Managing Collaborative Arrangements: A Guide for Regional Managers

B. Shared/distributed accountability

Before addressing the mechanics of forming and managing collaborative arrangements, it is important to reflect on one of the fundamental elements of public service governance, i.e. the principle of accountability. It is particularly crucial in the context of collaborative arrangements where accountability is shared or distributed among the partners to the arrangement.

Accountability is often viewed as an obstacle to collaborative initiatives. Indeed, the need to reconcile individual accountability with a collective sense of purpose and responsibility is one of the most significant tensions to be resolved in the management of collaborative efforts.

The flexibility of financial mechanisms is constrained by rules that are set by law (the Financial Administration Act) and Treasury Board policies. It must be remembered that our system is designed so that ministers of the government are individually accountable to Parliament. This explains why financial mechanisms do not always appear to be conducive to horizontal cooperation between departments. Parliament requires clear lines of accountability for spending of public funds – joint ministerial accountability risks confusing these clear lines of accountability.

Accountability in the public sector²

Conventional interpretation often interprets accountability simply as a process of assigning blame and punishing wrongdoing. In contrast, modern governance and public administration literature, and in some cases practice, sees accountability more as a positive incentive - as an opportunity to demonstrate achievements and stewardship. In this view, accountability is an integral and indispensable part of establishing effective relationships for getting things done and taking responsibility, including when assigning authority and resources.

Key aspects of accountability in Canada rest on traditional principles of Westminster-style government yet are applied within a public sector quite different from that which existed when the principles were established. Further, new roles of government and alternative approaches to delivering government services, as well as a new results-oriented management culture, are challenging long-held views of accountability.

There is a tradition of ministerial accountability in Canada. Ministers are individually accountable to Parliament for their own actions and for all aspects of their department's and agencies' activities. Ministers are also collectively accountable for the decisions taken by the Cabinet. Their officials are accountable to the minister for the operation of their organizations, and not to Parliament. While they may be required to answer to Parliament to explain those operations on behalf of their minister, they do not answer to Parliament regarding government policy. They are, when required, answerable to Parliament but remain formally accountable to their minister.

Indicators of effective accountability

• Clarity of roles and responsibilities. The roles and responsibilities of the parties in the accountability relationship should be well understood and agreed upon.

• Clarity of performance expectations. The objectives being pursued, the accomplishments expected and the constraints to be respected should be explicit, understood and agreed upon.

• Balance of expectations and capacities. The performance expectations need to be clearly linked to and in balance with the capacity (authorities, skills and resources) of each party to deliver.

• Credibility of reporting. Credible and timely information should be reported to demonstrate the performance achieved and what has been learned.

• Reasonableness of review and adjustment. The accountable parties should carry out enlightened and informed review of, and provide feedback on, the performance achieved, where achievements and difficulties are recognized and necessary corrections made.

Shared values

Accountability is often established through formal arrangements. Many of the reforms currently being advocated reflect this, but at the same time accountability also operates through the informal relationships within government and between government and citizens.

In the less formal contexts, accountability is more effective to the degree that the parties involved feel individually and collectively accountable and share basic common values of professionalism, honesty and integrity. In such cases, feeling responsible, also sometimes described as feeling an ownership, is the key to accountability acting as an appropriate incentive. Informal partnering and alliances and similar accountability relationships likely will be more effective the more all parties share these values.

This remains true for more formal accountability arrangements. It is difficult and costly to try to articulate all the values and behavioural standards one expects partners in an accountability arrangement to adhere to. To the extent that shared values of responsibility, ownership, integrity and trust can be developed, the accountability arrangements will be stronger.

Accordingly, initiatives that effectively promote common values and expectations can to some extent reduce the need to formalize aspects of accountability arrangements.

Accountability in public sector partnerships

In multi-partner situations, as frequently occur in alternative service delivery initiatives, effective accountability arrangements can be particularly challenging to put in place. And there is a danger that unless care is taken, accountability will be dissipated among a variety of overlapping concerns and interests. The costs of establishing and effectively managing the arrangement need to be carefully considered before they are entered into.

In multi-partner cases, each partner has dual accountabilities. On the one hand, the partnership creates accountability arrangements among the partners. In addition, each partner retains accountability obligations to its governing body, such as Parliament in the case of federal partners, for the results of the responsibilities, authorities and resources it contributes to the partnership.

Practical ways need to be found to allow partners to effectively account to each other and to their individual governing bodies.

Accountability mechanisms for collaborative arrangements³

The following steps should be followed in order to strengthen accountability:

• Develop a clear accountability framework for the management of the partnership. This is important to ensure the systems are in place to monitor how the partnership is doing, to measure and report on results, and to assign responsibility for corrective action. Departments (and ministers) share, but do not abdicate, their responsibilities when they enter into partnerships; they remain accountable and answerable to Parliament for the consequences of their involvement in such arrangements.

• Establish and specify the nature, composition and duties of the partnership governance and management structure (e.g., committee, board, organizational entity or position(s) in each partner organization). Flexibility to delegate management functions to a subordinate entity should be provided for, with the delegation of powers and functions to be defined more fully as the partnership evolves. Committee layering should be avoided. Care must be taken to ensure an elaborate committee structure does not become a substitute for ongoing communication and relationship building at all levels of the partner organizations.

• Establish a feedback mechanism to solicit the views of beneficiaries/clients on the service provided and on other outputs of the partnership. This information will complement performance data compiled through departmental measurement systems and periodic evaluations. As appropriate, an advisory committee comprised of members of the stakeholder groups (e.g., employees, community, social or environmental) can also be set up jointly to provide strategic direction on the operation of the partnership, along with recommendations for change.

• Feed all information on performance, expenditures against plans, and the achievement of results/outcomes into the partnership management structure, and/or the executive branches of the partners on an ongoing basis. This will allow for continuous learning and for timely adjustments to the partnership.

Social Union Framework Agreement – Accountability Template

A template has been developed reflecting accountability provisions of the Social Union Framework Agreement (SUFA). While regional collaborative initiatives are definitely more modest in scope, this template represents a systematic approach to documenting essential information that is related to the commitments of partners of a collaborative agreement. It can help ensure that the partners have consistent, relevant information for the management and reporting of their initiative. (See Annex H for an annotated version of this template, which can be adapted to the scope and needs of the initiative/project at hand.)

RECOMMENDED STEPS

Print checklist Note: After printing, select the "Back" button on your browser to return to the guide

Best practices

• Meet frequently to discuss the project.

• Keep documentation on decisions made and distribute it to all players.

• Ask questions (do not assume someone knows more about the process than you do).

Pitfalls to avoid

• Occasionally, when initiatives are decided centrally, some organizations are required to participate because of their mandate. There may be a risk, in such cases, that these partners will place their own organizational mandate ahead of the objectives of the initiative.

• Whereas enthusiasm for a project is necessary, it is also possible to get so carried away as to speed to implementation without putting in place the proper arrangement.