How an Overreliance on Accountability Could

HOW AN OVERRELIANCE ON ACCOUNTABILITY COULD UNDERMINE THE PUBLIC’S CONFIDENCE IN SCHOOLS, BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT, AND MORE A Report from Public Agenda and the Kettering Foundation Public Agenda, an innovative public-opinion research and public-engagement organization, works to strengthen our democracy’s capacity to tackle tough public policy issues. Nonpartisan and nonprofit, Public Agenda was founded by social scientist and author Daniel Yankelovich and former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance in 1975. More information may be found on www.publicagenda.org. Kettering Foundation, established in 1927 by inventor Charles F. Kettering, is a nonprofit, operating foundation that does not make grants but engages in joint research with others. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation. More information may be found on www.kettering.org. The interpretations and conclusions contained in this publication, unless expressly stated to the contrary, represent the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the Kettering Foundation or Public Agenda, their directors, or their officers. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank David Mathews and Daniel Yankelovich whose insights and extraordinary commitment to engaging typical citizens in solving the country’s problems were the impetus for this research. Dan, along with Public Agenda fellow John Immerwahr, reviewed multiple drafts of the work—their ideas and contributions are fundamental elements of this report. We would also like to thank our Kettering colleagues, John Dedrick and David Holwerk, for their collabo- ration and support. At Public Agenda, Scott Bittle also helped us throughout the project. We are enormously grateful to all of them. Authors: Jean Johnson, Jonathan Rochkind, and Samantha DuPont Editor: Ilse Tebbetts Copy Editor: Lisa Boone-Berry Formatting and Design: Long’s Graphic Design, Inc. Copyright © 2011 by Kettering Foundation and Public Agenda ISBN: 978-0-923993-38-2 CONTENTS FOREWORD: ACCOUNTABILITY AND DEMOCRACY 3 INTRODUCTION 6 HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE STUDY 8 SECTION I: THE GAP AT A GLANCE 9 SECTION II: ACCOUNTABILITY—THE PUBLIC’S DEFINITION 16 SECTION III: THREE SCENARIOS TO PROMPT DISCUSSION 27 Closing Persistently Failing Schools: A Failure to Engage the Public 28 The Subprime Mortgage Debacle: A Failure of Stewardship 31 Recommendations for Mammograms: A Failure to Communicate 35 METHODOLOGY 38 ENDNOTES 39 APPENDIX: LEADERS’ AND EXPERTS’ VIEWS ON ACCOUNTABILITY 41 3 FOREWORD ACCOUNTABILITY AND DEMOCRACY by David Mathews The Kettering Foundation studies democ- we brought to Public Agenda goes beyond racy from the perspective of citizens who being intellectually interesting; it is critical want a stronger hand in shaping their future. in a number of fields, including education, One way to have greater control is through philanthropy, and government. Kettering’s institutions that are responsive to people and research focusing on accountability began in effective in doing the work these institutions 2001 with a study done with Doble Research are mandated to do. To demonstrate to people Associates. We asked John Doble to follow up that they are, indeed, responsive and effective, on earlier research on the lack of a public for most institutions, governmental and nongov- the public schools. In that study, we had found ernmental, have devised reports to show how many Americans moving away from public they are being accountable. These reports schools; they had little sense of ownership or are based on various standards, benchmarks, responsibility, which was a result of feeling and performance measures, which institutions that they couldn’t bring about the changes in believe give citizens assurances of account- the schools that they wanted. They didn’t find ability. Even though the demonstrations of the schools responsive or effective. responsiveness and effectiveness vary, they have so much in common that institutions Citizens don’t consider many institutions, seem to be caught up in a veritable “accountability movement.” from public schools to government If this movement is demonstrating true agencies, to be either responsive or accountability, why, then, we wondered, do institutions suffer from a huge loss of public effective. confidence? Citizens don’t consider many institutions, from public schools to government School officials, on the other hand, agencies, to be either responsive or effective. thought that they were being accountable, Given this lack of confidence, the account- citing the voluminous test score data they ability movement doesn’t appear to have met published. They believed performance mea- its own standards. We asked Public Agenda sures were in line with the public’s demand to join us in trying to understand why. for higher standards. Doble found, however, This report complements research that that although people might appreciate the has been going on at Kettering for more than information, they weren’t persuaded that a decade. I’ll try to explain why the question the schools were doing a good job. Citizens DON’T COUNT US OUT 4 interviewed in the Doble study felt students their grants. This all seemed fine until we should be held to high expectations but began to get reports of unintended conse- that test scores were only one indication of quences. Some foundation officials were aware school performance and didn’t reflect all that externally imposed objectives (and the the concerns they had, such as those about performance measures based on them) might the character and values of young people. undermine building the capacity for commu- Interestingly, these citizens believed that nity self-determination, which they intended they and their communities should be held to promote. But, they explained, their boards responsible for what happened to the next required proof of impact. Grant recipients, generation, not just the schools. for their part, complained that the indicators Four years later, a study Kettering did were often irrelevant and that they diverted with Mid-continent Research for Education time and energy away from important work. and Learning (McREL) reinforced what we However, recipients said they needed the learned from the Doble report. The McREL money and had to “play the game” to get it. research suggested that who should be For communities, perhaps the most prob- accountable—and for what—is an issue that lematic of all the unintended consequences needs to be decided through public delib- of the accountability movement has been the eration. When accountability is externally effect on collective or civic learning. One defined, it tends to disenfranchise those most of the most telling characteristics of high- directly affected by it. These two studies were achieving communities—those where citizens not extensive enough to be cited as definitive are in the habit of coming together to solve proof, but they led us to look further into the problems—is the way these communities way the public understands accountability. learn collectively from their efforts. This type of learning involves citizens evaluating For communities, perhaps the most both outcomes and goals. And it involves assessing the community itself—the way it problematic of all the unintended performs—as well as the results of projects. consequences of the accountability Accountability protocols typically use outside (objective) evaluators to measure outcomes movement has been the effect on against predetermined goals. While such collective or civic learning. evaluations have merit, they are quite differ- ent from the evaluation that goes on in civic Kettering also encountered accountability learning. in working with grantmaking foundations and The untoward effects of accountability nongovernmental organizations interested in measures, we found out, fell not just on grant building civic capacity in communities. Most recipients; they touched the organizations grantmakers felt they were being account- making grants or providing services. A recent able when they used measurable benchmarks study done with the Harwood Institute for to judge the impact of their funding. These Public Innovation shows that the pressure benchmarks were then translated into perfor- to demonstrate accountability through mea- mance measures by the NGOs that received surable impact has been turning the focus 5 FOREWORD of grantmakers inward to concentrate on from government officials and those who professionally defined expectations and away receive government funding. The informa- from the groups and communities they aim to tion we have is suggestive, not definitive; benefit. Furthermore, the need to demonstrate but, clearly, accountability requirements that grants are successful is creating a disin- don’t always improve performance or result centive to invest in building local civic capac- in greater confidence in the institutions ity. Why? Investments in capacity building involved. Brian Cook’s explanation of what is make it more difficult to prove that external going awry seems plausible. Cook observes: influences, not indigenous ones, have brought An increasingly vicious circle has emerged in about changes. which anxiety about control and accountability Ironically, accountability measures can be . has led to more extensive, more complex an impediment

Load more