According to Murray & Cutt (2002), accountability is a framework which is used by public and nonprofit organization in improving information and making decision.  Accountability is multi-layered due to the various social services which are offered by non-profit organizations.  Thus, responsible parties are accountable to execute a variety of activities and achieve the outcomes. In defining accountability, Murray asserts that it is the role of responsible parties to meet the information requirements, evaluate and create decisions (Murray Vic & Cutt, 2002). He adds that if programs and performance are meaningful, then accountability is valued and defined as a purposeful activity.  In other words, organization programs and performance are related with accountability. In this case, accountability becomes a meaningful framework as it becomes connected with shared expectations, shared language and shared criteria (Murray Vic & Cutt, 2002).  All these references explain the way in which responsible parties will fulfill their duties.  

Murray & Cutt (2002) asserts that accountability is relevant in the management cycle.  Management involves programmatic activities such as planning, budgeting, monitoring, internal evaluation and so forth. Accountability information is reported from these particular activities during the management cycle. In addition, accountability frameworks are created by two parties- one party allocates accountability and the other one accepts. It also requires a hierarchical model which ranges from vertical, lateral and external and external levels of organization. Internal accountability is offered by employees, line mangers and program managers. External accountability is offered by CEO and he or she is accountable to the governing body (Murray Vic & Cutt, 2002). Administrative accountability focuses on issues of shared expectation, method of reporting and evaluates the accountability of the governing bodies. An important point that individual in organization are held accountable with respect to their specific responsibilities.  Other important point is that accountability has limitations in responsibilities and authority. For example, managers are not accountable for issues which they have no authority. This means that they are only accountable for matters which they are responsible and they have control (Murray Vic & Cutt, 2002). However, it is argued that even the managers are not accountable for issue which they lack control, they should develop a management system. The author states that managers should have objectivity and subjective accountability. The former means that managers should   be accountable for the assigned responsibility and for the measured mile. The latter means that managers should apply personal standards, ethics and standards and have a sense of responsibility (Murray Vic & Cutt, 2002).

 

Murray’s conceptions on accountability are comparable with Ebrahim’s conceptions in that both introduce the conflict issue between funders and fundees. First, accountability is facilitated by the use of performance assessment and evaluation. External evaluation and assessments are important in   measuring whether the goals and objectives are met and the process for future funding (Ebrahim, 2010). Evaluation also plays an important role in planning short-term and long-term activities. Nonprofit staffs are able to increase performance and strive to achieve goals and objectives. They assert that nonprofit organizations raise questions on assessing activities, outcome and impacts. In evaluating causal factors, nonprofit leaders face challenges on reliability, measurement and control (Ebrahim, 2010). Murray and Ebrahim assert that there is a big problem in evaluation process since nonprofit managers and stakeholders are unable to make effective decisions on allocation of funds.  Evaluation difference between funders and stakeholders bring different evaluations. Stakeholders’ diverse views on who should be funded bring conflict and lack of evaluation hinders the implementation of solution to the problem (Ebrahim, 2010). These conceptions conclude that evaluation is an important tool in accountability.

 

 

 

Reference

Murray Vic & Cutt James (2002). Accountability and Effectiveness Evaluation in Nonprofit Organizations.

Routledge Studies in the Management of Voluntary and Non-Profit Organizations. Routlegde

 

Ebrahim Alnoor (2010). The Many Faces of Nonprofit Accountability.  Harvard Business School.