Mutual Accountability

The nonprofit community, government, and business talk about the importance of working together in partnership to have the greatest impact. In 2003 University of North Carolina’s Project to Strengthen Nonprofit- Government  Relationships published an article entitled “Establishing Mutual Accountability in Nonprofit- Government Relationships”. The authors argue and propose ways to move beyond a “buyer-seller” (the government is buying services from nonprofits) relationship between government and nonprofits. Instead, it is more effective to move towards a balanced partnership.

The most interesting idea mentioned is that of “mutual accountability”. It seems to me that more often than not government, business funders, and, yes, sometimes even foundations- focus so intensely on making sure that the grant recipients are accountable that they forget to evaluate and hold themselves to equal standards in relation to their grantees.  Granting and receiving funds should be a two-way conversation. Excessive paperwork, unrealistic expectations, and limitations that effect a nonprofit’s ability to carry out their mission or project goal are symptoms of a communications breakdown.

Yes, it is vital that organizations track, evaluate, and report out on how they use the funds. Yes, it is important that organizations listen to and discuss with funders the most effective way to use the money. But, it is also equally important that funders evaluate the processes by which they distribute funds and solicit their grantees’ opinions on how to improve the process.

A relationship of trust should be built from the beginning in which the nonprofit is comfortable “pushing back” if something is suggested that is impractical, ineffective, or would overly task the organization. Funders should not be afraid to ask for greater detail on grantee decisions and methods. However, funders must be careful not to dictate the method by which services are provided- in other words, you are funding the organization because they are subject matter experts, so let them be subject matter experts. There is inherent power in controlling the money and it can be easily abused. On the flip side, nonprofits should avoid automatically bowing to the whims of their funders. This can be an especially delicate situation when working with a funder as joint implementer- staff members from the funder are co-managing the project with the grantee’s staff.

The main point is that nonprofits should not work under the shadow of fund disappearance after a project has begun. They should not be working from a position of inferiority on the best means to a mutual end. The relationship between a funder and grantee should be one of equity.

A good way to avoid an inequitable relationship is to make sure that the partners discuss the goals of the project, discuss their expectations of each other’s role, and work towards agreed upon objectives for each partner prior to beginning any activity. This should involve not only the details of a project, but the process and reporting procedures for receiving the grant. It is my contention that both partners should develop, or at least understand the evaluation, procedures at this point as well. For instance, at the very beginning the partners should state – “We will be doing this, evaluating our performance like this, and expecting you to do this.” It is only with open and equal communication that partnering can reach its most effective outcomes.

What are your experiences with partnering? Have you experienced “communication breakdown” when working in partnership? How was it resolved? Do you think evaluation must occur for both partners?