Public Accountability, Audits and Performance-Based Indicators - Assignment Example

Public Accountability, Audits and Performance-Based Indicators In Relation To 'Ethic' Of Public Service and Professionalism Name Institution Date Introduction Public sector organizations are in a constantly changing environment. Socio-political development, leadership and environmental influences are factors influencing such changes. Concern on what really constitute administrative and ethical behavior revolves mainly around administrative role in policy making procedure, corruption and diverging responsibilities of administrators. It is important to communication ethics as well as values that underpin and define public service and public workers to be offered a universal framework of reference concerning the standards as well as the principles to be employed in the development of an appreciation of ethical matters involved in efficient and effective civic service delivery. This has led to the existence of issues of audits, performance based indicators and public accountability. Over the past few years, more regulatory bodies have been involved in every aspect of public services, with the aims of evaluating and holding accountable the individuals in public offices. The aim of this paper is to establish whether or not public accountability, audits and performance based have harmed ethicality of public professionalism and service. Ethical matters in public service and professionalism Over the past years, attention has increased that there is immoral behavior within the public sector. This is due to the reality that progression of public administration has undertaken its businesses within an increasingly transparency due to introduction of several media. The close inspection that has emerged as a result of initiation of media has subjected public sector organizations to criticisms, permitting for ideas to stream via the community and resulting to the requirement for performance based schemes to evaluation. The most common ethical issues related to public accountability, audits and performance based indicators are independence, objectivity, professional competence and integrity (Brown, & Jackson, 1990). Independent thinking is an indicator that can establish whether a public worker deserves the position he or she currently holds and the wrongness or rightness of having the independent thought can be analyzed by performance based evaluation. Brown and Jackson, (1990) note that objectivity or the ability to develop independent judgments with regard to making of decision is a key ethical issue in public service delivery. Objectivity influences professionalism in public service since professionalism needs objectivity in performance of deeds, particularly actions involving civic service in itself. This means that individual interests must not have a space in service of general public, because one can’t merely be objective if a conflict of interest exists. According to Scott (1990), classroom reporting and assessment practice is a major element in a result approach to a curriculum that is student focused. The increasingly changing and competitive globe that confronts younger individuals has increased demands for learning institutions to establish competent citizens who have the capability of independent learning and flexible thinking. In order to achieve these demands, these institutions have been required to have a continual commitment to a relevant and suitable curriculum that has quality teaching as well as learning that is informed by superior practice in reporting and assessment. Students must also be offered constant support as they endeavor to reach their greatest probable achievement standards (Scott, 1990). Public accountability and performance audit play a very significant function in objectivity as an ethical issue because the actions of individuals within the public administration usually benefit their personal motives, therefore the failure to be objective in decision making. Davis et al, (1989), note that through accountability and audit, a person is able to make a person to give expalanations for such conducts and if confirmed as inappropriate for the individual’s position, the people in authority can take measures that will correct the incorrect behavior by suspension, termination or demotion. Systems of balances and checks built into the structures of the government have created the core of excellent governance and have also assisted in empowering citizens for a long period of time. The enticements that motivate policy makers and public servants such as rewards and sanctions are connected to outcomes that assist in shaping performance of the public sector are rotted in the accountability frameworks of the nation. Practical government spending and public sector management help in determining the way of social equity and economic development, particularly for the poor and disadvantaged groups in the society (Davis et al, 1989). According to Davis et al. (1989), the integrity or honesty of a public work can be pressurized in several ways, entailing but not restrained to, inappropriate utilization of bestowed power and corruption. The corruption issue is being solved by the government via adoption of the structural arrangements also through the introduction of ethics offices whose aims are to combat fraud as well as support public administrators who are not corrupt. These are methods of accountability and audit that the governments have implemented to enable it to effectively carry out government policies and monitor public sector. Thomas (2006) argues that accountability mechanisms aren’t supposed to be conceptualized as a way of offering governments and public servants with feedbacks on their activities, offering them with a way of improving delivery of their services to the public. Every organization should be capable of indentifying its failures and success and learn from the outcomes of accountability mechanisms. Accountability has usually been solely conceptualized as a way of recognizing malpractices in office and punishing organizations or individuals that don’t perform sufficiently, particularly if the malpractice involves corruption. Mechanisms of accountability must be conceptualized a way of evaluating what the government and civil servants have produced for citizens and if governmental programs are effectively delivering services and goods (Thomas, 2006). In the contemporary world, several firms have implemented performance appraisal or audit to review their performance effectiveness and efficiency. Performance audit offers feedback and information for improvement of the organization. Hughes (1998) argues that the performance audit reviews are concerned with financial accounting and entail assessment of organizational structures, operating methods; standard of processes and any elements within the firm that together or individually have an influence on the performance of the organization. Professional competence of public workers, their traits that underlie effective performance and performance at work has been under close inspection since the public system has become increasingly visible in performance of public responsibilities and duties. Competency is connected to appropriate behavior in performance of duties linked with civic service and is utilized in tracking performance via means like the use of performance based indicators. The listing of competencies in indicators is compared to what is being undertaken by the specific individual in observation, therefore offering a basis on which to assess overall performance (Hughes, 1998) Effects of public accountability, audits and performance based indicators on public service and professionalism Public accountability, audits and performance based indicators as evaluation tools do not undermine public service delivery and professionalism but have strengthened public professionalism and public service via the elucidation of improper and proper conduct in undertaking of public responsibilities and duties. Evaluation can display how the task is performed, either appropriately or accomplishing goals or poorly and failure to meet goals. The significance of a professional and ethical public service in Australia is apparent because a large amount of the country’s budget is channeled towards public sector expenditure for facilitation of the provision of fundamental public services. The country has therefore increased public awareness in the role of audits, public accountability and performance based indication in prevention of corruption, misuse of public funds and misuse of public offices. The government and general public have demanded transparency and accountability of public workers. Audits, performance based indicators and public accountability are effective tools that an nation can use to gain public trust on professional and ethical performance of civic workers and as a remedy to existing problems of corruption and proper use of public funds and offices. According to Bradley and Parker, (2006), novel public management theory recommends that organizations in the public sector must be managed much more like organizations in the private sector. It is thus anticipated that public sector management will have inclinations for the organization culture that is likely to reflect upon private sector firm’s culture, within an exterior other than an interior orientation. This implies that the perception of managers of a perfect organization culture will be diverse from the bureaucratic form of culture which is internally oriented and has conventionally been linked with organizations in the public sector. The bureaucratic form of organizational culture is still pervasive in several organizations, but managers have a preference for organizational culture that is highly external and minimally control focused. In several organizations employees desire a culture that is more focused of human relationship values. There are several types of cultures in organizations classification of types of culture. The competing value framework looks at competing demands in firms between their external and internal environments in one dimension and amid their flexibility and control on another dimension These diverging demands makes up the two axes of competing value model. Firms that have an interior focus emphasize communication, information management and integration, whilst those with an exterior focus emphasize resource acquisition, interaction and growth with external environment (Bradley, & Parker, 2006). The three vital threats to construction of excellent corporate governance are clientelism, capture and corruption, phenomena that refer to utilization of public office for personal gain. Weller (1991) notes corruption enriches bureaucrats, prevents service delivery and distorts markets. Clientelism leads to unfair channeling of public resources to particular clients groups and alters political competition dynamics and results to ineffective delivery of civic services. Capture provides rents to particular economic actors, largely alters economic markers and deteriorates position of workers, consumers, environment and corporations. These threats can be combated through audits, public accountability and performance based indicators whereby public workers are evaluated, punished and rewarded on the basis of the level of cease in corruption (Weller, 1991). According to Caldwell and Hayward (1997), public accountability, audits and performance based indicators have been used as principles in the reform of Australian education policy. There has been the need for a nationwide testing program to offer schools, the community and parents with information on achievements of schools, students and the country’s education system. This is a form of public accountability in which all schools are needed to offer an annual report to parents detailing educational accomplishments of students and schools in accordance to the nationwide testing program. Self management of public schools and accountability is a form of auditing in the 21st century Australian schools. Communities and parents have the chance to manage the funds offered by the government whilst being fully accountable for their learning outcomes. This is aimed at allowing all schools, especially those with educationally disadvantaged students, the possibility of becoming self managing learning institutions. In addition, employment of the teaching staff should be deregulated, with schools and teachers being permitted to agree upon the conditions and terms of employment. Nevertheless, teachers should meet re-accreditation and accreditation that matches in other key professions (Caldwell, & Hayward, 1997).  Hughes (1998) argues that novel public management transformations are a universal response to universal pressures such as public hostility towards the government, essentials of globalization and shrinking budgets. The key component of reforms in public management are deregulation of the line managers, transformation of public service units into independent enterprises or agencies , performance based accountability especially contracts and competitive schemes like internal marketing and contracting out. According to Wanna et al, (1999), Australia has a lengthy history of utilizing non-governmental bodies for delivering services to the public. For several years, the government have financed non-governmental third sector firms to services provide a wide range of health, education and social In the past few years, markets and firms have been utilized to assist in service delivery like employment services, an approach refereed to as devolved government. This approach has expanded in its diversity and utilization and has enhanced deliver to excellently meet citizen and government needs. Wanna et al (1999) argue that devolved government always entails a change of control and power, and therefore challenges performance management and accountability frameworks constructed around more conventional hierarchical authority schemes. A major challenge is to attain new means of supporting public confidence, performance and accountability whilst permitting for innovation as well as locally established remedies to meet the needs of citizens. The notion of civic value has been proceeded as a means of thinking about as well as assessing goals and public policy performance and offering a base for evaluating activities supported or produced by the government and public servants( Wanna, et al, 1999). Necessity of public accountability, audits and performance based indicators maximizing efficiency and cost effectiveness Public accountability, audits and performance-based indicators are essential in maximizing public professionalism and service efficiency and cost effectiveness. This is because the transparency needed by civic accountability, performance based indicators and audits places public workers in a point where they must excellently utilize the power bestowed to them by the individuals they serve. These three tools act as a driver to the maximization of efficiency in undertaking responsibilities and duties entailed by public service and delivery. Performance audit acts as an autonomous assessment of a nation’s economy as well as efficiency function of the individual being audited and effectiveness of the programs within the public sector (Thomas, 2006). Australian government also utilizes performance indicators in measuring its economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Judicial control, parliamentary questions are the most common ways of accountability in public sector. However, these bodies take up a particular quantity of public budget, further burdening the already huge public expenditure that the Australian government allots for its yearly budgets. According to Thomas, (2006), nevertheless, contrasted to the expenditures suffered when difficulties that emerges from failure of the government and general public to hold public workers accountable for their activities and assess their performance emerges, the cost of sustaining such bodies is being seen as an investment in securing the future of the community against people who misuse power while in public offices. Accountability is a core mechanism of ensuring both effectiveness and democracy in public sector. Brown and Jackson (1990) notes that performance management is conceptualized as a way of renovating accountability schemes into continuous evaluations of whatever happens in the government. The development of accountability measures such as audits, public accountability and performance based indicators is a scheme of institutionalizing public service delivery and professionalism rather than sternly political verdicts as basis for evaluating performance in public sector. The dysfunctionality of governance in public sector is viewed as the key cause of inefficiency, corruption and waste of public resources. This dysfunctionality is due to the failure of empowerment of citizens to hold government to account (Brown & Jackson, 1990). Caldwell and Hayward (1997) argues that there is the continuance of dominant school schemes distinguished by robust bureaucratic aspects and pressure to uniformity. Regardless of schooling being on top of political agendas, strong systems and systems have proven to be highly resistant to radical transformation. New responsibilities and tasks are being continually added to remit of schools, making schools’ human resources and finances to be constantly stretched. Public accountability, audits and performance based indicators have led to trends towards market oriented education models of organization, delivery and management, trends that are significantly extended in face of prevalent dissatisfaction with performance of comparative uniform schemes of government school systems along with the existing financing arrangements to offer cost-effective remedies. The government is responding to these pressures by encouraging diversification and emergence of novel learning providers via funding structures, deregulation and incentives and discovery of substantial market pressure both nationally and globally. Novel market currencies of measures indicators and accreditation of providers and learners flourish, whilst curriculum regulation and public monitoring decline. Public schooling, schools and the role of government don’t disappear, in spite of increased privatization and highly mixed private public partners, although results greatly depend upon regulation and funding regimes being initiated and might significantly differ amid secondary and primary levels (Caldwell & Hayward, 1997). According to Goldberg and Cole, (2002), public accountability, audits and performance based indicators are quality management tools in education. Quality is the creation of an environment in which parents, educators, government officials, business leaders and community representatives work jointly to offer students with the resources they need to achieve present and future business, societal and academic needs. There are three major levels in which quality management in schooling is applied. The initial level is the management procedures of schools where sample school procedures entail recruiting, staff development strategic planning, deployment of resources as well as alignment of what is learned, how it is learned and the way it is evaluated( Goldberg, & Cole, 2002). The second level is teaching of quality to students where learners are identifies as both workers and consumers within the educational scheme. Administrators are required to engage learners in their individual education through training them to assess the process of learning and acknowledge responsibility for their own learning. Educators are ware of what they are required to assess, but there are a wide range of choices as to the way learners arrive at goals established by them along with their teachers. The third and greatest level of quality management is learning, where it influences the classroom. To attain desired outcomes, educators should question their central learning and teaching methods and processes. Quality standards are set for every work procedure that leads in improving test scores and grades (Goldberg & Cole, 2002). Conclusion In conclusion, it is worth noting that public accountability, audits and performance based indicators have not undermines ethics of public service and professionalism but has instead further strengthened the scheme of expanding service to public sector by making all figures, mechanisms, processes and figures transparent to the general public. These accountability mechanisms ensure that the government and civil servants undertake their duties in an ethical manner and are answerable and transparent to the general public. These three tools are essential for maximization of efficiency and cost effectiveness of delivery of public service as well as professionalism because they offer the groundwork upon which to execute an efficient and effective public sector. References Thomas , C., (2006, Performance Measurement, Reporting, Obstacles and Accountability: Recent Trends and Future Directions. Canberra: ANU E Press. Weller, P. (1991). Financial management reforms in government. Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 67 (November), 9–17. Brown, C.V., & Jackson, P.M. (1990). Public Sector economics (4th ed.) (pp. 210–215). Oxford: Blackwell. (Dixson 336.41 B877). Bradley, L., & Parker, R. (2006). Do Australian public sector employees have the type of culture they want in the era of new public management? (pp. 89-99). Australian Journal of Public Administration, 65(1). Blackwell Publishers. Davis, G., Weller, P., & Lewis, C. (1989). Corporate management: Background and dilemmas (pp. 1–16). Corporate Management in Australian Government. Sydney: Macmillan. Goldberg, J.S., & Cole, B.R. (2002). Quality management in education: Building excellence and equity in student performance. The Quality Management Journal, 9(4), 8–22. Caldwell, B., & Hayward, D. (1997). The future of our schools. London: Falmer Press Scott, B. (1990). School-centred education: Report of the management of NSW education portfolio (Part 7). Sydney: Government Printer. Wanna, J., O'Faircheallough, C., & Weller, P. (1999). Devolution, discretion and delivery. Public Sector Management in Australia, (2nd ed.). Sydney: Macmillan. Hughes, O. (1998). Public management and administration: An introduction (Chapters 2 and 3). Melbourne: Macmillan. Read More