state o f theory and research on
accountability in such a world. As Weber (1999) himself noted, the primary focus of
the public administration literature on accountability so far has been the single
agency. In other words, most theories of accountability have been concerned with
activities taking place in the context of a hierarchical system. As O’Toole (1997a)
aptly observed, even most recent scholarly work on accountability in public
administration does not take the networks and partnerships into account. They
usually treat the accountability as if the phenomenon is concerned only with “lonely
organizations”, organizations that live and function in isolation from one another.
Many researchers have noted that because o f their differences from traditional
bureaucracies (e.g., their emergent, temporary and voluntary characteristics)
interorganizational networks in general, and public-private partnerships in particular,
present significant challenges to traditional norms and forms of accountability
(Alexander, Comfort and Weiner, 1998; Bardach and Lesser, 1996; deLeon, 1994;
Ghere, 1996; O’Toole, 1997b; Radin and Romzek, 1996; Weber, 1999). While this
issue has been acknowledged by some, the debate about accountability in the
writings of many scholars still revolves around single, autonomous, hierarchical
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
organizations, without giving due consideration to the major developments that have
occurred in recent decades in the task environments o f many public, private, and
nonprofit organizations.
1.3 The Purpose and Relevance of the Study
Since there is every reason to believe that the use of multi-organizational, multi
sectoral collaborative undertakings will only increase in the future, it is important to
develop a more sophisticated knowledge base regarding key aspects of these
partnerships. While there has been a surge in the number of studies pertaining to
public-private partnerships, there is still considerable need for research on some core
dimensions or features o f managing in and through these multi-sectoral, multi-
organizational arrangements. Accountability in these systems constitutes one such
topic. The main purpose o f this dissertation, then, is to identify, describe, and
evaluate the critical issues and challenges associated with accountability in public-
private partnerships. This research is both timely and relevant, given the increased
usage of public-private partnerships in many issue areas, and the paucity of research
on accountability in the context o f these multi-sectoral undertakings.
1.4 Scope o f the Study
This study investigates four major issues pertaining to accountability in public-
private partnerships, which were organized into four categories, namely,
perspectives, practices, problems, and prospects. The first research issue category
includes the question o f how people involved in partnerships view different facets of
accountability (i.e., what, why, for what, and to whom). Second, the study
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
investigates main characteristics o f accountability policies, processes, and practices
currently in use in partnerships. The third issue category, problems, is concerned
with the following question: What are the major challenges and difficulties faced by
the practitioners in terms o f accountability in partnerships? Finally, the study
investigates the prospects for developing more successful partnerships as well as
effective accountability policies and practices in and around these multi-sectoral
collaborative undertakings.
In addition to the literature review, the study employs two qualitative
research tools, namely, semi-structured, in-depth interviews and document analysis,
to investigate the four major issues described above. The data for the study are drawn
from field research focusing particularly on partnerships formed between K-12
public schools and private and/or nonprofit organizations in the United States, which
have been increasingly utilized since the early 1980s. A N ation a t R isk (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) brought to the spotlight concerns
over the quality of education in the United States, especially secondary and
elementary public education. It led to a flurry of activities at the national, state, and
local levels intended to improve educational quality. The National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) reported that the number o f partnerships in public
elementary and secondary schools in the United States grew from 42,200 in the
1983-1984 school year to 140,800 in the 1987-1988 school year (NCES, 1989). The
2000 Annual Report from the National Association o f Partners in Education (NAPE)
It
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
puts the current number of educational partnerships nationwide at over 400,000
(NAPE, 2000).
It should be noted that the term public-private partnership is used in the
literature as an umbrella term to describe different types of collaborative
undertakings between public, private and/or nonprofit organizations, ranging from
simple coordination efforts between two organizations from different sectors, to
more comprehensive initiatives involving a significant number of individuals and
organizations representing all three sectors. Furthermore, public-private partnerships
themselves show great variety on different dimensions. For example, they differ in
terms o f their purposes, structures, complexity, and the like (for different
categorizations o f public-private partnerships along these and other dimensions see,
for instance, Bennett and Krebs, 1991; Long and Arnold, 1995; Rodal and Mulder,
1993; Waddock, 1991). In addition to (or partly as result of) these differences, the
term partnership may at times mean different things to different people. For example,
Linder (1999) identifies and discusses six different meanings attached to the term
public-private partnership: management reform, problem conversion, moral
regeneration, risk shifting, restructuring public service, and power sharing.
While the rubric of public-private partnerships frequently includes such
activities as corporate philanthropic activities, privatization, contracting-out, and
mere volunteerism, the focus of this study is specifically on those partnerships which
attempt to address significant community issues through a sustained collaborative
effort among otherwise independent organizations from multiple sectors. Again,
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
while the strength and intensity of linkages between participating organizations vary,
the degree o f collaboration nonetheless certainly includes but goes beyond simple
information exchanges and coordination activities; participating organizations and
individuals attempt to address one or more significant community issues or concerns
through a sustained collaborative effort. As such, they also go beyond charity,
philanthropy, and mere volunteerism (cf. Waddock, 1988). The definition o f public-
private partnerships used here also excludes lobbying and association activities (cf.
Long and Arnold, 1995), as well as privatization and contracting-out services p er se,
but includes project partnerships and policy partnerships that involve a sustained
collaborative effort to address community issues using such different titles as multi-,
inter-, and transsectoral collaborations, community partnerships, and neighborhood
partnerships.
It should also be noted that public-private partnerships may involve only two
actors, one from each sector, thus presenting a dyadic relation as in the case of a
partnership between a private company and a local public school, or between a city
government and a developer. A cursory browsing of the literature pertaining to
public-private partnerships reveals, however, that many of these collaborative efforts
involve multiple actors from three sectors, thus reflecting the characteristics of
networks most o f the time. As such, the conceptual framework and arguments
developed in this study draw on research on networks, in addition to the research
focusing on public-private partnerships. There is also a great deal o f variation
among networks, in terms o f the content, basis, and scope o f the cooperation and
1 3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
collaboration they involve (for descriptions o f different network categories see, for
example, Mandell, 1999; Rhodes, 1997; Smith and Wohlstetter, 2001). The current
study adopts the following description of networks provided by O’Toole (1997b:
45):
Networks are structures o f interdependence involving multiple
organizations or parts thereof, where one unit is not merely the formal
subordinate o f the others in some larger hierarchical arrangement. ...
The notion of network excludes mere formal hierarchies and perfect
markets, but it includes a very wide range o f structures in between.
1.5 Presentation o f the Study
Chapter 2 provides the conceptual framework for the study. Chapter 3 describes the
research design and methodology. Chapter 4 presents the findings from the field
research undertaken for this dissertation. The final chapter o f the study, Chapter 5,
includes discussion o f the conclusions drawn from the study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 2
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Chapter 2 provides the theoretical foundations for this study of accountability in
public-private partnerships. The chapter is organized into six sections. The first
section focuses on the emergence o f public-private partnerships as a new form of
governance in different issue areas and discusses a number of factors behind the
phenomenon. The second section provides an overview of the rise o f educational
public-private partnerships as an important ingredient of policies aiming to improve
elementary and secondary education in the United States. The section also briefly
describes the National Association o f Partners in Education (NAPE), its affiliates
and activities. The third section provides an overview o f different conceptualizations
related to accountability. Since no single study is likely to cover comprehensively
and completely such a broad and important topic, the focus is narrowed in the fourth
section to identify and discuss some core issues and concerns related to
accountability. The fifth section is devoted to a discussion of accountability
challenges and concerns that are most likely to occur in multi-sectoral, multi-
organizational collaborative settings. The sixth and final section o f the chapter
briefly explains the framework and questions employed in the field research
undertaken as part o f the study.
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2.1 The Emergence o f Public-Private Partnerships as a New Form of
Governance
There has always been some measure of interaction and cooperation between
organizations from multiple sectors (i.e., public, private, and nonprofit). As alluded
to in Chapter 1, this interaction has nonetheless intensified in recent years, resulting
in a surge in the number, scope and influence of multi-organizational, multi-sectoral
forms of collaboration in many issue areas, ranging from health to environment,
from economic development to education. The emergence o f public-private
partnerships as a new form o f governance in many issue areas can be attributed to a
combination of several factors. Chief among them are globalization, the speedy
spread of information and communication technologies around the world, the
resurgence of neo-liberal politics and policies in Western democracies, the severe
financial constraints and budget deficits facing many countries around the world
during the 1980s and 1990s, the increased complexity and interdependence of issues
and players, the rise o f NGOs and civil society around the world, and the spread of
ideas and practices related to the notion of corporate social responsibility or
corporate citizenship. A brief analysis of the main factors that gave rise to the
adoption of public-private partnerships as a new form o f governance is certainly
warranted and is thus provided below.
At a minimum, globalization processes, through intensifying global economic
competition, have compelled governments at all levels, as well as private (and to a
lesser extent nonprofit) organizations, into rethinking the way they do business, hi
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
some cases, the creation o f interorganizational and multi-sectoral collaborative
arrangements have been touted as an effective response to the challenges that
globalization processes have brought about in organizations’ task environments (cf.
Rodal and Mulder, 1993). In addition, in many issue areas, globalization has
facilitated the exchange o f information and ideas regarding the common problems
facing organizations and communities across different countries and regions, and has
contributed to their search for partners from different sectors and countries (e.g.,
Fox, 2001; Lindenberg, 2001). Finally, the endorsement and support from some
international organizations such as the United Nations and European Union for
partnerships should also be noted in this context as a factor contributing to the spread
o f public-private partnerships in various issue areas (cf. Linder, 1999).
The speedy spread o f communication and information technologies around
the world, and the increased awareness of the value o f information systems, have
also contributed to the emergence of public-private partnerships in many issue areas
(Rodal and Mulder, 1993; Weber, 1999). Weber (1999) gives a detailed account of
how advanced information technologies have significantly eased communication
among the participants of collaborative grassroots ecosystem management system
(GREM) and facilitated the dispersal of information to the general public. In
addition, he concludes, “the application of information technologies aids monitoring
efforts, both in terms of mapping the progress toward policy goals and the exercise
o f oversight by elected and bureaucratic officials at the state and federal levels’ * (p.
462).
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Another important factor in the emergence o f public-private partnerships as a
new form o f governance is the resurgence o f neo-liberal politics and policies in
Western democracies, which emphasize the efficiency of market competition in the
provision o f public services and the importance of introducing management reforms
to make government more business like (cf. Linder, 1999). Here it would suffice to
note the support that ideas stemming from the new public management (NPM) and
reinventing government movements (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992) have given to the
development of public-private partnerships. In this context, the impact o f the New
Federalism of the Reagan Administration on the increased use of public-private
partnerships in the United States, especially in the areas of urban renewal and
education, should be noted. For example, Gunyou (1985: 3) cites two chief reasons
for the resurgence o f public-private partnerships in the US in the 1980s: I) the
reduced direct federal assistance to local government, and 2) the shifting of
responsibility for public problems from the federal to the local government level and
from the public to the private sector, both o f which have occurred as part of the New
Federalism.
The increased use of public-private partnerships in such areas as
transportation, communication, and energy has also been attributed to the severe
financial constraints and budget deficits many governments around the world have
been experiencing during the 1980s and 1990s. Faced with unmet expectations of
producing efficient public services for their citizens, many governments have begun
introducing policies conducive to the creation of new models of collaboration in and
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
through multi-organizational, multi-sectoral networks and partnerships in delivering
public services, hi short, the trend has been toward reducing the role of government
in public service delivery in certain areas and encouraging the private and nonprofit
sectors to play a bigger role (McCoy-Thompson, 1998; Rodal and Mulder, 1993;
Rodal and Wright, 1993).
The emergence o f public-private partnerships as a new form of governance
has also been the result o f increased complexity and interdependence of issues and
players. Increasingly, policies and solutions devised for one social issue area must be
developed in conjunction with policies and solutions in other areas. Organizations
are recognizing that they cannot operate effectively in isolation (Rodal and Mulder,
1993: 29-30). In such issue areas as local economic development and education, the
sheer size and complexity o f the problems facing certain communities and countries
points to the need to design and implement effective solutions to public problems
facing communities, small and large. This requires, more and more, the creation of
broad-based coalitions among individual and organizations coming from different
sectors (e.g., Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998; McGuire, Rubin, Agranoff, and Richards,
1994; Waddock, 1991).
The rise of NGOs and civil society around the world can also be mentioned
as an important factor in the emergence of public-private partnerships as a new form
o f governance. In more developed countries, the issue can be posited, first, as one of
the emergence of nonprofit organizations as viable partners for government and
business actors in the quest to devise and implement more effective solutions for a
1 9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
wide range of social problems facing those societies. As devolution and
decentralization have increased, so has the potential for nonprofit organizations to
enter into partnerships with government and business companies, especially at the
local level for public service delivery, hi the same countries, notably in the US, the
rise o f calls for civic/community renewal in the past decade or so has created new
avenues for public-private partnerships (e.g., Potapchuck, Crocker, and Schechter,
1997; Smith, 1997). Similarly, public-private partnerships have been touted as
effective vehicles for creating opportunities for active citizen involvement, as well as
for tapping into the vast potential o f volunteer resources to address public problems
(Rodal and Mulder, 1993; Lappe and Du Bois, 1997; Walsh, 1997). On the other
hand, the spread o f democracy and market economies to other parts of the world, can
be thought of as creating new opportunities for forming public-private partnerships
in those countries.
Finally, the spread o f ideas and practices related to the notion of corporate
social responsibility or corporate citizenship has also been conducive to the increased
use o f public-private partnerships in many issue areas. Here, the emphasis is on the
“enlightened self-interest” that guides private companies toward more active
involvement in the communities within which they operate (e.g., Henton, Melville
and Walesh, 1997). Many researchers, writing in the context of urban co m m unity
renewal policies and activities in the US, have emphasized a changing pattern in the
thinking and policies of American business vis-a-vis their social responsibilities. For
instance, McNeil (1995: 248) talks about “a new model for business-civic
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
leadership,” which “views urban communities as viable markets, rather than civic
liabilities. It sees companies as community partners, not merely corporate
philanthropies.” hi a similar fashion, Sweath and Anthony (1995) analyze the
changing role o f corporations in urban revitalization, where “the new emphasis seeks
to make profit maximization and community building compatible” (p. 239). Indeed,
similar arguments have been advanced vis-a-vis the increased use of educational
partnerships in the US after the 1980s (e.g., Mann, 1986; Merenda, 1989; Stone,
1991), a topic which will be addressed next.
2.2 Public-Private Partnerships in Education in the United States
2.2.1 A Brief History
As noted in the previous section, there has long been some measure of interaction
and cooperation between organizations from different sectors. The area of education
in the United States has been no exception. For instance, Gray (1984: 405) tracks the
first organized school/community partnerships back to 1956, when the Public
Education Association established the New York City School Volunteer Program.
The latest rise of educational partnerships in the US, however, has mostly been
traced back to the early 1980s, to the publication of A N ation a t R isk (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). A N ation at R isk brought to the
spotlight concerns over the quality o f education in the United States, especially
secondary and elementary public education. It led to a flurry of activities at the
national, state, and local levels intended to improve educational quality. At the
federal level, for instance, the President’s Private Sector Initiatives sponsored
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
national symposia on partnership in education from 1984 to 1988 (Hopkins, 1995).
President Ronald Reagan proclaimed the period from October 1, 1983, through June
30, 1984, as the National Year of Partnerships in Education. At the state and local
levels, part of the focus has been on developing partnerships between public schools
and private and/or nonprofit organizations. The National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) reported that the number of partnerships in public elementary and
secondary schools in the United States grew from 42,200 in the 1983-1984 school
year to 140,800 in the 1987-1988 school year (NCES, 1989). The 2000 Annual
Report from the National Association of Partners in Education (NAPE) puts the
current number o f educational partnerships nationwide at over 400,000 (NAPE,
2000). A survey conducted by NAPE in 1990 found that:
Educational partnerships are rapidly becoming a significant component
o f elementary and secondary schools throughout the United States. Over
half of America’s school districts (51 percent) have active partnership
programs involving an impressive total o f 2,598,296 volunteers. An
estimated 29.7 million students, or 65 percent o f the total number of
American students, attend school districts that have educational
partnerships (NAPE, 1991:9).
A survey conducted by NAPE in 2000 indicates that 69 percent of the school
districts have active partnership programs, while the total number of students
attending schools districts that have partnerships is estimated to be 35 millions
(NAPE, 2001). hi sum, public-private partnerships have become an important
ingredient for policies and practices aiming to improve secondary and elementary
public education in the US.
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The 1980s and 1990s have also witnessed the enactment of special legislation
supporting partnerships between public schools and private and nonprofit
organizations that are worth briefly examining here. First, in line with the Reagan
Administration’s New Federalism, the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) of 1982,
which replaced the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) of 1978,
turned principal program responsibility in the field o f job training to the state
governments and has elevated the role of business in making of and implementing
governmental policy concerning training programs (Nuckols, 1990; O’Loughlin,
1990). The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 replaced the JTPA as the
primary federal authorizing legislation for publicly funded workforce development
programs. Under the WIA, Private Industry Councils will become Workforce
Investment Boards, whose membership, by law, is to be composed primarily of
representatives from business, labor, and education (Boston Private Industry
Council, 2000). Second, the Educational Partnership Act of 1988 authorized the
establishment of the Educational Partnerships Program, which has provided funding
for 30 partnership projects in 20 states between 1990-1994. The Act also required the
Secretary of Education to conduct an annual evaluation o f the projects supported
under the program. A number o f publications on educational partnerships have come
about as a result (e.g., Danzberger and Gruskin, 1993; Grobe, 1993; Tushnet, 1993).
Third, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 has parental participation as its
eight goal, which involves promoting school-family-community partnerships (The
National Education Goals Panel, 1995). And finally, the SchooI-to-Work
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Opportunities Act, signed into law in 1994 and is administered jointly by the U.S.
Departments o f Education and Labor, provides funds to States and local
communities to develop school-to-work systems (The National School-to-Work
Office, 2001).
As the number o f educational partnerships in the US has grown, so has the
number o f publications focusing on them. For instance, partnerships in education
have been the partial or full focus of numerous educational periodicals, including Phi
Delta Kappa (January, 1987), Educational Considerations (Fall, 1988), Educational
Leadership (October, 1989), The Journal o f Staff Development (Spring, 1989),
Educational Horizons (Summer, 1990), and The School Administrator (April, 1990).
Previous research on educational partnerships has focused on a number o f different
issues. For instance, researchers have assessed the value of related legislation or
programs such as the Job Training Partnerships Act o f 1983 (e.g., Nuckols, 1990),
and the Educational Partnership Act of 1988 (e.g., Danzberger and Gruskin, 1993);
analyzed from a historical perspective the reasons behind the latest wave o f business
involvement in public schools (e.g., Cuban, 1983; Timpane, 1984); developed
typologies of partnerships (e.g., Clark 1992; Grobe, 1993); and examined the
developmental stages of educational partnerships (e.g., Smith, 1995). It is safe to
assert, however, that most of the research on the topic to date has been limited to
specific case and/or program descriptions (e.g., Bames and Bates, 1993; Daniels,
1993; Hester, 1986; National Alliance o f Business, 1991; Waddock, 1992; Zachai
and Mirman, 1986), or “how-to” pieces (i.e., how to set up and maintain
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
partnerships) (e.g., Danzberger, 1996; Danzberger and Usdan, 1984; Gray, 1984;
Otterbourg, 1990; Ruffin, 1985). More to the point, the fact remains that little
empirical research exists on how accountability is perceived and practiced in these
multi-organizational collaborative undertakings.
2.2.2 The National Association of Partners in Education
The National Association o f Partners in Education (NAPE), a nonprofit organization
with headquarters located in Alexandria, Virginia, was established in 1988 when the
National School Program merged with the National Symposium on Partners in
Education, which was previously sponsored by the Presidential Board of Advisors on
Private Sector Initiatives (NAPE, 1991). This newly formed organization was to
represent the schools and educators, community groups, and individual volunteers
who worked together to enhance the education of children and youth. The
Association of School Business Partnership Directors (ASBPD) was created in 1986
to aid in the professional development o f individuals in charge of directing
partnership programs. In 1988, the ASBDP affiliated with NAPE and became the
Partnership Directors Network (PDN) (Hopkins and Wendel, 1997: 10-11). A survey
conducted by NAPE in 1990 found that, of all the districts that had partnerships, 34
percent reported that they had a designated coordinator for their programs (NAPE,
1991), while the most recent survey conducted by NAPE puts that figure at 40
percent (NAPE, 2001). NAPE’s web site maintains that: “(t)he 7,500 grassroots
members are primarily those partnership directors who are professional salaried or
volunteer staff in local school districts, community organizations, businesses and
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
chambers o f commerce” (retrieved most recently on August 29,2001). hi addition to
PDN, NAPE has International Partners in Education and National Mentoring
Partnerships as its central affiliates, along with thirty-five state affiliates and ten
regional vice presidents. Its mission statement indicates that its mission is “to
provide leadership in the formation and growth o f effective partnerships that ensure
success for all students.” According to its web site, the efforts o f NAPE focus on
three core competencies: training and technical assistance; research and materials
development; and unique national member network. Dan Merenda, the President and
CEO of NAPE has also emphasized the organization’s role in those three areas
(Interview with Dan Merenda, 04/06/2000). A pamphlet announcing the 18th Annual
Symposium on Partnerships in Education to be held in Anchorage, Alaska, October
31-November 2, 2001, reads in part:
The National Symposium on Partnerships in Education is the world’s
largest annual gathering o f business and education leaders and experts
in the education partnership movement. ... Over the past decade,
PARTNERS IN EDUCATION has provided training and professional
development opportunities to more than 30,000 individuals through
the Symposium and other regional and state conferences.
NAPE has plenty o f publications focusing on educational partnerships, many of
which are how-to-manuals, including different versions o f its 12-step Process for
Program Development and its 7-step Partnership Evaluation Guide. More
information about NAPE, its activities and affiliates can be found at this web
address: http ://www.partnersineducation.org
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23 Accountability: An Elusive Concept and a M ultifaceted Phenomenon
Accountability is variously described, among others, as “an old and tricky subject”
(Barberis, 1998: 451), “a very large and complex subject” (Young et al. 1996: 348),
“an untidy construct” (Kearns, 1994: 187), “a complex concept...{with} many
facets” (Taylor, 1996:57), “a concept with complex dimensions from both an ethical
and a practical point of view” (Wagner, 1989: 16), chameleon (Sinclair, 1995; Quirk,
1997), “a genus with many species” (Dubnick, 1998: 80), a seemingly familiar but
elusive concept (Cooper, 1995), “a cherished concept, sought after but elusive”
(Sinclair, 1995: 219), “multifaceted” (Keams, 1996: 179), “multifaceted and often
difficult to discern in practice” (Thomas 1997: 25), and intractable (Johnson, 1974;
Caiden, 1989).
The existence of these and other similar descriptions o f accountability can be
attributed to four major factors. One is the fact that the debate about accountability
interweaves with parallel debates about such topics as democracy, legitimacy,
responsiveness, citizen participation in governance, ethics, responsibility, leadership,
political and organizational control, and political and managerial reforms (cf. Taylor,
1996: 57). As such, accountability has been the subject of the writings of many
different groups o f people, ranging from philosophers to ethicists, from political
scientists to public administration and organizational researchers, from educators to
journalists and commentators. Since accountability has been examined by such a
broad range of people using different perspectives, it is only natural to get a set of
diverse—and sometimes contradictory and conflicting—opinions as to what
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
accountability is all about. Just to cite one example, in a special issue on
accountability o f a journal specializing in nonprofit organizations, the topic was
examined by five different scholars, using an ethical perspective (Lawry, 1995), a
legal perspective (Chisolm, 1995), an economic perspective (Bogart, 1995), an
historical perspective (Hammack, 1995), and an organizational perspective (Fry,
1995). There have been numerous scholarly calls for more research on
accountability, aiming to provide conceptual clarity and more rigorous theorizing
about accountability, in general (e.g., Dubnick, 1998; Thomas, 1997), as well as in
such specific contexts as independent review agencies (e.g., Finn, 1993),
decentralized government (e.g., Johnson, 1974; Stanyer, 1974), and multi-
organizational networks and partnerships (e.g., Bardach and Lesser, 1996; Robertson
and Acar, 1999; Weber, 1999).
The second distinct yet related factor points to the challenge and complexity
involved in reconciling the values associated with accountability with other widely
held and cherished values in government such as responsiveness, efficiency, and
effectiveness (Mosher, 1980: 54; Thomas, 1997: 26). Many people would agree on
the view that accountability is a central feature o f a democratic system of
government. Reasonable people would disagree, however, on how the trades-off
between different sets of values could or should be framed and resolved.
The third major factor contributing to the complexity and ambiguity
surrounding accountability has to do with the fact that there is now an ever growing
discrepancy between the traditional notions o f accountability and the working
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
realities o f many different types o f organizations, including public organizations,
thanks to the four major changes described in Chapter I. More to the point is the
need for reconciling the traditional conceptions o f accountability with the complexity
and uncertainty surrounding many public organizations due to increased use of
multi-organizational networks and partnerships. In the words o f Rhodes (1997: 21-
22):
The traditional mechanisms of accountability in representative
democracy were never designed to cope with multi-organizational,
fragmented policy systems. ... The analysis o f multiple discourse in
networks seeks to adapt the notion of accountability to the conditions
of the late 1990s. ... More important is the need to adapt the
mechanisms of representative democracy to the workings o f the
differentiated polity.
Finally, the subject of accountability has traditionally been treated somewhat
differently in the context of public, private, and nonprofit organizations. To begin
with, governments have legitimate authority to influence the accountability
environments of private and nonprofit organizations through issuing rules and
regulations, among others, about filing and reporting requirements and standards for
the latter, hi such cases, parameters of accountability for private and nonprofit
organizations are externally generated. For example, a key theme o f the “corporate
accountability movement” of the 1970s and 1980s was that the corporate governance
processes adopted by large corporations had resulted in socially irresponsible
conduct. It has involved a range o f topics, such as environmentalism and corporate
democracy, and has spawned a wide variety of specific reform proposals, such as
restructuring boards of directors, corporate codes of conduct, and corporate
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
disclosure requirements, some o f which have eventually been put into practice
(Windsor and Greanias, 1984: I). Similarly, the framework of accountability in the
context of nonprofit organizations, especially legal accountability, is influenced
considerably by state law and federal tax-exemption law (e.g., Chisolm, 1995;
Taylor, 1996).
Looking at the issue a bit differently, however, it is reasonable to suggest
that, compared to public organizations, private organizations—and to a lesser extent,
nonprofit organizations—have more freedom to decide which internal accountability
mechanisms they will establish, as well as which externally generated accountability
demands and pressures they will respond/attend to, as long as they operate within the
current laws and accepted norms. Having said this, it is also important to note here
that a number o f researchers point to how some accountability issues have begun
crisscrossing sectoral lines, both in theory and practice (e.g., Kearns, 1994, 1996;
Rosenau, 1999; Taylor, 1996). For example, writing on accountability in the context
o f nonprofit organizations, Taylor (1996) observed that:
Ideas o f welfare accountability have been developed largely in
relation to the public sector. However, there is an expanding literature
on social responsibility and ethics in the private sector, while business
notions of accountability are conversely being taken on board by
government at local and national level {sic} (p. 59).
While the focus of this current study is on public-private partnerships that bring
together individuals and organizations from all three sectors, the purpose here is not
to compare accountabi’ity requirements and conditions of organizations coming from
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
these three sectors. Thus, while informed by accountability in private and nonprofit
sectors, the main framework used in this study is grounded in discussions about
accountability in the context o f public organizations. It should be reiterated here that,
since no single study is likely to cover comprehensively and completely such a broad
and important topic, the focus is narrowed to identify and discuss a few core issues
and concerns. In the following pages, therefore, a number o f different descriptions
and conceptualizations o f accountability will be provided, followed by a discussion
o f the basic elements or questions pertinent to the specification o f an accountability
scheme or system.
2J.1 Accountability: W hat is it? Why is it needed?
Webster’s defines accountability as “the state o f being accountable, liable, or
answerable.” The same source provides two definitions for the word accountable: “I.
Subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible,
answerable. 2.CapabIe of being explained; explicable; explainable” (p. 13). Merriam-
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary provides the following entries: “Accountability: the
quality or state o f being accountable; an obligation or willingness to accept
responsibility or to account for one’s actions. Accountable’ . 1: subject to giving an
account: answerable. 2: capable of being accounted for” (p. 8). Finally, the
HarperCollins Dictionary of American Government and Politics has the following
entry: “Accountability (1) The extent to which one must answer to higher
authority—legal or organizational—for one’s action in society at large or within
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
one’s organization. (2) An obligation for keeping accurate records o f property,
documents, or funds” (cited in Keams, 1994:186).
Some elements o f these dictionary definitions of accountability are widely
echoed in the literature in that a) accountability processes involve, among others, a
certain degree of reporting, explanation, and justification, b) the terms accountability
and responsibility are frequently linked together, even sometimes used
interchangeably, and c) there is an emphasis in the literature on answerability^
especially answerability to a higher authority.
As for the first point, Lawry (1995: 175), for instance, submits that “(w)hat
accountability is about, basically, is... the giving o f a justification or explanation,
even to the precise level o f filing a report This is where the concept gets its true
public dimension.” Somewhat similarly, Benveniste (1985: 264) identifies and
discusses three main functions of accountability: “to inform, to reorient action, and
to justify what is done.”
As far as the link between accountability and responsibility is concerned, it is
sufficient here to note that responsibility is usually defined as reflecting more o f an
internal judgment and o f a state of mind, while there is an emphasis on the external
dimension o f accountability, including the required and/or obligated nature of the
display o f responsibility. For instance, McCandless and Wright (1993: 111) offer the
idea that “(p)ublic accountability is the obligation to answer publicly for the
discharge o f responsibilities that affect the public in important ways.” Similarly,
Lawry (1995: 174) submits that “(t)o be accountable means to accept responsibility
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for actions and inactions. Public acknowledgement o f responsibility is nearly always
considered a virtue.” Caiden (1988: 25) provides a more detailed comparison of
responsibility to accountability:
To be responsible is to have the authority to act, power to control,
freedom to decide, the ability to distinguish (as between right and
wrong) and to behave rationally and reliably and with consistency and
trustworthiness in exercising internal Judgem ent. To be accountable is
to answer for one’s responsibilities, to report, to explain, to assume
obligations, to render a reckoning and to subm it to an outside or
external judgm ent (emphasis added).
Finally, Harmon (1995) identifies three ways in which the term responsibility
is used: (I) Responsibility as agency, which connotes the idea o f free will, (2)
responsibility as accountability, which refers to the obligation to answ er for our
actions to som e authority, and (3) responsibility as obligation, which refers to an
internalized sense o f right and wrong and duty to reflect on the ethical implications
o f one’s actions (cited in Thomas 1997:25, emphasis added).
While it is true that answerability provides an external or public dimension to
accountability, as compared to responsibility, the emphasis in the literature typically
has been on a depiction of answerability as being toward a higher authority. In other
words, the existence of hierarchical differences between the parties involved in an
accountability relationship is a widely accepted notion in the writings of many. It is
useful at this point to differentiate between two distinct conceptualizations of
accountability suggested by O’Loughlin (1990), namely Accountability-as-
Answerability (AA) and Accountability-as-Managing-Expectations (AME). AA
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
typically places more emphasis on the control function o f accountability, generally
referring to the control o f public bureaucracies by elected representatives. The
existence o f a principal-agent relationship between politicians (the principal) and
bureaucrats (the agent) is at the center o f many definitions and working descriptions
o f accountability grounded in the AA approach. Romzek and Dubnick (1998: 6), for
example, define accountability as “a relationship in which an individual or agency is
held to answer for performance that involves some delegation of authority to act.”
According to McCandless and Wright (1993: 111): “(t)he central purpose of public
accountability is to protect fairness and promote efficiency or, conversely, to restrict
whim and waste in the exercise o f power.” More pointedly, Aberbach and Rockman
(1997: 75-76) state that:
Accountability presumably is a means of controlling bureaucracy.
...The best way to think of the problem is as a principal/agent
problem. The bureaucracy is an agent—quite literally the source for
the word agency. It is responsible to a principal or perhaps to more
than one principal. ... The problem o f controlling the bureaucracy is
the mirror image of the problem o f accountability.
Finally, O’Loughlin (1990: 281) himself explains the main idea behind the AA
approach as follows:
When we speak about bureaucratic accountability, the bottom line is
that we are concerned about whether or not our government agencies
are under some control and oversight by us or our representative
institutions. We want them to be answerable and responsive to our
goals and priorities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
While it has not been developed as fully as the AA approach, the AME
approach was nonetheless evident in the writings o f some researchers focusing on
accountability. For example, Romzek and Dubnick (1987: 228) assert that:
(Accountability plays a greater role in the processes of public
administration than indicated by the idea o f answerability. ... M ore
broadly conceived, public adm inistration accountability involves the
means by which public agencies and th eir w orkers manage the
diverse expectations generated within and outside the organization.
Viewed as a strategy for managing expectations, public administration
accountability takes a variety o f forms (emphasis in original).
Conceived this way, the AME approach recognizes that managers and employers of
public organizations play a bigger role in identifying and defining the diverse
expectations placed on their organizations by both internal and external stakeholders.
Keams (1994, 1996) builds on the definition provided by Romzek and Dubnick
(1987), and urges that public and nonprofit managers use accountability strategically
to anticipate, define, and respond to accountability issues in their respective strategic
environments. Kearns (1996) provides a detailed explanation as to why
accountability should be used by public and nonprofit organizations as a strategic
tool for scanning their task environments and then devising and implementing
effective responses to the expectations generated in different segments of these
environments.
It should also be noted that the importance of accountability has been
discussed by some researchers in the context of organizational life and dynamics, in
terms similar to those advanced by the AME approach. First, accountability provides
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a means to assess the coordination and integration o f individual efforts by providing
predictability and the endurance o f shared expectations o f organizational members.
Second, as an umbrella construct reflecting a mutual exchange o f expectations,
accountability provides an understanding and appreciation o f the complex social
context of humans in organizations (Cummings and Anton, 1990: 257-258; Fry,
1995: 182-183). Finally, the role o f accountability in motivating people to perform
better has been acknowledged and supported in the context of multi-organizational
settings (e.g., Bardach and Lesser, 1996; Weber, 1999). As will be discussed in more
detail in sections 2.4.4, 2.4.5, and 2.4.6, how we define accountability has an
important bearing on how we conceive o f different dimensions o f accountability,
such as its functions and the ways of achieving it.
2.4 Basic Questions o f an Accountability Scheme or System
This section first identifies and discusses five basic questions o f an accountability
scheme or system, namely, who should be held accountable, to whom, for what,
how, and with what consequences. The section concludes with a discussion about
whether and to what extent these five questions are related with and influence one
another. It should be noted here that this list by no means is exhaustive; different
researchers may come up with a list different than the one adopted here. Nor are the
questions selected here exclusive: many researchers have before used one or more of
these questions in their research on accountability (e.g., Bardach and Lesser, 1996;
Brooks, 1995; Hayes, 1996; Keams, 1994; Newmann, King, and Rigdon, 1997;
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Taylor, 1996; Young et al., 1996). Nonetheless, the list o f questions selected is both
comprehensive and very suitable for the purpose o f this study.
2.4.1 Who Should Be Held Accountable?
One of the first questions of an accountability scheme or system is concerned with
the individual(s) and/or organization^) who should render the account. Put
differently, this question relates to identifying the individual(s) and/or
organization(s) that should be or are held accountable for the decisions or actions
taken (or not taken) in any given domain or entity. The premise here is that the
division of labor among different institutions o f society as well as within
organizations makes it possible to assign certain tasks and responsibilities to
particular organizations and individuals within them, and then, to hold them
accountable for how those tasks and responsibilities are carried out. An
accompanying assumption is that it is possible to establish cause-and-effect
relationships in these situations. It has been acknowledged by many, however, that
it is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to establish clear-cut
relationships between the decisions and/or actions o f certain agents and the effects of
those actions and/or decisions. One reason for this is the proliferation o f institutions
or organizations, many o f which have overlapping, if not conflicting, tasks and
responsibilities. For example, for many public services and programs, it is difficult to
pinpoint who has jurisdiction over which issue areas. Caiden (1988) cites what he
calls “collaborative government” as one o f the intractable problems associated with
ensuring public accountability; public organizations operate not alone but in concert
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
with many other public and private sector organizations in and through cooperative
networks. He maintains that:
Particularly in multi-layered governmental systems, it is virtually
impossible to untangle the maze o f complex interactions, special
relationships, secret deals, and informal arrangements mutually
arrived at. No body can be singled out as being in charge of the
whole, for nobody is (p. 31).
More important, however, is the fact that many organizations (and individuals within
them) seldom have complete control over the outcomes they are charged with
producing. As briefly alluded to in Chapter I, in addition to the complexity of
intergovernmental relations, with the advance of multi-organizational, multi-sectoral
networks, the issue o f determining who is contributing what to the outcomes of
certain government programs and/or multi-sectoral collaborative projects has
become a daunting task. As Hatry (1997:37) pointed out,
(T)he reasons for outcomes are complex. Outcomes depend not only
on the actions of one particular governmental program but also on the
actions o f other public programs, and sometimes the actions of private
service delivery organizations. Outcomes also usually depend on the
behaviors and actions of the customers themselves.
In short, in many issue areas, “the problem of many hands” (Thompson, 1980) only
gets exacerbated because o f the involvement o f multiple players at different phases
of the policy and management processes. Some have even argued that we should
cease the quest for pinpointing with precision individuals and/or organizations that
can be held accountable for certain outcomes or the lack thereof. For example,
Thomas (1997: 31) asserts that “in a world o f turbulent change and interconnected
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
issues, the idea o f precisely pinpointing responsibility and accountability is artificial.
Not all unwanted developments represent abuses o f power or blundering by public
officials—they often reflect uncertainty and lack o f control.” Parsons (1998) takes
the idea a step further and urges for a revolution in the way we think about
accountability and responsibility in today’s societies:
{As} we are shifting away from a Newtonian towards...a ‘quantum’
polity... we have to get away from thinking in terms o f responsibility
in a mechanical or atomistic and causal sense to one which
comprehends it as involving considerable indeterminacy, uncertainty
and multi-causality. That is to say, responsibility is no longer just
something which is clearly defined and located but also spread out
throughout the system in waves which defy being pinned down (p.
100).
2.4.2 Accountability to Whom?
Another distinctive feature o f an accountability scheme concerns the “recipient or
recipients o f the account — the audience or accountees” (Stanyer, 1974: 15). Put
differently, this dimension o f accountability addresses the question by whom
individuals and/or organizations should be or are held accountable. This question is
the source o f a number typologies or categories o f accountability that are widely
used in the literature. For example, Barker (1982:17) identifies “downward”
accountability to clientele, “upward” accountability to ministers and parliament, and
“horizontal” accountability to peer and reference groups (cited in Rhodes, 1997: 21).
Similarly, McCandless and Wright (1993: 117-118) note the existence o f three
accountability types in addition to the “upwards” accountability on which they focus
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
their analysis. These are “downwards” accountability needed to manage effectively;
the “lateral” accountability associated with teamwork and collaborative ventures; and
the “personal” accountability which comes to the fore as organizations seek to
replace rule-driven behavior with attitude-driven behavior. The last one, “personal
accountability” which is also sometimes called self or moral accountability, or
internalized forms o f accountability, has to do with the self-conscious and values of
individuals who feel a high degree o f responsibility and a desire to make themselves
accountable, with or without the existence of extrinsic demands to do so.
The question o f accountability to whom can also be examined by focusing on
the issue o f where the recipients of the account stand vis-a-vis the accountee(s). It is
possible to identify two broad dimensions, namely, external and internal. A number
of categories of accountability have been identified in the literature by focusing on
whether accountability pressures and processes are generated from sources external
or internal to single, autonomous organizations (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 1988;
Romzek and Dubnick, 1994). Five types o f accountability, namely bureaucratic,
professional, legal, political, and market accountability, have been identified and
widely used by many different researchers.
In a single autonomous organization, bureaucratic accountability or
hierarchical accountability (Romzek, 1996; Romzek and Dubnick, 1998) means the
use of scrutiny by supervisors to assess and control the actions and behaviors of
individual members o f that organization. Bureaucratic accountability is thought to
work well when both goals and processes used to obtain those goals are clear and
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
well known (e.g., Cooper, 1995; deLeon, 1998). Bureaucratic accountability is
criticized as being limited, partly because it “concerns itself with procedures; it is
effective only...when compliance is easily measured and seemed” (Darling-
Hammond, 1988:10). Professional accountability is based on the notion of deference
to professional expertise and experience (Romzek and Dubnick, 1994). Professional
accountability is seen as most appropriate in situations where the tasks are non
routine, processes used to obtain the goals are not clear even when the goals are
unambiguous, and it is difficult to observe and/or measure outcomes (e.g.,
Benveniste, 1985; deLeon, 1998; Mitchell, 1995; Wagner, 1989). While both
bureaucratic accountability and professional accountability are considered by some
researchers as being internal to organizations (e.g., Romzek and Dubnick, 1994),
deLeon (1988) provides a useful distinction that is worth noting here. She submits
that “the way individual professional workers are held accountable is an internal, or
organizational matter. But the way the profession itself is held accountable to society
is an institutional matter’' (p. 549). Professional accountability has its own intrinsic
limits in that it “does not always take public preferences into account; it responds to
an authority outside the direct reach of citizens and may satisfy its purposes while
ignoring competing public goals” (Darling-Hammond, 1988: 10).
Legal accountability refers to situations where individuals and organizations
are held accountable through courts. It is an external accountability mechanism that
operates through and sustains the rule o f law in enforcing contracts and adjudicating
the conflicts within and between organizations (e.g., Romzek and Dubnick, 1994).
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The costly and lengthy processes involved in legal accountability mechanisms,
however, may deter individuals and organizations from frequently invoking this
mechanism (e.g., Darling-Hammond, 1988). Political accountability, which is
utilized to hold public bureaucracies accountable by elected representatives, is
cherished for its significance in maintaining responsiveness o f public organizations
to their elected representatives as well as to the citizenry at large. As Finn (1993: 9)
put it: “(a)t its simplest, in the British parliamentary tradition, the theory of
accountability dictates that officials are accountable to ministers, and ministers are
responsible to Parliament and, through it, to the public.” Political accountability is
also limited, partly because of the fact that the complexities and intricacies of many
public systems do not lend themselves to simple and easy oversight processes and
mechanisms (e.g., Caiden, 1988). Market accountability, on the other hand, is
defended by those who believe that public services can be provided more efficiently
by breaking bureaucratic monopolies through the creation o f competition between
public, private, and nonprofit service providers, and by increasing the power of
citizen-customers to choose from among them (e.g., Myers and Lacey, 1996; Paul,
1992). Market accountability has been criticized by many on the grounds that
efficiency is not the sole criterion to judge the effectiveness o f public services, and
citizens have rights and responsibilities that go well beyond what the idea of
customer may imply (e.g., Cooper, 1995; Peters and Pierre, 1998).
In addition to these five types of accountability, some researchers have
suggested that partnership accountability and community accountability may fit
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
better into the purposes and requirements o f multi-organizational collaborative
settings (e.g., Bardach and Lesser, 1996; Robertson and Acar, 1999). Broadly
speaking, partnership accountability refers to the notion that individual and
organizational members o f a partnership should also be accountable to one another
and to the partnership as a whole, in addition to being accountable separately to the
various stakeholders in their respective task environments. In a sense, partnership
accountability constitutes an internal accountability mechanism when the partnership
is taken as a unit of analysis. Community accountability, on the other hand, is based
on the notion that individual and organizational members of a partnership should be
accountable to the community within which they live and operate. When the
partnership is taken as a unit o f analysis, community accountability can be construed
as a type of external accountability. In this context, Rodal and Mulder (1993:37)
observed that:
While governments have been largely preoccupied with political
accountability through electoral process (i.e., the accountability of
ministers to Parliament and the accountability of deputy ministers and
other bureaucrats to ministers), partnerships and devolution open up
new channels of accountability—for example, to the community or to
constituencies represented by the various partners.
These two accountability types are also not without problems, partly because o f the
fact that, historically, they have not been widely and effectively used to hold to
account the organizations brought together in collaborative settings. Writing about
the community collaboratives formed to address the problems o f at-risk youth, White
and Wehlage (1995: 24), for instance, observed that “collaboratives never acquired
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the power to hold member agencies accountable for bringing about changes in policy
and practice when called on to do so.” Similarly, in a survey o f community health
public-private partnerships, Alexander et al. (1998) found that only sixteen percent
of the partnerships had established policies regarding community accountability, and
that community accountability was the second most frequently mentioned “pressing
governing concern.”
One must take into consideration the notion that these different accountability
relationships or mechanisms are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and at any given
time they may operate simultaneously, albeit with varying degrees of success, to
influence the decisions and actions o f organizational actors (e.g., Rhodes, 1997;
Romzek, 1996; Romzek and Dubnick, 1994; 1998). It should be noted, however, that
in many organizational and interorganizational settings, there is as much tension as
there is complementarity between the requirements and consequences of these
different accountability types (Romzek and Dubnick, 1987; Thomas, 1997). As one
example, the Challenger space shuttle disaster has been attributed in part to the over
reliance on political accountability at the expense of professional accountability
(Romzek and Dubnick, 1987).
Before closing the discussion o f the question o f accountability to whom, one
additional issue should be noted. It has to do with the increased diversity and
multiplicity of expectations placed on today’s organizations and their managers and
members, regardless o f their sectoral affiliation (e.g., Brown and Moore, 2001;
Kearns, 1996; Romzek and Dubnick, 1998). Managers and workers today
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
increasingly face the challenge of managing an endless set o f accountability
expectations and demands coming from all directions. They are “enmeshed in an
elaborating web o f accountability, called to account by an expanding and
increasingly vociferous set of interest groups” (Sinclair, 1995: 220). hi short, they
are becoming “accountable to everyone” (Quirk, 1997). This is even truer in multi
sectoral, multi-organizational collaborative settings where the definitions of what is
external and what is internal are murky, and where both the number o f stakeholders
and the diversity of accountability requirements they present to members of
collaborative undertakings are increasing tremendously (e.g., Miller, 1997; Rhodes,
1997).
2.4 3 Accountability fo r What?
This question brings us to the discussion o f where the emphasis o f the accountability
system is placed. In other words, the question directs our attention to the issues,
criteria, or standards identifying and describing the core topic(s) for which
individuals and/or organizations are or should be held accountable. For example,
Leat (1988; cited in Hayes 1996: 98) identifies and discusses four different
dimensions o f accountability, based on this “for what” question. These are fiscal
(i.e., accountability for the proper use of money), process (i.e., accountability for
following proper procedures), program (i.e., accountability for quality and
effectiveness o f the projects or programs undertaken), and priorities (i.e.,
accountability for relevance and appropriateness o f services offered). Similarly,
Caiden (1998: 24) differentiates traditional or compliance accountability and process
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
accountability from managerial accountability (which focuses on the judicious use of
public resources), program accountability (which is concerned with the outcomes or
results o f government operations), and social accountability (which attempts to
determine the societal impacts of government programs). Likewise, Quirk (1997:
580) points to three “broad purposes” related to accountability: for aims and intent
(i.e., should this sum of money be allocated to a certain organization for this set of
purposes); for performance and outcomes (i.e., was the desired level o f outputs and
outcomes achieved); and finally, for probity and integrity (was proper regard given
to due process, fairness, and other ethical issues)?
Light (1993), on the other hand, describes three types of accountability,
which can be easily interpreted within the framework of this question. His three
types are compliance, performance, and capacity building, each o f which suggests
different roles for government agencies and individuals working within them. For
instance, accountability for compliance emphasizes managers’ role in supervision
and discipline, while accountability for performance underlies their role and
responsibilities for establishing and reinforcing goal attainment. Accountability for
capacity building, on the other hand, points to managers’ advocacy and stewardship
roles. McCandless and Wright (1993: 114) propose a framework that includes six
levels o f accountability depending upon how the question o f “accountability for
what” is answered and where the focus o f the accountability mechanism is placed.
Starting from level one, accountability for responding fairly to public needs, program
effectiveness, service quality, efficiency, economy, and compliance, requires a focus
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
on policy outcomes, program outcomes, program outputs (quality), program outputs
(quantity), inputs, and rules and procedures, respectively.
Still another distinction widely used by researchers reflects a systems
approach that analyzes accountability according to whether the emphasis is placed on
inputs, processes, outputs, or outcomes (or results). In recent years, the emphasis has
shifted from inputs and processes toward outputs and outcomes. Put differently, with
the advance o f accountability ideas and models coming from the reinventing
government and the new public management (NPM) movements, there has been a
shift from accountability for compliance to accountability for results. For example,
“performance” and “results” have emerged as key words for the National
Performance Review (Gore, 1996), as well as for various OECD reports on public
sector management reforms that have been initiated in such countries as New
Zealand, Australia, and Great Britain. Compatible with this world-wide trend toward
a renewed focus on outcomes or results are the policies adopted by an increasing
number of states across the United States, which focus on using standardized tests to
hold public school systems accountable (e.g., Elmore, Abelman, and Fuhrman,
1996; Ladd, 1996; Macpherson, 1996; Wohlstetter, 1991).
Proponents o f NPM, and results-oriented performance measurement systems
in general, maintain that developing measurable outcomes for public services creates
efficiencies and economies by focusing the energies and efforts o f public
organizations on meeting those specific outcomes, instead o f adhering to a set of
cumbersome and outdated rules and regulations. It is also maintained that by
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
inserting competition into the monopolies that public organizations used to have over
service provision and by empowering citizen-customers with respect to the choices
they have, more efficient public services and happier customers would follow (e.g.,
Mayers and Lacey, 1996; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Paul, 1992). Some
researchers, however, point to the challenges and costs associated with measuring
outcomes in public systems. Hood (1998:18), for example, points to the risk that “a
movement intended to empower public service managers can instead turn out to
empower middle-level ‘bean-counting’ regulators, with performance auditing
systems turning into paper trails that stifle performance and creativity.” Thomas
(1997), on the other hand, reports that:
So far, most of the measures track inputs and outputs (the goods and
services produced by departments). Measuring outcomes (the impacts
on society) and linking them to program activities is far more
difficult. Even in jurisdictions like Australia and New Zealand where
the ‘craft’ (part art and part science) of performance measurement is
most advanced, public organizations are having trouble producing
reliable evidence on the effectiveness of their programs in relation to
declared goals (p. 29).
As for the competition between service providers advocated by proponents of
NPM, Hood (1998:18) asserts that “the challenge for the managerialist agenda in
reshaping public management is to harness competition for public services in ways
that have ethics-enhancing rather than ethics-reducing effects in the conduct of
operations.” McCandless and Wright (1993) take the issue a step further by
pointing to yet another challenge that results-oriented accountability approaches may
present to public managers:
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As we gradually remove compliance requirements, thereby increasing
autonomy, we raise the potential for achieving results (economy,
efficiency, service quality and effectiveness) while simultaneously
increasing the risk to public values (prudence, probity, consistency
and equality o f treatment). Furthermore, removing compliance
requirements could make it easier for public servants to develop
policy at the “street level” that responds to the special interests of
client groups in ways the government may not have intended (p. 116).
Finally, Reichard (199S) provides a balanced account o f the advantages and
problems associated with ‘performance management’, one o f the main tenets of
NPM. More specially, he comments on the effects o f results-oriented performance
management on transparency and accountability. Reichard (1988) contends that the
effects o f performance management on transparency are mixed. For instance, while
performance data promote transparency by providing information about the
efficiency of particular public services in a comparative manner, “a non-manageable
data overkill can lead to decreasing transparency and therefore to a limited
acceptance of the addresses” (p.131). As for the effects o f performance management
on accountability, he argues that “performance measurements primarily contributes
to administrative accountability only secondarily to political accountability” (p. 133).
He reasons that the impact on political accountability is limited because “most
performance concepts are relatively weak to provide information about effectiveness
and responsiveness” (ibid.).
2.4.4 Accountability How?
The question o f how to hold an organization or individual accountable relates to “the
occasion of accountability” (Stanyer, 1974: 15), or “the circumstance o f
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
accountability” (Cummings and Anton, 1990: 277). It concerns the means or
mechanisms as well as the manner through which an account is rendered. It also
relates to the timing o f giving and receiving an account. As will be recalled, two
distinct conceptualizations of accountability suggested by O’Loughlin (1990),
namely Accountability-as-Answerability (AA) and Accountability-as-Managing-
Expectations (AME) were introduced in section 2.3.1. Embedded in these two
approaches to accountability are two quite different views regarding how best to
achieve accountability in and o f public organizations, which will be described in
turn.
The AA approach tends to frame the issue of accountability as the external
control o f public bureaucracies and bureaucrats by politicians. The basic components
o f an accountability system or scheme operating under the assumption of a principal-
agent relationship can then be described as follows (cf. Brooks, 1995; Hill and
Bonan, 1991; Newmann, King, and Rigdon, 1997; Romzek and Dubnick, 1998;
Thomas, 1997): a) an agency and a principal (i.e., politicians, the principals, and
bureaucrats, the agents), b) assigning certain tasks and responsibilities to the agency
by the principal, c) agreed upon criteria and/or standards for agency conduct and
performance, d) availability of and access to information on agency behavior and
performance, e) assessment by the principal of the information gathered on agency
behavior and performance, and f) acting upon such assessment (e.g., altering
policies, processes, and/or personnel, or assigning blame/praise and/or
rewards/sanctions to the agents).
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This approach to accountability can be criticized on three primary counts.
First, the simple notion of a principal-agent relationship does not hold for the
complex relations that exist between politicians and bureaucrats, hi particular, there
is the unattainable assumption about the poUtics-administration dichotomy (cf. Finn,
1993). As public policy research has shown, public policy processes are far from
being that simple and uni-dimensional. In many cases, there exist multiple principals
as well as multiple agents (cf. Romzek and Dubnick, 1998; Taylor, 1996).
Second, the assumption o f clear directions/mandates handed down from
political authorities to public agencies does not reflect the real world o f public
bureaucracies; in reality, most directions are ambiguous at best, if not
conflicting/contradictory (cf. Broudy, 1974; Wagner, 1989). Not only do priorities
frequently change, but also many rules are open to multiple interpretations with
varying degrees of enforceability. Sometimes, criteria for performance are not clear-
cut partly because most public services do not lend themselves to easy and once-and-
done performance evaluations; it is difficult to foresee and precisely capture in
performance contracts the hoped-for results/outcomes, either because policy
initiatives are new and untested, or they involve assumptions about the given
situation/problem that may in the end prove unrealistic or unattainable (cf. Hofstede,
1978). Similarly, sometimes it is simply too difficult and costly, if not impossible, to
gather information on the conduct and performance of an agency (cf. Benveniste,
1985: 265). hi other cases, it may take years to have at least a rough idea as to
whether a given project was a success or failure, or whether an agency conducted its
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
tasks in compliance with predetermined/preset policy directions or in an agreed-upon
manner and on time.
Third, more often than not, information asymmetries exist between the
politicians and bureaucrats, the latter being more knowledgeable of yet less
forthcoming on the issues at hand. There are, o f course, some tools available to
politicians to alleviate, if not completely eradicate, the problem stemming from
information asymmetries, such as “fire alarm” policies developed to gather
information from constituencies or customers, including benefiting from close media
scrutiny of the bureaucratic agencies and agents (McCubbins and Schwartz, 1984).
Politicians can also attempt to tighten their grip on public agencies by assigning
similar tasks to competing agencies, holding more frequent public hearings, creating
tight disclosure rules, and developing regular as well as irregular performance
contracts, along with more rigorous attempts to enforce those contracts.
The fact remains, however, that, all in all, the AA approach leaves little room
for internally generated and hierarchically or professionally enforced accountability
policies and processes. Nor does it envision to any great deal the use of different
proactive and interactive accountability tools and mechanisms. Typically, the ex-post
or retrospective nature o f accountability gets the most attention as compared to
proactive dimensions of an accountability system. By looking at some popular
writing on accountability, one may get the idea that most of the discussion as to
whether there is “enough” accountability surrounding certain organizations is salient
only when there is some sort o f scandal, crisis, or failure involved. Partly because of
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
such treatment o f accountability concerns, there is less appreciation o f the many
roles that accountability can and does play in organizational life (cf., Fry, 1995).
As briefly noted in section 2.3.1, the AME approach views accountability as
a strategy for managing diverse expectations placed upon organizations by both
internal and external stakeholders. By doing so, it envisions or at least allows for a
bigger role for managers and employees of public organizations in identifying and
defining (and managing) these expectations. The AME approach recognizes the
importance of externally generated expectations, including those stemming from
political accountability, but also acknowledges that public administration
accountability takes a variety of forms, such as hierarchical and professional
(Romzek and Dubnick, 1987; Romzek, 1996; Kearns, 1994; 1996). As such, a lot of
attention has been given by this latter group of researchers to identifying and
analyzing different contingencies pertaining to accountability, where much o f the
focus is on the question o f how managers can best respond/attend to different
accountability expectations.
The AME approach has been criticized by O’Loughlin (1990) on the grounds
that, if it is adopted widely, we may end up giving still more discretionary power to
bureaucrats for determining what those expectations are (or should be), and thus
undermining the ability o f elected representatives of the people to exercise their
legitimate authority over public bureaucracies. The AME approach, O’Loughlin
(1990: 281) has argued, “shifts the emphasis from outside control over bureaucracies
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to administrative control and management of outsiders. Effective accountability will
become effective ‘expectation management’ by administrators.”
Broadly speaking, the differences in the AA and the AME approaches to
accountability stem in part from the two distinct conceptualizations of the
relationship between politics and administration rooted in the Friedrich-Finer debate
of the 1940s discussed in Chapter 1. In a sense, the AA approach reflects more the
views put forward by Finer (1941). That is to say that society should rely more on
politics and politicians in definitions and pursuit of their interests in public policy
processes and that there needs to be strong external oversight and control over
government agents and agencies. The AME approach, on the other hand, reflects
more the views put forward by Friedrich (1940) in that society should have
confidence in professional agencies and agents since modem bureaucracy is capable
of self-regulation and control. It is obvious that the debate has been an enduring one
and will more than likely to continue in the future, hi any case, however, availability
of and access to information about behaviors and actions of individual and/or
organizational actors may prove crucial in seeking as well as obtaining a certain
degree o f accountability. This is where the question o f which tools and mechanisms
are available to those who desire to hold individuals and/or organizations
accountable becomes more salient.
2.4.5 Accountability with What Consequences?
This last question concerns the outcomes o f the accountability system — what
happens to the individuals and/or organizations involved as a result o f holding them
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
accountability. In the words o f Stanyer (1974: 15), the consequences of
accountability refer to “the actions, implying praise or blame, resulting horn the
judgments of others o f the acceptability of the account.” As noted in the previous
section, under the assumption o f a principal-agent relationship, accountability comes
full circle when the principal acts, following the processes o f assessing information
about the agent’s conduct and performance and rendering some judgments about
them. The consequences) may involve altering policies, processes, and/or personnel,
or assigning blame/praise and/or rewards/sanctions to the agent(s). In some cases,
being held accountable may result in being liable, which is “to assume the duty of
making good, to restore, to compensate, to recompense for wrongdoing or poor
judgment (Caiden, 1988: 25). hi other cases, it could simply mean information
exchange, explanation, or acknowledgement, hi still other cases, accountability could
produce such outcomes as review, revision or reorientation o f action, redress,
sanction, and rewards (cf. Barberis, 1998; Benveniste, 1995).
hi tandem with the emphasis on the control function of accountability, the
AA approach largely exhibits a more reactive, retrospective picture o f accountability.
As alluded to earlier in section 2.4.1, there is more to accountability policies and
processes than the notion of the control of public organizations by external sources.
Some have made calls to change the way we think about accountability in today’s
organizations that must respond to an increased level o f complexity and uncertainty.
For one, Thomas (1997:31) argues that, in order to “encourage more constructive
public dialogue, we need to move away from an accountability model based on
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
blame and punishment.” Again, as will be discussed in detail in the following
section, how we conceive o f and define accountability in general will influence to a
certain extent the way we develop anticipations vis-a-vis the consequences of an
accountability scheme or system.
The view adopted here is such that the AME approach provides a viable, if
not better, alternative to the AA approach for at least three reasons. First, the AME
approach provides a more realistic picture of today’s organizations through a better
appreciation of the complexity of their task environments as well as of the
multiplicity and diversity o f expectations placed upon them. Second, it accounts for
potential to develop more proactive as well as interactive policies for accountability,
in addition to the reactive policies most frequently found in the AA approach. Lastly,
and more importantly, the AME approach may prove more appropriate in the context
o f public-private partnerships, where participation and collaboration are based more
on voluntary, horizontal relationships than on hierarchical relationships.
2.4.6 Basic Questions Revisited: Tying Them Together
As noted at the beginning o f section 2.4, different researchers have used in their
analyses, albeit with varying degrees of depth, one or more of the five basic
questions of an accountability scheme or system identified and discussed in the
preceding pages. Yet, the extant research offers little guidance as to whether and how
these questions pertaining to accountability do or should relate to each other. Even
the researchers who offered some guidance on the issue differ to a great deal in their
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
emphasis. For instance, Bardach and Lesser’s (1996; 197) analysis focuses only on
the questions of “for what” and “to whom.” They argued that “(accountability for
{what} must be settled before the system o f accountability to {whom} can be
properly designed.” Weber (1999), on the other hand, focuses only on the questions
of “how” and “to whom.” The former is given precedence over the latter, i.e., the
answers to the question of “to whom” are largely determined by the answer to “the
central question o f ‘how’ accountability is institutionalized and conceived” (p. 453).
As far as the link between these two questions is concerned, he further maintains that
“the two questions of ‘how’ and ‘to whom’ are inextricably linked because as the
how o f accountability changes so too do the outcomes, and by extension, the total
number o f beneficiaries and, potentially, the kinds of beneficiaries” (ibid.).
In the present study, a broader and more comprehensive view of
accountability is taken, as made evident so far by the discussion o f five different
basic questions o f an accountability scheme or system. As will be exemplified
below, these questions are inevitably linked to one another. Ideally, these questions
would be answered in such a way that they would present a picture of a coherent
accountability system whose parts are operating consistently in relation to one
another. At a minimum, these questions could serve as a basis for conducting
“accountability audits” (Romzek, 1996; Kearns, 1996), helping people better
understand the nature and types of expectations placed upon organizations in their
respective accountability environments. For instance, the how question is inevitably
linked to the questions o f “to whom” and “for what.” If a society wants to increase
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the effectiveness of accountability in any given area, it can focus its energies and
attention alternatively on inputs, processes, outputs, and/or outcomes. That decision
would surely affect the actions and decisions taken in an effort to best achieve a
given purpose. For example, society can focus on improving teacher quality (input),
designing better rules and regulations governing schooling (process), increasing the
number of people graduated (output), or, as has been the case most recently in many
states across the US, relying on standardized student tests as a proxy to measure the
impact of education on students (outcomes, or results).
Each o f these different areas o f focus reflects different perceptions about how
things do and/or should work, which in turn influence the way the recipients o f the
account are defined as well as the way the account is demanded and rendered.
Likewise, the question of consequences is inevitably linked to how accountability is
envisioned and implemented in its entirety in any given organization. If, for example,
accountability is conceived of as a scorecard, relying mainly on ex-post, formal
evaluation tools, then the focus would inevitably be on the formal sanctions and
rewards that may come about as a result of those formal evaluations. If, on the other
hand, accountability is envisioned as providing both informal and formal tools and
mechanisms as an opportunity for learning and growth, then the focus would less
likely be on formal sanctions and rewards, but rather on creating avenues for an
ongoing dialogue about both the things that went well and the things that need to be
changed.
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Perhaps more importantly, the view adopted here embraces “a multicentric
rather than a command model o f accountability... {that is} accountability to different
authorities, for different purposes, to different degrees and in terms of different,
though mutually complementary standards” (Spiro, 1969:98, cited in Barberis, 1998:
464). The key, however, is to strike an acceptable balance in such a way that
multiple dimensions of accountability work in a “mutually complementary” and
mutually enforcing way.
2.5 Accountability in Public-Private Partnerships: Challenges and Concerns
As briefly explained in Chapter I, the question o f accountability in multi-
organizational networks and partnerships has not been adequately addressed in the
literature. While many researchers have noted the challenges that networks and
partnerships present to traditional forms and norms o f accountability (e.g., Ghere,
1996; Milward, 1996; O’Toole, 1997a; Oztel and Martin, 1998; Rodal, 1993), with
only a few exceptions (e.g., Bardach and Lesser, 1996; Freeman, 1997; Weber,
1999), there has been little research on the topic. Public-private partnerships
themselves show great variety on different dimensions, whereas the term partnership
is used in the literature as an umbrella term to describe different types of
collaborative undertakings between public, private and/or nonprofit organizations,
ranging from simple coordination efforts between two organizations coming from
different sectors, to more comprehensive initiatives involving a significant number of
individuals and organizations representing all three sectors. While it is important to
acknowledge these differences, for the purpose o f this study, it is the common
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
organizing properties o f public-private partnerships, differentiating them from
hierarchical, autonomous organizations, that matter most. It is thus important here to
identify and discuss these characteristics of public-private partnerships as they relate
to accountability requirements and the challenges most likely to occur in these
collaborative settings.
First o f all, in public-private partnerships, like in most network settings, there
typically is not a well-defined administrative hierarchy through which to determine
and control the activities o f a partnership’s members. In other words, more often than
not, managers in public-private partnerships face the challenge o f influencing the
behavior and performance of individuals coming from different organizations
without having the requisite formal authority to do so. While participants may still
feel the pressure coming from formal authority structures operating in their own
organizations to act and perform in line with public-private partnership policies, it is
nonetheless true that managers in networks and partnerships frequently “do not
supervise most o f those on whom their own performance relies, monitoring channels
are typically diffuse and unreliable, and common organizational culture exercises a
limited and indirect influence” (O’Toole, 1997b: 47). An implication of this
characteristic o f public-private partnerships is the need to take into consideration
alternative means and ways of influencing the behavior and performance of
participants in the absence o f formal, hierarchical authority structures and processes
(e.g., AgranofF and McGuire, 1998; Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998; MandeU, 1994;
Rodal, 1993).
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Second, there are often considerable differences among the various
participants o f a public-private partnership in terms o f the amount and type o f power
they hold. Asymmetries of power among partners can stem from both material and
nonmaterial resources participants can bring to the collaborative undertaking, and/or
from their ability to access alternative sources o f power. Also, their capacity to
decide upon the time and conditions o f entrance to and exit from the partnership can
be construed as a part of their power. Power differences may have important
implications regarding the extent to which participants are able to determine various
policies and processes, including those related to accountability. For instance, an
unequal power distribution may turn a collaborative endeavor into a significant
liability for participants who are unable to exert sufficient influence over the
partnership’s policies and decisions (Cummings, Koebel, and Whitt, 1988;
Stephenson, 1991). It is, of course, too naive to expect that power differences among
participating organizations will disappear simply because they decided to combine
their resources and energies in a partnership. It is reasonable to assert, however, that
participants should be aware of the implications of an unequal of power distribution
among themselves and should strive to ensure that power among participants is
relatively equal over the course of the partnership.
Third, the centrality and significance o f a partnership may not be equal for all
participating individuals and organizations. Even when all participants have a vested
interest in the success o f the collaborative undertaking, the stakes may be too high
for some organizations, while the activities and results that a public-private
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
partnership would generate may only be tangential to the core activities and survival
o f other organizations. As a result, different organizations may join and remain in a
public-private partnership with varying degrees o f commitment, which in the end
may affect the expectations placed upon the collaborative (cf. Alexander et al. 1998).
This, in turn, may have important bearings on the level of interest various
participants would exhibit in the design and implementation of effective
accountability policies and processes.
Fourth, save for some exceptions where participation in public-private
partnerships is mandated for at least some organizations, public-private partnerships
are usually voluntary arrangements (e.g., Radin and Romzek, 1996; Waddock,
1988). In other words, public-private partnerships, in many cases, have to rely on
voluntary participation and contributions of individuals and organizations across
sectors to achieve their goals and objectives. Even when there is a mandate requiring
some organizations to form a partnership, there still exists room for those
organizations to maneuver around the rules o f the mandate in deciding the type and
content of their participation. Thus, it is reasonable to argue that a discussion of
performance in and o f public-private partnerships should include the issue of how
effective the founders were in going after and obtaining the voluntary participation
o f relevant organizations. Similarly, effective accountability in public-private
partnerships is not likely to be accomplished simply by mandating various policies
and processes. On the contrary, the participants should view them as reasonable and
practical.
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fifth, public-private partnerships are created in the first place to attain
objectives that are jointly defined by individuals and organizations coming from
public, private, and nonprofit organizations. However, it is often the case that these
actors’ underlying values and operating goals vary to a great extent. These variances
may stem from differences in the underlying orientations o f the public, private and
non-profit sectors, from the different cultures o f the participating organizations, from
the differences among the various professions involved in the partnership, and/or
from differences in the personal beliefs and styles o f the many individual
participants. For example, conflicts may arise in terms of the importance placed on
alternative values such as efficiency versus accountability, the time horizons adopted
by different participants, and the ethical standards used to guide practice. Ultimately,
such differences can create challenges and difficulties for participants in the process
of determining the means and ends o f the accountability system (e.g., Burton, 1990;
O’Looney, 1992; Rosenau, 1999).
Sixth, although the literature reports examples of relatively stable and long
term multi-sectoral collaborative arrangements (e.g., Davis, 1986; Foster and Berger,
1982), many partnerships are temporary by design or by default. As a result, some
accountability tools and procedures widely used in autonomous organizations (e.g.,
periodical performance reviews and budgets) may prove difficult to utilize
effectively in public-private partnerships. Furthermore, sustainability o f concerted
efforts of otherwise autonomous organizations, and the survival of the collaborative
may in and o f itself constitute a great challenge for its founders and/or participants.
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Seventh, in examining accountability issues in public-private partnerships,
their dynamic and emergent nature should be given adequate consideration. It should
be noted that public-private partnerships are not given; they are not out there to be
evaluated or to be held accountable in the first place. They are not created by default,
but by desire and design. Similarly, public-private partnerships evolve in a dynamic
and open environment with possible entries and exits by various participants at
different stages of partnership development (Coe, 1988). For accountability
purposes, it means that assigning responsibilities and/or distributing rewards and/or
sanctions to participating individuals and organizations may prove to be a very
challenging task, not to mention the challenge arising from the question o f who
should be doing this and how (cf. O’Looney, 1992).
Last but not least, generally speaking, public-private partnerships are bom
out of necessity by participating individuals and organizations to solve a common
problem requiring the cooperation and collaboration o f others in their task
environments but not necessarily within their organizational boundaries. In other
words, public-private partnerships are usually formed to deal with “indivisible”
problems, “metaproblems” or “messes”, problems that cannot be solved by single,
autonomous organizations acting alone (see Waddock 1991: 482-483, for the origins
of these terms with appropriate citations). The implications for accountability are
twofold. First, an argument can be made that expecting too much too early from
public-private partnerships can be misleading, even counterproductive, given the
complexity o f both the problems giving rise to public-private partnerships in the first
6 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
place and the process o f partnering in a world o f single, autonomous, hierarchical
organizations. Rodal and Mulder (1993: 37) suggest an element o f caution similar to
the argument just advanced here:
Accountability in partnerships may also be complicated by how it
relates to the government’s evaluation process, which requires
assessment o f whether it was a ‘win’ or ‘loss’ in the short term. Such
an evaluation process does not make allowance for the inevitable
rocky periods along the way; it also does not encourage innovation
and risk-taking the lessons that they yield for future partnership
arrangements.
Second, in evaluating the value of partnerships formed in any given issue
area, focusing only on rather narrowly defined programmatic goals and objectives
may result in overlooking and/or underestimating the value o f non-measurable
outcomes and/or spillover or residual effects that these collaborative undertakings
may able to produce for their participants and/or the communities within which they
operate. In other words, the issue o f accountability in and o f public-private
partnerships may require taking a more comprehensive approach to the analysis and
evaluation of the outputs and/or outcomes than may be the case for programs or
projects that are usually assigned to single, autonomous organizations.
2.6 The Framework and Questions Employed In the Field Research
As will be detailed in Chapter 3, given both the increased use o f public-private
partnerships in many issue areas and the paucity o f research on accountability in the
context of these multi-sectoral undertakings, this study was designed, first and
foremost, as an exploratory study aiming to identify, describe, and evaluate the
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
critical issues associated with accountability in public-private partnerships. As such,
it has been crucial to make informed choices about the scope o f the study. Since
previous research has not adequately addressed accountability issues in the context
of multi-organizational, multi-sectoral collaborative undertakings, there was neither
a theoretical framework available to be considered for adopting, nor a set of
empirical findings from other studies that could guide an attempt at replication as the
basis for this study. Thus, it was essential to develop a framework that is at once
inclusive and manageable. Informed by the extant literature on the issues o f interest,
an original framework was developed for the purpose of this study. The framework
centers on four major issue categories, involving a number o f specific questions
pertaining to critical accountability issues. What follows is a brief description o f each
major issue category, as well as the research questions that address these issues
through the field research undertaken for this dissertation.
2.6.1 Perspectives
The first major issue category concerns the perspectives o f people involved in
partnerships regarding key dimensions o f accountability. It first addresses this
question: How do people involved in educational partnemerships view different
facets o f accountability (i.e., what, why, for what, and to whom o f accountability).
The first theme concerns participants' thinking about the definitions of
accountability, the what question. The second theme concerns participants’
perspectives regarding the functions, purposes, and importance of accountability,
roughly corresponding to the why question: Why is accountability needed and
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
important? The third theme addresses the question o f to whom: To whom do the
participants see the partnerships as being accountable? The fourth theme is related to
the question of for what: For what do the participants see the partnerships as being
accountable?
This issue category also concerns the question o f whether and to what extent
the perspectives o f individuals and organizations representing public, private, and
nonprofit sectors vis-a-vis accountability vary, and whether and how these
differences matter in partnerships.
2.6.2 Practices
The second major issue category is centered on the themes of how accountability is
achieved and with what consequences. The category concerns first and foremost the
following question: What are the main characteristics of accountability policies,
processes, and practices currently in use in partnerships? In addition to the overall
role of accountability in partnerships, this question relates to the informal and formal
approaches taken to ensure accountability in partnerships. The category also focuses
on what has happened in the partnerships as a result o f accountability or lack thereof.
The category thus addresses two o f the basic questions of an accountability scheme
or system discussed in sections 2.4.4 and 2.4.5.
2.6.3 Problems
The third major issue category addresses the following question: What are the major
challenges and difficulties faced by practitioners in terms o f accountability in
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
partnerships? As will be recalled, a discussion was maintained in section 2.5 about
organizing characteristics of public-private partnerships as they relate to
accountability requirements and the challenges most likely to occur in these
collaborative settings. The purpose here is to understand the range and types of
difficulties and challenges that the practitioners involved in multi-organizational,
multi-sectoral collaborative undertakings have faced or are likely to face vis-a-vis
accountability, including those identified and discussed in section 2.5.
2.6.4 Prospects
The fourth and final issue category deals with the following question: What
recommendations do the partnership practitioners have for developing more
successful partnerships as well as effective accountability policies and practices in
and around these multi-organizational, multi-sectoral collaborative systems.
These four categories, taken together, encompass key dimensions and major
issues regarding accountability. Informed by the extant literature, the framework
addresses the main questions of an accountability scheme or system discussed in
detail in the preceding pages.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter develops the rationale for and provides information on the research
strategy and methodology employed in the study. It first provides an overview o f the
study design. It then discusses the issues o f data collection and data analysis. The
chapter concludes with a brief section on confidentiality and consent issues involved
in the research process.
3.1 Overview o f Study Design
The research strategy to be used in any given study “is largely determined by the
purpose of the study, the nature o f the research questions, and the skills and
resources available to the investigator” (Morse, 1998: 64). This study was no
exception. As explained below, the research strategy used in this study was largely
determined by the main purpose o f the study, the nature of the research questions
posed, and the skills and resources available to the researcher. First o f all, as
mentioned before, the purpose o f this study is to identify, describe, and evaluate the
critical issues and challenges associated with accountability in public-private
partnerships. Given its purpose, the study was designed, first and foremost, as an
exploratory study. According to Babbie (1995: 84),
Much o f social research is conducted to explore a topic, to provide a
beginning familiarity with that topic. This purpose is typical when a
researcher is examining a new interest or when the subject o f the
study is itself relatively new and unstudied.
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As stated by Adams and Schvaneldt (1991: 107), characteristics o f useful
exploratory research include “asking good questions at the appropriate, even critical
time,” and “opening up new areas o f research to help point the direction for new
problems with instruments that are flexible enough to be modified often.” Given both
the increased use of public-private partnerships in many issue areas and the dearth of
research focusing on accountability in and of these multi-sectoral collaborative
arrangements, the current study is thus largely exploratory in nature.
Second, using Wolcott’s (1992) categorization, the current study can be
described as an example o f “concept-driven” qualitative research. Wolcott (1992)
identifies three “postures” underlying qualitative research: theory-driven (for
example, cultural theory underlies ethnography), concept-driven (such as focusing on
the concept of care in a clinical ethnography), and “reform-focused” or “problem-
focused” ideas, in which the underlying purpose o f the project is political, with
predetermined goals, such as feminist research or critical theory (cited in Morse
1998: 58-59). Given its focus on the concept of accountability in the context of
public-private partnerships, the current study falls into the second category in
Wolcott’s (1992) grouping.
Third, the current study is also descriptive in that it sets out to describe the
state of affairs in some area (Babbie, 1995) and that the major sources from which
information is obtained are documents and people directly involved (Charles, 1998).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3.2 Data Collection
Besides the literature review, this study utilized two qualitative research tools,
interviewing and document analysis, to investigate the four main issues described in
the preceding chapter. According to Merriam (1988: 3), “Research focused on
discovery, insight, and understanding horn the perspectives of those being studied
offers the greatest promise of making significant contributions to the knowledge base
and practice o f education.” Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted
with forty individuals involved in public-private partnerships that were formed to
accomplish tasks in the area of education.
Once it was decided that an exploratory and descriptive study was the best
approach for studying accountability in public-private partnerships, a decision had to
be made regarding the area from which the data should be gathered. As illustrated in
Chapter 2, education in the United States is an area where public-private partnerships
have been increasingly utilized since the early 1980s. The idea was that focusing on
an area where public-private partnerships have been widely used as a new form of
governance for a relatively long time period would provide the researcher with an
opportunity to reach a better understanding o f the accountability policies, processes,
and practices used by the people involved in those settings. It should also be noted
that the researcher’s personal and professional interest in the area of education has
played an important role in the choice o f educational partnerships as the foci of
empirical investigation for this study.
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3.2.1 Selection o f the Interview Sample
la the process o f selecting the participants for the study, intensity sampling or elite
sampling was employed. That is, participants were approached by the researcher
because they are experiential experts and/or authorities about a particular experience
(Patton, 1990). This method o f sampling is also known as purposive sampling
(Babbie, 1995; Berg, 1998; Merriam, 1988) and theoretical sampling (Denzin and
Lincoln, 1998). According to Merriam (1988: 48), the use of a purposeful sampling
method “is based on the premise that one wants to discover, understand, gain insight;
therefore one needs to select a sample horn which one can leam the most.”
Similarly, Denzin and Lincoln (1998: xiv) state that many qualitative researchers
employ theoretical or purposive, not random, sampling methods since “they seek out
groups, settings, and individuals where (and for whom) the processes being studied
are most likely to occur.”
At an earlier phase of the research on educational partnerships, the researcher
became aware of the existence o f the National Association o f Partners in Education
(NAPE). To gain greater insight into the issues and concerns involved in educational
partnerships, as well as to acquaint himself with the practitioners in the field, the
researcher attended for three full days the 15th Partners in Education National
Symposium, “T T re Pow er o f P artnerships: Linking Education to the 21st Century”,
held in Los Angeles, California on October 19-24, 1998. Besides further convincing
the researcher to proceed with the planned study, the conversations with the
attendees o f the Symposium highlighted some of the main concerns and issues
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
pertinent to accountability in educational partnerships. During the Symposium, the
researcher also identified the Partnership Directors Network (PDN), one of the
affiliates of NAPE, as the organization whose members could be recruited for this
study. Bearing in mind the need to identify a specific set o f participants for the field
research, and that access was an important consideration, the researcher made every
effort to identify “key informants,” people who are knowledgeable insiders willing to
serve as informants on informants (Weiss, 1994: 20).
Once two such individuals were identified, the researcher gained access to
and attended two gatherings o f PDN members. The first one was a membership
breakfast. The researcher was introduced to PDN members by the then-president of
PDN and was given an opportunity to talk about his research plans. The researcher
briefly explained to the attendees, among others, the nature and purpose of his study
plan as well as his need for volunteers for the study, and he invited them to
participate. Some of the attendees expressed their interest in participating in the
study and the exchange o f business cards followed. The positive response received
from the practitioners dining and after the breakfast meeting and a business meeting
on the evening o f the same day, further convinced the researcher as to the usefulness
and relevance of the research on issues associated with accountability in educational
partnerships.
Once the interview guide was finalized and the researcher was ready to give
his full attention and time to the data collection phase o f the study, prospective
participants were contacted through electronic mail and/or phone calls. First, fifteen
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
partnership directors/coordinators, with whom the researcher had met personally
during the Symposium, were contacted. Participation of eight individuals was made
possible through this contact. Second, electronic mail addresses of PDN members
were obtained from the then-president o f this organization. An electronic invitation
letter was sent to a total o f forty-three addresses (see Appendix I, for a copy o f this
letter). This avenue yielded a total o f thirteen more participants. Third, a similar
electronic mail message was sent to another thirty-one e-mail addresses obtained
from one o f the two key informants who has been involved in the field for many
years as a partnership coordinator and PDN officer. This generated the participation
of eleven additional individuals. Finally, through referrals from those already
interviewed, participation o f eight more partnership directors/coordinators was made
possible. All in all, a total o f one hundred-and-seventeen individuals were contacted,
and forty-five of those invited to participate in the field research agreed to do so. Due
to scheduling constraints, a total of forty phone interviews were conducted. Two
interviews had to be registered as missing data due to problems with the tape
recorder used to record the interviews.
3.2.2 The Participants
Out of thirty-eight participants, thirty-two were females and six were males.
The participants came from seventeen different states, Texas leading with a total of
nine participants in the sample. Next to Texas were the states of California,
Maryland, and Virginia, each represented in the sample by four participants. Two
participants each came from the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Rhode Island, and the following states were represented in the sample by one
participant each: Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington, hi terms o f the sectoral divide of the
participants in the sample, twenty-three participants work for K-12 public school
systems while thirteen participants represent nonprofit organizations, and two
participants work for private organizations (see Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 Participants by Title, and Organizational and Sectoral Affiliation
N Sector Title Organizational Affiliation
1 PS Coordinator, Volunteers and
Community Resources
Director of Division of Community
Outreach
2 NP Coordinator, School-to-Career
Partnership Council
The Council
3 PR Director, Constituency Relations Managing Director
4 PS Coordinator, Partners in
Education
Associate Superintendent
5 PS Coordinator, Partners in
Education
Superintendent
6 NP President and CEO The Board of Trustees
7 PR Vice President, Workforce
Education
Senior Vice President of Workforce
Development
8 PS Specialist, Partners in Education Superintendent
9 NP Exec. Dir., State Affiliate of
NAPE
The Board of Directors
1 0 PS Director, Community Relations The Special Assistant to Superintendent,
Chief Communications Officers
1 1 PS Director, Partners in Education Associate Superintendent for
Community Partnerships
12 NP Vice President Local Area President
1 3 PS Director, Community-School
Relations
Superintendent
1 4 NP Director, School to Career Grant
Initiative
Chamber Workforce Organization
Board for the Career Connection
1 5 PS Assistant Coordinator, School
and Community Partnerships
Office
The Executive Director of School and
Community Relations &
Communications
16 PS Director, Planning and
Community Relations
Superintendent
17 PS Specialist; Community Relations Superintendent
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.1 (continued)
1 8 NP
Coordinator, Business and
Education Partnership Advisory
Council
The Council
Superintendent
The President of the Organization
1 9 NP Executive Director, State
Affiliate of NAPE
The Board of Directors
20 NP Partnership Director, Manager of
Education Development
The President of the Chamber of
Commerce
21 PS Partnership Coordinator The Assistant Superintendent of Media
and Communications
22 NP Executive Director, State
Affiliate of NAPE
The Board of Directors
23 PS Coordinator, Public in Education
Program
The Director of School and Community
Relations
24 NP Program Coordinator The Executive Director
25 PS Director, Business and Industrial
Relations
The Superintendent
26 NP President, State Affiliate of
NAPE
The Executive Board
27 NP Partnership Director Director of Employee Organizing,
The Private Industry Council
28 PS Cooperative Work Coordinator Signature Coordinator
The Consortium
29 PS Partnerships Director The Superintendent
30 PS Assistant Superintendent of
Human Resources
The Superintendent
3 1 PS Program Manager The Executive Director for the
Communications and Community
Relations
32 PS Director, Development and
Community Relations
The Superintendent
33 PS Coordinator, Business and
Community Resources
Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum
34 PS Volunteer Coordinator Assistant Superintendent of Instruction
35 PS Business Partnership
Coordinator
The Superintendent
36 PS Director, Community Resources Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum and Instruction
37 PS Director, Partners in Education Assistant Superintendent
38 NP President, State Affiliate of
NAPE
The Board of Trustees
Note: PS: Public School System, NP: Nonprofit Organization, PR: Private Organization.
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Out of thirteen nonprofit organizations represented in the sample, two were
independent nonprofit organizations, five were state affiliates o f NAPE, and six were
either affiliated with a chamber of commerce or were created jointly by a chamber of
commerce and a public school system to manage School-to-Work Grants.
Table 3.2 Participants by Level of Education
Education Level Number Percentage
Associate Degree 2 53
Undergraduate Degree in Progress 2 5.3
Undergraduate Degree (UD) 8 21.1
Additional Credits Beyond UD 4 10.5
Masters Degree (MD) 14 36.8
Additional Credits Beyond MD 4 10.5
Doctorate Degree 4 10.5
Total 38 100.0
Out of thirty-eight participants, two hold associate degrees, two were working
toward their undergraduate degrees; eight have undergraduate degrees; four were
working toward their masters degrees; fourteen have masters degrees; four were
working toward their doctoral degrees; and another four already completed their
doctoral degrees (see Table 3.2).
Table 3-3 Participants by Major of Study
Majors Number Percentage
Education 15 39.5
Arts & Humanities 4 10.5
Business 4 10.5
English 4 10.5
Management 4 10.5
Counseling & Psychology 3 79
American Studies & International Relations 2 53
Journalism & Communication 2 53
Total 38 too
Notes: (I) The most recent earned degrees are considered in the preparation of the table.
(2) Management degree includes nonprofit and public management.
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As can be seen in Table 3.3, about forty percent o f the participants majored in
Education, with the remainder scattered among a number o f other fields o f study.
While forty-five percent o f the participants had twenty-five or more years o f
professional working experience, fifty-two percent o f the participants had less than
ten years of experience dealing with partnerships (see Table 3.4).
Table 3.4 Participants by Professional Experience
Experience
(In Years)
Experience Dealing With
Partnerships
Total Professional Experience
Number Percentage Number Percentage
0-3 6 15.8 2 53
4-6 8 21.1 I 2.6
7-9 6 15.8 0 0.0
10-12 7 18.4 5 13.2
13-15 5 13.2 3 7.9
16-18 3 7.9 3 73
19-21 0 0.0 4 10.5
22-24 3 73 3 7.9
25-27 0 0.0 5 13.2
28-30 0 0.0 6 15.8
31-+ 0 0.0 6 15.8
Total 38 100.0 38 100.0
3.23 Interview Format
Patton (1990) describes three approaches to interviewing, namely, informal
conversational, interview guide, and standardized, the main difference among the
three being “the extent to which interview questions are determined and standardized
before the interview occurs” (p. 280). Similarly, Weiss (1994) describes and
discusses three interview categories: polling or survey interviews, fixed-question—
open-response interviews, and qualitative interviews. According to Weiss (1994), in
the first type of interviewing, questions are fixed and respondents are required to
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
choose from a limited number of answer categories, whereas in the second type of
interview respondents are asked carefully crafted questions but are free to answer
them in their own words rather than required simply to choose one or another
predetermined alternative. In qualitative interviews, on the other hand, the
interviewer is free to tailor questions to respondents and is not required to ask
exactly the same questions to all respondents in the same order.
The approach taken in this study can be best described as falling somewhere
between the interview guide and standardized interview approaches described by
Patton (1990), and as a balanced mix o f the fixed-question—open-ended response
and qualitative interview approaches described by Weiss (1994). Put differently,
semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted to gather field data
for this study. An interview guide, with a complete list of fully worded questions to
be explored with each and every participant, was developed specially for this
research. This enabled the researcher to have more control over data gathering than
would have been possible with an informal conversational or a free-fall qualitative
interview approach. Furthermore, the researcher was keen on asking the same
questions to all participants following the same ordering o f the questions. However,
a carefully dosed flexibility was practiced over the course of interviews to avoid the
rigidity so common in standardized, or fixed-question—open-ended response
approaches to interviewing. For example, whenever necessary and appropriate,
probing questions were asked to encourage participants to expand/elaborate on their
thoughts and the information they have just provided. In addition, when a lead, or
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
what Weiss (1994: 77) calls a “marker” (i.e., a passing reference made by a
respondent to an important event or feeling state) was provided by a participant, it
was utilized as an opportunity to pursue topics that were not anticipated beforehand,
or to explore specific areas further if needed.
Telephone interviews were used to gather data in the study, given both the
purposes of the study and the resources and constraints of the researcher. Creswell
(1998: 124) asserts that a “telephone interview provides the best source of
information when the researcher does not have direct access to individuals. The
drawbacks of this approach are that the researcher cannot see the informal
communication, and the phone expenses.” A continuous effort was made before and
during the phone interviews to establish and maintain a research partnership based
on mutual respect and trust, aiming to alleviate the potential drawbacks due to lack
of face-to-face interaction between the researcher and the participants.
3.2.4 Development of Interview Guide
Since this study represents one o f the first attempts to explore the critical issues and
challenges associated with accountability in public-private partnerships, it was
deemed necessary to gain insight into a relatively broad range o f issues and
concerns. A portion of the interview questions were adapted from Hayes (1996), and
the researcher developed the remaining questions based on the four major issue
categories described in Chapter 2 (for a copy of interview guide used in this study,
see Appendix 2). As can be seen in Appendix 3, there is a direct and clear link
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
between the four major issue categories the study investigates and the interview
questions the participants were asked of.
Many researchers advise that pilot interviews be conducted before going into
the field to interview a large number o f people. For instance, Janesick (1998: 42-43)
asserts that:
Preinterviews with selected key participants and a brief period of
observation and document review can assist the researcher in a
number of ways. The pilot study allows the researcher to focus on
particular areas that may be unclear previously. In addition, pilot
interviews may be used to test certain questions. Still further, this
initial time frame allows the researcher to begin to develop and
solidify rapport with participants as well as to establish effective
communication patterns. ... Thus, the time invested in a pilot study
can be valuable and enriching for later phases in the study.
Heeding the advice from Janesick (1998) and others, a total of four pilot interviews
with partnership directors were conducted, one face-to-face in January 2000, and
three phone interviews in February 2000. The selection, wording, and ordering of
interview questions used in the study proper were thus finalized after going through a
number of revisions following the pilot interviews.
3.2.5 Interviewing Procedures
The interviews for the study proper were conducted in March-May o f 2000. Janesick
(1998:43) warns that “(b)ecause working in the field is unpredictable a good deal of
the time, the qualitative researcher must be ready to adjust schedules, to be flexible
about interview times and about adding or subtracting observations or interviews...”.
The time of each interview was determined by the participant’s convenience.
Si
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The interviews took place any time during the day, between as early as 7:30 a.m.,
and as late as 7:00 p.m. (Pacific Standard Time). Occasionally, three interviews were
scheduled and conducted on the same day. A couple o f interviews had to be
rescheduled due to unexpected developments on the part o f participants, and three or
four interviews were briefly interrupted for mundane reasons on either side of the
phone line. However, a great majority of the interviews were conducted as scheduled
and without any interruptions. On a couple o f occasions, the researcher made follow-
up calls to the participants to obtain further explanation, information and/or
documents from them.
Unless imposed by the participants’ schedules, which was the case in a few
instances, there was no pre-determined length o f time for the interviews.
Nonetheless, based upon the information and experience gained from the pilot
interviews, the researcher suggested to prospective participants—in e-mail
correspondences and/or through initial phone calls made to them—that the interview
was expected to last 35-40 minutes. Although the length o f interviews ranged from
24 minutes to 78 minutes, initial expectations turned out to be realistic since the
interviews lasted an average o f about 41 minutes. All interviews were audio-tape
recorded. Occasionally notes were taken.
3.2.6 Documents
The informants were asked during the interviews as to whether they had any written
materials from their partnerships (e.g., policy documents, evaluation forms, interim
and/or progress reports, annual reports, promotional materials, etc.). Out o f thirty-
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
one who said they had at least one o f these, only twenty-four furnished the researcher
with documents from their partnerships. Mainly because o f the incomplete and non
standardized nature o f the documents received from the participants, a systemic and
systematic analysis o f documents was neither possible nor attempted. Despite this
limitation, the documents served two major purposes. First, they helped the
researcher to gain a deeper and better understanding of the scope and content of
partnership programs and the activities in which the practitioners in the sample were
involved. Second, whenever available and appropriate, the documents were utilized
as a secondary source to evaluate and draw conclusions from the interview data
pertaining to accountability practices reported in section 4.3 o f this study.
3.3 Sorting, Coding, and Analysis of Interview Data
According to Janesick (1998: 47), “(t)he qualitative researcher uses inductive
analysis, which means that categories, themes, and patterns come from the data. The
categories that emerge from field notes, documents, and interviews are not imposed
prior to data collection.” Another important component o f the qualitative research
process is “the presentation o f the data in narrative form supported by evidence from
the statements and behaviors recorded in the notes and interviews. In other words,
the researcher makes empirical assertions supported by direct quotations from notes
and interviews” (Janesick, 1998:46).
Some writers urged qualitative researchers to begin analysis as soon as there
is data collection, and to develop categories from the data early on and over the
entire time frame o f the study (e.g., Janesick, 1998; Miles and Huberman, 1984). For
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
instance, Miles and Huberman (1984) describe qualitative data analysis as a
continuous, iterative enterprise, consisting of data collection, data reduction, data
display, and conclusion drawing/verification. It is also widely acknowledged,
however, that most researchers have to deal with a series o f time-consuming tasks
during the interview phase which may force them to delay full-scale analysis of the
material they obtained until after the interview phase is over. Weiss (1994: 151)
aptly observes this: “(undoubtedly the investigator will develop insights,
speculations, and small-scale theories beginning with the first pilot interview or
before. But, it is likely to be only after interviewing has ended that the investigator
can give full attention to analysis and writing.” It was indeed the case for this study
in that while the researcher started developing insights and speculations beginning
with the first pilot interview, he was able to give his full attention to analysis and
writing only after interviewing has ended.
Although many useful sources are available for researchers as to how to
evaluate and analyze interview data, this study in large part followed the framework
and steps offered by Weiss (1994). Weiss (1994) identifies and describes four
different approaches to analysis and reporting which “represent the different
combinations o f decisions regarding, first, whether the report will focus on issues or
on cases and, second, what is to be the report’s intended level o f generalization” (p.
152). According to Weiss (1994: 154), an issue-focused analysis deals with the
issues as they are learned from any and all respondents, in contrast to a case-focused
analysis, which deals with particular respondents. As far as the intended level of
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
generalization is concerned, Weiss (1994: 152) asserts that “(a)nalysis and reporting
can also either remain on the level o f respondents’ reports or be generalized from
their reports.” He calls the first the “level of the concrete,” the second the “level of
the generalized.” In the analysis and reporting o f interview data for this study, an
issue-focused, generalized approach was taken. An issue-focused analysis moves
from the discussion of issues in one area to the discussion o f issues in another, with
each being logically connected to others. Weiss (1994) describes four distinct
analytic processes involved in producing an issue-focused analysis of interview
material. These are sorting, coding, local integration, and inclusive integration.
The analysis of the interviews proceeded in the following steps. First, all
audio-taped interviews were transcribed by the researcher into word processing
documents. Thus, separate files were created for each and every participant. Second,
to conduct an issue-focused analysis, additional files were developed bringing the
participants’ responses relevant to each of the four major issue categories together.
Thus, four large word processing documents, namely, perspectives, practices,
problems, and prospects, were created, each containing all responses from the
participants to the questions falling into that specific category. This process helped
provide local integration of the interview material. Since the interview questions
were specifically designed to gather information on certain issues, the sorting o f the
interview data was relatively easy, compared to the coding of the interview data.
Third, the coding categories for answers to the questions falling into the four
categories mentioned above were developed, hi some cases, this was a
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
straightforward process, while others required a number o f iterations before the
coding categories were considered satisfactory in capturing the diversity and richness
of the responses. For instance, the coding of participants’ responses to the question
of “to whom” was a straightforward process in that listing each and every
stakeholder group mentioned by the participants was all that was needed to complete
the coding process. Similar observations can be made about the coding of
participants’ responses to the questions concerning “for what” of accountability, as
well as those related to sectoral differences, difficulties and challenges, and
recommendations associated with accountability. Given the straightforwardness of
the process and the fact that relevant response categories are explained in detail in
Chapter 4 through specific illustrative materials from the interviews, it was
unnecessary to recreate/recite all these coding categories.
On the other hand, as noted above, the coding o f the responses from the
interviews was not always a straightforward process. In some cases, it involved a
number o f iterations before categories emerged that were felt to be sufficiently
inclusive and descriptive. The coding o f participants’ responses to the questions
related to words/phrases associated with accountability, the functions, purposes, and
importance of accountability, significance of accountability, and informal-formal
dimensions of accountability is the case in point. Appendix 4 provides descriptions
and illustrations as to how the coding was completed to analyze the interview data,
focusing specifically on the sort o f coding just described, hi all cases, however, once
coding was completed, response categories for each issue o f concern were recorded
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
onto spreadsheets. Then, summary tables were produced based on the number of
responses falling into each category. Finally, a concerted and continuous effort was
made to obtain an inclusive integration o f the interview material throughout the
analysis, presentation, and discussion of the findings from the field research.
3.4 Consent, Confidentiality, and Other Issues
In addition to explanations given to those with whom the researcher met during the
Partners in Education National Symposium mentioned earlier, the identity o f the
researcher, the reasons for and the focus of the study, and the purpose of the
interview were made clear to prospective participants through electronic mails sent
to and/or phone calls made to them. The participants were assured of confidentiality
regarding the information and opinions they were going to share with the researcher.
Whenever raised, the questions of the participants concerning the study and/or the
researcher were answered promptly and properly. Finally, at the beginning of each
and every interview, the participant’s oral consent to tape-record the interview was
sought and obtained.
Before and throughout the interviews, the researcher tried to establish an
atmosphere o f trust and collegiality to make the participants comfortable sharing
their information, insights, and documents regarding the partnerships in which they
were involved. In other words, the researcher made every attempt to go beyond
developing a good rapport with the participants, toward establishing “an interviewing
relationship” or “a research partnership” between himself and the participants based
on mutual respect (see Weber, 1994: 61-66, for a detailed description o f what such a
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
partnership entails). In retrospect, the researcher feels confident that such an outcome
was by and large obtained, thanks to the willingness o f and sincere efforts from all
the parties involved in this research endeavor. Finally, the researcher has expressed
his gratitude and thankfulness to all study participants, for their participation and
time, as well as for the information, insights and documents they shared with him.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
This chapter presents the findings from the field research undertaken as part of this
dissertation. It does so within the framework outlined at the end of Chapter 2. The
findings are thus presented in the order o f Perspectives, Practices, Problems, and
Prospects.
4.1 Perspectives on Accountability
This subsection provides the findings concerning the participants’ perspectives on
five distinct yet related themes on accountability.
4.1.1 Words or Phrases Associated with Accountability
The first question used to gather information about the perspectives of the
participants on accountability reads as “what words or phrases come to your mind
when I mention the word accountability?” This question was intended to gather
information on the words or phrases invoked in the minds o f participants by the word
“accountability”. It was designed as a proxy for a definition o f accountability. Except
for responses from two participants, which had to be recorded as not a clear answer,
each participant provided at least one phrase or word associated with accountability.
Some participants gave out as many as six words or phrases. It was possible to
identify 10 major categories o f words/phrases that the participants in the sample
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
associated with accountability (see Table 4.1). In the order of frequency, the first
three categories were measuring and measures, outcomes/impact, and expectations.
Table 4.1 Words or Phrases Associated with Accountability
Measuring and Measures 24
Outcomes/Impact 17
Expectations 11
Justification 8
Reporting 6
Fiscal/Cost 6
Responsibility 5
Names of Stakeholders 4
Monitoring 3
Relationships 3
Others 9
Total 96
Number o f Participants 36
Put differently, when asked the words or phrases that the word accountability brings
to their minds, the participants pointed to 10 major categories, of which measuring
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and measures (24 times) was by and large the most frequently mentioned category,
followed by outcomes/impact (17), and expectations (11) categories. Other
categories emerging from participants’ responses to this question were justification
(8), reporting (6), fiscal/cost (6), responsibility (5), monitoring (3), and relationships
(3). Four participants mentioned names of some stakeholder groups with or without
giving out any other words or phrases. The words or phrases that could not be
included in any of the categories just cited were put into the others category (see
Appendix 4 for a complete list of words/phrases falling into this category).
What can be inferred from this list? First o f all, participants’ responses point
to the multifaceted, multidimensional nature o f accountability. As mentioned before,
some participants threw out as many as six different words/phrases related to
accountability. A related argument can be that people view accountability quite
differently; practitioners are as divided and different as scholars in conceptualizing
accountability. Third, by looking at some of the words/phrases that fell into the first
two categories, measuring and measures (e.g., numbers, statistics, test scores and the
like) and outcomes/impact, one might speculate that, after so many years of
promotion o f outcome or results-oriented performance management ideas originating
from the reinventing government and the new public management movements, they
may have made some head way into the lexicon of practitioners in the field.1
1 It should be noted that the word “input” was never mentioned by any of the participants, while the
word “process” was mentioned only once by a participant in the context of this question.
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.1.2 The Functions, Purposes, and Importance o f Accountability
To gather their perspectives on the functions, purposes, and importance of
accountability, the participants were asked two specific questions that read as “what
functions and purposes does accountability serve?** and “why do you think that
accountability is important?” It should be noted here that participants’ responses to
these two questions were coded together, not separately. From the interview data
emerged five distinct categories (see Table 4.2). While mentioned by the participants
with varying degrees o f frequency and not necessarily in this order, it was deemed
necessary and appropriate here to present these categories in a sequential manner. In
aggregate, they make it possible to identify and describe accountability as a dynamic
and multi-faceted, multi-dimensional phenomenon consisting o f a sequence of events
and an ongoing series of processes.
Table 4.2 Functions and Purposes of Accountability
Mapping and Manifesting Expectations 24
Mobilizing and Motivating (Ex-ante) 21
Monitoring and Measuring Progress and Performance 25
Modifying 11
Mobilizing and Motivating (Ex-post) 16
Total 97
Number of participants 38
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Below are brief descriptions of these five categories related to the functions,
purposes, and importance o f accountability.
4.1.2.1 Mapping and Manifesting Expectations
The first category relates to the role o f accountability in identifying and clarifying
expectations concerning the direction in which the partnership should/can head and
the hoped-for results of the efforts undertaken. One participant’s response on the
issue illustrates well the role o f accountability just described: “I believe that it {i.e.,
accountability} provides background. It provides substance to decisions. It provides
direction for problem solving. It certainly provides direction for management and
allows one to practice mission-based management {by determining} which way to
go” (Interview # 06). In the responses coded into this category, accountability was
conceived as a tool for mapping and manifesting expectations and providing certain
directions and guidance, and as a road map of sort for the people involved. The
following excerpt from the interview with one of the participants explains still
further this sort of role that accountability may play:
I think, most people need clear directions in order to accomplish the
tasks that need to be accomplished. And so accountability is there to
provide that. Just to clearly define what the goals are so that there is a
common understanding (Interview # 12).
Such a role for accountability may become even more important for collaborative
undertakings that bring together individuals and organizations from different sectors,
since they usually would not start to work together with a set o f given or fixed
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
expectations or clear-cut directions for problem solving. In other words, in
collaborative settings, the role of accountability in identifying and clarifying
expectations for people involved may prove to be more salient and more crucial than
in relatively more established and more stable organizational settings. This was
evident from the responses provided by some o f the participants, like the one that
follows:
hi partnerships, it {i.e., accountability} helps keep the expectations on
equal level so that the school has an expectation o f the business, and
the business has an expectation of the school. And that is one o f our
biggest problems in our partnerships where {people} don’t meet
expectations or have unclear or false expectations (Interview # 25).
4.1.2.2 M obilizing and Motivating (Ex-ante)
The responses coded into this second category underscore the role of accountability
in mobilizing and motivating the members of an organization or a collaborative
undertaking to meet the expectations just mapped and manifested. Accountability
serves as a motivator by way of providing a focus and a system of incentives for the
participants, and by encouraging them to be more effective and productive in their
efforts to meet those expectations. One participant in the sample put it eloquently: “I
think it helps us to, or at least encourages us to be more efficient, and encourages us
to do work that we proclaim we do. I think it is kind o f a motivator for us” (Interview
# 24). As such, accountability is deemed necessary “to maintain quality and to
actually provide effective solutions and impact on the problem” (Interview # 07). It
achieves that by keeping people “focused on pre-determined goals and objectives”
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Interview # 08). All these point to a role for accountability similar to that advanced
and supported empirically by goal-setting theories in organizational literature (e.g.,
Locke, 1986). In addition, in the dynamic yet emergent—and temporary—context of
partnerships, accountability also provides some sense of continuity, keeping them
intact:
I do think that accountability is important within partnerships because
when you lose the accountability factor, normally, that is when the
partnership starts to wane. So, I think accountability is very important
within those partnerships to keep them effective and not just
partnerships in name only (Interview # 20).
4.1.2.3 Monitoring and Measuring Progress and Performance
The third category points to the role o f accountability in monitoring and measuring
the partnership’s progress and performance. Accountability is instrumental for
establishing and enacting policies and processes to assess the progress and
performance of programs or projects, as well as for providing a set o f tools and
mechanisms for tracking and monitoring activities and actions o f individuals. As one
of the participants put it: “It provides you with measurements. It compares you
against baseline data” (Interview # 30). Without accountability functioning as a
“marker”, some participants reasoned, “we would not know where we are”
(Interview # 37), and “we don’t know if we are meeting our needs” (Interview # 26).
The following excerpt from the interview with one of the participants explains the
role and importance of accountability in this respect:
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I think that you need to have some evaluations o f your activity. That
would be one o f the purposes.... (Evaluation is a critical part o f any
business, whether it is education business, or for-profit business.... If
you don’t ever do that evaluation step, you don’t know if you reached
your goals (Interview # 34).
4.1.2.4 Modifying
The fourth category calls attention to the role of accountability as modifier of
partnership activities. Indeed, accountability as marker sets the stage for
accountability as modifier, by informing relevant constituencies about the
partnership’s progress or lack thereof. Accountability provides an occasion “to look
at the processes and do something differently” (Interview # 21). As one of the
participants reasoned:
If the numbers or the data or the information does not support
continuing a program or effort, it makes it a lot easier to let go o f that
and maybe realigning those resources to another effort that is going to
get better results (Interview #17).
To function effectively as a modifier, however, accountability needs to be conceived
more as a tool providing occasions and opportunities for learning and betterment,
rather than merely as a tool used to assign rewards and/or sanctions. The response
from one o f the participants exemplifies well this line of reasoning, and is thus worth
quoting at length here:
I think it {i.e., accountability} is mandatory and necessary, and its
primary purpose is to be able to evaluate the successes and the
failures, after a certain project has been completed. But, as we are
finding out, the more important piece of information we Leam is how'
to better, create, and improve, continuous improvement m odel.... (I)t
is not only giving all of those goods and bads, but to use that
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
knowledge towards continuous improvement. And that becomes an
important strategy for future projects, or future endeavors.... (A)gain,
because o f the continuous improvement idea, this is a regular process
that can be shared also throughout the community or all the
stakeholders. And the information sometimes would help those
stakeholders to make improvement as well as the improvements we
see for the initial project and the initial partnership. New things are
learned from it (Interview # 14).
4.1.2.5 Mobilizing and Motivating (Ex-post)
The responses falling into the fifth and final category direct our attention to the
consequences of accountability, or the after-the-fact features and dimensions of
accountability. The responses coded into this category reflect a surprisingly positive
tone, by and large the most positive tone expressed by the participants in the context
o f the questions related to the purposes, functions, and importance o f accountability.
The emphasis here is more on what happens, or at least what the participants hope
would happen, if an adequate level o f accountability is pursued and achieved—still
more resources and support for their partnership programs:
It {i.e., accountability} also helps us to bring more people on if we
show them that in fact this is a good program... (W)e can show
people that in fact there is a purpose, {and} we are meeting the needs.
People want to be part of a winning team (Interview # 26).
The responses falling into this category contain certain elements of justification. Yet,
it is not justification p er se. It is rather more prospective; it is justification with a
clear future orientation. A concern (maybe an over-concem) for being able to
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
provide positive feedback to certain stakeholders was evident on the part o f some
participants:
I think that when you go to businesses and ask for donations, or when
you go to community organizations and ask them to have volunteers
serve, they need to know that the work that they are doing is effective
and is accomplishing what the goals of the partnership are (Interview
#09).
All in all, accountability was described more as a cause celebre, a tool for public
relations, and a marketing piece:
If people are going to support an effort, they need to know that they
are making a difference. So, accountability should show that. ... I
think it is a huge marketing aspect to be able to get more money and
resources into schools when you have a track record, one that has
been proven. ... I want to show that not only is the district ‘getting a
bang for their buck’ out o f funding this program, but it is a marketing
piece for me to go out and say that we have 90,000 more volunteer
hours this year than last year (Interview # 31).
4.1.3 Accountability to Whom?
When the participants were asked to whom they see partnerships as being
accountable, they, as a group, identified a total of 17 different stakeholders (see
Table 4.3). While a handful of the participants identified just one group of
stakeholders (e.g. “to organizations that provide money” [Interview # 09]), some
participants identified as many as seven different stakeholder groups (e.g. “school
boards, superintendents, principals, teachers, the volunteers, the parents, the business
community, and ultimately, the students” [Interview #30]). It should also be noted
that a small number o f participants tended to offer in their responses a distinction
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
between to whom they see themselves as being accountable and to whom they see
partnerships as being accountable. Evidence of such a tendency can be found in the
following excerpt from the interview with one o f the participants: “I am accountable
to my boss as well as to the superintendent and the board o f education. The
partnerships, they are accountable to the schools and to their own employees”
(Interview # 10). In such cases, only those parts o f their responses directly relevant
to accountability of partnerships have been taken into consideration. Finally, some
participants reacted to the question first by a typical “it depends” (i.e., it depends on
the individual partnerships and what their goals are), and then proceeded to name
one or more stakeholder groups to whom they see the partnerships as being
accountable.
Table 43 Accountability to Whom
Students 21
Partners/To Each Other 15
Businesses 14
Schools 12
Community 9
Teachers 7
School Boards 7
Parents 7
Partnership Offices 4
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4 3 (continued)
Funders/Sponsors 4
Volunteers 3
Citizens 3
School Districts 3
Partnership Board of Trustees 2
Employers I
Legislature I
State School-to-Work Office I
Total 114
Number o f Participants 38
All in all, students were the most frequently mentioned stakeholder group (21 times),
followed by partners/to each other (15 times), businesses (14 times), schools (12
times), and community (9 times). Teachers, school boards, and parents (7 times
each) constituted the second layer of stakeholders to whom the participants see
partnerships as being accountable. Finally, the following stakeholders were also
mentioned: partnership offices (4), funders and sponsors (4), volunteers (3), citizens
(3), school districts (3), partnership board o f trustees (2), employers (1), legislature
(I), and state school-to-work office (1). It is reasonable to think that some categories
can be merged into broader ones (e.g. schools, school districts, school boards, and
teachers into a broad educator category; businesses and employers into one category
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
o f business participants). Even then, however, students still top the list of
stakeholders that the participants identified their partnerships as being accountable
to. More importantly, even when they named other stakeholders in addition to the
students, many of the participants emphasized the word “ultimately” when they were
about to mention students. Expressions like “to our consumers, the children,”
“ultimately, it is to the students,” “ultimately... back to the heart of what it is, and
that is the children,” were not infrequent. This can be interpreted as evidence that
client-based accountability was most salient in the eyes of the participants. Since the
students are the primary beneficiaries of the partnerships, so the reasoning goes, the
partnerships should ultimately be accountable to them. One participant explained it
by saying accountability is “to the students basically. That is who they are being
formed for... to benefit the students” (Interview #19), while still another provides
clear evidence of such reasoning: “I would say, ultimately, it has to be the students
{because} they are the ones that are gaining from these partnerships. If that is not
happening, it is not effective enough” (Interview #18).
The second widely mentioned stakeholder group was the partners involved in
the partnership. Many participants pointed to partnership accountability by using
such expressions as “they are accountable to each other,” “to both,” “first o f all to
each other,” “both sides have a responsibility to their partner,” and “I see they are
accountable to both sides.” The following dialogue between the researcher and one
o f the participants illustrates well the responses falling into this category:
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Researcher: To whom do you see the partnerships as being
accountable?
Participant: To each other.
Researcher Partners are accountable to each other?
Participant: That is right. In other words, let’s say that I form a
partnership between a school and a company. They come up with
their goals. They come up with what they want their outcomes to be.
And then they are accountable to each other to make sure that
happens. Now, I don’t see that they are accountable to me, and I don’t
see that they are accountable to the district. I think, if they help each
other meet their goals, that is being accountable” (Interview # 05).
It should be noted that when the second group o f responses are put together with the
third and fourth group of stakeholders, namely businesses and schools, then, the
significance of this stakeholder group becomes more evident. Likewise, when
volunteers, parents, and citizens are construed as falling into a single community
category, then community becomes the third largest stakeholder. Given the fact that
some partnership boards o f trustees as well as funders/sponsor groups already
include certain elements from the community, accountability to the community at-
large becomes a bit more significant.
The complexity o f accountability relationships is apparent in the functioning
o f many partnerships, if one takes into consideration the existence o f many different
accountability mechanisms and layers within and across participating organizations.
This is reflected in the following response put forward by one o f the participants:
I think they {i.e., partnerships} are accountable to the schools, the
teachers, and students, and also to {name o f the participant’s
organization}. We are the one who sort of fosters those relationships,
and we also provide them with training and the support and the
recognition. So, they have to be accountable to two places. And then,
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
o f course, they are also accountable to their own bosses and boards
and employees. So they have to make sure that, not only do they
follow through on their commitment to the school and to us, they also
have to just continue with maintaining their work, not taking too
much time leaving from their job, things like that. So, I would say
they are accountable to all three. ... My accountability, I feel like,
first is to the schools, the teachers, staff and students, and then
secondly is to the volunteers and to their organizations, and then third,
you know, also to just my own staff my co-workers, my executive
director. And as an organization, we are accountable to our funders,
and to our board members (Interview # 24).
In addition to a wide range o f stakeholders named by the participants, expressions
like “so we are accountable to all,” and “well, to all the stakeholders involved in the
partnership,” point to the complexity of accountability relationships in public-private
partnerships. Adding to this complexity is the fact that some partnership programs in
the sample were joint programs/projects between school districts and chambers of
commerce, and some o f them already have their own boards o f trustees. From a
practical point of view, identifying and aligning all those different accountability
relations and requirements may prove to be a challenging task for practitioners in the
field. In many cases, there is not a tight reporting relationship between the
partnership directors/coordinators working at school districts and the people involved
in partnerships at school-sites or campuses. Rather, there are “broken lines of
accountability’* between them, as illustrated in the following dialogue:
Participant: There is a broken line of accountability to me, not a...
Researcher: What do you mean by that?
Participant: Well, in most organizational charts you have a straight
line for people who directly report, and broken lines to those who are
more in coalition or in cooperation with. So, it is in cooperation with
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
our office. In some, we get a lot o f information, in others we don’t get
as much (Interview # 29).
Not only was the lack o f tight reporting relationships between partnership
coordinators/directors working at the district level and partnership liaisons working
at schools challenging, so was the need for aligning/working through the numerous
accountability relationships that exist within and across members of a partnership.
The following dialogue between the researcher and one o f the participants illustrates
well the how and why of such a challenge:
Participant: The bottom line is {that} we may need to be accountable
to one another as partners. But, the businessperson needs to be
accountable to his boss, and the student needs to be accountable to the
teacher, the teachers need to be accountable to the administrators, the
administrators are accountable to the school board, so we have all got
our own little... {Pause}
Researcher Layers, or ladders of accountability...?
Participant: Exactly* And the cross-walking them, that is another
whole thing (Interview # 38).
4.1.4 Accountability fo r What?
When asked for what they see the partnerships as being accountable, a little less than
half of the participants (17) pointed to enhancing and/or supporting student
achievement and development as the main end-result or end-purpose for their
partnerships (see Table 4.4). The next two most frequently mentioned responses
were meeting goals and objectives (10 times), and preparing the future workforce (8
times), hi addition to these three categories, it was possible to identify 12 more
categories, ranging from providing adult role models (4 times), to enhancing parent
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and community involvement (2 times), to creating awareness and empathy of
constraints (I time). It should be noted, however, that participants’ responses were at
times accompanied by the qualifier ‘it depends’; it depends on individual
partnerships and on what they are trying to get accomplished. Coupled with the wide
Table 4.4 Accountability for What
Enhancing Student Achievement and Development 17
Meeting Goals and Objectives 10
Preparing Future Workforce 8
Increasing the Attendance /Reducing the Absenteeism 5
Providing Adult Role Models 4
Bringing in Resources to Support Schools 4
Having Positive Impact on Curriculum 3
Honoring Commitments 3
Keeping up Teachers’ Morale 3
Providing Effective Planning and Alignment 3
Enhancing Parent and Community Involvement 2
Developing Citizenship and Ethics 2
Filtering/Screening Partners (Volunteers) 2
Using Time Effectively 2
Creating Awareness and Empathy of Constraints I
Total 69
Number o f Participants 38
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
range o f response categories emerging from the interview data, this tells us two
things. First, the participants tend to view accountability more as program or project-
based. Second, the things that the partnerships are or should be held accountable for
were as varied as the participants and the partnerships they were involved in.
Ultimately, we might be better off looking at specific purposes, goals, and objectives
o f partnerships in deciding and evaluating for what those partnerships should be or
are held accountable. Having said this, however, a qualified observation can be made
that, in the majority o f responses, the emphasis was more on outputs and outcomes
than on inputs (e.g., screening/filtering partners) and processes (e.g., using time
effectively, providing effective planning and alignment), hi line with their responses
presented in section 4.1.2, the participants tended to reveal more o f an outcomes or
results-oriented view o f accountability.
4.1.5 Sectoral Differences
When asked whether there are significant differences between the public, private and
nonprofit organizations in the partnerships in terms o f how they approach
accountability, about half of the participants (17) responded affirmatively, while 16
participants stated that there are no significant differences between organizations
from different sectors. Four participants opined that there used to be more
differences between organizations from different sectors in their approaches to
accountability, but they are getting more similar in that respect. One participant
responded to the question by saying “I would not know” (see Table 4.5).
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.5 Sectoral Differences
There are Significant Differences 17
There is No Significant Difference 16
There Used to Be/Getting Similar 4
I Would Not Know 1
Number o f participants 38
To gather their view on which sector is more concerned with accountability
in partnerships, a follow-up question was directed to those whose answers fell into
the first and third categories outlined above (seventeen plus four, a total of twenty-
one participants). Ten participants responded by saying private organizations in
general are more concerned with accountability, while four participants offered the
view that nonprofit organizations are more concerned with accountability. Only one
participant submitted that public organizations are more concerned with
accountability (see Table 4.6).
Table 4.6 Sector More Concerned with Accountability
Private 10
Nonprofit 4
Public 1
They are Just Different 6
Number o f participants 21
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Finally, for six participants, the existence o f sectoral differences in general and vis-a-
vis accountability in particular, is not necessarily tantamount to saying organizations
from one sector or another are more concerned with accountability; organizations
from different sectors simply have different constraints and cultures, which in turn
affect how they approach accountability. These responses certainly need a more
detailed treatment, which is provided below.
4.1.5.1 Why and How Sectoral Differences Do Not Matter
When we examine closely the responses from those who opted for a “no sectoral
difference” answer, it is possible to identify at least four different subcategories. First
o f all, a handful of participants identified the level of involvement from participating
organizations as being more important than their sectoral affiliation in determining
whether those organizations would be less or more concerned with accountability.
One participant put it this way:
{What} I was saying {is that}, it depends on the level of the
partnership. Obviously, if a great deal o f funding is invested in the
volunteer activity in the partnerships and corporate headquarters are
requiring formal evaluations, then, that is what we work towards. In
that sense, it is different. But, as far as in fact this is the non-profit
group so their accountability would be different, well, no—
(Interview # 13).
Second, some respondents emphasized the importance of individual
differences over sectoral divide when it comes to accountability. The following
excerpt from the interview with one of the participants well exemplifies this view:
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I would say that it is more a question o f leadership and not one of
particular sector whether it is public, private, or nonprofit That is a
very good question. B ut I would say it is more who is the director,
executive director, or the president or where that leadership is
coming from in terms o f what the accountability expectations are,
more so than the sector divide (Interview # 36).
Third, a couple of participants reasoned that there were no sectoral
differences in terms of how organizations from different sectors approach
accountability only because accountability issues are not high on the agendas o f any
groups working together in partnerships. While one participant’s view on the issue
read in part as “(t)here is no urgency to show numbers or anything like that”
(Interview # 23), another one put it this way:
I have to say that they are pretty much the sam e.... (I)n general, they
are very amenable to sitting down, and accountability is not really the
first thing they want. What they want is the activities. And that is not
different whether they are a government agency or a not-for-profit
organization (Interview #01).
Finally, some of those who see no sectoral differences when it comes
accountability attributed this either to the existence of a desire on the part o f all
participating organizations regardless o f their sectoral affiliation, “to get some type
o f return on their investment” (Interview #21), “to keep tabs on what they do”
(Interview # 10), and “to contribute to the data” (Interview # 08), or to their own
willingness and efforts to make it a regular practice of providing information to all
partners on what they do, more than any o f the partners would require them to do so.
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.1.5.2 W hy and How Sectoral Differences Do M atter
First o f all, the majority (ten) o f those who expressed the view that there are
significant differences between organizations from different sectors regarding their
approaches to accountability tend to see private organizations as being more
concerned with accountability. Upon probing as to why they think this is the case,
these participants offered various explanations, which can be grouped under three
main categories, hi the first group are those who think that private sector
organizations are more demanding in terms of accountability because most of the
time they are the ones providing resources to the partnership. The following excerpt
best illustrates this view:
Most of the time, your business community is giving. They are letting
people have time off...a lot o f the time. So, they are allowing their
employees to come to the schools. Many times they are giving you
their money. They are also giving you their resources, many times
donation of things.... And if they give me fifty thousand dollars, they
want to know {whether} we are going to use it wisely, {whether} it is
going to be beneficial to them in some aspect, even if it is a long-
range benefit (Interview # 04).
A somewhat similar perspective emerged from the data that links private
organizations’ demands for more accountability to their need for better records and
more publicity on their community involvement activities. One respondent put it this
way:
I think the business world puts a few more demands because they
need PR, or they need, you know, whatever, those kinds o f things....
{For instance}, (t)he banks want us to be accountable so that they can
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
show in their audits that they have given, you know, this kind o f time
and effort (Interview # 33).
Finally, a few respondents reasoned that private organizations are more
concerned with accountability because “they are more used to justifying their actions
and being accountable to various stakeholders, much more so than education people”
(Interview # 19). Another participant makes a similar comparison between the
teachers and business executives:
I think it is the case because...presidents or CEOs o f most companies
are held accountable every single day for their actions, and (when)
something {bad} happens more than twice in profits, ...these people
would lose their jobs. Their life rests upon accountability and
performance, as opposed to within not-for-profits, particularly public
school situations. There are a lot o f reasons, but one o f them {is that}
teachers don’t worry about that kind of stuff. You know, kids come
and kids go, trends come and trends go, so forth and so on, but they
are still tenured teachers, they are still there (Interview # 06).
On the other hand, those who see nonprofit organizations as being more
concerned with accountability, would almost unanimously agree with the
explanation offered by one o f them as to why this is the case:
Because not-for-profits are being challenged more and more.
...Obviously, they are getting their support from the for-profit
business community most o f the time. And because the for-profits are
being scratched and their resources are being sought after more and
more, it behooves not-for-profits to build a strong and significant case
that whatever program, partnership, whatever they are sponsoring in
the community, it has an impact that is worthwhile being supported.
...So, there are limited numbers of dollars out there supporting not-
for-profits and more and more they are in competition with each other
and, you know, they have to work very smart, very hard (Interview #
12).
I l l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This last view was also supported by one o f the participants whose response to the
original question on the issue was recorded in the third category shown in Table 4.5.
This participant points to the not-so-easy process o f converging views on
accountability in the larger environment surrounding public and nonprofit
organizations:
Traditionally, I think, most non-profits and education systems have
just said “take our words for it: it is successful, we know it is
successful, and we don’t have anything to show you for it!” ... I think
that’s just the way the mindset has been. Now, luckily, more and more
the school systems and the non-profits have kind o f come to the
center and realized that if they are to continue to be funded, they are
going to have to show the proof. And, I think, that is why we are
coming to hear a lot of grumbling now (Interview # 02).
As mentioned before, six participants shared the belief that there are differences
between organizations coming from different sectors vis-a-vis accountability, yet
opted not to point to any sector as being less or more concerned with accountability.
One o f these participants offered his/her perspective on the issue as matter-o f- factly:
Businesses look at the bottom-line, and so they are more interested in
hard-data and research and that kind o f thing. And I think public and
non-profit {organizations} are more interested in the emotional,
maybe, I don’t know if emotional is the word, but maybe
psychological or something benefits, not necessarily in the bottom-
line kind of things. That would be the main difference (Interview #
09).
For some o f them, however, the issue o f divergent constraints and expectations of
organizations from different sectors has been difficult to deal with. The following
excerpt from the interview with one o f the participants illustrate well why and how
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sectoral differences may at times present significant challenges to those working in
multi-sectoral collaborative settings:
Because schools are so process-driven and businesses are not only
bottom-line driven, but short term, you know, this quarter, what are
their current results, it is difficult to get to talk to the businesses about
long-term planning and long-term investment. When you talk about
accountability, for them, we can talk about running a short-term
program that gets people ready for work in the next six weeks. ...
(T)he fact that businesses’ needs for workers have become so critical
and have reached crisis portion, has shortened their patience level....
I mean they want results yesterday. And it is very difficult. I have
found it a great challenge to talk to them about systemic change.
Because what they want are programmatic outcomes in as short a time
frame as possible (Interview # 07).
Before closing this section, two different yet related themes on the issue of
sectoral differences should be highlighted. One has to do with the possibility of
diminishing, if not disappearing, the gap — and to some extent the tension and
challenges it might generate — between the perspectives on accountability of
individuals representing public, private, and nonprofit sectors as they become more
experienced working with one another. The view offered by one o f the participants
carries in it some hints (or hopes) in that direction:
Probably there used to be {differences}. I think we are all getting to
be...we have been working together for about four years plus. So, you
know, we crossed those barriers. I mean, at the beginning, there was a
total difference in accountability from the private sector to the public
sector. The private sector didn’t have as much patience with, you
know, planning...and let’s meet some more...let’s try to see what we
are going to do, and then maybe we will do it. I think the private
sector was more: “OK, if this is the problem, let’s do it. Let’s get
moving on it, and let’s measure it. See if it is right. If it is, that is fine.
If it is not, we’ll change it.” Education does not move in that speed.
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
So, I think there has been a lot of movement in that area (Interview #
02).
The second theme is related to the role o f training and networking
opportunities supported or offered by NAPE and its state affiliates. Their bringing of
individuals and organizations from different sectors together may help make the
differences among these individuals and organizations less significant or at least less
problematic over time. The perspective offered by one o f the participants touches
upon many themes considered so far in the context of sectoral differences and is
worth quoting at length:
There are two sides. There is the way educators look at it, and then
there is the way the business looks at it. And we are not always
cognitive o f one another’s terminology, time schedules, parameters,
those kinds of things. ... I think people perceive accountability
differently, too. ... I think when the two parties get together, they
decide how they are going to be accountable to one another. I think
different people may use different tools and maybe, again, that is
where the Partners (i.e., NAPE} come in. Because, I think you are
aware o f some o f their materials, and so on. ... (T)he resource guide,
and that type of thing and the training that is provided so that, you
know, if my partner and I attend the training together, or have some of
the same materials and dialogue about it, or go to a conference
together, we are creating a similar awareness. ... I think it puts them
closer to the same page. I think a lot of that {is} subject to personal
interpretation. But, just from what I have seen in, you know, going to
the Partners Symposium,... when people are brought together under a
form where they receive the training, they are going to be {using}
some basic terminology and basic skills that they have in common.
And I think there is a discrepancy between, the partners, between
business and education. You know, one has got a marketing plan, one
has got a lesson plan, you know, those kinds o f things. So, they
understand one another’s language {better} (Interview # 38).
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.2 Practices
The participants were asked six major questions during the interviews to gather
information pertaining to how accountability is achieved in practice in educational
partnerships (see Appendix 3). The majority o f the questions were intended to obtain
information on the realities of accountability: H ow is accountability
practiced/achieved in partnerships? One specific question was designed to uncover
the consequences o f accountability: What happens, if anything, as a result of
accountability in partnerships? hi addition to the interview data, the documents
obtained from the participants were utilized to draw conclusions about accountability
practices in educational partnerships.
Before going into detail, a generic finding or overarching theme that emerged
from the interviews with partnership practitioners must be noted. It has to do with the
emerging nature o f accountability concerns and practices in the context of
educational public-private partnerships in the United States. Accountability is
becoming more salient and more significant, if not more problematic, in the
functioning of these multi-sectoral collaborative undertakings. One participant
summed it up by saying “(accountability in partnerships has been one of the last
frontiers” (Interview # 01). This was echoed by another participant: “(f)irst and
foremost, accountability in the area of education partnerships is, I think, fairly new”
(Interview # 04). Still another participant elaborated on what it means: “As we are
going more into partnerships development, there is a tendency toward a more
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
stretched, evaluative, or monitoring aspect to the partnerships, rather than just a party
two times a year, or donations...” (Interview # 36).
4.2.1 Overall Place o f Accountability in Partnerships
The first question related to accountability practices was intended to have the
practitioners assess the significance o f accountability in educational partnerships.
When asked what part accountability plays in their partnerships, fourteen participants
gave responses that were coded as very significant, while responses from sixteen
participants were coded as significant. The responses from seven participants were
coded as not very significant. There was one unclear answer (see Table 4.7).
Table 4.7 Place of Accountability In Partnerships
Very Significant 14
Significant 16
Not Very Significant 7
No Clear Answer I
Number o f participants 38
Taken together, more than eighty percent of the participants considered
accountability as playing either a very significant or a significant part in their
partnerships.
4.2.2 Performance Criteria for Partnerships
The participants were asked one direct question during the interviews to gather
information as to whether any performance criteria for their partnerships have been
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
developed. Their responses to this question can be grouped under five major
categories. It must be noted that the following categories do not focus on what the
criteria are, but rather reflect a focus on how, if at all, they were specified.
4.2.2.1 It depends
The first group of responses pointed to the existence of a wide variety of partnerships
in which they were involved, and thus a wide variety o f accountability practices in
use. In other words, as was the case in their responses to other questions (e.g., the
question o f “for what”), some practitioners in the sample tended to talk about
performance criteria in the context of their partnerships with the qualifier “it
depends”. One o f the most frequently mentioned contingencies has to do with a
practice found in some school districts called leveling. While some participants
insisted that they purposely do not level their partnerships because they believe that
“every partnership is equal and valued” (Interview # 05), there were a handful of
participants who reported that they do indeed have at least two and up to five
different categories of partnerships. Different performance criteria and evaluation
practices were applied to different levels of partnerships, depending upon the degree
and depth of involvement from partnering organizations. The following excerpt from
the interview with one of the participants helps clarify the issue at hand:
I think it depends on the level o f the partnership. Obviously, if a great
deal o f time and money is invested by the corporation in that
partnership, then there needs to be some accountability
measurements, more formal pieces, number o f students participating,
number of volunteer hours, you know, how the scores have been
changed, benchmark, baseline. ...We have informal measurements for
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
partners that want to be occasionally supportive, you know,
occasionally come in, there are those kinds of things like contests,
having some visibility but not to the extent that level-two partners
would have. So, it depends on the partnerships what types of
evaluations we would have (Interview # 13).
4.2.2.2 Contracts and Memoranda o f Agreements
In responding to the question affirmatively, some participants pointed to the places
where performance criteria or indicators for partnerships can be found: contracts and
memoranda of agreements signed between public schools or school districts, and
private and/or nonprofit organizations. Those who were involved in partnerships
that use federal and/or state funds (e.g., partnerships formed after the School-to-
Work Act of 1994) emphasized the importance o f pre-determined criteria and formal
evaluation mechanisms for their partnerships. Some participants, on the other hand,
indicated that they developed performance criteria as well as evaluation forms with
the help o f either their Partnership Advisory Boards/Councils or the counselors
and/or departments o f research and evaluation in their school districts. Finally, as
will be detailed later in this section, some participants pointed to the role o f NAPE
and its affiliates in the context of this question.
4.2.23 Alignment
Responses from some other practitioners revealed the existence o f another common
practice: aligning the goals and objectives of individual partnerships with campus
improvement plans and/or district- or state-wide test and/or accreditation standards,
hi other words, some school districts have adopted the policy o f directing the efforts
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and resources of their partnerships toward the areas where they need help most and
then judging the overall performance of partnerships by improvements in those
specific areas, instead of developing separate performance criteria for each
partnership. While one o f the participants was heard saying “we can take a little bit
of credit if those test scores go up and we have directed twenty-five mentors to that
school” (Interview # 08), another participant explained the practice still further:
I would say in the past, it was more based upon individual schools
setting their own goals and their own criteria what they want to get
out o f partnerships. In the last two and half to three years, the state
has set the criteria that I have mentioned, standards, learning
standards and accreditation. The superintendent and the school board
said: “Our one, two, and third priority are all the same: improved
student achievement, every school accredited. All partnership
activities, all volunteer activities, all the school activities would be
geared toward that one area.” It is kind o f like the horses ride on this
one thing (Interview # 36).
4.2.2.4 Awards
A handful o f participants mentioned the existence o f district- or state-wide awards
for successful partnerships in the context o f this question, pointing to two different
roles that such awards might play. One role has to do with increasing information
flow, however imperfect, from schools to district and/or state level offices of
partnership coordinators so that the latter can use it for different purposes (e.g.,
enhancing their database, assessing the health o f various partnerships going on at
local levels, etc.). The following excerpt provides good evidence of such a role for
awards:
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
We are not always or perhaps even usually successful in getting good
information from them on how they intend to measure the
effectiveness of the partnerships. One of the few ways that we have
been successful getting interesting, good data from them is to offer
awards for outstanding programs and making them document
outstanding programs. Other than that, we do not really have any
particular carrots that would go to their heads or sticks to beat them
{laughs} to get data back from them (Interview # 01).
The second role for awards relates to their usefulness both in spreading ideas or
models concerning the steps that should be taken or the processes that should be
followed in the development of partnerships, and in encouraging people to make
their best effort to meet those award criteria or standards.
4.2.2.5 No Performance Criteria/No Written Contracts
Finally, there were those responses which revealed that, in many partnerships, there
were neither any standardized, pre-determined performance criteria nor any written
contracts/agreements between participating organizations as to the goals and
objectives of the partnerships. The following excerpt from the interview with one of
the participants provides an example of this genre of responses:
I think some of what we do is not really official. I have heard of
people doing contracts where you kind of sign up for a formal
agreement between the school and the partnering organization. We
haven’t done that. But, having an initial meeting, having the face-to-
face contact between whoever the contact person o f the organization
is and the principal actually serves as a good method of
accountability. Because here is, you know, here is someone who is
promising a principal that they are going to be providing some
services, and I think that face-to-face contact actually kind of fortifies
their commitment (Interview # 24).
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.2.3 Information on Activities and Performance o f Partnerships
To identify and describe how accountability is achieved in partnerships, it was
necessary to learn how the participants in the sample gather and disseminate
information about the activities and performance of their partnerships. As can be
seen in Table 4.8, it was possible to identify four broad categories of practices
pertaining to gathering information on partnership activities and performance.
Table 4.8 Information on Activities and Performance
Advanced and/or Multiple Surveys and Measures 9
Regular Record-keeping and A Periodic Evaluation 17
Just Maintaining Records-No Formal Evaluations 7
Little or No Formal Documentation 4
No Clear Answer I
Number o f participants 38
hi the first group were those participants (9) who reported that they use advanced
and/or multiple surveys and measures to collect and assess information on activities
and performance. Around half of the participants (17), on the other hand, reported
that in addition to maintaining regular records and/or a database related to their
partnerships, they utilize an evaluation tool to gather and assess the information from
their partnerships. In most cases, this meant a year-end satisfaction survey was sent
to and collected from school partnership coordinators/liaisons and/or to community
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
partners involved in collaborative efforts with schools. The third group consists of
participants (7) who reported that they tracked the numbers from and maintained
records of their partnerships, but were not conducting any formal evaluations o f their
partnerships. Finally, there were four participants in the sample who reported that
there was little or no formal documentation and thus no formal evaluation related to
their partnerships.
The practitioners also varied in their practice o f disseminating information on
their partnerships to relevant constituencies. Generally speaking, the participants
who reported that they employ a practice o f gathering more information on the
activities and performance of their partnerships (i.e., those whose responses fell into
the first two categories on Table 4.8) were also the ones who were keen on
disseminating partnership-related information to the relevant constituencies, hi a few
cases, this meant only submitting formal reports to sponsor organizations. In many
cases, however, the recipients of partnership-related information were not limited to
sponsoring organizations but included, among others, the superintendent o f schools,
school board members, members o f partnership advisory councils, principals,
school-level coordinators/liaisons, partnering organizations, the volunteers, and the
community at large. It was evident from both the interview data and the documents
that some practitioners go to great lengths to inform the general public about their
partnerships, extensively publicizing what they do through newsletters, pamphlets,
brochures, and TV and radio programs. It should also be noted here that about one
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
third o f the participants in the sample generate annual reports related to their
partnership activities, and that handful of participants also reported, without
prompting, that they maintain a web site containing information on their
partnerships.
One additional observation on how accountability is achieved in practice in
educational partnerships is worth noting here. It has to do with two different attitudes
exposed or approaches taken by partnership coordinators working for school districts
vis-a-vis monitoring their partnerships, akin to “police patrol” versus “fire abrm”
oversight types (McCubbins and Schwartz, 1984) well known to the students of
political science and public administration. Some partnership coordinators insisted
that their partnership programs were designed in a manner so that they will be
school-based, locally-determined programs without much oversight and intervention
from their departments, unless there is a problem where such help would be needed.
The following excerpt from the interview with one of the participants illustrates well
the “fire alarm” approach taken by some partnership coordinators in the sample:
Our program was started with the philosophy that it would be very
site-based, with very little intervention and demand from the central
office. My job was to be a resource and the help, and to coordinate
things that involved all the schools as far as partnerships were
concerned. ... So, we really from the district level have not made a
list o f anything that the schools have to be accountable for in their
partnership. We have made recommendations that they all formalize
them in some way. So there is a formalization process. We asked
them all to keep me informed as to their activities (Interview # 33).
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Still others, whose approach on the issue can be best described as more o f a “police
patrol”, would go to great lengths with monitoring and follow-up meetings with
school partnership coordinators/liaisons. For example, among those who reported
that they hold regular meetings with partnership liaisons from schools in their
districts, it was this group o f partnership coordinators who reported having more
frequent meetings and more follow-ups. Below is an example o f the “police patrol”
approach taken and described by one of the participants:
When those end-of-the-year evaluations come in, I personally read
every single one o f them. And we ask: “Are you having problems? Do
you need, do you require assistance?”... So, I would read every single
one o f them and then they are handed to the people who are
responsible for those schools, and we follow up on everyone and so
we do meetings where we bring people together and sit down and say,
“why is this not working?” (Interview # 3 1).
4.2.4 Informal-Formal Approaches to Accountability in Partnerships
To gather information on the use of informal and formal approaches to
accountability in the partnerships, the participants were asked one direct question on
the issue: “Is the overall approach to accountability in the partnerships informal or
formal?” When their responses to this question were examined along with the
documents they provided, it was possible to identify four main categories related to
the type o f accountability approaches used in educational partnerships (see Table
4.9).
The first category included responses from four participants indicating clearly
that there was little or no formal documentation (e.g., contracts, memoranda of
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
understandings, surveys, written evaluation forms, etc.) involved in their
partnerships. At the other end o f the continuum, six participants indicated clearly
during the interviews that their approach to accountability was formal (e.g., “The
overall approach is definitely formal where we use written goals and objectives. I do
not believe in informal accountability” [Interview # 30]), and they provided the
researcher with a set o f written materials from their partnerships (e.g., annual reports,
sample of contracts, surveys, etc.). In between, there were two categories — mostly
informal (13) and a combination o f both (14).
Table 4.9 Informal-Formal Dimension In Accountability
Informal 4
Mostly Informal 13
A Combination of Both 14
Formal 6
No Clear Answer I
Number o f participants 38
Taken together, it is reasonable to conclude that in the great majority o f partnerships
in the sample, some combination of formal and informal tools and mechanisms for
accountability were utilized, albeit for different purposes and with varying degrees of
emphasis depending o f the nature o f the partnerships involved. This issue warrants
further elaboration, which is provided below.
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
First of all, as mentioned at the beginning o f this section, it was found that
accountability in educational partnerships is becoming more salient and more
significant, if not more problematic. Since more accountability is frequently
understood as more formal reporting and evaluation requirements, it is safe to say
that, generally speaking, there is an increasing tendency toward using more formal
reporting and evaluation tools in the partnerships.
Second, the source, type, and amount of resources involved in partnerships
may prove critical in determining the extent to which informal and formal tools and
mechanisms are utilized. For instance, the participants who were involved in
partnerships that get funded fully or extensively through federal and/or state money
(e.g., those partnerships established after the SchooI-to-Work Act) tended to report
the use of more formal reporting and evaluation tools and processes. A similar trend
can also be detected in the practice of “leveling” alluded to earlier in the context of
performance criteria in partnerships; those partnerships falling into higher levels tend
to involve more formal documentation and evaluation. In the same manner, some
district-level coordinators/directors made a clear distinction between partnerships in
terms o f whether they require formal evaluations and/or reports from them,
depending upon the extent to which they themselves contribute funds to those
partnerships. What follows is an example of such an approach:
We have some partnerships that they really don’t want a formal
evaluation. We don’t force that on them; if they want it to be
informal, we let it be informal. But, we as a district do not impose our
own evaluation on the partnership. Now, I say that. That is in general.
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
If we as district are contributing a lot o f funds ourselves, then we do.
But, if we are not putting in a lot o f resources, then we don’t
(Interview # 04).
Third, aside from these contingencies, a closer look at the data suggests a
relationship between the length of partnerships’ existence and the degree of formality
in their accountability approaches. It is possible to hypothesize that, everything else
held constant, the formality of approaches taken by partnership offices/units is
closely associated with the years of existence o f those partnership offices/units. In
this regard, it is possible to identify two distinct categories. In the first group are
those partnership practitioners who reported that their department/unit was recently
established. Their approach to accountability was informal or mostly informal yet
they were going through a formalization process, as illustrated in the following
response: “It is pretty informal although it is getting more formal. This is Just the
second year that we have had the actual partner plan where the business and the
school signed off on it” (Interview # 11). As time passes, a certain degree of
formalization is inserted into the processes. Yet, as the experience o f partnership
units and o f partners with one another grows, there is a decline in their drive to
increase formalization of their processes. A trend from more formal back again to
informal takes hold, as illustrated by the excerpt from the interview with one of the
participants:
We used to have very formal; we would sign things...we would do all
kinds o f formal things. We have moved away from that to much more
informal relationships. Because we have been out in this for fourteen
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
years. Because we have a lot o f long-standing partnerships out there
(Interview # 06).
Fourth, looking at the interview data a bit closer made it possible to draw
some conclusions about the use of informal and formal processes and tools for
different purposes in the context of accountability in partnerships. For one, some
participants made a clear distinction between those processes in terms o f their utility
in the functioning o f their partnerships. The formal processes were mostly associated
with keeping databases, generating and submitting reports to outside parties, and
giving some sense o f continuity and structure to the partnerships. The informal
processes, on the other hand, were rated highly when it comes to identifying and
solving problems on a daily basis in the held. One o f the participants said: “For our
database purposes, the formal is most important. ... As far as seeing the
effectiveness, that very often is mostly achieved by informal contacts with the
principals and with the representatives from the partnerships” (Interview # 10).
Another one summed it up by saying, “We get the informal feedback as well as the
formal, numbers, you know. But, I think it is the anecdotal things that have really
made a difference” (Interview # 14). Yet another participant, after mentioning an
increased tendency toward more formalization in their partnerships and, upon
probing, reasoning as to why it was the case, said:
I think, again, it is whole ability to have some consistency from year
to year because we do have such huge, huge turnover in staff,
especially at the campus level. But, on the business side as well. ...
So, I think it is an outgrowth on both sides (Interview # 11).
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
One participant’s response on the issue carries within it a suggestion that may turn
out to be very instructive in the end for those involved in educational partnerships
who want to utilize both informal and formal tools for accountability:
I think it is both. I think there is the formal accountability, where you
get your data, where you track how many partners you have, where
you track at the end o f the year what activities they have been
engaged in, how many volunteers, how many hours. ... There is also
an informal accountability process, where you put into it that
recognition component where you are celebrating successes, where
you are monitoring through conversations with partnership
coordinators how is it going, are things going well, or things are not
going w ell.... I really believe that you have to have a balance of both,
that you have to use one as a way, as a tool to support the other
(Interview # 17).
Finally, the field data suggest that no discussion of informal and formal
means or tools of accountability in educational partnerships would be complete
without looking at the informal, socializing forms of accountability that have been
going on among different groups o f people involved in various aspects of these
partnerships. First of all, there has been a great deal o f interaction and socializing
between partnership coordinators working for school districts and partnership
coordinators/liaisons working for individual schools, hi addition to regular meetings
— as few as twice a year, and as many as once a month — different occasions such
as award ceremonies bring these two groups o f people together. Many participants in
the sample reported that one or more o f those regular meetings were slotted for
training that they provide to school coordinators/liaisons, focusing on such issues as
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
how to recruit and retain community partners, and how to design and evaluate their
activities. Responses like the one that follows were not infrequent:
We also have two coordinators’ meetings, one in the Fall and one in
the Spring, which basically serves as...really the only time that the
coordinators from all partnerships get together, serves as a networking
meeting and is pretty much business meeting for that particular
semester (Interview # 20).
Networking and socializing between partnership coordinators representing
different school districts also occur whenever they come together at regional
meetings and/or through national partners in education symposia. Some participants
reported that they come together, albeit with varying degrees o f frequency, with
those who are in a similar position to theirs. One of them was heard saying: “(I) am
seeing my colleagues in this area...and we talk, meet very frequently, the
coordinators in {names o f some neighboring cities} we talk, and we have for about
every two-three months, we have lunch together” (Interview # 36). Still another
participant gave a detailed account o f such networking and socializing:
You know, it is critical to be able to talk to somebody who
understands the position you are in. ... A lot o f partnership
coordinators within those regions would meet once a month for a
lunch talk and have a chance to network and talk over that, plus have
a speaker. Others would meet every other month, or maybe once a
quarter, whatever works for their particular area, and we have a lot of
them to have come to our state conference. For a lot o f them the main
reason is just to participate in forums where they can talk to the
people that have the same position. The networking, you know, what
has worked for you, what hasn’t, this is what I tried. Those types of
things, and socializing with a professional purpose (Interview # 19).
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Partnership coordinators from different school districts across the United States also
come together through the forums that NAPE, its state affiliates, and one of its
national affiliates, Partnership Directors Network, provide to their members and
attendees. In addition to providing opportunities for networking and socializing,
these forums were also reported to serve as occasions to learn new ideas from others
holding similar positions. One of the participants put it this way:
I have seen, you know, being involved in the NAPE, I have seen a lot
of other programs and how they are run. ... I think I picked that up
from my very first trip to the NAPE, about eight years ago where this
whole process is a sharing, kind of stealing process {laughs}, you
know, borrowing process from everyone else. ... I think it is very
collaborative from that point of view, where we are just willing to
share, and, you do what is right for your district, and what fits your
district’s philosophy, but, it is OK. though to pick ideas from
everyone. ... I think that is the whole point o f conferences, like the
NAPE conference. I go there every year, trying to find new ideas
(Interview # 33).
Last but not least, in addition to providing forums to partnership practitioners
for professional networking and socializing processes, NAPE and its affiliates also
contribute to the development of professionalism in the field o f educational
partnerships through their publications and professional training activities at the
local, state, and national levels. One of the participants summed those different roles
up by saying, “(w)e have NAPE here in {name o f the state}. We have had major
trainings and its specific key role has been the providing o f professional training....
It is a network, and also kind of problem solving” (Interview # 29). The professional
influence o f NAPE and its affiliates on those working in the field o f educational
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
partnerships was evident in the interviews with various participants through such
expressions as “(w)e work very closely with the National Association of Partners in
Education. And we have used parts of their evaluation form to develop our own”
(Interview # 10); “I like to use the 12-step framework from the National Association
of Partners in Education. And what I do is train both school staff and our partners in
that 12-step framework” (Interview #17). Some participants were not uncritical of
NAPE as an organization. Even they, however, pointed to some of the informal,
socializing processes that occur through the forums that NAPE and its affiliates have
been providing to the practitioners in the field. What follows is an example of the
approach just described:
The office itself, honestly, isn’t that much of a help. But, it is
networks and the connections that you make at the conferences or
workshops that you attend, that really, really come in handy. ... I
went to the National Conference in Washington D.C. in November
this past year. That was my first one that I attended. And just to pick
up on different ideas, on what other people were doing, and even
made a really good connection with someone who started off I guess
fifteen, twenty years ago the way I am now, and that district is now,
you know, at a great level of improvement (Interview # 35).
All in all, the data from this field research suggest the existence of informal,
socializing forms of accountability, a quasi-professional accountability of sorts
among practitioners in the area of educational partnerships.
4.2.5 Consequences o f Accountability
The participants were asked one specific question to uncover what happened, if
anything, in their partnerships as a result of accountability. It was possible to identify
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
five distinct categories related to consequences o f accountability (see Table 4.10). In
the first category o f responses, the attitude exposed by the participants can be best
described as follows: “let’s look at it and see what is working and what is not
working, and do whatever we can to make it work.” The emphasis was more on their
role as trouble-shooters, called in to solve the problems emanating mostly from
communication problems between people involved in a particular partnership. The
following excerpt from the interview with one of the participants suggests that they
sometimes share their trouble-shooter role with others as well: “Normally, we would
have a committee together. ... We sit down and take a look at this, what worked and
what didn’t work, and what we need to change” (Interview # 26).
Table 4.10 Consequences of Accountability
Modifying Processes/Trouble-Shooting 13
Increased Resources 7
Policy Changes 6
Lost Partners 5
Lost/Withheld Funds 3
No Clear Answer 4
Number of participants 38
In the second group o f responses, increased levels o f support for existing
programs/projects or expanded resources to start new partnership initiatives were
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
reported (e.g., “we had something happen through business involvement here. We
started an educational foundation two years ago. And that was an outgrowth o f some
o f our partnership activities” [Interview # 32]).
The third group o f responses pointed to some policy changes that came about
as a result o f accountability, policy changes that were more conducive to and/or
supportive o f partnership development (e.g., “(I) think that the business partnership
coordinators were direct result of the need for better communication. And that was
one of the things that came out in the surveys” [Interview # 33]).
The fourth and the fifth group o f responses, on the other hand, pointed to
some negative consequences of accountability in partnerships: lost partners and lost
or withheld funds. It would suffice here to provide one example o f each. The
following excerpt provides an example of losing partners as a consequence of
accountability in partnerships:
If they {i.e., private companies} don’t feel that their resources are
being utilized appropriately or to the maximum benefit, then they pull
out of that school and go to another school where they do feel that
they can make a difference. ... I have had a couple of {examples of}
that (Interview # 11).
The response from another practitioner provides an example o f withheld funds as a
consequence o f accountability: “(I)f it is a funded project and if we find that they
didn’t accomplish what they say they would accomplish...and if we didn’t have the
opportunity to modify as we go through, their funds are withheld” (Interview # 06).
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4 3 Problem s
During the interviews, the participants were asked one direct question about the
major challenges and difficulties in terms of accountability they have encountered in
their partnerships. Participants’ responses to this specific question, as well as any
relevant information they provided on this theme in different segments of the
interviews, were analyzed together. It was possible to identify eight different
categories o f challenges or difficulties that the practitioners said they have been
facing in their partnerships. These challenges/difficulties are listed in the order of the
frequency with which they were mentioned (see Table 4.11). Difficulties regarding
availability of and access to information constituted by far the largest category of
challenges/difficulties (26), followed by differences (18) and frequent changes (13).
The remaining categories for challenges/difficulties and the number of participants
who mentioned them are as follows: reliability/commitment challenges (8), training
challenges (5), difficulty in assigning credit (4), difficulty in influencing without
formal authority (4), and difficulty in getting support from the top (3). Each of these
categories are explained and elaborated on below, enhanced by illustrative examples
from the interview data.
43.1 Difficulties in Availability o f and Access to Information
What emerged from the data as the most significant accountability challenge facing
partnership practitioners can be called “the availability-access challenge.” It refers to
difficulties on the part o f practitioners in terms o f the availability of and access to
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
information on partnership activities and/or performance. The problem has four
distinct yet related components. The first one has to do with personnel constraints the
practitioners face in documenting and monitoring various partnership activities as
well as in collecting, analyzing, and evaluating relevant information and data from
Table 4.11 Challenges and Difficulties
Difficulties in
Availability of
and Access to
Information
Personnel Constraints i 1 0
1
Monetary Constraints T 4
I
Measurability Constraints t 8
{ Access Constraints [ 4 26
1 1
Differences i Sectoral Differences i 1 0
1 1
{ Personal Differences J 8 1 8
1 1
Frequent
Changes in
Personnel | 6
1
Resources j 5
I
Partners 2 1 3
Reliability/Commitment Challenges 8
Training Challenges 5
Difficulty in Assigning Credit 4
Difficulty in Influencing without Formal Authority 4
Difficulty in Getting Support From the Top 3
Total 81
N u m b e r of P a r t i c i p a n t s 3 8
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
their partnerships. Ten participants mentioned this as a significant challenge. The
following excerpt from one of them clearly illustrates this challenge:
(0)ne o f the reasons for that {i.e., not adequately monitoring and
evaluating partnerships} is that I am the only person that works for
the partnerships in our school district as far as being a paid person,
without a secretary. So, it is crazy. We have about 45 schools...
{and} about 300 different partnerships. ... It gets crazy (Interview #
35).
The second component o f the availability-access challenge has to do with the
constraints practitioners were facing in terms o f having adequate monetary resources
to gather and analyze information on partnerships, including setting up and
maintaining a database. One of the participants was lamenting the lack of resources
by saying “A very important component into the evaluation is that, and I think that is
being done, unfortunately, inconsistently, because there is not the resources to do it
across the board o f all o f the partnership activities” (Interview # 36). Another
participant clarified well both personnel and monetary constraints some practitioners
were facing: “hi this office, {the biggest challenge is} getting adequate support for
setting up a database and hiring a person to be in charge o f that database” (Interview
# 10).
The third component of the availability-access challenge, referred to here as
measurability constraints, refers to difficulties stemming from the very nature of
many partnership programs and activities. Part of the problem is that some
partnership programs do not lend themselves to easy evaluations because they
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
address multiple issues at once. One participant’s response on the issue provides
good evidence of such difficulty:
I think it {i.e., the major challenge/difficulty} is getting the program
evaluations. You know, it is very hard to evaluate programs because it
is not one thing. I don’t think we are ever going to find an answer to
that. Because you have programs that address all the different needs
in different schools. It is not a one-size-fits-all, it is not just one
particular program. It is a massive program. So, being able to analyze
that is difficult as far as the program evaluation {goes} (Interview #
29).
Similarly, it was a very challenging task for some participants to assess precisely the
impact o f certain partnership programs on the students they intend to serve. The
following excerpt from the interview with one o f the participants illustrates well the
challenge facing those working in the area of educational partnerships:
If they said they would do those three things by these three days, that
is an easy kind of accountability. But, when we say we want to
enhance die self-esteem of the kids, or we want to achieve the
attitudes of the kids through the education, measuring self-esteem,
measuring attitudes, measuring a lot o f those things...trying to
measure those things, trying to find the time to measure those things,
and the tools to measure those things is probably the greatest
challenge, even though businesses are telling us that those are the
things that they are looking for most from the kids—they team how to
learn, and so forth. Finding specific objectives, quantifiable
accountability measures for those kinds o f things for this program is
one of the greatest challenges that we have had all the years
(Interview # 06).
Getting reliable, current data to gauge the effectiveness o f partnerships and then
utilizing the data for some purposes appears to be a very daunting challenge for some
partnership practitioners. One participant explained how and why:
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reliable current data is critically important and that is the hardest
thing to get. ... Because it just does not stay current for very long.
You might spend some time accumulating data and then it is out-of-
date before you even have a chance to do anything with it (Interview
#09).
The fourth component o f the availability-access challenge refers to the
difficulty participants indicated they were facing in terms o f the flow of timely,
regular, and/or adequate information on the partnerships, from individual schools to
school districts, or from school districts to state level organizations. Here, the
challenge is not about availability of such information, but one o f access to the
information that presumably exists somewhere but remains out o f reach of the
participants themselves. One participant explained the difficulty this way:
My greatest challenge is...having the ability...to collect whatever
information is there on what they do. I have trouble getting my hands
on it. Because...there is no such a thing as one form o f evaluation
and, as I said, everyone is doing their own set (Interview # 22).
4.3.2 Differences
The existence of personal differences, as well as differences between organizations
from the three sectors, especially those between public schools and private
companies, constitutes the second most widely cited challenge by the participants.
Since the issue of sectoral differences was partly elaborated in the preceding pages, it
would suffice here to give two examples of how those sectoral differences can create
challenges for those who have to work in multi-sectoral collaborative undertakings.
Some of the participants dwelled on the constraints under which public schools have
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to operate, and how these constraints, when not understood well by private
companies, may create challenges for the parties involved. One participant’s take on
the issue was as follows:
(B)oth parties want very much to be successful together. I think that
they just sometimes struggle. You know, in the business community,
sometimes, I think, they become a little bit impatient, because
typically the education system moves at a very slow pace. Decisions
are very hard to come by. You have to go through many steps until
you can really have a decision come forward. And business people
become very impatient with that. ... And then the educators don’t
understand why there is such an urgency on the part o f the business
people and {why} they don’t understand many things when it comes
to dealing with guidelines and law and that sort of thing. The business
people don’t understand that public educators’ hands are tied in many
areas as to what the state and federal governments say what can and
cannot occur. So, there is information that is not equally shared and
there is not a great comfort zone sometimes between what both parties
know and do not know (Interview # 05).
A few participants, on the other hand, tended to frame the issue as one of
communication, and emphasized their role in overcoming this communication
challenge. The following dialogue between the researcher and one of the participants
illustrates well this genre o f responses:
Participant: I think the main thing is... well, communication is a
major obstacle. They are speaking different languages almost from
the business sector and from the education sector. When we say the
word accountability to a businessperson it has one meaning, and to an
educator it has another meaning. So, we need to...you know, one of
the first things there is to make sure they are on the same page, so to
speak, in understanding the same definitions. ... And so they are
looking at it differently, from different directions. So, we have to use
words like evaluation and reflection for the educators, and for the
business people, {we} talk more about evaluation and getting the
results o f it, and how is that working.
Researcher So, are you using different words to different audiences?
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Participant: You almost have to, to bring them together. Part o f our
training does that when we help set up their evaluation plans. And
that is when we bring accountability in and talk about die different
meanings o f the different words that they will be using.
Researcher Interesting.
Participant: Yeah. And sometimes it means the same thing but they
are looking at it from different angles, different cultures (Interview #
19).
Personal differences, on the other hand, refer to the differences between
individuals regardless of sector as to the value of partnerships and/or accountability
in partnerships. One participant framed the issue as one of “differences in
philosophy” by saying “(w)hen I am coordinating 85 school sites, different people
have different philosophies o f how partnerships should be supporting the schools.
So, that is one {challenge/difficulty}” (Interview # 21). Another participant framed
the challenge as one of “equity”:
The major challenge, I think, is equity issues. Those I am not sure that
you can completely solve where you have a very strong person at one
school, and then a very weak one at another campus. My philosophy
has always been to attract them and not to coerce them. And so I
would say that 95 percent of our...campuses are very healthy in their
partnership work. But, that was always a difficulty, because you want
everybody to be enthusiastic about it (Interview # 08).
4 J J Frequent Changes
Taken together, frequent changes in personnel, resources, and/or partners constitute
the third most frequently mentioned challenge. The issue o f frequent changes
presents itself in three ways. The first one has to do with high staff turnover or staff
mobility in one or more of the participating organizations. One participant expressed
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
well the challenge stemming from personnel mobility in the organizations with
which they have been partnering:
When volunteer coordinators make transitions, say a person in a
company leaves, sometimes they transfer their duties to someone else,
sometimes they don’t, and sometimes it is by chance that I find out,
although when they do sign a memorandum of agreement, it is
stipulated in there that they need to let this office know, but not all of
them would sign the agreement, or even are willing to or interested in
being that official. That for me is very frustrating (Interview # 23).
The second is the challenge o f dealing with uncertainty and frequent changes
surrounding the resources upon which partnerships rely to continue their operations
and activities. The following dialogue reflects certain elements of such a challenge:
Participant: (B)ecause this is something extra, something above and
beyond, it is not a requirement for anyone to have a partnership, to
continue or try to develop one, very often, as I said, if the conflicts
arise, resources become tight, this is one area in which people used to
say: “this is the first thing to cut.”
Researcher Are you talking about business partners?
Participant: Yes...they either cutback or cut completely (Interview #
12).
The third one relates to losing partners due to changes in the business
environment (e.g., mergers and downsizing). The following excerpt from the
interview with one of the participants addresses these three types of challenges at
once:
Well, I think it is the same with most things to me. You are working
with a certain company, or cluster of businesses. You are doing great
projects with {them}. And then the company is purchased or goes out
of business, leaving...and then you are stuck there with it. A grant or
something is hanging, and you really can’t do anything about it
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
because the original signee on the grant is gone! And that is just the
way life is. Businesses are purchased or bought out all the time. You
just have to be flexible and be able to take that. ... People have to
understand this. It is not like you can do {anything} about
accountability when something like this happens. It is the same, too,
when you have certain teachers that have been working and things,
and all of sudden they retire, or they leave, or something, and then
you have to start over again with the new players at the school.... So,
I think those are probably some o f the challenges that occur quite
often (Interview # 02).
4.3.4 Reliability/Commitment Challenges
Eight participants mentioned reliability or commitment problems in the context of
accountability in their partnerships. This difficulty points to the mostly voluntary
nature of partnerships. More often than not partnerships have to rely on voluntary
contributions of individuals and organizations from different sectors. When people
do not (or cannot) meet their commitments, and/or those contributions become
unreliable, partnership practitioners find themselves in a very delicate position. Two
primary sources o f this challenge were mentioned. One points to the private
companies:
We all depend on the business community and for-profit companies to
help us. We couldn’t do anything that we do without their help. ...
But, businesses, again, you know, if they gave you $100,000 this year,
but then they have had a horrible year, and they may not give you
money this year. So, your budget and everything you do depends on
the business community’s support. So, public-private partnerships are
wonderful and we have to have them, but you can only demand so
much accountability because they don’t have to deliver. ... I mean, if
they don’t have it, they can’t. When I have a phenomenal business
that gave me, you know, in the past 100 mentors a year, but if they
don’t have a 100 people volunteer this year, that is not the business’s
fault. So, I don’t have 100 mentors in my x, y, z schools (Interview #
25).
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In addition to the unreliable nature o f contributions from businesses, unreliability of
individual volunteers in fulfilling their commitments to certain partnership activities
was also frequently mentioned as presenting challenges to the practitioners and the
students. One participant summed it up well by saying “(o)ne o f the biggest
problems is when volunteers are not committed, they are not dependable. When they
don’t come, children are very disappointed and the principal or the teacher loses face
in the partnership” (Interview # 23).
4.3.5 Training Challenges
Training challenges refer to the difficulties the participants said they were facing in
finding time and other resources to do training for people involved in partnerships,
especially for partnership liaisons at the schools. Coupled with the frequent changes
in personnel, the lack of training presented a serious challenge to some participants
in their efforts to maintain effective partnerships. Evidence o f training challenges can
be found in the following words from one o f the participants:
A major challenge is finding the time for training. Because in schools
so much time is spent in training for curriculum, another major
initiative, partnerships tend to take a back burner, not in the forefront
...Given the choice they have so many trainings to attend, o f course
curriculum is their first priority. So, it is difficult to find the time to do
the training for partnerships (Interview # 21).
4.3.6 Difficulty in Assigning Credit
Another challenge mentioned by four participants has to do with assigning credit in
partnerships: How much credit should be given to the partnerships for their impact
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
on student achievement? While these participants ail share the belief that
partnerships are useful in terms o f having a positive impact on the students they
serve, they maintain, nonetheless, that partnerships should not be given too much
credit for this, partly because it is difficult to determine precisely the extent o f their
impact. One participant put it on top o f the accountability challenges facing their
partnerships by saying “the number one issue is the one I alluded to earlier, which is
trying to determine who can take credit for improvements” (Interview # 32). Another
participant gave a highly detailed account o f how and why it may present challenges
in partnerships:
1 don’t believe that there exists any document that I have been able to
see that could be proof-positive that partnership development has
been solely responsible for students’ academic and personal
development. Now, with that said, I do believe that partnership
development has a tremendous role in furthering the work that public
educators do with students. I am just suggesting that I think that it
takes a combination of many factors to have students achieve the
greatest things they can achieve. And so, I think that we are flattering
ourselves a little bit if we feel that one particular accountability
document is going to be able to define that something has been
successful. Because I don’t really think that easts. There are too
many factors that go into that (Interview # OS).
4 J .7 Difficulty in Influencing without Formal Authority
Four participants cited “trying to influence without formal authority” as one of the
major challenges facing them in terms o f accountability in and of their partnerships.
One participant explained it as follows:
The major challenge is trying to influence without authority. So, in
this whole question of accountability, who is holding them
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
accountable? We can, to some extent. I think there is some public
recognition, and possibly political gain in being involved in an
intermediary organization, keeping track o f the stuff. But people don’t
want to...they want to be, they want to feel that they are held
accountable. But in another instances, you know, it is difficult to hold
them accountable (Interview # 27).
Another participant cited it as one o f the two major problems, and elaborated on why
and how it can create challenges for those who have to work in similar situations:
They {i.e., partnerships} are not responsible to us. I am not in control
of them. I don’t fond them. They receive their fundings from the state.
So, they see their direct reporting being to the state. And the private
sector and us, representing the private sector, to some degree...they
cooperate with us, but it is not a tight relationship. I mean, they don’t
have to do what we say, they don’t have to follow one regional rubric.
They are really independent operators (Interview # 07).
When asked what would be the ways for them to influence partnerships, the
participant replied as follows:
The way of influencing their behavior is if we can add value to what
they are doing. And we have in fact been able to do that. It is not as
total and complete as if we were one organization. But we have
managed to get agreement on a number of things. But, it is harder,
you know, it is a harder battle (Interview # 07).
4.3.8 Difficulty in Getting Support from the Top
Finally, three participants talked about the challenge that the lack o f support from the
top may create for partnerships, hi the words o f one participant, “It has to be
something supported by the principal and the business person. If it isn’t, then, it
becomes a barrier or challenge” (Interview # 21).
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.4 Prospects
The participants were asked two questions during the interviews to elicit their
recommendations for creating and maintaining successful partnerships as well as
developing and maintaining effective accountability policies and practices (see
Appendix 4 for the exact wording of these questions). Since, in many cases, the
participants’ responses were interchangeably addressing both generic issues about
partnerships and specific issues on accountability, their recommendations were
combined into a recommendations file and were eventually evaluated together. The
number of recommendations each participant would have for others involved in
public-private partnerships ranged from just one to as many as ten recommendations,
the average being about four recommendations per participant. It was possible to
identify thirteen separate categories (see Table 4.12).
The largest number o f recommendations (25) fell into the category named
map and mutually-adjust expectations, followed by categories focusing on building
relationships (18) and developing measures and measurement systems (17). As many
as 15 participants recommended identifying and involving all relevant stakeholders,
while 14 participants recommended recognizing/rewarding as being important for the
success of partnerships. The remaining recommendation categories and the number
o f participants offering them are as follows: get buy-in from the top (10), identify
and clarify roles (9), identify and mobilize resources (7), develop networks among
partners (6), train people (6), provide support and incentives to school partnership
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
coordinators/liaisons (5), start small (5), and remain flexible (4). Each of these
recommendation categories is described and explained in the following pages, along
with specific examples from the interview data. It will suffice here to mention that
there were also nine idiosyncratic recommendations, ranging from “always listening
to what the funders need and request,” to “moving with corporate ideas”, to “being
persistent and believing wholeheartedly.”
Table 4.12 Recommendations
Map and Mutually-Adjust Expectations 25
Build Relationships 1 8
Develop Measures and a Measurement System 1 7
Identify and Involve All Relevant Stakeholders 1 5
Recognize/Reward 1 4
Get Buy-in From the Top 1 0
Identify and Clarify Roles 9
Identify and Mobilize Resources 7
Develop Networks Among Partners 6
Train People 6
Provide Support and Incentives to School Coordinators 5
Start Small 5
Remain Flexible 4
Idiosyncratic Recommendations 9
Total 153
N u m b e r of P a rti ci p a nts 3 8
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.4.1 M ap and M utu ally-A djust Expectations
About two-thirds o f the participants offered recommendations that center around,
one way or another, the importance of identifying and clarifying expectations for the
partnerships right at the beginning of partnership development. This idea for the
most part is similar to and in line with the one that was explained in section 4.1.2.1
on the role o f accountability in mapping and manifesting expectations. That is, the
participants were recommending to others in similar positions, first and foremost, to
have well-defined, clear goals and objectives for their partnerships. In this context,
two major themes need some elaboration.
The first has to do with the attention given and value attached by some
participants to strategic planning processes in assessing the needs and in identifying
and clarifying specific goals and objectives for their partnerships. Expressions like,
“(y)ou have to have a good strategic plan. You have to look down the road and to see
where you want to be” (Interview # 02), or “the thing that has made our partnership
very successful and has been the downfall o f others is that we do strategic planning”
(Interview # 08), all point to the importance and value some participants attached to
going through some sort o f needs-assessment and planning processes in mapping
expectations for educational partnerships. The following excerpt from the interview
with one of the participants illustrates well the issue at hand:
I think the main thing is to make sure there is planning that takes
place. The partnerships that I have been involved with and have not
worked are the ones who get an idea and decide to go out and get
people involved right away and don’t have a plan o f action and have
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
not decided the visions, goals, and objectives, their accountability
tools. They need to take the time to plan before they get really excited
about implementing them. That is the major thing (Interview # 19).
The second major issue relates to an added emphasis apparent in many
participants’ responses concerning the importance of the mutuality of expectations in
the partnerships, an emphasis that was less noticeable in their responses to the
questions regarding the functions, purposes, and importance accountability. At a
minimum, accountability requires that different parties involved or wanting to get
involved in a partnership need to share with one another information on their
expectations so that all are aware of what those expectations are. The importance of
exchanging information about expectations is highlighted in responses like, “the
number one thing that I tell them is to make sure {that} you set a goal for the
partnership so that both parties know what to expect” (Interview U 32), or “I guess
the recommendation would be that you all know what you want out o f the
partnership. If both sides don’t know, then nothing is going to happen” (Interview #
34). Responses from some other participants made it clear, however, that more than
just information exchange is needed to make those expectations shared ones; they
should be mutually adjusted in such a manner that they address the needs or interests
o f all parties involved. One of the participants put it this way:
I think dealing with people’s self-interests is fundamental. ... I mean
at the very beginning o f the partnership, if our partnership is not based
on “what you want and what I want”, then it would fail. ... (U)sing
that self-interest as a foundation, then, really have clear goals and
measurable expectations up-front- ... (Y)ou have to have
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
collaboration on the expectations. Because if you don’t buy into the
expectations, you are not going to help to get them (Interview # 07).
4.4.2 BuQd Relationships
The recommendations falling into this second largest category concern the relational
aspects o f partnership development. Around half of the participants in the sample,
one way or another, touched upon such issues as opening up and effectively using
the communication channels, entering into dialogue, and developing trust and a sense
o f reciprocity among all parties involved in a partnership. Their remarks point to the
critical role that developing good personal relationships between individuals horn
different organizations (and sectors) plays in creating and maintaining successful
public-private partnerships. One of the participants even went on to say that
“(s)uccessful partnership of any kind and any size or description is going to be
successful based on one thing, and I am a real believer in this... that is relationship,
building relationships” (Interview # 05). Many participants expressed the belief that
building successful relationships requires, at a minimum, the willingness to talk, to
enter into dialogue, and to spend time together:
I think the key to successful partnerships at any level is that the
people from the two different points of view spend time with each
other. And the processes o f forming a partnership and o f sitting down
in the dialogue, those dialogues are very critical to our total
educational process. And the more educators are encouraged, and feel
free, and even held accountable for entering into those dialogues, I
think, the stronger our educational system would be (Interview # 01).
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In some o f the responses coded in this category, there was an added emphasis on the
utility of such dialogues between educators and business people involved in
partnerships, alluding to the differences o f the “environments” or “cultures” they
come horn. Remarks such as “(i)t is really important for both sides to understand the
culture of the other side...to sit down and have a good amount o f dialogue about
what their different cultures are like” (Interview # 24) were not infrequent. The
utility of developing good, positive relationships ranged from easing tensions or
conflicts that may arise due to individual or sectoral differences, to creating an
environment that is most conducive to resolving issues before they become
problems. After mentioning the value of maintaining with business partners as much
o f a personal relationship as possible, one o f the participants was asked why “that
personal part” is important. The participant responded to this question by saying:
I think that people react and people are willing to cooperate with
things if they have a personal vested interest in i t It is easier for them,
when they have problems, to feel like it is OK to pick up the phone
and call me. They don’t wait until things have really just gone totally
awry.... (I)t is the comfort zone I guess (Interview # 20).
While these participants strongly recommended building relationships in
partnerships, some of them also identified the challenges that such a task may
involve. For example, upon being probed as to how trust is developed, one o f the
participants said: “ {by} working together, by the nitty-gritty, by meeting after
meeting after meeting, by conversation after conversation” (Interview # 16). It is
wise to leave the topic o f building relationships in partnerships with an insight from
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the participant that was quoted earlier “I guess that relationship building I am
talking about... that is the soft side o f what we are doing, but it is very important.
And I don't think that you can fairly document that” (Interview # 05).
4.4.3 Develop Measures and a Measurement System
The third largest group o f recommendations coming from the participants related to
the issue of developing and effectively using the tools and mechanisms to monitor
and evaluate the progress and performance o f partnerships. Typically, they involved
setting up a system of getting and assessing information on partnerships, maintaining
a good database of all partnerships, ongoing evaluation o f individual partnership
projects, and the like. Two specific notes on the issue are in order. The first is that a
handful o f responses coded into this category also pointed to the importance of
aligning the goals and objectives, as well as the tools and measures used to assess the
results o f individual partnerships, with those employed by their school systems. The
second note relates to the insight offered by one of the participants regarding this
issue that may prove highly useful to those involved in educational partnerships:
(S)etting measurements that are not just long-term measurements, but
also intermediate measures whether they are process measures or
outcome measures. But some way of measuring whether you are
actually making progress. ... {Also} making sure that you are
measuring what you really want. And recognizing that the ultimate
outcome might take five years, or ten years {to come by}. But how do
you know that you are actually going in the direction to get there in
the institutionalized way, not just the programmatic way?... (I)t is not
just a matter of the numbers going down, or the numbers going up,
but it is a matter o f judging how and where the money is being
allocated, who is involved in making decisions, those kinds o f interim
measures. ... I am recommending patience, but I am also
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
recommending a kind o f strategic accountability, I guess. It is not just
a “once and done” (Interview # 07).
4.4.4 Identify and Involve All Relevant Stakeholders
A related theme emerging from the interviews with partnership practitioners
complements their recommendations on mapping and mutually-adjusting
expectations: identifying and involving all relevant stakeholders in various phases of
partnership development, starting from the planning phase. The following excerpt
from the interview with one o f the participants provides a good example o f such
recommendations: “Engage people when you plan partnerships to build-in
accountability measures and evaluation measures and expected results right from the
beginning, before you ever set foot into actually doing something, bn the up-front
part of the planning’' (Interview # 01). Some participants reasoned that it is important
to identify and involve all relevant stakeholders in the evaluation o f partnerships
because o f the differences that are likely to exist among various stakeholders vis-a-
vis what constitutes success or effectiveness in partnerships. The response below is
representative of this genre of reasoning:
I think that you need to involve all the stakeholders in a partnership.
And so you need to identify who those stakeholders are and you need
input from them. And that includes students. ... Because, my view o f
a program may be totally different than the view o f the person on the
receiving end. And so without knowing that you would never have a
true picture o f what your strengths are and what your weaknesses are
(Interview # 05).
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.4.5 Recognize/Reward
The fifth most frequently offered recommendation by the participants, called here
recognize/reward, has two related yet separate components. The first component
points to the importance o f recognizing individual and organizational members of a
partnership for their contributions to and involvement in various aspects of that
partnership. The following excerpt from the interview with one o f the participants
provides a good example o f recommendations on recognizing:
You must recognize both the school coordinators, the people who
make it happen at their sites, and the business and military community
for being involved. You need to let them know both informally and
formally that what they do makes a difference. If they don’t feel
recognized and appreciated, it won’t continue to happen (Interview #
21).
The second component relates to the view that partnerships should involve rewarding
experiences and/or outcomes for all parties involved, instead o f being just one-sided,
which typically refers to the situations where only the schools benefit from
partnerships. For instance, one of the participants pointed to the importance of
“(i)dentifying the resources that the schools can offer,” reasoning that “(b)ecause it is
a partnership, it is a hand-shake, it is not a palm open receiving things all the time.
That is why we don’t call it adopt-a-school anymore” (Interview # 23). Still another
participant explained the why and how of creating a mutually-rewarding
environment for all parties involved in a partnership:
You feel that all the time, we hear partners saying that, you know,
recognizing that they are doing the right thing also keeps accounting.
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Partnerships are unfolded usually where they are one-shot deals. They
either give big donations, or they didn’t know why they are in it and
what they are getting out o f it. So there has to be some kind of
enlightened self-interest, I think, on the private sector part. They have
to be gaining some business value from this, whether it is public
recognition, or employment, or building the future workforce. They
have to feel vested in it (Interview # 27).
4.4.6 Get Buy-In from the Top
Ten participants in the sample emphasized the importance o f having the support of
top managers from each participating organization. They recommended that
partnership practitioners seek to obtain the support from the top to create and
maintain successful partnerships. The following excerpt from the interview with one
of the participants provides a good example o f such a recommendation:
The first thing I say to educators is—and it would be the same to
business people—if your superintendent and your board o f education
does not support a community outreach effort, bringing the public and
private sector together, it would never fly. It would never fly .... You
have to have the superintendent and the members o f your board of
education saying: “this is a good thing and this is what you need to be
doing!” ... That to me is to establish a climate that says: “this is the
priority and we want you here” (Interview #31).
Two participants specifically recommended that partnership coordinators/directors
report directly to the superintendent, for the sake of maintaining high-level support
for and effective accountability in their partnership programs. One of the two spoke
on the issue as follows:
One o f the key things that I firmly believe in the area o f partnerships
is that you need to be directly accountable to the superintendent...to
make it more effective, to make sure that the superintendent is well
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
behind you. And also when the budget crunch comes around, there is
going to be money for you. You are not going to get frowned out
because you are too far down the boot chain. By being high enough in
the boot chain, the chances are that the perceived benefits o f what you
are doing will be so strong (Interview #17).
4.4.7 Identify and Clarify Roles
Offered by nine participants, this recommendation generally refers to the importance
of identifying and clarifying the roles for different members o f a partnership from the
very beginning so that there is a common understanding as to who is responsible for
doing what in that particular partnership. Some participants, whose responses coded
into this category, emphasized the value o f designating at each partnering
organization a contact person charged with primary responsibility of coordinating
and managing all partnership-related tasks in their respective organizations. While
one of the participants described such person as “a champion for the effort: it won’t
happen by accident ” (Interview # 21), still another participant points to
accountability connection o f the issue: “(i)f there is a person whose job is to pay
attention to it {i.e., partnership}, that is going to make them feel more accountable”
(Interview # 27).
4.4.8 Identify and Mobilize Resources
This category consists of recommendations concerning the practitioners’ awareness
of and ability to access the resources needed for creating and maintaining effective
partnerships. It will suffice here to provide just one example regarding such
recommendations:
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(S)chools need to do their part in terms o f knowing that there are
resources out there and being able to access those resources as
successfully as possible. So it is almost like a diplomacy kind of
thing, as well as knowing the people that are out there, potentially,
who want to help and they are just waiting to be asked. And certainly,
from my experience, the schools sometimes are trying to do
everything by themselves, and that there are these resources out there
that can help them (Interview # 09).
4.4.9 Develop Networks among Partners
Six participants in the sample recommended that partnership practitioners develop
networks among individuals and organizations involved in various types of
collaborative arrangements with them in their community at any given time. Mainly,
there were three different yet related justifications provided by those who offered
this recommendation. One has to do with the perceived value o f learning that is
likely to occur through exchanging information and experience by different partners
when they are brought together. The second relates to the possibility o f using
existing partners to recruit new ones. One of the participants explained this by saying
“they are the strongest spokespeople, when I can have the president o f a company
call the president o f another company and say: ‘you ought to be doing this! This is
what has happened for us’ ” (Interview # 31). Finally, some participants reasoned
that developing networks among partners provides occasions to compare them with
one another, which eventually may encourage some o f them to increase the attention
and resources they allocate to multi-sectoral collaborative efforts. The following
excerpt well exemplifies such reasoning:
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
We try to document not only best practices, but kind o f what all the
partners are doing. ... That puts them, partnerships, side by side. ...
Publicizing successful efforts makes others think “why don’t we do
that?” or “how to be recognized for this or that?” It brings up the best
of what they are doing. You know, that just happens all the time.
People say: “how do we get something like that going?” It is amazing
how there is kind o f a family competitiveness among people who
manage these things (Interview # 27).
4.4.10 Traiii People
The recommendations falling into this category all point to the importance of
training people in creating and maintaining effective public-private partnerships.
There were, however, some variations among participants as to who needs to be
trained. In some responses, two groups of people were identified as the ones who
need to be trained: the volunteers and the partnership coordinators/liaisons working
for schools. Evidence o f the emphasis on training the latter group can be found in the
following excerpt: “(t)raining o f the school partnership coordinators is vital. They
need to know how the program is run. They need to know how to go about setting up
a partnership and how to go about maintaining that partnership” (Interview # 10).
Some recommendations on training were generic in nature, such as the following
one: “Lots o f training and opportunities for people who are involved in partnerships
to converse and have a dialogue. That is critical” (Interview # 2 1 ). Finally, the
response from one o f the participants put the issue o f training into a much broader
context:
You have certain schools that...are not strong in the community
outreach piece. And that goes back to...if you want to go back to
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
training, we don’t train our people at our schools to deal with the
community. I got an administrative credential and I have a teaching
credential, but did anyone, did I ever have a course in, you know, how
do you relate with the various publics that you serve? We actually
offer training here for how to deal with the media, how to deal with
the various constituencies that you serve. And {what} we have found
is {that} the principals {who} come to those trainings are the ones
that are already doing a pretty damn good job! They are just fine-
tuning their skills, and the ones that we would really like to have
come, don’t show up! (Interview # 31).
4.4.11 Provide Support and Incentives to School Coordinators
Recommendations coded into this category are related to two different aspects of
providing support and incentives for people involved in partnerships at the school
level. One is more generic in nature, highlighting the importance o f partnership
directors/coordinators working at the district and/or state level taking a supportive
and encouraging approach toward school-level coordinators/liaisons to develop and
maintain effective partnerships. One participant’s view on the issue is that
partnership directors should “be available to help them if issues come where they
need help. That is very important. If they know that you are supporting them, they
are going to be much more open to helping you” (Interview # 10). Some other
participants, on the other hand, specifically recommended that school districts adopt
the policy o f providing some material/monetary incentives to school partnership
coordinators/liaisons, a policy that has already been adopted by some school districts
across the United States.
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.4.12 Start Small
A handful participants recommended that others involved in public-private
partnerships should start small with their partnerships, by undertaking a limited
number of activities or some small-scale projects first, being successful and then
expanding on that success. The reasoning for this recommendation involves both the
ease of learning and developing trust better (e.g., “they start their partnership out on
a fairly small scale and they learn as they are working together... as they get to know
each other, everything on that trust builds up on their history” [Interview # 19]), and
making them more manageable and accountable. An example o f the latter type of
reasoning is provided below:
I guess my first recommendation is to start small. You know, just look
at what kinds of resources you can find to do this, and start out
smaller, which is better to have one successful, small partnership
developed that has accountability, monitoring, and evaluation built in
to i t .... I have seen this over the years consistently: those that start off
with a big bang, with a lot of activities at first tend to be not so
successful after all (Interview # 36).
4.4.13 Remain Flexible
Four different participants emphasized the importance of maintaining a healthy dose
of flexibility in partnerships, by pointing out the unexpected and/or frequent changes
that may occur along the way. One of these participants explained the issue as
follows:
I think you not only have to follow your goals, but you have to remain
flexible in order to...you know... you may have to do some changes
and tweaking along the way in order to meet your goals, but you have
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to remain open and flexible. You can’t be rigid. Because, things
change. It is not...it is a whole fluid business we are in. I think it is
quite possible to be able to change in midstream, or to turn your
partnership in a different direction and still meet your goals. I think it
is getting really important (Interview # 02).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTERS
DISCUSSION
5.1 Summary
The purpose o f this dissertation has been to identify, describe, and evaluate the
critical issues and challenges associated with accountability in public-private
partnerships and thus to extend our understanding o f these new forms o f governance
in general, and accountability in them specifically. Toward that end, Chapter 1
introduced the four major changes in the task environments of public organizations,
and briefly discussed how they present significant challenges to traditional notions of
accountability. The chapter also explained the purpose and relevance o f the study by
illustrating the need for research on accountability in networks and partnerships.
Chapter 2 provided the theoretical foundations for the study. It first provided an
overview o f major factors that have given rise in recent years to the emergence of
public-private partnerships as a new form of governance. These include
globalization, the speedy spread o f communication and information technologies, the
resurgence of neo-liberal politics and policies in Western democracies, and the
spread of ideas and practices related to the notion o f corporate social responsibility
or corporate citizenship. The second section of Chapter 2 offered a brief history of
the use o f public-private partnerships as an important ingredient o f policies aiming to
improve elementary and secondary education in the United States. This section also
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
briefly described the National Association o f Partners in Education, its affiliates and
major activities. The third section pointed to various descriptions of accountability
as, among others, a complex subject, an elusive concept, and a multi-faceted
phenomenon, offering some explanations as to why this was the case and discussing
the definitions, functions, and importance of accountability. The fourth section of
Chapter 2 focused on five basic questions of an accountability scheme or system,
namely, who should be held accountable, to whom, for what, how, and with what
consequences. It also summarized the various categories or types of accountability
offered in the literature based upon how some of these questions are answered. The
fifth section of Chapter 2 identified and discussed major characteristics o f public-
private partnerships that differentiate them from single, autonomous, hierarchical
organizations and that are most likely to create accountability challenges and
concerns in these collaborative settings. Included in the discussion were the mostly
voluntary, emergent, and temporary nature of many partnerships, the existence of
differences among partners in terms o f both the amount and type o f power they hold
and the underlying values and operating goals they have, and the complex nature of
the problems partnerships usually attempt to tackle. The final section of Chapter 2
briefly reviewed the framework and research questions used in the field research
undertaken for this study. Chapter 3 provided the rationale for and information on
the research strategy and methodology employed in the study. Chapter 4 presented
the findings from the field research undertaken for this study, a discussion of which
follows.
164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5.2 Discussion o f the Findings
5.2.1 Discussion o f the findings related to perspectives
Participants’ responses regarding words or phrases associated with accountability
have been interpreted in section 4.2.1 as pointing to three conclusions: a)
practitioners are as divided and different as scholars in terms of the way they
perceive and conceive of accountability, b) the multifaceted, multidimensional nature
of accountability, and c) the possible influence of results-oriented performance
management ideas, originating from the new public management and reinventing
government movements, on practitioners in the field. After he found, in his research
on accountability in the context of independent review agencies in Canada, a great
diversity in the way practitioners conceive o f and define accountability, Stenning
(1993:43) observed that:
Such diversity of usage is both healthy and potentially hazardous. If
two people are talking about legal accountability but mean completely
different things by it, it will be fine if they both know this, but
conducive to considerable misunderstanding if they do not
These types o f observations are especially on target in the context of multi-sectoral
partnerships, which bring together individuals and organizations from different
sectors. Taken together with the findings from the field research about both the
existence of significant differences among organizations from different sectors
regarding their approaches to accountability (as detailed in section 4.1.5.2) and the
challenges and difficulties that personal and sectoral differences present to the
practitioners working in and for partnerships (as detailed in section 4.3.2), this
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
diversity points to the need for creating avenues for dialogue and discussion in
partnerships regarding the meanings and values attached to accountability by
different members o f these collaborative undertakings. As Taylor (1996:68) pointed
out, “a common framework o f meaning is an essential ingredient of public
accountability.”
The multifaceted, multidimensional nature o f accountability was also at
display in participants’ responses regarding the functions, purposes, and importance
of accountability. As will be recalled, five categories emerged from the interview
data, each pointing to a distinct function o f accountability: mapping and manifesting
expectations, mobilizing and motivating (ex-ante), monitoring and measuring
progress and performance, modifying, and mobilizing and motivating (ex-post). It
remains to be examined under what conditions one or more o f these functions of
accountability come into the play, and whether and to what extent they complement
and conflict with one another. For example, mobilizing and motivating (ex-post),
may be thought of as involving a certain degree of polishing and public relations
intended to put the best face on for the sake of maintaining and/or increasing support
for partnership programs or projects. Given the mostly voluntary nature of
partnerships and a certain dose of volunteer!sm involved in them, it is understandable
to a certain extent why this might be the case. Nonetheless, overemphasizing this
role for accountability can impede some other roles or functions, such as modifying,
that accountability is expected to fulfill.
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
It should be noted that an outcomes or results-oriented view o f accountability
was also at display to some extent in participants’ responses to the question of
accountability for what. As noted in section 4.1.4, participants’ responses to this
question were frequently accompanied with the qualifier ‘it depends,’ which was
interpreted as revealing a tendency among participants toward viewing
accountability as more program or project-based. Taken together with their responses
detailed in section 4.1.1, however, it is possible to conclude that an outcomes or
results-oriented view o f accountability was prevalent among practitioners involved in
this study.
Participants’ responses to the question of accountability to whom can be
interpreted as yet another example of the complexity and challenges surrounding
accountability in multi-organizational, multi-sectoral collaborative undertakings, not
the least of which is aligning different accountability relationships and requirements
that operate in and through partnerships. As noted in section 4.1.3, “downwards”
accountability to students topped the participants’ list, followed by partnership
accountability and community accountability. When we look at the interview data
related to whom the partnership practitioners see their partnerships as being
accountable, what was missing may be as important as what was said. For example,
legal accountability was completely missing from the picture. This can be attributed
to the fact that many o f the partnerships in the sample not only were voluntary in
nature, but also involved a substantial dose of volunteer!sm. As was shown in section
4.2, in many cases, there were no detailed legal instruments or contracts used in
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
partnerships, such that arbitration and/or enforcement by courts may eventually be
required, if conflicts arise.
Similarly, market accountability was not identified by the participants in any
direct manner. The exit option available mostly to the business partners can be
thought o f as an element of market accountability since, in theory, the existence of
such an option would increase the competition between schools or school districts to
manage their partnerships more effectively so that they continue to get support for
them. However, partnerships are formed in the first place to achieve collaboration
between individuals and organizations coming from different sectors to obtain jointly
desired outcomes, and they themselves are, in many cases, products o f government
(and to a lesser extent, market) failures. Citing others, Rosenau (1999: 21) forwards
that “(On cases such as education and health, in which social purposes are important,
accountability does not appear to emerge from market forces alone.” Similarly,
Linder (1999) excludes “traditional modes o f not-for-profit collaboration” (p. 48)
from his analysis o f public-private partnerships, because in the former “opposition to
a legitimate government presence or advocacy o f market solutions—the core of our
neo ideologies—play a negligible role” (p. 49). He concludes that “(t)he absence of
profit motives among the participants change the dynamics o f the partnership itself—
who participates and why—as well as the bases of cooperation” (p. 49). Given the
voluntary nature o f many o f the partnerships in the sample, as well as the amount of
volunteerism involved in them, it should not come as a surprise that market
accountability was absent in the participants’ responses.
168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Political accountability was also not evident in any clear manner in the
responses of the participants. First, again, the voluntary nature o f partnerships and
the fact that most o f the partnerships in the sample involve a flow of resources from
private and nonprofit organizations to public schools (but rarely the other way
around) may be thought of as reducing controversy and thus the need for arbitration
by elected representatives. Second, in addition to the participants representing public
school systems, the study sample included practitioners working for nonprofit as
well as private organizations. For them, political accountability may generate little or
no immediate pressure. More importantly, since even the participants representing
public school systems in the sample were mostly working in reporting relationships
one or two layers down from the superintendent, they may or may not feel immediate
or significant accountability pressures coming from the politicians. Support for such
reasoning can be found in Romzek and Dubnick (1987: note # 20, p. 237). They note
that different accountability mechanisms may operate at different levels of the same
organization at the same time (e.g., a professional accountability mechanism may be
in operation at the technical level o f an organization while a legal accountability
mechanism may be employed to manage external expectations at the institutional
level).
Having said this, political accountability can be thought o f as operating at
least three ways in public-private partnerships. One is the more generic oversight
role of elected representatives at federal, state and local levels concerning
educational issues in general and those related to the financing, formation and
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
functioning o f educational partnerships in particular. It may not be so much the
“police patrol” type o f oversight, but it may be the “fire-alarm” type of monitoring,
control, and accountability. Second, some basic elements o f political accountability
concerning educational partnerships can be construed as operating in and through the
works o f school boards, since members of school boards are elected public servants
in the US. Finally, as was the case in some partnerships in the sample for the study,
politicians sit on the board of trustees o f some education partnerships, which may
enable them to have a direct say in many aspects of partnerships, including
accountability in and of these collaborative undertakings.
5.2.2 Discussion o f the findings related to practices
Three themes related to the state o f accountability practices currently in use in
educational partnerships will be highlighted in this section. The first has to do with
the emerging nature of concerns and practices related to accountability in educational
partnerships in the United States; accountability is becoming more salient and
significant, if not more challenging, in the functioning o f these multi-sectoral
collaborative arrangements. As will be recalled, around eighty percent of the
participants believe that accountability plays either a very significant or a significant
part in their partnerships. Aside from the question o f whether and to what extent this
significance was reflected in practice across different partnership programs, this
finding could be interpreted in two different ways. One has to do with the resurgence
in recent years of the accountability movement in public elementary and secondary
education in the US, especially in the form o f using standardized tests to hold public
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school systems accountable; it is thus only natural that practitioners involved in
educational partnerships would also be increasingly concerned with accountability in
such an environment. The second way o f interpreting this finding would be that the
partnership movement in education itself has matured over the years. After what can
be called a honeymoon period surrounding educational partnerships starting in the
early 1980s, an increase in the demands for more accountability in these
collaborative efforts has followed.
Second, there exists variation within and across partnership programs in
terms o f both the perceived utility and the extent o f use o f formal and informal
means o f accountability. As far as the variance within partnership programs is
concerned, two issues must be highlighted. One is about the practice employed by
some school districts, called “leveling”, to distinguish among their different
partnerships; as the degree of their involvement increases in their partnerships, so
does their use o f formal tools to monitor and evaluate them. The second issue has to
do with the distinction made by some participants vis-a-vis the varying utility of
formal and informal processes of accountability. The formal processes were mostly
associated with keeping databases, generating and submitting reports to outside
parties, and giving some sense of continuity and structure to partnerships. The
informal processes, on the other hand, were rated highly when it comes to identifying
and solving problems on a daily basis in the field.
As far as the variance across partnership programs is concerned, it was
observed that the participants who were involved in partnerships that get funded
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
fully or extensively through federal and/or state money (e.g., those partnerships
established after the School-to-Work Act) tended to report more use of formal
reporting and evaluation tools and processes. Secondly, the interview data suggest
that the length o f partnership programs as well as o f the experience o f partners with
one another can determine to a certain degree the extent to which formal and
informal means of accountability would be employed in partnerships. Further
research and analysis is needed, however, to ascertain the extent to which and under
what conditions “accountability systems based on trust” replace those based on
“independent validation and formal systems” (Taylor, 1996: 63) across various
public-private partnerships. Further research and analysis is also needed to better
understand whether and what types o f tensions and interdependencies, if any, exist
between formal and informal means and mechanisms o f accountability (Roberts,
1991) and how any such conflicts played out in different partnerships.
Third, by looking at the interview data in their entirety, an argument can be
made about the operation of quasi-professional accountability among practitioners
involved in educational partnerships. It is not as complete and evident as the
professional accountability found among members of such old and well-established
professions as doctors and lawyers. For instance, there are neither licensing
requirements to practice as a partnership director/coordinator, nor are there well-
established rules guiding practitioners in the field that can be enforced through
legally sanctioned professional boards or councils. Neither is there a minimum
training requirement that is so crucial in transmitting the values and skills of a
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
profession to would-be professionals. Nonetheless, the findings from this study
indicate the existence o f quasi-professional accountability operating in educational
partnerships.
The argument is three-fold. First, around forty percent o f the participants
majored in Education. Along with the fact that they were working in the area of
educational partnerships—some o f them for more than thirty years—it is very likely
that certain values o f the education profession have already been internalized by
these practitioners. Second, their identification of the students as the chief
stakeholder group, as well as the emergence of “enhancing student achievement and
development” as the most frequently mentioned response category to the question of
accountability ‘for what’, can be seen as an evidence of a certain degree of
clientelism which frequently can be found among professionals. Finally, NAPE and
its affiliates act as a clearinghouse through their publications and publicity, serve as a
training center for partnership practitioners in the field, and more importantly,
provide a forum, through their national, state, and local symposiums, seminars, and
other activities, that bring partnership practitioners together. As detailed in section
4.2.4, taken together, these can be conceived o f as being conducive to developing
quasi-professional accountability among people involved in partnerships.
5.2.3 Discussion o f the findings related to problems
Practitioners’ responses to the question about the major challenges and difficulties
they have encountered in terms of accountability in their partnerships were grouped
into eight major categories. As discussed in detail in section 4 3 , difficulties in
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
availability of and access to information on partnership activities and performance
constitute the biggest accountability challenge facing practitioners. As will be
recalled, the availability-access challenge involves four constraints: personnel,
monetary, access, and measurability. As far as the first two types o f constraints are
concerned, it would suffice here to suggest that public school systems as well as their
partners and sponsors should give serious attention to providing partnership
programs or projects with adequate personnel and monetary resources, if they desire
to more effectively monitor and measure the progress and performance of those
programs or projects. When it comes to the access constraint, as discussed in section
4.4.11, providing support and incentives to school level coordinators as well as
developing more effective communication and relationships with them may help
district or state level practitioners to alleviate, if not completely overcome, this
challenge.
The measurability constraint, on the other hand, should be interpreted as
being inherent in the very nature o f some partnership programs and activities in that
it is indeed difficult, if possible at all, to delineate precisely their effects on the
students they intend to serve. Thus, it is safe to argue that in those cases where the
outcomes or impact o f partnership projects or activities are too difficult and/or too
costly to gauge, partners and sponsors should focus their attention and energies more
on developing and implementing processes and procedures deemed to be more
appropriate in such settings. A similar argument can be made with regard to the
difficulty in assigning credit: instead of focusing their energies and efforts on the
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
issue o f assessing precisely who contributed to what, partners should be more
cognizant o f and comfortable with the fact that outcomes in many collaborative
settings are shared ones and should be treated as such when it comes to assigning
credit to each and every member of the partnership and to the partnership as a whole.
Sectoral and personal differences, taken together, constituted the second most
widely cited challenge/difficulty by practitioners in the sample. Like the findings
concerning the measurability constraint and the difficulty in assigning credit, this
finding revealed the existence o f personal and sectoral differences regarding various
aspects o f partnerships including accountability. As such, it is in line with the
arguments presented in section 2.5 o f this dissertation. Similarly, the third and fourth
challenges/difficulties, frequent changes in personnel, resources, and partners, and
reliability/commitment challenge, respectively, both point to the added uncertainty
and complexity surrounding multi-sectoral collaborative efforts, stemming largely
from their mostly voluntary, emergent, and temporary nature. Finally, the
challenge/difficulty associated with influencing without formal authority in public-
private partnerships was cited by four participants. This finding is also in line with
the arguments presented in section 2.5 regarding challenges and concerns associated
with accountability that are mostly likely to occur in multi-sectoral partnerships.
5.2.4 Discussion o f the findings related to prospects
As discussed in section 4.4 in detail, participants in the sample were able to put
forward a wide range o f recommendations on how to create and maintain successful
public-private partnerships as well as effective accountability policies and processes
L 7 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in them, which were eventually organized into fourteen categories. Many o f the
recommendations from the practitioners were very much in line with the extant
research on interorganizational networks and partnerships. Three examples will be
sufficient here. First, the second most-frequently mentioned recommendation offered
by the participants pointed to the need for developing and maintaining effective
interpersonal relationships among individuals representing member organizations of
a partnership. The extant literature also emphasizes the importance o f such factors as
developing trust, creating effective communications, and practicing reciprocity to
manage effectively in those settings (e.g., Coe, 1988; Gulati, 1995; Lindquist, 1993;
Mandell, 1988; Ring and Van de Ven; 1994). Ranter’s (1994) findings about
business alliances can be construed as holding true for public-private partnerships as
well: “(t)hey cannot be ‘controlled’ by formal systems but require a dense web of
interpersonal connections and internal infrastructures that enhance learning” (p. 97).
As far as the recommendation to identify and mobilize resources is
concerned, it should be noted that many partnerships between business and public
schools are formed, in the first place, to attract monetary resources and materials
from the former to the latter (e.g., Cromarty, 1997; Merenda, 1989). As Agranofif and
McGuire (1999: 28) observed, “(t)he ability to tap the skills, knowledge, and
resources o f others is a critical component o f networking capacity.” More often than
not, managing effectively in and through collaborative settings requires “the
redefinition o f resources” (Sarason and Lorentz, 1998). Finally, participants’
recommendations concerning getting buy-in from the top was also echoed in the
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
literature, in that the support o f upper management for multi-organizational alliances
and projects has been identified as a significant factor in determining their success
(e.g., Kanter, 1994; Tushnet, 1993; Waddock, 1988).
5.3 Implications for Theory
Accountability is not a fixed term, nor is it understood and valued equally across
cultures and countries (Dubnick, 1998; Jabbra and Dwidedi, 1988). There is also an
element of truth in the assertion that “(h)ow we define accountability is dependent on
the ideologies, motifs, and language o f our times” (Sinclair, 1995: 221). As Weber’s
(1999) analysis of five different eras o f accountability regimes in the United States
has illustrated, there can also be significant differences between different historical
periods within the same country. Thus, attempts to achieve accountability rely on
different tools and strategies within and across organizations, sectors, countries, and
time periods. More to the point, as is true for single organizational settings, external
environment and task characteristics (e.g., Romzek and Dubnick, 1994), as well as
the type of problems that the forms o f organizing are designed to handle (deLeon,
1998) will determine to a certain extent what forms of accountability mechanisms
could or should be used in the course o f public-private partnerships. But it is also
true that there is always a grain of administrative choice when it comes to which
accountability mechanisms will be utilized, when, and how (cf. Kearns, 1996;
Romzek and Dubnick, 1994).
As will be recalled, two different approaches to accountability, namely,
accountability-as-answerability (AA) and accountability-as-managing-expectations
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(AME), were compared in Chapter 2. It was proposed that the AME approach
provides a viable, if not better, alternative to the AA approach for three reasons: 1)
the AME approach provides a more realistic picture o f today’s organizations through
a better appreciation o f the complexity o f their task environments as well as of the
multiplicity and diversity of expectations placed upon them; 2) it accounts for the
potential to develop more proactive as well as interactive policies for accountability,
in addition to the reactive policies most frequently found in the AA approach; and
more importantly, 3) it may prove more appropriate in the context o f public-private
partnerships, where participation and collaboration are based more on voluntary,
horizontal relationships than on hierarchical relationships.
The analysis of findings from this study lends some support to the view that
the AME approach is more appropriate than the AA approach in the context o f multi-
organizational, multi-sectoral networks and partnerships given common
organizational properties of and environmental characteristics surrounding public-
private partnerships. Some participants’ association of the word accountability with
expectations (see Table 4.1) and their depiction of a role for accountability in
mapping and manifesting expectations (as detailed in section 4.1.2.1), as well as their
recommendations regarding mapping and mutually-adjusting expectations (as
detailed in section 4.4.1) and identifying and clarifying roles (as detailed in section
4.4.7) provide some degree of support for this suggestion, hi light o f the analysis of
the findings from this study and based upon the review of the relevant literature, a
discussion o f the main characteristics of the AME approach in the context o f multi-
178
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sectoral partnerships will be provided next, followed by a discussion o f the meaning
o f and conditions for answerability in a networked world when the AME approach is
adopted.
5.3.1 Managing Expectations In M ulti-sectoral Collaborative Settings
First of all, the com plex and com plicated nature o f managing and thus accountability
in multi-sectoral settings must be acknowledged. As was discussed in different
sections of this study, the question o f accountability in a democratic polity is already
a complex and complicated one even in the context of single, autonomous,
hierarchical organizations. The complex and complicated nature o f the issues
associated with accountability only gets exacerbated when one enters into the
equation the increased use o f multi-organizational, multi-sectoral networks and
partnerships in many issue areas. For instance, in their research on partnerships in an
intergovernmental context, Radin and Romzek (1996: 62) expected “accountability
dynamics to be even more complicated because of the greater number o f actors and
expectations that are relevant in this arena and the more fluid nature o f relationships
and responsibilities among these actors.” Their findings confirmed their prediction.
Similarly, writing in the context of public-private partnerships, Lindquist (1993: 23)
observed that “(m)ultilateral negotiations and decision-making are made more
complex by the number and diversity o f participants and the nature o f the issues they
address.” Acknowledging the complex and complicated nature o f accountability
issues surrounding multi-sectoral networks and partnerships, in and o f itself, of
course, would not resolve those issues. It is nonetheless an essential first step in the
179
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
right direction since the effectiveness o f choices regarding accountability would
depend on the managers’ “understanding and appreciation o f the complexities
associated with accountability-derived expectations” in multi-sectoral networks and
partnerships (Romzek, 1996:107). As Thomas (1997:26) put it:
There is no neat theoretical or practical fix to the dilemmas of
accountability within modem governments. Rather than seeing
accountability as a problem to be resolved by a new procedural
device, it should be regarded as a dynamic, multifaceted process to be
refined in the light o f changing circumstances.
Second, effective management tn a networked world requires cross-walking
traditional boundaries between organizations and sectors (and countries) (cf. Sarason
and Lorentz, 1998). It requires, among others, formation o f cross-organizational,
cross-sectoral coalitions. As Smith (1997:173) asserted, many o f these coalitions
“need leaders comfortable with loose organizational boundaries, negotiation, and
collaboration rather than hierarchical, top-down management.” While many people
familiar with the topic would agree on the need just cited, the issue becomes more
contested/conflicted with the proposition that, to provide effective accountability in
and of public-private partnerships, the design of new arrangements, new tools and
processes crossing the traditional boundaries between public, private, and nonprofit
sectors is a must.
As made evident in the debate about sector-blurring characteristics of
privatization (Bozeman, 1988; Moe, 1987; 1988) and o f public enterpreneurship
(e.g., Bellone and Goerl, 1992; 1993; Cohen and Eimicke, 1999; Gawthrop, 1999;
Terry, 1993), cross-walking of traditional sectoral boundaries continues to be the
180
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
subject of a passionate debate among scholars and practitioners of public
administration. The view adopted here is such that the increased use of multi-sectoral
partnerships in many issue areas points to the need for revisiting traditional
boundaries. As noted by Freeman (1997: 30): “(a) collaborative regime challenges
existing assumptions about what constitutes public or private roles in governance
because the most collaborative arrangements will often involve sharing
responsibilities and mutual accountability that crosses the public-private divide.” The
question before us, then, is not whether or not accountability should transcend those
boundaries, but how. The specifics of cross-sectoral accountability arrangements
would vary from one context to another, depending upon such factors as the history
o f collaboration between the partners, the nature and scope o f the issue(s) or
problem(s) partnerships attempt to address, and the relative power of the parties
involved (cf. Freeman, 1997: 32). The idea remains, however, the same: cross
walking of traditional sectoral boundaries is needed to provide effective
accountability in and of multi-sectoral collaborative systems. As Rhodes (1988, cited
in Rhodes, 1997: 21) pointed out: “accountability can no longer be specific to an
institution but m ust f i t the policy and its network. Accountability in the differentiated
polity requires ‘indeterminate domains, openness o f communication and the
evaluation of policy impact’; messy problems need messy solutions” (emphasis
added).
Third, accountability policies and processes in multi-sectoral collaborative
undertakings should be cognizant o f and consistent with collective and collaborative
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
nature o f these partnerships, emphasizing collective responsibility for outcomes as
well as reflecting consensus as to what those outcomes should be and how they
should be measured. One of the most important ingredients o f such an approach to
accountability is the anticipation and appreciation o f the negotiated nature o f both
the expectations and the accountability criteria and tools used to determine whether
and to what extent those expectations are met. In other words, it should not and
cannot be assumed that expectations about performance and the like can be easily
determined by hat or imposed by certain organizations onto others. Managing
effectively in multi-organizational collaborative settings requires that concerted
efforts should be made by participating individuals and organizations to identify and
clarify the nature and dimensions o f the expectations that each partner has for one
another and for the collaborative as a whole. There must be room for ongoing
processes o f bargaining, negotiating, and adjustment until a relatively stable set of
goals and objectives are agreed upon.
This does not mean, however, that participating individuals/organizations
will show up in partnership forums with no individual/organizational agenda to
pursue. On the contrary, it is only natural to expect that, from the very first talks
about a partnership, there will be those individuals and organizations who have at
least some rough (sometimes clearly articulated) ideas as to what the partnership
should do and how. In other words, we should expect that when they set their foot
into a partnership, some members o f the collaborative will have more identifiable
needs and/or expectations than others do. For instance, some participants in the
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
current field research emphasized the importance o f conducting a needs assessment
before going out to recruit partners, hi other cases, it might be the third parties (e.g.,
grant-making institutions, such as private foundations and federal or state
governments) who have certain guidelines, rules, and expected end-results that
define the basic parameters for their participation in and support for multi-sectoral
partnerships, hi short, we should not assume that all expectations would be generated
internally and eventually shaped equally by all members o f a partnership.
However, this does not negate the assertion that policies and processes
pertaining to accountability in public-private partnerships should be better
envisioned, designed, and implemented collectively and collaboratively by all parties
involved. In other words, the observations discussed above by no means should
reduce the value of having mutually-adjusted and shared expectations for the
collaborative itself. It is neither necessary nor possible to resolve once-and-for-all the
issues emanating from the varying expectations o f partners. However, once the
voluntary, emerging and dynamic nature o f public-private partnerships is
acknowledged and appreciated by their members, it is likely that an
acknowledgement and a better appreciation of the ongoing processes of
(renegotiating and (re)bargaining o f the various issues involved would follow. It
might also be noted here that the aligning priorities o f the collaborative with each
member organization’s core values is also useful to alleviate the tension that
individuals representing these organizations may experience due to the ambiguity
regarding their roles in the partnership and in their respective organizations. Previous
183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
research has identified this tension as a dual commitment problem (e.g., Alexander et
al. 1998; Mandell, 1994; Radin and Romzek, 1996) that should be addressed
properly to alleviate this tension and to increase the effectiveness of collaborative
ventures.
Fourth, accountability in multi-sectoral arrangements should be continuous
(cf. Acar, 2000). That is, given the mostly dynamic, emergent, and temporary nature
o f many partnerships, accountability in those settings needs to be conceived of as a
dynamic and ongoing process, starting with the very first talks about forming a
partnership and continuing throughout different phases o f that partnership. For the
most part, this idea is similar to what Rist (1990: 4-5, cited in Boyle, Lemaire and
Rist, 1999:4) put forward vis-a-vis evaluation:
The first, and still perhaps main, assumption about program
evaluation was that it was a means of assessing program outcomes or
effects through rigorous methodological means. But the most recent
thinking suggests that program evaluation now can encompass the
various stages o f life cycles of a program or policy—from conception
through execution through impact.
To manage expectations, of course, requires knowing what those expectations are in
the first place. Thus, gaining familiarity with and learning more about the
expectations of various stakeholders regarding the main issues involved in a
partnership should be an integral part of both accountability criteria and
accountability processes. McKee (1994), for example, stresses the importance of
assessing “benefits and costs of the alliance prior to entering” and then clearly
defining and communicating “expected outcomes for (the) alliance and its
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
members” (p. 90). Somewhat similarly, Khoury (1993) suggests that “to avoid power
struggles, responsibility and accountability should be clarified at the beginning of the
relationship,” and that “a valuable part of the collaborative process should be a frank
discussion o f the issues, the mutual benefits of the partnership and the expected
outcomes” (p. 28). hi addition to identifying and clarifying the expectations for the
collaborative, accountability processes may help partners focus their energies and
resources wholeheartedly on those agreed upon goals and objectives. Some
participants have pointed to the role of accountability in mobilizing and motivating
(ex-ante) internal and external stakeholders by encouraging them to be more
effective, a role similar to that advanced by goal-setting theories, which was noted by
Bardach and Lesser (1996) in their study of accountability in human service
collaboradves. More to the point, different players may join in and leave
partnerships at different phases o f partnership development. For this and other
reasons, accountability relationships and expectations surrounding the collaborative
as a whole may shift over time (cf. Romzek, 1996). Conceiving o f accountability as a
continuous, dynamic process would allow partners to account for and accommodate
the likely changes in both the players and expectations over different phases of a
partnership.
Fifth, accountability in multi-sectoral partnerships should also be
comprehensive in three different senses (cf. Acar, 2000). One relates to the
proposition that participants should consider the frill range o f possibilities in terms of
employing proactive, interactive, and reactive accountability policies and processes,
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
instead o f relying too much on reactive ones. A comprehensive approach to
accountability also means giving adequate consideration to the idea that there must
be a balance between what is measurable (and measured) and what is not when it
comes to evaluating the performance o f a partnership. As noted in section 4.3 and
discussed in section 5.2.3, instead of focusing exclusively on measurable
programmatic outcomes related to their partnership, partners should include in their
conversation about performance and accountability the spillover or residual effects
that their actions and activities may have on the people the partnership intended to
serve as well as on the community within which they live. For instance, writing
about public-private partnerships formed in the area o f urban development,
Stephenson (1991: 124) asks: ‘Tartnerships produce economic development, but do
they improve the lives o f the city’s citizens? Do partnerships help to develop a
community’s capacity to govern itself?”
A comprehensive approach to performance and accountability also points to
the need for a comprehensive look at the role(s) and fonction(s) o f accountability
policies and processes themselves. As discussed in section 5.2.1, accountability may
serve different roles or functions in the context of multi-sectoral partnerships. To
align these different roles or functions requires a comprehensive approach to
accountability. Other researchers have also pointed to the need for a comprehensive
look at the different roles or functions o f accountability. For example, Weber (1999:
454-455) identifies and discusses “three main elements” that “democratic
accountability as an equation...must satisfy”: responsiveness (i.e., the extent to
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
which governance arrangements accord with the demands o f a broad range of
stakeholders), administrative performance (i.e., the ability of administrative
arrangements to deliver public policy goods), and a normative dimension (i.e.,
making sure that the outcomes are beneficial to many, instead o f benefiting the few
at the expense of the many). Fetterman (1996: 29-30), on the other hand, described
the evaluation practice adopted by a private foundation and explained that
“(evaluation is considered part of programming rather than a separate function,
viewed as a tool for organizational learning, a developmental ongoing process (not a
single summative report card), and a collaborative relationship between grantmaker
and -seeker.” This framing of evaluation “is equally concerned with measuring
project outcomes and with having evaluation implemented in a manner that increases
the skills, knowledge, and lessons teamed by individuals and organizations” (Millett,
1996:66, emphasis in original).
Last but not least, a creative combination of formal and informal
accountability tools and processes needs to be envisioned and employed to provide
effective management and accountability in multi-sectoral collaborative settings. Put
differently, formal and informal ways o f giving as well as receiving an account
should be balanced in partnerships. It is true that whether formal or informal forms
of accountability should prevail in a given context will depend in part on the task
characteristics and environments on which policy makers and managers have chosen
to focus. For example, if they decide to focus their attention and energies on
improving teacher quality, rather than the rules and regulations concerning the inner
187
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
workings o f school systems, then they have to rely more on informal, socializing
forms of accountability rather than inserting still more rules and regulations into the
school system. However, as noted at the beginning of this section, it is also true that
there is always a grain o f administrative choice when it comes to which
accountability mechanisms will be utilized, when, and how. Thus, in making those
choices in multi-organizational, multi-sectoral collaborative settings, the need for
balancing informal and formal processes of accountability should be given adequate
consideration.
O f course, a certain degree of certainty, stability and regularity is required if
collaborative undertakings are to function effectively. As Smith (1997:173) pointed
out, “(p)artnerships can easily go astray since the potential mission is often so diffuse
and amorphous.’' Yet, given the open-entry, easy-exit conditions surrounding many
multi-organizational networks and partnerships, we cannot and should not expect the
occurrence in these settings of the same degree o f certainty, stability, and regularity
that are more likely found in single-unit, hierarchical organizations. As detailed in
section 4.33, the third most frequently mentioned difficulty/challenge has to lo with
frequent changes in personnel, resources, and/or partners. On one hand, the
occurrence o f frequent changes only increases the need for inserting some degree of
stability and regularity into the temporary and emergent lives o f many public-private
partnerships. That is why, as noted in sections 4.1.23 and 4.2.4, some participants
pointed to the utility of formal processes in terms o f giving some sense of continuity
and structure in their partnerships. On the other hand, as detailed in section 4.4.2, the
188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
relational aspects of partnership development point to the critical role o f building
good personal relationships among individual members of a partnership, based upon
trust and a sense of reciprocity, which requires that a certain amount of attention and
effort should be given to informal processes as well. Thus, a creative combination of
informal and formal means and processes o f accountability needs to be envisioned
and employed in multi-sectoral partnerships in a mutually reinforcing way, rather
than a mutually exclusive way.
In sum, to provide effective accountability in and o f multi-sectoral
partnerships, a) the complex and complicated nature o f accountability issues should
be acknowledged and appreciated, b) cross-walking of traditional organizational and
sectoral boundaries should be anticipated and attempted, c) accountability policies
and processes developed in these settings should be cognizant of and consistent with
the collective and collaborative nature of these partnerships and thus should
emphasize collective responsibility and reflect consensus, d) accountability should
be conceived of as a continuous process, e) a comprehensive approach to
accountability should be adopted, and f) a creative combination of informal and
formal accountability tools and processes should be envisioned and employed.
5.3.2 Meaning o f and Conditions for Answerability in the AME Approach
First o f all, the notion o f answerability points to the need to take into consideration
the possibility of being called to account and required to give some explanation
and/or justification for the decisions and actions that have been taken as well as the
lack thereof. If answerability is understood as a state o f readiness to answer for one’s
189
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
conduct and performance whenever called upon, then the proactive and interactive
dimensions o f accountability would gain as much salience and importance, if not
more, than the reactive and retrospective dimensions o f accountability evident in
most depictions o f accountability reflecting the AA approach. An emphasis on the
meaning of answerability as a readiness to answer for one’s conduct and
performance would help nurture among public servants what Leat (1988; cited in
Taylor, 1996: 61) called responsive accountability: “the accountability that many
organizations feel committed to, even if there is no legal obligation and sanction.”
Second, answerability should not be thought o f as being exclusively directed
toward an higher authority, or to an external source; in multi-organizational networks
and partnerships, lateral or horizontal as well as downwards accountability
relationships may gain as much visibility and significance as hierarchical
relationships. As discussed in the preeceding pages, organizations from all three
sectors are increasingly becoming “accountable to all.” It is even truer when they
join together with other organizations in multi-organizational, multi-sectoral, and/or
multi-national partnerships and alliances, hi such situations, conceptualizing
answerability as being exclusively directed toward an higher authority is neither
reasonable nor attainable. More importantly, however, in a networked world,
answerability o f managers and members of public organizations should not be
construed of as being solely to political bosses (cf. Bardach and Lesser, 1996;
Keams, 1996; Weber, 1999). Quirk (1997:586) summed it up well when he said:
We need to develop a model o f accountability for public services
which is multi-dimensional and which admits the legitimacy of
190
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
everyone’s interest in the delivery of efficient, equitable, transparent
and quality public services. O f course, accountability o f public
managers to the public’s elected representatives will continue to be
the main strand o f public accountability, but it will not be the only
strand. Just as elections will continue to be the main but not the only
source o f democratic legitimacy for politicians.
Third, answerability can be thought o f as embedded in the processes of
mapping and mutually-adjusting expectations, as long as those processes are
inclusive of a variety o f perspectives, interests, and concerns. In other words,
answerability can be construed as being part of the ongoing dialogue and openness
required to determine priorities and policies, including specific accountability
policies and processes for collaborative endeavors. Said differently, effective
representation of diverse stakeholders during the “initial wiring” o f any collaborative
arrangement would help create ex-ante answerability o f sorts, which would then
reinforce the value o f any after-the-fact answerability. As Taylor (1996: 58) aptly
observed, in addition to involving giving an account and holding to account,
accountability “also involves taking into account, something which often gets less
attention in discussions o f accountability” (emphasis in original).
Miller (1994) identifies and discusses the new role for public administrators
in the Post-Progressive era. His discussion points to the need for actively seeking
greater participation for various stakeholders in network situations, and increasing
the capabilities o f less advantaged groups to effectively participate in policy
discourse and eventually influence the policy outcomes o f such collaborative
arrangements. deLeon (1998) discusses “anarchic accountability” in the context of
191
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
network organizations, where goals are unclear or conflicting, participation is fluid,
technologies or processes as to how the tasks at hand should be accomplished are far
from clear, and it is difficult, if possible at all, to enforce collective decisions.
Accountability in network situations, she argues, requires incorporating relevant
stakeholders into the policy formulation and implementation processes, and thus
blurring boundaries between organizations and their environments. She goes on to
say that, in such situations, “participation is the most appropriate—indeed, the
only—means of linking organizational action to public preferences” (p. 552,
emphasis in original). If their participation was sought after and obtained, those
relevant stakeholders “would not be able to hold the organization to account ex post
but would have shaped its decisions as they were made” (ibid., emphasis in original).
Similar points have been made by different researchers regarding the
importance of participation by a variety of stakeholders in providing a way to ensure
accountability in the context o f multi-organizational networks and partnerships (see
for example Freeman, 1997; Parsons, 1998; Rhodes, 1997; Robertson and Acar,
1999). Writing on public-private partnerships formed in the area of urban
development, Law (1989; 450) criticized the self-selecting nature of the groups
involved in many of these collaborative undertakings. He asserted that “(s)ince the
group that becomes involved is usually self-selecting, it may be biased towards
certain industries or professions which have a particular perspective on urban
generation.” Partly because o f these types o f concerns, representation of certain
groups or organizations is required by sponsor organizations, grant-making bodies,
192
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
or laws that give rise to some collaborative undertakings in the first place (e.g.,
Cigler, 1999; Freeman, 1997). For this or any other form of representation to be
effective, however, particular attention should be given to building facilitative skills
and the capacity o f groups who do not have the prerequisite experience needed to
actively and effectively participate in multi-organizational networks (cf. Freeman,
1997; Keating et al., 1989; Levine, 1987; Smith and Wohlstetter, 2001). As Miller
(1994:384) pointed out:
In a public administration informed by the policy network literature,
there may be room at the conference table for those who are willing to
assert some ownership o f public problems—if public administrators
are aware that it is their responsibility to accommodate these willing
participants. ... Without a diversity o f participation and opportunity
for expression of all relevant points o f view, the network model could
have dubious implications for democracy.
Fourth, answerability can be enhanced further by providing similar
opportunities and tools for relevant stakeholders to be involved in monitoring and
measuring the performance and progress of partnerships. If thought out and
implemented effectively, new tools and measures could provide along-the-way forms
o f answerability (i.e., an interactive type o f accountability), which may prove to be
most commensurate with the dynamic and emergent nature o f most partnerships (cf.
Freeman, 1997; Robertson and Acar 1999; Weber, 1999). After all, performance
evaluation is not a mere technical enterprise. Nor are performance measures value-
free. Evaluation o f any sort involves an array o f economic, social, and cultural
aspects (Fetterman, 1996). Perceptions and feelings are as important as the actual
results in partnerships (Ewert, 1994). As Oztel and Martin (1998: 268) noted in the
193
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
context o f the Business Link Initiative, an example of public-private partnerships in
England: “ ( d i f f e r e n t agencies had different expectations of the Business Link
Initiative. Its effectiveness, therefore, needs to be judged against a range o f criteria
and from a number of stakeholder perspectives.” The conceptualization, design, and
implementation o f performance measurement systems in public-private partnerships
should thus reflect the need for collectively and collaboratively monitoring the
progress and measuring the performance o f these collaborative undertakings. If the
participants actively seek and generate consensus as to what the means and ends of
performance evaluation should be, this can further help generate the different
stakeholders’ commitment to the processes and outcomes of public-private
partnerships.
Finally, answerability can also be enhanced or ensured by sharing the results
from the partnership with all parties involved, including the partners themselves,
sponsors and grant-making institutions, and the community at large. It may or may
not involve the types of sanctions and rewards frequently associated with the
accountability-as-answerability model. It nonetheless involves some degree of ex
post accountability with its attentive explanation and justification processes, and
illustrates the less frequently used but potentially powerful means o f accountability
through use of rewards and recognition. All in all, participation o f a diverse range of
stakeholders in each and every phase and facet of multi-organizational, multi
sectoral networks and partnerships is crucial for making the networked world of
public administration more responsive, more accountable, and more effective.
194
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5.4 Implications for Management
The findings from the study suggest that there is no room for underestimating the
difficulties and challenges emanating from the existence o f both personal,
organizational, and sectoral differences vis-a-vis accountability. Managers from the
three sectors should acknowledge and attempt to address the concerns related to the
sectoral differences—real or perceived—when they commit their organization to
multi-sectoral collaborative undertakings. They should be advised to open up new
avenues for constructive and comprehensive dialogue about the various aspects of
these systems, including accountability in and o f them. Especially at earlier stages of
partnership development, embarking on what Kanter (1994: 104) called the
“discovery o f difference” (i.e., differences in authority, reporting, decision-making
styles, and so on) can pay off in the later stages of collaborative undertakings since,
as she found in the context o f business alliances, organizations “that are good at
partnering take time to leam about the differences early and take them into account
as events unfold” (p. 105).
More importantly, however, if they decide to commit their organizations’
resources and efforts to multi-sectoral collaborative undertakings, managers, at a
minimum, should be aware of the consequences of their level o f interest and
involvement for the sustainability and success of these partnerships. They should
encourage their employees to become effective collaborators by setting the tone and
by setting an example. They should develop policies and practices that deal with both
the formal, structural aspects of networks and partnerships and the informal
195
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
processes o f networking and relationship-building in and through those networks and
partnerships. They should give special attention to supporting individuals
representing their organizations in multi-organizational, multi-sectoral collaborative
efforts, making sure that those individuals have the prerequisite skills, ability, and
resources to function effectively in such settings.
Attention should also be given to the nature o f the policies and processes
employed by the education leadership in school districts, especially in terms of
actively seeking partners and making school-community-family partnerships an
important part of their school improvement plans by engaging parents and the
community at-large in the education of their children. In other words, we cannot
afford to limit our focus to only those partnerships that are already out there waiting
to be evaluated. We should also focus on how enthusiastic, active, and successful
school administrators are in terms o f reaching out to the community and acquiring
the voices and resources from the community pertaining to the education of their
children. Such a suggestion may be considered by some as subjective or difficult to
attain at best, if not impossible. Yet public accountability o f organizations should not
be limited only to the things that have been done; it should also involve the
consideration of actions and decisions that were not taken. The performance of
schools, companies, and nonprofit organizations should also be judged on their
willingness and ability to go out and form coalitions, to connect with the larger
community, and to create productive collaborative undertakings with the
196
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
organizations within that community. In short, their collaborative portfolios should
also be included in their score cards.
Last but not least, managers involved in public-private partnerships should
consider the full range of means for disseminating information about the activities
and outcomes of public-private partnerships, including information on their
organizations’ performance in such settings, to all relevant internal and external
stakeholders. Accountability in those settings, like in most networks, “is critically
dependent on open access to relevant information on the performance o f each”
participating organization (Smith and Wohlstetter, 2001: 516). Managers should not
“hold back information just because it casts them in an unfavorable light.” They
should understand that “(i)t is only by discussing shortcomings openly that the roots
of the problems become clear” and that “efficient distribution of information on
network-wide initiatives and opportunities is also necessary for participants and
external partners to be aware of solutions” (ibid.).
5.5 Implications for Grant-making Institutions
As alluded to in section 4.1.4, participants’ responses to the question of
accountability for what pointed to a tendency among them toward viewing
accountability as more program or project-based. They also revealed a more
outcomes or results-oriented view o f accountability. When they are setting up
policies or guidelines to attach to their financial or other support for partnerships,
grant-making institutions, including federal and state governments and private
foundations, should be cognizant o f the challenges and difficulties associated with
197
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evaluating the partnership projects or programs in isolation. Instead of focusing
narrowly on certain programmatic outcomes, they might be better off encouraging
the representation o f all stakeholders to the maximum extent possible in the various
steps of performance evaluation, which also can contribute to the development of
evaluation capacity in different members o f the partnerships as well as the
community within which they function.
5.6 Implications for Institutions o f Higher Education
Institutions training present and future public administrators and educators should
have a renewed focus on the requirements of and their readiness for preparing their
students to be successful in, an increasingly networked world. Effective
management in the era o f networks and partnerships requires that public servants,
including educators, have the prerequisite skills, values, and orientations needed to
deal effectively with the different publics and “to function effectively on either side
of the table” in public-private partnerships (Stokes, 1996: 166). According to
Salamon (1996), educational preparation for a career in public service today requires
that individuals gain an understanding of the complex network o f relationships
within and among the sectors and then learn how to effectively manage these
collaborations.
A number of researchers have made calls on this issue, demanding that
interorganizational collaboration be given much deserved attention in the curricula of
schools training future public servants (e.g., Acar, 1999; Brown, 1998; Robertson,
1998; Salamon, 1996). Yet, in a survey of educators in. 161 American schools,
198
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
colleges, and departments o f education, Epstein et al. (1999) found that, while most
of the participants strongly believed in the importance o f all teachers, principals, and
counselors knowing how to conduct practices to involve families and communities in
students’ education, few believed students graduating from their institutions were
folly prepared to do so. The increased use o f multi-organizational, multi-sectoral
partnerships in many issue areas may eventually get the much-needed attention and
support from institutions of higher education to the idea that they need to prepare
their graduates to be more o f what Salamon (1996:17) calls a professional citizen:
“the person who works, and is trained to work, on public problems—to identify
them, to analyze them, to devise solutions to them, and to implement actions that
alleviate them. ”
5.7 Limitations o f the Study
The empirical part o f the study was based on field research focusing particularly on
public-private partnerships formed between public elementary and secondary schools
and private and/or nonprofit organizations in the United States. The study sample
included various kinds of partnerships going on in the field o f education. In one
sense, this made it possible to identify and discuss a whole range of issues across
various types o f partnerships between public schools and private and nonprofit
organizations, hi another sense, however, this broad range may have limited the
usefulness of the study in that it could not and did not go into the specifics o f each
case.
199
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The sample size for the study was relatively small. Although it was evident
from the interviews and documents that practitioners in the study sample were
involved in and knowledgeable about different types of partnerships widely used in
the area of education, the sample does not reflect fully the richness and diversity that
can be found in the larger population o f partnerships, even in the area of education.
While education is an area where public-private partnerships have been increasingly
utilized since the early 1980s, the applicability o f conclusions drawn from this study
to partnerships formed in other issue areas should be evaluated in light of the
diverging and converging characteristics o f issue content and context.
Despite the fact that nonprofit organizations and private companies were
represented in the sample, the majority o f the participants represented public school
districts. Thus, the experience and views of the practitioners included in the sample
may or may not reflect the diversity of experience and views o f practitioners in a
hypothetical sample primarily involving practitioners representing organizations
from the nonprofit and private sectors. Likewise, partly because the three sectors
were not equally represented in the sample, no special attempt was made to analyze
and discuss the perspectives o f the participants by their sectoral affiliations. Also
absent was a similar analysis in terms of individual characteristics o f the participants
(e.g., their educational and professional background), mostly because o f the fact that
the study employed elite sampling as opposed to random sampling. Similarly, the
sample did not involve more than one practitioner from the same partnership, which
prevented the researcher from exploring the extent to which various stakeholders’
200
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
perspectives converge or diverge as far as accountability is concerned. Also
important to note here is the fact that the current study did not delve into the
characteristics and effectiveness o f the governing committees or boards of
partnerships in terms o f developing and implementing policies and processes,
including those pertaining to accountability in and of these collaborative systems.
Likewise, the interview data and documents obtained for this study were
provided by practitioners who were charged with the primary responsibility for
partnerships in their respective organizations. As it turned out, these individuals were
knowledgeable about the various kinds and types of partnerships their organizations
were involved in. However, some o f them were not involved in the day-to-day
operations and management of those partnerships. This may have limited their ability
to provide more detailed accounts of the events and concerns regarding
accountability in and around their partnerships.
The fact that most participants in the study sample were either members of
NAPE or PDR or both should be taken into consideration in evaluating the
discussion and conclusions related to the existence of quasi-professional
accountability operating among partnership practitioners; the larger population of
partnership practitioners may or may not be exposed to or benefit from professional
networking and socializing occasions and opportunities NAPE and PDR have
provided to the practitioners in the sample.
Finally, except by examining the documents provided by some participants,
the researcher made no attempt to verify or modify the information and opinions they
201
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
offered regarding their partnerships and accountability in and around them.
Furthermore, as mentioned in section 3.2.6, not all participants maintained regular
documentation about their partnerships, nor did all o f those who indicated during the
interviews they would furnish the researcher with documents from their partnerships
do so. The incomplete and non-standardized nature o f the documents limited the
utility o f document analysis for this study.
5.8 Suggestions for Future Research
In light o f the limitations described above as well as o f the fact that this study was
designed first and foremost as an exploratory study, the following suggestions are
offered for future research. First of all, future research could involve front-line
individuals (e.g., school staff and/or school partnership liaisons from the school side,
and partnership liaisons for private and nonprofit organizations) who are involved in
partnerships on a daily basis and who can provide more detailed and perhaps more
multi-dimensional perspectives as to how different informal and formal tools and
processes are utilized for the purpose of ensuring an adequate degree of
accountability in and of their partnerships. Future research could also focus on
individuals who are one or two levels up from the participants included in the current
study. In other words, interviews or surveys with CEOs or superintendents about
accountability in and of their partnerships may provide a different picture of the
issues and challenges than that documented and discussed in this study. By using a
stratified sampling method, future research could undercover whether and to what
extent the perceptions and perspectives o f practitioners about a set of accountability-
202
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
related issues vary by their sectoral and organizational affiliation as well as by such
individual characteristics as their age, gender, professional and educational
background, and current organizational role.
Future research may also take a look at the extent to which concerns about
accountability vary depending upon such variables as the number of individuals and
organizations involved, the amount and source o f financial and material resources
available, the length of the partnership, and the experience o f the partners working
with one another. For instance, the analysis o f the interview data pointed to the
length o f partnerships and the experience o f the partners working with one another as
important variables to be taken into consideration in future research efforts to
uncover the use o f informal and formal means o f accountability at different phases of
partnership development. The findings from the current study suggest that as the
amount o f financial and material resources committed to a partnership by an
organization increase, so do the specific reporting and/or evaluation requirements by
the same organization. Likewise, it might also be interesting to examine public-
private partnerships in education where private schools are the beneficiaries at the
receiving end of the partnership.
Future research should also examine the effectiveness of the governing
committees or boards o f partnerships in terms of how representative they are-
organization- and sector-wise—and how active they are in determining expectations
and monitoring the progress and performance o f their partnerships. Likewise,
through carefully designed case studies, characteristics of the collaboration methods
203
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
chosen may also be studied in depth to identify and compare the effectiveness of
governance structures and processes adopted in different partnerships, including their
effectiveness related to accountability.
Finally, future research should also take a comparative approach and use
cases from different issue areas to examine whether and to what extent the issue
context and the basis of collaboration determine the nature and effectiveness of
different informal and formal means and mechanisms o f accountability used in those
collaborative settings. Ideally, a research effort would be undertaken to understand
the extent to which sectoral, organizational, and individual characteristics as well as
the community and issue contexts separately and in combination determine the
nature and effectiveness o f informal and formal means of accountability across
different multi-sectoral partnerships.
Despite the significant growth in recent years in both the use of multi-
organizational, multi-sectoral forms o f collaboration in many issue areas and the
scholarly and practitioner interest in them, our experience with collaborative forms
of organizing spanning departmental, organizational, sectoral, and national
boundaries is still in its infancy, compared to our long experience with the
hierarchical organizations operating along those boundaries. It is fair to say that we
as yet know too little about collaborative forms of organizing to set broadly
acceptable standards for conduct and performance in and o f them. It is reasonable to
assert, however, that as we Ieam more from the experiences of different communities
and countries with these new forms o f governance, there will be more debate in the
204
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
years to come about the challenges and opportunities they present in the functioning
of communal, societal, and global institutions. This study constitutes one o f the first
attempts to identify, describe, and evaluate the critical issues and challenges
associated with accountability in public-private partnerships. It is hoped that the
study has achieved its purpose and contributed to the debate by offering a number of
suggestions for theory, research, education, and practice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aberbach, J. D. (1997). Bureaucracy: Control, responsiveness, performance. In
Baaklini, A. L, and Desfosses, H. (eds.), D esigns for democratic stability—Studies in
viable constitutionalism. New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 73-94.
Acar, M. (2000). Performance in multi-sectoral collaborations: A process model.
Presented at the Ist Asian Pacific Research Universities (APRU) Doctoral Students
Conference, March 3-5,2000, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
California.
Acar, M. (1999). Teaching collaboration in public administration: Practicing what we
preach. Presented at the 22nd Annual Conference on Teaching Public
Administration, March 6-7,1999, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon.
Adams, G. R., and Schvaneveldt, J. D. (1985). Understanding research methods.
New York: Longman.
AgranofF, R., and McGuire, M. (1999). Managing in network settings. Policy Studies
Review. 16(1), 18-41.
AgranofF, R., and McGuire, M. (1998). Multinetwork management: Collaboration
and the hollow state in local economic policy. Journal o f Public Administration
Research and Theory. 8 (I), 67-91.
Alexander, J. A., Comfort, M. E., and Weiner, B. J. (1998). Governance in public-
private community health partnerships: A survey o f the Community Care Network
demontration sites. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 8 (4), 3 11-332.
Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research (7th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Company.
Barberis, P. (1998). The new public management and a new accountability. Public
Administration. 76 (Autumn), 451-470.
Bardach, E., and Lesser, C. (1996). Accountability in human services
collaboratives—For what? and to whom? Journal o f Public Administration Research
and Theory. 6 (2), 197-224.
Bames, R., and Bates, K. (1993). Partners at Lake Washington. Business Horizons.
(September/October), 57-59.
206
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Bellone, C. J., and Goer I, G. F. (1993). In defense of civic-regarding
entrepreneurship or helping wolves to promote good citizenship. Public
Administration Review. 53 (4), 396-398.
Bellone, C. J., and Goerl, G. F. (1992). Reconciling public entrepreneurship and
democracy. Public Administration Review. 52 (2), 130-134.
Beneviste, G. (1985). The design o f school accountability systems. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 7 (3), 261-279.
Bennett, R. J., and Krebs, G. (1991). Local economic development—Public-private
partnership initiation in Britain and Germany. New York, NY: Belhaven Press.
Berg, B. L. (1998). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. (3rd ed.)
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bogart, W. T. (1995). Accountability and nonprofit organizations: An economic
perspective. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 6 (2). 157-170.
Boyle, R., Lemaire, D. and Rist, R. C. (1999). Introduction: Building evaluation
capacity. In Boyle, R., and Lemaire, D. (eds.). Building effective evaluation
capacity—Lessons from practice. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Bozeman, B. (1988). Exploring the limits of public and private sectors: Sector
boundaries as maginot line. Public Administration Review. 48,672-674.
Brooks, T. (1995). Accountability—It all depends on what you mean. Clifton, NJ:
Akkad Press.
Broudy, H. S. (1977). The demand for accountability—Can society exercise control
over education? Education and Urban Society. 9 (2), 235-250.
Brown, L. D., and Moore, M. H. (2001). Accountability, strategy, and international
nongovernmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 30 (3),
569-587.
Burton, L. (1990). Ethical discontinuities in public-private partnerships. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management. 9 (1), 23-40.
Caiden, G. E. (1988). The problem o f ensuring the public accountability of public
officials. In J. G. Jabbra and O. P. Dwidedi (eds.), Public service accountability: A
comparative perspective. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 17-38.
207
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Charles, C. M. (1998). Introduction to educational research (3rd. edition). New York:
Longman.
Chisolm, L. B. (1995). Accountability of nonprofit organizations and those who
control them: The legal framework. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 6 (2),
141-156.
Cigler B. (1999). Pre-conditions for the emergence o f multicommunity collaborative
organizations. Policy Studies Review. 16 (1), 86-102.
Clark, D. M. (1992). School/business partnerships are too much talk and not enough
performance. The American School Board Journal. (August), 33,44.
Coe, B. (1988). Open focus: Implementing projects in multi-organizational settings.
International Journal o f Public Administration. 11 (4), 503-526.
Cohen, S., and Eimicke, W. (1999). Is public entrepreneurship ethical? A second
look at theory and practice. Public Integrity. I (1), 54-74.
Collin, S.O. (1998). hi the twilight zone: A survey o f public-private partnerships in
Sweden. Public Productivity and Management Review. 21 (3), 272-283.
Colman, W. G., (1989). State and local government and public-private
partnerships—A policy issue handbook. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Cooper, P. J. (1995). Accountability and administrative reform: Toward convergence
and beyond, hi B. G. Peters and D. J. Savoie (eds.), Governance in a changing
environment Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 173-199.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing amone
five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cromarty, N. L. (1997). School-business partnerships—At whose expense?— Some
pros and cons o f business involvement Education Canada. (Spring), 32-37,52.
Cuban, L. (1983). Corporate involvement in public schools: A practitioner-
academic’s perspective. Teachers College Record. 85 (2), 183-203.
Cummings, LX., and Anton, R J. (1990). The logical and appreciative dimensions of
accountability, hi S. Srivasta, D. L. Coperrider, and Associates, Appreciative
management and leadership: The power of positive thought and action in
organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 257-286.
208
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Cummings, S., Koebel, C. T., and Whitt, J. A. (1988). Public-private partnerships
and public enterprise. Urban Resources. 5,35-36,47-48.
Daniels, B. (1993). Real world partnerships in Tupelo, Mississippi. Business
Horizons. (September/October), 60-63.
Danzberger, J. (1996). A guide to oromisine practices in educational partnerships,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Danzberger, J. and Gruskin, S. J. (1993). Project abstracts educational partnerships
program, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
Danzberger, J., and Usdan, M. D. (1984). Building partnerships: The Atlanta
experience. Phi Delta Kappan. (February), 393-396.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1988). Accountability and teacher professionalism. American
Educator. (Winter), 8-13,38-43.
Davis, P., (ed.) (1986). Public-private partnerships: Improving urban life. New York:
Academy of Political Science.
deLeon, L. (1998). Accountability in a reinvented government. Public
Administration. 76 (Autumn), 539-558.
deLeon, L. (1994). Embracing anarchy: Network organizations and
interorganizational networks. Administrative Theory and Praxis. 16 (2), 234-253.
Denzin, N. B C ., and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) Strategies o f qualitative inquiry. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dubnick, M. J. (1988). Clarifying accountability: An ethical framework. In C.
Sampford, N. Preston, with C.A, Boig (eds.) Public sector ethics: Finding and
implementing values, London: Routledge/ Leichhhardt, 68-81.
Dwidedi, O. P. and Jabbra, J. G. (1988). Public service responsibility and
accountability, hi J. G. Jabbra and O. P. Dwidedi (eds.), Public service
accountability: A comparative perspective. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, 1-
16.
Elmore, R. F., Abelman, C. H-, and Fuhrman, S. H. (1996). The new accountability
in state education reform: From process to performance, hi Ladd, H. F. (Ed.) Holding
schools accountable—Performance-based reform in education. Washington, D.C.:
The Brookings Institution, 65-97.
209
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M. G., and Clark L. A. (1999). Preparing educators for
school-family-community partnerships—Results of a national survey o f colleges and
universities. CRESPAR Report No. 34 Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the
Education o f Students Placed at Risk.
Ewert, D. M. (1994). Partnering—not always a bed of roses—but worth the effort.
Adult Learning (July/August), 20, 31.
Fetterman, D. M. (1996). Empowerment evaluation—An introduction to theory and
practice. In Fetterman D. M., S. J. Kaftarian, and A. Wandersman, (eds.),
Empowerment evaluation—Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and
accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 3-46.
Finer, H. (1941). Administrative responsibility and democratic government, Public
Administration Review. 1 (Summer), 335-350.
Finn, T. D. (1993). Independent review agencies and accountability: Snapping at the
heels o f government? Optimum—The Journal o f Public Sector Management. 24 (2),
9-22.
Fosler, R. S. and Berger, R. A. (1982). Public-private partnerships: Seven case
studies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Fox, J. (2001). Vertically integrated policy monitoring: A tool for civil society policy
advocacy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 30 (3), 616-627.
Freeman, J. (1997). Collaborative governance in the administrative state. UCLA Law
Review. 45 (1), 1-98.
Friedrich, C. J. (1940). Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility.
Public Policy. I, 1-20.
Fry, R. E. (1995). Accountability in organizational life: Problem or opportunity for
nonprofits? Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 6 (2). 181-195.
Gawthrop, L. C. (1999). Public entrepreneurship in the lands of oz and uz. Public
Integrity. I (1), 75-86.
Ghere, R. K. (1996). Aligning the ethics of public-private partnership, Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory. 6 (4), 599-621.
Gore, A. (1996). Reinvention’s next steps: Governing in a balanced-budget world.
Washington, D.C.: National Performance Review.
210
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gray, B. (1990). Building interorganizational alliances: Planned change in a global
environment. Research in Organizational Change and Development. 4,101-140.
Gray, S. T. (1984). How to create a successful schooI/community partnerships. Phi
Delta Kappan. (February), 405-409.
Greer, J. V. (1989). Partnerships: What is our contribution? Exceptional Children.
(February), 391-393.
Grobe, T. (1993). Synthesis o f existing knowledge and practice in the field o f
educational partnerships. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department o f Education.
Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal. 19, 293-
317.
Gunyou, J. (1985). Financial analysis for public-private partnerships. In B. Weiss,
(ed.), Public-private partnerships—Financing a common wealth. Washington, D. C.:
Government Finance Center, 3-35.
Hammack, D. C. (1995). Accountability and nonprofit organizations: A historical
perspective. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 6 (2), 127-139.
Harmon, M. M. (1995). Responsibility as paradox: A critique o f rational discourse
on government. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Haskins, M. E., Liedtka, J., and Rosenblum, J. (1998). Beyond teams: Toward an
ethic o f collaboration. O rganizational D ynam ics. (Spring), 34-50.
Hatry, H. P. (1997). We need a new concept o f accountability. The Public Manager.
(Fall), 37-38.
Hayes, T. (1996). Management, control, and accountability in nonprofit/voluntary
organizations. Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate Publication Company.
Henton, D., Melville, J., and Walesh, K. (1997). The age o f civic entrepreneur:
Restoring civil society and building economic community. National Civic Review.
86 (2), 149-156.
Hester, G. L. (1986). Elements o f successful partnership in Spokane. NASSP
Bulletin. 70 (490), 22-24.
Hill, P. T., and Bonan, J. (1991). Decentralization and accountability in public
education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
211
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hofstede, G. (1978). The poverty o f management control philosophy. Academy o f
Management Review. 3 (3), 450-461.
Hondeghem, A. (ed.) (1998). Ethics and accountability in a context o f governance
and new public management. W ashington, DC: IOS Press.
Hood, C. (1998). Remedies for misgovemment: Changing the mix, but not the
ingredients? hi A. Hondeghem (ed.), (1998). Ethics and accountability in a context o f
governance and new public management. Washington, DC: IOS Press, 9-21.
Hopkins, B. J. (1995). School-com m u nity partnership structures and program
success. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University o f Nebraska, UMI No:
9538620.
Hopkins, B. J., and Wendel, F. C. (1997). Creating school-communitv-business
partnerships. Bloomington, Indiana: the Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Jabbra, J. G., and Dwidedi, O. P. (eds.). (1988). Public service accountability: A
comparative perspective. W est Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
Janesick, V. J. (1998). The dance o f qualitative research design—Metaphor,
methodolatry, and meaning. In Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) Strategies o f
qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 35-55.
Johnson, N. (1974). Defining accountability. Public Administration Bulletin. 17
(December), 3-13.
Kanter, R M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: The art o f alliances. Harvard
Business Review. (July-August), 96-108.
Kearns, K. (1996). Managing for accountability: Preserving the public trust in public
and nonprofit organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kearns, K. (1994). The strategic management o f accountability in nonprofit
organizations: An analytical framework. Public Administration Review. 54 (2),
185-192
Keating, D., Krumholz, N., and Metzberg, J. (1989). Cleveland: Post-populist
public-private partnerships. In G. D. Squires (ed.), Unequal partnerships: The
political economy o f urban redevelopment in postwar Am erica. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press, 121-141.
212
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Khoury, G. (1993). From patrons to partners: Strategies for the ‘90s. Canadian
Business Review. (Summer), 26-28.
Korac-Boisvert, N., and Kouzmin, A. (1994). The dark side o f info-age social
networks in public organizations and creeping crises. Administrative Theory and
Praxis. 16 (1), 57-82.
Ladd, H. F. (ed.) (1996). Holding schools accountable—Performance-based reform
in education. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
LaPorte, T. R. (1996). Shifting vantage and conceptual puzzles in understanding
public organizational networks. Journal o f Public Administration Research and
Theory. 6 (I), 49-74.
Lappe, F., and Du Bois, P. M. (1997). Building social capital without looking
backward. National Civic Review. 86 (2), 119-128.
Law, C. M. (1989). Public-private partnership in urban revitalization in Britain.
Regional Studies. 22 (5), 446-451.
Lawry, R. P. (1995). Accountability and nonprofit organizations: An ethical
perspective. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 6 (2), 171-180.
Leat, D. (1988). Voluntary organizations and accountability. London: NCVO.
Levine, M. V. (1987). Downtown redevelopment as an urban growth strategy: A
critical appraisal o f the Baltimore renaissance. Journal o f Urban Affairs. 9 (2), 103-
123.
Light, P. C. (1993). Monitoring government: Inspectors general and the search for
accountability. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Lindenberg, M. (2001). Reaching beyond the family: New nongovernmental
organization alliances for global poverty alleviation and emergency response.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 30 (3), 603-615.
Linder, S. H. (1999). Coming to terms with the public-private partnerships.
American Behavioral Scientist. 43 (1), 35-51.
Lindquist, E. A. (1993). Taking a step back: Partnership in perspective. Ontimnm—
The Journal o f Public Sector Management. 24 (3), 22-26.
213
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lock, E. A. (ed.). (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field settings. Lexington,
Mass.: Heath.
Long, F. J. and Arnold, M. B. (1995). The power o f environm ental partnerships.
Forth Worth: The Dreyden Press.
Lowndes, V., and Skelcher, C. (1998). The dynamics o f multi-organizational
partnerships: An analysis o f changing modes o f governance. Public Administration,
76 (Summer), 313-333.
Macpherson, R. J. S. (1996). Educative accountability policy research: Methodology
and epistemology. Educational Administration Quarterly. 32 (t), 80-106.
Majors, S. L. (1994). Partners for a better future. Vocational Education Journal.
(May), 24-25.
Mandell, M. P. (ed.) (1999). Symposium: The impact o f collaborative efforts. Policy
Studies Review. 16(1), 4-123.
Mandell, M. P. (1994). Managing interdependencies through program structures: A
revised paradigm. American Review o f Public Administration. 24(1), 99-121.
Mandell, M. P. (1988). Intergovernmental management in interorganizational
networks: A revised perspective. International Journal o f Public Administration, 11
(4), 393-416.
Mann, D. (1987a). Business involvement and public school improvement, Part I. Phi
Delta Kappan. 69 (October), 123-128.
Mann, D. (1987b). Business involvement and public school improvement, Part 2. Phi
Delta Kannan. 69 (November), 228-232.
Mann, D. (1986). Principals and the private sector—Building school-business
coalitions that pay long-range dividends. NASSP Bulletin. 70 (490), 1-5.
Mann, D. (1984). It is up to you to steer those school/business partnerships. The
American School Board Journal. 171 (10), 20-24.
Mason, D. E. (1992). Values for ethical choices: Rate yourself. Nonprofit World.
10 (3), 24.
McCandless, H., and Wright, D. (1993). Enhancing public accountability.
Optimum—The Journal o f Public Sector Management. 24 (2). 110-118.
214
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
McCoy-Thompson, S. (1998). Public-private partnerships: Spreading the three Rs.
Natural Resources Forum. 22 (2), 87-94.
McCubbins, M. D., and Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked:
Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal o f Political Science. 28 (1), 165-
179.
McGuire, M., Rubin, B., AgranofF, R., and Richards, C. (1994). Building
development capacity in nonmetropolitan com m unities. Public Administration
Review. 54 (5), 426-433.
McKee, D. (1994). Guidelines for strategic development alliance success. Economic
Development Review. (Winter), 90-92.
McNeil, R. D., (1995). Partners in the marketplace—A new model for business-civic
leadership. National Civic Review. (Summer-Fall), 248-255.
Merenda, D. W. (1989). Partners in education: An old tradition renamed. Educational
Leadership. 47 (2), 4-7.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam-Webster, Inc. (1998). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary (10th. ed.).
Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Miller, H. T. (1994). Post-progressive public administration: Lessons from policy
networks. Public Administration Review. 54,378-385.
M illett, A. R. (1996). Empowerment evaluation and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
In Fetterman D. M., S. J. Kaftarian, and A. Wandersman,(eds.), Empowerment
evaluation—Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 65-76.
Milward, H. B. (1994). Symposium on the hollow state: Capacity, control, and
performance in interorganizational settings. Journal o f Public Administration
Research and Theory. 6 (2), 193-195.
Mitchell, P. (1995). Accountability and the professional environment o f teachers, hi
McKenzie, P., Mitchell, P., and Oliver, P., (eds.) Competence and accountability in
education. Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company.
215
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Moe, R. C. (1988). “Law” versus “performance” as objective standard. Public
Administration Review. 48,674-675.
Moe, R. C. (1987). Exploring the limits o f privatization. Public Administration
Review. 47,453-460.
Morse, J. M. (1998). D esigning funded qualitative research, hi Denzin, N . K ., and
Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.) Strategies o f qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 56-85.
Mosher, F. C. (1980). The changing responsibilities and tactics o f the federal
government. Public Administration Review. (November/December), 541-548.
Myers, R., and Lacey, R. (1996). Consumer satisfaction, performance and
accountability in the public sector. International Review o f Administrative Sciences.
62,331-350.
National Alliance o f Business. (19 8 9 ). The compact project—School-business
partnership for improving education. Washington, D.C.: The Author.
National Association o f Partners in Education. (2001). Partnerships 2000: A decade
o f growth and change. Alexandria, VA: the Author.
National Association o f Partners in Education. (2000). 2000 annual report.
Alexandria, VA: the Author.
National Association o f Partners in Education. (1991). National school district
survey—Final report. Alexandria, VA: the Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1989). Education partnerships in public
elementary and secondary schools. 1987-1988. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
National Education Goals Panel. (1995). The national education goals report—
Executive summary: Improving education through familv-school-communitv
partnerships. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
216
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., and Rigdon, M. (1997). Accountability and school
performance: Implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Educational Review.
67 (1), 41-74.
Nuckols, D. (1990). Public-private partnerships as implementing strategy: The job
training partnership act. Journal o f Economic Issues. 24(2), 645-651.
Ohmae, K. (1989). The global logic o f strategic alliances. Harvard Business Review.
(March-April), 143-154.
O’Looney, J. (1992). Public-private partnerships in economic development:
Negotiating the trade-off between flexibility and accountability. Economic
Development Review. (Fall), 14-22.
O’Loughlin, M. G. (1990). What is bureaucratic accountability and how can we
measure it? Administration and Society. 22 (3), 275-302.
Osborne, D., and Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventine eovemment: How the
entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York, NY: Plume.
O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (1997a). The implications for democracy in a networked
bureaucratic world. Journal o f Public Administration Research and Theory. 7 (3),
443-459.
O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (1997b). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based
agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review. 57 (I), 45-52.
Otterbourg, S. D. (1990). How to monitor and evaluate partnerships in education:
Measurine their success. Ellenton, FL: InfoMedia Inc.
Oztel, H. and Martin, S. (1998). Local partnership for economic development:
Business links and the restructuring o f SME support networks in the United
Kingdom. Economic Development Quarterly. 12 (3), 266-278.
Painter, C., Isaac-Henry, K., and Rouse, J. (1997). Local authorities and non-elected
agencies: Strategic responses and organizational networks. Public Administration. 75
(Summer), 225-245.
Parsons, W. (1998). Fuzzy in theory and getting fuzzier in practice: Post-modem
reflections on responsibility in public administration and management, hi A .
Hondeghem (ed.), (1998). Ethics and accountability in a context o f governance and
new public management. Washington, DC: IOS Press, 87-104.
217
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2n d . Edition)
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Paul, S. (1992). Accountability in public services: Exit, voice and control. World
Development. 20 (7), 1047-1060.
Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking
public administration. Journal o f Public Administration Research and Theory. 8 (2),
223-243.
Potapchuck, W. R., Crocker, J. P., and Schechter, W. H. Jr. (1997). Building
community with social capital: Chits and chums or chats w ith change. National Civic
Review. 86 (2), 129-139.
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network form o f organization,
hi B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol.
12. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 295-336.
Quirk, B. (1997). Accountable to everyone: Postmodern pressures on public
managers. Public Administration. 75 (Autumn), 569-586.
Reichard, C. (1998). The impact o f performance management on transparency and
accountability in the public sector. In A. Hondeghem (ed.), (1998). Ethics and
accountability in a context o f governance and new public management. Washington,
DC: IOS Press, 123-137.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance,
reflexivitv and accountability. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
Ring, P. S. and Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental processes o f cooperative
interorganizational relationships. Academy o f Management Review. 19 (1), 90-118.
Rist, R. C. (ed.) 1990. Program evaluation and the management o f government:
patterns and prospects across eight nations. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Roberts, J. (1991). The possibilities o f accountability. Accounting- Organizations and
Society. 16 (4), 355-368.
Robertson, P. J. (1998). Interorganizational relationships: Key issues for integrated
services. In J. McCroskey and S. D. Einbinder (eds.), C om m unities and universities:
Remaking professional and interprofessional education for the next century.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 67-87.
218
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Robertson, P. J., and Acar, M. (1999). Concentrated hopes, diffused responsibilities:
Accountability in public-private partnerships. Paper presented at the 60 . National
Conference o f the American Society for Public Administration, April 10-14, 1999,
Orlando, FL.
Rodal, A. (1993). Managing partnerships. Optimum—The Journal o f Public Sector
Management. 24 (3), 49-63.
Rodal, A., and Mulder, N. (1993). Partnerships, devolution and power-sharing:
Issues and implications for management. Optimum—The Journal o f Public Sector
Management. 24 (3), 27-48.
Rodal, A., and Wright, D. (1993). A dossier on partnerships. Optimum—The Journal
o f Public Sector Management. 24 (3), 19-21.
Romzek, B.S., and Dubnick, M.J. (1998). Accountability. In J.M . Shafritz (ed.)
International Encyclopedia o f Public Policy and A dm inistration. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press, 6-11.
Romzek, B. S., and Dubnick, M. J. (1994). Issues o f accountability in flexible
personnel Systems. In P. W. Ingraham, and B. S. Romzek, (eds.) New paradigms for
government: Issues for the changing public service. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
263-294.
Romzek, B. S., and Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector:
Lessons from the challenger tradegy. Public Administration Review. (May/June),
227-238.
Rosenau, P. V. (1999). Introduction—The strengths and weaknesses o f public-
private policy partnerships. American Behavioral Scientist. 43 (1), 10-34.
Ruffin, S. C. (1985). School-business partnerships: Why not? Business Education
Forum. (Mav). 3-6.
Salamon, L. M. (1996). Nonprofit management education: A field whose time has
passed? Paper presented to the Conference on Nonprofit Management Education
1996: A U.S. and World Perspective, Institute for Nonprofit Organization
Management, University o f San Francisco, Berkeley, California, March 14-16,1996.
Salamon, L. M. (1989). The changing tools o f government action: An overview, hi
Salamon, L. M. (ed.) Beyond privatization: The tools o f government action.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 3-22.
219
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sarason, S. B., and Lorentz, E. M. (1998). Crossing boundaries—Collaboration,
coordination, and the redefinition o f resources. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sinclair, A. (1995). The chameleon o f accountability: Forms and discourses.
Accounting. Organizations and Society. 20(2/3), 219-237.
Smith, A. K., and Wohlstetter, P. (2001). Reform through school networks: A new
kind o f authority and accountability. Educational Policy. 15 (4), 499-519.
Smith, J. J. (1995). A framework for forming business-education partnerships. The
High School Journal. 78 (2), 78-84.
Smith, S. R. (1997). Partnerships, community building, and local government.
National Civic Review. 86 (2), 167-175.
Solomon, C. M. (1991). New partners in business. Personnel Journal. (April), 57-67.
Stanyer, J. (1974). Divided responsibilities: Accountability in decentralized
governm ent Public Administration Bulletin. 17,14-30.
Stenning, P. C. (1993). Some reflections on accountability in the Ministry o f the
Solicitor General o f Canada. Ontimum—The Journal o f Public Sector Management
24 (2), 41-57.
Stephenson, M. O., Jr. (1991). W hither the public-private partnership: A critical
overview. Urban Affairs Quarterly. 27 (1), 109-127.
Stokes, D. E. (1996). “Presidential” address: The changing environment o f education
for public service. Journal o f Policy Analysis and M anagement 15 (2), 158-170.
Stone, N. (1991). Does business have any business in education? Harvard Business
Review. (March-April), 46-62.
Sutherland, S. L. (1993). Independent review and political accountability: Should
democracy be on autopilot? Optimum—The Journal o f Public Sector M anagement
24 (2), 23-40.
Sweat, D. E., and Anthony, J. A. (1995). The role o f corporations in urban
revitalization—The experience o f the Atlanta Project National Civic Review.
(Summer-Fall), 239-247.
Taylor, M. (1996). Between public and private: Accountability in voluntary
organizations. Policy and Politics. 24 (1), 57-72.
220
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Terry, L. D. (1993). Why we should abandon the misconceived quest to reconcile
public entrepreneurship with democracy? Public Administration Review. 53 (4), 393-
395.
Thomas, P. G. (1997). Accountability and access. Optimum—The Journal o f Public
Sector Management. 27 (3), 24-31.
Thompson, D. F. (1980). Moral responsibility o f public officials: The problem o f
many hands. American Political Science Review. 74,905-915.
Timpane, M. (1984). Business has rediscovered the public schools. Phi Delta
Kappan. (February), 389-392.
Tushnet, N. C. (1993). A guide to developing educational partnerships. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department o f Education.
Waddock, S. A. (1993). The spider’s web: Influences on school performance.
Business Horizons. (September-October), 39-48.
Waddock, S. A. (1992). The national alliance o f business compact project: Business
involvement in public-education. Research in Corporate Social Performance and
Policy. 13,31-81.
Waddock, S. A. (1991). A typology o f social partnership organizations.
Administration and Society. 22 (4), 480-515.
Waddock, S. A.(1988). Building successful social partnerships. Sloan Management
Review. (Summer). 17-23.
Wagner, R. B. (1989). Accountability in education: A philosophical inquiry. New
York: Routledge.
Waldo, D. (1974). Reflections on public morality. Administration and Society. 6 (3),
267-282.
Waldo, D. (1948). The administrative state—A study o f the political theory o f
American public administration. New York: Ronald Press Co.
Walsh, J. (1997). Community building in theory and practice: Three case studies.
National Civic Review. 86 (4), 291-314.
221
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Weber, E. P. (1999). The question o f accountability in historical perspective: From
Jackson to contemporary grassroots ecosystem management. Administration and
Society. 31 (4), 451-494.
Webster’s. (1996). Webster’s encyclopedic unabridged dictionary o f the English
language. New York, NY: Gramercy Books.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method o f qualitative
interview studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
White, J. A., and Wehlage, G. (1995). Community collaboration: If it is such a good
idea, why is it so hard to do? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 17 (1), 23-
38.
Windsor, D., and Greanias, G. (1984). Improving corporate accountability: Concepts
and proposals. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy. 6. 1-25.
Wohlstetter, P. (1991). Accountability mechanisms for state education reform: Some
organizational alternatives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 13 (I), 31-
48.
Wolcott, H. F. (1992). Posturing in qualitative inquiry, hi M. D. LeCompte. W. L.
Millroy, and J. Preissle (eds.), The handbook o f qualitative research in education.
New York: Academic Press, 3-52.
Young, D. R., Bania, N., and Bailey, D. (1996). Structure and accountability—A
study o f national nonprofit associations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 6
(4), 347-365.
Zacchei, D. A., and Mirman, J. A. (1986). Business-education partnerships:
Strategies for school improvement Andover: MA.: The Regional Laboratory for
Educational Improvement o f the Northeast and Islands.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
SAMPLE E-MAIL MESSAGE SENT TO PROSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS
Dear Member o f Partnership Directors Network,
I am writing to you to seek your participation in a field research I am conducting for
my doctoral dissertation. I should add that I am a member o f both the National
Association o f Partners in Education and Partnership Directors Network since 1998.
The theme o f my dissertation is "Accountability in Public-Private Partnerships." Its
particular focus is on the public-private partnerships formed in the area o f education.
My Committee and I have already agreed on the theoretical framework and
methodology I am going to employ in my dissertation. I am now in the process o f
conducting my field research.
The field data for the study will come from the phone interviews conducted with
partnership directors/coordinators, people like you, who are involved in educational
partnerships for many years and who possess a great deal o f knowledge and insight
regarding various aspects o f these partnerships. In addition, I will seek to obtain from
participating individuals relevant documents (e.g., policy guidelines, evaluation
forms, annual reports, progress reports, brochures, promotional materials etc.).
The interview itself has three sections and is expected to last 35-40 minutes. It starts
with questions aiming to get more generic info about the participants (e.g., the title o f
position currently held, educational background etc.). The second section has three
questions aiming to understand how accountability is perceived/defined. The last
section deals with the experience o f the participants with regard to policies and
practices o f accountability in and around educational partnerships.
All information and data collected will be kept anonymous, and without your
consent, your individual responses will not be identified in any report generated from
this study.
I anticipate that you will enjoy the interview, but feel free to withdraw from the
process at anytime. You are free to decline answering any question that you feel
uncomfortable with.
I am kindly asking, and w ill greatly appreciate your participation in this research
endeavor. I am optimistic that the findings and policy recommendations o f my
223
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
dissertation research will generate info that can be utilized in the design and
implementation o f more effective accountability policies and processes in
educational partnerships. I w ill be more than happy to furnish you with further
information if needed, and to answer any questions that you might have about myself
and/or my research. Many thanks in advance for your participation and help.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Kind regards,
Muhittin Acar
PhD . Candidate
School o f Policy, Planning, and Development
University o f Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0626
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX 2
ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
INTERVIEW GUIDE
1- What is the name o f your organization and department?
2- What is the title o f position you are currently holding?
3- Who do you report to?
4- Besides you, how many people are working in your department/office dealing
with partnerships?
5-What is your educational background? (i.e., major(s), and the level o f formal
education attended).
6- How many years o f professional working experience do you have? La how many
years o f it you have worked in a job that had dealing with the partnerships as a
primary responsibility?
7- What words or phrases come to your mind when I mention the word
“accountability”?
8- What functions and purposes does accountability serve?
9- Why do you think that accountability is important?
10- Do you have any documents explaining the major partnership projects/programs
your are currently involved in? If yes, could you please send me those
documents?
11- What part does the accountability play in your partnerships?
12- What do you see the partnerships as being accountable fo r!
13- To whom do you see the partnerships as being accountable?
14- What methods/means are used to achieve the accountability o f the partnerships?
225
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15- Have any performance criteria for the partnerships been defined? How were they
developed?
16- W hat information do you get to let you know that the partnerships is achieving
what it is supposed to achieve? What foUow-up action is taken if a variance
shows up?
17- Have there been any major change(s) (e.g., changes in policy, personnel, and/or
funding) that occurred in the partnerships over time that can be attributed to
concerns related to the accountability or lack thereof? If so, can you describe the
nature o f these changes?
18- Is the overall approach to accountability in the partnerships informal, or formal?
Please explain/elaborate.
19- What major challenges and difficulties, if any, have you encountered in terms o f
accountability in your partnerships? Please specify.
20- Are there significant differences between the public, private, and non-profit
organizations in the partnerships in terms o f their approaches to
accountability?— If yes, Which organizations/individuals are more concerned
with maintaining effective accountability policies and practices? Why do you
think this is the case?
21- W hat recommendations would you have for others involved in public-private
partnerships regarding creating and maintaining successful partnerships?
22-W hat recommendations would you have for other individuals and organizations
involved in public-private partnerships in terms o f developing and maintaining
effective accountability policies and practices?
23-What kinds o f skills, values, and attitudes/orientations do you think people like
you/partnerships directors/coordinators must have to be successful/effective? (*)
Please feel free to raise any issues that you think are important and have not been
covered so far.
(*) This was an add-on question, formulated and included in the interview protocol after a couple of
participants at an earlier phase of the field research, without prompting, raised the issues falling into
the scope of this question. While recorded and fully-transcribed, participants' responses to this
specific question were not included in the analysis within the scope of this dissertation since the
question was not directed to all participants.
226
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX 3
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS RELATED TO EACH RESEARCH ISSUE
Research Issue Category # 1 (Perspectives):
How do people involved in educational partnerships view different facets o f the
accountability? (i.e., what, why, fo r what, and to whom o f accountability). Are there
significant sectoral differences on accountability in the partnerships?
1) What words or phrases come to your mind when I mention the word
“accountability”?
2) What functions and purposes does accountability serve?
3) Why do you think that accountability is important?
4) What do you see the partnerships as being accountable fo r i
5) To whom do you see the partnerships as being accountable?
6) Are there significant differences between the public, private, and non-profit
organizations in the partnerships in terms o f their approaches to accountability?
If yes, which organizations/individuals are more concerned with maintaining
effective accountability policies and practices? Why do you think this is the
case?
Research Issue Category # 2 (Practices):
What are the main characteristics o f accountability policies, processes, and
practices currently in use in educational partnerships? (i.e., how and with what
consequences o f accountability).
1) What part does the accountability play in your partnerships?
2) What methods/means are used to achieve the accountability o f the partnerships?
3) Have any performance criteria for the partnerships been defined? How were they
developed?
227
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4) What information do you get to let you know that the partnerships are achieving
what they are supposed to achieve? What follow-up action is taken if a variance
shows up?
5) Is the overall approach to accountability in the partnerships informal, or formal?
Please explain/elaborate.
6) Have there been any major changes (e.g., changes in policy, personnel, and/or
funding) that occurred in the partnerships over tim e that can be attributed to
concerns related to the accountability or lack thereof? If so, can you describe the
nature o f these changes?
Research Issue Category # 3 (Problems):
What are the major challenges and difficulties faced by the practitioners in terms o f
accountability in partnerships?
1) What major challenges and difficulties, if any, have you encountered in terms o f
accountability in your partnerships? Please specify.
Research Issue Category # 4 (Prospects):
What recommendations do the partnership practitioners have fo r developing more
successful partnerships as well as effective accountability policies and practices in
and aroundpublic-partnerships?
1) What recommendations would you have for others involved in public-private
partnerships regarding creating and maintaining successful partnerships?
2) What recommendations would you have for other individuals and organizations
involved in public-private partnerships in terms o f developing and maintaining
effective accountability policies and practices?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX 4
CODING PROCESSES AND CATEGORIES
As noted in section 3.3, the coding categories were developed after reading and
rereading the material many times. In some cases, this was a straightforward process,
while others required a number o f iterations before the coding categories were
considered satisfactory in capturing the diversity and richness o f the responses. What
follows are descriptions and illustrations as to how the coding was completed to
evaluate the interview data, focusing specifically on the latter type o f coding.
WORDS/PHRASES ASSOCIATED WITH ACCOUNTABILITY
Measuring and Measures
Measurement, measures, measuring, evaluation, assessment, data, database, data
collection, data gathering, records, statistics, standards, standardization, numbers,
scores, tests, testing, and test scores.
Outcomes/Impact
Outcomes, results, impact, student performance and achievement, and visibility (e.g.,
“measurable outcomes”, “concrete outcomes”, “...it is ultimately the results o f the
partnerships.” “are the students getting something out o f it?”, “..are we making a
difference?”).
Expectations
Expectations, goals and objectives, vision and mission, (e.g., “For accountability,
there are shared goals and expectations, there is a vision...”).
Justification
Justification (e.g., “ justification for the program”, “is it worth doing it?”).
Reporting
Reporting, providing information (e.g., “being able to provide information...”,
“being able to tell them ...”
229
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fiscal/Cost
Budget, cost, money, spending, etc. (e.g., “..how expensive a program might be..”,
“are we spending money wisely? what is costing to us?”).
Responsibility
Responsibility (e.g., “(I)n my mind that means, if I am accountable in what occurs in
this department, I have been charged with certain responsibilities. And I think that I
am held accountable means that I am to fulfill and live up to those responsibilities”).
Naming Stakeholders
(e.g., “When I think accountability, I think o f the word public,” “I think actually
o f the students that we serve,” and “I would think o f district accountability, school
accountability, teacher accountability, and volunteers’ accountability.”)
Monitoring
Monitoring, follow-through.
Relationships
Relationships, win-win relationship, commitment, dependability.
Others
Actions, activities, research, processes, growth, sustainability, equity in hiring,
impressions, job descriptions.
FUNCTIONS, PURPOSES, AND IMPORTANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY
hi the sorting and coding o f the interview data related to functions, purposes, and
importance o f accountability, participants’ responses to two direct questions on the
issue were evaluated together. Excerpts from the interviews related to each category
are provided below, followed by two specific illustrations as to how the coding was
done. It should also be noted here that the questions focusing on the what and why o f
accountability are rather generic in nature, i.e., they are not necessarily context-
specific. hi other words, unlike other questions directed to the participants in
different segments o f the interviews, the questions related to these first two themes
230
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were asked o f participants at the beginning o f the interview, just after getting
demographic information from them but before going into specifics about their
partnerships.
Mapping and Manifesting Expectations
“In partnerships, it helps keep the expectations on equal level so that the school has
an expectation o f the business, and the business has an expectation o f the school.
And that is one o f our biggest problems in our partnerships where {people} don’t
meet expectations or have unclear or false expectations” (Interview # 25).
“W ell, accountability really is that you have goals and objectives in deciding what
you are trying to accomplish” (Interview # 01).
M obilizing and Motivating (Ex-ante)
“Accountability, I believe, keeps you focused on pre-determined goals and
objectives” (Interview # 08).
“I think it keeps people challenged, {so that} certainly they don’t become stalled,
especially when talking about education” (Interview # 18).
Monitoring and Measuring Progress and Performance
“It provides you with measurements. It compares you against baseline data”
(Interview # 30).
“I think that you need to have some evaluations o f your activity. That would be one
o f the purposes. ... (Evaluation is a critical part o f any business, whether it is
education business, or for-profit business. ... If you don’t ever do that evaluation
step, you don’t know if you reached you g o als.... (W)hen I got this position,... there
was no accountability.... {Now} tracking is better.” (Interview # 34).
M odifying
“I think that any time you have accountability it helps you understand why you are
doing what you are doing. And if the numbers, or the data or the information does
not support continuing a program or effort, it makes a lot easier to let go o ff that and
maybe realigning those resources to another effort that is going to get better results”
(Interview # 17).
231
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“(I)f what we do is not getting the results that we set out to achieve, then, perhaps we
need to look at the processes and do something differently” (Interview # 21).
Mobilizing and Motivating (Ex-post)
“I think that when you go to businesses and ask for donations, or when you go to
community organizations and ask them to have volunteers serve, they need to know
that the work that they are doing is effective and is accomplishing what the goals o f
the partnership are” (Interview # 09).
“(I)t also helps us to bring more people on if we show them that in fact this is a good
program ... (W)e can show people that in fact there is a purpose, {and that} we are
meeting the needs. People want to be part o f a winning team.” (Interview # 26)
Two Specific Examples
Example I:
“Accountability, whether it is just testing, state testing, whether through standard
achievement scores, or absenteeism, or drop-out rate, or mobility, those are all
measurements o f accountability, I think, that must let us know how we are doing. So,
I mean, that to me is a given. You have to have certain expectations and if you don’t
have those, then, how do you know how to adjust and modify to meet the needs o f
your kids?” (Interview # 13).
The above response was coded as falling into three categories: Mapping and
Manifesting Expectations (i.e., “You have to have certain expectations...”),
Monitoring and Measuring the Progress and Performance (i.e., “ ...those are all
measurements o f accountability...that must let us know how we are doing”), and
Modifying (i.e., “to adjust and modify to ...”).
Example II:
“I think, most people need clear directions in order to accomplish the tasks that need
to be accomplished. And so accountability is there to provide that. Just to clearly
define what the goals are so that there is a common understanding” (Interview # 12).
232
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This participant’s response was coded into two categories, namely, Mobilizing and
Motivating (Ex-ante), and Mapping and Manifesting Expectations.
SIGNIFICANCE OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN PARTNERSHIPS
hi sorting and coding the interview data related to the part that accountability plays
in partnerships, participants’ answers to both one direct question on the issue as well
as the opinions and comments presented by the participants in different segments o f
the interviews were taken into consideration. Three main categories emerged horn
the data: very significant, significant, and not very significant. One participant’s
response on the issue was unclear. Examples o f the coding are provided below.
Very Significant
“First o f all, we have the philosophy that ‘if something cannot be measured, it is not
worth doing.’... So, I would say accountability is embedded in everything that we
do. It is just a part o f our lifestyle...” (Interview # 06).
“The accountability basically drives our partnership. It also connects us to a larger
world.” (Interview # 07).
“I think it plays a huge part...” (Interview # 15).
Significant
“It plays a fairly intrical role” (Interview #11).
“There is a whole process o f partnership development that we use, and obviously
accountability plays an important part” (Interview # 13).
“Well, I would say that it plays a fairly significant role” (Interview # 20).
Not Very Significant
“A small p art ... So, from a pragmatic standpoint, it is not that important”
(Interview # 09).
233
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“Well, this is a voluntary activity, and so sometimes I am not real sure how big a part
it plays” (Interview # 12).
“I guess we are getting to a point now that... we are starting to realize the
importance o f accountability. And that is hopefully would be my next step, to do
evaluations” (Interview # 35).
INFORMAL-FORMAL DIMENSION IN ACCOUNTABILITY
hi determining whether informal or formal approaches to accountability more
prevalent in practice, participants’ responses to one direct question on the issue have
been utilized. In addition, whenever available, documents obtained from the
participants, provided a check. Examples o f how the coding was done are presented
below in the form o f providing excerpts from the interviews for each and every
category.
Informal
“I think it is informal. ... Again, it is anecdotal information, it is a hit-and-miss kind
o f thing” (Interview # 09).
“Inform al...well, I think it is informal because in many cases accountability part
isn’t something that initially is even there. There is no instrument put together, or
even a definite plan to sit down and review it. It is kind o f ‘let’s try something, and
kind o f work with it as we go along.’ It is very often the attitude” (Interview # 12).
“Very informal. You know, are you happy, they are happy? {chuckles} Is everything
going on right? W hat would you like to see different? But, nothing is in writing as o f
now” (Interview # 35).
Mostly Informal
“I think it is mostly informal” (Interview # 01).
“We used to have very form al... We have moved away from that to a much more
informal relationships” (Interview # 06).
234
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“Overall, it is an informal accountability, except m y responsibility to the
superintendent, and that is very formal” (Interview # 08).
Combination o f Both
“Both” (Interview # 04).
“I would say combination o f both” (Interview # 05).
“Both” (Interview # 10).
Formal
“I think it is probably fairly formal” (Interview # 02).
“In our case, it is formal” (Interview # 03).
“Overall approach is definitely formal” (Interview # 30).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

California charter schools: Including students with disabilities

PDF

Biopharmaceutical strategic alliances: Interorganizational dynamics and factors influencing FDA regulatory outcomes

PDF

Impact of the policy context on the evolution of DELTA (Design for Excellence: Linking Teaching and Achievement)

PDF

Comparative study of organizational commitment in the public and private sectors: The case of transportation agencies in Thailand

PDF

Hospital conversions: The California experience

PDF

Educational reform for private state -approved schools in California

PDF

Does autonomy matter? Investigating research -based practices in charter and other public schools

PDF

Holding traditional and charter schools accountable for student achievement in one California school district

PDF

Electric system restructuring and system reliability

PDF

Improving math and science education in charter secondary schools through the use of technology

PDF

Globalization and the decline of the welfare state in less developed countries

PDF

Feeling good about control: Design considerations for accountability systems in schools

PDF

Androgyny and transformational leadership: Effects of gender and sex -role identity in the collectivistic context of Taiwan, R.O.C.

PDF

Half empty or half full: Understanding early coordination strategy as a means to mitigate regional water scarcity

PDF

Assessment of prognostic comorbidity in hospital outcomes research: Is there a role for outpatient pharmacy data?

PDF

Differences in the development of citizenship: Residents' motivations and capacities for participating in neighborhood associations in Los Angeles

PDF

Dialectical feminism and contradictory economic systems: Campesina daily life from Somoza to Aleman

PDF

Effects of redundancy in media coverage on nonprofessional investors' earnings forecasts

PDF

A configuration study of multiagency partnerships as practiced in Taipei City government

PDF

Information overload: Exploring management of electronic mail

Asset Metadata

Creator Acar, Muhittin (author)

Core Title Accountability in public -private partnerships

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Public Administration

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest,Political Science, public administration

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Robertson, Peter J. (committee chair), Sundeen, Richard A. (committee member), Wohlstetter, Priscilla (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-186927

Unique identifier UC11338952

Identifier 3065755.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-186927 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3065755.pdf

Dmrecord 186927

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Acar, Muhittin

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA