Organizational responses to accountability requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In health care, accountability is being championed as a promising approach to meeting the dual imperatives of improving care quality while managing constrained budgets. PURPOSES: Few studies focus on public sector organizations' responsiveness to government imperatives for accountability. We applied and adapted a theory of organizational responsiveness to community care agencies operating in Ontario, Canada, asking the question: What is the array of realized organizational responses to government-imposed accountability requirements among community agencies that receive public funds to provide home and community care? METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A sequential complementary mixed methods approach was used. It gathered data through a survey of 114 home and community care organizations in Ontario and interviews with 20 key informants representing 13 home and community care agencies and four government agencies. It generated findings using a parallel mixed analysis technique. FINDINGS: In addition to responses predicted by the theory, we found that organizations engage in active, as well as passive, forms of compliance; we refer to this response as internal modification in which internal policies, practices, and/or procedures are changed to meet accountability requirements. We also found that environmental factors, such as the presence of an association representing organizational interests, can influence bargaining tactics. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our study helps us to better understand the range of likely responses to accountability requirements and is a first step toward encouraging the development of accountability frameworks that favor positive outcomes for organizations and those holding them to account. Tailoring agreements to organizational environments, aligning perceived compliance with behaviors that encourage improved performance, and allowing for flexibility in accountability arrangements are suggested strategies to support beneficial outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".