Public reporting: A neglected aspect of nonprofit accountability

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mordecai Lee
Keyword(s):  
Public Reporting ◽  
Nonprofit Accountability

scholarly journals Founders, Families, and Futures: Perspectives on the Accountability of Australian Private Ancillary Funds

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 747-771 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Williamson ◽  
Belinda Luke ◽  
Diana Leat ◽  
Craig Furneaux
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Public Reporting ◽  
Public Disclosure ◽  
Strong Growth ◽  
The Past ◽  
Public Purpose ◽  
Internal Reasons ◽  
Nonprofit Accountability ◽  
Depth Interviews ◽  
Philanthropic Foundation

This research explores perspectives on the accountability of Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs), a type of Australian endowed philanthropic foundation. PAFs are relatively new giving structures that have experienced strong growth over the past 15 years. With limited regulatory obligations and exemptions available from public reporting, PAFs have discretion in various forms of public accountability. Using Ebrahim’s conceptual framework of nonprofit accountability, this study explores PAF accountability in terms of to whom, for what, how, and why, examining tensions between PAFs’ private form and public purpose. Through in-depth interviews with managers and trustees of 10 PAFs, findings reveal that PAFs engage in accountability for internal reasons relating to their mission and purpose, and their desire to lead others in philanthropy. PAFs are influenced by philanthropic peers, in particular other PAFs; but their accountability does not necessarily include public disclosure or transparency. Four variations to Ebrahim’s accountability framework are proposed.

Public Reporting of Cardiovascular Data: Benefits, Pitfalls, and Vision for the Future

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Gregory J Dehmer ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Data ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Public Reporting ◽  
Professional Organizations ◽  
Healthcare Data ◽  
Outcomes Of Care ◽  
The Future ◽  
Policy Statements ◽  
Quality And Outcomes ◽  
Reporting Programs

Public reporting of healthcare data is not a new concept. This initiative continues to proliferate as consumers and other stakeholders seek information on the quality and outcomes of care. Furthermore, mandates for the development of additional public reporting efforts are included in several new healthcare legislations such as the Affordable Care Act. Many current reporting programs rely heavily on administrative data as a surrogate for true clinical data, but this approach has well-defined limitations. Clinical data are traditionally more difficult and costly to collect, but more accurately reflect the clinical status of the patient, thus enhancing validity of the quality metrics and the reporting program. Several professional organizations have published policy statements articulating the main principles that should establish the foundation for public reporting programs in the future.

A Progressive Era Idea for Reforming Government that Didn’t Make It: Recall of Judicial Decisions

Public Voices ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 58
Author(s):  
Mordecai Lee
Keyword(s):  
Public Sector ◽  
Progressive Era ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
Public Reporting ◽  
Reform Movement ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The Public ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Progressive Reforms ◽  
Original Concept

As a reform movement and an academic discipline, American public administrationgenerally coalesced during the Progressive era (1890-1920). Progressive reforms for the public sector seeped deeply into the DNA of the field, including separation of civil servants from politics, reliance on expertise, fewer elected offices, and public reporting of agency activities. However, not all of the governmental reforms proposed during this era were enacted. One of the most controversial and least known was Theodore Roosevelt’s proposal in 1912 that the voters be able to have a referendum on major court decisions, permitting them to overturn those decisions. His idea was only enacted in Colorado, where it remained on the books until 1921. This article reviews the original concept and its history in Colorado.

Mandatory public reporting

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Stricof
Keyword(s):  
Public Reporting

scholarly journals Public reporting of performance measures in long-term care in Canada: does it make a difference?

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Poldrugovac ◽  
J E Amuah ◽  
H Wei-Randall ◽  
P Sidhom ◽  
K Morris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Measures ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Public Reporting ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Term Care ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Care Facilities ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Evidence of the impact of public reporting of healthcare performance on quality improvement is not yet sufficient to draw conclusions with certainty, despite the important policy implications. This study explored the impact of implementing public reporting of performance indicators of long-term care facilities in Canada. The objective was to analyse whether improvements can be observed in performance measures after publication. Methods We considered 16 performance indicators in long-term care in Canada, 8 of which are publicly reported at a facility level, while the other 8 are privately reported. We analysed data from the Continuing Care Reporting System managed by the Canadian Institute for Health Information and based on information collection with RAI-MDS 2.0 © between the fiscal years 2011 and 2018. A multilevel model was developed to analyse time trends, before and after publication, which started in 2015. The analysis was also stratified by key sample characteristics, such as the facilities' jurisdiction, size, urban or rural location and performance prior to publication. Results Data from 1087 long-term care facilities were included. Among the 8 publicly reported indicators, the trend in the period after publication did not change significantly in 5 cases, improved in 2 cases and worsened in 1 case. Among the 8 privately reported indicators, no change was observed in 7, and worsening in 1 indicator. The stratification of the data suggests that for those indicators that were already improving prior to public reporting, there was either no change in trend or there was a decrease in the rate of improvement after publication. For those indicators that showed a worsening trend prior to public reporting, the contrary was observed. Conclusions Our findings suggest public reporting of performance data can support change. The trends of performance indicators prior to publication appear to have an impact on whether further change will occur after publication. Key messages Public reporting is likely one of the factors affecting change in performance in long-term care facilities. Public reporting of performance measures in long-term care facilities may support improvements in particular in cases where improvement was not observed before publication.

Effects of the CMS’ Public Reporting Program for Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities on Targeted and Nontargeted Safety: Differences Between For-Profits and Nonprofits

2021 ◽  
pp. 107755872199892
Author(s):  
Morgan C. Shields
Keyword(s):  
Spillover Effect ◽  
Public Reporting ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Psychiatric Facility ◽  
Quality Reporting ◽  
Performance Reporting ◽  
Reporting Programs ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Inpatient Psychiatric Facility ◽  
Psychiatric Facilities

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services implemented the Inpatient Psychiatric Facility Quality Reporting Program in 2012, which publicly reports facilities’ performance on restraint and seclusion (R-S) measures. Using data from Massachusetts, we examined whether nonprofits and for-profits responded differently to the program on targeted indicators, and if the program had a differential spillover effect on nontargeted indicators of quality by ownership. Episodes of R-S (targeted), complaints (nontargeted), and discharges were obtained for 2008-2017 through public records requests to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Using difference-in-differences estimators, we found no differential changes in R-S between for-profits and nonprofits. However, for-profits had larger increases in overall complaints, safety-related complaints, abuse-related complaints, and R-S-related complaints compared with nonprofits. This is the first study to examine the effects of a national public reporting program among psychiatric facilities on nontargeted measures. Researchers and policymakers should further scrutinize intended and unintended consequences of performance-reporting programs.

scholarly journals Association between Public Reporting of Outcomes and the Use of Mechanical Circulatory Support in Patients with Cardiogenic Shock

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Vikas Singh ◽  
Rodrigo Mendirichaga ◽  
Parth Bhatt ◽  
Ghanshyambhai Savani ◽  
Anil K. Jonnalagadda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Mechanical Circulatory Support ◽  
Public Reporting ◽  
Circulatory Support ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Risk Averse ◽  
National Inpatient Sample ◽  
Regional Comparison ◽  
To Receive

Risk-averse behavior has been reported among physicians and facilities treating cardiogenic shock in states with public reporting. Our objective was to evaluate if public reporting leads to a lower use of mechanical circulatory support in cardiogenic shock. We conducted a retrospective study with the use of the National Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2011. Hospitalizations of patients ≥18 years old with a diagnosis of cardiogenic shock were included. A regional comparison was performed to identify differences between reporting and nonreporting states. The main outcome of interest was the use of mechanical circulatory support. A total of 13043 hospitalizations for cardiogenic shock were identified of which 9664 occurred in reporting and 3379 in nonreporting states (age 69.9 ± 0.4 years, 56.8% men). Use of mechanical circulatory support was 32.8% in this high-risk population. Odds of receiving mechanical circulatory support were lower (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.43–0.57; p<0.01) and in-hospital mortality higher (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.06–1.34; p<0.01) in reporting states. Use of mechanical circulatory support was also lower in the subgroup of patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock in reporting states (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.51–0.72; p<0.01). In conclusion, patients with cardiogenic shock in reporting states are less likely to receive mechanical circulatory support than patients in nonreporting states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document