Craig Furneaux

Enabled by the underpinnings of critical theory, this article discusses research methodology developed with the aim of empowering beneficiaries within Third Sector Organisations, through their participation in organisational evaluation processes. The discussion on methodology in this article occurs at three levels: conceptual , processual , and reflexive . The conceptual level explores ontological and epistemological assumptions that shape the critical approach. At the processual level, research methods are explored, drawing on case studies involving interviews with beneficiaries. In interviewing beneficiaries, Third Sector research becomes a means of representing this group. Finally, the reflexive level explores how findings from the processual level enable praxis through the development of approaches supporting beneficiaries’ participation in organisational evaluation processes. As such, Third Sector research can engage beneficiary participation, in order to promote more effective beneficiary participation organisationally.

Organizational survival is a primary current focus, as the unforeseen economic effects of the pandemic ravage the civil sector. Over time, however, we turn to questions of resilience: How can organizations prepare for rare, but devastating, financial shocks? Three months of funds to cover operating expenses are often described as a suitable savings target. However, organizations differ greatly in their revenue volatility, which suggests that “3 months” may severely underestimate the reserves that certain organizations should hold. We measure revenue volatility and calculate reserve fund targets for 25 nonprofit subsectors, showing sharp differences in optimal savings levels ranging up to 1 year of total expenses. We also explore organizational characteristics associated with revenue volatility. We argue for a resilience strategy that goes beyond optimizing the contents of the revenue portfolio. Funders and nonprofit practitioners should consider the broader context of financial resilience that includes correctly sized reserves as a stabilizing force.

Public Ancillary Funds (PubAFs) are grantmaking philanthropic foundations, largely held to be independent. However, some PubAFs exist in significant and exclusive relationships (dyadic partnerships) with a dominant stakeholder involving shared values, strategy, resources, and goals. This paper examines the benefits and challenges for PubAFs of being in a dyadic partnership and how this relationship affects their identity, accountability, and independence. Interviews with 28 PubAFs reveal significant differences between the operating forms and practices of PubAFs in dyadic partnerships, and those which were not. While dyadic partnerships are most commonly associated with donor organisations that establish and provide ongoing funding to foundations (e.g. corporate foundations), this study’s findings show that to be a limited understanding, with PubAFs existing in dyadic partnerships in a range of different contexts. Further, the closeness and exclusiveness of a dyadic partnership presented both benefits and challenges which PubAFs must actively manage over time.

This paper draws upon accountability and legitimacy theories to explore for what social enterprises are accountable, how they communicate accountability, and to what extent they publicly communicate accountability. Case study methodology was employed, examining four work-integrated social enterprises in Australia. Data collection involved interviews with managers of each social enterprise, and a review of various secondary data including social enterprise websites and internal and external reports. Findings reveal a temporal dimension of accountability, as social enterprises acknowledged their dual social and financial accountability, but prioritised financial over social performance. Communication of social performance was limited, with publicly available reports partial and selective in nature. Communication of financial performance was even more limited, reporting typically directed to internal stakeholders. Implications include the need for social enterprises to communicate social and financial performance more broadly, in order to advance their legitimacy from moral (based on intentions) to consequential (based on achievements).

Purpose: Informed by the critical perspective of dialogic accounting theory, the purpose of this paper is to explore the use of evaluation as a means of enhancing accountability to beneficiaries within nonprofit organisations (NPOs). As a stakeholder group frequently marginalised by traditional accounting practices, the participation of beneficiaries within a NPO’s accountability structure is presented as a means of increasing social justice. Design/methodology/approach: The research design used case studies involving two NPOs, examining documents and conducting interviews across three stakeholder groups, within each organisation. Findings: Findings reveal that when viewed on beneficiaries’ terms, accountability to beneficiaries, through participative evaluation, needs to consider the particular timeframe of beneficiary engagement within each organisation. This temporal element positions downwards accountability to beneficiaries within NPOs as multi-modal. Research limitations/implications: The research poses a limit to statistical generalisability outside of the specific research context. However, the research prioritises theoretical generalisation to social forms and meanings, and as such provides insights for literature. Practical implications: In acknowledging that beneficiaries have accountability needs dependent upon their timeframe of participation, NPOs can better target their downwards accountability structures. This research also has practical implications in its attempt to action two of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals. Originality/value: This paper makes a contribution to the limited research into nonprofit accountability towards beneficiaries. Dialogic accounting theory is enacted to explore how accountability can be practised on beneficiaries’ terms.

This research explored perspectives on the accountability of Private Ancillary Funds, a type of Australian endowed philanthropic foundation and was undertake