Public Integrity

ISSN: 1099-9922 (Print) 1558-0989 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mpin20

A Comprehensive Accountability Framework for

Public Administrators

Natasha V. Christie

To cite this article: Natasha V. Christie (2018) A Comprehensive Accountability Framework for
Public Administrators, Public Integrity, 20:1, 80-92, DOI: 10.1080/10999922.2016.1257349

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2016.1257349

Published online: 12 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 673

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mpin20
Public Integrity, 20: 80–92, 2018
Copyright © American Society for Public Administration
ISSN: 1099-9922 print/1558-0989 online
DOI: 10.1080/10999922.2016.1257349

A Comprehensive Accountability Framework for

Public Administrators

Natasha V. Christie
University of North Florida

In their current state in the public administration literature, the various accountability frameworks
build upon another, but are not in a comprehensive form so that practitioners may make use of them.
The Comprehensive Accountability Framework (CAF) synthesizes the major components of
prominent accountability frameworks in the literature by linking them together to create an action-
able system of accountabilities. Doing so creates a more in depth understanding of accountability
that acknowledges the respective values of those within an accountability network while at the same
time work to create agreed upon accountability system(s) for their interorganizational relationship.

Keywords: accountability, accountability frameworks, cross-sector accountability, multiple

accountabilities

Just as Koppell (2005) acknowledges the multitude of definitions for accountability within the
public administration literature, Yang (2011) argues that having so many understandings of
accountability may exacerbate existing accountability problems. Although it is hard to disagree
with Koppell’s (2005) and Yang’s (2011) assessments of the accountability problem in public
administration, one can argue that on their own, these distinct understandings of accountability
provide significant pieces of the puzzle; but when they are put together, one may be able to see
the larger picture of the ways in which one can understand and apply accountability as a system
of components used to promote actionable knowledge. The prominent accountability
frameworks in public administration, on their own, help to navigate the understandings of
accountability, with each addressing specific accountability components in isolation, while
synthesizing these frameworks links together these specific components into several “systems”
of accountability. Bar Cendón’s (2000) work, which attempts to tabulate the characteristics of
the different forms of accountability, comes closest to the type of synthesis put forward in this
article. Accordingly, this article is an extension of Bar Cendón’s in the following ways: (a) by
including emerging accountability types, and (b) by addressing how to make these account-
ability systems actionable for their users.
This article adds value to the existing accountability frameworks in public administration by
offering a synthesis of the components of the prominent accountability frameworks published in
the field, introduced here as the Comprehensive Accountability Framework (CAF). The benefits
of using this type of synthesis are twofold. First, it allows the field to broaden its perspective of
both the field’s prominent accountability models and their extensions in public administration

Correspondence should be sent to Natasha V. Christie, Department of Political Science and Public Administration,
University of North Florida, 1 UNF Dr., Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA. E-mail: n.christie@unf.edu
 TABLE 1

81
Comprehensive Accountability Framework (CAF)

Dominant
Typesa Valuesb Behaviorsc methodsd Dimensionse Goalsf To whomg For whath Consequencesi Evaluative criteriaj

Bureaucratic Efficiency Obedience to - Monitoring Controllability Performance Auditors, Forms and - Resignation or Extent to which an
organizational - Auditing inspectors, and procedures dismissal accountability
directives - Outcome- controllers followed by the system ensures
based administrative the efficiency
measurement action and effectiveness
of services being
provided.
Legal Rule of law Compliance - Courts Liability Justice Courts Acting in full - Revision of the …curtails the abuse
with external - Contracts compliance with administrative act of executive
mandates the legally - Sanction or power and
established recognition of the privilege.
rules and official involved …ensures that tasks
procedures - Compensation for are
the citizen carried out in
accordance with
contractual
obligations.
Professional Expertise Deference to - Code of Responsibility Ethical Professional - Professional Sanction or …ensures that pub-
individual ethics peers rules and recognition of the lic
judgment and - Licensure practices official involved executives
expertise - Registries followed adhere to
- Results of the professional
professional guidelines.
performance …ensures that
experts are
answerable for
their decisions
and actions.
Political Responsive- Responsiveness - Competition Transparency Democracy Elected Results of the - Political criticism …enables
ness to key for contracts representatives, administrative or recognition democratically
external - Whistle- political performance - Resignation or legitimized
stakeholders blowing parties, voters dismissal bodies to moni-
tor and evaluate
executive beha-
vior and to

(Continued)
 TABLE 1
Continued

82
Dominant
Typesa Valuesb Behaviorsc methodsd Dimensionse Goalsf To whomg For whath Consequencesi Evaluative criteriaj

induce
executive
actors to
modify that
behavior in
accordance with
their
preferences.
Social Responsive- Responsiveness Public Responsive- Democracy Interest groups, Results of - Adoption of …stimulates
ness to key reporting ness charities, administrative administrative act public
external stakeholders, performance - Revision of executives and
stakeholders clients, administrative bodies to focus
citizens, media, decision consistently on
civil society - Democratic achieving desir-
legitimization of able societal
administrative outcomes.
performance
Moral/ Responsive- Responsiveness Code of Responsibility Ethical Clients, citizens, Carry out their - Sanction or rec- Extent to which an
Ethical ness to key ethics media, civil duties and ognition of the organization or
external society functions by official involved individual
stakeholders following - Resignation or chooses a course
accepted rules of dismissal of action and
behavior subsequently
defends it as
being right or
wrong.

Notes: Organizations may not be able to be accountable in every way outlined in this framework. Many of the components can apply to multiple accountability systems; as
such only the dominant ideas are captured. For example, responsibility, transparency, and responsiveness can apply to social accountability systems, but the dominant
conception listed is responsibility. The wording of each column has been adapted using sources listed below:
a
Bar Cendón, 2000; Dicke & Ott, 1999; Dwivedi & Jabbra, 1988; Romzek & Dubnick, 1987.
b,c
Romzek & Ingraham, 2000.
d
Dicke & Ott, 1999.
e
Koppell, 2005.
f
Dubnick, 2005.
g
Bovens, 2007.
h,i
Bar Cendón, 2000.
j
Bovens, 2007; Dicke and Ott, 1999.
 A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK 83

by examining accountability through its component parts. This allows users to see the full range
of accountability components as a system that encompasses goals, conceptions, methods,
accountability structures (for whom and for what), consequences, and evaluative criteria.
Second, it allows for the development of “the knowledge that is most likely to be of help to
human beings because it prescribes how they should act” (Argyris, 2003, p. 424; Yang,
2011, p. 262). It is this “how they should act” component that is missing from our prominent
accountability systems. Further, Hoekstra, Talsma, and Kaptein (2016) suggest that the
literature does not delve into the “possibilities of how organizations can cooperate with other
organizations and what would be the reasons and benefits of doing so” (p. 168). This type of
cooperation requires the sharing of both knowledge and experience, which can in turn support
efforts to manage accountability. This would most closely resemble the integrity partnerships
described by Hoekstra et al. (2016) as “cooperative arrangements between two or more inde-
pendent organizations intended to promote and manage integrity” (p. 169). As such, this type
of knowledge will be most relevant to accountability actors because it can assist partners with
building these types of accountability arrangements (Yang, 2011). Within these arrangements,
“institutions are accountable to each other and to the people within them” (Michael, 2005,
p. 106). According to Pesch (2008), it is even possible to provide accountability arrangements
“that acknowledge that civil servants are actively responsible for their actions, and try to pro-
vide them the opportunity to consciously address the potential difference between authorized
rules and communal principles and values” (p. 341), which seems to lie at the heart of the power
play that often exists with interorganizational collaborations. The CAF gives members the
opportunity to discuss value differences openly prior to entering into any such arrangements,
thereby fostering compliance and enhancing dialogue about accountability. Ghere (2011) seems
to suggest that these types of arrangements “can change collaborative culture by linking integ-
rity norms to network effectiveness” (p. 171), all of which give support to the need for the CAF.
According to Denhardt and Denhardt (2007), frameworks are used as an analytical checklist
to transform the actions of government. Frameworks can be used to transform the behavior of
all involved in an accountability network. They can be used as a reference for understanding
complex phenomena, help to approach new situations with similar underlying patterns, and help
to resolve problems (both old and new) that have similar underlying patterns. Using frameworks
as analytical checklists allows their users to begin an accountability dialogue from a common
point. Further, it allows prominent public administration accountability frameworks to become
“actionable” to agencies and organizations in practice. In all, using the CAF to foster this
type of relationship can provide increased integrity, which will in turn promote the types of
accountability discussions that the CAF framework promotes.

A COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK

As Romzek (2011) noted, in the field there is a need for a comprehensive yet differentiated system
of accountability. Many of these frameworks build upon one another, but they do not do so to the
degree that one could classify any of the frameworks as being comprehensive enough to allow its
users to determine which complete accountability systems are most suitable for their specific
situation. The Comprehensive Accountability Framework (CAF) presented here fills these voids
by synthesizing the components of the prominent accountability frameworks developed in the
84 CHRISTIE

field (see Table 1). The premise of the CAF is that its users will have the ability to clearly see the
mechanisms or components of accountability as a system such that users can form a multisector
collaboration that focuses on accountability concerns (Ghere 2011). In all, the CAF synthesizes the
existing frameworks, differentiates their component parts, offers a way to adopt and evaluate
accountability in practice, and provides the starting point of integrity partnerships.
Pulling from the extant literature, Romzek and Dubnick’s (1987) accountability framework is
widely cited and presented as the base framework of many other public administration account-
ability frameworks (Bar Cendón, 2000; Bovens, 2005; Dicke & Ott, 1999; Dwivedi & Jabbra,
1988). Specifically, Bar Cendón’s (2000) review of the public administration literature notes that
many of the classifications of accountability are really, at their core, two main forms of account-
ability: political accountability and administrative accountability. He argues that many of the
other classifications of accountability, such as hierarchical, bureaucratic, and legal account-
ability, are, in fact, aspects or dimensions that are inseparable from the concept of administrative
accountability. Yet, to these two classic forms of accountability, he adds in democratic account-
ability, which establishes a direct relationship with citizens. Of note, he also distinguishes pro-
fessional accountability, since it subjects professional performance to a set of professional rules
and principles that guide the profession, and not to the general rules and defining principles of
public administration, such as legality, hierarchy, obedience, fairness, and so on, exclusively.
Additionally, the CAF explores two other types of democratic accountability where the focus
is on accountability to external bodies: moral/ethical and social accountability, whereby more
attention is paid to the role of non-governmental organizations, interest groups, and customers
or clients as relevant stakeholders. This is not to suggest that these are the only accountability
types in public administration, but they represent the prominent accountability types in public
administration from which many others are derived, and are also an illustration of how newer
forms of accountability can fit within them. The CAF relies on a very restrictive selection of
accountability types and thereby disregards other types related to accountability.

Components of the Comprehensive Accountability Framework

Schillemans (2015) suggests that different types of accountability produce different types of
responses and tasks from decision-makers. The CAF presents, first, the different types of base
accountability. Of particular interest is the fact that the moral/ethical and social accountability
types fall under the democratic accountability type. They are extracted in the CAF to specifi-
cally provide examples of how more democratic forms of accountability can be included in
the discussion, since much of the public administration literature is moving in this direction.
Accordingly, Dwivedi and Jabbra (1988) suggest that these types of accountability relationships
“arise from conscience and reflect concern with the concept of how or ‘by what means,’ an
organization or an individual chooses a course of actions and subsequently defends it’” (Madsen
& Shafritz, 1992, pp. 12–13). Malena, Forster, and Singh (2004) present social accountability as
relying on civic engagement, whereby “ordinary citizens and/or civil society organizations …
participate directly or indirectly in exacting accountability” (p. 3). Bovens (2007) similarly
argues that more attention is being paid to interest groups, customers, and clients as relevant
stakeholders. He further argues that agencies and individual public managers should be obliged
to render account to their stakeholders.
 A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK 85

Dominant Accountability Values and Behavioral Expectations

Romzek and Ingraham (2000) presented the values and behavioral expectations for Romzek and
Dubnick’s (1987) accountability types. Specifically, the bureaucratic/hierarchical type puts
value on efficiency, and the associated behavioral expectation is obedience to organizational
directives. The legal type emphasizes the rule of law and uses compliance with external man-
dates as the expected behavior within such relationships. The professional accountability type
emphasizes expertise and expects deference to individual judgment and expertise. Political
accountability values responsiveness, and the behavioral expectation is responsiveness to key
external stakeholders.

Dominant Accountability Methods

The key with Dicke and Ott’s (1999) work is that they assign each of these methods to the
accountability type prescribed in the aforementioned works. As such, in addition to having ways
of describing the accountability types, the field now has ways in which accountability is carried
out within the types using the methods described by Dicke and Ott (1999).

Dimensions

Koppell (2005) offered five dimensions of accountability that address the nature of account-
ability; they comprise the inherent concepts that underpin the field’s multiple understandings
of accountability as a concept.
. Transparency: Did the organization reveal the facts of its performance?
. Liability: Did the organization face consequences for its performance?
. Controllability: Did the organization do what its principal commanded?
. Responsibility: Did the organization follow the rules?
. Responsiveness: Did the organization fulfill its substantive expectation?

Dominant Promises/Goals of Accountability

Dubnick (2005) enumerated these promises using various sources to describe the actions that
many look for when they view accountability as a remedy for many of the field’s current public
problems (excerpted below).
. The promise of democracy provides for greater transparency and openness in a world
ruled by bureaucracy and hierarchy (O’Donnell, 1998; Schedler, Diamond, & Plattner,
1999).
. The promise of justice creates an impartial arena where abuses of justice and authority
can be judged and challenged (Ambos, 2000; Borman, 1997; Elster, 2004).
. The promise of ethical behavior creates pressures and oversight that will promote
appropriate behavior by public officials (Anechiarico & Jacobs, 1994; Dubnick,
2003; Gray & Jenkins, 1993; Morgan & Reynolds, 1997).
. The promise of performance creates improvements in the quality of government
services (Dubnick, 2005).
86 CHRISTIE

Accountees—Accountable to Whom?

Bovens (2007) argued that there are at least five different types of forums: political, legal,
administrative, professional, and social (excerpted below). An accountability forum “can be a
specific person, such as a superior, a minister or a journalist, or it can be an agency, such as
parliament, a court or the audit office” (p. 13).

Accountable for What?

Bar Cendón (2000) links together various components of each accountability type, including a
description of the accountability subject matter (accountable for what).

Consequences

Bar Cendón (2000) also formalized the consequences for each accountability type in his
framework, something that is not focused on very much in other frameworks.

Measurable Criteria

This section synthesizes elements from the accountability frameworks developed by Bovens
(2007) and Dicke and Ott (1999), respectively, to formulate measurable criteria assessing each
accountability type.
In addition to these descriptions, a comprehensive accountability system should consist of
both structural and behavioral typologies that dictate a common understanding of the workings,
behaviors, and expectations within accountability relationships/integrity partnerships. As such,
an accountability system within the CAF should also contain a description of each account-
ability type’s characteristics, dominant goals, values, and conceptions, the dominant methods
of assuring accountability, and ways of evaluating accountability.
The CAF moves accountability from theory to practice by (a) outlining various fundamental
accountability systems; (b) describing the components of the accountability systems individu-
ally by outlining behaviors, actions, relationships, and consequences; and (c) presenting users
with a set of criteria that can be used to evaluate their chosen accountability system. Accord-
ingly, one must take into account that there is a component of negotiation built into the idea
of putting accountability into practice. Michael (2005) reminds us that accountability does
not exist independently of the people doing the monitoring. Moreover, “without accountability,
there can be no punishment—and without punishment, there can be no power” (p. 102). Unless
there is some way for members of the accountability relationship to come to an agreement that
accountability will not be used as a tool for rewards and punishments, they will assume that they
are playing on an uneven field, so to speak. In the end, if the CAF is used as a starting point for
accountability users, it may get them closer to understanding “the interactivity between account-
ability structure and human agency” (Yang, 2011, p. 256) so that they may better understand
that they are accountable to each other as well as to the public. The remainder of this section
will detail exactly how the CAF proposes to do what is outlined above.
 A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK 87

The CAF outlines the prominent types of accountability in the public administration litera-
ture as an accountability system. It uses Romzek and Dubnick’s (1987) seminal work on
accountability as the base accountability types in the public administration literature, then
incorporates any major new types of accountability that have sprung out of the original base
accountabilities (i.e., social, moral/ethical). From there, it follows Bar Cendón (2000) by assign-
ing goals, values, behaviors, dimensions, methods, and the like as components to each of the
accountability types, thereby to encompass an accountability system.
By incorporating these components, one acknowledges that accountability is more than a
theory but is something that can be put into action by its users. For example, knowing what
the goals of an accountability system are prevents users from losing sight of what they are work-
ing toward with respect to accountability. Although “accountability” reflects expectations of
constraints in the governing of public affairs, it is difficult to sort out precisely what the term
means and how it applies to public networks (Ghere, 2011, p. 166). This can be especially
useful in a networked relationship where multiple users have unique understandings of what
the goals of accountability are. Similarly, Pesch (2008) suggests that each of the sectors within
these networked relationships has its own ethical language, which needs to be acknowledged
within the accountability arrangements. Further, users of the CAF will also be able to know
what they are accountable for and to whom. Last, they will be able to evaluate whether their
actions/performance are in line with their adopted accountability system. All in all, the CAF
adds coherence to something so dispersed throughout the public administration literature and
often conflicting in practice. In actuality, it could lay the groundwork for the formation of
long-lasting integrity partnerships. The CAF contains “the sum of specific activities and instru-
ments used to foster organizational integrity” (Hoekstra, Talsma, & Kaptein, 2016, p. 169).
Based on an examination of the literature, the social and moral/ethical accountability systems
are not as advanced as the other accountability types presented in the CAF in respect to the
development of their characteristics, dominant goals, values, and conceptions, their dominant
methods of assuring accountability, and their ways of evaluating accountability. Consequently,
in certain areas of the CAF, information is not provided in the literature for these two account-
ability systems specifically. Accordingly, in such areas, the missing components were filled in,
based on the base accountability type’s description and the component descriptions from the
literature. For example, Bovens (2007) lists “accountees” for all accountability types except
for the moral/ethical accountability systems. Based on the description of this accountability type
as being democratic—the description of accountees given by Bovens (2007)—the present
article assigns accountees as clients, citizens, media, and civil society.

WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR A COMPREHENSIVE ACCOUNTABILITY

FRAMEWORK?

Some may argue that the CAF is an extension of the 1987 Romzek and Dubnick accountability
model, as are many of the existing accountability frameworks. Instead, what makes the
distinction between the CAF and its predecessors is its comprehensive and applicable nature
for practitioners. Over time, scholars have improved upon existing frameworks by changing
or adding new components; the CAF does neither. On the contrary, it synthesizes such changes
and additions into a framework that is comprehensive in that it connects all of the previous
88 CHRISTIE

work, yet differentiated because it does not include overlapping contributions. Further, it aids in
bringing the advantages of multiple accountability into practice. For example, the use of this
framework realizes 360-degree accountability by specifically naming who is accountable to
whom, how they are accountable, what they are accountable for, how accountability will be
evaluated, and the consequences for accountability failures. All accountability agents have
the ability to share this information and have the ability to choose accountability tasks that
are most in line with their individual moral and ethical values, thus making the CAF a useful
tool in the support of “actionable knowledge.” Pesch (2008) states, “The failure to acknowledge
the presence of moral plurality suggests that accountability arrangements to counterbalance the
newly found responsibilities of administrators are largely absent” (p. 341).
Based on the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of accountability in the public
administration literature, the CAF speaks to all of these issues in the following ways: (a) it ties
in the prominent discussions of accountability in the literature; (b) it highlights the advantages
of multiple accountabilities; and (c) it addresses the challenges of multiple accountabilities. In
addition, Yang (2011) calls for more actionable accountability knowledge “based on causal
observations of the mechanisms linking accountability structures, individual behaviors, and
organizational outcomes” (p. 276). He also suggests that the field lacks an understanding of
how actors make sense of accountability in their “everyday world.” Schillemans (2015) simi-
larly suggests the need to “look beneath the formal characteristics of mechanisms to the actual
interactions between decision-makers and their accountability forums, in order to understand
the outcomes of accountability and to be able to calibrate accountability to task requirements”
(p. 7).
One could argue that before managers are asked to make sense of accountability in their
everyday world, the field itself must first make sense of accountability. Instead of figuring
out how accountability works once managers use it, why not provide them a blueprint first, then
assess how the blueprint comes to life in everyday practice? Although some may acknowledge
that the field lacks this understanding, it is premature to shift the focus to managers; instead,
there should be a focus on what is already known about accountability and on putting it in a
form that allows users/managers to put it into action through everyday practice. The CAF links
the structures, behaviors, and outcomes of accountability systems to help begin the conceptua-
lization of how these types of accountability could look to users.
Using Figure 1, accountability agents could conceivably have an initial meeting in which
they examine who it is they believe they are accountable to. From there they will have the
choice of deciding among courts, auditors, professional peers, citizens, elected officials, and
others. After that has been decided, they then move to the more concrete aspects of the
CAF; namely, “accountable for what.” in which they get an idea of what will be expected of
them. They would then move to a more concrete level under “how is accountability is ensured”
to determine which activities can take place under the chosen accountability system that will
ensure that they meet said accountability. Next is “how is accountability evaluated,” where
agents will have a clear idea of the ways in which their stakeholders can hold them accountable.
Then, last, is a discussion of the consequences for agents who do not uphold the said
accountability type. According to Schillemans (2015), when actors expect accountability while
performing a task, are accountable to a respected audience, and face an authoritative account-
ability forum that guards the standards it has set itself, they are more likely to take their role
more seriously and make more accurate decisions.
89
FIGURE 1 Comprehensive accountability framework flow chart.
90 CHRISTIE

To illustrate, in 1975, the Florida State Legislature enacted amendments to Section 945.30(3),
Florida Statutes, handing over the caseload of misdemeanant defendants from the Florida
Department of Probation and Parole to the newly created Department of Offender Rehabilitation.
State governments were being pushed to make budget cuts and felt that they could not continue to
offer probation services for misdemeanor offenders. The legislature considered these needs when
the 1976 statutes approved the Salvation Army or any other approved private or public entity as
eligible to provide misdemeanant probation services to the courts; thus, in 1975, Florida became
the first state to privatize its misdemeanor services. Both the growing misdemeanant population
and the creation of the State Contract Misdemeanor Probation Program in 1977 may have con-
tributed to the growth of privatized misdemeanor probation agencies in Florida. Geraghty and
Velez (2011) argued that the criminal justice system needs public oversight to ensure that profit
is not a motive behind criminal justice policies. They also contend that transparency and account-
ability both help to promote public interest in the criminal justice system.
Accordingly, the state’s misdemeanor probation program could benefit from the use of the CAF
by both the state and the private agencies to decide which accountability systems are most appropriate
for the state’s misdemeanor probation program. For example, a private agency may decide that the
bureaucratic and legal accountability systems are more in line with its organizational moral values.
On the other side, the state and its actors may decide that the professional and moral/ethical
accountability systems are most appropriate for their organizations. In order to create an integrity
management partnership, these organizations need to contend with the differences between their
organizational values with respect to accountability.
The CAF provides a good starting point for discussions of this type because it can allow each
party to understand better the other’s values and how they are manifested in the accountability
system by knowing the who is accountable to whom and for what items, for example. In many
such arrangements, as in the Florida Misdemeanor Program, parties are held together in these
arrangements through contracts. Accordingly, the CAF would best fit in the contract negotiation
phase where it is made clear who is responsible for what, how their accountability duties are
carried out, who they are accountable to, and how they will be able to evaluate said account-
ability types.

CONCLUSION

The most important aspect of the CAF is its ability to move the field’s understanding of
accountability as a concept into an understanding of accountability as a system of component
parts that can be put into action and evaluated by users. The CAF allows for a comprehensive
synthesis of accountability in the public administration literature. Moreover, it allows the field
to move beyond one-dimensional definitions of accountability to a more complex understanding
of accountability. This complex understanding requires the field to move beyond definitions and
see accountability as a system that could be applied by all users in the accountability network.
The literature documents that the multiplicity of accountability meanings causes confusion
among those required to keep account, primarily because of a lack of comprehensive
understanding. The framework provides both a comprehensive yet differentiated system of
understanding and an application of accountability. Accountability has definitions, characteris-
tics, goals, values, actors, and consequences, all of which provide a depth that any one
 A COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK 91

component alone could not do on its own. Having such a comprehensive framework for account-
ability allows for the building of a common understanding among users. This common under-
standing can bridge the gap created by some of the common challenges of accountability. Not
only is the understanding important, but so too is the ability to provide users with examples
of who they will be accountable to, for what, how, and the consequences of failed accountability.
On the other side, it gives users an idea of the overall criteria that will be used to evaluate
accountability.
Overall, the purpose of this article was not to further complicate the accountability literature,
but instead to present a streamlined version of accountability that provides common access to its
users. This is vitally important in an age when no one sector performs its duties in isolation. It
provides a stronger foundation for cooperation in contracted and networked relationships. It is
also adaptable in that users can choose from among the proposed accountability systems to
accommodate their respective values. Ryan and Walsh (2004) noted that such relationships
require that each accountability partner know what is expected. Specifically, they state, “this
requires an up-front framework agreement, and ‘credible’ reporting which depends on the
collection and sharing of reliable and compatible data” (p. 623). The CAF provides the basis
for Ryan and Walsh’s (2004) prescription to be realized.
The next logical step for future research in this area would be to carry out a classic experi-
ment that actually implements the CAF during the contract negotiation phase in a networked
relationship. Envisioning such research might require the use of two networked relationships
for comparative purposes, where one uses the CAF and the other does not. In the end, research-
ers can measure whether the CAF allows members of such networked relationships to have
greater ease of cooperation, increased understanding of their accountability responsibilities
within the relationship, and more consistent and accurate measures of accountability.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

An earlier version of this article was presented at the Southeastern Conference for Public
Administration in October 2012 with Jourdan M. Phillips.

REFERENCES

Ambos, K. (2000). Judicial accountability of perpetrators of human rights violations and the role of victims.
International Peacekeeping, 6(2), 67–77.
Anechiarico, F., & Jacobs, J. B. (1994). Visions of corruption control and the evolution of American public
administration. Public Administration Review, 54(5), 465–473.
Argyris, C. (2003). Actionable knowledge. In H. Tsoukas & C. Knudsen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization
theory (pp. 423–452). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bar Cendón, A. (2000). Accountability and public administration: Concepts, dimensions, developments. In M. Kelly
(Ed.), Openness and transparency in governance: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 22–61). Bratislava, Slovakia:
NISPAcee. http://www.nispa.org/files/publications/ebooks/nispacee-opennes2000.pdf
Borman, W. C., Hanson, M. A., & Hedge, J. W. (1997). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 48,
299–337.
Bovens, M. (2005). The concept of public accountability. In E. Ferlie, L. E. Lynn, Jr., & C. Pollitt (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of public management (pp. 182–208). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780199226443.003.0009.
92 CHRISTIE

Bovens, M. (2007). Analyzing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal, 13(4),
447–468. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2007). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. New York, NY:
ME Sharpe Inc.
Dicke, L. A., & Ott, J. S. (1999). Public agency accountability in human service contracting. Public Productivity &
Management Review, 22(4), 502–516. doi:10.2307/3380933.
Dubnick, M. J. (2003). Accountability and ethics: Reconsidering the relationships. International Journal of Organization
Theory and Behavior, 6(3), 405–441.
Dubnick, M. (2005). Accountability and the promise of performance: In search of the mechanisms. Public Performance
& Management Review, 28(3), 376–417. doi:10.1080/15309576.2005.11051839.
Dwivedi, O. P., & Jabbra, J. G. (1988). Introduction: Public service responsibility and accountability. In J. G. Jabbra &
O. P. Dwivedi (Eds.), Public service accountability: A comparative perspective (pp. 1–16). West Hartford, CT:
Kumarian Press.
Elster, J. (2004). Closing the books: Transitional justice in historical perspective. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Geraghty, S., & Velez, M. (2011). Bringing transparency and accountability to criminal justice institutions in the South.
Stanford Law & Policy Review, 22, 455–488. https://journals.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/stanford-law-
policy-review/print/2011/06/geraghty_velez_22_stan._l._poly_rev._455.pdf
Ghere, R. K. (2011). Network legitimacy and accountability in a developmental perspective: A case study. Public
Integrity, 13(2), 163–180. doi:10.2753/PIN1099-9922130205.
Gray, A., & Jenkins, B. (1993). Codes of accountability in the new public sector. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 6(3), 52–67.
Hoekstra, A., Talsma, J., & Kaptein, M. (2016). Integrity management as interorganizational activity: Exploring integ-
rity partnerships that keep the wheel in motion. Public Integrity, 18, 167–184. doi:10.1080/10999922.2015.
1073502.
Koppell, J. G. S. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities
disorder.” Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94–108. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00434.x.
Madsen, P., & Shafritz, J. M. (Eds.). (1992). Essentials of government ethics. New York, NY: Meridian.
Malena, C., Forster, R., & Singh, J. (2004). Social accountability: An introduction to the concept and emerging practice
(Social Development Papers, No. 76). Washington, DC: The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/
en/327691468779445304/pdf/310420PAPER0So1ity0SDP0Civic0no1076.pdf
Michael, B. (2005). Questioning public sector accountability. Public Integrity, 7(2), 95–109. doi:10.1080/
10999922.2005.11051275.
Morgan, P. W., & Reynolds, G. H. (1997). The appearance of impropriety: How the ethics wars have undermined
American government, business, and society. New York, NY: Free Press.
O’Donnell, G. (1998). Horizontal accountability in new democracies. Journal of Democracy, 9(3), 112–126.
Pesch, U. (2008). Administrators and accountability: The plurality of value systems in the public domain. Public Integ-
rity, 10(4), 335–343. doi:10.2753/PIN1099-9922100403.
Romzek, B. S. (2011). The tangled web of accountability in contracting networks: The case of welfare reform. In
M. J. Dubnick & H. G. Frederickson (Eds.), Accountable governance: Promises and problems (pp. 22–41).
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the Challenger tragedy.
Public Administration Review, 47, 227–238. doi:10.2307/975901.
Romzek, B. S., & Ingraham, P. W. (2000). Cross pressures of accountability: Initiative, command, and failure in the
Ron Brown plane crash. Public Administration Review, 60(3), 240–253. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00084.
Ryan, C., & Walsh, P. (2004). Collaboration of public sector agencies: Reporting and accountability challenges.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(7), 621–631. doi:10.1108/09513550410562284.
Schedler, A., Diamond, L. J., & Plattner, M. F. (Eds.). (1999). The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in
new democracies. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Schillemans, T. (2015). Managing public accountability: How public managers manage public accountability.
International Journal of Public Administration, 38(6), 433–441.
Yang, K. (2011). Further understanding accountability in public organizations: Actionable knowledge and the
structure–agency duality. Administration & Society, 44(3), 255–284. doi:10.1177/0095399711417699.